Recent Comments

Prev  1390  1391  1392  1393  1394  1395  1396  1397  1398  1399  1400  1401  1402  1403  1404  1405  Next

Comments 69851 to 69900:

69851. Manwichstick at 11:58 AM on 19 November 2011
       Lone Star State of Drought
       Hi, I've been to a few presentations by experts in climate modelling, and where I live around Lake Ontario the image shown twice in this thread by Lamont-Doherty has my area depicted as "light blue" - or to receive more rainfall. This coincides well with other analyses I have seen. What surprised me is the claims I have heard that despite greater rainfall, our local soil moisture content is to DECREASE over the next 100 years because of increased evaporation and rain coming not in a drizzle-form but more in storm spurts - icreasing run-off. This is worrying if it is hoped that the growing drought areas will be supplied with crops by the areas that may receive more rainfall; only to find out the "wetter" areas will actually have diminished crop yeilds - potentially - because of the surprising decrease in soil moisture content.
69852. RW1 at 11:45 AM on 19 November 2011
       The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
       Hugo, The link to your paper has expired. Are you planning to re-post it?
       Response:

       [DB] Thank you for letting us know.  I've emailed Dr. Franzen about this.

69853. Ivoryorange at 10:51 AM on 19 November 2011
       The Debunking Handbook Part 2: The Familiarity Backfire Effect
       Saul Alinsky would argue that people learn through experience. Literally. And that people wont truly learn something if they have no experience of it, and so you either have to (somehow) place it in their experiences or create an experience for them....
69854. tmac57 at 10:48 AM on 19 November 2011
       The Debunking Handbook Part 2: The Familiarity Backfire Effect
       Ian, Thanks for the comment.That pretty much addressed what I was wondering about.Now I don't need to read Part 4.Just kidding. Sphaerica makes a good point about emotional arguments,gang mentality,and piling on.Whenever I encounter that sort of behavior,it immediately raises a red flag of irrationality,and unfortunately,I have seen this sometimes coming from people that I agree with,and it makes me cringe. I generally try to maintain a civil debate with those that I disagree with,although I am not above a snarky retort if I sense someone being disingenuous or intellectually dishonest in their comments.
69855. John Hartz at 10:33 AM on 19 November 2011
       Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
       “It’s politically dangerous for prominent Republicans to acknowledge climate change is real and that human activity plays a prominent role,” he said. ”It could be that Gingrich is just trying to play a political game and stick with the political orthodoxy to keep himself from being vulnerable to attacks.” – Jim DePasso, the policy director for Republicans for Environmental Protection Source: “Gingrich Defends Shifting Statements on Climate Change” ABC News, Nov 18, 2011
69856. Bob Lacatena at 08:55 AM on 19 November 2011
       The Debunking Handbook Part 2: The Familiarity Backfire Effect
       19, Ian, That last point, that seeking out and arguing against weak opponents can serve to reinforce one's own point of view, is an interesting one. I wonder, too, if that same paradigm works in a sense with false but emotional arguments, and if it is also aided by a "gang" mentality. That is, a frequent behavior I see on poorly moderated sites (WUWT, Nova, etc.) is that when they either cannot follow the reasoning behind an argument or cannot formulate an adequate response, they instead fall back on insults. Generally, several people will then pile on. The atmosphere turns into a sort of group "look at the fool who's not one of us and doesn't get it" attitude, and all meaningful dialogue screeches to a halt. Taking this from their point of view, the reinforcement becomes "everyone else is laughing at this guy with me, so we're right and he's wrong, despite the fact that he's proved his point."
69857. Grignr at 08:08 AM on 19 November 2011
       The Debunking Handbook Part 2: The Familiarity Backfire Effect
       Nice overview of the research idea, and it’s fun to read the comments here. As the lead author of the study described in the post, I’ll try to add my thoughts to the comments above. The effect we highlighted in the studies – that in the absence of specific information to the contrary, people assume that vaguely familiar statements are true – has some limits. The most important constraint for this discussion is probably that it tends to happen when people don’t have either extensive background knowledge on the topic, or motivation to call a statement true (or false). For example, someone with little knowledge about vaccinations might accept the statement “It’s a myth that flu vaccines cause the flu” when they first hear it. For this person, as time passes the “myth” designation will fade from memory, but the core of the proposition will still be familiar, making the statement “Flu vaccines cause the flu” seem true. This change in memory representation won’t affect an expert in vaccines, however, because they can draw on relevant background knowledge to assess the statement. Similarly, someone strongly motivated to argue that the vaccine is harmful will always call it harmful, even if the opposite statement seems vaguely familiar to them. The upshot is that many people who come to this site probably won’t be adversely affected by the “Myths” organizing structure in the sidebar. People most at risk for the “illusion of truth” effect are those who have little knowledge of the topic other than what they read here. If they intend to read up on the topic, detailed knowledge will probably end up overruling any inference based on experienced familiarity. There are exceptions, but this seems like a reasonable generalization. The second point that the comments bring to mind is that there are many routes to false or inaccurate beliefs, some of them cognitive, some motivational, and some a combination of the two. For example, sometimes people seek out weak counterattitudinal information in order to argue against it, which gives them practice in taking down weak arguments. The effect is that exposing themselves to opposing points of view sometimes “inoculates” them against countervailing information, rather than modifying their perspective. Thanks, I look forward to seeing more of these posts.
       Response: [DB] Thank you, Ian. And Welcome! to Skeptical Science.
       
       [JC] Welcome also from me :-) Our treatment of the Familiarity Backfire Effect is deliberately quite brief and simplified in the Debunking Handbook - our aim is to provide a short, practical guide. I am also working with Stephan Lewandowsky and a few other scientists (including your co-author Norbert Schwarz) on a more thorough, scholarly review of research into misinformation.
69858. skept.fr at 08:04 AM on 19 November 2011
       World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
       Post scriptum : I must add that I’m skeptic about how precisely our economy models deal with the inputs of energy. I’ve read a very interesting book from Robert Ayres and Benjamin Warr on this subject, The Economic Growth Engine. How Energy and Work Drive Material Prosperity (Edward Elgar 2009). They are economists and specialized in the energy-economy question. The conclusion of their model (Linex adjusted) is that a large part of economic growth for the last century is due to technological improvments of energy (more precisley exergy, useful work from energy). According to Ayres and Warr, the neoclassical models (eg Solow-style) acknowledge that long term growth is due mainly to technological innovation rather than capital or labor (75% for the first, 25% for the others). But technology is vague : these models fail to identify in what way technology precisely stimulates this growth. The economy is about transforming nature to produce goods and services, and energy efficiency gain is the first factor of growth in this process, due to technological innovations' effect on useful work. (As Bartlett observations about illusions of exponential growth, Ayres and War conclude that future long term growth is by no way guaranteed because of limits in ressources and modest pace of technology innovation in efficiency, as we approach the thermodynamical limits in many process). Fortunately, a large part of climate mitigation will come from gain in energy efficiency with ambitious policy. But it leaves the problem of substituting efficient energy by less efficient ones (biofuel versus oil, solar PV versus coal, etc.), and producing a sufficient total amount for all human needs, even in an HDI-approach. If Ayres and Warr are correct (that I don’t know, but I mention this kind of debate in economy-energy literature), energy change is not just a ‘static’ affair of 2 or 4 points of GDP, but a core factor of economy dymanics on long term.
69859. Bob Lacatena at 06:03 AM on 19 November 2011
       Lone Star State of Drought
       16, muoncounter, Except that the yellow/brown below that narrow band looks to make all of the Southwestern US (a region of recent population explosion) a rather inhospitable place to live. Bad times ahead.
69860. Bob Lacatena at 06:01 AM on 19 November 2011
       Lone Star State of Drought
       13, muoncounter, Yes. That's exactly what I'm talking about, but in the context of this particular drought, I'm questioning whether or not these effects are already being felt and working (which could be the case), or if this is only the tip of the melted-ice-berg and "you ain't seen noth'n yet." For a global context, I think this other image from the Lamont websites is good to see: Click for full scale image.
69861. muoncounter at 05:58 AM on 19 November 2011
       Lone Star State of Drought
       Looking carefully at the projection in the figure here, there is a narrow zone between tan and light blue where the change is forecast to be close to 0. Our resident 'skeptics' will no doubt take comfort in pointing to those areas and saying 'nothing different here.'
69862. Bob Lacatena at 05:57 AM on 19 November 2011
       Lone Star State of Drought
       Oh, BTW, I didn't intend to be entirely Northern-Hemisphere-centric -- obviously the expansion of the Hadley cells will have similar dire consequences to those near arid regions in the Southern Hemisphere... meaning some in South America (the Amazon), central Africa, and Australia. In fact, it's hard to find an area of the globe that is not heavily populated and civilized and in serious danger of major and insurmountable precipitation changes due to this particular side-effect of global warming. And we're only somewhere around 0.6˚C right now. Imagine what this will mean if we actually hit 2˚C, or even just the 1.4˚C to which current CO₂ levels appear to have us committed.
69863. Bob Lacatena at 05:51 AM on 19 November 2011
       Lone Star State of Drought
       Arkadiusz @6&7, re the response by Albatross at 9, Let me say that I am deeply offended that you engaged in such quote mining. I am not at all surprised, but it really gets tiresome when deniers go through papers and make what is obviously a clear effort to misrepresent the content of the paper and refashion it to say the exact opposite of what it really says. This to me is reprehensible and indefensible behavior on your part. I for one will hesitate to accept anything you say without studying it in great detail, and all other readers are strongly advised to do likewise -- your credibility in all discussions is now severely in question and you will have a very hard time regaining anyone's trust. And please don't insult us all with obviously questionable statements like this:

       It is not my intention being always a skeptic - to AGW, “the policy” is foreign to me ... My intention is a higher level of discussion on this website - just Science.

       Demonstrate this through your actions and actual statements, not through loud protests of innocence and nobility.
69864. skept.fr at 05:51 AM on 19 November 2011
       World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
       Tom I’m sorry but it’s truly hard for me to understand point 1 and 2. Maybe because I’m not native-english or unfamiliar with concept agility it demands. (More generally, it’s very hard to write my message, I’m not fluent in your language, and I’m desperate because debates are very interesting here). You say: ‘Having critiqued a pragmatic response to climate change - the production of biofuels - because of its ethically undesirable consequences, you now pose as being concerned only with pragmatic solutions to the issue of climate change’. But my initial point was rather from a more simple or pragmatic point of view, and in #2, I wrote : ‘we do have examples of such adverse effects in reality’. So basically, are there yes or not ‘adverse effects’ from biofuel uses in the observed world (and not in an hypothetized or idealized world)? Anyone who answers ‘yes’ can imagine solutions to counteract these effects, and you propose some alternative issues for the crop price problem. You must after that deal with other problems : water-use, pesticide, deforestation, etc. All that is purely pragmatic in my mind. If you have a fuel ‘solution’ that produces a low quantity of energy with a large surface use, and brings diverse problems needing other reforms, I just call it a poor solution, unlikely to be successful. But you conclude what you want. For point 4, I disagree with your statement : ‘The issue, beyond political will, is a purely economic question of the relative cost of electricity if we make the switch. That cost may be anything from a slight reduction in costs, to a significant increase - but that significant increase will have a small economic impact overall, because energy is a small component in the total cost of our goods’ Energy is just a small amount of the cost of our goods because all the energy infrastructures are already installed – that is, you don’t need to create ex nihilo all the industrial chain from extraction of the ressource to production of objects for the final use passing by the distribution, transformation, etc, it’s already there. Have a look at real energy transitions in history : even if a new ressource have a better energy density, it took decades for it to gain a significant (>20%) share of the primary energy production, and that’s true for coal, oil, gas or nuclear (see Vaclav Smill, Energy transitions, Praeger 2010 for a full discussion of history, requirements and prospective of such transitions). So, for energy sources with a worse energy density, it’s strange to imagine the transition will be easier and faster. You have had 164 scenarios running for the WG3 SRREN 2011 report and trying to model the part of renewable in 2050. What was the conclusion : 'In scenarios that stabilize the atmospheric CO2 concentrations at a level of less than 440 ppm, the median RE deployment level in 2050 is 248 EJ/yr (139 in 2030)'. Unless you cherrypick optimistic models (exactly as some persons cherrypick optimistic CO2 sensitivity, but they are not serious for that reason), you have a higher probability of modest contribution of RE in the future energy mix : about 50% of the primary energy we consume now, but in 2050 there will be 9 billions humans to feed, heat, educate, etc. and we hope in better conditions than now. Most of these models depend on nuclear, biofuel, CCS coal, etc. So, and for the ethical debate from a consequentialist point of view, if I’m abruptly asked for example : ‘do you accept to stabilize climate at 2 K (best estimate of models for 450 ppm) if we are obliged to stabilize energy production at 450EJ/y for 9 billions humans (50GJ/hab/y)’, my answer would be negative. Because in known conditions, such a low energy rate would imply a vast loss of welfare, and a likely more important loss than a more than 2 K warming induced counterpart in a high-energy scenario (which allows adaptation). At least, I would ask the person that brings me in this moral moral dilema to list the probability of casualties in each case, not a fuzzy promise that we can live collectively very well with 50GJ each year. I'd like to be sure this option of a low energy future is realistically excluded : unfortunately, IEA model is not for free, so I cannot compare all their assumptions with what is said elsewhere in the literature. PS : there are a lot of things to do for climate mitigation. Fortunately, the 20-20-20 energy plan of European Union for 2020 is not centrally based on biofuel. But as you know, European Union isn't exactly sure to be alive next year, so it's energy future is a bit more complicated than an ideal production from sun, wind or wave... Sorry to be so pragmatic!
69865. muoncounter at 05:49 AM on 19 November 2011
       Lone Star State of Drought
       Sphaerica #8: "poleward expansion of the Hadley Cells due to climate change." More from the Lamont websites on this subject: As the planet warms, the Hadley Cell, which links together rising air near the Equator and descending air in the subtropics, expands poleward. Descending air suppresses precipitation by drying the lower atmosphere so this process expands the subtropical dry zones. At the same time, and related to this, the rain-bearing mid-latitude storm tracks also shift poleward. Both changes in atmospheric circulation, which are not fully understood, cause the poleward flanks of the subtropics to dry. full scale Or as quoted previously, dry areas drier and wet areas wetter. That is not an ENSO-driven effect.
69866. dhogaza at 05:45 AM on 19 November 2011
       Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
       Technically, they've not classified pizza as a vegetable, just the tomato sauce on the pizza, making the pizza itself a "vegetable dish" :) Congress works in mysterious and subtle ways ... Great summary of the hearing.
69867. Bob Lacatena at 05:43 AM on 19 November 2011
       Lone Star State of Drought
       11, Albatross, I have that issue of Sci Am, but don't remember reading the article. I just dug it out and will read it over lunch, then try to track down a copy of the Sachs paper. I've always pointed out (with deniers/skeptics who want to argue that higher temps must mean more precipitation) that the shifting Hadley cells may well carry one of the greatest dangers of climate change, because the effect is both predicted and recognized in observations, and it specifically carries huge and continuous precipitation changes -- and Texas and the whole southernmost US, as well as current Mediterranean countries like Greece, Italy and Spain, may well be very, very dramatically and adversely affected. The deserts of the world will grow as the Hadley cells grow. Anyone who lives north of a desert needs to worry a lot. I'm just wondering now are those effects already being felt, or is that still not really in the equation yet (i.e. any climate change impact on this drought is limited to increased evaporation due to increased temperatures impacts on more dynamic precipitation patterns, potentially due to more dramatic La Nina effects exacerbated by climate change -- but not yet to Hadley cell poleward expansion).
       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Try here:

       http://faculty.washington.edu/jsachs/lab/www/Sachs-Myhrvold_A_Shifting_Band_of_Rain-SciAm11.pdf

       [Sph]

       For the record, DB's link is to an online copy of the article. This link here is to a copy of the 2009 paper by Sachs, Southward movement of the Pacific intertropical convergence zone AD 1400–1850

       Is it poor form to "moderate" one's own comments?

69868. shoyemore at 05:14 AM on 19 November 2011
       Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
       The fact that no Republican Congressmen attended this hearing is depressing, and indicative. What are they afraid of? It is not long since Dr Richard Muller was the "Great White Hope" of denialism. Here is a short clip of Muller's testimony from Huffpost - he draws a clear distinction between "scepticism" and "denialism". However, it is clear he classes Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre as "sceptics". He is in for a shock. He also appeared on US TV, where he admitted blogosphere reaction was "volatile", something which got a laugh. Richard Muller at Congress Clip Richard Muller on "Morning, Joe" US TV
69869. Albatross at 03:42 AM on 19 November 2011
       Lone Star State of Drought
       Sphaerica @8, That is a plausible hypothesis. There has been paleo research that has shown poleward shifts in the ITCZ in response to warming in the past has been associated with dramatic shifts in precipitation. Check out this work by Sachs and Myhrvold (2011): "Multiyear drought conditions in the southwestern U.S. could persist as that area becomes more like the semiarid region of northern Mexico."
69870. tmac57 at 03:36 AM on 19 November 2011
       The Debunking Handbook Part 2: The Familiarity Backfire Effect
       What part does the person's previous mindset play in all of this? For example,if a climate change skeptic is reading a blog post on WUWT, that is debunking a 'myth' as defined by them,what is the likelihood that it might influence the reader to believe the 'myth'? It seems unlikely to me. I would have to assume that the fence-sitters are the ones to be most concerned about,but maybe we should worry about further entrenching AGW skeptic's belief in myths as well.
       Response: [JC] we look at the relevant cognitive processes in Part 4.
69871. Albatross at 03:31 AM on 19 November 2011
       Lone Star State of Drought
       Re #7, the Springer et al. paper is titled "Solar forcing of Holocene droughts in a stalagmite record from West Virginia in east-central North America." That is one of the reasons I said it is a red herring. It is also not relevant because we are talking about warming oceans and land temperatures, not cooling.
69872. Albatross at 03:09 AM on 19 November 2011
       Lone Star State of Drought
       Arkadiusz @6&7, "OK. I understand." Actually, you do not seem to understand at all. You are clearly smart and intelligent, but unfortunately that means that you are just all the more equipped to enforce your bias. "My intention is a higher level of discussion on this website - just Science. I simple like Science, not skeptics. Skipping significant findings is not science, however . " Odd then that you do not recognize that you are doing exactly what you are accusing others of. You are also butting heads with great scientists like Nielsen-Gammon, Hansen, Dai, Trenberth, not to mention many years of research. They are the ones who have the knowledge, insight and qualifications to speak to this. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Quote mining to seek out text that appears to support your prejudices is not science. For example, Nielsen-Gammon, who you quote mined to infer that warming was good for TX in the 20th century is irrelevant, because it is now the 21st century and what is of concern is the future. As Dr. Nielsen-Gammon says: "It is plain that heat records should and are increasing, and hot episodes should and are becoming more extreme, as the climate warms." You also left out this text that immediately followed your mined quote: "However, none of the viable cooling mechanisms are sustainable, so warmer temperatures in Texas are extremely likely in the future, and based on temperatures in the first eleven years of the 21st century, those days are already here." Only those in deep denial are still pushing this myth that certain extremes are not on the increase and that the odds of extremes will not continue to increase as the climate system becomes more energetic. "It is worth noting that the last mega - drought -'Great Drought' of years AD 1276-1299 - in North America; it’s the beginning LIA. Cooling of the oceans." First, note that Springer et al. say "may". Regardless this is a red herring and logical fallacy to boot, because we know that the N. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico are warming and will very likely continue to warm-- those are the primary sources of moisture over the southern great plains. Now please stop fabricating debate. It should be blindningly clear to anyone following this what your agenda is (and no, it certainly does not appear to be seeking the "truth") and that you are clearly biased.
69873. KR at 02:44 AM on 19 November 2011
       World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
       Tom Curtis - Perhaps a bit off topic, but I find it a delight to read the words of someone who has put serious study into philosophy. Thank you, a very cogent post regarding consistency of decision making. skept.fr - I have to agree with Tom Curtis. You are being inconsistent in your application of ethics versus pragmatics in your reasoning.
69874. Tom Curtis at 02:26 AM on 19 November 2011
       World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
       skept.fr @34: 1) Your responses quoted from your 21 and your 32 disavow consideration of ethical issues beyond a concern about climate in our response to climate change. However, that disavowal flies in the face of your raising concerns about impacts of biofuel production on food prices. If we are to be pragmatic, well then we can let the market sort it out, and if that results in increased food prices - well we have disavowed any ethical interest that might be troubled by that. Apparently, your disavowal of anything beyond pragmatic considerations has a strategic element to it. You eschew mere pragmatism long enough to present concern about rising food prices; but if an ethical response is proposed for an ethical issue, instantly we must retreat back to pure pragmatics again. 2) Although your quoted "responses" are very revealing, they are in fact not responses to my stated criticism. My criticism was that attributing food price increases to biofuels is necessarily a political (or ethical), not an economic criticism. That follows because it is the sum of effective demand that determines price, not some subset of it. Consequently picking out some subset of the demand to focus on is not economic analysis - or if intended to be economic analysis, is necessarily faulty. You have said not a single word against that thesis, and certainly presented no counter argument. Instead you want us to leap straight to pragmatic solutions. Having critiqued a pragmatic response to climate change - the production of biofuels - because of its ethically undesirable consequences, you now pose as being concerned only with pragmatic solutions to the issue of climate change. 3) Whether you are a consequentialist, deontologist, or pursue a virtue based ethics, you are required to act based on the information available to you. Lack of knowledge is to be corrected if it can be, but is not an excuse for not acting. Hypothetically, therefore, it might well be that you only have certainty of risk on one side, and almost complete uncertainty on the other. That does not then become a reason for not deciding what to do, but merely a condition under which you decide what to do. 4) The uncertainty about future energy capability is nowhere near as uncertain as you make it out. Even if we needed to provide for per capita energy equal to that of US citizens for the whole globe, there is no doubt that that amount of energy is available to be harvested from sunlight, wind or wave. Nor is there any doubt that we are now, even with no further R&D technically able to harvest that energy. The issue, beyond political will, is a purely economic question of the relative cost of electricity if we make the switch. That cost may be anything from a slight reduction in costs, to a significant increase - but that significant increase will have a small economic impact overall, because energy is a small component in the total cost of our goods. So the choice you are facing is moderate uncertainty about a very large risk - the cost of unmitigated global warming could be anything from a loss of sereveral percentage points of GDP per anum for the next few centuries, to the almost complete breakdown of international trade in a world with sufficient ecosystem collapse to quarter our food production capabilities (at least)- and significant uncertainty about a very small risk - ie, slight increased GDP growth going forward to the loss of several percentage points of GDP per anum for the next few decades. A consequentialist having difficulty with that decision isn't pursuing the consequence of the greatest good for the greatest number (and hence is no utilitarian).
69875. Bob Lacatena at 02:24 AM on 19 November 2011
       Lone Star State of Drought
       I am curious what sort of attribution can be made for some impact on this drought due to the poleward expansion of the Hadley Cells due to climate change. From Observed poleward expansion of the Hadley circulation since 1979 – Hu & Fu (2007):

       The subsidence regions of the Hadley circulation, because of the dryness of the troposphere and lack of high clouds, can be identified as the region with high OLR. For the OLR records the locations of the poleward edges of the Hadley circulation are roughly defined as the most poleward latitude at which the zonal mean OLR is equal to 250 W m−2. Figure 4 shows the zonally averaged temporal evolution of the OLR from the HIRS Pathfinder for four seasons in NH. The poleward ex- tension of the northern Hadley-circulation branch based on the 250 W m−2 OLR is about 2.14◦, 2.75◦, 2.56◦ and 2.67◦ in latitude for the four seasons, respectively, as shown in Fig. 6a. One can alternatively use other OLR contours to measure the poleward expansion. But results do not change very much. For example, the poleward expansion of contour 240 W m−2 is about 2.05◦, 3.11◦, 3.07◦ and 3.04◦ in latitude for the four seasons. The consistent poleward expansion of different OLR contours can be clearly seen in Fig. 4.

       Figure 4 is here: Examining this figure, note that Texas resides roughly between 30˚N and 36˚N (look at that latitude specifically, in the figure, and how it evolves over time), and very near the edge of the Hadley cell and so in an area likely to be affected by resulting changes in precipitation. A change in latitude of just 2.5˚ of the edge of the cell would shift it over half of the "height" of Texas, and so have a sizable contribution to precipitation changes. Is anyone familiar with this? Can anyone shed any light on defensible inferences from this?
69876. Utahn at 02:07 AM on 19 November 2011
       The Debunking Handbook Part 2: The Familiarity Backfire Effect
       I like the short side box, a possible one-liner for remembering "Respond with the truth" or "Lead with the truth". In the post there is a one liner about age. I wasn't sure if it was from this paper or other data but here is a quote from the referenced paper : "the more often older adults were told that a claim was false, the more likely they were to remember it erroneously as true after a 3 day delay. The size of this effect is far from negligible. After 3 days, older adults misremembered 28% of false statements as true when they were told once that the statement was false but 40% when told three times that the statement was false. There was no parallel tendency to misremember true information as false." Very scary stuff...Perhaps incorrectly done fact-checking only reinforces Fox News falsehoods. I think you're right that drowning the falsehood in truth is the way to go in any debunking or response, the less mentioned the better. An alternative lead in to a rebuttal might be not to discuss the untruth, but just present a new truth that "person X is speaking untruthfully". I guess that's something along the lines of "Monckton Myths". Have the liar or spreader of untruth be labeled as such, so a new, true truth is planted and watered, more than the old falsehood watered...
69877. Bob Lacatena at 01:43 AM on 19 November 2011
       World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
       Where did Edmh go? Why do deniers so frequently drop in, launch into an emotional tirade based on a blatant falsehood, and then vanish without a trace when the facts are presented clearly and unambiguously?
       Moderator Response: [John Hartz] Because most deniers subscribe to the "I've made up my mind, don't confuse me with the facts!" school of thinking. The behavior that you describe is what I call "littering."
69878. Alexandre at 01:34 AM on 19 November 2011
       The Debunking Handbook Part 2: The Familiarity Backfire Effect
       VERY nice article. Indeed, I've been having a nagging feeling that debunking was only having the effect of repeating the meme. Explaining the facts (even if mentioning the myths as you do it) is a much more efficient way of communication.
69879. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 01:11 AM on 19 November 2011
       Lone Star State of Drought
       Returning to the drought in Texas. Do not have here (however) a more simple answer? It is worth noting that the last mega - drought -'Great Drought' of years AD 1276-1299 - in North America; it’s the beginning LIA. Cooling of the oceans. Springer et al., 2008.: “Moisture transport across North America may have lessened during droughts because of weakened north-south temperature and pressure gradients caused by cooling of the tropical Pacific and Atlantic Oceans.”
69880. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 01:10 AM on 19 November 2011
       Lone Star State of Drought
       OK I understand. If our "common intention ", it is important not to ignore the findings of science. - should not be a problem: “a lack of familiarity with the language for your behavior here.” The more so that the most I put quotes. Often from - quoted by me - papers a meta-analysis type - a very rich references. It is not my intention being always a skeptic - to AGW, “the policy” is foreign to me ... My intention is a higher level of discussion on this website - just Science. I simple like Science, not skeptics. Skipping significant findings is not science, however . This blog has an excellent technical construction. This should be - in full - use ... I don’t want anything - contrary to the facts - prove. I wants “to get” to the scientific truth (I'm “heavy” working on this for many hours a day), but do not a shortcut. Therefore, the comment I consider my duty. The decision to remove my comments is your sovereign decision and depends only on the objectives that you want to achieve. I will respect your decision each. Sincerely, A. Semczyszak
69881. skept.fr at 01:07 AM on 19 November 2011
       World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
       Tom : I’ve partly adressed your point (at least in my mind), when I wrote : « Of course, you can grow biofuel and try to limit beef consumption... Everything is possible, but the more complicated your energy reform, the less probable its success. » (#21) « we’re committed to act for climate stabilization, and to act now. So, part of the debate should now deal with the efficiency and security of present energy alternative to fossil fuels ‘other things beeing equal’, because if we condition our climate action to the instauration of a perfect economic and political world system, we will never act ! » (#32) So, the first point is pragmatic versus ethical approach. You can choose to reason ‘as if’ governments, populations or markets were readily accepting all kinds of reforms, not only in energy system, but also in agriculture, nutrition, habits, whatever you want. But they are not, and that’s reality we must deal with : 15 years of climate rounds has shown it is very difficult to gain a consensus and to decide reforms. Now, from an ethical point of view, I don’t know all the consequences of our choices and that’s my problem. As a consequentialist, I think we must be informed of the consequences of our acts so as to choose the better ones (of course, the ‘better’ in question depends on more basic judgements about what is good or bad, but anyway consequentialism as a procedural ethic needs first the correct information). So my question is simple : you’ve climate models that assess as precisely as it is possible the reasons for concern and key vulnerabilities to climate change, and try to attribute probability to each risk, damage, hazard, etc. ; where are the energy-economy models’ results that assess exactly in the same way the reasons for concern, key vulnerabilities, risks, hazards, etc. to economy-energy change ? All that I see is raw estimate of costs and, even for that, a lot of debate about them (eg Stern versus Nordhaus). In the WG3 reports, I’ve no more relevant information : we’re said « there are advantages and disadvantages for any given instrument », but with no clear and quantitative assessment about what they are, and what they could eventually become in a given policy, no more than we have a synergistic view. Your personal reflexion about policy option for biofuel, animal fodder and climate change are of great interest, but they don’t give any useful information to found my ethical choices. Because there are unbalanced : on one side, you give precise outcomes (climatic) ; on the other side, generalities. So until you adress this issue, and give a probabilistic evaluation of potential effects of different energy scenarios on global and regional wealth, health, development, etc., I'v little interest in what (to me) seems a double standard : great attention for some risks, slight interest for others.
69882. adelady at 00:24 AM on 19 November 2011
       The Debunking Handbook Part 2: The Familiarity Backfire Effect
       I was thinking that this series would be a handy guide for some teachers and tutors - apart from very early junior primary, a lot of the time we're doing as much un-teaching as positive instruction. jmorpuss is actually presenting something that can be valuable - especially to public speakers. The best of well-known oratory contains a nice sprinkling of visual, auditory and other approaches, variously noted as kinetic, holistic, conceptual. The worst of teaching focuses on what students think they prefer - surprisingly adolescents who spend half their lives with headphones on claim to need this because they learn best with 'auditory stimulation'. What neuroscience tells us about conveying information is that you use the modality best suited to the content. Geometry and geography rely heavily on visual information, for instance. No need to go into pedagogical arcana here, but we should all bear in mind that graphs are terrific for presenting some information, lots of words are unavoidable for others, even if they have lots of syllables. Trying to convert absolutely everything into graphs or other pictorial material can actually obscure rather than clarify what you're trying to get across if the content is unsuited to this approach.
69883. CBDunkerson at 23:08 PM on 18 November 2011
       The Debunking Handbook Part 2: The Familiarity Backfire Effect
       Jmorpus wrote: "Words have no meening without pictures" So how do people who have been blind since birth communicate? How do they think or dream if, as you insist, these activities require reference to visual imagery? In short, there seems to be direct evidence that you are incorrect. As Tom describes in #10 above, I use different mental constructs for different tasks (e.g. concepts for working out high level code architecture, images for figuring out how 'some assembly required' purchases fit together, words for reviewing possible phrasings for this post, et cetera). Most of the time I think and dream in concepts... bringing symbolic representations of those concepts (i.e. words, pictures, sounds, et cetera) into it requires a higher level of concentration. Getting back to the main topic... AndrewD has a point. Alot of the site is laid out in the format, 'here is a myth... and here is why it is wrong'. Deliberately so given that the idea was to organize the information by myth so that it would be easy to locate the corrections. I think structure that has value for the 'database' underlying SkS and should be retained. This series is then best viewed as describing how that information can then be most effectively communicated to others. Of course, my own style (as above) is usually to present discrepancies between the myth and reality. I'm guessing that probably causes some people to dig in more... but it's the way I evaluate information so it's always my natural inclination to prompt others the same way.
69884. Pete Dunkelberg at 23:03 PM on 18 November 2011
       The Debunking Handbook Part 2: The Familiarity Backfire Effect
       Mental tendencies are systematically taken advantage of by organized denialists and confusionists. The direct way to get to the bottom line is to start there: climate disruption is proportional to total carbon burned. There is a critical need to Stop Burning Carbon and Leave It In The Ground. When that is clear then recognize the bottom line of denialism: Delay. That is, delay the time when other energy sources are used and the flow of profits to Big Carbon slows way down. Learn to spot that bottom line - delay. When you get into complications, you have rough going in part because of this sort of thing: Understanding Public Complacency About Climate Change: Adults' mental models of climate change violate conservation of matter Why Don't Well-Educated Adults Understand Accumulation? A Challenge to Researchers, Educators, and Citizen and other items here: http://jsterman.scripts.mit.edu/On-Line_Publications.html so just start with Stop Burning Carbon and Leave it in the Ground. Some people have alternate realities firmly entrenched in their heads. There isn't time enough to deal with them. Reach others.
       Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed missing italics close tag.
69885. Mark Harrigan at 22:44 PM on 18 November 2011
       The Debunking Handbook Part 2: The Familiarity Backfire Effect
       Look forward to more in this series - appreciate each section is short and punchy too. I think Bertrand Russell hit the nail on the head when he said "If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way." One of the problems we face, I suggest, is the problem of many having the "instinct" of not wanting to accept that we ourselves are the problem. Illustrated quite well on SKS here I think :) Perhaps the series will deal with this. Regardless I really look forward to more installments
       Response: [JC] We cover that in Part 4.
69886. Don Gaddes at 22:21 PM on 18 November 2011
       It's the sun
       (-snip-)
       Response:

       [DB] If you wish to discuss the science of the OP, fine.  Shamelessly self-promoting your book here is not.  Future comments of this nature posted here will simply be deleted and your commenting privileges may be revoked.

       Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

       Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

69887. oneiota at 21:07 PM on 18 November 2011
       The Debunking Handbook Part 2: The Familiarity Backfire Effect
       For me the debate on climate change is not just a scientific one...it is fundamentally about how we human beings deal with confronting reality. Therefore this series is a valuable stepping stone along that path.
69888. Tom Curtis at 21:04 PM on 18 November 2011
       The Debunking Handbook Part 2: The Familiarity Backfire Effect
       jmorpuss @6, no, I dream in pictures and "concepts", for the most part. But, for the most part, I think in words. I hear sentences with my mind's ear when I think. I do not see images with my mind's eye, unless I make a particular effort to do so (and also during my depressive episodes). The notion that words have no meaning without pictures assumes incorrectly that there is a straightforward way in which pictures have meaning. There is not. Finding meaning in pictures is as much a matter of convention as is language, and filtering language through pictures to find the meaning of language just adds to the explanatory burden. It leaves you with more to explain, not less. Finally, I would not dream of trying to explain the meaning of "myth" or "fact" to some-one with no schooling, anymore than I would explain "quark" without first giving them enough education to understand basic principles of physics. On the other hand, seeing you think it is so easy, perhaps you can describe what the picture that means "myth" looks like.
69889. oneiota at 20:55 PM on 18 November 2011
       David Evans' Understanding of the Climate Goes Cold
       @39 Mark I followed your link and somehow ended up at jonova's site Wow that is a mud wresting pit! KR to great credit has taken up the argument and the rebuttal is sound and patient but alas it has fallen on "itchy ears". The argument is not one that can be won by science alone I fear. A biblical quote applies: "2 Tim 4:2 Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage--with great patience and careful instruction. 2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 2 Tim 4:4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths." From what I have learned here each of the four points (myths perpetuated) raised by Evans can be debunked but the deaf cannot hear the truth above the noise trapped in their heads.
69890. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 20:44 PM on 18 November 2011
       Lone Star State of Drought
       O.K. But I prefer these revised ( in discussion) position Dr. Nielsen-Gammon. In this post - especially the following set of conclusions: „So it appears that global warming, if it has affected mean precipitation, has had a minor impact compared to other influences, and even the sign of its effect on precipitation is unknown. Until we learn more, it is appropriate to assume that the direct impact of global warming on Texas precipitation has been negligible, and that the future precipitation trend with or without global warming is unknown.” ”... global warming on Texas had a net beneficial effect in the 20th century ...” “Texas would probably have broken the all-time record for summer temperatures this year even without global warming.” North America - the last ice age - a period of 21-17 thousand. years ago: “At the most extreme stage of the last glaciation, most of Canada and much of the northern USA were covered by an ice sheet thousands of metres in thickness. Colder and often drier than present conditions predominated across most of the USA.” 12 thousand years ago: “On the eastern part of the Beringian land bridge, insect communities suggest that present-day temperatureshad been reached (Elias et al. 1996).” “Through much of the southern and central Cordilleran area of the USA, conditions may have been slightly moister than at present (although generally semi-arid), with greater woodland and scrub cover than at present. The same appears to have been the case for the lowland American and Mexican deserts to the south (Thompson et al. 1993, Benson et al. 1997).” Conclusion: Aside from the ENSO and PDO, the increasing frequency of extreme heat and drought in Texas is - before - the effect - in the scale of decades to centuries - decrease in temperature, no temperature increase. But now we have a secular trend rising temperatures. Warming ... so it's good news for most areas of Texas and the United States.
       Response:

       [DB] "Warming ... so it's good news for most areas of Texas and the United States."

       You continue to prosecute an agenda of quote-mining to support predetermined conclusions, like the unsupported hand-waving one you close with.  You have been posting similarly here at SkS for 3 years now; I can no longer excuse a lack of familiarity with the language for your behavior here.

       Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

       Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, quote-mining or off-topic posts, intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
        
       Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion.  If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

       Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.

69891. jmorpuss at 20:21 PM on 18 November 2011
       The Debunking Handbook Part 2: The Familiarity Backfire Effect
       Jmurphy @7 You just pointed out what this blog is all about When educated people try to explain facts with a story to show others how inteligent they are the facts can get lost You ever heard the term to baffle someone with science A bit like what you said makes no sence just noise to me Science shouldn't be a foreign language When communicating to the public.
       Response:

       [DB] "When educated people try to explain facts with a story to show others how inteligent they are the"

       Umm, no.  Educated people try to explain facts with a story to show others because they are trying to help others learn.  You are projecting your perception of things onto others here.

       "A bit like what you said makes no sence just noise to me"

       If you do not understand the explanation, ask for a different one instead of pointing fingers.

       "Science shouldn't be a foreign language When communicating to the public."

       That is the entirety of why we donate our time here: to try and help communicate climate science to the public in clear, understandable words.

69892. shoyemore at 20:16 PM on 18 November 2011
       The Debunking Handbook Part 2: The Familiarity Backfire Effect
       If you want to make a lasting impact, try copying tabloid newspapers. They always attach short adjectives to persons and things to give a image which is reinforced with repetition. Instead of "Former Vice-President Al Gore believes in climate change", how does "Fat, balding Al Gore (64 years old) believes in climate change" make you think? Constant repetition of a negative association, even if false, undermines the message that a highly intelligent former US VP has studied climate change and accepts the science. I am not advocating the attachment of demeaning adjectives to people ... rather to things. Leave the personal stuff to Marc Morano. Nearly everyone has heard of "Climategate", but the permananent attachment of an adjective like "the faux-scandal Climategate" has a better chance of sinking in to the consciousness of the reader, particularly with constant repetition. My own opinion was that the climate science folks were too defensive about the faux-scandal Climategate, and that the amount of blogging-inches devoted to it probably backfired. However, this pseudo-scandal has probably died out in public consciousness, so that if it comes up (and there are whole sites devoted to it), mention it in no uncertain terms as the farrago of fabrication and exaggeration it really was. Associating the word "Climategate" constantly with words like "faux", "pseudo", "farrago" helps get the message across. We learn most things by repetition, so continuous word-association will boost replacing myth with fact.
69893. JMurphy at 19:35 PM on 18 November 2011
       The Debunking Handbook Part 2: The Familiarity Backfire Effect
       jmorpuss : "There are plenty of words that are power words like is we don't question when something IS . Another word that we should pay attention to is but it negates everything that was just said." If I state that that is simplistic, you won't question my statement ? And if I state that I disagree with you what you have written but that I accept your right to believe it, I am negating myself somehow ? jmorpuss : "Try and explain the word myth or fact to someone that has no schooling" Myth - A story Fact - The truth
       Moderator Response: (Rob P) All caps edited. Use bolded letters in future. Thanks. (JM) That has taken away the emphasis I was using to compare to jmorpuss's contention, so I hope it is alright for me to add in the emphasis (bold) now...
69894. mrc at 18:59 PM on 18 November 2011
       The Last Interglacial - An Analogue for the Future?
       101 vidoes for 101 cities with sea level rise linked to paleo data of Hansen 2011. http://vimeo.com/29474257 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hK8BbOnvGJU
69895. jmorpuss at 18:50 PM on 18 November 2011
       The Debunking Handbook Part 2: The Familiarity Backfire Effect
       Tom @ 5 so you dream in words do you You may like to think your differant But were not The thing that make us different is the choices we make and the habbits we have created Words have no meening without pictures Try and explain the word myth or fact to someone that has no schooling
69896. Tom Curtis at 18:05 PM on 18 November 2011
       The Debunking Handbook Part 2: The Familiarity Backfire Effect
       jmorpuss @5, so much for pop psychology. I actually took a survey of my friends and acquaintances on this point when I was very young (late teens, and updated on into my 30's). In fact different people have very different inner representations when they think. I, for example, typically think in words. Others, including presumably jmorpuss, think in pictures. My elder sister and my father thinks in "concepts", they are quite emphatic that it is neither pictures nor words. One friend I had had no inner representation associated with thought, and I knew one philosopher who had no inner representation even for sight, although they were quite literate and otherwise functional. That would be a very high level functioning blind sight. Just as there are a variety of forms of inner representation, there are a variety of ways of learning, with some learning best. Some learn best by reading, others by listening, and some by doing. I am sure there are other modes as well. The key point is that we are all different. People who generalize from their own experience (including some noted psychologists) merely demonstrate their lack of imagination. That certainly applies to jmorpuss' five step process to thought.
69897. jmorpuss at 17:44 PM on 18 November 2011
       The Debunking Handbook Part 2: The Familiarity Backfire Effect
       Just remember we think in pictures not words and we can have a different picture to the same word. If I were to ask 10 people to think of a dog, there would be a good chance that they would all pick a different dog. When trying to communicate remember what you are actually doing is trying to paint a picture using words. Our memory is stronger when we are emotionally conected to the thought The saying "we learn things the hard way" is because when something hurts it sticks in our memory So next time we wont repeat the same mistake. There are plenty of words that are power words like IS we don't question when something IS . Another word that we should pay attention to is BUT it negates everything that was just said. There is a 5 step process to every thought 1st comes the thought it can come from anywhere 2nd Emote we wrap that thought with emotion and if we can get over ourselves and stop thinking emotionally we get to the 3rd step which is Seek & search were we can see ourselves in the picture and way things up and see both sides of the fence and then comes the 4th step Action were we can say or do something and what we end up with is step 5 knowing or Knowledge Most people get caught in the first 2 steps and get caught thinking emotionally about ones self and what is important to them and their emotional needs and whants and don't see the bigger picture. John what happened to my post to your first blog about Propaganda and it's conection to misinformation I didn't meen to upset anyone with facts
69898. Paul Magnus at 16:58 PM on 18 November 2011
       The Debunking Handbook Part 2: The Familiarity Backfire Effect
       Revolutionary!
69899. dana1981 at 16:39 PM on 18 November 2011
       The Debunking Handbook Part 2: The Familiarity Backfire Effect
       Nice graphical representation of the effect and proper approach.
69900. Paul Magnus at 16:19 PM on 18 November 2011
       The Last Interglacial Part Five - A Crystal Ball?
       Great post. Post like these and the ongoing handbook information make this site invaluable!

Prev  1390  1391  1392  1393  1394  1395  1396  1397  1398  1399  1400  1401  1402  1403  1404  1405  Next