Recent Comments

Prev  1395  1396  1397  1398  1399  1400  1401  1402  1403  1404  1405  1406  1407  1408  1409  1410  Next

Comments 70101 to 70150:

70101. 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.
70102. 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.
70103. 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.
70104. 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).
70105. 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?
70106. 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...
70107. 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."
70108. 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.
70109. 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.”
70110. 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
70111. 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.
70112. 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.
70113. 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.
70114. 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.
70115. 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.
70116. 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.

70117. 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.
70118. 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.
70119. 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.
70120. 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.

70121. 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.

70122. 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.
70123. 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...
70124. 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
70125. 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
70126. 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.
70127. 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
70128. Paul Magnus at 16:58 PM on 18 November 2011
       The Debunking Handbook Part 2: The Familiarity Backfire Effect
       Revolutionary!
70129. 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.
70130. 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!
70131. Bob Lacatena at 16:04 PM on 18 November 2011
       Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
       52, Fred, Thanks for that link. I can't stop laughing! Their credentials and laughable quotes are absolutely precious. It's just amazing to me how well-educated but sadly over-confident people can express such amazing ignorance in a field that is, sadly, outside of their area of expertise but, even more sadly, in which they clearly have not taken the time to achieve even a college level understanding, let alone any right to make such political and unscientific statements. Still laughing. Thanks. That will help me sleep better tonight, knowing that it is really now only the utterly foolish who fail to understand and continue to deny climate change.
70132. AndrewD at 15:58 PM on 18 November 2011
       The Debunking Handbook Part 2: The Familiarity Backfire Effect
       Nice. But I guess that means you will have to rejig the Myths sidebar?
       Response: [JC] Hmm, a case of do as I say, not as I do :-) Seriously though, that is a tricky question. How do you invoke and debunk myths without reinforcing them. The left margin could be restructured in the same way that most of the SkS rebuttals are now headlined with open questions rather than the myth. Something to think about.
70133. Philippe Chantreau at 15:24 PM on 18 November 2011
       Medieval Warm Period was warmer
       "Therefore the observed patterns are most likely the variations in spatial patterns of warming and cooling found in the models, rather than temporal variations in mean global temperature." I find that a better way to understand it indeed. A while ago, I took a look at the litterature on the SHALDRIL cores, of which a chief researcher was Milliken. He finds that "There is no compelling evidence for a Little Ice Age readvance in Maxwell Bay" and also asserts that "the current warming and associated glacial response in the northern Antarctic Peninsula appears to be unprecedented in its synchroneity and widespread impact." So indeed LIA and MWP seem to have been more likely regional than global in nature.
70134. Philippe Chantreau at 15:15 PM on 18 November 2011
       Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
       Marc Morano's garbage is as far as one can get from a compilation of scientific litterature. Anyone willing to be taken on a ride by a political operative deserves what they'll get. Morano is so pathetically illiterate in matters of science that nothing coming from him is worth any consideration.
70135. muoncounter at 14:50 PM on 18 November 2011
       Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
       Fred#52: This post is about a case in peer-reviewed literature, not the efforts of Marc Morano to compile a list of WUWT links, clippings from little known newspapers and fringe, unscientific blog posts. No soap.
70136. Fred at 14:43 PM on 18 November 2011
       Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
       Hi, Other papers where scientists disagree about the dangerous anthropogenic global warming hypothesis can be found at the website for the United States Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (Minority Page). See http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=d6d95751-802a-23ad-4496-7ec7e1641f2f Well documented and linked, it lists more than 1000 international scientists. Cheers, Fred
       Response:

       To further compliment muoncounter's sage advice below, you need to Meet The Denominator to gain the context that you lack: well-documented and linked, it reveals that even a paltry 1,000+ nay-saying scientists are no match for the millions that lie in the Denominator.  If you wish to pursue this, take it there.  Cheers, DB.

70137. Bern at 14:12 PM on 18 November 2011
       Lone Star State of Drought
       Albatross, muoncounter, thanks for those two comments, very informative.
70138. adelady at 13:56 PM on 18 November 2011
       Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
       Mango "... to engage in conversation. I'm not saying you will convince me, I really think the AGW "theory" is flawed, but I'm open to being convinced..." One thing that slipped by me the first time I saw your post. "AGW theory" - no-one yet has asked so I will. Do you realise that there is no AGW theory? What we have is climate science - AGW is merely a predictable sub-set of the general science. The core contributors to the discipline are physics, geology, astronomy, meteorology, chemistry, biology, oceanography, glaciology and other cryology, and a good couple of dozen others. Given what we know from physics of the radiative properties of CO2 and other long-lived gh gases, and the geology of many regions tells us more, we know what to expect when the atmosphere has an increased concentration of ghgs. And the measurements are telling us the physics, geology, chemistry et al are taking us pretty well where we'd expect to end up. How far and how fast we push ourselves along that path is a problem of interpreting and analysing those measurements. But it really is pretty straightforward. (From the comfortable perspective of someone who's never gone to work on a glacier or done super dangerous things in stormy seas or remote jungles just to collect the data we use.)
70139. Mark Harrigan at 13:01 PM on 18 November 2011
       David Evans' Understanding of the Climate Goes Cold
       Folks, Evans is at it again with a new document dated September 2011. A Link to the pdf can be found here http://www.auscsc.org.au/home/1/limit/6 if you want to copy and paste into a browser or here it is an embedded hyperlink Time for an updated rebuttal please dana?
70140. Tom Curtis at 12:05 PM on 18 November 2011
       Medieval Warm Period was warmer
       skept.fr @44, earlier in the paper Mann et al wrote:

       "Both simulations give very similar estimates of the global mean MCA-LIA temperature difference (0.16° and 0.24°C for NCAR and GISS, respectively; the latter is identical to the proxy reconstructed mean surface temperature difference of 0.24°C). The spatial patterns of response for the two models (Fig. 3), however, are quite different, as discussed further below"

       The sentence you quoted comes from that discussion. Therefore the observed patterns are most likely the variations in spatial patterns of warming and cooling found in the models, rather than temporal variations in mean global temperature. It should be noted that changes in spatial patterns in temperature can make a small difference in TOA outgoing radiation, and hence there may also be some temporal variation in GMST, but it would be very small relative to the difference in temperature between MWP and LIA, ie, less than 0.06 degrees C (one quarter of the difference between MWP and LIA).
70141. muoncounter at 11:53 AM on 18 November 2011
       Lone Star State of Drought
       There's some interesting research on these southwestern US droughts at Lamont Doherty. This figure reveals a very conspicuous decrease in drought area over the long term that has reversed during the 20th century. --source In the detail (lower panel), the red curve shows this increase. Please note this figure dates from 2004, so the current drought is not included in the assessment that 'the current drought is not historically exceptional.' Rather than focus on individual droughts, which may well be driven by oscillations, this research looks at the long term. The dynamical causes of imminent subtropical drying appear distinct from the causes of historical North American droughts such as occurred in the 1950s and during the 1930s Dust Bowl. ... In contrast to historical droughts, future drying is not linked to any particular pattern of change in sea surface temperature but seems to be the result of an overall surface warming driven by rising greenhouse gases. Evidence for this is that subtropical drying occurs in atmosphere models alone when they are subjected to uniform increases in surface temperature. Their short term projections do not look good: -- full scale GFDL's Isaac Held had a hand in this report, offering a great catch phrase: Warming of the global climate is expected to be accompanied by a reduction in rainfall in the subtropics and an increase in precipitation in subpolar latitudes and some equatorial regions. This pattern can be described in broad terms as the wet getting wetter and the dry getting drier -- emphasis added Note: here is the original source (Cook et al 2004) for the two-panel figure above. If the Z-C modeling results hold up, it is plausible that continued warming over the tropical Pacific, whether natural or anthropogenically forced, will promote the development of persistent drought-inducing La Nina–like conditions. Should this situation occur, especially in tandem with midcontinental drying over North America, the epoch of unprecedented aridity revealed in the DAI reconstruction might truly be a harbinger of things to come in the West.
70142. Tom Curtis at 11:29 AM on 18 November 2011
       World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
       skept.fr @32, I reiterate my point @18 which I do not feel you have addressed. There is no doubt, IMO, that increased production of biofuels will lead to an increased cost of grains. That is a simple consequence of increased demand in the face of constrained supply. However, logically you cannot split apart the many sources of demand and say one is responsible for the higher prices while others are not. Given that, if you wish to restrict demand for one use of a good to keep prices down, the decision to do so represents a decision that the restricted use is less valuable than all the other uses of the good. In other words, restricting biofuels because of their price impacts on food, while not restricting grain use as animal fodder represents a decision that grain fed animal meat is more valuable than cheap grain for the third world, which in turn is more valuable than access to biofuels. What is more, this is a valuation that stands outside the market and imposes itself on it. While the meta-valuation that biofuel is less valuable than cheap grain for third world food production is one I agree with, the meta-valuation that grain fed beef is more valuable than either cheap grain for the third world, or biofuels is not. Please note that these meta-valuations are ethical, not economic valuations, which can be derived from the market itself. Therefore, allowing that increased production of biofuels increases overall demand for grains, and hence prices, it does not follow that the appropriate policy is to reduce production of biofuels. Rather, if you are going to interfere with market valuations at all, then you are faced with a range of possible policy responses including (but not restricted to): 1) Restricting production of biofuels; 2) Imposing a tax on purchases of grain for animal fodder (thereby decreasing effective demand for animal fodder); 3) Subsidizing purchases of grain for human consumption in the third world, thereby increasing the effective demand for human consumption of grain); or 4) Encouraging production of biofuels from plant material other than grains, especially plant material that can be grown on marginal land for grain production. Of course, various of these can be tried in combination. A tax on animal fodder could be used to fund subsidies on human consumption of grains in the third world. Regardless of the policy chosen, it represents an implicit moral choice. As it is fairly straightforward (to me) that western demand for more marbled meat is of significantly less importance, ethically, than future generations demand for the existence of major eco-systems such as the Amazon, and the Great Barrier Reef (both significantly under threat even with a 2 degree C increase in global temperatures) any response to an increase in demand for grains due to the production of biofuels that restricts itself to restricting biofuels represents a very selfish choice of minimal current convenience (for a select proportion of the world's population) over fundamental needs of the majority of the world's current population and future generations. Until you adress this issue, I have little interest in what (to me) appears like a very shallow analysis of the issue.
70143. Stephen Baines at 11:09 AM on 18 November 2011
       Cardinal Pell needs to practise what he preaches on climate change
       John...the baby in the bathtub analogy is brilliant. In one image you capture variability on top of trend AND the idea that variability is simply redistribution of heat. It also appeals to family values to boot!
70144. John Hartz at 11:00 AM on 18 November 2011
       Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
       Suggested reading: “Monte Carlo versus blocking formations: why attributing heatwaves to climate change is still a gamble,” The Carbon Brief, Oct 27, 2011 To access this article, click here.
70145. John Hartz at 10:57 AM on 18 November 2011
       Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
       “Climate change is likely to cause more storms, floods, droughts, heatwaves and other extreme weather events, according to the most authoritative review yet of the effects of global warming. “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will publish on Friday its first special report on extreme weather, and its relationship to rising greenhouse gas emissions. “The final details are being fought over by governments, as the "summary for policymakers" of the report has to be agreed in full by every nation that chooses to be involved. But the conclusions are expected to be that emissions from human activities are increasing the frequency of extreme weather events. In particular, there are likely to be many more heatwaves, droughts and changes in rainfall patterns.” Source: “IPCC expected to confirm link between climate change and extreme weather,” the Guardian (UK), Nov 17, 2011 To access the entire article, click here.
70146. Albatross at 10:15 AM on 18 November 2011
       Lone Star State of Drought
       CW @1, Sigh, you are missing the point. I do not think that anyone in the know is entirely blaming the development of the drought and heat wave over the southern great plains on global warming. They are saying that the underlying warming trend made a bad situation worse (i.e., that the event was likely stronger than it would otherwise have been). Dr. Nielsen-Gammon has some interesting posts up on this. It is more than a little disconcerting that we are already seeing a discernible anthropogenic signal so early in the anthropocene. That chart you showed above is the teleconnection for the winter months, the drought peaked during the summer. This is a more appropriate image, for precipitation: [Source] Note that for JJA there is not a very strong La Nina signal at all for temperature: So just as it is wrong to entirely attribute the development and intensity of this drought and heat wave to AGW, it is just as wrong to claim that the intensity of the heat wave and drought were solely the result of La Nina. Hansen has showed using observations, that globally, the area affecting by marked warm events is on the increase. Likewise Dai et al. (2004), again using observations, have shown that the areas under the impact of drought or pluvial have increased: "The global very dry areas, defined as PDSI <-3.0, have more than doubled since the 1970s, with a large jump in the early 1980s due to an ENSO-induced precipitation decrease and a subsequent expansion primarily due to surface warming, while global very wet areas (PDSI >+3.0) declined slightly during the 1980s. Together, the global land areas in either very dry or very wet conditions have increased from ~20% to 38% since 1972, with surface warming as the primary cause after the mid-1980s. These results provide observational evidence for the increasing risk of droughts as anthropogenic global warming progresses and produces both increased temperatures and increased drying." It is very difficult to argue with such compelling observational evidence. In closing a comment by Dr. Nielsen-Gammon: "It is plain that heat records should and are increasing, and hot episodes should and are becoming more extreme, as the climate warms. In the specific case of the Texas 2011 heat, natural factors appear to have been so strong that it would have set a record even in the absence of climate warming, but it would almost certainly not have been so intense as to be four sigmas above the long-term average without the contribution of climate warming."
70147. scaddenp at 09:39 AM on 18 November 2011
       Medieval Warm Period was warmer
       Perhaps because of the global patterns apparent, oceanic effects like discussed in Swanson and Tsonis 2009, also discussed here at Realclimate (guest post by Swanson, MAY have been a factor.
70148. ClimateWatcher at 09:37 AM on 18 November 2011
       Lone Star State of Drought
       So the Texas drought is, as the video identified, strongly correlated with La Nina: But La Nina is also correlated with lower ( than normal years or El Nino years ) global temperatures. This ( now double dip ) La Nina event is quite independent of the very real warming due to ghgs.
       Moderator Response: [Albatross] Fixed image width
70149. KR at 09:11 AM on 18 November 2011
       Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
       MangoChutney - "I'm not saying you will convince me, I really think the AGW "theory" is flawed..." With that as an opening statement, I would suggest reading through Newcomers, Start Here and The Big Picture pages, as well as looking at the excellent historical overview contained in The Discovery of Global Warming. As opposed to (for example) selecting one piece of information, arguing that it's problematic or unknowable, and from that claiming the entire theory of AGW, supported by multiple lines of evidence and the physics of the last 150 years, is flawed. There are uncertainties, there are multiple influences (in this case ozone, CO2, water vapor levels, etc.), and it's always important not to oversimplify or overgeneralize from your data...
70150. Albatross at 08:56 AM on 18 November 2011
       There's no tropospheric hot spot
       Mango, Nobody has asked you to confess your sins, can you please tone down the rhetoric and stop arguing strawmen. IIRC, Skywatcher was asking if you accept that you are wrong about the so-called hot spot in the upper tropical troposphere being purely an anthropogenic signal/signature/fingerprint. So what are you not convinced about in this regard? 1) That the hot spot is not purely an anthropogenic "signal"? It is not a fingerprint of AGW, it is a fingerprint of a warming planet regardless of the cause of the warming. 2) That the "hot spot" upper tropical troposphere not discernible in the observations? Please state your position clearly. This is exactly why I asked you on another thread to list your top three or so primary concerns, to avoid what is happening now. Now concerning the validation of the model simulations of the "hot spot". I suggest that you read the very latest literature on this by Thorne et al. (2011). They conclude that: "It is concluded that there is no reasonable evidence of a fundamental disagreement between tropospheric temperature trends from models and observations when uncertainties in both are treated comprehensively." If that paper in addition to the other excellent papers cited in the main post do not convince you then nothing will I'm afraid. We can provide you with facts, but the rest is up to you. "thing as a graph showing the actual observed data" What is wrong with the data presented by Thorne et al. (2008)? Are you suggesting that the data from multiple agencies and data observation platforms are not trustworthy? And why do both "sides" have to agree on hard, cold facts? You have a very troubling idea of how science works Mango.

Prev  1395  1396  1397  1398  1399  1400  1401  1402  1403  1404  1405  1406  1407  1408  1409  1410  Next