Recent Comments

Prev  1423  1424  1425  1426  1427  1428  1429  1430  1431  1432  1433  1434  1435  1436  1437  1438  Next

Comments 71501 to 71550:

71501. diane5591 at 16:03 PM on 31 October 2011
       A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
       I think this is an unfortunate addition to the cool science for which skepticalscience has become known. Preaching to the converted is easy enough. But when one manages to get the dubious to consider these pages for their science, it is disheartening to see that they are immediately turned off by what they see, and interpret, as a politican-partisan stance. Let the science speak, please, and think about how this page must seem to those who are personally loyal to the individuals shown here.
71502. Shibui at 15:45 PM on 31 October 2011
       Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
       Muoncounter #17 "That the average Joe/Jane believes that he/she should be able to 'replicate' the results of complicated science?" That is not what I had in mind. BEST would seem to be a good example. If you expect people to seriously change their behavior, you have to be able to prove the issue down to the last detail, not just expect that the public will take it on trust... because they won't, and rightly so.
71503. Stevo at 15:38 PM on 31 October 2011
       Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
       In recent discussions (or arguments if you prefer) with denailist friendws of mine the meme has followed very closely what we have seen on this thread. Muller's credibility is questioned. Curry is lionised for distancing herself from the results. The 60% of stations in 30% of the world's surface meme is repeated interminably. Don't you know, folks, its all a conspiracy? And all this from folks who agreed only a few weeks ago that no sane person would argue that the planet isn't warming. Apparantly denialism and consistancy don't sit well together, but there again that is not news to folks around here.
71504. Rickoxo at 15:34 PM on 31 October 2011
       It hasn't warmed since 1998
       Infrequent poster but I've been reading about the Muller's BEST data set and then saw some counter arguments and critique supposedly from one of the co-authors of the report. I am not making any argument from expertise about the data, but there are a number of quotes from Professor Judith Curry, supposedly the second author on all of the papers, she's a climatologist out of Georgia Institute of Technology. I checked around and all of the skeptic websites have their rehashing of an article that seems to have originated in the daily mail. From what I understand, that's a pretty cruddy source, but using a link below, I went to Curry's own website and it sounds like this is what she's saying: This quote is from the daily mail article: In fact, Prof Curry said, the project’s research data show there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties – a fact confirmed by a new analysis that The Mail on Sunday has obtained. ‘There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped,’ she said. ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’ Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html#ixzz1cIFa5qrh Here is a blog from Judith Curry, climate etc. I don't know much about it, but the most recent post goes into detail about a conversation she had with Muller and a second post clarifying her comments and what happened in the daily mail interview. http://judithcurry.com/ I went and re-checked the article linked on the home page about the skeptic myth that it hasn't warmed since 1998. It says it hasn't been updated for a while. I get that Muller released his data and leaked his summaries before the data had been peer reviewed and Curry makes a number of comments saying she wished he hadn't done that and that he did it on his own. I get her critique hasn't been peer-reviewed either. A number of the articles referenced a site called wood for trees that has a simple app that lets you access the BEST data and make simple plots. I know nothing about its accuracy or validity, but you can use it to check various date ranges. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:2002/plot/best/from:2002/trend I'm curious if anyone has any better info on this argument and if there is any agreement or counter argument related to Curry's declaration that the BEST data set shows that warming has stopped over the last 10-12 years? Also, please don't hear me saying that in and of itself proves anything about anything. I'm not "going anywhere" with this quote and from reading Curry's blog, she says it doesn't prove or disprove global warming. But it does call into question many of the models and most specifically, it makes Muller look like a bit of a dodo for the way he presented his data and his initial denial of the data then later retractment and admission supposedly of what the data says. Thanks for any thoughts, Rick
       Response:

       [DB] Thanks for taking the time to voice your concerns.  Tom Curtis has already addressed most of them below, but let me focus on Wood For Trees.

       http://www.woodfortrees.org/ is a website run by Paul Clark, a British software developer.  Paul has loaded into the website all the publicly-available temperature datasets, including BEST.  As such, it is an invaluable tool for quickly comparing temperature trends over varying timeframes.  Many climate scientists use Wood For Trees for quick comparisons for the public to turn to for answers to questions.

       It's not a panacea for research, as the pros still work directly with the datasets directly, but it is a valuable tool.

       As for the rest, I'll close by saying that anyone who agrees that a time series of only a decade isn't scientifically significant AND who also says that over the same time a scientifically significant long-term trend has stopped is speaking out of both sides of their mouths.  The two positions are mutually exclusive.

71505. dana1981 at 13:05 PM on 31 October 2011
       Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
       garythompson - you are correct, we have a post in the works responding to this "skeptic" effort to hide the incline. Keep an eye out for it tomorrow.
71506. Tom Curtis at 12:49 PM on 31 October 2011
       Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
       Bob Loblaw @48: 1) IMO the main problem with using OHC as the metric of global warming is that it has no implications for future behavior of the climate system. Whatever the changes in OHC, the climate will continue to change until the energy leaving the top of the atmosphere (TOA) balances with that received from the sun (radiative equilibrium). As heat below the ocean's surface (specifically, the ocean's "skin") makes no contribution to upwelling Infrared radiation, it has no direct effect on the radiative balance at the TOA. In contrast, Global Mean Surface Temperature has an immediate effect on the up-welling IR radiation both by changing the energy of the IR radiation escaping through the "atmospheric window", and, through convection, by changing the temperatures of the gases that radiate IR energy to space. Because the ratio of GMST to radiative flux is robust through history, we can use that ratio to predict an equilibrium GMST for a given change in radiative flux, something measurements of OHC does not permit. It is true that measurement of OHC together with accurate enough measurements of TOA energy flux (up and down) would allow similar predictions on the assumption of a robust climate sensitivity. However, in order to make such predictions, TOA measurements of the absolute value of the radiative flux would need to improve in sensitivity by an order of magnitude (at least). If we ever gain such accurate instruments, then Pielke's argument may make sense on this point; except that historical values would be lacking. 2) A further problem with ignoring GMST is that it is surface temperature, not OHC that drives climate. Of course, for understanding climate and climate change, the full field of global data is far more useful than their average, but that single number still carries useful information, and more useful information than does the equivalent single number representing OHC. That is because the field the single number represents has a more direct impact on climate, and because we have far more observational comparisons of climate effects relating to the GMST than to the OHC. 3) While I agree that SST is a good proxy for OHC for the upper 750 meters, there can be an increase in OHC without an increase in SST. All that is required is a greater energy flux combined with a more efficient mixing of heat to the deeper layers. The later could be provided by stronger winds (for example). The logic here parallels Dr Pielke's claim that the increase in OHC between 750 and 2000 meters cannot have come from the surface because of the relative lack of heat in the 0-750 meter layer. Again, that claim is false. All that is required for it to be false is a more efficient mixing of heat to the deep (below 750 meters) layer, say be ENSO effects.
71507. garythompson at 12:30 PM on 31 October 2011
       Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
       It appears there are a few news reports about this being the next climate gate. Hide the decline part two. This article seems to capture it. I assume there will be an update from Skeptical Science?
       Response:

       [DB] Your linked source speaks eloquently for itself.  I'm sure all readers will be able to determine for themselves its veracity and assign it an appropriate measure of reliability.

       A larger issue is that this is the anticipated response from "skeptics" when their expected "silver bullet" audit into the heart of AGW turns out actually to verify the basic accuracy of the global temperature records.  That then they resort to this type of "fair-balanced" piece as a form of damage control should hardly come as a surprise to anyone.

       First, Faux-Climate-Gate.  Now Faux-BEST-Gate.  Deja-vu, all over again.

71508. John Hartz at 11:54 AM on 31 October 2011
       Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
       Stay tuned... "On Monday, Muller was taking his results — four separate papers that are not yet published or peer-reviewed, but will be, he says — to a conference in Santa Fe, N.M., expected to include many prominent skeptics as well as mainstream scientists." Source: "Skeptic’s own study finds climate change real, but says scientists should be more critical," Washington Post, Oct 30, 2011 To access this in-depth article, click here
71509. John Hartz at 11:51 AM on 31 October 2011
       Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
       All is not lost... "In a brief email statement, the Koch Foundation noted that Muller’s team didn’t examine ocean temperature or the cause of warming and said it will continue to fund such research. “The project is ongoing and entering peer review, and we’re proud to support this strong, transparent research,” said foundation spokeswoman Tonya Mullins." Source: "Skeptic’s own study finds climate change real, but says scientists should be more critical," Washington Post, Oct 30, 2011 To access this in-depth article, click here.
71510. John Hartz at 11:46 AM on 31 October 2011
       Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
       Speaking of ocean heat content... "In a brief email statement, the Koch Foundation noted that Muller’s team didn’t examine ocean temperature or the cause of warming and said it will continue to fund such research. “The project is ongoing and entering peer review, and we’re proud to support this strong, transparent research,” said foundation spokeswoman Tonya Mullins." Source: "Skeptic’s own study finds climate change real, but says scientists should be more critical," Washington Post, Oct 30, 2011 To access this in-depth article, click here.
71511. Bob Lacatena at 11:10 AM on 31 October 2011
       Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
       51, dhogaza, I guess my question would be... how did she actually contribute to the project? What did she actually do? I didn't think people were listed on papers just for show, or to add their cachet.
71512. Philippe Chantreau at 10:52 AM on 31 October 2011
       Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
       Bob I couldn't agree more. Yours is a very astute and accurate analysis of the exchange with Dr Pielke.
71513. funglestrumpet at 10:39 AM on 31 October 2011
       Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
       Sadly, I am not a young man anymore (due to age, not a sex-change operation) and so I visit this site out of a concern for my son and any grandchildren that he might bless me with if he ever decides to buy a book instead of going to the library, so to speak. What struck me most about the video was the passion that Dr Milne put into his presentation. I guess he is of about the same age as many of the Sks team, who, judging by the various comments that I have seen from time to time, are not simply motivated by the chance to delve deeply into the science, but are looking to protect their future and the future of any children they might have or will have. That said, I suggest that the time is rapidly approaching when your generation is going to have to wrest control from my generation. We cannot carry on with all talk and no action. Currently the world is in turmoil. We have a growing movement against the inequity of the capitalist system, and rightly so. When you listen to the protesters, it is obvious that the unrest is about much more than simply the financial sector. I think that presents you with an opportunity. Why don't you take advantage of this turmoil and take action so that the politicians can see that business as usual just will not do? You have even got Dr. Pielke Sr to agree that we must reduce CO2. My generation has had the best of times and we really don't have the right to deny you the best also, or at least the best that is going to be possible, which I fear may not be nearly so good. Just a thought starter. Next year the flower of your generation will be competing in the Olympics. The very people, and their offspring, likely to suffer most from climate change. How about organising a day of action world-wide to show the politicians that actions not words are both needed and demanded. If this day were chosen to coincide with the Olympics, it wouldn't half upset a few people and in the process raise it right up the agenda. Probably the opening ceremony might be the best day as it would not interrupt the actual competitive events. The very threat should be enough for meaningful discussions to take place (and give the mayor of London and all the big businesses due to profit from the games a few sleepless nights).
71514. Bob Loblaw at 10:23 AM on 31 October 2011
       Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
       Re: moderators comment to #48 Thanks for the invitation, but life is too busy for me at the moment to commit to a guest post right now. Perhaps a little later? I presume that moderators have access to my email address, so if you want to contact me to suggest what you'd like to see, we can at least discuss it. One other thought has occurred to me with regard to the progress of the discussions with Dr. Pielke. At one point in my past, an employee decided that I should get a one-day session in media training. [No, my participation here has nothing to do with my job.] Scientists often aren't very good at handling the media - the reporter wants to make sure to get "the story", and the scientists need to be taught how to get "the message" out past the reporter, all while making sure that they don't accidentally give the reporter something that The Powers That Be don't want the reporter to know. We were taught to make sure that we keep coming back to "the message", and we were taught techniques to divert attention away from questions we didn't want to deal with. The classic: "that's a good question, Fred, but what we really need to know about is..." In Dr. Pielke's case, he certainly kept coming back to his message about ocean heat content as the primary metric of global warming. He certainly didn't like having others steer the discussion back to things that weren't part of his message, or when people kept pressing for details that he didn't want to (or couldn't) discuss. When completely backed against a wall, he tried to dismiss the topic as "not important", even if it was a topic he had made very public (and very strong) declarations on. My impression was that he did not like the fact that he did not have strong control over the discussions. Contrast this with how SkS has handled things. First of all, SkS strongly encourages comments and discussions of its posts. There are rules (good ones, IMHO), but individuals appear to be given a lot of warnings before major action is taken. In the case of the discussions with Dr. Pielke, SkS has done summaries of the discussions, highlighting areas of agreement, and areas of disagreement. All of this is done with reference to the scientific literature, where available. This process of identifying differences is an essential part of the scientific process. The areas of disagreement are where future research is focused. Sometimes, you can resolve disagreements by finding additional information already in the literature. When you can't, sometimes you can find useful existing data that has not yet been analyzed in a suitable way. If no data exists, you then go in search of funding, and then do the experiments or collect the required data. The more complex the differences, the more sources of data you will need. Rarely will there be one definitive study that resolves the differences - often it can take years, and often the extra data will still be subject to multiple interpretations. For this reason, I find SkS's approach far more constructive than Dr. Pielke's.
71515. WyrdWays at 10:16 AM on 31 October 2011
       Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
       Tristan#14 : Agreed, once we switched to protagonist/antagonist debate (which was always inevitable for an issue like climate change, which threatens vested interests), it's not the content of the message, but the integrity of the messengers that matters. But those messengers don't just include climate experts (real or fake) - they include opinion leaders - political, community, blogosphere, media. They may just be persuaded by a rational presentation of the scientific facts, which could tip public opinion. The problem is that in our system there is a strong disconnect between these actors and the wider public.
71516. muoncounter at 09:39 AM on 31 October 2011
       2009-2010 winter saw record cold spells
       A new study (Sept 2011) confirms and extends the thesis of this post to winter 2010-2011. Link to pdf. Recent warm and cold daily winter temperature extremes in the Northern Hemisphere While some parts clearly experienced very cold temperatures, the NH was not anomalously cold. Extreme warm events were much more prevalent in both magnitude and spatial extent. Importantly, the persistent negative state of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) explained the bulk of the observed cold anomalies, however the warm extremes were anomalous even accounting for the NAO and also considering the states of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO). These winters’ widespread and intense warm extremes together with a continuing hemispheric decline in cold snap activity was a pattern fully consistent with a continuation of the warming trend observed in recent decades. -- emphasis added
71517. r.pauli at 09:28 AM on 31 October 2011
       Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
       In the 1950's, I watched the TV show "Lassie" - popular in the 1950s -- people listened and understood the alarmist barks and whines from a collie...enough to save Jimmy who fell down the well. Now the same TV has trained us to ignore and deny science - despite global risk to every human. Obviously, something happened since then, maybe it was flouridation. Bring back Lassie.
71518. Ken in Oz at 08:23 AM on 31 October 2011
       Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
       Correction- that last should have been 'preceding 10 years' not 8.
71519. dhogaza at 08:22 AM on 31 October 2011
       Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
       dana1981: "You have to wonder why Curry was even invited to join the BEST group..." Perhaps Watts recommended her inclusion. Or perhaps Curry recommended Watts's inclusion. I'd vote for the former since Watts was involved with the BEST group fairly early on.
71520. Ken in Oz at 08:21 AM on 31 October 2011
       Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
       Rob@15 It seems clear that the upper ocean heat content is strongly influenced by ENSO and it's also clear that there is good reason to believe the steep rise such as that preceding the post-2003 high plateau Camburn and others interpret as levelling off or cooling is a true representation of data. Nothing seems to be pointing to a genuine end of the underlying warming trend or give reason to believe further steep rises won't occur. That steep rise plus high plateau look likely to average out to a strong warming trend, as steep the preceding 8 years but I'm not equipped to do such a calculation.
71521. WheelsOC at 07:19 AM on 31 October 2011
       Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
       gpwayne, I just read your post and had to double-check to make sure you weren't talking about this latest exchange between Dr. Pielke and SkS! Deja Vu is spot on, the exact same behaviors were showing up in spades this time around. I've also seen him go around in circles when trying to discuss things in the comments at RealClimate. It's a shame that the subject he seems to muck-around so much just happens to be the one in which he's a credible expert. I don't know that he's intentionally doing it to ingratiate himself with the outright deniers, but as you (and others) have pointed out they're more than willing to use his misleading statements as ammo, and he seems totally unwilling to disabuse them of that tactic.
71522. muoncounter at 07:04 AM on 31 October 2011
       Extreme Melting on Greenland Ice Sheet, Reports CCNY Team
       And to think that a mere 9 months ago, some were arguing that this wasn't true: A Flanner in the works. As Earth warms, ice and snow melt and the loss of their shiny, reflective surfaces means more sunlight is absorbed and global warming receives a boost. That's the trouble with the 'no its not' crowd. Physics doesn't care.
71523. muoncounter at 06:22 AM on 31 October 2011
       Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
       Tristan#20: "Show that the scientific method is self-auditing." Those are all defensive strategies, as if the message 'We are not the crooks they say we are' is sufficient. Sphaerica#22: "Until society as a whole considers it to be a wrong, bad, naughty thing to do, people will do it." You're quite right. Look at the hackles that rose upon labeling CO2 as a pollutant. Imagine an industry that produces a wondrous product by a process that gives off noxious waste. Would they be allowed to just dump their garbage and never pay for the cleanup? Dr. Milne gave examples of SO2 and CFCs to demonstrate that behavior modifications are possible, but he didn't say why we made those changes. The message was the adverse health effects of urban smog and uV radiation; in short, a demonstration of the risk of inaction. If all we have to say now is 'We're not in this for the money, but for the citations,' then We Ain't Got Nothin' Yet.
71524. caroza at 06:19 AM on 31 October 2011
       Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
       I read a Discover article recently which seems to have something to say about the reasons people don't change their behaviour - it's about our faulty risk perception mechanisms and is here (sorry, I haven't dug into any of the underlying papers). muoncounter #17, I think this ties into what you're saying. The authors quote somebody called Ropeik as follows: "Ropeik says policy makers need to stop issuing reams of statistics and start making policies that manipulate our risk perception system instead of trying to reason with it." That's fascinating in view of the subthread on ethics; I think most scientifically educated people, myself included, would go "ick!". We would prefer to present the best available evidence and allow people to make rational decisions. But the deniers manipulate fear very skilfully, whether they're aware of doing it or not. And they may also be manipulating a group of people who are more susceptible to being manipulated by fear; Milne referred briefly to a really interesting study which says that right-wingers have larger amygdalas than people with left or liberal political tendencies, who tend to have a bigger anterior cingulate cortex, which is apparently involved in decision-making in the presence of conflicting information. The amygdala is involved in fear and reaction to perceived threats, but below the level of neocortical involvement. (I have a sort of sideline in dog behaviour so am interested in neuroscience and behaviourism, although I won't claim to be an expert). That suggests to me that until the danger from climate change becomes more immediately threatening than the fear cards the deniers play, we won't see widespread support for mitigation policies based on preventing climate catastrophe, no matter how strong the evidence. It also suggests that scientists and the more scientifically literate among us may be projecting our own preference for objectivity onto a general public who would rather have advertising and sensationalist news (and are in many cases more likely to be swayed by the latter). And therein lie a host of interesting ethical problems; given the gravity of the threat from AGW, is maintaining your scientific integrity at all costs more important than swaying as many people as possible using whatever means necessary? (That's rhetorical, of course!) Now I have this magic oil in a bottle which will fix all of this, and I can let you have some at a special price... ;)
71525. Daniel Bailey at 06:09 AM on 31 October 2011
       Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
       It would appear that Curry's inclusion in BEST was nothing more than an appeasement nod to the skeptic blogosphere. Which is perhaps by mutual design. Her attempts to now distance herself from the BEST findings amount to a last effort to retain the vestiges of seeming credibility for her "tribe".
71526. Bob Loblaw at 06:01 AM on 31 October 2011
       Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
       re: victull @ 47 I can't remember how much of the RealClimate discussions on ocean heat content paralleled the ones at SkS, but at RealClimate Dr. Pielke kept coming back with discussions of heat content whenever the questions dealt with heat flux. He threw out the occasional "flux divergence", but still would not deal with the questions related to absolute flux. Mathematically (and conceptually) they are very different entities (although highly related). I cannot tell from what Dr. Pielke posted (here or there) whether he doesn't understand the details, can't express himself clearly, or is intentionally trying to obfuscate, but it all leads to a lack of confidence (or, perhaps even a lack of trust) in his statements. As I read his discussions here and at RC, I kept thinking back to the movie The Princess Bride, when Inigo Montoya said "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." ...but to get back to the ocean heat content question - I still disagree that it should be the prime measure of warming. Yes, that is where most of the heat goes, but that is not sufficient to make it a prime indicator. When looking for an indicator, we need to consider several aspects of experimental design: 1) how easily can we measure something? 2) how accurately can we measure something? (somewhat related to 1, but not quite the same) 3) how sensitive is that variable to the process we want to study (i.e., the item we want to use it to indicate)? 4) how insensitive is that variable to other things besides our target process? Clearly, to look at the earth-atmosphere response to an energy imbalance (TOA radiation), heat content is an obvious choice (item 3) because there is a direct link. For this reason, an accurate measurement of OHC is valuable. It is, however, difficult, and with current technology certainly not cheap. Fortunately, scientists have convinced funding agencies that the expense is worth it, so we have systems like Argo. Evaluating OHC is not error-free, though, so good science includes the error bars on estimations of ocean heat content. The network to measure OHC is also relatively recent, so there are very severe limitations on what we can do with it now, due to the short record. Keep it going, for sure. As the record grows in length, it will become more and more valuable. A few other implications of my list: - the combination of 2 and 3 deals with the question of how accurately we need to measure something for it to be useful. Uesfulness is always defined in terms of the current question. - the combination of 3 and 4 relates to signal-to-noise ratio. It is better to use an indicator that has a high signal-to-noise ratio because changes are more easily detected, even if this indicator is is not the primary consequence of the process in question. Have you ever wondered why lighthouses blink on and off? When approaching a coast on a dark and stormy night, it is extremely difficult to pick up a steady light that very gradually gets brighter. A blinking light, on the other had, becomes obvious quite quickly, even if that light (when on) is much dimmer than a steady light. (Changing the on-off pattern also allows unique identification of a particular lighthouse, but detection is a key reason.) The World Meteorological Organization has a set of principles for its Global Climate Observing System that relate to monitoring of this sort: GCOS Climate Monitoring Principles. I think that Dr. Pielke's apparent desire to downplay all other indicators of global warming violates several of these principles (2, 6, and 9 in particular). One aspect that I think Dr. Pielke was in agreement on was that the only way for heat to get into the ocean was through its surface (i.e, geothermal heat from the ocean floor can be ignored on a global scale). One of the implications from this is that you have to see a change in sea surface temperature (SST) before you are going to see a change in OHC. Yes, SST can go back down as heat goes deeper, so OHC is better, but SST can tell us a lot. And we have much longer records of SST than OHC. As OHC records get longer, we'll know more about how SST and OHC can be used together, and perhaps some day OHC is all we'll need, but for now SST is more useful, largely because of its longer and more spatially-distributed record. When it comes to establishing the uncertainty of a particular measurement, a good place to start is the ISO guide, commonly just called GUM. Unfortunately, it isn't free. This is getting long. As the whole OHC as primary measurement is part of Dr. Pielke's position, I think I'm still on topic, but if someone wants to suggest moving the discussion elsewhere, I'll follow.
       Response:

       [DB] Hot-linked quote.  Bob, you touch on some very interesting points all worthy of further exploration.  Would you be interested in writing this up as a guest post?

71527. muoncounter at 06:00 AM on 31 October 2011
       Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
       It's interesting (if only peripherally) that Dr. Roy is thus far silent on the BEST results. Instead, he posts a graphic proving that it's cooler in October than it was in July, with this insightful tidbit: "... you might have noticed the continuing drop this month in global temperatures." Noticed and dismissed with a 'what else is new?' As for the behavior of Dr. Curry, who is 2nd author on all four BEST papers, we may be seeing a manifestation of the Oozlum bird.
71528. Bob Lacatena at 05:50 AM on 31 October 2011
       Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
       Curry didn't just drink the kool-aid, she's taking it intravenously.

       ‘There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped,’ she said. ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’

       Of course, the entire article is by none other than David Rose: Rosegate More Rosegate DailyMailGate More DailyMailGate
71529. dana1981 at 05:30 AM on 31 October 2011
       Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
       You have to wonder why Curry was even invited to join the BEST group, since she clearly has no idea what they did, since their own FAQ contradicts her comments. I bet Muller is regretting inviting her to "participate" at this point.
71530. JMurphy at 05:13 AM on 31 October 2011
       Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
       Shoyemore : "Just like with tobacco-smoking, it may be that only when the effects of climate change become blatantly obvious that the mass of public opinion will shift." Doesn't stop a lot of people still continuing to smoke, though, especially in developing countries. As long as there is a lot of money (and power) willing to fight against any strong policies which would harm their business, there will always be those willing to do their bidding or unwilling to really fight battles that will be costly and time-consuming for little real result. Everyone knows smoking is bad for you and some of us have taken years to finally acknowledge that fact and give up, but I bet most of us still know smokers. How much more difficult is the battle against burning carbon ? (And that's a rhetorical question !)
71531. Bob Lacatena at 05:10 AM on 31 October 2011
       Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
       21, Shoyemore,

       ...it may be that only when the effects of climate change become blatantly obvious that the mass of public opinion will shift.

       Yes. More importantly, to highlight the key quote from Dr. Milne's presentation:

       At the moment, it's socially acceptable to put all that CO₂ into the atmosphere.

       That's the crux of the problem. Until society as a whole considers it to be a wrong, bad, naughty thing to do, people will do it. Even if you put systems in place, many people will cheat and game the system. True change will only come about when it is morally reprehensible to irresponsibly generate and use energy. That, I'm sure, is going to require your point. Only when the effects of climate change are painfully obvious will people finally, really understand enough to make abuse of fossil fuel resources a moral rather than a scientific or policy issue, and only when it becomes a moral issue will people really be properly invested in the solutions.
71532. JMurphy at 05:02 AM on 31 October 2011
       Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
       Ian Forrester's links to the Daily Mail and Tamino (as well as related links to Curry's own site and WUWT), reveal a great deal of denial, reliance on the media and the GWPF for 'science', and desperation by all sorts of so-called skeptics. But no real scepticism, sadly. There can be found all those self-called sceptics who DO deny that the world has been warming, despite their own previous protestations. How do they manage to believe both assertions at the same time ? Plus, with regard to the Daily Mail, what a surprise to find the same shoddy, deceitful journalism. As well as Tamino's highlighting of Curry's (and the Daily Mail's) strange opinions, how could anyone think that a dodgy graph from the GWPF, that anyone could have produced, is in any way serious or convincing to anyone but those in denial ? And, the only other person they consulted (apart from Muller and Curry) was McKittrick, for some reason. Why ? Supposedly, many of those who could have been quoted criticising the BEST reports are not able to, because, apparently, they are actually reviewing the papers. No, I don't know, either... And Curry has, once again, tossed out some controversy, reckon she may have been misquoted, not understand what all the fuss could possibly be about, and become more of a darling for those in denial. Quite by accident and not intentionally, of course...
       Moderator Response: [John Hartz] GWPF = Global Warming Policy Foundation
71533. shoyemore at 04:50 AM on 31 October 2011
       Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
       Tristan, It may be OT, but you should realise that a major 20th century mathematician and philosopher, A.N.Whitehead, described the entire canon of western philosophy as "A series of footnotes to Plato". Aristotle's ideas of virtue and leading a virtuous life are very important in contemporary moral philosophy. Kant is generally regarded as the greatest of modern philosophers, bar none. Oh, moderator, forgive these, my short digressions. Dead white guys aside, Tristan, I am not sure if you are advocating anything new. Professor Richard Alley, a registered US Republican with a modest lifelsyle, made an excellent documentary for PBS on climate change last year.. but there was no record of it changing minds drastically. Unfortunately, there is no short-cut or drastic approach that will crash through the log-jam. Just like with tobacco-smoking, it may be that only when the effects of climate change become blatantly obvious that the mass of public opinion will shift. At the moment, I think the core of public opinion is moderately convinced, but are unsure of the measures to be taken. In fact, the debate is moving much more to the field of policy, in spite of denialism.
71534. Tristan at 04:24 AM on 31 October 2011
       Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
       Muon, Show that the scientific method is self-auditing. Show the embarrassment scientists feel when they realise their published paper was actually in error. Show that the reward of science is not the paycheck, but the citation. That sort of stuff. If people have to choose between Rio Tinto and the CSIRO show them what the CSIRO is. Shoyemore, I almost mentioned Plato myself as an example of someone whose ideas were interesting for historical reasons, rather than his pertinence to modern ethics. I'm not arguing that science relax its standards at all. I'm arguing for a shift of strategy. One that focuses more on the identities of the players involved.
71535. shoyemore at 04:06 AM on 31 October 2011
       Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
       Tristan, I presume you have been to the website and read what it says, otherwise your comment seems irrational and aribitary to me. Here it is again, correctly this time: The Varieties of Scepticism As for your comments about Kant, I am sure Plato, Archimedes and Aristotle would disagree, were they around, not to mention Hume, Hegel and Nietzsche. Some philosophers are for all time, as are some scientists. Your strategy for convincing the public, if you are advocating that science relaxes its stardards of empirical truth, seems to me to be bound to fail, and indeed to make things worse. If that is not your strategy, then for clarification tell us why you are taking issue with people who insist on a high ethical standard, that scientists and science populatisers must meet? We already know that the opponents of science give themselves permission to use dirty tricks. Science, and those who write and speak in support of it, must continue to hold itself to a standard that its foes do not.
71536. DrTsk at 04:05 AM on 31 October 2011
       Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
       Both sides of the morality/rationality debate are correct. True naturally (no religious) moral/ethical behavior has evolved through millenia of subconsious rational analysis of our world. Thus are equivalent. Therefore ethics, morality and rational thinking are compatible. All this of course are applicable to ideal societies. True rational thinking is not possible from the majority of our global society. On the other hand ethics/morality has been highjacked by religious/mystical movements for the leaders' own purposes. What is one to do? First, stop debading amongst ourselves!! We have a crucial role to study, analyse, explain, and educate using ALL positive tools in our disposal.
71537. muoncounter at 03:51 AM on 31 October 2011
       Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
       Shibui#8: "data & codes should be included to allow for possible replication." Isn't that an outgrowth of the disinformation strategy that Milne labeled 'false experts'? That lets an out of work weatherman set himself up in a position to question the work of people with better training, experience, resources and expertise? That lets more than one commenter here say, in all seriousness, 'I gathered some data and I can't see it happening'? That the average Joe/Jane believes that he/she should be able to 'replicate' the results of complicated science? Tristan#14: "You don't have to convince people of the science ..., only that you are the more believable party in the debate." How do you do that? Rick Perry (cited by Milne more than once) claims that scientists falsify data for their own gain; do we put tax returns up and say 'show me the gain'? Milne made brief mention of 'fear' in his Yoda voice; he touched on it equally briefly with 'it can't be cows because I like my beef.' Disinformers use the fear card without hesitation, with nonsense claims of -CAGW and economic breakdown due to the dread 'green tax.' This is deeply entrenched human behavior; we act as a society to make change when there is something we fear. Sadly, it's going to take much more bad news to make that happen.
71538. Tristan at 03:33 AM on 31 October 2011
       Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
       Shoyemore, Naming your website "Rationally Speaking" implies you might make rational, rather than arbitrary arguments. Things have come a long way since Kant. The strategy for convincing the public of the climate crisis has to assume that the political and financial adversaries will outright lie whenever they have to.
71539. Ian Forrester at 03:21 AM on 31 October 2011
       Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
       Tamino has a post on why Curry's comments are nonsense.
71540. shoyemore at 03:19 AM on 31 October 2011
       Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
       @Tristan, Naming your website "Rationally Speaking" does not imply the writer eschews moral condemnation, which is open to any blogger. Besides, I think Immanuel Kant, who insisted that rational thought can arrive at ethical actions, would disagree with you. Kant argued that lying was irrational because a society in which lying was commonplace and condoned would be a bad society in which to live. Therefore, we should rationally be honest always in our dealings. Even utilitarians agree with that. Indeed, if you replace, "society" with "science" he has a point relevant to the thread. If scientific facts can be blurred and obscured by political propaganda, that is surely bad for all our futures. I think that is the essence of Torcello's 2nd point in #2, and probably underpins Milne's points also. "A climate of denialism", no matter in what field it exists, hinders effective public policy decisions, and is unethical when it make unwarranted accusations and propagandises for political advantage. BTW, I do not think this is OT - just a more general statement that Milnes'.
71541. Tristan at 03:12 AM on 31 October 2011
       Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
       Tom, if we drop the notion of ethics, than all conflict resolution resolves to either coercion or haggling over price. That is approximately the scenario. Muon, I wasn't suggesting a passive approach. Far from it. A debate between a competent skeptic and a scientist over the science will go over the heads of most people. It's easy to play smoke and mirrors well enough to make the details hard to fathom for the layperson. It would be much better to show the community what a scientist really is. What their goals are. That they aren't on a gravy train. That they make 50k a year despite having the ability to earn two or three times that in the private sector. That sort of thing. You don't have to convince people of the science (that's pretty darn hard with all the obfuscation thrown your way), only that you are the more believable party in the debate. What matters is the public's perception of the players, which the mining/energy industry realises, hence all those awful ads on tv prior to the passing of the carbon tax legislation. We need to build sympathy for the scientists.
       Moderator Response: [Sph] Italics fixed.
71542. les at 03:05 AM on 31 October 2011
       Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
       8 - Shibui The pay wall issue crops up often, along the spectrum from: it being frustrating for all of us too "They are trying to hide the truth". Still, admins and editors gave to be payed and websites maintained etc. as it is universities get money to fund libraries to subscribe to [some of] journals their scholors need. To make journals free, the grants -from around the world (so administered by the UN?) - would have to go to the journals directly, maybe based on some kind of ranking based an No of downloads. Worth campaigning for, maybe.
71543. LewisC at 03:02 AM on 31 October 2011
       Amazon Drought: Heat Stress Linked To Mass Tree Die Off In 2005 and 2010
       Dave - my thanks for your overview of the droughts and their causation of tree-death rates. One additional aspect perhaps worth considering is droughts' stressing of trees leading to death in future years - as I know occurs with temperate species - which would notably raise the rate of dieback. The data I'd really like to see in future articles on this issue are the current projections of dieback/wildfire CO2e emissions - which are potentially more than problematic as I understand it. I recall that the I(G)PCC got as far as indicating that under BAU global forest cover might change from a sink to a source later this century, but, given both the other interactive feedbacks' acceleration and the inevitable warming due to the 'sulphate parasol's' loss if anthro GHG outputs are controlled, that appears characteristically understated given forests' present climatic destabilization. One aspect on which data seems scarce is the destination of the carbon that the Amazon forest is assumed to be sequestering. In a 60-million-year system with only a foot of soil under it, can that sequestration be measured by the volume transported down the Amazon river and deposited on the seabed ? Moreover, it would be good to read how the net intake of CO2 compares with the net output of CH4 from swamps and from anaerobic decay within fallen trees - in terms of CO2e. I suspect that there may be information from the Amazon Forest's degradation that causes major surprises in future years. Regards, Lewis
71544. muoncounter at 02:46 AM on 31 October 2011
       Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
       Brilliantly done. Milne is not afraid or ashamed to call out the deniers and to categorically reject their techniques: Cherry picking, discarded evidence (love the trash dump image), false experts, logical fallacy. Bravo! Tristan#7: "let the community figure out who is more likely to supply accurate information." That's exactly the technique that allows the disinformation industry to enjoy so much success. Did you miss the point that 'no one's opinion matters' in resolving a scientific question?
71545. Tom Curtis at 02:44 AM on 31 October 2011
       Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
       Tristan @7, if you leave out morality and ethics, you cannot focus on the goals of the participants because any stated goal must be presumed to be an ambit claim rather than a genuine objective. Having dropped the notion of ethics, you cannot logically presuppose an honest discourse. Further, and of specific concern to this site (if not this topic), if we drop the notion of ethics, than all conflict resolution resolves to either coercion or haggling over price. As future generations can neither harm nor benefit us, they can neither coerce or buy our good will. Rationally, therefore, in the absence of ethics the correct response to climate change is to live large because tomorrow you die. Paul D @9, Ethics is politics only in the sense that Physics is Climate Science. And while neither is science, science is not the limit of rationality, so that is an irrelevant consideration.
71546. Albatross at 02:32 AM on 31 October 2011
       Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
       Oh dear, the "skeptics" are feasting on each other. Desperate times to be A "skeptic" or someone in denial about AGW. The cognitive dissonance and denial in some circles (e.g., GWPF and WUWT) is quite impressive and scary.
71547. Ian Forrester at 02:26 AM on 31 October 2011
       Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
       Judith Curry attacks her co-authors.
71548. Albatross at 02:12 AM on 31 October 2011
       Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
       Shibui @8, It is unfortunate about many journal papers are often behind a paywall. However, you will be surprised how many PDFs of papers you can find online by Googling the title in quotation marks. Excellent lecture by Dr. Milne, thanks for posting this John.
71549. LewisC at 01:58 AM on 31 October 2011
       Not so Permanent Permafrost
       My apologies for a typo: para 3 above should start :- "Given that just 13.9MT CH4 equates to 1.0GT CO2 GWP on a 20yr horizon, . . ." Regards, Lewis
71550. LewisC at 01:46 AM on 31 October 2011
       Not so Permanent Permafrost
       While I've a great respect for the work of SkS, I'm puzzled by a critical gap in the article above, concerning the rate of CH4 emissions from permafrost. Last February's report from NOAA/NSIDC included a graph showing a curve of carbon output from ~2000 to 2200, peaking at around 1.6GTC/yr at ~2100. This projection excluded the enhanced melt effect of the warming due to its own output, and that due to sundry other mega-feedbacks, and that due to the loss of the sulphate parasol as anthro GHG outputs are controlled, but critically, it also failed to give a CO2e output for the permafrost carbon outputs it projected. Given that just 13.9MT CH4 equates to 1,000GT CO2 GWP on a 20yr horizon, this puzzled me for the same reason as the above article. From my own calculation, the NOAA/NSIDC graph's ~0.51GTC output in 2020 equates to a CO2e output of ~21% of present annual anthro-CO2 if only 10% of the carbon is emitted as CH4, and around 80% if half is output as CH4. - Even the lesser of these equates to a new America's-worth of GHG emissions in just 9 years time. Given that permafrost emissions' threat has been recognized for at least several decades, surely there are credible data available as to roughly what fraction of permafrost carbon has been, is being, and will be emitted as CH4 ? I can well accept that the degree of water saturation now occuring (and thus excluding oxygen and enforcing the anaerobic decomposition yielding CH4) may have made past projections controversial, but perhaps the sheer urgency of this issue would justify publishing the current 'best estimates' for this critical feedback effect ? Regards, Lewis

Prev  1423  1424  1425  1426  1427  1428  1429  1430  1431  1432  1433  1434  1435  1436  1437  1438  Next