Recent Comments

Prev  1466  1467  1468  1469  1470  1471  1472  1473  1474  1475  1476  1477  1478  1479  1480  1481  Next

Comments 73651 to 73700:

73651. Dennis at 02:34 AM on 29 September 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       Alex C @21: If "skeptics" want to be known as real skeptics then they ought to do exactly what a real skeptics does, which is look at the entire body of evidence. Otherwise they are (as Tamino has been putting to good use) "fake skeptics," or "deniers" as so often the shoe fits. You are dead on. What I always ask a denier is if they've read the actual IPCC report (I'm not a scientist, BTW). Typically I get an answer like "the IPCC is a biased political organization with an agenda ... ." That's denial, not skepticism. A few better versed deniers will jump on trivial errors like the Himalayan Glaciers. I ask them if they're so sure it's wrong how come no one has documented all the flaws, page by page, line by line, including citations of the errors in the peer reviewed literature, even though they've had 4 years to do that. At that point the best I get is non-scientific nonsense writings on the Internet. So here's my take: if you're so sure that the 5,000+ peer-reviewed papers and hundreds of skilled research scientists who read and analyzed them to put together the IPCC report are wrong, but no one can be bothered to dissect that document to show where it's wrong, then you're a part of the denial community, not the skeptic community.
73652. cRR Kampen at 02:15 AM on 29 September 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       "Where they disagree is on how sensitive the climate is to those CO2 emissions and that energy imbalance. They think it won't result in a large temperature change. But they don't deny that CO2 is a GHG." says Dana1981 in #42. It remains a contradiction in terms. GHG implies climate sensitity. You can't call a gas a GHG then state that climate sensitivity for that gas is low or nil. That's like stating sun and moon exert gravity whereas tides are caused by anything but gravity. In other words I would like to change 'sophistication' into 'sophistry'. For Dikran Marsupial #39, first remember Ockham's razor, second remember that AGW-theory estimates a warming of something between 2 and 4 K on doubling of CO2 (including H2O-feedback) and puts the effect of a 35% increase therefore at around +1 K. Now you say: "Many leading skeptical scientists do not say that the warming is caused by something other than AGW, just that negative feedback means that it [the warming due to AGW] is not a significant problem. " Question: what 'negative feedback'? (as to the 'significance' of the problem I will say nothing in this context). "Secondly the observations do not conform perfectly to AGW theory." - Actually they do. The observations fall quite in the middle of all bona fide theory and model estimations, from Arrhenius 1904 (but not 1986) to the models I encountered during my university years (meteorology/oceangraphy, indeed)as from the middle eighties until today. They do so even in details re distribution of temperature increase re latitude and height.
73653. John Hartz at 02:10 AM on 29 September 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       @John Cook: How do the concepts that you have presented in the above article mesh with your May 30 article, “Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?” ?
73654. grypo at 02:03 AM on 29 September 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       The real issue isn't one of names or tags; it is one of what a person is willing to accept. In the case of climate change, there is an unreal amount of outcomes that can occur, so vast that individuals have no real way to comprehend how our big experiment will change the Earth, society, and people's lives, from rich to the poor, north to the south, etc. There is the magnitude of warming that has a range, there is a range of effects on the hydro-logical cycle, range of effects on jet streams, uncertainty in extreme weather, drought, etc, etc. It is the inability of certain groups of people to accept that range, and that reject that these changes will have strong negative effects on people, society, the environment, etc that is the real problem. A reasonable skeptic will always see the full range of the possibilities, using science a guide. I am perfectly willing to accept that climate change may not be a big deal, that it may not result in catastrophe that calls for large changes to the way in which we produce our energy and use land and transport goods, but what I'm not willing to do is ignore the risk that it will. So until people begin to get on the same page on what the range of risks are, discussing what to do about it seems premature. That is the real risk of denial. So when conversations get heated, and someone calls you a name like 'denier', understand what you are denying and why the other person has become frustrated. And if it's me, I apologize in advance.
73655. Albatross at 02:02 AM on 29 September 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       Good discussion, Chris @38, you make some excellent points. I would argue that "skeptics" like Lindzen and Spencer and Christy are in fact denial about the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). It is not enough to accept that CO2 and CH4 are greenhouse gases (GHGs) and that doubling CO2 will increase the global temperature by about 1.1 K. The theory also states that positive feedbacks (water vapour, albedo etc.) will amplify the warming from GHGs alone. There is abundant evidence from paleoclimate data that support that, not to mention solid physics such as the Clausius-Clapeyron equation. What is obvious is that these skeptics do not openly deny the theory of AGW (they have to maintain some credibility to manufacture debate), instead they create the perception that they do, and instead on focus on trying to obfuscate, undermine and downplay the situation. Now maybe this is not conscious on their part, perhaps like Lomborg, they are in denial about being in denial. Note that Spencer and Lindzen are very cagey and wary of paleoclimate data. There is a reason for this, because those data undermine their entire case/argument for strong negative feedbacks, and for very low climate sensitivity for a radiative forcing of 3.7 W m-2 (in this case from doubling CO2). Note that by ignoring those paleo data they are also denying the full body of evidence. Now this is just a simple case, there are many variants on this by which people rationalize that there is not a problem-- they argue that the surface temperature record is unreliable (sadly even when their own data refute that claim, it does not change their minds), they cherry-pick particular datasets and/or short time windows that support their belief that the planet is not warming or accumulating energy, they argue that the warming is mostly due to internal natural variability (ENSO, PDO), or they argue that it is due to external natural variability (the sun), they may even argue that what we are going to experience is of no concern because climate has always changed in the past, sometimes dramatically and one and one and on it goes ad infinitum.
73656. Martin Waugh at 01:58 AM on 29 September 2011
       Sea level rise due to floating ice?
       Jonathan, Did you mean to say, "...leaving a largely salt-free sheet of ice", instead of "ice-free"?
73657. Kevin C at 01:49 AM on 29 September 2011
       Pielke Sr. Agrees with SkS on Reducing Carbon Emissions
       Could this be where RPSr is getting his 26% figure? If you include water vapour as a forcing rather than a feedback, then the contribution of CO2 is much smaller by proportion. However you would then have to argue that the increase in water vapour in the atmosphere was independent of the increase in temperature due to GHG forcing. If you believe sensitivity is low, then the temperature change due to anthropogenic GHGs is low, then the increase in water vapour must come from somewhere else, and so can be considered a forcing. See for example this table in the Wikipedia article on Greenhouse gas.
       Response:

       [DB] Added link.

73658. dana1981 at 01:23 AM on 29 September 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       cRR - you're missing a key point. The more sophisticated "skeptics" don't deny the greenhouse effect - as Kevin C noted @15, they generally agree on the radiative forcing from increased CO2. That's agreement that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and causes an energy imbalance. Where they disagree is on how sensitive the climate is to those CO2 emissions and that energy imbalance. They think it won't result in a large temperature change. But they don't deny that CO2 is a GHG. But back to the post, the key point is that those in denial are denying the full body of scientific evidence. They'll consider some evidence, but reject other evidence that doesn't conform to what they want to believe. The "attitude bolstering" point in John's post is an interesting concept I hadn't heard of before.
73659. John Hartz at 01:19 AM on 29 September 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       The following is the type of story that will get the average person's attention and neutralize the pseudo-science poppycok being generated the Climate Spin Machine. “The majestic Rockies are delivering a message these days. “Climate change is not a theory, not a debate, in these mountains. It is there for your eyes to witness. The glaciers are shrinking rapidly and changing appearance, even from when I first hiked there as a 10-year-old.” Source: “Icing the case for global warming: The Canadian Rockies' disappearing glaciers,” SeattlePI.com, Sep 27, 2011 To access the entire article, click here.
73660. Albatross at 01:16 AM on 29 September 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       John @33, An interesting article. They quote Lomberg: "He was, he says, never a climate-change denier." Later they quote Lomberg opining that: "Climate change will not cause massive disruptions or huge death tolls. Actually, for the world in general, the direct impact of climate change in 2050 will mean fewer dead, and not by a small amount." It sounds like Lomberg is in denial about being in denial about the consequences of increasing CO2 to its highest level in 35 million years in 2100 (Kiehl 2011) if we continue with business-as usual. Another quote: "The reason he received funding in the first place was ideological," said Ms Auken, environment spokesman for SF, the junior partner in the incoming coalition. "We believe that it is wrong to give funding to specific ideological researchers." Ouch.
73661. Dikran Marsupial at 01:15 AM on 29 September 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       cRR Kampen wrote "the CO2 induced warming is not limited. Its magnitude conforms perfectly to AGW-theory.". It is an overstatement to categorically state that CO2 induced warming is not limited by negative feedback, only that the balance of the available evidence is strongly against it. Secondly the observations do not conform perfectly to AGW theory, again that is an overstatement. The observations are consistent with AGW-theory, however the uncertainties in the measurements and in the spread of th model runs, mean that AGW theory doesn't make tighly constraining predictions that exclude other possibilities. "And again, if they think GW is caused by something other than CO2-increase" as I said, you are not paying sufficient attention to the argument. Many leading skeptical scientists do not say that the warming is caused by something other than AGW, just that negative feedback means that it [the warming due to AGW] is not a significant problem.
73662. chris at 01:13 AM on 29 September 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       I think cRR Kampen has a point. Perhaps a better way of stating the position of denial with respect to greenhouse gases would be to say that these people reject the evidence that: "the dominant contribution to the raised temperature of the Earth above its blackbody temperature arises from greenhouse gasses". If one considers Dr. Lindzen's position on this, we've just seen that he agrees that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is in agreement with the value of its primary radiative forcing. His rejection of the evidence that positive feedbacks amplify the primary effect of CO2 to the degree accepted by the broader scientific community is based on ad hoc objections that don't stand up to scrutiny. Thus: 1. His initial assertion for low sensitivity was that the tropospheric warming resulting from enhanced [CO2] would cause the upper troposphere to dry, thus producing a negative water vapour feedback. We know absolutely that this assertion is incorrect. Dr. Lindzen doesn't adjust his views on feedbacks/sensitivity in the fce of this evidence but moves on to a second ad hoc assertion, viz: 2. The Earth has an "adaptive iris" that opposes temperature excursions from some mean, and which acts via a cloud response that provided a negative feedback. Empirical analysis provides no support for this notion, and in fact recent empricial data (Dessler/Clement) indicates that the cloud feedback is likely to be a marginally positive one (rather than strongly negative). Dr. Lindzen doesn't adjust his views of sensitivity/feedbacks in the face of this evidence, but moves onto a third ad hoc assertion, viz 3. An analysis of short term TOA radiative response to changes in surface temperature over the tropics as measured by ERBE data indicates a rapidly-acting negative feedback. Independent analysis indicates that this interpretation is entirely an artefact resulting from neglecting heat exchange with higher latitudes and an astonishing "cherry pick" of selected analysis time periods. The essential element here is the pursuit of a preconceived view completely in the face of rather well-established contrary evidence. Now we may say that this doesn't mean that Dr. Lindzen "denies" that [CO2] is a greenhouse gas. However he certainly seems to be pursuing a denial that [CO2] acts as a greenhous gas in the manner that is supported by a large amount of independent evidence and analyses.
73663. dissin at 01:12 AM on 29 September 2011
       Sea level rise due to floating ice?
       is the sea level supposed to be static?
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] No. If you have a point to make, please do so directly, rather than asking rhetorical questions.

       Welcome to Skeptical Science! There is an immense amount of reference material discussed here and it can be a bit difficult at first to find an answer to your questions. That's why we recommend that Newcomers, Start Here and then learn The Big Picture.

       I also recommend watching this video on why CO₂ is the biggest climate control knob in Earth's history.

       Further general questions can usually be be answered by first using the Search function in the upper left of every Skeptical Science page to see if there is already a post on it (odds are, there is). If you still have questions, use the Search function located in the upper left of every page here at Skeptical Science and post your question on the most pertinent thread.

       Remember to frame your questions in compliance with the Comments Policy and lastly, to use the Preview function below the comment box to ensure that any html tags you're using work properly.

73664. logicman at 01:11 AM on 29 September 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       Personally, I use the terms 'denier' and 'denial' in their scientific and legal senses. A person is in (psychological) denial if they hold on to a belief despite having their attention drawn to a preponderance of cogent ( i.e. credible and relevant ) evidence. Since a denier does not or cannot accept scientific evidence if it runs counter to their belief system, it follows that they cannot or will not accept any cogent evidence that 'denier' is in any way a scientific term. One way a denier will deny being in denial is to assert that the term applies to Holocaust deniers. Yes, it does - but not exclusively. And a Holocaust denier by the way may be a person who is completely unable to accept the cogency of the evidence which proves that some humans can be exceedingly evil. Not every Holocaust denier is an ideologue. When I was a small child the Astronomer Royal said that space flight was bunk. That was in spite of all of the then recent advances in rocket science. He was a denier of the evidence from the science of ballistics. Shortly afterwards, the USSR launched Sputnik 1. In 1768 a meteor fell at Luce in France. A commission from the French Academy of Science took the testimony of many eye witnesses. That evidence was tampered with and the commission concluded that the stone had been struck by lightning. In 1790 a shower of meteorites fell in France. Despite the physical evidence and about 300 eye-witness accounts sent to scientific journals and organisations, the establishment conclusion was that stones do not fall. The most extreme form of denial is demonstrated when a person is so incapable of accepting a fact that they fabricate evidence in support of whatever idea makes them feel comfortable. For example: it is widely reported in medicine that a stroke victim may deny that an affected limb is their own limb. It seems to me to be key to denial that people will most deny facts if those facts carry implications that they are not in control of their own lives and destinies, or implications that some people have no regard for human life. Speaking entirely hypothetically: if there is cogent evidence that bogus findings about a social harm are being produced for money on behalf of powerful but asocial people, then it is a virtual certainty that many people will take that evidence as a personal attack on the integrity of the producers of the bogus reports and will reinforce their denial thereby.
73665. cRR Kampen at 01:09 AM on 29 September 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       KR, your example of 'minimization' effectively comes down to an example of 'projection'. If climate sensitivity for CO2 increase be low, then GW must be caused by, well, leprechauns. Right, a bit more on topic. Many denialists believe humanity cannot possibly be so powerful as to achieve feats normally ascribed to Mother Nature. I often ask whether they believe humanity can pollute the oceans. This question seems to be too simple to merit answers and well, I never get an answer. Pity as I always like to explain how an air density equal to seawater would reduce the entire atmosphere to a pool just 10 metres deep - as opposed to the oceans which would cover the earth by like 3300 metres...
73666. cRR Kampen at 00:52 AM on 29 September 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       Would like to correct a statement in #34 - "they will have to show that increase of CO2 is in fact much larger than conventional AGW-theory implies... " should read ... they will have to show that temperature increase by increasing CO2 is in fact much larger than conventional AGW-theory implies...
73667. cRR Kampen at 00:51 AM on 29 September 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       #32, but, Dikran Marsupial, the CO2 induced warming is not limited. Its magnitude conforms perfectly to AGW-theory. If denialists want feedback while fully acknowledging the effect of CO2, they will have to show that increase of CO2 is in fact much larger than conventional AGW-theory implies... And again, if they think GW is caused by something other than CO2-increase they effectively think CO2 is no or negligibly a GHG OR that there exists, separately, a cooling effect leading to the grand total of +1 K since 1900 (so: 'other warming effect' + CO2-increase + 'cooling effect' = 1 K + 1 K - 1 K = 1).
73668. John Hartz at 00:51 AM on 29 September 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       Will the Climate Denial Spin Machine come to Lomborg’s resuce? Bjorn Lomborg, author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist” and bête noire of climate change activists around the world, has been told that the incoming Danish government will cut off his £1m a year funding. Source: “World's leading climate sceptic sees his funding melt away fast,” The Independent (UK), Sep 28, 2011 To access the entire article, click here.
73669. Dikran Marsupial at 00:41 AM on 29 September 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       cRR Kampen Sorry, you are not paying sufficient attention to the argument being presented. Denialists agree with the mainstream on the direct GHG effect of CO2, so they do not "vastly understate the GHG-characteristic of CO2". It is also not correct that they have to find a major cooling that is not due to feedback from a CO2 increase. IIRC Spencer claims that cloud feedback will limit the CO2 induced warming.
73670. KR at 00:41 AM on 29 September 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       cRR Kampen - Denial has several forms, all of which are problematic when something needs to be dealt with. I feel it's important to be clear on these distinctions, as not all denial has the same pattern. * Simple denial - Deny an unpleasant fact entirely. I think this is often seen by those claiming the temperature records are incorrect, that the greenhouse effect violates thermodynamics, CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, the whole collection of "It's not happening" statements. While almost impossible to discuss matters with, I don't believe this group represents the majority of the skeptics. * Minimization - Admit the fact, but rationalize that it's not serious. People clinging to any shred of evidence whatsoever to claim that Climate sensitivity is low fall into this category, and it seems to include a number of those skeptics with some scientific credentials. * Projection - It's happening, it's serious, but it's not us! It's a natural cycle, it's the sun, or it's cosmic rays! I'm always surprised more of these folks aren't claiming that it's leprechauns. Motivations are a rather separate topic - but one of the big motivators for the rather intense funding of climate denial is economic interests who don't want to see their market dry up. And that pulls in a great many folks who feel a deep need for denial - a basic human defense mechanism. To quote from the Big Chill, rationalization is more important than sex.
73671. Lloyd Flack at 00:40 AM on 29 September 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       John Hartz, the spin machine is less important in my opinion than biases of individual polarized persons. I don't think we have top down manipultions by the likes of the Koch Brothers so much as a bottom up movement of people seeking to believe what is comfortable for them to believe. The people that you think of as manipulators are I think themselves captive of this movement. They are in an echo chamber that they have sought out, just like the rank and file denialists. I think they are reinforcers rather than originators of denialism.
73672. cRR Kampen at 00:37 AM on 29 September 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       Riccardo #23, ""So at least HE believes CO2 is a GHG, just a very minor one." Proves my argument in major fashion." - said I in #22. Quantification provided. But to paraphrase exactly: the moon and sun exert a gravitational force on the seas BUT the tides are, of course, caused by anything EXCEPT the moon and sun. That is your typical denialist argument. #24 Dikran Marsupial: "so they have to find ways in which the climate is self-stabilising to minimise the actual warming that occurs as a result of the enhanced greenhouse effect - e.g. clouds" - Correct. To be precise: global warming occurs and according to denialists its cause is anything BUT the increase of a certain GHG. That means denialists will either have to vastly understate the GHG-characteristic of CO2 (that is: effectively deny that CO2 is a GHG!) AND provide a different explanation of GW. OR they will concede to CO2 as a greenhouse gas THEREFORE they will have to provide some major cooling effect that is not a feedback from CO2-increase and leaves a total warming of close to 1 K since 1901 (which, by the way, is just about the increase you would expect from 35% more CO2 in the air). Interestingly this would put them in the camp of AGW realists...
73673. Dikran Marsupial at 00:31 AM on 29 September 2011
       Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
       Hi Albatross, the secrecy about the journal is interesting, I hope it isn't Remote Sensing, a third dodgy climate paper would be too much for any new journal! ;o)
73674. Lloyd Flack at 00:31 AM on 29 September 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       John Hartz, ideologues cannot understand how someone with integrity could disagree with them. As a result they believe their opponents to be lacking in integrity and dismiss anything uncomfortable that they say. As well there is an element of supporting sides in politics rather than looking at issues. Denialists cannot bear the thought that political opponents might be right on something. I have too many friends that are denialists and it is exasperating. I've seen what's behind the denialism in their off the cuff remarks.
73675. Jonathon at 00:25 AM on 29 September 2011
       Sea level rise due to floating ice?
       Dikran, see the following explanation. http://nsidc.org/seaice/characteristics/brine_salinity.html
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Cheers, much appreciated! Link activated.

       Having read the link, I suspect the overall salinity of the ice (with the brine inclusions) is still much lower than the sea water. What proportion of the ice sheet is made up of brine inclusions? I suspect it is fairly low. AFAICS there is nothing there to suggest that this is substantially alters the argument presented in this article, even for newly formed ice, unless there is some quantitative information available.
73676. John Hartz at 00:24 AM on 29 September 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       @John Cook: You state, "Certain defence mechanisms are tell-tale signs of denial." Isn't denial itself one the basic defense mechanisms of the human race?
73677. Albatross at 00:22 AM on 29 September 2011
       Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
       Hi Dikran, That is weird, only yesterday I was wondering about the Salby paper. I thought that it should be coming out this week or next week.
73678. John Hartz at 00:21 AM on 29 September 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       On a macro-level, the "climate denial process" has been orchestrated by what I affectionately call the "Climate Denial Spin Machine." This real-world version of the Borg was created and financed by the likes of the Big Oil, Big Coal, and political ideologues such as the Koch brothers, Ruppert Murdoch, etc. Many of the people who post diatribes against climate science and climate scientists on comments threads are nothing more than drones of this sophisticated and well-funded propaganda machine. They have essentially been assimilated.
73679. John Hartz at 00:11 AM on 29 September 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       Political and religious ideologies compel the vast majority of people who rail against climate science and climate scientists on comments threads to do so. It is virtually impossible to reason with an ideologue.
73680. Dikran Marsupial at 00:07 AM on 29 September 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       cRR Kampen Most of those in denial of AGW fully accept that CO2 is a GHG, but assert that negative feedback means that the effects of the CO2 will be inconsequential (e.g. Spencer). Thus they are in no way in denial that CO2 is a GHG, nor do they dispute the direct effect of the radiative forcing from CO2, they just deny that this will cause temperatures to rise. The reason for this is that the fact that CO2 is a GHG and its direct effect on climate are now so strongly established as to be undeniable, even by those in denial (so they have to find ways in which the climate is self-stabilising to minimise the actual warming that occurs as a result of the enhanced greenhouse effect - e.g. clouds).
73681. Riccardo at 00:05 AM on 29 September 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       The tide is caused by the gravitational pull of the moon than the sun has no gravitational effect on the earth. Sorry cRR Kampen but your logic is faulty, you seem to know just "yes" or "no" and are unable to quantify an effect.
73682. cRR Kampen at 23:57 PM on 28 September 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       #19 Dale, "Just because a person in denial says, "the sun caused modern warming" does not exclude a belief that CO2 is a GHG." Yes, it does. If you say the sun caused global warming, then you say the increasing concentration of a certain gas did not cause global warming, thus either denying that gas is a GHG or omitting reference to a cooling effect that must exist somewhere to offset the increase of that GHG. There simply is no cake here that can be both had and eaten. "So at least HE believes CO2 is a GHG, just a very minor one." Proves my argument in major fashion. #18, I sometimes use that word too. Revisionist. Those deniers that associate the verb 'to deny' with Shoa denial begged for it, happy to oblige. All, as matter of fact CO2 is major greenhouse gas. Belief or no belief. Also, global warming is not some kind of mystery! It has a cause even if deniers try to put us up with some kind of magical process.
73683. Alex C at 23:52 PM on 28 September 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       *ozone is a greenhouse gas, but it reacts with UV instead of IR. So, scratch my previous statement. Back on topic, I think that when it comes to "denier" v. "??", we ought to not let people put words in our mouth. That has two aspects: - Don't let them falsely equate a sometimes-used connotation with a word that otherwise perfectly describes the behavior of who is being labeled as such (e.g. "holocaust" onto "denier"); - Don't let them force an unjustified name for themselves onto us (e.g. "skeptics"). If "skeptics" want to be known as real skeptics then they ought to do exactly what a real skeptics does, which is look at the entire body of evidence. Otherwise they are (as Tamino has been putting to good use) "fake skeptics," or "deniers" as so often the shoe fits. Back even more on topic, Since it is actually *not* the case that SkS and the overwhelming majority of pro-AGW blogs and scientists ever use "denier" to equate to holocaust denial, the campaign against "denier" is misplaced. Dragging in people who have not ever implied such a connotation and demanding that they follow a guideline based on a false moral equivalency is (as was said) stark concern trolling and diversionary. The real issue is the science, and what actions would be prudent on our part to take in light of the science.
73684. Alex C at 23:36 PM on 28 September 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       >>>The very phrase 'GHG' implies a non-negligible effect. No, it does not. A GHG is one that reacts vibrationally with IR, there is no requirement for how negligible or not the effect is nor any sort of implication there must be. A whole slew of greenhouse gases have been discovered and quantified: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-10-2.html You are adding an unjustified qualifier. While there indeed is a large portion of people that deny that CO2 is a greenhouse effect (or, like to cling to "studies" demonstrating the effect doesn't even exist), that is not the only form of denial.
73685. critical mass at 23:35 PM on 28 September 2011
       Ocean Heat Content And The Importance Of The Deep Ocean
       Rob Painting @ 48 Well perhaps you could start by identifying what is incorrect and why.
73686. Dale at 23:33 PM on 28 September 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       cRR, Just because a person in denial says, "the sun caused modern warming" does not exclude a belief that CO2 is a GHG. Similarly, for a person in denial to focus on clouds being a negative (ie: they reflect more than they keep in) does not exclude a belief that CO2 is a GHG. Basically, you're completely wrong to state that if they don't think CO2 caused the increased warming that they don't believe CO2 is a GHG. Lindzen for example states in his papers that other factors are primarily responsible for 20thC warming, AND that CO2 was responsible for a very small amount. So at least HE believes CO2 is a GHG, just a very minor one.
73687. Bob Lacatena at 23:29 PM on 28 September 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       Perhaps instead of calling them "deniers" they'd be happier if we called them "revisionists" -- that's what they are trying to do, to revise the science to make it say what they'd like it to say.
73688. cRR Kampen at 23:22 PM on 28 September 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       Riccardo #14, "claiming that the effect on earth's climate is negligible or small will suffice." Contradiction in terms, like water is wet but moist nor damp. The very phrase 'GHG' implies a non-negligible effect. "All of them [climate populists, cRR] agree on the change in forcing due to a doubling of CO2 to within 10% of the IPCC value." said Kevin C. This means CO2 is virtually no GHG, its effect is estimated to be negligible. Proves my point for at least 90%. Refer to my last paragraph in #13 for the rest.
73689. Composer99 at 23:08 PM on 28 September 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       This might be a bit off-topic for this thread, but Eugenie Scott, director of the US' NCSE has a talk up on YouTube describing similar characteristics between denialism in evolution and AGW that she did in Glasgow.
73690. Kevin C at 22:59 PM on 28 September 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       To illustrate Riccardo's point, Spencer says this:

       So, until someone comes along with another quantitative model that uses different physics to get as good a simulation of the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere, I consider objections to the existence of the ‘greenhouse effect’ to be little more than hand waving.

       Lindzen says this:

       For reference purposes, the radiative forcing associated with a doubling of CO2 is about 3.5 watts per square meter.

       Monckton says this:

       From the anthropogenic-era forcings summarized in Table 1, we obtain the first of the three factors – ΔF2x≈ 3.405 W m^–2

       All of them agree on the change in forcing due to a doubling of CO2 to within 10% of the IPCC value.
73691. Riccardo at 22:55 PM on 28 September 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       CRR Kampen AGW deniers don't need to deny the greenhouse effect or that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, claiming that the effect on earth's climate is negligible or small will suffice. This is what prominent skeptic scientists like Spencer, Lindzen, etc., say.
73692. Jonathon at 22:55 PM on 28 September 2011
       Sea level rise due to floating ice?
       While this experiment works for multi-year sea ice, it will not for recently frozen sea water. It takes time (several years) for trapped brine to drain throught the ice. After several years (decades) of increasing sea ice, much of the brine has drained into the ocean, leaving a largely ice-free sheet of ice. As this has melted in recent years, it has contirbuted to sea level rise. The freshly frozen sea ice has a rather large concentration of brine. Roughly 75% of the sea ice melts and re-freezes each year. The melting of this ice will not inflence sea levels. Only melting of multi-year ice will have an effect.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Please supply a verifiable reference to support that argument. As I understand it, the salts are never incorporated into the ice as the ice accumulates molecule by molecule on the underside/edges of the ice sheet, excluding the salts as it goes (as they don't fit well into the crystal structure).
73693. muoncounter at 22:41 PM on 28 September 2011
       Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
       Norman, There's a basic point that keeps slipping through the cracks here. Look back at the original post: from the floods in Queensland, Colombia, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, to the droughts in Texas, Australia, China and the Amazon, and record-setting high temperatures in countries that cover approximately one-fifth of the Earth's surface. Wildfires, snowstorms, tornadoes and hurricanes have also made the headlines in a number of countries. -- emphasis added Look at the PDSI map you posted for July 2011. Deep green (very wet) and Deep Purple (very dry) appear on the same land mass. Compare that to the map you linked for 1934: very dry only. No one has said that there wasn't a drought in 1980 (nor 1934). But this combination of opposite extremes - it's hard to find precedent for that; its downright weird. Note: there is a thread for 1934 was the hottest year. Also note: Deep Purple.
73694. John Russell at 22:40 PM on 28 September 2011
       Sea level rise due to floating ice?
       I should perhaps add that it was the Times' '15% Greenland ice loss' mistake that lead to my originally posting the comment. So I wasn't just referring to sea ice when I made the comment and I wasn't making -- what I thought at the time to be -- the very elementary mistake that melting sea ice raises sea level. Thanks for the comments so far and I look forward to any additions.
73695. Alex C at 22:30 PM on 28 September 2011
       Sea level rise due to floating ice?
       >>>warming which will then be at a rate 80 times faster than we're experiencing today. I do not think that is necessarily true, as the ocean is not a perfectly thermally mixed medium, and also because not all of the heat that is transferred to the Arctic goes only toward melting sea ice. It would be very surprising and unrealistic if Arctic temperatures warmed at such a fast rate, we're talking about 0.3-0.4˚C/dec (at a minimum now) to 2-3˚C/year or more? I don't think so.
73696. cRR Kampen at 22:29 PM on 28 September 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       "For most of them, where the denial comes in is in accepting that it can result in catastrophic climate change." Well, 'catastrophic' is one word I used to not use, though in view of some special incidents like the tornado season, the Pakistani floods, and processes like ice melting everywhere faster than models would've had it, I reconsider. Anyway, your remark - denying that increasing concentrations of CO2 cause climate change - effectively comes down to denying that CO2 is a GHG. I am not oversimplifying at all. I am pointing out the logical fallacy of denialists - which, as you see, is a very simple thing to do. If denialists point to some other factor causing global warming, they deny CO2 is a GHG. If in this stage they don't, they are left with the burden of finding some cooling effect that entirely obliterates the effect of increasing CO2 as well. Regress indefinitely...
73697. John Russell at 21:59 PM on 28 September 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       @cRR Kampen. Methinks you over-simplify. Only the most uninformed of those in denial deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The more advanced accept that CO2 is a GHG. Some even accept that humans are adding to GHGs. For most of them, where the denial comes in is in accepting that it can result in catastrophic climate change. The most dangerous of those in denial are perhaps those that think we'll be able to adapt. The few scientists that are considered to be in denial probably fall into this last camp. The biggest problem we have is that those in denial are so lacking in scepticism that they don't disagree with one another, even when they use favourite denial memes that contradict.
73698. cRR Kampen at 21:58 PM on 28 September 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       "Most of the prominent climate "skeptics" readily concede CO2 is a greenhouse gas." No, they don't. Because that is logically what you do if you deny the 'A' in AGW. If deniers concede the existence of global warming but deny increasing concentration of CO2 is the culprit, then they deny CO2 is a GHG. It is really as simple as that.
73699. John Russell at 21:42 PM on 28 September 2011
       Sea level rise due to floating ice?
       I've been posting the following comment -- or variations thereon -- on several sites over the last week. I've not received much in the way of criticism (it seems to silence most people in denial). I'd be grateful for any constructive comments; and, in the light of MartinS' post, whether I should add any anything further.

       There's a point that those who just look at the rate of melting ice and say, "sea level rise is very slow, so why are we worrying?", fail to recognise. It requires a lot of energy to change the state of ice to water. That change, with no rise in temperature between the point at which water is solid, and then water is liquid, uses 80 times more energy than it does to raise the temperature of water between, say, two degrees and three degrees, or three degrees and four. Thus, currently, melting ice provides huge attenuation to the warming we experience. To melt, ice literally sucks heat out of the sea and thence the atmosphere and the land; delaying the worst effects of our actions. This is high school physics -- clearly way beyond the level of C.Booker, J. Delingpole and Co. Check it up. [Link provided to basic physics site]. As a consequence, as the ice disappears, the massive amount of energy currently being used to melt ice becomes suddenly available to warm the ocean and the atmosphere -- warming which will then be at a rate 80 times faster than we're experiencing today. So the rate of melt accelerates the less ice remains. That's why extrapolating sea level rise from the current rate of melt is likely to produce a false sense of security. This is why scientists are so concerned. They understand this. Polar ice is the shock absorber on the suspension; the buffers on the carriages; the pendulum on the clock. And it's also the canary in the coal mine.

       Thanks.
       Response:

       [DB] For all the reasons you mention, I refer to the Arctic Ocean sea ice cap as the Northern Hemisphere's refrigeration system.  That ice cap is being lost at record rates; once it is gone the thermostat will get ratcheted up.

       As for the rates of oceanic warming sans ice...that picture is complicated by issues with turbidity, mixing layers and changing currents all now relatively constrained by the ice cap.  We'll all be taking that journey together, so we'll see.

73700. Norman at 21:30 PM on 28 September 2011
       Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
       DB @87 I can't take credit for this hypothesis, it comes from this article and is based upon some empirical evidence. Others may have questioned it as reported in article links above but the author of this still believes it has a noticeable effect on temperature. DTR after 9/11.

Prev  1466  1467  1468  1469  1470  1471  1472  1473  1474  1475  1476  1477  1478  1479  1480  1481  Next