Recent Comments

Prev  1469  1470  1471  1472  1473  1474  1475  1476  1477  1478  1479  1480  1481  1482  1483  1484  Next

Comments 73801 to 73850:

73801. Stevo at 15:07 PM on 29 September 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       Ken @72, Pete @73, To further your points, I was visiting another site today where comments were being passed on Australia's upcomming carbon tax and a depressing number of commenters were claiming to have followed the science for long periods of time and were variously claiming that either: the warming isn't happenning, or temperature drives CO2 levels and not the other way around, or CO@ is a trace gas and therefore cannot influence the climate. (And a few other positions as well.) From what I have seen of denialism, while anti-AGW scientists might roughly occupy the same position, that of the general public is all over the place - and often they often profess that their particular opinion is the most commonly held view.
73802. skywatcher at 14:37 PM on 29 September 2011
       Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
       Can't say much more than KR here. Norman, you're clearly quite unwilling to accept evidence to the contrary of your specific claims, and I'm sorry to see that. You've made quite a few, and been rebutted many times now, yet you slide to another argument. Your explanation (without sources) in #105 is desparation in the way that adelady alluded to in my link above, and it's a shame to see. As for earthquake-proofing - ask the poor people of Christchurch. Geological hazards don't always strike where they always used to, and so your argument does not hold.
73803. Pete Dunkelberg at 14:32 PM on 29 September 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       I see to many comments getting overly literal about what deniers deny. They deny the reality of something, and there are various strategies to do that. First, learn some denier methods here: http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/deck.php Next, for environmental denial in general, learn the A-BC's of it: A. It isn't happening B. It's not our fault C. It will be good for us anyway. With climate denial much of the ABC's are about CO2. For Pete's sake don't start arguing about whether deniers literally deny that CO2 is this or that, especially if you are going to agree in your next post that deniers are not consistent. The do they don't, they don't they do. They want to put up a front of reasonableness, so when they must address the question directly they admit that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. "But...." they do not follow through scientifically. It is sort of but not really like those warmists say it is. So it's really the sun or cosmic rays or clouds, rotate the answer next week. Now I want to give you a real live example: Happer http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/The-Real-Truth-About-Greenhouse-Gases-and-Climate-Change_1.pdf Happer is not just some internet Galileo. He is an actual physicist with no excuse for saying or believing any of what he published in a small circulation religious magazine, skipping peer review. *Note that he constructs an entire alternate reality*. Does Happer believe half of what he says? I don't think so. That is, I think he would just about have to believe all or none. It must take some strong psychological force to maintain the wall that blocks reality, and keeps him from noticing that he is repeating well known balony. It may be driven by anger. Even so, I don't think he could notice that half of his points are directly wrong and keep believing the other half. Does this extreme case provide insight into lesser deniers?
73804. Ken E at 14:31 PM on 29 September 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       I think there's considerable misunderstanding about what cRR Kampen appears to be arguing here, and I think he's actually making very good points. Obviously most people here are used to debating with skeptics or denialists who at least have a modicum of scientific background, or are even tenured professors. Most such deniers/skeptics have no choice but to acknowledge the heat-absorbing properties of CO2 because doing otherwise rapidly results in then being laughed out of the scientific community. But I'm pretty sure cRR is talking about lay-person deniers, almost all of whom have no scientific background whatsoever. It's easy for those of us with considerable science background to forget that most of these people have no idea that the color of objects we see is actually anything that can be scientifically explained. And among these people, it may well be true that most such denialists really do refuse to acknowledge that CO2 is a greenhouse gas at all. I've had way too many debates devolve into exactly that after all the completely damning data is conclusively revealed. It's practically a consequential inevitability for people who have chosen the denialist position. And I emphasize the word chosen here, because I really believe that's what's going on with most of these people. Again it's just too easy to forget how foreign the concept of the scientific method actually is to many lay-people. To them the subject is all politics and therefore subject to the plasticity of the opinions they want to have.
73805. KR at 14:26 PM on 29 September 2011
       Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
       Norman - "I am not making any specific claim." Bzzzt!!! You have made a number of specific claims, mostly negative: * Extreme weather has not increased. * Records of disasters are biased by population shifts/changes, and no actual event changes have occurred. Hence the insurance information and FEMA disaster records are inaccurate. * Earthquake numbers are underestimated due to better building codes. * Reporting codes (for weather only, not earthquake, a peculiar distinction) have changed to increase disaster reports. I certainly may have missed a few. Stating that you are "not making any specific claim" is quite disingenuous. I will note that you have really not supported any of these claims with any data.
73806. Bibliovermis at 14:20 PM on 29 September 2011
       Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
       Norman, You are right that if it was just one location during one year, it would be "just weather". It isn't though. The 2011 Texas drought isn't an isolated event. You are eyeballing charts and declaring that they support your already held convictions. That is how you can be wrong by compiling data; fallacy of composition and confirmation bias. You are picking any iota and clutching it, such as total days over 105 in Dallas, to prove that the observed weather is not unusual.
73807. muoncounter at 13:43 PM on 29 September 2011
       Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
       Norman, "I am not making any specific claim" You've made quite a few claims. You picked a few years, a few storms, a few months and said 'see? just like now.' You are 'arguing against the author's position' and yet I wonder: Have you read the book in this post? You've said that this past year was nothing other than the ordinary weather beast and that one year is not enough data. Here's what Jeff Masters, with 30 years in the business, says: "Never in my 30 years as a meteorologist have I witnessed a year like 2010--the astonishing number of weather disasters and unprecedented wild swings in Earth's atmospheric circulation were like nothing I've seen." You're citing drought information from 1914; yet you question hurricane records before the satellite age. Isn't that one-way skepticism?
       Response:

       [DB] "one year is not enough data"

       Indeed.  Let's have Norman consider the period 2008-2011:

       

       June-July-August surface temperature anomalies in units of standard deviations relative to the climate of 1951-1980. [Source]

       From the above linked source:

       So the occurrence of unusual Texas heat and drought is consistent with expectations for increasing CO2.

       The frequency of an anomaly greater than +2σ is only 2-3 percent in the period of climatology for a normal distribution. The frequency of a +3σ event is normally less than one-half of one percent of the time. The numbers on the upper right corner of each map are the percentages of the global area covered by each of the seven categories of the color bar.

       [the above figure] reveals that the area with temperature anomaly greater than +2σ covers 20-40 percent of the planet in these recent years, and the area greater than +3σ is almost 10-20 percent. The United States has been relatively 'lucky', with the only +2-3σ areas being the Texas region in 2011 and a smaller area in the Southeast in 2010. However, these events are sufficiently fresh in people's memories that they provide a useful measure of the practical impact of a 3σ anomaly.

       [Emphasis added]

73808. Norman at 13:28 PM on 29 September 2011
       Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
       skywatcher @82 "When geological disasters increase more slowly than weather disasters, what is your explanation?" I have one possible explanation. Not necessarily a good one, maybe you won't accept it. Here goes. The population has increased as well as personal wealth and property over time. Disasters would increase as well if everything else stayed the same (more people could be killed or wounded as well as more dollar amount damage). Disasters are events that involve people and property. An F5 tornado is not a disaster until it causes some damage. Hit an empty field, no disaster. Hit a city and you have a major disaster. Only a few people are now tornado proofing their homes. I do not know any who make homes flood resistant except to build on stilts like in Galveston, Texas. However people moving into earthquake areas do build property to be somewhat resistant to quakes. The damage of a moderate quake with these building procedures in place is a lot less severe than in areas without rigid building codes. This preventative building code can explain why earthquake disasters are not following the weather related trends. How many more people are building in flood plains than in the past?
73809. Norman at 13:11 PM on 29 September 2011
       Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
       muoncounter @98 skywatcher quote: "Norman, is there a point at which you'll accept that extreme events are on the rise, seeing as you've been contesting everything in muoncounter's post? How many more extreme events will it take?" I do like science based evidence. I do not believe disater charts are a valid form of reporting extreme events for reasons I have already stated. Shifting dependent variable has an effect (population increase, movement, and property values are not a constant). Valid reporting would be of such a nature. Scientifically (precision is key) recorded extreme weather events based upon a set standard like hurricanes or tornadoes (some scale of severity). For rain it could be rainfall amounts and how much this rainfall event covers. More rain over a larger area is a higher category rain event. Compile the data and observe a trend. One extreme year is not a valid trend or some point outside the normal. Like this year Texas had a super drought and high temps. So far it was a one year event. If this would continue for a few years it would be good evidence for the book's thesis. muoncounter: "To that question, I would add: What makes you so sure, when a number of experts are saying you're wrong?" Who is saying I am wrong. I am not making any specific claim. I am only compiling data that is available on the Internet (preferablly from a reliable source like NOAA). How can I be wrong about anything by posting past PDSI graphs to show that patterns have repeated? I am not sure about anything at this time. I am just doing what a scientist should do. Research. The claim is made that there are more extreme weather events than previous times. Maybe there are but as little reporting of events was compiled in the past I am not sure what these claims are based upon. To get extreme weather events of the past you would have to go dig up archives of old papers and magazines to search for some weather extremes of the past. NOAA only goes back so far that is why I chose 1993 with a super storm. Even with hurricanes and tornadoes. Only those empacting people were reported. In the early part of the century (before planes and satellite views) people may not have recorded hurricanes that stayed out at sea. My claim is the information available about past weather extremes is fuzzy and not real clear (like a fog, one can make out the bigger items but many other items are lost that now are being counted and logged). Long post...sorry!
73810. skywatcher at 13:11 PM on 29 September 2011
       Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
       Norman #99: [BTW the link to Norman's article is still broken?] I read the Pielke paper, and I see what he tried to do. I don't think he succeeded, because his approach was rather like looking at tide gauges from the east coast of the USA and concluding that global sea level rise was nothing to worry about. But you didn't answer my key point - if the numbers of weather disasters increases faster than the number of geological disasters, then you're accounting for population, wealth etc. Why the disparity? Do Pielke's 'corrections' result in a large decrease in geological disasters over the same timescale I wonder? I also am not so concerned about specifically hurricane trends in isolation, as they are open for discussion (e.g. possibly reduced numbers of hurricanes but more severe ones, increased temperature/moisture supply but reduced wind shear etc). I'm much more concerned about overall trends in precipitation amount and intensity, and drought amount and intensity, and overall patterns of a range of different kinds of extreme weather. A 0.8C rise in global mean annual temperature is not 'small', unless you think the range of temperature change from glacial to interglacial is only 'moderate'.
       Response:

       [DB] Fixed link.

73811. BC at 12:59 PM on 29 September 2011
       The Climate Show #19: A Tale of Two Poles
       What occurred to me with John's comments about Greenland is that the loss of cover would be from areas where the ice is thin at the edges, so 15% of ice cover loss would not necessarily equate to 15% of Greenland ice loss. This in turn means 15% of cover loss would not equate to 1m of sea level rise. Or is the thickness at the edges similar to the middle? (John Cook does not have an accent but Glenn Williams does. I live in Brisbane)
73812. Norman at 12:55 PM on 29 September 2011
       Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
       muoncounter @100 The point of that post was not about the total number of huuricanes. It was that a disaster is very complex beast and not a very good indicator of what is really taking place. The paper shows disasters skyrocket (nonormalized data) but the actual number of hurricanes hitting had no trend. If you take in the population movement and the increase in property value you can see disasters do not always equate to the reality.
73813. Norman at 12:45 PM on 29 September 2011
       Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
       DB @96 "So does Powell manage to answer the questions he sets out to answer, namely whether there is now a 'preponderance of evidence' that climate change is under way? He certainly makes his position clear: for him, there is already enough evidence to take action and prevent the worst from occurring. It is difficult to argue against this. Of course, extreme events have always occurred, without the help of humans, but it is the number of recent record-breaking events or worst events in decades that should make us stand up and take note." What I am attempting in these posts with muoncounter and skywatcher is to take the difficult stand and argue against the author's conclusion. The topic is that severe weather events are increasing in number. I am looking at past events to see if this is a valid conclusion. In all honesty try the challenge I had for muoncounter in Post #90. Look at drought animations of the last 30 years compared to another 30 year segment and see if there is evidence to support the claim made by the book. It is not an agenda. It is science. I am looking at evidence. Reporting does not go back very far and gets sketchy at best. What I provided in post 95 was a link to one of the years on the NOAA sight detailing extreme weather in the US. The overall year may have seemed normal but there were several extremes within that normal. The Earth has warmed a small amount from CO2 emissions and I am just supposed to accept that this small increase is responsible for highly unnatural extreme weather events. I think one seriously needs to examine some evidence before accepting this thesis as a reality or fact.
       Response:

       [DB] "What I am attempting in these posts with muoncounter and skywatcher is to take the difficult stand and argue against the author's conclusion."

       and

       "It is not an agenda.  It is science."

       That is hardly a skeptical approach to take, to take a position and then look for evidence to support it.  You discount adaptation as a human response to minimize damage to property and loss of life due to severe weather and constantly cherry-pick isolated events to support your adopted position.  There is nothing scientific about that approach at all.

       "The Earth has warmed a small amount from CO2 emissions and I am just supposed to accept that this small increase is responsible for highly unnatural extreme weather events."

       The Earth has warmed by a truly staggering amount when one considers the converging evidence, such as the immense energy stored by the warming oceans since 1970 (to name but one example).  The warming experienced thus far is largely due to the CO2 emissions from 30+ years ago.  The emission rise since will cause a temperature rise that has yet to be felt (due to the lags in the system).

       "I think one seriously needs to examine some evidence before accepting this thesis as a reality or fact."

       That is truly apparent.

73814. muoncounter at 12:32 PM on 29 September 2011
       Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
       "no trend in the actual hurricanes that have hit the US" That's because 'hitting the US' is a biased standard. There is a trend in named storms; we went around and around on this here. As is category, which is based entirely on wind. As we saw in Irene and TS Allison, torrential rain is very bad.
73815. alan_marshall at 12:29 PM on 29 September 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       Why the Political Schism? A study in the Spring 2011 issue of Sociological Quarterly revealed that political polarisation over climate change is growing. According to this study, In 2010 only 29% of Republican voters saw man-made warming as real, compared to 70% of Democratic voters. I would like to see some peer-reviewed research into the reasons for this. Is it that Republicans are better educated than Democrats? No, I have seen no surveys that would support that conclusion. Are Republicans more intelligent on average than IPCC scientists? Er, excuse me, but I don’t think so. There can be only one plausible explanation for such a yawning gap, and that is that Republicans are in denial!
73816. Norman at 12:22 PM on 29 September 2011
       Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
       skywatcher @64 "I'd say it's a more complete survey of extreme weather events than Pielke Jr's attempt to evaluate just coastal counties' hurricane damage (thus avoiding inland flooding from hurricane remnants), and doesn't involve sums of money. There are of course weaknesses as to how individual disasters are declared, but it is more evidence. Note how the rising trend with an early spike in 1998 looks rather familiar" Please reread the important quote from the Pielke paper. The content of the paper was not to discredit AGW, but warn people about moving to the coasts in large houses. "A normalization provides an estimate of the damage that would occur if storms from the past made landfall under another year’s societal conditions. Our methods use changes in inflation and wealth at the national level and changes in population and housing units at the coastal county level. Across both normalization methods, there is no remaining trend of increasing absolute damage in the data set, which follows the lack of trends in landfall frequency" There was no trend in the actual hurricanes that have hit the US but the raw disaster data showed a sharp upswing. Once you normalize for population shift and propery values the upward trend is more reflective of actual hurricane number and intensity reaching the coastal areas. Look at figure 3 of this article.. At the end they list all the hurricanes that have hit the US and you can compare the category of hurricane to the damage in Figure 3 and you can see how unreflective disaster graphs are of actual weather events. I think it becomes significant if you think about it. Remember a scientist will investigate all angles to arrive at the Truth. You may be totally convinced that the Earth is headed for disaster like a car going over the cliff, do not let this sensation stop you from investigation.
       Moderator Response:

       [muoncounter] fixed closing link tag

73817. Ken in Oz at 12:20 PM on 29 September 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       Denial of the seriousness of human induced climate change is just as much denial of climate science as outright denial of the link between GHG's and climate. It's the most widespread kind of denial and the most insidious for it's ability to undermine the will to engage the problem head on with eyes open; it favours delay and favours inadequate policy even amongst people who claim to accept the mainstream scientific conclusions on the phenomena. It undermines the capacity to weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of every policy proposal by downgrading the 'value' of the expected harms which tends to exaggerate the perception that the costs involved are largely unnecessary. Outright denial is much easier to refute, has far less capacity to gain wide acceptance and lacks the power to make half-measures seem much more acceptable than the minimum measures the science clearly shows to be urgently needed.
73818. muoncounter at 12:00 PM on 29 September 2011
       Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
       Norman, The observations Masters made here includes the time period of your super storm. the wild roller-coaster ride of incredible weather events during 2010, in my mind, makes that year the planet's most extraordinary year for extreme weather since reliable global upper-air data began in the late 1940s. Never in my 30 years as a meteorologist have I witnessed a year like 2010--the astonishing number of weather disasters and unprecedented wild swings in Earth's atmospheric circulation were like nothing I've seen. "the reality of the beast called weather." This will continue going in circles until you answer skywatcher's question: How much would it take for you to admit that the weather beast has new fangs? To that question, I would add: What makes you so sure, when a number of experts are saying you're wrong? "if you see the same cracks for years and they do not seem to be getting worse your thinking about disaster may gradually go down." In other words, you have to ask yourself 'do I feel lucky?' I seem to recall NASA Ames did some tests of small chunks of foam impacting a space shuttle wing that produced nothing to be concerned about. That was prior to Feb 1, 2003.
73819. adelady at 11:55 AM on 29 September 2011
       Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
       Norman "... then if you see the same cracks for years and they do not seem to be getting worse your thinking about disaster may gradually go down." And if that bridge is in an earthquake zone, or an area subject to storm surges or other flooding, or drought that shrinks and cracks the underlying clay or .... name your soil destabilising phenomenon, you'd be saying what exactly? You've been lucky so far, but you're really pushing your luck now.
73820. skywatcher at 11:48 AM on 29 September 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       Dale, what is much more relevant is that even the most respectable 'skeptics', such as Spencer, Pielke or Lindzen must deliberately ignore or disregard part of the body of evidence in order to maintain their positions. For example when climate sensitivity comes up, these skeptics will almost never discuss or accept the body of evidence that is palaeoclimate (either geological or Quaternary. See Chris (#38) and Albatross (#43) already on this. Richard Alley's AGU talk alone provides enough evidence to utterly demolish very low climate sensitivity or GCR arguments. That's without even getting into the nitty gritty of cloud nucleation or tropical cloud observations, in which Dessler and many others have very capably shown Spencer, Lindzen et al to be quite wrong directly. And it's not as if Pielke, Spencer, Lindzen et al are coming up with quantitative reasons why palaeoclimate estimates of sensitivity are wrong, they just try and ignore them or say they are not relevant (Pielke). That, to me, is awfully close to full-blown denial of rationality, covered up by being seen to accept the most obviously rock-solid elements of the theory while hiding their denial of other very strong elements of the theory.
73821. Norman at 11:36 AM on 29 September 2011
       Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
       muoncounter, Another one for you. I wonder what Jeff Master's would have said about this storm? Super Storm of 1993.
       Response:

       [DB] Do please try to focus more on the topic of this thread:  Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell

       You are sounding ever more as one in pursuit of an agenda (denial of climate change and extreme weather) and less as one examining all of the evidence critically.  For example, your Black Knight routine after the lack of evidence supporting your position on contrails was pointed out to you, and now you furnish yet another link (off-topic on this thead) in an effort to prosecute your agenda followed on the earlier extreme weather thread.

       A greater effort to stay on topic and examining all of the evidence would enhance your position.

73822. Norman at 11:28 AM on 29 September 2011
       Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
       muoncounter @93 "If you were a structural engineer and you saw a pattern of incipient cracks in the supports of a bridge, would you say 'its not bad'?" You may indeed think it is bad, but then if you see the same cracks for years and they do not seem to be getting worse your thinking about disaster may gradually go down. The list of "yes, but --- was just as bad' keeps growing"... Maybe it keeps growing because that is the reality of the beast called weather. Here is one sample. "This report provides a review of the winter of ???? a winter of unusual extremes in parts of the country. Although December was not unusually active, January and February proved to be quite interesting. Those months included the following extreme events: The January blizzard and ensuing flooding in the Northeast, and then in February-- a severe cold wave, Pacific Northwest flooding, and unusual warmth and fires in the southern plains. Another interesting aspect of the past winter was the 'seesaw' pattern of temperatures and precipitation over much of the nation. Extremely cold conditions (such as early February) were often followed by unusual warmth. The same applied to precipitation, with the Northwest beginning the season on the dry side, and then moving into a very wet pattern. Therefore, as is sometimes the case in climatology, the averages of the season as a whole belie the extremes contained within." Can you guess the years? It was not cherry-picked. Just a random grab. My perception is that weather extremes take place every year. Unless directly affected, the actual occurence fades from memory. It is only the globalization of media that exposes so many areas extremes to us in a rapid fashion that we feel things are getting really bad, even though they may not be. I still challenge the disaster count. I had long debates about this with Tom Curtis on the SkS thread here. Here is the link to the above quote on climate extremes. Random sample from NOAA on extreme weather in US.
73823. skywatcher at 11:27 AM on 29 September 2011
       Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
       Just reading the 'recent comments', and two side-by-side comments seemed worth connecting. adelady's latest comment on another thread somehow seems incredibly relevant to muoncounter's comment here at #93. Norman, is there a point at which you'll accept that extreme events are on the rise, seeing as you've been contesting everything in muoncounter's post? How many more extreme events will it take?
73824. Dale at 11:03 AM on 29 September 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       To the topic of the article by John, it's interesting reading cRR's comments. For all intents and purposes I think it stands as one good demonstration of the act of denying. cRR is effectively denying that sceptics can hold to the greenhouse effect and that increased CO2 can affect the climate at the same time as disagreeing with another component. cRR appears to be using the 'cherry-pick' method of denial by focusing on the "man-made CO2 is causing global warming" whilst ignoring the evidence that some notable sceptics believe other (natural) factors influence the climate more/less. Quite relevant for the topic I believe. :)
73825. muoncounter at 10:59 AM on 29 September 2011
       Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
       Norman#91: "the combination of extremes but it is not that "weird"." So the list of things disputed grows: the findings of the author of the book in this post, Jeff Masters' blog post on extreme weather events, disaster counts by professionals who deal in disasters, hurricane/tropical storm trends, flooding trends, 2011's drought vs. 1980, 2011's drought vs. 1934, 1981 - 2011 vs. any other arbitrary 30 year period's PDSI 'pattern.' Do we have a trend here? I find it revealing that the list of things requiring a 'yes, but --- was just as bad' keeps growing. I did some graduate work in earthquake seismology a number of years ago. Nobody at that time would 'predict' a large earthquake, but everybody sure knew the signs that something was building up. With a consistent cluster of foreshocks, geothermal activity, anomalous uplift or tilt and strange animal behaviors, it would be time to avoid tall buildings for a while. But with climate data, it's ok to look at these patterns and say 'it's not that bad.' If you were a structural engineer and you saw a pattern of incipient cracks in the supports of a bridge, would you say 'its not bad'?
73826. adelady at 10:54 AM on 29 September 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       milka, I believe you're largely right about money interests and motives. But not entirely. We all want to believe that we're good people - or rational, sensible, responsible, caring - whatever counts as 'good' in a context. We also want to believe that what we do is right for ourselves, our families, whoever and whatever is important to us. All of which means that it's all too easy for us to kid ourselves that what we want to do is also the right thing to do and will bring the best outcomes. And along comes our very best friend, rationalisation, to help us out. The classic case of denialism is the very personal one of medical diagnosis - of something we really, really don't want to be true. Terminal illness. Many people will literally refuse to believe this, some of them for a very long time. Many more people will persuade themselves that 'it can't be that bad'. And instead of taking the recommended course of action which requires acknowledging the seriousness of their situation, they'll do nothing at all. Or spend lots of time and money on dietary supplements or fall victim to charlatans touting miracle cures (which aren't really necessary but I'd like to feel better). If new problems arise, it can't be the progress of the illness, they rationalise that it's something else entirely. And when it all comes to the predictable crisis point, undeniable, incurable, debilitating symptoms that can't be rationalised away it's all the doctors' fault for not fixing it when all hope is gone. My view of many people in denial about climate change is that they're at the shopping around for a miracle stage, even though miracles are only offered by charlatans. The fact that they make money or keep money by doing so is not irrelevant. But the denial makes it possible to keep on believing that you're a good, responsible citizen while you're doing so.
73827. Norman at 10:45 AM on 29 September 2011
       Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
       Thank you Daniel Bailey for the instruction on posting direct graphics. Muoncounter, I am posting the graphics of the years I listed in post 91.
73828. muoncounter at 10:38 AM on 29 September 2011
       There is no consensus
       Dana69: "even among climate experts they are not all expert in each others specialty ... it appears that the consensus is saying it is not based on the scientific method but rather on popularity." This argument is very strange. Would it be better if most climate scientists - whatever their specialty - disagreed with the important elements of a theory? Seems to me that if that were the case, you'd be arguing 'there's no agreement among scientists!' It is also most often the 'pseudo-skeptics' who bring up this consensus issue. Those who have looked at evidence objectively seem content that many independent lines of evidence point in the same direction. That's the consensus worth talking about.
73829. milka at 10:21 AM on 29 September 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       John There's a 6th common characteristic of the denialist movement: the profit motive. Just as Big Tobacco knew the dangers of smoking, Big Carbon know their polluting days are numbered. Denial helps ensure profits continue for as long as their propaganda holds up. Does anyone really believe reputable Fin Review journalists like Trevor Sykes (Pierpont) are genuine climate skeptics? Sykes is Patron of the Sydney Mining Club and a Board member of Austex Oil. No pressure there! Doesn't mean he doesn't write witty or brilliant articles, just that he has a vested interest in spreading the skeptic propaganda. He's no different in this respect from people like Peter Mitchell, the man behind the Landscape Guardians who successfully sent investment in wind farms into freefall recently in Victoria or any other right winger with mining interests. Ian Plimer is on no less than 4 mining boards. No-one really believes they're stupid enough not to "get" global warming. They just want to put off regulation for as long as possible by pretending there is a "debate" about the science. The BBC has now decided there is no phony "debate" and skeptics get little media attention in the UK now.
73830. NewYorkJ at 09:49 AM on 29 September 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       Dave123's link is relevant to the discussion. Spencer isn't the only supposedly "sophisticated" skeptic who has signed this. "We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history." The last sentence is pretty hardcore denialism. Interesting, though, that this declaration also has a section entitled "WHAT WE DENY". Wouldn't that make them "deniers" by definition? Included in this section: "1.We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry." Note the implication that the effect, at most, is "miniscule" or negligible. Values, which include religious values, are important in determining what humanity should do about global warming. We need to be good stewards of the Earth, for example. In sharp contrast, the declarations above dismiss scientific findings in favor of a religious view. It concludes that human activities can't be causing warming, because God would never create an Earth that would ever be vulnerable to human impacts.
73831. Dave123 at 09:27 AM on 29 September 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       I hope this isn't regarded as ad homenim on this particular thread- but as far as I'm concerned Spencer declared himself a non-scientist when he signed the Cornwall Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming. Cornwall Signers One cannot expect anything from him other than efforts to reinforce his religious beliefs. This kind of denial is also found on the basis of politics- once you've concluded that the post-Vietnam environmental movement is a watermelon (green on the outside, red on the inside) you will see everything in terms of a collectivist conspiracy. Data doesn't matter, evidence doesn't matter.
73832. Norman at 09:22 AM on 29 September 2011
       Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
       muoncounter @ 89 I will agree with you that 2011 does have the largest of the type of pattern with the the combination of extremes but it is not that "weird". Looking at the 100+ years of August for the Palmer drought index, the pattern has come up in other years. In 1914 the combination was there only east/west rather than north/south. In 1917 the pattern shows up, just a smaller version. In 1919 you have a reverse of 2011. Wet south but dry north. 1951 has the pattern of 2011. It is greater than 1917 but not as much as 2011. I am not sure such a pattern of extremes (very dry and very wet) is unusual or "downright weird".
73833. Norman at 09:09 AM on 29 September 2011
       Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
       muoncounter, A climate challenge for you to give to your students (if you are a teacher). I am performing the test as I post on different windows. Using the NOAA Palmer drought index you linked graphs to in post 58. This page allows animations of any year you wish to select from 1900 to 2011. Here is the challenge (like the blindfold taste tests). Take the 30 year period (1981-2011) as one animation. Now pick a few other 30 year animations from the list and have your students watch them side by side and see if they can pick the last 30 years from a clear signal of increasing rainfall patterns and droughts. If they can they are better than me. I can't see any relevant pattern in my current selection. I can recognize 2011 by that unique pattern of lots of moisture north and very dry south but the overall 30 year period certainly does not show any obvious pattern that things are getting more extreme. If you do the challenge let me know how the results come up.
73834. skywatcher at 08:52 AM on 29 September 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       There's some really good comments here. I don't have much to add, beyond commenting on the high quality of posts like those from Albatross, Chris, grypo and others, and of course John Cook's original post. I continue to learn a lot here! Rob's #58 is very relevant. We can understand denial quite well, but the challenge is what to do about it and how to combat it, either directly or indirectly. In some cases, we can stop denial taking root in the hidden readers, perhaps?
73835. Same Ordinary Fool at 07:25 AM on 29 September 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       "Denier" could be defined as a "heretic to the beliefs of the publishing skeptic climate scientists": Lindzen, Spencer and Christy. With low sensitivity and clouds being considered as issues that are still in play in mainstream climate science. This is a clearcut definition based on skeptic terms, so it can't be disparaged as being from a consensus conspiracy.. And it emphasizes the reality gap between DIY theories and publishing 'respectability'.
73836. Dave123 at 06:52 AM on 29 September 2011
       Pielke Sr. Agrees with SkS on Reducing Carbon Emissions
       Dana69- There is clearly a disconnect, as I didn't ask you to validate Dr. Pielke's data. I asked you to show where he offered any. Your responsive quote is an opinion expressed by Dr. Pielke, a conclusion, not what the underlying data is. If you see the confusion in the posts between then and now I think you might find that a good faith effort is being made to figure this out. Please also note in the comments a willingness to explore changes (albedo vs methane) rather than a knee-jerk adherence to the IPPC. This is a good crew. Dana1981 is going to provide reason why the SkS side believes that Dr. Pielke is off by a factor of 2 on the role of CO2 in the global energy imbalance. But without Dr. Pielke's data and reasoning for his 26% we lack a complete story. The problem is that instead of putting this data into the posts, Dr. Pielke provided it in references. The 26% is an admitted back-of-the-envelope calculation provided in this Slide presentation: Source Presentation . However, this isn’t a peer reviewed publication. In slide 11 and 12 however, he cites research showing 1) An increase of 0.5 in total radiative forcing 2) Increased contributions from a number of other components Now, I can’t duplicate 26% for CO2, I get 31% and CO2 remains the largest single factor regardless. The IPPC reference on slide 9 is not a currently functioning link, and I can’t get the IPPC number to come out to 58% either. But this is to be expected eyeballing graphs. I want to add a cautionary note regarding Dr. Pielke’s higher value for methane. One of the catastrophe theories related to AGW is the release of methane from permafrost and subsea methane clathrates. There is concern about the margins of the Siberian Artic Shelf Real Climate Discussion The RealClimate folks take a non-alarmist position on this. But there is a short notice expedition to the area because of concern about accelerated rates. Expedition Given that the rate of decline of ice in the artic has been underestimated by the IPPC, and our lack of knowledge in general of this formerly ice-bound area I think book makers might start shading the odds of a significant methane release. In other words, while Dana1981 has said he will argue for Dr. Pielke overestimating methane’s role, I’m worried that Dr. Pielke is right.
73837. Phil M at 06:48 AM on 29 September 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       It seems a lot of skeptics in denial apply double standards. They loathe the word denier, but use words like "warmist", "alarmist" & "CAGW" with high frequency.
73838. Tom Smerling at 05:44 AM on 29 September 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       For me the bottom line is John C's reply above: "The point of my article is that this is not about labels, it's about understanding the process of denial," As they say, "Hate the sin, not the sinner," and when it comes to denial, we're all sinners sometimes, about something. And let's avoid labels, and keep in mind the key audience is not the vocal critic across the table, it's the onlookers gathered 'round, some of whom have still not made up their minds.
73839. JMurphy at 05:31 AM on 29 September 2011
       There is no consensus
       Dana69 wrote : Each of the following examples were initially rejected by the consensus, but the consensus changed based on evidence. the theory of continental drift... Well, it's hardly surprising that it was rejected, when Wegener believed that the physical processes involved were to do with the rotation of the earth or gravitational attraction involving the sun and moon. Would you have believed that ? I doubt it, because the calculations didn't add up. It was only when the theory of Plate Tectonics was refined and provable, and the forces involved were undestood to be thermal convection currents within the mantle, that the original theory (albeit adapted) could be accepted and proved. How does that compare with the theory of AGW ? Is there another theory out there that you think might be better ?
73840. Albatross at 05:13 AM on 29 September 2011
       There is no consensus
       Dana69 @445, "So why bother using consensus as an argument at all?" I've explained why to you above @443. I'm sorry Dana69, but you really are saying an awful lot without really saying anything. That is why I was asking you to answer some specific questions to try and determine where you are coming from. You say "it appears that the consensus is saying it is not based on the scientific method but rather on popularity." Let me remind you about the purpose of this post, the main post was made to address this claim made in a petition: "The Petition Project features over 31,000 scientists signing the petition stating "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere" The goal of that petition is to advance the claim that there is "no convincing evidence" for AGW and that that opinion is held by many people with credentials. Well there is compelling evidence, from multiple, independent lines of evidence in fact. You talk above about "popularity", well such petitions are just that, and worse yet, signed by people not qualified to speak to the subject. Do you endorse such petitions as a refutation of the theory of AGW? I hope you agree that such an approach is not the scientific method, unlike how the theory of AGW was arrived at. "Since most of the scientists signing on to the AGW "consensus" are not climate experts" Not true. Please read Anderegg et al. (2010) a link is provided in the body text. Please note the tiny fraction of people who sign petitions wishing away the theory of AGW are qualified to speak to climate science. Is that OK by you? "Since most of the scientists signing on to the AGW "consensus" are not climate experts -- in fact even among climate experts they are not all expert in each others specialty -- Dr. Trenberth for example is not a hurricane expert" I'm sorry, this is an absurd point. But it does underscore why consilience is so important. Trenberth has shown that the water vapour content of the atmosphere is increasing as temperatures increase, that is a positive feedback that is key to the theory of AGW and perfectly consistent with the Clausius-Clapeyron equation. Whether or not he has experience to speak to how hurricanes will respond to a warming planet is not relevant, and besides, how hurricanes respond to a warmer planet has nothing to do with the validity of theory of AGW. So I'm sensing some strong one-sided skepticism here by you Dana69. Lindzen is a meteorologist by training, so by your logic he is simply subscribing to popular opinion when he agrees that doubling CO2, in theory, will warm the planet by 1.1 C or so.
73841. Paul D at 05:11 AM on 29 September 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       I think those that say they are not in denial because 'climate has always changed' are probably being pedantic about the interpretation. If you believe climate has always changed (who can disagree with that?), you can still be denying that humans are causing it and ignore the large amount of science showing we are responsible. The 'denial' is the denial of responsibility. eg. the denial exists, it's just moved over the years. Some 10 years ago denial was that it wasn't warming, now it is warming, denial has become more sophisticated. But it is still there. The deniers are just moving the goal posts each time new evidence comes in, so that they can keep denying!
73842. logicman at 05:07 AM on 29 September 2011
       Sea level rise due to floating ice?
       When sea ice forms it is a mixture of ice crystals and salt water. As the ice crystals link together and expand they squeeze the brine into pockets. The brine pockets end up being squeezed out along the bottom of the ice. Newly formed ice contains about 33% brine in pockets. The lateral pressures in the ice structure tend to squeeze these brine pockets into vertical structures. The ice continues to reject brine until the ice melts or until it contains insignificant quantities of brine. The initial brine rejection is the major driver of haline circulation, but further brine rejection is significant as the ice ages, e.g. in the Beaufort Gyre. These free resources may help readers to understand the processes of brine pocket formation and brine rejection: JPL poster Brine rejection... Vrbka and Jungwirth Arctic Sea Ice Microstructure
73843. Dikran Marsupial at 04:50 AM on 29 September 2011
       There is no consensus
       Dana69 I think you are missing the point of the significance of the concensus. The science doesn't stand and fall on the existence of a concensus. Similary those who can reliably understand the science can happily ignore the existence of the concensus. What about the rest of us who are not capable of reliably understanding the science at the level of detail required to form an opinion of our own (I most certainly fall into that category). We have to decide where the truth is likely to lie via other means, and the existence of a concensus is a useful indicator of reliability of expert opinion. If you are ill, do you trust your doctor or do you go and do the research you need to do to diagnose yourself? Most of us do a mixture of the two, but heavily biased in favour of the doctors opinion because he has earned hid credibility, we haven't. Now logically this is "argument from authority" and thus a fallacy; however it is also perfectly reasonable and rational. No it isn't science, but like the AGW debate we are fooling ourselves if we think we are doing science. We aren't, merely trying to understand and interpret the science of others so that we can hold an informed opinion. It would be a logical falacy to say that the science is right because there is a concensus. That would indeed be "argumentum ad populum". However, it would be perfectly correct, to say that it was more rational to have confidence in the concensus position than in the skeptics; on the balance of probabilities (not certainties) you are very likely to be right. The concensus says nothing about the actual correctness of the science; it says plenty on how we (as non-experts) should rationally apportion our belief to the competing hypotheses.
73844. Rob Painting at 04:38 AM on 29 September 2011
       Ocean Heat Content And The Importance Of The Deep Ocean
       Critical Mass - if you can't be specific I cannot help - don't have the time at the moment. I will, however, cover a lot of the misconceptions in upcoming posts on ocean heat and circulation.
73845. Dana69 at 04:31 AM on 29 September 2011
       There is no consensus
       Dikran Marsupial, First off, let me tell you I have been very impressed with your posts here,and in forums off this site. I am not sure what your background is, but it appears to be solid in statistics. Please understand my post. I have indicated agreement that the climate is warming. This notion of consensus to validate a point is useless. If the consensus hasn't done the work then it is simply appealing to Argumentum_ad_populum. If the argument can be made scientifically, then appealing to the fallacy of consensus is unnecessary and irrelevant. Scientists do not need to point to a consensus, they simply point to the facts and the evidence. So why bother using consensus as an argument at all? Since most of the scientists signing on to the AGW "consensus" are not climate experts -- in fact even among climate experts they are not all expert in each others specialty -- Dr. Trenberth for example is not a hurricane expert -- it appears that the consensus is saying it is not based on the scientific method but rather on popularity. Consensus seems to mean, "I have looked at your results and even though I have not personally verified those results or even looked at all your data, it is my personal opinion they are probably valid." I'm sorry, but that is not the scientific method. Basing one’s beliefs on the scientific consensus is rational. I do it often. It is not the only rational response, however. It is not irrational to be skeptical of an argument based only on consensus. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, there is no scientific consensus on what the political response to AGW should be. Respectfully,
73846. Rob Honeycutt at 04:29 AM on 29 September 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       yocta and John Russell @ 4&6... I think it would be a big mistake to give up on YouTube posting. You'll never convince those die hard climate change deniers, that's for sure. What you do get at YT is, often, very high viewer rates. You have to remember, most of the people who view a video on YT are very likely to at least start reading some of the comments. I contend that there are a large number of people who are new to the whole issue of climate change on YT. That means we have huge opportunities to communicate the actual science to non-scientist, to people who are likely to be in the process of deciding if this is real or not. I always say, use that diehard denier as a foil by which to communicate to the broader audience. If you can give up on changing that one person's mind and just explain the science, I think there are major opportunities there to help people understand what the world actually faces with this issue.
73847. cRR Kampen at 04:12 AM on 29 September 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       Dikran #52, thank you but I am quite aware of what forcing and sensitivity mean. I agree they are fundamentally different concepts. I am looking for the denialist's use and interpretations of these words re AGW-theory. Now you say: "The observations fall within the range of what AGW theory considers plausible - but that range is pretty broad. This means that the observations being consistent with the predictions of the theory doesn't imply that the prediction has any great skill or that the theory is significantly corroborated by the observations." Neither do I imply anything of the kind. Or do I? If you work consequently along these lines you will never accept any theory at all. Lepechuans work just as well for you as a theory that states that increasing GHG will cause increase in the atmosphere's latent warmth content which will most likely result in a temperature increase. So can you explain why you DO prefer one theory on GW over another, and why denialists don't - the latter habitually reaching for quite implausible or long disproven theories, 'forgetting' about them any time for another ruse? Dare say a question like this nears the topic again (Albatross, you're right) :) I am, by the way, tempted to ask Spencer whether he believes in climate change at all... "Others have provided documentation of noted contrarians & denialists acknowledging the physical basis of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, while still denying the policy implications of its massive & rapid build-up in the atmosphere and the resulting follow-on effects." said Composer99. Actually I am using Solomon's axe on thick denialist heads :) I want them to start some hairsplitting. I will not go into politics or other consequences of GW here. They are an entire different subject. To do with motivation of 'skeptics', yes. I am challenging denialists to be clear and precise. Challenges like: D: "Climate has always changed." cRR: "Right, how come? Magic?" (curtains) D: "Instrumental records are flawed, GW is much smaller than they say." cRR shows some desintegrating ice around the world and informs: "Do you think fairies have lowered the freezing point of water?". Or comes up with some agrarian stats and askes: "Do you think the worms have asked the crops to flower earlier?" (curtains) - This one alludes to the art of cherry picking. D could've done away with all my desintegrating ice by pointing at the one glacier in California that is growing, see. A bit brutal all this, I know. Like holding up a mirror. I've started doing this when I learned some hard ways that for denialists facts are taboo while logic is poisonous. It's how they seem to respond to a dose of either. But we all do once in a while. 'She can't be cheating on me' in the face of certain facts would be a cliché example. Anyone strengthening us in an erroneous belief could exert quite an influence on us, too. My big question nowadays is this. How come the powers that be behind denial of AGW, I'm talking Heartland Institute or CATO or Koch Bros or Exxon or General Electric..., don't advertise for the reality of AGW? After all, only a minority would be for a colder climate. The story is even better because the colder climates of the world experience most of AGW. Isn't this great news: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/31/business/global/exxon-and-rosneft-partner-in-russian-oil-deal.html?pagewanted=all ? What does this mean exactly: "Once seen as a useless, ice-clogged backwater, the Kara Sea now has the attention of oil companies. That is partly because the sea ice is apparently receding — possibly a result of global warming — which would ease exploration and drilling." ? Why don't simply say: Thanks to mankind's beneficial contribution to the world's climates...? (No, I wouldn't agree - my favourite climate is tree-line or tundra. And there are more general drawbacks to strong warming).
73848. muoncounter at 03:47 AM on 29 September 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       John Hartz#49: "separate realities" You're exactly right; this is the key to understanding why someone is in denial. All that's really necessary for a person to be in denial is an unshakable belief in one central misconception. If one starts with something as simple as 'it can't possibly by anthropogenic - its not us,' then anything pointing a finger at 'us' must be denied. This leads inexorably to 'it's not co2', 'its not fossil fuels', 'its not happening,' and so on. The end result is the construction of an alternate reality because one cannot live in a world where the facts conflict with one's preconceptions. Look objectively at Curry's blog, lucia's blog or worse WUWT. The things they take for granted (GW stopped in 1998, Arctic ice is recovering, sea level isn't rising) are what we have shown time and time again to be false. The task is to isolate that core misconception and whittle away at its foundation - then the supporting denials can collapse of their own weight.
73849. Philippe Chantreau at 03:45 AM on 29 September 2011
       Monckton, the Anti-Nurse
       My point was indeed that Monckton has implied to be something he's not. As for nobility titles, or any other kind for that matter, they do not impress me. Anybody who feels a need to be referred to with something special before their name, other than Mr or Ms, has an ego problem in my view, just like those who put their alphabet soup after their name. And, yes, that applies to PhDs too. Not that I deny the value of expertise, I know very well what it means. In my line of work I get to meet people with all sorts of degrees, some of them could be called Dr twice. At my previous job site, I met someone who was descibed to me as "one of the best cardiac surgeons in the World." One would never have guessed that much from his unassuming attitude. Yet every day he was saving people's lives or restoring their quality of life, part of that pro-bono as well.
73850. Dikran Marsupial at 03:38 AM on 29 September 2011
       There is no consensus
       Dana69 Pointing out that mainstream science has been wrong on occasions before where there has been concensus does not mean that the existence of a concensus on AGW tells us nothing about the likelihood of AGW being correct. To make such an inference you would also need to consider the number of occasions where there has been a scientific concensus on some issue where the concensus has been correct. The solidity of the science is what causes the concensus, not the other way round, you are correct to point that out. However a corrolary of that is that the existence of a concensus is usually a pretty good indication that the science is solid. Thus while the existence of a concensus has no bearing on whether the science is actually correct or not, it is completely rational to take the existence of a concensus amongst the experts as strong evidence that the science is solid, and that it would be wise to be primarily guided by mainstream science rather than scientific "outliers" when deciding on a course of action.

Prev  1469  1470  1471  1472  1473  1474  1475  1476  1477  1478  1479  1480  1481  1482  1483  1484  Next