Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 Next
Comments 74801 to 74850:
-
Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp
It's a fine dance, CW, but the intention is that comments shouldn't be explicitly political or explicitly an attack on the person (though if someone makes a ridiculous argument and receives a response that makes the arguer look silly, well, that's an implicit and perhaps unintended ad hominem). By the way, your comment is in violation of the comments policy: no comments on moderation. -
Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp
Hank, eh? This website is devoted to the communication of climate science. If bad science is being used to confound non-experts, then this site is well within its mission to address that use. Remember, Hank, the arguments here don't start with the pundits; they start with the science and move to the punditry when necessary (this thread, for example). This is not first about Christy or Spencer and then their science; it's about Spencer's and Christy's science and how it is being uncritically promoted. For the 143rd time, where's the ad hominem? -
Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp
Alb, I don't have a problem with Pielke's use of "robustness" there. After all, it's true. Watts does allow the promotion of every theory on his website, no matter how ridiculous. It's the modifier "scientific" in front of "robustness" that makes me question his ability to represent science in general. -
hank_ at 02:07 AM on 20 September 2011Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp
@John Cook; I think you're doing yourself and this website a disservice by stooping to such levels to discredit people that post opposing views here. Please step back and take an honest, eyes wide open look at what you're saying. Think about the long term credibility of your blog while doing this. It's suffering right now. Sincerely, Hank. -
Albatross at 02:00 AM on 20 September 2011Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp
Just a follow up from the other thread "One-sided skepticism". On that thread, Pielke was afforded preferential treatment (he has an intriguing take on his experience on his blog), others' posts were deleted and his -off topic posts remained and he was provided a link to discuss his favourite metric (oceanic heat content) on an appropriate thread. On that thread, Dr. Pielke evaded and dodged questions directed at him by readers (his very first post was off-topic and so was his second post and in his third he obfuscates and argues a strawman, and on on it went). In doing so, he missed out on a golden opportunity to address readers' concerns, reassure readers of his willingness to objectively and without bias assess the body of science on AGW, and also demonstrate that he believes that it is more important to stand up for science and truth, than it is to cover up (or defend) misinformation propagated by his associates (e.g., Watts, Spencer and Christy). If anything, Dr. Pielke's actions on that thread make it near impossible to dismiss concerns about him being a one-sided skeptic. One of the more telling (and unfortunate) claims made by Pielke Sr. on that thread was: "I have worked with Anthony and he is devoted to the highest level of scientific robustness" -
Kevin3581 at 01:58 AM on 20 September 2011Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp
I think there is no need to be cute. "Errors" as in Christy's Errors and Spencer's Errors is straight and to the point. -
jpat at 01:48 AM on 20 September 2011Positive feedback means runaway warming
scaddenp #56 - Yes the phase-lock formulation is under-constrained and thus produces a functional (i.e a class of functions) solution. But these functions share common traits which may yield insights regardless of what the real underlying dynamics are. If in fact the climate dynamics are described by something akin to the Van der Pol equations synchronized to the Milankovitch cycles, we know quiet a lot about the dynamics of such systems which may provide insight into the question of primary import: "how hot will it get?" The paper linked above provides a plausible explanation for how small changes in insolation can result in large temperature swings even if the climate sensitivity is low. All that is required is a non-linearity in the feedback loop. The reason for this constraint is apparent. The equations define a limit cycle which precludes a constant forcing from increasing the maximum excursions. Instead, equilibrium is reached by translating the d.c. power into harmonics of the forcing function, hence the need for non-linearity. Now "non-linearity" handwaving is no better than feedback handwaving. But it seems to me that we should be putting more effort into understanding the nature of the limiting mechanisms. It just might save our bacon. -
Philippe Chantreau at 01:45 AM on 20 September 2011One-Sided 'Skepticism'
For interested readers, more about S&C here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/et-tu-lt/ And here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons/ These are only 2 examples. -
Positive feedback means runaway warming
jpat - Feedbacks have lags, that's part of physical nature. Water vapor has a lag of 5-10 days. CO2 solubility in the oceans has both a short term (months-years) and long term (~500-800 year) response times, based upon surface water adjustment and deep ocean circulation. Ice melt/accumulation and vegetative changes in albedo have their own response rates. The initial forcing is followed by an amplifying feedback, results continue to amplify (in decreasing amounts), a new stable state is reached (inter-glacial, for example). The initial forcing changes again, decreasing, allowing more CO2 to sequester in the oceans, hence another amplifying feedback until a new stable state is reached based upon the then current forcings (ice age). Rinse and repeat... In the electronic analogies you have used, you need to incorporate resistor/capacitor or resistor/inductor elements - nothing is instantaneous in climate. -
chris at 01:39 AM on 20 September 2011Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp
In my opinion the button designations are fine. These arguments do highlight bad faith on the part of a tiny group of individuals (some scientists and some observers) who engage in dubious practices (e.g. as highlighted in the resignation letter of the editor of Remote Sensing), and then complain about how mean the people are that spotlight it! We'd be remiss not to highlight examples of scientific bad faith. We should have considerable admiration for scientists like Drs Dessler, Wagner and others like those Albatross referred to in his post just above, who do some of the less rewarding work of countering bad faith nonsense at the "coal face". The contributions of SkS are important too, and focussing on some of the individuals who to a greater or lesser extent chose not to properly represent the scientific evidence, is entirely appropriate. I simply can't think of a good reason why we (Joe Public) shouldn't be adequately informed on issues of scientific importance.. -
Riccardo at 01:32 AM on 20 September 2011One-Sided 'Skepticism'
"To be a good scientist you do not have to be right, the important thing is that you have reached your conclusions by sound reasoning with the concepts and observations available at the time you made them."
Anders O. Persson -
soo doh nim at 01:31 AM on 20 September 2011Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp
Well, then. How about "Spencer's Sputters" and "Christy's Critters"? -
CBDunkerson at 01:31 AM on 20 September 2011One-Sided 'Skepticism'
critical mass, to be blunt... your claims that there are no examples on this site of 'skeptics' being right or 'AGW supporters' being wrong is pure nonsense. There are numerous examples of both. In addition to those already cited consider; "Dr. Muller also dispelled the myth that the surface temperature record is unreliable, and overall his testimony was accurate and reasonable (which may be why he wasn't asked very many questions)." -
cynicus at 01:28 AM on 20 September 2011Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp
To prevent the impression that Christy is a crock you could change the buttons to "Crocks by Christy". That way it is clear that by "crocks" is meant Christy's arguments, not the person. Spencer' slip ups would then become "Slip ups by Spencer". How does that sound? Perhaps the tone troll is also happy with that? -
michael sweet at 01:27 AM on 20 September 2011One-Sided 'Skepticism'
Critical mass: Currently Dr. Hansen and Dr. Trenberth are debating about "missing heat" versus aerosol cooling. It seems likely that one of them will be wrong in the end. Since neither has made an outrageous claim, when the energy path is finalized neither will look bad. The one who is correct will have a new feather for his hat. It will not be necessary to have an article about who is right because that will be determined by consensus. The skeptics need to be countered because they do not conceed when they are incorrect. -
Philippe Chantreau at 01:26 AM on 20 September 2011One-Sided 'Skepticism'
Disclaimer: I have been involved with SkS for a while, including early stages during which all the moderation was done by John Cook, most of the time on his Australian schedule. As I live in the US, that gave me the opportunity to endure torrents of verbal abuse from individuals claiming to be skeptics (no grudge here John :-). I digress from my point, which is the following: as the site grew, I did contribute as a moderator for a short time. The site grew faster than my abilities to keep up with the obligations of moderator. I then stepped back from that role and no longer serve these functions. I limit my contribution to comments. I do not edit or delete comments. Attentive readers will notice that moderators put their initials with their blue highlighted comments. However, I do feel entitled to use "we" when redirecting commenters since I did participate (a little) in the growing of the site, including devising the comment poilicy (which has changed since, althoug the underlying principles are conserved). Shub should therefore not address me as "moderator." I believe the moderator on this thread has been mostly DB (Daniel Bailey) but there may be others too. Shub has yet to produce an example of ad-hom fallacy coming from SkS or of personal attack against Spencer or Christy. What he cited in his post #188 certainly does not meet that definition. Saying that Spencer and Christy are "somewhat infamous" as the guys who claimed their data invalidated global warming until others corrected their errors is a mere statement of fact. They did that and are known for it. That is a simple fact.Response:[DB] "I believe the moderator on this thread has been mostly DB (Daniel Bailey) but there may be others too."
Nope, mostly me. I'm the one to blame, nobody else. But never credit to malice what is better explained by ignorance or incompetance. ;)
-
Dikran Marsupial at 01:22 AM on 20 September 2011One-Sided 'Skepticism'
Chris Well said, I couldn't agree more. Self-skepticism is central to being a good scientist. -
CBDunkerson at 01:22 AM on 20 September 2011Positive feedback means runaway warming
jpat wrote: "Do you really want to argue that f is a constant?" You asked for a formula showing how it could be possible that CO2 lags temperature throughout the glaciation cycle. I provided an example. In that example f was constant for simplicity. However, that does not mean I am claiming that f IS constant in the glaciation cycle... nor is f being constant a requirement for my example. Exactly the same conclusion would be reached with a value of f which changes over time... if the forcing effect is zero then, by definition, the feedback effect is zero - regardless of the value of f. Ergo, feedback MUST follow forcing. Thus, whether f is constant or not is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. The simple forcing and feedback function in my prior message shows very clearly how a small forcing can produce a large change with a sufficiently large feedback factor. Exactly the same results could be achieved with an 'f' value which starts out at 0.95 and decreases down to 0.86 over time. Thus, we have a very simple mathematical model showing the possibility of CO2 (and other feedbacks) lagging temperature while still strongly influencing the total temperature change. This directly disproves your claim that CO2 must have "a negligible effect" if CO2 changes lag temperature changes. A realistic model would require multiple feedback factors with different signs, different rates of change, and complex interrelation between the factors... basically a full scale climate model. However, that wasn't your stated request. You were asking how it was possible for CO2 to lag temperature... that question has been answered. Simple logic and mathematics both make it obvious that CO2 MUST lag temperature in the glaciation cycle. -
Albatross at 01:16 AM on 20 September 2011Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp
New paper in Nature Climate Change by Meehl et al. (2011). I am citing this paper, because it is exposes yet again the games (i.e., wanting us to focus on the blimp) being played by Pielke and Watts and those in denial about the theory of AGW. Meehl et al. (2011) know that a brief slowdown or hiatus does not refute the models (yes they are not perfect, never will be, but scientists around the world are working hard to make them even better) or the theory of AGW, because it is a time to extract statistically insignificant trend-- research has shown that one requires at least 17 years or so of data to calculate statistically significant trends (e.g., Santer et al. (2011), Hamlington et al. (2011)); the extract time depends on the nature of data under consideration. So anyone who says there has been no warming (or accumulation in OHC) since 2003 or 1998 is cherry-picking and abusing statistics. In contrast, and being scientists of genuine curiosity to improve our understanding and advance the science, Meehl et al. make the effort to undertake some meaningful research as to what is perhaps going on during such episodes. They are not the only ones, Katsman and Oldenborgh (2011) recently undertook a similar research initiative. From Meehl et al. (2011): "There have been decades, such as 2000–2009, when the observed globally averaged surface-temperature time series shows little increase or even a slightly negative trend (a hiatus period). However, the observed energy imbalance at the top-of-atmosphere for this recent decade indicates that a net energy flux into the climate system of about 1 W m−2 (refs 2, 3) should be producing warming somewhere in the system. Here we analyse twenty-first-century climate-model simulations that maintain a consistent radiative imbalance at the top-of-atmosphere of about 1 W m−2 as observed for the past decade." Dr. Pielke and his associates want everyone to focus on that blimp and ignore pretty much anything else, and focus very closely on anything that in their minds question the theory of AGW or those dratted models or that can be used as to motivate delaying taking action on reducing our GHG emissions. Well people here do not fall for such sleights of hand, especially when they are repeated ad nauseum by "skeptics" and those in denial about the theory of AGW and their apologists. With that all said, Hansen posits the hypothesis that the negative radiative forcing from anthropogenic aerosols is at work, and recent research by authors (and Solomon et. al (2011), Kaufmann et al. (2011) [the latter was spun and misrepresented by "skeptics"] supports that too. So perhaps it is a coincidence, that both mechanisms (aerosols and sequestration of heat in the deep oceans )are at work. Exciting times for science. I know that reputable scientists like Meehl, Solomon, Santer, Dessler, Hansen and Trenberth (and others) will doggedly pursue their research and the search for truth, sadly some (like) Pielke Sr. and his associates will probably continue to cherry pick and use such periods in the data records to spread doubt/uncertainty and confuse the gullible. They will indignantly deny that but their repeated deception in public fora makes their indignance ring hollow. -
Rob Honeycutt at 01:13 AM on 20 September 2011Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp
The only change I would make to the titles is to adjust them to add an apostrophe S to each one to further clarify that the subject is the "crock" that is being propagated by that person. Christy's Crocks and Spencer's Slip-ups. And to add to all this, Dr Pielke has yet to address the question of misinformation being given to to Congress under oath by Dr Christy. -
michael sweet at 01:10 AM on 20 September 2011Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp
The deniers should not be allowed to set the standards for Skeptical Science. The current labels correctly describe the content of the posts. Dr. Pielke has demonstrated that what Spencer and Christy say is not defensible. -
Rob Honeycutt at 01:10 AM on 20 September 2011Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp
The comparison has been made to Anthony Watts having a post on his site called "Al Gore is an Idiot" relative to an absurd statement he made about the core of the earth being millions of degrees, but that is a completely incorrect comparison. That is clearly an ad hom, an attack on the person rather than the misinformation. When SkS is creating these title's the attack is on the "myth" or the "crock" not on the perpetrator. I'm sure both Spencer and Christy have done lots of good science in their careers. I'm sure they are both intelligent, hard working scientists. However when they step outside of good science and start propagating misinformation the way each of these people have done, then they leave themselves open to having that misinformation called out for what it is. No one is saying that Christy, himself, is a crock. SkS is saying the misinformation is a crock and needs to be called out. Anthony Watts was just flat out calling Al Gore an idiot. -
Tristan at 01:05 AM on 20 September 2011Oceans are cooling
Were the floats that Willis excluded ever examined? Were they replaced? -
chris at 01:04 AM on 20 September 2011One-Sided 'Skepticism'
critical mass (@ 197) I have a different perspective from Dikran concerning the reason that scientists in general don't publish stuff that is wrong. My experience from a quite lengthy period of doing research is that the vast majority of scientists don't publish stuff that's wrong because they do their damnest to ensure that what they publish is correct! The vast majority of science is done in good faith. Scientists participate implicitly in "self peer review" in which they themselves question the reliability of their work and arguments, focussing particularly on observations and interpretations that seem to be in conflict with other work. Usually papers are submitted after the work has been presented in group, departmental or conference seminars where its reliability can be tested against outside expertise. This concept of "self peer review" is second nature to most scientists. It's important to get the work correct (a) because one genuinely wants to find out something about the natural world, (b) because one's next series of experiments analyses is often dependent on its essential validity, (c) professional pride and self respect, (d) serious screwing up is not very good for one's reputation and career. Once one adopts the viewpoint that the processes of science and its dissemination are subservient to ones political or personal agendas, all of this goes out the window. Not only does one dump the essential precept of scientific good faith that underpins the scientific effort, but also apparently the inhibitions against abusing the good faith of others. -
logicman at 00:57 AM on 20 September 2011Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp
I have often remarked in my own blog that a sound knowledge of how language works in the real world is a very useful tool in any scientific discipline. That said, I am delighted to see the comments here which demonstrate a depth of linguistic knowledge which many deniers seem to lack. Re: 'crock'. Here in the UK, a 'crock' is a very old car. We celebrate the repeal of the red flag law with our annual London to Brighton Rally, affectionately known as 'The Old Crocks Race'. The race - actually a rally - was celebrated in the excellent movie 'Genevieve'. In that context, a crock has these characteristics: it has historic value but is of no practical use; it is brought out once in a while purely for show; it not entirely original; it tends to run out of steam when faced with the slightest obstacle. Just as the proverbial 'Rolls Canardly' rolls down one hill but can 'ardly get up the next, so the denier arguments fare badly when faced with the uphill struggle against real science. Maybe the Christy button should show an image of Genevieve ? -
jpat at 00:45 AM on 20 September 2011Positive feedback means runaway warming
CBDunkerson #57 - Do you really want to argue that f is a constant? If so you've eliminated any functional relationship between temperature and CO2. But of course that's not the argument. f is a function dependent on many factors and climate sensitivity depends on f. If one is to reject the null hypothesis inherent in the paleo record, name Co2 has a negligible effect on temp because effect can not precede cause, one must describe a plausible function f(C02,T,a,...) which under reasonable forcing can replicate the paleo record. I'm not arguing that it is physically impossible or that the CO2 lag proves anything about cause and effect. But by now I would have expected a plausible candidate function to have emerged. If it has, please point me to it so I can understand the dynamics involved. If not, let's stop pretending we have this all figured out and feedback explains everything. -
chris at 00:35 AM on 20 September 2011One-Sided 'Skepticism'
critical mass (@ 197), one can inspect Dr. Lindzen's publication record and see that he has made several major contribution to our understanding of the atmosphere largely through research done and published before around 2000. So one could probably list more than 100 papers in which Dr Lindzen "got it right". It's only the smattering of more recent papers that directly or indirectly address questions about Earth climate response to enhanced radiative forcing that show a pattern of flaws. Some of the flaws are particularly problematic (e.g. the astonishing selection of time periods to assess relationships between changes in surface temperature and the TOA response in this paper, as highlighted by, amongst others, Trenberth et al). As for posts here highlighting where largely mainstream climate scientists get it wrong, how about this one which is an account of the retraction by climate scientists of a paper on sea level modeling in which the authors lost confidence in their model due to an error in some of its parameterization. -
dorlomin at 00:33 AM on 20 September 2011Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp
If people are uncomfortable with crocks, perhaps "Christys concoctions?" -
Stig Mikalsen at 00:27 AM on 20 September 2011Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp
I agree with Kevin C and DK. Use names. Peter Sinclear though, should not change his use of 'Crocks'. Very revealing (and entertaining) that series of videos. One prediction though: These skeptics cannot be forced. Even if there is only one avenue available, the explicit encouragement will not be interpreted as anthropogenic. At least not as an avenue. Or a forcing. Maybe it’s a feedback? I mean, clouded minds and all. (Sorry, bad joke again). -
Utahn at 00:24 AM on 20 September 2011Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp
If names are still to be used, I'd like Christy's Curious Claims if it fits... -
Paul D at 00:24 AM on 20 September 2011Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp
I would point out that from an accessibility POV having links that are only graphics makes it harder for some people to navigate the site. None of the badges/buttons have alternative texts. http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/ "1.1.1 Non-text Content: All non-text content that is presented to the user has a text alternative that serves the equivalent purpose... (Level A)" -
Utahn at 00:22 AM on 20 September 2011Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp
I also like the idea of more evocative pix on the buttons, I don't think the buttons' names are ad-Homs but the word crocks does make me wince a little...fwiw. -
Dikran Marsupial at 00:15 AM on 20 September 2011One-Sided 'Skepticism'
critical mass Firstly, science basically operates by proposal of hypotheses, followed by experimental or observational evaluation, followed by criticism from peers. Most discussion of science is focussed on detecting errors and mistakes, as that is what has been found to be the most effective practice for promoting progress. Thus it is hardly surprising that a scientific discussion should be focussed primarily on criticism rather than praise. A scientist that can't handle criticism won't last long, try publishing a journal paper or submitting a grant proposal and you will sooon find out why. In scientific circles, the closest you get to praise is when your work is cited or people use the tools or data you provide. Thus everytime the UAH satelite dataset is used here, it is implicit acknowledgement that Spencer and Christy do get things right, at least some of the time. There are plenty of tenured academics that serially publish nonsense. It is just the law of averages, there are a lot of academics in the world, some of them will retain their position despite their scientific work rather than because of it. The system of tenure doesn't really help there as once you have tenure, it is very difficult to loose it (or at least that used to be the case). So, why do scientists in the mainstream so rarely publish things that are demonstrably wrong? Simple, it is becase they are generally publishing work that is relatively uncontraversial. Strong claims require strong evidence, thus the papers written by skeptics, that are often claiming to be "the last nail in the coffin of AGW" are making a huge claim, so it is hardly a surprise that the evidence doesn't provide sufficient support for such a huge claim. Less contraversial work on the other hand is less likely to be wrong as it rests on foundations of a vast body of existing work. There is also the point that for every Gallileo, there are 10,000 crackpots. While it is absolutely true that it only takes one scientist to provide the argument that produces a paradigm shift, the odds are heavily against it if you think you are a Gallileo. -
Alex C at 00:06 AM on 20 September 2011One-Sided 'Skepticism'
Sphaerica, the "satellites show no tropospheric warming" rebuttal listing gives an extensive listing of the errors and associated corrections, advanced here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere-advanced.htm In any case I think that a follow up would be warranted. Implying that there remains the possibility of a combined satellite-analysis/model-replicating-cooling problem, v. a model only problem, is - while not outright saying there are problems in the satellite analysis methods - still a judgement based more on speculation supported by precedence, rather than evidence. SkS has not explicitly questioned the record's current reliability, only brought up the point that "satellite data analysis might be the source of at least some of the model-data discrepancy," and then criticized Christy for not also considering that too (when testifying to Congress, no less). While only technically not falling under the accusation Pielke made against us, I think we ought to be wary about how we come off to others, and how close we tread along certain lines. Regardless of that, the allegation of ad-hominem approach is still quite baseless. -
critical mass at 23:56 PM on 19 September 2011One-Sided 'Skepticism'
The really interesting thing about this debate is how often Drs Pielke, Spencer, Christy and Lindzen get it wrong. One would think that these presumably tenured academics with doctorates in their specialties would get it right occasionally. I have never seen it acknowledged on this site that any of these 'usual suspects' get anything right at all. This would then pose the logical question that they are seriously and serially incompetent or motivated by malign forces. Now questioning motivation is by definition an ad hominem attack on this site and therefore I would have thought inadmissable in the authors posts; so the only conclusion is that they are seriously and serially incompetent. One wonders then how they hold PhD's and remain in positions at respected institutions. Conversely, one never sees any of the scientists who write papers broadly supporting the AGW position ever being wrong about anything on this site. Again such omnipotence is somewhat unlikely, so it would help the credibility of this excellent site if a skeptic were actually right about something and a 'settled scientist' wrong about something - hopefully both important.Response:[dana1981] Just off the top of my head, see our post evaluating William Kellogg's 1979 global warming prediction as one example where a mainstream climate scientist was "wrong".
-
CBDunkerson at 23:50 PM on 19 September 2011One-Sided 'Skepticism'
Shub wrote: "Indeed, the ability of a scientist to quickly admit to errors and provide for corrections advances science" Unfortunately for your intended point... Spencer and Christy did NOT "quickly admit" the errors in their model for estimating global temperature anomalies from microwave emission proxies. Indeed, they loudly proclaimed for years that they were right and everyone else wrong... until the evidence to the contrary became overwhelming. Indeed, there are still some disputed factors in their model. Coincidentally, these factors, like those previously corrected, result in a cooling bias. That said, S&C DID eventually acknowledge the most significant errors in their model and it is now in fairly close agreement with the temperature anomalies derived from surface measurements. This is thus not the primary 'complaint' against them. Rather the 'crocks' and 'slip-ups' series focus on their false statements and extremely flawed scientific analysis on other matters. -
Dikran Marsupial at 23:47 PM on 19 September 2011Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp
Kevin C @ 20, I think that is an excellent idea, memorable without leaving an opening for "tone trolling". It would be much more productive (for both "sides") if the only avenue available to the skeptics would be to challenge the content of these series of posts (which they have singularly failed to do, despite having been explicitly encouraged to do so). -
Kevin C at 23:38 PM on 19 September 2011Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp
I find the badges very useful, because sometimes I can't remember precisely which article I'm looking for but I remember which badge it had. However, the actual content of the badge is irrelevant to me. I'd be equally happy with a badge containing just the name and some distinctive colouring or imagery. e.g. for Monckton a stylised portcullis, for Lindzen an iris, for Spencer maybe a satellite, for Christy maybe some kind of congressional badge. The other badges already do this rather well. -
SoundOff at 23:11 PM on 19 September 2011Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp
Overall I don’t object to the button labels used by SkS but the "Christy Crocks" one does bother me a bit when associated with a single person’s name, though I understand it’s really intended to refer to the person’s statements. Looking up “crock” alone in the dictionary provides only one meaning: an earthenware pot, jar, or other container. It’s only when one looks up “crock of $^@!” that one comes up what the slang meaning surely intended here: a mass of lies and deception worth no more than dung. This seems unnecessarily crude for a serious science site, as accurate as it may be. How about "Christy Chicanery" instead? (trickery or deception by quibbling or sophistry) -
John Hartz at 22:30 PM on 19 September 2011Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp
SkS would do well to tether Pielke's Goodyear blimp rather than chase after it. This entire brouhaha is virtually irrelevant to what's happening in the real world. In this context, let's quit this childish game of "Button, button, who's got the politically correct button." -
Micawber at 22:19 PM on 19 September 2011Observations of Climate Change from Indigenous Alaskans
Having lived in both Arizona and Alaska for several years, I find it much easier to adapt to cold weather than hot. At forty below (same in deg C or deg F) one can always put on insulated clothing and face and extremities protection. Relatively milder temperatures of minus 30 or 20 degF seem quite pleasant with such protection. I have often worked outdoors on ice or snow or cross-country skied at those temperatures without discomfort when properly dressed. Temperatures over 100degF and 100% humidity are truly life threatening. There is little one can do once excess clothing is removed save lie in water or lurk in air conditioned rooms or transport with protection from cancerous sunshine. Arctic winter daylight is short, but after solstice daylight increases by 6 minutes per day on average. Ten days gives an extra hour, that’s three more hours daylight by end of January. So even cold temperatures seem tolerable with increasing daylight. Spring is coming earlier and 24 hours of summer sunlight leave lots of time for outdoor sports and work. Plants grow almost visibly fast. Alaskans like to tell stories of a Texan asking for 10 pounds of potatoes to be told ‘Sorry we don’t cut potatoes’ Cabbages the size of a wheelbarrow are slashed in the barrow and taste like lettuce at summer barbeques. High temperature variability has been a feature for many years. Supermarkets in winter had freezer goods sales outside the store in the parking lot. I used to store ice cream, frozen peas etc in my camper van outside. One February I went out to get something and noticed the camper had brown lino floor covering that I’d didn’t remember. On investigation, I found chocolate ice cream cartons empty. A warm snap of above freezing temperatures a few days earlier was the cause. That variability was apparent in winter 2010 when record Christmas low of minus 40deg was reported near Fairbanks. The maximum low temperatures generally occur in January and February. However by New Year the temperature was a record high with above freezing temperatures. That is a really huge temperature swing in a few days. It clearly makes travel very risky especially over river or sea ice even in the depths of winter as the natives report. Huge annual temperature swings of nearly plus to minus forty degrees F are normal, so Alaskans are used to adaptation. The jet stream appears to drive warm Pacific air into interior Alaska while bending south to carry arctic air to the Great lakes and plains states. These conditions have persisted for long periods in the past and appear to be increasingly common now. There is support for the poleward shift of storm systems over the last 30 year so this may well underlie native observations (eg Changes in extratropical storm track cloudiness 1983–2008: observational support for a poleward shift Bender, er al Climate Dynamics DOI: 10.1007/s00382-011-1065-6) Alaska was ice-free during the last ice age, so one should perhaps expect a return to similar conditions. The population is scattered over this largest US state so no state-wide electrical grid is feasible. Alaska Power and Telephone Company have pioneered a unique Alaskan solution. They have developed river turbines maintained by a village in their local river. This is believed to be the first village supplied entirely by renewable energy and displacing almost completely the existing fossil fuel power. http://www.aptalaska.com/upload/pdf/eagle.river.turbine.press.release.PDF Turbines mounted on floating platforms have little environmental impact. Power is taken from the river throughout the winter from under the ice and in summer ice-free conditions. Annual maintenance is scheduled for spring breakup when fast flowing ice floes and debris could damage the installation. Diesel backup is used till breakup and maintenance is over. It seems like a neat solution. With hydro power it is feasible to use heat exchangers to extract ground heat for heating buildings (or for more electrical power). Ground heat is asymmetric with dark earth absorbing heat almost 24/7 in summer, while insulating snow cover retains heat in winter. Heat exchanger power return is about 3:1 so one can lever up the hydropower. It is feasible to produce diesel fuel locally from the vast quantities of vegetation. This could go a long way towards maintaining customary self-sufficiency. No innovation is needed. All equipment is currently commercially available. Traditionally villagers have had specialist skills, so that only one will be an expert boat builder and work exclusively on that task, while other hunt geese, moose, caribou, build houses etc as their specialist contribution to the community. So the idea of adapting and having specialist skills such as electrical plant maintenance will not be new. I suspect those communities that remain will survive. They will certainly adapt subsistence hunting and gathering to changing species diversity and supplement it as they already do. However, the worldwide trend is to move to larger towns and cities with the consequent loss of community. My guess is that small communities like St Mary’s in the Arctic and sub Arctic stand a better chance of long-term climate change adaptation, than more southern urban communities in the subtropical drought belt remote from food sources and dependent on fossil fuels. But that’s just my view as high latitude adapted person.Moderator Response: [John Hartz] Thank you for taking the time to provide us with a personal-witness account of cliamte change impacts in two very different environments. Would you be interested in truning your comment into a guest post article? -
Chinahand at 21:48 PM on 19 September 2011Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp
Tone is always difficult, but I feel those on the side of science should always aim for a neutral tone, and so I do think it is a good idea to reduce any risk of accusations of ad hominem. This topic's title itself isn't helpful, and will annoy Dr. Pielke and those sympathetic to his opinions. If the evidence (or best theoretical explanation of that evidence) disagrees with what Mockton, or Spencer, or Christy etc are saying certainly highlight this. But there is something a bit juvenille, and definitely antagonistic with the sorts of titles SkS is using. Surely we want someone like Dr. Pielke to engage with, and respect what, SkS is saying. I don't have any good suggestions, but I think it is worthwhile separating the political statements, from working science. Science is difficult and people do make mistakes. Maybe the best way is to explicitly state that a statement has passed beyond science and into the realm of lobbying/politics with all the loss of integrity that invovles. Spencer's recent papers are science, and should be critiqued as science. His comments about jogging, or Christy's statements about Global Cooling in the 1970s have been contradicted by the evidence and should be addressed in a different part of the SkS site which makes it clear they are addressing the use of erroneous data for political advantage. There are areas of legitimate debate about the evidence, but as well as doing that SkS does need to highlight when deniers are saying things which have been contradicted by the evidence. Spencer, Christy et al do seem to be doing that and highlighting that fact with as few opportunities for distraction is important. I do feel the titles do risk becoming a distraction, so would agree with them being toned down. -
Tony O at 21:15 PM on 19 September 2011Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp
Political, off-topic or ad hominem comments will be deleted Damm There goes my suggestions. -
Bern at 21:04 PM on 19 September 2011Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp
Then there's this perspective: There are nearly seven billion people on the planet. Someone, somewhere, sometime, is going to say something that offends you. Get over it. If you don't, you're going to spend a lot of your time being angry and/or miserable. Sometimes, people might intend to offend you, but a lot of the time they wont - it's just that your language and their language, while being nearly the same, are not. To me, personally, the use of "crocks" is not ad hominem, because, as others have said, it's a criticism of the statements, not the person. It's forceful criticism, true, and the mere fact that one can draw up a lengthy list of demonstrably incorrect statements by a person is a pretty strong negative statement about the person, but that's easily offset by providing counter-examples, where the person in question has made correct and/or insightful statements on the same topic. The failure of 'sceptics' to do so, is also rather telling, IMHO. This is the point where someone sets out a phenomenally long list of all the incorrect statements I've made over the years... and there are certainly enough! :-DResponse:[DB] This illustrates your point quite well:
-
CBDunkerson at 21:04 PM on 19 September 2011Positive feedback means runaway warming
jpat wrote: "They can not explain how CO2 lags temperature through the entire cycle" I've never understood this objection. To me it has always seemed inescapable that, barring massive vulcanism or human injection of sequestered carbon into the atmosphere, simple cause and effect indicate that CO2 must lag temperature. Seriously... how could CO2 levels rise prior to the temperature increase which causes this CO2 to be released from the oceans and frozen biological material? How could they fall prior to the cooling which allows the oceans to absorb more CO2 and sequesters organic carbon in ice? Nor is the math required particularly complicated. The temperature swung by about 8 C during the glacial cycles. Offhand I don't know what the estimated factors are, but an 8 C swing could be produced from an orbital forcing of 0.8 C and total feedbacks (CO2, albedo, water vapor, et cetera) of f = 0.9; 0.8 C * [1/(1-0.9)] = 8 C If we change the forcing in the equation above from 0.8 to 0 then the feedback effect would also be zero. Ergo, the CO2 temperature feedback MUST lag the orbital temperature forcing. Again, how is this anything but obvious? How could CO2 lag temperature throughout the natural glaciation cycle? How could it NOT? -
Paul D at 20:16 PM on 19 September 2011Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp
I have to agree with Dikrans moderation@22. SkS seems to be about the arguements and discussions that groups and individuals put forward. Monckton Myths doesn't imply that Monckton IS a myth or a number of myths. Given the series is about the discussions, a person would have to deliberately ignore the other titles in order to read malice in the Christy one. Which implies a deliberate attempt to cherry pick. Actually, cherry picking seems to be a long running theme in all 'skeptical' thinking. -
newcrusader at 20:16 PM on 19 September 2011Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp
Christy & Spencer will still be skeptics and deniers when waves are lapping at the steps of the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, and the Polar ice cap is gone in late August. They are hopeless cases. The extra 3/4 of a watt of energy with its subsequent warming is causing havoc globally with extreme precipitation Events- and this is in every Geographic region. The energy from that 0.8 degrees C rise in global tempertures since 1800 is doing its work as climate scientists have long predicted. Though Chrisy and Spencer deny the existence of that extra energy. Dr. Pielke cannot remain blind TO THE Observed data forever, can he? -
Paul D at 19:46 PM on 19 September 2011Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp
I thought my comment made it clear. Words do not have specific meanings, it is the reader that polarises the meaning, which is due to environmental and cultural inputs that reader has had. I am not offended by Crocks because I have never lived in an environment where it has been used offensively, at least until now. -
nealjking at 19:35 PM on 19 September 2011Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp
I could go with "Christy's Mythtakes", "Christy's Mythsteries", "Christy's Myth-series", or something like that. -
nealjking at 19:30 PM on 19 September 2011Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp
I personally don't care for the term "crocks" in such a title, associated with someone's name. Just seems kinda crude. But "slip-ups?" If that is inaccurate, it seems to me to be so only by being overly kind. Intentional misrepresentation and arguments in bad faith are not slip-ups.
Prev 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 Next
