Recent Comments

Prev  1530  1531  1532  1533  1534  1535  1536  1537  1538  1539  1540  1541  1542  1543  1544  1545  Next

Comments 76851 to 76900:

76851. Alexandre at 02:15 AM on 22 August 2011
       GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
       Great challenge. Paraphrasing the question: Does the right really have solutions to offer or is its only way out to deny the problem?
76852. muoncounter at 02:07 AM on 22 August 2011
       How does global warming affect polar bears?
       Continuing from here. Someone asked for research: Durner et al 2011 Consequences of long-distance swimming and travel over deep-water pack ice for a female polar bear during a year of extreme sea ice retreat Amstrup et al 2010 Greenhouse gas mitigation can reduce sea-ice loss and increase polar bear persistence Polar Bear Abundance and vital rates Survival of juvenile, sub adult, and senescent-adult polar bears was correlated with spring sea ice breakup date, which was variable among years and occurred approximately 3 weeks earlier in 2004 than at the beginning of the study in 1984. We propose that this correlation provides evidence for a causal association between earlier sea ice breakup (due to climatic warming) and decreased polar bear survival. Mortality During 24 years of research on polar bears in the southern Beaufort Sea region of northern Alaska and 34 years in northwestern Canada, we have not seen other incidents of polar bears stalking, killing, and eating other polar bears. We hypothesize that nutritional stresses related to the longer ice-free seasons that have occurred in the Beaufort Sea in recent years may have led to the cannibalism incidents we observed in 2004. And what of the poor walrus, who seems to get no respect? Walrus Tracking and Sea Ice Decline in the Chukchi Sea Let the skeptic arguments come forth! Correlation isn't causation; no specific cause of death attribution; not a long enough time sample; swimming is great exercise; they would have died anyway ...
76853. Alexandre at 01:59 AM on 22 August 2011
       Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
       This guy is GREAT!! "When will you stand up and offer sotlutions?" "Are you cowards?" I have this kind of thought for some time time now (like here), and it's great to see someone like this Scott Denning saying this right in the middle of denialism-promoter Heartland Institute. Way to go, Scott. Keep it coming.
76854. muoncounter at 01:58 AM on 22 August 2011
       A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
       Etr#84: "That is pure speculation, not supported by scientific research." And your speculation in the prior paragraph about a large polar bear population increase is supported by what research? But we just went around the polar bear question with friend pirate. It's vastly off-topic here, so I will reply here.
76855. CBDunkerson at 01:53 AM on 22 August 2011
       A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
       garethman wrote: "But hunting has a here and now catastrophic effect." Nonsense. The world polar bear population increased from ~5000 around 1965 to ~25000 by 2000 while suffering this supposedly 'catastrophic' effect. Uncontrolled hunting is a major problem... which ended fifty years ago. Controlled hunting is scaled back or increased based on polar bear numbers and thus does not cause any significant reductions. It certainly cannot wipe out populations. EtR wrote: "Sphaerica seems to be using as a distraction the remote possibility that their ecosystem might be effectively destroyed. That is pure speculation, not supported by scientific research." Actually, it is accepted reality amongst most of the scientific community... not to mention oil and shipping companies. The summer Arctic sea ice is going away. The claim that this is not supported by research is just fiction. Ditto your statement that, "there simply is no evidence that climate change is affecting the polar bear populations". If you want to pursue these blatantly false statements further please do so on any of the existing threads which already cite evidence disproving them. For instance; Muller's false claim about not a single polar bear having died EtR's false claim about global warming having no impact on polar bears
76856. snapple at 01:36 AM on 22 August 2011
       Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
       The name of the 9-11 Truther whom Pravda published on Climategate and the coming ice age is named Gregory Fegel. I write about him on my blog. He thinks President Bush and the US government are behind 9-11. He also writes conspiracies about Climategate and he thinks earth is on the verge of a new ice age. http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2010/06/gregory-ffegel-9-11-truther-is-on-thin.html Here is Fegel's Pravda article about Climategate. http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/30-11-2009/110832-climategate-0/ Here is Fegel's Pravda article about a coming ice age. He doesn't understand that the tipping of the earth is weak compared to CO2. http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/11-01-2009/106922-earth_ice_age-0/ I read on DeSmogblog comments that Fegel is a nurse, and someone claiming to be Fegel posted a rebuttal. http://www.desmogblog.com/drudge-and-pravda-state-owned-media-aligning-coverage
76857. Eric the Red at 01:31 AM on 22 August 2011
       A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
       Sphaerica, I beg to differ. Human impacts from hunting, habitat dectruction, human hunting of polar bear food supplies, and other encounters have had the greatest impact on polar bear populations during the past several decades. CB, Increased polar bear deaths may simply be due to the large population increase. More bears mean greater competition for the prime hunting territories, and weaker bears being pushed to less favorable areas. Did the bears drown because there was less sea ice, or because they were forced out further than ideal due to the presence of the stronger bears? Sphaerica seems to be using as a distraction the remote possibility that their ecosystem might be effectively destroyed. That is pure speculation, not supported by scientific research. Obviously, if the Arctic turned tropical, the bears would be in deep, deep trouble. However, there is no indication that that will happen, and he is just distracting from the current situation. This is just a straw man argument with little supported data. This is one of the weakest of the AGW arguments, and should be avoided by those who wish to convince others of its validity. Sphaerica is correct in that it is a distraction. But it is a distraction for the wrong reason, there simply is no evidence that climate change is affecting the polar bear populations. Hence, skeptics can use this argument effectively to counter AGW supporters.
76858. barry1487 at 01:31 AM on 22 August 2011
       Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
       Denning's presentation to that audience was, to me, quite stunning. He scorns the scientific details, implicatively repudiates the debate and flings down a challenge. That is miles away from where I operate and looks like genius to me - probably because I could never have conceived such an approach. I'm in this debate because I'm dismayed at the gross offences to reason and science and scientists by climate change contrarians, not to persuade anyone politically. I would sure like to know what motivates Denning. Or anyone here, for that matter. Why do we post at WUWT and Judith Curry's? Why do we try to reach across the abyss even as we say "it's no longer a worthwhile activity"? Do we secretly think that persistence will eventually pay off?
76859. DSL at 01:26 AM on 22 August 2011
       Greenland is gaining ice
       Here's a story from the human perspective--Inuit Greenlanders and their changing culture due to changes in ice. It was published in Business Week of all things. Of course, it does hit on the drill, baby, drill aspect of Arctic change.
76860. snapple at 01:18 AM on 22 August 2011
       Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
       Here is a 2006 article in Pravda (English version) that quotes Andrei Kapitsa on global warming. http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/21-12-2006/86045-ozone_hole-0/ This article was first published in another Russian paper. Pravda is now a nationalist publication with a lot of girlie pictures. They publish a lot of scientific conspiracy theories. For example, they published an American 9-11 Truther's Climategate conspiracy theories and also his theories about a coming ice age. The Truther was cited as a "Russian scientist" by American right-wing publications, but the author was really an American conspiracist who is not a scientist. I read he is a male nurse. Pravda observes: "Professor Andrei Kapitsa, corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, believes that the issues of global warming and rapidly increasing ozone holes are myths disguised as scientific revelations." In Russia there is a very powerful gas company called Gazprom. It used to be the Soviet Gas Ministry until it morphed into Gazprom. It is majority owned by the Russian government and pays the bills for the Russian government. I imagine they know perfectly well that the permafrost is melting, but they want to sell gas. The CATO Institute's "expert" on climate change, Andrei Illarionov used to work for Chernomyrdin who ran Gazprom. President Medvedev used to be the head of Gazprom. I think Putin put him there. Medvedev said global warming was a "trick," but after the fires last summer he said it was really happening. Pravda tells Kapitsa's conspiracy theory about money: Prof. Kapitsa believes it would be wrong to maintain that the ozone layer has been largely depleted over the last ten years. The question is: Why do people keep talking about the dangers relating to the decrease of the ozone layer? “I’m afraid the money is a key word in this case,” Prof. Kapitsa said. “Chemical companies producing the so-called healthy Freon refrigerants make lots of money once the refrigerants are replaced at a nationwide scale. The replacement of refrigerators and air-conditioning systems in the U.S. alone cost the consumer a total of $220 billion last year. Former president of the U.S. Academy of Sciences Frederick Zeitz said a long time ago that all the theories relating to global warming were far-fetched and couldn’t be proven correct,” Prof. Kapitsa concluded. http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/21-12-2006/86045-ozone_hole-0/
76861. Bob Lacatena at 01:06 AM on 22 August 2011
       A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
       82, garethmean, Get real. Hunting polar bears in the Arctic wastes is never, ever going to have the same impact as permanently destroying their ecosystem. Please. The fact that no bear deaths can be attributed to climate change is a distraction from the real problem. The fact that bears die (from hunting or anything else) is another distraction from the real problem. The fact that the effective destruction of their ecosystem hasn't measurably happened yet is yet another distraction from the real problem. The fact that Those-Who-Deny-AGW-But-Aren't-Deniers-In-Any-Other-Sense (TWDAGWBADIAOS, for short) love the polar bear issue because they can make a lot of straw men with it is the real problem.
76862. Tom Curtis at 01:02 AM on 22 August 2011
       There is no consensus
       Eric the Red @425:

       " The divergence occurs when asked, "how much?" You have alluded to this point quite well. While 90% may believe that we humans are warming the planet, how much we are warming the planet is very much open to debate. There are those you will jump from the Doran survery (or Anderegg) and claim that those same scientists who believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas also believe that the claims of large positive feedback and exponential warming. This is were the consensus breaks down, with a wide array of beliefs, each supported by scientific research. We currently have an "average" value of warming."

       I know you would like this to be true, and you have asserted it on several occasions. They only thing lacking has been the evidence. Let's take scientific opinion first. Among climate scientists 62.01% think the IPCC accurately estimate the magnitude of future changes of temperature. A further 15.64% think the IPCC slightly under estimates the magnitude of future temperature changes, while 11.73 think that they slightly over estimate them. That means 89.93% of climate scientists think IPCC estimates of future temperature changes are accurate or only slightly inaccurate. A further 4.47% thinks the IPCC significantly under estimates future temperature changes, leaving just 6.15% who think they significantly over estimate those changes. Those figures are hardly signs of a consensus that has broken down. That means that there is a consensus (>90%) of climate scientists who believe the temperature increase for a doubling of CO2 is likely to be between 2 and 4.5 degrees C, a figure that is dangerous at anywhere in that range. Indeed, that is something the climate scientists also agree on, with over 60% being strongly convinced that climate change poses "a very serious and dangerous threat to humanity", with a further 31% being moderately convinced of that claim. Just 6% significantly doubt that possibility, and from those 6%, only a third are completely unconvinced of any danger.
76863. snapple at 00:53 AM on 22 August 2011
       Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
       Here is Andrei Kapitsa's obituary. His death did not get much notice in the English-language Russian media. http://int.rgo.ru/news/andrey-kapitsa-dies-in-moscow/ http://www.newsbcm.com/doc/988 The Kremlin's English-language satellite channel Russia Today (RT) mentions his old discoveries and his important family but does not mention his theory that higher temperatures cause more CO2. http://rt.com/news/prime-time/kapitsa-exlporer-scientist-died/
76864. barry1487 at 00:35 AM on 22 August 2011
       Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
       garethman, I don't care about or get much stick. I try to craft my posts there in ways that are hard to distort. One careless word and that's the bit they'll focus on, not the thrust of the argument. I've gotten better at paring it back, and fewer respond to me now - I reckon it's because they've less to jump at. Or my posts are more boring! But when they do respond they dodge the point, move the goalposts, torture analogies, assassinate my character - you name it. They pull every intellectual contortion there is not to have a reasonable, on point discussion. It's argumentative, not argument. It's about winning points, not testing them. It's the sheer inanity of the replies, when they come, that puts me off, as well as seeing the myth I've just busted repeated by the next commenter who arrives fresh from skimming the subject enough to regurgitate it in mostly complete sentences. I know it's a waste of time, but some faint hope seems to remain that some one there will actually take the blinders off and reflect for a few minutes. But really, it's not worth it at that place. Not brave, not heroic, not stalwart. I don't know whether R Gates should get a medal or a smack on the hand for carrying on there, but I know I couldn't maintain that pace without it becoming a bit of a sickness.
76865. snapple at 00:35 AM on 22 August 2011
       Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
       Dear Mr. Cook, Salby seems to be giving the Andrei Kapitsa line on CO2. Kapitsa, a geographer, was one of the Russians that Senator Inhofe cited on global warming. Andrei was insulted that British scientists didn't listen to him. He died on August 2 at 80 years old and did his good work about 50 years ago. Below is a link to a post I wrote about Kapitsa's claims some time ago. Kapitsa's ideas were also spread in the Indian and British media. This was my very first post about Climategate, so maybe some observations are not correct. I never paid attention to climate change until Climategate. Then I was surprised to see that the Republicans were citing these official Russian sources and that the Russian media was trashing our scientists. I think it is possible that there was Russian involvement in Climategate. Scroll down a bit to see the information about Andrei Kapitsa. According to The Hindu (7-10-08), Kapitsa claims: “The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse,” says renowned Russian geographer Andrei Kapitsa. “It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round.” http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2009/11/russias-hacker-patriots-embarrass.html I hope you will take the time to read my very first post about Climategate because it discusses Kapitsa's perspective, which I don't accept. If you search Kapitsa on my site, I have more about him, but this is the main post about him. He is from a famous family, and you have to be careful not to confuse them. His father was the very famous Pyotr Kapitsa and his brother is Sergei Kapitsa. I think they were more famous than Andrei. His Wikipedia is dinky compared to Pyotr and Sergei's. You can learn a lot about Russian scientists by reading about this family.
76866. Dikran Marsupial at 00:23 AM on 22 August 2011
       Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
       Garethman the problem with discussion science at WUWT is not that you get a "lot of stick" - it is that you get a lot of rhetoric used to evade engaging with the scientific points raised (a symptom of denial in the psycological sense). Here is a classic example, I use a joint bank account as a simple analogy to the carbon cycle, however rather than engaging with the analogy, the respondant elaborates the analogy in ways that have no relevance to the carbon cycle so as to avoid the point of the analogy. Another respondent does the same sort of thing here and yet another one here! Here is a respondant refusing to point out the flaw in a step-by-step argument that proved his position wrong; but not admitting that he couldn't find such an error and trying to deflect the discussion back to issues where there was uncertainty in the data, rather than engage in an argument where there was little uncertainty. A bit later he does say that (incorrectly) that the mass balance argument makes incorrect assumptions, but he still doesn't say at which step it is introduced. The whole point of laying out the steps one by one was to make the argument as easy to definitively refute as possible - but no takers. After a while it gets so tiresome that it is no longer a worthwhile activity.
76867. garethman at 00:21 AM on 22 August 2011
       A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
       CBDunkerson at 19:11 PM on 21 August, 2011 [quote snipped] I have not made any claims, I just asked if anyone had any citations. Read my post. You are correct of course that you cannot prove they have, or have not died of climate change.Some ice melts every year, so there will always be areas where there is water where there was previously ice in the short term. Bears are feeders in the pack ice, not in the thicker old ice, and not particularly on shore. When the ice melts in the summer in coastal areas they lose weight, though do scavenge. Old and infirm bears are likely to die at this time. Generally well fed bears in prime condition are not the ones who die, except of course from hunting. All bears do die at some point. I just wondered whether there were any records or firm correlations with climate change. As an expert maybe you could point me in the direction of good peer reviewed papers that demonstrate an increase in starvation levels in areas which previously had plenty of food? Even if the reduction in food is not linked to climate change it is still a critical factor which is likely to have an impact on bear populations. The link as you say is at present hard to define or refute due to an absence of reliable data on bear deaths. But a bullet in the head is easy to connect with bear deaths, and there many thousands of those recorded over the last few years, and many more to come. Logically climate change will unavoidably effect bears. But hunting has a here and now catastrophic effect. Any real concern with the wellbeing of bears should look at what we know are mortality issues, as opposed to what we surmise could be an issue. That is what deniers with their logic do apparently.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] As previously requested please refrain from quoting large sections of other peoples posts in your replies; add a link instead. Please review the comments policy.
76868. DSL at 00:18 AM on 22 August 2011
       There is no consensus
       Agree Muon. Rickoxo, EtR raises an interesting point, and one that I tried to address earlier. He says, "the divergence occurs when asked, 'how much?'." This is the problem with asking about significance in this context. If humans are warming the planet, what does significance mean? Are you measuring over a day, a year, a decade, a century? If we get just a 1C global average increase just from CO2 per century, is that significant? If you say no, a thousand years from now you might say yes. If the effect of our aerosols masks that increase, is the effect still significant? Nature is trying to cool the Earth right now (orbital slightly and solar), so what do you measure significance from? The natural trend? The most recent climatological period? Pre-industrial? Significance is not a simple question here. There are also some who might answer the question thinking, "Well, we've hit peak oil, and emissions will soon decline, and we'll end up mitigating, so while we could, we'll never really hit the IPCC's middle-of-the-road scenarios, so I'll answer no." Yes, Doran knows what statistical significance is, but the survey question doesn't limit the conditions of significance. At this point in your travels into climate science, what would you answer to both Anderegg and Doran? And what is the confidence level of your answer? If you want to find out why there is not a 100% consensus, go to the publications. Ask Anderegg which scientists he found who did not demonstrate support for the theory. Ask Doran for the names of the 2.5% of climate scientists. Look at their reasons, their publications. You will then know why the claims of consensus are accurate. You'll gain environmental (contextual) knowledge that many of the posters here already have but that outsiders (survey readers) don't have. And now you see why it is so difficult to communicate the science to non-scientists--and why it is so easy for those who are motivated to do so to obfuscate, misinform, generate doubt, and generally stop we, as a whole, from doing anything about the growing problem.
76869. barry1487 at 00:15 AM on 22 August 2011
       Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
       Dave, my last crack at WUWT was over the Charles Monnett (polar bear paper) kerfuffle. It was obvious that virtually no one commenting on the quality of his 2006 monograph (which was just about everybody) had even read it. As usual, the game for me became trying to be as lucid and compelling as possible simply to draw attention to errors of fact. Seeding hoaxes sounds amusing, but not my style. I sometimes imagine that some of the denizens of denialdepot infiltrate for kicks, agreeing with the milieu in the most inane, yet plausibly contrarianesque ways possible to see if the posts will be admitted, perhaps with the hopes that passers by will read the pap and give the place a mental thumbs down.
76870. garethman at 00:01 AM on 22 August 2011
       Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
       Thanks Barry, I suppose the thing that bothered me was someone posting an article which complained about funding for a particular project (rightly or wrongly) but then extended the article into what was a racist comment and refused to withdraw, even when faced with overwhelming evidence of how inappropriate the post was. Even Anthony Watts commented that he would never have allowed such a post if he had seen it, but once posted was hard to remove. When someone posts such an article and truly believes they are right, how much does that impact ones trust for the rest of their science? The thing that undermines the site more than anything is the right wing tea party types who see all science as suspicious. I still think it is worth posting comments on WUWT , even if you get a lot of stick!
76871. Bern at 23:56 PM on 21 August 2011
       Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
       funglestrumpet: Without proffering any opinion on the WTC1 collapse, I have to ask: are you a structural engineer? Or have you had any training in materials science, including failure modes of structural steel and concrete, both static and dynamic? If not, what makes you think you know more than those who do? In this one respect your analogy is apt - it's quite a similar situation to the global warming 'debate', in that the experts in the field are saying "We're pretty sure it's X", and others with little or no knowledge or qualifications are saying "But it must be Y, because X is unacceptable to us". Is it Dunning-Kruger at work? In some cases, I think it is (and I rather suspect some of the more 'qualified' sceptics are suffering badly from D-K). Many cases are just sheer ignorance of what the science actually says (due to, in no small part, deliberate disinformation by vested interests). Others are from misunderstanding the science, due to lack of knowledge of the field (and I'll raise my hand as being guilty of that on occasion). In others, though, the only appropriate term is the D-word: denier. John's written a whole book about it. I recommend reading it. It's quite educational, I've learned a lot about the psychology of denial that I didn't know.
76872. RickG at 23:31 PM on 21 August 2011
       There is no consensus
       Eric @ 425: "There are those you will jump from the Doran survery (or Anderegg) and claim that those same scientists who believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas also believe that the claims of large positive feedback and exponential warming. This is were the consensus breaks down, with a wide array of beliefs, each supported by scientific research. We currently have an "average" value of warming." For what it's worth, the Anderegg 2010 is neither a survey nor a poll and should not be associated as such. I also think it is important to realize that probably none of those consensus studies would have been conducted had the skeptic/denial side not stooped to the level of deliberate misinformation by compiling huge lists of climate change skeptics who were "scientists" but not climate scientists; but nevertheless suggesting they somehow have some expertise in the area.
76873. Dave123 at 23:28 PM on 21 August 2011
       Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
       21 - Barry- The question is, are you looking in on the skeptiverse or the loonisphere? I think there's a sociology paper out there waiting to published see how many of the posters on WUWT etc (the Loonisphere), can be found to embrace anything as long as it looks like it will stick it to the AGW camp- demonstrating no ability to separate contradictory and competing denialist claims. It would be lovely to seed it with a few hoaxes as well. btw..re "loonisphere". my wife...being who she is deplores the term mathturbation, and prefers (coined?) mathtycism instead, which I think lines up nicely with "climastrology".
76874. Bern at 23:07 PM on 21 August 2011
       Soil Carbon in the Australian Political Debate (Part 2 of 2)
       Stevo - there are many of us who choose not to support either major party in Australian politics. That's the reason we have a minority government right now - only our second in the past century (the previous one was in 1940). At least on climate, Labor have an actual plan (flawed as it may be, although that's definitely a debate for another forum).
76875. Eric the Red at 23:01 PM on 21 August 2011
       There is no consensus
       Rickoxo, Very good arguments. There are those (especially here) that will point to the Doran survey and claim that 97% believe in AGW. I cringe every time I here that. As you have detailed, the survey is quite vague, and the paper should not used as evidence for a consensus. The further problem with poeple using consensus is that they confuse what actually makes up the consensus. Yes, a vast majority agree that the planet has warmed and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The divergence occurs when asked, "how much?" You have alluded to this point quite well. While 90% may believe that we humans are warming the planet, how much we are warming the planet is very much open to debate. There are those you will jump from the Doran survery (or Anderegg) and claim that those same scientists who believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas also believe that the claims of large positive feedback and exponential warming. This is were the consensus breaks down, with a wide array of beliefs, each supported by scientific research. We currently have an "average" value of warming. Of course, muoncounter says it best, "in science, opinions don't carry much water." Whether 97, 90, or whatever believe in something does not necessarily make it true. Science is based on research, not opinions. This is not to say that it is not ture, but only that it does not supply evidence of its truth (either way, as you explained).
76876. muoncounter at 22:31 PM on 21 August 2011
       There is no consensus
       rickoxo@422: "How do you know if someone is a legitimate scientist, they accept GWS. Anyone who doesn't is a myth peddler." You continue to frame the argument in a manner that is entirely backwards. One is not a myth-peddler simply by 'disagreeing with IPCC.' One os a myth-peddler because one peddles myths. In this quest, you've missed the fact that this site challenges the work of those it labels myth-peddlers. When fault is found in their work, those faults are called out. Those who continually publicize conclusions based on work identified as flawed (or even false) are the myth-peddlers. What is shown time and again to be settled is the weight of the scientific evidence, not necessarily the scientific opinion. But in science, opinions don't carry much water. But you then pose the question a tad differently: ""we can quantify the amount of warming human activity is causing, and verify that we're responsible for essentially all of the global warming over the past 3 decades?" Could a legitimate climate scientist disagree with that statement" That's a new, vastly higher hurdle; some no doubt can and do disagree with your words 'quantify,' 'verify' and 'essentially all'. The IPCC statement typically quoted is not at all the same: Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. I find it fascinating that you've analyzed what is a higher-order science (one that is composed of parts from many disciplines - and therefore brings all of their uncertainties) through the lens of opinion polling, a kind of 'meta-knowledge' that does little more than introduce its own uncertainty. Its a bit like trying to measure a very long distance, not by using a meterstick (difficult enough), but by using a stick of uncertain length. But that's just my opinion.
76877. barry1487 at 21:53 PM on 21 August 2011
       Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
       I still dip in at WUWT to try my luck occasionally, garethman. I'm pretty open-minded, but there is nothing to be learned from participating at that place. Reason fled the comments section long ago, chased out by the general tenor of the articles. There are various reasons why people there hold the views they do - fear, political ideology, self-interest. I agree that Denning's attempt was brave, and add that it spoke to the underlying causes of contrarian opinion. My occasional forays into the skeptiverse are not at all brave and probably a little foolish. Habitual. But yes - it's better than preaching to the converted.
76878. Dikran Marsupial at 21:09 PM on 21 August 2011
       Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
       garethman I think you should review your assumptions on that one. Plenty of the regular posters here do post on blogs like WUWT. The problem with WUWT is that it may be a good place to "learn why people think like they do", but it isn't a good place to learn about science (apart from perhaps the SurfaceStation project, which was a good attempt at some genuine science). It doesn't take any particular bravery to be a "missionary to the opposite camp", perseverance and an interest in the truth is more than sufficient. I stopped posting at WUWT after Ferdinand Engelbeens attempt to convince the audience there that the rise in CO2 is anthropogenic (I assisted his excellent efforts in the comments). The fact that few posters there could accept this, despite it being one of the few facts in the debate that can be proved unequivocally, suggested to me there was little point continuing posting there. If they can believe the rise is natural after seeing the evidence, they can believe anything. Ferdinand has the patience of a saint in continuing; I don't know how he finds the energy for so little return.
76879. garethman at 20:45 PM on 21 August 2011
       Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
       I really like this idea of taking the message into the opposing camp. He is taking the opposite action from shouting at each other across the barricades. If more skeptics posted here they could learn much, if more believers posted on Wattsupwiththat ( R.Gates inspired) much could be learned of why people behave as they do. As it is we tend to preach to the converted, it takes a brave person to be a missionary in the opposite camp.
76880. newcrusader at 20:13 PM on 21 August 2011
       Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
       Good video- and the Professor puts the ball in the far rights court. In time action will be taken to reduce C02 with new policies. But with the group in 'power' in the USA today- they deny global warming vehemently. No action will be taken until a total changeover in the US Government takes place- caused by catastrophic climate change. That kind of radical shift- like what happened in 1932, when you had a more activist Government take power in the US. With large majorities in congress that advocate a huge shift from the past. Th Private sector in itself will never relinquish control of a system that allows them to make massive profits. Government will need to step in and regulate. In this I disagree with Denning- if not the reforms of the New Deal, the economic collapse of 2008 would have been far worse. Government will have to step up for the people- Private corporations seldom have or will. At the rate we are going draconian efforts will be needed to change the deep trouble we are already in.
76881. Rob Painting at 19:26 PM on 21 August 2011
       OA not OK part 18: Been this way before
       jyyh - if you think that's bad, check out Beck 2011. "Native oyster reefs once dominated many estuaries, ecologically and economically. Centuries of resource extraction exacerbated by coastal degradation have pushed oyster reefs to the brink of functional extinction worldwide. We examined the condition of oyster reefs across 144 bays and 44 ecoregions; our comparisons of past with present abundances indicate that more than 90% of them have been lost in bays (70%) and ecoregions (63%). In many bays, more than 99% of oyster reefs have been lost and are functionally extinct. Overall, we estimate that 85% of oyster reefs have been lost globally" Sure, not all down to ocean acidification, but alarming nonetheless.
76882. CBDunkerson at 19:11 PM on 21 August 2011
       A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
       garethman & EtR, the point was that Muller has been promoting the claim that climate change has not killed even one polar bear. Not (as you have 'revised' it) that there is no way for a necropsy to show 'death by climate change', but that it absolutely has never happened. Not even once. Which, obviously, is equally impossible to prove... yet he goes about claiming it is true. As to the fact that polar bears which have died due to drowning, starvation, and moving into human areas in search of food display no physical signs of having done so due to climate change vs some other reason... what a ridiculous example of denier logic. Polar bears which have drowned in areas that were previously covered by ice clearly could not have done so if the ice did not melt. Polar bears which starved in areas which previously had plenty of food for a larger polar bear population clearly would not have done so if climate change hadn't reduced their hunting habitat. Et cetera. Numerous studies have shown that polar bear deaths are increasing and polar bear populations decreasing in direct relation to climate change reducing the available sea ice. On the other hand we've got Muller (and you two) making logic-defying claims without ANY evidence at all.
76883. OUTSIDE OBSERVER at 18:08 PM on 21 August 2011
       Soil Carbon in the Australian Political Debate (Part 1 of 2)
       I, too, am an Australian and also an engineer, but offer no opinion about the costs of soil C-sequestration. But the article re-uses the sophistry that "Australia's annual per capita emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest among the OECD..." Why not try thinking laterally? Why not emissions per square kilometre of land, or forest? [I know the answer; the figure permits no alarmist conclusion; based on emissions per skm of land, Australia is right down near the bottom, along with Scandinavia; same applies to emissions /skm of forest] If you calculate emissions per dollar of GNP, you will get a more meaningful figure. For Australia is a big commodity producer and exporter. If this country produced only enough food and raw materials for its own needs, it could cut its total emissions by a third [also wiping out half its export income] Reverting to a reduced agrarian and simple mining economy would also remove another portion of the emissions (even as it kills off the aluminum and steel industries). But this would not reduce demand for manufactured goods, as long as the populace can afford to import them. You may increase population and total emissions even when emissions per capita fall. Yet, up till yesterday, I had heard nothing either from government or opposition about a population plan for Australia. To run a scare campaign against emissions while allowing unlimited growth is absurd. Current ridiculous public policy claims we can cut back coal combustion without closing coal mines. Oops! How does that go? Adding hypocrisy to confusion, the government turns a blind eye to coal and gas exports. "Tighten your belt, but don't let it stop you exporting at full tilt" is the incredible sophistry being advanced by the rulers - as if fuel burned outside the borders is irrelevant to the debate. Former PM Rudd's Kyoto- prot endorsement never mentioned Australia's preeminent coal exporting role. Ah, you see, it all hangs on a slender thread: the chimera of 'clean coal'. Clean coal has become a talisman to wave at critics and skeptics. Nobody is certain how 'clean coal' will ultimately materialise, though it must- somehow - resolve all these contradictions and solve all problems. But, just where do you buy it? Making the electricity generation industry bear the brunt of emissions reduction will prove unworkable. So a biological sequestration proposition has some future. In that vein belongs a piece of CSIRO research published about 2005. Its authors came to some quite interesting conclusions. It appears that vegetation- biomass- in Australia has increased, perhaps doubled in amount, since initial European settlement. The CSIRO paper explains this by enhanced atmospheric CO2 levels, particularly during the 20th century. Higher CO2 levels promote plant growth and also make plants more drought-resistant.
76884. garethman at 17:42 PM on 21 August 2011
       A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] The term "denier" is in no way an allusion to holocaust denial. "Denial" has a specific meaning in psychology that is pretty close to its usage here, note that Wikipedia gives defintions of: simple denial - deny the reality of the unpleasant fact altogether minimisation - admit the fact but deny its seriousness (a combination of denial and rationalization) projection - admit both the fact and seriousness but deny responsibility. It is not difficult to find examples of these types of denial in the list of most used climate myths ("its not happening","its not bad","its not us"). Yep, seems like a good match to me. It isn't a term I like to use, except where unequivocally warranted, but linking it to the Holocaust is just hyperbolic rhetoric. Many thanks for that. I just have to beg to differ. The link was useful, it also quotes on denialism: "The broad use of the word denialism is controversial, as it has been criticized as a polemical method of suppressing non-mainstream views.[17] Similarly, in an essay discussing the general importance of skepticism, Clive James objected to the use of the word denialist to describe climate change skeptics, stating that it "calls up the spectacle of a fanatic denying the Holocaust".[18] Celia Farber has objected to the term AIDS denialists arguing that it is unjustifiable to place this belief on the same moral level with the Nazi crimes against humanity.[19]. So I suppose like many subjective terms, our use of terminology is a personal choice, and one which probably says more about us than the subject. While I don’t like the term, to be honest I cannot think of an alternative title for someone who just rejects obvious evidence. Monckton for instance is not in denial. He is knows full well he is wrong and is doing what he does for philosophical reasons that are selfish, wrong and damaging. Someone in denial is not necessarily a bad person. Monckton almost certainly is.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] While there may be controversy over the use of "denial" that doesn't mean that the objections have any validity. You could equally say that there was controversy about whether the rise in CO2 is anthropogenic becase e.g. Salby and Essenhigh have published artciles saying it isn't; however that doesn't mean their arguments have any validity (or indeed that there actually is any genuine controversy). The point was that "denier" is not used here as an allusion to Holocaust denial, which is what was suggested. It is used to mean someone that rejects evidence that refutes their position (which fits in with the usage in psycology).

       As for Monckton, I find Hanlon's razor is a good maxim, always try an view the motives of others in the best possible light; in this case "never attribute to dishonesty that which can be adequately explained by Dunning-Kruger syndrome".

       Please read the comments policy this post is sailing close to the wind in several respects, namely quoting large sections of other comments (give a link instead), accusation of dishonesty etc. Note that the comments policy says that the use of words like "alarmist" and "denier" is "skating on thin ice"; so SkS does not encourage the use of this particular term anyway.

       "is not" added, as per request.
76885. barry1487 at 17:39 PM on 21 August 2011
       Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
       Yes, I think you're right, Sphaerica. That was my guess too. But Denning emphasises CO2 in that part of the talk - the heading of the chart with the 8 billion ton figure is 'CO2 "budget" of the world' - and confuses things. It's not a worry for reasonable people, but for sharp-eyed skeptics and reluctant fence-sitters, it is an unfortunate, apparent discrepancy in two posts here a few days apart.
76886. garethman at 17:31 PM on 21 August 2011
       A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
       Eric the Red at 13:11 PM on 21 August, 2011 garethman, So far, there is no official polar bear death attributed to climate change (even those found drowned), so do not hold your breath with regards to a citation. Polar bear populations are difficult enough to document, let alone the logistics of each death. Numbers are difficult to attribute to climate change, since hunting (and other human encounters) have had the greatest impact on their numbers. The increase in the past few decades is largely attributed to the international hunting ban Many thanks Eric, I thought I’d missed some important information.
76887. Tom Curtis at 17:29 PM on 21 August 2011
       A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
       guingenbresil, I have responded here and here.
76888. Tom Curtis at 17:28 PM on 21 August 2011
       CO2 effect is saturated
       Guigenbresil asks a wholes series of questions to show that Harries 2001 is based on localized conditions both temporally and spatially and excludes common meteorological conditions. However, those questions miss the point. Haries 2001 is not trying to determine a global energy balance, or to show the strength of the greenhouse effect. Indeed, if the strength of the greenhouse effect is understood as the climate sensitivity of doubling CO2, the type of observations by Harries even if truly global would not be able to determine that strength. As explained above, what Harries was trying to do is to provide empirical proof that there is an enhanced green house effect. And to show that, all he needs to show is that increasing GHG concentrations results in reduced emissions in the wavelengths of their emission/absorption. As the greenhouse gases are well mixed, ie, their concentrations anywhere on Earth closely approximate each other, if there is an enhance greenhouse effect over the central Pacific, there will also be an enhanced greenhouse effect over the Arctic, or anywhere else. Finally, Guigenbresil writes:

       "So the increasing CO2 changes the OLR spectrum, but since the system is essentially in a quasi-equilibrium when averaged spatially and temporally, the integrated spectrum would have essentially the same total value so you wouldn't expect to see it as a drop in measured total OLR. "

       Not quite, or at least, not true until the equilibrium response to increased GHG concentrations is reached. It takes decades to reach the equilibrium climate sensitivity after increasing the concentration of a greenhouse gas. During those decades, we expect the OLR on average to be slightly less than the incoming short wave radiation, and hence slightly less than the equilibrium OLR. However, during that periods, sometimes the Earth will have hotter years and sometimes colder. In hotter years its OLR will be greater, causing it to cool. In colder years, it will be smaller, causing the Earth to warm. These fluctuations can exceed the disequilibrium between OLR and ISR introduced by increased GHG concentrations. So, if you compare a La Nina year with an El Nino year, you cannot say the OLR has increase and therefore there is no enhanced green house effect. You need to take an average over a reasonable period to eliminate the noise introduced by annual fluctuations in surface temperature.
76889. Doug Mackie at 17:23 PM on 21 August 2011
       OA not OK part 18: Been this way before
       NOAA posted this on the oyster story (in April IIRC). Also Richard Feely (who popped in to the comments for post 12) testified before the Committee on Science and Technology subcommittee on Energy and Environment U.S. House of Representatives. Hearing on a rational discussion of climate change: The science, the evidence, the response. November 17, 2010. You can read about it here . Don't be afraid - because it is testimony to politicians it is, shall we say, level appropriate. I'm not going to spoil a good story by giving away the ending but it is fair to say that there are a couple of villains, one of which goes by the initials OA.
76890. Tom Curtis at 17:11 PM on 21 August 2011
       CO2 effect is saturated
       Following a tip from DB, I am responding to Guigenbresil here. Guigenbresil objects to Harries 2001 because it uses clear sky spectra rather than all sky spectra. The problem with not using clear sky spectra is a problem of interpretation. Consider the spectrum from the thunderstorm anvil in figure C below. The important thing here is not that it obscures the radiation from all Green House Gases below the stratosphere, but that it radiates with an approximately equal brightness temperature across the whole spectrum. That means that if you do not have clear skies, IR radiation from clouds across the spectrum will be significant. They may or may not obscure the absorption band for any particular greenhouse gas. Whether it does or not will depend on the altitude of the cloud and the effective altitude of emission for that particular greenhouse gas,ie, the average altitude from which IR photons emitted from that gas escape to space. But because the emissions from the clouds come from across the spectrum, and in particular the wavelengths at which various GHG emit photons, it will become difficult, or even impossible in the presence of clouds to determine how much of the reduction in emissions at those wavelengths is due to the increased concentration of a Green House Gas, and how much is due to the cloud. The point is that Harries is trying to detect any reduction in emissions due to increase green house gas concentrations, if there are any such reductions. Therefore like any good scientist he uses data that restricts the number of independent variables which might obscure the relationship he is looking for. The problem appears to be that you are looking for some sort of silver bullet approach to science, and that is not how science works. Well, occasionally it is. The graphs above are cast iron proof that Green House Gases effect the Earth's energy balance, and hence that there is a greenhouse effect. They do not by themselves show how strong that greenhouse effect is, and nor do they show that the greenhouse effect will be strengthened by increasing the concentration of Green House Gases. Haries has found proof that increasing the concentration of GHG does increase the strength of the greenhouse effect, ie, the CO2 is not saturated and that their is an enhanced green house effect. You seem to want him to also show exactly the strength of the enhanced greenhouse effect, but he cannot do that with the data provided, and nor does he try to. He is only attempting to show, and does show, one thing - that enhancing GHG concentrations reduces top of atmosphere emissions in the wavelength of absorption/emission by those Green House Gases. You would be astonished at how many denialist arguments are falsified by that simple observation.
76891. Rickoxo at 16:25 PM on 21 August 2011
       There is no consensus
       Sphaerica, I'm not at all saying that Doran has anything to do with climate science. Both he and Anderegg did a great job of saying their papers were about describing the state of the field and added nothing to the research base on climate science. I'm not saying anything different if that's what you're pointing out. But what I was trying to say in the quote you cited was that Doran (2009) was given by people at this site as evidence of the GWS position that there is overwhelming consensus for GWS science. I haven't disproved anything about actual science, but Doran's wording is too simple to argue against. "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" He didn't say which direction, he didn't define human activity and significant contributing factor says nothing about how much of a factor. In academic writing, significant is a term with precise and unequivocal meaning, it is not used in the more common place sense of important or substantial. Tests for significance are important in research and knowing that human activity is a significant contributing factor is great, but it says nothing about the degree to which it's a contributing factor or the role played by human activity in climate change. When Doran writes that debate in GWS over the role played by human activity is non-existant, that might be true, but he didn't provide any evidence for that statement. He could cite someone else, Anderegg maybe, but he didn't give evidence in favor of that statement. It's no big deal to do a bad survey or to have to chuck pieces of evidence that was supposed to argue in favor of your position but doesn't turn out to in the long run. It's a big deal if the peer-review community tries to say that a bad survey is still legitimate because the idea it's saying it found evidence for is corroborated in other places. I get that the quote at the end of Doran, the one about the debate being non-existent is a powerful quote, it's well written, it's clear, it's direct and it might even be true. But he didn't provide evidence it was true so to cite him as evidence opens you up to getting ridiculed for citing bad research in support of your positions.
76892. Rickoxo at 15:58 PM on 21 August 2011
       There is no consensus
       DB on Anderegg, so your question is totally valid and I completely agree (as well as with DSL's examples) that the huge bulk of evidence is on your side. I'm not debating that. A big part of what I'm trying to do in this thread is get at the question of consensus around the issue of the science being settled. Is there consensus on that and if so, what does that mean? So here's what hits me as the critical issue. If the science is "settled" in the way I hear Dana1981 saying, then it is logically impossible for anyone to be a climate scientist who doesn't agree with GWS. The degree to which they disagree with GWS demonstrates their lack of expertise in climate science. There are no possible legitimate alternative interpretations of the data. The other option is that 90% of climate scientists (according to Anderegg (2010) evaluate the current evidence and are convinced that GWS has the most explanatory power, fits the data most accurately and can answer the most arguments against it. But, 10% of legitimate climate scientists aren't convinced of that and have evidence-based reasons why not. Their disagreement doesn't indicate a lower degree of expertise. They could be less expert for all sorts of other reasons, but disagreement with GWS doesn't indicate lower or complete lack of expertise. The big difference between the two and why I chose Newton's laws as an example, in option 1, disagreeing with F = MA for simple motion (I'm not talking about relativistic motion) demonstrates you don't know physics and everyone who knows physics knows that. In option 2, the climate scientists who are in the 90% camp can understand the logic and reasoning of the 10% scientists, they don't consider them frauds, myths peddlers or oil company shills, they get that the evidence is not entirely conclusive and there are legitimate alternative explanations, albeit ones that the huge majority of the climate science community finds unconvincing. But those are sooooooooo different. At this site, it mostly seems like group 1. How do you know if someone is a legitimate scientist, they accept GWS. Anyone who doesn't is a myth peddler. So, can a legitimate climate scientist look at all the evidence currently available, and come to a scientifically valid conclusion that disagrees with IPCC? Again, I'm not talking disagreeing that the planet has warmed since 1800 or does CO2 affect the climate. But let's say with the single premise, "we can quantify the amount of warming human activity is causing, and verify that we're responsible for essentially all of the global warming over the past 3 decades?" Could a legitimate climate scientist disagree with that statement and not be a fraud, myth peddler or oil company shill? Could other climate scientists who think we have caused all the warming look at the reasoning used by the skeptic and agree that it is valid reasoning because the data are not entirely conclusive?
76893. scaddenp at 15:56 PM on 21 August 2011
       A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
       guinganbresil - Doesn't this belong in The CO2 effect is saturated?"
76894. guinganbresil at 15:49 PM on 21 August 2011
       A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
       Sphaerica @75, I think my big issue hinges on the window region 800-1200 cm^-1. From my understanding of the spectra and the atmosphere, this window region will vary greatly depending on the cloud fraction and cloud top temperature. This is not evident in the frequently cited graphs since they are almost exclusively for clear-sky conditions. Are there any papers on the behavior of this emission spectrum over non-clear sky conditions that might give better insight into how this spectral change due to CO₂ translates into temperature change on a local or global scale? It is treated almost as a given that increasing CO₂ translates into increasing average temperatures, but it seems just as plausible that it could show up as a change in average cloud fraction, cloud altitude, or time of the onset of afternoon thunderstorms - all would impact the average OLR over the window region, and thus total OLR...
76895. guinganbresil at 14:59 PM on 21 August 2011
       A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
       Tom Curtis @70, Cogent explanation. So the increasing CO₂ changes the OLR spectrum, but since the system is essentially in a quasi-equilibrium when averaged spatially and temporally, the integrated spectrum would have essentially the same total value so you wouldn't expect to see it as a drop in measured total OLR. I will have to think about that. Would you agree that the work of Harries 2001, Griggs 2004 & Chen 2007 covers only: 1 - The Central Pacific Region (108N-108S, 130W-180W)- not the whole globe? 2 - The spectral range 710-1,400 cm^-1 which is only about half the IR emission range of the Earth? 3 - The Clear-Sky condition, so does not look at the effect of clouds? 4 - Covers only the months April, May and June? 5 - Covers snapshots in 1970, 1997, 2003 and 2006 only? Would you also agree that they show an decrease in the spectrum over time in the CO₂ band due to increasing CO₂ concentrations, but does not show that this spectral change translates into a change in overall outgoing radiation?
76896. jyyh at 14:51 PM on 21 August 2011
       OA not OK part 18: Been this way before
       I was a bit shocked by the 'Great Oyster Crash'-story just published (http://www.onearth.org/article/oyster-crash-ocean-acidification). It took 3 years to rule out any diseases as the reason for this and the solution of the oyster larva producer was to take surface water for them since the bottom water had become too acidic for the larvae.
76897. Bob Lacatena at 14:42 PM on 21 August 2011
       A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
       73, guinganbresil,

       I agree with the first part, but the temperature would only change if the total energy balance tilts in the direction of warming...

       I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "total energy balance tilts in the direction of warming." That entire phrase is nonsensical to me, but I think what you mean to say is exactly what is expected to happen, what is happening, and what has been observed. It's very simple. Radiation is emitted from the earth in a perfect, unblemished spectrum. Picture that perfect curve. Add gases that block certain bands and they create notches in that spectrum. But the earth must still emit that much energy, so the entire curve has to shift up, so that the area under the curve (i.e. the total energy emitted) matches that of the original, unblemished curve. In this way, emissions at TOA continue to equal incoming radiation, but the way that this happens is for the planet to warm. More radiation in one band is blocked, so the entire planet warms and radiation in all bands increases just enough to compensate.
76898. Bob Lacatena at 14:26 PM on 21 August 2011
       Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
       15, Barry, I suspect the difference is in counting by tons of carbon versus tons of CO2. Atomic weight of CO2 = 12 + (2 * 16) = 44. Atomic weight of C = 12. 30 tons * (12 / 44) = 8 tons. It's just a guess, though.
76899. Bob Lacatena at 14:20 PM on 21 August 2011
       There is no consensus
       420, Rickoxo,

       ...folks here need to be able to let go of arguments that don't support the GWS position.

       That's true, and I for one will be more than happy to do so when you find such an argument and make an adequate case. You have completely and totally failed to do so here.
76900. barry1487 at 13:41 PM on 21 August 2011
       Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
       Nice to see Denning go on the offensive in this way. Maybe a risky strategy, but I enjoyed it. CO2 "emits heat"? I winced when that popped up. That was not a good bit of rhetoric. There is an apparent discrepancy between his values on CO2 emissions (8 billion tons emitted, 4 billion tons remaining after absorption) and that given at skepticalscience (30 billion tons emitted, 15 billion tons remaining after absorption). That's a four-fold difference. What gives?

Prev  1530  1531  1532  1533  1534  1535  1536  1537  1538  1539  1540  1541  1542  1543  1544  1545  Next