Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 Next
Comments 76901 to 76950:
-
Rickoxo at 13:35 PM on 21 August 2011There is no consensus
What an abundance of comments. Stepping back from the issue of consensus and GWS for a second, part of what I'm trying to find here is the nature of the argumentation. Again, I didn't bring up Doran, I had never heard of it, but it was used as evidence by people here that there is consensus. DSL, the word significant is not open to interpretation in research journals, it only has one meaning, and Doran knows what it is. The words of Doran's second question are exceptionally clear. But by asking about significance and not the strength of the effect, his survey gives no useful information. I would offer that the worst thing to do with a bad survey is attempt to "interpret" it so that it accomplishes what you wished it would have on its own. I get there's a lot more evidence in favor of consensus and tons of evidence about GWS I haven't begun to look at, but for this piece, can folks admit its not evidence and doesn't support the positions of this site? If you want to ask skeptics to let go of arguments that don't support their skeptic position then folks here need to be able to let go of arguments that don't support the GWS position. -
muoncounter at 13:17 PM on 21 August 2011Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
Dave123#12: "surely must inspire people in Heartland" Heartland Institute is trumpeting Lindzen and Choi's rewrite -- and WUWT's enthusiastic cheering for it. I'd say they are willing to continue wasting evertone's time, fighting for Denning's last few decimal points. -
grypo at 13:13 PM on 21 August 2011Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
Oh, yeah, I'm sure he recognizes there is certain amount of the "C" category that just can't be engaged. No communication effort is going to be perfect, but I think highlighting this one is important. It shows that are ways to get through to people by speaking about what is important to them. Let's ask ourselves, "what's important to the Heartland crowd?" The answer, "free-market solutions". What is at risk if they do not get involved. "The free market". Sure, they can gamble that they'll continue to win the small battles of putting off policy, but do they really believe it is an effective way to win the "war"? He even put a face on the enemy. "Greenpeace." :) I think this is a really good starting for some kind of bridge. -
Eric the Red at 13:11 PM on 21 August 2011A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
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. -
Dave123 at 12:51 PM on 21 August 2011Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
11 Grypo- these cognitive options for heartland- a. Agree that Denning describes the truth about the science and thus the need to affect public policy b. Agree that he's right about the politics and therefor engage public policy as if they believe the science c. Continue to believe he is wrong on the science, and believe that they can prevail over anyone trying to enact public policy. For those not in the US, the recent exercise in breath-holding tantrums about the debt ceiling surely must inspire people in Heartland that they can be successful with option C. -
DSL at 12:43 PM on 21 August 2011Antarctica is gaining ice
News yesterday: NASA finishes the first Antarctic ice flow speed map. -
Alex C at 12:20 PM on 21 August 2011Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
Let's not let the thread get derailed again, there was already a decent sized strain that was removed from before. Newton's third law of motion, whether demonstrated wrong by the collapse of World Trade Center 1 or not (or, whether the "official line" contradicts the third law; I sympathize with dcruzuri's stance on the issue in any case), is only meant as an analogy. As to the third law being applicable here, unless you go from a mathematical perspective it is not appropriate to compare a mathematical law to derived theory. As to whether settled science is simply enough, no it's not. When much of the fight "skeptics" put up though revolves around propagating imaginary "uncertainty" in the science, pulling in the rope and hanging these issues up by their balls is a good start. I also don't think anyone here has implied that this is the only necessary step for swaying public opinion, so your anger (if you will) funglestrumpet toward AGW proponents is I think unfounded. -
grypo at 11:46 AM on 21 August 2011Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
I think people are missing an important point. Using Denning's logic, policy will be enacted. It doesn't matter at what speed the thermometer rises in the next few years. What he is trying to tell his audience is that, whether they believe that warming will be slow or even doesn't come to pass, the rest of the world believes the climate is changing. So if they want to effect the policy that is enacted, they need to get involved. The human race will act on risk assessments sooner rather than later. He's telling them their bickering over how fast/slow/medium/hot/lukewarm/hockeysticks/FOIA/etc is big waste of their time. -
dcruzuri at 11:45 AM on 21 August 2011Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
@20 Okay, funglestrumpet, you lost me on how the official explanation of the destruction of WTC1 violates Newton's third law of motion. It was a non-elastic collision (in aggregate) with the combined kinetic energy of the top 12 stories transferred to the 13th, which then collapsed, transferring even more energy to the next story, and so on, all the way to the ground. Introductory mechanics was a long time ago, but I don't see a problem with this. -
funglestrumpet at 10:38 AM on 21 August 2011Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
You would think that Newton's third law of motion was settled science. After all, it was first proposed over 300 years ago and has been verified by countless experiments since. Yet the official line on 9/11 is that 12 stories of WTC1 managed to destroy the 93 stories below it simply due to gravity, in direct contradiction to said third law. You can't get simpler than that. It is worrying that the public have been convinced that Newton was wrong and I rather fear that they have also been convinced in large number about Climate Change, which is infinitly more complicated. The really sad thing is that this site appears to think that defeating the skeptic's/denier's arguments is enough. At least if my efforts to try and widen its scope and thus reach a much wider readership are anything to go by. Until this side of the fence is at least as effective at influencing public opinion as the likes of Monckton (and they say vauderville is dead) and those like him, then it matters not a flying act of copulation how ****ing settled the science is while the policies remain almost unchanged. As things are, future generations are bound to suffer and the descendants of Monckton, Watts etc. will simply say that the lack of action to combat climate change is not of their doing. The science of this site is very impressive, as is its general structure. Furthermore, the standard of the comments is generally constructive, except when the odd looney gets in. (Yeah, I can guess that I might be in a glasshouse on that one.) But is it enough that the science is settled if nothing political comes of it? No one on this side of the fence needs reminding that time is running out, not for us maybe, but for those that will follow, certainly. -
adelady at 10:22 AM on 21 August 2011Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
Tom, I think part of the problem with Denning's presentation on this is that he is putting the science on one side and their claimed economic beliefs on the other. And skipping a lot of relevant details of both in the process. The big detail omitted on the economic side is that someone presenting this needs to argue that the highly acclaimed 'free' market stance must, by definition, be opposed to all government subsidies and other official support. His biggest advantage here was also his biggest problem. He's a scientist not an economist. Perhaps next time he needs a partner with other expertise to argue the case more convincingly. This audience should favour eliminating all forms of government support for any industry. If they hang onto the idea that government should continue subsidising, supporting or giving tax breaks to coal or oil or nuclear or Granny's hand-knitted woollies, they have to be called out on it explicitly. Denning can't do that. -
guinganbresil at 10:19 AM on 21 August 2011A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
CBDunkerson, Tom Dayton, Sphaerica - Thanks for engaging... CBDunkerson says: "what happens is that energy in the GHG bands is blocked from escaping and remains within the climate system... which causes the climate system to be warmer..." I agree with the first part, but the temperature would only change if the total energy balance tilts in the direction of warming... -
Andy Skuce at 10:15 AM on 21 August 2011A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
LazyTeenager@60 Yes, I use "skeptic" also because it sets a high standard that nearly all climate "skeptics" fail to meet. It's strange that certain "skeptics" get so wound up about being called "deniers" of AGW when what they do, in fact, is deny AGW. This is particularly odd when nobody prominent (to my knowledge) has ever explicitly likened them to Holocaust deniers. Where it gets really weird is when "skeptics" remain silent when one of their number likens climate scientists to the perpetrators of the Holocaust. In the real world, people who deny war crimes get derided and booed; people who actually commit them get tried and severely punished. Yet,some "skeptics" think it's an outrage to be even accidentally compared to the former group, while they think it's only fair to liken their opponents to the latter, far worse, category. -
Tom Curtis at 10:04 AM on 21 August 2011Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
I was going to say what an impressive presentation it was (and it is), but: 1) "CO2 emits heat" is a phrase no denier worth their salt would hesitate at jumping all over to dismiss. With climate deniers bandying about all sorts of absurd arguments about how climate scientists get the physics wrong, why is Denning handing out ammunition like that; 2) For his target audience, Denning absolutely needs to bridge the gap between "is getting warmer" to "will cause wide spread economic harm". Many deniers will equate "is getting wamer" with "is getting better", and most of those that don't will take the (older) Lomborg line that any cure is worse than the disease; and 3) His concentration on the potential growth of China and India will feed straight into the denier claims that we (the US, or Australia) should not agree to limit our emissions until China and India agree to equivalent absolute (not per capita) limits on their emissions. China and India, of course, will never agree to that until (and if) the economic cost of renewable power becomes so low that it becomes a non-issue. Those issues are minor compared to what I consider to be the fundamental flaw to Denning's approach. The fact is that most Libertarian's and other extreme free market/small government protagonists are deniers is because their political/economic philosophy in fact can provide no solutions to problems such as global warming. The only solution (and it is a good one if it could be realized) that they can offer is that market forces will rapidly substitute renewable for fossil fuel energy when renewable energy becomes significantly cheaper than fossil fuel energy. Beyond that, they cannot even support market solutions like emissions trading schemes because those markets must be contrived by governments. Therefore Denning faces a problem with his approach. It might be an effective approach with right leaning mainstream Americans, but he has not channel to communicate with them. But with Libertarians and fellow travelers, it is doomed to failure. They will only take home three messages from his effort: 1) A genuine climate scientist is taking our gurus seriously, therefore our gurus position is reasonable; 2) Genuine climate scientists don't want to debate the nitty-gritty of the science, ergo they must know they cannot win on that basis; and 3) The only effective policy response to increasing CO2 must come from the American right, and therefore the correct response is the one we are offering. In other words, for all his good intentions, Denning will have only validated in their minds their opposition to genuine means of tackling climate change. -
muoncounter at 09:42 AM on 21 August 2011Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
Dave123#7: "watch for signs of them agreeing to Denny's logic?" I wouldn't hold my breath. Read some of the later comments in the Yale forum, Talking up daily “what ifs” and trying to tout the “gravity” of climate change will never change the fact that science, real science, will always prove them wrong. Science is falsifiable and the AGW claims are not falsifiable and thus not science. AGW is junk science based on two hockeystick graphs for temperature and CO2, which are both bogus, and on climate computer models that are so flawed it’s laughable that we actually have paid these clowns billions for such crappy work and products. Yawn. Same old same old. As Prof. Denning brilliantly pointed out in the video, "Physics doesn't care what you believe." I want that on a tee shirt. -
Tom Curtis at 09:32 AM on 21 August 2011A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
Guinganbresil @65, you may have misunderstood the index, but I did not. What I objected to is a false claim that SkS was personalizing the issue presented as an objection to an index of denier myths. Given the vicious way in which the deniers have personalized the issue, to object to having their pseudo-scientific views clearly identified on the grounds that is is "personalizing the issue" is too much hypocrisy for me to swallow. Having said that, I certainly agree with you that it is reasonable, and there is every reason to believe it will be done to SkS's usual high standards. -
Tom Curtis at 09:23 AM on 21 August 2011A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
Guinganbresil @64, under an enhanced greenhouse effect due to increasing greenhouse gases, and before the temperature has increased to match the equilibrium climate sensitivity, we expect that: 1) Globally and temporally averaged, the OLR in the GHG bands will be reduced relative to the reference; 2) Globally and temporally averaged, the OLR outside of the GHG bands will be increased relative to the reference; but that 3) Globally and temporally averaged, the area under the black body curve will be slightly reduced relative to the reference. The global and temporal averaging are important. If a particular region or year are unusually warm due to natural weather changes, that will easily overwhelm the slight reduction in outgoing power, increasing the overall OLR. If the particular region or year are unusually cool it will show a reduced OLR. Consequently, when you compare the OLR over the Central Pacific from a La Nina year (such as 1970) with that from the strongest El Nino on record (such as 1997), it is hardly surprising if the overall OLR is increased in the later case relative to the former. Even with such a comparison, however, the reduced OLR in the GHG bands can be detected, and the existence of an enhance GHE inferred. Clearly, if the reduced OLR in the GHG bands exists, than averaged over a decade, to iron out ENSO effects and solar cycles, the OLR in the non GHG bands must increase to maintain energy balance. -
Dave123 at 09:15 AM on 21 August 2011Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
6. Sphaerica, I think right wing deniers are perfectly capable of playing the victim at any level..we're economic victims if we have to change, and if China and India and the rest of the world creates global warming, well we're their victim in that case. I doubt they care about raising living standards around the world...that's a lip service thing with them. They primarily care about themselves (as do we all). And they are perfectly capable of kidding themselves, we know this because they have been. So shall we watch for signs of them agreeing to Denny's logic? That's a falsifiable test after all...will Heartland come out and issue a formal endorsement? -
Bob Lacatena at 08:43 AM on 21 August 2011Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
4, Dave123, I don't agree at all with your interpretation of his comments. His logic seemed pretty straight:- 2 billion more people than today will need energy (mostly India + China)
- To fuel that will require coal and increase CO2 levels by 400% when it's done.
- Waiting until later to have a chit in the game is too late. If that's the future they foresee and want, they need to act now... arguing about details now, and impacts at 30% CO2 increase is ignoring the real problem.
-
renewable guy at 08:37 AM on 21 August 2011Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2011/07/scott-denning-shares-lessons-from-dialog-with-skeptics/#comment-23452 I read through the comments on the link above, and many people tried to make it political. Denny did a nice job of sticking to the physics. My response to strictly waiting for the free market to solve everything is like going into a competition with one hand behind your back. Any country you hope to compete against that has gov help of some kind, there is a tough road to compete against. Government can also be part of the tool to bring prices down.Many times the market is waiting to see what the government will do. Especially on something this big and fundamental. Government provides certainty to the investors that this will be stable. -
Dave123 at 08:20 AM on 21 August 2011Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
3, Sphaerica- I got the emphasis on India and China...but this came across as a bit of hand waving- "what we're doing isn't a cause for alarm, it's those other guys". And while this plays to US historical racism (they aren't white over there after all) and the need of the American Right to have an external (and internal) enemy to wet the bed over, it's still a bit of eyeballing. When some Denier spews out "it's only 300 ppm, that can't have any important effect" we deride such as an argument from incredulity. Saying now isn't important but the 5-6 increase will be- "well just because it would be incredible if it didn't"- isn't the way we're supposed to play the game. Can you imagine the deniers that will sprout up in India and China, looking to their national interests and personal pocket books, parroting the Western Deniers with an added does of "Western Colonial Imperialism"? For them it will be obvious that the Western Deniers were not only right, but that those arguments can be carried to their levels of CO2 production. -
scaddenp at 06:33 AM on 21 August 2011Climate Skeptic Fool's Gold
Anthony, I might add that if you want to discuss the internals of the climate models, you might prefer to post at RealClimate.org where you are talking to the people that build them. -
Bob Lacatena at 06:04 AM on 21 August 2011Climate Skeptic Fool's Gold
14, Anthony Mills, Your assumptions about models are just that, and they are very, very, very wrong. You are so far off it's laughable. I encourage you to research things in substantially more depth before making such unsubstantiated claims, while insisting that others prove to you that they are false. You might want to read this: Introduction to Climate Dynamics and Climate Modeling The section that pertains directly to your ridiculous reference to latent heat is here in the chapter/section on heat transport. Want a basic, simple model you can use yourself, that includes latent heat? Try STELLA: Modeling Earth's Climate System with STELLA STELLA II for Mac and PC But really, it took me 75 seconds to find this stuff by googling "latent heat transport climate model". Was it really that hard for a "skeptic" to do the same? As far as a citation... how about Effects of Dynamic Heat Fluxes on Model Climate Sensitivity: Meridional Sensible and Latent Heat Fluxes I just have to say, I am so tired of "skeptics" who "know" everything because they don't bother to actually look for just a couple of minutes. -
Bob Lacatena at 05:46 AM on 21 August 2011Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
1, Dave123,...doesn't address one main line of skeptical argument- that is ok, change is coming but it will be so slow we don't need to do anything about it right now, and free market solutions can evolve on their own.
I disagree. I think his comments on India and China were quite well made and address that point. If we do nothing now we can hardly stop China and India as their own growth accelerates, and they make the problem 6 to 7 times worse than it is today. Doing nothing now ourselves means we get no say in what they do later, and that is where the real problem lies, not in the 30% mark we're at now, but rather at the 400% mark that we're currently on target to meet or surpass. -
Bob Lacatena at 05:43 AM on 21 August 2011Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
This is awesome. That's a smart, smart approach to dealing with skeptics. And I love the way he called them out. And he's right. As long as certain people insist on denying the facts and arguing details, they are going to get the exact opposite of what they want. The truth is the truth, and denial does them a disservice. If they don't step up to address the problem, other people will, with solutions they don't particularly like. But if they abdicate their own power by declaring that there is no problem, then they only have themselves to blame for their own impotence when the problem reaches the point of being undeniable. -
Bob Lacatena at 05:15 AM on 21 August 2011A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
64, guinganbresil,Since this forms the connection between increasing CO2 and global temperatures and thus the basis for climate alarmism, this might be worth more rigorous investigation.
Please: 1) Tell me that you understand CBDunkerson's explaination in 66. If not, visit this post: Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming and here: Empriical Evidence for Global Warming 2) Once you understand this, please openly and publicly withdraw your remark above, as well as the following:Or has the climate science community really built their house on this soft sand of incomplete analysis?
In addition, in the future please demonstrate more skepticism by properly investigating issues with an open mind, rather than assuming that your are smart and all climate scientists are dumb. -
Anthony Mills at 04:21 AM on 21 August 2011Climate Skeptic Fool's Gold
scaddenp:I appreciate your comments.I simply wish to make the point that"computer climate models" do not use "solid fundamental physics"to describe some important phenomena,and should not be overrated.I took exception to Dana's statement"---climate science has aged like a fine wine" Penfolds Grange it is not! However I would like to see a citation to a latent heat transport model based on fundamental physics that has been used in a computer climate model.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Actually climate models do use "solid fundamental physics" (for example fluid dynamics) to describe "some important phenomena" (emphasis mine). The reason they are not 25 year old Laphroig cask strength (not a fan of the grape) is that they don't include all the important phenomena, and because the temporal and spatial resolution is limited by computational expense. As GEP Box said "all models are wrong, but some are useful". Current AOGCMs may not be "Penfolds Grange", but that doesn't mean they are not drinkable, or even quite palatable. -
Dave123 at 03:43 AM on 21 August 2011Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
I suppose "CO2 emits" heat is technically correct...but will mislead in some senses, leading the usual literalist types to go off down the expected roads. (Where does CO2 get the heat it emits, playing weasel words with "trapping heat".) Actually, I rather like the dodge, but it needs more explanation. The other thing is that this initiative, worthy as it is, doesn't address one main line of skeptical argument- that is ok, change is coming but it will be so slow we don't need to do anything about it right now, and free market solutions can evolve on their own. (Not to get too political here, but I think on topic given the advocacy contents of the video ----it seems to me that the classic libertarian response to the tragedy of the commons is the privatise the commons. How you can privatize climate is beyond me, hence the need for command and control regulation that restricts a free market) Still two flaws in an otherwise interesting presentation to an intrinsically hostile audience isn't bad. It woiuld have been nice to see the Q&A. Imagine Spencer or Christy talking to us. -
Tom Dayton at 03:20 AM on 21 August 2011A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
CB, I think confusion results unless we state more explicitly what you stated implicitly: Total energy loss to space across all wavelengths does decrease temporarily in response to increase of greenhouse gas insulation of infrared wavelengths. That temporary decrease is what causes the extra energy to accumulate, which manifests as greater temperature, which then causes an exactly compensatory increase in total outgoing radiation across all wavelengths. But in practice we don't expect to measure such a distinct step-set of stimulus-response changes in outgoing total radiation. Changes in greenhouse gas insulation are continuous rather than discrete, and the resulting increases in temperature are continuous and instantaneous. Further smearing of the radiation response times is done by the existence of the various energy sinks such as the oceans, and noise from the large number of influences over incoming and outgoing radiation other than greenhouse gases. Finally, when the temperature increases, the system's attempt to emit more radiation is not restricted to non-infrared wavelengths. If greenhouse gases do not block 100% of a given wavelength, then an attempted increase in radiation at that wavelength can cause some successful increase at that wavelength. -
CBDunkerson at 02:28 AM on 21 August 2011A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
guinganbresil wrote: "'and therefore the greenhouse effect...'? Really? Doesn't that require an actual decrease in the total heat loss to space?" Ummm.... no. The energy still leaves eventually. Most of it is just at different IR bands by that point. I'm not sure why you would think that GHGs need to have an impact on non-GHG radiation bands in order to prove the greenhouse effect... but, by definition, they don't. If the total outgoing energy decreased by any significant amount while the incoming energy remained the same (what you describe as required to prove the greenhouse effect) then the planet would be burned to a crisp in short order. Rather, what happens is that energy in the GHG bands is blocked from escaping and remains within the climate system... which causes the climate system to be warmer... which causes more radiant energy to be emitted at non-GHG bands... which results in incoming and outgoing energy being balanced - just with a higher surface temperature than would have existed without the GHGs. Same principle as putting insulation on a house to keep it warmer. -
dana1981 at 01:20 AM on 21 August 2011Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
Kooiti - unfortunately we can't anticipate every bad argument the "skeptics" will be able to come up with. And considering that i) 'natural' CO2 emissions have the same residence time and ii) humans are constantly emitting more and more CO2 and iii) although it may not remain in the atmosphere for more than a few years, it still remains in the carbon cycle for centuries, this is a really bad argument. -
guinganbresil at 01:05 AM on 21 August 2011A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
Tom Curtis @55, Your 1) I think both of us misunderstood SkS's new resource... I thought (in error) it was a forum for personal attacks against skeptics, you apparently believe it is a record of their personal attacks on proponents. A quick check would show that SkS has stuck to the science (see Monckton, no reference to Hitler Youth...) I stick by my statement: "it is reasonable and I believe it can be done professionally" -
muoncounter at 00:47 AM on 21 August 2011There is no consensus
Rickoxo#410: "10% of climate scientists with at least 20 publications" When did you establish that 'at least 20 publications' guarantees valid work? That qualifies Spencer, Lindzen (240 publications!), Svensmark, Akasofu ... as trusted experts. Why not look, instead, at the quality of their work, rather than the quantity? And do the same with the likes of Trenberth, Hansen, Rahmstorf, Schneider ... ? Hint: That's hard work, but it is exactly the purpose of this site. You say you're in education (as am I): How many surveys are there that directly contradict one another? One survey says class size must be reduced; another that students in smaller classes don't show higher levels of achievement. One survey says we must give more standardized tests; another says testing deters meaningful teaching. A well-known climate 'skeptic' once responded to a question about the value of opinion polls with a scornful 'So?' -
guinganbresil at 00:45 AM on 21 August 2011A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
"The results presented here provide (to our knowledge) the first experimental observation of changes in the Earth's outgoing longwave radiation spectrum, and therefore the greenhouse effect..." Harries 2001 "Changes"? Did the OLR actually go down? Really? All sky? - Oh, Clear sky only... Oh, over the GHG bands only... "and therefore the greenhouse effect..."? Really? Doesn't that require an actual decrease in the total heat loss to space? Since this forms the connection between increasing CO2 and global temperatures and thus the basis for climate alarmism, this might be worth more rigorous investigation. Griggs 2004, Chen 2007 added additional data sets, but did essentially the same thing - clear sky only, and still showed increasing brightness temperature in the window region over time (exceeding the decrease in the CO2 band...) Did Harries or others ever follow up on All Sky analyses as they said they would? Has the observed decrease in the CO2 bands actually impacted the overall OLR measured by non-spectrally resolved sensors? Has anyone closed the loop on this? Or has the climate science community really built their house on this soft sand of incomplete analysis? -
Tom Curtis at 00:29 AM on 21 August 2011There is no consensus
Sphaerica @417, the purported weaknesses of the Doran survey are entirely imaginary. The questions asked where phrased exactly the same as questions asked in a previous Gallop Poll. The idea was to compare expert opinion with public opinion, and that can only be done by asking the same questions. That does mean the Doran survey does not give us as detailed a break down on some issues as we would like, but just because research does not answer some of the questions we would like answered does not mean it was not effective research for answering the questions the researchers posed. -
Tom Curtis at 00:24 AM on 21 August 2011Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
apirate @17, well if we are going to be pedantic you should also include mention of CO2 from cement. The latest figures from CDIAC are: Land Use Changes - 11.6% Cement - 4% Fossil Fuels - 84.4% -
Bob Lacatena at 00:12 AM on 21 August 2011There is no consensus
409, Rickoxo,I'd think the GWS community would kick out the Doran paper because it so easily opens them up to criticism.
I personally don't see the paper as part of GWS. It's published by a GW scientist, but it's social science. Maybe that's why it's weak, and a social scientist should tackle the issue. Interestingly, that's what Wegman tried to do, too, to use social sciences against the consensus, implying that part of the consensus results from confirmation bias resulting from an old boy network among climate scientists. Interestingly, he used a network of his own friends to write his own report, and has been accused of grossly plagiarizing along the way. But my whole point is "why all the emphasis on social sciences and confirming the consensus?" This isn't an issue with any subject except climate science. Why? Because questioning the science won't work in this case, so questioning the scientists is even better. Sow mistrust and doubt. And you're buying into it....there wouldn't be 93 out of 910 physicists with at least 20 journal publications who don't believe Newtonian mechanics describes simple observable motion of objects.
This is a strawman. How do you jump from Newtonian mechanics, a hundreds years old foundation of physics, to cardiologists. How about instead whether or not cholesterol intake affects future heart disease? See this article on a new cholesterol drug. It's an interesting parallel. There is a dispute over the efficacy versus dangers of the drug. The specialists, cardiologists, are primarily in agreement (I can't find the stats, but I'll bet it's only 9 of 10). The FDA panel voted 12 to 4. The general physicians strongly disagree! What does this sound like to you? And this example isn't perfect, because it's about a particular drug, with extreme (dangerous) side effects. But what about statin's in general? I'll bet you'll find cardiologists that don't think they should be used, and even more general physicians in that camp. So... do you think people shouldn't take statin's to protect against heart disease? More important, do you see all sorts of studies that need to prove the consensus before people will buy into this whole, questionable "cholesterol" thing?Response:[DB] To be fair, I believe I introduced cardiologists (and oncologists) into the discussion as an analogy. However, having sold statins and Crestor to cardiologists, lipidologists and primary care physicians for years, you have the gist of it. The experts who are using advanced lipid testing are now able to parse out those individuals for whom statins will be ineffective much more readily than before. And Crestor's unique primary prevention indication is still limited to those individuals who still have normal lipid levels but a combination of other risk factors, thereby constraining its prophylactic use.
By now I'm waaaay off-topic & apologize for that. Moral: get advanced lipid testing done. It may save your life.
-
apiratelooksat50 at 00:07 AM on 21 August 2011Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
Y'all hold on to your hats - I agree with this post. Though, I think references to land use/change could be added to the end of the following sentence to be more accurate. "As you can see, there are many lines of evidence showing that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to human fossil fuel combustion." -
Tom Curtis at 00:04 AM on 21 August 2011There is no consensus
Rickoxo @410, I think your interpretation of Anderegg is simplistic. You have assumed that for a given climate scientist who has published 20 or more papers, they are as likely to be included in Anderegg's survey if they are "Convinced by the Evidence" compared to if they are not "Convinced by the Evidence". That is a distinctly unsafe assumption. As is shown by the relative publication records of the CE and UE groups, only people with substantial records of achievement were included in the CE sample. In contrast, for those who are UE, no significant record of achievement was required, as is indicated by the high proportion of UE researchers with fewer than 20 publications. The consequence of this is that we can be sure that nearly all UE researchers with 20 plus publications found their way into Anderegg's study. In contrast, there is a significant probability that CE researchers with 20 plus publications where not included in the study. If we assume that the relative frequency of publication number is the same between the two groups, ie, that across all climate researchers, the proportion of CE researchers with 100+ publications relative to CE researchers with 20+ publications is approximately equal to the same proportion for UC researchers, then Anderegg's survey technique under represents CE researchers with 20+ publications by a factor of three or more. (This assumption amounts to the assumption that the greater "expertise" of CE researchers found by Anderegg is a function of greater numbers of CE researchers rather than of significantly greater intelligence.) If that assumption reflects reality, then UC researchers with 20+ publications represent 3.65% or less of all climate researchers with 20+ publications. However, I do not think we are justified in drawing that specific a conclusion. The conclusion that they represent 10% of all climate researchers with 20+ publications seems far more perilous to me. Still even with a 3.65% proportion, you might still be inclined to run your Newton argument. What that argument neglects is several key differences between Newtonian dynamics and climate science: 1) Newtonian Dynamics does not, as climate science does challenge some people's political ideologies; 2) Newtonian Dynamics does not, as climate science does challenge some people's value systems; 3) Newtonian Dynamics does not, as climate science does challenge some people's self image; 4) Newtonian Dynamics does not, as climate science does challenge some people's economic interests; and 5) Unlike Newtonian Dynamics, there are several billionaires (and several billion dollar corporations) that will actively fund people to challenge climate science. Given these clear sociological reasons for dissent, the proper comparison is not with a science like Newtonian Dynamics that challenges nobodies world view, but a science like evolutionary theory which as certain as Newtonian Dynamics, but challenging for many people. -
SteveS at 00:01 AM on 21 August 2011There is no consensus
"So try out this idea and tell me if it helps folks understand what I'm facing as a skeptic. I absolutely guarantee, bet every penny I have, that there wouldn't be 93 out of 910 physicists with at least 20 journal publications who don't believe Newtonian mechanics describes simple observable motion of objects. Those laws are easy to understand, can be empirically validated any time and there wouldn't be 10% of the physicist community saying objects don't accelerate when they fall or momentum doesn't = mass times velocity." I think you've picked the wrong analogy with Newtonian mechanics. The reason for this is that, in the end, there are flaws in Newtonian mechanics and this was known at least at the turn of the 20th century. If you want to choose an appropriate analogy, you need to look at what supplanted Newtonian mechanics: relativity. When Einstein came out with his theories of relativity, it was something of a paradigm shift, much like the recent discoveries in climate science. A lot of people didn't like that. Including a lot of physicists (including at least two Nobel laureates). (There's an article in New Scientist but the text of the article can be found here. There's also a Wikipedia article.) Newtonian mechanics are, as you said, clear and easy to understand. Relativity, on the other hand, is non-intuitive and difficult to understand. It challenged people's notion of what the universe was like and people didn't like that. Reading about the relativity denial, it has struck me that there is a lot of similarity between them and the current climate change deniers. The relativity deniers complained that they couldn't get published because of a conspiracy by the proponents of relativity, just as we hear that scientists opposed to climate change can't get published due to conspiracies against them. If you want to use a current analogy, I think you need to look at evolution. Like climate change science, there's an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting evolution. And, yet, you will still find plenty of people who deny it, even biologists, because it challenges their view of the universe. -
Mark Harrigan at 23:56 PM on 20 August 2011Climate Denial Video #5: Settled science and impossible expectations
Is there anyway a download of this video can be obtained?Response:[DB] If you are using Internet Explorer, it may be possible to pull a copy out of the IE cache file (this works about half the time for me). You'll have to rename the file and the file extension to a .FLV file type. If that doesn't work, 3rd party software packages are available to do all that for you.
-
muoncounter at 23:49 PM on 20 August 2011There is no consensus
DSL#411: "Survey schmurvey." Agreed. But look how many times SkS is dragged into yet another harangue about the survey based on the easily-misinterpreted 'consensus' question. Far more relevant was the comment made here, scientific societies and academies across the world agree with these statements. In fact, because of that we have not consensus but consilience, which is explained further here: Multiple strands of evidence from varied sources all leading to the same conclusion, as opposed to 'our club members all agree with other'. As was said here, that's the only important survey: a survey of the evidence. Don't believe the results of what is basically an opinion poll? Spare us your opinion; show us the evidence the science is wrong. -
RickG at 23:43 PM on 20 August 2011There is no consensus
Rickoxo, I think one important concept concerning both the Dorian and the Anderegg papers is that they stick specifically with the scientists who work and publish in the field. Conversely, what we see from the skeptic/denial side is signed petitions from people completely outside any field of research pertaining to climate science with little exception. I think it is also noteworthy to point out that the few skeptical papers that do get published are rarely with the mainstream journals and generally are reviewed by reviewers not in the field of those submissions. As for the qualifying idea of number of publications and citations to one's credit, it is very significant. Experience does count and a paper that is cited by others numerous times indicates good work. Papers with no or few citations are generally of poor quality or contain little if any useful information. -
adelady at 23:28 PM on 20 August 2011There is no consensus
Rick. For the non-expert one way to see, literally see, the accumulated evidence is right here on Skeptical Science at History of Climate Science. Watching the evidence pile up on one hand, and the tiny assembly of other papers on the sidelines is striking. As for "...the types of questions experts in the field say are a done deal and the types of questions they say are still open to debate." The central issue is now and always has been the radiative physics of gases. This tells us what to expect for the atmosphere at eventual equilibrium. The questions that are up for examination or needing further evidence are, by and large, about the transition period. I'd put them in 2 categories. One is about marching orders - what goes first and at what speed. Clearly the loss of Arctic ice has elbowed its way to the front at astonishing speed and shows no sign of slackening that pace. Floods, droughts, crop losses look, so far, to accord with expectations of the amount of warming so far in evidence. Things like major SLR, loss of icesheets and methane releases from clathrates are still in the 'could be a century or so, might be a couple of decades' basket. The other category is 'work in progress'. Lots of this on transient sensitivity. Lots more for assembling and analysing data on OHC, feedbacks and the like. This category is also the 'more funds needed' and 'more time needed' group. If we'd had half a dozen more satellites collecting more and different data for more examination and analysis over the last 10 years, a lot of the topics people like to pick arguments about (eg clouds, aerosols) would already be done and dusted. But about warming and its cause, not a skerrick of doubt. -
Eric (skeptic) at 23:15 PM on 20 August 2011It's microsite influences
Capital Weather Gang (now part of Washington Post) noted that the NWS in Sterling VA noted that 2011 is the "warmest summer on record" through Aug 17th at National Airport (KDCA). http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/pm-update-widely-scattered-storms-this-evening-drier-saturday/2011/08/10/gIQAX4LQQJ_blog.html The problem is that it isn't. National has fresh dark gravel spread around their thermometer site (new google satellite compared to old) and they are consistently high by 2-3 degrees on radiational cooling mornings. The anomaly doesn't show up as much on windy or cloudy mornings. National's lows are also 5 to 10 degrees higher than neighboring weatherbug sites (mostly at schools) but that is a river and heat island influence that hasn't changed much over the years. If the washpost link above doesn't work (their site is sometimes unruly), the NWS discussion was also quoted here; http://www.americanwx.com/bb/index.php/topic/23896-record-summer-watch-where-will-we-finish/ -
skywatcher at 22:58 PM on 20 August 2011Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
And the Moon is tidally locked to the Earth, but not to its primary energy source, the Sun. Pink Floyd were wrong, there is no 'Dark Side' of the Moon! No Solar Sysatem object we know of is tidally locked for synchronous rotation to the Sun, though a few planetary moons, of which ours is one, are locked to their parent planets. -
Mark Harrigan at 22:57 PM on 20 August 2011Christy Crock #7: Expensive and inaccessible (Part 2)
This thread makes some good points but it is time to stop quoting Jacobson and Delucchi as an authoritative source. They have been fairly strongly debunked by a source who could hardly be called climate change deniers (indeed the opposite). Having said that clearly energy efficiencies are part of the answer and we should pursue them with vigour, along with reduction in consumption as much as we can in the profligate west. I do like the points about distributed power and Solar PV. I believe the cost per KWh is becoming more and more attractive - particularly when we realise that we really need only compare the cost of production (on the rooftop) NOT with the cost of production from a large power station but with the delivered cost from a centralised source. Given that transmission and distribution costs can be almost half of the delivered cost this is a significant factor. I do wonder if we can help the world's poor (who lack access to a proper grid) to go the de-centralised track and (for example) have lots of local Solar PV. Of course this won't work everywhere but superficially one might suspect it would be a great approach for large parts of the poor regions in sub-Saharan Africa? Perhaps the authors could expand on the relevant examples they quote of this in a separate thread? -
DSL at 22:34 PM on 20 August 2011There is no consensus
Rickoxo, be careful. You used Anderegg's term "unconvinced" early and then switched to "not agree." Your Newtonian example also devolves into an either-or (and only involves a single idea). I'll wager that 90% of those 10% agree with much of the basis of AGW but are unwilling to commit for one reason or another. Spencer and clouds, for example. You can be unconvinced by the theories of Freud but also find a lot of truth in them. As for the earlier complaint about the significance of the human contribution, it's up to the survey taker to interpret significance. If you don't trust the survey maker with the word, how do you answer? This does turn into an either-or if you do use the statistical measure of significance. CO2 is the control knob, and the human injection of atmospheric CO2 has been the difference. You remain skeptical, though, based on the evidence of surveys. Surveys do not effectively measure the response to the complexity of the theory and, more importantly, its implications. If you're going to leave it at the survey level, then 90% should convince you. If I give you a 90% chance of winning a million dollars with a 10 dollar ticket, I don't think you'll pass the chance on to the next in line. If 90 people tell you you're about to get hit by a bus, and they all give the same reasons, and ten people tell you you're not but all their reasons are different, and some of the ten disagree with others of the ten, are you going to move your butt or keep sauntering? You can answer "I'm not convinced" with your academic mind, but your practical mind is screaming "move it!" Better yet, though, just work out the basics for yourself. It only takes a few hours--less if you accept certain assumptions. If you accept the absorption spectra of the ten most populous atmospheric gases, and if you accept the evidence of rising CO2 concentrations and the mass balance argument, then you're halfway there. Just accepting those basics will, in fact, stop you from having to read probably half of the "skeptical" arguments rebutted on this site. I will note that I'm with Sphaerica on this issue. Survey schmurvey. The survey still needs to be interpreted for the public, and the public has been well-trained to say, "yah, but it's just a survey and surveys can say anything." A survey certainly isn't going very far in the professional community. They make great copy for guys like Joe Romm, but he's largely preaching to the choir. -
CBDunkerson at 19:05 PM on 20 August 2011A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
John Brookes wrote: "Also, I think Muller deserves an honourable mention for infuriating the denialists by replicating the existing terrestrial temperature data with his own analysis. I'm almost thinking that he is a mole in the denialist ranks." Muller definitely isn't a 'mole'. He has been spreading too many ridiculous 'skeptic' claims (e.g. 'not a single polar bear has died due to global warming') for too long. Whether having independently confirmed that things he previously promoted as heroic truths are in fact completely false (e.g. the surface temperature records are heavily biased by urban heat island effects) will cause him to re-examine the rest of the BS he has been peddling remains to be seen. If he stops saying things which are demonstrably false then I'd agree he wouldn't belong on this page any more... however, if he continues doing so then the links to pages debunking false claims should remain. -
Dikran Marsupial at 18:51 PM on 20 August 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Dr Doom I didn't presume ignorance, you demonstrated ignorance here (trying to estimate equilibrium climate sensitivity using a timespan over which equilibrium couldn't possibly be reached), here (thinking a logatithmic relationship implied a finite limit) and now here (CO2 absorption is saturated). In each case the issue you raise has been answered; it is not my fault that you have taken the answers badly. There is no shame in not understanding something, we all start from that position and none of us should object to being told that we don't understand something. It is part of normal science. I am not making this personal, just trying to help you to realise that you are starting from a set of misconceptions, which appears to be preventing you from moving forward. Now I know that dy/dx tends to zero as x increases for log(x). However I have already told you that this does not mean that log(x) tends to a finite value (and given a reference). I have already explained to you that CO2 radiative forcing is described in terms of doublings for precisely this reason (as x gets larger the increase you need to get a constant increase in forcing doubles). To show you this is true, using the rules of logarithms log(2x) = log(2) + log(x) which implies that log(2x) - log(x) = log(2) In other words, if you double x, its logarithm changes by a constant amount, i.e. log(2). This is true for any value of x. A logarithmic relationship does not imply an upper limit on temperature (y). Such a limit will ocurr in practice because the logarithmic law probably only applies to trace gasses, however this limit is way too high to have any bearing on AGW. As scaddenp points out, the idea that CO2 already abosrbs 90% of IR radiation emitted by the surface is a skeptic argument based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how the greenhouse effect actually works. It is not absorption at the surface that matters, it is absorption in the upper atmosphere that matters. As well as the SkS link that scaddenp provided, there is also an excellent explanation of this by Spencer Weart at RealClimate.
Prev 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 Next
