Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1533 1534 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 Next
Comments 77001 to 77050:
-
barry1487 at 21:53 PM on 21 August 2011Scott 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. -
Dikran Marsupial at 21:09 PM on 21 August 2011Scott 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. -
garethman at 20:45 PM on 21 August 2011Scott 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. -
newcrusader at 20:13 PM on 21 August 2011Scott 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. -
Rob Painting at 19:26 PM on 21 August 2011OA 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. -
CBDunkerson at 19:11 PM on 21 August 2011A 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. -
OUTSIDE OBSERVER at 18:08 PM on 21 August 2011Soil 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. -
garethman at 17:42 PM on 21 August 2011A 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. -
barry1487 at 17:39 PM on 21 August 2011Scott 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. -
garethman at 17:31 PM on 21 August 2011A 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. -
Tom Curtis at 17:29 PM on 21 August 2011A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
guingenbresil, I have responded here and here. -
Tom Curtis at 17:28 PM on 21 August 2011CO2 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. -
Doug Mackie at 17:23 PM on 21 August 2011OA 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. -
Tom Curtis at 17:11 PM on 21 August 2011CO2 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.
-
Rickoxo at 16:25 PM on 21 August 2011There 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. -
Rickoxo at 15:58 PM on 21 August 2011There 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? -
scaddenp at 15:56 PM on 21 August 2011A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
guinganbresil - Doesn't this belong in The CO2 effect is saturated?" -
guinganbresil at 15:49 PM on 21 August 2011A 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... -
guinganbresil at 14:59 PM on 21 August 2011A 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? -
jyyh at 14:51 PM on 21 August 2011OA 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. -
Bob Lacatena at 14:42 PM on 21 August 2011A 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.
-
Bob Lacatena at 14:26 PM on 21 August 2011Scott 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. -
Bob Lacatena at 14:20 PM on 21 August 2011There 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. -
barry1487 at 13:41 PM on 21 August 2011Scott 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? -
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.
Prev 1533 1534 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 Next
