Recent Comments

Prev  1536  1537  1538  1539  1540  1541  1542  1543  1544  1545  1546  1547  1548  1549  1550  1551  Next

Comments 77151 to 77200:

77151. Dr. Doom at 15:45 PM on 19 August 2011
       Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
       Skywatcher, I asked the question so I know what my point is. You may have a different point but this is my point: people suggested that CO2 sensitivity is logarithmic. That means it has a limiting value. I want to know what that value is. I don't mind if that value is 1C or 100C. People here are so eager to prove that it must be high. That is not my point. I just want to know what it is. Now, if there is no limiting value, fine. If there is, what is it? That's all. This is science not propaganda.
77152. Tom Curtis at 15:45 PM on 19 August 2011
       A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
       guinganbresil @40, prominent members of the "rogues gallery" above have frequently, and justifiably accused climate scientists of fraud. They have held up individual scientist by name for ridicule and calumny. On one occasion they published the address of the office of a scientist known to be receiving death threats, complete with a convenient picture pointing out the appropriate office window. They have called climate scientists conspirators, communists and (because consistency has never been their strong point) Nazis. One of them on a recent tour of Australia called for them to be seized, prosecuted and jailed; a call that was not an empty threat with one climate scientists under constant harassment by a State Attorney General, while a wild life scientist is being persecuted by Federal authorities for no other reason, so far as can be determined, than that he suggested that retreating sea ice might result in more frequent drowning of Polar Bears. And in the face of all this, you think Skeptical Science has personalized this. Quite frankly, your rule 12 looks like the play book of the denier community. And you have the gall to insist that not only should deniers be able to libel climate scientists and launch vicious attacks against climate scientists, but they should also have the advantage of effective immunity to any challenge by keeping the spotlight very carefully of them.
77153. Rickoxo at 15:06 PM on 19 August 2011
       There is no consensus
       Sorry, double post, I must have mis-hit something as I was typing. Sorry for the repeat Skywatcher, sorry, I would have responded to you too, but your post came in as I was writing this last one. I'm going to avoid the question about money and research because it seems to get me in trouble and stick with the development of scientific knowledge. I'm betting there is much science in climate science that is as you describe it. No way it could be faked, years and years of confirmation, pretty much absolute clarity, like basic Newtonian physics. I don't question that at all. I don't know enough about climate science to know where that line ends and we move into theory, conjecture and debate over inconclusive evidence. I'm pretty sure from what I've read that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and when studied in a lab setting, it causes warming, that doesn't seem to be debated. That it causes warming in our climate, I'm pretty sure about that too. How much warming it causes and how much other factors influence and affect what CO2 does and how strongly it does it doesn't hit me as the same kind of settled science. But, I'm clearly not an expert about even that statement and that's some of what I'm here to find out. But think about something like, what the climate of the earth will be like 100 years from now? I can't imagine you're saying that climate predictions 100 years into the future are the kind of settled science like basic Newtonian physics? Estimations of the effects of predicted global warming on polar bear populations? Settled? In areas where the science isn't settled and the evidence is inconclusive, education researchers, sociology researchers, economists, politicians and even hard scientists are influenced by a host of factors as they make research decisions. It's not unique to any community nor is any community immune to it. This brings up a couple of great questions that hit me as critical to the larger GWS debate. 1. What are the clearest, simplest, most accessible and most incontrovertible facts that support GWS? (i.e. oceans are warming, ice is melting, etc.) 2. What is the proof that these facts are caused by people and are not natural? I get that's what this site is all about, but there's a great strategy in argument that says present the simplest, cleanest, most irrefutable point that supports your position first and start there. When people tell me there are hundred of threads and tons of articles discounting every skeptic argument, that doesn't help as much as here is the best piece of evidence available demonstrating human influence on the climate. I would love to know that about GWS science if it exists. Sometimes, in education, politics, philosophy and science, this one shining example doesn't exist and there's no "easy" way in to helping someone shift their perspective. But I offer you that if this site could put its considerable energy into thinking through the simplest, clearest and most irrefutable evidence support AGW, it would be a huge benefit to the independent community, attempting to choose between two presentations of alternate perspectives.
77154. owl905 at 15:01 PM on 19 August 2011
       A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
       What a great rogues gallery! Don't worry about the missing mugs ... a little harumph at not being a first round pick serves them right. The most depressed may be Bjorn Lomborg - he's spent half a lifetime trying to qualify for this kind of grouping. Simply a great idea.
77155. calyptorhynchus at 14:54 PM on 19 August 2011
       A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
       Whoops "rogues' gallery"
77156. scaddenp at 14:54 PM on 19 August 2011
       Climate Skeptic Fool's Gold
       I am guessing 80 comes from the Trenberth energy budget. On the same diagram, notice that total backradiation is around 333. The CO2 radiation flux is more like 66 (see Schmidt et al, 2010 - the 1.7 (<2) is forcing from pre-industrial levels. However, I am somewhat lost on Anthony Mills question. latent heat transport is of course part of a model, but I am lost as to how this is much affected by anything except temperature and isnt an energy transport off-planet. I think discussion of this belongs in Model are unreliable
77157. calyptorhynchus at 14:52 PM on 19 August 2011
       A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
       This is a great resource. But can I add another thought on the way it can evolve in the future. The way I see it the common or garden agw denialist is getting more infrequent these days. Instead, and much more insidious, are those who, grudgingly, accept the science on global warming, but deny the need for any action, the 'we can adapt' crowd. Perhaps you could divide the rogue's gallery into these two types.
77158. Rickoxo at 14:44 PM on 19 August 2011
       There is no consensus
       Skywatcher, sorry, I would have responded to you too, but your post came in as I was writing this last one. I'm betting there is much science in climate science that is as you describe it. No way it could be faked, years and years of confirmation, pretty much absolute clarity. I don't question that at all. I don't know enough about climate science to know where that line ends and we move into theory, conjecture and debate over inconclusive evidence. I'm pretty sure from what I've read that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and when studied in a lab setting causes warming, that doesn't seem to be debated. That it causes warming in our climate, I'm pretty sure about that too. How much warming it causes and how much other factors influence and affect what CO2 does and how strongly it does it doesn't hit me as the same kind of settled science But, I'm clearly not an expert about even that statement and that's some of what I'm hear to find out. But think about soemthing like, what the climate of the earth will be like 100 years from now? Are you telling me that climate predictions 100 years from now are the kind of settled science like basic newtonian physics? T
77159. mullumhillbilly at 14:39 PM on 19 August 2011
       It's waste heat
       KR@70 ...keeps on giving... What's till puzzling me is Flanner 2009 magnifying the original fire *100 every year with GHGs, where my calcs above (noting the corrected arithemetic to convert W->J) suggest magnifying the fires heat by just 1.5 with GHGs, and that only after CO2 has doubled (ie the original heat reproduced every 0.66 yrs). I suspect (not being able to access the original) that Flanners figure probaly includes the whole of GHG effect, not just the marginal AGW additions that I used. Either way, this is one amazing "eternal flame". So analogy good, Gedankenexperiment bad ? OK so you don't like the glasshouse, or the fridge. Well, could you perhaps address the questions anyway ? Maybe they are already dealt with elsewhere on this site, but its rather labyrinthine, and too voluminous to wade through all the comments (which dont get included in the search engine), and I havent found an answer with the search terms I used. So apologies if you feel your time is being wasted, but I am genuinely interested in finding an answer, not arguing from an entrenched position. Rather than two glasshouses, can you imagine two identical planets Earth.2x and Earth.1x ? On Earth.2x, the atmosphere with doubled load of GHG will slow down the rate of night cooling (heat loss) compared to that on Earth.1x. However in the absence of new forcings (the sun), the amount of heat energy held in Earth.2x atmosphere and oceans will eventually equal that on Earth 1.x. , and that would happen well above zero energy point on both planets. Would you agree with that in principle? If we can agree on that, the key question would be "how long is eventually ?" If its less than 12 hours, it seems to me that, nightwarming and rises in "average" temperature notwithstanding, there is nothing that constitutes "climate change", no residual energy to drive the cyclones, floods and ice melt. So can you point me to anywhere that empirically demonstrates or explains why it takes more than a few hours on average, for the obstructed/trapped/retained energy to make its way to TOA and get lost from the system?
77160. Rickoxo at 14:37 PM on 19 August 2011
       There is no consensus
       DSL and scaddenp, thanks for the responses and I'm terribly sorry if somehow I came across as saying that climate scientists are intentionally, fraudulently doctoring their data. I sure don't think I said that and I don't think that. The point I was trying to make was the general principle that funding can influence research. The farthest far extreme is deliberate intentional fraud and that is exceptionally rare. On the other end are the legitimate things researchers do every day in trying to frame and present their research (or proposals to get grants) in a light that makes it sound as compatible and supportive of the goals of the granting organization as possible. In between those two are a whole host of options and possibilities. One that happens in education frequently is setting up an experiment so that I collect actual data that simply proves what I set out to prove. It's real data, no fudging, no fraud, but I set up the experiment such that I was pretty likely to get the outcome I wanted to get. Skeptics could use this strategy easily to "disprove" warming by collecting data from locations they have reason to believe would support their argument of no warming. No one falsified data, but the data itself doesn't tell us much. Can you imagine it being possible that researchers could design experiments or data collection strategies such that they increased the likelihood of getting data they wanted to find? Take something like arctic ice melting. Skeptics and GWS folks have conducted studies saying ice is growing and ice is shrinking. Both have what I believe to be legitimate data. It would be easy for either side to select sites to support their data collection. Whether or not that gets called out has a lot to do with the broader community of scientists in which the research is conducted. There's a lot of bad research on phonics instruction for early reading right now, mainly because phonics instruction had to fight through years of bad research to get its place in the forefront of educational practice and now many folks are unwilling to critique any phonics research for fear it will reignite the reading wars once again. Please don't read this as me saying that all climate science researchers are faking data and that now I'm adding in the entire climate science community is complicit in the coverup. Not all research is equivalently useful and valid (even if it's not fraud) and no research community is perfect at policing everything that gets produced by its members. And please, if you think you're hearing anything in what I'm saying as an underhanded sneak attack on climate scientists, I'm starting with education researchers of whom I am one (grammar? :-) and I believe this to be true of researchers in general, as a general principle. Scaddenp, in response to your question, there are a range of "payoffs" in academia other than getting rich. Getting tenure, getting conference proposals accepted, getting published, getting grants to conduct research, getting hired at a specific university, none of these get one rich, but all of these influence how researchers conduct themselves. Because I come from a balanced literacy perspective, there are universities I could never work at and journals I could never get published in. Making choices about what I choose to research, the types of data I try to find, the conclusions I draw from the data I collect, all of this has huge implications for my future. It's not just about getting rich. I picked this thread because the topic involved, the question of consensus isn't a hard science question. It's pretty easy to think about and I thought a good place to try out talking about. Your framing (DSL) about the choosing between two presentations is an excellent description of what I'm up against and in the discussion about consensus there are two presentations. I started by asking about a quote from an editor of the american physical society newsletter saying there was considerable presence of folks who don't accept IPCC. We moved onto Doran as good discussions move from initial questions to analysis of evidence. I read Doran and then asked questions about that study, but it seems like the conversation has mostly been off-topic. I would actually love to talk about Doran and the idea of consensus ... Again, I'm sorry for whatever part I played in getting us off topic and for making it sound like I think climate scientists are frauds. I don't think that at all and I'll restate it as often as is helpful :-)
       Response:

       [DB] Well-spoken and much clearer; thanks for taking the time to add clarity to your position.

77161. Sceptical Wombat at 14:31 PM on 19 August 2011
       Climate Skeptic Fool's Gold
       Could you give a source for your figure of 80 W/m2?
77162. skywatcher at 14:26 PM on 19 August 2011
       Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
       Dr Doom you're avoiding the point. Your example in #230 is a basic calculation of transient sensitivity as Dikran pointed out. The equilibrium sensitivity is higher than that, and well confirmed by palaeoclimate to be so. And there's plenty room for enough doublings for us to get uncomfortably hot, trend to infinity or not... But we should be glad that the gain in the positive feedback between CO2 and temperature is significantly less than 1 (though it is still unquestionably a positive feedback) - otherwise we would not be here having this discussion.
77163. skywatcher at 14:10 PM on 19 August 2011
       There is no consensus
       Excellent comment DSL. Rickoxo, in the kindest possible way, think about what you were trying to say by suggesting the possibility that the science has been twisted by people in it for the money. For that to be true, many thousands of scientists over the course of more than a century, and particularly all those sice the 1930s-1950s work of Plass and Callender would have to be twisting their work, all in the same direction, all for a little more grant money (which often does not contribute directly to salary). Does that sound likely? The basic science is much older than the politicisation of the issue. Yet in all that time, nobody has managed to come up with an internally consistent un-twisted view of atmospheric physics and palaeoclimate that fits the evidence, despite the great rewards that would be on offer for such an academic achievement! The theory (note I say theory, like gravity or evolution, rather than hypothesis) of climate is based on many decade of work by thousands of people, each of whom would love to have proved their predecessors wrong, but each of whom have failed to do so, but whose evidence has confirmed and strengthened the theory. This site is awash with the products of their work. On top of that, there is a strong financial motive (billions of dollars in whatever currency) for the organisations responsible for supplying us all with carbon-based fuels to continue to do so for as long as possible. Can you think of circumstances where billion-dollar incentives have got in the way of ethical thinking or driven industries to be economical with the truth?
77164. Rickoxo at 13:39 PM on 19 August 2011
       There is no consensus
       I'll give this one more try. First, DB, you make a huge assumption about when I get older--I'm 47. I decided to get a PhD in education after teaching and a bunch of other jobs for 25 years. Any chance at all you could see in this that you making assumptions about me could be part of the problem we seem to be having? Second, this whole thing started with me asking about the APS newsletter where one of their editors said that there was considerable presence in the scientific community of those who don't agree with the IPCC conclusions. I was attempting to do exactly what you said, discuss this piece of literature in the spirit of peer review. CBDunkerson brought up petroleum geologists and then muon brought up how money-influenced the science of petroleum geologists is. I asked if it was possible that argument cuts both ways and from that point, no one has mentioned the APS quote or the questions about the Doran survey. The only thing people are interested in talking about is me supposedly attacking climate scientists and how I don't have any evidence. I didn't come here with evidence disproving global warming. I'm not a climate science like I said from the beginning. I've read quite a bit critical of GWS and came here to see what discussion I could find that presented an alternative perspective. The consensus topic was one I was intrigued by and one that requires little scientific expertise, so it seemed like a good place to start. Read my few posts and the responses again and try believing for a second that I'm actually here asking questions I don't know the answer to and would like other people's opinions on. I asked a simple, straightforward question about the APS newsletter quote. CBDunker referenced the Doran study and like I do with all research relevant to something I'm studying, I went out and read it and then had some questions about it. I thought the side note would be a tiny clarification that of course anyone engaged at any level of academia and research knows the difficulty of integrity and the influence of money and that everyone has to be wary of it--something I've learned in 25 years of work in the non-profit and education research world. It obviously didn't turn out to be a simple clarification :-)
       Response:

       [DB] I withdraw that portion of my comment possibly ascribing your position due to perceived youth on your part.  My apologies.

       The remainder, including the various guidance to focus on the science & to avoid ideological assignations and aspersions, remains.

       If you can adhere to the Comments Policy here, then there will be no problems.

77165. DSL at 13:38 PM on 19 August 2011
       How we know an ice age isn't just around the corner
       Agreed, Muon, but I still want Dr. Doom's stated opinion on the matter, particularly in light of your comment.
77166. muoncounter at 13:33 PM on 19 August 2011
       How we know an ice age isn't just around the corner
       DSL#66: "I'm not going to immediately dismiss him" I don't dismiss the person; I dismiss the source for the assertion - as did the APS when they printed Monckton's piece of work.
77167. DSL at 13:26 PM on 19 August 2011
       How we know an ice age isn't just around the corner
       Actually, I'd like to invite Dr. Doom to discuss the relevance of his assertion. It must have relevance, because s/he took the time to write it. I'm not going to immediately dismiss him as an agent provocateur, but after spending over a year on this site, I can understand the overwhelming desire to do so.
77168. DSL at 13:15 PM on 19 August 2011
       There is no consensus
       I'm a professional near the same area, Rickoxo, and I understand where you're coming from re education and grant writing. Education tries very hard to approach its very human subject matter scientifically, and professional efforts like the scholarship of teaching and learning movement are evidence that it is a challenge to keep the research based in the scientific method. Don't mistake the discipline of education as a hard science. Climate science is based in observation and a well-established physical model that has a number of theories that have reached the Law stage (unlike education). Many of the attacks on the theory of AGW are not supported by those laws, and the attackers refuse to recognize it. To people unfamiliar with the science or non-scientists, especially those exposed to mass media, it looks like there is serious doubt about everything in climate science. There is actually very little doubt among climate scientists, and then only in certain areas (cloud feedback, aerosols) and only to a very limited extent. The kicker is that you, who know far, far less about climate science than working climatologists, must be forced to choose between two presentations. You sound like you want to believe the science, but you have doubts because climate scientists speak with such confidence in the face of their attackers. How could they be so confident when so many people appear to reveal holes in the theory? Look at the list of "skeptic" arguments for this site. The attackers have tried everything, over and over and over again. Every few months, the same tired and easily rebutted arguments get trotted out again and again. If no one rebuts these arguments--every one of them, down to the most ridiculous and supernatural--then climate science fails in its mission to educate the democracy. People on this site have been over the science hundreds of times, explaining patiently to both the willfully ignorant and the actual skeptically intelligent. You're in education. If someone makes an argument that is rebutted with quantified evidence and a theory based in established physics, how do educators respond? Here, we get attackers who simply ignore the rebuttal and make the same argument the next day, over and over again. When you come to this site and see the overwhelming resistance to attacks on the theory, you shouldn't read the moment a-historically. Understand that the same script has been repeating for years, with the occasional "skeptic" paper being reviewed, and a steady stream of mainstream science incorporated. Understand that most of the attacks are truly bizarre and have no foundation in established physics--indeed, many are self-contradictory in their implied physical model. Attacks that look legitimate come from people who readily accept the basics of radiative transfer. For them, it's all about the level of forcing. Those arguers are few and far between, though. Some start with the ostensible position that they are lukewarmers, but when confronted by physics they go into refusal mode. For many commenters and doubtful lurkers, this site must provide a disorienting dilemma (since we're in the education lexicon, I'll whip out transformative learning theory). It's very hard to invest yourself publicly in something and then find out you're wrong about some of the fundamentals. It takes time to work through the dilemma. Some people never do. They simply back themselves into a corner where they're forced to cast doubt on the data itself. You might be thinking that we could say the same thing for climate scientists and those who support the theory of AGW. Climate science claims to base its theory in observed data and a sound physical model. Until you're able to argue through the data and physics, you'll never be sure. You should be able to intuit, though, based on what you should know (by now as a graduate student) about the social construction of knowledge, that any real doubt would be reflected in the working scientific community. Look at the scholarship. The theory, which has been around for 150 years, is not an issue in the scholarship. Only the fine details remain. There are thousands of papers that do not directly attempt to question or confirm the theory but end up confirming it anyway. Similarly, because of the nature of the hard sciences, scientists offering "doctored" data would soon be exposed. Again, in education, theory can rest on a foundation not wholly constructed of scientifically-produced knowledge. Assessment of transformative learning, for example, is an extra large can of worms. In education, people can advance interpretations that rest on weakly-supported assumptions about human behavior. Not so for the hard sciences. Weakness in a theory is quickly rooted out and, if not corrected, made widely known within the discipline's community (and related communities). Finally, if you think that climate scientists are deliberately fudging data, then you are implicating thousands of people, all of whom must be motivated to dismiss their integrity toward their discipline and toward the greater project of human progress. There are countless examples of people in all fields of human labor doing just that for the sake of financial security. There are conditions that make such moves more and less likely. Government-supported science should be one of the "less likely" contexts, because the institutional goal is human progress and the accounting is heavily scrutinized. Privately-funded science should be one of the "more likely" contexts, because the institutional goal is the generation of capital, and the books are pried open only through the efforts of legions of lawyers and watchdogs.
77169. muoncounter at 13:12 PM on 19 August 2011
       How we know an ice age isn't just around the corner
       Doom#64: "Physics & Society Vol. 37 No. 3. " Interesting source. You select a graphic (seen more frequently from the famous geocraft.com website) buried within an article with the following preamble: This article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions. Author: Christopher Monckton of Brenchley That's why we like to see sources for such sweeping statements. Did you happen to note the lead article in the same volume? The abstract: In this paper, we have used several basic atmospheric–physics models to show that additional carbon dioxide will warm the surface of Earth. We also show that observed solar variations cannot account for observed global temperature increase.
77170. Dr. Doom at 12:56 PM on 19 August 2011
       How we know an ice age isn't just around the corner
       Gentlemen, I'm sure Ms. Anne is perfectly reasonable. When communicating science to the public, it's important to be precise to avoid misunderstanding. The relevance of pointing out that today's temp. is one of the coldest in 600 million yrs is simply to support the fact that we are still in an ice age. It is relevant to this tread since we are talking about ice age today or in the near future. The source is the journal Physics & Society Vol. 37 No. 3. Temperature reconstruction by C.R. Scotese and CO2 reconstruction by R.A. Berner.
       Response:

       [DB] Pedantry is not particularly becoming.  But since that is the sole point of this comment, I must point out that we are in an interglacial period within said ice age.  Given the CO2 we are injecting without sign of letup, some literature suggests we have already averted the next glacial phase; another 700 Gt or so will avert the next 5 glacial phases.  Google it if curious.

       Let's move the dialogue back to matters of substance, please.

77171. RyanStarr at 12:46 PM on 19 August 2011
       Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
       OK lets correct the statement "any current trend is also natural". They state internal variability is sufficient to counteract anthropogenic forcing in the 2-20 year time frame (hence a positive trend can be observed). With that in mind I don't see how we can categorically state what is responsible for any short term trend, it will be a combination of anthropogenic and interal forcings. Those "ice loss is accelerating" claims based on short time frames need to take this into consideration.
       Response:

       [DB] "Those "ice loss is accelerating" claims based on short time frames need to take this into consideration."

       Short time frames...you mean like that covering the entire satellite record, perchance?:

       

       Or this, hiliting that climastrological seasonal cycle?:

       

       [Source]

       So, when we've endured 316 317 consecutive months of global temperatures above the 20th-Century average (the last cooler-than-average month was Feb 1985), and the Arctic Sea Ice trends are linearly to greater-than-linearly down (that Arctic Amplification thingy), where's the recovery for crying out loud?

       Regular readers are surely noting the zeal displayed by those that seize upon every last vestige of hope to deny the obvious:  recently the world is warming due to human activities (fossil fuel derived CO2), and the Arctic Sea Ice is in a downward spiral as a result.

       I repeat:  only Maslowski's model comes anywhere close to replicating the metric-ed trend observed in the Arctic.  And his model predicts a summer minimum with mostly-ice free Arctic Ocean by 2016, ± 3 years.

       But by all means, that's only natural...

77172. guinganbresil at 12:34 PM on 19 August 2011
       A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
       RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.) Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals Let's stick to the science... I do not like where this is going.
       Response: [JC] The backbone, the guts of this resource is the same Skeptical Science information - denier myths and the scientific responses. But I'm finding many people seem to be having trouble finding the information on this site so this feature is an alternative way of organising the information, to make it easier for people to find what they're looking for. I'm looking at adding other ways of accessing the information in the not-too-distant future.
77173. RyanStarr at 12:04 PM on 19 August 2011
       A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
       @DB, actually on the topic of "magical cycles" they've been critically debunked at 'another prominent skeptic site' too. See July 30, 2011 'Riding a Pseudocycle' by WE (and others). Further evidence of the robustness of debate that occurs on that side of the fence.
77174. Dr. Doom at 11:52 AM on 19 August 2011
       Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
       Dikran, With due respect, your comments policy states "No ad hominem attacks. Attacking other users or anyone holding a different opinion to you is common in debates but gets us no closer to understanding the science." Your statement "It is quite obvious from your comments that your grasp of what climate sensitivity actually is is fairly weak" sounds like a personal criticism. If you don't think it's a personal criticism, then allow me to reply: "It is quite obvious from your comment that your grasp of what logarithm function actually is is fairly weak." A natural logarithm function y = ln (x) has a limit on y such that as x approaches infinity, y approaches a finite value. In climate sensitivity, y is temp. and x is CO2. As CO2 increases indefinitely, temp. approaches a finite value. What is that finite value? That's what I was asking. Now, if you're saying there is no limit to temp., then it is not a logarithm function. It may be linear, exponential or polynomial. But you claim it's logarithmic so what is it really?
77175. Chemware at 11:42 AM on 19 August 2011
       A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
       I would suggest a division of these into two groups: (a) Skeptics who are merely doing poor science (eg: Roy Spencer, Murray Salby), but who do publish in journals. (b) Spin doctors who have never published in any scientific journal. You may also like to add in links to funding by coal and oil companies, so called "think tanks", and people like the Koch brothers. ps: want to add Willie Soon as well ?
77176. muoncounter at 11:17 AM on 19 August 2011
       There is no consensus
       What a coincidence, reported today in Texas Climate News: Gov. Rick Perry, just days into his campaign for the presidency, has added a new and harsher element to his rhetoric on climate science – an allegation that many researchers, in order to keep “dollars rolling into their projects,” have “manipulated” the data that underlie concerns about human-caused disruption of the earth’s climate system. Andrew Dessler replies: On the claim that climate science is driven by research funding: This purported incentive – to play games to increase funding – exists in all fields of research. Yet a large-scale conspiracy by an entire scientific field has never occurred in the past – and there’s no evidence that it’s occurring here. A more plausible explanation is that climate scientists are worried because the data are worrying. -- emphasis added I would add that the governor has it exactly backwards. There is [emphasis by Dessler] evidence that climate skeptics are working off a political agenda. See [University of Alabama-Huntsville scientist and climate change skeptic] Roy Spencer’s statement, “I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government.” Shoe is on other foot; if it fits, wear it well.
77177. scaddenp at 10:45 AM on 19 August 2011
       There is no consensus
       Rickoxo - can you tell me how you are supposed to get rich by falsifying data to support AGW? You would get rich by finding an alternative theory - nobel prize country. What you should know is that you get research money for finding out what is unknown, not what is known. Unless the funder is a fossil fuel company, the funder is unlikely to care whether the outcome of your research supports one theory or another. Climate science is a global enterprise, subject to the most intense scrutiny imaginable. I find the idea that the theory is supported by falsified data quite laughable.
77178. ginckgo at 10:28 AM on 19 August 2011
       A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
       Do we really have to bow to their bullying and call them 'skeptics' instead of 'deniers'? I understand that a very few on the list can be classed as skeptics in the actual scientific definition of the word, but many of them are lunatic fringe deniers, and putting them together with actual skeptics further devalues the term.
77179. alan_marshall at 09:59 AM on 19 August 2011
       A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
       What I notice is the abundance of grey hair. How sad that these old men, who will be dead when climate change really bites, are obstacles to protecting the world their children and grandchildren will inherit.
77180. muoncounter at 09:44 AM on 19 August 2011
       There is no consensus
       Rickoxo#389: What I 'believe' is just as irrelevant as what you believe. What is relevant is the evidence you produce to substantiate your argument. Thus far you've produced nothing, choosing instead to ignore the 170 denier myths factually disputed on this site and focus on some drivel about who said what. You're still in grad school and you're an expert on the ethics of the research community; you admit you have to 'watch yourself' -- and yet I (and presumably others on SkS) am completely untrustworthy. Have fun looking for other places to ask questions; no doubt you will settle on one or two that provide the answers you want to hear. Come back if you want serious discussion without name-calling. Here's something from the Comments Policy to consider: No accusations of deception. Any accusations of deception, fraud, dishonesty or corruption will be deleted. This applies to both sides. Stick to the science. You may criticise a person's methods but not their motives. DB - please leave this exchange up for a while so others can see the sort of nonsense that we're getting these days.
       Moderator Response: (DB) Okeeleedokily
77181. scaddenp at 09:18 AM on 19 August 2011
       A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
       "But to be honest I’ve never noticed any sceptical publications or ideas being flagged up here" I think CBD means real skepticism, the kind the scientists use, not pseudo-skepticism (ie only skeptic of evidence for AGW, and accepting without any critical evaluation any evidence against the theory). The site seems to exist largely to bunk the pseudo-science with real evidence, because there is so much of junk out there. Did you have some peer-reviewed science paper that you think is missing from discussions?
77182. Rickoxo at 09:13 AM on 19 August 2011
       There is no consensus
       muon, if you don't believe it's possible for GWS scientists to be tainted by money, then there's no discussion. When you tell me it's an insult and a possible violation of site policy to even consider the possibility that scientists whose work you cite as evidence could be influenced by money, what it really tells me is that we can't have a productive discussion. If this is the nature of the responses I get asking questions here, I'll keep looking around for other places to ask questions. There's a bunch of what seems like good information on this site and whether or not you believe it, I am someone who hasn't made up their mind and is trying to find out the best evidence I can. But every time I bump into someone who won't even consider the possibility of bad faith on their side but knows it's happening on the other side, it's the strongest evidence I know of that this isn't a site about finding information, it's about preaching to the choir and having fun bashing the few new comers that show up or fighting with old trolls that stick around. I'm a grad student in education and I work among professors applying for grants every day and I apply for grants to do research. I have to watch myself on every grant application I submit that I'm being honest with my data and providing an accurate description of my work. Same goes true for conference proposals, paper submissions, everything. The second you tell me its an insult to even question the potential integrity of climate scientists is the second I get you know nothing about the research community and how it works and that you're a completely untrustworthy source of information.
       Response:

       [DB] You will find that when you get older, age will give you perspective.  One of the things you will learn, at some point at least, is that in science the work has to stand on its own merits, and also suffer the withering scrutiny of peer review.  This site is devoted to examing climate science on its merits and discusses the literature in the spirit of peer-review.

       You will also find that those who do not have evidence on their side fall back on the tried and true attack-the-messenger model, which today consists of trying to discredit those who do the research itself.  If that is indeed your bent at this time in your life, may I recommend a change of venue for you?

       Then the discussion of the science can continue here unabated, free from aspersions and character assassinations.

77183. skywatcher at 09:11 AM on 19 August 2011
       A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
       On the topic of these skeptics disagreeing with each other, this post by MediaMatters has emails from Richard Muller and Judith Curry throwing Bastardi under the bus. Muller also explicitly debunks Murry Salby in his email to MediaMatters. Oh yeah, Judith Curry may be worth considering for the roll-call? #10 Les - I agree with you, in that it is a very fine line between calling out skeptics for their BS and a witch-hunt. However, unlike witches, these people have earned their right to be on this dunce's list, and the more these people are shown to be spouting garbage, the better.
77184. Stevo at 09:01 AM on 19 August 2011
       A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
       Good resource to add, John. May I suggest that when you divide it into categories, you include such titles as "Political Idealogues", "Good Scientists Gobe Astray" and of course "Climastrologists"? It would be horrible to piant people into the denialist corner who may not be beyond redemption.
77185. Anthony Mills at 08:29 AM on 19 August 2011
       Climate Skeptic Fool's Gold
       Climate models require a surface energy balance to couple the atmosphere and ocean/land responses--hence a specification of the latent heat transport into the atmosphere due to evaporation is required.This transport is about 80W/m2,as compared to a CO2 radiation flux of about 2 W/m2.Can you present a model for the latent heat transport based on "sound physics", with an associated error bound that is less than 2W/m2? Without such a component model the larger" climate model" cannot claim to be physics based and will be seriously limited in its ability to predict the effect of CO2 on future climate change.
77186. Daniel Bailey at 08:24 AM on 19 August 2011
       A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
       @ Sphaerica Oh, I agree, that one's "wackier than a 3-dollar bill" (or your euphemism of choice). But this forum is a lesser place if we start bandying about some of the more colorful and pointed descriptive terms that are commonplace in lesser venues than this. We need to model the behavior we expect of others. /point
77187. garethman at 08:16 AM on 19 August 2011
       A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
       CBDunkerson at 01:41 AM on 19 August, 2011 Ryan, actually we DO exercise scientific skepticism here. Really? I note you address climate change scepticism in an assertive and evidence based fashion, But to be honest I’ve never noticed any sceptical publications or ideas being flagged up here. Apologies if I miss the point.
       Response:

       [DB] "But to be honest I’ve never noticed any sceptical publications or ideas being flagged up here."

       Eh?  You've lost me.

77188. Bob Lacatena at 07:59 AM on 19 August 2011
       A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
       24, JC, How about "Climate Mythologists?"
       Response: [JC] Had a thought after responding to 24 - or another alternative is "Climate Misinformers". Hmm...
77189. Bob Lacatena at 07:56 AM on 19 August 2011
       A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
       20, DB, "Too far" In this case, I disagree. Postma is an absolute [-snip-], no better than some of the recent posters on this site with his own version of made up science. Using that as an example of skepticism, as if not buying into every obscenely ridiculous denial argument is a banner to be waved is not, to me, palatable. I thought my choice of words appropriate to the situation (actually, they were an insult to RVIs everywhere).
77190. funglestrumpet at 07:46 AM on 19 August 2011
       A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
       All well and good, indeed very good. BUT, how do we get this into the mainstream media? I have just Googled 'Climate Change' and gave up after page seven, having found no reference to this site. The good news is that when I Googled 'Climate Change Skeptics' this site was the second item on the first page. All I know is that originally I only found this site by accident. O.K. the 'Climate Change' search had a lot of government sites, which would get top billing I assume, but there were some of this site's standing. I wonder if there are any marketing people among the sks readership who could advise accordingly. Just a suggestion - how about a sydicated weekly newspaper column that deals with, say, one climate myth a week and put photos of any prominent skeptics who believe in it. It could also offer an advice feature entitled 'Ask Uncle John(?) about your climate change worries.' This could have a link to sks when more depth to the answer is required than there is room for? From a personal perspective, I often find that the contributers to this site rely on argot too much. For instance, when perusing the science related to specific myths one finds reference to the PDO (Post Dump Olfaction?) and such like. This site is an excellent reference for anyone concerned about the subject of Climate Change, but I wonder if it would be even better if it put things more in layman's terms.
77191. Composer99 at 07:09 AM on 19 August 2011
       How we know an ice age isn't just around the corner
       From Dr Doom: Despite recent global warming, temp. today is one of the coldest in 600 million yrs. For most of geologic history, earth's temp. was above 17C. I will here echo muoncounter and suggest a citation is in order. Royer et al 2004 suggests that there was a period, centered around 300 Ma in the past, where global temperatures were lower than those of the present. But I will again echo muoncounter and suggest that your comment quoted above has little to do with whether climate science contrarians are correct in suggesting a new glacial period is imminent (or that one has been fortuitously forestalled by AGW).
77192. pbjamm at 06:54 AM on 19 August 2011
       Climate Denial Video #3: Polluters Use Same Tactics As Tobacco Industry
       Kinda mangled that. Here is the 2nd half of that quote: "And second there are issues that confront society that have science as their foundation. If you are scientifically illiterate, in a way, you are disenfranchising yourself from the democratic process, and you don’t even know it."
77193. pbjamm at 06:45 AM on 19 August 2011
       Climate Denial Video #3: Polluters Use Same Tactics As Tobacco Industry
       This video of Neil Degrasse Tyson discussing Scientific Literacy could be posted on just about any thread on this site and be on topic, but this one seemed the most relevant. "If you’re scientifically literate, the world looks very different to you. It’s not just a lot of mysterious things happening, there’s a lot of things we understand out there! And that understanding empowers you to, first not be taken advantage of by others who do understand it"
77194. muoncounter at 06:42 AM on 19 August 2011
       There is no consensus
       Rickoxo#387: "why it's a concern on one side and not the other?" When the oil industry geological association tempers their position statement with an overt 'its gonna cost us,' what doubt is there that money talks? But if you are implying that academic scientists are equally swayed by threats to their grants, you're a. unsubstantiated b. ignoring the fact that there is much more money to be had by working in the denial industry c. insulting folks who are engaged in difficult enough work without such harassment d. flirting with Comment Policy violation. But why bring up former VP Gore? He is not a scientist (and comments with gratuitous Gore throw-downs violate the Comments Policy as well). Dead issue. "The issue seems to be about the actual scientific evidence and conclusions being in question or not." No, the issue that deniers continue to raise is usually over the wording of questions in the survey or the response rate to the survey. Side-show: question the science, not the survey. Apply the same skeptical microscope to the junk science being turned out by the denial industry. "a possibility at least somewhat suggested by the East Anglia e-mails" All investigations of the email hack showed no wrong-doing on the part of the scientists in question, so that's a dead issue as well. Find the appropriate thread for continued comments -- if any are necessary. "Commercial publishing companies frequently come up with peer-reviewed studies demonstrating that their curriculum is great." Is that how textbook-buying decisions are made in your schools? In mine, there's a state board that believes humans and dinosaurs lived side by side, just like on the Flintstones. What's your point? Now go read the Comments Policy again and refrain from making unsubstantiated accusations.
77195. Rickoxo at 06:15 AM on 19 August 2011
       There is no consensus
       And side note, the argument about money to me seems to be that you both (CB and muon) see it as a concern for skeptics but don't seem to consider it as a potential issue for GWS folks. I don't get why it's a concern on one side and not the other? I don't want to get lost in this issue, but think about Al Gore for a sec. I'm betting folks here are a bit embarrassed by some of the stuff he's said and how far beyond science he's stepped multiple times. So why did he do it? The issue seems to be about the actual scientific evidence and conclusions being in question or not. If one believes the science is settled, they would conclude that anyone questioning it must be motivated by factors other than science since the science is settled. But if you don't start from the position that the science is settled, it's possible that folks citing "evidence" on either side could be arguing out of self-interest rather than science, a possibility at least somewhat suggested by the East Anglia e-mails. I get follow the money is a powerful strategy to use in interpreting evidence, data, research and it's a huge issue in education. Commercial publishing companies frequently come up with peer-reviewed studies demonstrating that their curriculum is great. But if the argument can't cut both ways, than it's just one more piece of an a priori determination that one side is right and the other is wrong.
77196. Rickoxo at 05:58 AM on 19 August 2011
       There is no consensus
       I just went and read Doran's summary of his own study, and it seems that maybe the key issue for this thread is the specific description of the consensus, not whether or not there is a consensus. The two questions Doran listed as most important and that the bulk of reporting on the survey referenced were, have temps risen since 1800 and is human activity a significant factor. A couple of thoughts. 1. Those two points aren't even close to the IPCC conclusions, so if this is your definition of consensus, it doesn't seem to represent consensus on a strong position in favor of GWS as exemplified by IPCC. Second, why did Doran pick 1800? Given that there seems to be pretty good historical evidence that Europe was pretty cold during the hundred years or so before 1800, it's potentially even less significant that temps have risen since then. Lastly, the second question said that human activity is a significant factor, but it doesn't say to what degree. I do education research, so tests for significance don't mean anywhere nearly as much as effect sizes. Even if we completely accept Doran as 100% truth, it doesn't seem to add a lot of evidence in favor of a strong, IPCC like description of what scientists agree on. I just had this argument with a buddy saying, depending on what the definition is of GWS, my bet is varying ranges of percentages of scientists would say yes or no. Given Doran's two questions, I'd say yes to both of those as well, but to quote a famous Spanish sword fighter, "I do not think that means what you think it means." If you asked me to say yes or know to the APS's restatement of their position that said, "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring", I sure hope that any good scientist would ask for clarification as to how the term global warming is defined and the time frame in question. Given that the APS does neither in that brief statement, I'd sure hope any good scientist would say I can't say yes to this without knowing more details.
77197. muoncounter at 05:53 AM on 19 August 2011
       How we know an ice age isn't just around the corner
       DrD#60: "today is one of the coldest in 600 million yrs." How is that relevant to today - and how is it relevant to this thread? See the estimating sensitivity from paleoclimate thread More in general, it enhances your credibility when you provide a source for such statements.
77198. Ken E at 05:39 AM on 19 August 2011
       Climate Skeptic Fool's Gold
       This fool's gold comes in so many forms, to the relatively less educated eye that only sees what they want to see, you can just recycle and recycle and the layperson can't tell the difference. It's increasingly not a question of expounding on the science, it's overcoming irrational denial. Though I'm sure this has been discussed before.
77199. Andy Skuce at 05:28 AM on 19 August 2011
       A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
       It's worth bearing in mind that all these people are listed under the heading "climate skeptics" which may be appropriate for some of them but for most others, being labelled as a skeptic is something of an unwarranted compliment.
77200. r.pauli at 05:22 AM on 19 August 2011
       A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
       Thanks so much for name and shame. Generally, I think it is too late to be nice. You are exceedingly polite and civil toward these people - many of whom have received funding and support from carbon energy industries - both directly and indirectly. To me, it appears their scientific ineptitude is a poor cover for their ethical shortcomings.

Prev  1536  1537  1538  1539  1540  1541  1542  1543  1544  1545  1546  1547  1548  1549  1550  1551  Next