Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 Next
Comments 77951 to 78000:
-
apiratelooksat50 at 10:31 AM on 5 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
scaddenp @ 89 Yes, I do. When modern humans began transitions from the hunter-gatherer lifestyle to agrarian societies. And, this was during a time of (compared to today) of extremely rapid SLR.Response:[DB] Actually, human agriculture and civilization emerged due to unusual climate stability:
A period nearing the end of its "natural cycle"...
C'est la vie
-
Dale at 10:23 AM on 5 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
Albatross, yes I do read both sites. As mentioned in the video, a true skeptic assess all the evidence. I fail to see how what I wrote locks me as a "denier" as all I did was paraphrase what the paper's claim. I read SkS for a AGW slant, and WUWT for a non-AGW slant. Isn't that the point of the video, look at ALL the evidence? I also read two newspapers too, one critical of AGW and the other supporting AGW. Does that make me a denier as well? IMO, anyone who only reads one source is denying that other opinions and evidence may exist. -
muoncounter at 10:10 AM on 5 August 2011The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
Albatross, Agreed. Which is why I thought it so striking that the normals moved in the direction they did. And that my local weatherman started talking about not being able to take down the heat advisory because nights weren't cooling. And here's another look at DTR. Even though repeat heat waves brought sizzling hot days, overnight temperatures broke far more records: According to the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), in July there were 6,106 record high minimum temperatures, and "only" 2,722 record high daytime temperatures. -
muoncounter at 10:01 AM on 5 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
pirate#16: "if your argument was phrased that human activities are influencing a natural cycle. " So human activities are significant enough to influence these unnamed natural cycles, but we are not significant enough to cause changes on our own? We have to be 'helper engines' at the back of a naturally moving train? This requires that these same cycles are somehow moving with the same frequency and phase as our activities: heating when we are pumping out CO2, cooling when we are putting out the aerosols. But we already know that's not true; the past climate change you are fond of citing operates on a much longer time frame than anything we could possibly do. I'm skeptical of this model. If you haven't had a look, see the Loehle and Scaffetta thread. Natural cycles run rampant there. -
Albatross at 09:52 AM on 5 August 2011The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
Muoncounter @89, Agreed. I was curious to see whether the assertion could be backed by something of substance. Now to be fair, the reduction of DTR is perhaps not the most robust AGW fingerprint, b/c it is quite sensitive to a number of factors. That has been discussed elsewhere at SkS and in the literature. But that is of little solace to the poor folks enduring nights when the minimum temperatures are hovering around +30 C. -
muoncounter at 09:44 AM on 5 August 2011The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
Albatross#86: "explain the physical mechanism by which a blocking high over the north-central Pacific is causing record high nighttime temperatures across most of the USA, and parts of Canada too." Considering that this DTR decrease appears as a result of the 'new normal' calculation, it's cause cannot be seasonal. A blocking high running for a large part of the decade? Now, that would be an anomaly indeed -- what would cause that? An effect significant enough to show up in a 10-year statistic is neither a transient nor an oscillation. -
Albatross at 09:15 AM on 5 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
Hi Dale, Is the text below (from WUWT) written by you? Do you also post at WUWT as "Dale"? Because the quoted text is a great example of someone who is not a true/genuine skeptic, but rather of someone who is in denial about the inconvenient truths of AGW, and who is uncritically willing to believe anything that supports their position. "Dale says: July 28, 2011 at 11:24 pm This seems as good a place as any to mention this recent paper: [Albatross removed hyperlink to paper] The paper shows how current AGW models break the laws of physics (that the amount of radiation emitted is proportional to its temperature) which explains the findings of Lindzen (and now confirmed by Spencer-Braswell in this paper) that Earth’s radiation emitted is actually fluxing with temperature. The paper also slams the AGW models as they use equations which physicists use to model stars, which do not work for terrestrial bodies. Thus all the AGW models are completely useless." -
scaddenp at 09:13 AM on 5 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
Pirate, when you say agricultural revolution, I assume you mean 10k BP? -
scaddenp at 09:09 AM on 5 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
Yep, we are suddenly adding a lot of heat on top of a milankovich-driven interglacial cycle that will last for several ten's of thousands of years. That suit you pirate? However, there is no evidence that 20 century warming is driven by milankovich cycles (a slight cooling could be expected), or any other natural cycle. All natural cycles have physical mechanisms. Invoking a natural cycle with no mechanism as an alternative to warming from a well-known mechanism doesnt make sense. It then begs the question of why you think the measurable change in radiative forcing from GHG emissions is having no effect while a natural mechanism with no known source does have an effect. Wishful thinking in my view. -
Camburn at 09:09 AM on 5 August 2011The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
Thanks Albatross: I have no desire to pollute the thread, and if I can find the description of the whys etc that I read, I will post the link to your attention. -
Camburn at 09:05 AM on 5 August 2011The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
Stephen: Cause and effect is the very high temperature of the pool of water off the PNW. This is causing a blocking high that while it shifts at times, refuses to break down. There are two areas of the world that affect climate/weather in the central US corridor. They are the PNW and the Greenland high/Icelandic Low. I should explain that the PNW refers to not only US territory, but Canadian as well. The worry that the forcasters are seeing is the blocking high finally breaking down, but the return of La Nina which will continue the dry parched conditions. This will allow summer highs to be very warm, and winter temps to be very cold. DB: My point was that people who are regular posters here have enough knowledge to understand the effects/causes etc of a blocking high. I do not mean to imply that this is not a good site. What I did mean to imply is that others have a knowledge base that should be examined, thought about, and then replied to in a civil manner. (-Snip) Thanks, my intention was not to disrupt. That is never my intention when I post.Response:[DB] Text snipped per request.
-
Albatross at 08:50 AM on 5 August 2011The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
Camburn, Your talk of SSTs in the north-central Pacific in a thread about record high nighttime temperatures over the USA is OT. Please explain the physical mechanism by which a blocking high over the north-central Pacific is causing record high nighttime temperatures across most of the USA, and parts of Canada too. Referring to your link, that is the SST anomaly I was referring to, over the north-central Pacific-- your language has not been very specific or clearand the N. Pacific is huge. Now instead of making subjective assertions, how about we look at a quantitative measure of blocking? That SST anomaly may well be contributing to a blocking high aloft over the north-central Pacific or Aleutian region, however the blocking index does not support that assertion. The figure shows there certainly has not been persistent blocking in the vicinity of the SST anomaly for the last 40 days during which time the highest temperatures have been observed. But, again, what is at issue here is what is causing the huge number of nighttime records that are being broken across the USA. Now can we please get back on topic. Tks. -
Dale at 08:40 AM on 5 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
Stephen, you don't have to deny past natural change to deny the current change. In one of the newspapers I read (The Age in Melbourne) on climate change articles you can see reader comments displaying the belief that the current warming is all human induced. It's quite possible that emotional headlining by the paper is responsible for this. -
Stephen Baines at 08:39 AM on 5 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
apirate Well that's easy enough. Humans (who are in fact a part of nature) are affecting the natural carbon cycle, which influences climate through natural physical mechanisms that have always acted in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Does that work ? -
apiratelooksat50 at 08:31 AM on 5 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
DB at 3 and Muon at 6 Since you brought it up: of course there have been cycles and of course it could be natural. You have a much better chance of swaying me to your position if your argument was phrased that human activities are influencing a natural cycle.Response:[DB] I learned long ago the futility of spitting into the wind or arguing with a mind already made up.
And the warming of the past 3-4 decades is anthropogenic in origin. If that means "natural" in your book, so be it.
-
Stephen Baines at 08:24 AM on 5 August 2011The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
Camburn, the point being made is that the weather pattern you refer to cannot explain the pattern of warming nights relative to days. Also, while it could explain a persistent period of warmth and drought, what is so unusual about that setup that would cause long standing temperature and drought records to be broken? -
apiratelooksat50 at 08:22 AM on 5 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
Sean at 87 From the article you linked to, please note that key words in bold: “We don’t know whether or not water will warm enough to cause this type of phenomenon,” said Shaun Marcott, a postdoctoral researcher at Oregon State University and lead author of the report. “But it would be a serious concern if it did, and this demonstrates that melting of this type has occurred before.” If water were to warm by about 2 degrees under the ice shelves that are found along the edges of much of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, Marcott said, it might greatly increase the rate of melting to more than 30 feet a year. This could cause many of the ice shelves to melt in less than a century, he said, and is probably the most likely mechanism that could create such rapid changes of the ice sheet.Response:[DB] Do you have a point with this? Sean was merely relaying new info. Or are you merely advancing an agenda...?
-
Stephen Baines at 08:12 AM on 5 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
Dale, certainly someone who denied that climate changed in the past would be in denial. Given that belief, they would also have a hard time arguing for human caused climate change in the present. That said...I actually don't know anyone who denies that climate has changed in the past - and I don't see it in the papers every day. Point me to a citation perhaps. -
Camburn at 08:08 AM on 5 August 2011The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
Daniel: feel free to delete again. No....in this battle I am not even close to being outgunned. I am talking a specific area of the world. In this specific area....I not only have my knowledge, but a host of people who sell forcasts and to keep getting paid, they have to have a good track record. The payments seperate the wheat from the chaff.Response:[DB] I understand your point. However as one who knows whom you are up against, your expertise and resources, while considerable, are still less than the mighty Albatross, that ancient mariner of yore.
-
apiratelooksat50 at 08:07 AM on 5 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
Scaddenp@85 I must be misunderstanding you in your last paragraph. Can you explain what you mean. "Sorry, but I dont see anything on those graphs to support that conclusion. You get high rates during the collapse of ice sheets but they are gone. What can give you that now? (well aside from melting of the polar ice sheets but you wont do that from natural forcings as paper I pointed you earlier shows)."Response:[DB] Scaddenp refers to the SLR which occurred during the demise of the Laurentide Ice Sheet, which is long gone now.
-
logicman at 08:06 AM on 5 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
I deny that the audio is clear enough for most people who, like myself, have a substantial hearing problem. With my speakers in their normal position I heard " ss p gg dd cll ". With one speaker right up against my best ear I could clearly hear the busker in the street outside. Please boost the recording volume next time - and shut the window! ;-) I did like the image of the graffiti reflected in floodwater. I couldn't make out the narration, but imagined: "The only benefit from rising sea levels will be the drowning of graffiti artists." -
Camburn at 08:05 AM on 5 August 2011The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
When I came here, I had the expectation that there was a certain amount of at least rudimentary climate knowledge on this site. With that expectation in mind, the mundane characteristics of weather should have been a slam dunk. Apparantly, I was disillusioned. Moderator: Feel free to delete this post, but also understand that the condescending attitude will drive away more peple than it will attract. And a lot of us live in the real world where we observe, and use intuition derived from decades of observation. And that intuition does have predictive power. Thank you.Response:[DB] I am truly sorry you feel that way, Camburn. Because that tells me you have only skimmed the surface of what SkS has to offer those truly interested in learning. Thousands of posts and comment threads exist here on virtually any and everything related to climate science. All posts abound with links to source references. Actual working climate scientists not only read this blog daily, some contribute guest posts or participate in discussions here. One such is Albatross.
All of us live in the real world, not in the myth of the ivory towers of academia. The fact that you feel disllusioned about what this site has to offer is telling. Honestly, it is your preconceptions that are holding your understanding back, not the lack of knowledge or expertise on display here. To say only a rudimentary understanding of climate science is on display here is a stunning example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
-
Camburn at 07:58 AM on 5 August 2011The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
Albatross: ENSO has been neautral since May, but the climatic effects of the La Nina have not been. I was stating the reasons why the drought is prevelant right now in Tex/Ok/Ks etc. I was also stating why the temps are what they are. I don't know where you are from, so it is probable that you don't understand the dynamics of what affects weather in the USA. I farm, the weather dynamics that affect production areas are extremely well understood by farmers. A lack of that knowledge will make or break this profession. In fact, it is so important that it is updated twice a day, and the dynamics are discussed in great detail to allow us to plan accordingly. Are they 100% accurate all the time? No, but the best information available at this time. Thank you in advance for acknowledgeing that.Response:[DB] A word to the wise: It is best not to lecture to someone until you are sure that you actually are the expert.
In this battle you pick, you are far outgunned.
-
Rob Painting at 07:55 AM on 5 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
KL @ 137 - "Rob Painting I called your error at #101 when you only told half the story and claimed that I 'did not listen'.As the author of the header of this thread, why have you not answered?" Busy with other things Ken, but I see you are still reluctant to admit BP's error, despite Albatross repeatedly going over this. -
Camburn at 07:51 AM on 5 August 2011The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
Albatross: If you can't see the very warm temps off the Pacific North West in your map, maybe this one will be clearer. Do you see the are that is labeled 6.2? This is what is causing the blocking high. Hot water creating blocking high -
Dale at 07:49 AM on 5 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
Stephan, actually there are people who deny natural warming. You see it in newspapers every day. People who believe all the warming is human caused. They are in denial that natural warming occurs in the face of evidence some warming is natural some is human. -
Daniel Bailey at 07:28 AM on 5 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
Re: Composer99"a systematic misrepresentation of evidence to propagate a viewpoint at odds with said evidence"
This is something that has been displayed several times recently on this very website. Alas. -
Composer99 at 07:23 AM on 5 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
It should also be noted that denial is in many respects distinct from denialism, which is a systematic misrepresentation of evidence to propagate a viewpoint at odds with said evidence. -
ptbrown31 at 07:20 AM on 5 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
Most climate change "skeptics" would categorize themselves as the type of skeptics being described in the video. The problem is that they don't realize that they are coming to the party late. In other words they don't realize that most of the "skeptic" questions have already been discussed and addressed in the published literature over the last several decades. This is why well cited websites like Skeptical Science are such a valuable tool for scientific communication. -
Stephen Baines at 07:19 AM on 5 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
Also Dale, noone questions whether climate change has happened naturally. That is a red herring. In a way the effect of CO2 is natural, just as the effects of the sun, albedo, and aerosols are. They effacts are the result of "natural" physical laws. As they have changed so has climate in the past. The only thing different about the current situation is that humans are producing the CO2. FYI... earth is only 4.5 billion years old. You're thinking of the universe. -
Albatross at 07:12 AM on 5 August 2011The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
First, I am aware of no study that has demonstrated that teleconnections cause nights to warm faster than days. And the warm nights are not limited to TX and OK, ac clearly stated by NOAA (it was even bolded by muoncounter)the results apply to the whole United States. My, how "skeptics" are quick to attribute these events to teleconnections (yes, they are important and may possibly playing a role in the TX/OK drought and heat wave, but that is not the whole story). ENSO has been neutral since mid May and is expected to stay neutral until at least the fall. I do agree that if another La Nina is in on the cards, that does not bode well for the SW'rn USA. "Skeptics" are not quick to acknowledge the role of feedbacks. That is less rain, lower soil moisture and less vegetation, increase in surface sensible heat flux and as a result higher temperatures. And the impacts are not limited to the boundary layer (see reference below). The low soil moisture is known to have played an important role in elevating temperatures observed during the 2003 European heat wave. See this paper by Fischer et al. (2007): "The evaluation of the experiments with perturbed spring soil moisture shows that this quantity is an important parameter for the evolution of European heat waves. Simulations indicate that without soil moisture anomalies the summer heat anomalies could have been reduced by around 40% in some regions. Moreover, drought conditions are revealed to influence the tropospheric circulation by producing a surface heat low and enhanced ridging in the midtroposphere. This suggests a positive feedback mechanism between soil moisture, continental-scale circulation, and temperature." The same physics probably hold true now in southwest USA. PS: SSTs off the Pacific NW coast are below normal. SSTs in the central Pacific are above normal, reflecting the negative phase of the PDO.
-
Stephen Baines at 07:09 AM on 5 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
Muoncounter is right, Dale. You are confusing "deny" with "denial." You can deny that a proposition is true - in which case you are just on one side or the other of a debate. That is not denial, however. Denial is when you refuse to accept a proposition despite clear evidence that the proposition is true. -
Dale at 07:06 AM on 5 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
muoncounter, the video gave me the distinct feeling that the term "denial" had been set to only the denial of human effects (the use of the thermometer near the AC). Even if you think that no one sits in the "deny natural" section, you can't say that it doesn't exist. Also I question your comment "until there is some credible evidence of 'it could be natural'". I hate to point out that there's ~15 billion years of natural climate change on Earth. That's some pretty credible evidence that natural climate change does occur. It's just this time, it may or may not be (depending on your view). -
Camburn at 06:48 AM on 5 August 2011The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
muoncounter: The cause of the high temps in Texas etc is the warm waters in the Pacific NW. This is causing a blocking high. All signs are now pointing towards another La Nina, so relief from drought in this area will be marginal as the monsoon season during the onset/duration of a La Nina is quit weak. It appears the only hope of substantial drought busting precip in this area will require a hurricane of enough strength to over ride the effects of the blocking high. -
muoncounter at 06:28 AM on 5 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
Dale#5: "you can also deny the negative argument (ie: deny that it could be natural). " Maybe you missed the part in the video that talked about denial as willfully ignoring the evidence. Until there is some credible evidence of 'it could be natural,' there is nothing to deny on that side. -
Dale at 06:23 AM on 5 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
Just want to point out that technically, denial sits on both sides of skeptic. You can deny the positive argument (ie: deny that humans are causing global warming), but you can also deny the negative argument (ie: deny that it could be natural). -
scaddenp at 06:17 AM on 5 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
EtR - its not uncommon to see criticism of pro-AGW statements from people associated with AGW. (eg Tamino yesterday. It is extremely rare to see so-called skeptics criticizing denialist claims. (Eric(skeptic) being a rare exception). Haven't exactly noticed this from you so far. -
Daniel Bailey at 05:33 AM on 5 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
Skepticism is valued in science. Indeed, in speaking with climate scientists, it has been my delight to discover the degree of skepticism expressed by the scientists themselves towards their chosen craft/profession. That being said, there is a huge gulf exhibited on this blog between those who base their skepticism on science...and those who base their "skepticism" on "cycles". Climate scientists are in the former camp; "squeptics", the latter. And ne'er the twain shall meet. -
cynicus at 04:26 AM on 5 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
The video would be so much better without the too loud and distracting background music. I couldn't listen through the entire video. -
muoncounter at 03:47 AM on 5 August 2011Loehle and Scafetta Play Spencer's Curve Fitting Game
KR#24: "It seems that great cycles are very attractive to some people" In a way, 'natural cycles' are an escape from the unpleasant details of reality; an assurance that things will eventually return to the way they were in the good old days. We get a free pass from explaining what causes these cycles: They are 'natural' and thus don't need any factual basis. And they certainly can't be our fault. Is it any wonder that the field of 'study' most closely associated with natural cycles is astrology? Ancient civilizations developed it as a system to predict seasonal shifts and interpret celestial cycles as ‘signs’ of ‘divine communications’. -
muoncounter at 03:26 AM on 5 August 2011The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
From the OP: "the stronger the greenhouse effect, the smaller the difference between daytime and nighttime temperatures." And whaddya know? Here's NOAA's assessment of the New Normal: This time around, the 30-year window for the U.S. Climate Normals is 1981-2010: the decade 1971-1980 was dropped, and 2001-2010 was added. Since the ’70s were an unusually cool decade, while 2001-2010 was the warmest ever recorded, it is not surprising that the average temperature rose for most locations. For the United States as a whole, it was not daytime highs (maximum temperatures) but overnight lows (minimum temperatures) that rose the most compared with the 1970s. --emphasis added Anecdotally, the ongoing heat emergency in Texas and Oklahoma isn't likely to be canceled anytime soon, because nighttime temperatures are stubbornly high. Watches, warnings and advisories, Aug 3, 2011 AN EXCESSIVE HEAT WARNING REMAINS IN EFFECT UNTIL 10 PM CDT SATURDAY. -- NWS Advisories use all caps (they should be shouting this). * DAYTIME TEMPERATURES: 100 DEGREES BY 10 AM TO NOON. HIGHS GENERALLY 105 TO 113 DEGREES THROUGH SATURDAY. AREAS NORTH AND NORTHWEST MAY SEE LOWER TEMPERATURES...BUT ALSO MUCH GREATER HUMIDITY. THE EFFECT WILL CONTINUE TO BE DANGEROUS HEAT FOR ALL OF THE NORMAN OFFICE FORECAST AREA. * NIGHTTIME TEMPERATURES: 85 TO 95 DEGREES MUCH OF THE NIGHT... FOLLOWED BY ONLY A BRIEF DIP AROUND SUNRISE. * DURATION: MOST LOCATIONS HAVE SEEN HIGHS ABOVE 90 DEGREES EVERY DAY FOR ABOUT 2 MONTHS... AND HIGHS ABOVE 100 DEGREES EVERY DAY FOR 1 TO 5 WEEKS. -- emphasis added Yes, I know, it gets hot during the summer. But this is ridiculous ... -
Eric the Red at 03:20 AM on 5 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
Nice video. Maybe now people will stop equating skepticism with denialism. Everyone, not just skeptics, should examine all the evidence with regads to climate change. -
Albatross at 02:29 AM on 5 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Ken @136, You are now resorting to games, arguing strawmen and being argumentative. As any reasonable person reading this thread (as well as other threads) will note, I try and avoid making assertions without content. You are entitled to your own (misguided) opinions but not your own facts. "Where did BP claim that 3.1mm/yr applied for the whole period 2005-2010?" Your continued defense of BP's attempt to use his (inflated) end point values to refute the published works is truly mind boggling. You yourself said @101 that: "All BP did in his calculation was run along the trend line from 2006 to 2010 for BOTH sources of land ice loss" So you too were under the impression that BP was speaking to the 2006-2010 window. Indeed that is what he did, as did I, but his mistake (and I think that is a generous characterization) was to use the end point data, not the means. BP also makes multiple references to the 2005-2011'ish window in his posts @9, 70 and 73. So the reader is left with the very clear impression that his 3.1 mm/yr value was intended to refute the published works dealing with the 2005-2010 window. EOS. And I might add that you are also trying to argue a strawman with Rob. -
Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
I would suggest, 'tho I'm not a moderator, that discussions of SLR and the components thereof be taken to a more appropriate thread (perhaps How much is sea level rising?), leaving this one for discussing OHC and the current state of deep temperature measurements.Response:[DB] Seconded; motion carried. Parties interested in discussing SLR may do so on the thread indicated by KR; OHC & temperature discussions may continue on this thread.
-
Loehle and Scafetta Play Spencer's Curve Fitting Game
There's a interesting discussion (under the title "Riding a Pseudocycle") up on WUWT, where W. Eschenbach critiqued Loehle and Scafetta. He noted that using his favorite tool, periodicity analysis, that there was really no support of their 60 year cycle in the data, and that autocorrelated random signals show almost identical decompositions to HadCRUT3 - i.e., no evidence for cycles whatsoever. Not bad for WUWT, quite frankly, not that it makes up for the average quality of the postings. The fascinating thing for me, however, is that the thread was immediately taken over (>300 comments so far) by the "cyclists" (no insult intended to folks who like bicycles), who are all pushing their favorite solar/Jupiter/Neptune driven cyclic climate theories - stuff from Landscheidt, Carl Smith, Benner, and so on. It seems that great cycles are very attractive to some people - certainly more attractive than dealing with AGW and the like. -
DSL at 00:29 AM on 5 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
I think I've commented on this before. Anyway, it's my business to understand how the beliefs of people are transformed. It's a huge subject scattered across education, psychology, political science, economics, art, and other disciplines. As far as economic position is concerned, consider what happens to the politics of a line worker when that worker is promoted to a management position. I've worked in factories, service industries, and owned a business, and I am now working in the ivory tower. In each of those situations, I've seen people (my own father, for example) change their relations as they moved from one position to another. I've seen a man who was a strong believer in collective bargaining and social justice promoted to manager and turn into an apologist for the company and a Republican voter ("all you have to do is work hard and good things will happen"). He'd even bring his new boat to work on Fridays, a behavior he would have found atrocious five years earlier. I've seen a man become wealthy and embrace religion in a way he had laughed at as a young adult (remember, religious belief and economy were once inseparable). I've also been friends with ex-managers who, after having been laid-off, took a good long look at how they had changed and been asked to behave as a manager. What's curious is what happened to these people next, and it depended on what they began to do for work. Pay gradation started out as a way to drive wedges into worker solidarity. Give a guy a tiny raise, and he's a little less likely to complain. It's like a kiss--a promise of future riches--a tiny concrete hook to hang one's dreams on. Suddenly it's about you and not solidarity. Most people simply don't actively monitor how their beliefs are constructed, and so they go through life being blown around on the winds of rhetoric. Their aggregate momentum is displayed in large-scale patterns--democratic oscillations, directionless "live-in-the-now" thinking, hyperindividualism, etc. I want to go into a description of postmodern conditions, but this is all a massive set of circumstances. You're right, though: this is way off topic. Spencer is a useful case, though. Note that people who want a more results-driven, pay-for-performance model of public education probably also tout Spencer as a leading authority on climate change. Insert X noise from old Family Feud episode. -
Ken Lambert at 22:48 PM on 4 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Rob Painting I called your error at #101 when you only told half the story and claimed that I 'did not listen'. As the author of the header of this thread, why have you not answered? -
Ken Lambert at 22:45 PM on 4 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Albatross #126 You have avoided the point Albatross - assertion without content. Give us a straight answer to this question: Where did BP claim that 3.1mm/yr applied for the whole period 2005-2010? -
scaddenp at 14:47 PM on 4 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
"I don't know, scadden. It has been demonstrated endlessly that when one's position within the economy changes, one's politics change" Different to what I have read (though I am talking about political values). This is way, way off topic, but can you give me a reference? My very cynical view of politics is that for most voters, utter self-interest rules. For the rich that means "I'm expected to pay $x in tax? But I earned all this" while at the other end its "But I deserve this, its my right,- so someone should pay for it". Left and right then have serious thinkers to provide a backstay to both views. In this sense, I can see how movement in economy would affect vote, but there are values around liberty of action, group loyalty, criminal justice etc. etc. that I dont think are so pliable. I think the right wing denial of climate change goes further than self-interest. -
Stevo at 14:37 PM on 4 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
DSL @53 Thankyou for restoring my sense of hope. "repeated efforts, observable evidence, and tact" - that was very succinct and hit the nail squarely on the head.
Prev 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 Next
