Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1635 1636 1637 1638 1639 1640 1641 1642 1643 1644 1645 1646 1647 1648 1649 1650 Next
Comments 82101 to 82150:
-
scaddenp at 10:42 AM on 21 June 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
But evidence we have is that cloud feedback is near neutral. There is uncertainty but below 2 is not the way to bet. -
Tsumetai at 10:42 AM on 21 June 2011Climate change denial and the abuse of peer review
Nice piece overall, but:What happens to data if successive annual values are subtracted from each other? This mathematically removes any linear time trend. In other words, temperatures could have doubled every other year and it would have escaped detection by the authors.
Doubling every other year is not a linear trend. -
Norman at 10:31 AM on 21 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Some have stated I am a "Cherry Picker" on posting historical weather events. I look at the history of each area that is considered a major deviation and look at some historical information on that area. I looked at the history of Pakistan floods and severe flooding is not so extreme as it seems to happen often enough. I would like someone to define what an "extreme" weather event is so research can progress to see if weather anomalies are really getting more extreme in a warming world. What would constitute an extreme rainfall amount? What is an extreme temperature? Name an extreme weather event that occured this year so I will not be blamed for cherry picking.Response:[DB] "I looked at the history of Pakistan floods and severe flooding is not so extreme as it seems to happen often enough."
Umm, you may want to try reading your posts before submitting them. Because you're saying the record-setting floods of 2010 happen often enough...
Actual analysis instead of the Eyecrometer is called for.
-
Patrick 027 at 10:19 AM on 21 June 2011The Planetary Greenhouse Engine Revisited
Re guinganbresil - If you made the atmosphere transparent below the cloud deck, and the temperature of the surface were sufficiently high, so that the heating of the cloud deck by radiation from the surface were sufficient, if the cloud deck were completely burned off as a result, then the surface radiation would simply go off to space (unless there's another cloud deck or some other source of opacity above) - furthermore, the backradiation at the surface from the original cloud deck would be lost. The net LW (radiant) cooling of the surface would be increased, which would be taken away from energy available for convection. The net LW flux at the tropopause level (above convection) would increase, cooling the whole surface+troposphere, so even if the lapse rate were maintained, the surface temperature would fall. This is setting aside the effect on solar radiation. The burning off of a cloud deck is a feedback of the same category as water vapor feedback and surface albedo feedback. Lets' keep the cloud deck and see what happens. The increased net LW flux in the space between the surface to the cloud deck must be balanced by a reduction in convection - if the convective flux was originally not big enough, convection could go to zero and the lapse rate could decrease, creating a stable layer and necessarily tending to reduce surface temperature while increasing the temperature at the cloud deck. But looking for what happens at equilibrium, it's easiest to get to the effect at the tropopause level and then get back to convection. Even if there remains some convection beneath the cloud deck and the surface temperature is sustained, the cloud deck must then get warmer and the emission from the top of the cloud deck will increase. This will tend to increase the net LW flux out of the tropopause and out to space (effect modulated by absorption by overlying layers). Thus this situation cannot be sustained; energy is being lost from the troposphere and surface; there must be a temperature reduction. If both the cloud deck and surface remain in/adjacent to the troposphere, the nonlinear relationship between temperature and emission will reduce the net LW flux from the surface to the cloud deck. Whether or not the reduction is sufficient to allow convection to be the same or greater than it was originally (before removing opacity from the space between clouds and surface) is not determined as this description is too general. -
NewYorkJ at 10:01 AM on 21 June 2011Climate change denial and the abuse of peer review
I read the Stoat summary wrong. It certainly seemed highly unlikely that Happer would ever recommend rejection of a Lindzen paper. So Lindzen's argument boils down to the fact that he doesn't appreciate an independent review (that could improve the quality of his paper) or scrutiny of the qualifications of his reviewers. What's more revealing is that while the rejection of Happer was due to his insufficient expertise on the subject matter and Chou's rejection related to his collaboration with Lindzen on Iris (conflict of interest), Lindzen rejected 2 suggested alternate reviewers on the basis of: "Both are outspoken public advocates of alarm, and Wielicki has gone so far as to retract results once they were shown to contradict alarm." How professional - this after claiming the Happer rejection justification was "libelous". One of Lindzen's alternate reviewers (Minnis) was said to be chosen. Lindzen then characterizes the paper being rejected in the end only because it was too long. Yet all 4 reviews noted: Suitable quality: No (x4) Conclusions justified: No (x4) -
Riduna at 09:59 AM on 21 June 2011Who's your expert? The difference between peer review and rhetoric
Peer review is gatekeeping but does it keep out error? Peer review is review by a few selected (by who?) for their expertise. Only if published is a Paper exposed to wider peer review. Above all, peer review is the very foundation on which science moves forward and, without being able to rely on it, science in its many areas of research could not be accepted as being error-free based on current knowledge. Little wonder then that those who do not expose their work to peer review or could not pass it if they did should attack it – and be resisted. But does this mean that it is always right or, for science, the best of all possible worlds? -
Philippe Chantreau at 09:44 AM on 21 June 2011Climate change denial and the abuse of peer review
Thanks once again John for pointing out the obvious. Deep Climate has extensively analyzed works by Wegman and found substantial problems of plagiarism and what could only be described as academic shortcomings. They also have a in depth discussion on Wegman's use of the atrocious McIntyre and McKitrick paper that was used to try to convince the gullible that Mann's methods generate hockey sticks out of random data. It is truly a work of art in deception. I am yet to hear anything from skeptics about it that would make sense.Response: [JC] Note - Steve Lewandowsky wrote this article. I'm just reposting it from The Conversation website. -
Norman at 09:33 AM on 21 June 2011There's no room for a climate of denial
Tom Curtis @98 Your overall point "My point is, however, that this is not a reason for denial in any person, or at least it is not a substantive reason." I totally agree with you on this. Most people do not seem to be scientifically literate (at least from my experience) very few would read a peer-reviewed climate article for themselves. They rely on Media to help them understand complex issues they do not have time or interest to explore at greater depth. I was posting that to explain why people are losing interest in Climate Change science and switching to a denial state of mind. On this thread you have two video posts Albatross @28 and Daniel Bailey @39. Both are expamles of using an emotional appeal to sway a mental state. "Do you want to be a blind idiot and drown even as we try to save you....severe denial" From Albatross video. Or tornado in Joplin connected to Climate Change. I read articles here daily but rarely post. The Daniel Bailey video started my posts because it so closely resembled arguments I have had on Conspiracy sites when individuals claim all bad weather events are HAARP induced. The HARRP posts are what started me looking at Historical weather events to see if things really are getting worse today. So far I have not found enough evidence on this site to verify this sentiment or any other site.Response:[DB] This site keeps its focus on science, not on tin-hat-isms. Please keep that in mind when constructing your comments.
-
KR at 09:24 AM on 21 June 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Eric the Red - Given the best evidence we have to date, the climate sensitivity could be under 2ºC. It could be over 4.5ºC. Our evidence indicates that it's most likely about 3ºC. You seem to be picking strictly from the lower estimates, of low probability - you might as well pick from the high estimates of low probability. Neither is a sensible choice. -
KR at 09:21 AM on 21 June 2011When scientists take to the streets it’s time to listen up
I've been searching for it, but cannot find it - a cartoon that speaks to this topic: A man in a lab coat, looking a lot like Einstein, comes out into the hall with a horrified expression and a sign saying "The End Is Near!". Two other lab-coated men in the foreground look at this, one remarking "I don't like the looks of this..." When those scientists who actually know the subject under consideration take to political demonstrations, that means they have something to worry about! -
KR at 09:17 AM on 21 June 2011Climate change denial and the abuse of peer review
NewYorkJ - I believe that Will Happer was outright rejected by the PNAS editors (as was Chou, Lindzen's co-author on the 2001 "iris" paper); Lindzen suspects that one was Minnis; another might have been Ramanathan. The other two apparently came from the editors original suggestion list. -
Stevo at 09:06 AM on 21 June 2011Introducing the Skeptical Science team
Thanks for this page, John. Its good to be able to put faces to some of the names of folks who have so helpfully and patiently answered my questions. This site is a great resource for those of us without a science background and I've handed out a few copies of "The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism" to freinds who have shown genuine interest in learning about what the science actually says. -
Eric the Red at 08:49 AM on 21 June 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
scaddenpm the reason many lower ranges are below 2.0 is the uncertainty of the cloud feedback, which could be a large negative. It is not undiscovered, just unknown with enough certainty to enforced a higher limit. That is just one, there are others. The 95% ranges for the three previous analyses are 1) 1.5 - 5.0, 2) 1.7 - 4.9, and 3) ~0.1 - 5.1. There are several others with their own ranges. These are just three. This is why I cringe whenever someone makes a claim that the climate sensitivity is a certain value and then makes projections based on that. Hence, I disagree with anyone who makes such a claim. -
scaddenp at 08:17 AM on 21 June 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
The range of sensitivities (ie constrained by physics) is much lower than that found in empirical estimates of sensitivities as you would expect. The important point is that empirical estimates are consistent with model estimates. A sensitivity of less than 2.0 requires a so far undiscovered negative feedback. -
Albatross at 08:13 AM on 21 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Camburn @110, "Charlie A posted from the Univiversity of Florida. I am sure their work is sound concerning hurricane intensity and quantity. It looks like you are dismissing this work because it does not agree with your perception. We are getting our wires crossed, my apologies. At #109, I was referring to Norman's comment @70 about the hydrological cycle, not to the ACE index. -
scaddenp at 08:13 AM on 21 June 2011When scientists take to the streets it’s time to listen up
"Science is an exercise of cold rationality." When your fellow citizen's would rather believe in fairies than see a problem coming, then the rational thing to do might well be hit the streets. Imagine predicting an earthquake and keeping it a learned journal without telling the citizens. When the earthquake struck, how would the citizens feel? In this case, the scientist can at least say "well we tried but you were too deep in your political shell to listen". -
scaddenp at 08:01 AM on 21 June 2011CO2 Currently Rising Faster Than The PETM Extinction Event
Rob, Karsten Kroeger works in same section/team as me. So, yes. I am Phil Scadden at GNS Science. Just email me. -
NewYorkJ at 08:01 AM on 21 June 2011Climate change denial and the abuse of peer review
So it seems all 4 reviewers rejected L&C (Jan. 19, 2011 message), and 2 of those reviewers were recommended by Lindzen, one which included Will Happer (of all people)? Did anyone visiting the WUWT zoo point that out? -
davidpalermo at 07:57 AM on 21 June 2011Introducing the Skeptical Science team
I too am very grateful for this site! I am using it more and more as a main source of credible information. Or when I can't figure something out I usually start here. Keep up the good work! -
KR at 07:50 AM on 21 June 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Albatross - Quite clear, thank you. -
JMurphy at 07:49 AM on 21 June 2011Climate change denial and the abuse of peer review
Would the disgraceful mixing of the pseudo-scientific and ideology (with the emphasis on the latter) produce a form of denial belief-system called Scientology...if that name hadn't already been taken, off course ! -
Albatross at 07:44 AM on 21 June 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
KR and Eric, I did not see the point of undertaking a rigorous stats analysis of the papers involved. Annan and Hargreaves however have looked at the upper range of climate sensitivity. They determine that: "A+H [Annan and Hargreaves]combine three independently determined constraints using Bayes Theorem and come up with a new distribution that is the most likely given the different pieces of information. Specifically they take constraints from the 20th Century (1 to 10ºC), the constraints from responses to volcanic eruptions (1.5 to 6ºC) and the LGM data (-0.6 to 6.1ºC – a widened range to account for extra paleo-climatic uncertainties) to come to a formal Bayesian conclusion that is much tighter than each of the individual estimates. They find that the mean value is close to 3ºC, and with 95% limits at 1.7ºC and 4.9ºC, and a high probability that sensitivity is less than 4.5ºC. " Good enough? -
KR at 07:29 AM on 21 June 2011Climate change denial and the abuse of peer review
The same column referred to in the Lindzen goes Emeritus link, written by Chip Knappenberger based on information from Lindzen, also showed up at WUWT June 9th - complaining that Lindzen had received special treatment that led to his paper being rejected by PNAS (twice), and before that from GRL. Discussion (ahem) ensued. Lots of "conspiracy" claims, criticisms of L&C rejected based upon Lindzen's "authority" in the subject compared to anonymous posters (basic "argument from authority"), many references to the "warmistas" and the "Team"... about what you might expect. The rejected papers are referenced here, the PNAS reviewers comments are referenced here, where I posted them on an earlier Lindzen & Choi thread. (Note - I did miscalculate the impact factor/citations for E&E in that post, typing too quickly and not checking my reference) -
Albatross at 07:22 AM on 21 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Rob @112. Thanks for trying, but I'm sure your post will fall on deaf ears. I have tried to relay this point countless times...but they just keep repeating the same old tired mantra..."the climate has changed before, there have been extremes before, so ergo we do not have anything to be concerned about". Hmm, wonder how many people there were in the early Holocene? Hmm, ~10 billion of us expected later this century, many of them who are not free or have the ability to move as our predecessors could. As you can see from #111, they will not concede that they were wrong. What matter in their own back yard (if it fits their beliefs) will do just fine. ENSO teleconnects differently for different regions, and even differently for different parts of the USA. So we have no way of validating this claim. And yet another statement of fact with unsupported links. This is the NOAA/NWS/CP latest weekly assessment. Camburn claims that the recent La Nina will continue to affect his region until October or November. This is what the IRI have to say: "These observations indicate the presence of neutral ENSO conditions. Because the atmospheric component of the episode was so strong and long-lasting, however, some of the climate conditions associated with La Niña may continue to a mild degree through late June." And here is what CPC/NCEP has to say in their latest assessment: "Collectively, these oceanic and atmospheric anomalies reflect a transition to ENSO-neutral conditions, but with lingering La Niña-like atmospheric impacts, particularly in the global Tropics." Nothing about impacts lingering into the fall over the USA. So the WMO, IRI and NOAA (and affiliates CPC, NCEP, NWS) are all in general agreement, and nothing in that NOAA assessment about affects of the recent La Nina continuing into the fall. I think Mr. Camburn ought to send a very strongly worded letter to them arguing that they are wrong. -
KR at 07:18 AM on 21 June 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Eric the Red The IPCC states that "...‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’, is likely to lie in the range 2°C to 4.5°C, with a most likely value of about 3°C. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is very likely larger than 1.5°C.". (Emphasis added) As per IPCC definitions: "Likely" > 60% probability "Very likely" > 90% probability So yes, that math has been done. -
Bob Lacatena at 07:10 AM on 21 June 2011Climate change denial and the abuse of peer review
I can't wait to see what our resident skeptics have to say on this one. -
Rob Honeycutt at 07:00 AM on 21 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Camburn... I think miss the entire point of, not only this conversation, but the entire issue of climate change. No one disputes that the planet has likely been about where we are right now during the Holocene optimum. The whole point is that natural forcing and feedbacks should have us on a gradual cooling trend in line with the past 6000 years. But we are seeing a rapid rise in temperature. The issue is not whether the planet has seen something like what we are currently seeing now. The whole issue is, if we continue changing the radiative balance of the atmosphere, what do we expect to happen? What kind of world are we bequeathing to our children and grandchildren? -
Eric the Red at 06:54 AM on 21 June 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Yes, I know BPL had a list which included a half dozen papers below 1.0, and 3 above 5.0. Neither of these convince me that it is below 1 or above 5. Does it convince anyone else. The range is quite large, mostly due to the large uncertainties associated with the various feedback loops. Much more work is needed in this area in order to narrow the range. Albatross, you display a one sigma uncertainty. Have you done the math for the 95% range. -
NewYorkJ at 06:51 AM on 21 June 2011Climate change denial and the abuse of peer review
A recent case with Lindzen: L&C, GRL, comments on peer review and peer-reviewed comments A very recent case with Lindzen: Lindzen goes Emeritus -
David Horton at 06:31 AM on 21 June 2011When scientists take to the streets it’s time to listen up
Climate Watcher succinctly summarises the denier approach. It is fine for the denial industry to use every resource available - massive media support, energy company funding of "think tanks" and denier groups, members of parliament, production of bots to infect threads, shock jocks manufacturing outrage - but they don't want any opposition to that very successful campaign, so scientists should just stay in their laboratories quietly and objectively. Not seen and not heard. Hey, they might not even exist. The Lynas thing is a confluence of two forces. One is the same as the CW approach. Any time we can find any group with environmental concern involved in any way with the IPCC process, why, we will protest loudly.Groups concerned with the environment obviously have no business being concerned with the environment. So we will kick any head that emerges, that will make people wary of using people with environmental concern in any capacity at all. Job done. The second strain is the nuclear one. The nuclear promoters have seen in the climate change concern the ideal vehicle to ram home nuclear power as a solution overcoming all the concerns that people have about it. if you don't want nuclear power then you can't, obviously, be seriously concerned about climate change, goes the line. But simultaneously they have to block any attempt by people supporting renewable energy to put the case. pretend that there is no possible way renewable energy can do the job. Especially "80%". So shoot the messenger. -
Camburn at 06:22 AM on 21 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Oh yes, I am sure the WMO knows more about La Nina and its affects on the US than NOAA does. (NOAA predicts that the affects of the La Nina will continue into Oct/Nov for my area). -
Camburn at 06:20 AM on 21 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Albatross: My cognitive abililty is quit good. I do not miss the point at all. I look at historical events verses recent events and can see no change in intensity nor pattern. What you call a strawman arguement happened. Both on the Mississippi and in Rusia during the time frame indicated. This thread is about AGW and extreme events. As of yet, which is readily admited by the authors of the papers posted is that their is not a correlation between the two. I can tell that you are totally missing the point over and over again. Charlie A posted from the Univiversity of Florida. I am sure their work is sound concerning hurricane intensity and quantity. It looks like you are dismissing this work because it does not agree with your perception. -
Albatross at 06:13 AM on 21 June 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Eric, Re the estimate of climate sensitivity, you say "One or two papers" Oh good grief. Come on that is a very, very weak argument, you have to do better than that if you wish to make a compelling case. BPL provides a summary of 61 papers (between 1896 and 2006) that calculate estimates of climate sensitivity. It is by no means comprehensive or up to date, but is shows your statement to be demonstrably wrong. FWIW, the mean is of the 61 papers is ~+2.9 C (plus/minus one sigma 1.4 to 3.9 C)and the median is ~+2.6 C, compare that with the best estimate of +3 C reported in the IPCC AR4. And that is for doubling, we will very likely treble CO2 if we continue with BAU. -
Albatross at 05:58 AM on 21 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Camburn @65, "The link you posted to river trends is really about worthless" I see, but a glib dismissal of the science is not convincing, not scientific and neither is referring us to an anonymous poster on another thread--science is not overturned that easily. Unbelievable that you unquestioningly and uncritically and unskeptically accept what Charlie A writes on the internet versus a paper published in a journal. Please stop this nonsense. From Min et al. (2011, Nature): "Here we show that human-induced increases in greenhouse gases have contributed to the observed intensification of heavy precipitation events found over approximately two-thirds of data-covered parts of Northern Hemisphere land areas. These results are based on a comparison of observed and multi-model simulated changes in extreme precipitation over the latter half of the twentieth century analysed with an optimal fingerprinting technique. Changes in extreme precipitation projected by models, and thus the impacts of future changes in extreme precipitation, may be underestimated because models seem to underestimate the observed increase in heavy precipitation with warming." The you make this truly bizarre, but telling, statement: "People are suggesting extreme events are a somewhat recent occurance? How about the floods of the Mississippi River in the 1920's? The recent floods did not break those records. Or the heat waves and fires in Russia when Tchaivosky was creating beautiful music." A beautiful strawman argument,and quite offensive to the informed reader. In fact, it is quite disingenuous. You continue to miss the point--your behaviour and reaction to scientific evidence that does not support your opinion is really starting to look like cognitive dissonance on your part. You just keep repeating the same mantra, over and over again-- that does not make your opinions correct. Please read my post @64 again. Also read the comment @68,and the posts @104 and @105. -
Albatross at 05:52 AM on 21 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Camburn @20, "1. There is an 8-12 month lag time for the effects of La Nina and what precip and temp will do." and the very next post Camburn @21 "The effects from the current La Nina cycle will prevail for another 4-6 months in the USA." Make up your mind. Now what do the experts say? From the very first paragraph of Trenberth et al. (2002): "Following an El Nino the global surface air temperature typically warms up by perhaps 0.1C with a lag of ~6 months [Newell and Weare, 1976; Pan and Oort, 1983; Jones, 1989; Wigley, 2000]. In an exceptional event such as the 1997–1998 El Nino the amount exceeds 0.2C. Christy and McNider [1994] and Angell [2000] show that the entire troposphere warms up with an overall lag of 5–6 months, but the lag is slightly less in the tropics and is greater at higher latitudes" Trenberth (2002) found lag of 3 months: "The lag of global mean temperatures behind N3.4 is 3 months, somewhat less than found in previous studies. In part, this probably relates mostly to the key ENSO index used...." From a WMO release on 23 May 2011: "However, climate conditions over the next 1 to 2 months may continue to be La Nina-like for some regions, because the atmospheric aspects of the event may decay more slowly than the cool tropical Pacific waters, particularly for this La Niña in which the atmospheric indicators have maintained considerably greater strength than the oceanic ones." Are you going to admit error, or do the leading scientists and WMO have that wrong too Camburn? Either that or you now need to argue your opinions with Polyak et al., Trenberth and the WMO. -
Albatross at 05:44 AM on 21 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Camburn @65, You need to actually read the literature provided to you. And you choose to miss the point of the Arctic paleo study. From Polyak et al. (2010): "Nevertheless, episodes of considerably reduced sea ice or even seasonally ice-free conditions occurred during warmer periods linked to orbital variations. The last low-ice event related to orbital forcing (high insolation) was in the early Holocene, after which the northern high latitudes cooled overall, with some superimposed shorter-term (multidecadal to millennial-scale) and lower-magnitude variability. The current reduction in Arctic ice cover started in the late 19th century, consistent with the rapidly warming climate, and became very pronounced over the last three decades. This ice loss appears to be unmatched over at least the last few thousand years and unexplainable by any of the known natural variabilities." From an interview with Polyak: "The paleo data we have so far is very scant, so we can’t know for sure when the Arctic was ice free in the summer last time. To be conservative, the closest candidate is the early Holocene (roughly ~10 kyr ago), when the insolation in the Arctic was high due to the beneficial orbital configuration; however, the more data I see, the stronger is my impression that there was not that little ice at that time. The next best (actually, better) candidate is the Last Interglacial, about 125kyr ago, again due to orbitally-driven high insolation: the ice was likely very low, but we can’t say whether it was completely ice free in summer or not. There are also a few other major interglacials, which may have had a similar picture, in particular Marine Isotopic Stage 11, about 450 kyr ago. In any case we are talking about very rare events controlled by a forcing very different from today. If none of those intervals was really ice free, then a million year assessment would be correct." From SkepticalScience, "In sum, although natural factors have always influenced the state of Arctic sea ice, research strongly suggests that today's decline is driven by the novel influence of anthropogenic CO2 we've added to the atmosphere and thus is unique in Earth's history." From the first line of the abstract in the paper you provided @65 regarding impacts of changes for one small portion of the Canadian Arctic (not the whole Arctic, or the globe). You insist on missing the point, and miss the point of relatively large amplitude local changes versus changes over much larger regions and/or global changes. I do not know how to communicate this fact to you. Maybe you should engage Polyak and argue with them? I do not suspect that doing so would go well for you though. -
KR at 05:35 AM on 21 June 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Eric the Red - Here's the search I mentioned in my previous post. I believe this an adequate response to your statement of "premises based on one or two papers". -
KR at 05:31 AM on 21 June 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Eric the Red - In regards to this particular issue, climate sensitivity, it's not "one or two papers". The Climate sensitivity is low thread contains a dozen representative papers alone. See also the IPCC report at this link, additional information here, with specifically observational work described here. A Google Scholar search on "climate sensitivity estimate", limited to just the last 10 years, no patents, and {Biology, life sciences, environmental sciences / Chemistry and materials science / Physics, astronomy, planetary science} only (as a reasonable set of restrictions), gives ~68,400 matches. Out of that list I believe there are perhaps a couple of dozen papers that claim sensitivities below 1.5C/doubling of CO2, most of which have already been refuted. You appear not to be looking at the considerable body of evidence. Even beyond that, the limits of uncertainty on sensitivity, while broad, have serious implications at both extremes. -
KR at 05:15 AM on 21 June 2011When scientists take to the streets it’s time to listen up
Eric the Red: "I have seen that happen repeatedly here." "Oftentimes the websites do misrepresent the paper." Do you have examples from this site? If so, please cite them. -
Bob Lacatena at 05:14 AM on 21 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
103, Camburn, Just to clarify, because I know you are quite capable of missing my point... I do not deny that the climate has changed in the past, by very, very small degrees if by "we" you mean during the last thousand years of civilization, or by larger degrees if by "we" you mean during the existence of homo sapiens as a species, or by even larger degrees if by "we" you mean "the denizens of the planet," spanning back to the earliest creepy crawlies that grew in the oceans. What is categorically false are the unspoken implications of your statement that climate change is either impossible to predict (or in this case prevent), or that it is harmless (given the countless mass extinctions and dead civilizations that have resulted from past climate change). So when I say that your statement is singularly false and overly simplistic, this is what I mean. -
DSL at 04:55 AM on 21 June 2011It's not bad
The IPSO report is out today here. Bad news: "the world's ocean is at high risk of entering a phase of extinction of marine species unprecedented in human history." -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:22 AM on 21 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Camburn @ 103... We all know that climate has changed in the past. No one ever contradicts this. If climate had changed little in the past then there would be little chance that we could change it today. The central issue is how we are changing climate today.
[Source]
When I see this diagram of the CO2 record then I become very concerned about the stage we are setting for ourselves.
I also think there is a fundamental misunderstanding that goes on with regards to extreme weather events. What we're looking at today is likely the result of adding just 4% more moisture to the climate system. It's looking pretty clear that even this small amount is resulting in changes in extreme weather events. Not yet outside the realm of what has likely been experienced in the past 10,000 years... but getting there.
The question becomes, if this is what we get from 4%, what will we be seeing when we've added 40% more moisture to the climate system? It's my understanding that this is the problem we face.
Is that extreme climate (extreme relative to today) something never on this planet? Probably not. But probably unseen for many many millions of years. Certainly unseen by any species existing today. Certainly unseen by human civilization.
-
Bob Lacatena at 04:09 AM on 21 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
103, Camburn,We have always had climate change...
This is a singularly false and overly simplistic statement, one which begs to ignore problems and science, rather than face them. Surely you have something more substantive and meaningful to offer the world than the modern equivalent of "if man had been meant to fly, God would have given him wings!" -
Eric the Red at 03:48 AM on 21 June 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
KR, I know that I have the reputation of being the "no problem guy" just because I do not hold many of the positions as being very solid. Just because I stick to the notion that all these scenarios are probably (not just possible), is no reason to think that I do not believe the science. I will not accept or dismiss premises based on one or two papers, especially when those papers are written by people whose sole purpose is to promote their hypotheses. When the data becomes convincing, then I will join in. I have a particularly disdain for models (some based on personal biases dealing with modelers in the past) that cannot be verified with data. Remember, there is a big difference between evidence in support of a theory, and evidence that confirms a theory. Currently, we have a a lot of evidence in support of AGW, however, many scientists are extrapolating well beyond the limits of the data, and scientists will tell you that is introduces a large amount of uncertainty. -
Camburn at 03:35 AM on 21 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Sphaerica: "I think it's so obvious that no one would argue that we've had extreme weather events before climate change." We have always had climate change, so it is impossible to establish a cut off of when the climate all of a sudden became static. -
Eric the Red at 03:19 AM on 21 June 2011When scientists take to the streets it’s time to listen up
CB, Oftentimes the websites do misrepresent the paper. However, the link to the paper is still valid. Whatever the website says about the paper does not change the original work.Response:[DB] We're still waiting on those examples you mentioned from this site...
-
CBDunkerson at 03:13 AM on 21 June 2011When scientists take to the streets it’s time to listen up
Eric the Red wrote: "I have seen that happen repeatedly here." Excellent. Then it should be easy to cite examples from this very site. I do note that you have changed from saying that people dismiss the scientific papers to dismissing descriptions of them on particular websites... which is a very different thing. You also discount the apparently stated reason ("misuse of the author's work") in favor of your own interpretation ("just because it is referenced on a particular website"). Have you actually looked to verify that those websites AREN'T misrepresenting the scientific paper(s)? -
Albatross at 03:11 AM on 21 June 2011When scientists take to the streets it’s time to listen up
Eric @9, "I thought was an excellent analogy put forth by Mark.." Actually is was a lousy "analogy", because it does not fairly represent what actually happened in this case. It was an analogy designed to appeal to people's emotion, and it was not based in the facts at hand, so it was an unrealistic comparison. Additionally, even though it was a hypothetical scenario(compared to the reality of what has transpired) it sadly worked beautifully at inciting the masses, just read the comment thread, it work beautifully. That is very poor journalism. So is making serious accusations, running an article with a misleading and pejorative headline before actually fact checking. Ironically, those are tactics well used by the likes of McIntyre-- make loud pronouncements of wrong doing or allegations of nefarious goings on, which are then happily amplified in the echo chamber (i.e., internet) and then refuse to concede or correct errors when pointed out to you. Actually this is very much an example of Lynas, McI et al falsely accusing others of exactly what you are doing, in this case propaganda, appealing to emotion and not correcting mistakes. The sad part is that this has now, thanks to Lynas and Watts and Curry and Romm jumping on board degenerated into a mud fight, with one objective only-- to score points, and in the case of the "skeptics" to further their agenda against the IPCC and scientists. And for the record, I am OK with FF groups being involved in the IPCC, so long as they are not there to obfuscate, delay and be obstructionist. I believe that they can and must make a positive contribution to the process. So Mark's analogy fails again... Lynas needs to come clean as to the real reason for his "outrage", is it really the exclusion of nuclear. I suspect that we will never know. Now with that all said, the IPCC have to get much, much better at media and public relations. Because it they screw that up, the science underpinning AGW also suffers (it is amazing how easily conflate adaptation and mitigation with the core science). Wholly unacceptable. The problem is that to do so governments need to spend more money on the IPCC. I think most people perceive them as a huge organization with unlimited resources, when in reality they are really run by a skeleton staff, and the reports are written and reviewed by scientists who volunteer their time. And unfortunately, from time-to-time the fact that they lack resources and experience in PR and media relations (unlike the denial spin ma and disinformation machine)shows. -
Bob Lacatena at 03:10 AM on 21 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
101, Eric the Red, Certainly I'd agree. I don't think anyone would try to claim or even for a moment think that climate change is the only factor that influences extreme weather events. I think it's so obvious that no one would argue that we've had extreme weather events before climate change. The problem at hand is in figuring out how much of today's and tomorrow's extreme events are attributable to climate change, and to try to predict which will worsen in strength or frequency. And doing so requires studying both climate and weather, and using critical thinking of the factors involved to try to unravel things and arrive at the truth (ah, the true fun in science!). -
KR at 02:56 AM on 21 June 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Eric the Red - There's certainly room for discussion on climate sensitivity, as the data doesn't impose terribly tight boundaries on it. However, those boundaries range from no less than 1.5C per doubling of CO2 (very solid boundary) to 5+C per doubling (less solid, it could be higher). So the limits run from bad to extremely bad in terms of consequences to us, with a consensus view of 3C. Even the lowest reasonable numbers for sensitivity are going to cause us a lot of trouble. Your decrying of consensus gives the appearance of wanting to claim that climate change won't be a problem. If that's not your opinion, my apologies. But that's certainly how you are coming across in these discussions.
Prev 1635 1636 1637 1638 1639 1640 1641 1642 1643 1644 1645 1646 1647 1648 1649 1650 Next
