Recent Comments

Prev  1662  1663  1664  1665  1666  1667  1668  1669  1670  1671  1672  1673  1674  1675  1676  1677  Next

Comments 83451 to 83500:

83451. pbjamm at 03:26 AM on 7 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2B. More on why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       DrJ: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=number+of+glaciers+in+the+world Read the First Sentence of the Top link. I may be a Certified College Dropout but I still know how to look for answers when I have questions.
83452. Tom Curtis at 03:24 AM on 7 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Eric the Red @419, yes. If you take a temperature index which excludes the fastest warming area on Earth, and then take the annual temperatures from the period of the last solar maximum until the lowest solar minimum in nearly a century, with several large El Nino's in the early period, and several large La Nina's in the later period, you do get a trend of - 0.028 Degrees C per decade (HadCRUtv3 2001-2010). In contrast, if you don't exclude the fastest warming region, the trend for the last decade is 0.075 degrees C per decade (Gisstemp 2001-2010). It takes a denier, to find great significance in that. Most of us would look at those figures and say that if the increase in CO2 forcing over just one decade can cancel out that large a combination of cooling factors, it must be very significant indeed. We worry about what the trend will be as those cooling factors reverse.
83453. citizenschallenge at 03:22 AM on 7 June 2011
       Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
       Great informative write up. As for Christy using "WE" perhaps he has merely adopted Lord M's habit of talking in the 'regal' first-person plural form. It lends an air of superiority don't you know.
83454. Byron Smith at 03:10 AM on 7 June 2011
       SkS Weekly Digest - First Edition
       That is, the red link directs you to a different post.
83455. Byron Smith at 03:09 AM on 7 June 2011
       SkS Weekly Digest - First Edition
       Link to Amazon Part 3 is misdirected. Thanks.
83456. adelady at 03:06 AM on 7 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2B. More on why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       The number is over 100000 according to NSIDC. I haven't checked out any of the links at the bottom of this page, but I reckon you'd find what you want at one of them. http://nsidc.org/data/g01130.html
83457. Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. at 02:55 AM on 7 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2B. More on why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       @Moderator I'm sorry but I asked a few weeks ago for the total number of global glaciers and somebody gave me a link which did not have the information readily available. All I am looking for is a number.
       Response:

       [DB] The website I directed you to earlier, the world glacier monitoring service (on its facts and figures page), says about 160,000.

       Part of the problem in getting an exact number is that glaciers are not necessarily discreet separable entities, like rivers, nor are they all "named". Some parts of a single icemass have multiple names as well.

       In other words, there may not be a definitive answer to your question.

83458. Tom Curtis at 02:51 AM on 7 June 2011
       There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
       J Bob:

       "You asked why I used local temps instead of global? The reason is that there where no “global” temperatures prior to 1850, if you would call it that. Even in 1850, almost all were in the Northern Hemisphere. But there were quite a number of individual station records starting in 1659, so one has a longer time span to compare one variable (temperature) to another (CO2), hence the use of Ave14. You will notice I included the HadCRUT NH as a check on Ave14, and the patterns do seem to track, especially when both are compared to CO2. Both Ave14 & HadCRUT showed strong variations, while CO2 showed none. If I added a HadCRUT global plot, it would appear to change nothing. Your plot, you referenced by Meehl, uses models, and again show little compassion of GHG to temperature, except they both go up over time. I don’t see the up and down motion that would give stronger correlations. This process is my idea of a skeptic."

       1) First, any sensible comparison between CO2 and temperatures should compare CO2 forcing with temperature as CO2 and its forcing are not linearly correlated. 2) Although CO2 forcing is considered to be a factor prior to 1950, it is not considered to be the dominating factor by anybody prior to that time for short term (< millennial) time scales (see figure 5 above). Therefore we do not expect a strong short term correlation between CO2 forcing and temperature prior to 1950. 2a) Because of that, temperature fluctuations prior to 1950 are not direct evidence against the greenhouse effect. They are interesting evidence of the scale of natural variability, but using a regional temperature record is inappropriate for determining that variability for reasons given in 9 above. 3) Once all GHG forcings, anthropogenic aerosols and volcanic aerosols are all taken in to account, the decadal correlation between forcings and temperature is remarkable (see figure 6 above). The correlation of annual variability is poor because annual change in CO2 forcing is small, and because annual variation is dominated by the El Nino Southern Oscillation. 4) If you insist on doing a simple comparison of CO2 to temperatures, you should do so using Southern Hemisphere temperatures which, because the NH and SH air masses mix poorly, was largely isolated from the aerosol burden which is so significant, and so significantly distorting in the NH. Differences between the Arctic and the Antarctic means that the Arctic amplifies, while the Antarctic suppresses the warming, but the SH still provides a better natural laboratory if you are not going to do a full work up of all factors:
83459. keithpickering at 02:41 AM on 7 June 2011
       Poleward motion of storm tracks
       Thanks for a very interesting post.
83460. Eric the Red at 02:39 AM on 7 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2B. More on why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       Yes, That is why the U.S. record is arguably top notch. Now, if we can just get the rest of the world to follow suit ... Boy, you just cannot resist sticking in little barbs, when you jump to conclusions, do you?
83461. Eric the Red at 02:32 AM on 7 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Let's see, GISS, NOAA, and UAH all show a slight warming trend for the past decade, while CRU and RSS show a slight cooling trend. Examing the 5-yr movign averages yields similar trends; NOAA, and UAH peaked in 2005, whereas CRU and RSS yielded a maximum in 2002. (UAH shows the most recent peak occurring in early 2006). Apparently, this is appaling to many on this site who cannot accept facts that contradict their beliefs, even Sphaerica's.
       Response:

       [dana1981] Examining statistically insignificant trends over such short timeframes is rather pointless.  You're just seeing short-term noise.  But for the record, RSS has a positive trend over the past decade.

83462. Bob Lacatena at 02:27 AM on 7 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2B. More on why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       7, Eric the Red,

       ...accurate corrections need be applied to remove this effect.

       A seemingly thoughtful insight, with the unspoken implication that scientist somehow hadn't thought of this. That in spite of the wealth of details provided to you at the top of this page, in the original post, on the great lengths to which scientists have gone in studying the problem and working to properly and objectively homogenize the data. Really, the unwillingness to read and learn, while also dropping little doubt-grenades, is breathtaking.
83463. Tom Curtis at 02:27 AM on 7 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       J. Bob, Adelady had carried the conversation across to this thread where it is on topic. May I suggest that you do likewise.
83464. Bob Lacatena at 02:24 AM on 7 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2B. More on why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       Cadbury, If I may, I think what you (and Watts) fail to understand is that scientists have carefully looked at this. When trying to generate a temperature map for the day's forecast, having lots and lots of thermometers all over is important. When generating a map of temperature anomalies which span years and decades, and are an average taken from many, many days of readings, we find that five, ten, one hundred, even hundreds of miles are inconsequential. One doesn't need a hundred carefully gridded stations if they all give the exact same answer. And it costs money to take all of those readings, money that could be better spent accumulating valuable rather than redundant information. The argument that we don't have enough temperature stations is a distraction from the truth of the matter. It's like sitting in a hospital worrying that you might die because the snowstorm outside would prevent an ambulance from getting to you in time.
83465. John Hartz at 02:20 AM on 7 June 2011
       Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
       Dana & James: Kudos on an excellent article! As Sgt. Joe Friday was wont to say: "Just the facts ma'm. Just the facts."
       Response:

       [dana1981] Thanks very much.  The "skeptics" have given us a lot of practice in rebutting "climate sensitivity is low"!

83466. J. Bob at 02:18 AM on 7 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Moderator: Thanks for the help. Still trying to get the image & thumbnail postings straight. Would using the Preview option help to make sure the image postings are correct? While I will agree, a detail discussion on the specific topic of CO2 & temperature would be better discussed on the appropriate thread, my primary point is to show how a skeptic becomes a skeptic. Not by just reading items or papers, but by doing some careful thought and analysis to make sure opinions presented stand up to questions by opposing views. Anyway, back to the fray. Adelady @393, You asked why I used local temps instead of global? The reason is that there where no “global” temperatures prior to 1850, if you would call it that. Even in 1850, almost all were in the Northern Hemisphere. But there were quite a number of individual station records starting in 1659, so one has a longer time span to compare one variable (temperature) to another (CO2), hence the use of Ave14. You will notice I included the HadCRUT NH as a check on Ave14, and the patterns do seem to track, especially when both are compared to CO2. Both Ave14 & HadCRUT showed strong variations, while CO2 showed none. If I added a HadCRUT global plot, it would appear to change nothing. Your plot, you referenced by Meehl, uses models, and again show little compassion of GHG to temperature, except they both go up over time. I don’t see the up and down motion that would give stronger correlations. This process is my idea of a skeptic. Your thoughts?
       Response:

       [DB] "Would using the Preview option help to make sure the image postings are correct?"

       Yes.  If they don't show properly after pushing the Preview button, then something is wrong.  Typically it is the inclusion of an extraneous space after the URL but before the second parenthesis.  Or the transposing of the closing slash and the HTML tag command being used.

       Please remember to keep widths at 450 pixels or less.  Lastly, PNG, JPG or GIF work best (avoid TIFF).  DOC and PDF will not result in a viewable picture (you will have to separate the graphic in question from the document and upload it to the Web first).

       The sample HTML commands at the TIPS page have all been tested by me and work in the SkS Comment posting windows.

83467. Bob Lacatena at 02:15 AM on 7 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Correction. In my previous post I said "Temperatures skyrocket" (after we cease pumping CO₂ into the atmosphere). That's the wrong thing to say. What I should have said was simply "temperatures continue to rise for many decades after we have actually completely stopped pumping CO₂ into the atmosphere." Sorry for any confusion.
83468. dana1981 at 02:03 AM on 7 June 2011
       SkS Weekly Digest - First Edition
       If you click the red links to go to the articles themselves, the blue links will work there.
83469. Bob Lacatena at 02:02 AM on 7 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Eric the Red, So wrong, so often, in so many ways.

       To ignore this is poor science at the least, and possibly worse.

       Strawman. No one is ignoring it, or ignored it even before it happened. Everyone recognizes natural variability. They also recognize the indisputable march of CO₂ in the picture. Everything else (which isn't a feedback on CO₂) will even out in the end. So there's noise in a 5 or 10 or 20 year span. Big surprise (not). But you and deniers use this to imply that the science is uncertain, that climate is unpredictable, and maybe we should wait a decade or five to be really, really sure about how things will play out (and to conveniently have reached a point where it won't affect our own lives, because we'll be dead by then).

       Hence, the reported climate sensitivity values are a range, not an absolute (deal with it Sphaerica).

       Yet another strawman. Is that all you've got, a field full of strawmen? Everyone knows this is a range. But the low side of the range is dangerous if we take no action whatsoever, the most likely value in the range (3+˚C) is very dangerous, and the upper bounds (the long tail) extend much further than the short, low end tail. More than this, every year more and more studies confirm that this sensitivity is at least 3˚C, so the chance of anything lower gets less and less with every passing day. To present these plain, incontrovertible facts otherwise is misinformation, and to believe otherwise is denial.

       The recent Hansen paper admits that we may be underestimated aerosol effects.

       Admits? Admits? More denial-speak. Hansen warns that we may be underestimating aerosol effects. This is a gigantic problem, and a reason for far more aggressive action. It is a frightening prospect. To explain, since you do not seem to comprehend, there are several positive and negative feedbacks which are recognized, but quantified to different degrees. We know there is a negative anthropogenic aerosol effect. It's actually a forcing, not a feedback, in that we are pumping the air full of CO₂ and anthropogenic aerosols. The former raise temperatures through radiative effects. The latter lower temperatures by blocking incoming sunlight. The larger that negative forcing is, the worse the effects of CO₂ truly are. It is masking the full power of the CO₂ problem. But wait, there's more. What happens when we stop pumping fossil fuels into the air, either because we smarten up, or because they become too expensive to continue to use (as world demand far exceeds supply), or (God help us if this happens) when they run out? So, there is all of this CO₂ in the air, gigaton after gigaton of it, driving temperatures up. It stays there for centuries or even millenia. But the aerosols don't. We're no longer pumping them in, but the drop out of the atmosphere in anywhere from years to at best decades. So the negative forcing goes away. The positive forcing stays in place. Temperatures skyrocket. Really, please Eric, take the time to read and understand this stuff. It is important, and your field of strawmen and mis-characterizations are doing the world a huge injustice.

       My personal opinion is that the climate sensitivity is in the low range.

       Keyword = opinion, and one that is not only unsupported by but heavily contradicted by the facts, and clear evidence of denial.

       ...he cannot accept any fact that contradicts his beliefs.

       Again with the word "belief." Everything is belief, because that's what you work with. Educate yourself!

       Settled was a word chosen years ago by certain climatologists in an attempt to sway the public.

       More denial lies! Man, please, do some reading. Can you find this quote anywhere except on denial sites? Who said this? Not even one person, let alone "certain climatologists" (plural). This is a denier's fantasy. Please, really, stop with the nonsense. You are so lost that it's laughable. You have eagerly and willingly bought into every urban myth, superstition, and silly trope that denialism has manufactured in the past decade. Please, get some new material. And as a starting point, open your mind, become a true skeptic, and figure out where all of those false beliefs are so severely flawed.
83470. Albatross at 01:58 AM on 7 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2B. More on why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       No doubt, the so-called 'skeptics' here will choose to ignore caerbannog's analysis and recommendation about looking at the actual data themselves and undertaking their own analysis. Instead they will most likely continue to spout conspiracy theories, pontificate, make laughable allegations of innumeracy against scientists and the usual flavour of 'skeptic' tactics to fabricate debate, obfuscate and confuse. Either put up (and by that I do not mean linking to some hacked attempt to do some analysis by someone like D'Aleo) or please move on. The planet is warming, and that fact has been independently verified, by the Clear Climate Code, including 'skeptics' such as JeffId and RomanM, not to mention other metrics and observation platforms--deal with it. Ignoring that reality amounts to nothing more than denial.
83471. Tom Curtis at 01:56 AM on 7 June 2011
       Database of peer-reviewed papers: classification problematics
       Eric the Red @35, reply here.
83472. Tom Curtis at 01:55 AM on 7 June 2011
       A detailed look at climate sensitivity
       Eric the Red here, you can simply combine the formulas by multiplying the constant in the Radiative Forcing formula by λ. It is unwise to do so, however, because the formula for other radiative forcings is quite different, while to a first approximation, the formula for climate sensitivity is the same across all forcings. Thus the formula for solar forcings 0.25*0.7*dI where I is the incident solar radiation on a meter squared area perpendicular to the solar radiation at the top of the atmosphere. Other formulas are given by the IPCC.
83473. actually thoughtful at 01:51 AM on 7 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       DSL - great post and great area of inquiry. I love the bus coming around the bend analogy (to suggest an improvement...). Wonderful way to think about this, the bizarreness of denialism, and why/how something in the physical world, not front and center, can have a huge future impact unless mitigated now.
83474. trunkmonkey at 01:50 AM on 7 June 2011
       Can we trust climate models?
       Charlie A @ 93. "Are you saying that we should not trust the climate models to make reliable decadal projections?" I think the answer is yes, that is what he is saying. It is a point that is well established on various threads here and mentioned earlier in this thread that the models are only good for a 30 year trend. This is largely because they are unable to predict the only quasi periodic alphabet soup of ocean atmospheric oscillations (PDO etc., I like to call the O's)These oscillations are able to tap into an enormous pool of ancient bottom water that like the loose end of a fire hose swings to alternate sides of the ocean basins. As CB Dunkerson points out all of this is just redistributed energy, but so are the obliquity and precessional Milankovitch influences. There is a thousand year supply of this cold water to frustrate decadal scale predictions until these oscillations are sucessfully modelled. This is why Hansen (et al 2011)has joined a growing chorous including Kevin C saying hey, if all you get is a 30yr GMAT trend line, I can do that on a spreadsheet.
83475. Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. at 01:48 AM on 7 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2B. More on why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       @mcClam6 Great. Please give me the range in which they accurate in miles, please. If you simply paste a link in I am not going to read it. I have been given the run around here enough times to know I won't get the answer I am looking for. @Adelady The link you provided is broken. Anyway, I have to disagree with you. I think local temperature is the least important measurement we need. I want specifics in areas where nobody is living to better deduce whether we are having an impact on the area.
       Response:

       [DB] "Please give me the range in which they accurate in miles, please."

       Pointless, line-in-the-sand dare.

       "If you simply paste a link in I am not going to read it."

       Petulance is the hallmark of a closed mind.

       "I have been given the run around here enough times to know I won't get the answer I am looking for."

       That you refuse to accept information that does not fit your predefined question is telling, and hardly a response worthy of one claiming to possess a "PhD".

       Quite wasting everyone's time: read up on the science and the basics and learn for yourself.  You need solid food, not milk.

       Note to other readers:

       Jay has on numerous occasions questioned the topic of various threads here.  Each time he has been provided with answers with links to published, peer-reviewed supportative and corroborating material.  Answers which apparently are not to his liking.  So be it.

       This Forum is for everyone: Authors, discussion participants and the silent readership majority alike.  The Comments Policy here at Skeptical Science mandates civility and a focus on the science.

       Readers posting genuine questions here always receive genuine, helpful answers.    No one here wants to see anyone "not get it".  But it is incumbent upon the person asking the question to actually perform the homework given and read the material furnished in answer, including the linked material, if they have questions.

83476. actually thoughtful at 01:47 AM on 7 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Garethman - instead of using your psychology to engage in a hand-wringing exercise that perhaps we are hurting the feelings of those who threaten human civilization (it is all about food; it is all about water) - why not do something useful and suggest ways that those who are in denial about climate science - the reality of what we are doing, the undeniable impacts and implications (think about food and water for 7-9 billion souls) can be educated or persuaded to take action. The takeaway point from my posts (and I suspect Sphaerica, adelady and many others) is the writing is on the wall. Our final understanding will be different than our current understanding. But not in any way that matters regarding the question of whether to dramatically reduce CO2 emissions. So instead of spending your time coming up with weasel-worded defenses of climate deniers, how about using your expertise to suggest *effective* ways of moving the conversation to how quickly (and how) to wean ourselves from fossil CO2? Your suggestion that climate deniers are having no impact on public policy directly contradicts recent history in the US - where the ascendant political party has a litmus test that you must deny ALL climate scientist in order to be a candidate for office. Words (and ideas) have meaning and impact. Those impacts will determine our future on this happy little rock.
83477. adelady at 01:29 AM on 7 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2B. More on why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       Dr Jay "I am completely against filling in missing locations..." You should be relieved when you have a look at the 'There aren’t enough stations' section in Part 2A of this series The analysis shows that the problem is not much of a problem at all. (This is likely a weather vs. climate issue. We really need local temp, humidity, wind conditions for weather reporting and forecasting. We don't need local specifics for a general picture of global climate.)
83478. Eric the Red at 01:24 AM on 7 June 2011
       Database of peer-reviewed papers: classification problematics
       Tom, I agree that the radiative forcing directly due to CO2 is well known. It is the feedback loops that are less well known. Forgive me for short-cutting the equation, I was just trying to combined the two equations for John for simplicity purposes. I believe the uncertainty range you are quoting is one standard deviation, whil I posted a range of two.
83479. dhogaza at 01:23 AM on 7 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2B. More on why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       "Uncorrected urban stations will yield higher temperatures than corresponding rural stations, this is well documented" However various slicing and dicing of the data has shown that there's little effect on *trend*, which is all we care about.
83480. Eric the Red at 01:15 AM on 7 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       DSL, I never said that the recent warming was caused by natural variability. I habve acknowledged the effects of CO2, although apparently not strongly enough for Sphaerica. My point is that there is a natural component to temperature which has influenced the warming of the 80s and 90s, and the lack of warming in the past decade. To ignore this is poor science at the least, and possibly worse. The basics are solid. The direct effect of doubling CO2 will result in ~1.1C of temperature rise. I have never disputed the physics of that. When the feedback loops are incorporated, several different results occur. Hence, the reported climate sensitivity values are a range, not an absolute (deal with it Sphaerica). The recent Hansen paper admits that we may be underestimated aerosol effects. Does this challenge fundamental physics? No, but it does affect the more chaotic climate system. My personal opinion is that the climate sensitivity is in the low range. Bob wants to call me a denier because I believe that the climate sensitivity is lower than he believes. Fine, so be it. If that is his definition of a denier, then 90% of the world are probably deniers. Sphaerica appears to be falling into the trap outlined by garethman above; he cannot accept any fact that contradicts his beliefs. Hence, he believes that all the evidence is converging towards his views. It must be nice to live in such a bubble. Then he has the audacity to suggest that I "go study." Maybe Spaerica should study up on recent developments. Read all the papers, not just those by your friends. I will rephrase my statement to be more accepting to you: the models converge, while the data diverges. Settled was a word chosen years ago by certain climatologists in an attempt to sway the public. I strongly disagree with any suggestion that the science is "settled."
       Response:

       [DB] "My point is that there is a natural component to temperature which has influenced the warming of the 80s and 90s,"

       During which forcings other than CO2 have been flat.  Perhaps you conflate temperatures and anomalies?

       "and the lack of warming in the past decade."

       Provably oh-so-wrong. 

       

       Witness the "Aughts" as the warmest decade on record, with 2005 and 2010 being tied as the warmest years in the instrumental records.  It is poor science indeed to repeat a fallacy without any supportative documentation.

       You should indeed "go study", for your comments do indeed reveal the need.

83481. adelady at 01:07 AM on 7 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Garethman "... we should never condemn people who do not agree with us or who sometimes behave and think in a illogical way..." I'd rephrase that - we should never be too quick to condemn people who... Here I'll take a liberty and cite Sphaerica as an example of one commenter here who is very patient and helpful to newcomers who have difficulty with science. Whether it's with tracking down information or in understanding the material when they get it. But there's a limit. When such people start citing nonsensical internetisms as 'valid' criticisms of data or papers rather than requesting explanations for contradictions, we can only be helpful for a while. I tend to ignore or retreat from such contributions. Others' fedupness can result in more direct challenge or criticism. And they are right to do so. We all have a responsibility to the readers and visitors who don't join discussions. This is a site offering valid climate science for people who may know very little about science of any kind. They need to know that certain 'facts' are wrong. They need to understand that science is not a matter of debatable opinions.
83482. mclamb6 at 00:48 AM on 7 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2B. More on why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       Dr. Cadbury--I'm pretty sure that the entire point behind the "teleconnections" diiscussed in this series of postings is that we do, in fact, know the "range" of the stations and it is therefore possible to remove stations without "guessing".
83483. Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. at 00:38 AM on 7 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2B. More on why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       I guess the big problem I see is that nobody seems to know the range of these stations. The fact that many stations have been closed is alarming. This tells me we don't have adequate coverage. I am completely against filling in missing locations with anomaly numbers, I would rather see a questionmark than a guess.
83484. DSL at 00:22 AM on 7 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Eric (red) @ 401: "One of my favorite contradictions is the denier label thrown at those who suggest any kind of natural variability or forces, and then those same hurlers acknowledge that there is natural variability when accused of ignoring it by others." The problem here is that science gives evidence why natural variability is not the cause of recent warming. People who deny this either 1) don't provide evidence or 2) provide evidence that looks convincing (but is actually goofy) to the people doing no. 1. Garethman said that it's easy to post to the sites everyone shares the same opinion. This is true of posters, but it's also true of readers. It's easy to believe what one wants to believe, what fits into one's pre-existing understanding of the universe. Understanding one's own historically-developed beliefs is the first step in the critical process. "The science is not as solid and well known as many people here appear to think. This is what we are discovering as more and more research is undertaken." Eh, if you're trying to say that the basics are not solid, think again. Are we discovering with more and more research that what we know about the physics of radiative transfer is starting to crumble? Are we discovering with more and more research that the earth is not warming due to the increasing addition of human-sourced GHGs? Are we discovering that the natural cycles are in fact in line to produce the observed warming? "No" in all three cases. Science has had doubts about each of these answers. There is much less doubt now. The uncertainty now sits in the fine details--precisely how much forcing, are clouds +/-, how will food plants respond, what is the connection with extreme weather, etc. Look at the development of "official denialism" at sites like WUWT. There has been a painfully slow acknowledgement that yes, the planet is warming, and yes, CO2's radiative transfer does not violate the 2nd law, and yes, the Arctic seems to be losing some perhaps barely slight summer sea ice. These days, the arguments are no longer "it's not happening." Instead, it's more about "it's not us" or, increasingly, "it's not bad." I'd say that with more and more research, the basics are becoming more and more settled, and we keep opening up areas of fine detail that aren't settled. I come to this from the humanities. I teach young people how to think critically. Even in (or perhaps because of) the open age of the internet, students come to college with several large suitcases of uncritical understandings about the way the world works. Sometimes those understandings are accurate--by accident or intuition. For example, probably 45-50 of 60 first year students believe that the planet is warming. Maybe two can explain why. Over the past several years, I've been learning the math and theory--slowly, painfully (thanks, SoD). I want to make sure I'm right. Yet the rhetoric is much more interesting to me. I am professionally interested in the psychology of what happens (in the short and long term) when someone is publicly confronted with evidence that cannot be accounted for in his/her existing belief set or system. It's my job to help people think through those moments (where moment can be a few seconds or a few years) and help them build a mind that will more readily adjust to new information. When I read some of the "spinning wheels" on this site (the 2nd Law thread, for example), I want to give it all up and move to Montana (maybe grow a crop of dental floss). Finally, and this dovetails with Sphaerica's comments, if while crossing the street I suddenly find a bus headed straight at me (yes, stupid me for not looking, but this is part of the analogy as well), and someone crossing with me says, "don't worry, it's just an illusion, and if it's not then it will suddenly swerve aside or start going backward," even though the physical detail tells me that this is a multi-ton, momentum-bearing reality 20 yards away, then I'm going to suspect (as you would) that the stranger must be insane, temporarily (and fatally) irrational, or murderous. Yes, I have such faith in the empirical--don't you? The analogy doesn't hold completely, though, because I can only catch glimpses of the GHG bus in store windows, sounds, and smells--and what the people on the sidewalk (scientists, who can see the bus more clearly) are screaming at me: "do something now!"
83485. Bob Lacatena at 00:12 AM on 7 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Eric the Red, Wow. One short post, and so much denial crammed right in.

       That sounds fine, but I do not see the lines of evidence converging.

       Okay, first, please realize that this statement puts you squarely, categorically, and without question, into the status of "denier." You cannot say anything close to this without wearing that label. There are so many lines of evidence, and it is all so damning, that to say otherwise is nothing but denial

       The models appear to converge but the data appears to diverge.

       Look closer. There's no need whatsoever to qualify it with "appears." And the data converges. It absolutely converges, and to think otherwise is denial (either willful, or through ignorance).

       ...that the current science is settled. This is not the response of someone who is absolutely sure about his belief, but rather someone who is desperately afraid that his belief is losing ground.

       Again, another comment that squarely identifies you as a denier. There is another option is that the science is so strong that cockamamie wishful thinking ideas (like GCR's and the Iris Effect) are not going to change anything. Please note that using the word "settled" is another strawman... no science is ever "settled" because it's always advancing and progressing, and in complex systems, there will be lots of mistakes... but the overall direction is solid, and we are quickly approaching the point where it will be impossible for any body of evidence to overturn enough of it to support the denialist position.

       However, the amount of unsults hurled at those who merely suggest an alternative is unfathomable.

       First, I don't see anywhere near this volume of insults. Certainly not here at SkS, and certainly not at WUWT. I think you are being overly sensitive, or perhaps view being corrected as an insult. You must be able to take criticism, particularly if you are going to be tragically wrong, and then cling to your mistakes like an, oh, I don't know, let's call it "a denier." And "merely suggest" is another strawman. You're not talking about cases where someone merely suggests something. You are without question talking about a case where someone suggests something, has their errors pointed out to them, and then clings to that belief and hammers at it and sticks to it and won't let go. Big difference.

       One of my favorite contradictions is the denier label thrown at those who suggest any kind of natural variability or forces, and then those same hurlers acknowledge that there is natural variability when accused of ignoring it by others.

       Another example of denialism, and a lack of understanding of the science. Why can the system not have natural variability, but be dominated by a particular imbalance? The scenario you portray is another typical denial ploy, by first misinterpreting the facts behind natural variability to imply or even "prove" that anthropogenic effects are negligible, but then to accuse the scientists of ignorance by implying that the existence of natural variability hasn't really occurred to them. This is a total non-issue, or rather, it's only an issue manufactured and supported by deniers. It's nonsense.

       The science is not as solid and well known as many people here appear to think. This is what we are discovering as more and more research is undertaken.

       The science is far more solid than you portray it, and with every passing month more and more papers are published that support, not refute, the current science. You are deluding yourself. In that one, short post, you made statements that provide strong evidence that you are unequivocally and inarguable a denier. You included five typical, indefensible denial talking points, and in a sixth, you used a typical denial tactic (using exaggeration to create a strawman). I really don't know why you guys are so sensitive about the word. Call yourselves deniers and be proud of it. Or change your behavior, look more closely at the data, and figure out where you are going wildly, unarguably and dangerously wrong. You are responsible for what you believe! You will be responsible for whatever actions we take, or fail to take, as a society. There is no escaping this. You are being vocal. You are deciding that your opinion matters, and that you must stem the flow and tide of climate science. You are responsible. Live up to that responsibility. Instead of seething with anger and coming back with a post to show what a meanie I am, and how you're right and I'm wrong, use your time go study. Find out how the lines of evidence do converge. Find out how the data is converging. Find out exactly where natural variability does or does not influence the system, how and why. Find out what the latest papers say (really say, not what Anthony Watts or Steve Goddard claims that they say). Find out what the vast, huge, damning bulk of the papers say. Look with an open mind at how deniers are actually treated here, and on other sites (as in, are their ideas new and well thought out, and presented politely, or are they foolish Internetisms that have been seen over and over again, debunked a hundred times, and yet they cling to them and will not let go). Stop fighting with me. Stop for five seconds to think that maybe you are wrong, and this is important, and maybe you have been mislead, by your own desires, and by others. Stop being a denier.
83486. Utahn at 00:10 AM on 7 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Eric(skeptic)@387: "Clean air and safety have added considerable cost and inefficiency to automobiles with a modest social benefit compared to factors like cracking down on drunk driving, urbanization and interstate highways, teen driver restrictions, etc.. Many people compensate for safety systems by driving less safely although that is hard to quantify. The clean air stuff is expensive and some articles link go one way while later articles say benefits outweigh costs." This is OT, I know, but the article you linked was an attempted forecast, whereas the more recent articles are generally looking at what actually happened. Don't you think there's a difference in the relative merit of these types of studies? As for the rest of this interesting discussion, I'm continuing to use the cumbersome(but less likely to lead to this type of discussion), "those in denial of climate science"...To me typing those few extra words is worth the price of not having this discussion. Of course, it might not actually work all of the time, since it still uses "denial"...but so far so good.
83487. Bob Lacatena at 23:47 PM on 6 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       garethman,

       To also make grandiose predictions which do not materialise is also damaging. ... Every time the prediction falls flat more people become sceptics.

       This is a big problem, and if this is your perception, then you are listening too much to denial blogs, and not looking at the real science yourself. There is not one single prediction, grandiose or otherwise, that has not materialized. Why? Because we are dealing with climate. Things change slowly. Almost every dangerous and frightening prediction lies 50 to 100 years in the future. We are at the very, very beginning of this process. No one says that the Arctic would absolutely melt all year long starting in 2005, or that all polar bears would be extinct by 2012, or that drought would make Texas uninhabitable by 2013, or that rising sea levels would swamp Miami by 2015. If you believe anything close to that, you don't understand and have not looked at the actual science. But bad things will happen eventually. Not to the horrible, exaggerated extremes presented above, but badly enough to cause widespread, unnecessary suffering. And the only way to stop that suffering in the future, is to begin to take reasonable, moderate but effective action now. That's the problem, that our actions today are irreversible, but the dangers are horrific. I often equate this to the old story of the man who jumped off of the skyscraper. As he passed any open windows, he could be heard to say "so far, so good." So we have two problems. The first is the denial spin which creates strawmen by first exaggerating the actual climate science predictions, and then secondly exaggerating the time frame in which they might be expected. The second problem we have is that you are not nearly skeptical enough about those false denial claims, so when they are made you get all upset and bothered that climate science is "alarmist," when it's not true, and you're just not bothering to educate yourself properly to find out where the truth actually lies. So, once again, are you a denier, or someone who is trying to get to the truth. Are you stopping and agreeing the moment that you see something that fits with your already established views (and an agenda that is already embedded in your psyche), or do you always keep going, and keep digging, because nothing is never as black and white as all that. Pick. Denier, or not.
83488. Tom Curtis at 23:35 PM on 6 June 2011
       Database of peer-reviewed papers: classification problematics
       John Nicol @32, Eric the Red @33, the equation 5.35*ln(C/C₀) determined the change in forcing in Watts per square meter for a particular change in CO2 levels. For doubling CO2 that results in a change of forcing of 3.7 Watts per meter squared. To a first approximation, you can apply this as a change of forcing to the TOA incoming solar radiation to determine the change in temperature for a doubling of CO2 without feedbacks. By subtracting the change in Radiative Forcing from the OLR you can determine the change in the energy balance for no feedback. Using the Stefan-Boltzmann law you can then determine the increase in temperature required at the effective altitude of radiation to restore radiative balance. Because the temperature at the effective altitude of radiation is tied to that at the surface by a constant adiabatic lapse rate, the change in surface temperature is the same as the change at the effective altitude of radiation. Contrary to Eric the Red, this figure is very well understood, with uncertainties of only +/- 10%. The formula you are looking for is:

       "dT = λ*dF Where 'dT' is the change in the Earth's average surface temperature, 'λ' is the climate sensitivity, usually with units in Kelvin or degrees Celsius per Watts per square meter (°C/[W m-2]), and 'dF' is the radiative forcing"

       (From here) The standard value for λ is 0.8, with an uncertainty range of from 0.54 to 1.2 That should be enough information to make any relevant on topic point, if any. If you wish to dispute these formulas or figures, we should go to the relevant thread as suggested by DB @32.
83489. newsie23 at 23:27 PM on 6 June 2011
       Poleward motion of storm tracks
       An interesting oservation (to me), from the much maligned 'climatologist' Iben Browning - was perspective. If 'weather' was observed from a polar perspective, rather than from the equator - there is normally a 'four-leaf clover' of polar highs, that rotates around the poles - that takes, on average 6 - 8 days to pass a lower latitude location (and persists), but very infrequently, shifts by a day. The most notable observation - is 'rotten weekends' for an extended time, until a 'shift', as the 'average' of 6 - 8 days is a week! 'I have observed' and 'predicted' rain occurring, on Friday, Saturday, or Sunday - at the (Montreal) Canadian GP (event), more 'accurately' than the pre-event, weather forcasters. 'My prediction' has persisted longer than 4 years - in the sense of rain on Friday, Saturday or Sunday vs No Rain for the event, or rain, ending Thursday or post event on Sunday night! I know this is not very exact, but (for me) much better than the weather forcasters 'from the equator perspective'! This year, rain is likely race day maybe after the race.
83490. Eric the Red at 23:25 PM on 6 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Nice article pirate. There is a strong element of truth about what happens when facts butt up against someone's ideology.
83491. John Hartz at 23:23 PM on 6 June 2011
       SkS Weekly Digest - First Edition
       Mea culpa. My apologies for the technical glitches in the inagural edition of this new feature. This is the first document that I have created for publication. I'm still on a steep learning curve with respect to the technical side of things. Thank you for your understanding and for your feedback.
83492. Alexandre at 23:11 PM on 6 June 2011
       SkS Weekly Digest - First Edition
       I like to receive the individual announcements. I would not have the time to read so much if I received it all at once (SkS is getting increasingly prolific!) So the summary of past week does not interest me so much. OTOH, it's good to know what's coming.
83493. apiratelooksat50 at 23:08 PM on 6 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       DB @ 387 You're welcom. Your explanation makes perfect sense.
83494. apiratelooksat50 at 22:54 PM on 6 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Interesting article on denialism can be found here.
83495. garethman at 22:50 PM on 6 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       garethman " There is much evidence out there, but all evidence is interpreted, correlated and projected. Models in psychology and climate are not the real world.” Thanks adelady, sensible post. I agree it is up to dissenters to produce evidence to back up claims that the science is wrong, otherwise it’s a faith based idea which may have no grounding in reality. But we should never condemn people who do not agree with us or who sometimes behave and think in a illogical way. We all behave in such ways at times, it’s part of being human. Hopefully all initiatives are based on evidence only, but we must remember that the most powerful country in the world often had policies influenced by those who ideas and beliefs are completely illogical. Many many people have been killed to prove that one persons imaginary friend is better than someone else's imaginary friend . I would hate that concept to invade climate science. If people are wrong, they are wrong, let them plough on, as long as it does not harm the rest of humanity I see no problem. ( No I don’t agree that they influence government as almost all administrations are signed up to the belief in climate change, if not taking action which I don’t think in reality is going to change)
83496. Eric the Red at 22:27 PM on 6 June 2011
       Database of peer-reviewed papers: classification problematics
       John, The constant k in the equation is not well defined. Using a k of 5.35 would generate a climate sensitivity of 3.7C / doubling of CO2, and is on the high side of recent estimates. Also, as pointed out in the link, the climate sensitivity is not precisely known, and usually portrayed as a range of values (i.e. 2.0 - 4.5, or 1.5 - 5.0), such that the constant k would be in the range 2 - 8. There are other issues that occur at high atmospheric concentrations of CO2, but this equation suffices for our current range.
83497. Eric the Red at 22:13 PM on 6 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2B. More on why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       GISS is using an urban correction (among others) in their U.S. temperature graphs. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.gif There is no mention of the urban correction in the global series. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.gif Uncorrected urban stations will yield higher temperatures than corresponding rural stations, this is well documented, and accurate corrections need be applied to remove this effect.
83498. Eric (skeptic) at 21:59 PM on 6 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       scaddenp, sorry not much time, but the short answer is nukes will be cheaper.
83499. Eric the Red at 21:57 PM on 6 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Adelady, That sounds fine, but I do not see the lines of evidence converging. The models appear to converge but the data appears to diverge. Yes, this is probably the most researched topic of our time (possibly all time). While many papers support previous conclusions, others do not. I do agree with garethman that any theory (even if it is only a small portion of the whole) is met with ridicule, and that the current science is settled. This is not the response of someone who is absolutely sure about his belief, but rather someone who is desperately afraid that his belief is losing ground. If the science is sound, then let it be proven. If a new theory is invalid, let it be proven false. However, the amount of unsults hurled at those who merely suggest an alternative is unfathomable. One of my favorite contradictions is the denier label thrown at those who suggest any kind of natural variability or forces, and then those same hurlers acknowledge that there is natural variability when accused of ignoring it by others. The science is not as solid and well known as many people here appear to think. This is what we are discovering as more and more research is undertaken.
83500. Rob Painting at 21:03 PM on 6 June 2011
       SkS Weekly Digest - First Edition
       Thks snowhare - it's a glitch in the system. Hopefully someone who is able to fix it will be along soon.

Prev  1662  1663  1664  1665  1666  1667  1668  1669  1670  1671  1672  1673  1674  1675  1676  1677  Next