Recent Comments

Prev  1673  1674  1675  1676  1677  1678  1679  1680  1681  1682  1683  1684  1685  1686  1687  1688  Next

Comments 84001 to 84050:

84001. dhogaza at 03:44 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       "Apparently you didn't read Sphaerica's post which plainly stated: "Deniers are like Holocaust deniers. They are exactly like them."" See my 135 in which I said that I'd missed sphaerica's post.
84002. garethman at 03:31 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Nice definition of the difference between a skeptic and a denier. Do we have a name for the opposite philosophy? Ie the skeptic title would be the same I suppose, but what do we call people who refuse to recognise on principle any peer reviewed research which does not fit with their complete belief in climate change models of one sort or another. Dogmatist? Taliban? I suspect somewhere around the centre ground are a group of people who take a healthy interest and are happy to look at any genuine evidence, pro or anti.
84003. Bob Lacatena at 03:14 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       139, apiratelooksat50,

       Probably be a good idea for you to win some converts to the cause.

       Yes, but those converts won't come from the arrogant, lordly type who tend to post on real science blogs, let alone from the absurdly silly Wattsians that post on WUWT. The converts will come from the real skeptics who, because they are skeptical, don't post comments. They're not sure, and they're trying to learn. They're trying to wade through the morass of nonsense posted by the deniers to try to figure out where the real truth lies. And they aren't going to be offended by any widening gulf between deniers and people who understand the science. Quite to the contrary, it's going to illuminate things for them. So I encourage J. Bob to keep posting allegations that scientists are in it for the money. I encourage L.J. Ryan to keep expressing his palpable distaste at my total disregard for deniers as a collective group. I encourage all of the totally wrong and ridiculously starry eyed misinformation that deniers post. Because in the end, a large body of people are reading it, and doing what I did some years back, when I was still on the fence. They're shaking their heads, and going to the search box, and hunting down where the real truth lies. And after enough falsehoods have been exposed, there is one less skeptic in the room, and eventually all that is left are the educated, and the hopeless deniers.
84004. DSL at 03:11 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Pirate: "The result creates a polarization and widens the gulf between believers and skepics." Any scientist should be a skeptic. That's why there is no theory without the material, evidential basis of experimentation and observation. Skeptics--and correct me if I'm wrong, pirate--should, based on existing evidence, develop a set of probabilities for a given theory, and then dynamically adjust those probabilities as new data arrive. No theory--not religion, not economic mode, not climate model, not government system--should be given a free pass (unquestioned acceptance). This is all I ask of anyone engaging in public debate: incorporate as much evidence as you can into your position, and when you encounter information that cannot be explained by your position, find the position that once again covers everything. Ignoring evidence, cherry-picking, crying "we don't know anything" when one element of a complex system is not yet well-understood, an unwillingness to ask questions for the sake of understanding (as opposed to asking them to accuse), and unwillingness to accept change in one's fundamental beliefs -- these are all signs that one's skeptical attitude is on vacation. An interesting question I'd like to see posed here is "Where will the global temp be in May 2050, and what are the five most significant factors in your prediction?" LJ, your comment at 111 is completely devoid of evidence. It's empty rhetoric. There's nothing worse than having to read a paragraph of empty rhetoric. Where exactly is your problem with the theory and the evidence upon which it is based (appropriate thread, please)? I suspect clips are made based on the interpretation that a comment is designed to generate a sticky stream of useless rhetorical discharge rather than inspire a progressive (uh-oh, I mean constructive) dialogue. The economic mode is perhaps even more complex than the climate, and there just isn't enough room here to engage constructively toward that subject. One well-managed thread connecting economic mode with climate would, I suspect, within two weeks generate more comments than all other threads combined (excepting the endless 2nd law thread, of course).
84005. Bob Lacatena at 03:05 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       135, dhogaza,

       Oh, I see that Sphaerica has ... I disapprove, actually.

       I used to take that stance, until I had the word denier constantly edited from posts on a denial site, while "alarmist", "warmist", and any number of other labels were allowed to stand, and the legions of loyal followers bravely labeled themselves as "skeptics." All the while, their own understanding of the science would have shamed a ten year old. Then I started to think about it, and I realized that while the word was never intended to invoke that image, the emotional and culpable similarities are striking. Deniers didn't stumble into open dislike of that particular barb because they were overly sensitive. They stumbled in because, in their hearts, they know that it really does apply. I'm a little tired of "playing nice" with people who demonstrate a complete lack of ethics, often accompanied by extreme ignorance. And I'm not sure who's worse, the ignorant who are arrogant enough to think they know better, or those that know better and yet willfully, consciously play fast and loose with the facts to maintain the illusion of serious denial. When someone acts like a real skeptic (a pitifully infrequent behavior), I'll give them credit. When someone acts like a run-of-the-mill denier, I will be at first polite and reasonable, but I'll know who I'm dealing with, and what I'm thinking and what I'm posting may well be two very, very different things.
84006. apiratelooksat50 at 03:02 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       dhogaza @ 132 "Somehow I doubt that the laws of physics care at all about vitriolic comments ..." No one implied that. If Sphaerica is concerned about AGW and the goal is to immediately commence mitigation efforts, then it will be up to governments to enact laws to put those efforts into place. Most countries citizens will have to vote. Right now in the US, things aren't looking so good for that in the public perception. Probably be a good idea for you to win some converts to the cause. dhogaza @ 134 Apparently you didn't read Sphaerica's post which plainly stated: "Deniers are like Holocaust deniers. They are exactly like them."
84007. Tom Curtis at 02:59 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       apiratelooksat50 @131: 1) While the vitriol may do poorly influence the casual reader, the fair minded casual reader will probably be more concerned about the side that sends death threats along with a torrent of vitriol both by email and in blogs; 2) While possibly concerned at the frustration so evident in Sphaerica's comments, the fair minded reader would have been more concerned by the casual accusations and insinuations of fraud by scientists which have been posted by deniers on this site over the last two days, and which can be found in overwhelming numbers on denier sites, often accompanied with self congratulating posts about how high a standard of debate, and how polite the debate is on those sites. It is noticable that those accusations and insinuations pass without censor from you, while you argue that the websites that started those accusations are good sites for students to use as sources when studying science. 3) Any chance of reconciliation between climate science and deniers is entirely illusory and has been for some time. This is because the scientists insist on reporting reality, and its reality that the deniers have a problem with.
84008. Bob Lacatena at 02:58 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       131, apiratelooksat50,

       widens the gulf between believers and skepics

       I'd forgotten that one. "Believers." Another trick name to make it look like people who understand the science are somehow indulging a religious faith. Let me make it clear. I don't attack individuals (unless they demonstrate clear, unethical behavior, so many deniers do), but I will label the behavior of deniers as such. When someone drifts into denial, or their skepticism comes across as nothing more than a veil to hide their denial, then I will say as much. I personally don't care about the feelings of deniers (if you feel the denier label applies to you, then that's your conscience at work, but yes, my sensitivity to the difference between an actual skeptic and a simple denier is a lot lower than yours, I'm sure). My take is that deniers don't care about anything except their own money and economic standing. They pretend to have lots of reasons for adopting their position, but in the end it's either greed, anger or ignorance.
84009. giniajim at 02:54 AM on 2 June 2011
       Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1A. A Primer on how to measure surface temperature change
       This is a great series; thanks for doing it. I do have a question about the actual temperature measurements. Can you expound a bit on what is actually measured and recorded at the stations? I have an image of a person going out and looking at a thermometer every hour and writing down the temperature that he observes. What can we say about the accuracy of the instrument and the precision of his observation? Does he then report every day the hourly recordings? Is his station location (lat/long/alt) also captured somehow? Is a daily average computed from the hourly data points? Thanks.
       Response:

       [DB] This may help with some of your questions.

84010. L.J. Ryan at 02:47 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       dhogaza 120 "Wake me up when CO2 lasers stop working ... " Are you suggesting atmospheric CO2 is functionally equivalent to a CO2 laser?
84011. dhogaza at 02:43 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Oh, I see that Sphaerica has ... I disapprove, actually.
84012. dhogaza at 02:42 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       apirate ... "They are offensive in comparing it to Holocaust deniers..." this is a comparison that only exists in the minds of tone trolls, the fact that you buy into it is telling. Where has anyone here made such a comparison? Who is the only poster here who has made the comparison? That would be you ...
84013. L.J. Ryan at 02:42 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       DB 111 ( -Ideological diatribe snipped- ) Response: [DB] Please refrain from the use of all-caps and keep the focus on the science, not on politics and ideologies. My post is ideological and political. But Sphaerica 114 calling skeptics (Deniers)and then equating skeptics to Holocaust deniers is not ideological not political? I suspect you snip based context accuracy and brunt, not as you declared, an objective washing of politics and ideology.
       Response:

       [DB] Greater leeway is allowed than normal, considering the subject matter of this thread.  The appellation Denier is inherent to this thread, unfortunately.

       Introducing yet more politics and ideologies pushes the thread into a train wreck.

       As to Sphaerica's post, he was relating it into the context of denial of the science, which is the subject of this thread.  The part about the Holocaust was a personal opinion, yet also within the context of this thread, as it is a very common reaction from the skeptic contingent.

       Let's all be civil and compose temperate remarks, rather than typing the first or second things that come into our heads.  Or, like me, I end up deleting my own comments upon further reflection.

       Complaints about moderation, unfortunately, tend to get disappeared.

84014. dhogaza at 02:41 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       apirate ... "While I can appreciate your passion, your vitriolic comments are doing more harm than good for your cause." Somehow I doubt that the laws of physics care at all about vitriolic comments ...
84015. apiratelooksat50 at 02:05 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Sphaerica @ 114, From a Skeptic, not a Denier: While I can appreciate your passion, your vitriolic comments are doing more harm than good for your cause. They are offensive in comparing it to Holocaust deniers, incorrect in assuming skeptics don't accept climate change, and unwise because they misdirect rational discourse. The result creates a polarization and widens the gulf between believers and skepics. If your goal is to teach - then teach. You have an audience here of intelligent and educated people. Remembering that you and I partially agree, I suspect that you categorize people like me who don't fully agree with you as un-intelligent, and therefore not worthy of your teaching. You complained about being mistreated at WUWT, so I would expect that you would treat skeptics on this site with the respect and dignity that you desire. In other posts on this thread, I've stated very clearly my position. We differ solely on our perceptions of the predicted results and to what level mitigation efforts should be enacted.
84016. dhogaza at 02:00 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       J Bob: "might blind one to information within. After all, diamonds come from some pretty dirty places. So while one may not agree with an opinion, sometimes there is information to be had, even from WUWT." True, if it weren't for WUWT, I'd be unaware that it snows CO2 dry ice in antarctica and other really fascinating things hidden from us by mainstream science ...
84017. dhogaza at 01:57 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       "but the use of "DENIERS"" ... DB - that was a copy-paste quote on my part, not my own use of all-caps, just to be clear ...
84018. Tom Curtis at 01:49 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       J Bob @126: While there is some good information to be had from WUWT and the like, it is indistinguishable at source from the overwhelming fountain of crap which is the normal fare. Consequently, to gain useful information from WUWT you need to vet all information back to original scientific papers, and then read peer reviewed review articles, or failing that recent text books, or at a minimum, sites like Skeptical Science of Real Climate so that you can find the other relevant papers so that you don't get conned into cherry picking data. Given the effort involved, you would get the same information for less effort by going straight to those review articles, textbooks, or decent websites in the first place. You'll even find out about the information the WUWT crowd really thinks is important (and don't want you to think about anything else) from rebuttals (on the websites). It makes as much sense to refer students to WUWT (or allow them to reference it in assignments) as it would to allow students doing an assignment on human exploration of space to reference moon landing conspiracy sites. As it stands, any halfway decent teacher won't even let students reference wikipedia. Why on Earth would they let a student reference WUWT?
84019. KR at 01:33 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       J. Bob - I thought some of the data on the climate4you site looked familiar. It's run by Ole Humlum. See the two threads on Humlum's previous work here and here. His data is heavily cherry-picked to present a particular point of view, which is exceedingly poor science. As you yourself have noted, it's worthwhile to consider the presenter and the quality of their scientific endeavors. Sites like climate4you, jonova, co2science, WUWT, ClimateRealists, ClimateAudit, and the like are much less credible as a result - their past work (to put it somewhat politely) stinks.
84020. Eric the Red at 01:23 AM on 2 June 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 2: Climate Risks
       michael, The other part of the message is that aerosols had a greater impact on the cooling up until ~1980. Part of the rapid temperature increase was due to atmospheric aerosol reduction. The question is, were these natural or man-made aerosols that predominated? Hence, the longer term temperature record is a better indicator of future changes than the last several years. Also, 1998 was a year of high solar activity.
84021. J. Bob at 01:03 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Sphaerica 77 & dhogaza, It would appear from the complimentary remarks, I must have struck a nerve. WUWT, RC etc., may have their views. However, comments like; “On another vein, people who suggest that one should look at multiple sources for information are certainly correct, but if those multiple sources include inflammatory, politically oriented, and grossly unbalanced and misinforming sites like ClimateAudit, WUWT, and others... well, you're kidding yourselves. They're fooling you, and you're happily fooling yourselves”. might blind one to information within. After all, diamonds come from some pretty dirty places. So while one may not agree with an opinion, sometimes there is information to be had, even from WUWT.
84022. michael sweet at 01:02 AM on 2 June 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 2: Climate Risks
       Ken, Dr. Hansens paper points out that for the past 5 years we have had the lowest solar activity for decades. This low solar output accounts for much of the lower heat accumulation in the past 5 years. Keep in mind that the two hottest years recorded were 2010 and 2005, both when solar output was low. Solar activity is now increasing. New heat records will come much faster as the sun warms again. Hansen postulates that aerosol reflection has reduced the increase in temperature so far from AGW more than models account for. That is bad news in the long run. When the people in China and India get tired of the pollution and reduce aerosols, the planet will substantially warm as aerosols are reduced. This warming cannot be stopped. The take home message from Hansen is that we must take action immediately if we want to avoid the worst of the problems. Your suggestion that Hansens result means we have no worries now is wrong.
84023. KR at 01:02 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       J. Bob - "If you dig a little deeper at those two sites, you will find the references to the original data sources, (i.e. HadCRUT, NOAA, GISS, UAH, RSS, etc.)." Agreed, and I did see those links. The presentation/summary provided on the climate4you site (which I specifically was discussing), however, was rather less comprehensive, and appeared slanted towards a particular point of view, namely that "It's not warming since 1998". It was a very one-sided presentation. I by no means consider peer-review a panacea against bad or biased science - I could name a number of people who have produced just such 'gems', and there are threads on this very blog that discuss those. But the review process filters out most junk, and later analysis in the field by those who study it results in citations, support, or refutations. That doesn't happen with advocacy papers, as a rule. No one paper stands on it's own. That's why it's important to read more than one paper on a subject before leaping to the conclusion (as so many 'skeptics' have done) that an entire field of study is invalid.
84024. Utahn at 00:53 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Tom Curtis, I agree with just about everything you said, with the "denier/those in denial" exception noted above. Eric and all, as for the whole 2C cutoff for "those in denial" I'm happy to stop talking about it as it is a small if slightly interesting eddy in the ocean of commentary that Internet threads spawn...
84025. mike roddy at 00:53 AM on 2 June 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 2: Climate Risks
       Another good one, John, more concise and readable than most reports. Australia and the US have a lot in common- abundant coal and alternative energy, and a coal industry that will literally do anything to maintain market share. Hopelessly dumb and corrupt politicians, too. And strange comment trolls, as Mr. Lambert above. Let's hope that one of us wakes up soon, and brings the other with him.
       Response:

       [DB] Please, can everyone refrain from attaching the appellation of "troll/trolling"?  If you feel a comment is off-topic, challenge the originator of the comment, appropriately and within the confines of the Comments Policy and direct them to a more appropriate thread.

       This forum belongs to all of you.  Self-policing will keep other activities to a minimum.  For those, bring it to the attention of the moderators.  Because sometimes we miss stuff.  Happens.  :(

84026. Dan Olner at 00:45 AM on 2 June 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 2: Climate Risks
       Ken - I was thinking the same thing recently about summer arriving here in the UK. The temp data since April had flattened massively, and stayed there. Obviously, I concluded that everyone claiming Summer was indeed on the way were lying toe-rags. (Something to do with climate forcing due to the angle of the Earth to the sun, they said: nonsense! May was cold!) But get this: it got hotter again. Now I'm completely confused. It's almost as if I shouldn't have used a short, few-weeks temperature trend to make any conclusions about what season it was. Breaking out of passive-aggressive mode for a mo: anyone who can understand why it can get colder for a few weeks without upsetting the order of the seasons can also understand why you don't conclude much from short-term climate variation. If you can't understand that, fair enough. If you can, you're just trolling.
       Response:

       [dana1981] Well said.  I always enjoy a bit of good sarcasm!

84027. Tom Curtis at 00:42 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Eric the Red @119, the probabilities are 2 to 4.5 > 66%, less than 1.5% < 10%. It is not a normal distribution, with probabilities of high values of the high end tail being greater than that of the low end. Still if it where a normal distribution, the probability of less than 2% or greater than 4.5% would be < 34%. Therefore the probability of less than 2% is certainly less than 17%. Therefore the probability of between 1.5 and 2% is less than 17%-10%, or less than 7%. I rounded that to 5% as a rough allowance for the extended high end tail. Those who claim a 1.5% to 2% (of whom there are not many) are pushing the edges of what can be reasonably maintained given available evidence. Oddly there are many more people who would claim a climate sensitivity of 0.5% than those who would claim the far more rational 1.5 to 2%. Or perhaps not so oddly, given the topic of this thread...
84028. J. Bob at 00:42 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       KR @ 101 If you dig a little deeper at those two sites, you will find the references to the original data sources, (i.e. HadCRUT, NOAA, GISS, UAH, RSS, etc.). While they are not the end all, they have some good graphics and a simple ref. pt. to get more basic data. The Rimfrost has the option of getting the long term data (200+ years) for inserting into analysis programs. The long term central & western Europe plots I presented in J. Bob @ 52, used this source. It also has some interesting tools such as a quick country average graph ( including Arctica & Antarctica ). In my case, use of the original or basic data sources, form the basis of my analysis, in trying to get a picture of just what is going on. While “peer” reviewed papers are nice, I was in the process long enough to be wary of swallowing them “hook line & sinker”. I have seen more then I care for of “grant grabbing”, and how papers can be used as a means to a predetermined non-scientific end.
       Response:

       [DB] Be aware that the portion I have struck out is an allegation of impropriety and thus a Comments Policy violation.  Commenting here is a privilege, not a right.  Similarly, adherence to the Comments Policy is mandatory, not optional.  Please take the time to familiarize yourself with the policy & ensure that future comments adhere to it.

       Your participation here is valued, but the focus of the discussion needs to stay on the science itself.

84029. pbjamm at 00:31 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       I am not sure if this thread is responsible or if some other unaccounted for Natural Variation is at play, but there has been a noticeable decline in the levels of civility on this blog. Much unchecked name calling, labeling, and suggestions of mental deficiency. Please mods, stamp this behavior out before it becomes the new norm.
       Response:

       [DB] Agreed.  Disagreement is fine, but civility is a requirement, not an option.

84030. Ken Lambert at 00:21 AM on 2 June 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
       DB Then I will ask you politely. What is the meaning of this statement which you captioned above an already 'corrected' chart? "[DB] SLR plots from UCAR/NCAR need to have the corrections applied to them to account for regional isostatic rebound effects and seasonal effects to be properly filtered out. If using the unadjusted/improperly adjusted data, one risks writing posts on CO2 snow..."
       Response:

       [DB] I was attempting to answer a question about GIA and why, as a local and regional effect rather than a global effect, it needs to be accounted for and incorporated into the UCAR graphics.  Like the one shown/linked to.  Thank you for relaying the UCAR methodology on that for further clarity.

       If my verbiage was less-than-clear on that point, I apologize.  The goal is to be clear, but [I] occasionally fall short in that endeavor.

84031. dhogaza at 00:11 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       LJ Ryan: "Those whom accept GHG physics and data, the reasonable skeptics, need only be convinced of the sensitivities the margins...an easier argument. The others, the "Head in the Sand" type the DENIERS...they need be singled out for ridicule. ... Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier? is evidence the only thing melting is once solid support of AGW." In other words, LJ Ryan is a denier who does not accept "GHG physics" (which implies he denies much else known to physicists). And RSVP sticks up for LJ, so RSVP? You, too, proudly wear the "denier" label? Wake me up when CO2 lasers stop working ...
       Response:

       [DB] I realize the all-caps was a tit-for-tat, but I warned LJ so I have to warn you also about their use (not about the acronyms, which are fine, but the use of "DENIERS").

84032. Eric the Red at 23:42 PM on 1 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       I tend to agree with you Curtis. Although I think your math may be off. I suspect that < 1.5 and > 4.5 will add up to 10% based on a normal ball-shaped distribution (you can argue the distribution curve). That leaves 24% to occur between 1.5 and 2.0 C and 4.5 and 5.0 C combined. Assuming the same bell shape, that leaves 12% probability of a climate sensitivity between 1.5 and 2.0 (almost 1 in 8). Not exactly a long shot, but still not the favorite. Those who choose a low value to accommodate their own viewpoints could be classified as deniers. Those who have calculated or researched the science and have determined (difference between chosen) that the climate sensitivity should be low, would not.
84033. adelady at 23:37 PM on 1 June 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 2: Climate Risks
       okatiniko "You live in a huge country : do you have any idea of how travelling across it without oil for instance ? that would be a huge change !" Why not? The Indian-Pacific railway runs east-west between Sydney and Perth travelling through Broken Hill and Port Augusta with a diversion to Adelaide. I can see no good reason why current technology wouldn't develop to allow that train to be completely electric. Anyone who wants personal car travel can either hire at the other end or transport their own vehicle (preferably EV) on the train as well. Similar considerations apply to the north-south route of the Ghan going from Adelaide to Darwin.
84034. Utahn at 23:30 PM on 1 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Sphaerica, I'm not really *that* into labels. My initial post was really just pointing out to pirate that 4 out of the 5 proposed categories presented were still in some form of denial. Personally, it's not in my nature to label people (maybe it's a weakness). I don't think deniers is inappropriate, but I don't think I can use it. Using that term to me connotes a "lost soul", and while some of the leading deniers are undoubtedly beyond hope, many aren't. But any, however slim, chance of providing information to honest skeptics is likely lost if they are put in one big labeled category. I am also not sure being called a warmist or alarmist makes me feel like I can say "denier". So for now I'm going with "those in denial."
84035. Tom Curtis at 23:28 PM on 1 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       UtahN @104, on this rare occasion I have to disagree with Sphaerica as well. According to the IPCC AR4, it is "likely" that climate sensitivity lies between 2 and 4.5 degrees C per doubling of CO2, with the most likely value being around 3 degrees C. Translated, as the IPCC so conveniently does for us, that indicates a better than 66% probability given the evidence that the climate sensitivity is between 2 and 4.5 degrees. The IPCC also conveniently informs us that it is very unlikely (< 10% probability) that the climate sensitivity is below 1.5 degrees C. Taking these two figures together, that means based on available evidence in 2007, the IPCC could not exclude the possibility that there is a one in twenty chance that the climate sensitivity lies between 1.5 and 2 degrees C. (Note, this is not the same as saying there is a 1 in 20 chance.) The point of this is that while 1 in 20 is an epistemic longshot, such longshots often (once in twenty times, oddly enough) come of. Therefore it is rational to pursue them. Somebody who believes the climate sensitivity to be in that range and rationally researches that possibility is not, as a result of that a "denier". Having said that, if they are indeed rationally pursuing the possibility of a low climate sensitivity, they must recognise that on available evidence, it is a long shot. They must be aware that they believe the climate sensitivity is low, but that the evidence is currently against them. If they do not recognise that, then they are in denial about the evidence. Of course, if they do recognise that low climate sensitivity is a long shot, they will not be recommending governments base their policy on that possibility. They would expect the government to base its policy on the concensus opinion. Now I am sure there are such people out there in the scientific community, just as there are people on the other side of the equation; who think the IPCC underestimates climate sensitivity (or the threat of sea level rise, or what have you) but are aware that the evidence does not favour their belief. But I have not met (to my recall) a single person who claims a low climate sensitivity on the internet who does not also either claim that we should not do anything against global warming; or that we should not drop the whole global warming issue from the debate about emissions restrictions (which they purport to support for some other reason, either energy security, of ocean acidification). IN other words, while it is certainly possible to believe in both a fairly low climate sensitivity and not be a denier; the assertion of low climate sensitivity is almost perfectly correlated with denial.

       "Honestly I'm sorry I even mentioned this, in any case after rolling it around on my tongue I'm not sure I like the word "denier" after all. It is, naturally, name calling. Accurate name calling, but still name calling. From now on I am going to use the more cumbersome, "those who are in denial of the science of climate change" or "those in denial" for slightly shorter. It feels like less of an indictment of the person, and implies my stated belief that some (certainly not all) of those in denial will not always be in denial."

       I would see some point in this, except that the denier movement very quickly named themselves "skeptics", and very explicitly did it in order to suggest their greater intellectual integrity than climate scientists, who where very explicitly labelled as not being skeptical. For a while I went along with their self designation, but after a while I could not keep repeating that lie in good conscience. Rather than use a false descriptor in their name, I now use an accurate one - "denier". This is just a case of the denier movements rhetorical sins coming home to roost. Had they chosen a neutral name for themselves, there would not be any issue.
84036. les at 23:26 PM on 1 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       110 RSVP " am technically correct in my statement." No. You are philosophically "correct" if you are a relativist - and, personally, I think there's something quite relativist and post-modern in the attitude of some of the more reactionary anti-science brigade. If that's where you at, you are, of course, at liberty to be so. Again, that is relativism, not 'relativity' which most folks associate which physics theories and which is nothing to do with anthropocentric views of anything.
84037. Alexandre at 23:20 PM on 1 June 2011
       Amazon drought: A death spiral? (part 2:climate models)
       Rob #16 Actually, my question was about floods in southern Brazil, not southern Amazon. I think my previous post could be more explicit. Thanks for your response, anyway. Before your article, I did not know about this convergence of models on the drying of the southern Amazon.
84038. Ken Lambert at 23:07 PM on 1 June 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
       DB & Camburn #102 I referred to this UCAR Chart of GMSL (Global Mean Sea Level) in this thread: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/global-mean-sea-level-time-series-seasonal-signals-removed DB has posted Tamino's Charts at #102, and cast doubt on the UCAR Charts as somehow uncorrected for GIA and other effects; viz: Response: "[DB] SLR plots from UCAR/NCAR need to have the corrections applied to them to account for regional isostatic rebound effects and seasonal effects to be properly filtered out. If using the unadjusted/improperly adjusted data, one risks writing posts on CO2 snow..." This is what UCAR say on their website: "Prior to release 2011_rel1, we did not account for GIA in estimates of the global mean sea level rate, but this correction is now scientifically well-understood and is applied to GMSL estimates by nearly all research groups around the world. Including the GIA correction has the effect of increasing previous estimates of the global mean sea level rate by 0.3 mm/yr." AND "The GMSL rate corrected for GIA represents changes in water mass and density in the oceans. These changes are thought to be predominantly driven by thermal expansion of the oceans and land ice melt (Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and glaciers)." Now go back and look at the UCAR Chart. It captions 'Inverse Barometer applied and GIA corrected" AND "seasonal signals removed". DB - what further corrections would be needed to the UCAR Charts to make them acceptable to you, and why would Tamino's charts be superior measures of global mean sea level?
       Response:

       [DB] "DB has posted Tamino's Charts at #102, and cast doubt on the UCAR Charts as somehow uncorrected for GIA and other effects"

       The only doubt implied here is by you in order to manufacture controversy.  The graphic I used clearly shows GIA already applied, like I said that they needed to have incorporated into them.

       "DB - what further corrections would be needed to the UCAR Charts to make them acceptable to you, and why would Tamino's charts be superior measures of global mean sea level?"

       Again the attempt to manufacture controversy and sow the seeds of doubt.  Tamino's charts and graphics succinctly illustrate a different analysis of the data which is mutually complementary to that provided by UCAR.  To say that they are not, which you are doing here, is dissembling.

       My recommendation would be to simply ask, without invective or snark, for clarification about things you don;t understand.  For you either don't understand them or you are actively choosing to misunderstand or to misrepresent what was said.  If the latter is the case, than the course of action you are prosecuting can be aptly called "moderator trolling".

       If the former, then ask.  Politely.

       If the latter, then desist.  Or you will have to find a different venue to ply your case.

84039. RSVP at 22:45 PM on 1 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       L.J. Ryan 111 "Those stateside will recognize this same tactic employed by the political left to avoid meaningful debate. " ...but it wasn't so long ago when we were hearing, "yer either fur, r 'ginst us".
       Response:

       [DB] Let's not descend into the abyssal morass of politics.

84040. Bob Lacatena at 22:44 PM on 1 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       104, Utahn, You can organize and label deniers in your head any way you like, but creating and using respectable, common labels for them merely gives them credibility that they do not deserve. Deniers are deniers are deniers. And I make no apologies if they take it as an insult, which is exactly how they attempt to use the terms "warmists" and "alarmists." Deniers are like Holocaust deniers. They are exactly like them. There is a clear, undeniable truth which makes them personally, squirmingly uncomfortable, because it means that their cherished way of life may not be the best way, and in fact may be hurting hundreds of millions of people and destroying the futures of their own beloved countries. They can't stomach that and take responsibility for it, or for the future for themselves or others, so they deny. That level of selfishness is not mere polite disagreement. It's down right cruel arrogance. Attempts to justify it with RSVP's "individualism" or J. Bob's conspiracy theories or RW1's faux science or any other methods of minimizing or obfuscating the obvious are just sugar-coated arrogance. They are deniers, no matter how nicely they'd like to dress it up.
84041. Eric the Red at 22:41 PM on 1 June 2011
       Can we trust climate models?
       If you integrated stratospheric and tropospheric aerosols over time, how would that compare with GHG forcing? Eschenbach also stated in the reference, that "the idea of a liner connection between inputs and outputs in a comlex, multiply interconnect, chaotic system like the climate to be a risibile fantasy." He may have gotten those results by chance.
84042. Ken Lambert at 22:40 PM on 1 June 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 2: Climate Risks
       Steffan, Flannery and Karoly are trotting out the standard version of AGW alarmism based on the last 30 years of warming temperatures, rising sea levels and other 'multiple lines of warming evidence'. As usual, the vast uncertainties of climate prediction are dwarfed by the big scare of tidal surges and abandoned cities. Trouble is that the last 10 years of climate measurement is not following the AGW script. Surface temperature rise is flattening, Sea level rise is dropping below the touted trend line of 3.1mm per year, and the warming imbalance measured by ocean heat content is flattening, by some measures down by at least 30% and by others - actually cooling. Jim Hansen (AGW guru and lead IPCC author) has recently written a 52 page synopsis which finds a reduction in the warming imbalance from 0.9W/sq.m to 0.59W/sq.m which he mainly attributes to substantial underestimated cooling due to aerosols. His explanations of other factors are highly contentious, including a preposterous 'delayed Pinitubo rebound effect', however the import of his conclusion is the sleeper in this debate. Jim Hansen has abandoned the 'its there but we can't measure it yet' explanation of Dr Trenberth's missing heat travesty, and recognized that at least 30% of the warming 'trapped heat' in the oceans - ain't there at all.
       Response:

       [dana1981] Please stop cherrypicking the last 10 years.  Moreover, Trenberth has a draft paper out where he suggests the location of the 'missing heat':

       "Based upon a number of climate model experiments for the 21st century where there is a stasis in global surface temperature and upper ocean heat content in spite of decade long periods with a known net energy input into the climate system, we infer that the main sink of the missing energy is likely the deep ocean below 275 m depth."

84043. Bob Lacatena at 22:36 PM on 1 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       (Correction to 112... I meant to say that anyone saying sensitivity is in the 2-4 range is explaining or re-iterating the science).
84044. Bob Lacatena at 22:33 PM on 1 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       104, Utahn, 109, Eric, There is a big, big, almost insurmountable difference between saying that 2˚C is at the low end of a range, and saying that climate sensitivity is likely to be 2˚C. Anyone who is counting on 2˚C is in denial. Anyone who is saying that sensitivity is likely to be in the range of 2˚C-4˚C or 2˚C-5˚C is in denial. Giving credibility to those who put forth 2˚C as a likely outcome is very unproductive. It's a (fallacious) argument for BAU.
84045. Eric the Red at 22:26 PM on 1 June 2011
       If It's Not Sex, Drugs, and Rock 'n Roll, what is it? Creativity maybe?
       Thank you for your insight adelady. I admit to being more influenced by the end era were anti-military was more prevalent and free sex and drugs was rampant (I attended the University of Michigan in the 70s).
84046. L.J. Ryan at 21:54 PM on 1 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       The more appropriate name for this blog post should be Divide and Conquer. Those whom accept GHG physics and data, the reasonable skeptics, need only be convinced of the sensitivities the margins...an easier argument. The others, the "Head in the Sand" type the DENIERS...they need be singled out for ridicule. Those stateside will recognize this same tactic employed by the political left to avoid meaningful debate. This readers, is the Saul Alinsky approach to science. Ironically, the simple fact John Cook deems it necessary to pose the question: Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier? is evidence the only thing melting is once solid support of AGW. ( -Ideological diatribe snipped- )
       Response:

       [DB] Please refrain from the use of all-caps and keep the focus on the science, not on politics and ideologies.

84047. RyanStarr at 21:37 PM on 1 June 2011
       Ljungqvist broke the hockey stick
       @dana1981 (+others), as you say Ljungqvist ends at 2000, I thought roughly that but with such a long time frame it's hard to be sure (so not 1950 CBD). At the year 2000 it's just a smidgeon above 0, close to 0.075. The Hadcrut overlay, for the next 10 years, rises a further 0.7 degrees, in 10 years it rises 0.7 degrees! Something has to be in error here. OK Ljungqvist is a reconstruction so we expect the accuracy of that to fall well below an instrument record, are we saying Ljungqvist's late 20th century result is in error by up to 0.7 C?
       Moderator Response:

       [dana1981] The error is that your "10 years" is more like 30 years.  Each yellow dot represents a new decadal average.  Some of the red data is included in Ljungqvist's study, but he omitted the final data point.

84048. RSVP at 21:18 PM on 1 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       les 108 The "present" goes beyond subjectivity, as it is tied to one's inertial frame of reference. All people on Earth experience this "present historical moment" simultaneously for all practical purposes, however I am technically correct in my statement. It was Glenn Tamblyn who described our natural "anthropocentric view of the Universe" as being archaic, when in fact it is innate and as real as the CO2 we all breath.
84049. Eric the Red at 20:44 PM on 1 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Utahn, I agree. To label someone a denier because they believe the cliamte sensitivity is closer to 2C than 3C is absurd given the large uncertainty and range of sensitivity values. Here is a paper which seems to discount the possibility of high sensitivity (>4.5). http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/research/d5/jdannan/probrevised.pdf Funny how the both of us were believed (by other posters) to adhere to a climate sensitivity of 2C just because we would not call them deniers. I looked back at both of our posts, and found nothing that would indicate that either of us adhere to that value, only that we cannot eliminate it from the range of probabilities. Personally, I agree with your assessment of name calling, and will reserve the term, "those in denial" for those who actually think the climate sensitivity is zero.
84050. okatiniko at 20:40 PM on 1 June 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 2: Climate Risks
       Adelady, you may believe that the welfare of your grandchildren will be absolutely different following the SLR rate (does it mean that you believe that your own welfare would have been totally different if the SLR would have been, for instance, 6 mm/yr, so 6 cm/decade instead of 2 , in the XXTh century ? how would your own life have changed ?) However what I said is that it is clear from figure 15 that the SLR will be pretty insensitive to any policy we could adopt - the uncertainty ranges largely overlap and the increase will continue for centuries if Rahmstorf model is true. Meaning that the SLR is already in the pipe and, even we stopped totally now any GES emission, it would continue rising and reach one meter around the turn of the century. The differences between the scenarios being only about one decade or so. So it is actually pretty much like a natural phenomenon that you cannot. Whatever you think it will cause, you'd better prepare your children by telling them it will happen anyway. Now I doubt very much that all infrastructures you can see around you will be unchanged at the end of the century. And cutting off the use of fossil fuels will probably change much more your way of life than a few dozens of centimeter of water on the coast. You live in a huge country : do you have any idea of how travelling across it without oil for instance ? that would be a huge change !
       Response:

       [dana1981] Sea level rise is far from the only consequence of climate change.  As Thompson has said, there will be some degree of mitigation, adaption, and suffering.  The less we mitigate, the more we will have to adapt and suffer.

Prev  1673  1674  1675  1676  1677  1678  1679  1680  1681  1682  1683  1684  1685  1686  1687  1688  Next