Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1675 1676 1677 1678 1679 1680 1681 1682 1683 1684 1685 1686 1687 1688 1689 1690 Next
Comments 84101 to 84150:
-
dana1981 at 09:55 AM on 1 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Eric #84 - that was all climate sensitivity studies (that BPL could find) since 1894. They have increasingly converged towards ~3°C over time, and only 4 papers that he found over the past 25 years or so found sensitivity below 2°C. More importantly though, I think most climate scientists would say (short-term) sensitivity is between x and y, in most cases with x around 2°C and y around 4.5°C. If you asked them to settle on one number, most would probably say around 3°C, but I'm sure they would prefer to give a range. Your range appears to be 1 to 5°C, which is interesting, since 3°C is the central value in that range, yet you seem fairly confident that the actual value is on the low end of your own range. -
Eric the Red at 09:53 AM on 1 June 2011If It's Not Sex, Drugs, and Rock 'n Roll, what is it? Creativity maybe?
Thanks adelady, Yes, I was a little young during the Cuban missile crisis, so maybe the fear was more than I believed. I was keenly aware of the late 60s / early 70s movements. The anti-war movement was entirely anti-state. The civil rights movements was largely directed at state-run policies (Alabama and Arkansas for starters). In general, it was directed at any policy that inhibited freedom. I am not sure that today's mirrors that. -
Eric the Red at 09:45 AM on 1 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Utahn, Look over at the thread entitled, "Database of peer-reviewed papers." There was just a post concerning papers on climate sensitivity (although I cannot vouch for the accuracy). In 90% of the papers, the climate sensitivity was between 0.5 and 4.5C / doubling, with half being above 2.5 and half below. According to that, my range is slightly higher. Bob, I disagree that someone who believes that the climate sensitivity is 2C is in denial. That is firmly within the IPCC range, and every other range I have seen posted. 3C is not a consensus, but merely an average value. That average is taken by incorporating some higher values, so the median value is less (about 2.8). If you label everyone who thinks that the climate sensitivity is lower than what you feel is correct a "Denier," then you are going to label some esteemed climate scientists deniers. Are you so knowledgeable in climate science as to think that anyone who believes in a lower climate sensitivity than you is a "denier." -
Michael Hauber at 09:42 AM on 1 June 2011Amazon drought: A death spiral? (part 2:climate models)
Shorter term trends are for a cooling of the key ENSO regions, not warming. This could be the cooling cycle of the PDO, and so its possible that Co2 could be warming the ENSO regions but the influence is small over 30 years compared to PDO. Over 1900-2010 there appears to be a slight cooling of the nino regions as well, or maybe more accurately a lack of warming while everywhere else warms. So I'm pretty skeptical of any link between warming ENSO regions and Amazon drought. In contrast the Atlantic patterns in the 30 year frame are a bit closer to what some of these papers suggest may be causing drought. Over the longer term there doesn't seem to be much of any pattern in the Atlantic, but I'm not sure how good the data quality is going back to the start of the 20th Century. (Source GISS global map generator, in trend mode) -
Bob Lacatena at 09:31 AM on 1 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Utahn, My points are two fold. The first is that the more categories you make, the more rationalization it gives for all of the various disparities among those categories. The fact is that lukewarmers, skeptics, deniers... they are all deniers in some way. Each of them denies some piece of the science. Creating even those categories, let alone a more nuanced "effects denier" or "malignancy denier" or "attribution denier" is just giving more credence and credibility to what, ultimately, is simply irrational denial. Forget trying to categorize them. The science is clear, and the ambiguities in the science are also clear. One is either in denial of the science, or understands and accepts it. There is no middle ground, let alone 24 flavors of middle ground. Second, I personally think (and by "think" I mean that everything that I've read and understand about) your own adherence to a mere 2˚C per doubling as a likely or even reasonable possibility is another form of denial. The current consensus is 3˚C or higher, and every new study confirms this while leaning towards the "and higher" direction. There is very little reason to think that 2˚C per doubling is in the mix. Expecting 2˚C is denial. -
joehopkins at 09:27 AM on 1 June 2011Amazon drought: A death spiral? (part 2:climate models)
Apologies for the hackneyed sceptical argument (you've probs covered this before) but this article requires you to have faith in the computer models in the first place. Granted models show some degree of accuracy but the fact that climate scientists can't agree on what causes ice ages concerns me. I have difficulty being convinced with "We don't know what causes massive climate changes in the past but we have configured a computer model that can predict future climate." I just think it may be a case of SISO. Many thanks, JoeModerator Response: See Models Are Unreliable. Also, there is in fact good agreement on the major causes of many past climate changes. See Climate's Changed Before and CO2 Is Not the Only Driver of Climate. -
Nick Palmer at 09:27 AM on 1 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Re actually thoughtfull at #34 Who defined what being pro science was: "The body of evidence in climate change REQUIRES an active mitigation response" The "opposite" of that is someone in denial/a denier/denialist is someone for whom the value judgement is: the body of evidence in climate change does not REQUIRE an active mitigation response. As I tried to point out in my post at #23, whether we take action or not depends on a value judgement which includes the hard science but ALSO a risk assessment of the consequences of action/inaction, the chances of the various consequences and a balancing of the known uncertainties versus the possible consequences. One could argue that someone who purely looked at the science could decide that they thought the less likely low climate sensitivity evidence may end up winning the academic prizes and this person goes on to promote this view. This is not being a denier/in denial. On the other hand, trusting the evidence that sensitivity may be low and turning a blind eye to the consequences if that view turns out to be wrong because sensitivity is actually closer to the mainstream position and hell and high water happen is denialism - a denial of the risks to everybody, a denial that the extreme minority climate science view (Lindzen, Spencer etc), if wrong, has terrible consequences for everyone, not just those who believe it. Basically, if denialists are wrong and too many listen to them civilisation is likely to be pushed close to, if not over, the edge. If majority climate science is wrong and too many listen, then there will be a lot of embarrassment but we will have already achieved a lot to wean ourselves off diminishing fossil fuels and being dependant on less than friendly nations for our energy supplies. Whether majority climate science is right or not it makes sense to go with the recommendations. Whether minority climate science is right or not it would be crazy to listen to those who use it to recommend doing nothing. Like being in denial of an alcohol or drug problem, denialism is a state of mind which prevents one giving due weight to all the evidence - it makes one turn a blind eye to evidence that conflicts with one's prejudices. It prevents one realising that one's beliefs are toxic to oneself, one's family or, by extension, the whole world. -
Utahn at 09:17 AM on 1 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Eric, so then you'd be "mildly in denial" as 2-4.5 is the IPCC likely range. I don't have any reason to not take them as the scientific consensus. Sphaerica, you have to have a cutoff somewhere, so I will personally reserve the use of the word denial for folks who think less than 2! Maybe the AR5 will change the range... Of course, there may be people who think it's greater than or equal to 2 but think that "It's be good for us". I'll have to think of a different category for them (something analogous to someone who accepts that they have cancer but thinks it will be good for them...) I will get right on that once I have more time for silly categorizations... -
Bob Lacatena at 09:17 AM on 1 June 2011Amazon drought: A death spiral? (part 2:climate models)
Rob, I'm unaware of an El Nino prediction for later this year. The NOAA CPC doesn't seem to be saying that. What is your source? -
skywatcher at 08:48 AM on 1 June 2011Climate Change Denial book now available!
Roe falls spectacularly foul of the 'CO2 follows temperature' trap - the fact CO2 lags ice volume is his entire argument for saying CO2 is less important, yet that's hardly new science... -
Alexandre at 08:45 AM on 1 June 2011Amazon drought: A death spiral? (part 2:climate models)
Rob, thanks for your post. Another effect of El Nino we're used to here in Brazil is the increased rainfall in the South (including floods) and droughts in the Northeast. I have read a Brazilian review study some time ago that suggested these patterns should be expected more often under GW. Water that was usually recycled westward over the Amazon rainforest would be brought South through the South American Low Jet East of the Andes (SALLJ). Do you have any additional info on this? Since the majority of the Brazilian population is in its southern half, these would be some important regional consequences of AGW. -
Albatross at 08:39 AM on 1 June 2011The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
Moderator, I did not accuse Camburn of making a false statement....search the thread, so he is arguing a strawman. In my message to Ken I noted that it was demonstrably false of Ken Lambert to accuse Hansen of cherry picking, and also for him to say that we are avoiding discussion of the satellite altimeter data. Read my post @105. -
Eric the Red at 08:32 AM on 1 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Utahn, I would place my low range as 1-3C / doubling and high range as 3-5C / doubling. That bounds the average value in between the two rangesm and starts the low range with the physical affect directly attributable to CO2, with a high range of similar magnitude. Anything about 5C appears very unlikely. -
Camburn at 08:28 AM on 1 June 2011The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
Skywatcher: I was accused of false statements. I do not take that accusation lightly and felt a response was in order. -
skywatcher at 08:25 AM on 1 June 2011Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1B. How the Surface Temperature records are built
#30: Read #9 again. Why do all the datasets, not all of them depending on reading and amalgamating station data, show basically the same trend? Tamino has a great plot showing the relationship between temperature anomalies of the 5 major series (John probably has one locally too, haven't found it just now). The 4th plot in Tamino's post is one to concentrate hard on. If all five major series agree so well, and they do exceptionally well, there's not much room for 'cooking' GISS or any other. But then if you believe everything's 'cooked' yet are unwilling to do the analysis (not pick the cherries) that would show that to be the case, then you're not in a strong position. Many people have replicated the trend without selecting out stations. Glenn's done an excellent service by demonstrating the nitty gritty of not just replicating the basic trend but the details of how to go from a quick-and-dirty spatially-weighted average of anomalies to a more rigorous treatment of heterogeneous data, and how to approximate for areas without nearby temperature records. I recall reading something about successful validation of the interpolation of gaps against reanalysis data, but cannot recall where? So it's warmed since the end of the Little Ice Age. Why? You surely don't think it's just 'rebounded'? But that is of course O/T and should go to a more deserving thread for your insights.Moderator Response: ... and that other thread is We're Coming Out of the Little Ice Age. -
skywatcher at 07:44 AM on 1 June 2011The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
I know I'm not Albatross, but I can see at least ONE statement that is clearly, false, Camburn... Camburn #102: " ... I shall not post to this thread in the future." Surely you don't need me to back up why it's false :) -
trunkmonkey at 07:42 AM on 1 June 2011CO2 only causes 35% of global warming
Dikran Marsupial @5. If I had said, "In the parts of the absorbtion spectra where CO2 and water vapor overlap _and where they exist together in the lower troposhpere_ water vapor seems to dominate the absorbtion and reduce the effect of CO2. The abundant H2O vapor is more likely to catch the photon down there, and if it happens to radiate another upward, that one also is most likely to be absorbed by H2O, and so on, like an Austraiian Rules football, until the game reaches an altitude where CO2 predominates and the photons are emitted at a lower temperature.", would you have believed I read the article? Connie Le Quere believes increased up and down welling caused by stronger and poleward migrating westerlies will reduce the oceanic uptake of CO2. An interesting article disagreeing with her at AAAS states a model run showed decreasing uptake to about year 2000 and increasing uptake thereafter. All of this presupposes that the westerlies increase. The recent trend toward polar warming may reduce the gradient that drives the westerlies.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Yes, but that isn't what you wrote, and it is entirely irrelevant to the greenhouse effect that water vapour absorption dominates in the lower trophosphere, because that is not where the Earth's energy balance is determined. Had you written that, I would believe you had read the article, but not understood it. As for the ocean uptake, Le Quere is taking about the saturation of the oceanic reservoir, which (thankfully) hasn't happened yet, note the tense of "will reduce oceanic uptake of CO2". Try this paper (which is an anlysis of what has happened, rather than what is likely to happen), look at Fig 2d, which shows the oceans to be a sink, and that the sink has been deepening over the last 50 years. -
adelady at 07:11 AM on 1 June 2011If It's Not Sex, Drugs, and Rock 'n Roll, what is it? Creativity maybe?
Eric, Australia's cool, wet autumn. Apart from the dry and fire blackened West, yes, the last gasp of the now defunct La Nina has made it pretty cool and wet here. Nuclear annihilation a fear concocted by governments? Seems you weren't around for the Cuban missile crisis - now there's real fear. The "anti-state movement" was mostly a reaction against stifling socialconformity. The civil rights movement for instance was not anti-state, it was anti-particular-policies. It was revolutionary - in favour of replacing governments or policies - rather than anarchistic favouring no government activity at all. I see current circumstances in much the same light. Only now we're arguing for the rights of the too young to vote, the not-yet-born, and the never-voting animals and plants of the bio-sphere. -
scaddenp at 07:07 AM on 1 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
"6. Therefore, humans are partially responsible for the increase in global surface temperature." And what science are you citing in support of your implied assertion that some other natural forcing that is currently also causing change? The natural forcings that changed climate in the past are going negative. -
Rob Painting at 07:04 AM on 1 June 2011Amazon drought: A death spiral? (part 2:climate models)
CW -"when will the next El Nino and La Nina occur?"
El Nino later this year."why would one believe we could predict "changes in Earth's atmospheric circulation, under rising CO2"
The changes supporting the climate models are already observed. Not ironclad by any means, but consistent with model projections. And if, as predicted,. El Nino occurs later this year then another major Amazonian drought will be likely. Temperatures in the equatorial Atlantic are already well above normal, if that continues then the drought will once again be exceptional. Lots of 'ifs', but should that scenario unfold, the mechanics of why will be loud and clear to readers of this series. -
pbjamm at 06:57 AM on 1 June 2011Climate Change Denial book now available!
tallbloke@70 Would you care to share you work with? I am sure all here would be interested in reading it. Perhaps it is on your blog. I took a quick look and lost interest when the first article was a complaint about censorship on this blog. SkS is the most evenhanded blog I have ever seen. You are allowed to have your say as long as you remain civil and on topic. Pretty simple for those actually interested in civil discourse. -
kampmannpeine at 06:52 AM on 1 June 2011Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1A. A Primer on how to measure surface temperature change
Thank you John, this helps a lot in clearing up the Hansen-mechanisms ... Did you know about the activities of Gistemp (http://clearclimatecode.org/gistemp/)? -
les at 06:16 AM on 1 June 2011Climate Change Denial book now available!
58 - les As, in fact, I am a real scientist with a fondness for best practice; I felt compelled to follow up on my prediction. 100% on the money. Twice if you slow post 69 - although it follows automatically by recursion. -
JMurphy at 06:03 AM on 1 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Eric the Red wrote : "I am not sure about your difference between #2 and #3, but I would classify them on the high side and low side of climate sensitivity, due to the rather large range of scientific opinions on the issue." You seem to be suggesting that the minority view on low climate sensitivity should be accorded the same weight as the majority view on the higher figures, or as the average view (c. 3C for a doubling of CO2). Is that right ? If so, how would you advise someone wanting to take a scientific opinion, with regard to the history of life on earth, between, say, the 10,000 years of creation 'science' and the 4 billion years of evolution science ? -
Alexandre at 05:33 AM on 1 June 2011Database of peer-reviewed papers: classification problematics
barry at 01:24 AM on 1 June, 2011 It's a good idea, and Barton Paul Levenson has a very interesting list in those lines, including sensitivity estimates from Arrhenius 1896 until 2006. It even includes the statistical distribution:
-
Bob Lacatena at 05:29 AM on 1 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
75, Utahn, At this point, sensitivity is very, very, very unlikely to be as low as 2 per doubling. Anyone clinging to that as a hope is absolutely in denial, because if you'll admit to everything as far as a 2 per doubling, then how can you simultaneously ignore all of the evidence for 3+? How can you not be concerned about that? At the same time, our current warming is almost certainly being held down by anthropogenic aerosols. Lord help us when we clean up the air, or otherwise slow our emissions, and see what the real effects of CO2 are without the negative forcing from aerosols. And that day has to come. Some day fossil fuels will run out, with CO2 left in the air for centuries or millenia, while the aerosols fall out in years or decades. I feel sorry for anyone who is alive when that happens, and it sadly may well be my own daughter. -
Bob Lacatena at 05:25 AM on 1 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
The deniers on this thread seem to be recasting the argument, as if the "proper" position is whatever lies between the two extremes. They then cast the extremes as "deniers" (people who simply claim nothing at all is happening) and "alarmists" (people who think the current situation is dangerous). By positioning alarmists in this way, the middle of the road becomes "well, it may be human, but it may not, and it may be dangerous, but maybe climate sensitivity is low, and anyway maybe it will all work out for the best and maybe warming will be good, but we really don't know all that much right now anyway, so let's all just wait and see." This is typical, core denial, in concern troll clothing. Admit to something, but always with pause and reason to hesitate. Gotta be careful here. Can't be hasty. I term an alarmist as anyone who exaggerates the science. There are very, very few of those (although I did see an obnoxious WWF commercial last night that claimed polar bears could be extinct in 50 years, and I treat that as unnecessarily alarmist, and a harmful advert.). I term a denier as anyone who thinks we don't know enough, or climate sensitivity is at all likely to be low, or that there is any reason not to take the real science very, very seriously. The middle of the road is not "skeptics." They are deniers trying to pretend to have a substantive position. The middle of the road is not "lukewarmers." They are deniers, trying to have it both ways (i.e. the science is right or partially right, but only to a small degree so we don't have to worry). The real middle of the road is the people on this site, the people who understand the science, and look further than this site for information, and actually understand what they read. 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. -
Charlie A at 05:21 AM on 1 June 2011Can we trust climate models?
Eric the Red, #80 "It appears to be a somewhat arbitrary approximation. I am not sure that it should be tied to the GHG forcings at all, .." Obviously it is arbitrary to move from instrumental observations and reconstructions for the 1880-1990 period and then for the more recent 1990-2003 period change to a fixed level of aerosol forcings for the AR4 and Hansen 2007 paper. It is even more striking that four years later, Hansen changes again and decides to use the -1/2 of GHG forcing for the simulations of Hansen 2011, rather than using instrumental data. I don't know the reason for either of the changes in methodology. Do we really believe that our measurement accuracy pre-1990 was better than we have in 2011? The thread topic is "Can we trust the models?" Perhaps the real question is "can we trust the data fed into the models?" or "can we trust the data used to tune the models?" Obviously different types of emission sources have different ratios between aerosol emissions and GHG emissions. There is a lot of difference between a dirty coal plant without scrubber and burning high sulfur coal than one with scrubbers and/or using low sulfur coal. OTOH, Willis Eschenbachs simulation of the CCSM3 model resulted in 0.995 correlation with just a simple 1 box model and using only the solar, volcano, and GHG forcings. If aerosol forcings were large and uncorrelated, he could not have gotten those results. Hansen's 2001 senate testimony shows yet another version of forcings used by GISS. Note how the GHG and aerosols seem to be close to linearly related. Also of interest is the relatively low levels of aerosol forcings compared to GHG forcings. It is much less than the -0.5 factor now being used.
Caption: Fig. 3: Climate forcings in the past 50 years, relative to 1950, due to six mechanisms (6). The first five forcings are based mainly on observations, with stratospheric H2O including only the source due to CH4 oxidation. GHGs include the wellmixed greenhouse gases, but not O3 and H2O. The tropospheric aerosol forcing is uncertain in both its magnitude and time dependence.
-
Utahn at 04:55 AM on 1 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Sorry Eric, more directly to sensitivity, it could be less than 2 per doubling... -
Utahn at 04:53 AM on 1 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Maybe # 2 could be "in the likely range" for whatever emissions scenario one is talking about? Whereas #3 could be "below the likely range"? That way we the cutoff would be when someone feels warming will be lower than the lowest bound of what consensus scientific opinion projects it to be... -
CBDunkerson at 04:52 AM on 1 June 2011Amazon drought: A death spiral? (part 2:climate models)
No, I was drawing a parallel to show the flaw in ClimateWatcher's logic (i.e. 'we cannot predict weather therefor we cannot predict climate'). -
Charlie A at 04:40 AM on 1 June 2011Can we trust climate models?
79 Kevin C: "One possibility would be to test many possible forcing scenarios against the available data." If I understand the caption to Hansen 2011 Figure 1 correctly, the modified forcing values for 1990-2003 should be 1.3243, 0.2080, -1.3762, 0.2949, 0.9599, 1.2072, 1.2922, 1.3506, 1.4875, 1.5901, 1.6431, 1.6390, 1.6393, 1.6442 These differ from the NetF.txt values by about 0.07W/m2 in 1990, going up to a difference of 0.27W/m2 in 2003. -
Eric the Red at 04:38 AM on 1 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Utahn, Interesting categories, but I find them somehow skewed to your own belief system. No arguement about numers 1 & 5. I gather you count yourself in #2, realists, being aligned with the IPCC consensus. I am not sure about your difference between #2 and #3, but I would classify them on the high side and low side of climate sensitivity, due to the rather large range of scientific opinions on the issue. I think you are doing a disservice to those accept the warming effects of CO2, but disagree on the magnitude. -
apiratelooksat50 at 04:36 AM on 1 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Utahn at 71 I can tentatively agree with you, though it might be interesting to assign a temporal aspect to it. Most of my reservations stem from the predictions. -
Camburn at 04:30 AM on 1 June 2011The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
Albatross: Show me ONE statement that I made that is false. I had said that I wouldn't comment. On this one, I will. Once again, show me ONE statement that I made that is false.....and I want you to BACK up why it is false. As someone who proclaims to understand scientific queries, you must also stay within the parameters of my statements. Thank you. -
Utahn at 04:30 AM on 1 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Pirate, from your #65, I would have called you a "lukewarmer" as it seems you accept that human emitted C02 is causing some warming? Anyway, I think the point of John's article was that even being a "lukewarmer" or a "skeptic"(in your definition) involves denying a robust body of scientific evidence. So denial still applies doesn't it? How about these 5 categories: exaggerators (those exaggerating risk without scientific evidence); realists (in line with climatologist consenus); mildy in denial (equivalent to lukewarmers); strong denial(your skeptics); and complete denial (your deniers)? Realists would of course base there opinion on the consensus view of climate science...Something like the IPCC, perhaps? Not that people couldn't have somewhat different views on various pieces and various errors of the IPCC, but the overwhelming major findings of their exhaustive literature review etc... -
Eric the Red at 04:28 AM on 1 June 2011Amazon drought: A death spiral? (part 2:climate models)
CB, ARe you implying that we are in for cooler temps? More snow storms occur during colder winters.Response:[dana1981] IIRC, studies have shown that more snow tends to fall in winters of hotter years, actually. But this is decidedly off-topic.
-
CBDunkerson at 04:06 AM on 1 June 2011Amazon drought: A death spiral? (part 2:climate models)
You are arguing weather vs climate. We can't predict every snowstorm (weather), but it is a good bet that there will be more of them in Winter (climate). Climate trends are comparatively much less chaotic than weather events. -
ClimateWatcher at 03:36 AM on 1 June 2011Amazon drought: A death spiral? (part 2:climate models)
"changes in Earth's atmospheric circulation, under rising CO2, is the primary cause of the modeled Amazonian die-back."
Since we cannot accurately predict changes in atmospheric circulation which occur naturally (when will the next El Nino and La Nina occur?), why would one believe we could predict "changes in Earth's atmospheric circulation, under rising CO2"? -
Eric the Red at 03:24 AM on 1 June 2011If It's Not Sex, Drugs, and Rock 'n Roll, what is it? Creativity maybe?
For some the activies were an escape from the harsh realities of the time. Some escaped a little too far, and never returned. I think part of the whole nuclear annihilation fear was a deliberate attempt by both governments to scare their citizens into blind obedience to tackle a common enemy. Vietnam seems to open the eyes of the masses to the real horrors of the time. That was certainly a different take on Joplin and Hendrix, and I cannot argue against it. Would the anti-state movement of the 60s be protesting for a state-run solution to global warming? An interesting ponder. On a side note adelady, I read some reports recently of an unusually cold autumn in Australia after the heavy rain of summer. Can you confirm or deny? Thanks. -
Eric the Red at 03:09 AM on 1 June 2011Can we trust climate models?
Charlie, It appears to be a somewhat arbitray approximation. I am not sure that it should be tied to the GHG forcigns at all, as many seem to react independently. This may have been to accommodate the large uncertainty. Kevin, I am not sure we can answer your question either individually or collectively. I think the GCMs are not constrained enough, as they tend to ignore the possibility that Tom brought up in #77; namely what are the planetary feedbacks (If any) that we be invoked when the climate changes exceeds a certain threshhold? I think you may have partly answered your question by bringing up the limits of the instrument record. -
Eric the Red at 02:55 AM on 1 June 2011Database of peer-reviewed papers: classification problematics
barry, That sounds nice in principle. However, the numbers could be skewed either way by a preponderance of papers surrounding a particular calculation or data. This could be further enhanced from a group of authors each pulishing a different version of the same paper as lead author. Finally, the results could simply be an indicator of someone's publishing abilities. -
MichaelM at 02:36 AM on 1 June 2011Ljungqvist broke the hockey stick
RyanStarr, just looking at the Hadcrut site shows that the difference in temperatures for the whole northern hemisphere over the last 100 years is over 1 degree. Robert Ways graph shows the 30-90°N decadal averages in the 1.1 degree range. The Hadcrut data is available if you wish to do your own graph. -
JMurphy at 02:30 AM on 1 June 2011Video on why record-breaking snow doesn't mean global warming has stopped
seeker25801, to find out how you have come to the conclusions you state, how about answering a few questions ? 1) Why do you say "maybe" to global warming ? 2) Why do you say "nah" to Man-made global warming ? 3) What are the two sides ? 4) How does the climate being "'dynamic'" and "ever- changing" prove that man is not affecting the climate ? 5) When did the "global cooling period" start, when do you think it will end, and what forces are causing us to come out of it ? Depending on your answers, discussion can be taken to other threads where your claims may already have been discussed. -
Ari Jokimäki at 02:25 AM on 1 June 2011An Interactive History of Climate Science
Thanks for the note on the American thinker paper. I changed it to "online article". The database is not complete and perfect in any sense. There most likely are plenty of mistakes. The interface for adding papers is such that it is very easy accidentally select wrong choice for example for media type. -
Pete Dunkelberg at 02:15 AM on 1 June 2011Database of peer-reviewed papers: classification problematics
Your very first word is "Database". I don't know if you mean that, or if you are using a spreadsheet. Even the latter may have several columns. A database can be relational and support complex retrieval queries. On another note, after the incrementing numerical key (having nothing to do with anything else) and after after Author, title, journal and date fields, peer reviewed (Y/N), topic (sensitivity, sea level, etc), I prefer this main denier classification: 0. none 1. It's not happening 2. It's not us 3. It will be good for us anyway - or we don't know enough to justify doing the obvious, or at least taking effecting action (namely, stop burning carbon) will be worse than roasting ourselves. Note that delayers are a major type of denier. 4. 1 and 2 5. 1 and 3 6. 2 and 3 7. 1, 2, and 3 8. Insane (for instance, greenhouse warming violates thermodynamics) There may still be related fields for specific arguments. -
apiratelooksat50 at 02:08 AM on 1 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
From what got snipped at 65. I will leave out the stuff that may have been deemed inflammatory. In trying to apply terms to peoples stances on AGW I believe we have 5 camps. Alarmists and deniers are extremists and usually operate on emotion and are difficult to reason with. However, warmists, lukewarmers, and skeptics are more centrist and generally can have scientific discussions and are more reasonable. I consider myself a skeptic. -
rlasker3 at 02:07 AM on 1 June 2011An Interactive History of Climate Science
This is considered to be a peer reviewed paper opposing AGW? Found in the 2010 skeptic list. http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/09/climatism_redoubling_misguided.html -
CBDunkerson at 02:04 AM on 1 June 2011Ljungqvist broke the hockey stick
RyanStarr wrote: "I've googled and found other overlays too, they don't even come close to this result." Well, without you citing these other overlays we can't really determine what they did differently. One possible explanation might be that they could have used global temperature anomalies rather than just the 30 to 90 degree range of the Northern hemisphere like Ljungqvist and the HadCrut data in figure 2. Or they could have stopped the data in the 1980s. Or mixed up the baseline values the anomalies were computed from. Et cetera. None of which changes the fact that even Ljungqvist concedes current temperatures are higher than the MWP. Further, his results are largely within the error bounds of the original 'hockey stick' and thus confirm rather than 'slaughter' it's findings. -
Kevin C at 02:02 AM on 1 June 2011Can we trust climate models?
Absolutely! Here is the problem even with cross-validated statistics. If you start tuning things to improve your holdout set statistics, then you invalidate the use of the holdout set. And yet at the same time, we want to use a holdout set to establish the validity of a model - indeed to select among competing models. All you can do is be very careful about how many decisions you make on the basis of your holdout statistics. So we come back to my questions at #16 again, which are crucial to this discussion and yet we don't have anyone who has an answer: To what extent is the response of a GCM constrained by the physics, and to what extent is it constrained by training? Similarly, the forcings that are fed into the GCMs are the result of models of a sort too. In some cases (CO2) a very simple model with ample experimental evidence. In others (aerosols) not. In the absence of a clearer understanding of the models, how do we go forward? One possibility would be to test many possible forcing scenarios against the available data. But I'm already banging my head against the limits of the instrumental record. You can bring in paleo, but the chains of inference become much longer and the data less accessible to the lay reader. (It's certainly beyond my competence.)
Prev 1675 1676 1677 1678 1679 1680 1681 1682 1683 1684 1685 1686 1687 1688 1689 1690 Next
