Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1676 1677 1678 1679 1680 1681 1682 1683 1684 1685 1686 1687 1688 1689 1690 1691 Next
Comments 84151 to 84200:
-
Charlie A at 15:10 PM on 1 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
@103 Adelady says "my reading is 40-60 years for 'fast'" ... "Long-term? 100 years more than that." The fast response is at 2000 year after CO2 increase. 40-60 years is definitely fast, as is 160 years. The 3C "fast" response quoted by Michael Sweet in #91 is only fast compared to geologic time scales such as CO2 removal by the weathering of rocks. The GISS-ER model transient sensitivity after 70 years is 1.5C/doubling of CO2. http://ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-2-3.html -
Stevo at 14:52 PM on 1 June 2011The Critical Decade - Part 2: Climate Risks
Thanks, Dana, for a very informative article. Opponants of the report accuse it of containing alarmist language. From the quotes in this article it seems sober and measured to me.Response:[dana1981] Thanks. I think certain parties confuse "alarmist" with "alarming". I agree, there's nothing alarmist about this report, but it does contain some alarming information. Unfortunately reality is rather alarming right now.
-
macoles at 14:52 PM on 1 June 2011The Critical Decade - Part 2: Climate Risks
As a Perthite my "wow" moment in Section 2 was on page 35: Figure 22. Trend in total annual stream flow into Perth dams 1911-2010 I knew we were short on water here, but I've never seen it in historical context like that before. Looks like more desalination plants will have to be built, and hopefully using windpower. -
alan_marshall at 14:49 PM on 1 June 2011The Critical Decade - Part 2: Climate Risks
Dana, well done! The Climate Commission is an important initiative of the Australian government, and high profile Dr Tim Flannery, author of "The Weather Makers", is an ideal chairman. Their report is timely and your summary is helpful.Response:[dana1981] Thanks very much. I agree it's a very good report.
-
Utahn at 14:44 PM on 1 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Boy, I wish I hadn't been unable to get back to this until now, because I probably could have spared folks some trouble. Sphaerica:"There is no middle ground, let alone 24 flavors of middle ground." I disagree and find it's useful to at least to myself categorize deniers - it helps me to understand the best approach to discussion. I still think there is hope in discussion with many. "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." I do not personally "adhere" to 2˚C. I was just laying out a person's stated climate sensitivity below which I am going to say denial begins. To me 2˚C is perfectly reasonable as a lower bound to label someone "denier", and is the same as the lower bound of the AR4 estimate of climate sensitivity, and with a few papers even recently (look at BPLs chart by time of major GCM estimates for example). Are you all saying 2˚C is not a reasonable *lower bound* for sane discussion of climate sensitivity to doubling CO2? I'm sorry if my initial post was not clear, but I did say "less than 2"! 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. -
adelady at 14:33 PM on 1 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
@92, Charlie "Over what time period do you think Hansen meant when he discusses "fast" climate sensitivity?" Didn't find anything explicit on a quick look (obviously too quick) but my reading is 40-60 years for 'fast'. The common reference to 'in the pipeline' and that current warming is the consequence of CO2 from the 70s. Long-term? 100 years more than that. -
KR at 14:15 PM on 1 June 2011The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
dhogaza - I'll refer you to an illustration that I've pointed out to folks claiming the radiative greenhouse effect violates thermodynamics. Cartoon - warning, mature language -
Tom Curtis at 14:12 PM on 1 June 2011Video on why record-breaking snow doesn't mean global warming has stopped
seeker25801 @35, according to the people most in the know, global warming is almost certainly occurring, and it is very highly probable that human activities are the major cause. Whether you think they are telling the full story or not, it is certain they know the full story better than anybody else on Earth. So the question you should be asking, seeing you so strongly disagree with them, is what is it that they know that you do not? If you read the arguments on this site, you will find out, for contrary to your insinuation, the climate scientists, and this site do tell the full story, so far as it is known. -
KR at 14:11 PM on 1 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
J. Bob - "One might also look at who is doing the articles/papers/data, and who is supplying the $’s." That is indeed one of my criteria, J. Bob. Is the data coming from a reputable scientist who regularly publishes peer reviewed works that are well received? Or is the work coming from a "think tank" or other advocacy group, such as the George Marshall Institute, GreenPeace, or the like (particularly from ones who do not disclose their funding)? Because if it's coming from a grant funded scientist, the likelyhood that it's driven by political influence is fairly small. Whereas if it comes from an advocacy group it's inherently biased - towards the positions the group advocates - not driven by the actual science. That is, after all, why advocacy groups exist. Advocacy groups works, data, and conclusions are therefore inherently less credible. -
KR at 14:05 PM on 1 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
J. Bob - Your reference to climate4you was, indeed, fascinating. Majority of plots 1979 on only, very few instrumental records prior to that, most of those from local areas. Heavy focus on GISP2 (a single ice core, not a global temperature), several Central England temperature records (hmm, seeing a pattern here?), statements such as ""net changes since 1998 appear to be small" (see Did global warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?)... Given the cherry-picking and short term focus, I don't know that I would trust the data or the presentation thereof from that site. It doesn't meet my requirements for presenting all of the data, avoiding cherry-picking, or using realistic periods of time for determining climate trends. I would not consider that a good resource - go to the peer reviewed papers! -
Bob Lacatena at 14:02 PM on 1 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
J. Bob, I'd also point out that there is a very clear comments policy, which is listed absolutely all over the place, and usually moderators provide warnings. People must be repeat offenders. Even then very, very few people are actually banned (like I am from WUWT). They are warned, and when they continue to violate the rules, their gibberish... not anything scientific, just the gibberish... is slashed. WUWT is the wild west, with one sheriff in town. He deletes what he wants, and you never see the stuff that's deleted. Here, there is a rhyme and reason to what happens. There, it is at the whim of Lord Watts. And I would also point out that I have had comments edited by moderators here. The rules are the rules. They apply to everyone. They're just broken far more frequently by deniers, and usually those same deniers are so lost in the science that they can't even see that they're breaking the rules. -
dhogaza at 13:59 PM on 1 June 2011The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
KR: The problem, of course, is that Tamino is a professional statistician who specialized in time series analysis, which proves he's a commie-pinko dictatorship-minded freak, because everyone knows that casinos lose tons of money at the slots despite these do-gooder commie stats types trying to educate the public that the house is rigged ... The trolls here, of course, know better ... -
adelady at 13:58 PM on 1 June 2011If It's Not Sex, Drugs, and Rock 'n Roll, what is it? Creativity maybe?
Eric "...it was directed at any policy that inhibited freedom." I'm more mature (OK, older) than you, and my reading of the times was that it was about personal freedom. Being young people in the main, that was about Sex, drugs and rock'n'roll, but it was also about the freedoms denied by corporate and government restrictions on personal behaviours and circumstances. Denying jobs entirely on the basis of race and gender, paying less on the basis of race or gender, and sacking for things like women marrying or anyone divorcing. And conscription is not a favourite item for those wanting personal freedom to choose. Speaking to the 5 years 'more mature' member of this household, his view is that the movement was anti-capitalist and anti-military rather than anti-state. 'Our government should change' rather than 'We want no government at all'. You might be more influenced by the extreme ends of the general movement in much the same way as many women don't identify as feminists because their image is of the 'overalls and no lipstick' very public extreme end of that movement. All you need to do is to juxtapose an hour of the music of The Beatles or The Beach Boys or Jimi Hendrix and an hour spent reading Ayn Rand. (I never managed the whole hour, let alone the whole book. The afore-mentioned older person said he found the whole book amusing, he saw it as a kind of self-parody.) The idea that we of that liberal-minded generation wanted libertarianism in the untrammelled corporate power facing hamstrung, limited government style is just not true. We didn't like the "Little boxes on the Hillside" lifestyle, that's true. We wanted attention, and money, for the issues of poverty, injustice, violence, pollution - all of which require better government, not no government. Just as now. -
Bob Lacatena at 13:56 PM on 1 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
88, J. Bob,...and who is supplying the $’s.
This is the sort of conspiracy nonsense that shows when someone has no hope of understanding the science. If you honestly believe that some guy who's making $50K or $75K a year to spend half of his life trudging through the Arctic or the Amazon, or hoping to write a paper that will get him noticed for a few years among his peers, with a maximum attainable salary after that success of merely exactly what he's making now... because contrary to conventional wisdom, winning a research grant does not pay for a new Ferrari for each of the head researchers. Researchers get paid a salary by their universities, are expected to teach, and to do research and publish. They get research grants to go towards equipment and assistants to allow them to continue to pursue viable research. If they don't get grants, and publish, and teach, and work, then they fail. A career in science is not a stepping stone to babes, bucks and fame. "Who is supplying the $s" is a joke. My daughter was listening to a documentary today that went on and on about how coal is "Americas energy" that creates jobs and is crucial to the economy. That's where the money is going... not into research and science, but into propaganda. You're right about looking at the money, though. Is it coming from and going to real research, just as is done in agriculture and medicine and biology and most other branches of science, or is it coming from an energy industry with an agenda and trillions of dollars of income at stake, and going into propaganda? -
dhogaza at 13:53 PM on 1 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Oh, and BTW, J. Bob ... reminding us of the fact that Watts is an a-hole isn't likely to warm our hearts to you. Just sayin' Glad to hear that you have denialist cred, though ... wear your denialism badge with pride, you've earned it. -
dhogaza at 13:52 PM on 1 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
I have been censored and deleted repeatedly.
I, like many others, was quickly banned. And my name outed by the site owner. -
dhogaza at 13:50 PM on 1 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
J Bob:If a site has to delete items based on scientific analysis, and interpretation of said results, it shows it's true biased colors, and demonstates their position is on shaky ground.
So if a geologist site deletes items claiming the earth is 6,000 years old, this is evidence that the earth is, indeed, only 6,000 years old. Quit being silly. -
Bob Lacatena at 13:46 PM on 1 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
93 J. Bob, Sure you haven't been censored or deleted, because you say what they want. I have been censored and deleted repeatedly. Usually, merely for quoting the science. Then 50 people start calling me names, and any post defending my position is deleted. So... take your statement about "if a site..." and think about it. WUWT isn't on shaky ground, it's on fog. If you honestly think you are getting truth or science from a cesspool like that, you are lost. -
Bob Lacatena at 13:43 PM on 1 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
apiratelooksat50,Where do you look for further information?
I almost always find and read the original papers. When I don't understand the background science, I study that (but finding that is not controversial... I don't need to find a "balanced" site to explain how ice cores are analyzed to construct a proxy, or to understand how the satellites or radiosondes work, or the details behind molecular physics, and what the issues and complications and limitations are for any of them). I also usually read supporting, preceding, or conflicting papers. I will look at various sites to see what their "argument" is against a particular point of view, but I only use that to see what threads to pursue. Reading the actual studies... and understanding what they say... always leads to fair comprehension, not only in what I know and they know, but also what everyone doesn't know. By contrast, sites like WUWT and CA are nothing but vitriol and misleading misrepresentations. One can get absolutely nothing of value from those sites. -
J. Bob at 13:41 PM on 1 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Sphaerica 76, makes a comment about looking at various sources, but stay away from the likes of WUWT. While I have posted items at that site, I have yet to be "censored" or deleted. In contrast, some of sites advocating AGW have no problem deleting posts, such as those Sphaerica posts on. If a site has to delete items based on scientific analysis, and interpretation of said results, it shows it's true biased colors, and demonstates their position is on shaky ground. KR 90, A couple of of the sites that have a very good summaries, and links to basic references are: http://www.climate4you.com/ for historical temperature & other data: http://www.rimfrost.no/Response:[DB] Fixed links.
-
KR at 13:26 PM on 1 June 2011The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
Ken Lambert - The charts DB posted came from one of the links he provided, to Tamino's "5 Years" post. These are (to minimize arguments about data manipulation, and to remove high frequency noise) simple 5-year non-overlapping box averages, with <5 year periods being represented by the remaining data available (hence less smoothed). It's a nice illustration of what the long term trends are, with the short term noise averaged out. And it's an especially good antidote to some of the cherry-picking that goes on, for example, at WUWT, where they tend to select tiny periods to find short term down-slopes, and from that claim SLR is negative. -
Charlie A at 13:11 PM on 1 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
#91 Michael Sweet says "James Hansen estimates the fast climate sensitivity as 3C based on paleoclimate data. " Over what time period do you think Hansen meant when he discusses "fast" climate sensitivity? -
pbjamm at 12:17 PM on 1 June 2011Climate Change Denial book now available!
The discussion with tallbloke should be taken to the censorship free zone on his blog. I can tell by his reply to me : "Yes, they must be mighty tired of nature refusing to co-operate with their co2 hypothesis." that it will be a most fruitful discussion. -
michael sweet at 11:33 AM on 1 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
James Hansen estimates the fast climate sensitivity as 3C based on paleoclimate data. He further estimates a climate sensitivity plus albeido change from melting ice as 6C based on the paleoclimate data. The ranges of climate sensitivity range from 2 up to 10 degrees. The limits on the lower end are strong but the upper limits are much harder to define. 2C is a denier position without allowing the possibility of 7C which is just as likely. That 3C is only a fast feedback estimate, the slow feedbacks are all on the upside. Can the skeptics please start to link their opinions to some data. I see a lot of unsupported opinions about climate sensitivity ("the climate sensitivity was between 0.5 and 4.5C / doubling") without links. Without links to data these are just your opinion. -
Ken Lambert at 11:19 AM on 1 June 2011The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
DB #102 Could you explain the origin of the charts you posted in the 'green box' at #102. -
Ken Lambert at 11:14 AM on 1 June 2011The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
Albatross #105 Readers can judge for themselves when the my post being answered by Albatross at #105 has been deleted by Moderators without even a (snip). Hansen's latest synopsis explicitly draws conclusions about the reduction in warming imbalance from the OHC record for the period 2005-10 - 6 years. Yet I am criticised as a 'cherry picker' by drawing conclusions from the UCAR chart for the Jason 1 & 2 records over a 9 year period. This is then turned by Albatross into; "Not true-- and your accusation of cherry picking against Hansen is ridiculous and unfounded, or are you simply musing about scientific misconduct by one of the world's leading climate scientists?" I did not accuse Hansen of cherry picking. I said explicitly that if the likes of Albatross and DB want to label analysis and conclusions of short term records (in Hansen's case, 6 years) as 'cherry picking' then we are in the good company of Jim Hansen. -
Rob Painting at 11:05 AM on 1 June 2011Amazon drought: A death spiral? (part 2:climate models)
Mike Hauber - Shorter term trends are for a cooling of the key ENSO regions, not warming Not sure what you mean. A vast body of scientific literature expects the tropics to warm, thats what the climate model studies I linked to suggest. This could be the cooling cycle of the PDO Or might not be. Might cover that in part 4. 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 Sorted that too. A recent study addresses the lack of warming of Pacific SST's. It ain't going to last. 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. Yup, that too. Tropical Atlantic SST warming is connected to the lack of Pacific warming. I don't want to thrash it out here in the comments. I'll discuss it in chapter 4. So I'm pretty skeptical of any link between warming ENSO regions and Amazon drought Again, not sure what you talking about here. ENSO shifts the Walker Circulation, pretty robust connection with Amazon rainfall throughout the observational record, and in the paleoclimate proxies too. -
Camburn at 10:51 AM on 1 June 2011Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
An interesting historical record of life and Arctic Sea Ice. http://paleoforge.com/papers/EnvironArchaeo.pdfResponse:[DB] Hot-linked URL.
-
dhogaza at 10:49 AM on 1 June 2011Amazon drought: A death spiral? (part 2:climate models)
joehopkins ... You're wrong about ice ages but ... '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."' It's actually hard to even *determine* past climates in many cases - look at the evolution of paleoclimate reconstructions for the last 2000 years (yes, that long series of "hockey sticks". We haven't had satellites measuring solar output for all of the past several billion years, good thermometer coverage of the earth's surface for the past several billion years, etc. So of course uncertainty going back into deep time is much, much higher than uncertainty today. I'm amazed that the fact that there are some issues pinning down climatic details in the uninstrumented past would lead you to reach the conclusion you do. What's amazing to me is the amount of knowledge about past climates that scientists have been able to glean from indirect evidence, not the fact that they can't do a perfect job. -
scaddenp at 10:31 AM on 1 June 2011Amazon drought: A death spiral? (part 2:climate models)
joehopkins - perhaps you could enlighten us about which disagreement over cause ice ages you are referring to over in the Climate changed before thread -
KR at 10:30 AM on 1 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
apiratelooksat50 - I don't know about Sphaerica, but I go directly to Google Scholar (a lovely tool) and start searching on the terms of the discussion. I weight references that are more recent and more cited (with a look at the citations for more 'revolutionary' claims) as better references than older or less cited works. So personally, I do my best to look at the primary sources. If I don't understand what's going on in them, I follow up with searches on topical tutorials, review articles, and the like. What do you look at for further information? -
scaddenp at 10:24 AM on 1 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Climate sensitivity is a genuine source of uncertainty, no question about it, but the pseudo-skeptics are only interested in the possibility of it being lower than 3, without consideration that it could be higher. The luke-warmer category at moment would also include those how postulate there is some hidden natural forcing that has somehow eluded science and is going to either save us all because its negative or let us off the hook because its natural. They should be in different category from those arguing about the science in the determination of climate sensitivity. -
J. Bob at 10:18 AM on 1 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
apiratelooksat 50 You say, “And, to take it a step further, even if the source is a compilation of articles/papers/data more than one site should be used”. I’ll see you, and raise you. One might also look at who is doing the articles/papers/data, and who is supplying the $’s. -
apiratelooksat50 at 10:10 AM on 1 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Sphaerica at 76 Where do you look for further information? -
dana1981 at 09:56 AM on 1 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
I'm also curious why you've chosen 2°C, since the main difference between a skeptic and a denier is the basis of their opinions. I'd like to know if you have a valid scientific reason for believing 2°C is correct, particularly since it's on the low end of the probability range. -
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.
Prev 1676 1677 1678 1679 1680 1681 1682 1683 1684 1685 1686 1687 1688 1689 1690 1691 Next
