Recent Comments

Prev  1686  1687  1688  1689  1690  1691  1692  1693  1694  1695  1696  1697  1698  1699  1700  1701  Next

Comments 84651 to 84700:

84651. les at 02:52 AM on 27 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       87 Dave123 By and large, academic faculties don't work like that. Even over and above tenure and academic freedom; so long as one has prestige, bring in cash, do your teaching etc. you'll get on fine. And in that respect I'm fine about Happer and his like; accusations bad scholarship and conflict are standard fair in universities. What they do is not an issue of faculty discipline. Not at all. Happer was a high-flyer, did good physics etc. He may well be doing terrible and quite sad damage to that legacy - along with those highlighted by Rob Honeycutt - but that's his choice; no doubt he knows his personal priorities.
84652. Berényi Péter at 02:43 AM on 27 May 2011
       Temp record is unreliable
       #179 thepoodlebites at 00:47 AM on 27 May, 2011 The best-sited stations show no century-scale trend in diurnal temperature range in the lower 48 states. Time-of-observation corrected minimum temperature measurements at poorly sited stations have grown increasingly warm, compared to the best sited stations Very important finding, for it trashes one of the 10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change (number 7). If an increased greenhouse effect is causing global warming, we should see certain patterns in the warming. For example, the planet should warm faster at night than during the day. This is indeed being observed (Braganza 2004, Alexander 2006). Unfortunately what is observed, is just the opposite. That is, the decreasing trend in diurnal temperature range is entirely due to poor station siting, which means it is a local thing, not a global one. The phenomenon is important enough to have a separate post at this site: The human fingerprint in the daily cycle. Now this claim has to be retracted as soon as practicable (ASAP). Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres, 2011 in press (accepted 6 May 2011) doi:10.1029/2010JD015146 Analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends Fall, S., A. Watts, J. Nielsen-Gammon, E. Jones, D. Niyogi, J. Christy & R. A. Pielke Sr. The logic is pretty simple and undeniable. If global warming is caused by an increased greenhouse effect, then the planet should warm faster at night than during the day. The planet is not warming faster at night than during the day. Therefore global warming is not caused by an increased greenhouse effect. (A => B) & ~B implies ~A. There is no escape route.
84653. ClimateWatcher at 02:38 AM on 27 May 2011
       Monthly Climate Summary: April 2011
       27. You're looking at the warm side but not the cold side. Moisten up the air mass within the cold trough and you've diminished the kinetic energy from which the tornadic cells evolved. The same trough that passed and plowed up impressive moisture ahead of the system also had very dry air ( dewpoints -20F ) behind the system. To be sure tornadoes are multi-factorial which leads to irregular statistics. It's just that the AGW theory predicts a decrease in lots of factors.
84654. Paul D at 02:35 AM on 27 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       Climate4all: "Any other science in the known Universe can be challenged, just not Climate Science." Currently 'science' only exists on Earth, so to include unknown species elsewhere, is misleading and an exaggeration. The laws of physics exist outside the human mind, but they are only relevant once a life form understands them, currently we only know that to be the case on Earth.
84655. mclamb6 at 02:31 AM on 27 May 2011
       Skeptical Science Educates My Students
       apirateslookat50--I don't necessarily want to wade into this battle, but my recollection is that in your earlier postings you stated that you had been a "believer" in AGW, but changed your opinion based on the your perceptions of the treatment of skeptics (rather than anything related to the science). That doesn't strike me as very scientific. If my memory is faulty, I apologize.
84656. Paul D at 02:22 AM on 27 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       Climate4all: "IPCC bases their theories" They don't have theories. The IPCC just collates the science from numerous scientists. It wouldn't matter if the IPCC existed or not the science and research would be the same.
84657. Rob Honeycutt at 02:18 AM on 27 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       Dave123... Based on his wiki page saying he got his PhD in 1964 I would venture to guess Happer is in his late 70's. I think he's at that stage in his career where he doesn't care. This is political for him, just like Fred Singer and other former JASON's. Literally, I think for these guys ideology trump facts. You know that Happer understands far more about global warming that this laundry list of denier points suggests. He's not in this to advance the public knowledge of science. His piece is designed to advance an ideology. Any colleague pointing out his errors would likely get a "talk to the hand" type response (it would fall on deaf ears).
84658. Albatross at 02:11 AM on 27 May 2011
       Monthly Climate Summary: April 2011
       Eric and CW, Masters is in all likelihood referring to the increase in moist-static energy (including latent heat) in the boundary layer arising from an increase in low-level moisture. Sensitivity tests and theoretical work has demonstrated that increases as small as 1 g/kg in low-level atmospheric moisture has significant implication for thunderstorms, both in terms of their initiation and their intensity. Updraft strength (in a sheared environment) is an important mechanism for tilting and stretching (one of several processes at play) horizontal vorticity to generate a mesocyclone or rotating updraft. We also know that moisture levels are increasing in the atmosphere globally. In recent years a few papers have been published on how severe storm environments might change as the USA warms and as low-level moisture increases. Note that they do not speak to trends in tornado occurrence per se, and keep in mind that only a small percentage of supercells actually produce tornadoes, but a consistent pattern of increasing severe storm potential is evident. Van Klooster and Roebber (2009, J. Climate): “In this work, the authors present a “perfect prog” approach to estimating the potential for surface-based convective initiation and severity based upon the large-scale variables well resolved by climate model simulations. This approach allows for the development of a stable estimation scheme that can be applied to any climate model simulation, presently and into the future. The scheme is applied for the contiguous United States using the output from the Parallel Climate Model, with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change third assessment A2 (business as usual) as input. For this run, relative to interannual variability, the potential frequency of deep moist convection does not change, but the potential for severe convection is found to increase east of the Rocky Mountains and most notably in the “tornado alley” region of the U.S. Midwest. This increase in severe potential is mostly tied to increases in thermodynamic instability as a result of ongoing warm season surface warming and moistening.” Trapp et al. (2009, GRL) "Our study shows that the frequency of severe thunderstorm forcing increases in time in response to the A1B scenario of GHG emissions. This is also true for severe-thunderstorm forcing that is constrained by the occurrence of convective precipitation. The rate of increase varies with geographical region and inherently depends on (i) low-level water vapor availability and transport, and (ii) the frequency of midlatitude synoptic-scale cyclones during the warm season. The current report provides further evidence of the effect of anthropogenic GHG emissions on long-term trends in thunderstorm forcing [Trapp et al., 2007a; Del Genio et al., 2007]." Trapp et al. (2007, PNAS) "We use global climate models and a high-resolution regional climate model to examine the larger-scale (or “environmental”) meteorological conditions that foster severe thunderstorm formation. Across this model suite, we find a net increase during the late 21st century in the number of days in which these severe thunderstorm environmental conditions (NDSEV) occur. Attributed primarily to increases in atmospheric water vapor within the planetary boundary layer, the largest increases in NDSEV are shown during the summer season, in proximity to the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic coastal regions." Del Genio et al. (2007, GRL) "For the western United States, drying in the warmer climate reduces the frequency of lightning-producing storms that initiate forest fires, but the strongest storms occur 26% more often. For the central-eastern United States, stronger updrafts combined with weaker wind shear suggest little change in severe storm occurrence with warming, but the most severe storms occur more often." There have also been a few papers published on the impacts of soil moisture (thinking of the possible role of the current drought in Texas and Oklahoma on the recent spate of severe storms). For example, Grasso (2000), and Shaw et al. (1997).
84659. JMurphy at 02:10 AM on 27 May 2011
       Temp record is unreliable
       Compare and contrast : John Nielsen-Gammon (i.e. one of the authors of Fall et al - not Watts et al, unfortunately for those who admire the blog scientist so much) had this to say on his website, comparing Fall et al to Menne et al : Menne et al - We find no evidence that the CONUS average temperature trends are inflated due to poor station siting. "Neither do we, but important questions remain regarding the effect of the adjustments and the different effects of siting and instruments that may bear on the CONUS average temperature trends." Compare that with the following : 1. Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and unidirectionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant “global warming” in the 20th century. 2. All terrestrial surface-temperature databases exhibit very serious problems that render them useless for determining accurate long-term temperature trends. 3. All of the problems have skewed the data so as greatly to overstate observed warming both regionally and globally. 4. Global terrestrial temperature data are gravely compromised because more than three-quarters of the 6,000 stations that once existed are no longer reporting. 5. There has been a severe bias towards removing higher-altitude, higher-latitude, and rural stations, leading to a further serious overstatement of warming. 6. Contamination by urbanization, changes in land use, improper siting, and inadequately-calibrated instrument upgrades further overstates warming. 7. Numerous peer-reviewed papers in recent years have shown the overstatement of observed longer term warming is 30-50% from heat-island contamination alone. 8. Cherry-picking of observing sites combined with interpolation to vacant data grids may make heat-island bias greater than 50% of 20th-century warming. Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts Which does Watts believe now ? Has he squared the circle somehow ?
84660. apiratelooksat50 at 01:58 AM on 27 May 2011
       Skeptical Science Educates My Students
       Alb @ 109 Check 93. Actually Thoughtful @ 111 "I have lived in the American Southeast, Southwest, Northeast and Northwest - only in the Southeast could someone with your admitted problem with science be considered a "science" teacher." What are you implying about the South? And, I am originally from California, so please desist from your insults. And, I do not have a problem. More than once, I've listed my views on AGW or GCC or whatever label applies these days. We truly aren't that far apart, yet you refuse to see or admit that. And, as far as teaching my students goes, I resent any implications on my abilities or teaching style. It is not as if I have free reign to do what I want. I teach to a curriculum, I am observed unnannounced at least 8 times a semester, and our students take a state mandated end of course exam (of which mine did quite well on). Of the 4 teachers in my district who teach Environmental Science, I was the one chosen to write the curriculum and pacing guide for the next school years AND that document has been sold to other districts in the state. And, before anyone begins to howl in protest at that - my personal views are not represented therein.
84661. Dave123 at 01:58 AM on 27 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       Well, getting back to Happer... You'd think someone at the faculty club would say something to him about all this.
84662. gallopingcamel at 01:57 AM on 27 May 2011
       Can we trust climate models?
       DB, Thanks for that open-copy link. It addresses my question about the effect of abruptly ceasing emissions. Figure 1 on page 9 shows temperature rise accelerating if CO2 emissions cease on the reasonable assumption that aerosol emissions would also fall. One thing that struck me is that the complexity of the hindcast is quite different from the forecasts. Clearly some tweaking went on in an effort to make the hindcast similar to instrumental readings. Even so, the hindcast does not fit convincingly even with the carefully chosen start date (1850). I hope you and Bern will take the trouble to watch the History Channel today at 9 p.m. It covers the LIA as you would expect from the title but it also looks back to the MWP. As I have said earlier on this thread the models only agree with the historians over a period of 150 years. If the models disagree with what historians tell us over longer periods of time, why would one have any confidence in their predictive power? Let's look at those predictions that use 2005 as the start date. Can we agree that the only curve that matters is #4 (Constant Emissions). Reality may turn out to be a slight fall if there is a vast expansion of nuclear power or a weak global economy. Perhaps more likely, emissions may increase slightly owing to continuing rapid industrialization in densely populated countries such as China and India. Here are the predictions: Temperature rise 1850-2005 = 0.8 Kelvin Temperature rise 2005-2025 = 0.4 Kelvin Temperature rise 2005-2100 = 1.3 Kelvin Not looking good so far. Since the "Hare" paper was written the "Tortoise" seems to be in charge. The pace of warming seems to be slowing rather than accelerating: http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
84663. les at 01:37 AM on 27 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       85/Mods Feel free to delete mine. In truth I'm not all that interested in the andwers to my questions. It was more a matter of testing the quality than trying to learn something interesting. And anyway I have the answer; he's a bargain basement troll. It's a sorry state where SkS can't attract better than that :(
       Response:

       [DB] You know we will.

84664. pbjamm at 01:14 AM on 27 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       I agree with Albatross@84. C4A's rants is not relevant to the topic of the post. Perhaps SkS should create a Conspiracy Theory/Random Rant article so there would be place for cranks to vent their collective spleen. It would be lively and fun to read!
       Response:

       [DB] Just came on shift (was out drinking yesterday's per diem), sorry.  Yes, we are being "trolled".  If it persists, I can and will delete the troll portion of this thread, but multiple commentator's comments will then have to go as well.

84665. thepoodlebites at 00:47 AM on 27 May 2011
       Temp record is unreliable
       #178 You are omitting important finding in the Watt's et al. paper, poor station siting. The opposite-signed differences of maximum and minimum temperature trends are similar in magnitude, so that the overall mean temperature trends are nearly identical across site classifications (dumb luck?). The best-sited stations show no century-scale trend in diurnal temperature range in the lower 48 states. Time-of-observation corrected minimum temperature measurements at poorly sited stations have grown increasingly warm, compared to the best sited stations (sounds like possible contamination from urbanization). The poorly sited stations show an average temperature bias of +0.3 C, after taking into account the differing geographical distribution of stations. The authors recommend comprehensive siting studies be extended to the global historical climate network temperature data.
84666. Albatross at 00:47 AM on 27 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       Why is "Climate4all" being allowed to troll this site and make off-topic comments and 'attacks' on the IPCC? They were provided with some guidance and tips and have ignored that. This post/thread is about Happer, we know exactly why Climate4all is doing this....while everyone is trying to (futilely) reason with a D-K, the heat is taken off Happer.
84667. Dave123 at 00:43 AM on 27 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       @Climate4All- One scarcely knows where to start with your post. The critque of Happer directly targets a series of false statement he made about AGW. So are you going to make any kind of factual challenge to the science....or is this all about how things "sound" to you?
84668. Tom Curtis at 00:37 AM on 27 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       Climate4you @71, I must congratulate you for your astute reading skills and comprehensive knowledge. After all, mere peons like me, when we read "Science today recognizes that there is no way to prove the absolute truth of any hypothesis or model" read that as indicating something about science today, and that what it indicates is something about all scientific theories and models, ie, that their absolute truth cannot be proved. Your astute reading has shown however that it really means:

       "[Climate] Science today recognizes that there is no way to prove the absolute truth of any hypothesis or model [of climate science, which distinguishes climate science from all other sciences]."

       Likewise, naively I would interpret. "In this sense, even the most well established physical laws are “conditional”." as discussing all well established physical laws, such as General and Special relativity, QCD, Maxwell's equations, and so on. Your brilliant reading shows it really meant:

       "In this sense, even the most well established physical laws [of climate, but not of any other science] are “conditional”."

       Can you please teach me how you so brilliantly read whatever you like between the lines to develop such patent strawmen so brilliant an analysis. It is, of course, self evident that you have nothing to learn from Skeptical Science for I have no doubt you have applied the same brilliant reading strategy you have here applied to the falsifiability law to any number of scientific papers to derive from them ideas conforming to your preconceptions make a brilliant analysis. Perhaps, in addition to your brilliant analyses of scientific papers, you could provide an analysis of Popper's Logic of Scientific Discovery, and how Popper was only preparing the ground work of the UN conspiracy of world government through the IPCC way back in 1959 when he first published his theory of falsifiability in English.
84669. bbickmore at 00:23 AM on 27 May 2011
       Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet
       Arkadiusz Semczyszak #41, I'm sorry, but I couldn't really follow what you said.
84670. JMurphy at 00:12 AM on 27 May 2011
       Skeptical Science Educates My Students
       apiratelooksat50 wrote : "One question with a yes or no answer: Is SKS unbiased? Even more: Question 2: Are you unbiased?" Compared to WUWT (which is what this line of questioning leads from), the response to that first question is a great big YES ! As for the second question, I find it a bit ridiculous, really. I would be perfect if I wasn't biased in some ways but (again with reference to WUWT and AGW) I AM biased against propaganda, misinformation, disinformation, denial and pseudo-science, i.e. I am biased against WUWT and so-called skeptics. apiratelooksat50 wrote : "I went to your link at wottsupwiththat.com and found this... To say that I am at least as vetted as this guy..." Well, good for you but you have completely missed the point of the link to WottsUpWithThat : it is to provide a counter-point to those who believe that WUWT is in any way scientific, unbiased or credible. It highlights the nonsense that can be found there so, as long as the owner of the site has at least a basic science education, it virtually runs itself by merely quoting and linking to WUWT. However, it is also well-written and humorous - even above the unintended humour of WUWT. scaddenp wrote : "Hey JMurphy - apparently we are compadres. How do." Hello, but darn it - our secret AGW coven has been discovered ! Dang those pesky so-called skeptics...
84671. quokka at 23:54 PM on 26 May 2011
       Carter Confusion #2: Green Jobs
       Marcus #29 As I understand, Germany has about 27GWe of installed wind and 18 GWe of installed PV with capacity factors of around 17 % and 12% respectively. Doing the sums, that's a yearly output of 40,208 GWh for wind and 18,921 GWh for PV. Allowing for some "slop" in capacity factors, down time for maintenance and the rapid rollout of PV in 2010 (18GWe not available all year)this would seem to support the IEA figure of 45,010 GWh. Someone is pulling someones leg, and my money is on Wikipedia.
84672. DSL at 23:42 PM on 26 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       C4A: "I think I am a little beyond needing an education from this site or any other that you might wish to lead me to." Wow. What, then, are you doing here? You obviously want a response. Is this simply a sign that you are unwilling to engage in a learning community? If so, why should people here waste time on response? "Gullibility is a valueless trait." Pithy, pithy. The IPCC said. "even the most well established physical laws are “conditional” Beyond the punctuation problems, what the IPCC says should be true for any definition of science. Can you find me absolute truth? Give it up. I hunger for it. "Their laws. Not someone else's. Theirs. It's the IPCC's 'disclaimer'." Uhhh . . . I don't think you've provided evidence that the IPCC says that only "their" laws are . . . are what? Conditional? Still not sure what you're saying here. "Are any of you here, willing to admit, that some of the science provided by the IPCC is flawed?" What does that even mean? The science has not been provided by the IPCC. It has been collected and analyzed by the IPCC. The science has been done by thousands of researchers for, well, for about 130 years. I can't point to anything "flawed." I can point to various model outcomes that I agree with more and (not "or") less. Remember: this is all theory based on a basic physical model (a series of laws) and observation. Find me an alternative that matches the physics and takes into account the massive collection of observational data, or find the flaws in the physics. Or stop flapping your lips one line (and a space) at a time. "Are any of you willing to admit that we don't know everything about what drives climate?" If anyone here answers "no, we know everything!" they need to be banned. "If none of you can honestly answer those questions...." Again, clean up the logic. Everyone here can honestly answer any of these questions. They are capable. You should have said, "Answer these questions, please, or I will assume you cannot, and I will take that as a sign of your guilt and complicity with the great hoax known as AGW . . . or CAGW . . . or whatever."
84673. Kevin C at 23:34 PM on 26 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       

       The quote in question, was written by the IPCC, and used in their own technical paper to describe their work. It's their summation of their models and their theories. The IPCC said. "even the most well established physical laws are “conditional”

       Yes. Absolutely. The same is true of all science. Including gravity. And yet, every time we build a bridge, in fact every time I walk across a bridge instead of just stepping out into thin air, I make some assumption that gravity is in some sense more than conditional.

       Yet somehow, climate change science is different than any other science. Any other science in the known Universe can be challenged, just not Climate Science.

       No, climate science can be challenged, like any other science. For an example which some of us have been discussing for a few days, see this draft paper by James Hansen, the hockey stick guy himself, in which he challenges some significant chunks of climate science. Specifically, he's arguing that one of the inputs to current climate models is wrong, and in parallel the responses of existing models to changes are wrong too. So climate science can be challenged. As can gravity. But the challenge must meet certain conditions to be regarded as credible. What conditions? Principally, the challenge must be consistent with existing observations. A new theory which says that if you drop an apple it will float upwards is not a credible challenge because it contradicts existing observations. A theory that says gravity behaves differently close to the surface of a black hole may be credible, if it doesn't significantly change the way apples fall on earth. Hansen's challenge is credible, because he shows how it fits with existing observations. Happer's is not, because it does not fit with existing observations. (That's a gross oversimplification. But I'm trying to keep it simple.)
84674. DSL at 23:22 PM on 26 May 2011
       Monthly Climate Summary: April 2011
       pkm: "But given the intrinsical non-linear behaviour of weather and climate, the trend of (explicitly or implicitly) using individual weather events to illustrate climate change is simply a dangerous exercise, both scientifically and in the long run also image-wise." I agree it's dangerous to do this when there is a mob of somewhat-less-than-critical folk looking intensely for anything that can be used to weaken the image of the science. Yet such reports are useful for those people who understand the relationship between weather and climate. I don't want to have to look up every anomalous weather event around the globe each month; I want someone else to do it. I know that each event isn't necessarily a signal for GW. Indeed, it is a useful exercise to work through each event and locate the possibilities and probabilities where the causes of its anomalousness is concerned. Just because people are able to become confused and draw the wrong conclusions is no reason to hide the information. On a site like this, it attracts more people and, in accord with the design and purpose of this site, even engages a few in the critical community.
84675. les at 23:21 PM on 26 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       77 - so, you refuse to answer my questions or can't?
84676. CBDunkerson at 23:19 PM on 26 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       "If its so basic, then why did the IPCC include it in their report" Because the report was being written for non-scientists and thus needed to explain some basic scientific principles. "The IPCC said. "even the most well established physical laws are “conditional” Their laws. Not someone else's." Actually, they are here referring to ALL scientific 'laws'... as in, Newton's Laws of Motion, the Laws of Thermodynamics, et cetera. "Yet somehow, climate change science is different than any other science. Any other science in the known Universe can be challenged, just not Climate Science." Nothing in the IPCC report says that climate change science is different or unquestionably true. Indeed, the very passage on falsifiability which you quoted states the exact opposite. "Are any of you here, willing to admit, that some of the science provided by the IPCC is flawed?" Sure. The Himalayan glacier melt period is a proven example. Likewise, the different estimates of sensitivity obviously cannot ALL be precisely correct. "Are any of you willing to admit that we don't know everything about what drives climate?" Again, obviously. "Who's in denial." That'd apparently be you if you thought any of the above was controversial.
84677. Climate4All at 23:08 PM on 26 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       @ "Moderator Response: Welcome to Skeptical Science! There is an immense amount of reference material discussed here and it can be a bit difficult at first to find an answer to your questions. That's why we recommend that Newcomers, Start Here and then learn The Big Picture." I think I am a little beyond needing an education from this site or any other that you might wish to lead me to. I spent the greater portion of my life reading scientific journals and facts. Gullibility is a valueless trait. @73 Fundamental principle? If its so basic, then why did the IPCC include it in their report if its so fundamental. The rule was introduced, with their language, to describe their work. Thats like Einstein having to define whole numbers before he can write about General Relativity. Didn't happen. Amazing. @74 The quote in question, was written by the IPCC, and used in their own technical paper to describe their work. It's their summation of their models and their theories. The IPCC said. "even the most well established physical laws are “conditional” Their laws. Not someone else's. Theirs. It's the IPCC's "disclaimer". Yet somehow, climate change science is different than any other science. Any other science in the known Universe can be challenged, just not Climate Science. No no no. Can't do that. It's a forgone conclusion. Their is no debate. If I don't drink from your koolaid, I am a heretic, shill, troll, idiot. Right? I can't have anything valuable to add to the discussion. Because I am a skeptic. No one here wishes to discuss what the IPCC wrote, but everyone will gladly point me somewhere to 'help' me. I simply stated that the author of this post judged one writer for what some consider all authors do regarding climate change. Point finger here. Point finger there. Fight . Fight. Fight. Name call. Make fun of. Ad nauseam. You're right. Their wrong. Thats why I brought the quote up. The IPCC states that their models may in fact, not be reliable or accurate. Further study must be undertaken. Isn't that how almost every scientific journal concludes. But not climate science. No sir re Bob. Case closed. No debate. End of discussion. Are any of you here, willing to admit, that some of the science provided by the IPCC is flawed? Are any of you willing to admit that we don't know everything about what drives climate? If none of you can honestly answer those questions.... Who's in denial.
       Response:

       [DB]Hmm, where to start?

       "I think I am a little beyond needing an education from this site or any other that you might wish to lead me to."

       Your comment as constructed belies that.

       "I spent the greater portion of my life reading scientific journals and facts."

       And who here hasn't?

       "Gullibility is a valueless trait."

       So is being antisocial with delusions of grandeur. 

       Spare us the ideology, tone and rhetoric, please.  It makes you sound shrill and pompous, which I'm sure you are not in your personal life.

       The reason I did the usual SkS Miranda Rights (the standard meet & greet message) was so you couldn't plead ignorance of the Comments Policy.  Participation in this forum is a privilege, not a right.  Accordingly, that privilege can be rescinded if participants refuse to comply with the Comment Policy.  Everyone here receives moderation, including the moderators (I've lost count of the number of my own comments I've had to delete, upon reflection).

       So the choice is yours: Comply and Participate, or find a different venue more to your tastes.

       (Quotes from Colossus: The Forbin Project)

84678. DSL at 23:03 PM on 26 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       Indeed, a bizarre post, climate4all. In addition to the misrepresentations of the IPCC position, it contains an error in logic: "If any information , fact, or evidence provides a clear disagreement with IPCC methods,then their claims become false." Beyond the redundancy of "information, fact, or evidence," a single piece of evidence will never render an entire IPCC report false. I take that back: if increased atmospheric GHGs were found not to delay OLR, then that might do it. Do you believe this to be true--that GHGs do not delay OLR? If so, give the evidence as soon as possible (on the appropriate thread), and don't point to other people who say it: I like it when belief has a clear connection to evidence.
84679. Eric the Red at 23:01 PM on 26 May 2011
       Can we trust climate models?
       What is nice about the Hare paper is that they show the calculations and parameters, so that if you which to substitute other numbers, you can plot your own values.
84680. Kevin C at 22:54 PM on 26 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       Climate4All@71: The 'falsifiability rule' you are talking about is a part of Popper's model of the scientific method. But only a part of it. It only makes sense if you include the rest of the model. Taking just falsifiability, then all science consists of is a heap of discarded (falsified) theories, and another heap of theories which have not yet been falsified. The second heap includes all sorts of things which we treat as foundational: gravity, thermodynamics, electromagnetism and so on. And also some theories which we think are probably garbage too, but can't prove it yet. And yet we could not have built a technological society, much less the internet without many of these theories. Clearly there is something more to science than falsification. If you read a little more of Popper's work, or an introductory text on philosophy of science, then you may find out what that is.
84681. Michael Searcy at 22:25 PM on 26 May 2011
       Monthly Climate Summary: April 2011
       pkm, While I appreciate your point, it would be much worse "image-wise" to dismiss such anomalous events off-hand as nothing more than "odd weather" or ignoring them altogether as if they occur in a vacuum with no connection whatsoever to the longer-term conditions under which they occur. When a warming world results in climatic change the impact of those climatic changes, across all aspects of our daily lives, is expressed through individual events. When you understand the breadth and depth of impact from a single event, it carries considerably more weight when countless climate studies conclude, "Expect more".
84682. les at 22:07 PM on 26 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       71 C4All "If the IPCC is saying their models are not reliable, and the only way to prove them wrong is proving their claims is false, that pretty much sums it all for CAGW believers." Where do they say their models are "not reliable"? Models are what they are - approximations to reality (see this post. But, sure, if something can be proven false; it's false. Much like many of Happers claims. Be that as it may, what I asked was for you to explain this statement: "the IPCC bases their theories on falsifiability law" theories can be based on physics, chemistry etc. etc. the Rule (not law) you posted is a comment of methodology - of how one tests statements; not how theories are developed. Also you said "you can be afforded the same luxury" - what does that mean? I would prefer, next time you try to answer a question.. that you answer it.
84683. skywatcher at 22:06 PM on 26 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       #70: Strange post, Climate4All. The first paragraph is not an 'IPCC claim'. It's a fundamental principle of science. The IPCC position is based on over a century of physical data and thoroughly tested theory, as well as the models that are constantly verified against data. A different method / explanation may exist, but so far all methods that people have proposed have not survived contact with the data. If an alternate explanation comes along that successfully explains all the data, from the radiative physics of the CO2 molecule, through palaeoclimate to instrumental observations at multiple wavebands and layers in the atmosphere, the proposer of the alternate explanation will be lauded. Though given how well-tested the current theories are, the explanation is likely to have to be pretty exotic... There is plenty of information on the current science both at the IPCC website and in numerous excellent articles here, all supported by reference to the core peer-reviewed science. To turn your advice on yourself - go look the evidence up, from the many links here, or Spencer Weart's history of CO2, or from the IPCC reports. Avoid disinformation sites if you can, and look at the world with a truly sceptical eye, as climate scientists have done since Tyndall... a scientific one.
84684. _Flin_ at 21:52 PM on 26 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       On a side note, Prof. Happer is chair of the board of directors at the George C. Marshall Institute.
84685. Climate4All at 21:49 PM on 26 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       "Falsifiability Rule : Science today recognizes that there is no way to prove the absolute truth of any hypothesis or model, since it is always possible that a different explanation might account for the same observations. In this sense, even the most well established physical laws are “conditional”. Hence, with scientific methodology it is never possible to prove conclusively that a hypothesis is true, it is only possible to prove that it is false." Thats straight from the I.P.C.C. Thats the IPCC claim. Its like playing cats and dogs. Catch me if you can. If the IPCC is saying their models are not reliable, and the only way to prove them wrong is proving their claims is false, that pretty much sums it all for CAGW believers. Correct? If a different method, other than the ones the IPCC uses, it's considered trash. Of course, it has to be. /sarc If any information , fact, or evidence provides a clear disagreement with IPCC methods,then their claims become false. While MSM continues doing what Chris Colose claims Happer is doing, we can continue on the merry-go-round of disinformation. But whose disinforming? Time will tell. End of class gentlemen, I prefer the next time you don't know something, go look it up, because taking information for granted, is a terrible way to believe.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] I suggest you read about the idea of falsifiability; you will find it is not the IPCC's invention, but a basic component of modern scientific method. The strength of the IPCC's position is revealed by the fact that they are willing to make testable predictions that would allow their theory to be refuted. The skeptics on the other hand are not willing to do likewise. No scientific prediction regarding future events can be proven, why should the IPCCs projections be an exception? Please take time to familiarise yourself with the comments policy and dial back the tone of your posts.
84686. Marcus at 21:36 PM on 26 May 2011
       Carter Confusion #2: Green Jobs
       Andy S. I am familiar with this paper, & I find its arguments to be fundamentally flawed. That said, there are amendments to the Act which are going to be made, such as adding greater incentives for energy efficiency measures & phasing out feed-in tariffs for existing power sources, in order to encourage the development of new technologies. Like most Acts of Parliament, the EEG was far from perfect-especially as it was one of the first such Acts ever introduced-but this is why it is being subjected to new scrutiny & amendment-its an *organic* process. This fact, & how ultimately successful Germany's adoption of renewable energy has been, does give me grounds for optimism.
84687. Marcus at 21:30 PM on 26 May 2011
       Carter Confusion #2: Green Jobs
       Quokka, I got my figures from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany According to this, in 2009 they were getting around 94,000GWh of electricity from renewable energy, & this has apparently risen to over 100,000GWh in 2010.
84688. Icarus at 21:27 PM on 26 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       What I find remarkable is that even the smartest and most academic people who dispute global warming can *only* do so by being thoroughly dishonest. Happer does it, Muller does it, Lindzen does it, Christy does it, Carter does it... the list goes on. That tells me that there really isn't any plausible argument against the consensus view of the 97% of climate scientists who think anthropogenic global warming is real and dangerous, because if there was any science behind the deniers' arguments, they wouldn't need to rely on long-debunked lies and myths and misprepresentations and political attacks. I think we really need to find a way of taking these people to a court of law where the penalty for knowingly lying to the court is a prison sentence. They will be less inclined to be dishonest when they have a very personal and serious stake in telling the truth. Case in point: John Christy, who frequently appears on video rubbishing climate science and dismissing anthropogenic warming, but when in court had to agree that "most of the observed warming over the last fifty years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations". The judge in that case said: "There is widespread acceptance of the basic premises that underlie Hansen's testimony. Plaintiffs' own expert, Dr. Christy, agrees with the IPCC's assessment that in the light of new evidence and taking into account remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last fifty years is likely to have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations. Tr. vol. 14-A, 145:18-148:7 (Christy, May 4, 2007). Christy agrees that the increase in carbon dioxide is real and primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels, which changes the radiated balance of the atmosphere and has an impact on the planet's surface temperature toward a warming rate. Id. at 168:11-169:10." "Christy also agreed that climate is a nonlinear system, that is, that its responses to forcings may be disproportionate, and rapid changes would be more difficult for human beings and other species to adapt to than more gradual changes. Id. at 175:2-174:11. He further agreed with Hansen that the regulation's effect on radiative forcing will be proportional to the amount of emissions reductions, and that any level of emissions reductions will have at least some effect on the radiative forcing of the climate." "Christy criticized the Hadley and Canadian models, suggesting that they were extreme and were downscaled unreliably. Tr. vol. 14-A, 121:13-122:4 (Christy, May 4, 2007). Although Christy testified that he had used climate models, however, he did not claim to be an expert on climate modeling. Id. at 78:20-79:3. In fact, his view of the reliability of climate models does not fall within the mainstream of climate scientists; his view is that models are, in general, 'scientifically crude at best,' although they are used regularly by most climate scientists and he himself used the compiled results of a variety of climate models in preparing his report and testimony in this case." ------- Get these people in court where the threat of imprisonment will concentrate their minds and keep them honest.
84689. Kevin C at 21:19 PM on 26 May 2011
       Can we trust climate models?
       Charlie #19: I just caught up with your post on the other thread here where you show your own simple model hindcast. You describe it as a 'a simple linear + 1 lag model' - do I infer correctly from that that you are using two terms: one exponential lag and one which is a direct feed-through of the forcing (i.e. a delta-function response)? If so, that would answer my objection to the 1-box model. The additional linear term counting as the second box, for which the time constant is certainly very short and could probably just as well be a delta function. Kevin Postscripts: Charlie: Thank you for your persistence in engaging with my posts. We may be on different sides of the debate, but you consistently take the trouble to read and give interesting and useful pointers in response. I'm learning a lot. Moderators: I know some of my questions and explorations have been rather tangential to the articles concerned. I'm learning climate science as fast as I can and need to ask questions, and often an active article sparks a question. I'll try and take discussions to a relevant post in future, although my experience is that it posting to an old article is not a good way to get discussion.
       Response:

       [DB] You will find moderation here at SkS provides an atmosphere conducive to learning.  Some off-topic dialogue is permitted where it is evident that individuals are trying to learn.  That being said, when the discussion endures, it is advisable to take the discussion to a more appropriate thread at some point.

       There are no dead or closed threads at SkS, only temporarily dormant ones.  Regular commenters follow the Recent Comments thread and will see anything posted there, regardless of the thread it is posted on.

84690. Eric the Red at 21:09 PM on 26 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       There seems to be a lot of talk about CO2 not being beneficial to plant growth. While some studies have shown that for certain plants under certain conditions, the added CO2 will not be beneficial, the overall pattern is one of increased plant growth. Plants growth is limited by whatever is in the shortest supply; in a desert, that is water, in rocky soil, it is nutrients, etc. The "all other conditions being equal" statement would mean in the case where all other factors are plentiful, and CO2 is the limiting factor. The example given was a greenhouse: the temperature is optimal, water is plentiful, and CO2 is pumped in to levels ~1000 ppm. These are all done to promote plant growth. To say that elevated CO2 levels does not promote plant growth is absurd. The few examples of plants which have adapted to lower levels of CO2 is akin to the camel in the desert. It can survive on short supplies of water, but additional water is not harmful. Since most predictions of global warming indicate increased precipitation, this is doubly beneficial to most plant life. Think prehistoric times when vegetation flourished under warmer temperatures, increased rainfall, and higher CO2.
       Response:

       [DB] This has already been thoroughly discussed many times on other threads; as such, it is off-topic here.  Your comment belongs on the http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-is-plant-food-too-simple.html thread.  Anyone responding to this, do so their with a pointer back here.

84691. skywatcher at 20:40 PM on 26 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       What are Princeton's policies on making statements like these when using their name as authority? It is one thing for Happer to make this gish gallop of verifiable lies and unscientific disinformation when writing personally, but it is something else when writing in his professional capacity, or using his position at Princeton as 'authority'. Especially when he is not an actively publishing member of the field of science that he is dismissing and insulting. This 'false appeal to authority' is quite common among climate skeptics, where their apparent posession of a Ph.D. is misinterpreted by those who don't know better as a passport to understanding of every topic. I have a relevant Ph.D. to the subject here, highly respectable institution, have published etc., but it is immaterial to the content of what I have to say - that must be judged on content, not 'authority'. But crucially, I am extremely careful about the content of any statement when it concerns a field outwith my professional expertise. I won't for hypothetical example, tell medical researchers where to shove their vaccine research, and then use my qualifications to back it up! That would be dishonest, and is what Happer is doing here.
84692. CBDunkerson at 20:37 PM on 26 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       Climate4All wrote: "He is entitled to his opinion" His own opinion yes. His own 'facts' no. Many of the things Happer said were demonstrably false. At which point it ceased to be an 'opinion piece' and became false propaganda.
84693. les at 20:31 PM on 26 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       65 - Climate4All Happer gave much the same 'evidence' to congress... actually the chairwoman though it was pretty funny; never the less that has impact somewhat above the normal level of 'opinion'. You will find SkS does provide counter claims. Finally, I have absolutely no idea what "theories on falsifiability law" means. However the IPCC has no theories. It's a panel which takes data, theories, responses etc. in and generates consensus reports. Still, I would really like to understand what " I suppose if the IPCC bases their theories on falsifiability law, you can be afforded the same luxury." actually means. Could you, maybe, rephrase that in proper English and elaborate a little?
84694. Climate4All at 19:55 PM on 26 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       "much of what they say on the internet is done precisely because it would never get accepted into a journal document." When a handful of men have the opportunity to decide what gets published and what doesn't get published, well, people will find a way to get their message out. But seeing as how Happer's post is an opinion piece and not a scientific thesis, don't you think your judging a bit too harshly? He is entitled to his opinion, much the same way you are. But 'they' use straw man tactics. But not you. 'They' don't get papers published. But you do. 'They' make accusations that are misleading. But you don't. You seem to be quick to judge a man over an opinion piece, rather than settle it with counter claims. Instead you criticize by saying, "uses a lot of words to say absolutely nothing", "throws in a few classical straw man attacks", "can't resist throwing in a few outdated one-liners", "Happer's reasoning is well out of line" But, I suppose if the IPCC bases their theories on falsifiability law, you can be afforded the same luxury. Good Day !
       Moderator Response:

       Welcome to Skeptical Science! There is an immense amount of reference material discussed here and it can be a bit difficult at first to find an answer to your questions. That's why we recommend that Newcomers, Start Here and then learn The Big Picture.

       I also recommend watching this video on why CO₂ is the biggest climate control knob in Earth's history.

       Further general questions can usually be be answered by first using the Search function in the upper left of every Skeptical Science page to see if there is already a post on it (odds are, there is). If you still have questions, use the Search function located in the upper left of every page here at Skeptical Science and post your question on the most pertinent thread.

       Remember to frame your questions in compliance with the Comments Policy and lastly, to use the Preview function below the comment box to ensure that any html tags you're using work properly.

       "When a handful of men have the opportunity to decide what gets published and what doesn't get published, well, people will find a way to get their message out."

       At Skeptical Science we focus on science-based dialogue, not conspiracy theories. Please do get back to us with more clarity regarding "theories on falsifiability law" Thanks!

84695. les at 19:11 PM on 26 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       Here's another field in which Happer is an 'expert': How about the politics of science?. Now a book like this is hugely suspect. First and foremost you look at the Editor. Sociologist? Political Scientists (yes, I know, oxymoron)? Philosopher or Economist, even? No: A Biologist. The publisher - Oxford? I.B. Torus? Harvard? No: an NGO, the George C. Marshall Institute. So, the normal academic checks and balances that are normally found in the social sciences / humanities are absent. In in Happers chapter he focuses on about how he was sacked by Gore and how that's almost like being in the Soviet Union - a key MoD trope - but no historical context. That isn't research; it's opinion. The book isn't analysis, it's data.
84696. Philip Shehan at 18:49 PM on 26 May 2011
       It's cosmic rays
       Thanks Riccardo
84697. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 17:58 PM on 26 May 2011
       Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet
       Last few days I analyzed available sources. ... and the all comment bbickmore - I can be (fully) agree with one sentence: “ Instead of trying to work on his idea until it’s in good enough shape to pass peer review, he posts it on a blog ...” That's true. Methodological errors in the analysis of Spencer seem to be obvious. But is it important? 1. At the beginning: a simple model (even simpler “than is possible”) for determining the impact of climate on the sensitivity of OHC - are often ( to investigate a specific range of data )better than complicated . Here should not be no doubt. According to the researchers in Australia:“Simple climate models can be used to estimate the global temperature response to increasing greenhouse gases. Changes in the energy balance of the global climate system are represented by equations that necessitate the use of uncertain parameters.”( Utilising temperature differences as constraints for estimating parameters in a simple climate model , Bodman, Karoly and Enting, 2011.) 2. “... and many of these methods are based on paleoclimate data, rather than model output ...” What does not change the fact that the range of this - just determined the sensitivity - it is very big. ... a 1,3 st. Spencer (even treated: not as a "transient sensitivity"- and as a "finished - all” global sensitivity to a doubling) compared to 1.5 - that is, within the error limits to the range of the IPCC. ... so that Spencer truly „... actually agreed with mainstream climate science ...”, because - as noted above - according to the IPCC: “... could be consistent within their uncertainties but might indicate a tendency of climate models to overestimate ocean heat uptake.” 3. bbickmore of criticism is here not only the model but Spencer and - in a way obvious (though not literally) - the "overarching" results (“...major problems if we continue to burn fossil fuels ...”). (Hint: I am surprised that every supporter of AGW, no matter what he writes, always has to add something “like that "...) "Major problems" that those 3 degrees K, if we use - as appropriate - no errors - Spencer simple model based on an analysis of changes in the OHC. However, we have: "... overestimate ocean heat uptake ... "- How much? For example, recently noted the "problem"with OHT and clouds in the tropics, the "problem" preventing the full potential of OHC - which diminishes the sensitivity of climate to these external factors that directly affect the accumulation of energy in the ocean ( Climate sensitivity to changes in ocean heat transport, Barreiro & Masina, 2011.: „This suggests that the present-day climate is close to a state where the OHT maximizes its warming effect on climate and pose doubts about the possibility that greater OHT in the past may have induced significantly warmer climates than that of today.”). In addition, the ocean can draw energy, not only passively but actively - bigger (or smaller) regional energy storage by the ocean can be a global positive feedback to the (even smaller - in absolute values) changes in OHT caused by the small (but in a concrete place ) changes in external forcing. “The influence of ocean circulation changes on heat uptake is explored using a simply-configured primitive equation ocean model resembling a very idealized Atlantic Ocean.” “Calculating heat uptake by neglecting the existing reservoir redistribution, which is similar to treating temperature as a passive tracer, leads to significant quantitative errors notably at high-latitudes and, secondarily, in parts of the main thermocline.” ( The passive and active nature of ocean heat uptake in idealized climate change experiments , Xie and Vallis, 2011.) How much - these new observations - the calculation - are significant to the results obtained by other „... many of these methods ...”? For example, “the skeptical analysis” of claims that only the ocean, "tells the truth", because: „... ocean heat has one main advantage: Simplicity. While work on climate sensitivity certainly needs to continue, it requires more complex observations and hypotheses making verification more difficult. Ocean heat touches on the very core of the AGW hypothesis: When all is said and done, if the climate system is not accumulating heat, the hypothesis is invalid.” Ocean - heat content - therefore has an advantage over : “... many of these methods ...”. Less problematic - uncertain - estimates. 4. I therefore consider that although Spencer methodological mistakes - they are insignificant to the correctness of his final conclusions (as noted - in the comments of this post). He is right - paying particular attention to the importance of natural variability - can not (I hope for now) just to prove it properly. I hope that in this last issue is consensus, ie, he ... “ can not ... " “Bullet” of Spencer - is just one of many "silver" shot at in the same direction ...?
84698. actually thoughtful at 17:50 PM on 26 May 2011
       Skeptical Science Educates My Students
       Apirate - do you admit to your students your anti-science bias in regards to global warming - or do you pretend you are unbiased? You ARE unbiased - in that you have no bias for or against peer reviewed literature vs. anti-science web sites (WUWT being one of the most famous anti-science sites). I have lived in the American Southeast, Southwest, Northeast and Northwest - only in the Southeast could someone with your admitted problem with science be considered a "science" teacher.
84699. pkm at 17:09 PM on 26 May 2011
       Monthly Climate Summary: April 2011
       Michael @14 Inclusion of the weather anomalies in these summaries serves several purposes: 1. It provides a context for other concurrent events 2. It puts a relatable human perspective on impacts from severe weather events including fatalities, costs (direct and indirect), and disruptions to human processes (e.g., crop and livestock losses as a result of drought, shipping closures on the Mississippi as a result of flooding, etc.) 3. It provides a compact historical record of anomalous weather events within the frame of a warming world. While I do find a good documentation of weather anomalies a good idea, I continue to have problems in which weather and climate are being messed up in this report. I agree that nowhere an explicit link between these weather anomalies and climate change is made, but implicitly they merge seamlessly. After all it is published under the title "Monthly Climate", and as I learned this is in a monthly series called "State of the Climate"! Apparently NOAA feels the need to assess the state of the climate on a time scale that is barely longer than that for a low-pressure system to pass over your house. It is like visiting your dentist twice a day to see if you haven't developed any caries yet. Obviously a warming world will carry with it a changed set of weather event statistics, let there be no doubt about that. And certainly that is going to impact on societies as a whole. But given the intrinsical non-linear behaviour of weather and climate, the trend of (explicitly or implicitly) using individual weather events to illustrate climate change is simply a dangerous exercise, both scientifically and in the long run also image-wise.
84700. quokka at 16:53 PM on 26 May 2011
       Carter Confusion #2: Green Jobs
       Marcus #25, I don't know where you are getting your figures for Germany from, but according the IEA Monthly Electricity Statistics Report in 2010 Germany produced 45,010 GWh from wind, solar, geothermal and other, of a total production of 586,486 GWh which is about 7.7%. IEA Monthly Electricity Statistics

Prev  1686  1687  1688  1689  1690  1691  1692  1693  1694  1695  1696  1697  1698  1699  1700  1701  Next