Recent Comments

Prev  1688  1689  1690  1691  1692  1693  1694  1695  1696  1697  1698  1699  1700  1701  1702  1703  Next

Comments 84751 to 84800:

84751. 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?
84752. 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.
84753. 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.
84754. 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...
84755. 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.
84756. 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."
84757. 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.)
84758. 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.
84759. les at 23:21 PM on 26 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       77 - so, you refuse to answer my questions or can't?
84760. 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.
84761. 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)

84762. 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.
84763. 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.
84764. 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.
84765. 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".
84766. 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.
84767. 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.
84768. _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.
84769. 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.
84770. 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.
84771. 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.
84772. 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.
84773. 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.

84774. 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.

84775. 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.
84776. 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.
84777. 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?
84778. 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!

84779. 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.
84780. Philip Shehan at 18:49 PM on 26 May 2011
       It's cosmic rays
       Thanks Riccardo
84781. 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 ...?
84782. 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.
84783. 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.
84784. 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
84785. RSVP at 16:52 PM on 26 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       Chemware "If you can't, then your colleagues do not respect you, and value your comments somewhere below those of taxi-drivers." Highly paid TV news anchormen and women have all appearances of respectability, spewing calculated half-truths they are given to read. The taxi driver, on the otherhand, may actually know the real story. So at the end of the day, arriving at the truth depends not on the speaker, but the listener. (nor the publisher, but the reader).
84786. Bern at 16:23 PM on 26 May 2011
       Can we trust climate models?
       GC, the Little Ice Age has been discussed on this site already. If you care to read through that and some of the other articles linked, you'll find that climate models consider a wide range of natural forcings, in addition to human greenhouse emissions. It's only in the last century that GHG emissions have had a significant effect, and only in the last half century or so that they've come to dominate.
84787. barry1487 at 16:10 PM on 26 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       Hi Jay, how about something simple from the beginning of Happer's article? He writes of the beneficial role of CO2 in the atmosphere, and then states;

       Now the Environmental Protection Agency wants to regulate atmospheric CO2 as a “pollutant.”

       The EPA wants to regulate CO2 emitted from cars and industry, they're not trying to regulate the natural CO2 cycle. Happer's rhetoric here obscures the facts. Agree? If you take this up with Happer, let us know. I think he'd be most welcome to post here, if you'd care to send him the link.
84788. Donald Lewis at 15:57 PM on 26 May 2011
       Skeptical Science Educates My Students
       I found that the parts of this thread that commented on the pedagogy of science were very engaging. Safe to say, IMHO, there is as yet no science of pedagogy, in spite of efforts to create one. On the other hand, whatever ones pedagogical preferences or technology, in any classroom, on any given day, there is a subject. Any sincere teacher will attempt to communicate the advertised subject of the course to the students although, perhaps, in non-conventional ways. However, IMHO, through High School, the goal of a class, whatever the teacher's methods, is typically to establish some level of "cultural literacy" about the subject of the course...especially in science and math classes. For example, action/reaction, oxidation/reduction, r-selection/K-selection, derivative/integral, are all very subtle when considered in detail, but are exactly the kinds of oppositions of which a culturally literate student should be aware If you ever encountered a HIgh School student who could plainly articulate the distinctions among these contrasts, you would be impressed, I imagine. You might also find yourself wondering where they went to school. "A_pirate_looks_at 50" is over the top! For example, I don't believe one can even express the more modern concept of "limit" in the logic of Aristotle. If one grounds ones reasoning in Aristotle, precious little of modern science or math even makes sense. I love Aristotle, but come on! Any pirate looking at 50 who is enchanted by the reigns of Aristotle may perceive the difference between Scholasticism and Science, but has certainly not accepted Science over Scholasticism as a working world view. I mean, let's devote a class to an open debate about how many angels fit on the head of a pin, and walk away thinking the debate actually resolved the issue. The discourse of science has moved on.
84789. Riccardo at 15:47 PM on 26 May 2011
       It's cosmic rays
       Philip Shehan given that gcr count didn't change in the last 70 years or so, Spencer's hypothesis can not change the picture of the last decades. It might only have an effect before then, if any.
84790. kdkd at 15:40 PM on 26 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       Happer certainly fits the profile of a professor who'se "gone emeritus". He seems to be in his 70s, talking about a field outside of the area of his professional expertise (optics - seemingly on small scale stuff of the type that's useful in medical imaging.
84791. Chemware at 15:32 PM on 26 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       @58 Phila Sorry no, it's the other way around. If you have a PhD, you have to back up your claims with either experimental evidence or published literature. If you can't, then your colleagues do not respect you, and value your comments somewhere below those of taxi-drivers. Speaking of published literature, i did a search for publications by Cadbury, Jay on the ISI Web of Knowledge. I found none, only a James Cadbury: an English ecologist who retired in the 1990s. Odd that someone with a PhD has no publications.
84792. Philip Shehan at 15:26 PM on 26 May 2011
       It's cosmic rays
       There is a discussion on Roy Spencer's blog (hope I got the link process right) on a recent though as yet non peer reviewed study by Svensmark. Any comments?
84793. gallopingcamel at 15:25 PM on 26 May 2011
       Can we trust climate models?
       scaddenp @23, The figure you linked claimed ~0.75 degrees difference between the models with and without anthropogenic forcings over the last 100 years. Will similar trends extend over the next 100 years? I would wager $10,000 that it will not but sadly I won't be around to collect my winnings. I could not get to the Hare et al. paper as it was behind a $34.95 pay wall. However, it does sounds like something that addresses the right questions. You seem to be open minded so I want you to tune in to the History Channel at 9 p.m Eastern Standard Time on Friday, May 27th. The program is called "Little Ice Age - Big Chill". This is global warming/cooling as seen by historians, archaeologists and geologists. Climate models have not done as well as historians when it comes to describing past climate changes. Let's continue this after you have watched the program.
       Response:

       [DB] An open-copy is available here.

84794. Andy Skuce at 15:24 PM on 26 May 2011
       Carter Confusion #2: Green Jobs
       Marcus: I have to admit that I'm not very familiar with the attempt to promote renewable energy in Germany but from what I have read, it seems to support the pessimistic rather than optimistic case for renewables. For example, this is the abstract of a review paper: The allure of an environmentally benign, abundant, and cost-eff ective energy source has led an increasing number of industrialized countries to back public financing of renewable energies. Germany’s experience with renewable energy promotion is often cited as a model to be replicated elsewhere, being based on a combination of farreaching energy and environmental laws that stretch back nearly two decades. This paper critically reviews the current centerpiece of this eff ort, the Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG), focusing on its costs and the associated implications for job creation and climate protection. We argue that German renewable energy policy, and in particular the adopted feed-in tariff scheme, has failed to harness the market incentives needed to ensure a viable and cost-effective introduction of renewable energies into the country’s energy portfolio. To the contrary, the government’s support mechanisms have in many respects subverted these incentives, resulting in massive expenditures that show little long-term promise for stimulating the economy, protecting the environment, or increasing energy security. I was pointed to this paper by an article by George Monbiot--hardly a shill for business-as-usual--.Solar PV has failed in Germany and it will fail in the UK He wrote: In principle, tens of thousands of jobs have been created in the German PV industry, but this is gross jobs, not net jobs: had the money been used for other purposes, it could have employed far more people. The paper estimates that the subsidy for every solar PV job in Germany is €175,000: in other words the subsidy is far higher than the money the workers are likely to earn. This is a wildly perverse outcome. Moreover, most of these people are medium or highly skilled workers, who are in short supply there. They have simply been drawn out of other industries. I wish it were not so. Certainly, lucky countries like Australia will fare far better with solar energy, but those of us who live closer to the poles are going to have to try much harder. Any claims we make that renewable energy subsidies will be a boon for jobs will--and should--be scrutinized carefully.
84795. Andy Skuce at 14:55 PM on 26 May 2011
       Carter Confusion #2: Green Jobs
       Adelady: I agree that energy conservation measures in buildings often do represent easy money returns. However, we do have to ask why homeowners are not all rushing to do these easy things. One problem may be that many people do a quick mental calculation that goes like "If I spend $1000 dollars and save only $50 per year on my heating bills, then it will take me 20 years to get my money back. Forget it, instead I'll leave my money in a savings account where it's earning 2% interest." To help overcome this, I think we need incentives/subsidies to encourage people to do this work and higher energy prices, too. Also, we need somehow to be able to capture the added value of energy-saving upgrades in housing price appraisals, perhaps with some kind of mandatory energy efficiency audit on all resales. In short, a few thousand-dollar bills are indeed lying there ready to be picked up in exchange for negawatts but we still need to prod people to do it.
84796. scaddenp at 14:55 PM on 26 May 2011
       Can we trust climate models?
       "To suggest that suddenly CO2 is a major factor makes no sense." Then try reading some more. The planet has changed in the past because the forcings have changed in the past. Furthermore, our model for climate successfully predicts how much change will happen for a given change in forcing. Changes to CO2 in the past have always affected climate but the CO2 changed as feedback. You cant make milankovitch forcings produce the scale of temperature change without the feedback from CO2. The problem with the idea that it is "just a natural change" is showing what natural forcing has changed that can explain the current climate. For climate with or without anthro forcings, see this figure. For the question as to what would happen if all anthro emissions stopped see Hare and Mannshausen 2006
84797. Albatross at 14:49 PM on 26 May 2011
       Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
       Rob and Les, That is intriguing about Happer's involvement with JASON. Interestingly, Donald Rapp was also involved with JASON and has been up to similar shenanigans. I wonder whether or not Rapp and Happer are pals? It would explain a lot and would not reflect well on Happer, because Rapp lifted swaths of text from the Wegman report. DeepClimate has the juicy details. It seems that Happer joins Lindzen in abusing his academic credentials and affiliations with ivy league universities.
84798. Albatross at 14:38 PM on 26 May 2011
       Skeptical Science Educates My Students
       I may have missed it amongst all the obfuscation, but as far I can see Apirate has still not managed to answer the question posed @64..... If Prof Mandia is still following this thread I would like to thank him for all of his efforts.
84799. gallopingcamel at 14:18 PM on 26 May 2011
       Can we trust climate models?
       Kevin C #20, OK, I accept that clarification. You were not claiming the ability to do something that has eluded everyone else. scaddenp @21, That is pretty much my view. There have been huge swings in global temperature over the last 50,000 years in spite of the fact that for most of that time CO2 concentrations were stable. To suggest that suddenly CO2 is a major factor makes no sense. Imagine that you have a magic wand that can eliminate all anthropogenic CO2 emissions overnight. Based on what CGMs can tell us, what would be the effect on global temperatures?
84800. Marcus at 14:16 PM on 26 May 2011
       Skeptical Science Educates My Students
       "So, you are calling 260-280 ppm CO2 normal, and anything above that is abnormal and caused by humans. To be "normal" the Earth's atmospheric CO2 concentration needs to be within that very narrow range. Anything above 280 ppm is abnormal and leads to global energy imbalance." Hmmm, clearly you're not aware of what the Holocene Era is? I did state that this range was *normal* for the Holocene Era-or the last 12,000 years, so anything above that range could be considered to be *abnormal*, especially within the frame of reference of human civilization. Also, given that we had about 25,000 years of CO2 concentrations between 260ppm & 280ppm, & also given that we've had the better part of 1 million years of CO2 concentrations of between 220ppm & 280ppm (between the various glacial & inter-glacial periods) then I'd say it is pretty fair to call this range *normal*, at least as far as human civilization is concerned. Its only been since the industrial era that CO2 levels ever got above 300ppm, & today they're now higher than they've been in at least 30 million years. Then you need to consider the *time-frame* in which CO2 emissions have risen, compared to in the past. Pre-industrial changes in CO2 occurred over a period of millenia to tens of millenia, whereas recent rises in CO2 emissions have occurred in the space of less than 3 centuries, with about 80% of that rise being in just the last 100 years. So, yes, in terms of both levels & speed of increase, its entirely fair to say that anything above 280ppm can be considered *abnormal* & contributing to the current energy imbalance-& that's even before we consider the ratio of the various isotopic fingerprints of the CO2 that's been measured at Mauna Loa over the past 50-odd years. I also pointed out that Global Warming is a completely distinct phenomenon to the Greenhouse Effect-the former is caused by an energy *imbalance* resulting from some change in one or more "external" forcings, whereas the latter is the natural *balance* between incoming & outgoing energy that is meant to maintain our planet at about 33 degrees C warmer than its Black-body temperature would seem to suggest, thus making our planet habitable. Again, if you don't understand all these very basic issues, then exactly how can you teach them to students?

Prev  1688  1689  1690  1691  1692  1693  1694  1695  1696  1697  1698  1699  1700  1701  1702  1703  Next