Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1708 1709 1710 1711 1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 Next
Comments 85751 to 85800:
-
Harry Seaward at 22:56 PM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Let's make sure we are using terms properly. The predicted 3C rise is a hypothesis, not a theory. It could be stated: If atmospheric CO2 levels continue to rise at current rates, then we can expect a 3C rise in temperature over the next years. A hypothesis attempts to answer questions by putting forth a plausible explanation that has yet to be rigorously tested. A theory, on the other hand, has already undergone extensive testing by various scientists and is generally accepted as being an accurate explanation of an observation. This doesn’t mean the theory is correct; only that current testing has not yet been able to disprove it, and the evidence as it is understood, appears to support it. A theory will often start out as a hypothesis -- an educated guess to explain observable phenomenon. The scientist will attempt to poke holes in his or her hypothesis. If it survives the applied methodologies of science, it begins to take on the significance of a theory to the scientist. The next step is to present the findings to the scientific community for further, independent testing. The more a hypothesis is tested and holds up, the better accepted it becomes as a theory. By the way, what is the historic observation that led to the formation of the AGW hypothesis? -
Harry Seaward at 22:44 PM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Phil at 139 What if the 3 C rise doesn't happen? -
chris at 22:44 PM on 13 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
In fact what I just wrote isn't fully fair. Dr. Lindzen continues to publish basic research on atmospheric physics, and presumably does retain the imperative to find stuff out. Perhaps it's fairer to state that he seems able to compartmentalize his science-science from his science-politics... -
chris at 22:32 PM on 13 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
Wegener is an interesting example. Of course he's not an "analog" for Lindzen since Wegener followed his scientific heart honestly (and of course turned out to be correct - but also a little incorrect too), whereas Dr. Lindzen knowingly misinterprets the science and presumably has rather sadly lost the impulse to make real discoveries that all young scientists (and most not-so-young ones!) have. Every individual and their circumstances and social/scientific environment is different. So Wegener's studies were done at a time when there was neither a particularly strong scientific imperative to address the apparent physical, geological and environmental relationships between several adjacent continental margins, nor any political imperative whatsoever to do so. And whereas Wegener's ideas were right in essence (those inter-continental margin relationships were real and the result of actual juxtapositions in the deep past), Wegener couldn't propose any sort of realistic mechanism, and this differs from the situation today, re the evidence base that informs us on climate change, and the false evidence base that drives Lindzen-style analyses. Wegener's mechanistic proposals were rightly rejected (he suggested that the continents might be driven through the oceanic crust under the gravitational influence of the moon, for example). And he was inherently incorrect in that continents don't "drift". Rather they "piggy-back" on the plates to which they are very firmly attached.... -
Phil at 22:20 PM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
RW1 @131 You are playing semantics here too: The AGW theory of a 3 C rise in the next 100 years is not falsifiable in the way other 'accepted' scientific theories are. A 3C rise in global temperatures is not a theory, it is a prediction made by applying the theories of climate physics (along with a guestimate of projected fossil fuel use). Those theories are typically not only applicable to the planetary atmosphere and so can be independently verified by experimentation. (An obvious example is fluid dynamics which can be studied in the lab). Other theories of climate physics can be verified either by direct observation or by hindcast. The fact that the prediction is not falsifiable is obvious - if it were it would not be a prediction, and would therefore be of no use to us. -
JMurphy at 22:13 PM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Bud wrote : "Consensus is a political process." This seems to be the definition of 'consensus' that the so-called skeptics are using : Consensus has been decided by politicians (presumably led by Al Gore ?), who have somehow forced the science to comply. It is a very ideological meaning which is totally opposed to the actual meaning of consensus, i.e. general, widespread, majority agreement. -
Camburn at 21:44 PM on 13 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
Does Alfred Wegener come to mind....and he is very recent. -
Berényi Péter at 21:17 PM on 13 May 2011Tracking the energy from global warming
The situation with satellite measurements of net TOA radiative imbalance is worse than we thought. I have already shown you ample evidence that the absolute magnitude of this imbalance is not measured at all by satellites alone in any reasonable sense. The only thing we can hope for is a relative measurement of net TOA radiative imbalance by satellites, that is, its changes over time independent of the (unknown) baseline. Indeed, using Net_TOA_Imbalance_Stackhouse_2009.txt derived from slide 21. Stackhouse 2009 and assuming a uniform error of ±0.41 W/m2 for their monthly averages (as indicated in the presentation), we get a positive trend of 113 ± 14 mW/m2/year for net TOA radiative imbalance between March 2000 and September 2009 (the entire timespan of their data). Therefore heat content accumulation in the climate system, being proportional to the temporal integral of net TOA radiation imbalance, should be accelerating in this nine and a half year long interval. That is, the acceleration term has a positive value of 0.182 ± 0.023 × 1022 J/year2. On the other hand all reconstructions show a marked deceleration of Upper Ocean Heat Content Anomaly accumulation for the same period.
Specifically the NOAA NODC Global Ocean heat Content page shows the same.
With the additional advantage of having digital data with proper error bars online, of course.
Therefore it is possible to calculate the acceleration term for the accumulation of heat in the upper 700 m of oceans between 2nd quarter 2000 and 3rd quarter 2009. This value is −0.116 ± 0.038 × 1022 J/year2, it is negative, as expected.
Heat content of the upper 700 m of oceans is only a fraction of heat content of the entire climate system, but it is a considerable fraction, close to 70%. That is, acceleration term of heat content accumulation calculated for the entire system should be even less, around −0.166 ± 0.054 × 1022 J/year2
Taking into account the error bars we have calculated for the acceleration term of heat content accumulation arrived at by two different methods (statellites for net TOA imbalance vs. in situ measurement of OHC), the results are absolutely inconsistent, separated by some 5σ(!).
The inconsistency is indeed profound. And it shows up between two independent measurements of the same quantity, not between theory and measurement.
It means the radiative imbalance at TOA is not measured at all, not even by satellites aided by OHC measurements. Something is surely wrong here, even if at this level on can't readily pinpoint the error.
My best guess is the inferior quality of OHC data prior to mid-2003 (the ARGO era), which would imply a negative average radiative imbalance at TOA over the last decade, that is, net loss of heat by the climate system, not a gain, as it would be required by computational climate models. In other words, Trenberth's missing heat is not going into some mysterious current heat reservoir, but it can be found in the past (and was radiated out to space since then).
But even if it is not so, the inconsistency shown above still begs for a resolution. If anyone knew a paper explicitly discusing the issue, a pointer is welcome.
-
Phil at 20:40 PM on 13 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
Oops sorry. les was @34 not @31 -
Phil at 20:39 PM on 13 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
les @31 Just saying "The maverick in science is often correct" without the justification is gibberish or propaganda... You could say "the Maverick in science who is correct is more often remembered by posterity than the maverick who is wrong". -
Dikran Marsupial at 20:30 PM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Tom Curtis@128 Interesting points. It seems to me that Popper is trying to define what science is, whereas Kuhn seems more concerned with how science actually happens. Since scientists are human beings, rather than vulcans, it isn't that surprising that the way science actually happens isn't necessarily always completely scientific. However the point about concensus is that (i) concensus is a consequence of science, not a cause, and can also occurr for sociological reasons and (ii) as no group of scienctists every agree completely on anything some common sense has to be applied as to what is meant by a concensus. At the end of the day, the fact that a very broad concensus does exist in climatology, is good evidence that the science is solid. This is especially true given that the dissenters from the concensus are not ignored, they get their papers published in the journals, where their work is discussed. If the dissenters had some solid evidence behind them, they would eventually break down the concensus and there would be a paradigm shift. But such shifts only occurr where there is good reason. -
Dikran Marsupial at 20:18 PM on 13 May 2011CO2 has a short residence time
drrocket@50 I made no such assumption, the fact that the natural environment is a net sink, not an emitter is a conclusion, not a premise. The observed annual rise is less than anthropogenic emissions, therefore the natural environment must be a net sink. "I would have no use for adjustment time under any circumstances because the climate system never reaches equilibrium." This is a silly statement, the adjustment time describes the accumulation or dissapation of atmospheric CO2, not the residence time. This is true whether the system reaches equilibrium or not. The average time molecules stay in the atmosphere is irrelevant, becuase almost all of the flux out of the atmosphere is an exchange of carbon with the oceans/terrestrial bioshpehe, not an uptake. If carbon is only being exchanged between reservoirs, it has no effect on atmospheric CO2 levels, and hence is entirely irrelevant. As I said, like Essenhigh, you are confusing residence time with adjustment time. It is adjustment time that matters. "It's missing E_a altogether." As E_a is in my equation, I suspect you mean U_a. The reason for that is U_a, which represents uptake of carbon by anthropogenic means, is negligible compared to anthropogenic emissions. How much carbon sequestration are we doing at the moment? Very little. If you assume that U_a = 0.6E_a then you obviously don't understand the mass balance equation. U_a would be the amount of carbon taken out of the atmosphere each year by our activity rather than by natural mechanisms (i.e. essentially zilch). It is not the amount of anthropogenic CO2 taken up by the environment. "If you have any accountancy homework, just post it here, too, for lessons. " You still have not risen to the challenge, so I wouldn't be so cocky if I were you. The challenge was to provide values for E_a, E_n, U_n and dC, where the natural environment was a net source (i.e. E_n > u_n) but where the annual rise in CO2 was less than anthropogenic emissions (i.e. dC < E_a). You won't be able to do so, for the simple reason that it is mathematically impossible, and that is how we know for sure that the natural environment is a net sink. Go on, all you need to do is provide those four numbers, if you are right and the natural envionment is the cause of the aobserved rise, you ought to have no problem doing so. -
EFox at 19:42 PM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
I'll admit that I haven't had time to read through all of the large list of comments here so this point may have already been raised. I do not dispute that there is sufficient evidence to prove the existence of a consensus in climate change science - Anderegg, Oreskes are good surveys in this matter. However Doran's survey, as I know has been commented, only 79 specialised climate scientists were present in the sample of 3146. The 97% comes from that small sample. I think it is only fair and wise that this article should mention it. I Believe it is an excellent survey and shows the strength of the consensus within the related natural sciences and that is sufficient as climate science is a subfield of this. I am from the field of social science and study climate change receptiveness of the public. Trust is a vital part of that response. To not mention the figure of 79 appears as disingenuous. Trust can be very hard to build but extremely easy to break. A further point - although I am a big fan of this blog it follows the model of information-deficit where what is needed to move the public is more accurate knowledge. However in the social sciences there is plenty of evidence where knowledge doesn't lead to change. It is far more complicated than that. However despite this I see this info-deficit model repeatedly trundled out in uncritical style - The Paul Nurse Horizon programme is a classic example of this. No real change will occur until we move beyond this blind-spot into the very depths of the structures of our societies. It is a contradiction that climate scientists keep saying listen to the experts but when it comes to the social element of climate change they continually snub the experts in societal dynamics (Sociologists, human geographers etc (I exclude social psychology as it is too individualist a science and thus reduces society to the myth of individuals) If you really want to know about changing the public's mind we need to understand how they encounter climate change in their everyday lives - two books I would highly recommend in this regard is Hulme "Why We Disagree About Climate Change" and Norgaard "Living in Denial". If climate change teaches us anything it is of the complex and systemic nature of the earth systems to which only an interdisciplinary response is sufficient. -
chris at 19:20 PM on 13 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
RSVP "An analog much harder to find is a mob that admits its mistake. You're being a little hard on the likes of Drs Lindzen (and e.g. Spencer and Christy). I wouldn't call them a "mob" even if their actions are rather ill-considered. Perhaps you meant that they have a tendency to incite "mobs"! Maybe a bit of British-style kettling would be in order.... Actually Drs Spencer and Christy didn't so much "admit their mistakes" as have them pointed out in a manner that was impossible to deny (see pages 972/3). -
alan_marshall at 19:12 PM on 13 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
Galileo had to do deal with the skeptics of his age. He parodied them in his “Dialogue” by putting their arguments in the mouth of a character he called Simplicio. Galileo put his own life in danger because he would not deny the evidence of his eyes. Lindzen is not a Galileo, but rather a Simplicio. -
les at 18:47 PM on 13 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
31. RSVP Indeed (ignoring the fact that Ohm is a pretty poor example of controversy in science!) ... Again the point is that history contains examples of people who swam against the tide - some where right, some wrong, some right about some things and wrong about others (which includes Newton and Einstein), some recognized as right before they died, others after, others where just plain wrong... You have to justify - over and above "doesn't agree with the consensus" - why you think X is like Y, and justify it against the relevant history of science. Just saying "The maverick in science is often correct" without the justification is gibberish or propaganda... As I mentioned above, Laithwaite was, to some degree, "The maverick in science is often incorrect"... Why isn't he like that?!?!? Of course, for people who aren't used to doing a careful analysis and argument, such throwaway lines come naturally (see the blog links in the above article). I'd hope that SkS commentators would function at a higher level. -
veryred at 17:02 PM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Thought of making this into a t-shirt? I'd buy one if it were available. -
actually thoughtful at 16:54 PM on 13 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
All of us who used fossil fuel for most of our lives and now admit it was wrong and are working to stop it are quite a powerful mob. I predict that the next El Nino will trigger the climate change policy changes we need. Dana - this is a GREAT article. Thank you. I really like the what he said then, what he says now, and where is right and wrong setup. It feels much fairer than the original - tear apart his 1989 positions.Response:[dana1981] Thanks!
-
Tom Curtis at 15:47 PM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
RW1 @131, yes, I am accusing you of semantics. Anybody who can say that a theory can be so widely accepted in science that nobody even bothers to test it any more, but that at the same time there is no scientific consensus in favour of that theory as you have clearly done is playing semantics. Given your statement in @124, consistent with your use of the word, 100% of climate scientists could believe AGW and you would still deny that there was a consensus. Ergo your denial is just so much empty posturing. -
David Horton at 15:37 PM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Of the many extraordinary things that deniers manage to believe before breakfast, the idea that "consensus" is a kind of political order imposed upon scientists from above forcing them to confess, in some kind of Stalinist or McCarthyist show trial, to things they don't believe in so they won't be killed or purged, must be the most extraordinary. Does "consensus" in this field have some other meaning than "The great majority of climate scientists believe that global warming is occurring as a result of increasing ghg production from human activities"; just as "the great majority of biologists believe evolution is occurring as a result of natural selection" has only one meaning? How can you not understand that the effectively 100% of climate scientists who are in fundamental agreement on the basic facts of climate science represent the separately reached conclusions, based on evidence, of thousands of scientists? How do deniers imagine that you would impose "consensus", in the sense they mean, on those thousands of scientists in various sub-disciplines (and indeed other disciplines like ecology providing evidence that agrees with the consensus) in countries all round the world, both in the present and retrospectively on research carried out on the past? Just a rhetorical question. Or it should be. -
RSVP at 15:15 PM on 13 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
An analog much harder to find is a mob that admits its mistake. -
RSVP at 15:12 PM on 13 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
"Those who would champion Richard Lindzen need to find another analog" Copernicus or Ohm might do. The sad part being that their "being right" was only received recognized after they died. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Ohm -
Bob Lacatena at 14:43 PM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
131, RW1,The AGW theory of a 3 C rise in the next 100 years is not falsifiable in the way other 'accepted' scientific theories are.
For the eighth time now, the evidence that you have refused to acknowledge, address or understand, going back to the "negative cloud feedback" debate, is the multiple lines of evidence that demonstrate a climate sensitivity of 3˚C or more per doubling of CO2.Given that it requires a response so much greater than the measured response of the system to surface incident energy makes it an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof.
And that proof is more than there for anyone who doesn't simply shut their eyes, cover their ears, and sing "nah nah nah." -
scaddenp at 14:36 PM on 13 May 2011Models are unreliable
Trunkmonkey - try Wally Was Right, Alley 2007. I have extremely limited internet access at moment, so hard to further. I dont really understand what you mean by "CO2 knob" backed off. Firstly, YD is too fast for CO2 feedback to be much of a factor. Secondly, all CO2 does in a model is change radiative forcing. I dont think there is an Ar4 model that could realistically predict CO2 change as a feedback - can only feed in what actually happened. -
RW1 at 14:21 PM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Tom Curtis, And you accuse me of playing semantics? I know exactly what I'm talking about. Perhaps I better way to put it would be falsification testing. The point is for a theory to be sound it must be thoroughly testable, which means it must be falsifiable or have a clear idea of what evidence would be sufficient to prove it untrue. The only 'consensus' or accepted aspect of climate science is that anthropogenic CO2 will perturb the climate system. The AGW theory of a 3 C rise in the next 100 years is not falsifiable in the way other 'accepted' scientific theories are. Given that it requires a response so much greater than the measured response of the system to surface incident energy makes it an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof. At best it's an educated guess - more so it's an unfalsifiable series of heuristic assumptions. -
trunkmonkey at 13:37 PM on 13 May 2011Models are unreliable
CBDunkerson 368. I don't see THC as hemispheric balancing. The Antarctic has plenty of cold salty water. Some say it even undercuts the Atlantic bottom water. I would describe the THC as an Antarctic beltway, both bottom and surface water, with three feed loops into the Pacific, Atlantic, and Inian Oceans. It balances overall ocean temperature by cooling the Pacific and Indian Oceans and warming the Atlantic, the only ocean directly connected to Arctic bttom water. I am not trying to reconstruct Singer and Avery.They have done that ably, and it is interesting, but I am tired of the notion that adding CO2 does NOTHING. It would be nice if we could get a model to reproduce the Younger Dryas or the 8.2ky event by adding meltwater. My suggestion: try it again with the CO2 knob backed off. -
Tom Curtis at 13:06 PM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
RW1 @124:"Scientific theories generally become 'accepted' after rigorous falsification testing fails repeatedly and when all the existing evidence is in strict accordance with the theory (i.e. no pieces of contradictory evidence exist). When any such theories become accepted, there is never a 'consensus'."
Translated: the theory becomes 'accepted' by all, or nearly all scientists; but there is no 'consensus' amongst scientists about that theory. So your whole argument is based on an empty word game. (Worse than empty, because the meaning of the word consensus is well known, and has been clearly explained several times in this thread, so you 'misunderstanding' of its meaning cannot be simple ignorance.) -
Stephen Baines at 13:01 PM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
RW1 @ 125 What you fail to accept is that most of the evidence for climate change, and the human impact on it was generated by multiple and multifarious attempts to test those predictions. It was not assembled post facto. Thus we have evidence that temperature has increased not only over land but in the oceans and in the troposphere, that sea levels has risen, that CO2 has increased, that CO2 is human in origin, that it has influenced radiative transfer, that changes in distribution of heating geographically, vertically in the atmosphere and in time correspond to predicted effects of CO2 on warming (fingerprinting). Finally, we currently have no physically realistic model of climate that can recreate the current pattern without CO2 forcing. The effect of human produced CO2 was on climate has past multiple tests, sometimes repeatedly. What more could you want? -
Tom Curtis at 12:58 PM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
RW1 @119:"Science advances primarily through falsification and paradigm shifts. So-called 'consensus' has nothing to do with science."
What an incoherent statement. Falsification is an idea from Popper about how science advances. It is in fact a false idea. As has been frequently pointed out, you cannot test any theory in isolation, but only in together with a number of auxiliary hypotheses (Duhem-Quine thesis). If the test fails, what is falsified is not the theory, but the conjunction of the theory and all those auxiliary hypothesis. That is, if the test fails, we know that at either the theory is false, or that least one of the auxiliary hypotheses is false - but we don't know which one. Nor do we know if the change required to the theory or auxiliary hypotheses to make them true are minor, or radical. Naive falsificationists, if consistent, would insist that Newton abandon his theory of gravity when it was first formulated because it included the (known falsehood) that astronomical bodies are point masses; and his theory of motion because canon balls never match a parabola in their flight. Popper was far more sensible than his interpreters and maintained that whether something was falsified or not was largely a matter of convention. Paradigms are the invention of Thomas Kuhn, a historian of science who knew Popper's account simply did not match actual scientific practise (nor can because of the Duhem-Quine hypothesis. He therefore proposed his theory of scientific revolutions and paradigm shifts in opposition to falsificationism. Saying that science advances by falsification and paradigm shifts is like saying wood burns by oxidation and by emitting phlogiston. It shows RW1 to be illiterate on the philosophy of science. What is more puzzling (if we assumed that he knew what he was talking about, is that a paradigm shift only occurs when a new consensus forms around a particular theory. RW1 has just claimed that science doesn't work by consensus, but rather it works by falsification and an incommensurable scientific consensus forming around new theories. In fact, both theories are false. Science advances by the empirical testing of theories, with rational support being given to those theories which have the best track record, and show the best prospects of fruitful prediction. Currently there exist an incoherent hodgepodge of theories that agree about nothing except that humans are not responsible for the majority of 20th century climate change, and that we couldn't do anything about it if we were; and the theory of AGW. The former hodgepodge of ideas have an almost uniform record of predictive failure, while the theory of AGW has a solid record of predictive success. Naturally this record has attracted knowledgeable scientists who gravitate to that theory as a result. Despite this, deniers keep on trying their little two-step. 1) They claim that because two dentists in Woking disagree with AGW, there is a significant scientific debate on AGW (or AGW has been falsified) and therefore it is too early to act against future warming. 2) And when this appeal to authority is challenged by pointing out that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists accept the evidence for AGW, they claim that science is not settled by consensus (true) and that we are resorting to argument by authority (false).Moderator Response: Martin Gardner wrote a good critique of Popper. Here is quote he reprinted: "'Sir Karl Popper / Perpetrated a whopper / When he boasted to the world that he and he alone / Had toppled Rudolf Carnap from his Vienna Circle throne.' —a clerihew by Armand T. Ringer" -
Bob Lacatena at 12:56 PM on 13 May 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
203, RW1, A trend is only needed to establish that warming is occurring, and that has been done. The trend will not help to distinguish natural versus anthropogenic causes, unless your technique is to wait a bunch of decades to see if it reverses on its own (in which case, how long is long enough to satisfy you?). If the only proof that you will accept is dangerously and continuously rising temperatures, and you won't do anything about it until decades have passed, then we're pretty much sunk. But fortunately we don't need that. The effects of CO2 were predicted long before we had evidence that it was in fact happening, and many, many lines of evidence support the theory, including paleoclimate, theoretical physics, supporting observations of a variety of factors, and complex computer models. More importantly, we know that there is nothing else that could be causing the warming. We've measured solar output, and it hasn't increased. All GCR studies have so far come up completely negative. There is no reasonable, competing theory, so to paraphrase Sherlock Holmes, when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how desperately you refuse to believe that it's true, must in fact be the truth. -
Same Ordinary Fool at 12:55 PM on 13 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
The primary difference between Galileo and Lindzen is that Galileo was at the front edge of new discoveries. People who don't know what he found still remember that he was persecuted for publishing something new. On the other hand, Lindzen is at the rump end in the march of climate science. Fifty-sixty years ago, his no-significant-CO2-effect position was the consensus position among climate scientists. It has since declined to only 3% (or 1%, with 2% don't know). This distinction is of obvious interest to those who don't know much climate science, and are looking for other indications of validity. Those who would champion Richard Lindzen need to find another analog. In the history of science are there any examples of scientific positions that have declined to 3% participation, yet eventually prevailed? -
trunkmonkey at 12:55 PM on 13 May 2011Models are unreliable
KR 365. The models are unable to make specific predictions at a decadal scale to be contradicted or confirmed, except that it will be warmer at the end.Various alternative celestial and cyclical hypotheses are likewise untestable at a decadal scale. Those who wait breathlessly for yearly GAT data are making essentially the same mistake as one who guages global warming by his backyard thermometer. -
Stephen Baines at 12:31 PM on 13 May 2011CO2 has a short residence time
Previous post addressed to drrocket @ 49 -
Stephen Baines at 12:30 PM on 13 May 2011CO2 has a short residence time
"I would have no use for adjustment time under any circumstances because the climate system never reaches equilibrium. " The fact that the atmosphere is not now in equilibrium has no bearing on this debate. That is a red herring. The residence time also has almost no bearing on how quickly the CO2 added to the atmosphere will be absorbed by the biosphere. What matters are net exchanges between the atmosphere and the terrestrial and oceanic reservoirs and how those net exchanges have changed with increasing pCO2. These net exchanges are small relative to the atmospheric reservoir. You are misinterpreting the phrase 'anthropogenic fluxes' in the IPCC graph. The 'anthropogenic fluxes' are simply the difference between pre and post industrial fluxes. It does not refer to fates of carbon dioxide molecules specifically produced by natural or anthropogenic carbon emissions - although I can see where the confusion arises. Basically the fluxes into the ocean have increased due to the effects of increasing pCO2 on solution chemistry. On land net losses have increased due to forect conversion and inputs have increased slightly because of CO2 fertilization (yes, skeptics, it is accounted for). It's that simple. This usage of "anthropogenic fluxes" makes sense to scientists, because it is the only way to discuss the effect of humans on the carbon cycle. The idea that these processes don't discriminate between natural and anthropogenic carbon is a given to them, and it's ludicrous to suggest that the scientists are trying to pull the wool over your eyes on that front. The reason the confusion is arising is precisely because it wouldn't even enter their minds that someone would consider that possibility. They are naive that way (and I include myself in that judgement). Your outrage is misplaced. -
kevin s at 12:20 PM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
RW1: Wow. You show me a list of what you would call "accepted theories" and I'll show you a list of what I would call "laws of nature." But then, what would you call a theory that is a synthesis of known physics that does meet your "accepted theories" criteria (but also includes elements that involve some uncertainty), has good predictive value, has no competing theories that come anywhere close to explaining the data as well, and that has survived decades of spirited challenges? And what word would you use to express the idea that, among those most familiar with the evidence in the field, almost all are persuaded by this theory? -
RW1 at 12:13 PM on 13 May 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
BTW, I'm not dismissing the trend. I'm simply saying the trend is not large enough to clearly distinguish causation - primarily natural or anthropogenic. -
Bob Lacatena at 12:10 PM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
124, RW1, I don't think you understand. "Consensus" is just a word, which describes the situation where scientific theories generally become 'accepted' after rigorous falsification testing fails repeatedly and when all the existing evidence is in strict accordance with the theory (i.e. no pieces of contradictory evidence exist). This has pretty much happened, and the only case where there is more still unknown than known and significant uncertainties and contradictory pieces of evidence abound is in the minds of those who desperately want such uncertainties and evidence to exist, to the point that they are in complete denial, and turn everything upside-down. You are correct in saying that significant research on the subjects' many facets continues from all perspectives, but that research is being done by the real scientists, not the skeptics in denial, and the goal is to learn more, wherever the truth may not, and not to simply prove it wrong at all costs. In the meantime, we're digging ourselves a deeper and deeper hole. -
RW1 at 12:08 PM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Stephen Baines (RE: 123), "And what happens when scientific propositions survive attempts to falsify them? What is/are the primary falsification tests for AGW? -
dana1981 at 12:08 PM on 13 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
Victor - we addressed the hypothesis of an internal forcing in Christy Crock #3, I believe. But that wasn't Lindzen's argument, so I didn't address it here. -
RW1 at 12:05 PM on 13 May 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
I'm well aware of what I've been 'told'. -
RW1 at 11:52 AM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Sphaerica (RE: 121), "You have it upside-down. We don't have a consensus because we need proof, we have a consensus because we have proof." I don't think you understand. There is no such thing as 'consensus' on anything in science. Scientific theories generally become 'accepted' after rigorous falsification testing fails repeatedly and when all the existing evidence is in strict accordance with the theory (i.e. no pieces of contradictory evidence exist). When any such theories become accepted, there is never a 'consensus'. There is more or less a cessation of further testing and research on the theories. This is certainly no where near the case with climate science, as there is more still unknown than known and significant uncertainties and contradictory pieces of evidence abound. Significant research on the subjects' many facets continues from all perspectives. -
Michael Hauber at 11:46 AM on 13 May 2011Book reviews of Climate Change Denial
'One side is behaving hysterically while the other relies on science' A generalisation which I think is true quite often. But there are plenty of exceptions. Or at least as long as I take relying on the science to cover those who make the attempt but fail. And I think by far the biggest problem with denialism is the fact that discussion on genuine uncertainties suffers. Initiating discussion on an uncertain topic is likely to be savagely attacked by the deniers, as such a topic is going to be the closest thing they have to a real argument. And so it takes confidence to raise such issues, and none are so confident as those who are certain of themselves, when no justification for this certainy exists. -
Stephen Baines at 11:40 AM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
115 @Tom Curtis Thanks for the link! Exactly what I was asking for. That matches my memory pretty well. I wonder if there would be a way to turn that info into a nice graphic. 119 @ RW1 "Science advances primarily through falsification and paradigm shifts. So-called 'consensus' has nothing to do with science." And what happens when scientific propositions survive attempts to falsify them? You get consensus. Without it you cannot have establish settled scientific propositions upon which to build future work and science essentially stops. I'm not sure how you can say consensus has no role in science. The fact is there used to be plenty of scientists skeptical about the proposition that the earth was warming and that humans were responsible. They have slowly been convinced by the evidence over time. Only a few diehards still remain concerning those two central issues. -
Eric (skeptic) at 11:35 AM on 13 May 2011CO2 has a short residence time
drrocket, the IPCC diagram that we both linked above is misleading and I should have said so instead of saying the red arrows are the "new" or ACO2. Going from the atmosphere to the ocean there 22.2 red down and 20 red up. And there is 70 black down, 70.6 black up. Those ratios cannot be different since the ocean is nonpreferential. Nor are those arrows equal ratios of the reservoirs, not that it matters. The simplest explanation of the red down and up arrows is that they wanted to show some amount of CO2 exchange but wanted the net exchange to equal 2.2 down or about 1/3 of the 6.4 from fossil fuels. Net red transfer cannot possibly differ from net black transfer, but they ignored that fact and made it different. Other than that correction, my closing remark above still stands. I didn't justify it, but other people in the thread did. It is not shilling for this site, but my own conclusion from a few facts. One fact is that the 6.4 GtC/yr released by fossil fuels and cement is an accurate estimate. The second fact is that the year to year increase in the atmosphere is about 1.9 ppm measured at numerous locations. The first fact means that the atmosphere should rise by about 3.6 ppm. The second fact means that the ocean and biosphere is absorbing some of that 3.6 so we only see 1.9 remain in the atmosphere on a yearly basis. -
Victor at 11:29 AM on 13 May 2011Models are unreliable
Here some new stuff about climate models. According a paper from J.Hansen, M.Sato and P.Kharecha most IPCC models and GISS modelE-R mix heat too efficiëntly downward through the oceans. The result is that models respond slower on forcings as the real world does. On page 18 in Hansen et al 2011 I read "Below we argue that the real world response function is faster than that of modelE-R. We also suggest that most global climate models are similarly too sluggish in their response to a climate forcing and that this has important implications for anticipated climate change." Adjustments towards less ocean heat uptake are in better agreement with observed OCH trends. Despite the slow response IPCC models do a good job in mimicing global warming. The IPCC underestimates aërosol cooling effects and some models have too large GHG forcings according Hansen. Since the oceans are NOT the favourable place for large antropogenic aërosol influences the answer may be quite more simple: Climate models are too sensitive to GHG (and other forcings) and thus OVERestimate AGW. You can read more about this in chapter 5 t/m 7 of the paper.(Excuse me if this subject is discussed before). -
Bob Lacatena at 11:04 AM on 13 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
86, Victor,Internal variability as a change in heat distribution around the globe also implies effects on snowcover, clouds en water vapour.
The forcing must be maintained. Clouds, water vapor, and even snow cover all react to temperature as well as affecting them. Without a continuous forcing, each of those feedbacks will drop back down....no other forcings exists?
Beyond those we know of, no. Of course, there's a crowd of people trying to come up with new ones (GCR, for example), but so far these are only unproven theories, and to date evidence contradicts rather than supports these theories.Don't forget that these feedbacks, like changing ice-albedo and watervapour, disturb earth radiation budget as well and thus act like forcings.
True, but as already stated, they respond to temperature, as well as affecting temperature. Without a non-temperature influenced, continuous forcing, they will eventually swing back (and generally fairly quickly, based on the climate's known reactions to volcanic eruptions and changes in solar radiance). The factors that are long lived enough to swing the climate are few:- Anthropogenic CO2 (non-anthro, in almost all of the rest of history, has been a very powerful, long lived feedback, rather than a forcing)
- Changes in solar radiance
- Changes in insolation due to orbital changes
- Changes in insolation due to aerosols from dramatic and constant volcanic activity
Satellite measurements of reduced cloudiness (ERBE, ISCCP-clouds) implies that such internal forcings do exist.
I don't know what this means. Can you clarify? -
Bern at 10:59 AM on 13 May 2011Book reviews of Climate Change Denial
mclamb6: you're absolutely right, it's not difficult to see which is which. That's why I come to sites like this one, or Real Climate, or Tamino's Open Mind, or many others (there's a great listing of links in the right column on Real Climate, for example). They're always eager to discuss the latest developments in the science, and many of them do it in a surprisingly accessible fashion for the non-climate scientists like myself. The Ville: The podcast will be available at The Science Show's website. It's a great radio program, I've been listening to it for many years (although I have to say I'm well behind in listening to the podcasts). It's also available on iTunes. -
RW1 at 10:58 AM on 13 May 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
Robert S (RE: 193), "No, it can't. I think you're confused as to what a trend represents -- it's the average slope, not the temperature [anomaly] at a point in time." No, I fully understand the what a trend represents. I've never not understood what a trend represents. Yes, a trend does not represent a temperature anomaly at a point in time. I fail to see how this in anyway contradicts anything I've said. "If that were the criteria we would never be able to discern a trend in any observational series. I'd feel a whole lot better about my stock portfolio over the past 4 years." We are talking about natural variability here, not whether or not there is trend. The point is when the trend amount is less than or equal to the observed short term variations over the whole of the trend, it can't really be distinguished from random natural variability. Contrast this with a trend of 3 C over 30 years. This is much more likely to be outside the range of natural variability since the trend amount is so much greater than the short term, random variability.Moderator Response: You have been told before that it is not legitimate to offhandedly dismiss a trend merely because the noise seems large. There are rock solid statistical methods for computing probability of the trend over a given amount of time, given the particular noise level. -
Bob Lacatena at 10:51 AM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
120, apiratelooksat50, Sorry about your Achilles. That's got a long recovery time, but I know a few people who have done it, and they were all fine (eventually). Prove/Disprove: 1) Bigfoot- Prove: Find physical evidence, such as a carcass, skeleton, DNA, or live specimen
- Disprove: can't ever be done (unless maybe you can program an army of surveillance robots capable of scouring the entire northwestern part of the continent, leaving no stone unturned).
- Prove: This is a case where real science comes in, because one can rarely ever "prove" anything, and even when you do, that "proof" is founded on other "proven" hypotheses, so if one of them is overturned, everything else collapses as well. But after a while, a compilation of confirming evidence and a paucity of contradictory evidence strengthens the case to the point where one no longer feels that "proof" is needed.
- Disprove: First you need an alternative hypothesis, whether it be a variation on or complete refutation of evolution. Then you need a compelling body of evidence supporting that hypothesis and unambiguously contradicting that of evolution. As an example, Intelligent Design will never be proven or disproven, unless God comes down and interrupts a science lecture at MIT to assume the role of guest speaker.
- Prove: We already have substantial evidence, but this can no more be "proven" than one can "prove" evolution. It's better to speak in terms of "confidence" than "proof."
- Disprove: The answer is the same as with evolution: a feasible hypothesis with supporting (but unambiguous) evidence.
-
Bob Lacatena at 10:35 AM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
119, RW1, You have it upside-down. We don't have a consensus because we need proof, we have a consensus because we have proof. There is also a consensus on lung cancer, ozone and CFCs, the right ways to construct buildings, fly planes, prepare food, etc. The only reason we don't discuss the consensus on those issues is because there aren't masses of people who have been fooled into thinking there's actually any question in those matters. The only reason we do discuss the consensus behind climate change is because of the number of people who so adamantly refuse to look at, understand, and accept the science that proves the facts behind climate change.
Prev 1708 1709 1710 1711 1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 Next
