Recent Comments

Prev  1710  1711  1712  1713  1714  1715  1716  1717  1718  1719  1720  1721  1722  1723  1724  1725  Next

Comments 85851 to 85900:

85851. Harry Seaward at 00:34 AM on 14 May 2011
       Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
       Sphaerica @ 150 Your second paragraph demonstrates you have absolutely no understanding of the use of proper scientific terms. Even the IPCC calls it a projection. Directly from the IPCC AR4 Synthesis SYR Report: "3.2 Projections of future changes in climate <>For the next two decades a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emissions scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all GHGs and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected. Afterwards, temperature projections increasingly depend on specific emissions scenarios (Figure 3.2). {WGI 10.3, 10.7; WGIII 3.2} Since the IPCC’s first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global averaged temperature increases between about 0.15 and 0.3°C per decade from 1990 to 2005. This can now be compared with observed values of about 0.2°C per decade, strengthening confidence in near-term projections. {WGI 1.2, 3.2}" Now, explain to me how my grasp of the IPCC glossary is weak.
85852. Tom Curtis at 00:29 AM on 14 May 2011
       Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
       Harry Seaward @145, as is fairly clear from reading it, the IPCC reports make 'projections' (in its terminology) not predictions. The difference is largely semantic in that a projection is a prediction conditional on certain circumstances obtaining. The IPCC AR4 mean global temperature projections are:

       " The multi-model mean SAT warming and associated uncertainty ranges for 2090 to 2099 relative to 1980 to 1999 are B1: +1.8°C (1.1°C to 2.9°C), B2: +2.4°C (1.4°C to 3.8°C), A1B: +2.8°C (1.7°C to 4.4°C), A1T: 2.4°C (1.4°C to 3.8°C), A2: +3.4°C (2.0°C to 5.4°C) and A1FI: +4.0°C (2.4°C to 6.4°C).

       Reducing that to a single number without confidence intervals, and without reference to particular scenarios over simplifies to the point of misrepresentation. @146 Sphaerica referred to the fast feedback climate sensitivity which is approximately 3 degrees C per doubling of CO2. That is a prediction of the theory, not a projection. It can be and has been applied to past climate changes as a test of the theory, assuming you have a sufficiently strong paleo signal to make the test. @147 If you are interested in the history of the green house gas theory, Svante Arrhenius'1896 paper "On the influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air on the Temperature of the Ground" is the first attempt to calculate the effect of CO2 as a green house gas. Of particular interest are his predictions that: 1) Greenhouse warming would be stronger towards the poles than the equator; and 1a) The polar warming would be accentuated by the melting of arctic ice. 2) The warming would be stronger at night than during the day, resulting in a narrowing of the diurnal temperature range. 3) The warming would be stronger in winter than in summer. 4) The warming would be stronger on land than at sea. 5) The warming would be stronger in the Northern Hemisphere than in the Southern. (See page 265 for the exact details of these predictions.) To that we can add the prediction that: 6) With increased CO2 content, the troposphere and surface will warm, but the stratosphere will cool. Arrhenius, of course, did not make that particular prediction because he did not know of the internal structure of the stratosphere, particularly the presence of ozone. These six predictions are unique to green house theory in that no other method of warming the Earth predicts all six of them. All six predictions are plainly falsifiable, but all six predictions have, of course, been verified. Five of those predictions where made 115 years ago, but still we get deniers accusing AGW theory of being without falsifiable predictions.
85853. Bob Lacatena at 00:11 AM on 14 May 2011
       Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
       147, Harry Seaward, FYI, this page is where you want to start on Spencer Weart's site.
85854. Bob Lacatena at 00:05 AM on 14 May 2011
       Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
       147, Harry Seaward,

       Thanks for the link, and, again, you could have left out the words within the parantheses.

       I apologize for letting my ire slip out, especially since you are not entirely at fault. In the past month a large number of "deniers" have inundated the comments with a fair amount of sarcasm, ignorance, and a lecturing tone, supported either by a gish-gallop of illogical facts, or by nothing whatsoever -- often, their tone and sarcastic, backhanded implications are all they have going for them. After a while, one loses patience, sometimes at the wrong moment.
85855. Utahn at 00:00 AM on 14 May 2011
       Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
       Harry Seaward, Perhaps getting back on topic, about the surveys, any thoughts on my comment 102?
85856. Bob Lacatena at 23:56 PM on 13 May 2011
       Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
       145, Harry Seaward, You're playing word games, and you obviously didn't bother to read anything I pointed you toward before you replied. I'm not sure how serious anyone should take the posts of someone who wants to expound but refuses to learn. The 3˚C rise is neither a projection nor a prediction. It is a theory which is close to a law (i.e. "any forcing X will result in a temperature change of 3X") and is backed by a substantial body of evidence that spans an unbelievable variety of methods and sources. The strength behind the statement is very, very strong. There is still uncertainty involved, but with every new study that uncertainty diminishes. Your weak grasp of the IPCC Glossary, on the other hand, highlights much of your problem. I see nothing whatsoever wrong with the text you quoted, and in particular I see nothing "doozyish" about the last line. Their point is that climate science can make predictions based on climate facts. But since one of those facts is actual greenhouse emissions, which in turn are based not on scientific or natural factors but rather on socio-economic factors, then climate projections are difficult to make. In fact, a related debate just finished "raging" over on the Linzen Illision #2 thread over the difference between a projection in future temperatures, and the emissions scenario used to make the projection.
85857. dhogaza at 23:55 PM on 13 May 2011
       Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
       "And, is the second sentence really necessary in a scientific discussion? " At the risk of seeming rude ... a discussion about something like "the AGW hypothesis" is not a discussion about science, so you shouldn't be too surprised at the kind of responses your posts elicit.
85858. dhogaza at 23:54 PM on 13 May 2011
       Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
       Harry Seaward: "The last line is a doozy." Why? The physical theory regarding the change in climate due to changes in concentration of GHGs comes with error bounds, but is reasonably complete. Our ability to predict the future of human history is not. We don't really have a clue as to what life will be like a century from now, nor how much CO2 society will spew into the atmosphere over the next 100 years. Perhaps there will be a fusion breakthrough and electricity will be too cheap to meter and generation will be free of any negative environmental effects at all! (cough cough.)
85859. Harry Seaward at 23:50 PM on 13 May 2011
       Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
       dhogaza at 144 "It is a prediction based on theory." Prediction or projection, but I agree with your statement. "On the slight chance that what you're asking is what observation led to the theory describing the climate response to differing concentrations of CO2, it all started with observations made by Tyndall a long time ago. I'll let you do the google to determine exactly how many years ago this was." Thank you. I really am curious about that.
85860. Harry Seaward at 23:46 PM on 13 May 2011
       Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
       Sphaerica at 143 Your statement: "At this point, the evidence supporting a 3˚C rise is pretty darn strong. Attempts to paint it as otherwise are just demonstrations of ignorance." You could make the first sentence more accurate by inserting the word projected in front of the number 3. And, is the second sentence really necessary in a scientific discussion? "In addition to the above link on climate sensitivity, it is suggested that you read Spencer Weart's A Discovery of Global Warming (unless you don't really want answers, and just like the idea of implying that the foundations of climate theory don't actually exist)." Thanks for the link, and, again, you could have left out the words within the parantheses.
85861. Harry Seaward at 23:37 PM on 13 May 2011
       Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
       Sphaerica at 143 The 3C rise is a prediction, or more accurately a projection (which is less precise). You can't slice it any other way. Read the definitions from the IPCC Glossary. The last line is a doozy. Climate prediction A climate prediction or climate forecast is the result of an attempt to produce a most likely description or estimate of the actual evolution of the climate in the future, e.g. at seasonal, interannual or long-term time scales. See also: Climate projection and Climate (change) scenario. Climate projection A projection of the response of the climate system to emission or concentration scenarios of greenhouse gases and aerosols, or radiative forcing scenarios, often based upon simulations by climate models. Climate projections are distinguished from climate predictions in order to emphasise that climate projections depend upon the emission/concentration/ radiative forcing scenario used, which are based on assumptions, concerning, e.g., future socio-economic and technological developments, that may or may not be realised, and are therefore subject to substantial uncertainty.
85862. RSVP at 23:35 PM on 13 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
       les 34 "ignoring the fact that Ohm is a pretty poor example of controversy in science" Considering that "Ohm's Law" was rejected for being too simple, and then turned out to be spot on, not sure where you're coming from. Here is another link: http://www.corrosion-doctors.org/Biographies/OhmBio.htm
85863. dhogaza at 23:27 PM on 13 May 2011
       Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
       "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" It is a prediction based on theory. "By the way, what is the historic observation that led to the formation of the AGW hypothesis?" There is no such thing as the "AGW hypothesis". On the slight chance that what you're asking is what observation led to the theory describing the climate response to differing concentrations of CO2, it all started with observations made by Tyndall a long time ago. I'll let you do the google to determine exactly how many years ago this was.
85864. CBDunkerson at 23:27 PM on 13 May 2011
       Models are unreliable
       trunkmonkey #372: There is a well documented hemispheric see-saw to DO events... whether you see it or not. In any case, your description of "cooling the Pacific and Indian Oceans and warming the Atlantic" is just fine for making my point too... because the Pacific and Indian Oceans did not cool over the course of the 20th century. They warmed. Just like every other ocean on the planet. Total ocean heat content increased. Total atmospheric heat content increased. Ergo, none of these changes can be put down to 'internal variability'... because that would require decreasing temperatures somewhere else and there just isn't any data showing that.
85865. chris at 23:23 PM on 13 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
       Yes, that works a bit better les! But again the analogies aren't terribly strong (and it's very easy with the compression of nearly a century of time to look at the Wegener situation as if it was very cut and dried, whereas it was also a mess of personal, social and scientific interactions, just like now). Whereas it seems that Wegener's ideas were soundly rejected at the time (in fact he had some supporters who were very important in geology/geophysics), and he was only vindicated after his death when new discoveries forced reassessment of his ideas, Hansen and Broecker were reinforcing an already quite well understood subject. Their insight was to strongly grasp the significance of the growing atmospheric CO2 levels, in the 1970's (Broecker) and 80's (Hansen), and to foresee the likely future consequences. And their contributions were not so much ignored/ridiculed, as considered not to be terribly important (at the time; I think that's about right). In fact their attempted ridicule (largely Hansen) occurred considerably later when the evidence base concerning the consequences of enhanced greenhouse gas levels became sufficiently strong, that some powerful interest became concerned that steps might be taken to do something about the problem...
85866. Bob Lacatena at 23:16 PM on 13 May 2011
       Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
       141, Harry Seaward,

       The predicted 3C rise is a hypothesis, not a theory.

       At this point, the evidence supporting a 3˚C rise is pretty darn strong. Attempts to paint it as otherwise are just demonstrations of ignorance. For more information, see the thread on the evidence behind a 3˚C climate sensitivity.

       By the way, what is the historic observation that led to the formation of the AGW hypothesis?

       In addition to the above link on climate sensitivity, it is suggested that you read Spencer Weart's A Discovery of Global Warming (unless you don't really want answers, and just like the idea of implying that the foundations of climate theory don't actually exist).
85867. Bob Lacatena at 23:11 PM on 13 May 2011
       Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
       136, EFox, I don't think climate scientists snub the social sciences, so much as it's just not their thing, so they don't ask. That said... I am sure John would put up some relevant social sciences posts if he got them. You could submit something yourself.
85868. les at 23:06 PM on 13 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
       40 chris - or, is Wagner a good analogy for Hansen, Broecker et al? Lets say the first firm indications for AGW piled up between the mid 70's and late 80's based on very rudimentary measurements compared to what's available today. I recall that even in the early 90's many scientists in associated fields where still unsure (in my direct experience, the European earth-observation crowd where still 'more measurement needed' in the mid 90's), till now where there is pretty broad based consensus, except for a few stragglers in the science community... ... and a pile of nutters in the public sphere, of course.
85869. drrocket at 23:02 PM on 13 May 2011
       CO2 has a short residence time
       Eric (skeptic), 5/13/11, 11:35 AM I agree that AR4 Figure 7.3 is not altogether sterling. The partitioning of air-sea fluxes I take with a grain of salt, and I have not relied on it. I accept the 6.4 GtC/yr from fossil fuels at face value along with the totals of 92.2 GtC/yr into the ocean and 90.6 outgassed. IPCC puts the natural or background land-air flux 119.9 ± 1 GtC/yr, an imbalance of 0.83%. It puts the natural air-sea flux at 70.3 ± 0.3 GtC/yr, an imbalance of 0.43%. If we were to add another 20 GtC/yr shown in red, the air-sea flux would be 90.3 ± 0.3, an imbalance of 0.33%. IPCC puts the ACO2 flux at 28 GtC/yr up and 24.8 down, or 26.4 ± 1.6, an imbalance of 3.2%. If we deduct the questionable 20 GtC/yr, we have 6.4 ± 1.6, an imbalance of 12.5% for ACO2. In most references to these fluxes, the 20 GtC/yr is not included, yielding 8 up and 4.8 down, and the ratio is given in terms of full scale, 4.8/8 = 40% of ACO2 absorbed in the land-sea surface. IPCC shows the preference both in its mass balance results and in its equilibrium chemistry. No matter how you slice the baloney, IPCC claims the land-sea surface has a huge preference for nCO2 over ACO2, and in the last analysis, that's why we ought to curtail CO2 emissions. You write about what IPCC "wanted to show". What I take away from the chart is it wanted to show that the natural C cycle was in mass balance (it uses the term equilibrium) while the anthropogenic C cycle accumulates ACO2 in the atmosphere. You and I agree that the ocean is nonpreferential between these species. I extend that nonpreferential property from the fluxes to the relative rates of absorption. If the rate of absorption of ACO2 is only 50% of the rate of emission, that should be true of nCO2 also. IPCC's entire equilibrium chemistry justification for this preference is fatally flawed for two reasons. First, the stoichiometric equilibrium coefficients are not applicable. Secondly, IPCC applies its carbonate chemical analysis only to ACO2 and not nCO2.
85870. Harry Seaward at 22:56 PM on 13 May 2011
       Infographic: 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?
85871. Harry Seaward at 22:44 PM on 13 May 2011
       Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
       Phil at 139 What if the 3 C rise doesn't happen?
85872. chris at 22:44 PM on 13 May 2011
       Lindzen 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...
85873. chris at 22:32 PM on 13 May 2011
       Lindzen 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....
85874. Phil at 22:20 PM on 13 May 2011
       Infographic: 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.
85875. JMurphy at 22:13 PM on 13 May 2011
       Infographic: 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.
85876. Camburn at 21:44 PM on 13 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
       Does Alfred Wegener come to mind....and he is very recent.
85877. Berényi Péter at 21:17 PM on 13 May 2011
       Tracking 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.
85878. Phil at 20:40 PM on 13 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
       Oops sorry. les was @34 not @31
85879. Phil at 20:39 PM on 13 May 2011
       Lindzen 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".
85880. Dikran Marsupial at 20:30 PM on 13 May 2011
       Infographic: 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.
85881. Dikran Marsupial at 20:18 PM on 13 May 2011
       CO2 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.
85882. EFox at 19:42 PM on 13 May 2011
       Infographic: 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.
85883. chris at 19:20 PM on 13 May 2011
       Lindzen 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).
85884. alan_marshall at 19:12 PM on 13 May 2011
       Lindzen 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.
85885. les at 18:47 PM on 13 May 2011
       Lindzen 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.
85886. veryred at 17:02 PM on 13 May 2011
       Infographic: 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.
85887. actually thoughtful at 16:54 PM on 13 May 2011
       Lindzen 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!

85888. Tom Curtis at 15:47 PM on 13 May 2011
       Infographic: 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.
85889. David Horton at 15:37 PM on 13 May 2011
       Infographic: 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.
85890. RSVP at 15:15 PM on 13 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
       An analog much harder to find is a mob that admits its mistake.
85891. RSVP at 15:12 PM on 13 May 2011
       Lindzen 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
85892. Bob Lacatena at 14:43 PM on 13 May 2011
       Infographic: 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."
85893. scaddenp at 14:36 PM on 13 May 2011
       Models 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.
85894. RW1 at 14:21 PM on 13 May 2011
       Infographic: 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.
85895. trunkmonkey at 13:37 PM on 13 May 2011
       Models 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.
85896. Tom Curtis at 13:06 PM on 13 May 2011
       Infographic: 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.)
85897. Stephen Baines at 13:01 PM on 13 May 2011
       Infographic: 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?
85898. Tom Curtis at 12:58 PM on 13 May 2011
       Infographic: 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"
85899. Bob Lacatena at 12:56 PM on 13 May 2011
       Could 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.
85900. Same Ordinary Fool at 12:55 PM on 13 May 2011
       Lindzen 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?

Prev  1710  1711  1712  1713  1714  1715  1716  1717  1718  1719  1720  1721  1722  1723  1724  1725  Next