Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 Next
Comments 8701 to 8750:
-
Eclectic at 22:47 PM on 30 November 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
Nyood @20 ,
you are missing the point: that both the scientist group and the anti-scientist group are wishing it would get colder.
Clearly you are having trouble understanding the scientists' emails.
-
Eclectic at 22:42 PM on 30 November 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
Blub ,
in reading your posts #13 and #19 , it is not at all clear what point you are wishing to make. Please clarify !
Average readers here (such as me) are aware of data and correlations and causalities.
Basically, the climate changes when something causes it to change. And yes, there are many factors or drivers affecting climate ~ but the major ones are alterations of insolation / greenhouse gasses / aerosols. That is well known.
Are you saying that some confirmation bias is affecting your own views on climate?
So far, you have (in a general way) touched on abstract concepts and the difficulties of achieving valid scientific knowledge (such as the well-researched PAGES 2K studies) . . . but you have not actually given any empirical or logical disproof of the extensive PAGES 2K information.
Please be clear about the message you are trying to convey.
-
nyood at 21:21 PM on 30 November 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
One Planet Only Forever @18
You are missing the point. My concern was that the hiatus is considered to be something bad by some authors of the emails. It does not need any skeptic here, it is the authors themselfs, hence the terms pschology and political thinking.
So it is not about skeptics abusing the hiatus.
It is not about reasoning why the haitus happened.
It is about considering good news (less warming) as bad news.
Despite of all poralization one would hope that these scientists still want the best for humanity and not see cooling as a problem.
If skeptics wish that it will be colder, just because they are "more" right is demasking, almost childish.
If the IPCC wishes it will get warmer or stay hot, just because they will be right is demasking and reduces integrity.
-
Postkey at 20:01 PM on 30 November 2019There is no consensus
“Abstract
The consensus among research scientists on anthropogenic global warming has grown to 100%, based on a review of 11,602 peer-reviewed articles on “climate change” and “global warming” published in the first 7 months of 2019.”journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0270467619886266?journalCode=bsta#articleShareContainer
-
blub at 17:33 PM on 30 November 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
Hi Philippe Chantreau,
i used "mainly" for meaning more then 50% of proxy data is based on tree ring data, which you can look up in the supplementary data of this study. Sup.Figure 1 also depicts a world map locating the proxy data used and a graph showing the amount and type of proxy data used during a certain time period. You are entirely right by highlighting all other proxies used and I shoud have done this in the first place, but my arguementation was actually not that tree rings in particular are bad proxis, but that proxy studies in general are not confirmed or evident by statistical correlation or robustness and that the thought chain of doing so is unlogic. The practical scientifc method of this study is perfectly fine, but correlation is not causality or evidence at all. Therefore, there shouldn´t be any conclusion drawn from this study.
One fictional example may be a proxy study on a historical link betweeen vitamin c amount of apples and and apple tree ring information. Lets say there is instrumental data for the last 100 years on vitamin c amount of a couple of apple species and robust statistical correlation to tree ring size and color between species. Tree ring data of the last 2000 years is available so the authors develop a model which correlates statistically robust with this data. Does this mean that they have discovered the actual variation of vitamin c amount of apples for the last 2000 years and based on their statistically robust model may even project the development of vitamin c amount into the future? Statistically yes but causally no. Nobody has ever measured the actual vitamin c amount older than 100 years without error and could then find meaningfull error sources for proxies because there is not enough and no real data available. Further no change and influences of environmental factors can be causally linked to the past without instrumental data.
There are a lot of problems in science with this type of data, for example a couple of physicists published a breathtaking discovery that the speed of light is exceeded by neutrino particles just to refute their own study because they found a broken cable which was generating false data in their experiment. Data itself but even more data interpretation is extremly tricky even in controlled studies and it does not get better with proxy studies...
This is why causality always beats correlation and data and model quality always beats quantity.
Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that affirms one's prior beliefs or hypotheses. (Wikipedia)
You may have done this by highlighting several studies to me. Weight of evidence does not matter, but the question of quality and causality of evidence
-
benboyo at 16:01 PM on 30 November 2019Sea level rise is exaggerated
daniel! I have read all the comments and find on the internet something that I can't reconcile. The Australian Bureau of Meteorology page on
Pacific Sea Level and Geodetic Monitoring Project
http://www.bom.gov.au/oceanography/projects/spslcmp/data/monthly.shtml
studies a number of pacific islands from 1993 to 2019. Islands are:Cook Islands; Fiji; Kiribate; Marshall Islands; Nauru; Papua New Guinea; Solomon Islands; Samoa; Tonga; Tuvalu; Vanuatu; Federated States of Micronesia; Niue.
When I look at the graphs and tables for each island/islands, I find that the ghttp://www.bom.gov.au/oceanography/projects/spslcmp/data/monthly.shtmlraphs are uniformly even and NOT showing increases in sea level.
Could you please enlighten me
-
Eclectic at 13:37 PM on 30 November 2019Video: Is CO2 actually dangerous?
BillyJoe , you might care to look at the Youtube video series by Potholer54 (science journalist Peter Hadfield).
I'm not sure if it's the ideal Climate Change explainer for the general public . . . who might rather prefer an Attenborough-ish 25 minute program of hi-rez superbo photography and rich voice-overs. Though perhaps with Yankee drawl?
However, the Potholer54 videos (from low-rez 2009 to higher-rez 2019) are very good value for a video-watcher who has already started to develop an interest in climate topics. All the videos are reasonably up-to-date in their science. They range from mostly short ( five to ten minutes) through to a few long'uns (twentyish minutes).
They are very informative, and they have the slant of debunking the myths & lies put about by the denialist propaganda industry.
There's a lot of them (48) ~ but they are easy-going to digest, because of their brevity and their entertainingly humorous style. Especially amusing, are the 5 Monckton Bunkum videos, regarding the "error-prone Viscount".
-
One Planet Only Forever at 12:29 PM on 30 November 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
nyood @10,
It is very polarizing indeed to still see people still make claims like: "And other sentences make you wonder why a cooling or hiatus is considered to be a problem, instead of a relief when it comes towards warming as a threat."
The trend of the temperature record is undeniable. The existence of variations in the short-term rate of warming is abundantly clear. The skeptics harmfully abusing any period of slower temperature change to reduce popular support for the required Responsible Leadership Actions are definitely deserving of derision (not praise for relieving concern).
Refer to the SkS Escalator.
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:55 AM on 30 November 2019There is no consensus
Also klmartinson @ 846: I don't understand how we can have "record heat" and yet have "record cold seasons".
An argument from incredulity is a pretty weak argument. But to take a bite of the apple...
- The first year measurements are taken will set both a new high and a new low record.
- The second year will set either a record high, or a record low - except in the rare case of a tie.
- In subsequent years,the probabilty of setting a new record high or low decreases.
- In a non-warming world, the probability of seeing a high record set will be the same as the probability of seeing a low record set.
- What we see is far more high records being set than low records.
- We still see the occasional low record, and this is not evidence against against the conclusion that things are warming overall.
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:45 AM on 30 November 2019There is no consensus
klmartinson @ 846: "...seems to indicate that there is a correlation between a scientist's opinion and their ability to publish."
And a strong correlation it is.
The opinions that are little more than an opinion, use faulty methodology, are internally self-inconsistent, rely on cherry picking, ignore vast swaths of well-established physics, and are largely unsupported by evidence usually find it difficult to make their way into the published literature.
On the other hand, good science usually manages to overcome the hurdles involved in the publishing process. Not easily though - the review process can be pretty tough, and I"ve seen reviews that can get to be pretty nasty. The papers end up being better as a result.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:35 AM on 30 November 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
nyood,
To me, your context for Climategate is incomplete and incorrect.
Prior to Climategate it had been fairly robustly established that the developed ways of living that relied on using fossil fuels needed to be curtailed far sooner than the natural response of the marketplace would do it (especially with misleading marketing failing to be effectively penalized).
The making of the "misleading claims regarding the illegally obtained emails" happened just before a major global leadership meeting. The timing reduced popular support for the required corrections and gave some Leaders a poor excuse to resist being Responsible Leaders on this very important issue.
After that tragic impact on global leadership, and the delayed corrections of how people lived, it was discovered and established that:
- The theft of the emails had happened well in advance of the release of the claims.
- Some people scoured through the stolen emails to find nuggets they could abuse out of context in their disinformation campaign released just before the global leadership meeting.
- Media reported the claims without any investigation into the legitimacy of the claims being made.
- To this day there continues to be a degree of totally unjustified reduced credibility of climate science.
- To date there is little effort to determine all the players in the damaging disinformation campaign and penalize them. Climategate damaged the future of humanity. And yet there are people who still try to defend the people who continue to repeat unjustified scepticism of climate science.
And that Context for Climategate does not completely present how damaging the initial cuplrits of Climategate and their parade of fans have been to the future of humanity.
As nigelj suggested some people deserve to be severely punished. I would include serious penalties for anyone today who still tries to play the Climategate card to dismiss or discredit climate science and the corrections of developed human activity that it has exposed are required. Climategate and actions like it reduced the required correction and produced the current and growing need for more rapid correction.
-
BillyJoe at 08:49 AM on 30 November 2019Video: Is CO2 actually dangerous?
Each to his own, I guess, but I find this presenter particularly annoying. But I couldn't stand Jerry Lewis either. Is there someone else who explains climate change to the general public in short bites like this without all the intolerable cornyness. Sorry, I just had to get that off my chest. Delete the comment if you must.
-
nigelj at 07:16 AM on 30 November 2019Video: Is CO2 actually dangerous?
Regarding the question "people ask whether carbon dioxide is actually bad?" They want people to say its not bad, so that they can dismiss climate change problem. They know perfectly well that CO2 is not bad at stable levels. Its not a genuine question unless its coming from a young child.
They mostly hear Climate Adam saying CO2 is not bad. It's better to reply that some CO2 is necessary for plant growth and photosynthesis works like this, but excessive levels of CO2 are bad for the planet because they cause climate change. Add that photosynthesis works fine without requiring more CO2, which only provides a limited boost for plant growth and this is is offset by more heatwaves and droughts etc.
The science in the video is well explained and made interesting, but stop letting these denialist guys set the agenda with their endless strawan statements and questions, because thats all they are.
-
nigelj at 06:29 AM on 30 November 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
nyood @12, you are worried about the level of antagonism in the email? I have worked for several organisations and companies, and disagreements are common enough. The one you quote is polite so nothing to be concerned about. In this case someone is being picked up for letting personal views allegedly intrude, and shows the organisation is self correcting and thus avoiding group think. However like MS says Elven was ultimately proven correct, ironically. Your email is not a smoking gun, its not even a damp fire cracker, its a nothingburger.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 04:55 AM on 30 November 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
blub at 13 " manly tree rings"
That is at best a misrepresentation. I looked through the 47 pages of data listed by PAGES 2K here. I think you should do the same, count how many data series come from trees vs the total number of series, and give a percentage that will subtantiate the word "mainly", which is rather vague. In addition to trees, it includes lake sediments, marine sediments, boreholes, gacier ice, coral, bivalve, sclerosponge, speleothem and documents. The specific proxies for these sources vary. They are compared and correlated to verify validity. The publications explain calibration and validation methods. There are papers exclusively devoted to calibration and validation.
Following the link in the OP to the PAGES 2k paper leads to these other papers:
No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era
The aberrant global synchrony of present-day warming
As always, the overall weight of the evidence is what matters.
-
Eclectic at 01:48 AM on 30 November 2019There is no consensus
Klmartinson @846 ,
thank you for your "less wordy" reply ;-)
Brevity is truly the soul of wit ~ but not always the soul of precision !
#0. My comment of "low quality" applies to the AMS survey as a whole, not just to the 30% reply rate. Indeed, 30% is poor in itself, because of the dangers of self-selection and unrepresentativeness [oh, what a wordy word! ] . . . as I am sure you are very well aware yourself. As you have scrutinised the report, you will have noticed that the authors were slightly uncomfortable with the over-representation of student members and elderly/retired members (among other selection criticisms).
Best if the survey were repeated nowadays, and done more carefully, so that the survey could be of high enough quality to achieve a worthy comparison to other surveys of Consensus.
I agree the 30% is still rather poor, for the widely cited Doran survey ~ but Doran gains in strength because it closely fits with other surveys. And "your" AMS survey also loses points, because of the lamentable extent of incompletion of those forms actually returned.
And the fact that your quoted 52% was such an outlier , should have raised your suspicion that you had misinterpreted the figure or its context (or that the survey itself was faulty).
#1. Yes, there is such a thing as a "mandatory" survey.
They are far and away the best sort of survey, in assessing the Consensus accurately. [see part A of the Cook et al., 2013 survey]
#2. 50 years vs 150 years in the questions, should have produced the same answers. That it didn't do so, reflects rather poorly on the AMS members themselves (rather than on the survey itself!)
#3. Now you are adducing one winter in CONUS ?! And you "don't understand how we can have record heat and yet have record cold seasons" ?!
Hmmm ~ move another tenth of an inch in that direction . . . and some of the readers here will begin to feel you are being a tad disingenuous ;-)
#4. As I pointed out above, the survey was by definition limited to Americans. Is that a bias? It is only a bias, if the survey is falsely represented as worldwide (misrepresenting through omission).
Though I hear that a percentage of AMS members are "furriners" . . . but only a small percentage.
No, I am not shocked at such (11%) a proportion of "Flat-Earther-type" opinions in some alleged scientists. I myself know a PhD (in biological sciences) who is a proud member of his local Flat Earth Society . . . indeed, it's even worse , because he was born outside the USA !
Klmartinson, the historic record is so clear on the fact of modern global warming ~ that it takes an absolute willful blindness for any meteorologist to deny it, even back in 2012 or 2002.
#5. (which really deserves to be #6.) Klmartinson, if you read a dozen or two of the upthread comments, and if you truly think it through, then you will come to see that a survey of published scientific articles is the far superior method of determining the real consensus.
The analogy might be political surveys (examples: the Dewey/Truman 1948 election and the Clinton/Trump 2016 election) ~ inadequate survey size plus the tendency for "coyness" of replies to the vox-pop microphone or other polling method . . . results in an invalid "figure". In reality, the accurate figure is the totality of the "on-paper" survey. ;-)
-
michael sweet at 01:43 AM on 30 November 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
Nyood,
You have chosen an interesting email to post.
Scientists always challenge each others findings. Your email is a clear demonstration of the fact that scientists challenge each other. In private communitcations these arguments are heated. After they are privately discussed the scientists with the best arguments publish them. After they are published they are challenged again. Only the very best proposed answers survive this constant challenge. Even then they can be later challenged if new information turns up.
It is also interesting that you pick an email where Tom Wigley is challenging Eleven and says Eleven is being too alarmist!! Are you arguing that scientists are exaggerating warming by telling other scientists to dial back their assertions??
Further, today in 2019, the scientific consensus is clearly that Eleven was correct and that the problem is critical and must be immediately addressed. So are you arguing that someone who was correctly arguing that we needed to take inmediate steps to avoid catastrophie, perhaps before it was a clear consensus, needs to be silenced??
My read of your email is that Tom Wigley was clearly completely incorrect. His approach has threatened civilization because it has led to delay in implementing required pollution control. The denier argument that somehow this email shows that scientists are exaggerating warming and the dangers it presents is the opposite of what this email clearly shows.
-
blub at 23:28 PM on 29 November 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
I have a couple of comments to add regarding the part: The most recent and robust such reconstruction was completed by a team of over 5,000...which produced the following chart of global temperatures over the past 2,000 years. It shows temperatures today rapidly rising above the historical record like the blade of a hockey stick.
This study is based on proxy and some real measurements, manly tree rings. Proxy measurements are not significant due to meassurment errors. Nobody has actually measured the temperature on earth with sufficient little error before about 200 years ago, therefore causality of a proxy and a model is just impossible. A statistically based study based on proxy is unsuitable because every single conclusion is insignificant by definition.
Nobody is questioning global warming, but the methods and conclusions drawn are highly questionable. Way to less data and physical understanding. Apart from high energy physics, about every physical and chemical processes possible (probably billions) are happening on earth, which may influence climate. It is just that simple, no conclusions have to be made without sound understanding. This field of study is extremly complex and statistically averaging data will only add confusion.
The authors of this study mention:"Our inferences on the multidecadal GMST variability for the Common Era are robust to all these permutations (Supplementary Figs. 17–20). Nevertheless, we cannot rule out biases due to errors in the individual proxy records and the unequal spatiotemporal distribution of proxy data (Supplementary Fig. 1). Warm-season-sensitive records from the Northern Hemisphere high and mid latitudes dominate the collection of proxy records21 , thus our results may be biased towards this region and season,..."
In science or in humans in general there is something as confirmation bias, which seems to be advancing due to the internet and social media...
-
nyood at 22:29 PM on 29 November 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
Thank you for your view nigelj, it is confirming how polarized the debate is.
However, with the leaked emails that you quote in advance, you mention those which I agree on to be unproblematic with my sentence: "Climategate is not about scientific fraud to me, I am aware of the quotes taken out of context as a cheap trick on the far skeptical side.."
This email here by Tom Wigley might be a good quote that shows that there is concern about the antagonism amongst themselves:
"Dear Eleven,I was very disturbed by your recent letter, and your attempt to get others to endorse it. Not only do I disagree with the content of this letter, but I also believe that you have severely distorted the IPCC “view” when you
9say that “the latest IPCC assessment makes a convincing economic case for immediate control of emissions.” ...This is a complex issue, and your misrepresentation of it does you a disservice. To someone like me, who knows the science, it is apparent that you are presenting a personal view, not an informed, balanced scientific assessment. What is unfortunate is that this will not be apparent to the vast majority of scientists you have contacted. In issues like this, scientists have an added responsibility to keep their personal views separate from the science, and to make it clear to others when they diverge from the objectivity they (hopefully) adhere to in their scientific research. I think you have failed to do this.Your approach of trying to gain scientific credibility for your personal views by asking people to endorse your letter is reprehensible. No scientist who wishes to maintain respect in the community should ever endorse any statement unless they have examined the issue fully themselves. You are asking people to prostitute themselves by doing just this! I fear that some will endorse your letter, in the mistaken belief that you are making a balanced and knowledgeable assessment of the science—when, in fact, you are presenting a flawed view that neither accords with the IPCC nor with the bulk of the scientific and economic literature on the subject....When scientists color the science with their own personal views or make categorical statements without presenting the evidence for such statements, they have a clear responsibility to state that that is what they are doing. You have failed to do so. Indeed, what you are doing is, in my view, a form of dishonesty more subtle but no less egregious than the statements made by the greenhouse skeptics .... I find this extremely disturbing" -
michael sweet at 22:15 PM on 29 November 2019Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
Ritchie,
Good luck pinning down warming in the pipeline. This is a much discussed topic.
One problem is different scientists use different definitions of the term. Make sure you are comparing apples and apples.
Hansen has estimated a long term Whole Earth Equilibrium. That used to be double other estimates but it may have been changed. As the ice sheets melt (over hundreds of years) albedo goes down, causing more warming. Sea ice melt has started this change already. Do you care about the pipeline for the next 50 years or the final temperature in 1000 years?
Sea level rise is the same. Recent estimates of 600 million refugees by 2100 (for a moderate rise estimate) do not discuss equilibrium sea level rise (the last time CO2 was over 400 ppm sea level was 23 meters higher!!!).
You did not mention the delay caused by deep ocean warming. The ocean is a gigantic heat sink that will take hundreds of years to come to equilibrium. Sometimes 40 years is used for just the upper layers to warm.
-
richieb1234 at 20:04 PM on 29 November 2019Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
Rob Painting
"Warming in the pipeline"
As a newcomer to the AGW, I realize that global warming "in the pipeline" is an important topic. Your post of February, 2012 is an excellent reference. The debate that ensued among commenters was interesting to read, with many interesting points annd counterpoints. In the final analysis, I felt that the bottom line on this topic was still up in the air.
One confusing aspect of the debate was whether the warming in the pipeline was purely from reemergence of carbon sequestered in the ocean, or did one have to include the effect of future reductions in particulates to see the effect.
Have you continued to work on this topic over the past 8 years? Do we now have more complete data and better analyses? Have the objections of "Neil" and other commenters been resolved? I would very much appreciate learning where this issue stands today. Could you point me to a source?
Thank you in advance. --richieb1234
-
klmartinson at 19:50 PM on 29 November 2019There is no consensus
Eclectic, Well, thanks for your wordy reply.
0. re: "low quality". At 30% reply rate, I don't think that it is valid to just dismiss it as "low quality". Read the paper and you will know where I get the 52% from. I did read it.
1. Is there such a thing as a mandatory survey?
2. 50 years vs 150 years. A fair point. The questions could have been better.
3. I'm sure there have been some record high temperatures in the last few years. And last winter in continental USA was the coldest in 110 years. I don't understand how we can have "record heat" and yet have "record cold seasons".
4. Yes, limited to Americans. You seem to show your bias here. Yes, it seems a shock to some that 11% of climate scientists (=200 people) in the USA do not accept or don't know that there is any warming at all. Maybe they should explain those opinions in detail, and inform us better. Maybe it has to do with the global cooling period from 1940s to 1979, or something else. I would call it anti-science to call these Science professionals Flat Earthers.
5. I don't think it is fair to equally compare a direct survey of scientists and a survey of published articles that seem to indicate an opinion. A comparison of the surveys seems to indicate that there is a correlation between a scientist's opinion and their ability to publish.
Moderator Response:[DB] "And last winter in continental USA was the coldest in 110 years"
Making things up is unhelpful. Temperatures last winter in the continental US were well-above the long-term average for winters in the continental US. These things are easily looked up.
Please comport future response to more fully comply with this site's Comments Policy (making things up falls under the category of sloganeering).
-
nigelj at 05:59 AM on 29 November 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
nyood @10
"However, as an every man lay when you come in contact with these leaked emails for the first time, it makes you really wonder why there is such a severe hostility towards skeptics"
The reasons for the hostility towards sceptics include the following:
1) the sceptics relentlessly mislead and cherry pick. Dont ask me for examples - read this website regularly.
2) the sceptics tie up working scientists with endless pointless information requests.
3) the sceptics verbally abuse scientists and have made death threats, particularly with M Mann, and naturally this in turn makes all climate scientists hostile towards sceptics. Why wouldn't it?
4) the sceptics relentless junk science.
This is more than enough to explain the scientists hostility towards sceptics, and if anything scientists have been very restrained and patient. As far as I'm concerned some of the sceptics should be in jail.
"The language used in these emails is concerning, they are very political and extremely polarized to a point where it makes one wonder if it is still possible for the authors to keep a scientific neutrality. As I am not sure if quoting emails is allowed here..."
Oh I'm happy to post a few from an article in Forbes, and that will be enough. We don't need too many silly lists distracting us all. I don't know if they are genuine. They are indicative of normal people dealing appropriately with difficult issues as anyone does. If they are political, its no more than any other organisation on this fine planet. There is nothing criminal, unethical or sinister, and numerous official investigations found no corruption of science.
You denialists make me laugh. You are the people with obvious political motives, mostly right wing, and with lashings of paranoia. But people with nasty suspicious minds and bad motives assume everyone is the same. News flash - we aren't all the same.
The emails:
“The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out” of IPCC reports, writes Jonathan Overpeck, coordinating lead author for the IPCC’s most recent climate assessment."
This is meaningless without background context. Its a selective quote. And professional people decide content all the time, theres no indication of wrong doing.
“I gave up on [Georgia Institute of Technology climate professor] Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but its not helping the cause,” wrote Mann in another newly released email."
It helps to actually know something about Judith Curry then you would understand and commiserate with the scientists in question.
“I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose” skeptical scientist Steve McIntyre, Mann writes in another newly released email."
Oh dear oh dear. Given M Mann has received death threats and packets of white powder in the mail, and endless abusive emails. I'm going to "cut him some slack".
-
nyood at 05:12 AM on 29 November 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
To me Climategate is about the psychology and about the casual conversation within East Anglia, nothing more but nothing less.
Climategate is not about scientific fraud to me, I am aware of the quotes taken out of context as a cheap trick on the far skeptical side and I am aware that there is in general, some ferocity in the operating language of such an institute. I can also follow the antagonistic attitude to an extent, since the attacks by skeptics are not always fair and go on for decades now.However, as an every man lay when you come in contact with these leaked emails for the first time, it makes you really wonder why there is such a severe hostility towards skeptics. And other sentences make you wonder why a cooling or hiatus is considered to be a problem, instead of a relief when it comes towards warming as a threat.
The language used in these emails is concerning, they are very political and extremely polarized to a point where it makes one wonder if it is still possible for the authors to keep a scientific neutrality.
As I am not sure if quoting emails is allowed here, I will not risk to quote any, if it is within the policy of SkepticalScience please tell me, then we could talk about some examples which highlight political thinking and involuntary confessions.
-
BaerbelW at 03:10 AM on 29 November 2019Harnessing gamification to defeat climate misinformation
Jeff T @11
Thanks! The crowdfunding campaign starts next week on Dec. 3. If you‘d like to get immediately notified once the website goes live, please subscribe at crankyuncle.com
-
Jeff T at 01:54 AM on 29 November 2019Harnessing gamification to defeat climate misinformation
I would like to donate to cranky uncle, but can't find a way at crankyuncle.com.
-
Doug_C at 17:02 PM on 28 November 2019Harnessing gamification to defeat climate misinformation
nigelj I think so, there is very little in the way of emotional intelligence being applied to climate denial. Ironically it depends on a hostile emotional reaction on the part of the target audience of the denial campaign. They have to be motivated to oppose any policies that may impact the financial interests of the people and companies central to this.
There's no question that this decades long campaign of denial of basic reality itself has been highly effective and understands the weaknesses in the scientific method. Which would follow because it was designed by some fairly well versed scientists like Fred Seitz and Fred Singer with others like Richard Lindzen picking up the ball later.
With virtually no concern at all for the catastrophic impacts that with business as usual will likely include mass extinction on Earth that could include us humans. Sociopathic behavior of a fundamental nature I'd say.
-
nigelj at 12:36 PM on 28 November 2019Harnessing gamification to defeat climate misinformation
Doug_C, yes, and your description suggests the sociopathic personality type. Perhaps not every denier, but plenty of the hard core professional ones.
-
Hi18763 at 11:02 AM on 28 November 2019Antarctica is gaining ice
How can land ice be decreasing, while sea ice is increasing at the same time?
Moderator Response:[PS] Several commentators have already answered. See above.
-
scaddenp at 10:38 AM on 28 November 2019Ice age predicted in the 70s
If you are in disagreement with Sweet and articles here, it would be best if you clearly stated what your disagreement is rather than have others try to guess.
-
Doug_C at 10:33 AM on 28 November 2019Harnessing gamification to defeat climate misinformation
nigelj @7
I look at it as a them playing a zero sum game where any issue is simply just one more gambit for a total win. Wealth disparity really isn't a concern for people in that position, it is simply one more gambit to achieve greater control in the game.
It's clear this is a game for the people behind this, just as it was a game for the people behind the disinformation camapign to protect the tobacco industry for decades. It's the same methods and in some early cases like Fred Seitz and Fred Singer the same people formulating this.
It's just happening on a far greater scale because the fossil fuel sector reaches into far more aspects of our economies and our lives than the tobacco lobby ever did.
-
scaddenp at 10:31 AM on 28 November 2019Ice age predicted in the 70s
"S Could you please point out that I have stated it?"
It is entirely possible that we are misunderstanding each other. Michael Sweet was pointing out what was wrong with the idea that an ozone hole was going to lead to global cooling.
You replied:
Mr sweet,
This may enlighten you
Cooling of the Arctic and Antarctic Polar Stratospheres due to Ozone Depletion
Which correctly shows that loss of ozone leads to stratigraphic cooling (but not to climatic cooling). Your manner of comment suggested that you were trying to contradict Michael Sweet. If you were trying to support his argument, then indeed, we are cross-purposes. You seemed somewhat confused between tropospheric and stratospheric ozone and so I thought it might clarify matters if you explained how you thought it worked.
My understanding is this:
In the stratosphere, O3 reduces the energy reaching the surface because it traps incoming UV. (ie unlike N2, O2, and for that matter CO2, it is NOT transparent to incoming solar radiation). This warms the stratosphere but it is a cooling effect on surface climate. On the other hand, O3 is also a greenhouse gas so traps outgoing IR causing some warming. I believe the balance is towards a very small warming effect.
In the troposphere by comparison, UV is mostly absent and so the greenhouse effect is more important (but O3 levels are very low).
Reducing the O3 cools the stratosphere alright but it means there is more energy (UV) warming the surface and so no, the O3 hole is not a climate cooling mechanism.
-
barry17781 at 10:22 AM on 28 November 2019Ice age predicted in the 70s
Again the ozone hole is about lose of stratospheric ozone around poles, especially Antarctica, and no, it still doesnt let the heat out and cool climate.
I never stated that.
please locate the phrase that you purport to this comes from
you cannot because it is your invention.
but I do suggest that you think about what you are posting
-
barry17781 at 10:17 AM on 28 November 2019Ice age predicted in the 70s
"Everyone except you knows that ozone is a greenhouse gas. " sweet #76
Moderator
this is an absolute falsehood, please could you ensure that it is removed.
Sweet has no knowledge of my thoughts but he may think he does! and if everybody knows that ozone is a greenhouse gas why are there so many climate deniers?
Please could sweet supply citations for both of his postulates?
-
barry17781 at 10:12 AM on 28 November 2019Ice age predicted in the 70s
"It might also help discussions if you explained why you think ozone depletion reduces stratospheric temperature (or perhaps more to point, why ozone warms the stratosphere)." scaddemp #75
S Could you please point out that I have stated it? No you cannot because it is an invention of your imagination!
-
scaddenp at 09:30 AM on 28 November 2019Ice age predicted in the 70s
"At middle altitudes between the ground and the stratosphere,"
ie the troposphere. You appear to continue to get confused about difference between O3 in stratosphere versus effect in troposphere. Again the ozone hole is about lose of stratospheric ozone around poles, especially Antarctica, and no, it still doesnt let the heat out and cool climate.
In the stratosphere, ozone causes warming of the surrounding air through its interaction with incoming UV.
-
barry17781 at 09:24 AM on 28 November 2019Ice age predicted in the 70s
michael sweet states
I have never heard of significant heat being let out. #70
"As Scaddenp states, your two comments conflate stratospheric ozone and tropospheric ozone. These are two different subjects and treating them as similar suggests that you do not understand atmospheric chemistry." #76
No it does not Again Sweet comments in #76
"According to this RealClimate post, the decrease in stratosheric ozone caused by human pollution will result in approximately -.15 w/m2 of cooling. The CFC's released by humans have caused approximately +0.34 w/m2 of heating due to their greenhouse properties. Thus the result of CFC pollution is a net warming of the surface" Sweet
Actually ozone accounts for up to 0.6 W m-2
"We all know that ozone in the stratosphere blocks harmful ultraviolet sunlight, and perhaps some people know that ozone at the Earth's surface is itself harmful, damaging people's lungs and contributing to smog.
But did you know that ozone also acts as a potent greenhouse gas? At middle altitudes between the ground and the stratosphere, ozone captures heat much as carbon dioxide does.
"In fact, pound for pound, ozone is about 3000 times stronger as a greenhouse gas than CO2. So even though there's much less ozone at middle altitudes than CO2, it still packs a considerable punch. Ozone traps up to one-third as much heat as the better known culprit in climate change. "
http://www.aoas.org/article.php?story=20080522125225466
I think that a third of that of CO2 is significant --others have it as high as 40% but sweet
#70 sweet states Grade school teachers are not really atmospheric experts. Neither are secondary teachers Those that ca do those that can't teach
Moderator Response:[DB] Inflammatory snipped.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.
-
scaddenp at 08:26 AM on 28 November 2019It's cooling
I would also add that glaciers take time to come into equilibrium. Our longest glacier, the Tasman is in rapid retreat. However, even if warming stopped now (temperatures stayed about same), you can see that many more kilometers of the glaciar are basically deadmeat. The lake will continue extending up the valley but it will take a decade or so for that to happen.
-
nigelj at 08:21 AM on 28 November 2019Harnessing gamification to defeat climate misinformation
In my experience the climate denialists who claim on internet forums that mitigating climate change will increase poverty are often the same people who downplay poverty on other forums, and who oppose government level solutions to poverty. People with inconsistent views generally aren't that bright, or they have an undisclosed personal agenda.
-
scaddenp at 08:19 AM on 28 November 2019It's cooling
I would be wary of the claim "if the Earth is hotter then ever before ". Where did you find this claim? I think we can say with very strong certainty that the earth has been hotter before. Just going back to the Pliocene would be hotter but potentially other interglacials may have been warmer than now. (But note that it can take near a thousand years for earth to come into equilibrium with forcings - ocean mixing rate).
Reconstructions of past climate would suggest that it is likely we are warmer globally than any time in the holocene - the last 12000 years. It is less certain whether the Northern Hemisphere is warmer than past times in the holocene (esp NH Holocene climatic optimum).
The real concern about climate change is not what the temperature is, but how fast it is changing compared to any other time in the past. Rapid change creates adaptation stress for both the natural world and our manmade infrastructure like cities and agricultural systems.
-
michael sweet at 06:47 AM on 28 November 2019Antarctica is gaining ice
Hi,
This myth is a little old now. Five or more years ago for a few years there was relatively high sea ice in the Antarctic. The record is not very long, only since 1979. Deniers claimed that since sea ice in the Antarctic was high, warming could not be occuring. In the past four or five years the ice area in the Antarctic has collapsed to the lowest in the record. This myth has gone out of fashion since now Antarctic sea ice is low. Land ice is also melting in the Antarctic.
To answer your question: It is believed that sea ice area in the Antarctic is strongly affected by winds. If there are a lot of offshore winds then new ice freezes near shore as existing ice is blown out to sea. Strong winds thus increase sea ice area. Around 2010 the winds in the Antarctic were stronger offshore than they had been before that time. It is not completely clear why the winds were stronger. It may have been due to natural variation or it may have been due to some climate change affect or the result of the ozone hole affecting wind. Now the winds are more similar to what they used to be and warmer ocean temperatures are melting more sea ice.
The land ice in the Antarctic is most strongly affected by the temperature of the ocean. As AGW warms the ocean the land ice melts faster where it enters the sea. This affect is slow to start because the ocean is warmed in the Tropics and then currents slowly move the warm water all the way to the Antarctic. Currently, especially in West Antarctica, the ocean is warming and melting the great ice sheet. The warmer ocean does not affect the sea ice as much as the wind did.
So if you have strong offshore winds the sea ice increases while increasing ocean temperatures melt the ice sheet. In general, the ice sheet is more important since if it melts hundreds of millions of people will be flooded, including much of Florida and other coastal states. Sea ice does not affect sea level.
There are more complications if you look more in depth. Warmer air causes snowfall to increase. If snowfall increases enough the East Antarctic ice sheet (which is much bigger than the West Antarctic ice sheet) may increase in size even as the edges melt faster from the warmer ocean. It is difficult to measure the exact balance of the East Ice sheet because it is so remote and cold and big. An error of a few centimeters per year would be significant.
Wunderground (weather blog) has had a series of blogs on measuring the snowfall in East Antarctic here is the last one. Currently it is believed that the East Ice Sheet is very slowly losing mass but that could change (either up or down) depending on how much CO2 is eventually emitted.
-
scaddenp at 06:15 AM on 28 November 2019Antarctica is gaining ice
Hi. While the current situation has seaice decreasing, it is entirely possibly to have increased melt from ice sheet and increasing sea ice. This was the situation a few years ago. Drivers for both sea and land ice are different between Antarctica and Arctic due to the major geogeographic difference - Antarctica is a continent, 2000m high at pole, surrounded entirely by ocean whereas the arctic is a landlocked sea. Sea ice in the Antarctic responds to a complex set of factors which have quite a lot variability. See this post for more detail. We could easily have a return to increasing seaice. However, the very long term trend is likely to be reduction as the warming sea temperature dominate, over wind-driven dispersal and decreased saliinity. The decrease in ozone loss should also reduce wind dispersal.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 04:22 AM on 28 November 2019Antarctica is gaining ice
Hi,
How did you get the impression that sea ice is increasing?
-
Philippe Chantreau at 04:20 AM on 28 November 2019It's cooling
Hi,
your comment indicates a lack of familiarity with paleoclimate data and what the science shows for the the more recent times. The moderator's suggestions are good places to start.
-
Hi18763 at 03:49 AM on 28 November 2019It's cooling
I have a question, if the Earth is hotter then ever before, then how come there are tree stumps underneath the Juneau icefield? For the tree stumps to be there, the icefield couldn't been there since trees don't grow in ice. And for the trees to grow there, the Juneau ice field must have formed after the trees grew, then left the trees stumps there after freezing the area. So back then it was hot enough, then the Earth cooled forming the Juneau ice fied. Meaning that this is NOT the hottest period in the Earth's history. Right?
Moderator Response:[DB] The Earth is not in radiative balance with forcings and will continue to warm for some time yet until that balance is reached. Beyond that, warming is uneven. Further, current levels of the warming of the globe likely exceed those found both in the Holocene and in the previous interglacial, the Eemian.
Alaska glaciers have only been recently declining, reversing a 8,000 year period of growth and expansion:
Per McKay et al 2018 - The Onset and Rate of Holocene Neoglacial Cooling in the Arctic
"Arctic summer temperatures have decreased for the past 8,000 years, before rapidly warming over the past century. As temperatures cooled, glaciers that had melted began to regrow throughout the Arctic, a phenomenon and a time interval known as Neoglaciation.
This study seeks to understand the nature of this cooling and whether or not this indicates a tipping point in the climate system. Specifically, we use a large database of records from ice cores, lakes, ocean sediment, and more paleoclimate archives to detect patterns of cooling. We investigate these patterns, and climate model simulations, to determine what parts of the Arctic experienced Neoglaciation at the same time, how rapidly it cooled, and what climate models indicate about the causes of cooling.
We find that the Arctic did not cool simultaneously, but different regions cooled at different times and that the climate models perform well when simulating both the timing and amount of Arctic cooling."
Further, recent climate warming in the central Yukon region has surpassed the warmest temperatures experienced in the previous 13,600 years.
Porter et al 2019 - Recent summer warming in northwestern Canada exceeds the Holocene thermal maximum
Warming to match forcings takes time. Be patient.
[TD] See also this post. And then this one. And finally this one. Note that some of those posts have Basic, Intermediate, and Advanced tabbed panes.
-
Hi18763 at 03:36 AM on 28 November 2019Antarctica is gaining ice
How can sea ice increase and land ice decrease at the same time?
Moderator Response:[DB] Both Arctic sea ice and Antarctic sea ice daily extents are currently well-below the long term average of all decades prior since 1979. Land-based ice continues to be lost with losses increasing in recent decades. See here, here, here, here and here.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:22 AM on 28 November 2019Harnessing gamification to defeat climate misinformation
To be even clearer regarding my comment @5,
Every action that increases the acceptance and support for expanding awareness and improvement of understanding among the general population is helpful.
This particular course of action is brilliant, but it needs to be understood to ultimately be limited when it comes to getting the required corrections of developed economic activity and the related corrections of developed attitudes in the population.
It is becoming clearer that it will be necessary for Government intervention in the economy, especially limiting and correcting misleading marketing, especially political marketing. A focus on achieving all of the Sustainable Development Goals can highlight the problem by exposing how many Leadership Contender actions are contrary to achieving those essential objectives, and highlight which groups and individuals are the worst offenders.
What needs to be understood is that the requirement is to develop enough support, a tipping point of support, for Leadership that is willing to disappoint a significant very vocal, easily angered, and very 'sure to vote' portion of the population.
A significant number of people have been tempted to develop a powerful liking for winning by behaving in an understandably incorrect and ultimately unsustainable way. Competing for status based on impressions of popularity and wealth will develop those harmful ways of thinking and acting.
Critical thinking skills and expanded awareness will not change those type of minds (as examples, think of the people with relevant scientific credentials who still gleefully play on the side of the delayers). Their lack of interest in responsibly self-governing their behaviour means that they will need to be Governed in ways that Limit their ability to do what they would like to do.
Significant Government Intervention in the economy is required, particularly significant corrective actions regarding misleading marketing, especially political marketing, even if those actions may be claimed to be harmful restrictions on Freedom of Action or Freedom of Belief.
Leadership is the challenge of deciding who to please and who to disappoint. It is harder to properly Lead when a significant portion of the population have been easily tempted into benefiting by believing what they want to excuse doing what they like. They will readily claim that anything contrary to their interests is an unjustified restriction of Freedom, even if they have developed critical thinking skills and are exposed to expanded awareness and improved understanding.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:35 AM on 28 November 2019Harnessing gamification to defeat climate misinformation
Efforts to reduce the ability of people to be misled regarding climate science are helpful. But the influence is limited and may not solve the problem.
A significant reason that people do not accept the expanded awareness and improving understanding of climate science is that they have developed a powerful desire to personally benefit from being incorrect. As I mentioned, even engineers who make a living through critical thinking and pursuing expanded awareness and improved understanding can be powerfully resistant to learning about climate science.
That harmful selfishness is so powerful that the deniers of climate science have moved on to claiming that forcing the reduction of fossil fuel use, rather than just letting the economy do what it will do with minimal external governing interference, will cripple the reduction of poverty or social improvements and cripple environmental protection actions.
Those arguments about the 'Good being Done' make the incorrect claim that it can only happen because of fossil fuel use. And since it is simple to know that fossil fuel use will have to end, and that poverty reduction can occur in regions where there is very little fossil fuel use, there is a large percentage of the population who appear to be willing to benefit from getting away with being wrong.
The developed socioeconomic-political environment is what is developing those powerful desires to benefit from being wrong. People who will not helpfully self-limit their behaviour, people who will not willingly be less harmful to Others, require external governing contrary to their desires.
Correction of the developed socioeconomic-political systems will be hard work, but it is really what is required in order to accomplish the degree of climate action that is now required because of the success of selfishness through the past 30 years. Leaders will have to be very unpopular in a Helpful Corrective Way, like the Australian Leadership that put a significant Helpful Corrective dent in Gun Culture in Australia.
-
Nick Palmer at 01:10 AM on 28 November 2019Harnessing gamification to defeat climate misinformation
Of course, the denialosphere have been using cartoons for years, in particular those of 'Josh'.
-
Eclectic at 22:46 PM on 27 November 2019There is no consensus
Klmartinson @844 ,
Unfortunately the study you mention (of the AMS/ametsoc) is of a much lower quality than other "consensus" studies . . . so it is difficult to draw much of a conclusion from it.
I am not sure where you got the 52 (versus 97%) figure from. From the chart of stated results, "52" is simply not an accurate representation of the views of the AMS members who participated in the electronic survey.
## Did you yourself read the report ~ or are you only passing on a hearsay version of the survey?
The other failings of the survey are many :-
#1. Only a voluntary survey, and with only a 30% return (Doran, for example, had only a 30% return . . . but the AMS survey returns contained a considerable number where only part of the survey was answered).
#2. The authors admitted a blunder, in that they had asked about causation of global warming over 150 years . . . and a significant number of respondents later made contact to say they would have upgraded their answer if the question had been for the most recent 50 years.
#3. The survey was taken in 2012 . . . and a great amount of change has happened in the 7 years since then e.g. the so-called Pause has disappeared, and record high temperatures have followed.
#4. The survey was (per definition) limited largely to Americans ~ a nation where there is strange & bizarre percentage of the population who are so influenced by Motivated Reasoning, that they reject plain evidence about AGW, evolution, age of the Earth, etcetera. So is rather far from representative of meteorologists or scientists worldwide. You will also notice that only 89% of respondents acknowledged any global warming at all . . . in other words for 11% their beliefs were at the Flat Earth level of science denial.
#5. The authors themselves pondered the observation that controversy (at the political/partisan level) had caused a percentage of AMS members to "disengage" with the AGW issue during the (then) recent years, and to express themselves less definitely about the scientific facts. Sad to see such a defense mechanism!! ~ but it did seem to "tone down" the definitiveness of answers given to the survey. One would like to think that the meteorologists of the AMS are more courageous in 2019 ~ and I have heard hints that is so . . . but of course that won't show up in the 2012 survey !
In all, it was an overly-simple survey of 4 main points. Even so, it was like the other "consensus" surveys, in that it showed that the greater the climate scientific expertise (of the meteorologists) the greater the agreement with the scientific mainstream.
Klmartinson, you will find much more reliability from consensus surveys such as the contemporaneous Cook et al. 2013 survey, where the "return rate" was in effect about 100% ~ and the clever design of Cook eliminated the influence of bias (bias from personal and social factors) . . . and giving a robust 97%. (Actually more than 99% consensus, based on recent years' evidence).
Prev 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 Next
