Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 Next
Comments 95251 to 95300:
-
Marcus at 11:01 AM on 18 February 2011Meet The Denominator
"We've probably all given PT more time and energy than he's worth." Amen to that ;-). -
Bob Lacatena at 10:43 AM on 18 February 2011Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
21, Xplain, I think you have to put it in context. The first IPCC report, in which this was included, was completed in 1990. There wasn't a whole lot of research to base the report on (in comparison), or even warming (in relation to noise) to give the issue any weight, there was no huge denial movement, a fraction of an Internet by today's standards, and so on. It might look a little silly now, but that shows how much momentum the science has gained in 20 years, and more importantly, how much higher the level of inspection and attention to detail needs to be in an IPCC report. In 1990, I'm not sure if anyone I knew had even heard of the IPCC. And certainly, who knew that the Managerial Wall Period was going to become a rallying cry for an ignorance driven contrarian machine? But by the second report in 1992 this was dropped. I'd venture a guess that, since it was the first report, the authors were simply scrambling for something, anything simple for non-science types to be able to look at without their eyes glazing over. -
HumanityRules at 10:37 AM on 18 February 2011Clouds provide negative feedback
FYI, the full Clement paper can be read here . -
Rob Honeycutt at 08:48 AM on 18 February 2011Meet The Denominator
pbjamm and Philippe... When I go to Alexa and check the reach his site gets, it's really very limited. The list does get bandied about here and there, but, in my experience, not nearly as much as the Oregon Petition (which got a lot of play on FoxNews). We've probably all given PT more time and energy than he's worth. -
pbjamm at 08:20 AM on 18 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Eric(skeptic) 's plan 1a seems best to me. Ignoring it only leaves The List out there unchallenged to be used as a bludgeon by people with an ax to grind. Philippe Chantreau: "Frankly, if I was just starting to enquire about climate change and I ran into this kind of BS, it would be quite helpful to determine what exactly is there on the "skeptic" side." After Climategate a skeptic/denier I know waved the emails around as definitive proof that AGW theory was bunk. I decided that it was time I seriously reexamine my stance on the subject. What i found was mostly (but not entirely) Scientific Theory vs Conspiracy Thoeory. Even without any scientific qualifications it was pretty easy to see who was on the side of reason. -
Philippe Chantreau at 07:49 AM on 18 February 2011Meet The Denominator
For those of us who can think, option 2) is the best, Eric. It is obvious that PopTech is so ignorant of how review works that he confused appearing in a peer-reviewed publication with being reviewed. Hence the conference proceedings, editorials and other opinion pieces. It is also obvious that he barely read the title of some papers before including them in the list, so some papers have no reason to be there at all. I asked him 3 or 4 times about one specific paper (Mavromichalaki), he still has no answer. This is produced by the guy who calls it "my work" and will rant on and on about objectivity but can not even abide by his own objective, self defined standards when doing "his work." Frankly, if I was just starting to enquire about climate change and I ran into this kind of BS, it would be quite helpful to determine what exactly is there on the "skeptic" side. Not pretty. The 850 number is overinflated but PopTech can't bear to admit it. Either that or it was so hard to come up with that measly number that he does not want to take out even the flimsiest non reviewed opinion piece. After pages and pages of revealing PT's strange thought process, we're left with what was also obvious to start with: the silly list is meaningless. It is unfortunate that there are people out there with such low critical thinking skills that they'll be impressed by it, but we can't remake poeple's education over the internet. -
David Horton at 07:08 AM on 18 February 2011The Dai After Tomorrow
Interesting and frightening for Australia. One puzzling aspect, given recent events, is why the lack of wet conditions in the far north of Australia in the future? I thought earlier predictions had suggested this, and intuitively you would expect, with warmer seas, more rainfall events of the kind Darwin has just seen But elsewhere in Australia - not only not much room for agriculture, but not much room for people at all! -
Eric (skeptic) at 07:06 AM on 18 February 2011Meet The Denominator
My view of the options, FWIW. 1a) Use part of the list as a museum of invalidated theory, clearly stating the theory (where possible) and the reason why it is invalid : outdated, incoherent, illogical, falsified. 1b) categorize the remaining papers where they may rebut arguments in particular cases (e.g. hurricane trends and many other examples). 2) Just ignore the list. Option 1a has the advantage of giving a resource to people on the internet faced with the real threat to understanding that these papers represent. Option 1b is properly the job of skeptics in each speciality. -
Utahn at 06:57 AM on 18 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech: "Choosing the denominator would be subjective." Agreed, but could probably be made less subjective than how you've described your numerator. In sum: Your subjective opinion is that 850 papers is strong evidence. Objectively, though, you can have no idea how strong, without numerical context. Subjectively, my suspicion is that 850 is a trivial number. -
Stephen Leahy at 06:53 AM on 18 February 2011The Dai After Tomorrow
I covered the Dai study as well as another on the decline in the evapotranspiration rate over land here for IPS along with some comments from Kevin Trenberth and implications. (for those looking for an easy intro to the topic). -
Rob Painting at 06:18 AM on 18 February 2011PMEL Carbon Program: a new resource
guinganbresil - By limiting the graph to anthropogenic carbon, it gives the impression that the oceans are getting 'acidic' from the surfaceand therefore that the increase of anthropogenic carbon is a serious problem Yes, precisely. Scores of scientific papers say the same thing. If carbon is introduced to the atmosphere by man, it will enter the carbon cycle with all the other natural carbon sources. The atmosphere-ocean carbon cycle operates on timescales of hundreds to thousands of years so it is not surprising that anthropogenic carbon has not been distributed through the whole system. Good so far. Here are a few 'novel mechanisms' that can reduce surface CO2: Upwelling of lower pH water from below, decrease in biological activity at the surface, difference in CO2 surface transfer due to local wind and temperature - I am sure there are more. Doh!. You're just repeating the assertions you made above. Again look at the graph you provided at post 10.
Note the first and second figures. See those values down deep?. They are unchanged. If the deepwater upwelling is causing a change in ocean surface pH, why isn't the deep ocean DIC value changing?. Remember we are talking about a massive change in ocean pH, 0.1 units or almost a 30% increase in acidity since pre-industrial times.
Here's an analogy: take a jug of water from out of a swimming pool. Walk to the other end of the pool and pour the water back into it. You are claiming that the water level in the pool has now risen. I say it has remained the same.
I am saying that we should critically analyze the data and results. avoid the insidious fallacies and not play fast and loose with the facts.
Sorry but rhetoric doesn't hide the fundamental flaw in your reasoning. Just to be clear; the pulse of CO2 that humans have injected into the atmosphere is likely unprecedented in 300 million years. We know that ocean acidification events in the deep past, have pretty much decimated life in the oceans, the Permian extinction eliminated over 95% of marine life. There are genuine reasons to be concerned for the future. Invoking some incoherent mystery mechanism doesn't cut it.
-
muoncounter at 05:49 AM on 18 February 2011Meet The Denominator
"editorials can be peer-reviewed depending on the journal." Come on. An editorial is an opinion piece. Just because the editorial is in a peer-reviewed journal, do not claim that makes the editorial itself peer-reviewed. Or have you redefined 'editorial' to suit your needs? But wait a bit: You include papers that have nothing to do with your so-called skeptic arguments just because you like something in their title or abstract. You admit you do not read or even have access to full content. You admit you don't really care if the paper is valid or not, because the list is 'a resource.' Why do you even care if they are peer-reviewed? Even a toxic waste dump can be considered a resource. -
mspelto at 05:48 AM on 18 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
Dan Bailey poses " At this point it's the sheer scale of the ice sheet that makes it difficult to understand why, if the basal melt causes an ungrounding of the ice sheet leading edge, why the whole sucker doesn't just pop up like a cork?". The accelerations observed for the Ice sheet from meltwater lubrication have mostly been inland, not at the ice edge. It not the amount of meltwater that is key but the basal water pressure. Near the margin there has always been plenty of meltwater, increasing this by a percentage means little. The accleration from meltwater on all glaciers tends to be highest early in melt season or when a glacial lake drains in either case the meltwater exceeds the ability of the basal plumbing system to drain the water. After the drainage system develops added meltwater no longer lubricates motion. This is why Shephard (2011) noted the potential of added meltwater to reduce GIS flow. It also is why the acceleration is short lived, spatially limited and often is followed by a slower than usual flow some weeks after. We also must remember that there are alpine glaciers in warm environments of New Zealand, Chile and Alaska for example where melting occurs most of the year at the terminus and this bountiful meltwater does not lead to their collapse. Instead they just develop effective sub-glacial conduit systems.Moderator Response: [DB] Thanks, Mauri! -
RickG at 05:45 AM on 18 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech: RickG, "You conveniently excluded the next sentence of that statement (in 558) which states: Now, [you] seem to state that hurricanes don't intensify due to increased heat, regardless of the source of heat. That is an argument against how hurricanes intensify, not against AGW." Poptech: "Because it is a strawman argument". Sure Pop. You "quote mine" me and when I call you on it, you say "I" created a strawman. Well, that's enough for me. As someone previously stated, "You are the gift that just keeps giving". -
Gordon1368 at 05:42 AM on 18 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
@48 GFW One meter is a disaster in Oregon, where we have a coastal mountain range that crowds our fishing and tourism towns close to the Pacific, as well as the single road that links all coastal towns north and south, and that provides sole access to most of them. One meter rise will cut that road in many places, requiring expensive roadwork, higher up existing slopes, many new bridges, and will destroy countless buildings, and will require huge coastal engineering projects to maintain access to fisheries. We can hardly pay for schools as it is, the additional burden may be impossible to meet. We may see coastal towns, and north south road travel abandoned on our coast. @ #40, Peter, you claim people here refuse to do calculations. "Please, please, no more doomesday scenarios! Here's the math that no one will do: The total ice volume is about 40 x 10^6 GT. The rate of melting is currently well under 1000 GT per year, or 0.001 x 10^6 GT/yr." Why do you ignore post #8, which suggests we may see a doubling of ice mass loss every 5-6 years? That means a rate of loss 1,000 times as great as now in 60 years, or equal to 1/40 of existing ice at that time, if I did my calculations correctly. -
muoncounter at 05:39 AM on 18 February 2011PMEL Carbon Program: a new resource
guinganbresil: I appreciate your giving me credit for these graphs, however undeserved. To label a graph as 'insidious,' however, is a tad strong. "to assume that increasing concentration of anthopogenic CO2 in the ocean surface since the beginning of the industrial age results an increase in total CO2 in the ocean surface over time" Assumption? Not at all. Quay et al 1992 showed by isotopic measurement (delta C13/C12) that from 1970-90, ocean uptake of CO2 amounted to approximately 40% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. They also account for biospheric uptake of anthropogenic CO2. This is not the normal carbon cycle; this is the excess CO2 from anthropogenic emissions. A number of studies have shown that land CO2 sinks are losing their capacity to take up as much CO2 as atmospheric composition increases. As ocean pH drops, the ability of the ocean to absorb atmospheric CO2 may likewise suffer. And so shall we all. -
Bob Lacatena at 05:26 AM on 18 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
For everyone trying to nail down sea level rise based on ice melt, it should be remembered that thermal expansion of the oceans is contributing a factor roughly equal to that of ice loss. The best one could say is that at least, for the moment, that factor is not accelerating. But for the foreseeable near future, one must double the ice-loss-caused sea-level rise estimates, to account for accompanying thermal expansion. -
pbjamm at 05:25 AM on 18 February 2011Meet The Denominator
poptech@576 You keep saying it but it does not make it so. This seriously feels like the Argument Clinic. -
les at 05:09 AM on 18 February 2011Meet The Denominator
574 pbjamm You summary of the state of play so far is good, but I'm not sure about your remedy. If it's not possible to reach a conclusion on what's subjective and what's objective, it's not possible to do any science... which is the essence of how this whole thing produces a message with no meaning. I mean, for gods sake, it's from on a site claiming to be about popular technology - which isn't! lost cause, lost interest... -
Rob Honeycutt at 05:00 AM on 18 February 2011Meet The Denominator
mclamb6... Heck, even I admit that the first pass contained inapplicable papers. But the point was that you can throw out literally half the papers that I pulled up and it would barely put a dent in the resulting percentage. But if you apply more rigorous methods to the denominator you need to do the same for the numerator. Then we get back down to similar numbers again. As I stated in the original article, people can quibble the numbers all day long (and PT seems more than willing to engage in prodigious quibbling), but the overall results are not going to significantly change. As I said many pages back, this would be a very interesting detailed study. How many peer reviewed papers genuinely do challenge AGW? I know they are out there. But my general sense is the results are going to be somewhere in the neighborhood of what my shoot-from-the-hip method has produced. -
mclamb6 at 04:45 AM on 18 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Fine. I will admit that Rob's first cut at creating the "denominator" contained inapplicable papers. You cannot, however, use that to argue that the denominator is "meaningless". The denominator is particularly relevant in relation to your claims that your list consitutes strong evidence in support of a skeptical position towards climate change. -
pbjamm at 04:31 AM on 18 February 2011Meet The Denominator
This thread has been going in circles for about 10 pages. Poptech makes the claim that Rob's original denominator number is not well researched and so not useful. I have to agree, it is guesstimation and not a hard number. Sorry Rob. Everyone else has made very valid points (despite Poptech's protests) that his list is entirely subjective and riddled with poorly reviewed, rebutted, and irrelevant papers. Since Poptech is not interested in defending the science in the papers and dismissive of any criticism I think there is nowhere left to go with this discussion. In my opinion the only constructive things to do at this point are compile a proper Denominator List and perhaps a list of rebuttals to the papers on PT' list. Otherwise we will just continue arguing in circles. It has been entertaining but for me it is over. -
Dikran Marsupial at 04:27 AM on 18 February 2011Meet The Denominator
poptech@571 wrote: "I would be interested in someone who worked with him and would be able to argue his position well. " [emphasis mine] That is exactly what I implied, namely that you are only interested in discussing the validity of Beck's paper with someone someone able to argue his position (and not the opposing position). If you only want to hear from people that already agree with you it is neither science nor skepticism. [as your earlier post was deleted] -
Dikran Marsupial at 04:13 AM on 18 February 2011Meet The Denominator
poptech@568 Sorry, you have made it clear that you are not interested in defending the validity of your selections. Sadly the scientific validity of your list is the only thing worth discussing, and I have no interest in arguing just for the sake of it. If you want to discuss the science, let me know and "I'll be back". -
muoncounter at 04:02 AM on 18 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Rob: "The number of citations by other papers." That wouldn't work; junk science papers just cite each other. One laborious test might be how many times an author cites his/her own work vs. citing the work of others. An obvious example of this is Landscheidt, who almost exclusively cites his prior papers. Either he was a true unrecognized genius or nobody else believed his work enough to use it as a reference. -
RickG at 04:01 AM on 18 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech 563: RickG, "No, I am drawing attention to that specific paper because you specifically pointed that paper out as an argument against AGW." Poptech 563: I did no such thing, I pointed it out as an argument against AGW Alarm in relation to Hurricanes. I did state in relation to hurricanes. You conveniently excluded the next sentence of that statement (in 558) which states: "Now, [you] seem to state that hurricanes don't intensify due to increased heat, regardless of the source of heat. That is an argument against how hurricanes intensify, not against AGW. " -
michael sweet at 04:01 AM on 18 February 2011PMEL Carbon Program: a new resource
Guinganbresil, The Feely paper you reference shows by direct measurement that anthropogenic CO2 is lowering the aragonite saturation level of the North Pacific ocean. They do not use a model. They measure undersaturation of the surface water on one transect. They state that it was not expected to measure surface undersaturation until 2050. They calculate that without the anthropogenic carbon put into the water 60 years ago it would not be undersaturated now. You suggest that the profesional scientists you have cited are wrong and overlooked other possible mechanisms of increase of CO2. Setting aside the fact that you have not read everything the scientists wrote about this subject in the past, can you suggest where the CO2 is coming from that you propose is now upwelling and changing the surface composition? Why is it different from what was measured in the past? If it was just coming up from deeper water, the deep water would be deficient in CO2 now compared to the past. That is not consistent with what has been measured, so the CO2 cannot come from deeper water. The scientists have considered the alternatives you have suggested and ruled them out. You have just not read those discussions in the past. You hand waving and saying the professionals are wrong is not a convincing argument.. -
mclamb6 at 03:58 AM on 18 February 2011Meet The Denominator
@565: I don't see the Poptech post that is excerpted by DM. But I would like to know if that means that Poptech believes he is capable of arguing for Pielke, Jr.Moderator Response: [DB] Cf. comment number 562 here. -
GFW at 03:55 AM on 18 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
One meter is a disaster if you're Bangladeshi. Two meters is a disaster in a lot of the world. I wonder what the over/under is on the date Venice is abandoned. -
Albatross at 03:53 AM on 18 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
Peter, You seem to thing that this is all a storm in a tea cup. I do wish that were the case, but unfortunately research has determined how the planet responded to warming in the past, and the results are to say the least a little worrying. Others here have cited Hansen et al's recent paper. The figures below were sourced here.
Also,
These graphs are based on the work of Rohling et al. (2009). These data suggest that the increase in global sea level by 2100 could be way too low. Although we know that there will be quite a delay between ice loss and the initial temperature increase. So those are more likely expected sea level increases at equilibrium, and are not valid at the actual time the global surface air temperature anomaly reaches +3 K.
Now they could be wrong of course, but if they are even remotely close.....then we have set the scene for a whole lot of misery down the road.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 03:49 AM on 18 February 2011Meet The Denominator
poptech@563 wrote: "In regards to Beck's papers I would only be interested in a debate that involved him (not possible anymore) or someone else capable of arguing for him." [emphasis mine] Sorry poptech, you have just shot yourself in the foot once more; if you don't understand how, perhaps you should reflect on that a bit. If you are not interested in discussing the scientific validity of the papers in your list, then there is no point in discussing your list any further. Sadly is a hazard to genuine skeptics out there as it will encourage them to make themselves look foolish by trotting out tired old canards that have been long debunked. That doesn't do either side of the debate any good. You are just adding to the noise. -
mclamb6 at 03:48 AM on 18 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech you are talking out both sides of your mouth. On one hand, you state that the list has nothing to do in relation to validity, but is merely a resource. On the other, you argue that the 850 is strong support for a skeptical point of view. Which is it? -
Dennis at 03:26 AM on 18 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech @556: "I have no interest in debating the scientific validity of any of the papers on the list, that is not the purpose of the list." That's too bad. I thought you were interested in science. -
Dikran Marsupial at 03:21 AM on 18 February 2011Meet The Denominator
poptech@556 wrote "I have no interest in debating the scientific validity of any of the papers on the list, that is not the purpose of the list" That is a pretty damning indictment of your project. If the purpose of the list is not to provide valid support for skepticism of AGW, then it doesn't support skepticism, it supports denial. I'm sorry to have to use the d-word, it isn't one I use often or lightly; but if you are not interested in the validity of the science, what else can it be called? -
Rob Honeycutt at 03:21 AM on 18 February 2011Meet The Denominator
I have a great deal of confidence in Poptech's tenacity and altered state of logic that he is fully capable of finding something in absolutely every paper on climate change that applies to his subjective measure of "AGW alarm." I have a question though. I believe there is a clearly objective measure of the quality of scientific papers, at least over time. The number of citations by other papers. It would also be a measure of the quality of science being done by specific researchers as well. Is this data available anywhere? -
RickG at 03:16 AM on 18 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech 557, No, I am drawing attention to that specific paper because you specifically pointed that paper out as an argument against AGW. Now, seem to state that hurricanes don't intensify due to increased heat, regardless of the source of heat. That is an argument against how hurricanes intensify, not against AGW. -
RickG at 03:03 AM on 18 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech: Incorrect, it matters if their is a claim that AGW is the cause. So are you claiming AGW will not cause an increase in Hurricane damage? Are you saying the paper argues that hurricanes don't increase intensity due to more heat? -
michael sweet at 03:01 AM on 18 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
Peter: I am sorry, I thought you said "Assume any melt acceleration you like." I chose the conservative 10 year doubling time. The data shows a doubling time of six years which results in much higher sea level rise. You assume no acceleration, which is certainly not correct. You claim that we do not need to worry until the last ice cube is gone, which will be several hundred years. At that time sea level will be 75 meters higher than now and billions of people will have no homes. That is too much of a disaster for me to contemplate, even several hundred years from now. Please tell me what you consider a disaster so that we can only measure the time until that happens. For me 5 meters of sea level rise by 2100 is a disaster. That is the course we are currently on with BAU. -
Dennis at 02:33 AM on 18 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech @550: I was referring to the science, specifically that Beck based his results on CO2 concentrations that were not well-mixed. I'm not a scientist, but it is easy to understand how this fact invalidates Beck's results. Can you offer a scientific reason why this is not true? -
RickG at 02:29 AM on 18 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech: Why can I not use a paper that argues against Hurricane damage getting worse due to AGW against those who claim it is? How is that paper not supporting skepticism against alarmist claims relating to AGW causing increases in Hurricane damage? Because increased hurricane intensity is linked to increased temperature. It doesn't matter whether that temperature is due to natural or AGW causes. The paper would be arguing against the reason hurricanes intensify, not AGW. How does a paper argue against AGW that doesn't address the causes of AGW? -
Utahn at 02:29 AM on 18 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech: "Incorrect, using words like 'strong' and 'weak' are subjective judgments. Word like 'less' and 'more' are not. Saying 1000 is more than 850 is objective." That helps, thanks! So your *subjective* opinion is that finding 850 papers is "strong" evidence to support the skeptical position. I was laboring under the misapprehension that you thought the fact there were 850 papers was *objectively* strong evidence. Now I see that you’re just saying 850 is more than 849, is more than 848 etc…In other words, 850 papers are “one stronger” than 849. I concur that 850 papers are “one stronger” evidence than 849. But isn't it better to base our actions on the most objective evidence possible? One way for you to make the list more objective would be to assign a denominator, which would add some perspective. Another way would be to only include truly peer-reviewed articles as has been noted previously. Letters to the editor or editorials are not themselves peer-reviewed, even if they are submitted to "peer-reviewed journals". -
harryb987 at 02:02 AM on 18 February 2011It hasn't warmed since 1998
In my opinion, the evidence is just not there and more data is needed. For example, scientists have always led us to believe that tree rings are a sign of global warming as they represent temperature changes over the years. Yet there is simply no evidence to support this! It is caused by Lunar Cycles and Solar Flares (of which there is to be the largest one on Monday night). For anyone else who is interested in this kind of thing, I would suggest this website: http://blindedbyscience.co.uk It's an informative read for skeptics and anyone, like me, who questions what we are told about climate change and global warming.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Welcome to Skeptical Science! There is an immense amount of reference material discussed here and it can be a bit difficult at first to find an answer to your questions. That's why we recommend that Newcomers, Start Here and then learn The Big Picture. I also recommend watching this video on why CO2 is the biggest climate control knob in Earth's history. Further general questions can usually be be answered by first using the Search function in the upper left of every Skeptical Science page to see if there is already a post on it (given the plethora of posts [I get paid extra for using big words and alliteration :-) ] odds are, there is). Or you can search by Taxonomy. If you still have questions, post them on the most appropriate thread & someone will attempt to help you. Please adhere to the Comments Policy when composing your comments and remember to use the Preview function before submitting. I'm afraid the vast majority of your comment is simply incorrect. The warming of the globe is an accepted fact. That humans are causing a good part of it is accepted at over a 90% scientific certainty level. -
Dikran Marsupial at 00:42 AM on 18 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech@547 wrote >>"So do you reject all arguments that CO2 was ever a primary >>climate driver in the past?" It depends on exactly what you mean by "primary climate driver". There are examples in paleoclimate where CO2 was very probably the driver of substantial climate change (e.g. the PETM event or the escape from the "snowball Earth" period) in the sense that CO2 had initiated the change as well as being the cause of much of the warming/cooling. However, for most of paleoclimate, the sun has been the dominant driver in the sense of initiating change (e.g. Milankovic cycles, solar brightening), however the carbon cycle has been a key element controlling the temperature of the Earth, mostly acting as a negative feedback on very long time scales (weathering thermostat), and amplifying over shorter timescales (exchange of carbon between oceans and atmosphere). In short, in paleoclimate, to a first approximation, it is generally changes in solar forcing that have initiated changes in climate, and carbon dioxide has generally acted as a feedback. However, as we now have anthropogenic emissions, there is now a new possibility for carbon dioxide to initiate climate change, rather than acting as a feedback. So just because climate change was generally initated by solar activity in the past, that is no cause for skepticism that it is due to CO2 now. >> Why can I not use a paper that argues against Hurricane damage >> getting worse due to AGW against those who claim it is? I didn't critisize your inclusion of a paper arguing against hurricane damage getting worse. I criticised you inclusion of a paper that showed that past climate change has caused the colapse of civilisations, which does not support skepticism of AGW "alarm" as just becuase climate change was initiated by solar forcing in paleoclimate, that doesn't mean it is initated by solar forcing now. >>"Very few papers are ever utterly wrong." > >Exactly. The criteria for the list is that they are peer-reviewed, >published in a peer-reviewed journal and support skepticism of AGW >Alarm. That is it. The list is a resource that does not >discriminate past this criteria. And that is why it is worse than useless as a resource for skeptics. I chose the example of the paper by Essenhigh becuase where it is correct it supplies no support for skepticism and where it does provide grounds for skepticism it is (rather obviously) completely wrong. Any skeptic who uses Essenhigh's paper to support skepticism demonstrates that they have not bothered to look at the data or attempt to understand the science of which they are skeptical. In short, they will look foolish. >> I understand your concerns but this is not going to change. Yes, but that isn't a very skeptical attitude is it? The fact that you are not willing to change your list regardless of what criticisms are made is unscientific and makes you look bad. I don't want that and am trying to help, but you can lead a horse to water... >>"I notice you didn't apologise for your misrepresentation of my >>position there. for examples, try: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref >>/2009/2009GL038082.shtml Which looks O.K. from the abstract. If I >>notice papers I agree with being criticised, then I am happy to >>defend them." > >I will accept your one paper as not believing "all" the papers to >be a "dud". Might be a good idea to appologise for misrepresenting me then, or perhaps to stop complaining that others have misrepresented you. > Roughly how many do you believe not to be "duds"? I don't know, mostly because my expertise only covers a subset of papers in the list and I know better than to make strong statements about topics that lie outside my expertise. I can point out the duds where I see them - that is pretty much how peer review works. All I have done is suggest you weed out the duds that don't support skepticism of AGW "alarm" to make it a better resource. As a resource against AGW alarmism, the IPCC WG1 scientific basis report is way better than your list, at least until you weed out the duds. -
mclamb6 at 00:40 AM on 18 February 2011Meet The Denominator
You prove my point when from upthread re: all authors "disagreeing" with predominant theories regarding global warming when you run rough shod over the author's opinion of their own work (not even of their supposed personal evaluation of the evidence surrounding climate change). Unless Pielke, Jr. stated "Oh, I didn't realize the purpose of the list, in that case....", then the fact that he used the word "Assuming" is of no import--it's just you ignoring the primary source. You also stated that it is objective to say 1000 is more than 850. Ok, I'll stipulate to that. What does that mean? What can be derived from that information? Without being able to have reasonably agreed upon value judgements in relation to the data, the data is worthless. Again, we have to cater to everyone's opinion, no matter how far in the minority--which brings us back to the heart of your position: scientific nihilism. Nothing means anything and everything is left to the eye of the beholder. -
Dennis at 00:32 AM on 18 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Phillipe @539 wrote: "You've given every indication that you wouldn't know a logical fallacy if your life depended on it. The Beck paper used measurements of CO2 taken in the middle of highly concentrated active sources of CO2 and used it as if it were well mixed. If you don't see the logical fallacy in that, there is no hope for you. That the paper was peer-reviewed at E&E says everything one needs to know on the standards of that journal. There is nothing subjective about it. Beck used to try to bamboozle people with a graph that had a truncated x axis so that it would simulate periodicity where there was none. Oops, sorry, that's not a logical fallacy, that's deception." Poptech, I'd like to read your response to this. -
guinganbresil at 23:30 PM on 17 February 2011PMEL Carbon Program: a new resource
Rob Painting: I think I understand why I have such trouble with muoncounter's graph from Key above. By limiting the graph to anthropogenic carbon, it gives the impression that the oceans are getting 'acidic' from the surface, and therefore that the increase of anthropogenic carbon is a serious problem. Here are some facts: Anthropogenic carbon has a slightly different isotopic ratio, but in all significant ways behaves identically to natural carbon. If carbon is introduced to the atmosphere by man, it will enter the carbon cycle with all the other natural carbon sources. The atmosphere-ocean carbon cycle operates on timescales of hundreds to thousands of years so it is not surprising that anthropogenic carbon has not been distributed through the whole system. In fact, the Key graphs above are really just showing the propagation of recent carbon through the cycle. If one were to prepare a similar graph showing the non-anthropogenic carbon distribution in the oceans since the beginning of the industrial revolution the graphs would be very similar - the scales would shift due to the different rates of emission and the edges might be a bit more distinct since the non-anthropogenic carbon emission isn't ramping up over time. Fundamentally carbon is carbon, and anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic carbon will move through the system identically. The Key graphs above are insidious in that they induce a Fallacy of Composition(1) in people who have not been exposed to details of ocean composition or who do not exercise critical thinking. Here is the truth: The surface of the oceans are alkali due to biological activity. The deep oceans have significantly lower pH and higher CO2 than the surface.
A result of this Fallacy of Composition(2) is the idea that a drop in pH in the ocean surface can only be due to increasing anthropogenic CO2. Here are a few 'novel mechanisms' that can reduce surface CO2: Upwelling of lower pH water from below, decrease in biological activity at the surface, difference in CO2 surface transfer due to local wind and temperature - I am sure there are more... It is a lot more complicated than just anthropogenic CO2.
Another result of this Fallacy of Composition(3) is to assume that increasing concentration of anthopogenic CO2 in the ocean surface since the beginning of the industrial age results an increase in total CO2 in the ocean surface over time.
I am not saying that anthropogenic CO2 is not affecting the environment - I am saying that we should critically analyze the data and results. avoid the insidious fallacies and not play fast and loose with the facts.
-
Bern at 23:11 PM on 17 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
^^^ what he said! I think you explained it much better than I did, Daniel - and thanks for the link to that video - amazing stuff! -
XPLAlN at 23:06 PM on 17 February 2011Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
I've not the least mystified by the culling of this 'schematic' from subsequent reports. However, I'm mildly perplexed by the inclusion of such a crap diagram in the first place, particularly as it is tagged "global" when it is actually the central bit of a small country. Talk about the IPCC giving denialists an open goal. They'll still be banging on about this when the Himalayan glaciers are lapping round their ankles in 2035. Doh! -
Eric (skeptic) at 22:49 PM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Marcus, your arguments are generally good except when you get personal. Please try to remember that people like Poptech may try to use ad hom arguments as evidence that they are correct (unfortunately that is also a personal argument, but hopefully useful)Moderator Response: Concur. -
kdkd at 21:31 PM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech #542 I must say I am finding your attempt to maintain your argument somewhat amusing, although the amusement is at your expense. "So if they have a degree other than these they are not considered climate scientists?" This is a perfect example of a ridiculous straw man argument that is a case in point. Without a good quality science degree there will be an awful lot more self-learning required than for an appropriately degree qualified practicing scientist than would be required in any case.
Prev 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 Next
