Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2145 2146 2147 2148 2149 2150 2151 2152 2153 2154 2155 2156 2157 2158 2159 2160 Next
Comments 107601 to 107650:
-
dana1981 at 03:14 AM on 8 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
I've found that when people form incorrect conclusions and you ask them what they are based on, one of the most common answers is "common sense." Personally I think it's common sense that CO2 is obviously a pollutant. But then again, I've put in the time to learn some basic climate science. Common sense, when based on ignorance, is usually wrong. -
Doug Bostrom at 03:12 AM on 8 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
Apologies for the lack of a citation and actually that was Church 2008, BP. Unless I'm misunderstanding you, the nut of your objection seems to come down to a hypothesis that, overall, continents are sinking below the waves, but you don't offer any details to support this remarkable claim. -
mfripp at 03:03 AM on 8 October 2010Global warming is accelerating the global water cycle
The US Geologic Survey has been measuring water flow for a very long time. Seems like a longer data trail could be obtained. -
shdwsnlite at 02:59 AM on 8 October 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Comments Gluttony
Yes the moderation on this site is very much appreciated by those of us trying to digest and understand the science. It is a welcome oasis from the gibberish and vile on other sites. The comment climb i guess may be the result of two things. The first being that this site is getting more attention and second that the rate articles are posted seems to be increasing. Both of those factors of course are nice to see. -
Bob Guercio at 02:58 AM on 8 October 2010Global warming is accelerating the global water cycle
We could wind up fighting another denier argument. -
tonydunc at 02:57 AM on 8 October 2010Global warming is accelerating the global water cycle
I also don't see a trend, especially since the start point is pretty low, and it looks like the end point is lower. It seems to me without knowing any the parameters for the period before 1993, there is no discernible long term trend. I assume that there is something I am not understanding from just eyeballing the chart. -
Ned at 02:55 AM on 8 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
michael sweet writes: Remember, people on this site spent over 200 posts trying (unsuccessfully) to help you understand waste heat. Please don't remind us all about that. I'm still angry about that episode. I can't say what I really think about those two threads (one, two) without blowing the comments policy to smithereens. Let's just say that my opinions of the entire "skeptic" community on this website were strongly influenced by that thread. I suppose in one sense that's not fair. But that thread seriously made me question whether there's any value whatsoever in trying to engage in reasoned discussion with "skeptics" on this site. I would probably feel quite a bit differently if Sensible Skeptic A and Sensible Skeptic B and Sensible Skeptic C had stepped forward in that thread and tried to help out. Didn't happen, though. Yes, I am bitter. Sorry. -
Spencer Weart at 02:49 AM on 8 October 2010Global warming is accelerating the global water cycle
Yes, too noisy to say anything very strong about a trend; the statistics must be marginal. Too soon to declare this another sign of AGW, it would be embarrassing if a couple years from now the trend turns down... -
Doug Bostrom at 02:48 AM on 8 October 2010The value of coherence in science
Chris, good comment, more than just a comment. We could wish that most people using the term "post-normal science" in connection with climate science bothered to look it up, as you did. What I find disturbing about employment of the term by folks tossing it around on climate blogs is-- again-- that they label climatological research as well as research in other fields as "post-normal science" based not on the content of the research itself but rather on whether it is connected with anthropogenic climate change, particularly if it happens to lend support to the notion of anthropogenic climate change as a threat. Reflexive categorization itself is presumed to be a negation of the worth of research, but it's not. It's reasonable to claim that the course of inquiry leading to some particular finding was inspired by reaction to a perceived threat; I'm sure we can agree that in myriad cases, concern about an emerging situation may well motivate choices about where to expend research effort, as in the case of HIV. However, categorizing research in that manner does not explain results, doesn't invalidate findings. Regardless of the reasons for why particular questions are answered or attempted to be answered, answers themselves can and must be assessed for reliability outside of motivational frameworks, leaving aside the impetus driving any particular actors. Tagging collective or individual work with labels such as "post-normal," "selection bias" and even the celebrated "cargo cult science" doesn't answer any questions about the validity of things dropped into those various identification buckets. To be useful, criticism of scientific findings must offer detailed and cogent arguments against specific results. Actually constructing a case for why any particular research finding is worthy of dismissal requires unraveling the work in question at a level of intricacy so divorced from sweeping terms such as "post-normal science" that I'm left wondering, what's the point of using these categorizations at all? I've a feeling the answer to that question as it stands in connection with anthropogenic warming usually lies with rhetorical impressionism, has nothing to do with making productive contributions to research. As a case in point, Christy et al have just published a paper discussing observations versus model predictions as they relate to the troposphere. Christy and his coauthors refer to the general context of the importance of improving models, the relevance of their own research in relation to matters outside of the particular matter of the science itself. I sincerely doubt we'll see any charges of Christy's work being "post-normal science" leveled by the contrarian community. -
JMurphy at 02:46 AM on 8 October 2010We're heading into an ice age
Tom Loeber, I have replied to you at Does cold weather disprove global warming?/It's freaking cold! as requested.Moderator Response: Thank you. -
JMurphy at 02:40 AM on 8 October 2010It's freaking cold!
Tom Loeber, instead of pasting loads of links to newspaper/online media articles giving records for anything from one to fifty years, how about links to officially recognised records that are significant, i.e. coldest on record, second coldest, etc. Anything else can be safely ignored. Also, please give a link to an official source that states that England was the "coldest in...140 years". Again, anything else will be a waste of your time. PS It appears you WEREN'T banned, yes ? -
Berényi Péter at 02:40 AM on 8 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
#53 Daniel Bailey at 21:37 PM on 7 October, 2010 I'm going to be kind & assume you are being fascetious with your comment. Thanks, you are right, I am. And while we are here you can ask kdkd to tell doug_bostrom it's very poor form to show data without properly attributing the source of the raw data. Anyway, I guess it's based on Church 2006, which is bogus.
The reason I tell you this is because the Complete PSMSL Data Set can be downloaded, in either annual or monthly resolution and you can check it for yourself if the claimed acceleration exists or not as I have done for myself.
However, if one is only interested in acceleration, the proper way to do it is to compute acceleration for the individual stations, and have a look at the distribution of these accelerations. Reconstruction of average rate is neither necessary nor desirable for this end.
Sea level is expected to be more dynamic than vertical land motion, simply because both viscosity and heat capacity of crust and the underlying mantle is many orders of magnitude higher than that of seawater, heating is steady on this timescale while mass redistribution in solid earth is also slower.
So the spurious acceleration signal added by vertical land motion is expected to be much smaller relative to acceleration term of sea level change than the same kind of noise in rates.
Still, even the acceleration signal derived this way is rather noisy with a huge dispersion (relative to average). Therefore a non-zero "average" acceleration can't be genuine, it is indistinguishable from zero, even on a century time scale.
On the other hand in the remote case reconstruction of Church & al. made sense after all, it is easy to see all their acceleration took place before 1930, after that date there is none. As almost all CO2 induced warming is supposed to happen after 1950 (because emissions before that time were tiny), it's kinda check-mate, isn't it?
-
It's the sun
Gah - writing too fast. In my previous post I should have said "1750 was part of the end of the LIA", not "900". -
Ned at 02:32 AM on 8 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
pbjamm, if you naively project BP's quadratic trend forward in time, it would eventually level off and start decreasing. The fact that there's no justification for doing so is beside the point. -
Ned at 02:29 AM on 8 October 2010It's the sun
Ken Lambert writes: How about we agree on 0.2-0.5W/sq.m for the range of Solar forcing since AD1725. How about we don't try to maximize confusion by blurring the distinction between time periods? You claimed that a graph showed that "the actual value of the Solar forcing is in the range of 0.3 - 0.5W/sq.m and ongoing since about AD1700" That was a highly misleading statement, since the actual graph showed it not even rising up to 0.3 -- the bottom end of your claimed range for the past three centuries -- until the 1930s. Ken continues: Is the 'zero' axis not the zero Solar forcing and equilibrium TSI where the Earth neither warms nor cools due to Solar?? If not what else could it be?? Ken, there is no unique "equilibrium TSI where the Earth neither warms nor cools due to Solar". No such number exists! There are infinitely many possible values of TSI which would produce neither warming nor cooling of the Earth. I keep making this point and you keep ignoring it. Assume that TSI is currently X. Now, assume that it increases to X+0.25 W/m2. The additional irradiance causes the planet to heat up, and feedbacks in the climate system amplify that warming slightly. As the planet warms, outgoing longwave radiation increases per Stefan-Bolzmann, until the planet reaches a new equilibrium where all of the following are true: (1) TSI is X+0.25 (2) Outgoing longwave radiation has risen to balance that increase in TSI (3) The temperature is stabilized at a new, higher level, and the planet is neither being warmed nor cooled. You keep assuming that any departure from some imaginary equilibrium TSI would lead to perpetually increasing or decreasing temperature. That is just plain wrong -- fortunately, because if you were right there would probably be no life on this planet! Ken continues: Using some crude geometry I have calculated [...] This gives a roughly 45/55% ratio Solar/All Other for not just the first half of the 20th century - but the whole period 1725 up to 2000. You are once again lumping together different periods of time. I assume you're just inadvertently deceiving yourself rather than deliberately trying to deceive others. Before the early 20th century, solar forcing is much larger than GHG forcing. By the mid 20th century, GHGs are catching up and passing solar. In the late 20th century, GHG forcing is very large and solar is not merely smaller in relative terms, it's actually decreasing post 1975. -
We're heading into an ice age
Tom Loeber - try posting it on topic, in the it's freaking cold thread. Off topic posts (in this case, individual extrema data on the Ice Age thread) get deleted.Moderator Response: Exactly. -
pbjamm at 02:20 AM on 8 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
BP @49 I find your conclusion confusing. Your graph, at best, only shows that the *rate* of rise is decreasing. It does not indicate that the trend is reversing and in decline. -
It's the sun
Ken Lambert - You ask "How do you know it was NO and NO?"; how do I know that the climate wasn't in equilibrium in 900, 1750, 1880? Very simple, Ken. The slope of temperature change entering into those years, as shown by instrumental and proxy records, was not at or even close to zero. If the world was at equilibrium, you would see only seasonal changes in temperature. But given the time constants for ocean energy change, variations in forcings, etc., it would take a fairly significant time period for equilibrium to settle. [Side note - the fact that the various models track the paleoclimate record using historic forcings indicates that they are doing a reasonable job of dealing with thermal lags] 1750 has perhaps the best (not perfect) chance of being at equilibrium of those three dates - 900 temps have a steady downward trend, part of the Little Ice Age, I suspect, while 1880 is in early industrialization with numerous forcing changes from early CO2. But as the various forcings move around, the climate can only follow, only hitting equilibrium if (a) forcings don't change for a period long enough for the oceans to catch up, or (b) forcings reverse and pass climate change going the other way. I believe (IMO) that you are stuck on the "baseline" definition here, Ken. A proper analysis starting from a baseline includes not only changes after the baseline (forcing deltas, in this case), but the original trajectory of the system prior to the baseline, which includes all forcings at that date. Given those you can measure magnitude and correlation of trajectory changes relative to forcing changes. Failing to incorporate the baseline trajectory, the history, would be a massive error - but as far as I can see nobody has made that particular mistake. Only you, if you insist that existent forcings at the baseline are not included in the original temperature trajectories. Your "large extra slice of area" is part and parcel of the non-equilibrium trajectory at the baseline date; part of the history. I really don't know what else I can say, Ken. It's really that simple. -
michael sweet at 02:13 AM on 8 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
RSVP: Many people feel it is common sense to consider the facts of the matter when making a decision. Your suggestion that the Supreme Court would rule against common sense in this case is nonsense. Pick up your pace and read the background information. It is depressing to have people like Doug Bostrom spend so many of their valuable comments replying to uninformed blather, when they could be raising our knowledge level. Remember, people on this site spent over 200 posts trying (unsuccessfully) to help you understand waste heat. Pass on the favor by reading on your own to be more informed. -
Tom Dayton at 02:10 AM on 8 October 2010There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
Glen Tamblyn has been posting excellent rebuttals to the Skeptical Science commenter The Inconvenient Skeptic, over on The Inconvenient Skeptic's site page about the Taylor Dome ice core analysis. That is relevant to this Skeptical Science page (There’s no correlation between CO2 and temperature) because The Inconvenient Skeptic's core argument is that there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature. As commentors and moderators have been pointing out to The Inconvenient Skeptic, his detailed comments on that topic do not belong on the Skeptical Science page The Value of Coherence in Science. -
Bob Guercio at 02:09 AM on 8 October 2010Global warming is accelerating the global water cycle
The graphs don't look very convincing. Please don't tell the skeptics that I said that. Bob Guercio -
Tom Loeber at 02:04 AM on 8 October 2010We're heading into an ice age
I'm trying again. There are reports of all time historical record lows in a number of countries this year that I attempted to post and if this works, I'll try to do it again. Does appear as if I was banned. JMurphy is right and I was wrong. England did not receive an all time record cold winter recently. Actually it was the coldest in anywhere from 30 to 140 years according to numerous posts and findings.Moderator Response: You are posting on the wrong page. Off topic posts are deleted. I'll give you some time to see this reply by me, and then I will delete your comment. Go to the page "It's Freaking Cold!" -
Ned at 02:01 AM on 8 October 2010The value of coherence in science
Earlier in this thread I wrote: I think there are no shortage of cases where people make incoherent arguments in support of mainstream climate science. (If people doubt this, I can go into detail in another comment). In case anyone doubts this, let me point to the issue of Arctic sea ice. Having just spent the summer "watching the ice melt" on a variety of blogs on both "sides" I must ruefully say that nobody has a monopoly on incoherence. Overall, at the end of the season the result was basically exactly what would be predicted from the trend over the past few decades. But the unpredictable fits and starts along the way led many commenters on each side to engage in rather incoherent and self-deceptive arguments. When the ice was doing what Blogger X wanted it to be doing, the decline (or lack of decline) was real. When it wasn't cooperating, this was due to the winds, compaction/dispersion, the Beaufort Gyre, errors in the satellite analysis, or whatever. People would focus on ice extent one month, ice area the next month. The energy put into it all was impressive, even if the arguments were not especially consistent over time. Obviously, there was plenty of incoherence on both "sides", but the ice goes ahead and does what it does regardless. The fact that Steve Goddard is routinely incoherent and illogical would not actually prevent the ice from "recovering", and the fact that Neven's commenters are often opportunistic in their interpretation of events would not somehow mean that the ice would have to refuse to decline as predicted. So by all means, let's try to be reasonably coherent in our arguments. But there is plenty of incoherence on both sides, and more importantly the fact that one's rhetorical opponents seem incoherent doesn't mean that your side will be proven right! ------------------- [No, I'm not trying to draw a false equivalence between Goddard/WUWT and the commenters on Neven's sea ice blog. In spite of the way that discussions on the latter often seemed to involve "special pleading", there was still a huge amount of value in that blog, and I look forward to reading it next summer. The same cannot be said of SG/WUWT.] -
Kaj L at 02:00 AM on 8 October 2010We're coming out of the Little Ice Age
No Little Ice Age in Japan? http://zacost.zamg.ac.at/phaeno_portal/was-so-los-ist.html In the end of the page: "Kirschblüte in Japan" In this chart there are dates of full-flowering of cherry trees in Kyoto of years 700 to 2000. No LIA, but the recent warming is visible. http://tinyurl.com/39nqn7m Flowering of cherry trees in Japan does no reveal any LIA: https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/MiyaharaHiroko08-d/AonoKazui07-Aug23-KyotoSpring.pdf http://www.envi.osakafu-u.ac.jp/atmenv/aono/KyoPhenoTemp4.html -
DSL at 01:55 AM on 8 October 2010The value of coherence in science
Chris, in my opinion, the most instructive exchange is in the lengthy comment stream for the RC post The Montford Delusion. -
Ken Lambert at 01:42 AM on 8 October 2010It's the sun
Ned #630 How about we agree on 0.2-0.5W/sq.m for the range of Solar forcing since AD1725. Gridding a very small scale graph I get AD1725 for when the Solar forcing crosses above the 'zero' axis which is pretty close to the end of the Maunder minimum around AD1715. KR #631 "Was the climate at equilibrium in 900AD? No. Was it in equilibrium in 1880? In 1750? No and no. But we can certainly look at changes in forcings versus changes in climate, and determine from magnitude and correlation which forcing changes are the dominant drivers of the current temperatures." Well you tell me KR. How do you know it was NO and NO? Prima facie, the zero axis on the graph implies that positive Solar forcings will add energy and warm the Earth and negative forcings will lose energy and cool the Earth. Is the 'zero' axis not the zero Solar forcing and equilibrium TSI where the Earth neither warms nor cools due to Solar?? If not what else could it be?? If you look at the areas under both Solar and 'All other Forcings' curves in Fig 613 back to the start of the current warming ARO AD1725 they both represent the energy added to the Earth system and they both add together. I don't have an electronic way of doing this but could scan this with an ACAD planimeter and get an estimate on a reasonably scaled graph. kdkd could probably do this with the raw data. Using some crude geometry I have calculated the area under the Solar curve at 9300E20 Joules and the 'All Other Forcings' curve at 10600E20 Joules. I assume that 'all other' means every forcing on your chart at #623 netted into one curve. This gives a roughly 45/55% ratio Solar/All Other for not just the first half of the 20th century - but the whole period 1725 up to 2000. My point which brought on this debate is that if the 'zero' axis on any of the forcings (but Solar is most important due to its constant presence) was shifted down or up by a small amount - a large extra slice of area is added or subtracted from the area under the curve. eg 0.05W/sq.m shift over 250 years is over 2000E20 Joules in added or lost energy. I assume you are also not including the climate response forcings (IR cooling and WV feedbacks) in this analysis which net currently is -0.7 W/sq.m and would give a significant energy loss area under its curve to add to the Solar and All Other above. We are assuming here that Volcanic evens itself out over time which curve seems to be roughly equal in area above and below its 'zero' axis. When you talk of modelling temperatures and forcings - I assume you mean land and ocean temperatures - the response of which would have a thermal lag, as 90%+ of the calculated energy imbalance should reside in the oceans which have huge thermal mass. What would be the models' general assumptions regarding thermal lags in that composite temperature? -
JMurphy at 01:29 AM on 8 October 2010The value of coherence in science
chriscanaris wrote : "...I'd be interested in a link to Judith Curry's misadventures/misdemeanours on RealClimate." Just in case Mike's away at the moment, and without getting into page numbers, etc., I think you will find a good round-up, including relevant links, at Climate Progress, if that is a site that you don't object to. -
Ned at 01:24 AM on 8 October 2010The value of coherence in science
chriscanaris writes some nice things about my excessively long rant earlier in this thread. He then tries to disagree with me on some points: Actually, with respect, I think there is far too much labelling of positions taken by various players. I would suggest that this "labeling" is largely an outcome of the exact situation I was lamenting. That is to say, even though we don't have little colored icons next to our names saying "Ned is on Team A, So-And-So is on Team B" most people self-organize into those groups anyway, based on their behavior here. I think this is a bad thing. I would like to break this pattern. chriscanaris continues: I often feel I have to couch what I say with great care to maintain credibility as a poster - far more care than if I was perceived as a card carrying warmist. [...] Overall, this site is far more tolerant of sceptics than the other players in the AGW team. Still, the feeling of differing standards and expectations doesn't go away. I can understand all of that. I would like to think that this site does a pretty good job of encouraging polite discussion, thanks largely to (a) the requirement that people register before commenting, (b) the fairly rigorous comments policy, and (c) the example set by John Cook, who always seems to administer this site with grace and good humor. At the same time, I know that these efforts aren't perfect, and that for a number of reasons it probably feels subjectively less welcoming to someone on the "skeptic" side than to those of us who are already predisposed to agree with the overall weltanschauung of the site. That disparity will probably never be eliminated, though we should do what we can to minimize it! A note, though, about your comment re: maintaining credibility. Credibility is, of course, in the eye of the beholder, and on this site, judgments of credibility will obviously involve both science and "style" (for lack of a better word). Being polite, thoughtful, reasonable, and careful in how you "couch what you say" will all help, of course, but that can only get you so far. -
gallopingcamel at 01:12 AM on 8 October 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Comments Gluttony
Even though I am usually swimming against the tide here, I hope you will accept my heartfelt congratulations. Great job! -
chris1204 at 01:08 AM on 8 October 2010The value of coherence in science
Mike, I didn't see your commented until after I'd finished writing my bit but I'd be interested in a link to Judith Curry's misadventures/misdemeanours on RealClimate. -
chris1204 at 01:02 AM on 8 October 2010The value of coherence in science
Doug, to my surprise (thanks to Google), I discovered that 'post-normal science' rates a page in Wikipedia’ which states: 'Post-Normal Science is a concept developed by Silvio Funtowicz and Jerome Ravetz, attempting to characterise a methodology of inquiry that is appropriate for cases where "facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent" (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1991). It is primarily applied in the context of long-term issues where there is less available information than is desired by stakeholders.' Moreover (in the same article): 'Few mainstream scientists advocate the approaches taken by post-normal science, even among those who agree with the goals of Funtowicz and Ravetz, though the idea has gained some publicity in recent times, appearing prominently in an article published in The Guardian in March 2007... Some... argue that there seems to be little to distinguish post-normal science from the 'skewed cargo cult science’ described by Richard Feynman in 1974.' The latter was used 'to negatively characterize research in the soft sciences (psychology and psychiatry in particular) - arguing that they have the semblance of being scientific, but are missing "a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty".' I'd certainly agree that some of what passes for research in my field readily meets the definition of cargo-cult science :-\. People design research projects which generate lots of numbers which allow for sophisticated statistics which often bear a tenuous relationship to clinical realities. I would also acknowledge that much of the clinical decision making in psychiatry comprises 'post-normal science' in which the diagnosis and treatment of a patient equates to a hypothesis which is at best testable 'on the run' - you try this treatment hoping it works - if it doesn't, you try something else, and so it goes. 'Post-normal science' and 'cargo cult science' seem to me to be rather different beasts. 'Post-normal science' seems a concept very much applicable in the context of the understandable urgency that many feel when approaching AGW given the perception of many that dire outcomes will follow if we don't act now. 'Post-normal science' in short sounds like the sort of work a nation might undertake in wartime. The Manhattan Project, while soundly based in physics, might I suspect partake of this category (superb science undertaken in a climate of urgency and uncertainty with horrible outcomes but that's not germane to my point - the project had a specific goal which it attained in spectacular fashion). It certainly wasn't 'cargo cult science.' By contrast, wartime analyses of the carpet bombing of Germany undertaken with ultimately similar goals in mind would be a good example of 'cargo cult science.' The effectiveness (let alone morality) of strategic bombing of Germany’ with their enormous civilian casualties has been the subject of much debate. German production rose despite the bombings and civilian morale held up remarkably well. The belief that Allied bombing efforts were meeting their goals despite a massive cost in aircrew and aircraft reflected a great deal of wishful thinking. In short, a policy decision (strategic bombing)based on military science as then understood undertaken in conditions of a 'post-normal' decision making framework in retrospect seems to have degenerated into a horrific 'cargo cult science' scenario. So to come back on topic, 'post-normal' science need not be a pejorative term. I practice 'post-normal' science daily striving to avoid 'cargo cult science.' Equally, those who practice 'post-normal' science often are not aware that this is what they are doing. They need to be be reminded of the fact and of the limitations this imposes on them. My colleagues in internal medicine and surgery would probably be quite offended if I suggested to them that much of modern medicine despite the plethora of highly sophisticated investigations actually fits into the paradigm of 'post-normal science.' This applies all the more in an age when the prevailing mantra in medicine and psychiatry is 'evidence based treatment' often based on analyses of highly selected populations bearing little semblance to real patients in real clinical settings. I haven't had the opportunity of acquainting myself with Judith Curry's battles in the blogosphere (I'm still very much a newcomer to this area). However, I can see how the notion of 'post-normal' science might raise hackles. Whether it ought to do so is another question. -
The Skeptical Chymist at 00:41 AM on 8 October 2010The value of coherence in science
Chris @43, 51 Everyone who approaches commenting on these sites from a position of intellectual honesty should be prepared to call out incoherence, even if it's from their own "side". However, I would wager that the motivation to rebut a comment is somewhat proportional to how wrong it is and so most of the slap-downs on this site are for the most incoherent comments, which tend to be from "skeptics". In any dialogue, tone, thoughtfulness and a lack of crazy go a long way, even when you disagree. For this reason I actually read your comments, while I may skim over those from people who mostly just repeat zombie arguments. With regard to Judith Curry, the way I see it, when you are a scientist, commenting in your field, then people are going to expect you to act like a scientist. Doesn't mean you have to be nice, but you should attempt to be accurate. When Dr Curry made (clearly incorrect) statements at RealClimate and then admitted she was essentially just repeating claims in a book she had read, she failed to show proper scientific skepticism IMHO. This can happen to the best of us and could have been fixed if she had taken responsibility and admitted she was wrong (calling out her own incoherence if you will) but unfortunately she didn't. -
Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
RSVP - You might want to review the "Common Sense" fallacy. It is, unfortunately, rather common... Too much CO2 is now known to cause a number of harmful consequences, albeit with the exact scale of warming (climate sensitivity) not as well established as we would like. It's entirely reasonable to call that a pollutant. -
JMurphy at 00:35 AM on 8 October 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Comments Gluttony
You have it just right, I think. I used to read and comment on the 'Comment is Free' section of The Guardian (UK) but it got too tiring and boring reading the same old zombie arguments (repeated by the same people), or wading through the flood of one-off comments from people who can register and post immediately, and who then disappear. I think The Guardian is simply after traffic but it means that any articles by the likes of Monbiot or Hansen, for example, are immediately swamped in denial from whichever denial website has asked their readers to flood the comments with bizarre, bemusing and befuddled views. You sometimes get the odd flood here but there are more than enough articles and more than enough intelligent and rational posters to mop up any stray bizarreness ! Keep up the good work. -
Alexandre at 23:52 PM on 7 October 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Comments Gluttony
Way to go. Keep it draconian. Keep it worth reading. I wonder why you had a slight drop (Younger Dryas!) in comments just after the iPhone app was released. -
Doug Bostrom at 23:36 PM on 7 October 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Comments Gluttony
Harald, sorry to hear it, but looking at it from the optimist's viewpoint perhaps folks in Norway are more inclined to subscribe to newspapers across the board (I have no idea of the reality behind that speculation). Here in the U.S. we have a very depressing situation with newspaper circulation numbers, and publishers don't seem to understand that responding to that problem can't be solved by firing newsroom staff so as to prop up profits. A death spiral, very sad, bad for our system; I don't think specialist websites and the like are a substitute. -
Harald Korneliussen at 23:04 PM on 7 October 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Comments Gluttony
Doug Bostrom: That may work for New Scientist, but one of the main newspapers in Norway, Dagbladet, did the same. Their comments are abysmal. Looks like racists, conspiracy theorists and political extremists of all stripes are willing to fork over $1 per month for a podium. -
Doug Bostrom at 22:51 PM on 7 October 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Comments Gluttony
Pretty amazing, NewYorkJ. Not so long ago, New Scientist changed their arrangement so that only formal subscribers to the magazine may comment. In other words, making comments was no longer "free" as in free beer but indirectly involved forking over some money. The slump in the number of comments was astonishing, the improvement in quality (not surprisingly) remarkable. I've often wondered if setting a budget on the number of comments allowed per user over a given time span would help solve the "tragedy of the commons" effect on public discussion sites. If for instance one had the opportunity to make just 4 comments per day, I have to think it would have a positive effect on the quality of remarks. However, such a policy ought to also somehow recognize merit, and doing that is a bit of a problem because it calls for judgment. -
Doug Bostrom at 22:39 PM on 7 October 2010The value of coherence in science
Chris, my observation is that unless used very carefully, remarks about "tribalism" and "post-normal science" exhibit the same properties as "process corruption" and "publication bias" or "group think." I don't think Juditch Curry intends it this way, but for many of her on again, off again enthusiasts, focusing on "tribalism" is a way of casting aspersions on research findings in general without actually showing how any specific research finding is unreliable. Vaguely targeted innuendo is a rhetorical magic trick. -
CBDunkerson at 22:26 PM on 7 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
RSVP #115: "It doesnt take facts; just common sense." I think I'll go with the facts any way. One man's 'common sense' is another man's 'sheer lunacy'. -
Doug Bostrom at 22:23 PM on 7 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
t doesnt take facts; just common sense. Labelling CO2 as a pollutant is absurd. That's funny! One of GOP political consultant Luntz's suggestions in his advice on how to delay creating regulations suggested by scientific findings is to invoke "common sense." RSVP's referral is coincidence, I'm honestly sure, but amusing all the same. Meanwhile, even though RSVP's been provided w/links straight to EPA's finding and support information, notice how RSVP still can only say "it's absurd" without actually saying why. "I doubt it" is not an argument. -
Doug Bostrom at 22:16 PM on 7 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
Nice illustration of one of the main points of the post, there, BP. For the rest of "us," please note that BP's graph shows a little slice of the record in the longer graph above. BP's particularly fine place kick: Make a slanted (curved) point by truncating data, kick the ball right offsides by positing an absurd extrapolation. -
Turboblocke at 22:07 PM on 7 October 2010There's no tropospheric hot spot
That's amazing: a year later and you are so right. Now it's the ratio of the surface and tropospheric trends. http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/2/9/2148/pdf -
Daniel Bailey at 21:42 PM on 7 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
Re: TimTheToolMan (51)"Perhaps our understanding of ENSO really isn't as sound as you'd like to believe."
You made some typo's. You spelled it O-U-R when you should have spelled it M-Y, and used Y-O-U-'-D instead of I-'-D. Here's a corrected version:"Perhaps my understanding of ENSO really isn't as sound as I'd like to believe."
There, that's better. In all seriousness, now, what on Earth would lead you to make such a statement? The Yooper -
Daniel Bailey at 21:37 PM on 7 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
Re: Berényi Péter (49) I'm going to be kind & assume you are being fascetious with your comment. Otherwise, that was the looniest comment I've ever seen you make. Perhaps I missed a few, though. The Yooper -
Berényi Péter at 21:21 PM on 7 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
#50 kdkd at 21:05 PM on 7 October, 2010 It's very poor form to show data without properly attributing the source of the raw data You are right. It's the Sea Level Change page at the University of Colorado at Boulder site. You can also find the data file there. The method was simple least square fit for a parabola. -
TimTheToolMan at 21:11 PM on 7 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
@adlady Perhaps our understanding of ENSO really isn't as sound as you'd like to believe. -
kdkd at 21:05 PM on 7 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
BP #49 It's very poor form to show data without properly attributing the source of the raw data (there's something in the graph title but this is not really good enough). Also poor form is to show a curve fit without explaining the methodology used to fit the curve. I'm happy to do some regression diagnostics to see if the curve fit is justified if you point to the location of the raw data (it's not terribly easy to find from a google search of the graph title). -
Berényi Péter at 20:45 PM on 7 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
#42 doug_bostrom at 16:47 PM on 7 October, 2010 Notice, sea level sort of bounces along, upward The satellite record shows otherwise. If it goes on like this, in 2100 sea level would be below its present day value by 27.5 cm. Nothing scary, really, although it may kill off some shallow coral reefs by exposing them to air. However, by the year 3000 it would drop by 56.6 m, which is deep ice age. In this case I guess Canada should join the Estados Unidos Mexicanos as soon as practicable, then reclaim Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Nevada and Utah along with parts of Oklahoma, Wyoming, Kansas and Colorado.
-
kdkd at 19:49 PM on 7 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
RSVP #115: In other news, Cigarettes are good for you:
Hmm, or maybe it's just that brand ;) Presumably you're posting such ridiculous arguments to expose the stupidity of the so-called sceptic position?
Prev 2145 2146 2147 2148 2149 2150 2151 2152 2153 2154 2155 2156 2157 2158 2159 2160 Next
