Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2147 2148 2149 2150 2151 2152 2153 2154 2155 2156 2157 2158 2159 2160 2161 2162 Next
Comments 107701 to 107750:
-
BBP at 07:51 AM on 7 October 2010The value of coherence in science
Doug, thanks for the link to "How facts backfire" - a worthwhile article. (By the way, are you of Danish or Swedish background? I've never come across a Brostrom outside my family before.) A question that I have for any of the skeptics here is - What evidence would you find sufficient to change your mind about ACC? I ask because I think that our current understanding of climate is a broad, consistant, theory. What do you think is missing? -
scaddenp at 07:34 AM on 7 October 2010Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
GC - that is good to here and we will be very interested in your report back. Please tell us who you talked to. If you get to talk to Richard Alley, then I suggest you swat up on ice-core temperature determination (eg Grootes and Stuiver and here). Just so you dont waste time. I will especially look forward you putting up a revised analysis of Alley 2000. -
muoncounter at 06:49 AM on 7 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
#110: "You generally need to have lengthy public debates, and huge amounts of sound science on your side, to get anywhere at all." Apparently that process actually works in some places. Canada: In draft regulations introduced several months ago, Environment Canada estimated that the targets would result in new vehicles in 2016 producing 25 per cent less greenhouse gas emissions than those sold in 2008. Europe: the legislation on CO2 from passenger cars is now officially published in the form of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 setting emission performance standards for new passenger cars as part of the Community's integrated approach to reduce CO2 emissions from light-duty vehicles. And even locally in the US: New Jersey helped mark a milestone in climate-change policy in 2008 with the launch of a 10-state program to control carbon dioxide emissions from power producers. And then there's the other side: The Environmental Protection Agency is finalizing climate-change regulations under the Clean Air Act ... But it’s not even clear why such controls are needed, given questions about the validity of the scientific case for blaming global warming on fossil-fuel emissions. -
Albatross at 06:13 AM on 7 October 2010The value of coherence in science
I wondered about that header graphic too Rob, thanks for confirming my suspicion. And why did he specifically choose that particular ice core? This post by Chris on another thread is helpful. -
Rob Honeycutt at 05:53 AM on 7 October 2010The value of coherence in science
I think TIS's example of CO2 saturation at 50 ppm is a good example of exactly what this Stephan's blog post is all about. Okay, TIS puts forth this analysis that CO2 absorption is saturated at 50 ppm. How does that square with the MUCH larger puzzle of climate? How do we get glaciation cycles? Why do we see a warming trend in the pat 30 years? What about tropospheric warming with stratospheric cooling? The onus then is upon you to provide a theory that explains all the observed phenomena better than current theory. Also, I have to state, Kler's header graphic really bothers me. On his site he states that the data comes from GISP-2. When you go to the actual GISP-2 data you find that the data ends at 0.951 thousand years before the present (95 years ago). But Kler has chosen to mark that point on his header graphic as "global warming part." John Kler. Did you make any attempt to add to that chart the current temperature trends from central Greenland since 1913? The statements you make here sound as if you are attempting to be genuine and honest in your attempts to present coherent science. But I would put to you that that the very face of your website is doing exactly the opposite. Again, providing coherence in science means presenting ALL the facts. I'll give you a little clue. I've seen the data for modern Greenland temps and I believe they are about in line with the peaks in your header graphic for 3500 years ago. -
DSL at 05:49 AM on 7 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
Why talk Coke, RSVP, when we can talk coal? The human world doesn't seem to be spinning in the direction you think it is. It seems more likely that, at least for the U.S., a Repub/Tea Party-oriented Congress will relax or remove law designed to regulate CO2. -
archiesteel at 05:38 AM on 7 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
@RSVP: "On the otherhand, the categorization of CO2 as a pollutant is also hard to take serious" Not really, as excess CO2 represents a serious threat to our civilization. It is therefore quite legitimate to classify it as a pollutant. -
Phila at 05:13 AM on 7 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
RSVP: What makes you so sure about where the law will end up drawing the line? Let's hope my comment is just a joke. Michael Sweet explained why your comment was silly. Saying "Hey, it could happen!" simply compounds the silliness. First, no one's talking about "banning" CO2; this is a typical denialist strawman. Second, if anyone were going to ban Coca-Cola, it would probably be the FDA, not the EPA. Third, as our modern experience with cigarettes and tetraethyl lead and CO2 shows, it's actually pretty difficult to impose regulations like these. You generally need to have lengthy public debates, and huge amounts of sound science on your side, to get anywhere at all. Comparing the regulation of CO2 to Prohibition is an interesting new rhetorical angle, but it's equally asinine. The classification of CO2 as a pollutant is based on decades of scientific data. By contrast, Prohibition was based largely on Protestant religious dogma and opportunistic jingoism, and passed largely thanks to the efforts of politically connected (and generally conservative/rural) pressure groups with a talent for public relations. I don't actually think we can draw any lesson from Prohibition in regards to the AGW debate, but if we could, I think it'd be pretty much the opposite of the one you're offering. -
CBDunkerson at 04:39 AM on 7 October 2010An underwater hockey stick
JB #85: So... contrary to your statement in #75 you DON'T have the surface temperature anomalies and CAN'T back up the claim that the Gulf of St. Lawrence has warmed more at ~400 m below sea level than at the ocean surface? You believe that warming is originating in the oceans rather than from 'back radiation' (and cite a Science of Doom thread which is in the process of debunking that view), but contrary to prior claims you do NOT have data showing ocean warming greater than surface warming. Which, as per my prior comments about the Labrador current, wouldn't prove your point in any case. "I will point out again we are talking pre mid last century(we werent really having that big of an effect, but numbers speak better than words)" That'd be the time period when increased solar irradiance was causing most of the global increases in temperature. Arctic amplification would still have come into play and thus all the objections I've raised still apply. -
Doug Bostrom at 04:35 AM on 7 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
RSVP, why not cut to the chase now and let truth prevail straight away? Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act (PDF) (52 pp, 308K) Technical Support Document for the Findings (PDF) (210 pp, 2.5MB) It's extremely, vanishingly unlikely that you know better, but if you don't bother reading this stuff you'll never find out, will you? Certainly you won't persuade anybody with silly allusions to prohibition and soft drinks, but failing having any specific facts at your fingertips, that's all you've got. -
Phila at 04:24 AM on 7 October 2010The value of coherence in science
TIS Scientists and engineers are similar in their science background, but very different in approaching problems. As a blanket statement, this seems pretty dubious. But what concerns me more is the implication that engineers are somehow "better" at science (e.g., more practical, more realistic, or what have you). In fact, science is a group endeavor and one of its greatest strengths is the fact that when you make mistakes, or get basic facts wrong, a lot of people will let you know about it, at length and in excruciating detail. Whether you're an engineer or not, if almost all of the experts in a given field are telling you you're wrong, the solution is not to assume a conspiracy, or play the victim, but to look at your argument critically, from their standpoint, and consider in all humility whether they have some valid points. Then, you can attempt to form a coherent, informed argument that will actually satisfy their objections and win them over. In my experience, this is something that far too few "skeptics" are willing to do. As a teacher of mine once said, if you're getting results that are drastically at odds with the accepted science, there are two possibilities: 1) you're a genius who has a good shot at winning the Nobel Prize; or 2) you made a mistake somewhere. Sincere skeptics should have at least as much skepticism toward their own arguments as they do toward the consensus view, for the simple reason that the consensus view is far less likely to contain undiscovered mistakes. -
RSVP at 04:19 AM on 7 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
michael sweet #105 "Please limit your comments to real concerns if you want to be taken seriously. " What makes you so sure about where the law will end up drawing the line? Let's hope my comment is just a joke. On the otherhand, the categorization of CO2 as a pollutant is also hard to take serious, and yet it has gained this status. Prohibition in the US lasted 13 years until they realized they had made a mistake. Fortunately, the truth ultimately prevails. -
Ned at 04:02 AM on 7 October 2010The value of coherence in science
Speaking of Science of Doom, there was a post over there last winter that is highly relevant to this topic: New Theory Proves AGW Wrong! If, for example, you celebrate Richard Lindzen’s concept as put forward in Lindzen & Choi (2009) then you probably shouldn’t be celebrating Miskolczi’s paper. And if you celebrated either of those, you shouldn’t be celebrating Gerlich & Tscheuschner because they will be at odds with the previous ones (as far as I can tell). And if you like Roy Spencer’s work, he is at odds this all of these. [...] So, if New Theory Proves AGW Wrong is an exciting subject, you will continue to enjoy the subject for many years, because I’m sure there will be many more papers from physicists “proving” the theory wrong. However, it’s likely that if they are papers “falsifying” the foundational “greenhouse” gas effect – or radiative-convective model of the atmosphere – then probably each paper will also contradict the ones that came before and the ones that follow after. -
Ned at 03:51 AM on 7 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
Yeah, that's a good analogy, katecell. Likewise, fluoride in toothpaste (protects your enamel in small quantities, toxic enough to harm a child who ate a whole tube...) I still like my phosphorus in fertilizer vs water pollution analogy, though, because (as with CO2) it focuses on the environmental impact rather than the health effects (of course too much CO2 can kill you, but that's not the issue here). Like CO2, phosphorus is necessary for plant health and growth. Like CO2, introducing too much phosphorus into the environment will lead to negative environmental impacts. The proper response is not to ban the offending substance (carbon or phosphorus) nor to keep mindlessly dumping it into the environment in unlimited quantities. The proper response is to use it sparingly where appropriate and valuable, in a sustainable and judicious manner. -
Joe Blog at 03:50 AM on 7 October 2010An underwater hockey stick
CBDunkerson at 20:02 "Joe Blog #75: You say that you have the data showing that the surface temp anomaly is less than the ~400 m ocean temp anomaly for the Gulf of St. Lawrence" No, its a question of the physics involved. Rather conveniently Science o doom has a thread up on this very subject at the moment. Here The paper itself has been linked by doug bostrom at 17:49 PM on 2 October, 2010 This in itself isnt really a response, im a little short on time, but i will get back to you with radiative figures and aerosol figures from industry from that time when i get the time... It wasn't exactly clean burning coal plants in those days. I will point out again we are talking pre mid last century(we werent really having that big of an effect, but numbers speak better than words) -
Doug Bostrom at 03:46 AM on 7 October 2010The value of coherence in science
Thanks so much for the reminder link to the "How facts backfire" article, DSL. For folks who've not read it, it's a review of scientific approaches to understanding why we're all victims of our own obduracy to a greater or lesser extent, well worth 5 minutes' time. -
katecell at 03:39 AM on 7 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
As an analogy for C02, what about dietary iron? Without it we get anemia; but iron toxicity is the leading cause of poisoning deaths in children under 5. So I put the iron drops in my baby's juice every morning, and make sure they're out of his reach at all times. Just like C02, a little is essential but a lot is deadly. -
Doug Bostrom at 03:05 AM on 7 October 2010The value of coherence in science
Related somewhat to Ned's remarks, climate science and the whole weird sideshow of outsider scientific "debate" around the matter of climate change seems akin to the relationship between automobiles and dogs. Here's a novelty with an eager and enthusiastic crowd of participants seemingly waiting for its arrival and bred to enjoy participating in the new activity in a way entirely secondary to its utility. Both populations do a lot of incoherent yapping but one noise source is merely irritating, while the other is of more concern. Besides number of legs and amount of fur, another difference between the two analogues is that-- other than sometimes being squashed-- canine affection for cars is benign, while the ranks of amateur, skeptic "climate scientists" happen to be messing up our ability to create public policy dealing with C02. -
DSL at 03:00 AM on 7 October 2010The value of coherence in science
Skywatcher said "I particularly like your point about questioning the intellectual honesty of skeptics who hold to a position after they have been shown time and again that their position is in blatant contradiction of the evidence." This has been posted before, I believe, but it's worth another post. -
Albatross at 02:59 AM on 7 October 2010Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
GC @124, Lindzen was not being careful when he said that, if he indeed said that. Of course temperatures go up and down. Daily cycle, seasonal cycle, internal climate modes etc. Was the question about long-term global temperature trends? And just when is his iris effect going to kick in and manifest itself? If it has it is clearly not strong enough to be detectable in the global temperatures records (surface, radiosonde, satellite) MSU data. Sorry I am unimpressed by the lack of rigor here by Lindzen. IMHO, that statement is potentially grossly misleading (or at least has the potential to be misused) and unscientific. Very disappointing. Doug and Ned @125/126, I agree completely. It is going to be interesting to see how poorly parts of their "updated" document compares with AR5. It is sad that they were forced to kowtow to a small, vociferous element group within in the RS. But maybe not all is lost, someone I know (who is not a climate scientist) has had a look at the RS document and they still found the evidence for action compelling.... That said, it does not mean that the RS should change their document to reflect the current science and data. -
Albatross at 02:42 AM on 7 October 2010The value of coherence in science
TIS, I see you have not provided a coherent alternate theory to that of AGW which explains how the warming is manifesting itself in the biosphere and upper stratosphere. This coherent response of the biosphere is an incredibly important aspect which demonstrates the robustness of the theory of AGW. Right now you have a hypothesis as to why you believe higher GHG concentrations (CO2 in particular)is an issue...as it happens it is not a unique one. Have you read Spencer Weart's Book "The Discovery of Global Warming" He provides a more thorough discussion here. TIS, not only engineers (like you) deal with complex systems and/or problems. Surely I do not need to provide a list of scientific disciplines which deal (very successfully) with complex systems and problems..... And I would caution some humility, many very qualified and intelligent people think that they have refuted the theory (not hypothesis) of AGW/ACC and failed. Unfortunately, it is robust, but if someone can make the problem of AGW and ocean "acidification" go away, that would make me very happy. Good luck. -
The Inconvenient Skeptic at 02:21 AM on 7 October 2010The value of coherence in science
Complexity is a common engineering problem. The common approach of an engineer to a very complicated problem is to determine the parts that are important by examining each parts contribution to the whole and ignoring the parts that don't matter very much. The Earth's climate is such a problem. Feedbacks are a problem, but engineers get used to the occasional black box issues. My approach towards the climate is an engineers approach. Scientists and engineers are similar in their science background, but very different in approaching problems. I have come up with a variety of new ideas that are not yet in discussion, but they will be. In a way we have already had some success because this is turning into a discussion instead of a flame war. Little steps. :-)Moderator Response: As you inform us of your ideas, please carefully choose the appropriate pages on which to post those comments, by clicking the "Arguments" link in the blue horizontal bar at the top of every Skeptical Science page. But I suggest you first get an overview by clicking on the two big boxes at the top of the Home page: "Newcomers Start Here" and "The Big Picture." For example, for the topic of correlation between CO2 and temperature, please comment at There's No Correlation Between CO2 and Temperature. -
CBDunkerson at 02:00 AM on 7 October 2010It's the sun
Ken #629: "By setting the Solar forcing to zero in AD1880, when all other forcings except the volcanic aerosol (mainly from Krakatoa) are in fact zero or negligible in order to measure 'differences' ignores the fact that the actual value of the Solar forcing is in the range of 0.3 - 0.5W/sq.m and ongoing since about AD1700." As has been explained to you before, a 'forcing' is a CHANGE from the baseline value. If 1880 is the baseline then BY DEFINITION the forcing in 1880 is zero. Has to be. That's what the words MEAN. -
skywatcher at 01:58 AM on 7 October 2010The value of coherence in science
nice ranting there Ned! I particularly like your point about questioning the intellectual honesty of skeptics who hold to a position after they have been shown time and again that their position is in blatant contradiction of the evidence. I've had arguments with a number of skeptics on a different site where I point them to papers very clearly showing their position to be in error, say, lack of empirical evidence for CO2-driven warming, or 'it's the Sun', or 'it's natural cycles/ clouds' kinds of arguments. Often I point them to articles on this excellent site where nearly all the information you could need is in one handly location! But what I have often found is that the more stubborn of these skeptics will steadfastly continue to hold their incoherent views, and will repeat the same fallacies over and over again. At that stage I wonder if they have lost the capacity to learn... @TIS: you do seem to hold incoherent views. On CO2, you could do worse than read Chris Colose's post from February "Greenhouse Effect Revisited". He specifically plots the spectrum of CO2 absorbtion effect for 50ppm, and very neatly demonstrates that the effect does not stop even though the central band becomes saturated (absorbtion line broadens after that point), and plots the spectrum for 390ppm, and even 10,000ppm. If there's further discussion of this, maybe it should move to an appropriate thread. But on topic here, TIS, now you have been shown rather strong evidence (and more at scienceofdoom) that your 50ppm claim is wrong, will you now cease holding on to that claim?Moderator Response: Yes, further discussion of CO2 absorption must be done on a more appropriate thread. There are several, but the most appropriate probably is "The CO2 Effect Is Saturated." -
Ned at 01:57 AM on 7 October 2010The value of coherence in science
The Inconvenient Skeptic writes: This is not the forum for a detailed view of why 50 ppm is important, but I will be putting together a simple article on it. It is based on the opacity of CO2 in its absorption bands. It could be wrong. I accept that. If I find sufficient evidence that it is, I will change my views. So far I am not convinced otherwise. Fair enough. Obviously, I haven't seen your line of reasoning to support that idea. However, I'd just caution you that there are good a priori reasons to assume that it's probably wrong.[1] Thus, while working on the article, it would probably be worth your while to step back and take an extremely skeptical approach toward your own argument. Also, not to be repetitively redundant, but if you haven't done so already, spending some time perusing Science of Doom would probably help you hone your argument. ----------------------------------- [1] An examination of the historical record would probably show that for every case where a widely held scientific consensus is overturned by the work of an outsider to that field, there are several orders of magnitude more cases where the would-be Einstein turns out to be mistaken. Thus, without knowing anything about your argument per se, from a Bayesian perspective the odds are against it. -
michael sweet at 01:49 AM on 7 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
RSVP, It is distracting when you make comments like "is the EPA going to ban Coca-Cola?" Of course the EPA is not going to ban food. The EPA is concerned with large emissions of fossil carbon. Please limit your comments to real concerns if you want to be taken seriously. -
It's the sun
One side note - the previous posting included a graph that only runs to 2000, not up through 2010. -
It's the sun
Even more interesting in that NOAA/IPPC article you referred to, Ken, 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change, Chapter 6 Paleoclimate, is this graph:
What's illustrated here are the various forcings on climate, temperature reconstructions (gray bands covering uncertainty ranges on lower graph), and multiple climate model runs with and without anthropogenic forcings. Looking at the lower right of the bottom graph you can see matched color traces with/without GHG additions.
It's clear that without the GHG forcings (but with the solar forcing) none of the models can match the current temperature trend. They all predict temperatures going back to levels of the early 1800's. Add the GHG forcings back in, and voila - all the models track measured temperatures fairly closely.
It's not the sun.
-
The Inconvenient Skeptic at 01:33 AM on 7 October 2010The value of coherence in science
@Ned, I like your posts very much. I agree that skeptics should hold other skeptics accountable. There are coherent arguments to being a skeptic. This is not the forum for a detailed view of why 50 ppm is important, but I will be putting together a simple article on it. It is based on the opacity of CO2 in its absorption bands. It could be wrong. I accept that. If I find sufficient evidence that it is, I will change my views. So far I am not convinced otherwise. One thing I have found is that most people have very little grasp of the science behind AGW. I am very intentionally writing simpler articles first to build into more complex ones later. I do hope to have many fruitful discussions here. If I link an article I do it because that is a much easier. The level of the discussion needs to be elevated. I am hoping that we can accomplish that. -
It's the sun
Ken - Thank you for that chart, it's very interesting:
It also clearly shows my point. Given that the chart I linked from GISS shows deltas from 1880 (not 1750), and in agreement with your chart indicates a TSI delta over that time of ~+0.4W/m^2, while the "All other forcings" in both charts from GHG's sum to ~2W/m^w at the current time, I fail to see any disagreement in our data.
The slight rise in TSI seems to be important ('tho not overwhelmingly so) in the early part of this century, warming was damped by high aerosols mid-century, and in the 70's (accompanied by the Clean Air acts and aerosol reduction) GHG forcing became the very dominant factor.
Now, as regards to ...setting the Solar forcing to zero in AD1880"", Ken, you still appear to be suffering from some misapprehensions regarding what delta (anomaly) baselines are used for. The chart I linked from the CO2 is not the only driver of climate looks at deltas since 1880, while the one you linked from NOAA/IPCC (here's the article link backing that chart) looks at deltas since ~900AD.
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.
And, given that information, it's clear that it's not the sun driving late 20th century temperature rises. Nor, for that matter, is it a badly mis-measured TSI at the start of any of these time periods, integrated over the period, as that would show up as a monotonic temperature change over the period of mis-measure, a difference in slope between TSI and temperature. That simply isn't present; there is no unmeasured offset.
-
Ned at 01:03 AM on 7 October 2010Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
Doug, I agree completely. Somewhere along the line our educational systems are failing to help people learn how to handle scientific uncertainty. There are lots of consequences of this, but unfortunately those related to climate change are among the most pernicious. -
Doug Bostrom at 00:58 AM on 7 October 2010Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
Yes, GC. I think I said it here earlier, the Royal Society notably fails to bother providing readers of their update with a useful education on the notion of scientific uncertainty itself. Considering that the entire reason they're revisiting the topic is what's been described as poor communications about uncertainty, that's a bit sad. It's also a shocking waste of an opportunity to use wide press notice to help the public. -
Ned at 00:44 AM on 7 October 2010It's the sun
Ken writes: the actual value of the Solar forcing is in the range of 0.3 - 0.5W/sq.m and ongoing since about AD1700. "Since about 1700"? Ken, on the IPCC graph you link to, the black line is well below 0.3 until the 1930s. It never rises as high as 0.5. It also turns downward after 1975. Looking at the period since 1750 to the late 20th century, solar forcing goes from about 0.15 to 0.45. Over the same time period, GHGs go from 0 to over 2.5. So yes, solar irradiance does account for a large part of the warming from 1750 to 1900, and a smaller part of the warming from 1900 to 1940. It accounts for very little of the warming post 1940. Both KR's graph and the IPCC one you link to show this. -
gallopingcamel at 00:31 AM on 7 October 2010Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
doug_bostrom (#123), Thank you for your kind comment. You make an interesting point about Lindzen. He seems to be very careful in what he says. For example, when asked what the future holds he says the temperature "may go up or may go down". The Royal Society has adjusted its position to reflect more uncertainty too. -
Ken Lambert at 00:22 AM on 7 October 2010It's the sun
KR #623 kdkd #624 There is no way that the above chart could allow Solar forcing to be dominant in the first half of the 20th century as concluded mostly correctly by kdkd. By setting the Solar forcing to zero in AD1880, when all other forcings except the volcanic aerosol (mainly from Krakatoa) are in fact zero or negligible in order to measure 'differences' ignores the fact that the actual value of the Solar forcing is in the range of 0.3 - 0.5W/sq.m and ongoing since about AD1700. See: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/ipcc2007/fig613.png There is a major dip in Solar and huge Volcanic cooling around AD1815 coinciding with Tambora, but the Solar forcing curve is positive and increasing in the 0.3 - 0.5W/sq.m range up to the present. If you agree that the areas under the curves represents the energy attributable to each forcing, then there is positive area under the Solar forcing curve since AD1700. -
gallopingcamel at 00:18 AM on 7 October 2010Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
Daniel Bailey (#83), Several staff members at NCDC have agreed to meet me and I expect to learn more than can be achieved through written communications. If my business takes me anywhere near Penn State I will certainly try to meet Richard Alley. -
Doug Bostrom at 00:17 AM on 7 October 2010Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
No need to apologize GC. We shouldn't really have to fact check everything we read. Doing a quick search for "richard lindzen nobel" and glancing at article teases etc., one could easily conclude he was a recipient. Unlike Monckton, if Lindzen's actual bio page is any guide the man himself is being very scrupulous not to convey the wrong impression, whatever his relationship w/the IPCC award may or may not be. -
It's the sun
kdkd - I'll take a look at your recommended book; if it's as good as their one on genetics, which I've given or pointed out to a number of people, it should be excellent. I can certainly supply some naive if you'd like! -
CBDunkerson at 00:06 AM on 7 October 2010New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
Ken #153: "I have noticed that when an argument gets hot and running - and the counter punches are telling on the non-skeptics" So, that'd be... never? Oddly when I look at the "It's the Sun" page I don't see any comments from YOU... and comments directed TO you, such as this one, seem to have gone unanswered. Perhaps you put something up which was removed for violation of the comments policy? In any case, I think the non-existence of any posts from you on that page is a more likely explanation of a failure of people to reply than your theory that redirecting discussions to the appropriate page is an attempt to hide an inability to refute your claims. -
gallopingcamel at 00:01 AM on 7 October 2010Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
doug_bostrom & scaddenp, You may be right about Lindzen's Nobel. I can't find specific information on the web. I got the idea from the BBC overseas service but on returning to the site today could find no reference to a Nobel prize. Next time I will do more checking. Please accept my apologies. -
Roger A. Wehage at 23:33 PM on 6 October 2010The value of coherence in science
Ned, I like your rant. Maybe answers to some of your questions would be forthcoming if intelligent people could only answer the question of why so many intelligent people still insist that the earth is 6,000 years old, when evidence to the contrary is so overwhelming. -
Doug Bostrom at 23:26 PM on 6 October 2010The value of coherence in science
Well said, Ned. You've lent coherence to a number of related thoughts sloshing around in my wetware. -
Ned at 23:14 PM on 6 October 2010The value of coherence in science
I haven't visited John Kehr's website, but Philip64 quotes that site as follows: If there were no CO2 in the atmosphere at all, the earth would be ever so slightly cooler, but barely enough to notice. Once there is about 50 ppm in the atmosphere, any additional amounts do not matter. There is overwhelming evidence that this is not true. Much of it is summarized on this site (e.g., here or here); much more can be learned by careful perusal of the excellent site Science of Doom, particularly the series of posts on CO2: An Insignificant Trace Gas (note the particular discussion of "Saturation" in Part Eight). -
Ned at 23:01 PM on 6 October 2010The value of coherence in science
I wrote: OK, epic rant over. Sorry! Actually, not over. I'm feeling a bit cantankerous this morning, so let me just add a bit more. (This is freely self-plagiarized from something I wrote on another forum ... it's not open-access, or I would just provide a link rather than restating it). Is there really anything wrong with a person offering contradictory (or incoherent) alternatives to someone else's theory? Let's say you're a chemistry professor and one of your grad students comes to you with some results that seem to contradict some fundamental aspect of basic physical chemistry. You know their results are probably wrong, but you don't know exactly why. So you suggest that maybe they used the wrong materials, or they measured something incorrectly, or they failed to maintain the proper temperature or pressure, or they recorded the data incorrectly, or they forgot to add the catalyst, or ... whatever. Obviously, all of these explanations are contradictory, but that's OK because what you're really doing is proposing a range of alternatives that need to be considered rather than proposing a single coherent argument of your own. In essence, the burden of "coherence" is on those who are actively supporting a specific theory, e.g. the mainstream view of anthropogenic climate change. Our theory only works if CO2 really is a greenhouse gas and we really are increasing the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and the assortment of positive feedbacks is strong enough to yield a climate sensitivity > 1 C or whatever and the economic/environmental impacts of climate change are negative enough to worry about. The skeptics' advantage is that they "win" if they can break any one of the links in that chain. Our advantage is that it's a very strong chain; the first two links are rock-solid, the third is at least close to rock-solid, and the fourth is pretty convincing to me but probably the source of greatest uncertainty. However, what this doesn't do is free the "skeptic" from the burden of reducing her or his "incoherence" over time in response to the evidence. In my analogy above, the chemistry professor needs to drop one of her alternative explanations for the student's odd result once the student provides sufficient evidence to rule out that particular alternative explanation. Likewise, let's consider a recent example from this site. A commenter recently suggested that if there really were significant positive feedbacks in the climate system, then "any change in CO2 would cause unbounded feedback and thermal runaway." She/he then concluded (logically) that the lack of any Venusian-style runaway warming at the end of the last interglacial "is a serious problem for computer models". Now, many people have this mistaken idea (that positive feedbacks would lead to "thermal runaway", and so they must not exist). This idea has been debunked many, many times on this site, including on the page Does positive feedback necessarily mean runaway warming?. So, I pointed this out to the skeptical commenter in question. What happens next? Does she/he persist in claiming that climate models must be wrong because the Earth isn't experiencing a "thermal runaway"? That persistence would be consistent (over time) ... but that virtue would pale in comparison to the much greater intellectual sin of hanging on to false beliefs in the face of evidence to the contrary. Alternatively, does the commenter drop that particular "alternative" to the mainstream climate consensus? Logically, accepting that the "thermal runaway" thing isn't actually a sign of a problem with climate models does not force one to accept the entire IPCC AR4 in all its glory. But the point here is that while it's OK for individual "skeptics" to offer lots of disparate alternatives, they need to show some willingness to eliminate those alternatives when confronted with the evidence. Failing to do so will understandably lead to uncomfortable conclusions about people's intellectual honesty. (I am speaking hypothetically here, not referring to anyone in particular.) -
Roger A. Wehage at 22:36 PM on 6 October 2010The value of coherence in science
Don't tell us that there are contradictions; tell us why. Why are the messages not getting through to the public? Why would the average Joe prefer to condemn his offspring to an eternal life of suffering than to sacrifice now? It would appear that the average Joe is not taking climate change warnings seriously, so rather than worrying about whether all the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed, maybe it's time to start worrying about how those i's and t's are arranged within the messages.Moderator Response: Good question. There is a fairly large psychological literature on skepticism and climate change that partially answers your question. I hope to get around to doing a podcast/post on this issue in the near future. SL -
Ned at 22:28 PM on 6 October 2010The value of coherence in science
I will admit first off that my impression of many "skeptics" is that they will happily seize on any argument that supports their belief, regardless of whether or not it logically contradicts something else they may have been saying earlier. That said, there's nothing inherent in climate skepticism that demands this kind of incoherence, and there are people out there who have what seem to me like coherent skeptic belief systems. Most of the people I have in mind are perfectly cognizant of the basic physics of AGW, they recognize that the observed increase in CO2 is anthropogenic, they will readily agree that the Earth is warming and that this is mostly due to radiative forcing from GHGs, but they think climate sensitivity is on the low end of the scale and/or that the mainstream view of the impacts is unduly pessimistic. These are very defensible views. I think we do everyone a disservice when we treat all climate-skepticism as if it were coextensive with the commentariat at WUWT. I do think it's not random chance that the skeptics who seem most consistent are also those whose skepticism is limited to the more readily supportable arguments. Belief in the more extreme skeptic claims (AGW violates the second law of thermodynamics, CO2 doesn't warm the atmosphere, CO2 is coming from the oceans, it's all a big conspiracy) is probably a pretty good indicator of fuzzy thinking in general. That said, there are a few more points to make here. First, it's easy to get an exaggerated impression of how widespread incoherence is, when you have lots of individuals on the same "side" making lots of different claims and failing to explicitly dissociate themselves from each others' claims. This is something I harp on all the time ... but I'll make it again. If people on this site who hold more "sensible" climate-skeptic positions were actually willing to speak up and disagree when the more irrational claims are promoted, it would do a lot to promote trust, confidence, and friendly communication on this site. Unfortunately that virtually never happens. With almost no effort right now I could put up links to a dozen recent discussions on here where one or another skeptical commenter made breathtakingly wrong claims or howlingly fallacious lines of reasoning, and in each case it's the "regulars" on this site who show up to provide the answers or rebuttals, while the entire "skeptic" contingent basically sits on the sidelines. (Sorry if I sound a bit emotional about this, but for a year or so now I've been increasingly frustrated by what I perceive as a passive demonstration of near total irresponsibility on the part of my "skeptic" friends on this site). Getting back to the topic of this thread, another point is that it's easy to exaggerate the incoherence of one's opponents and to inadvertently minimize the incoherence of one's friends. 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). It's probably good to try to reduce incoherence and inconsistency in our own arguments, and it's occasionally valuable to point out when our rhetorical opponents are making inconsistent claims. But let's not fetishize consistency. In another thread, we've seen a "skeptic" criticizing Mann 2008 for showing greater century/milliennial-scale variability than Mann 1998. Is that inconsistency? Is it bad? Ultimately, we should only worry about being consistent in seeking to understand the truth and in using that understanding to inform our stewardship of this fine planet we've been lucky enough to inherit from those who went before us. OK, epic rant over. Sorry!Moderator Response: Well put. SL -
The Inconvenient Skeptic at 22:18 PM on 6 October 2010The value of coherence in science
@CBD, The Arrhenius article is about the origin of the idea behind global warming. Angstrom pointed out the flaw at the time, but Arrhenius persisted and tried to ignore the skeptical view. An article is just that, it tells one tiny piece of the puzzle. That was an article on the historical origins of global warming and what it looks like if projected out. The two main ideas for "dominant" factors in climate are CO2 and 65N insolation. The question is which is dominant right now. Right now in this article I am curious as to my previous question. Thanks for you view. I do appreciate it. -
CBDunkerson at 22:06 PM on 6 October 2010The value of coherence in science
TIS #19: Having read your article on Arrhenius I can say that your arguments are certainly NOT coherent. For instance, you claim that Arrhenius's ideas were accepted basically unchallenged for 80 years... and then cite Angstrom's 'proof' to the contrary from just a few years later. Contradicting both yourself AND reality in that Angstrom's findings were widely accepted and Arrhenius's AGW theory considered incorrect for decades until it was proven that Angstrom got it wrong. Can any skeptic be coherent? Certainly... but then every remotely coherent skeptic I can think of (e.g. Roy Spencer) acknowledges that anthropogenic global warming is real and currently taking place. True skeptics (e.g. Kevin Trenberth) of course seek to uncover the details of the warming impacts by determining the gaps and errors in our current understanding. -
The Inconvenient Skeptic at 21:35 PM on 6 October 2010The value of coherence in science
This article is about the coherence. I am trying to point out that a person can be coherent and still be a skeptic. Please re-read my statement. I am not trying to debate the entire scientific battle of global warming in a few paragraphs. The article basically states that anyone that is a skeptic is incoherent in there views. I am trying to point out that skeptics are fully capable of coherence. I do understand all the other factors involved in the science, but this specific article is about consistency in views and statements. Let me ask a question. Do any of you believe that a skeptic can be coherent as described by the article? The article concludes that it is not possible, or fairly close with "There is, of course, a coherent alternative. It is the coherent and overwhelmingly supported scientific fact that the Earth’s climate is warming and that humans are largely responsible for it. That is coherent, backed by peer-reviewed science, and endorsed by all major scientific organizations in the world." So do any of you believe that skeptics can be coherent?Moderator Response: In principle, a skeptic position can be coherent. For example, it would be coherent to state "there is no warming and thus we need not worry about anything." It would also be coherent to state "there is warming but it is caused by XYZ not human CO2 emissions." If you look carefully, you will find that most 'skeptics' blend the two positions together, at which point they become incoherent. (As pure but entertaining speculation, I suspect this is because each coherent position is so weak on its own that they seek more argumentative force by combining them--alas, that achieves the opposite.) SL -
PeteM at 21:32 PM on 6 October 2010The value of coherence in science
I've looked at the contradictions. A long list- do you have any triplet states :-) Visually I'd like to see a set of points on a two axis plot. The aim would be to see if an position is easily understood to be contradictory , and/or also to understand if an argument implies multiple contradictions. I'm thinking of one axis representing the level of knowledge you'd need to understand the contradiction ( 5 year old , 10 year old , pre graduate ,...). Another (perpendicular) axis representing number of contradictions in the positioning of the argument . If it very easily understood as contradictory and there are lots of contradictions you're in the red zone (or worst cases the IR zone) ... the fewer contradictions the more orange/green you become . You could then use this to clasify a particular source of (dis)information .
Prev 2147 2148 2149 2150 2151 2152 2153 2154 2155 2156 2157 2158 2159 2160 2161 2162 Next
