Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2256 2257 2258 2259 2260 2261 2262 2263 2264 2265 2266 2267 2268 2269 2270 2271 Next
Comments 113151 to 113200:
-
semperviren at 03:42 AM on 10 August 2010Talkin bout the Skeptical Science phone apps
The iPhone app is great, though I've noticed that there are some pretty slick denialist apps making it into the app store (Apple demonstrated a lack of good judgement in showing the "Our Climate" app in the Featured apps). One feature I would like to emphatically request would be something along the lines of a quiz that delved from the top level of your one-line rebuttal list into more detail with later stages. I've noticed that it's hard for regular people who have really examined the scientific basis on AGW to recall counter arguments in conversation because they are quite often trying to formulate an explanation rather than attain a rhetorical win. I feel like a sort of multiple choice test within the app would really add a lot of value, something people could use to become familiar with the vast array of denial arguments and how they relate to the established research so they aren't surprised and shut down when someone brings out a specious yet convincing-sounding talking point. In a water cooler debate, it's really not going to convince anyone if you have to go back to the computer or check your app to make a response. People who care about this issue should have a certain level of retention of the facts. Hopefully that would lead to greater confidence in their ability to speak what they know to be true and bring about more debate without science based arguments being derailed by esoteric pinpricking. Great job on the site and the apps! -
michael sweet at 03:40 AM on 10 August 2010Grappling With Change: London and the River Thames
Pete, did you notice in the above quote (57) the NAS says that AGW has gone beyond the status of well supported theory and should be considered an observed fact. You are a little behind saying it is only a hypothesis. Maybe you can update and say it is only a theory, not a fact. The predictions of change that were made in the 70's and 80's are happening faster than predicted (ice melt, sea level rise, extreme precipitation, fires, ocean acidity). What makes you so optimistic that the future will be better than forecast? -
JMurphy at 03:35 AM on 10 August 2010Grappling With Change: London and the River Thames
Pete Ridley wrote : "As I indicated, I’ll need to make some time to look more closely at what has been claimed in Doug’s diatribe." You just get better at posting more lack of substance. You accuse someone of composing a bitter, abusive denunciation, attack, or criticism (otherwise known as a diatribe - but against what or whom is still unclear), even though you admit you haven't had "time to look more closely at what has been claimed" ! Are you just permanently set on 'argue the opposite', no matter how little you know' ? And yet...you haven't had time to look closely to see whether the 'diatribe' was, in fact, based on facts, BUT have been able to find a little time to assert (against, don't forget, something you haven't had time to check up on) that "[o]n the contrary, it seems that The Great Flood 1968 (Note 2) may have been worse and what about 1953, 1928, 1894, 1891, 1877, 1875, 1872 and 1869?. (I’m sure there are more)." So, you are asserting something that you don't know to be true (the years you mention MIGHT have had greater floods, especially the year 1968 whose title of 'The Great Flood' may have led you to believe it MUST have been a biggy) against something that you haven't actually checked ! The title of this thread is called "Grappling with Change : London and the River Thames" : that is nothing compared with grappling with so-called skepticism and trying to work out which argument is honest and credible, and which is made up as they are typing. -
Doug Bostrom at 03:13 AM on 10 August 2010Grappling With Change: London and the River Thames
Pete, in the interest of being fully informed regarding your personal opinion of AGW being a hypothesis as opposed to where the scientific community today stands, I encourage you to read this NAS report, which I cited in the article. It's not possible to provide redundant and lengthy supporting material in everything written about this topic, but down here we have a little more room so I'll just quote briefly to address your concerns: Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities. It's worth stopping and thinking a moment to consider this juxtaposition, a very simple one: your opinion versus the NAS. Again I encourage you to read more, that's all I can do. -
MattJ at 03:13 AM on 10 August 2010Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
Concerning 'obscure' references to "AFL Grand Final" and "Burswood": surely there are much more international examples you could use, readily understandable even to Americans;) I have in mind "World Cup" and "Monte Carlo". As Wikipedia says, "Monte Carlo is widely known for its casino". And since soccer, a.k.a. 'football' has become much more popular over the last 20 years in the US, Americans finally know what the World Cup is -- as most of the world has long known. Why, we even know what vuvuzelas are -- which might be a good analogy for the droning of disinformation from the 'skeptics';) -
JMurphy at 03:07 AM on 10 August 2010Why I care about climate change
gallopingcamel wrote : "For example, I reject the unscientific position of Lisa Jackson at the EPA who claims that CO2 is a pollutant." Come on : to be more accurate, you should write : "I reject what I believe to be the unscientific position of Lisa Jackson and the EPA who have put forward a very clear case that CO2 is a pollutant." This is because you reject the findings of EPA authors and contributors Benjamin DeAngelo, Jason Samenow, Jeremy Martinich, Doug Grano, Dina Kruger, Marcus Sarofim, Lesley Jantarasami, William Perkins, Michael Kolian, Melissa Weitz, Leif Hockstad, William Irving, Lisa Hanle, Darrell Winner, David Chalmers, Brian Cook, Chris Weaver, Susan Julius, Brooke Hemming, Sarah Garman, Rona Birnbaum, Paul Argyropoulos, Al McGartland, Alan Carlin, John Davidson, Tim Benner, Carol Holmes, John Hannon, Jim Ketcham-Colwill, Andy Miller, and Pamela Williams. And you reject the findings of Federal expert reviewers Virginia Burkett, USGS; Phil DeCola; NASA; William Emanuel, NASA; Anne Grambsch, EPA; Jerry Hatfield, USDA; Anthony Janetos; DOE Pacific Northwest National Laboratory; Linda Joyce, USDA Forest Service; Thomas Karl, NOAA; Michael McGeehin, CDC; Gavin Schmidt, NASA; Susan Solomon, NOAA; and Thomas Wilbanks, DOE Oak Ridge National Laboratory. You also reject the scientific knowldege of NOAA, USGCRP, IPCC, CCSP, NRC, EPA, ACIA, on which the EPA Report is heavily based. You also reject an EPA Report that "...relies most heavily on existing, and in most cases very recent, synthesis reports of climate change science and potential impacts, which have undergone their own peer-review processes, including review by the U.S. government." You also reject the document which also "underwent a technical review by 12 federal climate change experts, internal EPA review, interagency review, and a public comment period." To view more that gallopingcamel rejects, the report is here. Perhaps you agree with the petitioners who complained, including the states of Texas and Virginia and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and challenged the EPA regulations, citing recent controversies as evidence of flaws in climate science and a conspiracy among mainstream scientists to shut out dissenting views ? Well, the EPA rejected those. So, what do you reject and why ? What makes you believe that your own scientific knowledge is good enough to reject the EPA Report ? Don't say it's all down to politics...! -
John Russell at 03:04 AM on 10 August 2010Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
Your ending is... "So anyone who says that we shouldn’t act on climate change because of uncertainty is really inviting you to ride towards a brick wall at 80 km/h. No one in their right mind would do it." Good; but personally I'd suggest a slightly different ending. Something like... "So anyone who says that we shouldn’t act on climate change because of uncertainty is really inviting you to ride towards a brick wall at 80 km/h... because it might not hurt. Are you feeling lucky? "Moderator Response: I like it! SL -
MattJ at 03:04 AM on 10 August 2010Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
Replying to John Brookes, #5: yes, it is analogous to the stock market. The problem is that if we use the stock market, we are using one phenomenon they don't understand, to explain another phenomenon they don't understand. After all, one of the first lessons we learn about the stock market -- if we learn it at all -- is that "Mr. Market" is a moody and irrational character, who swings between feckless optimism and boundless despair precisely because the majority of traders are trading irrationally, with no understanding of statistical averages and chaotic phenomena (as explained by http://beginnersinvest.about.com/library/lessons/nlesson2a.htm). But we can see something very similar in 'discussions' of climate change a.k.a. global warming; the confusion of 'climate' with 'weather' is also based on lacking that understanding, and is very persistent. Also, I think hengist in #23 is making the same point I noticed reading the article: in what way is football not also "a result of physical processes"? Is this really the right way to say what you are trying to say? A lot of your listeners, after all, are reductionists. As such, they do not question that football is also "a result of physical processes". Directly contradicting this assumption with no preparation is not the way to win them over to your side. I would like to say that the football analogy is more widely understood, but then again, years ago I noticed how my fellow countrymen like to talk on and on about sports without actually ever taking the effort to know what they are talking about. As often, it is what they think they know that isn't even true that leads them so far astray. Yet even so, sports is a better analogy than the stock market because despite the principal failure to understand (which I mention above), they at least understand that batting averages (in baseball) are important -- even if they persistently misunderstand what that importance is. The casino analogy might actually be better simply because most people do stay away from them, understanding that the house always wins. Even if it is true that they believe this more out of cynicism than out of understanding of probabilities, at least they do understand it. Another advantage of the casino advantage is that people know about card tricks and cheating in casinos -- and there is a lot of tricks and cheating going on in the fossil-fuel industry's campaign of disinformation about AGW. Surely this analogy will be easy to draw on within that three minutes. -
greenhousegaseous at 02:52 AM on 10 August 2010Has Global Warming Stopped?
John and the many constructive and erudite commentators: a really *superb* discussion and a thorough addressing of perhaps the most simplistic claim of denialists, that GW has stopped, and/or that cooling has set in. Luckily I was trained in econometrics, so can appreciate most of what you all have presented here. As a thoughtful reader, I would ask only that John or someone among you who is qualified relate the *rate* (meaning overall pace) of warming in the present era to what the ice cores and other sources tell us about the rate of temperature change in past periods. It has nothing to do with the thread, admittedly; it would simply be a useful addendum for those of us sharing the link to this post and discussion with non-readers. But job well done! Ahh, but now we all (again) face the dilemma: how do we make this clear understanding available to the key 250 million educated *busy* voters in the world-controlling democracies in a format and level of exposition they can understand, without requiring them to immerse themselves in our various arcane specialized fields? Or to read John’s fine blog, for that matter? Much more to the point in these days of harassment by popular charlatans out for media attention, how do we ensure these most-vital constituents have sufficient confidence in the work of dedicated climate and earth science professionals to carry the message of a human-dominated ecosystem in crisis to others, beginning with their own children and grandchildren? It is easy to dismiss these millions, saying they should know enough science to follow such a telling thread as this one. That fatuous response won’t help us, or more importantly, them, now. -
Pete Ridley at 02:47 AM on 10 August 2010Grappling With Change: London and the River Thames
JMurphy, thanks for providing others with those excellent definitions of “theory” and “hypothesis”. I always try to choose my words very carefully and the definition of “hypothesis” fits perfectly The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis i.e. “a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation”. Of course, those investigations into those significan uncertainties about global climate processes and drivers continue across the globe, at enormous but necessary expense. There is so much that the scientists need to learn. Thanks again. Regarding the links that you provided to what you appear to (mistakenly) regard as evidence sufficient to change the status of The Hypothesis to that of a theory, these simply support the argument that during the past 150 years there appears to have been a small amount of global warming, some of which has been contributed to by humans. Few sceptics would seriously dispute this. What they do not provide evidence of is that such warming will continue indefinitely to the detriment of humankind. BTW, I do not believe that I have ever sought to disprove the theory of AGW. If you can find me suggesting that anywhere then please let me know and I’ll correct it. Thanks for providing that help that I asked for about evidence to support the claim “historically unprecedented rainfall deluge”. Maybe the Pit Review includes such evidence rather than simply making the claim which you quoted. As I indicated, I’ll need to make some time to look more closely at what has been claimed in Doug’s diatribe. There is a big difference between “unprecedented” and “unprecedented since records began” and I hinted at a similar error in one of Doug’s comments on the “Confidence on Climate Models” thread (see his mini-diatribe at comment #93 and my comment #97). Doug, there’s a time and a place for everything. Don’t worry. I’ll enjoy my grandchildren and look more closely at the scare stories about London sinking under the seas as and when I choose until I pass on to the hopefully perpetually warm and comfortable life to follow this one (if what I was told during my childhood is to be believed). Best regards, Pete Ridley -
Doug Bostrom at 02:07 AM on 10 August 2010Why I care about climate change
Further to gallopcamel's remarks, here's what I find to be a pretty cogent summary of where we stand w/regard to the upcoming size of our C02 bulge, by the head of the Centre for European Policy Studies: Coal: The cheap, dirty and direct route to irreversible climate change The overall message is pretty familiar. Coal is very inexpensive, the market fails to deal w/the commons issues arising from coal combustion, when law at the national level cannot address the problem it's quite impossible to deal with it across borders. Gros integrates these things with where we stand today. -
john2847 at 01:58 AM on 10 August 2010Climate's changed before
It never seems to occur to the people who make the 'climate has changed before over the last 700,000 years ' argument that almost no-one was around at those times to suffer the consequences. The few that were around ( about 5 million, ten thousand years ago according to NOAA) ) could move to follow the climate that suited them anyway. Before a few 100,000 years ago Homo Sapiens didn't even exist in any case. -
gallopingcamel at 01:30 AM on 10 August 2010Why I care about climate change
macoles (#118), This thread was about John's rationale for "Caring About Climate Change". While my rationale is quite different I often agree with John when it comes to mitigation. For example, I reject the unscientific position of Lisa Jackson at the EPA who claims that CO2 is a pollutant. Nonetheless, I am in favor of reducing CO2 emissions drastically. One can hardly disagree with the observation that the most populous nations are playing "catch up" with the USA and Europe. One of the consequences is rapidly rising CO2 emissions. Von Storch is a realist when he points out that the CO2 concentrations are going to rise for the foreseeable future. Even if the developed world were prepared to commit economic suicide by abandoning its transportation and energy assets, how likely is it that China and India would change their plans? -
Doug Bostrom at 01:08 AM on 10 August 2010Grappling With Change: London and the River Thames
Pete Ridley and I are much alike. Not much to say but we're absolutely the cat's pajamas when it comes to finding long-winded ways to say it. W/regard to historical floods and the like Pete, if you disagree with the folks keeping track of such things you'll need to complain to them. If you follow the various links in the article you'll find where to lodge your complaints. For getting sorted out on hypothesis versus theory concerning AGW, check with the U.S National Academies of Sciences; the "factual" and "theoretical" basis of AGW is from them, as you'll discover if you follow the link. If ignoring all this stuff allows you to enjoy your grandchildren more, I certainly don't want to get in the way of that. -
adelady at 01:00 AM on 10 August 2010Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
I rather like the casino analogy for exactly that reason. If we're talking to people with little scientific knowledge and even less interest in scientific method, I like betting and sporting analogies. Using the casino analogy this time means that if there's another opportunity, the idea of risk assessment or of betting on which "team" has the better players can be used to elaborate whatever point is to be made. (Esp for an Australian audience.) -
skywatcher at 00:31 AM on 10 August 2010Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
An analogy I like and have seen in several places is to compare long-term prediction of climate to the prediction of weather in a different season. A short-term prediction, like global temperature two years from now, is like a weather forecast for two weeks ahead - both are very uncertain and the actual value could be rather higher or lower than the value today (weather vagiaries and ENSO uncertainty see to that. But predicting the climate in 2050/2100 is like making a forecast for January's temperature from now. You'll have an uncertainty within a certain range, but that range will be substantially different to the range of the weather forecast for next week. In the short-term we can't say very well if the weather on August 20th will be hotter or cooler than today. In the long-term we can't say exactly what the January 20th temperature will be, but we can be pretty certain it will be cooler (in the UK) than the weather in a week's time. Similarly we can be pretty certain that the global temperature will be warmer in 50 years time, and much more certain about that than if it will be warmer in 2012. Casino analogy is also decent, though I wonder about the element of 'chance' that it implies. Some might disingenuously suggest that a element of chance is required in our long-term climate prediction (and cast doubt upon the validity), whereas the basis for the prediction are some of the physical processes you describe. That's why I prefer the seasons analogy. -
AlanR at 23:57 PM on 9 August 201010 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change
I didn't expect my motivations to be examined here. One on't cross beams gone owt askew on treadle. -
Peter Hogarth at 22:12 PM on 9 August 2010Confidence in climate forecasts
Pete Ridley at 06:59 AM on 8 August, 2010 Technically, I can agree on the semantic distinction between projection and prediction, von Storch makes this point clearly. We are dealing with possibilities and probabilities derived from models which are as representative or reductionist as any set of equations. Each model generates a projection with an ever expanding uncertainty envelope based on estimates of uncertainty associated with the input parameters. Different models, differing sophistication, and different weightings produce different projections. The range of projections offer us “scenarios”, we can infer worst case and best case from the range of possibilities, and consider adjusting policy to avoid the worst case. The graphics I have seen of IPCC model results always show a range of projections. Simply put, they are the best indicators we currently have of what might happen. They are certainly more objective than wishful thinking. However, before discussing modeling further, we must address your understanding of the current status of the input data and current theory, and your sweeping generalizations which appear to disregard or willfully misinterpret this data. How you can be so pedantic about the term “prediction” and yet lose your critical objectivity when it comes to some of the sources and anecdotes you cite and the statements you make? “Perhaps the real culprit causing those global weather events that are being misinterpreted as human-made global climate change is El Ni˜no and not our use of fossil fuels”?? As a non-expert in any climate related field, you seem to have formed a certain fixed viewpoint and now search around to find evidence to support it which you seem to “enjoy”. This is the opposite of an objective scientific evidence based approach. Von Storch discusses uncertainty, but he also discusses current AGW theory being consistent with the overall weight of empirical evidence, and this is really the crux of the matter, - gaining confidence in the theories and models based on data, or rejecting (or certainly losing confidence in) alternative hypotheses based on this same data. As more evidence accumulates, and models become increasingly refined, uncertainties in measurements, trends, and models are reduced. This has lead to increasingly high confidence (rather than absolute certainty) in the mainstream view. On this von Storch appears to agree, as do a majority of climate scientists. There are a minority of notable exceptions of course, as we do not expect views to be monolithic on any matter involving human “rationality”. Please take time to read the up to date NOAA State of the Climate report. It is written in clear terms by the some of the leading scientific experts in their respective fields. Look at the author list. It’s a great read, enjoy. -
Alexandre at 21:54 PM on 9 August 2010Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
I don´t like the eclipse analogy much. We can calculate that in advance for other reasons that does not have anything to do with chaos and randomness. I would prefer something like "you can predict that the poles will be very cold, and the Himalayas will be much colder than the nearby Ganges valley, years or decades from now, even if you can´t predict the weather a week from now. That´s because the causes taht make the poles or the Himalayas cold will still be there all this time." Casino analogy is good. I use the dice one now and then. -
adelady at 21:18 PM on 9 August 2010Request for mainstream articles on climate
"whatever popular backlash might eventually result." Of course all those people struggling to live with the consequences of fires, floods and famines won't have the will to fight anyone. So no backlash from that quarter, I suppose. -
michael sweet at 21:16 PM on 9 August 2010Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
RSVP, The proposal that Dr. Hansen (and other scientists) has made is to return 100% of a carbon tax to the people who pay it. What is your problem with that? If we reach 2100 and AGW has not proven to be correct we will all still have our money and we don't have to worry about splitting it up among our grandchildren. We will run out of oil and coal in a few decades anyway, we might as well get started. -
JMurphy at 21:00 PM on 9 August 2010Grappling With Change: London and the River Thames
Pete Ridley wrote : "The Hypothesis remains a hypothesis." If you can't even recognise the difference between a theory and a hypothesis, I respectfully suggest that you are immune from reason and will not accept facts and evidence that do not conform to whatever system of beliefs informs your world-view. Theory - a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained Hypothesis - a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation To help you see the difference, you will need to read more on this site, specifically : More evidence than you can shake a hockey-stick at 10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change 10 Key Climate Indicators Point to the same finding - Global Warming is unmistakable Empirical Evidence for Global Warming Now, if you can disprove any of that, or show that it is 'limited evidence', then you will be famous and will have proven that the AGW theory is, in fact, a hypothesis. If you can't (which you can't), you should start accepting the facts as they exist in the real world and move on to arguing about something which you can defend with rational arguments, rather than relying on 'comfort-phrases' which satisfy some need you have to deny what is happening around you. And, just to keep this on-topic, if you had read the Pitt Review (which was linked to above), you would have read this : The rainfall during June and July 2007 was unprecedented. The severe flooding which followed came after the wettest ever May to July period since national records began in 1766. And this : It was the most serious inland flood since 1947 (MISSED FROM YOUR LIST, SOMEHOW) Have a look at the Review. -
Peter Hogarth at 20:32 PM on 9 August 2010Confidence in climate forecasts
Argus at 02:58 AM on 7 August, 2010 I am assuming that you use modeling in your profession at some level, as I do. Models are almost universal tools, but we know they are simplifications, and to use them successfully we must understand and accept their limitations. Where climate models have fallen down in the past they have (at least to my knowledge) done so because they have not included factors which turn out to be more significant than previously thought (such as water vapour or cloud feedback, in many older models) or have not been calculated to high enough resolution (for instance to resolve eddy effects in Ocean studies). The models constantly improve, but by adding in more factors, increasing complexity and by using improved processing power to increase resolution, not by some sort of fudge factor “fitting”. As has been pointed out, many of the IPCC models -in general- underestimated the reality of evolving sea level rise or Arctic ice loss. However another extremely important point is that models are the only way of running climate experiments and control experiments in parallel. We do not have that luxury in reality. Your point about media bias cuts both ways, but this is in many cases not objective science (either way). -
adelady at 19:38 PM on 9 August 2010What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?
Yes I liked that one. -
batsvensson at 19:25 PM on 9 August 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
doug_bostrom, your are confusing the map with the terrain. -
John Chapman at 19:02 PM on 9 August 2010Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
Re #23. Maybe .."climate, unlike football, is the result of processes that obey laws of nature"? (I suppose chaos is still accounted for in those laws.) Re #2 and #3, I was trying to cover the consequence if as a result of a GFC only half as much is bet(probably TWICE as much in a GFC!). The high roller effect is appropriate as #3 suggests. Perhaps ... "They can confidently expect to make on average a certain percentage of bets placed,though over short time periods or when a high roller appears this percentage can be higher or even be a loss. Over a sufficiently long period the profit is predictable and positive" Hmm.. maybe that's too much of a mouthful and confusing and you only have 3 mins! Think I'll go home now .. -
Pete Ridley at 18:50 PM on 9 August 2010Grappling With Change: London and the River Thames
Doug, that’s quite a scary diatribe you’ve put together there so will take a bit of reading. Never mind, I’ll try to make the time to go through it in detail. On a quick scan I was immediately reminded of a similar scare story about climate change and the risk of Westminster being drowned – Mark Lynas’s science fiction booklet “Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet” (Note 1). That has as its front cover a picture of London almost underwater – enough to frighten the most sceptical member of the general public into accepting without question The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis. Well, not quite. I was very concerned about my grand-childrens’ future after reading the Times on Sunday’s 11th March 2007 review of Six Degrees so I went to the library and took out the book. It is full of misrepresentations which I’ve pointed out to Mark but he was never prepared to respond on them. I wonder if you will adopt the same approach if I find any in your missive. Lets make a start. 1) “Since the design and construction of the Thames Barrier, anthropogenic global warming has moved from a state of hypothesis to that of established, accepted theory, has become a factual challenge”. No Doug, The Hypothesis remains a hypothesis. 2) I can find no evidence to support the claim “historically unprecedented rainfall deluge” in the statement “ .. 2007's .. rainfall deluge and subsequent flooding caused enormous damage over a large region southern England .. ”. On the contrary, it seems that The Great Flood 1968 (Note 2) may have been worse and what about 1953, 1928, 1894, 1891, 1877, 1875, 1872 and 1869?. (I’m sure there are more). Perhaps you’d like to provide a link to the evidence that supports your statement about 2007. Another thing that strikes me about your diatribe – it makes the assumption that the small amount of global warming that we may have experienced over the past 150 years is going to continue and have a significant impact upon the extent of flooding in the SE of England. As I understand it this is only a hypothesis based upon the projections of computer models that have never been validated, but that’s for a different thread. Sorry, must dash as the boss is calling. NOTES: 1) see http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B002RI9F0E/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_2?pf_rd_p=103612307&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0007209045&pf_rd_m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd_r=114R8ETZ1PW2FS220J2B 2) see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Flood_of_1968 Best regards, Pete Ridley -
Rob Painting at 18:37 PM on 9 August 2010Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
I always preferred the analogy of the climate with a big ship headed toward an uncharted reef. Both the climate and the ship have large inertia and respond slowly. Steering clear of trouble means turning the wheel well before the collision is imminent. React too slowly, and sure we might miss the above water portion of the reef, only to be sunk by submerged rocks (uncertainty?). But hey, that's just me. Mark me down as another tick for the casino analogy. -
Argus at 18:27 PM on 9 August 2010What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?
I don't think Wayne Johnston (at 11:52 AM on 22 July, 2010) got the credits he deserved for his comment (#9). That is a very funny answer to the original question! -
hengistmcstone at 18:21 PM on 9 August 2010Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
"climate, unlike football, is the result of physical processes" That is subject to challenge because football (or the result of a football match, if you like) is a physical process. Apologies if there is a scientific sense to this phrase, but to me football (whether ozzie rules,american or soccer) looks pretty damn physical. Would it be trolling to point out that some (extremely rare and talented) people make their living betting on football? -
actually thoughtful at 17:47 PM on 9 August 2010Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
20 RSVP - knowing about AGW only helps if humanity has the wisdom to act. So far, not so good. But with Russia on fire and the Middle East looking at 130F - maybe there will be a sea change (ahem!). -
actually thoughtful at 17:45 PM on 9 August 2010Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
Love the casino bit. The 80kph/brick wall is, well abrupt (pardon the pun). Consider something more like this: "The options we face are to hit that brick wall at 40, 80 or 120 kph. The course of wisdom is obvious." (as the final paragraph). I just didn't transition with you to the car and the brick wall and I ended up with road rash after you focused on it for 4 paragraphs. It is "hard hitting" (ooh I am just on fire tonight) and I realize you are painting verbal broad-stroke pictures, so perhaps my suggestion doesn't help. Hopefully it does. -
ProfBob at 17:44 PM on 9 August 2010Communicating climate science in plain English
I find in reading those sites that say that climate problems are a myth that their evidence is very sparse and inconclusive. Recently I read Book 1 of the free e-book series "In Search of Utopia" (http://andgulliverreturns.info), it blasts their lack of evidence relative to several myths. The book, actually the last half of the book, takes on the skeptics in global warming, overpopulation, lack of fresh water, lack of food, and other areas where people deny the evidence. I strongly suggest that anyone wanting to see the whole picture read the book, at least the last half. There is also up to date information at:http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html -
RSVP at 17:39 PM on 9 August 2010Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
Sorry I left out an important part of the deal. If AGW does pan out, the fund gets split amongst Climate Scientist grandchildren. But in that case, how exactly did knowing about AGW help? -
les at 16:27 PM on 9 August 2010Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
On your last comment connects nicely with the Oreskes and Conway book (Merchants of Doubt) "So anyone who says that we shouldn’t act on climate change because of uncertainty..." - is acting methodologically as the anti-science brigade often do, focusing on the fact of uncertainty to undermine confidence in firm evidence. -
chris1204 at 16:24 PM on 9 August 2010Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
scaddenp: Thanks for chasing the papers. An excellent learning exercise. -
RSVP at 16:18 PM on 9 August 2010Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
Perhaps it would only be fair then to direct all the CO2 emission penalties to a huge fund that holds this money until 2100, and if AGW predictions dont pan out, not only is the money returned, but the same amount is paid in full by Climate Scientist's grandchildren. -
Chris G at 15:24 PM on 9 August 2010Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
Regarding alliteration, what about '...unbearably bad' ?Moderator Response: Yes, sounds great. SL -
jyyh at 15:21 PM on 9 August 2010Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
Hot Tweets: Skeptical Science connects AGW scam to casino owners and developments in car crash safety http://bit.ly/b1JVtv -
Chris G at 15:15 PM on 9 August 2010Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
#12, In a way, that is also an indication that means rule in the end. The large cells, etc, lacked fine detail and so aggregated over large regions, but they got the general picture pretty close anyway. -
Chris G at 15:10 PM on 9 August 2010Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
It might be useful to work in something to the effect that even if the car is going to hit a wall, it would be better to hit it at 40 than 80. After all, we are all riding in the car whether we like it or not. But maybe that adds too much complexity to have a clear effect on the listener.Moderator Response: Great idea but I worry about complexity (and time, I only got 3 minutes). SL -
scaddenp at 15:02 PM on 9 August 2010Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
"Broeker's climate modelling would have been far less sophisticated back in 1975 - hence, possibly a very lucky prediction irrespective of computing power " We let's see. Paper is here He slightly overestimated the amount of CO2 for 2010 - 403ppm which I think does involve a bit of luck because he was also working on assumption that 50% of CO2 emitted was absorbed which he couldn't have had pinned down well then. He used the result of Manabe and Wetherald GCM for a sensitivity of 2.4 and calculated from there. How "lucky" were Manabe and Wetherald? Well their model is extremely crude. A strange globe of land and "wet land", no ocean currents, huge cell size. And yet their sensitivity isnt far from current estimates of 3. They got arctic amplication right and so on. Crowley's incredibly primitive model still reproduces the ice ages very well. Rather than luck, I would suggest that the broad features of the climate are relatively easily captured and estimated. Finer detail is hard. -
Chris G at 15:00 PM on 9 August 2010Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
Very minor typo at "And no on in..". The casino is a nice extension to Hansen's loaded die analogy. Broeker was so on that it risks appearing to be a bit of luck, especially considering that modern models come in between 2 and 4.5 C, mostly, per doubling. Having said that and having seen some of Wally's work, the guy is astute; he has a rare clarity of vision. Despite Schneider's subsequent retraction regarding the cooling of aerosols in comparison to the warming of CO2, there is the risk that it could also be said that global cooling was predicted at the same time.Moderator Response: well spotted typo, thanks SL -
bobconsole at 14:27 PM on 9 August 2010Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
I would also suggest that the law of probability also extends ACROSS a range of independent events (in space) and not just across time for a single user. So multiple INDEPDENDENT lines of evidence, each with ever so slight bias can very quickly tease out the reward for a casino. -
chris1204 at 14:02 PM on 9 August 2010Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
Broeker's climate modelling would have been far less sophisticated back in 1975 - hence, possibly a very lucky prediction irrespective of computing power (but I'm happy to stand corrected). He seems very much the pessimist about our future today. I note his enthusiasm for geoengineering. Jumping to the car crash analogy, I note the road toll could be cut to nearly zero by placing a long and very sharp steel spike protruding from the steering wheel stopping about in inch away from the driver's sternum. I don't think it'll catch on, somehow. -
adelady at 13:49 PM on 9 August 2010Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
Perhaps using the word -only- climate is the result only of physical processes, or contrast with footy rules, there's no umpire for heat or clouds. ????? By and large, I think it's terrific. -
adelady at 13:45 PM on 9 August 2010Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
I do love the casino analogy. Surely someone somewhere is compiling a quotation reference set for the best of the best in the analogy/ metaphor/ simile competition. -
adelady at 13:42 PM on 9 August 2010Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
Being concerned about sound supporting or hindering meaning, I would much, much prefer unbelievably bad to inconceivably bad. 'Unbelievable' is a more familiar word and a little bit of alliteration can be a strong reinforcer of the 'bad' word you're already repeating. And I'd modify the footy thing a bit - a lot of people would argue with the notion that footy is not the result of physical processes. Haven't thought of a way to rephrase yet. -
John Brookes at 13:33 PM on 9 August 2010Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
I love the casino analogy. Another excellent analogy is the stock market. There is a great deal of randomness overlaying an underlying upward trend. Last century there were a couple of decades where there was no upward movement in the major stock indices, but ultimately they resumed their ever upwards climb. This addresses the contrarian, "but its been cooling for the last decade" type argument. Incidentally, I haven't seen any work on how long a pause or downturn in global temperatures we can expect to see from time to time as the world continues warming. -
Tony O at 13:25 PM on 9 August 2010Post your blog review on the radio podcast: Long Term Certainty
To the extent there is uncertainty, "it is not your friend". Me thinks that was a Real Climate response will go try and find if you wish.
Prev 2256 2257 2258 2259 2260 2261 2262 2263 2264 2265 2266 2267 2268 2269 2270 2271 Next
