Recent Comments

Prev  2267  2268  2269  2270  2271  2272  2273  2274  2275  2276  2277  2278  2279  2280  2281  2282  Next

Comments 113701 to 113750:

113701. muoncounter at 02:01 AM on 3 August 2010
        What's in a trend?
        #21 "every indication that the cool period is now upon us." What would those indications be?
113702. Rob Honeycutt at 01:51 AM on 3 August 2010
        Visually depicting the disconnect between climate scientists, media and the public
        Poptech... What constitutes a specialist is not subjective at all. I can't randomly perceive someone to be an expert and expect that to be correct. What constitutes as a expert has much more to do with quality and quantity. And for the use of E&E for the majority of your "800 papers." That's tantamount to bottom feeding. It's where scientists go when they can't get published in respected journals. You know this is the case. Even the fact that you absolutely insist that your statements are "100% correct" shows the absurd level you are willing to go to. You exhibit a bizarre megalomaniacal adherence to your own capacity to understand an issue that not even the most eminent scientists in this field would lay claim.
113703. Dikran Marsupial at 01:21 AM on 3 August 2010
        On Consensus
        dcwarrior It is true that rhetoric often has a greater effect on public opinion than science, however it is vital to clearly distinguish between scientific arguments and rhetoric in our responses. If someone makes a specious scientific argument, then it is best answered by a straight scientific response, and that is what SkepticalSciece does so well. What we shouldn't do is respond to specious scientific arguments by engaging in rhetoric ourseves. If we do that we run the risk of being seen as dishonest and lose the trust of the public (and indeed we would deserve to lose it) when our rhetoric is exposed for what it is. Of couse scientists need to understand rhetoric, but (IMHO) only to better advise journalists and politicians to argue for the scientifically justified political and economic action and to expose the flaws in the arguments of the opposition.
113704. adelady at 01:08 AM on 3 August 2010
        Has Global Warming Stopped?
        That video might get a couple of airings with some statistics students. Good stuff.
113705. JMurphy at 01:01 AM on 3 August 2010
        1934 - hottest year on record
        Broadlands, your sources are from 1941 and 1943 - a bit out of date now, don't you think ? If you look at NewYorkJ's comment, you will find more up-to-date and accurate information. From one of the links there, you will find that 1998 was the 'hottest year' in the US, closely followed by 2006, then 1934, 1921, 1999. If you don't trust those figures, that is up to you to explain. Perhaps you should show in what way you believe they have been fiddled somehow. Also, you shouldn't concentrate on daily or monthly maximum temperatures, which are more likely to be the result of local weather - best to concentrate on trends, like this study : The relative increase of record high maximum temperatures compared to record low minimum temperatures in the U.S
113706. adelady at 00:58 AM on 3 August 2010
        Has Global Warming Stopped?
        Based on this very nice bit of work, I s'pose we can predict that warming will keep on stopping - apart from the occasional wild El Nino year. Much appreciated.
113707. dcwarrior at 00:48 AM on 3 August 2010
        On Consensus
        "Science is not about rhetoric, it is about logical argument." Regarding the conduct of science, you are spot on. However, given the population we have now, rhetoric is still necessary to convince the population that they should be concerned about climate change. Blaming science education, while true in a reductionist sense, will not get the results you want. If science wants to win this battle, it needs to understand the tools the opposition is using, VERY EFFECTIVELY, against you. WHY are people being persuaded by a, by all accounts, small group of deniers? They appear to be very politically astute and seem to be pushing people's buttons in a way that they respond. I'm no marketing maven but I know there is science out there on how to persuade people of things - will hard science understand that they need to power of soft science?
113708. Anne-Marie Blackburn at 00:21 AM on 3 August 2010
        Has Global Warming Stopped?
        Good post and what looks like an excellent new resource to fight denialism. Thank you.
113709. Dikran Marsupial at 23:25 PM on 2 August 2010
        On Consensus
        nnthinker said "Not a very good defense". Science is not about rhetoric, it is about logical argument. Casual dismissal of posts intended to be helpful is not an indication of genuine scientific scepticism. Physics can't predict the exact behaviour of a double pendulum because it is chaotic; being able to measure the initial conditions more accurately extends the useful prediction horizon a little, but it doesn't change the fact that a double pendulum is inherently unpredictable. Likewise the weather is inherently unpredictable, and more accurate measurements don't substantially change that, just pushes the useful prediction horizon back a little (for a more advanced treatment, see here). Model predictions are not dependent on temperature records, paleoclimate, thermometer or satelite. They are based on assumptions about climate physics, and simulate the consequence of those assumptions. If you want to show that the models are not accurate, then you need to show that the error of the models is larger than the internal variability of the climate. However, we can't measure the variability of the climate, no matter how good our instuments are, as there is only one stochastic realisation of true climate physics available (i.e. the observed climate on Earth). The best estimate we can get is the spread of the model ensemble, so we are back to the consistency argument again. Note if the climate models were perfect, the spread of the model runs would be a perfect characterisation of the internal variability. So any attempt to discuss the accuracy of the models without reference to the inherent uncertainty is fundamentally misguided. "You claim climate science is about making accurate LONG term predictions. These predictions need some accuracy to them in order to be useful as science." Yes, but we only know if they are accurate in hindsight, and we can only assess the accuracy of hindcasts with respect to the inherent uncertainty of the observations (not just the measurement error, but the uncertainty due to "weather noise"). Can you demonstrate that current climate models give inaccurate hindcasts (or forecasts of long term trends for older models)? "What is your iconic climate model prediction that has proven accurate by the test of time? When was that prediction made?" How about this one "Is that climate model still in use?" Of couse not. Steam locomotives are still capable of pulling carriages, but are no longer used due to a sequence of incremental improvements mean we can now do better. Climate models are no different, but the basic principles uesd now are the same as they were 30 years ago. "Disequilibrium" is indeed an odd term, and a bit of a non-sequitur as nobody mentioned it. The climate spends most of its time in a state of approximate, but not exact equilibrium, with the occasional flip between glacial and interglacial (equilibrium) states. "There is no real objective evidence that warmer is not better." It is the fact that there will be change that is the problem, as that will require adaption, which has economic and societal costs associated with it. If you live in Amsterdam or Bangladesh, you might argue that there is obvious evidence that warmer is not better, at least for you. "How do you think we should plan to stop China and the rest of the developing countries from using coal and burning wood? War? " Does that affect the science or whether the models are accurate? No. HTH (Hope That Helps) Dikran
113710. Daniel Bailey at 23:24 PM on 2 August 2010
        On Consensus
        Re: nhthinker Equilibrium is a relative term. In the context that for the past 6000-8000 years, the seasons and rains have a sense of stability to them, allowing for the rise of civilization and ordered societies. From that perspective, the globe has been in equilibrium climatically. Now science and our ability to measure change is sending danger signals. The world is transitioning into a new geologic epoch; a change we as humans have measurably and demonstrably aided. Indeed, evidence suggests that the climatic stability of this present interglacial has been in part ordered by the activities of man (cf. William Ruddiman's book Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum: How Humans Took Control of Climate here). In that same vein, debating the minutiae beyond a certain reasonable point becomes fruitless. Because no comparatives exist (to my knowledge) in the paleo record to the rate that we have injected a bolus of carbon into the world's carbon cycle. Tipping points, some of which we are aware and some not, clearly exist. The thing that scares me most is that I cannot bound the risk that the coming changes to the world's climate might put our species' existence at stake (systemic interactions due to drought, famine, pestilence, war, etc.). The fact that it is even a non-zero chance should be of concern to all. What to do about it is the point of this post. Not devolving into the weeds. We have raised ourselves up to our hands and knees from the weeds and see the trees for the first time now, and sense warning signs to the species. And we continue to operate with the presumption that we still have time to avoid the fate to which we are consigning ourselves. That presumption may be hubris. That also scares me. The Yooper
113711. philc at 23:20 PM on 2 August 2010
        The Past and Future of the Greenland Ice Sheet
        Both the mentioned papers talk about "mass balance" but unfortunately apparently don't include any discussion of the input side of the equation. Has there been any measurement of the amount of precipitation? Has it changed? Why?
113712. Glenn Tamblyn at 23:15 PM on 2 August 2010
        On Consensus
        andrewcodd "Is the duration of term of office and ergo microscopic period of accountability the detremining facor for not very sensible desicions on climate from governments? " Perhaps the more important factor is less the time horizons and cognitive dissonance of governments. It is the time horizons, cognitive dissonance and inability to look beyond the narrow 'what can I do in my life' perspective of individuals. Ultimately, governments are peripheral. They may enact the policies needed. But they don't determine the need for the action. We do. Until the populace give government the permission to act, government will not act. What does action mean? First break the dominant paradigms, then ask that question again. Otherwise action is limited by the paradigm and will be minor, token & ineffectual. To break paradigms, government needs our permission, nay, our directive, to do so. Until then they only act within the existing paradigms. So how do we mobilise the populace to say that we have to think outside the square, to ask what may be retained, and what must be sacrificed in order to avoid sacrificing everything. Like a ship in peril on the sea, the overarching question is; When should we take to the lifeboats? When should we start sacrificing parts of our lives and societies in order to avoid sacrificing our souls and everything. The captains of the world will never issue the Abandon Ship order if we do not give them our permission. And we are at the Abandon Ship stage Now. We can't save everything. We have to start deciding now what we sacrifice so that we can save some things. And as always, the Leaders Follow.
113713. John Chapman at 22:56 PM on 2 August 2010
        Visually depicting the disconnect between climate scientists, media and the public
        Dappledwater ... that what a Stev W reckoned on a blog in reference to what happened on the Carteret Islands. May not be applicable in the case of Tuvalu, but maybe it is.
113714. Broadlands at 22:47 PM on 2 August 2010
        1934 - hottest year on record
        Tom... Whew! Relieved to know that since the US is only 2% of the globe it doesn't matter. I believe you may have missed a point too... the NCDC-NOAA has systematically lowered the early Weather Bureau records. But since it doesn't matter anyway, its not a problem I guess. Doug... These were not single-day records, but monthly records. The single-day records are, however, similar... 1895-2009, 40 states with record single-day extreme highs before 1955, only 8 extremes after 1975. It is curious that Meehle (your 'sophisticated' way to look at it) chose to look only at the records from 1950 onward. Might this be called sophisticated 'cherry-picking'? In choosing this period he ignored the 30 record states before 1950, 26 of which were set from 1921 to 1934. Furthermore, from 1954 to 1987 there were no state record highs broken at all... not one.
113715. Rob Painting at 22:45 PM on 2 August 2010
        Visually depicting the disconnect between climate scientists, media and the public
        Steering off topic again - John Chapman @36 - Tuvalu is essentially subsistence farming and has a declining population, where do you get the idea that the salt intrusion is from increased water use?. Inhabitants there, whom I've seen interviewed, regularly claim higher king tides and greater storm surges, are responsible for the salt intrusion. Seems reasonable given the photos I've seen of the inundation.
113716. nhthinker at 22:41 PM on 2 August 2010
        On Consensus
        HTH, Not a very good defense. Most of Climate science relies on imprecise historic record on temperature by use of proxies. Modern measurements by satellites (both of the Earth and of the Sun) are immensely more accurate and precise in a scientific sense. The next 50 years will raise climate science closer to the precision of medical science- but it will still less, because of the lack of ability to control experiments and because the time periods required to analyze impacts. Science for measuring the heat content and flow in deep water is truly in its infancy. You claim climate science is about making accurate LONG term predictions. These predictions need some accuracy to them in order to be useful as science. What is your iconic climate model prediction that has proven accurate by the test of time? When was that prediction made? Is that climate model still in use? What we get told is that the dangers are too great to wait for the results to come in. We are told that the Earth's mechanisms can not cope and it is in "disequilibrium". Disequalibrium is a completely unscientific term. The Earth is never in equilibrium but instead, always reacting to changes that are occurring both inside the atmosphere and outside the atmosphere. Earth's equilibrium, if it had one, would be a deep ice age with a ability to sustain a very small fraction of the current level of human life and other life. Note that there were starts of a few interglacial period that were much warmer than the current temperature levels. There is no real objective evidence that warmer is not better. How do you think we should plan to stop China and the rest of the developing countries from using coal and burning wood? War?
113717. Daved Green at 22:12 PM on 2 August 2010
        On Consensus
        Theory of Evolution and smoking I am amazed at how many young people I see smoking when there is so much medical evidence of its harmful effects . I like the 1984 syndrome too , Ive been to WUWT a few time an seen the doublethink that goes on there . Humans are very stange indeed
113718. andrewcodd at 22:05 PM on 2 August 2010
        On Consensus
        I dont think maniacs are the problem although newspeak references are very apt. Look at the green pages of any paper and they talk about the fur trade one day and global warming the next as if they are related in magnitude. People with an ecological conscience need to clearly demonstrate climate change is of unparalled critical importance with biodiversity and animal rights issues way way down the task list. Really climate change needs to shed its green feel trappings. We may loose a few supporters but theres a lot more to gain. Less hippies and more economists would be ideal.
113719. Dikran Marsupial at 21:47 PM on 2 August 2010
        On Consensus
        nhthinker wrote: "One expects 99.999999% accuracy from physics." This is not correct, for instance, Einstein apparently once said "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.", and I think we can agree that he knew his physics. GEP Box (an expert on time-series prediction) said "Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful", in other words, we shouldn't expect any [mathematical] model to provide completely accurate predictions of the real world. For a concrete example, consider a double pendulum, like this one (shamelessly blagged from Wikipedia): Now the behaviour of a double pendulum can be modelled exactly by a few mathematical equations, but can physics predict the behaviour of a double pendulum with 99.999999% accuracy? No, because it is an example of a chaotic system; in fact, given a sufficiently long prediction horizon, physics can't predict the position of the pendulum with any skill at all. The double pendulum is rather apposite example, as the weather is also a chaotic system, which is why weather forecasts rapily loose any skill beyond a few days prediction horizon. However, climate is not the same thing as weather; climate describes the long term statistical behaviour of the weather (most often in terms of means or long term trends). Just because the weather is chaotic, does not imply that climate is also chaotic (and hence unpredictable). Again, the double pendulum can be used to demonstrate this is true as well. Consider a double pendulum, where the weight is made of iron, but this time imagine an electo-magnet placed to the right hand side of the pendulum. Physics still can't predict the exact path of the double pendulum, however it is able to predict that as the power to the electro-magnet increases, the position of the pendulum will be increasingly biased to the right. In this example, the position of the pendulum corresponds to global mean temperature (the further to the right, the higher the temperature) and the power to the electro-magnet corresponds to climate forcings (e.g. CO2 radiative forcing). Likewise, we can't predict the course of the weather with any real skill, as like the movement of the pendulum it is chaotic, but we can predict the effiects of a change in the forcing, in terms of trends and long-term averages. Particularly that if we increase the forcings, global temperatures can be expected to rise. Of course the physics of a global circulation model (GCM) is rather more complex, but the basic idea is the same - model the long term statistical behavior, not the exact course of the weather. As it happens, physics/statistics can actually do rather better than that, by using an ensemble of models, all starting from slightly different initial conditions, but with the same forcings. In physics this is known as a Monte Carlo experiment. In the case of the double pendulum, we would set of a number of simulations, with different initial positions and velocities of the two weights and let them run with exactly the same signal sent to the electro-magnet in each case. This would provide a distribution of values for the predicted position of the double-pendulum at the end of the simulation, describing which configurations are the most plausible and those which are not plausible. In this case, it would be expected to be skewed to the right, the more power applied to the electro-magnet, the more skewed the distribution. We can then form a credible interval, describing the smallest region that is expected to contain the actual position of the pendulum with 95% confidence. Likewise, climatologists routinely do the same thing by running many simulations of the future climate, and then take the mean (in order to average out the chaotic effects of the weather). They also form mult-model ensembles to average out the effects of uncertainty in our knowledge of the detailed physics of the climate. So how is that relevant to nthinkers post? Simple, it is pretty meaningless to talk of a climate prediction being accurate to an arbitrary level (such as 90%). The accuracy of the prediction can only be discussed relative to the stated error bars on that prediction. First we need to see if the observations are consistent with the models (i.e. do the observations lie within the spread of the model ensemble). They generally are (possibly because the error bars are often rather broad, recognising that there is inherent uncertainty involved in climate prediction). In science, theories (models) can't be proven right, they can only be demosntrated to be false (at least that is what Popperians would say). So if the observations lie within the error bars, then the model is as accurate as it can reasonably be expected to be. Anyway, this explains why climatology can be in the 4.5-5 bracket, even though the predictions made can easily be made to look wrong by confusing short-term weather phenomena (which the modellers don't claim to be able to predict) for long-term climate (which they do). HTH
113720. CBDunkerson at 21:05 PM on 2 August 2010
        On Consensus
        JMurphy #12, the difference between AGW and evolution is that AGW will directly impact the people who currently deny its existence. It will be 'in their face' more and more as time goes by. 'Young Earth creationists' actually argue that the standard value for the speed of light is off by several orders of magnitude because it yields ages in the billions of years for distant objects... while everyone knows that God created the universe about 6000 years ago. This is, of course, pure madness disproved by satellite communications (which measurably travel at the expected standard speed), atomic energy, and a hundred other aspects of modern technology... but the creationists don't understand any of those things. They can't 'see' the speed of light directly and grasp it in any meaningful sense. AGW is different. People can see when the birds that visit their yard change over the course of a couple decades. When trees and other plants that used to grow near them no longer do as well. When the water from mountain runoff gets lower and lower every year. Et cetera. Sure, they can deny that these things are happening or that people are causing it... but as time goes by more and more of these changes will pile up and it will get that much more difficult for people to deny reality. What I worry about is the '1984 syndrome' where the denialist story changes radically over-night and all the deluded just accept that it has always been that way (e.g. 'we have always been at war with Oceana'). First deniers said that it wasn't getting warmer. Now it IS getting warmer, but it is a natural cycle that will reverse soon or just a minor trend which will never get very serious. When that proves false it'll probably switch to, 'God is punishing us for spurning his gift of oil by not using it all' or something equally mad... and some will believe it. However, right now that lunatic fringe IS the fringe. Most people accept evolution. Most know the world is not 6000 years old. And within the next decade anyone remotely sane will accept AGW as reality... because the changes are speeding up and getting serious. So the primary worries I see are the lunatic fringe getting stronger (as they have been) and/or it taking too long for people to wake up.
113721. Berényi Péter at 21:02 PM on 2 August 2010
        Visually depicting the disconnect between climate scientists, media and the public
        kdk #39 I reckon it's pretty clear that he means extrapolating on the linear trend of recent history I don't think so. He also writes: "will result in sea level changes unlikely to have comparators in the paleo record". In my vocabulary it means he is considering something unprecedented in the paleo record. this kind of behaviour is entirely possible given the right situation Yes. But the right situation is not given. We have no lakes comparable to those monsters.
113722. CBDunkerson at 20:42 PM on 2 August 2010
        10 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
        stmwatkins #122, it should also be stressed again that GCMs are only one of three (or more?) lines of evidence indicating the degree of warming from anthropogenic sources. Paleoclimate research has been conducted to determine how past swings of carbon dioxide have impacted past temperatures... thus giving us some idea of the impacts the CO2 increase we are currently causing will have. Also, direct measurements of current changes in CO2, temperature, and feedback effects like water vapor and albedo are used to compute the anthropogenic impact. So even if you were to conclude that the GCMs are complete nonsense which somehow match the paleoclimate and current direct measurement data by random chance... it wouldn't change the overall arc of climate science at all. The claim that AGW is 'all based on computer models' is fiction.
113723. kdkd at 20:38 PM on 2 August 2010
        Visually depicting the disconnect between climate scientists, media and the public
        BP #38 I reckon it's pretty clear that he means extrapolating on the linear trend of recent history. Stripped of the innuendo, your post informs us that this kind of behaviour is entirely possible given the right situation :-).
113724. Berényi Péter at 20:33 PM on 2 August 2010
        Visually depicting the disconnect between climate scientists, media and the public
        #31 Daniel Bailey at 14:04 PM on 2 August, 2010 We must remain cognizant of the probability that changes in future sea levels may not be linear to those of the past in terms of rate. What do you mean? When the great North American glacial lakes (Lake Ojibway & Agassiz) emptied into Hudson Bay in less than a year around 6200 B.C., there was a sea level rise of about 2 m at sites far enough not to be influenced by isostatic adjustment. That's a rate a thousand times faster than anything we have seen during written history. Do you see something even faster than that?
113725. CBDunkerson at 20:32 PM on 2 August 2010
        Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
        RSVP #165 writes: "Two hot skewers at the same temperatuere when held next to each other will not warm each other." Yes, they will. If you were to take just one of those hot skewers and measure its temperature over time (assuming the air temperature were lower) the results would show the temperature of the skewer falling faster than it would if a second hot skewer were present. You've created a comparison which allows you to deny reality by setting the heat of the two skewers equal to each other... this lets you to pretend that since neither gets hotter than it started out that no heat flows between them, when in reality each emanates heat in all directions (including into the other skewer) but the rate of heat loss from this omnidirectional radiation is greater than the heat gain from the other skewer. Thus, neither 'heats up', but both do 'cool down' more slowly... because heat can and does flow to objects of equal or greater temperature. You insist on believing things about basic physics which are obviously nonsense. There thus seems no hope of ever getting you to accept more complicated realities based on those basic concepts.
113726. Theodore at 19:17 PM on 2 August 2010
        It's cooling
        Thank you. I have mostly followed the science through documentaries and some times it is hard to know what is accepted by the scientific community and what not. Good to know I have not been telling porkie pies whilst explaining climate change to people :)
113727. andrewcodd at 18:54 PM on 2 August 2010
        On Consensus
        As we move from discussion on science into discussion on the responsability that follows to make a change on others behaviour its worth reading about cognitive dissonance. Its counterintuitive that how much someone will defend an argument is not proportional to what they have to gain or lose. Wiki it. From a policy maker point of view, psycology aside, all desicions are made with a very short term econimic consequence in mind, I say short term of course from geological point of view. Is the duration of term of office and ergo microscopic period of accountability the detremining facor for not very sensible desicions on climate from governments?
113728. RSVP at 18:30 PM on 2 August 2010
        Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
        doug_bostrom #162 "Failure to take on board that very basic phenomenon makes further discussion of the topic of AGW entirely pointless." What makes this discussion "pointless" can be found elsewhere. The "belief" I have in what I am saying is based on questions Kirchhoff answered many years ago related to radiative equilibrium. Two hot skewers at the same temperatuere when held next to each other will not warm each other. Likewise, waste heat in the atmosphere will impede the effect of GHGs. I have never denied that GHG have meteorological effects, which is very different from what I am saying.
113729. vulpescana at 18:23 PM on 2 August 2010
        Visually depicting the disconnect between climate scientists, media and the public
        Unfortunately I don't think the visual is that useful. The first thing is that it blends US media coverage on one graphic and puts UK public opinion on the next. Secondly, and rather more importantly on the last visual, most public opinion polls are subject to question bias (and then filtered by journalists into articles). For a number of years the proportion of the population in the UK who held the view that the world was warming was around 80%. That number remains fairly consistent today. Almost all of the other questions asked on this subject are of limited utility because they are extremely hard to ask 'neutrally'. Please do more, however to emphasise the first two visuals, it is the connection to the third that it is harder to make.
113730. JMurphy at 18:20 PM on 2 August 2010
        On Consensus
        If the Theory of Evolution is anything to go by - still not accepted by a large percentage of people in America - how do you persuade people who just don't want to/can't accept science facts that go against their beliefs ?
113731. David Horton at 17:36 PM on 2 August 2010
        On Consensus
        I agree with Matt I think on consensus. I am quite sure that deniers haven't thought through the steps to consensus and come to a rational decision that climate science is in the range of "2. An embryonic field attracting low acceptance by peers; 3. Competing schools of thought, with medium peer acceptance;" I am quite sure they don't think in such terms at all - it would mean, after all, that if they could be persuaded that the science was at the 5 level they would all come around and immediately ask what we should be doing to reduce greenhouse gases, now. My reading is that they think consensus=conspiracy. That climate scientists have got together and agreed upon a position which they are grimly defending, lying about, faking results to support. The idea that reality is precisely the reverse of this, that consensus simply means that all results and analyses point in the same direction, completely escapes them. Aided, in this failure of comprehension of course, by the denier blogs and the likes of Monckton, who push and push the consensus=conspiracy translation. I don't know how we get around this, because the more we say "there is a consensus" the more they hear "there is a conspiracy which has more and more members".
113732. John Chapman at 17:27 PM on 2 August 2010
        Visually depicting the disconnect between climate scientists, media and the public
        Going slightly off-topic, but I gather that the salt intrusion into the wells and groundwater of some Pacific Islands (re Dappledwater #34) is because the fresh water has been drained due to irrigation for crops and so the salt water moves in. Contamination of ground water as a reuslt of sewerage is also a problem. Maybe these islands are a microcosm of the planet and in time we too will suffer from lack of fresh water, flooding, too many people and too much rubbish! Maybe not in NZ :)
113733. Doug Bostrom at 17:26 PM on 2 August 2010
        On Consensus
        Among members of the public the truly dismissive of mainstream climate science are in a pretty small minority. Numbers fluctuate over time; it's interesting to see the effects of distractions over winter apparently fading. That graphic was taken from this study which does a superior job at slicing and dicing public attitudes and beliefs w/regard to climate change, compared to newspaper polls and the like. The 2008 version of the same study has some fascinating tables describing where beliefs are clustered w/regard to ideology and other factors unrelated to science itself. There's a ton of activity among social scientists in this arena these days. The whole thing is morphing into a social science problem, for that matter. Can a horse be led to water and made to drink? A fascinating question.
113734. JMurphy at 16:52 PM on 2 August 2010
        Visually depicting the disconnect between climate scientists, media and the public
        Poptech, hopefully the moderators won't allow us to go around in circles again (your speciality), because you know you have been shown (not just on previous threads here, but on many other websites) that papers you have included in your little list are not anti-AGW in any way (as the authors [like Pielke Jr] themselves have stated); and many are not properly peer-reviewed, especially if they have appeared in E&E. You believe your little list is what you think it is because that is what you want to believe. This article is correct, and is based on evidence as shown. Again, you don't believe it because that is what you WANT to believe.
113735. MattJ at 16:37 PM on 2 August 2010
        On Consensus
        The list of 'links' (1-8) from radiative physics proving AGW is very good. Unfortunately, the list of points describing/defining the "skeptic's definition of scientific consensus" (1-5) is very bad. No one can tell what you think the skeptics really mean by 'consensus' from such a description, which in turn means your attempt to refute it fails miserably. This is particularly tragic since the skeptic's sense is wrong, and should be easy to refute -- if only they would make up their minds what it is. But here is where the real problem is: the skeptics have figured out that they can persuade many without EVER clearly stating what they think 'consensus' is. They have figured out that all they have to do is cast doubt on the sense scientists really use. But this is easy to do, since their audience really does not (as you point out) understand either critical thinking of the scientific method. Nor do they really trust scientists. This devious method of rhetoric is described in the reference I gave before on the topic, http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/rhetoric.html. Specifically, in Book II part 1, he says: "But since rhetoric exists to affect the giving of decisions... and put his hearers, who are to decide, into the right frame of mind". For those who argue against any action to mitigate AGW, it is very easy to put their hearers into that "right frame of mind"; in this case, that frame is dismissal of the scientific consensus, because they don't trust scientists. All they have to do is appeal to that distrust.
113736. mtobis at 15:56 PM on 2 August 2010
        On Consensus
        Excellent piece. Well done, thanks!
113737. Rob Painting at 15:40 PM on 2 August 2010
        Visually depicting the disconnect between climate scientists, media and the public
        John Chapman @ 29 - "but strangely I can't find any comments from the inhabitants on what they observe. (e.g. we've gained coral beaches but lost fertile land.)" John, living in New Zealand, we've had a few Tuvalu people appear on local TV over the last few years. All the older people say the same thing, the sea level is rising and the salt intrusion is killing their crops. There was a piece on a local documentary only a week or two ago, however part of it focussed on the horrendous problem with rubbish they have there, which seemed rather irrelevant to me. Paradise Lost
113738. adelady at 15:40 PM on 2 August 2010
        Visually depicting the disconnect between climate scientists, media and the public
        As far as sea level rise affecting how liveable an area is - I rather thought that long before seawater rolled over the landscape, the seawater would have contaminated rivers upstream and wells and springs. No drinkable water, no irrigation for crops, move out.
113739. John Chapman at 15:10 PM on 2 August 2010
        Visually depicting the disconnect between climate scientists, media and the public
        Thanks Daniel, yes level equalisation. Back to the initial post topic ... it would be interesting to know the proportion of non-published, any-discipline scientists (like me!) who support AGW. Such figure would be useful to counter one of the skeptics' arguments that 30,000 (US) scientists have signed a petition that disagrees with AGW. At the moment all I'm able to say is that there are a few million scientists.
113740. Daniel Bailey at 14:13 PM on 2 August 2010
        On Consensus
        Re: nhthinker at #5 and adelady at #6 above: There is a very extreme similarity between medicine and climate science: in both, extremely negative events can occur. Experiments with far-reaching effects carrying risks of terminal consequences can occur. A catastrophic failure in a single patient is an experiment that can be run once. Similarly, a catastrophic result due to changes in radiative imbalance causing climatic disequilibrium also carries fatal consequence (and can be done once). A result that we may unfortunately have to post-mortem. In terms of clinical understandings versus real-world application, medicine is a safe comp for climate science. Great understandings and uncertainties exist in both. The Yooper
113741. Daniel Bailey at 14:04 PM on 2 August 2010
        Visually depicting the disconnect between climate scientists, media and the public
        Re: John Chapman at # 29 above You are very correct, sir, as the historical record shows, corals have a great ability to adapt to changing sea levels over time. We must remain cognizant of the probability that changes in future sea levels may not be linear to those of the past in terms of rate. Catastrophic deglaciation of the Pine Island glacier in Antarctica, the WAIS or Greenland, or mixed composition of all 3 (the most likely occurrence) will result in sea level changes unlikely to have comparators in the paleo record. Earthquakes can cause local land rise, as meter rises during the recent Chilean and Indonesian Earthquakes were observed. Mean sea level on the local level is more a function of the geoid. However, a 20 cm differential does exist in sea level between the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean. As far as Greenland water transport to the Pacific, if I understand your intent to mean via level equalization, then that would depend more upon the rate of ice sheet decomposition. If you mean in the traditional sense via the THC, then that would be more on the order of a thousand years or so. Some good Sea Level sources: Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level Tides and Currents- NOAA - Sea Levels Online Trying to precisely project sea level rise is essentially pointless: too many variables can occur. However, based on known paleo comparators (Ballantyne & Greenwood 2010 is a good recent paper) we know that temperatures associated with CO2 concentrations similar to today's were much higher, as were the corresponding sea levels. We are going to learn the hard way the amount of changes already in the pipeline. The Yooper
113742. Vincent Gray at 13:41 PM on 2 August 2010
        What's in a trend?
        All trends on irregulat tine series are misleading as they conceal periodic behaviour, some of which have long periods. The Pacific Decadal oscillation, for instance, has a period of about 60 years, so the last warm period in tbhe Arctic was around 1940, Therr is every indication that the cool period is now upon us.
113743. adelady at 13:41 PM on 2 August 2010
        On Consensus
        And why is medical science a 4.8? I'm inclined to the view that climate science is very much on the same footing as medicine. Ever heard the mantra, "Every prescription is an experiment?" Anatomy, biology, chemistry all tell us that vaccines and drugs have certain effects. At a population level this is absolutely true. At the individual level, the combination of other drugs, physical weaknesses and strengths, immune predispositions and all the rest of it mean that the effect may be exactly as desired, more or less efficacious, totally ineffective or downright dangerous. Just like climate science predicts the global effects, but no-one can be sure of local weather effects. I'd put climate science at the 4.5 to 5 range.
113744. KR at 13:30 PM on 2 August 2010
        Temp record is unreliable
        A small meta-note on proof and disproof - take it for what you will. A common tactic used by people who don't agree with a particular theory is to try to point out errors in portions of the supporting data. Unfortunately, what that does (if that person is correct) is to disprove a particular line of data, but with little or no effect on the theory. Invalidating a particular line of data does just, and only, that. If there are multiple supporting lines of data for a theory, this only means that a particular data set has some issues, and should be reconsidered as to it's validity or provenance. On the other hand, if you have reproducible, reliable data that contradicts a theory, then you may have something. Data that is solid, reproducible by others, and not consistent with the prevailing theory, points out issues with that theory. An excellent example of this can be found in the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1881. Michelson had expected to find reinforcing data for the Aether theory, but his experiment failed to find any evidence for an Aether background to the universe. This was reproducible, consistent, and contrary to the Aether theory - and one of the nails in it's coffin as a theory of the universe. Pointing out an issue with a singular data set (of many) doesn't do much to the theory that it supports - there are lots of data streams that support AGW. But if there is a solid, reproducible, contradictory data set - I personally would love to see it, I personally would like this to not be a problem. But I haven't, yet. Summary: - Reproducible, solid, contradictory data sets provide counterexamples to a theory, and may indicate that the theory is flawed. - Problems with individual data sets indicate just that, not invalidation of larger, multiply supported, theories.
113745. kdkd at 13:22 PM on 2 August 2010
        Visually depicting the disconnect between climate scientists, media and the public
        Poptech #28 1. You will not find an objective measure of what constitutes a specialist. Clearly from your list of skeptical articles, your subjective list of specialists is far too inclusive. 2. I think I know how to use Google Scholar thanks. I earn my living doing so (among other things) - I have published work which I'm not going to cite here that uses it for systematic literature survey work in the field. I find that I have to cross validate against other databases though due to its excessively inclusive indexing criteria. E&E is clearly a poor quality journal - it's not listed in the relatively authoritative Journal Citation Reports (hidden behind a paywall unfortunately), and is certainly not a reputed source for technical information on climate and energy issues - it's focus is on social science, and has strayed outside of its remit into politics unfortunately - which you can discover by dredging up quotes from its editor. So I think you're suffering from the Dunning-Kreuger effect. If you can come up with a better methodology than Andreagg's then please be my guest, however, based on your poorly edited catalogue of supposed sceptical papers, I very much doubt that you are capable of maintaining the objectivity or rigour necessary to do so.
113746. John Chapman at 13:16 PM on 2 August 2010
        Visually depicting the disconnect between climate scientists, media and the public
        Daniel Bailey #25 mentions Tuvalu as an early victim of rising waters. Depending on the rate at which the sea level rises, the deposition of coral debris can keep abreast of the sea level rise and the island can maintain its footprint. This is why its surface area has remained essentially unchanged since 1950. Mind you I suspect it has no hope when the sea rise is 5 metres! There's a lot on the net to do with a recent study that 27 of these Pacific Islands have actually gained area, but strangely I can't find any comments from the inhabitants on what they observe. (e.g. we've gained coral beaches but lost fertile land.) As a slight aside, I was interested to read a few months back in the New Scientist that it takes 30 years for the effects of water from Greenland ice to makes its way round to the Pacific. Hard to imagine really.
113747. KR at 12:48 PM on 2 August 2010
        Temp record is unreliable
        Berényi - it's pretty obvious that you are searching for problems with the temperature records. However, in your search for problems of any kind, you are really ignoring the full data, the statistics. There are (as far as I can put it together) three completely independent data sets for surface temps: the GHCN stations, the GSOD data put together recently, and the satellite data streams (two major analyses of that). All three data streams, and all the numerous analysis techniques applied to them, agree on the trends. Multiple analyses of the GHCN data set alone by multiple investigators demonstrate that dropouts, station subsets, UHI adjustments or lack thereof - none of these affect the trend significantly. Analysis in detail of singular stations (which is what you have provided as far as I can see) fails to incorporate the statistical support of multiple data points, and the resulting reduction in error ranges. Are you selecting individual stations that have large corrections? Or what you see as large errors? If so then you are cherry-picking your data and invalidating your argument! If you can demonstrate a problem using a significant portion of the GHCN data set, randomly chosen and adjusted for area coverage, then you may have a point worth making. For that data set. And that data set only. But you have not done that. And you have certainly not invalidated either the satellite data or the (less adjusted) GSOD data indicating the same trends. Even if you prove some problem with the GHCN data (which I don't expect to happen), there are multiple independent reinforcing lines of evidence for the same trend data. That's data worth considering - robust and reliable.
113748. kdkd at 12:23 PM on 2 August 2010
        Temp record is unreliable
        BP #92 You've set yourself a massive job there. Your best bet to make it manageable is to take a random sample of about 10% of the available weather stations, and then examine the appropriate data at each of them to see what proportion of the surface station record might be problematic. The random sampling is important (something you do not appear to have done yet), as is properly assessing the statistical significance of the difference between the records (for which you will have to correct for autocorrelation, thus reducing statistical power). On the other hand, you could be satisfied that the satellite record is an independent record of temperature that in does not show a statistically significantly different trend to the surface record over the same period.
113749. actually thoughtful at 11:57 AM on 2 August 2010
        Visually depicting the disconnect between climate scientists, media and the public
        I had an interesting experience in my town recently. A local radio station switched from bad pop music to talk radio. Rush/Hannity/Beck. Now it is often said "stop getting your news from Rush and see what the scientists say." But I've taken the opportunity to listen to these guys. The format is make a bogus statement (something like): "Even Phil Jones, the author of the most disturbing of the Climategate emails, says there has been no warming for the last 15 years." - then the process is to support this for the next 30 minutes with callers saying "yup" and "these marxist liberals think they can hijack the country based on bogus science" and on and on. Now this is obviously false and intentionally deceiving. But the folks who are listening to these programs, either because they already agree, or without a critical ear, are very vulnerable to eventually accepting this as the truth - they hear it for 18 hours a day, day after day after day. I was stunned at how bad it was. I haven't heard Beck or Hannity before, and Rush not since the 90s, when it was entertaining to listen to him rail against the Clinton's. The stakes just seem higher now. Anyways, this isn't "media" per se, but it is how some folks form this ironclad, bedrock belief in the anti-science.
113750. L. Hamilton at 11:46 AM on 2 August 2010
        Visually depicting the disconnect between climate scientists, media and the public
        A recent random-sample survey of 500 people in New Hampshire found: 51% agreed climate is changing now, due mainly to human activities; 39% believe climate is changing now, due mainly to natural causes; and 10% think climate is not changing, or don't know. So that's 90% on this survey who believe that climate is actually changing. Which it visibly is, in New Hampshire. Asked what they thought _scientists_ believe, 49% thought most scientists agree that climate is changing now, due mainly to human causes; and 41% believe there is little agreement among scientists that climate is changing now, due mainly to human causes. There were strong patterns in responses by education, and by political party. This was the first in a series of surveys that will be asking the same questions. http://www.carseyinstitute.unh.edu/publications/IB_Hamilton_Climate_Survey.pdf

Prev  2267  2268  2269  2270  2271  2272  2273  2274  2275  2276  2277  2278  2279  2280  2281  2282  Next