Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2289 2290 2291 2292 2293 2294 2295 2296 2297 2298 2299 2300 2301 2302 2303 2304 Next
Comments 114801 to 114850:
-
Marcel Bökstedt at 00:10 AM on 22 July 20103 levels of cherry picking in a single argument
Way> Yes, it's true that we don't necessarily have that each year is warmer than the previous one. Even if we do have global warming, it could be that the global temperature stagnates or falls over a period of a few years. But the claim of this post is not that this is what has been happening over the last decade. The claim of the post is that global warming has continued, but that it has occured in somewhat hidden places. So my question is 'if global warming has been happening throughout the last decades, why can't we see it as a continuation ot the temperatures increase in the hadCRUT record?' -
robert way at 23:33 PM on 21 July 20103 levels of cherry picking in a single argument
Bokstedt, Global Warming is Visible in the last decade. It is the warmest decade on record for Hadcrut for example. Global warming does not mean each year or 2-3 year period will be warmer but it does mean that one would expect increasingly warmer longer time periods. -
HumanityRules at 23:26 PM on 21 July 20103 levels of cherry picking in a single argument
8 CBDunkerson #1 I guess I'm not looking for perfection just pointing out there is a lot of products to choose from. The fact that people make their point using one or another product is as you say playing with the margins. WUWT will argue to the death that post-1998 is flat, John will do the opposite. I wonder if it would be fair to suggest the rate of increase has slowed? #2 I was surprised that Murphy's paper assumes 40% of the ocean heat is 'hidden' in the deep ocean. It's that sort of assumption that allows them to match the satellite and OHC data. I'm not sure everybody would agree with that assumption. #3 "In Fig1 every value AFTER the 1998 peak is higher than every value BEFORE the 1998 peak". Agreed but nobody is arguing a decline relative to pre-1998 temperatures. I was looking at the HADCRUT data in Fig5. There you can see the dots for each year and it's not the case that every years is hgiher than the previous. Yet the 11-yr average is still going up. That must mean those final years are not yet properly represented by the 11-yr moving average. In fact the 11-yr averaging stops before the point where the year-on-year temperature shows the flattening phase. I take the point that a moving average will smooth things out to reveal the long term situation but we're not talking about the long term situation. John is specifcally countering deniers post-1998 temperature claims. I don't see that an 11-yr moving average is the right tool for disucussing that particular data. -
Pete Ridley at 23:02 PM on 21 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
Sorry, wrong link - should be http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=4&t=189&&a=15 -
Pete Ridley at 22:54 PM on 21 July 2010Models are unreliable
John has asked me to make my comments on this thread rather than on his more recent “Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line” thread (please see those I made today – Note A) Let me kick off here by posting a comment that software developer James Annan, who is presently involved with the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) (Note B) declined to post on his "Penn State Live - Investigation of climate scientist at Penn State complete" thread (Note C). *************** I have been engaged in an interesting discussion over at William Connolley’s blog (Note 1) about the relevance of established VV&T procedures to climate models and Steve Easterbrook appeared to be suggesting that CMIP was the appropriate solution. I understand that CMIP is a project for comparing climate model outputs and I asked IPCC reviewer Dr. Vincent Gray for his views on this and he rejects the notion that the inter-comparison of the outputs of different models is anything to do with validation. As you may be aware, Dr. Gray is author of “The Greenhouse Delusion”, a member of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (Note 1) and was responsible for having the IPCC admit that climate models had never been properly validated, despite the IPCC trying to suggest otherwise. (In response to his comment the word "validation" was replaced by "evaluation" no less than 50 times in the chapter on "Climate Models - Validation" in an early draft of the IPCC's "The Science of Climate Change".) Since you are a member of the Global Change Projection Research Programme at the Research Institute for Global Change working on CMIP3 with an eye on AR5 you may be aware of the extent to which VV&T procedures will be applied. Are you able to point me in the direction of the team responsible for these activities? William seems reluctant to let me participate further on his blog since I commented on his Green Party activism and his reported Wikipedia activities (Note 2 & 3) so I hope that you will take up the debate about the relevance of VV&T for climate models. I get the impression some of you involved in climate modelling see little further than your software engineering and the quality of that software. VV&T as applied in the development of Telecommunications support systems when I was involved in it considerd the full picture from end user requirements definition through to final system integration and operation. (Contrary to what is claimed in “Engineering the Software for Understanding Climate Change” by Steve Easterbrook and Timothy Johns (Note 4) in the case of climate modelling systems, the primary end user is not the scientists who develop these systems.) Although VV+T alone will not produce quality software I recall plenty of instances when professionally applied and independent VV&T procedures identified defects in system performance due to deficient software engineering. Consequently deficiencies were rectified much earlier (and much cheaper) than would have occurred if left to the software engineers and defects only identified during operation. It is possible but highly unlikely that VV&T doubled the cost of the software, as claimed by one software engineer on William’s blog but it would certainly have cost many times more if those defects had remained undetected until during operational use. I don’t expect to be the only person who has had such experiences. I would be surprised if rectification of these software deficiencies led to “quality” software but they did lead to software and operational systems that more closely satisfied the end users’ requirements, used throughout the system development program as the prime objective. Steve Easterbrook and Timothy Johns said (Note 4) “V&V practices rely on the fact that the developers are also the primary users”. It could be argued that the prime users are the policymakers who are guided by the IPCC’s SPMs which depend upon the projections of those climate models. Steve and Timothy “hypothesized that .. the developers will gradually evolve a set of processes that are highly customized to their context, irrespective of the advice of the software engineering literature .. ”. I prefer the hypothesis of Post & Votta who say in their excellent 2005 paper “Computational Science Demands a New Paradigm” (Note 5) that “ .. computational science needs a new paradigm to address the prediction challenge .. They point out that most fields of computational science lack a mature, systematic software validation process that would give confidence in predictions made from computational models”. What they say about VV&T aligns with my own experience, including “ .. Verification, validation, and quality management, we found, are all crucial to the success of a large-scale code-writing project. Although some computational science projects—those illustrated by figures 1–4, for example—stress all three requirements, many other current and planned projects give them insufficient attention. In the absence of any one of those requirements, one doesn’t have the assurance of independent assessment, confirmation, and repeatability of results. Because it’s impossible to judge the validity of such results, they often have little credibility and no impact ..”. Relevant to climate models they say “A computational simulation is only a model of physical reality. Such models may not accurately reflect the phenomena of interest. By verification we mean the determination that the code solves the chosen model correctly. Validation, on the other hand, is the determination that the model itself captures the essential physical phenomena with adequate fidelity. Without adequate verification and validation, computational results are not credible .. ”. I agree with Steve that “further research into such comparisons is needed to investigate these observations” and suggest that in the meantime the VV&T procedures should be applied as understood by Post and Votta and currently practised successfully outside of the climate modelling community. NOTES: 1) see http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=374&Itemid=1 2) see http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/all/6099208/part_3/i-feel-the-need-to-offer-wikipedia-some-ammunition-in-its-quest-to-discredit-me.thtml 3) see http://www.thedailybell.com/683/Wikipedia-as-Elite-Propaganda-Mill.html 4) see http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~sme/papers/2008/Easterbrook-Johns-2008.pdf 5) see http://www.highproductivity.org/vol58no1p35_41.pdf ************** I’m disappointed (but not surprised) by the reluctance of software developers like James, William Connolley and Steve Easterbrook to have open debate with sceptics about the extent to which their climate models have been validated. NOTES: A) see http://www.skepticalscience.com/Rebutting-skeptic-arguments-in-a-single-line.html#comments B) see http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/projects/cmip/index.php C see https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=9959776&postID=2466855496959474407 Best regards, Pete Ridley. -
Marcel Bökstedt at 22:44 PM on 21 July 20103 levels of cherry picking in a single argument
In principle I agree with the analysis that global warming is continuing to happen. Still, I feel that there is something to explain about the hadcrut graph. When you stare at it, you cannot escape the impression that it does look like the temperature has stopped rising. I do understand that the graph represents a rather small area, and that if you extend your coverage to include among other things the Arctic and the sea, that picture changes. But do we understand why the global warming is not visible in the last decade of the hadcrut sample? Is there some known mechanism that at least temporarily steals heat from the populated part of the globe and deposites it elsewhere? -
batsvensson at 22:40 PM on 21 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
This entire article could be condensed into the single statement: it is getting warmer not because any observable measurement says it but because a model say it will. That is an argument the "frosties" been using all the time. -
Pete Ridley at 22:28 PM on 21 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
Just to let you know that John has asked that comments about the computer models be taken to his http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.html thread. -
CBDunkerson at 21:31 PM on 21 July 20103 levels of cherry picking in a single argument
HumanityRules, in answer to your numbered points; #1 - The readings shown in Fig2 are clearly land based, but HADCRUT (like GISS & NCDC) combines those with sea surface temperature readings to get the global anomaly. The land vs sea vs combined results can be seen here. It is accurate to say that none of the temperature trend methodologies are perfect... for that we'd need to somehow measure the temperature of every cubic inch of the atmosphere and oceans every second. However, given that they all have DIFFERENT liabilities yet all show similar results it seems difficult to argue that those results are incorrect. Basically, it's down to disputing the margin of error within a POSSIBLE range of about +/- 0.03 C per decade. #2 The planet's energy budget can be determined either by measuring incoming and outgoing energy (via satellites) OR by measuring energy accumulating within the planetary system (mostly ocean heat content). Willis is an ocean researcher and largely correct that there isn't enough solid data there to make definitive statements. However, the satellite record is longer and more certain. Having agreement between both (as we now do for a short timeframe) increases the certainty of the results, but the satellite values alone also make a strong case. BTW, Murphy's 'exaggerated' results are more consistent with the satellite record and current OHC data. #3 This is just math. Look at the values BEFORE 1998 in Fig1. They were clearly lower. Thus, in the running average graph those values 'drag down' the 1998 result... but the 1999 result has one fewer year of those low values averaged in, the 2000 result has two fewer years, et cetera. In Fig1 every value AFTER the 1998 peak is higher than every value BEFORE the 1998 peak... thus a running average is perforce going to show continued increases. Fig5 was released in 2008 and thus the average line doesn't show results after 2002 (though the circles for 2003-2007 are given). If it did there'd be a flattening out in 2003 & 2004. The 2005 value won't be computable until 2010 is over, but if temperatures continue the way they have been thus far this year the 11 year average would then start rising again. -
Pete Ridley at 21:13 PM on 21 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
Scaddenp (whoever you are) thanks for those links. I see that the Realclimate article (Note 1) suggests that “we have come out of the recent La Niña-induced slump .. ” Some sceptics are arguing that the “slump” will continue for a few decades at least so it will be interesting to see if in 2040 Gavin is still sticking to his opinion that “.. temperatures are back in the middle of the model estimates .. ” or if he’ll find some way of spinning the continuing cooling into a result of our continuing dependence on fossil fuels for economic growth. I love this statement of Gavin’s “there are multiple model runs that have a lower trend than observed .. Thus ‘a model’ did show a trend consistent with the current ‘pause’. However, that these models showed it, is just coincidence and one shouldn’t assume that these models are better than the others. Had the real world ‘pause’ happened at another time, different models would have had the closest match ..”. I would suggest that one shouldn’t assume that any of the models are able to make reliable predictions/projections of global climates even for just a decade from now, never mind to 2100. As Dr. Vincent Gray said recently “ .. It has to be admitted that climate models have never been validated in the manner I have stated. They always forecast so far ahead that nobody is able to check, and if they are tempted to forecast just a few years ahead they always have an excuse when it fails .. ”. NOTES: 1) see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/updates-to-model-data-comparisons/ Best regards, Pete Ridley. -
adelady at 20:49 PM on 21 July 20103 levels of cherry picking in a single argument
HRules "#3 I am confused why the HADCRUT appears to showing a flattening..." I thought it was commonly accepted that HADCRUT's lack of data from the regions that are known to be warming fastest - NH polar and near regions - reliably show lower warming trends than other series. -
CBDunkerson at 20:49 PM on 21 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
actually thoughtfull, the reason for the 'The sun is cooling' rebuttal on the various 'Planet XYZ is warming' claims is that the underlying 'skeptic' argument is that these other planets are warming BECAUSE of the Sun. The reasoning goes that warming on multiple planets can only be caused by a common source... which is of course a logical fallacy, but since the supposed common source has also been in decline the claim is obviously specious. In my opinion the best argument against the various 'planet XYZ is warming' claims is that we have nowhere near enough data for any reasonable person to even make such a claim. Here on Earth we have thousands of temperature stations all over the planet with daily readings going back over a century... and 'skeptics' say we can't pin down the temperature trend from that. Yet for these other planets we have VASTLY less temperature data for a far shorter time and the same 'skeptics' are absolutely convinced that ANY uptick in the readings means a warming trend. -
scaddenp at 20:22 PM on 21 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
Peter Ridley, you can find links to the Hansen paper and discussion of the predictions here and here for Dec 2009. Note that the nature of the prediction is one of "if you do this, then you get this climate". You have to compare the prediction for the scenario which actually matches what we really got. (Doctored version of the prediction showing actual temperature against a worst-case scenario are common). For recent predictions about future climate, then you try IPCC WG1 of course. Great list of the relevant papers and nice summary of the predictions. -
chris1204 at 20:19 PM on 21 July 20103 levels of cherry picking in a single argument
The sparsity of Arctic data requiring considerable extrapolation juxtaposed with comments as to extreme Arctic warming warrant some caution in the light of the DMI temperature record over the last two years. Of course, two years represent weather rather than climate. Sea ice is doing some interesting things this year (again, weather rather than climate) both in the Arctic and Antarctic notwithstanding the real possibility that land ice sheets may be the more important metric. It's going to be an interesting couple of years as current weather morphs into climate. -
Pete Ridley at 20:05 PM on 21 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
actually thoughtfull (whoever you might be) are you able to provide a link to convincing evidence that Hansen and his team of computer programmers were able to predict in 1988 what the global climates would be in 2010? I have searched unsuccessfully for this. I did come across an interesting blog “The Discovery of Global Warming” run by Spencer Weart (Note 1). This includes a section on Hanson’s activities surrounding his scare-mongering presentation to a Congressional hearing on a very hot summer’s day in 1988 (Note 2) about his expert opinion QUOTE: .. "with 99% confidence" that a long-term warming trend was underway, and he strongly suspected that the greenhouse effect was to blame .. ”. Is it particularly surprising that during the recovery from an ice age there should be high confidence that there will be a continuing warming trend – until nature decides that it is time for the globe to have another ice age, of course. When that happens can’t we be equally confident that there twould be a peak in mean global temperature, a turning point then a cooling trend? Looking at the Hadley Centre’s “Global Average Temperature 1850-2009” graph (Note 3) couldn’t it reasonably be argued that there are signs of this happening? As far as I can see from the most recent paper that I could find from Hansen et al. “Earth’s Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications” (Note 4) Hansen does not attempt to make predictions of global mean temperature, only comparisons with global mean surface (I take this to mean excluding sea surface but may be mistaken) temperature measurements – Fig. 1. Hadley Centre produce a graph of global average land temperature (Note 5) which shows the reducing warming trend continuing beyond 2005. Sceptics argue that the models can only be made to resemble reality by “tweaking” parameters. The following statement towards the end of the Hansen et al. paper hints of this QUOTE: .. A caveat accompanying our analysis concerns the uncertainty in climate forcings. A good fit of observed and modeled temperatures (Fig. 1) also could be attained with smaller forcing and larger climate sensitivity, or with the converse. If climate sensitivity were higher (and forcings smaller), the rate of ocean heat storage and warming ‘‘in the pipeline’’ or ‘‘committed’’ would be greater, e.g., models with a sensitivity of 4.2- to 4.5-C for doubled CO2 yield È1-C ‘‘committed’’ global warming (3, 4). Conversely, smaller sensitivity and larger forcing yield lesser committed warming and ocean heat storage. The agreement between modeled and observed heat storage (Fig. 2) favors an intermediate climate sensitivity, as in our model. .. UNQUOTE. That word “uncertainty” rears its ugly head again. If you can provide a link to a recent paper in which Hansen actually makes predictions/projections of future global temperature then I would very much appreciate it. NOTES: 1) see http://www.aip.org/history/climate/author.htm 2) see http://www.aip.org/history/climate/public2.htm 3) see http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/ 4) see http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2005/2005_Hansen_etal_1.pdf 5) see http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/comparison.html Best regards, Pete Ridley -
Daved Green at 18:50 PM on 21 July 20103 levels of cherry picking in a single argument
Hi David , as a average punter I dont mind the graphs , I sorta understand trend lines and smoothing but I would like to learn more so if there a not to technical resource out Id be interested . Anomaly graphs ? how do you set zero line ? is like a base line of what normal varience should be ? . there just an example of my ignorance . :-) -
actually thoughtful at 18:04 PM on 21 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
So Pete Ridley you think Hansen's 1988 model just got lucky in predicting the climate from then until now? I suppose it is possible. Something can be messy and still be accurate enough. That models are not perfect is not a counter to AGW - it is a fact of life. That an imperfect model can come up with the right answer, year after year (Hansen's 1988 work) - is notable. So does reality trump your criticism? Or do we need a 2nd earth to catch all the intricacies and satisfy the false bar you have set? I have computer models that tell me what size pump I need for certain piping applications. I guarantee the model does not understand chaos theory. It MIGHT be aware of laminar flow. But it gives me the right answer, every time. I am not convinced that a model (which I think almost by definition cannot/will not include every bit of variability in the real-world conditions it models) can't provide good answers. Maybe the current climate models don't actually provide good answers, but to say no model, ever, can provide good answers seems way too strong of a claim. -
HumanityRules at 17:00 PM on 21 July 20103 levels of cherry picking in a single argument
#1 ECMWF in Fig2 seems to be global LAND record from the image, so maybe not truely global? Also deniers criticize GISS for the way it extrapolates(?) the polar regions and for having a land biased. So it seems many records exist, all with pros and cons. It seems that this fact allows for multiple interpretations. #2 Josh Willis said on Roger Pielkes snr’s website “However, I personally belive that there is not a long enough common period between the satellite observations and the RELIABLE ocean heat content record to make any strong claims about the energy budget.” That aside it seems that Murphy vastly exaggerates deep ocean energy content compared with others such as Purkey and Johnson. #3 I am confused why the HADCRUT appears to showing a flattening on the year to year basis since 1998 while the 11 year averaging doesn't. It strikes me that in the averaging process the final years become under reprecedented compared with earlier time points. Won't the flattening of the HADCRUT data only show through over the next few years using this sort of averaging? I'm truely confused by this. -
Peter Hogarth at 16:00 PM on 21 July 2010Part Three: Response to Goddard
HumanityRules at 11:19 AM on 21 July, 2010 We could also argue that the natural and regional variations are superimposed on a global background trend that is now emerging as the dominant warming signal. The 100 year trend, even in Greenland, is significantly positive. There are plenty of papers, some limited data, and documentary evidence of warming in Greenland in the 1930s, and that this is evident in the high latitude NH records and reconstructions (see the last graphic I did in the second Arctic Ice article). The main issue is that it appears to be much more localised than the recent warming. This topic I do find interesting, and am collating references on long term records for a post. -
scaddenp at 15:16 PM on 21 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
RSVP - that requires political action and variety of strategies is possible. Solving a problem is a separate question to acknowledging a problem exists. What is warped is deciding on the truth of proposition based a perception of what is required for a solution, which seems to be the case for those whose primary concern is something like "AGW causes higher taxes", "AGW is making me be a greeny", "AGW is taking away my toys", rather than "I dont like those solutions, so here is what I think is a better one". This is a place to discuss the science. -
David Horton at 15:11 PM on 21 July 20103 levels of cherry picking in a single argument
I have often thought, since the deniaworld sprang into action, that the reason they can be so successful in misleading people is that the average punter can't read graphs. We in science tend o think of graphs as a perfectly normal way of presenting information, and we understand the conventions and implications. The non-scientist rarely if ever sees a graph, and when they do, as in the global temp graphs, what they see is not a trend, but a wiggly line. So when someone says to them "no warming since 98" they look at the wiggly line and say, oh yes, those temps are all about the same. They cannot, it seems, because of unfamiliarity, cast an eye along the graph and recognise that those wiggles, including the last 12 years, form a trend. And of course they have absolutely no idea of regression analysis. It is difficult, as graphically literate scientists, to put ourselves in the mind set of those to who graphs mean nothing. We might therefore be better to keep pointing out that all the evidence, from all kinds of sources, points in the same direction, rather than relying on graphs as a self-evident presentation of data. -
RSVP at 15:03 PM on 21 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
For all the denier bashing, I am still waiting to see the list of recommendations to prevent global warming, along with some one-liner impact analysis. -
chris1204 at 14:08 PM on 21 July 2010The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
KR @ 115: Bad arguments tend to be easy to take down! I think that's one of the best internal editors for science - if you publish junk, it will be noted and treated as such. It's a great incentive to do decent work. And a very good incentive to cover your tracks :-) -
chris1204 at 14:07 PM on 21 July 2010The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
Michael swet @ 123: I think Miami and Florida will cope better than we fear. CBW @ 116: To what do they attribute the increase/lack of decrease in the size of the islands they studied? Erosion if my memory serves me well. Michael Sweet @ 130: I believe the New Scientist article cites a peer reviewed reference (included in my post). Feel free to look it up and I'm happy to stand corrected if there's been any cherry picking or other misinterpretation. New Scientist may be a popular science magazine but it tends to follow conventional thinking by and large and tries to be genuinely representative and quotes peer reviewed literature. -
Lou Grinzo at 13:18 PM on 21 July 20103 levels of cherry picking in a single argument
scaddenp: Well said. This is one of the things I find most troubling about climate change -- the more you study it, the more connections you make (like your point about all the data pointing in the same direction), and the more urgency you feel about our situation. Unless, of course, you've decided before looking at the data what the answer is, then you can save yourself a lot of time and effort and just leap to the preferred conclusion. -
robert way at 12:06 PM on 21 July 2010Part Three: Response to Goddard
So at WUWT they have another grace topic up and I posted this response and it was snipped. I said nothing bad and the only thing they snipped was this link.Response: Just went and posted a comment, then noticed your comments are up there again. Oh well, can never hurt to reinforce the point. -
Pete Dunkelberg at 11:56 AM on 21 July 2010The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
69 muoncounter "Exxon's policy changed (at least publicly) in 2007." Alas http://climateprogress.org/2010/07/20/exxonmobil-funds-global-warming-deniers/ === RSVP: "Taking a red hot iron plug inside an "ideal" insulator such as a glass thermos with reflective surfaces. Does it radiate?" If you don't think so, why do you posit reflective walls? You know that the iron radiates. You must have been thinking of net radiation, or something like that. ==== 77 Berényi Péter "...attempt to arrive at some overview of what is presently known...." This does not mean "Put the conclusion first." -
scaddenp at 11:46 AM on 21 July 20103 levels of cherry picking in a single argument
Besides the cherry picking, there is the completely blind eye to consilience. We have multiple independent inferences pointing to the same thing. There is a chance that errors exist construction of the surface temperature records. Maybe there is a calibration issue with sealevel records. Satellite MSU records have a long line on known issues. Glacial data has sampling problems going back in time. Ice-loss records are too short. The upper stratospheric is somewhat under-observed. Multiple measurement issues trouble ocean heat content. Yes to all, but the data we have with all its issues is remarkably consistent with each other and all point the same way. For us to be wrong about warming is to imply a major problem in ALL the evidence. The probabilities here are too small for me to feel like gambling. I am amazed at what straws deniers will grasp. There must be a lot of people with shares in fossil fuel industry. -
Ogemaniac at 11:36 AM on 21 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
My favorite (almost) one-liner to throw at deniers? "No warming since 1998, eh? Well, the same graph shows WILD, OUT OF CONTROL WARMING since both 1997 and 1999. Two out of three, I win." Either they are too stupid to counter effectively, or smart enough to know that they are entering into a cherry-picking contest with someone who owns an orchard. -
scaddenp at 11:34 AM on 21 July 2010Part Three: Response to Goddard
HR - for someone to come up with a convincing "larger natural cycle" then they are going to have to show where the energy is in this natural cycle. You can do this easily for cycles like ENSO but show me a convincing new hidden cycle. For Greenland - whether it was warmer 40 years ago in parts of Greenland may not be that relevant to question of the rate of ice loss. Increased calving because of warmer oceans is also a significant factor that would appear to be unlikely earlier in the century. Are you suggesting all the ice being lost is less than a century old? Is the ocean warming a natural cycle? Well where is the warmth in the ocean coming from? What we see is general warming of the ocean not a movement of energy from some deep store to the surface. It perfectly consist with the global warming which is heating the ocean. -
scaddenp at 11:25 AM on 21 July 2010Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
I would contest that the mechanisms that deposit oil and coal are very much going on much as they always have. Peat swamps still grow, benthic black ooze still accumlates - they are just very slow processes that remove very small amounts of carbon from the cycle. The oil and gas we use is result of millions of years of accumulation. The more important removal of carbon is from deposition as CaCO3 but this is also only significant on geological time spans as rate of deposition is ultimately tied to Ca flux from weathering. -
HumanityRules at 11:19 AM on 21 July 2010Part Three: Response to Goddard
43.chris I wasn't aware I was trying to relate Greenland temp to the Arctic as a whole. You say "you can't tell (from their data anyhow!) the relation of current Greenland warming to natural variability." if what you mean by this is what is causing present warming, then that's true but surely what you can say is that the present warming is well within the limits of natural variability based on this work, which is important to know. I don't see where Kobashi's work is suggesting the Greenland ice sheet is sensitive to temperature. The work is purely a reconstruction of the 1000 year temp record and doesn't seem to say anything about how this relates to mass balance. Chylek would have it that AGW is piggy backing on the much larger natural variability trend. #44 Peter Hogarth "warmer in 1940s", "the same now and in 1940s", "slightly warmer now". I think really that's only important for grabbing headlines, and I apologize for doing it. The real question is whether what we see now in Greenland stand so far outside recent historical experience to warrant concern. To me Kobashi's work suggests it doesn't. So the latest upswing in Greenland temperature and associated mass balance loss. can we definitively say this is a sgnal of AGW. I think if we gave any weight to this paper you'd have to say no. Othher non-AGW processes may be at work here. -
kdkd at 10:32 AM on 21 July 2010Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
adelady #51 "But the mechanisms that deposited oil and coal beneath us are *not* going on today." Not in any way at all meaningful to the human lifespan. On the other hand, I seem to recall that the ABC docco Crude suggested that maybe the processes that deposited all that oil might be beginning again, due to the action of anthropogenic CO2 entering the atmosphere (specifically in the Back to the Future episode I think). -
actually thoughtful at 10:26 AM on 21 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
Truth Seeker - It is theoretically possible that somebody didn't carry the one - but that is the strength of AGW theory, there are so many lines of evidence, if one seems faulty or questionable, you have to ask yourself what about the other items that indicate the same thing. So I suggest you ask yourself the following (you can research all of this on this site): 1. Why does the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere match the expectations from burning fossil carbon (less the amount natural systems absorb)? 2. Why is the decrease in oxygen in the atmosphere consistent with burning fossil fuels as the increase in CO2? 3. Why does the carbon isotope of the additional carbon in the atmosphere match the signature of fossil carbon? Any one of these (including the fact that with all we know about climate, no models can match the trend over the last 3 decades without including increased CO2 - by the amount the theory predicts man is producing!) are a slam dunk in and of themselves. The fact that there are at least 4 independent lines of evidence, logic and reasoning that I can come up with (I am a plumber - someone more knowledgeable might be able to increase the count of valid, independent arguments) should be some indication that this is not a weak spot in the AGW theory.Response: I learnt of several other lines of evidence that fossil fuel burning was causing the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels just a few weeks ago in my trip to Perth, speaking to a coral reef researcher who had analysed carbon isotopes in coral reefs over the last few centuries. He emailed me his paper a few weeks ago and I've been meaning to post about it but just haven't found the time yet :-( -
adelady at 10:11 AM on 21 July 2010Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
TruthSeeker at 09:11 AM on 21 July, 2010 "If these sinks are essentially non-reversable, and the same mechanizms that produced these fuels are currently going on today." But the mechanisms that deposited oil and coal beneath us are *not* going on today. There wouldn't be a problem if oil and coal were being deposited at the same time and the same rate as we use them. That's why they're called fossil fuels - as against renewable or replenishable fuels like burning wood or animal dung or anything else that will grow or return within a short time or at most, a human lifetime. -
TruthSeeker at 09:11 AM on 21 July 2010Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
thpritch #49 "To the lay person, a "sink" implies an essentially non-reversible storage system. In other words, once the carbon is absorbed into a "sink", it will never come out. In reality we know that there are very few essentially irreversible carbon storage systems out there." Really, than why do we now have coal and oil to burn, and how by not burning them will we beable to prevent the release of CO2? If these sinks are essentially non-reversable, and the same mechanizms that produced these fuels are currently going on today. -
TruthSeeker at 09:09 AM on 21 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
Honestly, you have a great site and have educated me by correcting many of the fales skeptic agurments that I was lead to believe. But with all do respect, there are some that you haven't suffeciently addressed. Please endulge me as I bring them up. First, the contribution of CO2 from fossil fuels versus that from more natural causes. I have read your post at on this topic located here, http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm But I still don't understand how you can attribute all the increase to man made causes, when even the sightest accounty error of one of the natural causes would dwarf what you attribute to man made CO2. also, please don't insult me in your response. If you truley think I am ignorant, then please point me to the information that will corret me rather than just insulting me. -
Peter Hogarth at 08:02 AM on 21 July 2010Part Three: Response to Goddard
HumanityRules at 01:58 AM on 21 July, 2010 That’s an interesting paper, but the Greenland 1940s peak referred to relates to their reconstruction and correlation with instrumental records used by Vinther 2006 (the graphic shows data up to 2000). These station records have been calibrated and updated to 2009 in this DMI report which shows as high or higher recent mean temperatures, and a current upward trend. -
chris at 07:57 AM on 21 July 2010Part Three: Response to Goddard
HumanityRules at 01:58 AM on 21 July, 2010 Yes Kobashi et al is interesting. However it's worth noting that there’s a big difference between what happens in Greenland (especially on the ice sheet summit at GISP2 where Kobashi et al are sampling), and the Arctic as a whole. So for example, while it’s true that the evidence suggests that Greenland was warm in the 30’s and 40’s, the evidence also strongly indicates that (i) the Arctic as a whole is a good bit warmer now than during the 40’s, and (ii) that Arctic sea ice retreat was minimal then, and much more significant now. Note that you can’t tell from Kobashi et al’s data how GISP2 surface temperatures in 1940 compare to current Greenland summit temperatures since their data only goes to 1950; likewise you can't tell (from their data anyhow!) the relation of current Greenland warming to natural variability. Other than that, there’s no question that there are quasiperiodic natural fluctuations (especially involving volcanic eruptions, and solar and ocean current variation) in Greenland/Arctic temperatures but these are now “piggy-backing” on a pretty large rising anthropogenic temperature trend. Here’s some detail: (i) A recent multiproxy temperature reconstruction (Kaufmann et al, 2009) indicates that the last decade was the warmest in the Arctic for the last 2000 years, and 20th century warming has strongly reversed a long term (and extremely slow 0.22 oC per 1000 years) cooling trend. Contemporary temperature measures indicate that the Arctic as a whole is warmer now than during the mid-20th century, even if Greenland itself may be not much warmer (and accordingly Arctic sea ice retreat was likely minimal during the time of the apparent Greenland summit temperature max). (ii) The Greenland ice sheet is very sensitive to volcanic (and also solar) variability and Kobashi et al highlight these as well as ocean current variability as the likely source of quasiperiodic fluctuations. This interpretation is quite similar to a related study of Greenland temperature (Box et al, 2009) which also found that Greenland was around as warm (and possibly a tad warmer) during 1930-40 than now. We should also consider the possible role of black carbon [e.g. McConnell et al (2007)] which has its largest warming effect when it is deposited on snow/ice. Black carbon can be directly identified in Greenland cores and was deposited at high levels during the 30’s and 40’s. This, together with the recovery of temperatures suppressed by high volcanic activity from the late 19th century through the early part of the 20th century, are likely contributions to the observations of enhanced Greenland warming, in an Arctic that wasn’t as warm as now. (iii) So one does need to be careful with attributing temperature variations at the summit of the Greenland ice sheet. These are not necessarily related to phenomena that influence Arctic temperatures overall. Obviously in the present widescale warming both Greenland and the Arctic as a whole are warming. One of the potentially concerning observations of Box et al is that Greenland tends to retain a phase relationship with overall N. hemispheric warming, such that it eventually rises to a temperature anomaly around 1.6 times that of the N. hemisphere ("NH polar amplification"). It’s way below that now, and if this relationship holds up Greenland has got quite a lot of warming (1-1.5 oC) just to “catch up”. Kaufman DS, et al. (2009) Recent warming reverses long-term Arctic cooling. Science 325:1236–1238. Box, J. E.et al (2009) Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Air Temperature Variability: 1840–2007. Journal of Climate, 22, 4029-4049. McConnell, J.R. et al. (2007) 20th-Century Industrial Black Carbon Emissions Altered Arctic Climate Forcing Science 317, 1381-1384. -
michael sweet at 07:56 AM on 21 July 2010The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
Chrisancaris: I read the newspaper reports of the New Scientist article. -->New Scientist is not a peer reviewed journal. I note that the most populated island in Tuvalu was not measured, while seven small, unimportant islands in the atoll were. Why measure the small islands and not the important ones? It is common knowledge that the small islands on atolls constantly change size. Funafuti atoll, the capitol of Tuvalu, has 33 islets in the atoll. It would be easy to pick seven that have increased in size. They report Funamanu gained .44 hecatres, 30% of its previous size. This is one of the smallest islands in the atoll and is not occupied by people. I am concerned about cherry picking of data. Can you find me a reviewed journal article that makes the same claim? When I visited Funafuti in 1990 they were already concerned about rising water levels and flooding in the village was common. -
actually thoughtful at 07:54 AM on 21 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
31 hadfield - your response "What does warming on Neptune (or Mars or Alpha Centauri) have to do with the relationship between observed climate change and known forcings on Earth." is much better than "And the sun is cooling" - yours at least addresses the question. I still don't think a warming on another planet in our solar system that we can document but not explain helps the AGW case (because there is no "A" on that other planet). thanks for the helpful response. -
actually thoughtful at 07:49 AM on 21 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
Part 2 Here are some suggestions that make them more powerful for me (if you like the suggested wordking make sure the science make sense - I am perhaps better at communicating than climatology). 69 "Humans are too insignificant to affect global climate" - We easily affected the Gulf of Mexico *** A different take, but one that brings the point home. BTW - the percentage of oil in the Gulf by volume is 184,000,000 gallons oil/640,000,000,000,000,000 gallons water or 0.000000029% - much lower than CO2 in the air, but it is wreaking havoc; small things CAN hurt you. *** 79 "Ocean acidification isn't serious" Past history shows that when CO2 rose quickly, there were mass extinctions of coral reefs. *** grammar nazi strikes *** 104 "Southern sea ice is increasing" While the sea ice increases, the more important land ice shrinks. *** scientifically valid?? *** I agree with the comments above that this is a good thing and does give us a quick response (especially when the tiny URLs are added). -
hadfield at 07:36 AM on 21 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
actually thougtful @ 7:29 am: "Huh? I don't have any suggestions here, but this is NOT a good argument for AGW - if we can't explain Neptune warming with a cooling sun, what business do we have claiming we know why earth is warming with a cooling sun. Maybe I am being obtuse??" Very. I completely fail to see your logic here. What does alleged climate change on Neptune (or Mars or Alpha Centauri) have to do with the relationship between observed climate change and known forcings on Earth. -
actually thoughtful at 07:29 AM on 21 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
Finally found the list - here are some suggestions that make them more powerful for me (if you like the suggested wordking make sure the science make sense - I am perhaps better at communicating than climatology). 1. "It's the sun." - Since the 1970s the sun is cooling and the earth is warming 2. "Climate's changed before" - The natural changes that completely explain past climate change do not explain warming now. 5. "Model's are unreliable" - Climate models from the 1980s successfully predicted today's temperatures. *** I think the skeptics don't care that the hindcast is good, they like to say no model has EVER predicted the future, which, according to skepticalscience, is wrong.*** 11 "CO2 lags temperature" - CO2 accelerates warming. *** Sounds good. Can that be said truthfully? *** 14 "It's cosmic rays" - Cosmic rays DO NOT correlate with the current warming. 21 "It's just a natural cycle" - Natural cycles cannot explain the current warming. 29 "Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy" - Emails do not melt ice, warm the earth or acidify the ocean. *** I realize that is a different take, but I try to bring it back to the physical evidence, rather than defend Mann and Jones ad nauseum.*** 30 "Climate sensitivity is low" - Multiple lines of research indicate a 3C warming for each CO2 doubling. *** I don't know if the science is that strong. I personally think this is the best denier argument (most of them do not make it...). The current wording doesn't really counter the point. 35 "It warmed before 1940 when CO2 was low" - Early 20th century warming is largely attributable to the sun. *** I like to show that the solar changes DO matter and ARE in the models *** 48 "Neptune is warming" - And the sun is cooling *** Huh? I don't have any suggestions here, but this is NOT a good argument for AGW - if we can't explain Neptune warming with a cooling sun, what business do we have claiming we know why earth is warming with a cooling sun. Maybe I am being obtuse?? *** 52 ditto above 60 "Arctic sea ice is back to normal" - Artic see ice volume is shrinking. -
michael sweet at 06:55 AM on 21 July 2010The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
Chriscanaris: While I did mention Tuvalu, my catastrophy was Miami with current projections of sea level rise. What do you think about Florida having to evacuate to North Dakota? Is this OK with you or do you think this is a problem? What do you think the dollar value of all the development in south Florida is? What should we do with their nuclear power plants? Or is it too far in the future for you to worry about? -
batsvensson at 06:45 AM on 21 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
John, maybe this layout can work as an inspiration for you as well.Response: I have a similar taxonomy style layout here. -
AWoL at 06:42 AM on 21 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
And "Moonbat" should be "Monbiot" -
Andy Skuce at 06:30 AM on 21 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
This is excellent. May I suggest a few tweaks? #77 "Michael Mann was quoted out of context, and nothing was hidden." It was Phil Jones, not Michael Mann who was quoted out of context in this case. #116 "CO2 emissions were much smaller 100 years ago." To nitpick, the industrial revolution ended more than 100 years ago. I prefer the one-liner that the full rebuttal begins with: "Global CO2 emissions during the Industrial Revolution were a fraction of the CO2 we are currently emitting now". (The "fraction" is actually less than 1%, so you might rather say "tiny fraction" and add "annual" to "emissions" to distinguish rates from cumulative emissions.) So, I'd suggest: "Annual CO2 emissions during the Industrial Revolution were a tiny fraction of current emission rates." BTW, In the rebuttal to point #81 you refer to "Peisner" and "Benchley", whereas those names should be spelled Peiser and Brenchley. -
Sean A at 06:16 AM on 21 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
You know that I write slowly. This is chiefly because I am never satisfied until I have said as much as possible in a few words, and writing briefly takes far more time than writing at length. -- Karl Friedrich Gauss If you want me to give you a two-hour presentation, I am ready today. If you want only a five-minute speech, it will take me two weeks to prepare. -- Mark Twain -
snapple at 05:54 AM on 21 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
Dr.Stephen Schneider has died on a flight from Stockholm to London. http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2010/07/stanfords-nobel-winning-climate.html
Prev 2289 2290 2291 2292 2293 2294 2295 2296 2297 2298 2299 2300 2301 2302 2303 2304 Next
