Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2384 2385 2386 2387 2388 2389 2390 2391 2392 2393 2394 2395 2396 2397 2398 2399 Next
Comments 119551 to 119600:
-
Tom Dayton at 03:08 AM on 10 May 2010Estimating climate sensitivity from 3 million years ago
tobyjoyce, I think that the fundamental flaw in Spencer's approach is the same in his new article as it has been in the past: He's analyzing changes across such short time spans (one month in this case) that the short time across those analyzed months (7 years in this case) inherently is incapable of detecting the slower-than-hummingbird-wingbeats feedbacks that provide the large sensitivity that are the threat. I think that is the same flawed approach that Tamino debunked in his post Spencer's Folly 3. (For the least technical explanation, search down that page for "You may also notice" and read down from there.) But I'm unsure, so I've asked Tamino. I've also asked Chris Colose to please give a less technical explanation. -
Rob Honeycutt at 02:57 AM on 10 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
A very short question for skepticalstudent... Of all the arguments you've put forth, do you think you've presented anything that the 255 NAS letter signatories have not carefully considered? I would note again that these are the supposed to be the 255 NAS members who are most familiar with climate science. -
Rob Honeycutt at 02:53 AM on 10 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Poptech said... "The substantial statements have already been provided above. This work has already been done." Actually, no, it hasn't. For one, the Oregon Petition is not audited by any independent group. There are many who have requested to have their names removed and those requests have been ignored. There are a large number of fictitious names on the list. Come on, dude! One up these people! Step up to the plate and do something substantive, verifiable and crushing to your detractors. Lest you think it's not possible or are unwilling to put in the effort... -
tobyjoyce at 02:38 AM on 10 May 2010Estimating climate sensitivity from 3 million years ago
Dr. Roy Spencer is (we hear) about to publish a paper (accepted for publication) which estimates a much lower value for climate sensitivity than used in IPCC reports. he has an advanced taste at his blog, but dammed if I can make sense of it. BTW, that is probably me. Dr. Roy Spencer Anyone care to read his post and comment? -
Stephen Baines at 02:18 AM on 10 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Sorry about the double post everybody. The screen hung after submitting my first reply. johnd at 155. I reread my post and you'll have to enlighten me further. How is the system that I described -- where you acn't review papers of those with whom you have conflict of interest, and which fosters intense competition that ensures you will face critical opinions -- likely to produce an old boys network. I don't see it. -
HumanityRules at 02:16 AM on 10 May 2010Estimating climate sensitivity from 3 million years ago
5.ProfMandia Thanks for that. I don't doubt CO2 is released I'm just asking why is this released CO2 the primer for all the other processes that occured which lead to the warm climate. Here's a short list of the things that were occuring in this period. The Himalayan Mountains formed. In America, the Cascades, Rockies, Appalachians, and the Colorado plateaus were uplifted, and there was activity in the mountains of Alaska and in the Great Basin ranges of Nevada and Utah. The end of the Pliocene was marked in North America by the Cascadian revolution, during which the Sierra Nevada was elevated and tilted to the west. In Europe as well many mountain ranges built up, including the Alps, which were folded and thrusted. The Isthmus of Panama formed cutting off the Atlantic, completely altering ocean circulation and allowing conditions for greater ice accumulation at the poles. Why can't the formation of these mountains in and of themselves alter weather patterns, change the hydrological cycle, cause savannahization and desertification, alter vegation patterns, change wind and circulation patterns, change precipitation to snow rather than rain, allow the beginning of glaciation and change aerosol and dust levels all independantly of how much CO2 is released by tectonics. Why are the other factors a result of extra CO2 in the atmosphere and not mountain building and isthamus formation. (A large section of this was pasted from http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/tertiary/pli/plitect.html) -
Dikran Marsupial at 02:06 AM on 10 May 2010Estimating climate sensitivity from 3 million years ago
Cheer's Scott, I'm happy to stand corrected. I'll have to go to Roy's blog and see where he gets the numbers from. -
JMurphy at 01:58 AM on 10 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
"However, my analysis of a long-term data set of hurricane losses in the United States shows no upward trend once the data are normalized to remove the effects of societal changes." Poptech asserts, using the above Pielke quote : "This supports skeptical arguments against alarmist claims of Hurricane damage is getting worse due to global warming or "economic effects of"." How do the effects of hurricanes on America support any argument against global warming ? Do you think America represents the world ? Please provide the 'alarmist claims' you think this Pielke paper skeptically argues against. -
ProfMandia at 01:57 AM on 10 May 2010Estimating climate sensitivity from 3 million years ago
HumanityRules: The figure below (Ruddiman, 2008) shows how carbon is cycled into and out of the atmosphere by plate tectonics over millions of years.
Through a process known as chemical weathering, rainwater combines with CO2 gas in the air and forms carbonic acid. Carbonic acid "attacks" the silicate bedrock and creates carbon-containing ions that are carried to the ocean by rivers. This carbon is ultimately stored in the shells of marine plankton. When marine plankton die, they fall to the sea floor where their carbon gets buried in the sediment. Therefore, chemical weathering removes atmospheric carbon and causes a cooler climate.
During the process of plate tectonics the sea floor spreads. As the sea floor spreads, sediment containing carbon is forced into the earth's interior (by a process known as subduction) and is melted. When magma rises and is ejected by volcanoes, the carbon is released back into the air. During increased periods of plate tectonics (more volcanism) there are higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and the climate warms.
Approximately 55 million years ago, India slammed into Asia and began to build the Himalayan Mountains. These mountains are still rising today. Due to the massive amount of material being uplifted by this collision, chemical weathering rates over the past 55 million years have been very high resulting in a gradual tectonic cooling since that time.
Scott A. Mandia, Professor of Physical Sciences
Selden, NY
Global Warming: Man or Myth?
My Global Warming Blog
Twitter: AGW_Prof
"Global Warming Fact of the Day" Facebook Group
-
Dikran Marsupial at 01:56 AM on 10 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Poptech @ 234 You do know, don't you that Lassen later published a paper updating the results in Friss-Christensen and Lassen, and found that the correlation had indeed broken down, see here for details. So one of the authors of the paper disagrees with you (plus ca change). Also, I suspect that the refutation wasn't published in the peer-reviewed literature. As I said, clinging onto to papers that have been refuted (including by one of the authors) is damaging to the skeptic cause, but go for it if it pleases you. You just can't help some people. -
ProfMandia at 01:51 AM on 10 May 2010Estimating climate sensitivity from 3 million years ago
Dikran, John's post is on the money. A 2xCO2 climate get us about 1C warmer with no feedbacks. Fast feedbacks bring that up to 1.5 to 4.5C with 3C the most likely and less than 2C very unlikely. Slower feedbacks can bring these values up to 6C. See: Impact of GHGs Scott A. Mandia, Professor of Physical Sciences Selden, NY Global Warming: Man or Myth? My Global Warming Blog Twitter: AGW_Prof "Global Warming Fact of the Day" Facebook Group -
HumanityRules at 01:44 AM on 10 May 2010Estimating climate sensitivity from 3 million years ago
Why is it CO2 that is driving these other factors? I really don't understand why CO2 is the primer. -
Riccardo at 01:42 AM on 10 May 2010Climate sensitivity is low
Tom Dayton unintentionally reminded me that this is the right place to discuss the forthcoming Spencer paper on climate sensitivity. So this is in a sense a repost. For sure we need to wait to read the paper but one thing can already be said. From what Spencer himself says, he shows "monthly variations in the Earth’s net radiation [...] compared to similarly averaged tropospheric temperature". This is not wrong by itself but it should be clear that in this way he's looking just at the fast response component. From this work nothing can be said on the overall climate sensitivity which definitely includes components much slower than a month. -
JMurphy at 01:29 AM on 10 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
I don't think I am being unfair or offensive by claiming that Skeptical Student is trolling. It is obvious by the way he/she gives no references (except to blogs or media reports); makes accusations and assertions without any attempt to back them up; denies science because it is based on peer-review, and makes up claims about taxation and a supposed return to the stone age. -
Tom Dayton at 01:16 AM on 10 May 2010Climate sensitivity is low
Sensitivity to cumulative carbon emissions is a new metric of sensitivity proposed in papers published in 2009 and discussed on the brand new blog Climate Physics Forums. -
Riccardo at 01:07 AM on 10 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
johnd, you may have noticed that i didn't say he's wrong, so no surprise that the paper passed peer review. What I said is that explicitly or not his analysis may be related just to the fast component of the climate system. I'd not claim that climate sensitivity is low overall as you did. -
Dikran Marsupial at 01:01 AM on 10 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Poptech@232 Sorry, you have already demonstrated that you are not open to criticism of your own position, and you are willing to go on ignoring points you can't answer (for instance that HADCRUT is essentially reproducible from freely available data and code). There is no point in further discussion. It is to the disadvantage of the skeptics if they continue to cling onto papers, such as Friss-Christensen and Lassen (1991), that have been conclusively refuted. If you want to encourage that, you are doing them no favours. -
Dikran Marsupial at 00:52 AM on 10 May 2010Estimating climate sensitivity from 3 million years ago
IIRC, the temperature increase without feedback is 1F rather than 1C (although the only source I can think of off-hand is Roy Spencer) -
Dikran Marsupial at 00:47 AM on 10 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
poptech @ 229 "Will never happen." O.K., so you have made it clear that you are not open to constructive criticism of your list, fine. However your attitude does rather detract from the credibility of your list of paper. If you can't handle criticism of your work, what kind of skepticism is it? I should note that John Cook appears very open to criticism of his list of arguments, you would do well to learn from his example. "If you are interested in a criticism you are welcome to look it up, I am just making sure the rebuttals are available as I have found they never are elsewhere. The existence of a criticism does not discredit a paper. " No, actually it does, that is the point of submitting a comment. For example, one of the papers on your list is Friss-Christensen and Lassen (1991), However Damon and Laut showed (in a completely reproducible manner) that the correlation was spurious and an artifact of the filtering used. It utterly refutes Friss-Christensen and Lassen (1991). It doesn't refute the cosmic ray theory, but it does completely discredit the paper (and hence it shouldn't be in your list). -
Ron Crouch at 00:38 AM on 10 May 2010Estimating climate sensitivity from 3 million years ago
Four to four and a half degrees C (7.2-8.1 F). Looks like James Lovelock is correct. We'll have to live at the poles. The only problem with that though is the accumulation of toxins in these regions. -
Dikran Marsupial at 00:35 AM on 10 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
poptech@228: "Any scientific data set should be supported with a copy of the raw data with complete methods for reproduction. Anything less than 100% of it being available for reproduction is unacceptable." In that case, I think you will find the majority of published science in pretty much every field is "unacceptable". For instance in medical statistics the statisticians responsible for the analysis do not have license to pass on the data and will refer you instead to the collector of the dataset (normally a hospital). The CRU were not funded at a level that would allow them to have the storage for all the raw data for every paper they wrote. Does that mean that they should not do the basic science that they thought was necessary? You have still not commented on the fact that the result is essentially reproducible from the code and data that is available. "When the 100% complete raw data is available we can then objectively determine if it is reproducible." The data is 100% available, the stuff that is not in the GCHN is available from the national MET offices (you may need to pay for it). It is the national governments fault that it is not FREELY available, but to say it is not available is simply untrue, as I have pointed out several times. "Some editors of some journals would agree with you yes but that is not all as you implied." O.K. so back to pedantry. The fact that editors of climate journals have rejected papers that have ended up in non-climate journals is sufficient evidence to back up my assertion. "Rahmstorf clearly supports the existence of a 1,500 year climate cycle, it is some skeptics who believe this an alternative explanation to AGW not Rahmstorf. Which is why I just explicitly said, "support the skeptical argument (not Rahmstorf's) for the 1,500 year climate cycle theory". If the 1500 year cycle supports climate skepticism, why is Rahmstorf a contributor to RealClimate. This is indicative of the D-K effect on your part as you don't consider the counter argument. "Do you not see the irony of saying that anyone who understood the science wouldn't take the NAS statement seriously and then having one of the signatories listed as supporting your position?" Strawman, I said debate not "science". LOL, sorry that is even more amusing pedantry. "Who are you implying the Dunning-Kruger effect is related to? You have not demonstrated any deficiencies in my position. All you have presented are strawman arguments. " of course if you suffered from the Dunning-Kruger syndrome, and didin't have the expertise to recognise the flaws in your position, that is pretty much what you would say, The example of CRU data availability is a perfect example. I have already said repeatedly that the data are available, they are available from CRU to the extent that is legally possible. The results are reproducible with the vast subset of data that is freely available, yet you STILL can't let it go. You appear closed to arguments that do not support your view. I on the other hand have been making an effort to help you improve your resource, even though I don't agree with the conclusions. -
J Bowers at 00:27 AM on 10 May 2010Medieval Warm Period was warmer
Apparently your temperature map has been tricked up (groan). That's the claim being made at the Guardian anyway. -
MarkR at 00:12 AM on 10 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
SkepticStudent "Especially when 3/4 of the "peer reviewed" Emperical evidence has been reviewed by the chums of the author rather than pure peer review of un biased reviewers and editors " Do you have any evidence that 3/4 of such papers have been reviewed by chums? That's an awfully large number. RE #116: A few mistakes in calculations there. Radiative forcing for CO2 is logarithmic with concentration, whilst climate sensitivity is generally assumed to be approximately constant across our temperature range (assuming no 'tipping points' are hit!). So your maths needs re-working. Your picking of a single year start point also confuses transient and secular responses and is also very vulnerable to noise. The assumptions you've made there look completely invalid to me. There is extensive literature on the expected temperature increases with different CO2 pathways, on the impacts for different temperature rises and on the economic costs of different actions. The IPCC technical summaries are a pretty good place to start and will give you some idea of which papers to look for. I've read a number of papers that conclude that the cost of restricting warming to <3C is of the order of under 1% of GDP, or equivalently delaying a doubling of global wealth by a couple of years. Costs of 3C< warming are typically beyond 1% of GDP. -
Dikran Marsupial at 00:01 AM on 10 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Poptech@224 "Thank you for the correction. I removed the Kerr article." no problem, however there are many other problems in the list, it would be better if the list at least mentioned the deficiencies and uncertainties in the support the papers provide. For example, the list would be better if all the papers that had been criticized in the peer reviewed literature were put in a separate section, with an appropriate caveat, and include links to the criticisms as well as the replies. To be a skeptic, you need to be skeptic of both sides of the argument. -
Dikran Marsupial at 23:54 PM on 9 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
poptech @ 220 says: "The CRU statement, "Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data." Yes, however they can go back to the national met offices whenever they like and get a new copy of the original data. Why should they retain copies of the original data that they no longer need and are not able to distribute? As I said, the data are available, they are available from the MET offices that own them. If you are not satisfied by that, I would venture that it is you that is being unreasonable. I notice that you haven't commented on the fact that the results are essentially replicable using only the publicly available data. "It is an objective fact that a paper may have been questioned. This does not objectively imply it is "questionable". These two words and their context as used have very different meanings." Ah, quibbling about the meanings of words, I know better than to engage in that kind of thing. "It is a simple fact that it is your opinion on what papers would or would not get past all climate journals." O.K., the fact that some of the papers published in E&E were rejected from climate journals is an indication though that some journal editors agree with me. "Keeling and Rahmstorf's papers support the skeptical argument for the 1,500 year climate cycle theory, which is an alternate proposal to AGW." According to Rahmstorf, or according to you? Rahmstorf is an expert on the subject, if you disagree with him on the implications of his work (as you did with Pielke) that seems clear evidence that you don't know enough about the subject to know why the paper is not relevant. Why not email him and ask? "Wunch's paper supports the skeptical argument against alarmist claims regarding the Gulf Stream and global warming such as those proposed in Al Gore's movie 'An Inconvenient Truth'." Do you not see the irony of saying that anyone who understood the science wouldn't take the NAS statement seriously and then having one of the signatories listed as supporting your position? "FYI your reference to the Dunning-Kruger effect is an ad hominem attack. " No, you need to go and look up the definition of an ad-hominem. If I said that your views should be discounted because you are suffering from Dunning-Kruger, that would indeed be an ad-hominem. If on the other hand I raised specific objections to the content of your argument it is not an ad-hominem as an ad-hominem is an attack on the source of an argument rather than on the content. The reason I mentioned the Dunning-Kruger effect is because I would like you to produce a better list of skeptic papers as it would be a useful resource. Your response to criticism is preventing you from learning where the deficiencies in your position lie, and probably from rectifying them. -
JMurphy at 23:44 PM on 9 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Poptech "This was explicitly stated to him [PIELKE}." And he still wouldn't play ball, or confirm you in your belief of what you think HE believes ? How could he, eh ? Never mind, you know what he REALLY thinks, don't you ? The D-K Effect is being more and more confirmed by yourself but you can't see it. I wonder why ? -
Dikran Marsupial at 23:37 PM on 9 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
kdkd @ 213 "Not to mention those of us unfamilliar with the literature in the 700 papers cited are expected to read them all! This is obviously silly, and if a proper job was being done of showing problems with the scientific consensus, each of the references would have at the very least a simple annotation indicating why the compiler thought they were evidence against the scientific consensus. " That would indeed be a more useful resource. To be fair a few of the papers do have brief quotes or comments. However there are papers on the list that I rather doubt poptech has read properly. For instance the paper by Richard Kerr "A Variable Sun Paces Millennial Climate" isn't actually a peer reviewed journal article, and poptech would know that if he had read it as it is clearly labelled as being a column in "news of the week" (Richard Kerr is a science journalist). There is nothing in the piece that suggests that the 1500 year cycle discussed explains any of the recent warming. If Poptech had actually read the article he would have cited the article by Gerald Bond that Kerr's piece was promoting, rather than a news article promoting a new paper. -
tobyjoyce at 23:25 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
@johnd #157, I take exception to this remark, which betrays a certain insecurity in your demeanour: "Unless of course you never get out away from the TV, then that would be understandable." Sarcasm may be ok in the right palce, but I think it is against the spirit of this blog, which is wonderfully moderated well by John. No one has directed similar remarks at you or scepticalstudent, so I hope you will refrain from any repetition -
tobyjoyce at 23:17 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
@johnd Explain yourself a bit better please. The person who "gives the weather report on the evening news" are usually not climate scientists. They are not the people we are discussing here. Are you saying the chorus "Cold winter, therefore global warming is not happening" was correct? If you are saying the mass of people confuse weather and climate, that is pretty much expected by everyone. But you seem to do so also. Please supply references to buttress the assertion: "...even pro AGW scientists concede that the question as to whether the climate sensitivity is low or high remains unresolved. " Name a few such scientists, for starters. Alos indicate "evidence that they prefer to support the theory of high sensitivity otherwise their whole AGW hypothesis crumbles". This are wild and sweeping statements, which I believe are without foundation. Since you made them, please support them with facts. I suggest you read the entry on this blog for a discussion and refutation of the denialist argument about sensitivity. Climate sensitivity is low -
JMurphy at 23:16 PM on 9 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Poptech wrote : "I replied to Dr. Pielke's illogical statement about how his papers could be used." Is that a version of the Dunning-Kruger Effect ? Poptech claims to know more about Pielke's papers, and the rationale behind them, than Pielke himself ! Pielke is therefore 'illogical' because he doesn't see things the way Poptech does, especially about his own papers ! You couldn't make this sort of stuff up, normally, but it is par for the course for the so-called skeptics... -
Dikran Marsupial at 23:14 PM on 9 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Poptech @ 215 "And no I do not except your excuses for the data not being publicly available. I understand you find lack of data availability and reproduction in science acceptable but I don't." It is not correct to say the data are unavailable and the work is not reproducible. The data are available, just not from CRU as they don't own it. There is nothing to stop you or anyone else from negotiating with the national met offices for access to the data in the same way that CRU did. Furthermore, only a small fraction of the data is unavailable, the vast majority is available from the GCHN, and if you rebuild the HADCrut datasets using only the publically available data (at the met office did) you get a result that is almost identical. "Whether you consider a paper's science "questionable" is irrelevant." It isn't me that considered that a paper's science is "questionable", it is an objective fact that the paper is "questionable" as it has been "questioned" in a peer reviewed comment. It is a shame that you are unable to concede that you are wrong as I did (or accept the concession with good grace). "And it is your opinion that certain papers could not get published in any climate journals." No, that is also a simple fact, if a paper contains a conclusion that is obviously false (such as that man is not responsible for the growth in atmospheric CO2 - that is one of the few bits of science that actually is settled), it may get past the reviewers of a non-climate journal, but it would be unlikely to be published in a climate journal. "The following papers support skepticism of "man-made" global warming or the environmental or economic effects of." So how is it then that is contains papers written by Charles Keeling, Stefan Rahmstof (RealClimate contributor) and Carl Wunsch (signatory of the NAS statement)? As I said, if you really think that the papers in your list all support "man-made" global warming or the environmental or economic effects of." then the Dunning-Kruger effect is evident. If you made an attempt to take some of the criticism on board, you might get a better list that gives better support to the skeptic position. I would be in favour of that as I am all for rational scientific debate (for which skeptics are needed), but I am not in favour of misinformation. -
Dikran Marsupial at 22:44 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
johnd@146 said "Albatross at 16:57 PM, Spencer has a paper about to be published, it is currently being printed, that analyses 9 years of satellite data and concludes that indeed the climate sensitivity is low. Should make interesting reading, it apparently did get a good going over by the peer review process in order to be accepted for publication." Much the same was said about Linzen and Choi, but it turned out to be a damp squib as the argument put forward had significant flaws (as exposed by Roy Spencer, for example). It is a mistake to think that just because something appears in a peer reviewed journal that it must be correct. That is not true, the value of a paper is demonstrated by the research community citing the paper and taking up the argument and methods it puts forward. That takes time. It will of course make interesting reading, as did Lindzen and Choi. -
Dikran Marsupial at 22:38 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
scepticalstudent @ 103 said "It's neither here nor there of course but after reading the papers of M&M from Canada I would not consider statisticians to be mere anything. There science is just as valid as climatologists. In fact statisticians should be better able than anyone else to tell if climatologists are staying true to the scientific method." You could have picked a better example (the M&M papers I have read have had significant statistical flaws), but the real point is that criticizing scientists according to their background is simply an ad-hominem and should be avoided. If someones paper is wrong is is wrong because of the content of the argument, not the source. -
kdkd at 22:34 PM on 9 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Poptech #212Any silly "reproduction" with computer models proves nothing.
Can you please explain what you think computer models can be useful for, as well as the kinds of situations that you think they are not useful. -
kdkd at 22:32 PM on 9 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Dikran #198 Not to mention those of us unfamilliar with the literature in the 700 papers cited are expected to read them all! This is obviously silly, and if a proper job was being done of showing problems with the scientific consensus, each of the references would have at the very least a simple annotation indicating why the compiler thought they were evidence against the scientific consensus. -
Dikran Marsupial at 22:31 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
JohnD@103 says: "despite your detailed analysis concluding "it is arguably the mainstream that is concentrating on the basics there" it seems that the mainstream have hitched their horse to the wagon that is based on a foundation of a high climate sensitivity." No, mainstream science hasn't "hitched any horses", it has formed an opinion based on an analysis of the available data. That is the way science works, when new data comes in that refutes current thought, the theories are revised accordingly. "Not only is this most important pivotal question unresolved, not that you would think so given the strength of the assertions all dependant on a high climate sensitivity scenario," No, go have a look at the IPCC report, you will find that the mainstream are quite happy to talk about the uncertainties in climate sensitivity. "but it is increasingly appearing to be wrong with gathering evidence that low climate sensitivity may instead be the case, some such evidence soon to be published." Such as? I would also point out that the mainstream view can hardly be criticized on the basis of a paper not yet published! There is other evidence that suggests climate sensitivity MAY be even higher than the mainstream view. You can't pick and choose which data to look at according to your prior view, you have to take each paper on its merit, and decide where the balance of evidence puts climate sensitivity. If climate sensitivity is low, then there will be questions raised about paleoclimate data that can no longer be understood, or an explanation needs to be given why climate sensitivity is higher now than it used to be. -
Dikran Marsupial at 22:21 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
johnd @ 100 "Plants and soil account for about 100Gt of carbon in and out each year" you need to be very careful making arguments that involve exchange fluxes. The rise in atmospheric CO2 depends on the difference between total emissions and total uptake, the volume of the exchange flux is essentially irrelevant. If you halved the terrestrial emissions, but also halved the uptake, it would have no effect on the atmospheric concentration. So reducing the amount of forests doesn't necessarily lead to an imbalance, especially as uptake in old-growth forest is balanced by emissions. "When land use changes are made, there may be a one off release of carbon, but over and above that a certain percentage of land will be permanently withdrawn from the carbon exchange cycle, so the one off loss continues to multiply forever." What is your evidence that this is not already accounted for in the land use emissions data? Scientists are not stupid, if their was an obvious substantial discrepancy in the carbon budget, it would be talked about quite openly (that is exactly how the fact that there was a "missing sink" was identified). "the 100Gt exchange in and out between the plants, soil and atmosphere continues to decline" Environmental uptake is increasing, not declining. To see that, plot the difference between annual anthropogenic emissions and annual atmospheric increase. That gives you the difference between environmental emissions and environmental uptake. It is negative and becoming more negative. The rate at which it is increasing is (possibly) in declining. I went to a talk last week that discussed the change in the airborne fraction, and the speaker (Prof. Corinne Le Quere) made it clear that the downward trend in the airborne fraction is not (yet) statistically significant. -
yocta at 22:06 PM on 9 May 2010Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project
RE: Poptech Whilst on the EOS site I think you also forgot to put the link for this paper. Doran and Zimmerman have written: Reply to Comments on “Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change”s This paper addresses both the ones you quote, and I think it is important for SkepticalScience readers to get the full picture since it was published the same day! -
Dikran Marsupial at 21:58 PM on 9 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Poptech @ 198 "These sorts of comments never cease to amaze me. ..." I am happy to concede that there are 700+ papers in the list not including responses to comments etc. Perhaps I should have said that the list is padded out with papers that are responses to comments, submitted papers and papers that have been rejected. However the key issue is that your complaint over this minor issue completely fails to address the substantive point that very many of the papers in your list contain science that is at best questionable (as indicated by the correspondence), that it contains papers that are not in the least skeptical of anthropogenic climate change, papers that obviously incorrect and couldn't have been published in a climate journal (e.g. Essenhigh), papers that are correct, but not relevant. Padding out with many papers that document the results of essentially the same piece of basic research. If you think the majority of the papers on your list support skepticism of mainstream scientific opinion, then you ought to read the IPCC WG1 report and find out what the mainstream view actually is. BTW, can you acknowledge whether you are satisfied with my explanation of why not all of the CRU data is publically available? -
kdkd at 21:43 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
johnd: I saw some literature recently that puts the reasonable minimum climate sensitivity at around 1.8ºC. This doesn't mean that the climate sensitivity is 1.8ºC, just that it's highly unlikely to be lower than this. Confusing uncertainty with improbability is fairly common among so called sceptics of AGW. I think the "climate sensitivity is unknown" argument is a good example of this. -
Ned at 21:42 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
In this comment from the previous page, NewYorkJ points out that skepticstudent's claims about 2008 temperatures are wrong, and rightly says Persistent unsubstantiated claims don't add value to any thread. I agree, and this is getting a bit frustrating. skepticstudent first made the claim (2008 temperatures were the third coldest since 1775!) in another thread. I immediately replied, pointing out that actually 2008 was the 10th warmest year, not 3rd coldest year on record. In fact, every year since 2001 has been in the 10 warmest years in the record. There was no response in that thread, but skepticstudent repeated the claim in this thread, this time referring to the winter of 2008 ("2008 had the 3rd coldest winter since thermometers were created in 1775.") Well, that's wrong too, as I pointed out in this comment, which skepticstudent ignored (winter 2008 wasn't in the top ten, but it was much warmer than the average). Skepticstudent, I would strongly encourage you to spend more time reading this site, to cut down your volume of posting by about 50% at least, to check your facts before posting and and to include sources or links as much as possible. When someone just churns out huge numbers of comments that include no sources or citations and are riddled with factual inaccuracies, it seriously degrades the quality of the site for everyone. -
JMurphy at 21:28 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
johnd, if the forthcoming paper by Spencer turns out not to be the comforting answer you are looking for (i.e. he doesn't satisfactorily prove the case for low climate sensitivity), will you just hang on and wait for the next paper which might come along with the same argument ? Or the next ? -
JMurphy at 21:27 PM on 9 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
PopTech wrote : "I suspect Dr. Pielke Jr. received a hysterical email from an alarmist which clearly backfired. Regardless I clarified this in the comments of his blog post." Yes - clear as mud. Pielke said : Using your logic, you'll find that my papers are also skeptical of the tooth fairy and Santa Claus.;-) And when you then reckoned that, according to one of your own criteria, his papers supported Skepticism of '1."man-made" global warming', he replied : "I'd be interested in your definition of #1, which is neither a scientific term nor meaningful in any way." Your reply ? You gave none, and yet here you are again trying to defend the indefensible. Shameful and shameless. -
johnd at 21:04 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
tobyjoyce at 19:52 PM, even pro AGW scientists concede that the question as to whether the climate sensitivity is low or high remains unresolved. Obviously they prefer to support the theory of high sensitivity otherwise their whole AGW hypothesis crumbles. If you have evidence that validates their theory then you should reveal it to them as it is such evidence that they are lacking. With regards to observations and experience, it is not generally necessary to wait until the weather report on the evening news provides enough evidence to allow you to determine the credibility of the person who earlier in the day told you that he was experiencing a hotter or colder day than normal. Unless of course you never get out away from the TV, then that would be understandable. At some point in time, most people will find that the physical conditions they experience generally reflects the scientific understanding of such conditions, because in the final analysis, the scientific understanding can only be validated by what can be measured in the physical world, not the other way around as you seem to suggest. -
Dikran Marsupial at 20:56 PM on 9 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Poptech@202 says "Rob, the scientists I listed do not endorse the NAS statement. They are all outspoken against the type of language used in that statement and the conclusions. The only people who would take the NAS statement seriously are those who do not understand the debate." As I pointed out yesterday, one of the papers on your list is written by a signatory of the NAS statement, so I think it fair to conclude that he endorses it and takes it seriously. Gulf Stream safe if wind blows and Earth turns (Nature, Volume 428, Number 6983, April 2004) - Carl Wunsch BTW poptech, can you acknowledge whether you accept my explanation of why not all of the CRU data are publically available or not? -
tobyjoyce at 19:52 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
@johnd #152 There has been efforts to show an inbuilt cyclical mechanism in the earth's climate, such as the abortive effort of McClean et al to show a connection with ENSO cycles. McClean, de Freita et al There are other, even less impressive efforts to show 60-year cycles. I think these can be dismissed, unless you have new data you want to discuss. Using my own (modest enough) statistical knowledge, I have examined these cyclical models and found them to be fatally flawed, as many others have. Why should we wait around to see if something pans out, something which the evidence does not support right now? From what I read, Dr. Roy Spencer is about to bring forward a paper to support low climate sensitivity. This seems to me to be the last effort by those sceptics who still retain some credibility to win back the scientific high ground. Again, it is not good science to base your beliefs on what you have "observed and experienced". I doubt if my or yours or anybody's personal experiences carry a tither of credibility here, unless backed by evidence. Science works by "inference to the best explanation". Global warming is still the best explanation for multiple phenomena, and not even Roy Spencer is offering an alternative. -
johnd at 19:41 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Stephen Baines at 19:23 PM, I hope that what you were trying to say did not come out right, hence the double post, because your first post made it seem that an old boy's club is entirely possible, only avoided if the reviewer himself decides whether to participate or not. Hopefully not a case of the mike being left on? :-( -
johnd at 19:27 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Riccardo at 18:23 PM, we will have to wait to read the final paper when published. The peer review process was apparently quite rigorous, the paper being rejected for publication initially. Either Spencer's persistence wore down the reviewers or he convinced them of the validity of his methods and conclusions. -
Stephen Baines at 19:26 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
@SS #137 Peer-review is not perfect -- it's capricious, cumbersome, and often painfully adversarial. But this view of it as an old boys club doesn't match my experience. I have rejected papers of acquaintances I know and like and accepted those of others I didn't particularly care for and I don't review papers I feel I have any sort of conflict about. I think the vast majority of scientists do the same. -
Stephen Baines at 19:23 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
@SS #137 Peer-review is not perfect -- it's capricious, cumbersome, and often painfully adversarial. But I don't know where this view of it as an old boys club comes from. One is not allowed to have people you have recently collaborated with in any way review your papers for any decent journal, and especially in venues like Science and Nature you tend to get tough reviewers. The competition among scientist is fierce due to self interest, as the letter we're discussing states, but you have to accept when its a good peice of science. I have rejected papers of acquaintances I know and like and accepted those of others I didn't particularly care for and I don't review papers I feel I have any sort of conflict about. I think the vast majority of scientists do the same.
Prev 2384 2385 2386 2387 2388 2389 2390 2391 2392 2393 2394 2395 2396 2397 2398 2399 Next
