Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2388 2389 2390 2391 2392 2393 2394 2395 2396 2397 2398 2399 2400 2401 2402 2403 Next
Comments 119751 to 119800:
-
omnologos at 08:10 AM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
#55 Stephen Sullivan Please google "Reg Sprigg" and "Martin Glaessner" to understand how did the scientific community (and Nature magazine) finally came out of the consensus that animals had appeared before the Cambrian. It was because of "extensive peer review", rather because of Glaessner's fame and reputation and his chance interest in some fossils in the Charnwood Forest. The work of Elkanah Billings and Georg Gürich was evidently not enough, however self-evident it appears to us: the whole story of the Ediacaran fossils remind us that scientific consensus is at times overturned not by evidence, but by authority. -
embb at 07:06 AM on 9 May 2010Are we too stupid?
To sum up my problem with the article: 1. Any taxation on CO2 emissions must be globally respected to be viable. Otherwise it will be nothing more then a harakiri of the states that implement it. 2. The game theoretical models presented in the article do not apply because of the following: 2.1 The rewards of defection are immediate and measurable in hard cash while the rewards of cooperation are highly theoretical are nothing more then the "saving the planet in 100 years". Moreover the defector can still benefit from the defection AND the hypothetical saving of the planet. The game theoretical models are all in a context where reward and punishment are both immediate and tangible. Try the prisoners dilemma with the twist that cooperation does not get you out of prison but a priest will tell you that your soul will go to heaven. I am not really curious about the result - seems to be obvious. 2.2 If defection is so tempting there is one way of making this work, which is a global police force ( "indirect reciprocity" is a nice euphemism for it, but in reality we are talking about swift punishment of defection in a way that will hurt. In the end the vision is of a powerful coalition of states who are convinced that they are right and will force their vision on everyone else. You may call this any number of fancy technical names, it is a world police state. Are we too stupid to implement this? I sure hope so. -
embb at 06:55 AM on 9 May 2010Are we too stupid?
Jacob:How do you explain the international stop for leaded gasoline, CFCs, DDT, thalidomide, phthalates, asbestos etc.? You honestly see no difference between banning a chemical and deliberately making the countrie's industry uncompetitive?? Jacob:Can you prove there was no reciprocity involved? Does it not involve negotiated treaties between states? Sure, it works as long as there is no serious incentive to defect. Jacob:You did not understand that a small cluster can eliminate all defectors by growing bigger. OPEC? Non-proliferation? Strange that you did not react to those cases, right? Somehow the small groups missed the opportunity to eliminate defectors. Any ideas why? Jacob:Not according to the EPA. So, you think that decreasing the amount of CO2 in a neighborhood increases the quality of life in that neighborhood? That people will be willing to have a CO2 free neighborhood? Surely not. Jacob:Second, there are also both immediate and future health effects of climate change. I think you mix up weather with climate. As we get to here at every cold spell the weather is NOT the climate. Jacob:Do you think voters favor cash in return for a destroyed planet? Yes. If they didn't you would not be thinking about game theory. Jacob:How about diversifying the sources instead? What is it exactly about biofuels, windmills, solar power, geothermal heat etc. that you oppose so much? Nothing, I do not. We were talking about game theory and just for the record I do not oppose game theory either :) Jacob:So you argue for the preservation of the status quo because the proposed reforms may be imperfect? That is why I conclude that you have an interest in not mitigating climate change Jacob, do you support geo-engineering? If no, why not? Just because the solutions might be imperfect? Jacob:Trade war based on science is infinitely less harmful than real war based on dangerous nationalistic issues. There was no war that was not started with these arguments, in the last millenium. It will be short and sweet and by the time the leaves fall all will be settled, right? Jacob:If the trade war solves the problem due to the fact that reciprocity works to eliminate defectors, then how can you possibly oppose it? Because it is stupid and uncontrollable and can easily end up in a real war. War is war and it is bad. People actually die in trade wars too if you haven't noticed. So, in the end this is where all the game theory ends up? You might have spared yourself the effort. -
tobyjoyce at 05:55 AM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
johnd @82, Let me quote the great British statistician D.R.Cox, who is still writing and teaching in his 90s: The first question a statistician asks is "How was these data gathered?". Indeed, the Royal Statistical Society made a submission to the House of Commons enquiry on "Climategate" with some criticisms of the CRU methodology. It was all very fine, but did not make much difference - the correct methodologies gave the same results. Of course, the Daily Mail, a notorious denialist publication, trumpeted "Report criticises faulty methods of climate scientists!", leaving the key facts to the lower paragraphs. That is a good example of what the letter is warning about. From my own observation (as another statistician), the physicists have been teh key players in working out the physical models of how CO2 affects climate. The statisticians are useful adjuncts in getting the data analyses correct. -
Ron Crouch at 05:24 AM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
"It also may be a folly to assume the Dunning-Kruger effect only exists at one end of the spectrum, (or on one side of the debate) and not throughout, even at times amongst those who consider themselves the elite of their profession." From my own perspective as a layman I would make the assertion that it's not a case of "may be folly" but a case of "is folly". As far as the integrity of scientists is concerned, well there are scientists and then there are scientists. I mean James Hansen is a reputable scientist in his own right. So is Dick Lindzen. Both are quite accomplished but I view the integrity of both in a different light. I have no quarrels over the peer reviewed literature of either, but I question the ulterior motives of Mr. Lindzen based upon his professional associations. I apply the same scrutiny to all professionals. For me it's a "blind faith" issue. The persecution of Michael Mann and others is both absurd and dangerous. It simply reminds me of McCarthy style witch hunts or even the persecution of Leonardo. Dangerous because if allowed to continue it opens the door for the extreme right to openly attack any piece of science that is not conducive with their philosophy. I've heard the hockey stick thing bashed many times in the past, but I must come to it's defence. I'm sure many have made this observation in the past, but I'll make it again. It seems rather odd that the temperature record from 1880 till present matches fairly well the population growth pattern since 1800 (which to me is a reasonable time frame for discussing climate trends, the past decade or two is insufficient for drawing conclusions due to the inherent variability of the various Earth systems). I'm not trained in the sciences, but logic on it's own dictates that there is a strong correlation between rising temperatures and the growth of population since the Agriculural and Industrial Revolutions. Before this time frame it is unlikely that world population levels had that much of an effect on the environment. -
shdwsnlite at 04:54 AM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
# RSVP - "Anthropogenic means "caused" by humans. Technically, this is a misnomer, in that it implies that if you are a human, you are causing this problem. In reality, it is use of machinery that is supposedly causing global warming. Machines and fuels that are the result of applied science." So humans are not the cause but the machines they created are. I wonder if I could use that line of reasoning elsewhere? "But officer, you can't arrest me. Yes I was holding the gun that killed him. The gun though is the result of applied science so that is the cause of his death not me." -
Dikran Marsupial at 04:52 AM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
johnd @ 91 Much of that 155Gt will have been taken up by the environment, not all of it will stay in the atmosphere (only about 45%). Land use changes *were* the dominant form of until about 1960, when cumulative fossil fuel emissions overtook cumulative land use emissions. To put the land use emissions into context, so far fossil fuel emissions amount to some 320 GtC, judging from the plot on my desk, about 220 GtC of which was emitted since 1960. None of that is controversial, and the IPCC are perfectly aware of it, so I am not sure where your evidence is that it has not been getting the appropriate attention. If you look at a plot of cumulative fossil fuel emissions and cumulative land use emissions, fossil fuel emissions are increasing exponentially, while by comparison land use change emissions are rising almost linearly by comparison. That is more than enough reason to focus on fossil fuel emissions, as it means that in the future fossil fuel emissions will outstrip land use related emissions at an ever increasing rate (unless we do something about it) The data you need to investigate this for yourself (you only need a basic plotting tool, such as excel) are freely available from the carbon dioxide information analysis center As I said, some of us "mere statisticians" do have our uses ;o) -
batsvensson at 04:48 AM on 9 May 2010Earth's five mass extinction events
Chris @ 07:11 AM on 24 April, 2010, A general assumption in science is: if it isnt forbidden then it may be possible. As far as I know nothing stated in the idea is forbidden. However you say the idea is contradicted, fair enough. However contradicting is not the same as forbidding. Anyhow, if this was all about trying to convince you, or anyone else for that matter, about some certain likelihood to take this idea serious then indeed would "need to say why". Besides the point; is it really impossible for you (you have no ground to refer to "we" above) to imagine a scenario in which the idea is not contradicted? -
Dikran Marsupial at 04:35 AM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
johnd @ 82 I think you will find that quite a lot of posters here have put quite a lot of effort into understanding the science on both sides of the argument, and have not just "hitched their horses", but have formed a rational opinion for themselves. Your comment on "mere statisticians" is off-the mark (although it may be that being a "mere statistician" myself I am perhaps biased [sic]). A good statistician gets to grips with the data generating process (in this case the basics of climate physics); for a good statistician it is not about the number crunching. If you think "skeptics" are more concerned with basic physics than number crunching, try Craig Loehle's recent paper in Atmospheric Environment, where he asserts an exponential model for the growth of CO2 is no better than a saturating or polynomial model, purely on the basis that they give similarly good fits to the calibration data (the Keeling curve). Sadly this neglects the fact that there are data that exist pre-dating the Keeling curve and only the exponential model of the three gives a satisfactory fit there. Also there are good physical reasons to expect an exponential rise (for instance the fact that the airborne fraction is constant is what you would expect for a dynamical system with exponentially increasing emissions). Lastly, the IPCC projections of the rise in CO2 are based on physical models, not statistical models, so it is arguably the mainstream that is concentrating on the basics there. It is always rather easier to see the flaws in the "opposing side" of the argument, and very few of us are not susceptible to that. So I would suggest that your impression of the posters here is not necessarily a very clear one. I wouldn't claim mine is 20-20 either, which is why it is best not to try and second-guess the motivations or backgrounds of others. Much better to stick to the scientific arguments instead. -
Mal Adapted at 04:32 AM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Johnd,Darwin was wise enough to qualify his observation with "more frequently" than "always" which is how it is sometimes perceived.
Fair enough. People who can acknowledge their ignorance can easily become less ignorant. It's those who think they're experts because they read something on WUWT, that are dragging the rest of us down. -
JMurphy at 04:18 AM on 9 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
With regards to that list of 'skeptical' papers, I remember Pielke Jnr having some concerns about some of his (and his father's) work being included, but the person who put the list together stated that the papers would stay because he reckoned they WERE sceptical, no matter what Pielke asserted ! See the discussion here, which is noteworthy also because it shows great confusion and upset among Pielke's readers. -
johnd at 04:05 AM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Mal Adapted at 03:11 AM, WHRC calculated that between 1850 and 2000, 155 billion tonnes of carbon was released to the atmosphere from changes to land use. Given there is presently about 750 billion tonnes of carbon in the atmosphere, irrespective of what view anyone might take on the residency time, 155 billion tonnes is a significant amount, and I'm not sure that it is being given the necessary attention with all the focus there is on the combustion of fossil fuels. -
johnd at 03:54 AM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Mal Adapted at 03:03 AM, Darwin was wise enough to qualify his observation with "more frequently" than "always" which is how it is sometimes perceived. -
Stephen Baines at 03:32 AM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
In the previous post I meant humans etc interact through the carbon cycle. About this letter. I know a number of the signatories, I'm proud to say. One has his office next to mine; one was my thesis advisor, probably the scientist with the most integrity that I ever have known. The letter makes a strong point by ranking climate science with evolution and the big bang - believe me, that means something coming from the evolutionary biologists on this list. It's a call to arms really. This letter is definitely motivated by the sense that the way the climate debate is playing out in the media, the internet and now in the political/legal spheres was becoming a threat to the very way science is conducted. Science needs to have free and open (and that means often messy) debate. However, there is a clear sense that a chill is descending because anything you say could be misinterpreted, taken out of context, twisted in the blogosphere -- or it may be subject to political or legal action for simply not adhering to a position. I feel it even in the classroom. What I wonder is how we as scientists can communicate better when it seems the mechanisms we have typically used to popularize real science have been coopted by a much more efficient denial campaign, or crippled by the breakdown of traditional media with trained science journalists. Do we need a new sort of structure for communicating science? What would that look like? BTW This site is absolutely fantastic, John. Very level headed and clear. I point students to it all the time. You're a source of hope to me and others! Maybe it makes my worries moot. -
Stephen Baines at 03:13 AM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Monckhausen @ 62 Funny site that. But Dave Schindler is on the list and he is definitely Canadian -- proudly so. He is also in Calgary, so you need to be careful on two points. I wouldn't get the guy angry! ChrisCanaris @77. The evidence for climate change is derived from both climate science and the responses of biological/ecological/hydrological systems to that change. Social Scientists and some economists are involved in models of land-use, energy use projections and archeological evidence for climate change. One of the most convincing aspects of AGW has been the consistency of results across many distinct fields of inquiry. Indeed understanding prospects for future climate change (and causes of past change) is impossible without interdisciplinary interaction as humans, the hydrological sphere, the climate and ecological systems interact through the climate. The key difference between this letter and the OISM petition is that these 255 people are at the very top of the academic ladder. They may not represent the NAS directly, but they definitely represent the best science has to offer and they are in tune with the consensus. You simply can't say those about the OISM signatories. -
Mal Adapted at 03:11 AM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
RSVP:In reality, it is use of machinery that is supposedly causing global warming. Machines and fuels that are the result of applied science.
Bill Ruddiman thinks humans began affecting climate when they started using fire to modify landscapes, and accelerated the process by converting large areas of primary vegetation for farming. Of course, the combustion of vast amounts of fossil reduced carbon in the last couple of centuries has produced a hockey stick effect. -
Mal Adapted at 03:03 AM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Johnd,how many contributors here actually meet your criteria of being an expert or having undergone an extended apprenticeship.
The scientific consensus on AGW has been reached by the professionals who do meet the criteria. Before I found an easier way to make a living, I followed the process far enough to see for myself how scientific consensus is established. The other contributors here can speak for themselves. As for whether D-K only exists "at one end of the spectrum", the salient feature of the D-K effect is that it's asymmetrical. Darwin formulated it long before it was named: "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." -
Phila at 03:01 AM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
#66 chriscanaris "I really don't want to sound like curmudgeonly contrarian but doctorates, professorships, and memberships of prestigious bodies are no guarantees of virtue." Of course this is true, but it's also true that we normally accept the consensus view of experts on any number of questions, from medicine to astrophysics, without worrying ourselves about their "virtue." What's interesting is not that one can cast casual aspersions on any group of experts, but that some people seem to have a psychological or political need to do so in regards to AGW, even though they'd accept the experts' view on other issues about which they know just as little. It seems to me that one should either doubt all consensus, across the board, or give climatologists the same presumption of honesty and competence that one normally extends to other scientists. -
Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
johnd @ 82, The point is skepticstudent claimed his personal experience granted him some sort of special knowledge on the topic. Yes, the majority of posters here do not have relevant expertise, that is why the site puts a lot of emphasis on references to peer-reviewed research performed by experts in the field. If skeptics on this site are arguing in good faith, they should be able to provide the same. Skepticstudent has so far offered nothing but bald assertions. The majority of scientists researching AGW relevant topics are climate scientists, not statisticians. Statistics is key to any scientific discipline that evaluates data. Understanding what the data tells us is key to understanding the basic principles of how the world works. Empirical data trumps purely logical arguments every time, this is central to the scientific method. Famous example: Einstein never really embraced quantum mechanics. He even came up with some compelling thought experiments that seemed to undermine the basic principles of quantum theory. In the end, the empirical data (which was statistical in nature) proved Einstein wrong, and the basic conclusions of quantum mechanics are now considered scientific fact. -
RSVP at 02:53 AM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
81 shdwsnlite "Technology emerges and develops independent of people?" Anthropogenic means "caused" by humans. Technically, this is a misnomer, in that it implies that if you are a human, you are causing this problem. In reality, it is use of machinery that is supposedly causing global warming. Machines and fuels that are the result of applied science. -
johnd at 02:12 AM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Mal Adapted at 23:29 PM, how many contributors here actually meet your criteria of being an expert or having undergone an extended apprenticeship. Any? My impression is that most have merely hitched their horse to one cart or the other and have placed their faith, perhaps blindly at times, in those on board the cart who have or claim to have relevant expertise. As you also mention, a thorough knowledge of statistics is necessary making it seem that understanding climate change is more about number crunching than understanding the basic principles involved something which I think is also reflected here. That is the impression I get from the scientific debate itself. Many scientists, (how many are merely statisticians?) presenting and supporting the AGW hypothesis seem to have expertise on interpreting data and statistics, whilst those sceptical of it question and examine, not necessarily the data and statistics, but some of the basic principles that remain unresolved and not adequately understood or quantified as yet. It also may be a folly to assume the Dunning-Kruger effect only exists at one end of the spectrum, (or on one side of the debate) and not throughout, even at times amongst those who consider themselves the elite of their profession. -
shdwsnlite at 02:12 AM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
From #59 RSVP 16:28 8th May. "Ironically, the public is being asked to place its trust in scientists for a 'problem' labeled 'anthropogenic', (as if to blame people as opposed to technology)." Technology emerges and develops independent of people? -
Rob Honeycutt at 01:38 AM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
@Ned (#72)... Don't underestimate the power of a good humorous metaphor. Science has a way of coming off like dry wheat toast. Anything you can do to sweeten science up goes a long way toward melting the heart of the broader non-scientific audience. Deniers aside, we already know that the vast majority of working scientists believe that AGW is a real concern. The task before scientists today is effectively communicating those concerns, which is what this thread is about. A strong, effective use of language is essential to communicating that message. -
tobyjoyce at 01:37 AM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Marcus #74, The efforts by the Attorneys-General of Virginia & Texas to pursue scientists like Michael Mann over state grant money they received is especially disturbing. it opens up vistas of scientists being asked to return funds when a promising line of enquiry turns out to be a dead end. Or for following political heretical investigations into stem cells, or even evolution. Steven McIntrye at Climate Audit has come out in opposition to this, and due credit to him for that. But it has been pointed out that he was one of the people who created the poisonous atmosphere which makes ambitious politicians seek to be media stars. Another disturbing trend is to equate media discussion with science. If Climate Audit or WUWT publish (for example) a reasonably good post, it gets all sorts of "yeahs" and "Right Ons" as if it is another convincing refutation. The readers do not seem to realise that such assertions have to be peer-reviewed or presented at conferences or seminars before they can be accepted as "proof" or tested science. Now, there have been really great posts as sites like this one, and Taminos (which I admire because I am a statistician) but I think this is science-popularization or science-for-the-layman, which is a respected part of science. The most successful science book of all time was a work of popularization "The Origin of Species" which was really a general discussion of Evolution that put the idea "out there" for the first time. The hard-core science came afterwards. On the denialists, you get someone like Joe Bastardi appearing on TV repeating stuff he read from WUWT, and treating it as if it was "real science" and not a set of speculations or untested assertions. This kind of stuff gets repeated on TV and print media all the time. "IPCC Wrong Again!", and the corrections somehow never get published. As has been said before, denialism is treated with a lower standard. Guess what I am saying is that there is a dangerous blurring of boundaries in which science may tend to be governed by what is "hot or not" in the media, and cease being an ideal of free inquiry. To an extent, this has always been the case, but with the billions at stake in energy research, climate science seems to be the latest and worst case of media intimidation of scientists. Polticians run scared of media exposure, and are always loath to be identified with media targets. -
Mal Adapted at 01:31 AM on 9 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Poptech, [I made a similar post on the succeeding thread, but since I didn't see Poptech commenting there, I'm reposting here for his benefit - Mal] It's evident you're not well acquainted with how science is actually done. Please read about the Dunning-Kruger effect. Then start educating yourself. Anyone can become an expert, if they're willing to make the effort. First, though, you need to realize that it's not enough just to be smart, you have to actually know something about the subject. If you're going to challenge the AGW consensus, you'll get respect only if you've put the time in, and not skipped any part of the process. You can be sure all the signatories to the May 7th letter have done so. Their authority rests on it. That means starting with introductory material and working your way up. It's how you acquire the theoretical framework needed to interpret the massive amount of empirical data, from multiple independent sources, that the AGW consensus draws on. To even know of the existence of the data requires reading all the historic and current peer-reviewed literature. Interpreting the data requires a thorough knowledge of statistics (as anyone who reads Tamino's blog can see), and you'll want to conduct your own experiments, and develop and test your own models. Very few people can do all that on their own. For most of us, the only practical route is an extended apprenticeship: obtaining undergraduate and graduate degrees, and doing original research under an established advisor. Throughout, you'll have to interact regularly with the community of professional peers that have been working on this for decades: discussing it informally, in person, by phone and by email (perhaps more cautiously than Phil Jones did); and formally, by presenting your ideas at the same conferences and publishing articles in the same journals they do, which unavoidably entails exposing yourself to their occasionally vituperative criticism -- hoo boy! Are you up to it, Poptech? If not, you've been treated more decently here than you deserve, and you should not expect that to continue. -
kdkd at 01:25 AM on 9 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Poptech #188 On the contrary, I am telling you that a list of 700 references without context is an unsubstantiated claim. Without providing the reader with context, basically what you have there is wasted effort. Until you substantiate your claim in some way (e.g. by annotating your bibliography) then given your claim is the reverse of the scientific consensus, I think it is most likely that you're using a combination of poor quality "evidence" and misrepresenting good quality evidence, although you could demonstrate that I am wrong with a sufficiently good quality set of annotations, if the evidence does indeed support your case. Dikran #193 seems rather more familiar with the literature than I am, and his post further detracts from your arguments credibility. Of course there's a slim chance that you can redeem yourself by annotating your bibliography, but I doubt that you will bother to do this. -
J Bowers at 01:22 AM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
chriscanaris says: "However, including non-climate scientists in your line up is self-defeating and unfortunately risks parallels with the OISM petition. This is especially so if you specifically claim you only approached a small percentage of the membership ostensibly because of their climate links." That's something of a straw man, don't you think? Even when it's clear that the letter is inclined towards climate science, yet refers to all of science as per the very first sentence of the letter, I think we can conclude that the choice of members to approach was a highly logical one. I'll take a gentleman's bet with you: Two months from now half of the NAS membership will have signed a similar letter. -
chris1204 at 01:16 AM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Ned @ 69 'The organizers only circulated the letter within those sections of the NAS most closely related to climate science: ...Because of a desire to produce a statement quickly, the coordinators of the letter focused on those sections of the NAS most familiar with climate science and the ongoing debate.' Fair point - I should read things more carefully. Hypothesis (a) - that no one approached the 90% gets some traction. Many signatories, however, come from settings such as the Harvard Medical School and other medical institutes. Some are chemists and biochemists. Others are biologists and social scientists. Prima facie, their closeness to climate science seems questionable. So why were they asked to sign? This generates hypothesis (f): the organisers quickly worked up a list of people within the NAS they knew would be sympathetic and asked them to sign. Such a group would be very easy to compile - many would know one another through membership of political parties, lobby groups, or even family ties. I have no quarrel with them doing this - it's the way of the world. However, including non-climate scientists in your line up is self-defeating and unfortunately risks parallels with the OISM petition. This is especially so if you specifically claim you only approached a small percentage of the membership ostensibly because of their climate links. -
Dikran Marsupial at 00:37 AM on 9 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
The list of 700 papers really shows the paucity of support for the skeptic position if you actually investigate the items on the list, rather than take them at face value. (i) Quite a few are papers that have been refuted in the peer reviewed literature, and some are replies to those refutations (so there is a bit of double-counting going on). That means that the list contains papers that are at best "questionable". Hardly the best of foundations. (ii) Quite a few are papers that make observations that while true do not contradict AGW, such as the idea that CO2 has not been the dominant driver of climate over geological timescales, or that increased CO2 will lead to increased growth of land plants (which forgets the point that there will also be changes in temperature and hydrology) (iii) Some papers have only been submitted for peer review, and some on the list were rejected. The most amusing thing though is that the list contains a few papers by scientists that clearly are not in the skeptic camp, including one of the signatories of the recent letter to science mentioned in the other thread (Carl Wunsch)! ;o) Other notable mentions include Stefan Rahmstorf (RealClimate contributor), Charles Keeling (I would hope we all know who he was), Mike Lockwood (has written many papers demonstrating the lack of evidence for solar forcing as the cause of recent warming, including the galactic cosmic ray theory). I expect there are more, but I have only skimmed through the list. I hope poptech will return to posting here, I am sure all he needs to do is to keep to the posting guidelines and his posts won't be deleted. A post saying whether he was happy with my explanation of why the CRU raw data is unavailable would be nice. It is difficult to find the enthusiasm for answering questions if the questions are ignored. -
The Skeptical Chymist at 00:35 AM on 9 May 2010University of Queensland talk wrap-up
BC, I checked the handout, which says there has been around 1C of temperature rise across OZ since 1950, I double checked this on the BOM website. This does suggest Australia is warming faster than the world average, although I imagine part of this is because the world average includes ocean temperatures which are warming more slowly than land temperatures. If you are interested in climate changes in Australia then I recommend the BOM & CSIRO "State of the climate" report that was released recently. It's only 6 pages, but it's highly informative. -
Mal Adapted at 23:29 PM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
SkepticStudent:I think I have a pretty good grasp on temperatures and snow fall since I've lived in the Pacific Northwest for over 30 years and I have lived in Alaska.
Sorry, SS, you're doing it wrong. Your personal experience doesn't make you an expert. I'm afraid you've to a long way to go before you'll be taken seriously here. Please read about the Dunning-Kruger effect. Then start educating yourself. Anyone can become an expert, if they're willing to make the effort. First, though, you need to realize that it's not enough just to be smart, you have to actually know something about the subject. If you're going to challenge the AGW consensus, you'll get respect only if you've put the time in, and not skipped any part of the process. That means starting with introductory material and working your way up. That's the only way you'll acquire the theoretical framework needed to interpret the massive amount of empirical data, from multiple independent sources, that the AGW consensus draws on. To even know of the existence of the data requires reading all the historic and current peer-reviewed literature. Interpreting the data requires a thorough knowledge of statistics, and you'll want to conduct your own experiments, and develop and test your own models. Very few people can do all that on their own. For most of us, the only practical route is an extended apprenticeship: obtaining undergraduate and graduate degrees, and doing original research under an established advisor. Throughout, you'll have to interact regularly with the community of professional peers that have been working on this for decades: discussing it informally, in person, by phone and by email (perhaps more cautiously than Phil Jones did); and formally, by presenting your ideas at the same conferences and publishing articles in the same journals they do, which unavoidably entails exposing yourself to their unsparing criticism 8^(! Are you up to it, SS? If not, then don't be surprised if you're met with ridicule and dismissal here. -
MarkR at 23:28 PM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Marcus: you mentioned a skeptical organisation that didn't believe its own stuff. Where is your evidence for this? (I've always wanted to know whether the skeptics spouting the clear rubbish memes genuinely believed it or not!) -
Marcus at 23:00 PM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
@ tobyjoyce. Yes, this letter does highlight a recent, disturbing trend in the so-called "debate" on global warming. Having all but *failed* to prove-even remotely-that either global warming isn't occurring and/or that human beings aren't the cause, they've now turned to digging up dirt against climate scientists & trying to very publicly accuse them of a range of wrong-doings. Given that at least one skeptic organization was caught out privately admitting that they didn't believe their own skepticism, then I think such ad hominem attacks are a case of "those in glass houses...." I mean, if we were to do thorough background checks of even half the so-called skeptics out there, I wonder just how much dirty laundry we'd discover. Just as well that climate scientists choose to fight this issue on SCIENCE rather than PERSONALITIES! -
tobyjoyce at 22:49 PM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
It seems to me that many who take a "sceptical" view of this letter are missing the point. The letter is concerned with "Climate Change and the Integrity of Science". As has been pointed out to scepticalstudent and others, issues of climate change are well addressed elsewhere on this site. We should address the Integrity of Science here. The key sentences are: Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence. We also call for an end to McCarthy-like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them. I view this letter as a defence of the way scientists "do" science, rather than solely a defence of climate change. Anyone who takes issue with it should be willing to demonstrate how the integrity of science is upheld by "sceptics"/ deniers, who hold themselves to lower standards. -
chris at 22:47 PM on 8 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Poptech at 21:47 PM on 8 May, 2010 re your:"I have no idea about what the debate here is anymore because a bulk of my comments were removed again."
Poptech, remember that a "debate" encompasses (hopefully!) a discussion in which the input of other's comments are considered and responded to with a degree of thoughtfullness. I think you need to decide what your posts are meant to convey. One of the things I've learned is that if participating in a blog discussion, it's a good idea to allow some time between formulating a response and actualy posting it, especially if there are strong feelings involved. Try writing your response, and then do something else (your normal life!) for a while. Then reread your post and decide whether it (a) really addresses the post you're responding to, and (b) whether it really is what you mean. Often, upon consideration, your impresion about your post will be a little different, and you're likely to post a much better message. -
Ned at 22:46 PM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Maybe it's just me, but I for one would be perfectly happy if we left the "kung fu" thing in the other thread. At least I sure hope this isn't some new SkS tradition that we're all going to have to adhere to! -
J Bowers at 22:25 PM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
The most prominent developing meme so far in the debates I've been involved with concerning this letter: Only 10.5% (or 12.75% excluding non-US NAS members) signed, so that means almost 90% of NAS members disagree with it. My response: This is explained by the lead signatory. Also, the Oregon Petition and the APS Petition didn't even reach whole number percentages, not even one half of one percent, but this letter got to double digits. This letter's kung fu is stronger than the denialists' kung fu. -
Ned at 22:21 PM on 8 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Poptech writes: I have no idea about what the debate here is anymore because a bulk of my comments were removed again. Don't take it personally, it happens to all of us. In general, when one of my comments gets deleted it's because I posted in haste and failed to adhere to the standards of this site (no ad-hominem arguments, don't imply that others are dishonest, don't bring up politics, etc.). People's comments also get deleted if they include just a link or an image with no commentary, if they're just a copy-and-paste of another comment elsewhere, or if they're just a reply to someone else's deleted comment. I see plenty of your comments still on here. I think one of your comments was deleted because it was just a copy & paste of all the names on your "list" -- note that your subsequent comment linking to that list but not pasting the whole thing in was perfectly acceptable. Likewise, I saw that two posts were deleted earlier -- one in which you pasted in the entire (copyrighted) text of M&M's letter to PNAS, and one in which another commenter responded by pasting in the entire (copyrighted) text of Mann's reply. Both of those should have been offered as links or excerpts, with discussion and one's own thoughts. This website differs from most of the rest of the blogosphere in that the host tries hard to (a) keep it civil, and (b) keep it focused on serious discussion of science, not debating tactics. Comments that stray from this may be deleted (as many of my own have ... and I can admit that when that's happened it's been a good reminder to behave nicely). -
Craig Allen at 22:09 PM on 8 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
I don't understand why the denialists are still fixated with refuting the Mann et. al. 1999 paper when there is a significantly updated follow-up paper that uses a greatly expanded dataset, addresses the critiques of statistical methodology, and which demonstrates that the result is not significantly different if the tree ring proxies are removed from the dataset. From the RealClimate post on it we see that: "The number of well-dated proxies used in the latest paper is significantly greater than what was available a decade ago: 1209 back to 1800; 460 back to 1600; 59 back to 1000 AD; 36 back to 500 AD and 19 back to 1 BC (all data and code is available here). This is compared with 400 or so in MBH99, of which only 14 went back to 1000 AD." And yet Loehle thinks he can refute that with just 18 proxies in his dataset (chosen how?). It also seems odd that denialists constantly go on about the Mann reconstruction showing unvarying climate for a thousand years until the up-kick at the end, when the actual plots of the data show no such thing: Figure from Mann et. al. 2008 - plot of the new reconstructions over a) 1800 and b) 1000 years along with selected older ones for comparison.
-
Ned at 22:03 PM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
skepticstudent writes above: As I mentioned yesterday in a post that needs to be re-written [...] 2008 had the 3rd coldest winter since thermometers were created in 1775. Your repeated posting of vague and unsourced claims makes it very hard to have any kind of useful discussion. In that earlier comment, you said "in 2008 the temperatures were the third coldest since thermometers were invented in 1775" -- nothing about "winter". I replied here, pointing out that 2008 was nowhere near "3rd coldest year since 1775" -- in fact, it was the 10th warmest year since 1880. Every year since 2001 has been in the top 10! Now you are saying that "winter 2008" was the third coldest since 1775. That's a little bit less wrong, but not much (actually, it's the 106th coldest winter since 1880). Please try to be very precise in your claims (if you're talking about temperature trends in certain months vs the whole year, or in certain places vs the whole globe, make that clear) and please try to provide a link or a source. Thanks. -
chris at 21:50 PM on 8 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
HumanityRules at 10:19 AM on 8 May, 2010 your comment:You could argue a little of the reverse appears in the AGW arguement. Using CG words from any earlier post. Because CO2 is the biggest (or only) knob controlling contemporary climate change then we have to have theories that exclude all others. There is a little of this in Trenberths ideas on the 'missing energy'. The argo bouys have to be wrong or the energy has to be in the deep ocean because AGW says it has to be somewhere.
That's not really true HR - I wonder whether you wrote it in an unguarded moment! There is no serious science on global warming that doesn't consider all known "knob"s "controlling contemporary climate change". Attribution of the relevant factors ("knob"s) include as much as we know about solar, volcanic, aerosol, black carbon, natural variability, and other feedbacks and contributions. So we are clearly not pursuing "theories that exclude all others" (i.e. you "knob"s). That's a strawman argument. Your last sentence is a strawman argument too. If there is a question about the location of "missing heat" it is not "because AGW says it has to be somewhere.". If there is a question about the "missing heat" it's because there is a radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere that has driven earth land, sea and atmospheric temperatures upwards and stratospheric temperatures downwards especially during the last 40 years, and the evidence indicates that this hasn't "stopped". Once again it's a poor argument that relies on selective omission of information that bears on the subject. Trenberth (and me for that matter) isn't overly concerned about the very short period of anomalous heat accounting in the earth system with respect to our understanding of contemporary global warming. He wants to have an improvement in the monitoring system that allows us to account for short term variability. Our understanding of AGW doesn't depend on a single bit of data from a tiny period of time, and we all recognise that short term variability is almost by definition anomalous in the light of long term trends. Your comment does raise an interesting point that's relevant to this thread 'though. Loehle published in a magazine a bit of "show and tell" concerning 4.5 years of ARGO ocean heat data. He took the tiny bit of ARGO data, smoothed it and fitted a regression line to it. And that's it - no science in sight![*]. Unfortunately, Loehle's note was already superfluous and irrelevant as it hit the pages. Scientists know that there have been and perhaps still are some problems with the ARGO and XBT data [***] and the idea that one can draw any meaningful conclusion about what's really happening to upper ocean heat content (not "The Global Ocean" as Loehle put it) and its significance from this short period is dumb. But of course that's not the point of these publications. Loehle's unnecesary and poorly scientific analyses are spread all over the web and used to fuel the sorts of anti-science attacks that Loehle was apparently so concerned about 20-odd years ago that he wrote a letter to Nature on the subject. ---------------------------------------------- [*] Wouldn't it be great if we all did that with various bits of data downloaded off the web or sent to us by scientists. We could publish a dozen "papers" each a year - every one of us. Of course we don't do that (lots of people do so on the web!) partly because there are scientific standards that should be met for publishing in scientific journals. Since science journals have significant elements of quality control, but there seems to be an imperative in some quarters to have a drip feed of the stuff that Dr. Loehle has taken to producing in recent years, there are some limited magazine outlets for this stuff. Energy&Environment is sadly one of these.] [***] see for example: DiNezio P. N. and Goni G. J. (2010) Identifying and Estimating Biases between XBT and Argo Observations Using Satellite Altimetry J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 27, 226-240 Reverdin G,. et al. (2009) XBT Temperature Errors during French Research Cruises (1999-2007) J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 26, 2462-2473 Willis J. K. (2009) In Situ Data Biases and Recent Ocean Heat Content Variability J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 26, 846-852 Ishii M and Kimoto M (2009) Reevaluation of historical ocean heat content variations with time-varying XBT and MBT depth bias corrections. J. Oceanograph. 65, 287-299. Levitus, S. et al. (2009) Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems. Geophys. Res. Lett.36, L07608. Leuliette, E.W., and L. Miller. 2009. Closing the sea level rise budget with altimetry, Argo, and GRACE. Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L04608. Domingues, C.M. et al. (2008) 2008. Improved ocean-warming estimates: Implications for climate models and sea-level rise.Nature 453, 1,090–1,093. etc. etc. Some of this has been discussed on this site here, here, and here -
Ned at 21:46 PM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Chris Canaris writes: Significantly, 90% of the membership of the NAS did not sign. Five hypotheses suggest themselves. a) Nobody approached them, b) They don't believe in AGW, c) They don't trust the climate scientists (not the same as not believing in AGW), d) They don't feel they have the requisite expertise, e) Any combination of the above. Chris, this is addressed in the original post at the top of this thread. The organizers only circulated the letter within those sections of the NAS most closely related to climate science: "Moreover, only a small fraction of National Academy members were asked to sign (the signatories are all members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences but were not speaking on its behalf). Because of a desire to produce a statement quickly, the coordinators of the letter focused on those sections of the NAS most familiar with climate science and the ongoing debate." -
Ned at 21:40 PM on 8 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Poptech writes: Riccardo, I have much longer lists of skeptical scientists than the NAS letter, one I self compiled and others by third parties. Having looked at your list of "skeptical scientists" I can confirm that it is in fact useless. There are people on there who are indeed good scientists, but who are not remotely in doubt about the existence of anthropogenic global warming. (For example, Dennis Lettenmaier: "It's happening ... Where it's going to lead is uncertain. But I think it's untenable to pretend we can keep pumping this stuff into the atmosphere at current rates and it's not going to make any difference.") There are also people on there who are indeed opposed to the idea of GW, but who aren't actually scientists (e.g., Richard S. Courtney, E.-G. Beck). The list is padded with sections of "meteorologists" (some of whom, like Anthony Watts, are just TV personalities), economists, and so on. It's also got quite a few names of people who are deceased. Given that the NAS letter in Science was just published this week, I'm not sure how confident we're supposed to be that somebody who's been dead for five or ten years opposes the letter in Science. Can I assume that Einstein, Maxwell, Newton, Galileo, and Eratosthenes would all support the NAS letter? (Joking aside, over the past decade several of the largest skeptical arguments have collapsed -- see, for example, the repeated corrections of errors in the UAH record that changed it from cooling to warming -- so I don't think one should assume that someone who was dubious in the past would still doubt the existence of AGW today.) Finally, I'd just add that the list contains a very, very large number of names of people that (how can I put this politely?) are not even remotely credible on this subject. I mentioned Watts and E.-G. Beck and Courtney above, but that's just the beginning. Who on the scientific side is going to be convinced by your inclusion of Piers Corbyn, Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Steve Milloy, Tim Ball, Zbigniew Jaworowski, Ralf D. Tscheuschner, Bob Carter, Luboš Motl, Joseph D’Aleo, Gerhard Gerlich, Louis Hissink ... You've got the entire Robinson family on there (Arthur, Noah, and Zachary -- aka the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine). I could go on and on ... the point is, every name in this paragraph adds negative credibility to your list. In summary, I don't think comparing your list to the letter published in Science this week strengthens your case. Quite the opposite, in fact. -
J Bowers at 21:39 PM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Here's another Wood For Trees set to play around with (CO2 at top). Wood For Trees ten year temperature trends offset every five years since 1880 And temperature with solar, sea ice and CO2 -
BC at 20:59 PM on 8 May 2010University of Queensland talk wrap-up
One point that I have trouble with and that came to mind again during the talk is that with higher temperature we have more water in the atmosphere. This brings to mind a hotter, wetter jungle type and fertile enviromnment yet your talk mentioned more droughts and dryer conditions. The handout at the talk mentioned that Australia has had 1C temperture rise in the last four? decades. I hadn't realised that we were warming faster that the world average. -
BC at 20:46 PM on 8 May 2010University of Queensland talk wrap-up
It was a very good talk so be encouraged to do some more. The people from the St Johns Wood sustainability group near me were also impressed. I had two queries about the slides and they were covered by Nichol at 13 above - slide 10 not showing any H2O yet its one of the strongest greenhouse gasses and slide 11 being blank for the US and Canada. This one I noticed during the talk.Response: Slide 11, the map of downward infrared radiation, comes from Wang 2009. It shows the trend in downward infrared radiation over 1973 to 2008 and only includes stations that have at least 25 years worth of data. There's no U.S. or Canadian data because they switched their cloud observation method from human visual measurement to instrumental in the 1990s. -
MarkR at 19:46 PM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
"Marcus you want to recheck your facts. Even the NASA GISS facts don't dispute that the temperatures have been declining on a global basis since the year 2000. Agree with me or not the facts are there. so we'll just let this one go and agree to disagree." I'm going to disagree with you on this one. The least squares linear regression fit to UAH satellite data from Jan '00 to April '10 is +0.013C/yr. In HadCRUT3 it is +0.006C/yr. In RSS satellite it is +0.002C. In GISTemp it is also positive. Thanks to Ian Forrester, you can play around on the site he gave you or just google the data to play for yourself. Ofc, we already know that short term measurements (1-2 decades or less, say) are probably not telling you much about climate, and Tamino has a more rigorous post. -
chris1204 at 19:37 PM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Marcel Bökstedt @ 63 'The present letter explicitely states that is not under the umbrella of the National Academy' Fair point - I missed the footnote. But then again, it was but a footnote. The Devil is in the detail - the footnote is easily overlooked. Realistically, my trust in Climate Science as presently conducted is of marginal relevance to the issue under discussion. Consequently, I would not have signed the letter even if I moved in equally august circles. Significantly, 90% of the membership of the NAS did not sign. Five hypotheses suggest themselves. a) Nobody approached them, b) They don't believe in AGW, c) They don't trust the climate scientists (not the same as not believing in AGW), d) They don't feel they have the requisite expertise, e) Any combination of the above. As regards trust in scientific integrity, I can only speak of my own field - psychiatry - where I have encountered some seriously shonky practice (and thankfully many fine clinicians and scientists). I suspect most honest scientists would say much the same about their respective fields. I really don't want to sound like curmudgeonly contrarian but doctorates, professorships, and memberships of prestigious bodies are no guarantees of virtue. -
MarkR at 19:32 PM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Skepticstudent, RE #1: How do snowy winters indicate declining temperature? Increased precipitation in Greenland (for example) goes hand in hand with greater moisture, which is probably caused by warming further away. If your average temperature is below 0C, then warming may well increase snowfall. After all, Antarctica is the coldest place on the planet and also the world's largest desert. The ACC causes part of this but climate models expect warming to lead to increased snowfall there so there is a link. Your argument also disagrees with measurements of decreasing NH snow cover averaged over the year. And it disagrees with surface thermometers, radiosondes and MSUs that all show warming. -
Marcel Bökstedt at 18:50 PM on 8 May 2010What causes Arctic amplification?
If you naively look at the charts for arctic sea ice extent, it seems that 2007 started a new seasonal pattern. Each of the years 2007-2009 (and possibly 2010) have a pattern of unusually fast summer melting, or more precicely, a fast diminishing of ice extent. One could speculate that this has something to do with the general thinning of the ice. On the other hand, the summer surface temperatures do not seem to have gone up much. Does the particular study that we are discussing in this thread have anything to say about such a shift in the seasonal pattern?
Prev 2388 2389 2390 2391 2392 2393 2394 2395 2396 2397 2398 2399 2400 2401 2402 2403 Next
