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:
-
skepticstudent at 05:47 AM on 10 May 2010Estimating climate sensitivity from 3 million years ago
GFW I'm really trying to wrap my mind how you can say that water vapor and methane are "merely feedbacks" and CO2 is a "driver". It is well known I think on both sides, although I could be wrong, that CO2 is the 5th most powerful of the greenhouse gases in the greenhouse affect. so how could co2 be a "driver" and the others which are far more powerful be mere feedback. When the water rumbles and moves with the tide, it is the water vapor that comes out of the heating of the ocean that causes the hiccup of released co2. It's not co2 overpowering the water molecules to rise out of the ocean and force them to release the co2 into the atmospere. That is roughly similar to saying that the foot on the gas pedal is the driver and the person controlling the foot is merely along for the drive. -
skepticstudent at 05:37 AM on 10 May 2010Estimating climate sensitivity from 3 million years ago
In regards to Johns comments, when Paleo-ecologists don't even like to deal with numbers less than a million years without a shiver, how can someone write a paper about sensitivity over such a short time spand. That is similar to the hockey stick only going back to 1864. -
skepticstudent at 05:23 AM on 10 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Toby, i think my ability to come in here and face the other side is proof that I am not faint of heart. Naomi Oreskes of the famed paper that says supposedly there are no scientific peer reviewed journals disputing ACGW. I would like to ask you how you can still quote the Mann paper as a viable piece of science when Mann gave M&M his information of his own volition from his ftp server. He forgot to remove the "classified" section which he talked about in the infamous hacked e-mails. With the FORTRAN program removed and the Graybill/Idso data removed which they said should NEVER be used for such purposes which right there makes it bad science. Then they ran over 10000 tests without the FORTRAN program and without the Greybill/Idso information and not once did they receive a hockey stick like effect. They put the FORTRAN and the Grebill/Idso back in and ran 9000 different runs with various data inputs, including lottery ticket numbers and phone numbers and they got consistent hockey stick effects. Mann made numerous comments in his “classified” file about not being able to get the hockey stick effect without the Greybill/Idso information from that group of trees. He chose to use information that was widely known not to be used for information science on temperature issues because these trees were an anomaly. If you wish to continue to state that such work as a fantastic piece of ACGW work that is your choice, however it is my choice to look at the information at hand and state categorically that it is not only bad for science but bad for educations.! Phil Jones and Michael Mann but discussed what a travesty it was that there was no way of making the Medieval warming period, and the little ice age disappear. When Mann put his paper out, he made them disappear and make it appear that there was a consistently smooth timeline of co2 and temperature until evil man started putting out that extra co2. And I would daresay that unless there was a typo that I missed it looked like John was agreeing with my point of view about tree regrowth being in unexpectedly large numbers in regards to larger amounts of co2. In fact at the end of his comments he said. It is indeed because of large amounts of carbon that the trees are having a faster than expected regrowth. I have not seen one good piece of empirical evidence that the M&M paper was incorrect. Mann has tried to say initially that they picked the wrong information. Then he sent them the link directly to his ftp server and said here use this information. He forgot to remove that infamous “classified” folder and has ever since tried to discredit McIntyre and Mckitrick not their science. And the comment you made about Oreskes saying there are multiple cross-threads of study showing that the globe is warming but the skeptics continue to ignore it is a total Non-Sequiter Skeptics including myself say and have said ad-nauseum, that skeptics deny that it is either anthropogenic, catastrophic, global or overall warming in nature. -
JMurphy at 05:11 AM on 10 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
OK, Poptech has previous history in regurgitating the same old arguments, thereby hijacking and spamming Comment sections. Please don't let him do the same here, if only for his own sake. See GREENFYRE : In fact Poptart [POPTECH] is so consistent at ignoring the substantive criticisms and mindlessly reiterating that the list is valid just because he says so that I really think he should rename it “Superfreakopeer-reviewed…” You will see all the same responses that he is posting here, but also a new one where he tells Harold Brooks that his paper is skeptical too and will remain in his list, even though Harold shows him how it can't possibly be what Poptech thinks it is. Poptech knows best, though, as usual. I think I can label you with the Dunning-Kruger effect without fear of any accusations from anyone...but yourself, of course - but that will only be the effect in action for all to see. -
Dikran Marsupial at 04:45 AM on 10 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Poptech @ 246 "speak for yourself" So you would claim that you have the competence to understand all of the papers on your list? ad-hominem: A phrase applied to an argument or appeal founded on the preferences or principles of a particular person rather than on abstract truth or logical cogency. An ad-hominem is an attack on the source of an argument in place of ("rather than") an attack on the content of the argument. The criticism has been of the papers in your list, and hence is not an ad-hominem. The comments regarding the D-K effect have been prompted by the manner in which you have chosen to conduct the discussion. Suffering from D-K syndrome doesn't mean that your arguments are incorrect, and nobody has dismissed your list or your arguments on the basis of your manner. Hence no ad-hominem, just some criticism of your modus operandi that you would do well to take on board. -
Philippe Chantreau at 04:41 AM on 10 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
I'm rereading my post but can't find where I said you were experiencing D-K effect. I explained it and outlined the difference with an ad-hominem argument. I also defined what an ad-hom is. Furthermore, stating that someone is incompetent in an area would still not constitute an ad-hominem attack, especially if that incompetence is indeed a fact. Although I have over 3000 hrs of flight including 1500 as a flight instructor, I am not competent in aeronautical engineering. You can state that fact if you want. It does not constitute an adhom but certainly poses constraints on any argument I would formulate on aeronautical engineering, although I am more apt than the general population to discuss it. If I were to talk about it, I would remain safe from D-K effect by acknowledgeing my limitations and formulating my argument with the appropriate precautions. Do you have credentials to demonstrate you are competent in climate science (degrees, publications)? This will be my last comment about the Bond events, which indeed belong to another thread. It is unclear whether the Singer/Avery piece is peer-reviewed. It certainly is not a research paper and does not seem to add anything to the existing knowledge on the subject of Bond Events. Although Gerald Bond argues that these are the "continuation" of D.O events, their effect on climate is far from clear, unlike DO events. Only 1 Bond event left a temperature signature in the Greenland Ice. Some events correlate with glacier advances in the Eastern North-Atlantic region, or aridification of other regions. No Bond event correlate with a clear global climate signal. The scientific litterature is mentioned on the other thread. The true periodicity of the events is not established. Their duration is unclear. They could not explain both the MWP and LIA. I am quite skeptical that they can explain anything about the 20th century climate trend. -
GFW at 04:25 AM on 10 May 2010Estimating climate sensitivity from 3 million years ago
HumanityRules, to understand why CO2 is the driver, all you really need is to understand why the other things mentioned (water vapor, snow albedo, ice albedo, ...) are feedbacks, not drivers. Water vapor is a feedback because we have vast amounts of liquid water that can evaporate if it gets warmer and rain will fall any time there's too much water vapor. Similarly, warmer temps melt snow & ice earlier in the year while colder temps preserve them ... feedback. So feedbacks are things that have a natural mechanism for increasing and decreasing on similar timescales. A driver (aka a forcing) has to be something that is either entirely external (e.g. the sun) or is something that changes in an asymmetric manner (where the extreme example is humans burning fossil fuels in a couple of centuries that took millions of years to be laid down). Volcanoes produce aerosols (short term negative forcing) and CO2 (long term positive forcing). Methane can be a forcing, although not as long-lived as CO2. Man-made land-use changes (e.g. clearing forest for cropland) are a forcing if maintained. Vegetation change in response to climate change is a (slow) feedback. Does that help? -
Estimating climate sensitivity from 3 million years ago
HumanityRules, From the abstract: Here we use a coupled atmosphere–ocean general circulation model to simulate the climate of the mid-Pliocene warm period (about three million years ago), and analyse the forcings and feedbacks that contributed to the relatively warm temperatures. Furthermore, we compare our simulation with proxy records of mid-Pliocene sea surface temperature. Since the authors are using a climate model, they should be able to directly analyze which forcings and feedbacks contribute to the warming. -
Dikran Marsupial at 03:56 AM on 10 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Poptech @ 243 "Accusing someone of having the D-K effect is accusing someone of being incompetent and thus an ad hominem attack. If you are accusing me of the D-K effect then you are trying to creatively call me incompetent." Yes, you are incompetent, as am I, as are most of the contributors to climate blogs. Very few of us are active climatologists, oceanographers, ecologists etc. Even amongst the top climate scientists very few have sufficient expertise to claim competence in all of the topics covered in your list of papers, so it would be extremely impressive (read extremly unlikely) if you were genuinely competent in all those areas. The difference is we have a much better idea of the limits of our competence. You shouldn't take that as an insult or an ad-hominem. It isn't, it is just some well-meant advice that was not heeded when given less directly. If you want to do the skeptic camp a favour, or convince people you are right, then a change of approach is in order. -
Marcel Bökstedt at 03:43 AM on 10 May 2010Estimating climate sensitivity from 3 million years ago
Profmandia> I think that the weathering processes are one of the main subjects of study in the paper by Lunt et al. The way I understand it, they try to reconstruct weathering(orography), vegetation, ice sheets, CO2 and temperature at a particular time. They assume that all these data describe an equilibrium state for the climate. Then they check what values of Earth system sensitivity is compatible with this assembly of data. This last step presumably involves some choices of models. I can't even venture a guess about how accurate this method is, but it certainly takes the rocks into account. tobyjoyce> Me too. I can't make sense of what Dr. Spencer writes either. I think it's best to wait for a fuller account before trying again. HumanityRules> I think that your remark is that the world of mid-pliocene (-3.29 to -2.97 million years) was so different from the present world that we can't use present day models to describe the climate of that time. That is certainly an important objection, and I'm not sure how certain Lunt et al. are about the models they have to use to connect the dots, but they certainly do discuss ancient geography and flora. To be more specific, I believe that the Panama Isthmus was alread formed at this time, and the mountain ranges you mentioned were not that drastically different from today. But I don't know for sure...:) -
Tom Dayton at 03:41 AM on 10 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Poptech, Singer's contention that you linked to is indeed the specific topic of the SkepticalScience post It's Just a Natural Cycle. That's where further discussion of it belongs. -
Tom Dayton at 03:31 AM on 10 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
I think the 1500 year climate cycle theory that some people have brought up are the Dansgaard-Oeschger events, which are discussed in the post It’s just a natural cycle. -
michael sweet at 03:23 AM on 10 May 2010Estimating climate sensitivity from 3 million years ago
Dr Hansen has estimated a total climate sensitivity of 6C. hansen abstract 6C. Some people consider him to be an alarmist, but I think he has a long record of having been correct. By contrast, Spenser has often been wrong. His satalite data was affected by orbit decay and he insisted it was correct for a long time before he was forced to correct it. -
Philippe Chantreau at 03:22 AM on 10 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
The 1500 climate cycle theory? What exactly does it consist of? Are we supposed to be experiencing such a cycle right now that would explain the late 20th century's temps? A bit of clarification: a reference to D-K effect is not an ad-hominem attack. An ad-hominem attack would consist of saying that so and so is a bad person because of some reason (i.e. they don't like puppies), then proceeding on to argue that it makes such and such argument from that person wrong, regardless of the validity of the argument itself. The D-K effect refers to the attitude consisting of believing that a little knowledge makes one qualified enough to discuss what pertains to advanced expertise. It is not a personal attack to state that one does not possess advanced expertise of a subject. It does relate to the validity of their argument if that argument pertains to the subject in which they overestimate their expertise. -
JMurphy at 03:13 AM on 10 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Back to that list, we have : An Alternative View of Climate Change for Steelmakers (PDF) (Iron & Steel Technology, Volume 5, Number 7, pp. 87-98, July 2008) - John Stubbles On his site, Poptech uses this quote from the journal : "readers will find timely peer-reviewed articles", just to show that it is actually peer-reviewed. Unfortunately, he left off this bit : "...addressing theory, technology and practical applications..." The paper Poptech is referring to is in no way a peer-reviewed article as determined by the journal's own criteria (as you can see for yourself from a list of the contents of that edition), and its only source (apart from the journal itself) is from a blog called SPYDERCAT, although you can't actually access it from the home page of SPYDERCAT, for some reason. It was written by the late Dr. John Stubbles, a Steel Industry Consultant, and the second line starts thus : The “alarmists,” spearheaded by Al Gore... It uses proxies from a study on the Sargasso Sea from 1996 to claim a globally warmer MWP than now; uses a blog posting by John Daly to claim that Mann's hockey-stick is broken, and includes references from Watts (yes, the weatherman), Pat Michaels, Soon, Christy, the Idsos, Singer and Morner. In fact, it is all the so-called skeptical arguments in one package. Read it for a laugh and then think on Poptech's rationale for including such an article. -
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.
Prev 2388 2389 2390 2391 2392 2393 2394 2395 2396 2397 2398 2399 2400 2401 2402 2403 Next
