Recent Comments

Prev  2544  2545  2546  2547  2548  2549  2550  2551  2552  2553  2554  2555  2556  2557  2558  2559  Next

Comments 127551 to 127600:

127551. canbanjo at 16:57 PM on 7 September 2009
        The growing divide between climate scientists and public opinion
        These polls are useful for non scientists, eg the general public, politicians, the press etc to realise that the AGW skeptics are small minority. It shows that a layman skeptic is saying either that they believe that the vast majorty of scientists have got it wrong (without any scientific understanding / basis), or that there is a giant global science conspiracy to make us believe something that isn't true.
127552. Steve L at 14:54 PM on 7 September 2009
        The growing divide between climate scientists and public opinion
        And Gallup is an agent for Communism, right? Spin all you want, but remind me never to take anything you write as honest/serious commentary. Here's what I found on Gallup's website: "Results for knowledge of global warming are based on telephone and face-to-face interviews conducted between 2007 and 2008 with about 2,000 adults in most countries (and a sample size range of 500 to 8,256). Results for perceived causes of global warming have a sample size range of 150 to 5,273. Confidence intervals thus vary widely based on the sample sizes of specific groups. However, for the scores for public awareness of global warming, confidence intervals for all countries were always less than ±6 percentage points. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls."
127553. Mizimi at 05:26 AM on 7 September 2009
        The correlation between CO2 and temperature
        #27...try this... http://chartsgraphs.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/excel-chart-misrepresents-co2-temperature-relationship/
127554. Mizimi at 05:02 AM on 7 September 2009
        The growing divide between climate scientists and public opinion
        #16, Steve L....my comment was directed at the 3142 earth scientists, not joe public and perhaps I should have made that clear. What is interesting is that there appear to be no figures for the public...are we talking substantial numbers here or what? According to a certain shampoo manufacturer 9 out 10 women surveyed prefer their product...but when you check the small print they only questioned 300 women. Hardly a good statistical sample. On another note, the European Union didn't like the Irish 'No' response to a referendum. Their reaction? Well you'll have to vote again until you get it right....... What is illuminating is that DESPITE all the political/media/evironmentalist hype there are still (apparently) a large number of people who don't believe in any 'significant' effect.
127555. cce at 03:45 AM on 7 September 2009
        The growing divide between climate scientists and public opinion
        The tobacco industry used the exact same arguments to discredit "establishment" studies showing what they and everyone else already knew. It is useful to read this speech from Colin Stokes, then CEO of RJR, introducing Frederick Seitz (he of Oregon Petition fame) in his role as the director of their research program. He repeats industry talking points, each one of them with a direct analog to the arguments posed by so-called AGW skeptics. It's the same game, with higher stakes. http://tobaccodocuments.org/ness/29154.html Take, for example, "the American Cancer Society has concentrated its efforts on developing a cancer cure and on claiming that lung cancer would be virtually elminated by the elmination of smoking. We firmly believe that their claims are a dis-service to society in that they discourage people from seeking out the true causes of cancer" "many both inside and outside of the scientific community feel government has proven itself a biased, restrictive sponser." "H-E-W [now HHS] direct study under the preconceived idea that smoking causes cancer, emphysema and cardiovascular disease, and therefore is spending the majority of its anual twenty million dollars in smoking-and-health research money for finding methods of smoking prevention." Now, consider the credibility of these claims: "prominent medical authorities lining up on each side of the arguments" "For every charge that has been made against cigarettes, there has emerged a strong body of scientific data or opinion in defense of the product" "It is not possible ... to distinguish between the lung of a smoker or a nonsmoker" "why do many nonsmokers fall victim to lung cancer, while the disease is never contracted by ninety-eight percent of those so-called heavy smokers who consume a pack-and-a-half a day or more" "One study, for instance, has indicated that light smokers and ex-smokers are less prone to cardiovascular illness than smokers." "There is no medical proof that nonsmokers exposed to cigarette smoke in ordinary relation with smokers suffer any damage." Also, if anyone can point me to a report from the National Academy of Sciences advocating Communism, Eugenics, and Astrology I'd like to see it. And it had better be an authoritative consensus report urging policy action and not the extra-curricular activities of cranks.
127556. Steve L at 03:11 AM on 7 September 2009
        The growing divide between climate scientists and public opinion
        Mizimi #9, your complaint about question two makes no sense to me. If the question is unanswerable except by "yes", then why so many "no" responses? If the question is too vague, then why so few "I don't know" responses? It seems to me, given your opinion of the question, that the results are very impressive -- people with the least understanding of the issue (and the least understanding of the caveats you note) think human activities have nothing to do with significant changes in mean global temperatures. Almost 40% of the general public responded "no" versus about 6% "not sure"! This staggering response to a question unanswerable except with "yes" should receive more attention. Thanks for blogging it, John.
127557. Mizimi at 07:45 AM on 6 September 2009
        Climate time lag
        Just a small point Chris...the hypothesis that CRF effects cloud nucleation ( principally at low level) does not require CRF to vary. If you vary WV concentration whilst CRF remains constant you would achieve the same result - a variation in cloud nucleation.
127558. Mizimi at 07:31 AM on 6 September 2009
        It's microsite influences
        An idle thought....we tend to think of 'bad' stations giving higher readings than 'good' stations as they respond to surrounding heat emitters such as buildings. In cold weather the opposite can occur...the 'bad' stations will respond more slowly to increasing T due to the thermal inertia of those same buildings. In other words, the T swing max-min could be greater in the 'bad' stations but dis-appears in the averaging process. So maybe there is an element of self-compensation here which could be determined by looking at more detailed data.
127559. Mizimi at 04:49 AM on 6 September 2009
        Models are unreliable
        #114 "Is it really true that there is a direct causal link between human activities and climate? " Certainly there is. In the same way that vulcanism or other factors have an effect on climate. But the real question is to what extent do human activities affect climate..and that we have yet to quantify. And therein lies another problem; those who wish to control us( for whatever reason) will turn tentative indications into cast iron certainties in order to achieve their purposes..and both sides are equally guilty of this.
127560. Mizimi at 04:30 AM on 6 September 2009
        The growing divide between climate scientists and public opinion
        #14 Define sceptical..... "are human activities contributing to global warming?" Most certainly. As do many other processes. To what degree? Now that is the question which we are really debating/trying to quantify. And for me, here begins scepticism. Ask the same scientists if they consider GCM's to realistically model climate in all its complexity and you will likely get an answer along the lines of..." in accordance with our present understanding of..."
127561. NewYorkJ at 01:21 AM on 6 September 2009
        The growing divide between climate scientists and public opinion
        Jim Prall has put together a good list (still a work-in progress in some cases) of climate scientists, their number of published studies and citations, and when available, their home pages. The results are pretty similar to the survey mentioned here and is good independent verification. Looking through the list, very few climate scientists and those with significant publications related to climate science are skeptical. http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/climate_authors_table_by_clim.html I think this is important work. While we have position statements from dozens of scientific academies and organizations and we see the strong consensus in the peer-reviewed literature, politicians will usually counter with impressive-looking petitions which include "real" people. The impression among some is those scientific organizations are just political and real scientists disagree. Prall's list helps shed some light on this view. One needs to look at the denominator. If the APS has 100 or so skeptical scientists creating a petition claiming their position statement isn't representative, it sounds impressive until you note that the organization has about 50,000 members, and that very few of the 0.2% (likely to grow given the above figures) are climate experts.
127562. NewYorkJ at 00:59 AM on 6 September 2009
        The growing divide between climate scientists and public opinion
        Re: #10 Many laypersons have strong opinions on climate change. We don't see this happening in other scientific fields. Most aren't in the habit of arguing vehemently against a technique for heart surgery, or more analogous, slamming a local weather model and the scientists who develop them. I think any issue that has political implication or challenges one's ideology will ultimately generate certain kinds of press coverage and strong negative opinions by those who don't know better. Many have very strong opinions against evolution theory as well. The science on smoking and lung cancer didn't take hold quickly, especially by smokers. Re: #9 It would have been better if more scientists from other continents were represented in the survey, although then we'd have accusations that the survey represents socialists and scientists from developing countries attempting to bring America down, just like that evil IPCC. The list does appear to be mainly limited to those with advanced degrees, which is good. The expert to non-expert ratio is expected. Most scientists aren't climate experts, but this often doesn't stop some from pretending to be, particularly those who would answer "no" to such a question presented. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
127563. thingadonta at 00:23 AM on 6 September 2009
        The growing divide between climate scientists and public opinion
        re 9: Mizimi Good points: it is the usual statistical rubbish, re-iterated by those who don't understand that the agenda for research within earth sciences is set by government, which has a stated agenda to support non-industry based research (eg squirrel numbers, coral reef bleaching etc etc), and/or research that doesn’t directly support various industries, (which is supposed to magically train and look after itself). In essence, if you only fund research that is 'outside' of industry by default, you will ensure the development of a generation of researchers who are fundamentally opposed to industry. As for climatologists, there is no private 'climate company' employers, and little funding either if they don't support the academic-consenus opinion/agenda, so what angle do you think they are going to gravitate to?
127564. pdt at 00:05 AM on 6 September 2009
        The growing divide between climate scientists and public opinion
        I just remembered, the other argument he mentioned was, "climate has changed before". It was an impressive, if sometimes contradictory list.
127565. pdt at 00:04 AM on 6 September 2009
        The growing divide between climate scientists and public opinion
        A couple of anecdotes from yesterday. I was at an airportand chatted with a fellow who brought up climate change after commenting about the odd weather we've been having this summer. The statement went something like, "I don't believe in global warming...", then went on to rattle of "It's cooling", "It's the Sun", "It's water", It's clouds", and maybe one more skeptic argument I can't remember. After overcoming my initial surprise with the rapidity and certainty in his voice, I said I thought we really don't know what is going to happen, but it's certain we are doing an experiment because we are changing CO2 concentrations in a way that has never happened before. We're rolling the dice, but we're doing it for people who aren't even alive to know we're gambling. The topic was politely changed after that and we went eventually went our separate ways. The power and money is heavily weighted towards the status quo and people fear what they see as drastic changes to the way they live. I think it's relatively easy to convince people of something that allows them to feel good about what they have been doing and would like to continue to do. In a separate conversation at the same airport the same day, I heard a person who works in the automotive industry say that that Americans will not buy small cars, they want big SUVs and that we should drill for oil in the U.S. so that we can get gas prices back down to $1/gallon. I wanted to say, but didn't, that we all want to be millionaires too, so let's just start printing money. He also mentioned how he felt president Obama was elected due to the stupidity of voters.
127566. Mizimi at 21:02 PM on 5 September 2009
        The growing divide between climate scientists and public opinion
        Have a good read of the survey, it provides some interesting info. 3146 people respomded, 3020 of them from N. America, 126 from the rest of the world. Of the respondents 157 were climatologists. 1390 were in what might be classed related fields. 1599 were in non-related fields ( by inference) Of the specialists, only 79 ( or roughly half) had published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed work on climate matters. ( we are not told what considered to be 'recently'.) In addition,question 2 is so vague as to be virtually unanswerable except by a 'yes'. What human activities are we considering? All or some? Just burning FF's or deforestation, changing WV distribution patterns thro agricultural changes and so on? How could you not answer the question with a yes? And what is considered significant? 1% contribution to GMT rise? And over what time span? Decades or centuries? Unimpressed.
127567. Mizimi at 19:31 PM on 5 September 2009
        Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?
        #12 Interesting paper -thanks for the pointer - but I was referring to the UHI effect rather than the overall surface T. IE, I would expect to see urban station results begin to fall as a result of declining economic activity, not rural readings. The fall may not be large (weather patterns have a much greater effect on UHI)but should be discernable. Regarding the overall question..are USA surface stations reliable..it kind of begs the question. Global stations have fallen from over 6000 to just 2600 in a fairly short time period. Notably missing is data from what was the USSR and also China, so that USA data now represents nearly half of what we have...reliable or not. I would not consider the spread of surface data sources to be adequate for GMT calcs and would expect a heavy bias towards the USA climate conditions. Satellite records are somewhat better but restricted time-wise.
127568. NewYorkJ at 11:55 AM on 5 September 2009
        The growing divide between climate scientists and public opinion
        "People’s psychology and career motivations today are still the same, and they still reject the sun's influence on climate change for exactly the same reasons." I don't know of a single climate scientist who rejects the Sun's influence on climate change. Contrary to popular belief among certain political circles, climate scientists study many aspects of climate and climate change. Galileo was indeed a pioneering scientist, much like Fourier, Arrhenius, Callendar - scientists discovering Earth's greenhouse effect. Revelle and Suess were also pioneers, discovering that the Earth's oceans would not be able to absorb human-emitted CO2 and much would end up in the atmosphere, adding to the greenhouse effect. Many doubted them at the time. Over the decades that followed, a preponderance of evidence vindicated them and the general consensus was gradually built. Modern-day skeptics often seem to resemble those who insisted on believing that the Sun revolved around the Earth, those with stubborn attachment to the notion that human activities, especially those involving fossil fuels, seen as so vital to economic development in the industrial age, can't possibly be warming the planet. They will not be swayed no matter how strong the evidence is. See post #3 on this thread for a link to Weart's indispensible "The Discovery of Global Warming". "Do you honestly think, that if a politician, researcher, or public service career-minded official has to decide between effects of human activity, or effects of the distant sun, they are going to easily believe an idea which makes the entire basis of their training, self-motivation, and their future career, irrelevant? " When it's a decision between relatively meager government funding with your name blended in with the rest of the crowd, and a $2,500 per day check from Exxon with your name and arguments parroted repeatedly by media outlets, sometimes the decision is not that difficult. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Lindzen#Fossil_Fuel_Interests_Funding There is a huge market for global warming contrarianism. Many folks have a very difficult time believing any scientific idea that might implicate their activities, so they seek out anyone who can tell them there isn't a problem. Credentials or strength of argument don't matter in the least, so fooling this crowd is quite easily done. There are many ready and willing to step up to this task. While denial of evolution is directly religious-based, denial of global warming is more based on a religious-like fear of government. Political and ideological groups, along with entrenched industry interests desperate to protect the status quo, who's going concern is threatened by the science, prey off this fear, spreading false scenarios of economic gloom and doom - claiming that any move away from fossil fuels will cause great calamity to their household. It is a bit of a surprise that the scientific consensus is so strong, since fame and sometimes a bit of fortune await those who argue against the consensus. The incentive is tremendous.
127569. thingadonta at 10:50 AM on 5 September 2009
        The growing divide between climate scientists and public opinion
        re 3: “global warming is not a communist/socialist plot where nearly every member of the scientific community (aside from a few contrarian whistleblowers who know better) has compromised their scientific integrity to receive funding and promote their socialist agenda. Then again, maybe the scientific consensus reached on gravity, the Earth being spherical, evolution, crazy claims that smoking causes lung cancer, and the consensus that 9/11 was caused by terrorist hijackers is all bogus". A more pertinent example would be Galileo and the idea of the earth revolving around the sun, rather than the other way around. The reason that Galileo encountered such trouble with the idea that the earth revolved around the sun was not essentially religious, but because people who had devoted their entire lives bringing 'order' to society couldn't handle the idea that the earth, and their place within it, was not at the centre of things. In other words, if the sun was at the centre of the solar system, and we had no control over it, their entire life's motivation, training and purpose, (at least in the field of solar astronomy and importantly at the time-geography), was irrelevant. People’s psychology and career motivations today are still the same, and they still reject the sun's influence on climate change for exactly the same reasons. People within bureaucracies, scientific agencies etc, are trained for their entire careers and lives to bring stability, order and direction to society. They reject notions that the sun has anything to do with climate change because it goes against their entire purpose and training regarding bringing order to the world/society-it also makes them largely irrelevant. They don't like not being at the centre of the universe. 'Consensus' amongst such people/officials is also a very much sought after thing, because it is part of their basic training in bringing order and direction to society. When someone like Galileo comes along who is 'outside' the consensus, it is in the political and social training of such people/officials to routinely dismiss such ideas and indeed work against them, because it goes against their entire training and life purpose, and indeed upsets the social(ist) order and relegates the self-importance of various officials to irrelevance. Do you honestly think, that if a politician, researcher, or public service career-minded official has to decide between effects of human activity, or effects of the distant sun, they are going to easily believe an idea which makes the entire basis of their training, self-motivation, and their future career, irrelevant? This is the reason there was so much trouble with the sun and Galileo-do you think people have really changed that much since then?
127570. NewYorkJ at 10:42 AM on 5 September 2009
        The growing divide between climate scientists and public opinion
        Re: #5 Fun with analogies...Astrology is to astronomy as global warming contrarianism (in its typical form) is to climate science. Both rely often on appeals to emotion and dubious philosophy rather than objective scientific study. Take for example "people's behaviour now controls the heavens." Certain folks are skeptical of global warming for the basic emotive reason that it's inconceivable that us insignificant humans could possibly have an effect on something as large as the Earth's climate. Only God, or "the heavens", can control that. It's arrogant to think otherwise. Such misconceptions are often based on religious beliefs. There are a myriad of other fallacies that are pervasive in global warming skeptic circles, things like: - CO2 is too small a part of the atmosphere to possibly have an effect. - Climate change happened in the past naturally. Therefore, recent climate change cannot be human caused. - It's cold in my city this month. Global warming isn't happening. Now when we look at the beliefs of contrarians, they often appear open-minded. And indeed, they are quite open-minded to various natural explanations of global warming, be it the Sun, cosmic rays, ENSO, underseas volcanoes, or benthic bacteria (provided someone they trust doesn't inform them that the latter was an amusing hoax). However, when the thought of human activities, particular ones that implicate fossil fuels and possibly implies concerted government action to mitigate, enters the picture, there becomes a zealous-like devotion towards discrediting the science. I'm afraid these individuals many years from now will be looked upon as those who still to this day latch on to creationism, those who hung on to the belief that the Sun must revolve around the Earth, and smokers and their industry counterparts who vehemently denied the harmful health effects of their activities. There is a very positive role for healthy skeptism. What we often see on scientific topics that have political implications or challenge one's ideology is skeptism that is anything but healthy. I just hope that scientific skeptism in general has not been permanently damaged in the public eye.
127571. thingadonta at 10:11 AM on 5 September 2009
        The growing divide between climate scientists and public opinion
        re 3: "Why would anyone want to study astronomy, when humans didn't have anything to do with the creation of the universe? Climate change is a very interesting area of research, regardless of cause". It is interesting that the original reasons astronomy was studied was probably religious, and ultimately descended into controlling people (astrology). The astronomers couldn't handle just looking at the stars for knowledge sake, no, they had to impose a religious fundamentalism on the people, ie astrology. Astrology was an attempt to impose their supposed objective knowledge on people, to explain peoples behaviour (and everything else) on the movements of the stars. These 'explanations' weren't about objecive knowledge, it was about furthering their own political agenda, self-interests and self-importance, also based on innate tendancies to control other people. It was an early form of socialist determinism. AGW could be the same thing, but in reverse. Instead of the heavens controlling people's behaviour, people's behaviour now controls the heavens. AGW could be argued to be the 21st century version of Babylonian astrology. Maybe in a few thousand years AGW will be on the back of newspapers for fruitcakes, just like astrology now. As for your second point, yes climate change is mildly interesting, but I fear the researchers are not being fair to the actual data, or the history of the planet.
127572. thingadonta at 10:05 AM on 5 September 2009
        The growing divide between climate scientists and public opinion
        re response to 1: "The same reason any scientist gets into science. The love of knowledge. Curiosity. The challenge of furthering our understanding of how the universe works". Yes, but it is only half the story. Here are some other reasons people get into science. A career. Getting paid. Having a secure career and family life. Imposing knowledge on other people and other cultures. Controlling other people through superior access to knowlege and resources. To find God's order in the universe. To find chaos in the universe. To serve God. To avoid serving God. Getting into politics. To avoid getting into politics. Avoiding religious fundamentalism. To get into religious fundamentalism. Starting a knowledge-based cult. Satisfying inborn desires to control other people. Imperialism through knowledge and culture rather than military invasion. Getting a job which is not subject to market forces. Because one can't handle business or other people. Getting into the public service. Because one failed at religion, society, or business. To flee totalitarianism. To further ones political interests. Etc Etc. It's not all objective curiosity.
127573. NewYorkJ at 05:39 AM on 5 September 2009
        The growing divide between climate scientists and public opinion
        So the Heartland Institute, a political organization that has also been in the business of disputing smoking's link to lung cancer, is pretending to speak for science. One clear difference between a Heartland Institute "conference" and a real scientific conference (such as AGU, IPCC) is that the Heartland Institute has already decided on what they want the science to say, and seeks to gather like-minded individuals to support their political agenda - those who will effectively push non-peer-reviewed ideas and ignore the overwhelming evidence against their views. Matt Andrews, "To me, the issue is not that the general public are at odds with scientific opinion; in Australia, at least, support for strong climate action is very high indeed. The discrepancy lies in the arena of politics and media commentary, where rates of climate denial appear to be much higher than in the broader community (and among the scientists). " And the media and politicians tend to have a strong influence on public opinion. Thus, the discrepancy between the scientific community and the general public (at least in the U.S.). thingadonta, "But skeptics don't care a less about the latest 'opinion poll' amongst researchers," Correct. They tend to care much more about the latest opinion poll of the general public, as that is generally their target audience. As for the rest of your post, I refer you to: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/ Despite the push of this notion in certain extreme political circles, global warming is not a communist/socialist plot where nearly every member of the scientific community (aside from a few contrarian whistleblowers who know better) has compromised their scientific integrity to receive funding and promote their socialist agenda. Then again, maybe the scientific consensus reached on gravity, the Earth being spherical, evolution, crazy claims that smoking causes lung cancer, and the consensus that 9/11 was caused by terrorist hijackers is all bogus. Those with certain anti-government and political or religious agendas all know better (or knew better at one time). "Why would anyone want to study climate change for long peiods if you don't believe humans have anything to do with it in the first place? (you would also have to put up with alot of people who you don't agree with, for one thing). " Odd logic. Why would anyone want to study astronomy, when humans didn't have anything to do with the creation of the universe? Climate change is a very interesting area of research, regardless of cause.
127574. Matt Andrews at 01:10 AM on 5 September 2009
        The growing divide between climate scientists and public opinion
        Er... moving right along (and back to reality), it's notable that the Gallup poll used for the "general public" figure above is from the US. The US ranked lowest, and by far the lowest of major economies, in a survey of 18,578 people in 19 countries on levels of concern over climate change. To me, the issue is not that the general public are at odds with scientific opinion; in Australia, at least, support for strong climate action is very high indeed. The discrepancy lies in the arena of politics and media commentary, where rates of climate denial appear to be much higher than in the broader community (and among the scientists).
127575. thingadonta at 19:48 PM on 4 September 2009
        The growing divide between climate scientists and public opinion
        A few points on the above discussion: It doesn't matter tuppence whether an entire research field is 100% in agreement, that research field can, and often does, have vested interests to promote a particular view. People who differ from the mainstream within such fields can easily be weeded out through human politics, (if not just through them just leaving research because they don't agree/dont have vested interests), not data. Science, like any other human activity, is subject to politics, self- interest, unconscious bias, and distortion. High levels of agreement can be a sign that things are WRONG/CORRUPT within the field, not the other way around. Why would anyone want to study climate change for long peiods if you don't believe humans have anything to do with it in the first place? (you would also have to put up with alot of people who you don't agree with, for one thing). Another issue is that people who stay for long periods within certain reearch fields (eg >5 years) tend to agree with it in the first place. The level of 'consensus' within such fields is subject to selection bias and can therefore be pretty meaningless. I'm sure fields like homeopathy, to take one extreme non-mainstream example, could get '100% agreement' on the effects of diluted water, if somebody really wanted to do a survey, because nobody who researches within it, and who 'excels' at it over a number of years and commits their life to it and doesnt leave (eg for >5 years), would be against it by this time, almost by default. If you think this argument doesnt apply to peer-reviewed mainstream research, look at the banks and financial industry in the early 2000s. Financial modellers, with vested interests, in promoting a particular view/perspective, managed to gamble and steal away billions of dollars of both banks and people's money, and almost took entire societies to ruin, based on 'consensus' models and politics widespread throughout the financial community. Anyone who saw through the distortions, within the financial community, would not have been eg promoted, would not have received ridiculous bonuses, and was 'weeded' out of the banking hierarchy, even though they were essentially right. It was in the financial modellers' interest to promote a certain angle, and if you did surveys of the financial community regarding various finanical products and practices in the early 2000s, you would have got much the same results as you give above. And they were all basically wrong, because of human politics, distortion, and self interest. Academia is not some panacea free of human politics to sort out human societies, as you seem to think. People don't tend to study certain research fields unless they have a particular vested interest/political view to begin with. Here are just a few ideas/models which have largely come out of 'consensus' fields within academia (going back thousands of years in some cases), or more specifically, from 'radical intellectualism' (typically socialist) within academia: -Communism (socialist-determinist economics) (see books by Richard Pipes) -Eugenics (socialist-determinist race, biology) -Astrology (socialist-determinist astronomy) -AGW? (socialist-determinist climate and energy). The last is debatable. But skeptics don't care a less about the latest 'opinion poll' amongst researchers, any more than a political party's internal review of 'commitment to the party', or some self-appoined dictator's rigged election result.
        Response: "Why would anyone want to study climate change for long peiods if you don't believe humans have anything to do with it?" The same reason I got into astrophysics and it had nothing to do with vested interests or political views. The same reason any scientist gets into science. The love of knowledge. Curiosity. The challenge of furthering our understanding of how the universe works.
127576. Former Skeptic at 01:10 AM on 4 September 2009
        Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?
        @Mizimi: Your question has been answered recently. Economic activity and influence of the anthro heat flux on the surface T record was hugely overstated by two papers (de Laat and Maurellis, 2006; McKitrick and Michaels, 2007). Please see this paper showing that such a relation between economic activity and surface temp is spurious.
127577. NewYorkJ at 07:44 AM on 3 September 2009
        Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?
        Correction to #10: "leaves well over 100 good quality stations just in the United States" I was basing that off the percentage and 1,221 total stations, when the analysis was conducted on only the stations classified at the time. One could extrapolate and say it will probably be around 100 when the analysis is complete.
127578. NewYorkJ at 07:38 AM on 3 September 2009
        Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?
        The NOAA analysis is quite good and the results not at all surprising. It's been estimated that less than 100 reasonably placed reliable stations are needed in each hemisphere to obtain an accurate trend. So if we make the big assumption that the Surface Stations team of volunteers have accurately assessed the quality of weather stations, and that all stations not meeting this standard are useless, that still leaves well over 100 good quality stations just in the United States, an area that makes up less than 4% of the northern hemisphere. http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1802800 "...created by meteorologist Anthony Watts" Well - broadcast meteorologist to be more precise, and one with no academic degree in a science field.
127579. Mizimi at 20:18 PM on 2 September 2009
        Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?
        #7: The urban bias will not be a constant over long periods of time simply because urban areas grow and decay over decades..just look at the development of any reasonably medium/large connurbation. And the magnitude of that bias will relate to the economic activity of that area. With the current global recession I would expect a diminution in urban bias. If you can gain access to the data, your local power generators' mean power output will give a guide. If a comparison is made between rural sites and urban sites any trend should be apparent in both records even if the 'actual' numbers are different.
127580. Ex Scientia Vera at 09:00 AM on 2 September 2009
        There is no consensus
        Wow, Quietman, you actually agree with this drivel spouted by Bruce in 137 and 138? I was enjoying reading your posts, but Bruce is just spouting random bits of exaggerated BS full of spelling errors, ad hominems, straw men and insults all of which are completely devoid of facts and none of which are referenced for our edification (dang that pesky need to support your statements on a science oriented forum!). I suppose I would personally be more reluctant to acknowledge and agree with bumbling ignorance, even if it did indirectly support my position. Bruce, your words make my blood boil. I read nearly every post of Quietman (and the extent of the ongoing discussion) with thoughtful speculation and an open mind. Your rant, however, does a great disservice to the spirit of intelligent discussion and has no place in this forum. There seems to be a big hullabaloo about the semantics of “consensus;” clearly a poor word choice. Of course everyone will be all over me on this, but, it appears that it is a word used to categorize the empirical findings of climate related research. As such, theoretically a paper is critically examined and peer reviewed, then receives the somewhat nebulous classification of “for” (supporting/confirming etc.) or “against” (fail to support/reject alt hypoth/accept null/disconfirm) the argument that the earth is warming and human CO2 emissions are to blame (AGW/ACC). So, for the sake of clarifying semantics, the IPCC has created two piles and thus far (according to their review) the “consensus” or majority of papers demonstrate support for AGW as an alternative hypothesis to…whatever the null may be. I suppose the big sticking point in the use of consensus, as Tiranse [152] points out, is that it is a political/social construct. Thus, we often introduce the scientists as the targets of the discussion, and whether or not such individuals or their respective organizations support AGW theory, as opposed to the papers themselves and the merit of the evidence and methodological rigor contained therein. This then leads to counting exercises and comparing our respective clans of scientists as opposed to the collection of evidence that is available. Please don’t hate the messenger.
127581. Steve L at 06:39 AM on 2 September 2009
        Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?
        Irrelevant, but black tar roofs tend to dry and turn grayer over time. Maybe that would tend to cool a microsite until the roof was resurfaced. All the greatest increases or apparent increases in land temperatures seem to be far away from urban development (the far north, alpine glaciers), so it seems pretty strange to think that microsite stuff counters mainstream claims regarding AGW.
127582. Former Skeptic at 02:45 AM on 1 September 2009
        Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?
        @thingadonta I think you are confused between *diurnal* trends vs. *annual* trends. Of course there will be a bias - especially at night - from the UHI over when you examine daily or even seasonal data. But whatever urban bias in T trends will be constant when you compare T at annual scales. Unless you are saying that, e.g., 40 WM-2 near-surface flux from micro-scale concrete or anthropogenic sources in, say, 2000/1/2 will differ significantly from 2006/7/8? If it did, then the T comparison data above would be significantly different...but it isn't. Or have I misread this? I'd reckon so. If I were you, I'd also read David Parker's 2004 Nature paper and his 2006 Journal of Climate paper on why global-scale warming is not due to the UHI effect. Also, check out Pete Sinclair's YouTube video on Anthony Watts to show why surfacestations.org is flawed. PS: The best data for surface temp trends are ocean T data (or, if you are Pielke, ocean heat content)...and both, like the surface T data, show substantial rises in magnitude over the past 30 years. But that's another story, eh?
127583. Craig Allen at 01:49 AM on 1 September 2009
        Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?
        During the heat wave that gave rise to the fires in Victoria (Australia) last Antipodean summer Tamino did an analysis of Melbourne temperatures showing that they had risen over the last century. Someone raised the heat island effect. I looked up the list of Bureau of meteorology high quality reference stations and suggested he analyse data from 5 rural Victorian stations, including two on headlands overlooking Bass Straight and the Southern Ocean. The Tamino's plots of data from those stations are here ... the trend at each is decidedly up, other than one inland site where night-time temperatures (but not day time) have dropped (probably due to reduced cloud cover). I'm a bit perplexed as to why a version of the the US temperature data is not produced and widely disseminated that is based solely on such high quality sites from places where urban heat island effects are likely to be minimal, and which does not include any corrections with reference to data from lesser quality sites at all. It's about time the whole debate is definitively put to rest. (Not that I think there is any kind or quality of data that will ever mollify Watts' hard core followers.)
127584. thingadonta at 21:10 PM on 31 August 2009
        Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?
        re 2: "If a given station was installed on a black tar roof and remains on that black tar roof, the roof's contribution of heat will be constant across decades, and so will contribute zero bias to the change in temperature across decades". This statement is incorrect, and shows a misunderstanding of the differences in thermal inertia between different surfaces during temperature variation. This is also why eg the land heats faster than the ocean during rising temperatures(differences in thermal inertia); the relative difference/'contribution' also increases during rising temperatures/radiation. The same goes for black tar/concreted areas and eg vegetated areas-the black tar/concreted areas will rise in temperature faster during rising temperatures than in vegetated areas. The roofs "contribution of heat" will NOT be constant over the decades, IF the temperature is naturally rising/falling. Moreover, any site in an urban area not only has the surrounding urban heat island effect to deal with over time, (increase in levels of urban infrastructure/ concrete, reduction in natural soil cover, reduction in subsurface moisture, reduction in vegetation, increase in population, increase in car vehicles, increase in roads, etc etc), but it will also be subject to natural temperature trends, which, if the temperature is rising, will also produce an enhanced temperature effect-ie in other words, during a period of natural warming, the urban heat effect will itself be enhanced, particularly in an urban area which is itself expanding/developing. The best sites for measuring surface temperature trends are those within non-changing levels of vegetation, non-changes in rainfall, non-changes in agricultural practises (including irrigation), and stable soil moisture. These are relatively few. All others will show a pronounced surface heat bias during rising natural temperatures, together with any expanding urbanisation, changes in agricultural practices, and/or changes in infrastructure. As for John Cooks response to comment 1 above, it appears to be seriously flawed. If 1 set of data given in the discussion is actually corrected data (ie 'all stations'), and the other is just 'less corrected' (ie 'good' stations), it is a meaningless comparison. The 'good' stations are STILL not that good, and with the dodgy stations corrected to coincide with them in any case (a process known essentially as 'massaging'), the graphs and comparisons above are completely meaningless. Or have I misread this? There are lies, damned lies, and urban temperature stations in developing urban areas within a natural warming trend. re:4 note there are stations which show temperature drops.
127585. dorlomin at 19:16 PM on 31 August 2009
        Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?
        Has Watts ever found any station thats positioning under reports the temperature or is it all over reporting?
        Response: I don't know about Watts but one paper (Hansen 2001) compared urban long term trends to nearby rural trends and found 42% of city trends are cooler relative to their country surroundings as weather stations are often sited in cool islands (eg - a park within the city). More here...
127586. Tom Dayton at 15:50 PM on 31 August 2009
        Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?
        Sorry, I should have written that the combined class 1 and 2 dataset is "nearly" uncontaminated by the "lower quality" stations. The data are adjusted not by simply smudging together the "good" with "bad" stations. Instead, a number of distinct types of corrections are made, based on completely sensible rationales having nothing to do with global warming. See The USHCN Version 2 Serial Monthly Dataset.
127587. Tom Dayton at 15:18 PM on 31 August 2009
        Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?
        Re: pico at 13:02 PM on 31 August, 2009 No, Watts's reasoning is not sound. The combined class 1 and 2 dataset is uncontaminated by the "lower quality" stations. The tiny proportion of those "good quality" stations in the all-stations dataset should make them incapable of compensating for Watts's assumed horrible "quality" of the class 3, 4, and 5 stations. The near identical anomalies of the two datasets make perfect sense if whatever microsite effects on temperature anomaly are inconsequential. It's important to keep in mind that the anomaly is what's important for global warming. If a given station was installed on a black tar roof and remains on that black tar roof, the roof's contribution of heat will be constant across decades, and so will contribute zero bias to the change in temperature across decades.
127588. Craig Allen at 13:02 PM on 31 August 2009
        Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?
        Watts has argued that these are both plots of the data after it has been corrected. He argues that because the correction algorithm shifts data from dodgy stations to better match that from good stations and visa versa, it is unsurprising that there is a good match between the two lines. Is his reasoning sound? What would you get if you compared these two plots to a plot of only uncorrected data from the good stations?
        Response: There's no vica versa. The good stations undergo very little adjustments because, well, they're good stations. For more info on adjustments made to weather station data due to microsite influences, see Examination of Potential Biases in Air Temperature Caused by Poor Station Locations (Peterson 2006).
127589. Null Hypothesis at 14:03 PM on 26 August 2009
        CO2 lags temperature
        MattJ: It is my understanding that in the distant past when CO2 was much more concentrated than today, the sun was also significantly dimmer. It is getting hotter and bigger all the time and in a billion years or so it will swallow the Earth. The thing with climate change now is that it is so rapid and because we've fragmented all the Earth's ecosystems they can't "move" to adapt.
127590. Quietman at 07:13 AM on 19 August 2009
        We're heading into an ice age
        SAME THREADS: "Are Sunspots Different" http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009EO300001.pdf "LONGER TERM SOLAR MINIMUM" http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SOLAR_MINIMUM.pdf
127591. Quietman at 07:09 AM on 19 August 2009
        We're heading into an ice age
        John "We're heading into a new Little Ice Age" equals "It's the Sun". No different, same thread.
127592. Patrick 027 at 04:51 AM on 19 August 2009
        It's the sun
        Gord - For the first time ever, you have truly found a real and significant mistake. I did temporarily forget the factor of 4 for the Earth's surface area divided by it's cross section, which of course has a square root of 2. Your equation was correct and mine was erroneous. It is TE = TS ( ( (1-a)^0.5 * Rs)/(2*D)) ) )^0.5) But everything else you say is just stupid, at best. As usual. I should pity you.
127593. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:38 PM on 18 August 2009
        The CO2/Temperature correlation over the 20th Century
        I recommend this figure also in English http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/Jan%20Pompe_co2%20and%20temp2.gif
127594. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 22:44 PM on 18 August 2009
        The CO2/Temperature correlation over the 20th Century
        "However, for the last 35 years, the dominant forcing has been CO2." Really? This figure http://doskonaleszare.blox.pl/resource/emisje2.png, in the polish alarmist blog, shows an increase of CO2 (by atmosphere exactly) in the years in ppm per year (rocznie = year) - the red curve; and anthropogenic emissions - a black curve (source: CDIAC). Compare the red curve, for example, the figure: http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/images/10_years_no_cooling.jpg. Interesting, is not it? CO2 decide about the temperature... whether is rather the opposite? Solar activity by Oceanic Warm Index - ocean heat capacity - 35 - "40 year lag periods"; by temperature... - the discussion shows that it is possible. "the negative aerosolic forcing has increased since the 1950’s" In central Asia "negative aerosolic forcing" increased since the 1950’s, even though the temperature are also increased... "TSI variation are very small." - Temperature also. 0,74 - UHI (rather not city but country - f.e. Japan; or continental UHI - Europe) or NBL, etc..., ... and temperature increasing becomes very small. Solar energy is redistributed in a number of cycles of even 1500-year..., after the completion of this remember about thermocline...
127595. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 21:49 PM on 18 August 2009
        The CO2/Temperature correlation over the 20th Century
        "However, for the last 35 years, the dominant forcing has been CO2." Really? This figure http://doskonaleszare.blox.pl/resource/emisje2.png, in the polish alarmist blog, shows an increase of CO2 (by atmosphere exactly) in the years in ppm per year (rocznie = year) - the red curve; and anthropogenic emissions - a black curve (source: CDIAC). Compare the red curve, for example, the figure: http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/images/10_years_no_cooling.jpg. Interesting, is not it? CO2 decide about the temperature... whether is rather the opposite? Solar activity by Oceanic Warm Index - ocean heat capacity - 35 - "40 year lag periods"; by temperature... - the discussion shows that it is possible. "the negative aerosolic forcing has increased since the 1950’s" In central Asia "negative aerosolic forcing" increased since the 1950’s, even though the temperature are also increased... "TSI variation are very small." - Temperature also. 0,74 - UHI (rather not city but country - f.e. Japan; or continental UHI - Europe) or NBL, etc..., ... and temperature increasing becomes very small. Solar energy is redistributed in a number of cycles of even 1500-year..., after the completion of this remember about thermocline...
127596. Surn at 20:31 PM on 18 August 2009
        Other planets are warming
        Recent solar activity also contributes to Solar System Warming. The electromagnetic storms on the sun which cause solar flares also convert high wavelength energy into low wavelength energy. Lower wavelengths travel further and are able to better penetrate atmosphere and other barriers. This is why both solar activity and solar intensity matter.
127597. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 19:54 PM on 18 August 2009
        Global warming and the El Niño Southern Oscillation
        Maybe here: http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/06/solar-signal-in-east-equatorial-pacific.html,is the explanation, that - "At some point you have to take the science and its evidence into account" dear Chris, ok; particularly: http://i26.tinypic.com/30iylfk.jpg. If now the red curve on this figure http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/tsi_vs_temp.gif by around move 40, 45 years, ahead... "most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 +/- 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980" - And that's the whole truth? and so on ?
127598. Quietman at 15:03 PM on 18 August 2009
        It's the sun
        "LONGER TERM SOLAR MINIMUM" http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SOLAR_MINIMUM.pdf
        Response: This topic is covered in We're heading into an ice age.
127599. Patrick 027 at 14:06 PM on 18 August 2009
        It's the sun
        As stupid as ever, Gord. Way to be consistent! ""In the absence of the greenhouse effect and an atmosphere, the Earth's average surface temperature of 14 deg C (57 deg F) could be as low as -18 deg C (-0.4 deg F), the black body temperature of the Earth." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect" That's what wikipedia says, then. It's not what I say. It's not what scientists say so long as they proofread well. It should be, 'In the absence of the greenhouse effect, the Earth's average surface temperature would be about -18 deg C.' I've told you this before. Did it ever occur to you that some of your sources might have rounded the sun's effective temperature (effective as in the temperature that an isothermal blackbody would have that emits the same radiant flux - actual photosphere not being isothermal through it's visible depth, etc.)? Observations: The Earth reflects about 30 % of the solar radiation it intercepts. Observations: The Earth emits to space less than is emitted from the surface, and the total emission to space is that which a blackbody (of the same size and shape) would emit if at about 255 K. Specifically, the emission to space is particularly reduced in places with high cold cloud tops, and in various intervals of wavelengths where H2O, CO2, and various other gases contribute opacity to the air - a spectral pattern not at found in the optical properties of the surface. (I've told you this before.) The Sun is the only energy source in an intermediate sense. Ultimately, the sun is not a source - the energy came from matter that came from energy+matter at some previous time. More proximately, there is energy in the climate system and the climate system can gain and lose energy, and energy can be redistributed within it. (I'VE TOLD YOU THIS BEFORE.) Your equation has a minor error: TE = TS ( ( (1-a)^0.5 * Rs)/(2*D) ) )^0.5) should be TE = TS ( ( (1-a)^0.5 * Rs)/D) ) )^0.5) (Mizimi - other than that, his formula is the correct one (a broken clock is correct twice a day (unless it has AM/PM - with digital, 'all bets are off')) - it would look more intuitive if written this way: TE = TS * [ (1-a)^0.5 * (Rs/D) ]^0.5 or TE = TS * (1-a)^(1/4) * (Rs/D)^(1/2) derived from TE^4 = TS^4 * (1-a) * (Rs/D)^2 and while I figured out what you mean by TE*1E4, that would appear confusing to many people; 1E4 could be interpeted as 1 * 10^4, so that it appears that you just multiplied TE by a constant of 10,000.)
127600. Mizimi at 19:01 PM on 15 August 2009
        Is Antarctic ice melting or growing?
        Patrick: there is no equilibrium, the river level rises and falls continuously in response to the amount of water that enters the river, which is modified by a lot of other factors. If you plotted the river level over a period of time you would get a line that wanders up and down. It is only because it is useful for our mathematical purposes that we lump all those variations into an 'annual mean variation'

Prev  2544  2545  2546  2547  2548  2549  2550  2551  2552  2553  2554  2555  2556  2557  2558  2559  Next