Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Next
Comments 1251 to 1300:
-
michael sweet at 02:44 AM on 30 November 2023John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist
AB19:
Both the midieval warming period and the Roman period you mention were local warming events and not global events. The current warming is global. The Globe cooled from about 8,000 years ago until about 200 years ago, when the industrial period of burning a lot of fossil fuels started.
source There is an arrow that indicates 2016, since then the temperature has risen about 0.3 C. The temperature is currently about 1.3 C above the zero point. There is no significant rise to support your claims.
When you have the basic facts incorrect your conclusions are also incorrect. You appear to be sadly misinformed. I recommend that you try reading more scientific web sites and less denier information. SkS is a good place to start.
-
John Mason at 22:34 PM on 29 November 2023John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist
Re #63: " I believe it's also true that in the last ice age the level of atmospheric CO2 was at least 10 times current levels - which according to IPCC thinking ought to have produced a blisteringly hot climate - yet there was an ice age. "
You believe incorrectly unless by "last ice age" you are referring to something hundreds of millions of years ago.
During the last glacial maximum of the Quaternary, ca. 23,000 years ago, CO2 was around 180 ppm.
-
AB19 at 21:32 PM on 29 November 2023John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist
I quote from the article introduction:
"It’s a familiar story – the physicist who draws attention for declaring that climate scientists have got climate science all wrong. He (it’s always a ‘he’) was born before color television was invented, usually retired, perhaps having won a Nobel Prize, but with zero climate science research or expertise. William Happer."
I don't know if the writer of the article is a scientist or not but it starts with some rather unscientific viewpoints, namely by suggesting that male, retired physicists are not qualified to comment on climate matters. What does it matter what sex they are or how old they are? In relation to physicists, I don't know about the others in the list given, but William Happer would, I would have thought, certainly qualify to comment on the global warming debate given that if you have watched any of his presentations on this topic, you'll know that his field of research was the absorption of infra-red radiation by CO2 molecular stretches and bends - very apt in the climate debate I would have thought, given that it is precisely CO2 that is being posited as the culprit in current global warming trends. He also openly admits that he was once a climate alarmist until his work led him to believe he was wrong.
I am not a climate scientist- my background is chemistry- but there are certain apparent facts that appear to be ignored in the current debate, namely that we know the earth warmed before about 1000 years ago in the medieval warming period and again about 2000 years ago in the Roman period. These warmings cannot have been due to human activity given that there were no combustion engines or factories around and world population was vastly lower than today. I believe it's also true that in the last ice age the level of atmospheric CO2 was at least 10 times current levels - which according to IPCC thinking ought to have produced a blisteringly hot climate - yet there was an ice age. Whilst not denying that CO2 is x greenhouse gas, these facts do tend to cast doubt on just how potent a greenhouse gas CO2 really is. I believe Dr Roy Spencer, who is a meteorologist not a physicist and also not retired ( though he is male) has similar views to the listed physicists.Moderator Response:[PS] If there is going to be further discussion of past warm periods, please use the search function to find more suitable places for discussion. Eg for mediaval warm period, see https://skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm
Happer and Spencer seem to have stuck priors, and credibility only with those who dont know climate science but like their conclusions. See https://skepticalscience.com/happer-spencer-global-warming-continues.html for instance. Search function will find other discussion of Happer's misinformed claims and errors.
-
John Mason at 18:10 PM on 29 November 2023At a glance - Evidence for global warming
@#2: in fairness to nigelj, one has to look fairly hard for maritime areas that do not show a "similar warming trend". Granted, they are interesting because the obvious question is, "why", However they are also a tiny minority.
-
abostrom at 11:55 AM on 29 November 2023Disinformation campaigns are undermining democracy. Here’s how we can fight back
It was Thanksgiving of 1993 when I caught a ride with my brother, to join him, his wife and two cats for the traditional meal. Widespread use of the internet was in its infancy and we whiled away hours of the trip excitedly chattering about all the potentials this new medium might unlock. Looking back, I think we were a bit naive about just how experimental and unpredictable this all was, and I don't mean technologically. There have been undeniable benefits (this site is proof), but given how 'social media' and the near global resurgence of authoritarianism seemingly have paralleled one another, one can't help but wonder whether what good, in the big picture, has come out of that phenomenom.
Perhaps I see social media too darkly. It has been pointed out, that very likely even the likes of Mark Zuckerberg did not fully grok the impacts of what they were doing as they cashed in. Too bad for democracy.
-
Paul Pukite at 09:13 AM on 29 November 2023At a glance - Evidence for global warming
"All these show a similar warming trend."
Not the middle of the equatorial Pacific. The temperature variation there is also not well understood because El Nino & La Nina cycles dominate and these are difficult to predict more than a year in advance.
"SST trends in the equatorial Pacific Ocean are especially controversial due to the discrepancy in the sign of the trend in the central and eastern Pacific among various SST datasets (Vecchi et al. 2008; Karnauskas et al. 2009; Deser et al. 2010a)"
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-012-1331-2#Sec5
-
nigelj at 06:17 AM on 29 November 2023At a glance - Evidence for global warming
We have many ways of measuring global warming. Urban areas, rural areas,oceans, the middle, and upper atmosphere. Sea level rise is also an indication of warming. All these show a similar warming trend. How much more do people want to be convinced? There really isn't any part of the planetary system left to measure.
If we were reliant purely on land surface data in cities for example, I would be scepetical. One data set might be flawed. But the chances of so many multiple data sets all being flawed and in the same direction is effectively zero.
Sarah Palin seems like a typical example of a lay person who thinks she knows better than the climate experts. Of course its good to discuss things and question if the experts are right, but remember the experts know things you dont know and small details are important in science.
Another expample of someone out of their depth is John Clauser, a physicist with a nobel prize in quantum physics and an outspoken anthropogenic climate change sceptic despite the fact he has never published any research related to climate change or formally specialised in something like atmospheric physics. It hasn't stopped him telling everyone that climate science is all wrong. He has made many indisputably false statements sometimes by using very out of date information. So even scientists outside their area of expertise can fool themselves. Good commentary here:
www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/11/clauser-ology-cloudy-with-a-chance-of-meatballs/
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:49 AM on 29 November 2023Disinformation campaigns are undermining democracy. Here’s how we can fight back
The 'fight back' against disinformation and misinformation is important.
However, the following linked Harvest Public Media (related to NPR) report indicates that even in 'very conservative' parts of the US the majority of people want actually correctly learn about climate change. The problem is the very small percentage of 'Team Coonservative' who are willing to be 'encouraged by misinformation and disinformation' from Team Cosnservative actors to threaten or actually attack people who try to increase awareness and improve understanding.
Midwest weather experts want to talk about climate change, but they face pushback and threats
KCUR | By Elizabeth Rembert
Published November 27, 2023 at 9:43 AM CSTThe story includes the following quote:
While resistant voices can be loud, 90% of Americans are still open to learning about climate change, according to Ed Maibach with the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University.
Maibach said surveys suggest people appreciate hearing about climate change from trusted sources like meteorologists and climatologists, even in conservative communities.
“The whole notion of ‘red and blue states’ actually creates a disservice when it comes to thinking about how to educate the public about climate change,” Maibach said. “It signals that this is difficult, if not impossible, to do in red states. But that's just not true.”
That reality explains the actions by Team Conservative to unjustifiably encourage fear and anger rather than help increase awareness and improve understanding. Increased awareness and improved understanding is significantly biased against current day 'Team Conservative' interests.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:21 AM on 29 November 2023Disinformation campaigns are undermining democracy. Here’s how we can fight back
nigelj @10,
It is undeniable that 'the current internet system' needs more effective ethical governing. More effective governing would help increase awareness and improve understanding regarding unjustified unsustainable beliefs and related harmful unjust actions (like delaying the ending of unnecessary harmful actions like the impacts of fossil fuel use, other anti-science actions and anti-diversity actions - the many fronts of improved understanding and required changes and corrections that the 'selfish status seekers and intolerant of diversity' fight on these days).
Faith in 'legacy media industry codes of practice on accuracy and integrity' is not generally justified. It may still apply to some degree in some Nations. But ethical governing of legacy information media has eroded significantly in many nations. And, in some nations, information media being governed to 'increase awareness and improve understanding of what is harmful and how people can be less harmful and more helpful to others' was more of an impression than a reality (as an example refer to the presentation of the Propaganda Model regarding the systemic manipulation of public opinion in the book by Edward S. Herman with Noam Chomsky: Manufacturing Consent, New York: Pantheon Books, 1988 updated 2002 - Movie of the same name made in 1992).
The current day global coordinated and collaborating group of political game players who are 'opposed to learning to be less harmful and more helpful' needs to be understood to be the problem with the internet, not 'the freedom of action on the internet'. And that group is the root of many, likely the vast majority, of the understandably harmful and unsustainable developments that are verified by evidence Today, especially the efforts to preserve unjustified perceptions of status (superiority relative to Others and dislike of Others) and the related 'inaccurate/incorrect history stories' that have developed. And that group of people can be understood to have been the reason that the past few decades have made the current over-development of harmful actions worse than it had to be.
It is important to understand the history of how things got to be as bad as they currently are. Without properly identifying and effectively correcting the real problem all that is likely to develop are unjustified perceptions that things will get better.
-
nigelj at 11:17 AM on 28 November 2023Disinformation campaigns are undermining democracy. Here’s how we can fight back
OPOF @8
Yes talk radio and television and political rallies have all spread misinformation at times. But at least they are mostly traditional media and are governed by industry codes of practice on accuracy and integrity (apart form a few rogue channels like Fox perhaps), but anyone can set up an 'alternative' news platform on the internet just so easily, and not subject to any codes of practice, and this is whats lead to such a toxic situation over about the last decade.
-
nigelj at 10:59 AM on 28 November 2023Disinformation campaigns are undermining democracy. Here’s how we can fight back
Regarding David Acct's comments where he says some of the authorities did exaggerate the effectiveness of the masks. I agree that was the wrong thing to do, but I'm prepared to be a bit forgiving as they were simply trying to encourage use of maks to save lives, and remember we were in a quickly evolving emergency situation with some uncertainty about how effective masks were. We are now looking back with the benefit of hindsight. I agree with Bob it was not misinformation.
David seem to be narrowly focused around whether face masks stop people catching covid. Obviously masks won't do much to stop you getting infected because they dont fit tightly enough and it only takes a very small number of cells to cause an infection. The studies seem to show that areas with high mask use had only slightly lower rates of infection. About what you would expect.
But masks do greatly reduce the viral load on the lungs and that initial viral load is closely related to severerity of symptoms. Its no accident that places with high mask use had a much lower mortality rate (25% in one study). So on balance it appears to me mask wearing does have value.
David does a rant about the virtues of free speech and the evils of censorship. I lean towards free speech, but I would boldly say that some censorship is required in some circumstances. It's common in times of war,and in New Zealand we have sensible laws against defamation, inciting violence and racist speech (which effectively incites violence) and as a result many websites will not publish public comments that infringe those laws. That is censorship, so lets call it what it is, but only a fool would suggest such laws and censorship is wrong.
But how much further should we go? Because every restriction on free speech does risk shutting down discussion and debate, which is a very unhealthy outcome. I believe restrictions and "censorship" should be small in number and only be if there is a risk of comments inciting criminal law breaking or leading to serious physical harm or in other exceptional circumstances.
For example during covid our media mostly allowed people to post comments on their websites with robust views or even crazy views on covid, but they generally wouldn't permit views undermining the use of vaccines, such as views making wild claims that vaccines dont work or that they kill people.
This seemed like a reasonable restriction because it was narrowly focused and related to potential loss of life. The country was actively trying to get vaccination rates as high as possible and we got to 95% double vaccinated. America land of free speech only got to about 65%. A lot of people died but they preserved their precious right to spread lies about vaccines. I find this approach rather bewildering and lacking in commonsense.
On the other hand, attempts to censor so called 'hateful' views and criticism of religion mostly seem to go too far and run into awful difficulties of defining what hate speech is.
Yes all of this means free speech is not a simple black and white thing and difficult judgement calls have to be made. I think we are just stuck with this and have to do the best we can.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:28 AM on 28 November 2023Disinformation campaigns are undermining democracy. Here’s how we can fight back
nigelj @1,
I agree with your observations and concerns. I would add that populist misleading political groups are not only being harmfully successful through ‘the internet’. Today’s misleading messengers are very active in:
- Talk Radio. Talk radio is a big influence on older and non-urban voters. Even Alberta’s current populist winner of leadership of the current governing Party was a talk radio misleading populist in Alberta for the past decade. And she still does regular radio talk programs (critically evaluate the results of an internet search like “right-wing biased talk radio”).
- Local TV. Sinclair Broadcast Group in the US is an example of a branch of populist misleading marketers. They buy local TV stations and try to dictate what the local news anchors cover and how they cover it (internet search “Sinclair media misleading news reports”).
- TV News channels. Fox News is an obvious villain.
- Political Rallies. An opportunity to spout unjustified claims to an eager audience who will not question what they hear ... because it comes from a person they consider to be ‘their type of authority figure’.
Ibram X. Kendi provides what is probably a better understanding of what is happening. (I mention it in my comment @7). The root problem is people who obtain power or status by getting away with harmful actions, including misleading marketing efforts. They will do whatever they can get away with to maintain and increase their power and perceptions of status relative to Others.
Note that the printing press initially increased awareness and improved understanding. In its early use the printing press corrected some serious undeserved perceptions of status. But eventually it was perverted by people who figured out ways to benefit from misinforming others through that mechanism.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:27 AM on 28 November 2023Disinformation campaigns are undermining democracy. Here’s how we can fight back
David-acct @4 (Note: I prepared this before seeing Bob Loblaw’s recent post)
I agree with BaerbelW @5. And I agree with you, sort of (see my ending PS).
Censorship, like ‘efforts to ban school books because they would increase awareness and improve understanding of how to be less harmful and more helpful to Others’, is indeed unacceptable. It is especially unacceptable to ‘censor education’ to only teach ‘reading-writing-math’ and ‘incorrect but preferred versions of history’.
However, a rational justification can be made for improving public education, a requirement for democracy to be sustainable, by limiting the success of authoritarian attempts to popularize inaccurate information. Those limiting actions are justified even if fans of the misunderstandings, people who idolize undeserving authority figures, claim that such corrective actions are ‘censorship’ or ‘evil re-education’.
An example in schools would be moving texts that incorrectly portray the history of what has occurred into a ‘special section’ where the inaccuracies are explained in detail for anyone interested in learning about that (regardless of the preferred beliefs of ‘winners of elections’).
In addition, being addicted to the pursuit and promotion of harmful misunderstanding is understandable, especially when the addiction is to unjustified perceptions of status relative to Others. However, an addiction to the pursuit of increased awareness and improved understanding of what is harmful and required corrections of unjustified developments and perceptions of success and status is also understandable.
Something like Addiction (or censorship) is not the problem. The problem is opposition to, rather than support for, ‘learning to be less harmful’. The same applies to political positions. Positions on the Left-Right spectrum are not ‘the problem’. The problem is ‘arguing and fighting against the pursuit of increased awareness and improved understanding of what is harmful and the diversity of justified corrective actions’. The corrective actions include actions that would limit the success of misinformation and disinformation efforts.
Misleading claims about ‘censorship’ are understandably expected from easily impressed victims or wilful perpetrators of misleading disinformation campaigns in the ‘War on increased awareness and improved understanding of undeserved perceptions of superiority and status’.
Ibram X. Kendi, in his many well researched books, provides a very robust understanding about the continued ‘progress of racist actions to defend unjustified perceptions of superiority relative to Others’. The reality that climate science also challenges unjustified perceptions of superiority makes it another front in the war efforts of people opposed to learning to be less harmful and more helpful to Others.
There are many valid justifications for restrictions on freedom. Helpful, justified, educational actions, including restrictions, are not censorship. Limiting the ability to spread harmful misunderstandings is not censorship. Arguing for the unrestricted sharing of misinformation would be like arguing for no efforts to limit the popularity of any of the many misleading harmful ‘social media popular challenges’ (share a video of biting a laundry-pod).
Limiting and correcting the popularity of harmful misunderstandings, especially with actions like educational inoculation, is not censorship. It would be more accurate to call such actions ‘Helpful Public Education’.
PS. Regarding the spread of a disease like COVID-19, I would agree that limiting-restricting contact between people is more effective than ‘mask wearing’ (and the type of mask also matters).
-
Bob Loblaw at 05:26 AM on 28 November 2023Disinformation campaigns are undermining democracy. Here’s how we can fight back
I see that David-acct has returned to inject another (likely one-off) comment on a thread, in an attempt to discredit the science. This time, he is yelling "censorship", in spite of the fact that the blog post does not advocate for the "suppression" he claims is a "far greater threat to democracy".
The blog post does refer to EU efforts "to make democracies more resilient against misinformation and disinformation", and about efforts "to boost the public’s resistance to misinformation". The paper on which the blog post is based gives more details: mentioning EU Codes of Practice and legislation attempting to "curtail misinformation and hate speech online". It also mentions the use of moderation policies "to remove online misinformation and hate speech under certain circumstances". In other words, "free speech" has limits.
In David-acct's world, it seems that helping people recognize and resist misinformation is "censorship". It would seem that David-acct's desired world is one where nobody is allowed to speak against misinformation. To me, there seems to be a pattern in many of these discussions - the "advocates' screaming about free speech and censorship seem to only approve of "free speech" by people they agree with. They appear to want "my free speech, unopposed". "Free speech" is not limited when people speak against you, and "free speech" does not mean that every online discussion group must provide you with a bull-horn. When someone violates a code of conduct on a commercially-run discussion group, and is barred from further participation, it is not "censorship". They are always free to set up their own web site and discussion network.
[Disclaimer: Skeptical Science has its own code of conduct for participants, known as the Comments Policy.]
David-acct then wanders into a Covid discussion, and finishes with an unsubstantiated claim that "the health authorities pushed as much or more covid disinformation than the denialists." He provides a link to a paper that he claims is "a good article on the effectiveness of masking". If we actually read the paper, what we find is an article that includes things like the following, where they discuss possible bias in their study:
The participants in the study were not randomly assigned to wear or not wear face masks, and they were not provided with or encouraged to use face masks. During the study period, official guidelines for face mask use changed, with mandatory use in certain situations. This may have affected the participants' use of face masks, with some choosing to wear them based on their own assessment of risk and effectiveness.
Additionally, there may be other factors that could confound the relationship between face mask use and study outcomes, such as participants in high-risk professions or with risk factors for severe COVID-19. Both groups may be more or less prone to wear face masks, while also observing different social distancing practices than the average population. We also cannot rule reverse causality, in which those testing positive for COVID-19 were more prone to wear masks afterwards in order to protect others. Finally, there could be an association between the inclination to test and the propensity to wear a face mask.
They conclude that section with the following statement:
However, it is important to interpret the results with caution and not infer that our estimates represent the true causal relationship between face mask use and infection risk.
So, the "good article" David-acct wants us to read is hardly the definitive source that David-acct is pretending it is. What David-acct has done is cherry-pick one study, and present it as far more conclusive than it is. If he had read even just the abstract, it finished with a general cautionary note (applicable to all studies):
We believe the observed increased incidence of infection associated with wearing a face mask is likely due to unobservable and hence nonadjustable differences between those wearing and not wearing a mask. Observational studies reporting on the relationship between face mask use and risk of respiratory infections should be interpreted cautiously, and more randomized trials are needed.
Also note that the paper David-acct refers to is a pre-print of an accepted paper, published online on November 13, 2023. Can anyone think of a possible reason why a study published in late 2023 was not used to guide policy decisions in early 2020? Does David-acct think that the 2020 policy decisions should have been "let's just wait, and do nothing, and see what happens, until we get moire data a few years from now"?
When Covid hit, there were a lot of unknowns about it. Policy decisions were needed, and may have been made in times of insufficient information. That is not the same thing as misinformation.
Sadly, this sort of comment has been typical of what David-acct tends to post here.
-
BaerbelW at 15:35 PM on 27 November 2023Disinformation campaigns are undermining democracy. Here’s how we can fight back
David-acct @4
Inoculation against mis- and disinformation doesn't involve censorship but making people aware of the techniques involved with spreading it. The only people who could have anything against that are the spreaders of disinformation, everybody else should be happy about those efforts in order to no longer fall for it.
-
David-acct at 11:44 AM on 27 November 2023Disinformation campaigns are undermining democracy. Here’s how we can fight back
he calls to suppress "disinformation" are effectively calls for censorship. In the long term, Censorship is far greater threat to democracy and the freedom of expression and scientific thought than the spreading of disinformation. Even if its called stopping disinformation, the reality is it a call for censorship.
I agree that there was a lot of disinformation regarding covid coming from the denialists such as vaccine safety, ivermectin, Hcx. Those claims persisted in spite of good research demonstrating that those claims were crap. However, the amount of disinformation coming from the political leaders and the CDC using low quality studies overhyping the effectiveness of the lockdowns, overhyping the effectiveness of masking and overhyping the effectiveness of the vaccines was extensive. As of the end of 2022, the CDC still had listed 45+ studies showing the "positive effectiveness" of masking, yet at least eight of those studies have serious shortcomings. For example, the Kansas mask mandated counties vs non mask mandated counties for example, the study period was intentionally cut short because the infection rate was higher in the mask mandated counties post the end of the study period.
here is a good article on the effectiveness of masking
in summary, the health authorities pushed as much or more covid disinformation than the denialists. While the push for stopping disinformation is reality is a push for censorship in which everyone loses
-
BaerbelW at 20:19 PM on 26 November 2023Greenhouse effect has been falsified
Please note: the basic version of this rebuttal has been updated on November 26, 2023 and now includes an "at a glance“ section at the top. To learn more about these updates and how you can help with evaluating their effectiveness, please check out the accompanying blog post @ https://sks.to/at-a-glance
-
BaerbelW at 17:47 PM on 26 November 2023Disinformation campaigns are undermining democracy. Here’s how we can fight back
nigelj @1
Yes, we are in catch-up mode, but there are examples which could be used as templates of how to include media literacy and crtical thinking in school curricula. Here is one from Finland:
Finland’s ‘visionary’ fight against disinformation teaches citizens to question what they see online
-
Nick Palmer at 12:23 PM on 26 November 2023Disinformation campaigns are undermining democracy. Here’s how we can fight back
What NigelJ said is very valid. My own perspective on such matters as percption of climate science is that probably most 'sides' - from doomist through alarmist to 'IPCC' accepting to 'sceptic' to denier - now currently distort the science and the varied consequences of assorted policies to suit their favoured take - often very strongly influenced by their personal politics. All sides use the very same techniques of cherry picking, quote mining, over-promoted 'experts', out-dated articles etc to make their cases. The actual peer reviewed science tends to get lost in the noise
-
nigelj at 06:05 AM on 26 November 2023Disinformation campaigns are undermining democracy. Here’s how we can fight back
I have a comment regarding this terrible explosion of misinformation and disinformation. So whats gone so horribly wrong recently that we have an explosion of misinformation and disinformation? IMO its largely the internet causing this upsurge. Certainly various analysis easily googled implicate the internet. There are obviously political motives as well. So here is my understanding of it all...
Firstly we need to remember that misinformation and disinformation been around forever, and its often linked to partisan politics, but generally it seems to have been at lesser scale than presently and a fringe thing with the vast majority of people accepting basic information and facts coming from scientists and officials and mainstream media (even if they disagree with opinions, interpretations and ideologies).
Our education system was designed to encourage respect of authorities and for scepticism to be rational scepticism. Our core information sources were mostly academia, official sources, mainstream media, etc,etc.
Any basic text on sociology will tell you all this.
However it appears the internet has changed everything, by giving a free or low cost platform to every individual (or group of individuals) who can thus spread their message globally and near instantly and gain a huge audience. We can effectively all now be our own media platforms at little or no cost. And the reach is amazing. This is a serious challenge to the old media and other information sources.
And not everyone is honest, well informed, or rational and sadly the inflammatory misinformation that contradicts official sources is inherently like a maget so it attracts a large following. It gains traction.
The end result is the proliferation of misinformation and huge and unjustified distrust of the mainstream authorities and naive trust in fringe "alternative" internet sources. While the mainstream sources of information have never been perfect, the "alternative" sources are in 99% of cases far worse.
And society has been completely unprepared for this onslaught, because its exploded in just a decade or two at most. The misinformation and disinformation is not only suddenly prevasive it uses techniques most people were never educated to recognise. I was lucky that as a young teenager I stumbled across a book on logical fallacies which is the core of the misinformation, so I'm reasonably ok at recognising fake information and junk science (as are many other regulars on this website). But if you haven't read that sort of thing at some stage, you simply dont have the skills, and they dont appear to be taught in school. If you are really smart you will work some of the skills out for yourself, but...not everyone is really smart.
We are effectively in catch up mode. I applaud the efforts of this website to help educate people to recognise misinformation. I feel it should also be front and centre of every schools curriculum. Sensible people on all sides of politics will benefit from this.
-
Just Dean at 07:27 AM on 20 November 2023John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist
Almost all Nobel Laureates and National Academy of Sciences members have different different views than the handful of outliers that get a lot of outsized attention.
In 2015 and 2016, 76 Nobel Laureates signed the Mainau Declaration on Climate Change with an urgent warning about the consequences of climate change.
I have scoured the internet looking for NAS members who appear to be climate change skeptics, contrarians or deniers. I have found 7 living members, two of which are Nobel Laureates, Ivar Giaever and Robert Laughlin. The other five are Claude Alegre, John Dewey, William Happer, Richard Linzen and Steven Koonin. As of 2022 there were 2493 NAS members. These seven are all over 70 and represent 0.3%. If I'm off by a factor of 3, they will still represent less than 1%.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 04:34 AM on 20 November 2023John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist
Plus c'est la meme chose...
Interestingly, Alain Aspect, who is one of the co-recipients of that physics Nobel prize for demonstrating quantum entanglement, has a very different take from Clauser on climate change.
-
BaerbelW at 02:32 AM on 20 November 2023It's not happening
Please note: the basic version of this rebuttal has been updated on November 19, 2023 and now includes an "at a glance“ section at the top. To learn more about these updates and how you can help with evaluating their effectiveness, please check out the accompanying blog post @ https://sks.to/at-a-glance
-
Bob Loblaw at 05:29 AM on 19 November 2023John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist
Gavin Schmidt, over at RealClimate, has posted a take-down of Clauser's claims.
The closing summary:
So where does this leave us? Effectively, we have an overconfident Nobel Prize winner, who hasn’t done their homework in an area outside their field, who makes very obvious errors, and whose fame is being capitalized on by the forces of denial. Not really an original story (c.f. Kary Mullis, Linus Pauling, etc.), but still a bit of a shame.
Plus ca change...
-
Just Dean at 22:49 PM on 17 November 20232023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #44
Andrew,
Thanks for your kind words and invitation. It is appreciated.
I try to walk the talk when it comes to fighting climate change and share what I learn. I have written a couple op-eds that have made it into the local papers but there you are limited by the whims of the editor.
I sometimes wonder what difference it will make. It is hard to change people's minds. I just hope one day my granddaughter will appreciate my efforts.
Best,
Dean
-
Andrew741 at 03:30 AM on 17 November 20232023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #44
Dear Dean,
Your passion for climate issues post-retirement is truly inspiring. It's wonderful to see how you balance staying informed on critical topics with a touch of light entertainment. Your commitment to meaningful content and discussions showcases the richness of your retirement pursuits. Thanks for your positive feedback on the climate websites, and feel free to share your insights anytime,
Best,
Andrew John -
nigelj at 05:08 AM on 16 November 20232023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #44
Just Dean,
"I probably spend too much time consuming climate change science and solutions online. It has become a passion for me in retirement. I suspect commenting at sites like this help me replace the interactions I used to have at work."
I'm retired and I spend a couple of hours a day sometimes more reading websites on environmental, political, current affairs and economic issues and often participating in discussions. Particularly on the climate issue. I think its a replacement for work interractions like with you, and it keeps the mind active and I like to share information and discuss issues.
I like light entertainment and fiction novels as as well, but I would go crazy if that was the only thing in my life, and I find 90% of reality TV is awful. Not really into social media gossip.
I don't think you should feel guilty for being passionate about the climate issue and spending time on it. Unless it was the ONLY issue you spent time on. That might be a warning sign. As long as we retired folk aren't somehow hurting other people or neglecting something important whats the problem? People can do what they want in retirement. We all have different tastes.
Thanks for the tips on the list of climate websites. I read some of those but I dont normally contribute to discussions. Might do so a bit more.
-
Just Dean at 22:59 PM on 15 November 20232023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #44
nigelj,
I appreciate your kind words. It is fun to speculate. I probably spend too much time consuming climate change science and solutions online. It has become a passion for me in retirement. I suspect commenting at sites like this help me replace the interactions I used to have at work. I do appreciate knowledgable communities. Some of my favorite sites are The Climate Brink, Sustainability by the Numbers, And then theres physics and CarbonBrief.
I must admit I am biased when it comes to Zeke. If I have a question about a climate change issue, I always start by finding out what Zeke thinks, e.g. WDZT.
cheers,
Dean
-
Paul Pukite at 17:01 PM on 15 November 2023SkS Analogy 26 - Earth's Beating Hearts
The nodal crossing is also responsible for ENSO
-
nigelj at 05:28 AM on 15 November 20232023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #44
Just Dean @31, I agree that the spike in warming this year around july - october is unlikely to be caused by the reduction in industrial aerosols. The so called termination shock.
The reduction in shipping aerosols started back in 2020 and fuels were changed immediately so if anything you would expect a sudden spike in temperatures back in 2020 - 2021 not this year. Other reductions in industrial aerosols like Chinas introduction of scrubbers is phased in so would have a gradual effect over time and doesnt really expain a sudden spike.
I do think the reduction is industrial aerosols will have a longer term warming effect but it will be gradual and seen more in hindsight. And the mainstream view seems to be not as huge as Hansen argues. I have no idea who is right on the issue. Both very clever people.
Zeke seems to be arguing the temperature spike this year is caused by "bit of everything" including the el nino, the volcano, reduction in industrial aerosols, but that the el nino is the big factor. I tracked down his commentary and here it is for anyone interested:
heatmap.news/climate/september-2023-hottest-heat-zeke-hauffather
He could be right, although I think MAR has made a good case that the volcano is the main factor. The study you quoted did suggest that the water vapour is not enough to explain the temperature spike, but perhaps that study is underestimating it. Water vapour ejected so high up has a strong warming effect.
That leaves the possibility of the el nino plus the volcano being the two main factors and about equal, and a little bit from industrial aerosols reductions. That would be a good explanation.
Blaming it all on a combination of factors is a fairly safe approach but I admit its not entirely satisfying.
I'm retired now. For me its an interesting puzzle. I respect your views. I think MS is right that we just dont have enough data and we dont have a definitive understanding of effects of aerosol's so cant be very certain at this point. But its fun and stimulating to speculate a bit.
-
John Mason at 05:26 AM on 15 November 2023Can we still avoid 1.5 degrees C of global warming?
Bob @ 3 -
I wondered if kar meant stippled?
-
Bob Loblaw at 04:50 AM on 15 November 2023Can we still avoid 1.5 degrees C of global warming?
kar @ 2:
Your answer to the question about pre-1990 data is not hard to find. The authors of the blog post kindly added a link to the image source in the caption.
If you follow that link, you can download the report. If you go to the original version of the figure in the report, it says:
Sources: Upper panel: Historical data from the IPCC for 1950–1989 and from the 2022 NDC synthesis report for 1990–2020; 2030 projections from NDCs; and the reduction scenarios from the AR6 Synthesis Report
I have no idea what you are trying to imply by the term "stipulated". -
kar at 00:43 AM on 15 November 2023Can we still avoid 1.5 degrees C of global warming?
Text under the Figure has spelled wrongly «NCDs, or national pledges» ... should have been: «NDCs, or national pledges».
Why is the historical black graph before 1990 not solid?
Maybe because the data is stipulated?
-
Just Dean at 23:14 PM on 14 November 20232023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #44
Michael,
Fine, but my money is on Zeke and the moderate, mainstream climate scientists. I'm just not buying the theory of Simons and Hansen of an "aerosol termination shock."
As I say I'm not an expert, but I am a retired research engineer who worked with fusion scientists and high-energy-density physicists for 34 years, so I've seen a thing or two and this just seems too speculative to me.
-
michael sweet at 08:48 AM on 14 November 20232023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #44
Just Dean,
The main scientific explainations for the extreme heat this year are: the start of El Nino, the volcano, aerosols and natural variation. I think that in this thread you and others have posted data supporting the idea that the El Nino is too early to provide so much of an increase in temperature. The volcano does not produce enough forcing to account for the increase in temperature and aerosols do not provide enough forcing for the observed temperatures. I think "natural variation" is short hand for we don't know the cause.
Obviously something has caused the extreme heat this year. I think it probably is El Nino, the volcano or aerosols. I think the data is not definative yet as to which is actually the cause. Great scientists are divided on what they support. We will have to wait two or three years. During that time more data will become available. That data will give us clues about what the true cause is. I hope that it is El Nino or the volcano. I fear it might be aerosols. We need more data to decide.
-
Just Dean at 06:41 AM on 14 November 20232023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #44
nigelj,
I'm not sure what I else I can say. I'm not an expert but I'm telling you that based on what I can find on the web, the consenus by climate scientists appears to be that Hunga-Tonga is not reponsible for our the spike in surface temperatures, contributes but is not a major factor. If you have not visited Dessler's post at The Climate Brink, I encourage you to do so. I'm sure he would still welcome questions or comments if either you or MA Rodger wish to discuss it with him.
I referenced a paper by Stuart Jenkins @27. I don't have access to the paper but I found a detailed article about the paper at CarbonBrief . It has a nice plot of the projected increase in surface temperature as a function of time after the eruption. It causes a very slight increase over several years and then dissipates.
This is the only study cited by Dessler that claims Hunga-Tonga added to heating. Two others actually believe it would cause slight cooling. Dessler claimed he was working on a peer-reviewed paper but I don't expect any surprises there.
I'm tapped out. I've gotten nothing else that I feel like I can contribute to this discussion.
-
nigelj at 06:31 AM on 14 November 2023Can we still avoid 1.5 degrees C of global warming?
"The report found that the net greenhouse gas emissions from human activity would need to be 43% lower by 2030 compared to 2019 to maintain a two-thirds chance of either meeting the long-term 1.5°C goal or only briefly overshooting it."
This looks technically and economically possible to me as follows.
"A new study by Stanford engineer Mark Jacobson and his team published in the journal Energy & Environmental Science calculates that the world would need to spend around $62 trillion to build up the wind, solar, and hydro power generating capacity to fully meet demand and completely replace fossil fuels. That looks like a huge number, even spread out across the 145 countries cited in the study. But after crunching the numbers, estimates show that countries would make the money back in cost-savings in a relatively short period of time: Between one to five years."
My view: To meet this goal of cutting emissions 43% by 2030, lets assume that we spend half the required 62 trillion, thus 30 trillion on renewables over the period 2023 - 2030 . That is 4.2 trillion dollars each year. Total global gdp (economic output) each year is currently about $100 trillion, so 4.2 trillion is about 4% of global gdp per year.
This looks a feasible amount of money to me if we really wanted. Its not going to impoverish the world. Its about what the USA spends on the military each year as a % of its own gdp. It would require cutting about 4% from other budgets including probably government spending and consumer goods spending. 4% is not a massive number.
It would mean a huge engineering effort to transfer capacity into renewables but America and other countries did a similar sort of thing producing military hardware in WW2. And we are already partly there with renewables growing fast.
Of course electricity generation is just one component but its the big issue, and the highest cost issue we need to address.
It's really a question of whether the world can find the motivation to do all this. There are just several impediments in the way 1) The denialist campaign 2) Our brains are hardwired to priortise massive immediate threats like covid or wars, not insidious longer term problems like climate change even although they are a larger threat, 3) Lots of resistance to lifestyle change for various reasons, 4) politics.
So I alternate between hope and despair.
-
nigelj at 04:49 AM on 14 November 20232023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #44
Just Dean @27
Regarding the experts allegedly blaming the warming this year (particularly July to October) on climate change plus a bit from el nino. This doesn't sound convincing to me. El Nino has barely even started so wouldnt have much effect (as others point out) , and greenhouse gas warming and its realted feedback mechanisms is a gradual process that wouldn't cause a sudden spike in warming in a few months of one year.
The reduction in industrial aerosols from the new shipping rules in 2020 is also not a good explanation for this years warming. The reduction in aerosols stared immediately in 2020 and increased from there, so You would expect it to have had a fairly immediate effect and an effect over the three years. Its hard to see why it would create a sudden warming spike three years later.
I think MAR has a good explanation that the Tongan Volcano's aerosols have all fallen out of the atmosphere and remaining water vapour has thus caused a spike in warming. I did a google search a few days ago, and aerosols decrease over a period of a couple of years following a reverse exponential curve and water vapour can remain in the stratosphere for a couple of years. All it would need is for a large part of the water vapour to remain a little bit longer than the aerosols.
But I think that the global warming trend will accelerate and may have already accelerated, due to the reduction in industrial aerosols and various feedback mechanisms, but it is not something we would be able to detect in just a couple of years temperatures. And its most likely going to be a gradual process, rather than a step change in just one year.
-
Just Dean at 23:24 PM on 13 November 20232023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #44
MA Rodger,
I looked at the video from Dessler. I don't understand why you cited that. That video is an explaination video cited by Dessler in his post from The Climate Brink where he concludes that Hunga-Tonga is "not reponsible for the blistering temperatures we're experiencing."
Or as his last sentence states, " If you’re sweating right now, don’t blame HT. Blame fossil fuels."
Again, I think the jury is still out but I tend to trust the experts and from what I read most feel that Hunga Tonga is not repsonsible for this year's heat wave - Ref. From what I read an aerosol effect should play out over years not months and contribute a "baseline offset" if there is an effect. According to Stuart Jenkins, it is maybe on the order of 0.04 - 0.05 C.
-
Eclectic at 06:04 AM on 13 November 2023Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
Michael @44 , I must modestly disagree with you.
Yes, there is a real concern about the adverse effect of high local ambient CO2 levels in classrooms, submarines, and other enclosed spaces. A perfectly valid concern, for health and intellectual performance (and most especially the performance of crew in a nuclear-armed submarine ! ).
But please read again through the O.P. ~ and note the panicky crescendo in the final few paragraphs. [quote] "... we may end up intellectually a lot closer to plants."
Sure, that was an expression of dramatic hyperbole ~ but hyperbole more fitted to a rally of Extinction Rebellion adherents, than to the sober annals of SkepticalScience. Even in the comments thread, some seem to have taken that apocalyptic message seriously. And I am thinking the propagandists at WUWT would take it even further, as an example of them thar crazy Alarmists.
But I am not so much interested in the final paragraph, as in the build-up evident in those lattermost paragraphs. Even in the sly reference to D.Zappulla,2013 ~ a reference which actually discusses effects at CO2 ambients in the range 5,000 - 30,000 ppm. Golly !
The O.P. starts with matters of technical interest . . . but then gradually slides into unwarranted alarmism. And it entirely fails to mention the human body's well-evolved compensation system [the kidneys].
I do not wish to see the O.P. deleted ~ but suggest a prominent CAUTION for the casual reader.
Response:As various people have remarked (thanks to all for your productive and tactful critique) this article's overall theme and especially conclusory speculation do not seem sufficiently supported by citations of directly pertinent literature. We're taking a closer look at the topic so as to formulate a responsive, fair and kindly means of remedy
Update: article is now caveated with points of concern via editorial note.. --Skeptical Science Team -
michael sweet at 00:43 AM on 13 November 2023Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
Eclectic:
I think your concern is misplaced.
This paper, from 2015 finds concentrations of CO2 in classrooms in New York at levels up to 1591 ppm. They report teachers had more headaches the higher the concentration of carbon dioxide. Obviously students are negatively affected. Since background levels have increased since then you would expect classroom levels to increase.
I taught in Florida. Our classrooms are more crowded and often the air conditioning systems do not work. I woud expect classroom conentrations to be hgher in Florida. New York spends more on classroom maintenance than most states so I would expect New York data to be lower than most other states.
If the external CO2 concentration increases that has a disproportionate on inclosed space concentrations. If you are diluting the internal space with 300 ppm air the internal concentration stays lower than when you dilute the internal space with 450 ppm air. Anywhere there are crowded buldings the concentration of CO2 becomes severely elevated. Theatres, crowded offices, manufacturing areas all have elevated CO2. Restaraunts that use gas stoves are severely affected.
The external air in cities is not 425 ppm. This paper reports an hourly average of CO2 in Salt Lake City USA as high as 700 ppm in 2016. I would expect other locations to be higher.
Even 1000 ppm affects how people work and feel. Most of us do not live on the top of Mauna Loa where the air is well mixed. (They delete the data when hgh CO2 air from the volcano mixes in). You are looking at outside air. The spaces where people work and live have increased carbon dioxide and exceed the limits that affect people.
-
Eclectic at 22:40 PM on 12 November 2023Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
A modest suggestion [ not Modest Proposal ] :-
In the absence of any information to the contrary during the past 8 days in this thread, I would like to suggest that this O.P. from 2014 be marked with a prominent note of Warning or Caution for readers.
The O.P. starts well, by evidencing mild impairment of human intellectual function at an ambient (air) level of 1000 ppm of CO2. Fortunately, a reversible impairment.
But in the final 4 paragraphs, the O.P. implies that we humans should be alarmed, medically, at the prospect of a terrestrial atmospheric CO2 level of even 426ppm - 900ppm. (The O.P. also links to the [bookish] D.Zappullo~2013 , wherein is discussed major health problems from air CO2 of 5,000ppm - 30,000ppm.)
However, in actuality, an ambient CO2 426ppm-900ppm level would be swiftly compensated inside the body (within hours to days) through the activity of the kidneys which possess routine mechanisms to normalize total body acidity. The adverse planetary effects of high CO2 are an entirely separate matter.
SkS staff may wish to consider adding an up-front note, such as :-
CAUTION : parts of this 2014 post are very misleading.
.
-
BaerbelW at 20:08 PM on 12 November 2023Climate sensitivity is low
Please note: the basic version of this rebuttal has been updated on November 12, 2023 and now includes an "at a glance“ section at the top. To learn more about these updates and how you can help with evaluating their effectiveness, please check out the accompanying blog post @ https://sks.to/at-a-glance
-
michael sweet at 14:02 PM on 12 November 2023Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
On Wednesday Nuscale cancelled their plant in Idaho. That was the most advanced project of small modular reactors in the western world. The price of the power was too high, even after the government spent over $600 million on the project. It was supposed to be built on a location that used to have a fossil plant so water intakes and electrical connections to the grid were already built.
Nuclear is too expensive, takes too long to build and there is not enough uranium.
-
MA Rodger at 10:04 AM on 11 November 20232023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #44
Just Dean @22,
My apologies for misreading your comment @20.
The climatology community do not generally spend their time awaiting monthly global temperature anomalies and (as in the kerfuffle with the so-called 'hiatus' a decade back) tend to react to issues after they have arisen; and then not very fluently. So in that regard Jason Box is an oddity.
Concerning the contribution of El Niño to 2023 global temperatures, it is true that there were stronger La Niña conditions in mid-2022 than there was in mid-1996 and particularly in mid-2014. Thus the change from a cooling La Niña would perhaps suggest more resulting warming in 2023. But the flip side of that is the La Niña conditions so far in 2023 being far weaker than 1997 & 2016 suggesting less resulting warming. (Note the 2009-10 El Niño also began from strong La Niña conditions in 2008.) The net effect for 2023 should then perhaps be 1997 or 2015-like. But they are not.
Thus I would suggest there is ample evidence from the global temperature record to indicate something with perhaps even more warming impact on global temperatures than the coming La Niña.
If the temperature rise (using ERA5 with assumed Nov/Dec 2023 anomalies as per @21) the global temperature rise through the first year and then the additional second year rise run as follows:-
1996-97 ... +0.12ºC ... ... 1997-98 ... +0.19ºC
2008-09 ... +0.13ºC ... ... 2009-10 ... +0.10ºC
2014-15 ... +0.15ºC ... ... 2015-16 ... +0.18ºC
2022-23 ... +0.30ºC ... ... 2023-24 ... +???ºCPerhaps it would be worth setting out the same data for was the most powerful El Niño of recent decades. This was overwhelmed by the El Chichón eruption of April 1982 which resulted in a cooling in 1982:-
1981-82 ... -0.20ºC ... ... 1982-83 ... +0.19ºCSo perhaps the Jan 2022 Hunga Tonga eruption and its water vapour is acting as a booster for 2023. (I mentioned satellite data @21 supporting this contention. See th 6 min video from Andrew Dessler here. It's now 3 months old.)
-
michael sweet at 05:04 AM on 11 November 20232023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #44
Bob:
The denialists will have to wait and see how warm 2024 is before they changne their posts!!
-
michael sweet at 05:03 AM on 11 November 20232023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #44
Just Dean:
If you like Dr Hausfather's posts you will be in good hands. I also like his detialed and timely posts. As I said above, read as much as you can and focus on the people you think are most consistant. There are currently several competing scientific explainations of the high temperatures in 2023. More time will determine which is correct.
I agree with MA Rodger that the current data does not explain the extraordinary high temperatures of 2023. (I rarely post about temperatures on Skeptical Science any more because I usually agree with MA Rodger). I hope he is correct that the unusual heat is caused by the volcano. I fear that Hansen might be correct that aerosols have been obscuring more warming than is currently modeled. Hausfather is a very skilled scientist and he thinks it might be an unusual El Nino. This El Nino is following an unusually long La Nina period, perhaps that expalins the unusual change. It could just be random natural variation (I doubt that). I think the scientific literature supports all of these possibilities.
In this case I expect that in two or three years the extraordinary heat this year will be explained. If is is an unusual El Nino we should know in 2024 or 2025. If it was the volcano the temperatures in 2025 should return to the previous trend. If it is aerosols they will stay elevated. This is an unusually short time to determine a scientific explaination. The data might be muddled and we will need another few years to determine the best answer.
This is how science advances!! Competing hypothesis are tested against the data. People initially take sides. As more data becomes available one hypothesis is more supported by the new data. Most people accept the most supported hypothesis.
-
CORK at 04:05 AM on 11 November 2023Skeptical Science New Research for Week #45 2023
In all the papers above, if there is one that should not be ignored, it is this one :
Good Practices and Common Pitfalls in Climate Time Series Changepoint Techniques: A Review, Lund et al., Journal of Climate Open Access pdf 10.1175/jcli-d-22-0954.1
Good read to all.
-
Bob Loblaw at 00:08 AM on 11 November 20232023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #44
Back in 2016, I created this graphic regarding the spike in global temperatures, and how the denial industry would respond.
With 2023 showing such a high temperature anomaly, you can bet that all the web sites and reports that claim "no warming since..." will be running an exercise similar to this:
-
Evan at 23:52 PM on 10 November 2023SkS Analogy 26 - Earth's Beating Hearts
Paul@4, that is an interesting observation for our current era: a relationship between the sun and the ice. But if the polar ice caps were to disappear, the sun crossing the equator twice per year would no longer have the same effect.
