Recent Comments

Prev  351  352  353  354  355  356  357  358  359  360  361  362  363  364  365  366  Next

Comments 17901 to 17950:

17901. NorrisM at 04:26 AM on 29 September 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38
       

       John Hartz @ 7

       Thanks for your reply.  It just seems to me that in the interests of "balance" a commentary on the Jacobson paper would have been appropriate.  I still think that SkS should take on the issue of costs of converting from fossil fuels to RE.  it would be easy to create a "myth" even based upon my worries as expressed in my reply to Eclectic.

       If there is a website similar to SkS which deals with costs, perhaps you could direct me to it.

17902. NorrisM at 04:20 AM on 29 September 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38
       

       Eclectic @ 6

       Thanks, I will read with interest the blog following McKitrick's essay including Hausfather's comments.  I have actually bit the bullet and purchased a pdf copy of the Millar paper so I have a better idea as to what it actually says (to the extent I can understand it). 

       I have come to realize that the whole issue of climate change and what to do about it is a massively complex matter which is difficult for the layman to grasp. It does worry me whether the public at least could ever get any benefit from a Red Team Blue Team approach.

       What continues to scare me is that we are being asked to expend massive amounts of money (GDP that could have otherwise been directed to other places) to convert from fossil fuels.  I cannot think that there has been any other time in the history of the US where such massive expenditures have been proposed based upon predictions which are in turn based upon economic models.  The closest I can think of was the faith that the Marshall Plan expenditures would result in democracies in Europe.   I suspect that the expenditures of the Marshall Plan as a percentage of GDP would be far less than the US costs of conversion to either wind and solar or, for that matter, nuclear power.

17903. MA Rodger at 01:17 AM on 29 September 2017
       The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
       

       Eclectic @34,
       You say you have examined the history of Judy's little asteroid Climateetc but that was not the start of her journey to the dark side. A lot of stuff preceded the creation of Climateetc in Sept 2010 but, as with much else, Judy has her own take on the journey she took. Her version of it is set out at the start of her 2015 Senate testimony:- (PDFp39)

       "Prior to 2009, I felt that supporting the IPCC consensus on climate change was a responsible thing to do. I bought into the argument don’t trust what one scientist says, trust what an international team of 1,000 scientists have said after years of careful deliberation.
       "That all changed for me in November 2009, following the leaked ‘‘Climategate’’ e-mails that illustrated the sausage-making and even bullying that went into building the consensus. I started speaking out, saying that scientists needed to do better at making the data and supporting information publicly available, being more transparent about how they reach conclusions, doing a better job of assessing uncertainties, and actively engaging with scientists having minority perspectives.
       "The response of my colleagues to this is summed up by the title of a 2010 article in the Scientific American, ‘Climate Heretic: Judith Curry Turns on Her Colleagues.' I came to the growing realization that I had fallen into the trap of group think. I had accepted the consensus based on second-order evidence, the assertion that a consensus existed."

       This seems to suggest that in the two days following Climategate, Judy went from happy-bunny climatologist to happily posting on denialist websites like Wattsupia (a re-post from ThinkProgress but Wattsupia is the version she links to here) and denialist Climate Audit, the place she tells us "became my blog of choice, because I found the discussions very interesting and I thought, ‘Well, these are the people I want to reach rather than preaching to the converted over at [the mainstream climate science blog] RealClimate.’” That's a big big shift in just two days, Judy! Almost as abrupt as the next leap to full denialist in the following year, assuming you go along with Judy's timeline.

       The story actually begins in 2005 with Webster et al (2005) 'Changes in Tropical Cyclone Number, Duration, and Intensity in a Warming Environment'  which was published just as the 2005 hurricane season was making hurricane studies highly political. So the paper drew a lot of denialist flack from contrarians to which Judy found herself responding (being a co-author) and was still providing expert hurricane testimony in July 2006.  She was also the lead-author on a paper addressing the scientific argumentation of hurricane studies (although note that while the article is described here as "unapologetic in advancing their particular point of view", the article is actually setting out its scientific position as being no more than "the central hypothesis."
       But there are then the first signs in 2006 of Judy falling out with her scientific colleagues but over the narrow issue of how to treat with denialists. We find Judy commenting at what would become her "blog of choise" ( eg. about halfway down this 2006 thread where she would soon earn her posting rights). Also in 2006, she was talking on the need for engaging with denialism which heavily hints at her future path. This 2006 talk was tellingly titled "Falling Out of the Ivory Tower" and bullet points included ♠ inadequate assessment and communication of uncertainty ♠ turf battles and appeal to authority ♠muddy relationship between climate research and policy. It can thus be seen that Judy was already engaging with her "group think" monster by 2006, years before 'climategate'.
       Her immediate response to 'climategate' (in web-pages linked above) was to advocate openness so denialists can spot any errors allowing (apparently) corrections to be made with minimum fuss. "Doing this would keep molehills from growing into mountains that involve congressional hearings, lawyers, etc." while she says she isn't implying "climate researchers need to keep defending against the same arguments over and over again." (I would agree with this last point as they would instead have to 'keep defending against the same arguments over and over & over & over & over & over again, ad nauseam.')
       And by mid-2010 our Judy had become one of her own "scientists having minority perspectives" becoming an uncritical conduit for denialst argument and thus unable to connect with her peers (as her input into this July 2010 RealClimate comment-thread well demonstrates).
       Two months afterwards she had her little un-worldly asteroid Climateetc to retreat to, where she could cultivate her persona as The Daily Mail climate scientist of choice.

        

       
       Tapping this out, I was surprised to read in that article critical of Judy which she cited in her testimony that:-

       "Curry asserts that scientists haven’t adequately dealt with the uncertainty in their calculations and don’t even know with precision what’s arguably the most basic number in the field: the climate forcing from CO2 —that is, the amount of warming a doubling of CO2 alone would cause without any amplifying or mitigating effects from melting ice, increased water vapor or any of a dozen other factors."

       Question- Is that right? Has she fallen that far into the denialistic pit to consider this a substantive issue. Answer - She certainly had back in Dec 2010.

17904. John Hartz at 23:42 PM on 28 September 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38
       

       NorrisM @35: You wrote:

       I have seen no criticism whatever by this website of the June 2017 paper of Clack (NOAA) et al published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences which has roundly criticized the Jacobson cost study to the point of questioning its validity.

       As has already been pointed out to you, the primary focus of SkS is the science of climate change and related matters.  The fact that none of the volunteer authors who generate articles for posting on SkS chose not to post an article critiquing the PNAS paper you have referred to is rather insignificant.

17905. Eclectic at 22:13 PM on 28 September 2017
       New paper shows that renewables can supply 100% of all energy (not just electricity)
       

       NorrisM , I thought I ought to transfer some of my reply to you about the Jacobson paper, from where you had mentioned it as an en-passant footnote in "another thread" :-

       I had said :

       "... Jacobson draws a long bow into the technological future.   IMO his emphasis on hydrogen fuel was way over the top, and as you rightly say his hydro-power summation is nowadays shown as a big error.   #Nevertheless, none of that is in any way an excuse not to press ahead with wind/solar conversion at a much faster rate than we are doing currently" .

       The Jacobson study continues to have value as one of many talking-points regarding future developments . . . despite its lack of perfection.  Yet it is always important that we "keep our eye on the ball" of what we need to do now to tackle the ongoing AGW crisis.

17906. Eclectic at 20:47 PM on 28 September 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38
       

       NorrisM @5 , thanks yes — I happened to be reading the McKitrick article on J. Curry's Climate etc blog a few hours ago.   I reckon you would be greatly exaggerating the matter, to describe the article as causing a kerfuffle.  [or did you mean: causing a covfefe?  ;-)  ]

       IMO it was quite a yawn ~ just McKitrick trying to make a beat-up over very little.  Far more interesting, NorrisM, were some of the posts in the Climate etc comments column attached to it.  No, not the many usual run-of-the-mill Room Temperature IQ comments (though at least they're relatively civil compared with those on other denialist websites).  But you will find a number of interesting/entertaining posts by Zeke Hausfather.  You won't need to read very far between the lines, to see Hausfather's icy-polite stiletto puncturing McKitrick and basically pointing out that McKitrick is talking horsefeathers.

       ( You may not be aware of it, NorrisM, but McKitrick has an abysmally low reputation among scientists.  The website rationalwiki is often entertaining in its assessments — and the McKitrick entry is worth a look.  Be prepared for a guffaw !  And similarly in their assessments of other climate-denialists, not to mention other areas of non-science. )

       Your side-note comment on the Jacobson 2015 study (mentioned briefly on "another thread" on Sks — "New Paper Shows That Renewables ... " ) ~ yes true there were only about 80 (date 2015) comments there, and many of them were of low quality and unhelpful, and probably you glanced over those ones predating your 2017 comment.  But Jacobson draws a long bow into the technological future.   IMO his emphasis on hydrogen fuel was way over the top, and as you rightly say his hydro-power summation is nowadays shown as a big error.   #Nevertheless, none of that is in any way an excuse not to press ahead with wind/solar conversion at a much faster rate than we are doing currently [and IMO that aspect makes the Jacobson study a very low priority for discussing as a "hot topic". ]

17907. Rbrooks502 at 17:53 PM on 28 September 2017
       Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
       

       cool thanks.

       I will follow with more as I progress. I thank for taking the time with me. 

17908. nigelj at 16:17 PM on 28 September 2017
       The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
       

       Eclectic @34, definitely interesting thanks. I hear you.

       I read The Hitchhikers Guide when quite young. He has written several other similar books all well worth a read,  just in case you haven't come across them, easily enough googled, especially So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.

       I'm a little bit interested in human motivation. I did some clinical psychology  at varsity just a couple of introductory papers, (I needed some extra credits) so hence my interest in climate scepticism and its driving causes. People are a bit complex and unique in their psychology and mix of motivations, and this makes climate denial a bit challenging to deal with, but there are a few main things of course noted from time to time on this website. I'm convinced theres no one thing you can boil climate scepticism down to, its a complex combination of vested interests, poor science knowledge,  political reasons, resentment of rules, psychological factors, personal ambitions, ego, and sense of entitlement etc.

       The human race. Brilliant but mad as you say. That's evolution for you, complex and untidy.

17909. NorrisM at 16:08 PM on 28 September 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38
       

       Here is Ross McKitrick's analysis of the Millar et al paper that seems to have caused such a kerfuffle:

       "Millar et al. attracted controversy for stating that climate models have shown too much warming in recent decades, even though others (including the IPCC) have said the same thing. Zeke Hausfather disputed this using an adjustment to model outputs developed by Cowtan et al. The combination of the adjustment and the recent El Nino creates a visual impression of coherence. But other measures not affected by the issues raised in Cowtan et al. support the existence of a warm bias in models. Gridcell extreme frequencies in CMIP5 models do not overlap with observations. And satellite-measured temperature trends in the lower troposphere run below the CMIP5 rates in the same way that the HadCRUT4 surface data do, including in the tropics. The model-observational discrepancy is real, and needs to be taken into account especially when using models for policy guidance."

       This article, which can be referenced on the ClimateEtc Judith Curry website seems to be reasonably balanced.  I first read it and thought that maybe the "overstatement of the models" was an overstatement.  But .3C is a fair bit when we are talking about 1C since pre-industrial times.

       I see that in fact the IPCC did acknowledge in 2013 that the models were predicting warming beyond observations.  I took a look at their chart which is actually updated by McKitrick to reflect the 2016 El Nino.  So this is why Ben Santer, in the APS 2014 panel review acknowledged that Christy's claim of a significant variance was "old news".  At least it has now been acknowledged.  Does not change the question as to what we should do about it.

       On that point, I am still waiting for someone to respond to my question (on another stream) regarding the Jacobson 2015 study on wind and solar costs of replacing fossil fuels in the US by 2050.  I have seen no criticism whatever by this website of the June 2017 paper of Clack (NOAA) et al published  by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences which has  roundly criticized the Jacobson cost study to the point of questioning its validity.  

       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Satellites do not measure temperatures, they measure brightness.  Brightness is converted to temperatures via computer models with 5 times the error bars of the surface temperature record.  Satellites do not measure the surface, where people live, they measure where airplanes fly.

17910. bozzza at 13:54 PM on 28 September 2017
       Right-wing media could not be more wrong about the 1.5°C carbon budget paper
       

       FDDs

       The temperatures above 80N are really starting to trend... and business and industry need long lead times to react properly.

       Resource bottlenecks have always been the predicted result when people start realising all at once what the truth is. Why is this truth being hidden from the consuming taxpayer who a) lives in a democracy and b) is supposed to have consumer rights?

       We need to decide what is the most important information and each tell a thousand of our friends as fast as possible: I put it that this graph is one of those most important pieces of information...

17911. NotMuchHope at 13:34 PM on 28 September 2017
       It's too hard
       

       Seven years later, with all the action of the last decade having produced st best a plateau in emissions rise with minimal increases (and even then I have reasons to doubt that this is actually a sign of an end to increased emissions) is this article still valid?  Every year without a reduction in emissions makes the future reduction curve necessary steeper and steeper -I think Dr. Hansen has said it will take 6% decrease each year now to prevent 1.5 degrees in increase, and probably some car removal geoengineering scheme which may or may not even be possible.  

17912. Eclectic at 13:32 PM on 28 September 2017
       The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
       

       Nigelj @33 and prior ,

       The Mail is a fine example of "corporate insanity" ( I almost said "institutional insanity" — but that might be misconstrued! ).    Insane in the Latinic sense of being unsound of mind or body.

       Of course, corporate insanity derives from individual insanity (at the leadership level).    The English language lacks the terminology to label the type of insanity demonstrable in climate-denialists / anti-vaxxers / Flat-Earthers etc.     "Legal insanity" is defined over a narrow range, which only partly overlaps with the "medical insanity" (which is primarily a psychosis-based diagnosis/definition).   Yet every day around us, we notice examples of degrees of insanity : exhibiting as poor decision-making and a partial denial of reality — and all at a much higher intensity than in the average mature sane person.    But the insanity of climate-science-denialism is the prime type being of interest here at SkS.

       Which leads us back to J. Curry and her motivations.  I am sure, Nigelj, that she is moved by many considerations (but lacking what Mr OPOF calls the rational consideration of distant motives).

       In my post #24 above, I sieved out 5 examples of Curry's "position".   I started with wikipedia and desmogblog, and jumped back and forth between Curry's own blog and those sources (plus a few others).   Desmogblog had a number of its links broken (or not easily available) so I didn't verify everything on them — nor did I think it warranted the waste of time to pursue them. ( Though I am half-puzzled by Tom13's violent contention that the quote: "And that's not human" has any real difference from the quote: "And that is not caused by humans".   I will have to give a shrug about that one ! )

       Fortunately I had a considerable amount of prior experience of Curry's blog, so I was able to quickly judge/assess the concordance of the selected quotes with Curry's historical position (or rather more accurately : her range of self-contradictory positions plural ).

       For my sins, I had (from some years ago) chosen to examine parts of Curry's blog extending up to now [but skipping sections randomly, of course].   Two motives for that examination ~ (A) I knew that Curry was one of the trio [Curry, Christy, Spencer] of "contrarians" who were academically active & knowledgeably up-to-date climatologists, and well above the likes of those denialist minds in their twilight years [Lindzen, Singer and suchlike].   And despite reading the mainstream's damning indictment of the trio, I hoped I might find some scientifically logically valid points that Curry had put forward.   But I found none whatsoever.

       ~ (B) I was interested to learn something of her psychology (or perhaps psycho-pathology is the better term).   Why would a nominally-rational person take up a denialist stance?   Putting aside all questions of corruption & financial inducement, there remains the "strange peculiarity of the human mind".    As I had mentioned to Rbrooks502 (on another thread) , there is the actually remarkably widespread condition of Encapsulated Paranoia, where the individual is sane in most areas but psychotic [psychotic = out of touch with reality] in one particular area — the textbook case being the man with paranoid jealousy re his wife/girlfriend.

       However, other types of encapsulated insanity exist, and the scientific-minded readers here will be well aware of the Conspiracy Theorism and other insanities underlying AGW denialism.  Including the pathological resistance to accepting the plain logical evidence produced by the totality of climate scientists.   (A resistance which is multi-factorial, of course.)

       But I am drifting off-topic — yet excusing myself by pointing to the whole basic purpose of SkS being the combination of general information/education plus the countering of (some of) the climate "madness".    Nigelj , please forgive my overly-long post here, but I thought that you, as a wide reader, would find some points of interest in it.   Finishing in a humorous vein — doubtless you are aware of Douglas Adams' classic Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, where some [alien] inspector has given a one-line descriptor/assessment of Planet Earth . . . comprising just two words: "Mostly harmless".   I imagine that if the Inspector were to return to this solar system to assess the human race . . . he would use a 3-word descriptor: "Brilliant but mad".

17913. citizenschallenge at 08:35 AM on 28 September 2017
       Right-wing media could not be more wrong about the 1.5°C carbon budget paper
       

       I was wondering about that, thank you for clarified it so well, ... and for giving the Arctic some respect.  ;)

17914. nigelj at 06:54 AM on 28 September 2017
       The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
       

       Just reading the above discussion various things come through. Judith Curry is clearly promoting sceptical arguments sometimes over even basic accepted physics, and encouraging doubt about climate change. She is clearly irrational in her thinking. Tom says she has said other things less sceptical, but its the doubt that comes through strongly.

       The interesting thing is she is not specific on her reasoning. Theres a lack of clarity and detail about why she thinks what she thinks, which is frustrating everyone, and just plays into the hands of the denialists.

       Perhaps she is filled with doubts, but unwilling to be open in specific ways, or perhaps she enjoys the attention. Or perhaps she is just a schill for commercial interests and this looks very likely.

       I wish she would be specific, or shut up. I think as a scientist payed out of public funds to some extent (as well as fossil fuel money) she owes us all a duty to be precise and stop in effect spreading nonsense, doubt, climate rumours and vague suspicions.

17915. Tom Dayton at 06:19 AM on 28 September 2017
       Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
       

       Rbrooks502:

       1. No, that study described in the video did not measure only at the north east coast of the U.S. I don't understand how you got that idea. The narrator clearly says "The Eastern US and near Ascension Island."
       1. The name "Eastern US" means anything to the east of the midline of the continental US.
       2. Ascension Island is in the middle of the southern Atlantic Ocean.
       3. That was only one of many studies measuring the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere. The video (at 3:22) explicitly says "We've also measured the greenhouse effect with satellites and at observatories all around the world." This video does not name them, because this video is not intended to be a survey of the entire scientific literature. This video is merely a simplified, introductory, overview lesson. One recent example of a ground-based study done in Oklahoma and Alaska in the US, was Feldman et al. (2015). (The news release summarizing it is here.) You can easily find more studies by reading the Intermediate and Advanced tabbed panes of that SkS post that has that video. Click the links in that text to find the details of the studies being cited. You can also look in the reference list of any study's paper. You can search the internet for other studies that reference that study. For example, you can use Google Scholar to find that study, and click the "Cited by" link below the study's name. And you can borrow a climatology or atmospheric science textbook.
       2. The amount of CO2 is not relevant for studies that verify the greenhouse gas signature spectra of absorption and emission. The patterns of absorption and emission are the same regardless of the amount of CO2. A separate question is whether the total amount of downwelling radiation in that CO2-signature-pattern has increased as the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased. The answer is yes, having been measured by Feldman et al. I linked to above.
       3. Wikipedia has an explanation of gas escaping the atmosphere to space.
17916. nigelj at 06:05 AM on 28 September 2017
       The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
       

       Tom13 @28

       "There is a huge body of scientific research showing CO2 has been a trailing indicator of climate change over the last 1.5m years, not the leading indicator.

       This trailing indicator phrasing of yours is unclear. The ice core samples show a strong correlation of CO2 and temperature and remember we have good causation as well given CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The samples show CO2 peaks lag temperature peaks, but the published research demonstrates with good certainty that while solar changes  caused the initial temperature peaks, CO2 was the dominant factor in the warming and amplified the warming as below:

       skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

       And more recent published evidence shows CO2 may well not have lagged temperature as below. So you are wrong on both counts. Just as Judith Curry is wrong to claim CO2 is not the main control knob.  

       www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-core-data-help-solve/

17917. HK at 04:26 AM on 28 September 2017
       Potholer on the 1.5C carbon budget paper controversy
       

       Nigelj @3:
       No, the Millar study uses mid-19^th century as baseline, not 20^th.
       Dana's latest post contains most of the points I planned to use in my response to you, for instance that the HadCRUT4 data shows less warming because of its incomplete coverage in the Arctic.
       So, I agree with Dana that 1.5^oC might be impossible, but 2^oC is of course still better than 3^oC and much, much better than 4^oC!

17918. ubrew12 at 04:19 AM on 28 September 2017
       Right-wing media could not be more wrong about the 1.5°C carbon budget paper
       

       "the study authors... looked at how much carbon will be emitted at the time we reach 1.5°C warming"  In what way is this a useful metric?  It's like saying "if you burn this much diesel, your ship will get to Portsmouth harbor in one hour".  And a minute later, it'll sail right past it on its own momentum ("...because of what’s known as the ‘thermal inertia’ of the oceans" - yup). 

       A few years ago, Dr Mann published some calculations that indicated that if the ECS is 3C, as expected, then at todays 405ppm of CO2 we'll essentially hit 2C by 2100 (this assumes coal aerosols rain out, a 0.5C hit).  I find this a far more useful way of discussing how much wiggle room Earth has left before we exceed these targets.

17919. Geomancer at 03:55 AM on 28 September 2017
       Right-wing media could not be more wrong about the 1.5°C carbon budget paper
       

       Great explanation.  I saw the potholer video and he also gave this a thorough debunking.  Here are a couple more.

       https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-climate-models-have-not-exaggerated-global-warming

       http://www.factandmyth.com/climate-change/no-scientists-did-not-exaggerate-global-warming

17920. Inti at 03:50 AM on 28 September 2017
       It’s settled: 90–100% of climate experts agree on human-caused global warming
       

       I hope it is not off topic here to ask whether there is a case for addressing the "consensus is not science" argument directly, as a myth in its own right? I appreciate that it isn't a claim about the content of the science itself, but it is a "metaclaim" about the methodology and philosphy of science in the context of climate. And it is an argument hat seems to come up frequently.

       Here, for what it's worth is how I'd frame a reply to the claim:

       Climate scientists don't base their conclusions on consensus. They base it on evidence, and that evidence is overwhelming.
       Consensus matters for the rest of us when we try to understand areas of science where we are not experts. That is when it is sensible to see what most true experts think. In this case they think that climate change is real and human-caused.
       In the same way, if I get cancer and someone claims that I can cure it myself with vitamin pills I will ask myself what the consensus of oncologists thinks.

       The common denialist meme says that "science does not work by consensus". Of course, that is true, but it is a straw man; nobody ever claims that it does. The point about consensus is that it arises amongst climate from the convergence or consilience of many strands of evidence, not that consensus is the evidence on which practicing climate scientists build their conclusions.

       So consensus is not central to the science itself, but to the understanding that the rest of us form as non-scientists (or at least non climate scientists). How else can a non-specialist form a well-founded opinion about any field in which they are not experts, but by asking themselves whether there is an informed consensus amongst actual experts? The only alternative would be for each of us to take advanced degrees in each field of expertise ourselves, before making a judgment. Good luck with that!

       (By the way, I think John Cook and colleagues are wise to shift from talking about consensus of evidence to consilience or convergence, to avoid confusion about that point.)

       Accepting the consensus is not a guarantee that we will be right. That's because neither science or any other form of human study promises certainty or "proof" (except, possibly , mathematics?). Consensus could be wrong, but at any one time it is the best bet, and other positions are sucker bets. It gives us the best chance of being right.

       Of course, that is only true if the consensus has arisen from well-founded scientific practice. Climate science is so formed, despite the deniers' best attempts to show otherwise. It is a mature, theoretically sophisticated field with a wide range of empirical and analytical methods at its disposal.

17921. Rbrooks502 at 03:42 AM on 28 September 2017
       Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
       

       Tom@46 So after reading 1-3 as you posted and watching the video, one thing stands out. The video shows scientific study at the north east coast of the US to measure the IR. Why was this location chosin? Wouldnt the high population density have an effect on not only the CO2 produced but also the amount of IR released out? If so (and I believe it matters)  Wouldnt it be more logical to do this same experiment over all other areas? Using this experiment is very limited. While I love airplanes, this sole experiment is very limited and I think it should not be used as a sole test. It would be like putting a CO2 measuring instrument only on volcanic islands.  Imagine creating a thermometer if you will for the planet by using many measurements along the same criteria. IE more airplanes going up continously evenly spaced through out all the areas. 

       Also, (side thought) the thought of other gasses beside hydrogen and helium at a rate of 53KG per second be the only gases released into space came to mind. To date these are the only gases being released out of the atmosphere as far as I know. Do you have any data on this?

       Your thoughts?

       I will continue on you list and post where applicable. 

17922. Inti at 03:23 AM on 28 September 2017
       These are the best arguments from the 3% of climate scientist 'skeptics.' Really.
       

       I've been asking myself why this "trace gas" claim keeps popping up.

       I believe that it appeals to two unspoken arguments:

       1. Obviously, the basic claim is that no substance can have a significant effect if it is only present in small proportions; or else that substance have effects in direct ratio to the their proportion in a mixture or system. The many counterexamples effectively refute that.

       2. There may be a further unspoken belief: that the effect of a trace substance must be diluted by the other elements of compounds present, in proportion to their relative amounts. So the intuition is that all the nitrogen or oxygen in the atmosphere must dilute the effect of CO2 until it is negligible.

       Now the second intuition is completely contrary to physics. Molecules of gases which do not absorb and re-emit IR do not interfere with the ability of greenhouse gases to do so. And as somebody mentioned on SKS, the real question is not the percentage or ppm of CO2, but how many atoms of it are present , and how likely and IR is to encounter them.

       There is an interesting parallel between the second "dilution" form of the false intuition with sceptical arguments against Darwin in his own day.. Perhaps the best objection (except perhaps Kelvin's?)that Darwin encountered in his lifetime to his theory of natural selection was that traits ought to become more and more diluted as they were "mixed" during reproduction. Thus selection should break down, because there could be no reliable transmission of traits.

       We know now that the correct answer to this was already printed, unnoticed in a paper by Gregor Mendel; genetics shows that traits don't blend like colours in a mixture.

       Now these sceptical replies to Darwin were not denialism at that time, because they were raised as part of a rational scientific scepticism. If the same arguments are posed today by creationists, they are just not scepticism but just PRATTs - Points refuted a Thousand Times".

       In the same way, almost every one of the denialist myths refuted here was once a reasonable hypothesis that needed to be considered carefully and tested. As they have been. But once they have comprehensively refuted, to keep resurrecting them as zombies is quite different from any genuine scepticism.

       I wonder in passing whether it would be worth analysing the denialist project in the light of Imre Lakatos's distinction between progressive and degenerating research programs https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lakatos/

       It would be interesting to trace the history of this process, and find out how many objections were tested and refuted by those climate scientists who pioneered the field, and how many (or few) genuinely arose from the so-called "skeptics".

17923. Inti at 03:20 AM on 28 September 2017
       These are the best arguments from the 3% of climate scientist 'skeptics.' Really.
       

       How does Roy Spencer reconcile raising his first point (trace gas) in the White paper with his blog article "Skeptical Arguments that Don’t Hold Water" from 2014?
       http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/

       Spencer is pleading with fellow deniers not to embarrass themselves with these claims. The first 7 of his of 10 examples are various attempts to deny that CO2 causes warming:

       1. There is no greenhouse effect.
       2. The greenhouse effect violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
       3. CO2 can’t cause warming because co2 emits IR as fast as it absorbs.
       4. CO2 cools, not warms, the atmosphere.
       5. Adding co2 to the atmosphere has no effect because the CO2 absorption bands are already 100% opaque.
       6. Lower atmospheric warmth is due to the lapse rate/adiabatic compression.
       7. Warming causes co2 to rise, not the other way around

       Yet surely by posing the old "trace gas" nonsense he is making exactly the claim that "there is no greenhouse effect"?

       Am I missing something, or is Spencer?

17924. Eclectic at 02:41 AM on 28 September 2017
       The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
       

       Philippe Chantreau, I wish to spare you further blushes, so I will go no further than saying it is a pleasure to read your excellent posts.  Alas, in this Vale of Sorrows known as the internet, infested by angry illogical and semi-literate "deniers" . . . even posts of basic mental competence look quite good!

        

       Tom13 @25 , for readers' convenience, I have aimed to keep points (A) to (E) as reasonably brief as possible, and I have taken care to present these excerpts [from Curry's own blog, and elsewhere as indicated] in a manner consonant with their context.  All for your convenience.  There is no deception / quote-mining / or "verballing" involved here.

       if you wish to waste your own time verifying these quotes, then you are welcome to google away.  If you knew Curry's modus operandi as well as I do, then you will see how all these statements hang together — even where she shows some self-contradiction!

       Yes, Tom13, her comments present an ugly picture.  And if you didn't really know her before, then I can understand if you experience some shock & revulsion at her grossly unscientific statements.  The denial of fundamental physics (especially the radiational properties of CO2).  The denial of mainstream observations & research.  The lack of any coherent "contrarian" science (even if by plausible hypothesis only).  The coy flirting with crazy rubbish e.g. Salby's ideas.  The continual sophisms combined with intentional vagueness & evasiveness.

       Use your common sense, Tom13, and look at the big picture — Curry is obviously a shill (but not near as poor a case as the blogger who calls herself JoNova).   Sorry Tom, but your goddess has feet made of clay . . . extending up to her eyebrows.

17925. Tom13 at 02:10 AM on 28 September 2017
       The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
       

       #29 - thanks for the more complete quote - Quite obvious that Eclectric was using an intentionally incomplete quote to imply she said something she did not say.

       Not a good way to establish credibilty.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Inflamatory statements and charege of dishonesty snipped.

       [DB]  Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

       Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up or use sock puppet accounts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
        
       Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion.  If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

       Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.

        

17926. MA Rodger at 02:07 AM on 28 September 2017
       The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
       

       Tom13 @25.

       The 8th December 2015 Senate Committee hearing quote (B) "And that's not human" is probably taken from DeSmogBlog and (having hit upon the segment in the hearing video) it isn't a word-perfect quote from the hearing. The actual quote is:-

       "Yes, I do believe that we have overall been warming, but we have been warming for 200, maybe even 400 years, OK? And that is not caused by humans. OK. There is natural variability involved. And this is exactly what has not been sorted out. "

       But the hearing (nicely described as four denialists & one admiral by one of the senators) is more a deniers' revialist meet than enquiry. The hand-wringing from ex-climatologist-now-BlogMom Judy does require wider viewing/listening to fully appreciate the context of the quote which appears @2:26. A transcript is available here (with quote @pdf page 109).

17927. Tom13 at 01:39 AM on 28 September 2017
       The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
       

       #27 -

       There is a huge body of scientific litterature supporting the idea that CO2 has been a dominant control knob over the past 1.5 million years or so, which for us humans really means for ever. It is because of the fact that there is all this scientific litterature that the idea now pervades the field. 

       There is a huge body of scientific research showing CO2 has been a trailing indicator of climate change over the last 1.5m years, not the leading indicator.  It has only been the last 50 or so years that co2 has been a leading indicator, which makes your statement that CO2 is the dominant control knob highly unlikely.  Curry, along with most everyone with knowledge of climate science agrees with that CO2 plays a role, with the open question as to how much of a role vs natural varibility.  

       Curry's statement goes beyond saying that it's not a factor, so even so she technically does not say that, what she says is even worse.

       Curry has made numerous public statements, etc.  None of which even remotely claims what you just stated.  At least make an attempt to be factually accurate.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Inflamatory statement snipped. 

       BTW, you are are responding to Philippe Chantreau #26, not #27.

17928. Philippe Chantreau at 01:19 AM on 28 September 2017
       The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
       

       By the way thank you for the compliment Eclectic, and feel free to copy and distribute as much as you want, so long as there is attribution. You can also correct typos...

       I see as well that your statements on Curry are justified and that you were able to back them up. I thought that your words were a little too strong, but as it turns out, they seem appropriate in light of the supporting documentation you provided.

17929. Philippe Chantreau at 01:14 AM on 28 September 2017
       The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
       

       Curry's quote goes: "I think we are fooling ourselves to think that CO2 control knob really influences climate on these decadal or even century time scales."

       Tom13 reads that as " A reasonable acknowledgement that Co2 may not play the dominant role which is consistent with the earth's past history. Note that not once does her statement say that CO2 is not a factor."

       That's really the kind of problem we're facing these days. Tom13 uses empty rethoric to minimize the enormity of Curry's nonsense, even managing to convince himself that it is reasonable. The pronouncement that a minor role for CO2 is consistent with Earth history is unsupported in Tom13 post. It certainly is, at best, highly debatable.

       There is a huge body of scientific litterature supporting the idea that CO2 has been a dominant control knob over the past 1.5 million years or so, which for us humans really means for ever. It is because of the fact that there is all this scientific litterature that the idea now pervades the field. The idea did not come out of the blue just because someone liked it or wanted to take down the fossil fuel industries. Fossil fuel industry researchers themselves came to the same conclusion early on.

       Curry's statement goes beyond saying that it's not a factor, so even so she technically does not say that, what she says is even worse.

       Curry does not have any of her own research to back her statements, nor does she attempts to invalidate even a little of the research supporting the CO2 control knob concept, soe her big pronouncement is just opinion. As the sayng goes, everybody has one.

17930. Tom13 at 00:04 AM on 28 September 2017
       The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
       

       #24 eclectic

       (A) in April 2015 : "Recent data and research supports the importance of natural climate variability and calls into question the conclusion that humans are the dominant cause of recent climate change" (unquote)

       A reasonable acknowledgement that natural causes play a significant role (perhaps dominant role ) in climate change - to deny otherwise is anti science.

       (B) also in 2015 at a Congressional hearing, she stated about the global warming [of the past 200 years] : "And that's not human" (unquote)

       Do you have a citation and the full statement - the 4 word quote ilacks the full context of her statement.  

       (C) in 2014 speaking at the National Press Club : "We just don't know [what's going to happen]. I think we are fooling ourselves to think that CO2 control knob really influences climate on these decadal or even century time scales." (unquote)

        A reasonable acknowledgement that Co2 may not play the dominant role which is consistent with the earth's past history.  Note that not once does her statement say that CO2 is not a factor.

       (D) in November 2015 [please specially note this very recent date, Randman] she supported the existence of the so-called hiatus or pause : "global average surface temperature ... has shown little or no warming during the 21st century" (unquote)

       Based on the scientific data available at that time, this is a reasonably accurate statement.  While the 2015/2016 el nino started in early summer of 2015, the data showing showing a more than a little warming since 1998 wasnt strong until very early 2016.

       (E) in 2011, she supported Murry Salby's crazy/nonsensical "hypothesis" that oceanic-origin CO2 is the real cause of our modern rapid Global Warming.

       Ths statement seems completely out of context with her other statements and writings.  J curry has repeatedly stated that the oceans play a key role in climate change and has repeatedly stated that OHC will play a huge role future climate change, including the build up of ohc.

17931. Eclectic at 20:59 PM on 27 September 2017
       The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
       

       Randman @22 , about your quote: "she was" (unquote)

       She was . . . what?  What are you talking about?  Please be precise!  Readers here don't wish to bother second-guessing what you intend to mean.

       Regarding Judith Curry :- the sources are her own comments :

       (A) in April 2015 : "Recent data and research supports the importance of natural climate variability and calls into question the conclusion that humans are the dominant cause of recent climate change" (unquote)

       (B) also in 2015 at a Congressional hearing, she stated about the global warming [of the past 200 years] : "And that's not human" (unquote)

       (C) in 2014 speaking at the National Press Club : "We just don't know [what's going to happen].  I think we are fooling ourselves to think that CO2 control knob really influences climate on these decadal or even century time scales." (unquote)

       (D) in November 2015 [please specially note this very recent date, Randman] she supported the existence of the so-called hiatus or pause : "global average surface temperature ... has shown little or no warming during the 21st century" (unquote)

       (E) in 2011, she supported Murry Salby's crazy/nonsensical "hypothesis" that oceanic-origin CO2 is the real cause of our modern rapid Global Warming.

       Now, Randman, consider each of the above 5 statements.  If you yourself had issued them, then it would be evidence that you were grossly ignorant about climate science.  If they had been made by a scientist (a scientist not specializing in climate related matters), then that would count as intellectual dishonesty.  Issued by a climatologist, that would rise to the level of gross intellectual dishonesty. 

       Individually, each of the above statements cannot be justified, for they are individually & severally false and/or misleading.   Randman, I could add others to the list . . . but (to paraphrase an Einstein quote) :- "It only takes one" !

        

       $$$$$$$

       Randman, I do not in any way suggest that Curry receives money illegally from the Oil industry & other anti-science propagandists.   Arguably, what money or other benefits she receives from such groups is immoral but not illegal.

       ~ In 2006, Judith Curry [climatologist] and Peter Webster [meteorologist] set up a private company "Climate Forecast Applications Network".  Judith Curry is President (not an unpaid job, I gather!).  Curry herself said (in an interview with Scientific American) : "I do receive some funding from the fossil fuel industry ... [per my company] since 2007." (unquote).   Please note, Randman, that that sort of thing is not illegal — it is simply one of the many ways that the Oil industry slush funds operate.

       Perhaps you are innocently unaware, Randman, that the fossil fuel industry slush fund money percolates all around the place.  [Though I had to laugh when I saw that Peabody Energy's filing for bankruptcy in 2016 had "stiffed" the prominent science-denier Richard Lindzen, for a USD$25,000 "consultancy fee" that they owed him — though I don't know whether that $25,000 was a one-off or an annual stipend.]    Stipends, expenses, etc are paid in various ways — sometimes by "sinecure" payments, sometimes by propaganda "fronts" like Heartland or GWPF, sometimes by other under-the-counter indirect methods e.g. payments to a company (not to the individual).

       As to other benefits [in non-monetary form, not in cash] there are the examples of Curry appearing at least three times in front of Congressional-level hearings.   I am sure that even you, Randman, are not so naive as to believe that Curry paid for travel accommodation & incidental expenses, out of her own purse — if you act as a prominent stooge for Big Corporations, then they look after you in the premium style.   That's just the way the business world is, Randman.  (But it's not in any way illegal for her to be on the Big Oil teat.)   And then there's the purely psychological benefits she receives — definitely an ego boost for a mediocre climate scientist, to appear (and often) in the national Congressional limelight (etc).

       Then there are other benefits in cash e.g. in January and February this year [her academic retirement onto a teacher's pension, being at the end of December 2016] Judith Curry authored two reports, one for Koch Brothers and one for the British propaganda machine GWPF.  I don't know whether she was paid directly into her personal account or indirectly via her CFAN company, or by other means — but it would have been a generous*-sized benefit.  Again, not illegal — but of doubtful morality.   ( *Randman, it is extremely difficult for denialism-pushing Big Corporations to find any scientist with more than a shred of repectability/reputation who can be relied on as a stooge who will play the "Doubt & Uncertainty" game, in the face of all the overwhelming evidence that proves "D&U" is unjustified/dishonest.)

        

       In Summary :

       So, all in all, Randman, your own phrasing: "her scientific reasoning is dishonest, biased and she is funded by the oil companies" . . . is a fairly good summation of the situation.

17932. Glenn Tamblyn at 18:33 PM on 27 September 2017
       Remembering our dear friend Andy Skuce
       

       David
       
       Thank you for this. That strongly matches the Andy we knew, often only online. He seems to have been that rare individual. Professional and very human (and humane). We will miss him.

17933. Rbrooks502 at 17:56 PM on 27 September 2017
       Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
       

       Thank you Tom

17934. MA Rodger at 16:52 PM on 27 September 2017
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       randman @514.

       Let us stick with your ill-advised assertion that in June 1988 Hansen "told Congress 59 degrees was the mean for the years between 1950-1980." Let us deal with one-tree-at-a-time in your little forest of dodgy quotes.

       In that regard, @514 you claim of me and my rebutal: "So far you've provided no facts or sources to counter this except your own incredulity." Are you having a laugh? @512 you dismissed the documentation provided @501/511 by insisting the Q&As at that 1988 Senate Hearing were missing but required (when they are not required) any insisting this missing aspect of the Senate Hearing had already been highlighted by you (although I see no evidence of such prior comment up-thread). And now you attempt to ignore the link I provide to the full documentation @513 (complete with Q&As). What is your problem? Can you not see that link? Because I'm sure everybody else can!!

17935. nigelj at 14:30 PM on 27 September 2017
       The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
       

       Randman @22

       "Eclectic, she was. Please cite your source for your defamation of her character in claiming her scientific reasoning is dishonest, biased and she is funded by the oil companies."

       I'm sure Eclectic can answer for himself, but I just cannot see where he claimed or implied Curry was dishonest or biased as such. I just wonder where you get off thinking you can really blatantly shove words in peoples mouths like that? 

       Judith Currie has actually recieved funding from fossil fuel companies according to these sources, including scientific american:

       www.desmogblog.com/judith-curry

       www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Judith_Curry#Fossil_fuel_industry_funding

       Currie claims it hasn't influenced her. Yeah well ha ha I draw my own conclusions.

       Curry is more climate sceptic than anything these days, constantly expressing somewhat vague doubts about the IPCC and whether we can be sure of anything. Its all utterly confusing, not really backed up with anything specific,  and thus unhelpful. Refer her wikipedia entry. People can join the dots and reach their own conclusions.

17936. randman at 11:57 AM on 27 September 2017
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       THe NYTs said he told Congress 59 degrees was the mean for the years between 1950-1980. Other media reported he claimed that as well, and in 1992, media reported Jones said the same thing.
       
       And in 1981 in Hansen's paper, the mean he used for those years was roughly 59 degrees.
       
       So far you've provided no facts or sources to counter this except your own incredulity. Where are your sources? I have provided mine.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Excessive repetiton and false claims snipped.

       Either respond specifically to MA Rodger's #513 post or cease posting on this topic. 

17937. randman at 11:54 AM on 27 September 2017
       The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
       

       Eclectic, she was. Please cite your source for your defamation of her character in claiming her scientific reasoning is dishonest, biased and she is funded by the oil companies.

17938. Eclectic at 10:20 AM on 27 September 2017
       The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
       

       Philippe Chantreau @15 , please accept my vote of admiration for your well-expressed comments in post #15.

       ~ I have also printed off a copy of your similarly excellent post #20 in the "Al Gore got it wrong" thread.  (Not yet gotten around to framing it and hanging it on the living room wall, though!)

       Who says that Science and the Literary Arts cannot be combined !

17939. Eclectic at 10:06 AM on 27 September 2017
       The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
       

       Randman @16 , you are very wrong if you think that Judith Curry is a proponent* of AGW.

       Judith Curry receives considerable benefits from slush funds (from Oil corporations) as a separate matter from her regular retirement income.  She is, in effect, a paid opponent of mainstream science.   Please read her blog more carefully (as well as her other public comments) and you will see that she bends over backwards to give people the impression that AGW does not exist or only exists to a negligible degree.

       She was a climate scientist in the 1990's , but in more recent years she has slid into an anti-science role.  So, it's more accurate to consider her an "ex-scientist".

        

       [ * here you convey your meaning adequately, but your actual use of the word "proponent" is incorrect IMO.  There have been no proponents of AGW for about 20 years now (since AGW became a well-accepted & well-proven part of mainstream physical science).

       ~ An analogous case is the Round Earth situation : for several centuries now, there have been no "proponents" of the Round Earth, because the Round Earth is accepted & proven mainstream physical science.  Yes, there are "opponents" (called Flat-Earthers) but there are no "proponents", since the Round Earth is well past the stage of being a "proposed" matter.

       Randman : sloppy use of words tends to produce sloppy thinking.  Please aim for precision! 

       The concept AGW is distinct from the concept of "proposing" action to tackle the AGW problem. ]

17940. nigelj at 06:56 AM on 27 September 2017
       Potholer on the 1.5C carbon budget paper controversy
       

       HK @1, I think you are taking the worst case basing temperatures against 1880 base line? I think the Miller study is based on taking 20th century as a baseline so temperatures are about 1 degree C above that. 

       However its hard work either way, but we should still try to do our best to reduce emissions. At this stage any reasonable reduction could help to at least reduce risks, and stop getting up into territory where things get really unstable.

17941. nigelj at 06:50 AM on 27 September 2017
       Potholer on the 1.5C carbon budget paper controversy
       

       I agree the denialists have got things wrong here in several respects. No surprise there.

       But on another matter and I might be wrong on this but looking at discussion of the Miller study on realclimate.org I get the impression it is simply an over optimistic study on how much  we can burn. Not wrong just too optimistic. They base it on hadcrut temperature data which shows the least warming and this is criticised for leaving out arctic temperatures, so I'm not sure why they select that study, and their accounting for carbon budgets seems over optimistic and a bit impenetrable. 

       There is also an element of nit picking maths. Arguing about exact quantities is a waste of energy. It's obvious more cuts are needed than currently being implemented, and a slightly bigger budget doesn't change this.

17942. MA Rodger at 06:45 AM on 27 September 2017
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       randman @512,

       You are entirely incorrect to state of the link I provided @501 and again @511 "that's not a transcript from that session." It is indeed a transcript. It is however not a transcript of the complete session. Being so, you are correct that it does not include the "question and answer part" of the session but if it had, my comment would have remained the same "Nowhere does Hansen ever report to that 1988 Senate Committee, either in writing or verbally, that there was an average global temperature of '59 degrees Fahrenheit'. Nowhere!" Perhaps you would care to check this by examining the transcript of the full session (which rather inconvenietly is somewhat longer than the part-transcript previously linked containing the relevant bit of Hansen's testiment.) This particular 'tree' within your 'forest' of unreliable quotes is as worthless in establishing your bold assertions as all the other 'trees'. I recommend you re-visit my comment @501 and consider each point in turn rather than ignoring them. Do note that the last does present irrefutable evidence which does actually make a complete nonsense of the bold assertions you have been making down this thread. (I even added a trace from Hansen et al (1981), just in case you start-up insisting that your 'randman event' was enacted on global temperature records prior to 1987.)

17943. Tom Dayton at 06:42 AM on 27 September 2017
       Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
       

       Rbrooks502: Novak’s first article you linked is all over the place, and is vague and ambiguous, so even dealing with only that one article first unfortunately will not let you stay linear in your research. There are too many misconceptions there for me to deal with all of them at once, but here is a starting set. SkS appreciates your attempt to deal with one topic at a time, so though I’ll list here several relevant posts, please focus on only one of them first (any one). Please make further comments on these specific topics on these listed threads, not here.

       1. Novak’s claims that there already is so much CO2 in the atmosphere that adding more won’t matter, and that scientists are wrong/crazy/stupid in explaining that what’s important happens high in the atmosphere:
       1. Read the analogy of the greenhouse effect as a stack of blankets.
       2. Then read "Is the CO2 Effect Saturated?." Read the Basic tabbed pane, then watch the video there, then read the Intermediate tabbed pane, then the Advanced tabbed pane.
       3. Then read Eli Rabbett’s explanation.
       4. Then read RealClimate’s “A Saturated Gassy Argument” Part 1.
       5. Then read Part 2.
       6. Then play with this U. of Colorado PhET simulation.
       7. Then Stoat's simple explanation of the greenhouse effect.
       8. Then Science of Doom’s slightly less simple explanation of the Greenhouse Effect.
       9. Then V. Ramanthan’s Trace-Gas Greenhouse Effect and Global Warming.
       2. Novak’s claim that “water vapor will swamp whatever CO2 does.”
       1. “Explaining How the Water Vapor Greenhouse Effect Works.” Read the Basic tabbed pane, then watch the video, then read the Intermediate tabbed pane.
       2. If you want technical detail, see Science of Doom’s series on Clouds and Water Vapor, but remember that clouds are liquid water, not vapor.
       3. Novak’s claim in the last paragraph that “ice age” (really glacial cycles within an ice age) are not affected by CO2:
       1. First read “Milankovitch Cycles”
       2. Then read the multipart series that begins "The Last Interglacial - An Analogue for the Future?"
       3. Then "What Influence Do Underground Temperatures Have on Climate?"
       4. Then watch the excellent lecture “The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth’s Climate History”
17944. Rob Honeycutt at 06:30 AM on 27 September 2017
       Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
       

       Rbrooks... If you apply this to issues that haven't been sufficiently researched, you usually end up with the wrong answer, and that's not science. The conclusion that the earth is flat is, and never was, a claim based in science. It was science which revealed the truth to us.

       I'm curious why you would want to start from Novak's paper? There is nothing, on the surface, that suggests the paper is credible. I've not read it yet so I don't know for sure, but what I do know is this:

       1) The source is suspicious. "lasersparkpluginc.com" somehow doesn't suggest to me this is coming from a reliable source.

       2) This is not a published paper and therefore likely it's not peer reviewed. 

       3) The subtitle straight up rejects what has been established science for over 100 years: "There is no Valid Mechanism for CO2 Creating Global Warming"

       Honestly, don't you think it would be more reasonable to start from work that is well established and thoroughly reviewed by leading experts around the world? I mean, if a student wants to learn about the planets in our solar system we don't start by trying to teach them the earth is flat. Right?

17945. nigelj at 06:27 AM on 27 September 2017
       The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
       

       Randman @16

       "knaugle, if the NYTs and Washington Post get high marks on their facts, something is wrong with the rating group, at least if that concerns politics. '

       Can you please provide something specific to back up your vague rhetorical allegations. Nothing is wrong. Several reviews by various groups find these publications more accurate than others. This should be telling you something, namely they just are more accurate and so get their basic facts right better.

       "On global warming, I think they generally just report what the various agencies put out. So maybe they are better on that."

       Thats their job, to report on what the agencies say.

       "But there should be more reporting on skeptic's arguments, some of whom like Judith Curry were proponents of AGW and maybe still are for AGW-lite or somehing."

       Why? I dont think more reporting is required. The mainstream media already report sceptics arguments and in my view give them too much and disproportionate attention sometimes in a fake 50 / 50 balance. Numerous polls like the Cook study show over 90% of climate scientists think we are warming the climate, so the media should devote most attention to the 90% not the few dissenting voices many of which are funded by vested interests. And some of their claims are just nonsensical in the realms of flat earthers, so why report on that? Just having a view is not a reason for media being obliged to report it.

17946. nigelj at 06:16 AM on 27 September 2017
       The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
       

       Tom13 @12

       "This is supposed to be a science blog - are you stating the there should be a repeal of the first amendment - Are you saying there should be a "ministry of Truth"?

       Yes this is a science blog, but from time to time science intersects with politics and media or economics etc, and these things are worthy of discussion. This is such a case obviously.

       Regarding the first amendment on free speech,this only applies to America. Many people commenting here are not Americans.  

       Anyway the american constitution only says that governments may not pass laws restricting free speech. Private organisations however are allowed to have whatever rules they like.

       The supreme court in america has also historically recognised many exceptions to constitutional free speech eg time and place restrictions, defamation law, restrictions on pornography etc. However its fair to say legal restrictions requiring media balance would be unlikely in America.

       In my view free speech is very important but principally related to the right to have an opinion, and particularly without government censorship or the like and threats of violence or intimidation, just for expressing a view. It is not a right to shout whatever rubbish we want in any context at all and obviously there are unspoken cultural rules about whats acceptable.

       In that respect I dont think the media have the right to print blatant factual inaccuracies, and to be be totally unbalanced especially in smaller countries with just one main media outlet or only a couple. There needs to be a code of practice with some teeth. In america this would have to be self regulating, and not law as such given their constitution, but in other countries there are often legal provisions. It's obviously a balancing act between freedom of  expression, and commonsense limits. Websites usually have some form of sensible moderation with a few limited rules against personal abuse, off topic political ranting, threats etc. They do need to be just a few rules, and not excessive. This reduces clutter, and issues becoming clouded with emotion. Only morons and angry people have a problem with this. Its not rocket science.

17947. nigelj at 05:36 AM on 27 September 2017
       The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
       

       Eclectic @8, I suspect you are right about all of that sadly to say. I spent a year as a quality assurance manager for a corporate, so you can see where I'm coming from. We can dream and idealise a bit, its healthy and nothing will change without that.

       My country actually came close to a really good media code with some teeth, it just fell a couple of votes short in parliament. They probably caved in to the lobbyists. Lobbying has overtaken and wrecked politics, its out of control with a disproportionate influence now.

17948. randman at 05:10 AM on 27 September 2017
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       MA Rodger, that's not a transcript from that session. Note how it does not include the question and answer part. Already informed you of this once, btw.
       
       The fact we see Hansen and Jones and others quoted by media in the years 1988-1991 or 1992 all using 59 degrees as the mean lends credence to the NYTs quote you diagree with being valid and not a misquote. The mean of 59 degrees in Hansen's 1988 paper does the same.

       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Inflammatory and sloganeering snipped.

       [JH] You are also skating on the thin ice of excessive repetition which is prohibited by the SkS Comments Poilicy.  

17949. randman at 05:04 AM on 27 September 2017
       The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
       

       knaugle, if the NYTs and Washington Post get high marks on their facts, something is wrong with the rating group, at least if that concerns politics. On global warming, I think they generally just report what the various agencies put out. So maybe they are better on that.
       
       But there should be more reporting on skeptic's arguments, some of whom like Judith Curry were proponents of AGW and maybe still are for AGW-lite or somehing.

17950. HK at 04:33 AM on 27 September 2017
       Potholer on the 1.5C carbon budget paper controversy
       

       With the warming since preindustrial quickly approaching 1.2C, it will be almost impossible to limit the warming to 1.5 C!

       

Prev  351  352  353  354  355  356  357  358  359  360  361  362  363  364  365  366  Next