Recent Comments

Prev  386  387  388  389  390  391  392  393  394  395  396  397  398  399  400  401  Next

Comments 19651 to 19700:

19651. ginckgo at 13:58 PM on 1 June 2017
       Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
       

       Seems like we hit a raw nerve in including GMO opposition in this group. People seem to completely miss the point, and resort to motivated reasoning to insist 'skepticism' about GMOs is not the same. Well it is EXACTLY the same for several reasons nicely illustrated in the above comments:

       #2 bjchip: "There are aspects to the GMO issue that aren't addressed by science. One is the matter of ownership and for whose benefit the technology is deployed."

       this is not unique to GE crops; almost all seeds purchased by farmers are patented and licensed.

       "Once deployed non-GMO is no longer a choice that is available to the consumer."

       how?!? it's not like these plants will take over the world; agricultural varieties fare notoriously poorly without the extra care from farmers. They will not turn into weeds just because they have a few pest resistant genes inserted.

       #3 JWRebel: “People have ample reason to doubt studies carried out or funded (no matter how remote the connection) by Monsanto or big Pharma, just as there is ample cause to doubt climate change impact studies by Exon or the IEA. . Climate change science is "open source": the model is sharing all available data and knowledge and peer review. The model pursued by bigPharma and Monsanto is proprietary and closed: Instead of sharing the available data and knowledge, their model is to guard their secrets and to exploit patents and knowledge as long as possible.”

       wait, either we can see the studies published in order to doubt them, or they are closed and hidden and we don’t have anything to critique

       “with respect to what is a healthy diet the science in not settled”

       that is irrelevant, as the GE foods are not different to other varieties. Unless you believe inserting a single gene that codes for glyphosate tolerance somehow affects the whole genome?

       “doubts about the wisdom of interference in very complex ecologies”

       how can most GE crops interfere with ecology though, especially in ways that other varieties don’t? Golden Rice or drought resistant crops will not have any impact on environment.

       “GMO crops reduce resiliency, increase the demand for pesticides and fertilizer, and impoverish the soil”

       now you’re clutching at straws. Define this ‘resilience’, and of what? GE crops actually tend to reduce pesticide and fertilised use, and don’t have a more detrimental effect on soil than other crops.

       #4 “people who oppose the unrestricted use of GMOs is wrong.”

        GE crops are literally the most regulated food industry out there. If traditionally bred crops were subjected to this level of testing probably a good proportion wouldn’t make the cut.

       “To claim that there are no papers showing deleterious health effects from eating GMOs is just a blatant lie”

       every single one of those has turned out to be flawed at best, and literally fraudulent at worst

        

19652. Trevor_S at 12:50 PM on 1 June 2017
       Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
       

       I object to GMO's not because of the Science but because of the ridiclious nature of IP and Patent law.   I don't see how that's the same as vax and climate denial ?

19653. RedBaron at 12:03 PM on 1 June 2017
       Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
       

       I would have to agree here with the commenters objecting to a parallel with anti-GMO activism.

       Genetic Engineering technology is a tool. Like all tools, it can be put to good use or bad. In the case of medicine more often than not good use. But in agriculture, more often than not bad use. I would like to see better use of the tech. Sadly though we generally don't see it, partly because of the plutocrasy.

       That's the big difference between the two. The big money is on Climate Denial and GMOs. Often the same money too, as by far the majority of plant GMOs were designed for use in fossil fuel guzzling industrialized AG models of production.

19654. nigelj at 07:25 AM on 1 June 2017
       Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
       

       Well said in the main. I have often observed anti science people using the same range of logically flawed arguments. It's poor quality scepticism, known as sophistry,  as opposed to a more penetrating and healthy, rational scepticism. At the risk of stating the obvious, we do need some healthy and logical scepticism.

       Certainly the case for agw climate change and the safety of vaccines is well supported by the weight of evidence. The remaining scepticism is more denialism, and completey illogical.

       However I do have some lingering doubts about gmo crops and whether testing on safety is adequate, and also testing on yeilds etc. When testing is done by industry, they do cheat at times, possibly due to pressures of keeping companies profitable. In comparison scientists employed by government agencies are in my view less likely to be under cost pressures to find certain results.

       The so called independent testing of gmo crops appears to be minimal, or not as independent as often claimed from what I have read. I'm not saying it's an evil conspiracy or corrupted, but we better be really sure we get gmo's right, because a hidden problem could affect billions of people, and it will be hard to go back to traditional crops. Testing needs to be 'extremely' independent and rigorous.

19655. Tadaaa at 06:51 AM on 1 June 2017
       Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
       

       "Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same"

       hence the joke

       a climate change denier, Agenda 21 conspiracy theorist, Anti Vaxxer and 911 twoofer walk into a bar

       he orders a drink !!!!

       the technical term is "crank magnatism" - it has a wiki page

19656. HK at 06:22 AM on 1 June 2017
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Tom:
       It’s also worth noting that the land only temperature record from Berkeley Earth shows slightly more overall warming than NASA!
       Data sources here and here.

       

19657. Ian Forrester at 04:25 AM on 1 June 2017
       Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
       

       I don't know who wrote this but just about everything they have said about people who oppose the unrestricted use of GMOs is wrong. One just has to look at climate change deniers and GMO apologists to see that they are cut from the same cloth and are often the same people e.g. Matt Ridley, Dennis Avery et al.

       To claim that there are no papers showing deleterious health effects from eating GMOs is just a blatant lie. There are a number of papers showing exactly that. However, the GMO apologists come out in force using ad hominem comments and lies to discredit the scientists producing those reports. One can start off by reading up on the treatment of Arpad Pusztai at the Rowett Institute in Aberdeen Scotland to find the anti-science virulence aimed at a respected scientist whose results showed negative health effects.

       Skeptical Science deserves better than the nonsense written by that anonymous poster. GMO apologists are exactly the same as AGW deniers and use the same tactics.

       Moderator Response:

       [DB] "There are a number of papers showing exactly that"

       Feel free to cite them, then.  Otherwise, please comport and construct your comments in accordance with this venue's Comments Policy and subject matter relevant to the OP of this thread.

       "GMO apologists come out in force using ad hominem comments"

       All participants in this venue are subject to this venue's Comments Policy.  yes, even members of the author team.

19658. JWRebel at 03:54 AM on 1 June 2017
       Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
       

       The author is presenting a false equivalency. People have ample reason to doubt studies carried out or funded (no matter how remote the connection) by Monsanto or big Pharma, just as there is ample cause to doubt climate change impact studies by Exon or the IEA. Climate change science is "open source": the model is sharing all available data and knowledge and peer review. The model pursued by bigPharma and Monsanto is proprietary and closed: Instead of sharing the available data and knowledge, their model is to guard their secrets and to exploit patents and knowledge as long as possible. The temptation to insert false data/interpretation is much greater in view of the stakes. Knowledge here advances via proprietary investments, not through sharing.

       Software, science, and universities show us that "open source" is the better model: Advances are quicker, quality is higher, and the benefits go to humanity, not just a few owners.

       Certainly with respect to what is a healthy diet the science in not settled, and controversy and parochial proprietary industry interests prevail. There is more than enough reason to have doubts as to the quality of many studies, for instance, about the efficacy and long-term implications of using SSRI's (big Pharma) or statins or ritalin, or a host of other issues, medical and health related. Orthodoxies are still regularly being overturned.

       Having doubts about GMO food is not science denial: One can readily acknowledge that GMO seeds produce crops, and that the crops are not toxic or possess commercial advantages, and still have doubts about the wisdom of interference in very complex ecologies. The science is far from complete. Climate change denialistas, on the other hand, literally doubt the physics of CO² and the temperature measurements.

       There is every reason to think that GMO crops reduce resiliency, increase the demand for pesticides and fertilizer, and impoverish the soil. There are enough parties with expertise who argue that long-term sustainability implies moving away from industrial agriculture towards more ecologically balanced approaches.

       Mankind has introduced hundreds of thousands of new compounds to the environment. Few of these have been given a clean bill of health, and even fewer have been studied exhaustively for long term impacts. Recent history is rife with stories about compounds which turned out to have negative effects that only came to light in often not very subtle ways after the public had been assured that all is well.

       There is every reason to doubt our complete understanding of the interaction between certain compounds or food stuffs with human subects that each have their individual biome and flora and unique immune system. Of course, denying that starvation/malnutrition is related to the food stuffs ingested would be unreasonable.

       Moderator Response:

       [DB] "People have ample reason to doubt studies"

       People are welcome to doubt evidence, but they are not welcome to deny it.  Om threads of this nature, the rules of evidence and this venue's Comments Policy still apply.  At least as far as "big Pharma" is concerned, published studies are still published studies, subject to replication by others, should they be inclined to spend their research dollars to do so.

       If you have specifics to cite, then support them with links to such credible evidence.  Otherwise, much of your comment falls under the Sloganeering section of the Comments Policy (i.e., "The science is far from complete").

       Note that this applies equally to all participants on this thread.

19659. bjchip at 03:18 AM on 1 June 2017
       Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
       

       There are aspects to the GMO issue that aren't addressed by science.  One is the matter of ownership and for whose benefit the technology is deployed.   Another is choice.  Once deployed non-GMO is no longer a choice that is available to the consumer.   There is a case to be made for GMO technology, but it is a lot like nuclear energy, there is a much higher risk to the society when it is allowed to be done for profit.   Neither of these things is "science".     Like Fracking it can be done safely.  Who controls it?   If the corporations and the profit motive control, then the nation and the society are at risk.     Not scientific arguments at all.     

19660. ubrew12 at 01:52 AM on 1 June 2017
       Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
       

       The difference between climate-denial and GMO-denial isn't the Science, its the 'Agency'.  Decades of climate denial by Americans and who pays for it?  Some subsistence farmer in India or reef fisherman in the South Pacific.  And they'll pay, in many cases, by dying.  But if you choose to eat organic free-range daisies, that's your problem, and yours alone (vaccines fall somewhere in-between).  GMO is not a Science, it's a technology.  New technologies are often shunned, and sometimes not without reason.  Nobody bought the first automobiles, or dared step foot in the first airplanes.  But I think GMO has a huge future.  Eventually, I think it'll allow people to grow food without pesticides or other chemical applications: it'll be safer than traditionally grown food.  Maybe that's already true.  But I really don't blame people for shunning GMO food.  They pay more, but they also call attention to the fact that when it comes to food, variety is the spice of life.

19661. Evan at 00:56 AM on 1 June 2017
       SkS Analogy 6 - Speakers, tuning forks, and global warming
       

       DeCadillac@16. Tuning forks produce sound waves in a very narrow frequency range. CO₂ lasers produce infrared waves in a very narrow frequency range. That is the similarity, and I expect that for many people that in itself is something they did not consider. The problem with analogies is that technical people can easily pick them apart. Non-technical people are the ones that tend to learn the most, because they don't necessarily think beyond the intended scope of the analogy.

       You point is otherwise well taken, because good analogies require framing so that the intended scope is well defined.

19662. DeCadillac at 00:07 AM on 1 June 2017
       SkS Analogy 6 - Speakers, tuning forks, and global warming
       

        I think the laser analogy is very bad.

        If I think about a laser, I think about molecules absorbing energy to emit energy as infrared waves. In this case, I don't think that the amount of total energy in the system is lost; if anything, I think that the system will emit more infrared waves from excited CO2 molecules, and thus will cool down (or at least stay the same) - as the Earth loses heat to space only through radiation.

        At the very least, the laser analogy is very counterintuitive.

19663. Tom Curtis at 21:26 PM on 31 May 2017
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       landdownunder @413:

       1)  Tony Heller (aka Steven Goddard), producer of the www.realclimatescience.com website is not a climate scientist, former or otherwise.  His qualifications are a Bachelors degree in Geology, and a Masters in Electrical Engineering.  So far as I can determine, he has never published a peer reviewed paper of any description.  He is well known as a serial misreprenter of data, a prime example of which is the gif which he produced, and you show.

       2) Heller's giff does not demonstrate any significant change in values.  Rather, it exhibits a change in the range of the y-axis from -0.6 to 0.8 for "NASA 2001" to approximately -0.85 to 1 for "NASA 2015".  That represents a 32% increase and accounts for nearly all of the apparent change in trend - particlularly post 1980.  An honest presentation of the data would have plotted both on the same axis, and ideally on one graph to allow direct comparison, like this:

       

       (Source)

       As can easily be seen, the temperature trend between 1980 and 2000 is nearly the same in all versions, and has certainly not doubled.  In fact, the GIFF is doubling misleading.  The 1998, 2000, 2012 and 2016 versions of the NASA GISS Meteorological Stations only temperature index are downloadable here (as also for the Land Ocean Temperature Index).  the 1979-1998 trends are, respectively 0.184, 0.134, 0.169 and 0.177 ^oC/decade.  You will notice that largest change is the 27.2% reduction in the trend from the 1998 to the 2000 version, followed by the 26.1% increase from 2000 to 2012.

       Clearly the history of changes is not one sided, indicating the scientists concerned are following the data.  Equally obvious is that Tony Heller has cherry picked an interval to show a rise in trend, even though the available history of adjustments results in a net reduction in the trend of the last two decades of the 20th century, not an increase.

       Returning to cosmoswarrior's specific claim, a 32.1% increase in the trend (2000-2016) is not a doubling of the trend.  Not even close, so even on your generous interpretation, that remains a gross error.

       3)  Unlike the AGW "skeptics", who focus on the facts of the changes without regard to the reasons, actual climate scientists focus on the reasons, which they detail in peer reviewed publications, and in the case of GISS, on site as well (see prior link).  One main contributor to the change in trend from for the meteorological stations index has been the increase in the number of stations.  The first version of GISS (1981) relied on just 1000 stations.  That increased to 2200 in 1987, and to 7200 in 1999 (between the 1998 and 2000 versions).  In 2005, a small number of stations in Antarctica were introduced, which was not a major increase in number, but very significant in improved coverage.  Finally, in 2016 the number of stations jumped to 26000.

       There have also been significant improvements in techniques, as detailed by GISS:

       "We have gone through the archives to show exactly how these estimates have changed over time and why. Since 1981 the following aspects of the temperature analysis have changed:

       • The simple procedure used in 1981 was refined as documented in Hansen and Lebedeff (1987), using 8000 grid boxes to allow mapping and analysis of regional patterns.
       • Surface air temperature anomalies above the ocean were estimated using sea surface temperatures from ships and buoys starting in 1995 as documented in Hansen et al. (1996).
       • Starting in the 1990s, the methodology took into account documented non-climatic biases in the raw data (e.g. station moves) and eliminated or corrected unrealistic outliers (Hansen et al., 1999).
       • Areas with missing data were filled in — using means over large zonal bands — rather than restricting the averaging to areas with a defined temperature change (Hansen et al., 1999).
       • A method was devised in 1998 and refined in 2000 to adjust urban time series to match the long term mean trend of the surrounding rural stations, Hansen et al. (1999, 2001). This adjustment uses the full data series to make the best estimate of the rural/urban difference and so can change as the time-series are extended (and more data comparisons are available). Starting in 2010 night-light radiance rather than population data were used to classify stations (Hansen et al., 2010).
       • Usage of water temperatures as proxy for air temperatures was more accurately restricted to areas without sea ice starting in April 2006."

       The merits of these changes in method can be argued, although they all seem like eminently reasonable improvements to me.  But if you object to them, you have to make that argument.  You cannot simply say that you do not like the result and therefore the methods are wrong - still less that they are fraudulent.  The later, however, is the method employed charlatans like Tony Heller.

       4)  The involvement of politicians in challenging the adjustments is in no way evidence of the scientific invalidity or otherwise of the adjustments.  It is evidence of where politicians think they can get political milage, either with there base or with their donors.  Curiously, the second largest category of donors of Lamar Smith, who led the congressional inquisition on Karl et al, was from the Oil and Gas industry.  Lamar Smith is not alone.  In 2016, the Oil and Gas industry made political donations to the tune of $103 million dollars, 88% of which went to Republicans.

       5)  Finally, you quote Zeke Hausfather as saying:

       "... they increased the amounts of warming that we have experienced pretty significantly. They roughly doubled the temperature trend since 1998 compared to the old versions of the datasets"

       and go on to suggest, "...is also consistent with cosmoswarrior's statement".  However, cosmoswarrior's statement was explicitly about the last two decades of the 20th century (1981-2000), not the interval from 1998-2012 that Zeke Hausfather was talking about.  His comment was, therefore, entirely irrelevant to cosmoswarrior's eggregiously false claim.  More importantly, the 1998-2012 trend "roughly doubled" not because there was a large increase in the trend, but because the trend was low.  The change in trend over that period was from 0.039 C per decade to 0.86 C/decade, a change of approximately half (63.5%) of one standard deviation of the error of the new trend as determined on the SKS trend calculator.

       Following the logic of the advocates of the existence of a "hiatus", that is no change at all.

       

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] This excellent rebuttal of Goddard's nonsense stands. However, for those confused by its context, it was a response to yet another sockpuppet of comicwarrior et al which has been deleted. This denier's comprehension skills dont extend a comments policy let alone serious science so unfortunately I think Tom's points will have been lost on him/her completely. Other visitors might find this response useful however.

19664. Evan at 12:34 PM on 31 May 2017
       SkS Analogy 6 - Speakers, tuning forks, and global warming
       

       AmericanIdle@14. Thanks. I fixed the link.

19665. AmericanIdle at 12:29 PM on 31 May 2017
       SkS Analogy 6 - Speakers, tuning forks, and global warming
       

       Perfect analogy. "The History of Climate Science" link address is incorrent. 

19666. Tom Curtis at 11:09 AM on 31 May 2017
       It's the sun
       

       cready @1236, if the data is not directly available, sending them an email requesting it may help.  They may, however, refer you to another source. 

       Alternatively, you can read the caption of the figure, which lists all of the original sources.  Following them up may well provide you with the data.  I'm not certain, but the data for the first panel may be that in the xcel spreadsheet downloadable at the bottom of this page, for example.  You need to be careful about version when going this route.   The Lisiecki and Raymo data (sea level) has "...calibrated to global average eustatic sea level (Naish and Wilson, 2009; Miller et al., 2012a)" which may mean you need to go to either of those papers, or perform the recalibration yourself based on those papers.

19667. Evan at 09:54 AM on 31 May 2017
       SkS Analogy 6 - Speakers, tuning forks, and global warming
       

       Nigel@12. Great thoughts. Thanks.

       William@11. Great article comparing the Sun's greenhouse effect to the Earth's. Thanks for sharing.

19668. nigelj at 09:50 AM on 31 May 2017
       SkS Analogy 6 - Speakers, tuning forks, and global warming
       

       Evan @10

       "We write to help people who are honestly searching and trying to understand. We are not trying to convert the deniers."

       Yes this seems the best approach to me. There is a good sized group of people in the middle on scientific debates, and politics, the rational moderates, and they should generally be your target. I have thought the same for some time. There are others, the deniers that are so intransigent they wont ever change. You see the same with the tocacco issue and other issues, but what I find positive is over time, most people accepted the science on tobacco, or at least more and more did over time. In reality even if you target people want to learn, you will reach at least some of the deniers anyway.

       Also regarding the American election. In todays world you have a smallish group of swing voters, and they need to be the target, and so you need to understand how they think. Clinton was probably on the right track with these people, but got broadsided by certain other events.

       I think there are several reasons for climate denialism to do with politics and world views, vested interests, personal reliance on oil (and its almost a type of addiction or at least a habit), poor quality thinking, and human psychology. I went through a brief sceptical phase myself, and it took a careful look at the detail to persuade me otherwise. The devil is in the detail on the climate debates to some extent. I think you have to just chip away at the climate denial theories.

       Maybe the best way to handle analogies is don't get carried away with them, or regularly make them the centre piece, or leading element of discussion. Dont go crazy with them or use silly analogies. Use them when really needed, and generally keep them simple because complex analogies will go over most peoples heads, and your target audience on climate science tends to have an average education in the main. This is all the traditional way analogies have been used anyway, and I would be loathe to change this.

       But I do strongly think analogies can certainly sometimes be very powerful. I think the rational moderates in the middle would respond to analogies, but I admit this is just based on my personal observations, and I'm not sure how deep it would go.

19669. william5331 at 09:27 AM on 31 May 2017
       SkS Analogy 6 - Speakers, tuning forks, and global warming
       

       Another possible way of understanding the green house effect

       http://mtkass.blogspot.co.nz/2016/01/the-greenhouse-effect.html

19670. nigelj at 09:04 AM on 31 May 2017
       Endorsing the Paris Agreement is Trump’s best opportunity for a big win
       

       Economies constantly change, and this is both exhilarating, and benenficial overall, and also frightening, creating some dislocation, job pressures, and some challenges. For example fracking for gas has decimated the coal industry, right at the same time the climate issue has emerged that is also putting pressure on coal. These are the harsh realities, very hard on people, yet they are driven by capitalism, free markets, and technology, things we mostly all say are good things and they are generally good things surely? Isn't this the so called creative destruction of capitalism?

       There are various ways of responding to all this. Trump is making the choice to go backwards and ignore market forces, and try to somehow preserve coal. This goes in the face of market forces, and is very state top heavy. Remember how Venezuela become so dependent on one export industry of oil, with a lot of state support for this industry, and got into huge trouble when the price collapsed. Part of this was the inflexibility of their state owned oil system, but Trump is just showing another similar form of inflexibility and is ignoring the fundamental facts about capitalism.

       Of course Trump is also in total denial about the reality of climate change.

       Another response to changing technology and changing environmental pressures is to help communities and ordinary people that are left behind with change. This is a more sensible idea to me and better use of government and tax money, than subsidising old industries past their use by dates, with an extended version of crony capitalism, that just tranfers public money to people who are already rich.

       One of the desperate problems we have is in theory people that lose jobs due to technology change should "move to where the jobs are" but this is never so easy. People from very close community attachments. These communities may benefit from some help. As the article says, a carbon tax may help these communities branch out into new industries, renewable energy, or at least gives them money to relocate to other cities, and other options.

       But you come up against the Republican antipathy towards taxes or government initiatives to help people. This leaves Trump and his alternatives of isolationism, trade protectionism or subsidising / protecting the industries of the past and ignoring environmental threats. It's a stark choice, either accept and adapt to change with some government help, or go back and hide in the past, adopt protectionism, bury your head in old industries, and ignore current realities.

19671. Evan at 08:09 AM on 31 May 2017
       SkS Analogy 6 - Speakers, tuning forks, and global warming
       

       Thanks Nigel@9 for the comments and the article. It is an interesting perspective. I would add the following in defense of analogies, accepting that they might invite increased criticism from deniers.

       The analogies are not intended to be a better form of communication, just a different form. The hope is that the analogies will resonate with people, for whom some of the other material in SkS does not. We write to help people who are honestly searching and trying to understand. We are not trying to convert the deniers.

       It is absolutely monumental what a 1% shift in voters in the last US presidential election would have made to the very direction of our efforts to combat climate change and to the direction of global politics. Look at what is happening because 1% voted for one candidate versus the other. All we needed to do was to reach 1% of the voters and sensitize them to the issue of climate change, and the outcome might have been very different. Things might have been very different. So we don't necessarily want to measure our success by 10's of percentage points, but by much more modest gains, with can have a magnified effect at the voting booth. The hope is that an increased variety of messaging methods will increase the penetration of our message.

       Of course, if you feel that the analogies are hurting our messaging of the need for urgent action on climate change, then that gives me reason for being much more careful in crafting these. I am trying to create understanding that will help those honestly searching to see through the denier arguments.

       Thanks again for your input Nigel@9.

19672. nigelj at 06:53 AM on 31 May 2017
       SkS Analogy 6 - Speakers, tuning forks, and global warming
       

       I can relate to Wol's comment that analogies create another target for denialists. I have noticed that when I use analogies in recent years, they come under a lot of attack, much of it dumb and cynical, and very annoying.

       But if anything this suggests the climate denialists have come to see analogies as a big threat to their junk science, so it suggests analogies have value. Analogies have also helped me understand things. I think on balance analogies are useful.

       Reading the comments, I  was wondering about the history of whether analogies worked, and came across  this persons personal blog which so perfectly describes the issues.

       scampblog.blogspot.co.nz/2013/08/do-analogies-still-work.html  

       But it means analogies have to be pretty good, and carefully considered, or they will be torn apart. This creates a challenge, as the value of analogies is simplicity, but this very simplicity makes them an easy target for criticism sometimes. 

19673. MA Rodger at 05:21 AM on 31 May 2017
       It's the sun
       

       cready @1236,

       The upper panel of AR5 Fig 5.2 plots SST, SL & southern ocean dust as well as paleo CO2. If it is just the CO2 you wish to plot out, this NOAA directory may be useful. The data is a little old now (all pre-2006) but it probably provides half of the data in Fig 5.2.

19674. Evan at 01:21 AM on 31 May 2017
       SkS Analogy 6 - Speakers, tuning forks, and global warming
       

       Wol@6. Another point about the useful of analogies. I have often heard it said that the best learning occurs when 80% is familiar and 20% is new. The goal of analogies is to relate things that are new to things that are familiar, thereby facilitating learning. I can accept that I may be missing the mark in crafting analogies, and that these can be improved, but analogies are commonly used by most every speaker, writer, and teacher I've encountered. They therefore seem, to me anyway, to be extremely powerful tools for conveying information about subjects that are new to people.

19675. cready at 01:04 AM on 31 May 2017
       It's the sun
       

       Tom Curtis @1235, thanks. I did find that page, but I got horribly lost looking for the right data to reproduce that figure. I'm not really sure what I should be looking for, however. Any ideas?

19676. Evan at 00:45 AM on 31 May 2017
       SkS Analogy 6 - Speakers, tuning forks, and global warming
       

       One of the beauties of online publication is that we can continually improve the publications. They are not stagnant. So with the help of useful criticism, we will continue to improve the effectiveness of these analogies.

       There are many deniers who simply will not change their position, yet there are others who are truly confused and trying to understand. It is to this latter group that we expend great effort to help them, and it is our hope that these analogies will help those "seekers" understand. I really don't know what formula will convert the deniers, but I am open to criticism about what will improve these analogies. Do you have a specific suggestion?

       Is it by chance that nearly all Republicans oppose action on climate change and nearly all Democrates support it? Could there be something larger at play here? Should it be our goal to write analogies that will convert even the most stubborn Republican, or simply try to clarify the truth?

19677. Wol at 22:59 PM on 30 May 2017
       SkS Analogy 6 - Speakers, tuning forks, and global warming
       

       I'm not at all sure that these analogies are helpful in convincing anyone. They insert an extra layer of "debate" and offer yet another opportunity for deniers to fabricate "arguments".

19678. Evan at 07:41 AM on 30 May 2017
       SkS Analogy 6 - Speakers, tuning forks, and global warming
       

       Thanks Nigel for the link. Very effective and educational.

19679. nigelj at 06:42 AM on 30 May 2017
       SkS Analogy 6 - Speakers, tuning forks, and global warming
       

       This article below is a simple, clear, animated version of the whole process. 

       agreenerfutureblog.wordpress.com/1-the-natural-greenhouse-effect/

19680. ubrew12 at 05:24 AM on 30 May 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #21
       

       Regarding Joe Romm's Alaskan Permafrost Melt report, and the Scientific feedback that called it 'alarmist', it seems to me that many of the Scientists who critiqued it wished to err on the side of Scientific conservatism.  But ordinary citizens aren't Scientists.  We're more like stakeholders: we care about the planet because we live here.  What is 'conservative' for the people Romm is writing for is not what is 'conservative' for a Scientist.  For example, one researcher stated that if the permafrost melt leads to a 10% feedback (according to him, a 'large positive feedback' for climate), then a 1 C rise in temperature will actually lead to a 1.1 C rise, and then 1.11 C, and so on, from the permafrost melt.  From a Scientists viewpoint, this appears prudently conservative, but, from the point of view of Romm's readers, what if he's wrong?  It's not 'conservative' then, more like outlandishly optimistic.  And just casually, its not lost on many of us that if a tray of ice is brought to 1 C, it doesn't melt by 10%, it melts by 100%.  So the potential for catastrophe is certainly there: Romm is correct in noting that there is twice as much carbon in permafrost as there is in our atmosphere.  Certainly these Scientists can admit there is at least a possibility of a 'thermal runaway', which is a term they really want to avoid using so as not to be called 'alarmist'.  But imagine, for a second, the public's response if a Scientific paper got published that definitively showed the permafrost was in 'thermal runaway'.  Such a situation is unrecoverable: that's how high the stakes are.  I think the public would not be impressed by some Scientists being able to claim that at least they had been 'conservative', and that is the public Romm correctly has in mind.

19681. Evan at 05:21 AM on 30 May 2017
       SkS Analogy 6 - Speakers, tuning forks, and global warming
       

       The main point is that with increasing CO₂ concentrations, that more energy is trapped. The details of how much is retained, reradiated, etc. is another story. When you sit next to a fire, you absorb infrared radiation. This causes you to heat up, so that your surface temperature increases. Because your surface temperature increases, the amount of infrared radiation you radiate also increases. But air molecules next to your skin will heat up, because your skin is warmer. So for CO₂ molecules, whatever the detailed mechanism of the fraction that is retained vs reradiated, there is some local heating in addition to the heating that occurs due to reradiation.

       Another SkS article explains what I think you are getting at, that the actual mechanism of global warming is that the layer where CO₂ is are saturated moves to higher altitudes as their concentration increases. By trapping an increasing fraction at higher altitudes, more energy is added to the higher altitudes, where the greenhouse effect is not yet saturated.

       This is a lot of detail, an in the spirit of how Fourier looked at the problem in the early 1800's from an overall balance of the energy into and out of Earth's atmosphere, all that I am saying is that from a simple energy balance, when we put more CO₂ into the atmosphere it traps more energy. The details of how that happen are slightly more complicated.

       As an interesting note, there is a similar phenomenon with the sun. We all know that light coming from the surface of the sun only takes about 8.5 minutes to reach Earth, but for light to get from the center of the sun, where nuclear fushion creates the photons, to the surface, takes about 100,000 years. The atmosphere is so dense in the core of the sun that the photons bounce around from atom to atom (or whatever state the matter is in) for many millenia before making it to the surface.

19682. RedBaron at 05:12 AM on 30 May 2017
       More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
       

       @ahfretheim 245,

       You have apparently been reading off the denial sphere. There are several inaccurate conclusions being bandied about regarding CO2 fertilization, and climate zones marching northwards.

       The first important one to understand is that "greening" does not always mean increased photosynthesis. With regard to desertification just the opposite is true. Increased "greening" is a sign of a degrading grassland ecosystem that ultimately can in many cases turn to true desert.

       It is counter intuitive. I understand that. But C4 grasses that produce far more photosynthesis than C3 scrub beginning to lose their dominance in a grassland biome is often the first sign on a long term trend to highly degraded land.

       C4 carbon fixation - Wikipedia[1]

       C4 metabolism originated when grasses migrated from the shady forest undercanopy to more open environments,[2] where the high sunlight gave it an advantage over the C3 pathway.[3]

       … Today, C4 plants represent about 5% of Earth's plant biomass and 3% of its known plant species.[4][5] Despite this scarcity, they account for about 23% of terrestrial carbon fixation.[6][7] Increasing the proportion of C4 plants on earth could assist biosequestration of CO2 and represent an important climate change avoidance strategy.

       The other thing they commonly "overlooked" is the angle of the sun. Just because some tundra might melt farther north doesn't mean at all that there will be anywhere near the same level of productivity. You still have the problem of no sun for 6 months! You can't grow winter wheat, winter rye, cool season crops like brassicas and peas etc... when there is no sun! 

       Lastly the types of plants we are seeing are not as good at building soil. The LCP is either limited or not present at all. Meaning net carbon into the soil sink decreases even when vegetative cover increases....in these cases.

19683. Tom Curtis at 05:09 AM on 30 May 2017
       It's the sun
       

       Cready @1234, this is a good first point of call.

19684. Tom Curtis at 05:05 AM on 30 May 2017
       SkS Analogy 6 - Speakers, tuning forks, and global warming
       

       sailingfree @1, actually nearly all absorbed radiation is given up as kinetic energy in collisions with other molecules in the atmosphere, most of which are to nitrogen and oxygen (N₂ and O₂).  On the other hand, the CO2 molecules are continously being excited by those same collisions.  As a result a near constant proportion of the CO2 molecules will be in an excited state, and able to radiate IR radiation at any given time.  As a result, the radiation is governed by the local atmospheric temperature, not the rate of absorption of IR radiation. 

       The radiated IR photons can, however, go in any direction with equal probability.  Because those radiated with a side ways component are matched by radiation from neighbouring  parcels of gass, the energy tranfer from which effectively cancels out, the lateral components can be ignored, and the radiation treated as being radiated in equal amounts upwards and downwards.

19685. sailingfree at 04:45 AM on 30 May 2017
       SkS Analogy 6 - Speakers, tuning forks, and global warming
       

       Explaination needed here"     "...When they absorb waves they trap heat, warming the atmosphere."

       I thought that rather than absorb and retain heat, the CO2 more accurately, quickly reradiated it, some downward, which warmed the surface and the ocean. The warming surface/ocean then warms the lower to middle atmosphere.

       Is that correct?

19686. cready at 04:26 AM on 30 May 2017
       It's the sun
       

       Would anyone know if there is a simple way to download the data used to produce Figure 2 from the IPCC AR5 Chapter 5? I'd like to show their calculations in a presentation, but the charts as provided are a bit busy. If I can present them as individual charts in Apple Keynote, it would really help.

       Thans in advance, and thank you for Skeptical Science!
       Christian

19687. Tom Curtis at 15:47 PM on 29 May 2017
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       While strongly suspecting that moonrabbit @411 is yet another sock puppet, I will point out that my post at @406 exclusively criticizes cosmoswarrior/diehard/dieharder's claim @405 that:

       "Not only that, but the temperature history during the last two decades of the 20th century was rewritten to double the rate of temperature increase."

       As can be easilly seen from the graph @406, and the equivalent graph from Karl et al shown at @409 (panel b), the trend in the last two decades of the twentieth century, ie, from 1980 onwards, was not doubled when comparing adjusted to raw data.  cosmoswarrior/diehard/dieharder's claim to the contrary is indeed a gross error.  Somebody who cannot acknowledge even that, and who continuously misrepresents the argument made against his claim to avoid doing so in not amenable to reason.

       If they (and moonrabbit, on the assumption that is not just another sock puppet) cannot acknowledge even that gross error, or even correctly represent the argument against it, how on earth can they be expected to discuss reseanably the more subtle issues relating to the 1998-2012 trend (ie, the so called "hiatus").

       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Yes, this was just yet another tired, tepid sock puppet iteration of serial spammer cosmoswarrior.

19688. moonrabbit at 15:21 PM on 29 May 2017
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       I would like to comment on your responses to cosmoswarrior and diehard in their postings about the reliability of NOAA temperature data. First, in the response Tom Curtis gave to cosmoswarrior in @406, he showed the GHCNv3 data before and after the corrections, and pointed out that there was "almost no difference between the raw and adjusted data from 1980 forward". Tom Curtis then used this fact to argue that cosmoswarrior was incorrect in his/her statement about the data adjustments made in 2015 (which eliminated the "warming hiatus") also rewrote the temperature data for the last two decades of the 20th century. This is not an equitable comparison, however, since GHCNv3 was a land-based dataset only and the major changes had to do with the sea-surface measurements. Therefore, we cannot use this fact to argue that the statement by cosmoswarrior about "pause-buster" data corrections is "simply false" or that he/she is in "gross error".

       At this point, I don't believe the fact can be disputed that NOAA made major changes in temperature data in June 2015 which in fact eliminated the appearance of a warming slowdown after 1998. The writings and videos by Kevin Cowtan and Zeke Hausfather that you in fact post and reference discuss the affects of these "adjustments" on the temperature trends. Additionally, news of these sweeping changes, including rewriting of data (which at least most of us have never seen before in any scientific effort), caused a huge controversy in the entire climate science field and eventually prompted a Congressional investigation. Therefore, if cosmoswarrior and diehard are mistaken in their statements, they are far from being the only ones.

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] Try again - after you have read the comments policy.  Note, no sloganeering, no accusations of fraud. Check for accuracy of your premises (what you read on some denier site is likely wrong) and logic. Unless you think a telescope works best without wiping the dust off, you need provide evidence that adjustments to temperature record are scientifically invalid, not that you dont like the results.

       [DB] This sock puppet of serial spammer cosmoswarrior will not be rejoining this conversation.

19689. Glenn Tamblyn at 14:36 PM on 29 May 2017
       Does Urban Heat Island effect add to the global warming trend?
       

       EE
       
       Your right that it is a change in the local characteristics of a site that can potentially skew the results.
       
       How do they corrrect for this changing? Hopefully the metadataassociated with each station is updated as any such change occurs.
       
       Also, the GHCN dataset that is used as the basis for some of the temperature products uses an automated pairwise adjustment method, contrasting nearby stations with each other to look for unusual variations in any station.
       
       The data set produced by NASA GISS goes further. They use satellite data about lights at night to estimate degree of urbanisation, independent of station meta data. So any evolution of a site from rural to urban, at least in the satellite era can be detected.

19690. Eclectic at 09:41 AM on 29 May 2017
       More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
       

       Ahfretheim, you have failed to consider the overall context here.

       If Earth had a very much smaller population of humans, and the current climate change were happening at one quarter its present speed — then yes, adaptation to global warming could proceed in the comfortably gradual, orderly, and harm-free manner that you indicate.

       But the world is already overpopulated, especially in the tropics.  And the production of staple foods (not apples or grapes) is under pressure from rising temperatures, rising extremes of heat-wave flood and drought, and rising sea level (invading the fertile river deltas and other low-lying farmlands).

       Realistically, there is zero room for complacency and inaction about AGW.

19691. ahfretheim at 04:36 AM on 29 May 2017
       More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
       

       1) Actually there's a great deal of disagreement on this point, as can be found in the American Meteorological Society study from 2014 reference by this ironically titled LA Times article: http://www.latimes.com/science/la-me-0305-drought-watch-20150305-story.html While it is true that greater heat does lead to greater evaporation, which leads to less water in the soil GIVEN THE SAME LEVEL OF PRECIPITATION,  that water does not simply then disappear but ends up as vapor pressure in the atmospher, leading to greater precipitation. Indeed (also referenced in same ironically titled article) the Diffenbaugh, Swain and Tuoma study from Stanford did find that even in California winter precipitation would modestly increase, while also complaining that summer storms would be pushed north. What seems to emerge here is not an entire planet that is growing drier, but rather, winners and losers, and with decreasing permafrost making many non-arable lands in the arctic circle that would otherwise be possible candidates for agriculture open to utilization, it is likely that winners will greatly outweigh losers.
       
       2) Every plant is different in this regard, and farmers already adjust their crops on a yearly basis based upon both weather patterns as recorded in thier almanac and crop prices. What will likely happen is, to adjust for the higher water usage, a shift away from water-enabled crops such as soybeans and towards water-disabled crops such as apples, tomatoes or grapes. One of the major problems with climate models in this regard is they tend to assume farmers are stupid or would simply stay in one place and let themselves be destroyed.
       
       3) That actually depends upon your way of doing agriculture. There are methods of agriculture that don't involve artifical fertilizers and mixing the two approaches may prove best in the future. Also we're really not running out of natural gas, in fact many more expensive to operate gas fields are closing due to lack of demand.

       4) You can't have it both ways. Either there is increasing photosynthesis leading to greater need for CO2, water, nutrients and sunlight or there is not. Certainly if there is not increasing photosynthesis, your concerns in points 1, 2 and 3 are invalid.
       
       5) Switch to more insect-resistant crops. This is the sort of on-going evolution that agriculture has been experiencing for hundreds of years. 400 years ago an insect destroyed the old French wine - they cross bred the plants with a wilder strain, and developed the heartiness to withstand the insects, but also lost a certain characteristic sweetness and innocence of the wine. When the Grand Coulee dam was built in the early 1900's, bringing accessible irrigation water to the bone dry and once sandstorm filled deserts of Eastern Washington, they were able to grow the old French strains once again in a place that never had the populations of insects to destroy them. Similarly, 70 years ago the Bowl Weevil evicted cotton from the Old South, leading to its replacement with many other kinds of agriculture from Oranges to Peanuts to Sugar to commercial timber.
       
       

19692. Tom Curtis at 23:31 PM on 28 May 2017
       Mars is warming
       

       EE @50, I have responded to your comments on Venus on a more appropriate thread.

19693. Tom Curtis at 23:30 PM on 28 May 2017
       Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
       

       Elsewhere, EE writes:

       "Regarding question by mj at 43, I think skeptics are correct in that mentioning Venus is not very useful in advancing GW argument. By using the same albedo/black body radiation that was used for Mars..... Venus is 67M miles vs 93M miles so it absorbs twice the solar radiation. If Venus had the same albedo and same greenhouse as earth, it would still be unbearably hot. About 185 degrees Fahrenheit....too hot for me. Greenhouse or not, I'd be dead on that planet. "

       I am not sure what is meant by "the same greenhouse effect", but it is interesting to explore the difference between the actual Venus, and Venus with an Earthlike and with zero albedo, all with no greenhouse effect.

       First, the mean incoming solar radiation for Venus an albedo of 0, 0.306 (ie, Earthlike) and 0.77 (its current value) are 650.4, 451.4 and 149.6 W/m^2 respectively.  As it happens, for a body with liquid water, the water vapour feedback imposes a cap on OLR on the assumption that there is such a thing as the greenhouse effect.  That cap arises because, as temperatures rise, the water vapour feedback becomes stronger until a point is reached were the increase in the water vapour feedback compensates for any increase in outgoing radiation from the surface, so that while the temperature may rise, the OLR does not.  That cap, for Earth is approximately 385 W/m^2 (Nakajima et al, 1992), and would be similar for Venus.  Indeed, prior to the formation of Venus very thick atmosphere, it would have been slightly lower. 

       Crucially, for Venus with 0 or an Earthlike albedo, that cap is less than the globally averaged incoming insolation.  That means that for Venus with Earthlike albedo, there is an excess of about 70 W/m^2 between the energy Venus would recieve from the Sun, and the amount it would radiate to space.  That extra 70 W/m^2 must go into heating the surface, first by boiling away any liquid water on the surface, and then by raising the temperatures well above anything like the temperatrures we are used to.

       That, in essence, is the runaway greenhouse effect.  It cannot exist without a greenhouse effect, but a Venus with Earthlike albedo and zero initial greenhouse effect cannot avoid it.

       In some respects, even more interesting is the current very high upward surface radiation coupled with the very low OLR found on Venus, or in simpler terms, the fact that Venus with less recieved radiation than Earth, has a surface hot enough to melt lead.  Given that Venus is less dense than Earth, and consequently does not have as much radioactive material, that cannot be due to high geothermal heat flux.  Consequently it is inexplicable without a greenhouse effect.

       These two crucial facts about Venus show that the greenhouse effect is real, and that it is potent.  There exist no other viable explanations; and certainly none proposed by AGW "skeptics" (whose explanations tend to start by ignoring the conservation of energy).  In science, a theory is only as good as its ability to explain things better than its competitors.  In this case the greenhouse effect is an efficient explanation of both the current state of Venus, and how it got into that state.  It has no viable competition in that role.  This, rather than our relative comfort on Venus with no greenhouse effect (or a much reduced greenhouse effect) and Earthlike albedo is what makes mention of Venus a good argument in favour of the theory of the greenhouse effect.

       Granted it will not persuade all AGW "skeptics", but that is because most AGW "skeptics" have decided to make their beliefs on AGW immune to evidence.  Nothing is a good argument for those with minds so closed.

19694. scaddenp at 13:43 PM on 28 May 2017
       Does Urban Heat Island effect add to the global warming trend?
       

       I dont think I understand your point at all. A rural area that has become urbanized is no longer "rural" for the purposes of correcting the record and cannot be used for such. I highly recommend that you read some of the detailed methodology. Eg Hausfather et al, 2013

19695. EE at 12:53 PM on 28 May 2017
       Does Urban Heat Island effect add to the global warming trend?
       

       I see how they correct for UHI in the urban areas by using nearby rural areas.  However, a difference in urbanization between city and rural would not skew global warming as much as the difference in urbanization rates between city and rural.  In other words, a city that stays the same size would not give a false global warming effect.  But a rural area that turns into a town that grows to a city would.

       How do the correct for the urbanization of rural areas? 

19696. scaddenp at 11:27 AM on 28 May 2017
       Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
       

       I certainly hope you do not think that policy-makers should be guided by what you "sense" as opposed to scientists reasonable skill at predicting future climate (a cycle is not climate by definition really).

       You need to be clearer about the difference between weather and climate. It would be very hard to predict the temperature for 24Dec 2017 where you live. However, I think you could nail the average temperature for Dec now with reasonable accuracy.

       Furthermore, you can state with very high confidence that the average temperature for June will be warmer (if in NH temperate area) than average temperature for Dec. Now think for a moment. Why is that true? What is your answer? 

19697. EE at 09:48 AM on 28 May 2017
       Mars is warming
       

       The conclusion of Fenton, that  Mars temperature rose, is just a physics calculation that I remember from college Astronomy.  If the surface darkens, more sunlight is absorbed, the temperature will rise, causing more heat radiation (black body radiation).   Temperature will rise until the black body radiation of the higher temperature is in equilibrium with the new heat absorbtion.  It assumes TSI is constant.  So this is not a measurement per se.

       Regarding question by mj at 43, I think skeptics are correct in that mentioning Venus is not very useful in advancing GW argument.  By using the same albedo/black body radiation that was used for Mars..... Venus is 67M miles vs 93M miles so it absorbs twice the solar radiation.  If Venus had the same albedo and same greenhouse as earth, it would still be unbearably hot.   About 185 degrees Fahrenheit....too hot for me.  Greenhouse or not, I'd be dead on that planet. 

       Here is link on Planet tempearature and blackbody radiation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_equilibrium_temperature

19698. chriskoz at 07:54 AM on 28 May 2017
       Skeptical Science now an Android app
       

       I just inatalled android ap buit i dont see the home menu with this blog. Is this blog hidden somewhwre in these mobile apps and can i access latest articles commemts from it or do ihave to revert to  this site which is not optimised for mobile...

19699. Eclectic at 21:39 PM on 27 May 2017
       Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
       

       Interesting, Alnero2 @118 , that the way you see it is that you could be wrong.  You are quite correct in that!!

       Interesting also, that you sense there's more than one "major parameter" science is not yet aware of.  Your claim is not just extraordinary, but more than extraordinary!  How reliable is your ability to sense the unknown — for instance, can you reliably sense the results of future horse races?

       I sense, yet I cannot prove, there is a sock missing from your sock drawer.

19700. alnero2 at 19:31 PM on 27 May 2017
       Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
       

       The weather has, is and always will change and I think, there is nought that is in the human dynamic, that will change this.

       As science is a thing in progress and has not yet reached its zenith, then predicting long term cycles in weather, remains an aspiration.

       I sense, yet I cannot prove, there are major parameters that affect weather of which science is not yet aware of.

       I could be wrong, its just the way I see it.

Prev  386  387  388  389  390  391  392  393  394  395  396  397  398  399  400  401  Next