Recent Comments

Prev  414  415  416  417  418  419  420  421  422  423  424  425  426  427  428  429  Next

Comments 21051 to 21100:

21051. nigelj at 07:56 AM on 10 February 2017
       Whistleblower: ‘I knew people would misuse this.’ They did - to attack climate science
       

       Regarding my comment that Bates might be a disgruntled employee, I have since read this on Realclimate, who have a good article today, basically on the same NOAA / Bates issue:

       "12 Susan Anderson says:There may also be something beyond simple “engineers vs. scientists” tension behind Bates’ decision to go public with his allegations. Two former NOAA staffers confirmed to Ars that Tom Karl essentially demoted John Bates in 2012, when Karl was Director of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information. Bates had held the title of Supervisory Meteorologist and Chief of the Remote Sensing Applications Division, but Karl removed him from that position partly due to a failure to maintain professionalism with colleagues, assigning him to a position in which he would no longer supervise other staff. It was apparently no secret that the demotion did not sit well with Bates."

21052. Tom Curtis at 07:25 AM on 10 February 2017
       There is no consensus
       

       Spassapparat @741, Legates et al do not have a good point, because they apply it selectively.  We may well be interested in a comparison between the number of papers that "explicitly endorse with quantification" (65) and those that "explicitly reject with quantification" (10) which means an 86.67% endorsement rate among papers whose abstracts explicitly endorse or reject AGW, not the 0.03% used by Legates et al.  (Indeed, Legates figure is doubly wrong because 0.3% of 11,944 abstracts is 36, not the actual 65 explicit endorsements as can be determined by a simple search of the abstracts.)  We might be more interested in the 52 author rated "explicit endorse with quantification" and 9 author rated "explicit reject with quantification" (85.25% endorsement rate).  We may also be interested in the 10 rated "explicit endorse with quantification" and 0 rated "explicit reject with quantification" (100% endorsement rate) from among those abstracts that which include the term "attribute" or its cognates in the title.  We also may be interested to know that among those abstracts that include "attribute" or its cognates, the quantities in each endorsement category are:

       1: 10

       2:58

       3:99

       4: 366

       5: 5

       6:0

       7:0 

       for a total endorsement rate of 97.09% among those that state a position in the abstract.

       The point is that it is not true that only those papers whose abstracts explicitly endorse with quantification actually endorse AGW.  Therefore if you are going to restrict discussion to just those abstracts with numerical attribution values, you need to compare them with just those abstracts - not the total of abstracts which have been excluded from consideration on a technicality.  Not including a specific quantification may simply occur because the quantification has been reserved for the conclusion rather than being revealed in the abstract (a common trait in scientific papers), or because the paper was not explicitly about attribution so that a more general statement was sufficient.  Pretending that is not the case to make rhetorical points is not good science.  It is pseudoscience.

21053. Coal Miner at 07:10 AM on 10 February 2017
       Repeal without replace: a dangerous GOP strategy on Obamacare and climate
       OK, so, can anyone point to a comprehensive plan that has been proposed, and which is actually doable economically, that will put the USA, or the world, or both on the path that scientists say will prevent catastrophic warming? Ultimately of course it must be a world plan; and in the mean time the plan cannot destroy the economy of the USA while we wait for the rest of the world to complete their changes.I'd like to read the plan.
21054. nigelj at 06:45 AM on 10 February 2017
       Whistleblower: ‘I knew people would misuse this.’ They did - to attack climate science
       

       Excellent points. The accusations against NOAA are another beat up, and vicious attack on climate science, without any real foundation. I agree with how you characterise all this. It is certainly a nothingburger, and hopefully it will very soon be a goneburger.

       The bottom line is there is no evidence of significant policy breaches, and the data adjustments make only an incredibly small difference to the data, and have been verified by other agencies anyway. This will of course be lost on the denialist crowd, who obviously don't care about facts, honesty, or the big issues, merely scoring points, destroying careers over trivial issues, and advancing their own agenda. It's almost animal like behaviour.

       The term "war on science" is a big term, but how else can it now be described, if not a war on science?

       I'm intrigued by what would be Bates motivation. Firstly "in principle" whistle blowing has it's place, and that no organisation is above this. In fact I'm a strong believer in whistle blowing, and laws often protect whistleblowers.

       But surely whistle blowing carries some big responsibilities as well? Huge moral responsibilites. You need to get your facts right before blowing the whistle. You could potentially damage peoples lives and your own cause. Surely you also need something substantial?

       I can't see that anything NOAA did rises to these sorts of levels. It seems like Bates has got it all wrong. He has not got his facts right. He has claimed things that he is allegedly in no position to have the full information on, by what is now said.

       It makes me wonder if he is an attention seeker, or disgruntled employee. Every organisation has one of these.

       But it's another pseudo scandal with a lot of smoke and no real fire, and is now in the public domain. Its like climategate or the hockey stick controversy. These things are boldy presented in the media, and are in the public mind, as negative sorts of things, and the enquiries finding there was nothing wrong are posted in the media, usually in the fine print in the back that nobody is going to read. Apart froom a few websites like this, the media are unbalanced, and constantly letting us down, when they do this. 
       
       

21055. nigelj at 05:45 AM on 10 February 2017
       Mail on Sunday launches the first salvo in the latest war against climate scientists
       

       Chriskoz @15, I agree Trump is appalling, immature and selfish. I think he has some personality disorder myself, and also doesn't do his homework on policy.

       But I doubt he is a moron, as in a low intelligence quotient.  Quite the reverse, he is probably well above average intelligence (please people don't laugh). Look how quick witted he is, and he has a very good degree. He is smart and not some "idiot savante" just on property development.

       But his intelligence is very undisciplined, for some reason. We would call him a "loose  cannon" and quite dangerous.

       And he lacks much general knowledge, by all accounts, and gets bad information fed to him by his team. This means you have no real data within which to make decisions that are refined or sensible.  You get "garbage in, garbage out" regardless of how bright he is.

21056. Spassapparat at 05:32 AM on 10 February 2017
       There is no consensus
       

       Hi,

       I have a question regarding the famous Cook et al. (2013) paper on scientific consensus regarding AGW, and critical responses to this paper, especially the one by Legates et al. (2015). The only response to this paper by Legates et al. that I could find was included in the '24 errors of Tol' (page 6). In their paper, Legates et al. claim that Cook et al. misrepresent the consensus since only a small minority of papers actually say that 'human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW'. The two biggest categories of papers accepting the AGW hypothesis are either of the implicit or explicit  but unquantified variety. In response to the critique, Cook et al. argue that it is an impossible expectation to expect authors to explicitly quantify the extent of global warming. I do not think that this is what Legates et al. are expecting though - they are only expecting papers to say that they are 'causing most of the current GW', which is the definition made by Cook et al. at the outset of the paper. So in so far as I'm reading the original Cook et al. paper correctly, i.e. they are querying what percentage of papers agrees with the definition of the AGW hypothesis Cook et al. establish in their paper, namely "human activity is verly likely causing most of the current GW", it appears to me that Legates et al. are correct in arguin that Cook et al. cannot show that 97% of the papers that express an opinion do express this strong of an opinion.

       I think Legates et al. do have a point in the sense that there is a clear difference between a paper saying that humans are contributing to climate change (this being the example statement in the Cook et al. paper for their category 2) and a paper saying that humans are the primary cause of climate change. 'Humans are contributing to climate change' is something that, as far as I am aware of the denialist literature, even most denialists would agree with - they would just say that the human contribution is minimal.

       Thanks in advance for any clarification on this matter!

21057. nigelj at 05:28 AM on 10 February 2017
       Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
       

       Tom Curtis @5, yes fair enough comment Tom.

       But I think there is another rather obvious angle beings missed here. The climate denialist crowd paint a picture that implies climate science as a whole or the IPCC are all preaching about catastrophic global warming. As a semi retired guy, I read a lot, and I just haven't heard many climate scientists talk about catastrophic global warming, or catastrophic events. Serious yes but not so much catastrophic. They would be in a small minority.

       So the denialist crowd are just unfairly generalising. But hey, what else is new? I'm used to that.

21058. Rob Honeycutt at 01:45 AM on 10 February 2017
       Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
       

       Exactly Tom. Whenever I use the term I always include that's on a busines-as-usual emissions pathway. We will see impacts based on emissions so far, but if we can rapidly reduce emissions we can avoid the worst impacts.

21059. Tom Curtis at 00:41 AM on 10 February 2017
       Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
       

       nanuk @3:

       "many CAGW proponents DO predict Catestrophic changes due to warming, so Catestrophic Anthropogenic Global Warmind IS an apropriate phrase to frame the issue."

       I am sure that all people who argue that Anthropogenic Global Warming is catastrophic predict catastrophic changes due to unmitigated warming.  By definition, in fact.  

       The IPCC, however, (and myself come to that) say that there is significant uncertainty in the outcomes, and and the low end of the probability range, costs will be significant but not catastrophic; and that while there will be catastrophic weather effects, they will not significantly increase in number or intensity than under a no warming scenario.  The IPCC (and I), however, also point at that at the high end of the probability range, truly catastrophic outcomes are likely in this century, and a certainty in following centuries if action is not taken to mitigate climate change.

       Your inappropiate label indicates that those people of whom it applies claim certainty that there will be catastrophic outcomes with no mitigation.  But you apply it to people who only say there is a significant risk of catastrophic outcomes (with no mitigation).  It straightforwardly misrepresents the opinions of those you choose to label with it.

       Which I think is the point.  It is a rhetorical device to paint as unreasonable and extremist people whose opinions are well judged on far more familiarity with the evidence than Meyers or those on whose opinion he relies. 

21060. ubrew12 at 00:38 AM on 10 February 2017
       Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
       

       Meyer: "catastrophic global warming advocates are wrong to over-estimate our understanding of these feedbacks." It's frustrating that Meyer doesn't identify which feedbacks he is referring to. The primary feedback is increased water vapor, and there is no controversy over its magnitude. The secondary feedback is cloud cover. While more controversial, Meyer misses the chance to explain why he thinks this is strongly negative rather than neutral, as most Climate Scientists now think. And as feedbacks go, that's pretty much it, so where is the controversy?  Meyer additionally seems comforted by the fact that natural systems tend to be stable.  True, but what is 'stable' to a planet may not appear 'stable' to a creature of biology.  Earth's sea level can vary by +/- 50 feet or more without the planet becoming unstable.

       Meyer: "[skeptics]… argue that the theory of strong climate positive feedback is flawed" Meyer has the ultimate platform to make that argument, which rests on the cloud feedback, but he punts. He claims that unless warming to date is 1.5C, feedbacks must be lower than IPCC thinks. Warming to date is 1.25C, since pre-industrial. His claim that it is 0.7 C is suspiciously wrong for someone writing with much apparent knowledge of the topic. But, since he doesn't want to talk about feedback physics, his entire argument rests on that 0.7 C.

       Meyer: "What [skeptics]… deny is the catastrophe…" Here is an opportunity to talk about the hysteresis of the climate system. First you get the radiative imbalance, then the heat imbalance, then the climate change, and finally the catastrophe. Meyer should at least admit that by the time we get to 'catastrophe' we are late by 50 years. Should catastrophe occur, I somehow think Meyer will have little to say about it.

21061. Tadaaa at 23:40 PM on 9 February 2017
       Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
       

       "His style of rhetoric reminds me of "Sophistry". This was practiced by the ancient greek Sophists,and plenty of people today, including by my observation lawyers, politicians, lobby groups, and business people. Sophistry uses rhetoric that is superficially appealing, but is devoid of genuine logic, balance or content. It is full of strawman arguments, logical fallacies (those deceptive arguments with long latin names"

       
       yes, agree - it reminds me of the quote
       

       "That's the beauty of argument, if you argue correctly, you're never wrong."

21062. nanuk at 23:32 PM on 9 February 2017
       Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
       

       So let me get this straight. 

       You dismiss him because he uses the term CAGW.  

       Yet You use the term "Climate Change

       many CAGW proponents DO predict Catestrophic changes due to warming, so Catestrophic Anthropogenic Global Warmind IS an apropriate phrase to frame the issue.   

       You and your ilk have misused "climate change" and turned its meaning into something it is not, so should the world dismiss you?  

       As we enter the next ice age, how will you spin THAT "Climate Change"?

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Inflamatory sloganeering snipped.

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

       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.

21063. KR at 22:08 PM on 9 February 2017
       Repeal without replace: a dangerous GOP strategy on Obamacare and climate
       

       Coal Miner - The economic costs of adapting to climate change after the fact are estimated to be 5 to 10x the costs of mitigating climate change now. As the saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. 

       If you are really driven by economics, BAU is by far the most expensive and foolish path.

21064. michael sweet at 20:35 PM on 9 February 2017
       Repeal without replace: a dangerous GOP strategy on Obamacare and climate
       

       Coal Miner,

       So there is no amount of damage from AGW that would convince you that change is needed.  By your standard, the economy will never be strong enough to warrant change.   We will  continue BAU until the economy collapses.

       You ask for more information.  All the information that you have asked for is readily available on the internet.  Read here at SkS for a few months and you will learn most of what you have asked for.  

21065. Eclectic at 18:13 PM on 9 February 2017
       Mail on Sunday launches the first salvo in the latest war against climate scientists
       

       Mancan @12 , the climate scientists would be wasting their valuable time if they were to undertake extensive engagement against the Deniers.  Hard-core Deniers are beyond reason — they actively oppose reason, fact, and anything truly scientific.

       Press them, and the Deniers immediately deflect their end of the conversation, into an ever-changing kaleidoscope of Alternative Facts and pseudo-science and conspiracy allegations.

       Sure, the scientists should and must fire occasional salvoes at the Deniers' nonsense.   But really, wherever possible, the scientists should be aiming to persuade the "middle ground" of the population (who base their own opinions on the continual acid drip of propaganda via Daily Mail, Fox News, and similar).

       For scientists, that is an uphill task, made more difficult by the weak-kneed attitude of much of the publicly-owned media.

       But the "middle ground" is the Deniers' weak point — since you can't fool most of the people all of the time (in the long run, anyway!).

21066. chriskoz at 17:23 PM on 9 February 2017
       Mail on Sunday launches the first salvo in the latest war against climate scientists
       

       John Hartz@13,

       This is an outstanding article by Stephan on RC that brings into perspective all political attacks on climate science. This is like Mike Mann's books & articles, even more chilling because so condensed. Thanks for citing it.

       Another interesting quote from there:

       But Trump, who owns holdings in oil companies, has now appointed former Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State. Tillerson has received a friendship award from Putin, and in 2012 he has sealed a $ 500 billion oil drilling deal in the Russian Arctic, which is currently blocked because of sanctions over the annexation of Crimea [my comment: executive order by Obama in March 2014]– one of the plausible motives for Putin to support Trump in the election campaign.

       (my emphais)

       We have very clear motives of Putin's involvement in in the Nov 2016 election. After having installed his man in The White House he can now celebrate. And that man - appallingly immature, selfish moron - may not be as moronic in his business dealings; in fact he maybe very clever in this (and probably only) aspect of his life.

21067. nigelj at 13:28 PM on 9 February 2017
       Mail on Sunday launches the first salvo in the latest war against climate scientists
       

       Mancan 18 @12, I think those are basically good ideas worth a try.

       Having said that, they do add layers of complexity. It's is this detail and complexity that can alienate the public, as you yourself noted. Still worth a try though, and I'm just being a "devils advocate".

       "Another assumption of the denier is that the planet is not warming? What questions does the denier have to answer to explain the observations that indicate that warming is occurring? "

       This is good, in a well contolled setting. But in many instances I have seen sceptics asked this sort of thing, and they just just change tack, and immediately say well of course the climate is warming, "but" we aren't causing it. Then the next day they are back saying the climate isn't warming. Christoper Moncton is an example of this. It's like a virus constantly changing form.

21068. John Hartz at 11:44 AM on 9 February 2017
       Mail on Sunday launches the first salvo in the latest war against climate scientists
       

       Stefan Rahmstorf pulls no puches in his Real Climate post of today…

       Distortion? False information? Conspiracy theories? Hacked email? Climate scientists have known all this for decades. What can be learned from their rich experience with climate propaganda.

       The world is slowly waking up. “Post-truth” was declared the word of the year 2016 by the Oxford Dictionaries. Finally, people start to widely appreciate how dangerous the epidemic of fake news is for democracy.

       “Stir up hate, destroy discourse, make insane claims until no one can distinguish the most bizarre absurdity from the truth any more.”

       Thus the Austrian author Robert Misik aptly describes the strategy of right-wing populists.

       Some call it “alternative facts”. (Those are the convenient alternative to true facts.) Let’s simply call it propaganda.

       Fake news, hacked mail, alternative facts – that’s old hat for climate scientists by Stefan Rahmstorf, Real Climate, Feb 8, 2017

21069. mancan18 at 11:30 AM on 9 February 2017
       Mail on Sunday launches the first salvo in the latest war against climate scientists
       

       I still read Skeptical Science from time to time but not quite as often as I used to. However, after Trump I've come to the conclusion that the Climate Scientists are losing the battle regarding Climate Change. It's quite clear in the world of social media, Climate Science, despite the overwhelming belief of Climate Scientists, is losing out.

       While it is important for Climate Scientists to have venues to discuss their research, and Skeptical Science serves that purpose very well, but it does not serve the purpose of countering Climate Denial very well. In the popular media, Climate Deniers like David Rose are never put under the proper scrutiny of having to justify their position. Having Climate Scientists, just providing more and more information regarding Climate Change is not going to change the mind of Climate Change Deniers who have formed their opinions from the rhetoric of deniers who form their politically based arguments from the cherry picked data of real scientists. In this poltical debate it is too easy to say "climate change is crap" and too involved scientifically to debunk that argument. Perhaps, it is better to debunk who the deniers are instead.

       So how do scientists meaningfully enter into what is essentially a political argument? It is not to overwhelm ordinary people with more information. It is better to ask the right carefully crafted questions for the Deniers to answer, and demand that they answer them properly, or to be reveal to be the scientific frauds they seem to be. Now the basis of questioning should be based on the mathematical idea of proof by contradiction. The proof that root 2 is an irrational number is such a proof. You assume that the scientific premise of the denier is true, and then you question them to show the scientific contradictions in their logic, by using scientific facts that we know to be true. For instance, lets assume that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. What are the logical scientific consequences from such a statement? What are the questions that should be asked of the Denier to show that what they are surmising is not scientifically correct. Another assumption of the denier is that the planet is not warming? What questions does the denier have to answer to explain the observations that indicate that warming is occurring? Let's assume there is a consipracy as the deniers like to imply. What does this mean? What would science be like if it is a consiracy? What questions are needed to indicate that there isn't a conspiracy? Let's assume that CO2 is just a colourless harmless gas? What are the properly  framed scientific questions that need to be answered to indicate that it isn't? What is the denier's explanation for what is being observed? What is the denier's explanation? The deniers needs to be nailed down scientifically and exposed for the superficial scientific agent provocateurs they are. Just more facts aren't going to counter the likes of David Rose, but more properly framed scientific questions that he is required to answer just might. Only Climate Scientists have the knowledge to frame the questions for Deniers. Perhaps some Climate Scientists need to game the deniers like David Rose to create a bank of questions for him based on the scientific contradictions of his stance, so that other scientists and the media can use them to show him up, rather than Climate Scientists just keeping on accumulating more and more evidence that AGW is actually happening. Exposing the Deniers for who they are will be more effective, rather than trying to counter their denial rhetoric in a political debate.

21070. Coal Miner at 10:51 AM on 9 February 2017
       Repeal without replace: a dangerous GOP strategy on Obamacare and climate
       

       30 - r

       This video says if we stop adding CO2 today, we'll heat up 1 C.  Says we will be at the 2 C level in 21 years and the video is a couple years old at least, so maybe 19 to go, then...............

       https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GjrS8QbHmY

21071. nigelj at 10:45 AM on 9 February 2017
       Repeal without replace: a dangerous GOP strategy on Obamacare and climate
       

       Coal Miner @31, says:

       "Storms, droughts, tornados, heat waves, snow storms, hail, hurricanes, sea surges, etc have occurred forever. We've seen a big drop in hurricanes in the past 10 years. They'll be back - they're not on a bus schedule."

       With respect that is empty, irrelevant rhetoric. Past climate change does not mean we are not causing change now, through fossil fuels. While natural climate cycles clearly affect weather patterns, this tends to be a gentle process over long periods.

       We are causing change, and it is comparatively much more rapid change. The last IPCC report found heatwaves, droughts and heavy rainfall events have already increased significantly, and will increase more.

       Evidence on hurricanes was mixed at the last IPCC report. A drop in numbers over a timeframe of 10 years is meaningless,  as its too short to be statistically significant and you provide no source for that claim. We certainly have evidence of greater hurricane intensity as below.

       www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/hurricane_climate.html

        

       news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/09/080904-warming-hurricanes.html

       There is also evidence in the IPCC reports finding pacific storms have increased. This debate cannot all be about climate risks for America.

       I can appreciate coal miners would have some understandable grounds to be sceptical, but times move on. I have had to learn new stuff in my career as the economy has changed. New jobs will replace old jobs.

       "Today, the debt is much larger around the world so we're still vulnerable. We cannot switch energy sources "today"."

       Well nobody is saying we have to adopt billions of alternative energy "today" so that is an emotive strawman argument.

       We do have global debt, but changing to alternative energy has dropped dramatically in price recently. Wind power is now the same cost as coal power (without subsidies) and solar power is very close, from Forbes who are a business magazine, so could not be accsued of bias towards warmists.

       So the costs of switching to renewable energy are not some huge burden or debt generator. You need to appreciate at the very least old power stations inevitably have to be replaced as they wear out.

       There are also other ways of funding things, like taxes and levies, on the appropriate people or organisations, fairly determined, or innovative forms of infrastructure bonds, that are better than traditional debt instruments.

21072. Coal Miner at 10:16 AM on 9 February 2017
       Repeal without replace: a dangerous GOP strategy on Obamacare and climate
       32 - nI'd like to see the answer to Richard's question also. It's important because if, as you say, 2 is important, then we need to know:a) why 2 is important (what happens at 2?)b) as R asked, how much dT will we get if everything is held as it is now. c) has anyone calculated how much CO2 could reasonably be taken from the atmosphere using latest technologies?
21073. nigelj at 10:06 AM on 9 February 2017
       Repeal without replace: a dangerous GOP strategy on Obamacare and climate
       

       Regarding the comment posted above by "Richard"

       "3. To set a lower boundary on the problem, let’s say that ALL new human-produced CO2 and methane added to the atmosphere is reduced to ZERO starting tomorrow. Using current models, what is then the predicted change in average global temperature in 2100?"

       Who would know, and who would even care. And we don't need a lower boundary.  We are not going to stop using "all" fossil fuels by tomorrow, for obvious reasons.

       What is important is keeping climate change under 2 degrees, so reducing carbon emissions accordingly, or failing that making the largest reductions possible. The Paris agreement and other material easily googled outlines the depth of cuts required.

       I have seen the comment by Richard before on other websites. It's internet trolling, in my opinion, as it's been answered before.

21074. Jim Hunt at 09:30 AM on 9 February 2017
       Mail on Sunday launches the first salvo in the latest war against climate scientists
       

       Paul @9 - Precisely so! Hence the recent extension of our ongoing research project south of the Arctic Circle:

       https://www.researchgate.net/project/Alternative-Facts-in-the-Arctic

       Be warned that that the main project methodology is listed as "Irony". You have to laugh, or you wouldn't be able to stop crying?

21075. enlightenPub at 09:12 AM on 9 February 2017
       It's Urban Heat Island effect
       

       Is it true also that met stations which measure temperatures in rural areas have significantly reduced over the last decade all over the world? if so wouldnt this signify that the results are distorted?

       Also the amount of rainfall across Australia increased from 1900 to 2000, however the rain may have fallen across different areas of land that expected by farmers. Does global warming take into account that rain doesnt always fall in the same location. 

       Has anyone setup a way to directly measure the reduction of the ozone layer from gases that can reach that high in the atmosphere and also directly measure how much heat from the sun the layer actually allows through. If direct measurement is accomplished and demonstrated this might be considered scientific evidence, before that time its always going to be a myth or an assumption to a portion of humanity. Kind of like a Ponzi scheme to many people I think. I have an interest in all of this as Im a studying university student

21076. Coal Miner at 08:48 AM on 9 February 2017
       Repeal without replace: a dangerous GOP strategy on Obamacare and climate
       

       29 michael

       I don't see your previous comment.  My answer may have provided a link to economic data that was deemed unacceptable and deleted.

       Storms, droughts, tornados, heat waves, snow storms, hail, hurricanes, sea surges, etc have occurred forever.  We've seen a big drop in hurricanes in the past 10 years.  They'll be back - they're not on a bus schedule.

       The economy of the US and the world is fragile now.  It nearly went down in 2008.  Today, the debt is much larger around the world so we're still vulnerable.  We cannot switch energy sources "today".  This will be a huge undertaking and will still require FF to provide 24/7/365 reliability.  Technology isn't available to do it all without FF - and I'm only talking electrical power generation.  We're far from being able to run our agricultural and transportation industries on renewables.  But let's keep working on it.

       We can help ourselves and the planet only if we are wealthy.  If we are poor we will only be concerned about where the next meal comes from.  Thus, let's fix the economy before getting too worked up about AGW. 

21077. nigelj at 07:12 AM on 9 February 2017
       Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
       

       Thank's for an excellent point by point rebuttal of Meyers badly informed ranting.

       His style of rhetoric reminds me of "Sophistry". This was practiced by the ancient greek Sophists,and plenty of people today, including by my observation lawyers, politicians, lobby groups, and business people. Sophistry uses rhetoric that is superficially appealing, but is devoid of genuine logic, balance or content. It is full of strawman arguments, logical fallacies (those deceptive arguments with long latin names)

       But Meyers must also know many of his claims are at odds with the science. For example he must have read that the vast majority in the science community strongly believes on the weight of evidence that climate sensitivity is medium to high, and positive feedbacks outweigh negative feedbacks.

       So the question is really why is he choosing to ignore this? On what basis would he put his trust in a few of the more fringe scientists, that have contrary views, or non science based political websites? I can only draw the conclusion he put's his vested interests, or political leanings, above the peer reviewed mainstream science and what the vast majority of this says. On that basis we cannot take anything he says on the science seriously.

       Meyers says "So this is the real problem at the heart of the climate debate — the two sides are debating different propositions! In our chart, proponents of global warming action are vigorously defending the propositions on the left side, propositions with which serious skeptics generally already agree. When skeptics raise issues about climate models, natural sources of warming, and climate feedbacks, advocates of global warming action run back to the left side of the chart and respond that the world is warming and greenhouse gas theory is correct. At best, this is a function of the laziness and scientific illiteracy of the media that allows folks to talk past one another; at worst, it is a purposeful bait-and-switch to avoid debate on the tough issues."

       Well the two sides are not debating different propositions. That is another starwman argument. Clearly when sceptics claim climate sensitivity is low, to take one example, climate scientists do not run away and simply say global warming is correct. Climate scientists quite specifically argue why the weight of evidence shows climate sensitivity is considered to be medium to high.

       By the way temperatures over the last three years have destroyed the basis of the low climate sensitivity claims, as these were founded on belief in a large pause after 1998. One look at any of the many latest temperature data sets shows a weak, feeble sort of pause at best.

       And of course advocates of global warming will respond about the general strength of the global warming theory. The science is on their side, and it's their job to stick up for the science. Myers tries in his futile way to make it sound like some crime!

       However I do think the media are letting people talk past each other. Is it a purposeful bait and switch? Yes to some extent.

       So how does this work. The media are certainly turning the thing into a sport to entertain, and we see click bait article titles for the readers. Granted it's fair to say media have to get peoples attention, but click bait is becoming too extreme, in my opinion, and in many cases titles to articles are blatantly false, emotive or misleading and of course people sometimes only read the titles. And click bait and other empty rhetoric is filtering into articles themselves as well, and this is when click bait starts to seriously degrade articles.

       And we have the false news issues and alternative facts. Just what climate science doesn't need.

       And all we get are articles written by warmists and sceptics played off against each other. We have very few articles where the media evaluate the science in a responsible way, and ask the tough questions, and of both warmists and sceptics. But I think the media needs to look much harder at sceptical claims in this respect, as it is now well established that most of these have been provably deceitful or nonsense, or proven wrong when officially investigated (eg climate gate), so on that basis the media need to be putting them under far greater scrutiny.

       The media are in many ways perpetuating a false debate just to get readers.

       The media are either lazy, or captive to certain business orientated lobby groups, or both. Not all media are this way, and some media possibly favour environmentalism, but in my experience the majority of media are tilting towards corporate interests.

       And we are tired of false balance. Most climate scientists say we are warming the planet, (for example studies by Cooke, Doran, and several other studies of late) yet equal column space is often given to a few dissenting eccentrics, funded by groups with vested interests, and writing obviously deliberately provocative nonsense, that often has more to do with promoting some sceptics book.

       But regardless of media communications issues, Myers is clearly shown to be completely wrong about the science.

21078. Richard13791 at 06:23 AM on 9 February 2017
       Repeal without replace: a dangerous GOP strategy on Obamacare and climate
       

       For One Planet Only Forever:

       You may be able to answer my questions here:

       
       Here are some observations from the current literature, as I understand them, and questions::

       1. Average global temperatures are predicted to rise by 2100 by from 1.1 to 5.4 deg C. (Is this accurate?)

       2. Once CO2 gets into the atmosphere most of it stays there for a very long time (perhaps centuries), and presumably continues to contribute to rising temperatures while it is there.

       3. To set a lower boundary on the problem, let’s say that ALL new human-produced CO2 and methane added to the atmosphere is reduced to ZERO starting tomorrow. Using current models, what is then the predicted change in average global temperature in 2100?

       4. Are my statements/assumptions accurate?

       5. Has anyone run the simulation I describe in (3)?

21079. nigelj at 05:27 AM on 9 February 2017
       Mail on Sunday launches the first salvo in the latest war against climate scientists
       

       Uncletimrob @2, yes journalism has become very poor quality, especially on science. People say it's because print media have had cutbacks in staff due to competition form the internet, but that is no real excuse. It's often just laziness.

       Here is a hint for journalists. If anybody is making a remotely controversial claim, even if it's a qualified sceptical climate scientist like Pielke or Singer etc, check it out in minute detail. You will find there are virtually always flaws in what they say, and strong published science refuting them, but you have to track it down. I have done this a few times out of personal interest. Start with some proper detective work, it's what you are paid for, and supposed to aspire to. Get some ideals!

21080. Paul D at 05:23 AM on 9 February 2017
       Mail on Sunday launches the first salvo in the latest war against climate scientists
       

       Mail On Sunday - Alternative Facts!

21081. nigelj at 05:19 AM on 9 February 2017
       Mail on Sunday launches the first salvo in the latest war against climate scientists
       

       MA Rodger @3

       Yes it seems pretty obvious from your document that the process was indeed not rushed. Other articles I have read said the same, which is why I said there was no proof anything was rushed.

       I really didn't have much time to comment. I just wanted to post a connected article which seemed interesting, and make a brief comment on what I generally thought.

       I have been following the climate debate for 20 years, just as a casual observer, and seen hundredss of attacks on the science and hundreds of sceptical claims. Every one has turned out to be deceitful, or nonsense, or worse. Right now I believe nothing scpetics say, even if they have some documents, until I see an independent, high quaility investigation. Needless to say all those have turned up nothing as well, eg Climategate. This NOAA issue is yet another beat up. There is nothing there that warrents any investigation.

       It's time some of these sceptical bodies were sued for harassment  or the like.

21082. Jim Hunt at 05:03 AM on 9 February 2017
       Mail on Sunday launches the first salvo in the latest war against climate scientists
       

       Factotum @5 - Ever heard of IPSO? We're on the case!
       
       http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2017/02/climategate-2-falls-at-the-first-hurdle/#comment-217736

       Scroll down the comments a bit for the "libel" discussion too:
       
       So, let’s just sit this one out and see who takes legal action.

21083. Jim Hunt at 04:58 AM on 9 February 2017
       Mail on Sunday launches the first salvo in the latest war against climate scientists
       

       Al @3 - "As far as the timing of all this, the timeline of publication is being utterly ignored by the denialists."
       
       Something that's also been utterly ignored by the likes of Dana Rohrabacher & Lamar Smith is the "pre-bunking" of ex Prof. Judy's "shock news" by my very good friend "Snow White". Reproducing her news release at Climate Etc. yesterday:

       Speaking from their Ivory Towers near the North Pole, Great White Con spokesperson Snow White announced by the light of the silvery moon:

       We are extremely proud to have been selected as Feedspot’s 21st best Global Warming blog on the web. Whilst it’s galling to be below WUWT we’re well ahead of the GWPF and Climate Etc. is nowhere to be seen.

       By way of celebration we have some Shock News to impart!

       http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2017/02/beta-testing-snow-whites-alternate-fact-detector/

       We flipped the switch on the first beta test version of Snow White’s Alternative Facts Wetware™ (AFW™ for short) AF detection subsystem early on Saturday morning (UTC). We were astonished when the needle literally flew past the end stops later that morning. Initially we suspected a bug must have sneaked in via one of Snow’s unprotected ear canals. However when she rather reluctantly ran her exhaustive diagnostic routines they revealed that her mission was in actual fact absolutely nominal.

       What happened next therefore came as no surprise whatsoever!

       
       Surreal? Moi?

21084. factotum at 04:39 AM on 9 February 2017
       Mail on Sunday launches the first salvo in the latest war against climate scientists
       

       My understanding is that it is relatively easy to sue for liable and slander in the UK  http://kellywarnerlaw.com/uk-defamation-laws/

       Perhaps such a suit would bring Dr. Karl to heel.   And consider that the Queens husband is very much a green person :-)

       https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/29/prince-charles-climate-change-trump-visit-britain

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Off-topic remark snipped.

       Please take the time to review the SkS Comments Policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding in this matter.

21085. ELIofVA at 00:35 AM on 9 February 2017
       A Message to Trump from Climate Scientists
       

       Coal Miner @ 21

       Yes, individuals should take many of the steps you suggest when we recognize that the build up of co2 in the atmosphere is the source of the warming.  It is sometimes hypocritical for AGW believers to take international flights.  Moderator, I thinks these are valid points.  As individuals, if we do that, it is largely symbolic when others AGW believers or not are greatly over emitting co2 that can be sequestered out.  I see this as an emergency that would justify for all the steps you have suggested for only AGW believers.  Using the figures from 2007 for annual carbon cycle, if we divide the net natural sequestration by world population, if each individual emitted 2.57 tons, that would match what nature can sequester, and we would stop adding co2 to the atmosphere.  This achieves net zero carbon emissions (all co2 in the carbon cycle).  I am personally striving for that standard as an ethical statement.  However, until this goal is recognized by popular culture, there is not chance of achieving it.  The steps you describe can not be limited to the extreme AGW believers.  When the limit of the carbon cycle is recognized, we can construct the support to help us all achieve the appropriate footprint.  It is the only way to avoid or reduce the disaster that our descendents will have to deal with.  

21086. JWRebel at 21:56 PM on 8 February 2017
       Mail on Sunday launches the first salvo in the latest war against climate scientists
       

       There is a real problem here: This is being touted as ClimateGate2 and there are calls on all sorts of platforms not only to fire but to jail the people involved. The denialists act as though they have demonstrated a proven pattern of dishonesty, tampering, and fraud with regards to the data. This article has made a big splash.

       In fact, what controversy there is, is not about the data, but about strict compliance with very technical methodologies about record keeping and storage, where John Bates feels others have not paid full homage to his proposals since being retired. Even if that is 100% true, even he does not articulate any doubts about the truth and reliability of the data and the arguments in the article.

       Rose is a master manipulator, a sophist in the worst sense of the word, he has sold his soul to the devil and willingly serves evil.

21087. michael sweet at 20:51 PM on 8 February 2017
       Repeal without replace: a dangerous GOP strategy on Obamacare and climate
       

       Coal Miner,

       You have not answered my question.  Why are you so concerned about possible damage to the economy caused by actions to control AGW when you are completely unconcerned about damage caused by AGW?  Analysis by economists conclusively show that more damage will result from business as usual than caused by any suggested changes to limit warming.

       Already we see billions of dollars to the economy every year in the US alone from AGW.  Miami and Miami Beach are spending hundreds of millions in a futile effort to hold back the sea.  California suffered billions in losses from the drought.  How much damage are you willing to accept before  you decide to take action?  Keep in mind that once CO2 is released it cannot be captured back again.

       In the end oil will run out no matter what we do.  Then we will have to switch to renewable energy.  Why not switch now and reduce suffering from AGW?

       Scientists know exactly which quantum shifts cause warming.  It generally is the bending vibrations in the CO2 molecule (and other multi atom molecules, diatomic molecules do not have this type of bend).  Very few people care about those details so they are not widely discussed.  If you want the details ask and SkS posters can explain it to you.

21088. MA Rodger at 19:32 PM on 8 February 2017
       Mail on Sunday launches the first salvo in the latest war against climate scientists
       

       nigelj @1.

       As far as the timing of all this, the timeline of publication is being utterly ignored by the denialists. This is suggestive of a non-story (or in modern-speak fake news).

       Karl et al 2015 was submitted for publication in  December 2014. The publication process contains no controversy (according to the magazine editor) who tweeted this image - Roz Pidcock ‏@RozPidcock Feb 6 - Editor-In-Chief of @sciencemagazine @jeremymberg just sent me this re Mail on Sunday article. Yellow is full response to @DavidRoseUK

       

       If you then ignore all the blather from John Bates about events post-submission, I don't think there is anything of significance left of his kiss-and-tell story.

       As far as the David Rose story is concerned, Judith Curry who as ever plays the role of climate expert in Rose's story actually dismisses Rose's story as "verbage" and defends John Bates's allegations directly, but not very convincingly.

       The only substance is from Curry herself who is firstly trying to make a mountain out of the difference between ERSSTv4 and ERSSTv5. We will have to await sight of a paper by Huang et al submitted for publication in November ( a draft version of which Curry says she is quoting from) to get any further on that front. She is also trying to make an issue of the adjustment of the buoy and ship SST measurements in Karl et al (2015), again citing the Huang et al draft paper. This is the question Does it make any difference if you calibrate the ship data against the buoy data or if you calibarate the buoy data against the ship? Curry is saying that according to the paper, it does.

21089. uncletimrob at 19:27 PM on 8 February 2017
       Mail on Sunday launches the first salvo in the latest war against climate scientists
       

       @1 nigelj Agreed, there are occasions when publications are "rushed", but the checks and balances of the scientific community make short work of those that are demontrably bad science. 

       What worries me most about this article is the blatant dishonesty of Rose. He must have known that his claims were false, and if he did not, then his journalism is sloppy at best.

       At the risk of making a political statement, unfortunately there are people making significant decisions about our futures, who are reading and accepting the writings of people like Rose, without bothering to track down the facts.

21090. nigelj at 18:20 PM on 8 February 2017
       Repeal without replace: a dangerous GOP strategy on Obamacare and climate
       

       Coal Miner @26,

       The mythbusters experiment was only ever a quick experiment to demonstrate the general principle. Neither it or myself ever claimed it would replicate conditions of planet earth precisely, and I don't see that it could. 

       That is the issue. We are really mostly reliant on laboratory tests on how much heat CO2 absorbs. We also have paleo climate data on past CO2 concentrations versus temperatures. The combination of the two gives two lines of evidence, as far as I can see, which is very persuasive. 

       I also can't see anything wrong with what TC is saying, and he has obvious expertise. Unless you have in depth knowledge, and the time to aquire this, you have to trust the experts. And it takes a lot of time. You might have that knowledge, but most people never will have.

       Trump sure doesn't, and is too busy 'tweeting' anyway.

21091. Tom Curtis at 17:04 PM on 8 February 2017
       Repeal without replace: a dangerous GOP strategy on Obamacare and climate
       

       Coal Miner @25, the atmosphere does indeed have a larger mass, and hence a larger heat capacity.  It does not, however, have a very much larger mass per exposed surface area (m^2).  Larger, but not very much larger.  Further, given a constant heat source, heat capacity controlls the time it takes to reach the equilibrium temperature, but not what the equilibrium temperature is.  Consequently the greater heat capacity means it will take longer to reach equilibrium, not that the equilibrium temperature will represent a substantial increase.

       As an aside, I do not think the myth buster experiment is "a correctly modeled experiment".  I am pointing out that your conclusions from it (low climate sensitivity) are specious, and based on noting one salient factors while neglecting other equally salient factors.

21092. Coal Miner at 16:43 PM on 8 February 2017
       Repeal without replace: a dangerous GOP strategy on Obamacare and climate
       

       And of course before running the experiment in the video, you'd have to run it with air in all boxes to prove they were the same, etc.

21093. Coal Miner at 16:42 PM on 8 February 2017
       Repeal without replace: a dangerous GOP strategy on Obamacare and climate
       

       22 - Tom

       Except the real atmosphere would have a larger mass and similar input energy would give no detectable rise in temperature.  You might be able to devise a correctly modeled experiment, but that was not it.

21094. Coal Miner at 16:37 PM on 8 February 2017
       Repeal without replace: a dangerous GOP strategy on Obamacare and climate
       

       23 - Rob

       In the video I watched again and you can see the gas man's monitoring panel reading about 7.35% CO2.  That was a digital reading.  So, unless that part of the video is wrong, the the commenter is correct.  There were other comments on other topics that may be valid objections also.

21095. Rob Honeycutt at 16:11 PM on 8 February 2017
       Repeal without replace: a dangerous GOP strategy on Obamacare and climate
       

       CM @21...  I'm curious how you determined that the commenter was correct regarding the 73,000ppm figure?

21096. Tom Curtis at 14:39 PM on 8 February 2017
       Repeal without replace: a dangerous GOP strategy on Obamacare and climate
       

       Coal Miner @21, allow a CO2 concentration of 73,000 ppmv, or about 260 times the preindustrial average.  We must also allow that the compartments were at most 2 meters deep.  It follows that the comparments had the same absorption capability of about 520 meters of atmospheric CO2 at sea level.  That's just half a kilometer, when the troposphere is 10 kilometers in depth (albeit with diminishing pressure).  The obvious conclusion should be that the compartments had much less capacity to trap heat relative to the atmosphere, despite the higher CO2 concentration.

21097. Coal Miner at 13:12 PM on 8 February 2017
       Repeal without replace: a dangerous GOP strategy on Obamacare and climate
       

       20 - I had seen that video but I watched it again.  I think it is well established that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  The question is - and it is a very legitimate one and is the crux to many "deniers" - how much difference would it make to go from say 400 to 450 or 500 ppm? I could not tell what the CO2 concentration used was, but I scrolled down to a comment by "Realist" and the CO2 concentration in the video was over 73,000 ppm.  Thus, as realist indicates, it gives great evidence that CO2 levels near 400 ppm are not a problem.  

21098. nigelj at 09:14 AM on 8 February 2017
       Repeal without replace: a dangerous GOP strategy on Obamacare and climate
       

       Coalminer, one other thing. The following is a "Mythbusters video" demonstrating  carbon dioxide increasing temperatures in an experiment. Regardless of why it increases temperatures, we know with absolute certainty it does increase temperatures. (Or 99.999% certainty given ultimate proofs are not technically possible in science)

       www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I

21099. nigelj at 07:05 AM on 8 February 2017
       Repeal without replace: a dangerous GOP strategy on Obamacare and climate
       

       Coal Miner @17

       You say you want to understand climate science, very thoroughly, before making a decision on whether we are warming the climate or commiting to carbon taxes etc, etc.

       Well fair enough in general terms. We should all examine the basics of the greenhouse effect. 

       But the science is extremely complicated. Nobody can "fully" understand the science unless they have advanced maths and physics degrees. It's totally unrealistic to expect people to have this. I have a generally broad education at university level, including some maths, but a text on quantum mechanics is out of my league. In fact many climate scientists themselves would not know the fine detail about how C02 absorbs heat, as it's a specialist area.

       In the end people are better to simply look at the basics and claims from both sides of the argument. It also has to be said the overwhelming majority of climate scientsis say we have a problem. There are numerous polls on this from Cooke, Doran etc as below.

       LINK

       We aren't reliant on just one poll or survey. Theres nothing more we can do in terms of surveying expert views. If you don't peronally have advanced maths or physics, you have to respect the end  who do.

       I broadly agree with your big list of recommendations on how to tackle climate change in your other post.

       Moderator Response:

       [RH] Shortened link.

21100. nigelj at 06:40 AM on 8 February 2017
       Repeal without replace: a dangerous GOP strategy on Obamacare and climate
       

       Coal Miner @16

       Yes I think Americas economy is doing reasonably OK overall. Remember I said America's economy was doing OK. I didn't say it was doing fantastically! And I really do hope things work out well for America under Trump or any future president.

       But facts are facts. GDP growth has averaged 2% per year recently and this is reasonably ok. Unemployment has dropped a lot from 2010 regardless of how you measure it. The latest numbers also show wages are finally starting to rise. The data on this is available on financial database websites like Tradingeconomics.com if you want the detail. Given things have been improving during the Obama period, it seems unwise for some totally opposite approach.

       Foodstamps have been around before the financial crash. Partly it applies to all sorts of different people on welfare, not just the unemployed.

       Food stamps do also prop up the incomes of very low wage people. I agree low wages are a problem, but fixing this is really difficult. Protectionist trade may push up some wages at the lower end, but it will also push up prices. So it could all cancel out. 

       My country had tariffs in the 1970's and it did keep some wages up, but ended up causing huge inflation in all sorts of goods. We abandoned tariffs for free trade and would be very unlikely to go back. Granted America is a differenet country, but I remain a bit sceptical about protectionism. It possibly had a place in the past more than todays world.

       I think it's better to assist low wage people with income support, retraining grants, things like that. I suppose it's a bit socialist, but to me it's pragmatic and justified.

       But I do think trumps corporate tax break policies make some sense, as they are internal to America.

       America does have high government (public debt) as below. 

       LINK

       As you can see from the graph, much of this comes from the Reagon years, GW Bush, and Obama. The current level is considered high by economists, but not catastrophically so. In defence of Obama, he was faced with a huge financial crash and reduced tax take, and borrowed to avoid the sort of cost cutting that would have made the crash worse. I think that was the right move.

       But nobody wants a lot of debt. Donald Trump wants to cut taxes and increase spending, but this risks a further increase in debt, just exactly as happened under Reagon, if you look at the graph in the link. Not that Reagon was a bad guy, but he did increase debt.

       Bringing back coal does not seem like good climate policy, and nor does it make much economic sense. Trump needs to slow down. He has some valid criticisms of various things, but the solutions are really just not as simplistic as he thinks.

       Moderator Response:

       [RH] Shortened link.

Prev  414  415  416  417  418  419  420  421  422  423  424  425  426  427  428  429  Next