Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 Next
Comments 24551 to 24600:
-
Hank11198 at 06:57 AM on 26 March 2016Welcome to Skeptical Science
Ok I don’t know where to post these questions so I’m trying here.
I have made a few posts and have gotten very good answers that explain a lot. But I am still having difficulty finding the answers to these because the IPCC website is difficult for me to navigate.
Is the CMIP5 Ensemble mean the average of all the different RCP models or an average of something different? -
Ronsch at 05:10 AM on 26 March 2016Dangerous global warming will happen sooner than thought – study
We must implement a global carbon tax at once. Even a Cato conservative agrees (http://goo.gl/IihYbg). Anything else is like bailing out a ship with teaspoons.
-
Nick Palmer at 04:36 AM on 26 March 2016Temperature tantrums on the campaign trail
Thanks Andy. I got fooled by a persistent denialist I was arguing with who was quoting a post Lubos Motl did about the Karl et al paper. The denialist was arguing that it was "typical alarmist bad science" to use "biased" ship's intake data and splice it on to the "much more accurate ARGO data". Motl himself did not make that mistake.
-
richardPauli at 03:59 AM on 26 March 2016Temperature tantrums on the campaign trail
Especially if the campaign trail goes through Kansas or Oklahoma, extra heat and restricted visibility.
from Associated Press https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39djTxLynjo
http://climatecrocks.com/2016/03/25/kansas-youre-not-in-oklahoma-anymore/
-
Andy Skuce at 02:51 AM on 26 March 2016Temperature tantrums on the campaign trail
Nick,
The buoys used to measure ocean surface temperatures are not the ARGO floats. For a detailed account, I would recommend Zeke Hausfather and Kevin Cowtan's article
-
knaugle at 02:02 AM on 26 March 2016Dangerous global warming will happen sooner than thought – study
I think this link is related to the topic here. The rate of CO2 release being the highest the Earth has seen in at least 60 million years.
www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/climatechange/current-rate-of-carbon-release/56253759
-
Nick Palmer at 23:13 PM on 25 March 2016Temperature tantrums on the campaign trail
Andy. While understanding the possible reasons for the warm bias of the engine inlet readings (conduction from the ship's structure plus the kinetic energy/friction from the incoming stream in the pipes) would it be true to say that the ARGO floats have an in built cool bias? As far as I know, the temperature readings are taken as the ARGO floats up to the surface from the deep, which is much colder, thus the bodies of the ARGOs would be colder than the surrounding waters. I expect this is taken into account, but is there a recognised cool bias to the sensors becasue of this?
-
Nick Palmer at 22:30 PM on 25 March 2016How to inoculate people against Donald Trump's fact bending claims
I love that phrase "firehose of falsehoods". Can I steal it for use in my online denialist fighting? It's so much more usable than pointing out a Gish Gallop, then having to explain what one is for the general audience, who have rarely heard the term before.
-
bozzza at 18:43 PM on 25 March 2016Temperature tantrums on the campaign trail
It's easy: all we have to do is convince Donald Trump that solving Climate Change gets him the win over Hillary!
...what could he sell,.. what could he sell?
-
BillyJoe at 15:22 PM on 25 March 2016Temperature tantrums on the campaign trail
...sorry, double take...seems it is 2015 after all. Now it seems strange to add in the adjusted datum for 2015 when the graph footnotes says it covers the period "through to 2014".
Also, I'm confused about how the adjusted datum for 2015 can be available when the raw datum isn't. Isn't the adjusted data adjusted off the raw data?
-
BillyJoe at 15:13 PM on 25 March 2016Temperature tantrums on the campaign trail
...sorry, that should be 2014...which makes me wonder why the raw datum is still not available 15 months later!
-
BillyJoe at 15:10 PM on 25 March 2016Temperature tantrums on the campaign trail
The adjusted value for 2015 should be left off the graph until the raw datum is available. What do you think?
-
Wol at 10:05 AM on 25 March 2016How to inoculate people against Donald Trump's fact bending claims
Much as I admire Dr Death for his stated diligence in learning the maths, science and all in relation to climate change, I would caution him in that this isn't the answer.
As a layman, with just a smattering of climatology education, the one thing that sticks out above all else is that the subject is immensely complicated, and involves expert knowledge of dozens of entirely different disciplines from statistical analysis through thermodynamics to ice core study.
I am sure that most in the field have to take much of the studies outside their particular expertise on trust, within the scientific method. Trying to become expert enough to make sense of *all* the data out there is to me not sensible.
Looking at it from well outside, however, and seeing just how much all the different disciplines converge on the same opinion, convinces me. There will always be outliers: spotting *them* is easier than following complex arguments that the majority of the scientific community agree on.
-
ranyl at 08:09 AM on 25 March 2016Temperature tantrums on the campaign trail
Looking at the GISS data set:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts.txt
The 1950-1980 monthly temperature anomally mean as expected is ~0, as 1950-1980 is climate period that the temperature anomalies reported by GISS are referenced to.
Taking the 30yr monthly anomalies for that period produces a normally distrubuted pattern of values with a standard deviation of ~0.18C.
The monthly anomally in Feb 2016 is 1.69C.
That is a positive shift of just 9 standard deviations.
Wonder what the odds of that are if the world isn't warming?
-
ranyl at 07:46 AM on 25 March 2016Temperature tantrums on the campaign trail
Thanks Andy,
Thought it must have been something like that.
Makes 2015 very warm indeed.
2015 is akin to 1997 in EL Nino development, therefore if similiar follows like, 2016 will be ~0.3C hotter.
On the graph thats put 2016 at the height of the graph title and if similiar follows like again the next 12 years or so after 2016, will be ~that much hotter, getting a little hotter as time goes by until the next El NIno push, 1998, 2005, 2010, 2014, 2015 jump.
Unless of course the El Nino this time follows a different path, although it does seem to be decaying on time at present.
-
Andy Skuce at 06:32 AM on 25 March 2016Temperature tantrums on the campaign trail
ranyl
Thanks.
The record, adjusted temperature value for 2015 (the last point on the graph) was available at the time that figure was put together, but the "raw" data were not. I would expect the "raw" data for 2015 to be very close to the adjusted values for 2015.
-
ranyl at 06:23 AM on 25 March 2016Temperature tantrums on the campaign trail
Thanks Andy,
Interesting and informative.
One small thing...
On the second graph where the red line shows raw, the green adjusted and the dashed the adjustments, I presume that the adjustments are the corrections needed to raw data in order to derive the adjusted temperature recorded. Until ~2014 that presumption seems to match the graph. However in the very last part of the graph the green adjusted record seems to surge above the unadjusted raw data red line. For me this might give the impression that in 2014 the adjusted data set is higher than the raw data set, yet the adjustment needed to the data plot (dashed line) at the same time seems to be basically running at zero. Therefore it seems in order to give the true picture that the 2014 warmth is real and definitely not part of the complex adjustment process, that the red line should overwrite the green line as per the rest of the zero adjustment period?
Just seems strange to plot such a sudden departure at the end of the graph between the red (raw) and green (adjusted) lines, when the adjustment needed is zero?
Anyway as you say a primary message is that the adjustments needed have actually meant that the amount of global warming that has been experienced is less than the raw would suggest.
Be interesting to see where 2015 to date would lie of the graphic, suspect they would be off the scale as it is, especially this January and February.
It is also going to be interesting to see how much the Arctic sea loss albedo flip accelerates things soon, keeping in mind, in summer the Arctic gets more solar energy input than the tropics so the ice melt should be adding some warming push soon, and Arctic temperatures are racing well away already and the Arctic air mass does spread south to dissipate the heat gathered further.
I do wonder sometimes if a chaotic system coming into adjustment from a major increase in heating input might experience jumps into higher temperature states at times rather than always following a linear climb, especially if the input is rapid and leads to a sudden large energy imbalance for the earth's systems to have to adjust to.
I also do wonder what the quickest way to get heat from the tropics to the poles to realign the energy balances as quickly as possible is?
The laws of thermodynamics do mean that any energy imbalance has to return to equilibrium as quickly as possible and that is why heat always finds the fastest way to travel when going from hot to cold.
Or more to the point what convective heat transfer system will move heart from the tropics to the poles in the quickest way possible I wonder and how will affect world weather systems?
The Hadley system’s dynamics (that create the world’s weather patterns) can change apparently and even becomes a large unicellular system from the tropics to poles if the temperature differential between the two is shallow enough.
Now that would change the weather.
Interesting times... -
Jim Eager at 04:31 AM on 25 March 2016How to inoculate people against Donald Trump's fact bending claims
Oh, I qute agree JH, but Ryland already let that horse out of the barn, and it might not turn out quite the way he hoped it would.
Moderator Response:[JH] Ryland is skating on some very thin ice with respect to his posting privileges on this site.
-
Jim Eager at 01:00 AM on 25 March 2016How to inoculate people against Donald Trump's fact bending claims
I see no problem with Ryland's advice to Dr Death to check out WUWT, Jonova, ClimateEtc, the GWPF, et al. If Tom is truly sincere in his intention to with intelligence and an open mind compare almost 200 years of cohesive science with its multiple lines of non-contradictory evidence to what the "debunking side" puts forward it will only make reaching his conclusion that much easier.
Moderator Response:[JH] Dr Death should be able to ferret out climate science denier websites on his own. We are under no obligation to provide Ryland or anyone else with a venue for promoting them.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 00:30 AM on 25 March 2016How to inoculate people against Donald Trump's fact bending claims
I agree with the point that misleading marketing uses the listed methods to try to 'win support'.
However, I would add that it is never possible to exhaustively fully present all information relevant to any issue. And less than full presentation means selcting what to present and how to present it.
The real difference has to be the objective of the selected and carefully crafted message, evspecially messages that are designed to make people more passionate about something.
The advancement of humanity to a lasting better future for all has to be the measure of acceptability. Any other measure, like simple popularity or profitability, can clearly result in damaging ultimately unsustainable attitudes and actions becoming popular and profitable contrary to the advacement of humanity.
By that measure it is clear that Ted Cruz is worse than Donald Trump. But Donald Trump, with his declaration of his success at grabbing as much reward for himself as he can get away with (he actually has declared that as one of his valued characteristics), is clearly not fit to 'lead' anything. And he has chosen to drum up passionate support for greed and intolerance. He clearly needs close monitoring by responsible thoughtful adults with effective intervention and "Tough Love" when appropriate.
The real problem is the way that popularity and profitability clearly take over societies to the ultimate demise of those societies as their unsustainable created impressions of success through understandably unacceptable pursuits grows until it shatters dramatically.
And it is clear that the power of selective (particularly misleading) marketing used for the wrong purposes is the most damaging weapon of mass destruction developed by humanity. And, unlike other developed weapons of mass detruction, misleading marketing is in regular use creating damaging consequences that inhibit the advancement of humanity.
-
CBDunkerson at 22:07 PM on 24 March 2016How to inoculate people against Donald Trump's fact bending claims
ryland #14: "All of those who I have mentioned are persona non grata at this site..."
Reality: Every major climate publication and pronouncement made by each of those people is discussed in detail on this site. Some of them, and other prominent skeptics, have taken part in discussion on this site... often at the express invitation of the moderators. None of them are barred from the site or in any way discouraged from participating.
See, this is the problem with global warming 'skeptics'. Much of what they 'know' about the subject is demonstrably false. They aren't 'skeptical' at all, but rather shockingly credulous... of misinformation.
-
CBDunkerson at 21:49 PM on 24 March 2016How to inoculate people against Donald Trump's fact bending claims
# 7 JWRebel: " ... a psychopath like Hillary scares me ... "
#13 shoyemore: "Not sure where that is coming from ..."
It is fairly middle of the road for US conservative belief (i.e. yes, it is false, but there are some views that make it seem reasonable by comparison). Personally, I don't like Hillary, but she is hands down the least scary conservative running this year. Another four years of policies similar to what Obama has followed won't cause massive damage to the country and/or world at large. You really can't say that for ANY of the other right wing candidates. Sure, maybe Trump would have sane policies in office... or maybe he'd be the worst of the lot. Electing a known lying fraud in the hopes that his actual policies will be less destructive than what he claims he would do would be incredibly reckless. Sanders is the only candidate actually pushing a liberal agenda which could provide significant environmental and economic benefits, but he has always been a long shot for the nomination and the window for an upset is closing fast.
-
ryland at 19:42 PM on 24 March 2016How to inoculate people against Donald Trump's fact bending claims
Dr Death @8. Not unsurprisingly despite your comment "I will look at scientific facts and the reasons for it and then I look at the debunking side of it as to why people believe that part is not true" none of those responding to your post have provided you with any sites where "debunking" occurs on a regular basis.
Some of those sites are Wattsupwiththat run by an American "meteorologist" but probably more accurately a TV and radio weather presenter; Jonova run by the Australian Joanne Nova who has an Honours degree majoring in Microbiology and Molecular Biology from the University of Western Australia; ClimateAudit run by Steve McIntyre a Canadian with a Bachelor's degree im Mathematics from the University of Toronto and a degree in politics, philosophy and economics from the Unversity of Oxford; Climate Etc run by the American Dr. Judith Curry who is a climatologist with many peer reviewed publications in the field of climate science; Global Warming Policyh Foundation started by the Englishman Nigel Lawson (aka Lord Lawson) who was the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Mrs thatcher's government. Others you might like to look up are the American Dr. Richard Lindzen an atmospheric physicist educated at Harvard, the American meteorologist Dr Roy Spencer and the American climate scientist Dr john Christy who, with Roy Spencer monitors the global climate using information from satellites
All of those who I have mentioned are persona non grata at this site but as your stated aim is to examine the views from the "debunking side" it seems remiss not to point you in the direction of some, but by no means all, of those who frequently comment on the 'debunking side" of the climate debate
Moderator Response:[JH] Sloganeering and argumentative statements snipped.
-
shoyemore at 18:41 PM on 24 March 2016How to inoculate people against Donald Trump's fact bending claims
# 7 JWRebel
" ... a psychopath like Hillary scares me .. "
Not sure where that is coming from, but in a European perspective Hillary Clinton is seen as a safe pair of hands, not only on energy and climate, but also in regard to foreign policy. It was Clinton who re-booted the US' foreign relations with allies and enemies in 2008, after the disastrous Bush years.
While the EU totters in the face of multifaceted crises (Brexit, the possible fragmentation of both the UK and Spain, a prolonged recession and currency crisis, the return of right-wing authoritarianism as a political force, a refugee crisis unparallel since 1945, a militaristic and expansionist Russia ..) the last person we want to see directing US policy is the vainglorious and volatile Trump.
-
shoyemore at 18:32 PM on 24 March 2016How to inoculate people against Donald Trump's fact bending claims
#3, knaugle,
".. it matters not who is VP, never does"
Just two words to disprove that contention: Dick Cheney
Cheney had a malign influence on the policies of the last Bush administration, not least in regard to energy and climate.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 17:27 PM on 24 March 2016How to inoculate people against Donald Trump's fact bending claims
DrDeath
In addition to others comments, the question I might pose to you is how much basic thermodynamics do you know? Because climate, at a basic level is about energy and energy flows.
Google/Wikipedia topics like:Earth's Radiative Energy Balance. Follow the energy trail.
Greenhouse Effect.
Look into the differences between the energy needed to change the temperature of air vs water, how much is needed to melt ice, vapourise water etc. If you want to get more technical look into the Stefan-Bolzmann equation, Planck's Law, Atmospheric Lapse Rate. When you realise the Earth's surface temperature is 10's of degrees warmer than it should be given how far from the Sun we are and how reflective the Earth is a hell of a lot falls into place.
Make sure you start with an understanding of the distinction between climate and weather.
And a second to TD's cite of Spencer Weart's 'Discovery of Climate Warming'. Following what the scientists did will suggest topics you may not have considered.
Also, with Tom's link to RealClimate, they have an excellent Sources page. You can use it to link to temperature datasets, ocean heat content observations, databases of CO2 readings and more. Even just to get a sense of how much data is out there.
Then a general area to research is Paleoclimate. Not just ice-core records, that is recent as far as the Earth is concerned. There are insights to be gained when we look back 100's of millions of years, including just how bad climate has been in the past. And it provides a reality check when people suggest climate can't change in harmful ways. Oh yes it can, it has done so repeatedly.
A general trap to be wary of. Many skeptics try to paint climate science as being about just CO2 then claim that it is more complex than that. A Strawman argument. Well doh, the scientists know all of that. They know climate is about many factors, which have differing impacts in different contexts. The position of the continents impacts climate significantly for example. But since movement of the continents occurs on time scales of millions of years, they aren't going to impact on climate change on human timescales. Context matters.If your researching claims, keep your antenna primed for logical fallacies. For example, 'Climate has always changed without humans here', with the implied subtext that therefore any current change isn't caused by us. Thats a non sequiter. The other key one is cherry-picking - using local, specific or truncated data to imply broad or global phenomena.
Lots to study, really fun to discover actually, pity the subject is so serious.
Plenty of folks here willing to answer questions or point you towards data.
-
Tom Curtis at 16:29 PM on 24 March 2016How to inoculate people against Donald Trump's fact bending claims
DrDeath @8, I would start with the very basics first:
1) Humans are causing the current rise in CO2 level; and
2) There is an atmospheric greenhouse effect.
Once you understand those two points, a lot of the dross churned out by Anthropogenic Global Warming Deniers can be quickly identified for the absurdity it is. You will then be able to concentrate on the more serious arguments by the more sensible critics of the IPCC (and there are some from both sides, ie, critics who think the IPCC overestimates potential warming and/or potential harm; and critics who think the IPCC underestimates potential warming and/or potential harm).
That in itself is an important point. Most of the media, and a lot of blogs give the impression that there are two sides to the argument, the IPCC side, and the extreme downside critics of the IPCC. In fact, the the IPCC occupies the central position relative to rational criticisms (and some not so rational from both sides). If your reading does not make you aware of that, it is not broad enough.
Finally, most blogosphere criticism of the IPCC, and a lot of media criticism of the IPCC does not even rise to the level of being rational. It is flat earther stuff. In a couple of cases less rational than flat earther arguments, but those are rare. It depends essentially on made up 'data', extremely selective data, and outright misrepresentation of the IPCC position
More generally, as you apparently have taught yourself a bit of maths, I highly recommend "The Science of Doom", even though I disagree with the author of that site on some points. Better yet are good textbooks such as:
Principles of Planetary Climate, by Raymond Pierrehumbert
The Warming Papers, edited by David Archer and Raymond Pierrehumbert (which reviews the foundational papers of global warming)
Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast, by David Archer
The first and second of these have associated websites, which make them particularly useful.
Also worthwhile getting, and the best popular book on the subject IMO, is Richard Alley's, Earth: The Operators Manual.
Finally, while I concur with the advise given above, and think SkS the best place to ask basic questions, as your understanding improves you will get more milage by asking your questions at Science of Doom, Tamino's Open Mind for statistics questions, ... And Then There's Physics for general questions on the debate, and Real Climate for detailed science questions. This is not a criticism of Skeptical Science, but a reflection of the focus of the site. I should also note that some of the authors on Skeptical Science, particularly in particular areas (Kevin Cowtan on temperature records, Rob Painting on sea levels, Dikran Marsupial on statistics and the carbon cycle) have detailed and in depth knowledge of the subject and will give you answers as good as you will get anywhere else. Unfortunately they are also busy and often are not able to respond.
-
Tom Curtis at 12:54 PM on 24 March 2016Global Warming Basics: What Has Changed?
billev @24 completely confirms the fact that he is not open to being persuaded by evidence, a fact even more evident if you can see his snipped comments on CO2.
For those open to evidence, however, it is interesting to see what actual statistical analysis has to say about billev's central contention in this thread. For that purpose, there is no better source than Werner et al (2015), "Study of structural break points in global and hemispheric temperature series by piecewise regression"
Werner et al use several statistical tests. First they test slightly obsolete versions of the three oldest temperature series (HadCRUT3, NCDC, and GISTEMP) with data from 1880-2012 by checking for break points within 10 years locations chosen by visual inspection:
"At first the expected BP’s locations were chosen by eyes inspection and also from the literature (see Introduction). For the global and NH temperatures BP’s locations were expected around 1910, 1940, 1970 and 2005, and for the SH near 1910 and 1960. The BP’s locations were determined searching in the intervals of ±10 years around the expected BP’s for a first overview."
The datasets were 'slightly obsolete' in that they do not include the most recent improvements on adjustments for different methods of determining SST.
They find that:
"In our paper the locations of the structural changes for models with three BP’s are obtained in 1911, 1940 and 1965 for the HadCRUT3 set, in 1918, 1940 and 1972 for the GISS data and in 1911, 1940 and 1971 for the NCDC data."
The locations of the breakpoints come with an uncertainty range, specified in their table 1.
It is noteworthy that none of the breakpoints fall on the years specified by billev, although with current data sets some of them may have. It is particularly noteworthy that no breakpoint was found in the 21st century, even though the algorithm was encouraged to find one.
Not content with that, the authors then forced the algorithm to find a set number of breakpoints, with the number required ranging from 1 through to 8. The results were published on figure 3:
You will notice that no breakpoint is found in the 21st century until the algorithm is forced to include 7 breakpoints, at which point one is found in 2005 (not 2002). That breakpoint vanishes, however, with 8 points, in favour of breakpoints in 1996 and 1998. A 1975 breakpoint occurs at n=1, 3, and 4, but it switches to a 1978 breakpoint at n=2, and to a 1965 breakpoint for n>4.
The relative merit of the different breakpoint patterns is shown in figure 4:
The highest LWZ score (a bayesian version of the Akaike Information Criterion) is found for three breakpoints, but it is not greatly preferable to n=2 (or 4, 5, or 6 come to that). As it happens, the recent improved adjustment to SST has exacerbated the slope from the mid-1930s to 1945 in both GISTEMP and NCDC, and would consequently decrease the difference between 2 and 3 breakpoints, and may possibly even make 2 break points preferrable. Likewise, it may favour a 5 break point analysis with breakpoints at (approximately) 1906, 1935, 1945, 1955, and 1978, as should be apparent from the first graph @14 above. (Certainly it would be hard to justify a 1950-55 breakpoint while excluding a 1935 breakpoint on that data.)
In any event, objective analysis may favour three breakpoints (something that is arguable with the improved data), with a 1945 breakpoint brought about primarilly by the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), but it certainly precludes a breakpoint in the early twenty first century. Further, if the 1945 AMO break point should be included, that allows no projections into the future given that the period and amplitude of the AMO has been highly variable over the last few centuries, with the cycle from 1910-1970 representing atypical values for both cycle length and amplitude (see panel b of figure below, and discussion in the paper). That variability in the cycle means no expectation about future changes can be reliabily projected.
-
Tristan at 11:38 AM on 24 March 2016How to inoculate people against Donald Trump's fact bending claims
Adding to the mod's response - I recommend the online course: https://www.edx.org/course/making-sense-climate-science-denial-uqx-denial101x-0 which a number of the folk on this site were involved with creating.
Moderator Response:[TD] Whoops! I intended to suggest that course; thanks!
-
DrDeath at 10:39 AM on 24 March 2016How to inoculate people against Donald Trump's fact bending claims
Hello,
I have decided to look more closely into this whole Climate Change/Global Warming issue. I was wondering where a good place for lots of information would be. Like in a condensed type version listing many different facts and then where I can go back and look at some things in greater detail. I hope that makes sense.
I will admit, I am a skeptic on most things, however, when I start researching something, I usually do it with an open mind and often don't have a real opinion on it until quite some time of research. Of course, some subjects just take naturally longer to digest if you are not familiar with the terms used, the science involved and things like that. My knowledge of Climate and weather are probably no more than the average person. I know when the sun is out I am happy and when it is cloudy I get crabby lol.
As an example, I studied different aspects of 911 to see if it actually happened the way it did or if it was done on purpose. That took me 3 years before I made my final determination. I know, but I had to teach myself about Architecture, Engineering, lots of mathematical formulas, tons of reading, videos etc. There is really a lot out there to go thru on both sides of the argument. I still to this day check out anything new that somebody comes up with.
So that kind of shows you how I research. Yes, it's a bit anal, but I like to go thru everything before I make a determination on something. The best way to do that for me is to learn as much as I can about all aspects of it. I will look at scientific facts and the reasons for it and then I look at the debunking side of it as to why people believe that part is not true. Of course, there is always the "conspiracy theory" part that I need to research on things too. I find a lot of that is based on people's creative imaginations. But you can never rule all of it that way as some people do have good evidence to back up their theories, not many do, but a few do.
So anyways, if you guys and gals could point me in a good direction for a newbie learner to start, I would very much appreciate it.
Thank you,
Tom
Moderator Response:[TD] Welcome to Skeptical Science! Given that you are a thorough and systematic researcher, I suggest you:
- Read the "Newcomers Start Here" post you can get to by clicking that big button at the top of the home page. Click some of the links in the resulting page, but don't linger in any of those destinations yet; just glance at them so you know what resources are there.
- Now click the "The History of Global Warming" big button that is to the right of the "Newcomers" button at the top of the home page. Read the whole resulting page without clicking any links yet, because you should get the overview first. Pay special attention to the timeline, in the sense that some projections/predictions were made years, decades, and even more than a century before observations could be made, and those observations confirmed the projections/predictions. At the bottom there is a link to Spencer Weart's "Discovery of Global Warming" online free book, but I suggest you not click that yet.
- Now click the "The Big Picture" button that is the rightmost of the three big buttons at the top of the home page. Read the resulting page, but again do not click any of those links yet, so you don't interrupt your getting of the Big Picture.
- Given your self-described learning style, you might next want to go ahead to the detailed history in Spencer Weart's "Discovery of Global Warming." Your own learning journey might well recapitulate some of the scientific community's learning journey over the past 200 years, so you might discover that as your reading raises questions in your mind, your reading of the next bit of the history will answer those questions.
- Now come back to the "Newcomers Start Here" and click links within it. Ditto The Big Picture.
- Then ask questions and make comments here on Skeptical Science!!!! But please do so on an appropriate thread. To find an appropriate thread, use the list of myths/arguments (click the links in the left margin) and/or use the Search field at the top left of every page. Many regular readers monitor the Comments page that shows all comments on all threads, so if you pick the wrong thread somebody will point you to a better one. If you truly have no idea which thread is appropriate, comment on one of the weekly Digest or Roundup pages.
-
JWRebel at 09:16 AM on 24 March 2016How to inoculate people against Donald Trump's fact bending claims
Penguin
The most clear and present danger is actually climate change. If we were even a little bit serious the US and the EU would each be spending 400-500€Billion a year on mitigation, research, etc. Military budgets should be repurposed and added to that: the earth is a more all or nothing proposition than any (military) necessity ever has been.
That said, few people realize how likely it is to push Russia (or Nato) into using tactical nuclear and things getting out of hand. Current generation of politicians are not adults trying to de-escalate, but are juveniles pushing the neo-con insanity, after having abolished the hotlines and many of the political safe-guards. That's why a psychopath like Hillary scares me even more than a blow-hard narcissist like Trump. Don't forget that it was Nixon and Reagan that ultimately made overtures to the East and brought about detente.
Sanders' foreign policy statements are not reassuring, but I would be far more inclined to vote Sanders than anything else, if he were the nominee. Like you, however, I have to entrust this one to the American public. Whaaaa!
-
mancan18 at 09:04 AM on 24 March 2016Global Warming Basics: What Has Changed?
billev
Temperature measurements are not the only indicator of global warming. You seem to ignore the other indicators of warming and together they indicate that there is a problem. Some fo these other indicators have also been presented with proper scientific detail in this article. I will try to make it simpler, although I fear it is a lost cause.
Globally, over the last century, there has been a reduction in the amount of ice worldwide. You don't even need to trawl vast amounts of data to understand. If you don't believe the data collected by glaciologists and polar scientists, then there are plenty of now and then photos of glaciers that indicate that ice is retreating. Also, there are plenty of satellite photos over the last thirty years that also indicate that polar ice is also retreating. Although, I am not a climate scientist responsible for collecting and analysing primary data, as a mathematician, I can understand it. But I don't need to, the photographic evidence of ice retreat is pretty compelling that the planet is warming.
Now with regard to the 20 cm sea level rise over the last few centuries, you don't need to trawl through and analyse copious amounts of data to understand that either. It can be fairly easily verified from the historical high tide marks at various places around the world. For instance, at Port Arthur in Tasmania, which was a prison for highly recalcitrant convicts during Australia's convict era during the late 18th and early 19th century, current high tides at Port Arthur are about 20 cm higher than the high tide marks of 200 years ago. The same is true in many other places around Australia. This article indicates that this has happened at several places in the US and any investigation of other historical ports around the world would also indicate the same thing. Now you may be able to obscure the temperature analyses by cherry picking baselines and ignoring basic statistical methodology but you cannot ignore the physical evidence of ice retreat and sea level rise that also indicate that warming has occurred over the last few hundred years.
As for CO2 being the driver, well considering that there has been no evidence to indicate a significant increase in the Sun's radiant output in recent times, then the only other reason for warming would be a significant increase in greenhouse gases, even though they are only a small part of the Earth's atmosphere. Not sure how you would explain why the sudden significant increase of greenhouse gases levels over the last 200 years (over 400 ppm) from the typical level of the last million years (280 ppm) has occurred. Now there has been no sudden increase in vulcanism worldwide that would explain it, so it must come from another source, i.e. burning fossil fuels perhaps? We actually know this from studying ice-cores that have preserved the last 800,000 years of the Earth's atmosphere. Now all this is pretty simple, and you don't need to be a climate scientist to undertstand it. So trying to prove that global warming isn't happeneing by selectively sniping at temperature records over several years really doesn't really cut it as valid argument.
-
Digby Scorgie at 09:03 AM on 24 March 2016How to inoculate people against Donald Trump's fact bending claims
#1 JWRebel
"US support for ISIS"? Is this a typo?
-
dagold at 07:06 AM on 24 March 2016Current record-shattering temperatures are shocking even to climate scientists
Hey all: I just had this article publsished - "Condemning Our Grandchildren to a Real-life Video Game" - that seeks to place the recent global temp data intoa context that is a bit more "entertaining" than the typical climate article: commons.commondreams.org/t/condemning-our-grandchildren-to-a-real-life-video-game/20110
-
shoyemore at 06:24 AM on 24 March 2016How to inoculate people against Donald Trump's fact bending claims
#3, knaugle,
Abraham Lincoln: "I would agree to any evil to prevent a worse one".
Between Trump and Clinton: Clinton
Between Trump and Cruz: Trump
-
penguin at 05:53 AM on 24 March 2016How to inoculate people against Donald Trump's fact bending claims
JWRebel
While I see some merit in your vote, I would say it's an uncertain and dangerous wild card sort of play your betting on. Yes, Trump is a buffoon that's flip-flopping all over the place saying whatever gives him the most votes. Hoping that he turns out to be a rational candidate if he's elected, which is hard to foresee considering his shenanigans in public, is a dangerous way to go in my opinion.
Please note that I share your concern for the ultimate doom, i.e nuclear war. If I were an American citizen I would vote for Sanders, even though he said he would continue to politically and economically isolate Russia. Him voting against US policy in the Middle East tells me that he is rational enough to not to escalate things to a confrontation with Russia.
Unfortunately, Sanders doesn't really stand a chance in a system of bought elections. -
knaugle at 04:55 AM on 24 March 2016How to inoculate people against Donald Trump's fact bending claims
So far as #2, it matters not who is VP, never does.
It is pretty easy to do a search on Trump as a carnival barker and find such comparisons going all the way back to the birther controversy, but that dangerously minimizes him. Trump is a man who when it comes to reading his crowd is head and shoulders above the other candidates. He also plays the media with the skill of a virtuoso. This is not just about climate change however. Donald Trump won the PolitiFact 2015 lie of the year for a good reason.
A candidate who tells you only what you want to hear, but never what you need to know is among the most dangerous of political animals. Whether a President Trump would be as I think remains to be seen. His body of work has left me deeply distrustful of most everything he says.
-
shoyemore at 03:11 AM on 24 March 2016How to inoculate people against Donald Trump's fact bending claims
I tend to agree with JWRebel in some respects.
Donald Trump would in all probability be a much better President in regard to climate change and renewable energy than Ted Cruz, who has already shown how far he is willing to go in order to further the Big Oil agenda.
While frevently hoping that neither ever become President, I feel that Trump would be more amenable to being persuaded on climate change, and by light years more amenable to "the art of the deal" (his words) on renewable energy and the environment. At least, Trump is not financially beholden to anyone.
A Trump administration, with maybe Kasich as VP, might surprise us. It bloody well better, if it ever happens.
-
Global Warming Basics: What Has Changed?
billev - "...there appears to be a discernable pattern in the temperature change in the form of similar length alternating periods of continuous warming and pauses in warming. I then have concluded that if this pattern were to continue..."
You see a cyclic pattern, those who actually investigate the physics see that the various forcings have changed over the last 1.5 centuries, with temperatures following those forcings with some weather variability. See CO2 is not the only driver of climate, as you were referred to some time ago, and read it. Actual physics rule climate, billev, not numerology.
"I believe that the continuous warming period that began around 1974 actually continued until about 2002 and this can be more easily seen if the temperature sapike of 1998 is ignored."
Statistical analysis of the trends, not to mention changepoint analysis, show that you utterly wrong on this point. There is _no_ statistically significant change in trend around 2002. And making claims from such a short period simply demonstrates that you aren't using any statistical analysis whatsoever.
" I am also suspicious of the motivation of government climate scientists... This appears to me to be an attempt to mislead not inform."
And... now the conspiracy theories. Sorry, billev, but I consider you a hopeless case of climate science denial.
-
JWRebel at 02:41 AM on 24 March 2016How to inoculate people against Donald Trump's fact bending claims
While not in disagreement with what you say, I would vote for Trump simply on the basis of my worst fears, which are about US foreign policy. The whole field of Republican candidates has been a competition about who is the greatest war monger. Trump is the only one who thinks he can get along with Putin, pull out of entanglements such as US support for ISIS, and make deals with other countries. That sounds a lot better to me than pushing Russia into nuclear war [don't forget NATO is conducting exercises on the Russian border, 100 km from St. Petersburg, and expanding its missiles and pre-emptive strike doctrine]. I see Trump as the most conciliatory and least violent in this regard.
The democratic party also went full-bore on homeland security, Iraq, drone killings, etc. Hillary terrifies me in this regard, willing to sacrifice any number of people to meet her targets.
Once in office, Trump will want to succeed. He will listen to advisers, and quicly learn about the real world. If he can get over his ideological instincts, he may even learn that climate change is not just a leftist thing and that solar is a good business proposition — his comments up till now seem not to go much further than people who exclaim: "Where's that global warming when you need it!" as they wait for a bus in the cold wind.
-
billev at 02:06 AM on 24 March 2016Global Warming Basics: What Has Changed?
I did not introduce CO2 into this discussion so I would like to return to my original point. first, though, I would like to say that providing the tonnage of CO2 in the atmosphere might make that presence seem large and significant but not when you cmpare that figure to the tonnage of the atmosphere. Then the small presence of CO2 becomes clear. My original idea was to state that the global temperature history, as presented in the NOAA graphs, appears to show that there has not been continuous global warming since 1880. Also that there appears to be a discernable pattern in the temperature change in the form of similar length alternating periods of continuous warming and pauses in warming. I then have concluded that if this pattern were to continue then tentative predictions of future temperature change could be made. My point about ignoring temperature spikes and drops associated with short term events considered the fact that including these events in temperature assessments could cause confusion. For example, there were those that argued that there had been no rise in temperature since 1998, an El Nino year that appeared as a temperature spike on the graph. However, I believe that the continuous warming period that began around 1974 actually continued until about 2002 and this can be more easily seen if the temperature sapike of 1998 is ignored. I further think that a propensity to try to mask the pause periods by drawing trend lines from various years to various years in an attempt to indicate that global warming is continuous is harmful to climate science. I am also suspicious of the motivation of government climate scientists who publicly focus on the temperature of individual years or small groups of years, particularly when the temperatures for these years are those influenced by a short term climate event like El Nino. This appears to me to be an attempt to mislead not inform.
Moderator Response:[TD] Your comments here about the amount of CO2 being too small are out of place. You need to put those comments on the CO2 Is a Trace Gas thread.
Your other comments seem to be mere repetition of your earlier assertions, without any indication of you having read any of the comments responding to you, nor you having read the other posts you were pointed to. The Skeptical Science comments are for discussion. If you continue to fail to actually discuss, your comments will be deleted for violating the commenting policy's prohibition of "sloganeering."
-
One Planet Only Forever at 00:46 AM on 24 March 2016Current record-shattering temperatures are shocking even to climate scientists
bozzza @11,
I am not sure of your life learning, but I am an Engineer with an MBA who has been living in Alberta and observing the political and business activity in and from that region for decades.
The following is another way of presenting my comment @12:
It would be far easier to find and present a case studies showing that the free actions of players in the marketplace (and their ability to get political leadership to allow and support less acceptable pursuits of benefit and reward) have been barriers to the advancement of humanity (advancing humanity to a lasting better future for all as sustainable parts of the robust diversity of life on this amazing planet), than it would be to present a case study that supports the theory that the free action of players in the marketplace (of popularity and profitability) has developed a lasting advancement of humanity.
However, it would be possible to develop a case study in support of the theory that the free action of players in the marketplace (of popularity and profitability) has developed a lasting advancement of humanity. And the following would need to be done to develop and most effectively present that case study:
- Try to redefine the measure of success to be some less relevant “Measure of growth of something that seems like improvement, even if it could be fundamentally unsustainable or would mask inequity like 'Total Wealth or GDP'.
- Seek out an example to present as the case proving the point. It would still be challenging to find a good case to support the claim that the free actions of people resulted in achieving the less relevant definition of advancement (in many cases government regulation and enforcement contrary to the desires of players in the marketplace actually led to the result). It would be very difficult to find a case that could prove such actions resulted in a truly lasting advancement of humanity.
- The chosen case study would require some message massaging to create the appearance that it was truly a lasting advancement of humanity and had been the result of players in the marketplace being free to do as they please. And to improve the 'selling success' of the message it would probably include some points to trigger a temptation for self-interest such as greed and try to discredit anyone who would present a contradicting claim.
- A person whose credentials appear to indicate they would be an expert in the field would need to be selected to 'pitch' the case study to reduce the number of people who would question and further investigate the validity of claim.
- And all of the above wold need to be done while deliberately ignoring or excusing all the other information encountered that contradicts the case that is attempting to be made.That sequence of actions should be familiar. They are very similar to the actions required to most successfully argue against the developing better understanding of climate science and the resulting need for already more fortunate people to be stopped from “freely choosing to fight to get away with getting more reward and benefit from the burning of fossil fuels”.
-
Hans Petter Jacobsen at 22:44 PM on 23 March 2016Tracking the 2°C Limit - February 2016
The carbon budgets was the main issue in my @25. The budget for 1.5 °C warming may soon be exhausted, perhaps when we still focus on the ups and downs in the temps. And the budget for 2 °C warming may be exhausted before the temperature has risen 1.5 °C. CDIAC publishes data for the carbon emissions on a yearly basis, and the data for 2014 was published some months ago. These data has up till 2014 been very stable and predictable, maybe due to the inertia in our economic system, infrastructure etc. It may be difficult to make a newsworthy plot every month showing the carbon emissions and the carbon budgets. But maybe the issue of carbon budgets should be mentioned when we show how the temps approach the 1.5 and 2 °C limits ?
Rob @26, in your December 2015 update you show a plot with the full ONI (Ocean Nino Index) data going back to 1950. The plot shows the La Ninas following the El Ninos in 1998 and 2010. During these La Ninas the global surface temperature fell below the long term trend line, as shown in the plot below. The plot is similar to the main plot in your February 2016 update, but it is zoomed in to see the details after 1997.
I think we should expect something similar for the next La Nina. Then the contrarians will probably focus on the decline in the monthly temperatures and in the 12 months running average, and we will get a new version of the 'No warming in the last nn years' myth. We somehow legitimize their future wrongdoing by now focusing too much on the warm temps in the current El Nino.
In my opinion the field 'Current 12 m avg' in the upper left part of your plot could be replaced with 'Trend line current month'. That would focus on the long term trend, and it would make future versions of your plot more informative when the temps drop below the trend line, which they hopefully will do for 50 % of the future months. The current value of the long term trend line will vary slowly, but the 12 months running average and the red circle around the temp in the last month will retain the newsworthiness of the plot. (I know that others disagree with me, partly because 'Trend line current month' would require more explanation and would be more difficult to understand. It means the value of the 30 year linear trend line at the current month.)
-
One Planet Only Forever at 15:19 PM on 23 March 2016Current record-shattering temperatures are shocking even to climate scientists
bozzza@11,
There is ample evidence supporting my explanation of what is going on in marketplaces. Your claim and faith in the marketplace appears to only be a preferred belief, lacking actual proof.
In most cases a potentailly beneficial development that people attempt to claim is due to market action, is actually the result of government intervention which regrettably usually only happens when the damaging failure of the marketplace to actually advance humanity has become too massive to excuse or ignore.
-
bozzza at 12:24 PM on 23 March 2016Current record-shattering temperatures are shocking even to climate scientists
@ 8,
Markets are meant to be robust. All markets are governed and a coral bleaching event of sustained significance will change the intervened free-hand one way or the other.
Richie Rich provides what is needed: his enterprise is rewarded but always collared!
The stock market may look anarchic but like any gambling event there are players in charge!
-
denisaf at 11:27 AM on 23 March 2016Global Warming Basics: What Has Changed?
This discussion about irreversible rapid climate change and ocean acidification and warming is misleading because it conveys the impression that it is the result of human activity. The reality is that it is the result of the operation of the technical systems of industrialized civilization. These systems are irreversibly using up the limited natural material resources and are irrevocably aging. Climate change is a serious consequence of that process but it is not the only one that society will have to try to deal with as the natural resources run out.
-
Tom Curtis at 08:42 AM on 23 March 2016Global Warming Basics: What Has Changed?
billev @20 ignores the substance of the article to which he was referred, concentrating instead on a single paragraph which mentions what we know rather than presenting evidence for it. Again, this is an attempt by him to protect his beliefs from evidence. His specific claim was that:
"I have a difficult time believing that carbon dioxide at one part in 2500 parts of atmosphere has any role that influences the global temperature. There is just not enough there there."
The argument that "x exist only in trace amounts, therefore x has no influence" that he relies on is rebutted by numerous counter-examples in the "CO2 is a trace gas" article. Those counter-examples show that his conclusion does not follow from his premises, and that his argument simply amounts to an argument from personal incredulity. The use of such an argument, and his response to its clear rebutal shows yet again that he is not open to changing his mind.
For the open minded, the fact that CO2 influences the Earth's climate is sufficiently well established that doubting it is the intellectual equivalent of considering the Earth to be flat. That is because it is known for a fact that CO2 alters the rate at which energy can escape to space across certain frequencies. Because of that, and because the energy escaping to space must equal the energy ariving from space for equilibrium, that means either that the Earth must be warmer to increase the energy escaping in other frequencies, or that the Earth's albedo must increase to reduce incoming energy to match the reduced outgoing energy. As it happens, the former is the easier to achieve, and what in fact happens.
As noted, the reduction in outgoing energy is a fact, observed in downward looking IR observations such as this one, observed over Texas in 1969:
billev's argument from personal incredulity amounts to the claim that the large, CO2 induced reduction in outgoing emissions around a wavelength of 15 microns does not exist because 'there is just not enough there there'. Or perhaps he believes that conservation of energy only applies to effects caused by compounds that exist in greater than trace amounts.
As a side note, I recently calculated the mass of the CO2 in the atmosphere. Currently it is approximately 848 billion tonnes, having increased by 254 billion tonnes since the preindustrial due to human activity. Thus I can rephrase billev's argument. It is that 848 billion tonnes of a compound obviously cannot influence the climate because 'there is just not enough there there'. LMAO
-
barry1487 at 07:21 AM on 23 March 2016Current record-shattering temperatures are shocking even to climate scientists
Tamino has a take on this. Surprising, but not shocking.
-
MA Rodger at 06:50 AM on 23 March 2016Global Warming Basics: What Has Changed?
billev @20.
When you tell us "I have read the referenced CO2 paper and am not impressed," are you referring to the SkS 'CO2 is just a trace gas' item? If so, do be aware that it's not really a "paper" and its purpose is not to set out the relationship between CO2 and warming. Rather its purpose is to demonstrate that a small proportion of something like a 'trace gas' can have a big impact. You were referred to this particular SkS item specifically because you proclaimed @11 "I have a difficult time believing that carbon dioxide at one part in 2500 parts of atmosphere has any role that influences the global temperature. There is just not enough there there." So so, if it was the 'trace gas' item you read, are you now happier with the idea that trace elements can be powerful?
-
billev at 05:20 AM on 23 March 2016Global Warming Basics: What Has Changed?
I have read the referenced CO2 paper and am not impressed. To maintain that CO2 levels have increased while global temperatures have increased thus the rise in CO2 has caused the rise in global temperature is a weak argument. It dismisses all other possibile causes for the global warming without so much as a discussion and it does not address the fact that while CO2 has steadily increased there has not been continuous warming. It also does not contain any references to testing to see how much radiated heat the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is, in fact, retaining.
Moderator Response:[TD] The greenhouse gas effect of CO2 is based on fundamental physics knowledge. Read "How Do We Know More CO2 Is Causing Warming?" Read the Basic tabbed pane, then the Intermediate one, then the Advanced one. Don't just skim. If you have questions about that post, ask them there, not here.
CO2's effect on global temperature was projected many decades before it was even technically possible to measure the global temperature, and then was confirmed by observations. So the correlation came after the projection. You really need to get a grounding in the foundations. I suggest you read physicist and science historian Spencer Weart's Discovery of Global Warming, which is available online for free.
Regarding other influences on temperature, see CO2 Is Not the Only Driver of Climate. Read the Basic and the Intermediate tabbed panes.
Prev 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 Next
