Recent Comments

Prev  522  523  524  525  526  527  528  529  530  531  532  533  534  535  536  537  Next

Comments 26451 to 26500:

26451. Eclectic at 21:50 PM on 23 December 2015
       The best of climate science and humanity come together at AGU
       

       @mancan18 (post #16) : possibly there should be some handful of labels for science-deniers . . . since deniers seem to come in a spectrum of hues ~ ranging from the ill-informed [rather passive, Fox-News-swallowing couch-potato]; through to the deranged Conspiracy Theorist; and further through to the rabid, devil-take-the-hindmost sort of libertarian ["I had to destroy the world to save it" type!]; and yet further through to the "knows-he's-in-the-wrong" but chooses to propagandize against any correcting of the AGW problem.    Of course it's not as simple as that ~ the denier groups overlap to some extent (as shown by multi-hued individuals).

       Lengthy labels such as "antiAGW/CC propagandist" cannot hope to survive our natural abbreviating tendency . . . plus they fail to address the moral dimension in all this.   There is a moral dimension, in that (a) the deniers are collectively [by lies and procrastinations] harming the human race and the biosphere, and (b) deniers individually attack scientists (see Kevin C's note in post #3 ) in a way we can fairly describe as evil [ as well as deranged! ].

       Denier or denialist is a term that includes a touch of the "Godwin-esque" , and so is a term difficult to improve on.  As well as being very accurate.   But if an improvement can be thought of, then we should certainly consider it.   Open to suggestions!

26452. MarkFisher at 19:58 PM on 23 December 2015
       December 2015 Floods: a floating postcard from the UK
       

       I’m not sure from where this “restoration was successfully tried on the River Liza in Ennerdale” comes from, although it’s been parroted many times recently, including by Monbiot in an article in the Guardian. Monbiot references the work of one of our MSc students, but what it actually says is this:
       “Within the present analysis it is impossible to determine whether there has been any change in the River Liza as a result of the Wild Ennerdale project initiation in 2003, although considering the small changes in land-use and the fact that the valley has only been subject to low-intensity land-use since the Bronze Age (National Trust, 2003) means significant changes are not anticipated”

26453. mancan18 at 18:53 PM on 23 December 2015
       The best of climate science and humanity come together at AGU
       

       Eclectic @14

       I am not happy with the term denier or contrarian to describe those who promote the idea that AGW/CC will be all OK and there is nothing to worry about. The word skeptic also doesn't seem appropriate considering the sceptical nature of science in general. Perhaps, anti-AGW/CC propagandist might be more appropriate for those with hidden agendas who don't actually discuss the science but only use political rhetoric to obscure the scientific arguments. With regard to those who don't seem to understand the scientific basis and the ramifications of AGW and CC, then perhaps being AGW/CC challenged might be more appropriate.

26454. Paul D at 18:46 PM on 23 December 2015
       The best of climate science and humanity come together at AGU
       

       ryland "as ye sow so shall ye reap" @ 5

       
       As in:
       "as ye sow Carbon Dioxide so shall ye reap Climate Change."

26455. scaddenp at 14:02 PM on 23 December 2015
       Why climate contrarians are wrong
       

       1965-68 saw the landmark papers for plate tectonics. By 1976, it was the ruling paradigm. If there was resistance, it was short. Wegner's theory was plain wrong. Yes, the continents did once join together, but they did not travel over the oceanic crust. Plate tectonics was accepted while there was a lot of debate of drivers and mechanism.

26456. Eclectic at 11:41 AM on 23 December 2015
       The best of climate science and humanity come together at AGU
       

       @ Nick Palmer [#12] writing: "I have been getting much less kickback by using the term 'delusionist' " .   Nick, an interesting observation there!  Personally, I would feel more insulted by the term "delusionist" . . . but perhaps that's just me.  Plus, delusionist is a rarely encountered word : sounding a bit like a (toothless) neologism, and almost to be confused with illusionist (which is a clever stage-performer, sort of ~ and not at all unflattering).

       Why would a science-denier be rather unconcerned by the label "delusionist"?   Perhaps because it's a vaguer and more general term, and maybe implying hyperbole too.  And because [denier-me] rarely experiences being called that . . . and because [denier-me] am obviously quite sane [my sanity also being attested to by my friends] . . . and well, it clearly adds up to the guy being wrong in calling [me] a delusion-holder. QED

       Perhaps there's a further explanation of the teflon-coated unconcerned rejection of "delusionist".   Just as the schizophrenic, experiencing the delusions of (untreated) schizophrenia, has no actual appreciation/ insight/ understanding of "delusion" . . . so too the deluded Conspiracy Theorist can have little understanding of the nature and severity of his own delusions.

        

       Still: the term denier/denialist has a certain bite to it ~ in part, because the denier knows (deep inside) that he is in denial of a (distasteful) reality; and he resents such public exposure. 

       Despite all that resentment, the deniers themselves have yet to discover a neutral/flattering term for themselves that isn't ridiculously inappropriate.   "Skeptics" is simply ridiculous, because they are nowhere near being real skeptics (and indeed are the opposite).   "Contrarians" is also quite inappropriate, because it implies that they hold logical [though minority] views which are in touch with reality.  ( Also which they have completely failed to demonstrate! )

26457. Don9000 at 08:01 AM on 23 December 2015
       Why climate contrarians are wrong
       

       Was plate tectonics theory really resisted by the scientific community? I know Wegener's early 20th century theory of "continental drift" was resisted, but the obvious reason for that resistance was that an explanatory mechanism hadn't been proposed.

26458. chriskoz at 07:29 AM on 23 December 2015
       AGU 2015: Scientists offer latest update on worsening state of Arctic
       

       James Overland is the first person (of course excluding AGW deniers and bunkum nonsense repeaters) I've heard saying that arctic sea ice will actually recover later this century if people take action to stabilise climate.

       Remarkable piece of optimism, James! Especially among many reports saying that ice free arctic is inevitable within our lifetimes and beyond that... nothing. Eventually: water has lower albedo, more warming, more gloom and doom.

26459. hank at 04:58 AM on 23 December 2015
       The best of climate science and humanity come together at AGU
       

       > realclimate ? Adware abounds.

       
       Here's what you need to fix — it's in your computer, not at RC's link (now).  You could have gotten it from that site during the registration problem, or from many other sources.

       https://malwaretips.com/blogs/remove-go-goadvs-com/

       From this and a couple of mentions at RC, I think people who were not running adware/virus protection back during the brief, er, hiatus in registration picked up a malware/virus load.

       At that time, when registration was screwed up, I noticed redirection attempts and reported that to RC.  But I run Malwarebytes and a couple of other antivirus tools and haven't picked up the malware myself.

       
       You have — probably it has modified the hosts file record for RC (and eventually other sites you use also).  It's an intermittent offender which means you need to follow all three steps at the malwarebytes help page, to root the damned thing out.

       
       These things are lurking all over the Internet.

26460. Richard Lawson at 02:22 AM on 23 December 2015
       Antarctica is gaining ice
       

       MA, Tom and Rob, Many thanks for your helpful responses, particularly for the beautiful dance of CO2 levels in Rob's link.

26461. Nick Palmer at 01:42 AM on 23 December 2015
       The best of climate science and humanity come together at AGU
       

       Eclectic@4 wrote "Deniers or denialists . . . it's all the same. And what better term could be used? "
       
       A lot of then get very sweaty about being called those terms, in particular those who describe themelves as sceptics, who usually turn out to be some version of a "lukewarmer".
       Recently, I have been getting much less kickback by using the term "delusionists" which I find ironic because, to me, being accused of being delusional would be much worse than being called "denier".

26462. Tom Curtis at 01:37 AM on 23 December 2015
       How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats The Ocean
       

       matt sykes @66 refers to Fig 2 of the OP for the slope relationship.  However, he is confused.  First, a globally averaged forcing of 3.7 W/m^2 at the skin layer of the atmosphere results in a 5.4 W/m^2 increase in net downward longwave radiation at the surface.  Ergo he has underestimated the forcing change at the surface.  Second, that figure is for the forcing only.  It does not include feedbacks which further increase the OLR.

       Finally, the figure shown is for data collected over less than a month.  It follows that, due to the large thermal inertia, the surface does not reach equilibrium in that data.  Therefore the slope is not a slope of the equilibrium responce, or even the Transient Climate Response to the change in forcing.

26463. One Planet Only Forever at 01:34 AM on 23 December 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly Digest #51
       

       Kiwiiano,

       The most despicable people are the ones that actually better understand something but hope to get away with deliberately abusing the point you refer to. The popularity of such people can easily intimidate thoughtful and considerate people who would want to point out the unacceptability of what they are trying to get away with.

       When those despicable people get control of governments or corporations or organizations it can be very difficult to limt the damage they do.

       Despicable people have gotten away with inflicting all kinds of unjustified punitive actions on thoughtful considerate people. Popular support for those who fight as dirty as they can get away with to prolong or expand their success in their understood to be unacceptable pursuits is a clear sign that current socioeconomic systems are a failed experiment that is getting dangerously out of control, like a nuclear reactor with a cooling system failure, or attempts to geoengineer a 'correction' of the damage being done by humans benefiting from burning fossil fuels.

26464. Johnb at 01:33 AM on 23 December 2015
       The best of climate science and humanity come together at AGU
       

       I suspect side-tracking is on display. It's not obligatory to fall for it.

26465. Tom Curtis at 01:24 AM on 23 December 2015
       It's the sun
       

       matt sykes @1160, the actual quote from the advanced version of the OP is:

       "Unfortunately observational low-level cloud cover data is somewhat lacking and even yields contradictory results. Norris et al. (2007) found

       "Global mean time series of surface- and satellite-observed low-level and total cloud cover exhibit very large discrepancies, however, implying that artifacts exist in one or both data sets....The surface-observed low-level cloud cover time series averaged over the global ocean appears suspicious because it reports a very large 5%-sky-cover increase between 1952 and 1997. Unless low-level cloud albedo substantially decreased during this time period, the reduced solar absorption caused by the reported enhancement of cloud cover would have resulted in cooling of the climate system that is inconsistent with the observed temperature record."

       So the jury is still out regarding whether or not there's a long-term trend in low-level cloud cover."

       (My emphasis)

       Your version is a rather blatant misrepresentation of the text.

       Despite that, I will bite.  Dana elsewhere says:

       "In reality, the CERN experiment only tests the bolded step in this list of requirements for cosmic rays to be causing global warming:
       

       1) Solar magnetic field must be getting stronger
       2) The number of cosmic rays reaching Earth must be dropping
       3) Cosmic rays must successfully seed clouds, which requires:
       

       1. Cosmic rays must trigger aerosol (liquid droplet) formation
       2. These newly-formed aerosols must grow sufficiently through condensation to form cloud-condensation nuclei (CCN)
       3. The CCN must lead to increased cloud formation

       4) Cloud cover on Earth must be declining"

       (My emphasis)

       The alternative to their growing "...sufficiently through condensation to form cloud-condensation nuclei (CCN)" is that they simply evaporate away to quickly due to their small volume and large surface area.  So, here is a cloud chamber in action:

        So, do the rapidly forming tracks then gradual dissipation indicate that the liquid droplets are growing through condensation, or just fading away?  How does just seeing this clould chamber in action make it obvious that they are growing through condensation rather than dissipating?

       And that, of course, is in a supersaturated solution - not normal atmospheric conditions.  So, yes, I think the jury is still out on whether or not cosmic rays can lead to the formation of clouds - and looking at cloud chambers does not resolve the issue.  Certainly, at least, if you actually look rather than bringing your prejudice to the table.

26466. Tom Curtis at 01:02 AM on 23 December 2015
       The best of climate science and humanity come together at AGU
       

       ryland @8, given that you reject the IPCC position on attribution, and ask PeterH about why he accepts it, it is only fair that you are forthcoming on the attribution level you accept (with uncertainties) and why.  Certainly PeterH should feel no compulsion to  respond to your questions while you continue to conceal your actual opinions.

26467. KR at 00:44 AM on 23 December 2015
       The best of climate science and humanity come together at AGU
       

       ryland - I suggest you look at both the Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming post and the huge amount of work summarized in IPCC AR5 Ch. 10, Detection and Attribution of Climate Change. Multiple approaches, including examining all known forcings (natural forcings alone would have induced a slight cooling over the last century, but note we are seeing warming), statistical correlation of forcings with changes over time (from the last 40-120 years, such as Foster and Rahmstorf 2011, Lean and Rind 2008), and, yes, model comparisions with natural and natural plus anthropogenic factors, which show the same results. And including all estimates of uncertainty on those factors, the possibility of natural causes adding up to 50% of recent warming is less than 5%. The best estimate is indeed a human attribution of 110% - that without human influences we would have seen a temperature drop over the last century.

       Your comment is a combination of decrying and attempting to dismiss large chunks of the evidence, dismissal of well known and quite solid early work (Arrhenius), implying the attribution comes from a single researcher (Serengheti strategy, a claim not even remotely true), and in essence multiple arguments from incredulity - logical fallacies.

       I await a reference or two to actual attribution studies that support your incredulous claims - but I'm not going to hold my breath. 

26468. ryland at 23:57 PM on 22 December 2015
       The best of climate science and humanity come together at AGU
       

       PeterH Can you advise how the 100% of global warming is attributable to humans has been arrived at?  Are you saying that computer programs devised by humans, who not only freely admit to not knowing the precise details of how the various factors  affecting the climate interact but also that there are almost certainly unknown contributing factors, are reliable prognosticators of global warming?  And please don't bring Arrhenius 1896 into your argument a syou are dealing with a scientist with a lot of experience in vetting all sorts of claims.  And just to finish I do know climate change is occurring and that humans are responsible at least in part  but I don't accept Gavin Schmidt's 110%.  Also  I accept that a 2C increase means the end of the world as we know it for as Roy Spencer has recently pointed out we are already at 1.5C increase

26469. PeterH at 22:29 PM on 22 December 2015
       The best of climate science and humanity come together at AGU
       

       The difficulty we all face is that the clear evidence of climate research points to an increasingly urgent imperative for bold economic policy change. At that point the message becomes a threat to a proportion of the population, either because their vested interests are threatened or because of a deep-seated distrust of 'big government'.    Sadly the ancient expression "Don't shoot the messenger" seems to be ignored.

       As noted above, one of the disappointing aspects of the wall of denier PR is that some aspects of the denier agenda have crept into climate science, such as the alleged 'pause', being sucked into the trap of trying to defend the long-term trend shown in the models when faced with a short-term blip; a blip that has plenty of historical precedence.

26470. shoyemore at 20:27 PM on 22 December 2015
       The best of climate science and humanity come together at AGU
       

       ryland #5,

       You post is just another instance of "Climateball", the game deniers play where they make up all the rules to suit themselves e.g. deniers may not be insulted, but may fling insults themselves whereever they please.

       It's frankly boring and irrelevant. There an old political adage: if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. Deniers dragged the debate from the realm of science into the realm of rhetoric and cheap point-scoring. If you think you are getting the worst of it, then boo hoo.

       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Please do not respond further to those portions of Ryland's comments moderated out.

26471. ryland at 19:44 PM on 22 December 2015
       The best of climate science and humanity come together at AGU
       

       @3 The quotation I should have used is "as ye sow so shall ye reap".  Your comments directed to me on SkS have always been, unlike many at this site, both temperate and  courteous hence my comment.  With regard to your remark "Being courteous isn't enough. If you work in climate and communicate your results, you will be attacked." perhaps you are being "tarred with the same brush" as other, less pleasant, climate scientists and their acolytes   However,  these attacks are not by other scientists who work in climate as is the case with Christy, Curry and Spencer.  All of these scientists and others such as Willie Soon, work in climate and are regularly  attacked by their peers as well as by those whose knowledge of science is less extensive.

       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Ideology and inflammatory snipped.  Please review the Comments Policy and better construct your comments to conform to it.  Thanks!

26472. Eclectic at 19:27 PM on 22 December 2015
       The best of climate science and humanity come together at AGU
       

       ryland @2 . . . Ryland, really now : let's just be frank about statements such as, "deniers should be executed"  ~ frankly, such comments are exceedingly rare compared with the torrent of violent threats and abuse issuing from the ranks of the AGW-deniers [and over many years, too].

       Of course, neither party is spotlessly pure in its politeness to the other party ~ but the difference between them is many orders of magnitude.  A difference so huge, that it represents a real difference of quality, over and above quantity.

       The hard core of deniers being so resentful against the reality of it all, and so angry contra mundum . . . that they display themselves as vitriolic and deranged.  Is that comment just some hyperbole by me? Not at all : it is calling a spade a spade.

       Sure, for those angry denouncers of science/ climate science, there are many of them who are (at least in part) angered by other events and trends in their own individual lives : and so they vent their frustration by making continual cries of outrage against science and against individual scientists or commentators.

       On top of that, there seems to be a "tribal" outrage against events and trends in their collective lives ~ and they seek a scapegoat for that.   Perhaps I am an optimist, but I can see a sort of silver lining to that stormcloud : i.e. while they are attacking climate scientists/science, they are (to a degree) easing up on their attacks against women/ Jews/ racial groups/ other targets.   Well, perhaps easing a bit [though I can't document it] !!

        

       Deniers or denialists . . . it's all the same.  And what better term could be used?  Maybe, 25 years ago, it might have been more appropriate to call the (less deranged) of them "skeptics" or "contrarians" . . . but that time is long past.  The continous global warming since then, and the additional scientific understanding of many aspects of AGW, has resulted in a situation where opponents of the concept of AGW do not have a leg to stand on [apart from paranoid conspiracy theories].  Even devil's advocates must, in their heart of hearts, acknowledge that . . . don't you reckon, eh Ryland?

       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Please do not respond further to that portion of Ryland's comment that was moderated out.

26473. ConcernedCitizen at 18:51 PM on 22 December 2015
       It's the sun
       

       Anyone who thinks the 'jury is still out' on whether cosmic rays can cause clouds hasnt seen a cloud chamber in aciton.

26474. ConcernedCitizen at 18:44 PM on 22 December 2015
       How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats The Ocean
       

       Since the slope of the relationship is 0.002ºK (W/m2)-1 how does a 3 w/m^2 forcing, leading to a skin change of 0.006C acccount for a 0.7 C rise in SST?

26475. Kevin C at 17:56 PM on 22 December 2015
       The best of climate science and humanity come together at AGU
       

       And yet I no longer read the comments on most sites which mention me, I no longer google myself or my work. My social media activities are minimal and totally locked down. Being courteous isn't enough. If you work in climate and communicate your results, you will be attacked.

26476. ryland at 16:59 PM on 22 December 2015
       The best of climate science and humanity come together at AGU
       

       If climate scientists are or feel they are, being reviled and misrepresentred, perhaps it is because of the arrogant and pompous behaviour of a significant number of climate scientists and their acolytes. If you call people who disagree with you "deniers" with all the unpleasant connotations that word brings, why shouldn't you be pilloried in return? Statements such as that by Professor Richard Parncutt from the University of Graz that "deniers should be executed" ( a statement for which he subsequently apologised) is hardly likely to endear the climate change proponents to those that are less convinced. Al Gore suggested deniers be punished. David Suzuki said deniers shoud be thrown into jail. James Hansen said deniers should be brought to trial for high crimes against humanity. Stephan Lewandowsky equates "deniers" with conspiracy theory nuts. Pro AGW blogs regularly make derogatory comments against Judith Curry and Richard Lindzen and John Christy and Roy Spencder and Bjorn Lomborg. The climate scientists and acolytes are reaping what they sow. I exclude Kevin Cowtan from any of this as he is a courteous and thoughtful man

       Moderator Response:

       [DB] 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.
       
       Inflammatory and ideology snipped.

26477. sidd at 15:59 PM on 22 December 2015
       The best of climate science and humanity come together at AGU
       AGU streaming was very poor this year compared to last. I tried several combinations of browser(5) and OS(3) and few "worked." Since I have better things to do, I shall wait for more accessible versions. On another note, what is the matter with realclimate ? Adware abounds. Apparently there is no one minding the store. Ought we begin a kickstarter campaign to fund a webmaster position ?
26478. psagar at 15:40 PM on 22 December 2015
       Climate sensitivity is low
       

       Tom Curtis @368, thanks for the illustration. Sorry for responding late but earlier I could not completely follow your comment. I am back again to this discussion as the semester is over.

       I follow and agree until your statement "Nor can it be greater than the ECS, for (with a positive forcing) if it were ΔF - α ΔTCR would be negative." I do not understand what you are saying with this statement. I also do not understand the statements that follow. How does it then establish that TCR < ECS? Could you please rephrase these explanations a bit so that I can understand.

26479. Kiwiiano at 12:53 PM on 22 December 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly Digest #51
       

       To mangle a quote relating to getting the general population to acknowledge climate change: "It is very difficult to get a man to understand something if his lifestyle depends on him not understanding it."

26480. jimspy at 06:14 AM on 22 December 2015
       New Peter Sinclair video: What Exxon Knew
       

       I honestly believe that this story, and in fact this very video, should put the last nail in the coffin of the "worldwide hoax by scientists groveling for government grants conspiracy" BS.  I'm trying it out on a few denier FBFs, rubbing their noses in it.  I have found that the very most basic, almost insurmountable notion clung to tenaciously by deniers is that this is a liberal hoax perpetrated by secretly-liberal governments worldwide, and that they hold scientists on the short leash of "grants" in order to further their nefarious goal of "transferring wealth to third-world countries", thus completing the global Communist takeover...or whatever the hell they're thinking.  But as I asked on my FB page, "Who were Exxon/Mobil's scientists trying to please?"  
       
       I'll keep you posted on the reactions.  

26481. Rob Honeycutt at 05:24 AM on 22 December 2015
       Antarctica is gaining ice
       

       Richard... There's also a really good animated graph from Carbon Tracker that shows the NH/SH trends in a really cool way. LINK

26482. Tom Curtis at 02:24 AM on 22 December 2015
       Antarctica is gaining ice
       

       Richard Lawson @446, MA Rodger is correct that the lag time between NH and SH is quite small, but I believe he understates it.  To properly appreciate it, here are the annual average CO2 concentrations for four stations posted by Ferdinand Engelbeen in a discussion at Climate Etc:

       

       Drawing a horizontal line at any level shows the South Pole Concentration to lag the Mauna Loa concentration by approximately 1.5 years.  The SH lag to the NH will be about the same, slightly less for the lag to the global average.  The model for the graph to which MA Rodger links uses a lag of 22 months for SH to NH.  As MA Rodger notes, that is too small a lag to result in appreciable forcing differences, and makes almost no contribution to the different temperature histories.

       The most probable explanation of the different temperature histories is geographical.  Specifically while the Arctic is sea level sea ice surrounded by land, the Antarctic is a very high altitude plateau of land ice surrounded by ocean.  These differences have the effect that:

       1)  The Antarctic climate is significantly isolated from the global climate by circumpolar winds and currents, actin as an insulating barrier against heat transfer to the Antarctic;

       2)  The high altitude of the Antarctic plateau keeps local weather conditions below freezing throughout the summer, limiting albedo changes in summer;

       3)  The ocean surrounding the Antarctic tends to melt any snowfall, limiting any albedo changes in winter (a factor partly offset by changes in the extent of sea ice).

       In contrast, in the Arctic, Atlantic and to a lesser extent Pacific waters are actively channelled into the Arctic, thereby connecting Arctic temperature responses to those in the NH tropics and mid-latitudes.  Arctic sea ice melts in summer to very high latitudes, and gains melt ponds and polynaya over its full extent.  The sub arctic snow in winter primarilly falls on land where it can remain in situ and have a major contribution to albedo effects.  The net effect is a much stronger albedo feedback in the NH than in the SH, enhance because the large land mass in the NH results in larger temperature fluctuations in any event.  

26483. MA Rodger at 01:43 AM on 22 December 2015
       Antarctica is gaining ice
       

       Richard Lawson @446.

       There is a lag but it measures months and does little more than ensure the annual cycle is missing over Antarctica. There is a graph of a model & there are fancy videos of it if you look. The fanciest is this NOAA graphic but that is a bit too fancy so it is less good at showing the lag that it should be.

26484. One Planet Only Forever at 00:59 AM on 22 December 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly Digest #51
       

       Several important words are missing from the above Quote from Susan Cain. The full intended quote is below with the second paragraph being corrected to the full wording (very imprtant words to include):

       “Another explanation is group identity. Many Asian cultures are team-oriented, but not in the way that Westerners think of teams. Individuals in Asia see themselves as part of a greater whole - whether family, corporation, or community - and place tremendous value on harmony within their group. They often subordinate their own desires to the group's interests, accepting their place in its hierarchy.

       Western culture, by contrast, is organized around the individual. We see ourselves as self-contained units; our destiny is to express ourselves, to follow our bliss, to be free of undue restraint, to achieve the one thing that we, and we alone, were brought into this world to do. We may be gregarious but we don't submit to group will, or at least we don't like to think we do. ...”

26485. One Planet Only Forever at 00:48 AM on 22 December 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly Digest #51
       

       Articles like “Why Climate Contrarians are Wrong” are interesting and important but they only address part of the story. And the part not addressed is the more important matter regarding the development of 'public better understanding of what is actually going on'.

       The assessment of where the understanding of the scientific community has developed to regarding the impacts of creating excess CO2 by burning of fossil fuels is important. However, it is only part of the more important issue of better understanding the acceptance of (resistance to) that developing better understanding of what is going on globally (by all of humanity). And the CO2 issue is only one of many cases of converging lines of evidence clearly indicating that people with unacceptable attitudes (greedy and intolerant people) have been able to continue to succeed in spite of the developing better understanding of their unacceptable pursuits.

       The continued success of misleading messages designed to delay the acceptance of climate science in the general population proves that understanding how to deliver a stronger presentation of the science cannot be separated from understanding why there would be reluctance to accept the developing better understanding of what is actually going on. A clearer or stronger presentation of the science by itself will not overcome the motivations for people to not want to accept the developing better understanding. The inappropriate motivations of 'the masses' also need to be effectively pointed out.

       A preference for personal benefit leads many people to resist better understanding something that is actually possible for them to understand. Such people willingly believe unsubstantiated messages created by undeserving wealthy and powerful people who acquired wealth and power by not caring about the sustainability of what they do or the potential negative impacts of their pursuits on others. Such people can become so powerful in a region or an organization/corporation that the region or organization/corporation becomes a powerful mechanism for prolonging or expanding the unacceptable pursuits of benefit by such people.

       The 1987 UN Report “Our Common Future” includes a very good summation of what was, and continues to be, going on:

       “25. Many present efforts to guard and maintain human progress, to meet human needs, and to realize human ambitions are simply unsustainable - in both the rich and poor nations. They draw too heavily, too quickly, on already overdrawn environmental resource accounts to be affordable far into the future without bankrupting those accounts. They may show profit on the balance sheets of our generation, but our children will inherit the losses. We borrow environmental capital from future generations with no intention or prospect of repaying. They may damn us for our spendthrift ways, but they can never collect on our debt to them. We act as we do because we can get away with it: future generations do not vote; they have no political or financial power; they cannot challenge our decisions.”

       Climate science and the developing better understanding of the unacceptability of burning fossil fuels and may other 'popular and profitable human pursuits' that contribute to the unsustainable creation of problems other people will have to deal with and suffer the consequences of, has made it very apparent that 'individualism, popularity and profitability' can be impediments to the advancement of humanity.

       I am currently re-reading Susan Cain's “Quiet - The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking”. In chapter 8 she presents a comparison of developing understanding of the differences between historically more introverted Asian cultures and historically more extroverted “Western” cultures. She mentions the significance of higher reverence in Asian cultures for people who actually better understand something (education and learning). But her second explanation deserves quoting rather than paraphrasing:
       “Another explanation is group identity. Many Asian cultures are team-oriented, but not in the way that Westerners think of teams. Individuals in Asia see themselves as part of a greater whole - whether family, corporation, or community - and place tremendous value on harmony within their group. They often subordinate their own desires to the group's interests, accepting their place in its hierarchy.

       Western culture, by contrast, is organized around the individual. We see ourselves as self-contained units; our destiny is to express ourselves, that we,m and we alone, were brought into this world to do. We may be gregarious but we don't submit to group will, or at least we don't like to think we do. ...”

       She also explains that these generalizations do not apply to entire population groups, but explain the different cultural influences that can affect how a person will develop their fundamental tendencies regarding introversion and extroversion. It is clear that “Western” thinking has significantly penetrated into Asian cultures. And it is also clear that even the “Asian” way of thinking limited to a single nation can develop very damaging consequences.

       Relating that to the struggle to get acceptance of 'the developing better understanding of climate science and the changes required to develop a lasting better future for a robust diversity of humanity as a sustainable part of a robust diversity of life on this amazing planet', it is easy to understand how the “Asian” attitude must be extended to all life (not just be restricted to humanity, and definitely not just be restricted to a portion of humanity) for humanity to advance, and how the “Western” attitude can be a powerful temptation and a strong impediment to the advancement of humanity.

       The popularity of perceptions of personal prosperity developed by getting away with understood to be unacceptable and unjustified actions encourages many people to develop the attitude that personal pursuits in a person's lifetime should take precedence over better understanding how to participate in developing a better future for all. Many people become inclined to think that if better understanding means less potential for personal benefit, or means having to give up undeserved developed perceptions of prosperity, then 'that' better understanding needs to be fought against. That attitude can build very powerful groups of like-minded individuals who will seek out 'leaders and presenters of information' that suit 'their interests'.

       The “Winners take all” competition of individuals and groups attitude prevalent in Western societies and economics needs to be seen as “Cheaters have a competitive advantage by being willing to do things they can understand are unacceptable for as long as they can get away with and they are often mistakenly perceived to be winners until the damaging unacceptability of their attitudes and actions becomes too big to ignore and excuse” or “Winners may have ruined things for others”.
       The future of humanity clearly needs people who recognize the importance of humanity advancing to be a diversity of ways of living that are sustainable parts of the robust diversity of life on this, or any other, amazing planet. The way that the current socioeconomic competitive games create temptations for people to choose to believe otherwise and pursue personal preferences any way they can get away with is clearly a significant impediment to the advancement humanity. Lots of things need to change. As stated by the title of Naomi Klein's recent book “This Changes Everything”.

       Hopefully, global humanity is headed towards quicker acceptance of any and all developing better understanding that is contrary to the developed interests of undeserving wealthy and powerful people, because that change is essential to humanity developing a better future (without that change there may be no future for humanity - the potential worst case result).

26486. Richard Lawson at 00:18 AM on 22 December 2015
       Antarctica is gaining ice
       

       My understanding is that the Arctic air temperatures are warming faster than the Antarctic. We know that most of the anthropogenic CO2 is released in the northern hemisphere, according to this NASA model https://www.nasa.gov/press/goddard/2014/november/nasa-computer-model-provides-a-new-portrait-of-carbon-dioxide/#.Vnf2ChWLTIU
       CO2 lasts in the air for hundreds of years, but mixing of air between NH and SH is rather slow. Is there an appreciable lag between CO2 levels in the NH and those in the SH, and if so is it enough to contribute to the difference in warming between the Arctic and Antarctic?

26487. Richard Lawson at 22:03 PM on 21 December 2015
       Why climate contrarians are wrong
       

       Scadden, yes I agree that they have an endless number of talking points, each of which has its own implicit hypothesis, and yes, some, for example, Monckton, are way beyond the reach of reason. 

       Nevertheless, the hypothesis I have identified above covers every other sub-hypothesis, rational or irrational. It is their operational hypothesis: science demands decarbonisation, and their whole effective effort is to block and/or delay decarbonisation.

       We need to refute their hypothesis not in the expectation that they will give up and see the light, but in order to demonstrate to uncommitted bystanders, especially journalists and commentators, that their position has no validity. Journalists may not understand the philosophy of science, but they can grasp when a position has been disproven, and it is time for us to demonstrate that this is what has happened to the contrarian's case.

       There is a detailed account of falsifiability here http://greenerblog.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/climate-science-falsifiability.html?m=0

26488. scaddenp at 10:55 AM on 21 December 2015
       Why climate contrarians are wrong
       

       I dont think there is one contrarian hypothesis. For a huge no. the contrarian hypothesis is "The apparent global warming is caused by scientific fraud". Slightly saner is "The warming some of us are experiencing is due to a natural cycle/natural forcing". The most sophisticated would be "Global warming is happening slowly enough for it to be cheaper to adapt than mitigate".

       It is only an argument to have with the rational. Those for whom judgement is based on ideology/identity/values are immune to data-based hypothesis testing anyway. I dont see how you can discuss evidence with someone who blames say, Texas drought, on same-sex marriage laws. How many deniers have you met that took their position on AGW after careful consideration of the science? The more normal bent would be look at AGW as something invented by Al Gore/requiring action incompatible with ideological beliefs/not something my group accepts, and then trawling contrarian sites for things to bolster that predetermined bias.

26489. Richard Lawson at 09:46 AM on 21 December 2015
       Why climate contrarians are wrong
       

       This discussion began with a piece titled Why Climate Sceptics Are Wrong. The piece offers Whewellian multiple lines of induction, and which then moved to a broadly Kuhnian discussion of consensus in the scientific community.
       
       Kuhn said consensus was important in establishing a scientific truth, but he did emphasise other criteria for choosing one scientific theory over another: accuracy, consistency, broad scope, simplicity, and fruitfulness. Popperian falsifiability is implied by Kuhn’s first criterion – accuracy - and falsifiability is still the touchstone of scientific statements. We make observations, create hypotheses, and then try to test the hypothesis to destruction.

       The contrarian statement or hypothesis is "The changes to atmospheric greenhouse gases that we humans are causing will not have a serious impact on human well-being in the future."

       How is this hypothesis to be falsified?

       The first job is to set parameters. What temperature levels will have a "serious impact"? 
       
       

       The consensus (that word again) answer to that question is : +2*C above pre-industrial levels. For the avoidance of quibbling, let us say +3*C.

       Is it impossible that continued BAU could not get us up to +3*C? 

       Because that is what the contrarian hypothesis requires.

       Clearly it is not at all impossible for us to get to 3*C. (In fact, we may be booking up for a 3*C experience in 5 or 6 decades' time, unless we do some pretty rapid global decarbonisation.)

       Therefore the climate deniers' hypothesis is false.

       This is the essence of our case. There are some parts to be filled in, not so much in terms of temperature projections as in the science of attribution, but in examining the deniers' hypothesis and applying falsification to that, the picture becomes much clearer.

       For the past few decades, the contrarians have been testing the AGW hypothesis (increasing the GHG composition of the atmosphere will have serious effects on global climate), and the hypothesis remains firm. Now it is time to test their hypothesis.

26490. michael sweet at 09:15 AM on 21 December 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #51
       

       The LA Times had an interesting Op-Ed piece on the relationship of Climate Chamge and social unrest like the war in Syria.  It might be good for an OP here at Skeptical science. 

       The authors, who study violence in society, suggest that climate change increases the chance of social unrest but are usually not the only cause of unrest.

26491. BBHY at 06:32 AM on 21 December 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #51
       

       'Now comes the tough part"

       I don't think it's going to be all that difficult, at least for the next 15 to 20 years when the reductions in CO2 emissions won't be that big. Getting all the way down to zero will be tough, but that's not until what, 2070?

       I just looked at my latest electric bill. Only 1.95% came from wind, and solar was only 0.05%. Both of those could easily be upped by a factor of ten over the next 5 to 10 years. Add in 10% efficiency improvements with better appliances and better insulated houses and buildings and you already have a significant reduction, without any new inventions or noticable financial pain.

       I've seen these articles that CO2 reductions will be very difficult, but I would argue that we don't really know that because we haven't really tried in any serious way.

26492. BaerbelW at 03:10 AM on 21 December 2015
       Why climate contrarians are wrong
       

       @Robert Test - as a follow-up to Tom Curtis' suggestion (@8) to check out our Denial101x-MOOC, take a look at the first videos of week 1 covering the scientific consensus. You can find the video links in this Full list of videos and references. Also helpful might be the list of accompanying references.

26493. DSL at 00:22 AM on 21 December 2015
       Why climate contrarians are wrong
       

       9200+ references, Tom, per the WG1 Fact Sheet.

26494. Tom Curtis at 17:14 PM on 20 December 2015
       Why climate contrarians are wrong
       

       Alun @11, IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 8 on Radiative Forcing has approximately 450 references.  Excluding the introduction, there are 13 chapters in the WG1 report.  There will undoubtedly be overlaps between chapters, but that means there are certainly a thousand, and probably several thousand distinct references use by WG1 all up.  You don't compress that to seven or eight pages with any sort of comprehensiveness.  You would be doing well to get it down to one 7-8 page article per chapter.

       In contrast, it is dubious you would need more than 4 pages to expound in depth any of the alternate 'skeptical' "theories". 

26495. Alun at 16:12 PM on 20 December 2015
       Why climate contrarians are wrong
       

       I think it is also worth bearing in mind that the article in SciAm is the Skeptic column. It is one page long. The forum does not provide sufficient space to fully argue any topic. Given the narrow contraints, I think that Michael Schermer provided more than sufficient evidence to support his specific premise that the consensus on AGW is a proper scientific consensus derived in a proper scientific way and that the contrarian arguments are neither. 

       Maybe the SciAm editors can give him the run of a full article with seven or eight pages and he can then dot all i's and cross all t's.

26496. nigelj at 11:54 AM on 20 December 2015
       Why climate contrarians are wrong
       

       Paul @7. There have been various studies and polls of what climate scientists think is causing climate change. Some are less than ideal, however they all show about 95% of climate scientists think we are warming the climate. 

       I have yet to see a study or poll of climate scientists showing anything remotely different. There is nothing stopping climate sceptics doing a poll of some sort, but they havent published anything.

       Do you see where I'm going with this? Im sure you do. Theres obviously a big majority consensus that we are warming the climate. We wont be certain if its exactly 95%, but its big.

26497. Tom Curtis at 07:21 AM on 20 December 2015
       Why climate contrarians are wrong
       

       PaulG @7, While "You can't assume agreement from people who expressed no opinion", neither can you assume disagreement.  Therefore, if no opinion was expressed in a particular abstract, it is statistically irrelevant.

       That is not a hard concept to understand in statistics.  Routinely political polls of a few hundred people are taken in democracies around the world, and the intentions expressed by that few hundred are projected onto the entire population.  Somebody who objected that opinion polls are worthless because "You can't assume agreement from people who expressed no opinion" would merely demonstrate that they have no understanding of statistics (or a strong bias blindsiding them to the implications).

       You might object that the 2/3rds were expressing some opinion on global warming, but did not express an opinion on the attribution question, and that is somehow different.  But, if they expressed no opinion on attribution, they expressed no opinion on attribution.  Similarly, a survey of abstracts in Physics would find about of 65,100 of 1,520,000 papers (possibly including duplicates), ie, roughly 4.3%  of papers discuss General Relativity.  To suggest that therefore, there is not, or we cannot know that there is a scientific concensus accepting General Relativity would be absurd.  The 95% plus of papers not mentioning General Relativity do so simply because they discuss something else.  Yet your argument regarding the 97% is equally absurd.  The two thirds of papers not expressing an opinion did exactly that.  They expressed no opinion on attribution - which is afterall a small part of climate science.

       The true question of interest is, out of those papers that expressed an opinion on attribution, including those whose opinion was that attribution was uncertain, how many endorsed the IPCC position on attribution.  And the answer to that is, 97%.

26498. scaddenp at 06:40 AM on 20 December 2015
       December 2015 Floods: a floating postcard from the UK
       

       Paul, "Adaptation is critical, and that we can do."

       I am fascinated to know what your adaptation options for Bangladesh, with its population within 7m of sealevel and an awful lot of that right on the delta front. Before you suggest Dutch dykes, consider the pumping system to be able to move the monsoon rainfall over the dyke, and building it to withstand cyclones. Neither of these are problems for the Dutch. I would also note that the Bangladeshi contribute almost nothing to climate change compared to the West so I assume you would be happy to share in the cost of building such a project?

       The other obvious adaptation that humans are fond of is just migrating away. Since the west is largely responsible for the problem, I assume you would be comfortable with accepting your countries share of immigrants? (Say in proportion to about of CO2 your country has added to the atmosphere).

       Humans have adapted but often by dying out in large numbers. Since settled agriculture began, we have not had to face climate change on a global scale at such a rapid pace.

       Humans are far from be able to change or control the weather, but climate is another story. The surface of the earth is receiving more IR radiation. We can measure the increase directly. We know it is coming from GHG from the change in the spectral signature of the radiation. Do really think that there is reasonable doubt (as opposed to ideological/value or identity based denial) that adding heat will not change the climate?

26499. Tom Curtis at 05:48 AM on 20 December 2015
       Why climate contrarians are wrong
       

       robert test @1 and 4, thankyou for your comments.

       Let me first note that at SkS we are frequently plagued by deniers (initially) concealing their true beliefs or motives to get the opportunity to present denier memes in the mistaken belief that it will help them avoid moderation (or sometimes, I think, to deliberately court it).  That tactic is frustrating for regular commentors because the lack of forthrightness distorts the dicussion, preventing coherent rational response by the deniers.  It is also ironic in that forthright presentation would better enable actually escaping moderation.

       I mention this because regular commentors do get oversensitized to the possibility of such tactics.  As a result they run the risk of inappropriately responding to genuine, forthright enquiry.  As a result you may cop some sourness that you do not deserve (although I hope not).  I also mention it so I can unequivocally state for my fellow regulars that I do not believe you are flying any false flag here.  You raise a valid, and perspicious point.

       Your fundamental point is (I believe):

       "Certainly the author is right to point to a convergence of evidence for human causation and I believe there is such a convergence. And the author is right in saying that opponents of AGW need to display a convergence of evidence supporting a different, better, and more coherent theory that explains the data.

       Opponents of AGW have utterly failed. But so has the author of this piece."

       Given that Shermer's enumeration of convergent lines of evidence states that "... there is a convergence of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry—pollen, tree rings, ice cores, corals, glacial and polar ice-cap melt, sea-level rise, ecological shifts, carbon dioxide increases, the unprecedented rate of temperature increase—that all converge to a singular conclusion", your point that it is inadequate, cursory even, is well made.  It is, however, unfair.

       The reason for that is that the amount of convergent evidence is so extensive that it cannot be adequately summarized in a single page, or article.  After all, the IPCC reports are, in part, an attempt to summarize the convergent evidence and it is unreasonable to expect that what takes the IPCC Working Group 1 a volume should be rendered into a few paragraphs.

       Shermer is aware of that, and merely points to the fact of convergence in support of AGW vs the wild divergence of theories (let alone evidence) from the skeptics.  He hopes that his readers, their eyes opened by Whewell, will notice this fact in the debate and be less prone to be decieved by the skeptics.

       If I were to criticize Shermer, it would be on different grounds.  Specifically, AGW, they theory that global temperatures are currently rapidly warming and that we are responsible, is really just a corrollary of two more specific theories:

       • That major temperature changes on the Earth at greater than decadal timescales are primarilly driven by changes in forcing; and 
       • That the largest current forcing is the change of strength of the greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic production of greenhouse gases.

       It is these theories supported by the consilience of inductions.  AGW is supported by consilience indirectly by these theories, but attempting to enumerate the concilience directly in terms of AGW sometimes obscures the relevance of particular forms of evidence.

       For those who want to see the concilience of the evidence, I highly recommend that you read the IPCC AR5 WG1 report, or at least its technical summary.  That suffers from the fact that they do not cover some things already comprehensively dealt with in prior reports, so to do it fully through the IPCC you would need to read all reports (or at least the Third Assessment Report forward) and note the differences.  

       As a less strenuous alternative, I would recommend 'Earth, the operators manual' by Richard Alley, or 'Global Warming, understanding the forecast' by David Archer.  I would supplement either by 'The Warming Papers' by David Archer and Raymond Pierrehumbert.  I believe (though I have not yet personally audited it), that the MOOC course offered by SkS is also useful in this regard.  David Archer has an upcoming MOOC that will, no doubt, also be excellent. 

       I will not pretend that I can point you to a single webpage that enumerates the conscillience in favour of the concensus position in climate science.  I have contributed an enumeration of the evidence that the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic, and a basic explanation of the greenhouse effect that avoids some common misrepresentations.  Unfortunately I never expanded it to anything more comprehensive.

       May I suggest that other respondents to robert test point to webpages that expand on those two to provide a more comprehensive enumeration. 

26500. PaulG at 05:32 AM on 20 December 2015
       Why climate contrarians are wrong
       

       I find the methods of scientific reasoning fascinating, and I confess I don't have a strong opinion as to how much evidence is needed to prove a theory.  I do agree that a valid theory is going to have convergent lines of evidence to support it.

       But I do take issue with what I perceive as obvious "overstatements," claims of near-unanimity that don't appear to be justified.

       Example- The author states: "The tens of thousands of scientists who belong to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Medical Association, the American Meteorological Society, the American Physical Society, the Geological Society of America, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and, most notably, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change all concur that AGW is in fact real."

       That is preposterous.  The author states this is the unanimous opinion of all of the tens of thousands of scientists who belong to those various organizations.  I don't have to conduct a poll to know that is not true.

       The author also states: "Of those papers that stated a position on AGW, about 97 percent concluded that climate change is real and caused by humans. What about the remaining 3 percent or so of studies?"

       What he doesn't mention is highly significant: that roughly 2/3 of the papers examined, and 2/3 of the scientists whose articles were examined, expressed no position on whether AGW is real.

       You can't assume agreement from people who expressed no opinion, just like you can't claim 100% support from the members of various organizations that may have taken a public position on AGW. 

       Most climate scientists may well agree that AGW is real, but that does not mean that there is a consensus amont climate scientists as to how serious an issue it is, or may become, or as to what, if anything can be done, or should be attempted, to deal with it, or as to what other factors may significantly contribute to GW, etc.

       In other words, there is still a lot of uncertainty in the science.

Prev  522  523  524  525  526  527  528  529  530  531  532  533  534  535  536  537  Next