Recent Comments

Prev  562  563  564  565  566  567  568  569  570  571  572  573  574  575  576  577  Next

Comments 28451 to 28500:

28451. funglestrumpet at 05:15 AM on 12 July 2015
       Climate denial linked to conspiratorial thinking in new study
       

       I would have thought that discussion about a conspiracy theory that relies on science for its validity by someone who believes in it, yet is far from being a climate change denier, would be ideally suited to the comments section of an item on a science site linking conspiratorial thinking to climate change denial . Sorry for any offence that might have been caused.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Your prior comment was deleted because it was argumentative and inflamatory. Make your points in a civil manner and all will go well.

       [RH] Lew's paper on conspiracy ideation on climate denial blogs is not license to hash through other conspiracy theories.

28452. Firgoose at 02:43 AM on 12 July 2015
       Who knows what about the polar regions? Polar facts in the age of polarization
       

       These results support a common-sense view that we need a mix of approaches to address people with different configurations of knowledge and certainty.

       Making it a crime to spread misinformation about AGW would have a huge impact on the situation. Call it "climate terrorism" or something.

28453. mwsmith12 at 02:19 AM on 12 July 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly News Roundup: End of the Series
       

       The SKS Facebook Page link doesn't go anywhere.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Glitch fixed. Thank you for bringing it to our attention.

28454. Wol at 00:30 AM on 12 July 2015
       Who knows what about the polar regions? Polar facts in the age of polarization
       

       The most interesting graphs are the first two. They show that (no error bars) even Democrat understanding has gone down during the period. Probably reflecting the ever present misinformation campaigns?

28455. funglestrumpet at 19:21 PM on 11 July 2015
       Climate denial linked to conspiratorial thinking in new study
       

       Tom Curtis @ 49

       As I point out in my comment, NIST themselves concede that WTC 7 fell at free-fall acceleration for 105 feet. I choose my words with care because at the technical briefing held to discuss their draft report on the collapse of WTC 7 prior to final release they tried to convince the reader that it fell at 40% less than free-fall. It was due to the work of David Chandler that they changed their position. There is video of this meeting found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6JN9cwY_OE. Their demeanor is worth noting. As a mechanical engineer (retired) I find it impossible to watch WTC 7 collapse and believe it is anything other than controlled demolition. I am not alone.

       Perhaps you should take another look at 9/11, especially the work of AE9/11truth, a group of architects and engineers, and their affiliates, who are waving a big BS flag about 9/11. (Explosive Evidence, Experts Speak Out is particularly informative.) I got the VOM information from Pilots for 9/11 Truth. The aircraft speed is taken from local radar and FDR. When it comes to misinformation, there is a lot involving 9/11 (mini nukes, ufos, directed energy weapons, HARRP etc. the list seems endless.)

       Tom, all the truth movement is calling for is a fresh investigation. Considering that Kean and Hamilton, the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission, state in their book, Without Precedent The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission, that they believe that "they were set up to fail." Considering just how much influence 9/11 has had on our lives, surely that fact alone should be sufficient to justify another investigation. This time one with power of sub peona and free from external influence, features sadly lacking in the first one.

       What worries me about the sks position on conspiracy theories is that it reinforces the MSM meme on the topic. If any site should be countering MSM, it is surely this one. The reason that the public are so ill-informed on climate change is in large part down to them and their misinformation.

       Finally, I note that you do not explain how the top 12 floors of WTC 1 fell through the damage zone onto the 92 intact floors below and managed to demolish all of them. You cannot get more fundamental science than Newton, can you? Try watching videos of Verinage demolition for examples of what happens in such circumstances.

       (snip)

       If sks withdraw this comment, please forward it to Tom.

       Moderator Response:

       [RH] Skeptical Science is definitely not the proper website to engage in WTC/911 conspiracy discussion. Please cease and desist. Further discussion will be deleted. If you have another website where you think it is appropriate to have such a discussion you can post a link so those who are interested can follow you to that location.

28456. ranyl at 13:52 PM on 11 July 2015
       Carbon cycle feedbacks and the worst-case greenhouse gas pathway
       

       Thank you RH,

       Maybe just delete the conversation about? up to you.

       On "NOT" clean energy, I would suggest people look up large scale hydroelectric methane and carbon emissions on going and the effect of dams on the downstream water ways and river deltas.

       GHG emissions can be greater than fossil fuels emissions especially in the Tropics,

       http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n6/full/nclimate1540.html

       And they impact biodiversitry once completed, not to mention the large impacts during construction an dhow much concrete do they need?

       http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/bio.2012.62.6.5?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

       http://freshwaterblog.net/2012/06/11/the-effect-of-dams-on-fish-biodiversity-a-global-view/

       And how many dams are CHina building?

       Not to mention funded dams in Laos, how many dams are planned in Lao, and Brazil and Chile say?

       All with large CO2 emissions, concrete, biodiversity impacts etc, all in the name of "clean" energy, when it should really be called, high GHG emitting, highly biodiversity tottally not clean energy, especially in the Tropical regions.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Now you are engaging in one of the favorite games of concern trolls  — throwing factoids against the wall to see which ones might stick. Either cease and desist or have your future posts summarily deleted in their entirity. Enough is enough!

       [RH] It should be noted that there has been a commenter named "ryland" whom JH has been engaging with for the past week or so. That seems to be causing some confusion with comments from "ranyl." (It definitely influenced my previous misinterpreted reading.) We request everyone's patience while we sort it out.

       [JH] I did in fact confuse ranyl with ryland. My sincerest apology to ranyl.

       [RH] Links activated.

28457. Tom Curtis at 10:06 AM on 11 July 2015
       Climate denial linked to conspiratorial thinking in new study
       

       funglestrumpet @49, quite some time ago I had a look at Truther theories.  I found the argument, for example, that a building was collapsing in free fall massively unconvincing given that the video used to prove that "fact" showed large debris that had fallen clear of the dust cloud falling faster than the collapse rate of the building.  The bit about the VMO of planes was new to me, so I did a bit of research.  Perhaps most interesting was the views of the 911 Truther who suggested a subsidiary conspiracy theory that the VMO arguments were "a possible disinformation campaign to distract the public from the real questions and to discredit our movement in general"; and who then went on to prove that the VMO arguments were a load of bunk.  

       The fact is that actual conspiracies exist.  The CIA, for example, conspire to obtain confidential information from foreign governments.   People may have conspired to ruin the reputation of work colleagues.  Nixon conspired to eavesdrop on Democratic party campaign strategies.  What distinguishes these genuine conspiracies is that they are restricted to a small number of people (necessary for secrecy) and they do not have overly ambitous aims (necessary for success).  People who believe in such conspiracies are not called conspiracy theorists, and do not exhibit the irrational argumentation typical of conspiracy theorists.  In that way they are distinct from the conspiracies dreamed up by conspiracy theorists - including 911 truthers.

28458. villabolo at 08:46 AM on 11 July 2015
       Who knows what about the polar regions? Polar facts in the age of polarization
       

       Magma @1:

       "It is not an easy question to answer with confidence even for the knowledgeable..."

       My description, which I consider to be high in confidence, is thus:

       "When the Arctic ice cap disappears during the summer you will have more evaporation from the exposed water. When that happens there will be more intense rain with flooding."

28459. L. Hamilton at 08:32 AM on 11 July 2015
       Who knows what about the polar regions? Polar facts in the age of polarization
       

       @Magma, you're right the Arctic/weather question invites speculation (albeit, a speculation often heard on New Hampshire weather reports), while the sea ice area question is just factual. Oddly though, survey responses to both of them behave as if we'd asked for political opinions.The North Pole, South Pole and sealevel questions on the other hand don't act this way.

       
       In case anyone is interested in seeing the article itself, I should mention that the publisher currently has it freely accessible at

       http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1088937X.2015.1051158#.VaBGXvnGAYE

       It's my understanding that the Polar Geography paper will go behind a paywall at some later date, perhaps in a month or two.

28460. longjohn119 at 08:11 AM on 11 July 2015
       Who knows what about the polar regions? Polar facts in the age of polarization
       

       The Fictional Conservatives, formly known as The NeoCons, aren't going to like this Liberal/Socialist/Communist study.

28461. ranyl at 06:08 AM on 11 July 2015
       Carbon cycle feedbacks and the worst-case greenhouse gas pathway
       

       Dear JH moderator,

       It was a genral comment of the situation and not intended to inflame anyone.

       Was it the terms used? or do you feel that the general press and others (bloggers etc) don't try to dismiss sincere calls  about the urgency of these matters by portraying the messengers as "crying wolf" without just cause?

       Moderator Response:

       [RH] I just re-read the comment and my initial interpretation of the comment was that you were saying anyone saying this is urgent is an extremist. I now see you were saying the problem is that people stating urgency get "labeled" an extremist.

       Comment reinstated.

28462. ranyl at 05:15 AM on 11 July 2015
       Carbon cycle feedbacks and the worst-case greenhouse gas pathway
       

       Dear John.

       I don't make the agrument that in practical terms current energy production can be changed to "cleaner" energy sources, of course it can, if you build enough you'll be able to replace current demandand even build on further to accomadate fot population and affleunce increases.

       There is no doubt there is the technology available to drive huge amounts of energy from availableresources without using fossil fuels. 

       I merely point out that all that additional infra-structure and manufacture of the power generating machines will add a significant amount of carbon to the debt and have biodiversity impacts.

       If China powered down to their current renewable and present nuclear power generation capacity then that addition to the debt would be prevented.

       I do mention it would be sensible to use what we have for the carbon emissions are already in the atmosphere.

       How much extra carbon emissions and environmental degradation can we gamble?

       All depends on whether you like gambling or not and what perception of risk environmental (global warming, ocean acidification, mass extinction, all proceeding at unprecendented rates comparison to earth's geological and recorded history) change induces within your perception.

       Calnifornia's drought is exceptional as is North Koreas, and San Paulo, etc, etc....

       However how you see them is almost already formulated by your general opinion on environmental change (urgent, grandchildren'sproblem), your religious and political beleifs and what people arround you suggest is the way to see it.

       The drought in Syria was severe, and the Arab Spring report suggests this was linked to the climatic changes occuring in the region and that this lay part of the basis for th einitial civil unrest and eventual civil war.

       And then there is nuclear?

       Huge carbon emissions up fronts for making new ones and making lead must have environmental impacts and what is safe waste disposal?

       If you have a carbon budget to spend (gamble with), where would spend it?

       Defences? Building regenerative infra structure (e.g. terracing hills to slow water flow and provide usable growing space), running hospitals? running banks? running governments? until fuel supply truly sustainable and carbon neutral?

       1:5 see no risk at all.

       Anyone suggesting the problem is so severe the transofrmational change is needed immediately as the problem is here, is stigmatised an alarmist or extremist.

       Is there hppe?

        

       Moderator Response:

       [RH] Inflammatory comment snipped. Comment reinstated.

28463. Bob Loblaw at 04:15 AM on 11 July 2015
       Who knows what about the polar regions? Polar facts in the age of polarization
       

       Magma:

       Note that the article mentions that "Percentages are based on 1,570 New Hampshire survey respondents..."  If that statement applies to all the survey results reported here, then geographical location would not be an issue. You'd probably have to read the original study to be sure (which I have not done).

28464. Magma at 03:42 AM on 11 July 2015
       Who knows what about the polar regions? Polar facts in the age of polarization
       

       I'm sure I'm not the only one who has doubts regarding the value of asking members of the general public whether a future warming Arctic would have no, minor, or major effects on the weather where they live. It is not an easy question to answer with confidence even for the knowledgeable, and answers could legitimately vary with the respondent's location (Fairbanks versus Rio de Janeiro, for instance).

       
       But the results from the other more concrete questions are readily predictable from observing the error-filled nonsense that people repeatedly post on this topic on blogs and media comment forums.

28465. MA Rodger at 03:08 AM on 11 July 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly Digest #27
       

       Michael Fitzgerald @32.

       Well bless by straw panama hat. Is the sun likely to stop shining?

       The heat sink in my computer sucks energy away and out from the machine preventing it from overheating in its steady state working condition. In that respect, the oceans are not a good analogy as at steady state the climate system is in equilibrium with the oceans. But in a warming climate, which is the present state the climate, the oceans do provide cooling, preventing the surface from reaching any equilibrium temperature for many decades. In that respect, they are a heat sink and the increasing OHC is conclusive evidence of that warming climate. You seem reluctant to accept this truth.

       Further, you seem to want to trivialise AGW because the temperature variability of the seasons is so much greater. You introduce here something you term "the concept of missing heat" but you fail to explain the concept. It appears to be some grand theory as "equally valid" as AGW. So do please explain where climatology has been going wrong all these years. I'm sure we will find it most entertaining.

28466. MIchael Fitzgerald at 01:58 AM on 11 July 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly Digest #27
       

       I have time for one comment before I disconnect from technology for a few days.

       A heat sink seems to be the wrong term.  A heat sink redistributes heat.  Consider the heat sink in your computer.  When you turn your computer off, it starts to cool immediately.  If what you are saying is true and the Sun stopped shinning (technical details of this aside ...), the Earth would continue to warm for centuries.  It seems to me that if the Sun stopped shining, Earth would become an frozen wasteland in a matter of weeks.

       Since the start of the industrial revolution, man has gotten about half way to the doubling CO2, meaning that since then, GHG forcing consequential to mans CO2 emissions has increased by about 1.7 W/m^2.  To suggest that the planet hasn't been able to adapt to this doesn't seem logical, especially considering how quickly the planet adapts to seasonal variability.

       The concept of missing heat presumes a high sensitivity.  If the sensitivity was much less than 0.8 C per W/m^2 wouldn't that be an equally valid explanation for the apparent missing heat?  How can we tell which is the right explanation?

28467. KR at 23:28 PM on 10 July 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly Digest #27
       

       MIchael Fitzgerald - Comments, not in any particular order.

       • Direct forcing by CO2 is very well established and modeled, at 3.7 W/m2 per doubling under current conditions. This has been empirically confirmed by satellite spectra, see Harries et al 2001 where radiative line-by-line models were validated within 1%.
       • Starting from a Gedankenexperiment condition of no GHGs to now, there would be an initial linear forcing increase at low concentrations followed by the current log forcing increase with linear CO2 increases. However, while non-linear, this forcing change is indeed monotonic - at no point does an increase in CO2 cause a negative forcing. 
       • Water vapor feedback (as per the Clausius–Clapeyron relation) immediately adds more than doubles any forcing. This is spatially variant, however, and you aren't going to get global values by looking at specific regions (i.e., the Arctic). 
       • If you want to compute the power involved in these spectra - calculate it. Eye-balling a graphic representation, no matter what the axes, won't give useful accuracy. This is why tools like MODTRAN were developed. 
       • As MA Rodger quite accurately pointed out, observed short-term warming is at best an estimate of transient climate sensitivity (TCS), not the ECS. These are not the same quantities. 
       • RE sensitivity vs. temperature - for the current climate realm climate sensitivity is essentially a linear scalar to forcing. Sensitivity doesn't change with temperature. CO2 forcing has a log scaling to concentration changes, CFC's with lower concentrations have linear scaling to forcing (Myhre et al 1998, essential reading for this discussion); but overall climate sensitivity to forcing changes at current temperatures is a fixed (if somewhat uncertain) number. Go far enough, to an ice-ball Earth or with no polar caps whatsoever, or change continental arrangements, for example, and that sensitivity will change - but we haven't reached those points. 

       Overall, I have the impression that you are getting lost in the minutia, and trying to extrapolate from those to global conditions. Beware the fallacy of composition. 

28468. MA Rodger at 21:14 PM on 10 July 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly Digest #27
       

       Michael Fitzgerald @27.

       I do wonder reading this comment. Even as I pack away my woolly bobble hat and hang up my straw panama beside the front door, it is blatantly evident to anyone familiar with AGW that there is an imbalance between the Earth's incoming and outgoing radiation and has been for some decades. It is of truly massive proportions, enough to elevate global average surface temperature by 0.3ºC annually, 3ºC decadally, but because the Earth comes equipped with a giant heat sink attached, the impact of this massive imbalance is far smaller. This heat sink is known technically (and commonly so you will have heard of it) as "the oceans" and it is the rise in ocean heat content that allows climatology to be confident about the size of the imbalance.

       So I do wonder. Would it be more sensible with this discussion to set out what is being discussed. The concept of ECS and its application in quantifying the impact of all types of climate forcing - this concept only works usefully over small variation in temperature. (This has been said above.) If, Michael Fitzgerald, you wish to expand the scope of the ECS concept in more than a trivial way, the concept needs redefining. Otherwise your discussion here, as conducted by you, is taking the michael out of those who are contributing in good faith.

28469. Tom Curtis at 16:07 PM on 10 July 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly Digest #27
       

       Michael Fitzgerald @26, not in order:

       1)

       "It's hard to tell since viewing this as linear wavenumbers isn't the most representative of where the power is."

       The units of the y-axis in this plot are microWatts per meter squared per steradian per line number {mW m^-2 Sr^-1 (cm ^-1)^-1}.  Multiply by a suitable constant and that becomes microWatts per meter squared per cm^-1.  Put simply, it graphs power output per unit area linearly against line number.  The equivalent plots against wavelength have a different shape because line number is an inverse function of wave length.  Ergo they are not one to one.  They are both accurate, and both accurately represent where most of the power is radiated (relative to the respective units).

       2)  There is no plot above for Arctic conditions, only for Antarctic conditions where surface temperatures do fall below 193 K in winter.  Ergo it is very likely that the Antarctic spectrum represents the (near) blackbody spectrum of the surface with humps from warmer CO2 and O3 due to a temperature inversion (common in Antarctic winters).  If the low temperature were due to high cloud cover, the brightness temperature would be near constant across the entire spectrum.

       3)  It is a mistake to compare the difference in surface emission (ie, the black body radiation for the surface temperature) in comparing different conditions.  By definition, the surface radiation excludes any greenhouse effect, and therefore cannot show the effect of the water vapour feedback.  Nor can you sensibly determine the strength of the water vapour feedback by comparing to Sahara conditions, ie, conditions with virtually zero water vapour due to being below the downwelling of a hadley cell.  More appropriate is a comparison between mediterrainian conditions and those over the Niger Valley:

        You will notice that while the surface temperature for the Niger Valley spectrum approximates to that for the Sahara spectrum, the emission to space is subtantially less from 400 to 500 cm^-1 and from 1400-1600 cm^-1 (ie, in the primary water vapour absorption bands), and also less in the CO2 absorption band.  It is not clear from visual comparison that there is a greater radiation to space from the Niger Valley, and certainly any difference is far less than we would expect just from the planck response (ie, from comparison of the black body radiation from the surface).  So, using a more relevant comparison it is quite possible that increased temperatures will result in an increased λ.  Indeed, that is what is shown by GCMs, but the rate of increase with temperature is uncertain.

28470. One Planet Only Forever at 15:07 PM on 10 July 2015
       Global Commission Finds Economic Growth Can Close the Emissions Gap
       

       The report does not mention an important aspect of the envisioned achievable economic future. Those who have gambled on getting away with maximized personal benefits from the burning of fossil fuels will be losers. Many very wealthy people are invested in and desiring to benefit from burning lots of fossil fuels as fast as possible.

       Those people would see the proposed economic future as a threat to their vested interests. They would likely demand compensation for what they would consider to be an unfair denial of their opportunity to benefit. Of course they have all been able to understand the unacceptable of their gambles for at least 25 years. But it is in their nature to try to maximize their personal benefit any way they think they can get away with.

       And many global free trade agreements include terms that allow such invididuals to attempt to legally attack any government group that would take measures that they believe can be argued to be 'unfairly' denying them an opportunity to benefit/profit. Many communities in Canada have learned that their attempts to limit the use of unacceptable chemicals can be legally challenged by the makers and sellers of those unacceptable chemicals (the legal challengers claim that the chemicals are not scientifically proven conclusively to be unacceptable), with this report as an example.

       Another aspect that is not mentioned but is self-evident, is the fact that the free action of people in a free-market cannot be expected to develop a decent result. The popularity of getting away with temporary benefits and profitability will naturally strive to keep the economic changes that need to happen and actually can be made to happen from happening.

       Clearly the ability to achieve the required transformation of the global economy will not be in the best interests of those people who gambled on getting away with unacceptable pursuits. Therefore, in addition to the mentioned revised economic motivations, there needs to be a clear statement that no party that gambled on benefiting from burning fossil fuels deserves any compensation for what they may claim is an unfair denial of their opportunity to benefit. Without such a measure in place too much wealth and power will remain in the hands of people who have proven they have little interest in responsibly using their wealth and power to develop a lasting better future for everyone.

28471. MIchael Fitzgerald at 14:27 PM on 10 July 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly Digest #27
       

       Another think I was thinking is relative to the 150 W/m^2 of extra warming added to the 239 W/m^2.  If the 150 W/m^2 increases linearly with forcing, then delta T / delta P is the slope of SB at 255K or about 0.3C per W/m^2.  To get the required 0.8C from 1 W/m^2 of forcing, we need the 150 W/m^2 of extra warming to increase by 3.3 W/m^2, rather than the 0.6 W/m^2 when each W/m^2 of input contributes equally to the 150.  This results in a GMST of 288.4K which is the required 0.8C larger then the original 287.6K.  I just don't know how to justify the 3.3 W/m^2 instead of 0.6 W/m^2 as the increase in excess warming power.

       FYI, I will be taking tomorrow off and heading to the mountains for some back packing.  I will be back late Sunday and can continue the thread after work on Monday.

       Thanks,

       Michael

28472. MIchael Fitzgerald at 14:01 PM on 10 July 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly Digest #27
       

       Tom RE 23.

       The Earth is hardly ever in transient balance because the seasonal solar input per hemisphere varies faster than the system can adapt.  As seasonal solar peaks and starts to fall, it continues to warm until the input power drops below the value required to sustain the current average and then the temperature starts to drop.  The inverse of this happens past the minimum seasonal input.  Min/max average temperatures then lag min/max seasonal solar input by about two months.  The solar input and planet output emissions cross each other twice per year, around Mar and Sept where the system is transiently in balance.  If this difference is integrated over an entire year, the result should be very close to zero, although I suspect it varies some on either side.  The record also shows year to year differences in average temperature of up to 1C both up and down, so if the planet average can move 1C or more in a year whether by changes in solar input or changes in state, whatever effect past CO2 emissions might have should have mostly been manifested.  The exception being some fraction of emissions over the last year or two, so its hard to imagine much unrealized effect.

       A question for you is if we specify a Gaussian surface surrounding the Earth, measure the energy flux of photons passing in both directions acriss this surface and average this over a few decades. or even a single year, what would the average flux be?  Its easier to think about when energy is only flowing in one direction, for example from Earth to space, where we could consider the Earth an antenna radiating LWIR and the power passing through this Gaussian surface will always be the power driving the antenna which in this case is the power radiated by the planet.

28473. MIchael Fitzgerald at 13:27 PM on 10 July 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly Digest #27
       

       Tom, re24.

       Yes, this is spectrum I expect.  The emissions in the absorption bands are about 1/2 of what they would be without GHG absorption (a little less at 15u where there is significant overlap between CO2 and H2O) when compared to the transparent regions whose Planck shape is approximately representative of the surface temperature for the Sahara and Med measurements.  The Planck shape of the Arctic measurement is too low to be representative of the surface temperature and is likely a measurement of cloud tops which exhibit little GHG effect to space due to almost no water vapor and little atmosphere to begin with.  Inversions generally don't have anything to do with CO2 and are when cold air sinks into valleys and the surrounding high ground become warmer.  It looks to me like the spectrum from a cloud covered Antarctic mid winter.  Do you know the time of year this was measured?

       Ok, less emisions from absorption bands increases the sensitivity as the temperature increases.  Is this enough to overcome the T^4 increase required to sustain higher temperatures?  The T^4 difference between the emissions at the Med temp of 285K and the Sahara temp of 320K is almost a 60%.  The plots don't seem to show enough incremental GHG effect to offset this much incremental power and then some to achieve a net increase in sensitivity.  Is this difference quantified anywhere?

       It's hard to tell since viewing this as linear wavenumbers isn't the most representative of where the power is.  Plotting with an X axis of log wavelength or log wavenumber give a better perspective on where the power densiity is.  Note that while frequency/wavenum plots have the peak near wavenumber of 700,  the peak of the Planck distribution by wavelength is closer to 10u (wavenum=1000).  The shapes of these curves makes a big difference in perspective relative to the strength of the lines.  You should try different X scaling when plotting MODTRAN generated spectra and see what happens.  I suspect an accurate  visualiation of the power density is somewhere between the two.

28474. Tom Curtis at 11:37 AM on 10 July 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly Digest #27
       

       Michael Fitzgerald @22:

       "This contradicts other evidence that suggests the GHG effect gets larger as you get closer to the poles implying a higher sensitivity at colder temperatures and the reason for my concern"

       I have it from reliable authority (Chris Colose) that the greenhouse effect increases more rapidly in the tropics.  This would prevent the escape of heat, forcing a larger energy flow from equator to poles, thereby warming the poles.  Polar amplification would constitute a combination of this effect, the smaller enhancement of the polar greenhouse effect, and the reduction in polar albedo.

       "This behavior makes sense because each incremental degree of surface temperature requires more accumulated forcing to offset the increase in Planck emissions and the sensitivity should decrease as temperature increase unless positive feedback also increases as the temperature rises."

       You are ignoring the fact that atmospheric water vapour increases with the fourth power of SST.  That strongly suggests an increasing climate sensitivity parameter with temperature, particularly once polar ice becomes negligible.  In fact, the to most important factors governing the changes of the value of λ with temperature are the latitude of polar ice (the lower the latitude, the higher the sensivity) and the amount of evaporation (with higher temperatures indicating higher senisitivity).  That suggests we are currently near the bottom of a trough in the value of λ, with any increase in temperature sufficient to eliminate arctic sea ice sufficient to put us onto an increasing λ with temperature, if we are not already past the inflection point.

28475. Tom Curtis at 10:31 AM on 10 July 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly Digest #27
       

       Michael Fitzgerald @21, some statellite instruments are tuned to frequencies to avoid CO2 and H2O absorption bands.  Other instruments cover a wide range of frequencies:

       

       FYI, the approximate altitude of emission at a given wavenumber can generally be determined using the temperature of the ground (approximately given at 900 cm^-1) and the lapse rate.  That is difficult for the spectrum over Antarctica (in which there is a strong temperature inversion resulting in CO2 warming the surface, unlike the usual condition) and for the spikes at the center of the CO2 band (667 cm^-1) and the ozone band (approximately 1050 cm^-1), both of which represent radiation from the stratosphere.

28476. PhilippeChantreau at 10:28 AM on 10 July 2015
       Climate denial linked to conspiratorial thinking in new study
       

       OMG! Silly me, I misread Ryland's writing! It is even less relevant than I thought. A lot of "other scientists" wihtout the appropriate expertise that would, as explained above, ensure that the basics are covered and the odds of being badly wrong are reduced, are less convinced. Well that sure makes a difference that, using your words, I would qualify as stunning. What a pathetic joke. I get a more productive exchange when I ask an intubated patient to squeeze my fingers. Post after post continues to prove that you lack the intellectual honesty to engage into any kind of meaningful conversation. It is becoming evident that you are only interested in argumentative rethoric for its own sake. DNFTT indeed. I should have known better.

28477. Tom Curtis at 10:17 AM on 10 July 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly Digest #27
       

       Michael Fitzgerald @15, as the planetary energy budget is not currently balanced (as a consequence of which we are warming), there is no current boundary across which the energy flows are in balance.  Indeed, as peak warmth or cold either seasonally or diurnally does not coincide with peak radiative flux (due to thermal inertia), there is never such a boundary except as a transitory state.  That is why the climate is considered to be in quasi-equilibrium when it reaches the nearest approximation to an equilibrium state.

       More directly, in this calculation we are attempting to balance (or nearly balance) the OLR with the annual average insolation.  As such, we are also using the annual average OLR.  That clouds occasionally have tops higher than approx 5 km at given locations does not mean the globally and annually averaged radiation to space does not have an effective altitude of radiation to space of 5 km.  If you want to take into account specific weather patterns, and the diurnal cycle etc, you need a GCM, not the simple formulas we are discussing.

       Finally, you are ignoring the fact that CO2 (and methane and ozone etc) only absorb IR radiation at specific frequencies.  At some frequencies, the radiation to space actually comes from the surface (unless clouds intervene).  At other frequencies, it is radiated by H2O in the atmosphere, and typically comes from 2-3 km from the surface.  At other frequencies it is radiated by CO2 and comes from virtually at the tropopause.  Averaged across all frequencies it effectively radiates from approximately 5 km altitude.

28478. Tom Curtis at 10:03 AM on 10 July 2015
       Climate denial linked to conspiratorial thinking in new study
       

       ryland @19:

       1)  The statement at the prior URL of the paper is the official statement.  Any later blogpost by the editors can only be considered as commentary on that statement.  It does not supplant the official statement unless it specifically states so.  Further, if the official statement has been supplanted, it ought to have been corrected.  It was not.

       2)  Given that we have a statement and a commentary by the editors, we ought to interpret them as compatible if we are able to do so.  In that regard, the statement says, "This investigation did not identify any issues with the academic and ethical aspects of the study."  Ergo, unless the commentary explicitly states there were ethical issues, we should not interpret it as saying there were.

       3)  The statement does talk about issues with rights and privacy, but rights can be either ethical rights or legal rights.  Absent any statement to the contrary, in order to interpret the statement and blogpost compatibly we are able to, and therefore ought to, interpret them as refering to legal rights.

       4)  Privacy is also a legal issue.  The only violation of privacy involved in the paper is that from the excerpts of quotes it is possible to employ a search engine and identify the authors of those quotes.  Absent that ability, no possibility of libel exists, and hence no legal can possibly be raised by the paper.  With that possibility, arguably the paper libels the authors of the quotes.  (I don't think it does, but it is something a lawyer could be paid to argue.)  Ergo, the mention of privacy in the comment does not contradict the claim in the statement that there were no ethical issues with the paper.

       5)  Many people have interpretted the comment as referring to ethical issues, as contradicting the statement.  Those people have not included the editors of the journal, however, so their misinterpretation does not constitute evidence.

       6) There are several cogent arguments publicly available that no ethical issue was raised by the paper, including by neuroskeptic and by jgnfld above.  In neuroskeptic's case, arguing both that there was no ethical issue and that the journal made an error on that issue, when the journal's most clear statement on the issue contradicts the claim that the decision was made on ethical grounds is incoherent (at best).  I assume so many people leap to the conclusion that the editors contradicted themselves because they assume that there are only ethical rights, or that legal rights only protect ethical rights (and hence that a legal right implies an ethical right).  Both claims would be mistaken.

       7)  The best that can be said for your point of view is that the editors in their statement cultivated a deliberate ambiguity to deflect criticism of the journal.  If that is the case, they display a disgraceful level of intellectual cowardice.  In support of their point of view is their failure to answer Barry Bickmore's question in the first comment on their blop post:

       "Your original retraction statement for "Recursive Fury" said that there were no ethical concerns with the paper--only legal concerns. Are you now saying that there were, indeed, ethical concerns? Or are you saying that the privacy of human research subjects is not an ethical concern (i.e., only a legal concern)?

       Also, did you at any time inform the authors that your "legal" concerns about the paper were about the possibility of being sued for violating the privacy rights of human subjects? Or did you actually tell them the "legal" concerns were about something else?"

       Right from the start, the editors had the possibility to clarrify any ambiguity but declined to do so.  But equally right from the start it is clearly recognized that an ambiguity exists in the blopost (even as regards privacy); and given that and the failure to clarrify, the clear statement in the retraction notice stands.

       
       8)  As a minor point, if the blogpost had claimed there was an ethical issue, and given that by their own statement their own investigation had found no ethical issue; then the blogpost would have libelled the authors.  As they were clearly aware of legal issues, and the widespread criticism of the retraction; it is highly unlikely that they would have put themselves in such a tenuous position.  The only tenable argument to the claim that the issues identified are legal issues is the claim that they deliberately chose words that woud be interpreted as suggesting an ethical issue but could be defended in court as only clarrifying the nature of the legal issue.  On that basis, the best that can be claimed of the blogpost is that it does not disagree with the retraction, but does exhibit intellectual cowardice.

       I will not comment further on this issue unless you raise new evidence rather than simply preferring to interpret an ambiguous statement as contradicting a direct statement when there is no requirement to do so.

28479. thomasj at 09:24 AM on 10 July 2015
       It's not bad
       

       Great to see such a clear overview of the advantages and disadvantages of climate warming. I've shared this with several people I know that don't believe global warming is a serious problem.

        

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] Removed link. Periliously close to SPAM which remove all posts and posting priviledges

28480. thomasj at 09:21 AM on 10 July 2015
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Even though temperature measurements may not be considered reliable, we're still experiencing more natural disasters than before.

28481. Stranger8170 at 08:44 AM on 10 July 2015
       Climate denial linked to conspiratorial thinking in new study
       

       "Surely you recall the survey by the American Meteorological Society that showed only 52 % of its members were convinced oof AGW."

        

       According to the Washington Post of April 14th, the number of broadcast meterologists who accept AGW is 90% in a George Mason University (GMU) Center for Climate Change Communication survey.  That was up from 82% in 2011.  Of the 90%, 74% believe man is at least 50% responsible.

       http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/04/14/study-broadcast-meteorologists-increasingly-convinced-manmade-climate-change-is-happening/

        

       So it appears things are evolving in that arena.  

        

       Still, wouldn't consulting a meterologist be a long way off form a scientist who's work is directly connected to some aspect of climate science?  

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] Fixed link - but please DNFTT

28482. John Hartz at 08:17 AM on 10 July 2015
       Climate denial linked to conspiratorial thinking in new study
       

       In comment #33, ryland states:

       Had I left out ethical I probably would have generated, possibly from you, a single comment stating "It is an updated and extended version of the paper Recursive Fury" and all would have been quiet and placid on this thread. But then, its often more fun when its not. [MY bold.]

       The final, bolded, sentence of the above paragraph suggests to me that Ryland's interactions on this website are a form of recreation to him.  I encourage all readers to ignore what he posts in the future.

28483. John Hartz at 08:03 AM on 10 July 2015
       Climate denial linked to conspiratorial thinking in new study
       

       Ryland @21: The question that I posed in my #30 is completely different that the one I posed in #32. What's the problem?

28484. ryland at 07:49 AM on 10 July 2015
       Climate denial linked to conspiratorial thinking in new study
       

       Philippe Chantreau.  If you're going to attack something i wrote, attack what I actually did write rather than what you think I actually wrote'  You start off with this comment of mine:

       "There may be a 97% consensus of climate scientists that humans are responsible for climate change and certainly I consider that humans have contributed and do contribute to climate change but there are a lot of other scientists who are less convinced."

       You then say: 

       It matters very little that there are "a lot" of scientists who are less convinced. They're still only 3%.

       Can you not see i didn't say 97% of scientists but 97% of climate scientists.  You then follow up by saying it matters very little as they're still only 3%  

       Who are still only 3%?  All the other scientists who are not climate scientists?  Geologists? Meteorologists? Physicists?  Surely you recall the survey by the American Meteorological Society that showed only 52 % of its members were convinced oof AGW.  The survey did make it plain that meteorologists were at odds with the majority of scientific research on climate change.   I was careful to distinguish between climate scientists and other scientists, a distinction you appear not to have noticed.  After that introductory bit of stunning misapprehension I didn't bother to read the rest as its late

       scaddenp what I can't get from the daily mail I make up.  And as for the media The Guardian in which dana frequently writes is a useful source as is RealClimate.  So is Roy spencer and judith Curry and Jo Nova and Grant Foster 

28485. MIchael Fitzgerald at 07:48 AM on 10 July 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly Digest #27
       

       We seem to be getting a little OT here. My original question was about the sensitivity as a function of temperature so that we can slowly ramp the accumulated forcing from 0 to 239 W/m^2, sum up the effect from each incremental W/m^2 and arrive at the correct surface temperature. This relationship may not be known, but based on what has been said so far, we can create a template for it must look like.  We know this is not a linear relationship and can't even be monotonic. Earlier you said that that below about 173K there's no GHG effect (and no clouds either) and the reasons certainly make sense, thus the first 51 W/m^2 of accumulated solar forcing offsets the emissions at 173K where the slope of the Stefan-Boltzmann relationship at 173K is about 0.85C per W/m^2. If the sensitivity to forcing thereafter slowly ramped down to 0.75 C per W/m^2 at 239 W/m^2 of accumulated forcing for an average sensitivity of of 0.8C per W/m^2, the final temperature would be 173 + (239-51)*0.8 = 323K which is way too high, thus the sensitivity must drop well below 0.75 eventually rising to 0.75C per W/m^2 at 239 W/m^2 of accumulated forcing. This contradicts other evidence that suggests the GHG effect gets larger as you get closer to the poles implying a higher sensitivity at colder temperatures and the reason for my concern. This behavior makes sense because each incremental degree of surface temperature requires more accumulated forcing to offset the increase in Planck emissions and the sensitivity should decrease as temperature increase unless positive feedback also increases as the temperature rises.

       Michael

28486. MIchael Fitzgerald at 07:44 AM on 10 July 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly Digest #27
       

       KR,

       Yes, the satellites have sensors that span wavelengths.  Most have one or 2 bands covering the transparent window(s) on either side of the 10u ozone lines, a sensor tuned to a specific water vapor absorption line for detecting atmospheric water content and newer satellite often have a NIR band which is useful for detecting nightime differences between clouds and surface ice/snow which is important at the poles when its dark for half of the year.

       Other than the water vapor channel, little energy in GHG absorption bands is detected by these sensors, except perphaps at the edges, as they as specifically tuned to avoid them, not because of the lack of emissions in those bands, but because the attenuated emissions in those bands makes backing out the temperature resulting in those emissions more difficult.  There's also some parallax processing you can do with multiple images from one or more satellites in different places to distinguish the specific height from where radiation originates, specifically when images from different geosynchronous satellites overlap.  Something similar is done to produce 'helicopter' imagery for Google, Apple and Bing maps.

28487. scaddenp at 07:08 AM on 10 July 2015
       Climate denial linked to conspiratorial thinking in new study
       

       "I'm less convinced because the empirical evidence doesn't always entirely support all the contentions of the climate scientists. "

       Now that is interesting. Are your opinions on what the "contentions of climate scientists" are informed by reading the actual papers of climate scientists? Or by what others, anxious to challenge the conclusions, tell you are the "contentions of climate scientists"?   I notice that you mostly cite media if you cite anything at all.

28488. JWRebel at 07:05 AM on 10 July 2015
       Climate denial linked to conspiratorial thinking in new study
       

       I do believe in conspiracies — crime and politics are full of conspiracy and collusion. The term "conspiracy theory" does not sit well — history is full of pacts and conspiracies. Protections rackets are one of the oldest games in town and conspiracy is of course routinely denied by the perpetrators. Ruling out all conspiratorial explanations because there are so many whacko's ... the denial industry itself shows conspiratorial traits.

28489. PhilippeChantreau at 07:04 AM on 10 July 2015
       Climate denial linked to conspiratorial thinking in new study
       

       Ryland, your ramblings are not limited to this thread. Unfortunately, I can find no better word to describe you overall contribution so far; it accurately describes what you do, so it's not really "scathing." Perhaps there is another word with a less negative charge, but I couldn't think of one.

       You may wonder what I consider "rambling." Take this for instance:

       "There may be a 97% consensus of climate scientists that humans are responsible for climate change and certainly I consider that humans have contributed and do contribute to climate change but there are a lot of other scientists who are less convinced."

       It matters very little that there are "a lot" of scientists who are less convinced. They're still only 3%. It changes nothing at all to where the weight the evidence points. "Less convinced" is vague and suggests they may disagree while in fact their disagreement could be quite minor, changing nothing again to the big picture. This is rethoric. Rambling. You've got truckloads of the stuff, I'm sorry to say.

       I see very little new substance from you in this thread, despite the increasing word count. You state what your personal opinion about conspiracy thinking is, I guess that's something.

       The papers mentioned are about the fact that deniers are heavily influenced by conspiratory thinking. It uses a rigorous method to show that. 

       One paper came under fire from a hysterical crowd so far removed from rational thinking that it should be ignored. But they found a way to intimidate the publisher, a way that is obviously illegitimate, as was well explained by jgnfld, who I'm sure could also attach diplomas to his name. This maneuvering is why contributors here get emotional about the subject. It is unjust and underhanded. A perverted justice system allowing for exploitation and bordering on threatening freedom of speech.

       Intimidation with threat of lawsuit hinging on a technicality was used to discourage publication; your posts vaguely seemed to defend the act of withdrawing the publication, although, as usual you didn't clearly say that or otherwise either.

       You're very good at that; it has on several occasions allowed you to later complain that you were being wrongly attacked from all sides for something you didn't actually say. I do not recall seeing anyone on this site who was asked as often to clarify their meaning, or state what their point actually was. Whatever your PhD is in must involve extensive use of language, you have certainly achieved a level of mastery there.

       When you're pressed to truly clarify, you escape. Just like a while ago you would not definitely answer whether you thought that was OK for Chisty to lie to Congress and instead moved on to the next squirrel.

       Whether one has diplomas has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of their argument. Being educated in a field reduces the likelihood of being wrong about a particular problem pertaining to that field and should ensure that some basics are mastered. That's all it does. One thing it doesn't do is impress me.

       Attaching a diploma to ramblings does not increase their value, but it can decrease the value of the diploma, by demonstrating that said diploma does not protect against ramblings. In fact, it takes away the excuse of confusion, or poor mastery of language, for not stating clearly a meaning; it also takes away the excuse of ignorance, thereby increasing the probability that one may be arguing in bad faith. Not that this would be the case with you, I'm just considering the meaning of throwing diplomas in a generic conversation. 

       One thing that could speak more loudly than diplomas would be a style of argument with a predilection for rethoric and convoluted language. Surely something against which we all must exercise caution. 

       As for how much fossil fuel there remains to be played with, I had no doubt you were going to remind me of that. I'll remind you that there is no long term future for mankind that does not involve the complete eradication of industrial scale use of FF, one way or another. That much is 100 % certain, just like the radiative properties of CO2.

28490. ryland at 06:55 AM on 10 July 2015
       Climate denial linked to conspiratorial thinking in new study
       

       I note you changd your comment at  30   which originally asked why I had spent so much verbiage on a paper I wasn't going to read.  Why did you do that?  And your post 32 wasn't there when i replied.  Why did you insert that? 

       To answer your question at 32 as to why I spend so much time posting.  Actually I don't spend that much time taken overall as most threads are of little interest but occasionally I come across a thread that is.  Coincidentally two such threads arrived in close proximity and I spent time on both. A quick scan showed from June 23 to July 8 there were 20 topics of which I posted on only two.  I find that responding to the comments mentally stimulating. It certainly isn't political ideology for politics shouldn't enter science.   It certainly  doesn't in my  own field of interest, the study of prostate cancer using molecular biological techniques.  And as a final comment I'm sure you've noticed  the threads on whic I do post usually have quite a large number of comments as all your commenters hasten to get stuck into what they consider a brainless interloper who probably believes in conspiracy theories.  As if!!  

28491. Rob Honeycutt at 06:49 AM on 10 July 2015
       Climate denial linked to conspiratorial thinking in new study
       

       ryland @31...  " I don't believe in conspiracy theories but neither am I entirely convinced that only by reducing CO2 levels will climate change be averted."

       It's off topic but this is a strange comment. So, you think global temperatures will continue to climb precipitously through the next century even if we mitigate carbon emissions? Or am I misunderstanding your statement?

28492. KR at 06:35 AM on 10 July 2015
       Climate denial linked to conspiratorial thinking in new study
       

       ryland - The initial retraction, based upon discussion with the authors and with the investigation of the Frontiers expert panel, stated:

       This investigation did not identify any issues with the academic and ethical aspects of the study.

       About a week later Frontiers contradicted that retraction statement with their additional posts, at a time where they were receiving quite a bit of (deserved) flack for pulling a paper based solely on fears of ending up in court. I would consider that post-hoc revisionism on their part, an attempt to cover their (ahem) nether regions in the face of criticism. It certainly had nothing to do with their expert review panels evaluation of the ethics and academic worth of the paper. 

       I will note that if you are (as you have stated) wholly uninterested in the content of these papers, your objections would appear to be more about the conclusions (which you haven't begun to discuss) than the papers (unread) content, ethics, or methods. Objections and attacks much like those made by any number of people easily identified as climate deniers - in effect an indirect and fallacious ad hominem attack on the RF conclusions. 

       I would have to consider that simply rhetorical nonsense on your part, rather than a scientific discussion. 

28493. Rob Honeycutt at 06:29 AM on 10 July 2015
       Climate denial linked to conspiratorial thinking in new study
       

       ryland @29...  You ask: "In my original post I was asking the question if the paper was new as the headline said it was or was it a revamped version of a previous paper."

       It's actually something in between. The original paper included names of commenters, unaltered, as they appeared on the publicly accessible blogs. That was austensibly the issue of concern raised by denialists. The journal pulled the paper for investigation, found no ethical or scholarly problem, but asked the authors to redact the names because of potential libel issues (which have, as I understand it, changed during the course of all this). The authors complied with the journal's requests, and I believe made additional changes before resubmitting. 

       I've been told, the final paper that was ultimately retracted by Frontiers was more similar to the Recurrent Fury paper just published than the original Recursive Fury paper which deniers complained about.

28494. John Hartz at 05:18 AM on 10 July 2015
       Climate denial linked to conspiratorial thinking in new study
       

       @ryland #33: I did in fact scan the comments prior to posting my comment #30. I chose not to infer your motivation and consequently asked you directly. 

28495. ryland at 05:12 AM on 10 July 2015
       Climate denial linked to conspiratorial thinking in new study
       

       John Hartz

       Sorry forgot to add "At least I stayed the pace"

28496. ryland at 05:09 AM on 10 July 2015
       Climate denial linked to conspiratorial thinking in new study
       

       John Hartz @30 had you had the fortitude to scroll back through this veritable deluge of verbiage and that you didn't is hardly surprising, you'd have found my original comment at 9 was:

       Is this a new paper as your headline states or is it a revamp of the paper Recursive Fury that was withdrawn for ethical reasons from The Journal of Social and Political Psychology?

       Had I left out ethical I probably would have generated, possibly from you,  a single comment stating "It is an updated and extended version of the paper Recursive Fury"  and all would have been quiet and placid on this thread.  But then, its often more fun when its not.  

       Oh and Phillippe Chantreau had you read another thread, sorry but I can't remember which one, you'd have found a reference from me and another from  John Hartz both stating that the world has come to the conclusion there is plenty of fossil fuel to play with and intends to get on playing with it without delay. Fun?

28497. John Hartz at 05:07 AM on 10 July 2015
       Climate denial linked to conspiratorial thinking in new study
       

       @ryland #31: 

       You challenge more than just climate science on this website. I am very curious about what motivates you  to spend so much time posting comments on SkS. Is it your political ideology?

28498. ryland at 04:44 AM on 10 July 2015
       Climate denial linked to conspiratorial thinking in new study
       

       Phillippe Chantreau. My ramblings as you so scathingly call them arose because I was attacked from all sides regarding my initial post. In this post I asked if the paper Recurrent Fury was in fact a new paper as the headline stated or a revamped version of one retracted in 2013 by the Frontiers Journal. Foolishly I also said the Journal had retracted it for ethical reasons. This unleashed a torrent of comment pointing out how this was not true. Perhaps even more foolishly I responded to these comments in a vain attempt to show that in the final analysis the Journal did cite privacy of respondents as a reason for retracting the paper. As jeopardising privacy is a significant ethical concern in research publications of this nature this provided the Journal a very good reason/excuse for retraction.
       I may ramble but at least the ramblings are from a scientist with a PhD from the University of Western Australia who rose to become a Professor at Curtin University in Perth. I don't believe in conspiracy theories but neither am I entirely convinced that only by reducing CO2 levels will climate change be averted. There may be a 97% consensus of climate scientists that humans are responsible for climate change and certainly I consider that humans have contributed and do contribute to climate change but there are a lot of other scientists who are less convinced. I'm less convinced because the empirical evidence doesn't always entirely support all the contentions of the climate scientists. But Phillippe Chantreau I am certainly not a subscriber to conspiracy theories.

28499. John Hartz at 04:20 AM on 10 July 2015
       Climate denial linked to conspiratorial thinking in new study
       

       ryland #29: What was your objective in posting comments on this thread? 

       I ask because you have expended a lot of verbiage discussing a paper that you have no desire to read — just seems odd. 

28500. ryland at 03:48 AM on 10 July 2015
       Climate denial linked to conspiratorial thinking in new study
       

       KR It really doesn't matter what enquiries did or didn't say or what you or I think, the journal did pull the paper and one of the reasons it gave was " But we also must uphold the rights and privacy of the subjects included in a study or paper." That is clearly introducing ethical considerations into their decision. Why else, if it were not for the ethical aspect, would the journal belatedly bring in the issue of privacy? No matter if they were right or wrong that is their reason or excuse if you prefer, to pull the paper.
       As for an opinion, I haven't read the paper. In my original post I was asking the question if the paper was new as the headline said it was or was it a revamped version of a previous paper. From some of the comments given here, it is clear it isn't new but is an extended and improved version of the original. And yes, I did say "withdrawn for ethical reasons". Despite the welter of words this phrase has generated, no one has been able to convincingly explain why the journal suddenly introduced the aspect of the subjects privacy other than to use ethical considerations as a reason to retract the paper.

       
       Will I read the paper? Probably not. I'm not terribly interested in the psychology of those who deny or for that matter support, human impact on climate change. Psychologists might find it interesting but anyone capable of rational thought would clearly dismiss conspiracy theories as utter drivel whatever their views on the human impact on climate change. What does it add to the science of climate change or to the measures that need to be taken to mitigate it?

Prev  562  563  564  565  566  567  568  569  570  571  572  573  574  575  576  577  Next