Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 Next
Comments 31451 to 31500:
-
chriskoz at 17:30 PM on 4 February 2015Katharine Hayhoe's climate elevator pitch
What Katharine sais here is the indicative of a long-standing opinion by many attribution climate scientists that AGW is not an environmental problem but rather a social/ethical problem. I.e. the intergenerational ethics, uneven geographical distribution of causes (emissions) and effects (adverse weather), arguments about allowances, are all social/ethical root problems that have no solution whatsoever. The environmental problem of changing climate is just the effect that cannot be fixed until the roots are not fixed.
-
jyyh at 14:50 PM on 4 February 2015Republicans have one option to eliminate EPA carbon regulations
I've used the equation Republicans = Tea Party for quite a while. I've not seen anything to disprove the fact.
-
jyyh at 14:45 PM on 4 February 2015The Most Terrifying Papers I Read Last Year
yep, that's the one. It's been projected that the Arctic warms way faster than the rest of the globe. Greenland partially melts which raises the sea level which twists the West Antarctic Ice Sheet which cracks the buffer keeping the Antarctic glaciers from melting. Thus they melt and thus the sea level rises to the level where many current ports become inoperable thus the commerce stops thus follows the economic meltdown thus the world ends.
I really should stop writing in hangover.
-
jyyh at 14:39 PM on 4 February 2015Water is far more valuable and useful than oil
no worries, we can melt the glaciers and ice sheets to get more water... maybe I should disband myself of writing in hangover.
-
jyyh at 14:36 PM on 4 February 2015New research reveals extreme oxygen loss in oceans during past climate change
Wow, an important piece of research. Kind of cool we can get these records from the layers in the bottom of the ocean. I would have imagined there wouldn't be such an oxygen loss. Sure teh animals on land can move faster than plants so some oxygen loss (thus increase in CO2) would have happened when external drivers (sun and eccentricity whatnot) warm up the continents but also in the ocean? Nice to know but the reasons are not too clear here, small scale methane bursts on continental shelves using up the oxygen? This would of course not be seen on the ice core record since the methane wouldn't make it to the atmosphere.
-
jyyh at 14:24 PM on 4 February 2015Kevin Cowtan Debunks Christopher Booker's Temperature Conspiracy Theory
Telegraph. Not the first time they are in error. Might call them opinionated and incapable of learning of their errors. Some call this 'news'paper 'the torygraph', which quite well fits in my view these sorts of extreme rightwing 'newspapers' are nothing more than public, but encoded, message boards for their readership consisting of torys, the meaning of which derives from the Middle Irish word tóraidhe; modern Irish tóraí: outlaw, robber or brigand.
-
jyyh at 14:01 PM on 4 February 2015Cowtan and Way 2014: Hottest or not?
cool, I think most people connect the word 'hot' with something that burns their skin in the childhood or some similar incident. Psychologically, it's then a question of discomfort. Discomfort in a hot car is one very commonly met occasion in the developed world, thus saying 'hottest year' connects to these uneasy feelings. Technically, we could say this was the 1st to 2nd least cold year, as the GW expresses itself better by raising the minimums first, but that would lead to a false sense of security since 'hot' is an expression associated with discomfort. 'Too hot' in turn associates with damage and is more a class of it's own. Thus speaking of 'too hot' or years should be reserved to discussions about agriculture, or health. Interesting. The year 2014 wasn't too hot but it was one of the least cold years, at least in here. Thanks Kevin C for keeping this record up to date.
-
Tom Curtis at 13:23 PM on 4 February 2015How we discovered the 97% scientific consensus on man-made global warming
Stranger @20, searching The Consensus Project database, I find just two papers with Willi Soon as a coauthor. The first, on polar bears, was rated neutral because it does not include any discussion in the abstract germain to the attribution of recent global warming. The abstract of the second reads as follows:
"The authors investigate how the global monsoon (GM) precipitation responds to the external and anthropogenic forcing in the last millennium by analyzing a pair of control and forced millennium simulations with the ECHAM and the global Hamburg Ocean Primitive Equation (ECHO-G) coupled ocean–atmosphere model. The forced run, which includes the solar, volcanic, and greenhouse gas forcing, captures the major modes of precipitation climatology comparably well when contrasted with those captured by the NCEP reanalysis. The strength of the modeled GM precipitation in the forced run exhibits a significant quasi-bicentennial oscillation. Over the past 1000 yr, the simulated GM precipitation was weak during the Little Ice Age (1450–1850) with the three weakest periods occurring around 1460, 1685, and 1800, which fell in, respectively, the Spörer Minimum, Maunder Minimum, and Dalton Minimum periods of solar activity. Conversely, strong GM was simulated during the model Medieval Warm Period (ca. 1030–1240). Before the industrial period, the natural variations in the total amount of effective solar radiative forcing reinforce the thermal contrasts both between the ocean and continent and between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres resulting in the millennium-scale variation and the quasi-bicentennial oscillation in the GM index. The prominent upward trend in the GM precipitation occurring in the last century and the notable strengthening of the global monsoon in the last 30 yr (1961–90) appear unprecedented and are due possibly in part to the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, though the authors’ simulations of the effects from recent warming may be overestimated without considering the negative feedbacks from aerosols. The simulated change of GM in the last 30 yr has a spatial pattern that differs from that during the Medieval Warm Period, suggesting that global warming that arises from the increases of greenhouse gases and the input solar forcing may have different effects on the characteristics of GM precipitation. It is further noted that GM strength has good relational coherence with the temperature difference between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and that on centennial time scales the GM strength responds more directly"
The first thing you will notice is that it says nothing to dismiss the attribution of at least 50% of recent global warming to anthropogenic factors. On the contrary, it several times mentions CO2 forcing (an anthropogenic factor) as a relevant forcing, and as a cause of recent warming. Specifically, it is stated:
"The simulated change of GM in the last 30 yr has a spatial pattern that differs from that during the Medieval Warm Period, suggesting that global warming that arises from the increases of greenhouse gases and the input solar forcing may have different effects on the characteristics of GM precipitation"
Given reasonable background information about the relative strengths of anthropogenic and solar forcing, that represents an implicit endorsement that >50% of recent warming was anthropogenic. However, we don't need to dig that far in. The paper uses climate models which are known, given historical forcings, to show humans as responsible >50% of recent warming. Absent an explicit disclaimer indicating that the authors are not using standard historical forcings, that again respresents an implicit endorsement. The paper was in fact rated as Explicitly endorsing but not quantifying, ie, a 2, and that is arguably a mistake. (I would rate it as 3, implicitly endorsing.) It is, however, a mistake that makes zero difference to the headline result of Cook et al.
Now it is possible that Soon and his coauthors did clearly indicate the use of radically a-historical forcings in the depths of the paper. The raters did not get to see the depths of the paper, however. They rated on the abstract and therefore a rating justified by the abstract, though contradicted within the paper merely shows that abstracts often poorly communicate the contents of papers, not that the raters made a mistake. Further, raters clearly rated abstracts, not authors. If Willi Soon is really saying that he (rather than an abstract of one of his papers) was rated as endorsing the consensus, then he either completely misunderstands the study he is criticizing (nothing new there) or completely misrepresents it.
Turning to Craig Idso, he also has to papers rated, one of which was rated as neutral. The second, which was rated as implicitly endorsing the consensus, had the following abstract:
"Since the early 1960s, the declining phase of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle has advanced by approximately 7 days in northern temperate latitudes, possibly as a result of increasing temperatures that may be advancing the time of occurrence of what may be called ‘climatological spring.’ However, just as several different phenomena are thought to have been responsible for the concomitant increase in the amplitude of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 oscillation, so too may other factors have played a role in bringing about the increasingly earlier spring drawdown of CO2 that has resulted in the advancement of the declining phase of the air’s CO2 cycle. One of these factors may be the ongoing rise in the CO2 content of the air itself; for the aerial fertilization effect of this phenomenon may be significantly enhancing the growth of each new season’s initial flush of vegetation, which would tend to stimulate the early drawdown of atmospheric CO2 and thereby advance the time of occurrence of what could be called ‘biological spring.’ Working with sour orange (Citrus aurantium L.) trees that have been growing out-of-doors in open-top chambers for over 10 years in air of either 400 or 700 ppm CO2, this hypothesis was investigated by periodically measuring the lengths, dry weights and leaf chlorophyll concentrations of new branches that emerged from the trees at the start of the 1998 growing season. The data demonstrate that the hypothesis is viable, and that it might possibly account for 2 of the 7 days by which the spring drawdown of the air’s CO2 concentration has advanced over the past few decades."
Cutting to the chase, the authors are suggesting an alternative explanation to the fact that spring is coming earlier than it did in the past. The standard explanation is that it is warmer earlier. Craig Idso's alternative explanation in terms of the CO2 fertilization effect is found to be a viable hypothesis, that "... might possibly account for 2 of the 7 days by which the spring drawdown of the air’s CO2 concentration has advanced over the past few decades." The might, possibly indicates not only uncertainty, but the upper range of the potential effect. That is, it might account for 28.6% of the botanical effect of an early spring (and zero of the effect on animals). That leaves around 70% still attributable to the traditional explanation, ie, the increased warmth.
To my mind, that is not enough to rate the paper as implicitly endorsing the consensus; though only because the consensus is implicitly defined as relating to attribution on which the abstract says nothing. Therefore this is a case of an abstract that was rated (3), but should have been rated, IMO, (4).
Note again that the ratings are not rating authors, and not rating papers. However, Cook et al did include a rating of papers by the authors. Comparison between it and the abstract ratings showed that by far the most common "error" was rating papers that endorsed the consensus as not endorsing the consensus. Again, if Craig Idso understood Cook et al, he would know that to be the case. He would know that pointing out one or two potential errors without pointing to the overall error statistics as shown be comparison of the abstract and author self ratings is a blatant cherry pick. Indeed, that is probably why he claims the error, but does not draw attention to the results of the author self ratings.
-
How we discovered the 97% scientific consensus on man-made global warming
Stranger: If you look at the rated abstracts, and search on "Soon" and "Idso", you will see that of the sampled abstracts Soon's (2 abstracts) were rated 3 (implicit endorsement) and 4 (neutral) respectively, while Craig Idso's abstracts (I found 2) also were rated 3 and 4.
This was a sampling protocol - not an exhaustive search of every paper published - but of the particular Soon and Idso fish/papers in the net the rankings were neutral or higher in endorsement of AGW.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 12:03 PM on 4 February 2015How we discovered the 97% scientific consensus on man-made global warming
Stranger... In terms of the big picture, that hardly matters. Cook et al took the extra step of allowing researchers to self-rate their papers, and the results were nearly identical to the SkS raters' results.
If Soon and Idso self-rated their papers, then their ratings were recorded there.
-
Stranger8170 at 11:21 AM on 4 February 2015How we discovered the 97% scientific consensus on man-made global warming
I’ve been having an exchange over the Cook et al paper and would like some information concerning Willie Soon and also Craig D. Idso’s claim that they were mischaracterized in the survey as being neutral instead of showing that they were in opposition. I’ve looked for a response to the claim but I’ve been unable to find it. Can someone steer me to an explanation?
-
Dcrickett at 07:37 AM on 4 February 2015Republicans have one option to eliminate EPA carbon regulations
The Carbon Tax, fully Pigovian, is as compatible with conservative economic viewpoints as one can find. Its regressive nature can be eliminated by returning it to Americans on a "count-the-noses" basis, which makes it compatible with liberal economic viewpoints.
The only reason so many politicians oppose it is that they are in the pay (who cares what be the medium of payment) is that the payors do not want anything to interfere with their profits from fossil fuels. "Follow the money." Cui bono.
-
John Hartz at 07:08 AM on 4 February 2015Water is far more valuable and useful than oil
Recommended supplemental reading:
National Geographic takes a look at four arid regions looking to renewables for the energy-intensive work of squeezing drinkable water from the ocean in...
Can Sun and Wind Make More Salt Water Drinkable? by Marianne Lavelle,
National Geographic, Feb 2, 2015 -
knaugle at 04:43 AM on 4 February 2015Republicans have one option to eliminate EPA carbon regulations
Check out:
for a very similar story that goes beyond TEA party simple opposition to climate science, but shows opposition to mainstream science on nearly every hot button science issue.
Moderator Response:[JH] Link activated.
-
PhilippeChantreau at 04:22 AM on 4 February 2015Climate researcher Bart Strengers wins wager with climate sceptic Hans Labohm
Tony, I don't totally agree. Once again, the statement only pertains to the probability of either very high or very low sensitivity. Technically, what you say is true: Because that probability is greater for very high, there is indeed greater chance that the real sensitivity could end up very high than very low. However, I think that calling that "underestimate" is a little misleading. It would be more accurate to say that, if senstivity is much more than predicted, it is more likely to be higher than predicted instead of lower. A little long and convoluted but more in line with the original statement.
-
CBDunkerson at 02:07 AM on 4 February 2015Water is far more valuable and useful than oil
The article suggests that we will need to improve our 'water use efficiency' in the future. That is obviously the preferred course and would be very beneficial even ignoring climate change. However, I suspect we may go another route entirely... desalination. There is a ridiculous over-abundance of water on this planet, even considering our wasteful means of using it. The problem is just that most of it is 'salt water' in the oceans rather than the 'fresh' water we use for most applications. There has been a lot of research into more and more 'efficient' ways to desalinate ocean water. Logistically, it may be 'easier' (read, 'less expensive') to continue using water in all the wasteful ways we do currently and use desalination to make sure that enough is available than it would be to find and implement efficiency improvements separately for each of the thousands of ways we currently use water.
Clearly we are going to need to make changes for our water usage to remain 'sustainable' in the future, but increasing usage efficiency is not the only solution. Though it is the better one.
-
Tristan at 00:36 AM on 4 February 2015Global warming not slowing - it's speeding up
I know the Sks energy widget uses Hiroshima bombs, and has also used kitten sneezes(I think?), but one of the "skeptics" sarcastically suggested that it count the number of T-Rex bites, which is a pretty sweet idea.
-
TonyW at 16:51 PM on 3 February 2015Climate researcher Bart Strengers wins wager with climate sceptic Hans Labohm
Oops. I wish there was editing on these posts. Of course, the last piece of the last sentence of my last comment should read "with an average of 0.15 (1.5/10)".
Hits forehead with hand, and wishes he's prood-read the comment before posting. especially as "Combinine" should have been "Combining". Oh well.
-
TonyW at 16:46 PM on 3 February 2015Climate researcher Bart Strengers wins wager with climate sceptic Hans Labohm
Just to try another stab at what Phillippe wrote, in response to Paul W. I think another way of paraphrasing the first quote that Paul disgrees with is, "Regarding the estimate of climate sensitivity, it is less likely to be an overestimate of the real sensitivity than it is to be an underestimate of the real sensitivity". Or, to put it another way, "the real sensitivity is more likely to be higher than the estimate than to be lower than the estimate".
Wili, yes, that sounds counter intuitive but consider that the average temp increase over the last 5 years was 0.1C. That's the same as 0.1C of warming (above the 2000-2009 decadal average) every year of the first 5 years of this decade. I suppose the trend continuing would be a further 0.1C of warming, on average, over the next 5 years which would be the equivalent of having each of those years being 0.2C warmer than the average temp of the last decade. Combinine those hypothesised next 5 years, with the last five years (5*0.1 + 5*0.2 = 1.5) and you end up with an average of 0.5 (1.5/10).
-
Zeke Hausfather at 16:43 PM on 3 February 2015Cowtan and Way 2014: Hottest or not?
Kevin and Victor,
Robert Rohde published a white paper two years back doing something similar, sampling CMIP5 outputs at station locations and seeing how well different approaches do at reconstructing the correct field.
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/memos/robert-rohde-memo.pdf
Moderator Response:[RH] Hotlinked URL.
-
ryland at 16:29 PM on 3 February 2015Cowtan and Way 2014: Hottest or not?
Kevin C thanks for your considered reply. I think your comment "Of course by creating a new version of the temperature record we have made things worse by increasing the scope for disagreement." does you a disservice. Not at all. As you say in the next sentence "I hope it will be offset in the long term by the biases being addressed. And projects like ISTI and UKMO's EUSTACE are doing exactly that." Exactly.
-
Tom Harris at 15:26 PM on 3 February 2015Tom Harris' Carleton University Climate Misinformation Class
Most of the attacks against the course were not worthy of anything more than laughter. The video has a fair number of hits (2410). Will you help it "become widely known?" Hope so.
Here is is agin:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zeb5XWjSKlA
Moderator Response:[PS] Then perhaps you would care to supply some actual substance with references as to why you think the attacks were laughable. This site is to discuss science. Participation depends on adherence to the comments policy.
-
citizenschallenge at 15:06 PM on 3 February 2015New research reveals extreme oxygen loss in oceans during past climate change
Good article. It reminded me of very interesting video on YouTube posted Apr 7, 2013 "Crude - The Incredible Journey Of Oil." At about an hour into the 90 minute program it discusses past periods of low oxygen ocean, high atomospheric CO2 and how that ties into oil formation. Quite an interesting show. Quite an amazing planet we are part of:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e44ydPIQGSc&t=59m00s
How sad that so few appreciate it and want to learn about it. :- (
-
Tom Curtis at 13:54 PM on 3 February 2015Tom Harris' Carleton University Climate Misinformation Class
Tom Harris, your "case closed" video again fails completely to show any case of mistaken argument by your accusers. Rather, you resort yet again to the ad hominen argument that because your accusers are biologists, ergo they must be wrong. This in a news report that talks of "the gospel of global warming", which repeatedly shows banners of "Green & Mean", "Enviro-fanatic crusade", and "Greenie Smear Job". You are not responsible for the actions of the news program. However, that you draw attention to the video rather than apologize for involvement in a program which is clearly a tawdry smear job, rife with misrepresentations and logical errors is damning to your case. That your involvement consists merely in attempts to laugh of the accusations, and to damn by argumentum ad hominen suggests that (as above) you have nothing substantial to say in your defense.
Perhaps it is case closed afterall, for it is hard to see either your case or your reputation recovering should that video become widely known.
-
Tom Harris at 13:18 PM on 3 February 2015Tom Harris' Carleton University Climate Misinformation Class
I think the best way to understand how ridiculous and dishonest the attack on my Carleton course above is is to watch my TV interview on the topic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zeb5XWjSKlA
Case closed.
-
Kevin C at 10:19 AM on 3 February 2015Cowtan and Way 2014: Hottest or not?
Victor: Emma Dodd's paper does exactly that: Start from a reanalysis and create a list of pseudo-stations using the coordinates of the desired stations. Create a synthetic temperature record for each pseudo-station from the reanalysis data at that coordinate. Then do a temperature reconstruction from the pseudo-stations, and compare with the known global temperature field.
We do something similar (following Hadley) to get our uncertainties - the difference being that it is grid based rather than station based. It would be easy to answer the question 'how would the results improve if we had a station in this cell'? That's one possible approach to investigating the difference with Berkeley in Antarctica.
-
VictorVenema at 10:06 AM on 3 February 2015Cowtan and Way 2014: Hottest or not?
Would it be possible to study with this dataset how much more accurate estimates of the global mean temperature would become with N additional stations in the Arctic, Antarctic and Africa? It would be nice to be able to put a price tag on better estimates that way.
-
Kevin C at 09:59 AM on 3 February 2015Cowtan and Way 2014: Hottest or not?
Ryland: Exactly. The public discourse is focussed on meaningless metrics which they demand scientists produce and discuss as if they are meaningful. Which puts scientists in an impossible position. Either we talk about what society wants us to talk about, which is a betrayal of the science, or we talk about the science, in which case the public draw the wrong conclusion based on the metric they are wrongly fixated on, i.e. we betray the public.
The major motivation behind our work was the fact that a big chunk; likely the majority of the difference between the major records is probably bias (which can be fixed) rather than uncertainty (which can't). And the differences are being used to promote confusion, like this:
- If 2005 wasn't hotter than 1998 in every version of the record, it wasn't the hottest year.
- If 2010 wasn't hotter than 2005 in every version of the record, it wasn't the hottest year.
- If 2014 wasn't hotter than 2010 in every version of the record, it wasn't the hottest year.
- If none of 2005, 2010 and 2014 were the hottest year, then it hasn't warmed since 1998.
Now no rational person would make the argument in that form. But our cognitive biases enable us to make precisely this kind of argument to ourselves without thinking about it, and we do it all the time on all sorts of issues.
Of course by creating a new version of the temperature record we have made things worse by increasing the scope for disagreement. That was a known risk, but I hope it will be offset in the long term by the biases being addressed. And projects like ISTI and UKMO's EUSTACE are doing exactly that.
-
ryland at 09:26 AM on 3 February 2015Cowtan and Way 2014: Hottest or not?
In the January 17th post by Dana stating 2014 was the hottest year on record I commented that the UK Met Office said it wasn't possible to categorically make this assertion. This lead to some interesting discussions but it does seem from this study that stating 2014 is the hottest year ever may be premature. The comment by Kevin C "Whether 2014 was hottest or not doesn’t really change our understanding of the science, but the media coverage should make it very clear that it is important for social reasons" is somewhat disconcerting.
-
Kevin C at 08:25 AM on 3 February 2015Cowtan and Way 2014: Hottest or not?
JCH: ERA and MERRA show February as cold too, so I think it was genuine and global. Outlier months like that appear at other points in the record.
Micheal: Thanks!
-
JCH at 06:57 AM on 3 February 2015Cowtan and Way 2014: Hottest or not?
This is probably obvious to everybody but me, but February is the lowest month of 2014. The news in February was full of stories about the polar vortex. I was expecting Cowtan and Way to take a smaller February dip than it did. A bunch of arctic air, air that was up there in January, left the arctic and swept south, making Feruary very cold versus the rest of the year. What replaced that polar vortex arctic air, and how did it get so much colder than the arctic was in January?
-
michael sweet at 05:56 AM on 3 February 2015Cowtan and Way 2014: Hottest or not?
Kevin C.
Your posts are always easy to read and informative. They help the rest of us keep up to date on what is known about the temperature record. Thank you for posting again.
-
scaddenp at 05:36 AM on 3 February 2015Cowtan and Way 2014: Hottest or not?
This is about the surface temperature reconstructions and the reasons for the differences. RSS and UAH are measurements of tropospheric temperature. While surface and lower troposphere (lower 3000-4000m of atmosphere) have very similar trends, the satellite measurements react more extremely to ENSO (hotter in El Nino than surface record and colder in La Nina).
-
knaugle at 04:49 AM on 3 February 2015Cowtan and Way 2014: Hottest or not?
It would have been informative to include RSS in the table as well.
Or perhaps a disclaimer that this is not a "temperature provider"? -
One Planet Only Forever at 14:57 PM on 2 February 2015Water is far more valuable and useful than oil
Treesong2,
Though the article did not clearly explain the many ways that the economic activities related to the burning of oil are threatening water supplies, those activities are well understood to be threats to clean water supply.
Another point is that climate change projections have indicated that 'regional' access to clean water will be dramatically reduced by climate changes. These regional changes of access would require global open borders to ensure everyone can go wherever they need to get what they need. But even then there would be significant effort related to the relocations. And the relocations may need to be made many times as the regional climates go through stages of change.
Saying there will still be water somewhere on the planet fails as a defense of the damaging and unsustainable burning of oil.
The article's assertion, as I see it, that 'the unsustainable attempts to benefit from burning non-renewable buried hydrocarbons are less valuable than the human need for clean water in the regions humans live' still seems to stand in spite of your suggestions so far.
-
PhilippeChantreau at 10:15 AM on 2 February 2015Climate researcher Bart Strengers wins wager with climate sceptic Hans Labohm
Paul W, the text you quoted does not support the statement that you prefer. One way to paraphrase that text would be to say: the probability that sensitivity will be very low is extremely small whereas that of being very high is very small; both "very" and "extremely" are clearly quantified.
This is quite a different statement than saying that there is higher probablility for the range of sensitivity currently considered most likely to be either higher or lower than real. In fact, it is different enough that nothing from the text you quote can translate into such a statement. That would be a different problem entirely. It just says that the chances of sensitivity to be very low is less than to be very high. Nothing else can honestly be extracted from these words.
-
Paul W at 09:44 AM on 2 February 2015Climate researcher Bart Strengers wins wager with climate sceptic Hans Labohm
I agree with the article but I think the heading
"The chances of overestimating climate sensitivity are smaller than those of underestimation"
should read
The chances of underestimating climate sensitivity are smaller than those of overestimation.
The body of the text gets it right with"It subsequently states that it is extremely unlikely (less than 5% probability) to be smaller than 1, and very unlikely (less than 10% probability) to be higher than 6. In other words, very low values are less likely than very high values, which substantiates the above statement."
Personally I wish the worlds governments were habitually over estimating the climate sensitivity like every good "conservative" should be doing!
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:44 AM on 2 February 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #5C
Unfortunately the reluctance to accept the importance of significant action towards the changes of the way the most fortunate enjoy their life is very popular and powerful among those who are the problem.
The successful denial that their overconsuming enjoyment and pursuits are a problem is the real problem. The popularity of that attitude fuels the profitability of activity that is clearly understood to be unaccepable.
Through the past 25 years, the combined power of the profitability and popularity of a lack of concern for the future has created the horrible present day situation. As mentioned, there now is little chance of avoiding significant future consequences. And there is significant resistance among the real trouble makers to any action that would be a 'sacrifice to their potential to personally benefit more just for the potential benefit of others, no matter how minor their sacrifice is compared to the magnitude of trouble others would face if the sacrifice was not made'.
The ability of people to personally succeed through activity that clearly has no long term future, and actually adds to the future challenges to be overcome by others, distracts effort from the important essential tasks that need to be focused on.
It is clear that the socio-economic-political system has never been very good at developing toward a sustainable better futre for all. It actually has no interest in that type of development. It even motivates people to try to get as much wealth and power no matter how unacceptable their means are, because there is ample evidence that unacceptable activity can be gotten away with.
That is the barrier to the amount and type of research and development that is required.
-
DSL at 08:43 AM on 2 February 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #5B
Moderator, I was hoping to drag it back to climate science. JWRebel seems anxious not to connect what he's trying to get out with climate science.
Out with it, JW! You're not saying anything! You claimed I didn't understand what you were saying, and then you explained exactly what I said, but failed to apply it to the issue at hand (climate). Insinuation is fine if no one wants to go anywhere. We can insinuate all day.
Moderator Response:[PS] Unless someone has something of serious substance to contribute, I would say drop it.
-
MA Rodger at 06:01 AM on 2 February 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #5B
JWRebel @1&3&5.
Give us a break.
First. Nobody here is saying AGW is a philosophical "fact". And 'in fact' it is not even being presented here as some form of scientific fact. Rather it is to be taught "as a fact" and is also being described by the National Academies of Science as "settled facts", the latter because the science has presently run its course.
Second, "fact" is generally what people accept to be true. @1, you strongly suggest that you accept AGW as true, as 'being fact.' So why all the philosophy? You don't even present your philosophy convincingly!
Thirdly, it is always better to use Pythagoras's Theorem not Euclid's for such an example. Not only can Pythagoras be proven mathematically, importantly, it can be proven very simply on the back of an envelope. So, bar space not being flat, Pythagoras's Theorem is evidently more than mere "theory" . And for good measure, its discovery has zip to do with Pythagoras.
Fourthly, that some mathematical construct is provable but is still call a theorem has zip to do with what you are trying to argue.
Moderator Response:[PS] Please note "no dogpiling" from the comments policy. I think this discussion is in danger of descending into semantics and philosophy with little to do with climate science. Please desist.
-
Treesong2 at 05:52 AM on 2 February 2015Water is far more valuable and useful than oil
OPOF, I agree with denisaf. Water is a renewable resource, though usable supplies can be reduced by contamination. If I flush my toilet thirty times a day, that will not reduce the amount of water available here by Lake Erie twenty or a hundred years from now, except possibly as a result of climate change because of extra energy used to pump the water up to provide water pressure.
Water shortages are local problems, due to climate, overpopulation, or contamination. Saving water in one place does not help shortages elsewhere, except maybe downstream. The real problem with wasting water is the concomitant waste of energy, and I don't think the article makes that connection clear enough.
-
Daniel Bailey at 05:42 AM on 2 February 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #5B
JWRebel smears the difference between a scientific hypothesis and a scientific theory.
Occasionally, scientific ideas (such as biological evolution) are written off with the putdown "it's just a theory." This slur is misleading and conflates two separate meanings of the word theory: in common usage, the word theory means just a hunch, but in science, a theory is a powerful explanation for a broad set of observations. To be accepted by the scientific community, a theory (in the scientific sense of the word) must be strongly supported by many different lines of evidence. So biological evolution is a theory (it is a well-supported, widely accepted, and powerful explanation for the diversity of life on Earth), but it is not "just" a theory.
Words with both technical and everyday meanings often cause confusion. Even scientists sometimes use the word theory when they really mean hypothesis or even just a hunch. Many technical fields have similar vocabulary problems — for example, both the terms work in physics and ego in psychology have specific meanings in their technical fields that differ from their common uses. However, context and a little background knowledge are usually sufficient to figure out which meaning is intended.
Below is a generalized sequence of steps taken to establish a scientific theory:
1. Choose and define the natural phenomenon that you want to figure out and explain.
2. Collect information (data) about this phenomena by going where the phenomena occur and making observations. Or, try to replicate this phenomena by means of a test (experiment) under controlled conditions (usually in a laboratory) that eliminates interference's from environmental conditions.
3. After collecting a lot of data, look for patterns in the data. Attempt to explain these patterns by making a provisional explanation, called a hypothesis.
4. Test the hypothesis by collecting more data to see if the hypothesis continues to show the assumed pattern. If the data does not support the hypothesis, it must be changed, or rejected in favor of a better one. In collecting data, one must NOT ignore data that contradicts the hypothesis in favor of only supportive data. (That is called "cherry-picking" and is commonly used by pseudo-scientists attempting to scam people unfamiliar with the scientific method. A good example of this fraud is shown by the so-called "creationists," who start out with a pre-conceived conclusion - a geologically young, 6,000 year old earth, and then cherry-pick only evidence that supports their views, while ignoring or rejecting overwhelming evidence of a much older earth.)
5. If a refined hypothesis survives all attacks on it and is the best existing explanation for a particular phenomenon, it is then elevated to the status of a theory.
6. A theory is subject to modification and even rejection if there is overwhelming evidence that disproves it and/or supports another, better theory. Therefore, a theory is not an eternal or perpetual truth.For a good discussion of science terminology (especially for the "Evidence, not Proof" bit), see here.
-
JWRebel at 04:45 AM on 2 February 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #5B
You are right DSL — you are not sure what my point is: it has nothing to do with certainty. Surely you don't think that I have doubt's about Euclid's theorem. Still we do not call it a fact. Because, as I stated already, theories are a different kind of thing: they require thought (about cause and effect).
Let me give you two facts: Eddy was hit by the bus. Eddy died shortly thereafter. A convincing theory would be that the bus killed Eddy. But it is not a fact that the bus killed Eddy. Maybe he threw himself in front of the bus and killed himself. Maybe the bus driver hit him on purpose and it was the bus driver that killed him. Maybe he survived the bus accident but was hit by lightning right after. Note that the theory could be a convincing explanation even if I told you that I made up the facts.
And that is why AGW is a theory. If you knew everything about temperatures and CO2 and CH4 in the air, but nothing about burning fossil fuels, you could even have more or better facts than we do have, but you would not have a theory. Theories can be tested, but facts can at most be verified.
Moderator Response:[JH] You have made your point more than once. Please note that excessive reptition is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:06 AM on 2 February 2015Water is far more valuable and useful than oil
denisaf,
Oil is not being carefully and exclusively used to advance to a sustainable better future for all. And the 'frivolous' pursuit of benefit from oil threatens water quality and the reliability of water supply. That is the crux of the issue. So your comparison in the context of this article is not really relevant.
-
jenna at 01:09 AM on 2 February 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #5C
Really enjoyed Dave Robert's article, and also Revkin's support of Dave's views on this. I was sad to see Joe Romm attacking their pragmatic approach :( We need some serious planning to actually move forward on this issue, as opposed to Romm's 'Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead' attitude. We also need to present a unified front on Climate issues in general, this kind of infighting is well noted (and laughed at) by the 'opposition', if you get my meaning.
Jen.
Moderator Response:[JH] Thank you for the positive feedback.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 17:22 PM on 1 February 2015The Most Terrifying Papers I Read Last Year
Chris G
From the paper "in substantial areas of the global breadbaskets, >60% of the yield variability can be explained by climate variability". Yikes!!!
jja
"The food insecurity issue is not as significant as the related political unrest...."
Not yet, Perhaps say it is currently a 'fear of food insecurity' issue at present. But a few decades from now actual food insecurity may come to dominate. Then all bets are off, the world starts to go ape!
-
denisaf at 13:04 PM on 1 February 2015Water is far more valuable and useful than oil
Water recycles naturally, oil does not. Water is very valuable and will remain very valuable in the difficult times ahead. Oil temporarily plays a major role in the operation of technological systems. The artcle is comparing apples to oranges so spoils the valuable message on water.
-
DSL at 11:51 AM on 1 February 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #5B
I'm not sure what your point is, JWRebel. Is it simply that you object to the theory being called a fact? Or is it that you don't think that the theory has been amply demonstrated in, for example, direct surface-based measurements of the greenhouse effect, e.g. Puckrin et al. 2004 — amply demonstrated to the extent that A) no one--even a very large percentage of "skeptics"--thinks more evidence is required, and B) a number of successful products rely on the existence of the effect to operate correctly?
If the first, yah, ok. Absolute language. Probably a bad idea where science is concerned. Even what you describe as "facts" aren't really absolutely and universally known. The general public (that part that doesn't really get science), of course, wants absolute certainty. So how should the science be communicated? With uncertainty--ala the IPCC--or representative of the level of certainty that has become actionable in the minds of those who do understand the science (in other words, "we're certain enough that we demand action"?
-
JWRebel at 10:07 AM on 1 February 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #5B
You're kind of missing my point: Euclid's theorem is not less true or certain because it is called a theorem. It is a different kind of a thing than a fact. Climate change is not a theory because of some degree of uncertainty, but because you cannot discover anthropogenic global warming somewhere except in a book or human discourse. A single fact is rarely very remarkable outside the context of a theory that it supports or falsifies. A theory is a whole more than a fact. A theory can even be very convincing despite uncertainties about many of the facts involved, as if often true of court cases. Scientific theories are often about relationships of cause and effect. Sometimes it can take a long time and a lot of ingenuity before you discover cause and effect, even if all the facts are already present at hand. You cannot state: here we have a weight, there we have a number of sightings, here are some temperatures, there some distances, oh, and then we tripped over a bunch of causes while crossing the gully.
-
Daniel Bailey at 08:14 AM on 1 February 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #5B
Anthropogenic climate change (ACC)/anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a robust theory, referred to as "settled fact" by scientists.
Per the National Academies of Science, science advisors to Congress and the Office of the Presidency since Lincoln, in their 2010 publication Advancing The Science Of Climate Change (p. 22):
"Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small.
Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts.
This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities."
And note that the above National Academies paper is available for free download after a free registration. No purchase necessary. And the quote is from page 22.
Prev 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 Next
