Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 Next
Comments 34151 to 34200:
-
Dikran Marsupial at 03:13 AM on 5 September 2014Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
I think we need to avoid dogpiling here. Jmath's attitude to the correctness of the science will be evident in his response to my question on the first of the issues he raised. We shouldn't expect him to be able to answer it immediately, so lets give him time to perform some background reading.
Jmath, this advice is genuinely well intentioned: You are much more likely to get a hostile response to the issues you raise if you present them in an arrogant and hostile manner. If you think an article is wrong, it could be that this is because you don't understand it rather than because it actully is wrong. If you point out non-existent errors with hubris, you will make yourself look silly. If you ask questions, or ask for explanations, you will make yourself look like a true skeptic and student of science.
-
Doug Bostrom at 02:59 AM on 5 September 2014Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
Jmath's rich inventory of superficially impressive but fundamentally vacuous talking points as well as prickly presentation ("hubris, "third grade" etc.) suggest it's highly unlikely any useful communication will flow in that direction because jmath's dominant subtext here isn't about science but policy implications.
That said and imagining for a moment that jmath were actually here to seek information through dialogue, Rob's basic point is worth repeating:
"I don't understand it" does not equate to "it's wrong."
Regardless of one's willingness to accept what science tells us is happening to Earth systems thanks to CO2, ignorance isn't a substitute for understanding. Stop being ignorant and see where that choice leads.
It shouldn't be necessary to point out such an obvious thing; most of us have struggled in one course or another in school and have probably rarely or never confronted an instructor with news such as "your linear algebra is wrong because I don't understand it." More typically one would seek more information and more skill so as to surmount difficulty and frustration. That of course won't necessarily pertain if passing the course isn't the primary objective.
-
DSL at 01:47 AM on 5 September 2014Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
jmath, I'll emphasize what Dikran and Rob have said, and I'll add that there's a document that summarizes climate science. It directly references 20,000+ publications, and those directly reference tens of thousands more. It's a well-ordered document, and it was written by ~850 unpaid experts who publish regularly in their respective sub-fields. It was peer-reviewed by several thousands, and the review resulted in 150,000+ comments. You can find this unprecedented "state of the science" document right here.
If you want a historical look at how the science has developed over the last 150 years, you should read Spencer Weart's The Discovery of Global Warming in hypertext at the American Institute of Physics website.
Beyond that, could you provide evidence for this: "The point you make that CO2 contributes heat is fine (with my caveats) but to go beyond that and ascribe it as the sole reason for temperature variation is reaching and weak"?
-
Rob Honeycutt at 01:33 AM on 5 September 2014Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
jmath... [sigh] It's amazing to me how many times all these issues have to be explained and repeated. If you'll take some time to read through the other materials on this website, you'll actually find answers to everything you've mentioned here.
More interesting to me is your approach. You seem to think you're being "skeptical" of the science, but it's clear that's not the case. You've certaintly identified several areas of climate science which you don't yet understand, and that's good. But what you immediately do is jump to the conclusion that the entire field of research is somehow mistaken and you can somehow, even though you have very limited understanding of the research, see the truth for what it is.
You need to start thinking of those "gaps" in the science as being your shortcoming, and not that of the researchers. There are many 10's of thousands of research papers out there on the subject of climate change. My suggestion is, if you're genuinely interested in understanding the answers to the questions you raise, go read the research. You don't even need to rely on SkS to deliver it to you. Go to google scholar and start searching the published materials on what you don't yet understand.
Get a few hundred of those papers under your belt, then come back and you can discuss these issues a little more intelligently.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 01:30 AM on 5 September 2014Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
jmath, lets start with the first issue. Water vapour is not a long lived GHG, the amount of water vapour the atmosphere contains depends on temperature (the Clausius–Clapeyron relation). Thus while water vapour may accont for X% of the pre-industrial greenhouse effect, that doesn't mean it accounts for the same percentage of the enhanced greenhouse effect that gives rise to the recent increases in temperature. Thus it seems to me to be correct not to give it a great deal of a mention in a discussion of global warming (i.e. the increase over pre-industrial temperatures).
Now anthropogenic emissions of long-lived GHGs can be expected to result in warming, which will in turn support higher concentrations of water vapour as a positive feedback. However, this additional water vapour is only present in the atmosphere as a result of anthropogenic emissions.
Now if you can provide a calculation that shows how much of the observed global warming has come from the additional water vapour, then do present it here.
-
jmath at 01:18 AM on 5 September 2014Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
This document is misleading:
1) Water vapor accounts for 50% of greenhouse "effect" and is counted as a greenhouse gas.
2) Clouds account for 25% of the greenhouse effect
3) CO2 is 20%
The graph is obviously more impressive by leaving out these 2 more significant contributors.
I also find the graph showing ocean heat content increasing to be highly questionable. Since it is 90% of the retained heat and we still know so little about the ocean, in particular the ARGO floats have been in existence for only 15 years and even they do not capture the entire ocean heat content it is impossible to believe the graph as fact. Even if we assume the graph is correct ocean heat content is enormous and obviously contributes as part of the "blanket" that is unmentioned in your blanket analysis. You seem to be implying that the atmosphere provides the full explanation for the slow movement of temperatures on the earth when a large part clearly belongs to the oceans which store 1000 times the heat content of the atmosphere.
You are very good at leading the first parts of the argument, i.e. the greenhouse effect and the increase in co2. However, the conclusion that our temperature increase over the last 50 years is due to co2 is not proven because you exclude 75% of the greenhouse gases and their changing composition, you exclude the ocean which is 99.9% of the heat storage. If 90% of the heat went into the ocean and the ocean did not re-radiate that heat back in some form the oceans would rise negligibly in temperature and the atmosphere would be similarly little affected.
Also a smart student would notice another big hole in the argument. The earth is volcanically active and has a hot magma layer that is leaking into the environment under the ocean and the surface. There are also other concerns as pointed out by the IPCC which include albedo and aerosols which could have major impacts on the heat retained by the earths atmosphere.
Your argument appears oriented to a 3rd grader not a high school student even. A smart science high school student would see the missing pieces or be very upset when told you were excluding more than 75% of greenhouse gases and didn't mention the incredible role of the ocean. I think you can still make the argument but it has to include these complexities.
Something I didn't understand from the beginning was the hubris of climate scientists to speak as if this is so simple even though it is plain even a high school student could see the holes in the argument. The point you make that CO2 contributes heat is fine (with my caveats) but to go beyond that and ascribe it as the sole reason for temperature variation is reaching and weak. You simply rush to the point without explaining the complexity of how the system will respond to the changes. I think you are better off if your purpose is to show the effect of CO2 is proven to leave off the latter part of your argument.
It would also be very important to show a graph of how the radiation at the surface has changed because of the changing CO2. Showing a single graph implies that you could simply leave all the other elements the same and move the co2 contribution up or down exactly based on the movement of co2. Having such a graph of real data would be the "proof" that would complete this argument nicely.
-
ajki at 00:44 AM on 5 September 2014When their research has social implications, how should climate scientists get involved?
The question mentioned in the first paragraph is adressed at newspaper readers. I know this is not the place to comment general issues - but: I for one do seriously not like this kind of "cooperation" with news outlets. Keep this kind of citation work to the News Roundups.
-
John Hartz at 22:54 PM on 4 September 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #36A
The links in the OP have been fixed. Thank you for your assistance.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 22:35 PM on 4 September 2014Fire and water – how global warming is making weather more extreme and costing us money
Topal
''The only source of energy I know of is the sun, do you know of any other source?'
Nope. Certainly not large enough. But the sun is a source of energy that flows through the earth and back out to space. If nothing changes the ease with which that flow can occur then the total heat here on earth doesn't change. However if something does change the ease of that flow, like, I dunno, something that restricts the flow back out to space then heat could certainly start to accumulate here.
Someting like, I dunno, maybe something that increases the effectiveness of the GH Effect!
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 22:28 PM on 4 September 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #36A
Link 10 - the Bureau here
Link 12 - Polar Vortices here
-
chriskoz at 20:36 PM on 4 September 2014Fire and water – how global warming is making weather more extreme and costing us money
I want to commend Tom Curtis for his time relentlessly pointing the irrationality of all denial talking points that appear in SkS comments. Even in case of topal@4, a comment so irrational and absurd that I feel like it barely hangs above the comment policy bar, Tom does not mind typing comprehensive response & debunking the absurdity, as moderation sword could easily cut it. Thank you Tom!
Maybe topal@4 (and Tom's response) could stay unmoderated as an example of irrational logic or denialist talking points.
-
Sapient Fridge at 20:35 PM on 4 September 2014Fire and water – how global warming is making weather more extreme and costing us money
Topal, if I put a coat on then my skin temperature increases and I feel warmer. Does this show that my body started producing extra heat when I put the coat on, or is there another explanation?
-
Tom Curtis at 18:19 PM on 4 September 2014Fire and water – how global warming is making weather more extreme and costing us money
Perhaps an analogy will help Topal. Imagine there is a person on a single income, who spends some of their money and saves the rest in a zero interest account. Over a period of years we find out that their savings have increased dramatically. The question arises, is that because they are earning more? Or spending less? Finally, we get access to their wage records which show conclusively that they have actually been earning less. Clearly the increased savings have come from reduced expenditures.
Now somebody might want to challenge this on the basis that they only have one source of money (their wage) so that any savings must come from that wage. In a way that is true. Never-the-less, it should be clear that it is not the change in wage that has resulted in the increased savings, but the reduction in expenditure. The person pointing out that any money they save was originally recieved as part of their wage is pointing to an irrelevant fact.
Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere in fact reduces the energy from the Earth to space, at least initially. It is analogous to saving more. Ocean Heat Content is stored energy, so it is analogous to saving, and energy from the Sun is analogous to the single income.
-
MichaelK at 17:12 PM on 4 September 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #36A
There is also a problem with the links to articles 10 (No, the Bureau..) and 12 (Polar Vortex..).
-
topal at 16:18 PM on 4 September 2014Fire and water – how global warming is making weather more extreme and costing us money
@scaddenp: "Ocean Heat Content has been steadily increasing. If you think that is "natural", then tell me where the energy stored there is coming from?"
The only source of energy I know of is the sun, do you know of any other source?
Moderator Response:[Rob P] - Radiative output from the sun has declined in the last 3-4 decades:
Whereas ocean heat content (OHC) up to June 2014 has undergone substantial warming:
It's safe to conclude that the sun is not responsible for ongoing ocean warming. Greenhouse gases on the other hand......
-
Tom Curtis at 15:10 PM on 4 September 2014Fire and water – how global warming is making weather more extreme and costing us money
topal @4, it was very nice of you to flag what followed as being "very weak and vague" and "not really convincing". Given the low opinion you appear to have of the ideas you expressed, one wonders why you bothered.
Turning to those "not really convincing" arguments, we first have the tried and true tactic from all sorts of deniers of breaking up sentences to remove context. Thus the first sentence you quote clearly expresses an opinion about the impact of global warming:
"A paper led by S.-Y. Wang of Utah State University found the high pressure ridge is linked to a precursor of the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), but also that human-caused global warming has amplified the strength of these ridges."
You, however, break it at the comma removing the context and then facetiously enquire, "What's the role o global warming?" as if that had not been expressed in the immediately following clause.
Here's the rule: Breaking a quote up into individual clauses of sentences to comment inline is always quoting out of context; and when the comment it to ask why something explained in the immediately following clause in not explained in the preceeding clause, the out of context quotation is always dishonest.
In response to the second clause you ask the inane question, "Only "human-caused" warming?" Based in the IPCC AR5, anthropogenic warming accounts for 108% of warming from 1950-2010, with the extra 8% countering a probable cooling trend had natural factors alone been acting. That is well established. Scientists do not need to repeat the evidence for it every time they mention anthropogenic warming any more than astronomers need to repeat the evidence for heliocentrism everytime they mention a year.
Nor, as regards your second sally, has the warming from 1950 to 1998 suddenly vanished over the last 15 years, even if we accepted the false proposition that there has been no warming since 1998.
Finally, as regards to projections you venture that we cannot make such projections because there is a very low probability of much worse catastrophes. Really? Are you that short of a decent argument that you have to run that absurdity. In case you don't get it, if the argument was valid, all planning ever would be pointless for there is always a very low risk ultimate catastrophe that would render it pointless.
-
scaddenp at 15:09 PM on 4 September 2014Fire and water – how global warming is making weather more extreme and costing us money
topal - your argument is basically a variant of "its natural". Ie unforced variation. The science says all recent warming is forced (if we didnt have CO2 induced warming we would be cooling). See here for more discussion.
You can see more discussion of the probability distributions used by IPCC here for attribution.
In short, what you are seeing is postulated to be due to a warmer ocean. Ocean Heat Content has been steadily increasing. If you think that is "natural", then tell me where the energy stored there is coming from?
-
PhilippeChantreau at 14:45 PM on 4 September 2014What I learned from debating science with trolls
One thing I've learned by debating science with trolls is that they also can vary their technique. For example arguing the same old trolling points by first adding a disclaimer such as "this is not m opinion but that of some people I've talked to." Then proceed on mildly defending the trolling points, which the reality based contributors will throroughly beat into the nonsensical pulp that they were in the beginning. Then move on to the next distraction without any acknowledgment of the thickness of the pulp mentioned earlier. Sounds familiar?
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 14:25 PM on 4 September 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #36A
wili
The link is here.
-
wili at 12:28 PM on 4 September 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #36A
Your first link doesn't work for me.
-
topal at 11:59 AM on 4 September 2014Fire and water – how global warming is making weather more extreme and costing us money
Very weak and vague statements. Not really convincing.
Wang of Utah State University found the high pressure ridge is linked to a precursor of the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO)
El Nino is a natural phenomenon. What's the role o global warming?
but also that human-caused global warming has amplified the strength of these ridges
Only "human-caused" warming? Do those ridges know who or what caused warming, if any. How do those ridges sense warming if there hasn't been any over the past almost 2 decades?
the journal Climatic Change estimated that in a business-as-usual scenario with continued reliance on fossil fuels, by 2085 the annual area burned by wildfires in California will increase by 40–70%
How do they know what California will look like in 70 years from now? With the ongoing draught, there might nothing be left that could burn. Or one of those earthquakes might have extinguished California alltogether.
-
scaddenp at 10:34 AM on 4 September 2014What I learned from debating science with trolls
I would further add that the rapidity by which the matthews original paper was cited after publishing and the number of cites doesnt fit well with the portrayal as an ignored Galileo.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:32 AM on 4 September 2014What I learned from debating science with trolls
Rob Honeycutt @70, the parallels are even closer. H pylori had been identified (although not by that name) by a number of researchers prior to Warren and Marshall. Wikipedia summarizes the history:
"Previous to the research of Marshall and Warren, German scientists found spiral-shaped bacteria in the lining of the human stomach in 1875, but they were unable to culture them, and the results were eventually forgotten. The Italian researcher Giulio Bizzozero described similarly shaped bacteria living in the acidic environment of the stomach of dogs in 1893. Professor Walery Jaworski of the Jagiellonian University in Kraków investigated sediments of gastric washings obtained from humans in 1899. Among some rod-like bacteria, he also found bacteria with a characteristic spiral shape, which he called Vibrio rugula. He was the first to suggest a possible role of this organism in the pathogenesis of gastric diseases. This work was included in the Handbook of Gastric Diseases, but it had little impact, as it was written in Polish. Several small studies conducted in the early 20th century demonstrated the presence of curved rods in the stomach of many patients with peptic ulcers and stomach cancer. Interest in the bacteria waned, however, when an American study published in 1954 failed to observe the bacteria in 1180 stomach biopsies."
Marshall and Warren (1984) draw particular attention to Freedman and Barron (1940), which is analogous to Arrhenius (1896) in the history of climate science. The interest in the connection between those spirochetes and ulcers was quashed by Palmer (1954), "Investigation of the gastric spirochaetes of the human". He failed to find the spirochaetes, thus damping interest in the theory and delaying the proper treatment of ulcers by 30-40 years. In the analogy, he is a clear parallel to Angstrom (1900).
-
Synapsid at 09:13 AM on 4 September 2014Fire and water – how global warming is making weather more extreme and costing us money
PluviAL,
The terms "ridge" and "trough" are descriptive. In an area of high pressure a given pressure is found at a higher elevation than in the surrounding region, hence "ridge"; in a low-pressure area a given pressure is found at a lower elevation than in the surrounding region, so the feature is called a trough. Ridges and troughs determine wind direction near and around them, and thus the movement of weather systems; the pattern around a ridge is the opposite of the pattern around a trough, and the associated weather is completely different. As an example: If the ridge off the west coast of North America had not been there for the past couple of years, or if a trough had been there instead, California would not be in the present devastating drought.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:09 AM on 4 September 2014What I learned from debating science with trolls
Ashton @69, from the same interview we read:
" Well, immediately after the rejection [in 1983], my boss, David McGauchie, at Fremantle, said he knew somebody who was the world authority on these bacteria in England, Martin Skirrow, and he said, 'Why don't you give him a call on the telephone?' In those days it was pretty heroic to call someone in England and get permission from the hospital authorities to use their long distance number. So I did that and I spoke to Martin Skirrow, and he said, 'Oh, that sounds exciting. Send some bacteria over.' So we did that, and he cultured them.
Then I went to an international meeting right after the publication in the Lancet. So at that point there was a lot of enthusiasm in England, because Martin Skirrow, who was an authority, was now supporting me. So in the infectious disease microbiology fraternity I immediately had followers and in Australia one of the first people that was on my side was Professor Adrian Lee from the University of New South Wales, and we'd corresponded a little bit. And I met him there. And he was a chicken bacteria expert in those days. So we had a bit of a following, and then when I came back to Australia, still the gastroenterology community didn't believe it. And there is a bit of a history of people discovering bacteria all the time and always thinking they're important and they're just, you know, harmless. So for the 12 months I had this frustrating time of some enthusiastic groups around the world - and I'd actually spoken also to some of the top gastroenterologists in Europe, who were pretty excited about it."
So as early as 1983, the theory had enthusiastic support from groups in England, and Australia, and Europe. However, there was a history of similar claims in gastroenterology which was a reason for substantial skepticism about the hypothesis.
Despite that, we read later:
"And when I went over there [to the USA] I assumed that everybody would be on board with this thing, but, of course, they were totally sceptical in the States and I had to really step back a couple of years and repeat all the work that I'd done in Australia back in the US, plus get my doctor's ticket over there, a lot of exams and things to do. So it took another three or four years after that before people in the US started becoming excited and we had some diagnostic things coming on the market in the United States which meant that I didn't have to have a private practice, I could stay in research once again. And it was about 1993, '94, that we had respectable treatments and good data in the United States, and at that point the authorities over there put their imprimatur on it.
So internationally it was accepted after about 1990, but people didn't have a good treatment for it, so a lot of patients had to stay on the old medicine. Then by '94 the Americans signed off on it and everybody was interested in the bacteria after that, it was totally respectable."
So, acceptance was near universal by 1990, except to some residual rejection in the US based simply on US chauvinism. Further, in 1990 they did not have a treatment but by 1994, when they did acceptance was effectively universal.
All of this agrees with Orac when he says:
"By 1992, multiple studies had been published establishing the causative role of H. pylori in peptic ulcer disease, and medical practice rapidly changed. That’s less than ten years, which, given how long it takes to organize and carry out clinical trials, is amazingly fast. Yet somehow a favorite denialist myth is that “dogmatic,” “close-minded” scientists refused to accept Marshall and Warren’s findings. It’s an example of a scientific consensus that deserved to be questioned, was questioned in the right way, and was overthrown"
A statement you reject as false. You have made no acknowledgement of your error, nor apology for it. Nor have you apologized for quoting wikipedia in a way that suggests Marshall's comments about the level of rejection in 1984 applied in 1998. Nor acknowledged that there was an element of hyperbole in Marshall's comment that you indirectly quoted, as shown by groups he mentions as supporting him in 1983.
-
Doug Bostrom at 08:26 AM on 4 September 2014Climate sceptics see a conspiracy in Australia's record breaking heat
Marohasy's the same highly imaginative person who detected a plot by ABC to cut off her interview midstream and replace her with the notorious, ubiquitous John Cook.
-
scaddenp at 08:21 AM on 4 September 2014What I learned from debating science with trolls
Ashton, if your analogy is going to make any sense at all, then there needs to be corresponding paper by a climate scientist with the level of research behind it that Marshall has. If there is such a paper, then please provide it. The reason why this argument comes up is because deniers, reading misinformation instead, fondly believe that such a thing must exist. Show us the beef.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 08:01 AM on 4 September 2014What I learned from debating science with trolls
Ashton... You do realize, I hope, the analogy you're presenting applies to climate science just after the turn of the 20th century (that's two-zero, i.e., in the early 1900's) with the heated debates between Arrhenius and Angstrom.
Now what we have in climate science is, many many decades of research on a very broad range of interconnected areas of research that all confirm the same thing. And, in the case of Dr Marshall, you're presenting a very narrow area of research that had to, reasonably, rise to a high level of proof in order for it to be accepted by the broader research community. And that change happen rapidly even within that field. Ten years is nothing!
Today, if we were getting vastly different answers from the geologists, and the modelers, and the phycisists, and the biologists, and... all the others whose fields AGW encounter, then there would be legitimate reason to be highly skeptical of this issue.
Problem is, that's not the case. All the research fits very neatly together across a wide range of fields. You have nearly all researchers today looking at each other nodding, saying, "Yup, we have a big, big problem with atmospheric CO2."
Those who are rejecting this are very few in numbers. Their research is internally inconsistent with any other research, and when you dig a little deeper, you almost always find some sort of political/ideological spin going on. In other words, they just don't like the implications of the problem and are trying to find reasons to believe there really isn't a problem.
-
Ashton at 06:12 AM on 4 September 2014What I learned from debating science with trolls
Tom Curtis. As you clearly like to know the minutiae I think you might like this conversation Barry marshall had with the NHMRC (for non Australians this is the premier body for funding medical research) in March 2011. In it he notes in an exchange with the interviewer
Interviewer: So you really at this point had to kind of prove the connection, though, didn't you? Is this where you did something pretty dramatic?
Prof. Marshall: Well, that's right, because when ever I presented the bacteria to pathologists and doctors in Australia, they were all very sceptical and they would always say that people with ulcers probably have a bacteria in their stomach just by coincidence and the ulcer forms first and then you would catch a little bacteria sitting around the site, same as if you had a sore on your skin or something. So it was very frustrating to present the information, and I used to get into pretty hostile arguments. At one conference I remember I was just about leaping off the stage throttling people who were making what I considered very inane comments about the whole thing. And so I said, 'I've got to prove that these bacteria can infect a healthy animal and cause an ulcer, or the inflammation at least, in the stomach.' (my note this was in 1984)
He later in the interview made this comment
And again we got good publicity from that, and it created a big controversy, because, of course, people were funding research programs worth millions all over the world. The ulcer treatments that were on the market were worth billions and the drug companies were all building giant manufacturing plants and banking money on the current treatments, and lo and behold it suddenly appeared that maybe all people needed was a cheap course of antibiotics. And then they would be cured. And all this investment and billion‑dollar business was just going to go by the wayside".
Although his findings were eventually accepted, after 6 years, it is clear in the periond 1984 to 1990 there was antipathy to his findings by "the establishment:"
The URL is http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/media/podcasts/2009/conversation-professor-barry-marshall
Moderator Response:[JH] Your quips are not appreciated.
-
Tom Curtis at 03:59 AM on 4 September 2014Climate sceptics see a conspiracy in Australia's record breaking heat
Here is the timeseries of all datasets used for comparison to the ACORN series for quality control, as shown below the fold in the article above:
Of particular interest are the Torok and Nicholls (TN, in gold) dataset, used by BOM prior to the development of the ACORN dataset; the Australian Water Availability Project (AWAP, in yellow) which is not homogenized, and the Whole Network Drift Corrected (WNDC, in yellowy green) dataset, which is also not homogenized. BOM has published an analysis of trends using the range of avialable datasets shown above, and from which the graph above comes. In it, on table 1 we learn that the total quadratic change from 1911-2010 was 0.98 C for Torok and Nicholls, which was reduced to 0.94 C by in the ACORN dataset. That is, by replacing the old analysis with a more recent analysis, BOM has decreased its estimate of total warming in Australia over the last century. Both, however, are still higher than the 0.69 C increase shown by AWAP.
Data homogenization does increase the estimated temperture increase over the century. That, however, is not an intended effect, and the techniques used for data homogenization are blind to their effect on the trend. They make adjustments which decrease the trend almost as often as they make adjustments that increase the trend. It just happens to be the case that when you correct the record for data quality without regard of the effects on the trend, the trend happens to increase.
-
PluviAL at 01:55 AM on 4 September 2014Fire and water – how global warming is making weather more extreme and costing us money
B, I did not see the equivocation, but not being a scientists, I have little patience meaningless for nitpicking. Although, I know arguing an important fine point is important and valuable.
The point I take from this is that cost, or money, always goes to energy, and energy use always goes to the lowest cost component, which is usually the most carbon intensive fuel. Further, since the non-monetary costs; fires and increased evapotranspiration also add to the problem, we are in a nasty feedback loop already {:[
-
bpnjensen at 23:50 PM on 3 September 2014Fire and water – how global warming is making weather more extreme and costing us money
Low pressure features are referred to as troughs rather than ridges. Otherwise, very interesting article - Thanks! - B
-
chrisd3 at 23:00 PM on 3 September 2014What I learned from debating science with trolls
@Jim Hunt #23
At what venue might an analogy assist then? I negotiate the maze of twisty passages, all alike, in the perhaps naive belief that some people read that stuff who aren't dyed in the wool "skeptics". Am I in fact wasting my time?
Not at all. You've nailed the real reason for posting analogies, or anything else for that matter: The real target of the analogy (or whatever it is that you're posting) is not the "skeptic" to whom you're responding but the much larger number of individuals who are simply reading the comments silently, many of whom may be open minded but underinformed.
Analogies do work. They just don't work with "skeptics."
-
Dikran Marsupial at 22:47 PM on 3 September 2014What I learned from debating science with trolls
CB Dunkerson, very good example, Angstrom's (1901) argument that the absorption of IR by carbon dioxide was saturated close to the surface held back research on the greenhouse effect until the work of Callendar in the 30s & 40s and Plass in the 50s and 60s. See the relevant entry in Spencer Wearts jooly good "The Discovery of Global Warming".
-
CBDunkerson at 22:20 PM on 3 September 2014What I learned from debating science with trolls
You know what is really a good example of a now accepted theory which was initially dismissed by the scientific community?
Anthropogenic Global Warming
The 'skeptics' should use the early rejection of Arrhenius's work to show how scientific consensus can be wrong. :]
-
Leto at 20:00 PM on 3 September 2014What I learned from debating science with trolls
Tom,
I was a medical student in 1989 and, in the lecture about peptic ulcers, the H pylori theory was presented as one that was yet to reach full acceptance, but one that was likely to be generally accepted by the medical establishment as further evidence came in.
As you note, it is not a particularly good example of the supposed inability of scientists to respond intelligently to dissent and new ideas.
Cheers,
Leto.
-
MA Rodger at 19:56 PM on 3 September 2014What I learned from debating science with trolls
Aston @60.
I have met this particular denialist argument in the past. My response is that I must have missed something because I didn't know Lindzen & Curry had been awarded a Nobel Prize.
Do note that the 1998 quote you cite does not (indeed cannot) refer to opposition to Marshal & Warren occuring in 1998. The timeline is as follows. The pair of them worked together from 1981 investigating bacteria in the gut that would develop into their theory that stress was not the sole cause of peptic ulsers. They published in 1985. The opposition to their findings was officially marginalised in February 1994 (see here in Warren's own words - "I had been waiting for ten years for this day") with Marshall starting to pick up awards, receiving the Nobel Prize in 2005.
So from the Marshal & Warren example, it is a decade from published pariah to praise-laden prophet. Where then is the denialist equivalent?
-
Tom Curtis at 19:44 PM on 3 September 2014What I learned from debating science with trolls
Ashton @60 should be thanked for his creative efforts to provide live samples of "skeptical" trolling to enliven this topic. In this case he demonstrates a trojan horse tactic in which he first disavows the argument he is about to present is his own, then presents it as creatively as he is able without any comments showing the flaws in the argument. In the particular example @60 he even strengthens that be explicitly stating that true claims made elsewhere are false, misrepresenting the contents of wikipedia, and claiming a false authority based on a purported geographical and professional connection to the events described.
The actual facts of the case he discusses are that by February of 1994, the US National Institute of Health had released a consensus statement (their description) stating among other things:
"The discovery of H. pylori as a gastrointestinal pathogen has had a profound effect on current concepts of peptic ulcer disease pathogenesis. Evidence presented at this Consensus Development Conference has led to the following conclusions:
- Ulcer patients with H. pylori infection require treatment with antimicrobial agents in addition to antisecretory drugs whether on first presentation with the illness or on recurrence.
- The value of treatment of nonulcer dyspepsia patients with H. pylori infection remains to be determined.
- The interesting relationship between H. pylori infection and gastric cancers requires further exploration."
That establishes that by 1994, ie, within ten years of first publication of the theory, acceptance was wide spread. Despite this acceptance, a year later Marshal himself acknowledged that the case for H Pylori as the causative factor in peptic ulcers had not been demonstrated to the normally accepted standard, stating:
"Koch’s postulates for H. pylori have not been fulfilled in the case of peptic ulceration because, at present, no human or animal experimental model has produced peptic ulcer after inoculation with H. pylori"
Clearly consensus in favour of the theory was not lagging the evidence significantly. Kimball Atwood has an extensive survey of the literature and response to Warren and Marshall's theory, which shows that interest in the theory was keen from the start, with many other researchers immediately investigating the theory - and that acceptance was rapidly forthcoming as the evidence mounted for the theory.
Turning to Ashton's specific claims:
1) Asthon claims that Orac's claim about scientifid research by 1992, was false. However, a search on google scholar excluding citations and patents for "Pylori" and "Peptic" returns from 1984-1992 returns 2,300 results, and as noted above, by Feb 1994 it was the NIH's recommendation that patients presenting with ulcers be treated with antimicrobial agents. Clearly it is the case that in less than ten years of publication of the theory (in June 1984), " multiple studies had been published establishing the causative role of H. pylori in peptic ulcer disease" and that "medical practice rapidly changed".
2) Ashton quotes wikipedia about Marshal saying in 1998 that "Everyone was against me". While true, however, what he actually said in a 1998 interview was:
"Q: Is it frustrating when you're at that point in your research and things are not going your way and people are weighing in with those kinds of dismissive remarks?
Barry Marshall: I'm a lot more mature now, and I know that this is how science works. You've got to be pretty thick-skinned and ready to take the blows. In those days, it used to really cut me to the quick when people — even my boss — would get up and criticize my work this way. I was a... "brash young man" is a term that came out of the Reader's Digest article many years ago. "Zealot" was another of the names that I was given. I read the history of the zealots, and you know, I was exactly like that.
It was a campaign, everyone was against me. But I knew I was right, because I actually had done a couple of years' work at that point. I had a few backers. And when I was criticized by gastroenterologists, I knew that they were mostly making their living doing endoscopies on ulcer patients. So I'm going to show you guys. A few years from now you'll be saying, "Hey! Where did all those endoscopies go to?" And it will be because I was treating ulcers with antibiotics. "
(Italics in original)
In context, it is very clear that Marshall was describing his attitude several years in the past. Indeed, given that he had done "a couple years work" that was his attitude around 1986 or so, when indeed, presenting a revolutionary new theory he was indeed expected to prove it. As he himself says "this is how science works".
We might ask how Marshall's work was regarded in 1998, and that can be answered by his list of honours up to that point:
"Marshall also received the Warren Alpert Prize in 1994; the Australian Medical Association Award and the Albert Lasker Award for Clinical Medical Research in 1995; the Gairdner Foundation International Award in 1996; the Paul Ehrlich and Ludwig Darmstaedter Prize in 1997; the Dr A.H. Heineken Prize for Medicine, the Florey Medal, and the Buchanan Medal of the Royal Society in 1998"
So, within 14 years of first publication, Marshall has recieved six prestigious awards for his work, and all prior to (or in the same year as) that interview.
Moderator Response:[JH] You have described Ashton's schtick to a tee. Thank you.
-
scaddenp at 19:43 PM on 3 September 2014What I learned from debating science with trolls
If some skeptic climate scientists were able to successfully challenge the scientitic consensus, then frankly I would praise them to skies. A successful challenge has to mounted with data and proper analysis. The pseudo-skeptics (because I think most scientists are real skeptics) however mistake blog-"scientists" for real science and misinformation for data. If you are seriously able to challenge the science then you do so in peer-reviewed journals. If your arguments are judged to have merit, then they will be tested by others and change will occur. Now get your "skeptics" to point to these challenging papers please.
-
Kevin C at 19:23 PM on 3 September 2014What I learned from debating science with trolls
I would love skeptics/deniers to raise this argument, as long as they follow through with it.
What would that involve? The most naive analysis would be to roughly enumerate the number of scientific disciplines of comparable scope to the peptic ulcer community. My half-arsed guess as an interdisciplinary scientist whose main field has some overlap with drug design is that it is in the tens to hundreds of thousands.
Then enumerate the number of cases in which a consensus of corresponding strength has been overthrown. I'm guessing that's in the ones, just possibly tens.
From this we can infer a crude estimate of probability that the climate science consensus is wrong under the assumption that the situations are, as you suggest, in some way analogous.
Now, that's hopelessly naive. Ideally we'd look at the sociology as well. In the case of peptic ulcers the fact that there were major financial interests in providing drugs for their treatment may have had a role in maintaining the consensus, with no corresponding interests on the other side. I can't speak to the size of the financial interests supporting the climate science consensus, but there are clearly significant financial interests in disputing it.
So I think this is a very useful line of argument. There might be an interesting sociology of science paper in it, but doing it properly is beyond my expertise.
-
Ashton at 17:36 PM on 3 September 2014What I learned from debating science with trolls
Would you please note that the comment that follows does not, repeat does not, reflect my own views on the "97% consensus" on climate change but is put forward as an example that might be used by sceptic/deniers when challenging this aspect of climate change science. I also think this is relevant to this thread and hope the moderators agree. I should note I was involved in medical science in Pert/Fremantle at the time Marshall carried out his now renowned experiment.
I am interested in the comments in this and many other articles on sceptic/deniers choice of Galileo as an example of how scientific consensus is not necessarily correct. Possibly a better example and one that is a) very recent and b) compatible with my own areas of interest is the discovery by Barry Marshall and Robin Warren that H.pylori is a major cause of peptic ulcers. Use of this of an example of how consensus is not always right has been addressed and "debunked" in ScienceBlog (http://tinyurl.com/oduwnxg). However the "debunking" is factually incorrect. In the article it is stated that:
"By 1992, multiple studies had been published establishing the causative role of H. pylori in peptic ulcer disease, and medical practice rapidly changed. That’s less than ten years, which, given how long it takes to organize and carry out clinical trials, is amazingly fast. Yet somehow a favorite denialist myth is that “dogmatic,” “close-minded” scientists refused to accept Marshall and Warren’s findings. It’s an example of a scientific consensus that deserved to be questioned, was questioned in the right way, and was overthrown"
The medical fraternity and the drug companies most definitely did not accept the findings of Marshall and Warren. From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Marshall):
"Marshall has been quoted as saying in 1998 that "(e)veryone was against me, but I knew I was right" On the other hand, it has also been argued that medical researchers showed a proper degree of scientific scepticism until the H. pylori hypothesis could be supported by evidence.
As is now very well known Marshall, to prove his point, drank a culture of H.pylori and developed gastritis thus establishing the point he was making. This experiment lead directly to revision of the prior consensus that spicy foods and acidity caused peptic ulcers.
The final sentence in the quote I referred to above is:
"It’s an example of a scientific consensus that deserved to be questioned, was questioned in the right way, and was overthrown"
Surely questioning the current consensus is exactly what sceptical climate scientists are engaged in and for which they are often denigrated.
-
bill4344 at 12:48 PM on 3 September 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #35
I'm also curious about the 'dark widget'. Links to a similarly darkened full-frame interactive flash carousel thingy, complete with the ominous countdown, but what's it all about? Curious minds etc. ...
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:00 AM on 3 September 2014What I learned from debating science with trolls
The only possible answer to the question "what is the optimum global temperature?" is to say "what do you mean by optimum?".
The question is so ill-defined as to be meaningless. It's like saying "provide me with the optimum code for this problem". Is the optimum code the one that
- runs the fastest?
- uses the least memory?
- takes the least amount of development time?
- is most robust to input errors?
- takes the least maintenance time?
- runs on the most operating systems?
- maintains the company's monopoly?
- produces the most patents?
- is the most profitable?
There is no "all of the above" answer.
Even the (now frail and elderly) Koppen Climate Classification System, developed in the 1800s, was intended to explain global patterns of vegetation, not climate. The fact that different vegetation types do better in different parts of the world, due to different climates, is an indication that biology finds different regions "optimal" for different organisms. Each has its own niche.
Moderator Response:[PS] I think this one has been done to death. Please respect no dog-piling.
-
michael sweet at 07:43 AM on 3 September 2014What I learned from debating science with trolls
Tom,
Your mention of Curry was so small I did not see it.
I stand by the point of my post: Ashton's reference to Curry was primarily to distract from your proof that Ashton's "skeptic" question was completely answered over a year ago.
This is one of the primary issues dealing with Skeptics. They do not keep up on what is known and are angry that their questions have not been addressed. In fact, their questions have been addressed and they have ignored the answer.
Moderator Response:[JH] Please let the Moderators do their job and keep your focus on the facts of the matter under discussion.
-
Ashton at 06:19 AM on 3 September 2014What I learned from debating science with trolls
Tom Curtis. Thanks for putting the record straight
Moderator Response:[PS] And thank you Ashton for acknowledging the effort. Can everyone take a deep breath and continue a focus on the science, without meta-comment on motives etc?
-
Tom Curtis at 02:33 AM on 3 September 2014What I learned from debating science with trolls
Michael Sweet, it was in fact I who first mentioned Curry on this thread. Nor was my mention particularly respectful, although I would not call it "dissing" and it gave Curry more respect than she probably deserves. Your first point is, however, exactly correct.
-
Tom Curtis at 02:29 AM on 3 September 2014What I learned from debating science with trolls
MA Rodger @53, thanks.
With regard to Curry, I had in mind particularly her Italian Flag post, but examplars are easilly multiplied.
-
michael sweet at 02:28 AM on 3 September 2014What I learned from debating science with trolls
Ashton has demonstrated another key denier tactic: to insult the person you are talking with when you have no data to support your position.
I noticed that Ashton was the first person who mentioned Curry. Ashton accused Tom fo dissing Curry when Tom had done nothing of the sort. This accomplished two things at once:
1) It changed the subject without Ashton having to conceed that Tom had answered Ashtons primary question from his previous post (it would be polite to acknowledge that his question was completely answered).
2) It allowed Ashton to (falsely) accuse Tom of being disrespectful for no legitimate reason.
A brief review of the posts here shows that Tom had cited a Real Climate post (about Curry) that contained the specific data that Ashton had asked for. Tom's purpose in the cite was to provide support for his argument from an authorative source. Tom never dissed, or indeed never commented on Curry before Ashton brought her up. Ashton was successful in changing the subject to Curry from his failed attempt to claim that the question:
"that sceptic/deniers often ask is what percentage of climate change is due to the burning of fossil fuels."
has not been answered at length. Ashton should apologize for his false claim about Curry and acknowledge that his previous question has been answered.
Moderator Response:[Dikran Marsupial] Please can we keep the discussion focused on the topic of the article, rather than focus on the behaviour of particular individuals. Please leave it to the moderators to take appropriate action if there are infringements of the comments policy.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 00:54 AM on 3 September 2014Keystone XL: Oil Markets and Emissions
A clarification of what I mean by impacts in my earlier comment. They would include the impacts that currently have no financial value in the marketplace. And the risks of impacts like a pipeline leak or ocean tanker accident also need to be included in the ranking of the differenet resources and how they become end-user energy.
The lack of up-front financial implications for these impacts and risks in the marketplace leads to the development of higher impact less safe ways of doing things because it is cheaper and more profitable to get away with less decent ways of doing things. Some may argue that investors include an assessment of risk of harm. But many of hose investors have proven to be gamblers betting on getting away with their quick early profit and escaping serious personal consequence from a 'future accident' that is no real accident, it was made more likely because of their desire for more quicker profit. That is the reason the free action of everyone in the marketplace is unlikely to properly address this issue.
-
MA Rodger at 00:51 AM on 3 September 2014What I learned from debating science with trolls
Tom Curtis @51.
It might be useful to show AR5 WG1 Fig 10.5 so folk know where you're calculating your PDFs from.
I note in her running tiff with Gavin Schmidt over attribution, Judy Curry recently made clear how wedded she is to recent warming being about 50:50 anthro and natural. She wrote "I think both 0% and 100% are extremely unlikely.”
And with Ashton @47 accusing you of "dissing Judith Curry" for your comment @45 saying "I see ... concerted efforts to obfusticate (a la Curry)," I would suggest Exhibit A in any case against Curry for "concerted obfuscation" would be her 2011 'Nullifying the climate null hypothesis' paper that does a pretty good job of leaving no twist untied.
Prev 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 Next
