Recent Comments

Prev  684  685  686  687  688  689  690  691  692  693  694  695  696  697  698  699  Next

Comments 34551 to 34600:

34551. citizenschallenge at 14:56 PM on 1 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       Michael J. I. Brown wrote up at Broken logic:

       "There’s no reason for natural and anthropogenic climate change to be mutually exclusive, and yet climate change deniers frequently use natural climate change in an attempt to disprove anthropogenic global warming."

       ~ ~ ~

       It reminded me of a bit of a dialogue I had going with a contrarian --

       This character insists that: "The null hypothesis, is of course, natural climate change explains all observed climate change." ~~~

       my response: "To begin with this "null hypothesis" doesn't make any sense because if we look at the situation from a geophysical perspective there is nothing unnatural about today's increasing greenhouse gas levels causing our atmosphere's insulation ability to increase, in turn causing our planet to warm.

       It is only the source, human burning of fossil fuels, that is unique in the long varied history of our planet.

       It would be interesting if K or any other science contrarian can suggest a more meaningful null hypothesis, since his is broken." ~~~

       whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/08/falsify-this-what-contrarians-ignore.html

       ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

       Everything humans do is acting upon "natural patterns" and there is nothing "unnatural" with rapidly increasing greenhouse gases sending the planet's weather system into higher gear.

       We are injecting extra energy/heat/moisture into huge geophysical entities, that we call "patterns" to help distance ourselves from the reality of what our planet's global heat distribution engine is all about. 

34552. Tristan at 14:28 PM on 1 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       chrisd3, I have had exactly the same result when using analogies.

       
       It's not just climate skeptics, but applies to anyone who has a view that can be easily demonstrated to be silly via an analogous concept.

        

       Another 'tactic' I have seen, is 'forgetfulness' (which may be intnetional or the brain protecting itself from dissonance). I've managed to extract concessions from skeptics at times, and then a week later have them repeating exactly the mantra that they acknowledged was flawed.

34553. Wol at 12:44 PM on 1 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       Andy @ 33

       
       If you re-read my post (above) you will see that I said that the way to *start* is to determine what the sustainable population level would be if everyone had the same level as the European middle class. I don't think it's unrealistic to think that the third world would not aspire to that.

       Also, I don't think that bringing down the overconsumption (and who's to define that anyway) of the West to a hair shirt level is (a) necessary or (b) desirable and/or (c) remotely possible by democratic means.

       If a "sustainability study" had been done before the industrial revolution it might (and I'm just playing with numbers here) have come up with a population of say 5Bn. Starting from here and now, with the historical consumption of energy and resources, it might be 3Bn. In any case, I would bet quite a bit on it being well short of 9Bn odd.

       Frankly, efforts to reduce CO² emissions sufficiently to avoid tipping points are not going to work unless population is the prime target, or possibly unless the third world is to be kept at a very low standard of living.

34554. Tom Curtis at 12:25 PM on 1 September 2014
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       scaddenp @320, I agree.  However, in caclulating the correlation coefficient, the mean of each time series is subtracted from each value in the time series.  Therefore the correlation of absolute temperature values and temperature anomalies will be the same.  That is why in calculating the comparison to closest neighbours (as in my third graph @311) it is important to use anomalies, as I did.  That is what I did do, although I failed to state it.  In contrast, in calculating the correlation coefficient (as in my second graph @316) it is irrelevant whether you use anomalies or (as I did) absolute temperature values.

       As I said before, I should have mentioned that I was using anomalies for the neighbour comparisons, but it is irrelevant for correlation coefficients (the point on which you raised the matter).

34555. scaddenp at 12:02 PM on 1 September 2014
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Tom, it's a subtle point, but temperature anomaly is difference between temperature and the long term average for the station. So a station on by the sea and a station high on a hill might have very different temperatures, but the difference from a long term average at each station will be very similar. That is what I think was missing from your discussion.

34556. Tom Curtis at 11:12 AM on 1 September 2014
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       scaddenp @317, as the temperature anomaly is derived by subtracting a constant value from the temperature, the correlation of anomalies and temperatures is the same.  What is true is that the average of nearby stations does not predict the temperature at a given station, but the rather the average of the anomalies of nearby stations predicts the anomaly at a given station.  Although I did not specify it, I have used the anomalies in my neighbour comparisons.

34557. mjibrown at 10:41 AM on 1 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       There are a surprising number of claims that the heliocentric model was not central to Galileo's trials. While Galileo definitely didn't do himself any favours via his combative style, the interpretation of the bible and Solar System was definitely central to his trials.

       For details see translations of the original documents (e.g., in "The Essential Galileo").

       A useful introduction is also available at http://vaticanobservatory.org/research/history-of-astronomy/54-history-of-astronomy/the-galileo-affair/370-the-galileo-affair

34558. scaddenp at 10:22 AM on 1 September 2014
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       A very slight correction to Tom's work-

       "the correlation of temperatures with distance."

       It should be the correlation of temperature anomalies with distance.

34559. Tom Curtis at 10:20 AM on 1 September 2014
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Ashton @314, that report is certainly off topic on this thread, and introducing it looks remarkably like introducing a new line of attack to me.

34560. Tom Curtis at 10:19 AM on 1 September 2014
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Ashton @313:

       1) Scientific studies have shown that correlation between neigbouring temperature records are high out to a distance of 1200 km.  That is unsurprising given the average size of weather systems found on synoptic charts:

       

       In this case, the 10 "nearest" neigbours used were all within 55.1 kms of Amberley.  I have since expanded that to the twenty "nearest" neigbours, which are all within 93.4 km of Amberley.  Given that, it is hardly surprising that the running 11 year correlation between Amberley and the mean of the twenty nearest neighbours is 0.71, nor that the number would be significantly higher except for an excursion down due to the 1981 inhomegeniety and another around 1963 due to an inhomgeniety at UQ Gatton:

       

       You are are either simply mistaken about the distances involved, or you and your friends are misinformed about the correlation of temperatures with distance.

       2)  The distinction between weather and climate has no bearing on this topic as it is short term fluctuations in temperature we are concerned about.  However, it need not be daily temperatures.  My analysis with BOM data has beed done with annual means to make the analysis easier, for example.  Monthly means are more commonly used for this type of analysis.

       3)  We are given many reasons for the repetition of denier memes on this site, and the most common is "I was just asking a question/seeking clariffication".  Try as hard as I can, however, I cannot see the question or request for clarrification in the following (from your comment @305):

       "More questions regarding the treatment of temperature data by the BoM which is not coming across at all well in the MSM. It really does give one cause for pause in blindly accepting that what they say is gospel."

       (My emphasis)

       4)  I cannot comment on the Gaurdian, which I do not read.  The Australian, on the other hand has four types of stories on climate change.  They have the stories in which they report a denier/skeptical point of view in which the denier/skeptic is quoted but no comment is sort from mainstream climate scientists.  They have the report of major climate change news (release of IPCC reports etc) that they have to cover, in which the news is reported together with a denier/skeptic take on the news.  They have reports of mainstream science fed to them by a denier/skeptic with a ready made criticism by said denier/skeptic which is given most prominence.  And they have the reports on some stated (often inaccurate) problem with renewable energy.

       Sometimes they are subtle.  On one story on sea levels, there "mainstream" contact was in fact a "skeptic", and they failed to contact any genuine mainstream scientists on the subject, even though one of the world's top five scientists in that field is based in Australia.

       You may regard that as reporting "on both sides of the AGW debate" but I cannot help but notice that even on the mainstream news items, the denier point of view is given the most prominence.

       Further, we do not consider a newspaper reputable if it reports "both sides" of the 911 conspiracy theories.  In many cases in which The Australian reports both sides (including this one), the "skeptic" side which is given most prominence by The Australian has as little merit as 911 trutherism.

34561. Andy Skuce at 09:19 AM on 1 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       Wol @28

       I disagree that cutting emissions is harder than reducing population growth. According to Hans Rosling we have already reached "peak child" or  at least "plateau child": there are more or as many children alive to day than there ever will be in the future. Population will continue to grow, perhaps to 9 billion, because today's children will inevitably become parents. The great news is that nearly every country is now appraoching low numbers of children per women. If this continues, then population should stablize around 9-10 billion.

       In contrast, emission rates continue an upward climb and nobody has a clue where the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will plateau and when the rate of emissions will equal the rate of absorption in the oceans and biosphere. Population almost certainly will increase by 30-40% and then likely stop growing. CO2 concentrations could more than double and there is no sign of the growth curve bending downward yet.

       I agree that it is hard, probably impossible, to imagine 10 billion people in the future living the way we do in rich countries today. But it does not follow that that the lot of the poor cannot greatly improve, while the wealthy scale back our often wasteful and extravagant ways. Technology is no panacea, but, if history is a guide, there are grounds for optimism. The Malthusians have been wrong before and let's hope that they will be wrong again.

34562. Paleo Cello at 08:15 AM on 1 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       My experience with trolls encompasses both climate change deniers and evolution deniers. Their most common tactic is to denounce any and all scientific, evidence based statements as religious justification for obtaining government grants which are themselves evidence of a gigantic conspiracy involving all the world's scientific societies as well as individual scientists. Anything you say in response will be attacked in similar terms. All this delivered with scathing invective and plenty of ad hominem rhetoric. There is simply no way to break through to them since they have already rejected the logical, evidence based way of reasoning that we take for granted. Whether they do this for personal, religious reasons or because they are in the pay of the fossil fuel interests is impossible to say and frankly, does not matter. Their object is to sway public opinion against science and scientists by relentless, unending assaults. Responding to them merely fuels the fire and may be seriously counter-productive.

34563. citizenschallenge at 23:48 PM on 31 August 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       About Galileo, if anyone is curious about what the Catholic historians have to say about that specific:  www.catholic.com/tracts/the-galileo-controversy

       ~ ~ ~

       The logic has always amazing me since Galileo was battling a dogmatic faith-based organization.  On top of that a little closer look reveals someone who was looking for a fight and found it... more a case of ego than the sanctity of science was involve.

       But then buried in there is the implication that science and religion are somehow synonymous - a balded faced lie they don't mind boostering with all the creative cynical word-play at their disposal. 

        

34564. PhilippeChantreau at 23:48 PM on 31 August 2014
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Ashton at 313,

       There is no such as thing as "both sides" of the "debate." The so-called debate consists of on one side, the science, on the other, people saying the science is wrong without doing any of the work to prove it. Or people saying the science shows things that it doesn't show. Or people organizing harassment campaigns against scientists coming to conclusions they don't like. That is a far cry from a debate.

       I'm not sure what you're otherwise saying but it sounds like "I may be taken for a ride but what choice do I have?"

       Really?

34565. citizenschallenge at 23:34 PM on 31 August 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       I understand that SkS's REPOST feature is gone.

       But SkS still has the CreativeCommons and sharing/reposting policy in place... right?

       I'd love to repost this article - 

34566. mjibrown at 22:11 PM on 31 August 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       One of the most curious tactics used by trolls, amongst others, is the absurd strawman. For example, claims that scientists have ignored the influence of the Sun on climate. It is trivial to disprove this by looking at the discussion of "forcings" in the IPCC reports.

       Examples of this tactic can be easily found on twitter: https://twitter.com/search?q=climate%20%22the%20sun%22&src=typd (although this search mostly finds unrelated material).

34567. Wol at 21:17 PM on 31 August 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       I am in the same position as Christopher Gyles (above) and am as frustrated as he with the "tactics" (my quotes) of the deniers, most of whom seem completely devoid of any knowledge of the scientific method: indeed, seem proud of the fact.

       However, TV, the press, blogs and - shamefully, this site - almost without exception avoid the BIG elephant in the room: population.

       
       Far too many of what might be loosely called the "green" lobby are resigned to cutting the West's consumption of energy and raw materials generally. I think we are all approaching the resource, and CO² question from exactly the wrong end: surely the way to start is to ask what is the population that the planet can sustain indefinitely, with every member of the human race having a reasonable standard of living? ( Say, for the sake of argument, that of a middle class European's lifestyle.)

       I suspect that the answer would be far short of the 9Bn plus that is forecast for 2050 - and almost certainly far short of the present 7Bn.

       In this context, CO² and consequent global warming is only one of the massive problems rapidly approaching. There is no realistic prospect of Western communities volutarily reducing their lifestyles to that of the majority of the world's people and to be honest I don't see that would do any more anyway than kick the can just a few yards down the road.

       
       Controlling population is the key, but if you think cutting emissions is an uphill battle it's nothing compared with fighting THAT elephant.

34568. Ashton at 18:01 PM on 31 August 2014
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Tom Curtis, this may well be struck out as off topic.  I'm in the UK at the moment where the Mail on Sunday, a widely read but sensationalistic newspaper has reported on Arctic sea ice.  I don't read this paper as I think it is a "rag" but as my attention was drawn to the report by local radio I looked at it on-line.  You yourself might care to do so to see just how the MSM can sway the climate change debate.

34569. Ashton at 17:42 PM on 31 August 2014
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Tom Curtis.  Thanks for you very extensive comment, you certainly provide chapter and verse.  It is very impressive.  What I and possibly others, think about homogenisation is that in our daily lives we would not consider the temperature on a particular day from a site very distant from our own location as having any relevance whatsoeever on the temperature we ourselves will experience on that day.  I can see however that that comment shows I'm not distinguishing between weather and climate.  But in all of this particular debate it is the temperature on particular days that is the subject of discussion.  With regard to your comments to the moderator.  I haven't responded in detail as I don't have the experise that you clearly do,  to assemble the relevant data in a time frame that fits into my working life.  And as for shifting the "point of attack" as you put it, I don't have any "point of attack".  I read stuff in the MSM and from time to time, post my, admittedly superficial, observations hoping that those such as yourself will provide a more expert analysis of these obsertvations.  Mostly my hopes are realised.  However many readers of the MSM don't do this but accept what they are told without any further thought or follow-up. Should I follow their example? Perhaps I should and  perhaps that is why the more sceptical side of the climate debate is still not entirely convinced by the arguments put forward by its proponents.  Yes, I do read the Australian, a paper that reports on both sides of the AGW debate.  I also read The Guardian, a paper that reports on only one side of the debate.  I don't regard articles in The Australian as being any more accurate and relevant or, conversely,  more readily dismissable than those in The Guardian and  vice versa.   

34570. Tom Curtis at 14:46 PM on 31 August 2014
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Just realized I failed to include my footnote for the preceding post.  In it I referred to the "homogenized" data for BEST.  Strictly speaking BEST do not homogenize the data.  Rather, they break up records were they recognize an inhomgeniety, and treat the two records as distinct.  The resulting long term record is a "break point adjusted record".  Here, for example are the breakpoints for Bourke:

       

       And the breakpoint adjusted record:

       

       And the same for Gayndah:

       

       

       You will notice that except for the initial period, the adjustments to Gaynday reduce the trend.

       And finally, for Rutherglen:

       

       

       Those, with Amberley, are all the stations I have seen Marohasy cherry pick todate.  As this is clear evidence that a simple algorithm in fact produces results inline with those produced by application of BOMs distince simple algorithm (and the GHCN's algorithm, which is very similar to that of BOM, though differing on several points), no doubt Marohasy will now accept these adjustments in line with her comments about pre-1910 Bourke temperatures.  Or perhaps not.

34571. Tom Curtis at 10:26 AM on 31 August 2014
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Ashton @310, the article for which you provide a link just rehashes the same allegations, except for Bourke.  Curiously it draws attention to high temperature prior to 1910, as Marohasy notes in her address to the Sydney Institute, "Temperatures before August 1908 were apparently not recorded in a Stevenson screen".  Indeed, they may have been recorded on a Glaisher stand, or simply on a thermometer kept within the post office.   The site info notes only that an alcohol thermometer of unknown type was installed in 1871.  Ironically Marohasy suggests that "the Bureau could easily apply an algorithm to correct for this", but it is a bit hard to device an algoritm for temperature records from a thermometer of unknown manufacture, operated in an unknown environment, and read by various postmen of unknown training.  Further, (and here is the irony), we know how Marohasy responds to BOM algorithms that do not give her the message she wants to broadcast.

       As to the MSM, the MSM in question is The Australian, which has a well known inability to report accurately or fairly on climate science.  This is epitomized by the extended period when a cap and trade scheme was the favoured policy of the then Labor government in which for about a year, the Australian ran an article in the opinion pages on the issue every day, and managed to find next to zero such articles in favour of the policy (and less than 10% of articles by people other than AGW deniers).  On climate science (as on many issues) the appropriate comparitor for The Australian is the Soviet era Pravda.

       This propaganda approach to "reporting" is shown to be in full force by Friday's article, "Bureau of Meteorology told to be more transparent" in which Graham Lloyd reports the stale knews that a 2011 peer review told the Bureau to be more transparent about its proceedures, but neglects to report the 2 year old news that BOM published in 2012 a freely downloadable PDF detailing it homogenization process along with a host of other information about the ACORN network, and the review itself.  I assume supersleuth Lloyd only published on the review because he did not know about it prior to uncritically running Marohasy's story.  Don't, however, expect him to catch up to the 2012 developments, however, because they run counter to the angle he is pursuing.

       Speaking of the PDF on homogenization, it contains this fascinating figure showing a histogram of corrections to maximum and minimum temperatures as a result of the homogenization process:

       

       Does it not astonish you that with all her close scrutiny of temperature records, Marohasy has not managed to report on one adjustment that has lowered temperatures?

       Of course, the timing of the adjustments is relevant in one way, so they also show the adjustments by decade, which are about even, with a spike of positive adjustments in the 1960s, and a large spike of negative adjustments in the 1990s.  (That is right, the highest rate, and proportion, of negative adjustments is in the 1990s.)  In another way, the timing is irrelevant because the mathematical proceedure used in homogenization (which has been fully described in a scientific paper) does not look at the effect on trends.  It has an effect on trends.  It causes some trends to increase, and others to decrease (although the later entirely escape Marohasy and Lloyd's attention).  Further, overall, the effect does increase trends relative to the raw data.  But that effect is the result of a mathematical algorithm that is blind to trends.  The change in trend is not a factor in the algorithm in anyway.

       If Marohasy were interested in a scientific critique of the BOM's results, she would look in detail at that the algorithm used by BOM to make the adjustments.  She would try to show mathematically how it is not blind to trends.  She would look at the overall statistics of adjustments, discussing records which had the trends changes downwards as well as upwards.  When she doubted a particular adjustment, she would discuss it in detail - not merely handwaving about multidecade trends of just one nearby station (as she does for Amberley).  She does none of that - and the reason is that if you even start doing any of that you see she has nothing to argue.

       So she cherry picks, knowing that gullible fools will believe what is convenient without appropriate scrutiny.

       Speaking of cherry, picking, here is the 120 month running average of the Amberley Mean monthly temperure from BEST, minus the regional expectation (ie, the temperature estimated for Amberley using local stations, but not Amberley):

       

       As can be seen, the BEST "homogenized"(1) Amberley result sits comfortably above the regional expectation until the 1980s, when it drops like a stone and stays well below it.  This comparison is not how either BOM or BEST check for inhomogeneities in the data, but it clearly shows that in 1981 something extraordinary happened to the temperature record at Amberley.  (The spike at the end is an artifact of my not having as yet deleted the averages that overrun the data, as you can see by the data running on to 2012.)

       Using BOM's minimum temperature data for the 10 sites with reasonable length of records closest to Amberley, I calculated a similar value:

       

       These are annual values.  The erraticness of the line is partly due to the small number of comparitors, which drop down to for some time periods, but are around seven or eight in 1981.  Again the Amberley record plummets in 1981.  You will notice that the Brisbane Regional Office (Brisbane Reg) rises sharply around 1969, an inhomgeneneity that would require a downward adjustment if it were an ACORN site (it isn't in that period, although its data is used rather than Brisbane Aero prior to the 1940s). 

       More importantly, Brisbane Aero shows no inhomgeneity in 1981.  Rather, it shows a smaller inhomgeneity around 1987.  This is important because it is the negative trend of Brisbane Aero that Marohasy points to suggest the negative trend in Amberley minimum temperatures is due to a regional change.  That was unlikely in the first place because of the sharp nature of the change; but even the site Marohasy chooses as showing a similar change in tempertures does not show the change of temperatures at the same time.  Therefore they do not have the same cause.

       Had Marohasy been interested in a serious scientific critique, she would have investigated and shown that herself.  That she obscures the difference in timing of the reduction in temperatures between the two stations with handwaving rather than bringing it out shows her clear intent is to obfusticate and deceive.

       (To the moderator, Ashton has not replied in detail to the posts showing Marohasy's claims to be without substance.  Rather, he has merely shifted the point of attack to stations that have not been examined in detail.  It takes time to do the detailed analysis, so I am not going to do it station by station as Marohasy cherry picks her way around Australia.  I suggest that any attempt to simply publish another cherry pick by Ashton should be regarded as sloganeering.  I invite him to respond in detail, but simple avoidance should not be acceptable.)

34572. Andy Skuce at 09:57 AM on 31 August 2014
       US State Department underestimates carbon pollution from Keystone XL
       

       Moving on to the question of the materiality of the oilsands on emissions. Proponents of new fossil-fuel infrastructure often like to emphasize to very small effect that any single project will have on global emissions and temperatures. Meanwhile, when looking at the benefits, these are looked at in local terms. We might hear that project X will provide (say) 20,000 new jobs in Alberta, Texas or Queensland. Never do we see that expressed as employing 0.0003% of the world's population. However, nobody sees anything wrong with saying that the emissions of (say) 100 million tons of CO2 per year are a mere 0.3% of the world's emissions, deeming it a drop in the bucket.

       Now, 20,000 jobs would be a significant boost to the Canadian economy and not something anyone would sniff at. If we look at the emissions in a Canadian context, however, they start to look significant, too. (These figures are taken from an article on my blog and are slightly modified from Environment Canada originals.)

       Note that these are just the upstream emissions from producing the oil sands oil, not from the combustion of the exported product. The projected increases from the oil and gas sector swamp any progress to be made in electricity generation.

       Here is what it looks like relative to Canada's own emissions targets.

       The black line shows the expected emissions. The dashed green line (added by me) shows where we would be going without further oil sands expansion. The brown line shows the government's own target. The red line shows what might have happened if we imagine that Canada had a government that was even more environmentally reckless than Stephen Harper's. 

34573. Andy Skuce at 09:30 AM on 31 August 2014
       US State Department underestimates carbon pollution from Keystone XL
       

       Russ,

       I certainly agree that there should be an end to all fossil fuel subsidies. However, most of the direct subsidies occur outside of developing nations and are focussed on petroleum products and gas. All theses images are from Brad Plummer.

       

       None of this is within the political control of our governments and is well beyond the influence of climate activists. People often scold anti-pipeline activists for a lack of attention to coal. Coal is the big beast of climate change, it is true, but removing direct fossil-fuel subsidies would do little to affect coal consumption, because the subsidies are so small.

       Once we start to look at the full subsidy, by including a $25 per tonne of CO2e charge for climate damage, then we start to see much bigger numbers and much bigger slices attributable to rich countries (blue) and bigger amounts aimed at coal.

       

       Applying this tax and getting rid of the effective subsidy is within the theoretical power of our governments and would make a big difference to emissions. In fact, if this policy was in place globally I would likely drop my opposition to new oilsands infrastructure. Probably, whatever I decided to do would be moot, because a global carbon tax would reduce demand and price new carbon-intensive bitumen projects out of the picture.

       Now, you are rightly concerned about tax leakage, as one country charges a carbon tax while its trading partners get a free ride and a boost to competitivity by not charging one. This would not be easy to solve, but a border fee could be imposed on imports within WTO rules, at least according to this presentation via the Citizens' Climate Lobby.

       Having said all of that, getting a carbon tax introduced with our current governments in advanced economies appears to be a very long shot, although I will continue to lobby and vote for it. In the meantime, I will continue to focus part of my energy on stopping individual infrastructure projects. At least we have a fighting chance to score a win there on KXL and the pipeline projects through BC to the Pacific.

34574. Ashton at 07:37 AM on 31 August 2014
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Tom Curtis and KR you ar eboth quite correct and I apologise unreservedly for my sloppy assessment of the piece I read.  That said, have you read the piece in the Weekend Australian (http://tinyurl.com/l3r5zs4)?  More questions regarding the treatment of temperature data by the BoM which is not coming across at all well in the MSM.  It really does give one cause for pause in blindly accepting that what they say is gospel. There does not appear to be any affiliation with the Heartland Institute or the fossil fuel industry.

34575. wilbert at 07:28 AM on 31 August 2014
       US State Department underestimates carbon pollution from Keystone XL
       

       KR@ My question was more about ,what will these green eng built with?

34576. scaddenp at 07:22 AM on 31 August 2014
       US State Department underestimates carbon pollution from Keystone XL
       

       I rather think Russ R is referring to subsidies as identified by IEA, and frankly I agree. I think you also need to tax the external cost of CO2 damage with pigovian tax on carbon. You dont need to make other jurisdictions follow suit - you just impose carbon tax at the border unless the importer can show cast-iron guarantees that the good is carbon-free or carbon tax paid at same level as domestic.  That way, large consumer economies like the US become a force for change in countries that export to them.

       It doesnt need to be perfect to be effective.

34577. Christopher Gyles at 06:25 AM on 31 August 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       As a science-friendly layman, I must admit I am pretty disillusioned by the whole commenting experience, especially on popular media sites such as Yahoo Science, which seems now to be almost exclusively occupied by trolls,  human or otherwise, spewing a wide variety of psuedo science, homespun homilies, and flawed arguments.

       Is there any reason not to be pessimistic after reading Popular Science's comments discontinuation rationalization, Brossard and Scheufele's NY Times piece, the Monbiot pieces on industry-financed and computer-generated trollery? How does one debate a computer program or even know the difference? I began commenting for the possible benefit of any impressionable casual readers who might have been getting misinformed otherwise, but if it's true that just one firmly stated ad hominem or negative implication by a denier can pretty much invalidate the whole logical component of the debate, what's the point of persisting with it - especially against such great numbers?

       In my Southern California community, the "skeptivist/denialist" propaganda strategy is clearly working. In our junior college it's practically impossible to find anyone in a trade department who doesn't believe that AGW is nothing more than a political ploy and tax-raising scheme. One automotive instructor even spends a whole lecture period each semester railing angrily against the evils of "emotional tree huggers" and "politicians," and utilizing every denialist talking point imaginable to convince his students of the "massive fraud" of global warming.

       I would like to believe I can make even a small a difference, but it's getting increasingly more difficult.

34578. Joe Wiseman at 04:43 AM on 31 August 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       The Ostrich
       As a species I sometimes wonder if we most resemble the ostrich. If we duck our heads, ignore the problem for long enough, it will just, maybe, hopefully, please, go away. Or perhaps our approach is more like Bill Clinton's solution to gays in the military - don't ask, don't tell! After all, if nobody talks about it, it isn't there, is it?
       My brother-in-law, a house painter and his friend, who is working in the Alberta oil patch sum it up this way: "it's been about 150 years since the Industrial Revolution and we've done this much damage to the environment. We might get another 100 years out of it all."
       At a church luncheon, a fellow parishioner relates to me his experience of reading about the poisoning of the St Clare River at Sarnia. "I was there the night the company put that stuff in the ground and supposedly sealed it off." There was pain in his eyes and no doubt, in his heart and in his soul. I stated that it was amazing how many people I speak with, ordinary people, blue collar workers, who understand that we are gradually destroying the planet. He casually observed, "there will be a revolution."
       It's hardly unlikely that for some inexplicable reason, I am the only guy who has these conversations. It is more likely that most of us see the truth for what it is. We are gradually, speeding up, speeding up, speeding up, destroying the very planet that gives us life. Suicide or madness? Take your pick, I can't figure it out.
       I wonder who our political leaders talk to? Do they have these conversations or are they shielded for their own protection? They don't appear to be losing much sleep about it all as the oil companies drill away, as the auto manufacturers continue to turn out the gas combustion engine, as poisons are released into our rivers, lakes, oceans, landfills - anywhere the millions upon millions of barrels of poisonous waste can be hidden for awhile. Long enough, they hope, to finish making the money, packing up and leaving the deadly stuff behind. Perhaps, like Chernoble, the animals will have another paradise, free of humans, in a future that may be as inevitable as the prediction of my house painter friend - a hundred years or so.
       Is it possible to change a future that is rushing towards us virtually unhindered except for sporadic demonstrations and vocal minorities who are often perceived as "radical", "inhibiting progress", "tree-huggers", "terrorists", "trouble - makers", etc? Most days are like today - I simply have no idea whether we have the rational or empathetic ability to slow down, stop and possibly reverse the race to the "end of the human race."
       Joe Wiseman
       Citizen

34579. Tom Curtis at 03:56 AM on 31 August 2014
       US State Department underestimates carbon pollution from Keystone XL
       

       RussR @9:

       "Here's one that I would be strongly in favour of: Stop ALL government subsidies. All of them. Every single one. When people pay the full costs of their consumption, they'll consume less."

       OK, let's start running through the subsidies:

       1)  Restrained government borrowing to keep low interest rates is a subsidy of large borrowers (corporations primarily). 

       2)  "Limited Liability" is a subsidy of investors at the expense (primarilly) of small business, subcontractors and employees.

       3)  The low inflation economic target (as opposed to targeting neutral inflation over the business cycle, including periods of deflation) is a subsidy, again primarilly of investors at the expense of wage earners, retirees and people who save by deposits in banks or matresses.

       4)  Corporations are a subsidy for investors at the expense of all other sectors of the ecnomy by allowing investors to bargain as a monolithic block, thus greatly enhancing their bargaining position.

       5)  The requirement to prove harm to obtain compensation from anybody or corporation who dumps substances into public space (including the atmosphere) is a subsidy for polluters.

       So, Russ, have you signed up to get rid of these subsidies?  Made your local member of congress aware that you won't support them unless they eliminate corporations and limited liability from the statute books?  Or is this talk of opposing "all subsidies" just more hypocritical libertarian claptrap that really just comes down to opposing only those subsidies from which they are not major beneficiaries?

34580. PhilippeChantreau at 03:48 AM on 31 August 2014
       US State Department underestimates carbon pollution from Keystone XL
       

       Russ R says: "Stop ALL government subsidies. All of them. Every single one. When people pay the full costs of their consumption, they'll consume less."

       This is obviously nonsense. Since the resources of the goverment comes from the people, the people do pay for all of their consumption, one way or another. It works more this way: people pay taxes, some of that money is given to private companies producing something that these comanies can then sell cheaper than if they weren't receiving government money, making them viable or competitive enough to exist.

       My experience is that, regardless of political belonging or ideological leaning, the ones who run the companies benefiting from subsidies are always in favor of these subsidies and never believe that "smaller government" should imply less subsidies for them.

       I note this about the tar sands: we are trying there to squeeze out every little last drop by any mean imaginable, including the total destruction of surface landscape in the case of the tar sands. That's called desperation. Anybody with a clear mind can see that it is already past time to move away from a no longer viable solution when desperation sets in. Of course, some will want a chunk of whatever wealth can be derived from desperate measures. Others will advocate for it out of obscure ideoligical reasons. It doesn't make it right.

34581. Joe Wiseman at 03:35 AM on 31 August 2014
       Climate Change Impacts in Labrador
       

       The Ostrich
       As a species I sometimes wonder if we most resemble the ostrich. If we duck our heads, ignore the problem for long enough, it will just, maybe, hopefully, please, go away. Or perhaps our approach is more like Bill Clinton's solution to gays in the military - don't ask, don't tell! After all, if nobody talks about it, it isn't there, is it?
       My brother-in-law, a house painter and his friend, who is working in the Alberta oil patch sum it up this way: "it's been about 150 years since the Industrial Revolution and we've done this much damage to the environment. We might get another 100 years out of it all."
       At a church luncheon, a fellow parishioner relates to me his experience of reading about the poisoning of the St Clare River at Sarnia. "I was there the night the company put that stuff in the ground and supposedly sealed it off." There was pain in his eyes and no doubt, in his heart and in his soul. I stated that it was amazing how many people I speak with, ordinary people, blue collar workers, who understand that we are gradually destroying the planet. He casually observed, "there will be a revolution."
       It's hardly unlikely that for some inexplicable reason, I am the only guy who has these conversations. It is more likely that most of us see the truth for what it is. We are gradually, speeding up, speeding up, speeding up, destroying the very planet that gives us life. Suicide or madness? Take your pick, I can't figure it out.
       I wonder who our political leaders talk to? Do they have these conversations or are they shielded for their own protection? They don't appear to be losing much sleep about it all as the oil companies drill away, as the auto manufacturers continue to turn out the gas combustion engine, as poisons are released into our rivers, lakes, oceans, landfills - anywhere the millions upon millions of barrels of poisonous waste can be hidden for awhile. Long enough, they hope, to finish making the money, packing up and leaving the deadly stuff behind. Perhaps, like Chernoble, the animals will have another paradise, free of humans, in a future that may be as inevitable as the prediction of my house painter friend - a hundred years or so.
       Is it possible to change a future that is rushing towards us virtually unhindered except for sporadic demonstrations and vocal minorities who are often perceived as "radical", "inhibiting progress", "tree-huggers", "terrorists", "trouble - makers", etc? Most days are like today - I simply have no idea whether we have the rational or empathetic ability to slow down, stop and possibly reverse the race to the "end of the human race."
       Joe Wiseman
       Citizen

34582. John Hartz at 03:13 AM on 31 August 2014
       US State Department underestimates carbon pollution from Keystone XL
       

       @Russ R: Do you have any coincern about the ecological damage being done by the mining and processing of the bitumen in the Alberta Tar Sands?
       
       
       

34583. mbryson at 02:56 AM on 31 August 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       Other patterns of troll behaviour include the 'look over there' response to unwelcome evidence, and the zombie-like reemergence of refuted claims and arguments.  Together, they create a simple-minded dance whose steps always circle back to the same conclusions: telling new evidence forces trolls to change the topic, but once the new evidence has faded from the headlines, the  zombie claims it had refuted revive to walk the land again, befuddling new victims and reinforcing the convictions of people with strong commitments and short memories.

34584. Rob Honeycutt at 02:19 AM on 31 August 2014
       US State Department underestimates carbon pollution from Keystone XL
       

       Russ said, "Here's one that I would be strongly in favour of: Stop ALL government subsidies. "

       That's a very nice sentiment, but you know as well as the rest of us, that's probably the least likely approach be implemented. Tell us which politician is going to stand up to say, "My constituents want no more government subsidies for any projects!" Yeah... right.

       Let's talk about solutions that actually are viable, like a revenue neutral carbon tax. Tax and dividend. This very likely to be the one and only politically viable solution. Still not easy, but one that is genuinely viable.

34585. Russ R. at 01:43 AM on 31 August 2014
       US State Department underestimates carbon pollution from Keystone XL
       

       Andy,

       "I have estimated the effect of the oilsands on the climate in this post based on the paper by Swart and Weaver. Please let me know if you have a problem with it."

       At least you admit that the entire oil sands' impact would be "barely visible", and even that's over the many centuries it would take to extract the entire resource.  The Keystone XL pipeline, over its entire useful lifetime, could carry only a fraction of the oil sands.  So, a fraction of barely visible is indeed... to small to measure.   So it sounds like we're in agreement.

       "Could you a) Point us to a decision that would produce a climate effect big enough to measure and; b) let us know if you would be in favour of it. "

       Here's one that I would be strongly in favour of:  Stop ALL government subsidies.  All of them.  Every single one.  When people pay the full costs of their consumption, they'll consume less.

       "My guess is that the only policy decision that would produce a big effect is if one of the the big emitting countries introduced a hefty carbon tax. I would be heartily in favour of this, but my recollection is that you are skeptical of the efficacy of carbon taxes."

       As for carbon taxes, when you tell me how you plan to solve for carbon leakage to jurisdictions that aren't going to impose such taxes, maybe I'll agree with you.  Alternately, tell me how you intend to get every jurisdiction to agree to a uniform carbon tax.

       With that issue solved, I'd happily support a carbon tax (really any consumption tax) in place of an income tax.

34586. jgnfld at 01:37 AM on 31 August 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       @christd3

       The proper response to the "fires occur naturally" meme is to suggest they light a bonfire in their own living and then report back on how that went for them personally. This actually IS a correct analogy.

34587. Jim Hunt at 01:30 AM on 31 August 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       @Chris #21
       
       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?

       My first Arctic map was carefully cloned from (un)Real Science, where Steve/Tony unaccountably neglected to paper over the "Pole hole"!

34588. chrisd3 at 00:57 AM on 31 August 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       @PluviAL #20

       The accepted wisdom seems to be "not to feed the trolls," I disagree; it is bothersome and a never-ending battle, but a necessary fight.

       I agree. "Don't feed the trolls" is good advice for real trolls--the ones who are there only to disrupt and irritate.

       But that's not the main aim of most the "skeptic" commenters (although they certainly don't mind if they disrupt and irritate). Most of them, with the exception of the professional disinformers, actually believe what they write. They are pushing a point of view. It's important not to leave this stuff unresponded to. The number of people who just read comments is much larger than the number of commenters. Bad science can look like good science to them if no one rebuts it.

34589. chrisd3 at 00:48 AM on 31 August 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       @Jim Hunt #16:

       Well, arguing with Steve/Tony and his followers is utterly hopeless. It's a twisty maze of passages, all alike. No analogy is going to help.

       By the way, your first Arctic map--is that a map, or a drawing of a chicken? :)

34590. PluviAL at 00:47 AM on 31 August 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       @ One Planet Only and For Ever: Exellent distiction. The term Troll and and Trolling is almost meaningless to me. I too see the "disinformation agent" as distinct from their "target to disinform," and then the "disinformed." And then there is the rare person who actually believes differently based on reason.

       I take it as a job to adress the issue against the disinformed, and the disinformeres. I think I can tell the difference by the way they respond. But it seems if we let them just say nonsense without correction, the disinformation effort wins.

       The accepted wisdom seems to be "not to feed the trolls," I disagree; it is bothersome and a never-ending battle, but a necessary fight.

34591. mancan18 at 00:42 AM on 31 August 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       There are several principles that might also be relevant in debating with climate deniers and their associated trolls.

       First, you might be dealing with a possible variation of the Dunning-Kruger effect, which, in this case, would be; that if you’re ignorant, then you don't know you’re ignorant because you don't have the skills to realise that you are ignorant.

       Second, there's a quote from Alexander Canduci's book "Triumph and Tragedy" about Rome's Emperors describing the Eastern Emperor Basiliscus (ruled 475-476) which states: "It says a lot about a man's character if he can completely ignore his own manifest inadequacies". This could be applicable to some of our so called business leaders and politicians who are deniers out of ideology and self-interest.

       And third there's Euclid's "pons asinorum", his bridge of fools for students studying geometry, which in climate science relates to how greenhouse gases and warming relate to each other. Those who don't even accept this basic principle are probaly not worth debating anyway, because if you argue with a fool, people mightn't know the difference. Unfortunately, sometimes it is necessary because you might need to actually question a denier to reveal their ignorance. The trick is to do it without appearing smug and arrogant. Sadly, deniers and trolls don't make it easy, but then all you asking of them is to pay attention to the real world, listen to the people who have devoted their lives to studying it, assimilate the information and come to a proper scientific conclusion. This after all that is what real science is about anyway.

34592. chrisd3 at 00:41 AM on 31 August 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       @jenna #15

       OK, here's an example. A common "skeptic" argument is that temperatures rose in the past (before the use of fossil fuels); those increases must have had natural causes, which means that the current warming must also be natural.

       In an attempt to show that things can have more than one cause, I've used this: "My neighbor's car accelerated when he pushed it off a cliff. Therefore stepping on the accelerator cannot be what's causing my car to go faster now." They do not get this. They go off about how comparing climate change to driving is stupid. 

       Or there's this very common one: "Wildfires occur naturally, therefore today's fire cannot have been caused by careless campers as the fire service claims." The usual response to this is that there's no evidence that climate change causes wildfires. (Yes, I know, it's bizarre.)

       It really doesn't matter what the analogy is. Make any analogy regarding climate change. They never get it--or they pretend not to.

34593. jgnfld at 23:45 PM on 30 August 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       @jenna...

       Already done above. The Galileo [ and I could add Copernicus/Einstein/ulcer...] Gambit is a clear example in that deniers deny the basic phenomenon that the Earth is warming "just like" the above thinkers provided much better explanations for phenomena everyone in the world already agreed occurred in the first place. No. It is not at all "just like". They are false analogies.

       The correct analogy would be that deniers are like flat Eathers, young Earthers, and, for a good real science analogy, the uniformitarian resistance to the concept of the horizontal movements of continents.

       Another correct analogy would be that deniers act like parts of the economic/political entities affected by lead, asbestos, HFC, tobacco, and acid rain emitters/producers. The arguments provided by the deniers in each case really are "just like". And very wrong in the very same ways for the very same reasons.

       What christd3 is pointing out is that, among other analogies, deniers are incapable of discriminating case #1 from cases #2 and #3.

34594. Jim Hunt at 23:36 PM on 30 August 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       Chris/Jenna - Surely "analogies" are ripe for "misunderstanding", deliberate or otherwise?
       
       I actually have an entire website devoted (almost) entirely to debating Arctic sea ice science with "skeptics". You might find the current "debate" instructive:

       http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/08/is-arctic-sea-ice-extent-up-because-the-ice-is-thicker/

       What "analogy" do you suggest I use in my thus far vain attempts to get the real scientific message across?

34595. jenna at 23:08 PM on 30 August 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       @chrisd3 #14:  I'm not really sure what you mean about "skeptics understanding analogies". Could you give a couple of examples?

       Thx,

       Jen.

34596. wovenlander at 22:36 PM on 30 August 2014
       Discussing global warming: why does this have to be so hard?
       

       Russ R. is I think correct to draw attention to climate change (mitigation) policy as a factor in people's response to climate change.

       Some people, particularly on the right, reject claims about global warming because they reasonably expect that it will invoke a highly-centralized, "world government" policy response, and this is ideological anathema to small government conservatives and libertarians. Think for example of the reaction on the right to cap-and-trade, or the UN's Agenda 21 action plan for sustainable development.

       Imagine also, someone who believes the evidence for global warming, but does NOT believe that human society as a whole will get its act together to do anything about it (arguably, this is a thoroughly rational posture). Such a person might be motivated mainly to secure his/her own safety/prosperity, in the face of whatever disasters may lie ahead. Such a person's rational choice is to accumulate as much personal wealth as possible, rather like a first-class passenger on the Titanic competing for a seat in a lifeboat. The ship is going down, most of the passengers will die, and nothing can change that!

34597. chrisd3 at 22:26 PM on 30 August 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       @Alexandre #11: There's another area that's begging for psychological examination: The "skeptics" never, ever, understand analogies. They fixate on what's different, ignore what's the same, and announce that the analogy is "moronic."

       In my experience, the failure rate on "skeptic" comprehension of analogies is close to 100%.

       I'd love to know why this is. Do they actually not get the analogies, or are they just scratching for some way around them?

34598. chrisd3 at 22:17 PM on 30 August 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       And then there's the "So you are saying ..." formulation, which is followed by something that's not even close to what you actually said:

       "Increased CO2 inevitably leads to warmer temps."
       "So you are saying that CO2 is the only cause of climate change?"

       I love that one.

34599. GSR at 22:05 PM on 30 August 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly Digest #34
       

       Good-o. I have not been keeping abreast of the attacks on the Paper.  I went on WUWT for the first time last week and found it stragely compelling. There is a patina of seriousness that qiuckly gives way to editorial promotion of stuff like this: 

       About Face! Why the World Needs More Carbon Dioxide

       Yes it's a book. Check on Amazon if you don't believe me

       The other thing I discovered from the site is that David Middleton is the ne plus ultra of carbon scientists. 

       Next week I'll be joining Nation Review Online's climate blog. For those who have not had the pleasure it's called Planet Gore. Sounds serious.

34600. Sapient Fridge at 21:51 PM on 30 August 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       The best tactic I've found for tackling climate change deniers in a public forums is to ask them this question: 

       "If the planet were really warming then what evidence would be enough to convince you to change your mind?"

       The subsequent exchange usually makes it clear to everyone that absolutely nothing, either real or theoretical, would be enough to convince them to change their viewpoint. 

       This is very similar to debating with creationists.  As someone said:

       For a creationist to accept evolution, no evidence is good enough.
       For a creationist to believe in a god, no evidence is good enough.

Prev  684  685  686  687  688  689  690  691  692  693  694  695  696  697  698  699  Next