Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 Next
Comments 35801 to 35850:
-
davidnewell at 13:38 PM on 28 June 2014It's too hard
Perhaps someone would deign to advise my questing mind as to why it is that discourse about this possible (at least partial) answer to the CO2 problem cannot be elicited?
Yes, pumping ocean water over a 6,000 foot "head" is far from trivial: but "It's all downhill from there.."
thank you.
-
chriskoz at 09:27 AM on 28 June 2014New Skeptical Science study finds physics trumps economics, suggests global warming is man-made
This whole concept of " ‘elasticity’ of temperature to CO2" is so counterintuitive that I simply dforgotten it overnight and must have reread this article to recall thisd morning what the fuzz is about.
In more broad context, it's amazing how the contrarians while seeking the alternative science explanation, come up with convoluted explanations defying or trying to workaround simple basic physics we've grown with since primary school. I remember enjoying the first climate science course by David Archer, that fit so nicely into and reminded me my long-rusted physics. Yet contrarian explanations, including this one here, or any others e.g. by Dick Lindzen or Judith Curry require strange mental excercises, including forgetting the world we are living in and grasping some abstract ideas like "stadium vawe" or "cosmic rays".
-
ubrew12 at 08:31 AM on 28 June 2014New Skeptical Science study finds physics trumps economics, suggests global warming is man-made
Once again, the trend in modern rightwing culture to assume economics (read 'free market capitalism') is bigger than government and even Physics. How did Chen forget the Physics in his AGW study? Simple: Physics can say nothing about a Physical problem once Economics has entered the ring. Put that together with this: Hank Paulson gave a wonderful argument for taking AGW seriously the other day. But what bothers is that Paulson is a banker, former CEO of Goldman Sachs, and former Treasury Secretary. So, to recap: after 120 years of Scientific warnings go unheeded, AGW is now 'official' in the eye's of our conservatives because a Banker says so?
Where is Lewis Carroll when you need him.
-
knaugle at 02:11 AM on 28 June 2014CERN CLOUD experiment proved cosmic rays are causing global warming
For a recent example where this experiment is in fact cited by a climate denier, check out the Letters to the Editor of the Lynchburg, VA News and Advance on 06/26/2014 (2nd Paragraph):
It is sadly amazing how such things take a life of their own. However the letter did send me looking for what the experment was doing. As is often the case, some folk put words into scientists' mouths without first asking them.
Moderator Response:[JH] Activated link.
-
Paul Pukite at 23:35 PM on 27 June 2014New Skeptical Science study finds physics trumps economics, suggests global warming is man-made
Anyone that has ever graded exams or homework assignments knows how much harder it is to figure out why someone screwed up than did something correct.
You deserve medals for debunking this dreck, including Beenstock et al.
We don't use methods that are intended to "learn" human-behavioral game theory trends (economics, finance) on problems that obey hard physical laws (earth sciences).
-
longjohn119 at 23:09 PM on 27 June 2014New Skeptical Science study finds physics trumps economics, suggests global warming is man-made
This is what happens when you try to mix psuedo-science (Economics) with real Science ..... You end up with the equivelent of an Alchemist trying to turn lead into gold ....
-
CBDunkerson at 21:40 PM on 27 June 2014New Skeptical Science study finds physics trumps economics, suggests global warming is man-made
Actually, the oven temperature analogy should be even worse... a decreasing rate of CO2 emissions isn't the equivalent of turning down the oven temperature... it is the same as decreasing the rate at which you are turning it up.
Their analysis also ignored ~98% of the warming to focus on atmospheric temperatures, assumed that temperature changes would occur instantly rather than time being required for heat to build up in the climate system and for feedbacks to play out, and (looking at the paper itself) they actually calculated wildly different 'elasticity' values for different parts of the planet... which in and of itself invalidates their entire hypothesis given the well mixed nature of CO2 in the atmosphere.
I was wondering if some actually useful results could be obtained if this sort of analysis was done properly (like the RSS satellite temperature data eventually coming out of the original wildly inaccurate UAH results), but there haven't been any instances of decreasing total atmospheric CO2 levels from which to calculate the 'elasticity' value. Further, if we succeed in switching to non-fossil fuels the correlation between economic activity and CO2 emissions will be broken... and thus decreasing atmospheric CO2 levels at that point couldn't be tested against economic activity either.
-
Trevor_S at 14:33 PM on 27 June 2014New Skeptical Science study finds physics trumps economics, suggests global warming is man-made
Good article...
"We a physics-based equation"
might be a typo ?
-
grindupBaker at 14:01 PM on 27 June 2014New Skeptical Science study finds physics trumps economics, suggests global warming is man-made
In Figure 2 the unibox model is a bit below HadCRUT4 ~1990-1999 then it catches up but Cowtan & Way estimate ~0.09 higher at 2010 so if that turns out to be correct then the unibox model would stay a bit below Cowtan & Way krigified ~1990-2010 in which case I would muse about whether a slight warming effect started ~1990 that isn't in the unibox model. Also, I wonder whether coefficient r2 could sub for DNA in a paternity suit.
-
Andy Skuce at 06:12 AM on 27 June 2014New Skeptical Science study finds physics trumps economics, suggests global warming is man-made
I think some dry humour was intended in the title and that it shouldn't be taken at face value.
-
Zeke Hausfather at 04:58 AM on 27 June 2014Global warming conspiracy theorist zombies devour Telegraph and Fox News brains
The figure in the post is somewhat out-of-date. The difference between GHCN v3.2.2 raw and adjusted is shown here: LINK
Changes in version 3.2 significantly increased the rate of breakpoint detection in the PHA, leading to an increase in the number of corrected inhomogenities.
Moderator Response:[RH] Shortened link that was breaking page format.
-
DSL at 04:28 AM on 27 June 2014New Skeptical Science study finds physics trumps economics, suggests global warming is man-made
I agree with Lou, Mark. That's a right proper rebuttal, and congratulations most definitely, but the headline is a little loose.
"New Study Surprisingly Finds Physics More Useful Than Economics in Understanding Atmospheric Physics." -
Lou Grinzo at 03:25 AM on 27 June 2014New Skeptical Science study finds physics trumps economics, suggests global warming is man-made
Huh? In no way does properly applied science "trump economics" by showing that a single, laughably bad misuse of statistical technique gives predictably bad results.
Can we please stop broadbrushing like this?
-
Tom Curtis at 02:25 AM on 27 June 2014CO2 has a short residence time
Ashby @145, according to Melin et al (2009), root systems apparently account for only 20% of the biomass of a tree (citing Hakilla, 1989). Further, for Norway Spruce, 4.6% of the subterainian biomass decomposes per year, so that 50% is lost in 15 years, and 95% in 64 years. That is faster than the 3.8% of soil carbon respired to the atmosphere each year (see diagram in main article), but not sufficiently so as to expect a large increase in the soil reservoir from reforestation relative to the increase in the vegetation reservoir from the growth of the trees.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 02:16 AM on 27 June 2014CO2 has a short residence time
Ashby, there are fungi and bacteria in the soil that break down the roots of dead trees as well. I suspect how fast this happens depends on the moisture and oxygen availability. If this were not true, we would be digging up the roots of dead trees everytime we dig a hole in the ground, which is not the case.
-
Ashby at 01:56 AM on 27 June 2014CO2 has a short residence time
"Biological uptake (with the exception of fossil fuel formation) is carbon neutral: Every tree that grows will eventually die and decompose, thereby releasing CO2. "
I can see how that would be true for the portion of a tree above ground (assuming the wood isn't used to make a house or something that locks up the wood for 100+ years), but my impression is that the roots are probably as large a carbon sink as the above ground tree and that the smallest tendrils will constantly grow and die back and essentially become part of the soil, fixing their carbon for a long time. Do you have a paper that supports your assertion that trees/plants are carbon neutral? (Preferably one that actually measures the carbon fixing of below ground material over time.) It seems unlikely to be carbon neutral.
This paper argues that organic carbon stored in forest soils are a reservoir roughly the same size as the atmosphere, so we aren't talking about a small effect. http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/389859/Principles-and-Processes-of-Carbon-Sequestration-by-Trees.pdf
-
wili at 01:50 AM on 27 June 2014New Skeptical Science study finds physics trumps economics, suggests global warming is man-made
At first I thought the title was an Onion headline! Do we really have to prove that basic physics is a bit more reliable than economics when it comes to predicting global warming??!! Apparently so!
-
CBDunkerson at 22:48 PM on 26 June 2014Global warming conspiracy theorist zombies devour Telegraph and Fox News brains
KR, the 'skeptic' insistence on using faulty data is a widespread phenomenon;
'Mann should have factored in the erroneous tree ring proxy data after the divergence period!'
'There were other tree ring data sets near Yamal which were not selected for sensitivity to temperature changes and thus show wildly innacurate results if improperly used as temperature proxies... those should have been factored in to temperature anomaly data series!'
'The XBT network had problems with some buoys incorrectly determining depth and thus skewed temperature results... those incorrect values should be included in ocean temperature change analysis!'
'Guy Callendar excluded CO2 readings taken outside sources of major emissions from his analysis of atmospheric CO2 changes over time! Fraud! The massively inflated local readings must be included!'
Et cetera. The same crazy argument comes up over and over again. If we just include enough provably erroneous data this whole global warming thing would go away.
-
tt_tiara at 20:45 PM on 26 June 2014The History of Climate Science
I needed an explaination for the dynamics of the interglacials and found it here. Thanks...
-
Kevin C at 19:51 PM on 26 June 2014Global warming conspiracy theorist zombies devour Telegraph and Fox News brains
Note that the biggest upward adjustment appears to be - you guessed it - 1998. i.e. the adjustments have contributed to the apparent hiatus. That's partly an optical illusion due to 1998 being an extremum, but Zeke's land-only graph with differences here suggests that it is genuine.
It may be worth a look to see where the differences are combing from geographically, and see what a comparison with the more complete Berkeley and Hadley data show.
-
bratisla at 18:36 PM on 26 June 2014Global warming conspiracy theorist zombies devour Telegraph and Fox News brains
The reemergence of this meme was to be expected : the argument "there is a pause" cannot be held out anymore, so they have to attack the record or say "it's natural variability because of El Nino".
Goddard chose the former, because he is deep entrenched in conspiration theorism. Expect other sites to choose the later (for example Curry).
-
TScanlon at 18:35 PM on 26 June 2014Global warming conspiracy theorist zombies devour Telegraph and Fox News brains
Nice one, Dana. Added this as a rebuttal to both articles in rbutr. Onr of the others added is from Monbiot who wrote about Booker's inability to get anything right.
-
Philip Shehan at 14:02 PM on 26 June 2014The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator
Thank you Dikran Marsupial and KR.
KR, I saw your comment at Jo Nova and replied there before proceeding here.
If you read the whole thread, you will see that I had my suspicions that autocorrelation was the source of the problem.
I also looked at your links to your previous discussion on Jo Nova.
I too had a sense of déjà vu as you put the arguments about statistical significance and the usual replies. In fact those from "The Griss" were a cut and paste job of the kinds of tirades of abuse he indulges in.
Odd that we have not crossed paths on this before but you like me are probably only an occasional contributor over there. Very nice to have some back up though. It can be very lonely trying to discuss science in a civil manner with the “skeptics” and it requires a very thick skin.
-
wili at 10:31 AM on 26 June 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #26A
Another important study out this week:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v510/n7506/full/nature13456.html
And an article on it:
LINKIn short, Greenland, like WAIS, is much closer to a major tipping point than we had thought.
Moderator Response:[RH] Shortened link.
-
Tom Curtis at 10:08 AM on 26 June 2014Resources and links documenting Tol's 24 errors
I just noticed that the "24 errors" PDF reproduces the number 17904 three times in succession in table 1, column 4, each time corresponding to a different percentage. Presumably the second to occurences are errors that you may want to correct.
-
KR at 04:37 AM on 26 June 2014Global warming conspiracy theorist zombies devour Telegraph and Fox News brains
As I once commented on a contrarian site, in a blog post decrying temperature corrections:
It could be argued that it’s better to look at raw temperature data than data with these various adjustments for known biases. It could also be argued that it’s worth not cleaning the dust and oil off the lenses of your telescope when looking at the stars. I consider these statements roughly equivalent, and (IMO) would have to disagree.
The blog authors were, predictably, displeased by that comment. When the corrections are removing errors, and increasing the accuracy of your data, the contrarian preference for raw data is a choice for inaccuracy. And decrying those corrections says "conspiracy theorist" in large type.
-
dmcnaugh15 at 03:47 AM on 26 June 2014Global warming conspiracy theorist zombies devour Telegraph and Fox News brains
Thank you for this post. A climate denying friend of mine recently submitted to me the telegraph article, as evidence against global warming. With a quick google search, it was clear that Tony Heller and Christopher Booker were fringe, anti-science bloggers, but I didn't have a good direct argument against the evidence they submitted. This post helped with that. Thumbs up guys!
-
John Hartz at 01:42 AM on 26 June 2014Why we care about the 97% expert consensus on human-caused global warming
ubrew12 @#2:
Paul Krugman's take on Henry Paulson Jr.'s New York Times Op-ed, The Coming Climate Crash is instructive:
"Given the state of U.S. politics today, climate action is entirely dependent on Democrats, With a Democrat in the White House, we got some movement through executive action; if Democrats eventually regain the House, there could be more. If Paulson believes that he can support Republicans while still pushing for climate action, he’s just delusional."
The Loneliness of the Non-Crazy Republican by Paul Krugman, Conscience of a Liberal, New York Times, June 22, 2014
-
KR at 01:05 AM on 26 June 2014The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator
Philip Shehan - I've added a comment on the JN thread to that regard. And noted to Vic Gallus that I've told him this before, only to be ignored.
-
KR at 00:29 AM on 26 June 2014The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator
Philip Shehan - The difference is indeed, as Dikran points out, due to autocorrelation. The assumptions made in a basic ordinary least squares fit (OLS) such as in MicroSoft Office are of data with uncorrelated white noise, where there is no memory, where each successive value will have a variation defined only by the probability distribution function of that white noise.
Climate, on the other hand, demonstrates considerable autocorrelation, which could be considered as memory or inertia, wherein a warm(cold) month is quite likely to be followed by another warm(cold) month - due to limits on how fast the climate energy content can change. This means that noise or short term variation deviating from the underlying trend can take some time to return to that underlying trend - and not just randomly flip to the opposite value, bracketing the trend.
Therefore determining the trend under autocorrelation requires more data, meaning a higher trend uncertainty for any series than would be seen with white noise. The more autocorrelation is present, the higher the uncertainty, as it becomes less clear whether a deviation is due to some underlying trend change or to a persistent variation.
Again, as Dikran notes, the methods section of Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 describe how the autocorrelation of temperature data is computed and (as described on the calculator page) applied in the SkS trend calculator.
-
kmalpede at 00:25 AM on 26 June 2014Why we care about the 97% expert consensus on human-caused global warming
In New York, Oct. 2-Oct 26, Theater Three Collaborative will be producing a play "Extreme Whether" that tells the story of the attacks on American climate scientists, in an engaging fictional way. Can art help? I'm not so sure.
It feels more and more to me that Naomi Klein is correct. The deniers understand that free-market capitalsim may be at stake here, and are perfectly willing to sacrifice a liveable climate for $.
-
JARWillis at 22:28 PM on 25 June 2014Why we care about the 97% expert consensus on human-caused global warming
This is all very well and of course important, but only underlines how ludicrous it is to quibble about the exact scale of the overwhelming scientific consensus telling us we have to act now to mitigate a terrible risk.
Sensible people hit the brake before they hit the wall, even when they are unsure what they have seen is a wall. And especially when they have a car full of children. To deliberately undermine attempts to protect against risks at either of these scales is beyond my comprehension.
Ask these quibblers at what level of consensus they would join the general call for action.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 20:14 PM on 25 June 2014The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator
I suspect at least part of the problem is that the SkS trend calculator correctly takes the autocorrelation of the data into account instead of performing ordinary least squares without this correction. This makes the error bars wider to reflect the fact that there is less information in an autocorrelated time-series than there is in an uncorrelated time series of the same length.
Note the trend calculator gives the following note: "Data: (For definitions and equations see the methods section of Foster and Rahmstorf, 2011)", so if Vic really wants to know what is causing the difference, he should probably start by reading the paper that explains how it works.
See also section titled "Uncertainty increases with autocorrelation" above
-
MA Rodger at 19:35 PM on 25 June 2014New study improves measurements of the warming oceans
Terranova @1&4.
Further to the previous commenters, if you read the paper's abstract and understand its implications, you would note the error in OHC measurement being discussed amounts to "a global average of ~0.01°–0.025°C, ~1–2.5 × 1022 J," values which are large but a factor of 10 smaller than the rise in OHC that has been recorded in recent years.
Thus you are wrong when you say @1 "In fact, the study shows the uncertainty in temperature measurements in either direction and at different depths and different latitudes. They ... do not infer ... that the oceans are warming." Or do you consider that the authors of the paper are ignorant of the size of increase in OHC?
-
Philip Shehan at 19:26 PM on 25 June 2014The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator
I often use Kevin C’s trend calculator when discussing statistical significance on “skeptic” blogs.
This regularly attracts comments boiling down to the assertion that anything appearing on SkS must be rubbish, although I give reasons as to why I find it credible.
On Jo Nova’s blog Vic G Gallus has provided an argument which is thoughtful and backed by calculations. His argument is that the confidence limits returned by the trend calculator are too large.
I would very much like Kevin’s opinion on this.
Vic has said that he is happy for me to put his case .
Here are some of Vic’s points:
For the GISS data from 2000 using a free product on the web ZunZun (you can use Excel if you have the ToolPack or just type the equations in yourself.) For the function y=Mx+C
C = -1.3189290142200617E+01
std err: 1.90197E+01
t-stat: -3.02426E+00
p-stat: 2.87675E-03
95% confidence intervals: [-2.17979E+01, -4.58064E+00]
M = 6.8552826863844353E-03
std err: 4.72102E-06
t-stat: 3.15506E+00
p-stat: 1.89629E-03
95% confidence intervals: [2.56634E-03, 1.11442E-02]Coefficient Covariance Matrix
[ 1.34458894e+03 -6.69891142e-01]
[ -6.69891142e-01 3.33749638e-04]0.07±0.04 °C/decade and not 0.07 ±0.15 °C/decade (FFS)
Using GISS data from 1999, it comes out to be 0.097 ±0.04 °C/decade. I checked the coefficient using Excel and it was 0.097.
A comment from me:
Vic,
I had a suspicion of one possible cause of the differences in the error margin output but thought it would take some time to check on so left it until now, but alas when I go to your links, the first fails and the second is not helpful.
So I will pose this thought:
Looking at the output figures in your post and the blurb on microsoft toolpack:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/214076
I notice that standard error is mentioned.
The algorithm I am using outputs the error margin as 2 standard deviations, (2σ).
This is the usual marker of “statistical significance”
Note that standard error is smaller than the standard deviation. So a standard error of 0.04 would convert to a 2 sigma value of greater than 0.08.
This would save you from being kicked to death by skeptics who would be outraged at the suggestion that their beloved pause was in fact statistically significant warming, and your GISS value since 1999 of
0.097 ±0.04 °C/decade (one standard error)
would be compatible with that of Kevin C’s algorithm:
Trend: 0.099 ±0.138 °C/decade (2σ)
Vic replies:
Look at the output.
The standard error is stated and it is less than the standard deviation. The latter is not stated but the 95% confidence intervals which equate to 2xSD are.
I have calculated this by putting the equations into Excel as well ( I do not have the ToolPack). The 10-15 year linear regressions for a number of examples and they were in the range 0.04-0.08.
The entire thread begins here:
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/weekend-unthreaded-39/#comment-1493093
Looking forward to a response from Kevin.
-
ubrew12 at 16:20 PM on 25 June 2014Why we care about the 97% expert consensus on human-caused global warming
"[Convincing conservatives that AGW is serious]... can be achieved with informed messages... coming from sources that conservatives can trust." Think about that: 'that conservatives can trust'. This clearly does not include scientists. We need to ask 'why' it doesn't, because this is a serious problem moving forward. Science denial can doom a nation for a century or more. Consider Asia between the 18th and 20th centuries. The truth may be inconvenient, but not as inconvenient as Admiral Perry steaming into Tokyo Harbor, or the indignities that culminated in the Boxer rebellion. Paulson's article is welcome, but he's a Banker who oversaw the finance system bailout of 2008. Is he really 'what it takes' for a conservative to change his mind on climate? For some of us, since 2008, bankers have got credibility issues of their own when speaking on Finance, much less Climate.
A deep suspicion of Science has been growing in Western Nations for several decades. It's conclusions conflict with unrestrained commerce on several fronts, not just on Climate, and a concerted effort undertaken to paint Scientists as untrustworthy. Religion has often been enlisted to support this effort. We need to keep in mind that Asia learned its lessons of the past, and will gleefully surpass us if we discourage the Science-minded among us.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:29 PM on 25 June 2014An externally-valid approach to consensus messaging
mancan18,
I fully support striving to help others better understand of the basics. However, some of those people may challenge the basics about CO2 because they are aware of the "lack of significant warming of the global average surface temperatures since 1998 even though CO2 has continued to increase". That is when you need to be prepared to explain the added points I mentioned. There are many good presentations of those added points in the artricles posted on this site.
There are also discussions about the "sensitivity" of the global average surface temperature to increasing CO2 levels, how much impact a doubling of the CO2 levels would create. Some people may prefer to believe that no more warming will occur even if signifcant amounts of additional CO2 are released because the increased CO2 since 1998 has not increased the annual global average surface temperature. I know that the averages of each decade continue to go up. And I know many other good explanations for the observed global average temperatures in 1998 and since then. What I shared should help you explain why what they prefer to believe is unbelievable.
-
chriskoz at 10:21 AM on 25 June 2014New study improves measurements of the warming oceans
dhogaza@5,
Thanks for pointing it out. I usually do not nitpick on someone's words. In this case, I can happily concede that I misunderstood Terranova's comment, although I'm not the only one who could have done so, as your case indicating Terranova's imprecise language suggests. Imprecise language is far lesser issue rather than the lack of intelectual integrity we would have to conclude if we assumed Terranova meant precisely what s/he has written.
-
tlitb1 at 07:23 AM on 25 June 2014Why we care about the 97% expert consensus on human-caused global warming
This is a question for John Cook regarding the graph labelled "These data come from research by John Cook, taken from a survey of a US representative sample (N=200)."
Could you provide some more background on the research?
I am particularily interested in how you ascertained the measure of your subjects "Public perception of scientific consensus of climate change".
Could you tell us how you did this exactly?
If it was via a questionnaire, could you tell us the form and wording of that questionnaire?
Thanks.
-
dhogaza at 05:47 AM on 25 June 2014New study improves measurements of the warming oceans
terranova:
"The authors do not state the oceans are warming as your title does."
Nor does the title state that the authors' study states that the oceans are warming.
"New study improves measurements of the warming ocean".
That's very clear. The study improves measurements of the ocean, which, as it happens, is warming. The adjective "warming" modifies "ocean", and does not in any way reference "study".
Nor does the title suggest that the ocean is "new" ... which is an equally silly misreading of the sentence.
-
Terranova at 22:47 PM on 24 June 2014New study improves measurements of the warming oceans
First, I know the oceans are warming. I am not a denier, or a skeptic on that point.
Second, the scientific community knows their is a lack of long-term measurements of the global ocean. And, that the changes in the measurement systems over the years makes documenting and understanding change in the oceans a difficult task.
Third, this referenced paper is an attempt to improve those measurement systems.
Rob @ 2,
I agree with your statement "another piece of the puzzle". My original comment was only about what the paper said versus the article headline. But, I see your point.
chriskoz @ 3,
I did read the entire article, but again was only talking about the paper. I am not sure what you mean with your statement about integrity.
-
mancan18 at 22:11 PM on 24 June 2014An externally-valid approach to consensus messaging
One Planet Only Forever
Although I would never pretend to be a Climate Scientist, I do understand and readily accept the arguments that you refer to. However, if you are trying to influence someone with little scientific understanding and cannot understand the complexity of the wider argument then you do have to get to the basis of it, and that is CO2 is a significant greenhouse gas amongst others; we are burning fossil fuels and putting more CO2 into the atmosphere; infrared light from the sun warms the CO2 molecule and hence the planet; and that warming will cause Climate Change due to the increased trubulence in the atmosphere and ocean that the warming will cause. This is basic science. It's just as true for the globe as it is in the Lab or from scientific theory. Consequences of this basic science lead to the complex arguments like melting ice caps, retreating glaciers, increasing global temperature with or without analyses of El Nino La Nina and oscillation indices, more severe weather, etc. etc. that you refer to.
If someone doesn't even admit that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and pumping more into the atmosphere warms the planet, then there is probably not much point trying to convince them anyway. It is probably better to challenge them by asking them directly whether they believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and to how many ppm we should allow it to rise to before we do something about stopping it. At the very least you will know whether you are dealing with a scientific illiterate or not.
-
chriskoz at 18:46 PM on 24 June 2014New study improves measurements of the warming oceans
Terranova@1,
The authors do not state the oceans are warming
If you click on to read the rest of JA's article on the Guardian, you find out what Lijing said in private communication with JA:
"We assessed this problem in our paper and we are now working on improving ocean warming estimates.”
That's the direct contradiction of your assertion. Assuming your intergrity, your assertion indicates you did not read the full article before posting your comment.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 15:07 PM on 24 June 2014An externally-valid approach to consensus messaging
mancan18@19
The situation is a little more complex than you have presented.
The short-term rather random but signficant influence of the ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation), on global average surface temperatures is a added complexity you need to include. Another complexity to include is the rather random but significant influence of particulate from volcanic releases.
Many people are not aware of those influences and as a result believe that the global average surface temperatures currently not being significantly warmer than 1998 disproves that CO2 will do what the best understanding of the climate science says it will do. Such misunderstanding is due to a number of influences including:
- deliberate efforts by people who understand these points but are not interested in best and most fully informing others about them because that would be contrary to their interest
- a lack of effort by people to pursue a fuller understanding of this issue
- a deliberate choice by some who do pursue more information to ignore information that is contrary to their interest and accept information that suits their interest.
The best explanation I have for the preponderance of people who are reluctant to accept the climate science is that the current popular and profitable socioeconomic systems encourage people to prefer to believe things that will allow them to enjoy the most possible personal benefit. It is a powerful motivation. If clearly is a more powerful influence than reason and decency for some people.
Even a higher global average temperature this year due to the warming of the tropical Pacific, not even as strong an El Nino condition as 1997/98, would be unlikely to change the minds of those who desire to believe otherwise.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 13:02 PM on 24 June 2014New study improves measurements of the warming oceans
Terranova... What you're doing, though, is avoiding all the other relevant research that shows that the planet is accumulating heat. Of course the authors don't state that the oceans are warming, since that is a fact that is conclusively shown through other research.
You can't take any given piece of research in a void. You have to think of it as just another piece of the puzzle, where there are many hundreds of other pieces already in place.
-
Terranova at 12:39 PM on 24 June 2014New study improves measurements of the warming oceans
This study is attempting to improve measurements of the "temperature of the oceans". Your headline is misleading from what their study says. Their title alone states their position: "Uncertainties of the Ocean Heat Content Estimation Induced by Insufficient Vertical Resolution of Historical Ocean Subsurface Observations".
The authors do not state the oceans are warming as your title does. In fact, the study shows the uncertainty in temperature measurements in either direction and at different depths and different latitudes. They offer ideas on how to improve the accuracy of measurements, but do not infer that they have improved them, or that the oceans are warming.
-
bill4344 at 12:34 PM on 24 June 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #25
'garned'? er...
Moderator Response:[JH] Oops! Fixed. Thanks.
-
mancan18 at 10:15 AM on 24 June 2014An externally-valid approach to consensus messaging
Classifying people into left, right, socialist, communist, greenie, or fascist is not going to reflect the scientific consensus along political lines. Such terms are lazy pseudo-intellectual classifications of people so that opposing political arguments in a debate can be easily dismissed using a stereotype.
With regard to global warming and climate change, it seems that people who believe that AGW is actually happening seem to have at least a rudimentary understanding of some aspect of the science, while those who don't believe that AGW is happening do so more for political or commercial reasons than for scientific reasons.
To the wider public, the AGW debate appears to be more political than scientific and may be the cause of the disinformation/ignorance gap. Also, the scientists and political groups arguing that AGW is happening spend more time on the indications and the impacts of AGW, rather than the basic science behind the theory which isn't articulated often enough in a manner that the wider public understand.
The whole global warming debate can be easily summed up in terms the public can understand:
* That CO2 is a greenhouse gas due to the interaction of the CO2 molecule and infrared radiation from the sun causing it to warm, just like microwave radiation in a microwave oven heats water molecules and cooks our food, or long wave radio waves being bounced off the ionosphere to make long range radio communications possible, or ultraviolet light causing sunburn, or ozone stopping ultra violet light making life possible on the planet.
* That CO2 is accumulating in the atmosphere mostly from burning fossil fuels and land clearing, and if the planet doesn't warm as a result, then some of our understanding of the basic science which forms the basis of our technological society is seriously flawed. This is the basis for the Global Warming argument.
* That warming of a fluid or gas increases the turbulence of the motion of the atoms of the gas or fluid. It is true in a container in a lab and it is true for whole planet. This increased turbulence will change the weather patterns which will change the global climate. This is the basis for the Climate Change argument.
Everything else is the mere observation of the data and the interpreting what it means. That is where the confusion occurs.
The basic science can be easily understood. despite all the noise of the current wider debate.
If the planet doesn't warm due to increasing greenhouse gases then that indicates a deep flaw in our scientific understandin and those who believe it won't warm believe in magic.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 06:05 AM on 24 June 20141934 - hottest year on record
To add to the existing answers from DSL, in response to scott's question "Why do you only use the 48 states ...?"
because the temperature of the contiguous US states (i.e. the USA excluding Alaska and Hawaii) is a temperature index widely used by US national meterological organizations, such as NOAA (the National Temperature Index).
-
DSL at 05:14 AM on 24 June 20141934 - hottest year on record
Scott4,
1. where does it say land "mass"? It's surface area.
2. What is the surface area of the Earth? Wiki says it's 510,072,000 km2. Now, what is the surface area of the 48 contiguous? Wiki says 8,080,464.3 km2. Divide one by the other. Maybe wiki is wrong, but I suspect that someone would have noticed by now.
3. How many states were there in 1934?
Prev 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 Next
