Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 Next
Comments 35851 to 35900:
-
nickels at 01:49 AM on 10 June 2014Models are unreliable
@KR
Don't get me wrong, Im not dissing climate models. They represent our best guess at future climate. I would argue that they are -not- unbiased, but still a decent guess.
But please quit presenting your playing around with models (which is what you are doing from an engineering perspective) with hard, accurate science. You would get run out of engineering in a minute claiming that you think a building will stand because you ran a few models and everything looked good.
Rigor and experimentation are not the same thing.
-
KR at 01:48 AM on 10 June 2014Resources and links documenting Tol's 24 errors
Tom Curtis - Tol started complaining about Cook et al the day it was published, for example tweeting here and especially here on May 18 2013 - stating "@ezraklein for starters, because that opening 97% is a load of nonsense @maliniw90th". That was well before poptech made his blog post with cherrypicked objections from authors who hadn't responded to the Cook et al queries regarding self-evaluation, and who didn't seem to understand the difference between papers and abstracts.
Tol has spent the intervening time searching for a reason, _any_ reason, to support his initial reaction. And whenever one set of objections were shown to be nonsense, moving onto another and another and...
He's done a terrible job of it.
My personal opinion (just that) regarding his vendetta is an ideological objection on his part to governmental approaches to dealing with AGW, one not based on the science, coupled with an (ahem) abrasive approach to those he disagrees with.
-
nickels at 01:41 AM on 10 June 2014Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
This is just a bunch of heuristic chatter.
Lets make it simple. Forget climate. Prove mathematically to me that you can predict averages based on the simple Lorenz equations.
You will be famous.
-
nickels at 01:39 AM on 10 June 2014Models are unreliable
@KR Nice words, but that is all they are.
And nice article on chaos, but I already knew all that.
Where is the mathematical proof that averages can be predicted in the climate model? Words are cool and I am sure they make you feel better but they prove nothing.
Show me the proof. An engineer would have to prove his building will stand. Climate scientists wave their hands point to an article on chaos and predict all kinds of nonesense.
Again, if you want anyone to believe the climate predictions, a mathematical proof that your models can accurately predict averages should be the topic of every PhD thesis in the business.
Oh, and by the way, where is the proof?
-
Leland Palmer at 22:41 PM on 9 June 2014Rapid climate changes more deadly than asteroid impacts in Earth’s past – study shows.
One way that the high salt hydrates could be important, though, is that as the local methane oxidation capacity of the oceans is exceeded, basin scale acidification and anoxia are predicted to occur, by the IMPACTS group modeling of Reagan et al.
And, as basin scale anoxia and acidification occurs, more methane is transported to the atmosphere, adding to warming from direct and indirect atmospheric chemistry effects of methane, according to the modeling of Isaksen, et al.
In this scenario, the high salt hydrates could lead to local methane emission hotspots, like for example the Hydrate Ridge and Cascadia Margin area of the Pacific Northwest, off the coast of Washington and Oregon. These areas are known to contain high salt hydrates, and have plumes of methane and acidified water from anerobic oxidation of methane a kilometer or two wide extending into the bottom water:
The authors of this 1999 paper did not know about the high salt hydrates, apparently, and proposed a different mechanism for methane release. But they did document the anoxic and acidified plumes around Hydrate Ridge, and calculated that the oxygen demand from the hydrates is a thousand times or more the demand from an equivalent area of sea bottom.
-
John Hartz at 13:55 PM on 9 June 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #23
The cartoon is by Andrei Popov (Russia). None of the nine cartoons has dialogue embedded in them.
-
DSL at 13:46 PM on 9 June 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #23
Jenna, he's trying to nail down sea level rise. It could use a word or two to give it direction. Could be an oblique reference to NC's state legislature, or it could simply be a representation of wishful thinking.
-
jenna at 13:27 PM on 9 June 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #23
Hey, can someone please explain the cartoon with the carpenter guy? I'm not getting it.
thnx,
Jen
-
Tom Curtis at 14:51 PM on 8 June 2014Richard Tol accidentally confirms the 97% global warming consensus
As many of you know, an anonymous person identifying themselves as "A Scientist" has written an critique (PDF) of Tol (2014). A Scientist indicates the anonymitty is due to Tol's vituperative and bullying responses to those having the temerity to criticize his work. The criticism is interesting, and seems valid in principle, but unfortunately is marred by some errors. I have yet to determine if it stands up after those errors are corrected for. (Neal King of SkS has corrected all bar one of the errors, and shown that apart for that one error the analysis is sound after correction.)
In looking at that critique, I have noticed that there is a simpler means to show that Tol's method, and in particular his error correction matrix, is nonsense. Tol assumes two things - that all endorsement levels (1-7) have the same error rate, and that the ratios among possible errors are constant regardless of the endorsement category, and are given by the ratios of average errors over all the data. The interesting thing I noticed is that by assuming that, he predicts that the forward error rate varies greatly between endorsement values. In fact, he predicts the following error rates:
1: 35.61%
2: 10.36%
3: 8.56%
4: 1.36%
5: 84.69%
6: 62.94%
7: 29.51%That is, he predicts that just 1.36% of papers that actually had neutral abstracts were rated as something else by the Cook et al, 2013 (C13) rating team; but that 84.69% of papers with abstracts that actually implicitly rejected AGW were mistakenly rated as something else. But not only that, he also predicts that these massively disparate forward error rates were somehow coordinated such that the each category as reported in the paper would have just 6.67% errors.
Such a feat would require extraordinary precision in the "errors" purportedly made, and all without coordination or prearrangement. The notion that such precision errors could arise by chance is laughable. Coordination or prearrangement is ruled out not just by the known facts pf what was done but also by the sheer pointlessness of coordinating errors to achieve the same final error rates in all categories. The hypothesis that predicts this precision error production is therefore, laughable.
When it is realized that the evidence in support of this absurd result is a simple mathematical fallacy, ie, that the product of the means will equal the mean of the products, you have to wonder why Tol persists in defending this absurdity. It is as though he wants the world laughing not only at his blunder, but at him as well.
-
Tom Curtis at 10:17 AM on 8 June 2014Richard Tol accidentally confirms the 97% global warming consensus
I have found yet another error by Tol, although this one is not as convenient. As part of his analysis, Tol found a final error rate of 6.7% That is based on the 33% disagreement rate (D) after initial ratings as stated in Cook et al (2013). In essence he calculates an individual error rate (i), such that
D= 2i-i2/6
He divides by six because there are six possible categories that an error might fall into, a procedure that assumes that all errors are equally probable. Of course, not all errors are equally probable. In fact, almost all errors are just one category greater or smaller, so that a better approximation would be given by:
D= 2i-i2/2
A slightly better approximation is given by:
D= 2i-A*i2
where A is the sum of the squares of the average probabilities for errors by difference from the correct value as given in Tol's graph S20. It turns out that A is 0.525514. That reduces theindividual error rate to approximately 17.3%, but increases the final error rate to 7.28% due to an increased rate of undetected errors from initial rating. An even more accurate estimate could be made allowing for the differences in probable errors for different endorsement ratings, but I doubt the difference would be sufficiently large to make a substantial difference.
I strongly suspect it makes no substantial difference to the correct analysis of probable errors using this higher error rate. Never-the-less, I would be interested in seeing the results of such a re-analysis if any of the authors of the response to Tol would be willing to plug the values into their algorithm.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:56 AM on 8 June 2014Resources and links documenting Tol's 24 errors
Dana, I read Tol differently. His vendetta against Cook et al (2013) began by his making intemperate comments based on a blog post by poptech, and then digging his heals in rather than admit error. However, his initial acceptance of poptech's blog post is not explained by that, nor by a desire for publicity. Nor is his long term cooperation with Lomborg, nor his association with the GWPF, nor his absurd recent comments about the IPCC, nor the consistent bias from his various "gremlins" towards findings that require less action on AGW. I do not disagree that he is a glory hound, but that alone is inadequate to explain his actions.
-
John Hartz at 05:04 AM on 8 June 2014Resources and links documenting Tol's 24 errors
"Tolgate" may be an appropriate label for Tol's vendetta against John Cook and the team of SkS volunteers who expended a lot of blood, sweat, and tears in the production of Cook et al (2013).
-
dana1981 at 02:14 AM on 8 June 2014Resources and links documenting Tol's 24 errors
[snip] But he's a generally smart person, so he knows the consensus is real and accurate, that the economics of the situation demands a carbon price, etc.
However, I think he saw all the attention Cook at al. (2013) received, and he wanted a piece. I think it's as simple as that.
Moderator Response:[KC] ad hominem snipped
-
John Hartz at 01:58 AM on 8 June 20142014 SkS News Bulletin #5: Obama's Climate Change Inititiative
I deleted Chriskoz's comment by mistake. Here it is:
I'll add a bit of OZ flavour to this week's selection from US only.
Unfortunately, news from OZ is the bad and the embarrasing one.
Note the article by Peter Hannam (IMO, a good local env editor) is in the business section of today's smh:
I don't know what's more extraordinary: the categorisation of Peter's article or Treasurer Joe Hockey's referal to the wind towers as ''utterly offensive''.
Regardeless of those highly subjective (IMO silly) remarks by current govs, it looks as OZ may start to falling behind US in the mitigation.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 00:40 AM on 8 June 2014The Skepticism In Skeptical Science
The current summation of the Skeptical Science site is "Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism".
Perhaps adding something to define that skepticism would help, like: "Providing climate science information for people who are willing to change their mind based on all of the available information and its validity."
-
Tom Curtis at 23:24 PM on 7 June 2014Resources and links documenting Tol's 24 errors
Martin Lack @3, Tol's considered opinion on AGW appears to be:
1) It is demonstrably real and happening now;
2) The risks of future climate change as a result of AGW are sufficient to warrant a price on Carbon; and
3) In order to impliment (2), he makes common political cause with anybody opposed to any action on AGW (including carbon prices).
Given the irrationality of (3) given (1) and (2), you may be tempted to question it. In evidence, I give the fact that he is part of the Copenhagen consensus (Bjorn Lomborg), an adviser for the Global Warming Policy Foundation, now a go to guy for testimony in Congress for climate denying Republicans, and Tol (2014).
-
Martin Lack at 22:15 PM on 7 June 2014Resources and links documenting Tol's 24 errors
If Tol accepts the reality, reliability and reasonableness of the consensus (i.e. as in the quote on p.3 of the '24 Errors' PDF), can someone please tell me what he was trying to prove by his critique of C13? It seems to me that, in attempting to criticise the methods - and cast aspertions on the motives - of C13, he has shot himself in both feet.
-
MThompson at 22:06 PM on 7 June 2014Richard Tol accidentally confirms the 97% global warming consensus
Mr. Curtis, thank you for your thoughtful consideration of my comment numbered 18. It is true, as you have so alluded, that a survey of abstracts is insufficient to extract determinations that may be presented in the bulk of the published work.
I most fully appreciate your comparison to the abstracts referencing values for the acceleration of gravity. The approximation you cited has been used successfully over the centuries for military ballistics and engineering. The notion that there exists a force of gravity is the consensus of scientists and of educated people across the globe. Newton’s theory of gravitation is in fact so successful that it has been elevated to “Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation.” Yet two hundred years after his teachings A. Einstein proffered a theory that states the force of gravity does not even exist. Despite this, the consensus persists and is so ingrained in our knowledge that it may be held by the vast majority for centuries.
Dispensing with these pleasantries, Cook et al. rightfully state in their abstract: “Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.” As stated previously, I have no qualms with this conclusion or characterization. Furthermore, any tacit agreement tortured from my commentary is not accidental.
If I must be plain, the method of my analysis to identify the endorsement of individual authors is to highlight the common mischaracterization of Cook et al. as “Over 97 percent of scientists agree …” This kind of irresponsible trivialization grates on me. I am similarly displeased when people breathlessly report another year (month, day, hour?) of “global warming hiatus” or “This September’s sea ice coverage.” Many readers of this auspicious blog are likely troubled by such bastardization of global climate change theory as well.
As scientists we must not be seduced by notoriety and politics. Solid science is the way to educate the public about global warming and climate change. Every time a blog shows clouds of steam emanating from a cooling tower in a popular story about pollution, and every time a television anchor cites a particular storm’s ferocity, science looses esteem. If we remain silent when such egregious errors agree with our opinions, what have we become?
-
cesium62 at 18:23 PM on 7 June 2014It's not urgent
Perhaps I'm on the wrong page, but... The climate myth the way I've heard it is: "Nothing is going to happen for a long time, so we don't need to do anything now." This is mostly in the context of melting ice sheets in Greenland and the Antarctic.
The arguments I would expect to see are:
1) There are short term problems. For example ocean acidification and coral bleaching. Heat waves. Reductions in agricultural production.
2) Changes, especially cheap ones, take a long time to take effect. For example, the U.S. car fleet turns over in 20 years. If we stopped selling gasoline and diesel powered cars today and only allowed the sale of electric cars, it would take 20 years to get all the gasoline and diesel powered cars off the road.
3) There is huge inertia. If we stopped emitting new CO2 today, and held existing concentrations constant, we would see the earth continue to warm up in quite some time.
With business as usual, we will see accelerating CO2 emissions causing deteriorating climate, and we will also see deteriorating climate as the Earth tries to reach equilibrium with the CO2 already emitted. Both of these will mean that Miami will be flooded sooner (50 years) rather than later (100 years), plus we will have less time to react.
-
scaddenp at 11:05 AM on 7 June 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #22
Ad hominem is an argument directed against a person rather than the debating position they are maintaining. However, in the cartoon, it is the debating position that is being ridiculed and it is ridiculous because of the content not because of who is saying it.
Moderator Response:I wonder if Bibasir's concerns weren't meant for the toon in Weekly Digest #21 rather than the one in weekly Digest #22.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:03 AM on 7 June 2014Richard Tol accidentally confirms the 97% global warming consensus
MThompson @20, it is well known (and noted in Cook et al, 2013) that only a third of abstracts endorse or reject explicitly or implicitly that 50% plus of recent warming is due to anthropogenic factors. Even lower rates of physics papers discussing gravity will note in their abstracts that g is approximately equal to 9.8 m/s^2 for the obvious reason that what is uncontroversial (in science) and not novel does not get noted in summaries of the important findings of a paper (abstracts), except occasionally and in passing.
It is also well known and largely irrelevant that there were only 73 abstracts endorsing or rejecting that 50% or more of recent warming is due to anthropogenic factors (ie, those falling in rating categories 1 and 7).
What is not clear is why you think it is important to mention these largely irrelevant facts. Particularly in such an obscure manner. It is almost as though you are trying to stealth in some denier talking points without having to defend the imputation that they somehow undermine the overwhelming evidence that acceptance among climate scientists of the fact that 50% plus of recent warming is anthropogenic in origin.
-
DSL at 06:50 AM on 7 June 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #22
bibasir, I don't understand the claim of ad hominem. The argument being made is that these reactions exist among members of the general public. If anything, the problem with the logic is overgeneralization (stereotyping), e.g. all religious people mindlessly accept the doctrine of their religion. However, all fairly realistic visual representations of people have that problem.
Actually, I find it interesting that two religious figures are present, and I assume the synergy between the two forces the first woman to be a representation of the hyperindividualist's concept of religion. In this cartoon, for example, "Jesus is who I need him to be at any given time."
The cartoon comprises a semiotic of hair, dress, facial expression, and text to create a complex representation of the typical reactions of people in the US to the message of the science of global warming. It is a conscious stereotype meant to provoke. SkS is not the target context for the cartoon, but it is still apropriate for appearance on SkS because SkS is all about the communication of climate science to the general public.
-
bibasir at 05:33 AM on 7 June 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #22
that cartoon is terribly ad hominem. i support Skepticla Science, but you should take down that cartoon.
Moderator Response:You are the first and only reader to have voiced concern.
-
bibasir at 05:22 AM on 7 June 2014Republican witness admits the expert consensus on human-caused global warming is real
Newton's laws of motion aren't settled and Einstein showed. However, they were accurate enough to get us to the Moon and back, frequently without a mid course correction.
-
Composer99 at 00:39 AM on 7 June 2014Resources and links documenting Tol's 24 errors
Someone mentioned on the previous thread that Dr Tol considered that admitting an error in his criticism of Cook et al 2013 would leave his reputation in tatters (or equivalent).
As far as I can see, Dr Tol's perseverance in his criticisms, despite their many flaws, his ethically-dubious (if not outright unethical) use of hacked correspondence, and his apparent confabulation on the subject of rater fatigue, are altogether doing an excellent job of destroying his reputation in a way that admitting error could not.
In fact, admitting that his compulsive attack on Cook et al 2013 is a great error and retracting it would go some way to restoring his reputation.
-
Composer99 at 23:28 PM on 6 June 2014Models are unreliable
John Hartz:
Further to your inquiry appended to my previous comment, as far as I can see I opened the comment up immediately by addressing it to Winston2014.
Moderator Response:[JH] My bad. My comment was meant for another commenter, not you. I will make appropriate corrections. I apologize for the mistake.
-
MThompson at 22:15 PM on 6 June 2014Richard Tol accidentally confirms the 97% global warming consensus
I am most appreciative of the link to data for the monumental literature review that has become popularly known as the “97% consensus. “ I have no qualms with the analysis as presented by Cook et al., but given data I cannot resist applying my own analysis to see what other inferences may be drawn upon it.
My method was to first reduce the data to include only abstracts that somehow endorse or not AGW. Then, in order to statistically summarize individuals instead of articles, I created a database by individual Author and Title, and carrying through the Date, Category and Endorsement values. In this way I was able to identify the endorsement of individuals, and could eliminate duplicate counting due to multiple titles by the same author. This approach produced about 13,500 unique Author-Titles in my dataset.Thus, I am able to make the following inference:
A literature survey of peer-reviewed articles published in the 20 year interval of 1991 through 2011 reveals that one-third of about 12,000 abstracts considered made some pronouncement on global warming. Of these, 73 titles generated by 188 authors quantify the human impact on the observed global warming as either being greater or less than 50%.
This is a highly qualified but strong assertion, and is but one of many that can be gleaned from the data provided.
-
CBDunkerson at 21:54 PM on 6 June 2014President Obama gets serious on climate change
Pierre, maybe you could just set aside the bigoted attitude and discuss the facts?
The sentence you cite from the end of the text disproves your point. It is clearly not saying that the U.S. (or its president) controls the world, but rather that the U.S. is taking a leading position in reducing GHG emissions. Yes, this is new and long overdue... the article explicitly says that too (i.e. "No longer is the U.S. the world laggard").
Similarly, your claim that Americans would 'continue' emitting up to 20 t of CO2 per person per year even after these reductions is ridiculous given that U.S. emissions are lower than that now. U.S. per capita emissions peaked at 20 t for a single year back in 2000 and have fallen significantly since then. Contrary to your statements about Americans being "the most climate-destroying persons on Earth", there are actually several countries with higher emissions per capita... and countries with higher total emissions... and countries still increasing their emissions while the U.S. is decreasing its.
Finally, your stated belief that even after this, "The US and its leader would continue to set a bad example in all matters related to the climate of the Earth" aptly demonstrates the absence of reason in your position. The U.S. just set a good example... banning power plants with high emissions. It is impossible to "continue" setting a bad example after doing the opposite. The country could theoretically roll back this change and resume setting a bad example, but you said it was setting a bad example, "even if this plan was actually successful"... and that's just nonsense.
-
John Hartz at 21:37 PM on 6 June 2014Models are unreliable
Modertor's Comment:
Both Razo and Winston2014 are playing a game I call "Trvia Prusuit" They posit trivial observations about climate models and expect other readers to pursue that trivia. They also gloss over or ignore the learned responses to their trivia provided to them by other readers. All thing cosnsidered, they are both engaging in a form of concern trolling. They both are on the cusp of relinquishing their repective privilege of posting on the SkS comments threads.
-
chriskoz at 20:31 PM on 6 June 2014Models are unreliable
Winston2014@,
ECS is "determined" via the adjustment of models to track past climate data
Non only. You are ignoring my previous comment asserting that ESC is determined by multiple lines, namely various paleo studies. Check for example here. In your reference (some "skeptic" blog) to the method of ECS estimation we read:
The new lower result is mainly due to the stalling in observed global temperatures since 1998 despite rising CO2 levels [...] In this post I focus on ECS and simply assume that GCM models are a correct description of climate. I then use HADCRUT4 temperature data to try to pin down ECS. Unlike the Otto et al. paper I will avoid using OHC data and simply assume an e-folding ocean heat capacity delay of 15 years (also based on models) to reach equilibrium
(emphasis mine)
I stopped reading after that. If the author is acknowledging ocean heat capacity is having large impact on surface temps but then ignores OHC in his calculation of ECS, then he simply contradicts himself and undermines the validity of his calculations. And as we know, the multi-decadal ocean oscillations (ENSO, AMO) can and do influence the short-term surface temp records (such as since 1998) so that the surface temp data (just 4% of total heat content) is highly irrelevant to the total radiative balance.
It's time for you to ditch such sources and move on to more liable ones, if you want to discuss your point. Unless of course, you don't want to be taken seriously.
-
Tom Curtis at 19:54 PM on 6 June 2014Richard Tol accidentally confirms the 97% global warming consensus
Kevin C @18 & 19, first, I have never found it profitable to ignore you.
Second, simply multiplying abstract ratings by the ratio of author ratings to their corresponding abstract ratings will simply reproduce the author rating percentages. Doing so thereby assumes that the rate of endorsement did not increase in time (given the temporal bias in author ratings). It also assumes that the massive difference in neutral ratings between author ratings and abstract ratings is simply due to conservatism by abstract raters. If instead we assume it is mostly due to the lack of information available in abstracts (almost certainly the primary reason), then we should require neutral ratings to be almost constant between the abstract ratings and abstract ratings adjusted for bias relative to author ratings. The prima facie adjustment I used makes that assumption and only multiplies endorsements or rejections for their relative bias ratios, thereby keeping neutral ratings constant.
I am not arguing that that is the uniquely correct approach. I am arguing that it is a reasonable approach, and hence that reasonable assessments of the biases allow endorsement percentages below 95% with reasonable though low probability.
Third, if you are using the values from Richard Tol's spreadsheet (as I am at the moment due to lack of access to my primary computer), you should note that the itemized values (ie, totals for ratings 1 through 7) do not sum to the same values as the summary values (ie, binned as endorsing, neutral or rejecting) in his spread sheet. Further, the itemized values do not have the same totals for abstract ratings and author ratings. Using the summary values, and applying your method, the endorsement percentage is 95.6% excluding all neutral papers, and drops to 95.3% if we include 0.5% of neutral papers as "uncertain".
-
Kevin C at 19:02 PM on 6 June 2014Richard Tol accidentally confirms the 97% global warming consensus
Oh, it was in the original paper. Ignore me...
-
Dikran Marsupial at 18:20 PM on 6 June 2014Models are unreliable
Winston wrote "I didn't say they necsessarily should be, my intent was to show the likely huge number of factors that aren't modelled that may very well be highly significant, just as were the bacteria that once generated most of the oxygen on this planet. "
That is trolling. Come back when you can think of a factor that is likely to have a non-negligible impact on climate that is not included in the model, and until then stop wasting out time by trying to discuss things that obviously aren't.
"I'm not trolling. It's called playing the proper role of a skeptic which is asking honest questions."
It isn't an honest question as you can't propose a factor that has a non-negligible impact on climate, you just posit that they exist with no support. That is not skepticism.
-
denisaf at 17:27 PM on 6 June 2014President Obama gets serious on climate change
The simple fact of that matter is that reducing the (rate of) emissions will only slow down the speed of increase in the concentration level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (currently 4 ppm/year). So this action by the US will only slighty mitigate the future impact of climate change. The latest IPCC report had a section dealing with adaption to the impact. Ironically, New York authorities show more understanding of the reality. They are carrying out measures to protect the city from sea level rise.
At least the US President is proposing some useful mitigation measures. Our Australian Prime Minister says climate change is bunkum nad has cancelled mitigation measures instigated by the previous goverment.
-
WheelsOC at 16:35 PM on 6 June 2014Resources and links documenting Tol's 24 errors
So when can we expect an Auditor to write up their scathing audity of Tol 2014? Especially since the method has a systematic bias which produces the same result even if the data is fed in the opposite way, since that allegation seems to be one of the Auditor's favorite bones to pick.
-
Kevin C at 15:38 PM on 6 June 2014Richard Tol accidentally confirms the 97% global warming consensus
Tom: I just tried the naive test and set up a matrix of p(self|abstract), multiplied this by n(abstract) to get an estimate for n(self) for the whole dataset. If I haven't made any mistakes (I only spent 10 mins on it), it looks like this:
1806.6 4435.8 4014.7 1337.4 217.2 60.6 71.7
That's a consensus score of 96.7%. Most of the neutrals have gone one way or the other, so there are both more endorsements and more rejections.
I had to drop multiple self ratings with fractional scores. There will be a few more multiple self ratings which lead to integral scores which should also be dropped. Better, all the self ratings should be included weighted according to the number of self ratings for the paper. The TCP team should have the data to do this.
I also added 1 extra count in each diagonal self=abstract category to address the lack of self ratings for papers starting at 7. This will have no discernable effect on the heavily populated endorsement and neutral categories but tends to ensure that rejections stay as rejections. Increasing this number to 10 or 100 doesn't affect the result.
There are only 6 rejection papers with integral self-ratings which leads to potentially large uncertainties, but I think that is addressed in a conservative manner by inflating the diagonal elements. An unquantifiable but probably bigger uncertainty will arise from self selection of respondents.
(Apologies to anyone who has done this before - I have a feeling I may have seen it somewhere.)
-
DSL at 13:36 PM on 6 June 2014Models are unreliable
Winston: "I didn't say they necsessarily should be, my intent was to show the likely huge number of factors that aren't modelled that may very well be highly significant, just as were the bacteria that once generated most of the oxygen on this planet."
This is why you're not being taken seriously. You're comparing the potential impact of new bacterial growth sites over decades to centuries to the impact of the great oxygenation event, when a brand new type of life was introduced to the globe over a period of millions of years.You fail to recognize the precise nature of the change taking place. Rising sea level and changing land storage of freshwater will be persistent. This is not a step change where we go from one type of land-water transitional space to another. It is a persistently-changing transitional space. Thus, adaptation in these spaces must be persistent. How many suitable habitats will be destroyed for every one created? It's inevitable that some--many--will be destroyed.
Further, what impact would additional oxygen mean for the radiative forcing equation? Note that human burning of fossil carbon has been taking oxygen out of the atmosphere for the last 150 years.
Your plant argument belongs on another page.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:02 PM on 6 June 2014The Skepticism In Skeptical Science
I wish to clarify that a person wishing to dismiss climate science because of a strong desire to obtain personal benefit can firmly beleive that everyone else is similarly motivated. Their perspective could be that everyone else is just as strongly motivated to pursue the most possible benefit any way they can get away with. They would tend to seek out any possible evidence of such motivation, including believing that any action that would increase the cost to them of what they want to enjoy is just a devious unjustified action by those they have to fight against.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 12:49 PM on 6 June 2014The Skepticism In Skeptical Science
This is indeed a thorough and clear presentation clarifying the intent of Skeptical at Skeptical Science.
However, the challenge remains that many people will be strongly inclined to believe something that suits their interest. And that confirmation bias, the tendancy to seek out and accept information suiting a pre-determined belief and disbelive anything contradicting thtt preferred belief, can be very stong in a person who wants to obtain the most possible benefit from the burning of fossil fuels. And if that person also strongly believes that "everyone else has their own equally strong confirmation bias", then they can discount or dismiss this entire presentation as just an extended biased presentation.
That potential for the development of a strong bias in people who want to benefit from clearly unacceptable activity appears to be the best explanation for the ease with which the deliberate misleaders get "traction" for their rather weak and easily refuted criticisms of the science. It would also explain the persistence of many of the weakest and most thoroughly debunked criticisms of the science, including the criticism that Skeptical Science is not unbiased because equal space is not given to criticism of the best understanding to date. All that happens on Skeptical Science can be seen as criticism of what strongly biased people prefer to believe.
A person cannot be convinced of anything against their will. But it would be nice if leaders stood up and spoke out to better inform the entire population, even if doing so could be "unpopular" among their hoped to be relied upon votes of support.
-
scaddenp at 12:33 PM on 6 June 2014Models are unreliable
Also, if you are actually a skeptic, how about trying some of that skepticism on the disinformation sites you seem to be reading.
-
scaddenp at 12:32 PM on 6 June 2014Models are unreliable
What makes you think uncertainty is your friend? Suppose the real sensitivity is 4.5, or 8? You seem to overemphasising uncertaintly, seeking minority opinions to rationalize a "do nothing" predisposition. Try citing peer-reviewed science instead of distortions by deniers.
Conservatively we know how live in a world with slow rates of climate change and 300pm of CO2. 400ppm was last seen when we didnt have ice sheets.
I agree science might change, the fly spaghetti monster or the Second Coming might happen instead, but that is not the way to do policy. I doubt would take the attitude to uncertainty in medical science if it came to treating a personal illness.
Moderator Response:[JH] Please specify to whom your comment is directed.
-
Composer99 at 12:25 PM on 6 June 2014Models are unreliable
Winston2014:
You can propose, suppose, or, as you say, "show" as many "factors that aren't modelled that may very well be highly significant" as you like.
Unless and until you have some cites showing what they are and why they should be taken seriously, you're going to face some serious... wait for it... skepticism on this thread.
You can assert you're "playing the proper role of a skeptic" if you like. But as long as you are offering unsupported speculation about "factors" that might be affecting model accuracy, in lieu of (a) verifiable evidence of such factors' existence, (b) verifiable evidence that climatologists and climate modellers haven't already considered them, and (c) verifiable evidence that they are "highly significant", I think you'll find that your protestations of being a skeptic will get short shrift.
Put another way: there are by now 15 pages of comments on this thread alone, stretching back to 2007, of self-styled "skeptics" trying to cast doubt on or otherwise discredit climate modelling. I'm almost certain some of them have also resorted to appeals to "factors that aren't modelled that may very well be highly significant", without doing the work of demonstrating that these appeals have a basis in reality.
What have you said so far that sets you apart?
Moderator Response:[JH] Please specify to whom your comment is directed.
-
Winston2014 at 11:50 AM on 6 June 2014Models are unreliable
"Can I suggest that we ignore Winstons most recent post. The discovery that bacteria have a novel pathway for generating oxygen should not be incorporated into climate models unless there is a good reason to suppose that the effects of this pathway are of sufficient magnitude to significantly alter the proportions of gasses in the atmosphere."
I didn't say they necsessarily should be, my intent was to show the likely huge number of factors that aren't modelled that may very well be highly significant, just as were the bacteria that once generated most of the oxygen on this planet.
-
Winston2014 at 11:46 AM on 6 June 2014Models are unreliable
"I suggest DNFTT"
I'm not trolling. It's called playing the proper role of a skeptic which is asking honest questions. Emphasis is mine.
Here's my main point in which I am in agreement with David Victor, "The science is “in” on the first steps in the analysis—historical emissions, concentrations, and brute force radiative balance—but not for the steps that actually matter for _policy_. Those include impacts, ease of adaptation, mitigation of emissions and such—are surrounded by error and uncertainty."
-
Winston2014 at 11:42 AM on 6 June 2014Models are unreliable
"BTW, the above risk-reward analysis is the driver of policy response. Climate models have nothing to do with it. Your statement repeated after that 12min video that "Models will drive policy" is just nonsense. Policy should be driven by our best understanding of the ECS. ECS is derived from mutiple lines of evidence, e.g. paleo being one of them. The problem has nothing to do with your pathetic "Models fail. Are they still useful?""
Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=4923
Excerpt from comments:
"The calculation of climate sensitivity assumes only the forcings included in climate models and do not include any significant natural causes of climate change that could affect the warming trends."
If it's all about ECS and ECS is "determined" via the adjustment of models to track past climate data, how are models and their degree of accuracy irrelevant?
-
sbridges at 10:07 AM on 6 June 2014Other planets are warming
Dear LarianLeQuella, you stated "I suggest that people who think that the sun is responsible, and cite warming on other planets become familiar with the Inverse Square Law. ;)" Nice winky emoticon, but yet I am wondering how this is applicable given that Jupiters' orbit has not changed - not to mention that it is much farther from the Sun than Earth is...shouldnt its weather be near constant given your arguement?[Indeed it has had very consistent storm patterns in the PAST, rings of weather and the famous red spot]. Obvisously the intensity of the suns output effects deminish over distance(the distance squared is still just a relationship to distance, this is much more relevant for gravity)...how would this NOT be the case? Specifically whether or not the sun is causing Warming or Cooling (and I suspect COOLING due to its decreasing MAGNETIC FIELD, not increasing solar output), it is still THE driving force of weather on every planet in the solar system. Its silly to imply that the amount of water vapor or CO2 on Jupiter has been drastically changing over the past few years, and the Suns output was kept constant
Moderator Response:[DB] Thank you for your attempts to dialogue with Larian, but Larian has not posted since that comment on this thread, back in 2008. It was a one-off, with no intent to engage anyone.
-
CollinMaessen at 06:42 AM on 6 June 2014The Skepticism In Skeptical Science
Thanks heb0, I'm leaving on a short vacation tomorrow. I'll take a look at it as soon as I'm back.
-
Andy Skuce at 03:23 AM on 6 June 2014Richard Tol accidentally confirms the 97% global warming consensus
Despite the broad agreement between the abstract analysis and the author self-rating survey and C13 with previous studies, there remains the possibility that the SkS abstract raters introduced a systematic bias. The only definitive way to test for this is for more "skeptical" raters to repeat all or part of the abstract analysis.
They can easily do this, using the online tool that is provided here, or doing their own study. It is a pity that nobody has tried this yet, obviously, it's not something any of us can do.
In reality, all of the raters in the TCP study were aware of this potential source of bias and made efforts to be as impartial as possible. For that reason, I doubt that different raters would get substantially different results. I suspect that many of our critics know this too.
A shortcut for our critics would be to identify the rejection abstracts that we missed, there's no need to look at the rest of the database. There are long lists of rejection papers on the internet and thse could be used to search for them in our sample. If our critics could show that, say, we missed or misapplied the ratings for 300 rejection abstracts, then Professor Tol would be vindicated. It shouldn't be that hard to do. Our paper is easy, in principle, to falsify. The fans of Karl Popper should be pleased.
-
dana1981 at 02:45 AM on 6 June 2014Richard Tol accidentally confirms the 97% global warming consensus
If we assume the paper authors accurately categorized their own research, the fact that our abstract ratings arrived at the same result (97%) is another strong indication that we did not introduce any significant bias.
As I noted, we were very conservative in our approach, tending to err on the side of 'no position' or 'rejection' where possible. Again, if anything our estimate was probably biased low, but the fact that it matches the author self-ratings adds confidence that our result was pretty darn accurate. It's certainly not wrong by several percent.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 02:13 AM on 6 June 2014Models are unreliable
Can I suggest that we ignore Winstons most recent post. The discovery that bacteria have a novel pathway for generating oxygen should not be incorporated into climate models unless there is a good reason to suppose that the effects of this pathway are of sufficient magnitude to significantly alter the proportions of gasses in the atmosphere.
Winston has not provided this, and I suspect he cannot (which in itself would answer the question of whether they were included in the models and why). Winstons post comes across as searching for some reason, any reason, to criticize the models and is already clutching at straws. I suggest DNFTT.
Prev 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 Next
