Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 Next
Comments 36651 to 36700:
-
Dave123 at 13:47 PM on 3 May 2014The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
One more point for Martin and Warren- the real debate is carried out in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, not in blogs pages. Who is right about the jet stream- Frances or Trenberth? I don't know, but that's a real debate amoung people of high competence.
Your "debate"in the blogs of self-appointed amateurs- dens of incompetence and malice, it isn't really debate....it's propaganda in its own malign right.... your inability to tell the difference suggests mountains about you.
-
chriskoz at 13:10 PM on 3 May 2014The Australian quantum theory of climate denial
Martin Lack@2,
No need for correction, @1 is understandable without.
Thanks for the NYT archive. It's 16yold now but sadly, reads like it was published yesterday (just replace Clinton with Obama which is realy not much or a replacement), so US made absolute zero progress on AGW mitigation during that time. Especially the sentence:
A proposed media-relations budget of $600,000, [...], using as many as 20 ''respected climate scientists'' recruited expressly ''to inject credible science and scientific accountability into the global climate debate, thereby raising questions about and undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom.' ''
is a stark reminder, that so called "climate skepticism" has ideological roots and has nothing to do with science.
-
mancan18 at 12:39 PM on 3 May 2014The Australian quantum theory of climate denial
The article rightly points out that the climate denier/sceptic’s arguments in the media are not consistent. It also points out that their arguments are more ideological (and political) than scientific. When the arguments (ideological v. scientific) are compared side by side then it is much easier for someone who is just seeking information to believe the ideological (and conspiratorial and sensationalist) argument than the scientific argument. This is because understanding the scientific argument requires a certain level of scientific knowledge that they may not possess and they need to be sympathetic to the process of scientific reasoning. It is because of this that some sceptics/deniers tend to portray the "we have a problem" argument as something akin to a religion. As a result they dogmatically state that they don't believe in anthropogenic global warming. However, someone who advocates the "we have a problem" argument tends to do so from an actual scientific understanding of the issue, which is not in any way religious. So the debate is also between faith based ideology and reasoned and verifiable science.
As for expecting any positive action on climate change, don’t hold your breath. Historically, it has taken around 10 years to a generation for some new technological paradigm to infiltrate society. It took that long for cars, aeroplanes, jets and computer technology to become more widespread as prices reduced because the better off had something new to play with or could make some money. Unfortunately, action on climate change is not something trendy that the well off seem to want to embrace. It is just too easy to dig up and burn fossil fuels, and since it can also make a lot money, don’t expect anything to happen real soon. This is a bit worrying considering the simple math of dividing the known recoverable reserves of oil globally divided by the current global consumption rate (with all the CO2 that this implies) yields a figure of about 50 years. This simple fact alone questions the long term viability of operating aircraft and cars amongst other things. This means that a huge social change is coming and it will happen within the lifetime of our children even if the world doesn’t act on AGW and climate change by investing in newer less polluting technologies to reduce emissions.
-
Dave123 at 12:20 PM on 3 May 2014The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
Martin- As some privileged SkS members are aware, I've written professionally on the topic of backgrounds of groupmembers contributing to problem solving, an area of expertise added late in life. While mixtures of people with stong skills in their respective technical areas have been shown to be strongly associated with success (that is SkSs team) confederacies of dunces ala WUWT are not successful. The B school literature is pretty clear on this.
Yet another piece of "evidence" about why you and they have nothing at all to contribute to the world.
-
chriskoz at 11:55 AM on 3 May 2014The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
Martin@37,
Get real - and join the scientific debate, which will never be a yes or no, but a series of scenarios probabilities and uncertainties which I personally believe 80% of the public would agree with if they were portrayed in a logical and balanced manner using all the evidence. Then we might get some progress.
(my emphasis)
Emphasised part is your wishful thinking - contradiction of how the scientific understaning progresses over time, according to the inferential statistics. Said statistcs teach us that once the uncertainty of any theory falls below certain threshold (p-value, commonly 5%), the theory is confirmed as fact and move on. Further "debate" will not increase our understanding of the world but only create confusion. In fact too much debate can derail said understanding by introducing the additional uncertainty of skewed results from experiments setup incorrectly or biased interpretation by the contrarians.
In case of climate science here, when 97% of experts agree on the AGW and IPCC concluded AGW to be "unequivocal" (which translates to the 5% p-value above) there is no debate anymore, and any wishful thinkers like yourself who would like the "debate" to continue indefinitely, are not trying to improve our understanding of science but trying to confuse it. Such attitude will not create any "progress".
-
MichaelK at 10:54 AM on 3 May 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #18A
I agree with the article 'It is very likely scientists are confusing us...' from Chris Mooney. I just re-read the Summary for Policymakers from WG1 AR5. It is indeed heavy going with all the 'very likely', 'extremely likely', 'virtually certain' etc - 10 different ranges of probability in all. Then there are all the confidence level definitions to deal with. While such a summary is a necessary part of the IPCC reports, I suspect the take-away message gets confused and leaves it open to exploitation from deniers.
One of the few points from WG1 I heard reported in the main stream media was the attribution of climate change. That section (D.3) begins with 'Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere.....'. Is that the best lead in to this section? To me that implies something barely significant. That paragraph was ended with the statement that human influence was extremely likely to be the dominant cause of warming. This was reported along the lines that the IPCC were 95% confident of human causation, whereas the definition is 95 to 100%. A small point, but in terms of perception I feel the difference is significant.
Do IPCC reports need a 'Plain English' summary, with what is know/unknown (and the implications) expressed in terms that don't need definitions? I realize the IPCC have press releases but they still talk in much the same way. Something with more substance than a press release but still readily understandable would be nice. Something with impact, with IPCC endorsement, that you could give to your neighbour .
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:27 AM on 3 May 2014The Australian quantum theory of climate denial
Another indefensible tactic of the likes of Lomborg is attempting to justify today's generation of fortunate people benefiting from the creation of problems for future generations by financial evaluations showing that the "net effect is almost balanced".
Lomborg and others calculate what they beleive would be the "cost of lost benefit by today's most fortunate reducing their benefits obtained from burning of fossil fuels" against what they believe would be the "costs faced by future generation due to the impacts of today's burning up of the non-renewable resource". They can easily overestimate and underestimate this evaluation to suit their motivation. And they never require the group today that is benefiting to be the ones to spend the required money to address the future costs they create the need for.
They also do a "trick" called "Net-present-value" adjustments to reduce the cost of future troubles compared to their current day costs. Though a net-present-value evaluation can be sensible when a person is deciding what personal action they will take when they face the future consequences, it is not sensible, or decent, to do when different people are on the benefit and consequence side.
Now reflect on what they are really doing. They are trying to say it is OK for them and others like them to benefit as long as the troubles they think they create for others are less severe than the benefit they think they would lose out on if they didn't create those trouble others have to deal with. It is like saying it is OK for me to make $100 as long as I think that the harm I do to you is less than $100, and you have absolutely no say in what I choose to do or how I figure out what is fair and balanced.
What they also do is restrict the evaluation to excess CO2 in the atmosphere. There are many other harmful impacts of burning fossil fuels they "leave out of their evaluation" because they will claim they are just "evaluating" the climate science issue. The full facts of the matter need to be evaluated including all the other impacts from activities related to burning fossil fuels. And the fact that benefiting from burning fossil fuels is a limited opportunity that people have already been fighting over for decades needs to be included in the evaluation of what is going and waht changes are required.
All things considered, all of the most fortunate have to adapt to life without benefiting from burning of fossil fuels, and help the less fortunate deveop to that sustainable better future for all. Allowing any of the already fortunate to have the potential advantage of benefiting from unsustainable and damaging actions is "Unsustainable and Damaging".
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:16 AM on 3 May 2014The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
Martin G, Nothing you have presented contradicts my assertion that the critics of the best understanding of the climate science simply dislike the potential diminished personal opportunity to benefit from the unsustainable and damaging burning of fossil fuels.
Pointing out the scientific indequacy of their hoped to be popular criticisms is an endless activity, because the critics are so motivated by their desire to find any way of keeping public opinion with them. They have absolutely no interest in the development of the best understanding. And that is proven by the fact that they do not admit when the implausibility of their claims are conclusively presented. They claim unfair dismissive treatment and try to come up with a new one (and continue to repeat the already proven to be implausible claims). All they accomplish is the maintenance of popular support from like-minded people (something that is as unsustainable as the harmful activities they want to get away with benefiting from).
-
Dave123 at 06:41 AM on 3 May 2014The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
More howlers Martin. You've haven't touched this issue that your alleged diversity of points of view is a diversity of incompetence, You only imagine a debate exists and that convincing people like yourself would have any impact.
Martin-put the shoe on the other foot for one moment- why should anyone with my level of scientific expertise and global reputation be persuaded by your assertions, your interpretations, your fourth hand expertise, What I see reading SkS is people who really read, test and understand the scientific literature. And I see evidence all over the place that be it the consensus project, Lewandowski's determination of conspiratorialist associations, publications refuting erroneous publications, Cowtan and Way- in fact SkS has matured into a goto organization for scientific information.
Martin, I'm not arguing from authority here....I'm merely pointing out that you and your fellow travelers don't have the chops to mess with me over evidence,...and when confronted you simply dismiss what you don't like.
You would like to make it the case that I and the vast majority somehow have to prove things to the willfully ignorant. Sorry Martin, the burden is on you to earn a place at the table. You're not entitled to one, and the diversity of incompetence and malice that is WUWT has no place in civilized society.
Martin I do track the effectiveness of the memes I launch into the world. they're sticking. I know the change I'm making by my presence in those fora. But wasting my time with the self-important imposters at WUWT... do consider the possibility that I'm way, way smarter than you and can't be tricked into lending my legitimacy to them or you in the form of what you misunderstand to be debate.
Same question for you Martin, what have you changed your mind about in climate science based on the evidence. Betcha can't name one.
And Martin it's not temerty on my part....my arrogance is earned. Your sense of privilege isn't.
-
MartinG at 06:20 AM on 3 May 2014The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
Very funny Dave, and after you have wrecked your keyboard you might like to re read the main article, which details the "deniers" of having shifting opinions which often are contradictory (a diversity of points of view - as you yourself put it).
(-snip-).
Then we might get some progress.
Moderator Response:[DB] Sloganeering snipped.
-
Dave123 at 04:08 AM on 3 May 2014The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
Martin- I very nearly wrecked my keyboard snorting at your unintentioned howler about WUWT having a diversity of points of view.
If I were to kidnap 100 random scientists from the next AAAS meeting, I would not find people who didn't understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics, who would dispute the possibility of obtaining a global average surface temperature measurement, measure the pH and temperature of the ocean, the incoming radition from the sun, that conservation of matter and energy apply to everything, all subjetcs of a "diversity" of thinking from the crowd of amateurs, dismissives and envious at WUWT. In other words there will a near universal understanding of the workings of the basic physical universe in a random grab sample from AAAS members.
Your sense of entitlement is precious Martin, but not useful.
-
Doug Bostrom at 03:52 AM on 3 May 2014The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
Characterizing a group of people some of whom can't add, some who cannot divide and others who are unable to subtract as collectively "unskilled with arithmetic" is not an ugly portrayal but simply an observation, and a way of referring to these people for the purposes of discussion.
The population in contradiction with facts and evidence on climate change is itself an interesting phenomenon, a topic of research. In his article above, John Cook referred to people professing to be climate skeptics as "nonsensical," the most direct and least euphemistic term in the piece. John's piece seems light-hearted but nonsense in this case is indeed a phenomonen of interest. It's rare to see so many people behaving nonsensically about the same topic.
Warren, what would you suggest as a neutral descriptor for people firmly attached to a counter-factual worldview and who share in common a myriad of incorrect alternatives as a substitute?
-
Ridley at 02:55 AM on 3 May 2014CO2 increase is natural, not human-caused
Oh Dear......
1) http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence
2) http://oilprice.com/The-Environment/Global-Warming/Carbon-Isotopes-Prove-Humans-Have-Caused-Global-Warming.html
3) or maybe it is greed: http://www.the-one-project.net/survival_of_human_beings_and_the_danger_of_economic_growth.htm
-
Martin Lack at 01:44 AM on 3 May 2014The Australian quantum theory of climate denial
My apologies, line 1in #1shoud read as follows:
"...for bringing into sharp focus the..."
-
Martin Lack at 01:41 AM on 3 May 2014The Australian quantum theory of climate denial
I love this. Congratulations to John for bringing the intellectual incoherence of so much circular argumentation and tactical avoidance deployed by the vast majority of climate change 'contrarians': Those who so stubbornly refuse to recognise that they have been duped by the 'astroturfing' of the fossil fuel lobby, itself a strategy developed by the tobacco industry, which has been a matter of public record since at least 1998.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Climate_Science_Communications_Plan_(1998)
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/26/us/industrial-group-plans-to-battle-climate-treaty.html
-
Dave123 at 00:28 AM on 3 May 2014The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
Warren,
I'm puzzled. I've stated a that I have no interest in "debating" because it's not a useful tactic in motivating the public towards change. There is nothing to be gained by trying to show people evidence, especially when they make it clear that they don't understand the evidence in the first place, and regard the whole climate science enterprize as a fraud. Since the disrespect for the scientific community is so high at WUWT...one can't use them as an example of much of anything but amateurs with chips on their shoulders. A waste of time. A tiny group of people with increasingly less visbility and voice,. I suggest you monitor the comments about Spencer's recent lists and honestly asked yourself if 90% of those commenters could ever change their minds no matter what evidence was presented to them.
Warren, for that matter, as a token of good faith, can you describe anything in climate science where you've been shown evidence and changed your mind? I'll make a wager that in fact you'll not be able to state one.
But moving on- if debating climate change deniers is as futile an enterprize as trying to debate a creationist such as the unlamented late Duane Gish (I could, but that's a skills issue), what is the objective of what I do? First, providing evidence and reasoning for those with truly open minds is worthwhile. If that happens in the course responding to the assertions made by deniers so be it.
The real objective is to provide a good cooperative shove as deniers marginalize themselves- Hence the Cliven Bundy example. Bundy had sympathy while he kept his mouth shut about blacks being happier as slaves. Crossing that red-line vitiated any platform Bundy otherwise had for his treasonous, seditious views and his theft from the US government. Debate Bundy on "government overeach"....never. Shun him for racism...perfect. And that is why the Lewandowsky papers are important. Demonatrating the climate change deniers believe 5 other lunatic fringe ideas before breakfast is good way to demonstrate to the public that those views are marginal. Most people have their crazy uncle who bores them at family gatherings with his wearisome talks of conspiracies. The evidence is there (remember "evidence") that a good fraction of the climate change denial industry overlaps with the various conspiracy theorys. Making sure everyone knows this is good tactics, and why it scares the WUWT so much....deep down they know who they are and what they believe and that the shoe fits.
Here's a good example of successful marginalization: the NIPPCC. This puppet group of the HeartLand Institute had a press conference a few days ago to oppose the release of IPCC reports with their own....and no one came.
Now Warren, you made a few assertions... none of which you've backed up. Why don't you try:
You asserted there is a debate. Sez who?
You have asserted that even accurate personal characterizations are a weak tactic. Sez who. Can you provide any evidence to back that up? You see, US political campaigns show "going negative" is in fact effective. So you have some evidence...or is this just you expressing yet another opinion, and your entitlement to express the opinion without evidence?
You've also asserted, indirectly, that persuading you or the denizens of Wattsopia is useful. You've made no case why it's useful. I suggest that as much as practicle leaving them to stew in their own juices is the most appropriate response.
-
vrooomie at 00:16 AM on 3 May 2014The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
Rob Honeycutt sez.."See! Look, there's a blimp now!"
You mean...the *Goodrich* blimp?
:D
-
MartinG at 23:11 PM on 2 May 2014The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
Warren
Well done for your input. Its a logical conclusion which will appeal to everyone with an interest in the scientific method, and in uncovering the facts. Of course a site like WUWT will have many differing opinions if it allows a free and open debate. I don’t think theres a “party line” there which you have to adhere to get space. So its not WUWT writing, its whoever the author is. Natural science, and especially predictions of future behavior is not an exact study, and uncertainties will have to be handled with probabilistic scenarios, some of which will be mutually exclusive. Nothing wrong with that – its normal scientific procedure. We only get in trouble when we make a “party line” on this subject, and furthermore begin to brand those who do not tow the party line as members of another “party” with an imagined equally strict party line – and thereafter loose the dogs on them. I agree that any sensible and thoughtful person trying to assess whats happening in the climate blogosphere will be negatively influenced by abuse, and positively influenced by evidence. If the case is strong then the evidence will win the case. Abuse tastes of a coverup of a weak argument and should be avoided. -
chriskoz at 21:45 PM on 2 May 2014Past and Future CO2
Glenn@8,
Your "hump" is portrayed innacurately on fig 1.If you look at the more detailed Cenozoic reconstructions, e.g. here:
you fin. The rise in the early C until ~50ma was due to increased CO2 degassing by indian plate tectonics (India was running like crazy from antarctica through entire ocean at 8inches/y. The fall after ~50ma was due to India smashing into Tibet and rise of Himalaya and increased weathering.
-
CBDunkerson at 20:52 PM on 2 May 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #18A
And in the latest news from the Bizzaro world: Roy Spencer has put out lists of 'good' and 'bad' arguments against global warming.
Spoiler: The 'bad' arguments are those which make ridiculous errors about basic science (e.g. 'the greenhouse effect violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics'). The 'good' arguments are those which are grossly deceptive (e.g. 'no warming for 15 years') or blatantly false (e.g. 'climate modelers are lying and using groundless fudger factors to generate fake estimates of high warming').
-
chriskoz at 19:47 PM on 2 May 2014The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
Warren@30,
Didn't Glenn Tamblyn@23 comment provide evidence in clear boldface, that the self-proclaimed "skeptic" crowd distorts the reality and cherry-picks the factoids (often out of context) that suit their preconceived ideology? Then reread it. Glenn's comment addresses precisely the WUWT post about "slowing sea level rise" you're trying to push here as the argument for coherent "skeptic" theory. That argument was busted. Please concentrate on responding to that evidence, according to your claimed evidence based approach to this discussion.
If you, as is the case so far, avoid this evidence, but instead concentrate on "personal abuse", etc., then I have to conclude that your "evidence based" approach is not an objective reality but rather your subjective interpretation of reality.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 17:58 PM on 2 May 2014Past and Future CO2
"The palaeo-CO2 data can be found here"
'here' doesn't have a link.
Moderator Response:(Rob P) - My bad. I can't edit the post now, but try this
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 17:57 PM on 2 May 2014Past and Future CO2
Any clues about what the 'hump' between 20 & 50 Myr is caused by - that is way more than just the PETM.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 17:55 PM on 2 May 2014Past and Future CO2
Rob H
That is my understanding. The figures I have read suggest life on Earth has around 500 million years left to go. At that point the CO2 weathering thermostat will drive CO2 levels down to the point where plants will be unable to photosynthesis at all. When plant life (particularly cyano-bacteria) go extinct most animal life will follow. Bacteria will remain for some time.
With life removed that part of the carbon cycle is removed. Oxygen in the atmosphere declines rapidly allowing other GH gases such as Methane that would otherwise be oxidised to accumulate so more GH effect. And probably less draw down of CO2. The rate of tectonic movement may slow since it is thought that life contributes to reducing the grain size in soils below that which geological processes alone can achieve, thus increasing the lubrication soils and sediments provide as the plates slide over each other. So the weathering pump may see its final stage - deep sequestration via subduction reduced. So CO2 will likely build up further. Water vapour will keep adding its bit. Eventually the last life on Earth will be extremophile bacteria.
However, assuming we can survive the next few centuries there is no reason humanity can't find a way around this. Just take a bit of Solar System Engineering. Regular controlled flyby's by a good sized asteroid every century or so should allow us to slowly nudge Earth's orbit outwards to compensate. Of course we will need to adjust the orbits of the other planets as well to maintain stability. But with lots of time we can surely do all of that
-
macoles at 15:52 PM on 2 May 2014Past and Future CO2
That figure 2 (Climate forcing - CO2 and solar) is a jaw dropper. It shows that even if we stablise at +6W/m^2 (aka pathway RCP6) then we can eventually expect a return to the early Eocene Climatic Optimum (EECO) of 50 million years ago – which is described above as:
"The planet was so warm during the period that it was completely ice free (sea-level +65 m or so relative to today) and the latest compilations put global temperatures +13 ± 2.6°C warmer than today (Cabellero and Huber, 2013)."
Has anyone got a handle on how long it would take to reach that equilibrium?
-
Warren Hindmarsh at 14:16 PM on 2 May 2014The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
Dave123 Thanks for your welcome-- I think the reaction to my premis that the moment you revert to personal abuse in any debate you weaken your own position has been borne out. Obviously you have been traumatised by earlier debates but you will still never win by just accusing your opposition of "uncritical conspiracy mongering" maybe you lost because you couldn't prove your point.
John in the post above has attacked the "denialist" position by saying they "exist in a fuzzy quantum state of denial" My link to a post with the heading "Sea level rise slows while satellite temperature ‘pause’ dominates measurement record" siting RSS and IPCC was an example of an evidentiary post citing evidence in a clear logical manner no need to abuse the opposite view just give the evidence.
Yes I do read both sides of the discussion but when I see a post like John's I start to think that he has already lost what ever point he was trying to make.
BTW I don't really see the relevance of your unintelligble example of "Cliven Bundy"
-
jetfuel at 13:11 PM on 2 May 2014Sea level rise is exaggerated
When will data about the first 4 months of 2014 be available? Particularly on volume of ice. I see comparisons of 2007 to 1979 used often. What about 1984 to today?
I just read the data on the rise of all the Great lakes back to about the 100 year normal. That had to take a lot of water out of the oceans. For example, the avg glacial loss of the entire Himalayas mountain range was 2 gigatonnes per yer in the early 2000's. Some would tout this as adding to the seal level rise. However, this year, 50 gigatonnes of ice was added just to lake Superior, Which rose 14 inches year over year, and is 32,700 square miles in area. It seems like climate reporters use the term gigatonne to describe loss of ice and the avg low info person thinks that it represents a very very large amount. So they report the Him. Mts. lost 2 gigatonnes of glacial ice in 2003 and that the rate of loss is increasing 10% over the rate from just 10 years earlier. When in fact, Lake Superior just gained 25 times as much ice as that this past winter. So I wonder since it is all quiet about this year's ice volumes that possibly the avg arctic ice volume has recovered most of the 5500 gigatonnes of avg loss since 1979. Even choosing 1979 as the baseline is rediculous. 1979 was the year that the great lakes ice coverage record was set that still stands and was not broken this year, but it came within 1-2 percent of being broken (~94%). Seems like 1979 was cherry picked. Just Lake Superior alone gained 50 gigatonnes of ice this past winter. The lake is still 67% ice covered on May 1. I calculated the 48 cu miles of that really bad year of ice loss from Greenland and spread it into the Earth's ocean surface area and multiplied it by 87 years and got 1.87 inches of sea level rise. What a sigh of relief it was.
-
denisaf at 11:47 AM on 2 May 2014The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
Irreversible rapid climate change is under way. It is primarily caused by the rapid rate of greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion. Ocean acidification is the associated deleterious consequence of the use of fossil fule from the crustal store.
That assertion is based on fundamental physical principles and is backed by the the vast amount of evidence being accumulated.
People deny this assertion for a variety of reasons. The resulatant debate has been going on for decades. But that has not had any impact on wat has been irrevocably happening to the climate and ocean acidification.
Ironically the confusing debate about climate change is similar to the confusing debate about energy supply. The stark reality, regardless of what people think, is that the climate is changing, the ocean is acidifying and the main sources of energy, fossil fuels, is declining in availabiity.
-
Dave123 at 10:34 AM on 2 May 2014The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
It seems that no one else has taken Warren Hindmarsh to task for this so it seems to fall to me.
I have no interest in debating or winning a debate with the hydra of climate change deniers and their various mutually contradictory delusions. I'm interested in motivating the great masses of people. If evidence is useful, fine....but the great masses of people have no more ability to follow a scientific argument or process the evidence than the deniers and dismissives do.
The recent case of Cliven Bundy is a useful example. Bundy for all the wrong reasons has been refusing to pay duly imposed land use fees for grazing his cattle on my (federal) land. He attracted numerous armed defenders from the various Posse Commitatus / Sovereign Citizen cults. Now maybe a debate about the legitimacy of the my government has merits, even at insurrectionary gunpoint. But Bundy's mission unfocused discussion of race crossed a red-line and now his views are marginalized. When the Feds finally move, any attendant violence will be Bundy's fault.
I want climate change deniers to release their inner Cliven Bundys.... and thus push then to the far margins of society.
Debate them? No.
I've done debate- you can't "debate" someone who lies, makes it up and dismisses scientific evidence and focuses on non-sequiturs. And you certainly can't debate anyone who decries all of climate science to be a vast conspiracy and hoax. Whether you like Lewandowskie's results doesn't matter...there is a clear connection between uncritical conspiracy mongering and Climate Change deniers. All the evidence shows that these people cannot change their minds when confronted with evidence, instead spending immense psychological resources figuring out defenses allowing them to dismiss and ignore what their ideology demands they believe.
So Warren, thanks for dropping by with a false and unsupported premise. "debating" your clan is simply a diversion and waste of effort.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 06:25 AM on 2 May 2014Past and Future CO2
This post brings up a question I've always wondered about.
Given that CO2 has operated as a thermostat over the past few billion years, and can be seen doing this as solar output has increased over the ~400my, if you were to set aside human emissions of CO2 for a moment, what would happen naturally over the next 500my?
As solar irradiance grows, and CO2 level fall to compensate, doesn't that suggest there would be a point where the biosphere is no sustainable? Would you get to a point where life would become CO2 starved? And then following that, wouldn't there be a point in time when surface temps have to rise (on geologic scales) because the planet has exceeded the capacity for CO2 to regulate the climate system?
-
Rob Honeycutt at 06:15 AM on 2 May 2014Past and Future CO2
grindupBaker @ 3... I don't think the graph suggests century scale resolution prior to the glacial data. But you might also assume that the past 800k years are some evidence of a model for past conditions.
I'm sure there's much more to it than that, but that would be my initial reaction.
-
grindupBaker at 03:32 AM on 2 May 2014Past and Future CO2
If there are ~800 data points in 423,000,000 yrs then it doesn't indicate the maximum and minimum CO2 and temperatures on, say, century averages. As a concrete example, I recall vaguely a public talk by Dr. Hansen and others that forcing latest deglaciation was ~7 w/m**2 to give +5 Celsuis. Can somebody inform how we know that CO2 and temperature on a rolling 100 year (human-size) average did not vary considerably more than the 5,000x coarser time sampling described and depicted ?
-
Stephen Baines at 03:26 AM on 2 May 2014Past and Future CO2
This is great. I was looking for exactly these graphs for my class notes a coulpe weeks ago. How should I best reference this?
Moderator Response:(Rob P) - See the link in the greenbox at the bottom of the post which takes you to the Descent into the Icehouse Project. This post is a re-post of an article of the same title which appears there.
I've let Dr Gavin Foster know that the post is up, so he may turn up to answer questions. I can't guarantee that however, as the e-mail was only sent moments ago and he might not necessarily be available.
-
wili at 02:03 AM on 2 May 2014Past and Future CO2
Thanks for this. I have been arguing on othe sites with people who are certain that we can know for certain what is coming simply by looking at past era's when CO2 concentrations were at whatever level we think they will be in the future. Your last two paragraphs, in particular, put the lie to such notions. We are indeed headed into new climate territory, not only for reasons you so clearly lay out, but also because of the extreme speed as which we seem to be getting there.
-
Composer99 at 00:08 AM on 2 May 2014Palmer United Party needs to go back to school on carbon facts
Thanks for the hotlink advice, chriskoz! Much appreciated.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 00:07 AM on 2 May 2014The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
It may be interesting to attempt to scientifically explain the fundamental processes involved in the persist unsustainable and inconsistent claim creation exhibited by the vast majority of critics of the developing best understanding of human impacts on the climate of this planet.
However, the suggestion that the critics are inconsistent leads down the wrong path. The critics are completely consistent, including the way they may address other challenges of the acceptability of what they prefer to enjoy doing that seem to be constantly developed by better understanding through rigorous scientific investigation and evaluation.
The critics of climate science recognize, and do not like, the consequences they face if the best understanding is accepted and acted upon in the way that the science indicates it needs to be. And the ones who stand to lose the most personal benefit if the actions that the science indicates are required actually get forced "on them" will persistently fight against that better understanding any way they think they can get away with. They will even demand the right to be free to do as they please while others try to act responsibly and considerately to overcome the harm that is being done by those allowed to benefit from creating the harm.
This is clearly one of the major issues where politics unsustainably (hopefully ended sooner rather than later) and harmfully conflicts with science. Politics is deciding who to favour and who to disappoint in the game of popularity of personal preference. Science is about the constant pursuit of the best understanding of what is going on and how things need to be changed, regardless of personal preference. As the pursuers of benefit through politics face growing public better understanding of what is going on they have a last ditch position of "Balancing their interest with the findings of the science". They actually try to claim that their interest needs to be given consideration even if it clearly contradicts the best understanding that is developed. They do it all the time. You constantly hear politicians saying they want to balance the ability of a few people to benefit from unsustainable and damaging actions with the requirements of the scientific understanding of the simple and clear unacceptability of such actions. And they will use the popularity angle to push the balance as far towards their interest as they can get away with.
That is my best understanding of what is going on.
Climate science is in good company. It is one of the many targets of the uncaring selfish who fight against those who develop better understanding of the unacceptability of the actions and attitudes they want to benefit from.
Keep up the good work of helping people better understand what is going on so it becomes more difficult for those who prefer to benefit from unacceptable actions and attitudes.
-
mrdecider at 23:38 PM on 1 May 2014Trenberth can't account for the lack of warming
FOUND - Missing Global Warming from Science Magazine
Major climate data sets have underestimated the rate of global warming in the last 15 years owing largely to poor data in the Arctic, the planet's fastest warming region. A dearth of temperature stations there is one culprit; another is a data-smoothing algorithm that has been improperly tuning down temperatures there. The findings come from an unlikely source: a crystallographer and graduate student working on the temperature analyses in their spare time.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/344/6182/348.summary
Moderator Response:[JH] Hot-linked the url.
-
Composer99 at 23:10 PM on 1 May 2014The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
I wouldn't characterize deniers and pseudoskeptics who engage in "quantum denial" as intellectually incompetent.
As far as I can see they are either in a serious mire of mental compartmentalization, which is a common enough human cognitive foible (perhaps universal to some extent), or they know better, and therefore know exactly what they're doing (which is IMO far worse than intellectual incompetence or ignorance).
Also, I'm not interested in coddling feelings. If you don't want to be called a denier, pseudoskeptic, or denialist, then stop denying preponderances of evidence, engaging in fake skepticism, and using the techniques of denialism.
-
CBDunkerson at 22:51 PM on 1 May 2014The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
Warren wrote: "My argument is; instead of claiming people who doubt CAGW have amongst other things a "weird, counterintuitive phenomenon". Counter their argument with facts and evidence."
Problem. That is not a "claim". It is an observable fact. Countless climate deniers do present mutually contradictory positions on a regular basis. Citing this reality is 'countering their arguments with facts and evidence'.
A previous post listing some of the many specific examples of this behaviour can be found here.
-
ranyl at 22:13 PM on 1 May 2014The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
Denial is primarily a subconscious mechanism to escape the truth in fear of the direct situation or having to come out of an addictive state?
Here we both, a very threatening situation and a westernized society totally addicted to power and consumerism.
Add the inherent fear and change and denial is very understandable.
Maybe it might be better to work to quell the fears and to help those with subconscious (i.e. this is not a conscious voluntary notion) denial, gently, rather entrenching them into deeper defense through a greater degree of distress and denial through attacking people on personal and/ or lower levels.Not saying to stop showing the fallacies in arguments derived from a place of denial but maybe we shouldn’t demonize the actual person for what is probably a subconscious process.
Or do people think there are those who actually want to consciously make human civilization to breakdown?
??
Moderator Response:[JH] Unnecessary white space eliminated.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 21:53 PM on 1 May 2014The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
Warren Hindmarsh wrote "To try to win the AGW debate by dismissing opponents as intelectually incompetant is a sure way to lose."
I'm sure that WUWT (the site Warren mentions as a counterexample), would never, for example, post cartoons suggesting that those holding a mainstream position on the science were dunces. No, that could never happen! ;o)
Besides, the article above does not dismiss anybody as being intellectually incompetant, just of having a lack of coherence in their arguments. The fact that they can't all agree on a non-conflicting position on the basic issues is good evidence of this. To demonstrate this is the case, see the extensive comments folliwing Roy Spencer's recent list of skeptic arguments that dont hold water, it is clear that even on such basic issues as these there is (shall we say) a spectrum of opinion.
-
wideEyedPupil at 20:16 PM on 1 May 2014What’s your carbon footprint and where does it come from?
I don't use public transit,because there isn't any! I eat meat,but I raise it myself on grass-no grain feeding and no long distance shipping.
Grass feed beef produces more GHG than grain feed where dietry interventions can be made to reduce methane production. Worth noting that 55% of Australian emissions come from Land Use Sector using 20 yr GHG accounting and of that 55%, 90% is associated with the extended use of land for livestock (range feed beef and sheep mainly) from entrophic fermentation, forest clearing, savahna burning the main three offenders. So 50% of the nations entire emissions are just from growing cattle and sheep (many of them for live export). They are fattened for 2-3 years on grains in feedlots in most cases but that is not the cheif source of the emissions associated with them.
All this modeling, science and more will be released in the BZE Land Use Plan later this year so stay tuned.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 18:20 PM on 1 May 2014The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
Warren Hindmarsh
Jdith Curries comments
"
- the 20th century average is 2 mm/yr,
- observations from 1992-2002 are 3.4 mm/yr
- observations from 2003-2011 are 2.4 mm/yr
- when corrected for an abundance of La Ninas, sea level rise from 2003-2011 is ‘adjusted’ to 3.3 mm/yr
Rather than adjusting the period 2003-2011, instead adjust the period 1992-2002 for a surplus of El Ninos.
"
From the paper Casanave et al here http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n5/full/nclimate2159.html
"Present-day sea-level rise is a major indicator of climate change1. Since the early 1990s, sea level rose at a mean rate of ~3.1 mm yr−1 (refs 2, 3). However, over the last decade a slowdown of this rate, of about 30%, has been recorded4, 5, 6, 7, 8. It coincides with a plateau in Earth’s mean surface temperature evolution, known as the recent pause in warming1, 9, 10, 11, 12. Here we present an analysis based on sea-level data from the altimetry record of the past ~20 years that separates interannual natural variability in sea level from the longer-term change probably related to anthropogenic global warming. The most prominent signature in the global mean sea level interannual variability is caused by El Niño–Southern Oscillation, through its impact on the global water cycle13, 14, 15, 16. We find that when correcting for interannual variability, the past decade’s slowdown of the global mean sea level disappears, leading to a similar rate of sea-level rise (of 3.3 ± 0.4 mm yr−1) during the first and second decade of the altimetry era. Our results confirm the need for quantifying and further removing from the climate records the short-term natural climate variability if one wants to extract the global warming signal10."
No mention of correcting one period rather than another. Simply correcting the entire (~20 year) record to account for inter-annual variability.Judith Curry has done an interesting bit of subtle misrepresentation. And of course the denialosphere picked it up with glee - WUWT, JoNova.
Next Warren, why reference just RSS? Why not UAH - years ago that was always the skeptics favorite. Or the surface records. Or the recent analysis by Cowtan and Way? Perhaps because at the moment RSS is the record that shows the lowest recent warming where that was UAH some years back.
Perhaps instead the appropriate course of action is to not look at just one source of infomation but to look at all of them and weigh them all up. Unless of course one has an agenda in what one is trying to use the cherry picking of data to represent.
-
localis at 17:30 PM on 1 May 2014The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
Fact: C02 levels in the atmosphere keep rising.
That is all we need to know to make some deductions about the likely result on the climate.
Those who accept the science that indicates it could lead to disastrous changes in our eco system are showing some concern about the quality of life that future generations are going to inherit.
Those who deny the science are obviously more concerned about justifying and maintaining their current life-style than anything that future generations are going to inherit.
The whole argument has degenerated into a stupid tit for tat that resembles any political debate. It is just another example of how human nature becomes polarised and entrenched. If the issue at stake wasn't so serious it would be a laughable example of just how primitive we really are. -
Dumb Scientist at 16:45 PM on 1 May 2014The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
My old comments might interest binntho:
The Copenhagen interpretation is commonly viewed by physicists as a way to wave all the metaphysical issues raised by quantum mechanics off to the side. As Feynman once said, "Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, "But how can it be like that?" because you will get "down the drain," into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that. [regarding quantum theory]" ... I think it's an interesting question, and personally prefer the Everett-Wheeler interpretation...
The Everett-Wheeler interpretation is commonly referred to as the many worlds (MW) interpretation. I linked to the concept of environmentally-induced superselection, or einselection, which is one way that decoherence might result in a seemingly classical universe.
... the “collapse” effect in MW is a purely physical phenomenon. It’s difficult to translate the math into english, which is why I’ve said strange things like “generates new universes.” This is a clumsy (and probably overly dramatic) way of describing the process, but it’s the best I can do.
A more accurate way of describing the process would be to say that coupling an isolated quantum system to a much larger system (like a detector) dramatically reduces the off-diagonal terms of the density matrix describing the original quantum system. Since these off-diagonal terms describe interference between the various eigenstates of the quantum system (horizontal and vertical polarization, for example), this process effectively prevents the two eigenstates from interfering with each other. Because the two eigenstates no longer interact, some physicists interpret the resulting density matrix as saying that the two outcomes are now in two “parallel universes” which no longer interact.
The Copenhagen interpretation is almost certainly wrong. (My only correction to his list is that #6 also applies to the No Hair theorem.)
If collapse actually worked the way its adherents say it does, it would be:
- The only non-linear evolution in all of quantum mechanics.
- The only non-unitary evolution in all of quantum mechanics.
- The only non-differentiable (in fact, discontinuous) phenomenon in all of quantum mechanics.
- The only phenomenon in all of quantum mechanics that is non-local in the configuration space.
- The only phenomenon in all of physics that violates CPT symmetry.
- The only phenomenon in all of physics that violates Liouville's Theorem (has a many-to-one mapping from initial conditions to outcomes).
- The only phenomenon in all of physics that is acausal / non-deterministic / inherently random.
- The only phenomenon in all of physics that is non-local in spacetime and propagates an influence faster than light.
-
Warren Hindmarsh at 16:33 PM on 1 May 2014The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
KR Perhaps you could show where one of those posts self contradicts in a denial of warming. (John's point is a denier holds many views all at the same time 'deniers exist in a fuzzy quantum state")
Then go to the post I linked to, and see the post opinion quoting RSS temps and IPCC sea level graphs in a factual manner.
Moderator Response:(Rob P) - Here's a few examples of the Quantum Theory of Climate Denial (QTOCD) in plain view at WUWT.
1. An ongoing series of "it's El Nino that's warming the Earth" by Bob Tisdale.
2. "It's cosmic rays that are warming the Earth" by Anthony Watts
3. "It's insects that are warming the Earth" by Ronald Voison.
4. "What warming? We're in a pause" by David Whitehouse.
5. "Yeah, it is warming but it's CFC's" by Anthony Watts
That's about as much QTOCD as I can tolerate in one sitting.
-
binntho at 15:59 PM on 1 May 2014The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
I am a great fan of Skepticalscience.com and tend to trust the science in the articles. However, this time I must object to the very non-scientific version of the Copenhagen interpretation: That the human conscious has an effect on the real world simply by observing it. (This interpretation is used by a large industry of pseudoscientific literature, e.g. the film "What the bleep do we know" and the book "The Secret").
Schrödinger described the thought experiment of the cat in the box precisely to show that such an interpretation is faulty - and Einstein pointed out that an explosive device could similarly be rigged to exist in both an exploded and an unexploded state until a consciousness happened to observe it!
Scrhödingers cat can however be used to illustrate another strange quantum phenomenon: Events without a cause. We place a cat in the box, with say one atom of fermium-252 (with a half-life of c.a. one day), and rig a geiger counter so that when the atom decays, the cat will be killed.
The point here is that there is no theoretical possibility of stating with complete certainty, at any given moment, that the cat is dead. In other words, the decay of an unstable atom happens purely probabilistically and cannot be predicted. We can say that the chances of the cat living more than one day is 50%, more than two 25%, more than three (giving access to water!) 12,5% etc.
So without opening the box, we will not know if the cat is dead (the atom has decayed). The event of decay does not have an immediate cause and therefore cannot be predicted, something that flies in the face of traditional physics, as well as our experience.
A more realistic version of the Copenhagen interpretation is to say that the probabalistic wave function collapses as a result of spreading, i.e. it is mass related. This is debated but sounds fairly logical. The radioactive atom would therefore constantly be creating a superimposed state of both decay and non-decay, which would collapse more or less immediately - and the atom would decay or not decay purely on probabilities.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 15:15 PM on 1 May 2014The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
An excellent way to make fun of the observations of the "claims that are inconsistent with a rational evaluation of all the available information yet get repeated" being made by people who simply want to justify their continued desire to benefit from burning fossil fuels, something that is clearly known to also create many other damaging consequences in addition to the excess CO2.
-
DSL at 15:12 PM on 1 May 2014The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
Warren, which one of the letters is WUWT opposed to: the C, the A, the G, or the W? Or are you simply confirming the thesis of this article by refusing to specify which?
-
KR at 15:02 PM on 1 May 2014The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
Warren - Looking at the last few posts on your linked site, WUWT, I can categorize them as follows:
- Unrelated to climate change (just weather, multiple days of tornados)
- Unrelated
- It's not us (El Nino)
- It's not bad
- Ad hominem with accusations of deception/it's not happening
- It's not us/not happening (it's natural variability, denial of CO2 physics)
- It's not bad
- It's not bad
- Unrelated
- Neutral
- Unrelated snark and ad hominem
- It's not happening (claims of manipulated temperatures)
- Red herring
- It's not us (wetlands)
- ... On and on and on, rarely the same claim twice in a row. And I didn't even get to the tin-hat UN Agenda 21 conspiracy claims Tim Ball is so fond of.
I can hardly imagine a better example of contradictory quantum denial than that site.
Moderator Response:[DB] Fixed text.
Prev 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 Next
