Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 Next
Comments 36751 to 36800:
-
Dikran Marsupial at 05:56 AM on 8 May 2014Answers to the top ten global warming 'skeptic' arguments
skeptical101 you need to read the supplementary matrial in detail. I am a statistician, so the point was easier for me to spot than it would be for those with other backgrounds. Using the spread of the models *is* an established method, but that is pretty much because there are no real alternatives as we can't estimate the plausible variability of the climate from the single realisation that we can actually observe (i.e. the Earth's actual climate). However, that doesn't mean that it is robust.
Fyfe et al. is just one paper on this topic, there have been many other groups working to understand the cause of the apparent model-observation difference. IMHO Fyfe's paper overstates the conclusions. The best approach is to look at every paper in the context of the other published on the same topic.
It isn't really possible to take a simple position on the matter without leaving out important caveats. We fundamentally don't know whether the models are underestimating variability or overestimating climate sensitivity or both. We will get more confidence on this as the amount of data increases, but the uncertainty won't go away completely.
It is worth noting that the 1998/99 El-Nino event pushed the observations about as high into the upper tail of the model projections as they are into the lower tail now. Does that mean that the models underestimated climate sensitivity then and overestimate it now?
It is also important to note that the models are not designed to project climate on a decadal basis, but on a centennial basis, where the effects of internal variability can more reasonably be expected to average out. This means that just because the models are struggling to explain recent climate, that does not imply that their centennial projections are unreliable.
In my opinion, it is a case of "a bit of both".
-
davidnewell at 05:31 AM on 8 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
Eventually, everyone will become convinced of "the problem". If there is a "god", it's name is called "Reality", and "it" cares not about the machinations, denials, beliefs, ideologies, or opinions of any person whatsoever.
"We", who argue about the finer details of "this", and "that", with those whose beliefs are otherwise.. need only "wait a while", to see who is right, and who isn't.
Meanwhile "The Times, They are a Changin". huh: seems damned obvious to me..
thanks,
d
-
Skeptical101 at 05:28 AM on 8 May 2014Answers to the top ten global warming 'skeptic' arguments
"Thus we employ here an established
technique to estimate the impact of
ENSO on global mean temperature, and
to incorporate the effects of dynamically
induced atmospheric variability and major
explosive volcanic eruptions5,"are you saying this is not as "established" as they claim it is. Are they publishing such a report on Nature Mag claiming such vasts differences on models vs observation which are just statistical tricks? Is there another method that would make the model right?
Is it not possible to take simple position on the matter? Something like "The models are correct given blah blah blah" or "Yes, the models are off by a significant margin for a 20 year span".
Fyfe and company are claiming model predictions are off by roughly 50%!! 0.30 ± 0.02 °C vs 0.14 ± 0.06 °C .... This is not a small margin! -
MA Rodger at 01:22 AM on 8 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
It was curious that somebody who professed to have been “a strong supporter of alarming warming during the 90's” and who stated they still consider CO2 emissions cuts and renewable energy are “great outcomes,” would have managed to effect some major upheaval in his understanding of things climatological caused by such a banal reason of somebody claiming it will soon never again snow in London (shock-horror), or some ridiculous claim that seas will rise by 9 metres by 2100.
That this same person also considered a 6ºC global temperature increase in the same light (which I believe is an upper value projected by IPCC AR5 under BAU), had problems accepting the millennial NH temperature reconstruction of Mann et al 1999 (an presumably every other such reconstruction produced since 1999) while picking out the Daily Mail-esque nonsense-claim of an ice-free Arctic by 2013 as yet another profound gripe – how can this have been a serious student of climatology? Surely such claims were far too puerile to be legitimate.
-
KR at 01:17 AM on 8 May 2014Understanding the pre-IPCC Anti-Climate Science Misinformation Blitz
The same approach as discussed in the OP (carpet-bombing FUD both before and after publication of a significant report) can be seen with the US National Climate Assessment released 5/6/14. Multiple blog posts at WUWT, JoNova, Currys blog, Michaels and Knappenberger over at the CATO institute, Morano at ClimateDepot, swarms of commentaries from FOX News, etc.
It appears those in denial feel threatened by significant reports on the science of climate change. At this point I treat any observed frenzy in the denier camps as a recommendation to read what they are so upset about...
-
Dikran Marsupial at 01:11 AM on 8 May 2014Answers to the top ten global warming 'skeptic' arguments
My main reservation about the Fyfe paper is that the statistical test that it uses estimates the plausible variability due to internal climate variability (things like ENSO) from the spread of the model runs around the mean for that model. If the models are unable to predict the forced response of the climate (i.e. the climate change caused by changes in forcings such as CO2) then I don't see how they can be expected to accurately model the unforced response (internal climate variability). IIRC the details of this are in the supplementary material, rather than the paper. Thus the statistical test is not a particularly reliable one, and the authors have not really taken this into account. I prefer the more basic test of seeing whether the observations lie within the spread of the model runs, which seems a little more robust. Essentially either the models over-estimate the warming, or they underestimate the internal variability, or a bit of both.
The fact that mainstream scientists discuss this is of no surprise to me, I work with climatologists every now and again and they spend lots of time criticising models because making them better is what they do for a living, and you can't improve something without being aware of the deficciencies. However, at the same time you need to keep some perspective and look into other reasons for the apparent difference, e.g. by controlling for the effects of ENSO. The mainstream position on this varies from "its the models" or "its internal variability" and everywhere in between, with I suspect "somewhere in between" being considered the most plausible (at least according to the climatologists I have discussed this paper with).
-
Skeptical101 at 00:43 AM on 8 May 2014Answers to the top ten global warming 'skeptic' arguments
okay ... so before I get my head chewed off, I want to say that if your only reply to me will be how stupid I am, or how it should be clear to me that the models are right, please address that to someone else.
From what I've gathered several prominent folks point to the model are significantly off in their projections. This is not just something that sceptics bring up. Folks who support AGW do so as well. Here is short article published on Nature that says the same thing.
LINK
What do you all think? and when I ask this question I mean thoughtful commentary/criticismModerator Response:[Dikran Marsupial] Please just ask the question in a calm rational manner, and you will find plenty of people happy to have a rational discussion about the answer, however your defensive tone is unlikely to result in productive discussion. Rather than just point to an article, ask a specific question about it. Link to the paper activated.
[RH] Shorten URL that was breaking page format.
-
bakertrg at 00:28 AM on 8 May 2014There is no consensus
posted a comment, did it get deleted? if so could someone point out why so I'll be able to better form future comments?
Moderator Response:[Dikran Marsupial] Your posts were indeed deleted, due to sloganeering. Please see the comments policy and adhere to it. SkS is a good forum for rational discussion of science, but rhetoric and inflamatory tone tends to be counterproductive, so please dial back the tone.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 23:19 PM on 7 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
Can I suggest that we DNFTT and leave the moderators to deal with Warren's childish attempt to bait Glenn. He has made it abundently clear that he is not here for rational discussion, so he doesn't warrant any further attention.
Moderator Response:[JH] I have deleted a number of Warren' s recent. concern troll, mini-posts. They were indeed childish. We have also asked our lead Moderator, Daniel Baily, to relieve Warren of the privilege of posting comments on SkS.
-
chriskoz at 23:17 PM on 7 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
I need to note that Warren continues to mispell our names, despite he's been warned by a mod@10 where he rather wildly mispelled Dikran's name (it was not a typo IMO). Warren Hindmarsh@38 miselled the name of Composer99 as "composor99" (sic!).
I also need to note that frequent mispelling of other names is his typicla modus operandi: e.g. he made plenty of mispells in the thread recently cut by mods (so the cuts did him a favour by removing embarassing evidence).
Based on the above, and on top of the facts that Warren does not make grammar nor ordinary word spelling errors (far fewer than I do for example), I conclude that Warren's mistakes are an indication of his carelessness & lack of respect for people he discusses with. IMO, such lack of respect is another characteristic of deniers and/or ignorants. Those who take the debate seriously, do pay attention to the respect aspect, especially when warned about it.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 23:04 PM on 7 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
O.K. Warren it is clear that you are just trolling, sorry, I have better things to do than indulge that sort of behaviour any further. It has not escaped me that you have ignored the substantive points in my post (that you can't simply ignore physics) and have instead focussed on yet more word play.
-
Composer99 at 22:55 PM on 7 May 2014Answers to the top ten global warming 'skeptic' arguments
-
Composer99 at 22:53 PM on 7 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
Speaking personally again, I do find the current and projected impacts of global warming alarming. But you don't have to find them alarming or be alarmed to support mitigation via emissions reductions - you only have to conclude, based on the available evidence, that the human and socioeconomic costs and penalties for failing to mitigate warming exceeed the costs and penalties of mitigation. And, as others have noted, you can't exclude the worst case scenarions just because you think they're "alarmist", as long as they have a non-trivial likelihood of occurring.
-
chriskoz at 22:48 PM on 7 May 2014Answers to the top ten global warming 'skeptic' arguments
Can someone provide a link Spencers 10 worst 'skeptic' arguments, for completeness of the discussion herein? Thanks.
-
Composer99 at 22:47 PM on 7 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
Warren, you state:
we know "about 0.75c per century" is not [alarming].
To paraphrase Dikran, whether some phenomenon is alarming or not is a question of the observer's attitude towards the phenomenon. After all, melting ice, changing weather patterns, and rapid ocean acidification don't have emotions.
You can be as alarmed or not, as you wish. What you can't do, if you want to be taken seriously (at least around here), is argue your case on the basis of misleading evidence (e.g. the material from Joanne Nova and Craig Idso), cherry picking (e.g. "ice-free Arctic in 2013" when the correct estimate is 2016 ± 3 years), and outright false claims (e.g. your comments about the "Hockey Stick", which others have noted has been substantiated over and over in the literature). If you persist in doing so you aren't likely to get any more polite reception than you are now.
Personally speaking, if you don't find an unprecedented temperature change, in geological terms, alarming (or at least potentially alarming), that's your lookout. Frankly it seems that you don't have the slightest grasp just how rapid and significant a 0.7-0.8°C change in global mean temperature over a single century is.
Regarding your (again, apparently reflexive) dismissal of 9+ metre sea level rise: the simple fact of the matter is that 9+ metre sea level rise would become inevitable, given sufficient unabated warming. It would take a few centuries to happen (even worst case scenarios for 2100 call for no more than 2 metres of sea level rise IIRC), but it would be inevitable (because, surprise surprise, ice tends to melt as temperatures rise, and there is a lot of ice locked up in the Greenland & Antarctic land ice sheets).
-
Dikran Marsupial at 22:42 PM on 7 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
Warren wrote "No more sacrosanct predictions of the future"
again you are trolling, nobody is claiming that the IPCC projections are in any way sacrosanct. Please give the hyperbole and rhetoric a break, it really is not helping you in any way. The model projections tell us the consequences of our actions under our best understanding of the laws of physics. To ignore them is to ignore what we know about the physics of the climate, which is an unreasonable and irrational position.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 22:41 PM on 7 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
"Is your avoidance of the word alarming a cop out?"
no, as I said earlier that future climate change is likely to be problematic and adaption expensive is sufficient to warrant efforts at mitigation. By nature I am generally rather calm, rational person, so I may well not be alarmed by something that someone else would find alarming. So I find it better to stick to the science than itroduce emotive terms such as alarming or CAGW etc.
The warming that we have observed is not all we have to go on though, we also have the laws of physics, which you appear to ignore. I consider that a fairly unreasonable attitude.
BTW the meaning of "we know about the future" and "that does not mean we know nothing about the future" are not equivalent. The former implies a much greater degree of certainty than the latter, and hence substantially misrepresented what I actually wrote.
-
Warren Hindmarsh at 22:33 PM on 7 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
(snip)
Moderator Response:[PW] Warren, this is your last warning: any further *trolling* and all your rants will be deleted, and you will be recused from any further commentary on SkS.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 21:51 PM on 7 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
O.K., to show that Warren *is* just trolling, he complains 'Dikran sorry but to call me a troll and then you say you "know about the future" '
what I actually wrote was
"you are playing with words now. We can have no "evidence" of the future, but that does not mean we know nothing about it."
I clearly did not say that I know the future, and to suggest that we are not completely ignorant of what will happen in the future is not an unreasonable statement.
"once again your proof of alarming warming and we know "about 0.75c per century" is not that."
Also I didn't say that I had proof of alarming warming. I made it very clear that "alarming" is a subjective term and didn't use it myself, I also didn't say proof, you can't have proof of something that happens in the future.
It is sad that Warren should play such silly word games and misquote, rather than actually engage in a rational discussion of what the science actually does tell us.
-
CBDunkerson at 21:47 PM on 7 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
Warren wrote: "...the increasingly absolute belief systems of the AGW lobby (Mann's flawed hockey stick graph, climate gate, It won't snow in London again, the Arctic will be ice free by 2013, etc.etc.) caused me to adopt a contrarian and skeptical view."
So you have based your position on lies and nonsense... and continue to hold that position even when shown that these things are lies and nonsense.
Sorry, that doesn't make you a 'skeptic'.
-
Warren Hindmarsh at 21:35 PM on 7 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
Dikran sorry but to call me a troll and then you say you "know about the future" if that's the best you have sorry I'm too much of a contrarian skeptic to cop that now, once again your proof of alarming warming and we know "about 0.75c per century" is not that.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 21:23 PM on 7 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
Tom
I am aware the usual convention for any paleodata is 'present' is 1950. The GISP data I linked to specifically says from the present and is from a 2000 study. Possibly Alley means the usual convention, just the description of the data doesn't say that specifically.
Warren's problem is relying on poor quality source for his arguents.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 20:46 PM on 7 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
Warren, the tone of your response to Tom is again snarky and gives the impression of trolling, rather than rational scientific discussion. The answer is pretty obvious, the part that is not an extrapolation is not necesarily model based and hence the forcing data Tom gave is not "only a model". Please exercise some self skepticism and try and see the value in the posts made by others, rather than just assuming they are wrong without checking.
-
Tom Curtis at 19:32 PM on 7 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
Warren Hindmarsh @29,
1) Could you please provide your evidence for your false claim that the forcing data I showed "is only a model"?
2) I note that your comment that even considering the possibility of mass extinctions in similar conditions to the worst mass extinction in the paleo record is "alarmist". Very clearly you are operating on an a priori assumption that the impacts of global warming cannot be bad.
You are making it more and more transparent that you are just yet another ideologically driven, evidence free troll.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 19:30 PM on 7 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
By the way, the problems with Warrens behaviour here have been pointed out to him before, for instance here, where he wrote the obviously content-free trolling comment:
Hi dikran
where is the global warming :)
To which I later replied:
"Warren, firstly your posts on SkS have demonstrated an argumentative rhetorical tone. This is not conducive to discussion of science and is likely to irritate the other participants in the discussion, which reflects more badly on you than on anyone else. Please give it a rest."
before going on to answer his question. Note also the moderator comment that shows the other moderators had also tired of his snarky behaviour.
I've had a look through Warren's posting history here, and this sort of behaviour seems pretty much standard operating procedure, so if he resents being labelled as a troll, then perhaps he needs to reconsider his posting strategy.
-
Tom Curtis at 19:24 PM on 7 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
Glenn Tamblyn @32, Before Present refers to before 1950 in geological analysis, unless otherwise specified. Therefore the final date in the Alley et al data is 1855, not 1905. A comparison between 1855 temperatures and modern temperatures at site of the GISP2 core can be found here.
It is interesting to note that of the three regional temperature series, not one shows a temperature record through to modern times. The GISP2 record shows temperatures only through to 1855 as already noted. It even marks the temperature increase from 1790-1855 in red to deceptively indicate it is the modern warming.
The soil temperature record in the great plains (your second image in your post @37) terminates around 1500 AD, ie, effectively with the onset of the LIA. The line across (as you note) represents modern values, but in fact represents modern (1990s) soil composition. Soil is formed from biological decay products being worked into the sand and/or clay substrate by bioturbation. Thus modern soil composition is only a measure of modern temperatures at very low resolution of at least decades and possibly longer. This is shown, in part by the fact that 1940s measurements match 1990s measurements. Therefore the modern values shown, used as a temperature proxy, equate to a multidecade average temperature terminating in the 1990s, and do not represent modern (early 21st century) values at all.
The final image (and your final image @37) shows no temperature post 1980. The line across purportedly represents modern temperatures, but as you not is not the modern temperatures shown in the original source, and indeed shows a lower temperature than that shown in that source.
Thus, in his attempt to show mid to late holocene temperatures greater than modern temperatures, Hindmarsh has singularly failed to show any modern temperatures. So much for his claim to be guided by evidence.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 18:58 PM on 7 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
Warren wrote "Dikran I asked for evidence of alarming global warming"
as I said, what is considered "alarming" is a matter of opinion, and like your use of CAGW is usually hyperbole or rhetorical overstatement in order to create a straw man. If you want to give the impression of trolling, this is a pretty good approach.
"you provided a link to a IPCC report. In that report it stated that the earth had warmed by "about 0.74C" over the last 100 yearrs""
so? did you read the projections of future warming? That is what justifies efforts at mitigation, not the relatively small warming we have seen over the last 100 years.
The IPCC reports also contain discussion of historical sea ice extent and the medieval warm period etc, but you seem to have ignored that and prefer Jo Nova's blog instead.
"Yes there are models that predict much worse in the future but models, by their very definition, can not be evidence."
you are playing with words now. We can have no "evidence" of the future, but that does not mean we know nothing about it.
"Dikan I resent the troll accusation"
too bad, stop using the phrase CAGW, stop playing with words and start taking a balanced *skeptical* view of the evidence rather than just cherry picking images from blogs (without considering whether they are an accurate representation of the evidence or whether they tell the story they are purported to tell - see posts by Glenn).
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 18:34 PM on 7 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
Warren. Your first link (GISP) tells us about Greenland. The MWP (if there was such a thing) doesn't appear to have been global in nature. Certainly not if it was 500 years apart in different parts of the planet. Whereas warming today is global. And by not showing the instrumental record for Greenland in conjunction with the ice core data that removes the context wrt current temperature changes.Picture what that graph looks like if, at the far right the line climbs to current temps in Greenland. That would put it up at around the 'minoan' level, a much larger change than any of the other spikes given that we should be in a long term downward trend as the curved trend line on the graph suggests. Incomplete information can be very misleading Warren.
Your second link was about evidence for differing proportions of different plant types in the Great Plains in the transition out of the last Glacial involving lots of factors. And if you read Nordt et al they show graphs from studies by others that differ significantlyfrom their work. So what was the point of the second link.
And what excatly is Craig Idso's manipulation of the graph from Otto et al telling you about the reliability of your sources?
And your links were all to the same source - Jo Nova. And she sourced 2 of them from Craig Idso. And Idso manipulated both the images he supplied.
You need to find better sources of information Warren.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 18:08 PM on 7 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
Warren, regarding no Arctic sea ice by 2013, that was a projection by one modelling group and actually was 2016 +/- 3years.
This is a graph of Arctic sea ice volume from PIOMAS since 1979. Each line is one month with the green bottom line being September. The bottom axis is zero volume.
After last years mild season ice volume ticked back up so now the trend projection is saying 2016/17 for zero. Prior to last year the projection was saying 2015/16. Ice volume up there has returned to what it was a year ago - the 'recovery' has evaporated away. Will ice reach zero by 2016? Its not certain, but it is also quite plausible that it could.
So '... but you still have to give me "Ice free Arctic"...'. What do you think the data is suggesting
-
Warren Hindmarsh at 17:57 PM on 7 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
Glenn Tamblyn Please read my comment again.
I did provide links to 3 different locations..
Yes they vary but they all have the same effect i.e, to hopefully allay composor99@26's concerns that recent warming was unprecedented in the "history of the earth" and yes your Vostok example should help composor99 as well.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 17:54 PM on 7 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
Warren
Regarding your 2nd link, this is a small excerpt from a paper Nordt et al here. Quite a technical paper about variations in the proportion of C3 & C4 plant in the US Great Plains over the last 12 kyr+
Here is the conclusion from the paper:
"Conclusions
The delta 13C and delta %C4 from organic carbon of buried soils within the mixed and shortgrass prairie of the North American Great Plains permits a regional analysis of C4 grassland dynamics for the past 12ka. The delta 13C data compiled from a literature review of buried soils reveal that C4warm season grasses were present throughout the Great Plains study area during the past 12ka, but that there were appreciable fluctuations with 0.6 and 1.8ka periodicities. The crossover latitude of equal relative production of C4 and C3 plants appears to have been several degrees to the south of the modern location of 46 deg N prior to 6.7ka, with a shift to near the modern position after 6.7ka.
Relative C4 production did not increase monotonically in response to orbitally forced insolation between 12 ad 6.7ka, apparently because of a negative feedback from the presence of the LIS, glacial lakes in the northern plains, and cool glacial meltwater pulses into the Gulf of Mexico and North Atlantic. Thereafter, fluctuations in solar irradiance provided a more direct influence on delta %C4 as outflow of warm subtropical air from the Gulf of Mexico became established, interrupted periodically by warm, dry westerly flow contributing to episodes of drought. Here, increased delta %C4 occurred during intervals of elevated solar irradiance and with shifts in the ITCZ into the northwest Gulf of Mexico in the absence of ice-rafting events in the North Atlantic.
The coherency in our buried soil record with pollen spectra, marine cores, and ice cores, demonstrate the reliability of C4 plant dynamics not only as a proxy for grassland evolution but for climate as well. More work is needed to better understand grass dynamics in the early Holocene in response to conflicting reports of whether conditions were warmer or cooler than present. The paradox in the middle and late Holocene is that positive delta %C4 anomalies correspond with periods of dune activation. More work is needed to understand why during drought conditions C4 plants flourished. No doubt, C4 plants were responding positively to elevated temperatures as they should, but either these grasses thrive during drought or were growing between drought events during periods of landscape stability.
Hopefully our work will spawn further investigations into grassland dynamics of the past, provide additional parameters for climate and biome modeling, and create a better understand C and N dynamics in a region that is poorly understood"
So what exactly is the relevance and more importantly significance of your 2nd link?
Then there is this graph from Nordt et al. Seemingly one of the graphs that your graph was based on.
Whereas your looks like this:
Sort of a bit different isn't it when you leave half the data off. Because the Nordt paper was looking at some quite complex local climatic issues as the Laurentide Ice sheet melted and so on. Again not exactly global.
So who produced this truncated graph that could o easily mislead people? Well lets quote Jo Nova "Thanks to the Craig Idso at CO2Science for compiling so many of these on his site.". Interesting concept don't you think. Truncating graphs and cherry-picking is 'compiling'?
As to your third graph and some more from Craig Idso, try reading this. Note particularly the section labelled CO2 Non-Science on how CO2Science misrepresents Oppo el al (2009).
Here is your graph as shown in Otto et al (b)
Notice the '1997-2007 mean annual SST' line that Craig Idso at CO2Science 'compiled' away in your version and replaced with another line that is not on the original, is not identified, and might suggest well sumfink or uver.
Finally Warren. If you wish to discuss science here with people that's great. But please make them your opinions or the published science itself. Not a blogger said that another blogger said that ... well you get the picture.
Just doing a copy and paste from an old Jo Nova blog doesn't really count as making your own argument does it? Its sort of insulting to everyone here.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 17:43 PM on 7 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
Warren, the claim that the Arctic may be ice free by 2013 was made by one (1) scientist, the IPCC reports (and the majority of Arctic sea ice scientists) did not agree with that projection. So what you are doing is cherry picking headlines and not bothering to check whether they were actually in accordance with the mainstream scientific position.
Here is a hint, if you think some climate change claim is alarmist, try looking to see what the IPCC reports say about it.
-
Sapient Fridge at 17:38 PM on 7 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
Warren might be interested to know that this is the first year I can remember that it didn't snow at all over winter in my part of England (Cambridge, just North of London). We had about 5 frosty mornings, but no snow.
Not proof of anything of course, but still an interesting data point. -
Dikran Marsupial at 17:36 PM on 7 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
Warren Hindmarsh wrote "Dikran and Composer99 You seem to be concerned that "about 0.75C" global temperature rise in 100 years is "something to be concerned about" and "quite possibly unique" evidence like this or this or this may help."
So I point you to the IPCC reports (which describe the work of many thousands of scientists) and your only comment on it is to post links to three rather questionable (see Glen's post above) pictures from Jo Nova's website?
It seems to me that you have paid no attention whatsoever to the answer I gave to your question, which makes me wonder what you had in mind when you asked it. I suspect the answer is that you are just trolling.
-
Dave123 at 17:25 PM on 7 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
Warren, I'd like to have said I was astonished by your reply, but I found it sadly predictable.
I still believe these are great outcomes but the increasingly outlandish claims of 9m sealevel rise and 6c temp rise by the end of the century and the increasingly absolute belief systems of the AGW lobby (Mann's flawed hockey stick graph, climate gate, It won't snow in London again, the Arctic will be ice free by 2013, etc.etc.) caused me to adopt a contrarian and skeptical view.
As others have noted, the moment you added the "C" to AGW you betrayed a propagandistic stance towards matters. Adding the 'catastrophic' to AGW was simply a branding tactic by a political opposition that had no basis in published work. Your use suggests either you don't know manipulation and propaganda when you see it, or that you are willfully interested in propogating a false meme. Which is it?
Moving on to the hockey stick, I'm not sure what your apparent concession to TonyW means, but in any case you've not made it clear what you think the importance of the hockey stick is. Again, this is a dismissive stance, that isn't about understanding but about something else entirely. To be blunt: do you recognize that Mann's original 1998 work has been replicated and extended by other groups using other proxies and statistical methods? If not, in terms of this debate you're talking about, I and many others here are far more technically competent than you to evaluate the claims and methods: what hope do you have of persuading us? Referring to JoNova? Part of the issue Warren, is that you have to have the technical chops to know when a McIntyre or Nova is simply wrong. If you don't have those skills, like I do, then you can't be a skeptic... you're simply a bystander to something you don't understand.
Moving on then to the disappearance of Artic sea ice in summer, you surely know that one group reported results of 2013-2019. It's one group, reporting a preliminary result, not a consensus opinion and you distort it when you aren't sayig 2016+/- 3 years. It is a perfectly normal and expected part of science for someone to publish a finding of this sort "hey, we tried a new approach and it gave these interesting results". The whole point of this is so that other people can look at the approach, see if they think it is correct. You don't seem to register this part of normal science and instead seem to be taking a legalistic approach of constructing an advocacy case- an approach with no obligation to consider the findings as a whole. So if this is the sort of debate you think is productive, you've probably signed your death warrant as far as being seen as someone who a scientist can have a productive discussion with.
I think the same applies to the "no snow in London" business. AFAIK that was one remark, not published paper, and the modeling results for the UK tend to show the kind of winter England just had. And again it seems that you have a barrister's approach to things- finding one little thing and stripping it of context.
This is what the UK Met office shows these days. Why is it not the story rather than whatever the no snow in London story?
So when you say "increasingly outlandish claims" say for sea level, you ignore the mainstream projections, and take some sort of odd umbrage that outliers in the scientific work exist.
Beyond that you give the appearance of advocating some sort of censorship of worst case assessments. Kerry Emmanual, of MIT (where I got my doctorate) makes a strong case for the importance of including the long tail risks, because leaving them out would be misleading. On my own authority and training (industrial process safety and hazards analysis) I think he's quite right. In my reports to management I certainly included the long tail risks and mitigation strategies.
In toto, I don't think you've provided an example of facts changing your mind, rather you've provided examples of how you get lost in the whole business and can't see the forest from the trees. It certainly doesn't give me any warm feelings on the possibility of rational interchange with the WUWT and JoNova factories, and even further ignores whether these folks or you really matter anyhow.
Moderator Response:[PW] Unnecessary white space removed.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 16:53 PM on 7 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
Warren
Regarding your links - all generated by CO2Science or JoNoova by the way, not links to the actual data sources or papers - you might find these things interesting
Your first link is for ice core data from Greenland. Not the globe. We can't assess the globe from data from just one location.
Here is your image, taken from JoNova. Here is the paper by Richard Alley that the graph is based on. Firstly this graph does not appear in Alley's paper. You can get the actual data here. Notably the data ends in 1905. So most of the warming we are disscussing here isn't included on the graph. And this is Greenland so we can't just add what the global temperature change has been since warming is greater in the Arctic. Here is the record for one station in Greenland that is continuous since the start of the 20th century. Around 2.5 Deg C of warming. So that would possibly put temperatures at Greenland today back to the levels labelled Minoan Warming
\Next look at this graph - I even obtained it from a skeptic website. Vostoc Ice Core data from Antarctica for a similar period. And there are spikes labelled with the same 'warm period' names.
N
Notice the difference between the two graphs. Your graph shows Medieval Warming as a spike around 1050 while the Antarctic data shows a narrow spike around 1550. 1050 was actually quite cool in the Antarctic. The Roman warming was a narrow spike around 100 BC in Greenland but a narrow spike around 350 BC in Antarctica. The Minoan period was around 1300 C in Greenland but around 1700 BC in Antarctica. Is there seems to be a bit of a problem with dates here Warren? No, just with the assumption that we can use one location to tell us what was happening over the entire planet.
-
Warren Hindmarsh at 16:33 PM on 7 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
TonyW I will give you the "Hockey Stick" but you still have to give me "Ice free Arctic" "it won't snow in London" and we will just wait on the upcoming court case on the "Hockey Stick"
-
TonyW at 16:11 PM on 7 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
I think we can determine Warren's line of "reasoning" when he bring up long debunked ideas like the supposed flawed hockey stick, which has been confirmed in numerous other studies. -
Warren Hindmarsh at 15:56 PM on 7 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
Tom Curtis thank you for the comment your "evidence" is a model using only CO2 and sunlight and a host of assumptions concluding with the possibility of the extermination of just about all life on the planet. The alarmism is about as absolute as you can get but to rest your concern most of the models have been wrong, I admit the jury is still out, the warming will come back, CO2 is a green house gas but at alarmist rates? lets follow the evidence.
-
Warren Hindmarsh at 15:14 PM on 7 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
Dave123 You asked where I have changed my mind and I have to be careful here because the last few comments have been way off topic of this post which is about the link of set beliefs and AGW denial.
Any way, yes I did follow the warming debate and you could probably say I was a strong supporter of alarming warming during the 90's. I considered it had a lot of credibility after all, no matter what the case, to cut CO2 emissions pollution and promote renewable energy are all great outcomes.
I still believe these are great outcomes but the increasingly outlandish claims of 9m sealevel rise and 6c temp rise by the end of the century and the increasingly absolute belief systems of the AGW lobby (Mann's flawed hockey stick graph, climate gate, It won't snow in London again, the Arctic will be ice free by 2013, etc.etc.) caused me to adopt a contrarian and skeptical view.
In other words with each global warming claim now I go and check the fact, it's not that difficult these days.
Contrary to the above post I consider a skeptical inquiring mind as a strength. I recommend it.
-
Warren Hindmarsh at 14:46 PM on 7 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
Dikran and Composer99 You seem to be concerned that "about 0.75C" global temperature rise in 100 years is "something to be concerned about" and "quite possibly unique" evidence like this or this or this may help.
-
Composer99 at 13:18 PM on 7 May 2014Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
peter @50:
10,000 years is not exactly "short term".
Further, the behaviour of stocks and commodities and the behaviour of ice cores as a proxy for local temperatures are rather different, for what I hope are rather obvious reasons. If you are trying to make a claim about ice cores based on stock or commodity charts, you are doing it wrong.
So, you're going to need to provide citations - to papers regarding the Greenland ice cores, not to papers discussing equity markets - to support your assertions.
-
Composer99 at 13:06 PM on 7 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
Warren @21:
A 5-6°C drop in temperature would mean very little in our day-to-day experience. Maybe the difference between t-shirt and long-sleeve shirt weather on a sunny day.
But a similar drop in global mean temperature means mile-high ice sheets covering large chunks of the Northern Hemisphere, as was observed during previous glacial periods.
Cooling or warming, small numbers at the global scale lead to big changes.
So, yes, a 0.74°C rise in global mean temperature over the 20th century is something to be concerned about. In fact, a 0.74°C change in global mean temperature over 100 years is quite possibly unique in the geological history of the Earth over the Phanerozoic, save for the most violent of geological upheavals.
-
chriskoz at 12:53 PM on 7 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
A typo in my post@24. The "vaccination effects is always inferred" should read as "vaccination effects is often inferred".
-
chriskoz at 12:50 PM on 7 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
From the article:
Climate change is not as well understood as vaccination or evolution, and I would not put deniers of climate science in the same camp as anti-vaccination and anti-evolution movements, but there is an increasing trend among them all to adopt similar methods.
(my emphasis)
I would question the emphsised part. Knowledge of vaccination effects is always inferred from the statistics and lots of evidence in evolution is based from paleo observations, that silimar to paleo-climate have their uncertainties. The climate science however, is not based on statistics, but mainly on well understood physical processes. Also because of these physics foundations, climate science would stand on its own, even if paleo-climate did not exist. Therefore, I find climate science better understood than both vaccination and evolution, contrary to the assertion above.
-
Dave123 at 11:46 AM on 7 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
Ah.... Warren, this is where you got to.
I'm still hoping you'll provide some instance related to global warming where your mnd was changed by the evidence.
I also continue to hope why you think that the people posting at WUWT can be convinced by evidence, given their disparate and fatally inadequate backgrounds and the overwhelming malice they display
and of course, what difference it would make if they could be convinced. As in if Tony Watts threw in the towel and declared that he wanted to have Mike Mann's babies, would James Inhofe turn?
I'm not too miffed that you moved onto another thread however, I don't think I'm willing to let you off the hook either.
-
Tom Curtis at 11:35 AM on 7 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
The following image shows the radiative forcing from CO2 plus changes in solar brightness over time:
The interesting comparison is between RCP 8.5, ie, the BAU scenario in the last panel, with the rise in forcing at about 250 million years before the present in the first panel (ie, the end Permian extinction). The later shows a rise of about 10 W/m^2, slightly less than the circa 12 W/m^2 associated with RCP 8.5. The absolute level of forcing associated with RCP 8.5 has never been matched in the planets history.
The 12 W/m^2 forcing associated with the RCP 8.5 scenario shows clearly that not all forcings are considered. When all known forcings are considered, the RCP forcing will drop towards 8.5 W/m^2. Similarly, with all forcings considered the change in forcing associated with the end Permian mass extinction may be slightly greater, or less than that shown. Therefore we cannot conclude that the change in forcing associated with RCP 8.5 is greater than that associated with the Permian mass extinction. We can conclude, however, that the BAU (RCP 8.5) scenario will result in a forcing change of similar magnitude to that in the Permian mass extinction; that it will certainly occur over a much shorter time; and that it is more likely than not to result absolute levels of forcing never before encountered on this planet.
For those not familiar with the Permian mass extinction, it resulted in the extinction of around 90% of marine invertebrates, around two thirds of terrestial vertebrate species, and possibly as much as 50% of terrestial plant species. There is little reason to think an equivalent change in forcing would not result in similar exinction levels today. Indeed, given that the impacts on the extinction rates would be addition to those already driven by over fishing, deforestation, and colonizing species due to international travel, overall extinction rates with RCP 8.5 have a good chance of being higher than those in the end Permian extinction.
It should be noted that the change in forcing is not the only potential explanation of the end Permian mass extinction, but its major rival, ocean acidification, gives us an equally pessimistic prospect. RCP 8.5 will result in ocean acidification levels comparable with or higher than during the end Permian mass extinction. This is because, despite the lower CO2 levels, the rapid accidification removes pH buffers from the ocean that would have retained a lower pH during the Permean mass extinction.
Given these facts, it is foolhardy to think human civilization will proceed untroubled by such potential ecological catastrophes. These facts by themselves establish there is a considerable risk that a BAU policy will create sufficient strains on human society as to result in massive, potentially devestating reductions in human well being and population. That is not certain, but the odds are sufficiently high to make the risk entirely unacceptable.
Warren Hindmarsh asks, "what is the evidence that you use to convince a contrarian of alarming warming?"
If the evidence summarized in that image, and its implications is not evidence enough to convince him, then nothing will be. -
Terranova at 10:40 AM on 7 May 2014The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
Mods, why has my previous post in this thread been deleted?
Moderator Response:[JH] All moderation complaints are summarily deleted. Please read the SkS Comments Policy and adhere to it. You are on the cusp of relinquishing your privilege of posting comments on this website.
Mea culpa! Mea culpa! Mea culpa!
I mistakenly thought that I was responding to someone else.
Another member of the SkS Moderation team deleted your comment because he found it to be "off-topic & tone trolling."
-
Warren Hindmarsh at 10:30 AM on 7 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
DIkran it is warming, that is beyond doubt. It is the alarming amounts that we need to worry about so the "Expressed as a global average, surface temperatures have increased by about 0.74°C over the past hundred years (between 1906 and 2005" is the warming that you worry about?
-
mancan18 at 10:13 AM on 7 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
The Brandis statement, that climate change skeptics are being silenced by the authoritarian advocates of climate change and should be given equal opportunity to make their argument, doesn't actually agree with the reality of the Australian media. In fact the reverse is true. When you consider that newspapers like the Daily Telegraph or the Herald Sun command around 70% of the Australian market and that these papers reach about 83% of Australia's reading public, and that their 3 most popular writers, Miranda Devine, Andrew Bolt and Piers Ackerman, are all climate change/global warming skeptics/deniers tirelessly repeating the same old "it's not happening"/"it's all natural" arguments and referencing scientists like Curry, Monkton, Spenser, Lindzen, Carter and Pilmer et. al. to justify their views, hardly indicates that the deniers are being silenced. On top of this you also have the shock jocks on radio like Alan Jones, Ray Hadley and others who also command a significant percentage of the radio market also promoting climate change/global warming denial, and with climate scientists and advocates like David Karoly and Tim Flannery being brow beaten into silence, it seems that Brandis's statement is nothing but hubris.
Now if Brandis is complaining that denier skeptics are not getting equal time in reputable science journals like American Scientist, Scientific America and Nature and other reputable magazines like New Scientist and National Geographic, and science shows like Catalyst, then it indicates he doesn't truly understand the difference between a political argument where anything goes versus a scientific argument where verifiable evidence and scientific reasoning are required.
I would have thought a venue like Skeptical Science does give deniers and skeptics a chance to air their views in the Brandis meaning of equal time, due its tendency to have direct links to the denier argument references. However, Skeptical Science and sites like it also provide direct links to the counter argument references as well. Unfortunately, the denier/skeptic arguments don't stand up to the intense scrutiny required of a scientific debate, even when a few of the arguments occasionally do merit further research. This is why, generally, the denier/skeptics resort to political tactics rather than make proper scientific arguments to get what they think is equal time. The trouble with all this is that the public remains confused, which I guess is the whole point anyway, to stop positive action on climate change being taken.
Prev 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 Next
