Recent Comments

Prev  731  732  733  734  735  736  737  738  739  740  741  742  743  744  745  746  Next

Comments 36901 to 36950:

36901. macoles at 15:52 PM on 2 May 2014
       Past 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?

36902. Warren Hindmarsh at 14:16 PM on 2 May 2014
       The 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"

36903. jetfuel at 13:11 PM on 2 May 2014
       Sea 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.

36904. denisaf at 11:47 AM on 2 May 2014
       The 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.

36905. Dave123 at 10:34 AM on 2 May 2014
       The 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.

36906. Rob Honeycutt at 06:25 AM on 2 May 2014
       Past 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?

36907. Rob Honeycutt at 06:15 AM on 2 May 2014
       Past 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.

36908. grindupBaker at 03:32 AM on 2 May 2014
       Past 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 ?

36909. Stephen Baines at 03:26 AM on 2 May 2014
       Past 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.

36910. wili at 02:03 AM on 2 May 2014
       Past 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.

36911. Composer99 at 00:08 AM on 2 May 2014
       Palmer United Party needs to go back to school on carbon facts
       

       Thanks for the hotlink advice, chriskoz! Much appreciated.

36912. One Planet Only Forever at 00:07 AM on 2 May 2014
       The 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.

36913. mrdecider at 23:38 PM on 1 May 2014
       Trenberth 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. 

36914. Composer99 at 23:10 PM on 1 May 2014
       The 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.

36915. CBDunkerson at 22:51 PM on 1 May 2014
       The 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.

36916. ranyl at 22:13 PM on 1 May 2014
       The 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. 

36917. Dikran Marsupial at 21:53 PM on 1 May 2014
       The 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.

36918. wideEyedPupil at 20:16 PM on 1 May 2014
       What’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.

36919. Glenn Tamblyn at 18:20 PM on 1 May 2014
       The 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.

36920. localis at 17:30 PM on 1 May 2014
       The 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.

36921. Dumb Scientist at 16:45 PM on 1 May 2014
       The 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.

       Also:

       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:

       1. The only non-linear evolution in all of quantum mechanics.
       2. The only non-unitary evolution in all of quantum mechanics.
       3. The only non-differentiable (in fact, discontinuous) phenomenon in all of quantum mechanics.
       4. The only phenomenon in all of quantum mechanics that is non-local in the configuration space.
       5. The only phenomenon in all of physics that violates CPT symmetry.
       6. The only phenomenon in all of physics that violates Liouville's Theorem (has a many-to-one mapping from initial conditions to outcomes).
       7. The only phenomenon in all of physics that is acausal / non-deterministic / inherently random.
       8. The only phenomenon in all of physics that is non-local in spacetime and propagates an influence faster than light.

36922. Warren Hindmarsh at 16:33 PM on 1 May 2014
       The 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. 

36923. binntho at 15:59 PM on 1 May 2014
       The 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.

36924. One Planet Only Forever at 15:15 PM on 1 May 2014
       The 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.

36925. DSL at 15:12 PM on 1 May 2014
       The 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?

36926. KR at 15:02 PM on 1 May 2014
       The 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.

36927. Warren Hindmarsh at 14:56 PM on 1 May 2014
       The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
       

       @ doug you are proving my point. By labelling people opposing your position as "deniers". Now read John's article carfully, for him to use terms like " deniers exist in a fuzzy quantum state of denial, simultaneously rejecting many or all aspects of climate science" "nonsensical behavior" "There's a psychological reason for this" denigrate the opposing view. There is no need for this, just present the facts as my earlier link to RSS and IPCC evidence  did.

       In other words once you start getting personal in any discussion you weaken your position.

       Moderator Response:

       (Rob P) - the point here is that sites such as WUWT clearly demonstrate the Quantum Theory of Climate Denial (QTOCD) in action. Indeed KR has already provided some examples, although more explicit examples would be preferred. Why you would reference a site that only reinforces the point of this blog post is a mystery. 

       Complaining that you're being picked on is simply an attempt to detract attention away from this. That is not a counter-argument. If you cannot address the point under discussion we can only assume you have no counter-argument.

       And please note the comments policy - needless repetition is frowned upon here.   

36928. chriskoz at 14:33 PM on 1 May 2014
       Palmer United Party needs to go back to school on carbon facts
       

       

       Composer99@17,

       You can "hot-link" your image. In this HTML editor, when the image you just created is still selected, chose Insert/Edit link and paste the URL of the image you just created. As I did with the image from our own sks graphics (after Samson et al 2011). I chose a different example, as not to fall victim of excessive repetition policy :)

       My image is hot (so you can click on it to see original). I see no reason why against all images being so hot-linked by default on this site. They are hosted as links in the first place, so it costs nothing to just create an <A> object for user to click and follow that link if desired.

       And my image shows that indeed, the distribution of global warming (due to said oscillations among other factors) is different to the distribution of the causal factors (anthropo emission), an indication that AGW problem is a social problem in the first place - environmental problem in the second place.

36929. Warren Hindmarsh at 14:32 PM on 1 May 2014
       The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
       

       The topic is in response to the article " The quantum theory of climate denial" that is my argument. 

36930. Doug Bostrom at 14:28 PM on 1 May 2014
       The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
       

       Warren, look at Skeptical Science. It's all about factual evidence of anthropogenic global warming; there are literally hundreds of articles here chock-a-block with evidence and facts about global warming caused by humans. In an average month the site dispenses about a terabyte of these facts and evidence. The site is very popular with people who are truly interested in learning about the evidence of climate change and what factors are driving it.

       Now read John's article again, more carefully this time. The people John is speaking of  are those who are not accessible via uptake of factual information, are impervious to evidence. The reason they're called "deniers" is because they don't argue evidence and are not interested in learning about evidence. Rather, they deny evidence.

       deny

       verb

       1. state that one refuses to admit the truth or existence of.

       How people deal with evidence of denial is another category of evidence.

36931. Warren Hindmarsh at 14:03 PM on 1 May 2014
       The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
       

       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.  I gave an example of that, which quoted sources, from a blog opposing CAGW

36932. DSL at 13:15 PM on 1 May 2014
       The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
       

       Then provide some, Warren.  I'm not going to WUWT to discuss it.  You posted the link here and made the claim that the analysis is evidence of some sort.  Present it and defend it.  If I went to WUWT and posted a link to SkS (with no summary or clue as to the thesis of the SkS article), d'ya think the circus would come here to discuss it?  What's your argument, Warren?

36933. Warren Hindmarsh at 12:44 PM on 1 May 2014
       The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
       

       ‘He who exercises no forethought but makes light of his opponents is sure to be captured by them.’ Sun Tzu 

       To try to win the AGW debate by dismissing opponents as intelectually incompetant is a sure way to lose.

       The best way to win the debate is to provide evidence.  Evidence ls the answer to how people make their decision.

       Moderator Response:

       [DB] As a furtherance to DSL's advice, if you're going to repeat memes, please do so on the most appropriate thread, not here.  Additionally, it is incumbent on you to then provide reputable evidence to support your contentions, evidence based in the published, peer-reviewed literature appearing in credible journals.

36934. EliRabett at 12:36 PM on 1 May 2014
       The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
       

       You noticed

       http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/10/believing-ten-impossible-things-before.html

       
       MT calls this the incoherence of denialism

       http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2008/10/coherence.html

36935. Stephen Baines at 08:01 AM on 1 May 2014
       The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
       

       This basically tells me that the science of climate is not the problem any more. It's the science of human behavior that matters. That's not to say that we shouldn't strive to clarify the climate science – that’s a given as a lack of clarity would be fatal. This site and others have made huge progress on that front and should continue. But, clarification is no longer the rate limiting step to consensus on action. It probably hasn't been for a long time.

       That leaves me wondering how much people's minds are changed by listening to voices that deny climate science. Do people listen to such voices precisely because they deny the science? And worse, is the fundamental rejection of scientific thought the basis of people's opinions about climate science? I’m certain there is some truth to this, but one can take that point of view too far as a guide to action. It can become an excuse to give up on communicating across political lines altogether, to write off those that disagree and revert to politics of power.

       Or do people distrust the science because they are told to do so by people they trust or like - people who tend not to look or act much like scientists? If that is true, substantial numbers of people might change their mind if a major media personality (or several) shifted position on climate. Should we (or someone) be trying to convince such people directly? A key problem is that any commenters who change position remain "trusted." It's tricky, such a conversion can lead to isolation and loss of influence after such a change of heart (the RINO effect).  

       On the ground, I genuinely think people (not media personalities!) are generally much less invested and much more flexible in their attitudes towards climate science than the media, the political parties and maybe even we scientists typically presume. As our person at the Science Communication Center here keeps reminding us, scientists are still the second most trusted group (80%) after the military according to surveys, and the level of trust has been quite stable over a long period of over time. The question is how to reach many people who’ve been taught to distrust climate science without triggering a political identity backlash.

       Sorry to ramble...but this issue has been bugging me and I thought I might get some useful feedback here.

36936. Rob Honeycutt at 07:04 AM on 1 May 2014
       The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
       

       Can this also be unified with the "blimp theory" whereby, after collapse into successive states of denial, the whole thing blows up into a giant blimp?

       See! Look, there's a blimp now!

       Wow! Okay, what were we talking about?...

36937. Magma at 06:42 AM on 1 May 2014
       The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
       

       I like this new hypothesis of climate denial indeteterminacy. It could probably also be illustrated as a multipanel cartoon showing a fuzzy grey cloud that collapses into completely different states depending on the input.

36938. Composer99 at 05:42 AM on 1 May 2014
       What’s your carbon footprint and where does it come from?
       

       I noticed similar issue as ajki; I can barely see the "Start" button and can't get past the country selection page.

36939. Composer99 at 05:25 AM on 1 May 2014
       Palmer United Party needs to go back to school on carbon facts
       

       The radiative forcing numbers might not be very legible in the above, so here is the source for the image.

36940. Composer99 at 05:22 AM on 1 May 2014
       Palmer United Party needs to go back to school on carbon facts
       

       Poster @15:

       In point of fact the radiative forcings from various natural and anthropogenic causes have been quantified. Here is the graph from IPCC AR5:

       

       Climate change/global warming is simply the result of the change in radiative forcing. Thus modern climate change is almost entirely the result of anthropogenic activities.

       Internal oscillations such as PDO, AMO, ENSO, and the like do not affect climate change/global warming unless they have a quantifiable impact on radiative forcing. Mostly they just move energy around in the climate system, which definitely has effects on how humans perceive global warming and how the impacts of warming are spread through the system. Nevertheless such oscillations do not modify climate change/global warming in any fundamental manner.

36941. ajki at 04:21 AM on 1 May 2014
       What’s your carbon footprint and where does it come from?
       

       Second / third link ("here" and link to Adobe AIR) are not operational.

       Are there any hardware / software prerequisites to start the flash online version? For example, with a limited screenspace of a netbook (1024x600) I'm not able to select any "start"-button on the introduction screen.

36942. Dikran Marsupial at 04:11 AM on 1 May 2014
       The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
       

       I gather there is some discussion of it perhaps being 'time for an “official” climate skeptics organization, one that produces a policy statement, issues press releases, and provides educational guidance?'.  Of course the reason this won't ever happen is because if this organisation nailed the skeptics colours to the mast and stated their beliefs clearly and unambiguously, that would "collapse the wave function" (if that is the correct terminology) and prevent the oscillation in beliefs so often observed in discussions on climate change.

36943. JohnMashey at 03:50 AM on 1 May 2014
       The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
       

       Yes, a good model, and see also:

       Pseudoskeptics Are Not Skeptics

        

36944. wili at 03:41 AM on 1 May 2014
       The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
       

       OT: I had some trouble getting into your site recently. It called for verification to just look at the site, but when I put my name and password in, it didn't accept them. Were you being hacked again? Should I be worried that I gave my password to some bad actor?

       Moderator Response:

       Fear not, Wili. We've been cleaning up some fuzz growing on the site configuration and committed an error in connection with that. 

       Here's an essay offering some amusing insight into the writhing bag of snakes and hamsters hidden just beneath the glossy exterior of the Internet. Only about 10% hyperbole. :-)

36945. Jose_X at 02:55 AM on 1 May 2014
       Humans are too insignificant to affect global climate
       

       Sure, humans don't have the ability to seriously harm life on earth, and the Cold War was really about the rise of polar bear batallions.

36946. Jim Eager at 02:39 AM on 1 May 2014
       What’s your carbon footprint and where does it come from?
       

       I live in a small, semi-detached urban house with two other people that has been retrofitted with a high efficiency furnace, thermopane windows and as much insulation as will fit in the wall cavities and attic. We use 100% renewable or low-carbon electricity (yes, 100%: hydro, nuclear, wind, solar), heat with natural gas in a cold climate, rarely use an in-window air conditioner on only the hottest days, and take only showers. We drive a 7 year old hybrid when we don't use public transit or bike, never fly, and don't buy a lot of stuff. We scored just under half our national average, but that's still just over 9 tons, including the bottom 2.25 tons representing everything that we don't have control over (industry, commerce, institutional, government, infrastructure, transport of goods, etc.).

       We're already below half the national average, and there's not much more we can wring out of the existing house. Ditching the car is not an option at present, but km traveled will go way down in a couple years when we retire. Not sure where further substantial reductions can come from.

36947. CBDunkerson at 02:21 AM on 1 May 2014
       The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
       

       Orwell called it 'doublethink', "The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them".

       Of course, the example above shows that climate deniers have achieved a whole new level of 'consciousness'... triplethink. For when doublethink just isn't crazy enough.

36948. Poster9662 at 02:17 AM on 1 May 2014
       Palmer United Party needs to go back to school on carbon facts
       

       Logically I suppose you might say something like "At present CO2 from human actions is believed to be the prime cause of climate change/global warming but the  precise magnitude of this is, as yet, not established. Similarly  the precise magnitude of the effects of natural events such as the PDO, AMO etc has yet to be determined.  However, as humans can influence the CO2  produced as a result of their actions but probably can't influence natural events to any significant extent, current thinking is focussed more on what we can influence rather than on what we cannot.  That said however, it would be unwise to assume natural events have no effect on climate change/global warming.  Consequently  continued studies of all possible factors is essential.  

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] You are now skating on the thin ice of excessive repetition which is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy. Please read the Comments Policy and adhere to it. 

36949. swampfoxh at 23:58 PM on 30 April 2014
       What’s your carbon footprint and where does it come from?
       

       I have a similar situation to John Wise.  Farm, log cabin, own (organic) food, wood stove, little vehicular travel, wife is 1.5 miles to work.  My carbon footprint is still too high according to the calulator.  Why?  Because there are four billion too many people on the planet. We passed carrying capacity back in 1936 at two billion.  Back then, people's carbon footprint was just at the level the planet could handle through the carbon cycle.  Now?  trouble..real trouble.  Think about it, if there were 1 billion people on the planet each emitting 50 tons of CO2 there wouldn't be a "planet problem".  So, reducing the carbon footprint - per person- ain't gonna work at 6 billion headed for 9.  This is why Elizabeth's book on the Sixth Extinction event is pure prophesy.

36950. Glenn Tamblyn at 20:57 PM on 30 April 2014
       Palmer United Party needs to go back to school on carbon facts
       

       Poster @13

       "Why do you not include natural factors that are thought to have at least some effect..."

       There is an interesting issue here Poster. How does one compare different possible processes that have vastly differing degrees of likelihood of being true? Does one simply lump them all together and say 'here is some stuff that might be relevent'?

       Or does one look at each process and say - 'this one is pretty damn certain, where as that is possible but really quite speculative'. If we don't differentiate the likelihood of different things being true don't we create a situation where our ability to evaluate them is compromised?

Prev  731  732  733  734  735  736  737  738  739  740  741  742  743  744  745  746  Next