Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 Next
Comments 41101 to 41150:
-
Ironbark at 02:08 AM on 26 October 2013Why trust climate models? It’s a matter of simple science
At 6, Dikran I'm raising a concern that's held by many ordinary people who don't have the time or expertise to read every science paper to check whether the claims are true or not.
Those ordinary people either have to trust that the science is objective, or find another way to inform themselves that isn't reliant on trust.Yes there are probably climate scientists out there who are objective, and they should rightfully feel disappointed that their objectivity is questioned. I've read the Climategate emails and I don't belief that the hypothesis in those papers was tested without bias. (-snip-)
The beef of truly objective scientists shouldn't be at ordinary people who don't have the time or skills to tell who is objective, and who isn't, but rather at those peers who brought the overall climate community's reputation into disrepute. (-snip-)
My comments are reasonable discussions being had by ordinary people who just want to know whether we should restrict carbon footprints or not. Banning reasonable questions which seek to find the easiest way to determine the truth (matching predictions with observations) may keep the comment board 'clean', but doesn't deal with the concerns of ordinary people which was what I thought was the intention of this website.
Moderator Response:[JH] You are now skating on the thin ice of sloganeering and excessive repetition -- both of which are prohibited by the SkS Comment Policy. Please cease and desist, or face the consequences.
[PW] Allegations of impropriety and ignorance removed.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
John Hartz at 01:22 AM on 26 October 2013Why climate change contrarians owe us a (scientific) explanation
Elephant in the Room:
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
Warning #1.
-
Composer99 at 23:37 PM on 25 October 2013Why trust climate models? It’s a matter of simple science
Ironbark, as another scientific layperson, I can assure you that you do not need climate modelling to understand that (a) CO2 emissions are responsible for warming, or that (b) such warming, if unabated, presents a serious concern for our affluent societies.
To figure out (a) you just need to know some physics of radiative heat transfer and know enough to rule out other possible sources of warming (which, if you read through this site enough, you will find we can do, to an extremely high degree of confidence).
To figure out (b) you just have to work out the consequences of warming using some logic. Without modelling, of course, projecting the rapidity and severity of consequences is a lost cause, but as long as warming continues unabated, consequences will occur (and, indeed, have already occurred and are occurring as of this writing).
None of the above requires any fancy degrees. Just a willingness to follow the evidence where it leads you.
-
DSL at 23:16 PM on 25 October 2013Why trust climate models? It’s a matter of simple science
Ironbark, you admit having no expertise, and then you point to "climategate" as evidence of fraud. Upon what basis do you interpret "climategate"? If you respond, respond on one of these threads. Your comment will be seen, since most of the SkS regulars follow the aggregate comment page.
As for models, what is your definition of "accurate"? Modeling has done remarkably well, with the exception of its massive underestimation of Arctic sea ice loss. Consider where the surface temp trend could have reasonably (from the perspective of someone naive of the science, like you) gone over the last fifty or twenty or ten years. Now look at the model projections. Surface temp is still within the bounds of the range described by 95% of the model runs, and that range isn't all that wide. So where and why have models failed--and failed to the point of uselessness? Respond here or on one of the many model posts.
-
Tom Curtis at 22:34 PM on 25 October 2013The Coming Plague
Chriskoz @4, the following are the maps showing the time of departure for annual and monthly means:
The article indicates that the climate departure will likely start in 2020 for southern Indonesia. That would be correct for annual means, but not for monthly means which show yellow for that region, ie, a departure around 2050.
Also of interest is the graph showing the "cumulative frequency of 100 km grid cells according to projected time of climate departure":
It shows that even with reduced, but continuing fossil fuel emissions, the climate departure for monthly means occurs prior to 2100 for nearly all cells.
Finally, the paper does report standard deviations for time of climate departure, but only for mean values for the globe, and for the ocean under the two scenarios. I presume that if you could read the data file, it would also show it for individual cells, but I have not investigated that closely.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 22:19 PM on 25 October 2013Why trust climate models? It’s a matter of simple science
ironbark, accusations of desception are a contravention of the comments policy, which I suggest you read before posting further. You comment is also essentially an ad-hominem as it suggests that you are prepared to disregard the opinions of scientists simply because of who they are, rather than the content of the scientific arguments they make. It is easier to keep the discussion productive if that sort of thing is avoided as far as possible.
-
Ironbark at 22:09 PM on 25 October 2013Why trust climate models? It’s a matter of simple science
I'm a layman - no climate creditionals, no science degrees. I'm simply a voter (probably like lots of others out there) being asked to regulate CO2 footprints.
I don't have the expertise to understand the science - if I'm to trust others to do the science, I have to see that it's being done objectively. The Climategate emails showed me that there were (and probably still are) lobbyists masquerading as scientists out there. There's enough of them for it to take a decade for that fact to come out.
All that leaves is the models. If the models are accurate in predicting the future, then ordinary people like myself don't have to understand the science or trust the objectivity of others. We can judge for ourselves whether CO2 emissions are to blame.
It seems that there's been a disconnect between the what the models have predicted so far, and what has eventuated. It's understood that there are difficulties modelling a chaotic system. My question is though, how long is it expected for this disconnect to remain, and how long should we give the models before it is a fair conclusion that we don't yet understand what's going on in the climate enough to regulate CO2 footprints?
Moderator Response:I[PW] Ironbark, this is a gentle warning: you've made unsupported accusations in your post, above, and on SkS, when this is done, we will insist that you supportithose accusations. Given you've openly admitted that you're not an expert nor a scientist, that admission does not, in and of itself, give you license to make statements of fairly suspect nature ("The Climategate emails showed me that there were (and probably still are) lobbyists masquerading as scientists out there. "). As such, you need to not argue from the fallacy of personal incredulity without a single source of relevant data with which to back it/them up.
I'd reference you to this link, which may help you address your misgivings about the veracity of climate models.
-
chriskoz at 21:30 PM on 25 October 2013The Coming Plague
Tom@3,
I have similar problems, however I don't think a word "plague" is inapropriate. I don't seek the analogy to "impending doom" but I simply acknowledge the introduction of a term "climate plague" meaning "threashold year beyond which the monthly T variability as reported by CIMP models starts running outside (above) historical monthly variability up to 2005". I assume it means every month will be hotter than the corresponding month before 2005. The term is simple & sounding fine within the context of English language and certainly does not mean "doom".
It's obvious that climate plague event should occur later than the event of mean annual variability running out of bounds of historical annual variability, because annual mean, be an average of 12 months, will have lower variability than monthly variability. But I don't know if the dates reported in the article are for the earlier or the later of the two events, because the language of the article is imprecise. And I don't have access to the study full text to check it out.
I also have problem with the precision of those dates: I'd rather see them as approx dates with one or two sigma uncertainty range, obtained from CIMP ensemble runs. I checked the study's website but could not find any interesting details from google overlay map, which BTW shows the results of a single run only. I downloaded MultiModel.zip hoping to find answers in the data itself but after unpacking, I find all of the data in a binary format unknown to me, with no explanation. Does nayone know how to read such data?
-
Tom Curtis at 20:43 PM on 25 October 2013Why climate change contrarians owe us a (scientific) explanation
So there we have it. EITR's defence of AGW skepticism against the demand for scientific justification of their position is that the demand is unfair, for the skeptics have no such justification. Well, at least he has chutzpah for trying that one on. And WUWT is superior to SkS because Anthony Watts "challenges the science" without having any poblishable scientific basis for doing so; while SkS is inferior because it merely reports the published science. And thus, haveing declared virtues to be vices, and vices virtues, he concludes that his own position is virtuous indeed, by his definition.
Clearly at this point any pretense that a rational discussion can be held with EITR is just that, pretense. As I am no good at pretending, I will therefore leave the "discussion".
No doubt EITR will now expostulate that it is unfair of me to expect from him rational discussion as he has no rational basis for his views ...
-
Dikran Marsupial at 19:45 PM on 25 October 2013Why climate change contrarians owe us a (scientific) explanation
Elephant in the room, your reply to my post is essentially a non-sequitur (and shows you haven't actually looked into the matter, as otherwise you would know about Gerlich and Tscheuschner, who did publish a paper that "proved" that CO2 does not cause warming, but unfortunately was found to be incorrect), and shows that you are merely trolling. Life is too short to indulge this sort of behaviour further.
-
Elephant In The Room at 19:31 PM on 25 October 2013Why climate change contrarians owe us a (scientific) explanation
@dickran marsupial.
(-snip-)
Moderator Response:[JH] You are now skating on the thin ice of sloganeering and excessive repetition -- both of which are prohibited by the SkS Comment Policy. Please cease and desist, or face the consequences.
[PW] EITR your inflammatory and fact-free comments were removed. Do it again, and you will recuse yourself from *all* further commenting on SkS.
-
Elephant In The Room at 19:27 PM on 25 October 2013Why climate change contrarians owe us a (scientific) explanation
@111 Tom Curtis
It is not ad hominen to make comparisons between sites and how they respond to each other on an ongoing basis. A remark like this is not against an individual and is therefore not ad hominen. The fact that you believe it to be so is based on your perception of the merits of your own site when compared to your obvious dim view of WUWT.
I have a real issue with this thread and what it claims it wants to achieve here. I have indicated that the peer reviewed data is overwhelming. Therefore to ask anyone to provide good evidence when faced with that really is rather pointless. All it invites is replies that are duly jumped on. There is an inevitability about it from the outset.
We are talking about climate here. To ask anyone that has no scientific paperwork, peer reviewed at that, to offer scientific evidence that man made climate change is not occurring is ridiculous given the current position. You know it and the author knows it.
Now we are where we are what are we going to do. Justify to me the green taxes and explain how I and others are going to be supplied with our energy now that everyone has jumped on the climate change ship???
Moderator Response:[JH] You are now skating on the thin ice of sloganeering and excessive repetition -- both of which are prohibited by the SkS Comment Policy. Please cease and desist, or face the consequences.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 19:14 PM on 25 October 2013Why climate change contrarians owe us a (scientific) explanation
Elephant in the room wrote "And this hits the nail on the head and is the very reason why I challenge the invite to ask 'contrarians' to give scientific evidence. There isn't any on paper because it hasn't been asked for."
This is utter nonsense, publishing papers is a scientists' job. It is the way that their research is promulgated to their field of research. If the science actually did support the arguments made by "skeptics", there would be no shortage of papers they could use. We don't need to ask skeptic scientists for papers, they ought to be earning their living by writing them whether we want to read them or not.
Discussions of climate on blogs frequently asks skeptics for papers supporting their side of the argument, which is why Poptech made his list of 800 or so papers that he thought supported his skepticism. The fact that most of the papers (if you actually read them) support no such conclusion, or have been refuted, or weren't actually peer reviewed, gives an indication of the paucity of papers supporting a skeptic point of view.
There is little I would like more than some solid evidence that increasing atmospheric CO2 was unlikely to have serious economic, social or environmental impacts. Like Keynes, when the evidence changes, I change my opinion, but we do need evidence.
-
Elephant In The Room at 19:04 PM on 25 October 2013Why climate change contrarians owe us a (scientific) explanation
@108 - Scadden P made a good point here.
Quote:
One side is basing their case on careful published papers covering 150 year of study - the other is going for "blog science", misquoing, misinformation, and cherry picking. If someone asks for evidence for AGW, then as you know you get overwhelmed by the 10s of thousands of papers on just that. Ask for peer-reviewed evidence against and you get .... what?
And this hits the nail on the head and is the very reason why I challenge the invite to ask 'contrarians' to give scientific evidence. There isn't any on paper because it hasn't been asked for.
I still maintain that the purpose of the IPCC was to quantify the risks to us from man made climate change and not whether or not it existed at all. As for what drove the IPCC to be formed I put to this forum that it was driven by a political agenda. I am allowed to suggest that because it is a very real possibility. If my comments are to be snipped for that then I draw inferences from that. Not because it is not relevant, but because it could be relevant. There are enough articles out there and books by Thatcher that demonstrate well the beginnings'.
And yes, Co2 is a warming gas. But, it has been in our atmosphere for many millions of years, and at much higher levels. We are cold and we are Co2 starved. No-one can argue with that point. We have coal because it was sequested from our atmosphere. Why are we not allowed to burn it to provide fuel for our ever increasing population. We have thousands of years supply of it. And we should frack for gas too. Until there is a realistic alternative I am afraid we are stuck with it. I would of course be in favour of it not being burnt if there was a realisitic alternative.
On a personal level I am paying green taxes and higher gas and electricity prices because of the 'threat' of climate change. All the green people that insitigated the use of wind farms should be ashamed of themselves as wind turbines are the biggest blot on the surface of this planet. They are inefficient and extremely expensive to build. And all subsidised by me as the tax payer.
I find it very sad because we need to burn coal and gas to support our ever increasing population. Electricity and fuel should not be luxuries, they should be basic to life. The climate change drive is destroying people's lives with the subsidising it forces, the speculation and the green taxes that we all now pay. Any why, to prove a scientific point.
Our planet does very well with higher levels of Co2 and it also does very well with higher temperatures. Just because the level of Co2 suits 'us' at the moment does not mean it is right.
-
Tom Curtis at 13:26 PM on 25 October 2013Why climate change contrarians owe us a (scientific) explanation
The elephant in this room is the obvious non sequitur between EITR's quotation from the principles of the IPCC that:
"The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation."
(My emphasis)
and his then going on to argue that:
"The IPCC were not set up to challenge whether or not man made climate change existed, but to assess the risk, possible impacts and how to reduce them. At no point were they asked to consider whether or not man made climate change was even a threat at all."
The non sequitur is the assumption that a scientific and objective assessment of the risk of AGW cannot conclude, in virtue of its being a scientific and objective assessment, that there is no risk. Indeed, such a scientific and objective assessment of the level of risk is logically capable of determining that the largest risk is of beneficial gains from global warming, something the IPCC has concluded for limited regions for low levels of temperature increase. That they have found some potential benefits makes it obvious that it was open to them, if the evidence had supported it, to find that the benefits out weighed the risks.
EITR apparently finds the possibility of an objective IPCC unpalatable, and grasps at any straw to pretend it is not.
What makes this even worse is EITR's facile assumption that because the IPCC was set up to assess the risk, no original assessment of whether or not there is a risk exists. In fact, the IPCC was established at the end of a long string of reports assessing just that risk. The Scientific Committee on Problems in the Evironment (SCOPE) 29 report of 1986 lists six assessments of that issue which preceded it. The earliest international study was the World Climate Program report of 1981; but that was preceded by yet other reports, notable the Charney report of 1979.
EITR is, therefore, wrong about history, wrong about the role of the IPCC, and without a rational argument for his position. His equation of SkS with WUWT is so insulting it should be regarded as ad hominen. In all, he has nothing to justify his view; a point ably demonstrated by Scaddenp above, so I need add no more.
-
DSL at 12:52 PM on 25 October 2013Why climate change contrarians owe us a (scientific) explanation
Elephant, if you admittedly don't know enough about the science to evaluate the claims being made on "both sides," how are you able to assess Watts' ability to "challenge the science"? I can challenge an oncoming locomotive by standing in the middle of the tracks. Does that make my challenge worthy of the locomotive? Watts' campaign--all the blog posts, guest posts, and the one publication over the years--hasn't challenged the science in the slightest. In fact, the output of Watts' surface stations project was embarassingly in line with mainstream science. It's been an absolute goldmine, though, for examples of bad statistical analysis. Perhaps if you can give an example of what you think of as a Wattsian "challenge" to the science.
-
Doug Bostrom at 12:34 PM on 25 October 2013The 2012 State of the Climate is easily misunderstood
Further to Agnostic's remarks, a fundamental communications problem with NOAA's reports on climate in general is the cognitive dissonance introduced when the public is frequently invited to compare the latest complete year's surface temperature record with that of other years. Indeed, even Skeptical Science is guilty of this emphasis .
Simultaneously, it is emphasized to the public that global warming is an inexorable process, that the accumulation of energy on the planet is steady and uninterrupted. That leaves a confusing puzzle for the public: if the warming process is inexorable, how then can the latest year we've experienced not be the warmest year? Why is the latest year not always the warmest year?
Obviously this is a problem with repeatedly and enthusiastically announcing the wrong measurement, akin to assessing a fever patient's condition by taking the temperature of their earlobe. If the patient's ear happens to be turned toward a draft then hey-ho, the fever's down. Turn the patient around and uh-oh, it's up again. None of these changes of course having anything to do with the patient's core temperature, the measurement of signficance.
Now that there is at long last some attention being paid to the basic instructional error being communicated to the public, it's quite understandable that we find the hole that's been dug by communicators to be a little bit deep. The reason for the change in emphasis isn't correct, unfortunately. Only by being forced to explain better and more accurately because of the so-called and non-existent "hiatus" in warming is the pedagogy here finally being improved. Now we hear that warming of the planet is inexorable and uninterrupted, naturally inviting the crowd of cranks to accuse communicators of moving goalposts.
Not that communicators are bad or incompetent. This is a novel problem of huge dimensions.
-
Riduna at 11:02 AM on 25 October 2013The 2012 State of the Climate is easily misunderstood
The final paragraph shows NOAA's State of the Climate 2012 to be seriously remiss in not addressing the obvious question which is: "Atmospheric CO2 has continued to rise every year since 1998, assuming the Laws of Physics have not been suspended, temperatures must have risen by a lot more than 0.042/decade, so where is the missing energy and what is the true decadal energy gain?"
Fortunately the answers are well known by those familiar with climatology - but for those who are not ... well, NOAA needs to do better with State of the Climate 2013.
-
scaddenp at 10:40 AM on 25 October 2013Why climate change contrarians owe us a (scientific) explanation
I should also point out that science is evaluated against the predictions that it actually makes, not against straw-men arguments of those who wish to mispresent the science make. When someone claims "science predicted this but", then it a good idea to check the primary literature to ensure that is true. Of course only one side of the argument goes in for tactics like this. I wonder why.
-
scaddenp at 09:57 AM on 25 October 2013Why climate change contrarians owe us a (scientific) explanation
That a risk from human induced climate change exists has been known since Arrhenius. You cant pump CO2 into the atmosphere without increasing the GHE - this is established from experiment and observation for 150 years. The extent of the risk and whether there are mitigating factors etc. is most certainly what the IPCC was set up to report on. If you read the FAR, you will see how much was known at the start.
However, the important point is that anyone can conduct a scientific investigation into anything and publish it. The IPCC only reports on published science, it doesnt conduct it. If someone somehow discovered evidence against AGW, then you can bet that it would make a big publication splash. It is not a pointless exercise to ask for such a paper. FF companies could certainly conduct such research but prefer misinformation.
One side is basing their case on careful published papers covering 150 year of study - the other is going for "blog science", misquoing, misinformation, and cherry picking. If someone asks for evidence for AGW, then as you know you get overwhelmed by the 10s of thousands of papers on just that. Ask for peer-reviewed evidence against and you get .... what?
What are you going to base you opinion on then? Unqualified opinion, paid misinformation, ? ... or those papers and the review of qualified experts.
Watts doesnt challenge science.
The only way to challenge science is publish better science. Watts doesnt do that. On a more serious question, why are you even reading him? You can easily find his stuff debunked, demolished and yet you go back for more? Why is that? Are you hoping against all reasonable evidence that one day he will get it right? Is that actually a rational behaviour.
As to answer to your final question, why dont you read it yourself and find out (and a great deal more besides). The answer is there. You ready to read Watts et al junk, why not read that?
-
Tom Curtis at 09:52 AM on 25 October 2013The Coming Plague
I have two concerns about the above article. First, I do not think the analogy of a plague is appropriate in this case. It is difficult to see what it adds to the article other than a sense of impending doom. That sense may be a legitimate foreboding, but it is not certain that it is. I would have thought in this case you would have been better sticking to the science, including the risk to ecosystems without appealing to emotions with the analogy of a plague.
Further, you state above that "The “climate plague” is a shift to an entirely new climate where the lowest monthly temperatures will be hotter than those in the past 150 years." That is somewhat ambigous. Do you mean hotter than the lowest temperatures of the last 100 years, or hotter than any temperatures in the last 100 years? In fact the paper defines the climate shift as "...the year when the projected mean climate of a given location moves to a state continuously outside the bounds of historical variability under alternative greenhouse gas emissions scenarios." That is, it reports the year when the mean annual temperature is higher the the prior record mean annual temperature (outside the bounds of historical variability) for all subsequent years. It also reports on the year in which mean monthly temperatures exceed all prior mean monthly temperatures. However, the later event is much later than the prior event, not occuring until the 2050s for tropical regions, and until 2100 or later for high latitude land masses. Your dates appear to be based on the shift in mean annual temperatures rather than that for mean montly temperatures.
-
John Hartz at 09:45 AM on 25 October 2013Why climate change contrarians owe us a (scientific) explanation
@Elephant in the Room:
In reposne to your question, you are missing a basic understanding of science and the scientific process.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:13 AM on 25 October 2013The Coming Plague
Don9000 @1, temperatures rise faster as you approach the poles; but interannual variation in temperature also rises faster as you approach the poles. The result is that if you estimate the impacts of global warming in terms standard deviations of interannual temperature variation, impacts rise faster at the equator than at the poles. By estimating the time at which the projected mean climate exceeds the current maximum temperature (ie, the projection as stated in the abstract of the paper), the study is reporting a measure much closer to an estimation of impacts based on standard deviations of natural variation. Because maximum temperature records in the Arctic are much higher above the mean temperature, a much greater increase in absolute temperature is required in the Arctic to reach that level.
It is not immediately obvious that estimating impacts on a scale correlating with change in absolute temperature you have made a mistake; but conversely, it is not clear that estimating impacts based on a scale correlating with standard deviations of normal temperature variation is a mistake either. Organisms adapt not just to absolute temperatures, but to the range of temperatures normally experienced. So there is good reason to take the later approach, but for some factors (freezing point of water; limits of heat disposal due to high temperatures and humidity) it is absolute temperature that matters.
So, the article referred to above does not show the whole picture, but does complement studies that report on expected trends in absolute temperature at different latitudes.
-
Elephant In The Room at 09:13 AM on 25 October 2013Why climate change contrarians owe us a (scientific) explanation
Ok - this is what is happening. There are 2 sides to this debate. Those that support the view that man made climate change is occurring and those that either question or do not believe that man made climate change is occurring. When the IPCC was set up, their aim was, and I quote "The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies."The IPCC were not set up to challenge whether or not man made climate change existed, but to assess the risk, possible impacts and how to reduce them. At no point were they asked to consider whether or not man made climate change was even a threat at all.Every site that supports man-made climate change has the IPCC at its disposal. To ask someone to offer scientific evidence that man made climate change is not occurring given the initial remit of the IPCC and the wealth of information that followed is quite frankly impossible. There are sites that support man-made climate change and there are sites that do not. This site heavily supports the view that man made climate change is occurring. So do you really wish to ask the so named contrarians to offer evidence that refutes the argument. It really is a rather pointless exercise and I find the offer to provide evidence disingenuous at the very least.What I do find speaks volumes is how sites on both sides of the discussion can never find any common ground with each other. This results in the same group of people flapping their wings on the same few websites, but never agreeing or accepting alternative opinion. I blame Skeptical Science and WUWT equally for that, or any other site for that matter that shares different views on this. What I will say however in defense of Anthony Watts is that he challenges the science. Anyone can quote peer reviewed papers and the work of a body set up to determine the effect of something. It takes a different kind of person to challenge that.Not so long ago, people that believe climate change is occurring were scratching their heads because there hasn't been a warming for a few years - putting forward suggestions that it could be due to north atlantic oscillation. yet, when the skeptics simply say there hasn't been a warming, the alarmists say we need to look at bigger time scales. It's funny how the same suggestion by 2 different groups produces 2 totally different answers by the group that is trying to prove climate change. And here lies the problem for me.On a final note and given that in the last 15 years or so there has been no warming, what has made the IPPC now 95 percent sure that man made climate is occurring over and above the previous 90 percent. have I missed something? -
Don9000 at 08:47 AM on 25 October 2013The Coming Plague
I'm a bit confused by the way the author contrasts Jamaica, a tiny speck of a country located in the Caribbean Sea, with Canada, a large country that reaches from the temperate region well into the Arctic circle, resting against three different oceans. He writes that "In less than 10 years, a country like Jamaica will look much like it always has but it will not be the same country," and then claims that "Canada’s climate won’t shift until 2050 under the business as usual emissions scenario the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) calls RCP8.5." He makes me even more confused when he adds that "The further a region is from the equator, the later the shift occurs."
The 2050 date seems strangely precise, but that is a minor concern compared to the other problem I have. Previously, I've seen repeated studies and reports on those studies on Skeptical Science that document the rise in temperatures is happening faster closer to the poles, and yet this author seems to be saying the exact opposite is true. I don't get it. How can the climate in parts of Canada not already have changed, given the much higher average temperatures experienced by the part of that nation above the Arctic Circle?
Some clarification is needed. -
vrooomie at 07:17 AM on 25 October 2013Fox News defends global warming false balance by denying the 97% consensus
CBDunkerson, *this* is a keeper!
"From the ~30% of Fox news viewers who accept AGW to the ~50% of the general population to the ~75% of all scientists to the ~90% of earth scientists and finally ~97% of scientists publishing on the subject it is clear that the better informed someone is on the subject the more likely that the facts will overcome cultural biases from the misinformation campaign."
Truly a gem!
-
DSL at 01:13 AM on 25 October 2013Why climate change contrarians owe us a (scientific) explanation
So we think of AGW in different ways, Tom, and I happen to agree with both definitions. More useful to me is using the reconciliation of the two as a method of engagement with members of the general (non-invested) doubting public. I can say, "For me AGW is simply such and such, but for others it is also such and such. So when you say AGW is falsified because of X, I feel I have to clarify." That allows me to lay out the full spread of major components to the broad theory (GHE, anthro source, GMST, OHC, modeling) and allow the interlocuter to choose the one s/he finds most worthy of doubt. The balance for me is finding a way to empower the other, not get too detailed too soon, keep the conversation going, and sort of surreptitiously work in ways of discovering if actual learning is taking place. You'll probably find it appalling that I sometimes exhibit laziness in my definitions of certain elements in order to be corrected by the person I'm talking with . . . err with whom I am talking.
-
CBDunkerson at 21:34 PM on 24 October 2013Fox News defends global warming false balance by denying the 97% consensus
Cook et al analyzed papers on the subject of climate change. It seems obvious that the ratio of climate scientists amongst that sample is going to be significantly greater than the ratio of climate scientists amongst all scientists. Ergo, Cook et al does not provide a foundation for claiming that 97% of all scientists concur with AGW. Further, as Tom Curtis noted, other studies have found 97% agreement amongst climate scientists, but lower levels amongst scientists in other disciplines.
That said, Terranova's argument that lower levels of agreement amongst people who know less about the subject indicates that the conclusions of the experts are in doubt seems illogical on its face. Rather, it clearly illustrates the existence of a non-scientific basis for these 'doubts'. From the ~30% of Fox news viewers who accept AGW to the ~50% of the general population to the ~75% of all scientists to the ~90% of earth scientists and finally ~97% of scientists publishing on the subject it is clear that the better informed someone is on the subject the more likely that the facts will overcome cultural biases from the misinformation campaign. Each step up the ladder of familiarity with the subject results in greater acceptance of AGW... and leaves the shrinking group of 'doubters' increasingly delusional. There is a reason the only climate scientists who dispute AGW science are people like Roy ('AGW is not real because God promised not to send another great flood') Spencer and Judith ('Since AGW is not 100% certain we should treat skeptical claims as equally valid') Curry. At lower levels of knowledge most 'skeptics' are just ignorant of the facts, but as you get to higher levels of understanding the only people denying the obvious are those with impenetrable blinders.
-
chriskoz at 19:47 PM on 24 October 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43A
An excellent comment on the latest statement by australian env minister worth sharing here:
Greg Hunt (env minister in new AUS gov) like the PM Tony Abbott, is a "lukewarmer" not denying radiative forcing of CO2 but he certainly denies the extent of AGW problem, including the economics of mitigation of that problem (CTax or ETS). Probably he would deny the AGW altogether (like Abbott used to do couple years ago) if resonated well in his electorate.
Now he's shown us where and how he sources his scientific knowledge: poorly read and misunderstood wikipedia! Greg's gaffe is perhaps not as big as some of american REPs (e.g. sen. Inhofe) who openly live in a "flat earth society", but it's nevertheless the first step in that direction. I had a good lough, it'd be really funny if we did not have this man manage the env of our country. I expect more errors like that to follow until the end of this government.
-
bouke at 18:39 PM on 24 October 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43A
The link to "We need to talk about bushfires and climate change" is messed up.
Moderator Response:[JH] Link fixed. Thank you for bringing this glitch to our attention.
-
grindupBaker at 17:30 PM on 24 October 2013Why trust climate models? It’s a matter of simple science
Prof. Inez Fung says in 2011-2-08 lecture on video there are ==>6,500,000 grid cells which are <1 degree apart with 50 air layers (max height 10-15km), 30 ocean layers (max depth not mentioned), 10 soil layers. I compute an 80km grid for 6,500,000 cells from these but 1 degree = 111km so it looks like they are using 90-100km grid. They are working (2011) on a finer 25km grid so perhaps that's in use now. Prof. Fung says it's a 15-minute time slice.
-
Tom Curtis at 15:24 PM on 24 October 2013Why climate change contrarians owe us a (scientific) explanation
grindupBaker @101, with respect to an oceanic equivalent to the half life, use google scholar and search for "ocean" "thermal relaxation time". The earliest hits on the first page are in 1969, and there is an interesting early paper by Hansen in 1984. These early mentions should give the lie to claims that a focus on OHC is just an ad hoc response to the "hiatus" in GMST.
The problem with your picture is that, absent an ocean, the final temperature response to an increase in CO2 would be the same as with one (if we ignore details about humidity). Thus, the theory of the atmospheric greenhouse effect, and AGW is fundamentally about what happens on the surface, ie, the increase in GMST. Further, the impacts are primarilly the effects of increased surface temperature. Admitedly that includes the ocean surface temperature, but that does not alter the central point.
The picture is very incomplete without the ocean. The ocean acts as a flywheel to the surface temperature engine when it comes to responses to radiative forcing. It slows the response by absorbing (or giving up) heat far more slowly than the surface would alone, but does not change the final response in terms of GMST. (The ocean is also a significant player in the redistribution of heat.) But if you had to leave one feature out of your account, OHC or GMST, it is OHC that is less essential to the theory.
Of course, I strongly advise that you don't leave either out.
As an indication of the relative importance of OHC and temperature to the theory, you might what to compare the early climate models such as Hansen 1988, which had a swamp ocean (and hence no OHC) with current generation models which treat the movement of heat into and around the ocean in great detail.
Finally, in response to denier talking points about the "hiatus", I can refute them without discussion OHC just be showing the effects of ENSO on GMST. Doing that alone would be myopic, IMO. Far better to give a better understanding of the theory by including discussion of OHC. But that should be as an addition to discussion of ENSO effects, and short term changes in forcings, not as a substitute for it.
-
Tom Curtis at 15:05 PM on 24 October 2013Why climate change contrarians owe us a (scientific) explanation
KR @100, I agree with everything you say. I just think that when discussion of increased warming was easy (as it was till 2007), in an attempt to keep it simple we (meaning the defenders of climate science in general, not any particular person, nor SkS specifically) have helped establish the strawman the deniers are now arguing. Shame on them, as you say, for they should know better. But we (see above) have helped prepare the fertile ground for their lies.
-
Tom Curtis at 15:01 PM on 24 October 2013Why climate change contrarians owe us a (scientific) explanation
DSL @97, by AGW I mean the theory that:
1) Human's have caused a rapid increase in well mixed greenhouse gases over the last 150 odd years;
2) That this increase has lead to a rapid rise in GMST, and more specifically, is responsible for at least half of the rise in GMST since 1950; and
3) That unrestrained, a continuation of the rapid increase in well mixed greenhouse gases will lead to net effects which are bad, and possibly disasterous for humans and ecosystems.
I think clause (1) is so well established as to be unassailable under and plausible analysis of the data. It is technically up for grabs in the face of recalcitrant data, but only in the trivial and uninteresting way that the oblate spheroid shape of the Earth is also up for grabs.
I think that (2) would be falsified for all practical purposes should we have a rapid decline in temperature in the next five years despite strong El Ninos and no volcanism. Such a circumstance would only be compatible with the theory with a most unusual concurrence of other data - so unusual as to not be worth considering in hypotheticals. It would demonstrate both that climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases was very low (< 1 C per doubling of CO2) and that there was a strong and large internal mode of variation in surface heat content that explained most of the increase in temperature over the twentieth century. It would also demonstrate that climate sensitivity with respect to internal modes of variation was very different from that due to external forcings, which would be odd to say the least. Needless to say, I consider such a prospect very unlikely under current evidence.
This definition of AGW, which I believe to be close to that which is generally assumed, may explain one difference between me and doug-bostrom. He may include the theory of the atmospheric greenhouse effect in the theory of AGW itself, whereas I do not. It contributes to our understanding of AGW, but is a separate theory just as the theory of black body radiation is a seperate theory, and the ideal gas laws are a separate theory, and the theory of universal gravitation is a separate theory (all of which are distinct from, but contribute to the theory of the atmospheric greenhouse effect). Thus, a five year rapid decine in temperatures as specified above would not call into question the theory of the atmospheric greenhouse effect, which is sufficiently well established as to be practically unassailable. It would call into question the nature and sign of the feedback response to warming by the atmospheric greenhouse effect, which is a different matter.
I find your background on this issue from discussions with the general public interesting. It certainly helps understand the tack you take. Never-the-less I believe it is always better to ensure your presentation is accurate and balanced with respect to the theory rather than with respect to what your interlocuter needs to learn. That requires some skill in discussion, but the alternative is that you replace one strawman view with the theory with another strawman view of the theory.
A part of the attraction of climate change denial is (IMO) simply the fact that the greenhouse effect is most often explained in terms of the unphysical grey slab model. Bright people apply themselves to the physics of that model and realize it is unphysical, and reject the greenhouse effect as a result. They do not pause to remember (if they were ever told) that that model was just a teaching tool, not the theory itself.
In a similar manner, public and media focus on rising temperatures have set us up for the rhetoric of the "pause". The theory of AGW was explained and justified in too simplistic a manner. Our own educators have established the strawman which the deniers now argue. I would hate for our response to that predicament to establish yet another strawman view of AGW.
-
dana1981 at 14:44 PM on 24 October 2013Fox News defends global warming false balance by denying the 97% consensus
Terranova - the Cook et al. (2013) study included papers researching the impacts of climate change. When I say "climate scientists", I'm referring to anyone actively researching some aspect of the climate, including impacts. Hence I have to disagree with you.
-
Doug Bostrom at 14:34 PM on 24 October 2013Fox News defends global warming false balance by denying the 97% consensus
Sorry folks but I'm stuck at Terranova's "The 97% consensus you refer to is among climate scientists only."
A cursory glance at abstracts tested in the paper shows that there are a plethora of researchers authoring tested papers who cannot by the farthest stretch of imagination be characterized as "climate scientists." I didn't bother to check but I'll stick my neck out and hazard a guess that it's possible most of the authors surveyed in the work are not climate scientists.
That is, unless by "climate scientist" we're rebadging forestry agronomists, botanists specializing in gymnosperms and a host of other people working in numerous disciplines that happen to be touched by climate change as "climate scientists." These are all included in results leading to the 97% figure, are not included in the "not climate related" categorization.
So whatever other quibbles we may have with Terranova or Dana, Terranova's characterization of the paper is incorrect.
-
Tom Curtis at 13:57 PM on 24 October 2013Fox News defends global warming false balance by denying the 97% consensus
Terranova @8, again would you clarrify, by AGW do you mean the theory that states (among other things) that anthropogenic factors caused most (>50%) of the increase in GMST since 1950? Or are you using "AGW" incorrectly to refer to the theory that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
-
Tom Curtis at 13:51 PM on 24 October 2013Fox News defends global warming false balance by denying the 97% consensus
Terranova @4, could you state clearly for the record whether or not you agree that the expected climate response to a doubling of CO2 is approximately 3 degrees C? I just wish to confirm that your disagreement is with Dana really is "...in the overall effects of the temperature increase." More specifically, I wish to confirm that you are not actually diverging with unrealistically low estimates of climate sensitivity as well.
-
Tom Curtis at 13:47 PM on 24 October 2013Fox News defends global warming false balance by denying the 97% consensus
doug bostrom @7, the concensus paper does not test the level of concensus among non-climate scientists. Rather, it tests the level of concensus among non-climate scientists who write papers on the impacts or methods of mitigation of climate science, ie, a biases sub-sample of non climate scientists. Based on Doran 2009, only around 76% of non-climate scientists not actively publishing on climate science accept the consensus, possibly a little less as Doran's question 2 is weaker than the position tested in the concensus paper.
-
John Hartz at 13:28 PM on 24 October 2013Fox News defends global warming false balance by denying the 97% consensus
@ Terranova #8:
You state:
I really don't know any sane academician with any sort of science background who disagrees with AGW. They do, however, disagree with the catastrophic predictions.
Is this staatement based on your personal inteactions with "sane academicians"?
-
Rob Honeycutt at 12:06 PM on 24 October 2013Fox News defends global warming false balance by denying the 97% consensus
Terranova... Here you are making a number of assumptions that I would suggest are erroneous.
One would be that Dana thinks that those who aren't climate scientists (per se) can't comment or have an opinion. Voices are clearly not being silenced, but the research and the people who are actively doing research are probably the best informed regarding their areas of expertise. Where people get in trouble is when someone without specific expertise is trying to claim the those who do have expertise are wrong. And this happens quite a lot in climate science.
Another would be that the 97% only counts climate scientists. The 97% in Cook 2013 refers to research papers, not scientists. Oreskes and Cook refer to papers on global warming. Doran and Anderegg refer to climate scientists.
-
barry1487 at 12:02 PM on 24 October 2013Fox News defends global warming false balance by denying the 97% consensus
Terranova,
"other science disciplines... have a say in the matter of the complicated geosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere, etc"
The Consensus Project list of papers was compiled under the search terms "global warming" and "global climate change." No discipline that has published on the topic was filtered out.
-
chriskoz at 11:54 AM on 24 October 2013Fox News defends global warming false balance by denying the 97% consensus
Terranova@6,
As doug_bostrom explained to you, what Dana meant with the "less than 3 percent of climate scientists" sentence you're nit-picking so persistently, is "less than 3 percent of scientists publishing in the peer reviewed climate journals". I agree, that your nit-pick makes sense (i.e. Dana should have been more careful in his wording) but, unlike yourself, I don't conclude unsupported & demostrably wrong claims out of it.
Your nit-pick would make sense if it contributed to the improvement of the article or to our understanding of related scientific facts. But it does not: it is actually meant to confuse the facts, so I suggest you stop doing it.
-
Terranova at 11:50 AM on 24 October 2013Fox News defends global warming false balance by denying the 97% consensus
Doug,
I am directly referring to Dana's quote in the first paragraph of this post. I am not referring to the paper he mentions later in the article which is separate. I really don't know any sane academician with any sort of science background who disagrees with AGW. They do, however, disagree with the catastrophic predictions. And, that disagreement should not be referred to as denialism and contrarianism. Just as I refrain from using words like alarmism.
-
Doug Bostrom at 11:29 AM on 24 October 2013Fox News defends global warming false balance by denying the 97% consensus
Terranova, what you said was "the 97% consensus you refer to is among climate scientists only." You go on to say "That percentage moves downward as you move away from strictly climate scientists."
Tested against the fact of the paper, the reason we're speaking of "97%," those statements are plainly wrong. Thus you are mischaracterizing the paper Dana is talking about.
This is an extremely easy conversation to end. No loss of face is involved. You can easily search the abstracts used in the paper and demonstrate how your assumption was incorrect.
-
Terranova at 11:20 AM on 24 October 2013Fox News defends global warming false balance by denying the 97% consensus
Doug,
You are correct about the paper you referred to, but that is not what Dana referred to. Reference Dana's second sentence in the first paragraph: "This is in large part a result of disproportionate representation of the less than 3 percent of climate scientists who are 'skeptical' of human-caused global warming,..." Emphasis mine.
-
Doug Bostrom at 11:15 AM on 24 October 2013Fox News defends global warming false balance by denying the 97% consensus
Terranova, if you look at the paper in question you'll see that the 97% figure does not pertain only to climate scientists.
Abstract:
"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors’ self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
Notice that the papers selected were not filtered by author discipline, which means that your hypothesis "the 97% consensus you refer to is among climate scientists only" is plainly incorrect.
-
Terranova at 10:46 AM on 24 October 2013Fox News defends global warming false balance by denying the 97% consensus
Dana,
You and I have a very similar background in risk management for large consulting firms. I am older than you and have since moved on and entered the field of academia. I hold a B.S. in Biology and an M.S in Fisheries and Wildlife. I am working on an M.S. in Biological Sciences which I plan on following with a PhD. I still consult with various companies pertaining to risk management, and EHS managment.
The 97% consensus you refer to is among climate scientists only. That percentage moves downward as you move away from strictly climate scientists. I would argue that there are a myriad of other science disciplines that have a say in the matter of the complicated geosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere, etc... that we live on and in. As I am sure you know, all the spheres are interconnected and have reciprocal interactions.Let me clearly state that CO2 is a GHG, and anthropogenic releases of this GHG along with land use changes contribute to an increase in overall global temperature. Where we diverge is in the overall effects of the temperature increase.
Scientists are trained to be logical and to process data. If only "climate scientists" are capable of intellectually commenting on global warming, then that silences a lot of voices. Including mine and yours...Moderator Response:[JH] Dana is on vacation and may not be able to respond to you for a couple of weeks.
-
Jubble at 08:08 AM on 24 October 2013Fox News defends global warming false balance by denying the 97% consensus
Help needed. I'm hoping this comment is relevant to the topic, as an example of denial in the media. I'm trying out the UK Press Complaints Commission process to see how it goes. I wrote a complaint about the following article (my complaint is at the bottom of this post):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10310712/Top-climate-scientists-admit-global-warming-forecasts-were-wrong.html
And got the following response from the Telegraph via the PCC:
http://john-bell.com/?attachment_id=415
I'm away next week so will need to respond to this on Friday - any thoughts on how I should respond very welcome.
Complaint:
The overall complaint is that the article misleads by highlighting any differences between climate forecasts and observations and claiming as a result that the forecasts have been “wrong”. Given these were forecasts decades in length, for the word “wrong” to be justified a large discrepancy between the forecast for a large part of the globe would need to be observed. In fact the differences have been relatively small and not widespread. The forecasts have in fact been very accurate.
The title is misleading, stating that “global warming” forecasts were wrong. In the article, it admits that the forecasts were for 0.13 degrees Celsius warming per decade, where it has actually been 0.12 degrees Celsius. I understand that originally the article stated that the forecast was for 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade, but has since been corrected. The headline made more sense with the original figure but now misleads.
The second sentence repeats the claim in more stark terms “world is not heating at the rate they claimed it was in a key report”. This is again misleading given the difference between forecasts and actual warming. The context of this line below the headline links the statement that forecasts were wrong with the rate of heating.The second paragraph states that the IPCC report “is understood to concede that the computer predictions for global warming and the effects of carbon emissions have been proved to be inaccurate”. The words “computer”, “prediction” and “predictions” do not appear in the report at all. There is no direct statement in the report to say that previous forecasts have been inaccurate.
-
scaddenp at 08:08 AM on 24 October 2013It's waste heat
Can we recast these figures in watts?
Talking about change since 1750...
Waste heat would be 14E12 W (based on Flanner which does the full accounts)
I can't see how lightning isnt accounted for TOA loss, but is 2E10 W (total rather than change)
Since the top of atmosphere is cooling not heating due to increase in GHG, I cant see why losses from mass ejection would increase (OS thinks they would), but with an escape velocity of 10.8 km/s and about 3kg/s lost, total losses (not change since 1750) is of order E11 W
Change in energy at surface however since 1750 dues to increase in GHG is
1.4E15 W
No way to avoid the conclusion that waste heat is insignificant by comparison.
Prev 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 Next
