Recent Comments

Prev  815  816  817  818  819  820  821  822  823  824  825  826  827  828  829  830  Next

Comments 41101 to 41150:

41101. Ironbark at 09:14 AM on 26 October 2013
       Why trust climate models? It’s a matter of simple science
       

       At Moderator - understood, appreciate the feedback and thanks for the link.  I don't agree with one of it's conclusion though that 'we can’t wait for 30 years to see if a model is any good or not' - that is an opinion that people are allowed to have regarding their own perceptions of the costs vs benefits.   That is a subjective comment though - I don't believe it's a scientific comment.  Being subjective, my own perception is that there will be lots of needless suffering on the poorest if we are incorrect in regulating CO2 footprints (i.e. if CO2 footprints are to blame, we can't address the issue without preventing poor countries from improving their quality of life, since improved quality of life comes from fossil fuels).  Is there a scientific position as to how long model predictions can deviate from observations without questioning the underlining inputs and assumptions?

       At 12, MA Rodger - easy on the 'denialist' trigger.  My conclusions on Glimategate correspond with Prof Richard Muller's lecture on youtube, who for what I can make out, appears to think that all the warming we've seen is caused by humans, yet says Climategate was 'scientific malpractice'.   My point is that if it takes a decade for that to come out from the original papers, after the graph was used by the IPCC and Al Gore, what hope now do ordinary people have to take any study that's not older than 10 years on face value?

       The link you've provided helps, though I'm not sure it gets to the crux of the question.  The essence of the 'Does the global warming 'pause' mean what you think it means' thread, appears to be that there is no pause over a longer period.  Whilst this is interesting and I would agree that to discern overall trends needs long time frames, the context of my question was that of someone who just wants to look at how predictions have gone against observations to make a decision.   Why - because the reason to regulate CO2 footprints now is predicated on the assumption that we have no time to lose.  Since models weren't making predictions 30 years ago, their performance over that time period isn't relevant to that question.  The relevant time period is to match when models were predicting the future, against those now historical observations.  From what I can make out those predictions appeared to start in the late 1990's (please correct me if I'm wrong).  The link talks about the oceans switching to another warming cycle - how long would this be, if it's long, can that not support the position that we don't have to act imminently?  How many years of no warming from when models started making predictions would it take for ordinary people to be able to say that there might be more going on here that we don't understand?

       As an aside, I don't think the graph on that page comparing how 'realists' and 'skeptics' view climate doesn't helps the case.  I haven't seen anything said by skeptics which would support such a graph - their overall argument in fact appears to be the opposite, that even 30 years is to short a trend - some are saying we need to look a trends over thousands of years.   I don't know which one is right, other then that graph characterising the 'skeptics' view, doesn't correspond with anything I've read from them.  Obviously it's up to this site to determine how it wants to reflect opposing viewpoints, however IMO I think it detracts from great work that's being done here as opposed to helping it.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Recommend that you insert "climategate" into the SkS search box and see for yourself how extensively it has been discussed over the years on this website. You might even take the time to read some of the articles. 

41102. MA Rodger at 08:47 AM on 26 October 2013
       Why climate change contrarians owe us a (scientific) explanation
       

       If the commentor @120 wishes to discuss the taking of cake, perhaps we should first remind ourselves who it is who is taking the biscuit. Elephant In The Room demonstrates @120 he is in denial over the comment @41.

       To promote the view that "Co2 is not a threat - population is" is but the unacceptable ranting from someone who has yet to demonstate the silghtest understanding of the threat AGW poses to the future wellbeing of mankind. Please disconnect the troll.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] If EITR choses to post new comments, they will most likely be deleted in their entirity. EITR's refusal to abide by the SkS Comment Policy have been duly noted and enough warnings have been issued.    

41103. Tom Curtis at 08:33 AM on 26 October 2013
       The Coming Plague
       

       fungelstrumpet @7, it appears that Gail is ignoring the fact that most CO2 emissions are from stationary power generation or foundaries where coal is an adequate, and indeed, cheaper substitute for oil or gas.  Further, unconventional oil and gas sources are verging on economic at current prices.  A slight price increase will make them definititely economic, and it is far from clear that renewables will be a cheap enough substitute to displace them without a carbon price.  Consequently, I suspect her analysis is flawed, although based on your account of it.  

       Finally, I believe that "peak oil" advocates who think it will solve our global warming dilemma have the wrong end of the stick.  If we are in fact approaching (or have just passed) peak oil, then a carbon tax will not add significantly to the cost of energy in the long term for we must soon find renewable substitutes in any event.  Its primary effect, in that scenario, will be to smooth out the transition from ready fossil fuel supply to very limited fossil fuel supply by smoothing the price spike that results from the transition.  The only peak oil scenario in which a price on carbon is costly is one in which non-conventional fossil fuels can substitute for conventional fossil fuels at a price significantly lower than low carbon energy sources (renewables, nuclear).  In that scenario, absent a carbon tax the rate of emissions will rise in that non-conventional fossil fuels require carbon intensive treatment to convert them into commercial fuels, resulting in greater emissions per unit energy consumed.  As that scenario would be disasterous for climate change, a carbon price is advisable in every scenario.

41104. Tom Curtis at 08:22 AM on 26 October 2013
       The Coming Plague
       

       Don9000 @6, your issue regarding Jamaica is valid, but based on two misunderstandings of the paper (one of which I helped propagate in my comment @2, ie, after I had read the abstract but before I read the paper).  These issues are addressed directly in my posts @3 and 5 above.

       First, the year of climate departure for monthly means is defined as all mean monthly temperatures exceed all mean monthly temperatures in the period 1860-2005.  Because it exceeds the mean monthly temperature (ie, the mean of the (daily maximum temperature plus daily minimum temperature)/2 for all days in the month) it will not exceed record daily maximum temperatures, nor even the mean daily temperatures for all days.  A similar climate departure is defined for mean annual temperatures.  It is not clear, but it appears to me that you are comparing record daily temperatures for each month with record minimum temperatures for each month, which gives a range of about 15 C.  For this paper the relevant values are the record monthly mean temperatures.  I cannot find those for Jamaica, but based on mean monthly temperatures, the range should be between 2.5 and 5 C.

       Second, the article above incorrectly identifies the time of annual climate departure as the time of montly climate departure.  The time of monthly climate departure for the carribean is around 2050-2080, as can be seen in part b of the first graph @5 above.  I cannot identify the precise location of Jamaica within the Caribean in that graph to give a closer determination of the time.

41105. Leto at 07:58 AM on 26 October 2013
       Why climate change contrarians owe us a (scientific) explanation
       

       Elephant wrote: What is telling however is that not one person has responded to my comment that the planet is cool and Co2 starved. Nor has anyone commented on why the warmists can explain away an absence of warming over the last few years, yet the skeptics are not allowed to suggest an absence of warming as the time scales are not large enough. Talk about having your cake and eating it.

        

       Elephant, these comments of yours that failed to draw a response are so densely loaded with misunderstanding that no simple response is possible. Cool? Co2-starved? Really? Try a more nuanced approach with a little more respect and people might take you more seriously.

       Read a bit more, try to understand what the evidence shows, and then if you have specific questions, you will find the folks here amazingly patient and willing to share their understanding. On the specific question of why surface temperatures have not continued on a relentless upwards monotonic trend, there is already ample discussion of the issue all over this site. Read those discussions first, then come back with thoughtful criticisms of the warmist view if you like, but parroting previously debunked slogans from WUWT is a waste of everyone's time.

       If you think WUWT is really in the business of providing an honest challenge to the warmist view, please identify just one WUWT article that you think is valid.

        

41106. Tom Curtis at 07:44 AM on 26 October 2013
       Why climate change contrarians owe us a (scientific) explanation
       

       EITR @5:55 AM, Oct 26th writes:

       "What is telling however is that not one person has responded to my comment that the planet is cool and Co2 starved. Nor has anyone commented on why the warmists can explain away an absence of warming over the last few years, yet the skeptics are not allowed to suggest an absence of warming as the time scales are not large enough. Talk about having your cake and eating it."

       EITR continues his theme that because he has no evidence, expecting him to have evidence is unfair.

       In this case, he has no evidence that people at SkS cannot address the issues he raises.  Rather, he has evidence that we ignored him when he attempted to distract us from the topic at hand with a game of "look squirrel".  He has evidence that when he goes off topic (in contravention of the comments policy) we decline to also violate the comments policy.

       Had he bothered using the search function, he would easilly have been able to find detailed discussions of the issues he raises, many of them with contributions by his respondents on this thread.  He would then have been able to post his arguments in a thread in which they were on topic.  Of course, doing so he would face the disadvantage that his post would follow detailed discussions which refer to the evidence, ie, the peer reviewed literature.  He would find himself once again having to plead the unfairness of expecting him to have evidence for his views, given that the evidence supports the other side of the argument. 

41107. funglestrumpet at 07:22 AM on 26 October 2013
       The Coming Plague
       

       I, too, feel uncomfortable with the term 'plague'. This side of the fence gets more than its fair share of criticism for being alarmist. It doesn't need to go out of its way to attract even more by using such emotive language. The global warming situation can speak eloquently enough for itself, unfortunately.

       On a more general note, there is a blog, 'Our Finite World', by a respected actuary, Gail Tverberg. One of the arguments that she repeats quite often is that climate change is not going to be as bad as BAU indicates simply because we are now running on the dregs of the world's oil supply. All, or nearly all, of the 'easy oil' has been extracted (the so-called low hanging fruit) and so the only direction for oil prices to go is up, unless the economy collapses. (If prices fall due to such a collapse, shale oil and gas will be uneconomic to extract: look as Shell's withdrawl from shale gas extraction even at today's prices. Deep sea extraction will also be uneconomic.) We are clearly past peak oil (in effect, if not in a pedantic sense) and no matter how hard they try, world oil producers cannot match the rate that demand is rising at. In fact supply is hardly rising at all. (Saud Arabia will soon be a net importer). 

       It is fair to say that Gail sits nearer to the denier side of the fence than most, but it is difficult to argue with her logic when you study her data and graphics. (Though I rather feel that she has not grasped as well as she might the concept of a tipping point that leads to runaway warming.)

       She is quite pessimistic about our chances of avoiding ecomomic and financial collapse, with the lack of oil for transport being particularly significant. (Try electrifying the multi axle truck fleet that is essential for the movement of goods and materials. Try holding down food costs when agriculture is so dependent on oil.)

       Providing we avoid hitting a runaway tipping point, as far as climate change is concerned, Gail's arguments would suggest that we might have more time than this article indicates to knock some sense into those who think of themselves as leaders. We might at the very least get them to look up the definition of the term 'leader' in a half decent dictionary. Whether it will lead to their taking the necessary leadership action that the situation begs, who knows?

41108. Composer99 at 07:13 AM on 26 October 2013
       Why climate change contrarians owe us a (scientific) explanation
       

       It is simply the case that the current state of the evidence shows that human emissions of CO₂, and other activities with equivalent effects on global energy balance (e.g. land use changes), are causing massive and rapid climate changes. What is more, these changes if left unabated have consequences that are on balance very unfavourable (sea level rise is my favourite example: it might take a century or two for, say, Miami or Bangladesh to be swallowed up by the ocean, but unless emissions are curbed and global warming abated, it will happen).

       The simplest form of the contrarian position is that the evidence available to date is somehow wrong - either it is itself wrong, or the conclusions drawn from it are. As noted in the OP, the obligation is therefore on contrarians to come up with more and better evidence to support their position. This is the proper way to do science - come up with more and better evidence than the other guy.

       Simply going around saying "nuh-uh!", which appears to be Elephant's modus operandi (as well as of climate science contrarians in general), just isn't going to cut it: when the bulk of the empirical evidence says 'X', asserting "not X" won't get anyone anywhere, because it doesn't account for the existing evidence. (This is the great failing of the majority of so-called climate "skepticism".)

       One has to instead come up with some 'Y' that replaces 'X' and accounts for all the evidence that led to 'X' in the first place. Several have tried (such as the above-mentioned Gerlich & Tscheuschner), however their efforts have not withstood proper scrutiny.

       To tackle the overall gist of Elephant's complaints:

       1. Elephant in the Room asserts that contrarians' suggested alternatives to what the evidence currently shows are unfairly characterized as superstition and that this is not a 'reputable' behaviour.
       2. Elephant in the Room appears to reduce the matter down to differences in opinion.

        With respect to Elephant's point #1:

       1. If contrarians' proposed alternatives end up appearing indistinguishable from "superstition", that says more about those alternatives than about the person remarking upon such lack of distinction.
       2. If proposed alternatives do not withstand scrutiny, that is again hardly the fault of the scrutineers, nor does it reflect badly on them.

       With respect to Elephant's point #2:

       1. I should also add that what is being sought from contrarians is most definitely not alternative opinions, but rather scientifically viable alternative conclusions inferred from viable premises.
       2. There is nothing stopping contrarians from making the effort to do the science. Yet from actual scientists such as John Christy or Judith Curry on down to the most anonymous Internet commenter, such effort is either lacking entirely or at best cursory. (Indeed, the most rigorous scientific effort by self-styled skeptics was the BEST project - and see where that ended up.)
41109. pbjamm at 07:00 AM on 26 October 2013
       Why climate change contrarians owe us a (scientific) explanation
       

       EITR@120 the original article did not suggest that ALL alternative explanations are superstition just the common "it is a cycle" explanation.  If contrarians are unable to provide any eidence as to which cycle and why then there is no explanatory power to the claim.  It is unscientific, unverifiable and unhelpful.  If they would claim a specific cycle like "We are currently in Time-Cube Polymodal Cycle 18 which is esponsilbe for the Solar time beam flux that is warming the  atmospheric" it may still be unscientific but it is testable and therefor superior to the handwaving of blaming some "natural cycle".

41110. Don9000 at 06:49 AM on 26 October 2013
       The Coming Plague
       

       Tom Curtis@2

       
       Thank you for the explanation--at least I have a clearer sense of where Mora and the other researchers are coming from.

        

       I think one problem with the article is that the language used is wildly hyperbolic at times. In my opinion, Stephen Leahy, the reporter for IPS needed to do a bit more work to clarify the claims raised in the piece. For example, this passage, attributed to Camilo Mora, the paper's lead author, catches my eye:

       "old record high temperatures will be the new low temperatures."

       In a conversation, I can see how a person could say this kind of thing, but were I the reporter I would have needed clarification before I ran with this quote, as it seems highly improbable. Let me clarify my statement: according to Wikipedia (sorry, but this was the easiest place to find the numbers) Kingston, Jamaica, currently has record monthly high temperatures which range from 91 to 97 degrees F. Mora's statement seems to imply that Kingston will shortly (is it ten years or within Mora's lifetime or generation?--this is also vague) have normal low temperatures that range from 91 to 97 degrees F.

       Unless global warming is going to be much, much worse than I understand (I'll note we've already established that the temperature increases due to global warming are steeper towards the poles), I think Mora's statement is highly improbable given that the current average monthly lows range from 69.8 to 75.7 degrees F, again according to Wikipedia. Mora's statment thus implies that in a matter of as little as a decade, and in not more than a generation, the average monthly low temperatures in Jamaica will increase by approximately 20 degrees F.

       If true, I wonder what the average monthly water temperatures in the Caribbean Sea will be by that point in time. Currently, I see the sea around Jamaica is about 85 degrees F, which is about midway between October's record high and low temperatures. That would mean that in a decade or generation we'd see sea-surface temperatures well into the 100 plus range, which again strikes me as improbable.

       :

41111. Doug Bostrom at 06:45 AM on 26 October 2013
       Why climate change contrarians owe us a (scientific) explanation
       

       EIRT is a case example of the downside to pseudonyms and anonymity. (-snip-)

       Moderator Response:

       [PW] Though your points be arguably correct, in order to maintain a fair and equable level of moderation, I've snipped the off-topic observations you've made.

41112. Elephant In The Room at 05:55 AM on 26 October 2013
       Why climate change contrarians owe us a (scientific) explanation
       

       (-snip-)

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] If I had seen this comment earlier, I would have deleted in its entirity for violating numerous parts of the SkS Comment Policy. Because so many excellent rebuttals to EIR's comment have already been posted, I will let this comment stand as a teaching tool. 

        

       [PW} I will not: EITR, your last warning is this one. Moderation complaints, arguments from personal incredulity, ad hominem comments, and sloganeering snipped. Next time you do so will result in your removal from commenting on SkS.

41113. One Planet Only Forever at 05:47 AM on 26 October 2013
       Double Standard on Internal Variability
       

       Those attempting to discredit the science are justifiably fearful.

       Science is inexorably increasing the understanding of the unacceptability of the way they want to pursue profit, pleasure, comfort and convenience. Climate impacts are a significant issue, but tere are so many others just like it.

       Democracy where everybody, even the most inconsiderate and intolerant, get a vote, is their last hope. They will do their best to delay the eventually loss of popularity as better understanding develops. They are deliberately attempting to damage the future, but there are few laws against deliberately misrepresenting information (yet). Maybe that will need to be developed. Maybe we need international laws to penalize anyone "who should know better about matters of unacceptable human pursuits of profit, pleasure, comfort and convenience, yet deliberately tries to claim otherwise, or deliberately tries to keep awarenes and fuller understanding from growing".

       The global realization that we are on this one shared planet with a possible future of a few billion years is a "relatively new idea" that cannot be ignored forever. The added realization that the only truly sustainable human activity is activity that does not consume non-renewable resources, and sustainable consumes the renewable resources, means much of the recently developed human activity must end, the sooner the better.

       There will always be some among us who do not care about the future. For the sake of the future every population around our shared world needs to be spotting these kind of people and keeping them from succeeding (in their pursuits that cannot be continued and will ruin the future).

       The battle is more than just the climate. It includes the way consumer products are unsustainably made in unacceptable conditions. It also includes the unacceptable ways that quicker profit from farming is pursued unsustainably.

       As a global collective, the pursuit of short-term gain by any among us has only ever created pain and suffering (always realized too late). The continued efforts to most clearly and completely present the information and understanding about the vast array of unacceptable human activities will ultimately grow awareness, to the detriment of thsoe who do not want the general population to "better understand things".

       Keep up the "Good Work".

41114. MA Rodger at 05:16 AM on 26 October 2013
       Why trust climate models? It’s a matter of simple science
       

       Moderator Response @11.

       Ironbark did ask a valid quetion @5 although very heavily draped in denialist clothing. Perhaps this question of his ("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?" ) should be directed to an appropriate thread rather than the denialist nonsense. Does the global warming 'pause' mean what you think it means? is a very recent thread and likely will quickly get to the nub of Ironbark's stated enquiry.

41115. KR at 05:13 AM on 26 October 2013
       Double Standard on Internal Variability
       

       The "Denial Ratchet" - natural variability only moves in one direction?

41116. Dikran Marsupial at 03:51 AM on 26 October 2013
       Why trust climate models? It’s a matter of simple science
       

       Ironbark, it doesn't actually matter whether the science is objective, what matters is whether it is correct.  This applies to both sides of the argument.  John Christy, for example, is far more of a lobbyist that Phil Jones - count up the number of times each has volunteered to speak before government hearings.  Does that mean I can dismiss Prof. Christy's work because he is not "objective"?  No, his arguments have to be evaluated on their own merits. 

       Now if you are not in a position to do that, a sensible approach would be to determine what the climate science research community think about this.  Fortunately the IPCC WG1 report is intended to be a survey of the mainstream scientific position on this.  There also have been surveys of the litterature, for instance The Climate Project (but there have been several others), which show that the skeptic position has very little support amongst the real experts.  

       So please, no more ad-hominems, that form of argument adds nothing to the discussion.

       BTW, the comment "All the reviews that exonerated the people involved have made that perception worse." is a classic symptom ("incorrigibility") of delusional behaviour (intepreting evidence that contradicts a strongly held belief as support for that belief).

       P.S. you might want to check my entry in the "Team" descriptions under the "About" tab on the blue bar immediately under the logo.

       Moderator Response:

       [PW] To eliminate the looming possibility of dogpiling on Ironbark, allow him/her to elucidate upon his/her accusations: Ironbark, you've now received a second warning, and you've yet to provide anything much beyond fairly typical denier memes and untruths. Your next warning may or may not be the 3rd, or your last.

        

       Again, please review the Comments Policy, before making any more inflammatory remarks.

41117. Doug Bostrom at 02:58 AM on 26 October 2013
       Why climate change contrarians owe us a (scientific) explanation
       

       The "ask" on this thread was pretty straightforward: a scientific explanation of why we should be less concerned about anthropogenic warming. 

       Complaints about the remit of the IPCC, annoyance at wind turbines, resentment over taxes, insult over improper comportment in correspondence and all the rest of the litany of evasion we've heard here are glaringly conspicuous in their being devoid of anything useful to offer in the way of science. We've heard a veritable encyclopedia of policy complaints, social nits, personal preferences and myriad other excursions, but none of those are science.

       Is it so difficult to stay on topic, if you're a person who disagrees with the scientific premise of global warming?

       Surely-- please-- you can do better.  

41118. DSL at 02:36 AM on 26 October 2013
       Why trust climate models? It’s a matter of simple science
       

       You're not being reasonable, though, Ironbark.  You've already admitted not knowing enough about the science to make a reasonable science-based conclusion, yet you uncritically accept interpretations of the work of Mann and Jones based on severely de-contextualized snippets of text.  Worse yet, the interpreters you rely on cannot be identified.  Their memes have been spread far and wide, but no one is stepping forth to defend those memes.  No formal allegations were ever made, despite the extreme seriousness of the whispered claims.  Nine investigations found the scientists not guilty of scientific misconduct.  And you just want everyone to accept your understanding of "climategate" without question?  I feel I should be more skeptical.  

41119. Ironbark at 02:08 AM on 26 October 2013
       Why 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.

41120. John Hartz at 01:22 AM on 26 October 2013
       Why 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. 

41121. Composer99 at 23:37 PM on 25 October 2013
       Why 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.

41122. DSL at 23:16 PM on 25 October 2013
       Why 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.

41123. Tom Curtis at 22:34 PM on 25 October 2013
       The 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.

41124. Dikran Marsupial at 22:19 PM on 25 October 2013
       Why 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.

41125. Ironbark at 22:09 PM on 25 October 2013
       Why 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.

       http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

41126. chriskoz at 21:30 PM on 25 October 2013
       The 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?

41127. Tom Curtis at 20:43 PM on 25 October 2013
       Why 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 ...

41128. Dikran Marsupial at 19:45 PM on 25 October 2013
       Why 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.

        

41129. Elephant In The Room at 19:31 PM on 25 October 2013
       Why 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.

41130. Elephant In The Room at 19:27 PM on 25 October 2013
       Why 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.

41131. Dikran Marsupial at 19:14 PM on 25 October 2013
       Why 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.

41132. Elephant In The Room at 19:04 PM on 25 October 2013
       Why 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.

        

41133. Tom Curtis at 13:26 PM on 25 October 2013
       Why 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.

41134. DSL at 12:52 PM on 25 October 2013
       Why 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.    

41135. Doug Bostrom at 12:34 PM on 25 October 2013
       The 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. 

41136. Riduna at 11:02 AM on 25 October 2013
       The 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.

41137. scaddenp at 10:40 AM on 25 October 2013
       Why 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.

41138. scaddenp at 09:57 AM on 25 October 2013
       Why 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?

41139. Tom Curtis at 09:52 AM on 25 October 2013
       The 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.      

41140. John Hartz at 09:45 AM on 25 October 2013
       Why 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. 

41141. Tom Curtis at 09:13 AM on 25 October 2013
       The 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.

41142. Elephant In The Room at 09:13 AM on 25 October 2013
       Why 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?
41143. Don9000 at 08:47 AM on 25 October 2013
       The 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.

41144. vrooomie at 07:17 AM on 25 October 2013
       Fox 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!

41145. DSL at 01:13 AM on 25 October 2013
       Why 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.  

41146. CBDunkerson at 21:34 PM on 24 October 2013
       Fox 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.

41147. chriskoz at 19:47 PM on 24 October 2013
       2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43A
       

       An excellent comment on the latest statement by australian env minister worth sharing here:

       greg hunt terrible at his job

       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.

41148. bouke at 18:39 PM on 24 October 2013
       2013 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. 

41149. grindupBaker at 17:30 PM on 24 October 2013
       Why 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.

41150. Tom Curtis at 15:24 PM on 24 October 2013
       Why 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.

Prev  815  816  817  818  819  820  821  822  823  824  825  826  827  828  829  830  Next