Recent Comments

Prev  816  817  818  819  820  821  822  823  824  825  826  827  828  829  830  831  Next

Comments 41151 to 41200:

41151. michael sweet at 21:20 PM on 26 October 2013
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Stranger,

       In the linked descriptions of the research Dr. Miller, the scientist doing the research, describes the ice caps on Baffin Island as retreating at a rate of 1-2 meters a year.  They collect all their samples from the very edge of the ice, less than a meter away.  It follows that if the ice retreats a meter a year and you collect your sample from 0.5 meters of the ice that the sample was covered by ice last year.  Plants grow very slowly in these conditions so contamination by fresh growth can be eliminated by careful sampling. It is simple enough for the scientists to collect data several years in a row to confirm that the samples were ice covered in the past. Next year you can collect from areas that you document are ice covered this year.  For exceptional samples scientists return to the site the next year and confirm their previous result.  Tom's picture is of the camp the scientists have.  It is not the collection site.  In this area the ice does not flow over the ground so old samples have not been disturbed (in most locations flowing glaciers destroy plant samples, that did not happen here). Denier claims that Dr. Miller does not know that that the samples were ice covered in the past are easily shown to be ignorant of the facts.  In general, you should question claims that professionals make simple errors that are easily checked.  Scientists ensure that their claims are substianted by the data.  Is it likely that Dr. Miller would spend months camping on Baffin Island, thinking about the data every day, and make a mistake that could be recognized in one minute by an untrained eye?  It is much more likely the deniers have not read the paper and are making up the problems.  

       The samples are reported variously to be older than 40,000 years and 120,000 old.  This is due to the fact that it is not possible to date samples over 40,000 years old using carbon-14.  Once samples are 40,000 years old all the C-14 is gone (some scientists claim they can date to 50,000 years ago).  The climate 40,000 years ago was much colder than today so the most plausible age is 120,000 years old which was the last time there was an interglacial.  (Note that older ages cannot be excluded, the samples could be much older, but not younger, than 120,000 years).

       Most of the samples are only about 5,000 years old (easily carbon dated).  It is known from other work that it has been getting cooler on Baffin Island for the past 5,000 years (until the start of AGW).  This work indicates that climate models have substantially underestimated the warming in this area.  That suggests that it will warm more in the future than currently predicted.  Those crazy alarmist models, underpredicting warming again!

41152. Bert from Eltham at 19:39 PM on 26 October 2013
       Double Standard on Internal Variability
       

       I have come to the conclusion that arguing with deniers is like reasoning with two year olds. It is an utter waste of time! All we can do is to repeatedly put up the evidence in a form that the layman can understand. It will not be long before the evidence becomes self evident. This has already started. Flooded subways in New York and bushfires in the middle of spring in Sydney are two tiny examples of many more. These purely 'natural' events should get the locals thinking! How many more 'natural ' events do we put up with before we hit irreversible tipping points? Bert

41153. MA Rodger at 18:12 PM on 26 October 2013
       Why trust climate models? It’s a matter of simple science
       

       Ironbark @13.
       Your request that I ease up on the 'denialist' trigger would be more likely heeded if you ease up on the denialist argumentation. This you singlularly fail to do. In the very same paragraph as your request you tell us Richard Muller describes that the e-mail hacks from CRU demonstrated 'scientific malpractice' (he may well have done, he has a history of denial) and you then intimate that "the graph" (presumably the "hockey stick" from Mann et al 1999) used by the IPCC and Al Gore was also show after 10 years to be wrong. You cannot be serious!

       I do not know where you get such deluded ideas from. Mann et al 1999 featured in IPCC TAR of 2001 and along with a whole bag full of other 'hockeysticks', also in IPCC AR4 of 2007. And if you bother to examine the final draft of IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 5 figure 5.7 you will see that Mann et al 1999 is now replaced by Mann et al 2008, within which the work of Mann et al 1999 remains all correct and ship shape being presented within figure 3(b) of that paper. There was no error, no malpractice attached to the 'hockeystick'.
       Do you deny this to be so? Or will you accept that 'climategate' had zero impact on the science.
       (Note. There is somewhere on video a UK climatologist (?) who delights in pointing to some minor adjustment to a global temperature record for part of a decade of the 19th century that was the sum total scientific impact of 'climategate', so perhaps "zero impact" is not entirely correct.)

       Of course (as pointed out @24) this is off topic here. Indeed, to remain on topic, please do not present your detailed thoughts concerning a different SkS post in this comment thread. That other SkS post does have a comment thread of its own which is provided for such a purpose.

        

41154. william5331 at 16:01 PM on 26 October 2013
       The Coming Plague
       

       How does this article, stating that the greatest changes will be in low latitudes, square with the observations so far that the greatest temperature differences have been observed at high latitudes.   In a way, it is probably not that important which goes first.  We have jacked our populations so high that we are higly vulnerable to crop failures.  Even the results of a single year's failure of the Northern Hemisphere wheat crop doesn't bear thinking about.  ps.  Now the Chinese are building large numbers of fishing boats to descimate the tuna of the South Pacific, the last one in the world and jelly fish seem to be taking over and feeding up the food chain.  In the mean time we continue to harvest turtles (which eat jelly fish) and the few fish species that do likewise.  Hard for us to point the finger, though.  We have descimated all the rest of the oceans before the Chinese became involved.

41155. panzerboy at 15:00 PM on 26 October 2013
       Double Standard on Internal Variability
       

       Willard Tony is Anthony Watts?

       Aunt Judy Judith Curry from Climate etc?

41156. Composer99 at 14:40 PM on 26 October 2013
       Why climate change contrarians owe us a (scientific) explanation
       

       The typical one is: "I dont like proposed climate solutions/promoters; ergo climate science is wrong". That thinking is just crazy.

       Oh, come now, scaddenp, where would we be if we couldn't get on with the classic standbys of dismissing climate science, "because Al Gore!", "because David Suzuki!", or "because Obama, that's why!" - where, I ask you?

41157. Tom Curtis at 14:06 PM on 26 October 2013
       Why trust climate models? It’s a matter of simple science
       

       Ironbark, further to the moderators comment @19, your comments on "climategate" are not sloganeering because you make them.  They are sloganeering because you make them but decline to provide evidence in support of your stated position.  Where you to provide that evidence on an appropriate thread, they would not be sloganeering.  Where you to provide that evidence here, they would still not be sloganeering, but would remain off topic.

41158. Tom Curtis at 13:59 PM on 26 October 2013
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       I should add, the story by Tom Yulsman linked to above, or better, an account by one of the authors of the study would be a wonderful addition to SkS.

41159. Tom Curtis at 13:57 PM on 26 October 2013
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Stranger @23, I assume you are referring to this research, a popular account of which is given here.  The same research is detailed more briefly in the link provided by Doug Bostrom.

       Given that, all that is required for moss to not accumulate new C14 from the atmosphere is that it be either dead, or unexposed to the atmosphere (ie, covered in ice).  There is a slight twist to that.  Specifically, if new and living moss grows in the same location as old and dead moss, it will potentially contaminate the age signal, making the older moss appear younger.  If you look at this image from the popular report, you will see areas in which new plants is growing by the green colour:

        

       In fact, looking closely, it appears that the new plants are grass rather than moss.  That is important for two reasons.  First, it makes it easier to distinguish between the old moss and the new growth, thereby avoiding cross contamination.  Second, It is my understanding that moss will grow in situations too cold for grass to grow, suggesting a possibility that Baffin Island is now warmer than when the moss was formerly growing, not just when it was ice covered.  Of course, that later point depends critically on the species of moss involved, and as the original research is behind a pay wall, I cannot confirm it.

       Despite the fact that C14 doesn't distinguish between a merely dead plant, and one covered by ice, the conclusion AGW "skeptics" apparently want to draw from that does not follow.  That is because if a soil is not ice covered, and is above freezing for at least part of the year, new plants will grow in it.  Those new plants will then show up as having a relatively young age in carbon dating.  Thus, for the "skeptic" scenario to make sense, the ice would have had to melt away without temperatures ever rising above freezing.  Quite apart from the conundrum in that, temperatures in the area are definitely above freezing for at least part of the year now so even in that scenario, temperatures are still warmer than they have been, likely in the last 110,000 years.

       I should note that I am not expert in arctic biota, so there may be some contrived way in which temeratures were briefly warmer in the interval and not shown up based on biology alone.  However, the only time since the end of the last ice age in which temperatures may have been warmer is shown by the younger C14 ages across much of the transect to have also been a period when the icecap was growing.  (Those younger ages also illustrate my point in the preceding paragraph.)  

41160. scaddenp at 13:12 PM on 26 October 2013
       Why climate change contrarians owe us a (scientific) explanation
       

       I think there is something constructive that come out the exchange with EITR

       1/ just because we want/need something doesnt invalidate science against it. Watch the mental hoops people do over chocolate/coffee/alcohol/marijuana (and previously tobacco) also. The typical one is: "I dont like proposed climate solutions/promoters; ergo climate science is wrong". That thinking is just  crazy.

       2/ Proposing FF as a solution for continuing population growth is similarly logical flawed.

        - it only postpones a problem because FF are finite.
        - if we only used FF for growing and transporting food, then it wouldnt have much impact on climate.
       - from climate perspective, the population problem is the number of wealthy westerners guzzling FF, not the teeming population in 3rd world.
       - no problem is solved by denial. 

       Over population does need a solution (one of about 10 problems we must solve simultaneously) and preferrably lets do it by reducing fertility rather than increasing mortality. Climate change does the later.

41161. Doug Bostrom at 13:01 PM on 26 October 2013
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       I'm not quite sure I understand your question, Stranger. Does it help to consider that neither dead moss nor moss that is in a complete metabolic stasis will replenish C14 from the atmosphere? As well, it's not likely that dead moss exposed to weathering would endure for 44,000 years, not even in a very cold, dry climate. 

       Maybe if you could point to where you read about this. Was it something to do with this research?

41162. Stranger8170 at 12:06 PM on 26 October 2013
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Sorry, hope this question isn't to far off topic.  Today I've read several articles about the moss found on Baffin Island.  They said they had determined it was 44K years old from carbon dating.  I was just told that when the moss died it would have stopped generating C-14. There is no way to differentiate between dead moss and dead moss covered by ice.  So when the researchers can say they have "old" dead moss but they can't say anything about ice unless they can prove that without the ice the moss would have (mysteriously) come back to life and the C-14 started accumulating again.

        

       I have no idea of how carbon dating works on moss so I thought I'd enquire.

41163. Ironbark at 11:00 AM on 26 October 2013
       Why trust climate models? It’s a matter of simple science
       

       At 21 - thanks scaddenp, that is exactly what I'm referring to - appreciate the leads of where to head to next.

41164. Ironbark at 10:57 AM on 26 October 2013
       Why trust climate models? It’s a matter of simple science
       

       Moderator - apreciate that you have a difficult job here.  I would have no problem with all my posts on this topic being deleted excluding comment 18 which I think represents an uncontroversial question relating to models (a question I think many people a keen to here answers on, from those who know more about it).  I will take up the opportunity of discussing those other off topic areas on other areas at SKS which are more appropriate as you have suggested.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] I will let your prior comments stand as is because they provide the background and context of this ongoing discussion. Perhaps you should spend more time reading and digesting the responses to your comments and less time posting new comments. 

41165. scaddenp at 10:50 AM on 26 October 2013
       Why trust climate models? It’s a matter of simple science
       

       "The question was if there is a scientific principle of allowable variance from observations, before the underlying assumptions are questioned. How long can the pause be expected to continue?'

       If you read up some of the threads on so-called "pause", you will understand this better (in fact read the IPCC AR5 analysis), but as I understand it, the question is more philosphical. Firstly, the models can get some things totally wrong without invalidated climate theory. Things that would invalidate climate theory would be an end to the energy imbalance; LW spectral reading in violation of theory, total ocean heat content declining etc. 

       The question on models though is whether they have useful skill (do better than null hypothesis that tomorrow will like today or similar). The climate modellers would be the first to tell you that climate model has no skill at decadal level projection. They do not predict internal variability well. On the other hand, if add in internal variability (eg the Foster and Rahmsdorf paper or similar efforts), then do you expect them to "hindcast" pretty well. Thus if you get an El Nino year where there temperatures are lower than previous El Nino years of similar magnitude, (or for that matter La nina years compared to earlier La Nina years) without volcanoes or similar forcings then you would say something missing from the model.

       Climate models to be useful have to predict climate so 30 year trends significantly smaller than predicted would also indicate an issue - with the models but not necessarily with climate science. I would note that Manabe's primitive 1975 model allowed Broecker to predict 2010 temperatures remarkably well.

        

       The "models are unreliable" thread has much much more.

41166. Tom Curtis at 10:36 AM on 26 October 2013
       Why trust climate models? It’s a matter of simple science
       

       Ironbark @19, your clearly believe, and have stated in effect that the hockeystick graph, ie, the graph from Mann, Bradley and Hughes 1999 both "hid the decline" and substituted real temperature data for proxy data to do so.  Neither is true.  How is spreading the contrary opinion not spreading misinformation?

41167. Ironbark at 10:21 AM on 26 October 2013
       Why trust climate models? It’s a matter of simple science
       

       At 18, Thanks Tom - I disagree with your comments regarding it being a spread of misinformation, but respect the moderator's wishes that this topic is not the area for such a discussion.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Tom Curtis has conveniently provided you with an appropriate venue for discussing climategate. If you cannot defend your stated opinions there, please cease and desist from stating them again. Sloganeering and excessive repitition are both prohibited by the SkS Comment Policy. Yes, your opinions on climategate are sloganeering.   

41168. Tom Curtis at 10:15 AM on 26 October 2013
       Why trust climate models? It’s a matter of simple science
       

       Ironbark writes @13:

       "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?"

       S/he continues @15:

       "People objectively seeking the truth (which we're all keen to know) would have encouraged people trawling over their work. It would have been far more relevant and less damaging to the AGW hypothesis if the hockey stick had been displayed what the proxy data actually showed. Then others could have built on that."

       I am not going to discuss these comments in detail here, as they are off topic.  If Ironbark wants a serious discussion on this issue, s/he should post on the topic here.

       I will, however, point out that Michael Mann's graph as featured in the IPCC TAR, and in Al Gore's lecture series, movie and book does not hide the decline.  Nor does it substitute real temperatures for proxy temperatures in any case.  The suggestion that he did so comes from a blatant misinterpretation of something that Phil Jones says he (Phil Jones) did with another graph that has never appeared in any IPCC publication, nor been used by Al Gore (or anybody else so far as I know).  Nor, for that matter, did Phil Jones do what Michael Mann actually did in his paper that produced the graph used by the IPCC and Gore.

       This is typical of the whole "climategate" farce.  Almost the entire basis of attack against the authors of the CRU emails has been on the misinterpretation of a few lines of text taken out of context.  I strongly recommend that Ironbark not keep on spreading that misinformation until they have investigated the issue in detail here on an appropriate thread where more knowledgable people can point out, point by point, the nature of the misinterpretation involved.  Alternatively, they can consider the possibility that many independent inquiries that have exonerated the authors of the emails of wrongdoing have all simply conspired to hide the truth.  Absent such a conspiracy theory, it is absurd to keep on pushing the misinformation about the emails in the face of those multiple, independent exonerations. 

41169. Ironbark at 09:59 AM on 26 October 2013
       Why trust climate models? It’s a matter of simple science
       

       At 14 doug-bostrom - thank you - on topic... the topic of the thread is trusting models.

       Hindcasting sounds good, but if you went to the races with a someone who had a formula that predicted the winner of every race yesterday, but missed picking the winners in the first couple of races today, how much money would you keep giving him?  This is how ordinary people think - people can judge that as simplistic, but I know a lot of people who think that way and AGW denial will only increase if there isn't an answer a layman can understand.

       The question was if there is a scientific principle of allowable variance from observations, before the underlying assumptions are questioned. How long can the pause be expected to continue?

       If there is a thread that explains model deviations from predictions since 2000, (not hindcasted predictions) that would be useful - and people such as myself, who aren't as intelligent as a lot of people on here can have a response to others when those reasonable questions are asked.

41170. Ironbark at 09:40 AM on 26 October 2013
       Why trust climate models? It’s a matter of simple science
       

       At 13 - Moderator, will do, thank you.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] If you wish to discuss "climategate" further, please do it on the thread of an article about the subject.

41171. Ironbark at 09:39 AM on 26 October 2013
       Why trust climate models? It’s a matter of simple science
       

       At 10 - DSL, whether others agree with me or not on the Climategate issue is secondary to my overall question. 

       Unless the emails I've read, are not the emails commonly understood, the use of words trick, 'hide the decline', the attempts to control what Journals published to restrict dissenting papers shows clear bias.  People objectively seeking the truth (which we're all keen to know) would have encouraged people trawling over their work.  It would have been far more relevant and less damaging to the AGW hypothesis if the hockey stick had been displayed what the proxy data actually showed.  Then others could have built on that.  Humanity would be better off for those scientific papers.  Instead those papers set back the cause of objective people who say the evidence substantiates AGW and the climate community is only making it worse by not calling a spade a spade.  People like Professor Richard Mullins calling it 'scientific malpractice' are to me, the best hope of restoring integrity in the eyes of the ordinary person, though apparently his opinions are the minority here.

41172. Doug Bostrom at 09:34 AM on 26 October 2013
       Why trust climate models? It’s a matter of simple science
       

       Just so we keep our stories straight...

       -- Climategate and MBH 98 have to do with models how?

       -- Al Gore has to do with models how?

       -- Poor people we're presently choosing not care for have to do with models how?

       Would be nice if we could stay on topic. Distinguishing one topic from another is a skill that can easily be learned. Start by remembering that GCMs are are not policy, GCMs are not celebrities, GCMs are not paleoclimate reconstructions, GCMs are not archaic emails on unrelated topics. 

       
       

41173. 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. 

41174. 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.    

41175. 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.

41176. 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.

41177. 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.

        

41178. 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. 

41179. 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?

41180. 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.)
41181. 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".

41182. 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.

       :

41183. 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.

41184. 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.

41185. 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".

41186. 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.

41187. KR at 05:13 AM on 26 October 2013
       Double Standard on Internal Variability
       

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

41188. 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.

41189. 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.  

41190. 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.  

41191. 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.

41192. 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. 

41193. 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.

41194. 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.

41195. 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.

41196. 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.

41197. 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

41198. 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?

41199. 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 ...

41200. 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.

        

Prev  816  817  818  819  820  821  822  823  824  825  826  827  828  829  830  831  Next