Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 Next
Comments 47201 to 47250:
-
Bob Lacatena at 05:35 AM on 25 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Brad,
You can't see the irony? Really?
-
Bob Lacatena at 05:34 AM on 25 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Brad,
He didn't ask "what controversy?"
He asked "what scientific controversy."
The fact that you'd like to argue doesn't make the argument worth having.
-
Brad Keyes at 05:34 AM on 25 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Sphaerica, you refer to
a small community of "victims" who have identified themselves as separate and special
It sounds like you're skeptical (as it were!) of their claims that they were targeted by an organised email campaign of death threats and had to relocate to higher-security facilities. I share your cynicism. Their victimhood was... convenient. :-)
-
Brad Keyes at 05:27 AM on 25 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
dhogaza:"What scientific controversy?"This is a climate-change website. The scientific controversy has to do with how the global average temperature has responded and will respond to industrial carbon-dioxide emissions, and whether the effects will be net-beneficial or net-detrimental, and whether we need to do anything to moderate them. -
Bob Lacatena at 05:26 AM on 25 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Brad,
I'm not going to engage you, because this is silly. John Cook's paper says it all, and I have no intention of spending my time arguing about "sides" that have been entirely fabricated by a small community of "victims" who have identified themselves as separate and special.
-
dhogaza at 05:12 AM on 25 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
"Yes, it's unfortunate that a scientific controversy should play out along partisan lines."
What scientific controversy?
-
Brad Keyes at 04:36 AM on 25 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Sphaerica, sorry, we cross-posted. I substantially agree with your latest comment:
The whole concept of sides in this is warped.
(Now that it's clearer what your position is, I take back my "speak for yourself" remark.)
Yes, it's unfortunate that a scientific controversy should play out along partisan lines. Nevertheless, it's possible (and appropriate) to acknowledge that it has done so, without necessarily condoning it.
-
Bob Lacatena at 04:25 AM on 25 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Brad,
The problem is that there are no two sides to some faux debate. There are facts and discussions worth having among reasonable, educated people.
And then there is a self-identified community, entirely tangent to reality, who are focused on fabricating this bizarre, elaborate controversy. They must be heard! They are important! This is a crisis! They alone are right, and people must be made aware!
The whole concept of sides in this is warped.
-
DSL at 04:24 AM on 25 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
No joke, Sph. What I find bizarre is that, apparently, for GC et al., the only studies worth giving critical attention are those that have rhetorical value where the general public is concerned -- Mann, Marcott, Lewandowsky, Shakun -- anything that gives the public a simple and powerful takeaway. Would that this intense scrutiny--this intense <i>skepticism</i>--be applied to the likes of Eschenbach, Spencer, Tisdale, etc., . . .
I'm not saying it's evidence of conspiraphilia. It's just selective skepticism, an oxymoron (or carbon di-oxymoron, as the case may be).
-
Brad Keyes at 04:18 AM on 25 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Tristan—'mainstream' versus 'heterodox' is unfortunately a consensus-dependent, and thus volatile, nomenclature.
What's wrong with the normal system in use everywhere else, in which credal groups are named for their views?
E.g. '[C[A[GW]]]' 'believers' versus 'deniers.' Or 'climate activists' versus 'climate inactivists.'
-
Bob Lacatena at 03:31 AM on 25 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
It's just amazing to see the conspiracy ideation grow and thrive, even here, where the point is to try to recognize the conspiracy ideation and to get people to try to be more rational.
John Cook should apologize!
LCOM13 had errors!
Barry was misrepresented!
Brad has scored points!
The whole thing is comical, and sad.
Of course, at least part of the core of the real problem, as best evidenced by Brad's comments, is that the conspiracy crowd has created their own little tribe. They've created a community that defines the argument not in the context of the issues, facts, etc. (which is how science works), but instead in terms of sides, villains, and those-who-are-out-to-get-them.
That to me is the real distinction. In some corners of the Internet people really do discuss the science, but those tend to be rational, clear-thinking people, and it doesn't take long before everyone reaches a consensus based entirely on the evidence -- which is pretty hard to distort or refute.
But then you get into the conspiracy theorist corners, and everything goes off the rails. Suddenly it's not discussing the science, it's a debate, with two sides trying to win, and one of those sides is evil and uses dirty tactics and is just in it to make money, etc., etc. And the other side is full of noble, clear-thinking folk who are just trying to do the right thing, to stop those villainous cads, and to give truth, justice and the scientific way an ultimate victory over the weasley cabal of anti-scientists that have somehow taken over the entire world of climate science.
Brad and Geoff and Barry can throw the word "science" around all they want, but in the end, no matter how much they say it, it's not about the science, it's about the sides -- and the only reason there are sides is because they've redefined the discussion as such. And once they have their sides, everything revolves around fighting a war instead of understanding the universe.
I'm a little surprised that Josh hasn't designed a battle flag for them all to use.
-
geoffchambers at 00:12 AM on 25 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Tom Curtis at 19:26 PM on 24 March, 2013
So invitations to participate in LOG12 weren’t published at SkepticalScience, and the information provided by John Cook was incorrect. Will he be issuing an apology?
-
geoffchambers at 00:06 AM on 25 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Tom Curtis I can’t answer you in detail for reasons I can’t explain. It’s about belief being interesting.
As you say, LCOM13 contained errors. More than 3; more like 30. It was wrong. Three or four people getting together in private in order to do something wrong is a conspiracy.
-
Tristan at 21:04 PM on 24 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
It's not a trivial task to apply nomenclature that both parties find appropriate. I'd tender 'mainstream' and 'heterodox' where the climate change heterodoxy holds that Charney sensitivity is most likely to be below 2C.
-
Brad Keyes at 20:09 PM on 24 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Thanks for the plug, Lotharsson!
-
Brad Keyes at 20:08 PM on 24 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
BaerbelW:
your definitions are diametrically opposed to mine (and, just in case you are not aware of this, I'm part of the SkS-team, so this shouldn't really come as a big surprise).
No, I had no idea.
Firstly, thanks for mucking down and addressing me commenter-to-commenter, (-snip-).
Secondly, given the 100% risk of definitional disputes, which sidetrack all subsequent dialogue, as we've just experienced, perhaps it would be better to designate the two sides in the traditional manner, i.e. according to their respective views, rather than by the question-begging premise that one side, and not the other, agrees with science. Calling your side pro-science and mine pseudoscientific, "skeptical" or science-denying is loaded language, to put it very mildly.
I'm sure you were annoyed when I reversed the bias. I trust I made my point.
(-snip-).
Moderator Response: [DB] Inflammatory tone and off-topic snipped. -
Lotharsson at 20:02 PM on 24 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
My only agenda, or axe to grind if you like, is defending the integrity of science.
There's arguably considerable evidence to the contrary on the special Deltoid thread that Brad Keyes is confined to posting on. I recommend to those considering engaging with Brad Keyes invest in a quick perusal to see what they're dealing with in terms of both content and discussion tactics. You probably won't get through all 4000+ (and counting) comments, but the first few hundred should give you a pretty good idea.
-
Brad Keyes at 19:49 PM on 24 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Tom:
The blogs contacted second, and hence defined by Brad as "science defending" are:
No, I define them as "science defending" because they defend science, not because they were contacted second.
-
BaerbelW at 19:26 PM on 24 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Brad Keyes - thanks for clarifying what I thought was the case: your definitions are diametrically opposed to mine (and, just in case you are not aware of this, I'm part of the SkS-team, so this shouldn't really come as a big surprise).
Your definition also explains why your repeatedly stated sequence of events (one example here) of which blog(type) was contacted when is a red-herring. There is no discrepancy in the actual events, you just turn them on their heads by arbitrarily re-defining which blogs fall into which category compared to the paper's authors.
-
Tom Curtis at 19:26 PM on 24 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
BaerbelW @57, the blogs contacted first by Lewandowsky (and hence described as misinformation sites by Brad) are:
- Skeptical Science (posted by tweet only, Aug 27th, 2010)
- Climate Asylum (posted Aug 28th, 2010)
- Open Mind (posted on Aug 28th, 2010)
- Deltoid (posted on Aug 29th, 2010)
- Global Warming: Man or Myth? (posted Aug 29th, 2010)
- A Few Things Ill Considered (posted Aug 29th, 2010)
- Hot Topic (posted Aug 30th, 2010)
- Climate Change Task Force (posted as an addendum to a July 17th post, presumably in late August, 2010)
(The dates are the times the surveys were posted.)
The blogs contacted second, and hence defined by Brad as "science defending" are:
- Steve McIntyre Climate Audit
- Dr Roger Pielke Jr (he replied to the initial contact)
- Mr Marc Morano (of Climatedepot; he replied to the initial contact)
- Dr Roy Spencer (no reply)
- Mr Robert Ferguson (of the Science and Public Policy Institute, no reply)
He has also specified that WUWT, Jonova and Biship Hill as "good examples of pro-science sites". The list speaks for itself and demolishes any claim he makes to be "defending science" or to accept AGW.
-
Brad Keyes at 16:51 PM on 24 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Tom:
Geoff Chambers ... didn't want to make AGW "skepticism" look bad. Brad Keyes (@50) insists on reminding us that he is way to (sic) late.
Tom, you may find this hard to believe but I don't doubt the reality of AGW. My only agenda, or axe to grind if you like, is defending the integrity of science.
-
Brad Keyes at 16:46 PM on 24 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Tom Curtis:
"The question is, why do you find it so absolutely intolerable that I should give my opinion of events in my own terms?"
I don't.
And since you attempt to (incorrectly, as it turns out) indicate my opinion, I'd appreciate if you did so by quoting me.
They say you're entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts. But I'm generous enough to allow people to have their own facts, too. Like your "fact" whereby the blogs that were contacted last (the science-defending blogs) were contacted first, and the blogs that were contacted first (the misinformation blogs) were contacted last. Sure, you've got historical facts inverted, but I respect your right to believe as you do. Just try not to attribute the inversion to other people (like Geoff), please.
-
Tom Curtis at 16:43 PM on 24 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Geoff Chambers did not want to take A Scott's "replication" of LOG12 because he didn't want to make AGW "skepticism" look bad. Brad Keyes (@50) insists on reminding us that he is way to late.
-
Brad Keyes at 16:29 PM on 24 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Tom Curtis:
1) I note that you do not find Foxgoose's suggestion that Lewandowsky and co-authors had determined the survey results before they conducted the survey absurd.
Whether that suggestion is true or not, what's absurd about it?
Also, remind me—when did Lewandowsky et al. come up with the title "NASA faked the moon landings; therefore (climate) science is a hoax"—before or after all the data had come in, been analysed and found to show a causal relationship ("therefore") between moon-Trutherism and whatever it is you imagine CAGW deniers believe?
-
Doug Hutcheson at 15:13 PM on 24 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Thus, people may simultaneously believe that Princess Diana faked her own death and that she was assassinated by MI5
That's the same sort of logic as economists stating that scarcity of a commodity pushes up the price, while simultaneously stating that endless economic growth is possible in a finite world. How can an economically vital, increasingly scarce, finite resource, such as fossil fuel, continue to be affordable enough, or available enough, to promote infinite growth? (Answer: a magic pudding scenario exists, whereby a diminishing resource will somehow be replaced by a new resource, because of the infinite power of human ingenuity: we don't have to worry because "they" will invent an alternative before it is too late.)
Similarly, how can increasing amounts of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere not increase the greenhouse effect? (Answer: global warming is a hoax and greenhouse gasses do nothing at all, so quit trying to get the peepul all worried.)
-
Philippe Chantreau at 13:38 PM on 24 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Although a recent occurrence came close, no thread was better deserving of the following metaphorical advice: "don't wrestle with a pig. You'll both be covered in mud and the pig loves it."
I urge all that are able to think rationally to not waste their time.
-
DSL at 13:25 PM on 24 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Yah, you're right, AndersMI. It's apples and oranges. No one is actively working on falsifying the theory of anthropogenic global warming except "skeptics." Thus, on one side we have those apples, and on the other side we have nothing, because Tyndall and Arrhenius died before the research window.
What is represented in that 99% is overwhelmingly support for our understanding of general circulation (which includes surface temp analysis and radiative transfer modeling) and how AGW fits into it.
-
Tom Curtis at 10:57 AM on 24 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Further to Geoff Chambers @40:
1) I note that you do not find Foxgoose's suggestion that Lewandowsky and co-authors had determined the survey results before the conducted the survey absurd. Also noted that you don't think that that would invovle any sort of conspiracy (despite the fact that at least three would be involved.
2) I am aware that Shollenberger found three misquotations, which as I understand it are being corrected prior to publication. I am unaware of his finding quotes in the paper that are not in the "raw data" and doubt that is relevant.
I know so called skeptics really want there to be major flaws in LCOM13, and LCOM13 have obliged with some minor flaws plus the three misquotes. But that does not adress the fact that the central thesis of LCOM13 is undoubtedly true - something I noted to myself at the time with a large measure of amusement.
-
Tom Curtis at 10:47 AM on 24 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Geoff Chambers @40, your going to have to talk me through this, because your claims here and at WUWT are mutually inconsistent. As previously noted, you claimed at WUWT that, "I strongly agree with several of the conspiracy theories" where the conspiracy theories under discussion are those on the survey for LOG12, and hence on A Scotts replication. Ergo, you "strongly agree" with at least three of the conspiracy theories listed below. You further (parenthetically) suggested your beliefs were rational because "secret services assassinate people – that’s their job". That belief can only have been germaine if at least one of the "several" conspiracy theories you "strongly" agreed with was one of the three conspiracy theories relating to puported assassinations (placed at the head of the list for convenience).
You have made the question of your actual beliefs about conspiracy theories germaine by complaining that you have been unfairly portrayed as a conspiracy theorist in LCOM13 when it turns out, by your own admission, you are a conspiracy theorist. But, as you have made it an issue, just which of the following conspiracy theories do you strongly believe:
CYMLK
The assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. was the
result of an organized conspiracy by U.S. government
agencies such as the CIA and FBI.CYJFK
The assassination of John F. Kennedy was not
committed by the lone gunman Lee Harvey Oswald but
was rather a detailed organized conspiracy to kill the
President.CYDiana
Princess Diana's death was not an accident but rather
an organised assassination by members of the British
royal family who disliked her.CYNewWorldOrder
A powerful and secretive group known as the New
World Order are planning to eventually rule the world
through an autonomous world government which would
replace sovereign governments.CYSARS
SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) was
produced under laboratory conditions as a biological
weapon.CYPearlHarbor
The U.S. government had foreknowledge about the
Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor but allowed the attack
to take place so as to be able to enter the Second World
War.CYMoon
The Apollo moon landings never happened and were
staged in a Hollywood lm studio.CY911
The U.S. government allowed the 9-11 attacks to take
place so that it would have an excuse to achieve foreign
(e.g., wars in Afghanistan and Iraq) and domestic
(e.g., attacks on civil liberties) goals that had been
determined prior to the attacks.CYOkla
The Oklahoma City bombers Timothy McVeigh and
Terry Nichols did not act alone but rather received
assistance from neo-Nazi groups.CYCoke
The Coca Cola company intentionally changed to an
inferior formula with the intent of driving up demand
for their classic product later reintroducing it for their
nancial gain.CYRoswell
In July 1947 the U.S. military recovered the wreckage of
an alien craft from Roswell, New Mexico, and covered
up the fact.CYArea51
Area 51 in Nevada is a secretive military base that
contains hidden alien spacecraft and or alien bodies.CYClimChange
The claim that the climate is changing due to emissions
from fossil fuels is a hoax perpetrated by corrupt
scientists who wish to spend more taxpayer money on
climate research.CYAIDS
U.S. agencies intentionally created the AIDS epidemic
and administered it to Black and gay men in the 1970s. -
mandas at 10:41 AM on 24 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
It looks as though I would have won my bet.
-
AndersMi at 10:12 AM on 24 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
@KR: please note the methodology of the study you cited:
Classified as _supporting_ AGW:
a) articles that deal with the causes of Global Warming and support AGW;
b) articles that found discrepancies, minor flaws and reasons for doubt in AGW;
c) articles that don't deal with the causes of global warming but assume it as a working hypothesis;Classified as _opposing_ AGW:
a) Only articles that clearly reject the AGW hypothesis or state that other processes explain GW better.
So the comparison is between a + b + c vs a; or in other words apples plus oranges plus watermelons against apples.
-
JasonB at 10:06 AM on 24 March 2013NASA Retirees Appeal to their Own Lack of Climate Authority
Glenn,
If I could somehow measure the water height across many locations in the pool simultaneously and average these results then the variability due to waves on the water would cancel out and I would have a more reliable measure of my target 'signal'
It disturbs me that this needs to be spelt out to someone who has his "hard data" and "observational" acts together, but the fact that he refers to the average, apparently disparagingly, as "a calculated value" suggests it to be the case. Central Limit Theorem, anyone?
It's probably also worth mentioning that what is usually reported is not the average temperature at all, but rather the average difference in temperature — i.e. anomaly — from some baseline. We don't even need to think about "global average temperature" at all, although it should cause no difficulty to do so. We can say that, on average, the temperature at every location on earth is about 0.8 C higher than it was 150 years ago without calculating the global average temperature either then or now.
I also note the common misconception that the science of AGW is driven by observations searching for an explanation, completely ignoring 150 years of scientific history that demonstrate a theory that correctly made numerous predictions that have only been observationally verified in the last few decades.
-
jyushchyshyn at 09:31 AM on 24 March 20132013 SkS News Bulletin #4: Alberta Tar Sands and Keystone XL Pipeline
sotolith7
It is pretty hard to see how we can fight global warming without using renewables. Given that hydroelectic is also a renewable, the main alternative to both fossil fuels and renewables is nuclear power, which I personally strongly support. but is itself very controversial.
My issue with the anti-Keystone movement is not about whether we should be using hydrocarbons or renewables. Few people expect us to convert to renewable power tomorrow. A lot of scientists are promoting an 80% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, which really means an 80% reduction of fossil fuel use. The issue is whether the remaining 20% of fossil fuels in North America should come from overseas or from North American sources. Flaring over OPEC countries or potential "Exxon Valdez'" will not save the polar bear. And whether or not the remaining 20% of hydrocarbon consumption in 2050 leaves room for Keystone and the Alberta oil sands should be for the market to decide. Unless you are an investor, worse things could happen than for Keystone to be built, but not used because of everybody driving an electric car.
-
numerobis at 09:19 AM on 24 March 2013Arctic freezing season ends with a loud crack
About the piomas numbers: how well do they integrate cracks into their model? Or are the cracks representing little enough area (and volume) to be ignorable? -
Tom Curtis at 08:01 AM on 24 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Brad Keyes @32, Indeed. I say to Geoff! There is nothing in my post that is, or purports to be a paraphrase of anybody elses opinion. When I wished to indicate Geoff's opinion, I quoted him.
The question is, why do you find it so absolutely intolerable that I should give my opinion of events in my own terms?
-
geoffchambers at 07:33 AM on 24 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Tom Curtis (comment 26)
Perhaps Cook and Marriott should read the OP more carefully. Brandon Shollenberger has found quotes in the paper which are not in the raw data. [sloganeering snipped]
I don’t find Foxgoose’s comments “absurd, and undoubtedly consperacist”. Why do you think I should? Or rather, what gives you the right to decide what comments I should or shouldn’t make?
You quote me as being a self avowed conspiracy theorist. And so I am. I believe that Guy Fawkes conspired to blow up Parliament and that the Reichstag Fire was the work of Nazis, though I have absolutely no specialised knowledge to support these beliefs.
On the other hand, I reject the consensus view that the Turin Shroud is a forgery concocted by a mediaeval religious conspiracy, and prefer to believe that it is an authentic historical document. I weigh my knowledge of art history against my atheism, and art history wins.
Of course I don’t think it‘s the job of secret services to kill incumbent presidents of their own country or royalty or major civic leaders. These people got killed, and it’s legitimate to ask questions.
One of the most serious results of 9/11 (apart from the deaths of course) was that the horror of the event suppressed the normal processes of enquiry. Important questions about the responsibility of authorities never got asked because people were afraid of being labelled Troofers. The President and Vice President being interviewed in secret by the official enquiry was a low point of American democracy.
The psychology of belief is a fascinating area of enquiry. [sloganeering snipped]
Moderator Response: [d_b] General point: insulting dismissals are marginally more acceptable when they're earned by being packaged with reasonable justification. Therefore, in order to employ mocking adjectives please be prepared to do some work; each vituperative remark that does not directly contribute to better understanding of the topic at hand will entail a heavy cost for publication. -
DSL at 06:39 AM on 24 March 2013NASA Retirees Appeal to their Own Lack of Climate Authority
Harold, you claim that there's an unknown natural cycle. That's easy to say, and perhaps you think it's the kind of claim that one can make without having to provide evidence (indeed, you haven't pointed to any in making your claims). What happens to the enhanced greenhouse effect in your physical model? You can't simply discount it and replace it with another mechanism. Unless, of course, you're arguing that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist. If that's not the case, where's the evidence that you rely on that tells you that climate sensitivity is low?
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 06:27 AM on 24 March 2013NASA Retirees Appeal to their Own Lack of Climate Authority
Harold
Here is a line of evidence and reasoning you might find interesting. Totally the opposite of your 'specific location' approach.
Measurement of the change in the total amount of heat in the ocean. This is where around 90% of the added heat in the last 1/2 century has gone so it is a useful measure of what is going on. Total heat accumulation in that time is more than 2 * 1023 joules. And the rate of accumulation is actually faster in the last couple of decades than this longer term value would suggest.
This is a large number, a bit hard to get our head around. It is however a real number. It is a real quantity of energy. So, applying the 1st law of Thermodynamics, we need to ask where this extra heat can have come from, what was it's source. It can't have appeared by magic.
If we consider the possible heat sources here on Earth that could have supplied this heat, the largest possible source of heat is geothermal, heat from within the Earth. The total amount of heat that has built up in the worlds oceans is several times greater than could have been supplied by Geothermal heat. In the last decade or so this multiple is closer to 5 times. And all other possible terrestrial heat sources are much smaller than Geothermal.
So this leaves us with a basic conclusion. The heat acumulation in the oceans cannot have arisen due to any internal heat transfer wuithin the Earth! This warming must have an extra-terrestrial origin. Something has disturbed the Earth's energy balance with Space. Direct consequence of observations.
Additionally we know that over this period the Sun's heat output hasn't risen. If anything it has declined. We have had the Sun under continuous, 24/7 observation by satellites since the mid 70's so this fact isn't in dispute.
So if the Eaarth has an energy imbalance causing heat accumulation, and this can't have been caused by an increase in energy flowing into the planet, that means that something mut be causing a reduction in the heat flow out from the planet. Such a conclusion is hard to avoid, based directly on the observations.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 06:10 AM on 24 March 2013NASA Retirees Appeal to their Own Lack of Climate Authority
Harold
It might help if you explain why the question you ask, in the specific form you have asked it, is a meaningful question. Why is looking for specific locations etc the best way to explore the issue?
"...However, I do know how to proceed to define true root cause of any current temperature PROBLEM you have good empirical data for to define. I believe available temperature data from a single location has much better and more reliable information to work with than a computed global average metric whose historical value keeps changing with every new release of a temperature database."
Some issues with this statement. Use of the word PROBLEM is conflating two separate things. That there is a temperature change. And that such a change is detrimental. Also importantly, that such a detrimental now, rather than likely to be in the future. Those things need to be unpacked. The science of climate is about addressing the first part of this. One needs to look to biology, economics and even values and ethics to consider the second part.There is a fundamental problem, conceptually, with wanting to look at specific locations. Any changes that one might observe there may not arise solely as a result of the cause you are investigating. They may have several causes.
Consider an example. I have a swimming pool and the water level is low so I turn on the tap to start filling the pool. This may take many hours. If I wish to monitor whether the pool is rising or not, what should I look at as a measure of this? I could use a ruler at one point in the pool to look at how the measurement is changing.
However the pool is in use by my family. So there are waves moving around the pool, level changes are happening as they get in and out of the pool. So my readings at one location will be a mixture of the underlying rise in water level due to the tap being on, conflated with all the other factors that I have mentioned. The 'signal' I am trying to detect may well be drowned out by all the other 'noise'.
If I could somehow measure the water height across many locations in the pool simultaneously and average these results then the variability due to waves on the water would cancel out and I would have a more reliable measure of my target 'signal' - although the effect of people getting in and out of the pool hasn't been removed by this approach.
This is the fundamental issue with trying to detect an underlying signal when there is also noise - the more we focus on the individual data points, the more we are end up looking at the noise, not the signal.
Here you need to consider the difference between Proximate and Ultimate causes. Is the CO2 rise the Proximate causeof a change at a specific location. Almost certainly not. There will be multiple factors. Is it the Ultimate cause of much of that change? Yes.
Climate is defined (by the WMO) as the average of weather over a 30 years period. And with AGW we are talking about changes to Climate across all regions of the Earth and that this change will not be uniform at all locations. So seeking to examine individual locations will only be a useful exercise if that is then repeated for a large number of locations and points in time.
So let me put it to you that the way you are framing your question is wrong. Seeking to look at specific locations is the approach least likely to give you the correct answer. Or even a useful answer.
-
dana1981 at 05:53 AM on 24 March 2013NASA Retirees Appeal to their Own Lack of Climate Authority
Harold @51:
"the evidence to pin most of the recent global warming since 1850 AD on CO2 emissions is very weak, compared to the kind of empirical evidence I have been taught to look for, if I want to prove true root cause of a deviation from normal behavior. I believe that significant warming since 1850 AD could be due to natural climate cycles that we do not understand and don't know how to control."
Sorry, but if you believe that, you either haven't been talking to or haven't been listening to real climate scientists. Even the 'skeptics' don't dispute that humans are causing global warming. See here for a summary of the evidence.
You're also asking the wrong questions. The less data you consider (i.e. one location rather than global averages), the more uncertainty you introduce. If you want examples of specific areas that are clearly being adversely impacted by climate change, aside from the coastal areas I already mentioned, look at the Arctic and low-elevation islands like Tuvalu, for starters.
-
Clyde at 05:01 AM on 24 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Albatross 37
1) In your opinions, is the existence of this blog and the volunteers running it evidence of a conspiracy? In on case yes.
.So, either Mother Nature deigns to give the world a terrifying wake up call. Or people like us have to build the greatest guerilla force in human history. Now. Because time is up…Someone needs to convene a council of war of the major environmental movements, blogs, institutes etc. In a smoke filled room (OK, an incense filled room) we need a conspiracy to save humanity.
-
geoffchambers at 04:18 AM on 24 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
KR:
Difficult to argue science with a black spot.
Albatross:
No no no and no.
You're welcome.
Just to be clear, I’m not suggesting that Frontiers should withdraw the paper because Lewandowsky and Cook have been rude to me. Academic freedom must be defended, and Lew & Co have every right to investigate our beliefs or sexual preferences or whatever else they find interesting. They should correct mistakes though, and since every section of the paper is full of them, they hould perhaps start again.
My big objection to this kind of research is not so much the specific accusations, but the lack of reflection which goes into them. What has LOG12 claimed to discover, after all, except that people who are sceptical about one official “truth” are likely to be sceptical about another. Even if they had established this fact (which they didn’t, because of their abysmal research design) so what?
Similarly with “Recursive Fury”. People say stuff on blogs. So what? In the first month after the paper came out, we tore the paper to bits, and posted numerous questions to the lead author. Instead of answering, he posted a series of strange observations on our behaviour. By the time Cook and Marriott started their content analysis a month later, the paper was in tatters, and bloggers were amusing themselves commenting on the weirdness of it all, and speculating on Lew’s motives.
It would no doubt be possible to compile a “best of” of us denialist bloggers to show what a bunch of nutters we are. (-snip-). We may well be a weird lot, but again, so what? What has that to do with belief or disbelief in climate science?
Moderator Response: [DB] Inflammatory snipped. -
sidd at 03:48 AM on 24 March 2013NASA Retirees Appeal to their Own Lack of Climate Authority
That's a fine strawman you got there, Dr. Doiron. 10kiloyr ago we had deglaciation response to orbitally forced NH spring/summer insolation, amplified by various feedbacks. Today, we have radiative imbalance driven by GHG which is also triggering feedbacks. The situations are not the same. The good doctor demands that we find a single location for which the _trend_ today significantly exceeds trends over the last 10Kyr. And the good doctor knows that instrumental record does not extend for 10Kyr, error bars on trendlines are larger as we go deeper into proxy records from the past, so the strawman cannot be disproved. Nice try.
And why a single location ? because the good doctor is aware that forcings do not act at one location or a small set of locations, thus the signal at one location will be, in general, lost in the noise.
Instead of 10Kyr, lets use 60 yr. as in the Hansen climate dice paper. And instead of one location. look at all of them. An analysis of _every_ grid cell on earth shows the entire (approximately Gaussian) temperature distribution shifting to the right by one standard deviation. What used to be 3 sigma events now occur 10 times as frequently. That is the appropriate comparison,
Analyses of precipitation records also show extremes increasing. But that is a separate discussion, albeit much more interesting than dissecting strawmen from the deniers. In fact I can't believe I am wasting time on this piece of specious garbage. I have trees to plant, and solar hot water projects galore to implement, both of which give me much more pleasure than arguing with deniers on blogs. I leave it to those with stronger stomachs to carry on this particular conversation, and I again extend my thanks to the hosts here, for their patience and endurance.
sidd -
Albatross at 03:30 AM on 24 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Geoff and Barry,
This whole faux debate that you are trying to fabricate is conveniently tangental to what really matters-- it takes the discussion nowhere and I'd argue that is your intention (conscious or not). To better understand where you are coming from could you please answer/address the following?
1) In your opinions, is the existence of this blog and the volunteers running it evidence of a conspiracy?
2) If yes, please elaborate on what you think the conspiracy is.
3) Do you deny the reality of the theory of anthropogenic climate change or anthropogenic global warming?
4) If yes, do you deny that the consequences will be significant enough as to warrant action in reducing our GHG emissions?
Thank you.
-
Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
geoffchamber - I believe understanding the positions and thoughts of those espousing conspiracy theories is indeed a useful consideration. And (IMO) Cohn's observations are an uncanny match to the expressed conspiratorial attitudes of many climate 'skeptics' - the "Auditor" who does no primary research (Renegade and Pendant), claims of uniform suppression by "The Team", the repeated seizing upon minor disagreements over details as somehow invalidatiing the whole field, and indeed the frequent "gross and often grotesque" misinterpretations.
A discussion of the science is always welcome; I'll just note that there has been very little of that from those who disagree with the theory of anthropogenic global warming.
[Source]
What I've observed (again, personal opinion) in objection to AGW is for the most part - not science.
-
tomwys at 02:49 AM on 24 March 2013NASA Retirees Appeal to their Own Lack of Climate Authority
It is amazing how this blog attracts “ad-hominem” commentary at extraordinary high levels, even to the point where moderators must step in to keep the unruly at bay.
The CPAC presentation is available on the Media page of http://www.colderside.com. A look at the CO2 page there might be helpful too. If your readers take issue with the DATA or INFORMATION presented, that is a good place to start. I even show how the Arctic is melting, courtesy of Fowler/Maslanik NSIDC UCol and our friends at ESSA. The time was too short to get into the physics of cloud vs snow albedo – show up at one of my presentations and ask sensible questions.
Walt Cunningham and Hal Doiron have achieved great things for this country, and have their Hard Data and Observational acts together. Your ad-hom messenger shooters don’t even come close.
Moderator Response: [Albatross] Please refrain from using all caps. -
Harold H Doiron, PhD at 02:37 AM on 24 March 2013NASA Retirees Appeal to their Own Lack of Climate Authority
DSL, dana1981 and others interested in this discussion,
I know enough about your fears of a global climate disaster, and I think most of you must believe that CO2 emissions into the atmosphere will cause it; but I am not convinced. Why? I have read the IPCC arguments and interacted with climate scientists who have your same concerns.....but, the evidence to pin most of the recent global warming since 1850 AD on CO2 emissions is very weak, compared to the kind of empirical evidence I have been taught to look for, if I want to prove true root cause of a deviation from normal behavior. I believe that significant warming since 1850 AD could be due to natural climate cycles that we do not understand and don't know how to control.
There is lots of controversy about whether global average temperature is deviating from normal behavior of the last 10,000 years or not. However, it is much more straight forward to measure temperature at a given location on the planet and determine if temperature variations we are experiencing now are really that different from temperature variations that occurred at that location before CO2 became an issue. The specifics of what we find out about temperature variation at that one location will let us know whether we have a tempertature PROBLEM (deviation from the last 10,000 years of normal range) at that location for which we need to nail down true root cause with high confidence. I believe, from my experiences, that failure to prove true root cause before taking action that one believes will rectify the PROBLEM, is not rational thinking and can lead to disasterous, perhaps fatal, unintended consequences.
I'm still waiting for the simple answer from my initial simple question to all of you. At what location on earth is current temperature trend out of bounds, or headed out of bounds, of the last 10,000 years of temperature behavior? Then, with this location identified, we can start to look for true cause of that deviation from normal. If the global average temperature (a calculated value) is really behaving so differently to cause us such concern, surely there must be at least one location on earth that you could identify that has a temperature PROBLEM.
I can't identify true root cause of the disasterous climate changes you are worried about, because the data from the future are not available to examine to determine true root cause of the deviation that hasn't occurred yet. However, I do know how to proceed to define true root cause of any current temperature PROBLEM you have good empirical data for to define. I believe available temperature data from a single location has much better and more reliable information to work with than a computed global average metric whose historical value keeps changing with every new release of a temperature database.
Moderator Response: [Albatross] Harold, the basis for your argument appears to be based on two claims, a) that the current warming is natural or mostly natural, and b) current temperatures are not unusual for a specific time window. The former is essentially the number #1 myth on the left-hand side panel of the blog. Please take further discussion of (a) to this thread. As for the latter argument, one can play that game going back to about 4.5 billion years. It is a red herring, a strawman-- the reason being is that we are primarily concerned about where temperatures are heading as we will likely go on to quadruple CO2 levels in very short order in geological terms. This is how fake skeptics play the game. First it is year X (say 1998) is declared to have been warmer, then year X in the 1930s for a particular region (say the USA) is declared to have been warmer, then the claim is made that the medieval climate anomaly was warmer, then it is claimed that the early part of the Holocene was warmer. Please take that discussion to this thread. Thank you for your cooperation. -
geoffchambers at 02:32 AM on 24 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
KR at 01:05 AM on 24 March, 2013:
(-snip-)
This may be a valid observation, but it hardly advances our understanding of anything. After all, “confrontation of opposed interests” is as natural as the air we breathe, and the vast majority of humankind have always been “shut out of the political process”. (-snip-).
It’s hard what all this has to do with the debate between warmists and deniers. If ever warmists deign to debate with us deniers, it’ll turn out to be about our differing views on the likely climate sensitivity to CO2 and the efficacy of wind turbines - hardly the stuff to start a crusade or pogrom about.
Moderator Response:[DB] Blockquote snipped per Comments Policy. Hotlinked reference to other comment.
Inflammatory snipped.
-
Bob Loblaw at 01:54 AM on 24 March 2013It warmed before 1940 when CO2 was low
Klapper:
I have already told you why a reconstruction using nothing but sunspot numbers is poor/limited, and KR has pointed you to literature disucssing sunspot number in more detail.
That you dismiss a mathematical discussion - of how limited accuracy in observations means limited ability to improve models - as "bloviating about sociology/politics" tells me pretty much all I need to know about your scientific skills.
It is up to you to demonstrate why your back of the envelope calculation is better than what is in the literature. I won't hold my breath waiting.
-
Brad Keyes at 01:32 AM on 24 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
shoyemore:
I listened to a very good poscast on conspiracy theories, and one of the scientists involved said that some conspiracy theories are TRUE
Was it Naomi Oreskes, by any chance?
Prev 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 Next
