Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 Next
Comments 47801 to 47850:
-
willard at 05:00 AM on 11 March 2013Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
For good measures, here's another bit the authors of Lew13 could edit:
> Conspiracist ideation is arguably particularly prominent on climate blogs, such as when expressing the belief that temperature records show warming only because of systematic adjustments (e.g., Condon, 2009) [...]
Jeff Id's emphasis:
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2013/02/06/lewandowsky-strike-two/
I believe this does not represent Id's position, which is:
> Conspiracist ideation is arguably particularly prominent on climate blogs, such as when expressing the belief that temperature records show warming mostly because of systematic adjustments (e.g., Condon, 2009).
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2013/02/06/lewandowsky-strike-two/#comment-92085
My emphasis.
***
In exchange to this edit, Lewandowsky has another episode of Climateball at Jeff's to analyze. Carrick's comments are a thing of beauty. They must be cherished.
-
Clyde at 04:49 AM on 11 March 2013Greedy Lying Bastards - Now In Theaters
Don't know how widely it was released, but it didn't make it on the top 43 (if i counted right) list. -
Bob Lacatena at 03:06 AM on 11 March 2013The educational opportunities in addressing misinformation in the classroom
Electroken presents us with a perfect example of why the myths must be debunked along with teaching the science. Every point he raises has been considered in far more detail than he has himself pursued, and yet he starts with the assumption that scientists shave missed all of his (rather obvious) points, rather than the reality, which is that they have considered and studied them in far, far more detail than electroken has. But of course, rather than take the hard course of thoroughly researching the topics and recognizing that scientists have been there, done that, and moved on, he charges full-steam-ahead with his assumption, applying whatever simplistic logic and anecdotal evidence comes easily to mind, and sees this self-visualized model as a reason to distrust the scientists and the textbooks.
So he has made the point of the original post rather emphatically. People must be taught about the untruths as much as the truths, or they will find ways to tie themselves into knots of denial -- without even recognizing the cognitive bias that has helped to nudge them astray.
-
funglestrumpet at 01:46 AM on 11 March 2013Greedy Lying Bastards - Now In Theaters
Know your enemy. The media today is desperate for advertising revenue and it would seem to be that those who advertise with them prefer not to tackle the problem of climate change.
Until such time as the media face a sanction for failing to respect the science of climate change it is a no brainer for them to carry on as they are. That is the market system in all its glory.
I cannot see the situation changing until we get another record-breaking year and even then it has to affect the developed world most. How daft a species we are.
-
John Hartz at 01:22 AM on 11 March 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #10
chriskoz & CB Dunkerson:
I intend to capture many of the high-quality MSM articles about the Marcott study in a special news bulletin. Right now, I have to crank out the Weekly Digest and finish a thrid news bulletin about the Alberta tar sands & the proposed Keystone XL pipeline.
As they say, When it rains, it pours." (Especially true in a warming climate.)
-
nealjking at 00:19 AM on 11 March 2013Greedy Lying Bastards - Now In Theaters
philipm:
The Economist has generally changed their attitude about climate change issues in the last few years; the WSJ, not so much.
Forbes alternates between sanity and insanity.
-
CBDunkerson at 22:28 PM on 10 March 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #10
chriskoz, yes Watts has aready gone into a full scale meltdown about how this Marcott global reconstruction doesn't match data from a single remote location in Greenland and thus must be false. You'd think his readers would know how stupid that argument is by now, but nope... they remain clueless.
However, I agree with you on the 'momentum'. Indeed, if you read the news coverage of the Marcott study in every mainstream source you can see a profound change. I haven't seen one news outlet quoting Pielke, Monckton, Spencer, or any of the other usual deniers. Instead they are reaching out to people like Gavin Schmidt, Katherine Hayhoe, and Michael Mann. Several describe Mann as 'an expert in the field' and bring up the 'hockey stick controversy' as an example of unfounded personal attacks on scientists. It seems as if the deniers have lost the mainstream media. They told too many whoppers that proved to be false and finally people are taking notice. I couldn't pinpoint a single 'turning point', but it does seem to me that the tide has definitively turned and anti-science on AGW is rapidly imploding.
-
Tom Curtis at 21:28 PM on 10 March 2013Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
It turn's out that Shollenberger has had his post published at WUWT, and asked his question (with no reply). His article takes exception to three quotes in Lewandowsky et al 2013. Just three! Out of thirty-two! Here we where hoping for criticism on substantive issues, but as we expected, given Shollenburger's form, he focussed on trivial weak points because he knows any attempt at substantive critique will fail. Indeed, so unsure is he of the possibility of substantive critique that when alluding to the possibility substantive critique, he merely mentions that others "have taken issue" with aspects of the paper - no link, and no endorsement. It is like criticizing AGW by noting that the skydragon crowd "have taken issue" with the greenhouse effect while firmly believing that the skydragon crowd are wrong.
Shollenberger, it you have a substantive critique to make - make it! The longer you dance around the issue the clearer it becomes that you know that the paper is substantively correct.
But am I being unfair? Shollenberger certainly begins by suggesting the three alleged misquotes are substantive issues. He (or Watts) provides an abstract for his post which reads:
"Fabricated quotes and gross distortions are used to paint skeptics as conspiracy nuts. The question is, is it a conspiracy, or is it just incompetence?"
Later, he writes,
"People have taken issue with a number of aspects of the paper, but to my knowledge, nobody has noticed Lewandowsky and Cook fabricate things in their paper. That’s right. They make things up."
Being generous, it appears to have escaped Shollenberger's attention that he has already answered the question in the abstract. Specifically, to "fabricate" something is always an intentional act - by definition. By saying that Lewandowsky et al "fabricated" things, he says they acted deliberately to construct them. That is odd, of course, because Shollenberger later disavows the possibility that the "fabrication" and "deception" could be deliberate, so he contradicts himself.
Shollenberger, therefore, owes Lewandowsky, and Cook, and their fellow authors an apology - and he needs to delete any refference to fabrication from his article.
Indeed, I would go further. There is no suggestion by Shollenberger that the alleged misquotes may not be willful deception (apart from the dog whistle in the abstract). On the contrary, he continuously reffers to Lewandowsky et al's acts in active terms, strongly suggesting willful acts. Only in the final paragraph does he finally say,
"And for the record, I don’t think any of this was intentional."
It is almost as though he is aware of the "familiarity backfire effect" and is taking deliberate advantage of it to spread FUD, while maintaining plausible deniability. If that was his intention, it certainly workd at WUWT with a number of commentors finding it utterly unbelievable that the alleged misquotes where not deliberate (giving us yet anothe recursion on AGW skeptics love of conspiratorial tropes). Perhaps, however, it was not deliberate and Shollenberger was merely incompetent.
What, however, of the alleged misquotes. In the first, a quote from Foxgoose is presented as alleging that no humans took the survey for Lewandowsky et al, 2012, whereas he actually alleged that no "skeptical" bloggers where contacted by Lewandowsky. This is actually a misquote. However, the meaning of Foxgoose is far from clear, even in context. Indeed, Shollenberger, having quoted Foxgoose in full, finds it necessary to refer to the original discussion for further context to show that it is a misquote. Even that further context, involving as it does a comment by Eli Rabbet, is far from clear. The most probable cause of the misquote is simple misunderstanding of Foxgoose's intentions. That, however, is portrayed in terms only appropriate when discussing deliberate deception, despite, purportedly, Shollenberger believing it was no such thing.
(As an aside, I do remember some coments to the effect that the survey results for Lewandowsky 2012 were entirely manufactured, so while few "skeptics" where that extreme, it was not (contrary to Shollenberger) a "fabricated" belief.)
The second alleged misquote is an example of quotation out of context. Lewandowsky 2013 discuss a conspiracy theory that "Shaping Tommorrow's World" (Lewandowsky's blog) had selectively barred access to the site to certain people, with the intention of then permitting access when the purported selective barring was commented on to "prove" the conspiracist thinking. As it happens, nobody was selectively barred and the conspiracist thinking was self generated. Nathan Kurz applauds the machiavelian ellegance of such a device, if true; but then goes on to disagree with the theory.
Lewandowsky et al only quote Kurz as applauding the elegance of the alleged strategy. They do not say that Kurz actually agrees with the quote. Indeed, there primary point may be the point curiously not stated by Kurz. If, as Kurz states, "there is no way for anyone to complain [about the alleged strategy] without matching the stereotypical conspiracist of the study"; and the allegations of strategy where false as Kurz maintained, and people were complaining, then they were acting just like the "the stereotypical conspiracist of the study". That logic was, of course, the key point of Lewandowsky et al's discussion of the allegations of deliberate blocking.
Because of this, I was at first unsure whether I should even call this a misquote. But the cardinal rule of quotation is that if the quote without context could lead to mistaken beliefs about the quoted persons beliefs, a clarrification is in order. Regardless of whether or not Lewandowsky et al intended people to believe that Kurz agreed with the alleged conspiracy (and it is highly dubious that they did), they should have included a simple disclaimer indicating that he did not.
This is then IMO, an example of inadvertent quotation out of context. It is not, and contrary to Shollenberger a "blatant" distortion of the quote. It is only such a distortion if Lewandowsky et al intended for people to believe that Kurz himself agreed with the conspiracy theory.
In the third case, Lewandowsky et al do not distinguish between words quoted by the person they are quoting, and those he wrote himself. This is unquestionably a misquote, apparently brought about by dropping formating. (The quote was only indicated in the original source by indentation, and not, as it should be, enclosed in inverted commas. Geoff Chambers, the person quoted by Lewandowsky et al, did indicate the source of his quote, but in a manner indistinguishable from the standard method of indicating the person to whom you are repplying in non-nested comments.)
Shollenberger finds something far worse here. He accuses Lewandowsky et al of fabricating the quote, whereas, all that happened was an indent was dropped. He further accuses them of siting an inaccessible source, saying:
"As though that wasn’t bad enough, neither comment can be viewed by readers of the paper as the comments were both edited/deleted by moderators of the site associated with two primary authors of this paper!"
In fact, the post quoted by Chambers has been deleted from the site, and hence is inaccessible, except, possibly to moderators of the site. Chamber's post has also been moderated, but it took me 5 seconds to find the full quote on the linked site and to identify that all the words quoted from Chamber's post came from that post without alteration, but with a html block quote command dropped. And, I do not have any privileged access to that site.
To sum up, Shollenberger does identify three genuine misquotes. As such, the authors of Lewandowsky 2013 should issue a correction for the paper to avoid inadvertently misleading people. Ideally they should also explain how the misquotes occurred so that we can be reassured they will not reccure in the future. But Shollenberger has still not identified any substantive issue. The first quote is a side reference and has no relevance to the substance of the paper. The second quote, if the context is established, merely shows the logic of their argument at that point was transparent and agreed to by a (presumed) AGW "skeptic". The third misquote, if corrected, merely shows that, not one, but two people found plausible an utterly inplausible conspiracy theory about Lewandowsky 2012. In identifying the misquotes, Shollenberger in no way builds towards a substantive critique of the paper. He merely resorts, yet again, to the chewbacca defense.
-
philipm at 21:16 PM on 10 March 2013Greedy Lying Bastards - Now In Theaters
These are of course the people who have a direct interest in lying. What about journalists. columnists and commenators who lie purely because of ideology? It's not only Fox and the lesser elements of the print media. WSJ and Economist to varying degrees embrace lunacy (the latter used to call Lomborg a "statistician" when he's actually a failed political science academic who once taught stats to social science students; not a serious fib you'd think, but it allowed them to represent him as a "scientist").
And what about this gem in Forbes, which is flat out lies?
-
chriskoz at 19:56 PM on 10 March 2013The educational opportunities in addressing misinformation in the classroom
martin@4
The appropriate thread for your news is here where I have also commented. Like you I also hope SkS will comment on it sometimes. -
chriskoz at 19:15 PM on 10 March 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #10
There is the new study by Marcott et al in Science extending the Hocky Stick to the whole Holecene (11.5ka) that is making quite a stir. MM has put many links to plenty of news on his facebook, for example this one. Certaithenly big news, especially for Mike who is predicting that professional denialist will turn their attention to the new 'extended' reconstruction. Perhaps Mike will be taken a little bit off the "denialist stage", or at least he will now share that "stage" with Shaun Marcott. Personally, I think denialists and political intimidators have lost a lot of momentum behind their lies comparing with early 2000s, but who knows, we will see...
I don't have access to the full text of Marcott et al 2013 but Mike is saying the results apear to be robust (i.e. at the same time vulnerable to the political attacks) and their conclusion correct.
Moderator Response: [JH] The seoond listed article in this News Roundup summarizes the study you refer to. -
scaddenp at 18:47 PM on 10 March 2013What doesn’t change with climate?
Pluvial - large geological events certainly affect climate (the mountain ranges on the Anericas change the salinity between Atlantic and Pacific being another), but they affect climate on geological time scales - millions of years. Slow climate change isnt a problem as there is time to adjust. Having the same climate change occur in 200 years is. Glaciation and deglaciation are hardly new and not much evidence of any effect on plate tectonics whatever the value of GIA is.
-
ajki at 15:55 PM on 10 March 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #10
John, you're welcome. It was you who encouraged users to provide additional material within in the "news" sections.
Beside my personal lack of scientific knowledge, I doubt the need for a specific blog post regarding the status of glaciers. There are multiple arguments listed on SkS with regards to glaciers, prominently the argument "Are glaciers growing or retreating". AFAIK these myth rebuttals are carefully updated with data from World Glacier Monitoring Service (wgms) - so there is no lack of knowledge regarding the global trend (90+% shrinking).
Moderator Response: [JH] Many of the exisitng SkS rebuttals need to be updated. The all-volunteer author team will soon embark on a major effort to do so. -
Tom Curtis at 10:23 AM on 10 March 2013Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
Jose_X @139, that is mostly correct.
As noted @138 (point 2) , the CO2 forcing is the total net change in TOA upward IR flux before (or excluding) temperature adjustments. Clearly if we add the CO2 incrementally, there will be temperature adjustments so that the TOA energy imbalance will be significantly less than the CO2 forcing. But, the forcing is the same at 2xCO2 regardless of whether it is added incrementally or as a single slug.
That does not differ from your explanation except in terms of what is meant by "theoretical variable". Roughly (as it is a while since I studied this), a theoretical variable in physics is a value which is an element of an empirical theory that is not directly measurable itself, but whose values have direct implications for measurable variables. In this sense, forcing is "theoretical". You appear to treat "theoretical" as a synonym for "hypothetical" which would be incorrect.
-
Jose_X at 09:33 AM on 10 March 2013Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
Tom Curtis #138, I wanted to add (correct it if wrong) that the forcing value is a theoretical value. It's as if the entire change were done instantly. In reality, we experience CO2 increases, not from 1x (of some arbitrary value) to 2x overnight, but as small increments over time, so the imbalance is likely never to get very large at all. The 1x is a reference point and the 3.7 forcing value is a theoretical imbalance that would exist if the 2x happened right away ("with surface and tropospheric temperatures and state held fixed at the unperturbed values").
-
empirical_bayes at 09:05 AM on 10 March 2013It's too hard
@Chris,
It depends upon how a carbon tax is done. First, it needs to be universal, so all carbon energy inputs are taxed, including fertilizer, biofuels, ethanol, plastics manufacturing, and imports from overseas containing carbon. Second, the proceeds of the tax need to be refunded. The tax proposed by Professor James Hansen and submitted as legislation in the last session of Congress by Representative Pete Stark of California would refund all of the collected carbon tax to households using the same mechanism that was used to issue stimulus checks during the financial crisis of 2007-2008. The refund would be per-person listed on federal income tax returns in the household.
This would put a price on carbon wherever it came into the United States economy, and then, since, as you say, companies would pass the costs on to people, it would refund these costs to them in proportion to the average use of carbon. If a household reduced its overall consumption of carbon by simply buying the cheaper products in the new carbon-penalized marketplace, not only would their purchases be offset, they could earn money from the deal.
I don't like cap-and-trade. I think it gives companies too much wiggle room to cheat.
The point of the carbon tax is to internalize the actual costs of carbon consumption in prices on the street. So, sure, gasoline would go up in price, concrete would go up in price, food grown with oil-sourced fertilizer would go up in price, and those silly plastic bottles of water would go up in price because the plastic they are packaged in would be taxed. But competing products which did not use these sources would not go up in price. People would buy more economical cars because they would be cheaper to drive. And they would probably buy less overall, build less (wood would go up in price, too), and generally consume less.
The marketplace would figure the relative disincentive into its workings, and would be stimulated to produce carbon-free or minimal carbon products to get people to buy them. The transition would probably be pretty quick, and would be easier because most carbon taxes are introduced over a period of time.
Food prices are going to go up a lot because of climate change. Insurance premiums are going to go up. And companies are eventually going to have to shut down during summers in places because they simply cannot operate.
-
Daniel Bailey at 08:19 AM on 10 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
Just conveying my disdain of sock-puppetry.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 08:04 AM on 10 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
Toenails!
Not only off-topic but way too much information Yooper!
-
John Hartz at 07:49 AM on 10 March 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #10
ajki:
Thanks for the links.
Would you be interested in drafting a guest blog post about the status of glaciers worldwide?
-
Daniel Bailey at 07:01 AM on 10 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
It is truly sad that some have no better thing to do than to serially troll a website. And to impersonate others much more respected and far more knowledgeable than they.
On to more fruitful and interesting ventures. Like clipping my toenails...
Moderator Response: [JH] With all due respect, clipping toenails is off-topic. Please refrain from further discussion of this activity on this forum. Thank you. -
Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong
A minor note, inspired by re-reading Myhre et al 1998 on the radiative forcing of various greenhouse gases:
The forcing from a change in CO2 is estimated as F = α * ln(C/C0) - this is a shorthand fit to what is calculated from a number of line-by-line radiative calculations.
The 1990 constant, which is what I presume Hansen used in the 1988 model, had a constant α = 6.3, while Myhre et al 1998, using better radiative estimates, has α = 5.35. And that value has been used ever since in modeling estimations.
I suspect that difference in estimating radiative forcing may be responsible for much of the 4.2°C/doubling sensitivity Hansen 1988 (over)estimated, as opposed to the roughly 3°C/doubling value used now.
-
ajki at 06:54 AM on 10 March 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #10
As reported by several newspapers and blogs there's a very nice visualisation (well, technically...) available on "The Future of Glaciers" as part of an exhibition "Mathematics of Planet Earth (2013)" [imaginary.org].
Another source is the webpage of one of the authors: Guillaume Jouvet, Free University of Berlin.
-
Rob Painting at 06:52 AM on 10 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
Damn, you beat me to it Dan Bailey! I was going to email ya that this bore the hallmarks of James Dey.
-
keystonexl at 06:28 AM on 10 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
(-snip-).
Moderator Response: [DB] James Dey, please note that sock puppetry is frowned upon in this establishment. Your previous impersonation of Judith Curry in this venue and your other many sock puppet alter egos you have used here have not gone unnoticed. Please get a life; one apart from this venue. Good-day. -
keystonexl at 06:24 AM on 10 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
(-snip-).
Moderator Response:[DB] 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 sloganeering or off-topic comments. 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.
Moderation complaints snipped.
-
JasonB at 06:11 AM on 10 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
keystonexl,
This is the strongest argument that climate scientists have and I don't yet have an argument that defeats that.
That's a pretty revealing turn of phrase. Most of us are simply trying to get at the truth.
What hasn't been identified is where this heat has gone. It's not being seen in either the earth or ocean temperature records which only leaves the atmosphere or my conclusion that the energy imbalance is due to instrument problems.
The problem is that you haven't demonstrated that "it's not being seen in either the earth or ocean temperature records".
Each of these records has noise associated with them. Have you demonstrated a statistically significant change in the long term trend? All I see are short term noise, and looking at Figure 2 in the OP I don't even see that, just a rapid increase. I don't draw conclusions from noise because it is impossible to do so. That's the whole point of the Escalator graphic. On top of that, you aren't even trying to look for where the heat has gone because you're ignoring the heat buildup at deeper ocean levels as well as the heat going in to melting all that ice that has been melting in recent years.
It's a lot harder to figure out the total change in energy by accurately measuring and adding up all the possible reservoirs in the system. Much easier just to check if the ToA energy imbalance measurements are being done correctly.
From your own statements you appear to have reached a conclusion that must be true and are searching for evidence to support that, ignoring contradictory evidence on the basis of undemonstrated "instrument problems". This is backwards. You should reach your conclusion after assessing all the evidence available.
Moderator Response: [DB] Please note that keystonexl has been extensively moderated due to repetitive sloganeering, unsupported assertions and continual off-topic contributions. Your diligence and attentiveness in responding to him is appreciated, as is everyone's forbearance in dealing with behavioral and cognitive bias issues on keystonexl's part. -
JasonB at 05:59 AM on 10 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
keystonexl,
Others have gently suggested you need to read a bit more. I strongly suggest you heed their advice and follow the links you've already been given. At the very least, before asserting that Foster and Rahmstorf's paper is not "credible" on the basis that "no credible data source has included their work", you should study this figure (a variant of that already posted above) until you truly understand the implications:
You don't even need to do the straightforward statistical analysis of Foster and Rahmstorf to understand what's going on in this graph and what the implications are, so I suggest you try. (Image from www.skepticalscience.com/john-nielsen-gammon-commentson-on-continued-global-warming.html).
Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed image width. -
JasonB at 05:44 AM on 10 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
keystonexl,
If every possible heat reservoir in the system was perfectly measured with zero error, and you added them all up, you would get the same change in total heat content as the top of atmosphere energy imbalance. That makes sense, correct? The change in total heat content must be the same as the difference between energy going into the system minus the energy going out?
If so, then perhaps you could show that the supposed plateau appears in the ToA energy imbalance measurements in order to eliminate the possibility that it is merely an artefact of incomplete and imperfect measurements of the heat content of the possible reservoirs within the system.
-
Andy Skuce at 05:40 AM on 10 March 2013The educational opportunities in addressing misinformation in the classroom
I think that the true value of teaching in this way is that education is not so much about implanting facts or displacing myths, but rather about teaching a truly skeptical scientific way of thinking and researching things for yourself. I learned a lot of "facts' about mineralogy, palaeontology and stratigraphy as a geology undergraduate, but they disappeared from my brain shortly after the final exams. What stuck was what I learned about how to think, gained largely from interacting and arguing with professors and graduate students in labs and on field trips, and from doing my own reading outside the curriculum.
The head of the department at the time (the early 1970's) was one of the last of the plate tectonics deniers and it was doing my own reading and questioning on that subject that was more fruitful than attending hours of lectures on the evolution of trilobites. There is a lot to be said for teaching the controversy, at university level, anyway.
-
JasonB at 05:28 AM on 10 March 2013The educational opportunities in addressing misinformation in the classroom
william,
While "consensus between scientists does not make something true" is correct, any statement to that effect should be combined with the observation that you're overwhelmingly more likely to be right if you accept what almost all experts on the subject believe than if you decide to believe the opposite. :-) There are very few true Galileos throughout history and an awful lot of cracks.
"They said Galileo was a fool. They said Einstein was a fool. They said the Wright Brothers were fools. What you've got to remember, however, is that they also said that about a lot of fools."
-
Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
Keystonexl:
The confidence level for OHC in a single year is better for recent years than for earlier years because of more accurate measurements and a larger amount of data, specifically from the Argos that were deployed during the last decade. The same is true for surface temperatures, as demonstrated by this graph from GISS. The green bars show the 95% confidence level for the 1890s, 1940s and 2000s. As you see, the confidence level has improved by about a factor 2 during the last century.
More data for each data point is also the reason why the pentadel average for OHC 0-2000 m goes back to 1957 while the single year average only goes back to 2005.
Calculating a trend during a long period vs. a short period is different, because a longer period contains more data, and more data means that the uncertainties tend to cancel each other out and show the true signal.
-
william5331 at 05:11 AM on 10 March 2013The educational opportunities in addressing misinformation in the classroom
I think the argument would have been more effective if in Chapter 23 it was emphasized that consenses between scientists does not make something true. A few examples of a clear and obvious nature like the belief in a flat earth would help. The next point would be to say that good science goes with the evidence so far known and draws the most logical conclusions from this information. However, true science is willing to modify or even completely throw out a theory if the evidence to the contraty is compelling. Science must never become a religion as happens all too often with scientists. An exposition of Occams Razor might finish this section. The same argument would be relevant with regard to teaching creationism instead of Darwinian evolution.
http://mtkass.blogspot.co.nz/2007/08/intelligent-design-let-it-be-taught.html
-
electroken at 05:06 AM on 10 March 2013The educational opportunities in addressing misinformation in the classroom
First of all, I know that you are correct about water vapor falling out of the air in lower altitudes, but what is the proof it falls out of the air when injected into it at such high altitudes as 35,000 to 39,000 ft? If you know elementary physics you know that water vapor is lighter than air and that hot humid air is markedly lighter than dry cool air. I also know that water vapor at that altitude should have a much greater affect on overall sunlight getting through to the ground. It would act like a grid in a vacuum tube to control energy getting to the surface of our planet. Dont dismiss the fact that jet airplanes also put that water vapor into the air at a very high temperature which represents a lot of energy too.
I subject to you that in the far distant past when many say that our planet was mostly covered in forests that it was most likely hot and humid over the whole globe. I would contend that it was caused by the enormous amount of water vapor in the air and that most of the carbon would have been tied up in vegetation due to photosynthesis. Where else did all those huge coal and oil deposits come from otherwise? I think your own data on co2 confirms this to be the case. So if there was not a lot of co2 in the atmosphere when all that coal and oil was being formed, what caused all the water vapor to be in the air?
I have seen graphs showing past temperature variations plotted against time where it was also shown the estimated amount of co2 in the air based on the amounts found in ice deposits. In those plots it was shown that the rise in co2 followed the warming trend and did not preceed it.
Now as to what is making the water evaporate. It does not take any higher rise in temperature to cause water spread around on the ground to evaporate. Nor the water in swimming pools and lakes etc. MAN has caused this massive change in where and how water is evaporating. Or do you want to totally dismiss the tremendous amounts which evaporate each year now to man and not to nature doing it. I think the study done showed it to be on the order of 2 billion tons of water from irrigation and sprinkling etc. This causes a massive shift in energy from where the energy would normally stay in heating rocks and sand to putting that energy into the atmosphere. The energy in those hot rocks and sand does not affect our weather to any great extent as the energy is confined to low altitudes due to the insualting qualities of air. However when you put that energy into the air higher up where weather patterns occur it can have a vast influence on things. I contend that is the major reason for our shifts in weather patterns.
Condemnnig this evaporation steps on a lot more toes than blaming co2. Farmers who irrigate would have to stop it. Vast desert areas we presently turn into greem places would have to go back to being deserts. I could go on, but you get the idea. Also we would have to curtail high altitude jet flights.
Btw the WWII bombers were mostly restricted to lower altitudes until near the end of the war. And also jet engines burn a whole lot more of hygrocarbons than those gasoline engines used on those bombers.
Moderator Response:[KC] The appropriate thread for discussion of the role of water vapour is here. Please take a moment to review the comment policy, which exists to enable serious and focused scientific discussion. Further comments on the specific role of water vapour are clearly more appropriate to that thread (where contributors including myself will be happy to engage with your hypothesis) but will therefore be deleted from this one.
-
Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
keystonexl - The rate of increase in OHC from 0-2000m, while showing some pentadal variation, has not declined with any statistical significance (Fig. 3). There is also the >2000m data, as I discussed/linked here, which you have apparently not read. Again, the 9-16 year trends you have mentioned are not statistically significant, they are cherry-picked short term variations.
[Side note - while measurement accuracy has improved, that is completely separate from short term climate variation - we can measure it more accurately, but that short term variation is still there, and must be accounted for by looking at sufficient data to isolate the trend/signal (if any) from the variation/noise. Red herring.]
If you feel that there's only one page on SkS discussing ENSO variations, I would refer you to the search function at the upper left (ENSO results here), and in regards to this conversation to the discussion of Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 and 2012 - again, according to the data warming has not halted, rather short term trendless variations are being selected by various 'skeptics' to make those cherry-picked claims.
---
You've tossed around a large number of what I would consider 'skeptic' rhetorical arguments, which are not supported by the evidence. In fact, you are approaching Gish Gallop status. I would suggest you read a bit more, preferably in the peer-reviewed literature, before making additional unsupported assertions.
-
martin3818 at 04:50 AM on 10 March 2013The educational opportunities in addressing misinformation in the classroom
Sorry, this is OT.
A new paper has been published in Science
A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 YearsUnfortunately, it is paywalled. Do you think, you could write something about it on SkS?
-
keystonexl at 03:43 AM on 10 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
@KR. The only thread that I've found that explicitly deals with ENSO events is the "It's El Nino" article where SkS debunk that theory http://skepticalscience.com/el-nino-southern-oscillation.htm
(snip-)
Moderator Response: [DB] Off-topic snipped. -
keystonexl at 03:35 AM on 10 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
(-snip-) I have to leave it here as the rules forbid me from diverting on to dealing with ENSO. I'll go to that thread to discuss that one.
Moderator Response: [DB] Sloganeering snipped. Several comments made after this were deleted in their entirety due to further sloganeering. -
Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
keystonexl (various) - OHC since 2004? Nine years? Are you serious?
I suggest looking at the 16more years thread; short time frames such as these are dominated by variation such as the ENSO, and you need to look at a longer period to see what's happening with the climate, as opposed to the weather.
There isn't a direct correlation between these (ENSO events) and global temperatures...
That would be incorrect: besides the quantitative results of Foster & Rahmstorf 2011, you might also look at the correlations seen between ENSO and swings around an ongoing trend as demonstrated by John Nielson-Gammon - plotting trends for El Nino, La Nina, and ENSO-neutral years separately:
-
willard at 02:59 AM on 10 March 2013Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
For what it's worth:
> Ideation is the creative process of generating, developing, and communicating new ideas, where an idea is understood as a basic element of thought that can be either visual, concrete, or abstract. Ideation is all stages of a thought cycle, from innovation, to development, to actualization. As such, it is an essential part of the design process, both in education and practice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideation_(idea_generation)
There's no need to posit that Tony sincerely entertains the torrent of theories he's dogwhistling day in, day out. One only has to look at what's being produced at Tony's day in, day out to see how the mindframing operates.
Incidentally, Chewbacca might contemplate the possibility that Tony's smear, to work out as a joke, relies on contextual cues, the main one being conspirational ideation.
-
keystonexl at 02:54 AM on 10 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
(-snip-).
Moderator Response: [DB] Sloganeering snipped. -
keystonexl at 02:39 AM on 10 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
@KeystoneXL 77-Mod Response. (-snip-)
(-snip-).
Moderator Response: [DB] Multiple sloganeering snipped. -
Cal Engime at 02:06 AM on 10 March 2013The educational opportunities in addressing misinformation in the classroom
Water vapour has not been ignored. Scientists know that it is our planet's most abundant greenhouse gas, and that it plays an important role in global warming. In fact, the atmospheric water content over the oceans has been measured to be increasing by 0.41 kg per square meter every ten years since 1998.
But water vapour doesn't just go up and stay up—excess water in the atmosphere falls to Earth as rain or snow within a week. The amount of water the atmosphere can hold is almost purely a function of temperature. So what caused the warming that's causing increased evaporation?
CO2, the gas responsible for 25% of the greenhouse effect. CO2 emissions have soared in recent history, and unlike water vapour, it stays in the atmosphere for 50 to 200 years. We've only been directly observing CO2 levels in the atmosphere and global temperatures for a short period of time, but geological evidence extends these records hundreds of thousands of years into the past, and what we see are that the two main controls on Earth's thermostat are 1) the output of the Sun, and 2) CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Water vapour is the largest amplifier of the effect of CO2, but there's a large body of research establishing CO2 as the main cause.
-
Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
Keystonexl:
Notice that the error bars (95% confidence interval) in the ocean heat content 0-2000 m are much smaller than the total heat increase during the last 50 years, so there is absolutely no doubt that the increase in OHC is real!
During the same period the solar TSI has decreased, with the peak of the present cycle (24) about 0.5 watt/m² lower than the last peak in 2000-2001. That reduction in the solar forcing corresponds to about 2/3 of a Hiroshima bomb every second!
So, where has that extra ocean heat come from?
-
Daniel Bailey at 01:57 AM on 10 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
@ Keystonexl: your comments make clear that you do not have a command of the science. As such, an agenda of more study/less challenging the science based on an incomplete understanding of it is in order.
There is an immense amount of reference material discussed here and it can be a bit difficult at first to find an answer to your questions. That's why we recommend that Newcomers, Start Here and then learn The Big Picture.
I also recommend watching this video on why CO2 is the biggest climate control knob in Earth's history. Additionally, Spencer Weart's The Discovery of Global Warming is invaluable.
Further general questions can usually be be answered by first using the Search function in the upper left of every Skeptical Science page to see if there is already a post on it (odds are, there is). If you still have questions, use the Search function located in the upper left of every page here at Skeptical Science and post your question on the most pertinent thread.
Remember to frame your questions in compliance with the Comments Policy and lastly, to use the Preview function below the comment box to ensure that any html tags you're using work properly.
-
Roger D at 01:23 AM on 10 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
Keystonexl - If the sun is responsible for ocean temperature, without a contribution from heat trapped by rising GHGs, why do the ocean heat content and solar energy trends diverge over the previous several decades?
-
electroken at 01:18 AM on 10 March 2013The educational opportunities in addressing misinformation in the classroom
I am all for this if there is some discussion made on the reason(s) why one theory is wrong and another is correct. But it seems there is little real discussion.
I do not believe all the present theory as to the causes of climate change are being considered. I strongly believe that carbon dioxide is being said to be the prime reason for change when it is only a real small factor.
I think that water vapor is being ignored because if that is the main cause then there are a lot of reprocussions to that. The vast areas of the usa which are routinely irrigated and sprinkler use to water crops are contributing to a large amount of the change but seem to be completely ignored. I can understand why since it would mean no more golf courses and manicured lawns in the middle of deserts like Nevada.
There are statistics showing that the auquifer under the middle of the usa dropped 150 feet in one decade alone. I am not sure what crisis level that has reached so far but I am sure it is not getting any better.
It seems also that putting thousands of tons of water vapor into the atmosphere at 38,000ft seems to be completely ignored and minimized when it is considered. To my knowledge, I seem to recall that almost all of our weather occurs in the lower atmosphere normally not higher than about 20,000 ft. Jet airplanes produce 5 pounds of water vapor per pound of fuel burned and they burn a whole lot of it. There are approximately 4000 planes in the air over the usa at any given time but it less than it was before 9/11. I am not sure about their fuel use but I am sure it is not insignificant.So, has anyone ever considered the affect of introducing huge amounts of water vapor into the atmosphere where it never used to occur before these jet aircraft began flying there? I hear noone in the gloabal warming crowd even considering how this might be causing a lot of what they are blaming co2 for doing.
Now this does not even consider the affect that evaporating water will have on the transfer of energy in great quanities into the lower atmosphere from where the solar energy which vaporizes it used to simply heat up sand and rocks on the ground. This large transfer of energy into the atmosphere could solely be the reason for a lot of our climate change and the change in amount and intensity of storms.At least give this some consideration. I am not the only scientist to say this and there are some on the internet who have put together some interesting facts and figures about it. It is easy to find if you look.
Moderator Response:[DB] "At least give this some consideration" To be kind, this already has been looked into and discussed by scientists.
As a condensible greenhouse gas, water vapor is a feedback to CO2 and by itself cannot make long-term changes in global temperatures. Please take that discussion to this thread if you wish to continue pursuing that.
For a discussion of stratospheric water vapor and contrail forcings, see this thread.
[KC] See also IPCC AR4 chapter 2.6.2. The literature is very extensive, google scholar can find lots for you with the search contrail forcing. That includes some research on the 9/11 no-fly - an initial paper suggested a significant impact, subsequent results were much more equivocal. There are also results from WWII bomber squadrons which are useful.
-
keystonexl at 00:55 AM on 10 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
@RogerD, (-snip-).
The sun is responsible for ocean temperature. We don't have any other source of heat on the planet, unless you think it's being heated from below?
Moderator Response: [DB] Incorrect. See How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats The Ocean. Sloganeering snipped. -
keystonexl at 00:46 AM on 10 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
@Tom Curtis
1. I'd agree that conduction is relatively slow compared to the land, but it's not that slow. Sea temperature maximum and minimums lag land temperature by 1 month.
2. The Pacific tropical winds cause La Nina and El Nino events. There isn't a direct correlation between these and global temperatures and, in any case, we've not had a La Nina event that has lasted for the entire time under question. The hypothesised effect of El Nino and La Nina is in months not years.
So my problem is that even if the ocean has got warmer, there is no evidence that the heat is remaining trapped and the closer you get to the surface the more apparant it is that there has been a slowing down in the increase in global temperature. Since the heat is not being trapped within the ocean, the surface temperature record is a good indication as to whether the earth is warming or not.
Moderator Response: [DB] Incorrect. See Levitus et al. Find Global Warming Continues to Heat the Oceans. -
Roger D at 00:42 AM on 10 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
"4 Heat rises". Not sure it's correct to say "heat rises". Warmer air rises because it's less dense. Warmer water would rise if something heated it and it could go upward. Heat moves from according to a temperature gradient.
Keystonexl - you seem to be making a somwhat similar argument to Kevin tried to in previous posts (questioning if oceans can warm in the presence of slowed surface warming), along with some other arguments that don't seem to fit. You say in one post above that "solar energy has been reducing" and follow that with statements indicating that the sun is responsible for increasing ocean heat.
-
Tom Curtis at 00:31 AM on 10 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
keystonexl @73, what you are missing is that conduction is very slow in the ocean, and convection limited relative to other causes of motion of water. In particular, salty water (as for example, the water carried north from the north branch of the Gulf Stream) is denser than less salty water (as for example, water recently melted from Arctic sea ice, resulting in the carrying of relatively warm water to great depths. Another mechanism is the presence or absence of persistent winds blowing from east to west across the tropical Pacific. When present, it piles warm surface water into the west Pacific Warm pool, resulting in warm water being carried to substantial depth while cold water is drawn to the surface in the east tropical pacific. No doubt other mechanisms abound.
Indeed, more generally, the upper regions of the ocean in mid latitudes have near constant temperature due to mixing from surface winds. With a warming climate, those surface winds have increased in velocity (which has been observed), and increasing the depth of mixing.
And yes, the first 100 meters has warmed at twice the rate of the first 700 meters on average, but that means the first 700 meters has increased OHC at 3.5 times the rate of the first 100 meters. Likewise the first 700 meters has warmed at twice the rate of the first 2000 meters, but that means the first 2000 meters has increased OHC at 1.4 times the rate of the first 700 meters. Where is the problem?
Prev 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 Next
