Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 Next
Comments 47851 to 47900:
-
KR at 11:54 AM on 6 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
Doug Bostrom - Less than 1:20 rated as good. Hmm, that seems to indicate a 2-sigma significance result, that "good" is not supported by the evidence for that blog source.
-
Riduna at 11:42 AM on 6 March 2013‘Frozen Dirt’ and Methane … ‘We Cannot Go There’
The essay ignores the elephant in the room – methane trapped in clathrate and as gas in surrounding sediments beneath permafrost covering the seabed of the Siberian Continental Shelf. This has been quantified by Shakhova and Semiletov as comprising not less than 1,700 gigatonnes. As a result of seabed permafrost degradation methane has been observed venting to the atmosphere. Because of the shallow depth of water covering the continental shelf, it has no time to oxidize to far less potent CO2.
Continuing loss of sea ice and Arctic Ocean warming, combined with atmospheric warming is likely to result in accelerated loss of seabed permafrost, increasing venting of methane to the atmosphere. This has the potential to reduce sub-seabed pressure, destabilise shallow clathrates, rapidly increasing methane excursions from them to the atmosphere, further amplifying Arctic temperatures and chnaging global climate.
Daniel Bailey rightly observes that “the Kraken does not yet wake... “ But it is already stirring and nothing short of reversing Arctic warming is likely to prevent it (methane) from venting to the atmosphere in such volume as to bring about rapid and permanent climate change before 2100.
Do I hear mutterings about geo-engineering – spraying sulphides at the top of the stratosphere - to prevent this? The clothing industry could produce a whole new range that can withstand acid rain and we could all get on with business as usual.
-
Tom Curtis at 11:16 AM on 6 March 2013Carbon Dioxide the Dominant Control on Global Temperature and Sea Level Over the Last 40 Million Years
First, I want to commend Rob Painting on an excellent article. I particularly appreciated the clear statement of the basis for the conclusions, along with the relevant caveats. Could a link to this article be placed at the bottom of the various sea level myth rebutals so that it is not lost in the continuous stream of posts at SkS, and left to languish in obscurity.
In particular, a link would be appropriate on these pages:
How much is sea level rising; and
Why Greenland's ice loss matters.
-
Tom Curtis at 11:09 AM on 6 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
1) Eclectikus makes a variety of claims about Richard Feynman's views on pseudo-science, but does not quote a source for those claims. Google searching, I have found two discussions of pseudoscience by Feynman available on the net. The first, and more substantive, only refers to pseudoscience in the introductory comment which was not part of the actual lecture. In the lecture itself, he only refers to "cargo cult science", a term which is definitely pejorative. Clearly Feynman considers "cargo cult science" and "pseudoscience" to be the same thing.
The distinction between cargo cult science and real science turns out to be a kind of scientific integrity. Feynman describes it as follows:
"... It is interesting, therefore, to bring [the distinction between cargo cult science and real science] out now and speak of it explicitly. It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked--to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can--if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong--to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.
In summary, the idea is to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgement in one particular direction or another."
(Quoted from here.)
Let's be very direct about this. A cherry picker does not "... give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution". Somebody who does not calculate the predictions of their theory does not "... give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution". Somebody whose account of the science contradicts itself does not "... give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution".
Therefore, by Feynman's definition there is no doubt that the Coleman article is "cargo cult science", ie, pseudoscience.
Eclecticus can disagree with that assessment if he likes, but he cannot honestly do so while quoting Feynman as his authority. If he disagrees, he owes us his own definition of "pseudoscience", and he needs to justify it with rational argument - something he appears unprepared to do.
It should be noted that one person falling below this ideal does not make a discipline pseudoscience. Science is a self correcting communal activity. Individual scientists are human, and like most humans tend to protect favoured theories from criticism to some extent. But the scientific community as a whole, particularly the scientist's peers in the discipline will not be so slack. In this respect, climate science is clearly scientific; whereas the AGW "skeptical" movement is astonishingly reticent in criticizing even the most absurd ideas, provided they would make taking action against global warming, if true. The political effect of those theories clearly outways, in their minds, any commitment to scientific integrity. That, and perhaps, a fear that if they are too open in exposing the fallacies of their fellow travellors, their fellow travellors might return the favour.
2) It was well said by some ancient sage, and recorded in the Tanakh that,
That was said while books where still written by hand on parchment. You can imagine that sage's distress if confronted with the internet.
The point is that, even if we confine ourselves to scientific papers (for example), there is far more material produced than any one person could hope to read, let alone analyse and understand. To cope with modern flood of information, we need spam filters.
As noted, this applies even in science. That is the purpose of peer review, which is supposed to weed out papers that are obviously poorly supported or simply wrong. Peer review does not pretend, and cannot hope, to eliminate all errors from scientific papers. But it does aim to ensure that any errors that make it through to publication are either subtle, ie, not easy to find, or interesting, ie, to show that they are errors you need to learn something new.
A good science blog should also be a spam filter. It should weed out the pseudoscience, and the misleadingly presented. It should present only posts which are reasonable summaries of the science, which are interesting, and encourage people to learn critical thinking rather than gullibility.
By this standard Skeptical Science is a good science blog.
By this standard, WUWT is the antithesis of a good science blog. It does not weed out the bad articles, such as that by Coleman. It certainly does not encourage critical thinking, but instead teaches gullibility. The same can be said of all four remaining short listed nominees for the best science award at the blogees.
Regardless of what definition Eclectikus contrives to maintain his belief that WUWT is a good science blog, the fact remains that as a spam filter to filter out bad science and bad reasoning, WUWT fails abysmally. Indeed, it works more to filter out good science and good reasoning rather than the reverse.
-
Doug Bostrom at 10:44 AM on 6 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
Eclectikus: 93.- doug_bostrom, some of them only support a reading diagonal, maybe, but "WUWT" is not specifically a divulgative blog like this, and this has to be in the reader's mind.
Twenty articles and not a single one you're prepared to unreservedly endorse as "good?" Having nothing more specific to work with I take it thereby that when you say "I've also read good articles at WUWT" you mean some proportion fewer than 1:20 are "good" by your own estimation.
Perhaps if I'd provided a larger sample (50?) we'd learn something more about the "good versus something else" ratio. As it stands, some proportion less than 1/20th useful is not an impressive record. But that's not necessarily the end of the story; it's still possible that you could identify which of the sample consisting of the last twenty climate science related articles at WUWT strike you as good.
Unfortunately even if 1:10 articles or even 1:5 articles at WUWT prove to be worthwhile we're still seeing confirmation of John Cook's original point of his blog post.
-
Leto at 10:43 AM on 6 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
Eclectikus@106. The definition did not seem to come up in that video - unless I missed it. But it doesn't matter where the definition came from - the way you have applied the definition is invalid, even if the definition had some merit in another context, with the appropriate caveats in place.
It would be reasonable to characterise as "pseudoscience" a discipline that was unable to explain any empirical data or produce any empircal predicitons. On the other hand, it would be ludicrous to characterise a discipline as pseudoscience simply because it failed to explain all empirical data, or had a few unknowns, like physiology and climatology.
So, are you saying that climate science is pseudoscience in the same way that physiology is pseudoscience?
And, while we are on the topic, how would denialist climate theory stack up against the requirement that it must have explanatory and predictive power to be considered science? What empircal data is better explained by a denialist than by consensus climate science? Even cherry-picked snatches of noise do not get explained by any of these guys, just pointed out - with the statistical sophistication of an astrologist. The latest effort at WUWT includes drawing a fat yellow horizontal line over an uplsoping trend of ocean-heat content and calling it a pause in global warming, a challenge to AGW. How is that not pseudoscience, by any definiton?
-
Composer99 at 10:33 AM on 6 March 2013China Takes a Leading Role in Solving Climate Change
Habilus:
I am fairly certain this is the third time today I have noted that someone has misunderstood the ad hominem fallacy. Tom Curtis & I were both rather pert with you, that is true. However, we also addressed the substance of your claim (insofar as there was any to begin with). We would have committed the fallacy only if our responses had solely been our concluding remarks.
(Interestingly, I came across this essay while looking for a concise definition to use above which argues that there is no ad hominem fallacy.)
I still don't see where the problem with Australia losing out on carbon ETS (to be accurate) revenue is, insofar as it results from Australian individuals, families, and businesses reducing their carbon usage more aggressively than the government projected. And as Tom Curtis notes, the Australian government diverts the ETS revenue into payments to Australians to offset cost increases from the scheme. So if the ETS generates less revenue than generated, I suppose that less money would be paid out - but this would balance out as reduced carbon usage by Austalian individuals, families and businesses means they are not affected as much by costs passed downstream by emitters.
-
scaddenp at 10:13 AM on 6 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
Hmm, Weart is great account of the historical background. SoD "insigificant trace gas" series is great introduction to basic physics, but for overview of science, it's hard to beat the IPCC WG1 report.
There is no talk of "closing blogs" - how could you? But if you are interested in scientific truth as opposed to ideology-driven anti-science why would bother to read sites that misinform? (and I would hasten to add that Spenser and Curry arent in the sewer with WUWT). The usual reason is to seek confirmation of what you hope is true. A science education is about training the mind on how not to fool yourself.
Discussion on models belongs in the "Models are unreliable" thread. However, there are some caveats to observe when thinking about GCM models. While purposes overlap, there are two reasons for creating computer models. We could be realising well-established conceptual models for a useful purpose (eg tomorrows weather or plotting a probe to Hyperion). Or we could be testing our conceptual models by checking computation against observation. GCMs are used for both but differences in intent change what is actually done. In both cases, comparisions or predictions have to be made against uncertainties inherent in both the computations from the models and in the measurements of the real world. This leads to very different levels of robustness about predictions. In evaluating models, it often better to think of model skill (performance of model predictions compared to null hypothesis). Current GCMs have no skill at decadal level prediction for instance. They have considerable skill in many other areas.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 09:45 AM on 6 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
I will stop comparing climate science with Quantum theory if you stop making meaningless arguments about the "age" of an area of science.
Your "endemic problem" is BS. Fake skeptics' theories are mutually exclusive ("i.e. it's the sun" and "climate sensitivity is low") and have no grounding in reality. They're made up according to the need of the moment. Nothing follows in the litterature that is worth considering. In an effort of your own rethoric, youonly cite various wordings of what is the same thing, without showing that the thing was any different. I'm unimpressed. As for the "snowfalls are a thing of the past", I have never seen any such statement from a source that is worth reading. Considering the enormity of it, please provide a source.
Watts' problem is not one of communication, it's one of incompetence:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/09/co2-condensation-in-antarctica-at-113f/
Not only did they give this much serious consideration, but the peanut gallery in the comment thread keeps on ridiculing the people trying to inject some sense in the discussion, the kind who could understand the phase diagram. That's a legitimate source to you? Really?
I still go read these posts when I need a good laugh. In subsequent ones they do little high school experiments and eventually conclude "it seemed like a good idea at the time."
Now please explain to me how these buffoons add quality to any kind of debate about science. Goddard was described by Smokey as writing "informative posts."
Eventually Watts had to distance himself from Goddard's incompetence in an effort to keep up appearances. That's too bad, it was more entertaining when he was on. board...
-
Bob Loblaw at 09:32 AM on 6 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
Eclectikus:
You've bought into Judith Currie's "uncertainty monster", and unfortunately you don't have the knowledge to recognize it for what it is (which is not much). The sources you are using are seriously overblowing the significance of the uncertainties.
You've been asking about sources summarizing climate science. I suggest you try reading Spencer Weart's The Discovery of Global Warming.
-
keithpickering at 09:28 AM on 6 March 2013Carbon Dioxide the Dominant Control on Global Temperature and Sea Level Over the Last 40 Million Years
The .pdf link is dead to me, and no cache is available. The supplemental info and data are available at the PNAS website.
-
uknowispeaksense at 09:15 AM on 6 March 2013China Takes a Leading Role in Solving Climate Change
However, opposition leader Tony Abbott has said that the election in September of this year is a "referendum on the carbon tax," and at the moment he appears to have a lead in the polls. So far the impact of the carbon tax on the Australian economy appears to be minor, as expected, while both carbon emissions from the electricity sector and energy demand have fallen recently. In short, the carbon tax is working well, but there are worrying signs that it may nevertheless be repealed as a result of the upcoming election.
I initially examined Hansard, which is the record for the Australian parliament, personal websites, interview transcripts and press releases looking for definitive statements by every current member of both houses of parliament that demonstrate their individual positions on the science underpinning climate change. Links to both pages can be found here. I also extended that to look more closely at Tony Abbott's shadow cabinet team and it doesn't look very good for any environmental policy should his party be successful in the federal election in September. That page is here. That said, my understanding is that Abbott will find it very difficult to repeal the carbon tax given the effort big business, the traditional conservative support base, has put in to accommodate it in their business plans. Much work has also gone in to their long term future planning also. It will be too messy. Abbott and his team will spin it however they see fit to backflip on the promise to repeal, knowing the electorate has a short memory.
-
uknowispeaksense at 09:10 AM on 6 March 2013China Takes a Leading Role in Solving Climate Change
However, opposition leader Tony Abbott has said that the election in September of this year is a "referendum on the carbon tax," and at the moment he appears to have a lead in the polls. So far the impact of the carbon tax on the Australian economy appears to be minor, as expected, while both carbon emissions from the electricity sector and energy demand have fallen recently. In short, the carbon tax is working well, but there are worrying signs that it may nevertheless be repealed as a result of the upcoming election.
I initially examined Hansard, which is the record for the Australian parliament, personal websites, interview transcripts and press releases looking for definitive statements by every current member of both houses of parliament that demonstrate their individual positions on the science underpinning climate change. Links to both pages can be found here. I also extended that to look more closely at Tony Abbott's shadow cabinet team and it doesn't look very good for any environmental policy should his party be successful in the federal election in September. That page is here. That said, my understanding is that Abbott will find it very difficult to repeal the carbon tax given the effort big business, the traditional conservative support base, has put in to accommodate it in their business plans. Much work has also gone in to their long term future planning also. It will be too messy. Abbott and his team will spin it however they see fit to backflip on the promise to repeal, knowing the electorate has a short memory.
-
Eclectikus at 08:56 AM on 6 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
Sphaerica #103, you understand what you want understand. I read WUWT, and when I do I know what I read. I also read SkS, SoD, Climate Audit, Roy Spencer, Curry, and some more. Are you claiming to close all blogs except SkS and realClimate?
-
Eclectikus at 08:50 AM on 6 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
104 # Leto. Please take a look the video I posted in #43, and you'll see where I take this "weird definition".
-
Eclectikus at 08:40 AM on 6 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
Thank you scaddenp, I take note and I probably come back with some questions in different areas I have, basically about confidence in models and on several sources of uncertainties recognized by NASA itself: http://climate.nasa.gov/uncertainties/
In order to be reasonably informed in a particular issue, reading the papers in the journals is a excesive time consumer, for my is more easy go to selected works pointed out here or there, and reading what people more engaged have to say on particular threads in several blogs. I think is a very good option that Internet offers to all of us, people no directly implicated on Climatology. I read often Roy Spencer (and also Steve McIntyre), less Real Climate, and I didn't know about Issac Held... bookmarked, you see? always is possible to get something clean. Thanks.
-
Leto at 08:35 AM on 6 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
Eclectikus wrote:
"In Feynman's sense, theories that are unable to explain empirical values, and in this sense (and only in this sense) Climatology could be tagged as pseudoscientific."
I am often struck by the parallels between climatology and medicine. Both deal with imperfect data and complex systems. Both have to make predictions and recommend solutions without the luxury of waiting for perfect information and a complete theory that will never come. Both have to fend off attacks by fringe theorists who claim to know better than those who have actually done the hard yards and, you know, studied the subject. And, of course, both are "pseudoscence" by your weird definition. This suggests your definition is not very useful.
-
Bob Lacatena at 08:10 AM on 6 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
Eclectikus,
...we're far to have a working model of the earth climate.
False. This is one of the denier's mantras. "We don't know enough!"
B.S. Go read. I already told you, you don't actually understand enough of the science to adopt the position that you have. But rather than learn more, you claim to know everything you need to know, and supplement your ignorance by reading WUWT.
For shame.
I really do not understand why it is so hard to accept this position... is there any other coherent position?
That's because you don't understand the science, so you read all sorts of emotional (and false) nonsense that you see on B.S. sites like WUWT. The foundation of your position — that climate science is weak, that the IPCC is corrupt, even that there is some sort of debate about the science itself — is undermined by reality. You can't see that, though, because instead of educating yourself, you come here to pontificate, or go to WUWT to get even more confused about the state of the science.
-
JoeT at 07:43 AM on 6 March 2013China Takes a Leading Role in Solving Climate Change
Further to my post @19, Pierrehumbert says his views are in line with those of Larry Cathles. Here's an article about the Cathles/Howarth argument. Also, here is the published paper.
-
dhogaza at 07:29 AM on 6 March 2013Carbon Dioxide the Dominant Control on Global Temperature and Sea Level Over the Last 40 Million Years
Kevin:
"This is a peer reviewed paper showing that CO2 lags behind temp."
And this, much more recent, just published in Science, shows that actually it hardly does at all:
Parrenin, F. V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Köhler, D. Raynaud, D. Paillard, J. Schwander, C. Barbante, A. Landais, A. Wegner and J. Jouzel, 'Synchronous changes of atmospheric CO₂ and Antarctic temperature during the last deglacial warming', Science, 339, 1060-1063, 2013.
It would be a good paper for SkS to write about.
Kevin, regarding the whole Milankovic cycles, CO2 feedback, etc, this is all so 1990s denialist argumentation that has been undermined by climate science for a very long time. The paper I cite above compresses the time scale in which CO2 rises as a result of Milankovich-cycle forcing causing the earth to warm, which emphasizes that this rise leads to a feedback affect accelerating that warming.
-
Chris Colose at 07:26 AM on 6 March 2013Carbon Dioxide the Dominant Control on Global Temperature and Sea Level Over the Last 40 Million Years
There's several points of confusion in the above comments, most of which miss the timescales being discussed in the paper, which (by and large) is a bit longer than orbital. From a last ~60 million year perspective, CO2 is pretty clearly a big forcer of the gradual cooling we've seen over the Cenozoic and in the development of the great ice sheets. You can say it's a "geologic feedback" in the sense that the CO2 responds to things like plate tectonics, mountain uplift, rate of organic carbon burial, etc However you define a reference system, you can call something a feedback, but it doesn't change the physics that we don't have a way to get from the climate 60 million years ago to the climate today without changing the CO2. On the glacial-interglacial timescales, you have to be careful, because the orbit is pretty clearly pacing the changes and the impact of CO2 becomes progressively more important as you move equatorward (e.g., in the CMIP5 models for example there is a more coherent negative correlation between model climate sensitivities and their tropical averaged LGM temperature anomalies, as opposed to the global mean anomalies...it doesn't really matter in this sense whether the orbit or the CO2 comes first, radiation still works...but the CO2 pretty clearly comes after Antarctic changes but before global-mean changes). But the ice sheet changes can't be tied to just CO2, so I wouldn't out much stock in the paper on orbital timescales.
On the geologic timescales when you sample over lots of orbits, you still have to be careful applying the results from the paleo-record to the future, because there's almost certainly hysteresis in the ice sheets (e.g., whatever concentration of CO2 helped you glaciate Antarctica is almost certainly a different concentration of CO2 than you need to deglaciate Antarctica) and the rate of change probably matters too. Some of these issues aren't well-sampled given the time resolution and (rather one-way) temperature evolution over the last 40 million years.
-
DSL at 07:13 AM on 6 March 2013Carbon Dioxide the Dominant Control on Global Temperature and Sea Level Over the Last 40 Million Years
Should I repeat the concept for a fourth of fifth time? CO2 is CO2. It doesn't matter how it gets into the atmosphere. If we put it there, it is considered a forcing. If it gets there through ocean warming, it is considered a feedback. That whole "CO2 lags temp" meme is one of the goofiest.
And, again (because you did not read what I wrote the first time), orbital forcing starts the glaciation/deglaciation process. Once the process begins, the initial orbital forcing is overwhelmed by feedbacks. The primary feedbacks are, for glaciation, increasing ice/snow-albedo effect and decreasing ocean temp (increase in CO2 uptake). The primary feedbacks for deglaciation are warming oceans (decrease in CO2 uptake) and decreasing ice/snow albedo effect. Both processes are modified slightly by, respectively, associated changes in the biosphere (respectively, a decrease in biosphere uptake of CO2 and an increase in biosphere uptake of CO2). Water vapor is a fast feedback and so doesn't enter into the conversation about climate-scale forcings and feedbacks.
-
Composer99 at 07:05 AM on 6 March 2013Carbon Dioxide the Dominant Control on Global Temperature and Sea Level Over the Last 40 Million Years
Kevin:
CO2 lagging temperature applies where its emission by sources or absorption by sinks is temperature-dependent: CO2 emission from or absorption by the oceans, CO2 absorption by rock weathering, and similar processes.
By contrast, CO2 leads temperature when its emission by sources is temperature-independent, such as emissions from volcanism (which has been a trigger for past warming, if not in the Pleistocene) and, since the start of the Industrial Revolution, the massive bolus of fossil carbon emitted by humans. (I am not personally aware of any temperature-independent carbon sinks, although perhaps the kinds of biological sinks that lead to the creation of fossil fuels count.)
The correlation between sea level and CO2 is unsurprising because either the small orbital forcing (as in the Pleistocene) is magnified by the greenhouse effect, allowing sea levels to rise or fall in tandem with CO2 concentrations, or (as in the modern period, or perhaps warming out of Snowball Earth conditions when temperature-dependent absorption of CO2 is inhibited while vocanic emission continues apace) because CO2 emissions are driving both temperature changes and sea level changes.
As far as I can see, the paper you link to explains in published form exactly what I was describing in #10. If you wish to pursue further discussion along the lines of "CO2 lags temperatures" I suggest this thread.
-
ubrew12 at 06:56 AM on 6 March 2013Carbon Dioxide the Dominant Control on Global Temperature and Sea Level Over the Last 40 Million Years
A control knob is not a switch. Alley is saying if you can control CO2, orbital effects will have little effect. Go ahead and throw the switch, if the oven is turned down little is going to happen. The mechanism whereby CO2 drives temperature can be proven in your garage. The mechanism whereby temperature drives CO2 is speculative, involving ocean outgassing. I believe it and so do you, but if you're going to get hung-up on causation, that should be your candidate. Once CO2 levels increase, temp and sea level have little choice but to respond in kind, because of that thing you can prove in your garage. So the lag you notice is evidence of a different switch, but the response has little choice but to reflect the control knob. That the control knob can also be a switch shouldn't be hard to imagine. In the last 150 years, thats been the case.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 06:42 AM on 6 March 2013China Takes a Leading Role in Solving Climate Change
Habilius... And how much is the expected shortfall? You're bandying about the $24B figure like that's the shortfall. That's the budgeted revenue.
-
Kevin8233 at 06:41 AM on 6 March 2013Carbon Dioxide the Dominant Control on Global Temperature and Sea Level Over the Last 40 Million Years
ubrew12,
but the paper I showed you shows that CO2 lags temp, that temp is the driver of CO2 levels, not the other way around.
We know that ice ages and interglacials are caused by orbital effects,
That was one of my first points, that it was somewhat ridiculous to call CO2 the big control knob, when the ice ages were caused by other factors.
-
ubrew12 at 06:35 AM on 6 March 2013Carbon Dioxide the Dominant Control on Global Temperature and Sea Level Over the Last 40 Million Years
Kevin@10: Composer99@5 tried to inform you: through the greenhouse effect CO2 is a powerful feedback as well as forcer. Claiming otherwise refutes the greenhouse effect. We know that ice ages and interglacials are caused by orbital effects, but CO2 is a powerful feedback that enhances (i.e. causes) much of the enhanced response; the greenhouse effect demands it do so. Hence, I can't claim that the historical rise and fall of sea level was caused by CO2, but I can claim that the AMOUNT of that response WAS caused by CO2 level fluctuations.
-
Habilus at 06:33 AM on 6 March 2013China Takes a Leading Role in Solving Climate Change
@Tom Curtis and Composer99, happy to draw your ad homenim.
Regardless where the money was to have been spent, Australia bugeted a $24 billion income from the carbon tax over 4 years. The shortfall will have to come from somewhere. Maybe they can borrow it from China like everyone else.
-
Kevin8233 at 06:19 AM on 6 March 2013Carbon Dioxide the Dominant Control on Global Temperature and Sea Level Over the Last 40 Million Years
ubrew12,
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/283/5408/1712
This is a peer reviewed paper showing that CO2 lags behind temp.
We shouldn't have to argue that point! So, your are saying that it is a correlation, not causation, but then you go on to mention that CO2 causes high sea level change via the greenhouse effect. So, you are arguing that it is a causation relationship.
That is complete nonsense! The above paper shows that.
-
Eclectikus at 06:13 AM on 6 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
Composer99 at #100. I'm not sure in which fallacy falls this argument, ad populum or ad verecundiam. Maybe is a mixture.
-
Habilus at 06:07 AM on 6 March 2013Carbon Dioxide the Dominant Control on Global Temperature and Sea Level Over the Last 40 Million Years
Key Point #4; ",... and the Earth is once more in equilibrium."
At what point in graph 'A' was the earth in equilibrium?
Moderator Response: (Rob P)- The scale of the graph is not detailed enough to show this, but the 400-500 year-long Medieval Period is a good example. Sea level volume was static during Medieval time because it wasn't warm enough, in a global sense, to add noticeable glacial meltwater to the oceans, nor sufficiently cold enough to grow land-based ice. -
scaddenp at 06:03 AM on 6 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
"Could someone be so kind to tell me where could have a more or less continuous view of the debate? (from a critical position I mean)... or simply it does not exist, everything is closed, and I should read SKS and SoD only."
What those blogs have convinced you by their misrepresentation is that a debate exists. In your sphere of geophysics (mine too), science debates take place in the journals. That is where they belong. Climate science is debated in the journals but 99% of what is in debate is of no interest to WUWT crew because it would not have a policy outcome that is favourable to the authors or readers.
Now if you think otherwise, and there is substantive debate over validity of climate science, then I suggest (as others did), that you put up your evidence (in an appropriate thread here). In the subsequent discussion, then perhaps it will become clearer whether you have been misled or whether we have.
If you want to know what happening in the science from blogs, then read blogs written by practising publishing climate scientists. That would include Roy Spencer but also RealClimate, Issac Held, Chris Colose to name a few. SoD is really about what's in the textbooks not the journals. Very very good for the basics.
-
ubrew12 at 05:55 AM on 6 March 2013Carbon Dioxide the Dominant Control on Global Temperature and Sea Level Over the Last 40 Million Years
Kevin@7: "Foster & Rohling (2013) ... found a consistent and robust relationship between carbon dioxide and sea level"
Correlation is not proof of causation. The mechanism whereby high CO2 causes high sea level, however, is called the greenhouse effect, which neither this website nor any other should have to defend, at this point.
-
Composer99 at 05:52 AM on 6 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
Eclectikus:
If you're going to characterize an appeal to the actual evidence (you know, the atmospheric physics & chemistry, ocean chemistry, radiative physics, empirical observations, and so on) and to the pros who work with such evidence regularly as "who is closer to orthodoxy" then I submit that, contra your assertion, I'm not the one here who is arguing in bad faith.
-
JoeT at 05:47 AM on 6 March 2013China Takes a Leading Role in Solving Climate Change
Physicist@12 Raymond Pierrehumbert, whose opinion I always pay attention to, called the Howarth study "seriously flawed" (under comment #20). You can also find a more extended comment by Gavin Schmidt here
-
Kevin8233 at 05:41 AM on 6 March 2013Carbon Dioxide the Dominant Control on Global Temperature and Sea Level Over the Last 40 Million Years
How about the first question? Is fig 1a a cause and effect figure?
-
Composer99 at 05:37 AM on 6 March 2013Carbon Dioxide the Dominant Control on Global Temperature and Sea Level Over the Last 40 Million Years
Oops, forgot to work with WSIWYG when including links.
Also, DSL basically posted a much more concise, therefore superior, version of what I did.
-
Composer99 at 05:30 AM on 6 March 2013Carbon Dioxide the Dominant Control on Global Temperature and Sea Level Over the Last 40 Million Years
Kevin:
Short answer: No, no overreaching. Richard Alley's characterization is correct. Watch his video, read the link in the OP on Milankovitch cycles, and read <a href="http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Lacis_etal.pdf">this paper</a>.
Long answer:
WIth regards to the specific timeframe you mention, the Pleistocene, and its variation between glacial periods (massive ice sheets covering large segements of North America & Eurasia - the stereotypical Ice Age) and interglacials (ice largely confined to polar & alpine areas), orbital wobbles which alter the amount of summertime sunlight reaching mid-high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere (around 65°N).
When cooling into a glacial period, the wobbles act so as to reduce summertime solar insolation at this latitude, allowing snow to persist for longer and reflect more sunlight (snow having a greater reflectivity than the underlying terrain), which causes cooling. When warming up into an interglacial, the wobbles act so as to increase summertime solar insolation, starting the process of melting the continental ice sheets.
What is critical to note is that the change in forcing in these orbital wobbles is, in and of itself, nowhere near significant enough to cause cooling sufficient to form continent-wide ice sheets, nor to cause warming sufficient to melt them.
As noted in the OP, CO2 feedbacks then kick in, which themselves trigger additional feedbacks. The net effect of the feedbacks follows the direction of the initial change in forcing.
Over the course of the Pleistocene, until the onset of the Industrial Revolution, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere can largely be attributed to this process, with some minor contribution from volcanism and sequestration from other geological processes.
The critical point is that, as shown in the Lacis et al paper and the discussion of Pleistocene glaciation, CO2 is indispensible to the mediation of Earth system climate. Orbital wobbles have not always been an important forcing in climate (given the resolution studies of paleoclimate affords us), and solar forcing, while ultimately important, has to be mediated by greenhouse forcing in order for the Earth climate to support most life as we know it (some cold-resistant bacteria or other simple organisms notwithstanding).
-
DSL at 05:13 AM on 6 March 2013Carbon Dioxide the Dominant Control on Global Temperature and Sea Level Over the Last 40 Million Years
But the cached version does appear.
-
DSL at 05:12 AM on 6 March 2013Carbon Dioxide the Dominant Control on Global Temperature and Sea Level Over the Last 40 Million Years
The Foster & Rohling link is a dead end.
Moderator Response: (Rob P) Fixed thanks. -
william5331 at 05:10 AM on 6 March 2013China Takes a Leading Role in Solving Climate Change
If China does impose a carbon tax, both for domestic and imported fossil fuel, and returns this money equally to each of its citizens (Hansen solution) and taxes goods from countries which do not have a carbon tax, other countries will pretty much have to follow suit or be left at an economic disadvantage. A tax on carbon is determined by legislation, not by the market as is cap and trade so it can be slowly ramped up year after year. Long before renewable energy is equal in price to coal generated energy, capital will flee from fossil fuel, speeding up our transition to renewables and research into ways of coping with pulsating souces of energy. China, with her command economy is the one country that could set this up rapidly and basically save our sorry selves from ourselves.
-
DSL at 05:05 AM on 6 March 2013Carbon Dioxide the Dominant Control on Global Temperature and Sea Level Over the Last 40 Million Years
Depends on how you look at it, Kevin. Certainly the sun is the almost exclusive source of energy. However, forcing from solar variation is not that strong (except in the very, very long range -- faint sun hypothesis, etc.). It's just persistent. Consider Milankovitch forcing. It seems strong: it is responsible for major swings in global temp. However, it's a pretty weak forcing. It's just long-lasting enough to trigger a powerful, long-term ice-albedo process and a powerful, long-term change in ocean temp (leading to outgasing of CO2). Because CO2 is not exclusively a feedback, it can and should be considered a powerful forcing--certainly enough to overwhelm orbital forcing (see Tzedakis et al. 2012). As for CO2's dominance as a greenhouse gas, see Lacis et al. (2010).
-
Eclectikus at 05:01 AM on 6 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
DSL #95 says: "When you point to your scientific credentials, you gain authority in the eyes of (some) readers, readers who don't have enough of a basis in scientific training and/or the existing literature to "do the math" and/or put things in context, respectively, and who are thus forced to use other means to assign validity to a proposition."
While I understand your position and I think you're right, it is something that can not be fixed and now could say I'm an astronaut. Simply, believe or not, I have experience enough in hydrography, marine geophysics, bathymetry, GPS positioning, GIS, DTM, data acquisition and processing... Well, experience enough to leave out of the room all the emotional aspects or at least minimize its influence.
98# Rob Honeycutt.- Okay, is your view, but that is exactly the method used on all west democracies including (or even starting by) USA. Is not a scientific prize, but is a prize given directly for the readers. I for one am delighted to have reached finalist and humbly ask my readers vote.
-
Kevin8233 at 04:52 AM on 6 March 2013Carbon Dioxide the Dominant Control on Global Temperature and Sea Level Over the Last 40 Million Years
Is fig 1a trying to show a cause and effect relationship between CO2 and sea level? Or do they just happen to go up and down together, perhaps each caused by something else, temperature perhaps?
Because of this behaviour, renowned glaciologist, Richard Alley, has dubbed carbon dioxide Earth's biggest temperature control knob.
Isn't this somewhat over-reaching? There have been several ice-ages (as shown in above figure), none of these ice-ages was caused by CO2 levels, nor was the ending of these ages. Clearly, something other than CO2 is the big control knob!
Moderator Response: (Rob P) Figure 1 shows what happened to sea level and atmospheric CO2. You have actually read the post you're commenting on right? -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:40 AM on 6 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
Eclectikus @ 78... If SkS tried to rally it's readers to vote, then it would be contributing to the very problem the award has. That it can be gamed. That means if SkS won the award it would not be a measure of the quality of posts or information on SkS, it would just be a measure of SkS's ability to get it's readers to vote.
What's the merit in that? None, as far as I can see. It's certainly not any kind of badge of honor.
-
Eclectikus at 04:35 AM on 6 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
Compare99 I commented here in order to note that the word pseudoscience does not necessarily have negative connotations, and I put the example of Feynman talking about respectables Sciences as sociology, economics and Psychology as pseudoscience. Also I explained my position about the awards. Everything else has been a bonus.
Purposely I have not entered into a war of links about who is closer to orthodoxy (absolutely you are), and by principle I do not like to treat Science as a Bible (it's not), or a contest to see who has a longer "penis" (surely you have prepared all the "official science" in the breech). So, sorry, but I will not do it now. Not worth it, you can save your links, a lot of them probably I already have read them.
But briefly (I am alone "against" many people), some notes.
93.- doug_bostrom, some of them only support a reading diagonal, maybe, but "WUWT" is not specifically a divulgative blog like this, and this has to be in the reader's mind.
94.- Philippe Chantreau. Please, do not compare Quantum Mechanics with Climatology, no from a epistemology point of view, and still less speaking of precision in results. Since we talked about Feynman, please just take a look at this link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_tests_of_QED
Philippe says "From fake skeptics we've seen everything and anything on the spectrum: "it's not happening", "it's happening but just a little" "it's not really happening, plus it has happened before anyway" "it's happening but it's not us" "it's happening and it's us but it's a good thing" and innumerable variations."
Well, that could be an endemic problem, we have also seen passing "global warming" to "climate change" and hence to "climate disruption", also we heard "Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past", and innumerable variations.... the relevance of this is purely rhetoric and point us more a problem of comunication that anything else.
In short I think it is an endless debate. Suppose that I throw away Mr Watss, Curry, Roy Spencer, etc ... Could someone be so kind to tell me where could have a more or less continuous view of the debate? (from a critical position I mean)... or simply it does not exist, everything is closed, and I should read SKS and SoD only.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 04:31 AM on 6 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
The competence displayed at Watts' site leadsme to believe that good articles on WUWT are akin to these Gettier JTBs that are entirely owed to randomness.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/25/fact-check-for-andrew-glickson-ocean-heat-has-paused-too/
Just use your eyecrometer to draw a yellow line across the data, et voila. Even at that, one needs a eyecrometer calibrated by Smokey. My eyecrometer sees the upward trend in these data even without analysis. Of course, real analysis is the only way to go:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/03/05/fact-checking-the-cherry-pickers-anthony-watts-edition/
I'm sure Dana will follow up soon. This was used as an illustration of why anti science blogs are not sources to be considered. If it is deemed off-topic by mods, feel free to move it to a better thread.
-
DSL at 04:28 AM on 6 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
Eclectikus, do you note how people keep asking you for the evidence that forms the basis of your position? What posted at WUWT do you consider high-quality? Or is it that WUWT allows you an opinion without demanding a basis in evidence (i.e. the opposite of skepticism)? What did you learn at Curry's? Why do you assume that WUWT is even a piece in the same puzzle that forms "the big picture"? (I think of WUWT as taking pieces of the the "big picture" and trying to paint in their view of, not the rest of the puzzle--I've never seen a comprehensive alternative theory offered by blog science or published science--, but of just the context surrounding that piece.) Why have you made the blanket statement about the ONU, a large and complex organization? You dismiss the entire organization in a sentence. That does not recommend your critical thinking skill. It strongly suggests that you test every porposition against rigid ideology.
Note that no one here is dismissing you; they simply want to know why you believe what you believe. What a great opportunity to shape opinions.
By the way, your experience is highly relevant in this thread. This is a public forum. When you point to your scientific credentials, you gain authority in the eyes of (some) readers, readers who don't have enough of a basis in scientific training and/or the existing literature to "do the math" and/or put things in context, respectively, and who are thus forced to use other means to assign validity to a proposition. As long as you refrain from actually revealing your understanding of climate science, you get to ride the fence and enjoy your assumed authority. As soon as you start engaging the science and providing the basis of your stated positions, you start to come down off the fence--on one side or the other.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 03:44 AM on 6 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
Eklektikus, a few points that came to my mind while reading your post:
Quantum theory is about the same age as climate science, does that make it any weaker?
Any area of science, even the very well established or "older" ones have thousands of papers that say very little. These papers have their usefulness too. Medical science has innumerable papers saying very little, is also very complex and full of poorly understood mechanisms. Try to open a pharmacology guide and see what proportion of these molecules come with "mechanism of action unknown."
Everything is a matter of degree. We're far from having a working model of the Human body. That doesn't prevent us from achieving some remarkable success. Yet I don't see "skepticism" about this science akin to what is seen with climate science. When it does happen, it is marginal BS like the anti vaccine nonsense or the occasional fruitcake denying the link between HIV and AIDS. That is not to say that nobody has a skeptical attitude in medicine. People still question and re-examine knowledge all the time, but they do it with sincerity, research and hard work, not blanket ad-homs like we hear against climate scientists.
In fact, most everybody I work with has a healthy dose of skepticism, which, for instance, prevents them from using expensive new drugs instead of the older ones that work just as good.
The politicization of climate science is exclusively a production of fake skeptics. Sure, there are activists pushing for CO2 regulations. These people have not politicized the science. They are elaborating what they see as political solutions to the problems that the science reveals. They may be sometimes, misguided, mistaken, have a distorted view, whatever. But they don't attack the science and scientists like fake skeptics do.
The fake skeptics of climate science have a different take. They try to make the problem to sop being a problem by pretending it does not exist, it's not so bad, it's not something we can do anything about, it's fake because the evil scientists showing it's there are all in a cabal to extract money from us, etc, etc. If you really read "skeptic" blogs, you'll see endless ramblings that amount to just that. When one is truly skeptical about the science, you get a Mueller/BEST type of situation.
I find it ironic that you ask about a coherent position. From fake skeptics we've seen everything and anything on the spectrum: "it's not happening", "it's happening but just a little" "it's not really happening, plus it has happened before anyway" "it's happening but it's not us" "it's happening and it's us but it's a good thing" and innumerable variations. For more specialized incoherence, check out our home grown comedians on the 2nd law thread, Damorbel is the master.
You've seen the ridicule and incoherent nonsense that gets out of Watt's blog on a daily basis right? Thermodynamics confusion beyond belief, carbonic snow, averaging ratios without weighing, complete incomprehension of scientific papers to the point that the authors have to step in to clarify. Where is the value there ?How am I to take seriously someone who endorses this pile of manure as having high standards of "scientific robustness" like Pielke Sr. has done on SkS?
The true critics of the science are not the ones whose names are all over the blogs. They are the people doing research and producing results. When was the last time Curry published something of interest? She finds it acceptable to let appear on her blog a post advocating the summary execution of climate scientists, because it's all in good fun. That's conributing to a debate, really? Roy Spencer had to have major errors in his program pointed to him by others, then still let some politically motivated commenters use the erroneous data to try to score points in the press. Talk about politicizing the science. He has produced some of the most grotesque ideas about the carbon cycle that have ever been uttered. Stuff so bad it's not even wrong. Where is the skepticism toward the so-called "critics" ? These people are not critics, they are fake skeptics. They do not provide any balance in a debate. Their contribution is not valuable, it is in fact adverse to true progress.
-
Physicist-retired at 03:16 AM on 6 March 2013China Takes a Leading Role in Solving Climate Change
Thanks, Dana.
If you see any follow-up research regarding methane leaks from fracked wells, I'd be very interested in seeing them. The Cornell study was the only in-depth analysis I've read to date - and it certainly caught my attention:
The footprint for shale gas is greater than that for conventional gas or oil
when viewed on any time horizon, but particularly so over 20 years.Compared to coal, the footprint of shale gas is at least 20% greater and perhaps more than twice as great on the 20-year horizon and is comparable when compared over 100 years.
A very serious concern, in my opinion - and one that doesn't seem to be accounted for in our emissions estimates (yet).
Prev 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 Next
