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:
-
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 In short, the carbon tax is working well, but there are worrying signs that it may nevertheless be repealed as a result of the upcoming election.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).
-
Doug Bostrom at 03:12 AM on 6 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
Eclectikus: ...I've also read good articles at WUWT...
As an exercise, Eclecitkus and in order to make this conversation somewhat more specific as to cases, would you mind saying quickly saying whether each of the WUWT's last twenty articles related to climate science strike you as good?
To make this easier, here's a list of the most recent twenty climate science related WUWT articles:
- Irony Hypocrisy on steroids–UVa plugs new “Open Science Center” while simultaneously keeping Michael Mann’s science notes away from the public
- Categorical Thinking and The Climate Debate
- Keystone Pipeline: Housecats Have More Emissions Impact
- Big drop in global surface temperature in February, ocean temps flat
- Global Warming causing biblical plagues – like locusts
- A Conspiracy of One
- Blog Memo to Lead Authors of NCADAC Climate Assessment Report
- The Coldest Journey Gets Colder
- Impractical Proposal: Dry Ice Sequestration on Antarctic Ice Sheets
- A note about temperatures
- Michael Mann’s new ‘trick’, pulled off at the American Geophysical Union Convention – exposed by McIntyre
- Aerosols from Moderate Volcanos Now Blamed for Global Warming Hiatus
- Keystone pipeline passes environmental review – ‘little impact on climate’ – ecos outraged
- The 1970′s Global Cooling Compilation – looks much like today
- February 2013 global surface temperature – at normal
- Study suggests ‘snowball Earth’ was real and was reversed by ‘An ultra-high carbon dioxide atmosphere’
- Al Gore’s Reality Drop – Climate Change to Destroy Music?
- CMIP5 Model-Data Comparison: Satellite-Era Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies
- Blockheaded thinking on well known weather patterns and ‘extreme weather’
- Germany Weathers Darkest Winter in 43 Years
For those articles that strike you as "good" can you briefly say why?
What's the proportion of good articles to those that are not good, in your estimation?
Moderator Response: [RH] Unsuccessfully tried removing the span span span span span, span! the glorious span! Only to end up with more span span span span span eggs bacon and span.
Fixed garbage... I think I have to fix the copy/paste mechanism that's mucking stuff up. -
Composer99 at 03:04 AM on 6 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
Eclectikus:
What I think people have been trying to emphasize to you in this thread (to say nothing of trying to emphasize to other people, over and over and over and over, elsewhere on Skeptical Science or other fora) is that claims such as
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. [Emphasis mine.]
are plainly and unambiguously false. They are also usually made (as in your case here) with nothing approaching reasonable evidentiary support. If I recall correctly, your sole line of support on this thread has been snide comments made about climate modelling (with no specific criticisms of methodology, data, etc. that could actually support your position).
Your claims following (in the same comment or later) such as
I'm aware of many achievements of Climatology lately, but that does not stop me from seeing their weaknesses and the long way still remaining to talk face to face to other areas as meteorology, geophysics, astrophysics. [Emphasis mine.]
or
I tell you what I see: thousands of papers saying very little, and one big truth: we're far to have a working model of the earth climate.
all appear to suffer from the same problems: being incorrect (particularly if applied generally to climatology as a whole rather to specific areas of active reasearch) and being made without any sort of substantiation.
Contrary to such sets of claims as those that you make, we have the summaries of the science made in the IPCC assessment reports, or on websites such as Skeptical Science, Science of Doom, Real Climate, and the like, we have the formal opinions of large scientific bodies (such as the US National Academy of Sciences) or of agencies with a vested interest in ensuring their policies & procedures match with reality (such as the US armed forces).
-
Eclectikus at 02:52 AM on 6 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
Albatross #89. Sorry if I jumped off topic, but I'm talking here in several sub-thread at the same time.
And, yeah, of course, anyone can fall in a mistake, or in a chain of them, but that is not enough to bury people in the desert of Las Vegas. I can say that I learned a bunch of thing reading her blog, and even more in some of its threads.
Coming back the thread, yeah, withdrawing now is an option, a legitimate option. I gave you mi opinion, and still I think that the better option was withdrawing after winning the award, think in the impact of the message. But, well, you know, opinion is free.
-
Eclectikus at 02:32 AM on 6 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
#87 Sphaerica says "...And what do you see?"
I tell you what I see: thousands of papers saying very little, and one big truth: we're far to have a working model of the earth climate. There are some mechanisms still not well understood (clouds, aerosols, ocean variability...) something pretty normal in a multidisciplinary science, new, highly complex, and therefore immature. And to make matters worse, politicized as hell.
And that is the point Sphaerica, in this state of the things, for people not directly involved in the guts of Climatology, is better (for all of us) see the full picture: the mainstream (SkS for example) and also a good sample of the critics. I really do not understand why it is so hard to accept this position... is there any other coherent position?
-
dana1981 at 02:30 AM on 6 March 2013China Takes a Leading Role in Solving Climate Change
Physicist @12 - unfortunately the methane leakage during natural gas drilling remains a pretty big question mark. I doubt that it makes overall natural gas emissions exceed coal GHG emissions, but natural gas also probably isn't as low emissions as it gets credit for. This is an area of ongoing research.
-
Son of Krypton at 02:26 AM on 6 March 2013China Takes a Leading Role in Solving Climate Change
Albatross@14
While I would love to see Harper take something of a change in course from his tar-sands-development-at-all-costs approach, I very much doubt we can count on the current Canadian government to implement a price on carbon. In 2009, prior to his majority government, Harper used the appointed Senate to kill the elected House of Commons passed climate change bill, which included carbon pricing. This was the first occurrance of the Senate killing a House bill since the 30s, which kind of shows his resolve to ensure no price is implemented. If Canada's emissions are to fall, I think it will be a result of Keystone being killed, public opposition being just far too high to proceed with the Northern Gateway and other pipelines not being economically feasible.
Good could be done on the provincial level though. BC has a carbon tax, Quebec is moving towards Cap-and-Trade, there is the possibility Ontario will do likewise so long as the Conservatives aren't elected, Manitoba has a modest price on coal and I've heard mullings that they're looking to increase it, the Maritime provinces are looking at further developing hydroelectric. So, while overarching ferderal support seems to be about nil under Harper, there is the possibility that certain conditions may lend themselves to a reduction in Canada's GHG emissions
-
Albatross at 02:14 AM on 6 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
Eclectikus,
Could you please try and stay on topic? You seem to have forgotten the topic of this thread. Just one comment on something that you said, that is relevant to the OP.
"I have a great respect for Curry."
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, no matter how misguided. The fact is that several of her eminent colleagues and peers, you know people who are qualified to speak to the scientific integrity of her musings, no longer respect Curry. They are embarressed for her, and that inlcudes me, another of her peers. Our response to Curry's behaviour is not becasue she is painting herself as a heretic (an easy card to play), or a contrarian, it has very much to do with the fact that Curry is taking a machete to the science.
Have you already forgotten her saying "Wow" in repsonse to the pseudo science of Salby on the CO2 cycle? Or Curry saying "If Salby’s analysis holds up, this could revolutionize AGW science". The egregious problems with Salby's analysis are also addressed in Cawley's (2012) response to some similar musings by Essenhigh. That is but one of several examples of "skeptics" and contrarians endorsing and promoting pseudo science, while also attacking scientists.
It is for this, and other reasons, that owners of respected science sites, who take science seriously and who do their very best to get the science right are distancing themselves from the Bloggies. It does not help that charlatans like Delingpole are asking their readers to "Vote Delingpole! Vote often!" The Bloggies system has been gamed by none other than the "Interpreter of interpretations" . So someone who admits to not even bothering to read the science is in the running for "best" science blog!
End of story.
-
Bob Lacatena at 02:12 AM on 6 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
#86 Eclectikus,
So if a site publishes half of its articles puporting that the CIA was behind the Kennedy and King assassinations, and that Israel was behind 9/11, and that there is a Star Chamber in charge of the entire world... but also publishes half of its articles by reposting reputable material... then that site is all fine and dandy?
WUWT is crawling with complete crap. The fact that it has a very, very rare article worth reading — usually a cut-and-paste repost of some non-climate related scientific study — does not save it from the ravages of blind stupidity.
The fact that there are a lot of people who like WUWT says nothing about its validity. A lot of people love the Kardashians, too. A lot of people are alcoholics. Popularity is not a gauge of value, validity or clarity.
Anyone, regardless of their position on the subject, should be ashamed and embarrassed by WUWT.
The fact that you are not speaks volumes.
-
Bob Lacatena at 02:04 AM on 6 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
#85 Eclectikus,
But all the IPCC does is to quote the science. If you don't trust the AR reports, fine, then look at the body of the published, peer-reviewed science itself. And what do you see?
-
Eclectikus at 02:00 AM on 6 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
#83 Sphaerica, sorry, but I've also read good articles at WUWT, and many people thinks in a similar way.
Prev 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 Next
