Recent Comments

Prev  972  973  974  975  976  977  978  979  980  981  982  983  984  985  986  987  Next

Comments 48951 to 49000:

48951. Nick Palmer at 05:21 AM on 13 February 2013
       Lukewarmerism, a.k.a. Ignoring Inconvenient Evidence
       

       Rob Honeycutt@19

       Yup it does come from a denialist source.That is why I think it can be used against lukewarmers - Judo uses the enemy's strength against himself - to make the argument powerfully that even 1°C of warming is likely to have far reaching effects.

       Connolley put in the data that was sneakily missed out - see below

       

48952. Rob Painting at 04:49 AM on 13 February 2013
       Lukewarmerism, a.k.a. Ignoring Inconvenient Evidence
       

       Nick Palmer - maybe the lukewarmers can explain why global sea level (a proxy for the volume of global land-based ice and therefore global temperature) during the Medieval Period was static during that time and only began to rise appreciably in the 19th century?

48953. SEAN O at 04:34 AM on 13 February 2013
       Lukewarmerism, a.k.a. Ignoring Inconvenient Evidence
       

       This graph also shows up at Stoat:

       http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2013/02/07/the-sleepwalkers/

       WMC comments:

       "So now we know how MR proposes to support his assertions: provide evidence that doesn’t cover the period in question, and erase information that contradicts his assertions – even when that comes from the very refs he is quoting"

       http://www.flickr.com/photos/belette/8454321768/

48954. Jeffrey Davis at 03:09 AM on 13 February 2013
       Lukewarmerism, a.k.a. Ignoring Inconvenient Evidence
       

       It needs to be stressed that climate sensitivity is not a limit on warming. A climate sensitivitiy of 2C does not mean that there will only be 2C of warming. Warming will continue as more CO2 is added to the atmosphere. Nor is there any guarantee that we won't face a terrible catastrophe before warming reaches 2C. Storm damage, crop damage, the advance of insect pests have all reached terrible levels today when we've only experienced around .9C of warming.

       Ask a "luke-warmer" if they'd play Russian Roulette with 3 live bullets out of 6.

48955. Rob Honeycutt at 02:47 AM on 13 February 2013
       Lukewarmerism, a.k.a. Ignoring Inconvenient Evidence
       

       Nick Palmer...  First thing I notice about that graph, even without going to Stoat to see it, is the phrase "Adapted from Ljundquist, 2010."  I would bet my bottom dollar that graph actually comes from the Idso's website, CO2science.

48956. Composer99 at 02:40 AM on 13 February 2013
       The Japan Meteorological Agency temperature record
       

       What a difference in trend the missing 15% of coverage makes.

       I guess it shouldn't be surprising given that the missing areas are among the fastest-warming.

48957. Tristan at 02:26 AM on 13 February 2013
       The Japan Meteorological Agency temperature record
       

       If you keep putting together such articles I'm going to get embarrassed by the amount of compliments I give you.

48958. Nick Palmer at 00:16 AM on 13 February 2013
       Lukewarmerism, a.k.a. Ignoring Inconvenient Evidence
       

       

        

       Perhaps this is too simplistic but, from the graph aboove, which was taken from Stoat's post "The Sleepwalkers", from the height of the MWP to the depths of the LIA seems to only be about 0.9°C which is what a lot of the lukewarmers expect we are going to get, with their favoured low sensitivity figure.

       But, eyeballing, that would put us about 0.7°C on top of the peak of the MWP which suggests that such an apparently small increase (which the lukewarmer types represent as insignificant) would actually be quite a big deal in terms of the changes to the planet, no? From the LIA to the MWP was certainly a big change to the climate in the northern hemisphere…

       Do they shoot themselves in the foot by backing an approximately 1 °C rise figure? If they have already accepted up to 3°C sensitivity, as Moshers and co's self-description seems to suggest, then surely it is an open and shut case for them to agree that any rise between 1-3°C has got to be extremely risky?

48959. Martin Lack at 23:22 PM on 12 February 2013
       A Brief Note on the Latest Release of Draft IPCC Documents
       

       Given that their own belief sytem is almost entirely based on non-peer-reviewed material, it is ludicrous for climate contrarians to complain about the IPCC reviewing "gray literature".

48960. shoyemore at 18:57 PM on 12 February 2013
       Lukewarmerism, a.k.a. Ignoring Inconvenient Evidence
       

       Andy Skuce @6

       You will find Steve Mosher's definition of Lukewarmerism in the comments to this post - reasonably early on.

       http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/01/encouraging-admission-of-lower-climate-sensitivity-by-a-hockey-team-scientist/#comment-1214225

       I am still at a loss to define "Lukewarmers" - there seems to be agreement on teh fundamentals of the science, but a difference in the response. Some, like Richard Tol and Pielke Jnr, just seem to take a different tone - Tol for example is on the "academic board" of the science-denying Global Warming Policy Foundation, but supports a carbon price for all the right reasons. Others (Judith Curry) desire to be "bridge builders", but turn out to be anything but. My own suspicion is that they just get a kick out of running with the foxes and hunting with the hounds at the same time.

48961. Doug Bostrom at 16:17 PM on 12 February 2013
       Announcing the Skeptical Science Glossary
       

       Brent (and others wishing not to have glossary popups appearing), you can pull up the tab at bottom of your screen ("Look up a Term") and select "No Definitions" (at lower right). 

48962. brent at 12:06 PM on 12 February 2013
       Announcing the Skeptical Science Glossary
       

       Excellent idea in principle but with FF 18.0.2 it's infuriating, forever trying to avoid keywords with my cursor.  Afraid I'm going to disable scripts for SkS from now on.

       Moderator Response: [Sph] As Doug points out in the following comment, you can easily turn off the automated glossary function using the glossary tab at the bottom of the page.
       
       We are looking into adding a short (configurable) delay, but the coding for it is not straightforward.
48963. dhogaza at 12:02 PM on 12 February 2013
       Lukewarmerism, a.k.a. Ignoring Inconvenient Evidence
       

       In the case of Mosher and Fuller, I wonder if the need to distance themselves from the consensus view despite their actually sharing the consensus view is related to the fact that they wrote and profited from a book that accused leading climate scientists of scientific fraud?

       It was Mosher who, years ago, before ClimateGate, coined the term Michael "Piltdown" Mann as part of the CA-led attack on MBH 1998/99 and the "hockey stick", in essence claiming that his work on climate reconstructions was a fraud on the level of Piltdown Man.

       Perhaps portraying the mainstream as having moved to their view, rather than the obvious fact that their view has moved to be in line with the mainstream (regarding climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2, at least) is easier than admitting that their earlier claims of scientific fraud were unwarranted.

        

48964. dhogaza at 10:51 AM on 12 February 2013
       Lukewarmerism, a.k.a. Ignoring Inconvenient Evidence
       

       Interesting reading over at fuller's.   Self-congratulation on scientists like Annan accepting the lukewarmer position that climate sensitivity is ... about 3C.

        

       The delusion over there seems real.  They really seem to believe that the consensus position has been 4C or more, and all of the calls for action are based on sensitivity at that level.

        

       While sensitivity in the "about 3C" range, even if a bit lower as Model E and other results might suggest, has been, of course, the basis for policy arguments that we must take definite action if we want to restrict warming by 2100 to 2C over preindustrial levels.

        

       The disconnect with reality, history of climate science, history of the political calls for action is just ... stunning.

48965. JasonB at 09:36 AM on 12 February 2013
       Lukewarmerism, a.k.a. Ignoring Inconvenient Evidence
       

       dorlormin,

       That's exactly right. Someone who derives their conclusions from the evidence can't help but arrive at the obvious value:

       

       There is still uncertainty, sure — for example, the sensitivity is probably temperature-dependent since certain feedbacks only exist within certain temperature ranges (e.g. in terms of albedo, highly-reflective ice can only exist up to a certain temperature; vegetation can only exist up to a certain temperature, etc.) which means the past values may not be exactly the same as the future, but that's still the best information we have, and saying "Well, it was high in the past, but we're now pushing it into a regime unknown for tens of millions of years and we don't know what it will be under those circumstances, so let's assume it's lower!" doesn't seem like good risk management!

       Choosing to ignore that and instead assume a sensitivity a-priori (or using a technique that is fundamentally unable to give you an accurate answer while ignoring those that do) is not scientific, no matter how "scientific" the proponents feel they are because they have grudgingly agreed to accept every other piece of evidence leading up to that last one, which is just one step too far for them. It's as if they think this last obstacle to action is impenetrable, so they're willing to concede everything else, but you get the feeling that if you push too hard on the last one they'll take a step backwards and proclaim "But CO₂ is a trace gas anyway! UHI! Sun!". :-)

48966. dorlomin at 08:52 AM on 12 February 2013
       Lukewarmerism, a.k.a. Ignoring Inconvenient Evidence
       

       Lukewarmism is a nonesense idea that is designed to artificially polarise the debate into discrete camps. It is a premeditated selection of the minimum defensible sensitivity and creating an argument around that rather than an open process of bringing evidence to the table. 

48967. dana1981 at 08:45 AM on 12 February 2013
       Lukewarmerism, a.k.a. Ignoring Inconvenient Evidence
       

       Tom @10 - I entirely agree.  Mosher's move towards the IPCC/consensus has been quite noticeable, and as a result he's become less and less popular amongst the contrarians.  It does seem like he's holding onto this 'lukewarmer' label just to distinguish himself rom the consensus position somehow.

       I also very much agree that if you believe there's a ~50% chance equilibrium sensitivity is 3°C or higher, you should be pushing hard for urgent action on climate change.

       And that dovetails very well with my next post coming up on Wednesday, looking at future climate change in various sensitivity and emissions scenarios.  Stay tuned, that's going to be a good one.

48968. dhogaza at 07:51 AM on 12 February 2013
       Lukewarmerism, a.k.a. Ignoring Inconvenient Evidence
       

       " But though he has shifted towards the IPCC position, he does not want to give up that title, so he has expanded the range of "lukewamer" positions to the right. "

       
       

       And consider this:

       
       

       "Everything we believe is well within the consensus and we think that you can change the consensus from inside the tent "

        

       If one's opinion lies within the consensus, the need for changing the consensus is driven by ... what, exactly?

        

       Tom Fuller has also in the past said he thinks sensitivity is about 2.5, i.e. dead-on with NASA GISS Model E's 2.4-2.7 range.  He's made a big deal of James Annan's work to diminish the high tail of uncertainty as though this is somehow counter to the mainstream view (Annan thinks sensitivity lies within 2.5-3C, though he agrees that higher values can't be entirely ruled out).

        

       I think that lukewarmerism is just obfsucation - claiming a difference where non exists in order to appear to accept the science in order to support their political position that nothing need be done (or not much needs to be done).

        

       I think it's just an effort to paint the mainstream view as being that sensitivity is > 3C and likely considerably higher, that calls for action are based on that view, and then "reasonably" extrapolating that accepting a lower value (say 2.5-3) means no immediate action need be taken ...

        

       
       

48969. Tom Curtis at 07:46 AM on 12 February 2013
       Humidity is falling
       

       Jeff313 @7, thankyou for admiting that your formula was merely sloganeering, not analysis.  Once, however, you admit that the effect depends on the values, unless you analyse the actual values and the effect they have, which you have not done, you are unable to say anything regarding the net effect.  This is particularly the case given that increases water vapour provides both a positive (the WV feedback) and negative (the lapse rate feedback) feedbacks.  If WV is increased at medium altitudes, but decreased at high altitudes, that can have the effect of neutralizing the lapse rate feedback, while strengthening the water vapour feedback.  Ergo, your slogan is not valid even as a "general statement".

48970. Tom Curtis at 07:16 AM on 12 February 2013
       Lukewarmerism, a.k.a. Ignoring Inconvenient Evidence
       

       dana @9, I think that has more to do with the fact that Mosher has been shifting towards the IPCC position over time.  I doubt many of his "fellow" lukewarmers would still recognize him as one.  But though he has shifted towards the IPCC position, he does not want to give up that title, so he has expanded the range of "lukewamer" positions to the right.  Indeed, he has expanded it so far that his estimate of the probability of a climate sensitivity between 3 and 4.5 C is likely greater than the IPCCs. His estimate of for greater than 4.5 C is, however, much lower.

       In fact, I think his high estimate for 3-4.5 C is the real story here.  The disaterous future consequent on greenhouse emissions that is currently predicted assumes a climate sensitivity of 3 C per doubling of CO2.  Mosher things there is nearly a 50/50 chance it is worse than that.  Why, then, is he not demanding urgent action to mitigate climate change?

        

       Andy Skuce - Mosher's comment.

48971. Tom Curtis at 06:52 AM on 12 February 2013
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Kevin @266, first, the chart I showed @263 is not of adjustment of individual temperature datums, but of adjustment to station trends.  That is not a matter of adjustments down early and up late, but of differing adjustment for each station that just happen to have a mean value slightly above zero, even though nearly half make negative adjustments to the trend.

       Second, it is not a 10% adjustment, but an 8.9% adjsutment in a record with an 11% error margin.  Further, it was not an adjustment in the temperature at all, but an adjustment in an index of temperature which you have done nothing to show makes that index less accurate.  For all you know, and most probably, it has made it more accurate.

48972. dana1981 at 06:52 AM on 12 February 2013
       Lukewarmerism, a.k.a. Ignoring Inconvenient Evidence
       

       Pierre-Normand @8 - right you are, thanks.  Figure caption updated accordingly.

       Tom @7 - I still think that's a pretty minimal difference between the IPCC and Mosher positions.

48973. Pierre-Normand at 06:41 AM on 12 February 2013
       Lukewarmerism, a.k.a. Ignoring Inconvenient Evidence
       

       Although it's been released in Jan 2013, the University of Colorado mean sea level data seems only to extend until late 2012. The last data point is for 2012.8590 (That is 859/1000 of the year, or something like the 313th day of 2012).

48974. scaddenp at 06:39 AM on 12 February 2013
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Kevin, I am giving you reasons why a disparity would suddenly appear. A change in TOBS, move from city to airport, change of thermometer, and change of screen will all create a discontinuity in the record that the algorithm will pick up, and they will all result in temperatures taken after the change being lower than the ones before, so adjustments will increase trend.

48975. Tom Curtis at 06:37 AM on 12 February 2013
       Lukewarmerism, a.k.a. Ignoring Inconvenient Evidence
       

       shoyemore @1, it is interesting to compare the IPCC AR4 with Mosher's definition:

       "Analysis of models together with constraints from observations suggest that the equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely to be in the range 2°C to 4.5°C, with a best estimate value of about 3°C. It is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. Values substantially higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded, but agreement with observations is not as good for those values. Probability density functions derived from different information and approaches generally tend to have a long tail towards high values exceeding 4.5°C. Analysis of climate and forcing evolution over previous centuries and model ensemble studies do not rule out climate sensitivity being as high as 6°C or more. "

       (Original emphasis)

       In the contrained language of the IPCC, that means that thre is a less than 10% chance that the Climate Sensitivity is less than 1.5 C per doubling of CO2.  There is a 66% chance it lies between 2 and 4.5 C per doubling, and that the probability does not fall of as quickly above 4.5 C as it does below 2 C.

       The IPCC did not publish a PDF for its own assessment, but the right skew of probabilities means that a climate sensitivity between 3 and 4.5 C is more probable, on their assessment than a probabiltiy between 2 and 3 C..  That is, although 3 C is the modal value, the median and mean values probably lie between 3 and 4.5 C.

       Because Mosher has not used the same demarcations, and because his assignment of probabilities is inconsistent, with a total probability greater than 1.025, direct comparison is difficult.  It is clear that somebody accepting IPCC values would preffer the upper half of the bet between the climate sensitivity being between 2 and 3 C, or 3 and 4.5 C,   As the probability of greater than 4.5 C is greater than the probability less than 2 C, and hence greater than the probability of between 1 and 2 C, they would also take the upper half of Mosher's proffered bet.  Hence I disagree with both Dikran and Dana that Mosher's opinion that the IPCC just about fall within the opinion of luke-warmer.

       Having said that, I finde Mosher's definition of "lukewarmer" strange.  It is strange both because most self avowed lukewarmers I have known have been quite clear that:

       1) The probable CS is around 1.5 C per doubling (very close to Mosher's lower limit); and

       2) The climate sensitivity is sufficiently low that no major action need be taken to mitigate climate change.

       Indeed, "lukewarmer" seems to be a badge for saying, "I'm not so foolish as to deny well established physics, but let's do nothing to protect the future".  I should note that both Lindzen and Monckton who purport to believe the most probable cliimate sensitivity is 0.5 C per doubling also claim to be "lukewarmers".

48976. Andy Skuce at 06:32 AM on 12 February 2013
       Lukewarmerism, a.k.a. Ignoring Inconvenient Evidence
       

       shoyemore:

       Do you have a link for that?

       Just like M Jourdain in the play le Bourgeois Gentilhomme who was surprised to hear he had been speaking prose all his life and never knew it, so it is that I am now shocked to discover that I have been a lukewarmer all along, at least by Steve Mosher's definition. 

       The 50% of Lukewarmers who would vote for a most likely climate sensitivity between 1 and 3 is a broad church encompassing contrarian extremists like Ridley, as well as the IPCC consensus. There's a factor of three over that particular range—a lot of uncertainty by any but Judith Curry's standards—and it implies a huge difference in climate outcomes from mild to very serious.

       I think that what truly unites Lukewarmers is not any internal consistency of scientific opinion, but rather their desire not to be seen as so stupid to deny basic science and, at the same time, not being able to admit that the dirty hippies were right all along.

48977. pmauca at 05:49 AM on 12 February 2013
       Announcing the Skeptical Science Glossary
       

       Great idea, but lots of irratating popups in firefox!

48978. dana1981 at 05:47 AM on 12 February 2013
       Lukewarmerism, a.k.a. Ignoring Inconvenient Evidence
       

       In fact, rather than "lukewarmer", I'd characterize Mosher's position as "pretty darn warmer".

48979. dana1981 at 05:45 AM on 12 February 2013
       Lukewarmerism, a.k.a. Ignoring Inconvenient Evidence
       

       Agreed with Dikran @2 - Mosher's definition of "lukewarmer" is pretty much where the IPCC already is, and close to where I am too.  Basically he says lukewarmers think the most likely equilibrium climate sensitivity value is maybe a smidge lower than the IPCC does.  That's an inconsequential distinction, and incompatible with the positions of Ridley and Michaels.

       HH @3 - yes, let's just hope that Ridley doesn't exert any significant influence over UK climate or energy policy from his new position.

48980. A Change in the Weather at 05:45 AM on 12 February 2013
       An Updated Look at What Keystone XL and Alberta Tar Sands Mean for the Climate
       

       The oil from the tar sands, like any oil found anywhere, will not "replace" any other oil. It will be additive. It's a circular dynamic. The supply/demand curve determines the price, and any oil that can come on at that price will come on. As long as there's expansion of fossil-fueled infrastructure in the world, demand will be there.

       This is exactly what's happening with natural gas. Notionally, it should replace coal for electric generation in the US. And it is. But the displaced coal is being exported to China.

       We can't solve the carbon accumulation problem by adding more carbon. Once we enter the detailed discussion of the relative merits of carbon-emitting projects, we are lost. We have implicitly accepted the carbon emissions. We're at the point of choosing the moment to start reversing this modality.

       
       I agree the deniers are a danger. They will be incensed. Violence at some point is not hard to imagine. But violence is also the endpoint of continuing down our current path, as the atmosphere becomes more unstable and agriculture fails.

       Obama would be wise to avoid mentioning KXL until he has an entire strategy: no KXL, but yes to this (e.g., a Manhattan Project for renewables deployment). But that needs to happen very soon.

48981. Hyperactive Hydrologist at 05:29 AM on 12 February 2013
       Lukewarmerism, a.k.a. Ignoring Inconvenient Evidence
       

       Ridley has recently been elected to the House of Lords and he is also on the GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council. 

48982. SteveFunk at 05:28 AM on 12 February 2013
       Announcing the Skeptical Science Glossary
       

       Here's a minor glitch:  The definition of source does not fit the context, i.e. sources of information.

48983. Dikran Marsupial at 04:47 AM on 12 February 2013
       Lukewarmerism, a.k.a. Ignoring Inconvenient Evidence
       

       @shoyemore Seems to me the IPCC fall just about within that definition of "lukewarmer"!

48984. shoyemore at 04:42 AM on 12 February 2013
       Lukewarmerism, a.k.a. Ignoring Inconvenient Evidence
       

       Steve Mosher recently defined "Lukewarmer" on WUWT as (reformatted for clarity)

       ... back in 2007 or 2008 we did a poll on Climate audit asking the question
       How much of the warming we see today is due to GHG?
       There was a distinct group of us that said ‘some, but not all ” heck even Willis said 30%

       We called ourselves Lukewarmers.

       Over the years a few of us have worked to define what we mean by Lukewarmer and what defines the position.

       1. Acceptance of radiative physics.
       2. Acceptance of a lower bound to sensitivity. basically the no feedback estimate is 1.2C per doubling. We think that the true sensitivity will be above 1.
       3. over/under line. The over under line is 3C. That is, if offered a bet that the climate sensitivity is either ‘between 1 and 3 or over 3, we take the under bet.

       ballpark:
       less than 1.     2 5%
           1.2 to 3.     50%
           3 to 4.5      45%
            4.5+          5%

       So if you believe that GHG can warm the planet and not cool it, and you think that the mean estimate of the IPCC of 3.2 is more likely high than low, then you are a lukewarmer. But you have to drop the crazy refusals over radiative physics.

       Note:

       • Lukewarmers dont have to attack the surface record, its probably correct to within .2C
       • We also dont have to slam models, or invent kook theories about the sun.
       • Everything we believe is well within the consensus and we think that you can change the consensus from inside the tent rather than attacking everything and everyone.
       • Focus on sensitivity, work to refine that. You see there is a debate in climate science, its a debate about sensitivity.
       • When folks start putting their effort into that ( instead of frittering away time on tangents then you will see changes.

       I find most ofthat innocuous, which suggest that "Lukewarmerism" is more of an emotional position with regard to scientific consensus than a fundamental scientific difference. Ridley and Michaels are definitely not "Lukewarmers" like Mosher.

48985. Composer99 at 01:39 AM on 12 February 2013
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Kevin:

       The algorithm was put in to pick up disparaties, not a change in when temp was measured. So this argument does not apply.

       Really? I'd say there'd be a disparity, almost by definition, between temperature readings a weather station makes at one time of day and those it makes at another.

       With regards to the remainder of your comment #266, the bottom line is that you have articulated suspicions (yours and others') that something is wrong with GISTemp following adjustments made in 2008.

       However, and this is the critical part, you have not provided, either directly in the comments or by link to another site, any actual criticism of the adjustments. What you have instead provided is an extended argument from personal incredulity and allegations of bias.

       If you can furnish any sort of methodological critique of GISTemp's processes, I am sure that the knowledgeable commenters here would be quite happy to discuss them. Until then, however, it seems to me that you are wasting your time - I rather doubt you will convince those skeptical of your claims as long as you limit your arguments to the above.

48986. Dikran Marsupial at 01:13 AM on 12 February 2013
       Humidity is falling
       

       Jeff313 wrote "I would add to this argument that even NASA has estimated that some of the warming over the last century is due to increased solar activity."

       You do know that the IPCC AR4 WG1 scientific basis report explicitly states the much the same thing?  However, that is for the warming of the first half of the 20th century, thus it doesn't support your hypothesis as since then humidity has been rising, whilst solar forcing has been steady or declining slightly.
       

48987. Kevin8233 at 00:35 AM on 12 February 2013
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       I think the expectation that adjustments should be even is also misplaced. If you want to compare temperature measurements mad today with measurement taken in the morning, against same station but temperature done in afternoon, then you have to move past temperature down. Its a change of practise

       The algorithm was put in to pick up disparaties, not a change in when temp was measured.  So this argument does not apply.

        

       In fact, if you look at the SkS trend Calculator you will see that the trend for Gistemp is 0.064 C per decade +/- 0.007 C per decade (11%).  So his point is that the temperture record is not as accurate as advertized because a change smaller than the advertized accuracy has been made

       That is not what I was saying.  For the century, there was a 10% increase in the rate of temp increase, solely due to these adjustments.

        

       Tom Curtis,

       I didn't state that all the temp adjustments were positive, I stated that all of them made the temp increase rate change in a positive fashion.  Lower the early temps, increase the latter temps.  When you look at the chart I gave, that is exactly what happened.

        

        

48988. Philippe Chantreau at 00:11 AM on 12 February 2013
       Humidity is falling
       

       The debate? What debate? Your post is full of confusion and it is hard to figure exactly what you're trying to say. Solar activity is monitored by satellites. CO2 release does not increase the water vapor content of the atmosphere, increased temperature does that, regardless of the forcing. Temperatures have continued to increase as solar activity has decreased.

       Another fact: scentists do their work and normally do not pay attention to the noise coming from contrarians who have clearly no clue. Unfortunately, in some case, that noise becomes such a distraction that they do have to spend time addressing nonsense.

48989. Jeff313 at 23:15 PM on 11 February 2013
       Humidity is falling
       

       Tom curtis

       My concept that "+CO2 - H2O equals no change in greenhouse gases" is a general concept.  The quantities is the debate.  It is in now way bad algebra   If CO2 reduces the amount of another green house gas, the effects are minimized.  This is the same equation (with a negative value) that would be used to say that warming is amplified by increased H2O.  No one would argue that the algebra is bad in that case just because someone did not give the exact quanities of the H20 increase.  My only point was to make clear the importance of a full understaning to the processes in play.

       I would add to this argument that even NASA has estimated that some of the warming over the last century is due to increased solar activity.  I my option, direct warmth added to the sun would of course create an increase in humidity.  So it is no suprise or proof (in and of itself) that increased humidity prove theories that CO2 released into the atmosphere increases H2O.  I only question this because in Chemistry 101 in phase diagrams there are 2 factors that would effect the evaporation of water, heat and pressure.  I have only heard the heat being considered in this process.  Increased pressure would decrease the phase shift.  Quantities are again the debate.

48990. Jeff313 at 22:48 PM on 11 February 2013
       Humidity is falling
       

       Doesn't changing algorithms that give you what you want to see raise a red flag for anyone? Perhaps they are better algorithms, but the number of times "

       (-intimations of fraud, impropriety and malfeasance snipped-)".

       I understand the reasons for you assuming that fraud is primary thing implied when I mentioned a "red flag", as it is often brought up in this argument.  However, making clear I am now not talking about anything that could be considered a personal attack, we can not burry our heads in the sand as to human nature and human frailities that is true to all (including myself).  What I am now talking about is mistakes based on a biases that might spring from anything, even frustration arguing points with "contarians" such as myself.  As such I would think that scientists would have to keep a earnest watch for such things.  And when there is a pattern that changes to algorithms seems to always help your points, it should raise a red flag.  Again, not to accuse anyone of anything that I would not be given to myself and it is only made to help other understand secpticism and perhaps a need to double check and, yes question, the accuracy of some work.

       I hope this general topic is not off limits for this board, but to be safe, even though I think it is a valid point that both sides should admit to for honest conversation, I will not mention this topic again.

       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Quite frankly, lacking specific examples in your concerns about "red flags", any discussion by you of uncertainties in your understandings clearly highlights that very point: you lack command and comprehension of what you are trying to discuss.

       Given that, the appropriate next step would be to isolate those areas where you lack understanding and first study more, and to then ask questions when you get stuck. Starting with the assumption, as you do, that since you do not understand something that therefore a likely possibility is that mistakes were made upon the part of the scientists and researchers in this area. This is a fallacy known as the Dunning-Kruger Effect and may also reflect cognitive dissonance and cognitive bias on your part.

48991. Tristan at 21:56 PM on 11 February 2013
       16 years - Update and Frequently Asked Questions
       

       I did the skeptic blogs for about a year. It's rough on the spirit. I imagine it'd be much worse if climate science was your vocation, not merely an interest, as it is in my case.

48992. bill4344 at 20:58 PM on 11 February 2013
       Announcing the Skeptical Science Glossary
       

       Shiny, and very handy for laypeople (like myself) but may need a bit more filling-in to be a truly comprehensive guide for the uninitiated -

       'MBH98' was not found in the dictionary of terms(!)

48993. Kevin C at 20:31 PM on 11 February 2013
       16 years - Update and Frequently Asked Questions
       

       I enjoyed the bathysphere comment!

       (Spending too much time on the front lines of this debate is hard on the nerves and the sense of humour. I can't handle it at all, which is why I try to do research to fill the gaps. Tom's an ace, but I'm guessing he missed your earlier comments and so didn't have the context I did.)

48994. chriskoz at 20:05 PM on 11 February 2013
       2013 SkS Weekly Digest #6
       

       AU env minister Tony Burke approves huge gas and coal plans news just came out. "This is a black day for the environment in NSW", a statement I tend to agree with. Apparently, those projects will increase AU CO2 footprint by 8% which will no doubt push AU back to the first place in per capita emissions. Note that Tony Burke represents the federal Labor govs, so those who introduced CTax a year ago and who are supposed to care. Apparently, still, they cannot resist the presure of coal/fracking industry...

48995. ChrisJJ at 20:04 PM on 11 February 2013
       The Great Disconnect: the human disease of which climate change is but one symptom
       

       This is a great article. It has been criticised by some commenters for not being scientific enough. Well, OK, but it does highlight some of the reasons why it's difficult to explain scientific concepts to ordinary, everyday people.

       There is a general malaise in society today, and this article points very clearly to the reason for it.

       I think I might summarise these ideas on my own blog and link to this article. More people need to read it and give it serious thought.

       Thanks for publishing it here.

48996. Tristan at 19:52 PM on 11 February 2013
       16 years - Update and Frequently Asked Questions
       

       Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing.

       
       

       I thought the bathysphere comment would be enough, but apparently not.

        

48997. chriskoz at 19:23 PM on 11 February 2013
       Announcing the Skeptical Science Glossary
       

       Term lookup dropdown does not seem to be very useful. What is is supposed to be? An autocomplete? If so, it misses some terms. E.g. a dictionary term "AR4" is missing. Even if I type it and invoke it with "Define" button, and then try to look for it again in the list (in case the list is supposed to be updated with my browser chache) it's still not there. Also the list is not scrollable. My browser: FF 18.0.2

       
       Don't get me wrong: awesome work guys. Just this little semi-baked list list bugs me, as
       I don't understand its purpose and how it works.

48998. Tom Curtis at 19:05 PM on 11 February 2013
       16 years - Update and Frequently Asked Questions
       

       Tristan @15, it is difficult to imagine how you could think that a ship, entering new water at 4 knots or higher could warm that water significantly before it was measured after being collected from in a bucket thrown from the bow.  Regardless, buckets show a cool bias, particularly canvass buckets, with evaporation cooling the water in the bucket prior to measurement.  It is true that direct instrumental measurements in engine intakes show a warm bias of about 0.1 C, but great effort has gone into measuring that (and bucket) bias, and correcting for it.

       That, apparently means noting for you.  In fact, your comment looks like nothing more, to me, than a mere assertion that you don't like the facts, with a tissue of excuse as to why you choose to ignore them.

48999. Dikran Marsupial at 19:01 PM on 11 February 2013
       16 years - Update and Frequently Asked Questions
       

       Habilus you do know, don't you, that "no statistically significant warming for 16 years" does not mean that there has been no warming for 16 years?

       It just means (loosely speaking) that we can't rule out the possibility that it hasn't warmed during the last 16 years.  If you read the BBC interview, you will find that Prof. Jones clearly understands this, and is perfectly happy to say that the (cherry picked) trend wasn't significant, because he understands why that isn't actually all that surprising (the time span is short, so the power of the test is fairly low).

49000. Tom Curtis at 18:57 PM on 11 February 2013
       16 years - Update and Frequently Asked Questions
       

       I have been trying to follow up on Habilus' (@8) claim that the Met Office asserted that the globe had coolled by 0.5 C degrees between 1940 and 1970.  I have been unable to track down any such claim.  What I have found is the global land temperature record, as determined Mitchell, 1961:

       

       (Source)

       That shows just less than a 0.3 C degree fall between the 1940s and the 1960s; but is a land only record and so covers only 30 percent of the globe.

       The earliest attempt at a true global, land-ocean temperature record I can find is Farmer 1989, which shows a decline of just over 0.1 C:

       

       Indeed, the only early record showing a 0.5 C decline over that interval is from figure  7.6 (a) of the IPCC FAR, WG1, Chapter 7 (1990).  That, however, shows only Northern Hemisphere, land only temperatures.

       Giving the Habilus the benefit of the doubt, and assume his distant memories, unbacked by physical evidence, are correct; and that for a brief period the met office showed a greater decline in temperature from 1940 to 1970 than the scientific evidence supported before, or after.  But even with this improbable assumption, Habilus can give us no reason why this brief revision showed the naked truth, which later revisions have corrupted.

Prev  972  973  974  975  976  977  978  979  980  981  982  983  984  985  986  987  Next