Who says that the climate debate is not evolving? According to the daily newspaper the Guardian, a new application (‘app‘) has been written for iPhones that provides a list of climate dissidents’ arguments, and counter arguments based on more legitimate scientific substance. The app is developed by John Cook from ‘Skeptical Science‘. It’s apparently enough to have the climate dissidents up in arms – meaning that it’s likely to have some effect? Some dissidents are now thinking of writing their own app.
Here on RC, we have developed a wiki, to which I also would like to bring the reader’s attention. Furthermore, I want to remind the readers about other useful web sites, listed at our blog roll.
Lynn, note whose comments caused the retraction. One of them is a proprietor of this very blog.
But of course this will be spun heavily as some sort of fraud rather than a mistake which invalidated the conclusions of the paper. Still it is a fairly rare event.
my apologies since this is OT to this thread but i know the people on here are the ones to point me in the right direction so here goes….
the chen, harries, brindley, Ringer paper (link is at bottom) showed a comparion of OLR measurements taken in 1997 and 2006. for each year they show 2 graphs of Brightness Temperature (BT) versus wavenumber and they shade in wavenumbers associated with CO2 absorption. They also show a graph comparing the delta between 1997 and 2006 and for the most part 2006 shows about a 1K drop in BT but for the rest of the CO2 absorption spectrum it is zero. What i’d like to do is find out what this delta equates to in W/m2 and i think i have to take each BT graph and plug that BT reading and
corresponding wavenumber (converted to wavelength) into the plank function and integrate over that wavelength range (and then take the delta of those results). that is not really easy to do based on the graphs and not having access to the actual measurements (i’ll have to guess based on the plots). i could use a linear approximation of the data since the BT does increase fairly linearly with wavenumber (offseting the 2006 graph by -1K) but before i do that i would like some help.
it’s not as easy as taking the average BT over that range and entering it in the equation of the stephan-boltzmann law because that gives w/m2 integrated over the entire spectrum of that black body curve defined by that peak temperature. this result would be much higher than what i’m trying to find over a smaller wavelength range associated with just CO2 absorption.
long story short, i’m interested in finding out what the reduction of OLR flux is from 2006 to 1997 in W/m2 based on the data in this paper. if this has already been done or if there is a better way than i described above please let me know.
the link to the paper is below (sorry but i don’t know how to imbed the link into this message window):
http://www.eumetsat.int/Home/Main/Publications/Conference_and_Workshop_Proceedings/groups/cps/documents/document/pdf_conf_p50_s9_01_harries_v.pdf
Re: retraction – Siddall? Of Red Sea fame? I’ve never understood his Red Sea results. The best I could come up with were that his proxy record over emphasized highs and lows (they show very high Holocene sea level stands).
Geoff Wexler wrote:
What would be wrong with specifying the partial densities of the CO2 and H2O instead ? That would be simple, and would avoid using the O2 and N2 as references. Of course it is too late to change and would raise accusations of spin by the anti-science lobby.
I think this is a good suggestion. The concentration is largely beside the point, isn’t it? And as for the “accusations of spin” problem, can you offhand think of anything that they can’t use to craft some kind of accusation?
> Lynn, Climateark
Good example of how science works, this.
Climateark cites to a story in the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retract-siddall
The retracted Siddall paper made a very low estimate of sea level rise.
—-excerpt from the Guardian follows—-
“Siddall said … there were two separate technical mistakes in the paper, which were pointed out by other scientists after it was published. A formal retraction was required, rather than a correction, because the errors undermined the study’s conclusion….
… the authors of the paper said: “Since publication of our paper we have become aware of two mistakes which impact the detailed estimation of future sea level rise. This means that we can no longer draw firm conclusions regarding 21st century sea level rise from this study without further work.
“One mistake was a miscalculation; the other was not to allow fully for temperature change over the past 2,000 years. Because of these issues we have retracted the paper and will now invest in the further work needed to correct these mistakes.”
In the Nature Geoscience retraction, in which Siddall and his colleagues explain their errors, Vermeer and Rahmstorf are thanked for “bringing these issues to our attention”.
One of the early commenters in replies at the Guardian points appropriately to:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/08/ups-and-downs-of-sea-level-projections/#more-969
—-end excerpt from the Guardian—-
The Guardian also cites a recent paper by Vermeer and Rahmstorf:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/12/04/0907765106.full.pdf
In that one, look at Fig. 6 in particular.
There is a sleepy seaside resort near where I live called Akaroa. On the hillside above the town there are two historic graveyards. One graveyard is clearly marked for Roman Catholics only and the other is simply called Dissidents. Reading most of the comments on RealClimate gives me clearer understanding of what that was all about.
230 Mal Adapted: Dead links. Please try again.
Thanks fed up for better explaining the point I obviously made very badly. Innit and dunnit sum up my thoughts on the likely impact of the app in question well I think.
I chose my sceptic point.
I can provide statements from supporters who nevertheless do include cautions about modelling, in particular their predictive reliability, but I am sure they have been listed before. If not have a look at Easterbrook, Lenny Smith, Mike Hulme, Doug Nychka and SAIM
This site is about providing commentary for the interested public. There are some ongoing threads both in the posts and in the comments however that seem to say that public’s role is to read and accept, at best, to acknowledge our stupidity at worst (see fed up) Or to have an iphone thrust upon them as a small plastic tablet holding the truth. Read, convert, or be forever a moron. For those who believe and want to stop the slide the following might be of use when considering why the message is losing potency.
From “Between understanding and trust:the public, science and technology” Dierkes, von Grote quoting Levy-Leblond (1992)
“the requirement….that people should be experts, or at least fluent, in science…before giving their view about it…is contrary to the basic tenet of our democratic societies. Democracy is a bet: the bet that conscience should take precedence over competence. We do not require an expert, nor even an “amateur” level of knowledge in constitutional law before allowing citizens to use their voting rights or participate in a jury. Why should we be more demanding concerning technical and scientific matters”…”The problem we face is not so much that of a knowledge gap which separates people from scientists but that of the power gap that puts scientific and technical developments outside democratic control” (p20)
The is some interesting stuff about how scientists help to erode the trust, assisted by their claims to authority. Another point by Steve Easterbrook.
“Making a distinction between professional and amateur in science is artificial: what matters is the ‘what’ of science not the ‘who’”
Daniel Dennet speaking of good and bad memes suggests that the answer to sterilising parasites is to understand how they spread and why, in a morally neutral perspective, to work out the facts and the implications, and that the trick is not to try and annihilate. Maybe that is what Realclimate aims to do, but having been a constant reader for some time, my usual feeling is that I am being drowned by the language and the contempt.
No doubt many of you are far better informed than I am about the issue of trust with science and scientists. However my view, you are blowing it. That the “bad guys” can point to attempts to annihilate, to lack of respect for the opinions of the public, to the dismissal of those who aren’t in the club, always ably assisted by politicians like ours who do say the science is settled so just accept that you will have to suffer losses, is I believe far more important in damaging your cause, than the Watts or McIntyres or the Carters. You are being too arrogant, you are saying it is outside of our control, that there is no place for hesitation or mitigation or that we can adapt, when the earth goes bonkers.
Let the Mike Hulme’s do the talking, he gets it. He has shifted this “denier household” Whatever you do don’t patronisingly present people with The Rebuttal, requiring them to read it while you get a drink for God’s sake, as was suggested. And agitate for the removal of Pachauri.
Ray Ladbury (#234) challenged me to talk evidence. As a matter of fact I have submitted yesterday a detailed answer to a claim he previously made on the Whatevergate thread, but apparently that thread has been closed. Therefore I am submitting it here.
Ray Ladbury (Whatevergate #653) has challenged me to do the proper math with respect to the relative contribution of CO2 during 1910-1940 compared to the warming in recent years. Initially (Whatevergate #627) Ray Ladbury claimed that the contribution of CO2 to warming during 1910-1940 was about half that for the period 1975-1998, later (Whatevergate #653) he wrote that the log values for those periods would be 0.033 and 0.087 respectively. In that case CO2 contribution in 1910-1940 would be 38% when compared to 1975-1998. (There was by the way an obvious typing error with respect to the CO2 value that Ray Ladbury mentioned for 1940).
Well, here is my calculation. For a fair comparison the length of the periods should of course be the same, so I compare the most recent years 1980-2009 with a similar 29-year period 1910-1939.
For 1910-1939 I use the ice core data (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/lawdome.combined.dat) and for recent years the Mauna Loa data.
1910-1939 CO2: 300-310 ratio 1.03 and the log value is 0.033
1980-2009 CO2: 339-387 ratio 1.14 and the log value is 0.132
Therefore the contribution of CO2 to warming during the period 1910-1939 is 25% compared to the value for the period 1980-2009. When one chooses the period 1970-1999 instead of 1980-2009, the outcome is about the same (CO2 326-368, ratio 1.13, log value is 0.121 therefore CO2 contribution about 27% during 1910-1939 compared to 1970-1999).
Two conclusions:
– relative contribution of CO2 during the 1910-1939 warming compared to warming in recent years is about 25%, and therefore much lower than “about half” or 38% as Ray Ladbury suggested
– the problem of course is not so much that there was a typing error, or a miscalculation, but that even in every little detail presented by the AGW proponents there is so often an exaggeration, and it’s always in the direction of more support for the CO2 hypothesis.
And don’t misunderstand me: I realize that increasing CO2 probably will have a contribution, but I am trying to find the truth or at least the best approximation of the truth: how much will CO2 affect temperature and climate, and when, and how.
Lynn, I’m sure eventually they’ll republish, but for now, I note “In the Nature Geoscience retraction, in which Siddall and his colleagues explain their errors, Vermeer and Rahmstorf are thanked for “bringing these issues to our attention”.”
That suggests underestimate, considering Vermeer and Rahmstorf’s published estimates.
re 236 and 241
John,sorry I am relatively new to this blog, and reading some comments these kind of discussions have probably gone on for a few years without adding much . Must be a pain for the moderators. I just had a problem with the word “inescapable” and that’s why I reacted. “Inescapable” would mean that we are well past any kind of uncertainty ( as for example in “the world is round”) and that is simply not the case. If the statement had been that the likelihood is greater than 90% based on the best present knowledge, fine. And of course I don’t deny paleoclimatology, and as you probably well know there is still a lot of uncertainty in how to explain some past phenomena.
Tim , agreed Occam’s razor might apply to your statement. We go with the explanation that seems to fit best and is the simpler one. I just have a problem with “inescapable” which sounds like “case closed” and then we don’t have to think about alternatives any further.
In the medical field ( my field) there is a constant search for best practices based on the most well-designed studies. Now I would be on the wrong track if I start thinking that if something works therefore my knowledge must be correct and alternative explanations aren’t worth looking for. Amazing how the history of medicine is full of debunkings of “established facts”. Not to long ago Dr Marshall had to infect himself with Helicobacter Pylori to prove that stomach ulcers are usually caused by this micro organism. Yours truly didn’t believe it either initially. It had been “proved” that hyperacidity, stress and genetics was the cause. I am sure that close to 100% of us docs felt this was fact. The literature – peer reviewed and all- on this was very extensive. And antacids/ H2 blockers /PPIs helped therefore case closed? So I’m a little leery of scientific consensus even though I realize we often have to work that way. Let’s just keep an open mind.
Lyn #249: it’s unusual for scientists to withdraw a result; the more usual thing is to publish a correction, as when Josh Willis discovered there were flaws in the way he was measuring ocean temperature. A good response is to ask when Ian Plimer is going to withdraw his book.
This notion that scientists have to be infallible and the smallest error undermines a whole theory I’m afraid is not going to go away in a hurry, and probably won’t until everyone of integrity is hounded out of a career in science. The idiots pushing this line are largely motivated by the belief that the technological civilisation that ensures their creature comforts is under threat by any change in the energy economy. Well, the technological civilisation they enjoy so much relies heavily on science, and if no one wants to do science any more because of the hatred they are spewing, we really will go back to the stone age. Talk about self-fulfilling prophecy …
Tom Servo (237): At one time some would call them “deniers.” The more generous called them “skeptics.” But now, increasingly, it appears that they can be called something else: sane.
BPL: If by “sane” you mean “screaming right-wing anti-science ignoramuses.”
Re #203
First, figure out the denialist. Ask the psychology professor to do that.
Although this usage is correct, for some kinds of denialism, especially the man dying of AIDS who does not believe in science, but also for some people who refuse to read about climatology, it fails to properly describe the conscious manipulator and misinformer. It also omits the moral component of the discussion.
That is why I agree with the BBC’s Roger Harrabin’s conclusion (he wants scientists to stop using the term) but for a different reason from him. It may be the term denialism (+ variants) has outlived its shelf life. That is because it is too weak a term as illustrated by the above quote.
Its very ugly down under:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2826189.htm#
The old descriptions just aren’t good eneough.
#225 H.Hak Argument form ignorance?
Scientists do not conclude that CO2 drives climate change because they cannot think of anything else. Physics dictates that more CO2 in the atmosphere MUST have a warming effect. Observations then show (for example) that details of radiation in the atmosphere match what is expected if CO2 is a main driver. See here (figure 2): http://www.skepticalscience.com/American-Thinker-claims-to-have-disproven-global-warming.html
I think that the term “argument from ignorance” is a bit negative. While such an argument can never be used to prove anything, in practice the list of possible explanations often is limited and well known, and this type of reasoning can be useful for generating hypotheses, identifying areas for further measurements etc.
On a related note, a point that “sceptics” fail to grasp is that if they come up with some other “explanation” (say solar activity), the onus is upon them to explain why CO2 would NOT cause global warming, and in this particular case NOT behave in accordance with known (and proven) physical theory.
Lynn #249, Siddall et al. were not “made to retract” their sea rise study, they chose to retract it because they became aware of oversights that undermined their confidence in their conclusions. Retraction here:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo780.html
The issues were raised in a post by Stefan Rahmstorf and Martin Vermeer here last year:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/08/ups-and-downs-of-sea-level-projections/
“232
Kate7 says:
21 February 2010 at 4:05 PM
evidence of grant farming? The (appalling) list is at Pubmed when you search for climate change or global warming or just about any other semi-related topic.”
So, Kate, how do you get to feed clothe and house yourself while making that paper?
Grants?
Since Kate thinks that any and all attempts to get paid for your work as an academic is purely for “grant farming” this would indicate her own work was written to appeal to someone with money.
Wilt@259, the periods in the Harrabin question were 1910-1940 and 1974-1998. That is where I got my figure. But fine, take 1980-2009. The fact ramains that CO2 forcing still rose about 25% as much as during the modern period. And again, this coupled with increasing insolation and decreased volcanism is the likely explanation for the warming.
I also note that you choose to assume I was exaggerating rather than that we were working on different periods. Now why would you make that assumption when you could just as easily have asked me for details of my calculation–including dates, which you did not specify. I would have assumed it was natural to go with the dates given by Harrabin. I hope you will excuse me for not working harder on my parapsychological abilities.
Ray Ladbury (#269) I am glad that you accepted the correction I made with respect to the relative CO2 contribution to warming in the 1910-1940 period being about one quarter (and not half) of the contribution in recent years. And you are right that in the Jones interview the years 1975-1998 were mentioned. But when comparing the CO2 effect during different periods one should compare periods with the same number of years. It is a mistake that can easily be made and I am not holding the miscalculation against you, as I remarked in my post (#259). I am annoyed however that so often (especially when it comes to prediction of climate changes) unsupported exaggerations are presented. That irritates me as a scientist, and it also undermines public support for those future measures that are necessary and well-based.
With respect to solar insolation during the recent warming period, one should not only consider the amount of energy coming from the sun but also the changes in aerosol patterns (for instance a strong decrease of sulphate aerosols in recent decades in Western Europe and North America).
@Geoff Wexler #265
I’m a bit fearful about all this. I understand some of our leading scientists have had death threats and this article confirms that and worse (if that’s possible). It’s happening all around the world AFAIK, and Clive Hamilton is highlighting the problem. The ABC had a news item on Hamilton’s article yesterday as well. (I know from personal experience that many public servants over the years have similarly had death threats when they had to make unpopular decisions, but this sort of thing isn’t going to go away quickly.)
This could be just the beginning. As the evidence becomes clearer, people could become more manic and it may end like some of the anti-abortion stuff in the USA.
I hope the police get onto this pronto. There’s been talk of making cyber-threats a criminal offense in some states – it might have already happened, but it was geared towards children I believe. We need to strengthen the legislation and put some of the nasties away for a few years.
Sorry about that, Edward. Naked links:
SourceWatch: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch
ExxonSecrets: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/exxon-secrets
John Mashey has developed a taxonomy of denial. It covers the majority of climate contrarians quite well, I think.
I am glad that you accepted the correction I made with respect to the relative CO2 contribution to warming in the 1910-1940 period being about one quarter (and not half) of the contribution in recent years. – wilt@270
This is a dishonest spin on what Ray Ladbury said @269. He, very reasonably, used the dates Harrabin had used, you used different ones.
(for instance a strong decrease of sulphate aerosols in recent decades in Western Europe and North America) – wilt@270
And, as I’m sure mere limitations of space prevented you adding, a strong increase of sulphate aerosols in recent decades in Asia.
#259 wilt
Unfortunately it’s still a bit of a canard. The system is inter-dynamic with many interactions. While identifying the Co2 component of forcing is interesting, it needs to be weighed with other factors, not the least of which are other GHG’s; H2O, CH4, N2O, CFC’s. Then come the feedbacks…
But even after looking at that we still need to learn more about how the oceanic cycles function… and then we need to try to understand how human interference in the system might affect that as systems intact and how this affects feedback mechanisms.
It’s a big game of dominoes.
Look carefully at your idea that Co2 probably will have a contribution. That is, at this point in the scientific understanding, absurd.
Co2 is a tiny fraction of our atmosphere, without which earth would be a frozen ball in space.
If you accept that Co2 is a GHG, the it is simple to accept that more Co2 increases warming. This is pretty simple stuff here.
Or are you arguing Co2 is not a GHG?
—
The Climate Lobby
Understand the Issue
http://www.climatelobby.com/fee-and-dividend/
Sign the Petition!
http://www.climatelobby.com
James Allison@256 – You might carry it beyond “religion”.
An area near me is even nore instructive, a coal boom town in the early 20th century, the municipal cemetary is neatly divided between Catholic [mostly miners and laborers] and Protestant [mostly managers and entrepreneurs] …. and there’s a totally seperate plot around the corner for the Chinese, who were the cheap imported labor in the mines.
Wilt writes above:
> when comparing the CO2 effect during different periods
> one should compare periods with the same number of years….
> …
> … unsupported exaggerations are presented.
That claim about “same number of years” is an unsupported exaggeration.
Please cite the source you rely on for this belief and tell us why the use of statistics, for example to compare periods of different lengths, “irritates” you “as a scientist” — you may have a good reason for your statement, but without a cite to a source it sounds just innumerate.
What kind of scientist are you? Do you use statistics in your work?
> graveyards
Your point being perhaps that in the long run we are all economists, because although perhaps buried in different places, everyone is equally dead?
> terminology
I recommend rereading the basic work on the question:
http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2004/12/septics-and-skeptics-denialists-and.html
Nick Gotts (#274), if you understand the topic that Ray Ladbury and I were talking about than you will realize that for a fair comparison of the CO2-effect on warming during the two warming periods (beginning and end of 20th century) it is crucial that periods of the same length are compared. It doesn’t take much thinking to understand this. Ray Ladbury was quickly to grasp this (#269), and he agrees with my conclusion that a sound calculation must be based on comparing periods of the same length. This changes the outcome: not 50% (or 38%) but 25%. A mistake was made (it shows that even Ray Ladbury is only human), I corrected it, no big deal. Certainly no reason to start accusations of ‘dishonest spin’.
As far as I am concerned: end of discussion on this topic.
Hank Roberts (#278) I really don’t understand what you are talking about. I suppose you do not have read the previous discussions, these were published for most part in the ‘Whatevergate’ thread (I have explained #259 why I had to change to the present thread in order to answer Ray Ladbury). Please first read the different posts on this by Ray Ladbury and me at both threads before you jump to conclusions. There is a hostility in your attitude that is completely unfounded.
As I explained to Nick Gotts a few minutes ago, there has been an open and respectful discussion between Ray Ladbury and me. I think the contributions at #269 and #270 are clear enough to put an end to this topic.
wilt,
You are continuing your dishonest spin. Ray ends his #269 with:
“I would have assumed it was natural to go with the dates given by Harrabin. I hope you will excuse me for not working harder on my parapsychological abilities.”
Clearly, he is not accepting a correction from you.
Wilt, actually the number of years is less important than the increase in CO2. As long as we get that right, we know how much greenhouse forcing has increased. In any case, whether the increased forcing was 25% or 38% (that is, regardless of which period), it is not negligible compared to current levels of increase due to the logarithmic dependence.
With regard to exaggeration, I think that you will find that my track record has been pretty consistent–I encourage people not to confuse weather with climate when it comes to extreme weather events. I do not think that it is an exaggeration though to state that stresses due to climate change in conjunction with population increase to 9-10 billion people could place extreme strain on global ecology.
I think you will also agree that there is a big difference between an unsupported exaggeration of fact and an unsubstantiated allegation of fraud.
#261 H Hak
Most here are well familiar with uncertainty ranges. I tend to go with relative uncertainty as it is typically case by case. But in certain areas I think inescapable is not inappropriate.
You were questioning this phrase:
Please note that this web log would be quite unwieldy if each statement had to include all the reasons why something might be considered inescapable. That is why it is encourages to Start Here:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
I also recommend for simple explanations:
http://www.ossfoundation.us/
http://www.skepticalscience.com
I would say at this point the inescapable truth is that this global warming event is human caused and Co2 is a key component. I would welcome proof that shows Co2 is not a key component but there really is none that holds up. There are lots of notions, opinions and perspectives that say it is not but that does not change the reality. I think the only event that could release a relative amount of Co2 to cause this type of warming would be a flood basalt eruption.
I’ve check the newspapers and searched the internets, I have not seen any news about a giant flood basalt eruption occurring on earth in the past few hundred years that wiped out a continent. If someone knows if this has occurred and wiped out one of the continents on the planet, please let me know so I can drop all this silly discussion about human causes.
As to the medical analogy. It’s a non sequitur. The point is well taken though. The simple fact is that there are many uncertainties in climate science. There are many things that are relatively certain. The main signal is fairly well identified and the climate path has altered without any other identifiable impetus. The subject itself has been scrutinized for around 150 years and for the most part the science was settled in the late 50’s.
The doubt that remains is fomented by special interests that are sowing the seeds of confusion with easy to digest sound bites like: ‘Co2 is not a pollutant, I breath out Co2’, or ‘we don’t’ know everything, so we don’t know anything’ as you illustrated in your post.
I have an open mind as do most in here. This in the opposite of those in the denial sphere where they base their perspectives on belief and doubt as the foundation for knowledge and understanding. Absurd you might think? But that does not alter the reality.
The denaildepot is a perfect example:
To claim that imagination and belief trumps the scientific method while claiming “We are infinitely small compared to nature and can’t grasp anything as certain as a fact” is an insult to the reasoning mind. Essentially they claim that ignorance and doubt are more important that contextually relevant knowledge and understanding.
Science is steeped in skepticism, that is why the scientific method is such a strong method for developing new knowledge and understanding. That fact that bacteria in the stomach causes ulcers does not nullify the notion that anxiety or stress may cause provide a more ideal environment for that bacteria to grow. We are a biochemical engine with interacting parts. To think one part can never affect another part is one of the problems that has been illustrated in medical and psychological scions. I don’t think climate science is suffering the same myopia of discipline bias at this point. I remember when I first heard about the stomach bacteria theory, I thought it was reasonable. Just because you had problems with it in the beginning does not change the reality either.
That may be the case here. You don’t think the science is settled. But really, that does not change reality.
Keep an open mind. And by the way, your a professional, don’t be afraid to use your real name when you post.
—
The Climate Lobby
Understand the Issue
http://www.climatelobby.com/fee-and-dividend/
Sign the Petition!
http://www.climatelobby.com
Both this blog and Skeptical Science are absolute treasures, but someone keeps getting overlooked: the man on the street.
Some Americans believe that climate Armageddon would be just fine, since they would now be swooped into a rapturous pod, and soar up to heaven. They outnumber climate scientists by roughly 1,000 to 1. Americans who believe that they can achieve enlightenment by being bitten by rattlesnakes also outnumber climate scientists.
The point is that the scientifically educated or enlightened audience is not big enough. Someone needs to figure out a way to communicate the facts better to the man on the street. Maybe Gore is too pompous, and scientists too remote. It may take humor and more visceral language to communicate the facts to the public.
Scientists don’t like this assignment, since it can be tawdry, and imprecision is more likely. It is critical that this path be undertaken, however, and journalists have clearly failed (see the latest Newsweek article, or read Romm’s excellent take on it). I’ve made a few efforts myself in this direction, and welcome suggestions here from others.
@#148 flxible
Exactly, Extent is the key. The models predicted a reduction in extent, we have seen an increase. i.e. the models were wrong. Why does that not raise alarm bells?
[Response: Because you are comparing a single winter with a projected century long trend? – gavin]
#270 wilt
You mention that you are a scientist. Can you point me to some of your work?
—
The Climate Lobby
Understand the Issue
http://www.climatelobby.com/fee-and-dividend/
Sign the Petition!
http://www.climatelobby.com
238, Completely Fed Up: 226, got an actual argument, or are you gist going to go with repeating the same old tired unsupporte statements as if fact?
You don’t know anything about the history, evidence, development and popularization of the psychoanalytic concepts (denial, rationalization, projection, etc.), do you? That’s different from your knowledge of climate science.
Re:252 gary thompson says: 21 February 2010 at 11:34 PM
“the link to the paper is below (sorry but i don’t know how to imbed the link into this message window):”
http://www.eumetsat.int/Home/Main/Publications/Conference_and_Workshop_Proceedings/groups/cps/documents/document/pdf_conf_p50_s9_01_harries_v.pdf
Previous note:
Re: 216 Tim Jones says: 21 February 2010 at 10:06 AM
Fooey.
[Response: standard html. link – gavin]
Thus:
the link to the paper…
Not sure about spaces. If this works, good. If not please through it out and I’ll try again.
We do need a preview page!
Tom Servo says: 21 February 2010 at 5:17 PM
At one time some would call them “deniers.” The more generous called them “skeptics.” But now, increasingly, it appears that they can be called something else: sane.
Skeptic does not work because while skeptics are inclined to disbelieve anything, we don’t see that in this case. “Denialist” or “denier are apparently not politically correct and in any case no effective denial is made. “Sane” versus “Insane” is not properly descriptive, either.
More and more, I’m inclined to the term “rejectionist”, as in “I reject the theory and confirmation you’ve presented. I can’t explain why, I just reject it.”
Re: 270 wilt says: 22 February 2010 at 9:15 AM
“With respect to solar insolation during the recent warming period, one should not only consider the amount of energy coming from the sun but also the changes in aerosol patterns (for instance a strong decrease of sulphate aerosols in recent decades in Western Europe and North America).”
But what about the enormous increase in sulfate aerosols coming from China? Seems to me that’s another negative forcing that’s been overridden by CO2. Much of North America’s share of those sorts of emissions (except Canadian tar sands) have been transferred to the Pacific Rim.
wilt: “With respect to solar insolation during the recent warming period, one should not only consider the amount of energy coming from the sun but also the changes in aerosol patterns (for instance a strong decrease of sulphate aerosols in recent decades in Western Europe and North America).”
So not only are you wrong to call it “the sun”, you’re also relying on sulpahte aerosols that are a miniscule portion of our atmosphere.
Creation of SkS iPhone app discussed by Skeptical Science ringmaster Dr. John Cook, in The Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/feb/22/skeptical-science-iphone-app
What is a skeptic? The Guardian investigates:
“The distinction between scepticism and non-belief is a crucial one. While scepticism is healthy, non-belief in the face of overwhelming evidence is the antipathy of scepticism. Recent climate scepticism has been characterised by a visceral mistrust of science, scientific institutions and scientific governance. Never mind that the case for climate change has been painstakingly pieced together over decades – climate change sceptics are busy writing it off on the basis of a few inconsistencies.
But embarrassingly for climate change sceptics, the people who have thought longest and hardest about what it means to be a truly sceptical thinker seem in a hurry to distance themselves from their fellow sceptics. Michael Marshall, from the Merseyside Skeptics group that organised the homeopathy overdose is clear about the legitimacy of climate change sceptics: “In our view, climate change sceptics are not sceptics. A sceptic looks at the available evidence and makes a decision, and for homeopathy the evidence is that it doesn’t work. But the sceptical position on climate change is that it is happening.”
Hence “Rejectionists.” More:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/feb/22/climate-change-sceptics
“But what about the enormous increase in sulfate aerosols coming from China?”
Seems like it’s only an enormous problem now that it’s happening to the US.
There were many US companies and many US politicians berating the ecological disaster of Acid Rain.
Again it was the West of Europe having to make it up for the poorer East. Really became a problem when UK was infesting Norway.
Lots of rhetoric about eco nazis there.
Now that the US is getting it, it seems like there IS a problem…
“More and more, I’m inclined to the term “rejectionist”, as in “I reject the theory and confirmation you’ve presented. I can’t explain why, I just reject it.””
How about “reject”? Call them “rejects”.
Or for those complaining and saying we should move slowly and stop doing anything until we “know” what’s going on (thereby retarding process) “retards”.
Do we have quorum?
:-)
“You don’t know anything about the history, evidence, development and popularization of the psychoanalytic”
You don’t know what you’re arguing against.
Projection is a well known and well proven psychological coping technique.
The popularization of psychoanalysis hasn’t changed that.
No more than knowing the Newtonian notation of differential equations is now false because so many people know it.
(I hope, YMMV)
mike roddy :”The point is that the scientifically educated or enlightened audience is not big enough. Someone needs to figure out a way to communicate the facts better to the man on the street”
Given that the man on the street includes “Some Americans believe that climate Armageddon would be just fine, since they would now be swooped into a rapturous pod, and soar up to heaven.”
How can you talk to them?
It would be like trying to explain homotopic geometry to a giraffe with scrapey.
Just for the record, I’m willing to accept wilt’ interpretation–he corrected me with regard to the dates he was using. No problem. It puts us on the same page of the playbook.
It doesn’t alter the point I was making–namely that the logarithmic dependence of forcing means that increases in ghgs in the past, though smaller than we’re seeing now, were not negligible.
“Climate Dissidents” is a great improvement over
“deniers” which has always been a questionable way to address those with different opinions.