Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[CapelDodger]

There's always newbs that think they discovered global warming that won't believe, but the majority are already familiar with the failed predictions.

We see below what you imagine those were.

There's plenty of evidence, it's just not easily accessible on the internet because it predates Google.

I'm asking you what changed your mind. Don't just wave "plenty" around. Give a single counter-example to the evidence from this century that I listed : loss of glacial and Arctic sea-ice volume, permafrost melting, sea-level rise, more extreme weayher events, shifting biological ranges.

A 1m rise in sea level, that was a big one. Massive global scale crop failures, famine and resulting disease that would wipe out millions. The usual rhetoric.

Not predicted by anybody for the 2000's. Sorry, but there it is. You had to be there to remember.

Yes, it's warmer today than yesterday, about 2 degrees, so obviously by Summer it will be 400C. Right?

Only right on WattsUpMyButt. The years (which include all seasons, you'll recall) 2009, 2010 and 2011 were all warmer than 2008. The world has got warmer since 2008.

Are you alluding to the solar minimum which NASA now says is 92% likely to occur?

Do you trust them on that? These are the people who massage data, aren't they? And do you actually believe that a less active Sun is going to reverse global warming?

There are deniers who fervently hope that this will be the case (David Rose was cock-a-hoop about it in the Mail on Sunday), and that it will have been the Sun after all, but they'll soon learn that otherwise. The Met Office reckons only an 8% chance of another Daltons-style minimum or a return to late 20thCE activity (that's 4% each), and that even a Dalton-style minimum would have about a 0.13C impact over the century. AGW is averaging about 0.18C per decade.

I think we'll be seeing denier graphs stopping at 2009 for a good while now.

Actually reading the climate science. It depends on what you mean; I haven't changed my mind about global warming I just don't listen to alarmists and instead keep an eye on the science.

All of the climate science is supportive of AGW. Isn't that what persuaded you that climate scientists are all environmental activists? I can't see what else you're getting out of it.

You're right not to listen to alarmists any more : anybody predicting a 1m sea-level rise between the 1990's and 2000's was frankly deranged. I'm surprised you bought into that for a second.

No, it's about reading the science and seeing that the predictions are based in a woefully inadequate understanding of the entire climatic process.

There is no "climate process". Climate is very well-understood, and predictions are based on that understanding. The only real failure so far has been in under-estimating the rate of change, which is perfectly understandable coming from a very conservative profession (Science).

In a warmer world Hadley cells will be larger (they've expanded already) and the desert band will be located further from the Equator. Plants and animals which are temperature-limited will have ranges further from the Equator and higher-up. Precipitation will be more extreme where it still happens. Glaciers will be shorter. Sea-levels will be higher.

I'm saying there's denial everywhere because people want the science to fit their world view at any cost.

Not me. I want to be right, and for that I look to science when its appropriate.

Utter rubbish. I've cited several examples that are irrefutable.

I've seen one and I'm not the only one here who's refuted it.

I don't read those sites because they have a political bias. They're using climate science to try and shape people's world view and it's pseudoscience.

That describes WattsUp but not http://www.realclimate.org/.

So no, I'll stay away from them and just keep to reading peer reviewed literature in the many journals on the web.

That must be costing you. You can get the gist for free on http://www.realclimate.org/ or http://www.sciencedaily.com/.

Why do I highly doubt this claim?

The example I've seen was easy to refute (the one about tar-sands and the XL pipeline being "game over"). Not political at all. What was the other one? Not the one with dogs in it, surely.

 

[CapelDodger]

here we have a real winter again, even in the city there is snow, wich didnt happen to often in recent years. and ski resorts use 10 times more dynamite this year than last year to prevent avalanges hiting tourists.

It's been brass monkeys this week here too, the first real sign of winter we've had.

 

[CapelDodger]

No it clearly doesn't avoid the political and economic implications of climate science.

It does.

None of that is peer reviewed, it's a political puff piece.

It's not political at all, nor a puff-piece, and since when were blogs peer-reviewed? It's clearly a ball-park estimation of the CO₂ implications of tar-sands, based on estimates (from industry) of how much is there and how quickly it can be exploited. This is compared to the estimates (from industry) of how much coal is readily available and how quickly that can be exploited, and the CO₂ implications. The latter are much greater than the former.

Did you look at the comments?

Yes. Comments at http://www.realclimate.org/ are very informative.

"The next thought on from “Leave it in the Ground” has to be what has to change in the way that governments currently support exploitation of fossil fuels"

Have whatever fantasies you like, but the plain fact of the matter is that full exploitation of the Athabasca Oil Sands is flatly incompatible with having a reasonable chance of holding warming to 2C. You could argue that attacking demand is a more effective way of preventing exploitation than blocking the pipeline (though I don't see any reason the two efforts are incompatible) but one way or another if you care about climate, you can't consider the oil sands a 'reasonable' energy source. --raypierre]



I can't honestly believe anyone could read this and conclude that it's climate science and not political and economic implications.

It doesn't mention political and economic implications. If you care about climate, 2C is probably too much but at least that limit is vaguely achievable. There's no effort to make you care.

So there's the "one article" you begged for. Who are the deniers again?

It's not an example. No pseudoscience, no policies advocated, no political let alone economic implications brought in, just an honest and straightforward post.

We all know the difference between posts and comments, and yet you had to delve into the comments to get your rather lame extract. This hardly compares with the WSJ's 16-scientist letter which can be picked-apart and demolished in its entirety, without reference to the comments.

 

[CapelDodger]

It is an extensively researched and well understood science.

Why is it that some people don't get this?

Weather has been on mankind's mind almost as long as astronomy. Its economic implications are obvious, as are the military, which means the study has been well-funded. The navies of Portugal, Holland and Britain did not encompass the world by reliance on astrologers or political opinion. Some tried it, and they failed.

From an examination of large-scale weather came an understanding of how the global system works, which is to say, climate. This wasn't done, of course, with any expectation of climate change -in fact quite the opposite. (I think it's a common misperception that climate change has always been as much of a public issue as it has been for the last few decades, simply because so many people have grown up with it.) Nobody identified the Little Ice Age while they were living in it. They did link enormous eruptions in the Spice Islands with years-without-a-summer, though. Those spectacular sunsets over Europe were a dead giveaway .

When I first came across climate change it was in regard to Ice Ages, and explanation thereof. Very much of the past, not of the present (by which I mean my own lifetime), let alone some future where climate scientists, glaciologists and oceanographers had, by long-laid plans, co-ordinated the creation of a One-World Gumment through climate alarmism, and brought about the end of industrialised society as we know it. Or would already have done so if the McIntyre and Monckton hadn't thwarted them repeatedly.

It was the 70's, I was young and naive. Acid-rain was the main issue then, and the denial-machine was very early-version. Pretty laughable, really, no advance on the tobacco thing. Advances came with denial of the ozone-hole and harmful effects of environmental lead. AGW-denial has given it plenty of time to hone its methods, and new media to exploit (shock-jocks, later mainstreamed as FoxNews, and, of course, the internet).

This was all science-fiction back in the 70's. Hat-tip to Fred Pohl .

 

[Halsu]

The comments are not part of the article. While the articles are written by climate scientists who for the most part explain and discuss the science and while some of the climate scientists do respond to questions and replies in the comments section, anyone can respond in the comments section.

The comment Furcifer highlighted was a response to a comment, written by the author of the article, and as such it has at least some relevance to the issue at hand. Much less than having such a comment in the article itself, but more than if it were just a comment by a random member of the audience.

Why would you think that climate scientists should not have input into the public policy discussion of addressing climate change issues?

I believe Furcifer refers to this excerpt...

We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science.​

...from the about page of RealClimate.

It has nothing to do with the site being pseudoscience or not, but it is an example where one of the authors failed to follow the rules of the site as laid out in the about page to the letter. Personally, i don't see any problems with it, but i'd still say Furcifer's claim of not following the principles has some merit in this case.

 

[Trakar]

The comment Furcifer highlighted...

Are you offering to take up and defend Furcifer's argument in his absence?
(I understood his assertions and supporting evidences, but I disagree with his interpretations and claimed understandings.)

 

[Trakar]

...I didn't read the comments, so thanks for pointing this out. That is indeed something that can be seen as an opinion about how the results of science should affect policy. As such this example is in contradiction to the site's "about" text...

Are you sure that's a position you wish to adopt and defend?

 

[CapelDodger]

The comment Furcifer highlighted was a response to a comment, written by the author of the article, and as such it has at least some relevance to the issue at hand.

Indeed. There's no need to contest this. More to the point, of course, is the fact that Furcifer had to dig so deep into http://www.realclimate.org/ to find his example, and it has, as you say, some relevance - but as evidence that http://www.realclimate.org/ is riddled with politics and pseudoscience it cuts a sad figure.

The most recent offering - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/02/so-whats-a-teacher-to-do/ - certainly skirts the political. It's a Guest Commentary by Eugenie Scott of the National Centre for Science Education in the US http://ncse.com/, and "Defending The Teaching of Evolution and Climate Science" is definitely political there.

(I'll declare an interest here : I've been reading http://www.realclimate.org/ pretty much every day for years, comments included, over breakfast. I may have become so indoctrinated that I don't even see the rampant politics that an untainted free-thinker finds obvious. I don't think so - but then, I wouldn't, would I?

(Like your work, Halsu : patience is such a virtue .)

 

[Warmer1]

It might be a little quiet for a few more days so this is a good opportunity to say thanks.

I lurk here mostly but benefit a lot from this thread and all of the great input and discussion here.

This thread is at post #4467 and the moderators have had to check a lot of posts for each one that gets accepted and we probably would not have made it this far with this thread without the hard work of the moderators. Thankfully they turned down a few posts of mine as well.

Trakar had mentioned a mug of rum somewhere in this thread so tomorrow I will do an internet toast the moderators with a rum drink for thier much appreciated hard work. Hopefully in the future something more meaningful can take place but I will toast to the moderators and all of you that care enough to take the time to post here.

My personal thanks to the following people and all the others that I have missed. The time you spend to provide input here is greatly appreciated.

Trakar, CapelDodger, BenBurch, macdoc, lomiller, Pixel 42, Halsu. Mikemcc, Megalodon, Reality Check, a_unique_person, bit_pattern, aleCcowaN, steenkh, DC, Piggy, Travis, jj, geni, Corsair 115, Twiler, Complexity, shadron, Dancing David, Bikewer Kid Eager, Robrob, Giordano, BadBoy, mike3, not_so_new and others

And especially Tricky.

Cheers to all of you, and for the sports fans enjoy the Super Bowl!

 

[Halsu]

Are you sure that's a position you wish to adopt and defend?

No. But it's a position i can understand, even if i disagree with it.

 

[Trakar]

It might be a little quiet for a few more days so this is a good opportunity to say thanks.

I lurk here mostly but benefit a lot from this thread and all of the great input and discussion here.

This thread is at post #4467 and the moderators have had to check a lot of posts for each one that gets accepted and we probably would not have made it this far with this thread without the hard work of the moderators. Thankfully they turned down a few posts of mine as well.

Trakar had mentioned a mug of rum somewhere in this thread so tomorrow I will do an internet toast the moderators with a rum drink for thier much appreciated hard work. Hopefully in the future something more meaningful can take place but I will toast to the moderators and all of you that care enough to take the time to post here.

My personal thanks to the following people and all the others that I have missed. The time you spend to provide input here is greatly appreciated.

Trakar, CapelDodger, BenBurch, macdoc, lomiller, Pixel 42, Halsu. Mikemcc, Megalodon, Reality Check, a_unique_person, bit_pattern, aleCcowaN, steenkh, DC, Piggy, Travis, jj, geni, Corsair 115, Twiler, Complexity, shadron, Dancing David, Bikewer Kid Eager, Robrob, Giordano, BadBoy, mike3, not_so_new and others

And especially Tricky.

Cheers to all of you, and for the sports fans enjoy the Super Bowl!

A Hearty Hale back at you, and All Around!

But let's extend that to all who speak and read here! Without the voices of doubt and denial to force more in depth examination of the issues at hand we probably wouldn't be discovering in ever more detail exactly how dire our situation really is.

The more they demand that we need to know more, the more research they are mandating, and the more supporting evidence the mainstream science understanding receives.

 

[Trakar]

No. But it's a position i can understand, even if i disagree with it.

I understand your compassion, but be careful of the frame you accept so unconditionally. The statement "As such this example is in contradiction to the site's 'about' text," is not a statement I would agree accurately understands the RealClimate "about" statement. I would argue that the "about" statement refers to the primary posts/articles themselves and not the aside commentary back and forth following the posts.

A logical deconstruction of the RealClimate "About" paragraph:

RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists.​

Two divisions "commentary site" on "Climate Science by working climate scientists" (with a descriptive) for the interested public and journalists. A public and media outreach in explaining the basics and their considerations of what these basics mean. In the primary posts the scientist (or groups of scientists) discuss a relevent principle or finding of interest. In the commentary, the public discussion spurred by connection to the topic post (or not,...occassionally) occurs.

We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary.​

This somewhat awkward wording would seem to suggest that one of the primary goals of this public and journalist outreach was designed to help provide accurate data and evidence in that very public debate of understanding the nature of the problem facing the current and future generations of our species.

The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science.​

"the discussion"- note -not talking about the commentary, but about the discussion, just the primary posts which are seen as a discussion by active climate scientists with each other.

All posts are signed by the author(s), except ‘group’ posts which are collective efforts from the whole team.​

A definition of the Primary Posts (OP, article, etc.,.), some of the primary posts even take the form of one group of researchers addressing or refining the understandings presented by another resercher or research group.

This is a moderated forum.
​

We provide access to this discussion and encourage author and association engagement with the commenting audience, but if you get disruptive, distractive or build a history of abusive behavior, your posts and posting privileges may be subject to administrative action.

If there is a more plausible and reasonable understanding, I would be interested in seeing it presented.

 

[Pixel42]

Hopefully in the future something more meaningful can take place

The conversations that should be taking place everywhere, not just on threads like this one - discussing the latest research on the likely speed and effects of the changes to be expected, debating the pros and cons of the various ways of mitigating and/or adapting to it etc etc - are essential if the human race is going to survive the next few centuries without massive loss of life and habitat. The fact that threads on this subject usually consist almost entirely of attempts to persuade the wilfully ignorant to look at the mountain of evidence in front of them and acknowledge that a problem even exists bodes very ill indeed for our descendants. One wonders what they will make of it all. I hope a few threads like this one will be preserved for future historians to marvel at.

 

[Halsu]

I understand your compassion, but be careful of the frame you accept so unconditionally. The statement "As such this example is in contradiction to the site's 'about' text," is not a statement I would agree accurately understands the RealClimate "about" statement.

I guess forgot to add the uncertainty bars there

I'll try to use more precise, yet longer language:

"That is indeed something that can be seen interpreted as an opinion about how the results of science should affect policy. As such With that interpretation, this example is in contradiction to the site's "about" text, if we interpret the about text as a strict literal rule rather than as a general description of intent, and interpret it to include the commentary responses by site authors in addition to the body of articles."​

I liked the earlier snappy version better to be honest, even if it's a less exact description of my view on the subject. And these reservations do not take away the fact that i do think his point has some relevance, even if it's not much. It would be intellectually dishonest for me to say it doesn't, and that's a route i don't want to steer to.

Now, how much merit his point has is another matter: as said, in my opinion very little, but that's still more than zero. This is different from i.e. his claims of pseudoscience at RealClimate, which have absolutely no merit whatsoever.

 

[CapelDodger]

Firstly let me second Warmer1's thanks to the mods, who no doubt have to put up with much that we are spared.

I understand your compassion, but be careful of the frame you accept so unconditionally. The statement "As such this example is in contradiction to the site's 'about' text," is not a statement I would agree accurately understands the RealClimate "about" statement. I would argue that the "about" statement refers to the primary posts/articles themselves and not the aside commentary back and forth following the posts.

A reasonable position but not the only one, of course (one could, for instance, argue that this interpretation leaves it open for a strictly factual poster to become a fervent policy advocate in the following Comments). It's moot anyway, since it's clear from the most cursory examination that http://www.realclimate.org/ is not riddled with politics and pseudoscience.

 

[CapelDodger]

The conversations that should be taking place everywhere, not just on threads like this one - discussing the latest research on the likely speed and effects of the changes to be expected, debating the pros and cons of the various ways of mitigating and/or adapting to it etc etc - are essential if the human race is going to survive the next few centuries without massive loss of life and habitat. The fact that threads on this subject usually consist almost entirely of attempts to persuade the wilfully ignorant to look at the mountain of evidence in front of them and acknowledge that a problem even exists bodes very ill indeed for our descendants. One wonders what they will make of it all. I hope a few threads like this one will be preserved for future historians to marvel at.

I think the speed and impact of AGW is going to determine when those conversations will become a priority at government and international level. Which is to say, too late to prevent a great deal of disruption.

One wonders what they will make of it all. I hope a few threads like this one will be preserved for future historians to marvel at.

I think this will become one of the more studied periods of our history, possibly eclipsing the 1930's as a "What were they thinking?!" subject. JREF Forums and internet blogs will be material for many a historical thesis, mark my words .

 

[Trakar]

I guess forgot to add the uncertainty bars there

I'll try to use more precise, yet longer language:
...

Always be yourself, but beware of trying to work within the framework in which others have positioned their arguments, that framework itself often precludes a proper and accurate reflection of the situation and answer. Better to restate things within a framework of your own construction that approximates what reasonableness you think you hear in their words, and see if they still agree or flatly reject that position. Often, the main argument deniers present is woven into the framing of their argument, even when they appear to be seeking reconcilliation or a moderate objective, the primary goal is to get others to accept the framing, regardless of whether or not the argument is won or lost.

 

[Trakar]

...A reasonable position but not the only one, of course (one could, for instance, argue that this interpretation leaves it open for a strictly factual poster to become a fervent policy advocate in the following Comments). It's moot anyway, since it's clear from the most cursory examination that http://www.realclimate.org/ is not riddled with politics and pseudoscience.

Certainly not the only one, and quite possibly not even the most accurate one, but my example was more for illustration than advocacy!



If anyone is interested I'm sure we could probably get Dr Schmidt (Gavin) to give us a much more clear and definitive addressment to the issue from his perspective, he is either the author or one of the ones who had to check off on the "about" statement.

 

[Warmer1]

Hopefully in the future something more meaningful can take place but I will toast to the moderators and all of you that care enough to take the time to post here.

My apologies Pixek42, my writing is poor. What I meant was that I could hopefully meet the mods or some of you in person in the future at a TAM meeting or whatever and so something nice, but I agree with your response wholeheartedly.

The disinformation campaign has been so effective in this area that there are very few people that I can talk to about climate change that truly understand the science and the threat. One person that I work with tells me that coal is not a hydrocarbon and another tells me that scientists have been wrong so often that things will get likely better in the future.The average person just has no clue about science and there seems to be a huge disconnect with the natural world lately as colorful visual toys become more attractive than trees and plants.

I would guess that over 90% of the people that I know of could not describe the science related to climate change, or would care to learn about it. Luckily this is the corn belt though and not a hub of higher education.

One friend that ended up studying environmental law finally found out what is happening and he apologized to me because he used to think I was nuts trying to get people to understand and respond to the issue.

It's great to drop in here and get a nice dose of sanity and reality, so thanks again!

The conversations that should be taking place everywhere, not just on threads like this one - discussing the latest research on the likely speed and effects of the changes to be expected, debating the pros and cons of the various ways of mitigating and/or adapting to it etc etc - are essential if the human race is going to survive the next few centuries without massive loss of life and habitat. The fact that threads on this subject usually consist almost entirely of attempts to persuade the wilfully ignorant to look at the mountain of evidence in front of them and acknowledge that a problem even exists bodes very ill indeed for our descendants. One wonders what they will make of it all. I hope a few threads like this one will be preserved for future historians to marvel at.

My sentiments exactly.

 

[uke2se]

To lighten the mood a bit, here's a tango about climate denialism: