Comments Andrew Dessler has made

Archive of chat

can be obtained here.On Online climate chat: Tuesday, Feb. 10, at 12:45 pm CST posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago 2 Responses

A few thoughts ...

Colin Wright-

My interpretation of the IPCC results is that there is about a 50% chance that warming will be greater than 3°C if we do nothing to rein in greenhouse gas emissions.  It is very difficult to establish a probability for unlikely but high consequence events, such as release of methane from clathrates or tundra --- so the answer is I don't really have a good probability estimate.

The article about spraying water into the atmosphere is interesting.  I am quite uncertain as to whether it would actually work, and I am extremely doubtful that it would be practical.  In general, geoengineering solutions are really a last resort, if every other approach has failed and you're heading for the abyss.  

For this kind of application, the best place to inject water (and minimize the greenhouse effect of the gas) would be in places where the atmosphere is basically isothermal, which is likely high latitudes.

JMG-

The poll is just for fun.  As you correctly surmise, it is not a confident measure of anything.
On Why large future warming is very likely posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 5 Responses

knowledge about science

John-

My point is actually somewhat different.  I am not saying that the general public needs to know more about the specific issue of climate science, but rather that the general public needs to be better educated about how science works.  If you understand how science as a social system works, then you can decode much of the debate even if you don't understand the technical details of the science.  That was one of the main goals (and themes) of my book.

While it may be that that's an unrealistic expectation, I think that as long as people don't understand how science works, we leave open the opportunity for climate denialists and their ilk to drag the debate into gridlock with their uncertainty agenda.On Climate whiplash posted 1 year, 3 months ago 6 Responses

It is that simple

First, thank you for proving the fundamental point of this post.  

Second, there is unanimous agreement, including the few credible skeptics like Lindzen and Christy, that adding CO2 to the atmosphere warms it.  

Why does everyone agree on that point?  For the same reason that we know that June is warmer than January in the Northern Hemisphere.  

The point of dispute between the few credible skeptics and the mainstream scientific community is not whether warming is occurring and whether CO2 is to blame, but on how much future warming we can expect.  

The skeptics say they are certain that future warming won't be large, while the mainstream scientific community says that it might be small, but it might also be large.

Your argument about uncertainty is well taken, and I think that it indicts the skeptical viewpoint.

I hope that clears things up for you.On Did I say darndest? I meant stupidest posted 1 year, 4 months ago 26 Responses

Analogy is valid

The analogy between seasons and climate change is quite valid.  Weather prediction is an initial value problem, while guessing whether summer is hotter than winter as well as long-term climate change are boundary value problems.  Quite different problems. On Did I say darndest? I meant stupidest posted 1 year, 4 months ago 26 Responses

relative humidity, v2

thanks for the link.  that stuff is amazingly bogus.  it's amazing that the same people who don't believe climate models fully trust the ncep reanalysis, which is --- wait for it --- a climate model (although one in which data is periodically inserted).  and the quality of the water data from the 1950s is highly suspect.  I guess this really shows that most skeptics have a conclusion they want to reach, and, like Lomborg, they cheerfully accept anything that fits the conclusion, and reject anything else.On His argument is still bogus posted 1 year, 4 months ago 10 Responses

Positive spin

I'd put a positive spin on this: "McCain's plan to drill to relieve prices has just as much support among the experts as his plan to waive the gas tax."On My kingdom for a so-called expert posted 1 year, 5 months ago 7 Responses

cause and effect?

lmeisel-

I think you've got your cause-and-effect wrong here.  DuPont created the substitute because they were convinced that regulation was on the way.  The chief scientist for DuPont, Mac McFarlane totally accepted the scientific evidence and convinced the higher ups at DuPont that regulations were on the way.  Without impending regulation, there would have no substitutes.

In addition, it's widely believed the Montreal Protocol would have occurred with or without the existence of substitutes.  

For a dense but complete history of the issue, see, e.g., this book.On How much will it really cost to address climate change? posted 1 year, 6 months ago 11 Responses

A few thoughts on trolling

1. Max selectively quotes the Hansen article.  Why not quote the entire sentence in, Max?  Because it wouldn't make your point?

2. If that's true, then why is the ocean actually becoming more acidic.  See the IPCC, chapter 5.

Reference

Black Wallaby-

You wrote:

a) Take one branch of climate science, and they say that as the oceans get warmer with AGW, because cold water can absorb more CO2 than warm, when it warms, there will be an increased out-gassing of CO2. (= alarming positive feed-back and a further acceleration of warming)

See this gristmill post ...

... for more on the meeting.
On The Heartland conference recycles the usual climate change skeptics in its speakers list posted 1 year, 8 months ago 287 Responses

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Sooooooooooo boring.  Let's code this up in my new programming language, blogtran (apparently a variant of IDL).  That way, I won't have my time wasted.

pro trollRespond

while 1 = 1 do begin
   print,"Max & benp, please read the IPCC"
   wait(Max or benp response = angry, whiny, demanding)
endwhile

endOn What happens when a group's position statement does not reflect its members accurately? posted 1 year, 9 months ago 89 Responses

Read the IPCC

benp-

You seem to be losing your temper.  Tsk tsk.

I hate to repeat myself, but you force me to.  The answers to your questions are in the IPCC reports.  It is not my problem if you are not sufficiently technically educated to understand the IPCC report.

Perhaps rather than getting angry, you should read a book on climate physics.  It would be an eye opening experience for you.  I doubt you'll take responsibility and do that: as with most skeptics, the idea of educating yourself on this issue appears to be anathema.  Apparently, for skeptics, ignorance truly is bliss.

Sorry if you don't find that answer to your liking.  And good luck.  
On What happens when a group's position statement does not reflect its members accurately? posted 1 year, 9 months ago 89 Responses

Read the IPCC more carefully

The responses to your queries are all in the IPCC report.  That report explains how CO2 does play an important role in the majority of climate variations over the last 100 million years, while other theories cannot.

The explanation for the 20th century temperature record and the role of CO2 is explained in it in gritty detail.

Your inability to understand and absorb the concepts in the IPCC reports is your problem to solve.  Don't try to push that on me.  I'll answer your questions once you demonstrate a rudimentary grasp of the material. On What happens when a group's position statement does not reflect its members accurately? posted 1 year, 9 months ago 89 Responses

Read the IPCC more carefully

No theory other than CO2 explains the modern warming.

The CO2 theory explains it perfectly.

The CO2 theory also explains things like the ice ages, the Eocene, the PETM, etc.  

No other theory does.

CO2-induced warming is the simplest and most complete theory for the recent warming, and is entirely consistent with most of the data out there.  

Your "analysis" is overly simplistic and lacks any understanding of things like aerosols.

Sorry.  Back to school for you.
On What happens when a group's position statement does not reflect its members accurately? posted 1 year, 9 months ago 89 Responses

brush off?

Black Wallaby:

Re: Why isn't CCE answering?
Perhaps it is an absence of humility on your part that you fail to see that you have suffered what is known-in-the-trade *(at least over in Australia) as "the brush off".

Smart words.  The author should take them to heart.
On The fourth IPCC report is still going strong a year later posted 1 year, 9 months ago 65 Responses

brush off?

Black Wallaby:

Re: Why isn't NSaggie answering?
Perhaps it is an absence of humility on your part that you fail to see that you have suffered what is known-in-the-trade *(at least over in Australia) as "the brush off".

Smart words.  The author should take them to heart.On Today: Christopher Castro posted 1 year, 9 months ago 68 Responses

I understand now why they ignore you

Sammy-

The lack of outrage by the membership over this statement shows that the AGU's statement does indeed represent the general opinion of the membership.  See my post above for an example of what happens if you try to put out a statement that doesn't agree with the membership.  

I suggest you resign from the AGU.  If enough people did that, you'd get the AGU to change --- like the AAPG experience shows us.  

I would certainly resign if the AGU put out a statement that disagreed with what I think is responsible science.  In fact, I'd organize a mass resignation to put maximum pressure on the AGU leadership. One thing you've demonstrated will not work is whining.On What happens when a group's position statement does not reflect its members accurately? posted 1 year, 9 months ago 89 Responses

Free speech

Given your previous comments on this web site, I can imagine that your "views" were so ridiculous that the editors of EOS had no choice but to reject it outright.

For example, I could send in an ad saying, "gravity is a hoax," and I think it would (correctly) be rejected.  There is a minimum level of credibility that material in EOS must pass,  and I suspect your views do not pass that threshold.

And I would also reiterate that everyone had an opportunity to send comments on climate change to the committee drafting the statement ... and that the data (the AAPG's experience) shows that this system does work.

If you get a chance, please post what you wanted EOS to print on this thread, and everyone can see if it's reasonable or not.  On What happens when a group's position statement does not reflect its members accurately? posted 1 year, 9 months ago 89 Responses

To Max

You are correct that the hockey stick plot is not a key piece of evidence in attributing today's warming to humans.  In fact, the case against anthropogenic CO2 is not based on today's warming being unprecedented (we know it has been warmer in the past) or the rate of today's warming being unprecedented (we just don't know).  Rather, the case is built on the data from the last 30 years, were we can eliminate all other causes.  See this post for a more thorough discussion of attribution.

Now to the question of whether they should have included the hockey stick at all, I think you can go both ways.  On the one hand, you want the report to be as complete as possible.  On the other, you probably don't want to put out uncertain science, particularly when people don't read the caveats.  If it turns out to be wrong, then you look bad --- even if you said originally that you had low confidence in that conclusion.On The fourth IPCC report is still going strong a year later posted 1 year, 9 months ago 65 Responses

Thanks, JohnA

As I said in my original post, the trolls love nothing more then to misrepresent what the IPCC said.  If JohnA took the time to actually read the IPCC, he would see that the IPCC Third Assessment Report concluded that it was "likely" that today's temperatures were warmer than the MWP.  The word likely denotes a 66% confidence level, only slightly better than a coin flip.  For scientists, this is an extremely low confidence level.  In fact, that conclusion, with that level of confidence, remains true today.  

This conclusion of the IPCC's Third Report was correct, and was even validated by a National Academy panel (although they use the word "plausible" instead of "likely").  There are great uncertainties and any temperature reconstruction, but the bulk of the evidence makes it more likely than not that today's temperatures are warmer than the MWP.  

At any rate, I thank JohnA for making his comment, because it perfectly represents the way trolls misrepresent the IPCC's reports.  If they honestly represented the IPCC, they wouldn't have anything to complain about.On The fourth IPCC report is still going strong a year later posted 1 year, 9 months ago 65 Responses

Good point

Another amusing thing is how the skeptics parse syntax with lawyerly precision ("ahhh, but that's not exactly what you said ...") until you point out the care that the IPCC uses in its statements, such as the carefully defined words like "likely".  

When they get out-lawyered, the skeptics switch to talk about "weasel words" and say that the actual words in the IPCC don't matter, it's the IPCC's "hidden agenda" ...  

Priceless.  
On Revisiting the climate-science funding question posted 1 year, 9 months ago 48 Responses

Let's take stock

Max-

You've said about the IPCC:
There's no evidence in the IPCC that CO2 is linked to today's warming
There's no evidence in the IPCC supporting positive feedbacks
And now this rubbish about hurricanes

The reason I rarely respond to you (and I'm kicking myself for responding to your comment up above) is that you just don't have any grasp of the relevant research on the issue of global warming.  You only see what you want to see.  

At this point, I think I'll leave it up to the lurkers on this thread to determine for themselves whether you're worth listening to. On Revisiting the climate-science funding question posted 1 year, 9 months ago 48 Responses

Clarification

past trends in hurricane numbers or intensity --- or the number of intense hurricanes.

You're back?

Black Wallaby-

You're back from climate audit?  I guess that means you've given up trying to convince them of your ridiculous thermodynamic ideas.

People have been trying to take down the IPCC for over ten years.  The problem is that, when you read the written reports, it's statements turn out to stand up quite well to scrutiny.  See the exchange between me and Max up above ...On Revisiting the climate-science funding question posted 1 year, 9 months ago 48 Responses

My sense of the debate ...

A question. Was the debate about climate change and the number of hurricanes, or climate change and hurricane intensity and water content, or both?

It's a wide-open problem at the present time.  And I think what you'll see is the funding will go up for this research because of the uncertainty ... the opposite effect of that claimed by the skeptics.On Revisiting the climate-science funding question posted 1 year, 9 months ago 48 Responses

Thanks!

Lengould and Patrick-

Actually, it's not patience.  Rather, it's a recognition (based on lots of experience) that debating these skeptics is not productive.  In fact, I think it's anti-productive.  They're not interested in real debate.  And being ignored irritates them, which is a nice side effect.On More bogus climate skepticism posted 1 year, 10 months ago 227 Responses

Here's another statement I missed

American Physical Soceity
On AGU releases position statement on climate change posted 1 year, 10 months ago 62 Responses

No demons

RachelR-

I was a bit worried when I wrote this that people would view this as a judgment on the overweight.  I assure you that's not the case.  Rather, the point I was trying to make was this: while obesity may be becoming a lifestyle choice for some individuals, it is my sincere hope that climate change never becomes a lifestyle lifestyle choice for human society.  While an individual can can make and take risks whatever risks they deem reasonable, as a society we need to be quite risk averse.  Living with climate change is an unacceptable risk (in my personal opinion).

Thanks.On The parallels between accepting obesity and ignoring global warming posted 1 year, 10 months ago 71 Responses

You *are* an appropriate addition to the list

jabailo-

I can say with true sincerity that you would be an appropriate addition to the list.

I encourage you to e-mail Marc Moreno and ask to be added.  If you do, I guarantee that I'll do a "skeptic of the day" on your qualifications.  Now that's incentive!On Today: George Waldenberger posted 1 year, 10 months ago 52 Responses

Keep dancing

Sammy-

Your strength seems to be repeating yourself.  Sadly, I don't think that's convincing anyone.  My argument, plainly made up above, remains unscathed.

If you have any evidence to contradict it, please present it.On Scientists do not have a financial incentive to settle the climate debate posted 1 year, 10 months ago 30 Responses

Definition of "climate scientist"

To the scientific community, expertise is demonstrated when someone publishes in the peer-reviewed literature on climate change issues.  Going to meetings, being involved in scientific experiments, etc., are also ways --- but publication in the peer-reviewed literature is probably the most important standard.

All of the IPCC scientists you listed up above pass the criteria of expertise in climate issues.

You have yet to provide a name of a WGI author who's not a climate expert.  In that sense, you're in total agreement with climate-resistance, who also failed to find a non-expert among the WGI authors.On Today: Thomas Ring posted 1 year, 10 months ago 66 Responses

Provide names

Max-

I read that website, and it says they are all legitimate climate experts.  If you disagree, please provide me with a name or two of someone who's an author but not an expert in some aspect of climate science.

Otherwise, I win.On Today: Thomas Ring posted 1 year, 10 months ago 66 Responses

Dancing!

Max-

Wow!  You really tap dance fast!  Too bad everyone can see it.

You've clearly conceded by your lack of response that the authors of the IPCC working group I report are expert climate scientists.  

And I've shown in my blog posts that the Inhofe 400 are non-credible non-expert non-scientists.  

Thank you.  Game over.On Today: Thomas Ring posted 1 year, 10 months ago 66 Responses

Missing the point, as usual

The point I made was not that there was no funding for climate science, but that the scientific community could get much more money if we said the science was not settled. I notice that, despite your bluster, you don't dispute that. So I guess I can conclude you're in agreement with me on this point.
On Scientists do not have a financial incentive to settle the climate debate posted 1 year, 10 months ago 30 Responses

Name please?

Max-

Can you list one or two dozen authors of the IPCC working group I report that are not legitimate climate scientists?  I'm really interested to see this list.

Thanks!On Today: Thomas Ring posted 1 year, 10 months ago 66 Responses

brush off

I guess it is an absence of humility on your part that you fail to see that you have suffered what is known-in-the-trade *(at least here in Australia) as "the brush off".

I'm not sure they're in it for the money ...

... but I do think that skeptics that make this argument are engaging in a little cognitive dissonance.  On Scientists do not have a financial incentive to settle the climate debate posted 1 year, 10 months ago 30 Responses

You're so predictable

I like how skeptics usually adopt a lawyerly tone when they run out of rational arguments: "Can you tell me their names, their fields of study and exactly what their contributions were?  And what were you doing at 7:43 pm on Oct. 10th?"  

That's what people who are losing an argument do.  

But back to the question you so lazily posed to me.  Why don't you check out Micahel Oppenheimer.  His web page details his expertise.

Again, he's a PRINCETON faculty member.  If the nation's top undergraduate school has both an atmospheric sciences program and a faculty member who's a lead author for the IPCC, then that's the proof that AGW is correct.  On Today: Christopher Castro posted 1 year, 10 months ago 68 Responses

It's the IPCC!

You should read the latest IPCC report for a detailed and peer-reviewed discussion of the evidence supporting the link between CO2 and warming.  
On Today: Christopher Castro posted 1 year, 10 months ago 68 Responses

I think we agree on this

I don't know anyone who majored in climatology either.  Dr. Castro is in an atmospheric sciences department, as am I.  Even Princeton has one .  Thus, I think we can both assume that the work that comes out of them is carefully done and credible.  
On Today: Christopher Castro posted 1 year, 10 months ago 68 Responses

You're joking, right?

You think that this is a statement that the people on the list signed?  I assure you it's not.  It's just a list of people put together by the Senate committee.  I'd be willing to bet that some people on the list don't even know they're listed.On Gwyn Prins and Steve Rayner on climate change posted 1 year, 10 months ago 4 Responses

Elitism in science, cont'd

e-mailed to me for posting by "Black Wallaby"

Elitism in Science Cont.

Hi Andrew, reur 11:07 AM on 29 Dec 2007  taking your last point first:

Re; the two different "Earth's Energy Budget" diagrams; a) Trenberth's and b) NASA's:   You assume that a) is correct because it has been peer reviewed, appears in the "gold standard" IPCC report, and that therefore EVERYONE else agrees with it including that pariah Lindzen.   You also immediately contradict this by asserting that b) which does not agree, despite it being from a respectable source (NASA), is not correct presumably because you ASSUME that it has not been peer reviewed.  Additionally you agree nevertheless that peer reviewed publications can indeed be wrong.  I'll come back to this later but meanwhile, let's seek advice from a respected atmospheric scientist; Andrew Lacis from GISS....(no need for introductions for you I would think).  He was an expert reviewer in the 2007 IPCC report (WG1), and here below are a couple of his expert review comments, which PASSED PEER REVIEW by the arbitrating IPCC authors:

Andrew Lacis commented in part:
`...obvious that any gas that absorbs thermal radiation is a greenhouse gas, and that its ability to contribute to the greenhouse effect depends on the strength of its absorption bands, its atmospheric concentration, and its local temperature difference with the ground surface. [Andrew Lacis]"

"... In terms of its practical impact, the atmospheric greenhouse effect works the same way that thermal insulation around a hot steam pipe reduces the rate of heat energy escape from the+G20 steam pipe. The only significant difference is that thermal insulation restricts energy transport carried by conduction, while absorbing gases in the atmosphere restrict energy transport by radiation (air is a good insulator, so conductive energy transport in the atmosphere is negligible). However, because of the fluid nature of the atmosphere, heat energy can also be transported ...[Andrew Lacis]"

I comment only in part, to keep it brief:  Thus at the quantum theory level Andrew Lacis was comparing heat flow through a solid insulator (predominantly) via phonon quanta versus photon quanta through an absorptive gas.  In both cases, the heat flow is towards a colder sink.  The latter process up through the air column with its many varying parameters is of course extremely complicated, and, without getting too boringly detailed here, let's go back to energy diagram a):

I put to you that Andrew Lacis is correct but that contrarily diagram a) contains a convenient construct used to visualize the greenhouse effect, which fits neatly in with the simplistic individual "forcing" constructs employed by definition by the IPCC.  However, the actual thermodynamics and interactions are different and very complicated.  What is more, the EMR depicted in a) with the endless loop has several sillies in it.  1)  EMR is not HEAT.   2)  The infinite number of directions that EMR radiates other than normal down is impossible to illustrate on flat paper and is not contemplated.  3) The downward 324 w/m2 should sensibly carry a negative sign, but it does not, and if it were shown thus it would expose that it is not HEAT, since there is no such thing as negative HEAT.   Erh, will that do so-far to make my point?  (Keeping it brief)

In fact diagram b) from NASA has the same values for the Earth's Energy Budget, but OMITS the simplistic construct of Greenhouse EMR feedback from cold to hot as favoured by Trenberth et club.   Could it be that some parts of NASA have their feet firmly on the ground?

Since this is fairly heavy stuff, and this is already a substantial post, let's stop here and keep it relatively simple for now, and leave the other three lesser points you obfuscated, for some other time.

Cheers, Black Wallaby
On More bogus climate skepticism posted 1 year, 10 months ago 227 Responses

Thoughts on black wallaby's question

re: Para 1: we can agree to disagree on this one.

re: Para 2: I agree that passing peer review is simply the first step in the scientific process, and it does not mean an idea is correct.  That's why the scientific community re-tests important conclusions.

re: Para 3&4: it's important to realize here that we're talking about a press release, not a publication.  Press releases don't count in science, and they often mischaracterize the peer-reviewed publication.

re: Para 5: I have to be honest that I didn't (and still don't) understand your question, so I answered what I imagined was the closest question that made sense.  Sorry if it was not the correct one.  

As far as the two figures goes, the energy budget of the atmosphere is really well understood.  The IPCC figure is the peer-reviewed and documented one.  The other figure contains no documentation or references so I don't know what's being plotted here.  It looks like the arrows are net flows, where flows in different directions have been subtracted and only the remainder is being plotted.  But without any documentation, I can't figure it out.  But I assure you that any atmospheric scientist, even the few credible skeptics that exist, like Lindzen, would agree with the IPCC's figure.
On More bogus climate skepticism posted 1 year, 11 months ago 227 Responses

My thoughts on Black Wallaby's questions

Based on personal experience, I think an atmospheric scientist would find reading a paper on ice dynamics difficult.  That's not to say that the atmospheric scientist might not have good comments, but his/her comments would likely not b as good as comments from an expert in ice dynamics.  This is indeed a barrier to the kind of cross-disciplinary research needed in today's Earth science.

As far as the IPCC goes, I've read the reports and am satisfied that it reflects the peer-reviewed literature.  As a result, it is the gold-standard summary of what the scientific community thinks on climate change.  People have been attempting to discredit it for years, but it's credibility just keeps increasing.  Even Bush accepts it. What more do you need to know?  

Re Item 1: I admit that plot is odd.  What they're plotting is a "melting index" with units of km^2/day, and (implicitly in the plot) comparing that to an area, with units of km^2.  This is not wrong in the way you thought (that they somehow misprojected Greenland), but I agree that it's an inappropriate comparison.

In any event, that's done only for the press release and doesn't change the conclusion of the work.  Because this is a press release, you have to be very careful not to be misled.  There are lots of bad press releases out there.  While I have not read the peer-reviewed paper, I'd guess this comparison is not in it.  In fact, it may have been the press people that added that.  In any event, it would be very unlikely for something that silly to make it through peer review.

Re Item 2: The idea that the greenhouse effect violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics because it requires heat to flow from a cold atmosphere to a warm surface is incorrect.  If you don't believe me, I recommend you check out from your library one of the very many books on atmospheric thermodynamics.  While you cannot have net heat flow from a cold object to a warm object in an isolated system, such heat flow can occur as part of a larger system of heat flows, as long as the entropy production of the entire system is not negative.  Like I said, read a textbook on this and all will become clear.On More bogus climate skepticism posted 1 year, 11 months ago 227 Responses

Are those errors?

1. I looked up the surface area of the US and it's about 9 million square km, which looks consistent with the plot on that press release.  Do you have a different value for the surface area of the US?

2. Fig. 1 in the IPCC WGI report appears correct.  The energy balance at the surface is:
   

Hope this clears things up.
On More bogus climate skepticism posted 1 year, 11 months ago 227 Responses

I don't want any contest

I'm simply pointing out how unqualified Thomas Ring is to comment on climate physics.

Do you dispute that?  Do you admit that Inhofe's list is bogus?

If so, then we can turn to discussions of the IPCC.On Today: Thomas Ring posted 1 year, 11 months ago 66 Responses

Weak

benp-

There is an important difference here.  The IPCC tags these people as support staff.  No claim is made that they have any climate expertise.  That's the difference with Inhofe's list.  He would claim they were "climate experts" and "prominent scientists".

Note that we've gone from defending the indefensible, Inhofe's list, to attacking the IPCC.  I suppose this is a tacit admission that Inhofe's list is totally bogus.On Today: Thomas Ring posted 1 year, 11 months ago 66 Responses

You're right

I don't think I can argue with you, Earth Shaman.  Happy holidays.On More bogus climate skepticism posted 1 year, 11 months ago 227 Responses

Quicker, yes, but less fun

Scatter-

I agree it would be quicker to simply note the qualified skeptics on the list (there are probably a few dozen), but, from a rhetorical point of view, I think pointing out these immensely unqualified members of the list is more effective.  On Today: Thomas Ring posted 1 year, 11 months ago 66 Responses

The problem is ...

Manacker-

You name:
Lindzen, Bryson, Michaels, Christy, Hoyt, Shaviv, Balling, deLange, Baliunas, Gray, Singer, Spencer, Tenneke

You list here 13 scientists.  I've said all along that there are a few dozen credible skeptics ... who are endlessly recycled by the denial machine.  And if we assume, for the sake of argument, that your list contains credible skeptics, then you and I don't appear to be in disagreement.  

The problem is not the several dozen credible skeptics on Inhofe's list, some of whom you've named, it's the 350 others.  Overall, There are nowhere near 400 credible skeptics on his list, or on the planet.

I'll be following this up with some entries in the near future to buttress this point, which will allow you to foam with indignation at my pompous elitism, while I'm shaking my head at your naivety.  On More bogus climate skepticism posted 1 year, 11 months ago 227 Responses

Your point misses badly

Sammy-

The complexity of climate change does not suddenly make a sociologist, economist, computer programmer, etc. a credible skeptic.  In fact, the weakness of Inhofe's list is readily apparent by the very fact that he had to include such people on his list.  

The crown jewels of skeptics are Lindzen, Christy, Singer, etc., but as I've said before, there are only a small number of them.  In order to bulk up the list, Inhofe lowered his criteria to basically include anyone who doesn't believe in climate change --- regardless of their technical background in the subject.

As far as my analogy being unsuitable, I stand by it.  If your child is sick, you take him/her to the experts.  Ditto if your planet is sick.  You don't take either your child or a planet to a sociologist or economist.On More bogus climate skepticism posted 1 year, 11 months ago 227 Responses

Correction

Mark-

You're right.  When I wrote: "We've finally found someone willing to debate me", I was mistaken.  I should have written: "We've finally found someone competent willing to debate me".

Thanks for the opportunity to correct this!On Climate skeptic steps up posted 1 year, 11 months ago 11 Responses

carbon footprint

justlou-

this just includes the emissions from activities in the U.S.  the carbon emitted during the production of goods in other countries that are subsequently imported to the U.S. is not counted.

thanks!On U.S. emissions go down! posted 1 year, 12 months ago 10 Responses

I've e-mailed Jim ...

... so we'll see if we can set something up.  I'll let everyone know if it's pay-per-view and in an octagon.  
On Search for local climate skeptic in Texas proves fruitless posted 1 year, 12 months ago 61 Responses

Milloy

Eli-

I've convinced myself that the entire "demand debate" effort is just another way of advancing the uncertainty agenda.  I doubt that Milloy has any interest whatsoever in any actual debate --- rather he wants to use the lack of a debate to suggest that the skeptical viewpoint is being suppressed.  

As I've shown, however, the lack of debate exists not because of suppression of the skeptics, but because virtually no one will stand up in public and defend the skeptical position.  

I wouldn't expect to hear anything more from Milloy on this issue.
On Search for local climate skeptic in Texas proves fruitless posted 1 year, 12 months ago 61 Responses

still a non-falsifiable conspiracy theory

Your statement that all I did to look for a skeptic was send off a few e-mails misrepresents my knowledge about the existence of skeptics.  

Climate science is my profession, and I go to meetings and talk to other scientists all the time.  I can assure you that, with the exception of a few dozen well-recycled contrarians (few of whom I'd describe as "principled"), you never see or hear climate-science skeptics at meetings.  

Of course, they may be there, fearful of speaking up, but now we're back to your non-falsifiable conspiracy theory.  How can I tell if someone is actually lying to me when they reveal they're mainstream scientists?

I e-mailed Milloy not because I thought he would be able to identify a skeptic --- I was pretty sure he could not --- but because I wanted to cover all bases.  

I have no idea if Milloy did a thorough search, but this misses the point: if there were many climate skeptics out there, would he have to do a thorough search?  In that case, he'd open his rolodex and send me a name.

If he has to do a thorough search, then the game's mine.  Contrast the "thorough search" you suggest against the effort of finding a mainstream climate scientist in TX.  To find a mainstream climate scientist takes about 30 seconds of googling.

In any event, I'm quite certain you'll claim that my knowledge of the scientific community is insufficient to falsify your conspiracy theory --- and of course you're right, since conspiracy theories cannot be falsified.  No evidence is ever sufficient, because contrary results are seen by you as evidence of another layer of deception.On Search for local climate skeptic in Texas proves fruitless posted 1 year, 12 months ago 61 Responses

A few thoughts

Neither Monckton and Avery are scientists, so I discount them.  The question here is whether there are lots of skeptical scientists out there.

Petr Chylek is indeed a well-known skeptic, and I consider him one of the several dozen that get recycled continuously --- e.g., he was one of the 60 signatories of a skeptical letter to Canada's prime minister, along with all of the usual suspects.  

I don't dispute that skeptics exist, my point is that there are only a few dozen credible climate scientists in the entire world.  There seem like more because they get endlessly recycled.  I don't think that anything written in the comments changes that.

If there were lots of climate-scientist skeptics in the world, wouldn't there be one in Texas?  Compare that to the hundreds of climate scientists in Texas that agree with the IPCC reports ... such as my entire department.

As far as my class goes, I doubt any of the big name skeptics (e.g., Lindzen, Michaels, etc.) would show up without a fat honorarium.  I know that EBTU paid Michaels at least $1000 + travel expenses to participate.  And I don't have that kind of money for the class.  On Search for local climate skeptic in Texas proves fruitless posted 2 years ago 61 Responses

Dressing to save the climate

Following up on wiscidea's comment, check out this NPR story about how Japan is turning up the summertime thermostat to save energy --- and changing their outfits to match.On Wherein I joke about John Edwards' hair posted 2 years ago 7 Responses

IPCC needs to hire a media specialist

One big problem w/ the IPCC is that they have released their AR/4 reports on Friday or Saturday.  These are the absolute worst times to release news if you want to get coverage.  I cannot figure out why they continue to shoot themselves in the foot by doing this.
On IPCC synthesis report confirms global warming is a force to be reckoned with posted 2 years ago 7 Responses

Also, it would be ...

... a definite poke in the eye to George Bush.  And I think we can all agree that's a worthwhile accomplishment.On Three reasons Gore deserves the Nobel Peace Prize posted 2 years, 1 month ago 4 Responses

Good question

Boyd-

About 13 years ago, this same group claimed that chlorine nitrate had a strongly pressure-dependent photolysis rate.  That was a similarly remarkable result, but it turned out to be wrong.  When I heard about this result, the first thing I thought about was "pressure-dependent chlorine nitrate photolysis".  Make no mistake: this measurement may turn out to be right.  But as I said above, replication is the cornerstone of science.  I'll believe this result when it gets replicated!On What the ozone hole tells us about the science of climate change posted 2 years, 1 month ago 8 Responses

Comment e-mailed to me

I've come to a realization about a certain class of federal projects,
of which this is a perfect example. They have some modest support -
not enough for the billions-of-dollars part, but in vague principal.
So it's hard to kill them. But the actual price tag is too enormous to
pay. So what happens instead is that they limp along with tiny funding
while the billions-or-kill-it decision is delayed until next year. And
next year. And the year after that.

This has become the common pattern with the enormous nuclear facility
expenditures planned for the U.S. nuclear weapons program (Los Alamos,
etc.). They've been about ready to build them for the entire 17 years
I've been here. But they never do. A new administration
comes in, starts a new planning process, renames things, and puts off
the big spending for a few more years.

I predict a new planning process and new names for the moon-mars stuff
come 2009. And I agree with your assessment - zero chance of it
actually happening.
On Moon base project sucks up potential climate research dollars posted 2 years, 2 months ago 10 Responses

Oreskes' reply

After reading Oreskes' reply to the Schulte work here, I think she makes a good defense and answers many of the critical comments I made.  I suggest everyone interested in this question read this.On Flawed new analysis purports to show that there's no scientific consensus on climate change posted 2 years, 2 months ago 34 Responses

Author & reviewer list

You can get a list of all of the authors and reviewers of the IPCC WGI report here.    I would guess that every single author and reviewer of the report has published in the peer-reviewed literature.  Otherwise, how could they get to be an author?On Flawed new analysis purports to show that there's no scientific consensus on climate change posted 2 years, 2 months ago 34 Responses

Implications for Oreskes

As I said, I have always been troubled by this methodology.  I think Oreskes conclusions are correct, but I would look to the IPCC reports for a true reading of what's in the peer-reviewed literature.On Flawed new analysis purports to show that there's no scientific consensus on climate change posted 2 years, 2 months ago 34 Responses

Promoting literacy

Jones-

I agree completely.  I think that we (university faculty) have done a poor job of explaining how science works, instead we just tell students the results (F=ma, E=mc^2, etc.).  As a result, they have no way to sort through contentious scientific debates.  Tobacco companies, for example, have used that effectively to their advantage.  We need to do a better job!

Thanks!On Thoughts on Chris Mooney's Storm World posted 2 years, 2 months ago 5 Responses

Bad form

GreyF-

I think Hansen's response is over-the-top.  It seems to me that McIntyre's actually a pretty reasonable and smart guy, and Hansen's obvious irritation with him does climate science no good.  Calling him a jester is not going to convince people to believe climate science --- in fact, I think it has the opposite effect.  Those people suspicious of climate science will conclude from his tone that Hansen has something to hide.  

As the old saying goes, you get more flies with honey than vinegar.  They should thank McIntyre for finding this error (which they did, although I perceive it was through gritted teeth) and encourage him to keep looking at the data.  If they do that sincerely, I think that by itself will convince a lot of people that our data are right ...

Thanks!
On Thoughts on the GISS temperature adjustment posted 2 years, 3 months ago 5 Responses

He should run as an independent

Or, he should build a time machine, and bring McCain2000 to the present.  That guy rocked!  I'd love to vote for him.  Sadly, like Microsoft products, when they upgraded to McCain2007, they got rid of too many features that I liked, and picked up a bunch of useless new ones.  Too bad.On 'The fact is climate change is real,' he says posted 2 years, 3 months ago 1 Response

Recycle the proceeds?

Does he say what he's going to do with the income from the taxes (and permits, if he auctions them)?
On Activists pester him about the most trivial stuff posted 2 years, 3 months ago 12 Responses

my house scores a 3

probably pretty typical for Texas
On Calculate how walkable your home is posted 2 years, 4 months ago 12 Responses

nice job

I think you did well.  Especially that remark to the CEI guy about talking points --- that really yanked his chain.  Niiiiiiice!On Videos for your viewing pleasure, if that's the word for it posted 2 years, 4 months ago 19 Responses

Bailo:

Listen to Griffin's actual interview ... he clearly endorses the IPCC's view.On Skeptical about skeptics posted 2 years, 5 months ago 8 Responses

I suppose they're right

Based on the first two comments, I suppose I have to conclude that no matter what the IPCC says ("things are uncertain," "things are certain," "things are almost certain"), people will accuse it of being alarmist.  Of course, that's nonsense since the IPCC is the most reliable summary of what we know and how confidently we know it.  See here for an explanation of why you should believe it.On The 'in it for the money' theory of climate science doesn't pan out posted 2 years, 5 months ago 9 Responses

Wow

Very impressive interview --- both Letterman and Gore look very good.  On More Gore posted 2 years, 6 months ago 8 Responses

What annoys me ...

is that jabaillo never actually responds to my arguments.  As his points are one-by-one soundly defeated, he just moves on ... or ignores the pounding and keeps saying the same thing.  Here's my response to his statement that the IPCC is not to be trusted, which he's never responded to:

The IPCC is the opinion of the scientific community.  Why should you believe it:

The IPCC report was written by hundreds of climate experts from 130 countries and was based on peer-reviewed scientific literature. The report has itself undergone several layers of scrutiny; it was evaluated by thousands of other climate experts, critiqued by over a hundred IPCC-member governments, and open to public review.

The IPCC's previous report, released in 2001 with similar conclusions, was reviewed and endorsed by a blue ribbon panel of the National Academy of Sciences, and its conclusions were subsequently endorsed by the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and others. These groups are not composed of a bunch of funding hungry scientists screaming that the sky is falling, but rather distinguished researchers stating that the Earth is warming. Think about this. How often can you get at least 100 professionals, such as doctors or lawyers, to agree on any complex problem?

In the end, the IPCC reports are perhaps the most thoroughly vetted documents in the history of science. These reports are therefore widely regarded as the most authoritative summaries of what we know about global warming and how confidently we know it.

As a result of the firm basis in science, the IPCC reports are the most authoritative statement of what we know and how confidently we know it.

Let's compare to the IPCC report to the analyses that Jabaillo is pushing: Have they been peer reviewed by hundreds of scientists?  No.  Have they been endorsed by a blue-ribbon panel of the U.S. National Academy? No.  Have their conclusions been endorsed by the American Geophysical Union?  No.  American Meteorological Society?  No.  AAAS?  No.  etc.

I think it's clear what the credible source of information on climate change.

PS: while jabaillo wants to argue "science," all he actually gives us are press releases and web sites that skeptics links to.  These have not undergone multiple layers of review ... so they cannot compare to the IPCC in terms of credibility.On A great profile posted 2 years, 6 months ago 42 Responses

Wegener et al.

Max-

Clearly, there is a chance that the dominant paradigm of CO2-induced warming is wrong.  That's why the IPCC says that we're 90% sure that it is CO2.  The remaining 10% is to take into account all of the other theories.  However, the case against CO2 is quite strong --- which you can see in chapter 9 of the recent IPCC report.

As far as the temperature back 1300 years is concerned, the IPCC says it's likely that today is the warmest over that period.  As we discussed below, likely is a pretty weak confidence interval, meaning something like a 2 out of 3 chance.  The National Academy also reviewed the surface-temperature reconstruction analyses and concluded it was about a 1 out of 2 chance.  

There is significant uncertainty in these surface-temperature reconstructions, and it would not surprise many people if the MWP turned out to be a smidge warmer than today.  Importantly, that would not change our conclusion that humans are still the dominant driver of today's climate.
On 'The Medieval Warm Period was just as warm as today'--Repeating this point does not make it true posted 2 years, 6 months ago 216 Responses

Why the IPCC should be trusted

The IPCC is the opinion of the scientific community.  Why should you believe it:

The IPCC report was written by hundreds of climate experts from 130 countries and was based on peer-reviewed scientific literature. The report has itself undergone several layers of scrutiny; it was evaluated by thousands of other climate experts, critiqued by over a hundred IPCC-member governments, and open to public review.

The IPCC's previous report, released in 2001 with similar conclusions, was reviewed and endorsed by a blue ribbon panel of the National Academy of Sciences, and its conclusions were subsequently endorsed by the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and others. These groups are not composed of a bunch of funding hungry scientists screaming that the sky is falling, but rather distinguished researchers stating that the Earth is warming. Think about this. How often can you get at least 100 professionals, such as doctors or lawyers, to agree on any complex problem?

In the end, the IPCC reports are perhaps the most thoroughly vetted documents in the history of science. These reports are therefore widely regarded as the most authoritative summaries of what we know about global warming and how confidently we know it.

As a result of the firm basis in science, the IPCC reports are the most authoritative statement of what we know and how confidently we know it.

Let's compare to the IPCC report to Svenmark's book: Has Svenmark's book been peer reviewed by hundreds of scientists?  No.  Has it been endorsed by a blue-ribbon panel of the U.S. National Academy? No.  Has its conclusions been endorsed by the American Geophysical Union?  No.  American Meteorological Society?  No.  AAAS?  No.  etc.

I think it's clear what the credible source of information on climate change.

PS: this also goes for all the press releases and web sites that skeptics links to.  These have not undergone multiple layers of review ... so they cannot compare to the IPCC in terms of credibility.
On Don't fight it posted 2 years, 6 months ago 44 Responses

A few responses to Max

1) I would estimate that only a few scientists really disagree with the IPCC, and I'm sure we could name them in a few minutes: Lindzen, Singer, Pielke, Michaels, and a few others.  Several thousand scientists agree with the IPCC.

I'm sure that if you went back a few years, you'd find a similar split on the "does smoking cause cancer" question.

2) You continue to say

I just think IPCC has lost credibility by using too much exaggeration and hyperbole, and by "bending the facts". You obviously do not.

What you need to realize is that advocates misrepresent what the IPCC says as a strategy to  paint it as an extremist document.  But if you read the actual report, you'll find it is sober and backed by peer-reviewed science.

3)

I believe there will be someone way out there on the fringes like Einstein or Copernicus at the time (will it be Svensmark?) that suddenly comes up with a whole new theory that shoots all the IPCC model predictions down the drain, no matter how much "these statements sum up nicely the peer-reviewed research on this topic".

For lurkers:

Just to remind everyone reading this, the IPCC is the opinion of the scientific community.  As I said above, but seems to need repeating:

The IPCC report was written by hundreds of climate experts from 130 countries and was based on peer-reviewed scientific literature. The report has itself undergone several layers of scrutiny; it was evaluated by thousands of other climate experts, critiqued by over a hundred IPCC-member governments, and open to public review.

The IPCC's previous report, released in 2001 with similar conclusions, was reviewed and endorsed by a blue ribbon panel of the National Academy of Sciences, and its conclusions were subsequently endorsed by the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and others. These groups are not composed of a bunch of funding hungry scientists screaming that the sky is falling, but rather distinguished researchers stating that the Earth is warming. Think about this. How often can you get at least 100 professionals, such as doctors or lawyers, to agree on any complex problem?

In the end, the IPCC reports are perhaps the most thoroughly vetted documents in the history of science. These reports are therefore widely regarded as the most authoritative summaries of what we know about global warming and how confidently we know it.

Let's compare to the IPCC report to the books that jbailo is hawking ("chilling stars" or "unstoppable global warming"): I'm sure they both have footnotes.  But does having footnotes automatically make something credible?  The IPCC has many more --- so by that metric, the IPCC wins.  Have these books been peer reviewed by hundreds of scientists?  No.  Have they been endorsed by a blue-ribbon panel of the U.S. National Academy? No.  Have their conclusions been endorsed by the American Geophysical Union?  No.  

I think it's clear what the credible source of information on climate change.

PS: this also goes for all the press releases and web sites that jbailo links to.  These have not undergone multiple layers of review ... so they cannot compare to the IPCC in terms of credibility.On 'The Medieval Warm Period was just as warm as today'--Repeating this point does not make it true posted 2 years, 6 months ago 216 Responses

The IPCC *is* the scientific community

For lurkers:

Those opposed to action on climate change MUST attack the IPCC.  Not doing so would completely destroy their position.  That explains the comments above that attempt to cast doubt on the IPCC by suggesting it is made up of politicians, etc.

Why should you believe the IPCC?  Read this.   Here's what I say there:

The IPCC report was written by hundreds of climate experts from 130 countries and was based on peer-reviewed scientific literature. The report has itself undergone several layers of scrutiny; it was evaluated by thousands of other climate experts, critiqued by over a hundred IPCC-member governments, and open to public review.

The IPCC's previous report, released in 2001 with similar conclusions, was reviewed and endorsed by a blue ribbon panel of the National Academy of Sciences, and its conclusions were subsequently endorsed by the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and others. These groups are not composed of a bunch of funding hungry scientists screaming that the sky is falling, but rather distinguished researchers stating that the Earth is warming. Think about this. How often can you get at least 100 professionals, such as doctors or lawyers, to agree on any complex problem?

In the end, the IPCC reports are perhaps the most thoroughly vetted documents in the history of science. These reports are therefore widely regarded as the most authoritative summaries of what we know about global warming and how confidently we know it.

Of course not. There is only one credible source here, and it's the IPCC.On 'The Medieval Warm Period was just as warm as today'--Repeating this point does not make it true posted 2 years, 6 months ago 216 Responses

history says otherwise

Jabaillo-

In his recent book, Eugene Linden describes how climate change is a "serial killer of civilizations."  Thus, while you suggest that future climate change will be good, history and common sense suggest otherwise.  Particularly because today's climate change has the capacity to dwarf previous episodes.On Will it be adaptation, mitigation ... or neither? posted 2 years, 6 months ago 12 Responses

For lurkers out there: the rate that matters

Very slow change is much more easily adaptable than fast change.  When the climate has changed rapidly over the past few thousand years, societies have been wiped out.  Read Linden's book Winds of change for a good description of climate as a "serial killer of civilizations."  

Today we're facing a possible rate and magnitude of climate change that we have not seen since the rise of modern society in the last few hundred years ... which is why the experts judge a significant risk of serious impacts.On 'The Medieval Warm Period was just as warm as today'--Repeating this point does not make it true posted 2 years, 6 months ago 216 Responses

Is that Dick Lindzen?

Yes it is.  In a 2001 Newsweek profile of Lindzen, he says that the link between smoking and health effects is weak.  That kinda puts his statements about the weak connection between CO2 and global warming in context, doesn't it.On A video you simply must see posted 2 years, 6 months ago 9 Responses

For lurkers: A defense of models

A few things everyone should keep in mind:

1. climate models contain all of the physics that we think is going on in the atmosphere
   
2. they are not perfect, but models never are.  just because a model is admittedly imperfect does not mean it has no predictive power
   
3. disagreements between the model and the atmosphere contain useful information.  if the models underestimate the past 16 years of data, then one might reasonably expect that model predictions of warming over the next 100 years might also be underestimated.  it also provides information about improving the models.
   
4. those opposed to action on climate change MUST attack models ... not doing so would concede the existence of severe climate change.  thus, attempts to discredit the models should be expected.  bottom line is not to take these attacks at face value, since they are usually without basis, but instead read what the scientists actually say, which is described by the IPCC reports.

Models are available

I don't know if all of the AR/4 GCMs are available, but many are.  You can get the NCAR CSM here and the GISS model E here.  You can probably find others by googling the model name.

There is also a version of the GISS model that they've produced for education.  You can get it here, including builds for mac os and windows.  It relatively low resolution, since most people don't have supercomputer time, and it includes a slick user interface.On Observed warming since 1990 is greater than the models predicted posted 2 years, 6 months ago 32 Responses

For lurkers out there ...

The models have demonstrated reasonable skill in hindcasting the last 150 years.  This is well documented in chapter 8 (entitled "Climate Models and their Evaluation") of the latest IPCC report.  Available here.

Why should you believe the IPCC report?  Read this.

This is not say that the models are perfect.  They are not.  But it is incorrect to conclude that, because a model is imperfect, that it has no predictive value.

Overall, if you read what the scientific community has to say, you'll find much of what the skeptics say is simply incorrect.On Observed warming since 1990 is greater than the models predicted posted 2 years, 6 months ago 32 Responses

Good points

Dave

First, don't ever call me a Pielke.  Thems fightin' words.  In Texas, I think I could legally shoot you for that.

Second, my point is not that Gore abuses the science.  He clearly does not.  I'm quite certain, in fact, he knows more science than almost anyone who's not a climate scientist.  However, if you watch Hayword's presentation carefully, most of what he says is also technically correct.  That was really my point.

Overall, you make some good points.  I suppose what got out of this exchange is that I probably shouldn't compare Hayword's and Gore's presentations.  Because Hayword is defending the status quo, he actually has a much different goal in the debate.  Maintaining the fog of confusion is a victory for him because it allows him to achieve his preferred policy option: to do nothing.  Criticizing Hayword for misusing science is actually a victory for Hayword because it focuses the debate on science and contributes to policy gridlock.

Gore, on the other hand, needs to actively convince people to adopt new policies, which is far more difficult.  Arguments about science do not help him, because they move the discussion away from talking about solutions.

Because of this, their presentations are not easily compared.

In the end, none of this was really what I want to talk about in this post.  My main point was the "science is settled" argument and now it was not a very good argument.

RegardsOn No, but we still know enough to start taking action posted 2 years, 6 months ago 20 Responses

For those lurking

The statement made by commenters on this thread that there's no evidence connecting human activities with climate change is non-sense.  

The IPCC lays out the peer-reviewed evidence in great detail.  Those who argue that no evidence exists have not read the IPCC report.

You can find the carefully constructed argument at www.ipcc.ch.  Why should you believe it?  Read this.On No, but we still know enough to start taking action posted 2 years, 6 months ago 20 Responses

"found them lacking"

Can you tell me what part of the scientific community's analysis looks flawed to you?  A page number or equation number would greatly help me understand where you're having trouble ...On Vote! posted 2 years, 6 months ago 96 Responses

I think this answers your question

Dave-

This thread is a good reason why rebutting skeptics is not a particularly good idea.  It's too easy to get pulled into a ridiculous argument ("Oh yeah?  You show me a peer-reviewed publication that shows that." "How about the IPCC report?"  "That piece of trash?  It's from the UN!  That doesn't count."  etc.).  

This is, in fact, why arguing about science is such an effective technique for those who want to delay action on any policy.  So my position would be to rebut particularly interesting skeptical arguments, but ignore the run-of-the-mill arguments.

RegardsOn Vote! posted 2 years, 6 months ago 96 Responses

Emissions trajectories

This is one of the most under-appreciated aspects of the climate change problem.  For more about emissions trajectories, see this post.On It ain't pretty posted 2 years, 6 months ago 24 Responses

That's so unfair

Have you read the discussion section of that Wikipedia article?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Crypto-Malthusian

fyi. jabailo is a wannabe troll.

A single article

MarkUK-

You are right about the skeptics' reliance on single articles.  Check out my blog on that here.On The innerworkings of it all posted 2 years, 7 months ago 69 Responses

We wish

Well, the second sentence just stopped me dead in my tracks!

It's odd that you so desperately refuse to read the IPCC.  Afraid that it'll destroy your carefully constructed artifice of denial?  Warning: it probably will.

Oh, and I love your argument that "I've read them ... it's you who hasn't read them!"  I have two-year old twins, so I'm very familiar with that tactic --- the old "I'm rubber and you're glue ...".  I doubt you're going to convince anyone here.  Seriously, you'd be welcomed at techcentralstation.

Basically, your comments are not worth responding to.  You're now officially on my troll list.  On The innerworkings of it all posted 2 years, 7 months ago 69 Responses

Have you *read* the IPCC?

Jabailo-

As a scientist, I can assure you that consensus plays a pivotal role in science.  I blogged about it here.  While we scientists toil away alone for a good portion of our time, eventually we must present our work to the broader scientific community.  The goal is to convince the community we're right.  If we can, and a consensus develops that our idea has merit, then our idea becomes part of the working body of knowledge on some subject.  Without consensus, science would fall apart.

In general, your comments on climate change and the IPCC would be taken more seriously if you'd actually taken the time to read the IPCC report.  I read all of the denialist literature/websites --- which is why I can tell you with great confidence that it's mostly bunk.

Regards.
On The innerworkings of it all posted 2 years, 7 months ago 69 Responses

Good point

tico89-

You make a good point.  My response is that while governments have some marginal control on the content, it is predominantly controlled by the science.  The changes described in the article I would describe as minor and unsubstantial on the overall report.

RegardsOn The innerworkings of it all posted 2 years, 7 months ago 69 Responses

You're right

Fermiparadox-

I should have said "Even if these numbers are correct ...".  You're correct that those numbers are wrong.

Thanks!On How can 3 percent be important? posted 2 years, 7 months ago 22 Responses

Good job!

Jabailo-

The sentence you quote is about 2/3rds of the way through the abstract.  Does that mean that you read a whole 200 words of the paper?  Good job!

I'm not sure you understood this paper, so let me say it a little more simply for you:
Over the last 100 years, greenhouse gases increased the surface air temp by 0.8 deg C.  Solar contributed 0.3 deg C of warming, a far smaller contribution than GHGs.  Sulfate aerosols cooled the planet by about 0.4 deg C.  This gives a total change of about 0.7 deg C, in agreement with observations.

Clearly, greenhouse gases are the dominant factor warming the climate.  This is in good agreement with the IPCC's statement that humans are responsible for MOST of the recent warming.  The IPCC does not say ALL of the warming --- because it's clear that solar has likely played a small role.  Most people don't appreciate how carefully nuanced the IPCC's statements are (see here).

I'm not sure where you get the idea that 99.8% of the temperature increase is solar ... that's clearly not a correct conclusion of the paper.  Of course, I foolishly made the mistake of reading the entire paper ... perhaps if I only read a few sentences of the paper, your statement would make more sense.On Debunking the 'water vapor' nonsense posted 2 years, 8 months ago 35 Responses

One more thing

Jabailo says:

I again exhort Grist -- let's have a references section that clearly organizes the best articles in scientific journals regarding global warming mechanisms.

Wait.

We already have that.

It's called the IPCC.On Debunking the 'water vapor' nonsense posted 2 years, 8 months ago 35 Responses

You're right

The remaining 10% is the chance that anything other than greenhouse gases is actually the dominant driver of the recent warming.  That would include human non-GHG effects or some mechanism that is not presently well understood.

Thanks for the clarification.On Debunking the 'water vapor' nonsense posted 2 years, 8 months ago 35 Responses

It's not the sun

Jabailo-

We have measurements of the output of the Sun for the last 30 years and it shows no increase other than the well-known 11-year cycle.

So it's not the Sun.  In fact, there is no reasonable hypothesis besides CO2 to explain the recent warming.On Debunking the 'water vapor' nonsense posted 2 years, 8 months ago 35 Responses

Did you actually read it?

The entire point of Wunsch's letter was that the swindle dramatically misrepresented his view.  For the record, let me point out the first sentence of the letter reads:

I believe that climate change is real, a major threat, and almost surely has a major human-induced component.

not really

the only thing I know about tennekes is his book and his posts on pielke's blog.On What should be the cost of skepticism? posted 2 years, 8 months ago 13 Responses

My take

I assiduously avoid getting into public debates with skeptics.  Fred Singer tried to invite himself to A&M for a seminar, and some people suggested a debate, but a number of us were able to convince the rest of the faculty that a debate was a terrible idea.

The problem is that a scientist, acting under the rules of science, will get creamed every time by an advocate, who acts under the lenient rules of advocacy.  Advocacy allows one to make arguments that a scientist would never make.  People like Singer, Lindzen, Crichton, etc. need to be debating other advocates from the NRDC, Sierra Club, etc., not scientists.

Regards.
On Facts alone will never cut it posted 2 years, 8 months ago 45 Responses

Quick follow-up

When I talked about the cultural difference between engineers and climate science, here's what I was referring to.

Engineers need to build, e.g., a bridge that will withstand a certain load with extremely high (something like 99.99+%) confidence.  

However, because of time lags in the climate system, we will only be 99.99+% sure of climate impacts when the impacts are occurring and unavoidable.  Thus, adopting this standard is the same as saying that we will rely entirely on adaptation.

A good analogy is piloting a supertanker.  They take miles to turn, so you have to start turning them long before you reach an obstacle (like Prince William Sound).  If you wait until you are atop the rocks, then it is too late to avoid them.

Thus, the standard applied by the engineer is entirely different from the standard applied by policymakers on climate change.
On What should be the cost of skepticism? posted 2 years, 8 months ago 13 Responses

A few outliers

There are a few states (Oregon, Virginia) where the climatologist was a particularly good at rejecting science.  In those cases, the Gov. has resorted to other tactics to get rid of them, such as disavowing the office in its entirety.  I'm certain that if the climatologists in those states had a more accurate understanding of the science, the entire episode would never have occurred.

For those not familiar with the climatologist kerfuffle, see here or here.
On The last to react posted 2 years, 8 months ago 5 Responses

Political strategy

Dave-

In the book, we do lay out the various options for how to structure an agreement: 1) universal participation (e.g., Kyoto/UNFCCC), 2) bilateral agreements (e.g., U.S. and China), 3) a "coalition of the willing" (e.g., Europe + Japan + a few others).  In our opinion, option 3 was the best.

It was late and the post was getting too long so I just left that discussion out.  Perhaps that would make for a good post ...

Thanks!
On Debate shifting post-IPCC report posted 2 years, 9 months ago 29 Responses

Sounding like a skeptic

Ken-

I have to agree with Steve, Eli, etc. that you still sound like a skeptic.  In my opinion, the most important conclusion of the IPCC is:

Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.

What you've done here is take a few uncontroversial parts (e.g., the Earth is warming), accept them, and then claim to have science on your side.  That's what George Bush does, and it doesn't work for him, either.

You still don't seem to get the point of the article.  If you want both sides of the climate debate to take your policy views seriously, then just stop arguing about the science (and that includes trying to claim that you've been on-board with the science all along).  

Regards
On How a conservative think tank's foray into climate policy stirred up a media hornet's nest posted 2 years, 9 months ago 25 Responses

Mixing apples and oranges

Lockforward-

First, the Weekly Standard article clearly refers to man's impact on warming, which my post addresses and shows is simply wrong.  If they were referring to sea level, I assume they would have said sea level.

The 2007 IPCC temperature estimates are presented in a completely different format than the TAR's.  The numbers you quoted, 1.4-4, is the range of "best estimates" of the six scenarios.  If you include the "likely" range of each scenario, the upper end extends to over 6 deg C.  Pretty similar to the 2001 report, which did not explicitly break out "best estimates" from "likely".  

As far as sea level goes, I view the 2001 and 2007 reports as roughly similar.  The 2001 IPCC did not give a "best estimate", but if they did it would probably lie within the 2007 range.  And considering the uncertainties, including known processes not included in the models, there is actually great consistency in the results.

Regards
On Just as misleading as the old round posted 2 years, 9 months ago 15 Responses

Can someone explain ...

He kept referring to the republicans as the "republic" party, which is obviously some kind of insult.  I don't get it ... why is that a pejorative?  Just like referring to the democrats as the "democrat party" is an insult.  I don't get that either.

Otherwise, he sure said what was on his mind.  On Gets into it posted 2 years, 9 months ago 19 Responses

I must disagree

Ken-

Thanks for your comments.  Your original letter to Steve Schroeder read to me like the preface to an attack on the scientific results of the IPCC.  

Here is an example of why I thought that:

As with any large-scale "consensus" process, the IPCC is susceptible to self-selection bias in its personnel,  resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent, and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work of the complete Working Group reports.  An independent review of the FAR will advance public deliberation about the extent of potential future climate change ...

The argument that the SPM does not represent the full reports is an old canard that was settled by the 2001 NAS report.  The statement that the IPCC is resistant to criticism is simply unfounded, again suggesting a hatchet job.  Finally, the IPCC reports are self-selecting, in the sense that the authors are selected by their expertise in climate science.  There is no evidence that the views of the IPCC represent the views of only part of the relevant expert community.

While I do not know what you were intending, and your letter does talk about policy critiques in place, there was ample ambiguity in the letter to interpret it as the beginning of yet another assassination attempt on the IPCC.  I'm extremely happy to hear that that's not correct.

As far as Steve Schroeder goes, don't be too hard on him.  I can honestly say that neither of us had any idea this would go where it did.  It was one of the first entries on my blog, and when I wrote it I wasn't even sure anyone read my blog.  I'm quite certain I would handle this differently now.

Regards.On Follow-up on think tank paying writers to question IPCC posted 2 years, 9 months ago 6 Responses

You're right

Kim-

It is impossible to attribute (at least with our current knowledge) any single event to global warming.  Ditto for saying that global warming had no effect on any single event.  

So, as you surmised, both statements are wrong: we cannot say what effect global warming had on Katrina.  

What can you say?  From the IPCC: Based on a range of models, it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing increases of tropical SSTs.On Another silly debate around the IPCC report posted 2 years, 9 months ago 10 Responses

Units

Radiative forcing is usually given in watts per square meter.  It's the amount of additional heating of the surface by the addition of greenhouse gases.  

To be honest, it's not a very intuitive value.  A good rule of thumb is that 3/4 of a watt per square meter corresponds to about 1 deg C temperature increase.On If you haven't seen it already ... posted 2 years, 9 months ago 5 Responses

CEI, not AEI

fyi, the Competitive Enterprise Institute did the "CO2 is life adds," not AEI.  I view AEI as significantly less odious than CEI.

also (not to brag, but ...) I think that all of the press coverage on this AEI letter comes from one of my very first blog entries (here).  it's a great example about how blogs sometimes push real mainstream media.On It's a frenzy posted 2 years, 9 months ago 9 Responses

The road to understanding

I agree with Gar.  Understanding increases when an issue is in the news, and AGW will be in the news a lot this year.  That's mainly because of the Democratic Congress, with a big assist from the new IPCC report.  Plus, people keep noticing the odd fact that it just keeps getting hotter.On Warming people believe, humans at fault, not so much posted 2 years, 10 months ago 30 Responses

Aerosols

Sam-

There are lots of scientists who spend all of their time thinking about aerosols.  Over the past 5 years, our understanding of aerosols has increased dramatically.  In fact, we can now monitor them from space (with some caveats, of course), so we actually have a pretty good handle on their contribution.  While they are important, their dominant contribution is to cool the planet.  Well-mixed greenhouse gases, like CO2, are the dominant cause of the recent warming.

When the IPCC's 4th assessment report comes out in early Feb., you'll see how good our understanding of aerosols has become.On Warming people believe, humans at fault, not so much posted 2 years, 10 months ago 30 Responses

To: d41295

What the scientific community has concluded is that most (> 50%) of the recent warming can be attributed to humans.  

I suspect that if everyone actually looked at the evidence (as described in the IPCC report), the number would be much higher.  Obviously, some people are "closed books" and no amount of data will convince them, so it will never be 100%.  I suspect it might be 70-80%.On Warming people believe, humans at fault, not so much posted 2 years, 10 months ago 30 Responses

Good idea

Steve-

That's a great idea ... put more climate change questions on the certification test.  I'll drop an e-mail to Franco Einaudi, AMS president, suggesting that.

Thanks!
On Eh, why bother posted 2 years, 10 months ago 15 Responses

Here's another report from the Gore training

mp3 here: here.On A dispatch from Gore's climate training sessions posted 2 years, 10 months ago 10 Responses

What can policymakers do?

Liz-

The credibility of the IPCC comes from the credible process that created it: written by scientists, peer-reviewed by scientists, based on the peer-reviewed literature, etc.  

If a policymaker wants to know if an assessment is credible, they should look at the process that created it.  Does it entrain a large fraction of the scientific community?  Is it based on peer-reviewed literature?  What kind of review process did the report go through?  etc.

If they do that, I think they'd be well on their way to getting good scientific advice.

thanks!
On An account of one scientist's testimony posted 2 years, 10 months ago 7 Responses

there are periodic updates

Hank-

Yes, they issue updates to the presentation every so often through their web site.  I have not been involved long enough to know how often, but my sense is they stay on top of it.

You can personalize your talk by taking out or adding slides as you see fit.  I am uncomfortable with much of the hurricane section, for example, so I'll probably take that out.  And I'll probably add some slides on climate change and Texas, in order to bring the debate close to home.  So the answer is that you have quite a bit of latitude in customizing the talk to fit your tastes.

The only thing they ask you NOT to do is change the order of the presentation.  Apparently, they feel that's really important.

Thanks!
On A dispatch from Gore's climate training sessions posted 2 years, 10 months ago 10 Responses

Mark is a troll

If he weren't so fundamentally dishonest and/or ignorant about how science worked, he'd understand why it is he can't convince anyone that is view has any merit whatsoever.  

I wonder if he ever thinks that he's been arguing this for over a year and can't convince anyone.

I was giving a briefing on Capitol Hill yesterday and was talking about how the IPCC was the gold standard of what we know and how confidently we know it, and the audience's reaction was "Yeah, of course it is."  

Mark, you should quit this ridiculous argument while you still have a shred of dignity left.  Ooops, just re-read your comments ... the shred is gone.On Some thoughts posted 2 years, 10 months ago 72 Responses

Care to explain why no one agrees with you?

Mark-

You know (or should know) that the IPCC scnearios come from the IPCC's peer-reviewed "Special Report on Emissions Scenarios".  You're probably not familiar with it, so you can find it on the IPCC's web site.

So, again I ask you to show me where the IPCC misrepresents the peer-reviewed literature.  I suppose your inability to do that is a tacit admission that you're wrong.  As is your repeated attempts to shift the burden of proof to everyone else.

I think it's also telling that you're unable to ever convince anyone else that your ideas are worth taking seriously.  I wonder why that is?  Perhaps because your ideas are simplistic and obviously without merit.  On Some thoughts posted 2 years, 10 months ago 72 Responses

You're making the charge

The evidence that the IPCC accurately represents the peer-reviewed literature is:

1. it was written by scientists
   
2. it was peer reviewed by scientists
   
3. it was reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences and endorsed
   
4. endorsed by the AGU, AMS, AAAS

Now, it might be that none of the thousands of scientists involved understand how science works, while you do (even though you're not a scientist).  Or it may be that you don't know what you're talking about.  

Hmmm.  I wonder which one it is.

PS: in the unlikely case you actually have a legitimate argument that the IPCC misrepresents the peer-reviewed literature, now would be a good time to roll it out.
On Some thoughts posted 2 years, 10 months ago 72 Responses

What Mark doesn't understand ...

... even though I've explained it to him several times is that scientific assessments are not science in a traditional sense.  For example, on Oct. 5, 2005 I wrote (on another blog):

>>>>

Mark-

The mistake you continue to make is that you conflate scientific assessments with science. Scientific assessments are sometimes referred to in the literature as "transcientific documents" --- they summarize science, but are not themselves experiments, nor do they attempt to produce new knowledge. Your insistence that they be "falsifiable" therefore makes no sense. I note, however, that assessments are entirely based on falsifiable peer-reviewed publications. You might try to "falsify" the IPCC by showing that it misrepresents the underlying peer-reviewed literature. Of course, multiple multiple reviews have repeatedly shown that the report adequately reflects the scientific consensus (see, for example, the NAS review).

Assessments summarize what we know and how confidently we know it. The lack of probabilities in the temperature increase does not invalidate the report, as you alone seem to think --- but I agree that policymakers should take that into account when they consider policy alternatives.

regards.

>>>>

It's amazing that you're still hung up on the same trivially incorrect argument.  
On Some thoughts posted 2 years, 10 months ago 72 Responses

Cherrypicking is NOT politicization of science?

Roger-

In response to your statement

I've argued that "cherrypicking" of science is not a misuse of science.

My question for you is: if you don't consider cherrypicking a misuse of science, then what DO you consider a misuse?  In my view, cherrypicking is the number one way to misuse science.

Thanks!On The former says nothing about the latter posted 2 years, 10 months ago 21 Responses

Where is it?

Where in the world did I leave that can of extra-strength Troll-B-Gone (TM)?  I know it's here somewhere.

Oh, here it is.  [Imagine me spraying Mark Bahner's comment]  That should do it.On Some thoughts posted 2 years, 10 months ago 72 Responses

The IPCC might be silent ...

In the hurricane issue, the IPCC TAR is silent because it was written in 2001, when the issue was not on the front burner of the political debate.  However, there is a WMO statement that deserves deference.  I expect the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (out in a few weeks) to say something about hurricanes similar to the WMO report.

I am very leary letting Al Gore or anyone "supplement" the IPCC.  If we let Al Gore inject his scientific expertise, then why shouldn't we let James Inhofe also make pronouncements on the science.  Gore and Inhofe are both advocates, and their interpretation of the science clearly reflects their preferred policy choices.  

I would therefore argue that science should be left to the professionals.  I know that sounds elitist and I'll probably get flamed for it, but so be it.  
On Some thoughts posted 2 years, 10 months ago 72 Responses

I agree ...

... that the general public does not recognize the strong scientific consensus about climate change.

However, I disagree with your argument that Revkin should combine scientific with value questions because that's a mistake the general public makes.  Wouldn't it be better for the article to have attempted to correct that misunderstanding?

I think we're all trying to do the same thing --- explain to people the "lay of the land" of the climate change debate --- but I'm not sure perpetuating errors is the right way to go about it.  Of course, you guys are professionals, while I'm not ...

Thanks!On It muddles the science and policy debates together posted 2 years, 10 months ago 47 Responses

where is the "middle ground"?

it can be found in the IPCC's reports.  these reports are remarkably good summaries of what we know about climate and how confidently we know it.  there's little of what I would characterize as "alarmism" in the reports.

questions about what to do ("act now?  act later? panic?") are fundamentally not scientific.  differences here represent differences in values.  On The supposed 'middle way' is debunked posted 2 years, 10 months ago 39 Responses

only one voice

deborah-

check out my blog on "who to believe" here.

regardsOn What do the climate scientists think? posted 2 years, 11 months ago 24 Responses

don't rely on on publication

backcut-

I don't know anything about the example you gave, but it sounds like the lesson is that one should not base policy on a single peer-reviewed publications.  Errors can and often do make it through peer review.  One should wait for important results to be verified by independent groups in other peer-reviewed publications.  Conclusions that have been multiply verified can be confidently considered to be right.

regards
On Discuss posted 2 years, 11 months ago 7 Responses

A last resort

If we ever get to the point where the climate is out of control, either because it's the Sun or because mitigation efforts have failed, then I think geoengineering (e.g., manipulating the climate) is the last page of the play book.  In other words, we should turn to it after everything else fails.On It's likely not the primary cause posted 2 years, 12 months ago 5 Responses

I think we agree

When I say that CO2 is acting as a feedback, I am indeed saying that it's a response to the warming ... but it's a response that causes further warming.

As far as the cosmic ray theory goes, I don't have a good sense of how plausible that idea is.  Overall, I agree that there are still some unresolved issues.On It's more complicated than you might think posted 3 years ago 3 Responses

Additional reading

For those interested in a more academic discussion about science and proof and consensus, see the excellent article by Naomi Oreskes:

Oreskes, N., 2004. Science and public policy: what's proof got to do with it? Environmental Science & Policy, 7:369-383

You can get it here.

I strongly recommend everyone with an interest in how science gets used for policy read this.On 'There is no consensus'--If this is not consensus, what would consensus look like? posted 3 years ago 109 Responses

I don't think so

You wrote: "In practice people who favor carbon trading mostly favor ... 1)Make it more complicated than a carbon tax"

I don't know who these "people" are, but I doubt they're serious policy wonks on this issue.  Serious discussion of cap-and-trade systems suggests implementing them like this: a permit for the carbon content would be required to import or to extract a unit of fossil fuel, while a new permit would be generated for each unit of carbon sequestered in a stable reservoir. The cost of the permit, like the emission fee, would follow the fuel through the economy, raising the price of carbon-based goods and services. Alternatively, an emission fee or a permit requirement can be imposed at the point where the fossil fuel is burned and the CO2 emitted.  This is the approach being taken by the EU emission trading scheme.

Lipov, as you point out, there is no way to do this at the level of an individual, which is why no one is seriously talking about that approach.  However, I do appreciate the straw man you've set up and then knocked down.  

Regards.On An op-ed in a UK paper posted 3 years ago 37 Responses

Agree and disagree

I agree that one has to consider moral issues when talking about climate change.  On the other hand, one also has to consider costs and benefits.  

However, I believe there are several things wrong with your argument:

1. moving CO2 emission around is not like moving toxic sludge: CO2 emissions affect the global climate, it does not matter where the CO2 was emitted from.  thus, the analogy with toxic sludge, which does impact the local population almost exclusively, is misleading.

2. any permit trading plan would include a provision that the number of permits declines with time.  thus, such a policy would result in decreasing combustion of fossil fuels.  

3. Several decades of experience with permit trading by U.S. utilities has shown that it is an effective way to reduce pollution at a low cost.  

Regards.
On An op-ed in a UK paper posted 3 years ago 37 Responses

that's not what I'm saying

The decision of whether to ratify the KP in 1998 is completely different from the decision today.  Today, ratifying the KP makes no sense.  In 1998, on the other hand, ratifying the KP would have been a far more sensible move.On It's time to move on posted 3 years ago 7 Responses

You're confusing intensity w/ emissions

Wacki-

Our emissions are NOT going down.  The emissions intensity is going down.  Our economy is growing fast enough that total emissions are still growing rapidly.

Regards.On It's a poor indicator of progress on global warming posted 3 years ago 11 Responses

Releasing ourselves from "I don't know"

jjwfmme-

Here's my answer to your question: At what point do we release ourselves from saying "we don't know?"

When we get enough good statistics that show that hurricanes are getting stronger.  In your example, if six were loaded to come up 80% of the time on a six-sided die, it would only take a few rolls to determine that.  If the loading were slight, then it would take many more rolls.  Regardless of the loading, at some point we can look at the data and say that the die has changed.  

Even at that point, however, we still wouldn't be able to say with great confidence whether a single roll (storm) was caused by loading the die (global warming).

Regards
On Cleared up once and for all posted 3 years, 1 month ago 9 Responses