Tim56 – I don’t know which divergence you’re asking about. To me the most important divergence happened around 1983 when the PDO and the GMT suddenly diverged. If you are talking about the models and observations, the cause of pause that caused that has vanished.
Comment on Criticism, tolerance and changing your mind by JCH
↧
↧
Comment on Criticism, tolerance and changing your mind by Don Monfort
OMG! Somebody is stalking joshie. I hope the culprit doesn’t start using the “Just to help you clean up Springer’s mess…” line. That would really mess with joshie’s mind.
↧
Comment on Road to Paris: Tracking climate pledges by David Appell (@davidappell)
swood: I suggest you read the paper — the math involved is pretty simple.
http://www.cccma.ec.gc.ca/papers/ngillett/PDFS/nature08047.pdf
↧
Comment on Road to Paris: Tracking climate pledges by swood1000
David Appell –
What evil is Al Gore being accused of?
Exaggerating the threat of global warming and urging expensive policies that are unnecessary.
↧
Comment on Road to Paris: Tracking climate pledges by Pooh, Dixie
Interesting. Wrong target. Ration the EPA budget. About 50%.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by ulriclyons
“Nature: Bidecadal North Atlantic ocean circulation variability controlled by timing of volcanic eruptions.”
Simply back to front. Volcanic aerosols are a reduction in forcing of the climate, that will decrease the AMOC not increase it.
↧
Comment on Road to Paris: Tracking climate pledges by David Appell (@davidappell)
Swood: No, Gore is much more often accused of being in it for the money. You know that.
↧
Comment on Road to Paris: Tracking climate pledges by David Appell (@davidappell)
That wouldn’t be penny-wise, but it would be pound-foolish (unless you oppose saving money):
“How the Clean Air Act Has Saved $22 Trillion in Health-Care Costs,” Alan H. Lockwood, Sept 7 2012.
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/09/how-the-clean-air-act-has-saved-22-trillion-in-health-care-costs/262071/
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by ristvan
That is only the terrestrial portion. Something like half. Ocean photosynthesis is the other ‘half’. And results in more permanent sequestration via formation of calcium carbonate, e.g. by coccolithophorids. The end result is massive chalk and limestone. Which, without volcanic recycling in tctonic subduction zones, woild result in insufficient atmospheric CO2 for photosynthesis in something like (peer reviewed swags) 2.5 million years.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by JCH
Posting RSS and UAH is like worthless. They do not measure the temperature 2 meters above the land surface. The RSS scientist clearly stated that the thermometer series are a more accurate measure of the surface air temperature. After an El Nino or La Nina drives them to the right conclusion, the inaccurate space platforms finally get close to the actual surface temperature.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by Rhyzotika
Dumb question of the week:
Heat records are being broken continuously over the last decade – “Weather”.
Yet there is a plateau in global average land-sea temperatures – “Climate”.
Does this mean there are an equal number of cold records for the same period – in other words the two extremes cancel each other out to make for the plateau or pause?
If so, what does that mean – does it confirm classic model predictions? Or does it represent some other kind of climate dynamic?
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by ristvan
McIntyre’s takedown of Rahmstorf and Mann is breathtaking. How could they have possibly thought that networks and techniques discredited previously thoroughly discredited concerning land paleoclimate can now also represent Atlantic ocean circulation in 2015. Their hubris may in fact become one of the apparently needed silver bullets to stop this stuff. The wholesale corruption of science, and of esteemed journals like Nature, on full display.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by mosomoso
Since the BAS radar survey in 2008 it’s been known about the old ash deposit the size of Wales just near PIG. While one is not looking for yet another simplistic explanation for anything, it’d be nice to keep volcanism in mind when discussing Pine Island. The big blow occurred about 300BC but things are likely still pretty active down there.
Glaciers being the volatile and complex things they are, I’m sure there’s lots to check out and volcanism is only a piece of it all. But if scientists felt a little freer to talk about off-dogma subjects…?
↧
↧
Comment on Road to Paris: Tracking climate pledges by swood1000
David Appell –
Swood: No, Gore is much more often accused of being in it for the money. You know that.
I thought that he didn’t need any money after selling Current TV to Al Jazeera, but that fanning the flames helped keep his Nobel Prize celebrity in the forefront. But how would Judith make money off her position? By selling consulting services to businesses that have an incentive to defeat climate change legislation? Could she earn more that way than she could coming at if from the alarmist side?
↧
Comment on Criticism, tolerance and changing your mind by Joshua
Mark Bofill –
==> ” I can value an educated populus and yet agree or disagree that this is a good idea. “
Right. I agree. And further, we can acknowledge that there are no definitive answers; the data are conflicting, the question of cause-and-effect is enormously complex (how can we control for the myriad variables to assess the costs and benefits of public/federally funded education?). Within the more general agreement about the economic benefits of an educated populous, there can be important distinctions related the type of educational outcomes we consider to be most valuable, etc.
==> “We can disagree about the extent of certainty or uncertainty of our knowledge, in many more arenas than just climate science. “
I see the fights about climate science as being parallel to many other fights about politicized issues – some of which are science-related issues (such as nuclear energy, evolution, the creation of the universe) – and some of which aren’t (the net cost/benefit of higher/lower taxes, the outcomes of more strict gun control laws, the death penalty), etc. Kahan’s data show that indeed, arguments about climate change play out in patterns very similar to those patterns that play out in other issues. IMO, while of course for any individual there might be any number of explanations for what transpires, in the big picture what we see is that climate change is a proxy, identity-related ideological struggle no different, really than so many others.
==> Economics. Justice. Foreign policy. We deal with problems where many of our actions have multiple consequences, some desirable and some undesirable. There are trade offs. To what extent should we sacrifice our individual liberties to protect ourselves from terrorism? There can be disagreements about approaches to problems, and there can be disagreement about the implementation of approaches. So on. I doubt I’ve done justice to the spectrum of difficulties involved, butperhaps this will suffice as a back of the napkin sketch.”
This all is in line with my views. It’s not like I can’t understand the reasons why “conservatives” line up the way they do on certain issues. While I don’t happen to agree with their perspectives on many issues, I recognize that for the most part, the differences fall within the bounds of uncertainty. Yet, the arguments are presented as if the reasoning is certain. Issues like the impact of raising the minimum wage, the impact of inequality, the results of raising taxes, the economic impact of illegal immigration, the role of nature vs. nurture (say as it plays out in the discrepancies in how many women and men become leading academics in scientific fields)…these are all issues where empirical study mostly returns ambiguous results. It seems obvious to me that there is so much important context that needs to be accounted for, so many complex variables, so much about the variability in behavior and decision-making, that anyone taking these issues seriously must know that there are no simple cause-and-effect explanatory mechanisms. Yet we find people who are very serious about all of these issues who are absolutely convinced that they know for a fact what the answers are.
==> ”On another note, I’ve often felt that the term motivated reasoning is an unfortunate label for the concept it describes.”
Absolutely. Kahan and I have exchanged a few comments on that topic. It reflexively triggers a reaction that people’s motives are being impugned – because people don’t realize that “motivated” modifies reasoning, not the individual. We can have very similar motivations (say, to find out the real answer about the impact of ACO2 on the climate) yet be affected by motivated reasoning so as to reach diametrically opposed conclusions.
==> “Virtually all of my reasoning is motivated, I reason about things I care about in some way. I understand that this is not what’s meant by the term. Calling flour ‘pickle juice’ can lead to unfortunate accidents in the kitchen if one isn’t being careful. I’m not sure how long this thread will last, but I imagine this is something we might bump into again in future discussions.”
Cultural cognition is a better term and I think is very similar in meaning (I consider it to be as subset of motivated reasoning but for all practical purposes, it can usually be substituted). The next major hurdle to get over is that assumption that if you say that in generally, the data show that “realists” and “skeptics” are influenced by cultural cognition in their belief formation about climate change, that you’re saying that any particular individual is “fooling themselves.”
See related discussion:
(Don’t read the comment thread, though. That dude that tim, Don, Tom, AK, c1ue, Springer, Peter Lang, and kim have been warning you about has written quite a few comments. Be afraid. Be very, very afraid).
I’m glad that I’ve come across someone who’s as much of a fool as I am to exchange perspectives with.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by JCH
That landmark paper, utterly profound I believe, said the energy imbalance is .6, and that all of that energy is being stored in the SH oceans.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by JCH
I bet that was the un-profound part.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by ristvan
Not dumb. Very smart, and very complicated. The pause in the average says nothing much statistically about extremes, except they are averaging out. Example: Last year Antarctica recorded coldest ever at one place. This year, recorded warmest ever at a different place (Esperanza, tip of the penninsula, caused by a brief foehn.
Heat records are not being broken, except within statistical uncertainty (NASA GISS kerfuffle).
The climate models cannot do this regional stuff. They provide only ‘global envelopes’ of what might be. But all the analysis of the models said (until not true) that temperatures not rising for now 18 years or so when CO2 has, was not possible. That is Popper’s falsification. Giving warmunists much heartburn.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by JCH
Nice graphic. I assume that is a comment on the Antarctic ice. The graphic is SSTs, which could be above where warm upwelling is thawing ice shelf, both landed and floating, from below. It would depend on how deep the SST measurement is made in the waters by Antarctica.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by mosomoso
Again…huh?
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
