Oh, and it’s much better than the sat measurements, I forgot to add.
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by jim2
↧
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by Nick Stokes
” Second, it [smallness] means that natural variations can easily overwhelm human influences”
It doesn’t mean that. You’d have to quantify natural variations. A 1% increase in water in the oceans would have big consequences, for example. In fact, with emissions we are far exceeding natural variability in non-condensing gas constitution of the atmosphere.
A percent of something very big is big. The greenhouse effect is very big.
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by Joshua
Brandon C –
==> “Frankly those questions are not well suited to refute my position at all, a poor choice, but maybe all that was available.
Well, you make some good points, but to paraphrase Rumsfeld, you examine public opinions based on the data you have, not the data you want or wish to have…
I acknowledge the problems that you outline with the polling data (and indeed, I see some support for your speculation in that as the “conservative” respondents increased in “climate science intelligence” and perhaps were thus more familiar with the phenomenon of the “pause,” so did the likelihood of them selecting “no warming” among the choices), But look at that first chart – where more than 50% of the “conservative” respondents selected “no warming”
So let’s skip over my first main point (w/r/t whether your speculation about the prevalence of various views in the “skept-o-sphere” is accurate) to my 2nd main point – which is whether it is a good idea to extrapolate from your experiences in the “skept-o-sphere,” among a cohort that are inherently outliers (by virtue of their high level of involvement), to characterize the broader public who poll as “skeptical” about climate change (the majority of whom are mostly uninvolved or only peripherally involved at best). .While I think it is certainly possible that some % of the “conservative” respondents sampled from the larger group (including the subset of “involved” “skeptics) would have selected “no warming” because they were thinking of the “pause,” I think that more than likely, a high % of Joe Public “conservatives” are not at all familiar with the short-term slowing down over the past decade + in the longer term trend of mean GSATs. Thus, I would say that “the pause” is an unlikely explanation for the answers of such a high % of the poll respondents.
There are other, related data that an speak to some of this. For example:
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/10/09/survey-says-2/
There we can see that in association with degree of being “conservative” the respondents selected “don’t need more information to make up [their] mind.” Two points strike me about that. The first is that I think that it is unlikely that reality, there is such a strong association between being more “conservative’ and being more “informed.” The 2nd is that I think that it is unlikely that, for example, more than 50% of the more “conservative” respondents are really in a situation as to be able to decide about the scientific evidence related to climate change without getting any more information (as the data show they self-evaluate their own knowledge level). That suggests to me that there is not a general pattern that “conservatives” form their views on climate change as the result of greater understanding about phenomena such as “the pause” Not to say that for any particular individuals that pattern might not exist – or even that in general, there isn’t a relatively weak association between greater knowledge about climate change and greater “skepticism” among “conservatives (indeed, I think that the available data show that there is).
With reference to that 2nd main point:
==> “The ground between the alarmists and deniers is mostly made up of feedbacks, not GHE. It is a misrepresentation of the most common denier position to claim it is about GHE, rather than feedbacks.”
I’m not sure what you are referring to with “deniers” there (whether you’re meaning to distinguish them from “skeptics’) – but I would say that the vast majority of “skeptics” have no idea what “feedbacks” are outside of perhaps a microphone screeching when someone’s talking at a wedding.
So again, I think that irrespective of whether you are accurately assessing the prevalence of views of “skeptics” in the “skept-o-sphere,” you are leaning too heavily on assumptions about extrapolating from what you read in the “skept-o-sphere” (or perhaps your own views) to characterize the views of the broader “skeptical” public.
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by Joshua
bob droege –
==> “Smaller mammals means smaller pigs, which means smaller bacon, which is a lose-lose.”
Now there’s a man after my own heart. Climate change may be important, but it pales in comparison next to bacon.
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by Don Monfort
I agree almost entirely, Peter. Except that wee willy and little joshie are very unlikely to be among the rich elites. Navel gazing and nitpicking are not lucrative preoccupations.
↧
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by jim2
Well, Josh, it could be that. Or it could be that your are simply full of it. On further consideration, I’m pretty sure it’s the latter.
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by Peter Davies
You bet Danny. I got Finance Ministry, so a little bit of flattery goes a long way in politics!
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by Joshua
jim2 –
==> “Well, Josh, it could be that. Or it could be that your are simply full of it. On further consideration, I’m pretty sure it’s the latter.”
You know, it’s kind of funny because like Don, and the Chief, you seem to get some kind of a kick out of ad homs, and like Don, and the Chief, you have stated more than once that you were going to stop reading and responding to my comments only to fail to live up to your stated intention.
Not that I would really want you to stop reading and responding, and not that I ever believed it when you said that you would, of course. :-)
Anyway, as always, I thank you for reading and responding. I can’t tell you how much it means to me.
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by jim2
No problem, Josh.
↧
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by aneipris
“I don’t buy the ” current stasis in global mean surface temperature” argument, ”
No, of course not Why buy facts when they don’t support your beliefs. I’d suggest asking yourself how it is that we’ve now seen so many explanations from establishment climate scientists for the pause you say doesn’t exist.
In even simpler terms, if the heat isn’t missing what are they looking for it?
↧
Comment on Draft APS Statement on Climate Change by Waltheof
ATTP
I remembered peeking at your site some time back and it looked like an echo chamber – sort of similar but the opposite to the ”its all a UN conspiracy” type blogs.
Though instead of ‘we are entering an ice age’ and ‘ there is no warming its all adjustments’ waffle I have a look at your blog today and the first comments I look at is someone equating Pr Curry with a anti-vaccination kook with you posting immediately after in agreement.
Cant you see that is damaging to your side of the debate?
There are too many of your type on both sides of this debate.
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by beththeserf
Danny.
I hereby award yer the position of COURT JESTER
ON PROBATION, position depending on weather yer
make Her Excellency laugh.
HE bts.
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by mwgrant
All is well now…the territory is secure and will prosper. So…
Hi-yo Silver , Away!
↧
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by Don Monfort
OMG! It’s started!
“The January/February temperature indices, mostly, show cooling.”
Lawrence must be on to something. And his timing is uncanny. I just want to know his book is popular, despite not having been published yet.
Feel free to condense this to 4 lines and run it under my name, Lawrence.
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by Ian H
Abrupt cooling can only be regional, [ … ]
A completely unjustified assertion directly contradicted by climate history. There are many recorded instances of abrupt global cooling.
The onsets of ice ages were in general both global and abrupt, as was for example the younger Dryas event.
[ … ] and it happens at the same rate irrespective of small variations in global mean temperature.
Another completely unjustified assertion. We do not fully understand the triggers for ice ages and events like the younger Dryas, so there is no basis for you to make such ridiculously confident assertions about what influence on their rate (likelihood?) of onset a small variation in global mean temperature might have.
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by Eli Rabett
Well, try this one, in the past few million years, the Earths global temperature has swung maybe 10 C. Let Eli see 3/10 = 30%
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by ulriclyons
“The onsets of ice ages were in general both global and abrupt,”
Can you show me how abrupt in the tropics?
“..so there is no basis for you to make such ridiculously confident assertions about what influence on their rate (likelihood?) of onset a small variation in global mean temperature might have.”
Yes you can by seeing if global warming reduces extreme negative NAO/AO episodes and negative NAO/AO trends.
↧
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by Danny Thomas
Her almighty honorable one! Shoot, thought maybe you’d read some of my posts.
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by Jim D
Ice Ages are triggered by albedo changes that initially occur with no other change in forcing, just orbital effects. The forcing change that starts an Ice Age is very small, but there is the ice albedo feedback that amplifies the forcing. Going in the negative direction, it doesn’t take much forcing to get an amplifying response in the surface ice area.
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by ulriclyons
Ice ages tend to start slowly and end abruptly, rather like DO events.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
