It seems to me that if all we do is study climate variability isn’t it mostly just paleoclimatology? Kind of like just projecting the past into the future on various time scales without human influences.
Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by jacksmith4tx
↧
↧
Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by popesclimatetheory
Some might even say the NIPCC is, but I don’t think that is well constructed because it is a series of individual opinion pieces rather than having a coherent idea of why the IPCC is wrong on the basic warming mechanism.
extreme alarmist consensus climate opinion is really sick.
You are suggesting that the NIPCC should have sick consensus to combat the Alarmist sick consensus. The Skeptic side does have consensus that the Alarmist side is sick, but the skeptic side does not have consensus on all the reasons the alarmist side is sick. We have a lot of valid different reasons that the alarmist consensus lack of reasoning is sick.
↧
Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by PA
Vaughan Pratt | June 25, 2015 at 9:03 pm |
@PA: Look at the chart.
Are you referring to this chart? This shows NH and SH temperatures since 1850 smoothed to a 10-year running mean (much less than that and it’s impossible to say what “in sync” means).
I was referring to the GISS chart.
However you do point out a problem, the temperature of the southern hemisphere before the 21st century isn’t any better than a guess.
↧
Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? | Enjeux énergies et environnement
↧
Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by Joseph
Paging Dr. Lewandowsky..Come look at these comments..
↧
↧
Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by scraft1
Whoops. Let’s try again. My facility with wordpress is not absolute.
Well, the point is that Steven Mosher thinks, as a true skeptic, I should suspend judgment until I understand the science. My response is that every responsible person does that to one degree or another. I have suspended judgment – and that is skepticism or at least a major part of it.
Steve Mosher, I assume you’ve suspended judgment on some facets of climate change – which facets? Which aspects of climate change are you absolutely sure of?
For example, I can understand the greenhouse effect and can agree that continued pouring of CO2 into the atmosphere will raise temperatures, other factors being equal. But from what I’ve read, the various forcings built into the climate models have not been confirmed in the real world, and thus the temperature projections amount to speculation. Also, recent studies indicate that estimated climate sensitivity is quite a bit lower than assumed in climate models.
Have you suspended judgment on future temperature increases, and associated effects such as sea level rise? Do you think we’ll have one meter of slr by 2100, or have you suspended judgment? More important, do you think the science is sufficiently developed for the IPCC to confidently and responsibly predict these things?
Maybe most important, are you sure enough about these matters that you think the derision, bullying and sanctimony exhibited by the “consensus community” toward people that challenge the consensus is justified? Finally, do I appear so naive that I would believe, as a non-scientist, that I’m not even entitled to an opinion? That’s what people in your camp keep telling me.
↧
Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by Joseph
My main concern re the IPCC consensus seeking and the consensus entrepreneurs is that this is extremely ill-suited to a complex, highly uncertain area of science, and that it acts to bias the science.
I think that there is a consensus around the notion that climate change poses a number of growing substantial risks as the temperature increases. And the IPCC report based on the science supports this. And also that if we don’t do anything to curb our emissions, we will increase those risks by increasing temperature.
↧
Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001)
Well, one thing one can always count on re Hulme is that he's always "moving on" - and that as he makes the leap from one leaf to the next, he rarely (if ever) sees a need to inform his audience where he's actually come from!
IOW, Hulme does not seem to find it necessary to acknowledge his very own "contributions" to - in this instance - the "consensus". If I didn't know better, this particular talk of his might have led me to believe that he even accords some measure of credibility (for want of a better word, at the moment) to Cook's creations.
Setting aside the appallingly amateur use of a-v technology in recording this session (or at least that's the view from here), about the only positive thing I could find in Hulme's presentation is that he has (at long last, or at least for now) decided to forego his customary invention of multi-syllabic words that quite often defy meaning.
But perhaps this is a consequence of his latest reinvention of himself as leading:
<blockquote>a new multi-disciplinary MA in Climate Change: History, Culture, Society [... ] This unique MA Programme provides students with the theories, methods and skills to analyse climate change from different historical, cultural and social perspectives. It will enable you to better understand how people in different settings around the world make sense of climate change and the different ways they respond to it.
[...]
This Master’s Programme starts from the premise that since the idea of climate change has penetrated into all aspects of human life, it is no longer possible to adequately understand and address the risks posed by climate change through only scientific, political and economic analysis.
[...]
The multi-disciplinary nature of the MA allows students to gain insight into the science of climate change without requiring a science background. [...] [<a href="http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/geography/study/masters/cchcs/index.aspx" rel="nofollow">Source</a>]</blockquote>
Newcomers here who may not be familiar with Hulme's earlier "contributions" and/or "incarnations" ... you may take your pick ... might be interested in taking a look at <a href="https://hro001.wordpress.com/2011/12/05/the-climate-consensus-coordinators-cookbook/" rel="nofollow">The climate consensus coordinators’ cookbook</a>, for which Hulme was indisputably one of the primary "cooks".
And/or <a href="https://hro001.wordpress.com/2010/06/18/honey-i-shrunk-the-consensus/" rel="nofollow">Honey, I shrunk the consensus!</a> and/or the sequel thereto: <a href="https://hro001.wordpress.com/2010/06/19/how-valid-is-this-shrunken-consensus-judgement-anyway/" rel="nofollow">How valid is this shrunken “consensus judgement”, anyway?</a>
Notwithstanding any and/or all of the above, perhaps I should <em>not</em> discount the possibility that Hulme has ...uh ... "forgotten" his key roles, not to mention his claims and blames ... again.
↧
Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by Jim D
The IPCC has a spectrum and probably 97% of the scientists are within that spectrum of the sensitivity. That is not to say they have to believe the whole IPCC range (1.5-4.5 C per doubling), just some of it. The ones outside are those that think even 1.5 C is too high for them, and this might be a very small number, especially of those rated as climate scientists. Whoever they are, they need to get together and see if they agree with each other on anything. A one-person opinion isn’t worth much, but if you can get several that is very different.
↧
↧
Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by Joshua
“While I am no fan of short term data I do note that the AGWers are and they will be hoist by their petard of short term pause/hiatus in the more reliable modern data that keeps coming in.”
hmmm:
“Whether or not the warming trend since some carefully chosen date is positive, negative, and “significantly” so or not, is mostly an exercise in cherry-picking and the abuse of significance testing (The Difference Between “Significant” and “Not Significant” is not Itself Statistically Significant), not to mention the sort of “gotcha” that belongs in the political domain if anywhere. What matters is how well the obs agree with model projections, and there is no particular threshold of zero trend that has any special importance in that respect. Furthermore, whether or not there is an interval with zero or negative trend, no-one with any clue would dispute that we will continue to see warming in the long term, with some natural variability overlaid on top of that.”
http://julesandjames.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/that-hiatus-thing.html
↧
Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by Jim D
The skeptics just have a lot of individuals who don’t even believe each other, and you think that is a better situation for them?
↧
Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by Joshua
==> “The consensus ‘rats’ might desert the sinking funding ship and start talking about natural climate variability.”
Nice way to build bridges there, Judith. Imply that the strong majority of climate scientists only hold the views they have because they’re chasing funding.
“Published papers that seek to test what caused the climate change over the last century and half, almost unanimously find that humans played a dominant role.”
— Richard Tol
↧
Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by RiHo08
Beta Blocker
“Higher prices for energy are necessary both to promote energy conservation measures and to pay the cost premium for incentivizing an accelerated adoption of nuclear power plus the renewables, wind and solar.”
It is clear whom you are harming with a carbon tax: those who can’t pay the higher price of energy, essentially, the poor, the disabled, those on fixed income. You have now successfully targeted the vulnerable populations caught between the vice of carbon costs and their own survival. And, as you seem so easily and willing to subject others to carbon costing, I suggest you visit the funerals of those dying of inclement weather to which they have no capability to respond. There are only 2000/year at current energy prices. As the price of energy is artificially inflated, I would expect that annual number of deaths due to energy poverty to increase along with the impact of the carbon tax.
↧
↧
Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by Luis Gutierrez
This is very helpful right after the Vatican encyclical. The ethical message of the encyclical is very appealing, but I have reservations about the “climate change” emphasis. Actually, the media is part of the problem, because the encyclical is mostly about the renewal of human relations (with a huge gap about demographic issues), not specifically about “climate change.” Thanks!
↧
Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by Ragnaar
“…a change in our climate causes an impact which changes our climate further — a knock-on effect which feeds back into our climate. There can be both negative and positive feedbacks…”
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/guide/science/explained/feedbacks
I admit negative feedback theories are a bit Fringe. For instance, a warming world would have more water vapor and warm us some more causing more water vapor and so on, unless there were negative feedbacks to bring us to ECS and not beyond. This is Fringe and we don’t see (m)any negative feedback studies, that quantify them somewhat, and finds one once in awhile. We do get natural variability studies though. Do think this is wishful thinking that they’d be strong enough to take out half the warming? CO2 is powerful. It can move temperatures a lot. But ECS implies that something pretty strong can stop the rise. At that point where ECS is reached, which is stronger? Negative feedbacks or CO2?
↧
Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by ulriclyons
A collapse could be precipitated by a discovery of a fundamental e. rror in the climate modelling. For example, that increased forcing of the climate cools the Arctic region, which is what is should do as it increases positive NAO/AO states. Warming of the Arctic occurs with increased negative NAO/AO, at seasonal scales, and at multidecadal AMO scales. Yet I haven’t found a single sceptic on the blogs that can take that on board, as all seem to be conditioned by the assumption that “global warming” should manifest itself most strongly in the Arctic, and the concept is met with universal cognitive dissonance. Which is such a missed opportunity, as followed to its conclusion, it shows that natural variability is massively overwhelming the effects of GHG increases, which should have in theory inhibited the accelerated warming of the AMO and Arctic since 1995. Though I have no problem getting the principles across to someone who knows absolutely nothing about how the climate behaves and functions.
↧
Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by Ragnaar
Jim D:
“The skeptics just have a lot of individuals who don’t even believe each other, and you think that is a better situation for them?”
You are describing the Libertarian Party. It’s not better for them if they want political power. It might be better for them. Free to think up any crazy theory. One might even turn out to be true that is completely non-mainstream. Might be better for us too.
↧
↧
Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by ulriclyons
“For instance, a warming world would have more water vapor and warm us some more causing more water vapor and so on,”
At what altitude and at what latitudes? because that will make all the difference as to whether the effects are negative or positive. E.g less low altitude and more high altitude water vapour is doubly negative.
↧
Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by Jim D
It doesn’t seem you are understanding that a positive feedback is not always a runaway process. It is self-limiting as long as the feedback factor is less than one. It is considered to be about 2/3 which leads to a asymptotic warming three times the no-feedback value (1/(1-f)).
↧
Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by Ragnaar
Jim D:
I am following your math, and thanks for the review. I’ll use 1/3 instead of 2/3s. Am I now fringe? I think ECS means at some point, all negative balance all positives. So at that point, whose shed is it?
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
