by Judith Curry
People seem to want to discuss blog discussions/comments, so here’s a thread to deflect such conversation from other threads.
To kick off the discussion, Bill Hooke has posted an article Blogging by the numbers 5-0-247. Extensive excerpt:
As of 9:35 EDT this morning, the Tuesday Eos.org opinion piece on the social contract between scientists and the public had yielded five comments on the AGU site. Yesterday I followed up with a post on LOTRW building on the Eos piece. The yield? Zero comments. The silence has been deafening.
By contrast, Wednesday Judith Curry picked up on the Eos piece on her blog Climate, Etc., generating 247 comments. Bottom line? Since its publication, 98% of the dialog on the social contract has occurred in that space.
Read through that extensive Climate, Etc. comment string, and you’ll find opinions and reactions covering the gamut. You’ll also recognize that much of the commentary comes from people who’ve been actively following Professor Curry for years. You’ll also see that those engaged in the conversation often use whatever subject her proximate post may offer merely as a springboard to launch other discussions, or return to earlier topics from previous posts. There’s an in-crowd flavor to the dialog that sometimes makes it hard for the occasional reader to follow or fully appreciate it. But there’s much that remains on point. And in fact, when you get to the latter parts of the discussion, you’ll find comments leveled at the post that I had expected to see aimed directly on my blogposts for years, but that people have somehow been too polite or gentle to express to me personally. Some of her readers were dismissive of the Eos piece because it offered no more than mere opinions, unsupported by data. (Others, thankfully, noted it was clearly labeled an opinion piece. But there’s a sense abroad in the land that scientists, having tasted the delights of unassailable facts, will never stoop to opinion again.) Some noted inconsistencies inherent in a message that called for scientists to listen first, yet was expressing opinions. Some saw a scolding tone in parts of the post even as it called for a reduction in scolding on the part of others. All this criticism has merit.
Of course the number of readers of each and every blog far exceed the numbers of those who take time and effort to comment. But the question remains: What’s the secret sauce of Climate, etc.? Why do Judith Curry, Gavin Schmidt (RealClimate), Andy Revkin (DotEarth) and a handful of others provide such fertile soil for extended discussion, when the rest of the world’s 200 million bloggers go unremarked and observed?
I found it very interesting to see how Bill Hooke characterizes the discussion here. To the extent that I have any insights on this, I would say that the following factors are in play:
- selecting topics of interest, including an element of controversy
- the blogger actively wants comments/dialogues on the post
To me, the all time best conversations in the science/climate blogosphere were at Keith Kloor’s Collide-a-scape circa 2009/2010, which is where I spent most of my time commenting until I started my own blog. The topics were good, Kloor set up the post ready for controversy, there was an intelligent group of commenters, and moderation seem effective.
Back in the day, Real Climate comments/discussion was effective. While heavily moderated, the participation (mostly of Gavin) drew people to participate.
ClimateAudit (one of the few blogs where I will occasionally read the comments) has evolved since 2006, much more heavily moderated with focused comments.
A ‘new kid’ on the block, ATTP, seems to have the magic touch, as far as I can tell, this is now the most heavily commented on ‘warm’ blog. The blog is fairly heavily moderated, but overall it seems effective.
Re DotEarth, the NYTimes banner certainly helps attract a broader range of commenters (including many academics). I think Revkin has tightened up.
And finally, how does a new (or existing) blog build comments? Blog traffic doesn’t always translate into comments. For example, Cliff Mass has a blog with a lot of hits (more than Climate Etc., last time I checked), but few comments. So there are two somewhat separate issues: building blog traffic (hits), and generating comments. There are a number of articles about building blog traffic, that recommend advertising on twitter/facebook, commenting at other sites, linking to other blogs (in blog roll and in your posts). But for some communities (and BIll Hooke’s apparent target community – professionals in AMS/AGU, people in government) just may not be that into social media, or may prefer linked-in (or some other venue). And then of course there is the issue of comment ‘quality’ – that is in the eye of the beholder, and the blog owner needs to decide what they actually want here.
So why does any of this matter? None of the issues that we talk about in the climate blogosphere are black or white – they are dominated by a multitude of gray shades. We need to have a public dialogue on these issues, and the blogosphere can/should be a great place to do this.
Once again, I would like to thank all of the Denizens for their participation in the blog, especially those that comment.
I am trying to tighten up the moderation. We’ve lost a few commenters over this. But overall I think the blog will benefit from tighter moderation. Thanks for your patience and cooperation.
ATTP – having all the old hand froms Deltoid and a few newbies, talking endlessly to themselves whilst chasing a way the odd sceptic – is hardly a good blog with the magic touch – the amount of sceptics banned fvrom there
so Judy – what may I ask is ATTP (Ken Rice) effective at?
IMO ATTP is an echo chamber and safe haven for non-professional AGW alarmists. Heavy moderation by a like-minded, poorly informed blog owner gives it a band-of-brothers feel to the regulars.
ah yes he handed his your ass to you so you left.
crap.. he handed your ass to you..
dont text while driving
Yeah right. Got a link to that?
What? Wait… he handed his ass to you?
I hope you took him out to dinner and a movie first.
Mosher, one day, maybe sometime soon, your comeuppance is coming.
“Mosher, one day, maybe sometime soon, your comeuppance is coming.
Sorry Judith, your right to ban is appropriate. I still maintain Mosher is insufferable.
Yeah that’s what I thought.
What about our impatience? :)
There are already so many strengths of this blog. Get the moderation ‘right’ – right for you, not for Steve Mc, Keith Kloor or anyone else – and it could be mighty indeed.
I agree with this comment. ‘Moderation’ has stayed in the zone–a moving target. Also ‘openness’ has always been a clear goal of the blog and deft moderation is an essential tool to that end.
There used to be quite intelligent discussions on climate in the comments. But these days the only people I find support alarmism are so easy to prove wrong but so dogmatic in their view that all the fun’s gone out of discussions.
There are just too few intelligent people willing to support climate alarmism, but unfortunately rather than staying in the discussion and just admitted we got it wrong, they just don’t comment any longer.
Simply for the social entertainment, I wish there was a paradigm shift so that we could start having a debate where intelligent people can support both sides.
If one side is wrong and one side is right, why would intelligent people stay on both sides?
I know that they do, I know intelligent people on the different sides.
Some of the really intelligent people on the different sides are really friends of mine.
Sometimes, I learn the most from intelligent people who disagree with me.
This is unfortunately true. The supporters of the “consensus” seem to have withdrawn from the neutral venues and prefer echo chambers. Climate etc. is one place where both seem welcome. Ken Rice, ATTP, is actually a good representative of the consensus camp. Most of his commenters however, are just activists most of whom are rather ignorant and simply withdraw when science is discussed or a technical reference is given. They read a few papers and parrot snippets without any real understanding. This is of course a confirmation bias trap for both them and also a lot of skeptics who don’t really know much science. Climate Dialogue was actually I thought very good at presenting expert opinion that was credible.
I believe we have some pretty intelligent people on both sides of the debate. And having to be on your game likely make some of them sharper in the subject on a broader range than a few practicing in the field.
I am not sure why you must thank us for our patience and cooperation. You are the one who is doing the work so the rest of us can take advantage of this wonderful vehicle.
Since I have gone to the other blogs with reputations of heavy moderation very rarely I can’t make comparisons with Climate Etc. But if I thought comments were being censored in any way, even those opposite my position, I wouldn’t have the confidence about your fairness and impartiality that I do.
I can’t imagine there is another climate science blog that is managed more professionally than this one.
> Some noted inconsistencies inherent in a message that called for scientists to listen first, yet was expressing opinions. Some saw a scolding tone in parts of the post even as it called for a reduction in scolding on the part of others. All this criticism has merit.
Seems that Bill read and appreciated some of Joshua’s comments.
At ClimateEtc., I feel comfortable commenting, asking questions, and reading the many threads and subsequent posts. Assessing my own comfort, I see the two paramount reasons for my comfort has been the Denizens themselves, and second, the specific topics you choose; topics where I have some knowledge and feel I can make a contribution. Commenters will listened, educated me, helped me out with specifics either in writing or managing my discourse. I can make a comment which can be ill-advised or appearing uninformed and I survive to speak yet another day.
Partly thanks to yourself, I’ve been treated politely, something I value. I am not a high testosterone in-your-face kind of guy. I do get angry every once in a while though. When I have treated badly, I tend to remember for a long time and am wary. When someone speaks authoritatively yet at best is marginally accurate or even wrong, I am suspicious of what is said.
Lies, especially of omission are more than: “yes but” situations for me.
There you have it.
+1. It is an honor to discuss things with the many intelligent people gathered here.
One event or scenario, x, might have attributes a,b,c,d,e. Another, y, have a,f,g,h,i,j.
What I find bothersome is comparisons that state x is like y due to attribute a, but gloss over all the differences between the two events/scenarios.
These sorts of comparisons are used to justify accusations of hypocrisy, double standards, political motivation, subjectivity, etc. This technique is wrong and unfair.
And then there is this idea that every concept discussed must have a “scientific” basis or not appeal to logical fallacies. I sometimes have to appeal to authority, but I know that does not constitute proof. But it does serve to promote discussion and certainly others are free to point out the actual errors or problems with my statements.
Dr. Curry — Revkin has been in a slump for some time — too busy with other projects to attend much to his blog — picking “safe” or “mostly harmless” topics. His recent posts have had 5, 8, 4 comments….he managed 82 comments on a “spring might be here” essay featuring photos of cement lawn decorations emerging from melting snow, but only by leaving the post up for seven days. He does have some topics that garner attention: the “anthropocene” and energy issues.
Comments there (Dot Earth) are dominated by about a dozen compulsive commenters who mostly play-back sound bites from their sides position papers.
Revkin does very little, if any, moderation at all.
This British MP figured it out himself – RS science is wrong:
Here is background information on the international alliance promoting the AGW fable:
Commenting on the commenters, in addition to a facilitating forum is the backdrop that AGW has of course always been a Left vs. right issue. That’s not new. Most everyone does not appreciate the impact this dynamic has on the meaningfulness of any discussion, especially when it is understood that most all of academia is mainly Leftist-thinking and has been for a long time. And, academia’s addiction to AGW theory didn’t happen overnight. There is a world of unstated motivations and agendas underlying the presentation of what on the surface are to at least appear to be facts that are woven together in a non-connotative manner. Add to it that most people do not realize what academia really thinks of everyone else –i.e., those of us who are not addicted to AGW theory. We see through the charade of using “science” to provide gravitas to mere opinions. “Unfortunately,” says William Hooke (Reaffirming the Social Contract Between Science and Society), “many scientists have responded by resorting to advocacy. Worse, we’ve too often dumbed down our lobbying until it’s little more than simplistic, orchestrated, self-serving pleas for increased research funding, accompanied at times by the merest smidgen of supporting argument.”
“Add to it that most people do not realize what academia really thinks of everyone else”
Your statement reminded me of a surprise I got yesterday. After learning that Bjorn Stevens is a notable expert in cloud studies, I searched for some of his recent publications. After finding that the numbers, as described by Dr Curry, have dropped off in recent years, I read an interview of Bjorn Stevens. He is, IMO, a wonderful scientist, but appears to have at least one opinion that is strikingly different than mine, and strikingly different from all people who I know. However, it may not be so different than “what academia really thinks of everyone else”.
Bjorn, although born in Germany, was raised, educated, and came to academic prominence in the USA. However, he has now permanently relocated to Germany. The reason: Bush’s re-election in 2014. Is there any explanation for this other than a motIvation to leave a country inhabited by Neanderthals?
Well. Bush did leave a lot to be desired.
You could left out everything before “dismayed” and the point would have been the same, Richard, or can I call you Dick?
Why would a person move his family out of the USA. His answer was, paraphrasing, the re-election of Bush. Hard to believe that the election of a president, even a president whom one detested, could cause this action. My conclusion is that he moved because he came to detest America, because it stupidly elected a bad president.
Your comment was extremely unwelcome. However, I now have solid reason to ignore all your future comments, easy as side-stepping horsesh*t.
I was applying a bit of humor. That being said, the US has a history of electing bad presidents of late.
And I like the occasional diversion and not getting into trouble for riding in all directions.
We should invite a candidates onto the blog for a day to vet them on climate science.
The great thing about America is that people are free to leave if they don’t like it, Dick.
But you know, the thing of it is, more people arrive than leave. A great many more. We don’t miss those who decide they might like it somewhere else more. Frankly we wish more people felt that way. A lot more.
Thanks for your concern though. Don’t look now but we’re probably going to elect yet another Bush. Hopefully that’ll inspire more of the demo-libs in academia to leave. One can only wish. Good riddance. Go Jeb!
richardswarthout | March 22, 2015 at 3:27 pm |
“Your comment was extremely unwelcome. However, I now have solid reason to ignore all your future comments, easy as side-stepping horsesh*t.”
Hey you foreign POS you think I’m going to be nice after you come on here and introduce yourself by saying my country is inhabited by Neanderthals?
You’re a m o r o n.
David, I found your comments on ATTP interesting. Keep heart. And I’m learning not to get caught in the weeds by baiting comments. After all I think I’m still in Steve Mc’s dog house for it.
ATTP owner deleted almost all my comments there. The peanut gallery first misrepresented my skepticism of black carbon significance on Arctic sea ice while ignoring me saying it was significant on glaciers and ice sheets below 60N where there was enough solar shortwave for albedo change to have a significant effect.
Then when I tried to clarify, and gave the link, that I had blogged many years ago about black carbon accounting for up to 25% of 20th century warming, in complete agreement with Hansen (2003), the cretinous ATTP (Ken Rice) deleted it.
He backed the wrong horse and is too insecure to admit the error. It’s a common character flaw among the warmunists.
Your lack of reading comprehension shows!
Springer failed to comprehend my comment, focused on a few words and recreated his/her own meaning to satisfy a distorted mind. Then he/she went into the woods and began howling and growling at an illusion, an imaginary ghost, the product of that distorted mind. May God rest his soul.
Feel the suffering of Socrates, Jesus and George Bush who refused to sign away America’s future at Kyoto. It was GW who stood up to the UN and the superstitious crowd and the purveyors of fear from the Left like that lone Chinaman facing the tanks in Tiananmen square with nothing but the courage in his heart to exercise free will, represent the unrepresented, and to oppose the mindless conformity of the Climatists that had been chosen at that point in time in the evolution of society to try to run the board.
Watch out for the little people.
Thank you for further elaborating on the point. I repeat, Bjorn Stevens is a wonderful scientist and his decision to leave had no effect on the science. And, for me, there are no ill feelings for the decision. But it left me questioning. Why?
I suspect that reason for leaving is not going to be his main motivation. He left a university professorship job to head up a prestigious department. It seems like a normal progression to me.
It seems to me that Dr. Bjorn Stevens’ “reason” for leaving the U.S.A. sounds more like an excuse proffered after the fact. I could imagine that being a stranger in a strange land made him derive this story to gain acceptance in his new culture. Everyone does it and believes it. Too bad we don’t have a before and after picture.
“We see through the charade of using “science” to provide gravitas to mere opinions.” Wagathon
I doubt there are many who read this incredible blog who are unfamiliar with warnings from Eisenhower or Hayek, but they bear repeating.
“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
“This means that to entrust to science – or to deliberate control according to scientific principles – more than scientific method can achieve may have deplorable effects.”
“Freedom granted only when it is known beforehand that its effects will be beneficial is not freedom.”
And one of my favorites in light of most CAGW advocates easy embrace of totalitarian means and methods: “Liberty is the antidote to the Tyranny of Experts.”
“What’s the secret sauce of Climate, etc.? ”
Simple. Judith Curry. There’s something vital and important going on here, starting with our host’s own journey from establishment warmist to gadfly skeptic. To my way of thinking, that’s the ever present subtext of Climate Etc. and the thing that keeps me and I’m sure many others, coming back.
I have the sense that Climate Etc is actually moving the climate debate needle if ever so slowly, in the direction of increased skepticism. I think the only other blog of which one might say the same thing is Climate Audit. I don’t think it’s an accident that both blogs are hosted by manifestly brilliant people of obvious character and integrity.
Ultimately, It will move one conscience at a time.
Yes. What’s the secret? I agree, Judith Curry. Complex mind. She’s got to be Irish.
Can the sting
of a gadfly
change a climate
in the way that
the flapping wings
of a butterfly might
bring a change
in the weather?
Dr. Curry I read each blog avidly. I like them because I get things here I don’t get anywhere else. I get clear information that is open to both sides and those in the middle and I learn almost as much from the comments as I do from the blog itself. I don’t comment often because I don;t have much expertise to offer but this blog is probably my favourite.
“I don;t have much expertise to offer”
Don’t worry tumbleweed, there’s no such thing as a climate expert. There are salesmen posing as such, but none of the real thing.
So-called climate scientists these days tend to be modelers. They have little appreciation of natural variability, the sun, or the importance of cycles or of deep time. They’re also bought and paid for. The alacrity with which the “climate community”….what a chilling term…embraced the Hockey Stick, which if valid would be a major paradigm changer….is prima facie evidence that something’s deeply out of balance.
Skeptics generally come from other disciplines
Apart from the ones doing paleoclimate, or statistical studies, or out in the field doing observations, while the skeptics seem mostly to be desk jockeys.
Like many others, I have been baffled by the question of who or what is a “climate expert” or to use the more common term, “climate scientist”. None of those who claim that they are climate scientists seem to be any more so than those they dismiss as not being climate scientists. After long deep thought, I have come up with the answer: climate is aggregated weather, so climate scientists are aggregated meteorologists. IOW, a meteorologist is not a climate scientist, but if you bring a group of meteorologists together, then you have climate scientists.
Meteorologists as a group are quite skeptical http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/10/the-52-consensus/. In order to bring the numbers to a larger ‘consensus’, need to invite in the impacts folk, the ecologists, and economists.
Just be sure not to release a butterfly in their midst.
Mike J, perhaps “aggravated meteorologists.”
Jim D “…Apart from the ones doing paleoclimate, or statistical studies, or out in the field doing observations, while the skeptics seem mostly to be desk jockeys.”
How do you know that? I interpret that as an insult to many of the denezins. Why do that?
“None of the issues that we talk about in the climate blogosphere are black or white – they are dominated by a multitude of gray shades. We need to have a public dialogue on these issues, and the blogosphere can/should be a great place to do this.”
The reason your blog has so much traffic compared to the others is that it is the best. You introduce a variety of interesting and surprising topics – it is never boring or predictable. You have a light touch – you allow the conversation to evolve and you only moderate the most egregious commenters. Your “percent of posts” policy prevents domination of the blog and you moderate most of the ad hom comments. A blog that is too heavily moderated ends up reflecting the blogger’s bias and does not encourage diversity. Your blog attracts scientists, poets, cranks, engineers, trolls, economists, farmers, writers, kooks, teachers, CPAs, environmentalists, and some interesting characters. It looks like the world. I check in everyday just to see what’s happening. All the other bloggers can learn from you.
And one classical guitarist:-) which should explain why I rarely comment.
I think we have not seen some of the regular scientifically literate warmists (by which I mean those who actually read some of the papers) for a while. R. Gates, FOMD, Vaughan Pratt, Pekka, (also Web) come to mind. I hope this doesn’t signal a trend towards an echo chamber. Perhaps it is just the subjects of late, but we are in something like a 10% minority here, by my guess. It is critical for discussions to have enough people with opposing views because you will notice that very few discussions are within one side. WUWT generates a lot of comments due to a high readership (probably nearly 1000 comments per day), but most are in response to its frequent posts of up to 5 per day, agreeing with them and using them to take a further swipe at the warmist side with few warmists putting in views or even trying to create a discussion there, and believe me, I have been tempted.
Jim D “…WUWT generates a lot of comments due to a high readership (probably nearly 1000 comments per day), but most are in response to its frequent posts of up to 5 per day, agreeing with them and using them to take a further swipe at the warmist side…”
That’s why I don’t like WUWT – it’s too strident.
Climate Etc is on the same path as WUWT. Eventually you end up just singing to the choir. IF
1. you and the few remaining warmists left
2. Joshua and willard ignored Judith
Then.. the comment section would devolve into what you see at WUWT.
same people. same tropes. good volume… but kinda boring..
The reason the warmists leave is their arguments don’t hold water, Stevie. Climategate, now the pause… they’re pretty much up a creek without a paddle. They have a history of corrupting the practice of science and mother nature herself has falsified the predictions of what is now a failed climate change hypothesis.
In other words they can’t handle the truth and here there’s no stopping the telling of it. So they leave and congregate instead in protected warrens like the ironically named skeptical science and then there’s physics where they try to convince each other they’re still holding viable arguments. Only political inertia is keeping CAGW alive. LOL
Steve, you’re making a point I’ve commented on recently that was also mentioned upthread.
While there are AGW adherents who comment regularly here (JimD, FOMD, etc.) they are heavily outnumbered here in comments.
They also (like many skeptical commenters) tend to be somewhat One Note Johnnies.
We can argue whether or not that is because of their treatment by other commenters or simple frustration that we all just don’t ‘get it’, but the fact is this territory has been marked, to use an inelegant description.
Judith, in addition to Collide a Scape, there were a lot of really good discussions at Bart’s blog during the same timeframe.
I suppose the past is always greener on the other side, but there was a vibrancy to the blogosphere during that period that seems absent today.
I think that it is telling that there is a dwindling number on this blog of warmists capable of putting together what would, at least on the surface, appear to be a reasonable, scientifically based argument, given that the blog is lightly moderated and much latitude is given for anyone to comment. To me, that provides further evidence that the warmists in fact do lose the argument for their cause when put into an environment where they can not stifle opposing views, but instead, must argue on the merits. They therefore retreat to safe havens like ATTP, RS, or SkS where their belief system will not be challenged. This blog to me is a challenge to both sides to put up or shut up, and the skeptics are winning that battle.
Besides originally being made skeptical by the overheated rhetoric, the call for drastic and urgent action and the overwhelming number of failed predictions, I have been made more skeptical that any type of policy decision should be made given the complete failure of models to even closely approximate observations, the hubris of believing that politicians can enact policy that will have any impact on climate, the level of dishonesty coming from the warmists, learning more about temperature record adjustments, as well as other things like learning a bit about grid management and renewables. But, what has been most enlightening to me is it is the ability to read the back and forth that this blog allows coming from a variety of scientific, social, and policy perspectives. If anything, I see greater weakness in the entire AGW meme simply because as skeptics generally claim, the AGW arguments simply do not stand up to scrutiny.
I agree about the dangers of an echo chamber. It is necessary to have regular input that challenges the sceptical view here and those you named tended to supply it. They have by no means completely disappeared but they comment less frequently.
There is no more prolific challenger of skeptics, or defender of the consensus, than Mosher himself – on climate models and reported temp products that are the core of CAGW dogma. While Mosher is an obscurantist, he at least occasionally engages on the substance (although I think the wheat/chaff ratio is declining over time). R.Gates and Jim D and other warmists do here as well.
“I hold firmly to my original views. After all I am a philosopher. ”
― Voltaire, Candide: or, Optimism
I agree that Jim D and Steven M “Mosh” are highly valued, not only to provide excellent information, but they are very easy to engage as a newby, which I am.
hmm I actually think the other regular commenters on the “warmist” side are generally more civil than many of your other regulars. Not that anyone is perfect or can’t be irritating sometimes.
Jim D I fully agree. Please stay the course , you are needed here!
Agreed that JimD is needed here!
No Judith, Jim D is not needed. Someone who can give an informed argument from the warmist position using actual data and citations from the literature with supporting references instead of largely mistaken claims by a rank amateur is what’s needed here. Unfortunately those types don’t stick around long because they quickly lose on the merits. Only obstinate anonymous ill-informed amateurs like Jim D who have nothing to lose stick around to defend the CAGW narrative.
DS, you don’t even need the latest papers. People here are even disputing the textbook stuff and basic science.
When the cat is asleep
Big Dave awakens
I think we should test Springer’s Idea.
Jim D.. take a vacation.. test Springer’s ideas.
I bet i can get Willard and Joshua to agree.
,i>When the cat is asleep
Big Dave awakens
“When the cat is away the mice eat each other.”
–Gunvald (on Beck)
What did physics textbooks say about mass in 1900? 1905? 1910?
Just because it’s in a textbook doesn’t make it right. For that matter, AFAIK any true scientist would be overjoyed to come up with a repeatable experiment falsifying some aspect of “the textbook stuff and basic science.”
Thing about that “the textbook stuff and basic science”, if the textbooks are good the stuff should be beyond challenge for normal science, sensu Kuhn. But when the paradigm itself is under challenge, references to “the textbook stuff and basic science” are nothing but arguments from authority.
Much appreciated. And I need the other warmists here. If it is just me against the rest, I’m most likely outta here because then it might as well be WUWT, but we are not close to that point yet fortunately.
You do know there’re more than 2 sides to the debate, don’t you?
I’m in the middle on the scale that goes from denier to greenie. I would accept nuclear power as a part of the solution for example. Also in the middle on the science, which is comfortably within the 90+% who accept the manmade effect. Call me a centrist. That just seems extreme to most here.
You can’t possibly be a centrist. That’s what I consider myself and I self label as a skeptical warmer. Maybe you’re center between me and further left, or about 2/3rds?
A centrist would be like Apple or Google, who have nothing invested in the outcome, and make statements that they are somewhat concerned about what we are doing to the climate. This concern is a centrist view. They don’t doubt it is us that are changing the climate which is the clear majority science view.
Interesting. I don’t doubt we’re having some impact on our environment, man tends to do that. I’m convinced Co2 has some impact on climate, but am not fully convinced of extent and am suspicious that it’s not the sole contributor and think we’ve not yet teased out that which is natural. I have zero doubt it’s warming. I am quite uncertain as to the extent of warming and how nature will respond leading me to be cautious about our approach in addressing. And I believe we’re all highly invested in outcome. And I consider myself a centrist.
A central view is that we don’t know if natural effects are positive or negative since 1950, for example, so man’s effect is either greater or less than what we have observed, but somewhat comparable because, whatever the sign of the natural effect, it is quite small compared to the warming seen. It is somewhat not centrist to assert that the natural effect is positive when you don’t know what it even is.
“A central view is that we don’t know if natural effects are positive or negative since 1950”
“It is somewhat not centrist to assert that the natural effect is positive when you don’t know what it even is.”
Exactly. And it applies equally to both sides, right?
If you agree that the natural effect since 1950 could be positive or negative, then you agree that the anthropogenic effect could equally be larger or smaller than the warming seen. Are we agreeing on this?
(I’m in mod probably due to writing too much)
Yes. I’m agreeing that the anthro warming could be larger or smaller, with a caveat to cause (inclusive of CO2, deforestation, biomass, et al). And we should address the low hanging fruit first IMO. I’ve never been against improving our environment. Thank you for asking.
But that is the IPCC view too. See Gavin’s discussion on attribution with Judith. He has a nice curve illustrating the IPCC range. Now, given that, which implies a central 2 C per doubling, that might inform some ideas on whether 700+ ppm is as good an idea as limiting CO2 to somewhere below 500 ppm. The latter is in line with what they want to do in Paris and with what Obama has in mind for the US share.
JimD & Steven (et al),
From Steven: “2. You have never articulated the kind of evidence that you would accept.”
I will attempt to answer to the level I can and leave it for you to address.
Personal activity on the part of serious AGW/CAGWer’s (if so concerned taking personal responsibility and appropriate actions)
Models say temps should rise in near linear fashion to CO2, then a pause occurs. -1
Heat in oceans was not projected. -1 (what will it do–uncertain)
Temps increasing +1
Growing seasons extending. +1
Higher level of cyclonic activity (ACE is low). -1 (except N. Atlantic)
Arctic Ice melting. +1 (caveat–happened before)
Antarctic Ice extent loss projected. -1
Albedo (uncertain). 0
Clouds impact (uncertain). 0
SLR projections (from +/- 1980 -2)(future uncertain-0)
“Climate Science” once told us of a coming ice age (in my lifetime). -1
CO2 sensitivity (uncertain). 0
IPCC policies based on above-2.
Tornado activity in U.S. (uncertain): http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/22/so-far-2015-seems-to-be-a-bad-year-for-the-severe-weather-caused-by-climate-change-meme/
Geography (uncertain) 0
Accuracy of “projections” -1
Turn these in to all plus ones or a “plus 10 in aggregate” (starting at -5 from the above list) and we can talk more seriously about policy. Others can chime in with much more knowledge than I have. And I’m supposed to be reading more and commenting less.
Danny, perhaps you can start with IPCC AR5 WG1 and see which peer reviewed results you disagree with. Your list conveniently ignores Greenland and Antarctic glacier mass declines, or that the temperature increase was twice as much as CO2 can do without feedbacks, but somewhat as the climate scientists would have expected based on ideas going back a century or so. Surely that alone tilts it a tad in their favor.
Okay. Make it a 0. Only +14 to go.
It’s the entirety, not the pieces. Once I got to looking at the pieces, the entirety became the issue. And when I visit RC and get the AGW side, only the entirety is offered. For me to get to the entirety (and right now, we’re nowhere near there) the pieces have to add up!
Your pieces seem to come entirely from skeptical blog talking points, with no concession to the scientific side explaining what is going on. Maybe you could look at warmist blogs for a while. RealClimate has a very reasonable piece by Kerry Emanuel on Cyclone Pam (spoiler alert, it was not global warming).
Wow. This one surprised me. Arm waving? I addressed your questions specifically w/r/t Co2 and Antartica. Tell me where and why I’m wrong on each of what I offered (and I left off Aerosols 0 as uncertain). I tried to address Mosher’s question specifically and I get back from you “skeptical talking points”. I’ve tried RC and you know what I got? “Those are “skeptical talking points” so please go away till you learn something.
Your method of evaluation is ignoring the bottom line which is matching the temperature rise with the CO2 rise. Just because it warmed 0.7 C in the last 60 years doesn’t prove the scientists were right, but it gives them some reason to suggest that the theory works. the skeptics, despite that data, aren’t going to have any of it. You need more proof than just a rapid 0.7 C temperature rise. Perhaps when it gets to 1 or 2 C you might start to concede grudgingly.
Read the entirety and respond to the entirety (or don’t). 1970’s I (me in my life) was told to expect an Ice age (my skeptical talking point). So when climate science of today tells me temps will do this and they do that my skepticism remains. When I’m told to expect more frequent and intense hurricanes (ACE says that energy is not there) my skepticism remains. I could go on, but I fear it would make no difference to your understanding of my complete comfort stating it’s warming and I need more information before deciding what to do about it. I’m willing to support things which I’ve detailed before such as land use practice, infrastructure and the like. And I love my out of doors. But based on the models level of performance and the “prophecy” of IPCC I do not support their agenda. Tell me where I’m wrong in the balance of the list.
The Ice Age thing was a minority view, something like today’s skeptics, so maybe you are just being consistent in falling for that one, and it should have told you to go with the majority when in doubt. ACE has little to do with global warming. The area of warm enough water for hurricanes may increase, but it is hard to project ACE because that depends on factors other than temperature. Potential intensity changes as described by Emanuel at RC may occur, but only leading to a few m/s per decade of extra intensity, making about five decades for a category increase.
Let me try a different approach that I perceive as eminently fair as I made an honest attempt to address the request of one Mr. Steve Mosher w/r/t evidence. As you are much more scientifically versed than I, what would make the AGW theory falsifiable and/or make you skeptical of portions (as I am) from your view?
The AGW theory, like any other, is falsifiable with evidence of other factors dominating the warming we have had. Based on the amount observed, it is verifying AGW at this time, so it needs some kind of reversal or a different idea for the 0.8 C warming so far. None are forthcoming, so it looks good for AGW as the leading theory for this going forwards.
“The AGW theory, like any other, is falsifiable with evidence of other factors dominating the warming we have had. ” So, please show me what the natural portion has been since say 1700, and to what it’s attributed, what it will be in the future, and it’s effects, from a scientific source (unless there is none). Please exclude any quasi governmental agencies as source. Then, I can subtract that portion (math I can handle) and can knowingly know the anthro portions.
When you say “natural”, are you talking about solar and volcanic forcing, or some other trend? Be specific.
When accounting for the rise in the last 60 years, solar appears to be going in the wrong direction and volcanic effects were more in the second half of the period than the beginning, which also trends down. What else is there? The IPCC has all these.
I have sufficent evidence that there has been continual warming since at least 1700. My understanding of IPCC is that it states the words to the effect that “most of the warming seen since +/- 1950 is man caused” but offers no explaination of what stopped whatever natural warming which was occurring or indeed may have led to “masked” cooling (that ice age from the ’70’s?). IPCC is a quasi governmental organization of which I’m frankly suspicious due to the leaders statements along the lines of “it doesn’t matter if the GW theory is invalid we need to reorganize the worlds economy anyway”. This is from my own “lying eyes” and does not come from a “skeptical” playbook of any kind as I don’t subscribe to that publication. I have evidence that it’s warming I just want to know why. It has been warming for a long time and that warming may still be occurring concurrent with CO2 increasing levels. But I cannot find it (and I ask you for it again if you have direct, non IPCC source). If not, please understand and respect my skepticism. I respect your AGW leanings (I have them too, but they’re just different than yours). I’m happy to support environmental causes for the sake of not living in a trash dump; to reduce, reuse, recycle; to beautify; to create alternative energy out of need for FF replacement; to benefit wildlife;. But until you address the individual specific comments even leaving out the ‘linear temp increase to CO2’ (which I rephrased so please acknowledge) and even Antarctica if you wish, there a many other issues in the climate conversation and IPCC/AGW is still down – 3 and needs to get to +/- a positive 10.
Based on this answer:”When accounting for the rise in the last 60 years, solar appears to be going in the wrong direction and volcanic effects were more in the second half of the period than the beginning, which also trends down. What else is there? The IPCC has all these.” Based on this, we don’t know what causes warming naturally (as there is no discussion as requested back to 1700 but only the past 60 years) how can that natural warming be eliminated? This, I do not comprehend (amongst many things). I appreciate the discussion, your continued patience/tolerance, and have saved this thread to review all your references, but I still take note of no comment on the entirety of my list.
One of the strongest comments I read somewhere is to ask one the “weakness” in their argument as an indication of how hard it’s been evaluated. AGW has never offered this to me and that leads to a lack of comfort. And I can find nothing concrete removing mother nature, only that it must soley be GHG’s. Continuing to ask for proof of removal of nature.
And I talk too much. Regards.
I wanna save the world too! But first I want to be like a doctor and “do no harm”. So I prescribe the least toxic medicine for the known symptoms and if they have side benefits, all the better. Just my perspective.
OK, 0.8 C since 1880, and nearly 0.7 C since 1950 means something like 0.1-0.2 C between 1880 and 1950. This is within the range of natural variability (solar and volcanic), but what has happened after 1950, coincidentally when 2/3 of the CO2 forcing effect was added, is completely different. If you divide the record into before and after 1950, you see what CO2 may be doing in the contrast. Sure, there were ups and downs before 1950, but nothing like the fairly continuous up after.
Again, I can see that “some” of the warming is us (deforestation, UHI, and even CO2). But we’re not even recognizing that some .2C may (has been historically) natural right? We’re attributing it soley to GHG’s. Maybe it’s .2, .1, .3 but we don’t know for sure, correct? Most, okay I’ll give on that (leaving +/- .5 anthro, right?). Improved instrumentation (surely we couldn’t get .1/.2 prior to recent instrumentation). Sure it’s warming, but it has done so before so let’s give at least some attribution to a continuation to warming naturally, right?
The only way I can see that the AGW theory can be “proven” is to spend bazillions to reduce back to 280 ppm and what if warming still occurs? It’ll be “wow, it would have been hotter” and not “maybe we misunderstood GHg’s”. Middle ground is all I’m asking all while continuing research (which I’m all for for research’s sake). We don’t understand Albedo, Clouds, Oceans, Oceans/atmosphere, geography’s influence, Ice, TOA, the ‘pause’, and we know that our models are inaccurate. And we know folks who’re extremely concerned are willing to Jet around to talk about it. Actions are important if we’re really talking about a crisis, huh?
We are doing the experiment now by increasing CO2 at much larger rates than in history and measuring how much the temperature is changing in response. Turns out to be rather as expected. There is no background warming according to common science. The changes are due to forcing. We can even see changes from solar cycles and volcanoes. The sun is now in a lull comparable with one in 1910. The main forcing difference is that now we have more CO2, so that is a clean comparison from the experiment in progress.
“There is no background warming according to common science.” You are the first that has told me there is zero attribution to natural and all is attributable to man. So am I to understand that all prior warming (from 1700) is known as attributable to A) Volcanos and B) the sun and C) zero to any/all sources of GHG’s? (to reiterate, since 1700).
Why this fixation with 1700? But yes, solar and volcanic and longer term orbital effects change the forcing and temperature. Natural cycles are there, but are variations about the forced climate mean, and in a century or three if you want to use 1700, their average effect would be close to zero. Even things like AMO and PDO are about +/-0.1 C. The sun and volcanoes and, more recently, anthropogenic effects, all leave their marks on the temperature record. Its the analogy of the man walking the dog. The forcing is the man walking a steady path, while the natural variations are the dog that has a limited leash (because of the energy balance constraint).
(Been working a long day so apologies for the “pause”).
First, there is no “fixation” on 1700, just trying to find a less controversial date from which to discuss.
and it’s seemingly an interesting effect that all natural temp increase dating from let’s say 1600 or so based on this chart (yeah, wiki, and convenient and trying to not to get in to competing sources).
And you’re the only one I can find that rules out entirely nature: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
As I recall, Gavin and Dr. Curry even had a bit of a tennis match w/r/t attribution.
So either there is some natural, and we’ve not parsed it out, or there is not and lots of folks are mistaken. And I’m not bright enough to be able to tell for sure but I’m a bit skeptical that it managed to turn off in 1950 (even cool a bit in the 40’s for a while) and then again what around 18 years ago?
All this makes me uncomfortable.
I had a day off work.
Did I rule out nature? No, but unless you are talking about solar and volcanic effects, it lives within a tight leash of the equilibrium temperature, possibly 0.1 C on decadal scales, but maybe up to 0.5 C on an annual scale (El Ninos don’t last long). The tight leash is exhibited by how quickly the 1998 El Nino subsided. That all got radiated to space.
While I respect you to no end, and I realize my shortcomings in this topic I really don’t think I misread this:”Did I rule out nature? No, but ………….” “There is no background warming according to common science.”
I don’t get all the science, and certainly not the physics, but I have a bit of a grasp of the English language and I’m putting this one on you.
So if nature is not “ruled out”, how much of the current warming is natural? I can take the math from there. My impression is, it’s uncertain.
The natural part depends on your start and end dates, so there is no single answer. However, if you know what the sun and volcanic dust were like in 1700, it can be computed. It is completely academic because we don’t know the global temperature in 1700 either, so it is a bit difficult to make anything of these three unknowns. Wouldn’t you therefore propose using a more recent period with more data?
“Wouldn’t you therefore propose using a more recent period with more data?”
Proxies only work when used to support one theme? We tossing out ice core data? Tree rings? MWP? LIA?
“so it is a bit difficult to make anything of these three unknowns”
Short answer is yes. Let’s study why we have a pause, albedo, clouds, TOA, Oceans, ocean/atmosphere, aerosols, what the results of warming will be, Ice, sensitivity (I’ve not made it to that thread yet) why the models are known to be inaccurate near term and we’re expected to accept there results long term (sorry, lost count, was that more than 3 unknowns?). There are things we should generate more data upon, then once we have it we can make more informed policy decisions. Sounds like we might have reached an agreement.
I don’t know about you, but I prefer thermometer temperatures when dealing with quantification. Tree rings don’t give you a temperature you can use. Few would trust it even if you tried.
With you 100% on that. Don’t tell Steven, but I like ’em better than algorithms, ice cores, and even my own sweat. It’s that thermometer record why I’m comfortable stating I see warming (and melting ice and 3.2mm/yr SLR). But I’m so uncertain on so much of the rest. And I promise you I’m reading lots (and not just blogs). G. Marshall “Don’t even think about it” que’d up, and Pielke’s Jr. “Rightful Place of Science” recent. And too many paper (some of which I understand) and APS, Nat’l Academy of Sci., TonyB’s MET references (and don’t tell Rud but not his books yet), and every paper Dr. Curry offers and so on. You make me think, and I thank you for that.
I think BEST is pretty good at removing non-representative local trends too. Try reading AR5 WG1, or at least the SPM part. It is easy to understand. The Royal Society has a good document here.
Also check out the World Bank report on why 4 C must be avoided.
and how deep decarbonization is possible in the main emitter countries
These are perspectives you don’t get here and will broaden your horizons.
I will do so, and I thank you.
Now, in fairness, have you critically evaluated the IPCC reports and the SPM and if so which areas do you find to be light in support and in need of reconsideration on the part of the strictly AGW side? Really wondering if there is no “skepticism” of any of the nuts and bolts of the entirety from your view.
While you may not percieve it as such, I’m not entrenched, just skeptical of all uncertainties leaning towards the goals of IPCC and none away.
I think the main area of criticism is that they did not take into account accelerated effects in sea-level rise, and have probably rather underestimated the 2100 rise’s upper range which doesn’t even include 1 meter. Probably not the answer you wanted. I think their other ranges are broad enough that it is hard to argue.
It’s not about what I want, it’s about an honest evaluation. If that’s the worst criticism you have of the entirety of the IPCC it provides perspective and I appreciate it if it’s indeed candid. I’m here as much for perspectives (which I “believe” I understand better than much of the science). Your answer provides much perspective.
I’m not particularly fond of tree rings either, so they need more other consilient evidence for the last millennium. There may be other things, but I would have to think.
I get the distinct impression you always think. And just to make the question interesting keep in mind the SPM was an inclusion.
You may not get the impression, so to state it clearly, I truly appreciate the discussion.
Solar activity since 1600.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/Solar_Activity_Proxies.png/300px-Solar_Activity_Proxies.png (just in case image doesn’t post)
Volcanos (since you prefer 1950)
(again, just in case): http://www.preparingforthegreatshift.org/Volcanic%20Activity%201950%20to%202008.jpg
Turns out the IPCC know about these.
Did we not just have a post here where Dr. Curry said:”The integral of all the feedbacks, after fixing incorrect aerosol forcing, may be surprising (all this is not linear), and it may be pretty much zero.”
Too many “uncertainties” for me, and a serious lack of trust in IPCC. I don’t lack that trust in individual scientists but do find many contrary conclusions after my short time in discovery. And way too many adjustments of history in SLR and temps, and yet I still see warming. I’m just skeptical of the nuts and bolts and find it hard to understand from those who profess to have searched much harder, longer, and with a greater science oriented background than I who are so accepting of the entirety. There must be something seriously wrong with me.
Good luck in your search. It seems I can’t help you.
You help me a bunch, but just haven’t convinced me to buy in to IPCC fully. I’ll work hand in hand with you on many things, but there are many I’m not on board with. I respect you and your position, and hope you can respect mine.
I meant there’re more than one dimension to the debate.
There are three parts to the debate, WG1 on the physical science, WG2 on the impacts, and WG3 on the solutions. Most people would be divided along the same lines in all of these areas, but there are some nuances.
The D stands for Dogmatic.
There’re more than one dimension to the “physical science”.
Don M, it is interesting how you divided the warmists. We are not distinguishable on the science, so I think what you have done is separated those of us who also talk about politics from those who don’t. Since more than half the blog’s discussions are political, I think it is fair for me to comment on that side too. I would not do that if this blog was more like RealClimate.
This blog is definitely different, in that discussions of policy/politics are fair game on many of the threads.
and that was in response to below
Seems like we have seen a fair bit of that in blog posts here as well. More policy related than politics, though. So it doesn’t seem surprising that you have a lot people here who oppose the current proposed policies.
“Models say temps should rise in near linear fashion to CO2, then a pause occurs. -1”
What don’t you care for? Near linear? (Bad choice).
How about this? An ensemble of models projected temps would rise at a higher level than the “ensemble of projected temps as created by at least 5 sources (BEST,MET,NASA,NOAA, C&W) ” have been indicating to such an extent that the approximately 18 year time frame of those temperatures not performing as projected has taken on a life of it’s own and is called “the pause”.
To me a centrist would be somebody who embraces the conservative aspects of the best science (not the “blue sky” stuff).
To the extent that you are unaware of this and often push a more extreme narrative, I don’t think you could be considered a true centrist (yet at least, though it’s a commendable goal).
And sadly not just the so-called skeptics.
There is plenty of ignorant nonsense to spread around here. I’ve seen some pretty outlandish claims like spin 1/2 bosons and thermal energy flowing (or is that “explodes”?) from the cold deep oceans into the atmosphere.
Good catch Steven Mosher:
Not even close.
This isn’t skepticism. It’s an example of basic science illiteracy.
And this is an excellent example of an unhelpful post. I read all you write, but I would never leave an “assertive” insult only. If you have something to offer in the way of education I would very much appreciate that. I’ve professed that I’m here to learn so offer something of value if you would.
And I notice neither you nor Steven, nor Jim D, addressed any of the balance of the post in which that statement was contained, nor my acknowledgement of chosing my words poorly and the reframing. Substance helps. At least I made the effort to address Steven’s request for what evidence would be more acceptable.
Carrick – the only people around here who have talked about heat exploding from the deep oceans are David Springer (derisively) and kim, who seems to actually believe it will happen.
Judith Curry once said she had been told Trenberth believed it was possible, so I emailed him and he said absolutely not.
Trenberth believed it for awhile and was quoted saying it; an email conversation with Peter Webster convinced him otherwise.
Carrick, “Models say temps should rise in near linear fashion to CO2 […]
Not even close.
This isn’t skepticism. It’s an example of basic science illiteracy..”
Pretty common mis-communication though. An exponential increase in CO2 with a ln CO2 response would produce a near linear curve. It is a valid approximation for a small change but “near” isn’t very descriptive and “small” is never specified satisfactorily. I believe there is a peer review paper or two that does the same thing.
Danny Thomas, this chart’s for you.
Approximating something as a linear trend with error margins or a “near linear trend” is just simplifying. Mosher’s “WRONG” means he disagrees with your simplification.
Instrumental fits pretty well in a linear trend with one sigma error margins.
You can adjust your error margins to allow for more uncertainty in paleo ocean data and have a simple linear trend back to ~1725 or so. This in no way “proves” that there is a longer term secular trend, but it is evidence that some portion of the instrumental trend could be “caused” by something other than CO2 equivalent gas “forcing”. In fact the feedback from ocean heat recovery on multi century scales would have a similar ln(2) “forcing” impact..
Of course there is no possibility that any significant multi-century long non GHG forcing related trend could exist because we have it on the finest of paleo authorities that Earth’s Climate is flat, (that would be linear with +/- 0.1 C error margins).
So to be one with the team you need to reduce your error margins because the curve “screams” for a non-linear fit. Of course that might require ignoring some issues around 1910-1940 and 2000-2015, but from that perspective a simple linear approximation is just scientifically illiterate given the absolutely stellar science involved it determining past climate to +/- 0.1 C of accuracy.
Me spek betr skience tan b/4 buttt knot as wel az shuld. Stil lerning.
I was attempting to generalize and address Mosher’s comment about “what evidence” so I rephrased in finer detail but by doing so it brings up the lack of observation when the “global temperatures” are projected (Steven’s own word) so was actually attempting to: 1) address his question 2) not irritate him.
Thank you for “speaking Danny” and grasping the intent of my poorly chosen words.
I’ve so much to learn and frankly think I should just ask JCH to help me w/ my guitar as I decided late to try that as well, and I think I’m about as good at it. It’s a bit frustrating not having the science background and “getting in the neck” (h/t Tony B) from both sides. Guess I really should read more and comment less.
I appreciate your contribution.
JCH, other people have claimed it too on this blog besides DS, and recently.
I’m pretty sure Judith is right about Trenberth . I wouldn’t be surprised if there are still vestiges of that “talking point” on Skeptical Science.
Be careful of thinking the only people who can make errors are the “enemy”.
Cap’t Dallas, Danny’s statement is wrong even if you use logarithmic concentration of CO2.
You have to include all forcings, and even then it’s only true for very long averaging periods, where you can ignore the effects of natural variability (in other words, for periods of say 15-years, the statement is more like -10 wrong, Mosher was giving too much partial credit).
Also became of what you claim based on graphical representations. Facetiously, you can relate the number of dalamations in San Francisco fire departments to global mean temperature: Given the noise, nearly any monotonically increasing function works as well as any other. This is part of why the attribution science is the slowest to advance.
Carrick, I guess it is one of those observation versus model things.
The model mean should be considering all those other things but is “near” linear. In fact there isn’t much difference between using the model with error bars and a linear regression with error bars Not long ago I mention that if the models cannot better a simple linear trend, perhaps the debate should go back to that point, at least until the unrealized positive feedbacks start showing up at the party.
For now though this dime store model is holding its own.
Not sure if I would go so far as “most” but the ad hominem posts on ATTP did seem to be not only more frequent but also much more vituperative (although my style of posting also appears to bring out the venom for some reason). Many of the ad hominem posts here (at least those directed against the alarmists) seem to have substituted condescension for bitterness, almost as if those here believe in their hearts that they are winning the battle, while those on the alarmist sites are apoplectic that their difficulties are caused not by the merits of the question but rather by the activities of dishonest oil companies et al.
Here is a link to AR5 Supplemental Section which should help you on the questions of JimD on Antarctica. Go to the Table at 13SM-2 and that lays out all the necessary information on Sea Level Rise for Antarctica and Greenland.
JimD tried to pull that stuff about certain impacts on Sea Level associated with the Antarctic glaciers. He has it wrong, as you will see in this table.
Stick to your guns.
Just keep going back to the IPCC, they cannot argue with that.
The AR5 data ends in 2005 unfortunately because the Antarctic and Greenland melt rates doubled in the next five years. They based their sea-level estimates on no acceleration, which is an underestimate based on what we already know.
Provide a link please on your claim.
So I guess the IPCC is pretty unreliable stuff. Throw it out? Or throw out only the things you dont like.
I would like to see the studies showing the doubling.
This gives you the idea. Actually, yes, many considered the IPCC too conservative on sea levels for this very reason. They did not want to assume anything about acceleration because that rate was an unknown.
Acceleration? Hummm…… the sea level say maybe not.
Jim D –
It seems that East Antarctica is growing and that the loss is seen in West Antarctica, possibly influenced by this:
But then there is this recent news.
Jim D –
The Greenland temperature is variable. See page three of this: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL049444.pdf
I went to page 1152 of WGI and it clearly shows the data for Antarctica goes to 2011 and the studies and calculations are from papers as late as 2012. Every table in those sections keep coming up with the same SLR referenced for Antarctica. What ever time period one wants to use and what ever estimates are used, the magnitude is small compared to the other components.
Another matter on Antarctica. I dont know how any discussion about West Antarctica can leave out the 2 studies from 2014 centering on findings of geothermal activity that is more extensive and hotter than previously known. Until that element of the possible outcomes is studied with more specificity, all the other assumptions about influence from AGW and the overall effect on SLR from Antarctica seem premature.
‘The AGW theory, like any other, is falsifiable with evidence of other factors dominating the warming we have had. Based on the amount observed, it is verifying AGW at this time, so it needs some kind of reversal or a different idea for the 0.8 C warming so far. None are forthcoming, so it looks good for AGW as the leading theory for this going forwards.’
That presupposes then that the temperature in say 1880 was ‘normal.’ What evidence do you have to support a proposition that the colder than today temperatures of the LIA are the norm?
Maybe you should try reading this. With regards to basal melt, the key point is
Jim D –
With respect to Totten Glacier, it looks like a polynya is involved. http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/characteristics/polynyas.html Is such a thing attributable to human activity? The Antarctic temperature seems pretty stable: ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/graphics/tlt/plots/rss_ts_channel_tlt_southern%20polar_land_and_sea_v03_3.png
JCH disinforms about me, probably ignorantly. I’ve never thought heat could come exploding out of the deep; it will seep out when the surfaces cool enough. Please excuse ‘seep’. It went with ‘deep’.
But according to the study, “Details of the processes driving this change, however, remain largely elusive, hampering our ability to predict the future behaviour of this and similar systems.” http://www.the-cryosphere.net/7/1543/2013/tc-7-1543-2013.html
The processes driving the “100 meters per year” remain “largly elusive.” The 6.3 was for areas having a geothermal flux of 130 mW/m2. http://www.pnas.org/content/111/25/9070/F3.medium.gif But the study said that some areas exceed 200 mW/m2.
Firstly, you dismissed Danny’s comments about the predicted severe cooling of the 1970’s. Connelly et al failed to find it in the literature as it was a 1950 to 1970 concern that was in many of the climate books of the time from Budyko to lamb via the CIA report. Looking at 1970’s literature as Connelly did would yield few results as by then the fears had subsided.
As regards the warming, yes there has been ‘continuous ups’ before, the most notable of which was the widely recorded period from 1700 to 1740 . I have referenced you Phil jones ‘ paper on this in which he expressed surprise at the extent of natural variability.
The temperatures have been generally rising since 1700 and both this and the substantial ups and downs of the climate we can clearly see in the record need explaining without using co2
The latest rise in temperature is on top of an already exceptional peak in 1940. This rise to a max, then further rise is unique. Previous large rises have been from a minimum to a maximum.
Yeah, tony, it’s not just the millennial scale natural changes that are not yet understood, but also the centennial and decadal scale changes. Not to mention the regional variability; well, maybe we should if that helps explain why it’s so difficult to figure out the course of nature.
Danny, there’s never an excess of common sense speech, I’d even say that common sense speech is uncommon. Call in the rhetoricians, please.
Your link is describing basal melt of 10s of metres per year. Geothermal flux is contributing mm/year.
So an exceptional peak on 1940 prior to any great effect by enhanced co2?
So does that mean that 1950 is the perfect decade for the ideal temperature profile we need to dial back to, as that is just prior to man having a significant impact?
Yes, the 1940 peak was at least partly the solar rebound from a min in 1910 and a little aided by Man but not much higher than previous peaks might have been during the few centuries before. There was a slight decline to 1950, so while 1940 is not a representative starting point, 1950 might be. However both of these are near a mid-century solar max, so we may still be underestimating the non-solar rise since then.
With geothermal flux/volcanism we know the cause but are less sure about the magnitude. Under Thwaites Glacier the estimate was a minimum average geothermal flux of ∼114 ± 10 mW/m². The maximum was listed as exceeding 200 mW/m². They used a novel radar technique to try to estimate the rate of melt but the obstacles appear daunting. They use a subglacial water routing model that tried to distinguish characteristics of stream/swamp areas that are over 1000 meters below sea level. Streams have a relatively fast flow. http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/modern-glaciers/ice-streams/. I have nothing but the highest regard for the work of these scientists, but trying to estimate geothermal flux and local magmatic processes by trying to infer the melt water quantity and then subtracting “the net modeled frictional and advective contributions to basal melt” seems ambitious, and these efforts at the beginning of this technique probably need to be given some latitude.
Furthermore, since the melting is described as being “driven by the evolution of rift-associated volcanism,” and since rift-associated volcanism is known to be a dynamic process, they could only estimate the processes happening at that exact moment. Volcanoes are known to be prone to unpredictable eruption. The uncertainties abound.
The problem with the “basal melt of 10s of metres per year” is that they have been unable to relate basal melt to ocean temperature:
Are you proposing that we relate it to ocean temperature anyway?
I am curious why you did not include this NOAA January 15, 2015, graph on Greenland, rather than the one thru 2011, that you used above.
Note how the latest data stops the trend downward. It will be interesting in the next few years to see what happens. It may not signal anything. But it always helps to use the latest information.
Mainly because it didn’t show Antarctica. If you find Antarctica, post that too.
Don’t expect me to update Antarctic charts any time soon. I have no incentive to do so. It is so much more fun using the existing AR5 WGI data which shows Antarctic contribution to GMSL equal to 20% of the thickness of a dime per year. It has a poetic sound to it, don’t you think?
If it continues to double every 5-10 years, it is an interesting math problem to see what you get by 2100, but it is limited by the ice available to 70 m.
The .05M estimate by IPCC for 2100 is written everywhere in the AGI tables. No room for misinterpretation. They took into consideration papers done in 2012. So their calculations went beyond 2005,
What is your analysis as to why the IPCC underestimated the 2100 SLR given they used data later than 2005. Your assumption about 2005 being the cutoff is incorrect.
Yes, now looking at AR5 Chapter 13 I see this.
“Observations indicate that the Greenland contribution to GMSL has
very likely increased from 0.09 [–0.02 to 0.20] mm yr–1 for 1992–2001
to 0.59 [0.43 to 0.76] mm yr–1 for 2002–2011 (Section 4.4.3, Figure
13.4). The average rate of the Antarctica contribution to sea level rise
likely increased from 0.08 [–0.10 to 0.27] mm yr–1 for 1992–2001 to
0.40 [0.20 to 0.61] mm yr–1 for 2002–2011 (Section 4.4.3). For the
budget period 1993–2010, the combined contribution of the ice sheets
is 0.60 [0.42 to 0.78] mm yr–1”
This rate of increase of melting makes their linear estimate even harder to excuse, wouldn’t you think?
The only excuse for them is that they were smoking sumthin’, which puts the entire document under a cloud of suspicion. Of course, that is what skeptics have been saying for decades.
It is gratifying that you are embracing some of those skeptical views.
“I think we have not seen some of the regular scientifically literate warmists (by which I mean those who actually read some of the papers) for a while.”
1. they tend to be attracted by good arguments.
2. they tend to start in an educator mode.
when it becomes clear that A) certain people refuse to learn and that B)
there are no good arguments from the other side, they LEAVE..
or they stay and poke fun at people.
Characters like Gates, FOMD and Jim D are not here for a good argument. They are here to proselytize. Then there is the gaggle of anonymous clowns who are here to attack Judith for straying from the reservation. Pekka, Vaughn, Fred Molton when he used to come around, Mosher are among the very few from the lukewarm-consensus side, who will engage in honest discussion with the unwashed skepticals.
Most academic scientists stay away from blogs. Most blog commenters on the warm side argue through ad hominem attacks. That leaves a very small number of individuals making rational blog arguments about the actual science on the warm side.
“Most academic scientists stay away from blogs.” Is there/has there been much attempt? You’ve had some published who’ve contributed, but I’ve seen very little (as a recent observer).
One of the most interesting pieces I’ve read is the APS presentation transcript and was left with the impression that to some extent there was education and learning shared around and I’d love to see more of same.
I’m a lukewarmer in the sense that I know CO2 is a greenhouse gas and can absorb/emit IR radiation. But there is a whole other 99% of the climate system that isn’t very well understood.
Perhaps too much political inclinations blurring lines.
==> Most blog commenters on the warm side argue through ad hominem attacks.
I demand to see your evidence for dat, Judith.
I don’t want joshie to feel too bad.
“Characters like Gates, FOMD and Jim D are not here for a good argument. ”
read what I wrote again
“That leaves a very small number of individuals making rational blog arguments about the actual science on the warm side.”
like I said.
this small number ( take Pekka) will show up looking for an opportunity
to educate or engage in good argument.
when they see the futility of this.. they change their rules of engagement
I refuse to “learn” that climate models and modern (let alone paleo) temperature reports regarding “Global Average Temperature” are sufficiently precise or accurate to justify decarbonizing the global energy economy, let alone the US economy by itself, because the evidence isn’t there.
As far as I can tell, that puts me in the same category as Dr. Curry, on the central issue in the climate debate. If some warmist bloggers can’t handle that, so be it.
Read what I wrote again. I didn’t intend to contradict anything you said. What’s your beef?
Well, perhaps they should start by giving up on the “educate” part. Most of them have a great deal to learn before they should be trying to “teach”.
One of the biggest problems with (most) “educators” is that they don’t really understand their subject, they’ve just memorized the current dogma and push it on their students, using authority (and arguments therefrom) to shut up anybody who disagrees.
And perhaps it’s futile because they’re the ones who have something to learn.
Eventually, observational data will trump the most elegant theories, the best arguments and the greatest sophisticated equations.
Reality is difficult for some people to swallow.
> That leaves a very small number of individuals making rational blog arguments about the actual science on the warm side.
Just so it doesn’t become too much like Willard Tony’s overnight:
“I refuse to “learn” that climate models and modern (let alone paleo) temperature reports regarding “Global Average Temperature” are sufficiently precise or accurate to justify decarbonizing the global energy economy, let alone the US economy by itself, because the evidence isn’t there.”
1. Policy makers, not you, get to decide what evidence is sufficient.
That reality is what you and others refuse to see. THEY decide.
2. You have never articulated the kind of evidence that you would
Eventually, observational data will trump the most elegant theories, the best arguments and the greatest sophisticated equations.
Reality is difficult for some people to swallow.”
eventually monkeys may fly out of your butt. I am explaining why
you dont have more people from the warm side contributiing here.
comments like yours.
“why you dont have more people from the warm side contributiing here.
comments like yours.”
What kind of comments would result in getting “more people from the warm side”? Serious question. If there were full and total acceptance this blog would then either be RC or WUWT.
“Well, perhaps they should start by giving up on the “educate” part. Most of them have a great deal to learn before they should be trying to “teach”.
One of the biggest problems with (most) “educators” is that they don’t really understand their subject, they’ve just memorized the current dogma and push it on their students, using authority (and arguments therefrom) to shut up anybody who disagrees.”
Ok lets have an argument.
Lets take Pekka as an example.
1. What does he have to learn?
2. Show he doesnt understand his subject
3. Show that he has just memorized the dogma
4. demonstrate that has just tried to shut people up.
you want an argument? Go first. prove your case with Pekka.
Actually, Pekka seems to like highly technical discussion where he has to dig in deep (and presumably learn something)
Steven Mosher: 1. Policy makers, not you, get to decide what evidence is sufficient.
What’s with this persistent refrain that voters and other citizens don’t get to decide anything?
I’ll start with the easy one:
AFAIK he hasn’t, here. Instead, he just stops responding to them. As for the classroom? I don’t know and don’t have any way to find out. But, for an example of what some in that class do, consider aTTP. He shuts plenty of people up (at his blog), because they repeat “talking points” he doesn’t like.
The next of your points I’ll address is:
IMO (this is all IMO, of course) a great deal about the implications of how very complex non-linear systems work. Same as you. Same as aTTP. Anybody who approaches the global energy budget as a problem in “physics” probably (IMO) has that problem. The world is not a “spherical cow”.
More in a while.
Every word of every comment he (or anybody) posts has the potential to influence what one or more of those “Policy makers” ends up deciding.
Damn, AK. You seem to be saying climate is wickedly complex. Lets’ see, could that be the case? …. naw!
Yes, he does seem more open-minded than many educators I’ve dealt with. There’ve been a few times I thought he was dismissing ideas because they were in conflict with the standard paradigm, but searching through the back threads to find them will take time.
Of course, since my statement had to do with a class of people, my impressions of them, and qualified with “perhaps”, I’m not sure Steven’s justified in choosing Pekka as an example.
But it’s my impression, based on years-old conversations, that he’s not always willing to think outside the paradigm.
I’ll continue searching and get back with links, an apology, or both.
“1. Policy makers, not you, get to decide what evidence is sufficient.
That reality is what you and others refuse to see. THEY decide.”
Only in the progressive dreamworld you apparently live in.
Virtually every single policy maker in control of virtually every western country was in favor of decarbonization in the lead up to Copenhagen. Obama,the EPA en masse, and even virtually the entire GOP ‘leadership’ in congress favor the ‘global warming’ policy agenda.
So where is the world wide cap and trade? Where is the ban on continued drilling and mining? Where is the decarbonization of the global economy?
What you don’t get, and those policy makers do, is that we still live in a democracy, the dreams of Thomas Friedman and yourself notwithstanding.
Why did Obama wait until after his re-elections to start to dismantle the US Constitution on globalcluimatewarmingchange? Because unlike you, he got that ultimate power still resides in the voters. Yes, including me.
What Obama doesn’t get is that every unconstitutional edict he issues now can, and very likely will, be erased by the stroke of a pen by the next president.
And guess where that next president will get the power to do so?
Progressives really don’t get the whole democracy thing.
pssssst – the US is a Republic. Just sayin’
“What kind of comments would result in getting “more people from the warm side”? Serious question. If there were full and total acceptance this blog would then either be RC or WUWT.”
You have it the wrong way around. It’s typically certain types of comments that drive people AWAY rather than comments that draw them.
An experiment might me in order. What would happen if Jim D, Joshua and Willard and me decided to avoid commenting for a week or a month?
this place would quickly descend to WUWT levels where Tim Ball posts stuff and everybody rushes in to say “great post Tim!”
Not intending (buy may be in actuality) to be just contrary, but this is simliar to your question of what evidence would lead to acceptance of the AGW theory (and I’ve tried to answer it in part so please look for it as it’s addressed in part to you).
w/r/t “everybody rushes in to say “great post Tim!”
Wrong! I’ve never said that over at WUWT (I may have thanked him for his work but that’s just human decency w/o regard to content), and Tim Ball (no disrespect intended) is not Dr. Curry.
“What would happen if Jim D, Joshua and Willard and me decided to avoid commenting for a week or a month?” It would become boring from a comment aspect, but I’d expect that vacuum to be filled or modification by Dr. Curry in offerings (conjecture on my part) as I percieve she receives some value from this format being what it is. I’d rather not find out, as I personally receive value from all viewpoints and all the above named contributors, and as a bit of a warmer myself I actually sought out a “skeptic” blog in order to understand more fully an alternative view point. And I’ve found value by doing so and as I gain that value w/o being subjected to the level of vitriol found elsewhere.
Pekka is one of the most polite commenters to contribute here. He also regularly engages with those who disagree.with him.
That being said, he is every bit as dogmatic as any of the other progressive commenters here. I can’t think of any issue on which he dissents from the consensus. Nor can I think of a single instance where he has changed his mind on any issue.
But that is not the test of whether a commenter’s contribution here is valuable. He is an able spokesman for his point of view. He is living proof that even dogmatic warmists can engage in civil debate. Though as Dr. Curry noted elsewhere, that is not the norm.
In fact, the most surprising thing to me about this blog to me has been the number of progressives/warmists who do engage in civil debate. Unlike the policy makers they support. That is why I enjoy participating.
So is North Korea. The difference between the two is that the US is a truly democratic republic.
“An experiment might me in order. What would happen if Jim D, Joshua and Willard and me decided to avoid commenting for a week or a month?”
I’d leave Jim D out of it. He actually engages on the substance. The other two thirds of the unholy CAGW trinity do not.
Here’s a better test. Delete the comments of your two mini-mes, and 90% of your snarky content free comments, and what happens to the blog?
The idea that what the tree of you do on a regular basis – “I know you are, but what am I?” and “Mommy, mommy they do it too!” are forms of debate that raise the level of this blog is just hilarious.
Quantity and quality are not the same. The blog would be considerably shorter without all the pseudo-cryptic obscurantism of yourself and and Willard, let alone the ankle biting of the third member of your triumverate. It would not be in the least diminished.
Actually, Pekka seems to like highly technical discussion where he has to dig in deep (and presumably learn something)
Yes…and maybe reach some people on that level. But even when taking a position his comments are measured, informative, and consistently respectful…so much that he sets the tone of the thread. Others could learn from his approach.
==>”An experiment might me in order. What would happen if Jim D, Joshua and Willard and me decided to avoid commenting for a week or a month?”
We accept your offer, Steven. Joshie has a head start on you. When does the counting begin?
Now that all of us (with the exception of Gary M) agree that Pekka is OK, and Mosher and them are going to be on time out, we can have some fun around here.
The obvious reason that warmists in significant numbers are not spending much time on this blog and other blogs that don’t stifle skeptics; they don’t want to have a discussion. So they lay in wait for hapless skeptics that wander onto warmist blogs and they bombard them with ridicule and then give them the boot.
Guys like Gates eventually disappear because they get sick of losing arguments. Of course they’ll never admit to losing an argument, but eventually the humiliation becomes too great.
Simple as a pimple.
> Actually, Pekka seems to like highly technical discussion where he has to dig in deep (and presumably learn something)
Reading AT’s might help understand Pekka’s preferences:
Again, you’re welcome.
Thank for that, Willard. That re-enforces my perception that a change in tone here is in the wind. So it goes.
AK score card
1. What does he have to learn?
2. Show he doesnt understand his subject
3. Show that he has just memorized the dogma
4. demonstrate that has just tried to shut people up.
On # 4 he case is wrong
On number 1 he merely ASSERTED that Pekka had something to learn
for AK to win he has to show all 4 points. that was his argument.
he has conceeded #4 and loses. but he goes on..
AK, will not be able to show that Pekka has memorized the dogma
he will not be able to show that Pekka doesnt understand HIS subject.
he might be able to show that Pekka isnt god and that there are things he needs to learn
AK will lose the argument but not be able to admit it.
his 4 points decribe him better than they describe Pekka
Oh no, Steven. You chose Pekka as an example, rather than, for instance aTTP. My statement applied to a class.
WRONG. Go back and read harder.
No. You chose to start with one example. Even if I fail to make my point, I never agreed that Pekka was necessarily an example of the class I mentioned.
Nope. I offered an example of #4. Any member of the class will do.
Perhaps. Or perhaps he has. That was neither my point, nor (AFAIK) what you meant by your challenge.
Or maybe not, and you won’t be able to admit it.
In any event, you’ve made a prediction, and we’ll see. Not tonight. Or did you think you’re entitled to put a time limit on your challenge as well?
I’ll get back to you in a while, as I said.
you didnt make an argument about a class
SM: “this small number ( take Pekka) will show up looking for an opportunity to educate or engage in good argument.”
AK: Well, perhaps they should start by giving up on the “educate” part. Most of them have a great deal to learn before they should be trying to “teach””
I am talking about the small number of folks LIKE PEKKA who used to come here.
You argued MOST of them.
you cant even show it for the one I picked.
when you can show it for MOST OF THEM then you might get a point,
I picked the class, actually jim D picked the class.
we are talking about THAT class.
you made observations about that class without even asking who was in it.
hint.. the class is really small. Pekka and a couple others.
“Steven Mosher: 1. Policy makers, not you, get to decide what evidence is sufficient.
What’s with this persistent refrain that voters and other citizens don’t get to decide anything?”
when people deny the sky is blue, repeating that it is seems a good
point to make.
There is a constant refrain that models are not good enough to make decisions on.
My point is simple. GaryM and you and me don’t get to decide what is good enough. You might have an opinion about it. you might think differently than those actually making the decisions. thats besides the point. The point is, they get to decide. not you. not me.
“2. You have never articulated the kind of evidence that you would
That’s actually a fair question. Despite the lack of a question mark.
Color me shocked.
Well, since my comment was on the issue of decarbonization (the real question at issue in the climate debate), I would say I need the following evidence on the following issues:
1. That anthropogenic CO2 will raise the heat content of the Earth’s climate in the next 50-100 years sufficient to create a risk of real, wide spread catastrophic damage to people.
Evidence that would be necessary to convince me of this risk would be:
a) a history of GCMs accurately predicting temperature trends over a period of 40-50 years; and
b) a record of increasing heat content in the Earth’s climate system determined by actual measurements over a much more representative area of the various components of the Earth’s climate system;
2. That avoiding or minimizing the catastrophic results would outweigh the economic and human costs of decarbonizing the global economy. Evidence for this would be more difficult, because I believe economic forecasting is even more difficult than climate forecasting.
We have a long history of many of the most brilliant people in western society going into fields like investment banking and stock analysis, and being completely unable to out guess the market on a long term basis. (Warren Buffet is not a good counter-example because he does not just make predictions on stock prices, he gets involved and improves their functioning.)
But evidence that might convince me would be:
a) Realistic economic analyses by non-progressive economists of the expected costs of decarbonization; and
b) Realistic economic analyses by non-progressive economists of the expected benefits of decarbonization; or
c) The results of actual decarbonization on a sufficiently large scale in to show the process does not have the negative economic effects common sense and history tell us they will.
3. And finally, that decarbonization will be global.
Evidence that could convince me of this would be:
a) The overthrow of the dictatorship in China; and
b) Overthrow of the fascist plutocracy in Russia; and
c) Massive change in the highly socialist economy of India.
“My point is simple. GaryM and you and me don’t get to decide what is good enough. You might have an opinion about it. you might think differently than those actually making the decisions. thats besides the point. The point is, they get to decide. not you. not me.”
Again, if this were true, the global economy (of the west at least) would be decarbonized by now. Progressive warmists have headed virtually all western governments since before Copenhagen, and yet the west has not decarbonized.
The reason, the real power in democracies rests in the voters. Politicians get to make short term decisions, but are (so far) subject to removal by voters, and are frequently removed. Ask the Liberals in Australia and Canada.
Oh yes I did. Go back and read harder.
I’ll concede that my first sentence applied to the people you were describing
And yes, I’ll include Pekka in that. He certainly knows a lot I don’t, but there are things that, IIRC, he has expressed dogmatically that do not, IMO, apply to the subject at hand.
Finding those comments is not going to happen quickly, but as I said above, I’ll be back with links, an apology (to Pekka, not you), or both.
But my second statement did not apply to the small group you were discussing:
This applies to educators in general, including the “most”. Do I think Pekka doesn’t understand his subject? No.
Has he “memorized the dogma”? Yes:
Along with other comments in that same sub-thread, and, IIRC (but I could be wrong), other discussions of the same paradox.
While it may be too strong, WRT Pekka, to say that he doesn’t understand his subject, IMO he is far to dogmatic on the subject of the second law. Not to say that it’s wrong, but there are many qualified leading edge physicists on both sides of that paradox, and the second law, like Newtonian mass, may end up being replaced.
But remember, my statement about understanding the subject was not limited to the few participants here you were describing.
E.g. Long-Term Capital Management
GaryM, they would not have decarbonized by now, because technology has only gradually been getting to the point where it is even a possibility to reduce or replace carbon emissions in any affordable way. Fossil fuels are now so 20th century. The 21st century will mark their decline.
The technology is nowhere near where it needs to be for decarbonization on a less than catastrophic scale. But tell that to Obama and his EPA.
Note that now that he will never again have to answer to the voters, he has trashed the Constitution on a number of issues, including the first radical steps to centralize control of (ie. decarbonize) the US energy economy.
The power of the voters was a check on his imperial ambitions. And the long term the power of the voters will likely undo whatever damage he manages to inflict.
Shoot, even the Swedes have been pulling back for the central planning abyss on healthcare, and the Germans are slowly rethinking their own ‘green’ missteps on alternative energy. And not because of the politicians in either case.
GaryM, there are ways to reduce emissions by 30% by 2030, or thereabouts, which may be the first target. From there they will have figured out what to do to reduce it another 30% in 30 more years. It will progress that way, and not be stuck with 20th century technology and people just giving up on new ideas as you think. There is even a large market with a lot of potential reward for those businesses that do it the most efficiently.
So, did you actually think I was talking about the people you were discussing in my second sentence? Or were you just engaging in dishonest rhetoric?
Back to Pekka, IMO some much more valuable contributions were here and here. Where, so it seems to me, he wasn’t “in an educator mode.”
> We have a long history of many of the most brilliant people in western society going into fields like investment banking and stock analysis, and being completely unable to out guess the market on a long term basis.
Then there is no reason to require that climate scientists should put guess the climate. That they can specify their market and some of its ground rules ought to be enough.
Unless we can show that the climate and market could share the same kind of complexity, the analogy relies more on flourish than substance.
More likely, reduce emissions by ~10% by 2030, another 20% by 2045, and the rest by 2060. Along with dragging much of the pre-2060 emissions back out and putting them somewhere safe.
Or something like that. All without substantially impacting energy prices.
curryja | March 22, 2015 at 8:53 pm |
Most academic scientists stay away from blogs. Most blog commenters on the warm side argue through ad hominem attacks. That leaves a very small number of individuals making rational blog arguments about the actual science on the warm side.
The skeptical academics don’t seem to stay away from blogs so much. The academic warmists shy away because they have neither ethical or empirical legs to stand on anymore and are quickly made to appear in a bad light in open debate. So they avoid debate everywhere. It used to be scientists with differing opinions had the cajones to face each other in public debates. Don’t see much of that in global warming science, huh?
‘Now that all of us (with the exception of Gary M) agree that Pekka is OK, and Mosher and them are going to be on time out, we can have some fun around here.”
I’m down for it. It’s just as easy for me to post articles at ATTP or start a new blog.
Get yourself a drink, Steven. No use starting another blog. Have you forgotten you already have one?
I wouldn’t say just academic scientists. Scientists (of all walks) and engineers in general. When people want to communicate these days, twitter seems to be a more efficient mechanism.
Active scientists just don’t have the time unfortunately to spend, and there seems to be little benefit to it. (If we are affecting people’s thinking, there seems to be little evidence of it).
I hang around the technical threads, but honestly mostly looking for things to improve my art. I’ve long ago given up on trying to persuade people of anything.
We should pass the hat and pay Andrew Adams to comment here on a daily basis.
Willard. The common feature of the climate and the stock market systems are that they are both non-ergodic. They may seem repetitive and cyclical in their behaviour but they are not statistically amenable for prediction..
When was the last Pekka sighting? Was he on the Bjorn Stevens article? I don’t think so. The Graeme Stephens article? I don’t think so. Those are red meat for Pekka.
Pekka could be gone.
Judy moderates Joshua. I seriously doubt Pekka might be gone because of Joshua and Willard because he still comments at aTTP and they’re regulars.
aTTP does not allow rabid dogs (one is snarling because he can’t get in). Judy does allow them. The postman will deliver come rain, wind, blizzard, etc., but he will disappear and come back with a lawsuit if you have a dog in your yard that bites. The postman has wised up. So have scientists. Nobody needs this uncivilized cesspool.
> The common feature of the climate and the stock market systems are that they are both non-ergodic.
Even if I grant you that, PeterD, it only provides us with a feature both lack, which means any characterization based on this would be negative. One system follows entropy. The other seeks to beat it, so to speak, notwithstanding what thermoeconomists might say.
Searching back the “but chaos” threads to find more about where Denizens like you could have learned that word, I stumbled upon an interesting exchange between ceteris non paribus and Thomas:
It goes on a bit, but ceteris did not stay much. I don’t think it’s because he could not answer tough questions. He said his piece twice, then went on to do more interesting things, like watching slow TV videos on YouTube
There is little reason to insist on Thomas’ “math waving,” except perhaps the e-word returns. Since ceteris did not show the same gentlemanship as Andrew Adams, some may argue it was no big loss. However, Pekka said basically the same, ending in a similar deadlock.
As far as I am concerned, these kinds of small exchanges tell more about Judy’s than mutual pats on the back.
1. Policy makers, not you, get to decide what evidence is sufficient.
That reality is what you and others refuse to see. THEY decide.
Sounds like freaking Obummer!
“If we are affecting people’s thinking, there seems to be little evidence of it.”
And if there is any good reason to not comment on climate blogs, that is it. The behavior is pretty much identical on both sides… try telling the denizens at ATTP that there is no evidence of increases in tornadoes or hurricanes, or that the divergence of reality from GCM projections is evidence model projections should be considered less than reliable. Or suggest to the denizens at WUWT that significant surface warming is inevitable when there is a significant increase in GHG forcing. Once in a (rare!) while someone will acknowledge having been factually mistaken about something, but it is so uncommon that it comes as a surprise.
Seems to me the fundamental problem is people enter the discussion already having set in their minds the policy outcomes that they want, and those are pretty much immutable, and that goes for both sides. On one side: ONLY a dramatic and immediate reduction in fossil fuel use is acceptable. On the other side: There is NOTHING to even worry about… it’s got to be BAU and nothing else.
The technical questions that ought to really matter for developing prudent public policy are not seriously entertained….. by either side, such as: How much warming can we reasonably expect? What are the likely consequences of that warming? What present day costs can be justified to change those consequences? And most of all, how can we best narrow the present wide uncertainty in warming and consequences so that a broad consensus on prudent public policies can form…. consistent, of course, with the goals, values, and priorities of the voting public?
And I (sadly) must extent that lack of serious entertainment to lots of scientists who are also strident activists, not just those with little on no technical background. We see people carefully discounting any factual evidence that GHG driven reality is in any way in-congruent with their desired policy outcomes. IPCC Reports, climate blogs, and reading many published papers in climate science have convinced me that advocacy of specific public policy outcomes has corrupted the normal role of science in informing the voting public. I don’t see many who are seriously interested in eliminating that corruption. Maybe you.
Yeah, I visited ATTPs blog for a short time, and basically worked out that these denizens—while generally somewhat better informed than then WUWT crowd (not a real challenge)—seemed more interested in group identity than the truth of things, so I moved on.
I think it’s even worse than that. Many blog denizens seem to view their climate advocacy (pro or against) as an extension of their party affiliation. So you see a lot of canned rhetoric, with relatively few non-reflexive thinkers. Many follow the policy advocated by their party, and apparently would happily follow their party’s lead even if that lead them over a cliff.
For all of the rough spots on this blog (too many comments that are virtually repetitions of each other, too many tribalistic responses, etc), it still has matured into one of the better blogs, especially in technical threads of decent quality.
I do worry about the number of not-very-good articles that have made it here recently though. I’m wondering if there needs to be peer review for guests posts (not at the level of journal articles of course, but just basic vetting).
Well I agree with you there, but scientists are conflicted in other ways than just policy-based activism. Brandon gave an example on this thread where Gavin was basically defending his buddy Michael E Mann against criticism, getting it wrong, but probably not strictly on the basis of policy.
Even Michael E Mann’s blunders in paleoclimate cannot be strictly written off as activism channeled. As I’ve pointed out a number of times, Mann’s fixation on removing natural variability from the paleoclimate record actually works in the opposite direction of responsible policy making: A more variable climate is a more dangerous one.
So scientists can get fixated on certain ideas, without having to explain that fixation in terms of a particular desired policy outcome.
I don’t hold any great hope here, though I agree corruption has occurred. I can’t say I always neutrally stand up and defend people when I think they are unfairly criticized though. It would take far more time than I have to spend, and in many cases, if they can’t adequately defend their own work… that’s a data point by itself.
There seems a belief that market control of CO2 is the only viable response to the risks posed by AGW. The trouble is (from my point of view) is that, even if there is no net benefit to humanity from a modest amount of warming, it is almost certainly the case that, until you get an extreme amount of warming, market control of CO2 will cause significantly more damage than AGW itself ever would.
I don’t see the true d’nile’ists as causing that much damage on the other hand. This is because the market itself responds to the costs of CO2 emissions (if only via CO2 emissions as a proxy for energy usage). This has lead of course to a dramatic reduction CO2 emissions in developed countries the last ten years:
This figure also exposes the problems with trying to saddle the developed countries with expensive market control solutions, when the real problem is the explosion of CO2 emissions by third world nations, a problem which will only get worse as Africa industrializes.
IIRC, you came along, accussed various people of behaving unethically, then got upset when people didn’t agree with you, and then moved on. You’ve since suggested that I got some kind of simple thermodynamics wrong, which I don’t really remember. I may well have, but I can’t remember what. It just seems some kind of infantial taunt which – of course – is pretty standard in the online climate debate.
FWIW, your behaviour is broadly similar to what I see on many “skeptic” blogs, including WUWT. People crowing about how they can see truths that others are unable to see, and suggesting that somehow they’re above all this kind of identity politics, etc. Irony and self-awareness not one of your strong points? Where’s Joshua when you need him?
I think we are pretty close on this issue. I agree that there are multiple motivations for circling the wagons, and defending your pals is probably one of them.
WRT a more variable climate being more dangerous: I think that is true if the variation is “internal” and especially if the causal factors are unidentified, since that could mean very small shifts in energy balance lead to big shifts in surface temperature. However, as the temperature history of the Holocene becomes more clear (and Steve McIntyre has many posts that shed light on this) there is evidence emerging of a gradual but significant and (perhaps) accelerating downward trend in temperatures from ~8,000 years ago until the Little Ice Age. One might be tempted, in light of ice core records of earlier interglacials, to think that by the Little Ice Age the Holocene was nearing its natural end, and increases in atmospheric methane, CO2, and land use changes (deforestation/farming/soot) helped to reverse the long term downward trend. My guess is that increases in albedo from growth in glaciers and snow cover likely accelerate the descent into ice ages, and that albedo effect ‘amplifies’ other changes in forcing near the (dare I say it?) ice age tipping point. The fall in CO2 and methane at the end of the previous interglacial (from Antarctic ice cores) trailed the global average temperature drop by many thousands of years, suggesting those GHG’s were not directly driving the temperature change. IOW, sensitivity to GHG forcing may indeed be different (and lower) now than near the Little Ice Age.
I agree that efforts to use ‘the market’ to control CO2 emissions presents serious potential economic harm, especially if draconian in scale and poorly implemented, as those efforts almost certainly would be. The law of unintended consequences certainly applies to all grand schemes, and that scheme would be the grandest. If I were a young poor person in a developing country, rather than an old person in a developed country, I would be very worried about such schemes.
The graphic of CO2 emissions would be more impressive if it showed the CO2 emission per unit of economic output (inflation corrected), where the fall in developed economies has been huge. Growing wealth always seems to reduce energy intensity.
Willard thank you for responding to my comment on the unpredictability of the climate and stock market systems and please note that the second law of thermodynamics (wrt to entropy) should be assumed to apply to both systems as well.
(AKA ATTP, http://www.roe.ac.uk/~wkmr/files_wkmrwww/Rice_cv.pdf)
One of the interesting things on climate blogs is watching just how badly some people react to criticism. In this specific case, you. After visiting your blog, Carrick (like you, an academic physicist) concluded just about the same thing as I (a chemist, engineer, and entrepreneur) did: it is populated by a bunch of self-righteous lightweight ideologues who know much less of science than they imagine, have utterly closed minds, and who uniformly treat any who dare disagree with them with disrespect and hostility. You seem to be nothing more than one more of those lightweight ideologues.
May I suggest you drop the ridiculous pseudonym and go with Prof. Ken Rice (much more humanized), and most of all, ditch the ridiculous blog subtitle: “Trying – and sometimes failing – to keep the discussion civil”. At a minimum, substitute something more accurate: “Trying, and usually succeeding, to antagonize any who disagree with me”.
You are being a little harsh with Prof. Rice, Steve. Self-righteous lightweight ideologues are not the worst kind of people. The fact that Prof. Price decided to make a career in academic theoretical astrophysics, in the general area of star and planet formation, shows that he ain’t greedy. The chances that his work could ever have any practical/commercial value are slim to none. I mean, unless we need to form a star or a planet some day. Prof. Rice will be long gone by then. Let’s try to be kinder to our little comrade visitor.
What were you trying to illustrate by posting a link to my CV? It’s just a CV. Also, you should possibly consider that this is a somewhat ironic thing to say
unless your view is that I should avoid antagonizing people, while you are free to do so.
By posting your CV, I was pointing out that your ATTP pseudonym is silly…. because it is silly. Step up to the plate and take credit (or debit, if that is deserved) for what you write; what have you to hide?
I rephrase the blog subtitle because it is patently ridiculous on its face. Try to read your blog some time with fresh eyes. The hostility toward all who disagree is everywhere… on a par with WUWT, but with a little better sentence structure, at least on average.
If you want people to not antagonize you, then you should stop antagonizing people. If you want people to treat you with respect, then do the same toward them. If you want to engage people on the substance, then do so without resorting to the kinds of personal attacks that come so quickly on your blog, both from you and (even more) your attack dogs. Why don’t you instead set reasonable comment rules and enforce them uniformly? I could venture a guess why not, but I would rather hear from you.
“You are being a little harsh with Prof. Rice, Steve.”
I don’t think so; my tolerance for the willfully intolerant is near zero.
Likewise. You clearly have the self-awareness of a brick and need to look up the meaning of the word irony. If my blog rules are keeping you away, that is fantastic; they’re working perfectly. Jeepers, I’ve wasted my time again. Really should have more confidence in my first impressions.
” It might help if discussions didn’t degenerate as quickly as they seem to into vitriolic name-calling.”
Followed a little later by:
“You clearly have the self-awareness of a brick and need to look up the meaning of the word irony……”
Thank you for an illustrative example, saves me having to look it up.
” If my blog rules are keeping you away, that is fantastic; they’re working perfectly.”
Nah, there don’t seem to be any rules at all your blog, which is a big part of the problem (seriously). It was the lack of rules, plus the goon squad denizens, that limited my comments to one thread. Sorry you think you have wasted your time here, but I suspect your comments will be informative to other people. Enjoy your echo chamber.
I’ll explain something to you, try and concentrate now. I would explain it slowly, but that’s tricky with the written word. Yes, it would be nice if things didn’t degenerate into vitriolic name calling. That would be pleasant. Would certainly make actual discussions more likely. However, given the tone you’ve chosen to take on this thread from the get go, what chance was there of it not degenerating? This really isn’t a complicated concept. Saying that it would be nice and then failing to achieve that doesn’t really qualify as irony: I really don’t think you understand irony.
This is also a classic pseudoskeptic type of exchange. You go around being rude and unpleasant and throwing around all sorts of insults, and then have the gall to highlight my one insult. Typical bad faith, but then again I suspect you don’t get what that means either or think it’s how these exchanges should go.
Firstly, there clearly are rules. You may not like them. You may not think they’re very good. But they exist. Denying would that would seem odd. The “(seriously)” seems to suggest that you think you’re in some kind of position to give me advice. Why in the world would you think that? That just seems absurd.
I actually went through the one thread where you commented on my blog. Yes, you encountered Tom Curtis. He doesn’t always mince his words. He’s also rarely wrong. Probably one of the most informed people involved in the online climate debate. Also one of the most honest. If Tom Curtis tells you you’re wrong, it’s worth at least considering it. He may have been wrong, but he rarely is.
Anyway, I’ve wasted enough time engaging with someone with whom engagement is clearly a complete and utter waste of time unless you particularly like bad faith exchanges where insults are the norm. You keep at it though, it’s clearly your forte.
Steve, it’s understandable that Dr. Prof. Kenny Rice would use a silly pseudonym. He was apparently bored with the esoterica of the astrophysics of blah…blah…blah and jumped into the climateball game by starting a slimy blog to mimic and stalk Anthony Watts. What would his distinguished colleagues think if they knew what foolishness he was up to, while he was supposed to be figuring out how planets and stars get formed? Now that they know, I bet they are mortified, or amused.
What got this wonderful exchange of views going was this comment you made about Carrick:
“FWIW, your behaviour is broadly similar to what I see on many “skeptic” blogs, including WUWT. People crowing about how they can see truths that others are unable to see, and suggesting that somehow they’re above all this kind of identity politics, etc. Irony and self-awareness not one of your strong points?”
That is not just wrong, it is preposterous. Carrick will rarely if ever comment at WUWT, specifically because he knows those comments are usually a waste of time. The parallel he was drawing to your blog was IMO perfectly accurate. I assure you Carrick does not ever crow about seeing truths others can’t see. He does recognize a lot of political influence in climate science; that is not shocking… and once again, your blog seems to me nearly as good an example as exists. Perhaps WUWT is more extreme, but that seems to me a small distinction. For you to be surprised or insulted by this comparison, as you seem to be, does suggest some lack of awareness on your part, not Carrick’s.
The irony here (there is that word again I don’t understand, even though I was using it before you were born) is that technically trained, experienced people like Carrick (and me for that matter) are the people who a solid argument, if it can be made, has a chance of influencing. But you appear are unable to see that. IIRC, Carrick guesses ECS somewhere near 2.5C per doubling; while my best guess is a bit under 2C… not popular numbers at WUWT… but neither popular at your blog, even though they lie within the canonical IPCC range.
With regard to Tom Curtis, I do not know his background, but I do know that he comes across as an arrogant, close-minded, and remarkably unpleasant person, quite willing to assume terrible things about people he does not know, simply because they do not share his personal views, values, goals, priorities, etc. It is a group of behaviors he shares with many politicians. My experience is that such people usually know a great deal less about the world than they imagine they know. He is but one of many like him who frequently comment at your blog.
Drawing on my interactions and observation with Carrick your attempted characterization of Carrick has done much more to characterize you.
Tom Curtis is one of the SkS kidz. He is slightly less disingenuous than the others, but when push comes to shove he obsequiously toes the party line:
If you thought I said that he commented on WUWT, your reading comprehension is appalling. But, I see, you’re all upset because I was snarky towards your hero? As I think I said on another thread, it is a pity that someone like Carrick – who clearly isn’t an idiot (and FWIW, Steve, you appear not to be an idiot either) – can’t seem to rein in the rhetoric enough to actually have an interesting discussion. My irritation – in case it isn’t obvious – is both your and Carrick’s apparent sense of being able to see flaws and problems elsewhere, without being able to see your own biases and lack of objectivity. If you spent less time telling other people what their flaws were, and more time considering your own, maybe things would improve. On the hand, I certainly wouldn’t do so on my behalf, as seeing both yourself and Carrick’s behaviour on this thread, my own opinion is that you’re both best ignored. There are plenty of other people who aren’t idiots who I can engage with, especially as many of them seem to understand basic common decency. It may not be too late for others, though.
Don Don forgot to say that “stevefitzpatrick” is the blog analyst at Lucia’s:
Think of Koldie, AT, but with more words.
Reading back, there’s this gem from SteveF:
> That is not just wrong, it is preposterous. Carrick will rarely if ever comment at WUWT, specifically because he knows those comments are usually a waste of time.
That Carrick comments or not at Tony’s is relevant from AT’s point, which was to underline that Carrick’s behaviour “is broadly similar” to what he sees on contrarian blogs, including WUWT. The more specific claim was about crowing about how they can see truths that others are unable to see, and suggesting that somehow they’re above all this kind of identity politics.
It would be hard to dispute that Carrick does that a bit, since he just did:
Contrary to AT, I like Carrick. I like his wholeness, his independence, even his haughtiness. A fearsome ClimateBall player.
I can’t say the same of SteveF’s “you killed my brother” fantasy.
Actually, it’s easy enough to dispute. To paraphrase Daniel Okrent, you’d basically have to be reading ATTP’s blog with your eyes closed to think it plays things down the middle on science or policy questions. This is what I mean by not truth-centered. And they very obviously push a particular world view.
Nothing wrong with that particularly, but it’s not what primarily draws me to blog discussions.
The main motivation for my participation in blog discussions is the advancement of my own art. Discussions that are primarily policy focussed generally have little to add to that.
So not haughty. As a point of fact, if you were truth-centered yourself, you’d address my perceptions of that blog, if you thought I were off target, rather than simply attack me for having that perception. Which if I’m not mistaken is what you’ve just done.
Way to stay classy by the way on the comment about Steve. Impressive.
I have read and re-read your quote of Carrick and I can’t find where he said anything that resembles “crowing about how they can see truths that others are unable to see” or “suggesting that somehow they’re above all this kind of identity politics.” He says he didn’t like the vibe at kenny’s blog and he moved on. Personal choice.
Carrick’s manners and intelligent contributions make most us blog characters look like pikers. That goes double for you and your little comrade kenny.
So you know who is disingenuous and who is not? There would be an awful lot of people on the “warmist” side that would now fall into that category. And I guess Gore would be their overlord.
> Actually, it’s easy enough to dispute [what Carrick does]. To paraphrase Daniel Okrent, you’d basically have to be reading ATTP’s blog with your eyes closed to think it plays things down the middle on science or policy questions.
Beliefs regarding AT’s blog don’t dispute the point AT made here, e.g. that you’re “crowing about how they can see truths that others are unable to see.” Talk about carefulness for truth. Better yet, Carrick continues to satisfy the description in the next response:
An interesting ClimateBall move: a tu quoque that appeals to pride to deflect from the fact that SteveF misread AT.
Interestingly, that thread at Lucia’s about AT’s, the last active one in a few months, does not seem to have triggered Carrick’s “more interested in group identity than the truth of things” criterium to lose interest in a blog.
Your comments are becoming increasingly incoherent, willy. We are starting to worry about you.
I agree with JimD on this. There used to be people like Andy Lacis who would comment here and he added value despite being rather abrasive. I am willing to put up with a lot of polemic if there is genuine exchange of views and real interaction. If its just name calling, then its useless.
On the bright side, some of those who have left such as WEbby and BBD have not caused any decrease in value as their comments were usually valueless and abusive. I am also glad to note the absence of Bloom and his dishonest and insincere posing.
Others like Gavin, Lovejoy, Way and Francis have made brief appearances, not often received well by the denizens. It is a little off-putting at first, and it is not for some to argue the science when they won’t get anything back from it. As a scientist, you need the missionary spirit to wade into these parts of the blogosphere, but after a while they realize no one here will be converted. It doesn’t work like that :-)
Others like Gavin, Lovejoy, Way and Francis have made brief appearances, not often received well by the denizens.
There were similar issues at ClimateAudit.. off and on.. eventually it got sorted out.
But generally speaking you might get 1 good question and 10 hostile ones. That’s ok.. but eventually you end up with zero good questions.
or its easier to answer the hostile questions.. So you know you are going to get stupid or hostile questions.. they are a great way to avoid answering the one good question.
David Young: There used to be people like Andy Lacis who would comment here and he added value despite being rather abrasive.
I think Andy Lacis stopped coming because he could not answer certain fundamental questions that were put to him.
matthewrmarler | March 23, 2015 at 12:40 am |
David Young: There used to be people like Andy Lacis who would comment here and he added value despite being rather abrasive.
I think Andy Lacis stopped coming because he could not answer certain fundamental questions that were put to him.
I’m also willing to put up with a lot of abrasion in return for having an actual expert from the other side. You just can’t get these cats to come out in the light for long. Why won’t Mann get up on stage and debate Curry? Why won’t Hansen get into it with Lindzen? Santer with Spencer? Trenberth with Pielke Sr. and etc?
One side is a bunch of chickenschits not wanting to get their asses handed to them is why.
> I think Andy Lacis stopped coming because he could not answer certain fundamental questions that were put to him.
I think a citation is needed here.
An example of a conversation between a denizen and a scientist would go like
Scientist: We know why it has warmed twice as fast as the CO2 no-feedback rate since 1950. It is because of the emissions and expected feedback.
Denizen: You don’t know that. You are just scaring people to get funding.
End of conversation. It goes from science to politics as a typical denizen reflex, which is a turn-off for scientists who would explain the science if they got a sensible on-topic question back.
Jim D | March 23, 2015 at 2:02 am |
“Scientist: We know why it has warmed twice as fast as the CO2 no-feedback rate since 1950. It is because of the emissions and expected feedback.”
That’s the problem with you, Jimmy. You just make crap up that is patently not true.
0.7C in 65 years Jimmy. That’s barely 1C per century which is the expected no-feedback rate not double it.
The pause killed your cause , Jimmy. You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.
Actually it’s more like what accounts for the global warming, sea level rise and arctic warming 1910-40? And they say CO2, right after they have said CO2 started affecting climate in 1950.
Or they ride on the coattails of hysterical headlines about Antarctica, when all one has to do is look at AR5 to see projections for sea level rise from there is .05 Meters by 2100.
At some point there has to be reconciliation with what we read in the literature.
If you say things like this
it makes it seem like you haven’t actually bothered doing this
That is odd since it seems to be repeated so often. Maybe all those references are wrong.
Except that it is not what is being repeated, which was my point. All that is being suggsted is that attribution studies have rejected the hypothesis that non-anthropogenic influences could have contributed more than 50% of the warming since 1950. Consequently, one can conclude that more than 50% of the warming since 1950 was anthropogenic. This does not suggest that it started in 1950, simply that studies suggest that it has dominated since 1950.
understand your point. You could also infer that prior to 1950 CO2 was less than 50% which leads to a possibility that some other factors contributed more than 50%. With somewhat similar rates in all 3 of the above, the question is how strong were those other factors during that 1910-40 warming period.
If you look at the actual forcings, then prior to 1950, Solar irradiance could indeed have contributed a significant fraction of the warming over the period 1910-1940. So, yes, prior to 1950 non-anthropogenic factors could well have contributed more than 50%. However, anthropogenic forcings were not negligible and one can’t rule out that they still contributed more than 50% during that period. Of course, we don’t have as much information as we have for the latter half of this century, and the anthropogenic forcings were smaller, so natural contribution would be expected to be more significant during the first the first half of the 20th century, than during the second half.
I think Andy Lacis stopped coming because he could not answer certain fundamental questions that were put to him. …
That is rather a classic. For people who pride themselves on their supposed skepticism, they rarely seem to consider the alternative; that the reason people like Andy Lacis stop coming here wasn’t because they couldn’t answer the quesions, it was because they got tired of explaining the same things over and over again to people who either couldn’t – or were unwilling – to understand.
From the horse’s mouth:
Sometimes, I get the impression that Denizens don’t read otters’ comments. Some don’t even seem to recall the comments they just wrote.
ATTP, “Andy Lacis stop coming here wasn’t because they couldn’t answer the quesions, it was because they got tired of explaining the same things over and over again to people who either couldn’t – or were unwilling – to understand.”
I know I know, it must be tough. I remember Gavin having the same problem with the 1910 to 1940 issue. I mean it was perfectly explained with lean 2000 and aerosol after all.
Andy Lacis appears periodically when he has time (and the topic interests him). He ‘gets’ the banter here.
Anders suggests a possibility:
This reminds me of one of my favorite examples of why discussions go bad. A few years back, Gavin Schmidt complained people kept talking about the Tiljander proxies and what effect they had on the Mann 2008 temperature reconstruction. He said things like:
And so forth and so on. This would seem to be an example of the idea Anders proposes. Gavin is an example of a person who got frustrated by discussions where he had to keep repeating the same explanations over and over because people wouldn’t listen. Only, if one reads the thread, they see things like:
Which suggests believing you’ve adequately explained an issue over and over does not mean you’ve actually done so. In fact, you may have repeatedly said the same things but been ignored because you were wrong. In my experience, there are a lot of cases of that on this site (on all sides).
It’s also worth pointing out not too long after that comment thread, Gavin Schmidt admitted what people had been saying about the Tiljander issue in a couple inline remarks at his blog then completely stopped discussing the issue. He never went back and corrected his previous mistakes. He never drew any attention to the fact he was wrong. He never tried to do anything to make amends after having practically ranted at people for not believing his when he was obviously wrong.
I think this sort of behavior is a large part of why discussions go bad. People get frustrated at others for not agreeing with them regardless of who is correct, then they won’t admit their mistakes in anything resembling a full and honest manner.
David Springer, 75% of the CO2 has been added since 1950. With no feedback, the warming would be less than 0.35 C. What has been seen is twice that. This is the basis of what I said above. It is the expected positive feedback during the time when the CO2 signal would have been strongest. Scientists are not at all surprised by the amount of warming seen since 1950. Only the skeptics are surprised and are still looking very hard for alternatives but have come up short. Someone using a 2 C per doubling transient sensitivity in 1950 at 310 ppm would have predicted today’s warming of 0.7 C at 400 ppm. In addition, the imbalance and ocean heat content warming that persists today shows a higher equilibrium sensitivity consistent with 3 C per doubling. Skeptics would be much more credible if they acknowledged that the numbers fit, so the climate scientists could be right with their uncertainty range that is centered on these numbers.
“To me, the all time best conversations in the science/climate blogosphere were at Keith Kloor’s Collide-a-scape circa 2009/2010.”
I agree totally. The exchanges between Dr. Curry and Gavin Schmidt were unique as far as I can tell as an open, courteous, informed exchange between Gavin, an avowed supporter of the CAGW movement, and Dr. Curry, an emerging skeptic/lukewarmer. What made the blog interesting for me was that advocates on all three sides (warmist, skeptic, lukewarmer) were comfortable there and treated with respect, by Kloor.
Kloor was at the time in a position similar to where Dr. Curry has evolved over time. His blog changed as Kloor retreated.to his prior progressive roots, and became increasingly dismissive of, and hostile to, his more skeptical/conservative commenters.
Dr. Curry, early in her blog career, held and repeated much of the dismissive, reflexive criticism of conservative skeptics. One of the more interesting aspects of following this blog has been following her (sometimes seemingly excruciatingly slow) growth in her ability to not only listen to analysis critical of her position, but to adapt to it and sometimes even adopt new positions. Her call for an end to the IPCC being the best case in point.
I read the blogs of Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre with great interest. I read Real Climate to get the warmist take on climate issues, and Skeptical Science on occasion for a taste of the prevailing zeitgeist of the warmisphere. But I don’t comment very often at any of them.
I have no interest in trying to formulate my thoughts in a way that will get past a progressive gatekeeper. And I find it much less interesting to engage in dialogue with a group of people who pretty much uniformly agree with what I believe. I think WUWT, Climate Audit and the Bishop allow relatively free comments from warmists, but warmists have been taught to ignore those sites as heresy. So there is not as much real debate there as there could be.
The climate debate is a political one, with science as the medium in which that debate takes place. The real question is why Climate, Etc. has not been declared off limits for the warmist faithful? Why do they, including some prominent climate scientists among them, still comment here? And the primary reasons I see are that (1) Dr. Curry acknowledges the political nature of the movement, while still displaying many aspects of the default progressive mind set, so they believe she is a candidate of Kloor-like re-conversion; and (2) as a former member of the climate science tribal elite, she is seen as a threat that cannot be ignored.
Dr. Curry is the Whittaker Chambers of the climate debate, but with a retained fondness for her former tribe She is thus a subject of fascination for all sides of the debate, as is her blog.
for those who are praising Gavin’s exchanges at Keith Kloor’s in 2010, please re-read Brandon’s above comment. Several of those threads were about the then contentious issue of Mann’s use of contaminated Tiljander sediments. Schmidt swore up and down that Mann’s use of contaminated data didn’t matter and that this has been proven over and over and it was simply skeptic obtuseness to even discuss this point.
But as Brandon observed, a month later, Gavin had egg all over his face as he’d apparently been tricked by Mann, who had buried a concession to the contrary deep in the SI of a different paper. Gavin admitted this in an inline comment at RC towards the end of July 2010 and, as Brandon observed, never corrected his previous misdirections. Gavin then had a temper tantrum and said that the issue didn’t matter anyway.
These exchanges at Kloor’s, while interesting to re-read, do not shed any light on anything, since, at the end of the day, they are simply stonewalling by Gavin.
I liked when Gavin gave up Mann’s robustness before 1500. Kloor, the Boor, was censoring me at the time, but let a little bit through.
People in glass houses, and all that, Steve.
What did the bird say when he flew into the window pane? ‘All my physics has lied!’
Apparently polite …
… but useless and wrong.
Go lightly on politely.
==>People in glass houses, and all that, Steve.
Cheap shot, from the little comrade. If joshie were here, he would be appalled.
There is no doubt that the exchanges between Dr. Curry and Gavin Schmidt ended poorly. And there is no doubt that Schmidt was petulant and made some false statements about some of the documents he linked to. I remember clearly his posting to what he claimed as a supplemental document to one of Mann’s papers, that was in fact no part of any published paper and was “published” on the internet after the papers subject to the dispute had been published. Schmidt also finished frustrated that he could not convince Dr. Curry of the error of her ways, and was completely incapable of understanding why.
But there was much of the discussion that was of merit. For all his pedantry (how many commenters here would be disqualified if that were the criteria?), he offered to answer all questions, and did so, including from lay climate neophytes like myself.
Compared to the participation of most warmists in the rest of the climate debate, that discussion was enlightening as to the positions of Curry and Schmidt and the views they represented.
That discussion was also the first in depth exposure that I had to Dr. Curry and her evolving position in the debate. And I think may have in part helped to convince her to start this blog.
So despite the serious flaws in Schmidt’s participation, I stand by my support for Dr. Curry’s description of those, and other discussions at the time, as among the best in the blogosphere.
But Tiljander, yet again.
That comment thread ended with this augury:
Since these five statements have been made by me and many at Bart’s,a subsequent thread, which I believe is the definitive Tiljander thread , the questions, the demands (as Gavin put it) and the reminiscing of l’Affaire Tiljander has never really stopped.
That the Auditor, Brandon, and others from the contrarian crew continue to stack up their deck with the Tiljander card after all these years shows that ClimateBall does not follow the pragmatics that the Moshpit’s augury presumes. That AMac finally conceded that Gavin and toto might have been right in saying that it “doesn’t matter” will never stop the never ending audit.
The audit never ends.
Secret sauce? Easy recipe!
One main portion of Science. Folding in with opposing spices of politics, energy, AGW and Skepticism. Masterfully “cheffed”, then shaken, stirred and cooked by intelligent, sharing, educationally oriented, tolerant, and (mostly) respectful cooks. Salted to taste.
Personal journey led me to test alterative sources but I’d say I consider this MY home blog for this topic. As a warmer knowing I’m undereducated I’ve been offered literature (to no end), tolerance (big for me), education, and appropriate chastisement. Dr. Curry, I cannot possibly thank you and the denizens enough for sharing. Knowing I won’t be the one to “solve” this issue I’ve learned much and that alone has a value which I could not possibly frame.
I note from our records that you don’t appear to have paid your subscription after your months free trial of this climate product.
If you would just like to transfer your 500 dollars direct to my bank account I will make sure the correct administrative processes are started.
5 dollars from every subscription goes to support our polar bear population
Fine, up my post count and get me that much closer to moderation (no fault of my own, of course).
I would “like” to send you $500 and am more than happy to have $5 go to protect polar bears (and all them others). But I’m skeptical of what the “correct administrative processes” might entail. But that’s just me.
Danny, as an Indophile and lover of curry, I have to feast on the blog of someone with that name!
From one of the great cooks!
“And finally, how does a new (or existing) blog build comments?”
1. A new blog or old blog that has a community of commenters who
fight between themselves has a better chance of survival.
2. When the host joins the fray and comments in the commments
readership and commenting goes up.
a) McIntyre fighting with Stokes
b) Judith fighting with Joshua
c) ATTP fighting with various.
Funny I used to joke with Willis that we should just stage fights to drive traffic to blogs. People love the theatre. But it could be anyone..
Judith should remember the battle we staged between the boys and the girls on climate audit. any good conflict will do and the players are largely irrelevant.
“Judith fighting with Joshua”? Joshua desperately trying to get a rise out of Judith, who remains unperturbed.
Mosher: “any good conflict will do”. Absolutely. You also need some moderation smarts to stop the thing from melting down into a kindergarten, of course.
But what’s the point of it all, beyond entertainment? I can’t imagine many “real” people spending much time reading or making blog comments, where “real” = something like “having an interest in the subject related to their day job”. I’m thankful to the handful of those who do, such as yrself.
For somebody “not real” like me, they can be a little bit useful in giving kind of a trompe l’oeil view on the subject and its controversies. But I fully recognize that if I really want to learn something I should go read the literature, not blog comments.
As a lurker too lazy to actually do this, I’d much prefer a blog which did limit comments to people with something substantial to offer. If I want rhetoric, soap opera, Schadenfreude, crazies to laugh at etc etc , I can get that anywhere. As it is, reading climate blog comments goes like this: rhetoric – skip; ideologue – skip; blog warrior – skip; fruitcake – skip; “real” person – read; skip … ; skip …
Judith can win that fight with one temporal lobe tied behind her cerebellum.
The implication is? Conflict? Spectacle? Skimpy dress? ???
Skimpy dress? if you want to wear one be my guest
“New kid on the block”? :-)
If I do have a magic touch, I’ve no idea what it is. I’ve never claimed to know what I’m doing, and still don’t really.
As far as moderation goes, I moderate mainly for tone. If it gets to the point where people are accusing others of lying or being hypocrites, then I can’t see much point in letting such discussions continue. I also don’t enjoy it and since it’s my blog, I get to decide. It’s also useful to have had help from someone (Rachel) who isn’t afraid to speak their mind, and tell me when I’m getting something wrong. And, to be fair, I’ve got lots wrong, but it’s all a learning experience. You’ll probably hate this, but people like Joshua and Willard are also a help, since they challenge you to think about what you’re doing.
The implication from Barry (above) that I’ve banned lots of “sceptics” is simply false (unless “lots” means a relatively small number). I’ve banned a few of the vocal, quite well know “sceptics”, but they’ve done nothing since to make me think that that was a mistake; Barry’s comment above being a perfect illustration. I comment on my own blog quite a lot and if people can’t be bothered to even try and be pleasant, I can’t really see why I should let them comment. It is just a blog and me stopping them from commenting there isn’t stopping them from commenting elsewhere. They could always start making thoughtful and insightful arguments elsewhere, so that I regret my banning; it hasn’t happened so far. I must admit that I’ve no idea why I haven’t banned David Springer. I shall have to recitify that :D
The problem I have is that there are few sites where actual discussions are really possible. I’ll admit that since I’ve been commenting here I’ve found it better than I was expecting. It does seem possible to actually have a discussion. I can’t, however, think of any other “sceptic” blogs where it really is possible. It’s clearly impossible on WUWT and why anyone would want to delve into the sespit that is the comment thread there is beyond me. Bishop Hill is not much better. I’ve been commenting there, but I really shouldn’t bother. There’s one or two regulars with whom it’s possible to have a discussion, but most you simply have to ignore the rest.
My personal view is that in general the views are just too much at odds to really have serious discussions with most on the other side of the “debate”. Not impossible, maybe, but very difficult. It might help if discussions didn’t degenerate as quickly as they seem to into vitriolic name-calling. That bit could probably improve if people really wanted to improve things. That it doesn’t seem to, typically makes me think that there isn’t much desire to improve the dialogue. Call me cynical :-)
‘ I’ve never claimed to know what I’m doing, and still don’t really.’
Perhaps you had better rephrase that comment quickly, before it is thrown back at you in the future. :)
I’ve given up caring about things that may or may not be thrown back at me. Plus, if that’s the best that some can do…… :-)
…and Then There’s Physics | March 22, 2015 at 1:59 pm | Reply
Truer words never spoken. Pretty much says it all.
I was referring to running and moderating a blog; as if that wasn’t obvious. You’re rather illustrating the point I was making in my response to tonyb.
I’m out at ATTP. Rice is deleting perfectly topical polite replies as quickly as I make them.
Case in point I was misread by most where I talked about black carbon being insignificant on Arctic sea ice but significant elsewhere. In fact I pointed out where I blogged about BC 8 years ago agreeing with James Hansen that BC is responsible for as much as 25% of 20th century warming:
I gave it a fair chance but I’m simply wasting my time in a censorium like that. JC SNIP He comes here where he is allowed to speak freely from a warmist POV but doesn’t offer the same courtesy to skeptics on his own blog. JC SNIP
Of course I am. Why wouldn’t I? I didn’t even bother reading them. Did you think I was joking when I said I should correct my error in not having banned you?
So quickly you can’t even archive them somewhere before they’re gone?
ATTP is the old Soviet acronym for Petty Tyrant. They typically employed a People’s committee of four Petty Tyrants to supervise the nefarious activities of bureaus of 100 or so venal apparatchiks. Last time I was in Moscow, I ran into a few ATTPs I had known from the Cold War and they were driving cabs and waiting tables. But one of their guys is filthy rich and is the President of the new CCCP. JC SNIP
Isn’t it a bit early to be playing one of your strongest cards? Wouldn’t it have been better to wait a while before deploying some kind of analogy with the Soviet Union?
You are one of those humorless comrades. But we already knew that.
Don Monfort: Перевести ‘ATTP’ на русский, пожалуйста. Это серьезный комментарий.
AK | March 22, 2015 at 5:35 pm |
Rice is deleting perfectly topical polite replies as quickly as I make them.
So quickly you can’t even archive them somewhere before they’re gone?
It didn’t occur to me that I needed to. I didn’t go back and check to see if comments in moderation were approved or deleted. Being reasonable and civil I presumed they would be approved. My bad. I won’t presume Ken Rice is not a complete asshat again. Like I said, I gave him a fair chance to prove otherwise but instead he lived up to his reputation of censoring that which he can’t effectively argue against.
No big deal. I’ve been blogging on global warming for over a decade. This is just one more typical warmist blog in a long string of them that are fashionable for a year or three then drop out of the picture. ATTP doesn’t attract enough talent from either side to continue. It’s a blog of last resort for the rapidly declining number of CAGW narrators.
Well, JC SNIP and JC SNIP. Have a good JC SNIP you JC SNIP.
..and Then There’s Physics | March 22, 2015 at 1:59 pm | Reply
“As far as moderation goes, I moderate mainly for tone.”
Really? You made an exception in my case. Deleted because I used “typical Skeptic talking points”.
I guess only atypical skeptic talking points are okay? Please explain.
The word “mainly” was there for a reason. It does mean there will also be other reasons, but it is “mainly” tone. It’s not a particularly complicated concept. Yes, I do also moderate “typical skeptic talking points”, especially if they are from someone who’s past behaviour would indicate that discouraging them from commenting on my blog would be advised.
When did I ever misbehave on your blog, Ken?
My usual approach is “when in Rome, do as the Romans do”. If it’s a snake pit I act accordingly. If it’s civil and reasonable so am I. You run a censorium. Virtually everyone agrees. Your reputation precedes you here.
Ahh, so you think being a prat here, but not specifically doing so on my blog means I’m violating my own moderation rules when I don’t post your comments? Okay, I’ve deleted this next sentence so many times, I’ll just stop.
well i guess allowing bickering on open discussion (rather than technical) threads helps keep the troops entertained and builds blog ‘loyalty’. challenge is to keep this kind of bickering off the technical threads.
Don’t feel that you need to allow this on my behalf. I have no great interest in this kind of bickering.
And, to be fair, I’ve got lots wrong, but it’s all a learning experience. You’ll probably hate this, but people like Joshua and Willard are also a help, since they challenge you to think about what you’re doing.
I have learned much from people who tell me that I am wrong.
Sometimes I am wrong, and other times I was right but I really did not explain it well enough.
I do like for people to agree with me, I really do, but I learn less from them.
I too learn for people who tell me that I’m wrong, or who challenege me. However, they would typically have to do a little more than simply say “you’re wrong you idiot!” :-)
I agree Alex. Joshua, Willard and Mosher all tend to make me think harder before I comment because any logical errors or lazy thinking will be thrown back at me for re-evaluation.
…and Then There’s Physics | March 22, 2015 at 4:34 pm |
“I too learn for people who tell me that I’m wrong”
Like severe weather increasing from rise in CO2 … it hasn’t happened yet except in your imagination.
Dr Curry. Thank you for your blog about blogs! I had not heard of this one before. I don’t go looking for blogs, I just bump into them when I am looking for information and data. More often on Climate etc than elsewhere.
The think one of the best serious climate science blogs is Science of Doom Just one example: His posts on attribution and fingerprinting are enlightening. Of course he can also be a bit arrogant as well !
I’ve been looking for information on the effect of the eclipse on solar generation and if it affected the electricity supply. I believe it was cloudy over much of Europe and did read that the overloads believed the lower demand due to people outside viewing the eclipse would mitigate whatever loss there was.
After some consideration, this appears to me to be a non-problem given the cloud issue.
We have that kind of covered here;
Thanks. That is a pretty impressive drop in power output!
My thoughts are that the solar eclipse was great, but totally irrelevant to energy supply. The hype just proves how stupid we have all become. Should we really go back to Druid culture and depend on the sun, moon the gods for our wellbeing ?
Right. Fortunately, the French have reliable power to sell.
Yes I think it was a non problem as solar generation is small and the eclipse plus night time are predictable. Clouds and wind make renewables stochastic and therefore unreliable. They add uncertainty to the grid.
I agree Science of Doom is very educational and the technical content I think is excellent.
An effective blog can work a number of ways:
1) Drawing traffic by providing content. Wattsupwiththat is the king in this realm as it generates – through sheer volume – the most postings of any climate related blog I’ve seen. Climate Etc posts fewer entries, but still posts frequently enough to be interesting. Less well frequented blogs like Roger Pielke Jr’s – when he was actively in climate science – post quite infrequently but have higher quality articles in the sense of (in my opinion) newsworthy/interesting/thought provoking.
2) After traffic, the environment is important. Real Climate may have been of interest to professionals, but frankly the arrogant, overweening and biased moderation repels many/most. It isn’t even that RC moderates away those with opposing views – it is that it allows many of the most egregiously stupid hack commentary to stand if it supports the RC meme.
Climate Etc has always been respectful – the presence of the trolls (and not all on the CAGW side) in fact is a good indicator for this, so long as their presence doesn’t start to overwhelm all other commenters.
This Blog is about blogs.
I did listen to and meet and talk to Dr. Jennifer Marohasy last year at the Climate Change Conference. We have been exchanging emails, from time to time since then.
A couple of days ago, I discovered she had a website and a blog.
I recommend you spend some time there. She is a Climate Scientist in Australia. She is a Skeptic and a really good Skeptic.
It would be great if she commented here a bit. I’ve been to her blog from time to time, but not commented there.
For what it’s worth, I think far too much time is spent “driving in the rear view mirror.” We spend countless hours and keystrokes saying we can’t figure out what has been happening because of inadequate data networks and instrumentation, observed data bias adjustments and political issues out of our control.
I would like to see this blog host ideas based on user needs to assess climate impacts. I have not seen a comprehensive plan that focuses on data networks, instrumentation, appropriate data processing and methods to assess climate impacts. “Pie in the sky” discussions about absolute data accuracy don’t do a county or city council any good when they need to upgrade the design for a new storm sewer system that requires voters to pass a bond measure.
What can we do now as a community of professionals to aid in these decisions the rest of this century and beyond?
This times a million (assuming I understand correctly what was said).
I’ve got a huge amount of respect for this site and Judith Curry, but I think I’ve seen every side of this climate thingie proposed, defended, exposed, and derided on this site. Hundreds of times. Over and over. Much of the basics never change (that’s not 100% true, but close enough), additional processes and systems are piled on top of all the others (deep sea sinks, etc.), and no one ever convinces anyone else to change the way they think (or, it seems that way to me).
If the people on this site can’t start putting some sort of systematic knowledge base in place that others can then look to for guidance, then I’m not sure who can.
That said, I can fully understand the amount of time and effort that would take, which I don’t have myself, so take the words above with the knowledge that I’m not trying to throw stones here (I live in a very large glass house :).
Right now I’m starting to think this is just another (rather large) case of the 3 blind men and the elephant.
And that the issue is not “wicked”, but is “evil” : )
Nice bait and switch. From ” inadequate data networks and instrumentation, observed data bias adjustments and political issues out of our control” (a fair description of some of the debate), to “‘[p]ie in the sky’ discussions about absolute data accuracy.”
I have never seen anyone on this blog, or any other, claim that there must be “absolute data accuracy” to justify the political policy advocated by the CAGW proponents. But that position is easier to argue against than any genuine skeptical argument.
The question is not whether the models and krigged, adjusted, estimated “Global Average Temperature” reports are the best possible under the circumstances. The question is whether given all the uncertainty, inaccuracy and imprecision, and ignorance of the climate, we should let governments take control of and decarbonize the global energy economy.
Dr. Curry has had numerous posts and comments about adaptation, more localized climate models and forecasts, and “no regrets” policies, but it is the warmists who are the ones uninterested in such topics.
Quite a few of them equate not following their socialist agenda with “doing nothing”. But there are many approaches to decarbonization that don’t require raising the price of energy, or implementing “command economics”.
Actually Philbert I AM a city councilman in the state of Texas and I can assure you the subject of global warming or imagined consequences of same has never been an agenda item and there’s not much likelyhood of that changing in the future. Texas is a conservative state. Global warming is a liberal narrative.. We don’t give it any official attention at all.
This is precisely the reality check I hoped would come from my original post. I lived in Texas during the 1970s, I am tied up this morning, but hope to move this conversation forward. Thank you!
But the question remains: What’s the secret sauce of Climate, etc.? Why do Judith Curry, Gavin Schmidt (RealClimate), Andy Revkin (DotEarth) and a handful of others provide such fertile soil for extended discussion, when the rest of the world’s 200 million bloggers go unremarked and observed?
Matthew, I made a suggestion on that at LotRW.
Judy, my “Last Post” at The Oil Drum.
And my thoughts on it. Quality trumps volume. My most read post on Energy Matters (EM) has had 17,246 reads (What is the real cost of shale gas). The second most read 10,634 reads (The 2014 Oil price Crash Explained). The latter post has probably had more than 100,000 though on the webs, cross posted to about 20 other blogs including Zero Hedge and Automatic Earth, Oil price dot Com etc.
Comment volume is an extremely poor metric for a blog – from my perspective. I am looking to learn from a comment thread and whenever it goes over 100 I can’t follow and it normally means a few blow hards arguing with each other.
The bane of my life for years has been Green Trolls. They are inexhaustible and there is an infinite supply. Given the chance they will dominate the conversation on any energy or climate related blog – you need to watch out!. So I have a hard line on comment moderation, anyone suspected of being a GT simply gets placed on moderation. Most give up within days. But I have a couple of commenters at present who have much to offer by way of providing quality opinion from the warmist side of the debate who have been on moderation for months. I find when they are on moderation they provide quality input, off moderation they go wild.
Speaking of which, did you see this?
The Perfect Storm For Oil Hits In Two Months: US Crude Production To Soar Just As Storage Runs Out
It also means that at the current rate of record oil production, storage will be exhausted in under two months, some time in mid-May. At that point, with no more storage to buffer the record oil production, the open market dumping begins and prices of WTI will crater as every barrel will have to be sold at any clearing price, since the producers will have no other choice than to, literally, dump the oil.
In other words, a perfect storm is shaping up for oil some time in late May, early June.
And then we learned something even more startling.
I have followed markets closely for 50 years. I never expected to see the US where it is on energy and I never expected to see negative yields on sovereign debt. Breathtaking.
Add in changes to our economies from technology, and It becomes difficult to comprehend.
We have always been in uncharted territory. Now, we may not have a compass.
Then, IMO the scariest of all, the effect of technological change on the government’s ability to not only spy on us; when the internet of things is fully implemented, to control what we can do to a large extent.
Dr Judy Curry,
I want to say thanks for the great blog and your interesting choice of subjects, related papers and articles.
I try to not to comment much but so enjoy the graphs, insights and comments except for some of the more extreme activists. But even then, sometimes come a gem from amidst the dross. So letting them run with topics works out great for an interested observer.
Again, great comments. Early in the discussion thread (for a Climate, Etc. post; probably many more comments to come) but it seems everyone circles back to five+ ingredients in the secret sauce:
2. willingness to engage in controversy
3. her personal/sustained/thoughtful participation in the discussion.
4. respect for a range of viewpoints… and unreserved respect for the discussants themselves.
5. Judith Curry.
ingredients 6.-100. did I mention Judith Curry?
You forgot one major factor: the “pause”.
The secret sauce is not what you do, but what you don’t do. You don’t exclude people you disagree with. And you let the discussions acquire a life of their own.
My own eye-opener came on 2012/08/30, when Gavin explained why models don’t use a correct temperature-dependent latent heat of water vaporization: “If the specific heats of condensate and vapour is assumed to be zero (which is a pretty good assumption given the small ratio of water to air, and one often made in atmospheric models) then the appropriate L is constant (=L0)…. Eventually, all the models will do this properly (some do already), but it is not trivial – but neither is it hugely important.”
Thank you, Gavin. How much has changed in three years? Do you still maintain that other issues are much more important than a 2.5% error in an energy transfer by water evaporation from tropical seas?
Wow. I was going to say something about blogs, but now I’ve lost my train of thought.
and then there’s doomsday physics.
It’s not the end of the world, but you can see it from there.
Just made my first visit to the site attDp.com, and the kool-aide is flowing freely. Some attDp host quotes:
“It’s all anthropogenic. This is not in dispute. It’s about as certain as anything can possibly be.
That the oceans and biosphere are absorbing more than they emit, means that they can’t be the source. All that’s left is us. It really is us. There is no plausible alternative.
Noone, however, doubts that we have warmed and that the change in temperature since pre-industrial times is probably unprecendented in the Holocene.”
Uh-oh. There is that settled science, physics word, “probably”.
Probably good enough for believers in 97% certified Doomsday Global Warming.
people forget that ATTP started off as a hostile, put down mirror image to WUWT, cheap shots, snide and nasty but providing a meeting place for people banned from Watt’s site and absolutely intolerant of Skeptics and their viewpoints.
Because he mirrored the site on WUWT which does a lot of things right [in attracting visitors, frequent posts, topics of interest in the world apart from Climate science, allowing most criticism and providing a haven for skeptics]
he was able to set up a blog which lets one place a comment easily and now raises some topics that WUWT does not discuss and lets the warmists congregate.
Sou’s hot whopper has taken over the bash WUWT role previously done by ATTP [cheap, etc].
JC and Lucia are 2 sites that are lukewarm and allow people to try to talk to each other though it turns into over each other.
There is so much vitriol in the opposing blogs that it is a wonder that people for the most part get by without moderation here, but they do.
There is a message in this a bit like some people’s private swearing and public saintliness, that it that most of us know how to behave and have standards in behavior.
I miss Web and Cheifio, but others will come along.
I wish people on both sides would stop the practice of putting up half truths to prove claims, Graphs with cherry picked dates being my biggest issue [Hello Arctic Sea Ice Blog ” You are here in 2009 and there is no ice left” update please it is 2017 now!] sarc.
Tough luck D Springer. I disagree with your bull at a gate approach but it makes for robust discussion. His loss.
Keep going Mosher, great insight, some opinionation and fantastic video clips and scientific referrals.
ATTP, you must be living in heaven, so quiet and peaceful, everyone agreeing with each other apart from Webby. Enjoy.
JC well done.
“Tough luck D Springer. I disagree with your bull at a gate approach but it makes for robust discussion. His loss.”
Bull at the gate is all I know how to do. I’m an engineer not a politician. Although given my recent election to city council in my hometown where we have a community blog by which my bullish attributes have become well known to the electorate I think you might be surprised at how many people want a bull at the gate so long as it’s an honest bull willing to roll up his sleeves and carry out the work of the people in a transparent manner. A bull sans bullshiit in other words.
“people forget that ATTP started off as a hostile, put down mirror image to WUWT, cheap shots, snide and nasty but providing a meeting place for people banned from Watt’s site and absolutely intolerant of Skeptics and their viewpoints.”
Oh no, I hadn’t forgotten it.
I was about to post something similar before Curious George drew my thoughts elsewhere by his description of Gavin’s problems with water.
Judith, as a frequent reader and a rare commentator, I come often to Climate Etc. because I value your honesty and respect your wisdom. But your bravery of being willing to with stand the withering ad hom attacks while standing firm on how you view the science, is most attractive.
I found your blog about 3 years ago when my high schooler came home from his Ecology class stating that Al Gore’s movie was “gospel”. While not trained as a scientist (CPA actually), I thought the subject needed more research than that provided by Al Gore.
You may not have been the first to say it, but you were the first scientist that I heard proclaim that climate was a huge, messy, chaotic problem. This strongly resonated with me and I have followed you ever since.
Thanks for providing a place where I can learn and grow in my understanding if this very important subject.
Steven Mosher | March 22, 2015 at 10:32 pm |
An experiment might me in order. What would happen if Jim D, Joshua and Willard and me decided to avoid commenting for a week or a month?
this place would quickly descend to WUWT levels where Tim Ball posts stuff and everybody rushes in to say “great post Tim!”
None of you will be missed by many and we might actually attract some science literates to replace the four of you.
I highly encourage the experiment. Give it a month.
I like Steven Mosher, but his comments are so sphinx-like and subtle that a month may not be long to notice he stopped posting. As to Joshua, his posts could be simpply stored and randomly parceled back out occassionally and the content and relevancy would be unchanged. Ditto for Jim D.
+1 with a LOL
Steven Mosher | March 22, 2015 at 10:32 pm |
An experiment might me in order. What would happen if Jim D, Joshua and Willard and me decided to avoid commenting for a week or a month?
this place would quickly descend to WUWT levels where Tim Ball posts stuff and everybody rushes in to say “great post Tim!”
An experiment where Steve ‘kinetics can tell you nothing’ Mosher agrees to treat his audience with correct spelling for a month?
Bring it on. How much extra do we have to pay to replace the other two?
I consider you in high enough regard to know some better critics than them.
To get comments, create and keep controversy. To get interest, write interestingly with knowledge on hot topics. Keep the crowd by allowing comments. Keep a civil discussion by limiting comments.
Dr. Curry has gone very near the optimal line, writing (and guest-posting) on controversial topics interestingly, with connections to high-level experts, and she has allowed discussion, not trying to keep it always strictly on-topic.
Curry gets the comments by Zipf’s law. Then large readership attracts commenters who want to be read by a large readership.
Zipf’s law says that a few blogs get all the readers.
Althouse has a similar thing in a quasi-law blog, widely read and lots of comments, repeated arguments in the comments, mostly on the right with a few lefty denizens.
What Althouse thinks she is doing and what commenters are reading her for are not the same, but it’s a successful arrangement.
She’s even-handed about comments and so it works.
None of the commenters agree with her on the law.
I’ve enjoyed your blog because it introduces me to the side of climate science that I wouldn’t otherwise be able to find & you don’t let your posters lead us astray (as happens at WUWT from time to time).
However, the social science side makes me annoyed that academics don’t go down to human fundamentals – like thinking-style. If only they did that, they’d be able go “Oh look, about 40% of people don’t trust anything they can’t see with their own eyes – and the further along the autistic spectrum they are, the less they will listen to anybody else’s vision. And 40% have ideals and dreams which they won’t let facts interfere with – however obvious they are.” Then they’d follow it with “Oh look it’s really odd. The dreamers are all attractive left-wingers and literary or artistic people who go on Climate-Change marches. While the double-checkers are are all conservative, argumentative, nerdy Climate Deniers”.
I’d really like it if you find social scientists who use fundamentals rather than labels in their research.
I wonder if it would be a form of advocacy for a scientist to start a blog that presented a one sided view on issues of related to policy and not the persons expertise. Do we really want scientists to do this?
After a bit more than a year following CE, I’m starting to get a bit tired. There has been some really interesting stuff but the BS/substance ratio often gets out of control. Enough already on adjusting/manipulating temperature records. Climate sensitivity is interesting but there seems to be no middle ground and even if there were it is beyond the policy makers ability to comprehend. Climate sensitivity is not a fundamental property, it is a construct of the modeling mentality. CAGW is not about science or engineering, it’s about politics……full stop.
Frankly there are bigger fish to fry, problems to solve, issues to understand than climate change or global warming or whatever you want to call it. Climate is not the most important issue out there. It’s fascinating to those of us who have studied it, but at the end of the day, it is what it is.
I am finding myself spending more time reading The American Interest lately than CE. Negotiations with the Iranian devil by our naive American President are beyond the pale. Shit’s happening in Russia and China and Syria and Yemen and The Ukraine and on college campuses all over the US that thoughtful people should be paying attention to. The EU is on a self destruct path and Obama is trying to get the US on a similar path.
Agreed that American Interest is very good. I’m also a bit tired of surface temp records and sensitivity also. I’ll be mixing it up a bit
Will you’re mulling your offerings, if you think back and maybe consider a selection of “building blocks” for those of us needing more of a foundation that might be a nice offering for your main page. Just a thought.
Thx Danny, I think I’ll have a thread on Sunday discussing preferences for future topics
How about an article on how solar power spectrum changes as sunspots wax & wane and how the change in power spectrum effects which gas, liquid, or solid surface absorbs solar power and how much it absorbs.
Solar spectrum variation across sunspot cycles and, presumably, across grand maximums and minimums.
Solar spectrum changes far more than TSI. Different wavelengths have different absorption and reflection characteristics in the same given gas, liquid, or solid. This has potentially great implications on how the earth’s climate reacts to long term changes in solar spectrum lasting decades, centuries, and possibly millenia or even longer.
Solar irradiance variations show a strong wavelength dependence. Whereas the total (integrated over all wavelengths) solar irradiance changes by about 0.1% over the course of the solar cycle, the irradiance in the UV part of the solar spectrum varies by several to about 10% at 150-300 nm, and by more than 50% at shorter wavelengths, including the Ly-alpha emission line near 121.6 nm. On the whole, up to 60% of the total irradiance variations are produced at wavelengths below 400 nm (Fig. 4). These variations may have a significant impact on the Earth’s climate system. Ly-alpha, the strongest line in the solar spectrum, takes an active part in governing the chemistry of the Earth’s upper stratosphere and mesosphere. Also, radiation around 200 nm is important for photochemical ozone production, whereas the radiation at about 180-320 nm is the main heat source in the stratosphere and mesosphere.
Fig. 4. The relative contribution of different wavelength ranges to the total solar irradiance (red histogram) and its solar cycle variations (blue histogram). About 60% of the total irradiance variations over the solar cycle are produced at wavelengths shorter than 400 nm (marked by the light yellow area), whereas the contribution of this spectral range to the total irradiance is only around 8%. Note different size of bins: about 40 nm below 200 nm, 50 nm between 200 nm and 400 nm, 100 nm between 400 and 1000 nm and 500 nm at yet longer wavelengths.
What we need is an article from Joshua.
Mark “… naive…president…”
True. I have been using the term “Orwellian” frequently, as have others.
I think I just lost a relatively long and I think insightful comment.
I am struck by the facile arguments on this thread that claim that more consensus bright lights do not comment more frequently here, because of the less than worshipful reception they receive from some of the skeptical commenters.
While those making those claims then go on to argue that the sniping, ankle biting persistence with which some of the less content concerned warmist commenters here (you know who you are) “challenge” Dr. Curry, is what makes this blog what it is.
And nary a hint of irony.
Seems like suggesting trying to herd cats (commenters) and then you can just overwhelm them with questions and then cry foul when your questions aren’t answered. Sounds like a lose lose proposition.
@ Brandon Shollenberger (March 23, 2015 at 12:22 pm ff.)
@ Steve McIntyre (March 23, 2015 at 5:53 pm)
@ Willard (March 24, 2015 at 9:59 am)
Here is some background on the role of the Tiljander proxies and Mann et al. (2008). If tl;dr, here are my conclusions.
* Mann08 used the Tiljander proxies upside-down.
* McIntyre’s site Climate Audit is where this error was spotted and publicized.
* Mann and his allies (notably Schmidt) denied the error.
* Mann’s allies (notably Schmidt) claimed that the error, if made, didn’t matter.
* Buried in the middle of a lengthy Comments section of a Real Climate post, Schmidt (not Mann) noted the Tiljander error in 2010. To my knowledge, that was his last mention of these proxies.
* This error, by itself, invalidated a central claim of Mann08.
* Mann08 should have been corrected or withdrawn, in my opinion. Instead, 5 years later, it was still being cited in the peer-reviewed literature as an authoritative account.
The following is an edited version of a 2014 comment at Climate Audit.
The key accomplishment of Mann08 was to show that proxies other than tree rings (“Non-Dendro” proxies) could be used to reconstruct the 2,000 year temperature history of the Earth, and that they had a shape that was very similar to the reconstructions based on tree ring records. The paper’s graphs were all hockey-stick-shaped, with a sharply-rising trend beginning c. 1970 and rising rapidly to unprecedented levels.
That the contaminated and uncalibratable Tiljander proxies were used upside-down was vehemently denied by Mann and co-authors in a Comment published by PNAS.
That the Non-Dendro reconstructions relied on the inclusion of the Tiljander protocols was vehemently denied by Mann’s fellow bloggers at Real Climate. However, this point was grudgingly conceded by Schmidt, deep within a 2010 Real Climate thread (Comments 529 and 531).
Non-Dendro reconstructions without Tiljander have a starkly different shape than those that (erroneously) include the proxies. This would have been obvious in a figure that Mann published in 2009 — except that I had to re-draw the key trace by hand to make it visible. See Dirty Laundry II: Contaminated Sediments (Climate Audit, July 2011).
Reliance on the Tiljander proxies by Mann08, Mann09, Kemp11, and other papers was flawed on other grounds, as well. For details, see my 2013 Yahoo Answer (search for “AMac”) and references therein.
You’ve noted the passage of time without correction. This phenomenon seems to be very prevalent in the climate and energy debate, and it does seem to stem from the politicization of science and of debate, and all of the dependent structure built into the consensus.
These will be things that will argued for decades if not centuries. I’m very grateful for your definitive scholarship on these matters. Particularly so on Tiljander, but others such as you have written above.
Much gracious, amigo amac.
Revisiting the CA thread linked by AMac, I note this small detail:
This reminded me of my How to Pull a Tiljander trick:
The author was MikeN.
Note AMac’s notebook on the Tiljander affair.
In this very thread, the Tiljander trick has been pulled by Brandon:
Another theory is the lack of magnanimity from ClimateBall players, more importantly by the fiercest player in the history of ClimateBall.
The TL;DR would seem to provide an outline for a “layman’s version of the issue. Absent all the personal crap about mann.”
This was suggested a few years ago at the Auditor’s, in the comment thread to a post AMac just linked.
Oh boy, I’ve collected ‘offendotron’ and ‘castratofists’ today. I can’t stand the excitement.
My use of offendotron is courtesy Katabasis.
here a free 100 proxies for SEO Tools like Scrapebox, Xrumer, GSA search, Senuke XCR and social networks like facebook, twitter and youtube from proxies4google.com
what we offer for our subscribers:
– 7000+ HTTP(s) and Socks4/5 proxies(timeout under 5s)
– we deliver only proxies that are checked within 15 minutes!!!
– 1000+ google enabled proxies that can reach 3000 !!!
– 5000+ L1+L2 proxies
– 500+ Socks4/5 proxies
– API to filter and export your proxies directly to your seo tool like scrapebox and xrumer
free members can have access to our free proxy list that is updated every 10 minutes and use our API.
subscription start from 4$/month !!! for yearly subscription for limited time.
Pingback: Censorship by Judith Curry: the devolution of climate blogs keeps pace | Shub Niggurath Climate
Some (IMO) interesting numbers for your consideration.
By my rough count, in the most recent thread “kim” has made approximately 33 comments (out of 279), while his/her name (or nicknames for him/her) appear some 38 times. So maybe some 1/6, or so, of his/her comments prompt a response.
In contrast, I made some 14 comments in the same thread, while my name appears some 37 times, meaning that my comments on average prompt 2+ responses.
There’s a couple of different ways I can think of that we might look at that. One is that I’m a successful troll. Another is that in contrast to kim, I raise issues that your “denizens” like to talk about. Another is that many of your “denizens” really don’t like me, as Don often tells me, and like to tell me that. :-) (But maybe that’s the same as the first interpretation?)
BTW – just curious, was it coincidence that you recently put me in moderation right after I responded to one of Springer’s comments, with evidence that made is clear just how bogus his comment was?
And Judith, did you ever determine whether the “Dave in Texas” who likes to post insults and was posting under other people’s usernames and requesting that I be banned was David Springer (who lives in Texas) who likes to post insults?
There are only a few who post here who even attempt to defend the position of the IPCC and the likes of Hansen and Mann. Personally I find it occasionally interesting to have exchanges with you and the others to see if they can raise points that would alter my conclusions about what should be done in response to AGW threats.
First, my apologies for being somewhat late to this party but …
WRT Trenberth’s ‘heat [from the oceans]’ and his subsequent resiling therefrom – as Judith had commented :
So the question that immediately comes to my mind is: Why has Trenberth not publicly renounced this particular unsustainable “belief”? Who knows … perhaps he has; but if so, I very much regret that I must have missed it!
And while I’m here … speaking of “discussions” (and discussants elsewhere), I have to say that I was quite surprised and (particularly in light of his considerably less than admirable record – cf his recent contributions, for want of a better word, at BH) in no small measure quite disappointed in what appears to be our host’s effective endorsement of ATTP:
The uppermost question in my mind is: “Effective at what”?! And wherein lies his “magic touch” – apart from his mind-numbing and tedious trolling over at BH, where he repeatedly seems to be following in the footsteps of those who have the rather annoying habit of saying ‘goodbye’ but never leaving!
I, for one, am far from convinced that the number of comments is necessarily a reliable indicator of the “success” and/or popularity of any blog in this day and age. That being said, maybe I’m missing something, but …
Much as I appreciate and admire (at least 97%, and perhaps even more, of) our host’s posts here, I’m completely at a loss to understand why – considering the extant proliferation of (IMHO) so many comments of the considerably less than commendable kind (from both sides of the great divide) – our host chose to delete a comment on this thread from Shub, as he has recently noted.