archive-org.com » ORG » R » REALCLIMATE.ORG

Total: 1481

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • In the News « RealClimate
    the News Reporting on climate eric 8 November 2011 We were pleased to hear from the University of Arizona s Jeff Kargel that the Times Atlas folks are now updating their atlas of Greenland As we reported earlier the first edition was completely in error and led to some rather bizarre claims about the amount of ice loss in Greenland Kargel reports that HarperCollins publisher of the Times Atlas has now fully retracted their error and has produced a new map of Greenland that will be made available as a large format 2 side map insert for the Atlas and will also be available free online Meanwhile Kargel and colleagues have produced their own updated small scale map and have written a paper that includes both their new map and a description of the incident that led up to it Kargel was instrumental in pushing the cryosphere community to send a strong message to the publishers that they needed to correct their mistake A pre print of the paper currently under review and under public discussion on Cryolist is available here Figure 1 in Kargel et al 2011 generated by a collaboration of the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland GEUS and the Programme for Monitoring of the Greenland Ice Sheet PROMICE with the Polar Geospatial Center Department of Geology and Geophysics University of Minnesota Contact Michele Citterio GEUS for questions about the glacier outlines or Paul Morin UMinn for questions about the MODIS base image mosaic HarperCollins is to be commended for listening to the scientific community and producing a corrected map Unfortunately and despite recent events demonstrating that popular allegations against climate scientists are all wrong HarperCollins still says on their web site that it s all the scientists fault for not being clear The one thing that is very apparent is that there is no clarity in the scientific and cartographic community on this issue they write Hmm Our own view is that anyone flying over Greenland en route to Europe from North America would instantly have recognized a problem with the Times Atlas assuming they knew their location of course As Kargel and colleagues write in their paper Distinguishing manifest ignorable nonsense from falsehoods that might take root in the public mind is difficult but the magnitude of and apparent authority behind this particular mistake seemed to warrant a rapid and firm response The eventually constructive reaction of HarperCollins which not only withdrew its mistaken claim but also produced a new map to be included in the Times Atlas as an insert shows the value of such a response No less than grotesque trivialization grotesque exaggeration of the pace or consequences of climate change needs to be countered energetically Nevertheless they caution that scientists cannot possibly challenge all of the innumerable misunderstandings and misrepresentations of their work in public discourse Well said Of course many scientists can do more and we encourage all of our colleagues to speak publically about their research and as the international

    Original URL path: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/extras/in-the-news/%5C (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • A new experiment with science publication « RealClimate
    of proof demonstrating such such behavior should be held to such an high level as to make publishing such criticisms in practice impossible None of them offer any solution to the question of if there were to be a systematic attempt to publish papers promoting an agenda how could such an attempt ever even be discussed let alone acknowledge and prevented from corrupting an entire body of work or even a scientific discipline since all of the complaints made against this paper could be leveled against any paper discussing a set of research of any arbitrary level of bias intellectual dishonesty or even out right fraudulence That seems to be a severe indictment not just of criticism but of the authors of it themselves Indeed it s puzzling why none of them argued from the very reasonable perspective that published articles and their authors should be treated as having earned the benefit of the the doubt and that in all questions it is the indictment that must be proved with respect to intent but not with respect of the science itself obviously where a paper s novel assertions must be assumed false until proven true and the evidence should be compelling not just a bare statistical majority and then go on to show why your arguments weren t compelling and instead argued from positions that would not only block your paper and any conceivable future paper too 9 Hank Roberts says 29 Jun 2013 at 9 11 PM positively cited by and to a particular small group Let me guess 10 PKthinks says 30 Jun 2013 at 7 06 AM When you question What do all these have examples have in common Do you mean they are all sceptical authors perhaps you feel you in turn have been treated in a biased way rather than your paper being objectively critically appraised as you have made the link yourself inferring more than agnotology So is peer review too much consensus vetting 11 ara says 30 Jun 2013 at 7 13 AM What kind of journal would make some review an article whose own work read scientific skills and or honesty was criticized in that article Were they hoping for an extra balanced point of view I think this paper was really necessary in pointing out some of the common scientific errors in climate analysis Also I do see why one would want to go in detail about this agnotology business as you call it Neither do I think that it s misplaced in a scientific journal On the other hand that makes it just easier to dismiss it as an overly philosophical rambling without dealing with any of the hard facts the introduction is the reader s first impression after all So I guess to achieve maximum impact cutting down on the philosophical part and concentrating on the hard facts might be necessary The use of the word agnotology and this big picture thing might just be overly scholarly to some Just my 2 12 Doug says 1 Jul 2013 at 3 27 AM ara If a paper is critiquing work by other researchers then journals will often ask these researchers to comment This isn t to get extra balance which should be provided by the editor who should take into account the possible prejudices of the reviewers but instead to make sure that the new research doesn t either misunderstand or misrepresent the critiqued work As long as the editor does their job right and takes into account the possible biases of each reviewer when considering their recommendations on the paper then this is not a problem 13 PubPeer says 1 Jul 2013 at 2 37 PM Would be great to see these comments on PubPeer com 14 Rob Nicholls says 1 Jul 2013 at 4 09 PM A fascinating paper It s v useful to have critiques of multiple papers in a single article It improves visibility of the fact that the same or similar flaws occur repeatedly I read Scafetta and West 2005 SW05 a few years ago I couldn t follow the maths in the paper and didn t really understand the published criticisms of it that I was able to find Alas I never found Benestad and Schmidt 2009 at the time At that time I didn t understand the context i e occasionally papers have been published which seem to contradict the mainstream scientific view of AGW such papers are spread all over the internet and other media by the purveyors of anything but CO2 but these papers are generally found to be flawed fairly quickly Obviously Realclimate and Skeptical Science could have given me that context but as I was new to climate science I was trying to rely entirely on reading peer reviewed literature for myself I quickly realised that I couldn t possibly put together a coherent picture of all the evidence without expert guidance but it was some while before I worked out which websites can be trusted It s obvious now but those who disbelieve that AGW is a major problem are so adamant that they are right and so certain that the IPCC is dominated by fraudsters and their arguments are so numerous and often so complex that it s utterly bewildering for someone new to it all Fortunately I found Realclimate and Skeptical Science and saw the integrity and consistency of the arguments on these sites otherwise I doubt I would have ever made sense of any of the evidence If I d found a paper like Agnotology Learning from Mistakes I think it would have helped me to reach a sensible conclusion about AGW more quickly 15 Steve Milesworthy says 3 Jul 2013 at 10 04 AM I see Ross McKitrick accuses you of bait and switch by using a paper about a new methodology as a cover for making criticisms of papers you don t like So a bit like Panel and multivariate methods for tests

    Original URL path: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/06/a-new-experiment-with-science-publication/ (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Language Intelligence – Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga: A Review « RealClimate
    understand the charges The most relevant part should be the penalty confiscation of all of their assets That will get their attention This could be a popular movement if we phrase it that way Who cares if they go to prison Taking their criminally obtained money will hurt them more and actually do some good Response Enough already with this criminality argument It is not a crime to express your opinion no matter how stupid or dishonest it may be Nor is it a crime perhaps unfortunately to spend millions of dollars on misinformation campaigns This sort of talk simply helps convince others that those on the side of taking the climate change risk seriously are crazy ideologues Comments of this sort tend to make me agree with them Enough eric Response Eric I think you do a disservice to Mike here It is absolutely a fair argument to say that individuals who knowingly funded dishonest efforts to confuse the public about the climate change threat are participating in what might reasonably be defined as crimes against humanity The tobacco CEOs were criminally liable for doing precisely that in the case of cigarettes and lung cancer Arguably what the funders of organized climate change denial have done might in the long run cost even more lives Eric you are certainly welcome to disagree with Mike but it is wrong of you to attack him for expressing these views They are quite similar to what James Hansen has said publically I take it you disagree w Hansen Have you called him out similarly Mike 14 Hank Roberts says 20 Aug 2012 at 6 17 PM Red herrings attract gullibility not curiosity Don t follow em into a kneejerk response David Brin recently noted that novel political speech is remarkable begin quote Even a seasoned politician must feel a burning wish to insert a new thought now and then even just one that has nothing to do with politics but instead what he personally feels to be missing Something perhaps that he deems to be desperately needed Then I heard it when he listed eight national character traits essential for our success and there mixed in with seven expected ones was curiosity Go back and watch that speech again You ll hear that word which has no possible political redolence in the standard catechisms of the insipid left right axis And yet it is telling and tells a rich allegory in light of our nation s recent magnificent accomplishment It also lays down before you the stark clarity of the core difference between two sides in this our tragic Civil War It isn t about left versus right It never was and don t let anyone get away with telling you it is This is future versus past end quote 15 tamino says 20 Aug 2012 at 6 35 PM Re 9 Jim Larsen 2 Repeat repeat repeat Repetition is the essential element of all persuasion Ahh act like trolls Trolling and repetition are not the same thing Some of you may remember when Anthony Watts and Joe D Aleo published a document for SPPI accusing NOAA scientists of fraud by deliberately manipulating the temperature record via station dropout I analyzed the entire GHCN data set to prove that this claim was false and a half dozen or so other bloggers reproduced my analysis all confirming my conclusion When I posted a message to Anthony Watts stating that he owed the scientists an apology numerous comments appeared trying to disparage my post Most were of the form What about insert irrelevant issue here Sometimes I addressed the issue sometimes not but I consistently included a message like this Yours is another desperate attempt to deflect attention away from the real issue Which is Anthony Watts used false claims as the basis for accusing NOAA scientists of fraud If he doesn t admit his mistake and apologize for the unfounded accusation he has no honor None Consistent repetition reinforced my statement with tremendous effectiveness And it soon became apparent to commenters that every attempt to change the subject would be used to reinforce the real subject and lay bare the dishonesty of avoiding it In this case repetition was not just effective rhetoric it was also a necessary method to defuse attempts to avoid the issue Real trolling often involves repeating the same junk even though it has been directly addressed and refuted with evidence that is spot on relevant to the topic at hand So don t repeat a message which avoids the real issue that s trolling But do repeat a message which addresses the real issue especially if it brings focus back where it belongs while exposing the mendacity of attempts to shift the focus elsewhere 16 J Bowers says 20 Aug 2012 at 6 56 PM Any notions of Nuremberg are the decision of future generations alone because they ll be the only ones to judge But that doesn t mean there shouldn t be open documentation similar to the tobacco documents But the only way to get there is through political will and the only way to get the political will is to let legislators know that they won t be voted for if they continue to ignore the increasingly undeniable reality no matter how much vested interests may fund their campaigns or however much the Grover Norquists of the lobby world may threaten them for dissent from their twisted take on the physical universe 17 Eric Rowland says 20 Aug 2012 at 7 51 PM Thank you and there s even a carbon light Kindle edition Maybe I can learn to persuade a few people to examine global warming outside their political framework So far my tactics have been to steal one of the author s own lines We hold these truths to be like duh That has been spectacularly unsuccessful unless one considers success as making the converted feel guilty for not doing enough In fact the more I attempt to lead by example and bring my life into alignment with the understanding that we require a carbon less future the more I appear out of touch with reality Recycling good PV OK Vegan with a zero energy home and an electric car nutjob Inside our much smaller world of family friends and acquaintances it s just as important for those of us who are not scientists to understand the art of persuasion because of our sheer numbers If we truly want to change people s views and their willingness to change their carbon footprint we will have to understand the most useful way to frame our rhetoric And from my experience the less you act like and eat like the average citizen the more clear calm persuasive and rational you have to speak 18 Susan Anderson says 20 Aug 2012 at 8 38 PM Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country Maggie Thatcher on climate change to the UN 1989 neither murderers tyrants nor madmen http www yaleclimatemediaforum org 2012 05 margaret thatcher others neither murderers tyrants nor madmen 19 Jet Halon says 20 Aug 2012 at 8 40 PM I m a many year loyal reader of Real Climate This is my first comment Mike I ve always been fascinated with your work and look forward to your future research While I appreciate the sentiment of your review and comments on communicating I have to respectfully disagree with your advice Right now especially I think scientists need eloquence They should not exaggerate has that worked in the past Describing the climate as being on steroids is not elegant or persuasive because of the sports analogy The insurance analogy doesn t work either if it did Geico and Progressive wouldn t be spending millions trying to tell us whose insurance is best Sad to see commentator Jeffrey Davis jump in with Nuremburg Trials comment and another with reparations Articles in Real Climate are great I hope you can continue to shine the light and be a force for education and ignore commentators who seem to swarm around and try to show their bonafides for being in a club whose principals live on higher ground 20 prokaryotes says 20 Aug 2012 at 8 52 PM Eric i think you have to lead by example and if you talk about transitioning to a low carbon economy you could focus on the advantages Advantages like less affected from cancer causing car fumes inside and outside of vehicles No more gas price pitfalls Actually doing something bug when switching to electric transport Or to take the train instead of airplane Or using algae fuel for your private plane instead of conventional fuel Or adopting biochar techniques to help your garden through a drought Or how green cleaning products are more healthy for the environment and clean equally good without health implications like antibacterial soaps for instance The list is long Yes at this stage depending where you live not everybody has an easy way to charge an electric vehicle But most people work and living in the city and drive about 20 miles a day enough to use an EV And if your friends see that this is working for you and that you can save money while doing it they will switch too Just do it 21 caerbannog says 20 Aug 2012 at 9 07 PM tamino said nearly 2 and 1 2 years ago Which is Anthony Watts used false claims as the basis for accusing NOAA scientists of fraud If he doesn t admit his mistake and apologize for the unfounded accusation he has no honor None Has Anthony Watts ever retracted and apologized for his dropped stations claim It s been nearly 2 and 1 2 years since he was called out on this If he hasn t issued a retraction apology then this is something that should be brought up again and again and again 22 Ron R says 20 Aug 2012 at 9 20 PM Eric 12 This sort of talk simply helps convince others that those on the side of taking the climate change risk seriously are crazy ideologues Aye we re all a little crazy these days If not there s something wrong 23 George Fripley says 20 Aug 2012 at 10 09 PM Thanks for the review of this book Mike I work in a scientific environment where have to write reports for general consumption and clear and concise language is a passion of mine There no mileage in talking about avifauna when you mean birds or herpetofauna when you mean amphibians etc because most people won t know what you are talking about Yet we still do it drives me nuts I shall definitely get hold of a copy of this book George 24 Thomas says 20 Aug 2012 at 10 21 PM I think this is awkward for scientists One the one hand we wish to lead people towards clearer thinking processes which largely reject thinking by metaphor as too error prone On the other hand given the present environment we need to be able to inspire and convince So we have a difficult task to accomplish here On another possibly note I tried to order the book at Barnes and Noble this weekend they had no record of it on their system Either it is too new or something fishy is going on they did have a couple of earlier titles by Joe 25 Garry S J says 20 Aug 2012 at 10 33 PM My one suggestion for scientists communicating ideas to a wider audience Never ever ever EVER use the word suggests When you ve finished writing your paper abstract media release speech or whatever go back and change every instance of suggests to something else 26 LarryL says 20 Aug 2012 at 11 22 PM Joe Romm is awesome But personally I think that the bulk of the climate science community are already immaculate communicators that need no further instruction in the art I love reading this blog I love reading the underlying papers when I can get my hands on them The art of rhetoric and persuasion seem to be an artifice necessary only to make up for the general lack of education of the voting public Being well educated I don t see the need for such artifice for a body of knowledge that is already skillfully communicated and self evidently obvious The real issue that needs to be addressed is the teaching of critical thought and basic education But until such time as the populace is sufficiently educated Power on Joe 27 Eric Rowland says 20 Aug 2012 at 11 25 PM 18 Leading by example matters if there is already consensus regarding your position One can lead by example by not smoking in 2012 but leading by example in 1970 would have had little effect I don t want to speak for Joe Romm but I think that is the main point in his new book If we hope to lead humanity toward a more sustainable future we cannot only lead by example we have to lead rhetorically I ve found it much easier to set an example than to persuade another person that my example matters Leading by example is a late stage effort Early adopters are annoying to almost everyone We have to explain our position clearly and I don t think we re winning in that arena 28 Julia Hargreaves says 20 Aug 2012 at 11 35 PM It was you who brought up language which finally moves me to voice my long held problem with Realclimate tl dr Too long didn t read All your posts and this one is no exception have between 2 and 3 times too much tedious prose for my knat like attention span The problem is not entirely mine since I can read Ed Yong s work with no difficulty Not Exactly Rocket Science So I hope that you can put this book to good effect and I look forward to one day making it to the end of one of your posts Remedial action how about a 3 point summary at the start of your posts like GRL has Or prize giveaways in the final paragraph Or gosh I dunno wit humour Or even humor sic Response Jules each of us entitled to our opinions And our sense of what constitutes wit and humor is quite variable But my short response you ll prefer me on twitter MichaelEMann No more than 140 characters I promise Mike 29 Doug Bostrom says 21 Aug 2012 at 12 15 AM Jeffrey Davis says 20 Aug 2012 at 11 45 AM One metaphor I ve long thought needed to be included in the debate is that of insurance Yes Denskepticons are constantly banging on about spending trillions to prevent a problem that might happen in the future The current annual global expenditure on insurance is in the 4 6 trillion range depending on what scope you put on insurance vs reinsurance etc Every year from now til doomsday Our active imaginations are already at play frequently to our benefit 30 Edward Greisch says 21 Aug 2012 at 12 35 AM 12 eric There was at one time a law against advertising falsely in the US The law didn t last long Nor was it enforced much Sorry I don t remember dates but it was during my lifetime And now the Supreme Court has confused money with speech Money is not speech This is a constitutional problem Here are some of the problems The average person cannot tell the scientist from the liar but the average person has a moral aversion to being lied to The average person cannot learn enough science to figure out who is the liar on his her own Or maybe even with help The Authoritarians by Bob Altemeyer Free download from http home cc umanitoba ca altemey Some many people believe whatever some leader tells them without checking for self contradictions Logic is not innate with most people http www ft com intl cms s 2 be23cd60 e6d5 11e1 af33 00144feab49a html axzz249ZcwM6i It s more God and nature s dictates rather than a man made event the Missouri farmer said this week as he harvested a corn crop one quarter of its normal size Climate scepticism sic among farmers helps explain why carbon emissions are off the US legislative agenda despite the hottest temperatures on record GW itself does not convince those who see the evidence first hand and in their wallets So you think better rhetoric will help Humans are stubborn to an absurd degree Only humans Will they get the message when there is no food in the grocery store 31 Poul Henning Kamp says 21 Aug 2012 at 3 28 AM 15 I don t think Nuremberg is going to be relevant there is far more money to be made by establishing product liability and negligence in US courts I belive a number of such cases are already underway including a class action representing americans youth as defined by some age restriction below the voting age That said I would hate to hold Watt s legal liability insurance in the years to come 32 chriskoz says 21 Aug 2012 at 3 36 AM Great review Mike In the spirit of the power of metaphors I d like to bring one more similar to the fire insurance Q denial GW of 0 8C is tiny compared to the T swings of unpredictable weather And they scientists say they cannot prove GW caused the event like US2012 drought right A Yes weather is like a bull in a rink strong unpredictable And your life is like a piece of china treasure in the same rink that you must share You cannot prove that the bull smashes the

    Original URL path: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/08/language-intelligence-lessons-on-persuasion-from-jesus-shakespeare-lincoln-and-lady-gaga-a-review/ (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • The IPCC SREX: the report is finally out. « RealClimate
    in these kinds of discussions Higher temperature means more heat energy moved around in the atmospheric process More energy means stronger extremes as the process stays the same Details they our grandchildren yours and mine shall know with high confidence in a hundred years In the meantime there is no reason to believe that more energy in the process means no change or less variability and extremes Just to add to this point I like to stress that scientific debates should avoid becoming dogmatic and that phrases must be placed in the right context The whole point is to try to get as close to the truths as possible not to advocate for a certain position rasmus 14 dennis baker says 29 Mar 2012 at 10 55 PM The extreme risk is that you fail to address the primary issue that now presents the necessity of adaption Adaptation in my mind means adapting infrastructural services to a new energy source to replace the fossil fuel powered electrical generating facilities http dingo care2 com pictures causes uploads 2012 01 GHG emitters 2010 jpg 15 Floyd Earl Smith says 30 Mar 2012 at 2 53 AM It s interesting and a little sad that the well attested long term trends get so little attention for the overall problems of climate change yet extreme weather which this report wants to delink from climate change gets so much 16 Kevin McKinney says 30 Mar 2012 at 7 24 AM extreme weather which this report wants to delink from climate change Huh That s not what I get from the report It s 500 whatever pages exploring precisely the linkages between these two things just its existence by itself is a pretty impressive testament to how seriously those linkages are taken Especially since the authors aren t paid for the work And there are a great many statements explicitly describing linkages not surprisingly For a more or less random example on p 235 we find that Extreme events will have greater impacts on sectors with closer links to climate such as water agriculture and food security forestry health and tourism For example while it is not currently possible to reliably project specific changes at the catchment scale there is high confidence that changes in climate have the potential to seriously affect water management systems If you re referring to the sentence quoted above in 6 then let me remind you that s a high order consequence with lots of intervening variables between climate change and normalized economic loss 17 Sebastian says 30 Mar 2012 at 9 43 AM Yes ask him to show his equations and data rasmus I did on Twitter Will see if he responds but seems pretty clear to me he was misrepresenting SREX Seems to me that if there s a high degree of certainty about loaded rolls of the Wx dice into the future you can t dismiss out of hand as he has that said loaded rolls of the dice have been at least a qualitative factor in prior Wx extremes since the AGW signal appeared 18 Aaron Lewis says 30 Mar 2012 at 12 11 PM The composition of the atmosphere affects the weather All of the weather all the time We have changed the composition of the atmosphere We are affecting the weather all of the weather all the time And this goes back as far as people have been significantly affecting the atmosphere By 1970 there was a clear signature of anthropogenic carbon in the atmosphere That means some fraction of the energy for the 1974 Super Outbreak of Tornadoes came from AGW Honestly would that outbreak have occurred if the atmospheric concentration had been at preindustrial levels for the decade 1964 to 1973 If the atmospheric carbon had been at preindustrial levels there would have been less energy available to generate and drive those storms Without the energy collected by anthropogenic CO2 the storms would have been different 19 Sebastian says 30 Mar 2012 at 12 21 PM Thanks Aaron for a more elegant wording of what I was fumbling about trying to say 20 Walter Pearce says 30 Mar 2012 at 12 59 PM Thank you for that Aaron Lewis I ve often wondered why that link between changing the atmosphere s composition and therefore its properties isn t made more often and more explicitly to lay audiences After all the principle is one we witness and indeed employ on a daily basis if only to sweeten our coffee or tea True skepticism would invoke this principle to ask why changing the atmosphere s composition wouldn t change its properties 21 Paul S says 30 Mar 2012 at 1 25 PM Aaron Lewis As you say we ve altered important factors involved in the climate weather system Therefore we can be virtually certain this tornado outbreak wouldn t have occurred exactly as it did if humans hadn t been around However that doesn t necessarily mean a similar event wouldn t have happened at a different time or in a different location It s not a simple or obvious thing to suggest that x number of tornadoes extra were caused by human industrial emissions It s possible even that this outbreak would have been more extreme had our emissions not been there to damp it somehow possible a priori I don t know anything about this event other than what you ve said Also note that carbon is not the only player here It s possible that sulphate aerosols may have been more important in terms of industrial climate influence at that time over the US 22 SecularAnimist says 30 Mar 2012 at 2 05 PM Aaron Lewis wrote We have changed the composition of the atmosphere We are affecting the weather all of the weather all the time Exactly We now live on an anthropogenically warmed planet There is no longer any such thing on Earth as weather that is unaffected by anthropogenic global warming So the weather is changing as a result of AGW now And after 30 years or so of changing weather scientists will be able to look at the records and say Oh look It s climate change 23 Trent1492 says 30 Mar 2012 at 2 21 PM Will this report be incorporated into the WG1 report I ask because I wonder if the new research by Trenbeth and others on extremes would be included 24 Jack Maloney says 30 Mar 2012 at 2 46 PM 12 6 Jack Here we go again Parsing sentences from here and there and you can prove anything you want It is a big volume with many sentences There is no end and no sense in these kinds of discussions Comment by Pekka Kostamo My quotations from SREX aren t parsed from here and there but clearly related statements regarding the absence of trends in storm tornado and flood impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change I highlight them not to prove anything but simply to inform people who continue to claim otherwise phrases must be placed in the right context The whole point is to try to get as close to the truths as possible not to advocate for a certain position rasmus When denial isn t possible context is often a defense especially in forums where brevity makes context difficult But if you insist on more context try this Most studies of long term disaster loss records attribute these increases in losses to increasing exposure of people and assets in at risk areas Miller et al 2008 Bouwer 2011 and to underlying societal trends demographic economic political and social that shape vulnerability to impacts Pielke Jr et al 2005 Bouwer et al 2007 Some authors suggest that a natural or anthropogenic climate change signal can be found in the records of disaster losses e g Mills 2005 Höppe and Grimm 2009 but their work is in the nature of reviews and commentary rather than empirical research Response No one here is discussing disaster loss records so I m not sure of the relevance of your quote Please stick to the topic at hand gavin 25 Sebastian says 30 Mar 2012 at 4 43 PM Roger Pielke Jr s response to Rasmus suggestion he show his work on Twitter Thanks for your interest in my work all data and equations found here http sciencepolicy colorado edu publications Am I correct in assuming this is me being told to go fornicate myself 26 Lynn Vincentnathan says 30 Mar 2012 at 4 58 PM Here s what my blogging sparring opponent had to say about the report I ve tried and tried to get you to actually read what you link to in what you think supports your argument Did you actually READ it not really I have a day job IN CHAPTER 4 Quote There is medium evidence and high agreement that long term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change Quote The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados Quote The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses It The report even takes care of tying up a loose end that has allowed some commentators to avoid the scientific literature Quote Some authors suggest that a natural or anthropogenic climate change signal can be found in the records of disaster losses e g Mills 2005 Höppe and Grimm 2009 but their work is in the nature of reviews and commentary rather than empirical research The last statement by the OFFICAL IPCC Kinda puts Stefan Rahmstorf s latest Alarmist Claims book you peddle in deep question This is the same blogger who thinks CO2 lasts shorter in the atmosphere than CH4 bec it is heavier I tried to explain is was bec CH4 degrades faster to which David Archer asked of me You are spending time reading this person s wisdom why But I also just googled those quotes and turned up every denialist site imaginable so they re making the rounds So I m terribly sorry for what this person says but I just thought you all should know what the denialists are saying 27 Lynn Vincentnathan says 30 Mar 2012 at 11 44 PM RE 25 I read those quotes in context and came up with my own response Here s some initial look see into those infamous quotes that seem to contradict the very purpose of the IPCC s recent disaster management report QUOTES 1 2 There is medium evidence and high agreement that long term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados the next sentence after this 2nd quote being Most studies related increases found in normalized hurricane losses in the United States since the 1970s Miller et al 2008 Schmidt et al 2009 Nordhaus 2010 to the natural variability observed since that time Miller et al 2008 Pielke Jr et al 2008 Bouwer and Botzen 2011 demonstrated that other normalized records of total economic and insured losses for the same series of hurricanes exhibit no significant trends in losses since 1900 QUOTE 3 in that same page range The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses is followed by the conveniently omitted phrase although some studies did find recent increases in flood losses related in part to changes in intense rainfall events Fengqing et al 2005 Chang et al 2009 From reading these quotes in context within pp 268 270 it seems to me this is more about economic losses due to hurricanes floods human human structure exposure and vulnerability and not about overall possible changing patterns in such extreme events I can well understand the findings indicating such increases in losses are more due to more structures and more expensive structures being in harm s way over the past many years or decades and also that is very difficult to atttribute such losses even when normalized to GW It s hard enough to attribute increased flooding or hurricanes in the past to GW since these are not everyday events as temperature is there have been some studies that have attempted such attribution re hurricanes and floods I ll see if I can dig them up Trying to attribute economic losses from hurricanes and floods to GW even if they are normalized which means those relative rare events would have to actually hit some economically valuable structures a still rarer event would be like trying to claim a needle is somewhere in a haystack In other words the already meager dataset would have to exclude all those hurricanes that go out to sea never hitting land and those that hit land but not where the economically valuable property is People who know stats understand the smaller the numbers the harder to establish trend or cause and effect Nevertheless reinsurance companies like Munich Re are very concerned about the impacts of global warming and I don t think you can even buy hurricane insurance in some parts of Florida anymore Also my dean an expert in disaster studies is quite concerned about AGW and its projected impact on increasing various disaster events So what do we do wait until the wolf of GW huffs and puffs and blows down and floods enough houses so that we can finally attribute this worsening situation of normalized economic losses to GW in say 2029 then start to mitigating GW and take some adaptation strategies Now I know adaptation would be very expensive like building stronger buildings and higher stronger levees so I d suggest starting with mitigation which saves lots of money then plowing in some of that money into adaptation measures The only problem is adapation for a 4C warmer world may not be adequate for a 5C warmer world which we or our progeny could be seeing by the end of this century in a BAU or greater than business as usual which is closer to reality scenario And I would suggest reading the summary report and the whole report before taking a few sentences out of context and a phrase out of its full sentence from some questionable denialist blog sites 28 Toby Thaler says 31 Mar 2012 at 12 01 AM This is a great set of posts thank you very much Aaron Lewis 18 is most eloquent change is well upon us 29 Roddy Campbell says 31 Mar 2012 at 6 45 AM RPJr has posted this comment on his SREX blog post can you comment RealClimate is up to their old tricks in disallowing me from commenting at their site when I simply submitted a comment pointing to my papers Was his comment Off Topic hence the snip Your reCaptcha is really hard btw Response No idea what he is talking about I can see no trace of any comment he has left And for reference RP Jr has numerous comments on this blog many of which have been tendentious in the extreme but very few of which have ever been snipped But misrepresenting the state of affairs is very much one of his old tricks gavin 30 Mike Roddy says 31 Mar 2012 at 8 42 AM Slightly OT but the weakest part of IPCC reports has always been forestry Conferences are imbedded with industry shills and timber exporters like Canada keep recalculating logging emissions to make them look better while the US won t even release them Country forestry conference reports are often contentious and compromised as exporters seek rule changes such as HWP sequestration allowances By comparison behavior of the atmposphere is straightforward The response of biological systems to global warming is almost infinitely complex and not hard to spin The terrestrial carbon cycle is in the hundreds of millions of tons of CO2 per year Ratios are being altered as forest mortality is on a steep uptick something not well reflected in IPCC And it s easier to focus on fossil fuel smokestacks than figuring out how to manage global forests I hope RC tries to encourage our best carbon forestry people to work on IPCC They have not been invited where industry foresters have time and money on their hands This is a critical shortcoming of climate science that needs to be addressed 31 Hank Roberts says 31 Mar 2012 at 8 46 AM Lynn Gavin do a web search for some of the stuff being posted it s not just single cases of confused individuals posting their own word salad It s professional grade PR at work I think That single property loss quote RPJr began passing around shows up hundreds of times within 24 hours That s not because hundreds of people happen to have read 500 pages understood it well and picked the same bit to blog about It s to shout down any discussion of the actual content That s why it s filling up blog threads and news stories It s being forced Look how it spreads https encrypted google com search q Pielke 2B 22long term 2Btrends 22 2B 22normalized 2Blosses 22 22attributed 22 22natural 22 22anthropogenic 22 22climate 2Bchange 22 I keep hoping some communications researcher is watching how these chunks spread 32 vukcevic says 31 Mar 2012 at 9 10 AM Lynn Vincentnathan says 30 Mar 2012 at 11 44 PM re hurricanes Here is projection of the Atlantic hurricanes probability for the next decade http www vukcevic talktalk net AHA htm it is above normal but no apparent excessive increase on the previous decade 33 Scottie says 31 Mar 2012 at 9 59 AM Re 13 Higher temperature means more heat energy moved

    Original URL path: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/03/the-ipcc-srex-the-report-is-finally-out/ (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Reviews « RealClimate
    non linear dynamics in response to climate change Considering that many biophysical systems are webs that are considerably more complex than the examples provided it takes little imagination to realize the potentially high levels of unpredictability that are quickly reached And this should give any reasonable person and society concern about the consequences of forcing the climate into a state that is without precedent in modern society Science is difficult enough when equilibrium states are the study focus let alone when strongly forced and thus transient Environmental health also includes non biological stressors such as environmental chemicals food water and air quality social upheavals etc Epstein and Ferber address these broader issues as well For example one chapter is devoted entirely to air quality composition and its effects on a wide ranging and chronic disease asthma They also recognize that global change is not just climatic They describe for example the multiple causes of health effects in places like Honduras resulting from the combined effects of mangrove clearing and shrimp farming gold mining El Nino changes and hurricanes each contributing its part to an unhealthy and unsustainable condition Drs Paul Epstein and Steve Gloyd and a Mozambican colleague in Caia Mozambique in 1978 L to R Figure 1 from book The book is also not shy about engaging controversial topics or discussing the disinformation campaign For example Kenyan malarial epidemiologist Andrew Githeko was targeted a decade ago after his model based predictions of the spread of malaria into the highlands of East Africa where it is currently expanding but was historically absent due to the temperature limitations that altitude brings Several of the tactics of denial that are well known to RC readers are discussed Nor are the authors afraid to discuss issues in the socio political world that drive many of the human behaviors that are leading to climate change as well as the unequal suffering that will be experienced due to inequalities in wealth And neither are they reluctant to address the multiple social and environmental costs of fossil fuels such as coal Once trained in making connections across disciplines well the habit tends to express itself In the discussions of climate per se there are a few minor inaccuracies in an otherwise sound discussion of what is known However none of these has any bearing on the bigger picture portrayed For instance the book discusses the essentially non existent effect of El Nino Southern Oscillation on the Gulf stream it is possible that the authors actually had the ocean currents off the Peruvian and Equatorial coasts in mind There is also a misconception in the book s introduction about the strength of a greenhouse and the thickness of the glass panes but this does not translate to the greenhouse effect This is however noted later in the book so the inconsistency is just a glitch The book also asserts that global warming will lead to more storms which is still a disputed issue The situation regarding glaciers on Mt Kenya is probably more complicated than just a question about temperature changes in precipitation pattern will also affect their mass balance The authors are critical towards certain multinational corporations discussing for example the role of economic hit men e g John Perkins And although the book covers many topics it does not discuss population growth and it touches on communication issues only lightly in discussing why the world has so far failed to act on climate change This is somewhat ironic given that the book is one of the best examples we have yet seen regarding the effective communication of climate change issues It suffices to mention Climategate Wikileaks and social networks in recent developments in Northern Africa to understand the power of information disinformation and communication in molding public opinion The book also mentions Norway as a shining example regarding the tackling of climate change but the world is more nuanced Norway also pushed for more oil drilling in the Arctic and is involved in tar sands in Canada as well as oil exploration in Libya Also much of the surplus that Norway gains from pumping oil is invested into the same kinds of corporations as those Epstein and Ferber describe as part of the problem But there is much more to be learned from the book than just the various technical issues discussed Just as important is the very evident concern with human welfare and justice these have clearly motivated a very large part of Epstein s life work as well as several of those discussed in the book One particularly good example is the rather amazing story of the Honduran doctor Juan Almendares and his lifelong dedication to the welfare of rural and or marginalized people there The importance of this human aspect in solving the impending global climate change problem is most certainly not to be overlooked and it in fact forms a kind of subliminal undercurrent upon which the various technical discussions in the book all ride Paul Epstein and Dan Ferber have created in this book an outstanding synthesis of climate change and human environmental health concerns It is born of a lifetime s work and addresses topics that will potentially affect a very large number of people This is a great and needed contribution and we recommend it without reservation Comments pop up 41 Handbook in Denialism Filed under Climate Science Reviews rasmus 4 May 2011 It would not surprise me if the denialists would deny the existence of the new book by Haydn Washington and John Cook skepticalscience com Climate Change Denial Heads in the Sand Somehow I don t think they will read it but they are not target group of this book either Anyway denialism is according to the book a common human trait we should all know somebody who deny one thing thing or another Furthermore denial is not the same as being skeptical either and Washington and Cook argue it is quite the opposite Hence the

    Original URL path: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/extras/reviews/page/2/ (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Reviews « RealClimate
    10 1016 j gloplacha 2011 09 005 Comments pop up 22 Language Intelligence Lessons on persuasion from Jesus Shakespeare Lincoln and Lady Gaga A Review Filed under Communicating Climate Reviews mike 20 August 2012 Any book that manages to link together the lessons of the Bible Shakespeare Abraham Lincoln and Lady Gaga not to mention Martin Luther King Winston Churchill Bob Dylan and Jerry Seinfeld can t be all bad With Joe Romm s new book Language Intelligence it is in fact ALL good There are lessons galore for the scientists among us who value public outreach and communication The book is a de facto field guide for recognizing and assimilating many of the key tools of persuasive language and speech something that is ever more important to science communicators who face the daunting challenge of having to communicate technical and nuanced material to an audience largely unfamiliar with the lexicon of science sometimes agnostic or even unreceptive to its message and in the case of contentious areas like climate change and evolution already subject to a concerted campaign to misinform and confuse them More Comments pop up 171 The IPCC SREX the report is finally out Filed under Climate Science RC Forum Reporting on climate Reviews statistics rasmus 29 March 2012 Some of us have been waiting quite a while now especially since the road tour meant to present the Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation starting in Oslo on January 24th this year The summary for policymakers SPM was released already in 18 November 2011 Kampala and now the report is finally available link More Comments pop up 39 Older Entries Site Google Custom Search Recent Comments What is the best description of the greenhouse effect Jim Eager What is the best description of the greenhouse effect Patrick Eriksson What is the best description of the greenhouse effect Kevin McKinney Anti scientists Carbomontanus What is the best description of the greenhouse effect Spencer Marvel et al 2015 Part III Response to Nic Lewis SteveS What is the best description of the greenhouse effect Chris Colose Blizzard Jonas and the slowdown of the Gulf Stream System doiknow What is the best description of the greenhouse effect James Powell Unforced Variations Feb 2016 Jim Galasyn With Inline Responses Marvel et al 2015 Part III Response to Nic Lewis SteveS Marvel et al 2015 Part III Response to Nic Lewis steve s Marvel et al 2015 Part III Response to Nic Lewis Andrew Kerber Blizzard Jonas and the slowdown of the Gulf Stream System Hank Roberts Blizzard Jonas and the slowdown of the Gulf Stream System doiknow Marvel et al 2015 Part III Response to Nic Lewis MartinM Anti scientists Don McKenzie Marvel et al 2015 Part III Response to Nic Lewis Matt Skaggs Anti scientists mikeworst New On line Classes and Models Marcus Pages Acronym index Data Sources Categories Climate Science Aerosols Arctic and Antarctic Carbon cycle Climate impacts Climate

    Original URL path: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/extras/reviews/%5C (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • False Claims by McIntyre and McKitrick regarding the Mann et al. (1998) reconstruction « RealClimate
    yield a reconstructed Northern Hemisphere mean temperature history quite similar to that of MBH98 and demonstrate skill against independent 19th century instrumental 2 data RE 0 39 0 33 respectively only moderately lower than the MBH98 result RE 0 51 The central hockey stick result of MBH98 is thus quite clearly seen to be robust to the specious criticisms raised by MM with regard to the centering convention used in the PCA of proxy data networks or the infilling of missing values in certain proxy series FIGURE 3 Comparison of MBH98 reconstruction from AD 1400 1980 with alternative reconstructions from AD 1400 1971 based on the direct use of the individual 95 proxy series available back to AD 1404 yellow and the 94 proxy series all 95 series except the St Anne series discussed above available back to AD 1400 green Shown for comparison is the instrumental NH annual mean record 1856 1980 red The MBH98 reconstruction was based on a stepwise approach employing increasingly more proxy data over time while the other two reconstructions for simplicity are performed with the same frozen proxy network over the entire interval Given that each of the criticisms of MBH98 raised by MM are demonstrably false one might well be led to wonder how MM using the MBH98 method and their putative corrected version of the MBH98 proxy dataset were able to obtain a reconstruction so at odds with the MBH98 reconstruction and virtually all existing reconstructions in particular in its apparent indication of anomalous 15th century warmth Rather than correcting the MBH98 proxy data set we demonstrate that the reconstruction of MM resulted instead from their selective censoring of key indicators from the MBH98 proxy dataset Indeed we are able to reproduce the MM reconstruction of anomalous 15th century warmth when the entire ITRDB North American data set and the Queen Anne series are censored from the proxy network Figure 4 These data in fact 70 of all of the proxy data used by MBH98 prior to AD 1600 were unjustifiably censored from the MBH98 dataset by McIntyre and McKitrick 2003 in their original analysis see Jones and Mann 2004 and Rutherford et al 2004 for a discussion MM in their more recent rejected submission to Nature instead filtered out the hockey stick pattern of low frequency variability in the North American ITRDB data through the incorrect PCA truncation described above which censors this pattern by retaining too few Principal Components series in the data As discussed above the MBH98 reconstruction and the variants of the reconstruction i e Figures 2 and 3 that address the various spurious criticisms raised by MM each pass statistical verification In stark contrast our reproduction of the MM reconstruction demonstrates that their reconstruction dramatically fails statistical verification see Figure 5 with an RE score 0 76 that is statistically indistinguishable from the results expected for a purely random estimate as a reminder RE 0 exhibits no skill and RE 1 is the average value expected for

    Original URL path: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=8 (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Temperature Variations in Past Centuries and the so-called "Hockey Stick" « RealClimate
    and V Brovkin Assessing climate forcings of the earth system for the past millennium Geophys Res Lett 30 6 doi 10 1029 2002GL016639 2003 Bertrand C M F Loutre M Crucifix and A Berger Climate of the Last millennium a sensitivity study Tellus 54 A 221 244 2002 Briffa K R and T J Osborn Blowing Hot and Cold Science 295 2227 2228 2002 Briffa K R T J Osborn F H Schweingruber I C Harris P D Jones S G Shiyatov and E A Vaganov Low frequency temperature variations from a northern tree ring density network J Geophys Res 106 2929 2941 2001 Cook E R J Esper and R D D Arrigo Extra tropical Northern Hemisphere land temperature variability over the past 1000 years Quat Sci Rev 23 2063 2074 2004 Crowley T J Causes of Climate Change over the Past 1000 Years Science 289 270 277 2000 Crowley T J and T Lowery How Warm Was the Medieval Warm Period Ambio 29 51 54 2000 Esper J E R Cook and F H Schweingruber Low frequency signals in long tree line chronologies for reconstructing past temperature variability Science 295 2250 2253 2002 Gerber S F Joos P Brügger T F Stocker M E Mann S Sitch and M Scholze Constraining temperature variations over the last millennium by comparing simulated and observed atmospheric CO 2 Climate Dynamics 20 281 299 2003 Gonzalez Rouco F H von Storch and E Zorita Deep soil temperature as proxy for surface air temperature in a coupled model simulation of the last thousand years Geophys Res Lett 30 2116 doi 10 1029 2003GL018264 2003 Huang S H N Pollack and P Y Shen Temperature Trends Over the Past Five Centuries Reconstructed from Borehole Temperature Nature 403 756 758 2000 Jones P D K R Briffa T P Barnett and S F B Tett High resolution palaeoclimatic records for the last millennium Integration interpretation and comparison with General Circulation Model control run temperatures Holocene 8 455 471 1998 Jones P D M New D E Parker S Martin and I G Rigor Surface air temperature and its changes over the past 150 years Reviews of Geophysics 37 173 199 1999 Jones P D T J Osborn and K R Briffa The Evolution of Climate Over the Last Millennium Science 292 662 667 2001 Mann M E R S Bradley and M K Hughes Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium Inferences Uncertainties and Limitations Geophysical Research Letters 26 759 762 1999 Mann M E Jones P D Global surface temperature over the past two millennia Geophysical Research Letters 30 15 1820 doi 10 1029 2003GL017814 2003 Mann M E Rutherford S Bradley R S Hughes M K Keimig F T Optimal Surface Temperature Reconstructions Using Terrestrial Borehole Data Journal of Geophysical Research 108 D7 doi 10 1029 2002JD002532 2003 Comments pop up 6 6 Responses to Temperature Variations in Past Centuries and the so called Hockey Stick 1 donald baker says 14 Dec 2004 at 10 42 AM Dear RC I am grateful to find this site For the most part it succeeds in presenting a scientific non political tone with lots of useful information As long as you maintain this non political stance the site can do great good Science is becoming more and more politicized and is in danger on certain subjects such as this of losing all credibility in the way that social and political science have done generally As a result we get The Day After Tomorrow and State of Fear both highly political the former hysterical as well and obviously partisan representations of issues If you can avoid such phrases as right wing or left wing you can contribute much to this important discussion Yours Don Baker 2 Steve Funk says 14 Dec 2004 at 2 12 PM Does anyone know what caused the medieval warming I would assume it is not anthropogenic Response In the modeling studies shown in Figure 2 above the relatively warm temperatures between AD 800 1200 or so are due to a combination of factors including 1 a relative lack of explosive tropical volcanic eruptions which can a substantial global cooling influence in comparison with later centuries and 2 relatively high estimated values of solar irradiance though solar reconstructions exhibiting very large century scale variability such as that used in the GKSS simulation shown in Figure 2 have recently been called into question see this article in Science by Foukal et al and references therein mike How do we know that these processes are not responsible for current climatic variation Response The same simulations referred to above indicate that natural factors such as volcanoes or solar variations are not sufficient to produce the observed 20th century forcing The observed 20th century warming ins these simulations can only be produced through the addition of anthropogenic forcing to the simulations mike How sensitive are estimates of historic temparature variation to changes lasting less than 30 years Response In general quite sensitive many historical and proxy climate indicators resolve year to year temperature variations quite well mike Why is the 6th century cooling a disaster which caused widespread starvation in the British Isles shown as a relatively small blip in the graphs Response This again gets at the important distinction discussed here see myth 2 between regional e g British and truly hemispheric or global scale temperature changes mike 3 Steve Funk says 14 Dec 2004 at 6 40 PM This again gets at the important distinction discussed here see myth 2 between regional e g British and truly hemispheric or global scale temperature changes http news independent co uk world science medical story jsp story 487550 There are probably much better sources but the sixth century cooling is variously attributed to a comet or Krakatoa neither of which happened in the western hemisphere Why would one assume it is just a regional phenomenon Response It is very difficult to to diagnose the potential climatic response to

    Original URL path: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=7 (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive



  •