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".
  • Huracanes y calentamiento global ¿Hay conexión? « RealClimate
    interest in the link between global warming and hurricanes A new study published this week in Science Express attempts to further nail down the link between warmer ocean 305 网络时代的科学 共同的努力 at 图林中文译站 学贯中西 says 25 Aug 2007 at 2 48 AM 在有些领域 印刷本杂志不能跟上 学科 发展的步伐 Gavin Schmidt对此补充道 他是美国航空航天局 NASA 下属设在纽约的Goddard空间研究协会的研究员 目前与其他的大气科学家一起在RealClimate org开了博客 Michael Mann 另外一个RealClimate的博客写手 同时也是宾夕法尼亚州立大学地球系统科学中心的主任 说道 博客通过设定写作规范有助于减少噪声 他引用了一个最近的帖子来作为例证 这是一个探讨飓风是否与全球变暖有关联的帖子 参见 306 Remembering Katrina It s Getting Hot In Here says 4 Sep 2007 at 7 52 PM storm in a season with 26 major hurricanes Here is an article from 2005 discussing some of the scientific questions surrounding Katrina and global warming More than a story about global warming Hurricane Katrina 307 Tragic Planet Convenient Untruths says 16 Oct 2007 at 9 13 AM does Gore state that Katrina was caused by global warming We discussed this attribution issue back in 2005 and what we said then still holds Individual hurricanes cannot be attributed to global warming 308 Responding to a Defeatist Atmoz says 21 Oct 2007 at 12 53 PM global warming when this different weather is being described And naturally so From realclimate is that there is no way to prove that a single weather event either was or was not 309 Global Warming Disinformation says 22 Oct 2007 at 2 06 PM How well does the film handle the science Admirably I thought It is remarkably up to date with reference to some of the very latest research Discussion of recent changes in Antarctica and Greenland are expertly laid out He also does a very good job in talking about the relationship between sea surface temperature and hurricane intensity As one might expect he uses the Katrina disaster to underscore the point that climate change may have serious impacts on society but he doesn t highlight the connection any more than is appropriate see our post on this here 310 Understanding Global Warming Understanding Global Warming says 30 Dec 2007 at 4 02 AM The research though found an intensity trend in Pacific and Indian ocean storms as well This article addresses the issue 311 Understanding Global Warming says 6 Jan 2008 at 9 09 PM The research though found an intensity trend in Pacific and Indian ocean storms as well This article addresses the issue 312 Marginalized Action Dinosaur Mikchael Crichton State of fear NOAA says 8 Jan 2008 at 11 03 AM http www realclimate org index php p 181 313 rc edu says 19 May 2008 at 1 25 AM the RC folks RC is doing a good job of providing information on current topics that are http www realclimate org index php archives 2005 09 hurricanes and global warming the lightwave shades projecthttp amber rc arizona edu lw shades LRCsCopyright 2007 NFLRC Contact 314 Katrina Re Visited Art of Teaching Science says 31 Aug 2008 at 7 36 PM of the effects of a superstorm years before Katrina explore the aftermath of Katrina as well the scientific relationship between intense hurricanes

    Original URL path: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/09/hurricanes-and-global-warming/comment-page-7/ (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Myth vs. Fact Regarding the "Hockey Stick" « RealClimate
    J T Rutherford S Trenberth K E Wigley T M L Response to Comment on On Past Temperatures and Anomalous Late 20th Century Warmth Eos 84 473 2003 The same factors may compromise the behavior of the Esper et al 2002 Cook et al 2004 reconstructions in recent decades as well These factors however do not appear to be relevant to other multiple proxy based reconstructions such as those referred to above mike Whatever the reason for the divergence it would seem to suggest that the practice of grafting the thermometer record onto a proxy temperature record as I believe was done in the case of the hockey stick is dubious to say the least Response No researchers in this field have ever to our knowledge grafted the thermometer record onto any reconstruction It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim which we usually find originating from industry funded climate disinformation websites appearing in this forum Most proxy reconstructions end somewhere around 1980 for the reasons discussed above Often as in the comparisons we show on this site the instrumental record which extends to present is shown along with the reconstructions and clearly distinguished from them e g highlighted in red as here Most studies seek to validate a reconstruction by showing that it independently reproduces instrumental estimates e g early temperature data available during the 18th and 19th century that were not used to calibrate the proxy data When this is done it is indeed possible to quantitatively compare the instrumental record of the past few decades with earlier estimates from the proxy reconstruction within the context of the estimated uncertainties in the reconstructed values again see the comparisons here with the instrumental record clearly distinguished in red the proxy reconstructions indicated by e g blue or green and the uncertainties indicated by shading mike Have you any comments on this Response See above mike 5 John Finn says 23 Dec 2004 at 5 30 AM In your responses above you say Most proxy reconstructions end somewhere around 1980 for the reasons discussed above Then why does the Cook paper comment on the under estimation of actual warming after 1982 There is a graph at the top of Page 2 which shows the proxy reconstructions extending well beyond 1980 I have just looked at the Briffa study also referenced by yourselves which also shows reconstructions beyond 1980 Response Please carefully read the response to your previous post Further information is provided in the Jones and Mann 2004 review paper which is linked to above Unfortunately due to other demands on our time this will have to be the last word on the matter for the present mike You also say While paleoclimatologists are attempting to update many important proxy records to the present this is a costly and labor intensive activity While this may be true I would have thought that this would be seen as a major priority in order to provide confirmation and validation of the

    Original URL path: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/langswitch_lang/sp/ (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Hockey Stick « RealClimate
    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 modelling El Nino Geoengineering Greenhouse gases Hurricanes Instrumental Record IPCC Oceans Paleoclimate Sun earth connections Communicating Climate Reporting on climate skeptics Extras Attic Comment Policy Contributor Bio s FAQ Glossary In the News Reviews Supplemental data Tutorials hydrological cycle Open thread RC Forum Scientific practice statistics The Bore Hole Books Contributors Highlights Dummies Guide to the latest Hockey Stick controversy El Nino Global Warming and Anomalous U S Winter Warmth Hurricanes and Global Warming Myth vs Fact Regarding the Hockey Stick On attribution On mismatches between models and observations On Sensitivity Part I Tropical Glacier Retreat Water Vapour feedback or forcing Welcome to RealClimate Other Opinions A Few Things Ill

    Original URL path: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=16 (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Little Ice Age (“LIA”) « RealClimate
    impeded the navigation of a Northwest Passage in the Canadian Arctic during the early 19th century However an exhaustive study of 19th century explorer logs for the region yields no evidence of conditions that would be considered unusually cold by modern standards See also Medieval Warm Period Comments Off on Little Ice Age LIA Comments are closed 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 modelling El Nino Geoengineering Greenhouse gases Hurricanes Instrumental Record IPCC Oceans Paleoclimate Sun earth connections Communicating Climate Reporting on climate skeptics Extras Attic Comment Policy Contributor

    Original URL path: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=32 (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Medieval Warm Period (“MWP”) « RealClimate
    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 modelling El Nino Geoengineering Greenhouse gases Hurricanes Instrumental Record IPCC Oceans Paleoclimate Sun earth connections Communicating Climate Reporting on climate skeptics Extras Attic Comment Policy Contributor Bio s FAQ Glossary In the News Reviews Supplemental data Tutorials hydrological cycle Open thread RC Forum Scientific practice statistics The Bore Hole Books Contributors Highlights Dummies Guide to the latest Hockey Stick controversy El Nino Global Warming and Anomalous U S Winter Warmth Hurricanes and Global Warming Myth vs Fact Regarding the Hockey Stick On attribution On mismatches between models and observations On Sensitivity Part I Tropical Glacier Retreat Water Vapour feedback or forcing

    Original URL path: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=33 (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Climate Field Reconstruction (“CFR”) « RealClimate
    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 modelling El Nino Geoengineering Greenhouse gases Hurricanes Instrumental Record IPCC Oceans Paleoclimate Sun earth connections Communicating Climate Reporting on climate skeptics Extras Attic Comment Policy Contributor Bio s FAQ Glossary In the News Reviews Supplemental data Tutorials hydrological cycle Open thread RC Forum Scientific practice statistics The Bore Hole Books Contributors Highlights Dummies Guide to the latest Hockey Stick controversy El Nino Global Warming and Anomalous U S Winter Warmth Hurricanes and Global Warming Myth vs Fact Regarding the Hockey Stick On attribution On mismatches between models and observations On Sensitivity Part I Tropical Glacier Retreat Water Vapour feedback or forcing Welcome to RealClimate Other Opinions A Few Things Ill Considered Accuweather Climate Blog And Then There s Physics Andrew Dessler Brave New Climate C2ES Christian Science Monitor Climate Change Education Climate Communication Climate Matters Columbia Climate Science Watch ClimateArk ClimateConservative Org Climatedenial org ClimatePhys ClimateProgress ClimateSight Cntr for Enviro Journalism Deep Climate Deltoid deSmogBlog DotEarth Earth Discovery Channel Ecologically Orientated Effets de Terre FR George Monbiot globalchange Grist Climate and Energy Horatio Algeranon Hot Topic HotWhopper James Empty Blog Jeff Masters Wunder Blog John Fleck Kate has things to say

    Original URL path: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=29 (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Climate Proxy « RealClimate
    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 modelling El Nino Geoengineering Greenhouse gases Hurricanes Instrumental Record IPCC Oceans Paleoclimate Sun earth connections Communicating Climate Reporting on climate skeptics Extras Attic Comment Policy Contributor Bio s FAQ Glossary In the News Reviews Supplemental data Tutorials hydrological cycle Open thread RC Forum Scientific practice statistics The Bore Hole Books Contributors Highlights Dummies Guide to the latest Hockey Stick controversy El Nino Global Warming and Anomalous U S Winter Warmth Hurricanes and Global Warming Myth vs Fact Regarding the Hockey Stick On attribution On mismatches between models and observations On Sensitivity Part I Tropical Glacier Retreat Water Vapour feedback or forcing Welcome to RealClimate Other Opinions A Few Things Ill Considered Accuweather Climate Blog And Then There s Physics Andrew Dessler Brave New Climate C2ES Christian Science Monitor Climate Change Education Climate Communication Climate Matters Columbia Climate Science Watch ClimateArk ClimateConservative Org Climatedenial org ClimatePhys ClimateProgress ClimateSight Cntr for Enviro Journalism Deep Climate Deltoid deSmogBlog DotEarth Earth Discovery Channel Ecologically Orientated Effets de Terre FR George Monbiot globalchange Grist Climate and Energy Horatio Algeranon Hot Topic HotWhopper

    Original URL path: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=40 (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • On attribution « RealClimate
    Merchants Doubt Handful Scientists Obscured dp 1596916109 ref sr 1 1 ie UTF8 s books qid 1274887404 sr 1 1 9 John P Reisman OSS Foundation says 26 May 2010 at 10 46 AM Gavin I ve been on a few roller coasters and this one was one of the best You can actually feel the ratcheting of the chain as you go up the hill the level off with the panoramic views and the swooping feel as you drop into the next reality of the drop and subsequent turns then up the again another high hill and plateau more drops and fast turns Then at the end the brakes get hold of the car and you feel it bringing you to a stop just as you hit the GCM s whew Great ride A Climate Minute The Greenhouse Effect History of Climate Science Arctic Ice Melt Fee Dividend Our best chance for a better future climatelobby com Learn the Issue Sign the Petition 10 Completely Fed Up says 26 May 2010 at 11 09 AM A note about the lab work if you ve read Feynman s second autobiography Surely you re joking Mr Feynman there s the story about how he did an experiment that shows what rats used to remember routes around a maze Without that your experiment could be checking how well rats remembered the last trip not what you think you re testing Even labs have their sources of noise 11 Completely Fed Up says 26 May 2010 at 11 15 AM Cross posted because it was in response to another thread comment but places well here It isn t a question of natural vs anthropogenic it s a question of how much of each i e it s an attribution problem I wonder since attribution often gets used as an absolute X is attributed to Y therefore X was caused solely by Y could we use apportioned instead It s pretty hard to turn that into an absolute Or at least assert clearly that this attribution is an apportioning of effects Something like that 12 Hank Roberts says 26 May 2010 at 11 38 AM Gavin linked above to Ch 9 of the fourth IPCC report and to the two Santer et al papers as basic reading agreed The second paper says an anthropogenic water vapor fingerprint is both robust to current model uncertainties and dissimilar to the dominant noise patterns That s the kind of foundation needed to begin formal attribution I think In the last Report Summary for Policymakers table SPM2 summarized then recent trends footnote f there flags a few of those as Attribution for these phenomena based on expert judgement rather than formal attribution studies This is a summary table in a summary document each item is extensively discussed in the actual Report In which areas is attribution improved since the last Report What issues are new for which attribution will be discussed There are some answers on this published already http www google com search q site 3Aipcc ch attribution AR5 13 Ray Ladbury says 26 May 2010 at 11 41 AM Rod B The statistics come in when you consider errors and your error model tells you how likely you are to be wrong Thomas Hine You most certainly can attribute cause with 90 95 or even 99 9 confidence It all depends on how strong the signature of the cause is in the evidence and how the errors make things fuzzy CO2 as a well mixed long lived greenhouse gas sticks out like a sore thumb 14 Hank Roberts says 26 May 2010 at 11 42 AM PS Gavin the AR5 outline here brief 2 pages separates the three Working Groups that might be helpful here I m assuming your topic here is about WG1 issues primarily These three get very muddled by people who don t understand the difference between WG1 2 and 3 http www ipcc ch pdf ar5 ar5 leaflet pdf 15 David Davidovics says 26 May 2010 at 11 46 AM What defindes a robust finger print is not very specific here Would have been nice to have some more specifics on that instead of just general ideas and theory 16 John E Pearson says 26 May 2010 at 11 51 AM great post Gavin 17 Jim Eager says 26 May 2010 at 11 57 AM Gavin I have a question about factors thought to be playing a role in the current warming resurgence of the past 4 to 12 months The two factors that are most cited are the moderate El Nino now waning and the tardy but now building solar cycle 24 I m wondering about a possible third factor a significant decrease in industrial aerosols due to the prolonged global recession which would mean a drop in aerosol damping unmasking part of the greenhouse forcing that was there all along similar to what happened after clean air legislation came into force in the 1970s or to what happened as stratospheric aerosols from Pinatubo declined naturally Is anyone looking at this as a serious factor 18 Doug Bostrom says 26 May 2010 at 12 18 PM Marvelous exploded view of attribution Huzzah 19 Kevin McKinney says 26 May 2010 at 12 59 PM Once again thanks for an illuminating post I ve bookmarked the Hansen 92 abstract BPL might want that one for his model predictions collection if it s not already in there 20 jyyh says 26 May 2010 at 1 01 PM What an excellent and concise summary of many aspects also applied in other than climate sciences Thank you 21 John P Reisman OSS Foundation says 26 May 2010 at 1 27 PM Okay you inspired me to finish my attribution page http www ossfoundation us projects environment global warming attribution As always if anyone finds a relevant mistake please let me know and I will clean it up if applicable A Climate Minute The Greenhouse Effect History of Climate Science Arctic Ice Melt Fee Dividend Our best chance for a better future climatelobby com Learn the Issue Sign the Petition 22 Lichanos says 26 May 2010 at 1 29 PM In the real world we attribute singular events all the time in court cases for instance and so we do have practical experience of this I am glad that you brought up this argument because I have been thinking about it for a long time I heard a lawyer discussion the O J Simpson trial before the verdict say that circumstantial cases were often more powerful than those based on direct testimony by witnesses That s because the prosecuter constructs a logical narrative that ties together the bits of evidence into a coherent whole that is convincing and probable This is certainly a good way to understand the world at least some of the time but it seems that in your post it simply gets you off the hook This is because of the nature of your argument about models and prosecutorial narratives The difference between what goes on in a court and what goes on in science I believe is that in court we all start from a belief that we basically understand the system We understand how the minds of people work not guilty by reason of insanity is a way out here what motivates them how they act and the basic limits imposed on them by the plain facts of reality e g you can t be in two places at once You can try to argue that the same exists in science e g we all accept Newton s laws the Conservation of Matter etc etc but I don t think that is at all analogous AGW posits small and precisely calibrated changes as the result of very complex interactions The narrative tries to tie up the mounds of circumstantial evidence that is consistent with the hypothesis into an explanation that presents logical necessity That is it tries to show that not only are the supposed bits of evidence some are controversial in themselves consistent with the hypothesis but that that they demonstrate the superior plausibility of the hypothesis Unfortunately given the scale of the system and the sensitivity of it we cannot claim to have the same understanding of Nature as we claim for human motivation Murder trials are not very abstract White collar prosecutions are and herein lies their weakness Your analogy is pretty weak This is why the endless statements about consilience convergence etc leave me cold The degree to which models have predicted events that came to pass is always open to discussion the tests are never yes no on off They don t pass muster as predictive tools only as aids to understanding system dynamics 23 Jacob Mack says 26 May 2010 at 1 32 PM Gavin great post Thanks for clearing up some confusion 24 John P Reisman OSS Foundation says 26 May 2010 at 1 38 PM 17 Jim Eager I am also curious about that I asked a few friends about it at the very beginning of the event back in late 2008 http www ossfoundation us projects environment global warming myths images greenhouse gases globalco2emission png view An quantifiable reduction in aerosols could add to attribution confirmation A Climate Minute The Greenhouse Effect History of Climate Science Arctic Ice Melt Fee Dividend Our best chance for a better future climatelobby com Learn the Issue Sign the Petition 25 Doug Bostrom says 26 May 2010 at 1 58 PM Lichanos Start here Spencer Weart s Discovery of Global Warming Once you ve digested Weart s enjoyable information packed and duly critical narrative you ll better be able to perceive the difference between televised helicopter chases and climate research 26 Len Ornstein says 26 May 2010 at 2 14 PM Gavin As great as your post is I m troubled by a few of your comments and what they probably hide One of the biggest problems with the inappropriate influence of good science on public policy is the general lack of appreciation that at best science can only provide increasing confidence in models but never absolute confidence This is compounded by the large MINORITY of scientist who are Platonists who believe that science can achieve absolute truths about reality like that of much of mathematics despite Godel and by the very poor distinction that s made in the education of the public between the truths of deductive reason vs inductive reason So when careful scientist couch conclusions with weasel words many simply dismiss them as spineless dweebs who deserve little attention When you seem to disparage statistics especially as if Bayesian statistics is all there is you SEEM to imply that things like confidence intervals are unnecessary baggage for scientific prediction projection even though that certainly misrepresents your position Science Statistics still lack robust procedures for combining joint levels of confidence in multiple only slightly related data sets to provide measures of increased confidence So the joint judgement of those who best understand the data sets experts presently must serve as our best measure for guiding public policy This lesson is poorly understood by the public and most of their leaders Unfortunately by default you haven t helped clarify this issue with this post Response I don t see how I am disparaging statistics and dismissing confidence intervals simply by pointing out that putting a linear trend through some data does not in itself prove that the trend is caused by something The pattern matching that attribution is based on obviously involves statistics in combination with physically plausible models gavin 27 Lichanos says 26 May 2010 at 2 18 PM Doug Bostrom Thanks for the pointer Doug and I won t take it amiss that you obviously assume I am brain dead I have already read a good deal of Weart s book and I think he does a marvelous job of presenting the history of the scientific investigation of AGW He is also very dismissive of critiques of the theory tending to deal with them by saying this was resolved or experts now agree Similarly he has very strange views on the IPCC which for reasons he doesn t make clear he seems to regard as almost messianic in its ability to resolve nagging issues of attribution 28 Kevin McKinney says 26 May 2010 at 2 26 PM 22 Maybe it s just my lack of street smarts but I actually don t agree that our understanding of human motivation is better than our understanding of Nature I d argue that human motivations are often not obviously subject to forcing and seem to display very large internal variability 29 Frank Giger says 26 May 2010 at 2 27 PM OMG CFU 11 and I are in complete agreement There is hope for peace in our time 30 Jerry Steffens says 26 May 2010 at 2 30 PM 15 Would have been nice to have some more specifics on that instead of just general ideas and theory That s what the scientific literature is all about Dig into it and you ll find all the specifics you could possible want You might start with the three references Gavin gave 31 Lichanos says 26 May 2010 at 2 33 PM 28 Kevin McKinney Well when you are put on a jury the assumption is that you can think reasonably and that reasonable people know why people do things what is a likely motivation for a crime etc If a prosecuter tries to convict you of murder saying you were enraged because your lottery ticket didn t win that would be a tough sell right I don t think law functions the way science does the standards of proof are way different the assumptions about the need for control to which Gavin alludes are not at all alike That was my point 32 Doug Bostrom says 26 May 2010 at 2 36 PM Lichanos says 26 May 2010 at 2 18 PM I don t think you re brain dead not at all since you re not bad with writing but your perception of slant or bias in Weart s writing leads me to believe you ve bringing a bias of your own that s not helping you But we can t resolve that here so I ll drop it since otherwise I ll help commit yet another thread to pointless destruction Last word goes to you 33 Edward Greisch says 26 May 2010 at 2 40 PM There are 3 kinds of models physical mechanisms theoretical mathematical models and computer simulations We have all 3 for the climate They all agree The mechanisms have been tested an enormous number of times by many people There is no problem with the science The problem is with the several kinds of people we are dealing with The untrained the ignorant the not quite bright the paranoid those who have a financial reason for denial those who actually believe in something unscientific or delusional and I may have missed some That covers 99 of all people Overcoming all of these problems should not be in the jurisdiction of scientists because it is a way beyond Herculean task An absolute dictator could just ignore 99 of the people We don t have that authority So don t blame yourself It is not RC that failed it is the species Homo Sapiens that is not ready to handle the situation But we can t give up We have to find another strategy The other obvious strategies also require authority or money or power that we don t have So we have to find a way to get money or power or authority that will change the situation A change in mode of thought is called for 34 Hank Roberts says 26 May 2010 at 2 49 PM Lichanos you re misreading misinterpreting one phrase Weart uses twice THe other one you quote isn t found Look at the two places in his site where he wrote experts now agree these words are not what you think http www aip org servlet SearchClimate collection CLIMATE queryText experts now agree That s found twice neither one meaning what you say it does Look for this was resolved http www aip org servlet SearchClimate collection CLIMATE queryText this was resolved How much have you read first hand and how much are you relying on someone else s opinion about what Weart wrote Remember the value of citing sources and searching for what someone actually says read it in context and read the footnotes cited 35 CTG says 26 May 2010 at 2 52 PM Interestingly the graph that Easterbrook faked was an attempt to show that modern warming is not unprecedented and therefore can t be caused by CO2 So not only did he have to fake the graph by moving modern temperatures lower to make past temperatures look higher but it was a pointless exercise in any case It will be interesting to see how Easterbrook s fellow Heartland presenters react to his fraud Do they stand by him and become complicit in his fraud or do they dump him and try to pretend they still have some integrity Anyway excellent post Gavin The difference between real science and the garbage that the skeptics produce has never been clearer 36 Lichanos says 26 May 2010 at 2 55 PM 32 Doug Bostrom Last word goes to you Very gracious of you thanks I don t deny having my own point of view bias and so does Weart The title of his book makes that clear it s a bit triumphalist Your comment that my bias is not helping me is sort of amusing Calls to mind a lot of sci fi and Twilight Zone plots My favorite is H G Wells story about the sighted man in the valley of the blind Eventually locals

    Original URL path: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/05/on-attribution/?wpmp_tp=1 (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive



  •