AGW/CC Deniers & "Fake-Skeptics" - their mindset

[-1=e^ipi]

which, somehow, magically has you now speaking of 800 ppm (where, I presume you're starting a doubling from 400). Of course, in 2001... the year of your graphic's related study, the CO2 ppm level was at 373. Details, smetails, hey!

Dude, the effect of CO2 is approximately logarithmic. The starting point of CO2 levels (be it 300, 373, 400) doesn't greatly affect the expected change in temperature due to a CO2 doubling.

Edit: Oh wait, I get it. You fail at basic math. Here is a link for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithm

[waldo]

I'm still waiting for an answer on the consensus amongst economists, is the vast vast majority as alarmed as Tim at the prospect of economic Armageddon?

apparently... denier's/fake-skeptics have no problem with economic alarmism - go figure. In any case, this is a handy lead-in for the "6 Aspects of Denial" - see #4:

1. Doubt the science – attack the science by cherry picking data, misrepresenting research or making bogus claims.

2. Question the motives and integrity of scientists – claim scientists are engaged in fraud, or are being pressured by governments to make up the results. Make up vast conspiracy theories in order to cast aspersions on the motives of climate scientists, physicists and biologists whose work confirms the reality of climate change. Use the “follow the money” argument, stating scientists are making up climate change in order to get research funding.

3. Magnify disagreements among scientists and cite gadflies – the tiny percentage of actual scientists who express scepticism are dwarfed by the thousands of scientists who agree with the consensus that climate change is happening. Exploit the media’s tendency to present “both sides” of the argument and thus help perpetrate the myth scientists are still debating climate change when in fact there is near unanimous agreement.

4. Exaggerate potential harm – as in “harming” the economy if the government intervenes... or intervention is an excuse to usher in a “world government”. Play up these fears, playing on the anxiety relative to lost freedoms.

5. Appeal to personal freedom – exhibit and express a paranoid fear that someone (government, scientists, greens, politicians) is going to restrict the presumed right to unlimited consumption or freedom of speech.

6. Acceptance repudiates key philosophy – reject government and global governance response to climate change and view it as a direct challenge to a libertarian and free market advocate assumption of unlimited growth. Reject the science in favour of faith in the market.

[waldo]

Dude, the effect of CO2 is approximately logarithmic. The starting point of CO2 levels (be it 300, 373, 400) doesn't greatly affect the expected change in temperature due to a CO2 doubling.

Edit: Oh wait, I get it. You fail at basic math. Here is a link for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithm

thanks scoop... I've referenced the logarithmic aspect several times in past posts. Considering that since 1880, the Earth's average global surface temperature has already risen ~0.8°C, it is quite telling just how cavalier and dismissive you are with increased temperature levels. At a climate sensitivity level of 3°C, your initial referenced 300-to-600 doubling results in an average global temperature of 17°C... the 400-to-800 doubling results in an average global temperature of 18.2°C. Like I said, how cavalier of you to simply dismiss a 1.2°C difference in relation to your initial 300-to-600 doubling reference. Of course, that assumes a static climate sensitivity... which won't be the case and temperature will rise beyond the basic doubling given feedback impacts. Of course, today's ~400 ppm level (at that same sensitivity level) equates to an average global temperature of 15.2°C... considering that prior to the relatively recent acceleration in atmospheric CO2, for several prior centuries CO2 was at ~270 ppm and average and average global temperature was ~ 13.7°C.

[-1=e^ipi]

that assumes a static climate sensitivity... which won't be the case and temperature will rise beyond the basic doubling given feedback impacts.

Oh of course climate sensitivity isn't constant. But it decreases with temperature, not increases. So all that paleoclimate data which suggests a 3C climate sensitivity based on what happened during the pleistocene is an overestimation of what is to come.

One reason why climate sensitivity decreases with global temperature rather than increases is because long term loss in albedo due to a change in global average temperature is far greater for a colder Earth with large glaciers than for a warmer interglacial Earth like today. During the last ice age, when glaciers covered Canada, Europe, Siberia, the Northern US and Patagonia, you had glaciers reaching 40°N in many places. Back then, there was far more land on the border of a glacier and that land was taking more direct sunlight (albedo changes at 40°N is a lot more relevant that albedo changes at 70°N for example) .As the polar ice caps retreat, their borders become smaller and the average incident angle they make with the sun increases.

A second reason is the negative feedback of cloud formation. Indeed as temperatures warm, water vapour in the atmosphere will increase, and the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is approximately an exponential function of temperature. However, since the radiative greenhouse effect of water vapour is a logarithmic function of the amount of water vapour, this means that the radiative effect of water vapour is roughly a linear function of temperature. On the other hand, as water vapour increases, so will cloud formation. If the volume of clouds is roughly proportional to water vapour, then the surface area of the earth covered by clouds should be roughly proportional to the amount of water vapour to the power of 2/3. Thus, cloud formation is roughly an exponential function of temperature. Since the radiative effect of water vapour (positive feedback) is roughly linear with temperature, while the cloud formation effect of water vapour (negative feedback) is roughly exponential with temperature, as temperatures increase, the negative feedback effect will become more and more relevant relative to the positive feedback effect. Thus climate sensitivity should decrease with temperature.

[waldo]

again, your reading comprehension difficulty rises to the top... re-read what you quoted - I say nothing about the value of climate sensitivity versus temperature change. What I say is that temperature will rise beyond the basic CO2 doubling result in relation to feedbacks (specifically slower feedbacks). Is this your way of avoiding the thrust of my prior post showcasing your, again, "cavalier and dismissive" statement concerning the actual temperature rise value (in relation to the ppm starting point)? And again, this thread is not intended for you, as you did a short while back, to ply your postured math wizardry... nor to argue the merits of low(er) versus high(er) sensitivity values. If you have that burning desire, perhaps you should publish... perhaps, for example, take it up with these guys. The 'best likelihood' value within the latest IPCC ECS range still remains between 2.5 and 3.5... no matter how hard deniers/fake-skeptics opine over the lowest of the low(er) estimate values.

[Mighty AC]

perhaps, for example, take it up with these guys.

The Royal Meteorological Society? Are you serious? Everyone knows that scientists who publish in peer reviewed journals cannot be trusted, unless of course they are a contrarian on at least some aspect of AGW. You should learn that receiving grant money to study something automatically corrupts, which has lead thousands of researchers to secretly work together to invent AGW in an effort to earn a steady living producing false results.

It's a tricky process finding the truth but if that is indeed your goal stick to reading papers written by those funded via climate denial organizations that receive hundreds of millions of dollars from both the fossil fuel industry and sources cloaked using Donor's Trust and Donor's Capital.

It's a no brainer when you think about it. How can scientists publishing in open, peer reviewed journals ever even hope to steer clear of biased and falsified results? However, you can guarantee the accuracy of papers whose authors are paid by think tanks setup and funded by corporations to support their own political goals. So I encourage you to be skeptical and only trust the work by fellows of Heartland, AEI, etc.

[GostHacked]

Well, at least you tried Waldo. But this thread simply got back to the typical debate that is in the other threads.

[TimG]

However, you can guarantee the accuracy of papers whose authors are paid by think tanks setup and funded by corporations to support their own political goals. So I encourage you to be skeptical and only trust the work by fellows of Heartland, AEI, etc.

This is what is called a "strawman" argument. There is strong evidence of bias and group think among establishment scientists but that does mean other voices are any less biased. They are just biased in a different way. The problem in this discussion comes not from the bias but from the people who insist that their pet sources are not biased.

Case in point: I said that paper on sensitivity represented a "minimum" on sensitivity because I know the author firmly rejects the consensus and I assume he avoided making assumptions that would result in a larger sensitivity. IOW - I take bias into account even when the results are to my liking. You, OTOH, try to push the fiction that establishment science is immune to bias even when it is obviously nonsense.

Edited July 27, 2014 by TimG

[cybercoma]

waldo, you keep going on and on about global warming and climate change, but I don't see you proving any of this stuff you're talking about. You just insult people and talk condescendingly to them, probably because that's easier than actually proving your far-fetched claims about the so-called impending climate doom. You and your ilk are just interested in destroying the economy that hard-working Canadian rely upon. You won't be happy until every last person in this country is struggling to put food on the table.

[ironstone]

Capitalism vs the Climate?

It's an interesting title to be sure.I believe Naomi Klein is extremely wealthy isn't she?Do you suppose she made all her money thanks to capitalism?

It's interesting to note that there are lot's of people making huge amounts of money thanks to climate change hysteria,like David Suzuki.How about companies selling wind turbines(connected to Liberal insiders?) making millions?These monstrosities could not exist without massive subsidies from the taxpayer.

The climate is changing,always has,always will,it's been doing it long before the industrial revolution.

David Suzuki is without a doubt the most annoying of the climate change "Chicken Little" types.How galling is it for him to lecture everyone else about excessive population growth and consumption when he had five kids and owns FOUR homes?

[Accountability Now]

waldo, you keep going on and on about global warming and climate change, but I don't see you proving any of this stuff you're talking about. You just insult people and talk condescendingly to them, probably because that's easier than actually proving your far-fetched claims about the so-called impending climate doom. You and your ilk are just interested in destroying the economy that hard-working Canadian rely upon. You won't be happy until every last person in this country is struggling to put food on the table.

Has someone hijacked Cyber's account? Or is this sarcasm at its best?

[-1=e^ipi]

again, your reading comprehension difficulty rises to the top... re-read what you quoted - I say nothing about the value of climate sensitivity versus temperature change. What I say is that temperature will rise beyond the basic CO2 doubling result in relation to feedbacks

You mixing up terms, so don't blame me for taking what you say literally. There isn't just one 'climate sensitivity' there are many. Transient climate sensitivity is different from equilibrium climate sensitivity (and both of these have different definitions depending on what feedback mechanisms are being considered). Actually, this is a big issue in scientific literature (lack of clear definitions); James Hansen goes into detail about this issue.

If what you meant to say was that 3C per doubling of CO2 does not take into account all feedback effects (particularly long-term deglaciation on the millenial scale) then I would agree with you. But that isn't what you wrote... You didn't even talk about which feedback effects were not being considered in various estimates that give a climate sensitivity of 3C; and given your earlier post where you suggested that no other GHGs were considered in these climate sensitivity estimates, I'm tempted to conclude that you are very uninformed on climate sensitivity estimates (at the very least, pretty much all of them will include water vapour for example).

The 'best likelihood' value within the latest IPCC ECS range still remains between 2.5 and 3.5... no matter how hard deniers/fake-skeptics opine over the lowest of the low(er) estimate values.

Yes, I don't disagree with the IPCC here. I think Tim's source that gives an estimate of 2C is too low. But I'll post on that later.

Edit: btw, I don't use the degree sign cause i'm lazy.

Edited July 29, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[Mighty AC]

Yes, I don't disagree with the IPCC here. I think Tim's source that gives an estimate of 2C is too low. But I'll post on that later.

Edit: btw, I don't use the degree sign cause i'm lazy.

I'm interested in seeing your response to Heartland Loehle's paper. It seemed that he excluded any predicted positive feedbacks yet still came up with a figure at the low end of the possible IPCC range.

also just use alt + 0176 for the ° character

[-1=e^ipi]

I'm interested in seeing your response to Heartland Loehle's paper. It seemed that he excluded any predicted positive feedbacks yet still came up with a figure at the low end of the possible IPCC range.

I'll see when I have time. I have a lot of it written up, but I have been busy.

also just use alt + 0176 for the ° character

Can I just use K for Kelvin? Would be easier, but I'm afraid many posters may not know what Kelvin is.

[waldo]

You mixing up terms, so don't blame me for taking what you say literally. There isn't just one 'climate sensitivity' there are many. Transient climate sensitivity is different from equilibrium climate sensitivity (and both of these have different definitions depending on what feedback mechanisms are being considered). Actually, this is a big issue in scientific literature (lack of clear definitions); James Hansen goes into detail about this issue.

If what you meant to say was that 3C per doubling of CO2 does not take into account all feedback effects (particularly long-term deglaciation on the millenial scale) then I would agree with you. But that isn't what you wrote... You didn't even talk about which feedback effects were not being considered in various estimates that give a climate sensitivity of 3C

another aspect you've suddenly become such an expert on! I mixed nothing up. Unless otherwise specified, equilibrium is assumed... the most likely value and the range value I specified can't be confused with anything but equilibrium... certainly not transient. And yes, I've spoken of the various types of sensitivity several times in past MLW posts; once because member TimG himself was confused by transient versus equilibrium..... so don't presume to "school me" on your new found "expertise"! Like I said, poser!

Yes, I don't disagree with the IPCC here. I think Tim's source that gives an estimate of 2C is too low. But I'll post on that later.

your puffery balanced against the IPCC findings/position is noted. Loehle is a long failed hack with his paleo reconstructions. So he now appears to have moved on and wants to try his hand at sensitivity! Oh great... "you'll post on that later"!!! You do realize what board this is, right? Perhaps you should flog your next ~8000 word "treatise/manifesto" at a discussion forum where you'll get more 'bang for your buck', hey!

[Hal 9000]

If a group is studying anything from Dung Beetles to Polar Bears, they know they'll get more funding and more support if they're studying the "effects" of GW on whatever their specialty is. That alone makes their finding (and motives) unreliable.

[Mighty AC]

If a group is studying anything from Dung Beetles to Polar Bears, they know they'll get more funding and more support if they're studying the "effects" of GW on whatever their specialty is. That alone makes their finding (and motives) unreliable.

Good thing we can rely on reliable, non-peer reviewed papers put out by groups funded directly by the fossil fuel industry. I sleep better knowing the conservative blogosphere has our backs on scientific issues.

[WestCoastRunner]

If a group is studying anything from Dung Beetles to Polar Bears, they know they'll get more funding and more support if they're studying the "effects" of GW on whatever their specialty is. That alone makes their finding (and motives) unreliable.

Of course it's all unreliable! All scientists have unscrupulous motives.

[Guest]

Not all. Some. Problem is, you can never be sure which ones.

[Mighty AC]

Not all. Some. Problem is, you can never be sure which ones.

It's simple to find the real science. Here is how it works for Cons. If science produces results that oppose your business plans we consider it unscrupulous and shut down. If groups funded by industry produce papers that gel with business plans then we call it science and trumpet it.

[TimG]

If science produces results that oppose your business plans we consider it unscrupulous and shut down.

The *real* science for progressives is anything that allows them to justify tax increases and more government control over the economy. If the science says there is nothing to be concerned about then progressives will belittle it and call it corporate propaganda. Edited July 31, 2014 by TimG

[Hal 9000]

Good thing we can rely on reliable, non-peer reviewed papers put out by groups funded directly by the fossil fuel industry. I sleep better knowing the conservative blogosphere has our backs on scientific issues.

Don't be too sure that there aren't fossil fuel companies funding certain NGO's.

[waldo]

The *real* science for progressives is anything that allows them to justify tax increases and more government control over the economy. If the science says there is nothing to be concerned about then progressives will belittle it and call it corporate propaganda.

good on ya! A two-fer... you hit both of the following from the earlier 'Aspects of Denial' listing:

5. Appeal to personal freedom – exhibit and express a paranoid fear that someone (government, scientists, greens, politicians) is going to restrict the presumed right to unlimited consumption or freedom of speech.

6. Acceptance repudiates key philosophy – reject government and global governance response to climate change and view it as a direct challenge to a libertarian and free market advocate assumption of unlimited growth. Reject the science in favour of faith in the market.

[waldo]

Don't be too sure that there aren't fossil fuel companies funding certain NGO's.

see purposeful greenwashing and/or BigOil's self-serving drive to partner with "activist organizations":

“How do we increase global reach and build on global brands while recognizing and responding to the popular antipathy towards big business and globalization?”

[waldo]

The label denier is quite matter-of-fact, albeit with degrees of attached denial possible within it; from the fringe-of-the-fringe denying warming outright, to denying the human causal link to warming, etc.. However, from my perspective and recognition, the label alarmist doesn't provide an easy recognition as to intent/meaning. MLW member, 'Shady', relatively recently put forward a somewhat bold MLW status update where he simply wrote, "Alarmism = Fascism". He was asked in this thread, this post, to provide his insight in the use of that word... MLW member, 'Shady' was also subsequently asked the same request in multiple other threads where he continued... continues... to use the words 'alarmist/alarmism'. And again, today, we see the member dropping this status update:

Alarmists gonna alarm!

MLW member Shady, if you might, could you please state your understanding of alarmism and definition of the label alarmist... and who you attach it to and why you do so. Thanks in advance.