RealClimate logo


Technical Note: Sorry for any recent performance issues. We are working on it.

Unforced Variations: Nov 2013

Filed under: — group @ 2 November 2013

This month’s open thread…


289 Responses to “Unforced Variations: Nov 2013”

  1. 201
    Hank Roberts says:

    UPI today:

    … Frolicher’s study, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, suggests that the 2 °C rise may be achieved with a lot less CO2 in the atmosphere.”If our results are correct, the total carbon emissions required to stay below 2 degrees of warming would have to be three-quarters of previous estimates, only 750 billion tons instead of 1,000 billion tons of carbon,” Frolicher said.

    The reason for this disparity in figures is that previous models did not take into account the gradual reduction in the ocean’s ability to absorb heat from the atmosphere, particularly at the poles.

    [Princeton University]

    [Nature World News]

  2. 202
    wili says:

    Neven is now covering the seabed methane article on his Arctic Sea Ice blog: http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2013/11/and-the-wind-cries-methane.html#more

  3. 203
    Hank Roberts says:

    Prokaryotes’ link above is to:
    http://www.livescience.com/41476-more-arctic-seafloor-methane-found.html

    The word “hydrate” does not appear in that. Anyone know if they have changed the estimated amount of methane in that shallow seabed? I don’t see numbers and haven’t found their calculations, other than the “twice as much” claim.

    http://xkcd.com/1295/

  4. 204
    wili says:

    nigel, sean and others: If you see something that needs to be done, don’t sit around complaining that others aren’t doing it.

    Do it yourselves!

  5. 205
    wili says:

    If anyone hasn’t yet, please do check out hank’s linked article at 201. The title of the article is: “Even if emissions stop, carbon dioxide could warm Earth for centuries.” (I must say that I’m pretty sure if I had linked to any such article, I would have been called a hopeless doomster or worse. Miserable me is always glad to have company.’-))

    Meanwhile:
    http://www.dw.de/disappearing-permafrost/a-17250005

    “Disappearing Permafrost: We visit German climate researchers in the northern Siberian wilderness of the Lena Delta. They’re studying how the thawing of permafrost is affecting climate change.”

    (reCaptcha oracle says: “respect Luubse” –whoever he is.)

  6. 206
    Sean says:

    @58 Hank, first the general public (nor I) needs to educate themselves about the intricacies of ‘statistics’ in the links to accept the climate science and act accordingly. These matters are for spec-ialists and the occasional interested person making up 0.0000001% (?) of the population. It is not critical for the public to ‘get this’, albeit fascinating for a few, to prove to themselves AGW/CC is valid.

    Quote: “RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary.”

    OK, so re “central ‘authoritative responsible’ body being active” and “Name one case where that’s worked out, for any global problem?”

    The UN, the UNSC, UNHCR, Red Cross, IAEA, NNPT, UNESCO World Heritage body,… or do you only seek those bodies that have achieved “perfect” outcomes?

    The IPCC was founded in 1998 upon previously successful approaches, see below links. The IPCC like any organisation does not preclude it from potential positive Reforms nor Productivity improvements. It is not sacred, it is not sacrosanct from making rational Changes to it’s mission or role or activity in the public domain. Neither is RC, but the owners are free agents. Simply saying the same principle applies.

    International Co-operation to Combat Acid Rain http://www.fni.no/ybiced/95_05_levy.pdf

    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/internat.htm

    http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/gaw/gaw_home_en.html (tip of an iceberg, but still depends on how each person looks at it)

  7. 207
    Hank Roberts says:

    > wili, 205

    You say you’re “pretty sure …” — but if you will get familiar with the skepticalscience articles, you’ll recognize this sort of thing as already well known. The news story is about a detail, a refinement, not big new news.

    That’s why we amateurs need to — always — check what we think we know. Most of our common knowledge about climate change is likely wrong, or at least uninformed and outdated.

    We won’t learn how to always be right. We can learn to always look stuff up.

    climate models suggest that ocean warming will continue for at least a thousand years even if CO2 emissions were to completely stop.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=939

  8. 208
    Sean says:

    @61 RayL .. “Does that paragraph sound familiar, Sean? It is what you wrote back in #17. It is also simply flat-assed wrong.”
    Yes Ray I remember it, I wrote it. You disagree. Well shoot me! :)

    RE; “an audience that is lazy or unwilling to hear what the speaker has to say will also torpedo the process.”
    No comment required.
    re: “And then you come up with some vague suggestion that the IPCC should have made AIT rather than Gore.” Sorry, I didn’t realise that you knew MORE about what I think and why I think it, than I do. I should have asked you first obviously. meanwhile, feel free anytime to ask me a respectful question if there is something in what I have ever said that seems out of kilter to you. I will clarify it by providing more in depth information. I didn;t just wake up yesterday with a ‘thoguht bubble and had to rush off to RC to announce it to the world. I actually CARE a lot about this space, and am eternally grateful for it. Until now.
    re “Sean, my criticism of your position is that you are criticizing those who have been most active for the longest” My humblest apologies for your inability to comprehend despite pointing it out repeatedly that I am NOT criticising anyone to find fault. I am critiquing, no matter how much to wish to allow your emotional reactions to verbal and criticise and bully me to STFU because you (apparently) cannot handle what it is I am suggesting, let alone actually understand it. (see, how do you like it?)
    And who had the authority to deem that the IPCC and RC or cliamte scientists in general were above hearing someone else opinion on the subject of how they present their materail to the wolrd, and how they have abidacted the field of battle when it comes to the outrageous verballing of themsleves and sit in silence behind a cone of silence … leaving the genral public out there not knowing WTF is going on having to rely on sheer chance they might find a journalist there somewhere writing an article that might explain it for them in a way they can understand? NO, not the science but the relentless attacks on scientists and the IPCC and the entire process? They do get to hear what PM Howard has to say though .. that is splashed across the nightly news. In a vacume what else should they think? Not everyone has had the time I have to educate myself, nor do they have the internet skills etc required to keep up with a website like RC or skeptical science, or NASA, or YaleClimate forum.
    Seriously ray you are trhe one with the problem here mate. I suggest you get a grip and come down off your high horse. Did you actually bother to go listen to that Richard King interview? I think not. GO educate yourself about what I am talking about yourself. I get the science, over a decade ago. You do not have a clue about ‘communication” and exactly what it is I point to because you buddy do NOT want to know and am so full of yourself you won’t listen nor ask a genuine question in case there might just be something you are not aware of.

    “an audience that is lazy or unwilling to hear what the speaker has to say will also torpedo the process.”

    You wrote it, go eat your own words. Plonk!

  9. 209
    Sean says:

    @197 Mal “The IPCC is not organized to do what you are asking.”
    Yes I know that. Which is why I am speaking about it.

    “Policy responses to climate catastrophe are up to politicians like John Howard,” and if you read his speech you will see where his policy responses changed due to ‘public opinion & voting intentions demanded it’ – that public opinion has now evaporated 6 years later… JH lite is not in office dismantling over 33 CC programs.

    ” In Australia and the U.S., scientists lack credibility with the voters who might elect climate realists to office.” OK, so you agree there actually IS a problem here. But none of this has to do with the “scientists /ipcc communication” directly to those VOTERS. It’s all the deniers fault? It’s the Voters fault for being too stupid? So eevry thing I might suggest must be wrong. Is this what you believe or have I misunderstood your point? thx.

  10. 210
    Sean says:

    @196 Ray … John Howard is an EX politician and former PM who lost his seat in 2007 primarily over Climate Change inaction and asylum seeker policies. he isn’t chasing votes, he has offered himself up to the ‘machine’ so others get Votes.

    RE ” I do not view him as an unintelligent or misinformed” he has only ever read one thing about Climate Change, Nigel Lawsons book, twice. He has read an IPCC Summary, ever. So maybe you are wrong on this point.

    RE ” a cynical manipulator who” who the general public get to hear about via the news wihtout asking for that information. He has an effect on the general public, and note what he has reinforced about the IPCC and climate scientists in his speech. The response from the IPCC and anyone else is? Zero. IF they responded in kind they would get onto the TV NEWS, and current affairs programs, and potentially radio interviews in this nation no matter where they are in the world. The public would get to hear that, without asking for it. I could write a comment on newspaper site or send in a letter to the editor, but who would heed anything I had to say VS John Howard?

    re: ” “We’re f***ed”. ” Ray did you actually go and look at that blog site and the authors credentials and what he is doing and why? He has actually complimented me on my pov on this matter and others.

    re: “Where he and so many others are wrong,.. ” so are really assuming that I don’t know that already? Am not taking that into consideration and is a core reason why I am saying what I am saying? Really I have no idea what you are trying to get at here. It makes no sense to me. Must be my fault of course. Couldn’t be you mate.

  11. 211
    Sean says:

    @204 Wili … So in your view all I am doing is sitting around and complaining? Thanks so much for your support Wili. With like minded friends like you who needs WUWT or Curry.

    Please let me know the url of the website you purchased your crystal ball from. I would hate to go there and waste my money. Fair dinkum, you don;t know a thing about me, nor what I have done and am doing. Yep I never lifted a finger on this AGW/CC, not once. Not ever helped one other soul ever. Thank you very much. Noted: ‘wili’. Got it.

  12. 212
    Sean says:

    @198 NigelJ – “I agree with Shaun at 33-36. The sceptics are having things all their own way and the mainstream climate community are letting themselves be treated badly, and are not approaching things at a level the public can grasp. Their discussions are factually sound and their work is brilliant, but is too complex for the public, as are the IPCC reports. The media are biased and unreliable.”

    Thank you very much Nigel for taking the time to say that. Plus your other comments. Much appreciated, Sean

  13. 213
    Sean says:

    @69 Hank said: ” But — Sean — you’ve taken over a wonderful science topic that’s worth us learning from. Could you take your issue and those attracted to it somewhere else?”

    Taken over? My issue? Those who are attracted to it, one of them was you Hank. You did put some questions to me, so I gave you the courtesy of answering them as best I could. Now you are complaining about it. That seems pretty irrational to me, or duplicitous and disingenuous. Thanks for wasting MY time by asking questions you had no interest in. Why do you do that?

    Hank re: “Because the Statistics and Climate thread could still be about statistics and climate.”

    The article by Rasmus includes: [...] statisticians in climate research is to bring in their experience with ‘infographics’ and ways to convey complex messages through illustrations. [...] Standard conventions can reduce the risk of misrepresenting data [...] We now have many different climate models, many different methods, and get a range of different results. [...] But how do we make sense out of all this information? And, do we really need all these different models? []

    These issues are of great interest to me. Therefore I am making comments and posing queries in this regard that are imho on topic, and intended to gain the information and knowledge that I am seeking at this time. “how does the public make sense of these models?” “ways to convey complex messages” “misinterpreting data & different results” Do I need your special permission to pose/query ideas and elicit responses from guests and the scientists here that are different than your specific personal interest? If so why?

    Furthermore Hank, this is a moderated forum and I know that. Been here since 2006/07 at least monthly usually weekly. I suggest if you have an issue with my comments being posted here then you would best take the issue up with the moderators, and not me. I respect their authority and the even way that they manage this site and I will defer to them, not you. Is that clear enough and fair enough and within the site guidelines? If not why? I’d like to know.

    Hank re: “I’ve read about half of the links in the original post and mean to read them all and try to learn about statistics and climate. Here, if possible. Now, with luck.”

    Please explain to me how any comment posted by me has interfered with your freedom to read those links? I fail to see any valid reason how this comments section gets in the way of you reading web pages on other sites. And what’s taking you so long to read them all? :)

    Hank re: “Education starts with us, here. If we’ll shut up long enough for the scientists to educate us.” Perhaps you could take your own advice on this mate! If my comments or anyone elses are not of interest, how about you use the mouse wheel and skip over them when you come back here to pose a question or see what others have to say. I don;t see that is very hard. I have seen threads here with +300 comments, unlike the 60 here now.

    Hank re: “Ask smart questions showing a beginner’s understanding of the statistics.” But Hank, my interest is different than the inner working of statistics. It;s beyond my ken and time constraints and specific goals.

    Hank re: “Better yet, let’s hope some actual statisticians wanting conversation with the climatologists show up and ask better questions.”
    Well that’s fine by me. I can’t see how I am in the way. They only need to post a comment or ask a *better* question more to YOUR liking and bob’s your uncle. Why should this be a problem to you? Maybe none will show up. It’s not logical to blame me for that. Is it?

    Now as to off-topic, and me supposedly taking over, most of my comments have been responses to people who spoke to me about matters I mentioned. If people take the time to address me, my usual response is reply in kind. No comments usual means the readers have no interest. I don;t complain about that.

    Fact is Hank, I am doing my own research to find out what the answers may be to some important questions I have. I have a time window open and deadline to make a decision. I thought one place to come was the best Climate science site created for the public that I know of. I am the public. I have come to the experts and a group of readers who are usually a cut above the rest. The quotes from the article I gave are some of issues that are involved. I have read the article and looked at the links info. My specific interest is directly related and yet a variation on the specific intent of Rasmus in writing the article, and your detailed intellectual pursuits. I believe that my intellectual pursuit is just as valid, and just as relevant. If you can give me a valid reason why it isn’t it, or why I am getting in your way here, I am all ears.
    But I’ll tell you this Hank. if you didn’t write to me like you have written to me you wouldn’t have this long response cluttering your precious space mate. TY. Answer my questions or not, that’s totally up to you. Do as you wish. There’s room enough for all in the Inn, imho. I have made more comments here in the last week than I have in the last 6 years. If that’s a problem, then I am not the one with the problem. Sean

  14. 214
    Ray Ladbury says:

    Sean, If I have misinterpreted what you are saying, perhaps you could try to say it clearly rather than using vagueness as a sheild against criticism.

    My main criticism, however, is of the few points you have clearly expressed:

    that the public misunderstanding of climate science is due to the inability of climate scientists to communicate

    and

    that AIT was a net negative.

    Both of these statements are demonstrably false, not to mention insulting to those who are trying to do the most to increase public awareness and understanding of this threat.

  15. 215
  16. 216
    wili says:

    Sean, take a deep breath.

  17. 217
    Steve Fish says:

    Re- Comment by Sean — 26 Nov 2013 @ 10:05 AM

    You have emphasized the importance of the communicator in the effective transmission of ideas. Do you consider your post to be a good example of high quality communication?

    Steve

  18. 218

    that blog site and the authors credentials

    You’re joking, right?

  19. 219
    dhogaza says:

    Sean:

    “Fact is Hank, I am doing my own research to find out what the answers may be to some important questions I have. I have a time window open and deadline to make a decision. I thought one place to come was the best Climate science site created for the public that I know of. I am the public. I have come to the experts and a group of readers who are usually a cut above the rest.”

    Concern trolling is b-o-r-i-n-g.

  20. 220
    OnceJolly says:

    Richard Heede’s recent work establishing the role of the “carbon majors” (i.e. entities that have produced a significant share of emissions) has been receiving media attention recently. Although it’s a minor quibble (given that methane has a small overall share), the one thing that strikes me as odd is summing annual CH4 emissions over the period and then using the 100-year GWP (a value of 21) for methane to convert this figure into CO2e units. My understanding is that GWPs are really only meaningful when referring to the future implications of emissions.

  21. 221
    wili says:

    Thanks for those points, hank. “That’s why we amateurs need to — always — check what we think we know. Most of our common knowledge about climate change is likely wrong, or at least uninformed and outdated.”

    Another way of saying, “Don’t believe everything you think.” Always sage advice.

  22. 222
    Mal Adapted says:

    Sean:

    ” In Australia and the U.S., scientists lack credibility with the voters who might elect climate realists to office.” OK, so you agree there actually IS a problem here. But none of this has to do with the “scientists /ipcc communication” directly to those VOTERS. It’s all the deniers fault? It’s the Voters fault for being too stupid? So eevry thing I might suggest must be wrong. Is this what you believe or have I misunderstood your point? thx.

    It’s not that the voters are too “stupid”, it’s that (at least in the U.S.), the dominant culture doesn’t place a high value on thinking scientifically, so the public schools don’t emphasis science, resulting in abysmally low levels of scientific meta-literacy in the electorate.

    And it’s pretty clear (though not accepted by everyone) that ideological identity counts more than scientific knowledge when voters are choosing policy positions.

    Professional deniers freely exploit those factors when crafting their propaganda, and they have the financial wherewithal to keep our compliant mass media continuously saturated with it. OTOH, despite the tu quoque calumnies of deniers, scientists are ethically (and financially) constrained from adopting that strategy.

    That’s what I believe, but I’d love to be proven wrong.

  23. 223
    SecularAnimist says:

    Various media outlets are reporting that Al Gore recently adopted a vegan diet.

    Apparently this was first reported in passing by Forbes magazine, and according to the Washington Post “an individual familiar with Gore’s decision … confirmed that Gore opted a couple of months ago to become vegan”.

    Gore’s office has not officially confirmed, so no reason for Gore’s choice has been given, but NPR’s report notes that Gore “has previously said that he has been slowly reducing his meat consumption over the past few years because of his concern about climate change … Gore is one of many consumers who are seeing the link between their food choices and the destruction of the planet and taking action”, and quotes a 2009 interview:

    “It’s absolutely correct that the growing meat intensity of diets around the world is one of the issues connected to this global crisis, not only because of the CO2 involved but also because of the water consumed in the process.”

  24. 224
    Sean says:

    @222 Mal … Thanks for your comments and the links. Appreciated. I hear you and believe that I know what you mean and why you see it that way. Thx.

  25. 225
    Sean says:

    @218 Thomas, what’s your problem with his particular field of research and credentials? Thx

  26. 226
    Sean says:

    John Christy VS Gavin Schmidt On Climate Gate 2009 with Wolf Blitzer CNN Live
    http://youtu.be/_RtqoS8NPPM

    4 years later in 2012 … One viewers comment goes like this:
    “Gavin Schmit sounds like a preacher. John Christy sounds like a scientist. The AGW debate is over. Skeptics win in the United States and China, so the Eurosnobs who buy into this garbage can suck it.”

    This interesting to me because I believe Gavin is correct on the Science and the facts surrounding ClimateGate, and Christy is [fill in with your own opinion].

    This live interview [being used an example only] shows up multiple learning opportunities and primary information about effective and ineffective communication with the public. It also highlights “entrapment” by highly skilled interviewers and Producers.

    One example of the ‘tricks of the trade’ in Blitzer tool box appears near the beginning @43 secs. Before you view this, note that the whole thing goes for 7:49 mins. What does Blizter say but more importantly WHY is he saying it?

    If anyone on RC would like to have a fruitful and mature well reasoned and respectful dialogue about the manipulative strategies used in this example and why it is that people so easily fall into the traps such as the viewer comments indicate, I’m up for it.

    But I only have a limited amount of time! Sean

  27. 227
    Tony Weddle says:

    The article linked to by Hank@201, includes this, “The researchers’ work contradicts a scientific consensus that the global temperature would remain constant or decline if emissions were suddenly cut to zero.” This is effectively repeated by the lead author of the study. Surely this is nonsense? As I understand it, the earth has an energy imbalance, which will not go away the moment GHG emissions cease. The earth (particularly the troposphere) must surely continue to warm until that energy imbalance is back to zero?

  28. 228
    Mike Roberts says:

    I’m trying to figure out how f****d we are, with climate change. There is a huge amount of research to tell us how things are going wrong but I’m having difficulty finding a science based site or paper that links all of this together. I know there are always lots of caveats in science but is there enough known about feedbacks, current forcings and likely emissions paths (given the inability to even reduce emissions or the growth in emissions) to paint a reasonably probably scenario about where we are headed? Have enough feedbacks kicked in to such a degree that they could even take over from human forcings if humans got their act together? I’ve seen lots of speculation about where we’re headed but most doesn’t seem to be solidly based on science.

    I’ve been a lurker here for a while (it’s a great site) but still haven’t got a good feel for where we are likely headed and thought a question might get me further. Thanks for any responses.

  29. 229
    Sean says:

    I will call the following, tacked onto the end of a comment, “The Night Time Flare Technique”. What is the main purpose of using Flares at night?

    “imho, the worst thing that has negatively affected global understanding of the importance of climate science and future risks was in fact Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth. Good intentions can sometimes be a road to hell.” http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/statistics-and-climate/comment-page-1/#comment-427469

    [side bar] I could have said “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” Any idea why I wrote it differently instead? (some may say I couldn’t remember)Was there any ‘subtle effect’ of doing it differently than the usual ‘saying’?

    OK every online discussion has it’s ‘resident in-group’ and mini-cultural norms. All the individuals are different, and yet still in time a culture develops and that culture is set by the tone of the ‘moderators/owner’ but as time goes on more and more of the influence of that comes from the ‘in-group’ of regulars. These people become quite protective of both the owner and the culture. They are well-intended.

    An analogy would be the catholic church. Whilst very much adhering to the basics of that faith, each Parish Church is actually driven by the core in-group of Lay parishioners who are the most active in their church administration and activities. Because of this two parishes right beside each can in fact have completely different cultures and acceptable norms. Changes in the Parish Priest even will often not be powerful enough to resist the subtle control of the Parish by the core in-group of Lay people.
    Bringing this back to “climate science” this principle equally applies to different blog/discussion boards online. All may have the same over-riding basic beliefs and purpose, and yet each will have a very different culture. This culture is set in stone the longer the discussion group exists. This works on the same principles found in ‘evolution’. It is hard wired into human beings, it is a foundation stone of our collective natural psychology. It is as irresistible a ‘force’ as being take over by the Borg. One either complies and becomes assimilated into the prevailing culture, or they will be ejected and if necessary destroyed. This process operates by proxy on all online discussion groups. It is an undeniable fact. Only a belief not based on evidence will deny this is the case.
    By using a short sharp confronting statement on any discussion board such as the Night Time Flare technique will flush out the in-group immediately. AS soon as this in-group members see such a post they will react in defensive mode. This is exactly what has occurred, as almost anyone who is not in this in-grouop will recognise. Why? becausue they ahve all seen it a hundred times before. Right?

    The question is this .. what do do about it, if anything? Another question is why does it happen? Knowing that one will discover the strategies that will work to regain control from this in-group IF the goal is to encourage true and sustainable open minded, creative, imagination and a welcoming space for like-minded visitors. There is a choice. Act in order for the good parts and best benefits of discussion group to survive, or work out once and for all if it is worth the individuals time to persist or fly the bee hive and look for a better place to obtain what one seeks.

    These are all very personal choices. No one can tell another what is right for them. That would be an infringement upon their independence and free will should any pressure or manipulation is applied y others. The latter is is definitely not my intention, in fact the opposite by lifting this issue from out of the shadows and discussion in openly using facts evidence education and hopefully returning to respectful dialogue between parties.

    Now the in-group plays an important role. Firstly they do have leadership skills. Secondly their self-confidence is usually higher than the norm. and thirdly because it is they they usually bounce the short term Trolls who only seek discord and disruption out of the group faster than greased lightening. They really pull their weight whilst the more meek participants look on in awe wishing they were so. :) This is a good thing. This is ‘evolution’ in action.

    The downside is that power corrupts, and absolute power (or a belief one holds such a power) corrupts absolutely. Sometimes the defenders of the faith can later become tyrants in their own right. History tells us this is so.

    The in-group becomes complacent, very comfortable and feel at home the longer the group survives and their role is enhanced by others. Soon after they begin to lose sight of the broader goals and purtpose of the original intent of the discusion board confalting their own specific individual needs for the the group needs. The consequence of this is that new ideas, new entrants, imagination, creativity, thinking outside the box, open dialogue between parties is smothered. This is not a good thing when it happens. Not even for the in-group over the long term. Increasing they become myopic and over-reactionary. The slightest variation for the cultural norms are immediately set upon as look out it’s another troll attack .. man the battlements. And the best form of defense is what? Attack!

    To understand this dynamic by way of further analogy, maybe have a look at the topic of Mobbing in the Workplace. And then ask yourself is this the kind of place you want RC to be?

    I am open to any respectful dialogue about this subject by anyone on RC, and especially those who already recognise what I am saying from first hand observations here. You know what I mean. This is an opportunity for you to speak about openly and honestly, and maybe learn some new skills on how to more effectively deal with it yourself, and communicate your feelings about it, and to stand up and defend yourself and your own beliefs and values. be that here now, or in the next discussion group you decide to join.

    Lastly for the benefit of all, I am not an American. Please do not treat me like one. And do not expect me to act like one nor speak like one either.
    My cultural norms are different, so if you cannot respect that whilst I (at times humorously) respect and acknowledge your national norms and limitations plus your ways of being then effective communication and respectful dialogue will become impossible.

    I know how to handle Americans on discussion boards with either kid gloves or a size nine boot. So far I have been using the latter by choice. I suggest I have as much right to engage in conversation here and be myself and stand up for my own values and be tolerated and accommodated here as such, as everyone else should be. I will not tolerate fools nor abuse nor haughtiness and self-righteousness. Sorry, i do have my own standards. :)

    Alternatively, Gavin may at any time kick me off the site forever. That is his right. That would be a shame imho, but if that’s the way it is then that’s great because it means I won’t need to waste my time trying to help him out here.

    And yes, I am very self-confident that I know what I am speaking about here. I have the scars to prove it. Over to you guys. make of this what you will. personally I;d look at this post as an opportunity, and not a threat.

    Best to all, even those who already think I am a complete jerk. Sticks and stones and all that, right. :)

  30. 230
    Sean says:

    @217 Steve said: “You have emphasized the importance of the communicator in the effective transmission of ideas. Do you consider your post to be a good example of high quality communication?”

    NO Steve I do not. I consider it effective communication and fit for my purpose. Was there anything else you’d like me to answer, or do I take this as a basic “comment” about my poor communication and writing skills?

    If the latter, no probs. I heard you loud and clear. Thx.

  31. 231
    Steve Fish says:

    Re- Comment by Sean — 26 Nov 2013 @ 11:03 PM

    I am wondering if you think that this new excessively long free association is a good example of effective communication to your audience. But, to take it seriously, you made several statements about psychology and evolution and then said- “Only a belief not based on evidence will deny this is the case,” and because you are obviously very conversant with the evidence, please provide one or two references (peer reviewed please).

    Steve

  32. 232
    Sean says:

    @230 Steve – I will quote a more substanial amount inoder for your quesry to be framed more accurately here :: being mindful of the early introductory statements and analogies upon which the PRINCIPLE is couched within, and which the essential point being made here :: “Bringing this back to “climate science” this principle equally applies to different blog/discussion boards online. All may have the same over-riding basic beliefs and purpose, and yet each will have a very different culture. This culture is set in stone the longer the discussion group exists. This works on the same principles found in ‘evolution’. It is hard wired into human beings, it is a foundation stone of our collective natural psychology. It is as irresistible a ‘force’ as being take over by the Borg. One either complies and becomes assimilated into the prevailing culture, or they will be ejected and if necessary destroyed. This process operates by proxy on all online discussion groups. It is an undeniable fact. Only a belief not based on evidence will deny this is the case.” [end quote]

    re: “please provide one or two references (peer reviewed please).” No. It is what it is. Not too many peer reviewed studies out there on the Borg. I am not going to play games with this. If you disbelieve what I said, or wish to refute it feel free for that is your privledge. I won’t stand in your way, tear me rhetoric to pieces all you wish.

    You can ask me a thousand times for “refs” about already well known dynamics about psychology and evolution and human nature and communication and advertising all you want, and you get the same answer.

    Feel free to avail yourself of google. I am not going to argue about it. Thanks for replying though. It helps. Cheers Sean

  33. 233
    Sean says:

    @228 Dear Mick Roberts, I hear you loud and clear. You have asked an excellent question. I know exactly what you mean and the situation you find yourself in. I could give you my personal opinion as everyday person in the public who understands exactly what you;re saying, but seriously it ain’t worth it. I am not qualified nor have the authority to answer your question in a way that would be meaningful. I have great empathy for your position though. You are not alone for there are billions in the same boat as you. This was NOT a dumb question you have asked. It is in fact first rate! Well done. You’re half way there now, believe me. Actually knowing what the “right question” is is critical. You got that part right, do not give up. Cheers Sean

  34. 234
    Chuck Hughes says:

    @228 > Mike Roberts, I came here with the same sort of questions. It’s complicated with lots of moving parts and changing dynamics but the message I’ve been getting is that it’s pretty serious. How serious depends on who you ask.

    The more you read and listen the more you can start to piece together the big picture. The big question is time and how much we have but that depends on what level of consequences you’re referring to. I’m keeping a close eye on the overall weather disasters and frequency. My guess is that weather disasters will continue to worsen over time until we get to a serious food shortage caused by crop failure, flooding and drought. Up till now we’ve been able to stay pretty comfortable overall here in the U.S. and other developed countries but the pockets of misery are increasing on a global scale.

    Short of that, if a big section of the WAIS should happen to break off we might see some panic set in fairly quickly. Nobody seems to know if and when that might happen or how soon from what I can gather. I’m not a scientist so maybe someone will be kind enough to correct my assumptions if they’re a bit off.

    I don’t think you’re going to get one clear “answer” to your question because it’s too general and the situation is, as I said, complicated.

  35. 235
    Sean says:

    I find this very interesting – Angela’s Blog September 27, 2013
    http://www.wunderground.com/blog/angelafritz/comment.html?entrynum=57&&&theprefset=BLOGCOMMENTS&theprefvalue=50

    What the 5th IPCC Assessment Doesn’t Include
    A heavyweight boxer in the climate change match is missing from the 5th climate assessment report released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on Friday.
    This effect, called the permafrost carbon feedback, is not present in the global climate change models used to estimate how warm the earth could get over the next century.

    Go to the page and first read oomment
    7. DrGr8ape 5:37 AM GMT on September 28, 2013
    and
    8. Daisyworld 6:11 AM GMT on September 28, 2013
    and then
    15. DrGr8ape 8:17 PM GMT on September 28, 2013
    then
    17. Daisyworld 11:40 PM GMT on September 28, 2013
    who says in part: “However, all climate projections in the IPCC’s AR5 are likely to be biased on the low side relative to global temperature because none of the participating models include the permafrost carbon feedback.”
    Based on this, I’m am calling you out on the untruth you just wrote in your comment above, and I will continue to question your motivations.

    In the original article Angela did write: “This effect, called the permafrost carbon feedback, is not present in the global climate change models used to estimate how warm the earth could get over the next century.”

    Who is more right here in your opinion: Angela, DrGr8ape with the newborn child, Daisyworld, or the IPCC ???

    OK then, who is more “angry” and emotionally reactive – DrGr8ape or Daisyworld

    Lastly, in your opinion, should (the Permafrost Feedbacks be included in (all/some) of the AR5 WGI Report Climate Models to 2100? yes/no / doesn’t matter? I am curious about what people believe is more important overall. Thx sean

  36. 236
    Sean says:

    17. Daisyworld 11:40 PM GMT on September 28, 2013 also said:
    “Furthermore, based on the untruth you wrote above, I can only conclude that you are inserting misinformation into this discussion of the permafrost carbon feedback in attempts to derail the conversation here. You are doing this by FABRICATING A CONTROVERSY where there is none, and for no good reason than to try and publicly humiliate a featured blogger here at Weather Underground.”

    BEFORE THAT though poor sleep deprived new-father DrGr8ape had said:
    [quoting] “Most of the CMIP5 and Earth System Model (ESM) simulations were performed with prescribed CO2 concentrations reaching 421 ppm (RCP2.6), 538 ppm (RCP4.5), 670 ppm (RCP6.0), and 936 ppm (RCP 8.5) by the year 2100.

    Including also the prescribed concentrations of CH4 and N2O, the combined CO2-equivalent concentrations are 475 ppm (RCP2.6), 630 ppm (RCP4.5), 800 ppm (RCP6.0), and 1313 ppm (RCP8.5).” (p. 22)”
    Not only was CH4 (methane) employed in the current models in the IPCC report, but permafrost melt and the ensuing CH4 release was mentioned several times – and this is just the “summary for policymakers”. Seriously, did you actually read it? [end quote]

    Who is correct? Unknown Visitor – or Resident Presidential Guard? )
    http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGI_AR5_SPM_brochure.pdf

    I mention this above because this next url was posted on RC recently and one thing led to another: Response to a Climate Troll by Daisyworld http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2013/11/from-angela-fritzs-wunderground-blog.html

    Daisyworld’s WunderBlog –
    However, what really opened my eyes with this article was the concept of “Manufactured Doubt” campaigns, and why corporations and industries (and consequently, politicians and individuals who listen to them) continue to deny the science behind human-induced climate change.
    I used to think that it was only because they are money-grubbing, evil institutions with no soul. But it turns out that there’s actually a logical reason: Apparently, laws exist in all 50 states that legally require corporations to “exercise their powers and discharge their duties with a view to the interest of the corporation and of the shareholders” (see Maine section 716).
    In a nutshell, if corporations aren’t looking out for their bottom line, they can be sued by their shareholders. Further still, if they act in a socially responsible way that costs the company marketshare or puts a cap on their profitability, it can be viewed as undermining the company, the consequence being that they can also be sued by their shareholders.
    http://www.wunderground.com/blog/Daisyworld/show.html

    Some food for thought, perhaps.

  37. 237
    Sean says:

    @228 Mike Roberts Try this section of the AR5 WGI Report
    Annex I: Atlas of Global and Regional Climate Projections
    http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_AnnexI.pdf
    It may help a little.

  38. 238

    Sean, before you prescribe to others how to communicate effectively, you might consider that I no longer read any of your posts. Way too long, way too little illuminating content.

    Just sayin’.

  39. 239
    Steve Fish says:

    Re- Comment by Sean — 27 Nov 2013 @ 1:22 AM

    On a science site when asked to substantiate factual statements that you describe as “[o]nly a belief not based on evidence will deny this is the case,” you admit that there is no scientific evidence. Further, you have claimed that the message is all important and that a listener who is unprepared to listen can be won over with a skilful or appropriate communication, yet you are not having much success here.

    Is this a good summary? Steve

  40. 240
    Hank Roberts says:

    Sean, put a little time into checking stuff you find on blogs, rather than copypasting — often blog info is outdated.

    Here’s a shortcut for info on recent US corporate law: https://www.google.com/search?q=public+benefit+corporation

  41. 241
    Hank Roberts says:

    And don’t fall for the notion that corporations can’t consider costs and benefits beyond the shortest term. Look up the energy efficiency regulations for transformers, for example — Bush’s Dep’t of Energy came out with a regulation allowing the cheapest and lowest-efficiency transformers to be used (a lot of electric grid operations need to replace them, and whatever goes in will stay in use for decades). That was the “free market” notion that all stockholders care about is shortterm profit.

    The utilities, conservation groups, and some states joined together to sue the DOE to raise the requirement, so that purchasers would not have the risk of being sued by stockholders for making the wiser longterm choice by paying more up front for more efficient equipment and longterm savings.

    The law does not require stupidity and shortsightedness. Those are political choices. People create governments to allow better choices than those.
    https://www.google.com/search?q=DOE+transformer+efficiency+lawsuit

  42. 242
    tokodave says:

    Kevin. Thanks.

  43. 243
    wili says:

    Kevin at #238: You and me both. Just one example from #232: “I will quote a more substanial amount inoder for your quesry to be framed more accurately here :: being mindful of the early introductory statements and analogies upon which the PRINCIPLE is couched within, and which the essential point being made here :: “Bringing this back to “climate science” this principle equally applies to different blog/discussion boards online.”

    This is word salad.

  44. 244
    flxible says:

    @238 x2

    Sean, before you prescribe to others how to communicate effectively, you might consider that I no longer read any of your posts. Way too long, way too little illuminating content.

    [CAPTCHA too: and stroth]

  45. 245
    Sean says:

    @238 Kevin, thx for sharing your personal opinion. It’s appreciated. I cannot recall telling one other person ‘how’ they should communicate effectively. Maybe I did and didn’t notice or maybe that is how it was interpreted. Best Sean

  46. 246
    Jim Larsen says:

    238 Kevin, neither do I, but as they scroll past, certain words like “sued” keep flashing by.

  47. 247
    Susan Anderson says:

    238&243
    x3

    I tried to read some of it and didn’t entirely disagree with what I read, but the animus was too much and the volume incredible. The presumption of anger in response was trumped by the anger in presentation.

    On another topic, thought not science related, I was struck by the fact that 47 million Americans are hungry at least some of the time. Now when I read that we are pretty comfortable, I wonder if you know any poor people. I do, and I’m here to tell you, no we’re not doing fine. Those are the ones who will suffer the most, and the ones who can’t do anything about it.

    It’s not OK to temporize.

  48. 248
    Sean says:

    @240 & 241 Hank, making assumptions is clearly your forte. You excel in fact.

    have you ever heard the phase “well that sure went over your head”? :)

    Thanks for all other comments, excellent, keep them coming. Get it off your chest.

  49. 249
    Sean says:

    @230 Dear Steve .. “you admit that there is no scientific evidence.”

    FALSE Please learn to read what is actually written and do not put words in my mouth that were not said, nor intended. Please! Is that clear enough communication Steve? Have another go if you want to. :)

  50. 250
    Sean says:

    @244 Dear Susan you say *was trumped by the anger in presentation.* That’s an interesting opinion. Feel free to be more specific and support your belief with evidence on this site thus far. I will consider it. I am here to get answers to my specific purpose of now posting here after reading here for almost 7 years. You may be able to help.
    You also were the one who provided the link to daisyworld ‘troll info’ the summary of which I have already shared with others online confronting climate denialist trolls. But I dug little deeper and shared some info about that beyond mere trolls. You may not be interested, and that’s fine by me. Others may be able to see what’s there. and why I felt it was interesting, valid and appropriate for sharing here. Thanks for your feedback on my writing style, and length, is always good to hear how one’s writing affects another. Noted. Slowly I am receiving the responses I needed to make a more informed evidence based decision. Best to you. My apologies if that was too long. I don;t shoot arrows, nor slogans. It’s the way I am. And I am OK, not angry, thanks anyway. Sean


Switch to our mobile site