• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NYT subscribers dropping paper over climate column

jmotivator said:
LOL. All I have to do is look at what the left gets the most pissed off about, and what topic is ubiquitous at every left-wing riot... I mean protest.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I can only assume you get "what the left gets most pissed about" from watching Hannity or listening to Limbaugh, apparently, which is aka being completely ignorant of the actual left and what their concerns are at the moment. It's like saying the only thing right wingers care about is guns. We have people on this forum who tell us that's their main concern, but to then conclude that's all YOU or "the right" care about would be obvious BS.

Just for example, the Bernie wing of "the left" were simply NOT motivated by differences between Bernie and Hillary on climate policies, and their concern about the DNC and Tom Perez taking over isn't because Perez is 'weak' on climate issues. If you don't know that, you're speaking from near total ignorance about "the left."
 
jimbo said:
Environmentalists tend to be liberal and tend to be offended by nearly everything, especially free speech.
Click to expand...
Yes, because it's not like conservatives get offended by anything at all ever

‘National Review’ Sheds Subscribers Over ‘Don’t Vote Donald Trump’ Editorial

https://townhall.com/columnists/joh...for-conservatives-to-boycott-the-nfl-n2222903

Group Launches Boycott of Target Over Bathroom Policies

For Conservatives, Boycotts Are Noble Efforts When They Support Them, Otherwise It’s ‘Economic Terrorism’ | Right Wing Watch

Let's get real -- the right-wing has had an entire industry that manufactures outrage for decades. What do you think Rush Limbaugh has been doing for the past 30 years or so? Celebrating the positivity of contemporary American life?

As to the article... He has a few points about the political methods involved, but... he is basically denying the science. AGW is no longer a matter of probabilities. It's happening, it's real. It is not unscientific to accept that it's (reasonably) certain, any more than it is unscientific to accept that "water is H2O" or that "c = 186,282 mi/s."

The question is how much harm it will cause, how much of that harm we can mitigate, and what methods can we use to mitigate it. Further, we have to ask the best way to get people to realize how much damage we're doing, not just to the climate, not just to the planet, not just to the organisms we share on this planet, but to ourselves as well.

As to the alleged "wave of subscription cancellations?" Wow, a handful of people on Twitter expressed their displeasure boo scary. :roll:
 
I found it amusing that today CNN claimed that Fox News was nothing but state run TV, like CNN wasn't state run TV when Obama was president. Heck, they employed Donna Brazille who forked over debate questions to Hillary. Now that's state run TV.
 
Nilly said:
There is still uncertainty surrounding the issue of sensitivity, and it's the subject of much current research.

That uncertainty is taken into account in the models, which is why they provide ranges of estimates. The presence of error bars should not prevent us from taking action when there are reams of evidence still showing we're heading towards the ****ter.
Click to expand...
The models start with some basic assumptions.
The concept of AGW looks something like this.
The CO2 level doubles, and results in an energy imbalance between the energy entering and leaving the earth.
1: The first assumption is how large that energy imbalance would be, (it is an assumption, because we cannot measure it).
2: The warming of the surface troposphere system that results from the energy imbalance is supposed to be 1.2 C,
It is assumed that this 1.2 C provides the input to amplified feedbacks which will increase the warming to between 1.5 and 4.5 C.
The uncertainty in the range is based on our poor understanding of how clouds interact with radiation.
NOTE: the uncertainty, 3C is 2.5 times greater than the input of 1.2 C, which itself has ±10% uncertainty attached.
All if this is based on the IPCC's key concepts in climate science.
http://old.grida.no//climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/tar-01.pdf
Recent work places the level of Energy imbalance down at 3.44 Wm-2, if the ratio remained the same .3C per additional Wm-2,
then the input would be 1.032 C and the range of values would be 1.29 to 3.87 C with a medium of 2.58 C.
Energy budget constraints on climate sensitivity in light of inconstant climate feedbacks : Nature Climate Change
Down in the methods section of the Armour paper we find this,
To examine the EBM behaviour over a wide range of
plausible climate sensitivities, ECS is draw n randomly from a uniform distribution
between 1 and 15◦C; this corresponds to values of λeq between 3.44 and 0.23 W m−2K−1
(assuming F2×= 3.44 W m−2 as above).
Click to expand...
So the range of assumed values was between .23 Wm-2 and 3.44 Wm-2, so they ran it assuming the maximum of 3.44 Wm-2.
The uncertainty of the amplified feedback has an range 2.5 times greater than the input, and not the input itself has
a much greater range of uncertainty than the ±10% Baede described.
Do I need to tell you that these uncertainties are cumulative?
 
longview said:
The models start with some basic assumptions.
The concept of AGW looks something like this.
The CO2 level doubles, and results in an energy imbalance between the energy entering and leaving the earth.
1: The first assumption is how large that energy imbalance would be, (it is an assumption, because we cannot measure it).
2: The warming of the surface troposphere system that results from the energy imbalance is supposed to be 1.2 C,
It is assumed that this 1.2 C provides the input to amplified feedbacks which will increase the warming to between 1.5 and 4.5 C.
The uncertainty in the range is based on our poor understanding of how clouds interact with radiation.
NOTE: the uncertainty, 3C is 2.5 times greater than the input of 1.2 C, which itself has ±10% uncertainty attached.
All if this is based on the IPCC's key concepts in climate science.
http://old.grida.no//climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/tar-01.pdf
Recent work places the level of Energy imbalance down at 3.44 Wm-2, if the ratio remained the same .3C per additional Wm-2,
then the input would be 1.032 C and the range of values would be 1.29 to 3.87 C with a medium of 2.58 C.
Energy budget constraints on climate sensitivity in light of inconstant climate feedbacks : Nature Climate Change
Down in the methods section of the Armour paper we find this,

So the range of assumed values was between .23 Wm-2 and 3.44 Wm-2, so they ran it assuming the maximum of 3.44 Wm-2.
The uncertainty of the amplified feedback has an range 2.5 times greater than the input, and not the input itself has
a much greater range of uncertainty than the ±10% Baede described.
Do I need to tell you that these uncertainties are cumulative?
Click to expand...

I think you're misinterpreting an (admittedly difficult) subject.

What would happen to your argument if you were to measure temperature in Kelvin rather than Celsius? It would be a 3K uncertainty on a 274.2K reading, which would make it closer to 1% uncertainty. Whilst meaning the exact same thing.

Percentile and absolute uncertainties are not necessarily cumulative, you treat them differently depending on what you do to your measurement. Multiplication by a constant would increase an absolute certainty but not a percentile one. Furthermore, uncertainty in precision/resolution (i.e. in your measuring instrument) and uncertainty in accuracy (your measurement) are two separate things.
 
TheGoverness said:
Seems like a petty thing to remove your subscription over.
Click to expand...

I think it's pretty funny that as my Facebook feed was blowing up after the election on how NYT was "The Resistance," then NYT bitches about how Trump is trying to destroy the EPA; then it takes some of that new "resistance" subscription money and hires some nitwit who doesn't believe in climate change. Jesus, it's almost like the NYT isn't a noble organization dedicated to telling people truth. It's almost like they're a corporate establishment with the same kinds of morals as Trump's businesses. Huh.
 
Redress said:
I count 1, maybe 2. Maybe you should have read instead of being all hysterical.

And crying about a ****ing twitter feed is retarded.
Click to expand...

I'm amused at the people lambasting the author for his middle of the road approach Redress. THAT is funny.
 
Renae said:
I'm amused at the people lambasting the author for his middle of the road approach Redress. THAT is funny.
Click to expand...

Yeah, how dare people have other opinions!
 
Redress said:
Yeah, how dare people have other opinions!
Click to expand...

Well, obviously you don't share my amusement. I find it amusing, and I shared for those that might aslo find it so.
 
Nilly said:
I think you're misinterpreting an (admittedly difficult) subject.

What would happen to your argument if you were to measure temperature in Kelvin rather than Celsius? It would be a 3K uncertainty on a 274.2K reading, which would make it closer to 1% uncertainty. Whilst meaning the exact same thing.

Percentile and absolute uncertainties are not necessarily cumulative, you treat them differently depending on what you do to your measurement. Multiplication by a constant would increase an absolute certainty but not a percentile one. Furthermore, uncertainty in precision/resolution (i.e. in your measuring instrument) and uncertainty in accuracy (your measurement) are two separate things.
Click to expand...
Kelvin and Celsius are the same scale but with different zeros, but Baede used Celsius.
http://old.grida.no//climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/tar-01.pdf
So the energy imbalance from doubling the CO2 level
To counteract this imbalance, the temperature of the surface-troposphere system would have to
increase by 1.2°C (with an accuracy of ±10%)
Click to expand...
So the input from the CO2 is 1.2 C ±10%, for us laymen that is 1.08 to 1.32 C.
That is the uncertainty of the warming from doubling the CO2 level.
They go on to say,
In reality, due to feedbacks, the response of the climate system is much more complex.
It is believed that the overall effect of the feedbacks amplifies the temperature increase
to 1.5 to 4.5°C. A significant part of this uncertainty range arises
from our limited knowledge of clouds and their interactions with radiation.
Click to expand...
Their 1.2 °C(with it's built in uncertainty) is amplified through feedbacks to be between 1.5 and 4.5 °C,
and they say the range is caused from uncertainty related to clouds.
The amplified feedback has an uncertainty of ±1.5°C.
As to treating the uncertainties separately, The input warming uncertainty would exists weather or not any amplified feedback warming
existed. And the uncertainty of how clouds treat radiation is also a stand alone uncertainty.
When they say the CO2 warming is the input for the amplified feedback warming,
the uncertainties would likely be cumulative.
 
longview said:
Kelvin and Celsius are the same scale but with different zeros, but Baede used Celsius.
http://old.grida.no//climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/tar-01.pdf
Click to expand...

Sure. But celsius and kelvin are the same thing. Shifting the zero adds no absolute uncertainty.

But it changes the % uncertainty from 250% (which was the point you made) to 1% uncertainty. Without changing the absolute value of uncertainty.

longview said:
So the energy imbalance from doubling the CO2 level

So the input from the CO2 is 1.2 C ±10%, for us laymen that is 1.08 to 1.32 C.
Click to expand...

Lol I think laymen can use percentages.

longview said:
That is the uncertainty of the warming from doubling the CO2 level.
They go on to say,

Their 1.2 °C(with it's built in uncertainty) is amplified through feedbacks to be between 1.5 and 4.5 °C,
and they say the range is caused from uncertainty related to clouds.
The amplified feedback has an uncertainty of ±1.5°C.
Click to expand...

Found the part you were quoting:

If the amount of carbon dioxide were doubled instantaneously,
with everything else remaining the same, the outgoing infrared
radiation would be reduced by about 4 Wm−2. In other words, the
radiative forcing corresponding to a doubling of the CO2 concentration
would be 4 Wm−2. To counteract this imbalance, the
temperature of the surface-troposphere system would have to
increase by 1.2°C (with an accuracy of ±10%), in the absence of
other changes. In reality, due to feedbacks, the response of the
climate system is much more complex. It is believed that the
overall effect of the feedbacks amplifies the temperature increase
to 1.5 to 4.5°C. A significant part of this uncertainty range arises
from our limited knowledge of clouds and their interactions with
radiation. To appreciate the magnitude of this temperature
increase, it should be compared with the global mean temperature
difference of perhaps 5 or 6°C from the middle of the last Ice Age
to the present interglacial.
Click to expand...

So they're basically saying that the estimate based off of forcing (a hypothetical forcing thru a doubling of CO2) of 1.2 (±10%) is actually a gross underestimate based on other effects (such as positive feedback)?

What's the point you're trying to make? That we're very conservative in our estimates?

longview said:
As to treating the uncertainties separately, The input warming uncertainty would exists weather or not any amplified feedback warming existed. And the uncertainty of how clouds treat radiation is also a stand alone uncertainty.

When they say the CO2 warming is the input for the amplified feedback warming, the uncertainties would likely be cumulative.
Click to expand...

When uncertainties are correlative then you must take covariance into account. In some cases, uncertainties cancel each other out, when we take a bunch of distinct measurements, we usually see some positive errors and some negative errors, which in the end will mostly cancel each other out. You can't make conclusive statements about the uncertainties until you know the measurements and what operations have been done onto those measurements. You know who has done that analysis? The people who write these papers and have invariably come to the conclusion that AGW is real.
 
Last edited:
Nilly said:
Sure. But celsius and kelvin are the same thing. Shifting the zero adds no absolute uncertainty.

But it changes the % uncertainty from 250% (which was the point you made) to 1% uncertainty. Without changing the absolute value of uncertainty.



Lol I think laymen can use percentages.
Click to expand...
Except that Baede only used Celsius, so discussions based on what the percentages would look like is kelvin,
is simply an irrelevant diversion.


Found the part you were quoting:



So they're basically saying that the estimate based off of forcing (a hypothetical forcing thru a doubling of CO2) of 1.2 (±10%) is actually a gross underestimate based on other effects (such as positive feedback)?
Click to expand...
No! they are saying the warming from the CO2 is the input of what they believe is a positive amplified feedback.
Lower warming, lower amplified feedback!

What's the point you're trying to make? That we're very conservative in our estimates?
Click to expand...
The uncertainty in CO2 input warming would only increase the uncertainty in the output whose uncertainty is already larger than the
predicted input. Also have an output range of 3 C for an 1.2C input is not conservative estimate.


When uncertainties are correlative then you must take covariance into account. In some cases, uncertainties cancel each other out, when we take a bunch of distinct measurements, we usually see some positive errors and some negative errors, which in the end will mostly cancel each other out. You can't make conclusive statements about the uncertainties until you know the measurements and what operations have been done onto those measurements. You know who has done that analysis? The people who write these papers and have invariably come to the conclusion that AGW is real.
Click to expand...
Since they use the terms like warming, and feedbacks amplify, it is safe to assume all of their numbers fall into a positive column.
Actually the analyses is fairly good, and no one said that AGW was not real, so why introduce the idea.
The discussion is about uncertainty in the predictions.
 
longview said:
Except that Baede only used Celsius, so discussions based on what the percentages would look like is kelvin,
is simply an irrelevant diversion.
Click to expand...

Except it's not because Kelvin and Celsius describe the exact same thing. It's relevant to the discussion because it shows that your calculations of uncertainty are invalid.

longview said:
No! they are saying the warming from the CO2 is the input of what they believe is a positive amplified feedback.
Lower warming, lower amplified feedback!

The uncertainty in CO2 input warming would only increase the uncertainty in the output whose uncertainty is already larger than the
predicted input.
Click to expand...

Still not sure what you're getting at.

longview said:
Also have an output range of 3 C for an 1.2C input is not conservative estimate.
Click to expand...

Not at all. An output range of 3C on a very precise measurement (like 1.200001) would be ridiculous. But 3C error on a 1.2 input is no different than 3K error on a 275K input. The arbitrarily chosen 0 point of C is influencing you to think there's more error then there is.

Likewise if we were to use F, we would get a 5.4F error (a 1 degree change in C ~ 1.8 degree change in F)on a measurement of 34.16F.

All 3 measurements are identical, they mean the exact same thing. Yet they each yield different percentage errors. You're treating uncertainties incorrectly.

longview said:
Since they use the terms like warming, and feedbacks amplify, it is safe to assume all of their numbers fall into a positive column.
Actually the analyses is fairly good, and no one said that AGW was not real, so why introduce the idea.
The discussion is about uncertainty in the predictions.
Click to expand...

Measurements might fall into a positive column but that doesn't mean uncertainties necessarily do.

Again, can you summarize what you're trying to say? I'm getting a bit lost. My original point was that some uncertainty in measurements (which happens in all science) is not the same as no certainty at all, which is what the article in OP paints it as.
 
Last edited:
Nilly said:
Except it's not because Kelvin and Celsius describe the exact same thing. It's relevant to the discussion because it shows that your calculations of uncertainty are invalid.
Click to expand...
No when Baede says, "1.2°C (with an accuracy of ±10%)" He is talking about 10% of the 1.2°C.



Still not sure what you're getting at.
Click to expand...
The fundamental concept behind AGW, is that additional CO2 causes some warming, That warming is what is in theory
amplified through positive feedback to produce the the additional warming.
Errors fed into an amplifier produce bigger errors, but this particular amplifier already had a large error range built into it,
so the errors/uncertainty would be cumulative.



Not at all. An output range of 3C on a very precise measurement (like 1.200001) would be ridiculous. But 3C error on a 1.2 input is no different than 3K error on a 275K input. The arbitrarily chosen 0 point of C is influencing you to think there's more error then there is.
Click to expand...
The difference is that we are not talking about 3 C of output for a 1.2 C input, but the uncertainty of the amplifier.
We have the hypothetical amplifier with an unknown amount of gain.
The input is 1.2 C, and the output is somewhere between 1.5 and 4.5 C (3 C difference).
This is like saying we have a gain factor between 1.25 and 3.75 times the input, which is an enormous range.
Imagine buying a car and asking the salesman how many miles you can expect to get from a full tank of gas,
and he tells you, "On level ground, somewhere between 150 and 450 miles, but that is as close as our uncertainty can tell us!"






Measurements might fall into a positive column but that doesn't mean uncertainties necessarily do.

Again, can you summarize what you're trying to say? I'm getting a bit lost. My original point was that some uncertainty in measurements (which happens in all science) is not the same as no certainty at all, which is what the article in OP paints it as.
Click to expand...
I suspect some of the uncertainties fall into the negative column, but you are unlikely to see that discussed by the IPCC.
My point is that the published uncertainties are all over the place, but the analysis based on the empirical data,
show the ECS coming in at the low end of the IPCC's range.
 
Nilly said:
Ah, so you prefer your news sources to be provably incorrect. I see.

Even the guy that the article author cited has shot him down: https://www.facebook.com/andrew.revkin.5/posts/10156090701266040

If a news website is going to give a platform to long since debunked nonsense then it's no surprise that they will lose subscribers.

Not to mention, to give credence to people who run with the idea that 'some uncertainty' = 'no certainy' (which is, afterall, all that climate change denial really is) is socially irresponsible. (I understand that some people might not care about that).
Click to expand...

Stephens doesn't deny climate change. What he said is that climate folks who go ballistic over any questioning of aspects of climate change are their own worst enemies.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Stephens doesn't deny climate change. What he said is that climate folks who go ballistic over any questioning of aspects of climate change are their own worst enemies.
Click to expand...

Whether or not he specifically denies science, he is spreading demonstrably false information which obfuscates a globally critical topic.

It would be like if he was saying 'well we should discuss creationism in schools, because it's a theory'. No, it's not a valid scientific theory, and we owe our children better than to fill their heads with demonstrably false BS.
 
Nilly said:
Whether or not he specifically denies science, he is spreading demonstrably false information which obfuscates a globally critical topic.

It would be like if he was saying 'well we should discuss creationism in schools, because it's a theory'. No, it's not a valid scientific theory, and we owe our children better than to fill their heads with demonstrably false BS.
Click to expand...

Is it true that the drought in California was caused by global warming? The claim was being made. However, That is a denial of science.
Stephens argument is that some of the hysterics about global warming makes it tougher to make the argument.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Is it true that the drought in California was caused by global warming? The claim was being made. However, That is a denial of science.
Stephens argument is that some of the hysterics about global warming makes it tougher to make the argument.
Click to expand...

Cause and effect isn't as simple as that in climate science. It's very likely that AGW has contributed to the drought in California.

Stephens argument is a giant strawman, and contains multiple falsehoods. No scientific body claims complete certainty, but that doesn't mean that there is complete uncertainty either. I've already posted in this thread the main points of scientific consensus on climate change that no major body of international or national repute dissents from.

To paraphrase one of my links from earlier: He is dishonestly creating doubt in areas when there is none. Casting that doubt as reasonable, even when it isn’t. Amplifying that doubt, then saying, “Hey, let’s talk about this” as if this opinion has equal bearing as a tsunami of scientific evidence.

There are very few realistic climate advocates that are saying we should go without power. That we should stop all travel. What is being said is that we should adhere to things like the Paris agreements. Make efforts to reduce carbon footprints. That we should shift investment from technologies that are dirty to those that are clean. The economic bottom line is not always the most important thing - and that doesn't even take into account the fact that the 'green' route is quickly becoming, in many cases, the more economically preferable.
 
Nilly said:
Cause and effect isn't as simple as that in climate science. It's very likely that AGW has contributed to the drought in California.

Stephens argument is a giant strawman, and contains multiple falsehoods. No scientific body claims complete certainty, but that doesn't mean that there is complete uncertainty either. I've already posted in this thread the main points of scientific consensus on climate change that no major body of international or national repute dissents from.

To paraphrase one of my links from earlier: He is dishonestly creating doubt in areas when there is none. Casting that doubt as reasonable, even when it isn’t. Amplifying that doubt, then saying, “Hey, let’s talk about this” as if this opinion has equal bearing as a tsunami of scientific evidence.

There are very few realistic climate advocates that are saying we should go without power. That we should stop all travel. What is being said is that we should adhere to things like the Paris agreements. Make efforts to reduce carbon footprints. That we should shift investment from technologies that are dirty to those that are clean. The economic bottom line is not always the most important thing - and that doesn't even take into account the fact that the 'green' route is quickly becoming, in many cases, the more economically preferable.
Click to expand...

Stevens is quite clear in the article that global warming is happening and that it is caused, to some extent, by human activity. It is not clear what strawman he is creating.

What he does seem to say, though, is that nobody has a monopoly on science, or on its solutions.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Stevens is quite clear in the article that global warming is happening and that it is caused, to some extent, by human activity. It is not clear what strawman he is creating.

What he does seem to say, though, is that nobody has a monopoly on science, or on its solutions.
Click to expand...

It's here (at a minimum):

Let me put it another way. Claiming total certainty about the science traduces the spirit of science and creates openings for doubt whenever a climate claim proves wrong. Demanding abrupt and expensive changes in public policy raises fair questions about ideological intentions. Censoriously asserting one’s moral superiority and treating skeptics as imbeciles and deplorables wins few converts.
Click to expand...

Who is claiming total certainty about the science? Stephens acknowledges that the earth has warmed, and human activity is a major cause, so is that subject on which it's wrong to claim 'total certainty?' No one claims to have 'total certainty' about the extent of future warming - all those predictions are presented as ranges. We don't know what he means, and it's likely he knows better than to be specific. Same thing with "whenever a climate change prediction proves wrong." Well, which ones have been proved 'wrong?'

None of this is to deny climate change or the possible severity of its consequences. But ordinary citizens also have a right to be skeptical of an overweening scientism. They know — as all environmentalists should — that history is littered with the human wreckage of scientific errors married to political power.
Click to expand...

Here's the classic bait and switch. "None of this is to deny"...but "be skeptical....scientific errors!!" which is equivalent from a policy standpoint as to 'deny.'
 
Rexedgar said:
not to hijack the thread, but what are the 'hot button' issues in order of importance to the left-center-right.

In no specific order, my list is:

1) 2nd amendment
2) abortion
3) immigration
4) climate change
5) health care
6) taxes
7) 1st amendment
8) foreign policy
What am I leaving out?
Click to expand...

1. Trumps obvious personality disorder
 
JasperL said:
It's here (at a minimum):



Who is claiming total certainty about the science? Stephens acknowledges that the earth has warmed, and human activity is a major cause, so is that subject on which it's wrong to claim 'total certainty?' No one claims to have 'total certainty' about the extent of future warming - all those predictions are presented as ranges. We don't know what he means, and it's likely he knows better than to be specific. Same thing with "whenever a climate change prediction proves wrong." Well, which ones have been proved 'wrong?'



Here's the classic bait and switch. "None of this is to deny"...but "be skeptical....scientific errors!!" which is equivalent from a policy standpoint as to 'deny.'
Click to expand...

Well, no. What it means is that to reject a particular policy does not equal to rejecting the science. Windmills, after all, come with their own costs.

This is especially true and valid when the science says that that the polar ice caps will be gone by 2013 (al gore) or that NYC back in the 90s needed to spend billions on walls and dykes to keep the Hudson from routinely flooding the city by 2015 (neither of course happened).

Stephens accepts the science. He is warning about policy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom