2011-09-06 04:30:48Dessler Demolishes Three Crucial 'Skeptic' Myths
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
68.6.117.21

Follow-up to Rob's post.

Dessler Demolishes Three Crucial 'Skeptic' Myths

2011-09-06 06:39:08Dana, when I'm on holiday, my mental activity goes no further than changing TV channels
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.208.191
So taking down the world's two most qualified deniers is not bad for vacation work. Perfect follow-up post - reinforces Rob's post and reminds everyone that the SkS rebuttal resource is constantly being updated with the latest peer reviewed science and is the go-to place for climate denial.

What about adding " " marks around each subheading to indicate it's a myth - rather than risk people think that's a statement we're trying to make. You come dangerously close to invoking the "familiarity backfire effect" by repeating the myths in headings or subheadings - it's a tricky and annoying psychological booby trap we debunkers routinely face.

In fact, maybe go further than just adding quotes - the general rule of thumb, and this is a real pain in the butt, is rather than repeat the myth in your subheading, you instead use your core fact. You want people to become more familiar with your core fact, not the myth. So perhaps it's better to use a subheading like "Ocean heating is 20 times larger than cloud heating" which emphasizes your core fact rather than the myth. I know, upsets your flow, you're probably hating my comments these days with all my psycho-babble :-)

BTW, on the topic of reinforcement, I loved how you turned the "20 times larger" text into a bolder, hyperlink. Very clever visually, from a web linking point of view and from a messaging point of view.

2011-09-06 07:29:28
Andy S

skucea@telus...
66.183.179.249

I found the title confusing. I'd recommend somthing like Dessler's paper invokes revisions to three rebuttals.

Also, I don't think the usage of "invokes" is correct, perhaps "evokes" is closer. Why not say "prompts" instead?

 

Otherwise, opposable digit up.

2011-09-06 07:29:38invokes means ?
muoncounter
Dan Friedman
dfriedman3@comcast...
76.30.158.238

Invokes suggests that Dessler called upon the rebuttal revisions.  If I read this correctly, you are modifying the rebuttals based on his paper.  Wouldn't it be better to say something like 'updates to 3 rebuttals based on Dessler's latest paper'?

2011-09-06 07:31:09
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
188.152.84.242

Mith: "It's internal variability"

or something like that.

Good to have it ready to publish shortly after Rob's post.

2011-09-06 08:01:15invokes
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
68.6.117.21

My brain wasn't fully functioning this morning - I am still on vacation after all.  I think "evokes" was the word I was going for, but "prompts" is good too.  Will revise the title and section headings right now...

Dessler's Paper Prompts Revisions to Three Rebuttals

2011-09-06 11:48:55
Tom Curtis

t.r.curtis@gmail...
112.213.162.57

Dana, Spencer bases his claim that it is internal variability driving the temperature increase on his simple climate model which has been extensively criticized by Bickmore.  Mentioning that, and including a link to Bickmore's analysis might improve your first section.

2011-09-06 13:37:19
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
68.6.117.21
Well this post just discusses the updates to the existing rebuttals based on Dessler's paper. But I probably should add a discussion of Bickmore's analysis in the internal variability rebuttal at some point too.
2011-09-06 17:16:15
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.54.170

Looks good.

2011-09-06 21:35:01
Sarah
Sarah Green
sarah@inlandsea...
67.142.177.25

Good, but I'll also quibble with the title. It won't make sense to people who drop in but are unfamiliar with SKS and the rebuttal system. Maybe it would better as a subtitle.

How about:

"Desssler's paper adds nails to the coffins of three common denier myths"

"Three denier myths even more wrong (than they already were)"

"Three myths slayed (again) with a single paper"

 

2011-09-06 21:39:21
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.54.170

Dana, I've tidied up the arrows in the graph Dessler post - you might want to update the graphic so it looks a little bit more polished. 

2011-09-07 01:37:44
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
68.6.117.21

Thanks Rob, will do.

2011-09-07 02:41:06
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Sarah,

I like this one, with one minor change:

"Three ["skeptic"] myths slayed (again) with a single paper"

2011-09-07 02:54:33
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.33.51

How about the more charismatic, "Three at one stroke! Papers, that is."

2011-09-07 03:01:49
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Dana,

As always, good stuff.  Re clouds and ther feedbacks etc.. your post got me thinking of an exhange that I had with Eric(skeptic) here at SkS recently:

"The reality remains that multiple, independent studies have found evidence for a positive cloud feedback, as discussed here at SkS. Another example of a weak positive cloud feedback is the warming over the Arctic (and a strong positive WV feedback) leading to increased cloud cover which at those high latitudes leads to further warming (see Screen and Simmonds, 2010):


"Changes in cloud cover, in contrast, have not contributed strongly to recent warming. Increases in atmospheric water vapour content, partly in response to reduced sea ice cover, may have enhanced warming in the lower part of the atmosphere during summer and early autumn."

So ther eis an unequivocal exmaple of a positive cloud feedback (albeit is weak) in operation. The link I included is to a post that you wrote, and it might be worth inlcuding again as some backgound material for the reader:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-cloudy-outlook-for-low-climate-sensitivity.html

 

Nothing right now points to a negative clod feedback, nevermind a substantial one.  And this is where I bring in a beautiful observation made by John N-G on his blog recently:

"The only viable explanation for the glacial-interglacial cycles (not all that stable, really) involves a bunch of feedbacks (ice-albedo, water vapor, CO2, and methane), and there’s ample geological and ice core evidence for all of them. Why would anthropogenic CO2 now be the first forcing that doesn’t engage net positive feedbacks?" [my bolding]

Some initial thoughts, have have a closer read very soon.

2011-09-07 09:08:23
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Some comments:

"This empirical finding contradicts Spencer's hypothesis that cloud cover changes are driving global warming, but rather it is consistent with our current understanding of the climate"

Akward sentence-- see suggestion.

Crap, fmaily emergency...gotta go.

 

2011-09-07 14:17:39
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

Albie - I want to stick to the myth debunkings in this particular paper, rather than raising issues from other papers.  But I revised the sentence you mentioned, added a concluding section, and changed the title:

Dessler Demolishes Three Crucial 'Skeptic' Myths

This will be published in the morning, so get any last comments in ASAP.

2011-09-07 14:37:37
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Aargh!  Sorry Dana. Had to look after the little ones tonight and now it is way past our bedtime.  OK, I'll give it a quick read, but limit my critique to anything obvious...no nit picks.  More soon.

2011-09-07 15:11:27
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Some quick thoughts Dana, sorry it is not more thorough!

“In their paper, Spencer and Braswell analyzed 14 models, but they only plotted the 3 with highest and 3 with lowest equilibrium climate sensitivities.  In the process, Spencer and Braswell excluded the three of the climate model runs which best matched the observational data”

 It is probably worth mentioning that SB11 also selected those observe data which maximized the difference between the models and the observations, and that their cherry-picked observations are an outlier.

 

“Despite its fundamental problems, Spencer's internal variability hypothesis was probably the best alternative presented to this point,”

I’m not sure about that—I think that you are giving them too much credit.  Work before (that you and I did a blog post on) has demonstrated that internal climate variability does not explain most of the observed warming, nor will it.

 

“Additionally, climate "skeptics" have yet to put forth a plausible alternative to the robust man-made global warming theory.”

 Maybe say “Additonally, climate "skeptics" have still to put forth a plausible, coherent and internally consistent alternative theory to challenge the robust theory of man-made global warming”