Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 Next
Comments 56101 to 56150:
-
dana1981 at 14:30 PM on 3 August 2012Watts' New Paper - Analysis and Critique
Reg - I actually tried to post a very polite comment on WUWT informing Watts of this post as constructive criticism. My comment never made it through moderation, which is not surprising since my WUWT comments are censored about 90% of the time. Fortunately somebody else was able to get a link to this post through the moderation process, but other than a disparaging and dismissive response by a moderator and a couple of other flippant responses in the comments, it has been largely ignored. So let's just say your confidence that our feedback is welcome on WUWT is not borne out by reality. -
dhogaza at 14:25 PM on 3 August 2012Watts' New Paper - Analysis and Critique
Reg "Poe" Nelson: "Anthony encourages constructive criticism of his paper" He's also said that "the physics of heat sinks" proves that the true trend is 50% that of the commonly accepted trend. And that "the physics of heat sinks" is why he *knows* that there's a pony buried in the data. And, of course, when he posted the paper, he didn't say "here's a draft! comments, please"! Instead, he released a PR that said, unequivocably, that 50% of the accepted trend is due to spurious adjustments to the data. Insane. No rational researcher would put that forward without caveats. Compare with those italian physicists who measured particles traveling faster than the speed of light. They said from the beginning it was probably a mistake. -
scaddenp at 14:22 PM on 3 August 2012IPCC is alarmist
krisbaum, the list of IPCC and their affiliations can be found here. Furthermore you can see what each said, and what the chapter authors did with there comment. To be a reviewer, all you basically need to do is request a draft and sign an NDA. It's pretty hard to see how you could set up a more transparent and fair way for governments to get a review of the state of climate science. Now what is your evidence for bias? Hopefully a little stronger than "I dont like their conclusions so it must be wrong". Where is your evidence that they failed to examine important papers that would result in a different conclusion? If you are so sure they are wrong about aerosols, then surely you must have a paper that forms that opinion? -
Daniel Bailey at 14:11 PM on 3 August 2012Watts' New Paper - Analysis and Critique
Not entirely sure, but an aroma of Poe is in the air... -
Reg Nelson at 14:07 PM on 3 August 2012Watts' New Paper - Analysis and Critique
"Here we offer preliminary constructive criticism, noting some issues we have identified with the paper in its current form, which we suggest the authors address prior to submittal to a journal. As it currently stands, the issues we discuss below appear to entirely compromise the conclusions of the paper." Anthony encourages constructive criticism of his paper. I'm sure he would welcome your feedback in his forum, which encourages open debate -- in the true spirit of the scientific method. I think we all agree that science, especially publicly funded science should be transparent. I encourage everyone to embrace the Open Science movement. -
Dale at 13:38 PM on 3 August 2012BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming
Mod: Apologies, but I thought a discussion on scepticism over attribution was appropriate for the thread considering Muller himself was originally sceptical of attribution and through this study changed. -
Bob Loblaw at 13:19 PM on 3 August 2012BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming
Dale: it might help your case if you give a name of someone that you consider to be a "serious" skeptic. That will avoid having the discussion bog down in differences of opinion that are based on observations of different groups of "skeptics". Every good scientist is a skeptic, and raises questions about others' research. The set of self-styled "skeptics" (in the climate area) that are good scientists and true skeptics is very, very small (IMHO). Asking questions that have been answered many times (and where the answers are well-established and accepted by nearly all the scientists in the discipline), and asking them again and again because you don't like the answers is not skepticism. Muller and the BEST group had "skepticism" that was ignorant (or unaccepting) of well-established knowledge in climate science. Their results appear to have been a surprise to two groups: - a few of them that have now decided the mainstream climate science had it right - a few more of them that cannot accept the results, because they were never "serious" skeptics in the first place. The vast majority of climate scientists are not surprised.Moderator Response: [DB] Please let us return to the OP of this thread; enough chasing after shadows. -
Tom Curtis at 12:25 PM on 3 August 2012It's the sun
smoidel @1004, I recently adressed your misinformation about Kilauea's heat output in detail here. I now see that instead of responding, or attempting to show where I was wrong, you have simply restated your same argument in a slightly different form on a another blog post where readers would not be aware that you had been previously, comprehensively rebutted. So comprehensively, in fact, that you were not able to muster a word in your defense. That sort of behaviour is called "trolling", and is not acceptable on this forum. If you think your argument has any merit, defend it where you first raised it, and where it was on topic. As to the small section of your post that is on topic, contrary to your assertions, climate models included the forcing due to changing energy emission from the Sun TSI. Asserting falsehoods (that they do not include it) in no way helps your case. More importantly, TSI has been declining since 1980, and hence cannot be the cause of the sharp rise in global temperatures since about 1975. -
Joshua at 11:54 AM on 3 August 2012BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming
Dale - I've been hanging out in the "skeptical" blogsphere for a while, and while I'm going to stay away from a discussion of how to differentiate a "serious skeptic" from a "nonserious? skeptic," I disagree with your statement of the distribution of what "skeptics" tend to believe. First, I see quite a number of "skeptics" who either outright reject that CO2 is a GHG or who argue that as a trace gas, ACO2 could never influence global temperatures to any significant extent. Further, there are many "skeptics" who say that they don't doubt that the Earth is warming, and that ACO2 plays a role, but they systematically reject any scientific method for measuring and/or establishing a rise in global mean temperatures or attribution of any rise to ACO2 - so I think that their statement of what they believe is internally incoherent. Finally, FWIW, I have often been told by "skeptics" that the belief of "skeptics" is not monolithic, and therefore can't be easily categorized, only to turn around and read blog post after blog post where "skeptics" categorize what most "skeptics" believe.Moderator Response: [DB] Attempted thread-jacking aside, let us return to the topic of this thread, BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming. -
dana1981 at 11:46 AM on 3 August 2012BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming
Dale - the issue is that there is a difference between questioning and denying. It's not that the 'skeptics' say "I'm not sure climate sensitivity is as high as 3°C", for example, it's that they say "climate sensitivity is less than 1°C". It is in the nature of scientific inquiry to be skeptical. Scientists who accept the body of evidence are still open-minded skeptics. But most of the people who proclaim to be 'skeptical' about climate sensitivity, for example, are not actual skeptics. Their minds are made up that climate sensitivity must somehow be low. -
DSL at 11:31 AM on 3 August 2012IPCC is alarmist
Tell you what, krisbaum: I'll copy the reference list for the aerosols section of AR4 and post it on a neutral site dedicated just to that list. Will you then start looking through the literature? I don't care if the IPCC was formed by the Nevada State Clowns Association. That's no reason not to read the referenced literature. That literature was not peer reviewed by the IPCC; it was peer reviewed by the dozens of journals in which climate science is published. It was not summarized and interpreted by politicians. It was summarized and interpreted by scientists. If you have a problem with the credentials of any of the hundreds of scientists involved, let's have out with it. You are implying that these hundreds of scientists are colluding to construct a lie, and that the rest of mainstream climate science is in on it. A lot of greenpeace members? WTH? "a lot"? What sort of political stripe need a scientist be in order to gain your respect? Richard Alley is a conservative. Does he count? Or is he just a dupe of the secret leftist scientist coalition? -
Dale at 11:28 AM on 3 August 2012BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming
tmac @9: I do read here regularly..... as well as a number of other sites (consolidation sites such as this one plus scientist blogs among them). tmac & dana: My point is that the "serious" sceptics are the ones discussing attribution. No "serious" sceptic questions whether warming has occurred or not, or that human emissions have influenced that warming to some degree. Hence the comment I quoted in 7 is technically not right and acts as a purely polarising comment rather than a scientific observational comment. Isn't the entire point of being sceptical in the scientific sense to question these things? To not question is to not be sceptical. Personally, I'd rather see questioning of results in science rather than acceptance. Regardless of what consensus says. There's plenty of examples where consensus was questioned only to find out something new about that topic. That's how science advances.Moderator Response: [DB] Please return to the topic of this thread, BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming. -
dana1981 at 10:42 AM on 3 August 2012BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming
Dale @7 - I very much disagree that "serious skeptics" dispute attribution. As this post shows, there is simply no serious case to be made that humans aren't the dominant cause of the global warming over the past 50+ years. And frankly the case for low climate sensitivity isn't much less weak. -
tmac57 at 10:24 AM on 3 August 2012BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming
Dale #7-Why would it be a bad idea to post here? What is a bad idea,is not taking advantage of the huge resource here to answer the very questions that you pose. Hint:Asked,and answered many times over.Don't believe me? Just look for yourself. -
tmac57 at 10:19 AM on 3 August 2012BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming
In an interview with Rachael Maddow the other day Muller said that we need to do two things to combat Co2: Conservation,and getting the third world and developing nations to replace coal with natural gas... No mention of renewable technologies at all. I will let you draw your own conclusions. -
smoidel at 10:15 AM on 3 August 2012It's the sun
I have a question for the Atmospheric Scientists. Geophycisists and astrophycists both say the current climate models do not take into account significant natural sources of heating in the atmosphere and oceans. The astrophysicists point to increased solar energy from the sun, which contributes to heating of the atmosphere. The geophysicists point to heating of the oceans from volcanic activity. Between them the astronomy and geology community can point to natural sources of energy input to the climate system that account for around 0.4 deg F in the past century. This is over half of the observed change. Just what level of energy input is required to be considered significant? (-Snip-) (-Snip-) (-Snip-) (-Snip-)Moderator Response: [DB] Multiple sections restating earlier comments without relevance on this thread snipped. Please see the comment Tom Curtis linked to below to pursue this further, if you wish. It is only on-topic there. -
krisbaum at 10:01 AM on 3 August 2012IPCC is alarmist
The IPCC is a political organisation - they choose the revieweres, the policies, they review the reports and choose the board in plenary sessions. Politicians are also involved in the Summary For Policymakers.. This is from their very own website. "The IPCC is an intergovernmental body. It is open to all member countries of the United Nations (UN) and WMO. Currently 195 countries are members of the IPCC. Governments participate in the review process and the plenary Sessions, where main decisions about the IPCC work programme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved. The IPCC Bureau Members, including the Chair, are also elected during the plenary Sessions. " The IPCC was setup by the UNEP - the United Nations Environment Program... (-Snip-)Moderator Response: [DB] Sloganeering snipped. -
DSL at 09:51 AM on 3 August 2012Lindzen's Sandia Talk Contains his Usual Errors
krisbaum, I haven't heard of any scientists working in aerosols complain about the IPCC representation. You also know, of course, that each paper represented itself represents between dozens and hundreds of other studies. You also choose to read Dana as having said, "The IPCC has all valid opinion on aerosols." He said, rather, that the IPCC is the best place to start. So start. -
From Peru at 09:50 AM on 3 August 2012Is Greenland close to a climate tipping point?
Daniel Bailey: Where do I can find the data used to make the graph "GISP2 Holocene Melt Years", and/or a high resolution version of that figure? (the link given above only shows a graph in low resolution)Moderator Response:[DB] Try here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/greenland/greenland.html
-
Dale at 09:32 AM on 3 August 2012BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming
"For 'skeptics' to make a convincing argument that humans are not causing global warming" Whilst posting here is probably a bad idea, I do just want to point out that "serious" sceptics are not trying to say 'that humans are not causing global warming'. "Serious" sceptics (in fact most sceptics from my experience) agree that global warming is occurring and humans are exacerbating the issue through GHG emissions. What "serious" sceptics are saying is that the sole/majority attribution of warming to human emissions isn't correct and there's other things at play. This "global warming debate" is NOT about whether it's occurring or not, or even if humans are exacerbating the issue or not. The debate is quite simply about attribution calculation, or in scientific terms, climate sensitivity. Essentially, the results of both sides will be either rushed upheaval change, or slow planned change. There's no argument that we need to change.Moderator Response: [DB] As for "debate", see here. -
Roger D at 09:08 AM on 3 August 2012BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming
Joshua @1. I heard that PBS radio interview today too and agree with you that it was interesting. The interviewer did a very good job pressing Muller regarding his rationale for being "skeptical" of previous work that arrived at essentially the same conclusions as BEST. As Joshua@1 notes, Muller's comments on the Kochs and the Koch Foundation response to BEST's conclusions were the most interesting aspect. Muller said the Kochs were fine with his conclusions, and they just want the best science, which we now have, thanks to BEST (according to Muller). Muller would not accept that the Kochs did or even attempted to discount pre-BEST climate science. He was adamant on this. It seems a new page may have turned in the playbook of those that want no CO2 reduction schemes: That being that only now, finally, it is logical to accept that warming is occurring due to fossil fuels, but (as Muller indicated in the interview)it would only make sense for the US to reduce emissions after the US is satisfied that China also will do so at the same time. Seems like a good way to not look obstructionist, not deny the science, while hoping for business as usual. -
dana1981 at 07:59 AM on 3 August 2012BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming
KR - agreed that the BEST analysis of the surface temperature record is a very useful contribution. And agreed that the fact that their methodology yields a result consistent with the other groups' methodologies is really strong evidence that the surface temperature record is accurate. That's a really important point, as is the fact that when you compare raw and adjusted data globally, there is very little difference. Frankly it's exceptionally implausible that the Watts conclusion (of a spurious doubling of the temperature trend) is even remotely close to being accurate. Regarding the BEST attribution result, as discussed in the post, it's not really noteworthy, because their methodology was very simple and their results are just consistent with every other study. At least with their temperature record, while their results were also consistent with every other study, their methodology was a new and interesting approach. -
BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming
I find it quite interesting that the BEST averaging method (no metadata used, other than periods >= one year where stations were not operational), just identifying outlier breaks in data due to inhomogeneities with nearby stations and splitting records at those points, ends up consistent with the USHCN temperatures which use multiple types of metadata to directly correct for station moves, equipment changes, time-of-observation shifts, etc. This is also relevant to the recent thread on the draft paper by Watts, as the consistency/consilience of the results using two quite different methods of correction indicate robust data - which calls into question Watt's insistence that adjustments such as time-of-observation are biased. While I agree with Dr. Mann that it's nice to see the BEST attribution work finally reach the 1980's, the averaging methods they present are extremely useful work. -
dana1981 at 07:14 AM on 3 August 2012BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming
Trent @2 - indeed Watts is backtracking, claiming that he's not backtracking because he says based on the method BEST used, their results were right, but he believes the new station classification system he's using has changed the results. Problem is as we noted in the previous post, Watts et al. messed up the analysis. So now the questions are (1) will Watts admit that their analysis is wrong? and (2) will Watts then live up to his word and finally accept the BEST results, that the surface temperature record is reliable? This will be a good test of Watts' purported skepticism. Grab some popcorn and enjoy the show. -
Trent1492 at 07:04 AM on 3 August 2012BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming
I think this is the appropriate topic to remind everyone that Anthony Watts once endorsed Richard Muller's BEST project Some excerpts from the article:But here’s the thing: I have no certainty nor expectations in the results. Like them, I have no idea whether it will show more warming, about the same, no change, or cooling in the land surface temperature record they are analyzing. Neither do they, as they have not run the full data set, only small test runs on certain areas to evaluate the code. However, I can say that having examined the method, on the surface it seems to be a novel approach that handles many of the issues that have been raised.
So he claims to have looked at Muller's methods and approves. Next:And, I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. I’m taking this bold step because the method has promise.
Caught in the net of his own weaving. Poetic. -
Joshua at 06:52 AM on 3 August 2012BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming
An interesting interview with Muller (in particular, I thought the discussion about the Koch brothers was interesting)... http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2012/08/02/climate-change-skeptic -
Martin Lack at 05:52 AM on 3 August 2012Watts' New Paper - Analysis and Critique
Thanks Kevin. I am really glad to see someone offering Watts et al some constructive criticism, which might help them eventually climb out of the hole they have dug themselves in recent years... If Richard A Muller can do it, then so can they (we can but hope)... Typo alert: "It would be surprising is" should I think be "It would be surprising if"... (i.e. end of penultimate paragraph in the 'Adjustments Make Little Difference Globally' section). -
Daniel Bailey at 02:49 AM on 3 August 2012Is Greenland close to a climate tipping point?
"the global warming debate"
Debate? If you consider it a debate when:- one "side" has centuries of research supported by actual convergent, consilient physical evidence from the lifetime works of hundreds of thousands of researchers whose works also comprise and underlay much of the technology of today that our lifestyle is based on. - the other "side" has only slander, misstatements, misrepresentation, dissembling, death threats and character assassination to go by.
Yeah, that's a "debate" all right. Deniers posing as skeptics set up a charade tableau of false equivalence to poison the well of public acceptance of that science. A parsimonious harping at the font of stolen, out-of-context and context-less emails proven not germane to the science is continuing on in the prosecution of the agenda of denial. -
dana1981 at 02:46 AM on 3 August 2012Lindzen's Sandia Talk Contains his Usual Errors
krisbaum, regarding aerosol literature, as KR notes, the IPCC is the best place to start as the definitive summary paper of the state of climate science. Skeptical Science has also written a number of posts on more recent aerosol research, if you use our search tool. -
Daniel Bailey at 02:19 AM on 3 August 2012Is Greenland close to a climate tipping point?
Falkenherz, attempts to average-away the melt layers found at the Greenland summit are just another form of hiding-the-decline in the frequency of the melt events. Prior to the event in the 1800's it had been an interval of more than 700 years to the next prior melt event.
[Source]
Given the decline in insolation forcing over time, it becomes correspondingly more rare for a confluence of factors to conjoin to create a melt event. Furthermore, give the unparalleled forcing from the previously-sequestered CO2 bolus mankind has injected into the carbon cycle, overall warming will continue for decades-to-centuries, with summit melt to become a regular occurrence in the near future (Box et al 2012).
-
CBDunkerson at 02:17 AM on 3 August 2012Is Greenland close to a climate tipping point?
Falkenherz, not exactly. First, the events are not the same. What happened last month was that 97% of the Greenland ice surface, including the highest point, melted. What happened about a 150 years ago was that just the highest point melted. Second, the melting at the highest point about 150 years ago was the only other time in the past thousand years that has happened. If you go back a few thousand years and then divide the total number of times the highest point melted by the total time period you'll get an average of about 150 years... but it is not a 'regular cycle' at all. So no, the 97% melt does not have to be repeated some time in the next 150 years in order to be significant. If it happens again that would be incredibly alarming. However, it happening even once was extraordinary. -
Falkenherz at 01:43 AM on 3 August 2012It's not us
DSL, I read it, and it provides for several indicators of evidence. But I meant specifically the mass balance argument, and the comments here provide for much more detail already than in that article. I, as Julian, might just have a gap of logic here, and I hope that listing these very simplified figures will make it clear for me, if someone can point it out where they goe offroad.Moderator Response: [DB] A deeper-level analysis of the mass-balance problem for "skeptics" is found here. -
Falkenherz at 01:39 AM on 3 August 2012Is Greenland close to a climate tipping point?
Am I correct that this melting was aprupt and ceased, and it is attributed as a one-time-freak event which, according to ice cores, can be found roughly every 150 years? So, if there is no repetition in the near future, this melting seems to be irrelevant to the global warming debate. If correct, imo this needs to be pointed out in the article, because right now, the article does not adress the Scepticist's line of argumentation. -
DSL at 00:49 AM on 3 August 2012It's not us
Falkenherz, I believe Tom Curtis has addressed some of this recently here. It should probably be incorporated into this article. -
DSL at 00:44 AM on 3 August 2012Lindzen's Sandia Talk Contains his Usual Errors
Indeed, the comment stream on that article is one of the more pathetic at SkS. It needs some life. Can you give it? -
DSL at 00:43 AM on 3 August 2012Lindzen's Sandia Talk Contains his Usual Errors
krisbaum, if you'll post your evidence for peer review fraud on the peer review is pal review thread, I'm sure many here will take it into consideration. -
SEAN O at 00:32 AM on 3 August 2012Watts' New Paper - Analysis and Critique
Dr. Venema has a new post at VariableVariabilty: http://variable-variability.blogspot.de/2012/08/a-short-introduction-to-time-of.htmlModerator Response: [KC] Link fixed. Thanks for that. -
MA Rodger at 00:06 AM on 3 August 2012Watts' New Paper - Analysis and Critique
A typo in the post listing the paper's authors - it is JR Christy, not some ER Christy. Having given the paper a quick read, I was surprised at how woolly the writing was, usually a symptom in my experience of a student that has yet to sort out what they're actually trying to research. Okay I'm no expert on climatology literature but I don't recall meeting quite such a poor style within that literature before. -
Lindzen's Sandia Talk Contains his Usual Errors
krisbaum - "...kindly point me to some peer reviewed literature." The IPCC assessment on aerosols is thoroughly discussed in the IPCC WG1 section on those aerosols. There are between 1 and 100 references per page in that section - I would suggest you look up those referring to aspects of aerosol forcing regarding your specific questions. -
Lindzen's Sandia Talk Contains his Usual Errors
krisbaum - Given the direction of your comments, which are essentially insinuations regarding the IPCC, I believe a more appropriate thread would be Is the IPCC alarmist. Aerosol discussions might be more profitably discussed on an aerosol specific thread. While I am not a moderator on this site, you might also wish to re-read the Comments Policy - you seem to be moving towards accusations of deception. -
Tristan at 22:53 PM on 2 August 2012Lindzen's Sandia Talk Contains his Usual Errors
It's like our own little slice of WUWT. -
krisbaum at 22:48 PM on 2 August 2012Lindzen's Sandia Talk Contains his Usual Errors
Rob Painting - Oh and by the way, you've just proven my point by outlining the Aerosol problem and the lack of knowledge. Historical records are non-existent and something of a mathematical formula relating economic prosperity to energy consumption and therefore pollution has been used as a rough idea.. Give me a break! (-Snip-)Moderator Response: [DB] Ideology snipped. -
krisbaum at 22:46 PM on 2 August 2012Lindzen's Sandia Talk Contains his Usual Errors
Rob Painting- Assessments of peer reviewed literature - so what?.. have you asked these questions; a)who does the reviewing? b)are they impartial to the results? c) (-Snip-) the IPCC contains a lot more than 'peer reviewed' by the way. It contains news links, WWF report links, un-peer reviewed paper references - to name a few..over a 3rd are from these types of sources. (-Snip-) (-Snip-)Moderator Response: [DB] Ideological, intimations of impropriety and inflammatory snipped. Pleas take the time to ensure your comments are constructed to be in compliance with this site's Comment's Policy as future comments constructed as this one will be summarily deleted. FYI. -
krisbaum at 22:40 PM on 2 August 2012Lindzen's Sandia Talk Contains his Usual Errors
Daniel - long day on my behalf. 'the second-largest single radiative forcing (behind CO2) is most likely associated with aerosols, which have a strong net cooling effect by blocking incoming solar radiation' The science behind how much radiative forcing is attributed to aerosols - kindly point me to some peer reviewed literature. -
John Brookes at 22:11 PM on 2 August 2012Watts' New Paper - Analysis and Critique
I'm reminded a bit of Kepler, who (according to at least one biography) wanted to prove certain ideas about the planets and the solar system. These turned out not to be true, but Kepler went on to formulate his law of planetary motion. Which goes to show that you can be searching for your preconceptions and still make interesting discoveries - provided you are honest. -
TScanlon at 21:38 PM on 2 August 2012Is Greenland close to a climate tipping point?
The scientist in me says: 'interesting, I wonder if this is the tipping point or whether it can be accounted for as part of another cycle.' The rationalist in me says: 'how about we stop emitting greenhouse gases just to be on the safe side. I'm not that great a swimmer." -
Bernard J. at 21:22 PM on 2 August 2012Is Greenland close to a climate tipping point?
Byron at #5.Why pick a double Greenland total surface melt (or near total)? We already have had dozens of warnings quite sufficient to put the world on a "war footing" response. Setting up a new one actually serves to justify ongoing delay and offers a pointless hostage to fortune.
You're absolutely correct, of course. I was coming at it from the perspective of wondering what it will take to shift the current collective international inertia... if there actually is anything at all that will poke humanity off its butt and respond before the whole question becomes purely moot. I guess that my point is that ice-melt across the (good as) whole of Greenland is one of those profound signals that, if repeated, is basically saying "it's time to leave... Humanity". The first essentially ice-free Arctic summer is another example. If, by the time one of these major events occurs, we're not at the level of urgency that was seen during the second world war, when rationing and other such readjustments were enacted, then we might as well toss any pretense of responsibility out the window and declare an open-ended Armageddon party for future global civilisation. -
Falkenherz at 20:04 PM on 2 August 2012It's not us
Hi and thank you all for this very interesting and enlightening discussion. Great website here! If I understand correctly, the LGM ("little green men") point is the key point here. The mass balance is right by logic, but I think Julian points out that the mass balance may not be all about it (might be "the wrong level of abstraction") because nature sources/sinks might not be as constant as we assume. Let me try the challenge issued by Dikran: year 1: +70.000 natural +200 humans -70.100 natural -> +100 year 2: +70.000 natural +0 humans -70.100 natural -> -100 so far the mass balance argument, as I understand it. Now suppose the "little green men" like this: year 3: +70.000 natural +0 humans -69.900 natural -> +100 or, with human contribution still in the picture, like this: year 2bis: +70.000 natural +200 humans -70.050 natural -> +150 What has happened here? Little green men? Yes, but natural little green men, if you will. In year 3, human is still +0, but a natural sink suddenly decreased, by a small amount. Or, alternatively, in year 2bis, human is still contributing, but natural sinks have suddenly decreased. This is outside the mass balance argument, but this seems to be Julian's point: Nature's part is so huge in comparison, that even small fluctuations may happen arbitrarily, which completely make human's part arbitrary in the long term picture. Julian, does this capture your point? Of course, this is just about that the mass balance argument alone is not enough. If we add indications, theories and evidence, we should be back to the result that human contribution is decisive, because any such thinkable natural fluctuations have not been evidenced so far. And I think that is the core of Julian's criticism. Is that conclusion from evidence valid? Basically, you all here point out, yes. But why? But this refers to a point made from outside the mass balance logic, so maybe we should admit to that the mass balance argument alone is not proof, but rather strengthens existing evidence? If we came so far, how exactly is existing evidence strengthened by the mass balance? Because the past shows us clearly a constant natural net (200ppm), until human contribution kicks in (to 395ppm)? How do we know human contribution is +195ppm? If I understand correctly, fossil isotopes in the atmosphere are only about 5%, which would be roughly 20ppm. So, there is even more evidence to be linked. Which? -
Rob Painting at 19:22 PM on 2 August 2012Lindzen's Sandia Talk Contains his Usual Errors
Krisbaum - the IPCC reports are assessments of the peer-reviewed scientific literature on climate. It doesn't get any more definitive than that. As for sunlight-reflecting aerosols, they remain somewhat of an unanswered question. We don't really know how much further warming they are masking on a global scale because their main climatic effect is that they alter cloud properties (indirect effects). We do know, however, that there was a dimming of surface solar radiation in the Southern Hemisphere in the last decade, and that locally aerosols can dramatically alter sunlight reaching the surface in areas of high pollution - such as the brown haze that extends out over India into the Indian Ocean. The GLORY satellite was going to help answer the question of aerosols & climate, but it sadly crashed and burned soon after launch last year. A new mission won't be up and running for a while now - assuming another mission gets the OK -
Daniel Livingston at 18:50 PM on 2 August 2012Lindzen's Sandia Talk Contains his Usual Errors
krisbaum, it's not clear to me what your point is, or that you understand much about climate science. I'm no expert either, but it looks to me like your questions and insinuations are based on ignorance and ideology rather than scientific or skeptical enquiry. Perhaps you mean climate sensitivity not climate forcing. And perhaps you mean degrees celsius (C) rather than cents (c).
Prev 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 Next
