Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 Next
Comments 59351 to 59400:
-
kampmannpeine at 05:59 AM on 7 May 2012Report Warns of Rapid Decline in U.S. Earth Observation Capabilities
when I observe this here from Europe I see larger problems arising. On the other hand I recently heard that China is enlarging their space programme by themselves. They obviously do not like cooperation with anybody else ... Sad, sad, sad -
Rob Painting at 05:44 AM on 7 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
Victull - "How do conclude that the imbalance is growing when it was about 0.9W/M2 and over the last 5-6 years is about 0.6W/sq.m?" Dana is likely referring to the long-term trend. Greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, have a very long lifetime in the atmosphere, so the warming effect will be persistent and will grow over time as more fossil fuels are burnt. By contrast, the recent cooling effect imposed by natural (volcanic) and human-made aerosols, are short-lived and may not grow to match them. Additionally, despite the short-term fluctuations (as shown in figure 11 of Hansen [2011]), the global energy imbalance has undergone a long-term increase. SkS will be covering this in the near-future, as it's a source of confusion for many. -
Tarcisio José D at 05:18 AM on 7 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
Sphaerica @36 and Tom Curtis @ 32 Replay my post corrected..... Tom Curtis @ 32 Very interesting theory. But ..... My question is, which quality of your atmosphere makes it only absorbs IR radiation that rises in the atmosphere and free passes IR radiation that the atmosphere emits more toward the ground. I believe that there is'nt this "rectifier diode" in our atmosphere and the greenhouse effect works both in one direction as another.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Please can you supply a reference to a peer-reviewed scientific paper that suggests that GHGs only absorb IR radiation that rises in the atmosphere, a page number in the IPCC WG1 report will do fine. Unless you supply evidence that mainstream science makes such an assumption, I will assume that it is merely an attempt to disrupt the discussion. If you are unable to provide a reference, then this suggests that the problem lies with your understanding of the greenhouse effect. If you don't understand the greenhouse effect, then simply ask someone to explain it to you. -
Bob Lacatena at 04:56 AM on 7 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
34, Tarcisio José D,I believe that...
Why do "skeptics" so often start sentences like this (usually followed by some perspective on the problem which is based on their own world experience, but completely unsupported by any true science)? Do you any evidence whatsoever to support your "rectifier diode" theory? Do you think there's some reason why perhaps no one else in the world has developed and supported your theory? -
JimF at 03:33 AM on 7 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
Tarcisio Jose D @31 Sorry it took a bit to get back to you, but I was cutting back my candytufts a week before Mother's Day...I used to love those old pictures of Mom in front of the white blooms on Mother's Day. Jose, you've got to help me out here, because this how I start to get worried when I have these conversations. OK. For a non-scientific view, if in the year 2017 (five years from now), global land and sea temperatures continue to rise, 3 of those years land in the top 10 of warmest years on record, New Orleans gets hit with a category 5 AND Mexico gets hit with a category 5, Richard Lindzen has changed his mind, and JimF now cuts back his candytufts 3 weeks before Mother's Day rather than the current one or two, do you begin to question your stance on this? Is there any point that you say, "I still don't think that man is the primary cause to GW, but we add to it, and we need to start to do something about it?" -
Tarcisio José D at 03:05 AM on 7 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
Tom Curtis @ 32 Very interesting theory. But ..... I said, what the quality of its atmosphere makes it only absorbs IR radiation that rises in the atmosphere and free passes IR radiation that the atmosphere emits more toward the ground. I believe that there is this "rectifier diode" in our atmosphere and the greenhouse effect works both in one direction as another. -
Riccardo at 03:02 AM on 7 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
I'd like to add a few historical bits to what Tom wrote. First, I'm sure Tarciso didn't mean hydrogen as an absorbing gas. Indeed, Tyndall tried oxigen, nitrogen and hydrogen but reports a negative result, i.e. no absorption. Now we also know why. Tyndall would also have something to say on the saturation effect. In a Memoir published in 1872 he writes: "The acqueous vapour constitutes a local dam, by which the temperature at the earth's surface is deepened: the dam, however, finally overflows, and we give to space all that we receive from the sun" and Tyndall knew that water vapour is a stronger absorber than CO2. Following the same analogy, increasing absorption deepens the dam, i.e. increases temperature at the surface. This is in 1872 and it's not the full and correct explanation, but he was almost there. -
Tom Curtis at 02:36 AM on 7 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
Tarcisio Jose D @31, you continue to operate on an incorrect understanding of the green house effect. Specifically, the mechanism of the greenhouse effect is that the lower atmosphere absorbs infrared radiation from the warm surface, but the cold upper atmosphere emits IR radiation, half of which is radiated outwards, and hence leaves the Earth. The difference in energy intensity of the IR radiation from the surface and the IR radiation from the top of the atmosphere to space is the greenhouse effect. Applying this understanding, we examine your example of a grey atmosphere (one that absorbs equally at all IR wavelengths). In that case, increased GHG concentration will result in IR radiation from the surface being absorbed closer to the surface, but the absorbed energy will still be carried to the upper atmosphere by convection. However, the IR radiation to space will be emitted from higher in the atmosphere. This follows straightforwardly from the fact that the average altitude of emission to space will equal the average altitude of absorption of IR radiation in the same wavelengths from space. If increasing GHG concentration results in a shorter path to absorption for radiation from the surface, it will also result in a shorter path to absorption for IR radiation from space. Hence IR radiation from space will be absorbed higher in the atmosphere if we increase GHG concentrations. But then it follows that IR emission to space must also be from higher in the atmosphere. To a first approximation, however, higher is colder. Therefore with increased GHG, IR radiation to space will be from a colder layer of the atmosphere, and therefore emit less energy. The reduced energy emitted means that the greenhouse effect will be stronger with increased GHG. Of course, in the actual atmosphere, the stratosphere is warmer than the tropopause, so higher can be warmer. But in the actual atmosphere, not all IR frequencies are absorbed. Increased GHG strengthens the absorption on the edge of the absorption band, thereby increasing the effective altitude of radiation within the troposphere, and increasing the greenhouse effect. For a more detailed explanation, see here. I do not like this series of posts, for I am not sure that I am right. On the contrary, I continuously revise my beliefs in the light of new knowledge. But my core beliefs about AGW have simply not been challenged by so-called "skeptics" because they continuously present simplified models of the greenhouse effect, wrongly interpreted as being refutations of AGW. That they must resort to such specious arguments strongly suggests that while it is certain that some of my beliefs about AGW are false (if only I knew which), it is highly improbable that those false beliefs will be in fundamental aspects of the theory. As it stands, the evidence is overwhelming that those who understand the theory of the GHE accept it, while those who reject it (as Tarcisio does), clearly do not understand even the most basic features of the theory. -
Pete Dunkelberg at 02:16 AM on 7 May 2012West Antarctic Ice Shelves Tearing Apart at the Seams
"Warm water from higher latitudes is melting the ice in the Antarctic." I suppose some people at research stations are making coffee, but I think the Southern Ocean produces some very strong currents of cold deep Antarctic water and is replenished in part by water advected from mid-depth Pacific waters. Mid depth Pacific water is warmed by water forced down by the strong trade winds of La Niña. Oh well, by now you've had a flash: "Lower latitudes! I meant lower!" ;) -
Tarcisio José D at 02:03 AM on 7 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
JimF @ 30 Thank you for participating in this conference Your question should be answered thus: Nobody has the ability to change the thinking of someone else, only the person himself. What we do is meet the person of ideas that will change your thinking. As in the case of AGW. In 1861, John Tyndal released his study measured the "absorption" of infrared rays by atmospheric gases and hydrogen showed that even the "absorbed" or "dark heat" at a rate of 0.33% at a distance of 48 "(1.22 meters). Now think, if we calculate the attenuation caused by hydrogen own, the earth's surface to the center of mass of the atmosphere, 5Km high'll realize that a millionth part of the heat energy will reach this point. So our atmosphere is totally opaque to the "dark heat". No matter the quantity or the quality of gas that composes the atmosphere. Based on this reasoning had to show how our planet balances the energy flow and our film tries to show exactly this mechanism. http://tyndallconference2011.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Tyndalls-1861-Lecture.pdf -
michael sweet at 23:50 PM on 6 May 2012West Antarctic Ice Shelves Tearing Apart at the Seams
Deniers often say that the Antarctic ice cannot melt because the air is too cold. From Mspelto's reference: "The thinning has been noted as widespread around most of Anarctic Ice Shelves in a paper this week from Pritchard et al (2012). This paper from an international team from British Antarctic Survey, Utrecht University, Scripps Institution of Oceanography and Earth & Space Research has identified the losses are principally the result of increased basal melting from intrusion at depth of warm water. In the Smith Glacier area there is no significant surface melting, so basal melting must be the source. My emphasis. Warm water from higher latitudes is melting the ice in the Antarctic. -
JimF at 23:42 PM on 6 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
Tarcisio Jose D @ 19 Thanks, Jose, for responding. I watched your clip. But for me this only highlights the problem. You see, I am not a scientist...you, Tom and Eric are engaging in a conversation that loses me. I could never begin to respond. But most importantly, you failed to answer the question I asked, so I will ask you: I understand you are a skeptic and you have data that backs your belief. What would change your mind? Is there anything in the data you show that might increase or decrease that would make you say, "You know, maybe I was wrong...maybe there is something to this AGW?" Or conversely, is your mind immovable? I am thinking you reflect the latter, but let me know if I am wrong. I did see on your youtube site the most recent clip titled "The Alarmist Inquisition." Are you really in an inquisition? I don't think so unless it is the Monty Python type with a fluffy pillow. I'm just asking a question, not putting you on the rack. -
victull at 23:14 PM on 6 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
Re post 28 The latest version of the Hansen paper I can find is here: Earth’s energy imbalance and implications J. Hansen1,2, M. Sato1,2, P. Kharecha1,2, and K. von Schuckmann3 Published: 22 December 2011 http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/13421/2011/acp-11-13421-2011.pdf I would draw your attention to: Fig. 11. Observed and calculated planetary energy imbalance, smoothed with moving 6-yr trend. which clearly shows a declining overall global imbalance in recent years. -
victull at 22:43 PM on 6 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
dana 1981 @26 How do conclude that the imbalance is growing when it was about 0.9W/M2 and over the last 5-6 years is about 0.6W/sq.m? Are you talking about Ocean Heat Content instead? Eric @23 A long term increase in imbalance - that is not what I concluded from Hansen's paper "Earth's Energy Imbalance and Implications" published in 2011. Please give me a link to any update on this if Hansen has changed his results recently. -
mspelto at 21:12 PM on 6 May 2012West Antarctic Ice Shelves Tearing Apart at the Seams
The MacGregor et al (2012) is an excellent paper. We saw a pattern of widespread thinning and retreat and the disintegration of Antarctic Peninsula ice shelves. Now we are seeing the same processes in the Amundsen Sea. As ice shelves thin they are less buttressed, more prone to rifting and can accelerate due to the reduced backforces, which leads to acceleration. Smith Glacier is the main glacier feeding Crosson Ice Shelf -
Paul D at 20:19 PM on 6 May 2012West Antarctic Ice Shelves Tearing Apart at the Seams
And now the good news... Things aren't quite as bad in Greenland: http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2012/05/greenland-glaciers-on-the-move.html Although, as the articles says, the end result is the same, it just might take longer. -
jyyh at 14:40 PM on 6 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
Ok the more serious attempt to answer this: Why we're sure we're right To Claim:'we are right', we must define the words. 'We' has been traditionally been interpreted as being a specific communion of entities which can understand the english language, that means the humans who understand that this is written in english. 'We' has a broader definition too but I think this suffices for now. The specific communion of entities WRT to the context here would be the people who understand how the world works, i.e. the physics, AND accept there is a world which might be defined here as an assortment of environmental variables outside the entitys (if we wish to call a solipsist an entity) head, in the sense of the proverb: 'One can make a fence but not eternally block the world outside'. The dinosaurs of old times got this too late according to the prevailing theory of 'why there are no dinosaur fossils found on the layers of rock dated, by radiological measures that have and still can be reproduced in the laboratory containing an isotope counter, after the occurrence of a large crater on the Yucatan?' We humans (here encompassing all of our species) have at least had LONEOS and Catalina surveys among others, looking outside our comfort zone (broadly, the human biotope on earth (it's pretty large compared to nearly all other species on earth, only some marine species have had it wider; of mammals on land the next most widespread would be the rat and the dog I guess)), so some development has happened. Most people notice the outside world as a kid when they get hurt, so it's quite natural to be afraid of it. One might even make a bold assumption that the so-called 'theory of gravity' is accepted more readily than the GHG-theory because people have continuing first hand experience of it (f.e. saggy eyes). 'right' is the tricky bit here, taken out of context this could mean almost anything. However, here we, as separate entities sharing some common chraracteristics (f.e. we're humans who can read and understand english), which is why the use of 'we' or 'these (inclusive)' (in case there are artificial intelligencies present) maybe allowed, have some context. In the opening chapter Rob Honeycutt tells us this is about climate issues and about being sure of these. So we might take the headline 'right' to mean 'certain', like an entity capable of self-recognition is. Talking to oneself isn't very fruitful, though, and one might even define the word 'talk' so it necessarily includes a receptive other entity, so if one uses language, it necessarily follows one assumes there is an environment that has beings capable of understanding your words, and thus there would be no 'Matrix' or at least if there was there would be no way of talking of it. Oops, might have made an error there. 'are' is just a statement of being. So, after a brief exploration on the meaning of words, on to the subject. We're certain of the GHG effect and AGW because we talk (exchange information with others) of the measurements (one sort of entities), if necessary we check them repeatedly (in order to rule out the possibility of changing physical constants), try to find the simplest way to make sense of them (no need to complicate things in science, it's hard enough as it is (ref. above text on the meaning of words)), and have come to a conclusion there is a greenhouse effect (satellites give us the normal temperature in space this far from the sun), and that humans can increase the DWR (down-welling radiation) by adding insulation to the roof... oops meant to say CO2 in the atmosphere. I'm tempted to end this note to a thinly veiled insult to some people willing to lie and obfuscate this issue, instead I link to this: http://xkcd.com/54/ -
dana1981 at 14:02 PM on 6 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
We'll have some more posts on the global energy balance in the near future, and hopefully a published paper, if all goes as planned. Suffice it to say that the imbalance is still growing. Our recent Levitus post discusses a good demonstration of this continued growth. -
DSL at 13:18 PM on 6 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
Yah, victull, what do you make of that? Everyone's wrong about the global warming, yah? I think a few of the warmistas tried to figure out why such a thing might happen. I mean, there's no other forcing change in the period . . . well, except solar dropping toward its 11-year low . . . and increased aerosols . . . and 1998 was a massive El Nino. Must be them darn supernovas gettin' all quiet. Still, it wasn't exactly chilly during the 2000s, it being the hottest recorded decade. And I hear ocean heat content was rolling right along, so nothing to get too worked up about. I mean, look at all those cooling trends. You'd think someone would notice the temperature dropping like that so many times. -
Eric (skeptic) at 13:17 PM on 6 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
Tom, thanks for that feedback. I'll have to read up some more because my impression was a little different. -
Eric (skeptic) at 13:00 PM on 6 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
victull, the "since 1998" idea is thoroughly addressed in threads here such as this one and many others. The paper I linked to is Hansen's latest so I will assume that it represents his most current conclusion: a long term increase in imbalance. -
barry1487 at 12:45 PM on 6 May 2012rbutr Puts Climate Information In Front of Those Who Need It Most
It would seem to be a good idea, assuming that enough people are actually interested in having their opinions tested. However, I think most people will deploy the app to fortify and propagate their preferred view, and the likeliest consequence would to dumb down the audience. A creationist vexed by a pro-evolution weblog page will now have a short-cut to a counter-argument, whereas previously they would have had to do a bit more work to find what they want, and thus be more likely to chance upon other tracts on evolution that will be bypassed by this rebuttal router. I've picked up a lot of useful information when researching a topic under discussion, because the search engine takes me to places and opinions that I wouldn't have visited if there had been a direct route. The best corrollaries of these websearch adventures are more context, clearer overview, and getting a better idea of how the topic at hand relates to others that may augment my view on it. "Don't like what you've read? Tired of searching amongst millions of web pages for the argument you want, or that pithy quote that sums up the logical depravity of that wordy schmuck who is wrong on the internet? Talking points and counter-arguments are now at your fingertips. Simply copy'n'paste! Or paraphrase slightly so you can seem more intelligent! Pwning your opposition has never been easier!" Perhaps that's too cynical. I'm curious to know how this application gets used - that would make for an interesting study on 'nettitudes'. Are there plans to monitor this? What are they?Moderator Response: Hi Barry,The interesting outcome of someone using rbutr to fortify and propogate their own view, is that it still helps engage them in the opposing perspective of the argument. In order to add rebuttals, or to click through to rebuttals you agree with, you are required to see the other side. Of course, people can choose to not read those other articles, but this is all true of the internet in general, and nothing to do with rbutr's functionality.
My experience in online debates (forums, comments etc) is that Creationists (or whoever) simply don't go to pro-evolution websites. They read the website which reinforces their own beleif, and then repeat the arguments verbatim. This is how it already is. The whole point of rbutr is to have them install the extension so that during their standard browsing of their favourite belief confirming website, they might occasionally let curiosity drive them to click on that rbutr button and see what the other side is saying against their beliefs.
Because seriously, you don't need rbutr to reinforce your own beliefs - everything around us already does that. This is really the only tool which is purposefully designed to do the opposite! So in order to use it that way, would just be an inefficient waste of time, fraught with the danger of accidentally looking at an opposing perspective!
You also seem to be arguing that streamlining the process of finding 'the best' rebuttal to any given page is somehow a negative. By this logic, you should write to Google and tell them to stop optimising their search results, because it is better when you get stuff you didn't really want. If you want serendipitous discovery - install StumbleUpon. If you want to meander around the web looking for random arguments, then just browse directories. But if you want a rebuttal to a page, use rbutr. Afterall, how do you know that the best rebuttal to the page won't also 'take you to places and opinions that [you] wouldn't have visited'? Afterall, the whole point of rbutr, just like Google, is to suggest material to you which you don't know about.... so you don't know what you might find on the other side of that link.
-
victull at 12:21 PM on 6 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
eric @17 Your graph shows a pretty flat imbalance at about 0.9W/M2 since 1998. James Hansen is claiming about 0.6W/M2 over the last 5-6 years. This confirms my suggestion that there is doubt about whether or not the imbalance is growing or shrinking. -
Tom Curtis at 12:18 PM on 6 May 2012ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
Cole @30, the core of Svensmark's new paper is the correlation he has shown between biodiversity:
and his estimate of rates of near by super novas:
You can't see the correlation between the two charts? Neither can I. The reason is that Svensmark purports to show a correlation between marine invertebrate biodiversity and his estimated supernova rate. He just assumes, or simply fails to mention, that marine invertebrate biodiversity is a good proxy for biodiversity in general. It is not. It is not even a good proxy for marine biodiversity after the great radiation of fish in the Devonian.
So we have this puzzle, why is marine invertebrate biodiversity strongly effected by supernova rates, while all other forms of biodiversity are not? The most likely cause for the apparent correlation is no cause, ie, pure coincidence. This is particularly the case as Svensmark does not even show a correlation with marine invertebrate biodiversity, but only with marine invertebrate biodiversity as normalized for sea level.
There is an unusually large change in sea level coincident with with the Permian/Triassic boundary associated with the formation, and then break-up of Pangea. The associated change in sea level is sufficiently large that Svensmark's untested normalization formula is unlikely to properly compensate for the effects of changes in sea level on marine invertebrate biodiversity.
That means the correlation Svensmark is trumpeting is almost certainly nothing more than the coincidence of the estimated period of peak local supernova rate with the formation of Pangea. This is particularly the case as the correlation his asserts is poor outside the large excursion at the Permian/Triassic boundary.
Unless, of course, Svensmark has stunning new evidence that Galactic Cosmic Rays cause continental drift.
-
Tom Curtis at 11:53 AM on 6 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
Tarcisio Jose D @19, Your first video gives an account of the dry and moist adiabatic rate, and the consequences of surface heating, which is all very well, up until 6:40 seconds when you say, "That is the green house effect". That is not the greenhouse effect. You might as well say that Newton's second law of motion (F=ma) is the Universal Law of Gravitation (F=G(m(1)*m(2))/r^2). I'll certainly second Eric (skeptic)'s recommendation that you read my introduction to the greenhouse effect; and take up any issues there. However, I disagree with his comment about T-skew plots. Below the tropopause, the concentrations of greenhouse gases, at least within normal ranges, is irrelevant to the adiabatic lapse rates, except in that CO2 has a different specific heat to nitrogen or oxygen. Given relative concentrations, the contribution of GHG to the specific heat of air, and hence to the dry and moist adiabatic lapse rates is minimal. -
muoncounter at 11:48 AM on 6 May 2012ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
Cole, Your #30 seem to be referring to the latest from Svensmark. Already noted here. Any guesses as why he's the sole author of this? Agee's result is a clear swing-and-a-miss for Svensmark. The rallying cry 'do more research' is a valid one -- especially as the existing research hasn't done what was claimed. -
jyyh at 11:29 AM on 6 May 2012rbutr Puts Climate Information In Front of Those Who Need It Most
Nope. I like to know when I watch space-nazies. I won't be endorsing the debate between the non-conformal theory of angel-flight against gravitation. -
Eric (skeptic) at 11:25 AM on 6 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
Tarcisio José D your linked video is partly addressed here to which I would only add that the shape of skew-T plots shown in the linked video is very dependent on concentrations of GHGs such as CO2. -
Cole at 10:46 AM on 6 May 2012ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
Hmm, the link to the paper didn't post. Here it is again. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20953.x/abstract -
Tarcisio José D at 10:31 AM on 6 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
JimF @7 I am very sure that I am right in saying that all who believe in the warming of our planet is caused by CO2 are totally wrong, no matter which way bearing. I have two movies posted on youtube that clearly show that global warming is completely natural. This .... The_greenhouse_efect_completely-natural And the other is "our atmospher is opaque". Watch and then comment. ok -
threadShredder at 10:04 AM on 6 May 2012rbutr Puts Climate Information In Front of Those Who Need It Most
So lay readers of legitimate science and opinion who lack the background to know when they're being duped will also be linked to specious, deliberate misinformation, right? Is that a wonderful thing?Moderator Response: Hi threadShredder,I think this is a common concern and one that deserves a detailed reply.
First of all, the idea that someone who would go out of their way to find legitimate science in the first place, would then be the sort of person to be swayed by 'specious, deliberate misinformation' doesn't seem justified to me. In my experience, people are already convinced by the 'specious' misinformation well before they ever come across legitimate science, and secondly, the sort of people who look for legitimate science, aren't likely to be easily convinced by nonsense. So immediately, the concern that good information will be rebutted with bad information shouldn't be concerning at all - the people who are likely to be more swayed by the bad information vs the good information probably already had their minds made up before the arguments were made.
Following on from that scenario though, said person who has chosen to ignore solid science and be 'duped' by 'specious, deliberate misinformation' will hopefully be presented with yet another rbutr alert to a rebuttal of the misinformation. Afterall, the information is all already out there. All rbutr is attempting to do is connect the right information to the pages which need to be rebutted. And for every page full of misinformation, there is already a collection of pages rebutting them. All we're asking for, is some help finding these articles so that we can add them as rebuttals to the misinformation.
Because now, our scenario has this person sequentially exposed to legitimate science, specious misinformation, and then a detailed deconstruction of why the misinformation was specious - and hopefully has enough information to actually have a *chance* of changing their mind from their previously already decided state. Which I am sure you may have noticed by now, is quite a challenging thing to achieve.
Is this a wonderful thing? Please indulge me in my favourite quote of all time, which pretty much sums up my philosophy, and why I think rbutr *is indeed* a wonderful thing:
"John Stuart Mill argued that silencing an opinion is "a peculiar evil." If the opinion is right, we are robbed of the "opportunity of exchanging error for truth"; and if it's wrong, we are deprived of a deeper understanding of the truth in its "collision with error." If we know only our own side of the argument, we hardly know even that: it becomes stale, soon learned by rote, untested, a pallid and lifeless truth." - Carl Sagan
And please consider that ultimately, you can choose to sit on the sideline decrying how the system may be abused, or you can join in the fight and link every piece of misinformation you ever find to the best rebuttals of that misinformation that you know, and help expose truth to those who have stumbled across error...
Shane Greenup
-
Cole at 10:02 AM on 6 May 2012ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
From the Agee paper: 'This represents a possible observational disconnect, and the update presented here continues to support the need for further research on the GCR-Cloud hypothesis and its possible role in the science of climate change.' Muon you seem to have left something out- The second half of the conclusions... Research on the GCR-cloud correlations must continue, particularly in view of the two physical mechanisms mentioned above (as well as the uncertainty in the reliability of the ISCCP lower troposphere cloudiness to show the proposed correlations). Finally, it is clearly known that other factors can affect mean global cloudiness besides solar variability, due to internal forcing mechanisms on different time scales (such as ENSO). -
jimb at 09:49 AM on 6 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
@ 11 victul- maybe he was reading a quote from MSNBC which reported the 'recantation' of global warming 'guru' J.E. Lovelock -http://m.edmontonsun.com/2012/04/30/global-warming-guru-says-not-so-fast who was quoted as saying ""The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," He doesn't specify where he got the information about the 'frying world" -
Cole at 09:37 AM on 6 May 2012ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
The forbrush decrease paper was measuring the short term effects on cosmic rays (and temperature) caused by solar flares. The effect is measurable on a scale of hours. Long term changes in CR intensity are caused by shifts in the suns magnetosphere. The "what about the years without" statement is ridiculous. The Agee paper reports on a "possible" disconnect and it is widely recognized that we can't really observe changes in global cloudiness as we would need stationary instruments in space to watch every area daily. So the results of said paper are spurious at best. Furthermore the effect isn't small as you are attempting to claim. Here's a more recent paper for you. Here are the main results: The long-term diversity of life in the sea depends on the sea-level set by plate tectonics and the local supernova rate set by the astrophysics, and on virtually nothing else. The long-term primary productivity of life in the sea – the net growth of photosynthetic microbes – depends on the supernova rate, and on virtually nothing else. Exceptionally close supernovae account for short-lived falls in sea-level during the past 500 million years, long-known to geophysicists but never convincingly explained.. As the geological and astronomical records converge, the match between climate and supernova rates gets better and better, with high rates bringing icy times. "As for the palaeobiology, remarkable connections to the longterm histories of life and the carbon cycle have shown up unbidden (Figs. 20, 21, 22). Biodiversity, CO2 and δ13C all appear so highly sensitive to supernovae in our Galactic neighbourhood that the biosphere seems to contain a reflection of the sky." AGW-0Moderator Response: TC: Edited to include link. -
Eric (skeptic) at 09:27 AM on 6 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
victull, here's a paper with an estimate of the change in the imbalance: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.1140.pdf with the pertinent imbalance trend from fig 7d (assumes deep ocean mixing hence a slow climate response)
-
scaddenp at 07:02 AM on 6 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
Sapient Fridge. Me too. It's good to know the answer to that question. I also make it clear what reasonable evidence would convince me that climate theory has serious flaws.If no evidence is good enough or question avoided, then no point producing evidence or even a serious discussion. As far as I can see must pseudo-skeptics are politically-driven, convinced any solution might limit their "freedom", raise taxes, expand government, or heaven forbid, involve international cooperation. No point in a private argument, and for public arguments (blogs), only worth rebutting errors for the benefit of other listeners. -
rockytom at 05:06 AM on 6 May 2012HadSST3: A detailed look
Just a note of positive congratulations to Kevin C and Bob Tisdale. This is an example of what this blog is about. No negatives here; just positives with the readers best interests in the science in mind. -
Bob Loblaw at 02:14 AM on 6 May 2012Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981
pauls: Do you have a reference showing that a "GCM with a realistic model of the ocean" is run in a mode where it only uses a slab ocean that is "little more than a surface with a low heat capacity"? Such "swamp models" were very common in the early days of GCMs (i.e., back in the 1960s and 1970s - remember: I'm "ancient") due to computational issues, but I can't see how it would be of any use to develop a fully-coupled atmosphere-ocean GCM to investigate how climate reacts when full ocean dynamics are included, and then shut off the ocean dynamics to investigate the long-term sensitivity. In other words, my hunch is that you're wrong, but my mind is open to whatever references and evidence you can provide. -
Bob Loblaw at 02:08 AM on 6 May 2012Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981
John: "ancient", when it comes to age, generally tends to follow the rule that anyone older than 10*(my age)^0.5 is "ancient". For the young whipper-snapper who is 30-31, square root of that times 10 is about 55, so I am ancient by his standards, as I just turned 55. When he was 16, 40-year-olds seemed "ancient" - and I would have been 40, so I was ancient to him back then, too. As I am old enough to remember discussing Hansen et al, 1981, in grad school, I must be really ancient. [By the time you get to be 100, you are ancient.] -
ajki at 01:09 AM on 6 May 2012There's no empirical evidence
Within chapter "CO2 traps heat" is a pdf download link to: Philipona, R., B. Dürr, C. Marty, A. Ohmura, and M. Wild (2004), Radiative forcing - measured at Earth's surface - corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L03202, doi:10.1029/2003GL018765. The pdf is not (directly, May 2012) reachable through the link (agu.org). I did not check wether it is paywalled or requires registration/login before reading. Link to the abstract page on agu.org Currently (May 2012) Dr Marty provides the pdf over his personal page on slf.ch (WSL Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research SLF). Since this is one of the "directly measured" evidence papers cited by many (IPPC 2007, Rahmstorf&Schellnhuber...), there should be a safer and better accessible place for it. -
muoncounter at 00:18 AM on 6 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
Unfortunately, victull's claim is too ambiguous to seriously debunk. 'Doubts there's been surface temp increase' ... siince ...when? The end of the last glacial maximium? Last December? It is exactly this type of 'throw-down' denial that shows the weakness of the denialist position. And shows how easy the deniers think it is to fool the average person with vague claims. That's how we know we're right! -
Daniel Bailey at 23:49 PM on 5 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
Actually, michael, victull has set up a straw man argument. The straw part is the undefined term "serious skeptic". As most understand the term, true Skepticism means using the scientific method to assess the known data and physics to derive the explanation that best-fits the totality of the data. Of course, this means real scientists are the real skeptics. And the vast majority of them accept AGW as a robust scientific theory (as shown by the vast hosts of scientific organizations and bodies, whose members number legion, who have issued position statements accepting AGW). Thus, the "serious skeptics" do not include the like of the fake-skeptics. Like Heartland groups, their minions and their paid puppets. Those who now fight a rear-guard, hand-waving battle of delay. Like claiming:"No serious skeptic really doubts that there has been surface temperature increase, nor that CO2 has radiative properties which may slow down heat loss."
As all who have not been asleep for the past several decades know full well, victull postulates an empty, vainglorious pile of straw. Bereft of citation or substance. -
michael sweet at 23:12 PM on 5 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
Victull, You have quite a list of hand-waving assertions. Care to provide any links or references for them? Provide links to AGW catastrophists you think need to be dismissed and why their claims are aurtageous. If you leave out the skeptics who concede surface temperature increase and CO2 radiative properties not many are left. Can you provide a list of who these remaining deniers are? What are their remaining doubts? Provide links to arguments that support their positions. Hand waving claims can be dismissed with a hand wave. -
JimF at 23:03 PM on 5 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
Sapient Fridge@10 I like your second question, so I will add it to mine. And you are right that it seems as if nothing will change their minds. I think that we all should realize the difficulty it puts on the believer side when they debate this issue vs. the skeptic side on the national stage. For those who watch and have not made up their minds they see one side say "We are not absolutely sure, but we THINK..." and the other side say "We are 100% sure and the other side is LYING..." Its much easier to then side with those who say they are sure and appeals to emotion, rather than the side that is not sure and appeals to scientific study. Just my take on it. -
victull at 22:58 PM on 5 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
No serious skeptic really doubts that there has been surface temperature increase, nor that CO2 has radiative properties which may slow down heat loss. Where there is serious doubt is whether the planet's energy imbalance is currently growing or shrinking and the magnitude of the component forcings. Shrinking presents problems for the magnitude of CO2 and feedback effects especially clouds. There has been alarmism on both sides of the AGW debate. The looney skeptics should be discounted in the same breath as the AGW catastrophists. -
Sapient Fridge at 21:14 PM on 5 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
JimF, I have tried asking fake skeptics "What observation, real or hypothetical, would convince you that global warming is happening?", or "If global warming were really happening then what do you think would be different from what we see today?" They are good questions because if they say nothing would persuade them, or ignore the question, then it shows that their viewpoint is not evidence based i.e. no evidence would ever convince them, no matter what. A common response is for them to start handwaving like miniature windmills, or ask for impossible data e.g. sunspot counts going back to the age of the dinosaurs. The closest I got to a real response was someone who said that if global warming was really happening then the temperature rise would be much faster than it is. For that person at least I think the observations they want will arrive in the coming decades... -
scaddenp at 13:19 PM on 5 May 2012CO2 lags temperature
Islander, your comments seem to imply you think all ice ages should be equal? However, the milankovitch forcings driving the glacial cycle vary because of the superposition of cycles. To see this, have a look at the graph and discussion here. Also worth having a read of Berger and Loutre 2002 to see some idea of the factors in whether the forcings trigger an ice age or not. There is a 5 part series discussing comparisons with the last interglacial here. -
Tom Curtis at 10:59 AM on 5 May 2012Ocean Heat Content And The Importance Of The Deep Ocean
BC @57, mixing of the deep ocean takes hundreds of years, in part because of the very slow exchange between deep ocean and surface except in the North Atlantic, and Antarctic Ocean; and in part because of the much greater volume of the deep ocean compared to the surface, with the deep ocean having approximately 5 times the volume of surface layers. After the deep ocean and surface reach equilibrium for CO2 concentration, CO2 concentrations will continue to reduce due to the weathering of rocks and the deposition of carbon rich skeletal remains in sediment at the bottom of the ocean. This process takes thousands of years. In this image, showing the results of various models, the initial rapid reduction is due to equilibriation in the ocean, while the long slow reduction that follows is due to geochemical sequestration.
-
Dragonwyst at 10:41 AM on 5 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
I don't usually comment because of being "just a nurse", however, reading Part 1 and part 2 shows something rather glaring to me. It is the difference between the way a scientist in the field presents a considered approach and the way the media reports anything. I was in the audience (somewhere at the back where no-one could recognise me on TV it seems) for the Q & A and documentary titled "Can I Change Your Mind About Climate Change". One thing I took away from that was the comment ( can't rememember who exactly said it - most likely Rebecca Huntley) that we cannot sustain a fear response. Media reporting is designed to evoke emotional, even visceral, responses. This, I think, more than anything has driven the polarization of responses to the information. I have also recently consumed, with great glee, the book "Wilful Blindness" by Margaret Heffernan. In the early chapters she shows how people who are presented clear evidence refuting sometimes rather bizarre beliefs, don't change their beliefs, but instead become more extreme and polarized. There needs to be substantial internal discord before change is possible. Somewhere between media-fuelled reporting and the drivers of wilful blindness lies the reason so many people find it difficult to keep an open mind. What saddens me is knowing that for some people the fear element is a real, very-close-to-home factor as they lose their fresh water to salty seas. More than anything, there need to be new ways to communicate that don't rely on strategies that polarize and feed wilful blindness. -
Hopeful at 09:57 AM on 5 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
I think the absolutism in the arguments of the "skeptics" needs to be pointed out. It is not consistent with scientific thinking/reasoning for a start as you said Rob. And the lay "skeptics" think in absolutes also. Cognitive behaviour therapy/rational emotive therapy is about learning to drop the absolutism (never,always,all,none) and people labelling (left wing conspirators, anti-progress greenies)and thinking more realistically about specific issues. The consequence of more realistic thinking is more constructive behaviour and feelings. The skills of realistic rational thinking are life skills which enhance self efficacy in challenging situations. I think "skeptics" need to become more aware of their irrational,absolutist and unrealistic thinking ie " ALL the lines of peer reviewed evidence supporting AGW theory are completely wrong as are all the leaders in the relevant sciences and all their expert organisations and I will never accept any evidence supporting AGW theory and become very angry when lefty greeny alarmists talk about reducing emissions". A more realistic rational way to think is "There is now a very large body of peer reviewed evidence across multiple lines of investigation supporting AGW theory. The leaders in science and their expert organisations are confident that AGW is unlikely to be wrong. It is therefore unrealistic for me to expect that all the peer reviewed evidence and leading scientists are wrong and that all people who accept this evidence are lefty greeny alarmists. Since most of the warming has been bought about by using fossil fuel energy to create wealth and prosperity in the developed world over the last 150 years and the significant threat AGW poses to human health,food security, geopolitical stability and the biosphere, it is prudent and responsible to bring together our best brains and expertise to plan and implement risk management strategies, to reduce emissions as quickly as possible and to disengage with politicisation of the issue. I understand that this will cost money but am not prepared to leave a legacy of irreversible climate disruption to the next generation". It would be nice if a reasoned statement was made for people to publicly declare whether or not they agree so their children who will face the consequences will know whether their aging parents were part of the problem or part of the solution and signalled for government to act on their behalf on this issue.Moderator Response: TC: All capitals converted to bold for compliance with the comments policy. Compliance is not optional, and we do appreciate your cooperation in this.
Prev 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 Next
