Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 Next
Comments 62251 to 62300:
-
DSL at 03:13 AM on 10 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
Tom, this is precisely the point that too few are willing to push on RC, Gavin included. I know he, Gavin, and others want to keep accountability in-house, but this is an abuse of power issue that affects science across the board. Lindzen is smart. He knows just how far he can push the game before he starts to materially suffer (i.e. before the source of his power, his status as a respected scientist, suffers). Many are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and accept his admission of error--and let the situation go. Lindzen depends on that water under the bridge. It allows him to make strategic "mistakes" again and again. The outcomes of these rhetorical moves on the projects of science (and climate science specifically) and representative democracy far outweighs the contributions that Lindzen could make (or would want to make) with the rest of his career. The evidence for that is the attention that Lindzen gets here and at RC. People respond to Lindzen with a lot of energy. That doesn't suggest he's harmless, and, indeed, empowers him further in the minds of the doubters. I know what Gavin and others fear: if scientists can be put over the legal barrel for making mistakes, then those who control law will begin to control science. The mess that might potentially create is indeed frightening--much like the current fight over education in the US (that few actual educators are allowed to take part in). Yet is the proper response then to write chastising blog posts that few in the democracy (voters or their "representatives") will ever see? Is it to win a local battle while the war goes to pot? It's a complicated situation, but I expected a stronger response from the people who have the power to counter this type of serial abuse. Imagine you visit a city you've never been to before. You have to be at a hospital in this city by a certain time, or you'll suffer some nasty health problems. You hail a taxi. The taxi driver begins driving you toward your destination . . . you think. The taxi has very darkly-tinted windows, and there is a barrier between you and the driver. The taxi driver calls in to the central garage and tells everyone he's driving this fare to the hospital, and the thousands of other taxi drivers can track the progress of the taxi on the big board. The taxi begins to make random turns. It's not going to the hospital, or if it is, it's not going directly. The driver is delaying arrival. You notice that it's taking a long time, but this is a big city, and you don't know the route. The driver says, "Yah, it's across town, and traffic is terrible." Other taxi drivers note that the route your driver is taking is not at all ideal. Some stay silent. Some blog about it. One driver standing next to the company president says, "I don't think the fare is really all that sick. Maybe a drive around the city will do him some good." Some call the taxi and tell the driver he's making a mistake. The driver responds by saying, "Yes, you're right, I'm sorry," and he begins driving toward the hospital. But then he starts going in circles again. Some try to call the fare (you) directly, but you don't speak the same language, and even when you can understand, you're not sure who to trust. Meanwhile, your body is deteriorating. The other taxi drivers don't want the police to get involved. What is the president of the taxi company doing? You're close to passing out. Yah, I know--an off-the-chest rant. Consider it a contribution to the analogy collection. -
Bruce at 03:05 AM on 10 March 2012Oceans Acidifying Faster Today Than in Past 300 Million Years
We have emitted 500+ gigatonnes carbon so far and will emit another 300 gt carbon in the next thirty years. If the PETM resulted from a 2100gt carbon release we will be halfway there pretty soon. In 1950 there were 2.5 billion people and Co2 emissions at 5gt annually, there are currently 7 billion people and we collectively emit 30 gt Co2 each year. In order to get Co2 emissions back to 1950 levels every human on earth would need to reduce their individual contribution to less than one ton Co2. The oceans were acidifying even at the Co2 emission of the 1950s. Does anyone out there have any idea how to get 7,8, or 9 billion people to voluntarily comply? Is anyone reading this trying to live on less than one ton of Co2? -
Robert Murphy at 02:59 AM on 10 March 2012We've been through climate changes before
@11 Milankovitch cycles -
Lloyd Flack at 02:59 AM on 10 March 2012We've been through climate changes before
Do you mean the cycle of glacial and interglacial periods or the fact that we have an ice age containg these periods. The fact that there is an ice age is beieved to be a matter of continental configuration and CO2 levels. We have an ice age when warm currents can't get to the poles and CO2 is low enought to allow an ice build up. The glacial-interglacial cycle is believed to be controled by thre Milankovitch cycles, cycles in Earths orbital and rotational parametters. Thes affect the distribution of radiation recieved by the Sun. How much Summer sunlight is recieved in high Northern lattitudes seems to be what is important. This is greatly amplified by the albedo changes from glaciation and the sequestration of CO2 in the ocean as temperatures fall. -
Biophilia at 02:47 AM on 10 March 2012We've been through climate changes before
I was wondering if someone might explain why these periods of glaciation took place? Volcanoes? Vegetation sequestering CO2? Asteroid impact? Why? Just curious to know, thanks. -
Alexandre at 02:07 AM on 10 March 2012We've been through climate changes before
"Yes, our climates change. They've been changing ever since the Earth was formed." Or like the defendant of the serial killer: "Yes, they died. People die ever since they appeared on Earth." -
The Skeptical Chymist at 01:09 AM on 10 March 2012Interactive mythbusting in Lane Cove
I'd like to second Gillian suggestion of a metaphor/ analogy archive. Using John's "open fridge" explanation would probably have saved a lot of time explaining the same issue to my father in law. As a scientist I like give science answers to science questions but appreciate that a metaphor/ analogy is a good way to help people grasp a concept. I remember Stephen Schneider had a good water level in a bathtub analogy to explain how human C02 emissions could raise atmospheric levels given the high level of natural flux occurring at the same time. -
fpjohn at 00:42 AM on 10 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
Re Norman@46 The reinsurance company data is based on well defined insured/insurable events.You expect and demand a granularity it does not necessarily have. yours Frank -
Tony O at 22:31 PM on 9 March 2012We've been through climate changes before
We are going well outside anything homo anything has experienced. CO2 has not been this high in the time of man. -
Lloyd Flack at 22:19 PM on 9 March 2012Interactive mythbusting in Lane Cove
Sapient Fridge, it's called consilience. The idea is that a unified set of laws underlies all of nature. Explanations obtained in one field of research will be consistent with explanations obtained in another field. That is why the more different lines of evidence support a conclusion, the more confidence scientists have in it. Evolution is a superb example. It undelies all of biology and results consistent with it turn up all over the place. The same applies in climate science. The same explanations that explain the heating now explain the amplification of the Milankovich Cycles to cause the glacial cycle. And they turn up all over the place in climate studies. -
Tom Curtis at 22:10 PM on 9 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
I was wondering what Martin Lack (@44) was referring to, so I finally had a look. What I found was a Wood for Trees graph, which I have recreated and shown below:
Lindzen says of the graph that
"Just to put this into perspective, a colleague took all the data sets he could find of temperature change since 1996, and, you know, this is the [incomprehensible] you could pick one or the other. It's about a tenth of a degree here or there. But basically if you compare it to the change in CO2 its pretty clear that, you know, by any normal standards this is pretty flat no matter which [incomprehensible] you pick, and arguing about the difference in these is probably a fools errand."
That is pretty incomprehensible as an argument. It appears as though he is about to make the argument the graph is obviously designed for, ie, to argue that CO2 and temperatures do not correlate so that CO2 cannot be a causal factor in the temperature increase. But he never actually makes that argument! He has a ... I don't know - perhaps a seniors moment, perhaps an attack of conscience, and switches midstream to arguing that the differences between temperature indices is so small that it doesn't matter which one you pick for analyzing the data. Now that argument itself is obviously false. It may appear true if you carefully select just three temperature indices from twenty-two available from Wood-for-Trees. More importantly, it uses just two of three major global temperature indices. It is inconceivable that the Alfred P Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT should not know of the NCDC, GISS and UAH temperature indices. Particularly given that he had just been criticizing one of them just moments before. So when Lindzen say's that, "...a colleague took all the data sets he could find of temperature change since 1996...", he is knowingly misrepresenting the facts. More importantly, and Lindzen knows this as well, over such short (cherry picked) time periods, choosing other temperature indices, makes a significant difference:
Martin may well accuse me of chasing of after a side issue on this, but I cannot criticize Lindzen for making an argument he did not in fact make, no matter what his intentions when setting up the slides. And Lindzen pulled out of making the "no correlation" argument at the last moment.
It is well that he did not make that argument. If CO2 increase and temperature increase had been correlated on the graph, then (all else being equal) a 0.4 W/m^2 difference in greenhouse warming would have caused a 0.8 degree C change in temperature, which equates to a climate sensitivity of 8 degrees C per doubling of CO2. In fact it would be much worse, in that aerosol forcing and solar forcing are known to have been significantly negative over the period in question, while the ENSO trend was also cooling. Consequently, to achieve the sort of correlation that the graph suggests should exist according to the IPCC, the climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 must be much greater than 8 degree C, rather than the 2 to 4.5 degrees C commonly accepted.
The conclusion is inevitable. Anybody who uses this or an equivalent graph (and they are common on the web) either knows nothing about climate science, or is a deliberate liar.
-
Lars Karlsson at 21:34 PM on 9 March 2012We've been through climate changes before
"Global average temperatures were 10-12 °C hotter than today" I believe that should be °F (see e.g. here). -
John Russell at 21:15 PM on 9 March 2012We've been through climate changes before
I recommend that the instant, snappy, response when someone says,"...oh, the climate has always changed!", should be "...sure -- but not while civilised humans have been around!". Then if you get the opportunity to continue, go on to say, "...history suggests that a stable climate is necessary for a stable civilisation; that's why by changing the climate today we're playing a dangerous game that risks all the benefits of living in a civilised society". In my experience, in a verbal confrontation, this response works well with both the initiator and onlookers. You've not undermined your opponent, but you've just suggested that it's a lot more complex than the original bare denial statement would suggest. It's more difficult for them then to backtrack. It also makes it more difficult for them play the old "...you greens want us all to go back to the Stone Age", meme; as you can say, "No, by preventing climate change we're trying to stop society reverting to the Stone Age." I hope that helps. 'Climate's always changed' is such a common meme that it's worth memorising the snappy one line response. As we all know; it's rare that we can have a rebuttal which can be as short as the meme. -
Sapient Fridge at 21:13 PM on 9 March 2012Interactive mythbusting in Lane Cove
Reading this thread made me wonder what makes me, myself, so convinced that AGW is happening. I've come to the conclusion that it's the fact that no matter how deeply one investigates one finds answers (or at least hypotheses). There are no big unknowns in the mainstream theory. If you look at some of the other "explanations" they quickly come to a halt with something unknown. For example anyone who accepts that it's warming but denies that GHG is responsible comes to big unknown when you ask where the extra energy is coming from, given that we can prove it's not the sun. People end up saying that they don't know (or care) where the energy is coming from, they are just sure that CO2 is not responsible. Evolution has a similar feel about it, and the talk origins web site has a similar purpose to this one. Including an "arguments" section. -
Paul D at 19:48 PM on 9 March 2012We've been through climate changes before
The early Earth atmosphere had no or very little oxygen, don't fancy living in that. A really good TV series that investigates the development of life on planet Earth is the BBCs 'How To Grow A Planet' presented by Prof Iain Stewart. It shows how plants developed and changed the planet in a dramatic way. -
Rob Painting at 18:38 PM on 9 March 2012The Independence of Global Warming on Residence Time of CO2
Dikran @ 34 - (I don't know off-hand whether it is because of the change in ocean temperatures in the Pacific directly, or because it affects CO2 uptake by terrestrial biosphere in the Western Americas, or both) See: The Carbon Cycle Response to ENSO: A Coupled Climate–Carbon Cycle Model Study -Jones (2001). "Climatic changes over land during El Nino events lead to decreased gross primary productivity and increased plant and soil respiration, and hence the terrestrial biosphere becomes a source of CO2 to the atmosphere. Conversely, during El Nino events, the ocean becomes a sink of CO2 because of reduction of equatorial Pacific outgassing as a result of decreased upwelling of carbon-rich deep water. During La Nina events the opposite occurs; the land becomes a sink and the ocean a source of CO2." -
owl905 at 18:08 PM on 9 March 2012Lindzen's Junk Science
@KR - That was decent of Lintzen - he did the right thing. Great that you posted this - the myth will likely have legs among the pollutionist blogs, so it's nice to have a flyswatter response. -
owl905 at 18:03 PM on 9 March 2012We've been through climate changes before
It wouldn't be difficult to cause an anthro-uproar about when civilization began - it depends on the criteria. 10,000BC, around the Catal Hoyok period is as good as any. The Levant agricultural rise during the Younger Dryas was both a precursor and a partner. It was a jerky, halting, rise-n-fall process until the printing press. From start to recent times, the huge swings in climates have been contained inside about a 1dC global change-range, and regional climate changes rarely spread around the globe. This interglacial was already an anomaly before AGW (and that anomaly may be the foundation stability that is the bedrock of our civilizations). The difference with the current challenge starts with the soft-sell phrase "climate change". Gribbin stood it up more accurately when he called it Hothouse Earth. 'The Polluted Planet', and 'Garbage Dump Earth', might push some of the smarmy-warmy-fuzzy sugar ('but the climate has always been changing') off the podium (Mr. Perry goes here). And the climate disruption is only one aspect of the shift - ocean acidification, extreme events, and bio-degradation are indivisible elements of the pollution-problem web. -
Tom Curtis at 18:00 PM on 9 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
Norman @46:"Without having a very good and detailed understanding of how this Munich Re graph was generated and what is the criteria they are using to define a catastrophic event, why is this graph used so often on this rigerous scientific web site?"
You and I have been through this in great detail before. Specifically, it has been clearly explained to you that a Natural Catastrophe is defined as a natural hazard causing the death of at least one person, or causing property damage. What is more, we have gone into considerable detail into how Munich Re classifies data, going to the extent of the indexing system they use to account for inflation. This is all detailed in Structure and needs of global loss databases of natural disasters by Löw and Wirtz. However, your pretense that this has not been thoroughly discussed previously on SkS, and that it is not understood by SkS authors is dishonest. -
Norman at 17:39 PM on 9 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
KR I did address your point in Post #41. I wrote this to you: "If you look at the data yourself you can see clearly that the large earthquake number has increasesd in the short run (1980-2012). The USGS may be making a reference to Earthquakes from early decades, maybe from 1900 to 2012 there is no increase." They list all global earthquakes of magnitude 6+ here. Just add up the numbers, put the year and the number and generate a graph and select make a linear trend and tell me what you see. That would be the approach of a scientist to actually enter the data and see what comes out. Again, the Munich Re graph begins at 1980 to present so that is the only years of concern. The actual facts are that magnitude 6 and greater earthquake number has increased from 1980 to present. If you enter the data yourself, please explain how you come up with the conclusion that my presentation is misleading and cleary incorrect data interpretations. Thanks. -
Norman at 17:27 PM on 9 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
KR @ 47 Have you put the data from the USGS webpage for 6+ earthquakes (global) on an Excel spreadsheet yes and had it calculate a trend? I have done so and there is an upward trend. No Confirmation Bias. Just logging the data given on a spreadsheet and having the program draw the trend line. Try this and then conclude I am wrong, you will not be able to do this. -
GillianB at 16:40 PM on 9 March 2012Interactive mythbusting in Lane Cove
Hey John! I was there on the night and I can see myself in a couple of the pics. My strong impression was that the vast majority of the audience were already convinced about climate change. We put forward myths we heard, not myths we believed. You did a good job of explaining things. You were friendly and knowledgeable. Your metaphor of the open fridge door to explain the impact of the warming Arctic on a colder EU has stayed in my mind. Tricky concepts that appear to be counter intuitive need graphic metaphors. Just as this website has an archive of scientific explanations and of images, perhaps it could also hold a metaphor archive. The approach of letting the audience set the agenda was excellent because it set up an active learning environment. In future perhaps you could avoid/minimise the 'chalk and talk' that makes the audience passive, and go straight to the Q+A section. -
KR at 16:34 PM on 9 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
Norman - "I do not believe you are reading my posts..." Yet you state that "My claim was that strong earthquakes with magnitude 6 or greater have been increasing in number since 1980 and this is a very correct and true statement based upon the available data from the USGS web page" (emphasis added) when the link I provided here to USGS (direct link here) clearly, and as I noted in my post, plainly states: "...the number of large earthquakes (magnitude 6.0 and greater) has stayed relatively constant." (no emphasis needed...) Norman - You have clearly not read my responses. You have clearly interpreted data in ways directly in contradiction to the sources of said data. You are clearly, flatly, incorrect. And calling the kettle black - accusing me of what you are doing. [In my extremely personal opinion] - Readers, take this for what you will: Norman, you are suffering from Confirmation bias, taking every possible web search in the fashion most aligned with your preconceptions - because you are contradicted by the sources. As such, your posts are demonstrably wrong. Until you look at data with an open mind, rather than an agenda, I will have to consider your posts a misleading distraction from the topics under discussion. Confirmation Bias is a constant issue with many 'skeptics' - whereas a real skeptic checks all the data for truth value, someone with confirmation bias will selectively see the aspects and interpretations that support their preconceptions. You are providing quite an illustrative example. [End extremely personal opinion] --- Moderators - While I dislike doing so, might I point out the repeated presentations of misleading and clearly incorrect data interpretations and references here? -
Norman at 16:33 PM on 9 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
fpjohn @29 I followed the links you provided to Munich Re and registered. I still do not know what they are using to develop the graph above in the OT. Is it all natural catastrophes? What is it? What I do not quite understand is that this site is dedicated to sound science. I have been rebuffed numerous times for lack of rigor in my posts or data I have put on posts. This is great it keeps the site at a higher level. Why then is the Munich Re report repeatedly used on this site like it is a sound science document. Who can explain how they generate this graph, what are they using as a "natural catastrophe". You just accept the graph yet who has knowledge of how it was derived. It is not based upon actual events which I have pointed out with KR on earthquakes. Actual strong earthquake number has been increasing since 1980 (magnitude 6+) but the Munich Re graph does not indicate an increase. Here is a link to a chart of how they define catastrophes and the various categories. Is the above chart a compilation and merging of all the categories? NatCat catergory definitions of catastrophes. If so, it shows a category 1 catastrophe as one causing some property damage and/or 1 to 9 deaths. So does that mean everytime a person is killed by a lightning strike it is counted as a catastrophe on par with an F5 Tornado, Hurricane, large flood or powerful earthquake? If this is how they are generating their graph then the large increase in storm related catastrophes could be caused by someone standing out in a lightning storm and getting killed or someone making the poor choic of driving across flowing water in a small scale flood and being killed by the poor choice of their actions. Without having a very good and detailed understanding of how this Munich Re graph was generated and what is the criteria they are using to define a catastrophic event, why is this graph used so often on this rigerous scientific web site? -
Sascha Tavere at 16:33 PM on 9 March 2012The Independence of Global Warming on Residence Time of CO2
@ Dikran Marsupial It certainly does. Thank you, for this answer but more particularly for your posts in general. -
Norman at 15:57 PM on 9 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
KR @ 42 I do not believe you are reading my posts before telling the community I am wrong. I can see by the data that 7 magnitude earthquakes are staying relatively constant. This is what I find interesting about your posts. Here is your claim: "I suspect they have a better view of their data than you do. You are, quite frankly, wrong." No, quite frankly I am not wrong. You are not reading my posts. My claim was that strong earthquakes with magnitude 6 or greater have been increasing in number since 1980 and this is a very correct and true statement based upon the available data from the USGS web page. "Magnitude Earthquake Effects Estimated Number Each Year 2.5 or less Usually not felt, but can be recorded by seismograph. 900,000 2.5 to 5.4 Often felt, but only causes minor damage. 30,000 5.5 to 6.0 Slight damage to buildings and other structures. 500 6.1 to 6.9 May cause a lot of damage in very populated areas. 100 7.0 to 7.9 Major earthquake. Serious damage. 20 8.0 or greater Great earthquake. Can totally destroy communities near the epicenter. One every 5 to 10 years" source. Now please look at the Munich Re chart in the OT above. You can see more than 100 geophysical events in the year 2000. There are only a few tsunamis a year or destructive volcanoes. Magnitude 7 earthquakes number around 20 a year. This would strongly suggest that some of the magnitude 6 earthquakes taking place are causing a catastrophe based on however Munich Re defines such. You can see in my linked site that 6+ magnitude quakes can cause a lot of damage in populated areas. I did graph the 6+ earthquake data and the trend is postive upward. -
dana1981 at 15:44 PM on 9 March 2012Lindzen's Junk Science
Yes, while it's nice that Lindzen has admitted to one mistake, there are a whole lot more that he not only fails to correct or apologize for, but has been making for over 2 decades. -
WheelsOC at 15:00 PM on 9 March 2012Lindzen's Junk Science
It's commendable to admit it and take steps to correct the mistake. It's also unfortunate that he has a litany of long-standing mistakes that are not corrected even after being exposed repeatedly, mistakes that continually show up in his popular writings and editorials. -
Sceptical Wombat at 14:07 PM on 9 March 2012Interactive mythbusting in Lane Cove
I wonder if it is a mistake to have a session entirely devoted to debunking myths. Might it not be a good idea to start by having at least a quick run through the evidence for AGW and its dangers?Response: [JC] I find the debunking is usually a good opportunity to present the evidence - most myths thrive on cherry picking and the best antidote to a half-truth is the full truth. So most debunkings take the form of presenting the full picture. -
Bern at 13:32 PM on 9 March 2012We've been through climate changes before
Lloyd Flack @ 1: no, it wouldn't be that hard to develop a civilisation during a glacial - just not in the northern climes where modern civilisation flourished. Some other areas of the planet might have had quite agreeable climates during the glacial periods. Take this paper for example: New Light on Human Prehistory in the Arabo-Persian Gulf Oasis. There's a less technical take on it in this article, and plenty of other articles online too. On the other hand, this hypothesis also gives a great example of the possible consequences of global warming. Sea level rise at the end of the last glacial completely wiped out the civilisation in question, submerging their towns & villages, farmland, and hunting lands, turning their entire population into refugees (and quite possibly inspiring the legend of the biblical deluge in the process). It's a salutary warning of what might happen to significant chunks of our civilisation if the great ice sheets melt. -
Bern at 13:11 PM on 9 March 2012Interactive mythbusting in Lane Cove
Ah, John, you had a perfect opportunity to show The Escalator - when you were told that you couldn't bust that one, you should have said "But I've got this great graph for it, see?" and thrown it up on-screen right then. :-) In my experience, having a prepared talk is good, but answering questions from the audience is actually just as easy if you know your topic well. I had that experience when I did a few presentations while studying for my Masters degree, and have found the same in most presentations since. If you've done the homework and know the topic in some depth, this gives you an opportunity to demonstrate to the audience that there's a whole lot more information & science backing up what you've shown them. (It's also where a lot of people fall down on presentations -especially students. If you *don't* know the topic well, it shows pretty quickly at that point.) Considering how much you know about climate science, John, it should have been a cake-walk for you! :-D -
Composer99 at 13:00 PM on 9 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #9
I'm sure this is set to appear in a Skeptical Science post, but I thought I'd share it here (these weekly updates being the closest SkS has to an "open thread"). James Hansen does a TED talk on climate change and his advocacy work. -
Lloyd Flack at 12:06 PM on 9 March 2012Interactive mythbusting in Lane Cove
Sceptical Wombat, my impression is that it was preaching to the choir. Not that that is useless in this case. I think there were people there who had taken things on trust but wanted reasurance that their trust was justified. And possibly they wanted to be able to arge with doubters. You have to recognize that for some people seeking action on climate their reasons are similar to those of denialists. They just happen to be right by chance. A larger number, I think, reasonably trust scientists in a field that they have not had the opportunity to investigate. Those people are likely to grab opportunities that don't take up too much of their time to get a better understanding of the science. -
Pete Dunkelberg at 12:04 PM on 9 March 2012We've been through climate changes before
This post has good features as Doug says. But the paleontology paragraph provokes some quibbles: The age of dinosaurs started sometime in the Triassic. http://www.squidoo.com/dinosaur-timeline Size of cretaceous mammals - not alway so small: http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~jacks/hu05.pdf "The entire body of IVPP V14155 is more than one metre in length (skull, 160 mm; trunk, 522 mm; preserved tail, 364 mm), comparable to that of a large Tasmanian devil12." toward the end of the cretaceous some other mammals were near this size - i can't recall their names and I think their lineages became extinct. When did mammals "start to evolve" if one can use that phrase? One might say with the first synapsids, well before the Age of Dinosaurs. Oxygen inthe early atmosphere: http://www.learner.org/courses/envsci/unit/text.php?unit=1&secNum=6 came up to around 1% a few hundred k years of the start of the "great oxygen event" Was the climate suitable for human survival in the mesozoic? Sure, near the poles when the tropics were too warm. -
Philippe Chantreau at 11:52 AM on 9 March 2012Interactive mythbusting in Lane Cove
Sceptical Wombat probably makes a good point. I was recently involved in an exchange (not climate related) in which someone was making an argument from authority. I pointed to a very simple situation that obviously proved the argument did not hold. The same person replied right back with the correct explanation for that situation, which summarized as being the exact opposite of the argument from authority made immediately before. Yet when I tried to have the person acknowledge that he had just made 2 completely opposed arguments that were incompatible, he could never get to admit it openly. Not an unusual attitude. -
Doug Hutcheson at 11:34 AM on 9 March 2012We've been through climate changes before
The global climate and human evolution graphic is an excellent teaching tool. The whole post is clear, uncluttered and easy to digest. Thank you, Sarah. -
KR at 11:15 AM on 9 March 2012Lindzen's Junk Science
According to Gavin Schmidt regarding : "Note that I have received a note from Lindzen apologising for the error (and I have passed it along to the people involved in GISTEMP). - gavin" My compliments to Dr. Lindzen for this - not everyone is willing to acknowledge an error. -
gdpbull at 10:50 AM on 9 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
How do we know atmospheric aerosol concentrations and their influence on the global temperatures in the more distant past, say between 1880 and 1940? -
Dick Veldkamp at 10:18 AM on 9 March 2012Lindzen's Junk Science
#7 #8 #9 Thanks for clearing this up guys. I appreciate it. -
Lloyd Flack at 10:12 AM on 9 March 2012We've been through climate changes before
I don't think it is chance that agriculture and civilization developed in the first interglacial since the development of human language. There is indirect evidence of that occuring about 80,000 years ago. I would be hard to develop civilization during a glacial though once developed it could survive. -
KR at 10:00 AM on 9 March 2012Interactive mythbusting in Lane Cove
Perhaps, rather than "Has anyone changed their minds?", a better question might be "Has anyone heard something interesting and new on the topic?" Less confrontational, and opens up the possibility of discussing why those items are interesting. -
skywatcher at 09:58 AM on 9 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
It's interesting that one extreme weather thread which Norman has not posted a single comment is this one, discussing Hansen et al 2011. This quantifies the increase in extreme heat events around the world in a manner that is uncomplicated by improvements in observational networks of earthquakes, by the vagiaries of tornado formation which may or may not be increased by global warming (and so is a red herring), or by the body count of individual large disasters (does the Boxing Day earthquake/tsunami add 250,000 to the toll of 2000-2009?). If extremes are not on the rise, how does Norman account for the increase in extremes documented by Hansen et al (2011). As Victoria (and other parts of east Australia) is yet again hit by severe flooding, while there are still remembrances of Black Saturday, I am reminded over breakfast every morning of the enhancement of the hydrological cycle. -
Sceptical Wombat at 09:52 AM on 9 March 2012Interactive mythbusting in Lane Cove
It is a mistake to put people into a corner where they have a choice of admitting that they were wrong or clinging to their old belief. Some may change their minds without admitting it that is good. Alternatively you may have been preaching to the choir. In the latter case we should hope that the choir sings a bit more loudly in future. -
Lloyd Flack at 09:50 AM on 9 March 2012Interactive mythbusting in Lane Cove
I think the reason why you didn't have many people changing minds was that the audience was mostly composed of people who believed it was happening because they trusted the scientists and it was not a threat to their ideology. So they probably wanted more detail about what was happening and what they could do. I was talking to the bloke in the gray shirt in the front row. He did not seem like a denialist though I didn't get much detail on his opinions. I suspect he just didn't want to play along. I'm there in the brown shirt in the front row. I thought it was a pity that we didn't deal with the "It's not warming." myth but the encouraging thing is that it does not seem to have got anywhere near as much circulation as the others. Few in the audience had heard it, at least in the "Global warming has stopped." form. As a statistician I could have defended Foster and Ramsdorf's paper from criticism. -
KR at 09:42 AM on 9 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
Readers - WRT Norman's issues with the Munich Re data, I believe Tom Curtis covered the issues (and objections) quite well in an earlier thread. Norman's interpretation is not supportable. -
KR at 09:23 AM on 9 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
Norman - The USGS, source of those numbers, states that: "We continue to be asked by many people throughout the world if earthquakes are on the increase. Although it may seem that we are having more earthquakes, earthquakes of magnitude 7.0 or greater have remained fairly constant. A partial explanation may lie in the fact that in the last twenty years, we have definitely had an increase in the number of earthquakes we have been able to locate each year." (emphasis added) I suspect they have a better view of their data than you do. You are, quite frankly, wrong. "Do you see what I am saying?" - Yes, I do. You are saying that you disagree with USGS about their earthquake data, that you feel a 25% increase in tornadoes over the last 30 years is irrelevant, and that you (once again) don't agree with the notion that Munich Re has observed a notable increase in catastrophic, expensive climatic events over similar geophysical events. Which you've attempted to argue without statistics, with bad sources, and with data interpretations contradicted by the sources of those data. None of what you are saying is terribly convincing. Again. And you have not acknowledged any of these issues that various posters have pointed out, which I consider extremely poor form. Readers: I would suggest taking viewing the various Extreme Weather threads, where Norman has been (repeatedly) pointed to his errors in regards to extreme weather. ---------- Back to the thread: Glenn Tamblyn, a very evocative post. Thank you. I would love to visit your country at some point. -
Piet R. Zijlstra at 09:06 AM on 9 March 2012Greenhouse Effect Basics: Warm Earth, Cold Atmosphere
Tom Curtis and participants on this tread: I studied the last six months climate change and then had a holiday leave. This tread was one of the first I worked through to restart my study. And indeed a very effective one! Thanks for all your effort and time. Many thanks to the SkS-team -
yocta at 08:56 AM on 9 March 2012Interactive mythbusting in Lane Cove
Well done :) Perhaps if the audience instead had a card to fill out anonymously with something like 'yes', 'mo' 'maybe' to tick and put in a box on the way out could have helped avoid saving face IMHO -
Norman at 08:49 AM on 9 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
KR @ 40 Please look at my post at 22. The USGS does list all the earthquakes of 6+ magnitude. I added the numbers and gave decade averages for earthquakes/year. If you look at the data yourself you can see clearly that the large earthquake number has increasesd in the short run (1980-2012). The USGS may be making a reference to Earthquakes from early decades, maybe from 1900 to 2012 there is no increase. That would not change the point I am making. The Munich Re Chart posted in the OT starts at 1980. The number of large (6+ magnitude earthquakes) has indeed increased in number since the 1980's from the USGS site itself (I suggest you do the math yourself, even graph the numbers on and Excel sheet and have it draw a trend line). Also the number of deaths has drastically gone up from earthquakes since the 1980's. Earthquake numbers are critical to the discussion as they are used (assumed to be relatively flat which is not the case) to prove that population growth and property values are not the reason Munich Re shows increasing catastrophes caused by Climate and weather related effects. My point is that large (prone to cause damage if near population centers and unless the greater number of quakes in the 2000 decade just all happened to occur outside the bounds of civilization as compared to 1980 decade or even the 1990 decade, but the number of deaths does not support this conclusion as they have increased at a dramatic rate). If whatever system Munich Re is using to determine a catastrophe can't pick up a noticeable increase in large earthquake number, it should be evident that this system is not valid in determining event numbers but I keep seeing the same graph used as evidence of increasing bad weather related events. If it can't match earthquake number to reality (provided by the USGS) why would I believe it is a valid portrayal of increasing bad climate or weather related phenomena. Also the strong tornado graph I linked to in Post 33 (some argue it does not show a decline in the most destructive tornados, even if not, it certainly does not show any increase yet Munich Re shows an increase in natural catastrophes from storms). Smaller tornados are not very destructive. Here "An F0 or EF0 tornado, the weakest category, damages trees, but not substantial structures. An F5 or EF5 tornado, the strongest category, rips buildings off their foundations and can deform large skyscrapers. The similar TORRO scale ranges from a T0 for extremely weak tornadoes to T11 for the most powerful known tornadoes." source. So does Munich Re consider damage to trees to be a catastrophe? Maybe the definition of the word is too loose I would think it is of considerable damage, type caused by flood, hurricane, large tornado, earthquake. Do you see what I am saying? -
KR at 08:09 AM on 9 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
Norman - You are once again using rather poor sources. The link you provided also includes the line "Speaking of the signs that will happen, leading to his return to judge the peoples of earth (at the end of the age), Jesus is quoted as saying ‘in various places there will be famines and earthquakes‘..." On the other hand, the USGS states here and here that "As more and more seismographs are installed in the world, more earthquakes can be and have been located. However, the number of large earthquakes (magnitude 6.0 and greater) has stayed relatively constant" (emphasis added). Apocalyptic blogs on one hand - USGS on the other? I would opine that the US Geological Service has more accurate data. And that there has been no increasing trend in numbers of large earthquakes. You found a source that agree with your hypothesis - but did not quality check your source.
Prev 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 Next
