Recent Comments

Prev  1501  1502  1503  1504  1505  1506  1507  1508  1509  1510  1511  1512  1513  1514  1515  1516  Next

Comments 75401 to 75450:

75401. DSL at 12:56 PM on 10 September 2011
       Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize
       Aye, congrats John -- and a hearty ditto to KR @ 3.
75402. KR at 12:48 PM on 10 September 2011
       Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize
       And also congrats to the team supporting John here. A true labor of love (since, after all, you're not getting paid for it), and very well done - contributors, moderators, and the regulars who spend time posting.
75403. KR at 12:47 PM on 10 September 2011
       Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize
       Thumbs up, John Cook! Well deserved. You've put a heck of a lot of work into this, and this is good recognition of an impressive effort.
75404. bill4344 at 12:41 PM on 10 September 2011
       Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize
       Please add my hearty congratulations to John and all at SkS on a thoroughly well-deserved win!
75405. Bob Lacatena at 11:47 AM on 10 September 2011
       CO2 is just a trace gas
       Just to add clarity, by using English, to the equations above: 1) A* + B -> A + B_ : excited GHG molecule A increases the velocity of non GHG molecule B (raising the temperature) 2) A + B_ -> A* + B : GHG molecule A collides with non GHG molecule B, becoming excited and robbing molecule B of velocity (lowering the temperature) 3) * + A -> A* : Infrared radiation strikes GHG molecule A, exciting it 4) A* -> A + * : Excited GHG molecule A emits infrared radiation, becoming de-excited
75406. Bob Lacatena at 11:44 AM on 10 September 2011
       CO2 is just a trace gas
       86, Dana69,

       So it appears that whatever some IR absorbing molecule A* (CO2 , H20 , CH4 etc) does , there is at least one thing it doesn’t and it is to “heat the atmosphere”."

       This is wrong for three reasons. First, your explanation assumes an unchanging system at equilibrium. But what we are talking about is adding more A to that system, which will change the balance of the equations (after raising the temperature). Second, the equations you've been given all work for a closed system in equilibrium, which leads us to the last point, which is... Third, there are more equations to consider (I've numbered them to be able to sort them out). These are what you've considered so far:

       (1) A* + B -> A + B_ (2) A + B_ -> A* + B The conclusion that follows is that the number of A* (vibrationnaly excited molecules) is constant."

       This conclusion is wrong unless the system is in equilibrium (which it can't ever be, because the sun sets and rises, adding more or less * to the system, so it is constantly changing). The big problem with this is that set of equations is incomplete. The system is not closed (it has differing amounts of IR entering and leaving) and is not in equilibrium until it has warmed (if you increase the amount of A (CO₂) in the system). You have two more equations:

       (3) * + A -> A* (4) A* -> A + *

       Here, to be consistent with the previous notation, I am using * to represent the introduction of infrared radiation to the system, to excite a CO₂ molecule (A). What is important to recognize is that these equations are not in a simple 1 to 1 equilibrium, and so the balance is more complex. First, equation 4 happens a lot less than equation 1 lower in the atmosphere, it balances more and more as you get higher up and the air is less dense, so collisions (Eq. 1 and 2) are less likely to happen, until you reach a point where equation 4 happens more than equation 1. So ultimately the balance in these equations depends on how often 1 and 2 occur, which is determined by the temperature and density of the atmosphere (since temperature affects average velocity of the molecules) and also the amount of A* in the atmosphere, which is altered since equation 3 elevates the amount of A*. The frequency of equation 3 depends on the amount of infrared coming into the system, which is dependent not only on the temperature of the surface but also the temperature and composition of the nearby layers of atmosphere. Equation 3 also depends on the amount of A/CO₂ in the system. More A means more chances to intercept IR, and so more chances to become A*, and so more chances for equation 1 to occur (passing that energy on to B and heating the system). Equation 4 depends almost entirely on the amount of A* (excited CO₂) in the system, which depends on the rates of equations 1, 2 and 3. Lower in the atmosphere, it doesn't get to come into play as much, because equation 1 robs the atmosphere of A* so quickly (100 such collisions [Eq. 1] occur on average before it is able to emit [Eq. 4]). Higher up the reverse is true, so that equations 2 and 4 happen more often, and in that case CO₂ actually acts to cool the stratosphere. So I'm afraid, yes, CO₂ does heat the atmosphere, but the interaction is far, far more complex than the simple two equation scenario that your chemist friend has presented, and the answer to how much requires understanding all of the factors, including how often collisions occurs (eq. 1 and 2), how much IR is entering the system (eq 3), and how long a CO₂ molecule "waits" before emitting IR (equation 4) relative to the rates of equations 1 and 2. But most importantly, the question is not "does A heat the atmosphere?" but rather "does increasing A heat the atmosphere beyond what it was before the increase?"
75407. stonefly at 11:42 AM on 10 September 2011
       Climate's changed before
       Bibliovermis at 09:18 AM Sorry I missed your link. I went right to google. Your link explains the carbon 12 - carbon 13 deal right away. I'll read it now.
75408. stonefly at 11:38 AM on 10 September 2011
       Climate's changed before
       Tom Curtis at 09:47 AM on 10 September, 2011 stonefly @210, orbital forcings are only as significant as they have been when the Earth is cool enough to have ice caps. Throughout most of Earth's history CO2 has been the major determiner of the surface temperature (thanks to the remarkable stability of our sun). I can tell this is going to take a lot of studying, but I want to understand this. I looked at a chart which showed glaciations approximately every 100,000 years going back to about a half million. Are there any glaciation charts that go back further? **** I suggest you watch Richard Alley's 2009 lecture to the AGU for a brief summary of the details. I did watch that lecture. It was interesting and informative. Only I wish I could have seen the laser on the slides.
75409. stonefly at 11:28 AM on 10 September 2011
       Climate's changed before
       Bibliovermis at 09:18 AM The reading gets deep. I'm doing a lot of googling for definitions. After I struggle with it for a while, maybe I'll get an understanding. One question I have now, though. They talk about carbon 13. I know that carbon 13 makes up only between 1% and 2% of carbon. I don't understand that. Does carbon 13 separate from carbon 12 and form CO2 that is all carbon 13? I know I'm going off on a little bit of a tangent. Anything you know about it would help, or if you could steer me in the right direction. Thanks.
75410. Tom Curtis at 09:47 AM on 10 September 2011
       Climate's changed before
       stonefly @210, orbital forcings are only as significant as they have been when the Earth is cool enough to have ice caps. Throughout most of Earth's history CO2 has been the major determiner of the surface temperature (thanks to the remarkable stability of our sun). I suggest you watch Richard Alley's 2009 lecture to the AGU for a brief summary of the details.
75411. Tom Curtis at 09:39 AM on 10 September 2011
       CO2 is just a trace gas
       KR @89, a slight nitpick. 40 W/m^2 of the surface radiation escapes to space, so the energy absorbed by the atmosphere from the surface by radiation is 356 W/m^2. More importantly, Trenberth and Fasullo quantify energy transports from the surface to the atmosphere. They do not quantify energy transports within the atmosphere, and within the atmosphere, or more specifically the troposphere, convection dominates over radiation as a means of energy transport. As I understand it, the reason for this is that it would take weeks (?! certainly days) for the atmosphere to reach a purely radiative equilibrium while it only takes hours to establish a convective equilibrium. Consequently the troposphere has a lapse rate determined by convection rather than radiation. Dana89 is right if he thinks this face weakens the greenhouse effect. If the troposphere's temperature profile was determined by radiation rather than convection, the Mean Average Global Temperature would be closer to 90 degrees C than to 15! It is only because convection reduces the greenhouse effect that the surface of the Earth is inhabitable! But reducing the greenhouse effect is not eliminating the greenhouse effect. Since the 1960's, the effect of convection on the greenhouse effect has been fully taken into account by atmospheric scientists, and their predictions, including the prediction of increased surface temperatures as a result of increased CO2 concentrations incorporate that fact, and are based on it. The only way to find solace in the dominance of convection is to studiously pay attention to that one fact, and ignore all the others that you find inconvenient.
75412. dwighttowers at 09:33 AM on 10 September 2011
       Conspiracy Dog-whistling about GRL and the New Dessler Paper
       Is it just me, or is the Watts/Pielke Sr etc response an eerie microcosm/metaphor/analogy/whatever of the way denialism works? 1) Encounter inconvenient (ho ho) facts 2) Without checking for context (for obvious reasons) spray out tendentious 'facts' of your own 3) Sit back and wait for howls of outrage/sober-disproving-of-your-"hypothesis", and then wait for 1)...
75413. Bibliovermis at 09:18 AM on 10 September 2011
       Climate's changed before
       The PETM event (Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum). Skeptical Science: CO2 Currently Rising Faster Than The PETM Extinction Event
75414. dana1981 at 09:08 AM on 10 September 2011
       Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC TAR
       Whoops yes, good catch michael, thanks. Getting anything published in the mainstream media is always a challenge. If I can get this published as a book, then hopefully it would at least get a little media attention (as was the case with John and Haydn's book).
75415. stonefly at 08:58 AM on 10 September 2011
       Climate's changed before
       I've been following global warming for quite a while, with growing interest. I have discovered many informative posts on this site and decided to register. I can grasp the idea that changes in orbit and solar activity can force climate change, and that greenhouse gases amplify the trend. I can also grasp that our massive dump of CO2 into the atmosphere could force a climate change. My question is this, can anybody point out a time in the past when CO2 did the forcing, rather than an orbital cycle or solar activity?
75416. KR at 08:56 AM on 10 September 2011
       CO2 is just a trace gas
       Dana69 - The Stephan-Boltzmann law applies everywhere, at all times. Objects always have an absorptivity, and an emissivity, and those spectra match at thermal equilibrium. Convection (thermals) accounts for ~17 W/m^2 of energy rising from the Earth. Evaporation is around 80 W/m^2, while IR averages 396 W/m^2 coming off the surface, meaning that thermal radiation is >20x convection. Please see Trenberth 2009, Fig. 1, for details. Note that without convection, we would be much warmer - convection helps move warm air up to where it can radiate to space. But the majority of that energy is carried by thermal radiation. And please, read that Trenberth article carefully - convection is very noticeable, but not dominant in terms of energy transfer when you actually run the numbers. There have been any number of posters on any number of blogs who make a common sense error in that regard, and it always seems to take quite some time to correct such misapprehensions.
75417. John Russell at 08:54 AM on 10 September 2011
       Spending A Week Above Arctic Circle On M.S. Fram Off Greenland’s West Coast
       Interesting that every pic has a lean to the right.
75418. David Horton at 08:37 AM on 10 September 2011
       Conspiracy Dog-whistling about GRL and the New Dessler Paper
       "for some reason clouds are going to stop major climate changes this time even though they never did so in the previous 800,000 years". Exactly Scott, or in all the millions of years before that. I have been asking this obvious question for some time. Past climatic changes tell us there is no short term feed back mechanism preventing climate change. Perhaps Plimer could explain this to Spencer. The point is so obvious that it is impossible to see any rational reason (excluding ideology) for Spencer to persist with it or for anyone to take it seriously.
75419. michael sweet at 08:31 AM on 10 September 2011
       Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC TAR
       Immediately under figure 2 it says "mid 19th centuary" twice. Do you mean "mid 20th centuary"? Excellent post. How can a summary of these projections get published in the mainstream media?
75420. Dana69 at 08:07 AM on 10 September 2011
       CO2 is just a trace gas
       KR, Thanks for your remarks. Just curious, isn't convection a stronger force than radiative force in the troposphere? My understanding is that the Stefan-Boltzmann law applies in the stratosphere where convection and conduction are weakest. Respectfully,
75421. Riccardo at 08:04 AM on 10 September 2011
       Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
       I think it's worth quoting Cardinal Bellarmine own words (taken from the post linked by Composer99):

       I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the center of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary; and say rather that we do not understand them than that what is demonstrated is false. But I will not believe that there is such a demonstration, until it is shown me. Nor is it the same to demonstrate that by supposing the sun to be at the center and the earth in heaven one can save the appearances [predict accurately], and to demonstrate that in truth the sun is at the center and the earth in the heaven; for I believe the first demonstration may be available, but I have very great doubts about the second, and in case of doubt one must not abandon the Holy Scripture as interpreted by the Holy Fathers.

       His position is the same that the Roman Church had maintained from the early times and explicitly stated by Saint Agustine. On the scientific positions taken by some christians of his times, Saint Augustine wrote "It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, [...]". Those who like to identify themselves with Galileo should be more carefull, the risk of "speaking so idiotically on these matters" is high.
75422. KR at 07:52 AM on 10 September 2011
       CO2 is just a trace gas
       Dana69 An important element of radiative heating/cooling is that emissivity equals absorptivity when the object (in this case the atmosphere) is at thermal equilibrium. If the atmosphere is hot enough it will emit more energy than it is absorbing, and it will cool. If it's cool, and receiving more energy than it's emitting, it will warm up. this is governed by the Stefan–Boltzmann law. If the atmospheric temperature is not at the point where its emissions match incoming IR, it will change temperature.
75423. r.pauli at 07:33 AM on 10 September 2011
       Spending A Week Above Arctic Circle On M.S. Fram Off Greenland’s West Coast
       I though it was "Pay attention to the Pine Island Glacier in Antarctica" Nice report.
75424. Dana69 at 07:21 AM on 10 September 2011
       CO2 is just a trace gas
       Climate is a complex subject. GHG theory states “greenhouses gases” – water vapor, CO2 and methane (plus some others) - absorb longwave radiation and re-emit radiation both up out of the atmosphere and back down to the earth’s surface. And without this absorption of longwave radiation the earth would be 35°C cooler at its surface. (do I have this correct). If so how would you explain dynamical collisional equilibrium: CO2 emits infrared radiation not only of the same intensity but also of a very similar frequency as the one it absorbs. (this next part is not me, it is from my professor friend who indicates that the term "heating" with regards to vibrational activity of molecule collisions are wrong. Again, these are not my remarks, but seem persuasive. "What Happens when a Greenhouse Gas Absorbs Energy? Once a gas molecule has absorbed radiation from the earth it has a lot more energy. But in the lower 100km of the atmosphere, the absorbed energy is transferred to kinetic energy by collisions between the absorbing molecules and others in the layer. Effectively, it heats up this layer of the atmosphere. This is only half the story and because of seeing only the half story , the conclusion is wrong. What you say is the following : A* + B -> A + B_ In words – the vibrationnaly excited molecule A* interacts with a molecule B , its excited state decays to A and the molecule B increases its kinetic energy to B_ . This is right. But what you forget is that by time symmetry we have also : A + B_ -> A* + B The molecule A interacts with a molecule B_ , its vibrationnal state excites to A* and the molecule B_ decreases its kinetic energy to B. This is btw the process that makes a CO2 laser work . In LTE what is the basic hypothesis in all these posts we can even say more , namely that the rate of both processes is exactly equal and we have an equilibrium that can be written : A* + B A + B_ Please note the difference to the initial A* + B -> A + B_ ! The conclusion that follows is that the number of A* (vibrationnaly excited molecules) is constant . Also another way to say the same thing is that the distribution of the kinetic energy of the B molecules is constant too. Still another independent way to find again the same result because they actually all use same concept of energy equipartition , is to note that the distribution of vibrationnal energy levels is constant for a given temperature (Maxwell Boltzmann law). So it appears that whatever some IR absorbing molecule A* (CO2 , H20 , CH4 etc) does , there is at least one thing it doesn’t and it is to “heat the atmosphere”." Again, not my work, but it was explained to me, although I do not have the skills to verify.
75425. Composer99 at 05:30 AM on 10 September 2011
       Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
       Josh Rosenau of the NCSE has an interesting discussion of the Galileo comments made by Rick Perry. He finds that the primary objections, by the authorities of the day, to Galileo's work were theological (as per his quote by Cardinal Bellamine (Bellamino?)), while acknowledging other natural philosophers of the day disagreed with Galileo. He suggests that the natural philosophers' paradigm of the solar system was in flux at that time rather than a simple, toggle-like switch from geocentrism to heliocentris.
75426. Riccardo at 05:29 AM on 10 September 2011
       Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
       The only reason way people use the Galileo analogy is to try to portay science as a faith. To any informed person, it just shows a profound ignorance of history in general and of the Galileo trial in particular. To add to the NYT piece, even inside the Catholic Church some scientists supported Copernicus and Galileo views, like, for example, Benedetto Castelli, a benedictine friar.
75427. kampmannpeine at 05:22 AM on 10 September 2011
       Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC TAR
       where will you publish the "booklet/..." ??
       Response:

       [dana1981] That depends if I can find a publisher willing to publish it.  If not, we'll probably just publish it on SkS.

75428. dana1981 at 05:18 AM on 10 September 2011
       Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC TAR
       Thanks Nicholas and Paul. I'm working on putting the series together into a book/booklet/handbook/something like that, as well. The last entry (for now) will be AR4, and then there will probably be some posts comparing the various predictions we've examined thus far.
75429. dana1981 at 05:12 AM on 10 September 2011
       Dessler Demolishes Three Crucial 'Skeptic' Myths
       I think 'error bars' and 'uncertainty range' are both pretty widely used by scientists. Two-sigma uncertainty range/error bars are often pretty large though, so I'm not really sure what Camburn is complaining about (I don't think he's sure either, frankly).
75430. Paul Magnus at 04:42 AM on 10 September 2011
       Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC TAR
       Excellent!
75431. John Hartz at 04:35 AM on 10 September 2011
       Dessler Demolishes Three Crucial 'Skeptic' Myths
       Camburn peppers many of his posts with the term "error bars." Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't what he is referring to commonly called "bands of uncertianty"? Is "error bars" now a commonly accepted term among reputable climate scientists? If it isn't, I suggest that people responding to Camburn not use his perjorative term.
75432. Nicholas Berini at 04:26 AM on 10 September 2011
       Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC TAR
       Nicely written - really enjoying this series!
75433. John Hartz at 04:16 AM on 10 September 2011
       Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
       For more on the appropriateness of Perry’s Galileo remark, check out: Divining Perry’s Meaning on Galileo Remark, NY Times, Sep 8, 2011
75434. Rob Honeycutt at 03:15 AM on 10 September 2011
       CO2 is just a trace gas
       Dan @ 67... "The dark side, is that if AGW is wrong, the path to salvation is the most unnecessary and self destructive thing we can possibly do to our economy." You're setting up a false dichotomy. There is nothing to suggest that switching to CO2-free energy sources would do harm to the economy. In fact, quite the opposite is true. The greater likelihood is that the US can be a world leader in new energy and create a great deal of economic activity within our borders that would strengthen our economy. The fact is that, even if AGW were wrong (though it's not), fossil fuel sources can not possibly keep up with increasing global demand for energy. It's a limited resource that is becoming more and more expensive to acquire, process and deliver. Renewable sources of energy are on the opposite track. They are nearly limitless and falling in cost every year. Current estimates are that Solar PV will reach grid parity with coal in about 5 years. The fear people seem to have is that somehow a tax on carbon is going to cause damage to the economy. Nothing could be further from the truth. In actuality a carbon tax is just shifting the point at which we pay for the effects of atmospheric carbon. Estimates are that there is already $20/ton of cost to society for the production of carbon. A tax merely shifts the place where we pay that cost. Ultimately there is little or no economic loss. So, even without AGW there is no damage. The added benefit is that because of the climate effects from increased CO2 in the atmosphere there are tremendous benefits to dealing with the problem now over BAU. Look at a current US weather map today. The entire east coast is covered with exceptionally heavy rains. Those are real dollars of economic damage. And this is resulting from just a 0.8C rise in global temps resulting in 4% more moisture in the air. What happens when we have a 2.0C increase in temp and maybe a 10% increase in moisture? Any economic activity directed toward alleviating that scenario is money well spent. Sorry, I know this has gone off topic. If we want to continue this track there is a better thread here.
75435. DSL at 02:10 AM on 10 September 2011
       Sea level rise is decelerating
       Steve, a path or road is a good metaphor for a trend line. Remission: cancer carries too much other baggage to be a good metaphor, even though mitigation can help reverse the trend. Respite: that would be a good word, but its metaphorical value is not nearly as good as 'pothole'. Suspension: nothing has been suspended. The forces working for sea level rise are still in place; they've simply been temporarily overbalanced by other forces. Reprieve: a reprieve carries with it the sense of finality. Respite is better, but, again, both have little metaphorical sense. Let up: indicates that the force at work has stopped working for a while. Not true. Lull: ugh, not appropriate to a trend line. The idea of a 'pothole' and a road serves the idea of a trend line well, and a road (and the implied driver) is a relevant image where the A in AGW is concerned (we are driving climate change at least partially through our mode of transport). A 'speed bump' further implies an accelerating rate. Potholes make me think of asphalt, too, and asphalt makes me think of oil.
75436. Bob Lacatena at 01:54 AM on 10 September 2011
       CO2 is just a trace gas
       83, DSL, Another call for the Climastrology thread!
75437. Steve Case at 01:54 AM on 10 September 2011
       Sea level rise is decelerating
       Over at this site: sealevel.colorado.edu Is the head line: "NASA Satellites Detect Pothole on Road to Higher Seas" And some text: "... every once in a while, sea level rise hits a speed bump." I thought that rising sea level is a negative aspect of "Climate Change" and that we in fact would like to not go there. So the choice of words, "Pothole on Road to", and hitting a "speed bump" are a bit mysterious. Terms like remission, respite, suspension, reprieve, let up, lull etc. weren't considered. Food for thought as to why that is.
       Response:

       [DB] There is already a SkS thread on that; please place any comments on that topic there:  NASA Satellites Detect Pothole on Road to Higher Seas

75438. Bernard J. at 01:52 AM on 10 September 2011
       Conspiracy Dog-whistling about GRL and the New Dessler Paper
       "Hey! Look! Over there! A thingy thing!!" (Hides crappy 'paper' under the desk...)
75439. DSL at 01:44 AM on 10 September 2011
       Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
       FYI: the Arctic has just hit the trifecta: extent, area, and volume minima. True, this is only according to differing agencies, but none of the agencies is in significant disagreement. The volume drop in particular is alarming, since 2010's drop was sharp enough to seem anomalous to the untrained eye (and perhaps even to a few trained eyes).
75440. DSL at 01:34 AM on 10 September 2011
       CO2 is just a trace gas
       An open thread where things like Dan69's current understanding of GHE can be worked through would be nice. Newbies could use it as a foyer (then to be directed to the appropriate thread). I would like to read Dan's current understanding of AGW all at once (summary form, preferably semi-narrative) instead of this piece by piece kind of deal (unless it only exists in pieces).
75441. Composer99 at 01:31 AM on 10 September 2011
       CO2 is just a trace gas
       Mark Chu-Carroll over at Good Math/Bad Math often critiques mathematical crankery as espoused by those who set themselves against one or more broadly-accepted phenomena in science; one of his most pointed critiques is that the worst kind of math is no math at all. If I may, I feel the same criticism can be levelled at Dan69 here: when trying to rebut a well-supported conclusion in physical science (e.g. CO₂ warms the atmosphere when added by anthropogenic fossil fuel combustion), the worst kind of science is no science at all - an appeal to philosophy of science is of little value in and of itself.
75442. dana1981 at 01:23 AM on 10 September 2011
       Dessler Demolishes Three Crucial 'Skeptic' Myths
       Dale #37 - as far as I'm aware (though my info may be out of date), the only issue Dessler and Spencer are discussing is the ratio of ocean heat transport to TOA flux change due to clouds (Dessler's 20 to 1 ratio). Spencer claimed it was closer to 2 to 1, but commenters found a number of errors in his calculation. But I hope they can come to an agreement on a range of possible ratios based on the various available data sets. Other than that, Dessler agreed to update his introduction to more accurately reflect Spencer's opinions regarding cloud changes not necessarily causing ENSO, but that won't effect the content of the paper.
75443. jmsully at 01:16 AM on 10 September 2011
       Conspiracy Dog-whistling about GRL and the New Dessler Paper
       Ooops, that's what I get for posting at like, 5AM my time.
75444. Tor B at 01:10 AM on 10 September 2011
       OA not OK: Booklet available
       Thank you.
75445. dhogaza at 23:44 PM on 9 September 2011
       Conspiracy Dog-whistling about GRL and the New Dessler Paper
       "IMO the much more likely explanation is because both Prof John Nielsen-Gammon and Prof Andrew Dessler work at Texas A&M University in the Department of Atmospheric Sciences, and chat from time to time." Dessler wasn't keeping his smack-down of Roy secret, either. As he's said, he tried to educate Roy *before* Roy made a peer-reviewed further fool of himself.
75446. Dikran Marsupial at 23:39 PM on 9 September 2011
       CO2 is just a trace gas
       Dan69 I wrote: "To answer your question directly: (i) CO2 is not the only forcing, so even if CO2 is rising temperatures can still fall in the long term if there is a negative change in other forcings (e.g. solar) that more than compensates for the increase in CO2." you wrote: "You seem to be agreeing with my premise; wherein CO2 levels could be increasing, yet the temperature could be falling." This is a clear case of confirmation bias. I was not agreeing with you at all. All things being otherwise equal, a rise in CO2 will produce a rise in global surface temperatures over a time scale long enough for internal variability not to mask the change. That is basic physics, which has been very well understood for at least sixty years, and is not contested by skeptic scientists such as Pat Michaels or Roy Spencer or Roger Pielke Sr... (in fact is there any skeptic climatologist that is willing to make such a claim anymore?). You are way out on a limb on this one, and don't have the backing of the all but the most extreme scientists on either side of the discussion. It is clear you don't understand the basic physics, I suggest you go and read the sources I suggested and come back wehn you can at least coherently explain the widely accepted theory of the greenhouse effect. If you can do that, and put the philosophy of science to one side, then and only then will you have reclaimed the status of being worth talking to that you have thrown away by your behaviour so far on this thread. It is your choice.
75447. Dikran Marsupial at 23:25 PM on 9 September 2011
       CO2 is just a trace gas
       Dan69wrote: "If I were to hypothesize that CO2 is increasing in the environment, and more CO2 creates better living conditions, how would you falsify this premise?" Like most "skeptics" who pontificate about Popper, you have just demonstrated that you fundamentally don't understand the idea of falsificationism as the above is obviously directly falsifiable. We could conduct an experiment where pehaps we doubled atmospheric CO2 using fossil fueld emissions, if this failed to produce better living conditions (note a follower of Popper wouldn't have left the prediction as vague) then the hypothesis would be fasified. I see this sort of philosophy of science garbage used frequently as a means to refuse to accept well founded scientific theories, and I am sure that the originators of those philospohies of science would be just as appauled by it as I am. For instance David Hume showed that it is not possible to have certain knowledge regarding the real world by any empirical means. Does that mean that scientists should not perform experiments or draw conclusions from the outcome? Of course not. Hume himself said "A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.", in other words, even though certain knowledge is not possible, you can still guide your actions by weighing the strength of the evidence (this is merely common sense and pretty much what scientists actually do). No wonder I am reaching the point of "whenever I hear the word 'epistomology' I remove the safety from my Browning" [metaphorically speaking of course]; it is rare these days to engage in a proper discusion of philosophy of science or epistomology these days that doesn't end up in frankly BS use to ignore inconvenient truths that are quite obviously on sound foundations to anyone capable of using their common sense in intepreting the bounds on certainty. Perhaps it is just that work with uncertainty (in a statistical sense) that I find it so hard to understand this issue. We can't have certain knowlede; but we have a perfectly good framework for optimal decision making under uncertain knowledge (which is available) "The true logic of this world is the calculus of probabilities." — James Clerk Maxwell Any more discussion of philosophy of science ought to be off-topic.
       Moderator Response:

       [DB] "Any more discussion of philosophy of science ought to be off-topic."

       Agreed.  So let it be written, so let it be done.

75448. Tom Curtis at 23:14 PM on 9 September 2011
       CO2 is just a trace gas
       Dan69 @76, it's about time you stopped playing fast and loose with philosophical concepts of which you obviously have no understanding. You yourself introduced to this discussion the Duhem-Quine hypothesis, ie, the thesis that theories cannot be tested in isolation, but only in conjunction with a number of assumptions about initial conditions and the validity of other underlying theories. The immediate conequence of the Quine-Duhem hypothesis is that naive falsificationism is invalid as a scientific methodology. Indeed, Popper recognized this, but his solution, that the determination that a particular theory has been falsified must always be in part a matter of convention leaves something to be desired. But despite your introduction to Duhem-Quine to the discussion, you now insist on just the sort of naive falsificationist tests that it precludes. Either you are deliberately playing a deceptive rhetorical game, or you have introduced concepts you do not properly understand because you have a vague feeling that they support your position when, in fact they do not. That is a rather common tactic among deniers with a certain level of sophistication - to introduce Popper into a discussion as a means of reversing the burden of proof. Likewise it was you who introduced Hume and the "Is-Ought" gap into the discussion. If principled, that would require you to be very careful of the distinction between fact and value. But no, now you wish to introduce as a supposedly scientific hypothesis that is falsifiable the claim that, "If I were to hypothesize that CO2 is increasing in the environment, and more CO2 creates better living conditions, how would you falsify this premise?" "Better", is of course, a value laden term, so that your hypothesis, by the principles you supposedly espouse cannot be a scientific hypothesis; and a singular statement (by Duhem-Quine) cannot be falsified in any event. And just for good measure, you throw in an irrelevant reference to "slippery slope" fallacies. A person who understands concepts uses them to illuminate discussion. In contrast, you are using the concepts of philosophy inconsistently and with the apparent intention to make the discussion obscure. You sully treasures which you do not comprehend.
75449. Bob Lacatena at 22:54 PM on 9 September 2011
       CO2 is just a trace gas
       76, Dan69, First, your entire post should be deleted because you are dragging this thread off topic and using it as a podium for your personal rants rather than to discuss the subject at hand. Second, your understanding of CO₂ is weak and inaccurate. You should be using your time on this site to read and understand, rather than to pontificate about what you don't in any way grasp. Third, all of your nonsense about falsification is a foolish distraction. You can't argue the facts, so you instead want to discuss how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Fourth, CO₂ levels are currently at 390. Doubling the preindustrial level of 285 to 570 will only require another 180 ppm. At 2 ppm per year, this will happen in 90 years, so your math is wrong. That aside, it's also a foolish distraction. First, the effects don't all wait until that happens. It's not like turning off a ticking bomb seconds before it detonates. In fact, the worst of the warming comes earlier, rather than later, due to the logarithmic nature of the beast. Second, the presumption that the increase will only be 2 ppm per year goes along with the presumption that the rest of the world will not pick up pace in economic and social development. That's not a very safe assumption. Lastly, Dan, you do deny everything. You are so lost in what you want to believe that you have no clue whatsoever about what the problems are or we should do, and you contribute nothing to the dialogue except noise. You're like the kid sitting in the corner with his hands over his ears chanting "nah nah nah I'm not listening nah nah nah." Study first. Think second. Participate in the discussion after you've accomplished those two things.
       Response:

       [DB] "Study first.  Think second.  Participate in the discussion after you've accomplished those two things."

       On a personal note, that is the orbit trajectory I followed.  Despite have degrees in the field, it had been well more than a decade since I had done anything professionally related to it.  So when I came back to it, I spent nearly 2 years studying & reading the literature before I posted my first blog comment.

       Not saying this is the ideal path for anyone; for me, even with the educational background in the field, I felt I needed that 1,000 hours or so of reading & studying to get my comprehension levels back up to snuff.  The field had progressed rapidly and had made huge strides in that interim.

       And I was getting old.  :)

75450. muoncounter at 22:42 PM on 9 September 2011
       CO2 is just a trace gas
       Dan69#76: Let's start here: You state a. "it is my understanding that CO2 slows cooling." and b. "That means the resulting temperature would be due to an underlying factor" There is no logical connection between your premise a and conclusion b. To state the CO2 'slows cooling' is a bit like saying that placing a lampshade over a lamp 'slows darkening' once the light is turned off. That metaphor holds a glimmer of truth, but reveals little about actual mechanisms. Mountains of measurement show the physics of CO2 and radiation; there is no need to use anything but the appropriate language. If you appeal to 'underlying mechanisms,' you must specify what they are and how they work. Then and only then can you hypothesize, deduce and falsify. To state that an undefined 'something more fundamental' might be operating and simultaneously claim 'harmony with science' is a position of absurdity. Your arithmetic is sketchy: Even at a constant 2ppm per year, getting from 390ppm now to 560ppm (doubled pre-industrial level of 280ppm) doesn't take 175 years.

Prev  1501  1502  1503  1504  1505  1506  1507  1508  1509  1510  1511  1512  1513  1514  1515  1516  Next