Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 Next
Comments 76201 to 76250:
-
actually thoughtful at 16:15 PM on 30 August 2011CO2 is just a trace gas
More great ideas for a pirate to use to actually teach his students the science, and why it matters (as opposed to sort of kind of glossing it over - especially as these students will be the ones to pay the price for our current profligacy). -
Watson at 15:44 PM on 30 August 2011CO2 is just a trace gas
I have used a very effective demonstration of the significance of the trace concentration of 0.03%. Take 2 x 500ml beakers of water, add 3 drops of blue food colouring dye to one of the beakers. (each drop is approximately 0.05ml or 0.01%) This makes a 0.03% solution of the blue food dye. Shine a low power red laser pointer through the clear water, then the 0.03% solution. The reduction in the emergent beam is quite extraordinary. The final killer demonstration is to add another 'insignificant' drop (0.01%) to the blue solution, increasing the concentration to 0.04%, similar to current levels of atmospheric CO2. The attenuation is now almost complete! -
Stephen Baines at 15:00 PM on 30 August 2011Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
i think you're right skywatcher. Sphaerica, you are misinterpreting swombats intention. He/she is correct. The only way for Salby's interpretation to be right is if we have missed a net flux term to the atmosphere that is temperature dependent and is very large (20x?) relative to anthro inputs. That also implies a much faster return time than we have assumed (otherwise the net change would have been larger), and that has operated in the past. Could we have missed such a thing? does it makes sense that it operates only during the post industrial era and not previously? Highly unlikely. But that's not all. This flux must have a delC13 like plants, no C-14 (old) and it must preferentially increase CO2 in ocean surface layers (must be terrestrial). Swombat is making the case that Salby's interpretation predicts the existence of a previously unknown flux with a particular location, behavior, composition and size. Finding that flux is the obvious next step Salby should have taken before going public, if he were a real scientist. It would be interesting seeing him try to pose some viable possibilities that meet these criteria. I thnk he would find it hard. -
skywatcher at 14:36 PM on 30 August 2011Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
Am I right in assuming Sceptical Wombat was merely trying to find a way in which Salby's interpretation of a 5% increase could be fitted to the CO2 data? I don't think SW believes Salby for a moment, assuming the final statement in #55 was heavy on the irony? -
Enginerd at 13:53 PM on 30 August 2011CO2 is just a trace gas
Thanks for this post. When talking to scientists, I typically use ozone in the stratosphere to deflate this argument, as it is also a case where "trace" amounts of a chemical in the atmosphere plays a vital role to life on Earth, and not due to direct exposure. The example works really well, though it is perhaps not as familiar to the general public. Also, I'm astounded by the argument that an increase of "only 100 ppm" cannot possibly be harmful. Having studied outdoor air quality for 20+ years, my experience has been that it's highly unusual to find part per *billion* level statistically significant changes in *local* outdoor air quality for many pollutants. But, a 100+ part per *million* increase in *global* pollution levels over this time frame? That's actually an astounding increase, in my experience. I usually remind people that those 100 ppm result from many billions of tons of cumulative CO2 emissions. Of course, all of this is important not due to the large magnitude of the increased concentrations, but due to the forcing that it represents. -
Bob Lacatena at 13:51 PM on 30 August 2011Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
55, Skeptical Wombat,If we assume that 97.5% of the CO2 we emitted has been soaked up by negative feed back...
This is wrong. You need to understand this better so that you know why.Moderator Response: [Sph] See correction/apology in comment below. -
Bob Lacatena at 13:46 PM on 30 August 2011Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
57, Skeptical Wombat,The known sources and sinks cannot account for the simultaneous and independent injection and removal of additional CO2
This is wrong. Until you correct this misconception, you cannot properly evaluate the problem, or Salby's mistakes.Moderator Response: [Sph] See correction/apology in comment below. -
Sceptical Wombat at 13:37 PM on 30 August 2011Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
Dikran I am not for a moment saying that Salby is right but I do believe that my interpretation is the only one consistent with the content of his talk and the way it is being interpreted by his followers. The known sources and sinks cannot account for the simultaneous and independent injection and removal of additional CO2 that Salby appears to require so IF he is right there must be some very big ones still to be found. Maybe some enthusiastic "skeptic" could pick up a Nobel Prize or something. I look forward to your rebuttal. I think I can manage differential equations. -
Stevo at 13:20 PM on 30 August 2011CO2 is just a trace gas
Good article, Sarah. I noticed recently another writer used the blood alcohol analogy against the 'tragedy of the commons' argument (our county's emissions are so small a percentage of the total that our stopping them would not change the overall result). It went that I may as well drink as much as I like before I drive because any people I killed as a result of my driving would make no significant difference to the national road fatality statistics. -
scaddenp at 12:37 PM on 30 August 2011It's not bad
muon, fair enough but I was trying to encourage Joseph to read and talk about what the science actually says with some confidence, whereas "tipping points" are more speculative and feature more in environmentalist tracts with varying degrees of accuracy. -
skywatcher at 12:30 PM on 30 August 2011It's not bad
"Nature seems to most of us to be a lot more adept at normalizing extreme situations than environmentalists are at predicting them." Ah, the dream that if we leave things alone, they'll all return to some pre-designed 'normal' point that happens to be very comfortable for us. As Rob says, what if the 'normalizing' point is one at which you cannot grow as much grain in the great grain belts of the world, because it is too hot/dry/variable moisture? What if the 'normalizing' point makes it uncomfortable/difficult/dangerous to live in many parts of the world. With a new planetary energy balance driven by high CO2, these things are possible. Do you think Nature will care? Nature can be in balance and yet we might really not enjoy it very much... The IPCC is conservative, and does not make 'catastrophic' claims, see for example Freudenberg and Muselli. -
skywatcher at 12:19 PM on 30 August 2011Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
#31 mc - agreed. But we know that so-called 'sceptics' of the theory of climate and greenhouse gases are never very sceptical of any opposing claims, pretty much however bizarre they are. Or even checking if the papers support the headline claims they read... To support my last point on IPCC conservatism - William Freudenberg's presentation last year on 'The Asymmetry of Scientific Challenge' is relevant. -
muoncounter at 12:09 PM on 30 August 2011It's not bad
scaddenp#132: "tipping point stuff isn't that scientific" Joseph's statement was: "I don't think anyone believes that the world will be past a tipping point". The non-scientific part is his personal opinion and his projection of what 'anyone' believes. His opinion remains unsubstantiated - and surely there are some who believe that such tipping points exist and will be breached soon (ex: Arctic ice going, going, gone). Those who rail against 'consensus' and 'settled science' would not allow that kind of thing to go unchallenged. -
skywatcher at 12:09 PM on 30 August 2011Climate Sensitivity: Feedbacks Anyone?
#15, as ice loss accelerates (as has been observed in the arctic), the albedo feedback increases. It is not a static value. Additionally, large losses are spreading into the summer months of high insolation, further accelerating the feedback when open water is exposed to strong sun. When ice loss decelerates, probably when the ice is largely gone altogether, the ice-albedo feedback value will reduce of course. #18 Badgersouth: To add to your comment, the low PIOMAS volume to beat is 2010, which was significantly lower than 2007 (4428 cubic km compared to 2007's 6458 cubic km). The volume as of the 31st July, the last updated value, was 6494 cubic km, meaning that 2011 probably passed 2007's minimum according to PIOMAS on the 1st August. 2011's 31st July volume is ~500 cubic km below 2010. Source. -
muoncounter at 11:58 AM on 30 August 2011Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
skywatcher#29: "a theory of how the world works is no good if you've already discarded competing hypotheses." Yet celebration of the 'demise' of greenhouse warming continues now that the new pet theory of GCRs has been 'confirmed.' No one seems to be calling for multiple competing hypotheses; no one is bothering to look at uncertainties in the new experiment. In soft science world, the same rules do not apply. -
scaddenp at 11:56 AM on 30 August 2011It's not bad
Rob makes some good points. Please dont confuse published science with Greenpeace. This is a place to talk about the science says, not what environmentalists say. -
Yvan Dutil at 11:37 AM on 30 August 2011CO2 is just a trace gas
By the way, it maybe worthwhile to explain why CO2 is so important. The whole idea is that electromagnetic radiation need a little antenna to be emitted or absorbed (a dipole). This can be described a pair of positive and negative electric charge. Di-atomic molecules, N2 and O2, which making most of the atmosphere, are very symmetric and hence poor antenna. Next comes Argon, which is a noble gaz, which suffer from a similar problem. This leaves water vapour and C02, which a polyatomic molecule and asymmetric, which make them good antenna. -
Rob Honeycutt at 11:04 AM on 30 August 2011It's not bad
I have to respond to this line as well: "Nature seems to most of us to be a lot more adept at normalizing extreme situations than environmentalists are at predicting them." Yes. Nature absolutely does have very clever ways to normalize things. Nature is also quite incognizant of suffering or even survival of any given species. She has no compunction about setting things straight regardless of how the transaction takes place. The real question is, are you willing to bet your children and grand children's well being on the chance that nearly every scientist who does research in this field is somehow getting it wrong? -
Rob Honeycutt at 10:53 AM on 30 August 2011It's not bad
I keep coming upon the "taxation is bad" meme, as Joseph is trying to make the case for. The idea is absurd. Taxation is generally a way to shift cost burdens in order to promote more desired market behavior. It doesn't just suck value out of the economy. What we are talking about is taking the external costs of burning fossil fuels and internalize them into the cost of fossil fuels. What that actually does is level the playing field with other forms of clean energy which don't produce the same external costs. The challenge is that, as time goes on, those external costs grow exponentially. If we don't find a way to capture the costs of burning FFs then they will act like ENRONs off-the-books assets that collapsed that company. Only with this it won't be employee 401k's that take the hit. -
skywatcher at 10:41 AM on 30 August 2011Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
Curry's about-turn is rather pathetic (good spot chris #9). Her ramblings now seem largely to be unfounded speculations, unsupported by coherent evidence, wrapped in flowery language so that it is harder to see that they are just speculations. The last example in the OP is a classic one of that. By her definition we cannot accept anything as true unless we test it against a competing hypothesis. Do I need to test that a glacier is made of ice before I decide whether it is likely to accumulate frozen water? Do I need to test whether gravity works downwards rather than upwards when walking near a cliff (after all maybe it doesn't...)? Do I need to test whether the plate glass window will break if I throw a cricket ball at it (maybe it won't...)? In Curry's world, a theory of how the world works is no good if you've already discarded competing hypotheses. It boils down to the fact that we don't have any coherent competing hypothesis to the current well-verified theory of climate and the various greenhouse gases. We've been looking for over a century, and anything that looks like a competing hypothesis has failed to match the data. I'd love for someone to find such a theory, but this is now staggeringly unlikely, and the lack of such a competing theory does not make it less likely that we are right about GHGs, it makes us more likely to be right. Any change to the theory, say in a manner similar to going from Newtonian mechanics to relativity, has to incorporate the same observations and so will pretty much certainly have to incorporate something physically very very similar to the CO2 greenhouse effect. Otherwise it will fail the observation test. ETR, IPCC is well known to be conservative about their views. They had to be, in order to get every singly country to sign up, including the likes of Saudi Arabia. Current observations of Arctic sea ice decline, and current research on sea level rise are two examples where the conservatism is quite prominent. -
John Hartz at 10:33 AM on 30 August 2011Climate Sensitivity: Feedbacks Anyone?
“Speaking of Arctic Sea Ice volume... Combining ice thickness with sea ice area gives the total sea ice volume. At present, researchers cannot measure volume directly, so they estimate the volume with computer models. The University of Washington's Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS) model combines data on sea ice concentration with models of ocean and atmospheric conditions to estimate total ice volume. Sea ice volume normally changes with the seasons, but monthly estimates through July 2011 show that the volume for each month has tracked well below the 1979 to 2010 average, and below the volume for 2007, which saw the record low ice extent. PIOMAS projects that this year's minimum volume in September will very likely finish below 2007 and could even reach a record low volume. Source: Arctic sea ice at the crossroads, NSIDC, Aug 16, 2011 http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/” -
scaddenp at 10:32 AM on 30 August 2011It's not bad
Joseph, what the science says about predictions for the future is found in AR4. They are very conservative (already wrong) and not in the least way "worst case". If you do not accept this, then perhaps it would be best if you picked a specific prediction from the science and tell us why you think it is wrong (preferably with some science to back it). "when people are economically suffering today" - there will always be people suffering economically. You can use this excuse to delay forever. Under any of these scenarios, these same people are likely to suffer even more if food starts to get really expensive. You also seem to be assuming automatically action will be bad (FF companies surely wish you to believe that). Perhaps have a look at this article. Just as an example, how would killing ALL subsidies on FF and returning to public as tax breaks be bad for you? "tipping point" stuff isn't that scientific. What reports have shown though is that the longer you delay action, the more expensive it gets. -
muoncounter at 10:31 AM on 30 August 2011It's not bad
Joseph#130: "global warming's catastrophic future predictions" A friendly word of advice: No one but hard-core deniers use 'catastrophic'. "an additional 1-2% ball and chain weight on the economy would most likely add even more prolonged recessions/no growth/sustained high unemployment periods." Really? No job creation via this investment? No new revenue? No new technologies will come out of such investment? No new small businesses? People employed in alternative energy/CO2 mitigation, etc somehow do not buy food, gasoline, clothing? Is it better for them to collect unemployment until that runs out and then go on public assistance? Or is that not part of your equation? "playing up the worst case scenario" Please substantiate 'playing up' in this context. Perhaps you should read Degrees of Risk before issuing such judgements. "BP oil spill and Exxon Valdez disaster both turning out to have a much much smaller impact on the medium and long term environment than predicted" Please substantiate these opinions. Impact of the BP spill, in the form of hypoxic zones in the Gulf, continues to grow. Live oil is still being discovered in Valdez sediments. Less time in the pages of the national review might help. -
Tristan at 10:21 AM on 30 August 2011Temp record is unreliable
I'm sure there is a response to this somewhere, but i can't find it: http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/ghcn-the-global-analysis/ Any help would be much appreciated -
muoncounter at 10:15 AM on 30 August 2011Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
rcglinski#26: "I could define "pretty sure" as 65% certain if I wanted to, but it doesn't relieve the ambiguity." Why not? If I need to run an economic model, telling me that an event has a 65% chance of occurrence is an input to an expected value calculation. This happens in an industry of uncertain outcomes on a routine basis (my experience was the oil business, where 'chance of success' is taken very seriously). Calling this an ambiguity is purely a semantic objection. "when subjective judgments are expressed in the form of a number in a scientific publication" Look at the quotes from the publication discussed in this post: They are pure opinion, with no mathematical basis whatsoever. Arguing over the definition of 'more'? A bit like arguing over the definition of 'is'. -
Joseph at 09:21 AM on 30 August 2011It's not bad
Muoncounter #128 "What is the 'science of predictions'?" It's not the science of predictions, it is the science concerning global warming's catastrophic future predictions which seems, at least to me, to have a very wide range of unclear benefits vs. risk, as opposed to the science behind the reasons for the global warming which to me seems settled, as in caused by humans. Also regarding the costs of prevention, I am not sure I agree with your relatively low cost of "boarding up and leaving town" example. I read somewhere on this site that the cost would be as much as 1-2% of GDP!!! That may sound like a low number but any economist would tell you that this is a huge number. The US/Europe seems to have just entered into a long period of slow growth (if not double dip recessions) and an additional 1-2% ball and chain weight on the economy would most likely add even more prolonged recessions/no growth/sustained high unemployment periods. Of course I understand your point of long term cost but playing up the worst case scenario that comes out of global warming when people are economically suffering today makes it difficult for the general public to sign up today for such a big cost for the benefit of our grandchildren. When you couple this with the general public tendency to automatically discount gloom and doom predictions (like the ones from global warming) and environmentalists' history of exaggerated predictions (maybe not on purpose but nevertheless...), as in BP oil spill and Exxon Valdez disaster both turning out to have a much much smaller impact on the medium and long term environment than predicted, that makes it an even tougher pill to swallow. Nature seems to most of us to be a lot more adept at normalizing extreme situations than environmentalists are at predicting them. With all due respect to environmentalists on this site. And in response to #129 sccadenp's question about switching from coal, the answer is no! It's not that hard to switch away from coal...especially if the free market demands it! So if it takes an extra decade or two to educate the general public in order to create the demand for the free market forces as well as give the technologies a chance to catch up, so what? I don't think anyone believes that the world will be past a tipping point because of that extra period.Moderator Response: [DB] "Nature seems to most of us to be a lot more adept at normalizing extreme situations than environmentalists are at predicting them."Most of us? Who would that be? You imply that people who have taken the time to learn the science that think that "there's no problem" outnumber those that do. And you would be wrong to think that.
Furthermore, the issue with today's CO2 excursion is not so much the amount, which is considerable, but the rate: 10x greater than that which occurred during the PETM.
For further reading on that which we face given business-as-usual, try reading this post.
-
John Hartz at 08:46 AM on 30 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
"Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe formally endorsed Texas Gov. Rick Perry for president today, saying his fellow Republican has the right combination of executive experience and know-how about government regulations to beat President Obama. "Inhofe, a former chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, is a leading congressional skeptic on global warming and climate change. Perry made headlines recently for saying he has doubts about man-made global warming, saying it is an unproven scientific theory based on 'manipulated data.'" Source: “Climate change skeptic Inhofe endorses Rick Perry,” USA Today, Aug 29, 2011 To access the entire article, click here -
Paul D at 08:02 AM on 30 August 2011SkS Weekly Digest #13
The climate graphics are owned by John and other contributors and are provided with a creative commons license so that they can be legally used elsewhere. The same wouldn't apply to cartoons, SkS would have no rights to distribute them unless they were created by John or other contributors.Response:[DB] Perhaps thumbnails hotlinked back to the originals? You lawyers out there, what say thee?
-
DSL at 07:13 AM on 30 August 2011Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
rdr95, postmodernity did not develop historically of its own accord. What we understand as 'postmodern' are a set of responses to a set of shared conditions (the conditions of global capitalism, its relations and demands). "These days, using one's gifts to obscure truth is a profession." Indeed, Muon: theory under market capitalism is a commodity, and doubt enhances the market for theory. Of course, it's only to a certain extent, because eventually the process reaches a point where theory becomes without value, and the market collapses. Louis Menand a decade ago recognized the end of useful production for the literary criticism industry. It's much like the relations that emerge from the replacement of workers with machines. Individual capitalist entities are driven to do it, but they must do so without regard for local or global economic repercussions. And that, rdr95, is one of those "shared conditions." Under capitalism, we are driven to produce more and more exchange value, and that demand encourages us to consider anything and everything as commodity, valued more for exchange than use. When you combine that with the inability of the average citizen to comprehend the science (not necessarily through disability but as well through not having the time, means, or training), the market for cow patties really opens up. I imagine the worst thing that could happen to Watts, Curry, Goddard, Monckton, Spencer, etc. is for one of them to be suddenly easily and demonstrably right about "it's not happening/not us/not bad." And that is also the best thing that could happen to scientists with conscience. Unfortunately, there's no indication (or physical basis) that it will happen. -
rcglinski at 07:08 AM on 30 August 2011Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
"The IPCC AR4 chapter 1 section 1.6 unambiguously specifies 'very likely' as more than a 90% probability of occurrence." That's not really a specification. 90% there means a subjective judgement expressed in the form of a number. I could define "pretty sure" as 65% certain if I wanted to, but it doesn't relieve the ambiguity. If the 90% value were arived at mathematically that would be different as the equations would constitute the definition. This is a special problem when subjective judgments are expressed in the form of a number in a scientific publication meant for consumption by policy makers who might be unaware of this nuance and assume the number was a result of a derrivation. -
scaddenp at 07:01 AM on 30 August 2011It's not bad
Joseph - the disruption to the water cycle is probably the most robust prediction of AGW, but its not a headline grabber. Floods and droughts have proximate causes which make it easier to ignore ultimate causes that increase the frequency. After that is sealevel rise which is dogged by uncertainty in how ice sheets will behave so advisories so far have been extremely conservative. And of course these have been costed - eg the Stern report. There have been attempts to demonstrate a lower cost for GW (eg Lomborg though he has changed his tune) but these only succeed be assuming unrealisticly low climate sensitivity. To be honest, I think we need better studies but the upper end of the uncertainty scale is frightening bad and for policy makers, surely the precautionary principle applies. Is it really that hard to switch away from coal over the next 30-50 years? -
muoncounter at 06:24 AM on 30 August 2011Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
rdr95#22: "my opinion equals your data" We certainly see a lot of 'I don't believe your data' or 'my back of the envelope analogy disproves your data.' It's as if there is inherent suspicion of 'data' or inherent fear that those who work with data are out to deceive. I don't accept that as a natural outgrowth of legitimate skepticism; it almost requires a politicized or biased point of view. This isn't a new problem. See the Huxley-Wilberforce debate: Wilberforce supposedly asked Huxley whether it was through his grandfather or his grandmother that he claimed his descent from a monkey. Huxley is said to have replied that he would not be ashamed to have a monkey for his ancestor, but he would be ashamed to be connected with a man who used his great gifts to obscure the truth. These days, using one's gifts to obscure truth is a profession. -
scaddenp at 06:12 AM on 30 August 2011Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
Eric, looking over your postings over the last few months, it seems you believed a large number of false things to be true, but it seems no amount of corrections change your position. I notice you havent taken the challenge. Want to prove to us that your position isn't simply rooted in political values? -
scaddenp at 06:04 AM on 30 August 2011Temp record is unreliable
econ101lab - just a further comment on the anomaly method - this isn't just an hypothesised method. The strong spatial correlation of anomalies has been checked by studies (see KR articles for references). -
Lou Grinzo at 06:01 AM on 30 August 2011CO2 is just a trace gas
Note that a dose of elemental iron of only 120mg/kg of body weight is "potentially fatal", which works out to 120ppm by weight, assuming I'm not playing too fast and loose with orders of magnitude. http://curriculum.toxicology.wikispaces.net/2.1.9.6+Iron So much for the "iron is people food, the more the better" meme. -
Dikran Marsupial at 05:48 AM on 30 August 2011CO2 is just a trace gas
SocialBlunder The total number of CO2 moleclues above our head is closely related to the percentage. The mass of atmospheric carbon (not CO2) in Pg is 2.127 times the the concentration expressed in ppm. I'm sure you could work out the number of molecule from that, Avogadros constant, the radius of the Earth and a two atomic weights. However the point of the article is that you can't tell whether something is significant just by looking at the amount of it lying around, and often the units in which something is measured can give a misleading impression. The single figure that is most worth knowing is 1 degree C, which (ignoring feedbacks) is the direct effect on equilibrium global temperatures of a doubling of CO2. If CO2 is only 0.039% of the atmosphere, it only needs to be 0.078% of the atmosphere to raise global temps by 1 degree C (all things being otherwise equal). If 0.039% isn't much then it won't take much to double it - the "skeptics" can't have it both ways! ;o) -
warm at 05:41 AM on 30 August 2011CO2 is just a trace gas
H2SO4 cannot induce nucleation mediated by GCR: too low concentration in atmosphere: 200pptv (!) in the lower troposphere. ;-) ;-) http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2001/2001JD000605.shtml -
SocialBlunder at 05:35 AM on 30 August 2011CO2 is just a trace gas
If "The total number of CO2 molecules above our heads in the atmosphere is more important than their percentage in the atmosphere", being able to compare the ppm, tons, and temperature shift would be helpful. In Hansen's Earth's Energy Imbalance and Implications there is a tempting description of "An equation for climate forcing as a function of CO2 amount is given in Table 1 of Hansen et al. (2000)." I was not able to find the 2000 paper. -
NewYorkJ at 05:30 AM on 30 August 2011Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
Eric the Red, I find your claims overconfident and not supported by the evidence, as indication by your lack of support for any of your statements. "Solar activity was high" No. Solar activity trended downward. Solar Trends "volcanic activity was low" No. A monthly and latitudinally varying volcanic forcing dataset in simulations of 20th century climate "ENSO cycles yielded stronger and more frequent EL Ninos" There is such an ENSO/SOI trend during the covered period, but as we know from various ENSO-adjusted analysis, it has a limited effect on long-term trends. "The IPCC tried to diminish these effects, resulting in higher warming attributed to CO2 rise. " If they "diminished" the volcanic effect, there would be, if anything, less attribution to human causes. Nothing, however, was "diminshed". -
rdr95 at 05:27 AM on 30 August 2011Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
"Now Judith seems predominantly concerned her about the "motivated reasoning" of what she calls the "climate establishment." " Maybe I am off base here but if you read Dr Curry's commentary the verbiage sounds familiar. Not familiar as in 'others in her camp have said the same thing' (although true), but familiar in the sense that the same kinds of misuse of syntax and dismissal of data are common in the 'soft sciences'. Now those 'soft sciences' (polysci, sociology, economics) have, to a large degree, been undone by postmodern philosophy. The latter seems to boil down to 'my opinion equals your data, because all your data must be inherently biased'. I often wonder if the widespread adoption of postmodern philosophies in our universities has not had some terrible unintended consequences. -
muoncounter at 05:20 AM on 30 August 2011It's not bad
Joseph#126: "qualified with the word "may" as in global warming "may do this bad thing"." Quick and easy answer to that: look at the vicious criticism that comes out whenever a climate scientist makes a specific statement. But a better answer is simply that climate change is about trends, not specific events. You can say 'this is the observed trend; if that continues, here's what can or may happen.' "This suggests that even though the science about the cause of global warming may be settled, the science about its predictions is far from that." What is the 'science of predictions'? "And this in turn puts a big question mark on the importance of this issue in light of its economic cost." Absolutely not. The costs need to be studied as risk-adjusted expected values, which include both most likely and worst case scenarios. The cost of mitigation (reacting after the fact) is almost always far greater than the cost of prevention (or some form adaptation). Consider, for an obvious example, the cost of boarding up and leaving town in advance of a hurricane vs. the risk of loss of life and property damage if you do nothing. On some occasions, you leave town only to find that the storm goes elsewhere, but on another you may have saved your life. If you are not considering the worst case, you make bad decisions. That's basically what we are doing when we say 'the science isn't settled' and therefore 'do nothing.' If we can take action now to reduce the probability of occurrence of the worst case, then we are way ahead in the long run. -
Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
Eric the Red - Would you care to support any of the statements in your post? Natural forcings alone over the last 150 years should have resulted in a slight decrease in temperature, as opposed to the observed 0.8C temperature rise with our contributions. "I feel that the IPCC statements definitely lead to overconfidence, and they went out of their way to minimize other causes in the AR4 report." Are you accusing the IPCC of deception in this statement? They went through the evidence quite thoroughly - and that evidence supports the quite conservative (with many underestimates, in fact) statements the IPCC made. -
Eric the Red at 04:36 AM on 30 August 2011It's not bad
Joseph, Quite impressive analysis for someone who has only been reading this site for a few days. The incluson of the word "may" is usually a reference to the uncertainty of an event, or the lack of data to back up an assertation. For instance, there are those who claim that global warming will lead to more and stronger hurricanses; others fewer, but stronger; some more frequent, but weaker; and others fewer and weaker. The qualifiers often occur in areas of disagreement. -
Joseph at 04:28 AM on 30 August 2011It's not bad
I am new to this blog but I find this to be very informative, and as a result of reading through it the last few days I have already changed my opinion on this issue, having been solidly in the "global warming is just a natural cycle" camp, to believing that it is actually caused by human activity. Having said that I am not convinced that global warming is actually bad for humans. It does seem to me by reading many other posts/articles that your postings are biased towards the negative side. For example most articles I read suggest that warming will actually increase water supply for agriculture as a whole because of ocean evaporation/rainfall. But your posting concentrates on drought driven by heat and seems to downplay the potential increase in water supply from added rainfall. Also almost all your potential negatives (and to be fair your positives as well), are qualified with the word "may" as in global warming "may do this bad thing". This suggests that even though the science about the cause of global warming may be settled, the science about its predictions is far from that. And this in turn puts a big question mark on the importance of this issue in light of its economic cost.Response:[DB] "most articles I read suggest that warming will actually increase water supply for agriculture as a whole because of ocean evaporation/rainfall"
Then I would suggest reading this post then for starters:
-
Eric the Red at 04:22 AM on 30 August 2011Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
NewYorkJ I feel that the IPCC statements definitely lead to overconfidence, ( -Snip- ). Whose best estimate has natural contributions being negative? Solar activity was high, ENSO cycles yielded stronger and more frequent EL Ninos, and volcanic activity was low. ( -Snip- ).Response:[DB] Intimations of fraud and scientific misconduct deleted.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy, again, and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.
-
Bob Lacatena at 04:21 AM on 30 August 2011CO2 is just a trace gas
200 mg of arsenic is considered fatal, so 3 ppm is a fatal dose. -
Bob Lacatena at 04:08 AM on 30 August 2011Temp record is unreliable
224, econ101lab, You are advised to eliminate the following sorts of offensive falsehoods and snarky implications from future comments if you wish to learn and be guided, rather than to make a splash and warp other people into matching your own flavor of I-read-it-somewhere-and-I-believe-it-until-you-prove-otherwise:
All of this was in your opening paragraph, before you asked perfectly valid questions, but also laced them with a litany of misinformation and misunderstandings about temperature measurements on which your own confusion was based. In the future, if you don't know, simply ask. Don't broadcast an offensive and ignorant position, and use your comment to litter the world with even more misinformation of your own. If your goal is to learn, then learn. If your goal is to pontificate on things you don't understand, then expect a fair amount of blow-back here.- I have a tough time getting my arms around the "settled science" position
- when two thirds of the planet isn't observed
- one of the most significant variables isn't even modeled or clearly understood (clouds and cloud formation)
- smacks of intellectual hubris
- are there other untracked or unobservable variables of which I am unaware?
-
John Hartz at 03:45 AM on 30 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
“House Republicans are planning votes for almost every week this fall in an effort to repeal environmental and labor requirements on business that they say have hampered job growth.” Source: “House GOP revs up a repeal, reduce and rein-in agenda for the fall,” Washington Post, Aug 29, 2011 To access the entire article, click here -
John Hartz at 03:29 AM on 30 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
"Jon Huntsman Jr., a former Utah governor and ambassador to China, isn’t a serious contender for the Republican presidential nomination. And that’s too bad, because Mr. Hunstman has been willing to say the unsayable about the G.O.P. — namely, that it is becoming the 'anti-science party.' This is an enormously important development. And it should terrify us." Source: "Republicans Against Science," Op-ed by Paul Krugman, NY Times, Nov 28, 2011 -
Daniel Bailey at 03:09 AM on 30 August 2011Temp record is unreliable
@ econ101lab Aside from using the Search function, there are several ways to get the most out of SkS: 1. By Argument # 2. By Popularity 3. By Taxonomy (my favorite) 4. By Chronological Posting These will find most of the 4,000+ blog posts here at SkS. As always, if/when questions arise on a particular thread, feel free to post those questions there (or on another more appropriate thread) and someone will get back to you. Regular participants here follow the Recent Comments thread, so any new comments posted will be noticed regardless of the thread that they are posted on. Happy Hunting!
Prev 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 Next
