Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1550 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 Next
Comments 77851 to 77900:
-
Robert Murphy at 04:51 AM on 6 August 2011Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
"Spells? Sounds a bit like witchcraft to me." Or a touch of the vapors. -
Albatross at 04:48 AM on 6 August 2011Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Muoncounter @67 and EtR @68, You know, Judith should really just step away form her keyboard-- she is continuing to make an utter fool of herself. These "huge increases in CO2 concentrations" that Curry is so excited about are a) transient and b> < 2 ppmv. -
Eric the Red at 04:18 AM on 6 August 2011Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Stephen, It is not an issue of conservation of mass. Atmospheric CO2 is part of a complex equilibrium system. The CO2 that we are emitting does not remain in the atmosphere, but reacts according to the many natural chemical equations on this planet. If the amount we were adding was insignificant, then the environmental equations involving CO2 would use up the excess CO2 and form more products, keeping the atmospheric concentration relatively constant. Salby's own numbers indicate that nature is only using 45% of the excess CO2, with 55% remaining in the atmosphere. His assertion that CO2 is simply reacting to increasing temperatures would be more believable if it followed the recent temperature profile. However, temperatures have oscillated significantly during the past 130 years, while CO2 emissions have consistently increased.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Atmospheric CO2 is part of a complex equilibrium system, however it is a closed system and so must obey conservation of mass. Becuase of conservation of mass, the fact that annual rise in atmospheric CO2 being always smaller than anthropogenic emissions establishes beyond reasonable doubt that the natural environment is a net carbon sink and hence is opposing the rise in atmospheric concentrations, not causing it. Unless Salby et al can refute that argument, the paper shouldn't pass review. -
muoncounter at 04:07 AM on 6 August 2011Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
from jcurry's commentary: "huge increases in carbon dioxide concentrations caused by such things as spells of warming and El Ninos, which cause concentration levels to increase independently of human emissions." I wonder how these 'spells of warming' manage to both increase and decrease CO2 in sync with human economic activity, even down to as fine a scale as the day/night differences associated with weekday traffic (also here). And I can only marvel at how these 'warming spells' know to take the weekends off. Spells? Sounds a bit like witchcraft to me. -
Albatross at 03:57 AM on 6 August 2011Climate Denial Video #2: Failed at Science? Attack the Scientists
I highly recommend that everyone read Dr. Mashey's essay (here it is) which just appeared in "The Chronicle for Higher Education", it is relevant to this post. Some pertinent quotes from Mashey's piece: "People should be free to express their opinions, but not all opinions are equal, especially about science. Is it acceptable in CHE to state as fact that cigarettes cause no disease? Can one claim that the chemistry behind ozone depletion is a fraud? Can one state that the moon is made of green cheese? Can one say that astronauts lied about landing there and should be put in prison? Might Rush Limbaugh comment here, repeating his opinion that scientists should be “named and fired, drawn and quartered”? “Public flogging” was enough for Marc Morano of CFACT..." "Is there a dividing line between legitimate academic controversy and libel? If so, where is that line and who draws it? Academic controversy is not characterized by use of Nazi labels or exhortations that scientists be physically harmed. It is not characterized by baseless, wacky conspiracy theories about worldwide plots by mainstream science. Academic discussions involve data, facts, and justifiable, soundly crafted theories." "Some climate scientists have faced this politically based assault for years. Anti-science echo-chamber blogs amplify anger, yielding nothing like legitimate scientific discussion, and as a likely result scientists get death threats and dead rats left on doorsteps." We'll be very fortunate to get through this "debate" without losing a legitimate climate scientist to an untimely and unnecessary death at the hands of someone "inspired" by the rhetoric of Limbaugh, Monckton, Morano etc. -
Andy Skuce at 03:56 AM on 6 August 2011OA not OK part 13: Polymorphs - the son of Poseidon
This is a great series, thanks, Doug. I'm learning lots. PS: If anyone figures out the significance of the last link in your post, can they claim bragging rights? -
Climate Denial Video #2: Failed at Science? Attack the Scientists
I cannot hear portions of the voiceover - the music is entirely too loud. -
dhogaza at 03:16 AM on 6 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
"If you are really interested in two competing sites, read realclimate and Roger Pielke, they often present opposite sides to the same story" Yes, it's imperative that one support ones denialism by giving equal credibility to a site run by professional climate scientists, and one run by a *political scientist* whose grasp of climate science, to be polite, appears to fall so short of the mark that one might, if one were the suspicious type, suspect that he's not entirely honest.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] He may have meant Pielke snr (who is a professional climate scientist) -
Byron Smith at 02:55 AM on 6 August 2011Climate Denial Video #2: Failed at Science? Attack the Scientists
@#3 +1 -
Albatross at 02:39 AM on 6 August 2011Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
How about we listen to what an expert, a real climate scientist, has to say: Comment from Gavin Schmidt at RealClimate: This has nothing whatsoever to do with attribution of the temperature rise. The response of the CC to temperature is a specific thing - and it doesn't matter if it is originally driven by Milankovitch and ice sheets (over the ice age cycle), solar and volcanic activity over the pre-industrial, or by human activity/martian fairies/the PDO or whatever today. ENSO is an internal source of temperature changes on short time scales, and Pinatubo is an external source of temperature change over a short time period - both are included in any modern period regression such as Salby must have used. And the sensitivity of the carbon cycle to such changes is noticeable, but small and nothing like enough to explain the 20th C change. But even without thinking about this that deeply at all, it is obvious that Salby is wrong - we have put more than twice as much CO2 into the air as has actually accumulated over the last 100 years. To posit that the rise is not anthropogenic implies finding sinks that have totally taken up the anthropogenic CO2 *and* new sources that have put half of it back again. Meanwhile, all the actual reservoirs have more carbon than they had previously. Furthermore, the 13C and 14C data (up until the bomb peak) support a predominantly fossil fuel source. And the O2/N2 levels are dropping at the rate expected (given that we are burning C, and taking O2 from the air). The idea that a poorly performed regression undermines all this is ludicrous. - gavin" -
Albatross at 01:57 AM on 6 August 2011Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
I do not know what is worse, Salby trying to sell this ridiculous notion, or people like Curry uncritically egging him on. It is clear from the Climate Etc. thread that Curry does not know what is going on. And Salby has not published a single paper on the carbon cycle that I am aware of. Really this is just smoke and mirrors and people like Dale lap it up to reinforce their denial. For example, one of the commentators to that advertisement for his talk (50% of which was about him, not the subject he is trying to speaking to) states: "But I thought the science was settled??" Now there is a true "skeptic, not. His mission has been accomplished before the paper has even made it though peer review. This is very, very likely just another Trojan paper to make people think "the science isn't settled so we don;t have to do anything". PS: "Skeptics" claim that temperatures have not warmed since November 1996, if Salby's hypothesis is correct then why have CO2 levels continue to rise, perhaps even accelerate since then? -
Rob Honeycutt at 01:53 AM on 6 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
Pirate@44... I realize that is an EPA chart but it's not a very good one. For one, the CO2 scale is a bit funked out. It suggests CO2 levels have fluctuated between about 130-250ppm and I don't think that's accurate. 190-290 is more likely correct (IIRC). The second thing that is funky with that chart is the relative scales of temp and CO2. My suggestion would be to be more skeptical and see if you can find other sources that either support or disprove the accuracy of the chart. I find it ironical that you're using this chart to try to suggest that climate change is natural and CO2 is not having a strong effect. It's quite literally the relationship between temp and CO2 in the ice core records that help us understand the climate's sensitivity to CO2 forcing. But to understand that you're going to have to dig in and read a few actual research papers. The long and short here is, you're not being skeptical. You're looking for ways to deny what you don't want to believe.Response:[DB] Over the past 800,000 years, CO2 concentrations have never been above 298.7 PPM...until now:
-
Alexandre at 01:52 AM on 6 August 2011Climate Denial Video #2: Failed at Science? Attack the Scientists
The soundtrack is sometimes a bit too loud for John's voice. I would tone it down a bit. -
muoncounter at 01:43 AM on 6 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
EtR, Thanks. We agree on something at last. But Einstein was referring to experiments: No amount of experimentation can prove him correct, a single experiment can prove him wrong. Deeply philosophical; 'prove correct' is not well-defined in terms of scientific theory. We've all seen examples that a single scientist can be innocently wrong; or worse, can be bought, sold or otherwise persuaded to come up with questionable results. The existence of these 'outliers' proves little; it is their work that must stand scrutiny. Or as I frequently remind my students: If you really believe that your results are correct and everyone else is wrong, double check before you buy a ticket to Stockholm. -
Alexandre at 01:41 AM on 6 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
Hi John, Very nice video. It's really pleasant to see and listen to. Congratulations to you, particularly. I remember the time when you said that you were not confortable with hearing your own recorded voice (or something to that effect). Talk about overcoming one's own self-imposed limitations!Response: Thanks Alexandre but I confess, I still find it cringeworthy listening to myself. But sometimes you just have to man up and do what you gotta do. -
Alex C at 01:41 AM on 6 August 2011Climate Denial Video #2: Failed at Science? Attack the Scientists
Yeah, this problem apparently is with the TreeHugger video system, there's no way to shut off autoplay. Removing the video itself from the home page preview was one attempt to mitigate the problem (imagine several going at once), but unfortunately it still plays automatically once you click forward. -
Composer99 at 01:21 AM on 6 August 2011Climate Denial Video #2: Failed at Science? Attack the Scientists
I didn't think it worthy to mention on the first thread, but I personally find it a bit annoying that the embedded video begins play immediately upon loading the page. Especially after one has watched it 2-3 times already. -
Stephen Baines at 01:17 AM on 6 August 2011Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Dale, for Salby to be correct, conservation of mass has to be wrong. Now if he can come up with an theory that explains why the conservation of mass should not hold, he might have something that really would make him famous. Otherwise, he should be asking, "what could I be doing wrong here?" That's what a true skeptic does when he evaluates all the evidence. Instead, Salby simply ignores one of the most fundamental and easily understood tenets of physics as we experience it here on earth. What is depressing is that Judith Curry apparently didn't see through this immediately and shepherd her flock away fromthe road. It's also depressing (and telling) that this topic still has any legs at all among the larger community of so called "skeptics." -
Eric the Red at 01:06 AM on 6 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
Muon, I have a very difficult believing anyone who claims that the red spike is not due to us. Also, since concentrations have not been at the current level during the past 400k years, the past history may not be the best indicator of the current (or future) situation. Expanding on your final point: we as scientists should examing all the evidence, especially if it is contrary to our beliefs, before coming to conclusions. Paraphrasing Einstein, a hundred scientists will not prove me right, but one scientist can prove me wrong. -
pbjamm at 00:55 AM on 6 August 2011Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
DSL@62 So often those Skeptic Silver Bullets turn out to be chrome plated brass. Yet they keep firing them and the AGW monster keeps coming. -
muoncounter at 00:54 AM on 6 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
pirate#44: "you can understand my skepticism. " The graph you posted shows exactly why there is nothing natural about the current situation: the red spike at the far right (present) never happened in the 400k yrs shown until now. Yet you cling to 'it's not us' or whatever variant that suits the current topic. The point made by this video - and multiple comments on this thread (and many other threads on SkS) - is that clinging to a preconceived notion in spite of all evidence to the contrary is not skepticism. -
pbjamm at 00:45 AM on 6 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
apiratelooksat50 @44 "Pertaining to natural cycles. Looking at the figure from the USEPA website, temperature rises - followed by CO2 and temperature falls - followed by CO2." Yes, historically CO2 levels have risen as a result of increased temperature caused by some other forcing. It was a feedback that made things even warmer. That was then. Now CO2 is rising ahead of the temperature and acting as the forcing as well as a feedback. The previous peaks were not anthropogenic, and no one denies that. This CO2 peak does not follow the previous pattern. That is what makes today different from years (eons) past. That is my understanding of the science anyhow. YMMV -
muoncounter at 00:41 AM on 6 August 2011Animals and plants can adapt
Continuing from here. "the 10k bp mark" From Wikipedia:Identifying the exact origin of agriculture remains problematic... ... grains of rye with domestic traits have been recovered from Epi-Palaeolithic (10,000+ BC) contexts at Abu Hureyra in Syria, but this appears to be a localised phenomenon resulting from cultivation of stands of wild rye, rather than a definitive step towards domestication. ... By 7000 BC, sowing and harvesting reached Mesopotamia, and there, in the fertile soil just north of the Persian Gulf, Sumerians systematized it and scaled it up. By 8000 BC farming was entrenched on the banks of the Nile River.
So, yes, the last glacial retreat was a good thing for the development of agriculture. But your contention that this development took place during a time of rapidly rising temperatures and sea levels is not well supported -- and really makes no difference. However, there is a clear difference in conditions described by Bettinger et al 2009:
Ice age climates varied at very short timescales (Richerson, Boyd, and Bettinger 2001). Ice core data show that last glacial climate was highly variable on timescales of centuries to millenia ... In comparison, the Holocene after 11,600 BP has been a period of comparatively very stable climate.
So it appears to have been stability that gave birth to civilization. What we have provoked is rapid change and instability: deeper droughts, worse flooding, wilder extremes from winter to summer. Anecdotally, from a recent trip west: it is clear that the only people who will get a crop this year are those who can afford to buy lots of water. Poor farmers have abandoned their fields; buildings and other infrastructure are in decay. Everywhere you go, creekbeds and streams are dry and people are saying 'it's never been this bad.'
-
Eric the Red at 00:37 AM on 6 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
I think muoncounter said it best, "Anything that supports your position is by definition free from all flaws; anything said by the opposite side is total bunk." This appears to be more true than we would like to believe. A true "skeptic" would be critical of either, and look for the proof in the pudding. Dale, If you are really interested in two competing sites, read realclimate and Roger Pielke, they often present opposite sides to the same story, with references to each other on occasion. Judith Curry's Climate etc. would be better than WUWT. -
muoncounter at 00:26 AM on 6 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
pirate#83: You are basing an awful lot on 'the 10k bp mark' as the exact origin of agriculture. But this is a thread about sea level rise. Continuing here. -
DSL at 00:21 AM on 6 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
Pirate, just out of curiosity, do you know precisely why CO2 is called the climate "control knob"? I think what you mean is "fluctuations in atmospheric CO2 have not historically driven major changes in climate." Why is the temp "hanging around" when it has sharply dropped at each of the last four peaks? Do you have a physical mechanism that explains this? -
apiratelooksat50 at 00:13 AM on 6 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
Pertaining to natural cycles. Looking at the figure from the USEPA website, temperature rises - followed by CO2 and temperature falls - followed by CO2. CO2 is not driving climate change. Does it have a significant affect - maybe. But, it is not the driver. The 4 peaks prior to the current one had to be caused by natural cycles, not anthropogenic because we weren't here! Moving to the current interglacial and the human population boom in a geologically short time, and the resulting rise in CO2 that is partially caused by our FF use and land use practices - you can see why I state that my buying in to the AGW hypothesis depends on statement that says "we may be influencing natural phenomena". And, even though CO2 levels have skyrocketed, the temperature is not following it. At best it is sort of hanging around before it begins it's next drop. I hope you can understand my skepticism.
Moderator Response: [mc] Please remember to restrict image width to 450.[Dikran Marsupial] Please also see CO2 lags temperature. The natural carbon cycle provides positive feedback to temperature peturbations, however our fossil fuel/land use emissions over-ride the natural carbon cycle, so CO2 can now be a driver of climate rather than a feedback. While CO2 has acted as a feedback in recent geological time, it has also acted as a driver of climate, for instance the emergence from the Ordovician snowball Earth is hard to explain without accumulated CO2 from volcanic sources. The response of the climate to anthropogenic emissions has been pretty much what was predicted, so the comment about temperatures "hanging around" is misguided. -
apiratelooksat50 at 23:47 PM on 5 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
Stephen at 17 Not a bad way to phrase it, but if you are not implying that CO2 is the driver of the climate. -
DSL at 23:47 PM on 5 August 2011Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
What do you think of Salby's work, Dale? Do you accept it, and can you defend it? Remember, you're asking people here to defend AGW. If you're curious about Salby's work and want to know more--arguments for and against--then you shouldn't present the work as if it's the Holy Sword of Scientific Truth. If you do, you'll be expected to use that Sword. Perhaps instead you should say something like, "What about this _____ chap who claims ____? He seems legit--he's got lots of titles and such." -
apiratelooksat50 at 23:42 PM on 5 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
DB @ 90 From Oregon State University World Food Crops: Origins of Agriculture. So, if we go back to the 10K BP mark you see from your post that it is at the beginning of the Younger Dryas. A period of relatively rapid temperature rise and sea level rise. Those were the seeds (pun intended) of the development of civilization. It is hard to tell on that quasi-log scale where exactly that point is. And, yes we did flourish in that sweet spot. There are no historical indicators that say we stay there. "About 10,000 years ago, in the delta of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in Mesopotamia (today Iraq), people began to grow crops and to adopt a more sedentary lifestyle." "Why did the revolution occur? The shift to food production is related to the end of the Pleistocene era and beginning of the Holocene era. The ice age retreated, and the world became warmer and generally wetter beginning about 14,000 BC. Parts of the Fertile Crescent became drier, making it possible to farm. By 10,000 BC, climates were essentially modern. While the Pleistocene had strong climate fluctuations over periods of 1,000 years or less, these fluctuations have been much smaller in magnitude in recent times. It has been suggested that the past 10,000 years have been a "lucky break" in terms of climatic extremes and volcanic activity." -
Rob Painting at 23:04 PM on 5 August 2011Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Dale - the paper is yet to be published, but I've listened to a talk which Salby gave at the Sydney Institute earlier this week - it doesn't look good for him. He seems to have it in his head that annual CO2 emissions (that is the natural flux of CO2 in and out of biological reservoirs like forests and the oceans, plus human emissions, should follow human CO2 emission trends on a year-to-year basis. He doesn't explain why he thinks that, but he's wrong anyway - El Nino/La Nina and droughts in the Amazon for instance, can drive large swings in the flux of CO2 in and out of natural systems. Human CO2 simply adds to the pool size which natural systems can draw from. The rest of his argument stems from that basic misunderstanding of the carbon cycle. Maybe he should have stuck with atmospheric physics? -
Dale at 22:22 PM on 5 August 2011Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Oh you're all going to love this...... already in the presses ready to publish, peer reviewed and from a respected climate scientist too! http://catallaxyfiles.com/2011/08/03/stop-press-climate-talk-on-cable-today/Moderator Response:[DB] Salby is essentially speaking gibberish. In the past, temps tended to lead CO2 increases, with the notable exceptions of methane peturbations. How things are different today is that we have injected immense quantities of previously sequestered CO2 back into the carbon cycle, turning CO2 from it's normal feedback into a forcing.
Salby has been discussed to some degree already on RC, Open Mind and internally here at SkS.
There are no credible physics to support his assertions. As a further note, his reputation within the community is less than you make it out to be.
-
Doug Mackie at 21:10 PM on 5 August 2011OA not OK part 13: Polymorphs - the son of Poseidon
Thanks Patrick. It is important to distinguish between a lattice and a crystal. The balls in the top row of figures are not close packed and form a body centred cubic (bcc), this has a packing efficiency (for identical spheres) of 68%. For the bottom row of figures if we place the 3rd layer directly above the bottom layer we get face centred cubic (fcc), or if we place the third layer in the hollows we get hexagonal close packed (hcp). Fcc and hcp have the same packing efficiency for identical spheres of 74%. Thus, for the given box frame 3 layers of the top boxes would contain 16 + 9 + 16 = 41 spheres, while 3 layers of the bottom set (as fcp or hcp) would contain 14 + 14 + 14 = 42 spheres. -
Eric (skeptic) at 19:39 PM on 5 August 2011The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
This study http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/28612/57559869.pdf?sequence=1 shows that the UHIE in Phoenix manifested mostly as an increase in minimums (0.19F/year) rather than maximums (0.042F/year). I can also say that the record high minimums noted at Washington National in my area are only partly matched at other locations. National has had increases in paved areas in that location over a recent period (since 1942). Please note that this does not mean that higher lows are not real, they are real independent of UHIE and are best explained by AGW. But I have pointed out before that records are not corrected for site effects or UHIE. Quoting raw numbers like in this post #59575 above needs to have that caveat. -
scaddenp at 18:00 PM on 5 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
"But since it was asked, explain the recent temp flat line in the face of exponentially rising CO2, NASA satellite data showing no increase in aerosols, and CERES satellite data showing increased IR leaving the system." Perhaps you check a/ that temp is "flat line". b/ the NASA satellite show no increase in aerosol c/ what the solar forcing is currently then ask why does CERES show increased IR? (Hint, temperature). And finally, what actually do the model predicts? (eg look at Keenlyside et al 2008 and surrounding controversy and maybe the actual model outputs, eg as shown here ) Now if global temperatures did stay static or decline over a 20+ year period, while total forcings increased, then I would be asking for an explanation from modellers. -
Dale at 16:35 PM on 5 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
Moderator, thanks for the direction. --off topic content deleted-- Sometimes, the message contradicts the observation. That leads to questioning.Moderator Response: Please take your thoughts on aerosols to the relevant thread as requested earlier. Thank you. -
Albatross at 16:27 PM on 5 August 2011The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
Norman @94, "I think Camburn has the Texas heat and drought correct, a blocking high that does not allow rain storms into the area." Sorry but this is wrong, Camburn is referring to a block thousands of km away over the Northern Pacific. Problem is, the blocking index data do not show any hint of blocking in the vicinity of the warm SSTs there. Regarding the DTR. While I appreciate your enthusiasm and interest in crunching numbers, what you have done is just not the way to go about it, and could lead you astray. Note too that you looked at two sites in a region experiencing a significant drought. Now that affects local temperatures three ways. First, during the day the sensible heat flux is much greater than normal which causes higher than normal temperatures. Second, that also means that the latent heat flux (flux of moisture) into the boundary layer is much lower than normal. Third, on account of the drought means that cloud cover and PWV content are both reduced. As a result, over the drought area at least, the daytime highs are inflated, while the nighttime lows may not be as high as one would expect during a heat wave. So that may be what you are seeing....not I said "may be". As Muoncounter showed, the NWS has noted that the temperatures at night are still way above average allowing people little or not reprieve from the heat. With that said, there could be a major issue with the data that you are using. I compared the AccuWeather numbers with the National Weather Service (NWS) numbers for Austin and they do not agree do not agree (for third August, NWS= 106/79, Accuweather = 105/74). A little disconcerting. So those data you are using do not appear to be vetted, quality controlled official data, and appear to have errors. Now the aforementioned hypothesis may hold true for the drought area. But the data show that for most of the USA, nighttime minimums are way above average and that the number of nighttime temperature records are outpace the daytime records. So when one looks at the body of evidence it points to something unusual going on, and something that is consistent with warming pattern expected with AGW. The following paper by Zhou et al. (2010) is the definitive paper on the subject of DTR, and I suggest that you carefully read it in its entirety. It is a complex issue (hence it not being the best fingerprint), for example, you will see different climate regions respond differently to the DTR affect. -
barry1487 at 16:07 PM on 5 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
Dale,actually there are people who deny natural warming. You see it in newspapers every day. People who believe all the warming is human caused. They are in denial that natural warming occurs in the face of evidence some warming is natural some is human.
I was going to ask you to provide cites, but Stephan already did that. Your reply:you don't have to deny past natural change to deny the current change. In one of the newspapers I read (The Age in Melbourne) on climate change articles you can see reader comments displaying the belief that the current warming is all human induced. It's quite possible that emotional headlining by the paper is responsible for this.
So what you're saying is that some ordinary punters think that recent warming (I assume you mean the last 30 - 50 years) is entirely anthropogenic in origin. That appears to be pretty much the case. A proper rendering would include caveats, but the basic, unqualified view given out by Joe Blow isn't that far off the scientific view. -
Phila at 16:03 PM on 5 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
Dale: That's some pretty credible evidence that natural climate change does occur. An utter strawman. We all know that climate change occurs naturally. We also know that this means the climate will change when forced to do so. See if you can guess where I'm going with this. -
sailrick at 15:54 PM on 5 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
@ Dale "I find this an interesting comment, since wouldn't the WUWT diehards say the same thing about here (substituting relevant terms)? That is why I read and post at both sites. As I said above, I come here for an AGW slant, and I got to WUWT for a non-AGW slant." So you come to Sk Science for the science, and WUWT for ....? The fake graphs by Steve Goddard on Arctic sea ice and such? Watts and Goddard - Sea Ice http://climatecrocks.com/2010/11/24/lively-times-at-wuwt/ "Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010" "... recent post by Steve Goddard which casts doubt on the fact that we've experienced record hot temperatures over the last year, citing falling sea levels in 2010." http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-Cherry-Pickers-Falling-sea-levels-in-2010.html "Arctic death spiral: Naval Postgrad School’s Maslowski “projects ice-free* fall by 2016 (+/- 3 yrs)” "But in the land of make-believe, Watts and Goddard say: "Arctic ice extent and thickness nearly identical to what it was 10 years ago." June 6, 2010 http://climateprogress.org/2010/06/06/arctic-death-spiral-maslowski-ice-free-arctic-watts-goddard-wattsupwiththat/ The fervor over a meaningless paper by Spencer? "Just Put the Model Down, Roy" (Spencer) by: Barry Bickmore July 26, 2011 http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/just-put-the-model-down-roy/ The faked graphs that an article by Watts and D'aleo used to make this claim? "NO WARMING TREND IN THE 351-YEAR CENTRAL ENGLAND TEMPERATURE RECORD" Open Mind http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/02/15/summer-and-smoke/ They get their heads handed to them by Tamino Long story short, Anthony Watts (of Watts Up With That) and D'Aleo left out the 19th century and only used summer data, leaving out winter data, to arrive at their quackery graph. Of course summers in the period were relatively cool, while winters were relatively warm. Even for skeptics, this one takes the cake for cherry picking. there are many more examples where those came from What you see as balance, is like having to present someone who believes the moon landing was faked, everytime NASA has something to say about space research and exploration. -
Patrick 027 at 15:42 PM on 5 August 2011OA not OK part 13: Polymorphs - the son of Poseidon
CORRECTION ...the second row would be FCC if the third layer's atoms don't line up with either the first or second **layer**. -
Patrick 027 at 15:41 PM on 5 August 2011OA not OK part 13: Polymorphs - the son of Poseidon
You can see that the spheres in the bottom boxes are packed more tightly than the spheres in the top boxes. If this is refering to the sample illustration (not the calcite and aragonite), I'm not sure that's true. If I'm not mistaken, the top row is face-centered cubic (FCC). If you rotate it, you can find layers with hexagonal packing. Those would go in a repeating cycle of 3 layers - the second row would be FCC if the third layer's atoms don't line up with either the first or second row. If they line up with the first row, it's hexagonal closest packed (HCC). I think they both have the same density - if the interatomic distances are the same, which I suppose might not be the case given particulars about bonding geometry (?) for an actual substance. If you space out the atoms in each layer in the first row then I think you would get BCC... --- Sorry I know this is beside the point but I just thought it was interesting. -
Dale at 15:17 PM on 5 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
Muoncounter, if you note the posting times, DSL posted as I was typing. I'm on a phone thus typing is slow, with an annoying auto correct at times. But since it was asked, explain the recent temp flat line in the face of exponentially rising CO2, NASA satellite data showing no increase in aerosols, and CERES satellite data showing increased IR leaving the system.Moderator Response: Please everyone, stay on topic and take discussion to a more appropriate thread. FWIW, stratospheric aerosols have been increasing, see Solomon et al. (2011): "The authors analyzed measurements from several independent sources – satellites and several types of ground instruments – and found a definitive increase in stratospheric aerosol since 2000." -
muoncounter at 14:40 PM on 5 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
Dale#36, No, I meant the illegal hacking incident that subjected scientists to a lynch-mob in the media. Only to find that independent review found no wrong-doing of any kind. Let's hope the actual criminals will be discovered this time. But there are other threads for that. "obvious that on this site it is "bad" to be skeptical of the AGW mantra." DSL#34 asked you to present your case; your response was to bug out and it is somehow turned into a criticism of SkS. -
DSL at 14:39 PM on 5 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
Ah, the old hit and run, eh Dale? Nice technique. Do you believe in evidence-based thinking, Dale? If so, provide some for your "hide the decline" interpretation. And do it on the appropriate thread. Contrary views don't get published? Which views? Let's circumvent the official organs right here and now: you represent those views, and posters at SkS will work through them. Maybe you'll bring something valuable to the table. Who knows? If you can't represent those views, though, you shouldn't talk like you can. And, hey, there's always E&E; if your views can't get published there, it's possible that they are actually totally worthless, or at least unreadable. Ad journalem? Deservedly so. -
Dale at 14:26 PM on 5 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
Muoncounter, since you brought it up do you mean the hacking incident that exposed manipulation of data to hide the decline and the peer review process so that contrary views don't get published? Anyways I am out of this conversation. Its obvious that on this site it is "bad" to be skeptical of the AGW mantra. Thank you all for your time.Moderator Response: Dale, please you are very confused about what "hide the decline" means. You are also ignoring the fact that none of the scientists who had their emails hacked have been found guilty of "manipulating" data-- fact eight separate investigations have not found them them guilty of the things that you are accusing them of. Moreover, Lindzen, Spencer and other "skeptics" have lengthy publication records. In other words you are simply parroting long debunked myths and fallacies. Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum. Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter. -
DSL at 14:21 PM on 5 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
Dale: "I could raise points to support my belief, but this is not the thread for it." Do it. You could do nothing more helpful here than to present your case. That is the difference between SkS and WUWT. Here you have an open forum to present your case. You will not be shouted down unless you refuse to address counterarguments, and even then it takes a very long time (see the 2nd law thread). You will not be whipped with ad hominem and sharp rhetoric (well, Sphaerica gets a little pointy occasionally). AGW supporters here will take you seriously as long as it's clear you're not playing games. If you support AGW but present a crappy argument, other AGW supporters will point out the brown stuff. None of this is true for WUWT. The comment stream at WUWT is like a transcription of conversation at a UFO convention: everyone has been abducted, and each abducting alien is different, yet everyone believes each other's stories. -
scaddenp at 14:11 PM on 5 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
If all you have is blog statement, with no reference to peer-reviewed published papers, then chances are its rubbish. For a genuine scientific conflict, there are no matters of opinion. The matter gets settled by data. A conflict involves alternative models of reality. You look to where the model make different predictions from each other and see which one matches the data best. However, beware of those trying to pull the wool. If the result is valid, then it needs to stand scrutiny from science peers. This is the role of scientific publishing. The unpublished papers are either self-delusion from amateurs or downright medacity aimed at Joe Public. -
muoncounter at 13:45 PM on 5 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
Dale#30: "At least them I see both sides of the story and can assess the truth of everything being said. " How do you do that? What do you bring to the table, so that you can 'assess the truth' of the likes of Hansen or Trenberth vs. Goddard or Watts? "isn't that what all the Murdoch News problems are about?" No, that's about breaking the law. We'll see how far the hacking investigation goes. Remember that hacking incident? "you can deny the positive argument, or you can deny the negative argument. " No again. As several folks have pointed out, it is not the arguments that are being denied. What separates skeptic from denier is denial of the facts. If there were relevant facts on the 'negative' side (something more germane than 'it's changed before'), then there would be both sides to the story. -
Dale at 13:31 PM on 5 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
Albatross, if you don't look at all the evidence, how can you conclude it's not equal in credibility and relevance and validity? You may say I'm unskeptical and uncritical, so be it. I just don't think the climate is as sensitive as claimed. I could raise points to support my belief, but this is not the thread for it. "What is more WUWT do not present evidence, they present, for the most part, propaganda and fodder for "skeptics" and those in denial about AGW. WUWT also offers a podium for certain people who disparage, threaten and harass climate scientists. WUWT is not a genuine skeptic site, far, far from it." I find this an interesting comment, since wouldn't the WUWT diehards say the same thing about here (substituting relevant terms)? That is why I read and post at both sites. As I said above, I come here for an AGW slant, and I got to WUWT for a non-AGW slant. At least them I see both sides of the story and can assess the truth of everything being said. If anything, isn't that the intelligent thing to do rather than fall into a trap of becoming warped in your belief from a single sided message? Gee, isn't that what all the Murdoch News problems are about? Which comes back to what I originally said, you can deny the positive argument, or you can deny the negative argument. Denial sits on BOTH sides of skeptic as portrayed in the OP video.
Prev 1550 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 Next
