Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1618 1619 1620 1621 1622 1623 1624 1625 1626 1627 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 Next
Comments 81251 to 81300:
-
SEAN O at 10:50 AM on 27 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
KR 122, Spherica 124, I don't think Okamito would accept anything from Tamino, he's been over there spreading the same mishmash he is here. Check out Tamino's response at http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/06/23/sea-ice-3-d/#comment-51844. -
Camburn at 10:41 AM on 27 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
Sphaerica: Advances in science happen all the time. One of the advances is in how TSI flucuates. The paper that Dr. Svalgaard authored confirmed this. His credentials are impecable. His findings do not confirm a variability in TSI in the early-mid 1900's large enough to account for the increase in temperature. I posted the source for my data concerning rate of warming. I will leave it for the interested to confirm their own opinion. It would seem Bertrand's research on solar agrees with Dr. Svalgaard. "Bertrand was investigating the effect of solar and volcanic influence on climate and concluded "these are clearly not sufficient to explain the observed 20th century warming and more specifically the warming trend which started at the beginning of the 1970s". -
Riduna at 10:33 AM on 27 June 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
@ Okatiniko I am surprised that no one has raised with you the demonstrated prospects of heat storage associated with solar thermal. Tower power involves concentration of sunlight on a central point where it heats water producing steam used to generate electricity and a substance able to store heat, such as salt. Molten salt is able to retain sufficient heat to produce sufficient steam to produce electricity when sunlight is not available, making it possible to generate 24/7. The problem with solar thermal is not inability to produce base load electricity but to do so at a cost which is comparable with that produced from burning coal. The gap between the two will of course be narrowed by putting a price on carbon emissions and, over time, improving heat storage. Even so, there is some risk associated with solar thermal capacity to produce base load energy over a period of several days of cloud. Hence the need for gas fired back-up or improved storage. In the case of PVC’s, the situation is very different. No sunshine, no electricity. With PVC’s there is a need for greater efficiency in converting solar energy into electricity. While improvements in this area are being made, base load can not be achieved without development of storage capacity which, as pointed out by Adalady @ 30, is being made. Rather than endless and not well informed debate on technological solutions which exists now, it might be more fruitful to consider likely developments which will facilitate significant reduction in use of fossil fuels over the next decade or so. I think those developments will be made and that by 2050 solar will be the source of base load electricity particularly for countries which have long hours of sunshine. -
Bob Lacatena at 10:29 AM on 27 June 2011There is no consensus
354, RickG, You can find climate scientists that believe that smoking does not cause cancer, and that the theory of evolution is false, so I imagine you can certainly find a few that will even claim that there is no consensus. But let me get this straight... their argument is that there is no consensus on climate change, because there is no 100% consensus on whether or not there is a consensus on climate change? Do they drink from the "Drink Me" bottle or eat the "Eat Me" cake, or both, in their special little wonderland? -
Bob Lacatena at 10:25 AM on 27 June 2011There is no consensus
355, mik_rosser, [snipped uncalled-for harsh reply] For information, just use the search function on this site. Searches for the following will give you more than enough ammunition to thoroughly refute each of those 1,000 times over (not to mention this very post on the consensus): climategate peer review pop tech -
Bob Lacatena at 10:18 AM on 27 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
39, Camburn, For the record, however, anyone can address your nonsense by looking on this very site at: It's the Sun! (clearly outlines the increase in solar activity in the first half of this century which contributed to warming in that period, and the leveling off after 1950 which fails to account for recent warming). How do volcanoes drive climate (clearly outlines the cooling caused by large volcanic activity prior to 1920, and the dearth of volcanic eruptions that contributed to warming between 1920 and 1950). Rate of warming this century (clearly demonstrates that warming in the early half of this century is not comparable in rate to recent warming). How sensitive is our climate (clearly outlines the logic pointing to the high probability of a climate sensitivity of at least 3C.) Simpler version on climate sensitivity Really, Camburn, with as little as you understand, and admit to misunderstanding, I would think that you would spend more time studying and learning, and less time promoting the same old stale, foolish and thoroughly debunked arguments. Readers, beware of the oft repeated nonsense. Don't take your information from blog comments. Get it from better sources. -
Bob Lacatena at 10:06 AM on 27 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
122, KR, Thanks. I was looking all over for that post of Tamino's to give to okatiniko, and couldn't remember the name with which to find it. Typing "show me what I want" into Google never seems to actually work. And they call that a "search engine." -
mik_rosser at 09:56 AM on 27 June 2011There is no consensus
Hey everyone, A climate skeptic sent me to these websites as proof that climate change is not happening and there is no scientific consensus. http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/05/30/that-wobbly-foundation-peer-reviewed-research/ http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html http://noconsensus.org/what-is-consensus.php Help me in arguing back? Cheers, Michael. -
Philippe Chantreau at 09:31 AM on 27 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
"I never stated that, so I cannot retract it" It was formulated in a much more convoluted way but that's exactly what your post 107 says. Infact, kudos to Les for cutting through the word salad and summarizing it in clear language. -
Bob Lacatena at 09:31 AM on 27 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
39, Camburn, Your posts are full of misinformation, and off topic, and should be deleted from this thread. It does not exist for you to promote your nonsense. If you wish, find another thread and re-post there. -
KR at 09:26 AM on 27 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
okatiniko You might want to look at some of the 'hockey sticks' shown on Tamino's recent Five Year post. The majority of proxies cover multiple years per sample (foraminifera ratios, ice cores, isotope measures), and simply don't show the last few years because of insufficient range of time. Of course, the fact that the proxies are calibrated against the instrumental temperature record over the period of overlap, and that the instrumental record is very redundant and accurate, means that the instrumental record is the data of choice in the last 50-100 years. As to the 'random noise generating hockey sticks', you might want to look at peer reviewed refutations of McIntyre's work, such as Rutherford 2004, an extended discussion of the errors in the work, a letter to PNAS by Mann et al highlighting issues, and perhaps the most damning of all, an examination of the Mcintyre code that reveals a filtering function that selected 100 runs out of 10,000 on the basis of similarity to Mann's work, and from which a hand-picked subset of a dozen or so brought were forward as their objections/matchs. Pick the physically based process of choice and a graph of a key indicator - I'm willing to bet that running random combinations of weighted red noise 10,000 times, then selecting the best matching 0.1%, will yield surprising similarity. But that is in no way an argument against the physical process. -
Camburn at 09:15 AM on 27 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
KR: Where did I assert that the physics of co2 is not known? I think you have missed some of my posts. I agree 100% that a doubling from 280 to 560, all other things constant, will result in 1.3C warming. 30 years. From 1917-1944 we had a warming of 1.2C From 1980-1998 we had a warming of 1.3C Source Hadcrut variable adjusted global mean. The rate of warming is the same now as it was in the early-mid 1900's. According to the soon to be published paper by co-author Dr. Svalgaard, TSI has varied very little in the 1900's. So TSI is not the reason for the rise in the early-mid 1900's, just as it is not the reason for the drop of the LIA. climate models. We know that there are climate models with a prediction of 1.7 on the low end and climate models with a prediction of over 6C on the high end. Yes, there are variations on the amount of co2 emissions within these models, but co2 is not the only variant. As far as feedbacks and forcings, the variability within the literature and the models speaks for itself does it not? -
CBDunkerson at 08:46 AM on 27 June 2011The false, the confused and the mendacious: how the media gets it wrong on climate change
"But their free ride has come to an end, as the next few weeks on The Conversation will continue to show." Anyone know what this refers to? I've long wondered what we can do to hold deniers in politics and the media accountable... but when Monckton can walk into the U.S. Congress and flat out lie (and claiming that the temperature projection which he made up came from the IPCC was a flat out lie) without being charged for it you have to wonder if the people funding this effort don't have the power to prevent any consequences. Scientists standing up and calling out their colleagues and the deniers in politics is all well and good, but given that the deniers have already been making false denunciations of the same kind for years now it seems inevitable that they will respond by ratcheting up those attacks. Meanwhile half a dozen climate researchers are being 'investigated' by partisan hacks who accuse them of fraud and misappropriation of funds without any evidence whatsoever and then use freedom of information laws to demand e-mails in hopes of finding more quotations they can misrepresent as they did with 'Climategate'. What can really be done to hold deniers to account for what they are doing? -
Bob Lacatena at 08:40 AM on 27 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
120, okatiniko, Which of these hockey sticks do you refute? Or perhaps Arctic sea ice extent? Or perhaps Greenland ice mass? -
KR at 08:26 AM on 27 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Norman I would suggest the data sets available here, here, or here, among others, as global precipitation information. I'll note that finding these records from NOAA and NASA took roughly 3 minutes of Google time. And as I said earlier, you have not justified any issues with the data from Munich Re, who accumulate extreme weather information as part of their normal business cycle: “It’s as if the weather machine had changed up a gear. Unless binding carbon reduction targets stay on the agenda, future generations will bear the consequences.” "...it would seem that the only plausible explanation for the rise in weather-related catastrophes is climate change" -
KR at 08:12 AM on 27 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
Camburn 1. This site is using AGW as a tool to promote alternative energy. So to say no one is a bit deceptive? Ah, the familiar sound of conspiracy theories... better meds are suggested, as this cannot be taken seriously. 2. I understand the physics very well concerning co2. IF co2 was the only greenhouse gas it would be a slam dunk. It isn't. Evidently you don't. The physics of CO2 and it's effect on the greenhouse effect are a Type A kind of knowledge; your assertions otherwise indicate that you need to work on your physics. 3. Sphaerica: Your 1st description of a driver is correct. Then you understand that sometimes things act as feedbacks, and at other times (like now) when changed independently of temperature, they act as forcings? Like anthropogenic CO2? 4. KR: I can only suggest that you do a 100 year mean....then look at temperature within that mean. Over a 100 year mean, the temperature has risen. Over a 30 year mean, the temperature has risen much faster, and out of sync with natural forcings. Hence the 'unnatural' forcing of CO2 is responsible for that. And 30 years is plenty of time for the trend to emerge from noise and internal variation. 5. Mysterious unkown cycles. Ya betcha. There are hints of these that are being uncovered. That is why they are uknown, and mysterious. "Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" - Christopher Hitchens. 'Nuf said. 6. Our understanding of the co2 effect on climate is not really that good. That is why there is such a variation in the outcomes of climate models. Really. Seriously. You want to produce some references that demonstrate that unsupported statement? --- So - assertions that well known physics such as CO2 and IR effects are not actually known, misunderstandings of feedback/forcings, evident lack of knowledge of statistics, assertions of 'cycles' without any evidence thereof (especially evidence that stands up to a statistical analysis), and more claims that we don't know anything. Denial, Camburn, this is all just denial. -
okatiniko at 07:52 AM on 27 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
119 : I never stated that, so I cannot retract it. I said you can generate hockey stick shapes even with random pseudo-proxies, so the amount of loss of variance with real proxies is questionable, and I won't retract it. Proxies are just inaccurate indicators, and they are even unable to show any modern unusual increase of anything after 1970 - unless you give me a reference proving the opposite. -
Bob Lacatena at 07:51 AM on 27 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
33, Camburn,Our understanding of the effect of co2 on climate is not really good. I will stand by that statement.
So you stand by a subjective and quite honestly indefensible claim. But we are wandering far off-topic. Dr. Franzen's post discusses how to discuss climate science with deniers, based on their level of acceptance of the science, as usefully divided by Dr. Franzen into Type A, Type B, and Type C. You refute all three types in various ways, so discussion with you is pointless, because your positions are unscientific and based purely on your own subjective perspective, rather than any factual basis. As such, there is no argument that you cannot refute by simply beginning any sentence with the magic words "I believe..." -
Bob Lacatena at 07:47 AM on 27 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
32, Camburn, I don't need a list of more papers. I need to understand how two studies that discuss the "F10 Flux" in any way affect climate, which is to say, they are interesting studies of the mechanics and machinations of the sun, but that does not of itself require or even imply that such issues have anything to do with climate. The sun is the source of energy in the climate system, but it is also a fairly constant source of that energy. To claim otherwise, you must produce the proof which has been woefully absent to date and does not yet exist that in anyway clearly describes a mechanism and demonstrates some correlation between the behaviors being discussed and climate. Without this, cries of "F10 Flux Sun Magnetism Cosmic Ray Brouhaha" are nothing more than hand-waving distractions. -
Bob Lacatena at 07:41 AM on 27 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
31, Camburn,This has not been demonstrated in any study from paelo literature that I have read.
Any? Any? Are you serious? This is quite simply an unbelievable statement. Start here. You can also look here for more. If you want to argue that there is a chance that climate sensitivity is low because some studies show it (low meaning 2˚C), that's one thing, but to actually say that you've never seen any? That's quite a statement to make. -
MattJ at 07:36 AM on 27 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
@camburn, #33 You may "stand by" that, but like with Luther's infamous "hier steh ich", you take your stand in an ill-advised fashion. For the truth is simply not on your side. Our understanding of the effect of CO2 on climate is good enough to know: we must cut back drastically and immediately on CO2 emissions, without increasing other GHGs, to prevent unmitigated disaster. It is already too late to prevent disaster, we are going to go through a stressful time worse than any since the Black Death, but it will be much, much worse if we don't cut back now. -
Tor B at 07:29 AM on 27 June 2011The false, the confused and the mendacious: how the media gets it wrong on climate change
okatiniko, You critique a bit of grammar, and choose to ignore "The changes are rapid and significant" even after quoting it, thus providing the shallowest of straw-man distractions that you ought to be embarrassed by. If you were serious about what was written, you could have offered a question such as, "Did you mean for the escape clause "may be" or did you intend "will be" or "are"? -
Robert Murphy at 07:28 AM on 27 June 2011The false, the confused and the mendacious: how the media gets it wrong on climate change
"the chance that the statement "the implications may be dire" is wrong is exactly zero, since "may be" can not be false." The statement "The chance of these statements being wrong is vanishingly small" refers to all of the points made in that section: "We know that atmospheric CO2 is increasing due to humans. We know that this CO2, while being just a small fraction of the atmosphere, has an important influence on temperature. We can calculate the effect, and predict what is going to happen to the earth’s climate during our lifetimes, all based on fundamental physics that is as certain as gravity. The consensus opinion of the world’s climate scientists is that climate change is occurring due to human CO2 emissions. The changes are rapid and significant..." The phrase you decided to criticize was not covered under "The chance of these statements being wrong is vanishingly small". "But the chance that the implications won't be actually dire is not vanishingly small, of course." Why "of course"? That's an assertion without any evidence. There is some uncertainty as to how dire the changes will be for us, but the odds that they won't be dire is not vanishingly small. -
Camburn at 07:27 AM on 27 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
Sphaerica: Our understanding of the effect of co2 on climate is not really good. I will stand by that statement. As of yet, because we can not model clouds and the hydro cycle well, the current sensativity of our climate to co2 is in the type C science. -
Camburn at 07:24 AM on 27 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
Sphaerica@30. Yes, the items I have posted on the sun DO have a bearing on climate. Give me a day....I will post published papers showing paleo studies reflecting the influence of magnetic field strenth etc. They are written by Astrophysisists. -
Camburn at 07:21 AM on 27 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
Sphaerica: I will 100% support, all other items being constant, that a doubling of co2 from 280 ppmv to 560ppmv will increase temperature by 1.3C. I will not 100% support that doubling co2 will result in a temp rise of 3.0C. This has not been demonstrated in any study from paelo literature that I have read. If you can point me to a valid study that shows this, I am more than willing to read and digest it. I agree 100% that the rate of emission of co2 at present levels is foolhardy. I have stated a few of my reasons in a previous post. -
Bob Lacatena at 07:09 AM on 27 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
22, Camburn, Nothing you have posted on the sun so far on this thread has any direct bearing whatsoever on climate. Do you have any point at all with those posts? If so, can you please connect the dots? -
les at 07:09 AM on 27 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
118 - You seem to find it very easy to be sure of things you gave no evidence for. Not least of all how much others here know. Still. Nice to see that you have retracted your claim that the proxy reconstructions recreate the hockey stick shape due to the affects of noise. That is sufficen. -
Bob Lacatena at 07:05 AM on 27 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
21, Camburn,Our understanding of the co2 effect on climate is not really that good.
False. 100% false. -
Bob Lacatena at 07:05 AM on 27 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
21, Camburn,Your 1st description of a driver is correct.
Then you must accept the premise that simply because CO2 has not often or definitively initiated climate change in the past, because it primarily has acted as a (critically important) feedback, this does not mean that CO2 cannot also act as a driver (using your definition for the term). To put it another way, there are very few natural mechanisms -- quite possibly none -- that can pump this much CO2 into the atmosphere in this short of a time frame. But this in no way changes the extreme radiative and climate related properties of concentrations of CO2, so one cannot claim to understand the underlying physics without also recognizing that, whether or not it has happened before, the change in CO2 that we ourselves are initiating in the atmosphere can most certainly have the same climate impact that it has in the past, which is to change the global mean temperature by 3˚C or more for every doubling of CO2. Do you refute this? -
okatiniko at 07:00 AM on 27 June 2011The false, the confused and the mendacious: how the media gets it wrong on climate change
"The changes are rapid and significant, and the implications for our civilisation may be dire. The chance of these statements being wrong is vanishingly small." the chance that the statement "the implications may be dire" is wrong is exactly zero, since "may be" can not be false. But the chance that the implications won't be actually dire is not vanishingly small, of course. -
Bob Lacatena at 06:57 AM on 27 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
21, Camburn,I understand the physics very well concerning co2. IF co2 was the only greenhouse gas it would be a slam dunk. It isn't.
This statement shows that you do not, in fact, understand the physics at all. The fact that CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas is irrelevant. That you do not understand this is the proof that you do not understand the physics. -
Bob Lacatena at 06:56 AM on 27 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
25, Camburn, You appear to be purposely missing the point. The focus is not what the alternative to fossil fuels is, the focus is that there is a huge problem that needs to be addressed... solutions flow from considering the problem, not the other way around. -
Camburn at 06:47 AM on 27 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
Ok......let's try it this way. To address AGW, this site promotes the diminished use of fossil fuels as energy sources. And the alternative to fossil fuels are? -
Utahn at 06:33 AM on 27 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
Camburn: " This site is using AGW as a tool to promote alternative energy. So to say no one is a bit deceptive?" Isn't your statement more than "a bit" deceptive? Maybe I misunderstood it? Could you clarify? -
mclamb6 at 06:30 AM on 27 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
Camburn @ 21: "This site is using AGW as a tool to promote alternative energy..." This is quite simply untrue. The implication is that John Cook (and others on this site) began with the premise "I want to see widespread use of alternative, renewable energy sources" and from there, worked backwards to develop justifications as to why alternative energy is preferable. The exact opposit is occurring--the realities of anthropogenic climate change require that we address CO2 emissions and energy infrastructure. Therefore, it is necessary to research and develop alternative energy sources to put the breaks on global warming. -
Camburn at 06:18 AM on 27 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
A confirmation of the above post concerning solar. What this shows us is that proxy reconstructions of past solar behavior based on the known at the time are prob flawed. Dr. Svalgaard had a paper recently, which I have posted on the solar link, that showed variation in TSI, even during the MM was neglible. When his results are incorporated into todays GCM's, the hindcast ability deteriorates. This is my point that there is a lot that we don't know, as it is obvious to all I would think. Dr. Svalgaard -
Norman at 06:14 AM on 27 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
KR, I totally agree with your one point concern. I would love to find a data source for the entire US to compare snow and temp to a larger region. The only information I can find on a larger scale is snow cover for North America. This will not help determine snow amount vs temperature debate as you can have large coverage but shallow depth. I need snow accumulation data. I could try different cities and build a region. The NOAA data does cover a larger area than Omaha. Lincoln and Norfolk are also part of the data set. Still a small region and like you point out, subject to local factors. -
Camburn at 06:08 AM on 27 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
Glad to see good responses: 1. This site is using AGW as a tool to promote alternative energy. So to say no one is a bit deceptive? 2. I understand the physics very well concerning co2. IF co2 was the only greenhouse gas it would be a slam dunk. It isn't. 3. Sphaerica: Your 1st description of a driver is correct. 4. KR: I can only suggest that you do a 100 year mean....then look at temperature within that mean. 5. Mysterious unkown cycles. Ya betcha. There are hints of these that are being uncovered. That is why they are uknown, and mysterious. 6. Our understanding of the co2 effect on climate is not really that good. That is why there is such a variation in the outcomes of climate models. -
okatiniko at 05:46 AM on 27 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
les : "I've worked with a good veriety of models and data which include noise of various flavours " Obviously you didn't work with reconstruction of past data with a modern calibration period, since you don't seem to understand the debate. When I say "there is a controversy" , it's only factual: there is a controversy because different specialists disagree and argue in peer-reviewed papers. This is a fact. You can't use the "peer-reviewed" arguments when it goes in your direction and let it down when it goes elsewhere.Now obviously your decision about who is right and wrong is governed by your prejudices , and I'm sure you're totally unable to explain why exactly the lasso method is worse than another one - so please be modest and recognize that the subject is still unclear and discussed in the literature, as many others in science. Now I believe the hockey stick is real, since the Earth has warmed since the end of LIA, this is not discussed. But please give me ONE reference of any proxy reconstruction when the hockey "blade" starts in the 70's, after the anthropogenic component is supposed to become dominant, and not at the beginning of the century when obviously the CO2 warming was still insignificant. Show me only one. -
Bob Lacatena at 05:33 AM on 27 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
19, KR, Oh. I thought you were trying to talk about people who sling Mysterious Unfounded Denial (MUD). But that's something else entirely. -
KR at 05:30 AM on 27 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
Sorry, in my previous post the acronym for 'Mysterious Unknown Effects' should be 'MUE', not 'MUF'. 'MUF' is short for the related 'Mysterious Unknown Force'(s), which I sometimes suspect are implicated in the weed levels of my shrubbery... Both MUE's and MUF's have the same explanatory value - none. -
Bob Lacatena at 05:27 AM on 27 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
13, Camburn,Our understanding of the effects of solar on climate is only beginning to be understood.
You are grossly overstating an obvious truth. That we have more to learn about how the sun operates, or how the sun interacts with the earth's climate, does not in any way diminish the truth and strength of our understanding of the influence of CO2 on climate, or our ability to predict the rather dire consequences of ignoring that rather solid knowledge. -
KR at 05:23 AM on 27 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
Camburn "Using a short term anomoly of only 20 or 30 years does not prove anything is happening climatically. 20 or 30 years can easily be a cycle, rather than a change." I find your position fascinating, Camburn. This article by HFranzen could well be written about you. We know the physics of CO2 and IR absorption, and have excellent measures of it's increase. Not to mention innumerable sets of evidence for considerable warming over and above natural forcings. We have no evidence for century scale 'variations' (Tamino has a lovely post on this, entitled Mathtubation), negative evidence (as in, disproof) about correlations of magnetic and cosmic ray effects (not to mention no solid physical hypotheses about how they would affect climate). And we have the observed noise and variation in the climate to judge that ~30 years is sufficient to accurately identify trends. 45 might be better (as that's when the standard deviation of the temperature anomaly flattens out with increasing sample duration), but 30 years is pretty solid statistically. So you combine "Type C" issues of values of long term averages with skipping over "Type A" issues in physics that show global warming is occurring due to our actions, adding in completely unsupported hypotheses about 'natural variation' and 'Mysterious Unknown Effects' (MUF's) from the sun unrelated to observed insolation. All to claim either it's not happening or it's a natural cycle - it's sometimes hard to tell which from your posts. Camburn, I would have to call your position one of 'denial'. It's certainly not science. -
Bob Lacatena at 05:23 AM on 27 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
12, Camburn,20 or 30 years can easily be a cycle, rather than a change.
You would not say this if your understanding of the science were better. Please study more before commenting further. -
Bob Lacatena at 05:19 AM on 27 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
11, Camburn,When one looks at the long term mean, century scale means, one understands that the current temperature is not a dramatic one.
This statement is false and unsupportable in any objective frame of reference.Where I will disagree is that from paleo studies, co2 is not what one would consider to be a prime driver of climate.
This statement is at best misleading. First, if you understand the physics, then you know that very few mechanisms are pure "drivers" of climate, so the whole phrasing of the statement is inaccurate. Almost everything that affects climate is both a driver and a feedback. Separating the two can be difficult, but is not always that relevant (in that the trigger for climate change is important for one reason, but the major feedbacks that exacerbate that change are every bit as important, if not more so). If your definition of a driver is "something that initiated" a change in climate, then you are partially right (the jury is out in those instances, such as the PETM, where CO2 may or may not have initiated climate change), but then this statement bears no relevance to our current dilemma. The fact that an intelligent race of beings has never before existed on the planet to burn the carbon that took millions of years to sequester is in no way an argument that it cannot be of consequence today. If your definition of a driver is "something that is a major and critical factor in climate change, regardless of the initial forcing" then you are dead wrong. CO2 concentrations are very definitively and demonstrably related to climate change throughout the past, I believe completely without exception, and to claim otherwise is to live in convenient denial with a very poor understanding of past climate change on earth....the use of AGW to try and incorporate change is a poor choice.
This is where you run completely off the rails. No one is "choosing" to "use" AGW to try to and incorporate change. This particular conspiracy fantasy is both ridiculous and unsupportable. At what point did some group of people get together and decide to do this? Have you been at any of our monthly meetings where we discuss our strategies for how to trick the world into changing their energy infrastructure, for some other twisted and nefarious reason that has nothing whatsoever to do with climate change itself? Have you heard anyone say that they don't actually believe in climate change, but it's a convenient excuse to put the oil companies out of business a little early? Do you see how absurd that position is? Based on your responses, you do not understand or accept Dr. Franzen's Type A science... the simple prospect that climate change can and is happening, based on an indisputable understanding of the physics involved. Your denial is not in the degree of warming, but in the actual foundations of the proposition of climate change. Given this, as Dr. Franzen stated (somewhat differently) in his closing paragraph, discussion of any aspect beyond the basics of the science is fruitless with you, because you do not accept the foundations of the science. This is the wrong thread for you to visit. You should be trying to educate yourself on the more basic aspects of the science. Since you yourself have identified your acceptance of paleo studies as a blocking point, and yet you have seemingly misunderstood the relevance of those studies, I would suggest that you turn your attention away from that to other things. Develop a more firm understanding of the radiative physics behind greenhouse gas theory. Understand why it would be bizarre if the planet were not warming. From there, you can look in detail at each of the different periods in earth's history, and how CO2 played an important role in every climate change event in the past billion years. From there, you will be ready to move forward and begin to make value judgments such as whether or not the current rate of warming is alarming, or whether the dangers of anthropogenic climate change are an important and urgent factor in motivating people to more aggressively do what, as you have pointed out, really must be done anyway. Until you have thoroughly filled those to failings in your knowledge (the foundations of the science, and the facts behind all past climate change on the planet), you are not equipped to discuss any other issues. -
Kevin C at 05:18 AM on 27 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
Hfranzen: I am very interested in your categorization of types of science. It seems to me that there is something important here which we should communicate better. In particular, there are theories which are proven through many different experiments and many other testable theories build on them. Some are the basis for everyday technology. Other theories are so specific as to have been untested beyond a single experiment. This must be useful in determining confidence in a particular result. (This of course relates to Popper's idea of a severe test, although quantifying confidence in a theory remains almost impossible owing to the challenge of identifying whether a test is severe and independent of other tests. Even in Bayesian hypothesis testing you are limited by the coverage of your alternate hypotheses.) Having sparked with your article my interest in this area, I want to look into it further. My questions are as follows: Is your classification rooted in any standard work in history or philosophy of science? Do you know of any previous efforts to classify types of science like this? -
John Hartz at 05:11 AM on 27 June 2011The false, the confused and the mendacious: how the media gets it wrong on climate change
The media is also taken to task by Al Gore in "Climate of Denial" published in Rolling Stone Magazine. -
Camburn at 04:52 AM on 27 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
One thing that is important to understand is what we do not know, and what is changing. Our understanding of the effects of solar on climate is only beginning to be understood. An example of recent changes is in this paper. A measurement that has been used has been found not to apply to the current state of the sun. Important reserach, the L&P effect, etc. magnetic effects, just a few items. F10 Flux -
Camburn at 04:47 AM on 27 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
KR: Using a short term anomoly of only 20 or 30 years does not prove anything is happening climatically. 20 or 30 years can easily be a cycle, rather than a change. The long term mean, century mean, is a valuable tool to detect discernable change.
Prev 1618 1619 1620 1621 1622 1623 1624 1625 1626 1627 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 Next
