Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1620 1621 1622 1623 1624 1625 1626 1627 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 1634 1635 Next
Comments 81351 to 81400:
-
Bob Lacatena at 11:30 AM on 27 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
43, Camburn, No, you're trying to pretend that such uncertainty exists everywhere, by claiming that you personally believe nothing. -
Bob Lacatena at 11:29 AM on 27 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
42, Camburn, The work you are posting about (yet without providing links to the sources, so that your statements can be confirmed) appears to contradict existing work. Good. That means that science is advancing, and that peer review works, and that denial BS about peer review stifling contrarian research is poppycock. At the same time, no one paper is going to instantly overturn all of climate science. A paper by Svalgaard updating the TSI record will do nothing more than just that, and is likely to be disputed at least by some, but if it is correct, then good. A paper by Bertrand attempting to refute the explanation behind all observed early 20th century warming will have a very long way to go to be able to make that claim in one single paper. And what does he provide as an alternate cause for that warming? I'm afraid that "mysterious random natural variation" doesn't cut it. Still, it is convenient for you to argue from papers that have not yet been published. I find it curious that you put so much weight behind as yet unpublished works, and yet until this point have so gleefully dismissed the science which already exists. Doesn't this strike you as somewhat... arbitrary? As far as your made up data on the rate of warming... thanks, I'll trust someone else. -
Camburn at 11:26 AM on 27 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
Sphaerica: The topic of this thread is the uncertainty in global warming science. I am trying to show why they exist. -
Tom Curtis at 11:25 AM on 27 June 2011There is no consensus
mik_rosser @355: Peer Review: The process of peer review if properly adhered to means that every paper published in a scientific journal has been read carefully by at least two people reasonably expert in the field, who have been able to convince a third person who is capable of understanding the argument (the editor) that: a) It contains no obvious errors; and that b) It is written well enough that somebody who wants to could reproduce the procedures and analysis used; and that c) It takes proper account of relevant scientific literature. The process is onerous, but it sets a very low bar. It requires you to convince just three people who know what they are talking about that the paper is not an obvious blunder. That does not show that the paper is not false, or that it is worthwhile or anything like that. Only that it probably does not contain an obvious blunder. The peer review process does not always work, either because reviewers miss obvious blunders (they are human and do make mistakes), or more frequently, because people with bizzare theories game the system by approaching an editor known to by sympathetic to their cause, who will shepherd the paper through to publication without proper peer review. Even creationist papers have been shepherded through in that way, and several "climate skeptic papers" which were obviously flawed have been shepherded through that way. In addition, a large number of papers, some by "skeptics", but many not, have been published which simply do not have the implications "skeptics" attach to them. In many cases, the supposed implications as stated by "skeptics" are directly contradicted by the paper itself, and a large number of scientists have complained about misrepresentation of their papers by "skeptics". Consequently I would take Poptech's list with a very large grain of salt. Because of this tendency of so-called "skeptics" to outright misrepresent the nature of research, many defenders of climate science including myself think a more appropriate label for them is "AGW deniers", in that they are not behaving skeptically, and because they are denying the descriptor of "skeptical" to the many climate scientists who do behave skeptically. However, the crucial point about peer reviewed publication is that it is just a first hurdle for science, and a very low one. It is, however, one that "skeptic's" arguments repeatedly come a cropper on. The simple test of convincing just three reasonably informed people that your argument does not contain obvious blunders is too difficult a challenge for most "skeptics" to meet. As a result they take their arguments to the internet, and to conventions organised by conservative think tanks, and to talk back radio shows. In other words, being unable to persuade even a few well informed people trained in scientific analysis, they take their arguments to people who are neither well informed, nor trained in scientific analysis. That shows clearly their agenda. If their agenda was the advance of knowledge, there would be no substitute for convincing the scientific community. I know of a number of controversial theories which do no have a scientific consensus, but whose adherents repeatedly try to break through the peer reviewed barrier and to convince scientists. That is because they believe their theory is true, and that truth matters. Consequently they think their theory can, and should face the most rigorous test possible. In contrast, AGW deniers have no such confidence or belief. What is important to them is not the truth of their theories, but the political effect of wide spread acceptance of their theories. They are playing a political game - not doing science. It is for that reason that (with rare exceptions) they give an uncritical pass to the egregious lies of some of their number, while straining at fleas in actual climate science. Finally, peer reviewed publication is just the first hurdle of peer review. After publication, papers are read by a very large number of scientists who can analyse the arguments and decide whether they are good, and well supported by evidence; largely irrelevant; or outright bad. The outright bad, ie, almost certainly false papers attract a small number of citations as scientist publish refutations. The irrelevant papers attract almost no citations as people ignore the paper. The good papers attract a large number of citations as people repeatedly reference the result in their own papers. Initial peer review is only a test to see if the paper contains an obvious blunder; citations are the true mark of a worthwhile paper. In that are, "skeptic papers" fare very poorly. -
Norman at 11:11 AM on 27 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
KR @ 234 I found your fisrt link very interesting and useful. The other two I am not sure how they will help in answering the question. Does Wamrer air in winter lead to heavier snowfalls. I am looking for data similar to the one I posted for Omaha Nebraska. I could then build a regional basis to see if the point brought up is actually evidence based or a guess on minunderstanding of what causes snow events in the US. Do you know how Munich Re uses available data to build their charts? In your link Munich Re: "There are at present insufficient data on many weather risks and regions to permit statistically backed assertions regarding the link with climate change. However, there is evidence that, as a result of warming, events associated with severe windstorms, such as thunderstorms, hail and cloudbursts, have become more frequent in parts of the USA, southwest Germany and other regions." Ok what evidence do they have that as a result of warming, there are more severe thunderstorms. They are like a "black box" to me. They get information and build graphs but I have no clue what is their data source. All the peer-reviewed material provided on this web page go to great lengths to explain how they collected their data. If they use a proxy they explain why they think it is valid and they give the data they are using. -
boba10960 at 11:02 AM on 27 June 2011A journey into the weird and wacky world of climate change denial
Posts like this are extremely valuable. As readers of SkepticalScience know, peer review isn't perfect, but it's the best mechanism available to ensure that the truth is eventually reached. However, the public at large is unaware of this. Worse, the deniers would have the public believe otherwise. For the past two weeks The Week That Was (newsletter of the Science and Environmental Policy Project) has been critical of the peer review process as applied to climate change research. First (19 June) they invoked a conspiracy to prevent Richard Lindzen from publishing his recent paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS). Then (26 June) they implied a flawed process allowed a paper on sea level rise to be published in PNAS. TWTW goes on to state: "As William Gray suggested in his article carried in TWTW last week, the internet blogs provide a more rigorous analysis of questionable climate science studies than the "peer review" process does." As astonishing as that seems, many citizens simply don't know how ridiculous it is to claim that blogs provide a more rigorous analysis of science than does the peer review process. This is why I want to thank Stephan Lewandowsky, as well as everyone associated with SkepticalScience, for all that they are doing to inform the public about how to discriminate between reliable versus unreliable information as well as more generally about climate change. -
adelady at 10:57 AM on 27 June 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
"long hours of sunshine." And remember there are many structures with extensive roofs which use little or no power for their own purposes for long periods. We don't have to rely entirely on domestic, commercial or industrial roofs for a plentiful supply of power from PV. Schools, sports stadiums, churches and other community facilities have lengthy periods unoccupied or with little demand for the amount of power their large roofs can generate. Schools in particular reduce or cease their own power demand in the late afternoon which precisely matches increasing demand for domestic activities. Even if feed-in tariffs reduce substantially, such organisations could make a reasonable income from power generation as well as cutting their own consumption from the grid. -
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.
Prev 1620 1621 1622 1623 1624 1625 1626 1627 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 1634 1635 Next
