Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1656 1657 1658 1659 1660 1661 1662 1663 1664 1665 1666 1667 1668 1669 1670 1671 Next
Comments 83151 to 83200:
-
Norman at 14:00 PM on 9 June 2011There's no room for a climate of denial
DB about denial and the psychological forces that drive it? I am questioning a particular point the author made, the 8000 years of stable climate and now we threaten it with relaease of carbon dioxide via industry.Response:[DB] The available evidence does indeed indicate a stable climate for the past 8,000 years:
Perhaps in a few decades we can update this graph with an arrow and an accompanying legend which says "Agriculture ends".
-
scaddenp at 13:45 PM on 9 June 2011Geologists and climate change denial
Not aware of any climate skeptics in my group - and we oil,gas, coal focused. -
scaddenp at 13:36 PM on 9 June 2011There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
J Bob. I use MATLAB all the time. Just never heard of "System Identification" toolbox. Note I said " R instead of MATLAB for the tools if the statistics Toolbox wouldnt cover it" - I am well aware of the statistics toolbox in MATLAB. Just more likely to go to R for non-trivial stuff (or more honestly, hand them R experts here instead). -
J. Bob at 13:32 PM on 9 June 2011There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
Sphaerica @ 21, you say "And for this reason, meeting your insistence on a direct correlation between CO2 and temperature is simply unrealistic.". That sounds "skeptic" to me. It's not that there is not a connection between temperature & CO2, (as noted by atmospheric absorption bands), but how much, and under what conditions. What I am pointing out, is the only direct data available are some long term temperature readings & relatively recent standardized GHG (CO2 since 1958) readings. So at this time, as I said before, I wouldn't bet the farm on proxy and model results. We might have to wait a few more years to see if there truly is a global temperature plateau, and note the corresponding GHG data to prove or disprove the model predictions. -
Norman at 13:15 PM on 9 June 2011There's no room for a climate of denial
I am not sure of the claim "Another common denial argument is that ''climate has always changed in the past''. For the past 8000 years we have been in a stable climate. Society has never lived through the degree of climate change we are now causing." Is the 8000 years of stable climate a valid claim based upon availabl evidence? "Based on the paleoclimate record from ice and ocean cores, the last warm period in the Arctic peaked about 8,000 years ago, during the so-called Holocene Thermal Maximum. A recent study suggests that 5,500 years ago, the Arctic had substantially less summertime sea ice than today. However, it is not clear that the Arctic was completely free of summertime sea ice during this time." Above quote from http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq.htmlResponse:[DB] You do realize that your comment basically validates this entire post?
-
rockytom at 13:14 PM on 9 June 2011Geologists and climate change denial
Re: geologists and climate change denial I can not speak for all geologists, but as a geologist I think that if fellow geologists are scientists, they will judge climate science and global warming by the evidence. And most geologists are scientists. Those that are not are the most likely denialists. Most economic geologists are supported by the energy companies (e.g., coal and petroleum) and they have their prejudices and vested interests. Also, most deniers are conservatives and we have conservative geologists. Cheers. Tom -
David Horton at 13:07 PM on 9 June 2011Geologists and climate change denial
Yes John, there is certainly an imbalance. Some of it is certainly do with the geologist's links to the extractive industries, and perhaps guilty, certainly fearful, recognition, that digging up minerals in huge volumes and burning or melting them isn't a process that is going to be able to continue in its form of the last 200 years for much longer. But I have a feeling that some of it is more visceral than this, a feeling that geologists, those physically rugged explorers of deserts and mines, and untrammelled mental explorers of billions of years of the history of earth's crust with its massive changes in geography and climate, are a bit above all this fiddling around with what they see as minor changes in a period of 40 years or so, a period without geological meaning. When I first visited a late Pleistocene site I was to spend a lot of time (as a palaeoecologist) working on, I was greeted by a dinosaur palaeontologist, who had reluctantly had to be involved, telling me he had no interest in this site (some 30,000 years old) because these sediments were just the scum you removed to get to the interesting palaeontology. There is also I think a sense that they (I think especially of Plimer here) have seen so much bigger swings of climate in the past that they can't conceive this current change as anything but a tiny little blip, a mosquito biting a mammoth perhaps. They have also it seems no ability, humans having had no involvement in creating previous climate change, to imagine us humans having any role in changing the climate at all (a constant theme of denier blogs and posts). Nor do they seem able (being a descriptive and not a predictive science) to make the imaginative jump from seeing trends now to outcomes in the future, when molehills do indeed become mountains. I don't, I'm afraid, have any useful suggestions. A pity, having them on board would certainly be useful in terms of looking at precisely what we are in for based on previous experience. Perhaps there is something in the mindset that makes you become a geologist, or that develops once you are there, that makes them impervious, by and large, to an interest in the Earth's future to match their interest in its past. -
J. Bob at 12:46 PM on 9 June 2011There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
scaddenp @ 24, MATLAB is an analysis software package that leans toward matrix analysis decomposition. It is used extensively in industry. It has a number of "toolboxes", that range from Statistics, Process control systems, Image processing, finance, etc. It's not cheap, but it does do a pretty good job. One of the better features is the "linking" of different "toolboxes" as needed, as well as the Simulink simulation package. MATLAB -
Albatross at 12:18 PM on 9 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Eric @443, "I find it amusing that so many can deny the effects that the PDO has on temperatures over the past 130 years." You are arguing a strawman. -
Don Gisselbeck at 12:16 PM on 9 June 2011Geologists and climate change denial
It is time to point out, yet again, that the only reason there is any debate on the issue of climate change and the need to do something about human CO2 emissions is that about $1 billion per day in profit for the carbon industry is at stake. Remember that fundamentalist free-market ideology could not stop the world doing something about ozone depletion, profits were simply not high enough.Response: [JC] Don, I don't think it's quite that simple. Climate change is a much more significant & problematic issue than ozone depletion as fossil fuel permeates every part of society. Consequently, there are a number of psychological issues such as fear of change, finite pool of worry quota, etc that get in the way of people accepting the risks of climate change.
Also, it's more difficult for people to conceptualise climate change. The idea of the ozone layer is quite visceral - a protective layer shielding us from deadly radiation inexorably being eaten away by our pollution. Long-term climate trends are not as vivid a concept. Of course we go into these issues in detail in our book :-) -
Byron Smith at 12:14 PM on 9 June 2011Geologists and climate change denial
Great article, and I think your replies on the ABC site have been very good. Gracious and to the point. -
Eric the Red at 11:43 AM on 9 June 2011Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
Agnostic, I echo Tom's response that no one is arguing the no-feedback effect. The direct effect attributaed to CO2 has remained virtually unchanged (although there may be saturation effects at very high levels). I disagree that the sensitivity has never been less than 2.5 or been as high as 5. Also, can you reference that 20% value? -
Eric the Red at 11:37 AM on 9 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
I find it amusing that so many can deny the effects that the PDO has on temperatures over the past 130 years.Even when the data is clear as day, they close their eyes.Response:[DB] Scaddenp kindly pointed you previously to this post on the PDO. That would be an appropriate venue to discuss it, if that is your wish. It is off-topic here. Please kindly reconsider your tone, as others are trying to help you.
-
Tom Curtis at 11:37 AM on 9 June 2011Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
Agnostic @32, the no feedback forcing of doubling CO2 is close to a constant throughout history. I believe that at very high and very low concentrations of CO2 it does change, but over the range of CO2 concentrations over the last 500 million years, it is effectively constant. However the feedback responses need not be constant through history. In particular, distributions of continents, ocean currents and shallow seas can make a large difference. This can be clearly observed in the different climate sensitivities in the Arctic and the Antarctic. Clearly if the Antarctic continental configuration was duplicated in the Arctic, climate sensitivity would be lower, while if the Arctic configuration was duplicated in the Antarctic it would be higher. Another difference arises from mean global surface temperatures. Given glacial conditions, climate sensitivity will be higher. This follows from the difference in insolation at, for example, 50 degrees North compared to 60 degrees North. A retreat of permanent or seasonal snow and ice by one degree at 50 degrees will result in a greater net warming than the same one degree retreat at 60 degrees. The difference in surface areas of a one degree latitude band also makes a large difference between those two latitudes. None of this, however, shows that climate sensitivity has ever been less than 2.5 degree per doubling for a no ice albedo feedback. In fact, given the CO2 in the atmosphere accounts for 20% of the total greenhouse effect, averaged over the temperature range between snowball Earth and current temperatures, and ignoring ice albedo effects, the climate sensitivity per doubling of CO2 has been 5 degrees. Further, as the water vapour feedback increasingly dominates the CO2 greenhouse effect with increasing temperature, climate sensitivity ignoring albedo effects will rise with increasing global temperatures, not fall. With those two facts in mind, I would say Hansen's estimate of short term climate sensitivity (no ice albedo feedback) from the last glacial maximum is a fair estimate for current conditions, but that his slow feedback is probably an overestimate. The slow feedback will certainly be greater than the fast feedback until there is no permanent ice sheets on Antarctica, and only winter snow inside the Arctic or Antarctic circle. But it will not be as great as that during the height of the glacials (or even the average of glacials and interglacials). -
Tom Curtis at 11:06 AM on 9 June 2011Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
Eric (skeptic) @60: 1) I am sure the those sections of the tourism industry sufficiently profitable to not be driven bankrupt by the expense would much rather pay for a geo-engineering fix than go bankrupt. I am also certain that they would rather not have to pay to save the reef by ensuring the reef was not under threat to begin with. Neither of these facts alters the fundamental injustice in libertarian terms of a cost being imposed on the tourism operators involuntarily by the actions of others. You suggest there is a lot of overlap between the fossil fuel industry and tourism. Unless there is complete overlap, and their most certainly isn't, that is irrelevant. Further, the tourism industry is not an unusually great emitter of fossil fuels, coming well behind mining, heavy manufacturing, aluminium refineries, and indeed, ordinary business travel in that regard. 2) Your claim that there would be no secondary effects is dubious at best. The paper from which your proposal comes states:"If our technique were to be implemented, global changes in the distributions and magnitudes of ocean currents, temperature, rainfall and wind would result. Even if it were possible to seed clouds relatively evenly over the Earth's oceans, so that the effects of this type could be minimized, they would not be eliminated. Also, the technique would still alter the land–ocean temperature contrast, since the radiative forcing produced would be only over the oceans. In addition, we would be attempting to neutralize the warming effect of vertically distributed greenhouse gases with a surface-based cooling effect, which could have consequences such as changes in static stability, which would need careful evaluation. Thus, it is vital to engage in a prior assessment of associated climatological and meteorological ramifications, which might involve currently unforeseen feedback processes. It is important to establish the level of local cooling which would have significant effects on ocean currents, local meteorology and ecosystems. This will require a fully coupled ocean/atmosphere climate system model."
(Source) Changing the distribution of ocean current, rainfall and wind will certainly have secondary effects, and while a purely regional usage of the scheme only may have those effect, the paper indicates that a global implementation would have those effects. "Changes in static stability" are particularly concerning to me. Your scheme involved changing the condensation rate of water in a cyclone prone area during periods of ideal conditions for cyclones. But yet you assure us without support from the modelling in the paper on which you are relying that "There should be no secondary effects". 3) Because there most assuredly will be secondary effects, a consortium of private individual or companies will certainly not undertake this sort of large scale geo-engineering. They could not bear the costs, nor shield themselves from any potential legal action as a result of secondary effects. This is quite apart from the issue of free loaders. -
Eric (skeptic) at 11:03 AM on 9 June 2011Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
From that abstract: " ocean warming off the east coast of Tasmania at 3-4 times the global average is the result of intensification of the East Australian Current." A complex current with natural http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0485%282001%29031%3C2956%3AMTEACI%3E2.0.CO%3B2 and AGW http://eprints.usq.edu.au/1070/ factors. There's no simple explanation of the consequence of CC because the driving forces for the current are not simple. I still think mitigation is plausible since there is an well defined upstream source for the warm water. -
Bob Lacatena at 11:03 AM on 9 June 2011There's no room for a climate of denial
23, apiratelooksat50, Sounds good. I will e-mail you later. -
Riduna at 10:39 AM on 9 June 2011Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
#8, 9, and 10 make the point that climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is not a constant and will vary depending on changes of other factors such as albido. Are they right? I think not. Surely the ability of CO2 to absorb and radiate energy is a constant which is not affected by such externalities. Ergo, ceteris paribus, the effect of doubling CO2 in the atmosphere will be constant. Average global temperature is affected by the level of CO2 in the atmosphere but obviously externalities such as slow feedbacks, particularly release of Arctic methane and diminution of albido due to melting of snow and ice, also have an effect, as indeed do clouds and aerosols. The net effect of these changes may be greater than that arising from a doubling of CO2. The point to be made – and made well by Hansen – is that a CO2 concentration of 450ppm is unsafe because is causes slow feedbacks to accelerate beyond human control. Indeed, that point has already been reached and nothing short of a reduction in atmospheric CO2 can change it, hence his call for a reduction to 350ppm. Hansen tells us that we are fast approaching the Pliocene temperatures, when sea level was 5m. higher than to-day, simply warns us of what lies ahead if we aim to limit CO2 concentrations to 450ppm – disaster and dangerous, uncontrollable climate change. It is a shame this message and its implications escape the comprehension of our political leaders and the general public. None of them can claim they were not warned! Few can claim they did their best to respond. -
Stevo at 10:38 AM on 9 June 2011Tony Abbott denies climate change and advocates carbon tax in the same breath
Tom Curtis @27, Thanks for bailing me out there, Tom. I'll keep searching for where he said,"I'm not across the science". The words stuck in my memory, just like they did with yours it seems. Now to find that link....... -
John Hartz at 10:25 AM on 9 June 2011There's no room for a climate of denial
@apiratelooksat50 #23: As they say, the proof is in the pudding. Afterall, I am probably responsible for you being here because of the plethora of SkS articles I referred you to. -
apiratelooksat50 at 10:14 AM on 9 June 2011There's no room for a climate of denial
Badger @ 22 Give me a chance, please. Sphaerica @ 9 Thank you for being reasonable and please excuse me for being brief, but we are in the last day of high school and I am swamped. Seriously, let's open a dialogue on CO2 and the human component. This email here macdonald29623@yahoo.com is anonymous for me, but I would love to converse with you outside the bounds of this site. I would like to discuss with you privately my reservations. Once I feel I can establish trust with you, I will even supply my consulting company's website address. Thanks -
Chemware at 10:03 AM on 9 June 2011Imbalance in US TV Media Coverage of Greenhouse Gas Regulation
@6 Patrick Kelly I don't think you are living in the same Australia as the rest of us. The media, in particular Murdoch's News Corp, has been virulently anti-AGW and anti-Carbon Tax. Even dear old Auntie shows a strong bias against AGW, with their "The Drum" opinion section almost becoming the publishing arm of the IPA. -
Tom Curtis at 10:02 AM on 9 June 2011Tony Abbott denies climate change and advocates carbon tax in the same breath
Stevo @23 & 24, The correct link is to a Lateline interview with Tony Jones on November 11, 2009. I notice that the same interview is the source of two quotes in the main article, but the link is dead in that article. Another myth Abbott trots out in that interview is the Roman Warm Period/ MWP grapes in England myth:"If you look at Roman times, grapes grew up against Hadrian's Wall - medieval times they grew crops in Greenland. In the 1700s they had ice fairs on the Thames. So the world has been significantly hotter, significantly colder than it is now. We've coped."
I would not be too quick with the apology. I seem to remember Abbott explicitly saying that he was "not across on the science", although I cannot source the saying. I may be confusing the incident with when he said he was not across on the NBN on Q&A (I believe). -
actually thoughtful at 10:01 AM on 9 June 2011Imbalance in US TV Media Coverage of Greenhouse Gas Regulation
pdt - I think the general public perception of a market forces solution like a carbon tax, compared to the "heavy hand of government" is more favorable. There are loud voices that protest both, but many economists have pointed out that letting millions of individuals maximize their own economic well being is a more powerful force than banning the burning of carbon fuels by fiat. And I think the first reaction to any carbon reduction strategy is that people are going to increase what they burn - wood, car tires, furniture that isn't bolted down - there WILL be unintended consequences, but overall we need the reduction as soon as possible, and just burning stuff won't be a viable long term strategy. -
Bob Lacatena at 09:56 AM on 9 June 2011Tony Abbott denies climate change and advocates carbon tax in the same breath
Mod, Stevo just missed his ending quote in his href in post 23. If you could just fix it for him... -
Bob Lacatena at 09:55 AM on 9 June 2011Tony Abbott denies climate change and advocates carbon tax in the same breath
22, Martin, Certainly if he's starting from the "CO2 is heavier than air" (probably the single most ignorant argument out there), then he probably has much too far to go to ever get anywhere. If I were you, once he understands and accepts, and sees how the solution can be resolved (i.e. through straightforward calculations of molecular velocities or meters of CO2), I would work on the general idea of "See how you were fooled? Really smart people have spent lifetimes on this, and all they get out of it is a $75K a year teaching position at a university." I know that's an appeal to authority, but quite honestly, that's no different from trusting a doctor or a dentist or a lawyer. If he won't buy that, well, you'll never step him through every single denial argument, if he's starting from the heavier than air nonsense. -
newcrusader at 09:54 AM on 9 June 2011Imbalance in US TV Media Coverage of Greenhouse Gas Regulation
The American Media has basically been told 'what to say' about AGW by the powerfully rich fossil fuel companies and the Koch Industries. Anyone who thinks there is a free and open press and media in the USA is lost in a dream world OF make believe- there is none. When the problems of AGW become so severe- the prostitutes of the the US media will be as responsible as the fossil fuel and energy titans. -
pdt at 09:00 AM on 9 June 2011Imbalance in US TV Media Coverage of Greenhouse Gas Regulation
"I subsequently explained, EPA regs are harder on the economy and less effective at reducing emissions (at least the currently planned regulations) than a carbon pricing mechanism. A pricing mechanism gives the market more incentive to find low-cost alternatives. There's more of a financial motivation." Why would there not be a financial incentive to provide people with alternatives to the services fossil fuels provided as fossil fuels are regulated out? Why would people not choose the lowest cost solutions? I don't see the logic. You have made statements of fact without logical or data-driven arguments to support them.Response:[dana1981] I said there's less of a motivation with regs, not no motivation. With regulations, polluters just have to stay below a certain emissions threshold. There's no incentive for them to go lower. In a market system like cap and trade or carbon tax, they can profit from reducing emissions even further. Plus in those systems, revenue is generated through the carbon price, some of which is then funneled into low-carbon tech R&D. So there's both more motivation and more opportunity to create low carbon technologies with a carbon pricing system than with carbon regulations.
-
Stevo at 08:55 AM on 9 June 2011Tony Abbott denies climate change and advocates carbon tax in the same breath
Sorry folks, for my ham fisted first attempt at posting a link in #23. I also lost the bit where I apologised for misquoting Abbott in #11. He did not use the words, "I am not across the science" but in the course of the interview it is quite clear he is not. -
actually thoughtful at 08:54 AM on 9 June 2011Imbalance in US TV Media Coverage of Greenhouse Gas Regulation
But, but, but we are TOLD there is a main stream/leftist news media conspiracy to delude "We the Sheeple"! Surely it can't be the case that the deniers are selectively choosing the uninformed to pontificate on climate change? Surely there is an arsenal of well trained, professionals with a consistent theory that disproves AGW? Why else would there be all of this self-rightous protest of making a relatively minor change to how we price carbon to protect the future of humanity on earth? The skeptics must have VAST stockpiles of peer-reviewed papers and a complete, logical, intellectually satisfying alternate explanation that we just haven't seen yet. I'll turn on FOX - I am sure it will be here any day now. -
Stevo at 08:52 AM on 9 June 2011Tony Abbott denies climate change and advocates carbon tax in the same breath
Moderator #11. Here's the link to the Tony Abbott interview on ABC Lateline. My apologies for misquoting in my earlier posting. Abbott did not say the actual words, "I'm not across the science" but from the interview it is plainly the case that he is not. When asked if he had read the science or IPCC report he responded, "No, I don't claim to have immersed myself deeply in all of these documents. I'm a politician. I have to rely on briefings - I have to rely on what I pick up through the secondary sources". He then went on to quote Plimer and some cherry picked short term data and claimed that it was valid because the numbers came from the Hadley Centre.Moderator Response: (DB) Fixed link. -
pdt at 08:32 AM on 9 June 2011Imbalance in US TV Media Coverage of Greenhouse Gas Regulation
"It's worth noting that EPA regulation of greenhouse gases is not the best solution to the climate problem." I don't understand why this is stated as a fact. Regulations worked very well for NOx and CO emissions. I personally like the idea that when something is known to be bad, people are simply not allowed to do that thing. The market should work well to find the lowest cost alternatives.Response:[dana1981] I subsequently explained, EPA regs are harder on the economy and less effective at reducing emissions (at least the currently planned regulations) than a carbon pricing mechanism. A pricing mechanism gives the market more incentive to find low-cost alternatives. There's more of a financial motivation.
-
adelady at 08:04 AM on 9 June 2011Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
Eric, Good to see the Tasmanian marine protected areas are doing their job. For climate impacts of the warmer current going south there's this. And that's pretty well word for word from the abstract - full paper paywalled. Good for sea urchins. Not so good for the seaweed areas they invade. -
John Hartz at 08:03 AM on 9 June 2011There's no room for a climate of denial
@Sphaerica #9: Kudos on your response to apiratelooksat50. Having conversed with him a couple of years ago on commnet threads to articles posted in a local newspaper, I was curious to see if he would respond to your invitation to continue a dialogue. The fact that he has not done so, does not surprise me. He is a classic example of the "Mr. nice guy" denier persona.Response:[DB] We will judge people fairly, based on their bahavior displayed here, not in other venues.
-
scaddenp at 07:42 AM on 9 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
I have no problem assigning a cost Eric to airport. We are currently serviced by 747s so reducing us to hilltop airstrip to service a city of 120,000 seems like we are taking a loss caused largely by action of others. Why is this exempt from legal remedy? "What I am looking for from you is a discussion of the external costs without which a libertarian solution is impossible." Okay, I dont follow this so perhaps that is my problem. What do you mean by external costs? You so far havent commented on liability, air pollution control or what happens if coal is always cheaper unless its environmental cost is taken into account. My impression is that you are implying that a solution cant be found by reduction in government, then a problem cannot be solved inside your value system. Clearly, if say 500ppm of CO2 would unequivocally kill us, that would not be case. Also, I notice you appear to prefer geoengineering to emission reduction. What I dont like about this, is that costs of geoengineering would have to be borne by people taking the loss (eg tourist operators and fishing industry for reef damage) instead of the people creating the problem in the first place (the emitters). Certainly lets also have discussion of scientific points in the appropriate threads. -
Eric (skeptic) at 07:38 AM on 9 June 2011Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
adelady, from "Changes in fish assemblages following 10 years of protection in Tasmanian marine protected areas": "Notable results include a statistically significant increase in abundance of Latridopsis forsteri and large fish (> 300 mm) when examined across all reserves relative to controls, and a 10-fold increase in the abundance of large fish and a doubling of per site species richness of large fish within the Tinderbox Marine Reserve relative to controls." No mention of climate in the abstract. On the reef, from what I read my solution of water temperature is too simplistic for the inshore reef, mainly because of the proximity to land, shallow water next to land and effects of runoff which will make it difficult to prevent temperature spikes. Offshore there is the East Australian Current most responsible for many temperature fluctuations. -
scaddenp at 07:29 AM on 9 June 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
Cadbury here has denied that he is the same person as posting on those sites. If in fact he is the same person, then posting a downright lie should be reason for exclusion in my opinion. -
scaddenp at 07:24 AM on 9 June 2011There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
No. That is not a toolbox that I have heard of. I seldom need that kind of statistical analysis and would look to R instead of MATLAB for the tools if the statistics Toolbox wouldnt cover it. (That said, it does have multivariate tools but I have never used them). However, that's the approach of the Benestad paper. -
Bob Lacatena at 07:04 AM on 9 June 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
39, JeffT, Hmph. Speaks volumes. And for whomever has been complaining about moderation at SkS, versus the "WUWT is an open forum!" declarations I've seen, note the comment shortly after his, where his comment wound up in moderation, and the mod talked about all of the outrageous posts that wind up getting deleted. -
okatiniko at 07:04 AM on 9 June 2011Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
DM#29 : precisely I doubt the validity of this assumption since the various forcing have different spatial repartitions - or more precisely I haven't seen any strong justification for this assumption. Concerning my thought experiment, it is undoubtedly a change of solar energy input , so it has exactly the same effect than the possible influence of solar activity, or a change of albedo. My point is that the temperature can be higher with a lower energy input, so there is nothing like a simple relation T(F) : it must be T(F, x, y...) where x, y.. are parameters describing for instance the repartition in latitude, the oceanic circulation, and so forth. So there is also nothing like a single derivative dT/dF . It could be a partial derivative ∂T/∂F |x,y... but this coefficient depends on what you choose as the "other coordinates" x, y, to be held constant. Again nothing like "one" single sensitivity valid under any circumstances. -
Martin at 06:24 AM on 9 June 2011Tony Abbott denies climate change and advocates carbon tax in the same breath
Sphaerica@7, dana@8, Doug@9 and Tom@13, Thank you all very much for your answers to my question. I wish I had thought of what Spaerica wrote. My own arguments were pathetic in comparison. I just said that wind and weather would mix everything just fine. I particularly like Tom’s graphs. But I think I will try Doug’s calculations because it is simple and direct. My colleague is no Dirk Nowitzky so I’m sure he couldn’t survive 3.1m of CO2. He has studied physics, so he shouldn’t have any problems following the arguments plus I’m not quoting a scientist who gets money from the state and (in his eyes) is therefore corrupt. I’m afraid that although he might just possibly concede this single point, I won’t be able to convert him from the dark side. He only accepts what EIKE publishes (the next little ice age will start in 10 to 30 years, etc.). But then Lord Mockton is listed on this “institutes” board, so what can you expect. Unfortunately my colleague’s English is not very good otherwise I would have simply directed him to this site.Response:[DB] The main skeptic arguments and the debunking thereof are available in multiple languages, including German. If that helps, that is.
-
adelady at 05:53 AM on 9 June 2011Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
Duh! That would be the western Pacific next to eastern Australia. -
adelady at 05:51 AM on 9 June 2011Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
Eric(sk) "...cooling the water upstream when it gets too warm." Upstream? Where on earth is upstream for warm water in relation to the GBR? If you know a way to cool any significant portion of the eastern Pacific ocean currents that warm the GBR waters, everyone would like to hear about it. (Tasmania would like to hear about it too, because their fisheries are also affected by warmer waters.) -
adelady at 05:35 AM on 9 June 2011Imbalance in US TV Media Coverage of Greenhouse Gas Regulation
Patrick, "...surveys of public opinion show a trend towards scepticism." Not any more. Check out this SMH report from last Friday.Response:[dana1981] Good news there!
-
actually thoughtful at 05:05 AM on 9 June 2011There's no room for a climate of denial
Paulm - no disagreement here. I just take every chance I get to urge people to take personal, visible action to fight climate change. Peer pressure/shame is probably the only effective lever we have to affect the conversation/attitude of humanity. As many people point out sarcastically, people are sheep. Let's herd them (by our actions) towards climate change avoiding behaviors. We can keep the fact that they are saving money, saving resources and saving the earth as a happy place for humans to ourselves. Actions do in fact speak louder than words. -
Eric the Red at 04:57 AM on 9 June 2011Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
Okatinko, Yes, T(A) > T(B). The greater land mass in the NH would result in significantly more heat being absorbed by the surface. This is one of the premises in the Milankovitch theories. These changes are thought to be responsible for the ice ages. -
Paul Magnus at 04:55 AM on 9 June 2011There's no room for a climate of denial
AT, The realization of what a warmer world means based on our emissions becomes a moral issue. Once one realizes that emissions are causing deaths and will cause the disruption of our kids then decisions become much more straightforward. This is why it is important to convey to dire effects accurately and honestly to the public. Its the personal connection and realization of the consequences of our actions that mold our behavior in a moral world. -
Eric (skeptic) at 04:41 AM on 9 June 2011Imbalance in US TV Media Coverage of Greenhouse Gas Regulation
Thanks Tom for that link. Looking through all of the responses, that question has very clear support for "yes". -
Patrick Kelly at 04:31 AM on 9 June 2011Imbalance in US TV Media Coverage of Greenhouse Gas Regulation
The situation you describe is the mirror image of that prevailing in Australia, where media representation of Climate change has been overwhelmingly in the AGW, science is settled vein. The surveys of public opinion show a trend towards scepticism. Media coverage has tended to follow public opinion rather than driving it. -
Dikran Marsupial at 04:30 AM on 9 June 2011Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
okatinko@28 Hansen is assuming that climate sensitivity (dt/df) is essentially the same during the last ice age as it is in the current interglacial, so dt/df \approx dt(A)/df(A) \approx dt(B)/df(B). This means you can reasonably approximate dt/df as the ratio of the change in t and the change in f between the two scenarios, in other words, sensitivity = dt/df \approx [t(A) - t(B)]/[f(A) - f(B)] If we take the limit as A goes to B, then by the fundamental definition of the derivative the approximation becomes exact. The second paragraph was dealt with in my earlier reply. The difference in your thought experiment is not a difference in forcing, and hence is irrelevant to a discussion of climate sensitivity.
Prev 1656 1657 1658 1659 1660 1661 1662 1663 1664 1665 1666 1667 1668 1669 1670 1671 Next
