Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1660 1661 1662 1663 1664 1665 1666 1667 1668 1669 1670 1671 1672 1673 1674 1675 Next
Comments 83351 to 83400:
-
John Russell at 23:37 PM on 8 June 2011There's no room for a climate of denial
There's a very prevalent type of denial that's very common and which raises questions about how the human mind works when under threat. It occurs when people are in debt and they stop opening their bank and credit card statements as they come through the door. The fact is these people know this is totally illogical; they know what the letters contain but they are so far in the red that they cannot see a hope of recovery and therefore somehow appear to convince themselves that if they don't read the letters they can carry on as normal. Of course, if you confront people in this mess they'll admit how illogical it is and how ignoring the problem is the worst thing they can do; but the really interesting thing is that this mental state is just as easy to find in the intelligent as it is the stupid. It's something about how the human mind works and I believe it's exactly the same condition as results in climate change denial. Worst of all we need to bear in mind that the longer this goes on -- and the more hopeless the prognosis for global climate becomes -- the greater the number of people likely to resort to this state of mind as a defence mechanism. To my mind it's highly likely that this is the reason why the number of people rejecting climate science has increased in recent years. -
DSL at 23:36 PM on 8 June 2011History Matters: Carbon Emissions in Context
Muzz, go to the journals if you want pure science. This site never was strictly about science. Look at the site's subtitle. This is about how and why people look at the science and say, "I don't believe it." If the subject were the wing size of albino drosophila melanogaster in the northwest region of Costa Rica, this wouldn't be an issue. Instead, the site deals with one of the more high-consequence situations humans have had to deal with in a while. Understanding why and how people either misunderstand, abuse, reject, or otherwise don't accept the conclusions that are drawn from the broad range of findings is critical in helping both short- and long-term mitigation efforts. Why mitigate? That's a moral/ethical issue. This site obviously does not shy away from defending the need to mitigate. And, by the way, people on this site pride themselves in the relatively dispassionate discussion of the science. Relative to many climate-related sites, the language used here is much less motivated by the need to convince at any cost and much more motivated by the need to explain and explore. But if your implication is that the posters here are politically disconnected, passionless, objective science robots, think again. The passion is expressed in the willingness to persistently take on any sort of argument for "it's not happening," "it's not us," or "it's not bad." The use of 'carbon' indicates that a poster thinks about GW from the point of view of mitigation. -
Micawber at 23:30 PM on 8 June 2011Poleward motion of storm tracks
The observed poleward shift of storm tracks was shown in the poleward shift of polar cells from 45-50deg latitudes to 50-55deg. This coincided with the Antarctic circumpolar channel resulting in increased circumpolar currents, upwelled deep water off Antarctica and northward driven surface waters up the Atlantic. See J. R. Toggweiler & Joellen Russell Ocean circulation in a warming climate Nature 451, 286-288 (17 January 2008) doi:10.1038/nature06590 Figure 2 in Togweiler and Russel clearly shows the increased gradient at the top of the troposphere and the poleward shift of the circulation cells. We have sailed our boat in the Irish and North seas for the past 20 years. We always tried to get to port before the equinoctial storms with maximum winds in September. Now, though there are odd days with 30kt winds in August and September, March and April, days with 40kt occur around 6 weeks either side the winter solstice; (17 November 2010 (42kt) and 15 January 2011 (40kt) at Ronaldsway, Isle of Man at the hub of the Irish Sea). The work reported here and by Toggweiler and Russell seems to confirm our observations at 54deg N latitutude. -
Bob Lacatena at 23:30 PM on 8 June 2011There's no room for a climate of denial
7, apiratelookat50, Based on your statements, I would not agree with your conclusion that "I can't be a denier." You seem to be creating a black-and-white strawman, where in one is a denier only if they refute every aspect of climate change. The state of the science, however, does not say that "human activities play a role in climate change." It says that human activities are causing rapid, dramatic climate change at a pace that the earth has quite possibly never seen, and at a minimum has certainly (and dangerously) never been seen during the span of human civilization. The state of the science also does not say "some of that change has the potential to be beneficial, some has no effect, and some..." Current best estimates for climate sensitivity, and the impacts of warming, produce very little long term benefits for humanity, while the dangers are very frightening. So, again, your statement that "I can't be a denier there, either" fails. I offered, on the other denial thread, to walk you through some of these misconceptions. You may pick anything at all that you feel you understand, and causes you to hesitate about mitigating climate change. We can find a thread that discusses causes (human CO2 as opposed to vague "activities") and how much they "play a role," which seems like a back handed way of saying "not much," versus being the sole, critical driver of extended climate change. If you prefer, we can find a thread that discusses the impacts, and whether or not, in the long run, climate change is going to help anyone other than vineyard owners in Scotland (hint, I doubt there are many, or that they're worth much), and how very much it is going to hurt some people... including everyone in the state of Texas. Please... you seem like you want to be reasonable, like you want to learn, and like you adamantly do not want to be classified as a denier. So don't. Become a skeptic. Instead of expressing your feelings and opinions, come look at facts. Work through the details, so that you don't have an opinion, you have knowledge, and you don't have feelings, you have understanding. The door is open. Just walk through by stating a simple, objective (and unloaded) question. We'll find the right thread and get to work. -
Dikran Marsupial at 23:21 PM on 8 June 2011There's no room for a climate of denial
apiratelooksat50@7 You can accept that human activities play some role in climate change and still be a denier. All you have to do is be vague about what "some" means (as in "some has the potential to be harmful"). By "some", you might mean "a substantial amount", sufficient to justify efforts at mitigating against the consequences of that anthropogenic climate change. Or you could mean merely that in a mathematical sense our mere existance on the planet must have some effect (in the sense of the butterfly effect). The former clearly isn't denial, whereas the second clearly is. Something that is the hallmark of the denier is a lack of willingness to nail their flag to the mast and say clearly and explicitly what they think our effect on the climate actually is. I am trying to put this as diplomatically as I can, but your post looks very much like a post from a "denier" as you appear to be avoiding nailing your flag to the mast by explicitly stating your opinion on how much we are affecting the climate, and instead gave a rather vague statement that doesn't clarify your position at all (beyond not being outright ridiculous). This is intended as useful feedback on presentation. IMHO what makes someone a denier is not actually the position they hold, but their attitude to the evidence that is on conflict with that position (for instance those who are sure climate sensitivity is very low, e.g. 1K/doubling of CO2 or less, when there are multiple lines of evidence that show that is extremely unlikely to be the case). -
John Hartz at 23:15 PM on 8 June 2011History Matters: Carbon Emissions in Context
The bathtub analogy is portrayed in an excellent graphic on the National Geographic website: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/big-idea/05/carbon-bathResponse:[DB] Fixed URL.
-
SoundOff at 23:07 PM on 8 June 2011Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
Don’t exaggerate the meaning of my rhetorical question. I just mean that you aren’t going to make any progress towards mitigation efforts if you talk about something that will happen a 1000 years from now – which is how equilibrium CS is defined by Hansen (my source for such matters). Concern over such a long time frame is beyond personally caring about your children and grandchildren. It’s beyond caring about even your great-great-great-grandchildren, and is into sainthood territory. You may care about the planet’s future in theory, but arguing for benefits that are a millennium away says to me that you don’t really care in practice, or you are quite gullible about how real politics works. Stay focused on what will get action, that’s fast feedback climate sensitivity and its evidence. dana1981, your [IPCC’s?] equilibrium sensitivity sounds more like my [Hansen’s] fast feedback climate sensitivity. Do we have terminology confusion? Maybe we need a whole SkS article (hint) just to clarify all the following, each of which I’ve seen defined differently in literature, sometimes in the same paper … Equilibrium climate sensitivity Fast feedback climate sensitivity Transient climate sensitivity Effective climate sensitivity Long-term climate sensitivity Earth system climate sensitivity Slow feedback climate sensitivity -
apiratelooksat50 at 22:59 PM on 8 June 2011There's no room for a climate of denial
First, I accept the climate is changing, so I can't be a denier. Only a fool would think the climate is static. I honestly don't know a soul who does not agree that the climte changes on small and large scale time frames. Second, I also agree that human activities play a role in climate change. Some of that change has the potential to be beneficial, some has no effect, and some has the potential to be harmful. So, I can't be a denier there, either. Now according to AT (and I am not sure who else agrees with him/her), a person is a denier if they do not support an active mitigation response. Now AT has not provided an actual mitigation plan(s), but I would like to hear them. -
Daniel Bailey at 22:24 PM on 8 June 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
If I could but add a bit to the discussion: volume loss trends in the Arctic Sea Ice are reflective of ongoing physical processes. To the extent of change we've witnessed in a variety of converging metrics (declines in area, extent, volume, the northward regression of the sea ice edge in all months of the year, increases in SSTs, etc) we can now add this: increases in heat transport from Pacific waters through the Bering Strait, driving bottom melt throughout the Arctic winter."We suggest the Bering Strait inflow influences sea-ice by providing a trigger for the onset of solar-driven melt, a conduit for oceanic heat into the Arctic, and (due to long transit times) a subsurface heat source within the Arctic in winter."
[Woodgate et al 2010] These trends are pretty much subsumed in this volume graphic based on PIOMAS:[Source] So the same physical processes that resulted in average winter sea ice thicknesses in the days of the Nautilus of 8-10 meters (with some MY ice 20+ meters thick) have now given us 1.4 meters thicknesses for FY ice (MY ice is about 2.8 meters thickness recently, IIRC). That trend continues to this day. Free fall or death spiral: Your choice...
-
Bob Lacatena at 22:21 PM on 8 June 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
1068, p. Curtis :D !!!! I was just going to scold you for giving RW1 the answers (don't you know that exchanging answers is academic misconduct?). Then I saw "I'm 14." Thank you. You made my day.Response:[DB] That one is precocious indeed. I could not have done similarly at that age (but it was the mid-70s).
-
MA Rodger at 22:06 PM on 8 June 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
Villabolo @29. In all fairness to Les @26, he was referring to the JAXA Arctic Sea Ice Extent data. Like other Arctic Sea Ice data, it did show the increase in Extent between 2007 & 2008. So in that respect, “...2008 was a short upward 'blip' in line with the overall trend of decline.“ ie a decline in Sea Ice. As for Les @26 recommending a post from 2008 on WUWT, I myself would also recommend that particular website for anybody feeling down in the dumps. It's a website that never fails to make me laugh. I'm not too sure however why this recommended post or website would be considered “right in the money”. Perhaps Les @26 is alluding to some lucrative financial backing which that particular website receives. -
Tom Curtis at 21:57 PM on 8 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Eric (skeptic) @440, I have laid down the challenge for you in this post. From the challenge you have made, I assume you are making a challenge to test the ability of libertarianism to cope with the real world. As massive ecosystem loss is certainly a potential consequence of human activity, an argument that the Great Barrier Reef is not threatened, while certainly on topic on the thread of the post, will be an evasion of the issue between you and scaddenp. I therefore request that you accept, for the sake of the argument, that the Great Barrier Reef is under threat as the experts claim. The question then becomes, IMO, can such a loss be valued in a way in which libertarian solutions are possible, but which do not (again, IMO) evade the issue by accepting only dry econometric values, and/or setting discount rates so low that even moderately distant generations are counted as having no worth. -
Tom Curtis at 21:49 PM on 8 June 2011Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
Eric (skeptic) issues a challenge to find "... external costs [for] which a libertarian solution is impossible". It is probably a hard challenge to meet in that libertarians are noted for simply not counting externalities as costs. It is likely, therefore, that Eric will simply not count the costs and certainly not the full costs of anything we present. Never-the-less, I would pose any example of major ecosystem breakdown as meeting his challenge. I shall take an example that is close to me, the Great Barrier Reef, although the potential collapse of the Amazon makes an even better example. The Great Barrier Reef is threatened by two climate change issues, rising sea water temperatures and reducing ph levels (acidification). It has been shown that temperature increases greater than 2 degrees above the industrial average, combined with atmospheric CO2 concentrations greater than 500 ppm are likely to lead to the destruction of most corals world wide, and all large reef structures. Disturbingly these effects are expected right on the "safe" threshold of CO2 increase that the international community is targeting, and failing to achieve.
Unfortunately, this means the best chance for survival of the Great Barrier Reef is that the scientists studying this issue are wrong. That is, of course, possible. Scientists are wrong from time to time - but you don't get rich by betting against the consensus of scientific opinion. Consequently I think Queensland's largest conventional economic asset (coal) is going to destroy Queensland's actual greatest asset (outside of its population).
So, the challenge to Eric is to cost out such a loss in a way that is not transparently undervaluing the reef.
-
CBDunkerson at 21:35 PM on 8 June 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
Hi Michael. Actually, I'm not sure that this year will be enough to give us a clear indicator. The volume decline has leveled off or even reversed slightly for a year or two in the recent past and thus if it were to do so this year it wouldn't be clear whether that indicated we had 'hit a bottom' in the volume decline or just be a brief pause before further drops. Like you, I think the volume trend is indicative, but we have to put caveats around that since it is based on modeled results which we haven't been able to validate for the past few years... during which the volume has dropped to new lows. The PIOMAS model is computed based on extrapolating actual area and thickness data over the entire Arctic and thus seems fairly robust, but it will be good to have Cryosat results to check it against. They launched Cryosat-2 over a year ago now, so I'm hoping we'll start seeing data soon. The other argument against continued volume declines is the view that it has been driven primarily by export of thick older ice. If true that would mean that the sharp declines should end when the supply of older ice runs out (as it nearly has) and then the Arctic sea ice would hang on for a few more decades along the declining extent curve. However, I question the accuracy of this 'export driven' view given that we have seen large chunks of thick ice melting out within the Arctic basin. Export certainly plays a role, but I think we are also seeing the impact of rising water temperatures melting the ice in situ... which would continue, and indeed accelerate, after the thicker ice is gone. -
michael sweet at 21:07 PM on 8 June 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
CBD: Both of your sites are excellent and update once a month. SEARCH is supposed to come out with their first projections around June 10-12 and PIOMAS has been updating around the 15-18 recently. The disparity between volume and area are very interesting. We should see one of your two options start to take effect this year. Which one do you guess? The volume trend looks strong to me. -
CBDunkerson at 20:55 PM on 8 June 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
Two additional sites of interest: SEARCH arctic ice predictions - This site collects and displays various estimates of what the September average extent will be. Estimates are posted in June, July, and August to incorporate weather impacts as the season progresses. They are finishing up the June estimates now and will likely be posting the first projection estimates in the next few weeks. PIOMAS ice volume model results - Currently the best available estimate of total arctic sea ice volume. I'm hoping we will start seeing Cryosat-2 data some time soon to double check the PIOMAS calculations. As to the accuracy of predictions... weather plays a huge role and thus getting an accurate result in any given year is mostly luck. However, there have been clearly declining trends in ice extent and volume. What I find interesting is that the volume trend is declining at a much greater rate than the extent trend has thus far. Indeed, if the volume trend continued we'd be looking at 0% arctic sea ice at the end of the melt season some time between 2012 and 2020 (depending on how far back we go in computing the trendline)... while the extent trend doesn't hit zero for a couple more decades at least. Logically this disparity cannot continue much longer: the volume trend will either level off or the extent trend will start plummeting. -
skywatcher at 20:43 PM on 8 June 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
Back to Arctic ice (Cadbury's is my favourite brand of chocolate BTW, and one that tends to melt with warming, whatever the cause...). Some interesting measurements of Arctic ice loss showing how the average thickness of ice in April has been observed to decline from 1.7m in 2009, 1.6m in 2010, to 1.4m in 2011. This obviously means that the ice which looked perilously thin by the end of last year's melt will be even more perilously thin this year. That rate of thinning, alongside all the other observational evidence, leaves little to the imagination about the fate of Arctic ice within the next decade. It still makes curiously fascinating watching, observing the daily updates from IJIS or whatever other source, largely because you know a car crash is on its way, and it is simply a case of 'when', not 'if'. -
Eric (skeptic) at 20:28 PM on 8 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
scaddenp, maybe the cost of your new airport is beyond your means, but that doesn't mean it can't be assigned a cost. Consider too that there are "airports" in Alaska that service a handful of people at very little expense. The cost for moving people from undeveloped countries is less than in developed countries and those in developed countries usually have the resources to move themselves. What I am looking for from you is a discussion of the external costs without which a libertarian solution is impossible. In a similar vein I owe you a discussion on the estimation of sensitivity in the appropriate thread. -
Tom Curtis at 19:20 PM on 8 June 2011Tony Abbott denies climate change and advocates carbon tax in the same breath
Stevo @11, I cannot find a clear wording as to what Tony Abbott said. It appears to have been, and has been reported as: "The science around climate change is total crap!", but also as: "Climate Change is Crap" It was said at a Liberal Party Meeting in Beaufort, Victoria in September of 2009. Reported by The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/the-town-that-turned-up-the-temperature/story-e6frgczf-1225809567009) and the ABC (http://blogs.abc.net.au/victoria/2009/12/climate-change-is-crap-tony-abbot-said-to-the-pyrenees-advocate.html). Originally reported in the Pyrenees Advocate if anyone has back copies. In hosing down the story he has variously said:"I think that climate change is real and that man does make a contribution. There is an argument, first, as to how great that contribution is, and second, over what should be done about it."
(December 2nd, 2009) and:" I think what I actually said was that the so-called settled science was a little aromatic. Now you don't have to accept the totality of the science to still think that there is a reasonable argument for taking sensible precautions against possible risk and that's what we're doing."
In the same interview he said:"Well the, I know the intergovernmental panel's findings are now under very serious challenge. There are now a lot of question marks over it. Nevertheless these are serious scientists. And I think we've got to respect that position although..." "... although I don't think we have to take it as gospel truth, which I think has been part of the problem up 'til now."
(Feb 2, 2010) -
Lars Rosenberg at 19:05 PM on 8 June 2011There's no room for a climate of denial
Beware of too much theorizing. A large quota of denialists are in fact reasonably normal persons playing games. To most people climate is a boring subject, but the debate offers an arena for inventing insults and being provocative as a hobby, a great fun to many. Some players even reach celebrity status, like Monckton or Plimer. The disturbing thing are those populist politicians who adopt the stupidity of denialism to win votes. -
Thomas1 at 18:57 PM on 8 June 2011Climate Change Denial book now available!
@jrandomwinner I share your concerns reg the treatment of the nuclear option by some of those who are concerned about climate change. I too believe that nuclear technologies have been unfairly maligned. But from what happened at Fukushima (we now know we are dealing with 3 complete core melts) it would seem that running a nuclear power plant is similar to driving a train that needs a year or more to stop once the emergency brake is pulled, so that the tracks ahead (read core cooling) better be guaranteed to be clear. Even a year after shut down the fuel rods produce in case of Fukushima about 5MW of heat output from decay of fission products for each of the cores. Fukushima shows that guaranteeing the future is a risky business at best. I believe that it is time that we look at the fundamental issue of having to transform from an unsustainable society to a sustainable way of life. Conventional nuclear power does not make a substantial advance into this direction. Decentralized solar power, even if current cost are higher than the nominal cost of nuclear, are the better strategy long term. Plus the current quoted cost of nuclear power stations remains partially ignorant about the true cost of long term safe guarding and waste disposal problems. Decentralized solar power and especially personal roof top generation has the substantial benefit of reconnecting the consumer to the process of generation of electricity in a meaningful way. This will cause substantial energy savings overall as it will stimulate the intelligent use of a limited resource. Far-away big industry generation fosters entitlement thinking and wasteful use of energy. In the end it does not matter what a KWh of energy costs, it matters if we can afford the cost of the lifestyle we are living - including cost to society and future generations. Having to have to make due with 5KW of solar on your roof may inspire positive lifestyle changes resulting in a quality of life that is perhaps better and cheaper than a 20KW grid power supply under current costs and wasteful use patterns. -
2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
RW1@1063> Let me ask you this, where in the diagram is the return path of latent heat in the form of precipitation? Please read up on the basics of latent heat before commenting further. This is high school level material, until you understand it you cannot pretend to know what you're talking about. As Sphaerica described, latent heat is only released when a substance goes from vapor -> liquid or liquid -> solid. Since water vapor condenses in the atmosphere, it cannot release that same energy back to the ground as it is already a liquid. The "thermals" portion of Trenberth's diagram refers to sensible heat. In other words, it represents the conduction of heat from the warm water molecules into the cooler air molecules, resulting in the water molecules being cooled and the atmosphere heated. This will always be net positive from surface to atmosphere per the 2nd law of thermodynamics, since the atmosphere is cooler than the surface. The only mechanism by which cold falling rain can heat the warm surface is via the friction generated when the rain hits the ground and makes its way to the ocean. Is this the mechanism you are suggesting that negates energy transfer from latent heat? That would certainly be a "unique" claim. -
actually thoughtful at 17:50 PM on 8 June 2011There's no room for a climate of denial
The preponderance of evidence in climate science requires a mitigation response. I think the above statement neatly separates the deniers from the realists. It also encourages/reminds/demands that all of us do something meaningful on climate change personally, as well as foment for government action. I am convinced that the solution will come from individual actions (which might eventually tip the government action that is required for a total solution). The reason almost all cultures have public shaming is because it works. Peer pressure is a very powerful, and mostly ignored, method for overcoming the epidemic of doubt that has swept the land(s). -
P. Curtis at 17:32 PM on 8 June 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
The amount of energy coming into the ground is 184 watts from space(23 of which is reflected), and 333 watts from the atmosphere. The grand total of which is 517 watts. This is very close to the 516 watts being emitted from the ground through reflection (23), thermals (17), evapotranspiration (80) and surface radiation (396). The amount of energy coming into the atmosphere is 17 watts from thermals, 80 watts from evapotranspiration, 356 from surface radiation, 157 watts from space (79 of which is reflected). The grand total being 610 watts. This is very close to the 611 watts exiting through reflection (79), back radiation (333), and simply being emitted (199). The amount of energy coming into space is 102 watts through reflection (23 from the surface, 79 from the atmosphere), and 239 watts from outgoing longwave radiation (40 watts from the surface, 199 from the atmosphere). The grand total being 341 watts. This is the same amount of energy being released through incoming solar radiation. I'm 14. -
Dikran Marsupial at 17:05 PM on 8 June 2011Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
okatinko@20 You are missing the point, climate sensitivity is to do with a change in temperature caused by a change in forcings. In both scenarios there is no change in forcings, so it is meaningless to talk of equilibrium climate sensitivity in either context. Of course if the configuration of the planet changes radically, that may alter the baseline temperature, but that doesn't mean that the climate sensitivity (the amount climate changes in response to a change in forcing) will be different. Mathematically t(A) not being equal to t(B) does not imply that dt(A)/df does not equal dt(B)/df, where t is temperature, f is forcing and A and B represent the two scenarios in your example. The dt/df is climate sensitivity, not the t. -
mandas at 16:05 PM on 8 June 2011Tony Abbott denies climate change and advocates carbon tax in the same breath
Tom Curtis Thanks for your response. I agree with what you are saying about Abbott's economic incompetence. And yes, you are correct to refer to Murphy's comments about the context in which Abbott made the remarks. However, my point would be, that rather than excuse Abbott, the context actually makes him out to be more of a hypocrite and more of a denier. By placing his remarks in the context of - 'if you accept AGW and the need to reduce carbon emmissions, then a carbon tax is the best way of doing so' - then since Abbot claims (!!??) to now accept both AGW and the need to reduce carbon emissions, then he must also accept - by his own admission - that a carbon tax is the best way of doing so. This is clearly not the way he is now approaching this debate. What his real opinions on these matters are, one can only guess. I have no doubt that he is still an AGW denier, but what he will do once he gets into office (which scares the pants off me) is a mystery. Perhaps pragmatism and reality will take hold - one can only hope. -
macoles at 15:47 PM on 8 June 2011There's no room for a climate of denial
paulm @1 After reading your link I'm inclined to think that both Hansen and the pipeline proponents make valid points regarding ppm values. However the article is really just a distraction piece to the greater point that Hansen is making, which is that investment in fossil fuels needs to be ramped down to allow alternatives to ramp up. How Obama is going to achieve that in the current environment of overwhelming Republican climate denial is the big question! -
les at 15:39 PM on 8 June 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
26/29 - villabolo in English we have an expression "wooosh" for when someone misses a point at great speed. -
adelady at 15:25 PM on 8 June 2011History Matters: Carbon Emissions in Context
Muzz, this is just a brief radio piece which puts some climate statistics out in an easily understood manner. If only other statistics could be presented so quickly and neatly. -
Riduna at 15:22 PM on 8 June 2011Tony Abbott denies climate change and advocates carbon tax in the same breath
The response given to Abbotts comment that "The climate has changed over the eons..." does not seem aproprtiate. Should it not be refuting the assertion that historical evidence shows the so-called “Roman Warm Period” was warmer than to-day? -
villabolo at 15:22 PM on 8 June 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
@26&29: Oops! Sorry for the big blooper. I'm writing half asleep.Response:[DB] I believe les Poe'd you.
-
Stevo at 15:21 PM on 8 June 2011There's no room for a climate of denial
rpauli #2 You make a good point. When the movie "The Day After Tommorrow" hit the box office some folks warned that it would numb the general public to the dangers of climate change because in the real world the symptoms would creep up slowly rather than present as a series of specatcular disasters. I thought the general would not fall for the Hollywood pattern of climate change. Sadly, I was wrong. -
Bern at 15:18 PM on 8 June 2011History Matters: Carbon Emissions in Context
Muzz, this piece speaks to the tragedy of the commons. In that sense, it *is* a moral piece, even if a large part of the moral is self-interest. And don't forget that CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas humans emit: there's methane and CFCs as well, which both contain carbon. Of course, there are some others that don't contain carbon (such as ozone), but they play a relatively minor role compared to the carbon-based ones. -
Muzz at 15:08 PM on 8 June 2011History Matters: Carbon Emissions in Context
This seems to me to be a moral piece rather than a scientific piece, and if this is the case, it is disapointing to see such a piece on a site that prides itself in dispasionate scientific discussion on the subject of AGW. I also take exception to the seemingly insistent use of the word carbon when referring to CO2. -
adelady at 15:06 PM on 8 June 2011There's no room for a climate of denial
rpauli "... the irrational belief that some sort of last minute invention intervention will come to the rescue." This is the "I didn't have time to do it by Monday" homework defence. Yes you did. The assignment was handed out two weeks ago. You put it off day after day 'knowing' that you could always get it done at the last minute. Then you had to do a few extra hours at work on Friday night. On Saturday, your mum finally put her foot down and you had to clean your room and mow the lawns. On Sunday, you had to go to grandma's for lunch - which you'd known about for months. And you sprained your ankle playing footie with your little cousins. So you couldn't get it done Sunday night. If you'd done it 10 days ago you wouldn't have had to worry about all these things happening at once. But you didn't. I'm sure the people who delay climate action are perfectly capable of criticising a foolish procrastinating teenager. But they can't see that their own actions are even more irresponsible. -
villabolo at 14:58 PM on 8 June 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
@26, Les: "The post is missing one important site, particularly given that it is now clear that 2008 was a short upward 'blip' in line with the overall trend of decline. For being right in the money, I recommend this post from 2008." Les, please take time to read some of our articles including my favorite one on theidiocyfallacy of Global Cooling in the past decade (yes, I wrote it): http://skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-january-2008.htm Also Les; instead of quoting from secondary sources like (gulp) WUWT, you might like to go to a primary source like Dr Roy Spencer's UAH satellite based temperature chart. Here is the latest chart:
Here is a version of his chart with trend lines that reveal the incline:
The brown line is the trend line. The green and pink lines highlight the jump in 1995/1998 of both El Ninos (those are the upper curves) and La Ninas (and those are the lower curves).
Now please tell me how we're hiding the "decline"
Response:[DB] Fixed link.
-
okatiniko at 14:54 PM on 8 June 2011Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
DM #7 : I have a question then : assume that the Earth would be in a perpetual "boreal summer" state , with a distance to the sun equal to aphelia, and the North pole directed towards the sun (State A), and let all the equilibria be set up, after a very long time. Now assume the Earth to be in a perpetual "austral summer" state, with the distance equal to perihelia, but the South Pole directed towards the sun (state B). The input energy depending only on distance, and not on the inclination of rotation axis, F(A) < F(B). Would T(A) be higher or lower than T(B) ? -
r.pauli at 14:50 PM on 8 June 2011There's no room for a climate of denial
And there are levels of denial and magical thinking - i.e. one might fully accept AGW but deny that it could wipe out civilization. Or ignore the possibility of a Venus Syndrome. Most prevalent is the irrational belief that some sort of last minute invention intervention will come to the rescue. Wait, isn't that the universal plot conclusion for a Hollywood movie? -
scaddenp at 14:12 PM on 8 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Eric the Red, perhaps you should look at this post . -
dana1981 at 14:04 PM on 8 June 2011Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
SoundOff - I certainly care. Equilibrium sensitivity tells us the minimum amount of warming we've committed ourselves to. It's also the measure used by international climate negotiations (i.e. the goal is to limit equilibrium warming to no more than 2°C). So I disagree that nobody cares - it's actually a very widely-used parameter. -
Tom Curtis at 14:01 PM on 8 June 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Grain? -
Tom Curtis at 13:55 PM on 8 June 2011There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
J Bob @19, I am quite aware that the procedure for identifying the effects of particular independent variable in a multiple variable system is to determine how the dependent variable changes as you change one independent variable while holding all others constant. You in contrast are comparing one independent variable to the dependent variable while simply ignoring the other independent variables. Not only that, you insist on making your comparison where an unmonitored (by you) independent variable is known to have fluctuated by a great deal. The quality of your method is well parodied by tonyth2 (whether he intended it as parody or not) when he says:"For the 12 months of any year CO2 varies by much less than the un-correlated, larger variation in temperature. The data shows no correlation between Temperature and CO2."
Frankly I'm surprised he didn't also mention the daily variation in temperatures. Just imagine, it was 5 degrees C at 4:00 am this morning, and now its 25 degrees C and the CO2 content of the atmosphere has not changed at all: therefore CO2 is irrelevant to the Earth's temperature. Is that the sort of argument you like? It sure looks like it from this position. -
Bob Lacatena at 13:50 PM on 8 June 2011Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
17, SoundOff,Does anyone really care about equilibrium climate sensitivity other than paleoclimatologists? Certainly not policy makers – it’s too far off.
That's amazingly callous. You would knowingly leave our descendants with a marginally livable planet, only because it won't happen in your own lifetime? The lives of your children and grandchildren, and everyone who comes after, are of no importance? -
Bob Lacatena at 13:46 PM on 8 June 2011There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
19, J. Bob,I don't know how many systems you had to identify, with multiple inputs, output (MIMO) & parameters, when many of the inner workings were not well defined, and non-linear.
You seem to have experience and understanding with complex systems. You should of course, then, understand that the climate is a complex system, and that teasing out an exact, easily recognized CO2 to temperature correlation would be a fool's errand, correct? You would not expect to have done this with the systems with which you have experience, correct?One of the first things you do, is vary a single input, and then note the output response. You continue to do this with all the inputs, in order to gain an understanding...
Yes, but the only place where this can be done is in models (which is another subject). In real life there are some very clever ways to do this, by for instance studying the short term responses to volcano eruptions, or paleoclimate data, or other clever ideas. But overall, this simply isn't possible. This is a different kind of problem than you are used to, and requires a different sort of thinking.This is not an experiment, this is real life.
Precisely. And for this reason, meeting your insistence on a direct correlation between CO2 and temperature is simply unrealistic. That doesn't mean that CO2 can't be doing what it does, it only means that your demand for impossible proof itself proves and disproves nothing. Unless I'm misunderstanding your request... -
Eric the Red at 13:45 PM on 8 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
The CRU data commences in 1850, although Phil Jones asserts that data prior to 1880 has higher uncertainty. The graphs do show the influence of the 60-year PDO cycle quite nicely when incorporating the 30-yr filter.Response:[DB] It might be helpful to read this. The conclusion:
"Has global temperature evolution over the last century+ been cyclical? Not."
-
SoundOff at 13:45 PM on 8 June 2011Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
#11 - Surely when we discuss climate sensitivity unqualified, we are discussing the fast feed back climate sensitivity, that is, the warming to be expected within 20 or 30 years of a doubling of CO2 concentration, estimated to be about 3°C. At least that’s what I mean. This is a sensitivity that could be affected by short term climate bumps. I’ve seen model runs that had up to 20 year flat spots even using the CO2 emissions forcing expected later this century (just one possible outcome, of course). Does anyone really care about equilibrium climate sensitivity other than paleoclimatologists? Certainly not policy makers – it’s too far off. “About 40 percent of the equilibrium response is obtained within five years. This quick response is due to the small effective inertia of continents, but warming over continents is limited by exchange of continental and marine air masses. Even after a century only 60 percent of the equilibrium response has been achieved. Nearly full response requires a millennium.” – James Hansen here.Response:[DB] You should re-read your comment and think about what perceptions that other readers are apt to draw from it. After reflection, you may wish to issue a revision to this comment.
-
Bob Lacatena at 13:40 PM on 8 June 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
1063, RW1,it's just very misleading and has been largely misinterpreted by virtually everyone here.
RW1, I'm sorry, but this is a laughable comment given how poorly you understand the diagram yourself. You are in no position to make such criticisms of others. Readers are asked to recognize this attitude on RW1's part, and take all of his comments with the grain of salt he has earned. -
Bob Lacatena at 13:38 PM on 8 June 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
1063, RW1,...where in the diagram is the return path of latent heat in the form of precipitation?
Precipitation does not transport energy back to the surface. That only happens one way. Water vapor gains heat when evaporating at the surface, then releases that heat when condensing in the atmosphere. This moves the heat from the surface into the atmosphere, and that's all. It is clearly marked on the diagram as 80 W/m2 for "evapotranspiration" and "latent heat". There is no reverse mechanism. Do the assigned task. Until then you are complaining and criticizing without the most basic grasp of the diagram. -
Bob Lacatena at 13:34 PM on 8 June 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
1061, RW1,Even if I or anyone else could actually determine all these numbers (virtually impossible)...
It is more than possible, it's a trivial task. A twelve year old could do it. Tackle the assignment and see where it leads you. If you are not capable of doing the assignment, or choose not to, then you are clearly simply ignorant of the most basic aspects of Trenberth's diagrams, and communication with you is simply not possible. BIn taking that course, you would then abdicate any right whatsoever to offer any criticism or supposed insight on the subject. Why should anyone listen to you if you not only can't accomplish such a simple, five minute, analysis, but also think it is impossible? Gain some credibility. Perform the assigned task. -
dhogaza at 13:33 PM on 8 June 2011Tony Abbott denies climate change and advocates carbon tax in the same breath
Martin:Apparently, because C02 is heavier than air, it drops to the bottom and lies in a very thin layer just on top of the earth's crust and can therefore not contribute to global warming.
Ask him why he's not dead. Offer to run an experiment with him in a locked and airtight room ...
Prev 1660 1661 1662 1663 1664 1665 1666 1667 1668 1669 1670 1671 1672 1673 1674 1675 Next
