Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1663 1664 1665 1666 1667 1668 1669 1670 1671 1672 1673 1674 1675 1676 1677 1678 Next
Comments 83501 to 83550:
-
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 ... -
RW1 at 13:28 PM on 8 June 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
KR (1062), I'm not saying the Trenberth diagram is entirely 'wrong' per say - it's just very misleading and has been largely misinterpreted by virtually everyone here. Let me ask you this, where in the diagram is the return path of latent heat in the form of precipitation? Surely, you agree evaporative latent heat of water and precipitation is a major surface -> atmosphere -> surface circulation current, right? -
scaddenp at 12:51 PM on 8 June 2011There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
J Bob, you have to use proxy data because you dont have any other reliable set. Your situation is 19 is ideal but that's not the real world. All variables are varying at the same time so you need multivariate tools. tobyth2 - see CO2 is not the only driver of climate. You only expect the correlation when CO2 is the primary forcing. The better question to ask is, since climate theory predicts temperature change to be a function of all forcings in operation, how well is temperature (on climatic scales of 30 year average) predicted by those forcing. Answer. very well indeed. -
KR at 12:29 PM on 8 June 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
RW1 - I believe that Sphaerica is attempting to determine if you have actually understood the Trenberth diagrams. So far, it is not evident that you have. And hence (so far) your disagreements have not been particularly relevant, insofar as they have been understandable. -
J. Bob at 12:02 PM on 8 June 2011There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
Tom Curtis, 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. 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 of what is going on within. As you gain experience, one starts to look at multiple input changes, and subsequent responses. This is not an experiment, this is real life. -
tonyth2 at 11:50 AM on 8 June 2011There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
In item 6 above, charts of CO2 and Temperature are displayed for the last 11,000 years. Despite imperfections that have been pointed out for those charts, it is reasonable to ask the question "Where is the correlation between CO2 and Temperature ?" The same question applies for similar charts drawn for 1850 to 2011. From 1910 to 1940 temperature increased at a rate similar to the rate of temperature increase between 1975 and 2000. The rate of change of CO2 concentration was lower between 1910 and 1940 than it was between 1975 and 2000. From 1940 to 1975 temperature decreased while CO2 increased. From 2000 to 2011 CO2 has continued to increase but the rate of temperature increase has declined. 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. Charts of the measured data show that temperature is affected by other factors more than it is affected by CO2. -
J. Bob at 11:49 AM on 8 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
apiratelooksat50 @ 436, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "how far past 1850 can you take the graphs?". Are you talking about: 1- Projecting past the end points (based on the 1850-2010 set) 2- Looking at data sets which began prior to 1850, as presented at J. Bob @ 52 & 391. -
Tom Curtis at 11:40 AM on 8 June 2011There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
J Bob @16, Translated: You want to treat the experiment as containing a single variable when you know they contain multiple variables. Right, got it. -
Marcus at 11:28 AM on 8 June 2011Tony Abbott denies climate change and advocates carbon tax in the same breath
....and of course Abbott's plans *assume* that the power industry won't just take the money, add it to their yearly profit results, & merrily go about their business. Have the Opposition given *any* indication of how they plan to ensure the Coal industry do the right thing with the money? Not that it will change the obscene cost of the scheme. Also, Tom, lets not forget that just a couple of years before this clip, he was wholeheartedly supporting Howard's Emissions Trading Scheme. Seems Abbott wants to have a bet each way. -
RW1 at 11:24 AM on 8 June 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Sphaerica (RE: 1060), Even if I or anyone else could actually determine all these numbers (virtually impossible), what would be the point of any such exercise? To discover some new physical law? To discover that Conservation of Energy does not hold at the boundary between the surface and the TOA? If you're trying imply that all of these specific quantities need to be known in order to understand the contraints COE puts on the system, then I suggest you take some time to think about this a bit more. It's not that complicated. -
J. Bob at 11:20 AM on 8 June 2011There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
scaddenp @ 15, yes, from 1959. Principles of Heat Transfer by Frank Kreith, p.211, section on Radiation from Gases, Vapors & Flames. Tom Curtis @ 14, you quote a lot of estimated data based on math models. It would be better if you used actual data. I'm not thrilled about proxy data from ice cores, but it gives a sense of assurance if corresponds to actual measured data. I don't think I'd bet the farm on estimated model data.Those charts I presented above, can be traced to actual data sets, as well as some of the CO2 data. Somehow I feel more comfortable with some actual test data. I've seen what can happen when models go wrong, due to limited evaluation. -
Tom Curtis at 10:36 AM on 8 June 2011Tony Abbott denies climate change and advocates carbon tax in the same breath
mandas @14, I am an Australian. As Tony Abbott is just one vote away from being Prime Minister, for me his demonstrated economic incompetence is, therefore, also an issue. As, however, to his comments, Robert Murphy @5 is perfectly correct. Abbot does not advocate a Carbon Tax on the clip. He does, however, claim that a Carbon Tax is the best method of "put[ting] a price on Carbon". That, given a Carbon Tax on the table, he will not even negotiate on the features of that tax does show that his earlier comments where a smoke screen, as IMO is his current policy (see my 15). But regardless of the intended take home message of John Cook, I believe the shallow analysis shown by Abbott in his suggested Carbon tax is a genuine issue. It shows that he is not only incompetent on the science, but incompetent on the policy as well, even where he to accept the science. -
Tom Curtis at 10:25 AM on 8 June 2011Tony Abbott denies climate change and advocates carbon tax in the same breath
Michael Hauber @12, Tony Abbot is now advocating that existing power plants be modified or replaced, or carbon abatement paid for at tax payer expense. As former Liberal Party leader, Malcolm Turnbull has calculated, even using very conservative assumptions about the costs involved, that would represent a cost of Billions of dollars a year to the budget. If the method is used to seriously mitigate CO2 emissions, the cost to the taxpayer will quickly rise to tens of billions annually. As also noted by Turnbull, the chief (indeed the only) advantage of such a system is that it is easy to stop. As it stands, Abbott refuses to identify how the billions required for his scheme will be raised. When a Cap and Trade scheme was on the political agenda, Abbott argued the virtues of a carbon tax. Now that a carbon tax is on the agenda, he argues the virtue of direct government action. Given that the policy is unfunded, my belief is that should Abbott gain power, a "budgetary crisis" will be found that necessitates shelving his policy for the forseeable future. -
mandas at 10:24 AM on 8 June 2011Tony Abbott denies climate change and advocates carbon tax in the same breath
Tom Curtis I am not sure if you are an Australian, but you completely missed the whole point of this thread with your comments at #3. This is all about Tony Abbott's gross hypocrisy on the issue of a carbon tax. He is clearly advocating a carbon tax in 2009, for the sole reason that it was government policy (at the time) to adopt a cap and trade system. He was just saying no to anything and everything the government proposed. Now that the government is proposing a carbon tax, Abbott is acting like the hypocrite he is and opposing it, despite his earlier advocation for such a scheme. He is, once again, just automatically opposing everything the government says or does. He has zero credibility on this issue, and I cringe when I think that there is the very real possibility that he could become Prime Minister in just over two years. -
Tom Curtis at 10:11 AM on 8 June 2011Tony Abbott denies climate change and advocates carbon tax in the same breath
Martin @6, you may find the following graph of CO2 measurements by aircraft in the high troposphere (red circles) and the stratosphere (red dots):
There is a slight reduction in CO2 levels in the stratosphere with respect to the troposphere which is due to CO2's greater mass than N2 or O2. You will also notice a higher CO2 measurement for the lowest of the ground stations (KZD at 412 meters). On the other hand, both the high troposphere and high stratosphere have a higher annual mean than do the higher altitude ground stations, primarily because they are minimally affected by the seasonal uptake of CO2 by Northern Hemisphere deciduous forests in the summer, and the release of that CO2 back to the atmosphere.
(For a map showing the surface station locations and flight paths, click on the graph).
Also of interest is this graph of CO2 concentrations at different altitudes at four different times of year:
Again the CO2 concentration is near constant with altitude, with slight variations at each altitude depending on the pattern of winds, updrafts and downdrafts at each level. One pattern is particularly clear, however. In Spring and Summer it is clear that there is less CO2 at lower altitudes, while in Winter there is obviously more. This seasonal pattern is again because of uptake of CO2 by decidous forests in Spring and Summer, and release of CO2 by rotting leaves in those forests in Winter.
It may help your colleague to see these graphs. Sometimes it helps people to move towards truth if their points are not just denied, (CO2 is relatively heavy, and that does affect its distribution) but put into perspective (that effect only makes a 2.5% difference in CO2 concentrations over the altitude of the atmosphere, and is easily swamped by the much larger seasonal variation due to deciduos forests). You might also ask why the organisation he relies on has not done their own experiments on CO2 and altitude, seeing as how it is not that hard an experiment.
For the record, the Mauna Loa observatory is located at 3397 meters, and is well away from deciduous forests, though not free of their influence.
-
Michael Hauber at 09:43 AM on 8 June 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
When he makes claims like 'it is nearly impossible to connect today's melting with global warming', then perhaps his real name is Dr Inferno. -
apiratelooksat50 at 09:32 AM on 8 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
J. Bob @ 431 How far back past 1850 can you take the graphs? Do you have the source site? -
SouthWing at 09:30 AM on 8 June 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
@dhogaza at 08:22 AM on 8 June, 2011 I think Dr. PhD is a most successful troll ...
Indeed. It is past time for the mod's magic plonker to strike.Response:[DB] Let's just say the bullpen is ready should the starter falter...back to the good stuff: watching ice cubes melt.
-
Michael Hauber at 09:25 AM on 8 June 2011Tony Abbott denies climate change and advocates carbon tax in the same breath
I would agree with Mr Abbott that it would be better to respond intelligently in 2012 than foolishly in 2010. He said that in 2008. What intelligent response is he advocating for 2012? Or is it now 'better to act intelligently in 2014 than foolishly in 2012'.... -
Stevo at 09:07 AM on 8 June 2011Tony Abbott denies climate change and advocates carbon tax in the same breath
Two of Abbott's best quotes are missing from this article. "Climate change is crap", and, "I'm not across the science". I'm still not sure why so many people accept the verdict of a man who admits he does not know what he is talking about.Response: Find me a source and I'll add these to the quotes database. -
Bob Lacatena at 08:52 AM on 8 June 2011Tony Abbott denies climate change and advocates carbon tax in the same breath
9, Doug, I can't believe you bothered! Well, now I can't sleep tonight, because if the deniers are right and we're wrong, then all of the CO2 is going to sink down to the surface, and anyone who is less than 10 feet tall is going to suffocate. [Lucky for me I sleep on the second floor, but I'll still be afraid to go downstairs for a drink of water.] -
scaddenp at 08:50 AM on 8 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Eric (sk), I agree that nuclear might be cheaper under your scenario, but that's not the point. We both agree that only way to get rid of coal without my arbitrary government imposed methods is for an alternative to be cheaper than coal. "Cap and trade" and "Fee and dividend" approaches are attempts at "market solutions" to the problem, both unacceptable to libertarians because of the role in government. But I am really interested in the question of what happens when a market fails (eg no way to make an alternative cheaper unless a way is found for coal pay for environmental damage which is difficult because of unknown and future nature). To me, libertarian ideals derive from a value system. It proposes a model of state in accordance with those values. The issue is what gives when model doesnt fit well with reality. Libertarians readily concede a role for government in protection from agression and upholding of the legal system. What is conformal with the values from which libertarism springs for dealing with market failures? eg costing of coal, or urban air quality. We make fun of the argument "AGW leads toergo AGW doesnt exist" but noone actually makes that calculus at a conscious level. Its more a question of an assault on values and no amount of argument will change a person's values. Ergo, we need solutions talked about that dont conflict a person's values. On cost - probably belongs in the "Its not bad" thread but... I dont deny a technological solution is possible - just that it is beyond the economic means of our small city and external help unlikely when you consider implications for rest of country. Do we have legal redress on CO2 emitters to help build a replacement? There are estimates of climate change cost - eg Stern. Sure they are criticised but only alternatives I have seen assume smaller effects that the science does not support. From this I would assume the compiler knows that WG2 scenario costs are too expensive. And on that note, clathrate release, while a risk, is not supported by the science, definitely not part of AR4 WG2. I asked earlier what you meant by "C"AGW - ie what parts of WG2 did you have scientific support to disbelieve, but you answered that effectively you believe sensitivity is lower than estimated but havent provided science to support that position. -
Stevo at 08:45 AM on 8 June 2011Poleward motion of storm tracks
Ari #16. Thankyou Ari, for the links. The case certainly looks firmer than I first thought. -
Doug Mackie at 08:39 AM on 8 June 2011Tony Abbott denies climate change and advocates carbon tax in the same breath
The layering calculation is straight forward. Here is a quick and dirty version. You need to know the mass of the atmosphere and the number of moles in the atmosphere. The mass is easy: Take sea level pressure (about 1 g per cm2) and the area of the Earth (510x10^6 km2) to get 5.1x10^18 kg. (This compares with more formal calculations by Trenberth giving 5.148 x10^18 kg). Then assume an average molecular mass for the gases of 29 (about right for 78% N2, 21% O2 and 1% Ar). This gives total moles = 1.8 x10^20 moles. 390 ppm of CO2 (or any other gas) is then 7.0 x10^16 moles. Ideal gas laws tell us that at 10 deg C and sea level pressure 1 mole gas has a volume of 23.2 L Total volume of the gas = 1.6 x10^15 m3 For a surface area of 510 x10^6 km2 = 510 x10^12 m2 the thickness is thus 3.1 m. (For Ar it is 75 m, O2 = 1.7 km, N2 = 6.3 km. Adding these up we see that the whole atmosphere is equivalent to about 8 km at sea level pressure). -
les at 08:23 AM on 8 June 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
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. -
dhogaza at 08:22 AM on 8 June 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
I think Dr. PhD is a most successful troll ... -
The Skeptical Chymist at 08:11 AM on 8 June 2011Database of peer-reviewed papers: classification problematics
Ari Again in the 2010 skeptic articles: "Accessing environmental information relating to climate change: a case study under UK freedom of information legislation" - is a SPPI report and does not appear to be a peer review paper and should be removed. -
scaddenp at 08:07 AM on 8 June 2011Can we trust climate models?
truckmonkey - parameterizations will vary from model to model. But note that things like relationship of evaporation to windspeed are tuned from observations of windspeed and evaporation, not fiddling a value to fit a temperature. You can get detail from model documentation (see here for list), eg AOM GISS. If it was possible to tune a climate model so that we could ignore GHG, then I think that would have been a much cheaper proposition for opponents than funding disinformation and a lot more convincing. -
dana1981 at 08:00 AM on 8 June 2011Tony Abbott denies climate change and advocates carbon tax in the same breath
Martin - I like the idea. The problem is that it would require quite a bit of work. But for example, none of the scientist "skeptics" (your Lindzens and Christys and such) dispute that the planet is warming, humans are causing atmospheric CO2 to increase, and this is contributing to the warming at least somewhat. So these most serious 'skeptics' would not support most of the climate myths in our database. They're mostly 'climate sensitivity is low' and 'it's internal variability' and that sort of thing. -
scaddenp at 07:50 AM on 8 June 2011There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
J Bob, you do realise that particulates are included in aerosols? -
GFW at 07:41 AM on 8 June 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
Of course, to the extent that we can measure them by independent proxies, temperature and CO2 track well for millions of years back. The warmth of the Jurassic was enabled by CO2 concentrations around 4-5 times those currently prevailing. So dumping as much CO2 as we want into the atmosphere is fine, so long as we don't mind mass extinctions of current life, in favor of the re-development of life forms suited for the climate of the Jurassic. BTW Dr. Jay, you don't have to just think the Earth is in a cool period. It is - specifically the Quaternary Ice Age. Within the QIA, we are in the Holocene Interglacial, so it's not as cool as it would be in a glacial period, but nonetheless cool compared with much of the Earth's distant past. The trouble is that all of human civilization developed in, and is rather dependent upon, the climate of the Holocene. The CO2 we are adding to the atmosphere is highly likely to take us well outside that narrow range of "good for humans". Not a problem for life itself, over geological time periods, but a serious problem for humans. -
Bob Lacatena at 07:36 AM on 8 June 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
For anyone who is reading the latest Cadbury, please note: 1) The reason we have had ice ages and ice at the poles in the recent past (as opposed to "much of the history of the earth") has to do with a number of interwoven factors, the primary of which is the location and orientation of the continents (which, as any educated person knows, have been moving over time, on the order of tens/hundreds of millions of years). This affects both the globe's ability to accumulate snow on land, and more importantly the flow of ocean currents and heat transport to the poles. While we argue feverishly about climate factors that affect the earth on the order of centuries or millenia, in reality, the real driver is the earth's continents, but they operate on the time scale of millions of years. 2) The fact that the poles have been frozen for thousands of years, and are now melting in summer, is a clear sign that while the earth has been in a "cool period" for the past X thousands of years, today we are clearly moving into a warm period. Thank you, to Cadbury, for so eloquently pointing this out. 3) When the ice caps have melted in the past, it is known to have been caused by specific conditions. This is not random guesswork. Cadbury creates a strawman by saying "because...before... this time it is different somehow." No one is saying that. What we are saying is "we know what caused it before, and that doesn't apply now, and we know what would cause it today, and we expected it, and look, our logic and expectations are validated, because it is happening as expected and as was predicted by climate theory." So once again, thank you to Cadbury for so eloquently pointing out, in his ignorance and refutation, that the current melting of summer ice in the Arctic (and elsewhere) is supporting evidence of current climate theory, rather than an argument to ignore it. -
Robert Murphy at 07:34 AM on 8 June 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
"I think the mere existence of sea ice and the ice caps demonstrates the globe is in a cool period." Compared to the entire history of the Earth, perhaps. Compared to the history of human civilization, not so much. "Furthermore, the ice caps are an anomaly and have not existed for much of the history of the earth." We've been around for a lot less time. "Because they have completely melted before, it is nearly impossible to connect today's melting with global warming." It's impossible not to. What besides warming would melt the ice? "To do so would be arguing that "Even though the ice caps have melted before, this time it is different somehow."" No, it's still caused by warming, as always. Your argument makes absolutely no sense. -
Albatross at 07:20 AM on 8 June 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
@18, You are going to have to do much, much better than that, especially as someone who allegedly has a PhD. Yours is an empty comment really, and to be frank, given the swaths of information out there, and the fact that you have been frequenting this site for months now, you ought to know better-- so in short your post amounts to nothing more than trolling and a fine example of logorrhea. Yes, this time is different, we are increasing atmospheric CO2 up to 10 times faster than during the PETM, you know run of the mill stuff ;) Apparently you also are of the belief that because there were wild fires before humans roamed the planet, that there is no way that we can be responsible for causing fires now. Anyways, I'm done feeding the troll. -
dhogaza at 07:18 AM on 8 June 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
#18 ... we need a "best of skeptical science" irony award or the like ... that is a comment that deserves not only preservation, but highlighting. Are we sure Dr. PhD isn't a poe? -
mclamb6 at 07:07 AM on 8 June 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
Dr. Cadbury--can you offer any coherent argument as to why the melting ice caps now and in the past must be from a common cause? Can you provide an alternative explanation, with supporting data, that suggests the current melting is not a result of the current warming trend?
Prev 1663 1664 1665 1666 1667 1668 1669 1670 1671 1672 1673 1674 1675 1676 1677 1678 Next
