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:
-
Eric the Red at 21:57 PM on 6 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Adelady, That sounds fine, but I do not see the lines of evidence converging. The models appear to converge but the data appears to diverge. Yes, this is probably the most researched topic of our time (possibly all time). While many papers support previous conclusions, others do not. I do agree with garethman that any theory (even if it is only a small portion of the whole) is met with ridicule, and that the current science is settled. This is not the response of someone who is absolutely sure about his belief, but rather someone who is desperately afraid that his belief is losing ground. If the science is sound, then let it be proven. If a new theory is invalid, let it be proven false. However, the amount of unsults hurled at those who merely suggest an alternative is unfathomable. One of my favorite contradictions is the denier label thrown at those who suggest any kind of natural variability or forces, and then those same hurlers acknowledge that there is natural variability when accused of ignoring it by others. The science is not as solid and well known as many people here appear to think. This is what we are discovering as more and more research is undertaken. -
Rob Painting at 21:03 PM on 6 June 2011SkS Weekly Digest - First Edition
Thks snowhare - it's a glitch in the system. Hopefully someone who is able to fix it will be along soon. -
snowhare at 20:38 PM on 6 June 2011SkS Weekly Digest - First Edition
More precisely, all the 'non-title' links (the blue ones) are broken. -
snowhare at 20:37 PM on 6 June 2011SkS Weekly Digest - First Edition
All the links are broken.;) -
RSVP at 20:00 PM on 6 June 2011CO2 – Some facts, figures and outcomes
Moderator (10) asks, "If you knew a bridge was out on a well-travelled road, would it not be ethical to alert the authorities and other motorists? Even if it made you late for dinner?" As it turns out, not more than two weeks ago, I was walking in the countryside and noticed a precarious situation due to a broken high-powerline support etc. I did go out of my way to alert authorities. This to simply answer your three questions, which have nothing to do with the ethical question I have addressed. The ethical question has to do with establishing a system where money is accepted as compensation for environmental damage. If CO2 emissions are in truth incompatible with our biosphere, they cannot be tolerated, as with any other forms of criminal activity. Normally, a society where you can buy the law is considered corrupt by most standards. ...you continue... "If you then interpret that as a call to political action rather than as a call for responsible societal action, that's an issue internal to you." The question does indeed become political when society allows itself to perceive the issue as only a relative threat, in which case, there are any number of ways to be "responsible". -
Tom Curtis at 19:50 PM on 6 June 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Jigoro Kano @1022 1) If you intended only an analogy with regard to power transfers, the analogy fails because electrical circuits have limited, non-overlapping paths, while the atmosphere has infinitely many, overlapping energy paths. Put more simply, the analogy fails because atmospheres don't short out. 2) I did not make an analogy between the GHG and any electrical circuit or component for the reasons given in (1) above (and in (3) of my 1021). I did point out that counting the total energy input into the surface (sunlight plus back radiation) as a gain in power is a fallacy equivalent to counting the total energy input into the lower half of the Villard Cascade as a gain in power. The laser/mirror analogy is better for this purpose (3) in 1021, but you where talking about circuits. 3) We divide the diagram into three parts, Space, the Atmosphere and the Surface: a) Total energy entering space = Reflected Solar Radiation + Outgoing Longwave Radation = 101.9 + 238.5 = 340.4 =~= 341.3 = Incoming Solar Radiation = Total energy leaving space. b) Total energy incident on the surface = ISR Reflected by Surface + ISR Absorbed by Surface + BackRadiation = 23 + 161 + 333 = 517 =~= 23 + 17 + 80 + 396 = ISR Reflected by Surface + Thermals + Evapo/Transpiration + Surface Radiation = 516 = Total energy leaving the surface. c) Total energy entering and interacting with the atmosphere (ie, excluding energy that merely transits without being reflected or absorbed) = ISR Reflected by Clouds and Atmosphere + ISR Absorbed by Atmosphere + (Surface Radiation - Atmospheric Window) + Thermals + Evapo/Transpiration = 79 + 78 + (396-40) + 17 + 80 = 610 =~= 79 + (239 - 40) + 333 = 611 = ISR Reflected by Clouds and Atmosphere + (Outgoing Longwave Radiation - Amospheric Window) + Back Radiation = Total energy leaving the atmosphere. All units in Watts/m^2, the slight discrepancies being due to measurement error and the fact that due to the enhanced Greenhouse effect, the Earth is not currently in radiative equilibrium. You appear to want to join RW1 as one of those deniers who believe the greenhouse effect does not exist because they cannot add. For the record, the 240 W/m^2 is the solar radiation less reflected radiation, and so obviously includes radiation absorbed at the surface and in the atmosphere = 161 + 78 = 239 which is rounded to 240 for convenience. For RW1 convenience (and for the umpteenth time) there is no guarantee that energy absorbed by the atmosphere will make its way to the surface, and as most of it is absorbed in the stratosphere, most of it doesn't. In fact, most of it is radiated to space. 4) (3a) in my 1021 clearly explains how you can get twice the input power incident on a surface using a laser and two mirrors. A similar thing happens in the climate system. Solar energy is absorbed by the Earth's surface then reradiated as IR radiation, or carried to the atmosphere by thermals or evapotranspiration. Nearly 90% of that is absorbed in the atmosphere, which in turn radiates IR radiation so that some of it (58%) returns to the Earth's surface. The energy returned to the surface is again reradiated (or carried by thermals or evapotranspiration) so that only a small fraction escapes to space and so through astronomically many iterations. The large number of iterations is relatively unimportant as the sum of the downward component of all these iterations, the back radiation, quickly converges on a stable value. Calculating the converged value including energy absorbed in the atmosphere from sunlight, and using a slab atmosphere shows an expected back radiation of around 281 Watts/m^2. That is an underestimate on reality because of the flaws in using a slab atmosphere, but it clearly demonstrates that the back radiation can exceed the incoming solar radiation without violating any law of thermodynamics. Most importantly, the average 333 Watts/m^2 is not only that which has been calculated using Line by Line and Atmosphere-Ocean Global Circulation Models, it is the back radiation that has actually been observed. Any theory that does not predict it, in other words, is falsified by observation. Of course only greenhouse theories predict that back radiation, or at least they are the only ones that do so without violating the laws of thermodynamics. So and denier of green house theories is left to explain how there can be an average 333 Watts/m^2 back radiation given a 240 Watts/m^2 input energy from the sun, and without the absorption and reradiation of energy by green house gasses. -
adelady at 19:48 PM on 6 June 2011IPCC is alarmist
The advanced version of this one gives the model and the 'match' for the most famous model of all. If they're not thrilled with reading there are good videos at Crock of the Week and Potholer 54 - often focused on the Monckton stuff. Fool Me Once is on that entirely - but fan. tas. tic. presentations anyway. -
Bernard J. at 19:43 PM on 6 June 2011Poleward motion of storm tracks
"Though I do think geographers or meteorologists should immediately adopt lati-dudes as a club name." Or cartographers.Response:[DB] As a nautical cartographer, our softball team was called "Slack Tide". Had we even thought of "lati-dudes" perhaps we would have gone with that instead.
-
Eric (skeptic) at 19:43 PM on 6 June 2011Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2A. Why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
skywatcher (#24), looking at the link from Glenn to his piece on satellite measurement your point about trend differences is valid and not just due to solar, but other factors discussed on that thread. For this thread's topic, I still haven't seen an explanation of the large monthly outliers in the GISS record compared to UAH. Perhaps the "damping" of those outliers can be explained in the satellite thread, or the GISS peaks can be explained here. Those affect the trend somewhat, but also show up in the 80's. -
Michaelf at 19:34 PM on 6 June 2011IPCC is alarmist
Do you have a graph for how temperature matches up to the models? Just been in a few denialist arguments where they claim the temp is not up to the models and can't find a good source. Thanks -
adelady at 19:34 PM on 6 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
garethman " There is much evidence out there, but all evidence is interpreted, correlated and projected. Models in psychology and climate are not the real world." And that's where converging lines of evidence come in. Same as in your work. In climate science there are thousands of people, not just a couple of dozen as there might be actuaries (or similar) in an office. There are various models of varying kinds, mostly focused on basic radiative physics. Various kinds of evidence are collected by various means and must be calculated, refined and summarised by suitable means. When it all comes together - we get spaghetti graphs, icesheet and glacier records, sea temperature, sea level, sea ice records. Agricultural and ecological observations. And all the rest of it. And when thousands of people publish hundreds of research papers on dozens of topics year after year - and it confirms the conclusions and projections that were arrived at 30 or 100 years ago - we know the science is holding up pretty well. It's fine to have a contrary view - except that the onus is on the contrarian to produce better observations, better analysis, better science when faced with the accumulated evidence for the current view. -
scaddenp at 19:32 PM on 6 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Eric, what I am missing so far is any incentive to change away from coal. I assume you would also like China to transform into a libertarian state so it would need to apply there. In a libertarian world, how would that happen? Also on your geoengineering ideas - if we came to that, who would pay for it. -
Eric (skeptic) at 19:25 PM on 6 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
scaddenp, China uses coal (including Australian) and their command economy is a special case, not all libertarian principles apply. On the other hand, I don't think they will be simply be "inspired" by CO2 cuts in the West to do theirs all on their own. For one thing their local politicians are often connected with local industry and may be inclined to cheat. But China is currently as interested in nuclear as they are in coal and will probably keep trending in that direction. Probably the best thing we can do is encourage them to open their economy so rather than having the party determine economic and energy policy, the market can and then market incentives will be more applicable. Our own nuclear industry is stymied by the small numbers and large size of nuclear plants making them easy targets for anti-nuclear activists. The best thing to do is scale down and get more local competition for feeding the grid. I would trade the current regulated monopoly status of nuclear providers for a safety-regulated but market-unregulated status. It will be a tricky balance, but Japan can provide a lot of good lessons in how not to prevent and manage crises (they seemed to have various perverse incentives to do the wrong thing early in the crisis). I would try to get as complete as possible private insurance for nuclear accidents and enforce the insurance companies responsibilities to the general public with a large radiation measurement network and a predictable formula for radiation release penalties I think the biggest problem in that regard is irrational fears of low exposures (notwithstanding the rational fears of large exposures) WIth much better measurement and strict but sensible formulas for release responsibility we could greatly lower insurance costs. The insurance companies are smart enough to figure out how to minimize the risk of larger scale releases. They can also be responsible for low level waste. For high level waste disposal I would recommend some sort of noncritical thermal generator where the waste is packaged into a small power plant in some tamper-proof container. If I had the opportunity I would buy one, stick it in the river and use it to generate power for our subdivision. -
garethman at 19:24 PM on 6 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
With reference to alarmism there is the head in the sand vs chicken little. Both are damaging. To say lets not be alarmed at damage to the environment and the costs to all species ( including us) is bad news. To also make grandiose predictions which do not materialise is also damaging. It makes people who are trying to make a valid point look like these weird people in the USA who regularly predict the end of the world. Every time the prediction falls flat more people become sceptics. While most people have now wised up to this, there are still a disconcertingly large group of people who make predictions of catastrophe in the near future and shout down anyone who questions the reality of the prophecy. -
adelady at 19:18 PM on 6 June 2011SkS Weekly Digest - First Edition
I really, really like the upcoming topics idea. Adds a bit of interest to checking in. -
garethman at 19:17 PM on 6 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
In my job of assessing risk in individuals, the only real tactic is to analyse past behaviour as a key to future behaviour. Now this risk assessment does not say something will happen, it gives a likelihood of an increased risk of something happening in a given set of circumstances. This a science. But it is not an exact science, we freely admit that. This is mainly because we dealing with humans who are subject more to chaos theory and any given solid laws like mathematics. Sometimes one of my colleagues will get a different result, not wildly different, but interestingly so. I don’t call them by derogatory titles as a result, the fact that we get differing results often helps develop the theory. Apparently we cannot say the same thing with climate science. We are told it is like mathematics, there is no chaos theory or subjectivity. There cannot be any idea of qualitative study or phenomenology as everything is pigeonholed, carefully counted and quantified. Two and two make four and there is no debate. From a psychological viewpoint I am interested in the fury that arises at any suggestion this may not be the case ( note how many “you must be a denier” posts follow any suggestion of subjectivity), this in itself speaks volumes as it is a denial of the human condition. There is much evidence out there, but all evidence is interpreted, correlated and projected. Models in psychology and climate are not the real world. If two people undertake the same piece of detailed research on a complex subject such as climate and get the same result, either one is lying or work has been copied. To say the same result must be arrived at every time is like saying the UK summer will always be warm and winter cold. Things will tend in that direction, but to make it a black and white issue is a denial of the scientific process indeed. And climate opinion? We would be left with nothing to talk about if such things were banned in the UK! -
Lars Bergestrom at 18:38 PM on 6 June 2011Ice age predicted in the 70s
The Ice Age is not over and we are still in an Ice Age climate. Ice Age conditions first appeared on the Earth about 45 million years ago with the appearance of permanent ice sheets in Antarctica. The other feature of this ice age climate was the sharp drop in the concentration of CO2 which dropped from several thousand ppm 50 million years ago to levels as low 150-250 ppm as recently as 3 million years ago. Today we have a CO2 level of 380 ppm and most of Antarctica and Greenland are still covered with ice. The great ice sheets have at their maximum reached as far south as 40 deg latitude. Burying much of North America, Europe and Siberia. How do we know all this? 100,000s of ocean core samples collected since the Second World War when studies of the oceans and atmosphere became a priority for the US military. In addition to establishing our world's paleoclimate it also proved that the continents move on giant rocky plates. The message I take from this is that life on Earth can globalize and cope with a great range of climate and has survived worse climate upsets like those 65 and 250 million years ago. It will be a different place and there is no guarantee man will flourish in such a brave new world. Much of the flora and fauna didn't pass muster 65 and 250 million years ago.Response:[DB] You may be interested in this, then:
Carbon Release to Atmosphere 10 Times Faster Than in the Past, Geologists Find
A blog post exploring this is planned.
-
Lars Bergestrom at 18:08 PM on 6 June 2011Radio interview with Skeptically Speaking
I heard your interview and enjoyed it very much. The homeopathic believer who called in was a little intense, but they tend to be, I guess. It is good to see you verbalize from the heart. Well-handled and your site is now bookmarked! Have a good one.Response:[DB] Please do not embed SPAM links. Comments containing them are normally deleted outright.
-
scaddenp at 18:06 PM on 6 June 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
"Good luck trying to convince anyone here of this, even though" Correct, it would appear most of the rest us bothered to learn physics. -
scaddenp at 18:03 PM on 6 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Eric, okay, I accept your points on CATO. If we accept that nuclear is okay for electricity generation, what is the libertarian way to make the transition happen? I'm looking for something as effective as my pretty direct way. "You compete against Australia do you not?" :-) On the sports field! (and we will cheer for Oz when they play the bleedin' poms at cricket). Australia is our most important market and we have very close economic ties. However, their thermal coal needs to stay in the ground. They are big enough to cope. -
scaddenp at 17:56 PM on 6 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Adelady - thanks. J Bob, I think current climate theory makes an adequate enough of explaining past and present climate within a coherent physics framework. Furthermore, the theory predicts that if we increase GHGs at current rates we will change climate faster than is comfortable. The data you are trying to present does not challenge that in any way. Both physical and statistical models of forcing correlate quite well as adelady has shown and further comment should be on that page. -
adelady at 17:55 PM on 6 June 2011If It's Not Sex, Drugs, and Rock 'n Roll, what is it? Creativity maybe?
Yani, the 70s women's movement was a natural extension of the 60s civil rights movement - and they've both moved along fairly steadily. Things like industrial health and safety are now a great deal better in OECD countries than they were then, although the US seems unable to get all its ducks in a row on some of these matters. The biggest disillusion for us older ones though, is that all these 'wins' have to be defended and 'won' all over again every 15 years or so. If so, I'll do it all again when necessary. -
Yani at 15:53 PM on 6 June 2011If It's Not Sex, Drugs, and Rock 'n Roll, what is it? Creativity maybe?
I hope we manage more than the 60s crowd. We fought against war and nuclear weapons and got more wars and more weapons. We fought for gay rights and didn't even manage to get the CDC appropriate funding until it was 1 minute to midnight. For free love and got Billy Graham and the creationists. What we have on our side now is connectedness. If we can't create change with the help of the Internet that I'll change my position on gun control. ;) And really thank you John Cook for your work on this topic. It's a beacon of light. -
DaneelOlivaw at 15:41 PM on 6 June 2011SkS Weekly Digest - First Edition
Speaking for myself, I don't think this is necessary. I read SkS primarily via google reader so I can mark which entries I yet have to read. Maybe it will be more useful for other readers! -
Stevo at 15:37 PM on 6 June 2011SkS Weekly Digest - First Edition
For my money the weekly update would be better. It would mean less emails for you to send and I visit the site every working day anyway. BTW A big thankyou to everyone who contributes to the site. As an historian and not a climate scinetist I find this site provides comprehensive information in a format I can easily understand. The contributors have been patient and helpful will any questions I have asked (and some of the debates can be highly amusing and witty at times). -
Glenn Tamblyn at 14:57 PM on 6 June 2011Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1A. A Primer on how to measure surface temperature change
Eric. Yes Teleconnection occurs at the wider weather system scale. But it also occurs on a smaller, sub-1000km scale as well due to the basic fact that similar weather patterns pass over adjacent regions. And this is the point of the scatter diagrams from Hansen & Lebedeff 1987 above. Observationally they show correlations between random pairs of stations out to 1000 km ranges. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 14:40 PM on 6 June 2011Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2A. Why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
Eric, Tom, Skywatcher You might like to take a look at my earlier post on satellites here. UAH & RSS began to drift apart around 1987 when NOAA 9 & NOAA 10 failed to have a long enough overlap period to give a good correlation to keep the records in synch. There have been a number of criticisms of the processing methods used by the two teams with, it appears, UAH having to make more corrections. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 14:28 PM on 6 June 2011Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2A. Why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
Eric @22 In your example, if the aerosol effect is urban based then it is likely to be removed by UHI processing. And even if a rural station is removed, what is the station density in the neigbourhood of the UHI affected station. If their enough other rural stations remaing, that is still sufficient. Station coverage is the issue, not absolute station count. The theme of this series is that, for various reasons, the methods used to calcuate the temperature record are far more robust than is commonly portrayed. Not that it is perfect which it can't be. The key point therefore is whether any residual errors, biases etc are making any meaningful contribution to distorting the record which is the oft cited claim elsewhere. So while we may need to look for further factors to improve the quality of the record - which the teams who work on this do as their day job - the question is is the record good enough already to be relied upon for general understanding. Sure we might sqeeze the error margins down a bit more but is it 'good enough' already. And sisnce a range of analyses have all reached the same basic result, I suggest it can be. Others have already shown from the data that it is. In this series I am trying to focus on why the record is robust. -
adelady at 13:58 PM on 6 June 2011There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
This is a response to a comment on the Skeptic/ Denier thread. J Bob - I don't understand why anyone would use a local/ regional temperature record for such a comparison when there are others with global figures. Such as this graph on this page It also has the great advantage of displaying aerosols (and other forcings) as well as GHGs. Global. Comprehensive. Much better.Response:[DB] Thank you for setting a great example!
-
Ron Crouch at 13:56 PM on 6 June 2011Poleward motion of storm tracks
@7 Daneel No high clouds are more efficient at trapping heat. See here Cirrus clouds efficiently absorb outgoing infrared radiation beneath them (this is otherwise known as the greenhouse effect), while only marginally reflecting the incoming sunlight. -
adelady at 13:52 PM on 6 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
J Bob - I don't understand why anyone would use a local/ regional temperature record for such a comparison when there are others with global figures. Such as this graph on this page. It also has the great advantage of displaying aerosols as well as GHGs. Global. Comprehensive. Much better. -
J. Bob at 13:39 PM on 6 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Above post (#391) seemed to miss the graph link, so here it is in text form: http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/co2_temp_1650-2010-NZ4UP.gif -
J. Bob at 13:33 PM on 6 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Scaddenp @ 269, I’ll agree, that CO2 is not the only “driver” of climate, and I don’t recal saying it was the only one. But from the discussion above and your ref. to Paul Barton’s data, it would appear the CO2 appears to be the primary GHG. As also noted by the CO2 discussions at this site. The real question is just what is the most significant contributor, and is that contributor, humans. So if you say “why correlation (CO2) weakens when other factors are important (eg aerosols, solar).” you should add particulates. I think comment weakens your case, that man is the primary contributor to global warming. You would then be moving (inching) to the “skeptic” camp. But in order to show why I hold “skeptic” beliefs, based on science, the following graph, shows long term temperature (150+ years) sets vs. CO2 concentrations.
Or a better graph:
(Hope I’m reading the posting directions right)
CO2 concentrations are from NOAA & Lawdome sites. Temperature anomaly data is the HadCRUT-NH data set, and long term western & central European sites (Ave14), which started recording prior to 1800. These include the CEL, Debilt and NASA/Rimfost stations.
The most apparent discrepancies between the temperature & CO@ data is the lack of up & down variability of the CO2 plot(s), as compared to temperature swings, and these are in 100 years ranges. In these cases, the CO2 changes are almost non-existent. While there are some “lags” in responses to temperature and CO2, it is hard to believe that after some 25 years, one would see no correlation.
So in my case, I see no strong relationship to CO2 and global temperatures, and I would start looking for another “driver”.
Response:[DB] Fixed images.
Your comment is more appropriate to the CO2 is not the only driver of climate and/or the There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature threads. If you wish to further discuss this, please take it to the most appropriate thread. Thanks!
BTW, Image posting tips can be found here.
-
actually thoughtful at 13:31 PM on 6 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Human CO2; coal. -
actually thoughtful at 13:30 PM on 6 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Jigoro - if you are right that we won't accomplish CO2 mitigation, that is an indictment of the human race, not of Sphaerica - one of the ones fighting to accomplish the necessary reduction in CO2 to save the human race (and many, many species with no voice) from unnecessary pain. That pain will be large. You don't have to know how many stitches you will have to know that open heart surgery will be painful. The same is true of AGW. We know enough to know we need to repent (which means change our ways!) -
apiratelooksat50 at 13:26 PM on 6 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
at @ 385 and 386 The answer is: No, I have not. We are partially responsible for climate change. I still agree with that. Can you succinctly tell me what is causing the problem, and what the mitigation should be? -
apiratelooksat50 at 13:21 PM on 6 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
DB at 383 Why is Gore OT? I may have missed something somewhere.Response:[DB] With respect, this thread is about a discussion of John's article on being a genuine skeptic or a denier within the field of climate science.
It is not a discussion about Nazism, eco-fascism, new world orders, X-file conspiracies, abortion, the 2nd Law, God and the 10 Commandments, faked Apollo moon landings, LGM & BEM's, Area 51, the Asian Dawn movement, and all things Al Gore. All are equally devisive and polarizing in their own way. And all equally off-topic on this thread.
Thank you for your understanding.
-
actually thoughtful at 13:16 PM on 6 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
A pirate - have you refined your view of item 6 you posted earlier in this thread? -
actually thoughtful at 13:10 PM on 6 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Eric the Red and a pirate - the work of this thread was to come up with a statement that quickly separates the wheat from the chaff. Those of us who apply logic and reason (as opposed to an emotional "gee the truth is in the middle") get trapped by honestly acknowledging there are some open issues. We quickly add that the preponderance of evidence tell us to act. But deniers seize on the uncertainty and stop listening. We now have a statement, that if you agree with, it is clear you understand the issue, and if you disagree, you are a denier. No room for naval gazing gee what about whatever. There is a 100+ year body of evidence, and I don't know a subject that has been studied more thoroughly. **The body of evidence in climate change REQUIRES and active mitigation response.** I personally am very comfortable drawing a line in the sand at this point. Are you? If not, be intellectually honest and admit you are a denier. And own that your lack of action is pushing humanity towards a crisis we (as a civilization) may not recover from. -
RW1 at 13:08 PM on 6 June 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Jigoro Kano (RE: 1022), The diagram shows 161 W/m^2 shortwave incident on the surface, while the texts say 240 W/m^2. Using radiavite transfers equations, and starting text value of 240 W/m^2 solar input how you get to 390 W/m^2?" Good luck trying to convince anyone here of this, even though - as you say, the text of paper on page 6 clearly says the "Net Down" radiation equals the full post albedo (or at least to within 1 W/m^2). I've tried and have given up. Apparently, Tom Curtis and everyone here thinks they can create an additional 121 W/m^2 out thin air to justify that diagram (517 - 396 = 121) and that the surface can be receiving a net flux of 493 W/m^2 when it's only emitting 396 W/m^2. No one seems to be able to deduce that the incoming 78 W/m^2 from the Sun designated as "absorbed by the atmosphere" must get to the surface one way or another because the atmosphere cannot create any energy of its own and the Sun is the only source of energy in the system. Now, it doesn't all have to get there in the form of downward emitted LW radiation - some of it could get to the surface kinetically in the form of latent heat via precipitation, for example, but this just offsets energy that what would otherwise be radiated to the surface. -
adelady at 12:34 PM on 6 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
apla50 "Alarmists do as much damage to the public's perception of what may be a real problem as denialists." I both disagree and agree with this one. Firstly, there is a huge distinction between being 'alarmist' and talking about something that is alarming. Secondly, the most alarmist material I read tends to come from people who seem to think that life-as-we-know-it will end if we get our power from anything other than burning stuff we've dug up. In fact, I'd really like to see some serious work from this group. Accusing people of being 'watermelon' politically (or worse) does not enhance whatever valid reasoning such people have for warning us of what they see as alarming in the economic or political issues surrounding climate change. -
sailrick at 12:10 PM on 6 June 2011Humidity is falling
There is a great article on water vapor trends at Science of Doom, today. Water Vapor Trends – Part Two http://scienceofdoom.com/2011/06/05/water-vapor-trends-part-two/ -
apiratelooksat50 at 11:56 AM on 6 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Let's forget about the term denier for a moment, though historically it has been used to create a distasteful, immoral view of skeptics. And, it has most certainly in print been used in connection with Holocaust denial. Skeptics did not make that one up. It doesn't really ruffle my feathers coming from the likes of people who throw the term around as if it is a trump card in an infantile attempt to degrade skeptics. On the other hand, let's take the word alarmist. Alarmism is another extreme position which I would say is the opposite of denialism. Alarmists do as much damage to the public's perception of what may be a real problem as denialists. The exaggeration and distortion of real science in effect desensitizes the real public to what is really going on. Can any of you disagree with this statement: ( -Snip- ) is an alarmist.Response:[DB] To all: Gore is off-topic on this thread.
-
Bob Lacatena at 11:50 AM on 6 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
380, Eric the Red, There is a world of difference between gray areas in science (and yes, obviously science should progress, not stop... you're constructing strawmen) and gray areas that are merely used as excuses to delay, confuse and sew doubt. The merest suggestion that something else might affect climate? Another strawman. Obviously the science shows that many, many things affect climate. No one has ever said this (and that you say it is, I think, strong evidence that you are a denier -- it's another ridiculous denial tactic, to exaggerate the actual position of the science into a silly caricature). It has become a religion? Another strawman. Devalue the science, once again, by making it seem like understanding and acceptance of the science, or recognizing its import, is "a religion" or "a faith" or "a belief." As far as being appalled that there are those who take this research and twist it to accommodate their own beliefs... hooray! I finally got through to you. So you are ready to express this disapproval at any and every person who twists the science to accommodate their beliefs. Now do it. But the difference between the X-files and climate science are two. First, the X-files dealt with wild fantasy and the impossible. Second, in the X-files they were always in the dark, and very, very far from the truth. That is not the case with climate science today. Comparing the two is ridiculous. -
John Hartz at 11:48 AM on 6 June 2011Poleward motion of storm tracks
@adelady #6 Kudos for bringing some wry humor to this comment thread. -
Jigoro Kano at 11:38 AM on 6 June 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Tom Curtis @ 1019 No Tom, I an not comparing circuit watts to atmospheric temperature, or the increase thereof. Rather I'm comparing input watts to a circuit to input watts to the Earths surface. But to your circuit. If radiation is analogues to voltage not power, does that make GHG the analogues capacitors? You seem to contradict your own analogy at 2) when referencing input/output watts. The diagram is a itself is perplexing. The title alone Global Energy Flows W/m^2 is wrong. Shouldn't it be titled Power Distribution or Flux Allotment or something more accurate. The diagram shows 161 W/m^2 shortwave incident on the surface, while the texts say 240 W/m^2. Using radiavite transfers equations, and starting text value of 240 W/m^2 solar input how you get to 390 W/m^2?Response:[DB] Sorry, L.J., we've all been down this road before.
-
adelady at 11:23 AM on 6 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Eric the Red "After all, much of the climate research has wide ranges due to large uncertainties or unknowns which would render a black and white scenario unacceptable to us scientists." This is a forest versus trees argument. (And it's not black or white, it's a kaleidoscope.) When we look at a forest, there are lots of questions. We know that the mix of trees, creepers, undergrowth, birds, bugs, foraging animals, reptiles, moisture, soils, fungi are all important to the structure and health of the forest. How many tonnes of berries will the undergrowth produce this year? How many of the saplings on the western edge in 1991 have grown to full size? How many frogs in the NE pond? How many birdsnests are in the uppermost canopy? The answers will vary. Don't know, pretty good estimates, exact numbers, research not yet complete, very rough estimates, no money/ equipment for the research required, no idea, paper in course of publication - and all the other possibilities. Frogs, berries, birds, trees, these questions are important. But the answers don't really matter for the central issue. It's a forest. Same for climate change. All the uncertainties are in the details, not the basic physics which tell us the central answer. -
Eric the Red at 10:52 AM on 6 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Garethman, Your posts are a welcome relief to the hard-line position of some on this thread. I have suggested that people should be open to others opinions and beliefs, but have been shot down and called a denier just like you have. I believe that science should progress forward, not stop at someone's preconceived ideas. I also believe that the issue is not black and white as Sphaerica vehemently maintains, but rather gray. Afterall, much of the climate research has wide ranges due to large uncertainties or unknowns which would render a black and white scenario unacceptable to us scientists. There are those who are completely intolerant to the merest suggesting that there may be something else affecting climate besides CO2. TO them, it has become a religion. As opposed to your asdmission, I am a scientist, and well-researched in climate science. I am appalled that there are those who take this research and twist it to accommodate their own beliefs. A quote from the X-files: "The truth is out there." -
John Nicol at 10:47 AM on 6 June 2011Can we trust climate models?
I thought I had included a comment apologising to Dana and Tom Curtis for upsetting them with my comments, but don't see it now. Briefly this time: Sorry, I will be careful as to what threads I post to. Best wishes to you both, John -
Bob Lacatena at 10:35 AM on 6 June 2011An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
122, RW1, You are grossly misrepresenting the paper, and drawing your own conclusions based on a childishly limited approach to the system in question. I strongly suggest that if anyone thinks what you are saying may be true, they download and read the paper themselves. It's quite accessible and easy to read. I also suggest that they study a lot more about humidity, water vapor, clouds and all other background information required to even begin to understand the subject. Doing as RW1 is doing, and using "common sense" and everyman's views of humidity, clouds, and the system as a whole, is a trap for the unwary to fall into.
Prev 1663 1664 1665 1666 1667 1668 1669 1670 1671 1672 1673 1674 1675 1676 1677 1678 Next
