Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1672 1673 1674 1675 1676 1677 1678 1679 1680 1681 1682 1683 1684 1685 1686 1687 Next
Comments 83951 to 84000:
-
Tom Curtis at 10:20 AM on 3 June 2011CO2 limits will harm the economy
Sphaerica @27, a case can certainly be made that the rich benefit more in absolute monetary terms. I, however, would argue that the correct terms of analysis are in terms of utility gains (where "utility" is the technical term used in economics and ethical theory). As absolute income increases, utility gain per dollar increase in income declines, and quite sharply above a certain point. Just one example, in 2000 dollar terms, the difference between an annual income of $5000 and $10000 is the difference between a life expectancy of about 50 and about 75 (from memory). The difference between an annual income of $10000 and $50000 in contrast is only a difference of a life expectancy of around 75 to less than 85. So, in utility terms the gains of the poorer members of society from the transport system are massive. So also are those of the wealthier members of society. But it would take very careful analysis to decide who gained most in relative utility terms. -
Rob Painting at 10:18 AM on 3 June 2011Amazon drought: A death spiral? (Part 3: 2005 & 2010 droughts)
Many thanks Guillaume, and appreciate the heads up on the Marengo paper. -
voice of reason at 10:11 AM on 3 June 2011IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News
If you think there is a problem you will naturally want to do something about it. Meanwhile we're half way along the IPCC path already, we have almost half the doubling of 260ppm and as a result agreed increase in average temperature is 0.8C. That is the actuality, no future projections or complications. Take that as our known (as opposed to futurism). The 1C rise with no feedback is something which to my knowledge never expected the feedback to be delayed. In fact if this had been the case it would have made the prediction almost impossible as they were looking for a previously unseen and as a result unknown phenomenon. But as the expectation was a possible 2-400% increase over base level then as we now have an actual extrapolation heading way under the 2C rise for 2100 (I'm not sure why you use this point as we won't be here to know and as such is untestable and therefore unscientific). Therefore you are imagining an as yet absent positive feedback. Unless you can demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that this feedback may be delayed then you are not describing reality with the above mental exercises. -
Tom Curtis at 10:08 AM on 3 June 2011The Critical Decade - Part 2: Climate Risks
Ken Lambert @24, Hansen looks at the best 6 years of data we have to draw a conclusion, but considers the remaining data to be a reasonably accurate indication of what happened in those years. He also looks at the six year data for from 0-2000 meters plus other data for deeper than that. (-snipped-] on this site have tended to look at only the 0-700 meter data, and to argue that pre-2003 data should be totally ignored. The difference is that between a comprehensive analysis and cherry picking. -
Riduna at 09:54 AM on 3 June 2011IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News
Dr Jay displays such lack of information about clean energy that it is difficult to believe that he is either a “Dr” or a “PhD”. How about a bit of biography “Doctor” or is it all pretention? Anyone with the slightest knowledge of the consequences of a 3°-4°C rise in global temperature by 2100 will realize just how bad the bad news conveyed in this article is. It comes as no surprise that rather than reduce emissions with a view to achieving a tolerable CO2 concentration of 350ppm by 2100, we face the dual prospects of 800ppm and a climate so dangerous that it seriously damages human habitat. If we do not reduce our emissions significantly starting now “nature” will take care of the pollution problem by eliminating those responsible for it – which is almost all of us. Little wonder that the German Chancellor has decided to adopt a renewable energy future and that the UK had set an even higher emissions reduction target – 50% by 2027. However, unless all countries do likewise, forget a habitable planet. The message is clear, so is the course of action which can be taken to avert a bleak and short future. The only problem is that most governments are not prepared to heed the message or take timely action. Any suggestions on action needed and how to persuade governments to take it? -
Byron Smith at 09:43 AM on 3 June 2011The Critical Decade - Part 2: Climate Risks
Looks like an excellent report. My only gripe so far is that they didn't address the likely/possible effects on Australian agricultural production, though I understand such things are very difficult. Still, some mention of likely declines in crop yields at various temperature rises would be relevant to one of the major breadbaskets of the world. -
Muzz at 09:30 AM on 3 June 2011IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News
Don't worry about that red trend scientists. Be joyful about the fact that it'll be the best experiment yet to prove the AGW theory. -
Phila at 09:28 AM on 3 June 2011IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News
We have known we can harness the power of the sun for a very long time. Same with lightning. I have to add that it's ridiculous to conflate solar power and harnessing lightning. They present totally different engineering challenges, and we certainly have not "known for a very long time" that we can use lightning in place of fossil fuel energy. I'd hope that even the worst pro-FF zealot would be willing to concede that the problems with solar power are a lot more tractable. But if not, here's a hint: people are actually running their homes and businesses on solar power. Lightning, not so much. -
Ken Lambert at 09:26 AM on 3 June 2011The Critical Decade - Part 2: Climate Risks
michael sweet #22 "Jim Hansen draws a conclusion from 6 years of Argo dat abecasue that is all the data that is available." Quite right Michael. Jim Hansen seems to think it is legitimate to study and quote the Argo record by itself. Which I agree with because of its vast improvement in spatial coverage over prior methods. I would point out though, that if I do the same thing - Moderators and others on this site label me a 'cherry picker'. -
skywatcher at 09:21 AM on 3 June 2011IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News
When I see comments like #4, it is frustrating. Scotland's going for 100% renewable by 2020, and the UK government has made commitements for beyond 2020. I'm not saying it'll happen (politicians involved), but there is a big push in the renewables industry, including wind, wave and tidal installations aiming to provide 1GW of Scotland's target from northern Scotland. Regardless of the politics, the long-term aim is positive and reasonably achievable. With the technology rapidly being proven and deployed in places like Orkney and Islay, and the cost per watt dropping steadily, it's something to be optimistic about, despite the bad news on CO2 emissions. There is certainly everything to gain by being positive about the possibility of providing for our energy needs in a carbon-free way that does not require a constant supply of fuel from politically unstable countries. Prices are dropping, and are rapidly becoming competitive, and dana's car analogy is an excellent one here. Clearly the concern is the increase in CO2 emissions from India / China, and the lack of action in America, but we can only hope that as dirty fuel prices rise rapidly and renewables prices drop, the economics will make the transition to renewable energy as obvious a choise as the transition from horse to car... -
Bob Lacatena at 09:04 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
253, adelady, Absolutely, yes, and a very important distinction. "Skeptic" does not mean crotchety old man who won't believe anything unless he see it with his own two dang eyes. It means someone who is not instantly suckered in by the "obvious" statement (i.e. is not gullible), and instead waits to get more information, weigh the facts, and comes to his own, reasoned conclusion (or follows and accepts the reasoned conclusions of others). -
Bob Lacatena at 09:02 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
J Bob,They do.
You missed the point. If the land warms, and the oceans cool, then the mean temperature of the globe has not changed, and the reverse will eventually happen. When "natural variability" involves shuffling heat from here to there, it's not climate change (or rather, if prolonged, it's regional climate change), and it's not really changing anything. This is why most arguments for natural variability fail. It can't be as simple as "the oceans did it" or "ENSO did it." There has to be more to it than that. There has to be an explicable net change in the influx or outflux of energy in the system, or else it's just... magic. And I don't believe in magic. -
Phila at 09:01 AM on 3 June 2011IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News
Dr. Jay, PhD: Yet nobody has figured out how to capture or maximize this energy. Assuming you're being serious, you're in roughly the same position as someone looking at the Commodore PET and concluding that personal computers will never have enough memory to do anything worthwhile. In the real world, solar panel efficiency keeps increasing, and the cost keeps coming down, just as one would expect. (Oddly enough, we owe many of these developments to researchers in countries that aren't encumbered with a strong anti-science party.) You also overlook the fact that alternative energy has historically faced huge opposition from the same ideologues who now tell us that AGW isn't happening, or is beneficial (or, with their typical flexibility, both). They also seem to resist moving away from the incredibly inefficient incandescent bulb, or taking any other steps that would maximize the energy generated by fossil fuels. "Innovation," in these circles, seems to involve creating endless excuses for lying down in the path of progress. I know these folks are supposed to be the "optimists" on this issue, but if I shared their view of human ingenuity and intelligence, I'd be very tempted to throw myself off a bridge. -
adelady at 08:40 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Sorry. The Bob I referred to above was Sphaerica. -
adelady at 08:36 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
I think the real problem is with the word 'skeptic' itself. We often see people like Bob saying - if you were a skeptic you'd keep an open mind and continue seeking information. But the writing of self-described 'skeptics' is often much more in the doubting, distrustful, disbelieving, cynical, suspicious meanings given for the word 'skeptical' in a thesaurus rather than the questioning, open-minded meaning in common use by scientists. I don't know that there is any easy way to deal with this, but it's worth bearing in mind. When someone claims skepticism, are they seeking insight or information or are they exercising a habitual approach of doubt and suspicion? -
J. Bob at 08:34 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
scaddenp @ 246 says, "Forcings" is well-defined term for anything externality that affects the energy balance. Aerosols, solar, GHG, albedo. No forcing, no climate change. Just weather.”. So your saying, when the sun goes down, and the earth’s surface cools, that’s climate. Or when the earth’s NH is tilted away from the sun, in winter, that’s also climate. Guess one learns something every day, or season. You also say “Now, if current warming is heating due to say movement of energy from atmosphere to oceans, then why dont oceans cool. etc.”. They do. -
Riccardo at 08:34 AM on 3 June 2011IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News
It's ironic to discuss how to respond to the wake-up call with a skeptic which, by definition, is not willing to respond at all. -
KR at 08:32 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Sphaerica - A lovely illustration of an incorrect view. -
Bob Lacatena at 08:30 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
248, J. Bob, By the way, trying to bait people, or seed the implication that somehow "my dad is bigger than your dad" is a waste of everyone's time. My willingness or unwillingness to debate you an any particular issue doesn't make climate science any less true. -
Bob Lacatena at 08:29 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
248, J. Bob, What the heck are you talking about? Phrase a direct question, and I'll answer it. -
J. Bob at 08:16 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Sphaerica @235, I take it that’s a (can’t or won’t) no. -
Bob Lacatena at 08:14 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
All, This...
is not the nature of the climate debate.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is a denier, not a skeptic.
Response:[DB] All I got is dis.
-
scaddenp at 08:13 AM on 3 June 2011Amazon drought: A death spiral? (part 2:climate models)
Actually, I dont think ENSO is that relevant at all. What we do see is that La ninas now are producing warmer temperatures that El ninos of decades ago. Whether one or other predominates, what you can expect is that temperatures for the same index will get steadily higher. -
scaddenp at 08:09 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
J Bob. "Forcings" is well-defined term for anything externality that affects the energy balance. Aerosols, solar, GHG, albedo. No forcing, no climate change. Just weather. Claims of "its just to complicated" it just denial in the face of evidence that climate (not weather) is well accounted for by just those forcing. Explain how increasing energy input to surface by 2W/m2 is NOT going to cause more temperature rise. Likewise, even weather must be accounted for in terms of known energy flows. Internal energy flow from earth is measured in milliwatts, from sun in hundreds of watts so lets just stick with things that vary solar. Now, if current warming is heating due to say movement of energy from atmosphere to oceans, then why dont oceans cool. etc. etc. -
scaddenp at 08:01 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Eric(skeptic) - firstly I would like saw that I have valued your contribution here and wouldnt call you a denialist or pseudo-skeptic at all. Your respect for facts is refreshing. A couple of things though. How happy are you with content of Michaels "Climate of Extremes" (funded by Cato)? "I defend libertarian principles having carefully studied the lack of direct evidence for CAGW" CAGW is somewhat poorly defined. Is "CAGW" that same as likely predicted effects of climate change as reported in AR4? -
Bob Lacatena at 07:56 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
242, Eric,Interesting how you glossed over the part where you used net incoming radiation, but gross outgoing
I don't know what you are talking about here. 240 in, 240 out at TOA. 517 in at the surface, 517 out (from the surface, to the atmosphere or space). I obviously didn't sit and reiterate all of Trenberth's numbers (did I need to?), but I don't know what you mean by glossing over "net incoming" and "gross outgoing" because I really didn't go anywhere with any of that, and don't know why I should have. -
Bob Lacatena at 07:53 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
242, Eric, I'll ignore all of the condescending cr@p that implies that you actually understand the science. It's neither he nor there. Suffice it to say that your demonstrated understanding of the subject matter is not up to par. On pronouncements, your words: "The other question that is not being asked is..." My interpretation of this was that you feel climate science is somehow lacking by not pursuing all avenues, and in particular the one where you feel lies an excuse to ignore the rest of climate science, a magic bullet that will stand everything on its head and demonstrate why the warming won't ever be "that bad." If I misunderstood, I apologize, but it certainly looked (looks) like a backhanded slap at climate science and scientists. Again, if it wasn't, I apologize, but I'll blame my reaction on the tendency of deniers to frequently do exactly that -- impugn the science and the scientists at every turn, because presumably in their wisdom they know better....your belief that you are absolutely right...
No, my understanding, not belief, and not that I am "right," but rather that I understand the science and the facts as they currently stand. This is a common denier problem, equating every position with a "belief" (or opinion), because ultimately that's what denial positions amount to, so I imagine it's hard to imagine anything else. But it's not a "belief," any more than I believe in multiplication or I believe that the boiling point of water at 1 atmopshere is 100˚C. It's an understanding of the science, the facts, and the conclusions drawn by scientists, and an understanding of what can be wrong and how likely it is to be wrong, and why it is or isn't likely....what would it take for you to completely switch your position?
As I just got finished saying, I don't have a "position," I have an understanding of the science. Nothing is going to suddenly appear that reverses it all in one fell swoop. That's a typical denier dream, that "this [paper/idea/observation/discovery] is the final nail in the AGW coffin!" That's the Lindzen Iris effect, and Spencer's cloud feedback interpretation, and Svensmark's GCRs. It's all nonsense. So anything that adjusts the science by increments... a study here that points to lower climate sensitivity, a study there that identifies an as yet unconsidered negative feedback, another study there that better quantifies the cloud feedbacks. That will "change my position," by increments, over time, because "my position" is whatever the current state of climate science points towards. To be honest, my "position" is already constantly changing, because the science is constantly changing. Unfortunately, all of the reputable and worthy papers that I've seen in the past year have been worse, not better, with respect to climate change. The only papers I've seen that make the situation look better have turned out to be flawed (or misinterpreted and misrepresented by deniers). So I guess the best answer to the question you are really asking, "what would it take for me to think that climate change will not happen, or will not be worth mitigating" is probably years and years of cumulative research which ultimately (and very surprisingly) reverse much of what we understand today. -
Rob Honeycutt at 07:35 AM on 3 June 2011IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News
Jay... Our US Secretary of Energy Steven Chu came out a few weeks ago be believes that before the end of the decade solar will be competitive with coal... without subsidies. I would have to suggest this is not only clearly harnessing the power of the sun but also harnessing the power of the marketplace. -
dana1981 at 06:54 AM on 3 June 2011Database of peer-reviewed papers: classification problematics
Personally my opinion is that if a paper puts the most likely climate sensitivity value below 2°C for 2xCO2, it's neutral. Below 1.5°C I'd call "skeptic". But that's a tough call because the possible range of values would still significantly overlap with the IPCC range. So this is just my opinion. -
Composer99 at 06:53 AM on 3 June 2011IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News
We have known we can harness the power of the sun for a very long time. Same with lightning. Yet nobody has figured out how to capture or maximize this energy.
Dr Cadbury, surely you jest.Response:[dana1981] I'm assuming he only meant we don't know how to harness lightning, although I don't have the foggiest idea why that's the least bit relevant.
-
KR at 06:51 AM on 3 June 2011Database of peer-reviewed papers: classification problematics
Eric, quite correct on the topic point. Quite frankly, I don't know where that dividing line should be drawn. I would prefer placing them into categories of "correct", "incorrect", and "unproven" - with many of the anti-AGW papers being incorrect. The only neutral papers are those that aren't concerned with the climate. -
Eric the Red at 06:48 AM on 3 June 2011Database of peer-reviewed papers: classification problematics
KR, You are getting further OT. The point was about classification about papers. When does a paper cease to become pro-agw, and become neutral? -
dana1981 at 06:48 AM on 3 June 2011IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News
Jay - wow, that's by far the worst article I've ever seen on Salon."The scenarios with the most catastrophic outcomes of global warming are low probability outcomes."
By definition "the most" is going to be a low probability outcome. So let's just ignore the catastophic outcomes that aren't "the most" catastrophic? Absolutely horrible logic. That article is a prescription for disaster. I'm not exactly impressed by the logic "we're not doing it now therefore we can never do it", which is your argument in a nutshell. In the early 1900s, cars accounted for between 0 and 1% of transportation miles. I guess that's why they never made it big!"We have known we can harness the power of the sun for a very long time"
And we've been doing it for a long time. And the price of solar power is rapidly declining, set to be on par with fossil fuels in a few years (already cheaper than fossil fuels if you account for externalities). Of course I'm not exactly sure what any of this has to do with the blog post here. -
KR at 06:43 AM on 3 June 2011Database of peer-reviewed papers: classification problematics
Eric the Red - And why not just look at what those forcings are, and how much they are changing the current climate? Plenty of data on that, for example from NOAA, ESRL, NASA/Hansen, etc. Sensitivities to forcings are in the range 1.65°C to 4.5°C, most likely 3°C. This is supported by both models and empirical evidence, with that range shrinking over time with more data. The lower limit is both unlikely and very hard, the upper limit unlikely but less well determined. I really hate to say it, Eric, but your attempt to subdivide forcing percentages appears to me to be driving at minimizing the apparent importance of CO2. Sensitivity is to total forcing changes, including CO2, so (if all else remains the same) a CO2 change will induce just that much temperature change. And the same for a TSI change, an aerosol change, etc. You're attempting to re-define the vocabulary - that's really not kosher. -
Eric the Red at 06:43 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Bob, You may want to read up on RC. They had a nice series on albedo changes over the past couple millenia. Interesting how you glossed over the part where you used net incoming radiation, but gross outgoing during your snide attack. Are you dismissing all the work on cloud cover that has been occuring during the past decade? Maybe you should read up on some of it. There is a good correlation between increasing temperature and cloud cover, although admittedly mechanisms are only suggestive. I am sure the audience has gained entertainment value through your posts. Not sure what you meant about pronouncements. I do not doubt that you know more than self-proclaimed skeptics, it shows in your posts. What also shows is your belief that you are absolutely right, while others are misled. SO I will ask you this question, which I think you asked of someone else (although I could be mistaken), "what would it take for you to completely switch your position?" -
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. at 06:39 AM on 3 June 2011IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News
Additionally, I don't think anyone has put solar energy into perspective. We have known we can harness the power of the sun for a very long time. Same with lightning. Yet nobody has figured out how to capture or maximize this energy. @MattJ What are your thoughts on clean natural gas? -
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. at 06:35 AM on 3 June 2011IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News
@MattJ It is nice to see an advocate for nuclear power. I am disagreement with dana because I don't see 100% of our energy needs met with renewable energy. Below is an excellent article I read today. http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/05/31/linbd_fossil_fuels/index.html With renewable energy accounting for between 0 and 1%, I think it is a plastic banana dream to convert to 100% renewable. -
Bob Lacatena at 06:34 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
238, Eric, I missed this bit.BTW, the radiation is reflected back to space. Where else would it go?
Presumably you are referring to your "filter" effect. I didn't realize that was just another name for albedo, and I'm unsure why you separated the two (or did you, I'm all confused by your own personal climate science terminology). So, yes, if your "filter" is a mirror which reflects energy back into space, you're right, but what's your point? That the sun's energy can be reflected? Wait, that's it! What were we thinking? You've figured it all out. The earth is warming because of the "filter effect" being turned down. Or is your "filter" what I took it to mean based on the normal use of the word in English, something that traps something on the way through, such as trapping the energy of radiation in the atmosphere and preventing it from reaching the surface? But of course that would warm the atmosphere, and it would still have to get back out into space (maybe through evaporation? haha, that's a joke, by the way). I don't know. I'm all confused by your grand skeptic's science. Maybe I need to go study more, like you said. Let me go google some books on the "earth's energy filter," and how moving heat around to the poles will save us from global warming, and how those foolish climate scientists were too dang silly to think of and research something so obvious. -
Eric the Red at 06:29 AM on 3 June 2011Database of peer-reviewed papers: classification problematics
I disagree that measured results strongly suggest a total sensitivity of 3C. Some research has suggested higher, others lower. Getting back to my original question. If a paper was published with a lower forcing attributed to CO2, and higher attributed to the other factors. Let us put temperature numbers on it: 0.25C from CO2 increase, 0.2C due to an increase in solar radiation (or sunspots), 0.15C due to the UHI, 0.1C due to ENSO oscillation (this would become negative in the future turning from a peak to a trough), and 0.05C based on total land changes. Using this lower value attributed to CO2 would reduce the total sensitivity in your link. The only number useful for calculating climate sensitivity is that for CO2 (all feedbacks included). Forget everything else if it is confusing, and answer this quesiton. At what level of climate sensitivity would you say the paper moves from being pro-agw to neutral? -
scaddenp at 06:28 AM on 3 June 2011The Critical Decade - Part 2: Climate Risks
Gee you are quoting from K&D and suggesting VS isn't robust?! You can bet that a very comprehensive analysis is going to be published in time for inclusion in AR5 so that will be interesting. -
Bob Lacatena at 06:27 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Eric, 340 is what comes in. The earth's (average) albedo is 0.7. 340 * 0.7 = 238. This is what the surface of the earth sees, and what defines the temperature of the planet (minus greenhouse gases)....which might help you inderstand better.
You've got to be kidding me. You actually said that?...any change from the present could either increae or decrease the reflected radiation at the surface.
Yes, obviously. Sorry if I didn't go ahead and write 50 pages explaining every single detail of where you were or weren't wrong. But exactly where is this imagined change in albedo coming from, anyway?You are ignoring the even larger mechanism for removing heat; evaporation.
Even larger? Trenberth's energy budget, which was derived from observations, attributes 17 W/m2 to convection (thermals), 80 W/m2 to evapotranspiration/latent heat, and 390 to radiation. How does 80 compared to 390 become "the even larger mechanism?" But even then, evaporation can only get it from the surface higher into the atmosphere. The only way for the planet to shed heat is through radiation.Funny how you do not think...
Don't be foolish. The mechanism is far more complex than that. And don't play games by putting words into my mouth to try to make me look stupid. Again, I already wrote too much dismantling your ridiculous "insight." Backtracking now to try to make yourself look smart just looks desperate.The even funnier part is that you think you know everything about the Earth's climate...
No, I simply no more than self proclaimed skeptics who make such pronouncements not only about people who comment on blogs, but also about professional climate scientists (as you have done).Maybe you should read your posts thoroughly before submitting and realize some of what you say is ridiculous.
Sage words. My main point stands. There are almost no skeptics, only deniers, and they adopt that position long before they understand the science well enough to justify it. Thank you for providing a live demonstration for the audience at home and here in the studio. -
Bob Lacatena at 06:16 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
237, dhogaza, Hmpph. You may be right. Something that bizarre never even occurred to me. I thought it was a backhanded slap against GHG theory (i.e. "internal radiation"), but in retrospect, now I'm not even sure. Maybe by "energy source is the sun" he didn't even mean "the sun", but rather "the son".Response:[DB] Does that mean I can go on driving my tricked-out Jupiter 8?
-
Eric the Red at 06:12 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Sphaerica, Besides being snide, you can be very wrong also. Internal radiation contributed about 0.02% to the Earth's surface. I would call that very little. The incoming solar radiation is about 340, not 240 W/m2. Unless you were referring to the net incoming radiation, which is 240, but that is balanced by the net outgoing radiation which is also 240. Here is a graphic which might help you inderstand better. http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/radiationbalance.htm You seem to be confused on clouds and albedo also. Starting from a cloudless sky, then clouds can only decrease the incoming radiation. Any change from the current situation will either increase or decrease the incoming radiation, depending on the change. Then there is the added issue of smog. BTW, the radiation is reflected back to space. Where else would it go? Besides the minor issue of reflectance when talking about albedo, any change from the present could either increae or decrease the reflected radiation at the surface. You are ignoring the even larger mechanism for removing heat; evaporation. Of course you did get the part right about moving it to the upper atmosphere. Funny how you do not think that warm water in a cool atmosphere will radiate heat to the atmosphere more efficiently than in a warm atmosphere. Maybe it is just a coincidence that the North Atlantic is warmer during the warmer years. Maybe you should study more, instead of telling others. The even funnier part is that you think you know everything about the Earth's climate when even the best and brightest among us admit otherwise. Maybe you should read your posts thoroughly before submitting and realize some of what you say is ridiculous. -
dhogaza at 05:57 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Sphaerica: "Specifically (from Eric's comments, of which you faithfully approve): The primary energy source is the sun, with very little attributed from interenal radiation. No, the only energy source is the sun, and yet the comment about "very little attributed" in this context causes a clear violation of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics" I assumed the internal radiation bit was in reference to radioactive decay within the earth itself ... -
Bob Lacatena at 05:23 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
234, J. Bob, and 213, Eric, Just one more point on this statement:The most efficient means of removing added heat is to move it to the area which will result in the greatest removal, in our case, the poles.
This is tantalizingly funny, because you're right in being so wrong. The way to remove added heat is to move it in an area which will result in the greatest removal, in our case, the upper atmosphere. This is how the negative lapse rate feedback works. As the atmosphere warms, the higher layers get warmer, even though density does not change (i.e. less atmosphere higher up), although the warmer atmosphere will expand some. This results in the upper layers being warmer, and therefore radiating more, but without dense, intervening gas there to re-absorb and re-emit (some back down) as occurs at lower altitudes. Hence, with the upper atmosphere warmer, a warmer earth radiates more, and keeps cool. The negative lapse rate feedback defeats the greenhouse effect by bypassing the greenhouse gases. So you are right, in a way. You're just thinking in two dimensions (i.e. surface of the earth) instead of three, and purposely ignoring the important mechanisms (radiation) because they are repugnant to you. Still, all of this has been thought out more thoroughly by better educated minds than ours. I didn't think of this stuff, I just read it. Because I study, instead of just making stuff up to match my preferred conclusions. -
Bob Lacatena at 05:15 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
234, J. Bob,I’ve posted some personal analysis above, to back up my opinion, have you?
Hah, hah. Spare me the rhetorical attempt to start a fight, and the insinuation that I have nothing to say, because I'm not saying what you want to hear and the way you want to hear it. Pertaining to science, and (-SNIP-) the ignorance Eric expressed in his post #213... and this is a perfect, perfect example of exactly what I'm saying... you don't understand the issues and science on the most basic of levels, yet you feel you have the ability to (-SNIP-)[declare] the truth of something that is incontrovertibly, flat out wrong, and ill-conceived to boot. Specifically (from Eric's comments, of which you (-SNIP-) approve):The primary energy source is the sun, with very little attributed from interenal radiation.
No, the only energy source is the sun, and yet the comment about "very little attributed" in this context causes a clear violation of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. The earth receives on average 240 W/m2 from the sun, but is at a temperature which radiates (and this has been measured) about 390 W/m2. So where is the other 150 W/m2 coming from, and how do you possibly agree with the descriptor "very little" to describe 150 of 390 (almost half).It is not a question of an energy source, rather of an energy filter (clouds) and energy absorber (albedo).
Albedo refers to reflection (lack of absorption), but that minor quibble aside, how do either of these mechanisms increase the temperature of the planet? Each can only decrease it. And what is an "energy filter," other than absorption by the atmosphere, and what is the scientific rationale for limiting such an effect to clouds, or even attributing the lions share to clouds? What does this actually mean, anyway? After the radiation is "filtered" where does it go? It just vanishes? The statement is flat out wrong in so many ways that it would take pages to explain. But in a nutshell, it's not a question of some artificial "filter" concept or albedo (another well measured quantity), but of... hold on, you're not going to like this... greenhouse gas radiation.The other question that is not being asked is what natural processes (if any) will work to alleviate the additional heat.
What do you mean not being asked? What makes you think all aspects of the climate system are not being studied? This is just made-up garbage like you see at WUWT, with no foundation whatsoever... and it is flat out wrong. But in a nutshell, the negative lapse rate feedback and anthropogenic aerosols appear to be the two main negative feedbacks which are or will keep warming in check, and the day that fossil fuel consumption slows, so do the aerosols, and the warming will actually get even worse.The most efficient means of removing added heat is to move it to the area which will result in the greatest removal, in our case, the poles.
This is also foolish nonsense. Heat is only removed from the system through radiation. What would make the poles better at radiating heat? What is even the point of a statement like this... that the fact that a warming planet warms most at the poles is going to cool the planet? This is exactly the kind of half-baked science that exemplifies what I'm saying, that self-proclaimed skeptics are perfectly happy with taking the science and logic only 1/4 (1/10th? 1/100th?) of the way to a conclusion, and then stop there, and to assume that professional scientists have not already taken this a hundred times further than you have, and arrived at and published logical, supportable conclusions that you cannot refute with mere whimsical half-thinking on blog comments. Go study.Moderator Response: [e] Please try and tone down the inflammatory bits, especially the implication of religiosity -
KR at 05:12 AM on 3 June 2011Database of peer-reviewed papers: classification problematics
Eric the Red - Please note that the various measures (as opposed to models) of climate sensitivity do not care which feedback is which. All they do is measure temperature change in response to forcings, total climate sensitivity. And those measured results (see this link, under "Climate sensitivity from empirical observations") strongly support a total sensitivity of 3°C for a doubling of CO2, or ~0.8°C for a 1 W/m^2 forcing. While we may not agree on how large individual trees are, we have a very good idea of the size of the forest. -
Eric the Red at 04:52 AM on 3 June 2011Database of peer-reviewed papers: classification problematics
Calling it "wrong" was not the purpose of this exercise, nor very meaningful. Since the climate sensitivity is derived from the warming effect of CO2, stating it as the effect that an increase of CO2 has on global temperatures is not "radically different." I was curious as to what people might think if the response to CO2 was presented as lower, while natural effects were presented as larger, while keeping CO2 at the top fo the list. I fully understand that the climate sensitivity is the final effect after all feedbacks are included, both positive and negative. The net feedback is the additional change caused by the original effect. In your post, the net feedback would be 2. Physics says the direct effect from a doubling a CO2 is about 1. Adding the effect from the increase in water vapor attributable to the increase in temperature usually results in a climate sensitivity of 1.8. After that, the calculations diverge significantly, primarily due to the treatment of clouds. If the other forcings resulted in a 1C cooling, then the feedbacks would also multiple the total to 3C. Papers have been published showing higher values for the other forcings than I presented. All I did was put them all together into one imaginary scenario. -
J. Bob at 04:41 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Sphaerica @ 221 says, “So do everyone a favor, instead of responding with an outraged diatribe, stop posting comments, and start reading.”. Outraged diatribe? Am I missing something? I’ve posted some personal analysis above, to back up my opinion, have you? -
Utahn at 04:36 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Eric(skeptic): "The tobacco analogy is too stretched and now broken." No, maybe in terms of generic funding of Cato specifically, but if specific instances of funding other groups or programs within Cato that relate to climate disinformation occur (not saying that they have definitely occurred, but I think it would be likely), the analogy would be exact. Exxon has their scientists tell them the truth, then proceed to fund the deceiving of the public. As a side interest, that was a pretty interesting article, as I had no idea that at least some at Cato agreed with Jim Hansen about "confiscating property": "Negative externalities are costs that are not borne by the party in charge of the process that creates them. For example, the owner of a smoke-spewing factory does not fully bear the costs associated with the smoke, stench, and health risks his factory produces; many of those costs are foisted onto the factory’s neighbors. When conduct involves negative externalities,participants will tend to engage in that conduct to an excessive degree, for they bear the full benefits, but not the full costs,of their activities. Quite often, then, government intervention(e.g., taxing the cost-creating behavior or limiting the amount permitted) may be desirable as a means of ensuring that the cost-creator does not engage to an excessive degree in the conduct at issue." Maybe they're more reasonable than I thought...
Prev 1672 1673 1674 1675 1676 1677 1678 1679 1680 1681 1682 1683 1684 1685 1686 1687 Next
