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:
-
scaddenp at 14:38 PM on 2 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Eric, that is an interesting statement. Would you continue to fund CATO if you became convinced that it was funding disinformation? -
dhogaza at 14:19 PM on 2 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Eric(Skeptic) makes false statements about Hansen in order to promote his faux outrage at being indirectly libeled. Precious... -
J. Bob at 14:18 PM on 2 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
KR @ 102 & 127, Interesting history of climate4you, but as I noted, I use them as a convenient source of basic data. sites (Hadley, HadCRUT, GISS, etc.), since I prefer to do my own analysis. In the long term temperature plots presented above (J. Bob @ 52), data from Hadley, Debuilt and Rimfrost formed the basis of this ~300 year analysis view. Rimfrost was picked up from WUWT, as I have no problem using sources that provide quality information, be it WUWT, RC or whatever. The above mentioned figures are only part of a more extensive set used to evaluate long term measured temperature changes. But those figures, seem to sum it up for me anyway, that there is a long term upward trend stretching back to the 1700’s, with various up’s & down’s (including ~50 year almost periodic cycles) along the way. But I don’t see a prominent effect of man induced CO2. What I do see, is a terribly complex non-linear system, that we are only beginning to scratch the surface on, and have a long way to go. Hence my feeling is that were are probably in a natural cycle, with some, yet to be qualified, effect do to human intervention. Your thoughts. -
jyyh at 14:16 PM on 2 June 2011Poleward motion of storm tracks
And of course this isn't an isolated phenomenon though relevant in our latitudes... a small tornado observed just yesterday at ~62N. Hadley cell response: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.143.9016&rep=rep1&type=pdf storm intensification over southern ocean: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n12/abs/ngeo362.html -
Tom Curtis at 14:15 PM on 2 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Eric(Skeptic) @169, I'll pause for a moment to ponder the irony of your accusation that Hansen libelled the CEOs of fossil fuel corporations. It is ironic in that it is itself a libel, and (as I understand the law) Hansen's testimony to Congress cannot be a libel even if it were false, for it is protected by privilege. (I'm not a lawyer, still less an American lawyer, so I may well be wrong on that point). More importantly, Hansen's claims are not libellous because they are true. In particular, various fossil fuel companies have funded the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and Patrick Michaels. They also funded the Global Climate Coalition, and in doing so, it turns out, they acted against the advise of their own scientists. As to your criminal status, are you claiming that you are knowingly obfusticating the issue? In this case ignorance of the facts, while puzzling, and irrational, is a defence. -
Bibliovermis at 13:33 PM on 2 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Eric (skeptic) / Dana1981 (#169), Exxon openly admits that it funds CATO and climate-specific public policy organizations, such as the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (CO2science.org). ExxonMobil: Public Information and Policy Research Contributions (pdf) -
pbjamm at 13:15 PM on 2 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
LJ, Do you have anything constructive to add to the discussion or are you only interested in baiting rationalists? -
L.J. Ryan at 13:08 PM on 2 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
e 171 Got it e...I'll make adjustments which meet your approval...I think. But cyber stalking, what the "heck" are talking about?Response:[DB] Try reading the Comments Policy, which spells that out for you. Focus on the science, not the individual.
-
L.J. Ryan at 12:01 PM on 2 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Sphaerica, DB, e, Lets see: Skeptics are Holocaust deniers, L.J. Ryan will believe in climate change when you pry the gas can from his cold, dead fingers. To be very clear, it is not the production of fossil fuels alone which potentially makes the CEOs of fossil fuel companies guilty of crimes against humanity, rather, it is the deliberate and knowing dissemination of misinformation the probable, and subsequent consequence of which is mass deaths. And my comments are too controversial (-SNIP-)...or do you fear loosing the undecided readers? Which of the Comment Policies did my deleted posts violate?Moderator Response: [e]Accusations of deception, idealogical rants and comparisons to religion, as well as cyber stalking.
In general this thread has a bit more leeway due to the subject matter, but your deleted comments crossed the line. Note that cyber stalking is especially frowned upon, and typically results in banning. Please use this as a guideline for what is acceptable in the future.
-
Eric (skeptic) at 11:51 AM on 2 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Tom, the parts of Hansen's quote that I left out and you put back make a case of libel by Hansen even stronger. The "crimes against humanity" include funding for textbooks. Does he have factual examples of such funding?* Otherwise it is not his first amendment right to accuse people of crimes, it is simply libel (calling it "opinion" was not deemed a defense by the Supreme Court). HIs motive is clear, he wishes to confiscate the property of those companies for what he deems to be a greater good. His method is clear: accuse them of nonspecific crimes using guilt by association with the tobacco companies. * I consider a reply such as "Exxon funded CATO" is a direct accusation against me to be either a small-time criminal or a useful idiot, since I am a long-time CATO sponsor at $100-200 per year.Response:[dana1981] Um, Exxon has funded Cato. That's not an accusation, it's a fact.
-
Bern at 11:48 AM on 2 June 2011The Critical Decade - Part 2: Climate Risks
Ken, if you're a genuine sceptic, then you will have skin thick enough to ignore comments such as SouthWings (which I expect the moderators may soon notice & perhaps do something about). On the other hand, your call to 'address the numbers' is quite appropriate. The post above yours, by scaddenp, does just that, and asks you for the OHC reconstructions that you're referring to in your earlier post. I'd like to see them too, because claiming there has been zero OHC buildup over the past decade or so is an extraordinary claim, and I'm sure you know what that requires. Note that we're interested especially in deep ocean heat, not just surface waters, as per Trenberth's paper that dana1981 linked in the reply to your post up above. -
Tom Curtis at 11:15 AM on 2 June 2011Ljungqvist broke the hockey stick
RyanStarr @7, if you look closely at the red line on the graph, you will see small circles indicating each decadal average. The 10 year difference, and the additional extension on the graph compared to that printed by Lungqvist is the range between the last circle, and the second last circle, or about 0.35 degrees C. The error in Lungvist's reconstruction in the final decade, as is easily determined from the NOAA data, is only 0.332 degrees. It should be noted that the upper limit of the 90% confidence interval peaks at 0.377 in the middle ages (950-959). That is 0.011 degrees less than the instrumental record for the 1990s, and over 0.4 degrees less than the instrumental record for the 2000s. Even allowing an allowing an error in the 950s as large as that in the 1990s, the temperature anomaly (reconstructed plus 1990s error) is still only 0.528 degrees, still around 0.3 degrees below the level of the 2000s. The probability that any decade in the last 2010 years has been hotter than the 2000s is very remote. I do not know where to find the Hadcrut 90 to 30 degree index, but out of curiosity I compared the 1990-1999 average with the 2000-2009 average. The difference is 0.243 degrees. As that includes the tropics, which are noted for much lower increase in temperature, the 0.35 degree increase for the extratropics is very plausible. If you doubt it, the onus is on you to look up the extratropical data and make a comparison. -
Bob Lacatena at 10:49 AM on 2 June 2011Amazon drought: A death spiral? (part 2:climate models)
13, 20, Michael Hauber, Trends are very, very sensitive to end point selection. As it turns out, the late seventies through about 1989 saw an extended period of El Nino activity, so any starting point in that range is going to make it look like a flat or negative trend (i.e. you're starting warm). At the same time, 2010 began with an El Nino and ended with a La Nina, so it matters whether you pick the 2010 calendar year, or something else. For example, try this link to see the trend for 1975 (a mild La Nina) to 2009 Nov-Oct, which would end prior to the 2010 El Nino, and shows a mild but clear warming trend. I'm not saying that's the right trend to pick. I'm saying it's sensitive to end points, and as such maybe looking at sea surface temps isn't the right way to do it at all. Looking at pure ENSO graphs might be better (but you still have to understand what you're really looking at, of course):
or this
But the trend towards more El Nino's in the last 30 years seems pretty clear (which explains your level or dropping temperature trend... if it's always El Nino, then it's going to look flat or negative).
-
scaddenp at 10:42 AM on 2 June 2011The Critical Decade - Part 2: Climate Risks
KL - I missed something. As far as I know, Von Schuckmann and La Traon is the only published estimate of 0-2000 OHC for the Argos period, and that was a discussion paper on precision of ocean indicators. What other OHC constructions are you referring to and have they been published yet? I know of older 0-700m estimates. -
Tom Curtis at 10:32 AM on 2 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Eric(Skeptic) @145, I think a fair minded casual reader would recognise that it is unethical to use a quotation out of context in order to attribute to a person a more extreme view than that which he actually holds. Hansen testified before Congress that:"... Solution of the climate problem requires that we move to carbon-free energy promptly. Special interests have blocked transition to our renewable energy future. Instead of moving heavily into renewable energies, fossil companies choose to spread doubt about global warming, as tobacco companies discredited the smoking-cancer link. Methods are sophisticated, including funding to help shape school textbook discussions of global warming. CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature."
(My emphasis) A fair minded person would recognise that deliberate deception which probably will, and subsequently does result in death is, or should be a crime. If I knowingly advise you that a nearby acid bath is in fact a pool of water, and encourage you to dive in, should you dive in I am ethically responsible for your death, and should be tried for murder. The probable consequences of global warming include hundreds of thousands, potentially billions of premature deaths. Deliberate and knowing deception that leads to hundreds of thousands of deaths is mass murder, ie, a crime against humanity. That the deaths will probably occur decades after the act is of no consequence. Hansen believes that the CEOs of fossil fuel companies know that global warming is caused by the burning of fossil fuels, and that it will cause the death of thousands. I am not certain that they do know that, and doubt such a claim would stand up in a court of law in the absence of revealing internal documentation as was found in the tobacco companies. What I do know is that the CEOs of fossil fuel companies have no excuse for not recognising the possible consequences of fossil fuel use from 1990 (publication of the IPCC First Assessment Report) and its probable consequence by 2001 (the IPCC Third Assessment Report). I also know that they have funded organisations which are major disseminators of denier misinformation, and several cases the same organizations that disseminated (and where paid to disseminate) misinformation for the tobacco lobby. There is at least a prima facie case that the fossil fuel industry has acted in the way Hansen describes. Therefore his opinion is rational, if probably unsustainable in court. To be very clear, it is not the production of fossil fuels alone which potentially makes the CEOs of fossil fuel companies guilty of crimes against humanity, rather, it is the deliberate and knowing dissemination of misinformation the probable, and subsequent consequence of which is mass deaths. A fair minded person might doubt the evidence is sufficient to conclude the CEOs have acted in this way, but they would not doubt there is evidence to suggest that they have, and nor do I believe they would doubt that such activity should be criminal. What the fair minded reader also would conclude is that, apparently, you have truncated the context of Hansen's quote in order to make his opinion seem more extreme. They would consider that unethical, because plainly it is. It is possible, of course, that you have merely made the accusation against Hansen without checking the context. The fair minded reader would probably find making accusations on partial information also unethical. Finally, the fair minded person would probably consider making accusations of crimes against humanity against people for accepting, and acting on the consensus of 97% of experts in a field, with no forseeable consequent deaths is unacceptable. They would probably be even more appalled when such accusations are made to an audience, a significant number of whom are known to be sending death threats to prominent people whose opinions they disagree with. They might consider such accusations a form of incitement. But that is exactly the accusation that Christopher Monckton has made against former Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd. -
The Critical Decade - Part 2: Climate Risks
Ken >"Why would Jim Hansen draw a conclusion from a 6 year period at all? Maybe he thought it was significant.", The problem arises when you blindly extrapolate short term trends to draw conclusions about the long term without considering the underlying physics. That does not imply that one cannot analyze short term periods at all, which would be a ridiculous claim. You are also confusing "statistically significant" with "significant" as in important or noteworthy. Six years are not enough to establish a statistically significant long term global trend, and Hansen never claimed otherwise. That does not mean that those years are unworthy of study or discussion. You are conflating two distinct concepts and arguing a strawman. -
Ken Lambert at 09:55 AM on 2 June 2011The Critical Decade - Part 2: Climate Risks
Dan Olner & Dana1981 If your mildly amusing sarcasm can allow for a peek into the world of logic, you might conclude that Jim Hansen is also discussing 'short term' variation - in this case 2005-11 - a 6 year period of OHC reduction. Why would Jim Hansen draw a conclusion from a 6 year period at all? Maybe he thought it was significant. [ -inflammatory comment snipped-] -
Stephen Baines at 09:38 AM on 2 June 2011Ljungqvist broke the hockey stick
Looking at those noaa data...The proxy values and the measured temps agree up until the last point when the reconstruction underestimates the measured temps extratropical temps by >0.3 C! Evidence of proxies failing now in the face of warming? There was also a 0.2C jump from 1990-2000 (the last year of shared record) to 2000-2010 in HadCrut NH. The fact that the extratropical data will have larger anamolies than the NH data contributes even more to the discrepancy. In any case, the current measured decadal NH anomalies (>0.5C) are clearly well above any reconstructed values. And the extratropical values will differ even more. I don't see what RyanStarr is complaining about. -
Ken Lambert at 09:20 AM on 2 June 2011The Critical Decade - Part 2: Climate Risks
michael sweet #12 The 11 year Solar ripple has an amplitude of about 0.25W/sq.m top to bottom. From a mean, it can only account for half that amplitude - 0.13W/sq.m reduction in the imbalance. The total reduction of the imbalance is 0.31W/sq.m so Solar minimum accounts for less than half. Don't forget that Hansen's 0.59W/sq.m is based on the Von Schukmann OHC construction which is far from robust. Other OHC constructions approach zero. Let me know when China and India stop buying Australian coal to turn into CO2 and aerosols. China is opening the equivalent of Australia's total coal fired capacity EVERY YEAR for the next 10 years. Could someone explain to a person not born in the 1980's (me) what is 'trolling'? I have not completed a course in SKS-speak.Response:[DB] "Could someone explain to a person not born in the 1980's (me) what is 'trolling'? I have not completed a course in SKS-speak."
From the Wiki:
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
Note that any SkS usage is the same as above.
-
Michael Hauber at 09:13 AM on 2 June 2011Amazon drought: A death spiral? (part 2:climate models)
I still see a cooling trend for the main nino tongue even when trending from 1974. Considering that 74 was the start of a very strongue multi-year cool event, and the world as a whole has warmed up significantly since 1974, I think the cooling is quite significant, even though it doesn't look like much. The cooling tongue and doesn't really cover the nino 3.4 region, but I bet the areas in the east that it does cover are the ones most important for Amazon rainfall. And by cooling tongue I include all the white area which in absolute terms is neither cooling, or warming, but relative to the rest of the world is cooling.
-
dhogaza at 08:44 AM on 2 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
And I am of the opinion that the Washington Generals would beat the Miami Heat four straight in a seven game series if they ever met on the basketball court. In fact, I'm willing to bet Adrian Smits' life savings on that! -
Bob Lacatena at 08:33 AM on 2 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
163, adrian smits, Okay, now that's really interesting. You are of the opinion that... Doesn't that strike you as funny? Read the words. Opinion. As if you get to believe whatever you want, as in choosing a religion or a political candidate to support. You do understand the problem here, don't you? Do you think maybe you could quell that opinion for a while, and instead invest a goodly amount of time into researching the facts, so that you can ultimately replace that opinion with, oh, I don't know, maybe a confident understanding of the situation, and the likely (not desired) outcomes? -
scaddenp at 07:58 AM on 2 June 2011Ljungqvist broke the hockey stick
Well I checked the Ljungqvist data at noaa and its definitely through to 2000. The overlay doesnt match HadCrut NH 2000-2010 but you expect extratropical to be higher. I cant find an easy way to extract that time series. -
JMurphy at 07:53 AM on 2 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Let's see the evidence for your opinion, adrian smits. -
adrian smits at 07:46 AM on 2 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
I am of the opinion that negative feed backs will limit the long term contribution of co2 doubling to one third of its actual forcing in the atmosphere! That would amount one third of one degree C by 2100.There would of course be an additional amount of warming from another doubling in another 300 years but that would require every every barrel of oil and ton coal on the planet.Somehow I don't see that as very likely!Response:[DB] Unless you can offer up some physics-based mechanisms to justify said opinions you are telling us that you are a climate denier. Given that the climate has already warmed from pre-industrial CO2 levels by more than your vaunted one-third of 1° C.
Is that correct?
-
scaddenp at 07:35 AM on 2 June 2011Amazon drought: A death spiral? (part 2:climate models)
Its interesting watching those models Rob. Last month only one model was predicting El Nino. Now its nearly half. The variance in opinion suggests some really fundamental differences even in the physical models. It looks like a fascinating area to be be working in. -
Chris G at 07:29 AM on 2 June 2011The Critical Decade - Part 2: Climate Risks
This will might brighten your day, not. Prospect of limiting the global increase in temperature to 2ºC is getting bleakerResponse:[dana1981] Indeed, we have a post on this bleak news coming in the very near future. Stay tuned.
-
scaddenp at 07:29 AM on 2 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
"I don't know what evidence would be sufficient for a denier at this level." That's the reason I asked - there is absolutely no point having discussions with anyone (Poptart springs to mind) who can imagine no evidence that would change their mind (or demand that climate theory comply with predictions that it doesnt make). On the other hand, for more open-minded people, this is a very good (the scientific) way to think about the issues involved. A lot of denial is rooted in political values (anti-Gore, anti-greenie, stinking taxes, World gov'nment) and its interesting to see whether such people can consider the hypothetical question of what action should be done if they were convinced it was true. I'm hoping that from such discussions, we might actually find effective policy directions that are acceptable to conservative/right wing values. -
Bob Lacatena at 07:24 AM on 2 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
L.J. Ryan will believe in climate change when you pry the gas can from his cold, dead fingers. And even then he'll still insist that it wasn't due to CO2, because that would violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, you know, the one that says deniers can apply any hard science and mathematics they like, as long as they do so incompletely and with a flawed understanding, because to actually understand and apply the science properly would lead to the wrong conclusion (i.e. the correct, real-world, truthful conclusion that they don't want to reach, no matter what the cost). -
pbjamm at 07:19 AM on 2 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
This 'conversation' is incoherent. -
Rob Painting at 07:13 AM on 2 June 2011Amazon drought: A death spiral? (part 2:climate models)
Alexandre - Actually I do remember a study that specifically references southern Brazil, see if I can track it down. -
Stephen Baines at 07:12 AM on 2 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
L.J. Obviously e meant dhogaza. -
L.J. Ryan at 07:08 AM on 2 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
e 154 Ah e Sphaerica's point is skeptics are(Deniers)and equating skeptics to Holocaust deniers. No mention of CO2 lasers.Response:[DB] e meant Dhogaza. Please return to being on-topic.
-
DSL at 06:53 AM on 2 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Thanks, KR. This is a closed mind. No possible engagement. -
KR at 06:48 AM on 2 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Moderators - I'm noting the other blog threads here because I was personally involved in discussing this topic with L.J.Ryan in both locations. -
KR at 06:45 AM on 2 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Note - L.J. Ryan has spent quite a bit of time here (on the 2nd Law thread) and upon Jonova (two different 2nd law threads where Jo Nova pointed out quite correctly that there is no conflict with the greenhouse effect) insisting that, no, indeed, the radiative greenhouse theory is thermodynamically impossible. This is denial, not skepticism, asserting things that are flatly contradicted by the world around us. scaddenp, I don't know what evidence would be sufficient for a denier at this level. -
Stephen Baines at 06:41 AM on 2 June 2011CO2 only causes 35% of global warming
Trunkmonkey...Fig three in that Le Quere et al paper does not depict sources and sinks areas for CO2, but rather the difference in rates of change in CO2 over time in the ocean and atmosphere at those points. For a general map of source and sink areas you'd be better off looking at this. You also have your CO2 sink and source waters mixed up. The THC moves warm salty water to the north Atlantic where it cools and sinks. The North Atlantic is a sink for atmospheric CO2 because, as the Gulf Stream cools on it's northward trek, it absorbs more CO2 from the atmosphere before sinking. Algae also grow there seasonally, taking up CO2 eventually sinking to depth where they decompose. Tropical upwelling regions are sources of atmospheric CO2 because deep water that is cold and has high CO2 warms after reaching the surface, resulting in the release of CO2 to the atmosphere. The only way this doesn't happen is if algae growing on the nutrients contained in that water suck up the CO2 before it has a chance to escape. The deep water has high CO2 because it was cold when it sank (as in the North Atlantic) and because CO2 from respiration of sinking organic matter builds up over time. The fact that the ocean has source and sink regions is largely moot to your question though. Under steady atmospheric CO2, the source and sink regions balance each other - they represents CO2 being shuffled around, nothing more. When atmospheric CO2 increases, that balance between sources and sinks shifts. More CO2 gets absorbed by the mixed layer all over the ocean. More also gets absorbed by cooling surface waters that form deep water. Less CO2 is lost when cold water upwells and warms. The ability of the ocean to absorb more CO2 as atmospheric CO2 concentrations increase is a matter of physical chemistry. You can't get around it without violating some basic law or another. The only serious scientific question (and we're going back to the 1950s, here) was whether the ocean sink could keep up with emissions. The answer was a resounding no. If you absolutely need a telling observation, a warming ocean that is becoming acidic must be absorbing CO2. Normally when the ocean warms its pH increases as it gives up CO2 to the atmosphere. The fact that the ocean is warming and declining in pH is a sure sign that CO2 is following the concentration gradient into the ocean. -
scaddenp at 06:25 AM on 2 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
L.J. Ryan, how about telling us what evidence in say 10 years time would convince you that you were wrong? (ie. convince us that your opinions about the world are based on data). -
L.J. Ryan at 06:01 AM on 2 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
DB 152 & Rob Honeycutt 151 Understanding CO2 is no more important then understanding juggling, coffee beans, or why canines like peanut butter. The issue, how GHG physics radiative insulation,re-radiation warms the surface. CO2 laser (not of my introduction)a have nothing to do with atmosphere CO2...that's my point. ( - Complaint about moderation snipped - )Moderator Response:[e] The comment policy of this site has already been clearly pointed out to you. Any comments that violate this policy will be trimmed or deleted.
Sphaerica'sDhogaza's point is that CO2 lasers function due to the radiative properties of CO2, the understanding of which is a component of atmospheric physics and climate models. Now, please get back on topic. -
Eric (skeptic) at 05:05 AM on 2 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Thanks dhogaza, but I was asking what Tom's hypothetical "fair minded casual reader" would think. That means we have to agree on the mindset of an FMCR. I'm pretty sure that an FMCR would not equate the death threat with the accusation of criminality, but I asked whether the FMCR would find them both unacceptable. I hope that clarifies. -
L.J. Ryan at 04:54 AM on 2 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
JMurphy 150 What is the question?Response:[DB] Let's assume you are confused and not being intentionally obtuse:
Dhogaza pointed out that the physical properties of CO2 are extremely well understood.
You answered by asking "So what's your point?"
JMurphy wanted to know what your point was in asking Dhogaza "So what's your point?".
Do you have one? If not, let's let this drop.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 04:28 AM on 2 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
L.J. Ryan... I think dhogaza's point is quite clear. He's saying the properties of CO2 are extremely well understood. -
trunkmonkey at 04:26 AM on 2 June 2011CO2 only causes 35% of global warming
Dikran Marsupial @6. As much relief as it is to be exonerated from lying, it is still a disappointment to remain a simpleton for not understanding that a large amount of CO2 essentially sequestered amongst hordes of H2Ov molecules in the lower troposphere is "entirely irrelevant to the greenhouse effect"; particularly as I wasn't discussing the greenhouse effect, but rather possible ways CO2 might contrtol water. I was trying to suggest (however crudely)that the lower troposphere is probably not a good place to look. Thanks for Le Quere 2009. Fig 2d does show a slight trend in increased ocean uptake, but it is from a model simulation, and the unexplained residual (2e) is greater than the trend. I was more interested if Fig 3 where actual measurements show CO2 outgassing in the circum antarctic beltway, the gulf stream, and the Indo Pacific warm pool that has garnered so much interest recently. It shows CO2 uptake in the northern Pacific. Imagine the THC superimposed on this map. The THC redistributes the cold salty Arctic/Atlantic (and the Antarctic) bottom water to the Pacific and Indian oceans. The net SST effect is to warm the Atlantic and cool the Pacific and Indian Oceans. The areas of outgassing in Fig 3 are the warm surface currents of the THC. (IMO the Indo Pacific warm pool is simply a backup of the Pacific return warm current at the restriction of Micronesia) Trunkmonkey prediction: Further data will show that the Indian Ocean, particularly whichever side of the IOD the cold water us upwelling on, will be a sink for CO2.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] You asked "How do you know the oceans are a carbon sink and not a source?" the graph shows the ocean to be a considerable sink in absolute terms, the downward trend is a second order issue, so I don't know why you are fixating on the trend. Whenever the line is below zero, the oceans are a sink, whatever the slope of the line may be. You need to learn the basics first, that the oceans are a net sink is pretty basic. -
Paul D at 04:26 AM on 2 June 2011The Critical Decade - Part 2: Climate Risks
okatiniko "You live in a huge country : do you have any idea of how travelling across it without oil for instance ?" That is the point. You don't travel as much without the energy. Is there a problem with that? Does someone have the right to travel long distances? -
JMurphy at 04:25 AM on 2 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
L.J. Ryan wrote : "So what's your point?" It would be good if you could actually answer that question. -
L.J. Ryan at 04:17 AM on 2 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
dhogaza 148 "No, I'm pointing out that the physical properties of CO2 are extremely well understood by physicists..." So what's your point? -
dhogaza at 04:01 AM on 2 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
LJ Ryan:Are you suggesting atmospheric CO2 is functionally equivalent to a CO2 laser?
No, I'm pointing out that the physical properties of CO2 are extremely well understood by physicists and to imagine otherwise is an example of extreme denialism. -
dhogaza at 03:57 AM on 2 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Eric (skeptic): "is an acceptable statement by a climate scientist? Or would a fair minded reader believe that to be unacceptable along with anonymous death threats." Color me old-fashioned, but I still recognize the difference between a call for legal action vs. a threat to kill someone. I'm rather appalled at your attempt to equate the two. Far more egregious than someone pointing out that science denialists and history (holocaust) denialists share certain traits ... And being a scientist does not mean that one can not or should not speak as a person. For federal employees, that's well-established in law, BTW. US Forest Service employees can speak out against USFS logging policies, if they want, including attending rallies and demonstrations against such policies, as long as they don't try to paint their personal views as being official views of portions of the agency (wearing your uniform at a demonstration's not a good idea, for instance). Hansen, as a NASA employee, is free to speak his mind as a person as long as he doesn't try to represent his personal opinions as being those of NASA. Why don't you respect his legal rights, and why do you attempt to equate them with the making of death threats? -
dhogaza at 03:52 AM on 2 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
garethman:but what do we call people who refuse to recognise on principle any peer reviewed research which does not fit with their complete belief in climate change models of one sort or another. Dogmatist? Taliban?
Perhaps you could be specific. One doesn't have to be dogmatist to reject the content of papers that claim, for instance, that modern physics violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, or that claims that sensitivity is low based on cherry-picking short-term data, or that claims that satellites show that the world isn't warming when in reality the calculation contained several simple algebraic errors, etc etc. And what does "complete belief in climate change models" mean, anyway? No modeler holds that view. No serious student of the subject holds that view. Yet, they've proven themselves useful. -
Eric (skeptic) at 03:50 AM on 2 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Tom Curtis, #138, point 1: would a fair minded reader also think that "CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature." is an acceptable statement by a climate scientist? Or would a fair minded reader believe that to be unacceptable along with anonymous death threats.
Prev 1672 1673 1674 1675 1676 1677 1678 1679 1680 1681 1682 1683 1684 1685 1686 1687 Next
