Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1698 1699 1700 1701 1702 1703 1704 1705 1706 1707 1708 1709 1710 1711 1712 1713 Next
Comments 85251 to 85300:
-
dhogaza at 10:56 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
As an example of how far right the republican party has moved since the Nixon administration, Nixon gave serious thought to a negative income tax such as proposed by jigoro above as a replacement for welfare payments. As opposed to, oh, you know, just letting them starve. -
apiratelooksat50 at 10:51 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Sphaerica @ 226 You and I agree at least on one thing: the ability to learn and understand is what makes humans human. I'm intelligent and educated. I'm open minded. I certainly have not sold out to make money. As a matter of fact, I took a 50% paycut so I could teach public high school. I could not do that until my environmental engineering consulting company had enough business to allow me to support my family on a teacher's salary. I'm not telling you this to earn any sort of praise - it's just the truth. I've tried to establish an open line of dialogue with you, but wound up getting lumped in with one type of zeaolots. You are more of a numbers person and I am more of a naturalist. You base your decisions (I think) on the numbers, while I base mine on what my knowledge of the natural world is. Bottom line: if you want to teach - then teach. I'm open. I've stated my position. If you want to call me a denier - then do so. But, that is a disservice to your goals. You can create a vocal and educated and influential adversary, or try to bridge the gap. I extended the olive branch - I was hoping you would grasp it. -
Jigoro Kano at 10:44 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Alexandre @ 205 you asked: What's your suggestion for a mitigation policy? (forgive me if I missed it in some previous post of yours. I did not follow your whole conversation.) Not at all discussed, not sure if it's germane to the thread. Ideally a fair tax (consumption). But ours is a nation dependent on handouts, so weening off lethargy will take some time. To get there we should first eliminate current individual and corporate tax, all welfare and food assistance, all corporate welfare. Replace with a flat negative income tax for individuals and a flat 10% corporate tax. All individuals treated equally all corporations treated equally. Flat negative income guarantees a minimum income (rebate) to all adult individuals, while imposing a flat income tax. Example, $10k rebate per adult 20% rate on all income above $10k. Choose to not work, live off your $10k. Earn $20k pay $4000 in tax live off your $26k. Make a cool million pay $200k in tax live off your $810k. This system would allow the indigent to earn without loosing their assistance while providing a safety net, not a hammock. All would have skin in the tax game. -
dana1981 at 10:33 AM on 3 June 2011IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News
Agnostic - Australia seems to be trying to do something about the issue, which is a good start. The USA is the big problem, and Republicans are of course the obstacle behind US action, and behind Republicans is the fossil fuel denialist industry. As an American, I don't know what we can do about it, other than try to get global warming denying Republicans out of government. Unfortunately a large segment of the US population either also denies the global warming problem, or doesn't consider it a priority. So we have to convince them otherwise. Until the US takes serious action, we can't expect China or India to do anything either. Nor will Canada, and so far Australia has waited for us too. -
scaddenp at 10:30 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
J Bob, that's sophistry. Okay, climate forcing are things operating over scales of 30 years. And no, the oceans are not cooling Total OHC is rising. -
dana1981 at 10:29 AM on 3 June 2011IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News
voice of reason - you're not making any sense. You can't just pretend that the unrealized warming won't be realized because it hasn't been realized yet. There's a global energy imbalance, and until the climate reaches equilibrium, the surface will continue to warm. That's not a controversial concept. Denying physical reality will do us no good. -
dhogaza at 10:22 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
J Bob: "So your saying, when the sun goes down, and the earth’s surface cools, that’s climate." So J Bob's a flat-earther, too? -
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.
Prev 1698 1699 1700 1701 1702 1703 1704 1705 1706 1707 1708 1709 1710 1711 1712 1713 Next
