Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1781 1782 1783 1784 1785 1786 1787 1788 1789 1790 Next
Comments 89101 to 89150:
-
scaddenp at 06:19 AM on 13 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
I'd still love to see the results of doing 2 simple things before worrying about tax or ETS. 1/ Kill all forms of subsidy on FF. I just cant believe you have the right wing supporting subsidies in the US where its supposedly the home of capitalism. Evidence of corrupt government. 2/ Simply ban any new coal-fired generation. That concentrates the mind of energy sector. Now let capitalism do its thing. -
shawnhet at 06:18 AM on 13 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
Dana, just because one watt of forcing *might* equal another watt of forcing does not mean that the amount of indirect forcing changes linearly with the amount of direct forcing which is what your formulation requires. BTW, since you bring it up, you can find plenty of evidence that all forcings are not equal at all times if you want(compare the bottom curve with the temperature ones). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg Cheers, :) -
dana1981 at 06:16 AM on 13 April 2011Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
Adam, there is a difference between rate and absolute temperature. Box's data clearly shows Greenland is currently warmer than in 1930. It's true that the rate of warming 1916-1932 was a bit faster than the rate 1994-2010, but so what? There are no opinions presented here. Box clearly referenced the IPCC AR4 in his anthropogenic attribution statement. If you want evidence, go read the IPCC report. -
Daniel Bailey at 06:08 AM on 13 April 2011Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
@ Adam Again, the thrust of this thread is about the various responses of the different types of Greenland ice sheet outlet glaciers to the documented warming of the globe (of which Greenland is but part). As both Dana and I have amply shown, current levels of warming in Greenland exceed those measured in the early part of the previous century. I can appreciate your not wanting to accept that, but that's the reality of the data. The gist of your position is: 1. It was warmer than now previous 2. It's not CO2 causing the warming that is not happened (the logical fallacy that Dana spoke of) #1 has already been demonstrated to be false. For #2, you have multiple issues. Search for "It's Not Us" or one of the many myriad other skeptic favorite toys listed under the Taxonomy listing of skeptic arguments to further your knowledge. Unless you wish to discuss something actually pertaining to the topic of this particular thread, your positions are best discussed where directed previously (and as such are off-topic here). The Yooper -
dana1981 at 06:07 AM on 13 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
shawnhet - a forcing is a forcing is a forcing. They don't operate differently except for the slight variation in the climate sensitivity parameter for the various forcings. Mathematically I've got the possibility of indirect effects accounted for. Alexandre - we do have "How reliable are CO2 measurements?". Sam's comments are of course irrelevant here, since there was no reference to ice core measurements. -
Alexandre at 05:37 AM on 13 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
About SkepticalSam's claims: does SkS already have a post on ice core studies? I tried to find something on the arguments and did not find any. It would cover some "skeptic" arguments like Ernst Beck's... wouldn't it be worth a post?Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Search 'ice core'. Also look at 'co2 lag'. -
shawnhet at 05:33 AM on 13 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
Dana, the point is, that there is a difference btw an indirect effect and simply multiplying the direct effect by some factor. An indirect effect(whatever it is) will operate how the indirect effect operates - not how TSI operates. The two things are only mathematically identical if you assume that they operate the same way(which there is no reason to assume). Cheers, :) -
Adam at 05:28 AM on 13 April 2011Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
Dana all I am asking is that you simply present proper empirical evidence that humans are the cause of the Greenland warming and glacial melt described in this article. I'm not being unreasonable. The hypothesis of AGW means that post 1980 Greenland warming was caused by humans. I have not seen any empirical evidence for this claim. All I am asking is that you provide it.Moderator Response: Discussion of the anthropogenic attribution of the warming observed in Greenland is off-topic for this post. Please follow the directions given in the next comment by Daniel. Thanks! -
dana1981 at 05:27 AM on 13 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
shawnhet - I'm not saying the TSI sensitivity is high. I'm effectively hedging my bets by including indirect solar effects as a feedback encompassed in the solar climate sensitivity parameter. Now, you can say that I'm not inflating the sensitivity enough to account for the full effects of these indirect factors (which I would disagree with - again, see the cosmic ray link above), but mathematically, there's really no difference. To account for the indirect effects, either you inflate the senstivity or you inflate the forcing. The mathematical result is the same either way. My calculation is really no different than assuming there's an indirect solar forcing ~20% as large as the TSI forcing. -
Adam at 05:25 AM on 13 April 2011Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
Dana personal opinions have know meaning in science. Jason Box's personal beliefs do not effect the actual data presented in his papers; that Greenland was warmer 60 years ago.Moderator Response: Dr. Box was quoting the IPCC and is thus not expressing a personal opinion. -
Adam at 05:24 AM on 13 April 2011Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
Dana, the 2010 spike in Greenland temperature is most likely due to el nino, as it was with the rest of the globe. Dana, as your own graph shows, for all of pre-21st century climate Greenland was warmer from 1920 to 1940. Now anthropogenic greenhouse gases supposedly started having a major effect at around 1975. Therefore, the theory means that post 1975, Greenland should have been experiencing anthropogenic global warming. Yet, as your own graph shows, that for the 30 years of warming (1970 to 2000) that was meant to be caused by humans, Greenland had not exceeded it's previous period of warming. Once again, as your own graph shows, the 1920 to 1940 warming occurred at a much faster rate than the 1980 to 2000 warming. -
dana1981 at 05:21 AM on 13 April 2011Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
It's also worth quoting Dr. Box on the causes of Greenland warming (emphasis mine):"The recent (post-1994) warming, is attributable to: 1) a growing absence of sulfate cooling because there has not been a major volcanic eruption since 1991; 2) recent warming phase of AMO; 3) an apparent reversal of the global dimming trend; and 4) ongoing and intensifying anthropogenic global warming (AWG), the elephant in the room, owing to a dominance of enhanced greenhouse effect despite other anthropogenic cooling factors such as aerosols and contrails (IPCC, 2007). The primary factor responsible for the warming trend is very likely to be AWG (IPCC, 2007)."
-
Adam at 05:16 AM on 13 April 2011Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
"This data on Greenland is an example of that data, which supports the AGW conclusion. Why does all the data point the same way?" Michael could you please explain that statement? Could you explain how data from Greenland support AGW? -
dana1981 at 05:14 AM on 13 April 2011Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
Adam - Greenland doesn't exist in a bubble. I have a hard time understanding how you can argue that the increased greenhouse effect, which we know is warming the planet, isn't warming Greenland. It's true that there was a significant warming event in Greenland in the early 20th century, in which human greenhouse gas emissions only played a small role, but the existence of a previous natural warming doesn't mean that the current warming can't be anthropogenic. That's a logical fallacy. By the way, your Jones and Briffa reference only contained Greenland temperature data up to 2000. Here's the up-to-date data from Jaxon Box's website.
-
Adam at 05:13 AM on 13 April 2011Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
Now Daniel, the point of your article is that Greenland glaciers are melting rapidly due to global warming. But this is only evidence of warming and not anthropogenic warming. I have not seen any credible evidence that the current Greenland warming is caused by humans. It is very likely that the same amount of melting you describe in your article also happened 60 years ago. Dana is misunderstanding what I am saying. I' m not saying it's warmed naturally before, so it's current warming must be natural. I am just saying that the melting of glaciers that you describe is well within the natural variability of Greenland's climate, and is not likely to be caused by CO2. Really the only clear evidence that humans have got anything to do with post 1980 greenland warming is computer models, and as shown by Polyakov's 2002 paper, they have failed to replicate the current Arctic climate. I also suggest you read this paper, which supports the same conclusion that the current Greenland climate is not unprecedented: "Greenland ice sheet surface air temperature variability: 1840-2007” by Jason Box et al, published in the 'Journal of Climate (2009) http://polarmet.osu.edu/PolarMet/PMGFulldocs/box_yang_jc_2009.pdf Look, when looking back at past temperature data for Greenland, you can see that there is nothing unusual or unprecedented about the past 20 years of warming. It is very difficult to detect any anthropogenic signal in Greenland's climate. A lot of the temperature and ice variations are very hard to be explained by CO2. I think that based on what we know about Greenland's climate, and it's history, the most plausible explanation is that it's current climatic changes are of natural causation. -
shawnhet at 05:13 AM on 13 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
Ok, but there is a difference btw saying that the TSI sensitivity is high and saying that some other factor related to solar activity can cause changes in climate. As such, simply inflating the solar climate-sensitivity doesn't reflect the wide and various correlations btw climate and solar proxies very well. Cheers, :) -
Daniel Bailey at 05:13 AM on 13 April 2011Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
@ Adam Look again at the graphs I generated above on the polar projections for the Arctic, both for the periods covered by Chylek 2006 and the most recent 10 year trend. In both, Greenland is warmer in the recent interval than the earlier. It is the lack of data from the earlier timeframe that keeps us from concluding with very high confidence that the entirety of Greenland is now the warmest in the instrumental era. Your comments about CO2 levels relative to temperatures quite frankly betray a lack of understanding of the time lags involved in order for temperature equilibria from CO2 forcing to be realized. As that is off-topic here, you can find many more appropriate threads than this to further your knowledge. The thrust of your position, that CO2 is not driving Greenland (or any other) climate change, is similarly off-topic here. The Yooper -
michael sweet at 05:09 AM on 13 April 2011Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
Adam, If you wish to take a single piece of data and claim there is a small problem with it, you can challenge many things. The point is that all the data leads to the same conclusion: that humans are causing the temperature to raise. Can you suggest an alternate mechanism for the entire globe to increase in temperature? This data on Greenland is an example of that data, which suports the AGW conclusion. Why does all the data point the same way? If it was not from the same cause the data would point in different directions. You are extrapolating the Greenland temperature to the rest of the Arctic which is incorrect. The rest of the Arctic was not warm in the 1940's. See the link I provided above for the Arctic data. -
dana1981 at 04:54 AM on 13 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
shawnhet - please see "it's cosmic rays" and note that I was very conservative about the solar climate sensitivity parameter for that exact reason:"However, since there may be indirect solar effects not accounted for in the direct solar radiative forcing calculation, we'll conservatively estimate the solar climate sensitivity parameter..."
-
Adam at 04:53 AM on 13 April 2011Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
Dana, no that is not what I am arguing. What I am saying is that the Greenland climate is simply not unprecedented. Co2 is higher than it was in the 1930's, yet the ice sheet was warmer back then. Michael Sweet the link you provided did not focus on the greenland ice sheet. It focused on the entire Arctic ocean, which is not what I was referring to. I agree that for the past 5-10 years, Arctic temperature has slightly exceeded the 1930's warming. However, Greenland's temperature data shows that it was still warmer in the 1930's. What I have said is correct. This article focuses on Greenland glaciers, so therefore that is what I'll be focusing on. There are many other papers, which show that the ice sheet was indeed warmer back then, and therefore it's current state would not be unprecedented. I am not 'cherry picking'. The paper I provided was published and peer reviewed by other scientists, and there are many others which confirm it's argument. “In addition, in 2010 records were set across Greenland for heat so your linked papers are out of date.” Michael, one year is not statistically significant. You have to look back, and look at the temperature variations on decadal scales. One year is not going to tell us anything about Greenland's climate, or the causes of it's temperature variations. “Your comments about the entire Arctic having been as warm in the 1940's are simply false.” No it's not. Once again, read the paper I provided. Here is another one: “Extending Greenland temperature records into the late eighteenth century ” by Vinther et al (2006) http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/greenland/vintheretal2006.pdf It examined Greenland temperature records for the past 250 years, and concluded “The warmest year in the extended Greenland temperature record is 1941, while the 1930s and 1940s are the warmest decades." Now this paper was not written by skeptics. Two of its authors were Phil Jones and Kieth Briffa, who both play a major part in supporting AGW. Therefore, since this paper is written by two AGW scientists, I think that paper would be the best one to use to show that Greenland was indeed warmer 60 years ago. Daniel Bailey “nor is it normally particularly meaningful to make decadal comparisons of data, as the results are highly dependent on the choice of the starting periods.” Decadal comparisons are actually the best you can use, for finding out about current periods. Now, in theory the anthropogenic contribution to global warming, supposedly started around 1975. Therefore, according to the theory, the Greenland warming of the past 20 years, must have been human caused. But Daniel, if you look back on a decadal time scale, you will see there is nothing significant about how Greenland is today. Like I said, CO2 is much higher than it was 60 years ago. If you look back for say 100-200 years, you'll see that it is likely the current Greenland climate Is not driven by CO2. Michael Sweet could you please explain your statement “By itself the retreat of glaciers in Greenalnd is not proof of AGW. It is a piece of the puzzle that all adds up to proof.” How is it a 'piece of the puzzle'. All it provides is evidence of warming, and says nothing about the cause of warming. -
shawnhet at 04:49 AM on 13 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
"Therefore, directly at least, the sun appears not to be responsible for significant global temperature changes over the past 11,500 years, and certainly not over the past half century." Good article, but, of course, the issue is whether the sun can only heat the Earth directly. IMO, there are way too many correlations btw solar proxies and climate for that to make sense. see here, for instance. http://aps.arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.1938v1.pdf Cheers, :) -
Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
RSVP - Gah, you are still holding to this argument. I'm saddened. By "Industrial heat" I mean (as does the post that this thread is based upon) all energy usage, as it goes it's inevitable way towards entropy and heat. That 1% extra energy has been added to the climate, and leaving, as long as we've been pumping out greenhouse gases. Heat generated at ground level; much like sunlight warming the ground level. Both are components in the energy budget, both are eventually radiated out to space. Readers (other than RSVP) - the argument(s) presented through this thread by RSVP are that there are somehow differences between heat from our energy use and heat from sunlight, with the former in some fashion immune (in some undefined fashion) to radiating to space. What that difference is has never been explained to anyone's satisfaction, and there have been zero references presented to support that odd contention. It's a forcing, RSVP, like any other forcing, and it's tiny by comparison to the ones we're actually worried about. Energy raises temperature, raised temperature radiates more to space, things head back to equilibrium. There is no plausible mechanism for industrial energy to "accumulate". I suggest you re-read the thread. Heat from our energy expenditures is part of the energy budget - at 1% that of greenhouse gas forcing, accounting for rather under 0.01C total of warming. It is, hence, rather irrelevant to current warming concerns. -
RSVP at 04:27 AM on 13 April 2011Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
Another way to look a this problem. Picture yourself in a satellite orbiting the Earth. Its ability to cool will depend on an initial design. If on this satellite you have some interal heat sources that are not regulated by any "thermostats", after a while you will be calling Houston. -
RSVP at 04:22 AM on 13 April 2011Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
KR I hope you are not confusing the term "waste heat" with that portion of the energy liberated by fossil fuels and nuclear energy sources that is not serving some "human purpose". The term waste may be misleading in this sense. It should be understood as all energy delivered by all fossil fuels and nuclear reactors since the start of the industrial revolution. And if you wish, you might also add the burning of trees for steam engines as this perhaps marked the beginning of an inbalance etc. What you dont seem to want to admit is that this energy is in backlog of whatever is considered equilibrium and therefore constitutes an excess which can only have been accumulating. Before considering any GHG effects, you must consider this energy from a cumulative standpoint. Any heating above this perhaps is due to your sold called GHG effect. -
SkepticalSam at 03:50 AM on 13 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
Are these temp-records based on ice-core samples again? You KNOW that those are worthless above 99 meters, due to lack of compression, right? And that this VOIDS any claims within the past 2500 years? And surely you ALSO know that this consequently SKEWS any claims after 500 B.C. toward higher current levels, right?Moderator Response: [DB] Please. No all-caps & no unsubstantiated handwaving. All you've accomplished is a poorly-executed drive-by case of trolling. -
michael sweet at 03:26 AM on 13 April 2011Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
Whoops, posted my link too fast. The link in 17 talks about the AArctic and not Greenland specificly. It appears that your specific argument has not yet been addressed. In any case, 2010 set records across Greenland and your generalization to the Arctic as a whole is incorrect. By itself the retreat of glaciers in Greenalnd is not proof of AGW. It is a piece of the puzzle that all adds up to proof. -
Daniel Bailey at 03:10 AM on 13 April 2011Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
@ Adam (12, 14, 15) Appreciate your concerns, and the links to published data. However, Greenland does not exist in a vacuum, nor is it normally particularly meaningful to make decadal comparisons of data, as the results are highly dependent on the choice of the starting periods. Chylek 2006 did the best they had with the limited scope of their paper and their source data. Chylek 2009 (IMO a much more meaningful paper) looked at arctic amplification over more robust periods of time and found that the ratio of the amplification in the earlier timeframe to be higher than the latter (not specifically your point but a heckuva read nonetheless). But, to Dana's point, we know the globe is presently warming more now overall than it did earlier in the 20th century (indeed, current temps are equivalent to those reached in the Holocene Maximum/Altithermal) and for differing (read:anthropogenic) reasons. Looking at the best available data:
Note: Gray areas signify missing data. Graphics bug: Occasionally the color for the .5-1C range is replaced by gray. Note: Ocean data are not used over land nor within 100km of a reporting land station. 
1995-2005_Zonal_Mean 
Note: Gray areas signify missing data. Graphics bug: Occasionally the color for the .5-1C range is replaced by gray. Note: Ocean data are not used over land nor within 100km of a reporting land station. 
2000-2010_Zonal_Mean Note in all cases the greater recent warming of Greenland (where data exists to make a comparison) than during the earlier periods. HTH, The Yooper -
michael sweet at 03:02 AM on 13 April 2011Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
Adam, Please review the thread Greenland was warmer in 1940 and post your claims there. You will see that the data you are presenting has been cherry picked. In addition, in 2010 records were set across Greenland for heat so your linked papers are out of date. Your comments about the entire Arctic having been as warm in the 1940's are simply false. There was always much more ice in the Arctic from the time Cook explored there in the 1700's until the catastrophic decline of the last 30 years. -
dana1981 at 03:00 AM on 13 April 2011Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
Adam - "I am not claiming that the planet has warmed naturally before, so therefore current climate change is natural." Actually that is precisely what you are arguing. By the way, although polar amplification is obviously a reality, given that the Arctic is the fastest-warming part of the planet, I don't think it's a specifically anthropogenic signal. Polar amplification is due to the feedback from melting ice. Would you care to explain why polar amplification is specific to greenhouse gases? -
JMurphy at 02:55 AM on 13 April 2011There is no consensus
Bruce Frykman, if you have anything at all to back-up your accusations, why don't you show it. Any links to evidence or facts at all ? Or do you only have your own personal and ideological prejudices and bias ? If you have no evidence, I'm sure you'll be man enough to come back and admit it... -
Dan Moutal at 02:44 AM on 13 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
I an getting through the comments slowly. I an at work and replying on my phone. @Gilles "Now again if you're convinced that it is lower for FF, you're saying that people like Icelandic one are totally stupid, because they add the cost of importing FF to their externalities, which should produce no benefit at all. And I don't think personally they're that stupid." This statement makes it clear that you have a poor understanding of the issue. Perhaps you haven't been thinking about the problem for very long. By definition externalities are felt by those not involved in the economic transaction. So when Iceland imports FFs, they get the benefits. Yet the externality costs are spread around the entire planet. This is why they continue to import FFs. And this is why we have a market failure. The point of a price on carbon (for the millionth time!) is to internalize those costs so they are payed by the people who are emitting GHGs. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax for more -
Adam at 02:41 AM on 13 April 2011Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
I also suggest that you read this paper: “Observationally based assessment of polar amplification of global warming” http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/%7Ewsoon/MattCronin-Mar21-07-d/Polyakovetal02-PolarWarmingGRL.pdf The abstract “Arctic variability is dominated by multi-decadal fluctuations. Incomplete sampling of these fluctuations results in highly variable arctic surface-air temperature (SAT) trends. Modulated by multi-decadal variability, SAT trends are often amplified relative to northern-hemispheric trends, but over the 125-year record we identify periods when arctic SAT trends were smaller or of opposite sign than northern-hemispheric trends. Arctic and northern- hemispheric air-temperature trends during the 20th century (when multi-decadal variablity had little net effect on computed trends) are similar, and do not support the predicted polar amplification of global warming.” conclusion “Arctic and northern-hemispheric air-temperature trends over the 20th century, when multidecadal variability had little net effect on computed trends, are similar and do not support the hypothesis of the polar amplification of global warming simulated by GCMs. It has been hypothesized that this may be due to the moderating role of arctic ice. Evaluation of fast- ice melt required to compensate for the two-fold enhance- ment of polar warming simulated by GCMs shows that the equired ice-decay rate would be statistically indistinguish- able from zero, given the substantial intrinsic variability observed in the data. Observed long-term trends in arctic air temperature and ice cover are actually smaller than expected, and may be indicative of complex positive and negative feedbacks in the arctic climate system. In summary, if we accept that long-term SAT trends are a reasonable measure of climate change, then we conclude that the data do not support the hypothesized polar amplification of global" Dana, if greenhouse gases were warming our planet, the first signs we would expect to see of it would be at the poles. Polar regions are very sensitive. All of the climate models predict that polar areas would amplify the heat from greenhouse warming. Yet, as shown by that paper, real world data does not support the theory of predicted polar amplification of global warming. This is strong evidence against AGW. The Arctic/Greenland climate changes are not anthropogenic.Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Please do not quote large sections of linked papers. The link and a key sentence or two should be sufficient to get your point across. -
Adam at 02:33 AM on 13 April 2011Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
Dana, I think you'll agree that Greenland is very important for the whole climate change issue. News medias have constantly cited Greenland's melting ice as clear evidence for AGW. The theory that the Greenland warming is caused by humans, is a major part of the whole theory of anthropogenic global warming. Polar patterns are especially important. They should show more sensitivity to anthropogenic greenhouse gases if the theory was correct. Now CO2 is much higher than it was in the 1930's; yet in the 1930's Greenland was warmer than it is today. Therefore, simple logic should show that if Greenland was naturally warmer in the past, then it is plausible that it's current heat wave is natural. I am not claiming that the planet has warmed naturally before, so therefore current climate change is natural. What I am saying is that current Greenland climate change is not unprecedented. The same amount of melting Greenland is experiencing today, it also experienced 60 years ago. I think you should read the paper I gave you. It explains about both heat waves and why there is nothing unusual about the current state of Greenland's climate. -
There is no consensus
Bruce Frykman - That word substitution does not change the core of your post: that scientists are conforming to political opinion/pressure rather than doing honest science. I consider it (although I'm not a moderator) well outside the limits of the Comments Policy. Most of the political pressure in the US over the last decade or so has been to deny anthropogenic global warming, not to promote it. And yet the science has continued, and the evidence is even more solid now than a decade ago. Unless you have evidence of such political kow-towing, you are making wholly unsupported accusations. It's obnoxious, outside the comments policy of this site - and utterly unconvincing. -
dana1981 at 02:14 AM on 13 April 2011Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
Adam #12 - first off, Greenland isn't the world. The planet is much hotter now than it was in 1930. Secondly, the fact that the planet warmed naturally in the past doesn't mean it's warming naturally now. We know current warming isn't natural because that's what the physical evidence clearly shows. -
Bruce Frykman at 02:13 AM on 13 April 2011There is no consensus
RE: "lose the ideological bias" I apologize, please strike the word "honest" from 311 and substitute the word "accurate"Moderator Response: [muoncounter] No difference. A fact-free argument is usually the hallmark of a troll. Please peddle that soap elsewhere; no one's buying it here. -
Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
RSVP - You should be intimately familiar with this thread, as you account for a fair number of the >350 posts on it. Industrial heat accounts for ~1% that of the greenhouse effect, and hence is just about irrelevant. Which you should really know by now. I cannot understand why you are still going on about this disproven argument. -
The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
RSVP, others - I've replied on the Waste heat vs. greenhouse warming thread. Please take that discussion there, where it's appropriate. If not beaten to death... -
Adam at 02:09 AM on 13 April 2011Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
Might I just point out that evidence of warming, like melting Greenland glaciers, is not evidence that it was humans that caused the warming. The Greenland climate is pretty complex, and there is plenty of evidence to believe that it's climate is not driven by CO2. Look, the current Greenland warming is very similar to a previous period of warming in Greenland. All of the Greenland temperature data showed that it was warmer or at least as warm as it is today, in the 1930's and 1940's. I suggest that you read the following paper: "Greenland warming of 1920–1930 and 1995–2005" by Petr Chylek et al, published in 'Geophysical Research Letters' (2006) http://www.joelschwartz.com/pdfs/Chylek.pdf Abstract- "We provide an analysis of Greenland temperature records to compare the current (1995– 2005) warming period with the previous (1920 – 1930) Greenland warming. We find that the current Greenland warming is not unprecedented in recent Greenland history. Temperature increases in the two warming periods are of a similar magnitude, however, the rate of warming in 1920 – 1930 was about 50% higher than that in 1995 – 2005." Conclusion- "iii) Although the last decade of 1995 – 2005 was relatively warm, almost all decades within 1915 to 1965 were even warmer at both the southwestern (Godthab Nuuk) and the southeastern (Ammassalik) coasts of Greenland. [18] iv) The Greenland warming of the 1995 – 2005 period is similar to the warming of 1920 – 1930, although the rate of temperature increase was by about 50% higher during the 1920– 1930 warming period. ...... To summarize, we find no direct evidence to support the claims that the Greenland ice sheet is melting due to increased temperature caused by increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. The rate of warming from 1995 to 2005 was in fact lower than the warming that occurred from 1920 to 1930." Now if Greenland was warmer 60 years ago, when it couldn't possibly have been us back then, then surely it is reasonable to believe that humans are not the cause of it's current heat wave. The 1930's heat wave was driven by natural causes (agreed?), which means it is equally possible that Greenland's current warming is of natural causation. The fact that the ice sheet was warmer 60-70 years ago shows that all of the dramatic melting it is experiencing, isn't unprecedented in it's history. It's like a cycle. The Arctic/Greenland has heat waves about every 60 years, and in between that, it has colder periods, which is what has been observed. There isn't any actual proper evidence that the current Greenland warming has got anything to do with CO2. Greenland's climate doesn't show any anthropogenic signal over the past 100 years; and the current ice sheet loss can indeed be explained naturally. Most of what has been presented in this article, about the melting glaciers, I do agree with, I just don't agree with the claim that it is caused by humans. -
Alec Cowan at 02:07 AM on 13 April 2011The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
@Sphaerica #51 I'm afraid that Dr. Phd was trying to pull up that kind of "Yes", but the manipulative technique in #47 is pretty obvious: First: A quotation from the post's author. Second: A second quotation, this time an independent one from Trenberth, not linked to the first quotation. The "Okay" and ", and..." are intended to show some appearance of being logically chained. Third: The fallacy containing the preformatted "information" which promotion is intended, including the use of "can conclude" as if 1-2-3 were an inference, and that "We" so often used to foster an uncritical acceptance of it. So answering that is pretty much -to use a Hollywood analogy- let the portrayed John Nash to argue with Charles, the little girl and that spy-like Parcher dude. I don't feel happy with this site because of the things dealt in the comment section. Some characters simply swarm around because nobody cares about making them substantiate their claims and mind their Ps and Qs, and mainly, making them use the proper techniques and information. Their preaching reminds too much those healing by faith carnivals, mainly by too much of "blah, blih, bluh" where "1, 2, 3" is required. I came here often to get material from the comments for classes in High School and Community College level, those activities that combines hard science with social science. I came here because the local denialists commenting in Argentine newspapers are very repetitive and unskilled and I need dozens of original cases each year for the students to do their works. Climate change is a great opportunity in many ways. In Education, a terrific way to teach abilities everybody need to became an successful adult, something that doesn't include much climate science but a lot of how people is manipulated all the time and how to spot the wrongdoers. -
les at 01:36 AM on 13 April 2011The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
54 Spaerica (with apologies to moderator) waste heat is, of course, discussed in the paper "An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy", by Kevin E Trenbert which is, Oh! linked at the top of this post and the subject of discussion... Sooo, I guess you shouldn't really have expected RSVP to actually have read it. In fact, strikes me, a lot of people on this thread are doing no more than a poor job of actually reading the paper... even those with "scientific" backgrounds. -
les at 01:30 AM on 13 April 2011There is no consensus
311 Frykman - Do you have any evidence for that or is it just speculation or just a hollow - and rather over done, by now - polemic? In my limited experience of folks working in relevant disciplines is that they are interested in things like climate, ice caps, satellites, etc. And apply their academic interests to what ever is interesting. it's not a great career choice - little money, few academic positions etc. same as most sciences. But if you have evidence to back up your thoughts, lets have them... ... that or a retraction; if you're man enough. -
Bruce Frykman at 01:23 AM on 13 April 2011There is no consensus
Wouldn't it be more honest to say that 97% of all people who make a career out of the idea that man's behavior must conform to that required by the same politicians who fund their careers. What are the career prospects for deniers within the EPA? Are their any job openings for research leading to the concept that were are spending to much treasure studying climate?Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Please lose the ideological bias if you want to be taken seriously. Unless you can substantiate the statement in your first paragraph, it must be considered purely an opinion; it is also a borderline accusation (which violates the Comment Policy). -
Bob Lacatena at 01:16 AM on 13 April 2011The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
49, RSVP,This was the purpose of the parody and please do not take it personally.
This is further evidence that you do not discuss fairly and openly, but rather play games and seek to discredit others using tricks and shenanigans rather than information and intelligence.My thesis has and will always be that industrial waste heat is the main culprit to global warming and your response has made this obvious without your even realizing it.
Which is an absurd thesis. Do you really think no one could have done that simple math before now, and had a Eureka moment from it, along with weeks of spots on television shows, followed by nothing, because the whole climate change debate would have been entirely different for the past decade? You always demand numbers from others. Now how about you? What is the total amount of heat generated from one day of worldwide fossil fuel use (not just industrial, but everything), measured in W/m2?Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Waste heat has its own thread, where it is shown that there's 2 orders of magnitude difference between the waste and the GHE. -
pbjamm at 01:12 AM on 13 April 2011The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
RSVP@49 I see nowhere in Tom Curtis' comment @44 where he mentions Industrial Waste Heat (IWH) being a source of warming. I look forward to his rebuttal, though I doubt his time would be well spent penning it. On a related note, a Grade A Denier I have had numerous 'discussions' of AGW with once told me that the theory was bunk because the amount of IWH was not adequate to cause warming. I was incredulous that he thought that AGW was in any way based on this premise and told him that if he thought so then he was arguing from a position of complete and total ignorance. I may have used more expletives... -
Bob Lacatena at 01:06 AM on 13 April 2011The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
47, Dr. Jay Cadbury, phdSo we can conclude that Trenbirth does not know where some of the warming has gone.
Yes. And it's a travesty. It's a travesty that the $100 million earth-monitoring satellite DSCVR (Deep Space Climate Observatory) to be launched in 2001 was mothballed... the only satellite ever built and never launched, even when the Ukraine offered to launch it for free (turned down because of fears that they would lose the satellite in launch, if you can believe it). It's a travesty that NASA's Glory satellite was destroyed during an attempt to put it into orbit. It's a travesty that the aging satellites in orbit are now malfunctioning, further reducing our ability to gather data. It's a travesty that we've had a decade to launch dozens of satellites and other initiatives to help answer the important questions, but have done nothing except listen to Watts whine about his own misunderstandings of the surface temperature record. The travesty isn't that we aren't able to know, but rather that we haven't invested the (trivial) effort into seeking the knowledge, and that is going to come back to haunt us big time. So I hope that you now understand the full context and content of Trenberth's statement, rather than picking a few words out and presenting them as if they represent something nefarious. -
Dan Moutal at 01:05 AM on 13 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
err by john, I mean Tom. Oops -
Dan Moutal at 01:05 AM on 13 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
@ Gilles "OK but you didn't prove that you can increase the cost of FF enough to make renewables more profitable without crushing the economy" Perhaps john didn't. But already posted links to an interview with Mark Jaccard who has looked at this extensively. And guess what he found? Yep, that's right. You can increase the cost of FFs via a price on carbon enough to phase them out, without destroying the economy. But we already knew that, you just fail to follow up on the sources people provide. But more importantly your 'analysis' fails to consider the cost of inaction, which makes it meaningless. Look at here for more info -
Ian Forrester at 01:02 AM on 13 April 2011The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
Giles said:so average surface temperature is *not* a precise indicator of global energy content.
Who has ever said that it was? The energy content of the globe is found in a number of places some of which are accurately measured (surface and oceans down to 700 metres) and others which cannot be accurately measured with today's technology (deep oceans). You are incorrect when you state that we cannot measure energy in and out. We can. Incoming energy has been measured for some time and outgoing energy has recently been measured using satellites. In addition to measuring the amount of out going energy a finger print (spectral analysis) shows that the missing energy corresponds to the wave length of EM radiation which is absorbed by green house gases. Thus your argument is completely fatuous. -
Dan Moutal at 00:58 AM on 13 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
@ Gilles Thanks for finally admitting your defeatist attitude. You could have saved us a lot of time by being upfront about it, instead of being cagey and obstructionist. You sound similar to the people predicting doom and gloom when the Montreal Protocol was proposed. And when the Sulphur Emissions Reduction Protocol was proposed. And there are many more examples. In all cases people such as yourself have been wrong. And currently you stand in opposition to a rather large majority of economists (PDF). And it doesn't matter that they don't know how to build cheap wind farms.
Prev 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1781 1782 1783 1784 1785 1786 1787 1788 1789 1790 Next
