Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1784 1785 1786 1787 1788 1789 1790 1791 1792 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 Next
Comments 89551 to 89600:
-
L.J. Ryan at 05:21 AM on 9 April 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
e 984 Teq is defined as the time it will take the earth to accumulate 235 W/m^2 and therefore radiate 235 W/m^2. The white atmosphere will reach Teg first...thus defining the interval. -
L.J. Ryan at 05:12 AM on 9 April 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
KR 984 You are calculating the temperature of the atmosphere not the earths surface. Do you agree with my table showing blackbody atmosphere? Do you agree with the equation via Jin-Yi Yu's lecture...the exact equation, you suggested I consider? You also contradict your own words;"As stated before, given a known amount of outgoing radiation, the black body temperature is an absolute minimum on the temperature of an equivalently radiating graybody, due to the relationship of emissivity and temperature." -
2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
LJ, You have again neglected to explain the derivation of your tables, none of the equations you cited list Teq as a parameter. At equilibrium, by definition, there is no longer any net accumulation of energy or temperature change, so your results are nonsensical as given. -
Bob Lacatena at 04:51 AM on 9 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Gilles, 206, Instead of wandering all over the place, please state clearly and concisely your position on the topic of this thread. Please do not immediately go on to support it with a tsunami of erudite arguments. All I'm interested in right now is figuring out what none of us can, which is what you actually believe. What is your position? In four sentences or less, with no distracting gamesmanship... what is it that you think? Consider it a challenge. Can you actually be concise, straightforward and clear for one, single post?Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] I believe Gilles has already done so here. His position appears to be essentially that there may be stuff we don't know about that is causing the ice to melt so we can't be sure that it is the warming that is doing it. The flaws in this line of reasoning have been pointed out (repeatedly), and further discussion is "off-topic" (as it would only be feeding the troll). -
Bob Lacatena at 04:47 AM on 9 April 2011A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
48, Ken,...he claimed that the incident angle of the sun at the north pole was 66 degrees...
I wish you would stop propagating this distortion of what I posted, which is there for anyone to go back and read. The disingenuous way that you present other people's positions, as well as your own, should be an alarm bell for anyone reading this thread, and trying to decide whether or not they can trust a denier's arguments. First, I did not say "at the north pole", and it's rather silly for you to say so. Really, is the only relevant point in this the exact 1 inch square point at the tippity top of the Earth? I said "in the Arctic" meaning in the relevant area we are discussing. That would extend as far south as the winter ice extends, which is the southern tip of Greenland (about 60˚N) and the Sea of Okhotsk (as far as 50˚N). That's 30˚ to 40˚ south of the pole. With the 23.4˚ tilt of the Earth, that would put the greatest (most insolation) angle of incidence between 53.4˚ and 63.4˚. Second, I will readily admit that this is at peak (noon), and so not a continuous angle of incidence, but the area does receive 20 to 24 hours of continuous light, and the vast majority of it is absorbed by the ocean. As already stated, the angle of incidence doesn't much matter above 40˚, where the albedo is consistently about 0.1. Even below 40˚, there is still considerable absorption. I'll also readily admit that this is at the edge of the area of interest, and that as one moves north, the angle decreases, but we are not interested in getting anywhere near the pole at this point. We're talking mostly about the Arctic Circle at 75˚N, where the peak angle of incidence would be 38.4˚... still close enough to 40˚ that the albedo of the ocean is substantially different from that of ice. So stop misrepresenting my position to make yourself look smart and your position look tenable. Now let's get to your position (which I wish you would state clearly). You seem to claim that you feel that because this insolation can't possibly be as strong as the tropics. I won't argue whether it is or is not... my position is not that it is as strong as the tropics, but rather that it is more than strong enough to amount to a notable, relevant and concerning positive feedback in the climate system. Please re-read that sentence several times, so that you don't again misrepresent what I've said, or keep distracting people through a special version of the "strawman" that I call "argument by hyperbole" (i.e. exaggerate the other party's position, and then argue against that hyperbole rather than the actual position). But your position is that the angle of incidence is too low (it's not), the albedo of the Arctic waters is too high (it's not), the length of day doesn't matter (it does), and the duration of sunlight of 3 months for 20 to 24 hours a day is too short (it's not). In a nutshell, your position is to tell everyone not to worry, nothing bad can happen, because you say so and you know how to play games with what other people say. -
KR at 04:47 AM on 9 April 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
L.J. Ryan A gray body with a LW emissivity of 0.618 (as you postulated above), radiating 240 W/m^2, will have a temperature calculated by the Stefan-Bolzmann equation of: P = SB const. * emissivity * T^4; hence T = [ P / (SB const. * emissivity) ] ^0.25 [ 240 / (5.6704*10^-8 * 0.618) ] ^0.25 = 287.675°K, or 14.53°C That's 287.675°K required to radiate that power, not 341°K, as you claim. I haven't bothered to track your math and logical errors down in this case - I don't consider it worth my time. You are quite simply in error, as both Tom and I have noted in the past. -
L.J. Ryan at 04:31 AM on 9 April 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Tom Curtis 966 and KR Tom Curtis you said: “First, anybody who has read anything that I have written knows I am not given to knee jerk responses from my writing style alone, even if they do not understand the content.” Ok Tom, I have to admit, for the most part you are well considered;...though still wrong. So knee jerk was not appropriate, rather I should have said dismissive response. Regarding your arguments to my post 924. You set up hallow challenges to my equations. For example, your parsing of emissivity between SW and LW is irrelevant. Why irrelevant you ask...simple, I do not conflate the two. For example, lets compare the equations I used to the simplified models equations via slide 14 of Jin-Yi Yu's lecture. From Jin-Yi Yu's lecture: For Earth's surface S/4 * (1-A) +σ TA4=σ TS4 For Atmosphere σ TS4=2 σ TA4 (blackbody) Compare these equations to my Blackbody table. Notice the similarities.
The highlighted row confirms Jin-Yi Yu conclusion. The other rows simply evaluate this rightful equation prior to and following equilibrium. Why examine beyond equilibrium...simply as a point of comparison. Before I school you further, indulge me with a couple self-serving quotes:Tom you said: a) You have not established the appropriate groundwork, and are instead working on a host of demonstrably false assumptions. b) Your tables which carry your argument have unclear symbols, and are derived by an unexplained method. In other words, they are simply bare assertions. KR you said: Please, L.J.Ryan - read some of the references you have equation-mined. Learn a bit more about the science. You're approaching the issue with a lot of erroneous preconceptions, and those are leading you to incorrect conclusions. Do some reading, L.J. Ryan, including the sources you yourself have linked to.
Do you favor your crow warm or cold? Back on point, the white and gray tables explore the same base equation save a change in emissivity. An atmosphere perfectly reflective to LW radiation will, according to GHG physics, get hotter faster as compared to ε= 1. The key question is, at what surface flux will SW emissions of 235 W/m2 be therein...when added to albedo reflection achieves equilibrium. According to blackbody emission curves ~1200K nets ~235 W/m2 at 700 nm.
Intuitively, these value make sense...(if you subscribe to GHG physics). With an atmosphere which reflects all LW radiation back to the surface, surface energy accumulation with respect to time is geometric. Lastly, a gray atmosphere with ε= .618 will, (according to GHG physics) increase equilibrium temperature. As KR said: As stated before, given a known amount of outgoing radiation, the black body temperature is an absolute minimum on the temperature of an equivalently radiating graybody, due to the relationship of emissivity and temperature. So, what is actually borne out by the math. Assuming a gray body reflectivity = .388 the following table results:
Look KR is right! A gray body emissivity does confer a higher temperature....341K. Now, all we have to do is get those thermometers to fall in line with GHG physics.Moderator Response: [mc] Please limit width to 500 when posting images: <IMG SRC="" width=500> -
muoncounter at 04:29 AM on 9 April 2011From The Halls of Montezuma
Here's an interesting perspective: The popular debate surrounding “global warming” is rife with emotion and has paralyzed U.S. policymakers. Military planners, however, remain divorced from the emotional content of the topic, looking at possible future scenarios and conducting planning to address the associated challenges and threats arising from sharp changes in climate. Guess they haven't heard that 'its all just natural oscillation.' -
Albatross at 04:25 AM on 9 April 2011Christy Crock #1: 1970s Cooling
Dana, Correct me if I am wrong, but DDT has not been banned as a pesticide in Africa, yet Christy claims that millions of people have died in Africa because it was. Tim Lambert is quite the expert on the various DDT mythss, maybe he could help out? -
arch stanton at 04:19 AM on 9 April 2011From The Halls of Montezuma
Daniel - sure, belly up all! (1 round but not 10) -
dana1981 at 04:13 AM on 9 April 2011Christy Crock #1: 1970s Cooling
Steve L - it was a general question, but Christy was referring to DDT use in Africa. -
Steve L at 04:00 AM on 9 April 2011Christy Crock #1: 1970s Cooling
Aw, really? Christy is a DDT nut too? As Alabama State Climatologist, where did he want to "re-introduce" DDT? -
CBDunkerson at 03:55 AM on 9 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
Alexandre, thanks for that info. Good to hear that support for the carbon tax has been growing since it was passed. That suggests that people are seeing that it is beneficial to them... though I agree with Steve L in that any way it can be made 'in your face' (i.e. annual carbon tax rebate check or some such) would be a good idea for other areas looking to go a similar route. -
Philippe Chantreau at 03:49 AM on 9 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
Interesting post Dan. I just came back from BC, where I went to wish a happy Bday to Vancouver :-) I enjoyed my trip very much, just wish I had my ski gear, as Grouse had a meter of fresh fluff and was at or below freezing with sunshine on Wednesday. A far cry from last year's Olympic snow starvation. Plus, the proximity and cable car access really decreases the carbon footprint of skiing :-) Overall, I was impressed with the attitude of the media and public. Someone mentioned nonsense earlier in that thread. I saw a lot less of that there than in the US. It does not seem that as many are inclined to argue endlessly over non issues just to give the impression of doubt. Nonsense does not appear to be given undue attention for the sake of "balance" or whatever excuse is given here. In 2 days, I saw 3 climate related stories between the environment and business sections of the 2 mainstream daily newspapers. I believe these 2 papers lean each on one side of the political spectrum, but it is a lot less obvious than in the US. All stories made sense. The Muller story was lifted directly from the LA times and appeared in the Vancouver Sun. The quality of the news on TV, radio and in print was far superior to that in the US. I listened to the radio quite a bit and caught a number of debates that were well moderated and informative. What a breath of fresh air that was. And that was in the midst of the approaching election. There is no doubt at all that the approach to the carbon tax there makes sense. Some will always complain anyway, regardless how much they enjoy the benefits of society. -
Paul D at 03:48 AM on 9 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
John Hunter: "I've already insulated my house to be energy efficient." This isn't sufficient. You have to continually be aware of the actions you take and the implications it has on energy use. eg. You can have as much insulation as you like, but if you habitually leave the door open, you have wasted your time. John Hunter: "I already turn down my thermostat." Making one liner remarks means nothing. If you have every room in the house heated and you don't use half of them, then you either need to downsize or you need thermostats on every radiator so that the unused rooms are heated enough to keep out the frost. To be honest making announcements about ones achievements is not relevant, what matters is how serious the person is in achieving a footprint that is sustainable and is within the bounds of a global sustainable per capita average. John Hunter: "Why should I have to pay $20 on my natural gas bill for something that is doing nothing for me?" Again the cost of the fuel isn't the issue. The issue is that John Hunter needs to analyse his life and find ways to remove £20 in Dec from other outgoings. Beer? -
arch stanton at 03:46 AM on 9 April 2011From The Halls of Montezuma
Although my point about the sun not being as bright a half a million years ago is true, I actually was intending to refer to the Pliocene and I should have said “5 million”. What’s an order of magnitude among friends? (oops)Moderator Response: [DB] As long as that order includes buying a round for your friends, no worries at all! -
Albatross at 03:34 AM on 9 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Dikran, You are right, my apologies. Will do as requested.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] No problem; your restraint was commendable! -
arch stanton at 03:28 AM on 9 April 2011From The Halls of Montezuma
I agree with Peter about the blood alcohol analogy. This part of his presentation seems geared towards new recruits rather than the somber crowd he seems to be addressing. OTOH his basic premise is that a “small” change of something minuscule can indeed make a big difference is true. While we’re talking about presentation…I would not say that 390ppmv is too dangerous and needs to be reduced (at least until some energy efficient, low cost form of C sequestration is developed) for 2 reasons: 1) I don’t believe it. We are indeed flirting with danger (we could argue about the definition of “flirting with danger” vs “dangerous” but regardless I put it as a lower danger than you seem to despite similar CO2 levels. Humans are adaptable, Pliocene time scales are vast. 2) More importantly: It feeds the fourth stage of denialism*: The attitude that all is lost so we may as well party on. Related to my point #1…Although we all know that that the sun was dimmer half a million years ago, I have never seen anyone quantify the earth’s core heat flux changes due to the decay of radio nucleotides. Has anyone here seen a paper or discussion addressing this factor? Is it significant? Thanks, arch *(1=”It’s not happening” 2=”It’s happening but it is not bad” , 3=”It’s bad but we are not causing it” 4="It’s happening, it’s bad, we are causing it but there is nothing we can do about it”). -
Albatross at 03:23 AM on 9 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Again, more strawmen and distortions and mispresentations of others' understanding....not biting.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Quite right, however it is best if you just ignore it and leave it to the moderators. -
Gilles at 03:19 AM on 9 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
198: Albatross "That quote @197 was made 11 years ago. The AO has been reproduced in models for some time," Here is a more recent reference http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2011/02/dont_blame_the_arctic_oscillat.html "Scientists are trying to better understand the complicated processes that create these unusual, long-lasting flow geometries, otherwise known as AO phases. Some believe that the forcing comes from tropical weather phenomena, like El Nino or the Madden-Julian Oscillation. Matt Rogers' recently wrote about a mechanism proposed by researcher Judah Cohen linked to fall snow cover over Siberia. Andrew Freedman has written about possible connections to Arctic ice extent and global warming. Others believe the cause can be linked to the natural life cycle of really big storm systems, such as the blizzard that parts of the Northeast experienced the day after Christmas. Maybe it's all of them and while it is true that the AO index is a very useful statistical concept that gives a name to uncommon weather regimes, it does not explain how or why we get them." This is obviously not a well understood phenomenon. Again, claiming that "I see it in my computations" is very far from a real physical understanding - I'm surprised that you seem to think the opposite.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] None of which contradicts the assertion that the AO is reproduced in model output, so the last paragraph is at best a distortion of Albratross' point of view. I'm glad Albatross has responded correctly to your trolling. I have been very tolerant of your disruptive behaviour on this thread, any more of this and your posts will be deleted. -
Susan Buhr at 03:14 AM on 9 April 2011Geologist Richard Alley’s ‘Operators Manual’ TV Documentary and Book… A Feast for Viewers and Readers
Nice post Bud. We are hosting a discussion forum for educators about ETOM at iceeonline.org/forum. Dr. Alley will answer selected questions on the forum as his time permits. This is a moderated forum which is part of our CIRES climate education work at the U. of Colorado Boulder. Many teachers use videos to introduce a topic. ETOM has great potential for this purpose. -
Steve L at 03:13 AM on 9 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
Ranyl, how would you measure it? If not through accounting? Is your question sensible? -
Gilles at 03:12 AM on 9 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
excuse me but "the results of a model" have never been a proof of anything, as far as I know. Do you have any clear validation of this model ? At least the record below 4 Mkm^2 is a prediction. Let's wait ...Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Straw man: Nobody is saying that the results of a model are proof of something. Stop trolling.Models are used to tell us the consequences of a set of assumtions, nothing more, we all know that. Models are also used to generate falsifiable predictions, and are part of scientific method (Popper).
-
Albatross at 02:58 AM on 9 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Logicman @203, I agree, unfortunately some people keep insisting that "extrapolating" is all that is being done. Results from latest model runs presented at the EGU this week by Maslowski et al. suggest 2016 +/- 3 years for a mostly ice free Arctic ocean. [H/T to you for that info]. Wow, an extent below 4 million km^2...I hope that you are wrong. Which product is that for? PS: Have you seen that Hudson Strait already has large swaths of open water? -
logicman at 02:43 AM on 9 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Albatross: there's no need to extrapolate 30 strawman years. We are in the end game. Very soon, the last raft of sea ice will vanish under the summer sun before our eyes. The deniers will then insist that it is a natural cycle because it grows back in winter. After the ice fails to grow back in winter the deniers will point out to those stupid scientists who don't know such things that its a natural cycle because there used to be crocodiles in the Arctic. If the Arctic this year merely repeats average behavior of the last decade we will see the 3rd lowest September extent. I see no reason for average ice loss, but rather a more rapid than average ice loss. A record below 4million km2 is highly likely. -
ranyl at 02:40 AM on 9 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
How much carbon saving has there actually been? Measured actually emission savings not supposed savings through carbon accounting. -
Albatross at 02:38 AM on 9 April 2011From The Halls of Montezuma
So David Titley is a true skeptic then, good for him. Peter @ 1, I agree. It is a very good analogy, he just needs to present it differently. The message is that trace amounts can make a significant difference. The legal alcohol level for driving is 0.08% --double the number he gave, but if we continue on this path that is where we are heading, in a metephorical sense of course. -
shoyemore at 02:16 AM on 9 April 2011From The Halls of Montezuma
Delighted to General Anthony Zinni on there. Zinni is a tough Marine, ramrod straight and nobody's fool .. he was George W. Bush's special envoy to the Middle East early in his Presidency, was commander of CENTCOM, warned early (before 9/11) of the dangers of terrorism coming out of Afghanistan, opposed the Iraq War, but supported the "surges" by Bush and Obama in Iraq and Afghanistan respectively. His opposition to the Iraq adventure meant he was sidelined from the military after 2003. His track record of not pandering to anyone speaks for itself, and it is tremendously encouraging to a see a soldier and diplomat of his obvious quality and intelligence speaking up. General Anthony Zinni -
dana1981 at 02:10 AM on 9 April 2011Christy Crock #1: 1970s Cooling
To follow up on Albatross #22, as I recall, in his testimony to Congress a few months ago, Christy commented on economic issues, which he felt qualified to discuss because he's the "Alabama State Climatologist". I didn't realize being a state climatologist made one an economics expert. In this hearing, Christy stated that he would widely re-introduce the use of DDT. His qualifications on this matter? He has lived in Africa. So I guess Africans are all experts on health and pesticide use. Kerry Emanuel did not answer the question, stating that it's outside his realm of expertise. That is humility. So I agree, "humility" is a pretty terrible descriptor of Christy. -
Albatross at 02:07 AM on 9 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
I can't believe no-one has called the contrarian/s on this before. The sophisticated ensemble of AOGCMs which include feedbacks and reproduce internal climate modes such as AO and ENSO, are not mere extrapolations of a trend. To suggest this is ludicrous and a strawan. Besides nobody I know of who works in this field extrapolating the current trend in Arctic sea ice out 30 years or so, so another strawman. With that said, and to stay on topic, it will be interesting to see how the AO behaves this melt season (after the wild swings this past winter) and how it affects the Arctic sea ice. I'm leaning towards the second lowest extent on record, and record low volume in September (for that month). -
Alexandre at 02:05 AM on 9 April 2011From The Halls of Montezuma
Peter Bellin #1 In fact, I think current carbon dioxide concentrations are dangerous and need to be reduced. Totally agree. Pliocene had similar CO2 concentrations and perhaps 25m higher sea level. -
Vladimer K at 02:00 AM on 9 April 2011A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
And I never said that fusion was right around the corner. I was saying that this WWS timeline was so long that we may even have fusion by the time it's completed. That was more of an offhand comment than anything else. -
Albatross at 02:00 AM on 9 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Nobody is "extrapolating" 30-yrs out. Model simulations in sophisticated AOGCMs that include feebacks and reproduce internal climate modes (such as AO and ENSO, they are not mere extrapolations as some keep insisting. -
Vladimer K at 01:59 AM on 9 April 2011A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
@muoncounter- They're planning them, not building them (I think). It seems they've been planning them for a while (http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/mar2007/gb20070321_923592.htm?campaign_id=rss_daily), but they aren't talked about very much anymore, except for the rare article and government paper. I can't find anything that says they canceled them, so I'm standing by my statement. @muoncounter- What I meant was that if we're going to talk about advances in renewable technology by 2030, we should also include advances in nuclear technology. And I believe that China was supposed to have a pebble-bed reactor commissioned in 2013, although I'm not sure. I still say that nuclear and renewables should work together. Again, renewables replacing many of the fossil fuels needed for mining, hydrogen cells for transport, etc. I've recently heard that it may be possible to produce pure hydrogen in a pebble-bed reactor, which could reduce reliance on oil. Also, Fukushima occurred because of the tsunami, not the earthquake. When the main power was cut, the diesel generators worked perfectly until they were hit by a wall of water. After that, the battery backups worked for the designed 8 hours. The problems arose when the switchboard area flooded and they couldn't hook up new generators. The easy solution to that is to build submarine doors and have an emergency backup power line buried underground to connect the plant to an emergency external source. -
Albatross at 01:57 AM on 9 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
DM, Thanks for your efforts here. Perhaps also please try and and steer/guide contrarian back to the subject of this thread-- the current melt season, the subject of this thread.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] No problem, good point, please pay attention to it everybody! ;o) -
muoncounter at 01:57 AM on 9 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Gilles#196 "I'm not saying this is the cause of ice melting - I just present an example of obvious multidecadal oscillations, and there are others." Excellent. I'm not saying ice is melted by the exhaust from snowmobiles; I'm just presenting an obvious example. No one takes this sort of statement seriously. If you are proposing that 'oscillations' are the cause of an effect that has a long-term trend, do so in a scientific manner. Review the evidence (not just the vague pronouncements) and take it to a thread that discusses such oscillations. That is what an actual scientist would do. -
Rob Honeycutt at 01:56 AM on 9 April 2011From The Halls of Montezuma
Peter @ 1... Perhaps a better analogy is strychnine. I believe a lethal dose of strychnine is well below 450ppm relative to the human body. Small portions of certain substances can certainly have large effects. -
Albatross at 01:56 AM on 9 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
That quote @197 was made 11 years ago. The AO has been reproduced in models for some time, and the impacts of natural variability and various forcings (e.g., volcanoes, anthro GHGs) has also been investigated (e.g., Gillett et al. (2002), and very recent work has focussed on the impacts of Arctic sea ice loss on the AO and NAO. Also read AR4. -
Steve L at 01:54 AM on 9 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
I think in the first year of the carbon tax, we (everybody) got $120 rebated in cheques. I haven't received a cheque since then. It's too bad, because many of hte people here have forgotten that the tax is revenue neutral. They may need something tangible to be reminded periodically. I'd love for the tax to go up to $100, because I live in a high density area and can bike to work. For others, like those living out in the sticks, I can see why they wouldn't want to subsidize me. And I can see imagine still others who would travel across the US or Alberta border for gas if the tax gets too far ahead of other price in other places. -
Albatross at 01:44 AM on 9 April 2011Christy Crock #1: 1970s Cooling
There was no "global cooling theory" in the 70s, there was a concern (a hypothesis) amongst some scientists that should sulfate aerosols continue to increase rapidly that the associated cooling could pose a problem. It was a conditional prediction, contingent on sulfate aerosols increasing fourfold. Two compare that hypothesis with the theory of AGW and the current situation (as some contrarians are doing) is pure folly. This has all been discussed in the main post, but apparently it needs to be repeated here again. "May we all have so much of “humility” as Dr. Christy .." Umm, not even close. Christy frequently speaks to subjects that is is not even closely qualified to speak to (see his recent testimony to Congress); it took him and Spencer years to acknowledge that their UAH data were flawed and to correct it; only in 2012 is he making his UAH code available (long after GISTEMP), and goodness' knows what that will reveal; he frequently belittles and slanders his colleagues..... Kudos to the person who finds the first statement made by Christy that qualifies as misleading congress so that someone can take this further..... -
Gilles at 01:43 AM on 9 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
concerning AO http://www.jisao.washington.edu/wallace/ncar_notes/ "An important challenge facing us now is to incorporate these AO-related changes into our thinking about human influences on climate." As I understand it : it is not yet done. -
Peter Bellin at 01:43 AM on 9 April 2011From The Halls of Montezuma
I am uncomfortable with David Tilley's blood alcohol analogy, not only for the suggestion that people who don't drink are boring, and that getting drunk is fun. It also suggest the current carbon dioxide levels are OK (the analogy to the blood alcohol level of .04 %). In fact, I think current carbon dioxide concentrations are dangerous and need to be reduced. -
Steve L at 01:40 AM on 9 April 2011Christy Crock #1: 1970s Cooling
I think part of the communication problem with skeptics (and the broader public) on this issue may be the difference between recognizing cooling that had occurred by the 1970s versus predicting that it would continue into the future. They're very different things, for scientifically-minded people. I don't know if trends past-to-present and predictions for the future are so different in the minds of others. You see the problem in discussions of sea level rise, human health and welfare, and also a bunch of topics that aren't very climate-related. Arkadiusz #18 might be a good example of that issue, but specific to the 1970s claim. -
Gilles at 01:39 AM on 9 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
DM : if you discuss about significance, you don't have to prove there is something else. You don't have to prove it is *not* real. It is just a matter of confidence. For instance, you say : "Secondly, the historical data do not necessarily say that the ice is insensitive to the change in temperature as temperature is not the only thing that controls ice loss, and those factors need to be considered." you admit that other things than temperature can influence ice melting - but this also means that current melting can be due to these "other things". Concerning AO , I'm not saying this is the cause of ice melting - I just present an example of obvious multidecadal oscillations, and there are others. i'm not trying to design my own theory - and when talking with astrologists, I don't try to "prove" any other explanation of why we have our personality either. The burden of the proof is for the one who claims he has a theory - and extrapolating a linear trend can hardly be called a "theory" in my sense. It is well possible that part of the melting is due to global warming and another part belongs to long period cycles - thus extrapolating would grossly exaggerate the rate. It is possible that on the opposite it's entirely due to GW and will even accelerate due to non linear feedback - I'm just saying that I don't see strong evidence for that. The more uncertain are the data, the easier you can predict catastrophes ...Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] "The burden of proof is for the one who claims he has a theory" says it all. You can't prove a theory by observation; that is well known in the philosophy of science (Popper). Tom Curtis has already pointed out to you that this is the well-known "problem of induction", and both he and I have pointed out the solutions to this problem that have been adopted in the world of science. If your point is only (essentially) that there maybe be stuff we don't know about that might be causing the ice to melt other than warming, then yes, you are technically correct, but science has developed means to deal with this epistemological doubt that have proven highly effective for a couple of centuries. If they hadn't, we would have no means of inferring a general principle from observations, and science would have made little progress. You have made your point, it is irellevant and displays a lack of understanding of scientific method, and any further repetition is now "off-topic".It is interesting Gilles mentions astrology as it was used to exemplify the difference between science and non-science by Popper. Gilles could usefully occupy his time reading up on Poppers work (e.g. here). He might even realise that what he is doing is rather akin to astrology (looking for correlations that "explain" the observations without worrying about a physical mechanism that might imply the correlation is due to a causal relationship. If you look hard enough you can always find a correllation with something - even if it is the motion of Pluto - not that anyone would make that argument ;o).
-
Alexandre at 01:36 AM on 9 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
Gilles at 01:26 AM on 9 April, 2011, says: I just said it won't change the amount of FF under the ground, and won't make us stop extracting them either. First, I'm relieved that you agree it's not catastrophic. So further such experiments should not end the world or harm anyone. Second, no, it will not stop people extracting FF at this point. But it will improve the economic attractiveness of the alternatives, and help them gain scale. For now. -
Albatross at 01:31 AM on 9 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
Sad that some here just cannot (or refuse to) grasp this simple concept. BC are clearly leaders and should be proud-- this is a proof of concept project (as CB noted) and so far it has demonstrated that a carbon tax can work. The NDP (the official opposition) also recently admitted that it was a mistake on their part to contest the carbon tax in the last election. Having been to BC, one thing is very apparent when one arrives. Taxi fleets have large numbers of hybrids, and cars in general are much smaller (and more fuel efficient). Now that does make a difference to emissions and pollution. The tax has also been an incentive to push to increase efficiency in other avenues. IMHO, the only problem with the tax right now is that the price is limited to $30 a tonne in 2012, in order for a carbon tax to be effective it has to increase incrementally until the population and industry respond and to substantially decrease emissions. Emission data from Environment Canada are only available until 2008, inclusive. This Wiki page might provide some more useful information. And no one is suggesting that a carbon tax is intended to stop extracting FFs-- please enough with the argumentum ad absurdum, this is not a Republican energy hearing ;) -
Gilles at 01:26 AM on 9 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
19 Alexandre - I never said it was catastrophic - gas is much more taxed in France than in US, that's kind of a carbon tax, and we survive - and have much more efficient cars than in US. I just said it won't change the amount of FF under the ground, and won't make us stop extracting them either. -
Tom Curtis at 01:20 AM on 9 April 2011Christy Crock #1: 1970s Cooling
Arkudiusz Semcyszak, I am sorry but your English is so fractured that I often find it impossible to understand your meaning. Your interpretation of scientific papers suggests you have the same problem understanding normal English prose. Are you actually an English speaker? Or are you using a translation program? If the later, it is not up to the demands you are placing on it. If the former, would you please take more lessons so that we can have a coherent conversation. -
Alexandre at 01:14 AM on 9 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
CBDunkerson at 00:42 AM on 9 April, 2011 The anedoctical account of John Hunter does not make justice to the overall acceptance of the initiative. The NYT article has some figures about polls on this issue: Environics Research Group Ltd. documented an almost 10-percentage-point rise in support among British Columbians for the carbon tax between when the tax was about to be implemented in 2008 and when it had been in place for a year in 2009, for example. Last month, researchers at three universities reported (pdf) that an even stronger majority, or 56 percent of Canadians, supported a carbon tax costing $50 a month. "Initially, some people heard the 't' word and went into a tizzy," said Robert Gifford, a professor at the University of Victoria and an expert in environmental psychology. "Then the end of the world didn't happen, and people just accepted the tax." -
dana1981 at 01:14 AM on 9 April 2011Christy Crock #1: 1970s Cooling
Nick #17 - we'll be addressing both the myths that you mention propagated by Christy in future Christy Crocks. Arkadiusz #16 and #18 - please try actually reading the article that you're commenting on.
Prev 1784 1785 1786 1787 1788 1789 1790 1791 1792 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 Next
