Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1792 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 1800 1801 1802 1803 1804 1805 1806 1807 Next
Comments 89951 to 90000:
-
Daniel Bailey at 05:00 AM on 7 April 2011Skeptical Science in other media
"it is intellectually bankrupt to maintain beliefs that are falsified by readily made observations" Tell that to those who deny climate science and would not only overturn the US EPA CO2 endangerment finding, but de-fund ongoing and future research into climate studies. Not to mention the resident cadre of dissemblers here at Skeptical Science. The Yooper -
adelady at 04:56 AM on 7 April 2011Skeptical Science in other media
ptbrown, nicholas, I'd be inclined to disagree with you. There are many, many people claiming to be christian who firstly claim some silly things about science and who, secondly, would reject scientifically correct statements from the Vatican, in particular, as representing an acceptable christian view of the science. Having clear scientific statements set out with the language and christian ethics such people are accustomed to is much more likely to get them thinking. "God would not let such a thing happen to us" is the kind of naive, shallow thinking that can only be effectively countered by other christians. Any scornful or dismissive comments from me or from you or others like us would just be ignored as being from unreliable non-believers. And let's be a bit charitable. For a christian to acknowledge that they've been wrong about this, they're going to have to face more than the facts. They'll have to accept some measure of guilt and shame that they've been engaged in a form of sin, mostly of omission but probably for some actions they've performed as well. This unhappy moment is best shared within a supportive environment only available with other christians. -
Nicholas Christie-Blick at 04:50 AM on 7 April 2011Skeptical Science in other media
I drew attention already to the disconnect between actual beliefs and science-based knowledge. Alexandre's quote is among the reasons it matters. People reject all manner of science - not just climate science - because it conflicts with their beliefs. It is inconceivable to some that we (humans) are capable of mucking up a planet over which (it is asserted) god gave us dominion. I adopt the opposite view - that it is intellectually bankrupt to maintain beliefs that are falsified by readily made observations. -
Albatross at 04:25 AM on 7 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
KR @145, "I will have to say that I and all other scientists are really quite insulted by this." Seconded KR. -
Bob Lacatena at 03:58 AM on 7 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
142, Gilles, You are making a classic mistake, one that typically afflicts many skeptics, so let me try to help you through it. As you are a scientist, I'm sure that it will help you further your career, as well as to better understand climate science and so to begin to adopt a responsible role concerning the issue. I'd really hate for you to look back, twenty years from now, with great regret and remorse on your activities and communications during this period... which are helping to stall responsible action on the most important issue facing the next three generations (or more, depending on how badly this generation bungles the situation). But I'm digressing, and I said that I'd help you. You cannot make inferences and understand the real world merely by looking at numbers and trends and statistics. You must create a more concrete physical model for things, and then use the observations and statistics to help prove or at least provide confidence in such a hypothesis. Without a physical understanding and reality behind everything, it's just playing games with numbers. The scientific method does not work that way, by trying to back into the truth by finding inexplicable correlations between numbers and then just assuming there's some sort of reason for the correlation. You start with a hypothesis, then use the observations to refute or improve confidence in the hypothesis. Now I know you're saying to yourself that you know all of this, and you probably do, but your behavior on this thread demonstrates that you're not actually doing it. You seem to be very easily confused by such simple concepts as how a positive feedback would operate, or why noise in the system would obscure any "obvious" signal, while such a signal would still be clearly present, and in fitting with the facts (as is, in fact, the case). Examples from this thread of you're being too focused on numbers without a serious grounding in physical mechanisms, or an inability to grasp where really are pretty straight forward physical system interactions:...any oscillating function as a temperature curve during a few days or across seasons will show periods of acceleration...
...the concept of random positive feedback is surely interesting, but I have never heard of any physical phenomenon producing that...
I can't see any scientific validation of what you're saying,,,
...very far from a noise measurements over a much longer period...
...they don't imply any possibility of extrapolation...
I don't really see which kind of system would exhibit a feedback which would...
...just have a look at a randomly fluctuating curve...
I say that you can not say it just by inspecting the curve, without any comparison period...
...when you looking only at these two curves, how can you know if it is a long term trend , or part of a natural fluctuation ?
...such a memory...
But take heart. There are a fair number of intelligent and educated people who actually understand the situation who are here trying to help you through this. If you stick with it, keep an open mind, and keep trying, I'm sure you'll understand it eventually. The worst case is that you won't understand it until too late, and you'll look back on all of this with great regret. -
Pete Dunkelberg at 03:35 AM on 7 April 2011Skeptical Science in other media
April edition link http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.contents&issue=soj1104 rather than home pageModerator Response: [DB] Hot-linked URL. -
Daniel Bailey at 03:17 AM on 7 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
And with Gilles' most recent bloviation, we should heed the Rede of the Ancient Mariner and DNFTT. For tröll he hath petarded himself. The Yooper -
Paul D at 03:15 AM on 7 April 2011Skeptical Science in other media
Alexandre quoting someone else: "God would not let such thing happen to us" That isn't Christianity. Implicit in religion is the notion that one should take personal responsibility for ones actions. By suggesting that God is responsible for CO2 emissions is to deny personal responsibility. Another point is that an easy way to avoid responsibility for ones actions is to deny knowledge that might imply you are responsible! eg. by blaming something else, you are trying to deny you have responsibility. That is a flagrant abuse of religion. -
dana1981 at 03:14 AM on 7 April 2011Climate myths at the U.S. House Hearing on climate change
Steve L - I've got a post to be published tomorrow which examines the '70s cooling myth, including the reasoning behind one specific cooling prediction (probably the most famous one, by Rasool and Schneider). Stay tuned. -
KR at 02:55 AM on 7 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Gilles - I don't usually respond to your posts; lots of other folks have been doing an admirable job there. This one, however, is so completely outrageous. Even if the ice extent trajectories intersected (and they don't), your statement "when two curves intersect, do you think that there is a still significative difference between the physical state (heat content etc..) of the Arctic ocean ?" would still be complete and utter nonsense. The graph shows ice extent, not heat content, melt rates, snow deposition, ice volume, Arctic currents, etc. The rates and additional factors determine the trajectory (the whole data, in other words), you cannot predict it with a single trajectory value. And peak minimum and maximum extents depend on all of that. If you state that "as I'm a scientist who really tries to settle scientific disputes", and then promulgate this kind of nonsense, I will have to say that I and all other scientists are really quite insulted by this. You should know better! -
CBDunkerson at 02:43 AM on 7 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Gilles: "Note how all curves intersect in a somewhat messy way around 15th of May." As stated, this is false. The curves do not all intersect. I suppose you mean that the spread between the highest and lowest values on the graph is smallest at that point. "when two curves intersect, do you think that there is a still significative difference between the physical state (heat content etc..) of the Arctic ocean ?" Given that these curves show sea ice area the answer to that question is obviously, yes... there are significant differences. You can have the same ice area at the same time of year, but very different ice volumes, ice distributions, ocean temperatures, currents, weather patterns, et cetera. "if no, what kind of "feedback" can be expected from the previous years since the system has been reset to approximately the same state ?" Again, this statement is simply false. The system has not "been reset to approximately the same state". Look at the ice volume anomaly graph in the original article. Volume has declined significantly in the 2002 - 2011 period corresponding to your JAXA graph. The ice area being approximately the same ~May 15 while the ice volume is lower means that the ice has gotten thinner. Thinner ice requires less energy to melt. -
muoncounter at 02:43 AM on 7 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Gilles#142: "I'm a scientist who really tries to settle scientific disputes." Like most else that you've said, you've shown no evidence of that. "Note how all curves intersect in a somewhat messy way around 15th of May." What possible significance can this isolated factoid have? In the process of going from max extent to min extent, all curves go through a midpoint. What is significant is the decrease in min extent over a period of a very few years. "what kind of "feedback" can be expected from the previous years" You continue to pose this nonsensical question - as if you did not understand what is meant by 'feedback.' -
les at 02:36 AM on 7 April 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
If anyone is feeling that their science-senses have been badly assaulted and would like some reading for restoration, SoD has started a new series Simple Atmospheric Models which is part one. I have no doubt we can look forward to some elegant prose and explanations. -
Gilles at 02:31 AM on 7 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
so , I try again, as I'm a scientist who really tries to settle scientific disputes. Take for instance the JAXA curves of the last ten years
Note how all curves intersect in a somewhat messy way around 15th of May.
My question is : when two curves intersect, do you think that there is a still significative difference between the physical state (heat content etc..) of the Arctic ocean ? if yes , where ? if no, what kind of "feedback" can be expected from the previous years since the system has been reset to approximately the same state ?
Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] The system has not been "reset to approximately the same state" because the extent, expressed as a single number, doesn't tell you about the spatial distribution of ice, its age or its thickness, all of which will have an effect on future development. -
hengistmcstone at 02:21 AM on 7 April 2011Skeptics were kept out of the IPCC?
In fact the IPCC includes many skeptical reviewers. Here is an incomplete list http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Skeptical_IPCC_Contributors -
Steve L at 01:45 AM on 7 April 2011Climate myths at the U.S. House Hearing on climate change
I am struck by the multiple references to the "1970s Global Cooling" myth. It really resonates somehow with these people. It's wrong on so many levels! But I'd like to pick on one aspect that I don't think has been thoroughly discussed here before. Sure Peterson, Connolley, & Fleck found 42 of 68 papers from "Global Cooling" literature predicted warming vs only 10 predicting cooling. But how did they come to their conclusions? Which were merely extrapolations of short term statistical trends? Which were based on physical models of the climate system? I have a strong suspicion that this comparison would show models predicting warming. What models would predict cooling? Given the uncertainties in aerosol forcing more than 30 years later, I can't imagine very strong confidence back then. I suspect the predictions of cooling were based primarily on either natural caused cooling (orbital forcing) or other natural cycling (phases of oceanic state) or continuing of recent trends. In 2011, ocean cycles and recent trends are the two things still faithfully put forward by 'skeptics' for predicting the future. Which approach was better 30 years ago? The physical models that they so distrust! -
RSVP at 01:10 AM on 7 April 2011Climate myths at the U.S. House Hearing on climate change
Marcus 16 I have to disagree. Starting with Mr. Watt way back when, science got us into this mess, and is the only hope for getting us out. This is not the fault of politicians or the rich. The rich will surely fund anything that is profitable, and if the alternatives cant compete in this way, it is because science hasnt done enough to make it so. -
Alexandre at 01:07 AM on 7 April 2011Skeptical Science in other media
CBDunkerson at 22:02 PM on 6 April, 2011 That's a good way to respond to it. I also point that as far as I can tell, God does not seem to be very inclined to let us get away with negligence, willful ignorance, imprudence or even downright stupidity. -
Alexandre at 01:00 AM on 7 April 2011Skeptical Science in other media
Re Arkadiusz "Alarmist" being making alarming stuff public, even if those alarming projections match observations. -
Albatross at 00:50 AM on 7 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Folks, as difficult as it is please DNFTT. -
JMurphy at 00:40 AM on 7 April 2011Climate myths at the U.S. House Hearing on climate change
Arkadiusz Semczyszak wrote : "2. ... and increasingly aggressive speeches separating researchers on "good" - who think like them - and "bad " - "miscreants" - thinking contrary." I think you are projecting here, unless you can give examples of these "aggressive speeches". You are also well into wishful thinking if you believe that so-called "miscreants" are just "thinking contrary" - unless you mean "thinking contrary" to be denial, disinformation and obfuscation ? In that case, you would be right. Although I wouldn't call them "miscreants" (who would ?) - how about deniers or so-called skeptics. Finally good researchers are those who put forward scientific fact. In the field of AGW, those just happen to be in agreement with the facts of AGW. Nothing strange about that, is there ? -
ptbrown31 at 00:07 AM on 7 April 2011Skeptical Science in other media
I also think that it is unwise to go down this road of trying to mix science and religion. I feel that they are very much incompatible by their very definitions. Science as a practice tries to remove 'faith' in ideas at every turn, instead emphasizing empirical evidence. Religion, on the other hand glorifies belief in things for which there is little evidence. I find it very odd that in Katharine Hayhoe's interview she seems to be arguing that you don't need to accept that the earth is older than 6,000 years old to believe in climate change. Why would someone accept any of the scientific arguments for AGW theory if they are unable to accept such a basic scientific principle? If you don't care about evidence you don't care about evidence. -
Tom Curtis at 23:59 PM on 6 April 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
damorbel @973: Are you saying that we cannot test GH theories because we cannot compare planets with and without atmospheres? In that case, the presence of the moon refutes the claim. Such comparisons are easily made. Or are you saying that we can only test GH theories by comparing planets with GHG concentrations in their atmospheres to planets with atmospheres but no GHG? Again, you are wrong; for we can certainly compare planets with different concentrations of GHG, and that is sufficient. Continuing on, certainly the concept of an atmosphere without GHG is perfectly valid. Let us assume, for example, a planet with only nitrogen in it's atmosphere so that, for practical purposes, it is transparent at all wavelengths. It will be heated slowly at the surface until energy flow from the surface matches that to the surface (on average). The atmosphere above the surface will have a temperature gradient defined by g/c(p) = 9.81/1.039 = 9.44 K/km. I know this because we already have a theory that accounts for the gradient. That theory is independent of GH theory in the same way that the laws of thermodynamics. IE, it is an independent theory from which (along with some other theories) GH theory is derived. Curiously, the derivation is a logical derivation. Therefore, the standard theory of the GHE cannot be false unless at least one of: The laws of thermodynamics; The ideal gas laws; Quantum mechanics; The relativistic version Maxwell's theory of electricity; or The theory of gravitation, is false. So would you please acknowledge (after having been told inumerable times) that there is a well grounded theory of the lapse rate, and hence a theory that incorporates gravitation into the physics of atmospheres; and tell us just which fundamental branch of physics you think needs to overthrown by your no doubt brilliant, but never revealed proof of an error in GH theory.Moderator Response: [muoncounter] In keeping with above moderator responses, please do not attempt re-starting the lapse rate conversation ad nauseum. -
JMurphy at 23:57 PM on 6 April 2011Skeptical Science in other media
Arkadiusz Semczyszak, do you have any examples of those "alarmist" types you refer to ? Perhaps you could finally explain what an "alarmist" is - something that others (no names mentioned - we don't want any of that circular and repetitious spamming again, do we ?) have failed to do. -
Dikran Marsupial at 23:33 PM on 6 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Giles #135 wrote "I don't really see which kind of system would exhibit a feedback which would " hasten the onset of an ice-free Arctic [and be] constantly available but not constantly dominant." The answer is very simple Giles, it simply means that the albedo feedback is not as strong as the short term influences that cause the variability. CO2 radiative forcing is another example, it biases temperature trends upward as CO2 increases, but it doesn't mean that temperatures rise monotonically as CO2 rises. If I try an push a hippopotamus into a cage, I am biasing his movement in that direction, but I am not the dominant influence, even though I am constantly available. Secondly, I happen to be a statistician, so I understand why it is perfectly O.K. to jointly infer the noise as well as the signal. However asking for data that you know doesn't exist in order to be satisfied is just the act of a troll or a denialist, it is not the behaviour of a scientist. Any scientific argument based on a set of observations obviously comes with the implicit caveat that it is based only on those observations and there is always a possibility that they don't show the whole picture. Scientists know that and generally don't feel the need to block the discussion with such pedantry. Do you have a particular mechanism that might cause the ice loss, or do you just mean some nebulous "natural cycles"? If it is the latter, then why would I be considered odd if I decided not to accept Einsteins theories of relativity because all of the observations that support it were gathered over a short period of time and if we look further back there may be data that would disprove it? There is always some epistemological doubt in science, we all know about it and take it as read. -
johnd at 23:22 PM on 6 April 2011Models are unreliable
KR at 12:27 PM, why do you suspect professional weather services would supply their services to the weather bureaus when the needs, and rewards, are with private enterprise? Anyway, aren't those bureaus always claiming high success rates using their own resources, the only exceptions being the unexpected events that "nobody" could foresee. Insurance, agriculture, mining and exploration, construction are all examples of industries that have to address weather dependent risk. Daily, decisions are being made which require accurately determining the possibilities of unfavourable weather impacting on the program being planned. At the smaller end of the scale, operators of agricultural enterprises are constantly having to anticipate the season ahead, and for even a small operator a wrong decision can mean differences measured in hundreds of thousands $. Do you think those decisions are made from reading the newspapers? At the other end of the scale in offshore construction where programs extend through all seasons and delays are measured in millions of $ per day, with programs that might have to run through cyclone seasons, and require weather windows to enable milestones to be met. Do you think the Captain of a derrick barge sticks his head out of the window on the day to determine whether it is safe to do an installation, and that they are not instead facing conditions that could result in a catastrophic loss? The need for reliable long range predictions begins when the contracts are being negotiated. What will be the expected weather delays if the program starts at a certain time of the year? Should the program start early or be delayed? What completion bonuses or delay penalties are likely to be earned or incurred? In the mining industry, you don't think that a mining company planning on opening a new pit might consider an reliable prediction very valuable if it meant that delaying the new pit avoided spending months pumping it empty of water, or should they have instead relied on the TV weather? -
Nicholas Christie-Blick at 23:16 PM on 6 April 2011Skeptical Science in other media
I greatly appreciate the mostly on-target efforts of this website to alert the public to the misinformation put out by 'skeptics'. However, I urge sticking with the science. First, the reality and possible consequences of climate change have nothing to do with religious belief. They depend upon observational evidence and on simulations based on that evidence. Second, while science and faith are not necessarily incompatible (comment #5), much of what folk believe is in fact incompatible with what we have learned through science. The interactions and feedbacks inherent in complex natural systems and the role of contingency in the manner in which the Universe has evolved over 13.75 billion years lead to a rather firm conclusion. We (humans) and the planet on which we live are here by good fortune, and not by design. The god idea retains virtually no explanatory value, in spite of its remarkable persistence even among educated people. The most compelling rationale for becoming better stewards of the Earth is self-interest. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:13 PM on 6 April 2011Skeptical Science in other media
“... science will triumph over the denialists and disinformationists ...” Full consent. I hope that and “alarmist”, however - as well. P.S. Well, being an agnostic in a Catholic country I learned how “to be in the minority”. -
CBDunkerson at 23:10 PM on 6 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Gilles #136: Setting aside for the moment that your 'reply' here addresses none of the points I raised in the message it is supposedly responding to and seems to go off on a completely unrelated tangent... Memory? No, there is no 'memory'. Just the obvious implications of an increasing greenhouse gas forcing and the ice-albedo feedback effect. That is, more heat from greenhouse warming means more ice melted in Summer and less formed in Winter. Less ice at the start of the melt season means less energy needed to melt ice and thus more open water to absorb more energy... and melt more ice. Can weather events overwhelm (or exacerbate) these factors on a short (i.e. annual) time scale? Sure, but that doesn't change the (painfully obvious) fact that on an ongoing basis more heat = less ice. -
les at 23:09 PM on 6 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Gilles#135: I don't blame you for your confusion. The problem is, often, people post up graphs and point and say "there, you see?". This deludes many people, yes you are not alone, into beleiving that this is anything like how science is done. In reality the analysis of things like acceleration of ice cover etc. require statistical techniques to be applied to data. Often the outcomes of such analysis are displayed on graphs... but this is only for, lets say, a sanity check and do not actually represent the analysis being done - and that is possibly misleading. If you look at, for example, this paper (only for illustration of method, you understand). You will see they fit a regression to the things like the annual mass balance (a 'speed', if you will) to get a rate of rate of change ('acceleration', so to speak). You can spot this because one is Gt/Year and the other Gt/Year^2. Study of such works will also you to understand things like the importance of time scale ... hint, look at the confidence limits. -
muoncounter at 22:51 PM on 6 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Gilles#136: "I have no indication that ... " The importance of whether you have an indication or not is exactly zero. There is such evidence; you can find it if you look. Rather than 'give me a convincing argument,' perhaps you could do some homework; opinions sound so much better when they are backed by a fact or two. -
Marcus at 22:51 PM on 6 April 2011Climate myths at the U.S. House Hearing on climate change
Logicman. Sequestering of CO2 is-in my opinion-a good way to reduce the CO2 emissions of existing sources of fossil fuel power, but *geo* sequestration is as totally crazy as you claim. The only sensible way to sequester CO2 is *biologically*. There are several species of algae & bacteria which are completely capable of soaking up large quantities of CO2 &-unlike CCS-produce a product that we can actually *use*, rather than a by-product that needs to be disposed of. In particular, algae can be gasified & burned to make electricity (thus effectively producing several MW-h of electricity from the same tonne of CO2) & both algae & bacteria can be used to generate a variety of bio-fuels. -
logicman at 22:49 PM on 6 April 2011Learning from the Climate Hearing
‘Dr. Emanuel made the key point that uncertainty is no excuse not to manage risk.” - This claim contradicts the foundations of the theory of risk. Arkadiusz: thank you for reminding me of why I need to move my forthcoming article on the scientific assessment of hazards and risks from the back burner to the front burner. :) -
Gilles at 22:45 PM on 6 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
133 CBD : I have no indication that the overall increase of incoming solar radiation during a few weeks in summer has a significative impact on the melting of the following year, since everything has frozen again during months, and a lot of heat transfers between oceans and atmosphere has occurred. Can you give me a convincing argument that there must be such a memory ? -
Marcus at 22:45 PM on 6 April 2011Learning from the Climate Hearing
BTW, Arkadiusz, this is what I found out of Klaus' "professor of economics qualifications", courtesy of Wikipedia: "In 1995, as Prime Minister, he applied for and was awarded the degree of Professor of Finance from his alma mater, so he is sometimes addressed as "Mr. Professor" as is customary in the Czech Republic." You know, where I come from, a person can't get called a professor unless (s)he (a) spends at *least* 5 years at University studying the subject of their future professorship, (b) work up through the ranks of Academia until the time they receive said professorship. Here, such a process can take more than 15 years, yet your beloved Klaus achieved that status after a single year. Your reference to Klaus as "Professor" just sounds like another desperate appeal to authority. -
logicman at 22:44 PM on 6 April 2011Climate myths at the U.S. House Hearing on climate change
"trapping the carbon dioxide before it escapes from the smokestack and pumping it underground, will likely be a key technology solution for mitigating climate change" Am I the only person on the planet who thinks this idea is crazy? The burning of fossil fuels puts CO2 in the atmosphere which causes global warming. In order to counter global warming we sequester CO2, so we must burn even more fossil fuels to provide the surplus energy needed to sequester CO2. When we sequester CO2 we sequester the oxygen that we used to burn the fuel. The most efficient way to sequester carbon is to split it from atmospheric CO2 and convert it into a rock-like substance which can lie safely under the ground for millions of years. I am applying for a patent on this rock-like substance. I shall be calling it coalTM. -
les at 22:42 PM on 6 April 2011Learning from the Climate Hearing
20 Semczyszak "‘Dr. Emanuel made the key point that uncertainty is no excuse not to manage risk.” - This claim contradicts the foundations of the theory of risk." How so? Surely risk theory is to do with assessing the likelihood of events under various degrees of uncertainty. Risk management is identifying risks, assessing their likelihood and impact, and defining policies to minimise overall impacts. -
Gilles at 22:42 PM on 6 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
DB 130 and logicman 134 : I don't really see which kind of system would exhibit a feedback which would " hasten the onset of an ice-free Arctic [and be] constantly available but not constantly dominant." is it that you should just have a look at a randomly fluctuating curve and if you see a downward trend, say "oh there is a feedback", and when you don't see it, say "oh it's random"? or is it something else ? how can you see evidence for "feedbacks" and not just random fluctuations with various amplitudes ? #131 : "There is no statistical justification for requesting a "longer period than're using for your signal", it is perfectly reasonable to estimate the properties of the noise from the same sample as the signal." I'm sorry to deeply disagree with you : the issue is to know whether a variation seen over a period T is really due to an external forcing, or if it can be a part of a larger timescale fluctuation (in this case, a possible oscillation with a period T >> 30 years) . I think that you assume implicitly that such an oscillation is absent : I say that you can not say it just by inspecting the curve, without any comparison period. If you want an explicit example : just select the part of the CT 'tale of the tape' between Feb 2009 and Nov 2009 et compare it to the 30-years curve - it looks exactly similar - so when you looking only at these two curves, how can you know if it is a long term trend , or part of a natural fluctuation ? in the case of CT curve, you can know it because you have much longer data and you can see that this period has nothing exceptional. And in the case of the 30 years curve ...???? -
Marcus at 22:40 PM on 6 April 2011Learning from the Climate Hearing
"Professor of Economics, V. Klaus has recently stated that environmentalists - Greens - have never had respect for this science - unless he was right." Ah yes, Vaclav Klaus, would know all about having no respect for science-given his complete lack of respect for science as regards Global Warming. He's just another Far-Right, Free Market Fundamentalist who takes all his queues from the fossil fuel industry-much like you do, Arkadiusz. -
Marcus at 22:34 PM on 6 April 2011Climate myths at the U.S. House Hearing on climate change
"BP Amoco i Royal Dutch Shell. Both companies have joined the International Climate Change Partnership, which unites over 40 companies. World Resources Institute in Washington in the action "Safe climate, healthy business" - "works" with BP Amoco, General Motors and Monsanto." Arkadiusz-Clearly you're unfamiliar with a little thing called Public Relations. Its in the best interests of the fossil fuel industry to *appear* like it cares about climate change-albeit by funding "strategies" that won't result in reduced use of their products-whilst pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into "Think Tanks", "Studies" & politicians that all seek to cast doubt on the very real danger of climate change & the need to adopt *real* strategies for reducing fossil fuel use. I'm guessing your skepticism is incredibly selective. -
logicman at 22:27 PM on 6 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
#130 - Gilles "logicman : I can't see any scientific validation of what you're saying - sorry, that just hand waving for me. Do you have a mathematical model of what you're describing ? " What I was describing was a simple observation in fluid dynamics: it is impossible to model exactly the effect of air turbulence on an object moving through a fluid. Although we can model the altitude of a plane in level flight in broad terms, we can't predict minor variations in altitude from moment to moment. In general, for systems involving fluid motion - such as air currents, ocean currents, ice advection and ice melt - we cannot model momentary fluctuations, only trends. The day that I have a mathematical model to describe momentary random variations in fluid flows is the day you will read news reports about my nomination for the Abel Prize - but don't hold your breath. If you wish to approach fluid dynamics from a mathematics-oriented direction, may I recommend: Batchelor, George K. (1973). An introduction to fluid dynamics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-09817-3. It is written to address the sort of person who best understands physics in terms of mathematical models. "Students, and teachers too, are apt to derive their ideas of the content of a subject from the topics treated in the textbooks they can lay their hands on, and it is undesirable that so many of the books on fluid dynamics for applied mathematicians should be about problems which are mathematically solvable but not necessarily related to what happens in real fluids." - G.K. Batchelor -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 22:20 PM on 6 April 2011Climate myths at the U.S. House Hearing on climate change
#Marcus „... your beloved fossil fuel industry ...” I do not even know how - once again - you're wrong. In Europe, absolutely all the great fuel companies "battle" with the AGW. I am their enemy. BP Amoco i Royal Dutch Shell. Both companies have joined the International Climate Change Partnership, which unites over 40 companies. World Resources Institute in Washington in the action "Safe climate, healthy business" - "works" with BP Amoco, General Motors and Monsanto. UNIDO : “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) notes that carbon capture and storage, trapping the carbon dioxide before it escapes from the smokestack and pumping it underground, will likely be a key technology solution for mitigating climate change, along with a variety of other options. Statoil is an international energy company and is currently involved in three large CCS projects, one of which is the Sleipner platform field in the North Sea. There, CO2 is prevented from seeping into the atmosphere by an 800 meter thick cap rock above a storage location. Yumkella and Special Adviser to the Director-General Ole Lundby were able to visit the Sleipner platform to receive in-depth information on the CCS storage facility. “If we're going to continue to use coal we're going to have to have some way of reducing the carbon dioxide." Lundby says. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) notes that carbon capture and storage, trapping the carbon dioxide before it escapes from the smokestack and pumping it underground, will likely be a key technology solution for mitigating climate change, along with a variety of other options. Statoil's President and CEO, Helge Lund, believes CCS will be a central CO2 mitigation tool. “We need pioneers from industry, governments, researchers, and environmental NGOs to explore this path. Climate change is the biggest challenge of our time and finding sustainable solutions is a matter of urgency.” Lund says.” Using CCS "ecologically" pumping oil? And such a science - a research project: “Tracing the Greenhouse- Icehouse Transition” (prof Dr. Henk Brinkhuis) is funded by Statoil-Hydro. Big companies can afford it, a small rather not ... Monopolization of the market - using AGW? - Good idea ... -
JMurphy at 22:17 PM on 6 April 2011Skeptical Science in other media
Ken Lambert wrote : "I vote for BP as the star sceptic and debunker." Aah, a touching display of faith, if ever one was needed on a thread about personal faith. Trouble is, I have seen very little real scepticism and no debunking from BP, so I believe that your faith will be a solitary one. -
JMurphy at 22:09 PM on 6 April 201110 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
Addendum : If you are using the (see all) Comments section, the links will be in blue. -
Daniel Bailey at 22:08 PM on 6 April 2011Skeptical Science in other media
Thanks, John, for pointing out yet again that Science and Faith are not incompatible. As one who began his studies in the earth sciences an embarrassingly long time ago, I'd also like to point out that the true skeptics are those scientists (yes, that lets me out) who have devoted their lives to the advancement of science (in general and climate science in particular). That life-investment usually involves little recognition, remuneration and often comes at great personal cost, as sometimes that advancement of the science and the field came at the expense of overturning one's own work. For that is what scientists do: constantly reformulate and test hypothesis' to achieve a synthesis of view that best explains all the available evidence, and not simply considering that which endorsed their own idiosyncratic views & ignored the rest. And that, my friends, is the heart of true skepticism. And I have faith that science will triumph over the denialists and disinformationists, for that is what my Faith tells me. The Yooper -
CBDunkerson at 22:02 PM on 6 April 2011Skeptical Science in other media
"God would not let such thing happen to us". My usual response to comments like that is along the lines, 'If God gave us free will, then we are free to do it to ourselves. See also: Hiroshima... Dresden... the Holocaust... Darfour... et cetera.' -
CBDunkerson at 21:53 PM on 6 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Gilles, you keep saying that various things don't "prove" a positive feedback. Exactly what sort of feedback effect do you think melting ice is going to have? 1: When ice melts the water or land beneath it is exposed. 2: Water and land (on average) are both darker than ice. 3: Darker objects absorb more solar radiation. 4: Absorbed solar radiation causes objects to heat. 5: Heat melts ice. 6: See step 1 Ergo, it would seem to me that a rudimentary understanding of physics and basic logic "prove" a positive feedback in this case. So what the heck is your point here? Are you claiming that melting ice doesn't cause a positive feedback effect? If so, then we would be forced to conclude that the great decline in Arctic ice has >not< been partially driven by ice-albedo feedback (in violation of basic physics) and therefor the effects of global warming must be significantly more pronounced than thought. In a couple of places you have seemed to argue that there isn't a positive feedback because the decrease in sea ice has not been constant / "self-sustained" / accelerating exponentially... but that's a non sequitor. Any positive feedback equal to less than 100% of the original forcing would obviously not display any of those traits... yet still be a positive feedback nonetheless. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 21:37 PM on 6 April 2011Learning from the Climate Hearing
‘Dr. Emanuel made the key point that uncertainty is no excuse not to manage risk.” - This claim contradicts the foundations of the theory of risk. “As he put it, the potential results of climate change vary from the benign to the catastrophic, and anyone claiming certainty that the consequences will be benign is just fooling himself. The fact that we cannot be certain that continuing on a certain path will lead to negative consequences does not mean that we can simply ignore the possibility and probability of those consequences ...” “ the catastrophic ...” - is the need to earmark 70-90% of the effort to fight AGW - for CCS ... In the case of an incorrect assessment, we will create an ecological threat to the future generations and unproductively we spend "money. " "... The benign ...." - this is the possibility to allocate 70-90% of investment for renewable energy sources - which is always useful (eg to " Peak Oil”). Professor of Economics, V. Klaus has recently stated that environmentalists - Greens - have never had respect for this science - unless he was right. -
Marcus at 21:34 PM on 6 April 2011Upcoming book: Climate Change Denial by Haydn Washington and John Cook
"Boats, planes, freight trucks and trains, heavy machinery used in agriculture, construction, forestry and minning, emergency and military vehicles, cars and light trucks with spirit and muscle (i.e., V-8's) personal rec vehicles (e.g., ATV's) and so forth will always use hydrocarbons fuels because these fuels have high energy density." Ah, I see the science of Bio-fuels has completely escaped you Pierce-which is what comes of getting all your info from the Oil Industry. Scientists have managed to manufacture bio-synthetic versions of pretty much every type of fossil fuel-from regular diesel to aviation fuel. As to smelting iron ore-an arc furnace is *much* more efficient than coke smelting-using 1/3rd less energy than coke smelting. So, Pierce, it seems you need to go back & do your homework before you further embarrass yourself. -
Alexandre at 21:34 PM on 6 April 2011Skeptical Science in other media
I appreciate the fact that it's a Christian magazine. Maybe because of American conservatives, AGW mitigation is often unduly opposed to Christian values. I remember debating with a skeptical Christian Canadian blogger that made many usual denialist claims and endorsed posts like "God would not let such thing happen to us". I'm not a religious person myself, but to foster our Earth has nothing incompatible with faith in God or His creation. It's quite the opposite.
Prev 1792 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 1800 1801 1802 1803 1804 1805 1806 1807 Next
