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:
-
scaddenp at 10:09 AM on 7 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
The trouble with arguing with Gilles is that he isnt interested in truth, only in winning an argument (or perhaps winning one). I bet he was tops in high school debating. You have to watch for the disingenuous debating trick all the time. Do you really think Gilles is unaware that ice volume is decreasing? -
scaddenp at 10:04 AM on 7 April 2011Upcoming book: Climate Change Denial by Haydn Washington and John Cook
"Wouldn't you really like to have a bright red Ford Mustang Conv. with a big honkin' 5 L V-8?" Sounds like "skepticism" driven by wishful thinking. Its not what we would like, but we can have. I have yet to see anything from you which shows "pie in the sky nonsense". That is unsubstantiated assertion at best. -
daniel maris at 10:03 AM on 7 April 2011Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
I take a rather simplistic view - I'll be interested when the water starts lapping over some islands. These effects are really very minimal. A few mms over decades? I mean - put a bit more cement on top of your sea wall...abandon that pontoon and build a new one...move your settlement a few feet up the hillside. These are not cataclysmic effects - no more cataclysmic than say a port getting silted up. We will have cracked carbon reduction long before these sorts of figures give us serious cause for concern. -
Ken Lambert at 09:46 AM on 7 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Tom Curtis #128 Tom Curtis has not responded at the Flanner thread so here is my point which took us there: Tom Curtis #40 says: **"I should first note that I originally identified the figure I calculated as the change in incoming flux only. I said, "Of course, not all the ice is melted because much of the energy escapes to space rather than being used to melt ice." (emphasis added) In a following post I said, " I am going to conclude that the "discreprancy" is simply a consequence of your mistaking different figures as representing the same estimate."** What is your point in calculating the incoming and ignoring the outgoing? Surely the whole discussion of AGW is about the *net* warming effects. One might as well suggest that we only look at possible changes incoming flux on *any* part of the Earth, while ignoring the changes in outgoing flux. A 0.75 degC increase in the surface temperature which is reflected in a similar emitting temperature will increase S-B outgoing radiation in proportion to (T1/T2)^4. That is the major cooling response. This applies equally to the Arctic as a 'black body' as anywhere else. -
Steve L at 09:43 AM on 7 April 2011Climate myths at the U.S. House Hearing on climate change
Thanks Dana. I look forward to seeing it. But I couldn't wait and I looked up Rasool and Schneider -- darn it, that's a paper that contradicts my premise! Their projections ARE based on aerosol amounts. Now I'm curious about the others.... But I still look forward to your summary of Rasool and Schneider. Cheers. -
rhjames at 09:35 AM on 7 April 2011Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
Sea level has been rising for the past 20,000 years. In some parts of the world (eg Scandinavia)it's been dropping. Here in Sydney it's increased about 8mm over 25 years, though nothing much in the last decade. Looking at the curve fit in the last graph, which is claimed as significant, I couldn't help laughing. What is the level of significance? It looks to me like it could just as easily have a downward line drawn through it with no significance. Looking at the charts around the world, I find it hard to really see acceleration in recent times. -
muoncounter at 09:22 AM on 7 April 2011Upcoming book: Climate Change Denial by Haydn Washington and John Cook
pierce#36: Still off-topic. Fossil fuels are, by definition, not forever. How will that 5L V8 do with $5 a gallon gas? Sure make a good-looking lawn ornament. Once again, the 100% renewables thread, with its self-proclaimed resident expert on the end of the fossil fuel era, is a better place for these comments. -
Tom Curtis at 08:59 AM on 7 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
For the casual reader, Gilles has been trying to muddy the waters with a series of intersecting arguments. In logical order they are: A) The record of ice extent is too short to determine if the apparent trend is an actual trend or part of a larger cycle. Response: Epistemologically, this is an absurd argument. It is a truism of mathematics (and philosophy, where it is called the problem of induction) that any series can be generated by an infinite number of mathematical formulas which depart arbitrarily after a given point. Therefore, no length of recorded data is long enough to guarantee that the sequence is a declining trend rather than, for example, a cycle, or even just random noise. The epistemological solution, all else being equal, to use the simplest hypothesis, which will always have an a priori higher probability than the more complicated hypotheses. Mathematically, a declining trend is simpler than a cycle. Of course, in this case, all else is not equal, and there are good physical reasons to expect a declining trend rather than a cycle. We can illustrate this by considering a longer data series than the satellite arctic sea ice extent. The classic example would be the instrumental temperature record, which it is argued, by deniers is just the result of a 1500 year cycle (and never mind the inconsistency that the last peak in that cycle was just 500 years ago). I instead will use the historical arctic sea ice extent data:
Sea ice extent in million square kilometers. Blue shading indicates the pre-satellite era; data then is less reliable. In particular, the near-constant level extent in Autumn up to 1940 reflects lack of data rather than a real lack of variation. Extends File:Seaice-1870-2007.png to 2009 using data from ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/
Let us put aside the small detail that this data completely rebuts Giles contention that the thirty year decline in sea ice on the satellite record may just be part of a 60 year cycle. After all, he can (and probably will) with equal validity argue that the historical data is just part of a four hundred year cycle, which just coincidentally shows a decline just as global temperatures rise sharply as a result of GHG forcing. Which is the point, really. No amount of data can prevent somebody seriously intent on obfustication from running Giles' argument. Sensible people make up their minds on the data we have - not on what might have been the data in some hypothetical nether world as Giles would have you do. B) The sea ice has "no memory" of any ice albedo fluctuations to drive further melting. Therefore, each winter resets the initial conditions preventing a feedback driven ice melt from creating any long term trend. Response: This is a shell and pea game. Gilles want to keep your eyes carefully watching the shells (sea ice extent) so that you don't notice the pea (sea ice volume) being slipped into his hand. Sea ice volume is particularly important in this context. Studies have shown that increased heat absorption due to exposed ocean surface has a far more direct effect on sea ice volume than on sea ice extent:
Fig. 3. Solar heat input and melting. Comparison of (a) heat used in surface melting, Qms, to solar heat input to ice, Qi, during the period of surface melting and (b) heat used in bottom melting, Qmb, to solar heat deposited in open water, Qw. The straight lines are the linear leastsquares best fit to the data. In (a) the slope is 0.42, with a correlation coefficient of 0.38. In (b) the slope is 0.89, with a correlation coefficient of 0.94.
This is not surprising. Direct radiation to the surface of the ocean warms the water, which then warms the ice by conduction. But the ice has far more contact with the water on its underside than on its edge. Further, a 100 meter melt on the edge of the ice cap will make a far smaller difference to extent than a 1 meter melt to the underside of the ice will make to volume. The consequence is that the ice albedo feedback has a far more significant direct impact on ice volume than on ice extent:
Reduced sea ice volume in Spring aids the rapid reduction on sea ice extent by September both by making it easier (requiring less heat) to melt back the edges of the ice flows, and also by enabling a greater break up of the ice, by exposing more edges to the (relatively) warm water.
-
Peter Hogarth at 08:56 AM on 7 April 2011Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
The GIA corrected altimeter trend is 3.2 +/- 0.4 mm/yr and the GIA corrected tide gauge data trend is 2.8 +/- 0.8mm/yr over the same altimetry period since 1993. The new Church and White 2011 paper is available. It also has a clearer chart than mine! (figure 4) Another assumption made in the Houston and Dean paper is that GIA uplift rates for the Northern US coast are stable, whereas there is some evidence of accelerating uplift in the North Atlantic as a result of increasing Ice loss, see for example Jiang 2010 . Any small regional acceleration in uplift would reduce effective tide gauge recorded rate of msl increase. -
h pierce at 08:14 AM on 7 April 2011Upcoming book: Climate Change Denial by Haydn Washington and John Cook
Marcus at 35 So, Pierce, it seems you need to go back & do your homework before you further embarrass yourself. Not possible. I am organic chemist and quite well aware of this info you guys mention here most of which is pie-in-the sky nonsense! I stand by "Fossil Fuels are Forever"! Wouldn't you really like to have a bright red Ford Mustang Conv. with a big honkin' 5 L V-8? Go which watch "Mighty Ships" on the History Channel. -
JMurphy at 08:02 AM on 7 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Yet more that the so-called skeptics can obfuscate about : Icy Meltwater Pooling in Arctic Ocean: a Wild Card in Climate Change Scenarios Freshwater is twice the volume of Lake Victoria and growing; Scientists inventory, synthesize 13 years of research on climate change and Europe’s marine environment A massive, growing pool of icy meltwater in the Arctic Ocean is a wild card in future climate scenarios, European researchers said today. Estimated in 2009 at 7,500 cubic km – twice the volume of Africa's Lake Victoria – and growing, the water could flush quickly into the Atlantic with unpredictable effect when prevailing atmospheric patterns shift, as occurred most recently in the 1960s and 1990s. -
Peter Hogarth at 07:58 AM on 7 April 2011Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
Thanks Tamino. Worth adding that this latest Church and White data set (with tide gauge data updated to 2010) shows a trend that is close to the altimeter record trend over the entire altimeter period. This should reduce any doubts raised in the paper about the altimetry record. Both records are significantly higher than the 20th century average of around 1.8mm/yr, indicating a recent increase in trend.
-
logicman at 07:56 AM on 7 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Gilles: A graph of this type is just one way of recording the variations in ice extent, area or volume over a period of time. The advantage of the overlay method is that it helps to compare year with year as to quantity of ice and rate of melt/growth at specific times. Here, I have taken the graph of 2010 ice behavior and used it as a projection of 2011 behavior. If, and only if, ice behavior this year is exactly the same as last year, then the projection shows what we may expect to see in the coming months. In fact, 2010 was anomalous in that ice losses stalled somewhat about June. Had 2010 been a more 'normal' year, ice losses would have been greater. I therefore regard this projection as somewhat conservative.
-
Stu at 07:52 AM on 7 April 2011Skeptical Science in other media
ptbrown31: "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." There's no need to mix science and religion, but on the other hand there's every need for religious people (like myself, though like many Christians I don't feel religious per se; I just happen to know who I am!) to know science. There can be no harm in using the platform of SkS, started by John because his faith motivated him to do it, to teach scientific scepticism to the masses. If there are some people who are anti-climate change science because fellow believers had proved convincing (to them), maybe having a fellow believer with an alternative viewpoint would sway them. "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." Who knows? Though evidently Katherine knows that her audience will contain YECs, so why not chuck in that it's no reason to reject more science. While we're at it, have a religion/science joke: The Higgs boson walks into a church. The priest says "Your kind isn't welcome here." To which the Higgs boson replies, "But without me, you can't have mass!" Badum and, indeed, tish.Moderator Response: [DB] A quality joke deserves a quality Rimshot...but we'll have to settle for this. :) -
BillyJoe at 07:13 AM on 7 April 2011Skeptical Science in other media
Considering the response of others to the faith/science incompatibility debate, I'm wondering why my comment was censored. It appeared originally as post #8, but it has now disappeared. I think there should at least be an indication that a post has been censored and a reason given for why it was censored. In any case, I would like to add my voice to the case for science. This blog is called Skeptical SCIENCE. I think we can do without the vicarious proselytising.Moderator Response: Profanity. Sorry, but standards are tight here. -
daniel maris at 06:21 AM on 7 April 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
I agree with Muoncounter... There are clearly loads more hydrocarbons available on the planet. Price might go up, but that just makes exploration and extraction more attractive. But if the trends continue for the next 20 years we will see renewables become cheaper than hydrocarbons. Onshore wind is already cheaper than nuclear. Once renewables are fully price competitive, they will quickly come to dominate electricity generation. In terms of economic growth, there is no reason why we shouldn't continue to enjoy huge increases in per capita wealth once we get population on a reducing trend. Within the next 100 years, the likelihood also is that we will see a growth in the space economy providing effectively limitless raw materials and energy (solar energy will be beamed to earth by microwave beam). -
daniel maris at 06:00 AM on 7 April 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
Perseus - What's your evidence that "several weeks or months" of storage would be required under a renewables policy during winter anticyclonic conditions? I very much doubt that such an extended storage period would be required. I think what you would need is a combination of the following: 1. A continental grid. 2. Compressed air storage. 3. Hydro storage. 4. Methane/hydrogen storage. 5. Ramping up biofuel production during these periods. 6. Ramping up energy from waste production during these periods. 7. Giving tarrif discounts to organisations that agree to reduce energy usage during these periods. 8. Keeping a reserve gas facility for emergencies. -
JMurphy at 05:19 AM on 7 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Gilles wrote : "Note how all curves intersect in a somewhat messy way around 15th of May." I would suggest that they are somewhat messy and intersect-y around mid May to mid June, i.e. half-way between maximum and minimum. Spooky, eh ? What can it mean ? Perhaps, with your self-confirmed scientific training, you can reveal what it is you might have discovered there ? Bound to be something important, that no-one else has noticed before. -
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.
Prev 1792 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 1800 1801 1802 1803 1804 1805 1806 1807 Next
