Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 1800 1801 1802 1803 1804 1805 1806 1807 1808 Next
Comments 90001 to 90050:
-
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. -
EOttawa at 21:28 PM on 6 April 2011Skeptical Science in other media
I'm a bit of a luddite not having or wanting a cell phone so I'm not sure how the SkS app works. However comparing the review of the app to this website, I'd say their suggestions for improvement are a bit off the mark. I think Skeptical Science does a great job of showing how the pseudo-skeptics cherry pick arguments. Also, by not getting into the politics, criticizing media etc. to any great degree, Skeptical Science lives up to its name, without getting bogged down in that messiness. There are other sites that take care of those aspects. Keep up the great work, folks! -
Marcus at 21:25 PM on 6 April 2011Climate myths at the U.S. House Hearing on climate change
"Do you - to this - modestly selected - as above - aggressive proponents of AGW views - insulting democratically elected politicians and those who think differently - the applicants - scientists (often with considerable achievements), presented above - have any sense?" Arkadiusz-if a politician-elected or not-continues to repeat a demonstrably *false* position, then they deserve to be denigrated in the harshest way possible-if only for the benefit of those foolish enough to keep electing such imbeciles. Just because people like yourself would prefer to keep representatives in power who will advance the interests of your beloved fossil fuel industry, doesn't mean the rest of us have to stand by & let it happen without a fight. -
Marcus at 21:23 PM on 6 April 2011Climate myths at the U.S. House Hearing on climate change
@ RSVP-Science & Technologists have actually done a *fantastic* job in producing alternatives to our currently wasteful use of carbon-rich fuels. The problem is that very rich & powerful lobby groups have done their level best to prevent *our* elected representatives from acting to put these alternatives in place-the same vested interests who fund the Denial Industry. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 20:57 PM on 6 April 2011Climate myths at the U.S. House Hearing on climate change
1. For me the "scary" is how very poor and not updated in the source, reference is proposed by J.C. (What the Science Says?) ... and science is (sorry - "rush"!) to forward ... (see below). 2. ... and increasingly aggressive speeches separating researchers on "good" - who think like them - and "bad " - "miscreants" - thinking contrary. ad. 1. I am tracking many hours a day - the science of climate - still meet up with the statements: "great uncertainty", "substantial understatement". For example, the Sun and the MWP. Consider two random (not to be accused of tendentiousness) has recently published (and recently studied by me) publications. I. Medieval Climate Anomaly Vol 19 • No 1 • March 2011 Let's see how much - in principle - there are different simulation and reconstruction for the MWP - we find this (see: Fig. 1. by: Medieval Climate Anomaly to Little Ice Age transition as simulated by current climate models, González-Rouco et al.) figure in Sc.S.? II. Solar-forced shifts of the Southern Hemisphere Westerlies during the Holocene, Varma et al., 2011.: “The Southern Hemisphere Westerly Winds (SWW) constitute an important zonal circulation that influences large-scale precipitation patterns and ocean circulation. Variations in their intensity and latitudinal position have been suggested to exert a strong influence on the CO2 budget in the Southern Ocean, thus making them a potential factor affecting the global climate.” “Our choice of TSI reduction of 2Wm−2 between solar maximum and solar minimum in the model experiments is consistent with recent observation and physics-based estimates (Steinhilber et al., 2009).” “Since the reduction in TSI is only 0.15%, the global cooling effect is small and additional feedbacks are required to induce a significant change in the westerlies.” “Based on our model evidence, as well as the proxy indication, we propose that the role of the sun in modifying Southern Hemisphere tropospheric circulation patterns has probably been underestimated in model simulations of past climate change. The potential role of solar forcing, along with feedbacks involving ocean and sea-ice dynamics, may further complicate the prediction of future SWW shifts.” The “underestimation"- how much? What we do not know about solar “teleconnections”, “feedbacks” and “lags”? ad. 2. Do you - to this - modestly selected - as above - aggressive proponents of AGW views - insulting democratically elected politicians and those who think differently - the applicants - scientists (often with considerable achievements), presented above - have any sense? -
Ken Lambert at 20:54 PM on 6 April 2011Skeptical Science in other media
I vote for BP as the star sceptic and debunker. -
damorbel at 20:48 PM on 6 April 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
The real problem in fitting Greenhouse Theory to observation is comparing a planet with an atmosphere to a planet with no atmosphere; this is not possible. A hypothetical atmosphere that contained no GHGs is still held in place by gravity and it will still have a temperature like any other gas in contact with an illuminated surface that can absorb and emit radiation from a star. When considering a planet with an atmosphere without any radiating/absorbing GHGs (or with, for that matter) it is important to remember that the rocky surface is no longer the planetary surface but it is the atmosphere; leaving the problem of deciding where the atmospheric surface is exactly located. The concept of an atmosphere without GHGs is perfectly valid; such an atmosphere would still have a temperature gradient due to the effect of gravitational compression, any satisfactory theory needs also to account for the gradient.Moderator Response:The claim that lapse rate or gravitational compression is responsible for the GHE is not directly relevant to this thread, as has already been addressed in multiple links provided. Please take this particular point of discussion elsewhere.
Edit: "responsible for the GHE" should read "responsible for the warming attributed to the GHE"
-
Dikran Marsupial at 20:37 PM on 6 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Giles wrote "a downward trend for some period doesn't prove there is a positive feedback". I didn't say that it was, I said that it is evidence of positive feedback (I also said that it was the accelleration of the decline rather than the trend itself). This sort of misrepresentation of points is a characteristic of trolls and denialists, not scientists. I was also clearly not talking about "an oscillating function as a temperature curve during a few days or across seasons will show periods of acceleration" but of sea ice extent over tha past few decades, which is long enough to average over the principal sources of internal variability. -
JMurphy at 20:26 PM on 6 April 2011Models are unreliable
KR wrote : "I certainly cannot speak to individual "subscription" weather services that do not publish their methods; but I suspect that if they did indeed provide a consistently better prediction than the normal weather bureaus they could make a lot of money supplying data to them - and they don't." Very true. It would appear that such services rely on an aura of self-styled knowledge to do with the fact that they are so good that only those who pay enough can be allowed to share in the knowledge. That aura is helped by having others rave about how good private services such as these are, without ever having to reveal how those services line-up against reality - unlike the public services, which are constantly tested, accused and belittled. As you say, if those private services WERE so much better than the national forecast services, there would be no choice than to pay that money and receive that better service. The fact that this is not the case, speaks volumes...to those who are interested in the facts. -
JMurphy at 20:18 PM on 6 April 201110 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
RickyPockett, if you click on any red text which appears underlined when you hover your mouse-point over it, you will be taken to the relevant link automatically. Well, you should be, anyway ! -
Papy at 19:38 PM on 6 April 2011Temp record is unreliable
#158 For those who would still ignore our two most famous french deniers, here is the letter, from climate scientists references to instances of the French scientific research, that details their fallacy arguments : a taste of skepticalscience method with french sauce. So here are the perfect rebuttals lists to the Allègre's book and the Courtillot's conference. -
les at 18:25 PM on 6 April 2011There is no consensus
308 Daniel, 297 Neo... "AGW has become its own religion. It has to be taken on faith." I do think this is a fascinating accusation and one people often use - and not just for AGW. My partner is an atheistic (normally people say non-confessional) theologian. To be clear, theology in the modern academic world is the study of religion, not the construct of dogma. I've had a chance to delve into the subject and discuss with other theologians as well; and never do they define a religion as being anything to do with taking anything of faith. Further, I have a reasonable background in philosophy and the history and philosophy of science - and it's pretty clear that there is no sharp boundary between the epistemology of science, religion or just about any realm of human knowledge. They are all social constructs of knowledge, use evidence and reason to varying degrees and in varying ways, individuals have to take some knowledge on trust or authority, other knowledge through traditional experience, other through sophisticated experimentation etc. etc. Clearly and obviously the methodologies of science can differ to those of religion, or history, or the construct of a shopping list, or deciding who to marry. No one, these days, can draw clear distinctions between realms of knowledge based on epistemology and methodology alone. Various scholars do have their favorite "essential" attribute for science/religion, but there is no consensus - theology being, in it's own way a science. I shan't go into those, suffice to say that - in the professional world - it's a brave person who points the finger and says "that is/isn't a religion" over and above those which are commonly designated as such. ... A brave person or, indeed, an foolish one. -
Chris S at 18:03 PM on 6 April 2011Soot and global warming
Thanks Peter. -
Gilles at 17:09 PM on 6 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
DB : this is still very far from a noise measurements over a much longer period than that you're using for your signal. Again, such variations can be found in a very large variety of situations, and they don't imply any possibility of extrapolation. And again, that's VERY basic physics.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] 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. That is VERY basic statistics (it is done implicitly every time a regression analysis is performed). Also data in isolation never imply the possibility of extrapolation (that also is VERY basic statistics) - the assumption of an underlying physical mechanism is justification of extrapolation, but all extrapolation can only be performed with caveats relating to such assumptions. -
Gilles at 16:17 PM on 6 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
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 ?Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Logicman gave a mathematical model (the biased coin), his point was clear enough for me from a brief statement of the model, if it isn't clear for you, perhaps the problem is at your end? -
Gilles at 16:14 PM on 6 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Muoncounter : there is no notion of "long" or "short" in physics - it's only a question of characteristic time scale. There is a trend when the variation is computed over an interval shorter than half a period. Just looking at data such as in CT or PIOMAS data doesn't say anything about a possible noise at this relevant time period (30 yrs), so you can't say anything on its significance, unless you have a proper measurement of this noise in a former, independent, and much longer, time interval. Again, basic physics.Moderator Response: [DB] More hand-waving by you, I see. If 30 years isn't enough, try this:
Basic physics: More warming = greater ice loss. Based on the information at hand:
-
RickyPockett at 15:51 PM on 6 April 201110 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
FYI scaddenp I am not repeating/rewriting someone else's opinion and I have never been to the website you mention nor any like it before today beside this one. I found a link to this article on twitter minutes before posting my article here as it seemed like a well known place of like minded people who may actually want to hear what I had to say.Given the fact that I come from the engineering community. My article is posted on my blog which is MY OWN OPINION and is only referenced with links to wikipedia because I wanted an unbiased reference list and I did not want to associate with any green groups for fear of political backlash. For the third time my blog can be found at http://rickypockett.blogspot.com/ Though given the attitude of the responses I have found here I doubt that any of you have even been there, much less have checked the references I have quoted on the said article. To the nameless Moderator. I find it amazing that you asked me to take my comments to another part of your website (which I must admit I couldn't find a reference to - Quote "You were pointed to a relevant thread, so please continue the conversation about that topic on that thread.") and then attack my comment because you obviously failed to understand the point I made (quote "Another example is your contention that the Sun's high radiance for the past 50 years supports the influence of the Sun on current warming. There is a post and a comment thread for that, so please use them: "Climate Time Lag.") regarding the suns influence on a graph from THIS website. You have a gutless attitude to tell me to take this elsewhere(without a link) while simultaneously attacking a point I made in my post that I am obviously only going to be reprimanded further if I try to respond. WOW Feel free to remove my posts from this site. I will never return. GoodbyeModerator Response:[Daniel Bailey] Actually, JMurphy already had given you a TON of quality threads that completely rebut & overturn every point you were making, starting here.
And gutless (your term) is not sticking around to defend your not-so-strongly-held positions on a topic (climate change) that so many here know far more about, and want to help you learn, than do you.
And I have been to your site.
If it's an honest, open dialogue you seek, and you honestly wish to learn more about this topic without accusations and recriminations, then I will dialogue with you. Anything else, it's your loss.
-
scaddenp at 15:07 PM on 6 April 201110 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
CO2science.org is disinformation site, good at claiming papers say things that they dont. -
Stevo at 14:57 PM on 6 April 2011Upcoming book: Climate Change Denial by Haydn Washington and John Cook
I orderred my copy of the book yesterday. Now I can hardly wait for it to arrive. A big thankyou to Haydn and John. As a former Aurtralian book retailer I can tell you that the cost of books here is the result of a series of bad taxation decisions that have never been rectified. (I could explain further but that would be both political and off topic). -
RickyPockett at 14:55 PM on 6 April 201110 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
Scaddenp @142 I'm sorry I don't understand the reference to Co2"science". Can you please clarify?Moderator Response: Also see my moderator's response on your previous comment. -
scaddenp at 14:50 PM on 6 April 201110 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
And Ricky, if you have trouble distinguishing between valid arguments and disinformation, stick to arguments that are supported by peer-reviewed research (and if getting your arguments from likes of Co2"science", check that the peer-reviewed research says what the arguer implies). -
Albatross at 14:47 PM on 6 April 2011Learning from the Climate Hearing
I thought this cartoon is relevant to this discussion-- H/T to Desmogblog: The 'skeptic' mantra: [The associated article is also worth a read]
-
trunkmonkey at 14:44 PM on 6 April 2011It's the sun
Whew! I have just finished reading this entire thread. The reason the stratosphere is stratified as opposed to the convective trophosphere below is that the lapse rate is "inverted" and begins warming, forming a stable lid just like the adiabatic inversion that traps smog in the LA basin. The stratospheric inversion is probably not adiabadic, but is thought to result from the absorbtion of UV photons by oxygen, forming ozone. The top of the stratosphere where the oxygen becomes "saturated" with photons approaches the temperature of the earth's surface during solar maxima. Above the top of the stratosphere the lapse rate becomes normal again but there is another or two poorly understood (at least by me) inversions before the TOA. Question: what does a satellite measuring the temperature of the earth from space (255K?) really see? Can it distinguish between the spectrum of CO2 absorbtion at the top of the troposphere and the spectrum of ozone absorbtion (approximately half of which should be radiated back to space), or does it see just the triple net of all the refracted, reradiated, conducted, convected energy from the earth atmosphere system? -
pbjamm at 14:35 PM on 6 April 201110 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
RickyPocket (incredibly long post) @139 "I think that discrediting someone because their opinion as they may or may not be accepted by the general consensus (and this applies to this column as well as the world outside of it) is a step in the wrong direction." Indeed. Which is why regulars here are forever insisting on data and peer reviewed literature to back up opinion. Without evidence opinion is without value. "My intentions were not to divide us in the debate on 'Climate Change'. It is time that we stopped saying that 'I’m right' & 'you are wrong' for the sake of our ego’s and start accepting that there are many views on 'Climate Change' there are many possible answers that can be given as to its cause." Ego does not enter into it, facts are what matter. There can be many views on climate change but only those that are backup up with evidence have any scientific value. Lacking that they are worse than worthless. They add nothing to the discussion and serve only to distract from the science. -
RSVP at 14:32 PM on 6 April 2011Climate myths at the U.S. House Hearing on climate change
"if we were in the US to bring our carbon emissions down to zero within 20 years, and invest all of this even though countries such as China and India and EU do not..." What "Science Says" matters little as compared to what it needs to do, which is come up with alternatives that attract politicians and their constituents. After that, the rest of the planet will follow suit. -
Ken Lambert at 14:15 PM on 6 April 2011A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
Tom Curtis #40 "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. -
RickyPockett at 13:27 PM on 6 April 201110 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
In response to negative feedback from some of the people that have obviously taken offence at my article. I offer this reply and encourage criticism; 134. CBDunkerson. Firstly, I think that the first point I would like to make is that the keyword here is “doubt”. As a definition this is not an affirmation or a declination. As this 'possibility' is overwhelmingly disproven by evidence supplied in the, It's the Sun, argument response at the very top of the 'skeptic' arguments list it is clear … For the record, the Fig.1 on the graph from the link you have provided actually shows us that the ‘Solar Maxima’ in the late 1800’s is still below the ‘Solar Minima’ from the 1950’s to date. Hence (from this graph) in the last 100+ years we can ascertain that the sun actually has increased WRT (with respect to) Solar Irradiance. In the last 50 years the Sun has decreased WRT Solar Irradiance but the levels are still higher than they were in the late 1800’s. I am not stating that the sun is to blame in my reply but, I certainly not stating that it isn’t. If we knew exactly how the sun worked there would be uproar in the scientific community every time NASA sent a satellite in to space to study ‘Solar activity’. The short of it is, we still do not know exactly how the Sun influences our planet and stating that; “… overwhelmingly disproven by evidence supplied…” only discredits any arguments that you have because it labels you as being biased. Thus I would hope that the moderators remove your copy/pasted manifesto (and this reply) as pure spam. It contains nothing more than a laundry list of the usual provably false 'skeptic' claims already addressed on this site. Expressing an opinion is now spam? I hate to break it to you but I do not get paid for writing a blog. I have even foregone putting advertising on my page at http://rickypockett.blogspot.com for that exact reason. Kudos to you, for proving my actions to be justifiable. 136. JMurphy I’m very sorry but I can’t seem to get the links to work. If it is not too much trouble I would appreciate it if you could please repost the links. 137. JMurphy Surprisingly enough, I was having a debate/argument with my own father last night on the lack of evidence supporting the benefits of planting trees and the “Parity Effect” of trees only recirculating carbon in the environment and to this I countered – If trees were only absorbing carbon to be later released in the decomposition stage after the tree has died, there would be no coal. To try and clarify this, a good friend of mine from my engineering class when I was studying at uni, worked in the coal industry and pointed out to me that underneath the Hunter Region (near Newcastle, NSW, Australia) is a coal field. He stated to me that you can dig down a metre in any residential area that had been built above felled forests and find coal deep and thick. I inquired as to why that was and was given the reply that as trees shed their leaves, sticks & branches, the forest floor ends up as a natural compost sealant, slowly suffocating the previous layers and compressing them, until ultimately leaving a pure layer of carbon. Carbon that is not bound to Oxygen as one would find with CO or CO2 but in a captured state. By this fact alone, we can come to the conclusion that trees are not in fact in a state or parity, as some would have us think but, in fact do actually remove Carbon from the Environment. Albeit a slow process that can take many (many) years, it is in fact the leaves of the tree that are our friend in this case - remembering that it is in the leaves that the process of chlorophyll happens. I have a screaming urge to point out at this point that, there was an article about five years ago in ‘New Scientist Magazine’ that trees will in fact contribute to the CO2 (amongst other things, most notably nitrites) in the atmosphere until they reach maturity. This – I hope – will make us all (humankind) come to the realisation that carbon is in fact an inherent part of our planets ecosystem and follows the laws of thermodynamics as such that we cannot destroy or remove carbon. The carbon will always be there and can only be “moved around” except, – of course - in the case of nuclear reactions. For the record, I am NOT a “Climatologist” nor am I a “Chemical Engineer” I am a lowly music teacher who decided to trade a good income working as a Mechanical Engineering in return for spending more time with my four children as the grow. In essence, I do have a vested interest in the subject of “Climate change” and “Global Warming” as I wish for future generations of this planet (our children) to have a chance to grow up in a world that has a sustainable source of power, shelter & food. I think that discrediting someone because their opinion as they may or may not be accepted by the general consensus (and this applies to this column as well as the world outside of it) is a step in the wrong direction. I can also accept that my article only brushes on one aspect of the causes of “Global Warming” and as such will be viewed by extremists from both sides of the debate as being wrong. My intentions were not to divide us in the debate on “Climate Change”. It is time that we stopped saying that “I’m right” & “you are wrong” for the sake of our ego’s and start accepting that there are many views on “Climate Change” there are many possible answers that can be given as to its cause. My intentions were solely to point out that putting a tax on “carbon emissions” so that corporate industry can be the ones responsible for finding a solution to the damage that we have incurred to our planet as a whole is not (in my honest opinion) the way to solve this problem. No doubt I will have pissed off more than a few of you in my statements, but, I encourage you to have an open mind and to debate this problem with well thought out responses. Kudos to all of you for caring about this subject with the passion you have already shown. With my deepest regards Ricky PockettModerator Response: One of the (few) rules here is to stay on topic. You were pointed to a relevant thread, so please continue the conversation about that topic on that thread. You can post a pointer to that thread, here. Another example is your contention that the Sun's high radiance for the past 50 years supports the influence of the Sun on current warming. There is a post and a comment thread for that, so please use them: "Climate Time Lag." -
scaddenp at 13:14 PM on 6 April 2011Learning from the Climate Hearing
I'm across the ditch. What's missing in US is any party promoting right-wing economic policy - eg balanced budget, no subsidies, free market. The closest you seem to get appears to be the democrats which are liberals (by US standards anyway). -
Glenn Tamblyn at 12:55 PM on 6 April 2011Learning from the Climate Hearing
scaddenp @16 True. For someone from outside the USA, politics there usually lookd like the Far Right (Rep) vs the Centre Right (Dem). It always amuses me somewhat to hear Right-Wing Americans going on about 'Liberals' - Shock and Horror!! Here in Australia our major Right-Wing Conservative party is called the Liberal Party. Although they are full of lots of 'Climate-Denial-as-a-Sales-Pitch-to-the-Right' types. Morally bankrupt really. -
Daniel Bailey at 12:54 PM on 6 April 2011There is no consensus
A general response to Neo Anderson @ 297, if you're still reading this thread: I'll forgo adding to what the others have ably dealt with and focus on this: "Further, perhaps my analogy was a little too subtle, but to some, AGW has become its own religion. It has to be taken on faith." Science is the focus on what is seen, measurable and testable. Climate Science, using the Scientific Method, looks at weather conditions averaged over a period of time. Faith, on the other hand, looks beyond the seen to the unseen, past the measurable to the immeasurable and puts the untestable to the test. So, given that climate change is an accepted fact, where does that leave those who would have us debate even the existence of gravity? For it is those in Denial that are most in demonstration of faith when it comes to matters of climate science, climate change and its human attribution. For they deny what is seen, measured and tested. Subtle, I am not. But undeniably faithful, The Yooper -
Tom Curtis at 12:36 PM on 6 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Ken Lambert @122, following the suggestion of Albatross, I have responded on the Flanner thread. One part of that response is relevant, I believe, to this topic:"Based on the calculation of the amount of energy needed to increase melting of sea ice, that means the energy gain over the summer months as a result of melting of the sea ice is enough to melt 2.2*10^6 km^2 of sea ice, or 30 times the average additional annual melt at September over the last 30 years. This strongly suggests both that large portions of the additional energy being absorbed is being taken up not by melting ice, but by some other means, probably by heating the deep ocean due to the thermo-haline conveyor. It also strongly suggests that absent this feed back, arctic sea ice would currently be increasing, and at a significant rate. Note that these consequences follow not just from my back of the envelope calculations, but from Flanner's detailed anlysis. In fact, taking Flanner's analysis, which we should, and even assuming only 1/6th of the total additional forcing comes from absorption due to additional exposed ocean surface, then 0.06 w/m^2 globally averaged is due to that effect. That amounts to 9.65*10^20 Joules annually, or 10 times the amount of energy needed to explain the continuing reduction in arctic sea ice, as calculated by Trenberth."
In other words, tracking the energy strongly suggests a very strong positive feedback on ice melt is operating in the arctic. -
KR at 12:34 PM on 6 April 2011Models are unreliable
Upon consideration, any discussion of chaos and climate should really be directed to the Chaos theory and global warming: can climate be predicted thread. -
scaddenp at 12:27 PM on 6 April 2011Learning from the Climate Hearing
Well, American politics seems to lack both a right and a left in the way I am used to thinking of the terms. However, both extreme socialist and right-wing states seem to invariably at odds with an open education.
Prev 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 1800 1801 1802 1803 1804 1805 1806 1807 1808 Next
