Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 1800 1801 1802 1803 1804 1805 1806 1807 1808 1809 Next
Comments 90051 to 90100:
-
KR at 12:27 PM on 6 April 2011Models are unreliable
johnd - And here I was, thinking that "weather is chaotic" meant "highly dependent upon initial conditions", and that better data, better sensor coverage, more accurate measures, and faster computation led to better weather predictions by taking more data, more initial conditions into account. Silly me. Weather is the very definition of chaos, johnd. That's been rigorously determined mathematically. Many non-linear systems are; weather absolutely is. Any error in initial state will lead to divergent predictions down the line at some point. I certainly cannot speak to individual "subscription" weather services that do not publish their methods; but I suspect that if they did indeed provide a consistently better prediction than the normal weather bureaus they could make a lot of money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. So - back to the "climate models" thread? Where we're discussing systems limited by boundary conditions, not initial states? -
Tom Curtis at 12:25 PM on 6 April 2011A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
Carrying over from a discussion with Ken Lambert on the Arctic Ice March 2011 thread. The preceding discussion can be found, starting with Ken Lambert's original comment, my response, and various exchanges which end here. Ken Lambert, thank you for the url. 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. Specifically, I will assume that you have mistaken an estimate of total additional energy absorbed (what I calculated) for the net additional amount of energy absorbed, ie, the total additional amount absorbed minus the total additional increase in outgoing energy."(emphasis added) So, rather than my figures being mistaken, you are mistaken about what I was calculating. Flanner, above, calculates an increase in global forcing due to cyrosphere effects of about 0.63 w/m^2 per degree K, globally averaged. With a 0.6 degree increase in global temperatures since about 1980, that represents about 0.36 w/m^2 increase over the last thirty years, of which just under half comes from the melting of ice. For comparison, the increase in energy absorbed in the arctic ocean due to melting sea ice over that period amounts, by my calculation, to 0.39 w/m^2. That suggests two thirds of it is dissipated through increased OLR. 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.Moderator Response: [mc] fixed open link tag -
scaddenp at 12:19 PM on 6 April 2011Models are unreliable
Formal "chaos" is a descriptor of a mathematical system not a physical system. Weather is described as chaotic because the mathematical system used to model it has this character. What it tells you is that even the model perfectly captures the physical system, small errors in describing the initial state (and in weather you can only sample the initial state and all measurements have error) will eventually propagate to the point where predictability is lost. The better you can quantify the initial state, then the longer the forecast will accurate and I understand the improvements in grid resolution are also helping to make better predictions of the regional expression of weather systems. However, there is no escaping that the underlying mathematics used for modelling in weather are chaotic. Weather in a climate model is chaotic, but climate isnt. I recommend the realclimate FAQ for more on the subject. -
muoncounter at 12:04 PM on 6 April 2011Learning from the Climate Hearing
scaddenp#14: Beg to differ, Democratic governors are fighting to keep education spending; Republican governors are cutting budgets and demonizing teachers in the process. -
muoncounter at 11:53 AM on 6 April 2011Climate myths at the U.S. House Hearing on climate change
Bern#12: "focus on the idea that "you're looking at most at a tenth of a degree [reduction in global temperature] after 100 years" That's in reference to an EPA document pertaining to emissions standards for cars and light trucks (including SUVs). Although the alternatives have the potential to decrease GHG emissions substantially compared to the adopted standards, they do not prevent climate change. They do, however, result in reductions in the anticipated increases in CO2 concentrations, temperature, precipitation, and sea level that are otherwise projected to occur. Estimated CO2 concentrations for 2100 range from 778.4 ppm under the most stringent alternative to 783.0 ppm under the No Action Alternative. For 2100, the reduction in temperature increase, in relation to the No Action Alternative, ranges from 0.007 °C to 0.018 °C. Those figures were, of course, misinterpreted to smear all EPA standards as ineffective. Of course, there's no value assigned to the purpose of the standards: Increasing mpg for new cars, thereby reducing consumer demand for that increasingly expensive gasoline. Why would we want to do that? -
johnd at 11:47 AM on 6 April 2011Models are unreliable
scaddenp at 10:20 AM, I notice your using of the "weather is chaotic" meme and am wondering if enough thought is given to whether or not it's regular use as a catch-phrase is indeed still valid or justified. I believe the basis of the term lies not within the nature of weather itself, but with man's ability to understand the combination of factors that create seemingly complex processes. There is no doubt that to some of those who undertake predicting the weather, their results would appear to indicate that weather is indeed chaotic, and as such provides an excuse for the failure of their predictions, so maintaining the meme is extremely useful for them. However as most of us know, the reliability of weather predictions is constantly improving, the full extent at any point in time perhaps not realised by those who rely on the many free services available rather than the specialised professional services. It is not in the interests of such professional services to describe weather to their clients as chaotic. In fact it is the opposite they must emphasise, that being that weather is in fact quite predictable, and that the advantage that they are able to provide is that they have introduced more relevant data into their modeling to achieve that higher degree of predictability. So maybe the time has come for the term to be retired and a more appropriate catch-phrase developed, for those who rely on such things that is. -
scaddenp at 11:44 AM on 6 April 2011Learning from the Climate Hearing
Ideology-driven reformers, whether left or right, always have problem with education. Good education might have people thinking, or finding out the wrong facts. And of course a politician's dream, is an education system that would turn out voters that will vote for them. Don't blame the right - the left are just as bad. They just want education to deliver different brands of droids. -
Bern at 11:38 AM on 6 April 2011Climate myths at the U.S. House Hearing on climate change
It seems to me that many of the 'sceptics' focus on the idea that "you're looking at most at a tenth of a degree [reduction in global temperature] after 100 years [if USA imposes CO2 limits]" (as per the Christy quote above). The real question: How much additional warming will be avoided by those CO2 emission reductions? I.e. what will the temperature be if emissions are not reduced? Given the long residence time for CO2, it's possible that there may not be much actual cooling in a century if even aggressive action is taken. But there'll certainly be a heck of a lot of avoided warming! The 'sceptic' approach to that point is kind of like saying if we stop dumping mercury into a landfill, there's not going to be much of a reduction in mercury concentrations there over the next century, so there's no reason we should stop dumping mercury in the landfill... -
Bern at 11:23 AM on 6 April 2011Upcoming book: Climate Change Denial by Haydn Washington and John Cook
h pierce @ 31: Ah, SASOL... a quick google reveals that that one plant, by itself, accounts for 60% of all of South Africa's CO2 emissions. Technically possible, yes. Desirable? Hardly. Now, this is firmly off-topic, but in response to your comment at #28 about iron smelting, here's a quote from the Zero Carbon Australia report (page 19, right column): The Direct Reduced Iron (DRI) process, coupled with Electric Arc Furnace steel smelting, provides an alternative to this. DRI is already used to produce a significant quantity of the world’s smelted iron, and is inherently more efficient. Syngas (carbon monoxide and hydrogen), sourced from waste-to-energy or biomass, can be used as a reducing agent in place of coal. Oh, and BTW: many books are printed in Singapore & other S.E. Asian countries, so we're actually closer to the printing presses than the US or Europe... I know of one example, though, where a book is printed in Australia, but I can get it airmailed from the UK for less than half the price it's sold here. -
muoncounter at 11:23 AM on 6 April 2011Learning from the Climate Hearing
RickG#12: Hold on there pard, those are the folks who are busy laying off teachers, guaranteeing that future generations of Americans won't be thinking much either. -
muoncounter at 11:16 AM on 6 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Gilles#123: "any oscillating function as a temperature curve during a few days or across seasons will show periods of acceleration." Two problems with your fact-free analysis: a. 'during a few days or across seasons' does not a long term trend make. b. The long term trend doesn't oscillate, as you can see if you bothered to look at actual data.
-- surface air temperature, 65-85N latitude, April to September seasonal average
If you're curious, that's an increase of more than 0.4C per decade since 1960.
-
Tom Curtis at 11:00 AM on 6 April 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Fred Staples @967 & 968, you quote a number of well informed people expounding the theory of the GHE which I expounded @944, and which is the only theory of the GHE expounded by regular defenders of climate science on this site. You also quote three people who may be considered to be defending a grey slab model (which is physically false), if that quote was all you knew of there opinions. However, Ray Pierre fully and explicitly defends the lapse rate theory in your first quote, and Tamino quotes Eli Rabbett as defedning it in your second; so we know that your selected quote does not represent their whole opinion, which is in agreement with Ray Pierre's first exposition. So, on the evidence you present, there is a consistently accepted theory of the GHE which has been expounded since at least 1901 - as shown by earliest quote. So yes, that part of the theory is settled science. And while even settled science is always up for grabs if a better theory comes along, given that this settled science rests on such fundamental theories as quantum mechanics and the laws of thermodynamics, and literally millions of observations including some on systems as diverse as Venus, Earth, and Mars, if any better theory every comes along, it will be a close observational approximation of the current theory. So what is your point? (Please find a thread relevant to this discussion to answer this question, for it is plainly not relevant here.) -
muoncounter at 10:48 AM on 6 April 2011Upcoming book: Climate Change Denial by Haydn Washington and John Cook
hpierce#31: "an estimated 10-15 trillion barrels of unconventual oil" Sure would be nice to see a source for those spectacular numbers, especially in terms of recoverable oil, rather than oil in place. Here's one that puts recoverable volume a wee bit smaller: Of the 35 billion barrels of heavy oil estimated to be technically recoverable in North America, But that's off topic. The 100 percent renewables thread might be a more appropriate to argue about oil; we have a self-appointed expert in fossil fuels who lives there. -
scaddenp at 10:20 AM on 6 April 2011Models are unreliable
"The argument against climate modeling is essentially that no computer model of a non linear dynamic system of the complexity of the global climate can accurately predict the future. (read chaos by James Gleick)" The argument you refer to is one against the assertion that models are "tuned" through parameterization to reflect the biases of the modeller. Your argument is different. Weather is chaotic but that doesn't imply climate is chaotic. It remains an open question but the mathematical systems used in climate modelling are not chaotic in the formal sense. For more on this, see this argument It might also be good John included the climate model FAQ from realclimate (here and here) in the "Further reading" part of this article.Moderator Response: [DB] Added the RC climate model FAQ links per your suggestions. Thanks for taking the time to make them! -
Glenn Tamblyn at 09:29 AM on 6 April 2011Maximum and minimum monthly records in global temperature databases
Henry @58 "You have to have quantification of the amount of heat vs time. This is not being done" Yes it is! You might like to look at this Empirical Evidence of Warming Scroll down to the section on Total Heat Content and the study by Murphy et al. -
h pierce at 09:09 AM on 6 April 2011Upcoming book: Climate Change Denial by Haydn Washington and John Cook
CDB at 30 There is no shortage of fossil fuels until ca 2100. FYI there is an estimated 10-15 trillion barrels of unconventual oil such as heavy crude oil, eztra heavy crude oil, oil shale and tar sand. Shell R and D has several pilot projects in north western Colorado that uses in-situ resistive heating to recover oil from oil shale formations. When these process are perfected oil will flow like water from these formations. Google SASOL to learn about S Africa's coal-to-liquid hydrocarbon processes. -
RickG at 09:04 AM on 6 April 2011Learning from the Climate Hearing
Funny how the Republicans take every opportunity to talk up the need for better education, but when its time for them to sit in the classroom...... -
Albatross at 08:24 AM on 6 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Ken and Tom and others, Could we please move the energy budget discussion to the more appropriate Flanner thread? Thanks.Moderator Response: (DB) Agreed. -
logicman at 08:24 AM on 6 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
#123 Gilles. "the concept of random positive feedback is surely interesting, but I have never heard of any physical phenomenon producing that" Nor have I, in physics. Skinner boxes are another matter entirely. A feedback mechanism is constantly available for application. The fact that a mechanism is available does not imply that it must therefore be constantly applied. In the case of a coin having a bias, the bias isn't random. The bias is constant but its influence on specific coin throws is not constantly dominant. Chaotic fluctuations in aerodynamic drag may, from time to time, overwhelm the influence of the coin's bias. Similarly, the multiple feedbacks which hasten the onset of an ice-free Arctic are constantly available but not constantly dominant. -
littlerobbergirl at 08:23 AM on 6 April 2011Learning from the Climate Hearing
speaking as einstein's theoretical barmaid, "you can lead a congressman to the science, but you can't make him* think. *sorry, but this is part of the problem. -
logicman at 08:11 AM on 6 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
#118 - Berényi Péter Thank you for posting that image. It shows significant changes in ice thickness distribution between 1999 and 2011. As you assert, the decline in a mere 12 years is indeed scary. I have modified the image to show some areas of interest.
Ice thickness comparisons.
A -
1999 - significant ice extent over 3.75m.
2011 - no ice over 2.75m.
B -
1999 - significant ice extent over 2.75m.
2011 - no significant ice extent over 2.5m.
C -
1999 - no ice over 2m.
2011 - no ice.
-
Gilles at 08:06 AM on 6 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
114 : a downward trend for some period doesn't prove there is a positive feedback - as I said, any oscillating function as a temperature curve during a few days or across seasons will show periods of acceleration. 117# logicman : the concept of random positive feedback is surely interesting, but I have never heard of any physical phenomenon producing that - do you have a reference to explain the physics ? and how it would manifest ? -
Ken Lambert at 08:01 AM on 6 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Tom Curtis #112 Here is the Trenberth Aug09 paper: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final2.pdf You say: "Additional energy absorbed due to melted sea ice in the Northern Summer: 6.2*10^21 Joules." This is 62E20 Joules/year - equal to more than half the whole purported energy imbalance of the planet. Impossible as a net energy increase for only 4.4% of the Earth's area. You are probably confusing energy flows with the *net imbalance* - ie. the amount of heat energy retained to cause warming above an equilibrium balance. About 240W/sq.m (38667E20 Joules/year)flows through the Earth system continuously, but only 0.9W/swq.m (145E20 Joules/year) is supposedly retained to warm it above the equilibrium. Suggest you have a good read of the above paper and get back to me on the Arctic ice melt contribution to global warming. -
Bob Lacatena at 07:58 AM on 6 April 2011Learning from the Climate Hearing
Could we perhaps educate politicians by... trying to educate politicians? I'm not talking about the handful of rabid deniers who are beyond hope, but rather that disinterested majority who are sitting on the sidelines and letting the ignorant and politically motivated lead the way. It's not going to happen in "hearings" like these (it's spelled "h-e-a-r-i-n-g-s," but it's pronounced "laughable farce concocted for political reasons by people with closed minds and absolutely no intention of actually listening and learning"). What would happen if a group of leading climate scientists scheduled a conference specifically for congressmen and congresswomen, in Washington, with a series of seminars and workshops specifically aimed at teaching the science to (and debunking the myths for) the policy makers in our government? Is there any entity (such as the Union for Concerned Scientists) that could fund and organize such a venture? If not... perhaps its time one was created (the Union for Concerned Climate Scientists?). Expecting politicians to responsibly educate themselves is clearly not a workable approach to the problem. -
Albatross at 07:58 AM on 6 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
BP, How did this forecast made by you (here) in June 2010 pan out? "Looks like PIPS end-of-May sea ice volume is a pretty good predictor for their minimum ice volume in September. If we go with this observation, PIPS sea ice volume must exceed their figures for 1998-2000 in September, this year." Now is that the real ice volume or the ice volume in the virtual world of PIPs? Anyhow, curious to see also what you believe will happen this year and how that tallies with reality come September. -
Stu at 07:43 AM on 6 April 2011Maximum and minimum monthly records in global temperature databases
Uh, Henry, no-one says this is the only line of evidence that warming is occurring... the mean temperature has also been rising, the trend in extremes has merely been consistent with this. -
Albatross at 07:42 AM on 6 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
BP @118, Good grief, this is now getting tiresome, and we know that you can do better than this BP. You assured me quite some time ago that you were interested in the pursuit of "truth". However, your post @118 runs counter to that claim. Also, as John Cook keeps reminding us, good science requires us to look at the whole, collective picture, quite the opposite of what you have just done (and please do not rehash your PIPs maps here, you have done that elsewhere on SkS already.... No caveats, not context, no source other than two PIPs images, which seems to have become the darling of the contrarians and those in denial about Arctic sea ice loss or its ramifications. I wonder why? Your plots do not change the facts highlighted by Sphaerica @113. Perhaps you and I can agree on one point BP, namely that there will likely be a small, yet stubborn, area of sea ice north of Greenland and the Canadian archipelago in September and October in coming decades. PS: I am curious to see how well PIPS thickness data validates against the in-situ Catlin survey data and the Cryosat-2 data (now that it is freely available). -
KR at 07:31 AM on 6 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Even better to view it as a movie, as per NSIDC: Ice extent 1979-2009 (Quicktime) As a long term plot:
Or to look at the multi-year ice extent:
March 7 was the maximum sea ice extent this year; much more relevant is the minimum extent in about 5-6 months. Even then, it's "...tied for the lowest winter maximum extent in the satellite record", after March 2006.
Somehow, Berényi, I'm not reassured by your data...
-
Berényi Péter at 07:21 AM on 6 April 201110 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
You have removed a post in response to #133. Why? If there's a reason, why have not you removed that one in the first place? -
Berényi Péter at 07:07 AM on 6 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Here is the big scary decline in 12 years.
-
dana1981 at 06:37 AM on 6 April 2011Learning from the Climate Hearing
invicta - yes, the first post in the Christy series should be published in the next couple of days, and I'll be addressing the economic claims of Montgomery this weekend. The hearing was hypothetically an opportunity to educate politicians. I'm not at all surprised they didn't take advantage of the opportunity, but it's still painful to watch them fail to do so. -
JMurphy at 06:35 AM on 6 April 201110 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
With regard to the hope from RickyPockett that the trees will save us, a recent paper suggests things are not quite as simple as some would like to believe : Tree Growth and Fecundity Affected More by Climate Change Than Previously Thought The above link leads on to this one : Northern Forests Do Not Benefit from Lengthening Growing Season, Study Finds And there are plenty more from that link to suggest that perhaps we might be better to include tree-planting as part of an overall carbon-mitigation policy that has other plans which will be quicker and more reliable - such as shown in A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050, or Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes, or A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs, or The Prudent Path, or Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits. -
Henry justice at 06:33 AM on 6 April 2011Maximum and minimum monthly records in global temperature databases
This whole article, scientifically, is trash. There is no real quantification of cooling or warming that is occurring, just maximums or minimums. Using such data is hogwash. For instance, in the U.S. alone there has been over two dozen double record days where it was both the hottest and coldest day on record. You have to have quantification of the amount of heat vs time. This is not being done and people just don't understand how a year with everyday a broken heat record can actually be colder.Moderator Response: [DB] Thank you for stating your utterly unscientific, yet fascinating, opinion. -
invicta at 06:09 AM on 6 April 2011Learning from the Climate Hearing
Dana 1981 I believe you are wrong to see these hearings as a lost opportunity to educate your politicians. Very little of the basic science supporting the case for AGW would be beyond the understanding of Einsteins theoretical barmaid and I cannot believe the average congressman doesn't have at least this level of intellect. To lead your witness with carefully crafted questions you need a good basic grasp of the subject under discussion so I also believe that it is not their ignorance that needs to be addressed but as Albatross so succinctly put it their misinformation, distortion and obfuscation. I don't doubt you will do just this in the coming days. Einstein is also quoted as saying " We cannot solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when creating them" The science won't change, the thinking has to. -
Phil at 06:00 AM on 6 April 2011There is no consensus
Neo @297 said 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. If AGW has become a religion to some then it is taken on faith (by them), but that doesn't imply that it has to be, nor that it is by other people who accept AGW on more rational arguments. Everyone takes some aspect of the world "on trust" from others, the amount of human knowledge is too vast for any other way of living. Most people find quantum mechanics strange or counter-intuitive but all accept it on "faith" when they have an MRI scan. I wonder why you do not feel that quantum mechanics has also "become its own religion" - after all it is 30 years younger than Climate Change, and some scientists did not like it: Einstein: Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the "old one." I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice. If you dislike the idea of taking AGW "on trust" but wish to delve deeper, then I would echo the others who have responded; this website is a great resource for those with an open mind and genuine skepticism to evaluate the science behind AGW -
logicman at 05:08 AM on 6 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
adelady: thanks for the link to the CT graph. I haven't been able to embed it either. :) CT ice graph Gilles: positive feedbacks to Arctic sea ice loss act in a probabilistic fashion: over any randomly chosen subset of available data it is more probable that the ice will be seen to be decreasing than seen to be increasing. It's like gambling on heads or tails with a coin which has a bias towards heads. It may land tails up a few times in a row, but if you always bet on tails, in the long run you will lose money. -
Magpie at 04:56 AM on 6 April 2011Climate's changed before
What I said in a recent conversation on this topic: "Look, even if it's true that it was just as warm in medieval times, that means we've had a thousand-odd years of climate change in just a few decades, and the rate of change only looks to be increasing. How is that supposed to be a good thing?" Seemed to have an effect. Sometimes people have all the information needed to come to a logical conclusion, they've just been using that information as sponge and padding to protect their fallacy. -
muoncounter at 04:50 AM on 6 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Albatross#115: "does not simply eyeball graphs to arrive at his/her preconceived notion." Albatross, That's not playing fair: Without the ability to say 'I can't see it, so it must not be happening,' the denier doesn't have much of a leg to stand on! -
angliss at 04:43 AM on 6 April 2011Climate myths at the U.S. House Hearing on climate change
This list shows clearly that the GOP has become the Ministry of Magic and climate disruption is the Death Eaters circa "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix." At least Emanuel got to be Dumbledore.Response: BTW, Brian, enjoyed your latest Harry Potter post. -
DSL at 04:02 AM on 6 April 2011There is no consensus
#287: My point was that the church had the consensus and they vigorously defended it to the detriment of science. 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. That's the problem with your analogy, Neo: "but to some." Upon what basis do you establish the value of a statement? For scientists, it's the science. For anyone who enjoys real, direct power, it may be whatever helps maintain and enhance that power. You, apparently, do not argue from science but rather from the representation of science in popular media. In other words, you rely on others for your understanding. If this is not true, bring on the attacks against the science. They are welcome. If it is true, it seems hypocritical to come to a place like this and use the ideas of others to blindly bludgeon at what those others think is false. At the very least, you end up being a sort of puppet--a being completely in the control of someone absent. I'd rather discuss the situation with the person pulling the strings. As others have suggested, take your arguments to the appropriate threads and engage in open-minded discussion. Who won't respect that kind of move? If you're not willing--willing--to learn, then expect to be ignored or ridiculed. -
logicman at 03:41 AM on 6 April 2011Models are unreliable
The argument against fluid dynamic modeling is essentially that no computer model of a non linear dynamic system of the complexity of any man-made object moving through a fluid can accurately predict the safety and efficiency of the real thing. Models are not capable of guaranteeing that if the mass and drag can be cut by x% then it will have y degrees impact on reducing the operating costs. If the models can not provide these types of guarantees then they are not a valid basis for public policy initiatives involving spending trillions of dollars of ordinary taxpayers money on planes, ships, trains, automobiles and the like. If we destroy the wind tunnels and computers we can save the taxpayers a lot of money. It will also create jobs in the sabot sector. -
IanC at 03:41 AM on 6 April 2011There is no consensus
Neo, I should clarify that I am interpreting "accepted" as "accepted as a reasonably scientifically sound study". Not a study that is "accepted as a theory that offers an alternative explanation to the warming". Mods, sorry for the double post. -
CBDunkerson at 03:40 AM on 6 April 2011There is no consensus
Neo: "Would you please list just one study that is accepted by the consensus that contradicts AGW." Sure. Angstrom 1900. Of course, it has since been proven wrong... but it was accepted at the time. You won't find any recent 'accepted studies' which contradict AGW because AGW is an observed reality. It would be like having studies showing that water always runs uphill. Even 'skeptic' scientists like Richard Muller and Roy Spencer acknowledge that AGW is happening... they just question how much the total impact will be and/or the best way to handle it. That you think AGW is somehow in question, despite the fact that even 'skeptic' scientists will no longer make that claim, shows just how little you really know about the subject. -
IanC at 03:34 AM on 6 April 2011There is no consensus
Neo, Regarding the UHI effect, it has been shown that it doesn't affect the temperature anomaly record. In fact NOAA did a study compared to the ones classified as "good" or "best" according to Anthony Watts, and showed that there is no difference at all. What that implies is that the UHI effect does not create a warm bias. For more details on UHI, I think you should read this , and I am sure people would be happy to have a discussion with you over there. Regarding data distruction, you'll have to be more specific. Regarding alternative theories, they are not dismissed simply because they are contra-AGW, but it is because either they are flawed, there are no supporting evidence, or evidence directly contradicts the theory. On skeptical science you will find a very detailed catalogue of alternative theories, and why they don't work. Most of the "evidences" touted by skeptics are often misconstrued facts, or simply irrelevant to global warming. In addition, scientist that raise scientifically sound objections are always taken seriously in the research circle. It is only when scientists who do not do research in climate brings up points that have be refuted many times that they run the risk of being ridiculed. It gets tiring afterall. "Would you please list just one study that is accepted by the consensus that contradicts AGW." Off the top of my head I remember: Lindzen and Choi 2009 that challenges climate sensitivity. Henrik Svensmark is still publishing on solar cycle-cloud link. Mind you there are only very few of them, precisely because there aren't a lot of scientifically sound alternative theories left. -
Ggf9191 at 03:17 AM on 6 April 2011Models are unreliable
I find it difficult to believe that anyone could consider the argument posed in posting 312 and endorsed in 322 as in anyway persuasive. The argument against climate modeling is essentially that no computer model of a non linear dynamic system of the complexity of the global climate can accurately predict the future. (read chaos by James Gleick) The fact that no-one has built a model that does not include co2 forcing is not relevant to the point. In particular the models are not capable of guaranteeing that if the carbon dioxide produced can be cut by x% then it will have y degrees implact on reducing the temperature at the end of the century. If the models can not provide these types of guarantees then they are not a valid basis for public policy initiatives involving spending trillions of dollars of ordinary taxpayers money on carbon taxes trading schemes and the likeModerator Response: [DikranMarsupial] Weather is chaotic, that does not mean that climate (long term average behaviour) is also chaotic. GEP Box said that "all models are wrong, but some are useful", whether models can "accurately" predict the future depends on how you define "accurate". Secondly, it is irrational to require a guarantee before taking action. I have car insurance, but I didn't take action to buy it because there was a guarantee that I will need it. We all make such probabilistic judgements every day, this is no different. -
2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Fred, You're making much of the perception that there are somehow two contradictory theories of GHE. As Tom and others have tried to explain to you, this is a false perception. The explanation relying only on backradiation is often referred to as the idealized or simple greenhouse model. It is a simplification, not a contradiction. The full explanation relies on both backradiation and the altitude of effective TOA radiation. I don't understand why you're having so much difficulty grasping this. Do you believe that atomic theory is in dispute because the Bohr model is still taught in elementary school? -
Rob Honeycutt at 03:10 AM on 6 April 2011There is no consensus
Neo Anderson @ 297... Just because you informed yourself does not mean you have informed yourself with accurate information. Thus my question. Where are you getting your information? Generally, on this site, people cite their claims with links to the information so others can review it for accuracy. Regarding your church analogy... You have to remember that this is science. Science is based on the empirical evidence that has been presented into the literature. When you go to the doctor and get an opinion about a condition you may have, you are generally getting what the "consensus" of most doctors is. You can choose to ignore that and find a minority opinion on your condition if you like. My bet would be with the consensus opinion. The fact remains, the "consensus" on climate change is there and it is robust. The available evidence is overwhelming. It could be wrong, of course. But the chances that it's wrong are vanishingly small. No faith required here. The empirical evidence is fully available. -
JMurphy at 02:47 AM on 6 April 2011There is no consensus
No, Neo Anderson : the church backed a Ptolemaic Model which, although not universally accepted was mathematically provable, and that took the work of several geniuses (including Galileo) to finally discard. Where are those geniuses against AGW ? And where is faith involved, apart from the faith involved in believing that the problem is anything but AGW ? How much proof do you need before someone like you will accept it ? What videos are you referring to ? Where is the documentation you refer to ? Where is the "contra-evidence" ? Which scientists are you referring to ? What "contrary information" do you have ? Who called you a "heretic" ? Did you go to, and read, any of the links you were provided with ? As for your question : "Would you please list just one study that is accepted by the consensus that contradicts AGW." That is strange logic. Let me put this question to you : ""Would you please list just one study that is accepted by the consensus that contradicts Evolution." If you can't, does that mean that Evolution studies are biased against the Creationists and therefore a sham ? -
les at 02:39 AM on 6 April 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Certainly it's settled science. No need to post from another blog to show that there are folks who misunderstand part or,indeed, all of it; just read the posts here! Mind you, if you want to understand the science your self you'll need to read one of those book things, possibly with the support of a physics (or physical science) degree. If you haven't done that, probably tre next best thing is to pist rubbish on a blog... ... Oh! -
Dikran Marsupial at 02:37 AM on 6 April 2011There is no consensus
Neo@297 A point to ponder, if reading information contrary to the "concensus" makes someone a heretic, surely that means all the RealClimate chaps, every contributor to SkepticalScience, Tamino etc. are all "heretics" - there is plenty of evidence that they have read papers by contrarians - how else could they debunk them. This also ought to be awarded a prize for illogical challenge of the week "Would you please list just one study that is accepted by the consensus that contradicts AGW."; if you can't see the logical flaw there, there is a certain irony in your choice of nom de guerre! ;o)
Prev 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 1800 1801 1802 1803 1804 1805 1806 1807 1808 1809 Next
