Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 Next
Comments 94851 to 94900:
-
Chemist1 at 14:10 PM on 21 February 2011A broader view of sea level rise
To get the discussion back: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/02/09/gps-aids-in-sea-level-rise-debate/ Thoughts? I do not want to flood the thread with references. Let's go at it one at a time, if we can. -
Chemist1 at 14:08 PM on 21 February 2011Prudent Path Week
The idea may be established but its reliability is not. But I will defer further reference to GIA to the appropriate thread as per the moderator's comment. -
Chemist1 at 14:04 PM on 21 February 2011Prudent Path Week
Bibliovermis here: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/section?content=a928051726&fulltext=713240928 -
Tom Curtis at 14:00 PM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
HR @152, pointing out a limited truth without context in such a way as is likely to deceive is a form of lying. People who do it are said to be telling half truths, and are appropriately described as disingenuous. Had you pointed out that there are natural forcings that have caused polar amplification in the past (half the truth), but that those forcings are now acting in opposition of polar amplification (the whole truth), then I would not have called you disingenuous. But had you done that, of course, you would not have opened up any doubt as to whether the current arctic amplification is natural, or anthropogenic in origin. -
RW1 at 13:58 PM on 21 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
scaddenp (RE: 79), I don't understand, sorry. -
scaddenp at 13:52 PM on 21 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
(Oops, the above is response to comments from RW1 at A swift kick in the ice -
scaddenp at 13:51 PM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1 - I have responded Climate sensitivity is low -
scaddenp at 13:48 PM on 21 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
RW1 - there is another way to look at whether the radiative change is correct or not without going into the mathematics deeply. Step 1/ assume scientists have the maths and physics right. Use the model to calculate TOA emissions. Not just the energy, but also the spectra. Compare with REAL measured spectra. Step 2/ Assuming that was right, you can see whether the calculation for incremental CO2 increase is also correct by doing the same procedure but doing it for different decades and seeing whether the change matches the change in CO2. Sound fair enough test? In fact you could do the calculation for downward IR at surface or for outward IR by satellite. For results, see the papers on this Now lets see George White produce some calculations from his approach that can match these empirical results. -
jatkeison at 13:42 PM on 21 February 2011Link to skeptic rebuttals with short URLs
This is a terriffic resource! I have been linking to SKS more and more often on my facebook Wall, and get a good response. (I have over 4,000 friends there.) I took the liberty of posting this with a short intro as a Note at Skeptical Science's Quick Guide Toolkit to Global Warming Baloney Numbering the list makes it even more impressive, IMHO. Thanks again. -
Tom Curtis at 13:41 PM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
The correct thread is this one. The issue I was raising was not climate sensitivity, or the Earth's energy balance. It is that RW1's self proclaimed "critical thinking" is neither. I am not going to bury that point by pretending that whether or not the doubling CO2 would have an atmospheric forcing of 3.7 w/m^2 or 1.85 w/m^2 (as Geoge White would have us believe) is a matter open to discussion. The later opinion is simply an error, an error only possible in some one who does not even know the meaning of "atmospheric forcing". The correct response in this situation is not to discuss this on some other thread but for RW1 to admit the error, and to stop swallowing uncritically any sort of nonsense churned out by denier hacks. -
Bern at 13:33 PM on 21 February 2011Prudent Path Week
BTW, is there a handy link anywhere to the SKS graphics? I can't see one up the top of the page anywhere...Moderator Response: [DB] Try here. -
Bern at 13:31 PM on 21 February 2011Prudent Path Week
Bibliovermis, you're absolutely right - I had second thoughts about that post almost immediately after I hit the "submit" button - luckily, the mods here are on the ball and deleted it. :-) Back on topic - the rate of change projected by all the climate models is very high. A common skeptic argument is that there have been large changes in climate previously. Does anyone know of a chart which plots, say, the temp rise at the end of the last ice age (even just the steepest 1,000 years) against the temp profile as presented in Figure 2 above? I should probably dig up the source data and chart it myself - I'd like to do the comparison for a presentation I'm putting together for work. CO2 & temp would be a useful pair of charts to illustrate how what's happening now differs from past episodes of climate change. There's also an interesting post over at ClimateSight about the potential for mass extinction as a result of warming events. -
RW1 at 12:49 PM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
Tom Curtis (RE: 209), What thread do you want to take it to? Moderators - any suggestion?Moderator Response: [DB] KR has suggested the How sensitive is our climate? thread, while RickG has suggested the Measuring Earth's energy imbalance thread. Depending on your desired focus, pick the more appropriate one. Or use the search function to find one you feel most appropriate. Thanks! -
RW1 at 12:49 PM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
Tom Curtis (RE: 209), Let's take this over to the appropriate thread. -
scaddenp at 12:35 PM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
HR - why would the fact that natural forcing have acted in the past (and act today) give anyone palpitations? Someone is denying it? However, the natural forcing that might have resulted in ice-free pole are NOT acting now. -
Bibliovermis at 12:31 PM on 21 February 2011Prudent Path Week
Bern, Implications of "being on the payroll" as the basis for being a supporter are unwelcome here, regardless of the position being supported. -
Rob Honeycutt at 11:59 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
Marcus @ 205... Just trying to extend a little in order to build a connection. I actually believe that the hypotheses being put forth from the skeptic side are not consistent with observations. Low climate sensitivity for Lindzen just doesn't jibe with paleoclimate reconstructions. And there are various fundamental problems for GCR's being a serious driving force in climate. -
Tom Curtis at 11:59 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1 @189, George White's arguments are rife with errors. (There was going to be a third and fourth post on his errors, but the page containing his essential argument is currently down.) One of the most egregious is the halving of the reduction in outgoing radiation due to IR gases. This is very easily verified for your self using the modtran model hosted by David Archer. This is an obsolete model available on the public domain, but it still shows a change in TOA OLR of -3.17 w/m^2 for a doubling of CO2 from the default settings. Note, that is the reduction in the Outgoing Longwave Radiation, it is not "the amount of IR radiation captured" or some other vague term designed to confuse. Based on this model, with 375 ppm CO2, approx 287.8 w/m^2, while with 750 ppm, approx 284.7 w/m^2 leaves the planet. As I said, this is an obsolete model, built in the early 1990's. More recent and more accurate models have since been built which refine the prediction to 3.7 w/m^2, a result consistent by satellite observations. When you have a dispute between a single amateur and the whole of the world's scientific community on a single well known value, it is not "critical thinking" to simply accept that word of the amateur. It is gullibility. It is no less gullibility if people cannot find published papers establishing some thing taught in first year climate science courses. For some reason, journal editors are loathe to accept papers that merely reestablish some well known result (unless it is done with a novel and interesting method). However, in this case it is not true that nobody could point you to an academic source for this value. They, after all, will have pointed you to the IPCC at minimum. That you and George White do not understand the definition of "atmospheric forcing" is not their fault. Nor is it "critical thinking". Rather, it is simple ignorance, and in anyone who has read up on climate science as you claim to have done, willful ignorance. -
Marcus at 11:39 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
"Someone asked me a direct question and I answered it. I'm basing my conclusions on logic and evidence - not who has financed who." Yes, & your answer proves you to be a conspiracy theorist-not much better than a Young Earth Creationist or a 9/11 Troofer. I'm sorry, but *when* have you ever proven that your conclusions are based on "logic & evidence"? You've just revealed that you believe the whole of Climatology is just one long conspiracy-all financed by an as yet undisclosed group/individual. I see nothing logical or evidence based in that. My conclusions, by comparison, are based on reading *all* the available data, & using a mind that's been *trained* to read scientific papers (as I have a B.Sc (Hons) & work in a scientific field) to determine whether what they're saying is accurate or not. What the majority of the world's climatologists fits in with *everything* we know about how the world works-& has yet to be overturned by any competing hypotheses/theories-whereas the Denialists (like yourself) rely mostly on conspiracy theories & straw-man arguments. So, based on that choice, guess which side I'm going with? -
RickG at 11:37 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1: Not really. The physics of GHGs absorption are pretty well understood and quantified, as is the aggregate measured response of the system to forcing power (i.e. the gain of the system). The issue boils down to the net feedback operating on the system. The large amount of positive feedback need for AGW is the extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary proof. I don't dispute there is likely some effect - just that the amount is too high. So, by your own words you have no problem with GHG physics. As for climate sensitivity and feedbacks I was going to recommend the thread, "Working out climate sensitivity from satellite measurements", but reading through it I see you have already been taken to task on your misunderstandings quite well. It also seems in that thread that you also seem to ignore the plethara of peer reviewed literature and care to learn no "real science". Again I'll ask you, list your sources that back up your claims for a large positive feedback nullifying the GHG forcings. You know to do this you also have to deny the 5 major global temperature measurements (GISS, HadCrut3v, NCDC, RSS & UAH) that all show significant warming is happening. Also, you seem to be drifting off topic, there are more appropriate threads concerning feedbacks and forcings. -
scaddenp at 11:36 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1 - what I want to see is your evidence. Your logic so far has been based on invalid assumption. If you want to talk science, then please go to appropriate thread and we can try to continue. Very important - have you got your head around Ramanthan and Coatley 1978? Science of Doom has some excellent aids to understanding the RTEs but discussions about where the 3.7W/m2 etc is going to be pointless without grasping these at some level. -
Marcus at 11:33 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
"On the other hand we have maybe a dozen or so top level scientists (Lindzen et al) who have put forth alternative theories." In fairness, they don't even have alternative *theories*-they have *hypotheses*-ones which haven't even been supported by additional research. Lindzen's "Iris Effect", for example, has yet to receive any support from actual observations of cloud behaviour. Its not looking good for the Denialist Cult right now. -
guinganbresil at 11:28 AM on 21 February 2011PMEL Carbon Program: a new resource
Rob Painting - I see that your graphic is missing respiration and photosynthesis:
It appears that respiration and photosynthesis drives the CO2, O2 and pH profiles of the oceans...
-
RW1 at 11:27 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
Marcus (RE: 203) Someone asked me a direct question and I answered it. I'm basing my conclusions on logic and evidence - not who has financed who. -
Marcus at 11:24 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
@RW1 "Good question. In short, yes. I think in essence they are mostly guessing and/or only looking for and interpreting data in ways that support enhanced anthropogenic warming because that is what their financiers are more or less looking for them to 'discover'." Oh yeah, unlike your denialist mates, who are often *proven* to be financed by the Fossil Fuel Industry. Are you suggesting that Arrhenius & all the other physicists & climatologists over the whole of the 19th & 20th centuries were also just trying to show 'what their financiers are more or less looking for them to discover'? If so, then that's a conspiracy with one *hell* of a lag time. With the sentence above, you've pretty much proved that you're not only a denier, but also a bit of a simpleton to boot. If these are the best "arguments" you can come up with to 'debunk' climate change, then its no wonder you probably spend most of your time hanging out with PopTech, Monctkon & Anthony Watts! -
RW1 at 11:22 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
Rob Honeycutt, "I apologize for taking this thread off topic here but I have some more questions. So, on one hand we have some 10 thousand-odd climate scientists (not sure what the number actually is) and dozens of the most prestigious scientific organizations on one hand. On the other hand we have maybe a dozen or so top level scientists (Lindzen et al) who have put forth alternative theories. There is the possibility that the larger groups have made the mistake. Or there is the possibility that the smaller group is making the mistake. Laying aside any given actions that should be taken, who are you more willing to bet your children's future on? Are you really willing to bet that so many scientists are somehow pulling a ruse, ignoring some elemental aspects of science, in order to support their preferred conclusion?" I'd respond, but the moderator is deleting my posts, so I'm done here. You're asking good questions, BTW. -
Rob Honeycutt at 11:12 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1... I apologize for taking this thread off topic here but I have some more questions. So, on one hand we have some 10 thousand-odd climate scientists (not sure what the number actually is) and dozens of the most prestigious scientific organizations on one hand. On the other hand we have maybe a dozen or so top level scientists (Lindzen et al) who have put forth alternative theories. There is the possibility that the larger groups have made the mistake. Or there is the possibility that the smaller group is making the mistake. Laying aside any given actions that should be taken, who are you more willing to bet your children's future on? Are you really willing to bet that so many scientists are somehow pulling a ruse, ignoring some elemental aspects of science, in order to support their preferred conclusion? -
RW1 at 11:08 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
( -Snip- )Moderator Response: [DB] You persist in posting things that are not only off-topic, but in violation of the comments policy, such as allegations of impropriety. Your comments must stand on their own based on the science (preferably with peer-reviewed sources to back them up) or not at all. -
Bibliovermis at 10:56 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1, I politely suggest that you apply your critical thinking skills to your base assumptions. Independently validated, empirical researched is not overturned by vast conspiracy notions and lack of understanding. -
José M. Sousa at 10:54 AM on 21 February 2011Portuguese translation of The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism
Hi! No problem. Keep up the excellent work and thanks to Alexandre as well. -
scaddenp at 10:53 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1 - "their financiers are more or less looking for them to 'discover'." That is utter unsubstantiated nonsense that as far as I can see arises from an extremely poor understanding of science, and frankly looks like violation of comments policy. This is not "interpreting" data. Its actually doing the maths which you appear not to be. You can what political opinions you like but you cannot have your own version of reality. If you cant do the maths yourself, then unfortunately you have to accept the result from those who can. The 3.7W/m2 is result of very complex numerical integration; there is no "opinion" in it. If you want to dispute it, then refute the equations, but you cant do that with a half-baked piece of simplistic nonsense that this "gain" stuff is.Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Yes, indeed it was. Please do not continue responding to these kind of comments. -
muoncounter at 10:52 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
Gentle reminder: This is an ice thread. Sensitivity and energy imbalance discussions have their own threads; although I doubt if anyone wants to start that up again. Conspiracies, 'financiers,' etc are never on topic. -
pbjamm at 10:47 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1@193 "Good question. In short, yes. I think in essence they are mostly guessing and/or only looking for and interpreting data in ways that support enhanced anthropogenic warming because that is what their financiers are more or less looking for them to 'discover'." And with that we move from discussing Scientific Theory to Conspiracy Theory. -
RW1 at 10:45 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
KR (RE: 191), I'm not getting into that with you here, nor am I going to speak for George. -
scaddenp at 10:44 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1 - surely you still dont think that doubling CO2 actually is producing extra radiation at the TOA? (where by definition there is no atmosphere?). Its a EFFECTIVE 3.7W/m2 of rad. This has been explained so many times, I dont know how to make you understand it. -
RW1 at 10:43 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
Rob Honeycutt, "So, in your estimation the 10 thousand-odd climate scientists working in this field have somehow made some critical error? And all the major scientific organizations (PNAS, etc.) who have made strong open declarations about AGW have all managed come to completely erroneous conclusions? Good question. In short, yes. I think in essence they are mostly guessing and/or only looking for and interpreting data in ways that support enhanced anthropogenic warming because that is what their financiers are more or less looking for them to 'discover'.Moderator Response: [DB] You are making an allegation of impropriety here, which is in violation of the comments policy. Future such comments will be deleted. -
Marcus at 10:34 AM on 21 February 2011Prudent Path Week
steve anthoney "Funny how my taxes have gone up on the back of global warming." Unless you're living in a mainland European country, I doubt very much that your claim is true-as Governments in every other industrialized Country are very much joined at the hip to the Coal/Oil Industry. Here in Australia, $10 billion per annum of tax-payers money is effectively shoveled into the pockets of the fossil fuel industry-in direct & indirect subsidies-but listen to the politicians *scream* if you suggest giving even 1% of that kind of money to the renewable energy industry. -
Rob Honeycutt at 10:32 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1 @ 189... So, in your estimation the 10 thousand-odd climate scientists working in this field have somehow made some critical error? And all the major scientific organizations (PNAS, etc.) who have made strong open declarations about AGW have all managed come to completely erroneous conclusions? -
A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1 - George White has admitted that his own running of the models comes out with an imbalance of ~3.65 W/m^2. That is the difference in energy between what goes into the atmosphere and what comes out. Not half of it, but all of it. The difference is because of (a) increased absorption by CO2, and (b) a rise in the level of CO2 emission, where CO2 density is low enough for IR to escape to space, and due to the lapse rate is actually colder - hence less energy. These numbers are obtained by running line-by-line models (as GW has done), much as numeric integration does for equations without symbolic solutions. For some reason GW doesn't believe his own results, and goes halving them - that's no reason for you to make the same mistake. I would suggest that further discussion of climate sensitivity take place on the Climate sensitivity is low thread, where the data and the discussion on this topic are actually being presented. You are way off topic here. -
scaddenp at 10:25 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
Both would also appear that a back-of-the-envelope calculation ignoring a mass of known physics (plus a mass of invalid assumptions) outweighs any calculation where its done better. This the thinking that leads to "bumblebees shouldnt be able to fly". Also, the question as to how long is long enough to distinguish a trend from internal variability is not a matter of opinion - you determine it from statistics. -
RW1 at 10:23 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
Rob Honeycutt (RE: 181), "Out of curiosity, can I ask where you get most of your information on climate science?" I've read a lot of books and papers and thought about it from a whole bunch of different angles, but most of my conclusions and views come from mixing and meshing the behavior and evidence coming from both sides using logic and critical thinking skills. And yes, I have gotten a lot of information from George White. I've taken the time to understand a lot of the work he has done and have spent time watching and observing others try to discredit it only to fail in my estimation. For example, it is claimed around here that the halving of the 3.7 W/m^2 is incorrect because it's already been halved, yet I've asked numerous times for a source documenting the incremental absorption from 2xCO2 is actually 7.4 W/m^2. So far no one has provided it, and I've even searched around myself and found nothing of the sort. These kinds of things reveal things to my critical thinking mind and I then mix and mesh them in with all the other stuff I know. Eventually, I believe at least, I figure out who really knows what they're talking about and who doesn't. -
Rob Honeycutt at 10:21 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1 @ 186... That's good. At least you aren't a complete denier. I run into way too many people who try to tell that CO2 has zero radiative properties or hang their hat on the idea that the CO2 effect is saturated. -
A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1 - Those 'gain' calculations were discussed to the point of exhaustion on previous threads, along with the quite incorrect 'halving' of TOA imbalances. I have no wish to rehash it here - I think you were clearly answered on the earlier thread. The 'gain' you have discussed is inappropriate for climate calculations. Please read the Climate sensitivity is low thread for the peer reviewed work and actual data on sensitivity to forcings. -
Sea level rise is exaggerated
Chemist1 - Glacial isostatic adjustment is a known issue, and sea level rise estimates are corrected for it. Your claims that sea level rise cannot be measured are unjustified; if you disagree, please provide references. -
Prudent Path Week
Chemist1 - Reply on How much is sea level rising, where the topic is appropriate. -
RW1 at 10:09 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RickG (RE: 178), "You would have to overturn a lot of well understood physics to do that." Not really. The physics of GHGs absorption are pretty well understood and quantified, as is the aggregate measured response of the system to forcing power (i.e. the gain of the system). The issue boils down to the net feedback operating on the system. The large amount of positive feedback need for AGW is the extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary proof. I don't dispute there is likely some effect - just that the amount is too high. -
A Swift Kick in the Ice
Rob Honeycutt - Based on our last discussions with RW1, much of his information and approach comes from George White/co2isnotevil's website, which has curious arguments claiming both a low sensitivity to forcings and no anthropogenic influence on climate. It also has unjustified halving of the forcing from CO2 doubling, and an odd 'gain' which he uses to claim that various forcings will have little or no effect. Those topics were covered in great (gah, exhausting) detail on the Lindzen and Choi thread. -
steve anthoney at 10:06 AM on 21 February 2011Prudent Path Week
Hmmm but if you are right about the oceans, then we're still doomed because of the population growth. And no politician will attempt to tackle that one. I'm still a bit sceptical though - why do politicians and media show us pictures of glaciers collapsing into the sea when that's what glaciers do ! Or polar bears standing on icebergs in the summer ! Funny how my taxes have gone up on the back of global warming. I reckon we'll stop using fossil fuels when there's none left.Moderator Response: [muoncounter] If you are interested in ice, see the thread Basic overview of melting ice and comment there. You will find that what glaciers are supposed to do is both 'grow' and collapse into the sea; what we have now is lacking the growing part. But blaming global warming for your tax increase? That's a new one -- and certainly not the topic here. Have a look at Carbon pricing cost vs. benefits. -
Rob Honeycutt at 10:03 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
Steve Anthoney... The maximum sea ice extent usually comes sometime in late March and continues to decline through the summer months until a low in September. Lots and lots of sunshine up there during that whole period. -
Marcus at 09:56 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1. You do seem not to understand the difference between a Hypothesis & a Theory, & AGW is most definitely *not* an hypothesis. As Rick rightly points out, it takes a *lot* more to overturn a theory than an hypothesis. Case in point is Evolution. There are plenty of cases which-at face value-seems to "undermine" the basic premise of evolution-yet all these cases really do is force scientists to go out & gain a better understanding of how evolution actually works. The actual theory itself is still completely sound though. Of course, that said, I'm still waiting for you or one of your Denialist mates to actually come up with anything that actually contradicts the Theory of AGW-all I've seen to date though is a lot of strawman arguments about "insufficient data" or playing up year to year variability (which isn't as high as you claim). Go to the back of the class buddy.
Prev 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 Next
