Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 Next
Comments 96251 to 96300:
-
mozart at 16:49 PM on 12 February 2011Monckton Myth #10: Warming in the Pipeline
Could one not make the same delayed response argument for solar activity that still remains above the levels seen at any time in the first 50 years of the 20th century. Why has this rise in solar levels ( even though they are lower now than they were 20 years ago) not played a part in the rise of temperatures over the last 200 years? -
Albatross at 15:39 PM on 12 February 2011Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
JohnD @16, So you are suggesting that they are cherry picking? Do you realise that means that you are essentially accusing them of scientific misconduct? I though the house rules did not permit that. I understand the findings are inconvenient and troublesome for you, but you trying to hand wave away a paper published in a leading climate journal is pretty ridiculous. Do your own analysis, and demonstrate that shifting the start date renders the trends statistically insignificant. You would also have to argue why you selected your particular start date. you can conclude nothing, because all you have done here is present some musings, some hypotheticals, no data analysis. Had you made the effort to read the paper, you would have found the reasons for them selecting the 1911 and 1957 start dates. Why am I do all the work, you are the one making accusations of nefarious goings...read their sections 3 and 4 which describe the data and methods they used, respectively. In fact, please read the entire paper. Also note that this paper does not stand on its own, it forms part of a coherent and much larger body of evidence. From their introduction: "Changes in the frequency and severity of some extreme events during the twentieth and early twenty-first cen- tury have been recorded globally (Frich et al. 2002; Alexander et al. 2006) and throughout Europe (Klein Tank and Ko ̈ nnen 2003), North America (Karl et al. 1996; Vincent and Mekis 2006), South America (Vincent et al. 2005; Haylock et al. 2006), Asia (Manton et al. 2001; Zhai et al. 2005; You et al. 2008), and Oceania (Plummer et al. 1999; Alexander et al. 2007). These changes have in- cluded increases in the occurrence of hot extremes and decreases in the occurrence of cold extremes of mini- mum and maximum temperature during the second-half of the twentieth century for the majority of global land area (Frich et al. 2002; Alexander et al. 2006). Reported changes in extreme precipitation are regionally depen- dent. However, there has been a global trend toward increases in extreme daily precipitation during the second-half of the twentieth century and into the twenty- first century (Alexander et al. 2006)." Yes, La Nina's are typically associated with heavier rainfall events over Queensland and NSW, nothing new there. ENSO is, as the name suggests, an oscillation-- it cannot cause a trend unless there is a systematic increase in the intensity and/or frequency. Also, the BOM has also said that the record high ssts around Australia probably played a role. and Trenberth (and others) has shown that the precipitable water vapour content has risen by about 5% since the 70s over the global oceans-- providing more latent energy for storms (and which will also incidentally increase the liquid water content of the convective clouds). there are several papers on that which I can refer you to if you like. You are entitled to your own opinions johnd, but not your own facts. Feel free to deceive yourself, but ignoring the huge and overwhelming body of evidence won't make the reality go away. -
Bern at 15:37 PM on 12 February 2011Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
Ken Lambert - there may have been 12m floods in the city reach way back when. But don't underestimate the mitigation effect that Somerset & Wivenhoe dams had. Peak flow was estimated at a bit over 7,000 m3/s past the city gauge. There were reports that inflows to Wivenhoe alone topped 1 million megalitres per day, or close to 12,000 m3/s. And that was at the same time that Somerset was rapidly filling as well, in addition to the floods coming down the Lockyer & Bremer catchments. If all that had come down the river at the same time, then a peak around 6 or 7 metres (i.e. 1.5-2.5 metres higher than we got) would have been out of the question. And while, yes, there has been additional development over recent decades, that's not where the water was coming from - the land where the rain fell is largely agricultural or, indeed, native forest. So I regard this as a fairly extreme rainfall event. Sure, it may not be the most extreme Brisbane has ever had, but it wasn't associated with a cyclone or tropical low, which *does* make it somewhat extraordinary. @Agnostic: IMHO, the one step that will *really* make a difference to Australia's emissions is to announce that no more coal-fired power stations will be permitted to be built. That will get the power companies thinking seriously about alternatives to replace the plants that are approaching retirement. Maybe just start with a ban on brown-coal, with a phase-out of black coal power. Now, its possible that the only practical option to replace that much generation in the next 10-20 years is nuclear, but with enough incentive, I'm sure we'd see enormous effort put into developing alternatives (like solar thermal or geothermal). -
Marcus at 13:20 PM on 12 February 2011Monckton Myth #10: Warming in the Pipeline
@ #8-that was a very interesting article. It seems that the Denialist Cult's "Broad Church" approach to membership is beginning to come back & haunt them. After all, how else can we explain Monckton being attacked-by his own camp-for going "too far" & simultaneously "not going far enough". Oh, the Schaudenfraude of this moment is too great to pass up :)! -
Marcus at 13:05 PM on 12 February 2011Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
RSVP, I do apologize for the error in my post, but it should have been obvious-even to you-that as the stratosphere is the UPPER atmosphere, & that it is cooling, that the warming I previously mentioned must have referred to the troposphere & near-surface layers. The fact that the troposphere is WARMING, whilst the Stratosphere is COOLING is one of the clearest indicators that heat is increasingly being trapped in the lower atmosphere. That's not word-play or contradiction-that's scientific FACT. Now, unless you & your fellow denialists can come up with a SOLID explanation of some natural phenomenon that can simultaneously warm the troposphere whilst cooling the stratosphere, I'd be *really* interested in hearing it. Instead, I'm sure we'll just hear the usual pseudo-scientific bunkum coupled with the old "grand scientific conspiracy" delusion that you usually provide. -
StElias at 12:26 PM on 12 February 2011Articgate: perpetuating the myth that Arctic sea ice has recovered
I’m new here, I do appreciate this S.S. site and the climate discussion. Does wonders for my blood pressure, nice to read and listen to folk with brains, for a change. I’m not a scientist, lifelong Alaskan though, 71 years. We travel lots. Last February we were in Antarctica. Sent this note home when there: “Three biologists (naturalists) on board, all Brits. one guy spent most of his life here, since shortly after War ll. They’re really concerned over lack of sea ice impact on marine life. We have an "Ice Captain" on board too. He is retired US Coast Guard and had captained our nation’s largest ice breaker, the Polar Star, on scientific expeditions in the Antarctic for years. He spoke to us a couple of times. Right after we left and headed into Drake's Passage he said something interesting "I don't get into these "Global Warming" arguments because I am not a scientist. However, I will tell you this, my first summer here was in 1984, no way we could have taken a ship this size, back then, into the areas where we have just been. There was so much ice then that even a consideration of doing so would have been ridiculous." -
scaddenp at 12:24 PM on 12 February 2011We're heading into an ice age
stephenwv - a couple of other points for you to ponder when you compare what is going on now, to what happened in ice ages. Rate of temperature change is around 10 degrees in 20,000 years or 0.05C/century. Rate of warming now is around 0.8C/century (more than 10 times faster). And from an earlier post. "The milankovitch forcing that drives ice age is due to change in forcing that is about 0.25W/m2 per hundred years at 65N. Globally, its maybe a tenth of that. By comparison, anthropogenic GHG is about 2.5-3W/m2 over last 100 years globally, not just at 65N." Do you think natural factors are going to trump that? -
MattJ at 12:22 PM on 12 February 2011The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism
BTW: every time I see the statement, true though it is, that "Scientific skepticism is healthy", I want to follow it immediately with "unscientific skepticism is unhealthy, even poisonous." That way, the point of your first paragraph could almost fit on a Prius bumper sticker;) -
muoncounter at 12:19 PM on 12 February 2011Newcomers, Start Here
Here's a reference that shows meltwater from ice takes up atmospheric CO2 -- and that an ice-free Arctic will lose that ability, making things even worse. Talk about feedbacks! “The total loss of summer sea ice from the Arctic, predicted to occur within the next few decades, may have dramatic effects on the ability of the Arctic Ocean to sequester CO2 from the atmosphere. “We could see further increases in CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere, if reductions in this “the sea-ice pump” are not compensated for elsewhere.” -
johnd at 12:17 PM on 12 February 2011Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
Albatross at 04:02 AM on 12 February, 2011, regarding the Gallant and Karoly paper you recommended, whenever I see such analysis I always consider how or why the beginning and ending points have been selected as often it becomes apparent that such points often sets a stage that puts a bias on the outcome, especially when considering trends. The year 1911 was at the end of 3 consecutive La-Nina years with the IPO (Inter-decadal Pacific Oscillation) in the midst of a relative short negative (wetter) phase, with SOI reaching a value of 16. Three longer phases of the IPO subsequently occurred during the 20th century, a positive (dryer) phase (1922-1944), a negative (wetter) phase (1946-1977) and another positive (dryer) phase (1978-1998) with another change of phase in the process of forming since then. The year 1957 in the midst of long negative (wetter) phase happened to be an El-Nino year preceded by again 2 consecutive La Nina years during which the SOI value again peaked at about 16. Therefore before one can conclude that something very different is going on, other than some short term aberrations, one needs to consider if the beginning and ending points of the study were firstly moved back, say a nominal one decade, and then secondly moved forward one decade, would the same conclusions be reached. A matter of further interest regarding the recent floods is that PROFESSOR Stewart Franks, a hydrologist at NSW's University of Newcastle, warned in a peer-reviewed scientific article published in 2006 that the risk of serious flooding in southern Queensland and NSW increases significantly when a negative phase of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation corresponds with a La Nina event. -
MattJ at 12:14 PM on 12 February 2011Portuguese translation of The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism
The article says in its title, that it has already been translated, but the penultimate paragraph says Portuguese is "currently in the works".Response: Oops, thanks. German version coming very soon too... -
Newcomers, Start Here
Daniel Bailey - Interestingly enough (thanks to the wonders of Google) it turns out that WUWT posted a retraction on Goddard's statement. The partial pressure of CO2 is a primary factor in the triple-point (solid-liquid-gas) relationship for CO2. And the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere is far far too low - sublimation occurs much faster than deposition, and dry ice will not form with Earth atmospheric mixes and temperatures. It's nice to see that sometimes, on occasion, WUWT does post a correction. Perhaps that group isn't a total loss...Moderator Response: [DB] Thanks for the update (converted to link). Hadn't gone there since that original CO2post. -
Riduna at 11:49 AM on 12 February 2011Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
A good article which reinforces predictions made by climate science to the effect that global warming will result in greater rainfall in the north of Australia and less in the south where drought conditions may become more prolonged. The global prediction is that extreme weather events will become more extreme and more numerous and, to use the vernacular, You Aint Seen Nothing Yet! This prognosis may well have led Sen. Milne and others to express their dismay at government axing of programs aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, in order to fund repair of flood-damaged infrastructure. At the time PM Gillard offered the justification that the sacrificed programs, although highly visible, were an inefficient means of reducing emissions. A more efficient and effective method of curbing would be pursued. Julia Gillard is correct. Introduction of cap and trade system or ETS would be far more efficient and far more effective in reducing CO2-e emissions than any of the programs axed by her government. Whether she will introduce an ETS with appropriate safeguards preventing circumvention of its purpose and whether appropriate CO2 reduction targets will be adopted are matters which must be pursued. A further matter which must be pursued is the abject failure of government and property owners to learn from the past. In light of the above prognosis, will they yet again rebuild assets on sites prone to destructive flooding and winds without adequately protecting against those elements? -
JohnR at 11:24 AM on 12 February 2011It's Urban Heat Island effect
Thanks #42, far less than geothermal (~0.08W/m^2) -
Same Ordinary Fool at 11:17 AM on 12 February 2011Monckton Myth #10: Warming in the Pipeline
Monckton's personal climate science is also being challenged by skeptics. -
Newcomers, Start Here
The only reference I have found to CO2 ice in polar icecaps is from Mars, where the CO2 ice component of the polar caps is melting, revealing that the majority of the Martian icecaps are actually water ice. Hardly relevant to Earth, however, as surface temperatures here don't go low enough to freeze CO2 (Brrrr...). -
Trueofvoice at 11:03 AM on 12 February 2011Newcomers, Start Here
KR, I've searched for the argument that melting ice liberates CO2 but can't find a single reference for it. Stephen, where did you get this idea from? Do you have a link?Moderator Response: (Daniel Bailey) Closest I've heard is Goddard's post on CO2 snow in Antartica. -
Newcomers, Start Here
Trueofvoice, I have to say, that's the first time I've ever heard anyone claim that melting ice releases CO2. Unless it was dry ice - and since the poles aren't warming from below -57°C, that's definitely not the issue... -
Trueofvoice at 10:47 AM on 12 February 2011Newcomers, Start Here
KR, Your post is the third time the "warming oceans absorb more CO2" falsehood has been explained to him. -
It's Urban Heat Island effect
JohnR - Or for a bit more wasted heat, the extremely long discussion (>350 comments, unfortunately mostly circular in topic) at Waste heat vs greenhouse warming. And, as muoncounter pointed out, about 1% of greenhouse gas warming, a forcing of ~0.028 W/m^2 waste heat compared to 2.9 W/m^2 greenhouse effect forcing. -
JohnR at 10:38 AM on 12 February 2011It's Urban Heat Island effect
Would be interesting to find out what the total daily anthropogenic heat addition to the planet from power generation (incl nuclear), cars etc looks like in W/m2. Can anyone direct me to such a study - could not find one from a cursory look.Moderator Response: [muoncounter] See the Waste heat thread. Short answer: 1% of greenhouse warming. -
muoncounter at 10:32 AM on 12 February 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
#127: "rather do this than use a plot that's wide open to criticism on to methodology." Many people question the validity of one temperature measure or another. Others fail to realize that there are different baselines in the different measures. It is extremely valuable to show that they are consistent, as Robert has done here. See also Assessing surface temperature reconstructions, which tells the same story. Most people feel that more data are preferable. -
scaddenp at 10:25 AM on 12 February 2011CO2 lags temperature
The key reference for length of current interglacial is Berger and Loutre 2002. In a nutshell, it the result of the particular orbital configuration at present. -
muoncounter at 10:24 AM on 12 February 2011It's cooling
#130: "Whatever mechanism is involved is not important with respect to the question, 'Is global warming still happening?'" The question to ask is not 'is global warming still happening?' -- that's been answered numerous times on SkS with a resounding yes. The mechanism is extremely important, if you want to understand what's going on -- which may lead to an understanding of what to do about it. But it appears that you've already got your mind made up, 'notsure'. "it has not been shown convincingly to me that anything that has occured climate wise is outside the normal range ... ." Have you looked at the relevant posts? Considering you seem to be in a position to learn a lot, it's very sad that you aren't willing to try. #133: "alarmists have the same aim, simply to alarm." That's just nonsense. If you want to have any credibility: substantiate, don't declare. -
Newcomers, Start Here
stephenwv - I'm certain that I won't be the only person responding, but there seems to be little that is correct in your statements. - Melting ice doesn't release or absorb CO2. I have no idea why you would think that. It's relevant for ocean level and Earth albedo (water is darker than snow, less snow -> more warming). - Warmer water holds less CO2, not more: warming oceans will reduce the amounts absorbed (as a sink) by the ocean. Past glacial cycles show the oceans releasing CO2 as they warmed, which we're not seeing currently only because the CO2 atmospheric level is so much higher from our emissions than the temperature related ocean equilibrium solubility point. Our atmospheric CO2 is increasing at ~2ppm/year, while we put out emissions that would show as ~4ppm/year of rise. That means the oceans are absorbing CO2, not pumping it out! - Currently our 29GT/year (not 40GT total, by any means - that's less than three years!) is being about half absorbed by the oceans, acidifying them. Some of that is currently on it's way to the benthic ocean, which is by no means a source of CO2. It's a sink. So: Your questions do not appear to be addressed here because I've never seen them presented as arguments - they're simply not true. Melting ice doesn't release CO2, ocean circulation won't magically suck up extra CO2, thermohaline circulation is not pumping gobs of CO2 into the atmosphere. I suggest reading some of the links I've put into this post, this "Newcomers" page we're on, and from the Big Picture thread. -
stephenwv at 09:30 AM on 12 February 2011Newcomers, Start Here
"a simplistic sceptic question." should of course be a simplistic skeptic question. -
stephenwv at 09:22 AM on 12 February 2011Newcomers, Start Here
Hopefully someone can point me in the direction as to where on this sight I can get an answer, or create and respond to my question as I have been unable to find it addressed. As the elimination of the northern ice cap continues, which happened 120,000 years ago, the naturally resulting CO2 release that has been going on for 11,500, is decreasing, and will stop when the ice cap disappears. The resulting slowing of the thermohaline circulation will reduce the well up of massive amounts of CO2 from the ocean floor. The warming of the oceans will, however, increase the ability of ocean CO2 absorption. This reduction of CO2 emissions, coupled with increased CO2 absorption, will dwarf the 40 billion tons of man caused CO2 emissions. The ratio of natural emission to natural absorption as well as the rate of increase of absorption due to ocean warming and the rate of decrease in CO2 emissions due to reduction of ice to be melted, and a slowing of the thermohaline circulation and the resulting slowing of CO2 release needs to be considered. This has huge implications as to the temperature rise limitations and time frame to reach the turning point of what some might describe as the man caused extenuation of the Inter-glacial, glacial turning point. Because I am unable to find this addressed anywhere, I am having difficulty in formulating what you like to address: a simplistic sceptic question. Perhaps this is not a question that is skeptical of global warming but rather why these effects of global warming appear not to be address by those that would have us believe that they know the likely end result. I suppose no one will address this and this post will be deleted as it is "off topic" of being skeptical of global warming and is only skeptical of the results of global warming. But hopefully it has been effectively addressed and someone can show me where.Moderator Response: You are repeating the claim that warming oceans will increase CO2 absorption, after you were corrected. If you're going to post questions on this site, you need to read the answers. -
rhjames at 09:05 AM on 12 February 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Interesting, but I find there are two many data gaps for this combined gap to be statistically valid. But what does it really achieve? No-one is really questioning that we have been in a warming phase - it's the cuase that's questioned. I couldn't, in all conscience, use this graph because I believe the methodology isn't valid. Why would I need to - I can just use Hadcrut which goes back further than any other, and still shows warming. I'd rather do this than use a plot that's wide open to criticism on to methodology. -
Mikemcc at 08:38 AM on 12 February 2011Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
They may have improved buty there's still a lot of the old crazy denialist rubbish and 'nit-pick-the-story-to death' lines like 'how do you define extreme events...', well you draw a line in the sand and say that those events that exceed it are extreme. If more events occur that are, by definition, extreme then the incidence of extreme events increases - seemples! The occurance of extreme events has been noted to have increased. It doesn't matter a damn how to define it, as long as you can make a reasonable statistical comparison between extreme and non-extremme situations. -
JMurphy at 08:29 AM on 12 February 2011Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
Good news, rockytom. Seems like he used some privacy concerns to back out before he embarrassed himself and your state any further. Well done. Good, also, to see THE GUARDIAN taking control of its Comments policy and not allowing so many of the same repetitive posts regurgitating all the same old wacky denial. -
Daniel Bailey at 08:27 AM on 12 February 2011CO2 lags temperature
Re: Interglacials Just because the ice core records show an apparent periodicity and rhythm to the interglacials, it would be a mistake to assume that they are created equally. Milankovitch forcings do vary, as does solar output and a plethora of other variables. The most recent interglacial could also have been affected by mankind to some degree as well (Google Ruddiman's Hypothesis). Key takeaway: interglacials happen during a glacial epoch for known reasons, but each differ from the others as they are but a sum total of forcings and feedbacks that can individually differ over time. The Yooper -
pbjamm at 08:22 AM on 12 February 2011It's cooling
Notsure : This web site is an amazing resource for the non-scientist to get a grasp of what the science says about AGW. I say that as a non-scientist myself. If you are truly interested in the facts please avail yourself of the information here. When you do you will realize (as KR pointed out) that your concerns and doubts have been discussed here ad nauseum. -
Trueofvoice at 08:18 AM on 12 February 2011It's cooling
Notsure, The tone of your posts has become increasingly aggressive and arrogantly dimissive. Not only have you failed to discuss any specific objection to current understanding of climate science, you have rudely refused to follow up on any of the links provided for you by these good people in their desire to help educate you. You have also repeatedly labelled them as "alarmists" trying to "divert attention", essentially slapping the hand away each time one is extended to you. Please show some civility, and maybe even a little class. -
JMurphy at 08:17 AM on 12 February 2011It's cooling
Notsure, unfortunately you seem to be posting a stream of beliefs and opinions without any attempt at trying to back up those beliefs and opinions. Why are you ignoring all the information you have been provided with via this website ? Where are you getting your information from ? Until you start to show where your beliefs and opinions are coming from, they will be treated as unfounded and not credible. -
It's cooling
Notsure - I hate to say this, but you are beginning to give the appearance of a Concern Troll. See the Climate's changed before thread, along with CO2 is not the only driver of climate - the climate has changed before, but we actually have a pretty good idea of how and why. Currently, extra CO2 forcings are the dominant (not the only) forcing in effect, causing the climate to warm rather than slowly cool over the last half century. From what I have seen of your postings, you are repeating some very well known skeptic myths and misconceptions, not looking at the large list of Skeptic Arguments discussing those, and failing to follow up on any of the links folks have presented to you as explanations as to why those skeptic arguments don't hold up. You certainly do not act like someone honestly in search of information. I may be wrong about that; I would enjoy being proven incorrect - by seeing you actually looking at and digesting some of the information you have been presented with. -
rockytom at 07:50 AM on 12 February 2011Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
John, Your readers might like to know that we in New Mexico, USA just defeated our Republican governor's nomination of the denier and former astronaut Harrison Schmitt to be head of the NM office of the Environment and Natural Resources Department. I personally wrote two letters to the Santa Fe New Mexican newspaper in support of the withdrawal of his nomination, as did many other New Mexicans. In order to not be off-topic, Australia's extreme weather is just a sample of what's to come in the not-too-distant future. We in the SW US just suffered from severe freezing temperatures because of warming at the poles forcing colder weather to the south. One day last week it was 2 degrees warmer at the North Pole than it was in southern New Mexico. -
Notsure at 07:09 AM on 12 February 2011It's cooling
Ice age alarmists and global warming alarmists have the same aim, simply to alarm. This winter in the the USA has caused damage. It is weather not climate change. The global warming alarmists have diverted attention away from this type of weather. The climate has always changed, look back at history. Climate will always change. It is very dangerous to be complacent and assume we know where the climate is going. The alarmists will always point to any current weather event and imply its some kind of unatural occurence or some local record. Weather will turn up in its various guises the danger is to assume that it will only take one form. Look at what has happened to Australia. Did the global warming alarmists cause the authorities to forget the past floods. Was there assurances that flooding risk in that area was no more? That is a danger that we should all avoid. Alarmists, whether iceage or global warming are dangerous. Nature has a way of reminding us that we are not as in control as we like to think we aModerator Response: (Daniel Bailey] Not sure if I can make any difference here, but in case you are actually not of closed mind then read this. You have been given good advice from many others here: demonstrate you are here for the right reasons. -
It's cooling
Notsure - I would encourage you to look at the science, look at the data. On this site there are some excellent references to some of your primary issues on the threads Evidence for global warming and The human fingerprint in global warming. This includes plenty of links to papers, data, and many items that point out (a) it's warming significantly over and above natural variations and cycles, and (b) we are responsible for it. Please read through these, and comment on specific issues you might see with them on those threads where it's appropriate. -
pbjamm at 06:53 AM on 12 February 2011It's cooling
Notsure (#130) "So far it has not been shown convincingly to me that anything that has occured climate wise is outside the normal range of climate change either in rate of change or degree of change." How about the 'why' of change? Climate scientists have a pretty good idea what caused previous climactic changes (orbit and solar output) but when those causes are used to explain current trends they fail to completely describe what is observed. GHGs do explain it. If there are other explanations then everyone would be glad to hear about it but so far no other answer has been found that explains the current observed trend. Saying it is natural only works if you can explain what natural event is behind it. I fear this has gone off topic though. -
Notsure at 06:42 AM on 12 February 2011It's cooling
Muoncounter 'There is a huge difference between reflection and absorption/re-emission. Clouds, ice/snow, atmospheric dust, etc reflect a portion of the sun's energy back into space; this energy is then not available to heat the planet. On the other hand, energy that is absorbed at the earth's surface, to be re-emitted as infrared as the surface warms, is at the heart of greenhouse warming.' Warming occurs when more heat is received than lost. Cooling occurs when more heat is lost than received. Whatever mechanism is involved is not important with respect to the question, 'Is global warming still happening?' To me all that is important is to understand which way the heat is moving? When that is known then look into detail. Man made global warming is a recent happening, (over the last 50-100 years?) All the debate that I have seen so far revolves around the data for the last century. I look to the global warming supporters to prove that what has happened over the last century is unatural. So far it has not been shown convincingly to me that anything that has occured climate wise is outside the normal range of climate change either in rate of change or degree of change. I have not found any convincing argument or evidence that increasing CO2 levels do not cause warming. I hear debate on its degree of influence. I am not an expert and I am not qualified to point to any particular paper or theory. But I am entitled to try to understand and question. DSL 'Yet who do you trust? Climate scientists, who don't really roll in the dough and don't have a vested interest in a warming planet (other than having to live in it)? Or pundits and big oil-financed lobbyists whose interests are not scientific but simply in achieving legislative or political effects, whatever the means?' Its easy to acuse to put people on the defensive. I wonder if the big bad oil companies you refer to would really be happy if the global warming threat was removed. I suspect they do quite well out of the publics concern. -
Trueofvoice at 06:40 AM on 12 February 2011CO2 lags temperature
Muon, I believe he's referring Figure 1, where the peak of the current interglacial appears more extended along the x-axis than the previous interglacials, which look more like a sudden increase, and an equally sudden decrease. I assumed this was due to greater resolution the closer we got to the present. -
RickG at 06:30 AM on 12 February 2011It's cooling
127 Notsure, Its being defended because the full body of evidence supports AGW. Conversely, there are no supported studies demonstrating otherwise. Contrary to popular skeptic belief, natural causes are not being ignored. Please read the post on Is there a scientific consensus on global warming? -
pbjamm at 06:26 AM on 12 February 2011It's cooling
Notsure (#127) This entire website is a "reasoned defensive debate" of the science behind AGW. -
John Hartz at 06:12 AM on 12 February 2011They changed the name from 'global warming' to 'climate change'
I believe this article could be improved by adding an explanation of how scientists define the "Climate System" and that the acceleration of the greenhouse effect due to mankind's activites impacts all of the components of the "Climate System" not just the atmosphere. -
Will Lowry at 06:10 AM on 12 February 2011Climate's changed before
While wild climate change has preserved a delicate balance of gasses called the atmosphere and has been very good for life on this planet, human caused climate change is new, and scientists agree it will soon upset that balance and have catastrophic consequences for human life. -
Notsure at 06:08 AM on 12 February 2011It's cooling
DSL 'Climate science is receiving greater scrutiny than perhaps any other area of science' I hope so and so it should. True enquiring minds welcome scrutiny. However, whenever I see people defending global warming and especially mans influence on it, I fail to see reasoned defensive debate. Personal attacks and labeling them as deniers only stiffels debate. -
Notsure at 05:58 AM on 12 February 2011It's cooling
JMurphy 'So far the sceptics seem to be more open''Do you have any examples you can give and link to' Prof Bob Carter James Cook University, Queensland. He has strong views on the subject that are worth listening to. From there you can search for many others. All come from different angles but unfortunatly if they dare to question global warming, even if they agree its happening they are labeled deniers. As far as cranks are concerned I have views and I will leave you to judge others.Moderator Response: Type "Bob Carter" without the quote marks into the Search field at the top left of this page. -
Notsure at 05:24 AM on 12 February 2011It's cooling
'Remember: if we ignore this problem and it turns out the scientists are all wrong, then all this will be over within a decade, and heads will roll. Such a hoax couldn't last long with new generations of researchers coming on line. If scientists are right, and the observed warming continues, and we ignore it when we had a chance to do something about it, then we will and should be damned daily by our children and grandchildren.' I agree, however it is far more than the scientists reputations at stake (on both sides of the argument). If global warming is continuing and is caused by CO2 and poses a threat I agree we should take action. If not and global cooling increases in pace. (We are in a interglacial period within an iceage remember). This may be wasted effort. If we are heading for dangerous cooling instead of dangerous warming we may harm our ability to adapt by wasting precious time. I feel that we are not taking sufficient action to prevent global warming through our actions. Nor are we taking sufficient steps to check that understanding of climate change is correct. Labeling critics as deniers only builds barriers between the two sides of the argument. If you are convinced that warming is the only danger and have supported all available measures to reduce the risk then sleep well at night. If we ignore the posibility that we have misunderstood and have labeled CO2 as a danger and have damaged our ability to feed and warm ourselves we will pay the price. Whatever action we take we must test it on the way and be prepared to adapt or change course if we are in error.Moderator Response: We are not heading into a new ice age anytime soon. That is several tens of thousands of years away, as explained on the post "We’re heading into an ice age" and the comments there. -
muoncounter at 05:22 AM on 12 February 2011Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
#7: "a clear rise in these extreme weather events" Isn't it remarkable that the insurance industry is taking the lead in recognizing that things are changing? Similar observations made on the weird weather thread. -
muoncounter at 05:16 AM on 12 February 2011Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
#36: "no one addressed Maue's work" See #34 and links therein.
Prev 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 Next
