Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 Next
Comments 96401 to 96450:
-
clonmac at 07:58 AM on 9 February 2011Monckton Myth #9: Monckton vs Monckton on heat waves
@BillyJoe I hate to say it too, but it seems you're right about the wording. But, in reality it is just semantics. In the end, Monckton is still trying to imply that warming doesn't cause extreme weather events by cherry-picking examples and follows it up with another statement he made that says that global warming does cause an increase in highs and lows. If he didn't want to mislead readers into thinking that higher global temperatures doesn't equal more extremes, then why would he specifically dismiss those 2010 and 2003 weather events in the way h did? It is a tactic they use to spread misinformation. I don't know if he is right or not about the causes of those events, but either way he uses that information without regard for the bigger picture of AGW. That also certainly doesn't dismiss the first set of his own contradictory statements as well. -
muoncounter at 07:53 AM on 9 February 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
#148: "if we choose the decade starting with 2001 running through end 2010, we would expect five highs and five lows." Why? If you are comparing decadal 'highs' and 'lows' to a 60 year record, there is no guarantee of any highs and lows in a 10 year period. Could it be that the posing of these ill-formed hypotheticals interferes with understanding what is actually going on? -
mozart at 07:38 AM on 9 February 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
And if you don't get a no ice condition, let me guess, conditions weren't perturbed "enough"? -
BillyJoe at 07:32 AM on 9 February 2011Monckton Myth #9: Monckton vs Monckton on heat waves
I really don't want to have to defend Monckton, so I hope I have this all wrong but... Monckton 1: "...neither the hot-weather nor the cold-weather extremes of 2010 have much to do with manmade “global warming" Monckton 2: "Since there has been some warming, more hot-weather than cold-weather records have been set...for the mere fact of warming tells us nothing about the cause of the warming" John Cook: "So the goal posts shift from "global warming doesn't affect weather" to "global warming affects weather but humans aren't causing global warming"". It seems to me Monckton is not shifting the goal posts here. In the first quote he is referring to MAN MADE global warming and he says that is does not have MUCH to do with weather extremes. In the second quote he simply says "warming" not man made global warming. In fact he says "warming" does not tell us about the cause of the warming. He is, of course, denying that it is man made. In other words, although he may be wrong about AGW, it does not seem to me that he is inconsistent. Some one please point out my error though :(Response: I think you need to take Monckton's full quote in context:"...neither the hot-weather nor the cold-weather extremes of 2010 have much to do with manmade “global warming”; like the heatwave of 2003 in Europe that is said to have killed 35,000 people, they are known to have been caused by an unusual pattern of what meteorologists call “blocking highs”"
It's not just the 'manmade' he's talking about - he's blaming heat waves on blocking highs. Semantically, you might be able to squirm out of a contradiction by saying he was merely talking about the manmade part. But the overall gist of the quote and what anyone would take out of the full quote is that heat waves are due to chaotic weather events like blocking highs and not long-term climate trends. Read through the full article and tell me that's not what you get out of that part of the article. -
BillyJoe at 07:12 AM on 9 February 2011Articgate: perpetuating the myth that Arctic sea ice has recovered
les, Fair enough. But difficult to pick sometimes if you don't know the poster. For example, my response could be read as irony also. ;) -
Steve L at 07:03 AM on 9 February 2011Monckton Myth #9: Monckton vs Monckton on heat waves
"...increase in record high temperatures." Unlike the climate contrarians, we have to be careful with how we describe things. Meehl et al didn't describe an increase in record high temperatures. Because the number of records increases, the rate of achieving new records goes down over time. This can be modeled simply for stochastic variability. What's happening is that the rate of achieving new cold records is declining much faster than the stochastic model. Record highs in the US declined somewhat indestinguishably from the stochastic expectation. Thus the ratio of warm to cold records is not due to an "increase in record high temperatures". -
Albatross at 06:58 AM on 9 February 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
No worries Daniel @150. I too recall reading something along those lines-- can't recall which paper it was though. I'll poke around my PDF library. -
les at 06:29 AM on 9 February 2011Articgate: perpetuating the myth that Arctic sea ice has recovered
#24 BillyJoe "Seriously?" ... ummm, no... Should be said, I'm English and consider that Irony is the highest form of wit. Don't worry, lots of 'denialists' don't understand irony either. -
Daniel Bailey at 06:27 AM on 9 February 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
Thanks for that, Albatross. Question for you: Some time back, I read a study which looked at a model output that showed that conditions in the Arctic supported only a full-ice or a no-ice solution. Once the system was perturbed enough to transition to a seasonal-ice condition, the transition to a full no-ice condition was effected in less than 10 years (and vice-versa). Temperature swings were about 1 degree C per year during the transition. For the life of me I can't find the link or remember where I read of it (I'm not blaming early senility, just being overworked). Strike any bells with you? Thanks! The Yooper -
Bob Lacatena at 06:08 AM on 9 February 2011Climate Change Impacts on Ocean Ecosystems
11, Arkadiusz, Before getting too enamored of the benefits of increased CO2 for plants, remember that the reason C4 and CAM plants like corn exist (and are so importantly successful in many cultivated climates around the globe, including, importantly, the U.S.) is that their CO2 intake is restricted by water loss, which is in turn restricted by temperature. When it gets too hot, plants lose too much water, and close up. They don't lose as much moisture when their stomates close, but by the same token they can't take in CO2, no matter how much there is in the air. So when it gets too hot and/or too dry, photosynthesis shuts down. Only specially adapted plants survive (crabgrass in a U.S. summer, cactus in the desert). Those plants, overall, don't tend to be very productive crops. They put their energy and specialization into hot-weather survival rather than fruitful (and edible) reproduction. And even those plants can reach a breaking point. It only takes a short while of too warm, too dry weather to destroy an entire year's worth of crops. If that became the rule rather than the exception, much of the world would begin to go hungry.Moderator Response: More info is in the Argument "CO2 is not a pollutant." See also the comments there. -
Dikran Marsupial at 05:59 AM on 9 February 2011How We Know Recent Global Warming Is Not Natural
apiratelooksat50@62 Prior to the industrial revolution, CO2 has mainly acted as a feedback, however there have been occasions when a large release of carbon has driven temperature changes. For example, the escape from the snowball Earth of the late Ordovician is pretty tough to explain without greenhouse gasses, or more recently there is the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) event. Population growth in itself doesn't mean humans have been doing well. Mere reproductive success generally ends up hitting Malthusian limits, which is rarely an enjoyable experience for any species. Besides, I think you will find the causal link is in the other direction. BTW, have you come up with an example of an observation that would falsify the hypothesis of Spencer's challenge that you asserted was valid? -
Albatross at 05:53 AM on 9 February 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
From the NSIDC report for January 2011: "Potential links with mid-latitude weather While the Arctic has been warm, cold and stormy weather has affected much of the Northeast U.S. and Europe. Last winter also paired an anomalously warm Arctic with cold and snowy weather for the eastern U.S. and northern Europe. Is there a connection? Warm conditions in the Arctic and cold conditions in northern Europe and the U.S. are linked to the strong negative mode of the Arctic oscillation. Cold air is denser than warmer air, so it sits closer to the surface. Around the North Pole, this dense cold air causes a circular wind pattern called the polar vortex , which helps keep cold air trapped near the poles. When sea ice has not formed during autumn and winter, heat from the ocean escapes and warms the atmosphere. This may weaken the polar vortex and allow air to spill out of the Arctic and into mid-latitude regions in some years, bringing potentially cold winter weather to lower latitudes. Some scientists have speculated that more frequent episodes of a negative Arctic Oscillation, and the stormy winters that result, are linked to the loss of sea ice in the Arctic. Dr. James Overland of NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL) recently noted a link between low sea ice and a weak polar vortex in 2005, 2008, and the past two winters, all years with very low September sea ice extent. Earlier work by Jennifer Francis of Rutgers University and colleagues also suggested a relationship between autumn sea ice levels and mid-latitude winter conditions. Judah Cohen, at Atmospheric and Environmental Research, Inc., and his colleagues propose another idea—a potential relationship between early snowfall in northern Siberia, a negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation, and more extreme winters elsewhere in the Northern Hemisphere. More research on these ideas may shed light on the connections and have the potential to improve seasonal weather forecasting." And from their December 2010 report: "A recent study led by Julienne Strove of NSIDC showed that while wind patterns linked with the strongly negative Arctic Oscillation winter of 2009-2010 transported much old ice into the southern Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, most of this ice later melted. It may be that with a warmer Arctic, old rules regarding links between the atmospheric pressure patterns and sea ice extent no longer hold." That bolded part is of particular concern. It seems that we are witnessing climate disruption in action. It is going to be interesting to see whether this is a transient phase before a new state is achieved. The disruption of the polar vortex because of polar amplification (not a random process) his is probably going to be an area of much more research in coming years. -
dana1981 at 05:52 AM on 9 February 2011How We Know Recent Global Warming Is Not Natural
apiratelooksat50 - that you're not even willing to consider the reality that CO2 is driving global warming shows an unfortunate closed-mindedness. You've also got it backwards. Humans aren't thriving because of the temperature increase - the temperature increase is a result of humans thriving (which is due to our massive use of artificially cheap fossil fuels). I also suggest you read the we're recovering from the LIA rebuttal. -
apiratelooksat50 at 05:45 AM on 9 February 2011How We Know Recent Global Warming Is Not Natural
I'm willing to consider CO2 (both manmade and natural) as significant "contributors" to global warming - but not "drivers". Since, we've been more or less steadily warming since the Little Ice Age, it appears that humans have been doing quite well.
-
mozart at 05:39 AM on 9 February 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
Just to motivate this a bit, let's look at Chicago as a good example of a city impacted by Arctic weather systems. The data base registers record lows and highs going back to 1950. So if we choose the decade starting with 2001 running through end 2010, we would expect five highs and five lows. See:http://www.weather.com/outlook/recreation/outdoors/wxclimatology/daily/USIL06 In fact what we get is: two all time highs in January and no lows, one high in February and no lows, and no highs in March and two lows. These results are far below the expected five lows/highs for each month....showing the general mildness of the weather. And reasonably balanced with three highs and two lows. Furthermore, the Chicago results would likely be duplicated throughout the Mid West, the region most impacted by Arctic air. There is no empirical evidence for the theory, in the region which is most likely to demonstrate it. -
muoncounter at 05:26 AM on 9 February 2011CO2 is not increasing
#20: "it's an odd explosive growth model that has it's highest observation 13 years ago in 1998" Odd indeed. So odd that one can only conclude that the observation you made must be incorrect. If you cared to look upthread, you would see that models are very close to observed (those are the dots on the emissions graph). If we stay at or near A1FI, we reach 560ppm (a doubling of pre-industrial CO2) mid century. That's what the science says; what you choose to believe is your own. I refer you once again to the noted futurist, H. Callahan, as quoted at the bottom of this comment. -
muoncounter at 04:40 AM on 9 February 2011Articgate: perpetuating the myth that Arctic sea ice has recovered
#30: Thanks, I reset the link to yours. My guess is that this year is a statistical tie with 2006-07. Still massively below the average - and that's the point. -
Albatross at 04:28 AM on 9 February 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
Mozart @146, So you do not deny it. Actually, it is your tone and persistent attempts to obfuscate and derail this thread that are offensive. Sorry, but you have been called on your game. I doubt very much that you have even consulted the peer-review paper by Petoukhov and Semenov (2010) which speaks to the possibility that the loss of Arctic sea ice can modulate the mode of the AO. Actually many of the 146 comments to date have been on topic....at least make the for to read the entire thread before making such a ridiculous and false assertion. The research and pursuit of science will continue, and maybe the researcher's hypothesis is wrong, but at least they are making a concrete effort to improve our understanding of the climate system. You dismissing it as a "silly" idea is both juvenile and ridiculous. I challenge you to refute their findings with your own research published in a legitimate journal. Now unless you decide to actually speak to the science, show a sincere effort to engage in good faith, and back up your assertions with appropriate data, you can expect me to ignore you. -
Tor B at 04:15 AM on 9 February 2011Monckton Myth #9: Monckton vs Monckton on heat waves
re: Figure 1: Ratio of record daily highs to record daily lows I look forward to seeing the Oct-Dec 2009 data included in the graph so that it shows 6 complete decades. I can just hear someone saying the data is "cherry-picked"! (I know the graph was first published in November 2009, but it does need updating.) In an attempt to fill the gap, I found: 1) “October [2009] was a very cold month across large parts of the country.” - Newswire.com and 2) “The near-record global temperatures of 2009 occurred despite an unseasonably cool December in much of North America.” - ScienceDaily 3) I didn't find anything about November 2009, one way or the other, but I did stop searching. This basically anecdotal information will definitely not decrease the height of the 2000s ‘record highs’ bar, but suggests the height of the ‘record lows’ bar will increase. How much will the 2.04:1 ratio change? “Very cold” October suggests lots of records may have been set; “unseasonable cool December” suggests no more than a few records set. Can somebody crunch some actual data? -
hank at 04:14 AM on 9 February 2011It hasn't warmed since 1998
The 'further reading' links at the top of the first page are broken: "Tamino ... Garbage is Forever and Wiggles." If they've been recovered can you update the pointer? -
mozart at 04:09 AM on 9 February 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
Troll? Hahaha....very polite Albie. Actually if you care to look you will find post number 143 was a response to another poster....as were many others where I was accused of being off topic. In fact this whole page doesn't contain one posting that is "on topic", except for my question on the Mexican lows and a few responses to that. My guess is, this silly idea has run it's course. It's a pretty embarrassing bit of speculation.Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Actually, your comments have wandered all over the map and you have ignored suggestions to redirect to other threads. Your opinions about 'silly ideas' are irrelevant. Please see the Comments Policy to develop some understanding of how this site works. -
Albatross at 03:50 AM on 9 February 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
Michael @142, You are welcome. -
Papy at 03:49 AM on 9 February 2011Empirical evidence for positive feedback
Well, I couldn't find the appropriate thread, so here's an animation film I've just discovered from Leo Murray, about AGW and the 'tipping point': "Wake Up, Freak out - then Get a Grip" Is it accurate with climate science in general, and especially Hansen theory ? -
J Bowers at 03:49 AM on 9 February 2011Articgate: perpetuating the myth that Arctic sea ice has recovered
Comment left at Heartland in comments to their page where John links to in his post. Let's see if it survives:"...In fact, National Snow and Ice Data Center records show conclusively that in April 2009, Arctic sea ice extent had indeed returned to and surpassed 1989 levels..." Sir, you owe your readership an apology for giving a misleading impression that Arctic sea ice is recovering, based on of data comparisons for a month in 1989 and 2009. The data inbetween, and since, clearly demonstrates that Arctic sea ice extent is consistently in a state of decline on climatological timescales (30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organisation. I trust that you will correct your error.
-
Albatross at 03:49 AM on 9 February 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
Mozart, "...why do we have 6 new record lows in Mexico?" and "Figured what out Albie..." You are not paying attention. My post @133 addressed exactly the question about the record lows in Mexico. And you are welcome by the way.....please put in some effort of your own. Mozart @143, again you are off topic. This thread is about "Global Warming and Cold Winters". If you do not wish people to dismiss you as a troll, please stop behaving like one. -
Riccardo at 03:33 AM on 9 February 2011A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice calculations
Ken Lambert if TSI and albedo are constant, in equilibrium the radiating temperature does not change, the energy emitted must be equal to the energy absorbed by the planet. -
mozart at 03:29 AM on 9 February 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
Michael we have built a global economy with a world population of seven billion people. Maybe 500 million of those are self sufficient. The rest have no way of feeding or clothing themselves. They rely on an incredibly complex global network powered by oil. Try to change that in a hurry and the events in Australia will pale in comparison. And citing Australia is no better than citing the 2 foot of snow I see outside my window in Chicago. Storms have happened before and they will happen again. As for my numbers they come straight from the best carbon source Mauna Loa. -
michael sweet at 03:21 AM on 9 February 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
Albatross: Thanks for the link, I missed it earlier in the year. Mozart, Good luck convincing people with your choice of data. Read carefully what you are writing. Are you really prepared to deal with weather like Australia has had to face this year all the time? Millions of people have been made climate refugees this year alone (for example 20 million in Pakistan), what will it take for your to be convinced that is a problem? It will not get better unless we decide to take action. -
pbjamm at 03:19 AM on 9 February 2011Monckton Myth #9: Monckton vs Monckton on heat waves
"...some very spectacular cold-weather records were also broken both in early 2010, when all 49 contiguous United States were covered in snow..." Some very odd snow that blanketed Los Angeles last January when the average temperature was 60F. http://www.weather.gov/climate/xmacis.php?wfo=lox -
Albatross at 02:58 AM on 9 February 2011Monckton Myth #9: Monckton vs Monckton on heat waves
Monckton claims: "neither the hot-weather nor the cold-weather extremes of 2010 have much to do with manmade “global warming”; like the heatwave of 2003 in Europe that is said to have killed 35,000 people, they are known to have been caused by an unusual pattern of what meteorologists call “blocking highs”". Yes, blocking highs occurring in a warmer world-- a spike on top of a long-term warming trend. Regardless, Stott et al. (2004) studied the 2003 European heat wave and concluded that: "The summer of 2003 was probably the hottest in Europe since at latest AD 1500, and unusually large numbers of heat-related deaths were reported in France, Germany and Italy." and "...we estimate it is very likely (confidence level >90%) that human influence has at least doubled the risk of a heatwave exceeding this threshold magnitude." Now who to believe? Easy, not Monckton's internally inconsistent and unsubstantiated musings. It is a little too soon to speak to the role of AGW in the Russian heat wave that killed an estimated 40-50 thousand , but early indications are that it too was exacerbated by AGW. -
arch stanton at 02:31 AM on 9 February 2011Monckton Myth #9: Monckton vs Monckton on heat waves
Aren’t there only 48 contiguous states? It is a fact that *some* snow was reported *somewhere* in each of the mainland states at that time. Monckton reports it as “…when all 49 contiguous United States were covered in snow…” If a blanket is only on my left big toe at night, I don’t consider myself “covered”. "a crisis of confidence in Monckton as a reliable source of information" ...Well put. -
curley hippy at 02:30 AM on 9 February 2011Newcomers, Start Here
Recently in the UK there was an episode of the brilliant bbc science series Horizon called Science under attack (I recommend trying to track it down and watch it). It concentrated mainly on the climate change argument and why it is under such scrutiny in the press and among people on the internet. It raised a good point that scientists need to do more to get there arguments across in the press and this website seems like an excellent tool for doing this. Are you doing anything to get this information out there? Are you the top link in google searches on these topics for example? I realise that it's easier said than done but I think promoting this website and it's content is very important -
Albatross at 02:28 AM on 9 February 2011Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
RSVP, "The issue is not about whether CO2 causes global warming, rather that science is used to establish authority, and therefore policy, and therefore power." Nonsense. This is fallacy and transparent strawman and it is getting incredibly tiresome. And it is about time 'skeptics' were called out on it. Chris Colose made this very apt and insightful post yesterday (originally posted here), and it calls the "skeptics" on their game-- "What is clear to me is that climate scientists are now being held to standards which are not typical of any scientific discipline, or for that matter, held to standards which skeptics do not want to put upon themselves. On the first point, it is now apparently perceived as “bad” when scientists come to a conclusion that is robust enough to be well accepted by the majority. I have never seen claims of the sort that “gravity people” are engaging in indoctrination, or the indoctrination of cell theory, the indoctrination of soil science, or the dogma of electrons. Strangely, this only applies to conclusions about climate change, or maybe evolution (and especially in America). In most fields, consensus is thought of as a consequence of a convergence of evidence over time in a particular subject-matter, and one goes to authorities (doctors for medical diagnosis, lawyers for legal advice, etc) for insight. Most people seek the explanation with the most support, which is then echoed by the experts in the field. Some, on the other hand, will leave 100 doctors that give them a certain diagnosis, and then approve of the one that tells them to meditate, take secret forest herbs, and pray five times a day to cure their illness. People go to calculus textbooks to learn calculus, and yet no one goes to an sociologist to learn by the segments of the heart and brain. However, in climate science, apparently ‘authority’ is a logical fallacy, and textbooks and classrooms can be replaced by random opinions on a blog. What’s even more startling, is that the personal communiation of scientists through e-mails can actually change the laws of physics! What all of this shows is that many people simply cannot think rationally about climate change, nor do they have the capacity to diagnose proper information from nonsense. And once they pursue nonsense, it is very difficult to convince them that they are wrong. You cannot convince such people that Pat Michaels, Singer, Marano, etc don’t actually have anything to say, or that WUWT is a disinformation source. It’s not that the information to show they are nonsense is unavailable, it’s that the information MUST be wrong. It is also clear to me that climate scientists must now become babysitters to every half-baked idea out there, otherwise they are being dogmatic. They must write detailed responses to people who think the greenhouse effect isn’t real. It is also clear to me that the so-called ‘skeptics’ are allowed to make up whatever they want at will without consequence, and create a large but ill-thought out laundry list, and that we must play this game or else we’re being ‘dogmatic.’ If a climate scientist make one mistake, or a date gets screwed up in the middle of a 1000 page document about glaciers, it will receive international attention. However, if ‘skeptics’ toss out 8 conspiracy theories, 10 logical fallacies, and 17 arguments with ZERO thought put into them, then it is a good thing that we get to hear all sides. Then, when one item on the bucket list is knocked down, they can just jump tot he next item. In the meantime, they are just as valid as everyone else’s idea, since the criteria for acceptance is 101% certaintly in everything." Bravo! -
Dikran Marsupial at 02:25 AM on 9 February 2011Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
RSVP@9 wrote "If an investigation or study is based on accepted "science", it cannot be adding anything new." No, most science proceeds in a rather incremental manner, based on accepted adeas and adding a novel extension, which often is rather small and so easily digested by the research community or based on a novel combination of accepted ideas that hadn't previously been considered. Science mostly proceeds via small steps by dilligent but unexciting work. The general public often don't get to hear about that sort of work as it doesn't have much appeal for the media, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen or that it isn't the way the majority of science works. "And if it is adding something new, this new discovery has not yet become "accepted" science." See above, most of the time the extension is small and well supported by the paper and hence (if useful/relevant in the first place) is accepted almost immediately. The papers that take a long time to become accepted are those that (assuming they are correct) require a considerable change in current thought or are presented without adequate experimental or theoretical support. As they say, extrodianary claims require extrodinary evidence. "if it isnt based on accepted science, it likely to be bogus" Most claims that accepted science needs to be overturned *are* bogus. Every now and again you will get someone turning up to a physics department with proof that Einstein was wrong, or maths department with a short proof of Fermats last theorem, etc. But for every Einstein, there are a thousand Dunning-Kruger eccentrics. "even if the petrolium should never run out, the oxygen will" interesting suggestion, care to expand? -
Bernard J. at 02:23 AM on 9 February 2011Articgate: perpetuating the myth that Arctic sea ice has recovered
...and Mouncounter's (and my) graphic as it stands today is here. -
Bernard J. at 02:20 AM on 9 February 2011Articgate: perpetuating the myth that Arctic sea ice has recovered
For the record, I've just noticed that Stu N's graphic link will automatically update to the latest data, and eventually wander away from the current point. Today's graphic, as posted by Stu, is cemented here. -
dorlomin at 02:15 AM on 9 February 2011Climate Change Impacts on Ocean Ecosystems
why has the ph in the Atlantic changed so much quicker than other bodies? -
Bernard J. at 02:13 AM on 9 February 2011Articgate: perpetuating the myth that Arctic sea ice has recovered
Muoncounter at #19. Ironically, I posted the same graph at Deltoid yesterday. It's important though to be very clear about distinguishing between 2006 and 2007, with respect to the winter maxima, and Stu N made this point for me when I myself skipped over it. I was more concerned about the overall trend compared to 2007, and where it is heading, but if we're not careful it's quite possible that we could be accused of the sort of cherry-picking that Peter Gleick indulged in. That's one mud-hole I don't want to be wallowing in! -
Bibliovermis at 02:07 AM on 9 February 2011Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
New science becomes accepted science through the presentation of complete evidence, not whining about being the victim of the status quo. -
RSVP at 01:53 AM on 9 February 2011Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
Crichton's lecture was not in defense of science, but in pointing out opportunism. The issue is not about whether CO2 causes global warming, rather that science is used to establish authority, and therefore policy, and therefore power. This point aside, a very circular condition seems to emerge here. If an investigation or study is based on accepted "science", it cannot be adding anything new. And if it is adding something new, this new discovery has not yet become "accepted" science. (And in the worst of cases, if it isnt based on accepted science, it likely to be bogus.) On the otherhand, there are also things that do not require science to be known. For instance, even if the petrolium should never run out, the oxygen will. So at some point, regardless of global warming, alternative forms of energy will take over. -
mozart at 01:39 AM on 9 February 2011CO2 is not increasing
Ten years ago we would have said the curve was flat....and it's an odd explosive growth model that has it's highest observation 13 years ago in 1998.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Not at all flat; current levels are the highest in over 400,000 years (you must be looking at the South Pole station data curve):
-
Global Warming and Cold Winters
mozart - I have replied to your last post in the thread here. Note that the "Recent Comments" link at the top of the page will take you to current conversations - most people monitor that, so moving to another thread doesn't mean that current readers will lose track of the conversation. However, new readers will actually be able to find relevant posts if you stay on topic. Please respect the Comments Policy and stay on topic, commenting on relevant threads. I'm actually quite surprised your last few comments have survived moderation, considering how you have failed to stay on appropriate topics despite requests. -
CO2 is not increasing
mozart - Reply here, as it's a much more appropriate thread. It's well worth reading the topic, also see the video in post #9, also graphs in #12, and in particular #17. Exponential growth has a nasty effect of slamming in hard down the line, much more people expect. Your CO2 emissions scenarios are grossly overoptimistic. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 01:00 AM on 9 February 2011Climate Change Impacts on Ocean Ecosystems
@Ann Period in many parts of the world, certainly warmer than the present-called Older Peron, this is period known in many cultures 'paradise': “At least a few commentators — anthropologists, folklorists, and others — have linked era of the Older Peron transgression and the Neolithic Subpluvial with tales of a "time of plenty" (Golden Age ; Garden of Eden) that occur in the legendary backgrounds of many cultures.” Enhanced biological carbon consumption in a high CO2 ocean, Riebesell et al., 2007. : “Here we show that dissolved inorganic carbon consumption of a natural plankton community maintained in mesocosm enclosures at initial CO2 partial pressures of 350, 700 and 1,050 atm increases with rising CO2. The community consumed up to 39% more dissolved inorganic carbon at increased CO2 partial pressures compared to present levels, whereas nutrient uptake remained the same.” Briefly about the lands: more efficient photosynthesis takes place at higher temperatures and CO2 - see figure here. Commentary on the figure quoted above is as follows: “The upper curve is the same for C4. From this it is clear that at double CO2 concentration, not only has the efficiency of C3 crops improved tremendously, but the temperature at which optimal photosynthesis occurs in C3 increases up to that of C4. Thus the vast majority of food crops will benefit hugely by increased CO2, and even more so by increased CO2 coupled with warming” In many parts of the ocean current was noted a significant increase in NPP. However, the NPP of the ocean yet we know very little ( Pratt, 2010.). Hoegh-Guldberg conclusions are strongly premature.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Problems with Riebesell et al 2007 have been noted (in abstract form here and in full text form here). As far as your next bit, partaking of material sourced to an extreme denialist blog is disappointing, Arkadiusz. Original peer-reviewed published sources are best for credibility. -
mozart at 00:52 AM on 9 February 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
KR just a small addendum to your thought on doubling CO2. We have already increased CO2 by 24% since 1900 with a very modest effect on temperatures....that's a known relationship. So I see little reason to ignore that and go back to a pre industrial revolution base. What's of interest is the the likely future growth of Co2 and the temperature sensitivity to those changes. On the former point I would direct you to the Mauna Loa measurements...http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/. If you split the CO2 trends into decades, you find an average 81/90 of 1.545..91/2000 of 1.543....2001/2010 of 2.039 ppm per year increase. So we actually had a flat decade in the 90s, where CO2 was accumulating no faster than the 80s. A volcanic phenominon? In any case if you then include the 2000s, it would not be unreasonable to say we seem to be accelerating growth at a smoothed trend of 0.25 ppm per decade. At that rate it would take us 8 decades to get to a 4ppm per year increase. But many factors could intervene....slower global growth rates than in this China phase, carbon efficiencies per unit of energy, and the loss of our oil reserves. All of which would extend this number. -
muoncounter at 00:42 AM on 9 February 2011Articgate: perpetuating the myth that Arctic sea ice has recovered
#25: "I don't think anyone can seriously claim ... " That is really a multi-part statement. The claims are made: See the quote at the top of this post. Greenland glaciers have been advancing since 2006, Artic [sic] sea ice has returned to 1989 levels of coverage, and snowy, cold winters and cool summers have dominated northern North America and Europe The serious aspect is that these claims get repeated. People who don't bother to verify hear 'famous astronaut says' and their brains switch off. Then the amplification process begins: 'as everyone knows, the Artic has recovered'. That the claims are so easily shown to be false shows how impoverished the denier arguments are. -
Daniel Bailey at 00:35 AM on 9 February 2011Climate Change Impacts on Ocean Ecosystems
@ Ann (6) I know how you feel, for those thoughts have been my thoughts. It would be easy to sink into a morass of despair, overcome by the overwhelming nature of what lies before us. Why even try... Consider this, then:Once upon a time there was a wise man who used to go to the ocean to do his writing. He had a habit of walking on the beach before he began his work. One day he was walking along the shore. As he looked down the beach, he saw a human figure moving like a dancer. He smiled to himself to think of someone who would dance to the day. So he began to walk faster to catch up. As he got closer, he saw that it was a young man and the young man wasn't dancing, but instead he was reaching down to the shore, picking up something and very gently throwing it into the ocean. As he got closer he called out, "Good morning! What are you doing?" The young man paused, looked up and replied, "Throwing starfish in the ocean." "I guess I should have asked, why are you throwing starfish in the ocean?" "The sun is up and the tide is going out. And if I don't throw them in they'll die." "But, young man, don't you realize that there are miles and miles of beach and starfish all along it. You can't possibly make a difference!" The young man listened politely. Then bent down, picked up another starfish and threw it into the sea, past the breaking waves and said, "It made a difference for that one."
********************************************************************************* There is something very special in each and every one of us. We have all been gifted with the ability to make a difference. And if we can become aware of that gift, we gain through the strength of our visions the power to shape the future. We must each find our starfish. And if we throw our stars wisely and well, the world will be blessed. So be proud in what you do, daily. Lead boldly, walk with confidence, chin high. Pay it forward, save a life today. Make a difference, one starfish at a time. The Yooper -
Eric (skeptic) at 00:30 AM on 9 February 2011The 2010 Amazon Drought
Chris, I think it is too soon to tell if there is a trend in El Ninos getting stronger or more numerous. There seemed to be one in the 90's (minus Pinatubo) but that quieted down. Rob, I never doubted the strength of the correlation between El Nino and drought. That is simple causation as explained in the head post. Also I don't doubt that AGW will exacerbate the drought in some cases, specifically when Atlantic warming coincides with El Nino. Here's a paper http://www.springerlink.com/content/8415720180780275//fulltext.html that quantifies North Atlantic warming trends to supplement the Zeng paper. Their conclusion is 0.03 C per decade. -
Ken Lambert at 23:33 PM on 8 February 2011A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice calculations
MarkR #38 Its time to put some numbers on these arguments. We know for a doubling of pre-industrial CO2 to about 560ppm, the theoretical IPCC Eqan gives a F.CO2 of about 5.35ln(2) = 3.7W/sq.m. We know that Earth exchanges about 240W/sq.m with space averaged over the entire surface. ie. TSI/4 x 0.7. We know that the Earth has warmed about 0.75 degC at the surface since preindustrial times and the radiating temperature to space is about 255degK. So if we raise the radiating temperature by 1 degK then the S-B forcing will be proportional to T^4. The sum is roughly (256/255)^4 x 240 = 243.78W/sq.m, Difference 3.78W/sq.m. What we don't know for sure is what the temperature rise at the surface will be for a 1degK rise in the effective radiating temperature of the Earth. The suggestion is that 3degK will occur at the surface to cause 1degK at the effective radiating height in the atmosphere at which point (all other things being equal), the imbalance gap closes. This supposes an extra insulating effect in the atmospheric column of about 2degK due to the complex feedbacks of CO2 and WV, clouds, ice albedo etc at a CO2 concentration of about 560ppm. Interestingly enough Dr Trenberth suggests a S-B radiative cooling response of 2.8W/sq.m currently for a 0.75degK increase in surface temperature since AD1750. This coincides with a 0.75 degK increase in the Earth's radiating temperature via the simple sum (255/254.25)^4 x 240 = 242.84W/sq.m. Difference 2.84W/sq.m. This seems to suggest that for the first 0.75 degC of warming at the surface there has been no insulating effect at the Earth's radiating height or we would have seen a smaller temperature rise at that point than 0.75 degK if this CO2-WV enhanced effect has caused some of this warming so far. -
John Bruno at 23:29 PM on 8 February 2011Climate Change Impacts on Ocean Ecosystems
Thanks PM, KR and others. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think knowledge IS part of the solution, which is what SkepticalScience is all about. I know we need tech, policy action and social change, but I think this is coming, e.g., Obama to regulate greenhouse gases via EPA. I actually see all this playing out with a happy ending - but I am a pathological optimist...
Prev 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 Next
