Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 Next
Comments 96801 to 96850:
-
adelady at 10:23 AM on 7 February 2011The 2010 Amazon Drought
#4 Dan. I know that sinking feeling, only this is worse. It looks as though the Amazon is declining (or reacting or whatever) at the same kind of much faster than expected rate as Arctic ice. I've acquired a bit of fascination and interest with the ice statistics and a couple of lively blogs. The excitement and the learning tends to keep the omg feeling at bay. But this is just plain, everyday, unadorned awful.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] I had the same reaction when I read this. -
Eric (skeptic) at 10:03 AM on 7 February 2011The 2010 Amazon Drought
#12 muoncounter, is there a trend in "100 year events": how are they defined and what is the trend of those events? Or is drought length increasing? There seems to be just one longer drought in 2005 so far. Also while there are currently longer N. American droughts http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL031764.shtml that paper indicates that longer droughts have occurred in the past. #14 Rob Painting, and #16 Chris G, I think you are both making the same basic point that ENSO is highly correlated to the droughts (although perhaps as muoncounter pointed out shorter droughts rather than longer). My conclusion is that while ENSO is natural, the magnitude of the effects of ENSO are increased by AGW. I'm not so sure about the AGW directly influencing the magnitude of ENSO
but we'll probably find out in the next 5 years or so if we start getting large El Ninos contrary to the diminished El Ninos that we would expect from a natural cycle.
-
Matthew at 10:01 AM on 7 February 2011The 2010 Amazon Drought
So in 2010 the amazon released more co2 emissions then China and India put together. So if this becomes once every 5 years instead of 100 or 200 year event then it may speed up the green house effect and make it far harder for us humans to do anything about it. A run away feed back. -
michael sweet at 09:34 AM on 7 February 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
Mozart: According to this link in August, 17 countries had recorded record highs while only one had recorded a record low during 2010. I have not seen the final yearly data (does anyone have a link?). Are you suggesting that there have to be zero record lows before you agree that it is getting warmer? It seems to me that 17:1 is a significant shift in the probability distribution from the expected 1:1 ratio. How high does it need to go before you think it is significant? 25:1? 100:1? 1,000:1? -
Chris G at 08:36 AM on 7 February 2011The 2010 Amazon Drought
Couple of thoughts: Eric, An El Nino is not a magical event, the energy released during an El Nino had to come from somewhere. There is evidence that they have become more intense over the last century (at least one coral study that I remember but can't cite at the moment; I'm sure Google-Scholar would be helpful there.) Also, I wonder how much organic material is washed out to sea from the Amazon. Of course, any number of things could happen to it at that point, but I think it would be fair to say that a rain forest absorbs more CO2 than, let's say, a savanna. -
muoncounter at 07:29 AM on 7 February 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
#95: "we wont see that this century, given we have a 24% increase for the whole of the 20th century." That's not a valid trendology. The rate of fossil fuel CO2 emissions boomed after WW2; we've released half of the total of all CO2 emissions just since 1974. CDIAC has these numbers. Reasonable scenarios put doubling -- 560ppm -- shortly after mid century. Your 'dwindling crude supplies' won't play: there's lots of coal. But that's a topic for Its not us or Human CO2 is a tiny %. -
Trueofvoice at 07:27 AM on 7 February 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
Mozart, Even if CO2 emissions remained at the current 2.2 parts per million per year, we would see more than a doubling of pre-industrial CO2 levels by the end of the twenty-first century. Unfortunately our CO2 emissions have increased exponentially since the start of the industrial revolution. The key point when looking at an exponential increase is that one cannot expect future growth to look similar to that observed in the past. An exponential increase looks linear until it hits a certain point, at which time that slowly rising line on the graph suddenly looks a lot more vertical. -
mozart at 06:46 AM on 7 February 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
I apologize for being vague. They are sensitive to minor changes in dependent variable settings...they are not sensitive in terms of prediction. As for a doubling of CO2....we wont see that this century, given we have a 24% increase for the whole of the 20th century. More realistic is a doubling by 2200 with a 1.5% C increase in temperatures. If...and it's a big if...we don't adapt to lower carbon usage by sheer economic pressures. What is missing here is a sense of what will happen as our crude supplies dwindle. The natural economic forces unleashed by attendant price increases will stimulate real(not subsidised) search for alternative fuels. Leave it to the market. So I'd be offering odds for less than a one degree C rise....if only I'd be around to cash in. -
scaddenp at 06:31 AM on 7 February 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
"The fact is these models are inherently extremely complex and sensitive. In the absence of clear cut warming consistent with a 24% rise in CO2, one must remain unconvinced." mozart - there are problem with this statement. Can I suggest you get a better background by reading the relevant sections in IPCC WG1. Firstly, the models aren't "sensitive" in the normal sense of the word. They do not have the skill to make decade (or less) level predictions. However, the models unequivocal at the 30 year level. Secondly, the model/data concordance is excellent for a sensitivity of 3 degree per doubling. See here for a discussion. -
Rob Painting at 06:13 AM on 7 February 2011The 2010 Amazon Drought
Pikaia @ 1 - I have never understood how the forest can be a carbon sink. In a stable world the amount of carbon in the forest would be constant The prevailing view is that the increased growth is down to the CO2 fertilization effect, although it has not been proven. Another hypothesis is that the increase in sunlight (cloud cover has reduced in the last few decades) may have also helped to increase growth. See Arias 2010 - Changes in Cloudiness over the Amazon rainforests during the last two decades. Because of the persistent cloud cover over the Amazon, green-up (a spurt in plant growth) can occur during the early stages of a dry period. Assuming of course, there is sufficient ground water available to the plants. Obviously in 2005 & 2010 there wasn't enough water. -
Rob Painting at 05:57 AM on 7 February 2011The 2010 Amazon Drought
Eric @ 11 - The 2005 & 2010 droughts were driven by warmer than normal sea surface temperatures in the tropical Atlantic. Hence the large coral bleaching events in the Caribbean in both those years too. The too warm SST's in the tropical Atlantic drives the ITCZ further northwest over the Northern Hemisphere summer. The result is the "rain-making engine" moves out of the Amazon, exaggerating the effect of the dry season.
El-Nino causes drought in the Amazon by shifting the convective area over to the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, where the SST's along the South American coast are ramping up. Once again the rain-making shifts toward the area of greater sea surface temperatures.
The connection between drought/wet episodes in the Amazon are very consistent throughout the 20th century. 16 out 17 El- Nino caused drought, and 14 out of 16 La Nina caused wet episodes in the Amazon. See Ropelewski & Halpert 1987. The figure jumps higher when the 1990's Amazonian droughts are included.
-
Andy Skuce at 05:56 AM on 7 February 2011The 2010 Amazon Drought
Phillips et al (2009) report that measurements made since 1980 indicate that Amazonia has absorbed about 1.8 Gt of CO2 annually. This changed abruptly in 2005 and it looks like it has taken another dive in 2010. The productivity of the Amazon forest seems to have been increasing up to 2005. I'm not sure exactly why but I'm guessing that rising CO2 concentrations may have played a role before 2005, when a lack of rainfall turned the trend around. An article by Tans (2009) contains an interesting plot, shown below.
Since 1935, the terrestrial biosphere has been acting as a carbon sink, Some of this sequestration has been taking place in Amazonia, at least for part of this time, but the majority of the sink is probably happening in high northern latitudes, through reforestation and increased plant growth in the tundra. This continuing negative feedback may make us feel better but our sense of relief may be short lived if factors like forest fires, melting permafrost or pine beetles start to play a bigger role.
-
dana1981 at 05:24 AM on 7 February 2011A Case Study of a Climate Scientist Skeptic
Agreed, very good explanation Glenn. Andrew Dessler was nice enough to review my post before publication. He noted that by subtracting off the heat going into the oceans from the total forcing, I was basically treating the thermal inertia as a negative feedback to the surface air temperatures (which he didn't have a problem with). Glenn provides a good explanation why it makes sense conceptually. -
mozart at 05:11 AM on 7 February 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
We still seem to be making record lows, so can the probability distribution have shifted much? Probably not when the tiny temperature increase since the beginning of the 20th century is viewed in context with a retreat from the mini ice age. The fact is these models are inherently extremely complex and sensitive. In the absence of clear cut warming consistent with a 24% rise in CO2, one must remain unconvinced. -
muoncounter at 04:38 AM on 7 February 2011The 2010 Amazon Drought
#11: "The 2010 event described above is partly due to the trend and partly to weather" One could conclude that by taking 2010 in isolation. Unfortunately, as Andy S points out in the post, the prior drought was 2002-2005 - and that was "supposed to have been a one-in-a-hundred-year event." A mere five years later, "last year's drought was both more severe and more extensive than the earlier one." Two 'hundred year events' in 5 years is highly exceptional. From Zeng et al 2006: The 2005 drought in the Amazon was particularly severe in the western and southern parts of the basin where many rivers and lakes had lowest water level in many decades. ... In the public media, this drought has been linked to climate change, deforestation, and an anomalously warm North Atlantic Ocean that was thought to also have contributed to an energetic hurricane season. Their analysis minimizes the contribution of el Nino cycles: ... the major El Nino events such as 1997-98, 1982-83 that led to large droughts in the Amazon were short lived (about 1 year), often immediately followed by La Nina events that led to anomalously wet conditions so that the land recovers quickly ... And concludes: The 2005 drought in the southern Amazon appears to be mostly caused by Atlantic SST anomalies. ... some of the spring North Atlantic warming may be partly caused by El Nino which peaks in Boreal winter, and thus exacerbating the direct El Nino drought in the Amazon. Nonetheless, Atlantic warming is also often not related to El Nino, and severe drought in the Amazon is more likely when they happen either near-simultaneously (such as 1997-98) or sequentially (such as during 2002-2005). Sorry, I don't think we're making anyone feel better. -
Eric (skeptic) at 03:31 AM on 7 February 2011The 2010 Amazon Drought
"A large part of the recent drying (Figure 9) is related to the shift toward more intense and frequent warm events (i.e., El Niños) of ENSO since the late 1970s.112 This is because El Niños often reduce precipitation over many low-latitude land areas.71,72,106 This shift in ENSO is statistically a rare event, but it is unknown whether this is related to recent global warming. Some climate models predict an El Niño-like warming pattern in the tropical Pacific under increased GHGs, but it is not a robust response in all models.113–115 Given that current climate models still have large deficiencies in simulating ENSO and other tropical variability,116,117 we cannot attribute the recent ENSO shift (and thus the related jump toward drying over land) to anthropogenic forcing or natural variability." (from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.81/full) Also see figure 7, the spatial variation of drying trends, which shows some drying trend in the Amazon, but not ubiquitous or as much as other locations. The 2010 event described above is partly due to the trend and partly to weather (ENSO and other factors). Another paper shows a drying trend in the Amazon since the 70's http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JHM-386.1 in figure 5 but also evidence of cycles. -
Stephen Leahy at 03:15 AM on 7 February 2011The 2010 Amazon Drought
I'd be interested in getting feedback on my article on this for IPS Amazon Drought Accelerating Climate Change. I tried to look at broader issues as well - implications of REDD, what's happening in the Boreal, long term trend for Amazon... Umm it's not going to make Dan or Lou feel any better though -- sorry about that. -
Trueofvoice at 03:12 AM on 7 February 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
Henry, I've posted a response in "Has the Greenhouse Effect Been Falsified", which is where your last post should have been made. -
Trueofvoice at 03:11 AM on 7 February 2011Greenhouse effect has been falsified
Henry, No, additional photons are not necessary for increased warming via greenhouse effect. All that is necessary is to slow the rate at which those photons can leave the atmosphere, which is precisely what GHG's do. You seem to be under the impression that a photon absorbed by a CO2 molecule disappears forever, and as there are only so many photons to be gobbled up, additional CO2 can't make things any worse. Greenhouse gases don't keep the photon, they re-radiate it in a random direction. The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more likely the recently emitted photon wil be absorbed by yet another CO2 photon, or be radiated back toward the earth and absorbed by the surface. So while the total number of photons entering the planet's atmosphere has not changed, the number of photons exiting is reduced, hence more warming. Do you honestly find a website hosting a rather panicked rant about left-liberals, tax hungry democrats and evil socialists to be a source of good science? -
Lou Grinzo at 02:54 AM on 7 February 2011The 2010 Amazon Drought
Dan: I know what you mean about your personal reaction to this kind of news. I've been studying energy and climate issues non-stop for the last 7+ years, and I still experience that reaction from time to time. including when I read about this Amazon finding. Almost any news about permafrost or methane hydrates puts me in the same place -- there's been a lot of "it's worse than we thought" news on those fronts in the last couple of years. I also struggle with the idea that the Amazon is a net carbon sink over any appreciable time frame. In a way it seems like the notion of the ocean absorbing a lot of the extra heat from CC -- sure, it's a great benefit in the short run, but that heat is going to resurface (literally) eventually, and then we'll have to contend with it plus the additional heat accumulation. -
dana1981 at 02:35 AM on 7 February 2011The 2010 Amazon Drought
Nice post Andy, interesting (and somewhat concerning) paper. -
muoncounter at 02:32 AM on 7 February 2011The 2010 Amazon Drought
#5: "My understanding is that a stable forest won't remove CO2 from the atmosphere" How can that be the case? Grace et al 1995: Measurements of carbon dioxide flux over undisturbed tropical rain forest in Brazil for 55 days in the wet and dry seasons of 1992 to 1993 show that this ecosystem is a net absorber of carbon dioxide. Photosynthetic gains of carbon dioxide exceeded respiratory losses irrespective of the season. Unless by 'a stable forest,' you mean that growth rate equals death/decay rate? One could see that happening under long term stable environmental conditions, but we've added too much CO2 too fast for such 'stability'. Declining or stressed forests don't do this job so well. Cox et al 2000: ... carbon-cycle feedbacks could significantly accelerate climate change over the twenty-first century. We find that under a 'business as usual' scenario, the terrestrial biosphere acts as an overall carbon sink until about 2050, but turns into a source thereafter. -
muoncounter at 02:16 AM on 7 February 2011A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice calculations
#36: "logaritmic as function of CO2 concentration" And average annual CO2 is strongly concave up with time (accelerating, ie, first and second derivatives with time are each positive). Taking the ln of such a function results in a concave up deltaT. See the graph here. -
Riccardo at 00:38 AM on 7 February 2011A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice calculations
Ken Lambert F CO2, as you call it, is logaritmic as function of CO2 concentration. On the contrary, the balance equation is function of time. -
Ken Lambert at 00:23 AM on 7 February 2011A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice calculations
MarkR #34 So what is the overall conclusion from ΔQ = ΔF - YΔT? The higher the value of Y the less temperature change we get at the surface to restore equilibrium for a given ΔF? If ΔF is the sum of the positive warming forcings F.CO2 + F.otherGHG + F.solar which are independent of temperature, and we know that the main F.CO2 is logarithmic, then ΔF would increase more slowly than YΔT - moreso with a higher value of Y. A higher Y would arrest the warming more quickly. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 23:53 PM on 6 February 2011A Case Study of a Climate Scientist Skeptic
No Problemo -
Glenn Tamblyn at 23:39 PM on 6 February 2011The 2010 Amazon Drought
Dan That is the essence of denialism. Denialists like to proclaim that they are being likened to Holocaust Deniers. But it is they who raise this supposed connection. In reality the D word really relates to the psychological concept of Denial. When confronted with evidence that attacks/undermines our sense of what we thought was the meaning and order of our lives, a common psychological reaction to this is to deny the evidence. Your Doctor says you have cancer. Most people take a deep breath and get on with treating it. But a few can't 'process' this reality so they deny it's existance. In this psychological state any spurious fragment or figment that may help prop up the 'denial' is latched on to with excessive and uncritical zeal, like a lifebuoy for a drowning man. At this point, admitting that the figment is exactly that is the very last thing the D'ist can afford to do. If it is a figment, its not a lifebuoy. Bit we can't even admit it is a lifebuoy, becsause then it isn't -
Phil at 23:30 PM on 6 February 2011The 2010 Amazon Drought
I think there's a misunderstanding of what a "sink" does. My understanding is that a stable forest won't remove CO2 from the atmosphere (as BillyJoe points out, certainly not on a short term basis). It's just that if the forests go then the stable carbon that was locked up the (considerable) biomass will enter the atmosphere as more CO2. The "sink" is a sink, not a sponge :-) -
Dan Olner at 23:26 PM on 6 February 2011The 2010 Amazon Drought
I need a new word for the feeling this kind of story gives me. It encompasses a vertigo-like sense of "oh my Christ, this is really actually happening on the one and only planet we have" and "yet there are people willing to ignore it or argue it's not happening for their own psychological convenience, votes or just plain money." It makes the pit of my stomach fall right through to my feet. It also makes me see the appeal of believing that, surely, it must just be *impossible* for little old us to damage the one and only collective space-suit we're ever going to have... Think I need to go for a brisk walk! -
BillyJoe at 23:13 PM on 6 February 2011The 2010 Amazon Drought
I'm no expert but this is my take on this. Hopefully, others will contribute also. pikaia, Part of the increasing amounts of CO2 emmitted by humans by the burning fossil fuels is absorbed by forests. It is true that the forests release CO2 as a result of rotting vegetation but most of it is stored as humus and in roots systems within the soil. Even the ashes resulting from bushfires do not convert back to CO2 without a significant time lag. sgmuler, Coal takes too long to form to be of any use in helping to store part of the anthropogenic CO2 formed over the past few decades. -
sgmuller at 23:03 PM on 6 February 2011The 2010 Amazon Drought
So how id all those coal deposits form then? I thought that they were the compressed remains of dead forests. -
d5vid13 at 22:30 PM on 6 February 2011If you don't have 93 spare minutes to watch this film, make the time
An inspiring documentary, it makes one realise mankind needs to change its' ways particularly the wealthier countries. -
pikaia at 22:07 PM on 6 February 2011The 2010 Amazon Drought
I have never understood how the forest can be a carbon sink. In a stable world the amount of carbon in the forest would be constant, with carbon absorbed by growing trees balanced by carbon released by dead trees as they rot. If the whole area was once forest then the best you can hope for is that the forest remains carbon-neutral; it cannot be a carbon sink unless it increases in size, which is nor going to happen in the foreseeable future. -
heystoopid at 20:09 PM on 6 February 2011If you don't have 93 spare minutes to watch this film, make the time
Truly makes one think. In the same documentary format an 87 minute film was released by Godfrey Reggio in 1982 called "Koyaanisqatsi" or Life out of Balance. This was part of Qatsi Trilogy, with Powaqqatsi(1988) and Naqoyqatsi(2002) these three films depict a relationship between humans, nature and technology. Here is a section from youtube : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFwR1c-cdFw&feature=related -
garythompson at 16:48 PM on 6 February 2011If you don't have 93 spare minutes to watch this film, make the time
wow, that is a great video and thanks for sharing. we humans have been here for only about 0.005% of Earth's existence. the more we learn about carbon based life the more we realize how rare it is. we owe it to ourselves, if not the universe, to be good stewards of this rock we find ourselves fortunate enough to be residents of. we are born of star stuff and when we realize that it took over 13 billion years to get us to this point, it should give all a sense of responsibility to put politics and personal agendas aside so that we as a species can progress. -
Stephen Leahy at 16:34 PM on 6 February 2011A Case Study of a Climate Scientist Skeptic
Glenn, that's the clearest explanation I've seen. Thanks -
Stephen Leahy at 16:07 PM on 6 February 2011If you don't have 93 spare minutes to watch this film, make the time
It is a beautiful and moving film. The photography is like artwork and our planet is incredible and breathtaking. -
Daniel Bailey at 14:14 PM on 6 February 2011If you don't have 93 spare minutes to watch this film, make the time
It was certainly the best 1:33 I've invested in a long time. Highly recommended. (Nice screencaps, John!) The Yooper -
villabolo at 13:53 PM on 6 February 2011If you don't have 93 spare minutes to watch this film, make the time
I've made the time. So far it's 15 minutes into the video and it's fantastic. Thank you John. -
actually thoughtful at 13:05 PM on 6 February 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
HR - I actually had a more sympathetic view of your comments than did some other posters. I can accept that "threat to civilization" is a political fallout from the scientific reality of climate science. Can you? And, once accepting that, I can accept that dynamic problem solving could be applied. But it seems a bit late. I have noticed that hungry people and people in pain find logic and long term problem solving quite challenging (I am here thinking of my immediate family). I always find it easier to feed first, then discuss the future. What do we do when that is not possible? It is possible that "dynamic problem solving" will carry the day when food supplies are dramatically less than that required to feed the people. But is it likely? -
Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
"If you accept that we are dynamic problem solvers then you should also accept that some sort of predictable descent into barbarism is complete folly." This is a strawman argument on a Wicker Man level. -
Phila at 11:51 AM on 6 February 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
If you accept that we are dynamic problem solvers then you should also accept that some sort of predictable descent into barbarism is complete folly. Wow. Somehow, I missed that statement when responding to HR earlier. That is an absolutely colossal strawman, even by "skeptical" standards. -
muoncounter at 09:05 AM on 6 February 2011It's a natural cycle
#4: Nicely done. His myths page is quite nice: even a slot for der Beckster. Surely Bill O's who-put- the-moon-there deserves one. -
Daniel Bailey at 07:52 AM on 6 February 2011It's a natural cycle
Playing the pile-it-on game, here's a composited version of muoncounter's graphic:Courtesy John P. Reisman (his site is an excellent resource, BTW) The Yooper
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 07:27 AM on 6 February 2011A Case Study of a Climate Scientist Skeptic
There often seems to be some confusion about what is meant by future warming 'in the pipeline' so perhaps this might clarify things a little. Before the advent of AGW, the oceans and atmosphere were at temperatures which represented a thermal equilibrium between them. Net energy flows between them, as part of the broader range of energy flows in the environment, kept them at equilibrium and their respective average temperatures, and the temperature differential between them reflected this. Then along comes AGW and they start to heat and their temps are rising. The atmosphere relatively quickly but the oceans far more slowly due to their much greater themal mass. So the temperature differential between the oceans and atmosphere starts to grow. The atmosphere is now warmer, relative to the oceans compared to what it was at equilibrium. So the net energy flow between them starts to change due to this altered temperature differential. Relative to the equilibrium case, more energy is flowing from the atmosphere to the oceans than previously. So the oceans are having a cooling effect on the atmosphere, partly offsetting the warming effect of AGW. So the atmosphere hasn't warmed as much as it would have due to AGW as a consequence of the oceans cooling effect because of the increased temperature differential between the two. So the common characterisation that the extra temperature increase in the atmosphere that is 'in the pipeline' will be because the oceans when they have warmed further will start heating the atmosphere is not quite correct. Say rather that in the future the oceans will STOP COOLING the atmosphere. Heat wont start to flow out of the oceans. It will stop flowing out of the atmosphere! -
scaddenp at 06:51 AM on 6 February 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
Henry, you seem to be having trouble understanding the objections to you link. Consider a linear trend like: Year 1 10 Year 2 20 Year 3 30 Year 4 40 Year 5 50 Now, instead look at year minus previous year. Year 1 10 Year 2 10 Year 3 10 Year 4 10 Year 5 10 See? Taking differences de-trends a series. You can make no conclusions about a trend from data like. Your desire to find contrary evidence for climate theory is clouding your judgement. -
Bibliovermis at 06:42 AM on 6 February 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
HR, It is rather difficult to be a problem solver when you don't acknowledge that there is a problem. How society goes about implementing solutions is political, but the empirical research that shows a threat to civilization isn't. Disclaiming a field of science as politics in defense of preconceived notions is political. -
scaddenp at 06:37 AM on 6 February 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
f you accept that we are dynamic problem solvers then you should also accept that some sort of predictable descent into barbarism is complete folly. Sorry, but the historical evidence is that civilisations have failed before and all the dynamic problem solvers of the day didn't save them. There is no magic rule written into the universe which says we are able to solve all problems. I please stop using "CAGW". What is the point of term for which there is no definition? (And no meaning in science since I challenge you find a single peer-reviewed piece of science which uses the term). I ask you again - do you accept that a threat to food production would also endanger civilisation IF we couldnt solve that problem? -
Phila at 06:15 AM on 6 February 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
Humanity Rules: I happen to think that the politics of climate change is a continuation of the irrational aspect of society that we both possibly dislike. We do both dislike it. The problem, of course, is that I (sometimes) see your remarks here as typical of that irrational aspect, in that you allow generally unexamined ideological assumptions to trump peer-reviewed science, as well as the logical conclusions of what that science is telling us. To me, that's a totally untenable position, philosophically and ethically. And frankly, I'd continue to believe that even if the inactivists turned out, by some miracle, to be correct. That would simply be an exceedingly lucky guess on their part, kind of like winning the lottery; it wouldn't be the result of having more information, a coherent alternative theory, or a superior understanding of the science. There are plenty of reasonable grounds for debating how to deal with AGW. But my feeling is, we have to start from a position of accepting the science as it stands, and the recognition that there's really no other game in town, theory-wise. Simply suggesting that "humanity rules" because we're "problem solvers" is naive; it belongs to an earlier, more childish outlook that we can't afford right now. My response to AT isn't based on emotion it's based on a recognition that we have different views of human nature and social relations. As I said that particular aspect won't be solved by trading science. "Trading" implies that something of value is being exchanged. I haven't seen much that I'd call science on the "skeptical" side. And when it comes to economic arguments, I've seen little but handwaving and the repetition of paranoiac talking points...most of which only cohere if you begin with the assumption that the consensus is wrong or fraudulent. The only way to discuss risks, costs and benefits is to have an accurate picture of the science. In that regard, the concept of "trading science" is basically meaningless to me. On the one hand, there's what the vast majority of the experts say. On the other, there's a bunch of carping and wild speculation and witless red-baiting. So what's to trade? Also, saying that you simply have "different views on social relations" doesn't really answer the charge that those views are basically emotional or irrational. Statements like "I see us as dynamic problem solvers" gives me a pretty good idea of what those views are based on, and it ain't science. Also, social relations depend on what people see as fact, how they assess risk, and so forth. So again, the science is crucial in determining what responses are and aren't possible. A "threat to civilization" is basically a political position not a scientific one. Again, it's not either/or. It'd be easier to take your views seriously if they didn't seem to be founded so often on hypersimplistic binary thinking. -
Papy at 04:56 AM on 6 February 2011A Case Study of a Climate Scientist Skeptic
#21: "How about 'observed warming' for the part we've already seen and 'committed warming', as suggested by Wetherald et al 2001?" Is it for 'TCR' and 'additional warming commitment' like in the IPCC TAR-O9, figure 9.1 ?
Prev 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 Next
