Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 Next
Comments 98551 to 98600:
-
hfranzen at 13:52 PM on 14 January 2011Seawater Equilibria
I have recalculated the equilibrium results for surface seawater acid=base reactions using the data from F.J.Millero, Geochim. & Cosmochim. Acta, V 59, #4, pp 661-677, 1995. I now have linear equations for the total molality of dissolved CO2 vs. T at 387 ppm and vs P(CO2) at 288K and for the molality of hydrogen ion vs. P(CO2) at 288K. The results (and I will be happy to provide as much detail as anyone wants) show that if at 288K we could reduce the ppm to 350 instantaneously the decrease in equilibrium molality (the value toward which the total molality would drop if 350 ppm could be maintained) would be such that the total amount of CO2 removed from the atmosphere to get down to 350 ppm would be equal to the decrease in the total dissolved carbon dioxide in only 4.11 times 10 to the 19th kg of ocean. I say only because this is only 3% of the total ocean. In other words at an average depth of 3000 meters it would take only 90 meters of the surface oceans to provide, through the decrease in solubility, the same number of moles of CO2as were removed to get down to 350 ppm. Of course the ppm will not drop instantaneously to 350 ppm but this calculation shows the dimension of the problem faced by humankind. When we decrease our CO2 production slightly the oceans will respond by taking the gas phase content back in the direction of the starting point. In the instantaneous hypothetical about half way back. In the case of a slight decrease most of the way back. As the deniers have always said there is a very large amount of CO2 dissolved in the oceans- I just don't think they reasoned their way to the time bomb that represents for all mankind. -
apiratelooksat50 at 13:40 PM on 14 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
Muon @113 I actually have forwarded your website to my colleagues along with other websites. I've even linked to them on my school website and my Facebook page. I stress to my students to examine all sides and make up their own minds. That's why I love science. There is always something to learn! -
Marcus at 13:40 PM on 14 January 2011What is the Potential of Wind Power?
Whatever its current potential, it can definitely be increased via application of suitable storage technologies-to alleviate the issues of supply-demand offset curves. The most promising technology I've seen in this regard are Vanadium Flow cells, which can store quite significant amounts of power for release when wind speeds drop. This might hopefully mean that Wind-farms can supply a larger number of homes-but be of a smaller size. -
Albatross at 13:37 PM on 14 January 2011The Queensland floods
Eric @62, First, and FWIW, I for one actually appreciate (most of) your skeptical comments here. I need to look at the data more closely. The waters surrounding Oz have warmed significantly (> +0.7 C) since around 1900, with more than half of that occurring since the 60s. I'll get back to you once I've had a chance to look more carefully at the proxy data. With that all said, your argument about natural variability is a wee bit of a straw man...but more on that later too. My wife is going to give me heck-- Mma Ramotswe awaits. -
apiratelooksat50 at 13:35 PM on 14 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
Only KR attempted to answer my question. I am going to ask again. Refer to the chart the Moderator inserted at #105. Certainly, CO2 is spiking. Temperature has spiked for this cycle, and depending on the timeframe you analyze is either rising, holding steady or falling. Without debating what is happening now, or in the past 10 years, 30 years, 100 years, or whatever time period with temperature: Given the chart: Can you understand (not agree!) how intelligent, educated people around the world can question the theory of human induced climate change? Forget about anything else I've ever written, hinted at, been disagreed with, or been misunderstood about. And, just answer that question.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] As an educator, surely you can appreciate one of your students trying to over-simplify something which is irreducibly complex. That is what you are doing. The temperature rise of the past 30 years is unparalleled in the paleo record. Over 100 years of hard-won knowledge of atmospheric physics and empirically-measured factors all point to the same explanation: the rise in CO2 (which is anthropogenically derived) is acting as a forcing to temps, driving them upwards (and will continue to do so beyond our lifetimes). Intelligent, educated people around the world (even educators) understand this. How is it you do not? You are failing this test. -
Marcus at 13:23 PM on 14 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
"Stratospheric temperature decreased after each volcanic eruption and then very slowly growing." I'm sorry, but this claim is factually *incorrect*. Volcanic Eruptions actually *warm* the stratosphere-not cool it-as the graph you link to clearly shows. Yet in spite of several major warming spikes, caused by major volcanic eruptions, there is a clear cooling trend in the stratosphere. Indeed, this cooling trend is almost a mirror image of the warming trend in the troposphere. Now what *natural* phenomenon can you think of that can consecutively warm the troposphere & cool the stratosphere? I certainly can't think of any-but I know of one man-made phenomenon which can. -
Eric (skeptic) at 13:22 PM on 14 January 2011The Queensland floods
Tom Curtis (and Albatross), the data from the chart in #59 seems to show as much variability as the chart in the paper I linked in #51 which is a measurement at a single location (albeit well north of Australia), so I'm not sure the averaging helps. The single location chart ends around 1950 at an anomaly of zero. The chart in #59 is at about 0.25 in 1950 (the gray bars) about 0.6 below the 1990's average as you said. That means the current anomaly would be 0.6 on the chart linked in #51 about 1/2 of the peak 1000 years ago. So the current measured SST anomalies are well within the range indicated by the proxies. -
muoncounter at 13:14 PM on 14 January 2011Climate sensitivity is low
UCAR strikes again: New study sure to stir up the sensitivity discussion: The study also indicates that the planet’s climate system, over long periods of times, may be at least twice as sensitive to carbon dioxide than currently projected by computer models, which have generally focused on shorter-term warming trends. This is largely because even sophisticated computer models have not yet been able to incorporate critical processes, such as the loss of ice sheets, that take place over centuries or millennia and amplify the initial warming effects of carbon dioxide. --emphasis added -
Daniel Bailey at 13:01 PM on 14 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
Re: apiratelooksat50 (105) Please see my in-line response to you in your comment at 105 above. Thank you. The Yooper -
Albatross at 12:50 PM on 14 January 2011Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
HR @40, I have little tolerance for people misrepresenting my views, and you just did exactly that #40. I labeled no-one a "denier" as you claim. And,what I most definitely do not like is people distorting and misrepresenting the science as has been done on this thread. That does not constitute a "healthy debate". On that note, my frustration has nothing whatsoever to do with me not liking people having opposing views....but rather that having to continually counter the seemingly endless stream of misinformation and misleading statements coming overwhelmingly from "skeptics"-- if that were not an issue then there would be no need for Skeptical Science in the first place. Finally, please read the main post again and Rob's post @32 . The scientists in this field are not attributing all the problems facing coral to AGW. In fact, in my post @27 I made specific reference to cumulative impacts. That by definition means that I understand that there is more than one stressor at play here. So again, you have distorted my stance on this issue when you say "Arkadiusz has principally been drawing our attention to published scientific work. I understand you don't like that...". That sounds like innuendo to me. The long-term prospects for coral reefs around the world are not promising, and in all likelihood, the literature suggests that the multitude of problems and challenges that coral reefs face are only going to amplify as ocean acidification and bleaching ramp up. -
muoncounter at 12:49 PM on 14 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
#112: "science educated, experienced teachers (college and high school) who do not believe in the AGW theory" Perhaps Mr. Pirate could recommend SkS to some of his colleagues. Good educators -- especially in the sciences -- are expected to be 'life-long learners' and there's plenty to learn from right here. -
GCNP58 at 12:07 PM on 14 January 2011What is the Potential of Wind Power?
oops, try this: Article in Atmos. Chem. and Physics describing weather modification by large wind power arrayModerator Response: Thanks, but please provide some context--even one sentence--for links. -
GCNP58 at 12:05 PM on 14 January 2011What is the Potential of Wind Power?
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/769/2010/acp-10-769-2010.pdf -
HumanityRules at 11:54 AM on 14 January 2011Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
39 Albatross It's obvious there is a health debate on the issue of corals and climate change in the literature. There's no reason that debate shouldn't be reflected on this website. Simply labelling people deniers won't work. Arkadiusz has principally been drawing our attention to published scientific work. I understand you don't like that but it doesn't make him a denier. -
hfranzen at 11:33 AM on 14 January 2011The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
Response to #78. I am sorry, but I cannot understand the point of your first paragraph. It seems to me you are confusing albedo and absorption. In GWPPT6, when I introduce the idea of a 255 K earth, I clearly state in the absence of other sources of energy at the surface. Then, a slide or two later, I erroneously attribute the difference between the average temperature (288K) and 255 K to GHG's alone. I thank you for pointing it out this error. However I make no use of the difference except to say that the goal of my effort is to find the contribution that CO2 makes to the difference, so the error has no impact on the result. As to the question about the volume of the clouds - the point we were discussing has to do with the importance of the interaction between water and CO2 and it is your caim, apparently, that water vapor interferes with the CO2 absorption in the clouds. The quantity of CO2 so effected certainly would depend upon the volume of the clouds. The overall question we are discussing is, "what is the impact of water vapor upon the absorption of infrered energy by CO2?" If there were many overlapping spectral lines from the two vapor species (What is the evidence that there are? Why would one expect there to be?) then those overlapping wavelengths would be reduced in intensity by the water vapor absorptions and the CO2 would be less of an absorber than it is on the absence of the water vapor. But that is what the calculation of #65 shows to not be the case. Of course, as I stated above, I think there is something wrong with the calculation of #65 because the numbers are completely different from what is calculated in GWPPT6. I have no way of knowing what went into the calculation of #65 - on the other hand the data and equations used in GWPPT6 are there in the open for all to see. So if you think the physics of GWPPt6 is wrong in some way show me the error and I will retire in defeat. -
archiesteel at 10:57 AM on 14 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
@yooper: "Commenters on "both sides" of debate get moderated on SkS. " I can attest to this. I have often been moderated for being to harsh in my responses to den...er, I mean, "skeptics." @pireate: You are not being singled out because of your opinion. You are being moderated because your comments are found to violate the site's policy. Take it in stride, just like the rest of us. "I believe for the most part most researchers are honest people and most likely gravitate to schools or institutions that support their beliefs and findings." That's utterly ridiculous. Good schools don't "support the beliefs" of scientists, because science isn't about belief or opinion in the first place. That kind of thinking belies your considerable bias on this subject. "The fact that there are science educated, experienced teachers (college and high school) who do not believe in the AGW theory, should cause you to at least consider their position." Not really, because their position is *always* based on the same faulty science we've been debunking for years. Simply put, contrarians have yet to come with a *single* valid argument against AGW. If you're going to go with Argument from Popularity, you should consider that 97% of publishing climate scientists support AGW theory. I'd argue you're basically saying that only 3% of climate scientists are both onest and competent. That's an extraordinary accusation, and one made without evidence. How is that not smearing the good names of thousands of hard-working scientists? -
Tom Curtis at 10:54 AM on 14 January 2011The Queensland floods
Berenyi Peter @52, if you look at the trend map for precipitation over the same period, you will see that simply taking an Australian average hides a lot of devil in the detail
In particular, the increase in average rainfall in the north of Western Australia and the Northern Territory clearly dominates the average, but that does not free Queensland and Victoria from their recent trend towards droughts in most years, nor Perth from its ongoing drought even in this wetest ever of Australian years.
-
Albatross at 10:44 AM on 14 January 2011The Queensland floods
Tom @59, You beat me to it! Thanks. -
hfranzen at 10:42 AM on 14 January 2011The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
Response to #78 in regard to #77. My use of the Planck distribution is spelled out in detail in GWPPT6. If you have read it you will have the answer to you question, which is not phrased in a way that can understand. Of course i think i used the law correctly - if I did not show me my error. -
Tom Curtis at 10:40 AM on 14 January 2011The Queensland floods
Eric, I would find this most recent graph interesting:
It clearly shows the average SST around Australia over the last decade to be 0.6 degrees C over the 1950's average, and 2010 to be 0.8 degrees C over the 1950's average. The significance is that the final datum in your second source is circa 1950. Therefore Australia's current SST's are approximately 1.8 degrees greater than the minimum at the LIA.
Given that the data from that site are for individual locations, while the Australian data is an average of all Australian waters, we would expect the Australian data to show significantly less variability (as would the data from the other site if averaged). Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that the Australian SSTs are near or at a maximum for the last 2000 years, not just the last 100 years.
Of course, as you well know, it is voodoo science to simply point to a similar range of variability and assume that therefore no explanation is required. Changes require causes, and no non-anthropogenic causes can plausibly explain the late twentieth century warming. In contrast, it is difficult to device a plausible theory of the greenhouse effect in which anthropogenic emissions do not cause warming of similar magnitude that that which we have seen.
-
hfranzen at 10:37 AM on 14 January 2011The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
Response to #80. Two points: 1. What matters to me is that the calculation (for what its worth) shows that there is neglibible decrease in the absorption as a result of adding H2O. 2. On the other hand I doubt the correctness of the calculation ca;cu;ation on which you base your numbers- see my comments above, esp. the numbers in # 77. If you have a response to my query about the numbers cited I will listen. A repeat of the same numbers (as in your #80) convinces me only that you are unable to respond to my question. -
Albatross at 10:33 AM on 14 January 2011Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
Mike G @34, Many thanks for your informative posts....thanks to you I learned something new today. That said, I am annoyed that some "skeptics" posting here tried to misinform everyone, again. They almost had me convinced....so thanks for setting the record straight. Maybe some of your information could be added to Rob's excellent post? Mike and Rob, a quick question if you don't mind. In 2001 my wife and I were on honeymoon in Mauritius and I got to do some snorkeling. The reefs were not in good shape, but I did see a stack of sea urchins. I recall reading an article recently (was is on BBC or ScienceDaily?) that sea urchins are expected to do very well compared to other species as the pH continues to lower and as the oceans warm. My question is this. In the event that bleaching and/or higher pH disrupt a coral reef, are they then also at threat from other species (such as sea urchins)moving in and out competing them? If so, that would be yet another in a long line of stressors affecting the corals. -
Paul D at 10:14 AM on 14 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
apirate I am not sure what you mean that a teachers position on a subject should be considered?? Is science about democracy?? Your story IMO doesn't add up. -
Tom Curtis at 10:09 AM on 14 January 2011The Queensland floods
kdkd @56, while most La Nina's will bring floods to Queensland somewhere, it is not common for them to bring major flooding to Brisbane without some additional factor (in the two best documented prior cases, a cyclone). Further, there is no data that suggests that warm SST cause La Nina events. If anything, globally warmer SST's tend to make El Nino events more likely. La Nina events certainly do cause higher sea surface temperatures around Australia, which leads to higher rainfall on the east coast generally, and more frequent cyclones in the tropical north and east coasts. On top of that, Global Warming (whatever the cause) has combined with the current very strong La Nina to create record high SSTs around Australia which is almost certainly a major factor in the very wet year that has been experienced by Australia, and also in the various flooding events around Australia at the moment. The fact that a La Nina is involved is why Queensland is coping it more than most. (And will continue to cop it, we can expect at least one or two major cyclones to make landfall in Queensland in the coming months, although the Northern Territory and northern West Australia will probably also cop a couple. And of cause, although a warming world will heighten the effect of La Nina events on precipitation in Australia whatever its cause, the cause is known to be Anthropogenic emmissions of green house gasses by fairly overwhelming evidence. -
Tom Curtis at 09:57 AM on 14 January 2011The Queensland floods
Michael Sweet, the 1893 floods and the 1974 floods where both caused by cyclones following on from weeks of rain. It is uncertain whether 1941 was also caused by a cyclone, and there is no record (that I know of) that it was. This may be because cyclones can cause rain hundreds of kilometers from their center (as was the case in 1893, where the cyclone crossed the coast at Yepoon) and Queensland was effectively unsettled at the time so no record was made of the cyclone. It may also be because a cyclone was not involved. -
Bob Lacatena at 09:56 AM on 14 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
100, apiratelooksat50,...should cause you to at least consider their position.
I don't consider anyone's "position." I look at facts and explanations, I study until I thoroughly understand, and then I either arrive at a conclusion (in agreement or at odds with any particular source), or else I "shelve" it in my head and wait for more information. I spent many years as a "true skeptic," in that I did not know what to believe, and so I researched each and every argument I saw, taking them each at face value. After many years of this, I began to become more and more comfortable with almost all of the information and arguments, from paleoclimate to physical and atmospheric chemistry to statistics to feedbacks and ice ages and so on. It's been enlightening, and fun, and a valuable experience. But at the very end of that long road, I found that 99.999% of the arguments against AGW are in fact smoke and mirrors. I began to be embarrassed at some of my own past doubts, and I began to look very, very carefully at any and every new magic nail that skeptics tried to hammer into the AGW coffin. Now, I barely flinch when I see the latest paper by Lindzen and Choi, or Miskolczi (lol), or the latest proclamation from anywhere. I'll eagerly read it, if I can, just for fun, just as a test to see if I can see the inevitable glaring faults. And if I fail, I just wait for those who are more experienced (and have more time) to do it. But it always, always turns out that way. But at the end of the day, my own "position" is entirely one of understanding, and I have no doubts whatsoever about almost all of the issues. This is what concerns me, because in this thread and others, you seem to present the same long (almost unending) laundry list of ill-founded doubts that float around the Internet that I now smile at (condescendingly). If your own doubts were limited to just a few of these, that would be one thing. That you repeat so many clearly fallacious arguments, and will not alter your position when presented with clear and concise discussions of facts, is concerning. I'm not putting you down. On the contrary, I'm merely trying to point out that you have come across as a closed minded individual, who is easily swayed by close-but-not-quite scientific arguments. If you are a science teacher, that is unacceptable. You must hold yourself to a higher standard. You should become a true skeptic. You should treat everyone and everything with sincere doubt, and learn until you feel you truly understand. Your level of understanding now is not adequate for a science teacher. -
kdkd at 09:49 AM on 14 January 2011The Queensland floods
michael sweet #54 It seems to be fairly that the floods are the result of a strong La Niña phenomenon caused by ... wait for it ... unutually high sea surface temperatures. -
RW1 at 09:43 AM on 14 January 2011The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
hfranzen (RE: 75), "Compare 3 and 4. If water vapor were interfereing seriously with CO2 absrption the removal of water vapor would have a greater effect than 2 parts in 60. I am very happy accepting a 3% error in my transmittance as I know this will translate into a much smaller error in the change in transmittance with increasing ppm and thus to a quite accurate calculation of the increase in flux" What matters is the amount of reduction in total increase of 2xCO2 as a result of H2O overlap. According to the numbers presented above in # 65, 2xCO2 is about 25% less with water vapor overlap (about 3.6 W/m^2 instead of about 4.8 W/m^2). That's pretty significant. -
mfripp at 09:42 AM on 14 January 2011Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
#37 Thanks. -
Rob Painting at 09:21 AM on 14 January 2011Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
mfripp @ 36 - I would expect the water equator to be hotter than the waters closer to the poles. Thus, shouldn't the thermal stress be larger closer to the equator? I imagine that's a common misunderstanding, but coral & their photosymbionts have evolved tolerance to local conditions. There is no single fixed heat tolerance threshold for all coral colonies worldwide, it varies according to the local conditions. Some are better adapted to warmer waters, but despite this they all have one feature in common - they bleach when waters warm too much above the normal summer maximum. If, for instance the waters near the equator were warming faster than anywhere else (as your scenario imagines) then yes, I expect we would see bleaching more common near the equator. The background ocean warming isn't large enough (yet) for scenarios like that to occur, instead what we are seeing is more frequent pulses of warm water welling at the sea surface, with no clear pattern of this heat distribution as yet. Modelling studies project bleaching will become more frequent and extensive as ocean temperatures rise. -
The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
co2isnotevil - "Non GHG temperature" is a Gedankenexperiment; sufficient to show that conditions would be different if something changed. Arguing about details of the hypothetical does nothing to invalidate the issue of changing the reality. -
muoncounter at 09:19 AM on 14 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
#105: "temperature appears to be leveling off" So much for the scientific method, which requires data to substantiate any hypothesis. Hypothesis: temperatures leveling off Data: the latest announcement of temperatures for 2010. Analysis: Data conflicts with results predicted by hypothesis Conclusion: Hypothesis invalid "it becomes a matter of choosing timescales to demonstrate any appreciable warming." Again, see the graph here. No choice of timescale necessary. What is your hypothesis for what makes the right-hand end of that graph so different from the rest? -
Phila at 09:14 AM on 14 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
Pirate, the paper you referenced is from 2002. That makes it almost a decade old. Can you understand how ludicrous it is to cite it as evidence that "the temperature appears to be leveling off, if not dropping"? You are not helping your credibility. -
co2isnotevil at 09:11 AM on 14 January 2011The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
hfranzen, In your paper, you claim the non GHG temperature is 255K. However, without GHG,s also infers that there are no clouds and no ice. If the oceans were not water, but something else with a similar reflectivity, the non GHG albedo would be closer to 0.1 than to 0.3. This puts the no GHG surface temperature at 271K and not 255K. Clouds and ice are part of the climates control system and in addition to warming the surface, they also reduce incident power which cools the surface. The net effect of GHG's, including water, is to increase the surface temperature from 271K to 287K not from 255K to 287K. re 76 What's important about clouds is not the volume, but the area covered between the surface and space, which on average is 66%. Absorption by the atmosphere between the surface and clouds is irrelevant if the clouds would be absorbing it anyway. re 77 Where is the peak of the average surface radiated power? From Wien's displacement Law, at 287K, it should be close to 10u. If the frequency form of Plank radiation is incorrectly converted to wavelength by scaling by c, the peak of the surface radiation will be closer to the center of the 15u CO2 line. I have seen this error in other papers which makes it appear that CO2 absorbs more than it actually does. -
Bibliovermis at 08:58 AM on 14 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
Please consider the timescales, historical changes occured over millenia while the current change is occuring over decades. Questioning is the basis of learning. Refusing to acknowledge the multiple, independent lines of empirical evidence on the basis of preconceived notions is not productive (to put it politely). As for "temperatures are leveling off if not dropping", please refer to argument #4. -
Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
apiratelooksat50 - "Can you at least understand how intelligent, educated people from around the world can question the theory of human-induced global climate change?" Yes, I can. However, I would have to qualify that as "Unfortunately, yes, I can". One of my principles is that regardless of whether or not I agree with any particular idea or position, it's important to respect why that person holds that position. Strongly felt opinions are tied to strong personal reasons, for better or worse. But - I'm not pro-AGW (as you asked earlier), I'm pro-reality. I really really really wish AGW was not the case, but all of the evidence appears to point that way. I constantly hope for someone to prove that it's a cycle, or an error in measurement, or whatever - and I'm constantly disappointed. Temperatures are going up, cherry-picking the last 4-10 years notwithstanding. CO2 levels are above any seen in the last half million years! And the change in temperature is faster than anything in the temperature records. If you disagree - provide the evidence. -
kdkd at 08:46 AM on 14 January 2011The Queensland floods
BP #52 You've done it again with your graph. Let me spell it out for you: it's worthless posting a line of best fit without also posting an assessment of whether the fit predicts better than chance (F statistic). It's also worthwhile posting the adjusted R-squared statistic to show how much variance is explained. Given the lack of power of time series correlations, your lack of diagnostic statistical analysis, your conclusion that "Australia, as a whole is definitely getting wetter on a century scale" is not justified until you do the additional work recommended above, and presented it. -
michael sweet at 08:42 AM on 14 January 2011The Queensland floods
KL: I saw somewhere else that the 1841, 1893 and 1974 floods were caused by cyclones. Is that true? In that case your argument that it is natural variation is completely off hte mark. Comparing cyclone floods to normal rainfall is apples and oranges. -
apiratelooksat50 at 08:41 AM on 14 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
"For example, we are warming far too fast to be coming out of the last ice age, and the Milankovitch cycles that drive glaciation show that we should be, in fact, very slowly going into a new ice age (but anthropogenic warming is virtually certain to offset that influence)." Regarding the statement above: It cannot be scientifically stated that "we are warming far too fast to be coming out of the last ice age." To say that, one has to have something to compare it to for it be called abnormal. We have historical temperature data that is fairly well accepted by all scientists going back hundreds of thousands of years as presented here . Any graphs generated from this data clearly show a cyclical, sharp rise in temperature followed by a more gradual lessening of temperature. Plus, the Earth is not warming rapidly. The temperature appears to be leveling off, if not dropping as referenced here . Even taking Mann's Hockey Stick Graph at face value, it becomes a matter of choosing timescales to demonstrate any appreciable warming. I could go on, but let me stop here and ask a question. Can you at least understand how intelligent, educated people from around the world can question the theory of human-induced global climate change?Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] I'm sorry, but I cannot let you go on. #1, there is no recent leveling off in the rise in global temperatures, as shown here (ENSO and transient volcanic warming removed):
#2, as far as ice core records, we clearly understand that the forces in operation during previous ice age cycles are not in play today, as summarized here:
Can you at least understand how intelligent, educated people from around the world can question your non-science-based denial of the theory of human-induced global climate change? -
Phila at 08:41 AM on 14 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
apirate: The fact that there are science educated, experienced teachers (college and high school) who do not believe in the AGW theory, should cause you to at least consider their position. We have considered it, and rejected it for very good reasons, as a perusal of the "skeptical arguments" at the upper left will reveal. As this article says, "'it's just a natural cycle' isn't just a cop-out argument - it's something that scientists have considered, studied, and ruled out long before you and I even knew what global warming was." There are also "science educated, experienced teachers (college and high school)" who argue for young-earth creationism, AIDS denialism, racialist interpretations of IQ data, and God only knows what else. To "consider their position" requires considering their position vis a vis peer-reviewed science and the evidence that supports it. Such consideration leads me naturally to the conclusion that these people are overwhelmingly likely to be cranks. And on at least some of these issues, I would hope that it leads you to that conclusion, as well. One thing "skeptics" need to explain, IMO, is why they tend to hold climate scientists to a completely different standard than other scientists. -
It's the sun
thepoodlebites - You might want to take a look at a discussion of Lindzen and Choi, as well as How sensitive is our climate, where this comment belongs (minus the circular reasoning accusation). Multiple lines of reasoning, including both model runs that accurately reproduce past climate behavior, as well as empirical evidence such as seasonal swings and historic data, all point to a sensitivity of 2 to 4.5°C, most likely 3°C. So - going with a dis-proven outlier whose results agree with "business as usual"? Or considering that a lot of very smart people agree on a particular range? Personally, I consider the former to be wishful thinking... your mileage may vary. -
muoncounter at 08:27 AM on 14 January 2011It's the sun
#783: "a wonderful example" How is this circular? Assumptions for model inputs are required to run the models. The question tested is one aspect of the model -- the change in solar activity (On the effect of a new grand min is part of the title) in the presence of other forcings. Lindzen and Choi have been dealt with elsewhere ad nauseum. Here's a bit of free advice: Don't cite a source without checking to see if its been rebutted. I learned that one the hard way, back in the days of oral exams. -
mfripp at 08:26 AM on 14 January 2011Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
#5 Rob Painting The map of reef stress does not show a correlation between stress and distance from the equator. Why not? From my naive point of view, I would expect the water equator to be hotter than the waters closer to the poles. Thus, shouldn't the thermal stress be larger closer to the equator? Or is this naive because I'm missing that there are different species of corals at different latitudes and also missing the effect of currents? -
Mike G at 08:22 AM on 14 January 2011Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
I'll ad as well that Al-Sofyani and Davies (1992) showed no relationship between temperature and growth rate for Echinopora over a range of 4 degrees C, which seriously undermines their assumption that the behavior they report in Porites is representative of most corals. -
Mike G at 08:15 AM on 14 January 2011Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
Arkadiusz, a few points- 1) The speed of recovery of the reefs after the tsunami has nothing to do with recovery following bleaching events. The two are completely dissimilar. Comparing them is like comparing the dangers of the flu to a 20 yr old athlete and an 80 yr old chemotherapy patient. In order for a reef to recover after damage, there has to be a source of corals. In the case of the tsunami there were two. Due to the patchiness of the damage, sexual recruits were able to come in from largely undamaged reefs just a few km away. Also, the corals that originally inhabited the reef weren't killed outright. They were a source of asexual fragments that grew into new colonies, just like they do after a hurricane. Many corals are actually "designed" to break this way as a means of dispersal. In contrast, following a mass bleaching event there is no fragmentation. Also, the larger geographic scale of the impacts means that it's often a huge distance to the nearest healthy reef, which means sexual recruitment will be very low. This depressed recruitment continues for several years since any corals that don't die outright spend so much energy recovering that they can't devote any to reproduction for quite some time. 2) There are several MAJOR issues with McNeil et al 2004. First of all, their prediction of increased calcification over time directly contradicts what has been observed in the field. See: Cohen et al (2008) De'ath et al (2009) Second, they assume the continuation of the trend despite evidence that it doesn't continue. A lot of the reasons that is a poor assumption are addressed by Kleypas et al, but there are others. For one, their prediction is based on the tolerance of Porites, which is probably THE single most temperature tolerant genus. There are numerous reports of it living at temperatures near 100 degrees F, which kill most other corals. On the other hand, other important genera like Acropora (which I think most people would argue is a more important constituent of Pacific reefs than Porites) is much more picky about temperatures. There are several papers comparing the tolerance of Acropora vs. Porites and other genus from Ofu Island, Samoa if you're interested. Also, they give brief lip service to the limits of adaptation, but they ignore the fact that those limits completely negate their prediction. Those corals already hosting clade D zoox are essentially already within 2 deg C of their thermal limit. There is no more temperature tolerant clade for them to switch to to adapt to hotter temps. If the temp keeps going up, they won't just adapt and keep calcifying at a higher rate- they will bleach and die. -
DSL at 08:12 AM on 14 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
Pirate: I'm worried that you're misrepresenting AGW to your students because you don't understand the theory. How do you present the radiative physics of CO2 and CH4 to your students? What other sides are they shown? I wasn't aware that there was an "other side"--a comprehensive alternative theory to AGW that explains the instrumental and proxy data. -
Gordon1368 at 07:58 AM on 14 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
@ 100 Pirate, Seriously, i would think it should be the other way around. High school teachers should consider their 'beliefs' when they realize the leading scientists of the world have thoroughly examined and tested all possibilities and have determined CO2 is the cause of rising temperatures. -
stefaan at 07:48 AM on 14 January 2011The Queensland floods
Hi all, I think that we have to be clear in what the disussion is about. When we are talking about rain (and snow) there are two important things which are not necessary connected. If we look to the annual rain worldwide Precipitation worldwide, third graph (dutch) there is not really a clear tendency (the owner of this site is the 'national' wheather man in Belgium). Next to this it is also more difficult to measure precipitation worldwide then temperatures. A second point is of course the distribution of the precipitation. 10 times 10 liter is of course the same as one time 100 liters of rain but the effect is completely different. -
John Hartz at 07:43 AM on 14 January 2011Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
Another excellent article on this topic: “Is the End in Sight for The World’s Coral Reefs?” posted on the Yale Environment 360 website. http://e360.yale.edu/feature/is_the_end_in_sight_for_the_worlds_coral_reefs_/2347/ The author of the article is J.E.N. Veron. -
muoncounter at 07:43 AM on 14 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
#100: "follow the scientific method..." I wonder if you would care to apply your own practice and examine your statement in #67, 'Of course its natural.' Particularly in the context of this post: --it's always possible that some natural cycle exists, unknown to scientists and their instruments, that is currently causing the planet to warm. --the hypothetical natural cycle would have to explain the observed "fingerprints" of greenhouse gas-induced warming, along with the arguments against 'natural cycles' in the following paragraphs.
Prev 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 Next
