Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 Next
Comments 98751 to 98800:
-
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. -
thepoodlebites at 07:41 AM on 14 January 2011It's the sun
#781: When you get a chance, please fix the link to the original paper Feulner and Rahmstorf. Let's see, assume a minimal response to reduced solar irradiance (0.025 C), an enhanced response to CO2 doubling (3.4 C), plug these assumptions into the CLIMBER-3a model, and the model results support the assumptions. This result is a faulty form of reasoning that assumes the conclusions in the premises, i.e., circulus in probando. Thank you for such a wonderful example of circular reasoning in climate science. Not to mention that irradiance variations in the UV are not represented. And what is the uncertainty in the temperature predictions? Let's be reasonable, the atmospheric response to CO2 doubling may be (0.5 C), See Lindzen and Choi. Even the lower range of the IPCC CO2 doubling (2 C) is too high. Talk about over-forecasting. What do they say in meteorology? I think that your forecast is a bust. -
apiratelooksat50 at 07:31 AM on 14 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
To Sphaeica @ 92. 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. And, for the record, I do not teach my students my beliefs. I teach them to think. They are equally exposed to all sides, theories and evidence. They can just as easily make an A regardless of which position they take as long as they follow the scientific method and the provided rubric. I live in the southeastern US, and my power is generated from hydroelectric and nuclear sources. I really don't believe I know anyone associated with coal or oil. -
apiratelooksat50 at 07:19 AM on 14 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
Mr. Bailey @ 90 Very reasonable, very centered, very sound advice. I will take it to heed. Thanks P.S. You should purchase the Buffett Live in Anquilla CD. Best in a long time. -
hfranzen at 06:52 AM on 14 January 2011The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
Response to #65. I have yet to receive from any quarter any criticism of the generalization of Beer's Law to the case of diffuse broad-band scattering in GWPPT6, nor given, the acceptance of the physics used by the top experts in atmospheric radiation (e.g. Nuo-Nan Liou in "An Intro. to Atmospheric Physics) am I likely to. Therefore I conclude that my calculation of the GHG effect of CO2 in the absence of any possible interference from water vapor should be the same as anyone elses. I am therefore at a loss to explain why I get from the equations of GWPPT6 from CO2 at 560 ppm a GHG flux of 53.8 W/sq. m. (an absorbance of 107.6 W/sq. m.) whereas #65 reports 31.55 w/sq.m. and 63.1 w/sq. m. for the same fluxes both in the absence of water vapor. Please explain. -
Berényi Péter at 06:48 AM on 14 January 2011The Queensland floods
#49 Michael Hauber at 12:15 PM on 13 January, 2011 rainfall trends for Australia are uncertain No, they're not. Australia, as a whole is definitely getting wetter on a century scale.
Average precipitation over the continent has increased since 1900 by some 20%. Of course it says nothing about the spatial and seasonal distribution of precipitation, but the notion droughts are getting more severe on average is certainly a false one.
Even this increase is not uniform. Most of it happened in a single step of some +66 mm (15%) in 1973, and this level is more or less maintained since then. Interannual variation is huge, but it was always this way in Australia.
It strongly suggests an abrupt climate shift in the first half of the 1970s, which is consistent with what we know about other parts of the globe. Perhaps ocean currents got rearranged a bit around that time, but unfortunately we didn't have our current advanced measurement systems in place to collect data during the event.
It's extremely unlikely the phenomenon has anything to do with CO2, as levels were just 328 ppmv back then and they've increased by 19% in the last 38 years, apparently with no additional influence on interannual Australian precipitation patterns.
Nevertheless I'm weeping for the dead and homeless, even if they're not victims of some man made climate disruption, just cruel weather.
-
Rob Painting at 06:48 AM on 14 January 2011Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
30 - Mfripp - Climate change is yet another environmental stressor, however I worry that global climate change is getting all of the blame No need to worry, it's not something that is neglected in research. If you start reading the peer-reviewed literature you'll see that the overwhelming majority of coral scientists are at pains to point this out. Quite a few of the studies I link to in the rebuttal are the full papers at PLoS One, and full copies of all bar one or two, papers are freely available online. The connection between warm water and bleaching is very well established now, just keep tabs on the NOAA Coral Reefwatch site and see how that plays out on the Great Barrier Reef and parts of the Coral Triangle. -
Mila at 06:07 AM on 14 January 2011Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
#30 The future of coral reefs doi: 10.1073/pnas.091092998 PNAS May 8, 2001 vol. 98 no. 10 5419-5425 ; free access: wortwhile reading Conclusion In the face of so many unknowns, qualitative analogies can provide an important complement to quantitative analyses. For this reason I close with the concept of the straw that broke the camel's back. No single straw “causes” ecological collapse; collapse is difficult to predict based on the response of the camel to earlier straws, but once collapse occurs, the camel does not return to its feet when the last straw is removed. The recent history of coral reefs suggests that collapse is not impossible, and indeed, that we may be closer to worldwide collapse than we realize. Moreover, the weight of the straws is likely to be multiplicative rather than additive because of negative synergistic effects between different types of stressors. Crippled coral reefs, like crippled camels, provide many fewer services, and they can be prohibitively expensive to repair (115). Although reefs are more likely than camels to recover unaided, having come and gone and come again throughout the history of life, it is likely to be a very slow process, and we may not be around to see true reefs when they do return. -
mfripp at 05:57 AM on 14 January 2011Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
How does one separate the impact of climate change from the impact of habitat damage? On the MesoAmerican Reef (aka Cancun area), the coral death seems to be correlated with the proximity to resorts. Coral off of Playa del Carmen is dead. Protected reef near the smaller town of Puerto Morolos is living. Climate change is yet another environmental stressor, however I worry that global climate change is getting all of the blame. The effects of habitat destruction gets lost. This allows local communities to effectively "pass the blame" away from their local environment. -
Phila at 05:01 AM on 14 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
apirate: I understand that this is a pro-AGW site, so I should not be surprised that it is quite okay to make accusations of deception, dishonesty, and ineptitude about critics of the theory (scientists and non-scientists). Comments like that are present in this thread and others on this site. To be fair, some of these accusations are unavoidable. For instance, cherrypicking is deceptive by definition, and it only occurs when people are being inept, dishonest or both. There's not really a "polite" way of pointing this out. At the same time, though, cherrypicking is demonstrable; we can prove it. It's not a matter of sheer speculation, like your theory about some migration of "pro-AGW" climate scientists to schools that "support their beliefs," or the other forms of situational ad hominem that "skeptics" favor when trying to cast doubt on the credibility of climate scientists. I've had plenty of comments moderated out. I've always understood why, and attempted to learn from it. I see no grounds for complaint. The "skeptics" here are generally allowed to post reams of ineffable nonsense day after day, and to ignore repeated rebuttals and requests for evidence. That behavior is insulting enough, without bringing political or personal slurs into the picture. All anyone's really asking is for you to show your work. That's been the case on this thread, and on other threads. Don't simply assert that warming is natural. Instead, explain why it's natural, and why human CO2 emissions aren't a serious problem, and back your case up with facts. If you can do this, you won't need to call people incompetent or deceptive; your work will speak for itself. If you can't, you're wasting your time and ours. -
RickG at 05:01 AM on 14 January 2011Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
#2 In the McNeil 2004 reference I noticed that there were 13 citations to that paper. I may be wrong, but every one I was able to check seemed to suggest that calcification would decrease due to increasing acidification of the oceans. Well, except maybe the two citations by McNeil himself. -
Eric (skeptic) at 04:57 AM on 14 January 2011The Queensland floods
The SST records may have come from something like this source http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/climate/change/20110105.shtml showing a rise of from about -0.5 to 0.5 over a century. That fits nicely into figure 2 in http://home.badc.rl.ac.uk/mjuckes/mitrie_files/docs/mitrie_sediment_marine.pdf which shows a natural range of about -1 to +1 in the past 2000 years. Whether or not the current SSTs are AGW (or partly AGW), they are within the natural range. -
hfranzen at 04:38 AM on 14 January 2011Seawater Equilibria
Respons to #72: I hope I'm not that pessimistic. However so far as the surface ocean is concerned I believe we should alert people to the fact that, unlke many of the unwise things we humans do, the production of CO2 has an effect that is like a runaway semi - very hard to stop and reverse. I cannot say how hard (I could if I knew what fraction of the ocean surface will equilibrate with the atmosphere on the relevant time scale) but I can say that we should all be aware that the exsolution of carbon dioxide from the oceans will occur and if we wait to act until many are suffering ill effects we will have many years (decades? years?) of suffering before relief comes (if at all). Those who deny the observed and calculated reality without knowledge or wisdom will bear a heavy burden of guilt if they are wrong, and there is every reason to believe that they are. -
Phila at 04:24 AM on 14 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
I would like to add my own sense of bewilderment at the term "pro-AGW" Ditto. apirate's term is meaningless, unless one treats it as an accusation of some hidden agenda, be it one-world government or whatever. I'm sure that if AGW turned out to be much less serious than scientists say it is, or wrong altogether, everyone here would be ecstatic. No one wants to see this stuff happen. In the meantime, I think it's safe to say that you can't be taken seriously as a "skeptic" unless you actually understand the theory you claim to doubt. Comments like "AGW doesn't explain previous warming and cooling," and absolutely evidence-free references to "natural warming," demonstrate that apirate is someone who has not yet learned enough about the theory to have a valid opinion one way or another. Presumably, if one of apirate's students stood up in class and announced that the nitrogen cycle is a hoax, he'd demand an explanation and evidence. Some of apirate's statements here are equally bizarre, and require an equal amount of extraordinary evidence. It puzzles me that he doesn't seem to realize this.
Prev 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 Next
