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:
-
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. -
hfranzen at 04:18 AM on 14 January 2011The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
Response to #71. If your interest is in weather rather than climate the effect of clouds in the area for which the weather is considered is highly important, But for climate change calculations it is the earth-year average that matters - in fact for what we are discussing it is the change in the earth-year average that is relevant. Even if water aborptions within clouds interfere significantly with CO2 absorptions the clouds occupy only a fraction of volume in which IR interacts with CO2. What is required is a demonstration that on the earth-year average such interferences significantly effects not just the transmittance of the atmosphere but the change in that quantity. Finally, once again, it seems to me highly relevant that the earth-year average increase in GHG flux calculated in GWPPT6 matches what is observed. -
Bob Lacatena at 03:53 AM on 14 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
94, JMurphy, This is a major difference in the skeptic vs. scientific point of view. Self proclaimed skeptics focus on "which side are you on", "it's a belief/religion," "you're a fanatic/warmist/alarmist". It's labels and names and positions, as if it were a debate... because that's what it is to them, a debate to be won to be won or lost for a prize, rather than a problem/mystery to be understood and solved. What I find so disheartening is that some visitors to this site seem to be intractably wedded to their own ideas and beliefs, gathered from bastions of "knowledge" like WUWT and appinsys. There is no room there for a science teacher to learn anymore science, or to adjust his position based on new evidence or a new, better understanding of old evidence. Which is sad in itself -- that anyone has a "position" to be guarded and defended, rather than an understanding to be improved and corrected as necessary. -
hfranzen at 03:44 AM on 14 January 2011The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
Response to #68.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 -
Philippe Chantreau at 03:44 AM on 14 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
apirateslook, Deception, dishonesty and ineptitude are routinely pointed out on this site when they can be substantially demonstrated, as in the series Pr Abraham did on Monckton. The individual shows all the qualities you mention, there is no reason to call them other names. Quite frequently, posters show similar qualities, as with the person who recently put forth the theory that, if CO2 was really increasing, atmospheric pressure should be increasing too. Not too long ago, someone suggested that albedo was a year round factor at the pole. Why would I not accuse that poster of ineptitude (which, by the way, I refrained to do)? Some "skeptic" web site contending that CO2 could deposit as carbonic snow in Antarctica was also called what it is. There is no apology justified for calling out BS. Should we be politically correct and say that it may be caca from a male cow? "Skeptics" routinely suggest fraud and deception even on this site where moderation is quite vigilant on the matter. Moderators routinely have to remind them of the comments policy but also refrain from deleting delinquant posts if they contain substance that can be of interest. I have myself been subjected to torrents of verbal abuse from a guy who could not even understand the legend of a graph. Skeptic posters who accuse others of fraud routinely fail to follow up on their accusations with any substance. Other skeptics have a tendency to misrepresent research results and have been called on it a number of times. Sometimes it is so blatant that one has to wonder if they bother to even read a full abstract. Yet they are still allowed to post. Please... -
JMurphy at 03:14 AM on 14 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
apiratelooksat50 wrote : "I understand that this is a pro-AGW site..." I would like to add my own sense of bewilderment at the term "pro-AGW" - it seems to imply that most people here are for AGW and want it to happen ! Nothing could be further from the truth. If you are implying that this site is biased, then I would agree : it is biased towards scientific truth, based on facts, figures and evidence. And that is why many so-called skeptics don't like it. That, and the fact that they cannot come on here and spout their zombie arguments willy-nilly, or diverge debate onto their own favourite topics of conspiracy and fraud. This is the only site where you don't have to wade through reams of political and idealogical waffle based on belief in anything as long as it's not AGW. If you, or anyone else who thinks that they KNOW that AGW isn't happening, can come up with a convincing argument based on facts (i.e. not wishful thinking, what ifs, or poorly-based hypotheses - whatever the current one is this month), why don't you ? Many have tried and failed so far... -
Philippe Chantreau at 03:13 AM on 14 January 2011Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
Mc Neil et al 2004 says "our analysis suggests annual average coral reef calcification rate will increase with future ocean warming and eventually exceed pre-industrial rates ..." Well, the actual number of bleaching events and the actual overall decline of reefs is measurable only 4 years after that paper. Perhaps their analysis is wrong. -
Tom Curtis at 03:08 AM on 14 January 2011The Queensland floods
Ken Lambert, the figures you cite for the earlier floods are from the port office, while the figure for the 2011 flood is from the City Guage. At the City Guage, 1974 peaked at 5.05 meters, while 1841 and 1893 peaked at a little over 8 meters. Given that the Somerset Dam held back a volume of water equivalent to Sydney Harbour in 1974, and that Wivenhoe and Somerset between them held back a volume of water equivalent to 2.65 times the volume of Sydney Harbour; it is apparent that 1974 would have been comparable to 1893 without Somerset, and 2011 would have exceded 1974 without Wivenhoe. It may well have exceded 1893 without both Wivenhoe and Somerset. Further, the events in Brisbane are not the most unusual aspect of these floods. Rather, the unprecedented flooding in Toowoomba (with no even partially equivalent experience since 1850) and the Lockyer Valley are far more unusual. So also are the multiple new (absolute) records set for river heights in the Darling Downs, not to mention the repeated flooding with Dalby coping five floods in three weeks. Further, the extent of Queensland flooded has set a new record, smashing the previous record which was set in March of 2010. Just looking at Brisbane, and ignoring the effect of the dams (and the extensive artificial dranage system) when you do that is extraordinarilly myopic. This does not prove it is not simply natural variation. But if it is, it sets a new measured extreme for natural variation. And it just happens to coincide with the warmest sea surface temperatues in Australian waters on record. Further, pretending that there is not overwelhming evidence for anthropogenic global warming as the back drop to this event involves even more myopia than your survey of Queensland floods. -
Albatross at 03:00 AM on 14 January 2011Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
Two words: "Cumulative impacts" -
DSL at 02:59 AM on 14 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
Pirate, what does "pro-AGW" mean? It is a bizarre term. If your purpose is simply to be a "critic" of the theory, then you are useless and lack integrity toward your fellow and future fellow human beings (a strange position for a teacher). If your purpose is to be a critic of the theory and actually learn something from the response you get, then you're ok. You also know--or should know, being a teacher--that there are dishonest people in the world--dishonest with others and with themselves. There are people who are willing to lie or express disbelief in the face of overwhelming evidence ("I am not a crook" or "we weren't aware that tobacco was a carcinogen" etc. ad nauseum) in order to maintain power. There is much at stake in climate change, and you're pretty ignorant if you believe that there isn't massive resistance to lifestyle and social change in the developed world--the kind of resistance that would seek out any alternative reality that would allow "business as usual." Yes, people who are defending the theory here have encountered a number of these delusional folk and have registered disgust. You can defend those "critics" if you wish, but remember that very few of them--if any--have an alternative theory to defend. Most are out there hoping to poke a hole and win a prize. This thread, in fact, represents one of the few places to look for an alternative theory: natural cycles. Yet the very science that tells us that there are natural cycles (science that "critics" trust) also tells us that we should be cooling (an unacceptable conclusion to those same "critics"). -
Bob Lacatena at 02:59 AM on 14 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
apiratelooksat50 said this:Within my high school science department numbering 10, every teacher has at least one Master's degree, and 2 of them have PhD's. During our last departmental meeting, the subject of AGW came up. Of the 10, 1 person was pro-AGW, 2 were lukewarm, and 7 were strongly anti-AGW.
This scares the daylights out of me. Educated science teachers are still confused and disoriented, and at the same time arrogant enough in their own knowledge to think they can justifiably refute/deny what is happening, and why. And they are inevitably teaching this to the kids. Pirate's lack of depth of understanding and misunderstanding of the science and how it fits together (as evidenced by his numerous recent posts on multiple threads here), combined with an obvious unwillingness to ever learn and admit where he is wrong, points to how vulnerable certain minds are to the skeptical "arguments." Even people who are educated, and trained in the scientific method (teaching it, or their version of it, to young minds!), who should be able to be rational, and to collect and understand cohesive logical arguments, can't come close to doing so. It's scary. Pirate: what part of the country do you live in? I'm just wondering if we can expect this to be a regional effect (e.g. coal or oil country, where people so desperately want to believe that AGW is not a problem), or if we have to worry that much of the country is this dangerously confused. -
Albatross at 02:56 AM on 14 January 2011The Queensland floods
KL, First and foremost-- sorry yo hear about the flooding Ken, good to read that you managed to keep the waters at bay. "As you all know, AGW officially started around 1975-80, so the 1974 and 1893 events (and those back to 1841) were free of CO2GHG induced extreme event effects." This argument is akin to saying, "well it has been as warm or warmer in the past, so...." The hydrological cycle is accelerating, and extremes in precipitation such as the flooding in Queensland are consistent with that. Also, this event should be considered in the context of the multiple extreme flooding events across the globe in recent years. And as John has pointed out, observations have shown that (globally) extreme precipitation events are already on the rise, and this is still relatively early on in the AGW/ACC story. Also, the increase in weather-related disasters flooding is reflected in Munich Re insurance numbers. But I'm sure that some conspiracy theorists would argue that Munich Re too are part of this alleged grand global conspiracy. Interestingly for some time now I have been telling people that those in denial about AGW will still be making excuses to convince themselves that there it is a non issue, even when they are standing knee-deep in water (in that case I'm referring to sea-level rise). I say that in jest, but perhaps it is more accurate than I intended..... "I guess the history lesson here is that big floods in Brisbane (and elsewhere in Queensland) might just be 'natural variation' in the climate system. Indeed, but nowadays (and especially in the future) with a generous shot/boost of latent energy thanks to higher SSTs and higher PWV contents. -
Anne-Marie Blackburn at 02:51 AM on 14 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
apiratelooksat50 The problem you have is that if the scientists you mention base their assertions on 'beliefs', they would very quickly be found out. The fact remains that there is no competing theory to explain current warming. On one hand we have a theory which has made predictions that have been verified and which is supported by a large body of independent evidence from many disciplines. On the other, we have no competing theory, only a few hypotheses which are not supported by available data. You and others may well think that ACC is wrong but you have failed to support this with evidence, and you have failed to provide evidence that strongly suggests that another mechanism is responsible. If I have to choose between experts who dedicate their working lives to understand current climate change, with a theory that makes sense and is supported by evidence, or people who simply claim the theory is wrong without substantiating their position, I know who I think is more likely to be correct. I'm surprised that any scientist would think that there's no problem with a lack of evidence. -
Daniel Bailey at 02:40 AM on 14 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
Re: my-Buffett-favoring-friend (89) For the record, Skeptical Science is a pro-science website. If you find that SkS comes across as a "pro-AGW" website, then that speaks as to your mindset. Commenters on "both sides" of debate get moderated on SkS. I have gone back in afterwards, after introspection, and deleted comments of my own. In the heat of debate, which is part and parcel of the peer-review process in science, words are sometimes said with meaning beyond that which we intended. That's being human. Moderation is done to keep the focus on the science (moderators are human too - needing sleep - and sometimes miss things). And it's OK to disagree with someone here and even say that they're wrong, but then the onus is on you to provide substantive linked sources to help them learn why you think that they're wrong (just keep in mind the Comments Policy and stay on-topic). We're here to learn (even me). If you feel the science discussed is "pro-AGW" it is then incumbent on you to provide sourced peer-reviewed testimony to the contrary. In order to overturn established consensus, which AGW has in the scientific community, you will need to provide extraordinary evidence. If you can find it, please provide it, for I and the others here have no wish for AGW to be real. For the most part, I find "skeptics" commenting here are honest people, gravitating to thoughts and ideas that support their beliefs. The age-old conundrum: Plot the data first...or draw the graph? The Yooper -
Mila at 02:18 AM on 14 January 2011Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
#24 I have a slight problem with the link: if you read "Prior to this research project, it was virtually impossible to predict the environmental impacts of climate change on coral reefs because the behavior of corals and their nutrient-providing algae counterparts, known as symbionts, was virtually unknown. This research generated data that allowed scientists to develop a powerful understanding of coral-symbiont responses to environmental change, which in turn will allow researchers to better plan conservation strategies in the face of climate change." and you see e.g. : Landscape ecology of algal symbionts creates variation in episodes of coral bleaching Nature 388, 265-269 (17 July 1997) or FLEXIBILITY AND SPECIFICITY IN CORAL-ALGAL SYMBIOSIS: Diversity, Ecology, and Biogeography of Symbiodinium' doi: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.34.011802.132417 (free access fro several sources: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=16894006531084091420 I would almost suspect that something was known already 10 years ago -
apiratelooksat50 at 02:17 AM on 14 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
To the moderator (Daniel Bailey) 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. For the record, I was not implying dishonesty on their part. 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.
Moderator Response:[DB] Inflammatory and ideology snipped.
-
Mila at 01:55 AM on 14 January 2011Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
#22 I am a PhD chemist by training but as it is outside of my field I am unable to appreciate the details - papers which I have read about isotope measurements as proxies of the past make sense to my general experience unfortunately, as soon as you reject isotope (and other) proxies as an indirect evidence we will have to wait till the first prototype of a time machine - which may take some time - especially to prove it really did work :) -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 01:49 AM on 14 January 2011Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
I think these assumptions to work on an adaptation of corals in the “warmer world”, are very interesting and could change the preliminary conclusions contained therein.
Prev 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 Next
