Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 Next
Comments 98801 to 98850:
-
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. -
Mila at 01:49 AM on 14 January 2011Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
Recovery from bleaching: Climate change and coral reef bleaching: An ecological assessment of long-term impacts, recovery trends and future outlook - seems to be well cited and as I skimmed trough readable(free copy: ftp://www.grdl.noaa.gov/pub/coral/Climate_Change_Resources/Baker_ECSS08.pdf ) a few general bits: Pacific or the Arabian Gulf, where some reefs are recovering and others are not. The majority of survivors and new recruits on regenerating and recovering coral reefs have originated from broadcast spawning taxa with a potential for asexual growth, relatively long distance dispersal, successful settlement, rapid growth and a capacity for framework construction. Whether or not affected reefs can continue to function as before will depend on: (1) how much coral cover is lost, and which species are locally extirpated; (2) the ability of remnant and recovering coral communities to adapt or acclimatize to higher temperatures and other climatic factors such as reductions in aragonite saturation state; (3) the changing balance between reef accumulation and bioerosion; and (4) our ability to maintain ecosystem resilience by restoring healthy levels of herbivory, macroalgal cover, and coral recruitment. Bleaching disturbances are likely to become a chronic stress in many reef areas in the coming decades, and coral communities, if they cannot recover quickly enough, are likely to be reduced to their most hardy or adaptable constit- uents. Some degraded reefs may already be approaching this ecological asymptote, although to date there have not been any global extinctions of individual coral species as a result of bleaching events. The number of coral reef bleaching reports, driven principally by episodic increases in sea temperature, has increased dramatically since the early 1980s (Glynn, 1993; Hoegh-Guldberg, 1999; Hughes et al., 2003; Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007). Many of these events, and recovery from them, have now been studied over decadal scales. The frequency and scale of coral bleaching events during the past few decades have been unprecedented, with hundreds of reef areas exhibiting bleaching at some point, and, on occasion, whole ocean basins affected. Consequently, much has been written about as the WorldFish Center, NOAA, and GBRMPA. The occurrence of mass bleaching events correlates well with observed increases in global sea temperatures, and particularly thermal anomalies. This relationship was clearly observed in the Caribbean basin during the 1980s and 1990s, when annual coral bleaching increased logarithmically with SST anomalies (McWil- liams et al., 2005). A 0.1 C rise in regional SST resulted in a 35% increase in the number of areas that reported bleaching, and mass bleaching events occurred at regional SST anomalies of 0.2 C and above (Fig. 2). Bleaching within affected regions is not uniform, exhibiting patchy affects over micro (mm to cm) to meso (km) scales. Such variability results from fluctuations in environmental -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 01:37 AM on 14 January 2011Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
@ Mila Agreed - very, very initially we know („... it has been suggested ...”). I know this papers. Just please do not show the "acidification" hockey stick - because it was made from a combination of work, which should not - you can not connect - so has been "overwhelming" to criticism. -
Mila at 01:35 AM on 14 January 2011Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
I knew that I had seen something about coral bleaching in AR4 :) Box 6.1. Environmental thresholds and observed coral bleaching 6.2.1 Natural coastal systems -
JMurphy at 01:28 AM on 14 January 2011Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
Arkadiusz Semczyszak wrote : "We do not know (even tentative) what was the pH of the ocean - as varied - from 420 thousand. years (when it was probably similar to that now) - for this you just have to admit." Luckily, some people are and have been trying to do just that : Here we use the boron-isotope ratios of ancient planktonic foraminifer shells to estimate the pH of surface-layer sea water throughout the past 60 million years, which can be used to reconstruct atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations over the past 60 million years Paul N. Pearson & Martin R. Palmer Data here HumanityRules, the IPCC was set up "...by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) as an effort by the United Nations to provide the governments of the world with a clear scientific view of what is happening to the world's climate." The fact that so-called skeptics or deniers don't like the answers, is the only reason for such 'binary discussion' under 'post-normal conditions' - whatever that latter means. -
Marco at 01:25 AM on 14 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
Arkadiusz, Glassman already rejects the CO2 increase to be anthropogenic. His argumentation is completely obscure, so why should we put any merit in his other ideas? You know what, I challenge YOU to find errors (or major questionmarks) in his work. It's not that hard. You can start with thinking about the TSI reconstruction he uses. Also keep in mind the way he frames his own 'discoveries' compared to prior literature. Try to be a skeptic yourself, and then come back. You will learn from that experience. One thing you will learn is why 'we' so rapidly dismiss blog posts like those of Jeffrey Glassman. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 01:21 AM on 14 January 2011Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
@JMurphy Your link is mainly about the recovery of reefs around Indonesia after the tsunami of 2004, not about how 'well' reefs in general are doing under AGW conditions. Of course it is! I did it intentionally. The tsunami destroyed some of the reefs in 99% the years (I mean the living components). I have not heard that until such damages have "bleaching" of the 1997/8 and 2005. So if the reef quickly recover after the Tsunami ...Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Please refrain from being intentionally off-topic. Thanks! -
Mila at 01:21 AM on 14 January 2011Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
#17 "We do not know (even tentative) what was the pH of the ocean" e.g. Foraminiferal boron isotope ratios as a proxy for surface ocean pH over the past 21 Myr Nature 363, 149 - 151 (13 May 1993); doi:10.1038/363149a0 or Evidence for a higher pH in the glacial ocean from boron isotopes in foraminifera Nature 373, 234 - 236 (19 January 1995); doi:10.1038/373234a0 :) -
apiratelooksat50 at 01:20 AM on 14 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
Phila @ 75: Yes, I really am an environmental science teacher. Yes, I've talked to my colleagues both at the high school level, and at the collegiate level where I will soon be working as an adjunct instructor. Yes, I've gone to the library. 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. The pro-AGW teacher has multiple degrees in Physics, Chemistry, and Engineering, but his answer to why he was pro-AGW was, "With all the CO2 we've put in the atmosphere, there has to be something going on." I don't quote that to trivialize him, we are actually very good friends and collaborate on numerous projects and I value his insight, but he "wants to believe". I would love to post a link to a project my class did with his help, but the possible actions of some extremists worry me (I've actually received death threats on another site that isn't moderated!). To the Moderator: is there anyway I can get a Powerpoint presentation posted on here without linking to a school website? A friend of mine who recently graduated with a Master's degree in Environmental Systems Engineering, to go along with his Master's degree in Biology, is now a professor at a small college. Not one single person in the science separtment at his college buys into the AGW theory. However, to be fair, virtually everyone in the science department at the university where he received his degree were supporters of AGW. ( -edit- ).Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] You were almost done and then you make insinuations in violation of the Coments Policy. Accusations of deception and dishonesty, even implied in comments like yours, are quite insulting. Also, please ponder on the difference between a hypothesis and theory. AGW is a theory, and as such is regarded by the National Academies as being more than 90% responsible for the warming of the globe, which they regard as settled fact. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 01:06 AM on 14 January 2011Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
I think we will wait to talk to the new work - papers. The basic flaw of most (if not all) current work - the pros and cons - if it comes to the impact of CO2, temperature on the coral - it is too short a period of research, experiment (lack of repeatability - the results). We do not know (even tentative) what was the pH of the ocean - as varied - from 420 thousand. years (when it was probably similar to that now) - for this you just have to admit. ... and writes about it often, eg, Professor J. Gattusso - a great supporter of the negative effects of decline in calcification of the ocean - for the corals - as a result of emissions ACO2 - so we can probably believe him. In addition, You remember about this that: coral reefs: „While initial surveys immediately following the tsunami showed patchy (albeit devastating) damage to coral reefs in the region, surveys in 2005 indicated that many of the dead reefs in the study area had actually succumbed long ago to destructive fishing practices such as the use of dynamite and cyanide to catch fish. It is also possible that the crown of thorns starfish—a marine predator—had caused widespread coral mortality.” And with that - first of all - we should fight. -
HumanityRules at 00:59 AM on 14 January 2011Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
12 JMurphy I'm not sure it's just the skeptics that have turned this into a binary discussion. It could be argued that the existence of the IPCC has generated the post-normal conditions. Ifyoudon't believe this is an adverserial process by both sides look at Rob Painting use of language in #10. "Rebuttal" is that the normal way forward in science? Arkadiusz Semczyszak posted a link to a paper in #9 in fact you can get it as a PDF which contains a comment and reply to the comment. The discussion obviously is health. McNeil et al 2004, comment and reply -
Mila at 00:35 AM on 14 January 2011Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
#12 an excellent Gavin's RealClimate article: Unsettled Science seems to be particularly relevant -
cynicus at 00:31 AM on 14 January 2011Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
A few video presentations for anyone interested in Corals and their future in a warming, polluted and acidifying ocean. Charlie Veron at the Royal Society Rob Dunbar at TED Jeremy Jackson at TED Note, among other things, Charlie Veron saying that coral bleeching occurred only occasionally and very localized before 1980. -
JMurphy at 00:14 AM on 14 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
Arkadiusz Semczyszak, could you provide some of Glassman's peer-reviewed papers on the subject of 'solar variety' and what qualification he has that lead you to treat him as an expert that you highlight above others ? -
HumanityRules at 00:14 AM on 14 January 2011Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
What's the chance the present floods in Queensland are going to impact the Great Barrier Reef? I know in the past great influxes of fresh water have caused bleaching events. -
JMurphy at 00:07 AM on 14 January 2011Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
Arkadiusz Semczyszak wrote on Could global warming be caused by natural cycles? : "About these facts there is nothing in the article commented by me - only the corals are dying as a result of warming and the decline in calcification of the ocean. Well ... I can not help that the world of science is so divided - in terms of impact of the reduced calcification and warming of the oceans on the corals." Your link is mainly about the recovery of reefs around Indonesia after the tsunami of 2004, not about how 'well' reefs in general are doing under AGW conditions. A quote within the link states : These findings provide new insights into coral recovery processes that can help us manage coral reefs in the face of climate change. And, as Mila shows, there is plenty to discuss (and being discussed) among the relevant experts but I would hardly call them 'divided'. I realise so-called skeptics like to proclaim that there are two sides to AGW (the science and the so-called skeptics/those in denial), in the same way that Creationists do about evolution, but the reality is far, far different. As one of the studies referred to by Mila states : However, reefs will change rather than disappear entirely, with some species already showing far greater tolerance to climate change and coral bleaching than others. -
Mila at 23:56 PM on 13 January 2011Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
#8 in my opinion anything which provides facts about the situation from reliable sources from variable perspectives is very helpful in communicating to public :) I personally consider the coral situation as a case of great concern and knowledge of possible natural responses as a key part to understanding of the phenomena. -
Ken Lambert at 23:44 PM on 13 January 2011The Queensland floods
Original Post It seems that a hot spot of climate science interest is located here in Queensland (John Cook et al..) Having been occupied in successfully sandbagging my business in the last 48 hours to see the flood peak pass at the Port Office at 4.5m at 4.00am this morning, I was prompted to look for the 1974 flood (pre-Wivenhoe dam) information; The official BOM report is here: http://www.bom.gov.au/hydro/flood/qld/fld_reports/brisbane_jan1974.pdf A relevant quotation: "Meteorological studies suggest that rainfalls well in excess of those recorded in the floods of 1893 and 1974 are possible. Therefore it seems certain that unless major flood mitigation schemes, such as the proposed Wivenhoe Dam, are implemented, floods even greater than those of 1974 will again be experienced in Brisbane." 1974 flood peak was 6.6m and in 1893 there were two floods at 9.51 and 9.24m. Now there are changes to the hydrology of the river since those dates - but the magnitude of those events (particularly 1893) still far exceeds those of the current event in Brisbane. 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. 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. If this applies to Brisbane and Queensland - one fails to see why this conclusion would not apply generally. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:32 PM on 13 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
Website is called the “Skeptical Science” - "skeptical" to analyze the variability of solar activity by Glassman - should be subject to criticism-here shown any errors. -
Rob Painting at 23:26 PM on 13 January 2011Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
Arkadiusz - working on the coral calcification rebuttal at the moment. Let's just say the study is seriously flawed - the authors ignoring the effects of bleaching on coral in warmer water doesn't really get them off to a good start does it?. We can discuss it when the appropriate rebuttal is out, if you wish. Might be a week or so. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:13 PM on 13 January 2011Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
Coral reef calcification and climate change: The effect of ocean warming. McNeil, Matear and Barnes, 2004.: Sorry for the sentence in Polish in the middle - it should be like this: “Our analysis suggests that annual average coral reef calcification rate will increase with future ocean warming and eventually exceed pre-industrial rates by about 35% by 2100. Our results suggest that present coral reef calcification rates are equivalent to levels in the late 19th century and does not support previous suggestions of large and potentially catastrophic decreases in the future.” -
Rob Painting at 23:08 PM on 13 January 2011Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
Mila, I don't consider coral scientists discussing "resilience" is particularly helpful in communicating to the public, how serious a problem this is. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:03 PM on 13 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
... Oh, no - sorry : it's actually about corals ... Please read carefully all the work I have cited: 4 Years After Tsunami Corals Stage Comeback, 2008.: „While initial surveys immediately following the tsunami showed patchy (albeit devastating) damage to coral reefs in the region, surveys in 2005 indicated that many of the dead reefs in the study area had actually succumbed long ago to destructive fishing practices such as the use of dynamite and cyanide to catch fish. It is also possible that the crown of thorns starfish—a marine predator—had caused widespread coral mortality.” About these facts there is nothing in the article commented by me - only the corals are dying as a result of warming and the decline in calcification of the ocean. Well ... I can not help that the world of science is so divided - in terms of impact of the reduced calcification and warming of the oceans on the corals. -
Mila at 22:47 PM on 13 January 2011Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
A few years ago IUCN published report: Coral Reef Resilience and Resistance to Bleaching http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/2006-042.pdf in Web of Science: http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/MF99078.htm (doi: 10.1071/MF99078 - free access ) and http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;301/5635/929 ( http://myweb.dal.ca/br238551/scienceandcorals.pdf for a free copy) doi: 10.1126/science.1085046 have the highest citation count (in hundreds) -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 22:44 PM on 13 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
@dhogaza, JMurphy 1. But let's focus on scientific argumentation. As there is no argument - these are the “biographies”? 2. Why quoted F.S., whose argument is a lot worse - than the R.S.? 2. Link to the second and the Guardian is so well known in the world of science ... - or say - show - an untruth? Conclusion: Too little is known that the high probability of greater influence of natural cycles (than currently estimated, eg IPCC) to exclude. -
Theo at 22:15 PM on 13 January 2011Czech translation of The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism
How dare you cenzor the discussion? Is the debate over?Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Your deleted comments contained material in violation of the Comments Policy. Specifically, being off-topic, and containing accusations of fraud and abusive profanity. Future comments deemed in violation of the Comments Policy will be similarly deleted. By posting comments here, you implicitly agree to abide by the Comments Policy, as do all who comment here (the number one reason for moderation is to keep threads on-topic). This commenting is a privilege, not a right. Thanks in advance for your understanding and compliance in this manner. -
JMurphy at 22:09 PM on 13 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
dhogaza wrote : "Arkadiusz Semczyszak, your link in your #2 covers just about every denialist meme from the Oregon Petition Project to "Al Gore is fat"." Does that refer to the link to a Jeffrey Glassman (PhD, of course - mustn't forget that : makes him sound more important) ? I'm always constantly amazed at how so-called skeptics will reference the strangest of theories by the wildest of so-called experts, and expect to be taken seriously. Generally, though, I'm not sure what point that poster is trying to make ? I realise English is not his first language, but it just appears to be a stream of individual studies and reports, which only appears to suggest that because everything is not 100% settled (or because some pepple have different conclusions, not necessarily against AGW, though) AGW must be false and something else (anything else, in fact) is responsible for the warming climate. Having said that, however, the next posting from this person will probably be trying to suggest that the temperatures aren't rising because...to be followed by a long list of reports, papers and oddities which have very little in common but that they are not 100% pro-AGW. (Oh, no - sorry : it's actually about corals not really suffering at all, with the obligatory oddity from CO2SCIENCE this time) -
dhogaza at 21:44 PM on 13 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
Arkadiusz Semczyszak, your link in your #2 covers just about every denialist meme from the Oregon Petition Project to "Al Gore is fat". Surely by now you understand that you have to cite credible sources if you're going to get any love around here? Please get real ... -
Rob Painting at 21:38 PM on 13 January 2011Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
Corals are my favorite topic Yup, rate highly with me too. Having dived the Great Barrier Reef and some in the South Pacific, their decline bothers me greatly. -
dhogaza at 21:38 PM on 13 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
"A few remarks. 1. While discussing the natural cycles need to refer primarily to the work of R.W. Spencer and J.R. Christy." Why? They're satellite data interpretation geeks, and not that great at it, as outsiders have had to correct their homework for them on about three occasions before they finally got it more or less right. They've done very little work on how climate works, and Spencer's is mostly grasping-at-straws stuff trying to do everything possible to throw doubt on the mainstream climate science explanations of how stuff works. Including how natural variations work. If Spencer's right, then the work of everyone who's worked on explaining how the planet enters and leave ice ages, and many other aspects of past climate that were indeed entirely driven by natural variation (if, by that, you mean "everything other than people injecting CO2 and other GHGs into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels"). Spencer being right would be as startling as that iron sun guy being right and the mainstream science explanation of how the composition, structure, and energy-production fusion reactions of the sun work being wrong. -
Rob Painting at 21:34 PM on 13 January 2011Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
Yooper @ 1 - Not shaping up too good just yet, we'll have to wait and see. February is when the waters around these parts really warm up:
-
Rob Painting at 21:28 PM on 13 January 2011Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
-
dhogaza at 21:27 PM on 13 January 2011The Queensland floods
HR: "It strikes me that "net increase in atmospheric water vapour" is a prediction of a warmer world not specifically AGW." So HR now - and forever in the future one hopes - accepts that the water vapor feedback is real and positive? Cool. "Many AGW critics don't deny we've seen a recent warming trend." Many, however, do. "It seems to be the attribution of that warming world that's crucial." Unless you deny the basic physics of how CO2 traps long-wave infrared radiation, there's no way to do so. If you accept that ... and since you now quite clearly accept the fact that the water vapor feedback is positive and real ... you're already right in the 2.0-4.5C sensitivity to CO2 doubling range cited by the IPCC in AR4.
Prev 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 Next
