Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Next
Comments 100651 to 100700:
-
Conspiracy theories
NETDR - Consider where fame, reputation, and status in science comes from: producing correct results. Nature is a harsh critic, and bad science (Lindzen and Choi? Gerlich and Tscheuschner?) gets found out fairly quickly. Perhaps there is some negative fall out from challenging the IPCC (not surprising, you would be making an extraordinary claim, and hence require extraordinary evidence [Sagan]). But there is a much higher cost to promoting incorrect results. Consistent results work, and make a reputation. Making stuff up out of whole cloth (as conspiracy theories require) is a really foolish tactic - you quickly get caught by nature, the world, and reputation hungry grad students! :) -
muoncounter at 13:27 PM on 24 December 2010The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
#21: "the earth’s temperature is currently rising by 0.014 degrees per year" Please refer to Are surface temperature records reliable in which you will find details of the measurements that provide independent verification of hfranzen's detailed PChem calculations. You will note in Figure 8 on that page that the ocean temperatures are, on average, rising at 0.14-0.15 degC/decade. Land-based temperatures are rising at a faster rate, 0.2-0.3 degC/decade. This article reconciles 30 years of satellite data and 130 years of surface measurements to a high level of consistency. If you look in detail at other data collections, you may find even higher rates in the last 30-40 years. These data are overwhelming evidence of global warming, which no objective scientist should fail to recognize. -
hfranzen at 13:22 PM on 24 December 2010The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
response to # 21. The eath's temperature, as I understand it. is the average temperature over a year and over the whole surface of the earth. For me the best way to view it is: the temperature given by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law for thermal equilibrium from the earth when the flux to the earth is given by the GHG effect (all GHG's e.g. CO2, H2O, O3, CH4, etc.) and the albedo corrected radiatio from the sun -
Eric (skeptic) at 12:57 PM on 24 December 2010Do high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?
Given the logarithmic response of CO2 wouldn't the difference in forcing between 3000 and 4000 be quite small? That would then suggest that the "sensitivity" to CO2 warming shown in the figure above is much larger than what has been calculated in detailed-look-at-climate-sensitivity.html. But it also would suggest that paleo sensitivity analysis has lots of confounding factors that are not being considered. If there are such factors above (extremely likely) then they exist in more recent paleo history as well. -
NETDR at 12:42 PM on 24 December 2010Conspiracy theories
46 The natural world is warming, that is a given. Despite some people spending huge amounts of time saying things like glaciers aren't in on the conspiracy that is just a straw-man. No one said it wasn't warming. Presenting CAGW as plausible is the wisest course for a non tenured individual as recent e-mails proved. PhD climatologist Judith Curry has had the "blinders" removed ! She wrote: "When I refer to the IPCC dogma, it is the religious importance that the IPCC holds for this cadre of scientists; they will tolerate no dissent, and seek to trample and discredit anyone who challenges the IPCC. Who are these priests of the IPCC? Some are mid to late career middle ranking scientists who have done ok in terms of the academic meritocracy. Others were still graduate students when they were appointed as lead authors for the IPCC. These scientists have used to IPCC to gain a seat at the “big tables” where they can play power politics with the collective expertise of the IPCC, to obtain personal publicity, and to advance their careers. This advancement of their careers is done with the complicity of the professional societies and the institutions that fund science. Eager for the publicity, high impact journals such as Nature, Science, and PNAS frequently publish sensational but dubious papers that support the climate alarm narrative." She seems to think there would be some negative fall out from challenging the IPCC ! Is she wrong ? -
Eric (skeptic) at 12:29 PM on 24 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Also note that the "global monthly gain" chart in the paper from #150 shows it to be almost exactly inverse to the solar input. That suggests that "gain" is actually representative of the excess power not being stored as OHC. IOW, despite the fact that solar power wanes in NH summer, the earth temperature rises more than in summer as a ratio of that power (ie the "gain" is higher) due to NH land mass (much less OHC storage). The author does point out the hemispherical differences earlier in the paper, but does not carry any of those conclusions to the gain section (again it may be because they are not quantitative). The whole paper seems like a genuinely interesting experiment in data analysis, but ultimately discards the interesting part (seasonal variation in "gain") which seems to preclude its use with long run CO2 forcing. -
Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
RW1 - Thank you for the explanation; that clarifies things quite a bit. Unfortunately, that leaves you with a non-constant 'gain', which I do not feel is a meaningful number. In the absence of greenhouse gases (first approximation, mind you, a Gedankenexperiment) the incoming solar energy at dynamic equilibrium will still be ~240, and the outgoing IR will be 240 to match (zero imbalance). Your 'gain' is then 1.0. As the greenhouse effect changes value (more CO2 in the atmosphere, for example), the incoming visible light still be ~240, and the outgoing IR close to that as well - with a higher surface temperature, and a 'gain' > 1.6. What matters is the surface temperature required (with the current emissivity of the Earth) to radiate ~240 W/m^2 out to space.
As the emissivity 'e' decreases with GHG's, an imbalance occurs between sunlight in and IR out - resulting in a changing temperature 'T'. Not a 'gain' factor, but basic thermodynamics and math.
Your factor of 1.6 is not a constant, but a result. You can't use that as an input - that's confusing cause and effect.
-
RW1 at 12:18 PM on 24 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
e (RE: Post 204), Put another way, regardless of who is right or wrong about the energy flows, the gain is still going to be roughly 1.6 -
Eric (skeptic) at 12:09 PM on 24 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
e, the 1.6 comes from the paper linked in #150 (RW1: I think it would have been better to post that paper at the beginning to show where you are coming from). After reading the paper, the data comes from ISCCP, the variables are described here http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/products/variables.html I started with graph 1, albedo looks reasonable compared to some papers online. Next, input power is derived from Psun and albedo, also reasonable. That's the denominator in the "gain". The next section is where I have issues, both from lack of understanding of the data sources and from what looks like errors in a formula. As described in that document "The output power is calculated as Po = (1-ρ)*Ps + ρ*Pc + Pw, where ρ is the fraction of clouds, Ps and Pc are the power fluxes originating from the surface and clouds" First I do not know where Ps and Pc come from (in my link above). The Ps might be calculated from emissivity and temperature (but I have no idea really). The Pc may come from cloud top temperature but I think that lacks some parameter (clouds are not black body) Then my biggest issue comes from using the fraction of clouds (the corresponding variable is cloud amount). Then there may be a problem with "power consumed by weather" albeit small. The next step is subtracting the input from the output power, then comparing that to the change in temperature to conclude that "As expected, the net flux in and out of the Earth's thermal mass, Pe, closely follows the solar input variability." IMO that should have been followed with an analysis of thermal storage, namely something like #117 in this thread and the others muoncounter mentioned. After that fairly obvious and non-quantitative conclusion, the author gets to the "gain" formula which he conflates with sensitivity (I also have a problem with how sensitivity is defined, but I don't think the solution is this formula for gain). The numerator in gain is the power flux calculated from surface temperature using S-B. IMO the previous discussion came from an analysis that was supposed to yield a quantity but did not. The choice of surface power flux is quite limiting IMO due to issues I discussed in #144. -
RW1 at 11:54 AM on 24 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
e (RE: Post 204), e: "Can you explain the physical relevance of the gain factor you keep citing (not the numbers you divided to get 1.6, but what does this number physically represent)? Nobody here understands why you think this number is meaningful." Using Trenberth's numbers, the gain is still about 1.6 (396/239 = 1.65). The gain is the simplest representation of how the system responds to each 1 W/m^2 of power entering, because it makes the fewest assumptions - like what all the energy flows may or may not be (cloudy vs. clear sky, how much absorbed power is re-directed toward the surface or space, how much passes through unabsorbed, etc.) The gain of 1.6 is the net measured result of all these things, independent of whatever specifically they may all be. Does that help clarify it? -
RW1 at 11:33 AM on 24 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
e (RE: Post 204), e: "Can you explain the physical relevance of the gain factor you keep citing (not the numbers you divided to get 1.6, but what does this number physically represent)? Nobody here understands why you think this number is meaningful." I'll try again. The gain is simply a representation of the amount of post albedo power entering the system from the sun that is "gained" at the surface due to the presence of GHGs and clouds in the atmosphere, which delay the release of infrared heat energy by redirecting some of it back toward the surface, which makes the surface warmer than it would be otherwise. A gain of about 1.6 simply means it takes a 1.6 W/m^2 power flux at the surface for each 1 W/m^2 of power to leave the system, offsetting each 1 W/m^2 entering the system from the Sun. that 1 W/m^2 of post albedo power entering the system from the Sun, you get 1.6 W/m^2 of power at the surface, -
Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
RW1 @ 203, The numbers are right there in the diagram, you can add them up however you prefer. Precisely which numbers do you find confusing? -
Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
RW1 @ 202, Can you explain the physical relevance of the gain factor you keep citing (not the numbers you divided to get 1.6, but what does this number physically represent)? Nobody here understands why you think this number is meaningful. -
RW1 at 10:52 AM on 24 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
E (RE: Post 201), I understand those numbers very clearly, as they are easy to see. I'm talking about all the additional numbers and relationships as far as power in = power out. -
Phila at 10:51 AM on 24 December 2010Conspiracy theories
NETDR: I disagree and have some experience in a similar situation. OK, so we can now add the weight of personal anecdote to that of mere insinuation. I still prefer climate science and its actual data, thanks. Again, what you and other "skeptics" never seem to get is that your speculation about a "conspiracy of self-interest" — and its effects — requires at least the same amount of hard evidence you demand for AGW. This article makes the point clearly, but it can't be said often enough. You don't have this evidence. What you have, generally speaking, is prejudicial language (e.g., "mafia"), cherrypicked quotes and weak inferences based on a particular ideological view of human nature (which, significantly, you tend not to apply consistently, if at all, to other theories and sciences). The major problem you face is that the natural world is effectively in on the conspiracy, so your speculative and inferential attacks on scientists are pretty much beside the point. It's fine to talk about "self-interest" within a competitive field, but you also need to consider how rewards and credibility actually accrue to individuals within that field, because this determines which tactics are available to them. The idea that (wrongly) presenting AGW as "plausible" would garner the greatest rewards and fewest risks in climatology strikes me as a really bizarre proposition. And that would be the case even if there weren't a well-funded anti-AGW movement waiting to take scientists' remarks out of context or leave key data out of their arguments. Given what's at stake and the nature of the forces arrayed against them, "self-interest" for climatologists involves using careful language, doublechecking their calculations and getting their facts as straight as possible. In that regard, the contrast with "skeptics," who need to do little more than throw muck and see what sticks, couldn't be more stark. -
RW1 at 10:44 AM on 24 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
KR (RE: 191), KR: "- You have repeatedly asserted that cyclic variations (orbital distances, seasons) somehow affect the global energy balance differently than CO2 forcings." Funny that you say this when in fact I've argued the exact opposite. I've said that the CO2 forcings are treated differently than the same amount of incoming power from the Sun over "cyclic varations (orbital distances, seasons)". KR: "You are incorrect - they all affect the global energy in the same fashion. It's just that long term trends in averages will change global climate, whereas balanced cycles will not." I never claimed that balanced cycles change global climate long term. I'm well aware that they don't. How about you explain why the 1.6 gain factor works to explain the global average temperature difference of -3 C even with a +7 W/m^2 net solar input at perihelion, but not with a gain of 8 (or 4) needed for a 3 C rise from a doubling of CO2? -
Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
RW1 @ 200 239 W/m^2 is the albedo adjusted input at TOA, 494 W/m^2 is the input at the earth's surface. If you look at the more precise numbers cited at the top of the diagram, the input and output at TOA is: input: 341.3 albedo: 101.9 output: 238.5 difference: 341.3 - 101.9 - 238.5 = .9 W/m^2 of warming. I agree with KR that the diagram seems straightforward, I'm not sure why you find it so confusing. -
Tom Curtis at 10:32 AM on 24 December 2010Do high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?
You may also be interested in the recent paper by Young et al, which shows a dip in CO2 concentrations coinciding with the Odovician glaciation. To quote their abstract:"The Late Ordovician Hirnantian Stage (∼444 million years ago) was one of three time periods during the past half billion years in which large continental glaciers formed over Earth's polar regions. The effects of this glaciation were far-reaching and coincided with one of the largest marine mass extinction events in Earth history. The cause of this ice age is uncertain, and a paradoxical association with evidence for high atmospheric CO2 levels has been debated. Precise linkages between sea level, ice volume, and carbon isotope (δ13Ccarb and δ13Corg) proxy records of pCO2 have been poorly understood due in part to uncertainties in stratigraphic correlation and the interpretation of globally important sections. Although correlation difficulties remain, recent Hirnantian biostratigraphic studies now allow for improved correlations. Here we show that consistent trends in both δ13Ccarb and δ13Corg from two well-dated stratigraphic sequences in Estonia and Anticosti Island, Canada coincide with changes in Late Ordovician (Hirnantian) climate as inferred from sea level and the extent of ice sheets. The integrated datasets are consistent with increasing pCO2 levels in response to ice-sheet expansion that reduced silicate weathering. Ultimately, the time period of elevated pCO2 levels is followed by geologic evidence of deglaciation.
Young et al. Did changes in atmospheric CO2 coincide with latest Ordovician glacial–interglacial cycles?, Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 2010 -
RW1 at 10:28 AM on 24 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
KR (RE: 197), Are you saying that 239 W/m^2 is not the albedo adjusted input power? The diagram shows the albedo being 102 W/m^2. -
rockytom at 10:12 AM on 24 December 2010Do high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?
Plimer has done cherry picking. As one goes back in time, one sees less and less detail. Certainly carbon dioxide was higher in the past but many things were different in the Ordovician than they are at present. One example is that all land was in the Southern Hemisphere at that time. Ocean and atmospheric circulations were different and mountain ranges were lower with the possible exception of the Taconic Mountains. The Sun was certainly dimmer. Steve O'Connor's post is a very good one. We need to address the deniers every time they open their mouths or put pen to paper. The science is sound and conclusive. -
RW1 at 10:10 AM on 24 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
KR, Can you give me the power in = power out relationship between the numbers in your post #196. -
Phila at 10:01 AM on 24 December 2010The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
nerndt #18 I would think that when adding gases to the atmosphere, there may be some type of "balaning effect" where part of the atmosphere may recombine to form particulates that may go back to the ground. Can you give an example, please? Or failing that, a more detailed rationale for why you would make this assumption? If such "particulates" were being created and going "back to the ground," it seems like it wouldn't be that hard to detect them, especially since this process would presumably be increasing along with CO2 emissions. Where should we look? If I'm misunderstanding your comment, I apologize. -
Bibliovermis at 09:59 AM on 24 December 2010The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
References to religion, e.g. heresy, are not helpful to this discussion. If that was an attempt at humor, please realize that plaintext is not a compatible medium for such aims. "Earth's temperature" refers to the air, water & terrestrial surface; not a 2-d idealized surface of a sphere and not the sum total of the planet's mass. -
eschwarzbach at 09:44 AM on 24 December 2010The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
Dear Hugo, nice calculations, I have no doubts about their correctness. There is no doubt about the forcing due to the steady increasing levels of CO2, it is well established physics. I just have, as a really skeptical scientist, not at home in the climate science, some heretic questions to the statement "that the earth’s temperature is currently rising by 0.014 degrees per year". Does this rise refer to the whole mass of our planet, to the crust, to the sum of liquid and frozen water or just to the atmosphere or a part if it? Surely not to the surface, since it is two dimensional. Probably not to the whole mass of our planet, its thermal inertia is much too high. If the troposphere or the whole atmosphere is meant, than the heat exchange with the solid or liquid masses beneath should be taken into calculation. Could you please, specify, what is meant by "earth’s temperature"? -
hfranzen at 09:19 AM on 24 December 2010The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
I agree with 19, i.e. the GW concern is with fossil carbon. On the other hand to mention an interesting fact, the equation that relates the rates of chemical reactions to temperature in a general way is the Arrhenius equation - the same guy who invented the term global warming. basically rates go like the expoential of one over T and the full exponent is the so-called enthalpy of activation divided by RT. -
muoncounter at 09:11 AM on 24 December 2010Comparing all the temperature records
#41: Be wary of edge effects when using the Fourier transform and filters at WfT. They can be pronounced and utterly artificial. #42: Yooper, climate science is easy when you're only in it for the cherries. -
The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
nerndt @18 Decomposition rates do not have a significant effect on CO2 levels in the atmosphere, as any CO2 lost via decomposition was taken from the atmosphere to begin with. The carbon from fossil fuels on the other hand has been sequestered from the atmosphere for millions of years. The general topic is discussed here. Also, there is no need to guess about balancing effects, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is directly measurable and it is increasing rapidly. You can find the discussion here. -
Daniel Bailey at 08:58 AM on 24 December 2010Conspiracy theories
Re: NETDR (42) Unless you actually had a conversation personally with Dr. Schneider you should refrain from quoting him as if you did. If you did, when was that? Do you have any way to corroborate that? If you wish to have any credibility here, exercise a little more care when composing your arguments. The Yooper -
Daniel Bailey at 08:54 AM on 24 December 2010Conspiracy theories
Re: Tarcisio José D'Avila (37) Dyson is an extremely poor source to quote-mine from on things related to climate science. While an expert in his field, he admits to knowing next to nothing about climate science and in the remainder of that interview admits to merely offering up an uninformed opinion. Asking Dyson to offer up substantive opinion on climate science is like asking a pastry chef to be a rocket scientist for NASA. The Yooper -
NETDR at 08:53 AM on 24 December 2010Comparing all the temperature records
PDT 41 Woodfortrees has a Fourier function and global temp data. -
Daniel Bailey at 08:42 AM on 24 December 2010Comparing all the temperature records
Re: Alexandre (40) Not an expert on the satellites, mind you (and from the linked Open Mind thread it would seem even experts have some uncertainty on this matter), but my thought is this: the satellites are calibrated to read a certain way under conditions found the majority of the time. ENSO comes along & throws up a prodigious amount of water vapor and heat higher into the sky than the satellites are calibrated to "read properly". Ergo the discrepancy. Climate science = hard work. If it were easy, anyone with an urge to audit something could do it... The Yooper -
Conspiracy theories
NETDR, The point I was making is that the late Dr Schneider agreed with me that the way to increase funding was to hide doubt and overstate certainty. Nowhere did he mention an increase in funding for climate studies, and nowhere did he suggest that actual science be tweaked to fit a particular view. Again, you are confusing advocacy for mitigation with advocacy for climate science, the two are related but very much distinct. -
nerndt at 08:37 AM on 24 December 2010The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
Response to Villa#11. Thanks for the response. I would think that when adding gases to the atmosphere, there may be some type of "balaning effect" where part of the atmosphere may recombine to form particulates that may go back to the ground. Response to rocco #15 I will have to read these for I would think that the raising of the ocean temps would be much more than the link you posted. Response to hfranzen #16 If the global temp increases 1deg Celsius, decomposition of matter in the oceans and land mass will increase. Any idea how much of an effect that would be? Also, based on huamn activites, can we measure increased decomposition (which increases CO2) accurately outside of calculating how much fossil fuel emissions are made. Thanks for the healthy discussion! I studied Aero/Astro in college but now I am in biotech (past 20 years - much more complicated!) and feel we are missing some key pieces in studying the earth as a control volume part of the solar system (also a control volume and not a conrol mass, since energy from the sun constantly leaves the solar system). -
NETDR at 08:25 AM on 24 December 2010Conspiracy theories
The point I was making is that the late Dr Schneider agreed with me that the way to increase funding was to hide doubt and overstate certainty. See the quote in #33 The reason I said "when you are in a hole stop digging" is that your additional words strengthened my case. I can see that if to you CAGW is a given then making it more controversial might make it more interesting to study for you, but the government and public don't work like that. Schneider and I agree there are hundreds of problems all screaming for dollars to solve them and more certainty that there really is a problem would increase funding. To you there is no doubt but you are not representative of "the public"! -
pdt at 08:16 AM on 24 December 2010Comparing all the temperature records
Thanks for the answers about the 133 month averaging. That makes sense. Does any one have a link to a Fourier transform of global temperature data? -
chris at 07:59 AM on 24 December 2010Conspiracy theories
meerkat at 06:43 AM on 24 December, 2010 OK meerkat but what what does it matter what Kuhn did or didn't think about "normal science"? Kuhn's was simply a personal effort to encapsulate/generalize something about the progression of scientific knowledge. That's what philosophies of science are. They aren't a description of what science actually is or how science is actually done at any particular point in time. In other words you can't make a vague (and incorrect as and Phila and I have described!) interpretation of what someone considers might be a generalised stage of progression within a scientific field (aka Kuhn's "normal science"), unilaterally assert that the present climate science arena conforms to this, and then attempt to bash this science with the flabby truncheon that you've conjured up! If you've got a specific problem with the nature of climate science then why not describe this explicitly? I've given you some examples of why I consider (like Kuhn did) that "normal science" is a hugely valuable (and fundamental) part of the advance of scientific knowledge. If you think otherwise then you really need to give some specific examples. as for "snark", you're suggesting by insinuation that the current areas of strong consensus constitutes a hindrance to scientific advance, and that there's some sort of unjustifiable attempt to protect a paradigm ("circling the wagons"), and seem to have a notion about "interests" of scientists that we can assume you think problematic (since you raise the point!). That's pretty snarky especially as you don't give any evidence in support of those insinuations. you could certainly help to realign this argument with the subject of the thread (conspiracies!) by giving some examples of how you consider the "interests" of scientists to be problematic (if that's what you think). But please be specific! -
Alexandre at 07:58 AM on 24 December 2010Comparing all the temperature records
Thanks Ian #36 and Daniel Bailey for teh response. Eli Rabett's response was more or less what I intuitively imagined... but why is it that the effect is less on the surface? Maybe the surface's mass itself helps keeping the temperature more stable? Or the lower pressure makes the water vapor content more significant? -
Bibliovermis at 07:55 AM on 24 December 2010Conspiracy theories
NETDR, Your experience with politics is not indicative of the scientific community. The collapse of the Soviet Union and subsequent end of the Cold War did decrease the need for military spending. Finding out that a scientific theory, and the empirical observations supporting it, is inaccurate does not decrease the need for scientific research. No amount of exhortation on how self serving, incompetent hacks are conspiring to hide The Truth(tm) in order to protect their funding will cause the independently validated empirical observations and scientific theories to disappear. -
johnmacmot at 07:50 AM on 24 December 2010Conspiracy theories
Interesting response, NETDR. You were familiar with a quote-mined passage that fits in with your opinion. I suspect you've used that carefully- shaped "quote" before to support your arguments. When you are shown the full context, you are unable to read it accurately, and understand the clear difference in meaning. An objective and open-minded response would see the considerable difference in meaning. "To me that part just digs the hole deeper ! When you are in a hole stop digging is rule # 1 ." Now what exactly does this comment mean? How was Schneider in a hole and digging himself deeper? It seems as if you are reading Schneider's actual comment as something additional he said later after some original comment. Otherwise your statement makes no sense. On this site, accurate use of scientific studies is valued and cherry-picking of data to fit a pre-conceived case is seen as a misleading, dishonest tactic. Equally, quote-mining and selectively using a person's words to convey the meaning you would like to attribute to them is misleading, and certainly knowingly dishonest when first done in this case. You might not have known that before what Schneider said in full, but you do now. You might want to re-read what Schneider said, with care and an open-mind, and adjust your understanding. -
Conspiracy theories
NETDR >I worked for several defense contractors. When the Soviet Union cease to be a threat the company I was with closed a division and laid off thousands and I was one of them. Your analogy is not valid. The point makes the false assumption that climate science exists to save us from global warming; it does not. By definition, the purpose is to study and understand climate, whatever the result may be. The "threat" from which climate science is defending is the unknown and the unpredictable, and it's not going away any time soon. Mitigation of known risks is primarily in the domain of economics, politics, and engineering - not climate science. Why would climate scientists be working to help economists keep their jobs? Also consider the fact that the Bush administration was openly skeptical regarding the threat from global warming, yet climate science funding continued unabated turing his presidency. From the perspective of the government, the threat did not exist, and by your logic the funding should have dried up, yet it didn't. -
Tarcisio José D at 07:46 AM on 24 December 2010Conspiracy theories
Good question. But it is very difficult to separate conspiracy of consensus on the issue of anthropogenic greenhouse because I think these two factors, conspiracy and consensus, are present in most papers and lectures. Take for example that said Freeman Dyson on "climate modellers; "They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields, farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in." In his book Pluralism: Against the Demand for Consensus, the philosopher Nicholas Rescher defined consensus as a “condition of intellectual uniformity, a homogeneity of thought and opinion.” Most sincerity was James Hansen who wrote; "Our 3-D global climate model yields a warming of ~ 4°C for either a 2 percent increase of So or doubled CO2. This indicates a net feedback factor of f = 3-4, because either of these forcings would cause the earth's surface temperature to warm 1.2-1.3°C to restore radiative balance with space, if other factors remained unchanged.” This indicates a net feedback factor of f = 3-4, because either of these forcings would cause the earth's surface temperature to warm 1.2-1.3 ° C to restore radiative balance with space, if other factors remained unchanged. " Renew, for to reinforce; "if other factors remained unchanged." By studying the thermodynamics of the atmosphere, it is known that heating the soil above the air temperature triggers the mechanism of thermal exchange by convection. And this exchange is dependent on temperature diferecial ground / air. But examine to the more than 80 meteorological stations INMET-Brazil did not find even a measuring temperature of the soil, only the air temperature (two meters above ground level). Then there is the missing link in the study of clima.Só remains the consensus because no one will say anything to the contrary. -
Phila at 07:43 AM on 24 December 2010The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
Nerndt #10, There is a greenhouse effect on the moon due to the surface and subsurface lunar regolith (soil) , which has the property of absorbing and storing the incident solar radiation. This is the reason by which scientists are considering that the greenhouse effect on Earth depends more on the surface and subsurface regolith (soil) than on the Earth's atmosphere. Assuming this line of reasoning is based on Hertzberg and Siddons, you may want to read the discussion here. Generally speaking, linking to anonymous content on WikiAnswers is not helpful. -
NETDR at 07:31 AM on 24 December 2010Conspiracy theories
#33 johnmacmot I honestly see no appreciable difference between what you posted and what I posted. A little more hand wringing and self justification but essentially no difference in the message at all. Schneider said: "And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that, we need, to get some broad base support, to capture the public's imagination." To me that part just digs the hole deeper ! When you are in a hole stop digging is rule # 1 . Sorry ! -
NETDR at 07:26 AM on 24 December 2010Conspiracy theories
When I worked for defense contractors we were a "team" defending our nation against the Soviet Union, and making 6 figure salaries [in today's dollars] doing it and having fun. [The type that only engineers can understand] Anyone who correctly predicted that the Soviet Union was a paper tiger and would soon collapse would have been treated as a pariah and shunned like the plague. Many in the climate industry are genuine team members working for a cause they believe in. Are they evil ? No. Are they wrong ? I believe yes. I thought even when the Soviet Union collapse that I was so valuable that i would be assigned other important work and didn't need to fear losing my job. I was wrong just like many people who study climate change are wrong. -
muoncounter at 07:24 AM on 24 December 2010Conspiracy theories
#32: "the consensus view is under serious attack from the skeptics" That's almost funny. If you want to see the actual condition of this 'serious attack', look at The value of coherence. Perhaps you should look at IPCC is alarmist. In the meantime, you've been doing a good job demonstrating this author's point: In typical paranoid style, they are forced to extend the net of their fantasy further and further, so that not just some scientists, but almost all of the world’s climate scientists, scientific organizations and governments are in on the fraud. -
hfranzen at 07:23 AM on 24 December 2010The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
Another comment regarding #8. The CO2 in the atmosphere in GWPPT6 is based only on what is observed and reported in the Keeling curve. There is no need to consider CO2 cycles or individual losses in determining the GHG effect of CO2 so long as we have the Keeling data. On the other hand comes the question, what is the source of the increases of CO2 in the atmosphere?. I say in GWPPT6 that I see no reaonable alternative but to ascribe the CO2 increase to human consumption of fossil fuels, but that could a limitation on my part. In a way I am saying if you have a better idea please let me know, However in my experience the usual deniers claim is that it comes from the oceans and the second power point on my web site, CB with Buffering (charge balance with buffering) points out some very serious restraints on the reactions of CO2, bicarbonate, and carbonate in the ocean. Those who wish to have the oceans supplying CO2 to the atmosphere must explain the driving force causing the CO2 to evolve. The only reasonable possibility that I can see is temperature, and if this is claimed to be the cause then those who claim it must find the equilibrium constants at the elevated temperature and then calculate the amount of CO2 that evolves. Not a totally arduous task but one the results of which,from my calculation, they will find fall far short of what they are claiming. Finally, the equations of CB with Buffering are for the average temperature of the earth so if the partial presssure of CO2 increases in one place it will decrease in another and there will be no net change. As a long time professor of chemistry it seems to me the deniers have simply not done their homework. -
rocco at 07:14 AM on 24 December 2010The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
nerndt: this link has a lot of data about the geothermal flux, if you are interested: http://www.mantleplumes.org/Energetics.html As Bibliovermis notes, the amount of energy (~40TW) is too small to make difference globally. Also, I'm not sure about the "sloughing off" question. Are you suggesting that atmosphere loss plays a role in global energy balance? -
johnmacmot at 07:14 AM on 24 December 2010Conspiracy theories
NETDR, you have misquoted Schneider. What he said, in full, was: "On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but—which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that, we need, to get some broad base support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention about any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both." That passage was selectively quoted, in the form you have used, by journalists, and has been repeated frequently since. You will notice the difference in meaning and intent when everything he said is included. -
The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
nerndt>There is a greenhouse effect on the moon due to the surface and subsurface lunar regolith (soil) , which has the property of absorbing and storing the incident solar radiation. This isn't a greenhouse effect at all. The surfaces of the earth and moon both have the ability to absorb solar radiation, if they didn't they would appear transparent. In fact, the key to the greenhouse effect is that CO2 doesn't readily absorb solar radiation, but does absorb infrared. You should read up on the greenhouse effect and thermal radiation. -
NETDR at 06:58 AM on 24 December 2010Conspiracy theories
Several posters have made the point that claiming consensus is not the best way to obtain funding. I disagree and have some experience in a similar situation. I worked for several defense contractors. When the Soviet Union cease to be a threat the company I was with closed a division and laid off thousands and I was one of them. How many people now do what I used to do ? About 25 % but that is just a guess. Some have been reassigned to new threats like roadside bombs and IED detection but it is a shell of it's former self. I ws paid a hansom salary and know nothing about IED detection, so hiring a young cheap engineer who also knows nothing about IED detection makes business sense, but it is hard on my wallet. The point is the required skill set is different. Sure there were other defense related business but it was a game of musical chairs and I was without a chair. I retrained into IT and survived but many didn't. That is what would happen if it were proven beyond a doubt that CAGW was not true. If it were proven to be absolutely true and undeniable vast amounts of resources would be put into mitigation studies, and determining exactly how big the problem was. Since the consensus view is under serious attack from the skeptics it is in the best interest of the climate community to reduce the uncertainties and dot the I's and cross the T's. It is such a complex subject that almost unlimited funds could be spent. I have no doubt that there are many honest sincere researchers who believe in the C in CAGW and thin it is in mankind's interest to exaggerate the problem somewhat to get the public's attention, like Stephen Schneider who said: "We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." Is that an invitation to a conspiracy of silence concerning unfavorable data or results ? I think it is.
Prev 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Next
