Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2074 2075 2076 2077 2078 2079 2080 2081 2082 2083 2084 2085 2086 2087 2088 2089 Next
Comments 104051 to 104100:
-
Camburn at 14:58 PM on 18 November 2010Economic Impacts of Carbon Pricing
Cap and trade is an idea that is dead in the US. Thankfully. -
Marcus at 14:56 PM on 18 November 2010The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
Camburn, our Sun has just recently come out of the deepest solar minimum for over 100 years-after a 30-year period of general decline in the sunspot trend. This would strongly suggest that-if anything-our planet should have gone into a period of cooling. Yet instead we had the fastest warming rate (+0.16 degrees C/decade) that we've seen in at least the last 2,000 years-possibly longer-& certainly about twice as fast as the 30 year warming period of 1910-1939 (which was underpinned by a significant increase in sunspot numbers). Based on that information, would you like to hazard a guess for yourself as to what proportion of recent warming is attributed to humanity? -
The Inconvenient Skeptic at 14:50 PM on 18 November 2010Are ice sheet losses overestimated?
Robert, Sorry for the delay. It has been a busy day. Thanks for those papers. They are interesting. Wake and ARC. Since the concern is for the overall behavior of the ice in Greenland, the first step I took was to look at the overall accumulation in the Wake data. Here is the last 150 Years of the SMB. I am still working on analyzing all the data, but there is an interesting difference between the SMB data in the Wake paper and the Arctic Report Card (ARC). The Wake paper shows less variability over the matched periods of 1958-2005. In addition the ARC paper shows 2,300 GT more accumulation between 1958-2005 than the Wake one. That is very significant. In addition the total period accumulation for the ARC SMB is approx -600 GT at the end of the hydrological 2010. So while the loss rate is significant post 2005, it was preceded by significant accumulation that is not present in the Wake data for the same period. This is the problem with focusing on the short term. The ARC data for the SMB shows near constant change, but over the past 40 years there has been little overall change in the mass of Greenland according to the Arctic Report Card SMB. In addition the standard deviation of the ARC data is ~125 GT/yr. So even the most drastic years barely exceed 2 sigma. That is hardly OOC behavior. The Wake data which ends in 2005 only exceeded 2 sigma low in 1968 and 1998. So where does that leave us. The Earth is going through cycles. I do not believe we have deciphered all of the ocean cycles yet. Much like the Taylor Dome shows some interesting cycling in the past 1,000 years, so do many other proxy reconstructions. There are many reasons why I am not concerned about CO2 and its impact on radiative heat transfer. That is the main reason why I am not concerned, but it does leave me free to look at the data to try to understand the Earth's cycles. Since the Earth is always changing.... I thought it might be a good idea to figure that part out. John Kehr The Inconvenient Skeptic -
Camburn at 14:48 PM on 18 November 2010The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
Quick question: How much warmth of the current warm period is attibuted to humanity? -
Gordon1368 at 14:44 PM on 18 November 2010Climategate a year later
Ken, if I may comment, as one of the "unwashed" readers of this and other climate blogs including WUWT. You have made no scientific argument at all, and remain completely unconvincing to me. I did notice the emails were undoctored, and authentic. I also noticed that they were cherry picked, taken out of context, and willfully misinterpreted in the worst possible way. Despite all that, independent expert observers concluded no dishonesty, no intent to deceive, and no fault with the underlying science. So, your only arrow is to try to convince me that 10s of thousands of scientists worldwide, in competing scientific and academic institutions, using independent and different means of scientific inquiry, all coming to the same conclusion that CO2 is causing global warming, are all either in conspiracy, or that all have exactly the same sort of incompetence. Good luck with that. -
Albatross at 14:43 PM on 18 November 2010The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
John and readers, Kate also has an excellent summary here. Stephen Leahy, Do you plan to write something about the latest shenanigans of Mr. Harper? -
actually thoughtful at 14:39 PM on 18 November 2010The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
Daniel Bailey, AKA "the Yooper", AKA the "one person": We also need acidmail (for the oceans), droughtmail floodmail faminemail and probably chainmail to survive the wars for food, energy and water. -
actually thoughtful at 14:30 PM on 18 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
Mike, That article is kind of like an educated Glenn Beck - there are true facts, but very weird conclusions. The facts are: China is innovating and doing faster than the US (of necessity) Coal, worldwide, provides 50% of the worlds electricity The weird, and probably not true conclusions: We therefore cannot get rid of coal for decades Clean coal is possible/likely America CANNOT innovate If America puts a tax on carbon, we will put coal out of business in 20 years - and grow the economy. Instead of China figuring this stuff out, and profiting from selling it to the world, the US will. People are stuck by what they know - dirty coal makes electricity and they can't see beyond to a new energy strategies, massive reductions in demand, and full scale production and installation of ALREADY known and proven technologies. [But...but what does that look like? How about LED bulbs that are 10-20 TIMES as efficient as incandescents? Motors that are 2-3 times as efficient, insulation that is 1/3 as thick and twice as effective (aerogel) - all these things exist now - without any particular financial incentive. Once the free market is providing incentives for reduced energy usage (instead of dis-incentives (can you say "SUV"?)) - these savings will sky rocket.] As the article points out - if Great Britain put wind mills on 20% of their land - that could cover ALL of their transportation (they put a negative, Glenn Beck style spin on it...). This article is actually scarier than the typical denial-ism we see (which is readily identifiable and can be ignored or pilloried). This article is, in fact, defeatism - the tyranny of low expectations of America and Americans. -
Stephen Leahy at 13:19 PM on 18 November 2010The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
Mann laments that it is up to the media to establish fact from fiction in the climate debate... Not going to happen, most of my fellow science and enviro jurnos have been let go and are working in PR or not at all. -
Daniel Bailey at 13:18 PM on 18 November 2010The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
Re: Stephen Leahy (5) Given the changes in the power structure in America recently, Dr. Mann induces wisely. The Yooper -
Stephen Leahy at 13:12 PM on 18 November 2010The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
Whoa, Mike Mann thinks the climate scientist witch hunts have just begun in the US. From Harvey Leifert a highly experienced science jurno:: Climate scientist Michael Mann thinks that the US is in for a period "where climate science is likely to be subjected to the sort of politically motivated inquisition that we frankly haven't seen in this country since the 1950s" http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/44339 -
Daniel Bailey at 12:58 PM on 18 November 2010The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
Re: actually thoughtfull (3) "Hotmail" The Yooper -
actually thoughtful at 12:55 PM on 18 November 2010The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
I am still waiting for one person to explain how an email went and melted the glaciers and the Greenland ice sheet. And waiting. -
kdkd at 12:40 PM on 18 November 2010Climategate a year later
KL #20 If the two pillars of your argument are firstly in assuming that measurements that you admit have poor precision are actually precise enough to draw strong conclusions about the earth's energy balance and ocean heat content, and secondly continuing to magnify the poorly chosen words, and lack of political astuteness displayed in a very small proportion of a large corpus of stolen emails, then your position is clearly in very deep trouble indeed. -
Ken Lambert at 12:28 PM on 18 November 2010Climategate a year later
Albatros, JMurphy et al.. Well one man's heroic whistleblower is another man's thief. If the emails were uncontroversial - why bother exposing them?? Notice that none of the participants ever claimed that they were fakes or had been doctored. The critical lesson of the Climategate affair is that the most prominent AGW scientists (Jones, Mann, Trenberth, Briffa et al) clearly felt it necessary to obstruct and suppress dissenting views - no matter how inept or unfounded or vexatious. If the AGW science was so strong and overwhelmingly correct - the dissenters would not need suppressing - surely they would wilt in the harsh light of open examination. A better explanation is that Jones et al really felt the science was weaker than they had portrayed it to the public (which is well documented in the leaked emails); and that dissenters were a real threat to that rather weak edifice. Interested amateur skeptics on this very good blog have shown up many of the weaknesses in both theory and measurement. SS's mission statement is to more or less demolish the skeptical arguments about AGW - but when robust free discussion reigns - that mission is looking seriously undone.Response: "one man's heroic whistleblower is another man's thief"
There is no evidence that the emails were leaked by a whistleblower. On the contrary, the current evidence available (which is scant because the investigation is ongoing) is that the emails were stolen from an external hacker. Combine this with the fact that the first public introduction of the Climategate emails was the Real Climate server being illegally hacked and the emails uploaded to their server - hardly the work of a heroic whistleblower. There were also attempted theft of other climate lab's servers at the same time. The coordinated nature of the Climategate smear campaign indicates this was an external job. -
Stephen Leahy at 12:27 PM on 18 November 2010The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
Good summary, John and that's why I didn't report on it - I'm an enviro jurno covering global issues like CC. I just covered the real story that resulted from the media frenzy: Violent Backlash Against Climate Scientists -
kdkd at 12:13 PM on 18 November 2010Naomi Oreskes' Merchants of Doubt Australian tour
Poptech #91 There's plenty of evidence around for Seitz' role in manufacturing uncertainty about tobacco health effects, you're just chosing to ignore it and/or deliberately avoiding doing research on the topic. It's not my (or anyone else's) job to help you with your ignorance or ideological blindness, but it's perfectly fair to point it out to others. This part of the wikipedia page on Seitz is a perfectly good place for anyone interested to begin the research process. -
dhogaza at 12:13 PM on 18 November 2010The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
"The real scandal of 'Climategate' is the illegal smear campaign designed to distract people from the scientific reality of global warming." Smear campaigns are rarely illegal, particularly here in the US. I think the "illegal" bit is restricted to the theft of the e-mails ... Of course, denialists wouldn't be denialists if they didn't argue that the theft itself was illegal ...Response: Fair point. I could've reworded it to clarify, saying something like "the smear campaign that included the illegal hacking of the University of East Anglia server and the illegal hacking of the Real Climate server to upload the email contents" but well, you get the general idea. It should not be overlooked that illegal activity was an integral part of 'Climategate', while 6 enquiries have found no evidence of illegal activity by climate scientists. And yet 'Climategate' is painted as a story of scientists doing something wrong - an inversion of reality. -
Crispy at 11:37 AM on 18 November 2010Climategate a year later
Rob Honeycutt, if I may ask, what's the story with Lindzen and his smoking? -
Berényi Péter at 11:34 AM on 18 November 2010How significance tests are misused in climate science
#65 Dikran Marsupial at 05:02 AM on 18 November, 2010 No, creationism is not unequivocally contradicted by any observation, but it isn't a scientific theory. According to Popper the *possibility* of falsification distinguishes scientific theories from unscientific ones. Creationism is non-falsifiable as the deity may have buried dinosaur bones as a test of our faith etc. You are correct. I should have added to "not contradicted [by data, observation, measurement, whatever]" possibility of falsification as well, that is, the theory also have to be able to specify under what state of affairs it is considered to be contradicted by facts. This is precisely one of the most serious drawbacks of CO2 induced warming theory. In the above sense it is not falsifiable, because 1. The concept of "forcing" does not have a proper definition. This fact is shown by the existence of an arbitrary fudge factor attached to each kind of forcing, called "efficacy" (for example according to some studies the same forcing expressed in W/m2 in case of black carbon on snow is supposed to have more than three times the efficacy of atmospheric carbon dioxide - but should measurements indicate polar soot pollution is high enough to explain recent warming at high latitudes, this fudge factor is always malleable enough to leave room for significant CO2 effect, enhanced of course by some supposed water vapor feedback). 2. "Climate sensitivity" does not have a sharp enough definition either. We have no idea about either the shape of the response function (if it is a first order one or has some more complex form) or the time constant(s) involved, that is, in what time climate is supposed to attain equilibrium after a step change in a particular "forcing". According to a bunch of studies just about anything is consistent with AGW theory, including increased or decreased storm activity, multi-year flat OHC, drought, flood, warming or cooling, more snow, less snow, increasing or decreasing sea ice. One only wonders what state of affairs would constitute a falsification of this theory. I mean if century scale climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is in fact less than 1°C (negative feedback), is there a climate indicator that would show it beyond reasonable doubt in significantly less time than a century? The literature is distressingly silent about it, although exactly this kind of study would have the capacity to make propositions about AGW scientific, therefore it is indispensable to any level of credibility. A recent study goes as far as claiming severe continental scale winter cooling is not only consistent with "global warming", but it is a consequence of it, kind of proof. JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH VOL. 115, D21111, 11 PP., 2010 doi:10.1029/2009JD013568 A link between reduced Barents-Kara sea ice and cold winter extremes over northern continents Vladimir Petoukhov & Vladimir A. Semenov "Our results imply that several recent severe winters do not conflict the global warming picture but rather supplement it" At the same time they do not bother with elaborating on other effects of a supposed partially ice free Barents-Kara sea in winter, like where this oceanic heat lost to the arctic winter atmosphere is supposed to go or how this loss influences overall OHC. If they would, I suppose we could see a strong local negative feedback at work, barely consistent with positive feedback. The meticulous PR transition from the original buzzword "global warming" through "climate change" to "climate disruption" does not help building public confidence either. It is not only the case we do not have a definition of "disruption" that is sharp enough to be falsifiable, but it is also utterly impossible to define what is supposed to constitute climate disruption as opposed to natural variability. Questions like these have nothing to do with confidence tests directly or the way they are used, the failure to explicitly define Bayesian priors, etc., except if anywhere, in a honest falsifiability study these ingredients would find their proper place. -
Daniel Bailey at 11:13 AM on 18 November 2010Naomi Oreskes' Merchants of Doubt Australian tour
It is a testimony to the sad saga that this thread has become that none of the usual "skeptic" habitues of SkS have chosen to weigh in. The Yooper -
JMurphy at 10:58 AM on 18 November 2010Climategate a year later
It was amazing watching the hyper-ventilating outpourings of the so-called skeptics, when this all came out, and I could just imagine many of them hugging themselves with false glee - thinking that they were witnessing the final (final) nail in the coffin of AGW. Unfortunately for them, though, reality eventually returned and they had to move onto more diversions, hopes, dreams and disappointments. Any unbiased observer would have watched all this, seen the outcomes of all the enquiries, understood that the science still stood, and moved on. Not the so-called skeptics. No, they have to regurgitate the same old disinformation and keep gnawing at the old bones of broken dreams (if I can mix my metaphors). Ken Lambert, you need to read more to understand the banal (and non-conspiracy) meaning of the words you have quoted and posted : What does Mike's Nature trick to 'hide the decline' mean? Real Climate George Monbiot Memorandum submitted by Dr. Timothy J. Osborn to the Science & Technology Select Committee As for Lindzen's comment : he is a desperate, desperate man. -
Riduna at 10:46 AM on 18 November 2010Climategate a year later
I find it gratifying that science and scientists have been vindicated and the contention that the IPCC should be infallible or discredited as totally ridiculous. On the other hand I respect the right of anyone to honestly and genuinely question scientific findings and theories and to do so publicly. By honestly and genuinely, I mean without resorting to the deceptions employed by those who describe themselves as sceptics but are more accurately climate change deniers. Journalists have a responsibility to write on such matters in an informed and balanced way and editors to ensure the accuracy – rather than the “newsworthiness” of what they publish. Of concern is that journalists who are neither knowledgeable or informed nevertheless produce articles which, to be kind, are less than balanced and editors, particularly those employed by Rupert Murdoch. -
Rob Honeycutt at 08:03 AM on 18 November 2010Climategate a year later
Albatross... Ironically, though, just today Richard Lindzen was in front of a congressional subcommittee making this statement: "Climategate is proof of overt cheating by climate scientists." This after there have been numerous, in depth, independent reviews into the matter. It's almost like Lindzen and his smoking. No amount of evidence can sway his opinion. -
Albatross at 07:43 AM on 18 November 2010Climategate a year later
The "skeptics" really do need to move on. "Climategate" was the mother of all ad hominem attacks on the climate science community. They will debny it of course, but Climategate was also an epic fail for them, and history will not document it in the way they would like to. It has also afforded us a scary insight into the tactics and behavior of "skeptics", namely their willingness to distort, misinform and manipulate information to suite their own ideology and further their campaign of doubt and confusion. Not to mention highlighting the desperate lengths they will go to to come by that information. Dismissing six investigations as whitewashes just does not cut it. The skeptics are in fact very lucky that, until now at least, criminal charges have not been brought against those who organized and oversaw vexatious FOI campaign or those who were involved with the theft of the emails. Posts by some "skeptics" here just go to prove the points made in the above post-- sad that they fail to see that. Also, it seems that said "skeptics" have not taken the time to read the reports from the various inquiries, especially the comprehensive (and at times rightfully critical) report by Sir Russell. But instead insist on parroting long debunked myths and misinformation that have done the rounds on various internet blogs and in misguided elements of the media. For example, as for the fallacious claims being parroted here about fudging code and numbers, please read this. Did "climategate" undermine the validity of the theory of anthropogenic climate change? No, not one bit. Now that is a very inconvenient truth for the "skeptics". And here is another, the extremely troubling revelations concerning the Wegman report. -
muoncounter at 07:20 AM on 18 November 2010It's the ocean
Just noticed your other notion in #21: "should have selected the alleged additional heat flux from anthropogenic global warming as comparison." Yes, the 'alleged' GHG forcing, as shown here still trumps this 0.087 W/m2 from geothermal 30 or times over. What was your point? -
SRJ at 07:20 AM on 18 November 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
In comments 65 and Berényi Péter refer to papers by R. Dewar. A new comment on two of Dewars papers is online. The comment apparently show that results of two his papers are based on an physical unrealistic assumption. The comment discuss the following papers by Dewar: Information theory explanation of the fluctuation theorem, maximum entropy production and self-organized criticality in non-equilibrium stationary states [R. Dewar, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 36 (2003), 631–641] Maximum entropy production and the fluctuation theorem [R. Dewar, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 38 (2005), L371–L381]. -
Eric (skeptic) at 07:08 AM on 18 November 2010How significance tests are misused in climate science
KR, thanks. You haven't demonstrated that my pre-Newtonian physics example above is not "universal" or "complete" (nor have you defined those). Next I will read Salmon since he seems to have the best counterargument. -
muoncounter at 07:04 AM on 18 November 2010It's the ocean
#21: "the data that is referred to are from a paper published in 1993" The paper I cited was published in 2009. Do you think those authors knowingly used the 1993 data (which has been cited by 167 subsequent papers through 2010) without some consideration of whether or not they were still appropriate? More to the point, do you think the earth's geothermal heat flow into the oceans varies by a 3 orders of magnitude (we're talking watts vs. milliwatts) over the course of 17 years? Everybody would have noticed that! -
Norman at 06:59 AM on 18 November 2010Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
#30 scaddenp Your statement "However, this has nothing to do with chaos. Albedo is straightforward and well-behaved." Does not seem valid in the material I have looked into. Wonder why you believe this statement to be true. I have another calcualtor for you. It is on a site you probably do not like but the calcultor is still valid. It includes the atmosphere and the Greenhouse effect in the calculator. Small albedo changes can cause large climate changes. This seems to fit the concept of sensitivity into the climate system. Very sensitive to small changes and the changes to climate can then effect the albedo, very nonlinear effect. Global Temp calculator that includes atmophere for scaddenp. -
Norman at 06:52 AM on 18 November 2010Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
Moderator I am still working on the possibility that Climate is indeed chaotic and the reasons I feel it may be so I think I am still on the correct thread. I have read your intermediate version of chaos and see you do not include albedo as a means to induce a chaotic climate. Here you state "If the sources and sinks of CO2 were chaotic and could quickly release and sequester large fractions of gas perhaps the climate could be chaotic." Forget about CO2, what about albedo? A change of 1% in the albedo is equal to the effect of CO2 doubling. The reason I still suggest climate may easily be chaotic is because the major climate variables (temperature and precipitation) will have an effect on albeo and albedo in turn can easily change these two variables so it makes for a very unstable situation. -
JMurphy at 06:47 AM on 18 November 2010Naomi Oreskes' Merchants of Doubt Australian tour
Poptech wrote : "Quality and validity are subjective. I consider the papers to be of high quality and valid, you don't. None of this changes the fact that they are all peer-reviewed and published and support skeptic's arguments against AGW alarm." No, no, no : no matter how many times you try to convince yourself (well, you can't convince anyone else but those who want to believe in your little list), those 'papers' 'support' YOUR own rather convoluted arguments against AGW alarm (whatever that might be) - even using papers whose original authors have told you that their particular papers do not support skepticism against AGW alarm, no matter what you think. -
Philippe Chantreau at 06:47 AM on 18 November 2010Naomi Oreskes' Merchants of Doubt Australian tour
To all: it would be wise to stop feeding the troll -
CBDunkerson at 06:23 AM on 18 November 2010It's the ocean
h-j-m wrote: "But my understanding about science tells me that in order to establish any hypothesis (e. g. anthropogenic global warming caused by increasing emissions of - mainly - CO2) you need to look at all possible causes and either rule them out or show their insignificance. The history of the AGW hypothesis seems to have developed the other way round." You must be reading a different history than the one I've seen. When Arrhenius first proposed enhanced greenhouse warming from human CO2 emissions in 1896 a whole host of objections (CO2 absorption is saturated, water vapor absorption overlaps, oceans can absorb all the extra CO2, human emissions are too low, et cetera) were raised and the idea was dismissed. It is only as each of those, and many other, objections has been disproved over the subsequent decades that it has become clear that Arrhenius was correct. -
It's the ocean
h-j-m - In that case, prior to accepting your hypotheses (and yes, you did propose three of them) and dismissing the mass of evidence for greenhouse enhancement via increased anthropogenic CO2, you need to display both some evidence for your hypotheses. And point out why that evidence is better than the evidence for CO2. You don't do science by hunting for and debunking all possible and dreamed of hypotheses (as that is an infinite set), which is what you seem to be asking for - you do it by following the evidence, learning what common events and generalizations can be made, and examining the evidence for and against them. -
h-j-m at 06:13 AM on 18 November 2010It's the ocean
KR, no I don't have any evidence, but neither did I forward any hypothesis. But my understanding about science tells me that in order to establish any hypothesis (e. g. anthropogenic global warming caused by increasing emissions of - mainly - CO2) you need to look at all possible causes and either rule them out or show their insignificance. If I were a scientist that is I would do prior to finding evidence to back my intended hypothesis. The history of the AGW hypothesis seems to have developed the other way round. About water vapour: I just wanted to point out that the cited quote can't be correct as there is an established method of heat transfer from the ocean to the atmosphere while I still could not find any hint of significant heat transfer the other way round. By the way, so far the only explanation I encountered about AGW causing oceanic temperature rise was that the oceans are (due to their thermal capacity) the only available heat sink. That clearly qualifies as an assertion without evidence. muoncounter, Thanks, this is the kind of reply I would have generally expected (but seemingly I'm asking too much). Unfortunately the data that is referred to are from a paper published in 1993 and is therefore rather useless given the fact that reports about rising ocean temperatures state them to be most significant in the last decade. Besides, due to the theme of this site you should have selected the alleged additional heat flux from anthropogenic global warming as comparison. -
How significance tests are misused in climate science
Eric - What was Newtonian physics prior to the more accurate measurements? Was it a universal proposition? A complete truth? Or was it rather the best we could do at the time? As is Einstein's physics now? I would recommend for your reading topics on The Problem of Induction, in particular David Hume, Karl Popper, and Wesley Salmon (who I had the pleasure of taking some courses with). Those links contain some overviews and multiple links to further discussions. -
robert way at 05:54 AM on 18 November 2010Are ice sheet losses overestimated?
"What I am saying is that based on the known conditions of Greenland at the time of the MWP, compared to the current conditions, it is very likely that the ice loss was as great or greater than it currently is." What are these known conditions that you assume are contributing to ice losses? You know that there is more that matters than just melt right? We have to remove sea-ice, buttressing ice shelves and provide warmer water into the fjords so that the grounding lines of glaciers begin to retreat and cause glacier accelerations when backpressure is reduced... We can't just say "hey Greenland was nearly as warm during the MWP so it means it lost as much ice!" -
robert way at 05:50 AM on 18 November 2010Are ice sheet losses overestimated?
Good testimony. -
Eric (skeptic) at 05:35 AM on 18 November 2010How significance tests are misused in climate science
KR, here is a simple pre-Newtonian physics: Velocity = Force * Constant. For example, as I push a shopping cart with a constant force, it travels at a constant speed. It attained that speed (from rest) as I applied the force and maintains that speed as long as I apply the force. You might argue there is some sort of theoretical "friction" in the wheels but you will have to show how to measure that friction along with your new theory. Once you demonstrate your Newtonian theory, my theory is not "useful in many cases, but not correct", it is simply wrong and discarded unless your theory allows it to be true in special cases. In your example above, Newtonian theory is 100% incorrect. The fact that it is "useful in many cases" simply indicates that measurements are being taken and utilized with low enough precision to appear correct in Newtonian theory. Those measurements are not "probabilistically correct" in any way, they are simply too imprecise to be correct (for relativity theory) or impossible to ever measure precisely (for quantum mechanical theory). -
Naomi Oreskes' Merchants of Doubt Australian tour
Poptech, last but not least, I give you Global Warming and Ozone Hole Controversies A Challenge to Scientific Judgment, by Dr. Frederick Seitz. Here he dismisses challenges to: 1. Nuclear power reactors and the associated radioactive wastes. 2. The use of asbestos in any form - for example, for thermal insulation or brake linings. 3. Acidic and radioactive emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels, particularly coal. 4. The disposal of domestic waste in landfills or by combustion in waste-to-energy facilities. 5. The disposal of toxic chemical wastes. 6. Genetic engineering as applied to agriculture and medicine. 7. The employment of pesticides and fertilizers in agriculture. 8. The passive inhalation of even small amounts of tobacco smoke. 9. The addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels with the asso- ciated hazard of global warming. 10. The use of freons, halons, and related halogenated compounds as refrigerants, fire-suppressor agents or fumigants because of their presumed depletion of the atmospheric ozone layer. Bring a shovel. -
Stephen Leahy at 05:21 AM on 18 November 2010Climategate a year later
Orsekes is a very good historical scholar on this issue. Here's detailed interview with her about role of media and christian evangelicals in pushing climate denial. http://stephenleahy.net/2010/07/13/proof-of-anti-global-warming-cabal-fossil-fuel-interests-christian-evangelicals-and-the-media/ -
Rob Honeycutt at 05:16 AM on 18 November 2010Are ice sheet losses overestimated?
Related to this topic is Dr Richard Alley's testimony before the subcommittee on Energy and Environment given today (Nov 17). -
The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
Michele - I may have misinterpreted your post here. Are you agreeing with this article by Tony Wildish or disagreeing? It's not clear to me from your comments. -
Bibliovermis at 05:10 AM on 18 November 2010Animals and plants can adapt
h-j-m, A problem is not rendered inconsequential if an implementation of a proposed (partial) solution may cause more harm in a given area than it aleviates. Arguing against biofuel farming practices is in no way a valid argument against the effects of global warming. -
The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
Michele - EM wave superimposition doesn't create or destroy energy, it just moves it around a little. Waves pass through each other unchanged - surface energies may be redistributed by interference. Given incoherent IR (the very definition of thermal radiation involves incoherent emission scaled by object spectra and temperature), wave superimposition really has no effect whatsoever on the greenhouse effect. This is a complete red herring argument. As to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, a cold object (yet warmer than absolute zero) can keep a nearby warm object warmer than it would be without the cold object, simply by not being as much of a heat sink as empty space. See Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still and In Defense of the Greenhouse Effect, by Dr. Roy Spencer (self described skeptic). Energy flows in all directions. The sum of energy flows is what is described by the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Consider a warm object (internally heated with 100 watts) radiating 100 watts to empty space, it's at equilibrium. If a nearby cold object radiates 20 watts to the warm object, the total outgoing energy is only 80 watts - and the warm object will increase in temperature until it's radiating 100 watts again. -
Dikran Marsupial at 05:02 AM on 18 November 2010How significance tests are misused in climate science
BP wrote "Induction is not a scientific method. It is an heuristic method (one of many) used to arrive at universal propositions of any kind, some being scientific among them. But what makes a universal proposition scientific is not the fact it is supported by data, but that it is not contradicted by any of them." No, creationism is not unequivocally contradicted by any observation, but it isn't a scientific theory. According to Popper the *possibility* of falsification distinguishes scientific theories from unscientific ones. Creationism is non-falsifiable as the deity may have buried dinosaur bones as a test of our faith etc. -
Dikran Marsupial at 04:58 AM on 18 November 2010How significance tests are misused in climate science
BP, can you provide a deductive chain of reasoning that establishes the theory of evolution? If not, does that mean the theory is not scientific? -
Michele at 04:37 AM on 18 November 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
I don't tend to divert the attention from the talking point, but the waves superposition is more relevant to energy exchange at Hearth’s surface. Indeed, at any point of the surface there are acting (and traveling opposite each other) at least two EM waves along any direction. The energy flux (Watt/m2) coming in/out at that point is the amplitude of Poynting vector, the cross product of resultant electric field and resultant magnetic field, both obtained applying the superposition principle (notice, there’s a quadratic relationship between resultant field and flux that doesn’t allow to sum the fluxes of component fields because the flux quadruples as the field doubles). Thus, for any frequency, at any point of surface exists only a resultant electric field, only a resultant magnetic field, only an energy flux. Moreover, the standing wave that reduces the flux coming out induces the temperature increase of surface to restore the energy balance at surface. Thus both the energy transfer problem and the GH effect are simply and definitively explained by vector kinematics. The thermodynamics isn’t needed because it muddles up our ideas instead of making them clear. Yet I want to point that the 2th law of thermodynamics doesn’t refer only to the heat flow between two objects; it have an overall meaning that concerns the flow of every energy form, induced by its density gradient. The thermal radiation density, given by Planck’s relationship B(T), is a monotonically increasing function of the absolute temperature. In the empirical relationship between temperature and pressure of a gas, at constant volume, p = const*T, both the terms depict an energy density and are monotonically increasing functions of absolute temperature and pressure. For an energy exchange is needed an energy flow and that occurs only if there’s a not-zero grad(T) or a not-zero grad(p) and the flow happens along the decreasing T or p. If were true to assume that the thermal radiation energy can flow along increasing T, then also heat and the other form of energy could flow along increasing pressure/temperature. In other words it would be (almost sometimes) normal for an adrift boat to sail upstream the river, or for the outlet flow of a water turbine to return spontaneously into the higher feeding reservoir, and again, for a gas escaped by a cylinder to re-enter it naturally. All the cases are obviously absurd because all they contradict the second law of thermodynamics. -
h-j-m at 04:24 AM on 18 November 2010Animals and plants can adapt
CBDunkerson, I just wanted to point out that at the current time loss of biodiversity is due to direct human intervention by far outranking that what can be attributed to global warming. Chances that tropical rainforests are threatened by it are rather slim as studies show that in the tropics forestation is the main factor governing local weather patterns(i. e. they show that deforestation leads to major changes in weather patterns). Some small scale endeavours on the other hand show that rainforest farming (using the biological productivity of rainforests to support the local population) is a viable and sustainable alternative - capable not only to fight poverty but even to allow for modest prosperity -, but they are not getting a chance due to the profits that biological fuels are promising. So far I can only see that in result the global warming theory has led to nothing but an increasing pace of destroying the ability of this globe to support human life.
Prev 2074 2075 2076 2077 2078 2079 2080 2081 2082 2083 2084 2085 2086 2087 2088 2089 Next
