Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2109 2110 2111 2112 2113 2114 2115 2116 2117 2118 2119 2120 2121 2122 2123 2124 Next
Comments 105801 to 105850:
-
Doug Mackie at 18:42 PM on 25 October 2010Measuring CO2 levels from the volcano at Mauna Loa
New Zealand's NIWA have been collecting atmospheric CO2 data since 1970 and CH4 since (I think) the late 80's. Long story but local denialists are in denial about the local atmospheric temperature data but are mostly silent about CO2. -
Berényi Péter at 18:26 PM on 25 October 2010Are we too stupid?
#135 KR at 08:50 AM on 23 October, 2010 with tongue firmly in cheek - We could always convert our automobiles to nuclear power In the same vein, a wind powered car is even better. Just imagine the fun a storm could do on a highway in a morning rush.
-
Bibliovermis at 18:26 PM on 25 October 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
You've earlier acknowledged that anthropogenic heat radiated away from the planet. You are again claiming that it never leaves the planet. Why doesn't solar heat? -
RSVP at 17:24 PM on 25 October 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
KR #324 "Raising the temperature 0.015°C to 0.034°C is sufficient to radiate 15 TW/year to space (i.e., all of the anthropogenic heat flux), " I understand the theory as modeled by a solid blackbody the size of the Earth. Or am I wrong about that too? Perhaps you could clarify whether you are referring to raising the temperature of the Earth's surface or its soupy atmosphere? I assume you mean the surface since you are saying that "the temperature" is actually being raised. (Or the third option: The hypothetical raising of temperature. But please lets not go there, unless it is absolutely essential to further delay enlightenment.) As far as dT / λ = dF. I am sure the equation is useful, but lambda most likely needs to be adjusted to account for whats really happening. I get the sense as applied to the effects of GHGs that its value reflects the assumption that GHG are the main cause of the observed global warming and in this sense the operation is basically both subjective and circular. muoncounter #325 "RSVP is coming around" Not sure why you say this? In #317, using published data and applying simple calculations, I have provided a conservative estimate that shows we are dumping enough energy in the environment to raise the atmosphere .1 degree C every year, which is 100 times the "forcing" that is attributed to GHGs, which essentially inverts the debate in terms of numerics. There is no waste heat sunset. It keeps on trucking night and day, year after year. -
Marcus at 16:07 PM on 25 October 2010Measuring CO2 levels from the volcano at Mauna Loa
David Horton, the station in question is on Cape Grim-as I recall-& they've been operating since the 1970's. They're seeing a Keeling Curve as well. So that's a total of 5 measuring stations all showing the exact same things-yet some denialist will *still* try & argue the case with you! -
David Horton at 16:02 PM on 25 October 2010Measuring CO2 levels from the volcano at Mauna Loa
Might be worth adding that being in the middle of the ocean means in effect that the observatory is sampling well-mixed air. What about the samples from Tasmania - is it on one of the islands? Not sure how many years but it would add another geographic centre to the graph. -
Alexandre at 13:54 PM on 25 October 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
Tarcisio #42, I speak Portuguese and I have a background in Electronics. Sorry, you cannot just magically multiply energy by antenna gain. If that was the case, I would very gladly prescribe re-transmitting the energy of our big Brazilian hydroelectrical powerstation over and over through the world as a definitive solution to the world's carbon-free energy problem. -
Yvan Dutil at 13:23 PM on 25 October 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
This is my very dump stupid explanation than even an engineer can understand: Without atmosphere the temperature of the sky would be roughly 3K or -270 C. The presence of the atmosphere make the sky much hotter. -
muoncounter at 12:35 PM on 25 October 2010Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
And now for something completely different: Coldest winter in 1000 years is on the way The change is reportedly connected with the speed of the Gulf Stream, which has shrunk in half in just the last couple of years. Experts dispute record weather forecast Although La Nina has a global influence on weather, its direct influence is limited only to the tropical Pacific region, and its influence on the weather in the mid-high latitude regions is indirect and complicated, according to the report. -
MattJ at 12:19 PM on 25 October 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
This article is great! I am particularly pleased to see how the many discussions of the blanket analogy in this forum have taken such excellent fruit in this article. But I do have to wonder: how exact is that translation of Clausius's original words? I wonder because the 'generally' does not sound right. The word I remember (from Pauli's formulation of Clausius's original words) is 'spontaneously'. This makes much more sense, and lends itself to precise interpretation much more easily. But precise interpretation is exactly what is so sorely missing from so much discussion of the 3 laws of thermo, especially when rebutting this ridiculous fallacy. -
mistermack at 12:04 PM on 25 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
Archie, I'm leaving it there. I can't be doing with all this emotional stuff. Bye. -
archiesteel at 11:55 AM on 25 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
@mistermack: I criticized your behavior, and your insulting insinuations against people who choose to study climate science. I did criticize your arguments, but it can get pretty frustrating when one side gives the appearance of not wanting to debate in good faith. People here have been quite patient with you, perhaps you should show the same consideration to others and not take such an adversarial tone, especially when every one of your arguments have been successfully rebutted. The goal of this site is not to provide "great reading," it's to present the actual science to those who want to learn more, and to counter the disinformation and bad science spread by a vocal minority on the Internet. As far as the consensus goes, I think I made my position clear in the other thread. -
mistermack at 11:46 AM on 25 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
Archie, you took to criticising the person, not the argument, in your previous post. That's what I meant. I would just say to you, it's a bit like religion. It doesn't matter what you believe, or me. Nor what we say. It won't change the fact. Either warming is mostly man-caused, or it isn't. Nothing I say will change that. If you want to achieve a comment section with everone agreeing, it's not going to make great reading. But at least you will have a consensus. -
archiesteel at 11:40 AM on 25 October 2010There is no consensus
@mistermack: not all evidence rests on model, some can be directly observed and/or reproducible in a lab (the actual greenhouse properties of CO2, for example). Similarly, the fact that we are increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere can be determined without resorting to models. Now, as far as models go: you're welcome to demonstrate how the models are inaccurate, and produce your own models to explain the observed data. Until then, don't be offended if I'd rather accept the actual science presented on this site rather than the vague allegations and half-baked arguments you keep throwing around. In the meantime, why not check out the Models are unreliable page? -
mistermack at 11:29 AM on 25 October 2010There is no consensus
Responding to Response to 261, I looked, it doesn't contain any evidence of a human link, but I clicked on the fingerprint link, to the "it's not us" argument, which is probably the closest to an evidence page as there is. It's good reading, a lot more relevant than anything else I've found on here. At the end of the day though, the evidence still boils down to models, models of where the warming should be detected, followed by this is the warming we detected. ( etc ). If you accept the models are true, you can claim plenty of evidence. If you regard the models as needing confirmation, then the evidence needs confirmation. I can't help but conclude that the models were inspired by the data, so you shouldn't call it evidence if the data matches the models. If the consensus is the result of the evidence, then it seems to depend on the data and the models matching up, which is hardly surprising. -
DaveMcRae at 11:14 AM on 25 October 2010Vote for SkS in the physics.org web awards
I think I voted as well - ta Doug#4 And yes to Les#7 -
archiesteel at 10:30 AM on 25 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
@mistermack: "Archie, you're just basically resorting to adhominems now" Yeah, that's what contrarians usually say when they're out of arguments... "I'm only interested in evidence." ...but only as far as it reinforces your position, it seems. Everyone here treated you nicely and patiently provided counter-arguments, which you choose to ignore. "You can hardly speak of me having an agenda, and then make ad hominem comments." I (and others here) have been quite patient with you, even when you made an ad hominem attack upon basically everyone who chooses to study in Climate Science, so spare me the fake outrage. "That's a sign of someone who can't debate, and doesn't really understand what he's talking about, but still want's the last word. A clear sign of someone with an agenda." Wait, are you talking about yourself now? It sure can't be me because: a) I can debate just as well as any other poster here; b) I try to only talk about things I understand, and have no problem admitting when I'm wrong (I've done that a couple of times on this very site); c) doesn't feel the need to have the last word any more than you. As for my agenda, it's quite simple: I'm interested in learning more about Climate Change (I learned tremendously here, because unlike you I came with an open mind), and I don't like when I hear the same debunked theories against AGW again and again, especially when we know who's behind the disinformation - not saying you are, of course. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and think you're actually just wrong. I apologize if you feel insulted, and I assure you I mean nothing personal by my criticism. I simply ask you in good faith to look on the evidence presented on this site and not simply dismiss it off-hand. That's still the best thing about this place. :-) -
muoncounter at 10:14 AM on 25 October 2010There is no consensus
#242: "most "experts" are apologists for the concensus:" Let's accept that philosophy for a moment, postulating that it must work both ways. So W@tts and G*ddard and Jo#ova and all the other so-called 'experts' who've bought into the consensus (31000 scientists agree) that AGW is a scam are mere apologists. You can't have it both ways. But in reality, I would rather live in a world that values consensus among experts -- or at least one that values expert discussion of disagreements with logic, observation and sound science rather than name-calling and petty vitriolics. Because this is what you get when there's no consensus. -
nealjking at 10:14 AM on 25 October 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
Tarcisio, Google-Translate is not providing a translation of your Portuguese adequate to the task of explaining what you are saying. Perhaps you can find a colleague who can clarify the output and render it into English that we can understand? I often use Google-Translate for German/English, and it takes some effort to make the English comprehensible. Quite often it misses an important word, "nicht", thus giving the exact opposite meaning of the original! -
mistermack at 09:58 AM on 25 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
Archie, you're just basically resorting to adhominems now, so I'm going to leave you to it. I'm only interested in evidence. You can hardly speak of me having an agenda, and then make ad hominem comments. That's a sign of someone who can't debate, and doesn't really understand what he's talking about, but still want's the last word. A clear sign of someone with an agenda.Moderator Response: Please refrain from making 'ad hominem' accusations when none are actually made. Feel free to disagree, certainly, but be respectful when doing so. -
muoncounter at 09:52 AM on 25 October 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
#320: "My use of the term refers to any and all heat that is imparted on any and all things on this Earth, assuming the first law of thermodynamics holds for fossil fuel consumption, which it does" Let's not be too hard on good ol' RSVP. In one post, he has tacitly endorsed: - warming is real (and thus - temperature record is reliable) - human effects are significant and causing the change (consuming fossil fuels liberates detectable heat) And simultaneously rejected the corresponding skeptic arguments (mainly 'its cooling'), but also some of the peripheral ones (if its anthropogenic, it's not 'the sun' nor 'cosmic rays' nor 'AMO/PDO/ENSO'). Probably a few more. All in all, I'd say RSVP is coming around. Of course,RSVP's basic premise may be tested by a simple experiment: if the energy consumed each year is directly reflected in atmospheric warming, we should be able to known match dips in historic energy consumption during recessions one-to-one with cooling episodes. For example, we've been in recession and thus it must have been cooler during this summer. -
archiesteel at 09:40 AM on 25 October 2010There is no consensus
@mistermack: "A page called "here is the best evidence for AGW" (or maybe I've missed it)." I already pointed towards it. Now, if you could indicate which information on that page is inaccurate (with evidence, which you keep asking for but never provide to support your own claims), that would be appreciated.Moderator Response: Also, mistermack, when on any page you see blue text, you should click on it, because it is a hyperlink to more information. And look past the end of each original post, because often there are green boxes with links to further reading and to related Skeptical Science posts. -
mistermack at 09:32 AM on 25 October 2010There is no consensus
I'm replying to the link you offered me. It hardly follows that I think all the evidence is here. I politely read the link you offered, and responded. But to be honest, given the purpose of this website, I would have expected all of the best evidence to be summarised here. (somewhere) Perhaps that's a suggestion. A page called "here is the best evidence for AGW" (or maybe I've missed it). I would take it as read that we've had warming. (only the warming since 1950 should count, since CO2 rises were completely insignificant before that). So a page with nothing but evidence linking manmade CO2 to the warming since 1950 would be absolutely brilliant.Moderator Response: The Big Picture -
archiesteel at 09:28 AM on 25 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
@mistermack: "This timescale argument is a bit silly." What is silly is your insistence to ignore all the information we provide you in order to continue pushing your agenda. There is a wealth of information for you here, but you are not interested in learning the truth, it seems. "When you talk about the CO2 supply in the ocean dwindling, and turning off a feedback loop, ten thousand year would be incredibly sudden." Tom explained it quite well. It doesn't mean that there is no more CO2 in the ocean, but that the conditions for the CO2 outgassing are no longer present. Again, the fact you don't understand the science doesn't make it invalid. Stop being so arrogantly certain that you hold the truth and start learning some actual science. -
Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
RSVP - I have to admit, reading this post of yours made me laugh. Raising the temperature 0.015°C to 0.034°C is sufficient to radiate 15 TW/year to space (i.e., all of the anthropogenic heat flux), balancing the energies involved. At that point the Earth stops warming from AHF. And that warming is lost in the noise of the GHG driven temperature rise. Again, and (I'll try, really), my last post on this. Waste heat/AHF is 1% the energies of greenhouse gas entrapment (0.028 W/m^2 versus 2.9 W/m^2), and is therefore not the dominant cause of global warming. This skeptic argument is busted. -
kdkd at 09:01 AM on 25 October 2010Blaming global warming on the oceans - a basic rebuttal
TTTM #16 Recall my previous comment at #12 "The "none of the above" answer could be true on some level of analysis, but is not a terribly useful proposition for the present discussion." However, if you have some useful evidence that suggests that your new premise is correct please share with us. Otherwise it looks like you've moved on from a circular argument to some other sort of fallacy. -
mistermack at 08:59 AM on 25 October 2010There is no consensus
I did read more. I noted that it's claimed "we know that....." without saying how. I don't want to get off topic, but a model doesn't justify "we know that", you could maybe say "we calculate that...." or "our best estimate is....." What this seems to indicate, is that the "consensus" is basically the result of faith in models. Yet others are telling me that they think it's the result of evidence. I still think consensus has built itself up in a feedback loop.Moderator Response: Why on Earth do you think all the evidence is in this blog? The authors of these blog posts go to considerable trouble to cite, and when possible link to, the peer reviewed scientific literature so that blog readers can go there if they want more info. Commenters responding to you have done the same. It's past time for you to take advantage of those resources. -
mistermack at 08:33 AM on 25 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
Tom, re your previous comments, the ten thousand years was my estimate, snatched out of the air, but bearing in mind that there is an 800 year lag between a temperature rise showing even the slightest rise in CO2 levels. How long would it take to significantly reduce CO2 availability in the ocean significantly? Especially as oceans should be significantly warming all the time. -
David Horton at 08:29 AM on 25 October 2010Blaming global warming on the oceans - a basic rebuttal
I am always baffled by the inability of denialists to apply the 700 year old commonsense of William of Ockham. "Oceans releasing heat" is just one of many "mechanisms" that rely on no one noting the strange fact that they are supposed to have come into play just in the last 40 years at precisely the time that there has been industrialisation, population growth, and a resulting rapid rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Some coincidence eh? -
mistermack at 08:07 AM on 25 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
Tom, I would agree that a "burp" mechanism would be interesting. But it would need to be demonstrated that it could be significant on a global scale, not local. And in that case, you would expect to see a clear signal in the ice cores. I wouldn't discount it as being possibly significant, but it would need more evidence of a worldwide effect. I can't visualise a "gulp", working at the top of the cycle though. -
FLansner at 07:52 AM on 25 October 2010DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
Hi Peter and klaus :-) I did not expect acurracy, but im not sure why the latest years should have mor descrepancy than the other years. Here my 2010 point: http://hidethedecline.eu/media/BLANDET/dmi2010.jpg -a value less than +0,4 deg C appears correct still, so im not sure what to make of this. But :-) There is a decline in temperatures of perhaps 0,5 K 1991 - 2010 -and this is something quite else than the GISS trend GISS 80N-90N summer data: http://hidethedecline.eu/media/GlobalIceExtend/fig2.jpg GISS shows no sign of cooling trend, only warming for summer 1991-2009 80N-90N. And of course yearly anomalies are very interesting´indeed, but yearly anomalies does not make errors in summer anomalies go away. K.R. Frank -
mistermack at 07:46 AM on 25 October 2010There is no consensus
Responseman, I looked at "Climate sensitivity is low", the first sentence is :"There are some things about our climate we are pretty certain about. Unfortunately, climate sensitivity isn’t one of them". That makes my point for me. The "consensus" is there, in spite of the lack of certainty about the central tenet of AGW. That is, is the climate sufficiently sensitive to CO2 for there to be a problem? I argued that the consensus is fortified by the consensus in a feedback loop, not by certainty of the evidence.Moderator Response: Read past the first sentence. Click on the "Advanced" tab. Read the section "What is the possible range of climate sensitivity?" Note that certainty is high regarding the lower limit of sensitivity, and that even that lower limit will have serious adverse consequences. (You need to read the entire Advanced post to get all that.) -
Tom Dayton at 07:43 AM on 25 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
mistermack, why are you claiming that the cause of reduced CO2 levels was dwindling of the CO2 content of the ocean? The ocean's role in adding or removing CO2 from the atmosphere depends on the temperature, CO2 concentration, and other chemistry in the ocean, but also on temperature and CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Unlike in the atmosphere, CO2 in the ocean is not so well mixed, which is why its role in triggering reversal of ice ages seems to hinge on ocean currents bringing CO2-rich water up from the depths. Changes in any of those factors can change the rate at which CO2 outgases from the ocean, and even reverse the direction to absorption. Changes in any of those factors can come from any number of other factors, including change in seasonal insolation due to orbital progression. An example is that suggestion of a CO2 burp from the southern ocean being a trigger of at least one particular ice age. Burps have starts and ends. The notion is that deep CO2-rich water upwelled "suddenly." But that would have depleted that deep reservoir of CO2-rich water. So that extraordinarily high rate of CO2 outgassing would have been a "short" duration event. -
Tarcisio José D at 07:30 AM on 25 October 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
Em tempo: A lei de Stefan-Boltzmann tem apenas dois parâmetros; area e temperatura. At time: The Stefan-Boltzmann law has only two parameters, area and temperature. -
Tarcisio José D at 07:25 AM on 25 October 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
TonyWildish Pense em "ganho de antena". Só é possivel porque as ondas eletromagnéticas não seguem a 2nd lei da termodinamica. Elas seguem a lei da sobreposição linear das ondas mecanicas. Na atmosfera; Um mol de N2 colocando-se uma molécula ao lado de outra, cobriremos 92,7 m2/mol ou 6,62 m2/gr e cada m2 representa um elemento radiante. Como o ganho de antena é igual ao numero de elementos radiantes teremos 6,62 vezes a radiação de um m2 para cada grama de N2. Think of "antenna gain" . I's possible only because the Electromagnetics waves do not follow the 2nd law of thermodynamics. They follow the law of linear superposition of mechanics waves. In the atmosphere; One mole of N2 placing one next to another molecule, will cover 92.7 m2/mol or 6.62 m2/gr and each m2 represents a radiating element. Because the antenna gain is equal to number of radiating elements will have 6.62 times the radiation from an m2 per gram of N2. -
Peter Hogarth at 07:08 AM on 25 October 2010There is no consensus
mistermack at 06:53 AM on 25 October 2010 Please read Lean 2010, and look at figure 6. -
Tom Dayton at 07:07 AM on 25 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
mistermack, what is the basis for your claim that ten thousand years would be an incredibly sudden period for CO2 feedback to dwindle? -
mistermack at 07:05 AM on 25 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
This timescale argument is a bit silly. This IS the climate timescale. When I write sudden, I mean sudden in climate terms. Surely that's obvious? What's sudden to the climate of the earth is not sudden to a kitten. When you talk about the CO2 supply in the ocean dwindling, and turning off a feedback loop, ten thousand year would be incredibly sudden. -
archiesteel at 07:00 AM on 25 October 2010There is no consensus
@mistermack: Climate Sensitivity is estimated at between 2.5C and 4C. If you have evidence to the contrary, by all means present it. So far you have failed to do so. As for the NASA page, it clearly shows the current level of CO2, and we know CO2 "greenhouse gas" properties will increase temperatures. We also know this extra CO2 is from anthropogenic sources. Therefore, it is very likely humans are responsible for the current warming. Again, you have failed to produce a single piece of evidence that disputes this. The burden of proof is on you - better start working on that thesis! At least you agree it's warming, even if you're ready to gamble civilization's future just because you disagree (without evidence) about climate sensitivity. -
Klaus Flemløse at 06:57 AM on 25 October 2010DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
Peter Hogarth at 06:30 AM on 25 October, 2010 Thank you Peter Hogarth This is what I whant to see. Looking forward to read the excel sheet with DMI data. Regards Klaus Flemløse -
mistermack at 06:53 AM on 25 October 2010There is no consensus
Archie, your page from the "know nothings at NASA" showed evidence of warming. We all know we've had warming. What's not there is good evidence for the title "anthropogenic". That's what's always missing. -
mistermack at 06:45 AM on 25 October 2010There is no consensus
Archie, your link, "evidence is there" just illustrates my point perfectly. The relevant question is the sensitivity of the climate to CO2. Will increased CO2 cause a big enough rise in temperature to cause problems. That's the one bit of evidence missing. The relevant bit. The rest is just window dressing. I didn't say there is no evidence about anything. I'm saying that you need evidence for the central tenet. Link me that, if you like.Moderator Response: Climate sensitivity is low and It’s not bad -
Tom Dayton at 06:42 AM on 25 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
mistermack, you continue to refuse to acknowledge the importance of the time scales of the graphs. Try mentally zooming in on Figure 1 at the top of this post until its x axis had the same time scale as the graph of temperature response to cessation of human emissions. The "sudden" drops would not seem so sudden. Or zoom out of the the graph of temperature response to cessation of human emissions until its timescale matches that of Figure 1. Then the "gradual" drop would seem just as sudden as Figure 1's drops. What seems to you personally to be unrealistic and unreasonable rates of decrease when you look at a graph zoomed out so far, in fact are completely reasonable when the actual times involved are recognized. -
archiesteel at 06:40 AM on 25 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
@mistermack: again, you are misled by the time scale used in the graphs. The changes seem sudden to you because the scale is in hundreds of thousands of years. If you were to see these changes happen on a much smaller scale, they wouldn't look so sudden, and would be consistent with the feedback loops ending. Also, Tom has not claimed that a drop in CO2 is what drove the climate down. Instead, CO2 is a *feedback* mechanism in those cases. You won't learn much (and you clearly have much to learn still) by refusing to listen to rebuttals to your erroneous claims. -
archiesteel at 06:36 AM on 25 October 2010There is no consensus
@mistermack: Here some more evidence of anthropogenic global warming, from those know-nothings at NASA... -
Peter Hogarth at 06:30 AM on 25 October 2010DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
Klaus Flemløse at 05:18 AM on 25 October 2010 Thanks. I will post the Excel values in a few days if I have somewhere to post them here! I will be out of e-mail range over next week. Anyway, whilst seeing if there was a nice publicly available version of DMI I have found a website called Climate Sanity which has also created yet another “pixel counting” numerical version of DMI (through some of 2009), along with a relevant article (I will not pass judgement on the overall site!). I have also checked this data and was interested to see how good a match it is to DMI. The overall averages and trends seem very well matched. My own attempt at "pixel counting" gave errors quite similar to Franks (but in different places). I have calculated the above zero degrees average for all three data sets using Franks table. The overall trend of the difference between the Lansner and DMI values is -0.02 degrees C/decade. Whilst this is not really significant, we can see below that most of the significant errors seem to be in recent years.
-
mistermack at 06:28 AM on 25 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
Tom, if the graphs remotely resembled a process "petering out", I would have to agree. However, as I've pointed out so many times, they don't. Draw your own graph, of a feedback loop "petering out". What does it look like? Does it resemble the ice core records? And why don't the CO2 graphs jump in front of the temperature graphs when that happens? If a drop in CO2 is pulling down temperatures? -
archiesteel at 06:17 AM on 25 October 2010There is no consensus
@mistermack: "Archie, if the evidence was as overwhelming as you say, I wouldn't waste my time looking." The fact you are "still looking" doesn't affect the quality of the evidence in now way. I'll surmise that the reason you are still looking is that you have failed to understand the science, probably because you're too biased towards your preconceived notions to be receptive to it. Again, the evidence is there, and you have yet to present a convincing claim against it. "I know for a fact that the evidence is debateable, because I've done a lot of looking, much more that the average student intake." That's argument by assertion: "I'm right because I say I am." Sorry, but that logical fallacy won't cut it here. "I think I am therefore well justified in my conclusion that most people are initially convinced by the "consensus" rather than evidence." No, you're not. You haven't presented a shred of evidence to support your accusation. Therefore, the only think we can conclude is that you don't seem to know what you're talking about. "You mention doctors, but many doctors are also homeopaths, and many are "experts" in homeopathy." That's an attempt at changing the subject, and in fact *very few* medical doctors are homeopaths. Medical experts, and the current state of medical science, condemns homeopathy as the hoax it is. "The concencus of experts in homeopathy would be overwhelmingly supporting the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies." Homeopathy is not empirical science, and the vast majority of medical experts do not accept homeopahty and its alleged remedies are effective. So your example fails. "Same applies to Chirpractic." Again, that is not a valid examples, because chiropractors are not necessarily experts in medical science (and in fact I suppose very few do). These examples fail to support your anti-intellectual attack on experts. "I'm not saying that climate science is as silly as these," No, but you're certainly implying they are similar. "I'm just pointing out that a consensus is naturally self perpetuating, till it's disproved." Again, there is no indication that people who study climate believe in AGW because of the consensus. Rather, the consensus exists because the evidence (which you *choose* to ignore) indicates AGW is very likely true. "That's why the consensus on AGW is totally valueless, as evidence." Well, that's right in an of itself. Note that the article isn't claiming that the consensus is evidence AGW is true - it doesn't. Rather, it is a rebuttal of the contrarian argument that "there is no consensus," when in fact there is (as you yourself have admitted a few times in this thread already). So, again, the contrarian argument is that there is no consensus (hence such farces as the Oregon petition project), the rebuttal is that there is. You arguing that the consensus is meaningless is off-topic (and wrong in your characterization of the consensus). Please stop insinuating that people who study the climate are motivated by groupthink rather than rational thought. It's insulting, and goes against site policy (as it suggests a conspiration of dunces). "In climate science, you can't even predict next year's trend. But you can grandly predict the trend for the next century." Indeed. "Without the slightest risk of being proved wrong." So far, they haven't as temperatures are quite close to predictions - but I'm sure you'll change the subject and start attacking the quality of temperature records next. Contrarians are *so* predictable... -
Tom Dayton at 06:01 AM on 25 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
mistermack, you are incorrect that runaway warming was happening but something else stopped it. Positive feedbacks that are not of the runaway variety never can run away. They are self-limiting. Each little bout of positive feedback is just that--a little, short-lived bout that inherently, by its fundamental nature, will die out. They do not strain toward running away. They are introspective. Belly button "innies" rather than "outies." In our current era, there is a lot for us to worry about despite the lack of the runaway variety of positive feedback, because we keep adding greenhouse gases; our addition of greenhouse gases is a forcing. The non-runaway positive feedback amplifies the effects of those additions. If we suddenly stopped adding greenhouse gases and all other emissions, temperature would continue to rise for several years due to the Earth working toward equilibrium, but then the temperatures would fall. If we continued to emit but at a constant rate instead of an increasing rate, temperature would continue to rise for longer but then would asymptote. Tying all that back into the topic of this post: Those past CO2 positive feedbacks also were not of the runaway variety. So they, too, inherently would peter out. Unlike the human-caused addition of CO2, there was no forcing by independent addition of CO2. CO2 was instead acting as a non-runaway feedback. Other, forcing and feedback, factors needed to keep stimulating the system and thereby prompting more (non-runaway) positive feedback from CO2. Most prominent among those factors was orbital cycles, but there also were effects of changes in vegetation, dust, snow and ice cover,.... So your question "what made the temperature rise stop" is ill posed. The better question is "what made the temperature continue to rise as long as it did?" -
mistermack at 05:49 AM on 25 October 2010There is no consensus
Doug, that's an incredibly weak argument. Who's going to draw attention to their incorrect predictions? They get conveniently forgotten, and we are left with amazingly accurate forecasts. It's like a bankrupt gambling addict telling you about his big wins.
Prev 2109 2110 2111 2112 2113 2114 2115 2116 2117 2118 2119 2120 2121 2122 2123 2124 Next
