Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2122 2123 2124 2125 2126 2127 2128 2129 2130 2131 2132 2133 2134 2135 2136 2137 Next
Comments 106451 to 106500:
-
John Chapman at 11:58 AM on 20 October 2010Increasing southern sea ice: a basic rebuttal
If land ice was melting, I would expect it to cool the water into which it melts thus making it 'easier' for sea ice to form when the temmp drops in winter. Well that's my explanation for the increasing sea ice! -
Rob Painting at 11:54 AM on 20 October 2010DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
Adrian Smits @ 19 - The above article describes why there may not be much movement in the arctic in the summer time but it fails to explain why its cooling down since 1958 in the summer when c02 should be having its greatest impact. Guess that depends on how one defines "greatest impact". There is indeed a great impact on the Arctic sea ice volume.
And extent:
-
chris1204 at 11:43 AM on 20 October 2010Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
kdkd @ 39 1) See AR4 and literature review as per original post 2) No, However, the same applies to the thesis advanced in the post. 3) No. Again, the same applies to the thesis advanced in the post. Supposition permeates the entire field and we need to acknowledge this if we want to be credible. -
HumanityRules at 11:31 AM on 20 October 2010Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
30.dana1981 I think you can have it both ways as long as you don't take a very simplistic approach to climate forcings, feedbacks and variability. What seems to lie behind these ideas is that feedbacks are associated with the temperature change induced by these forcings rather than any other factors. For example CO2 traps more energy increasing temp. This increase in temp causes an increase in water vapour which traps more energy and amplifies the warming. Is solar variance (and other forcings) simplified in this way? Because is strikes me there are many ways solar variance might cause changes in the system (feedbacks) that go beyond the simple feedback caused by an increase in temp, through physiochemical processes for example. Can somebody answer this for me. Do we know for sure all the feedbacks associated with increased CO2? Do we know all the feedbacks associated with changes in solar irradiance? Do we know all the feedbacks associated with volcanos? If the answer is no then we can't actually say that an increase in climate sensitivity to solar variation infers an increase in sensitivity to CO2. That seems the basic argument behind the ideas John is presenting and it seems flawed to me. -
TOP at 11:29 AM on 20 October 2010Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect
@Bibliovermis "What relevance does...have to global warming, much less to a discussion about the greenhouse effect? Did you just type "clouds" into a bible search engine & post the first entry it returned?" Actually it's one of those verses that hangs around in my memory banks. Been aware of it's relevance for more than 40 years. I've actually read the Bible cover to cover a few times. I'll leave it to you to figure out it's relevance, but it is very relevant. There are a number of verses in Genesis that discuss climate. They don't necessarily fit into commonly held theories. I was reading this quote from the the first link in the link you posted: "'The influence of so-called greenhouse gases on near-surface temperature - is not yet absolutely proven. In other words, there is as yet no incontrovertible proof either of the greenhouse effect, or its connection with alleged global warming." Heinz Thieme This quote is not from Marohasy. In context the quote is using the term green house effect for the specific effects of the so called green house gases, not the green house effect of the atmosphere as a whole.Moderator Response: Discussions of biblical interpretations are not really appropriate for this blog. Please keep comments on-topic and relevant to the science. -
michael sweet at 11:25 AM on 20 October 2010Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect
RSVP, It is a waste of my time to reply to your posts. Others have covered the material, I liked e at 49 especially. I suggest the moderator delete future posts to keep this thread from becoming another waste heat thread trying to explain to you the basics of heat transfer in the atmosphere. You have extraordinarily strong comments for someone who understand so little science. -
kdkd at 11:25 AM on 20 October 2010Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
chirscanaris #38 Three questions: 1. What evidence do you have to date that the negative feedback effects are substantial? 2. If the answer to question 1 is that you do have substantial evidence, is this sufficient negative feedback to keep us out of trouble in the future? 3. If the answer to q 2 is no, do you have evidence that the negative feedbacks will increase in the future. You see conjecture alone, or selectively reading the lower range of error bars (*cough Ken Lambert cough*) won't cut it. -
chris1204 at 11:17 AM on 20 October 2010Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
Ned @ 27: 'It's not reasonable to assume a high value for climate sensitivity in order to get a large MWP, while also assuming a low value for climate sensitivity in order to minimize the effect of AGW.' With respect, Ned, I'm not making any assumptions. I'm simply looking at the range of possibilities which flow from the AR4. On one scenario, clouds may exert a negative feedback greater than the positive feedback of CO2. Is this so? At this stage, we can only guess. However, the assumption that our current modelling satisfactorily incorporates clouds (and to a much lesser extent aerosols) is just that - an assumption. Phila @ 33: I'm not into bargaining (and by implication, denial). I'm getting weary of repeating that I believe rising CO2 very likely heralds warming and that our society should aim to decarbonise. I do however like consistency in the presentation of the science whether it comes from an AGW or 'sceptical' perspective. -
TOP at 11:10 AM on 20 October 2010Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect
@Phila "You've managed to cram a surprising number of logical errors into a very brief comment. First, the Bible is not a reliable guide to what "creationists" believe, since different creationists interpret it in very different ways. Second, Genesis 9:13 has nothing to do with climate science, obviously. Third, modern creationists -- of the activist type, especially -- have had a pretty strong tendency to deny AGW." I'm not talking about AGW rather the green house effect which is the topic of this discussion. Genesis (9:13 in particular) does have a lot to do with climate science unless you arbitrarily throw out data points for no other reason than you don't like the source. It is a clear reference to climate change and global warming. I'll leave it to you to figure out why. Don't mistake logic for presuppositions. We don't share those, methinks. -
Ldavids at 11:09 AM on 20 October 2010Increasing southern sea ice: a basic rebuttal
Is the volume of Antarctic sea ice increasing, or just the extent. With the break off of a number of large pieces og sea ice in recent years, it seems to me that, like the Arctic, the thickness of Antarctic sea ice is probably diminishing. -
Phila at 11:04 AM on 20 October 2010Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect
Roger #20: Why are nearly 75% of Americans, American news media, and American politicians deniers? Do you have a link for that stat, by any chance? I'm curious to see what "nearly" means, in this context. -
Joe Blog at 10:25 AM on 20 October 2010Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect
RSVP at 09:09 AM O2 and N2 are largely transparent to terrestrial radiation(O2 is semi opaque to UV, and this is how O3 is formed, through the break down of O2 to atomic O and the free O combining with a another O2 molecule to form O3, And O3 is very opaque to UV and thus the reason the stratospheres T profile is reversed, due to heating from above from UV, and radiative cooling from below through co2) The only way energy has to leave our planet, is through radiation, truth is convection transports more energy in the lower troposphere than radiation, due to the fact that it already is at those pressures very opaque to LW, but the limiting factor causing the temperature profile in the troposphere, is the altitude where energy can escape to space. Now the reason why its at higher altitudes that it can escape to space/the atmosphere is more transparent, is due to the fact that there is less pressure, less molecules in a given area, so with less opaque gases in a given area, the further the probability of a photon traveling before it is absorbed. Now if you increase the ratio of opaque gases in the atmosphere, you raise the altitude at which energy can escape to space, just by the simple fact, that it increases the amount of molecules in a given area for a given pressure. Increasing the probability of a photon being absorbed for a given distance, at a given pressure. Thus raising the height at which energy can escape from the lower atmosphere to space, and raising the surface T by the need for the T gradient to transport the energy to this higher altitude... in a nut shell. -
Doug Bostrom at 10:23 AM on 20 October 2010DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
I must say that WUWT's treatment of this makes it hard to stay on topic. Strange blending also leads to such jokes as "Again, the years 2008-2010 is not really supporting any downward trend, although the entire period 1978-2009 shows decline using a banal flat trend." "Oh, Muffy, your trend is so banal, my dear. You should see my stylist at the WUWT salon." -
Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect
RSVP, With the time you've spent on this site I'm surprised you don't seem to understand the basics of how the greenhouse effect works. How can you take such a strong position on a topic without understanding how it works? Let me take a stab at explaining: First off, all matter above absolute zero emits some thermal radiation. The ability to emit thermal radiation alone is NOT what makes GHG's special. The key is that although all matter emits thermal radiation, different molecules may absorb and emit specific frequencies of radiation more readily than other frequencies. In the case of GHG's, they readily absorb radiation in the infrared spectrum, while being nearly transparent to radiation in the visible and UV spectrum. Radiation coming from the sun is primarily in the visible and UV spectrum. Meanwhile, radiation emitted by the earth's surface is primarily in the infrared spectrum. So here's what happens: the visible/UV spectrum radiation coming to the earth from the sun mostly passes through the atmosphere without being absorbed by GHG's. The surface of the earth absorbs this radiation and heats up, and then emits radiation in the infrared spectrum back up towards the atmosphere. This energy is now readily absorbed by GHG's, which is subsequently radiated back out in all directions. The result is that most of the energy coming in is unimpeded, while energy going out is partly radiated back down to the surface. This creates an insulating effect which causes the earth to retain more heat than it would without GHG's. The remaining gases in the atmosphere still emit thermal radiation, just not as readily as GHG's, and more importantly, they do not absorb infrared radiation as readily. If we removed GHG's from the atmosphere, these remaining gases would continue emitting radiation just as they do today. The difference is the extra warming provided by GHG's would be gone, so overall the planet would be much colder. For a good basic overview of these topics, I recommend the following: Thermal Radiation Greenhouse effect -
Doug Bostrom at 09:41 AM on 20 October 2010DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
Adrian, before we spend more time on this, can you just confirm that you understand increased atmospheric CO2 won't behave differently depending on whether it's summer or winter, or light or dark for that matter? -
Marcus at 09:40 AM on 20 October 2010Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
As I understand it, the key issue with the original Manne "Hockey Stick" was that he relied on a single, geographically limited, Northern Hemisphere Tree species as his temperature proxy. Of course, we now know that dendrochronology-even across multiple species-is not the best proxy for climate, given that drought can be as much a cause of small tree-ring size as the cold. His peers rightly attacked his methods &-as was noted-he has since revised his methodology to incorporate a number of other proxies. Of course, at least half a dozen paleo-climatologists (like Moberg) have also produced their own proxy-based climate studies-covering anything from 600 to over 2000 years. Although none of these studies show a *true* hockey stick, they do all show climate variation within a relatively narrow band-& over multi-centennial time frames-up until the 2nd half of last century. Still, nice to see the skeptics prefer to fight battles that are more than 10 years old. Maybe they're the only ones that they think they can win? -
adrian smits at 09:32 AM on 20 October 2010DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
Your still not answering my question gentlemen.The above article describes why there may not be much movement in the arctic in the summer time but it fails to explain why its cooling down since 1958 in the summer when c02 should be having its greatest impact. Even a marginal up trend should be occurring during the summer with 24 hr sunlight........What am I missing here? -
skywatcher at 09:31 AM on 20 October 2010Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
Alexandre - no problem, sorry if I misinterpreted what you said. RSVP - dana1981 has of course answered your query far better than I could. I see little reason why the largest feedback in the system should operate in a substantially different way when responding to shortwave energy as compared to longwave energy, and as dana1981 suggests, the W/sq m may be a little more effective rather than less effective. I wonder if the albedo feedback is perhaps more influenced by the longewave downward radiation of GHGs (in that this form of radiation is present worldwide and at night, therefore maybe more ever-present to melt snow and ice than shortwave radiation? But I don't know the values involved there so that is just speculation on my part! -
Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect
RSVP - Without any GHG's present (i.e., no gases that absorb/emit at IR wavelengths) the atmosphere would be strictly warmed by conduction/convection, plus latent heat if anything remained unfrozen, from the surface. There would be a very different lapse rate, and no IR from the atmosphere. But: This is a thought experiment. It's clear from the thought experiment that the planet is much warmer with than without GHG's. And that's the point of the thought experiment. The radiative greenhouse effect is real, observed, and part of the current condition of the Earth. We now return to other discussions, other threads, of changes in the level of the greenhouse effect; and the causes of recent global warming. :) -
RSVP at 09:09 AM on 20 October 2010Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect
e "The atmosphere will continue emitting radiation into space whether GHG's are there or not." Either this is true or the term GHG is meaningless. Take your pick. -
Joe Blog at 08:54 AM on 20 October 2010Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect
e at 08:44 Ohh, i see. I thought we were talking thought experiments. -
archiesteel at 08:49 AM on 20 October 2010DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
@adrian: did you read the article above? The reason why temperatures pretty much stay around 0 in the summer is due to melting ice. You seem to be under the impression that the CO2 heat trapping only happens during the day, but in fact it doesn't. If so, temperatures at night would plummet down below freezing every night! Furthermore, the greenhouse effect is a *global* phenomenon, not a local one. Heat is added to the global system, and as such it finds its way to all regions of the globe. Instead of focussing on slightly dropping surface temps in summer, you should ask yourself why temperatures during the rest of the year have dramatically increased. "These guys in Denmark actually measure temperature all over the region up there" Yes, and they agree the Arctic has been warming up, as I indicated above. -
Doug Bostrom at 08:47 AM on 20 October 2010DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
Regardless of what's happening to temperature in the Arctic summer we can safely forget about some kind of fundamental change in the mechanism of CO2 as a GHG because of the presence or absence of sunlight, Adrian. As a GHG CO2 doesn't really care if it's light or dark. Does somebody at WUWT actually suggest such a difference might be in play? Also, CO2 doesn't act as a GHG by intensifying the sun's rays. It's actually kind of a case of the opposite, with Earth's outgoing "rays" being lessened at certain wavelengths of IR. Further exploration of that is off-topic on this thread but see NOAA's FAQ on global warming to get started. -
DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
adrian smits - Did you read the presentation by Peter Hogarth at the top of this thread? Continuous ice presence over the summer limits the rise of temps to just above zero degrees C, clipping temp rise. But the average yearly temperature is rising twice as fast as the rest of the globe - it just doesn't get as cold the rest of the year as it used to. To quote Peter: "Clearly high Arctic Summer surface temperatures just above zero are not really an indication of anything except proximity to a melting ice surface. To claim that the Arctic is cooling is misrepresenting the data. It is also evident from these High Arctic data sets that the average temperatures in the Winter, Spring and Autumn periods have generally increased over the measurement period. It appears that the overall seasonal cycle is riding on a gradually warming average value, but peak positive excursions are being limited by the ice melt temperature in Summer. The energy that would otherwise raise temps above zero is melting the ice. Higher average temperatures mean more ice is melting - the time spent clipped to zero increases, and the total amount of ice melted increases. WUWT is making (oh my - how atypical) a mountain of a trend out of a molehill of variation, ignoring the full data set. It's a pretty appalling misrepresentation of the data. -
Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect
Joe Blog, Ah ok, sorry I didn't see the earlier post. I don't think RSVP gets this concept though: "This air has no GHG, so it cannot radiate heat." "And afterwards, without any "green house gas", it would be interesting to know how exactly it should emit heat???" -
Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect
Something I've noted in these discussions, where the Earth is noted to be 30+ degrees C warmer than it would be without greenhouse gases, is that there is an implied "...all other things unchanged" in the thought experiment. Yes, without greenhouse gases, the oceans would freeze, increasing the planetary albedo, making the surface considerably colder. Yes, the lapse rate would be purely convective/conductive, rather than largely driven by IR and latent heat. So the 30+ degrees is likely a considerable underestimate. But the take-home point of this thought experiment is simply that: It would be a lot colder without greenhouse gases. The radiative greenhouse effect is real, observed, and part of the current climate. -
Joe Blog at 08:29 AM on 20 October 2010Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect
e at 08:21 It is totally hypothetical, o course all gases/matter emit and absorb LW, some a lot better than others. Nothing wrong with pondering. I do take issue with unphysical descriptions when they arnt stipulated as such myself, as i have further up the thread. -
Bibliovermis at 08:29 AM on 20 October 2010Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect
David, Jennifer Marohasy - In SummaryJennifer has a Bachelor of Science and a PhD from the University of Queensland, worked for twelve years as a research scientist for the Queensland government based in Kenya and Madagascar
Pardon any confusion from me not clarifying that her scientific expertise and the breadth of her experience do not validate her claims. The purpose of presenting it was to show that she isn't just some random incompetent tapping out blog entries. HR, Arguing semantics does not further a discussion. I am also curious to see any empirical evidence for using the more precise terminology. TOP, Yes, Dr. Marohasy was explicitly denying the existence of any greenhouse effect that keeps the planet's surface ~30°C warmer, not just "so called AGW". The topic of this page was responding to that specific claim. What relevance doesI have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth.
have to global warming, much less to a discussion about the greenhouse effect? Did you just type "clouds" into a bible search engine & post the first entry it returned? RSVP, "The dosage makes it either a poison or a remedy." - Philipus Aureolus Paracelsus This concept has been repeatedly hashed out in every relevant page on this site, such as Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant. Please respect the moderation of this site and discuss this over there. Solar energy does not enter the atmosphere through convection. Convection is the movement of molecules within fluids. In the realm of thermodynamics, it is heat transfer through the movement of molecules within fluids. Solar energy enters the atmosphere through radiation, is absorbed by the planet and radiated in a different wavelength band that is more readily moved in the atmosphere through convection. Heat leaves the atmosphere in the exact same method, with or without greenhouse gases, through radiation. The fact that water is wet is also rarely mentioned. -
adrian smits at 08:26 AM on 20 October 2010DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
The DMI temperature graph shows pronounced summertime cooling in what should the time of year when c02 should have its greatest impact. All other things being equal. This last summer was one of the coolest since 1958. These guys in Denmark actually measure temperature all over the region up there as opposed to GISS who who extrapolate from 1200 miles away!You can find the graphs at WUWT. -
Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect
Joe Blog and RSVP, All matter above 0 degrees K emits thermal radiation. The atmosphere will continue emitting radiation into space whether GHG's are there or not. You are tying yourself in knots imagining unphysical scenarios, please stop. -
Joe Blog at 08:09 AM on 20 October 2010Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect
RSVP at 06:58 AM This is something ive also pondered... but its one o those things that is dependent on the exact makeup of the hypothetical atmosphere... If we just strip out the persistent ghg and assume all others stop absorbing and emitting(so no O3 creation through UV and water vapor no longer interacts with long wave) The amount of energy reaching the surface would increase substantially, due to the UV and NO CLOUDS... Now, the Q is, as the surface interacts with SW, water vapor will still convect, and there will be convection through conduction with the surface, there will be no way for the energy to escape, and over time i would imagine it would lead to a relatively homogeneous atmosphere.(im not even going to try and think about adiabatic compression possibilities, driven by latitudinal T differentials etc) The energy transfer being through conduction would mean it couldnt get above the maximum surface T... but thats the max, not the average, it would conduct back down to the surface when it was colder than the atmosphere, so it would probably end up with a stratified profile at night, but moderate energy loss, although no where near like radiation does, with convection working against conduction back down to the surface.... This is headache material... i dont know... -
Doug Bostrom at 08:06 AM on 20 October 2010Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect
The fact that CO2 and water vapor emit energy as easily as they absorb energy is rarely mentioned. What a surprising remark, really quite remarkable, even stunning. Somehow RSVP has failed to note that this entire site, hundreds of others like it regardless of stance, the IPCC and indeed vast amounts of research conducted by a large army of scientists all hinge precisely on the notion that CO2 and water vapor absorb and emit energy. Here we have the notable phenomenon of a person who visits this site nearly daily, is not the slightest bit shy about making assertions, but now says this matter of absorption and emission of energy by CO2 and water vapor is "rarely mentioned." Apparently, during all this time and through endless comments RSVP has not even understood what the fundamental discussion is about, as is I suppose hinted at by his remark above. -
michael sweet at 07:59 AM on 20 October 2010DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
Adrian smits: This post provides data that shows the Arctic is getting warmer as expected. You suggest that the Arctic is getting cooler. Can you provide a link to data or are you just trolling? -
adrian smits at 07:54 AM on 20 October 2010DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
Please excuse me for sounding stupid but isn't the sun the supplier of heat and co2 the catalyst or blanket that intensifies the suns rays? In the arctic winter there is no sun at all for six months.Is there a contradiction here? 6 months 0f 24 hr sunshine and its getting cooler year after year just when c02 should be having its biggest impact........ anyone. -
archiesteel at 07:15 AM on 20 October 2010Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect
@Moderator: Sorry for jumping the gun, I should have waited for your moderation first. -
NewYorkJ at 07:12 AM on 20 October 2010Despite uncertainty, CO2 drives the climate
Ramanathan's done some work on aerosols, including black carbon. See figure 2. His work indicates black carbon forcing (warming effect) has been underestimated by the IPCC somewhat and aerosols (cooling effect) have also been underestimated. No effect on CO2 or other greenhouse gas forcing estimates. Black Carbon and Global Warming -
RSVP at 07:08 AM on 20 October 2010Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
Chris G #31 ""...you were part of the debate." Someone has to hold the line. -
RSVP at 06:58 AM on 20 October 2010Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect
Moderator #42 "This line of reasoning would be more appropriately discussed on the waste heat thread." This is not about waste heat. I am talking about solar energy heating the Earth, and that portion of heat entering the atmosphere via convection. This mechanism has been around since creation, and if there were no GHGs, it is hard to see exactly how this heat would be released by the atmosphere as hot air rises. The fact that CO2 and water vapor emit energy as easily as they absorb energy is rarely mentioned. -
archiesteel at 06:36 AM on 20 October 2010Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect
@RSVP: the more you act in such a childish manner, the more you admit you don't actually have an argument.Moderator Response: Let's try and take the high road here. We value your contributions here too much to lose some to the deletion bin. -
Trueofvoice at 06:34 AM on 20 October 2010Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect
RSVP @ #40 Now you're playing games. You know very well that Michael is entirely consistent. YOU are the one who keeps changing his argument in an attempt to score points. Some CO2 is helpful, too much CO2 is detrimental. Comments like your last do not contribute to the conversation and appear intended to annoy. -
RSVP at 06:21 AM on 20 October 2010Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect
michael_sweet "Most of the surface heat would be radiated into space without warming the atmosphere." What about convection? Can the atmosphere not pick up a little heat this way. And afterwards, without any "green house gas", it would be interesting to know how exactly it should emit heat???Moderator Response: This line of reasoning would be more appropriately discussed on the waste heat thread. Please take further comments on this subject there. -
archiesteel at 06:18 AM on 20 October 2010Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect
@RSVP at 40: if that's not flamebait, I don't know what is. All kinds of things are necessary for life, but become pollution if there's too much of it, or in the wrong place. Ozone comes to mind. -
RSVP at 06:14 AM on 20 October 2010Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect
michael_sweet "In the absence of CO2 the ocean would freeze." Now you are saying CO2 is necessary for life. Can you make up you mind? Not to long ago you were telling me it was pollution.Moderator Response: Please refrain from being purely argumentative. Feel free to disagree, but do so in a positive, non-baiting fashion.
If you want to discuss the matter of CO2 as a pollutant, try "Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant" -
Daniel Bailey at 06:12 AM on 20 October 2010Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect
Re: TOP (36)"Interesting you bring up Creationists. They also believe in global warming. Read Genesis 9:13."
Try Revelation 8:8 and translate the mountain as a phrase describing the amount of fossil-fuel-derived CO2 absorbed as bolus by the oceans. The effects on the sea that follow are directly related. Too bad we don't have a dedicated post on this topic to properly discuss it. The Yooper -
Doug Bostrom at 05:05 AM on 20 October 2010Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect
TOP, leaving aside meta-denial, you're speaking of saturation, presumably. Unfortunately that's insufficient to qualify as the miracle we need. -
Phila at 04:31 AM on 20 October 2010Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect
TOP @Phila Interesting you bring up Creationists. They also believe in global warming. Read Genesis 9:13. You've managed to cram a surprising number of logical errors into a very brief comment. First, the Bible is not a reliable guide to what "creationists" believe, since different creationists interpret it in very different ways. Second, Genesis 9:13 has nothing to do with climate science, obviously. Third, modern creationists -- of the activist type, especially -- have had a pretty strong tendency to deny AGW. Perhaps you're taking a stab at the tired old "AGW is a religion" pseudo-argument. If so, this is an exceptionally incoherent version of it. If not, it's hard to see what your point is, or how it's relevant. -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:22 AM on 20 October 2010Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
JMurphy... re: TIS re: Moberg's hockey stick... We might say that Moberg is playing field hockey. Mann was definitely a straight ice player in 1998, but had clearly broadened his venue by 2003. People get WAY too caught up on Mann 1998. That was 12 years ago. Science has moved on. But, as John has pointed out here, we should all hope that Mann 1998 is more accurate and that there is less sensitivity to CO2. -
Phila at 03:56 AM on 20 October 2010Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
chriscanaris: I think we can be too quick to dismiss the role of clouds. This sounds reasonable, until one starts wondering who "we" are, and what "dismiss" and "too quick" actually mean (especially in the context of this post). Are you claiming that climate scientists have dismissed the role of clouds? Prematurely, no less? If so, I'd love to see the evidence that informs this opinion. An explanation of how this accusation relates to preindustrial warming would also be helpful. As for "uncertainty," the point that it doesn't inherently support a "skeptical" or inactivist stance apparently can't be made often enough. Frankly, comments like this one strike me as similar to what Elizabeth Kubler-Ross called "bargaining." -
TOP at 03:51 AM on 20 October 2010Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect
@Bibliovermis Thanks for the link. I think this response is talking past what was meant in the links you gave. In the links you gave the writer is incorrectly assigning the term greenhouse effect to the so called AGW and not to the total effect of the atmosphere on regulating the temperature on the surface where people live. The OP on this discussion is then taking that incorrect use of the term greenhouse effect very broadly to mean the effect of the entire atmosphere on maintaining surface temperature. @doug_bostrom Glad you posted that graph again. It's the global thermostat. The hotter it gets, the less the effect of CO2. The colder it gets, the stronger the greenhouse effect. @Phila Interesting you bring up Creationists. They also believe in global warming. Read Genesis 9:13. -
JMurphy at 03:51 AM on 20 October 2010Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
The Inconvenient Skeptic wrote : "Calling a Moberg chart the Hockey Stick is very imprecise." Not really, especially if you look at the original for the complete 2000 year period. I look at it this way : the original Mann 98/99 hockey-stick was brand new and had a pretty straight handle. Since then, it has appeared from just about every consequent study using all sorts of proxies and so is a little bit older, over-used, over-familiar and (in every respect) a bit battered - so that its handle is now less straight and even. It's still going strong, though, and still recognisably a hockey-stick, especially with that steep upward blade at the end.
Prev 2122 2123 2124 2125 2126 2127 2128 2129 2130 2131 2132 2133 2134 2135 2136 2137 Next
