Recent Comments

Prev  2133  2134  2135  2136  2137  2138  2139  2140  2141  2142  2143  2144  2145  2146  2147  2148  Next

Comments 107001 to 107050:

107001. Riccardo at 18:07 PM on 14 October 2010
        The sun upside down
        Joe Blog I fixed the Haigh 2005 link, thank you. UV impact, as we noticed before, is (almost) not questioned by anyone; some details may not be clear but scientists essentially agree that the effect is there. On the contrary, the GCR hypothesis is still missing a strong confirmation and it is anticipted that GCR have a small on our climate, if any.
107002. alan_marshall at 17:17 PM on 14 October 2010
        Do the IPCC use alarmist language?
        I must admit I have been frustrated by the conservatism of this projection, not so much now, but particularly when it appeared in earlier IPCC reports with a lower degree of certainty. “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (greater than 9 in 10) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” With the mechanism for heat capture by greenhouse gases proven in the laboratory and confirmed by satellite measurements; with no other mechanism demonstrating sufficient forcing to account for the observed rise in temperature; with temperature and CO2 tightly coupled in paleo-climate data - what other explanation justifies the remaining 1 in 10 uncertainty? An alien secret weapon perhaps? I get annoyed that scientists are expected to prove that the warming is outside the bounds of “natural variation”, as if the latter were an independent phenomenon. It is clear that the natural variation in average temperature in both paleo and human history is predominantly driven by changes in CO2, even if initially triggered by smaller forcings such as variation in solar radiance. Yet the skeptics use the term as if it provides a valid alternate explanation. The rise in CO2 in the second half of the 20th century is obviously anthropogenic because we can make fairly accurate estimates of the oil, coal, peat and wood that has been burnt. When you have a proven relationship between cause and effect, and clear evidence for the cause, denying the effect is pure folly.
107003. SME at 17:13 PM on 14 October 2010
        Do the IPCC use alarmist language?
        As a "truth seeker" (that's a person who is attacked and criticised by people at both extremes :-))I found that comment reasonably OK. I'd have minor quibbles but they are not enough to be worth raising. The addition at the end re Pakistan was unfortunate as it doesn't make the overall point at all well and the argument would have been better with the example excluded. While events such as the Pakistan flooding are complex and cannot be simplistically categorised, a major point is that this disaster was NOT driven by an especially extreme weather event. The overall rainfall is reported to have been in the 20 year flood to 30 year flood range. High - but within the range that people reasonably expect to have to deal with in a sensible manner. Damage would be expected, but not catastophe. In this case other factors appear to have been responsible for turning what should have been a modest disaster into a major one. The biggest apparent factor is a change in land use and irrigation practices in relatively recent times, so that drainage has been routed much more efficiently into areas requiring irrigation, and water which was previously wasted for this purpose is now channelled to where it is most wanted. Usually. Alas, as with many man-made optimisations, when the 25 year flood comes the drainage system does not drain as it did before and instead places the water where it is most unwanted, on this occasion, and fails to "waste" it by sending it to sea as it used to do. Lack of planning and foresight by authorities thus seems to be a major factor. A fine example of Murphy at work. SME
107004. gpwayne at 15:43 PM on 14 October 2010
        Do the IPCC use alarmist language?
        Good to see this covered properly - thanks James. Understanding the nature of predictive science, which can only deal with probabilities, is key to appreciating the nature of the problems we face and the overwhelming likelihood that our actions are storing up great and disruptive problems for the future.
107005. scaddenp at 15:39 PM on 14 October 2010
        Quantifying the human contribution to global warming
        John - the IPCC WG1 report. You have read this I hope. However, you comment is somewhat amnbiguous. A 50-100W/m2 FORCING would be deadly. More like 3.7 I think. Are you asking though about the amount of change in radiation from surface being absorbed by CO2 or the change in the amount of back radiation received by the surface from the amount of change in CO2 alone? You might want to look at Philipona 2004 or liberation.fr.
107006. muoncounter at 14:36 PM on 14 October 2010
        Models are unreliable
        Continuing from here. "The algebra of probabilistic distributions is extremely complex ... Extrapolating complex environmental data described by complex statistical relationships into the future is indeed a difficult process" What you've described (in the linked comment) sounds like a fairly routine problem in particle physics. And yet we build devices that rely on the motion of electrons through semiconductors; we manage to collide protons and anti-protons with statistical certainty (and avoid hysterical claims that we'd be creating mini black-holes in the process). We can even make sense of the results and produce a very competent model of the sub-atomic world. Your argument suggests that if a problem is too complex, we can't put any faith in a model solution. The implication is that it's a waste of time and money to begin that process. Yet that is a challenge that has been met successfully in other disciplines. Some of the comments above suggest that it can work here as well.
107007. Doug Bostrom at 14:31 PM on 14 October 2010
        Medieval Warm Period was warmer
        Heidi, the trouble with simplified, nontechnical explanations is that they must leave out the very details required to make them fully articulate. We can distill and digest but it's a lossy form of compression. In the final analysis, to have understanding and more particularly fully justified confidence in perfect synchrony with the research, one has to dig into literature and end up on a parallel plane w/researchers themselves. Normally this is not a problem. I can give you a broad brush treatment of how a parachute works, I can point to the success of parachutes. You could walk away from such a conversation w/a reasonable degree of confidence in parachutes based on a lossy description. But such a treatment is not durable against concerted resistance. Compared to climate research, I don't have to worry about a bunch of parachute skeptics insisting that parachutes don't work because you and I do not have understanding of their aerodynamic principles up to NASA-Ames standards.
107008. RSVP at 14:30 PM on 14 October 2010
        Explaining Arctic sea ice loss
        Philippe Chantreau #22 "I don't know what you're trying to say there." Comparing the Artic with Antartica, I was saying that the Artic ice is mainly at sea level, and that Antartica ice is mostly mounted on land. Not sure if you ever noticed, but it gets colder as altitude increases, so without doing any reasearch, I made the not so unreasonable speculative comment that the Artic is more predisposed to what is actually being observed than Antartica for this reason. As for your question about my use of quotes around "water" and "land"... these refer to the substrate, whereas the surface is actually ice.
107009. muoncounter at 14:20 PM on 14 October 2010
        Do the IPCC use alarmist language?
        #14: "The algebra of probabilistic distributions is extremely complex" Switching to Models are unreliable as per Mod request.
107010. scaddenp at 14:03 PM on 14 October 2010
        Do the IPCC use alarmist language?
        Well I would have to agree with you on need to explore all parameter uncertainty, and I think (but dont know for sure) that they dont have computer power to explore full model. Annan has paper coming out on model ensemble determination. However, note the approach in climate sensitivity estimation.
107011. Composer99 at 14:01 PM on 14 October 2010
        Newcomers, Start Here
        As one of the newbies here, might I make a suggestion (this being the introductory thread for newcomers)? It would seem to me that the blog posts on this site comprise three types: (1) The 'meat and potatoes' of the site: parsing and skeptically analysing the generic arguments posited by climate contrarians/skeptics (2) Critical analysis of specific instances of (to borrow from Ben Goldacre) 'bad science' on the part of contrarians/skeptics (e.g. blog posts on WattsUpWithThat, or by Goddard or Nova, or posts describing takedowns of Monckton) (3) New and interesting research in climate science Is there a possibility of the other two categories of post getting their own meta-posts, with some sort of permanent link on one of the menu bars?
        Response: Thanks for the suggestion. However, there's so many (2) and (3) type posts, the margins would be overflowing (besides, I have other cooler plans for the margins)
        
107012. scaddenp at 13:54 PM on 14 October 2010
        Medieval Warm Period was warmer
        Heidi, all proxies have two things that make useful. 1/ Something is dependent on temperature in a known way 2/ Some way of dating the proxy. Now ALL proxies have problems. A temperature reconstruction is no good without estimates of uncertainty which are large. Problems with both the temperature relationship and dating dog both. However, that does not mean they are no use. You can test theory to see whether the proxies match within the uncertainties As to individual proxies - best to look up detail. Ice cores, tree rings, stalagmites etc. have excellent time resolution. The oxygen isotope ratio in ice is an excellent thermometer so ice core is probably best we have - but only tell the temperature of places that accumulate ice. Tree rings and stalagmites are more problematic. Sediments, corals etc add in a dating problem. However, I wouldn't get carried away on paleoclimate - its skeptic fun park because of the uncertainty. AGW is founded in physics but tested against paleoclimate.
107013. Roger A. Wehage at 13:37 PM on 14 October 2010
        Do the IPCC use alarmist language?
        "That's not food for thought, its nonsense. The independent probabilities of multiple events don't add." You are absolutely correct. They don't just add or subtract or multiply or divide; they do all these plus thousands or millions of others. Try this: You have a rectangle whose length and width are each described by a normal distribution with a different mean and standard deviation. How would you describe the rectangle's area, length time width? What if opposite sides weren't parallel, and the angles were described by normal distributions with different means and standard deviations? What if the sides weren't even straight lines? What if the distributions weren't normal, but skewed or lognormal or something else? The algebra of probabilistic distributions is extremely complex and a danger in the hands of people who don't understand it or who pretend to. Extrapolating complex environmental data described by complex statistical relationships into the future is indeed a difficult process and subject to many hazards in the hands of those who don't have the prerequisite background or tools. I know enough to know that I have neither the prerequisite background nor the tools to predict the probabilistic distribution of anything more than simple statistical examples.
107014. Tom Dayton at 13:21 PM on 14 October 2010
        Do the IPCC use alarmist language?
        Roger Wehage, you will be surprised to learn that there is more to decision theory than "six sigma." Many decades more to it. There are societies, journals, academic departments, technologies, and successful commercial consultancies specializing in application of those technologies. Just type "decision theory" into your internet search engine. Specifically regarding the IPCC, you could read the relevant sections of the IPCC reports that describe how the IPCC decided on their published probability estimates. But if that's too technical, then you might be interested in a good poster that was presented at the American Geophysical Union in 2009. It was by a PhD student in philosophy, rather than by a statistician, so it is a good, comprehensible, basic, explanation. It does not seem to be online except for its abstract ("A Defence of the AR4's Bayesian Approach to Quantifying Uncertainty"), but perhaps if you contact the author he will send you the contents.
107015. kdkd at 13:15 PM on 14 October 2010
        New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
        muoncounter #157 You can demonstrate the effect sizes needed for statistical significance as I explained in this post. A further thing of note, is that if you're doing short-series correlations, and the value of R2 varies wildly depending on the start and end points within the set of data that you're interested in, then you're doing something wrong, and need more context or alternative statistical methods. In Peter Hogarth's (#156) instance, you'd want to control for the effect of ENSO in some way, and then measure the trend.
107016. Roger A. Wehage at 13:09 PM on 14 October 2010
        Do the IPCC use alarmist language?
        "Montecarlo methods are more common in complex model uncertainty estimation." I have been in the computer-based modeling and simulation business for over thirty years. I invented the acronym GIGOSIM, which stands for Garbage In, Garbage Out SIMulation. When using computer-based models to analyze highly complex, nonlinear systems whose accurate response predictions depend on many nonlinear topological relationships, parameters, and input data, it is absolutely necessary to identify and include all significant topological, parametric, and boundary data. Montecarlo methods may have some utility if a model's topological and boundary relationships are fairly well established, otherwise they could "verify" erroneous models whose output may appear to give the expected results. Nonlinear systems can do that. Yvan Dutil said, "I did used to calculate failure risk in space mission. This is not that difficult. All you need is decent estimate of the component reliability." If it is not so difficult, then why has NASA spent $Billions on it and failed? Because the space shuttle is a nightmare. A little O-ring failure here a little insulation impacting a tile there. A gas leak here a stuck valve there. I've a feeling Earth's climate is no different. Just as one can't model part of a space shuttle without knowing thousands of boundary conditions, one can't model part of Earth's environment without knowing thousands of boundary conditions. Too many scientists zoom in on one or a few critical factors while ignoring others in the name of simplifying down to manageable levels at the risk of biased or even incorrect projections. This could lead to GIGOSM, and let the reader beware.
        Moderator Response: If you want to discuss the specific topic of climate models' validity, please do so on the thread Models are unreliable.
107017. muoncounter at 12:52 PM on 14 October 2010
        Do the IPCC use alarmist language?
        #7: "more than one billion parts. What is the probability that the shuttle will fail if each part has a probability of 1 in a million of failing?" That's not food for thought, its nonsense. The independent probabilities of multiple events don't add. But we should ask: What is the really alarmist language? The 'very likelys' or 'most likelys' described above? Compare those mild-mannered phrases to 'scam', 'fraud', 'big lie', 'propaganda', 'deceitful', 'snowmageddon', and the like.
107018. barry1487 at 12:30 PM on 14 October 2010
        Do the IPCC use alarmist language?
        

        It's OK to be alarmed when facing extinction

        What does that have to do with climate change or airplanes?
107019. Yvan Dutil at 12:21 PM on 14 October 2010
        Do the IPCC use alarmist language?
        In one of my many former life, I did used to calculate failure risk in space mission. This is not that difficult. All you need is decent estimate of the component reliability. Those have to be crossverified when possible. As for probability assesment, IPCC language has been used to translate scientific uncertainties in layman language. In my mind, this is a combinaison of reported uncertainties (combined pdf) and expert assesment. This is not different of what you see in other field like risk management where similar approach is used.
107020. Heidi at 12:20 PM on 14 October 2010
        Medieval Warm Period was warmer
        So, what I get told often is: How does anyone really know the temperatures during the Middle Ages? There's no data back beyond 30 or 50 years. Scientists are just guessing. It's mumbo jumbo because there's a lot of money in research on climate change. It's a fad. You say it's based on ice core samples, tree rings, coral reefs, and other proxy measurements but how do those work to generate believable information? How can an ice core, for example, tell you the temperature of the earth a thousand years ago? I hope you aren't pulling your hair out right now. It's basic but I get challenged all the time on this in conversations with bright, well-informed, educated people who don't believe in climate change because they don't believe the data. It would be great to have a non-super-technical explanation of why scientists know we are experiencing something truly unique climate-wise; an explanation of the way you measure and why it's accurate. Thanks!
107021. scaddenp at 12:14 PM on 14 October 2010
        Do the IPCC use alarmist language?
        Robert - You could read the papers on estimating uncertainty and probability in various aspects of climate instead of making unsubstantiated suggestions about dart boards. eg Annan and Hargreaves. Montecarlo methods are more common in complex model uncertainty estimation.
107022. Roger A. Wehage at 11:57 AM on 14 October 2010
        Do the IPCC use alarmist language?
        I suppose IPCC have not heard of six sigma. The area under one tail of the normal curve 6 sigma out is approximately 10^-9, which corresponds to a probability of 1 in a billion. The area under one tail of the normal curve 4.5 sigma out is approximately 10^-6, which corresponds to a probability of about 1 in a million. Manufacturing strives for a failure rate of less than 1 in a million. Now some food for thought. The space shuttle has more than one billion parts. What is the probability that the shuttle will fail if each part has a probability of 1 in a million of failing? So where would IPCC come up with their numbers? A dart board? Or let's see; nine papers out of ten said that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will warm the planet by more than 1.5 degrees, so the probability is 9 out of 10 that it will be more than 1.5 degrees. So which would be more useful to the reader, 9 out of 10, where the numbers were pulled from their butts, or "very" and (un)"likely", which were also pulled from their butts and mean nothing. I claim that the second option is closer to reflecting what the IPCC really knows about their probabilities. $Billions have been spent on computing the space shuttle's probability of failure and probability of catastrophic failure. Here is a little discussion. How well did they do? Miserably. Probably about the same as the old Indian who held up a piece of rope to predict the weather. If it's wet it's raining and if it wiggles the wind is blowing. Probability is all relative. I wouldn't rely on any of their "Three different approaches are used to describe uncertainties..." Astronauts are reckless and know they have a much greater probability of blowing up than passengers in James' airplane. But I'm not, and I won't get on board, especially if he is relying on other sources for his information. How many important inputs were "estimated" (scientific wild ass guesses or SWAGs?) or ignored or left out for simplicity or cost reduction or just overlooked? Back in my college days I computed numbers to three digits with my trusty old Post slide rule. Today, students compute answers to sixteen or more digits and write them all down. Which answer is more accurate? Precise? My advice is, read the information and study the charts and graphs. If something is "very important" to you, then don't take their word for it, but dig deeper into the subject.
107023. beam me up scotty at 11:48 AM on 14 October 2010
        Do the IPCC use alarmist language?
        It's OK to be alarmed when facing extinction
107024. muoncounter at 10:55 AM on 14 October 2010
        New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
        #156: "to get close to a meaningful trend we would want to calculate over a minimum period equivalent to several of the maximum length ENSO cycles" Peter, I think that statement is the key take-away here. Whenever trends are calculated using long enough data sets, we see 'statistically significant warming.' When the 2,3,5,10 year trends are calculated, you can get whatever you want, depending on how you've picked the years. To me, that's the working definition of 'statistical significance.'
107025. chris1204 at 10:45 AM on 14 October 2010
        Explaining Arctic sea ice loss
        Philippe @ 22: I think you're being a little hard on RSVP ("No one can deny Arctic ice thinning or the opening of "northwest" passages. (...and I assume these still close up in winter)... You mean, you don't really know that? While I don't possess mind reading powers, I suspect RSVP was being ironical. Whether his irony was misplaced is another issue.
107026. Byron Smith at 10:08 AM on 14 October 2010
        Global warming impact on tropical species greater than expected
        so too does it's need for food Typo: it's --> its
107027. dana1981 at 10:00 AM on 14 October 2010
        Do the IPCC use alarmist language?
        Very nice explanation, James. Well done.
107028. Peter Hogarth at 09:58 AM on 14 October 2010
        New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
        muoncounter at 03:43 AM on 14 October, 2010 I think protestant is saying that calculating the mean trend over a period between two ENSO peaks is valid? I checked the trend (it looks similar), but the premise is incorrect, and it is still cherrypicking. From a signal analysis point of view to get close to a meaningful trend we would want to calculate over a minimum period equivalent to several of the maximum length ENSO cycles, - if ENSO has a strong influence (which it does). This would be closer to 20 years than 10. We would normally try to take a trend through extreme excursions like the 1998 peak. To take this peak as a starting point for a 10 year trend is as wrong headed as using it as an end point for the previous decade. Both trend results would be unduly biased in opposite directions. A running decadal average (red below) would be better at extracting underlying trends with minimised ENSO influence, but as this clearly shows the underlying rising trend few deniers would recommend this methodology. Back to the post, the rather crude reconstruction here (using most of Ljungqvist 2009 data) seems suspect in some areas compared to Ljungqvist 2010. If so, by association, so is Loehle, as the methodology is similar (but he uses less proxies).
107029. Joe Blog at 09:33 AM on 14 October 2010
        The sun upside down
        Thank you Riccardo for the links(the Haigh one didnt work for me, but im pretty sure ive read that one any way) Just to me, the stratospheric tropospheric interactions in relation to the solar cycle, seem a more viable hypothesis than say the cosmic ray hypothesis, as far as climate variability go(i could be wrong o course). Bearing in mind we are weighting the stratospheric response with co2 cooling up there, and in the past with CFC depletion of O3... An interesting area of inquiry anyway as far as solar effects on climate variability, through dynamical responses to variable UV.
107030. Doug Bostrom at 08:50 AM on 14 October 2010
        Do the IPCC use alarmist language?
        Amazing that Skeptical Science's James Wight betters the Royal Society when it comes to dealing with this. In the mind of the public one of the central problems in dealing with this affair is thinking about risk. While the RS failed to lend sufficient emphasis to explanations of probability and hence risk in their most recent attempt at a statement, here's a useful elaboration of the IPCC's own acknowledgments. Thanks, James. On a broader note, a lot of skeptic infection depends on people never actually looking at the IPCC report. James linked it above, here it is again just in case somebody missed it. Speaking of alarmists, perhaps it ought to go in the "incoherence thread" but reading this I was immediately struck by how frequently skeptics refer to our lamented warming as quite possibly helping us avert another Ice Age. I've never seen these claims bracketed with language on uncertainty...
107031. Albatross at 08:13 AM on 14 October 2010
        Do the IPCC use alarmist language?
        James, Interesting post. Just to place the cost of these natural disasters in context. Putting the tragic and painful loss of life aside for a second, the cost of the floods in Pakistan is estimated at almost 10 billion dollars (World Bank). It is also noteworthy that the IPCC in AR4 (their most recent report released in 2007) underestimated the loss of Arctic sea ice and increase in global sea levels. GHG emissions are currently running along the upper edge of their uncertainty range. So much for them being "alarmist".... Re the plane analogy. I personally think that we have all purchased our tickets and are barreling sown the runway knowing that there is something wrong with one of the engines. Yet, the 'skeptics' on the plane are arguing about what could be making that disturbing noise, or what natural cause might be responsible for the smoke spewing from engine number 2. Meanwhile, the pilots (and flight attendants) are taking action to mitigate the damage and avert disaster. Not I perfect analogy I know, but I'm in a rush ;)
107032. kdkd at 08:11 AM on 14 October 2010
        Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
        BP #183 You've done nothing to demonstrate that your position is not absurd on this issue. The more time goes on the less value your posts seem to have here, apart from exposing your sceptic position as politically motivated, not based on evidence and subject to an awful lot of confirmation bias. But even then, the more scientific stuff you've been doing lately is awfully shallow too.
107033. Rob Honeycutt at 07:55 AM on 14 October 2010
        Do the IPCC use alarmist language?
        Not to nitpick but with over 50,000 commercial airline flights per day I think the IPCC would more likely rate the chances of your plane crashing as “exceptionally unlikely.” Other than that, great post! :-)
107034. Alexandre at 07:54 AM on 14 October 2010
        Do the IPCC use alarmist language?
        ...and, on top of that, observations show the reality has been at least as dire as IPCC projections. Hardly a sign of "alarmism".
107035. Albatross at 05:24 AM on 14 October 2010
        Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
        BP@186, First, you owe people an answer to my question about your position on Goddard cherry-picking global SL data. Second, you are really scraping the barrel with your reference to salt. One does not have to consume even close to a pound of salt in order for it to be harmful. For this very reason, physicians, agencies and governments around the world regulate the amount of salt present in prepared foods. For example, read the position of the FDA here. Similarly, we need to regulate the emissions of CO2 to keep it at safe levels. In order to do so, the EPA is required to classify CO2 as a pollutant. The "skeptics" have had ample opportunity to present their case, the EPA patiently and thoroughly addressed each and every one of their concerns. They failed, just as you and your fellow "skeptics" are failing to make a coherent and compelling argument now.
107036. Charlie A at 04:56 AM on 14 October 2010
        Explaining Arctic sea ice loss
        michael sweet at 04:28 AM on 14 October, 2010: "The NSIDC summer summary has links to the two circumnavagations at the bottom." Thanks! I've added those two to my arctic bookmarks.
107037. muoncounter at 04:39 AM on 14 October 2010
        Explaining Arctic sea ice loss
        #27: "unaware of the yachts making it through" Try searching here for shipping news. This year’s retreat from a winter maximum of about 15 million square kilometres to a September coverage area of just five million square kilometres also means that the four greatest melts since satellite measurements began in the late 1970s have occurred in the past four years. ... Canada and the four other Arctic Ocean coastal nations — Russia, the U.S., Denmark and Norway — have pledged to co-operate in creating new search-and-rescue and environmental protection regimes to manage increased shipping, tourism and economic development in the melting Arctic.
107038. JMurphy at 04:37 AM on 14 October 2010
        Explaining Arctic sea ice loss
        Wikipedia is a good place to start for anyone wanting to know about passages through the Arctic.
107039. michael sweet at 04:28 AM on 14 October 2010
        Explaining Arctic sea ice loss
        Charlie, This cruising world article describes the 2009 year. In the article they said 11 yachts made it through (all the yachts that attempted that year). The yacht in the article went through early and later it was more open. No-one was described as needing assistance, although I would not be very surprised if someone did need assistance. Cruising World likes to be cutting edge on sailing so this fits their style. The ice was gone for so long this year that everyone would have made it for sure. The NSIDC summer summary has links to the two circumnavagations at the bottom.
107040. archiesteel at 04:26 AM on 14 October 2010
        Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
        @BP: I'm sure if we were to pour gigatons of NaCl in the environment it would have a deleterious effect on public health. "Government is seldom wiser than the people" Do you have empirical value to support this assertion?
107041. Bibliovermis at 03:59 AM on 14 October 2010
        Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
        BP, you are still stuck on acute ("real pollutants") vs chronic, except when it could make your point seem reasonable by pointing to chronic issues. For instance, plants need sulfur just as much as they need CO2 but you admit that sulfur, which is a chronic issue, can be a pollutant.

        although non-toxic

        Everything is non-toxic below a threshold value. I have to disagree that a policy of punitive, redistributive taxation is better than ameliorating the issue.

        Government is seldom wiser than the people

        The government is the people. Please spare us at this site from your ideological rants, including Animal Farm references. Rather than rambling about natural sources & breathing (OMG, gas masks!), try sticking to the topic of net anthropogenic emissions. The sophistry of "no qualitative difference exists between the CO2 from natural emissions and anthropogenic emissions" also does not further the discussion. Do volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans? (argument #59) Does breathing contribute to CO2 buildup in the atmosphere? (argument #105) Declaring that the science "is not settled enough" does not cause the science that is presented to you to disappear. The person who dismisses the accumulated scientific knowledge in favor of a political decision is the one politicizing an issue.
107042. Berényi Péter at 03:49 AM on 14 October 2010
        Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
        #185 archiesteel at 02:11 AM on 14 October, 2010 CO2 *is* toxic, though not at the concentrations we're talking about That's the point. Table salt is also toxic. Just try to consume a pound of it. Meets the legal criteria to be a pollutant, therefore it's high time to reintroduce a salt tax.
107043. Charlie A at 03:46 AM on 14 October 2010
        Explaining Arctic sea ice loss
        michael sweet at 18:47 PM on 13 October, 2010 said "For every year since 2007 unreinforced yachts have made the North West passage in less than a month..... This summer two yachts went entirely around the arctic ice, passing through both the North West and the North East passages. No icebreakers went with them." Do you have any links to info on this ? I was unaware of the yachts making it through the NW passage every year since 2007. I have seen some reports of yachts that attempted it and had to be rescued by icebreakers.
107044. muoncounter at 03:43 AM on 14 October 2010
        New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
        #152: "you need to draw the lines from CREST-TO-CREST, on ENSO-neutral intervals. 1998 to 2010 is one of those intervals," I don't understand that strategy. Crests are, by definition, noise from short term phenomena. Connecting the dots from 1998's crest to 2009's crest is just as arbitrary as connecting the dots from 1993's trough to 2007's trough. The conclusion that 'there's no statistically significant warming 1998-2010' is to use two and only two data points. How is that not cherrypicking?
107045. Albatross at 03:39 AM on 14 October 2010
        Explaining Arctic sea ice loss
        Hi Doug, I do believe you re Miller et al. :o) I understand that writing these posts is probably significantly more difficult and time consuming than people expect, and that some difficult decisions need to me made along the way. It seems that some posters here are not comprehending the content of your post. All this talk about "natural cycles" when your last sentence reads: "In sum, although natural factors have always influenced the state of Arctic sea ice, research strongly suggests that today's decline is driven by the novel influence of anthropogenic C02 we've added to the atmosphere and thus is unique in Earth's history." "Skeptics" need to understand that sometimes in science the evidence is so comprehensive, so compelling, so robust that strong words are warranted/justified. Also, it seems things are indeed "going pear-shaped", so sticking our heads in the sand (or trying to convince ourselves that the ice loss is mostly "natural") is not going to help address or avoid dealing with the situation. Moreover, such actions are neither constructive nor responsible.
107046. Doug Bostrom at 03:24 AM on 14 October 2010
        Explaining Arctic sea ice loss
        Albatross, you probably won't believe it but I actually had that Miller paper listed along w/Polyak, dropped it because I thought it insufficiently ice-specific. It's a deliciously rich review of proxies, an education in itself and I suppose in retrospect should have left it in as a resource for readers; next time I'll listen better to my intuition. Temperature and precipitation history of the Arctic (full text, pdf) Looking at Polyak, I agree I've probably understated the conclusions. I suppose I've become too sensitive to skeptic susceptibility to going hysterical over strongly worded hints that things are going pear-shaped.

Prev  2133  2134  2135  2136  2137  2138  2139  2140  2141  2142  2143  2144  2145  2146  2147  2148  Next