Recent Comments

Prev  2155  2156  2157  2158  2159  2160  2161  2162  2163  2164  2165  2166  2167  2168  2169  2170  Next

Comments 108101 to 108150:

108101. Paul D at 21:00 PM on 2 October 2010
        Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
        NETDR: "Ok if you want to say 3 ° C so be it but when the scientists want to scare the public they use the higher number." Who is 'the scientists'? But in any case, the higher number is possible. It's like any engineering project, a component will have a range of tolerances within which it will work. The upper tolerance may result in a failure, but only 1 in say 10,000 components may be in the upper tolerence. So you can expect 1 in 10,000 products to fail due to that component. eg. the low probability of failure due to some components being in that upper tolerance band, doesn't stop some failures happening. In the case of climate temperature tolerances, we have the one range. If we use the climate 'component' we don't know if it is in the low or high range of temperature. Hence the issue isn't that 6c won't happen, it is the case that we are uncertain, but it could. Given that it could, however unlikely, we have to assess just what the damage would be for that scenario and weigh that up against it being less probable. Given it is likely to be seriously worse, that has to bring it into the more probable tolerance band as a risk to be considered. So is it 'alarmist' to consider the higher temperature ranges? No, because if we applied the same logic to say a nuclear power station, we would remove a lot of the safety mechanisms because the probability of a serious accident happening would be even smaller than a 6c temp rise. You are NETDR fooling yourself if you believe uncertainties are a reason to pull back. Such thinking does not occur in modern engineering and if it does you get oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico and other similar accidents.
108102. Riccardo at 20:58 PM on 2 October 2010
        An underwater hockey stick
        This a thought coming directly out of my mind which I can't support in any sound way. We are used to think of the oceans as a slow responding system but more and more studies report relatively fast responses. It looks like we're missing something important on ocean dynamic. Is it just me or is it really surprising how fast the oceans appear to respond?
108103. Doug Bostrom at 20:41 PM on 2 October 2010
        Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
        The reason for the existence of this site is primarily economic, JohnD, and that is why discussions here have a tendency to swerve away from science and into unfounded personal opinions, such as that thousands of petawatt-hours per year of additional energy retained on the planet will somehow result in no disruption to the accustomed behavior of our climate (your opinion, based on your many comments here). Ask yourself, where is the website frequented by members of the lay public where models of Earth mantle convection are hotly debated? The "energy flux" powering this site and the myriad other locations where discussions of climate science involve the general public is the future course of several trillion dollars per year, now concentrated in the hands of fossil fuel concerns but possibly to be redirected to other means of energy manipulation. That same energy is what has driven the Royal Society to revisit their statement on climate change.
108104. kdkd at 20:34 PM on 2 October 2010
        There is no consensus
        Oh dear, BP's comments were possibly not satirical - I missed the sensible comment among all the extremism ("And no IPR tricks, papers written on research done using public money should go into the public domain."). This is tending to be a requirement in NIH and EU funded research these days. I think we're a bit behind the times here in Australia, although I have an article going into a (free to publish in, and free to retrieve) open access journal sometime soon. But that's an industry-academic partnership body who are trying to raise their profile, so it's a bit different.
108105. johnd at 19:56 PM on 2 October 2010
        Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
        The Ville at 17:55 PM, if all the contributors to this site were climate scientists, then perhaps the discussion here would be more about the science behind the research they are presenting and less about opinions. However almost exclusively all the work being referred to here by the contributors is the work of others, and the reason it is presented to support a particular argument is because, in the contributors OPINION, it is relevant and carries some authority for a number of various reasons. Often it is because they are of the opinion that the author of the study has credibility, and so all work he produces carries the same credibility even though the detailed science is beyond those who present it here, but that may not be the opinion of everyone. At other times the work may be, in their opinion, relevant to the argument, but again as we often see here, in the opinion of others, it is at times rejected as being of little relevance. At other times when the research is unable to determine with any certainty whether the nett result points to one outcome or another opposing outcome, and different scientists are able to make cases for both scenarios, the case selected by a contributor here will be based on their own opinion as to which scenario seems most likely or is most consistent with their own position, and so on. So whilst you may consider that science is not about opinions, how different contributors select and present supporting arguments on this site is most definitely all about opinions.
108106. adelady at 18:54 PM on 2 October 2010
        There is no consensus
        Doug, I tried to work with your analogy but was defeated by the straight face requirement. Perhaps it's more like roads, tunnels and bridges. The authority or other developer's costs are met out of taxes paid by everyone, as are the maintenance costs. There is no restriction on how many kms are driven on those roads by any particular driver or vehicle, taxpayer or otherwise. The current system acts more like a toll road. Not a very wonderful analogy, but you get the idea.
108107. Doug Bostrom at 18:44 PM on 2 October 2010
        Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
        Given the general level of treatment of this RS report, it seems geared to a lay audience. In light of that, what surprises me is how it commits an all-too-common error of omission by repeatedly referring to "uncertainty" without carefully explaining the meaning of the term when it is employed in scientific communications. This a pretty astounding oversight given that confusion over the meaning of the term "uncertainty" is a hurdle for the public when it comes to understanding science. Uncertainty is a didactic challenge we've known of for decades, has a particularly high profile when it comes to discussing climate change and in fact has been manipulated and exploited for rhetorical purposes by various entities interested in policy outcomes related to climate change. Disagreement over communicating uncertainty was the impetus for an update to the RS report yet the report entirely fails to address uncertainty as a key topic. Motivation for a redo hinged essentially on a perceived process problem with the first report, namely that the first report conveyed an exaggerated sense of risk. Beyond causative mechanisms, risk is about probability. Our ability to judge the probability of risk from climate change is rooted in the uncertainty of scientific findings having to do with climate change. Conveying a useful understanding of the risk we're exposed to by climate change thus absolutely requires a proper explanation of what uncertainty means in the scientific sense. By failing to accomplish this first and arguably most important task, the RS report fails to improve on the first attempt. Regardless of one's stance on climate change, as a communications tool this report is a failure right out of the gate when it comes to helping readers from the general public understand the significance of the scientific findings it covers.
108108. Paul D at 17:55 PM on 2 October 2010
        Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
        NETDR: "If this is a site dedicated to teaching neophyte true believers their beliefs I will leave you to your beliefs. If it is a site willing to debate the opinions of others I an willing to oblige." Surely science isn't about peoples opinions, if that were true then it people would be discussing whether humans landed on the moon or if UFOs exist. Anyone can have an opinion, the fact they do doesn't make it true.
108109. Doug Bostrom at 17:49 PM on 2 October 2010
        An underwater hockey stick
        Fascinating find, John. Full text of this paper is available here (pdf). Joe, be sure to check out section 2, "Regional Context," which suggests your intuitions about inhomogeneity seem to have some factual underpinning.
108110. Doug Bostrom at 17:27 PM on 2 October 2010
        There is no consensus
        BP: ...papers written on research done using public money should go into the public domain. There's broad agreement on that, at least. I'm no expert (on anything) but it looks as though the emerging model going forward is for research budgets to include boosted publication fees, those fees to cover the costs of making publications permanently accessible on a freely available basis. Trying to think of an analogy, the only one coming to mind is unfortunately that of purchasing a plot in a cemetery, where money for the plot pays for upkeep of the cemetery grounds, with no gate fee for those wishing to visit and pay their respects. Stretching the analogy past the snapping point, perhaps we may think of citations as being the equivalent of visitors leaving flowers...
108111. Daniel Bailey at 16:56 PM on 2 October 2010
        Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
        Re: chriscanaris (40) A more direct article link for interested people to follow can be found here (see page 5). The Yooper
108112. kdkd at 16:51 PM on 2 October 2010
        IPCC Reports: Science or Spin?
        One of the 'interesting' facets of the so-called sceptic argument is that there seems to be an insistence on trying to take the discussion back to first principles whenever it's expedient for them to do so. This itself is a form of 'Spin' and appears to be what Noel is up to, consciously or otherwise.
108113. Daniel Bailey at 16:30 PM on 2 October 2010
        Does Climate Change Really Matter?
        Re: My comment at 41 above Upon re-read, my 2nd paragraph seems a bit obtuse. Sorry for that. Here's a re-try for clarity: Humans have whacked the carbon cycle with a mountain of carbon. This bolus, or "slug", has upset the natural balance between forcings and has driven the current upward "spike" in temperatures. Temperatures will continue to rise, due to the physics of radiative gases, until a new equilibrium is reached. Note: as long as the CO2 concentration continues to rise, achievement of temperature equilibrium will be delayed and temps will continue to rise. Thus, any further continued release of fossil fuel derived CO2 makes things worse. Even if CO2 emissions are immediately reduced to zero and maintained at zero for 30 years, temperatures would continue to rise due to the immense thermal inertia of the oceans, where 93% of the warming of the system has currently gone. This warming of the oceans is driving a reorganization of the climate system, which will continue to change as long as the CO2 emissions and temperatures rise. It is that lag in response wherein lies the danger. By the time incontrovertible evidence (to the layman) exists, it will be too late to avoid or even mitigate the worst of the changes still in the pipeline. And that only takes into account the short-term forcings. Longer-term responses (century to millennial timescales) include forcings which will effectively double any warming we will see in our lifetimes. The warming already in the pipeline may be sufficient to obliterate our ability to feed the world's current population. Thus, for some of those alive today, it may already be too late. Hence the calls for action and the existence of this and similar websites. That sounds a bit more clear, I think. The Yooper
108114. Noel Edwards at 16:07 PM on 2 October 2010
        IPCC Reports: Science or Spin?
        A general comment on the above appreciated discussion on my posts in this section IPCC Reports: Science or Spin? It would seem that the above are the types of comments skeptical science can come up concerning that most basic of requests - why is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Those who are skeptical about the whole of the CO2/global warming debate are going to smile broadly and know their belief in the fallacy of the basic science is entirely supported. The respondents have missed the point and can't come up with a few simple step by step points that show that CO2 has the necessary absorption frequencies to be a greenhouse gas. This type of information has never been made available to the general public who are only fed the line "CO2 is a greenhouse gas". They can understand a reasoned and well presented case that doesn't depend upon complex mathematics. Why not give one?
        Moderator Response: You were already pointed to the Skeptical Science post How Do We Know CO2 Is Causing Warming?, whose second paragraph has links to abundant laboratory evidence stretching back 150 years. Also you were pointed to the Science of Doom home page. Perhaps you did not search through the posts there to find ones answering your specific questions, so I'll help: Click the "Roadmap" link at the top of that site. Then read the series of posts linked on that page, all of whose titles start "CO2 - An Insignificant Trace Gas?"
108115. Daniel Bailey at 15:56 PM on 2 October 2010
        Does Climate Change Really Matter?
        Re: mfripp (40)

        "Do you have a Climate Science 101 answer or reference for why small changes in average temperature have such a large effect on the climate?"

        You essentially are referring to the sensitivity of the climate to forcings, both negative and positive, the net effects of which can and have changed over time. It is the recent admixture of human-derived fossil-fuel CO2 concentration emissions (which depart from the paleo record of the balance between the forcings which has driven temperature and climate changes in the past) which now drive a rate of warming change (read: euphemism for the "Hockey Stick") for which there exists no comparative example in the paleo record. I plugged "climate sensitivity" into the search box available at the upper left of every Skeptical Science page and got this. Of the resulting Skeptical Science posts available, this is the one probably most pertinent. If you would rather a source with a summary outside that of Skeptical Science, I plugged your quote into Google and found this site, which seems to offer a fair-balanced, relatively non-technical, summary as well. If you wish to further deepen your knowledge and understanding of Climate Science, I would refer you to Real Climate's Start Here page. Pay particular attention to Spencer Weart's The Discovery of Global Warming article; another virtually required viewing source is Richard Alley's talk on CO2: The Biggest Control Knob. Hope this helps, The Yooper
108116. chris1204 at 15:40 PM on 2 October 2010
        Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
        Sorry, I couldn’t get the link to work :-( . I’ll try again: Stephen Schneider and Julian Simon
108117. chris1204 at 15:31 PM on 2 October 2010
        Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
        tobyjoyce @ 21 I don't want to go too far off topic but the thesis, antithesis, synthesis meme applies across a range of fields and especially in politics and policy which is where the AGW debate must play itself out. In science, we see it in terms of competing paradigms jostling for their place in the sun. Saying Hegel was a lousy scientist because he published a tract stating that there could not be more than seven planets on philosophic grounds is to apply to him the standards of a different era. Newton was said to dabble in alchemy and astrology (the latter is a matter of some dispute) yet none would deny him his greatness. Moreover, Einstein's physics are perfectly compatible with those of Newton. When dealing with velocities on a human scale, the distortions of time and space emanating from relativity become so negligible that Newtonian physics apply. Coming back on topic, I note that this has yet to happen in climate science not because of a dispute about the laws of physics but because of the complexities of the systems involved create uncertainties about the weighting to give to a plethora of feedbacks. This creates a tension between those who desire urgent action and those who see the uncertainties. The former fear that the latter undermine their cause. The latter include those who may honestly feel that the uncertainties are too great to warrant drastic steps and at the more extreme end some who would go so far as to accuse scientists of being prepared to lie or stretch the truth to advance their agenda. The issues are well captured by the controversy between Stephen Schneider and Julian Simon. For what little it’s worth, I am much more sympathetic to Stephen Schneider's take on the dilemma even though philosophically I would be closer to Julian Simon. (HERE)
108118. Tom Dayton at 14:20 PM on 2 October 2010
        IPCC Reports: Science or Spin?
        Noel Edwards, I have replied to your Mars comments on the more appropriate thread, Mars Is Warming. That thread is not a perfect match for your comments, but it is far better than this thread is. If you want to continue the Mars portions of this conversation, you should do so on that thread, not this one.
108119. Tom Dayton at 14:17 PM on 2 October 2010
        Mars is warming
        This comment is a response to a comment by Noel Edwards on a different, less appropriate, thread. Noel wrote

        Moderator I have read most of your references. They indicate that CO2 is capable of absorbing radiation at different frequencies. Already known. But there is nothing in those references that indicate why Mars is cooler than it should be when it has lots more CO2 than Earth. There are no other issues associated with Mars, other than it has some 14 times as much CO2 in its atmosphere than has planet earth. Its maximum temperature is the approximately the same as Earth's average temperature and its average temperature is the approximately the same as Earth's minimum temperature. The physics is similar.

        Noel, you are very, very incorrect, as dsleaton and Matthew pointed out to you. There is no basis for your claim that Mars "is several degrees C cooler than it otherwise should be." More details on why the water vapor feedback is so much smaller on Mars than on Earth are in David Archer's book "Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast", pages 71-72. If you don't want to buy the book or borrow it from your library, you can watch his class lectures for free. If you insist on details, here is just one of several examples of calculations that Mars should in fact be the temperature it is: Forget, et al. (1999). A general-reader-comprehensible overview of modeling the Martian atmosphere purportedly is provided by Stephen R. Lewis's article "Modelling the Martian Atmosphere, though all but the first page is behind a paywall. If you really, really, want to understand the difference between Mars and Earth, get ahold of this book when it comes out (probably December 2010); it will have a workbook and computer models you can run: "Principles of Planetary Climate" by Ray Pierrehumbert.
108120. archiesteel at 13:19 PM on 2 October 2010
        IPCC Reports: Science or Spin?
        @Noel: the greenhouse effect is a well-known physics phenomenon. Anyone who tells you CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas is misinformed - for example, that web site you posted is full of poor and inexact science. Check here for more info.
108121. adelady at 13:10 PM on 2 October 2010
        Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
        NETDR ".. beliefs ..debate ..opinions ..points of view.. arguments. ..argument XYZ .. refutation .. point." This is not a debating society. Nobody ever refers to argument XYZ. We all read or refer to papers, reports, statistics, articles, graphs. There may be an argument about which is more relevant or useful, but it's never an argument in the way you're describing. Back to "Uncertain times.." I know that there is no change in the RS's position about the science. However I do think the restatements and the emphasis on uncertainties is a classic example of the Freudenberg & Muselli "Asymmetry of Scientific Challenge" problem. There is no change in the science nor in the RS view of the science, but the RS's most recent document differs significantly =in tone= from the 2007 public statement. No matter how much anyone repeats the mantra about there being no change in the science or the stance. For the people who poked and prodded the RS into producing this, it is a vindication of their approach. I would have been a lot happier if the RS had said they have examined the scientific papers published since 2007 and statistics since then. These indicate that the earlier statement should now be stronger in these ....... various/particular/different ways.
108122. archiesteel at 13:09 PM on 2 October 2010
        Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
        Oh jeez, here we go. "If this is a site dedicated to teaching neophyte true believers their beliefs I will leave you to your beliefs. If it is a site willing to debate the opinions of others I an willing to oblige." It's neither, actually. It's a site to debate science. Not opinion. Not politics. Science. Just the type of language you use ("true believers," etc.) shows you're not really interested in learning the science, but only in picking up fights because, well, you decided you didn't believe in AGW and nothing will make you change your mind. "I think that much is to be gained by sharing points of view and arguments between skeptics like myself" You're not a skeptic, you're a denier. There's quite a difference. "and true believers [or whatever you call yourself] such as yourself." Just call me someone who understands a bit of the science and who listens to those who no more in order to understand it better. "I am tired of posting on skeptical sites because it is like preaching to the choir." I don't think you know what "preaching to the choir" means. While you figure it out, I suggest you quit posting the same debunked talking points over and over again. "Don’t expect me to bow before your particular study there may be serious problems with it and I will point them out if I am able." Translation: I will disbelieve anything you show me in advance because I'm convinced I'm right. "I have read many articles on this site and found gaping holes in many of them. Possibly they were just too basic and omitted knowledge I already had !" Yeah, right. Do you think *anyone* will buy that here? This isn't WUWT, you know? People here actually understand the science. "I expect you to object and bring forth your best arguments. I follow [immature and unconvincing chest thumping deleted] Make the argument if you are able." Is this the scientific equivalent of the "Internet Tough Guy" challenge? :-) "The missing heat is still missing and despite the XBT study trying to find it still lost." The recent studies showed that we have an incomplete picture of abyssal depths, and that much of the heat is probably in such places, i.e. below the range of ARGO buoys. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. "Without it the 3 ° C warming for a 2XCO2 is a fairy tale." The 3C climate sensitivity value is pretty solid, and so far you've presented *no* evidence that indicates otherwise. "So far it isn’t happening as your own article admits." Huh? Where did you get that idea? "I invite you to post your arguments on wattsupwiththat.com if you feel capable and don’t mind getting roughed up." I was arguing online when you were still in elementary school. I'm just not interested in spending time with pseudoscientists and conspiracy theorists. Goodbye, troll. No more feeding you.
108123. kdkd at 13:00 PM on 2 October 2010
        There is no consensus
        BP #231 Your search is misleading. That's local government agencies who have decided to participate in the campaign, not providers of sponsorship. I hope your extreme libertarian statement is meant to be satirical by the way, as in any other context it makes no sense at all.
108124. Matthew at 13:00 PM on 2 October 2010
        IPCC Reports: Science or Spin?
        Noel, I'd guess 1# No water vapor. A huge part of the green house effect, 2# Thinner Atmosphere, which doesn't hold the heat in, which most of it escapes to space and 3# much further from the sun and gets far less solar input then earth. Pretty much Mars Atmosphere because of its size is not enough to hold onto heat or a respectable Atmosphere.
108125. dsleaton at 12:25 PM on 2 October 2010
        IPCC Reports: Science or Spin?
        Try a glass of the ole H20, Noel. And before you ask the next logical question, go here.
108126. NETDR at 12:07 PM on 2 October 2010
        Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
        Archiesteel If this is a site dedicated to teaching neophyte true believers their beliefs I will leave you to your beliefs. If it is a site willing to debate the opinions of others I an willing to oblige. I think that much is to be gained by sharing points of view and arguments between skeptics like myself and true believers [or whatever you call yourself] such as yourself. I am tired of posting on skeptical sites because it is like preaching to the choir. . Don’t expect me to bow before your particular study there may be serious problems with it and I will point them out if I am able. You are free to do the same. . I have read many articles on this site and found gaping holes in many of them. Possibly they were just too basic and omitted knowledge I already had ! I expect you to object and bring forth your best arguments. I follow up and read many of the links you post but I have read many of them before. I have read several books and several hundreds of articles most of them explaining the non skeptical arguments. I probably know them as well as most of you so it is patronizing to tell me to read argument XYZ as if it were a refutation of my point. Make the argument if you are able. . Name calling and saying that my arguments have been debunked while satisfying to you is pointless and untrue. . The missing heat is still missing and despite the XBT study trying to find it still lost. . Without it the 3 ° C warming for a 2XCO2 is a fairy tale. So far it isn’t happening as your own article admits. There is no reason to believe warming will suddenly accelerate. Until the missing heat returns it won’t. So go back to reinforcing each others misconceptions and ignore me if you prefer. I invite you to post your arguments on wattsupwiththat.com if you feel capable and don’t mind getting roughed up. If there are unwritten policies like “one argument per post” let me know I will comply.
108127. Berényi Péter at 11:49 AM on 2 October 2010
        There is no consensus
        #230 doug_bostrom at 10:51 AM on 2 October, 2010 I'm wondering if 10:10 is hiding government sponsorship. It does. About 35,400 results (0.06 seconds) And yes, I agree wholeheartedly, government sponsorship of all private enterprises has to be stopped, including fossil & biofuels, wind, solar, nuclear and oxen energy. Obviously some taxpayer's money should go into basic research, but only if appropriate institutions are installed to make sure politicians don't have their say in how it is distributed. And no IPR tricks, papers written on research done using public money should go into the public domain.
108128. dsleaton at 11:43 AM on 2 October 2010
        IPCC Reports: Science or Spin?
        And Noel, if you want to engage in a lengthy debate with someone who is willing to show you every scrawny detail in the physics of C02 and its status as a re-radiator of longwave radiation, go to scienceofdoom.com and engage to the content of your heart and mind.
108129. Noel Edwards at 10:58 AM on 2 October 2010
        IPCC Reports: Science or Spin?
        There is one overriding factor that is not mentioned in any discussion related to anthropogenic global warming. Every scientific report starts out with the assumption that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. There has been no attempt to show that it is capable of warming a planet in any meaningful way. Even the IPCC publication Climate Change 1995, The Science of Climate Change (Ed Houghton JT, et al) Cambridge University Press, in its summary of policy on page 17 starts out using the words:- "Increases in greenhouse gas concentrations ... followed by:_ "The atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, inter alia carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) have grown significantly: ... It doesn't even provide a reference to the effect that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. In pages 72,3 it adds: "1.2.3 Mars and Venus Similar greenhouse effects also occur on our nearest planetary neighbours. Mars and Venus. Mars is smaller than the Earth and possesses, by Earth's standards, a very thin atmosphere (the pressure at the Martian surface is less than 1% of that on Earth) consisting almost entirely of carbon dioxide which contributes a small but significant greenhouse effect. The planet Venus, by contrast, has a much thicker atmosphere, largely composed of carbon dioxide, with a surface pressure nearly 100 times that on Earth. The resulting greenhouse effect on Venus is very large and leads to a surface temperature of about 500°C more than it would otherwise be." There is one significant error and one significant problem associated with the above. The signifiant error is that Mars is not exhibiting any greenhouse effect. To the contrary it is several degrees C cooler than it otherwise should be, all other factors taken into consideration, despite having over ten times as much CO2 in its atmosphere than has planet Earth. Yes, Venus has an average surface temperature of some 500˚C above what it should have, no questions asked. However Venus has some 160,000 times as much CO2 in its atmosphere than has planet Earth. In the absence of a non linear reference, this means that doubling Earth's CO2 concentration in its atmosphere would result in a temperature increase of less than 0.01˚C. That is hardly a cause for concern. Reference to the above calculations can be found at illustrates that CO2 does not have a frequency of absorption that could give rise to heat capture. Surely any scientific discussion on the effect of human induced CO2 emissions on the possibility of global warming should surely start out by clearly establishing that CO2 is capable of warming a planet. The above assumption by the IPCC's best scientists and its "proof" does not give a firm foundation for any scientific discussion. The rest merely becomes a lot of hot air as both sides seek anything to support its stance and generally question the integrity of the other side. The whole site is not skeptical science. It is skeptical debate! If there was a genuine scientific interest in establishing that CO2 (CH4, N2O) were definitely causing global warming, it should first establish that those gases are indeed capable of capturing heat. And that establishment should explain why planet Mars is many degrees C cooler than it should be despite having a much larger amount of CO2 in its atmosphere than planet Earth will ever get.
        Moderator Response: That's an old, tired avenue of discussion. As always, the "Search..." box at upper left is our friend.
        
        Please explore the observational evidence for CO2 as a GHG at the How do we know CO2 is causing warming? thread. If your concern is more with saturation effects, comparisons with other planets, etc., avail yourself of "Search..." and thereby enjoy the benefit of cohesive, nonduplicative discussions.
108130. Doug Bostrom at 10:51 AM on 2 October 2010
        There is no consensus
        Perhaps an arrangement may be made wherein government sponsorship of fossil-fuel firms is withdrawn? Meanwhile, I'm wondering if 10:10 is hiding government sponsorship.
108131. Berényi Péter at 10:42 AM on 2 October 2010
        There is no consensus
        #227 doug_bostrom at 10:22 AM on 2 October, 2010 10:10 needs some grownup supervision. No. They need withdrawal of corporate and government sponsorship.
108132. Doug Bostrom at 10:27 AM on 2 October 2010
        There is no consensus
        Here's a much more useful video:
108133. Doug Bostrom at 10:22 AM on 2 October 2010
        There is no consensus
        That video is not only disgusting, it's unscientific, completely ignores what we know of effective risk communication. 10:10 needs some grownup supervision.
108134. Berényi Péter at 10:08 AM on 2 October 2010
        There is no consensus
        #1 roverdc at 17:32 PM on 27 September, 2007 Concensus only has meaning if there is no pressure to conform in either direction. No pressure, indeed.
108135. Joe Blog at 09:41 AM on 2 October 2010
        An underwater hockey stick
        Im speechless... this purported anomaly represents an utterly mind blowing amount o energy in the space o 50 years! This must be a local thing! It cant possibly be representative o the North Atlantic water temperature!
108136. kdkd at 09:23 AM on 2 October 2010
        New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
        Ned #108 Regarding statistical significance stuff, this is actually a limitation of the application of central limit theorem to the correlation coefficient. While one can do lots of very interesting things with correlations (with the help of multidimensional geometry, linear algebra, and yes, central limit theorem), by themselves they're a pretty blunt, insensitive instrument and not terribly informative.
108137. Joe Blog at 09:16 AM on 2 October 2010
        An underwater hockey stick
        Im going to point out the obvious... You are seeing a much larger anomaly in ocean temps... leading atmospheric temps, this would be consistent with shortwave warming... not long wave. Overlaying the graphs(Moberg vrs NAWT), also shows ocean temps leading atmospheric in the modern era... There needs to be more reconstructions to really say anything definitive, oceans being oceans, this could be a coincidental current shift... but the ocean anomalies should NOT be leading, or greater than atmospheric anomalies. What are the local atmospheric temperature anomalies at the location in question?
108138. Nick Palmer at 08:52 AM on 2 October 2010
        New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
        @Ken Lambert #98 "If the Solar forcing curve were to start not at (0,0) but say (0.1W/sq.m, 0) - a slight positive forcing" As you appear to want to believe that there was/is more solar forcing than most believe, so that you can attribute some of the observed warming to something else than the inexorable rise in greenhouse gases, then consider that that extra solar forcing added to the expected forcing from increased CO2 plus feedbacks will likely make whatever global warming that's coming to us worse than expected. Do you feel lucky?
108139. archiesteel at 08:21 AM on 2 October 2010
        Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
        @johnd: I can't count the number of onlin forums (which includes comment sections) I've participated in since I started back in the day of BBSes. This long experience has given me the ability to spot a troll a mile away. Now, you may want to engage this individual yourself and try to have a coherent discussion, but my *humble* suggestion to those who'd be tempted to keep re-explaining the same things to him (even though he's clearly not interested in "accumulating knowledge") is to just ignore him, or kindly point him to the appropriate argument in the list, but not waste time writing long rebuttals he's not even going to read. That's all. BTW, I haven't heard any of the serious AGW critics here denounce the weak scientific arguments repeatedly pushed by such commenters as NETDR, thingadonta and cruzn246. You have to realize that, ultimately, such crude attacks on the science hurt your side of the debate more than mine...
108140. johnd at 08:07 AM on 2 October 2010
        Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
        archiesteel at 07:45 AM, whilst your warnings are obviously directed at those with limited capacity to assess such matters themselves, the object of sites such as this is to allow readers on both sides to both present and accumulate knowledge on the subjects being debated, and as such should be left to the participants and ultimately the moderators to decide on the relative value of any contribution without having to be told what value any may or may not be contributing.
108141. mfripp at 08:04 AM on 2 October 2010
        Does Climate Change Really Matter?
        Ned, I recognize that the difference between the last glacial maximum and now was 8C. Nonetheless, I do not understand it. The science is proven, but it does not mean that I understand the science. Do you have a Climate Science 101 answer or reference for why small changes in average temperature have such a large effect on the climate?
108142. archiesteel at 07:49 AM on 2 October 2010
        Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
        Our understanding of what drives the climate is so good we can say it's very likely we can't afford to wait another 30-40 years before we react to this threat.
108143. archiesteel at 07:45 AM on 2 October 2010
        Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
        Folks, NETDR is a troll. It's obvious from the way he misrepresents facts and fails to stay on-topic, presenting a mish-mash of half-baked arguments that fall apart under the shallowest of scrutinies. His goal is to waste our time by restating the same arguments over and over again, hoping to create enough chaos on these threads to prevent any reasonable scientific discussion. There's only one way to deal with trolls: ignore them. Don't respond to their trolling, and they'll go away. Anyway, people genuinely seeking serious scientific information will be turned off by his political references, and there are moderators who can prevent him from going too much off-topic.
108144. Mal Adapted at 07:44 AM on 2 October 2010
        Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
        NETDR:

        Ok if you want to say 3 ° C so be it but when the scientists want to scare the public they use the higher number.

        So, you're willing to believe 3 degrees because it's not as scary as 6?
108145. Ned at 07:35 AM on 2 October 2010
        Does Climate Change Really Matter?
        Searching for a new rhetorical device, Doug and I simultaneously come up with the same idea: Doug: One of way of thinking of this, mfripp, is that if my house should burn down ... Me: ... my home being buried under 2000+ meters of ice. Some say the world will end in fire, Some say in ice. From what I've tasted of desire I hold with those who favor fire. But if it had to perish twice, I think I know enough of hate To say that for destruction ice Is also great And would suffice. (Robert Frost) What's next ... muoncounter's house destroyed by a volcano?
108146. Joe Blog at 07:07 AM on 2 October 2010
        An underwater hockey stick
        Well.... considering the BIG jump in 1900... and the relative increase in radiative forcing then... This paper brings up quite a few BIG questions...
108147. Rob Honeycutt at 06:35 AM on 2 October 2010
        Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
        You just gotta love the Daily Mail headline: "Royal Society issues new climate change guide that admits there are 'uncertainties' about the science" That's like saying, "Scientists admit to eating breakfast in the morning."
108148. JMurphy at 06:34 AM on 2 October 2010
        IPCC Reports: Science or Spin?
        philc, I don't think you have it quite right. The quote in your first paragraph looks like it comes directly from WIKIPEDIA (if so, it's always a good idea to reference your sources, especially when you are highlighting it as a quote), so perhaps we should see what else it has. The next paragraph is : The treaty itself sets no mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions for individual countries and contains no enforcement mechanisms. In that sense, the treaty is considered legally non-binding. Instead, the treaty provides for updates (called "protocols") that would set mandatory emission limits. The principal update is the Kyoto Protocol, which has become much better known than the UNFCCC itself. And, a few paragraphs later : The UNFCCC is also the name of the United Nations Secretariat charged with supporting the operation of the Convention... The Secretariat, augmented through the parallel efforts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), aims to gain consensus through meetings and the discussion of various strategies. How does that "presuppose the results" ? And, in fact, the IPCC was set up in 1989, three years BEFORE the UNFCCC convention was adopted. So, why was the IPCC set up ? Why not read about it : The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is the leading body for the assessment of climate change, established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic consequences. Because of its scientific and intergovernmental nature, the IPCC embodies a unique opportunity to provide rigorous and balanced scientific information to decision makers. By endorsing the IPCC reports, governments acknowledge the authority of their scientific content. The work of the organization is therefore policy-relevant and yet policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive. But you obviously don't believe all that, right ? Which "founding documents" were you suggesting we look up ?
108149. Adam C at 06:13 AM on 2 October 2010
        Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
        "This warming has... been largely concentrated... from around 1975 to around 2000" I have to say that I'm very disappointed that even the Royal Society can be fooled by one outlier year. Does no-one know how to do a moving average any more?
108150. Ned at 05:37 AM on 2 October 2010
        Does Climate Change Really Matter?
        2-3 C sounds like a little temperature change ... but that's misleading, because a small temperature change averaged over the entire globe is actually a huge change in the climate. For comparison, global temperatures at the last glacial maximum were about 8 C lower. So that 2-3 C is about a quarter to a third of the change between my home being in a comfortable temperate forest and my home being buried under 2000+ meters of ice.

Prev  2155  2156  2157  2158  2159  2160  2161  2162  2163  2164  2165  2166  2167  2168  2169  2170  Next