Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2236 2237 2238 2239 2240 2241 2242 2243 2244 2245 2246 2247 2248 2249 2250 2251 Next
Comments 112151 to 112200:
-
Argus at 21:12 PM on 20 August 2010NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
Rain (from Wikipedia): Most in one minute: 38 millimetres (1.5 in); Barst, Guadeloupe, 1970-11-26. Most in 42 minutes: 300 millimetres (12 in) in 42 minutes. Holt, Missouri, USA. June 22, 1947 Most in 12 hours: 1,144 millimetres (45.0 in); Foc-Foc, La Réunion, January 8, 1966, during tropical cyclone Denise. Most in 24 hours: 1,825 millimetres (71.9 in); Foc-Foc, La Réunion, January 8, 1966 during tropical cyclone Denise. Most in 48 hours: 2,466 millimetres (97.1 in); Aurère, La Réunion, April 10, 1958. Most in 72 hours: 3,929 millimetres (154.7 in); Commerson, La Réunion, April 10, 1958 during Cyclone Gamede. Most in 15 days: 6,083 millimetres (239.5 in); Commerson, La Réunion, January 1980 during tropical cyclone Hyacinthe. Most in one year: 25.4 meters (1000 in); Cherrapunji, India. Highest average annual total: 13.3 meters (523.6 in); Lloro, Colombia. In the last 100+ years, U.K. has experienced 19 rainfalls with more than 200 mm of rain pouring down in 24 hours (also Wikipedia). The devastating effect of 300 mm in 36 hours in Pakistan comes because too many people live too close to a big and changing river. Also, man has made violent rains more dangerous all over the world, by deforestation. -
Paul D at 20:35 PM on 20 August 2010Is the sun causing global warming?
It might be worth distinguishing in the article between direct and indirect solar influences. The article implies solar activity being direct insolation or sunlight. In that respect Eric is 'off topic', however from what I can make out Kirkby suggests an indirect solar influence which is not insolation related. Maybe the article should cross reference the cosmic ray article? -
Rob Painting at 20:26 PM on 20 August 2010Climate's changed before
Svettypoo - I'm afraid your analysis is rather simplistic, for instance you fail to account for reduced solar luminosity further back in time, and also new analysis is casting some doubt on the extremely high CO2 levels once thought to have existed. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations during ancient greenhouse climates were similar to those predicted for A.D. 2100 Furthermore, how exactly do you think the estimates for climate sensitivity came about, if not from the study of Earth's previous climates? -
Eric (skeptic) at 20:04 PM on 20 August 2010How climate skeptics misunderstand past climate change
scaddenp, do you have a link to ECS/AR4 (I don't know what those are)? Also do you know of a specific physical mechanism that limits the feedback in the models? Is that physical mechanism weather? Doug, what I was looking for is a model output that stops some time in the future at some temperature. The model outputs I have looked at all continue upwards indefinitely. If the models never have an upper limit to temperature, it's hard to take them seriously. -
Eric (skeptic) at 19:58 PM on 20 August 2010How climate skeptics misunderstand past climate change
KR, those are fascinating posts. Do you have any physical explanation of how the feedback mechanism always knows to add 0.5 of the anomaly? For example, how does the tropical feedback limit itself to 0.5 of a worldwide anomaly if the tropics expand due to warming? Or are tropical, subtropical, temperate, desert, etc all the same feedback amount? All based on the anomaly and not the absolute temperature? Is this only long term feedback that ignores short term fluctuations? (e.g. worldwide average albedo changes, short term solar fluctuations, etc) see UAH for example: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_July_10.gif -
RSVP at 19:51 PM on 20 August 2010What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?
Marcus Since you dont believe its hubris, I suggest as an individual you not wait for the entire planet get on board. An easy one might be using a clothes line to dry your clothes (if you arent already doing that). If you have room for a garden, start planting vegetables. Sell your car, and when you ride your bike to the store, make sure you buy local products only. I am still not convinced that using solar panels doesnt trap heat that would otherwise reflect back into space, but you can still do your share by reducing energy consumption, turning off lights at night, etc, but the hardest one I imagine is going to be computer down time. -
scaddenp at 19:18 PM on 20 August 2010Can't We At Least Agree That There Is No Consensus?
Poptech - impact factor is not about popularity - its a measure of the extent of which papers in those journals influence science. And while it can be abused it as close as you can get as an objective measure for the impact of a journal on science. E&E exists as a "tobacco science" journal so that suspect stuff can be published and claimed as "peer reviewed". If you have something of significance to say in science that will pass the real review of your peers then you would be a complete idiot to publish it in E&E. It won't be read, and wont be cited. It exists for another kind of publication altogether. -
svettypoo at 19:15 PM on 20 August 2010Climate's changed before
Firstly I would like to thank you and your website for generating valuable discussion on AGW. Secondly, I would like to say that I don't think it is impossible for humans to change the climate, but that the change we bring about through AGW will be less significant than claimed by your article. In other words, my research has shown that our climate isn't as sensitive to CO2 as most AGW proponents claim. In your article, you claim that "we" can calculate that a doubling of CO2 will result in approximately 3 degrees centigrade. I hope you can enlighten me on the methodology of this calculation. The empirical evidence does not support your conclusions. You can take any era from history, but I will take the Jurassic and Triassic to make my point. The raw data is taken from encyclopedia Britannica 11'th edition. During the Jurassic Period CO2 concentration was 1950ppm (7 times greater than preindustrial levels of 250 ppm). You claim that for every doubling of CO2 temp increases by 3 degrees centigrade. With that logic, the Jurassic period should have been warmer by 9 degrees. It was only warmer by 3 degrees. Triassic period had CO2 concentrations of 1750ppm and was also only hotter by 3 degrees. I understand that other variables were different during that period as well. But, if you look anywhere on the geological timescale you will have a hard time proving that a doubling of CO2 directly results in a 3 degrees increase in temp. Thank you for the article!Response: Thanks for the kind comments. Climate sensitivity is essentially the change in temperature in response to a change in the planet's energy balance. So to calculate climate sensitivity, you need to work out how much global temperature has changed in the past and the changes in the planet's energy balance at the time. So if we can obtain records that give temperature (eg - from ice cores) and couple that with records that give changes in solar activity, atmospheric composition and volcanic activity, it's possible to calculate climate sensitivity empirically.
Climate sensitivity is around 3 degrees warming for a doubling of CO2. A more technically correct definition is 3 degrees warming for a radiative forcing of 2.7 watts per square metre (which is the radiative forcing from a doubling of CO2). So if you want to look at the planet's energy imbalance over past periods, you need to include other variables which affect the planet's energy balance. Specifically, we find that as you go further in the past, the sun is less bright. So you need to consider the combined effect of a dimmer sun with higher CO2 in past periods. When we do that, we find a close correlation between the net radiative forcing and climate. -
John Russell at 19:10 PM on 20 August 2010Plain English climate science - now live at Skeptical Science
Thanks for the comment, villabalo. I'll add it to my list of source material and bring it to the attention of any of the authors who could find it useful. You might find it appearing somewhere. -
batsvensson at 19:09 PM on 20 August 2010The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change
JMurphy, To continue repeating the same mantra borderline me to again reply with "So what?". Nobody have ever denied that ecology is strongly affected by climate as this is a well established observation, not even the quote you refer to denies this - on the contrary they confirm it. However, to claim climate to be an important factor for the spread of malaria is a completely other issue (called nonsense) and it is a great oversimplify of the problem. To take one(1) oversimplified example (since we now play the game of simplification) to show the absurdity it the claim that higher temperature will lead to a greater spread of malaria: it is known that higher temperature can shorten the life time of insects. If the life span of the vector is shorter than the development time of the pathogen, then trivially the pathogen can not spread. In other words, higher temperature can lead to a reduced spread of malaria, contrary to the claim. (I am still waiting for you to explain the Texas/Mexico case in terms of climate.) -
Paul D at 19:02 PM on 20 August 2010Is the sun causing global warming?
Eric144: "Kirkby's work shows that the science is not settled. I am conflating scientists and environmentalists because that is how the NASA/Hansen/Schmidt/Mann axis behaves." I think your language is riddled with politicisation. I hope you are open to a possible conclusion that you may be wrong as well as your current belief that you think you are correct. If you are really interested in the science, then an 'axis' is irrelevant. -
Argus at 19:01 PM on 20 August 2010The Oregon Petition: How Many Scientists Does It Take To Change A Consensus?
How is "catastrophic heating" defined, and what is meant by "disruption of the Earth's climate"? These are strong words, and if the meaning of the second statement really is "in flat contradiction with the scientists who study climate change", I am surprised. Not only do most climate scientists agree about increasing global warming, they also must agree that we are heading towards a total catastrophe. ('Catastrophe = an extremely large-scale disaster, a horrible event'.) -
Paul D at 18:56 PM on 20 August 2010Is the sun causing global warming?
Eric144: Kirkby's work counters the perspective that the sun has no part to play in global warming as put forward in this blog. Wrong! The issue isn't whether the Sun has an influence or not, it is the extent or percentage that is under scrutiny. Isn't it a bit ironic that many skeptics et al, claim the system is to complex, yet often have a need for a simple answer that just eliminates CO2?? -
John Russell at 18:54 PM on 20 August 2010Is the sun causing global warming?
MattJ at 04:38 AM on 20 August, 2010 Matt; thanks. You make some good points which I'll consider soon when I come to updating this basic argument. Valid criticism is always welcome -- particularly when it results in an even more effective rebuttal. -
Paul D at 18:49 PM on 20 August 2010Is the sun causing global warming?
Eric144: "There is always a queue of environmentalist / scientists ready to debunk anything that contradicts their agenda." Hardly. Skeptical Science page on the subject isn't much different to what Kirkby has presented: http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming.htm In fact the Krivova graph on the skeptical science page was used by Kirkby in his presentation. It shows that there are GHG influences on the modern climate that greatly change the climate. Kirkby may have personal opinions that are weighted in favour of his his specialism, however on a wider scale the scientific community are only interested whether cosmic particles have an influence and to what degree, that will be incorporated into current knowledge. Hence the funding for the CLOUD project is justified on the grounds of clarify an unknown. Ultimately Kirkby's opinion will not override the results, what ever they are. I think you need to keep some objectivity. -
Paul D at 18:37 PM on 20 August 2010Is the sun causing global warming?
Eric 144: >CERN would not be spending huge amounts of money funding Kirkby unless they believed the research potentially highly fruitful. I think that you are imposing your own belief on what they do. It also has tinges of 'science has to be beneficial to humans' about it. CERN have spent huge amounts of money on the LHC without any certainty about what it will find. So it is hardly unusual to spend money on something that has a lot of uncertainties. In fact science would be dead if projects were only funded if their were guaranteed 'fruits' to be harvested. The CLOUD experiment is about clarifying the issue of how much influence, if at all, cosmic particles have on cloud formation. -
Rob Painting at 18:31 PM on 20 August 2010How climate skeptics misunderstand past climate change
I'm not so sure GC, note how the cooling effects from major volcanic eruptions show up in the model runs?.
-
batsvensson at 18:15 PM on 20 August 2010The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change
Errata to #77: the decease should be dengue, not malaria, however they are both spread to humans by mosquitoes. -
JMurphy at 18:04 PM on 20 August 2010The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change
batsvensson wrote : "Hopefully it should not be "stunning" to you anymore that your quoted reference says: "we ... argue that ... the importance of climate is misleading ... to understand ... emerging malaria patterns."" Well, now I'm stunned by how you think you can show so little and hide so much. To provide the full quote : However, we also argue that over-emphasizing the importance of climate is misleading for setting a research agenda, even one which attempts to understand climate change impacts on emerging malaria patterns. However ? Also ? That must relate to the previous sentence : We assessed the conclusions from both sides of the argument and found that evidence for the role of climate in these dynamics is robust. Stunning. -
JMurphy at 17:51 PM on 20 August 2010Can't We At Least Agree That There Is No Consensus?
Poptech spammed : "The authors don't think anything except the two who incorrectly assumed their papers were listed to deny AGW, which was explained to them repeatedly that they do not." I love it every time you admit to telling the original authors how they are wrong about their own papers; and how you love to link back to arguments from yourself. Living in denial must be wonderful - I just wish I could indulge like you do. Anyway, unfortunately for you, the consensus is against you and your little list, no matter how you interpret it for yourself. Sorry. -
cbp at 17:50 PM on 20 August 2010The Oregon Petition: How Many Scientists Does It Take To Change A Consensus?
There's also no indication how many of the signatories actually work in a field related to their degree. As anyone who actually has a job doing anything at all will tell you - just because you're 22 years old and have a degree, doesn't mean you aren't still a complete novice. -
tobyjoyce at 17:50 PM on 20 August 2010The Oregon Petition: How Many Scientists Does It Take To Change A Consensus?
The Oregon Petition, when it was originally mailed, had an attached scandal. As I understand it, the petition was accompanied by a document masquerading as a "scientific paper", in the style of the US PNAS with a volume number and publication date. In fact, the "facts" of the article had been published only in the Wall Street Journal. Leading denier and Marshall Institute Director Fred Seitz supplied a covering letter, which emphasized his former connections with the NAS. In short, the people who received the petition, or who read it online, were duped into believing that it was backed by the US National Academy of Science. The NAS held a press conference to disavow the petition, but on the same day Seitz had an article lauding it in the Washington Times The petition is described briefly on page 244 & 245 of Oreskes and Conway's Merchants of Doubt, and on this Wikipedia page. Oregon Petition -
JMurphy at 17:32 PM on 20 August 2010The Strange Case of Albert Gore, Inconvenient Truths and a Man in a Powdered Wig
Saying that the case was brought by a 'school governor', makes it seem far more innocent than this case actually was. See Wikipedia for details about the right-wing New Party, secret funding and the involvement of our favourite so-called skeptic...the merry Monckton ! And it was a judicial review in the Administrative Court of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court, which thought it not fit to go forward to a full judicial review hearing with one or more judges. -
Bern at 16:58 PM on 20 August 2010The Oregon Petition: How Many Scientists Does It Take To Change A Consensus?
RSVP: Perhaps property values in and around Hazelwood and Yallourn might be relevant. Or how about downtown Miami in about 50-90 years? Better hope you bought that apartment above the ground floor, and included a boat hoist on the balcony... :-P But seriously: that's a bit of a red herring, not to mention some rather flawed logic! "Nuclear disasters caused by disabled safeguards on 1960s vintage reactors are bad, ergo all non-fossil energy is bad" -
Doug Bostrom at 16:32 PM on 20 August 2010NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
The points are in the post up above, JohnD, and they're not really mine. Dither away about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, it's of course your personal choice to do so. Meanhile, grownups will look after the mess. Pakistan floods 'slow-motion tsunami' - UN chief -
ubrew12 at 16:23 PM on 20 August 2010The Strange Case of Albert Gore, Inconvenient Truths and a Man in a Powdered Wig
I agree with paulm (12) that Gore should update his film. Talk openly about the 'warming leading CO2' brouhaha, the hockey-stick, and our better understanding of consequences. Honestly, the possibilities are much grimmer, now, then when he published. His particular gravitas and delivery work well to communicate this subject, and his detractors can hardly be motivated to hate him more than they already do. But there could be something oddly cathartic about such a revisit. I sense that everyone in America, skeptics included, is now aware that 'something' is going on. Placing Gore in their faces would be a way of teaching that sometimes when you personalize an argument for egos sake, the victim is you and your young ones, not the target of your vituperation. This country could use fewer freedom fries, and a bit more humble pie in its diet. -
Kevin Hood at 16:05 PM on 20 August 2010The Oregon Petition: How Many Scientists Does It Take To Change A Consensus?
To clarify just a bit: having a BS degree in Mathematics or Computer Science certainly gains one credibility to a degree in those fields; however, it is no guarantee of any degree of expertise in climatology. -
Kevin Hood at 15:57 PM on 20 August 2010The Oregon Petition: How Many Scientists Does It Take To Change A Consensus?
When I was sent the petition and encouraged to sign it, I was surprised at how low the bar was for being a scientist. The petition noted that any Bachelor's of Science major counted and provided examples including Mathematics and Computer Science. The petition was also structured such that its intent was unclear and hard to extract. I would guess that some signers simply trusted whoever sent it, added their names and clicked OK. -
Doug Bostrom at 15:57 PM on 20 August 2010Is the sun causing global warming?
Eric144, do you really imagine that labeling Hansen and a myriad of his colleagues as "environmentalists" is a substitute for an argument, has any hope of effectively rebutting their scientific findings? The problem with your internal blending of science with politics is that politics has no explanatory power when it comes to figuring out how climate functions. Your political bent is entirely divorced from climate research, physics and the rest of science. What you say as an amateur politician talking about environmentalists on a blog has no descriptive power for understanding the natural world. You may of course make up anything you like with regard to politics, but if you're not careful you're likely to blurt out certain things that can be tested against physical facts. For instance, explanations of how climate works must necessarily be coherent with a vastly larger realm of scientific understanding. Hansen's scientific research fits coherently into an interconnected web of broader scientific knowledge. If you say "Hansen's research is wrong because he's concerned about the environment and says so," you're not only saying Hansen is incorrect while failing to describe why, you're claiming that many other things we know to be true of the natural world are also false, are supposed to somehow be obedient to your politics. By so doing you're not only failing to address Hansen's scientific research, you're making yourself look conspicuously ridiculous. If you're claiming science is wrong stick with talking about science, if you want to be taken seriously. -
RSVP at 15:46 PM on 20 August 2010The Oregon Petition: How Many Scientists Does It Take To Change A Consensus?
"No evidence has ever been offered to support the first statement." Perhaps property values in and around Chernobyl might help. -
gallopingcamel at 15:26 PM on 20 August 2010What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?
Ooops!, I meant Shelley as in Percival Byshe. -
gallopingcamel at 15:25 PM on 20 August 2010What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?
RSVP, You are the man! The human race is so full of its own self importance. A hundred million years from now we will be extinct, the planet will be just fine and it will be really hard to find any sign that mankind even existed. Shelly understood when he wrote Ozymandias. -
batsvensson at 15:17 PM on 20 August 2010The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change
JMurphy, Kenya. Now you got me started... If you carefully ready your own quotation you will find it says: "we ... argue that ... the importance of climate is misleading ... to understand ... emerging malaria patterns." Perhaps for you to realize that this is what they actually say is "stunning" and perhaps it is due to an ignorance of medical science relation to metrology you can not accept that this is what they really say. If that is the case, bear with me now: It is known that Hippocrates attributed deceases only to physical events and not supernatural entities. He stressed the importance to understand the effect of climate, air, water and location to understand deceases. Metrological phenomena has ever since then been believed to have an effect on human health in western medicine - this is (among many other medical terms) concealed in the name of malaria. A name that is derivable from Greek as meaning "bad air". Hippocrates ideas tied medical studies not only to involving the heavens and the gods but also to involve the studies of weather. The correlations with the heaven started to break down when the great plagues started to roam in Europe and the relation to the star and decease outbreak was not so clear any more, however the relation to weather still prevailed. The birth of modern science in the 17th century and the discovery of physical laws lead philosopher to search for laws governing the spread of deceases, geographical data was collected about population density and locations of deceases was registred. The origin of 'statistics' can be traced back to this era as structured method was needed to understand deceases. The discovery of pattern lead to sanitary rules – fresh air and water and the need to separate the sick from the healthy - to prevent decease to spread. The old practice of taking notes of weather still remained - until mid 19th century. In this era epidemiology was born. In the late 19th century collecting weather data in order to understand and prevent decease was completely separated from the medical studies and branched to it own separate field which today is know as meteorology, which main activities has become to be prediction in contrast to its old purpose of prevention. In this period medical studies had completely lost interest in collecting and relating weather data to deceases and instead started to focus on identifying and prevent decease agents when the germ theory was discovered. In the mid 20th century lifestyle was added to the old environmental factors as air, water and location for understanding deceases. In the late 20th century weather, or rather climate, again makes in entry into decease studies and the circle seams to have closed on it self. However by the now almost 150 years separated from metrology an important different remains between the two fields: while the purpose of metrology is to predict the purpose of medical studies is to prevent. Now, having this in mind, consider this case: Between 1980 and 1996 there has been 50 thousand documented cases of malaria in the border area between Mexico and Texas - registered in Mexico. However only 100 cases was reported on the Texas side. (All figures are recall from memory – so said with reservations.) If you insist in the belief that the relation between temperature and spread of malaria is an important factor and it can be predicted with climate models then you will have a hard time to explain the above case. On the other hand if you believe decease studies is not about predicting deceases with climate models but preventing them by eliminating risk factors in air, water, location and lifestyle then the above case is pretty trivial to explain. Hopefully it should not be "stunning" to you anymore that your quoted reference says: "we ... argue that ... the importance of climate is misleading ... to understand ... emerging malaria patterns." -
gallopingcamel at 15:16 PM on 20 August 2010How climate skeptics misunderstand past climate change
Probably the most important issue in the ongoing climate debate is that of "Feedbacks". James Wright buys into the (majority) view that the feedbacks are positive. Right now the range of feedback estimates is so wide that the models are worthless when it comes to prediction or even explaining past climate. For the moment, one scientist's guess is as good as another's. -
David Horton at 15:12 PM on 20 August 2010The Strange Case of Albert Gore, Inconvenient Truths and a Man in a Powdered Wig
TOP, do you not see that the denier movement is also "political"? That, indeed, preventing the acceptance of the science and the necessary action is a far more political act than simply making the reality of the science available to a larger audience and leaving them to make up their mind about the politics involved? -
mothincarnate at 15:10 PM on 20 August 2010The Oregon Petition: How Many Scientists Does It Take To Change A Consensus?
I know - just having a little chuckle :-) -
giniajim at 15:09 PM on 20 August 2010The Oregon Petition: How Many Scientists Does It Take To Change A Consensus?
Have there been any efforts to verify the names and qualifications on the "petition"? As John suggests, it might be interesting to go back and see how many of the respondents have now changed their mind. -
thingadonta at 15:08 PM on 20 August 2010Can't We At Least Agree That There Is No Consensus?
#20 dhogaza Actually there was a bit of other early evidence for continental drift as well. (I've got a copy of Wegener's original book on continental drift-its a good read-you can get it on Amazon). -stratigraphic (both fossil and rock)correlations between the Americas and Africa-Europe, and numerous other places. There is a few other strange ideas in the book, but can't remember them at the moment. A globe with a sliding outer skin isnt a very common daily observance, so it took a while for such an idea to sink in, when various geophysics etc backed it up. -
David Horton at 15:06 PM on 20 August 2010The Oregon Petition: How Many Scientists Does It Take To Change A Consensus?
Nova has no interest in understanding it - reality is not what she is about. -
mothincarnate at 15:00 PM on 20 August 2010The Oregon Petition: How Many Scientists Does It Take To Change A Consensus?
This is good - it might now be in a language Nova can understand.. -
John Chapman at 14:26 PM on 20 August 2010The Oregon Petition: How Many Scientists Does It Take To Change A Consensus?
If one looks at the petition document that individuals sign there is no record or entry of the date. (http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWPetition.pdf) The petition has been going for a decade or so and one wonders how many would change their tune since those early days in the climate debate? -
johnd at 14:26 PM on 20 August 2010Is the sun causing global warming?
KR at 13:18 PM, the data in your "spurious example" is rather suspect. Pirates, at least in SE Asia, would number rather many more than the graph indicates and numbers are probably rising, especially as each financial crisis cycles through the region. Of course theses days instead of a fully rigged and crewed sailing ship with cannons poking out on all sides, a couple of blokes in a speedboat with a war surplus firearm, and perhaps even some ammunition, can still make a good living from a low cost operation targeting other small boats,tug boats, smugglers, drug runners etc. Some small fishing villages are renown as pirate lairs that drug runners and smugglers try best to avoid. :-) -
scaddenp at 14:11 PM on 20 August 2010Can't We At Least Agree That There Is No Consensus?
Poptech - you can insist to you are blue in face that E&E is "peer reviewed". I'll go with the "trade" designation. Publishing there has to be a career-damaging move. If you want objective measure of science community judgement on E&E, then perhaps you should look at its journal impact ranking. (good luck actually because I couldnt even find one for it). -
scaddenp at 14:07 PM on 20 August 2010Is the sun causing global warming?
eric - I pointed you the skepticsci page not because of the article itself but because it was a convenient pointer to the papers published about the subject. Kirkby may be right - but the point was, even if he IS right, it still doesnt help explain current climate. The papers on that article deal with limitations on any real world response to cloud formation from GCR. I am all for Kirkby doing his experiments though. Read the concluding remarks in McShane or Wyner? Several commentators have also pointed to a problem with their analysis already but lets wait to both paper and responses are published. Also, note proxies are hardly used to "predict" climate. You can check whether current best models can reproduce past proxy temperatures from proxy forcings but you would guess correctly that this is more useful to check for invalidation than anything else given the uncertainties. Climate prediction is based purely on physics. -
Bern at 13:59 PM on 20 August 2010How climate skeptics misunderstand past climate change
scaddenp: yep, orbital forcings affect distribution of solar radiation - but they don't change the total amount. And, yes, land/ocean distribution would also be a significant factor, even if not (directly) a forcing. They'd still generate feedback forcings, though (e.g. albedo changes to due cloud / ice / vegetation cover). Meteor impacts certainly would kick up a lot of (short-lived) aerosols, but can also result in enormous greenhouse gas kicks, depending on what type of rock is hit, and how much organic matter burns / decomposes as a result of the short-term effects. This may provide a nudge that pushes the global climate from a relatively stable state into a transition state. -
The Past and Future of the Greenland Ice Sheet
I checked a bit more, Berényi - and found that "Of all large whales, the bowhead whale is the most adapted to life in icy cold water". Posting a bowhead whale skull as evidence for a warmer Arctic is both meaningless and misleading - they like it cold, and live in the Arctic year round. -
Is the sun causing global warming?
johnd - Correlation is not causation. I would in fact refer you to this enjoyable yet spurious example... Unless you can hypothesize a reasonable physical interaction (I've yet to see any) wherein solar magnetic strength or cosmic ray patterns actual affect global surface temperatures (and I believe that no such direct correlation or interaction has been shown), it's at best an interesting correlation without causation. Clouds and formation rates would probably be your best bet there, but current consensus appears to be that clouds (which show a slight inverse relationship to temperatures over the last 60 years) have only a weak effect on global temps. -
TOP at 13:17 PM on 20 August 2010The Strange Case of Albert Gore, Inconvenient Truths and a Man in a Powdered Wig
Looks like my comments related to post #7 got pulled during the day so I'll tone them down. The judge seems to be saying that the film is being used for political purposes. There have been other politicians that have used science and technology for political ends. Political uses of science such as Gore is doing tend to create a situation where science can be codified into law. This is against science. What if spontaneous generation had been somehow written into law. Gore is not a good spokesperson precisely because he is a politician. -
muoncounter at 13:14 PM on 20 August 2010Is the sun causing global warming?
#34: "Near-Earth variations in the solar wind, measured by the geomagnetic aa index " If you want to compare temperatures to the solar wind, why not look to ACE SWEPAM for actual solar wind data? The solar wind is only one component in the very complicated interplanetary magnetic field. From spaceweather: "When Bz is south, that is, opposite Earth's magnetic field, the two fields link up," explains Christopher Russell, a Professor of Geophysics and Space Physics at UCLA. "You can then follow a field line from Earth directly into the solar wind" -- or from the solar wind to Earth. South-pointing Bz's open a door through which energy from the solar wind can reach Earth's atmosphere! "I find the expectations of many punters here towards correlation perplexing. There seems to be a requirement for any proposed influence to show almost total correlation before it will be acknowledged as being even relevant." No argument there, but on this site, it is usually the deniers who quote 'corrleation isn't causality' when presented with correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature or ice melt or any of the other things we talk about. -
How climate skeptics misunderstand past climate change
Eric - positive (and negative) feedbacks with an absolute value < 1.0 damp out. Feedbacks > 1.0 absolute value are un-physical; they would increase infinitely, requiring an infinite amount of energy to do so. Here's a post on feedbacks, also here, which I wrote a while back - these may give you some idea on how these work, and how they taper out after a fixed amplification/dampening of the initial forcing.
Prev 2236 2237 2238 2239 2240 2241 2242 2243 2244 2245 2246 2247 2248 2249 2250 2251 Next
