Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2239 2240 2241 2242 2243 2244 2245 2246 2247 2248 2249 2250 2251 2252 2253 2254 Next
Comments 112301 to 112350:
-
theendisfar at 06:19 AM on 21 August 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
To whom it may concern, "This is possible only because most of this radiation is absorbed in the atmosphere, and what actually escapes out into space is mostly emitted from colder atmosphere." Are you stating that the primary method of transferring energy from the surface to the Troposphere is via radiation absorption rather than via conduction? When you say 'colder', are you referring to a region or a temperature? -
cruzn246 at 06:18 AM on 21 August 2010Hockey stick is broken
And that makes this time period......the 26th warmest period in the Holocene era. Big deal.Moderator Response: See the Argument "It's Not Bad," also titled "Positives and Negatives of Global Warming." -
CBDunkerson at 06:14 AM on 21 August 2010How climate skeptics misunderstand past climate change
Eric #33: "Where I disagree is that "as global temperature increases the global total amount of water vapor does as well". You are trying to make a global case for a local effect which is not necessarily true and will become false at some level of warming." I'm still not following you. In what way is global warming a "local effect"? If temperatures increase globally then water vapor increases globally... you say you dispute this seemingly obvious fact, but provide no explanation WHY. Also: "what is the physical process that limits the feedback when WV increases warming and warming increases WV" Are you asking why positive water vapor feedback does not cause 'run away' warming all by itself? That was already explained to you in the '0.5 increase' bit. Simple MATH shows why the positive feedback effect is limited. Again, suppose that a global average anomaly of +1 C from CO2 or some other forcing causes a global average water vapor increase sufficient to introduce another 0.5 C of warming from the water vapor... in short, an additional 50%. Well, then 50% of that 0.5 extra is 0.25 and 50% of that is 0.125 and so forth. If you add these fractions up you will see that the result gets closer and closer to 1 C... +0.99999 repeating to infinity. Thus, the limit you are looking for is MATHEMATICS. So long as the water vapor feedback for 1 C of external warming is itself less than 1 C there will always be a finite limit to the feedback warming. As to when weather starts to limit water vapor feedback... NEVER. Yes, rainfall takes water out of the atmosphere... and evaporation puts it back in. In a warmer world both effects are increased, because the total amount of water the atmosphere can hold increases with temperature. Your claim that concentrating water vapor in one hemisphere would somehow cause net global cooling has no basis in science and no explanation that I can see in your post. As you describe it the northern hemisphere, magically devoid of water vapor, would cool drastically... but the southern hemisphere, now holding double the previous global total, would heat up far more than the northern had cooled. Net effect... average global temperatures would increase. -
MichaelM at 06:14 AM on 21 August 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
If you read the last paragraph of section A of the link you posted you will see that figure 2 is in local time and the moon graph represents a lunar diurnal period (lunar day) of 29.5 (earth) days i.e 5 'hours' is just over 6 days. -
cruzn246 at 06:09 AM on 21 August 2010Is the sun causing global warming?
Sunspots don't tell all. -
theendisfar at 06:09 AM on 21 August 2010The Oregon Petition: How Many Scientists Does It Take To Change A Consensus?
KR, I worked for the CDC for a number of years and I can tell you straight forward that many scientists, gov't especially, are paid to deliver a message. Many times it is not the scientists themselves who are lying, but rather those in charge of communications. H1N1 is a perfect example, hundreds of millions of $'s were funneled into it because the 'threat' was completely overstated. I was there. While drug companies gained a great deal, so did the Gov't and it's employees. To be perfectly clear, "I am accusing 97% of Climate Scientists, who support AGW because of the increase of CO2 since the end of the Little Ice Age, of doing less than acceptable science including (but not limited to); research, testing, and/or communication of the results." I have little interest in a scientist's motivation outside the fact that people who cannot defend the AGW argument keep pointing to a lack of financial motivation. Gov't and Grant sponsored scientists have jobs right now, working to falsify the need to have them is the last thing on their minds. Tenure and grant money is a dangerous combination, that is where Peer Review and grant sustainability meet. Consensus is quite valuable here. Should there be any motivation in science other than being able to repeatedly be able to arrive at the same result no matter who pays you? As to repeatable methods and conclusions, can you link to one so we can discuss there? Forgive my Skepticism, I come Missouri, the 'Show me State' and I claim to be able to critically evaluate them. And don't just call me liar, submit your repeatable evidence and I'll prove whether or not I am myself. -
Phil at 06:03 AM on 21 August 2010What caused early 20th Century warming?
miekol @7 It is not a proven fact that nothing can go faster than the speed of light, or that E = mc**2. But the evidence strongly suggests that these statements are correct. -
cruzn246 at 05:57 AM on 21 August 2010Climate's changed before
Well Christ man it is a continuation of a discussion. Where do I have to go to discuss electromagnetic absorption? I guess you just want to split up everything so there is no real big linking pool of info.Moderator Response: The big list of Arguments is the linking pool of info. There is also a "Newcomers Start Here" page linked in the left side of this page. -
johnd at 05:26 AM on 21 August 2010NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
JMurphy at 05:14 AM, it should be self evident, records are not the norm. Good to stir the emotions, and food for the politicians. -
The Oregon Petition: How Many Scientists Does It Take To Change A Consensus?
theendisfar - when I commented in #29 about my brother, he was specifically paid to make stuff up, harp on minor contradictory opinions, overemphasize uncertainty, and in general to lie about what the science and the scientific consensus were. There's a great financial incentive for industry to do so - if they're making $$money$$, they don't want to change gears. Now, if you're accusing the 97% of climate scientists (whose consensus opinion is that AGW is happening, and will have large effects on all of us) of lying, please be clear and say so. I will, however, point out that they really don't have a financial incentive to do so - every academic institution I know of balances pay for PhD's with incoming grant money so that there is no difference in their income. And I don't see many university professors driving new BMW's! As to "repeatable methods and conclusions" - we have them. That's why 97% of people in the field agree on the conclusions of AGW! There are always always a few people with vested interests in other conclusions, not to mention looneytoons who think it's the Little Green Men or something (no insult intended to LGM, mind you!). But the repeatable science has convinced the vast majority of people who are able to critically evaluate it. -
JMurphy at 05:14 AM on 21 August 2010NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
johnd wrote : "However for the greater part of the planets surface there are no means to measure precipitation, nor any population to be effected if an extreme rain event occurs, therefore it requires a big leap of faith to draw overall conclusions based solely on what events make it onto front page news or into the record books." This sounds like another so-called skeptical tactic to wish-away inconvenient facts, the way that satellite temperature readings have suddenly fallen out of favour, due to their inconvenient parity to ground-based readings. However, do you feel there can possibly be any records that can possibly be trusted ? E.G. How can we determine the fastest man over 100m ? Someone running for the bus in South Africa, say, may be able to run faster. What about those rainfall records posted by Argus ? Should we ignore them because there might have been more and heavier/faster downpours over the sea, up a mountain or in a forest - unseen, of course. First man on the moon ? The Chinese may have got there first, on the dark side, but it was a disaster so they are keeping quiet. Can that be denied ? Can we be allowed to have any records for anything, do you think, or should we deny them all ? -
cruzn246 at 05:14 AM on 21 August 2010Climate's changed before
The basic stuff about changing Venus' atmosphere is just common sense stuff I derived from taking meteorology. Yes, I took a class. The 2% worldwide average is from the same place. I know in any spot on earth it ranges from near zero to 4%. I just averaged it. It could be 0.5 either way, but it would still be at least 37 times more by mass than CO2(0.04%) at lowest average values (1.5%). -
cruzn246 at 05:06 AM on 21 August 2010Climate's changed before
Look up the stuff for Venus and the earth yourself. It's easy to find. I derived my temp and sun activity from easy to access sites. Here you go. The temp data was derived from ice cores. I took the temp graph and blew it up to capture the Holocene maximum and other features. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_50k_yrs.html Here is the page for the solar activities http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svg -
JMurphy at 05:05 AM on 21 August 2010What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?
RSVP, you're nearly there. Compare the two sentences you part-quoted, with your sentence here : Even the current article explains that thirty years ago, the science indicated we were possibly heading to an ice age Do you see what careful reading can allow you to discover ? To help, it's the difference between 'some scientists' (which is why I highlighted those words previously, in fact) and 'the science'. Yes ? -
JMurphy at 04:59 AM on 21 August 2010Climate's changed before
cruzn246 wrote : "Bottom line. Climate changes and I am not alarmed. Bottom line is assertions and beliefs are worth nothing. If you have any linkable evidence for even half of the figures you posted concerning temperatures, please let us see them. -
johnd at 04:50 AM on 21 August 2010NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
Argus at 21:12 PM, the perception of whether a natural event is extreme or not appears to be increasingly driven by the emotional impact it has on those who experience it first hand, or those who observe it from a distance. As you noted there are always other contributing factors which need to be taken into account so that the human tragedy and the natural event can each be kept in perspective. The connection that is trying to be made by the AGW proponents is that such disasters are due to global warming. If the total annual global rainfall can be demonstrated to actually increase, or decrease, as global temperatures increase, or decrease, then they may have the statistics needed to draw some such worthwhile conclusions. However trying to make a case for such an argument that is largely driven by the emotional impact of separate events rather than what occurs more broadly is hardly what one would expect from those who are supposedly more interested in the science than the politics. It's much the same with accident statistics, more attention is drawn to an accident that claims three lives than six accidents that each claim one life. At the end of the day, it is those who calmly compile and analyse all the statistics who are able to draw worthwhile conclusions, not those whose conclusions are drawn according to the emotional impact of any single event. The records that you posted certainly indicate just what is possible. It can also be assumed that such events impacted on local populations to varying degrees. However for the greater part of the planets surface there are no means to measure precipitation, nor any population to be effected if an extreme rain event occurs, therefore it requires a big leap of faith to draw overall conclusions based solely on what events make it onto front page news or into the record books. -
cruzn246 at 04:49 AM on 21 August 2010Climate's changed before
OK, I'll make this short and quick. CO2 levels are about 380 per million here. They are about 965,000 per million in the Venetian atmosphere. Ya think that about .04% of the same concentration is going to throw us way out of whack? The big dog, which no one wants to talk about when it comes to greenhouse gases is water vapor. It goes from about nil when we are in the depths of an Ice age to a worldwide average of 2% during recovery and the following times. THAT is our basic greenhouse gas. CO2 is a bit player. You drop CO2 levels to under 1% on Venus and that place would turn into an iceball without water vapor. Yes climate just keeps on changing. We are in a period where the temperature has fluctuated, sometimes rather quickly, within a 4C range over the last 10,000 years. We are near the middle of that range now. Sun activity is relatively high, higher than it has been for the last 2,000 years. The long range trend has been up since about 1500. We have seen temperatures rise about 0.5C since 1900. Yawn, I hate to say it but a rise of about 3C in about 100-200 years was seen about 8,000 years ago. That's a quick warm-up. BTW, it has been warmer than this about half the time since we snapped out of our last ice age. At least 4 times it was 1C warmer than now and once it was 2C warmer. Bottom line. Climate changes and I am not alarmed. -
theendisfar at 04:48 AM on 21 August 2010The Oregon Petition: How Many Scientists Does It Take To Change A Consensus?
Chris G, "Most democratically elected leaders will not do what their voters don't want them to do" This is moot with regards to science as 'want' is moot. Want automatically includes motivation. KR's #29 'Thank you for Smoking' example applies equally to AGW scientists. Scientific 'Authorities' have been proven wrong time and time again throughout history. Piltdown Man is a great example. 'Want' is especially relevant when one has an elected Authority to deal with. Also, changing 'leader' to 'representative' changes the paradigm significantly. Intellectual 'representatives' hold no authority over those they represent. When People instead of Scientific Laws are the source of authority, you not only are subject to motivation, but you are also subject to the fact that People change, Scientific Laws do not. As far as 'most' scientists being convinced, repeatable methods and conclusions send a louder and more importantly a 'clearer' message than "I'm right and your wrong". Both sides are guilty of this. Motivation, credibility, and consensus would all be rendered moot and reduce the questions to a finite and falsifiable set. This is quite valuable as it removes subjection, which is practically infinite. I'm just saying repeatable tests will get us a lot farther a lot quicker, and it is very important for both sides to recognize this. Do you see the value in removing motivation, credibility, and consensus from the debate? Are they important with regards to the people educated enough to make a scientific argument? -
RSVP at 04:44 AM on 21 August 2010What caused early 20th Century warming?
"The climate at any one time is affected by several factors..." When I was a kid, I learned that the Earth was just the right distance from the Sun to make it habitable. This was not true. It should have been a little further away to accomodate global warming. -
miekol at 04:44 AM on 21 August 2010What caused early 20th Century warming?
"The evidence strongly suggests that current warming is mainly the result of increasing greenhouse gas levels." So its not a proven fact? -
RSVP at 04:29 AM on 21 August 2010What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?
JMurphy 20 I need to read the article "properly"? "...some scientists suggested that the current inter-glacial period could rapidly draw to a close, which might result in the Earth plunging into a new ice age" "...some scientists were suggesting we might be facing another ice age" We choose to see what we choose to see. I assume by reading the article properly you mean I can only be in agreement with the author. I am sorry, but this time the cherry tastes delicious. -
cruzn246 at 04:22 AM on 21 August 2010The Oregon Petition: How Many Scientists Does It Take To Change A Consensus?
Then Marcus was off also. -
How climate skeptics misunderstand past climate change
Excessive rainfall requires excessive evaporation - rainfall doesn't occur without sufficient water vapor present. In regards to cloud cover - there appears to be a slight inverse relationship to temperature over the last 60 years (sorry, can't currently locate where that was discussed on skepticalscience), but all of the analysis I've seen on it indicates that cloud cover feedback (negative or positive) is fairly minor. -
Eric (skeptic) at 04:01 AM on 21 August 2010How climate skeptics misunderstand past climate change
I witnessed a mechanism that locally reduced RH as the temperature rose today and my weather forecast tonight is for RH to be lower than last night. Repeat that globally and there's the global mechanism. No doubt that my mechanism could work the other way or it could keep global RH constant. But the only way to prove that it stays constant is to show that weather doesn't change in a warming world. But there are threads here claiming that climate extremes such as excessive rainfall have increased globally. That's certainly one way to reduce RH globally if it is true. -
cruzn246 at 03:57 AM on 21 August 2010The Oregon Petition: How Many Scientists Does It Take To Change A Consensus?
Gee, thanks for deleting a post I worked on for about 30 minutes. I guess the answer was a bit too convincing. See you all in another life. it's clear that censorship of good rebuttal exists here.Moderator Response: It was far off topic. See my Moderator comment on your comment after that one. Maybe John will restore the one I deleted. -
Chris G at 03:34 AM on 21 August 2010The Oregon Petition: How Many Scientists Does It Take To Change A Consensus?
theendisfar, Regarding "...an undereducated public is not the first people that need to be convinced." Most of us reading this live in democracies. Most democratically elected leaders will not do what their voters don't want them to do. So, undereducated or not, the public has to be convinced before action will be taken. Maybe they aren't the first people who need to be convinced, but most scientists have been convinced for decades and we can see how far that has gotten us. -
John Russell at 03:27 AM on 21 August 2010What caused early 20th Century warming?
TOP at 02:02 AM on 21 August, 2010 I agree with every word you write in your first para. If at the end you added the line, "And now humans are upsetting the balance by increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere", it would be perfect! -
cruzn246 at 03:25 AM on 21 August 2010The Oregon Petition: How Many Scientists Does It Take To Change A Consensus?
This is an active place. I really like it.Moderator Response: I'm glad. But one of its attributes that makes it a good site is the focus of each of its posts and the comments specifically on those posts. Please use the Search field at the top left of the page, or browse the list of Arguments, to find appropriate threads for your comments. Split your comments by topic, into the appropriate threads. Also, read the post and preferably the comments before writing your comment. If we all (including you) keep the comments on topic, they will be informative. -
Berényi Péter at 03:21 AM on 21 August 2010The Past and Future of the Greenland Ice Sheet
#49 KR at 02:15 AM on 21 August, 2010 the Holocene peak roughly matched 2004 temperatures Much could be said about the holocene temperature reconstruction promoted on Wikipedia, but anyway, we are not talking about global temperatures here, but polar ones. 7500 years ago annual average insolation was 5 W/m2 higher inside 80N than it is today (at the eqator it was 1 W/m2 lower). You can check it here. Even if we accept estimated pre-industrial CO2 levels and the 3.7 W/m2 forcing for doubling of CO2, it is only 1.7 W/m2 up to now, far less than early holocene arctic forcing. Relax, the Greenland ice sheet is not in immediate danger. -
How climate skeptics misunderstand past climate change
Eric - if global temperatures rise, and relative humidity remains constant, the total amount of water in the atmosphere will rise, as the peak absolute humidity, the amount of water the air can hold (driven by the vapor pressure of water at atmospheric pressure and temperature) rises. The relative humidity is the percentage of possible absolute humidity at stated conditions. So - unless you know of some mechanism that will globally reduce relative humidity as temperature rises, the total WV (kg water/kg air) will rise in lockstep with temperature. -
theendisfar at 03:17 AM on 21 August 2010The Oregon Petition: How Many Scientists Does It Take To Change A Consensus?
JMurphy, Interesting reads, thank you. Correction, Evolution in the much more detailed sense that Darwin postulated was not available to Newton et al. It seems that along with concrete, evolution in it's simple postulations was also lost during the Middle Ages, to the West that is. Great credit should go to Darwin for having so little to work from. The general public then and now are not evolutionists and again I would argue that an undereducated public is not the first people that need to be convinced. In essence they are nothing more than a fan club. A person who believes in Calculus is only as useful as their ability to use it. Just because you become a 'fan' of the Calculus Facebook page has no bearing on whether it works or not. -
The Oregon Petition: How Many Scientists Does It Take To Change A Consensus?
Consensus is a curious thing. In science, a 90-95% consensus is pretty strong, indicating that there are few loose ends or strong alternative theories/hypotheses. However, in the public domain a tiny percentage of disagreement can be hyped, paraded, and presented to the public as a 'valid alternative', irregardless of the strengths of their arguments. Hyping 'uncertainty' and presenting isolated views as mainstream alternatives are a standard industry tactic of the last 40 years - including the dangers of smoking, of second hand smoke, acid rain, DDT, holes in the ozone layer, the value of the Strategic Defense Initiative, and now climate warming. Many of the same people have been and are involved in all of these anti-scientific campaigns. I'm rather deeply familiar with these tactics - my brother was an apologist/denier for a major tobacco company, arguing uncertainty in the face of second hand smoke dangers. He gave me a copy of "Thank You For Smoking", stating "This is my job - I am this man". But back to science, rather than financially driven white-washing: If 97% (+/- ~3% based on the given sampling statistics) of experts in the field agree that AGW is occurring, while 0.3% of non-experts (no sampling statistics or sampling criteria presented) disagree, well, I'm going to go with the expert opinion. -
JMurphy at 02:54 AM on 21 August 2010The Oregon Petition: How Many Scientists Does It Take To Change A Consensus?
theendisfar wrote : "Evolution had not been postulated prior to Newton. Had Darwin come before them I believe they would have agreed with him if they took an interest." Like the myths about Galileo and flat-earthism (and, indeed, the Oregon Petition), that is not true : Contrary to many assumptions, evolutionary theory did not begin in 1859 with Charles Darwin and The Origin of Species. Rather, evolution-like ideas had existed since the times of the Greeks, and had been in and out of favor in the periods between ancient Greece and Victorian England. Indeed, by Darwin's time the idea of evolution - called "descent with modification" - was not especially controversial, and several other evolutionary theories had already been proposed. Darwin may stand at the beginning of a modern tradition, but he is also the final culmination of an ancient speculation. ThinkQuest History of evolutionary thought Perhaps you shouldn't be getting so much of your information from those so-called skeptical sites. -
Eric (skeptic) at 02:48 AM on 21 August 2010How climate skeptics misunderstand past climate change
CBDunkerson, warming from WV forcing depends on the amount of WV (in general, but see below). WV feedback from other warming depends on the amount of that other warming. Hopefully we agree on those two things. Where I disagree is that "as global temperature increases the global total amount of water vapor does as well". You are trying to make a global case for a local effect which is not necessarily true and will become false at some level of warming. My question from the beginning of the thread is "what is the physical process that limits the feedback when WV increases warming and warming increases WV". I stated it poorly as "when does positive feedback stop". The actual question is when does weather start to limit the positive feedback from WV. It already does in the tropics (in fact increasing warmth has negative WV feedback). It does not seem to be limited outside the tropics, so there is positive feedback there (except where there is no available water). So how is that feedback limited? When will we start to reach the limits (i.e. will we reach them soon or will it warm a lot more first)? The most basic error in your statement is that the distribution of water vapor (caused by weather) determines the amount of warming from water vapor, not the "total amount of water vapor". This is easy to prove. Suppose all the water vapor in the world was moved to one hemisphere (case 1). Suppose that amount was doubled. Now do the same doubling without first moving the water vapor (case 2). In both cases the "total amount of water vapor" went from X to 2X. But in case 1 the world would not warm with the doubling, and probably cool because of large increases in precipitation in an overall wet world. In case 2, the world would warm by some amount certainly greater than any warming in case 1. -
theendisfar at 02:47 AM on 21 August 2010The Oregon Petition: How Many Scientists Does It Take To Change A Consensus?
doug_bostrom, "Is it surprising that scientists should respond to a PR campaign in a scientific way?" Yes and no. Yes, if only repeatable methods and conclusions is the mission of the exercise. No, if the motivation of the scientist is anything otherwise. Science is meant to make consensus moot. Scientific Consensus in a strict definition is an oxymoron. "If the fossil fuel industry mounts a concerted effort to confuse the public, what would you suggest as a better way of trying to untangle the mess made by public relations firms?" I don't have any doubt that the public is easy to confuse, however I would offer that a convention similar to the ones held on a Static vs. Inflationary Universe in the mid 20th Century would a good starting point. We must recall that that debate was just as heated as the AGW debate today. Egos very often come with intelligence, but again repeatable methods and conclusions is the sure fire way to get around both egos and consensus/opinion. If you want to sway the public, sway the skeptical scientists first. Prior to the Static vs. Inflationary debate, the public only had trust to rely on, and most believed in Static along with most scientists. It was not up to the Static's to disprove the Inflationaries, but rather for the Inflationaries to prove Inflation. Afterwards, they had proof and very few scientists did not switch sides. Of course the cause is now under debate. "Do a little work, learn some history. Why not?" :) Back-atcha. -
Phil at 02:43 AM on 21 August 2010What caused early 20th Century warming?
Anne-Marie, I too think the wording that cbrock highlights is open to mis-interpretation. How about "and are now dominating climatic changes" ? I have to say that the following sentence is somewhat awkward, with the word "factors" appearing too many times. My (slightly longer) wording would be "This is why climate scientists have spent so much effort in discovering all the factors that affect our climate as well as evaluating which of these are dominant at any given time." -
The Past and Future of the Greenland Ice Sheet
Yes, temps were warm in the Holocene. But much warmer in the edges of the Tarantian, with temperatures then close to where ours are heading now. I read the paper you referenced, Berényi, and that bowhead skeleton does appear to be out of the current range - my apologies. I would guess that it's presence there would be due to both the Holocene warming (long term, allowing Arctic melt to come to equilibrium) and much larger range of the bowhead prior to large scale human whale hunting; that's apparently shrunk their range considerably. Looking at some Holocene temperature data:
it appears (black trace is the average reconstruction) that the Holocene peak roughly matched 2004 temperatures. Other references I've run across indicate that if temps rise another 1°C, it'll be the hottest it's been in the last 1.35 million years.
-
Anne-Marie Blackburn at 02:14 AM on 21 August 2010What caused early 20th Century warming?
cbrock, thanks for the input. The point of these plain English posts is to keep things as simple as possible. More information is available in the intermediate blogs for those who want to take it further. If I think about who the target audience is, I have to agree with The Ville in that I don't think that 'perturbing the climate equilibrium' would automatically be clear to them. TOP, this is not strictly correct. The sun is ultimately where the energy comes from and can indeed affect the climate. However, other factors also have an impact on climate and global temperatures and there is strong evidence that the sun is unlikely to be driving recent changes. -
theendisfar at 02:14 AM on 21 August 2010The Oregon Petition: How Many Scientists Does It Take To Change A Consensus?
Rick G, Evolution had not been postulated prior to Newton. Had Darwin come before them I believe they would have agreed with him if they took an interest. I would add that the validity of lists based upon opinion is a two way street. I truly find it surprising that any scientist would be satisfied with consensus, especially with the tools that are available today. With that, I agree that 32,000 signatures means bunk along with Scientific Consensus. A good question is how can we prove or falsify AGW? -
Doug Bostrom at 02:08 AM on 21 August 2010The Oregon Petition: How Many Scientists Does It Take To Change A Consensus?
Theendisfar, if you do a little research you'll discover that casting the impression that a plurality or truly significant number of climate researchers are not convinced by the evidence we're warming planet has been a strategy of public relations people working for industry for nearly a couple of decades. This is actually nothing new, the same thing happened with CFCs, tobacco, tetraethyl lead and a number of other pollutants we've had to deal with over the past 100 years. It's all well-documented, not even slightly controversial. Long before folks like Doran and Schneider began producing any publications treating consensus, industry public relations campaigns included loud and repeated messages to the effect that no scientific consensus existed w/regard to AGW. As part of these efforts, public relations firms have cast a wide net in their effort to convey an air of authority, including creating such vehicles as "The Oregon Petition." Is it surprising that scientists should respond to a PR campaign in a scientific way? If the fossil fuel industry mounts a concerted effort to confuse the public, what would you suggest as a better way of trying to untangle the mess made by public relations firms? Do a little work, learn some history. Why not? -
TOP at 02:02 AM on 21 August 2010What caused early 20th Century warming?
The sun is responsible for all warming. The atmosphere, oceans, land and vegetation are responsible for controlling the balance of UV and visible in vs IR out. Those items form a system that somehow keeps a balance in place. For thousands of years that system has been able to maintain a balance within some tolerance that allows life on the planet to flourish, albeit, with some setbacks. The climate is always changing. At one time the climate allowed humans to cross the Bering straits on dry land or pretty close to it. I agree with The Ville, the word perturb might be better. -
RickG at 02:02 AM on 21 August 2010The Oregon Petition: How Many Scientists Does It Take To Change A Consensus?
One must wonder the validity of such lists. I've seen lists of evolution dissenters that include Newton, Galileo, and Copernicus, etc. -
theendisfar at 01:42 AM on 21 August 2010The Oregon Petition: How Many Scientists Does It Take To Change A Consensus?
Chris G, "I think you'll find that most climate scientists don't care what the consensus is." Then why is it touted so often by scientists? Mr. Cook saw fit to bring it up again, and Everett Rowdy seems to find some usefulness in opposing the Skeptic's Consensus. "What, there wasn't convection before we starting adding more CO2 to the biosphere?" The argument is that Convection + Evaporation are so much more influential on the temperatures within the Troposphere (convection is very relevant far above the biosphere), that a small amount of trapped radiation, ~2 Watts versus ~1 Watt for CO2, is negligible. An increase in surface temps automatically induces a higher rate of convection. "All the forces in play now have existed for longer than we care about." I would argue that the forces in play 'all' need to be well represented in any theory. Current IPCC models have convection and evaporation accounting for only ~10% of the cooling of the surface. The atmosphere cools rapidly with altitude and trapped radiation has little explanation for this. Why this occurs will certainly lead to a better understanding of the observations for all. Convection and Evaporation are obvious candidates for this phenomenon and current understanding of the two support a rapidly cooling atmosphere with increasing altitude. Mirages are very good examples of this. "What we are doing changes the balancing point of the forces." With land use changes, UHI, and the like, I must agree, but with regards to adding CO2, I see no evidence when taking into account our knowledge of how efficient convection is. Would you say it would be worthwhile to discover/discuss the differences between convection and radiation cooling within our atmosphere, especially over altitude (distance)?Moderator Response: Please make an effort to stay on topic. If you want to discuss the role of convection in transporting heat through the atmosphere or other physical sciences topics, use the search box at upper left and find an appropriate subject. -
RSVP at 01:37 AM on 21 August 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
The whole point was to refute the length of the lunar day as being an issue to explain that the Moons surface temperature saturates quickly. I should have looked for this before... http://www.gps.caltech.edu/classes/ge151/references/vasavada_et_al_1999.pdf Figure 2 in this report is a plot of a computer model of the Moons surface temperature which maxs out after five hours only. Case rested. -
JMurphy at 01:22 AM on 21 August 2010What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?
RSVP wrote : "Even the current article explains that thirty years ago, the science indicated we were possibly heading to an ice age. Yet regardless of all this information, you perceive me as being insidious because I question AGW. As you say, "Wow!"" No, you need to read the article properly, especially sentences like this : At the same time as some scientists were suggesting we might be facing another ice age, a greater number published contradicting studies. (My emphasis) -
Paul D at 01:17 AM on 21 August 2010What caused early 20th Century warming?
cbrock: Maybe it's better to say they are perturbing the climate equilibrium? How many people know what perturb means? They might just understand equilibrium. -
cbrock at 01:13 AM on 21 August 2010What caused early 20th Century warming?
Nice, brief post. You might want to reword "greenhouse gas concentrations. . . are now dominating the climate system." Maybe it's better to say they are perturbing the climate equilibrium? -
RSVP at 01:11 AM on 21 August 2010What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?
Marcus, 12, 16 Having consciously taken steps to reduce your carbon footprint, does this not reflect ideological posturing? In my own case, I'm just trying to survive as best as I can. My only ideology with respect to the possibility of global warming has been to preserve my own personal sense of objectivity. I have conceded more than once that GHG can affect climate, however this is different from saying that CO2 is causing global warming. You know very well for instance that energy cannot be created or destroyed. You also know that two thirds of the surface of the Earth is covered with water, and that the Earths atmposphere is proportionally thin as the skin of an apple. You know that the extra CO2 man has produced constitutes only 100 ppm above natures 250 ppm. You explain yourself that a GHG problem has been accumulating for the last 100 years, yet you also know that temperature signals are buried in the noise of global statistics. Even the current article explains that thirty years ago, the science indicated we were possibly heading to an ice age. Yet regardless of all this information, you perceive me as being insidious because I question AGW. As you say, "Wow!" -
JMurphy at 01:08 AM on 21 August 2010Can't We At Least Agree That There Is No Consensus?
And more from Poptech : Pielke Jr. does not need "telling" anything as that is simply his opinion even though it is irrelevant, His opinion is 'irrelevant', especially when it comes to his views about his own papers, right ? Lucky you know the 'truth', eh ? Keep 'em coming - I'll help you to discover more about yourself but you may not like what you see. -
JMurphy at 01:05 AM on 21 August 2010Can't We At Least Agree That There Is No Consensus?
More incredible quotes from Poptech : ...it is explaining to them the criteria for their papers being included... Ah yes, the Poptech method of 'explaining' it to the authors how he knows better than they about their own papers. Lovely. Since I created the list, I know why I included them... Of course you do. Shame no-one else does, especially some of the original authors. Never mind, eh, you know why and that's all that matters. There is nothing in my mind... No comment needed. Pielke Jr. explicitly stated that "Assuming that these are Hypothesis 1 type...", which is wrong... Of course Pielke was wrong...because you are right, right ? Harold Brooks again had the same misconception as Pielke Jr... Of course he did, because you were right again, right ? ...his papers support skeptic's arguments against the negative environmental or economic effects of AGW. After this was explained to Brooks... Ah, again - Brooks had to have his own paper explained to him. Good of you to do so. I have never been pulled up on anything and have bullied no one. As long as you believe that, that's all that matters. There was no mistake made in the link you have provided. Of course not, because you don't make mistakes, do you ? I admire your self-important, self-awareness of your own infallibility. My comment is accurate and I stand by it. Of course you do, because you are never wrong and never make mistakes, do you ? Understood. No one has gotten the better of me. Keep repeating that to yourself and things look better, don't they ? I have yet to spam anything... Unfortunately, anyone at all interested in all this can see all the links where you constantly spam the same nonsense, going round and round until everyone else gets dizzy and you proclaim victory. How nice it would be to live in Poptech world. That consensus is still proceeding without you. Have you noticed yet ?
Prev 2239 2240 2241 2242 2243 2244 2245 2246 2247 2248 2249 2250 2251 2252 2253 2254 Next
