Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2242 2243 2244 2245 2246 2247 2248 2249 2250 2251 2252 2253 2254 2255 2256 2257 Next
Comments 112451 to 112500:
-
skywatcher at 00:29 AM on 19 August 2010Is Arctic Sea Ice 'Just Fine'?
chriscanaries - Arctic ice melt does not seem to be much less than expected to me, in that according tot he latest IJIS data we're at 5.83m sq km, with a loss rate that has been steadily above 50-60,000sq km since mid-July. We're closely tracking 2008's extent, which would lead to the 2nd or 3rd lowest in the record. As for Arctic temperatures, maybe others here can confirm (or corrent me if I have it all wrong), but so far as I understand it, the Arctic air temperature in summer is not a good guide to warmer/cooler conditions. When you look at the Arctic temperature graph (>80deg N is the skeptics favourite), you see it flattens out during summer months, rather than smoothly heading to a peak several degrees higher. The reason for this is that much of the energy that would otherwise be warming the air temperature is being used up in melting ice (latent heat of melting), and so this holds temperatures close to freezing until all the ice is melted away. North of 80deg N the ice does not melt out entirely (at least for now), so temperatures are held down all summer. Thus a tempeature around 1C in the Arctic may only tell you that ice is melting, not whether it's much warmer or colder than previous years. -
tobyjoyce at 00:23 AM on 19 August 2010Is Arctic Sea Ice 'Just Fine'?
Here's a scary thing. This is a graphic from the IPC TAR of 2001
Are my eyes deceiving me, or is the Actic Ice minimum extent for the last few years much closer to the 2040-2060 scenario than the one projected earlier?
Here is an image from a few days ago (white is 100% concentration, declining to blue <~30%):
-
adelady at 00:19 AM on 19 August 2010The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change
Hang on a minute, BP, did you read the article I cited? It has nothing to do with world markets. It's about continuous records of productivity on 227 individual irrigated farms in 6 Asian countries. Over 25 years, productivity on those farms decreased by between 10% and 20%. -
daniel at 00:06 AM on 19 August 2010It's a 1500 year cycle
No one seems to be interested in a discussion about the quality of data presented in this video. I would like to add to my above comment that the error in assigning years to layers in any ice core is intrinsically cumulative. If you assume a conservative error estimate of say 1%. That is only 1 in every 100 annual layers is misassigned, then at 50 kyr BP when the most recent of the most striking DO events are suppossed to be taking place you have a +/- 500 year window within which you can align peaks. Given the peaks are so difficult to distinguish in time as they are currently portrayed, what does that tell you about the quality of work in the field of "Climate science"? Even in their current format the two datasets are not opposed but actually aligned at the first DO event at ~90-95kyr BP! But the video is trying to say they are not! Even the trail off from this initial "global" peak is the same in both hemispheres! The further in time we go back from 50kyr the worse (more cumulative) the error. Are there any obvious or striking DO events between 0 and 50 kyr BP? Even at 1% error is there a large enough window to align the supposedly bipolar peaks in this more recent region of time? Are we being too conservative at 1% error? Is "Climate science" really science? -
Anne-Marie Blackburn at 23:42 PM on 18 August 2010Is Arctic Sea Ice 'Just Fine'?
Chris, The problem is that we can only deal with the data we have. Satellite data over the past 30 years give us a clear picture of what's happening. Knowledge of past Arctic changes are not needed to draw conclusions about what's happening now. I agree that it would be interesting to have data for other periods but we don't - or I'm not aware of such data. However, the point of this article was specifically to highlight the outrageous cherry-picking by Monckton, which is as unscientific as it gets. -
Berényi Péter at 23:41 PM on 18 August 2010The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change
#51 adelady at 20:04 PM on 18 August, 2010 The major decline in rice production in recent years appears to be, again, a continuation of a long-term trend. No, it is not. The transient setback between 1999 and 2002 has nothing to do with climate change and everything with market forces. After 2002 growth resumed at a slightly faster pace than before.
*USDA data via IRRI (International Rice Research Institute)
BTW, the market is absolutely inadequate for providing reasonable food security. It's because food is a special commodity in that if consumers are denied of it for a couple of months, they get permanently removed from the market (because the dead neither eat nor can make money). World food stockpile is at an all time low, it can cover consumption only for two or three months. It means we are just a single major volcanic eruption away from a global disaster unprecedented in human history. This is because governments utterly fail to take due responsibility and neglect public food stockpiling recommendations described in this paper (stocks for seven years are needed). A natural phenomenon like that might be good news for the environment, albeit very bad for everyone else. -
jonathansf13 at 23:37 PM on 18 August 2010Is the sun causing global warming?
Here is a more comprehensive article on cooling of the mesosphere and thermosphere: Beig, G., et al., Review of mesospheric temperature trends, Rev. Geophys., 41(4), 1015, doi:10.1029/2002RG000121, 2003. These are not easy reading, but they represent the best scientific work to date that I am aware of. -
chris1204 at 23:35 PM on 18 August 2010Is Arctic Sea Ice 'Just Fine'?
Anne-Marie, I have no quarrel with the trends over thirty years which your post deals with. However, in the context of climate change, thirty years is really too short a time span. After all, the MWP and LIA (be they localised or global phenomena) are substantial climatic events which took place over many years. It would be interesting to know if we have any way of tracking sea ice extent at those times. For example, if we had evidence that sea ice extent was greater in the MWP than today...? Hence, my question regarding proxies over recent centuries. Reference to such data if available would make the argument more robust. -
John Brookes at 23:33 PM on 18 August 2010Is Arctic Sea Ice 'Just Fine'?
Thanks Alden. Once again, the full presentation on Fool Me Once is brilliant. I'm surprised that his lordship's lawyers haven't been in touch with you yet! On a serious note, Monckton's cherry picking is scandalous, particularly just focussing on the rebound in the September minimum from 2007 to 2009. If you look back to 1990 - 1992, you will find a remarkably similar rebound, followed by, oh yes, a continued decline. -
mehus at 23:21 PM on 18 August 2010Is Arctic Sea Ice 'Just Fine'?
I also love how Monckton picks a graph from Jan 1980 that has NO snow on it. I mean, look at all the snow in the 2009 graph. It looks soooo much colder to me! -
jonathansf13 at 23:20 PM on 18 August 2010Is the sun causing global warming?
Stratospheric cooling: Ramaswamy, V., et al. (2001), Stratospheric temperature trends: Observations and model simulations, Rev. Geophys., 39(1), 71–122, doi:10.1029/1999RG000065. Mesosphere-Lower Thermosphere: She, C. Y. et al. (2009), Long-term variability in mesopause region temperatures over Fort Collins, Colorado (41°N, 105°W) based on lidar observations from 1990 through 2007, J. Atmos. Solar-Terr. Phys., 71, 1558-1564. See also: Roble, R. G., and R. E. Dickinson (1989), How will changes in carbon dioxide and methane modify the mean structure of the mesosphere and thermosphere? , Geophys. Res. Letters, 16, 1441–1444. -
Eric (skeptic) at 23:11 PM on 18 August 2010The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change
Dappledwater thanks. Fact from table 1: rice yields are increasing everywhere. But the paper shows that the growth rate is decreased due to warmer nighttime temperatures and could turn into decreases in the future. Ann, "Such greening of the Sahara/Sahel is a rare example of a beneficial potential tipping element." From http://www.pnas.org/content/105/6/1786.long -
jonathansf13 at 23:06 PM on 18 August 2010Is the sun causing global warming?
Should the sun be the primary driver of climate change, the atmosphere would heat throughout, from the ground to the thermosphere. However, we know that the stratosphere is cooling, and there is also evidence of cooling in the mesosphere-lower thermosphere, which is what enhanced greenhouse warming would cause. I will look up some references for these and add them later. -
Ann at 23:05 PM on 18 August 2010The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change
Today I encountered the following claim: "Due to climate change the southern border of the Sahara has moved northwards (by 50-60 kilometers), resulting in new rain forest the size of France and Germany put together." Has anyone heard this claim before, and are there any reliable reports to back up this claim ? Or is it nonsense ? If it is true, it would definitely be a benefit of global warming. -
JMurphy at 23:00 PM on 18 August 2010NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
Pete Ridley, you need to read a bit more widely on this site, especially Climate's changed before, It's just a natural cycle, and Humans are too insignificant to affect global climate With regard to ice ages, see this : Next Ice Age Delayed by Global Warming, Study Says -
Ken Lambert at 22:56 PM on 18 August 2010Is the sun causing global warming?
Yes it is. Integrate the area under the TSI curve and you will get an increasing accumulation of energy added to the biosphere. Constant elevated TSI above a baseline will give linear increase in energy accumulation. Throw in a few non-linear but small energy absorption processes such as ice melt and evaporation and possibly some positive feedbacks from CO2GHG, cooling aerosols and clouds and you might bump the temperature curve around a bit mid century but produce a roughly linear temperature rise for the last 80 years. -
Rob Painting at 22:56 PM on 18 August 2010The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change
Just for Eric, the study referred in in post #51 Rice yields in tropical/subtropical Asia exhibit large but opposing sensitivities to minimum and maximum temperatures -
Anne-Marie Blackburn at 22:55 PM on 18 August 2010Is Arctic Sea Ice 'Just Fine'?
Chris, Cherries may be nice, but picking two or three data points to make your point is taking it a tad too far. Three decades is long enough to detect a trend - if you include all data points that is. Here are good, recent posts on the Arctic and Antarctica. There are plenty more if you do a search. -
Eric (skeptic) at 22:39 PM on 18 August 2010The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change
Rice yield growth is down, in Asia especially and is considered to be a serious problem. There are numerous articles on it like this http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90777/90856/6571461.html But yields have not declined anywhere. The quantitative statement in the link in post 51 is about a decline in yield growth. The other statement that "rice yields drop" is not based on any collected statistics of rice farm yields. It may well be some sort of experiment that they ran, but the article doesn't say. The statement is not quantitative and not sourced. -
JMurphy at 22:39 PM on 18 August 2010The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change
I suppose the production of rice would benefit slightly from rising sea-levels - if only it wasn't for the extra methane production and the declining yields due to rising temperatures. In other words, as the article states : "...showing that most climate change impacts will confer few or no benefits, but may do great harm at considerable cost." -
chris1204 at 22:23 PM on 18 August 2010Is Arctic Sea Ice 'Just Fine'?
Well,we all like cherries. Arctic ice however seems to be doing some strange things. Part of the problem lies in the fact that our only reliable record goes back to the 1970s with the advent of satellites. Other records seem to go back no further than the 1870s. Do we have proxies for ice sheet extent predating this period? Currently, it seems to be defying trends with a summer melt less than predicted while Arctic temperatures appear to be below average (if I'm to believe the sceptics). On the other hand, Antarctic sea ice seems to be growing with a net increase in world sea ice (again, if I take sceptical sources at face value). I appreciate the Greenland ice sheet mass seems to be declining as is the Antarctic land ice sheet and I'm aware of the instability in the West Antarctic peninsula. So which cherries do I pick? Proxies for pre 1870s ice sheet extent if available would be helpful in placing today's behaviour in perspective. -
Anne-Marie Blackburn at 21:54 PM on 18 August 2010Is Arctic Sea Ice 'Just Fine'?
Fantastic post that perfectly illustrates the problem of the cherry-picking done by contrarians and the need to look at trends rather that single points. -
Alexandre at 21:50 PM on 18 August 2010Long Term Certainty
About Moderator´s response at #7: I have also noticed this "alarmism against mitigation" here and there. For those, any change in the climate is manageble, even if science shows it´s probably unprecedented in human history. Any interference in the use of fossil fuels, on the other hand, is doom - even if phased out in the pace of generations. -
Craig Allen at 21:43 PM on 18 August 2010Is the sun causing global warming?
Hey Marcus, I'm aware of all that. I'm just suggesting that all three need to be covered in one post because I've pointed people at the intermediate version of this post before and immediately had them come back at me with those other arguments, which I then had to hunt down refutations for. It would be handy to have it all explained succinctly in the one page is what I'm suggesting. -
Tony Noerpel at 21:41 PM on 18 August 2010Is the sun causing global warming?
John I know this is correct and agrees with a rather famous figure from Max Planck Inst but could you provide references for your data? Tony -
CBDunkerson at 21:36 PM on 18 August 2010Long Term Certainty
Pikaia, as we go further out the total amount of fossil fuels we will end up burning and long term climate feedback effects play a bigger and bigger role... making the eventual maximum highly uncertain. Even the rate at which we burn fuels would play a significant part as the oceans could absorb most of the extra CO2 if given enough time to disperse it rather than the ocean surface always being saturated. That said, I recall a worst case scenario study in New Scientist based on burning all available fossil fuels coming out to about 13 C by 3000 AD. Sticking just to known conventional reserves would top out around 7 C. Since then Canada has gone big into tar sands and deepwater drilling is becoming commonplace... so we're looking at exceeding 'conventional reserves' unless things change. -
CBDunkerson at 21:04 PM on 18 August 2010Is global warming still happening?
Thingadonta, you are essentially arguing that we should consider the possibility that recent data are indicative of a change in trend rather than just standard short term variability. Ok. Clearly the extreme heat, weather, and other data this year indicates that we have now entered a phase of profound global warming which will quickly grow to devastating proportions. Either that, or focusing on the tree immediately in front of us is a poor way of viewing the forest. -
CBDunkerson at 20:59 PM on 18 August 2010The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change
Eric, I'll assume you somehow don't see the flaw in your comparison. The finding of DEcreased rice yields is in reference to existing farms in Asia... those farms are now producing less rice than they used to. The finding of INcreased rice yields you cite is the global total over the past 50 years... which thus includes the development of new rice farms (such as those in the Philippines cited in that very article) and the introduction of new high yield rice strains during that time frame. In short, they are completely different things and your citation in no way detracts from the validity of the declining yield problem. -
chris1204 at 20:54 PM on 18 August 2010Long Term Certainty
Another analogy might be smoking. I recall being struck by a number of friends who were light smokers (not even daily smokers, reasonably fit, and hence presumably at 'mild risk') who had coronary events in their mid-forties. Now smoking that one cigarette probably does you very little harm. However, each cigarette carries a cumulative risk of a range of well-documented adverse events. Interestingly, a heavy smoker's chances of having a heart attack fall by about 50% within eight hours of their last cigarette! Then again, every heavy smoker or drink has a grandfather/ uncle/ significant other (usually male) who smoked 40 cigarettes a day and half a bottle of whisky a day and lived till the age of 90. Probabilities and how we behave in response to them are fascinating. There's a vast body of evidence that people do not respond logically to probabilities but rather to perceptions. Consequently, people will respond differently to scenarios which carry identical risks/benefits depending on presentation much to the despair of economists, game theorists, and other practitioners of the dark arts. -
Eric (skeptic) at 20:34 PM on 18 August 2010The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change
The article says "Rising temperatures during the past 25 years have already cut the yield growth rate by 10-20 percent in several locations." And then it says "We found that as the daily minimum temperature increases, or as nights get hotter, rice yields drop," According to this http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-02/irri-tpt021910.php yields have more than doubled worldwide over the last 50 years. -
Ari Jokimäki at 20:17 PM on 18 August 2010Is global warming still happening?
#1, thingadonta: "The above diagram may be true, but is slightly misleading/doesn't present the whole picture. Skeptics have pointed out that several indicators are slowing in their rate of warming, contrary to IPCCC projections." Where in IPCC projections it shows that there can't be few years of slowing in the rate of warming? -
Berényi Péter at 20:05 PM on 18 August 2010Temp record is unreliable
#119 scaddenp at 14:53 PM on 18 August, 2010 Do think it reasonable that stations going into the GHCN have temperatures corrected so that every station measures temperature on the same basis? Definitely. That is, it would be reasonable, but unfortunately it is not what happens. In reality data from GHCN stations inside the US of A go into the raw data file pretty much unchanged, then later on multiple adjustments are applied to them as they make their way to v2.mean_adj. The bulk of the 20th century warming trend for the US is introduced this way. For the rest of the world an entirely different procedure is followed, where adjustments are hidden from the public eye. That is, for these stations the additional upward trend introduced during the transition from v2.mean to v2.mean_adj is next to negligible, but there are huge adjustments to data before they have a chance to get into the raw dataset. Of course it is always possible to re-collect data from the original sources and make a comparison (that's what I was trying to do with Environment Canada and Weather Underground), but it is not a cost effective way to do the checking, that much you have to admit. Worse, for most of the stations in GHCN there is no genuine raw data online (not to mention metadata) from the original source, so one would need a pretty extensive organization to do an exhaustive validation job of GHCN data integration procedures. -
adelady at 20:04 PM on 18 August 2010The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change
The major decline in rice production in recent years appears to be, again, a continuation of a long-term trend. Higher night time temperatures seem to be the culprit. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100809161138.htm -
michael sweet at 20:03 PM on 18 August 2010The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change
Ari: Skeptics don't do their homework and then claim that the work has not been done. That makes it easy for them to claim that we don't know a lot that we actually know. Thank you for providing this link to show what really is known. -
adelady at 19:59 PM on 18 August 2010Long Term Certainty
johnd Cloud cover in Perth - any month of the year? Having spent a bit of time there on business a few years ago, during what passes for winter in Perth, I'd be reasonably confident of it being clear. Only once I arrived during a horrendous storm, on the other occasions I left my coat, gloves and other winter type paraphernalia in my room every single day. Apart from the winds off the beach at Freo, all was mild and warm. -
Ari Jokimäki at 19:57 PM on 18 August 2010The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change
#46, thingadonta: "Yes, but no research has been conducted that I am aware of the rate of dissolution/precipitation of carbonate on the sea floor, so we don't know the rate of this potential negative feedback to ocean acidification." Here's just one example: In situ measurements of calcium carbonate dissolution rates in deep-sea sediments - Berelson et al. (1990) -
pikaia at 19:46 PM on 18 August 2010Long Term Certainty
I have seen predictions of warming up to 2100AD, with increases of between 2 and 5 degrees, depending on the scenario. However, these graphs show the temperature continuing to rise steadily at the end of this period. What will happen in the next thousand years? I cannot find much info about when or how high the maximum will eventually be. Does anyone have any info about the long-term? -
JMurphy at 19:25 PM on 18 August 2010The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change
thingadonta wrote : "your point about more rain is partly why agricultural output (including rice) is also increasing- and why the discussion about agricultre in the above article is wrong/misleading-more rain means more crops, particularly in marginal temperate zones. Too simple for AGW promoters to understand." Yes, of course, very simple. All that lovely rain, leading to lots of lovely crops - sounds very simple, doesn't it, especially in Pakistan : Floods likely to have destroyed crops worth $1 billion As for rice, well... : There has been a major decline in world rice production since late 2007 due to many reasons including climatic conditions in many top rice producing countries as well as policy decisions regarding rice export by the governments of countries with considerable rice production. Rice Trade The above article says something about floods and drought... -
Mike1637 at 18:46 PM on 18 August 2010Long Term Certainty
@6 - Mmmmm, there are a lot of problems with that outlook.While it can't be predicted with 100% certainty now there are very few realistic outcomes.
Indeed. Same goes for rising temperatures over short geologic timescales which have no other rational explanation other than increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. Realistic outcomes include "moderately bad", "really bad", and "holy crap that's bad". The problem is that all 7 billion of us haven't experienced such rapid change before, and we're pretty fixed in our ways. Our agriculture production, our beachfront cities, etc etc. It doesn't take much (as you can see from even temporary drought effects, etc) to throw things into relative chaos, and we historically do not seem to adjust well. -
johnd at 17:53 PM on 18 August 2010Long Term Certainty
I am wondering why the said eclipse is being predicted as being visible from Perth. As has happened many times in the past cloud cover has obscured, or partly obscured such events around the world. If of course the cloud cover for that particular point of time is also able to be predicted with the same degree of accuracy as the movement of the planets, then the claim that the eclipse will indeed be visible may be justified. However for that particular period of any year, May/June, the likelihood of thick cloud cover is quite high. Perhaps being able to predict the winner of the grand final would be far more realistic than being able to predict cloud coverage so far out especially given the poor current understanding of what are all the drivers of cloud processes. -
Paul D at 17:46 PM on 18 August 2010Is the sun causing global warming?
To add to my earlier comment, this is from the abstract of the Pablo 2010 paper: "We obtained that,after eliminating the secular trends and smoothing out the solar cycle,there is a strong positive correlation between the residuals of both the Sunspot Number and the stream flows, as we obtained for the Parana´." Which I interpret as being that the global warming trends being removed, what they mean as being secular isn't explained in the abstract or full report. -
Paul D at 17:36 PM on 18 August 2010Is the sun causing global warming?
What is the connection between solar activity and river flow?? I have come across a number of research papers that look at various locations (South America, Europe and China) that appear to correlate river flows with solar activity?? Probably the most prominent is Pablo Mauas et al - "Long-Term solar activity influences on South American rivers" - 2010, which adds to a previous similar report, but there are others (can't remember report titles at this time). From what I can make out, the authors focus on the relationship and don't suggest it is an alternative to an AGW explanation. -
Marcus at 17:24 PM on 18 August 2010Is the sun causing global warming?
Picoallen. Sunspot numbers & TSI have been trending downwards for the last 30 years. According to all I've read, cosmic ray levels are inversely proportional to solar activity-i.e. as solar activity goes up Cosmic Rays reaching Earth decline. Again, according to all I've read, the recent decrease in solar activity should have led to an increase in Cosmic Rays reaching Earth which-in turn-should have caused levels of cloud cover to increase (thus increasing Earth's albedo-a negative feedback). Yet in spite of everything pointing towards a *cooling* trend for the last 30 years, we've seen a *warming* trend instead. I'm happy to countenance something *other* than GHG's as the cause, but only if sufficient proof can be provided to back this alternate explanation. Its this proof that has been very lacking over the course of the Global Warming "debate". -
omnologos at 17:09 PM on 18 August 2010Long Term Certainty
No one in their right mind would drive into a brick wall because the outcome is “uncertain.” Yes, but no one in their right mind would drive into a ravine to avoid the brick wall. Also because cars are designed to help passengers withstand some kind of impacts, but not others. It would be ironic to see the world embark into another Titanic moment a hundred years after the original tragedy, steering away at the wrong moment and therefore ruining any chance of survival.Moderator Response: I am intrigued by the various degrees of alarmism raised to counter my suggestion that people would be ill-advised to drive into a brick wall. I agree, if avoiding the wall meant driving into a ravine, then the choice would be challenging indeed. However, this is not the choice we have to make. There are clear precedents that it is possible to slow down while being paid to do so: Denmark cut carbon emissions by 21% between 1990 and 2006 while at the same time increasing its GDP by a whopping 44%, and Germany reduced carbon emissions by 28% whilst increasing GDP by 32% and creating more than 300,000 clean-energy jobs at the same time. Lest you think only Europeans can be that smart, the Australian CSIRO released a study recently which indicated that some 3 million jobs could be created during a 20-year transition to a low-carbon economy. So, there is no imaginary ravine. The choice is between hitting a brick wall and the economic *REWARDS* associated with slowing down and avoiding the impact. SL -
RSVP at 16:23 PM on 18 August 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
Sorry, I left out one more detail. All this assumes no reason for surface radiation to increase. If anything, it should be lower in fact if GHG are trapping more heat coming in from the Sun. For this factor, I will definitely concede a "green house effect" affecting daytime peak temperatures, however, these same gases will work the other way around accelerating cooling at night. This thread has to do with energy accumulation.. and waste heat, etc. -
owl905 at 16:12 PM on 18 August 2010Is the sun causing global warming?
Solar irradiance cycle does correlate with sunspot activity - to miniscule value of 1w/m2. The past two solar cycles have been lower than the most active cycle - 50 years ago. According to the cosmic ray theory, popular five years ago, there should be a pronounced cooling period in progress. The exact opposite is reflected in the trend - the 12-month period June 2009 to May 2010 was the hottest in 130 years of record-keeping. Decent graphs are here (and cover the points raised fairly well): http://www.climate4you.com/Sun.htm Latest NOAA global assessment here:- http://tinyurl.com/2aqso2u -
RSVP at 16:12 PM on 18 August 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
KR 219 If surface radiation was the only source of atmospheric heating, you might be correct. However, the atmosphere derives heat from other places as well... surface convective cooling, incoming light and IR scattering directly from the Sun, and other sources such as human waste heat, geothermal, brush fires, etc. If air warmed by these sources cools via so called GHGs in the upper atmosphere, it stands to reason that the more to be found, the cooler it will be (overall). -
Bern at 16:02 PM on 18 August 2010Is global warming still happening?
@huntjanin: it appears it's not possible to please everyone... ;-) The original explanation is a bit longer, at 700-odd words, and includes numerous references to scientific papers that present the evidence in a more technical fashion. The whole point of this "Basic Version" is to provide a cut-down explanation that is clear, simple, and gets the main point across. Of course it's not going to cover every base - it's not intended to. And the next time I see a 5000-word article from the 'deniers' that contains more than one piece of valid scientific evidence (or perhaps even one!) will be the first... The most common skeptical tactic we've seen is to make a simple, sensible-sounding statement, and repeat it many, many times. The fact that the statement is often scientifically inaccurate (or just plain false) is usually irrelevant to the presentation. I feel that the mix John & co are going for with these basic arguments is good - present one, or at most, a few, clear scientifically valid pieces of evidence that support the AGW hypothesis. -
chris1204 at 15:19 PM on 18 August 2010Is the sun causing global warming?
PS: especially if what is written is true. :-) -
chris1204 at 15:04 PM on 18 August 2010Is the sun causing global warming?
A brief comment about known physical properties of greenhouse gasses might be pertinent. Eg: We know that gasses like CO2 absorb heat energy. This helps keep the earth warm. However, average temperatures are now increasing roughly in pace with greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. This suggests that greenhouse gasses like CO2 are probably causing the temperature rise. No, I haven't joined the dark side of the force ;-) But I like the idea of a plain English project which can engage people in communicating clearly about a complex subject.
Prev 2242 2243 2244 2245 2246 2247 2248 2249 2250 2251 2252 2253 2254 2255 2256 2257 Next
