Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2293 2294 2295 2296 2297 2298 2299 2300 2301 2302 2303 2304 2305 2306 2307 2308 Next
Comments 115001 to 115050:
-
ScaredAmoeba at 14:29 PM on 20 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
Thank you for this! The short response is useful in certain circumstances, and where more detail is required, it's available. -
muoncounter at 14:07 PM on 20 July 2010The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
Tragic news, but hardly off topic. Here is what Schneider had to say in 1989. "Unfortunately, if society chooses to wait another decade or more for certain proof, then this behavior raises the risk that we will have to adapt to a larger amount of climate change than if actions to slow down the buildup of greenhouse gases were pursued more vigorously today." Still rings true. He was concerned that CO2 had passed 350 ppm. Of course, gasoline was under a $1 per US gallon. Those were the good old days. -
Tom Dayton at 13:54 PM on 20 July 2010It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
ptbrown31, your contention is not quite correct. The actual definition is "the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) Index is defined as the leading principal component of North Pacific monthly sea surface temperature variability (poleward of 20N for the 1900-93 period)." -
ptbrown31 at 13:27 PM on 20 July 2010It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
"Obviously the PDO as an oscillation between positive and negative values shows no long term trend. In contrast, temperature displays a long term warming trend." This PDO index shows no trend because the globally averaged SST is subtracted out. The globally averaged SST is subtracted out because it is assumed that the PDO is not effecting global SSTs but is rather a mode of variability on top of global SSTs. As far as I know this is not a robust conclusion and therefor I feel that it is misleading to compare the "trendless" PDO to globally averaged surface temperature the way that it is done in the above graph. -
kdkd at 12:47 PM on 20 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
Something useful to do might be to make each sentence short enough to be a tweet (less the @handle of the person you're responding to, and the shortened url of the actual page containing the argument)Response: Actually, I have done that. See my response to comment #3 - last week while working on the one-liners, I trimmed down every one-liner to less than 100 characters so they're ideal for a tweet + a bit.ly URL. As soon as I get time, I'll publish the one-liners along with a shortened bit.ly URL for each skeptic argument (am open to suggestions on how to best make tweeting the arguments as easy as possible). -
Rob Honeycutt at 12:12 PM on 20 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
I would also suggest that framing likely applies to categories rather than individual arguments. I'll try reading through a bunch of these and see if I can craft some initial framing. Again, though, this is fantastic!! Stuff like this one is absolutely perfect: "1934 was not the hottest year globally, only in the US." The more brief they are the more powerful.Response: The first thing I think when I read "1934 was not the hottest year globally, only in the US" is that, well, actually, it's statistically indistinguishable from 1998 and 2006 and a USHCN v2 adjustment actually put 1998 and 2006 above 1934. So it takes a great act of discipline to not include all that information in the one-liner. The big picture here, what people need to know, is that global temperature is a more appropriate metric for global warming than regional temperature. You have to find that one core truth and let the rest of the details come out in the subsequent discussion. -
Bern at 12:09 PM on 20 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
Good work with these summaries - being able to bat the ball back over the net is very valuable, as it puts the 'denier' or 'contrarian' on the back foot. They then have to come up with (or try to come up with) evidence to support their argument, and those will be a lot easier to counter than the initial one-liner! I'm going to post a copy on the noticeboard at work for people to peruse.Response: Let us know how that pans out, would be interesting to hear the reactions. -
MattJ at 12:07 PM on 20 July 2010Irregular Climate podcast 8: Journalismgate, prawngate and rock n roll
The article lists several directions for heat to go into, all directions the 'skeptics' would like us to forget about: the oceans, the air temperature, the land. But there is still one missing that I would expect to be quite significant, since the heat of evaporation of water is SO huge compared to its heat capacity or heat of melting. How much heat is taken up by evaporating the water of the oceans, or by sublimation of ice? That will not show up as increased air temperature since the temperature remains constant during evaporation. -
Rob Honeycutt at 12:04 PM on 20 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
John, this is fantastic! And as for the 4 to 5 word versions... give it time. It took a while for one liners to come out of full paragraphs. It might take a while to distill these down to simple "frames" as discussed by George Lakoff. Think of it this way: The shorter versions don't have to describe the issue, only frame it. Think of the genius of the right wing in framing the abortion issue as "Right to Life." If we could apply that same kind of genius to climate then no one could ever disagree with AGW. -
Gneiss at 12:02 PM on 20 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
These are good! -
robert way at 11:37 AM on 20 July 2010Part Three: Response to Goddard
Arkadiusz Semczyszak, I must follow up further with more criticisms (like those of Peter Hogarth). You seem to be claiming that you did not cherry pick the studies that you showed and just seem to be indicating that these are just independent studies which argue to the contrary. The thing about your argument is that it has already been shown to you that the methodology used in that study was inadequate for mass balance estimates of Antarctica. Why do you continually ignore this point? The reason Wingham has moved on to newer methods is because of the obvious flaws in using low resolution radar altimetry for ice sheet mass balance estimates.... I don't know why you highlighted isostatic rebound because all grace, icesat and radar altimetry studies are corrected for this. It is not a novel idea, it is something which has to be corrected for in order to get appreciable results. You also should note that you pointed to mass gains on the antarctic peninsula which is completely and utterly incorrect. Part of the spine is gaining ice but the total mass balance of this region is around -60 Gt Year (According to Pritchard and Vaughan, 2007 and Rignot et al. 2008). This is supported by Cook et al. 2005 which shows that a survey of 244 tidewater glaciers in the regions has 87% in retreat with 14 having retreated more than 2 km since the earliest air photos. Sometimes scientific appraisal is required. You can repeat the same study's findings over and over again but when they are not supported by any of the evidence then you have to move on and accept reality. -
MattJ at 11:29 AM on 20 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
This is magnificent progress! After all, it is the widespread easy acquiescence to the appeal of "one-liners" that has left the so-called 'skeptics' with the edge in the public mind for much too long. Now we finally have the means to blunt that edge. As for the Antarctic ice, example, there is nothing wrong with cutting them off ahead of time in the following manner: Skeptic: Antarctica is gaining ice Scientist: No, it is not. It is only seasonal ice over water that is gaining, but seasonal ice does not count. It is land ice that counts. That is being lost Now the skeptic cannot simply respond with "Yeah, but Antarctica is gaining ice". True, it is no longer a one liner. But notice how it heads them of at the pass. If you absolutely must have a single English sentence, then you could reword as: "Total ice is not what counts, land ice is what is being lost, and THAT is what counts". Note how important the order of clauses is: the first clause refutes the deception, the second brings in the real facts of the case, the third seals up the matter quite tightly replacing disinformation with real information, and that in a memorable form, even if it does have the feel of a run-on sentence;) Now speaking of memorable forms, since I have not seen the case of Antarctic ice put in such memorable form, and am relying on memory as I write this, I realize the value of what I write may be vitiated by my own imperfect memory of what the facts of the case really are:( But I hope the idea is clear. Not only can you counter ignorance with brevity, but you must do it; otherwise you are handing victory to your opponent. There is, after all, a REASON people have long said "brevity is the soul of wit". The 'skeptics' understand this reason very well. -
Riduna at 11:27 AM on 20 July 2010Part Three: Response to Goddard
Goddard might be interested in observations made by the Grace satellites and the fact that EAIS and WAIS are different. While parts of WAIS cover a far flung archipelago, it is largely a marine ice sheet resting on the sea floor. It is vulnerable to melting in summer due to warming air temperatures, particularly over the Peninsula where over 700 glaciers are in retreat. WAIS is particularly vulnerable to melting from contact with a warming Southern Ocean and warmer currents from equatorial regions flowing directly on to the ice. Grace shows that WAIS is now loosing ice at a rate of 132 gigatonnes per annum and the rate of loss has been increasing over the last 5 years. It is expected to continue increasing. 1 gigatonne = 1 sq.km. of water. The EAIS covers (and depresses) most of Antarctica’s land mass, rising to some 4,000 metres above sea level. Where lubrications is present, gravity ensures that ice flows towards the coast where glaciers contact relatively warm water causing calving. Traces of surface melt lakes have been observed and these would have contributed to lubrication, as would the massive weight of ice. Grace shows that EAIS has been loosing ice at a net rate of some 55 gigatonnes per annum since 2006, indicating it was loosing ice at a slower rate in prior years. The rate of loss has increased and will continue to do so as sea and surface temperatures rise. -
hadfield at 11:16 AM on 20 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
I disagree, wildrunar. I think the one-liners are great. Sure trading one-liners is no way to conduct a scientific debate, but a lot of people think in one-liners (or use them as an alternative to thinking, as you point out). If you can't respond succinctly, you lose the point. Each one-liner in John's table links to a more complete statement of the sceptic argument (such as it is) and the rebuttal. Brilliant.Response: Think of them not as the definitive answer but as "batting the ball back over the net". It's just a lead-in to more detailed discussion.
Here's another way they could be useful - tweets with a link back to a page with more details. I intentionally trimmed down every one-liner to less than 100 characters so they're ideal for a tweet + a bit.ly URL (I'm also working on a database of bit.ly URLs for each skeptic argument). -
Megan Evans at 11:07 AM on 20 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
"This makes a handy resource to carry in your pocket in case a skeptic jumps out at you on the street". Haha. This is a great resource (yet again), thanks Jan and John. -
wildrunar at 11:04 AM on 20 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
Hah. Wouldn't it be simpler to say: "I'm sorry, you don't know what you're talking about." The way I see it, technical arguments are only as good as the technical background of the person making them/hearing them. Most people who say, or rather parrot, those arguments don't really know what they mean; it's just something that gives them comfort. So you can't actually refute the argument because...well, there is no argument. If a know-nothing says, "Antarctica is gaining ice," and we hit back with "Antarctica is losing land ice," they will respond with "Yeah, but Antarctica is gaining ice." You cannot conquer ignorance with brevity.Response: Well, it needs a hint of specificity - "Satellites measure Antarctica is losing ice at an accelerating rate". Then you can go into more detail about how the GRACE satellites measure changes in gravity and other ways that satellites measure the ice sheet's mass balance. Well, that's the theory anyway. -
johnd at 09:28 AM on 20 July 2010Does partial scientific knowledge mean we shouldn't act?
JMurphy at 08:32 AM, what you can do is firstly providing references that INCLUDE objective comparisons to fires PRIOR to 1900. Please elaborate exactly which of your references do that if you feel that you have already done that. The 2009 Royal Commission is very subjective and concentrated on events since 1900 as this submission to the Royal Commission, together with it's analysis, makes perfectly clear. submission to 2009 VICTORIAN BUSHFIRES ROYAL COMMISSION If you find that the Royal Commission includes any objective analysis for fires prior to 1900, please provide a link. -
scatter at 08:46 AM on 20 July 2010Skeptical Science now an Android app
Hurrah! Nice one :) -
JMurphy at 08:32 AM on 20 July 2010Does partial scientific knowledge mean we shouldn't act?
johnd, I'm sure you know what you are trying to say, and that is all that matters. Until you attempt to discover any sources that use the 2009 fires as comparison, I cannot see how I can do any more. -
johnd at 08:14 AM on 20 July 2010Does partial scientific knowledge mean we shouldn't act?
JMurphy at 04:35 AM, before accusing others of only seeing what they want, consider how your own selective vision led you to be so confused. My post johnd at 06:29 AM on 19 July, 2010 included the following extract. ""The largest Australian bushfire in European-recorded history that burnt an area of approximately 5 million ha. which covered a quarter of Victoria." Source: 1301.0 - Year Book Australia, 2004." NOTE THE SOURCE IS REFERENCED. My post to which are responding posted a direct link to :- "1301.0 - Year Book Australia, 2004 Previous ISSUE Released at 11:30 AM (CANBERRA TIME) 27/02/2004." Not fully reading the information posted obviously led you to your response; not understanding what it all means or the lack of desire to compare apples with apples is what you now have to overcome if you want to put it all into perspective. When comparing apples with apples between the 1851 and 2009 fires, which was the worst, and by what criteria? -
VeryTallGuy at 06:38 AM on 20 July 2010The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
The similarities with creationism is something I've thought about before, but the point which struck me here was about the converging lines of evidence, and how it is the totality of what is presented which makes the case for AGW so compelling rather than any individual "killer fact". This is in stark contrast to the self - appointed auditors who essentially make the case that disproving, or even showing errors in any single observation falsify the entire case; a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method, which often seems willful, but may be more in error or ignorance. What can we do about it? Well, it strikes me that rather than just continue to attempt to show the error of these misplaced analyses or audits, we should tell stories to match the power of the story of conspiratorial big government. A story of a future free from energy dependence on malign dictatorships, where humans co-exist rather than fight against our environment and where we can all live fundamentally more fulfilled lives freed from the tyranny of every increasing competition for resources. A future we will be proud to hand on to our children rather than ashamed of. Wishful thinking, I know, but I've tried the rational way (together with Graham and others on the Guardian CiF site), and seen the futility of logic on human reactions. -
Peter Hogarth at 06:20 AM on 20 July 2010Part Three: Response to Goddard
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 20:46 PM on 19 July, 2010 Thanks for the references. Considering Wingham 2006, I suggest you update this and perhaps revise your opinions. For example see what Wingham says a mere 1 year later in Shepherd and Wingham 2007 “data show that Antarctica and Greenland are each losing mass overall. Our best estimate of their combined imbalance is about 125 gigatons per year of ice, enough to raise sea level by 0.35 millimeters per year. This is only a modest contribution to the present rate of sea-level rise of 3.0 millimeters per year. However, much of the loss from Antarctica and Greenland is the result of the flow of ice to the ocean from ice streams and glaciers, which has accelerated over the past decade”. Then you may be interested in what these authors have to say in 2008, 2009 and 2010. I also suggest that if you read “CO2 Science” you will gain a very biased view. As for Fettweis 2008, again have a look at what this author contributes one year later in Hanna 2009, “However, there is a striking correspondence between ocean warming and dramatic accelerations and retreats of key Greenland outlet glaciers in both southeast and southwest Greenland during the late 1990s and early 2000s” . Then most recently in Fettweiss 2010 (and associated poster) we have “Finally, both model and satellite agree to confirm the acceleration of the GrIS surface melting since 30 years.” The losses modelled by Fettweis in 2008 for the 1930s have already been exceeded in reality as shown here, and losses appear set to continue. -
tobyjoyce at 05:11 AM on 20 July 2010The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
Off topic, but I quoted Stephen Schneider above, since I am reading his book "Science as a Contact Sport". I am saddened to read on Climate Progress that he has just died. He was a distinguished man and a great scientist. Remembering Stephen Schneider -
JMurphy at 04:41 AM on 20 July 2010The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
Berényi Péter wrote : "Therefore it is not true that science came first and led to inevitable conclusions, just the opposite. There were the conclusions stated by a cultural anthropologist and climate science was asked to support them. That's what happened." Like seemingly all so-called skeptics, you see something which is very, very different from what anyone else seems to see - certainly a lot different than what I see and I notice that others feel the same. You see a call to try to understand what effects man will have on the atmosphere (because, as you quoted NAS, no-one knew for sure at that time what the future held), with a determination to decide in advance what the result of those studies was to be ? I'm sure we see the same words but you have interpreted them in such a way that I don't recognise as being the same sentences you posted. How do you do that ? How does so-called skepticism make one person see something so at variance with everyone else ? I'm baffled. -
JMurphy at 04:35 AM on 20 July 2010Does partial scientific knowledge mean we shouldn't act?
johnd wrote : "I referenced the sources of the information I posted previously, sufficient for anyone to with a bit of nouse to follow up. Here is a link that might make it even easier for you." Hmm. So you follow your previous post which had no links, with a post that links to statistics to do with fires up to 2003 ? Right. You do know that it was the 2009 fires which are claimed to be the worst, don't you ? How does your link argue against that ? Once again, you see what you want to see and believe that you know better. Fine, we can all see. -
johnd at 03:50 AM on 20 July 2010Does partial scientific knowledge mean we shouldn't act?
JMurphy at 08:31 AM, the trap many people such as yourself fall into when comparisons are being made between natural disaster events, fires and droughts for example, is that often the comparison is very subjective, led by media coverage and politicians who both focus on the emotional impact of such events for their own purposes. There is no single criteria to which such events can be simply reduced to as a means of making an objective comparison, duration, extent, magnitude, human cost, infrastructure loss, economic impact etc. all are highly variable and not easy to weight accordingly. Terms such as 1 in 1000 year drought is such a subjective description seized upon by politicians and etched into peoples minds to serve a purpose, but under closer scrutiny the data is simply not available to justify such a label. Bushfires, because of the emotional impact, are even more prone to the same subjective analysis, even amongst the authorities who often have their own barrows to push in a politically charged landscape. As with any comparisons, it is essential to compare apples with apples. Only some things can be compared in absolute terms, most have to be compared pro-rata due to changing circumstances, especially when dealing with the impact upon the population as a whole. When comparing the fires of 1851 to later fires, only the area burnt, the impact on the landscape, can be compared in absolute terms. Thus the 5 million hectares, one quarter of Victoria, is without doubt the greatest area burnt in Victoria's settled history. I challenge to to show otherwise. Impacts upon the population, including the number of people who perished have to be compared pro-rata. In 1851, Victoria's population was about 97,489, and 12 people perished in the February fires, or one person for every 8124 residents. In 2009, the population was 5,340,000 and 173 people perished, or one person for every 30,867 residents. Similar comparisons can be found for dwellings, stock losses, economic impact, etc., however it is clear, that for the population at the time, not only was the area burnt by far the greatest, but the impact upon the average person whether measured in human terms or economic terms, was far greater than any more recent fires. Many people interested in climate change seem to have a fascination with extrapolating data, perhaps you might like to extrapolate the 1851 statistics to 2009. The problem is that many people are not even aware of such events in our earlier history until it is bought to their attention. Many appear to believe the world only began when official records also began. Even though complete statistics were compiled at the time, they are are all but forgotten about, even by the authorities whose collective memories are determined by what has been recorded since the formal beginnings of their particular institution. Heaven forbid also that their views may be biased, not only by the media attention, but also by their ongoing need to secure funding such that the bureaucracy they are building can be further extended, the CFA being one such example. I referenced the sources of the information I posted previously, sufficient for anyone to with a bit of nouse to follow up. Here is a link that might make it even easier for you. The 'Black Thursday' fires of 6 February 1851 in Victoria, burnt the largest area (approximately 5 million ha) in European-recorded history and killed more than one million sheep and thousands of cattle as well as taking the lives of 12 people (CFA 2003a; DSE 2003b). For more detailed research you will have to visit the State Library and search the archives of the day available. -
michael sweet at 02:58 AM on 20 July 2010The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
CBW and Chriscanaris: I live in Florida (USA). I suggest that if the sea level rises enough in 100 years that Miami, Fort Lauderdale and the rest of eastern Florida have to be evacuated that is "catastrophic" for me. This is millions of residents from Miami alone. We do not have to worry about Bangladesh (or Tuvalu, which is substantially gone today). Current mainstream forecasts are 1-2 meters of sea level rise by 2100 (90 years). This is substantially more than was forecast in the 2007 IPCC report. With 2 meters sea level rise, Miami will have to be evacuated. Of course we can all move to North Dakota. Chris, what do you think? I am 50 years old. If the action has to occur in my lifetime we are more likely OK. Too bad for my high school students. I also note that heat stress has caused severe crop failure this year in Russia, but maybe it would have been record heat without AGW.. -
CBW at 02:17 AM on 20 July 2010The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
chriscanaris @78: "It can only radiate as far as the internal boundaries of the thermos whose reflective surfaces would prevent further outward radiation." That's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. It doesn't matter if the radiation travels a millimeter or a light-year, the plug radiates just the same, based only on its temperature. "However, if the iron bar were placed in a vacuum, the added heat from the inserted plug cause more net heat to radiate into the vacuum." You're making the same mistake as RSVP, and confusing radiation with heat flow. A box at temperature T radiates the same whether the plug is inside or not, or whether the box is in vacuum, inside a perfect insulator, or underwater. @79: "It depends on your point of view." I agree 100%. That's my point. You have to define what you mean by "catastrophic" or it is meaningless. That's why the deniers' attempts to recast AGW as "Catastrophic AGW" is so disingenuous--they're trying to build a straw man that they can then shoot down with arguments about how AGW will be good for the (~60,000) residents of Greenland. To call something catastrophic you have to define what you consider to be a catastrophe and then, and only then, can you discuss the probability of it happening. -
Bern at 00:46 AM on 20 July 2010Skeptical Science now an Android app
What Bioluminescence said! QR codes can make life much easier if you're trying to get a URL into your phone - save a bit of typing. Anyway, I've barely tried out the app, but it looks good so far - thanks to the folks at Shine! Their efforts are much appreciated. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:55 PM on 19 July 2010The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
“Climate science is a Pandora’s box, out of which come primary questions. These questions, which are fundamental, cannot be un-asked; we asked what would happen to the climate if we artificially increased the proportions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and the answer is important.” I agreed. For example, rate of temperature changes, and effects - including ecosystems. In Poland, on the Discovery Word was repeated once more movies of LIA (2005)and “Mean on Earth” (2009). Professor of Earth Sciences, Peter deMenocal (Columbia University) in the second film, says: "Imagine that (ie if the last Neanderthal died) following H. E. - D. - O.; occurred regularly every 5-6 thousand. years, with increasing vehemence - unimaginable speed: over 10 years the Earth's temperature changed suddenly circa 10 degrees. During a single generation, the climate changed abruptly and completely [... - now we can "count" on barely one and a few tenths of a degree at the time of our lives] ... " P.S. I recommend the latest work - deMenocal - Africa on the Edge, 2008: my conclusion from reading this work: it's not cool ALWAYS warming increases the area of deserts throughout the world - not only in Africa. Then, in the movie "Mean on Earth," followed by "rolling over" the science of 180 degrees: it is cool and more violent (do not know the reasons) led to the extinction of Neanderthal and megafauna (most likely we do not met a Neanderthal?), Man (culture Clovis) here just a little "help" ... ... And so many lines of evidence was proving, that: the Holocene warming killed of “our cousin”... " (write books, moreover, so still), eh ... It saved the Eemian, which is on the way to total annihilation, mankind. Although it is very difficult to compare, we can conclude that the time: never, even now, humanity does not grow so fast. In the film, the LIA, in turn, Professor deMenocal says - “We do not know what are the possibilities of hidden cycles of nature ... LIA was a time of climate instability, unexpected changes in regularity without - seemingly - logic.” - James Massachele, Rutgers University: "From 1000 to 1400 the world lived in an atmosphere of 2 to 4 degrees warmer than in the dark Middle Ages. MWP has come - the time of PROSPERITY (...)." - Thomas Gale Moore, Stamford University: "Crops were good, faster in the spring dry up wetlands, disappeared the mosquitoes do not spread malaria and other diseases have been fewer.” Maritime climate prevailed in Europe. “It is better distributed rainfall in the season guarantee high yields. During warming, the number of peasants in Europe increased from 40 to 60 million. Russia, China, North America - have seen similar changes." "The French nobility was displeased that the English wine market displace their products ..." "There is a theory that the Vikings gave the misleading name of Greenland to attract settlers - in fact, they were surprised [...] by the lush greenery sprouting fjords." - Prof. Henri Grissino-Mayer, University of Tennessee: "There were growing green plants and even trees - the name may correspond to reality." - Rie Oldenburg Narsaq museum curator: "fine grass grow even in the high mountains - Greenland must have been a PARADISE for them. [...!!!]". - Lloyd D. Keigwin: "LIA has changed the lives of many societies. New York Bay Harword frozen for 5 weeks. Eskimos sailed up to Scotland, half a meter of snow fell in New England in June and July, there has been a year, which is remembered as the year without a summer. Cooling changed the course of history.” "LIA is part of a repeated cycle - a phenomenon which may be repeated. Belies that the climate is something permanent. Humanity is incredibly sensitive to even small temperature drops. " - Richard Seager Universyty Columbia: "In the early fourteenth century, cooled off in just 10 years. The temperature was about 2 degrees lower than today's temperatures. " - Teofilo F. Ruiz - medieval historian from UCLA. At the beginning of the LIA, from 1315 - 1320 the year in 6 years 1.5 million people died of starvation in Europe. During the first five years in the spring occurred a long time, weeks, continuous rain, then floods and other violent phenomena in unprecedented scale, and after that period: long drought. Between 1371 and 1791 in France there were 111 famines.” - “Cattle: sheep and cows, have remained in the stables of over 6 months. Cows, after such winters were so weak, that it was out of the factory to pasture” - Finn Lynge Norse Grenland Expert. - Prof. Wallace S. Broecker Columbia University - “... a study of carbon-14 show that initially 80% of the food came from the land of Vikings. LIA harbored mainly in the sea. But when the sea started to freeze and farther cod began to move south ...” Or even from these facts, not important questions arise - "... what would happen ... "- clean "denial’s - denier camp” ? -
tobyjoyce at 23:36 PM on 19 July 2010The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
Berenyi Peter wrote: "Yes. Don't forget the the cooling world, about to cause epic crop failures in the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in ten years with soaring food prices and world wide famine." The man who made the cooling prediction was Stephen Schneider, though it was somewhat less apocalyptic. In his recent book he writes (p. 43): "By 1973, I was convinced that the Rasool-Scheidner calculation couldn't be right ... in my opinion the best guess of climate sensitivity was between 1.5 and 3.5 degrees Celsius, which I published in the Journal of Atmospheric Science in a paper called "On the Carbon Dioxide Climate Confusion"." So by 1975, scientists knew that the global cooling prediction was based on false premises. So like good scientists, they altered their predictions in accordance with the developing facts. It may have taken a bit longer to percolate through the media, but that is not "science". There was plenty of other reason to be concerned about the Soviet Union in the early 1970s. Communist agriculture having failed miserably, the Soviets were buying up grain all around the world, driving up grain prices. Another tip in Soviet grain production would worsen things considerably. These problems eased over time, along with concerns about nuclear winter, another worry of the later 1970s, when there were those arguing that a nuclear war was "winnable". And who exactly is plunging the world into economic chaos? BP, isn't that a bit apocalyptic? The longer the delay before reasonable action is taken the greater the chaos will be. The delayers and deniers are the guilty ones, the same ones who tried to prevent action on ozone layer depletion. -
CBDunkerson at 23:02 PM on 19 July 2010Skeptical Science now an Android app
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay! -
Daved Green at 22:21 PM on 19 July 2010Irregular Climate podcast 8: Journalismgate, prawngate and rock n roll
Arkadiusz sorry but I didnt understand that post at all it was like when you tranlate something from japanese to english , srry no offence intended . -
Alexandre at 22:08 PM on 19 July 2010Skeptical Science now an Android app
Does any of those run on a Blueberry? -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 21:22 PM on 19 July 2010Irregular Climate podcast 8: Journalismgate, prawngate and rock n roll
Assume that warms all the time, that the current year will be the warmest. How great it will change, or sometimes less than the possible error? While the year 2005, 2010 will be warmer from 1998? How great and "terrible" is the difference? Sorry for “plagiarism” - I repeat the "M" word - from one of the discussions during the meeting with him ... -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 20:59 PM on 19 July 2010Part Three: Response to Goddard
Please also about possible "errors proven" - at work Wingham 2006 - is that the allegations do not mean that it is proven. ... and for van den Broek I recommend it: "the GRACE data time series is still very short and these results must be considered as preliminary since we cannot exclude that the apparent trends discussed in this study only reflect interannual fluctuations." -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 20:46 PM on 19 July 2010Part Three: Response to Goddard
@Jeff T As for: “... the earth's rotation rate ...” - The impact of this phenomenon (established by Stone - 1978) for the oceanic transport of energy, is the subject of great and “heated” debate. @Robert Way “... therefore significant ice losses on the Continent cannot occur.” - the same argument is still the scientists use and the Arctic - on Greenland. A huge number of scientific works created in recent years on what is happening and what will happen to the Arctic and Antarctic ice. Among the many, I chose two "cherry" - against the thesis that the melting of glaciers can quickly (by the end of XXI century) to be a problem, only two "cherry", but a very “sweet” and “handsome”. Wingham ... also, however, writes that (et al. - 2006 - quotes by “CO2 science”): "... analyzed 1.2 x 108 European remote sensing satellite altimeter echoes to determine the changes in volume of the Antarctic ice sheet from 1992 to 2003," which survey, in their words, "covers 85% of the East Antarctic ice sheet and 51% of the West Antarctic ice sheet," which together comprise "72% of the grounded ice sheet." In doing so, they found that "overall, the data, corrected for ISOSTATIC REBOUND, show the ice sheet growing at 5 ± 1 mm per year." To calculate the ice sheet's change in mass, however, "requires knowledge of the density at which the volume changes have occurred," and when the researchers' best estimates of regional differences in this parameter were used, they found that "72% of the Antarctic ice sheet is gaining 27 ± 29 Gt per year, a sink of ocean mass sufficient to lower global sea levels by 0.08 mm per year. [...]" " This net extraction of water from the global ocean, according to Wingham et al., occurs because "mass gains from accumulating snow, particularly on the Antarctic Peninsula and within East Antarctica, exceed the ice dynamic mass loss from West Antarctica. [...]" ... and here I would gladly went to prove that the vast majority of the 6 m more in the Eemian- Sangamon sea level is: „ISOSTATIC REBOUND”, but I am afraid, that J. C. again ... Greenland: The Cryosphere Estimation of the Greenland ice sheet surface mass balance for the 20th and 21st centuries., Fettweis et al., 2008: “Results from a regional climate simulation (1970–2006) over the Greenland ice sheet (GrIS) reveals that more than 97% of the interannual variability of the modelled Surface Mass Balance (SMB) can be explained by the GrIS summer temperature anomaly and the GrIS annual precipitation anomaly. This multiple regression is then used to empirically estimate the GrIS SMB since 1900 from climatological time series. The projected SMB changes in the 21st century are investigated with the set of simulations performed with atmosphere-ocean general circulation models (AOGCMs) of the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC AR4). These estimates show that the high surface mass loss rates of recent years are not unprecedented in the GrIS history of the last hundred years. The minimum SMB rate seems to have occurred earlier in the 1930s and corresponds to a zero SMB rate. The AOGCMs project that the SMB rate of the 1930s would be common at the end of 2100 [!!!]. The temperature would be higher than in the 1930s but the increase of accumulation in the 21st century would partly offset the acceleration of surface melt due to the temperature increase. [...]” Yes, yes, I do not forget that: “However, these assumptions are based on an empirical multiple regression only validated for recent/current climatic conditions, and the accuracy and time homogeneity of the data sets and AOGCM results used in these estimations constitute a large uncertainty.”, ... but ... -
scaddenp at 20:37 PM on 19 July 2010The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
"The world of science is no different from the outside world - a mixture of hard working honest individuals, mediocrities, scoundrels, and all shades in between." True to a degree, but I'd say more regard for truth than average because learning a science discipline requires learning how not to fool yourself. As to your "system", I've heard of those ploys in the US academic system where apparently there are administrators who blindly look at citation indices but I wonder if it still works. However, I cannot see how you make your name in science without truly publishing something that is cited in honesty by those who you have never met. A me-too paper will never do this. -
chris1204 at 18:46 PM on 19 July 2010The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
scaddenp @ 80: If you want to make your mark, you have to get something published that will be cited. Lots of papers that no-one cites, gets you nowhere. Easy - you cite your own papers and get others in your lab to cite them in turn. Alternatively, you submit the same research project with minor variations on the theme to multiple journals (you're not supposed to do this but I've seen it happen with my own eyes). The world of science is no different from the outside world - a mixture of hard working honest individuals, mediocrities, scoundrels, and all shades in between. -
James Wight at 18:43 PM on 19 July 2010It cooled mid-century
John, recently on Irregular Climate you mentioned that in the mid-20th century, although the daily maximum temperature decreased, the daily minimum temperature increased. Can you add links to that evidence here? Thank you.Response: Always making work for me, aren't you James? Here's the original blog post about daily minimum temperatures increasing during mid-century cooling. I've integrated the blog post into the above info. Thanks for the suggestion (your ideas while making work for me are always good ideas). -
kdkd at 18:28 PM on 19 July 2010The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
BP #90 I suggest that you steer away from social commentary, and stick to the technical sounding stuff which is less easy to see through. "As for the other problems [e.g. acid rain, and ozone depletion] mentioned, they were solved by eliminating the Soviet Empire (including the GDR) with its unregulated industrial emissions. That is, at that time, it was enough to plung half of the world into economic and social chaos." This is astoundingly incorrect and refuted from things I remember from School level geography lessons in the 1980s. I fail to see how the collapse of the USSR could have solved the North American acid rain problem, or the Scandinavian problem for that matter (prevailing winds over Europe are Westerly, it was largely Western European emissions causing the problems in Scandinavia. I suppose that Soviet acid rain would end up in the boreal forests of Siberia, not a place I learned much about in school. As for the ozone hole, this required large scale international regulation, just like solving the CO2 problem requires. Any reduction in production of CFCs in the USSR due to economic collapse would have only had a small impact relative to American, Western European and Asian production. Thanks for the giggles though ;) -
quokka at 18:15 PM on 19 July 2010The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
#66 Marcus. Questions about wind power are not confined to NIMBYism. The big issue with wind turbines is extreme variability of output which is not necessarily spacialy smoothed - ie if the wind is not blowing here, it may not be blowing there either. They need to be backed by something else. Hydro is good if available. Otherwise the main option currently is open cycle gas turbines which are less efficient than CCGT. The saving of CO2 emissions may be less in reality than might be thought because of the higher inefficiency in ramping up and down the fossil fuel burners that back them. There are some good charts of Australian wind farm output here: OZ-ENERGY-ANALYSIS.ORG The project is developing models of the Australian electricity grid to determine the feasibility/limits of wind power. It should be worth following developments. -
James Wight at 18:08 PM on 19 July 2010Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
Here’s a link to the final and most comprehensive inquiry: the Muir Russell report. -
Anne-Marie Blackburn at 18:04 PM on 19 July 2010Skeptical Science now an Android app
To use the QR code, install the Barcode Scanner app (free app in the Shopping category). Then go to the AppBrain Skeptical Science page and click on (QR, more) (next to Facebook, Twitter, etc.). A square with the matrix code will then be visible. Use Barcode Scanner to scan it, which will take you straight to the app. Install it, et voila! -
Berényi Péter at 18:02 PM on 19 July 2010The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
#81 adelady at 11:24 AM on 19 July, 2010 In 1975 what were the atmospheric problems that we knew about? Acid rain, particulates, the effect of CFCs on the ozone layer spring to my mind. Yes. Don't forget the the cooling world, about to cause epic crop failures in the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in ten years with soaring food prices and world wide famine. That problem was solved indeed, at least for the time being, even if it is not known how. And whaddya know? We've dealt with those without plunging the world into economic and social chaos. As for the other problems you have mentioned, they were solved by eliminating the Soviet Empire (including the GDR) with its unregulated industrial emissions. That is, at that time, it was enough to plung half of the world into economic and social chaos. But all is not lost. In the meantime communist China with even nastier emissions was built up as the monster of the day by exporting our jobs to state sponsored slave labor and our pollutions to communist burocratic regulators there. -
Bern at 17:23 PM on 19 July 2010Skeptical Science now an Android app
Downloaded & installed (via AppBrain, using their QR code read with Barcode Scanner - don't you love modern technology?) Will definitely come in handy!Response: Using the QR whoosy with the Barcode whatsits? For the sake of an Android newbie, don't suppose you could explain in a bit more detail this process? Is it a matter of following the AppBrain link while browsing on the Android phone? -
tobyjoyce at 17:17 PM on 19 July 2010The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
Berényi Péter: "In fact ACC and urgent need for political action was the starting point and scientists were recrutited to serve this end. You should respect history." In "Science as a Contact Sport", Stephen Schneider gives an account of his recruitment by Margaret Mead into the sinister conspiracy to use global warming to undermine the American Way of Life.... ... except it was much more innocuous. In 1975, Mead was President of the AAAS, interested in a broad range of issues. One of the things she did was hold a conference called "The Atmosphere: Endangered and Endangering". The star of the show was James Lovelock and his newly-published Gaia hypothesis. Lovelock argued for the resilience of life, Schneider and James Holdren were the "Young Turks" pointing out that even a large proportion of the human race could suffer from climate catasprophes. Schneider quotes some helpful advice Mead gives him in the book. He tells the story of the scientific detour into "global cooling". A very great amount of what we now call "climate science" was already being donein 1975(data gathering, modeling), and Mead had only a transient (but important) influence. BP will have to do better than a couple of speeches to prove that particular conspiracy theory. The problem with conspiracy theorists is the less evidence they find, the more convinced they are about the cunning malevolence of their adversaries. -
gpwayne at 16:53 PM on 19 July 2010The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
Berényi Péter:In fact ACC and urgent need for political action was the starting point and scientists were recrutited to serve this end. You should respect history.
Your argument mirrors those who claim Gore started it all to line his pockets, or Thatcher kicked it off at the UN as part of her strategy to strangle the mining unions. And as Muoncounter points out, the investigations at that time - which encompassed particulates and other forms of pollution - were as interested in the potential cooling effects as heating. And why do you ignore the actual history of climate change science - some significant dates I listed in comment #2? Before patronising me, perhaps some research might be in order: Spencer Weart's history of climate change science -
kdkd at 16:40 PM on 19 July 2010The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
Just to add my 2c to BP's rather strange comment about the alleged Margaret Mead conspiracy (appart from the offensive insinuation that social scientists have nothing of value to contribute to society - many objects and institutions you use on a daily basis demonstrate that this is not the case) This just confirms my preconception that if you press a climate sceptic on their ideas, no matter how superficially plausible they seem, keep at it long enough, and the ideas will degenerate into a frustrated mass of crackpot conspiracy theory in the end. -
villabolo at 16:09 PM on 19 July 2010The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
RSVP at 05:22 AM on 19 July, 2010 "Taking a red hot iron plug inside an "ideal" insulator such as a glass thermos with reflective surfaces. Does it radiate? Or put the same plug into an iron box at the same temperature. Does it radiate in there?" "The answer of course is no. . . ." * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * If this has been posted before or if it's obvious I'm a non-professional, my sincere apologies. I'll give my answer in Plainspeak. Concerning the thermos, with a reflective glass surface, I can think of two reasons why it should radiate. 1) The glass has to be connected to the rest of the thermos. Therefore, conduction. 2) The glass is not a perfect reflective device, I doubt anything would be. Therefore, it will radiate. Me thinks the answer is yes.
Prev 2293 2294 2295 2296 2297 2298 2299 2300 2301 2302 2303 2304 2305 2306 2307 2308 Next
