Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2307 2308 2309 2310 2311 2312 2313 2314 2315 2316 2317 2318 2319 2320 2321 2322 Next
Comments 115701 to 115750:
-
KR at 07:39 AM on 18 July 2010The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
RSVP - what what CBW said. Your statement was completely, absolutely wrong. -
tobyjoyce at 07:39 AM on 18 July 2010The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
The great biologist Theosdosius Dobzhansky made the oft-quoted statement that "Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of Evolution". What Graham is arguing (I think) is that nothing associated with rising temperature in the world today makes sense except in the light of Anthropogenic Global Warming. AGW links phenomena the world over - arctic ice, retreating glaciers, rising sea levels, ocean acidification etc. Howiver, AGW is not a meta-theory in the sense that Evolution is. AGW depends primarily on atmospheric and radiative physics as an explanation. It is not therefore a paradigm in its own right. This makes the denialist's task even more difficult. What they seem to be trying to do is attack every single item of evidence piecemeal - it is ALL either faked or mistaken, that is every one of the many thousands of papers that have been written by thousands of scientists. The unlikeliness of this is obvious, and links denialism to other conspiracy theories, like Ufology (e.g. the government is covering up the existence of aliens). Creationism obviously falls into this bracket also, particularly the way denialists project themselves as an oppressed minority defending "true" science. -
RickG at 07:36 AM on 18 July 2010The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
SkepticStudent @21: Are you not aware of the "creationist" literature that purposely distorts and misrepresents the scientific literature; especially in the areas of physics, geology, biology, astronomy and even climatology? I don't mean that as a criticism, it's just a fact. -
TruthSeeker at 07:21 AM on 18 July 2010Archibald’s take on world temperatures
Jim Eager at 05:45 AM on 6 July, 2010 He probably gets it from the widely disseminated misquoting of Phil Jones. Dude, the man said that the evidence of global warming in the past decade wasn't statistically significant. Which means you cannot make the claim that global warming has progressed in that time frame. -
CBW at 07:15 AM on 18 July 2010The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
RSVP, your "correction" to gpwayne's sentence was wrong. Period. The sentence was about radiation, not heat flow. A correct statement: "CO2 and certain other gases re-radiate LWR in random directions." An incorrect statement: "CO2 and certain other gases re-radiate LWR in random directions as a function of a difference in temperature." Radiation is a function of an object's absolute temperature, not a difference in temperature. See this link for a discussion of thermal radiation. -
robert way at 07:02 AM on 18 July 2010Part Three: Response to Goddard
Meltponds I don't think have been necessarily counted but melt area is measured every year. Check out the copenhagen diagnosis http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/Copenhagen/Copenhagen_Diagnosis_LOW.pdf page 25 for an idea of the measurements taking place. By the way, is it just me or is the copenhagen diagnosis not a great resource. I'm surprised more people don't use it. -
Kiwiiano at 05:45 AM on 18 July 2010The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
Scared Amoeba: the strongest pin against the Creationist balloon is the thought that if you accept that an entire universe, including layered fossils, decaying isotopes and light en route from ancient supernova suddenly sprang into existence 6000-odd years ago, you can't exclude the possibility that it happened a fortnight ago and that Jesus Christ never actually existed. The best definition of Occam's Razor is; When you hear the sound of hoofbeats in the night, think "horses", not "zebras" let alone "Arcturian mega-donkeys". -
RSVP at 05:24 AM on 18 July 2010The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
KR Heat has to go somewhere. As the ambient temperature "down here on Earth" increases, the GHG effect must diminish. It will want to go where it is cooler, which is up and out. -
RSVP at 05:17 AM on 18 July 2010The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
To CBW... If I give you a dollar and you give me a dollar at the same time, neither of us has gained much. Heat transfer works the same way. http://biocab.org/Heat_Transfer.html This link contains the following... The formula to know the amount of heat transferred by radiation is: q = e σ A [(ΔT)^4] Where q is the heat transferred by radiation, E is the emissivity of the system, σ is the constant of Stephan-Boltzmann (5.6697 x 10^-8 W/m^2.K^4), A is the area involved in the heat transfer by radiation, and (ΔT)^4 is the difference of temperature between two systems to the fourth or higher power. -
CBW at 05:05 AM on 18 July 2010The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
RSVP at 22: 'In your remark, "gases re-radiate LWR in random directions..." you forgot to add "...as a function of a difference in temperature"...' Radiation depends on temperature only, not difference in temperature. -
KR at 05:00 AM on 18 July 2010The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
RSVP - "gases re-radiate LWR in random directions...": True! However, that's not a function of difference in temperature whatsoever. Objects and gases radiate omnidirectionally based upon their own temperature, not differences in temperature. And this effect increases, not decreases with increasing object temperature. Differences in temperature only come into play when calculating net energy flows, which change the temperatures of the objects involved. I don't mean to be yelling - just went through this on another blog. But this is basic science here, RSVP, and you stated the exact opposite of what is observed. Graham - excellent post. -
RSVP at 04:40 AM on 18 July 2010The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
"gpwayne at 16:34 PM on 17 July, 2010 The whole shebang is predicated on very straightforward premises: CO2 and certain other gases re-radiate LWR in random directions. The earth's atmosphere traps heat, warming the earth by around 30K." In your remark, "gases re-radiate LWR in random directions..." you forgot to add "...as a function of a difference in temperature", which means this effect diminishes as temperature increases. RSVP (2010) -
Rob Honeycutt at 03:19 AM on 18 July 2010The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
thingadonta @ 5.... Rather than equating scientists to a flock of birds the more accurate metaphor would be a herd of cats. Each is of its own mind. But when you see all the cats heading is the same direction... THEN you know something is really happening. -
CBW at 01:32 AM on 18 July 2010The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
gpwayne asks: "How many must die, be displaced, starving or disenfranchised, before we call it catastrophic?" Hey, is it our fault those people are starving? We're trying as hard as we can to put plant food in the air. -
CBW at 01:28 AM on 18 July 2010The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
chriscanaris, #8, asks: "1) What is the probability that AWG will lead to catastrophic change (often abbreviated to CAWG)?" This is a denier question, not a skeptical one. It creates a straw man that allows the denier camp to label its "opponents" as crazy alarmists out to stop all human progress. The probability of catastrophe requires you to define what you consider to be a catastrophe and propose something that might bring it about. Then you can try to compute a probability. The actual science surrounding AGW predicts a series of ongoing changes, some of which are already upon us, and some of which will affect humans and the global ecosystem. -
Jeff Freymueller at 00:42 AM on 18 July 2010The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
Besides, glaciers are moving (and falling apart) pretty fast these days, so that bit of figurative language is also increasingly behind the times! -
oslo at 00:38 AM on 18 July 2010Part Three: Response to Goddard
What about meltponds on Greenland - are they more frequent than before - do someone count them? -
gpwayne at 00:31 AM on 18 July 2010The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
Thanks for the comments - I'll respond to those I think pertain to my subject... thingadonta I asked: ""at what point in the history of the earth did all these things happen at the same time, and at the same speed?" To which you responded: "Whenever the Earth has warmed by natural processes. It's nothing new". In which period of earth's history did a 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 precede or occur simultaneously to global warming? chriscanaris I'm keen not to get bogged down in pedantry, but can I say that many of the arguments you put forward are those of sceptics, not deniers. I will pick up on a few issues: On Catastrophe - how does one measure the catastrophic? Elsewhere, I have predicted a form of 'climate colonialism', where the industrial nations in Europe and the US suffer some disturbing phenomena - extreme weather, food and energy shortages - but the 'colonies' suffer egregious effects. So whose catastrophe are we talking about? (I also reflect on the value of a human life: what analysis is morally balanced in which a single death is considered insignificant? How many must die, be displaced, starving or disenfranchised, before we call it catastrophic?) On the attribution of ice loss, the first stage attribution is heat, not AGW. And while we should be cautious where caution is required, there's no point in downplaying the probability it's us causing the warming out of some notion that we are invoking profound scepticism by doubting when all the other signposts point in the same direction - the essence of the article and my argument. Another implicit premise of my argument addresses "our human propensity to seek simple overarching explanations". We don't have a simple, overarching explanation and nobody is proposing one. We have a complex set of phenomena, some classic and established physics and chemistry, and a logical premise that is such a good answer to all the questions, it becomes the 'single, coherent account'. EOttawa Thank you - and be my guest. I'm just the messenger here...the message is addressed to us all. -
JMurphy at 23:45 PM on 17 July 2010The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
thingadonta wrote : Evolution is glacially slow. "The cichlid fish in the lakes of East Africa are a classic example of rapid evolution and extreme adaptation, In Lake Victoria, more than 100,000 to 400,000 species of cichlids have evolved and probably even in a much shorter period, because there are indications that 14,600 years ago the lake was completely dry." Super-fast evolution "Human diseases are excellent examples of evolution. Pathogens must evolve rapidly to avoid the human immune response and medical interventions, such as drugs. Because bacterial and viral pathogens have short, and generally quick, life cycles, evolution can be observed in a few days or months." NESCent You constantly give the impression (to me, at least) of being very behind-the-times, or very selective with your ideas. -
EOttawa at 22:56 PM on 17 July 2010The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
Graham, Your definition of the scientific consensus, as opposed to counting the numbers of scientists and/or papers, was an 'aha moment' for me. (I then noticed that your blog title is Small Epiphanies!) While both definitions are useful, yours works on a different level I think. I hope you don't mind if I quote you during climate change debates. Well done! -
Ed Davies at 21:34 PM on 17 July 2010The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
From the point of view of the converging lines of evidence it's worth pointing out that the reason James Hansen could speak up clearly on the subject in the 1980s when most other people studying climate science weren't happy to do so was that he had surveyed the area quite widely and could see all the various lines whereas others had only considered their particular specialities and so were a lot less confident. Right from the political beginning the multiple-lines aspect was important. -
Peter Hogarth at 21:26 PM on 17 July 2010Part Three: Response to Goddard
Joe Blog at 17:00 PM on 17 July, 2010 Just a bit more to add to the weight of evidence that the ice loss trends (in this case Antarctic Ice shelves) are based on a bit more than 10 years of evidence.
-
mspelto at 20:45 PM on 17 July 2010Part Three: Response to Goddard
The key thread on both continents is that ice thinning near the margin leads to reduced buttressing and greater velocities--then more calving--and ice loss. Remember the ice streams and ice shelves of interest here are afloat or partially afloat. Think of a boat aground on a sandbar, lighten the load a bit and it can float more freely, less friction. -
MattJ at 20:15 PM on 17 July 2010The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
There is a more fundamental problem with 'musings': they lack focus, by their very nature, they can never be "hard hiting words". They fail to convince the very people who most need to be convinced, they can only be useful for "preaching to the choir". But with such a hard battle ahead of us, we cannot afford to waste time and energy preaching to the choir. -
Phila at 20:07 PM on 17 July 2010The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
The sun and clouds can account for warming in the late 20th century How? -
Peter Hogarth at 19:56 PM on 17 July 2010There's no empirical evidence
Mr_Obvious at 16:30 PM on 17 July, 2010 "they do explain the temperature variations quite well when taken as a whole" This is news. Please supply some evidence or references to support this. -
kdkd at 18:43 PM on 17 July 2010The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
via chriscanaris #8 "species extinctions have multiple explanations including habitat change, hunting, introduction of competing species, and the like none of which may relate to AGW" This is a nice example of why a reductionist approach doesn't really work well for considering the impact humans have on their environment. Habitat change (exploitation), hunting, propagation of weed species and so on are independent of human caused global warming, but all are symptoms with the same underlying cause - the ability of humans to manipulate their environment, and the unforseen consequences of doing so. As an well informed lay person (on the topic of ecosystems), I think that the the majority sepeces extinctions at the moment are caused by over-exploitation of the local environment, and that attributing this to global warming at this stage is poor reporting. As far as I know, global warming is projected to accellerate extinction events, for which the correct measurement is the number of extinctions per unit time, and not the total number of extinctions during the history of the planet. Anyway the Earth will be fine (until the sun goes out), it's our capability to sustain civilisation over the next 80 years or so that we should be worried about. -
John Russell at 18:34 PM on 17 July 2010The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
The problem with 'musings' by a member of the 'pro-AGW' community is that it attracts 'musings' by members of the denial lobby, and we then end up with a 'tis, 'tisn't', tit-for-tat, exchange -- as seems to be developing on this thread. Let's stick to the scientific evidence packed with links. Such posts scare off most deniers -- because they can't present their counter-arguments in this way -- while attracting the genuine, honest, sceptics who are weighing up the pros and cons before deciding for themselves on the likelihood and causes of AGW. -
chris1204 at 18:27 PM on 17 July 2010The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
Graham, with the greatest of respect, you've created the ultimate straw man. No serious (ie, non-silly) contenders in the sceptical camp believe that CO2 is not increasing, is not anthropogenic, and would have no impact on climate. Steve McIntyre, for example, is on record many times as saying he is not a climate change sceptic and that he believes in the need for mitigation strategies. The skeptical camp (barring some articulate and not so articulate windbags who come out with 'CO2 is plant food' type statements)tends rather to ask: 1) What is the probability that AWG will lead to catastrophic change (often abbreviated to CAWG)? The notion that AWG will result in catastrophic change requires the assumption that numerous positive feedbacks will automatically come into play to amplify the effects of CO2 which on its own would have a relatively modest impact on climate. It also ignores numerous possible negative feedbacks which might come into play (all sorts of unsettled questions around aerosols, cloud cover, and the like). 2) Do non-anthropogenic factors play a significant or more significant role in currently observed warming? While the consensus view suggests otherwise, serious scientists, whilst 'outliers' still query the contribution of insolation, cloud cover, and the like. 3)Is current warming in fact unprecedented? For example, while the consensus view suggests that the MWP was an event limited to the northern hemisphere, serious players such as McIntyre question the validity of the palaeoclimatic reconstructions and the data selection cum statistical underpinnings of Mann's 'hockey stick.' Others highlight the paucity of data for the southern hemisphere. 4) Is it valid to attribute events such as changes in Arctic ice cover to AWG? WUWT has been rightly taken to task on this site for arguing that Arctic sea ice and the Greenland ice cap will never disappear because the ice can't melt in an environment in which temperatures don't exceed 0 degrees. Sea ice cover and glacier cover depends on much more than temperature - factors such as wind patterns, ocean currents, etc, all come into play. However, acknowledgement of such complexities requires equal caution in attributing ice loss to AGW. Most of these questions have of course been thoroughly debated on this site in various locations. However, suggesting that those who pose such questions are kith and kin of the 'creationist' fraternity does them a grave injustice. The notion of 'multiple, independent lines of evidence converging on a single coherent account' is very attractive but reflects also our human propensity to seek simple overarching explanations. Likewise, Occam's razor, whilst often useful, is not infallible. Those who rely upon it need to be wary of excising inconvenient bits of data. An example from this site illustrates this well. We had a piece on accelerating species extinction events as a consequence of AGW. However, species extinctions have multiple explanations including habitat change, hunting, introduction of competing species, and the like none of which may relate to AGW. Moreover, some 99.9% of all species that have ever existed are thought to have become extinct. Currently, the rate of species extinction is thought to be between 100 to 1000 times the rate observed in the fossil record. Implicit in such estimates is the notion that the fossil record is sufficiently complete to make such estimates - a proposition that might be quite debatable. In short, each of the converging lines of evidence carries a significant probability of predominant linkage to non-AGW events. This neither proves nor disproves AGW. It does explain however why reasonable and well-informed people entertain honest doubts about the consensus. -
kdkd at 18:18 PM on 17 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
gc #198 "It seems you did not read the Calzada paper and simply went into the "ad hominem" mode." Nope, I skimmed the bits of the report that seemed relevant, thought that this was outside my area of expertise (with a little bit of a thought that this appreared to make short term assumptions for what is a long term problem), and then did the same kind of citation search that I would do for my own research. Having found a very limited citation network, I looked more widely outside the academic literature, and found some serious concerns about the primary author's credentials, and refusal to give detailed methodology. If I'd accused him of being an overcooked prawn or something equally ridiculous, disparaging and irellevant to the topic, then you might have a point about an ad hominem approach. However, I did not do this, therefore your point is not valid. Now could you find some evidence about the economics of renewable energy not tainted by the fossil fuel lobby? As for this comment: "Please bury your Marxist notion that folks funded by private industry are evil whereas folks funded by governments are pure as the driven snow." Again, I said nothing of the sort. However the record of the tobacco/oil/sceptic for pay nexus is particularly poor when it comes to generating and reporting on knowledge in an objective way. And I am a Marxist-Lenninist by the way, but it's Groucho and John, not Karl and Illiytch ;). -
Rob Painting at 17:47 PM on 17 July 2010The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
Thingadonta, do you not even bother to read the scientific studies cited in the arguments?. Sun & clouds?. http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm -
ScaredAmoeba at 17:46 PM on 17 July 2010The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
RSVP - nice straw man, completely demolished by Graham - Ouch! Graham, Excellent post! I note your mention of creationism, but that it only occurs in the title. AFAICT, creationism is a huge problem, because it stifles scientific understanding. Some of the most virulent denialists are people like Inhofe, who is IIRC a Dominionist, AFAIK, seemingly the worst kind of creationist, at least in terms of scientific understanding.God put man in charge of the resources of Earth, and mankind has the divine right to use it as it pleases. And, added to this, they hold the mistaken belief that God created the Earth with enough resources to last until he destroys it again, and after he "raptures" his "chosen ones".
I fail to see how anyone can have a rational and useful discussion with anyone about the science when that someone 'knows' that the Earth is Man's playground to do with as Man pleases i.e. pollute / despoil / etc.? Especially, when according to OpenSecrets when they are in the pockets of the FF industry. -
thingadonta at 17:06 PM on 17 July 2010The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
"This is the consensus of climate change: the end point of all journeys for those studying sea level rises, the Arctic, the Antarctic, the glaciers and the ice caps, the changes in precipitation, seasonal periodicity, changes in ocean pH, weather events, droughts and famines, resource management, agriculture " Even seen birds flock together?. The biological drive to conform to achieve a group end is very powerful. This is your "how powerful a paradigm anthropogenic climate change really is". "at what point in the history of the earth did all these things happen at the same time, and at the same speed?)" Whenever the Earth has warmed by natural processes. It's nothing new. Your refernce to the missing link obfuscation and creationists and evolution is ironic. Evolution is glacially slow. Sketics contend that, yes, c02 warms the atmosphere, but like evoltuion it isnt 1-6 degrees by 2100, but more like 1-6 degrees by 21,000 AD. The stratigraphic record is consistent with this sort of time frame, but has been conveniently left out. The sun and clouds can account for warming in the late 20th century, despite the admitted fact that tree rings so beloved of Mann et al cant. -
Joe Blog at 17:00 PM on 17 July 2010Part Three: Response to Goddard
adelady at 14:35 says "I'm not sure about your comment. You're referring to "CO2 alone" but you've not developed on Robert's comment on warming oceans." Thats a fair comment.. i didnt really address Roberts comments in regards to the milankovich cycles, and TSI... because i wasnt talking about a 100,000 year time frame, or 45,000 years... but millions.. milankovich cycles weren't relevant. And the Solar increase with time is not a sudden process(hell if the sun had increased out put 30% in 1% o our planets life, co2 is the least o our worries.) And the problem with the theory that a warm world "will" equal more ice lost in Antarctica, is that an increase in humidity in Antarctica could well lead to an accumulation o ice with greater snow fall.... It is one of the driest places on earth. It is a far less simple case as far as predicting its response, according to the inferred paleoclimatic reconstructions... And a decades worth o data dosnt convince me personally that this the beginnings of a long term trend. Or convince me that it can be soley attributed to anthropological influences at this stage -
gpwayne at 16:34 PM on 17 July 2010The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
RSVP: "In general, it seems warmists are looking for something terribly exotic to explain global warming". We really don't need exotica. In fact, another aspect of Oreskes 'coherence' is the consistency between ACC and classical science. The whole shebang is predicated on very straightforward premises: CO2 and certain other gases re-radiate LWR in random directions. The earth's atmosphere traps heat, warming the earth by around 30K. CO2 is sequestered in carbon sinks but the ability to absorb the gas is finite - and ocean's ability to do so is a function of temperature. These are the fundamentals of climate change science, and they are old hat: Fourier calculates colder earth without an atmosphere (1824) Tyndall discovers relationship between CO2 and long-wave radiation (1859) Arrhenius calculates global warming from anthropogenic CO2 (1896) Chamberlin models global carbon exchange including feedbacks (1897) Callendar predicts global warming increase catalysed by CO2 emissions (1938) Revelle predicts inability of oceans to sequester anthropogenic CO2 (1958) (From Spencer Weart's history of ACC - http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm) The dates suggest that although the ideas might have been exotic at the time, we've had a century and more to get over it. -
Mr_Obvious at 16:30 PM on 17 July 2010There's no empirical evidence
Nice charts and graphs; but, explain why you think only some minute specific band of IR could explain the energy levels required to accomplish the feats you describe. Fact is, that if you go even one iota outside the range you are trying to limit this to O2 becomes a much larger factor than CO2; and O2 has gone down by the same amount CO2 has gone up, not that it's very much. Another fact, 400ppm of CO2 can't contain anything close to even 1/1000th of a degree, let 7/10ths of a degree. Increases in input energies explain whats been going on far better; and, that includes both the rises and the falls. The primary source of input energy is the Sun. In addition to the direct IR and the visible light we see, it also emits UV and a variety of other forms of energy as well as impacting how we are effected by more distant energy sources. Attempting to claim that it must be CO2 because there aren't enough increases in IR to account for it is more childish than just about any argument out there. If you want to make the lack of input sources argument, then do your homework. Get the UV, CME, Gamma, x-ray, visible spectrum, and other readings, convert them using known atmospheric norms, and add them to the broad spectrum IR increases; then, try the argument again - except, you won't be able to; as, they do explain the temperature variations quite well when taken as a whole. Final thought - Hanson had nice charts and graphs; and, if they had been accurate Manhattan would have sunk by now. -
gallopingcamel at 16:20 PM on 17 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
kdkd (#197), It seems you did not read the Calzada paper and simply went into the "ad hominem" mode. Calzada's main economic argument is that it costs (at least in Spain) 2.2 times as much to create a "Green Job" as an average job. Calzada also points out that some industries are sensitive to the price of electricity. In this category, metal winning is the industry most affected by electrical power cost. Spain, owing to its "green" energy policy is at a disadvantage to France with its cheap electricity (80% nuclear) so Acerinox is expanding in France and South Africa instead of in Spain. This is an example of how an energy policy that raises the price of electricity drives jobs overseas. Belief or scepticism in "Climate Change" has little relevance to these arguments. Why don't you respond to my challenge by citing a "green" energy project that produces electricity at a competitive price? You need to beat 10c/KWAh which is the price that Florida Power & light charges me. Most of their capacity comes from fossil fuels and two nuclear power plants. FPL also has the largest photo-voltaic plant in the USA and like the folks in Spain they will keep doing it as long as the government subsidies keep coming no matter how irrelevant it is. Please bury your Marxist notion that folks funded by private industry are evil whereas folks funded by governments are pure as the driven snow. -
RSVP at 15:58 PM on 17 July 2010The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
In general, it seems warmists are looking for something terribly exotic to explain global warming. An anecdote from the past might help illustrate this situation... Ohm's Law (V=IR) is an algebraic rule that describes the relationship between voltage, current and resistance. It was named after Ohm, who's work was rejected initially by the top scientific circles of his time for being too simple. To them, a description of electricity just could not be that simple, (and as it turns out there are many other formulas needed besides Ohm's law to deal with electricity and magnetism.) However, the point is, Ohm received posthumous credit only after someone else (with more clout in the scientific community) arrived at the same conclusion. If it was difficult for scientists to reach consensus as in this case where experimentation is limited to a lab setting, imagine a hot potato (no pun intended) like global warming. -
gpwayne at 15:51 PM on 17 July 2010The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
Gosh David, you were quick off the mark. I also suspect you may have children (I don't) because your exposition seems authorative :) (I'd only add that perhaps it was a naughty invisible scientist, whose proof that climate change isn't being caused by us has similar properties - only deniers can see it). -
David Horton at 15:19 PM on 17 July 2010The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
Nicely done Graham, well summarised. Your comment "So far, we look rather more like children crying ‘I didn’t touch it...it fell all on its own’, than adults accepting responsibility for what we do" doesn't quite do justice to the denialist approach though. To continue your metaphor, they are more like the child who says "it broke on its own". "No it didn't". "Well, it was an earthquake" "No, there wasn't an earthquake" Well it was an elephant who escaped from the circus and came in our house and knocked the vase down" "There is no circus, and elephants wouldn't knock down one vase without leaving other tracks". "Well, it was a ghost of a naughty child and they are invisible and no one can see them except me" ,,,,, -
kdkd at 15:12 PM on 17 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
gallopingcamel #195 The source you cite seems to be partisan, and despite its origins from a university very little cited in the peer reviewed literature. Via this source I discovered that the primary author is has the following affiliations and attitudes (via the link above, and with plenty of links in the original source for fact checking purposes):Gabriel Calzada is a founding member of the Prague Network, an international grouping of institutions aimed at countering panic connected with global warming. He is also a fellow at the Centre for the New Europe, a Brussels-based libertarian think tank that in recent years has accepted funding from ExxonMobil [ (who have] spent over $16 million to fund climate change skeptic groups as part of a “tobacco-like disinformation campaign on global warming science.” [)] Since the study was publish, Calzada has become a popular speaker at the events sponsored by these groups and has appeared frequently on Cable news shows in which the hosts and producers are opposed to green jobs. He has yet to appear on any show that has made any inquiry about his methodology. Calzada is also the founder and president of the Fundacion Juan de Mariana, another libertarian think tank. The libertarian movement in Spain does not believe in taxes, so it is my guess that they would not support many programs paid for with tax dollars. Calzada is also an admitted climate change skeptic and recently spoke at the International Conference on Climate Change (2009) hosted by the conservative think tank, the Heartland Institute. The Heartland Institute is another well-known hub of climate science denial. This year’s conference was its second effort on climate change, and attracted representatives from conservative and free enterprise groups around the world; many of their members and supporters deny climate change and work aggressively against renewable energy and environmental endeavors. A large number of the attendees also came from bodies funded by ExxonMobil and other fossil-fuel companies. Other big oil funded groups that have promoted the study include: The Institute for Energy Research (IER), Americans for Prosperity, and the American Energy Alliance (AEA), In a recent interview, (in Spanish) Calzada asserts that scientists are deeply divided as to the cause of global warming. He claims that solar and water vapor activity from the earth have a large impact on global warming and that human activity is minor in comparison. He questions if this small creation of ‘gases’ by human activity would have an impact compared to other natural activity. He also does not believe in the kyoto protocol and claims that the green economy is a way to to ‘ration’ economic activity. My understanding is that the vast majority of scientists (specifically those not paid by oil companies) are not divided over the causes of global warming.
So please find a more credible source not closely associated with the big oil/tobacco/denial for cash nexus if you want us to consider this kind of economic analysis seriously. From skimming Cadenza's report it strikes me that it's a very short term focused analysis of an economic response to a long term problem, but then I'm not an economist. -
Joe Blog at 14:52 PM on 17 July 2010Part Three: Response to Goddard
adelady at 14:35 Im not disagreeing with Roberts article... i think it is a good summary. And what you have said could well be the main contributing factor... but how long is the record exactly? less than 10 years! Im just saying it may be premature to be drawing conclusions from such a short record in light of its history. TSI would not have been significantly different when ice sheets first started forming on Antarctica 45 million years ago... the faint sun paradox/the 30% figure of reduced solar iradiance is from 4billion years ago. Now glaciations in the northern hemisphere actually started around 15 mybp, when co2 wasnt that much higher than today. So in light of this, I just think it would not be surprising to see considerably different behaviors between the hemispheres main ice sheets in response to co2. -
adelady at 14:47 PM on 17 July 2010Does partial scientific knowledge mean we shouldn't act?
John Russell at 07:29 AM on 17 July, 2010 Total PERCEIVED transparency is the only option. Slightly skew but ..... surely one of the things people need to learn is that information, especially technical information doesn't come cheap. Not so long ago, if we wanted this stuff we'd have to either wait for a very expensive text to be published or pay heaps for photocopying or similar. You do genealogy research for your family, you pay for the copies of birth, death, estate documents. Nowadays the websites of some govt agencies offer some of this for free. If you really get into it, you *pay* to join a genealogy society. Research documents were not cost free when produced, archiving, librarians, websites, journals, seminar proceedings - every single thing costs money. I don't know about your political ideology, so this may be completely irrelevant. I'm often bemused by the advocates of money-is-god type politics, that they reel in horror if someone tells them that something they want (but don't personally value) costs real, actual cash. -
adelady at 14:35 PM on 17 July 2010Part Three: Response to Goddard
Joe Blog at 11:26 AM on 17 July, 2010 I'm not sure about your comment. You're referring to "CO2 alone" but you've not developed on Robert's comment on warming oceans. I'm no scientist, but it's fairly obvious from Robert's posts and from his answer above. Near-freezing water ... non-freezing water ... marginally warmer water ... will change the rate of ice flow into the sea. The water may seep, or flow, or rush, or swirl. But warmer means more ice loss. My reading tells me that the reason for warmer (even if unswimmable) water surrounding Antarctica would be much the same as the reason for warmer water in other places. -
gallopingcamel at 14:30 PM on 17 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
BP (#179) I knew we had something in common! Years ago I managed an engineering department with an acoustics laboratory dedicated to developing telephone components. Back then the good equipment was built by B&K but it was limited to frequencies above 10 Hz. I imagine that you are using much more sophisticated hardware. -
chudiburg at 14:28 PM on 17 July 2010We're heading into an ice age
Erin, If you click on the link for the source of figure 4, the author of the article addresses this. It has to do with expected low insolation variability for the time being. It is worth noting that this agrees with some predictions, but disagrees with others. The primary thing to take away from the study is that if we continue to release large amounts of CO2, then we could potentially delay the onset of glaciation indefinitely. McCloud, the 5000 gigatonnes CO2 emission is based on an estimate of how much we could potentially release if we burn all available fossil fuels. Thus, with the calculated forcing of that much CO2, we see an upper limit of 4 degrees warming. This study may not be the best source for looking at future temperature anomalies, however, because its purpose is to look at the potential for preventing the next glaciation. The scope of the study really isn't to make precise temperature anomaly predictions, but rather predict how much glaciation will be delayed under different emission scenarios. I would suggest clicking on the link to the study. As for your second question, yes there is potential for a positive feedback here. As water warms, its capacity for storing CO2 decreases, which will eventually lead to the oceans actually releasing CO2 as opposed to taking it in. I am fairly sure that most climate projections take this into account already. -
gallopingcamel at 14:11 PM on 17 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
There are enough large wind and solar projects out there (e.g. California, Denmark, Germany, Spain) to allow economic analyses to be made. Here is an analysis relating to Spain: http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf One of the major selling points for renewables is that "green jobs" will be created. Dr. Calzada's analysis shows that for every "green job" created 2.2 other jobs are lost. Given that the majority on this thread are in favor of renewables and against Nuclear Power Plants, can you cite any projects that produce power at reasonable prices absent subsidies? -
NickD at 12:48 PM on 17 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
Good post by Brian Angliss. -
Joe Blog at 11:26 AM on 17 July 2010Part Three: Response to Goddard
Robert Way at 09:33 No, i bought up the co2, because the Antarctic glaciation is a different kettle o fish than the northern hemisphere glaciations... there is a continent sitting on the pole. And i wouldn't expect it to behave similar to say green land... i wouldnt be betting on long term trends in Antarctica based on co2 alone. But time will be the judge on that. Also going back 45mybp TSI would not have significantly off set those elevated co2 levels... its not that long ago in the larger scheme o things. -
Rob Honeycutt at 10:55 AM on 17 July 2010Part Three: Response to Goddard
To add to that reply to Joe Blog... You also have to look at the rate of ice mass loss relative to all the other data related to global warming. When you look at any of the the above charts they paint an eerily similar curve to all the other charts. CO2 levels, global temps, etc. If these charts regarding ice mass loss were significantly dissimilar you might consider that something else is afoot. But the fact that they mirror all the other indicators of AGW you would have to be completely disingenuous to ignore a strong potential relationship.
Prev 2307 2308 2309 2310 2311 2312 2313 2314 2315 2316 2317 2318 2319 2320 2321 2322 Next
