Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2315 2316 2317 2318 2319 2320 2321 2322 2323 2324 2325 2326 2327 2328 2329 2330 Next
Comments 116101 to 116150:
-
Marcus at 10:20 AM on 3 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
Oh, & further to my last point-this assumes the WORST CASE SCENARIO. In truth, Eyjafjallajökull probably released less than 16 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere &-according to all reports-this was more than offset by the reduction in CO2 emissions due to the grounding of air traffic during this period. Indeed, the best estimates I've heard is that the net impact of Eyjafjallajökull was about -2 million tonnes of CO2. So much for your argument then Eric (Skeptic). -
Riduna at 10:17 AM on 3 July 2010A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
Congratulations, a splendid effort at producing a booklet which sets out in clear, easily understood language what we know about the causes and some of the consequences of Global Warming – or to be more accurate AGW? It is so good that I am surprised not to see the authors name on the present draft. Why? I make a few suggestions and comments below which might (?) improve the content without making it too long. Page 1. Humans are emitting billions of tonnes of CO2 into the air every year. Very true but surely the most important point is that they are doing so by burning fossil fuels rather than fuels from currently living or recently dead sources. The result is of course not only the addition of CO2 into the atmosphere but (a) CO2 which without human activity would never have entered the atmosphere (hence AGW) and (b) the speed with which this is occurring is unprecedented – as is the speed of its consequences. Page 4. So warming causes more CO2 and more CO2 causes warming. But surely it is the other way around because of the high and increasing level of CO2 emitted by humans – More CO2 causes warming and warming causes more CO2, for example as a result of warming seawater giving up CO2, warming tundra giving up CH4, etc. Page 7. Ice sheets are melting loosing billions of tonnes of ice each year. True but would it not be more accurate to say: Land based ice is melting and doing so at an increasing rate, loosing billions of tonnes each year (as shown by Grace satellite measurements) Admittedly the WAIS is a marine ice sheet rather than land based but some parts of it are on land. Page 7. Sea levels are rising at an accelerating rate I largely due to diminished ice sheets). Also true but a very significant cause is also thermal expansion of seawater. Is that worth mentioning? Might the effects of rising sea levels get a mention – specifically the threat to erosion of coastlines, salination of fresh water sources and of course the loss of public infrastructure, housing and industry, as pointed out in the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change Report on Climate Change Impacts on Coastal Communities (http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/ccwea/coastalzone/report.htm) Page 7. Glaciers are retreating, threatening water supplies for millions of people. Might one add: their livestock and agriculture? And if it were only “millions” maybe we should worry less but the threat is probably far greater – affecting hundreds of millions if not billions of people. Again this is confirmed by Grace. Page 7. Might an additional dot be added to draw attention to the albido feedback effect (http://www.examiner.com/x-504-Space-News-Examiner~y2008m9d17-Ice-Melt-Earths-Arctic-Zone-in--HeatCompounding-Decline) which is contributing to both the accelerating rate of temperature increase and ocean warming in polar regions, and retreat of glaciers. Page 9. Map showing Trend in downward infrared radiation. As far as I am concerned it is quite clear and understood. But how about guys and girls who are unfamiliar with this kind of representation? Might a bit more explanation be given of what this ma is telling us? Might it be appropriate to mention in this book the effects of continued increasing CO2 emissions, which of course include the following: • melting of the polar ice caps • dangerous sea level rise and coastal flooding • melting of land based snow and ice, contributing to • shortage of water in densely populated areas • extinction of flora and fauna dependent on cooler climates • increased risk of fire destroying valuable assets • loss of capacity to produce food for rapidly growing populations • increased incidence and severity of climate events • increased water vapor in the stratosphere causing further warming • spread of potentially fatal diseases into areas now free of them • ocean acidification damaging the marine habitat and • threatening a break in the food chain for fish on which humans depend.Response: Thanks for the suggestions. To address some of your comments and questions:- The author's name (John Cook, aka me) is on the inside front cover, the 2nd page of the document
- Page 1: Good points re the speed of the CO2 emissions being unprecedented but there is only so much space so I went with the most fundamental point - we're emitting CO2 (and lots of it)
- Page 4: the central point I wanted to make here was that the CO2 lag doesn't disprove CO2 warming. In essence, it does the opposite of what the skeptic argument is getting at, it actually provides evidence for positive feedback. I decided to go with just this simple point - although mentioning the permafrost, warmer seawater is a nice idea.
- Page 7: I frequently mention the accelerating ice loss on the website but that page has very limited space as I'm listing a number of different signs of warming. Ice sheets by nature are land based while ice shelfs are floating on the water.
- Page 9: I might have to scratch around for a different depiction of increasing downward infrared radiation. I also found it clear and vivid (and colourful, that was a big factor!) but perhaps a simpler, more intuitive graph would be better. Thinking about this.
- Re other effects of continued CO2 emissions, again, a good list but there just wasn't the space. Of course I could've just added more pages but I think when you're communicating science to a broad audience, you have to be quite harsh in what you cut out otherwise you risk swamping the reader with too much information. This then dillutes your central message. So I chose to emphasise one central message - there's a human fingerprint on climate change then look at the evidence for the fingerprint.
-
A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
johnd > According to what you have stated, if I get a block of ice from the freezer and put it in the room, the ice will emit extra thermal radiation into the room in all directions because it can't sense any incoming radiation. Yes. Remember that every singe molecule in the room is emitting radiation, including your own molecules and the walls surrounding you. What's really important in your scenario then is the radiation of the ice block relative to what is behind it (from your perspective). If it blocks something emitting less radiation than itself, then it adds to how much thermal radiation you are absorbing, no matter the distance. If it blocks something emitting more radiation, it reduces the radiation reaching you no matter the distance. In the first case of course conduction eventually cools you. In both cases in net the ice block receives more radiation from you then you receive from it, so in net energy is moving from the hotter object to the cooler. The difference is that in the first case the rate that energy moves from you to your surroundings is reduced very slightly, in the second case it increases very slightly. The greenhouse effect works to reduce the rate that energy moves from the warm surface up to the cold stratosphere and out to even colder space. Again that is a critical point so make sure you understand it: Energy is still flowing from warm to cold; it's just slowed down. Anyways, it is a physical fact that all objects warmer than absolute zero emit thermal radiation in all directions, irrespective of their surroundings. This is basic physics JohnD, you do your credibility no favors by trying to argue against it (if indeed that is what you are arguing). -
billkerr at 10:03 AM on 3 July 2010A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
#32 and #33 John, When you say "The reason for the emphasis on CO2 is because it is the most dominant and fastest rising forcing" you are supporting Pielke snrs hypothesis 2b and rejecting 2a. They are mutually exclusive by my reading. Doug and John, The Real Climate discussion that Doug links to predates Pielke snrs invitation for people to improve the wording of the hypotheses if they feel the wording is inadequate, as claimed by Eric in the Real Climate discussion. This Pielke snr post, which also predates the invitation, condenses the different viewpoints. -
johnd at 10:01 AM on 3 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
JMurphy at 09:30 AM, given the article in question was in a newspaper published by the very university the professor is attached to, it would be reasonable to assume it was being reported correctly. Any concerns should be directed at those who compiled the original article. Surely someone involved with the publication itself would have picked up on it before it was published. It may well be that the Dunning–Kruger effect is alive and well at the institution itself, unless there was some mischief being made in an attempt to undermine the credibilty of the professor, which is why he had to move quickly to avoid. -
Marcus at 09:50 AM on 3 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
Ah, Eric, still pushing the "Volcanoes do more damage than man" meme-so beloved of the denialist cult. Lets put it into perspective though, shall we? The volcano started erupting on March 27th 2010 &-from everything I've read-had all but ceased its eruptions as of June 15th 2010. Now, assuming that it was releasing CO2 from day 1, & that it was releasing the maximum amount of CO2 from day 1, then that means the total emissions from Eyjafjallajökull were around 30 Million tonnes. Now, from your own admission, Germany's cuts in CO2 emissions-for 2007-2008 *alone*, was around 16 million tonnes. That means that, even assuming the very worst case scenario, Eyjafjallajökull released *less* CO2 than what Germany saved between 2008 & 2010-FROM ITS 2007-2008 CUTS ALONE. Of course, the 2007-2008 cuts were just part of the cuts to CO2 emissions which Germany have been making since 1997. Given that its 2007 emissions were 487 million tonnes, then this means that their CO2 emissions back in the 1990's were somewhere around 650 million tonnes per annum. So you see that, compared with 10 years ago, Germany's CO2 emission cuts (200 million tonnes per annum) have easily dwarfed even the worst case scenario for the eruption of Eyjafjallajökull-& that's even before you consider the 200,000 kiloton per day reduction in CO2 from grounded air travel over the period of the eruption. So you see, Eric, like most denialist arguments, this one is very easily debunked if you spend more than 5 seconds reading-especially when you read *more* than denialist propaganda sites like WUWT. -
Doug Bostrom at 09:30 AM on 3 July 2010A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
I find it absolutely astonishing how confident JohnD is as he attempts to validate his idea that photons can control their direction of emission by observing their surroundings, or are selected for particular destinations by some mechanism having universal information on the temperature of surrounding objects. Yes, KR, of course it's about NET flow but JohnD is apparently not prepared to admit that because this is a favorite hobbyhorse of impressionists. "How can something cooler warm something that's warmer?" Not a hard question to answer, much more difficult is defending a theory requiring that photons be endowed with information from their future. Forget all the ice cube and fireplace business, JohnD. You're working with a failed idea. Think long and hard about how you were led into repeating it. -
JMurphy at 09:30 AM on 3 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
caerbannog wrote : "This little item will tell you all you need to know about Watts' followers" To which johnd replied : "It certainly does. They instantly know that one can't believe all they read." Charming but very revealing of the mind-set that is so-called skepticism. An innocent professor is on the receiving end of cowardly hate mail, and johnd is unconcerned. Perhaps he deserved it, eh ? As for the Wattsits not believing all that they read, they have plenty of experience of that every day on WUWT. The trouble is, the Dunning–Kruger effect prevents them from realising it. -
kdkd at 09:29 AM on 3 July 2010Astronomical cycles
I downloaded BP's data that he used for the "quadratic fit", and without further information it's impossible comment on the validity of what he did, apart from noting that looking at the regression diagnostics for a linear fit, there are few questions about the validity of the linear regression, and I'd question the need to use an alternative approach. -
Rob Honeycutt at 09:26 AM on 3 July 2010What happened to greenhouse warming during mid-century cooling?
John Russell... I just watched that video. I knew about the study done on vapor trails during the few days after 9/11 but I somehow missed the extent of the warming they turned up. One degree C is nothing short of startling. Thanks for posting that, Guillaume. -
Phila at 09:24 AM on 3 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
#29 "They instantly know that one can't believe all they read...." ...unless it's posted at WUWT, in which case it's basically beyond reproach. -
kdkd at 09:16 AM on 3 July 2010Astronomical cycles
Ken #119 BP would need to present regression diagnostics to show the validity of his quadratic fit compared to a linear fit. As it stands he presents too little information to assess its validity. My impression is that there's nothing to choose between a linear or quadratic fit, but I'd like to see the AKI statistic for each fit before making a definitive conclusion Your approach is profoundly unscientific anyway - you hide behind a spray of semi-technical meanderings. here is yet another explanation of why your approach lacks validity. -
KR at 09:07 AM on 3 July 2010A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
johnd, doug_bostrom - you agree. NET heat aways moves from hot to cold, at a rate determined by the sum of energy fluxes in all directions. johnd - Just so you know: this was actually a long and painful topic a while back, where certain posters stated "heat always goes from hot to cold", claiming that no energy went from cold to hot, arguing that the greenhouse effect violated thermodynamics. They were quite wrong, of course, but that particular phrase was code for quite an argument. Hence visceral gut-clenching reactions for a number of people, myself included! -
Riccardo at 08:53 AM on 3 July 2010A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
johnd, think about net radiation fluxes and everything turns out to be quite obvious. The ice cube emits radiation, more than any object at a lower temperature in fact. If ambient temperature is colder than the ice cube, it will "warm" you, if we agree that "warm" means that you loose less heat. Also, remember that thermodynamics works with a large number of objects, with just two molecules it does not make any sense. A molecule will emit it's excess energy regardless of the surrounding. But we are way offtopic here. -
johnd at 08:28 AM on 3 July 2010A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
e at 07:55 AM, the wood fire we have burning right now is not keeping the room warm enough. According to what you have stated, if I get a block of ice from the freezer and put it in the room, the ice will emit extra thermal radiation into the room in all directions because it can't sense any incoming radiation. How far would I have to stand from the block of ice to benefit from such additional thermal radiation given I am colder than the fire but warmer than the ice? -
johnd at 08:17 AM on 3 July 2010A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
doug_bostrom at 07:49 AM, what you appear to be saying is that if a molecule of CO2 is at point A, and another molecule of CO2 is at point B, if molecule A is cooler than molecule B, molecule A has no way of knowing that the energy being radiated towards it by molecule B is greater than the energy it, molecule A is transmitting, and molecule A will still radiate and transmit energy to molecule B. Making the analogy with your car, if you happen to enter onto a one way road the wrong way, you'll continue down the off ramp on until the car travelling up the off ramp collides with you enabling your car to transfer it's lower energy to the other higher energy car. It seems to me that if that occurred that neither car would be transferring it's energy from it's point of origin to it's destination other than to the point of collision where it is dissipated. However if the collision was between your car and a bird, which gets stuck in your radiator, your car having the greater energy would absorb the energy being dissipated by the bird and be able to continue on to deposit the nett result at your destination as long as the bird was the only other traveller on the road travelling against your direction. -
A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
To add slightly to my comment above: ... all objects warmer than absolute zero emit thermal radiation in all directions. -
A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
johnd > the radiation of heat is always in one direction, from the warmer body to the cooler. No John, that is incorrect. The net radiation absorbed + emitted is dependent on an object's surroundings, but all objects warmer than absolute zero emit thermal radiation. Perhaps you are thinking of conduction? The amount of thermal radiation emitted by an object is determined entirely by its own temperature, not by the temperature of its surroundings. The trick is working out is which is the warmer body and which is the cooler, which seems to be the basis of much of the debate over global warming. The surface of the earth is warmer than the atmosphere at higher altitudes, the earth itself is warmer than empty space, and the sun is warmer than the earth, nothing "tricky" about it. -
johnd at 07:52 AM on 3 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
caerbannog at 06:29 AM, re "This little item will tell you all you need to know about Watts' followers" It certainly does. They instantly know that one can't believe all they read. It was similar to a report last year in a Fairfax newspaper headlined "Good news for farmers" It went on to highlight how good things were going to be for farmers in the next season following BOM issuing a forecast of a 40% chance of above average rain over the following 3 months. -
Doug Bostrom at 07:49 AM on 3 July 2010A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
JohnD posits that photons must have some means of discriminating between objects warmer or cooler than the body from which they are emitted and then somehow selecting their direction of emission so as to only travel in the direction of cooler objects. There is no mechanism to produce such behavior and there is simply no room in physics for it to be found. In a perfect world JohnD would apologize for blurting out such a shockingly misleading assertion and thus possibly conveying a phenomenally defective concept into the minds of people who may not realize they're being told breathtakingly incorrect fiction. Such a remark is worth remembering and even pointing out every time JohnD makes an assertion on this site. -
John Russell at 07:37 AM on 3 July 2010What happened to greenhouse warming during mid-century cooling?
Guillaume Tell: Your link which you describe as the 'Nova Video', "Dimming the Sun," from April18,2006', is in fact the BBC Horizon documentary called 'Global Dimming' which I saw in 2005. It's a damn good film -- well worth watching -- and is summarised in the words (I conflate the last minute or so); "Global dimming has been protecting us from an even greater threat... global warming". "To carry on pumping out GHGs while cleaning our pollution is suicidal". "We're rapidly running out of time... This is not a prediction... it's a warning". A statement which echoes John's last para and does not pull any punches. -
johnd at 07:04 AM on 3 July 2010A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
JC, re your comment added on #9,"Over this period, the US and Canada changed their way of observing clouds from a human visual assessment (someone looking out a window?) to instrument measured. So there's no single continuous data series lasting 25 years in the US or Canada." That implies that there is no way of correlating or merging visual assessment with instrument measurement. This begs the question, are all the other points on the chart being measured by the one method, either visual or instrument? If there is a mixture of methods then the should the chart be considered a valid representation. Does the inability to merge the visual and the instrument data also condem the realibilty of any visual assessments?Response: I would assume there's a boffin somewhere doing a reanalysis to merge the older US & Canada data with the newer instrumental measurements. It just hadn't been done when Wang et al was written. -
johnd at 06:36 AM on 3 July 2010A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
robhon at 02:23 AM, the radiation of heat is always in one direction, from the warmer body to the cooler. The trick is working out is which is the warmer body and which is the cooler, which seems to be the basis of much of the debate over global warming. -
caerbannog at 06:29 AM on 3 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
TAMU professor Gerald North found himself on the receiving end of the Anthony Watts Yahoo Brigade -- This little item will tell you all you need to know about Watts' followers: (From http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/17/an-aggie-joke/, emphasis added) “Please correct the false impression left on your website. The item in the Texas A&M student newspaper was based on short interviews by phone. While there was no error in fact, the impression left is false. In the interview with me, I was referring to the temperature changes of our planet over the last century (about 0.7 deg C). The author switched abruptly to an interview with Professor Andrew Dessler who was not talking about the temperature over the LAST century but instead the IPCC prediction for temperature over the NEXT century (averaging over models about 3 deg C). I would not have known about this error except that my email box has been unusually loaded with hate mail today. Gerald North” -
Joe Blog at 06:28 AM on 3 July 2010A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
I'll try these links again http://tinyurl.com/2cwhwg http://tinyurl.com/2btg22e -
Joe Blog at 06:23 AM on 3 July 2010A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
robhon, and CBD, ill be the first to admit its totally counter intuitive, and its not a Q of it radiating in one direction, it still radiates in all directions... But in the stratosphere this is how it works. http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/04/18/stratospheric-cooling/ This thread here is one of the better ones for getting it conceptually. And this paper may help with understanding stratospheric temps http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469(1979)036%3C1084:TROSOI%3E2.0.CO;2 Yah gotta remember the greenhouse works by increasing the optical path length for the LW spectrum, so it increases the energy capacity of the troposphere.... that dosnt mean LW is prevented from leaving the troposphere... there will still be for all intents and purposes LW going from the troposphere UP... Some of that will be absorbed higher up, no doubt, but the temperature profile in the stratosphere is reversed. with heat increasing with altitude... so from this we can probably safely conclude, that radiative heating from GHG in the troposphere isnt the cause of the temperature profile in the stratosphere( its self evident) -
Spencer Weart at 05:08 AM on 3 July 2010What happened to greenhouse warming during mid-century cooling?
Very very interesting paper and post, nice catch. It must also be borne in mind that the global cooling was mainly Northern Hemisphere, as would be expected since that's where most of the pollution was. Temps in the Southern Hemisphere were more or less level. Has anyone disentangled dimming/brightening in the two hemispheres? -
Phila at 04:00 AM on 3 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
By a remarkable coincidence Mizimi's remarks are the spitting image of talking points ultimately attributed to the coal industry, here in the United States anyway. Yeah, the tactics are pretty formulaic. If a country's planning to invest in alternative energy, claim it'll lead to an economic crisis. If the crisis doesn't materialize, claim that it's a feel-good measure that accomplishes nothing. If it does accomplish something, warn people about creeping socialism. Rinse and repeat as necessary. -
Same Ordinary Fool at 02:54 AM on 3 July 2010What happened to greenhouse warming during mid-century cooling?
Global dimming is covered at Wikipedia, of course, here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming Or, watch the Nova Video, "Dimming the Sun," from April18,2006, here. -
CBW at 02:38 AM on 3 July 2010What happened to greenhouse warming during mid-century cooling?
John, You say, "They find a period of "global dimming" from 1958 to 1990 where surface radiation fell. Afterwards, the dimming levels off and transitions to slight brightening from 1985 to 2002." I think your 1990 should maybe be 1980? -
Eric (skeptic) at 02:38 AM on 3 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
22, 24, and 25: thanks for the responses. If I see a specific argument for the viability of alternatives in a thread in this forum, I will answer you there. -
Rob Honeycutt at 02:23 AM on 3 July 2010A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
CBDunkerson... Yeah, you know, I've heard that argument of "the heat reradiates out to space" quite a few times on various blogs. Joe Blog puts it fairly succinctly in saying "thus more co2= more heat radiated away." In particular I've seen this stated by people on the JoNova site. It makes no logical sense to me that CO2 would reradiate heat in only one direction. But being that this argument is getting spread around it probably warrants some more research. You know, once these things start to fester... -
Doug Bostrom at 02:00 AM on 3 July 2010IPCC is alarmist
The very best defense of the IPCC will be their next report. We've seen this movie before and we'll see it again; IPCC releases latest synthesis, doubters and impressionists pile on, no significant dent is made. The IPCC is undergoing a review of its processes with an eye to making its next report more useful and less susceptible to synthetic controversy. Learn about the review here at the InterAcademy Council website. -
citizenschallenge at 01:43 AM on 3 July 2010IPCC is alarmist
We need some source for information about the IPCC. The denialist community has succeeded in marginalizing its public moral authority way beyond anything reasonable or acceptable. Something must be done to directly combat the denialist's lies concerning the who, what, where and how of the IPCC. Any thoughts or suggestions? http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com -
NickD at 01:38 AM on 3 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
Eric (skeptic) at 01:28 AM on 3 July, 2010 "let's just agree that scientifically speaking (not politically), Germany's cuts have no effect." From what I've read in the OP and the comments, the reference to Germany cutting CO2 emissions was done in the context of demonstrating that such cuts will not, necessarily, cause the economy to collapse. You have reframed the debate to center on the issue of whether or not their cuts will have any impact on global CO2 emissions. Whether you are right or wrong is irrelevant, as you missed the point. -
Doug Bostrom at 01:36 AM on 3 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
You're not doing a good job, Eric(skeptic). Germany subtracts A and volcano adds B. It is fallacy to say that B-A=B unless A=0 which you've agreed it does not. -
Doug Bostrom at 01:30 AM on 3 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
By a remarkable coincidence Mizimi's remarks are the spitting image of talking points ultimately attributed to the coal industry, here in the United States anyway. Further to Luntz's memo, here's an example of Luntz in action, via a website operated by coal-fired electric utilities in the midwestern USA: Find a Balanced Solution As a fun little exercise, read the website, read Luntz's memorandum, spot the similarities. -
adelady at 01:28 AM on 3 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
Eric, if I want to save $2000 for something, I *can* do it by putting aside $10 a week. That will take me a few years. If my husband puts in a few more dollars a week it will happen sooner. If my kids, my mum, my neighbours chip in a bit more, it will happen even more quickly. "Every little bit helps" is as true in carbon mitigation as it is in money matters. Someone has to start somewhere sometime. -
Eric (skeptic) at 01:28 AM on 3 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
JMurphy, not comparable since there were alternatives to lead. But rather than get into a tangential discussion about the viability of alternatives, let's just agree that scientifically speaking (not politically), Germany's cuts have no effect. -
Doug Bostrom at 01:16 AM on 3 July 2010IPCC were wrong about Amazon rainforests
Willis, you may repeat yourself often enough to create some statistics of your own but you've offered no factual evidence to back up the impression of the IPCC you're trying to convey. You said When the IPCC relies, as it has done far too often, on WWF and Greenpeace propaganda pieces, and newspaper articles, and the like... and when asked to back up that remark with statistics more fully describing "far too often" you rejoin with remarks by Pachauri, not an analysis of the IPCC's actual work product, suggesting you have little more than an impression to offer. W/regard to Nepstad, I found it surprising that your seemingly exhaustive "fog" item at WUWT somehow failed to mention that the author behind the work in question w/regard to the Amazon endorsed the IPCC's conclusions, explaining exactly how the citation trail failed while emphasizing that the IPCC remarks on the Amazon were factually correct. Nepstad's words on the matter are easy to find. Omitting that key information degrades your credibility. If you're genuinely concerned with IPCC process you should compose some statistics and then show how the lessons of those statistics demonstrate some material effect on the IPCC work product by poor sourcing. If you're more concerned with impressionism then of course you should continue with selective narration and rhetorical artifices of the type including such statements as "When the IPCC relies, as it has done far too often, on WWF and Greenpeace propaganda..." without bothering to lend any factual support to that claim. -
JMurphy at 01:08 AM on 3 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
Eric (Sceptic) wrote : "JMurphy, Marcus, Germany's cuts are not significant in that they have no (15Mt vs 29Gt) effect on CO2 emissions worldwide." No effect, except to reduce them, of course - no matter by how little. I'm glad you had no input into the phasing out of lead in petrol, because you would have said, no doubt : "Make all petrol lead-free tomorrow (no matter what the cost or how people or countries are going to cope) or carry on as normal. But definitely don't phase it in." ! -
Doug Bostrom at 00:49 AM on 3 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
Jo Nova highlights money and taxation in her materials. It's helpful to remember, those things are not about science, not about the physical phenomena of climate change but are an appeal to fear. When talking of the science of climate behavior we should not let our natural fondness for our money interfere with our thinking about the physical world. Understand the science, and if understanding the science leads to some question of money remember, policy is a matter related to but not descriptive of the science. Personally I regard discussions of the validity of physical sciences which include talk of money and taxation with suspicion because I believe the tactic of introducing money into the conversation is an attempt at manipulation, a means of increasing my malleability via an emotional appeal. Such an tactic should not be necessary for a person presenting a strong argument about science. Once issues of science are understood, policy outcomes may be discussed and only then is the matter of money an appropriate matter for reference. For readers outside the USA, it may be interesting to know that this tactic of conflating money with science was explored and encouraged to be used by a high profile political consultant by the name of Luntz some years ago when he was commissioned by an American political party to help craft messaging on political matters related to the environment. Luntz recommended putting money matters into the backseat, using them as a tactic of argumentation but subordinating them to emphasizing uncertainty and other explicitly non-science related rhetoric, so in this regard Nova and some other doubters have their cart before the horse when they first highlight money and then speak of science. The relevant part of the Luntz memorandum contains a number of eerily familiar themes. View it here. (pdf) -
Mizimi at 00:47 AM on 3 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
One needs to carefully consider the lifetime implications of energy saving and renewable energy systems before fully embracing them in the name of "CO2 emissions" saving. In our desire to save the planet and its occupants from our profligate use of fossil fuel we erect wind generators that kill birds and disturb migratory patterns. Most are killed not by direct impact but by the downstream turbulence. Birds are fragile. We promote low energy lighting that contains a poison - mercury - with no apparent thought given as to how those millions of defunct lights will be safely disposed of. ( The commercial disposal of fluorescent tubes is covered by legislation) And the government advice is to open all doors and windows then vacate your home for 15 minutes if you happen to break one of them! Where can we get data about the carbon footprint of these new technologies? How much more CO2 is emitted in the manufacture of a low energy lamp compared to an incandescent lamp? From all sources - not just the making of, but the complete resourcing of materials, transport, manufacture and so on. Is it outweighed by the FF saving and over what period of time? What about those who suffer skin conditions which are exacerbated by UV light? What about the safety implications of the spectral response of the human eye and the actual spectrum of a fluorescent lamp? Because MFL's emit light in the 'wrong' part of the spectrum for our eyes they appear dimmer than the 'equivalent' incandescent lamp - and so people fit higher wattage bulbs to try and compensate...hence the appearance of 150w equivalents. Oh dear I am banging on again about people not thinking things through....probably my age or something.... -
Eric (skeptic) at 00:35 AM on 3 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
JMurphy, Marcus, Germany's cuts are not significant in that they have no (15Mt vs 29Gt) effect on CO2 emissions worldwide. They are symbolic and political made with at least two intents: to push investment into alternatives and to persuade other countries to join in worldwide cuts. Worldwide cuts may make a difference, at some far future date. In the meantime: no effect. -
JMurphy at 00:34 AM on 3 July 2010CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
The U.S. Global Change Research Program don't seem as relaxed or engaged in wishful thinking as some of the so-called skeptics : Many crops show positive responses to elevated carbon dioxide and lower levels of warming, but higher levels of warming often negatively affect growth and yields. Extreme events such as heavy downpours and droughts are likely to reduce crop yields because excesses or deficits of water have negative impacts on plant growth. Forage quality in pastures and rangelands generally declines with increasing carbon dioxide concentration because of the effects on plant nitrogen and protein content, reducing the land’s ability to supply adequate livestock feed. Increased heat, disease, and weather extremes are likely to reduce livestock productivity. Now, either they are just a part of the big conspiracy or they don't know as much as some people posting on here. Or is it both ? -
KR at 00:30 AM on 3 July 2010Sea level rise is exaggerated
daniel - While it's possible that there are high frequency changes in temperature missed by a particular low-resolution sample set, it's really completely unreasonable to postulate that this indeed is the case based on that evidence. If I permit more degrees of freedom in my fitting than are supported by my data, I can draw whatever curve I like - including one that indicates the Earth cycled between absolute zero and plasma temperatures during a 30-day period between samples. I could also postulate that such temperature swings were driven by invisible pink unicorns, but I don't have samples that actually indicate that. In the universe of possible data fits, a randomly chosen fit is NOT as likely as the simplest one that fits the data. It's a rudimentary basis of data analysis that you don't over-fit your samples - that falls into the aspects of parsimony, or Occams razor. Given the samples present in the papers you have been referring to, it's reasonable to state that there's a linear historic trend passing through those data points, with a later steeper trend passing through the much denser data points of recent records. Are there excursions outside that linear trend that don't fall upon the sample points, that weren't sampled? Perhaps. That would take more data - the data presented doesn't support that hypothesis. If you take into account the multiple lines of evidence, the many data sets containing samples at different (and overlapping) timepoints along historic record, the hypothesis of a fairly linear trend for the 1400-1850 period, with a steepening incline after that, is still the most reasonable, parsimonious explanation that fits the data. And with no unicorns... -
Riccardo at 00:26 AM on 3 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
Well said ProfMandia. I'd add that we all should keep challenging those people and leave scientists free to do their job. -
Ken Lambert at 00:24 AM on 3 July 2010Astronomical cycles
Chris #118 Just stick to the numbers Chris, and refrain from your own judgmental terms such as 'prejudices, unscientific, unsupported assertions etc etc' with regard to my arguments. I am simply pointing out that if you want to reduce the analysis to linear trend lines, then doing this for different satellites sliced together is quite consistent with that approach; and if you do that you get an offset. The offset disappears it the trends are not linearized. Why do these SLR charts have to be fitted to linear trend lines in any case? BP showed that the Colorado Chart here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=89&&n=150 Post #82 "I have calculated least square fit quadratic. It turns out sea level rise is actually decelerating in this 16 years long period. Acceleration term is -0.108 mm/y2." Prove to me that BP's quadratic approach is wrong! Let's have a look at steric rise - it does not seem to be linear with the OHC increase either. Dr Trenberth quotes a range of 0.4mm steric SLR equalling 20E20 Joules and 1.2mm equalling 95E20 Joules. This is 50E20 Joules/mm at the bottom and 79E20 Joules/mm at the top of the range. Nature tends to be rather non-linear. As you know CO2 forcing is logarithmic and radiative cooling by S-B is exponential (T^4). Claims that most of the SLR is steric are not supported in Dr Trenberth's paper viz. 2mm land ice melt and 2.5mm 'observed' - leaving only 0.5 mm steric. You have not addressed the point that you can't have a high ice melt component of SLR and a high steric component at the same time and meet the 'observed' SLR; and even worse - the global energy budget shortfall gets rapidly larger with an increasing ice melt portion because a 1mm of SLR from ice melt needs only about 1.5E20 Joules, and 1mm of steric rise needs 50-79E20 Joules. Please explain this problem; keeping in mind that the CO2GHG theory requires that the biosphere gain 145E20 Joules/year every year and increasing each year (bar the occasional volcano, or dimming sun or increased clouds - both the latter (sun and clouds)are reputedly well constrained and accurately known NOT to be offsetting CO2GHG warming). -
DarkSkywise at 00:21 AM on 3 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
#12, ProfMandia - Personally I expect public opinion to turn around completely and Demand Action Now when people will have to buy a third or fourth new air conditioner within two years because of yet another record heat wave, which will be in 2013 or 2014. (Just a wild guess, mind you.) Well, either this or a major Big Oil Operative who "couldn't stand the lies anymore and will speak up, no matter the consequences". Which could be as soon as, say, next week. ;) -
John Russell at 00:05 AM on 3 July 2010CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
There's a very interesting ABC 'Catalyst' documentary about the effects of raised CO2 concentrations on plant growth viewable here. Quote: "As carbon dioxide levels increase in the atmosphere some of our food crops will respond by becoming less nutritious and produce more toxins." It includes comments from several scientists working close to this issue. Well worth watching.
Prev 2315 2316 2317 2318 2319 2320 2321 2322 2323 2324 2325 2326 2327 2328 2329 2330 Next
