Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2326 2327 2328 2329 2330 2331 2332 2333 2334 2335 2336 2337 2338 2339 2340 2341 Next
Comments 116651 to 116700:
-
HumanityRules at 11:37 AM on 24 June 2010Ocean acidification
It would be ridiculous to say that any ecosystem is a perfectly stable environment. So what matters is how the proposed human induced changes fits into these variable environments. Willis Eschenbach mused about this on WUWT suggesting that any human induced change was well within the spatial, diurnal and short term changes that occur in the pH of seawater. In "Watts it like at a climate skeptic speakers event?" there was a lot of skepticism in the discussion about how 'laboratory' experiments on CO2 induced changes in crop growth (FACE experiments) could be interpreted in the real world. These ocean pH experiments seem highly analogous. Any doubt here? I don't think it's distracting to consider the natural variation in the envoronment, in fact ignoring it would be to ignore an importantaspect of the question. That fact that the movement may be in one direction doesn't really annul the far more important fact about the magnitude of the change. Let's assume the worst case scenario's of AGW are true and we've already gone too far. Maybe this would only leave geo-engineering as a solution to this problem. We already have several ideas about how to tackle acidification. We have 50, 100, 200 or more years to get these experiments right before implementing them. This is the worst case scenario. -
Lon Hocker at 11:37 AM on 24 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
e: If I know my starting point, and all accelerations (derivative of position) thereafter, I can determine my position in the future uniquely. This is the calculus I was referring to in earlier posts. If you don't understand that, we have no common ground. Your post 108 seems to negate 107. Maybe we're part way there. You seem to agree that a temperature change causes a change in the rate of change of CO2. Temperature change relative to what? I say 1850 or thereabouts. You say??? Thanks for your interest in the WUWT post. -
VoxRat at 10:56 AM on 24 June 2010Ocean acidification
GeoGuy - your chemistry is wrong. It's the ***pKa*** of carbonic and sulfuric acid that are around 6 and 1, respectively; not ***pH***.. As long the solution we're talking about putting them into (in this case the ocean) way above the pKa, each CO2 molecule produces 1 hydrogen ion (acid) and each SO2 molecule (assuming it winds up as H2SO4) produces 2 hydrogen ions. I.e., under the circumstances we're talking about, sulfuric acid is not orders of magnitude stronger at acidification than carbonic acid; they're about the same. -
ginckgo at 10:51 AM on 24 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get past climate change
Regarding the end Ordovician Ice Age: there was recent work done by a team at Ohio State Uni led by Matthew Saltzman that found isotopic and sedimentological studies indicated that there was an initial balance in the Late Ordivician of CO2 production by volcanoes along the newly rifting Atlantic margin, and the CO2 drawdown by immense weathering of the young Appalachian Mountain ranges. Then the vulcanism apparently stopped quite abruptly, while the weathering continued, causing a massive and rapid drop in CO2 levels. The main Ice Age only lasted less than 2 million years, possibly as little as 500,000 years. But the major sea level drop and sea level rise was probably sufficient to cause the second biggest mass extinction in the Phanerozoic. -
MattJ at 09:53 AM on 24 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get past climate change
Flawed though it is, Nova's reasoning is tempting. Which is why it makes such good fodder for "sound bites" for the oil industry's side. This Skeptical Science refutation, though excellent as always, is hard to distill into something that can be easily explained to the general public or politician. I leave the reader to guess which of these two audiences is hardest to convince;) My response to Nova's fallacy has always been, "Sure, CO2 levels were higher in the past. But ocean currents were different, too. With ancient currents, rising CO2 did not always trigger warming; with modern, it certainly does." True, this answer neglects many other factors the SS article rightly points out. But it is enough to refute the dangerous fallacy, and it is easy to grasp. -
Marcus at 09:16 AM on 24 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get past climate change
The argument that action to mitigate AGW "threatens our way of life" is not too dissimilar to the arguments put forward in the 18th century about action to end the Slave Trade in Britain. Indeed, many of the same arguments & tactics were used then as would later be used in relation to tobacco, asbestos & CFC's. Sorry for my reply being somewhat off-topic, but I thought it was an important point to make! -
Jim Eager at 09:00 AM on 24 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get past climate change
NickD, I certainly hope you did a screen shot of that "This is war..." rant in case it get's sanitized in the future. It is a perfect example if the unhinged paranoia all too common in the "sceptic" camp. -
Peter Hogarth at 08:39 AM on 24 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get past climate change
The Scotese temperature chart (from before 2000 I recall?) was surely never intended to be used as more than indication of warm and cool periods, and much more detailed and data based versions exist. I can't figure out why it keeps being used in this way, and very problematic to infer anything quantitative from it. The state of the art in Phanerozoic CO2 charts based on actual data has also moved on. Strange a model is preferred here? thingadonta at 21:47 PM on 23 June, 2010 I’m not sure the science on volcanism being the primary cause of K/T extinctions is as settled as you suggest, I’ve a few very recent papers on both sides of the “impact” debate, but it is accepted as fact that they happened, and it now looks more likely than not that they coincided with the KT boundary and were pretty catastrophic, see Schulte 2010 “The temporal match between the ejecta layer and the onset of the extinctions and the agreement of ecological patterns in the fossil record with modeled environmental perturbations (for example, darkness and cooling) lead us to conclude that the Chicxulub impact triggered the mass extinction”. Also, less well reported is the “Shiva” 40km object impacting India, also probably at the KT boundary, possibly associated with or triggering episodes of Deccan volcanism, see Chatterjee 2009 and some more detail at Chatterjee 2006. A link between massive bolide impact and extreme volcanism doesn’t require much stretching of the imagination. The evidence for (relatively) rapid CO2 release is robust in the paleo records, but there is debate about how rapid and how long lasting. I don't have high resolution temperature proxy d18O records covering this period, but there are multiple examples of linkages elsewhere in the data sets, and elsewhere on this website, see Zachos 2008 for example. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 08:26 AM on 24 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get past climate change
NickD "This is a war, WITH THE FUTURE OF OUR WAY OF LIFE AT STAKE" (my emphasis) This line seems to go to the heart of it. That the science of AGW puts forward a threat to 'our way of life'. 'our way of life' is sacrosanct, it is the heart of our identity, the most precious thing there is. Therefore anything that challenges that must be an attack upon the sacrosanct. And must therefore be being put forward for THE EVIL PURPOSE OF ATTACKING IT. There can be no other reason for attacking the sacrosanct. Therefore all supposed evidence for AGW, all arguments for it etc are all fraudulent, all contrived as weapons to be used in the attack. All MUST therefore be dismissed and the attackers defeated. A fight to the end. The fact that this world view is utterly disconnected from reality doesn't enter into it. A mindset that is perhaps all too prevalent in our science illiterate world; that doesn't really get cause and effect. A sensible view is that our way of life has to fit within the limits imposed by the physical universe around us. This alternate view says that the universe around us has to fit us because we are the centre of things. A profoundly egocentric view of existence, an anthropocentric view. As some have described it, a faith based reality - and I don't mean that in just a religious sense. We learnt a long time ago that the Sun doesn't move around the Earth. Also the Universe doesn't move around H Sapiens. But many people don't get that - a question for the psychologists perhaps. But this is a view that is extremely hard to counter since it is an impervious self-contained world view. Perhaps all we can aim to do is reach those people who aren't so closed off and show them that the Muntain never will come to Mohammed. Those locked in that other bubble may not be reachable and we may need to simply quarantine them so their disconnected thinking can't hurt anyone else. It is almost a case of the irresistable force and the immoveable object. Physics vs Psychology. Some people don't get that Physics will always beat Psychology. Its called death. -
Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
To clarify my post above, Your conclusion that temperature has an influence on the rate of CO2 accumulation is valid, i.e. it follows logically from your math. Your conclusion that the root cause of CO2 accumulation is due to temperature changes is invalid, i.e. it does not logically follow from your math. Did you read my post using a skydiver as an analogy? Do you understand how something can correlate with rate but not be the root cause of change in position? -
Rob Honeycutt at 08:02 AM on 24 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get past climate change
villabolo... Or as the famous Churchill quote goes: A lie gets half way around the world before the truth has a chance to get its trousers on. -
Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
Lon, >Clearly temperature has an influence on the rate of increase of CO2. You're just not getting it: this conclusion is accurate, but it is the only conclusion you can draw from the math you performed. Any conclusion that does not directly follow from this is irrelevant to your calculations. A correlation with rate CANNOT be interchanged with a correlation of level. I don't follow your logic because it is invalid. Unless you retract your illogical conclusions, no amount of blog posts can change that. Do you seriously not understand the difference between these two statements?: 1) A is correlated with the velocity of B 2) A is correlated with the position of B Your math supports statement 1, but the idea that temperature changes are the root cause of CO2 rise can only follow from statement 2. In order to demonstrate statement 2, you need to show a correlation between temperature and CO2 level directly, as soon as you switch to a derivative you are changing your conclusions to statement 1. You cannot then just move terms around in your equation, toss in some vague speculation, and suddenly claim to have established statement 2. Here is a brief summary of the IPCC position, what part of this do you think your analysis disproves?: CO2 accumulating in our atmosphere over the past century comes primarily from humans burning fossil fuels - evidence for this includes the tight correlation between the amount of anthropogenic CO2 released and the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. The rate at which this CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere is influenced by temperature - evidence for this includes the tight correlation between global temperatures and the rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere (this is the piece of the puzzle your analysis supports). -
scaddenp at 07:14 AM on 24 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
Geo Guy - are you serious? You prefer a lawyer's rehash of long-debunked arguments to the opinion of experts? Do you approach your personal health care in the same way? Lets try the acid test. I would expect climate scientists to readily point to data which might be measured which would cause revision of their theory. (Not a climate scientist but for me, 20 years of cooling, upper stratospheric warming, a better TOS heat balance that was inconsistent with GHG models would be examples as would a complete, physically consistent model of climate able to explain better all known measurements). My experience of denialists is that they would argue against even the oceans boiled. So what is your bottom line for changing your mind? (and if GC and JohnD are reading, I would love to hear yours). -
villabolo at 06:50 AM on 24 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get past climate change
doug_bostrom at 16:36 PM on 23 June, 2010 "The ratio of work required to confuse as opposed to correct is vastly lopsided." My favorite saying, which is more public friendly, is: "It takes 5-30 seconds to speak a damn lie but 5-30 minutes to respond to it." -
Rob Honeycutt at 06:45 AM on 24 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get past climate change
NickD... I think you are spot on here. Literally, there are two completely different battles being waged. One is a battle for the accuracy of science, the other is an ideological/political battle. This goes back to my previous piece on Why Does Anthony Watts Drive an Electric Car. The very act of ensuring that the science is real and accurate is going to push those who reject climate change further away. When it comes down to it, their posts may be couched as science, but it's not a scientific battle they are waging. Their battle is ideological. -
Riccardo at 06:34 AM on 24 June 2010Ocean acidification
SO2 is not well mixed in the atmosphere and has low lifetime. It tends to be much more of a problem regionally, near the point of emissions (i.e. on land), than in the oceans. Emissions has been dropping steadly for decades while ocean acidification is still increasing. May we should ask John to add this as a skeptic argument. -
How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
Geo Guy My scenario was meant as a hypthetical. Your recognition of it as ridiculous is precisely the point. Anyways, the point of the Anderegg study is to show whether a majority of scientists actively studying climate science agree with the IPCC conclusions. It's an opinion poll meant to reflect the opinions of the total population of scientists studying climate, not an independent assesment of the IPCC results. Conflict of interest has no relevance here. Their opinion remains their opinion whether they were involved in the work or not. If it just so happens that a large number of the most active scientists were also involved in the IPCC report, that does nothing to diminish Anderegg's results, in fact, it strengthens them. What you propose is actually an answer to a related but very different question: "out of the population of climate scientists that didn't contribute to the IPCC, how many agree with its conclusions?". The answer to that question may be interesting in its own right, but it doesn't have much bearing on the conclusions made by Anderegg. He is attempting to quantify a consensus out of the total climate scientist population, not a subset independent from the IPCC reports. I will agree there are other legitimate arguments to be made as to how the poll questions were worded, but talking about "conflict of interest" with regard to an opinion poll just doesn't make any sense. -
snapple at 05:54 AM on 24 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
#103--correction I meant, of course that Cuccinelli is subjecting Dr. Mann to judicial persecution. I don't think he will succeed. -
Geo Guy at 05:48 AM on 24 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
doug # 107 - at the expense of me repeating myself, I do not disagree with your that the researchers practicing in the field of climate science are ipso facto the best source of information on climate science. However not all of them were involved in the work done by IPCC. Therefore to provide support to the results of that IPCC work, using the same scientists is wrong. As Anderegg et al point out, the limited database that they used did have a total of about 700 + names of scientists who were not involved with the IPCC work. From my perspective, it would have been much more acceptable to provide the survey results from that subset of participants as that would have eliminated any bias. -
Phila at 05:42 AM on 24 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get past climate change
RSVP: I would not call critical thinking "sport". MrJon's comment (#7) about "sport" referred to people like JoNova and Monckton. Surely you are not seriously suggesting that either of these people is engaged in "critical thinking"? Critical thinking requires getting basic facts straight, first and foremost. That's something neither Monckton nor JoNova is willing to do, as far as I can tell. -
Lon Hocker at 05:40 AM on 24 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
Ned: You are right. Lots of things have linear increases, however, most of them don't fit the details of the data when satellite temperatures became available. The derivative plot has the advantage of exposing the details. Clearly temperature has an influence on the rate of increase of CO2. Why do you conclude that it is only important over a short time period? What is the limiting time scale and why is it limited? CBDunkerson: The 0.58C makes the anomaly an absolute reference to temperatures around 1850. If the temperature drops below the "magical" 0.58, CO2 would have a negative slope. I hope that helps, because I'm afraid I really can't figure out your logic. e: Obviously I didn't explain it well enough, though many others were able to follow the logic anyway. Time for me to write something up with greater detail, so that it will be easier for everyone to follow. Keep an eye on WUWT. Thanks for your input. -
Doug Bostrom at 05:40 AM on 24 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
Geo Guy reminds us of the latest fad in "auditing", that of having lawyers critique hard sciences when they're not actually attempting to prosecute scientists for the crime of uncertainty. Thanks for the clarification on your perspective, Geo Guy. -
NickD at 05:38 AM on 24 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get past climate change
I don't wish to derail this thread, but the comments from doug_bostrom at 05:14 AM on 24 June, 2010, especially his last two paragraphs, brought to mind comments from a user on WUWT that I saw earlier today. They read: "This is NOT a simple disagreement, this is NOT a polite dinner table argument. This is a war, with the future of our way of life at stake. The other side knows this and is fighting us on this level. Unless we acknowledge the true nature of this contest, we will lose. They will throw *everything* they have at us, they will have no limits, they will show no standards, they will display no decency. We do not have to descend to these depths, but we DO need to be prepared to fight them, since that is what is going to be aimed at all of us who are skeptics. And also, because this is War, this is not going to end with some kind of gentlemen’s agreement, or scientific resolution – this is going to end with either one side or the other being completely crushed. We must make sure that it is the warmists who are crushed, and that all of the institutions that they have infested are not only discredited but destroyed. Sadly, most of the existing scientific establishment now needs to be torn down to the ground. It will be easier to build new institutions than to revitalize those that have decayed." It would be all too easy to simply write this off as the rantings of a fringe element, but it seems to be a creeping mentality that can be traced back to the type of invective Jo Nova injects into the "debate". -
Doug Bostrom at 05:36 AM on 24 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
Geo Guy as I said it's an inconvenient fact that researchers practicing in the field of climate science are ipso facto the best source of information on climate science and those researchers are necessarily involved in the IPCC process one way or another; in point of fact the pool available is not so large as to make it possible to exclude all IPCC-connected scientists and in any case excluding the best minds available for political reasons is folly. And yes, I'll take every opportunity to point out the artificial nature of this discussion and what engendered it, namely such folks as Luntz who put their very best effort into distracting the public from science and its lessons. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to repeat myself. -
Geo Guy at 05:30 AM on 24 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
As a final post, I want to bring your attention to a paper written by Jason Johnston from the UofV School of Law which was published by U of Penn, Inst for Law & Econ Research Paper No. 10-08 entitled "Global Warming Advocacy Science: A Cross Examination" http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1612851 In a nutshell, Mr. Johnston's paper closely resembles my personal view when it comes to the theory of AGW.Moderator Response: That paper rehashes many of the claims already addressed in the list of skeptic arguments. Please restrict any future commentary on these topics to the appropriate post. -
GaryB at 05:26 AM on 24 June 2010Ocean acidification
Geo Guy, that H2SO4 has a greater impact on ocean acidification than CO2 is not equivalent to CO2 having no impact. What it does mean is we have to be concerned with both. -
NewYorkJ at 05:16 AM on 24 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get past climate change
Another problem with Nova's graph is it doesn't take into account the logarithmic relationship of atmospheric CO2 to temperature. 1000->2000 ppm would theoretically have a similar effect as 2000->4000 ppm. So there needs to be a scale that compresses the larger values as you go up, similar to stock market index charts that focus on growth of the index over time are done. There are other estimates of CO2 concentration that indicate it wasn't quite as varied, perhaps implying a higher climate sensitivity. I recall a recent study on this. Also, note the error bars for 300+ million years ago. CO2 -
paulgrace at 05:14 AM on 24 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get past climate change
Entropy. It's always easier to destroy than to build. A flawed argument is much easier to construct than a correct argument. Deniers merely have to create doubt. -
Doug Bostrom at 05:08 AM on 24 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get past climate change
Albatross, I think the situation is even worse, more akin to driving a car in complex, fast traffic with somebody dumping paint on the windshield and the wipers only able to move too slowly. Not only is our view of climate behavior being degraded, but so is all the surrounding scenery. Jo Nova's facile tactics don't just smear our perspective of climate science, they can make other things hard to see and understand as well. Nova's fallacies are injected for tactical purposes into a strategic discussion arising from basic physical principles. The confusion Nova instills is a potentially creeping rot because in order to superficially present some degree of coherence her musings must necessarily entail the disassembly of a lot of prior established scientific knowledge. Trying to follow her personal brand of logic backwards would be destructive not only to our understanding of climate but much else. As part of the tactics Nova's adopted for what she's explicitly identified as strategic financial reasons she's calling into question our reliance not just on the physics directly related to climate science but our entire scientific establishment and the benefits we accrue from assiduous and meticulous construction of a worldview that is built from multiple, independent but mutually consistent paths of research. Superstitions about vaccines, disconnected airbags, fear of "electrosensitivity" and host of other degenerate behaviors lie not far down the path Jo Nova employs in her tactical rhetoric. Really destructive, not wantonly so I suppose but the ultimate effect is willy-nilly smashing. -
Geo Guy at 04:49 AM on 24 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
Phila # 66 – the idea of conspiracy has never entered the equation from my perspective when it comes to addressing the Scientists themselves. However scientists are people and accordingly come with all the foibles you see in the general population. The concept of personal bias and conflicts of interest are not in any way new to the scientific community. There are groups that have been formed to address these issues as they can play a role in subverting the process. What I have found with my own spot checking is that some scientists that were involved with the IPCC have also been signatories of various letters and petitions to governments with the appearance of offering an independent perspective on the findings of the IPCC. To me it is wrong to do so. Robhon # 68 – My personal perspectives on all petitions, both those for and against, are simply a reflection of the position of a number of people (in these cases scientists) who have stated a position of either for or against the findings/recommendations of the IPCC. It seems the press coming from the IPCC side is always saying how there is a scientific consensus about their findings, which riles other scientists such as myself. The only way of stepping up to question the validity of such a statement is to create something like the petition in question – to show there are scientists out there who dispute the “scientific consensus” postulations. I don’t know if you looked into the Anderegg et al paper further, but if you had, you would have found that while they used a database of 1,372 climate scientists for their survey. After accounting for duplication, the list was reduced to 903 names for those in favour and 472 for those against. Of the 903 names, 619 were contributors to the IPCC reports. If those had been removed the survey would have then reports on the results from 284 CE scientists and 472 UE scientists which would likely have produced results offering different interpretations. Doug_bostrom # 70…”BIGGER SIGH””… Are you saying that the only scientists that know what they are talking about are those that participated in the IPCC work? Certainly there must be more in the worlds than the simple 1 or 2 thousand that were involved that could present an independent perspective? In this instance I do not accept the argument put forward as I believe the results are biased towards their opinion and hence are not independently derived. In Anderegg et al’s paper, 472 qualified scientists holding a contrary view were surveyed while 284 independent scientists supporting the theory were surveyed. You are simply trying to deflect away from an obvious weakness in the process with the rest of your post. The issue of potential bias and conflicts of interest in propagating a process used to garner widespread support is being discussed, not the comical antics followed by both sides in this debate. Professional organizations go to great lengths to minimize or eliminate bias and CI’s. E # 77 - your post is nonsensical unless you live in a place where it is customary to have a doctor give you a diagnosis over the phone. To better understand Conflicts of Interest: http://www1.od.nih.gov/oma/manualchapters/ethics/2400-04/main.html Here are some forms of bias that occur regularly in scientific reporting: Definitions of interpretation biases Confirmation bias—evaluating evidence that supports one's preconceptions differently from evidence that challenges these convictions Rescue bias—discounting data by finding selective faults in the experiment Auxiliary hypothesis bias—introducing ad hoc modifications to imply that an unanticipated finding would have been otherwise had the experimental conditions been different Mechanism bias—being less sceptical when underlying science furnishes credibility for the data "Time will tell" bias—the phenomenon that different scientists need different amounts of confirmatory evidence Orientation bias—the possibility that the hypothesis itself introduces prejudices and errors and becomes a determinate of experimental outcomes To allow any bias to exist using the argument that those involved are experts is ludicrous IMHO. The Walrous - # 80 – From my perspective, the mechanism driving the earth’s climates is vastly complex and not completely understood by us – we learn new things every day. CO2 as a greenhouse gas is not in dispute – the fact only increases in CO2 are considered the driving force behind a rise in the mean global temperatures is what many are questioning. What about the vast increase in water vapour, which is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, that has occurred over the past 60 years or so? What about the real effect of CO2 from jet aircraft vs near surface generated CO2? Before HUGE sums of money to the third world are committed (this is what the IPCC’s raisin d’etre was all about) we have to make sure that we understand what is going on beyond a correlation between two sets of data.Moderator Response: The comment on complexity is an argument from incredulity. CO2 as the only driver of climate is discussed here. The contribution of water vapor to warming is discussed here. Please continue any discussion of these topics in the appropriate threads. -
Doug Bostrom at 04:46 AM on 24 June 2010Ocean acidification
Geo Guy, what's the time required for sulphuric acid deposited on terrestrial surface and lacustrine environments to find its way to the oceans and does it arrive eventually as a compound in solution with a strongly acid pH? I can see what you're driving at but I wonder if you can assume rapid 1:1 transport of of the kind your rough calculation implies. H2S04 falling on land and in lacustrine settings is going to be at least partially neutralized and locked up-- imagine acid rain falling into a karst terraine, for instance. -
BillWalker at 04:40 AM on 24 June 2010Ocean acidification
My take on the "scientists are uncertain" argument: The earth is tied to metaphorical railroad tracks, and instead of untying the ropes, people are arguing about the train schedule. -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:37 AM on 24 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get past climate change
danielbacon... I have to say, WOW! I've spent very little time at JoNova's website but that's a particularly shocking piece of writing from her. And the comments connected to it are even more shocking that the piece itself. -
Ian Forrester at 04:30 AM on 24 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get past climate change
Richard Alley has a very good video lecture on this very subject, The Biggest Control Knob, Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History -
Albatross at 04:18 AM on 24 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get past climate change
Doug @17, I love the analogy. Why is BP not on this thread? David Grocott, many thanks for your time and effort. Just a quick observation. Haven't the myths being perpetuated by Nova been addressed here before under "Skeptic Arguments"? I'm not saying that your contribution to refuting her misinformation is not helpful, it is just really frustrating that you and others have to keep wasting time setting the record straight. There has to be a way to take the fight to them instead of always seeming to have to respond.Moderator Response: Have they been addressed before? They sure have!
CO2 is not the only driver of climate
CO2 has been higher in the past
High CO2 in the past, Part 2
CO2 was higher in the late Ordovician
On temperature and CO2 in the past
I don't think there's a 'skeptic' argument that John hasn't already covered at some point, but sadly the same misinformation is still being propagated by some individuals and needs to be corrected again and again.
John asked me to do this post partly because Jo Nova is currently travelling around Australia as part of the 'Watts up with the climate' tour. I've pulled together the specific claims she makes in her 'Skeptic's Handbook II' regarding past climate and CO2, and drawn attention to the manipulation of the temperature reconstruction she relies upon, i.e. the deletion of the K-T boundary event. -
danielbacon at 04:08 AM on 24 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get past climate change
David Grocott Are you using witchcraft here? Are you a witchdoctor? http://joannenova.com.au/2010/06/pnas-witchdoctors-of-science/ Real question, do you have a graph of polar land masses for these times? Like our current glacial- inter- glacial is link to the current location of Antarctica. (As well as the snow ball periods to polar land mass at that time)?Moderator Response: As if by magic...this website might be of interest.
I don't have graphs, but if you click the links down the left hand side you can see maps of continental distribution. -
Geo Guy at 03:52 AM on 24 June 2010Ocean acidification
Throwing caution to the wind, for arguments sake let’s use the following numbers: annual SO2 emissions = 9 tgms or approx 10 million tons annual CO2 emission = 7,200 tgms or 8,000 million tons. Now let’s assume that when only natural sources of the two gases are considered, then acidity is not an issue because both cycles are deemed to be in equilibrium. Therefore the following discussion reflects anthropic sources for the two gases as it is those amounts that lead to increased acidity levels. Now we look at what percentage of the two gases are believed to end up in the ocean. CO2 = 50% (IPCC) SO2 = 85% (the sulphur cycle) http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/3406/Sulfur-Cycle.html Anthropic SO2 emissions for the most part are land based (international air travel and shipping are not included in any statistics), the locale of the sources are important as the prevailing winds tend to carry the emissions out over the oceans. This is true for Asia, India and North America and some sections of Europe/North Africa. The 8,000 million tons of CO2 therefore needs to be reduced by a factor of 50% to 4,000 million tons. We then need to consider how CO2 is trapped in water. The vast majority of it (85%) is held as a gas molecule surrounded by a water molecule and does not have any impact on the acidity of the water when held this way. The remaining 15% however forms carbonic acid over a long slow process. http://antoine.frostburg.edu/chem/senese/101/solutions/faq/dissolving-gases.shtml We therefore have to only consider 15% of the 4,000 million tons of CO2 when considering its impact on acidity. This number becomes 600 million tons. Now we are comparing the 600 million tons of CO2 which forms as carbonic acid in the ocean with 6.5 million tons of SO2 which ends up in the ocean. With Carbonic acid having a pH of 5.7 and Sulphuric acid having a pH of less than 1.0, we then have to take into account the relative acidities of the two solutions to really understand their true effect on ocean water. The pH scale is not linear but logarithmic meaning the comparison between two consecutive pH levels is a magnitude of ten and between two pH scales it is 100 and so on. The difference between carbonic acid with a pH of 5.7 and sulphuric acid having a pH of less than 1.0, the separation of the pH is about 5. Hence the acidity between the two acids is substantial. Even if we reduce the amount of SO2 that ends up in the ocean to 20%, the comparative acidity with carbonic acid in the ocean is substantially greater. On another note, emissions of international flights and shipping are not included in country or UN data due to the fact those categories do not require reporting. Hence given that the bunker oil used by ships is perhaps the most SO2 polluting fuel used today and those emissions – especially the sulphur, fall directly onto the ocean. Also, emissions during the 1960’s to the mid 1980’s had higher SO2 content than current emissions – the result of clean air acts and the installation of scrubbers in industrial chimneys. Hence the proportion of SO2 to CO2 from those years would likely have been higher than what is portrayed in this analysis. Given that what we see happening in the environment reflects what occurred some 20 to 40 years ago, I then pose the question to you: which gas, when emitted into the atmosphere and then dumped into the ocean will likely have the greatest impact on ocean acidity? -
Doug Bostrom at 03:26 AM on 24 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get past climate change
Thanks you for your original post as well as your timesheet, David. Remarking on work performed elsewhere, David says: 'What is clear is that it has now taken me 1,739 words, at least four peer-reviewed scientific studies, the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, various blogs and websites, and several days, to tell precisely no-one (congratulations if you're still reading), why they should partially refute what Jo Nova has told 200,000 people in 7 words. Those 7 precious words being: "Paltridge found that humidity levels have fallen."' In our neighborhood we have a problem with kids "tagging" various objects with graffiti. The artwork appears to be faddish, with some few youngsters capable of creating an original style, the rest slavishly following. Only a few seconds are required to deposit nominally insubstantial paint just microns thick on a wall. Hours are needed to remove each occurrence of the blight, sometimes it's impossible to entirely undo the scar and inevitably the cycle of giggle-spray-grumble-remove will repeat itself. Graffiti tagging is childish vandalism especially annoying because it's lazy, usually unoriginal and at the same time imposes a disproportionate amount of effort to undo. To my mind Joanne Nova and her ilk are graffiti artists vandalizing our collective intellect, contributing to cultural dementia. What's different is that thanks to the Internet Nova's can of spraypaint tags minds across the entire globe. -
Doug Bostrom at 02:32 AM on 24 June 2010Astronomical cycles
Ken, so again your argument comes down to "The most likely explanation is that the OHC chart is wrong... and again you don't have the skill to show that. I see your fog of numbers but they're a tautology. Sorry, I'm sticking with the experts on this one.Moderator Response: There is already a robust discussion available for further exploration of OHC. Please follow up there. -
actually thoughtful at 01:50 AM on 24 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
#62 Roy Latham "Even more interesting would be "Are climate models an accurate predictor of climate?" Since measurements are running below two-sigma of the predictions, that would tell how many climate scientists are paying attention." This is interesting. You apparently have the data that will completely debunk all this AGW malarkey. Please provide a source, so we can all be convinced by the data. -
snapple at 01:20 AM on 24 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
dhogaza #99 writes: "You mean they weren't spending all their time whining about being blacklisted...?" It's not-very-sincere of the denialists to be shrieking aobut a blacklist when Cuccinelli is being subjected to judicial persecution. There's an update on that in the Washington Post. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2010/06/an_albermarle_county_judge_has.html -
chris1204 at 01:15 AM on 24 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
JMurphy @ 98 The Catholic Church in Italy also overlapped overwhelmingly with the scientific establishment of the time having built the first universities and resurrecting the spirit of scientific enquiry from classical times. There was a strong pro-Galileo faction within the Church. Galileo was allowed to publish his views - the only condition was that he restrict himself to presenting the Copernican view as a mere hypothesis rather than as an established 'fact' which at the time was not as far fetched as it seems today. The guiding principal was the notion that 'The Bible teaches us how to get to heaven, not how the heavens move.' However, if a scientific hypothesis seemed to contradict some aspect of the Biblical account (in this instance, a reference in the Book of Joshua in which God made the sun stand still in the sky lengthening the day and allowing the Israelites to win a convincing victory), scholars were expected to treat the Biblical account as authoritative unless very strong evidence to the contrary was available. In other words, 'an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence.' Galileo was no diplomat (he also fudged his famous leaning tower of Pisa experiments). He published a dialogue in which he made the proponent of the Ptolemaic system appear a buffoon. Not surprisingly, this got under the establishment's skin. The result: Galileo officially silenced and a public relations disaster for the Catholic Church. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. -
AuntSally at 01:09 AM on 24 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get past climate change
I'm a huge fan of the single-variable attack: Sometimes when the sun comes up the temperature on my porch rises to over 100 degrees (F), and sometimes it's at 30 below zero. Consequently, the temperature on my porch "doesn't care less" whether the sun is shining or not! Criminal ignorance indeed! -
AuntSally at 00:39 AM on 24 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
In #36, Larry Weisenthal mentions that "At best, investigative research results in single step advances, which change no paradigms." This is true. But the problem with this statement, in context with the ongoing conversation, is paradigms don't generally need to be changed. They're paradigms because they're based on a preponderance of evidence. The paradigm-changing work in climate change was done eighty years ago, when CO2 was definitively demonstrated to have the ability to warm the atmosphere (see Spencer Weart's book, for a history of this). The power of science lies in the very fact that most work is done one step at a time, building on solid foundations. Sure, it's sexier to make multi-step leaps, and occasionally that's needed. But most such efforts fail because they flout existing evidence. And most paradagm-changing work succeeds because the existing paradigm is flouting evidence. Such is not the case in climate change. The fact that most funding goes to research that proposes to build on established results (not to repeat what's already been done, but to push forward a little bit) is a strenght of the enterprise of science, not a weakness. Honestly, I'm becoming exhasperated with this "lone wolf" idyll that is so frequently and speciously proffered. -
snapple at 00:14 AM on 24 June 2010Ocean acidification
I have a post called "The Effects of Ocean Acidification on the Barents Sea." http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2010/06/effects-of-ocean-acidification-on.html -
J Bowers at 00:05 AM on 24 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
Re. 95 omnilogos "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." -- Max Planck. Much better than the funeral paraphrasing. -
dhogaza at 00:02 AM on 24 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
"Not quite. Robin Warren and Barry Marshall (the latter a Physician) developed their theory over 3 years until publishing in the Medical Journal of Australia in 1985, i.e. they HAD funding and they WERE published. Research into the bacteria had been going on for at least 20 years but no-one had linked all the studies or developed a coherent theory based on them. It only took a few more years for them to prove themselves against those who were sceptical. Read all about it here from the men themselves." You mean they weren't spending all their time whining about being blacklisted, rather than working hard to develop and publish their theory of the cause of ulcers? -
JMurphy at 00:01 AM on 24 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
chriscanaris wrote : "Shades of Galileo? I guess his ideas did last the distance but in the face of some fierce opposition." From the Catholic Church mostly but I suppose the so-called skeptics of today can be compared to them in the way they hold fast to their beliefs no matter what the evidence ! -
Esop at 23:31 PM on 23 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get past climate change
#6: you are right, the truth is finally coming out. Despite the feverish attempts by the deniers, nature itself is proving their theories wrong these days, with temperature records being set every month despite the denialist predictions of cooling. -
Megan Evans at 23:24 PM on 23 June 2010Watts it like at a climate skeptic speakers event?
pinkie - I didn't see any party literature while I was there (not that looked particularly hard for it), and I don't recall any mention of the climate skeptics party while at the event. I guess Watts and the others are simply trying to get more support for their cause and to confuse the debate as much as possible. It wasn't particularly fun ;), but I wanted to go as I feel like it's important to counter these things directly.
Prev 2326 2327 2328 2329 2330 2331 2332 2333 2334 2335 2336 2337 2338 2339 2340 2341 Next
