Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2327 2328 2329 2330 2331 2332 2333 2334 2335 2336 2337 2338 2339 2340 2341 2342 Next
Comments 116701 to 116750:
-
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. -
chris1204 at 22:53 PM on 23 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
LWeisenthal @ 27 & JMurphy @ 93 Alas, the peptic ulcer and Helicobacter pylori story is nowhere that simple. We do use antibiotics to treat peptic ulcer. However, acid suppressing drugs (known by the fancy name of proton pump inhibitors) remain a mainstay in the management of the disorder (often on a long term basis long after the antibiotics have been ceased). And yes, stress does give you ulcers. So does involvement in chronic interpersonal conflict. An excellent example of an area in which 'the science' is nowhere as 'settled' as is commonly perceived (which is not to debunk the contribution of the humble Helicobacter). Perhaps we should assess the prevalence of peptic ulcer disease in an AWG versus sceptical cohort. Some other research questions. Do sceptics feel besieged and stressed? Do AWG proponents feel overwhelmed by society's failure to address our ever-growing emissions? Do they delight in schadenfreude as they skewer sceptics? Do sceptics bask in ignorance blithely ignoring looming catastrophe? Do sceptics wake in fright overtaken by gnawing doubts? -
CBDunkerson at 22:50 PM on 23 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get past climate change
RSVP #6: "It didnt take that long to convince people about AGW" I think your history is a little off. John Tyndall first determined that changes in atmospheric composition (specifically including increases in CO2) would lead to increased temperatures back in 1859. His lab experiments proved the existence of the carbon dioxide greenhouse effect, but could not determine its magnitude (though he thought it significant enough to drive the ice age cycle). By 1896 Arrhenius had worked out the mechanism of temperature forcings from greenhouse gases through the Stefan-Boltzman law and computed significant warming from CO2, but his results were widely disputed. From 1938 through the 50s Guy Callendar argued that the effects of CO2 driven warming were starting to appear, but again this was largely dismissed. It wasn't really until around the 1970s that enough evidence had accumulated that scientists began to take the CO2 greenhouse effect seriously. From there it was another decade or two for it to become the 'scientific consensus', and the general populace is still mulling the issue over - the majority accept it but there is a significant segment who do not. That's hardly a short transition period. Jo Nova and other 'skeptics' frequently recycle arguments which were reasonable when they were first introduced 40+ years ago... but which have now long since been disproven. Neither AGW nor skepticism of it is some newfangled quickly introduced fad. This is a debate that has played out for more than a century and a half now... with the skeptics continually losing ground as evidence accumulated against their position. Modern 'skeptics' have managed to slow that trend somewhat by making outright false claims, but that can't work for long in the face of a changing world. -
Ken Lambert at 22:48 PM on 23 June 2010Astronomical cycles
DougB#97 It looks like BP and I have the same eyeballs Doug, and our independent analysis is chock full of numbers if you care to read them VIZ: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Robust-warming-of-the-global-upper-ocean.html KL#24: "Figure 2 shows a huge increase in OHC from roughly a 2 year period 2001 to 2003 in which the OHC rises from the zero axis to about 7E22 Joules or about 700E20 Joules. This is about 350E20 Joules/year heat gain. Dr Trenberth's 0.9W/sq.m TOA energy flux imbalance equalled 145E20 Joules/year. Therefore a rise of 350E20 Joules/year in OHC equals about 2.1W/sq.m TOA imbalance - a seemingly impossible number. Coinciding with the start of full deployment of the Argo buoys around 2003-04 this impossibly steep rise in 2001-03 looks like an offset calibration error. Similar would apply to Fig 3." And a bit later BP shows the satellite year-year data showing flatness in the 2003-04 period ie: BP#30: "Therefore either satellite data are absolutely useless or the 6-8×1022 J heat accumulation in the oceans after 2000 followed by a more or less level plateau from 2004 on is an artifact due to transition to ARGO." So I came up with 7E22 Joules in the 2 year period and BP canme up with 6-8x1022 J - the same number. What you have to explain is how the acknowledged expert on global energy balances (Dr Trenberth) got a TOA imbalance of 0.9W/sq.m globally for the 2004-2008 period which is largely based on Fig2.4 of IPCC AR4, and how the OHC chart for the similar period works out to 2.1W/sq.m. - nearly 2.5 times Trenberth's global TOA imbalance. The most likely explanation is that the OHC chart is wrong and that the later data from Argo being much more extensive is giving a much more accurate result up around the 7E22 Joules AND that it follows that the far less extensive and accurate XBT data prior to 2004 was not measuring enough OHC due to the impossibility of the jump from around zero to 7E22 Joules in 2 years. This is further confirmed by the flatness of the 6-7 analyses when averaged since 2004 around the 7E22 Joule figure, when the OHC should have been showing up a chunk of Dr Trenberth's 145E20 (1.45E22) Joules per year. -
ProfMandia at 22:42 PM on 23 June 2010Ocean acidification
When I researched this topic for my blog post, The 800 lb. Gorilla in the Ocean, I was struck by how complicated the issue is with multiple feedback loops within the ecosystem. I was also suprised to find that the impact of ocean acidification on organisms is essentially a ten year old science. Given that, I was astonished (not really) that Willis over at WUWT could read one journal article that describes ocean acidification due to human emisisons of CO2, and with a wave of his hand, he could dismiss the last ten years of science. -
pinkie at 22:37 PM on 23 June 2010Watts it like at a climate skeptic speakers event?
Hi Megan, It doesn't sound like fun. I'd be mad if I was those two people photographed. I'm just trying to figure out why they are doing this tour. The tour is sponsored by he Climate sceptics party. Were they trying to sign up members to that political party or handing out party literature or party doctrine? -
JMurphy at 22:01 PM on 23 June 2010Ocean acidification
CBDunkerson wrote : "When I see the 'we do not know every detail of what impact it will have' argument on ocean acidification I always wonder if none of these people have ever owned a fish tank." It also makes me wonder how any of these so-called skeptics can get into an aeroplane, what with the lack of complete knowledge of flight, especially with regard to something like flow physics. They seem to be content with the lack of complete knowledge there (and the odd plane falling out of the sky now and again), but are very insistent on complete knowledge with regard to AGW, otherwise, obviously, it must all be discarded. -
mothincarnate at 21:59 PM on 23 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get past climate change
Mike over at watching the deniers pointed out Nova's response to the PNAS paper "Expert credibility in climate change". There's nothing that will get through to her - even if she read this, she's obviously so sure that she's right that no rebuttal, no evidence, nothing will get through. -
thingadonta at 21:47 PM on 23 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get past climate change
The paper by Beerling et al 2002 calculates an increase in c02 at the K-T boundary, and then infers a large amount of short term warming (~7.5degrees) by this increase. As such, it doesn't provide any direct evidence of short-term warming, all of the supposed warming is modelled. In your description of the end of the K-T, you completely leave out the Deccan Traps Volcanics, in order to come to the conclusion that T rises, and other associated effects were short term. The Deccan Traps volcanic episode is probably the largest series of long term volcanic eruptions in the last 65 million + years (I'll have to check it with the age of the basalt province in the West Pacific oceanic basin), about the time Inida separated from Africa (?). Beerling et al 2002, concludes that modelling of the Deccan Traps fails to account for an inferred large c02 rise at the end of the K-T. In other words, modelling, by non volcanologists, fails to account for an inferred C02 rise, which then fails to account for an inferred T rise. It's therefore so much easier just to leave out the major causative factor in the demise of 75% of the world's species about the K-T boundary-volcanism, which even Tim Flannery points out that the major extinction rates from the bolide impact only occurred about the North America continent, not globally. The rest of the extinctions, over a longer time period, were largely caused by Deccan Traps volcanism, much the same as at the End Permian (Siberian Traps Volcanism), when there was also, no bolide impact. Volcanoes are the major culprite in both extinction events, and both caused major c02 rises, and major T rises, over very long, not short, time periods. The evidence of the very long time (millions of years +)periods involved with eg hanges in T, which you fail to mention or discuss, is provided by: eg long term deposition of red beds at both the K-T and End Permian periods (and also the end Triassic as well-Gondwana break up volcanism-eg Karoo red beds), which occurred over intervals spanning at least several million years, which therefore can't relate to short term c02 rises. The red beds indicate hot house conditions of several million years, even about the poles, as a direct result of extensive volcanic episodes, not short term bolide impacts, and associated short term c02 rises. -
CBDunkerson at 21:08 PM on 23 June 2010Ocean acidification
When I see the 'we do not know every detail of what impact it will have' argument on ocean acidification I always wonder if none of these people have ever owned a fish tank. Anyone who HAS spent much time around fish tanks knows that when you get a new fish and you are adding it to an existing tank you should leave the fish in the plastic bag for a while and slowly exchange water from the tank to the bag. The point of this exercise is to normalize the temperature and pH... because just transferring a fish from one environment to the other can kill it. Fish don't react well to changes in pH or temperature... especially fast changes. Yet here we're changing both world wide at an ever increasing pace. No, we don't know exactly what problems that is going to cause. But we know enough to be sure it isn't going to be good. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 20:54 PM on 23 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get the CO2 lag
@caerbannog "According to Sourcewatch ..." We must give full information: Peter Dietze - "He was an official scientific IPCC TAR (Third Assessment Report) Reviewer." @Sean Thank you, really I should take into account and this work, sorry ... ... but I doubt (smaller - it's fact) and that the relatively large quantities of CO2, are ... -
Berényi Péter at 20:27 PM on 23 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
#81 doug_bostrom at 10:22 AM on 23 June, 2010 I would not call that article by Wu and Liu "fundamental" research. It attempts to refine application of fundamentals but it upsets no applecarts. Thermodynamics of open systems (those exchanging energy with their environment) is not settled, possibly never will. A proposed 45% increase in the alleged entropy production rate of Earth (from 893 mW m-2 K-1 to 1297 mW m-2 K-1) is not an easygoing move. More than twenty years after the science of climate is publicly declared to be settled, at least in principle, with uncountable millions pouring into computational models simulating khrrrm... what? I would be way happier with a paper discussing consensus in the climate science community not on AGW, but on a much simpler question. Is the entropy production rate of the climate system supposed to increase (I) or decrease (D) as a response to increasing atmospheric CO2 abundance? I or D? Which one? Percentage of scientists supporting either one of these noble causes? Degree of consensus? A story by Paltridge, one of the scientists on the list shows neatly how problematic fairly basic issues concerning non-equilibrium thermodynamics may get if one tries to apply them to climate (which is per definitionem a fairly steady state non-equilibrium process). Entropy 2009, 11, 945-948; doi:10.3390/e11040945 A Story and a Recommendation about the Principle of Maximum Entropy Production Garth W. Paltridge It is just a story, nothing serious. It tells more about the state of affairs in climate science than about climate itself. -
RSVP at 20:20 PM on 23 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get past climate change
Moderator Response: In order to apply Occam's razor, competing hypotheses must be equal in all other respects... Thank you for the clarification. Mr John Why they would do this one can only guess - perhaps they see it as sort of sport. I would not call critical thinking "sport". For instance, is there anything on the face of the Earth that does not readily absorb or emit infra red radiation? And how does the thermal mass of these not so invisible objects compare with the extra CO2 that has been put out by burning of fossil fuels? -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 20:15 PM on 23 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get past climate change
"... Royer found that when solar variations are taken into account, the "total radiative forcing" correlates excellently with past temperature reconstructions." Millions years, what about thousands ? Example Sun - insolation ... Clues from MIS 11 to predict the future climate a modelling point of view, Loutre, 2003: "However, we already know that CO 2 and insolation DO NOT PLAY TOGETHER. Indeed, insolation has been decreasing [such as long trend of temperature] since 11 kyr BP and CO2 concentration remains above 260 ppmv, with a general increasing trend over the last 8000 yr."Moderator Response: You have conflated the relationship between total radiative forcing and temperature with the relationship between CO2 and insolation.
As stated, CO2 has a number of forcings independent of climate (the obvious one being the burning of fossil fuels). The fact that during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, while CO2 in the atmosphere is rising by 15 gigatonnes per year, demonstrates the impact of human activity on atmospheric CO2.
The study you quoted strengthens this argument. -
omnologos at 20:12 PM on 23 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
chriscanaris (#94): "Consensus should not become a Procrustean Bed. When facts don't fit the consensus as neatly as we'd like, we need to ask why." But as Planck would have it, science (only?) progresses one funeral at a time... (the original quote is obviously much better: "Eine neue wissenschaftliche Wahrheit pflegt sich nicht in der Weise durchzusetzen, daß ihre Gegner überzeugt werden und sich als belehrt erklären, sondern vielmehr dadurch, daß ihre Gegner allmählich aussterben und daß die heranwachsende Generation von vornherein mit der Wahrheit vertraut gemacht ist.") -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 19:46 PM on 23 June 2010Ocean acidification
I'm surprised that Andrew Bolt is not quoted the latest Doney paper: The Growing Human Footprint on Coastal and Open-Ocean Biogeochemistry, Science, 18.06.2010 "Climate change, rising atmospheric carbon dioxide, excess nutrient inputs, and pollution in its many forms are fundamentally altering the chemistry of the ocean, often on a global scale and, in some cases, at rates greatly exceeding those in the historical and recent geological record. Major observed trends include a shift in the acid-base chemistry of seawater, reduced subsurface oxygen both in near-shore coastal water and in the open ocean, rising coastal nitrogen levels, and widespread increase in mercury and persistent organic pollutants." As these influences (good) separated? In the same issue of the Science, Kerr (Ocean Acidification Unprecedented, Unsettling) said: "By spewing carbon dioxide from smokestacks and tailpipes at a gigatons-per-year pace, humans are lowering the pH of the world ocean. [I agree ...]", but ... ... "It's less clear [...] how marine life will fare. With nothing in the geologic record as severe as the ongoing plunge in ocean pH, paleontologists can't say for sure HOW organisms that build carbonate shells or skeletons will react [...]. In the laboratory, corals always do poorly [!!!]. The lab responses of other organisms are mixed [...]. In the field, researchers see signs that coral growth does slow, oyster larvae suffer, and plankton with calcareous skeletons lose mass [...maybe it's the leverage effect only: "reduced subsurface oxygen both in near-shore coastal water and in the open ocean, rising coastal nitrogen levels, and widespread increase in mercury and persistent organic pollutants"?] ." -
Glenn Tamblyn at 19:42 PM on 23 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get past climate change
David/John A great set of posts so far. I have spent some time at Jo's site, trying to argue with her followers about the range of fallacies in her 'handbooks' - have a look at some of the early posts associated with her 'debate' with Andrew Glickson. Have a look at some of this http://joannenova.com.au/2010/04/no-dr-glikson/#comment-43990 and others What I find intriguing is how different supposed arguments can be contraditory or interlinked and yet this dosen't get commented on. The 'missing hotspot' which isn't missing, and on the same graphic the stratospheric cooling. The deep paleoclimate record mentioned here seems strange until you factor in long term changes in Solar output. Then it starts to make sense. Then the fact that CO2 is an integral part of explaining the deep paleoclimate record also says that the 'Its Saturated' or 'It can't do much more' arguments are totally invalid. So they hinge on the Standard Solar Model. Actually I am quite surprised that advocates of AGW don't push the deep paleoclimate aspect more strongly. It is a very strong argument for the major future impact of CO2 since it actually addresses a range of sceptic arguments - Saturation, It can't do much more, Feedbacks, Climate Sensitivity, etc. What things were like 500 Myr ago may not have resonance with the lay public, but if its significance could be conveyed strongly, it is a powerful argument. As another thought John. You might like to consider a challenge (since we all have so much spare time & energy available to devote to this in amongst the rest of our lives). Invite Jo to supply a series of guest posts here, with you supplying a series of posts on her site. Specific subjects such as topics from her Handbooks. And focused on the science, not 'warmists said...' or 'denialists said...' Gore & Monckton are not invited. And a great time was had by all.Moderator Response: Well observed Re: mutually exclusive arguments.
Jo Nova's four arguments from The Skeptic's Handbook are:
1) CO2 isn't causing the observed warming;
2) CO2 doesn't cause warming;
3) The observed warming that CO2 isn't causing isn't happening, and;
3) The CO2 that doesn't cause warming is already causing as much of the observed warming that isn't happening as it can.
Fascinating stuff. -
chris1204 at 19:41 PM on 23 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
KR @ 7 If you are forced to retract a paper, well, that means your paper was wrong, that clear mistakes have been pointed out. Nobody makes that kind of admission of error without proof - if there isn't clear proof of error, bad data, incorrect methods, etc., the paper will remain in the marketplace of ideas, and will be cited (or not) based on it's perceived worth. Shades of Galileo? I guess his ideas did last the distance but in the face of some fierce opposition. Toby Joyce @ 30 I'm delighted to see you quoting Stephen Jay Gould (one of my favourite writers)and especially some of his keenest insights. Bringing the subject back to Galileo, the evidence for a geocentric universe in his time was as good and maybe better than the evidence for a heliocentric world (and of course, today we all know the universe is not heliocentric). For what it's worth, the 'consensus' is no more than our best effort at understanding what's going on. Consensus should not become a Procrustean Bed. When facts don't fit the consensus as neatly as we'd like, we need to ask why. For example, if you run 20 studies all set at P < 0.05 signiifcance, at least one of those studies is likely to be false. If you run 20 studies all trending in the same direction with a P < 0.05, the probability that all the studies have yielded a valid result is 0.36. On the other hand, if 20 studies powered at P < 0.05 looking at the same variable all reject the null hypothesis, the probablity of the null hypothesis being true is virtually zero. However, we need to be wary of assuming that all studies included in such a sample are in fact evidence of the process in question. For example, this site ran a post on accelerating extinctions. Accelerating extinctions are not proof of AWG. AWG might well accelerate extinctions. However, accelerating extinctions in and of themselves tell us nothing. A common process could account for both AWG and accelerating extinctions. BTW, Arkadiusz, I read through the Polska Akademia Nauk (PAN) statement as per Toby Joyce @ 25 and it does endorse the consensus position strongly though I note the date is December 2007. Were you thinking of a more recent document? Or are you suggesting that a substantial minority of Polish scientists dissent from the 'consensus' but are held in higher regard than their equivalents in Anglo-Saxon circles? -
MrJon at 19:36 PM on 23 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get past climate change
RSVP #6: 'It didnt take that long to convince people about AGW, but given enough time and energy, the truth is coming out. ' I think it would be more accurate to say that it has taken a very long time to convince people about AGW and now the truth is being 'taken' out of the argument in by people such as Jo Nova and that Monckton chappie who prefer instead to prefer misrepresentation and obfuscation. Why they would do this one can only guess - perhaps they see it as sort of sport. -
JMurphy at 19:17 PM on 23 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
LWeisenthal wrote : "A lone pathologist in Australia, with no "credentials" came up with the idea that ulcers were caused by a bacterium (helicobacter pylori). No one believed him. He couldn't get the work published. He certainly wouldn't have qualified for any funding. It took nearly 20 years for the world to come around to his way of thinking. In 2005 he (Robin Warren) won the Nobel Prize." 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. Where are the Warren and Marshall of the so-called AGW Skeptics ? -
philipm at 19:17 PM on 23 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
It's worth repeating a point often missed in this "debate": AGW is not a theory. It's a prediction of a general theory of climate. Anyone who wants to argue against AGW therefore has to undo this general theory, which has held up well for explaining things as diverse as ice ages on Earth, and the climate of planets as different as Mars and Venus. Arguments against AGW that do not address why the underlying theory is flawed are generally pretty useless, which is why so much of the anti-AGW hype is just that: hype. -
Hypnos at 19:03 PM on 23 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
"Again the argument "you are to dumb to understand", an argument which any rational thinker should completly ingore as being even remotely valid." How ridicolous can it get? If you have concerns about a growing mole do you go to an oncologist or a philosophy professor? The sum of human knowledge has become so large that even geniuses cannot even beging to approach a satisfying level of understanding of every facet of it. Polymaths like Leonardo Da Vinci cannot exist in modern society. Our knowledge can only increase via specialization. Our modern society is based upon trust in the experts. The system cannot work if you don't trust the experts. It takes years to get a basic understanding of most complex subjects - you can't just spring up and claim your statements about climate science be given equally weight to those of a climate scientist with 20 years of experience. It would be like jumping into an operating room and pretending to perform open heart surgery after cramming an anatomy manual the night before. What is it about expert knowledge that people understand in medicine but in no other science? Is it having your life on the line - good old myopic egocentrism? -
JMurphy at 18:55 PM on 23 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
Karl_from_Wylie wrote : "Survey is not surprising. Would you be surprised to find a survey of Catholic priests found only 3 to 5 percent are agnostic?" Yes, I certainly would : I would be surprised if that few were atheists ! A far higher percentage would be agnostic, actually, so not surprising at all - just like the survey under discussion here. Very bad (and, frankly, desperate) analogy. -
omnologos at 18:30 PM on 23 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
tobyjoyce (#88): the political naivety apparent in the abuse of a scientific publication "to close the discussion on the scientific consensus so relevant parties could focus on solutions" is so large, given the glaring success called COP15, that I cannot imagine how warmists like those would be able to "focus on solutions" even if the whole human race were unanimously with them on this topic. In fact...what next? Unable to properly handle a scientific debate, how are the Pralls and Romms of this world going to handle a policy debate? -
JMurphy at 18:27 PM on 23 June 2010Ocean acidification
chriscanaris, staying briefly off topic, I would suggest that the original roots were Eastern, thanks to the preservation and transmission of that corpus by the Byzantine and Islamic empires. They, too, would have easily debunked the nonsense 'logic' coming from the so-called skeptics. -
tobyjoyce at 18:11 PM on 23 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
@robhon #95 Jim Prall posted a comment on Climate Progress that the intention of the paper was to close the discussion on the scientific consensus so relevant parties could focus on solutions. I presume it was aimed at the mass media and the politicians. Undermining denier's easy access to the media and to the political parties has provoked the waspish response from that quarter. Frankly, I hope it succeeds. We have been going around the mulberry bush of the same arguments for many years now. Maybe it is time for a move on? -
RSVP at 18:08 PM on 23 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get past climate change
...and it's just probably the other way around. It didnt take that long to convince people about AGW, but given enough time and energy, the truth is coming out. -
RSVP at 18:03 PM on 23 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get past climate change
There seems to be great concern here that people can be so easily swayed by "untruths". What happened to Occam's Razor?Moderator Response: In order to apply Occam's razor, competing hypotheses must be equal in all other respects... -
chris1204 at 17:18 PM on 23 June 2010Ocean acidification
Sorry, Clavius was 16th century :-). -
chris1204 at 17:17 PM on 23 June 2010Ocean acidification
15th Century monks were pretty cluey - we owe the preservation of the classical corpus to their efforts including the great philosophers of ancient times. Copernicus was a 15th century cleric as was Christopher Clavius, the Jesuit astronomer (there's a lunar crater named in his honour). A tiny bit off topic but it's nice to reflect on the cultural roots of the western scientific tradition. -
actually thoughtful at 16:57 PM on 23 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
#14 Berényi Péter, I look to you to provide balance to the pro-AGW majority on this site. This is probably your weakest counter-argument ever. What scientist who has ever approached NSF hasn't gotten a letter like this at least once? ALL ideas are interesting. NSF must be transparent and follow their own scoring and rating rules. Many more requests for funding come in that available funds. That Pielke went back to document the NSF "agenda" says a lot more about Pielke than it does about the NSF. -
Donald Lewis at 16:44 PM on 23 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get past climate change
"The ratio of work required to confuse as opposed to correct is vastly lopsided." LOL. I will quote you. -
Marcus at 16:43 PM on 23 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get past climate change
Also note that the ice-age she refers to would have had to have occurred at temperatures significantly *higher* than any of the ice-ages within during the Quaternary Era. This suggests that the glacier forming processes may well have been very different from those operating in more modern times (not surprising given that the planet looked *very* different during the Cambrian to the Triassic Eras. -
Marcus at 16:40 PM on 23 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get past climate change
There are two key things that Jo Nova is missing in these graphs-(1) that the sun was a full 10% "cooler" than by today's standards during this time & (b) that in spite of a significantly cooler Sun, minimum temperatures during this time period were never significantly cooler than average temperatures today (&, in fact, spent much of that time at several degrees warmer than the modern average). This disparity between warmer temperatures vs a cooler sun would actually seem to highlight CO2's vital role in maintaining temperatures far above the modern-day average throughout that time. What is of particular interest to me is that, from the end of the Devonian Era through the Carboniferous Era, CO2 levels fell by over 1000ppm, whilst temperatures also fell by nearly 10 degrees C. Why this is of interest is that this is the time period in which the majority of our coal & oil was being generated-& we're now burning these ancient carbon sinks to re-release this 400-300 million year old CO2 back into the atmosphere. To think this would have absolutely *no* impact on our modern climate-especially given our warmer sun-shows breathtaking naiveté in my opinion!Moderator Response: Re: Ordovician glaciation - someone mentioned this in another thread. They suggested the distribution of continental landmasses during the period enabled 'glaciation' to occur at higher average global temperatures - http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~rcb7/Ord.jpg
The 'glaciers' could be more accurately described as the south-polar ice cap.
Prev 2327 2328 2329 2330 2331 2332 2333 2334 2335 2336 2337 2338 2339 2340 2341 2342 Next
