Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2357 2358 2359 2360 2361 2362 2363 2364 2365 2366 2367 2368 2369 2370 2371 2372 Next
Comments 118201 to 118250:
-
Doug Bostrom at 04:44 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
Argus, for scientists this is not a matter of unquestioning belief but of useful demonstration whether by robust numerical treatments or physical observations or a combination thereof. That's what Rob is addressing when he says scientists are skeptics by nature. Scientists who skip those steps or fail to use them as an effective means of rebuttal yet assert that AGW is a false premise categorize themselves. There are in fact a few researchers who are threading this needle correctly yet have still failed to produce an effective contradiction to the theory that we're able to substantially change some important characteristics of the ocean-atmosphere system. -
KR at 04:37 AM on 4 June 2010CO2 is not the only driver of climate
Again - what are the actual measurements? Thought experiments and small scale analogies only take you so far, and do NOT trump actual data. Sunlight spectra at surface (multiple measurements, global averaging based on planetary geometry): 168 W/m^2 Thermal back-radiation spectra from atmosphere (REALLY well measured with spectroscopes): 324 W/m^2 Measured spectra of surface thermal radiation (multiple measurements in agreement with blackbody estimates): ~390 W/m^2 (396 as of the latest estimate, due to 4th power dependence on temperature and surface variations). Calculated evaporative cooling, based upon rainfall figures (what comes down must have gone up, known energy for evaporation and rainfall amounts): 78 W/m^2. Convection estimates, based on over the ocean bulk convection measurements, over the land measurements and calculations (multiple references in K&T): ~24 W/m^2, although there's actually some grounds to consider that an overestimate. 18 to 19 W/m^2 +/- 5 is rather more likely, as discussed in Kiehl and Trenberth, and in better agreement with the most recent radiative estimates. This is covered in section 4 - they generously attribute anything left over after the evaporative and radiation measurements to convection. This is still <6% of the total energy exchange. As to the small scale observations and thought experiments - the atmosphere is a heck of a lot bigger than a vacuum box, or even a house. It's important to take that into account. The measured values show that convection isn't the primary form of energy transfer. Unless you can produce different measurements, I'm going to consider these assertions contradicted by evidence to be unsupportable. Otherwise my belief in my own importance to the world would lead me to stand around in the middle of heavy traffic... -
NewYorkJ at 04:24 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
Good post. Paranoid fear about losing one's "stuff" is certainly a reason for science denial. There's also the general paranoid fear of government intervention, which cripples many WUWT readers from engaging in critical thought. As eluded to above, I also think denial is partly a result of tribalistic tendencies. The tribe wants to "win". Those who listen to right-wing radio know that you can't be a real conservative or patriotic American if you buy into the global warming "hoax". Related... http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/06/01/how-low-can-you-go-2/ Al Gore's work on communicating the science is a double-edged sword. He's inherently a polarizing figure, with the 2000 election dispute cementing that view. So some have a tendency to oppose climate science because Al Gore supports it. Doing otherwise would make Gore wealthier, and liberals would "win". I think Watts (a Republican activist) drives an electric car (or more importantly, makes a big deal out of driving an electric car), because he wants to establish cred. Unlike that "hypocrite elistist Gore", who has a big house and flies in airplanes while preaching about emissions, Watts does the opposite. It's a bit of a marketing ploy. Note also that U.S. Republicans tend to be strong supporters of nuclear power. For most of them, this is generally preferred over any renewables. When you ask them to explain, their reasoning isn't very robust, and reveals that they see it as a way to win the environmental issue. Most enviros/liberals opposed nuclear power in the 1970's. Expand nuclear power to help the environment and the Republican tribe "wins". -
Argus at 04:19 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
#56, JMurphy is making the world a simple one, indeed (see full quote below!). This is because 'anyone who denies the science is, by default, a denier'. - It's that simple: you cannot deny 'the science' without being a denier. The science is always right. So the branch of climate science that stands behind the AGW hypothesis, represents True Science (or 'the science')! Other climate scientists that happen not to be AGW believers, are 'deniers', because they deny 'the science'. Their science is not True Science, because there can only be one science. It sounds like a religion to me. Quote: ''I have always been bemused by the way so-called skeptics are sensitive to those words you have highlighted, as if they can see the danger in being tagged with such descriptive words, while simultaneously showing how precisely those terms DO describe them exactly : anyone who denies the science is, by default, a denier, surely ? '' -
Ib Nielsen at 04:11 AM on 4 June 2010Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
The temperature gradient in the atmosphere of 6K/km is mainly due to the adiabatic compression of the air (gravitation) rather than to the mysterious greenhouse effect. http://freenet-homepage.de/klima/atmoseff-en.htm -
Phila at 04:05 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
"May I ask your opinion as to why there is no AGW Theory? If we had one to test, this would quickly end any debate as to what we should call each other." Please see The Discovery of Global Warming. -
Phila at 04:01 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
#9 "From a political standpoint, (C)AGW is a liberal issue - it argues for bigger government. Thus, liberals tend to support the theory and conservatives tend to oppose it on that grounds." That view is too simplistic, in my opinion. In the USA, at least, there's no consistent "big government" or "small government" party. Both sides will argue for more or less government power, depending on the issue. In regards to AGW, conservatives tend to see it as an "environmental" issue -- as opposed to, say, a national security or personal responsibility issue -- and so they tend to oppose it on principle. Many liberals believe that more government action on AGW is necessary, granted (just as many conservatives believe that more government action is needed on immigration). But I don't know anyone on the left who'd oppose a viable "free market" solution to AGW on principle. I certainly wouldn't. -
johnd at 03:51 AM on 4 June 2010CO2 is not the only driver of climate
KR at 02:38 AM on 4 June, 2010, better than vacuum chambers and thermos bottles for a real world observation is perhaps ones own home. Our sole form of heating over winter is a large slow combustion wood heater in a large room at one end of the house. The heater has a fan to distribute heat out of vents at the front. Without the fan going the heater can quickly become unbearably hot when standing next to it and it takes considerable time before any warmth at all is felt at the extremities of the room. With the fan going the warmth is better distributed, but there is still some warmth differential within the room, but not as much as without the fan. However we also have a ceiling fan near the heater, and when this is switched on, running only on slow, the warmth is distributed much faster and more evenly. Not only that, with the ceiling fan the warmth gradually works it way through all the doorways to other rooms right to the further extremities of the house whilst reducing the high temperatures next to the heater. In summer time, an evaporative cooler with it's inbuilt fan is much more effective way of cooling than sitting an open ice box in the middle of the room hoping that the heat from the warmer room will radiate to the colder ice in order to cool the room. -
theendisfar at 03:50 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
@66 robhon, Fair enough, but again in order for me to deny something, I need a well defined theory or hypothesis to 'deny'. Agree/Disagree? Your claim that there is a 'greater scientific body of evidence' is not sufficient and often a Red Herring. I worked 3 years at a major US Scientific Agency and know quite well the effects of 'mountains of evidence' both how and why they are often used. The evidence shows the Effects, not the Cause of GW. The A in AGW is quite questionable. May I ask your opinion as to why there is no AGW Theory? If we had one to test, this would quickly end any debate as to what we should call each other. This is not trivial. While we cannot do tests with multiple Earth's, we can take the statements to describe the AGW phenomena and verify whether they are accurate based upon known sciences. In any event, AGW Denier and Believer is good enough for me. Count me in as a Denier. -
Doug Bostrom at 03:30 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
Sorry, you won't convince a nonbeliever until he/she can repeat the methods and arrive at the same conclusions. Give that the NRC report I mentioned and indeed the entire field in discussion here includes observations derived from such work as ice cores requiring years of effort to retrieve, radiometers on orbital platforms and the like, you're then doomed forever to wander a wilderness of disbelief, theendisfar. Some people are objecting to the tone of this thread because Rob's original essay necessarily must speak of people who for one reason or another find themselves in contradiction with a fairly smooth continuum of research findings stretching back over 200 years. Apparently we are not to apply any form of general identification or linguistic shorthand to classify this rough category of persons. That's a fundamentally sound demand-- avoiding generalizations to classify humans in all their variety is one of the lessons of history most of us can agree with. Still-- labels aside-- we're left with a phenomenon to discuss, namely how and why this diaspora of understanding should arise. Further, this phenomenon of disagreement can and does have an impact on our physical world. How we think clearly can change our world; we know of the power of thought from such evidence as recent problems with acid rain, chlorofluorocarbons and the like, issues that could not arise without human mentation. Among those disagreeing with climate research findings we include in our companionship a variety of people who in a selective way do not subscribe to the process and results of scientific inquiry that have proven effective time and again in improving our understanding of our natural environment. This group is fairly insistent that findings from the arena of research topics that produce understanding of our climate system should not be applied to our world of human affairs, a sphere of activity which given our large population and intensive economic activity necessarily produces noticeable effects on our physical environment. We may reasonably conclude that such a choice to selectively exclude a broad array of knowledge from our evolution of behavior will produce measurable changes in our physical world. Failure to apply newly acquired understanding is not a matter hermetically contained within our heads, it reaches beyond our discourse and will in fact affect the Earth's climate system. So how can it be that discussing why and how people choose to accept one part of scientific inquiry yet for whatever reason will not accept another is not a legitimate subject of discussion at a site that is explicitly devoted to the subject of thinking about climate? For my part I cannot think of an answer to that question that is sufficiently compelling to arrest my sense of curiosity about it, nor my concern that ignoring the topic will result in knock-on effects in the world I live in. -
actually thoughtful at 03:21 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
@CBDunkerson - post 44 You mention the rate of fuel cost increases. Natural gas, which is a reasonable stand in for the rate of electric (marginal unit of electricity comes from natural gas), propane and (identically) natural gas has been rising at an average rate of 6% since 1967. Over the last 10 years, including the precipitous (and clearly short term) price drops in 2009 and 2010 (through March) the rate is 4.5% The rate over the entire 41 year period (but now excluding 2009/2010) is 7.2% And finally, the trend we were on, and will soon be on again - the rate of increase for the ten years ending in 2008 was 7.5% So the rate of increase in fuel prices is at least 6% and more likely over 7% annually. This has been true through 40+ years of energy exploration, booms, busts, energy crisis, new discoveries, etc. My source is http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n3010us3A.htm (although I use the monthly data). 1967 is as far back as data was recorded. -
chris at 03:20 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
Does Anthony Watts dream of electric sheep? -
chris at 03:18 AM on 4 June 2010On temperature and CO2 in the past
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:20 PM on 31 May, 2010 Which study by "Jianli Chen" are you talking about Arkadiusz? You keep saying stuff that deeper investigation shows to be untrue. Can you not be more specific in your reference to papers rather than making all these unspecified quotations? I doubt the Eemian was 6 oC warmer than now, but unless we know what you're referring to how can we explore this??? -
Argus at 03:14 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
#40, JMurphy : "Does that mean that you are on the side of the Creationists ? Or the 9/11 troofers ? Or the Flat-Earthers ?" No. Who said anything about me? I was talking about 'people'. When Al Gore started out, he was the under-dog, doubtfully beaten by Bush (whom people around the world did not think highly of), and with a great sympathetic interest in science and environment. His movie travelled around the world and was a great success. But after that he became rich and famous, and got the Nobel prize. Rumours had it, he was living in a 20 room mansion with 8 bathrooms, all heated by natural gas, and of course travelling around the world in a private jet. Suddenly he is not the hero he once was, and people become skeptic towards his message, many errors are found in his movie, and so on. I am sure that if Michael Moore (for example) now made a movie that proved AGW is a myth, that could be the next successful climate movie. People like to see self-assured scientists proven wrong. Another example: no matter how many revered scientist are trying to explain why astrology is occult mumbo-jumbo with no scientific basis whatsoever, people still believe in it. -
theendisfar at 03:03 AM on 4 June 2010CO2 is not the only driver of climate
@245 KR, Ponder this scenario for a moment. Heat an object to a given temp in a vacuum chamber and record the rate of cooling. Repeat but now flood the vacuum chamber with dry air at sea level (or close). Record the rate of cooling. Say the Radiation cooling Rate is R and the Convection rate is C. If it turns out that there is ever a case that 2R > C+R, then the laws of physics must be rewritten. In any event, ponder the statement and I'll elaborate tomorrow. Note that in zero gravity convection does not take place so the test would be invalid. -
Rob Honeycutt at 02:57 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
@theendisfar... But I still hold that every scientist is a skeptic by nature. It is an inherent part of the scientific process that makes it work so profoundly well. So, I would say the entire scientific community is skeptical of AGW and that is not what we're referring to. "Refuter" or "rejecter" might be better but those are somewhat clumsy words for some reason. I would still hold that you "deny" that AGW is real in the face of the greater scientific body of evidence, where the other side "believes" the science behind AGW is correct. I honestly think "AGW denier" and "AGW believer" are the most accurate terms for anyone who is not an active publishing scientist if the field of climate science. I don't think "advocate" is a good term either. No one "advocates" for AGW, the same as no one "denies" climate. -
chris at 02:53 AM on 4 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
HumanityRules at 10:07 AM on 3 June, 2010 Kinnard et al. (2008) have used historical and contemporary records of sea ice to reconstruct an Arctic sea ice record (maximum and minimum extent) since 1870. Both the maximum and minimum sea ice extents were considerably larger during the early warming period (e.g. 1910-1940) compared to the contremporary warming period (see Figure 2 of their paper if you can access it). It simply wasn't as warm in the Arctic in the early part of the 20th century as now and the evidence indicates that sea ice regression was much less pronounced than the contemporary period. And we have to be careful with regional effects. The Spitzbergen temperature/ice variations that Arkadiusz referred to relates to a quite well understood local effect due to periodic influx of Atlantic waters into the Nordic seas, as described by Macias Fauria et al (2009). So if one was to assume that historic sea ice dynamics around Spitzbergen was representative of the whole Arctic, one might indeed construct a fallacious AGW theory. However scientists (as opposed to Moncktons!) are trying to find stuff out. Therefore they generally address the evidence in its entirety and with some attention to detail. So all of what we know about the warming in the early part of the 20th century is incorporated in "a workable AGW theory", some of which is described briefly on this thread here. We don't make stuff up to suit comfy scenarios. As the paper that Arkadiusz's extracted from concludes the evidence indicates that "...the Arctic is on its way to a new warmer state". -
theendisfar at 02:44 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
@61 robhon, One other note... I very intentionally tried to use the term "climate change denier" rather than "climate denier" in my post. 'AGW Denier' is more accurate if not also more appropriate, though AGW Skeptic would be the most accurate. The term Denier assumes that we have something to deny. Without a proper Theory, or hypothesis for that matter, no one can truly deny what no one is claiming. As a skeptic I typically refer to 'believers' as AGW Advocates. -
KR at 02:38 AM on 4 June 2010CO2 is not the only driver of climate
Is convection more efficient than radiation? Don't assert - take a measurement! I have little (read that "no") use for assertions that aren't driven by real-world observations. Those are beliefs, not evidence, and beliefs cannot falsify observations. The actual measurements of convection and thermal radiation show that in this case it is not more efficient. These are measured values observed in nature. What are your measurements (not thought experiments) of surface heat transfer that indicate otherwise? If you have different measurements, you can argue over observed efficiency. However, current measurements indicate that thermal radiation is ~16x more efficient under these conditions than convection, and that evaporation/latent heat is >3x as efficient as convection. I'll note that the rate of change for these pathways will likely be very different - as temperatures shift, they will increase/decrease by various amounts. But under current conditions convection is a minor contributor to surface/atmosphere energy transfer. -
Paul D at 02:19 AM on 4 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part II – Here Comes the Sun?
Uh Ohhhhhh. Monckton now deputy leader of UKIP: http://www.ukip.org/content/latest-news/1666-lord-monckton-is-new-deputy-leader -
theendisfar at 02:00 AM on 4 June 2010CO2 is not the only driver of climate
@243 KR, I have little use for credentials as I have little use for taking 'peer review' at face value. Citing Peer Review without a complete understanding is little different than waving someone else's credentials. I was just asking that anything presented in this conversation be understood completely by the presenter. This way we will not be using someone else's credibility, or lack there of, as a crutch or deficit. "Thermals (convection) account for ~24 W/m^2, evaporation is 78, and radiation is 390 W/m^2 " If convection is more efficient than radiation, then the above statement is false. For example, think of a Thermos. If convection were less efficient than radiation, then they would not use a vacuum to reduce cooling. I will take the time to read the article, but can you respond to my reply? Perhaps another way is to pose a question. When is Convection not more efficient than Radiation? -
Ned at 02:00 AM on 4 June 2010On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
Okay, I'm coming late to this thread, but it sounds like some people are downloading the PIPS output images and counting pixels to characterize changes in sea ice. What map projection are the PIPS output images in? It looks like polar stereographic to me. That projection doesn't preserve equal area, so you cannot simply use a count of pixels to determine ice-covered area. Pixels will have different areas depending on their proximity to the pole. -
Philippe Chantreau at 01:47 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
My electricity is hydro, if I had an electric car, I wouldn't need nukes or carbon. I'm not opposed to nukes as a matter of principle, BTW. Billions are bound to perish? What's that about now? Didn't someone earlier complain about emtionally charged language? -
Ned at 01:46 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
BP, the deletion of your comment might have had something to do with the suggestion that those who disagree with you have no option except "mass murder on a truly apocalyptic scale". It would be great if people on all sides would work hard to keep this thread as calm as possible, and to keep the inevitable politics etc. from spilling out of this thread and into others. -
actually thoughtful at 01:46 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
@ Berényi Péter You posted about nuclear. I have already pointed out that Watts' 10kw system is large enough to charge the car. Others have pointed out that nuclear has a VERY significant carbon footprint from the concrete in the construction. I am not sure what you are upset about? Perhaps I am missing something? -
Rob Honeycutt at 01:45 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
One other note... I very intentionally tried to use the term "climate change denier" rather than "climate denier" in my post. I think it's a little absurd to suggest that anyone would deny the existence of climate. I don't think "denier" is an inaccurate term being that these they are going against the broader body of scientific work in this field. Probably AGW denier would be a more accurate way to say it. "Climate change science refuter" just doesn't work. "Climate change skeptic," as I suggested above, is something that I would reserve for ALL scientists working in the field of climate science. -
theendisfar at 01:41 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
@255 Marcus, Hmmm, seems like your little "Convection/Evaporation" pseudo-hypothesis was still-born, theendisfar, given that you've got absolutely nothing solid to back it up. Listen, I'm a grown man, your sarcasm may feed your ego, but to me it is simply an annoyance at best, and at worst an attempt to exit a debate that you are not capable of attending. Please feel free to continue, but also understand I have no beef with you and these annoyances only introduce unneeded typing and take up space. Please join us at http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=5&t=239&&n=76#15225 Let's Peer Review each other's understanding of this subject and I guarantee we will all learn something new. -
Berényi Péter at 01:32 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
OK, I am finished with this thread. My post was definitely ontopic, was not ranting, was rational, had references and involved far less politics than the article itself. With no nuke and no carbon Anthony's electric car would never recharge. On top of that billions are bound to perish. Not a big deal. If you abhor views different from your own, you have the right to write all the comments as well. Moderation here is oppressive and unreasonable. Enuff said. Now, you can delete one more piece. -
Rob Honeycutt at 01:32 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
Wow. A lot of activity took place here over the evening. Not sure where to start... 1) I find it interesting that so much of the discussion has revolved around the politics of my post rather than the larger point of my post. In the body of the post my intent was to paint VERY broad strokes regarding ideological influences hopefully without pegging anyone into any position (maybe an impossible task). In that I was trying to feel out the mechanisms for the ever expanding gulf in people's positions on AGW not create a discussion on political positions. I tried to go out of my way to diffuse conflict by saying this was my own biased perspective. 2) I actually believe that my post is very much in keeping with John's wonderful website here. The whole concept of Skeptic Science is to "take back" the term "skeptical" from those who claim to be skeptical of AGW. Science is inherently skeptical. I would hold that everyone in that inner sphere of peer reviewed science (Fig 2) is a skeptical scientist, from Svensmark and Lindzen to Hansen and Mann. The real science, the real skeptical science, is clearly coming down on the side of AGW being real (again, in keeping with the position of this site). That is NOT a political position, it's just where the data are pointing. That is a skeptical science position and the basis for the whole argument I laid out. 3) Please don't miss the actual point I'm trying to make in this post people! I'm saying there is common ground. There is a place in the middle where the ideologies dissolve and we find we're all sitting in the same boat together. If Anthony Watts gets giddy over electric cars then that says to me there is a silver lining to this incredibly divisive issue. Let's explore THAT rather than whether my biased vision of why it's the case is true or not. I'll reiterate the end of my post. Don't stop fighting to make sure the science is right. BUT we should all be looking for the clean energy solutions that make us as giddy as Anthony Watts is over his car. -
KR at 01:29 AM on 4 June 2010CO2 is not the only driver of climate
theendisfar, there's an excellent paper by Kiehl and Trenberth showing measured values for radiation, convection, evaporation, etc. at the Earths surface. I understand this was updated recently - values haven't changed more than 2%, mostly in a higher average thermal radiation value for the surface due to the 4th order dependence of radiation to temperature. Sorry I don't have a link to the most recent update. They explicitly include convection and evaporation in their models. Thermals (convection) account for ~24 W/m^2, evaporation is 78, and radiation is 390 W/m^2 (updated if I recall to 396 in the most recent writeup). Thermals therefore account for ~5.7% of energy leaving the Earths surface, thermals and evaporation for ~21% - significant, if not dominant, energy flows. They are of course not at all involved in TOA energy exchanges. As to credentials and the like, theendisfar, I personally don't have the resources to recreate all lines of evidence for any scientific assertion made - that seems to be what you're asking for. I read the papers, I examine the methods, and look for well supported conclusions. If the evidence is weak or the conclusions unwarranted I'll ignore that source in the future. If you feel the consensus view is incorrect, collect your evidence and publish it. That's how reputations are made in science; proving something different! Peer review isn't perfect, but it's pretty d**m good - and if you manage to slip something through peer review that is WRONG it will be gladly pointed out by other scientists interested in correcting the record (and getting something published :) ). On the other hand, if what you want is to butt heads while waving credentials - have fun, but I'm going to decline to participate. -
tobyjoyce at 01:28 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
@Blessthefall, You made the allegation. I investigated and found it had no real foundation (excuse the pun), especially when compared to the moolah flowing to denialists. As you made the allegation, and cannot substantiate it, I think we can dismiss it. Let's have a communal shrug on that one. -
chris at 01:22 AM on 4 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part II – Here Comes the Sun?
I would also add Lean and Rind (2008) to the list of pukka solar scientists (Judith Lean) who have established that solar variation has made a minimal contribution to warming of the last 100 years (perhaps 10%) and a slight cooling contribution during the last 25 years. J. L. Lean and D. H. Rind (2008) How natural and anthropogenic influences alter global and regional surface temperatures: 1889 to 2006 Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L18701.Response: Yikes, how had I missed that paper for the It's the sun page?! Now added, thanks for the link! -
theendisfar at 01:17 AM on 4 June 2010CO2 is not the only driver of climate
@241 Riccardo, I meant no disrespect, please allow me to clarify. Without knowing your background, reply @236 seemed as though you were parroting someone else's understanding rather than having the understanding yourself. I have no issue with taking your word that you are a physicist, no need to discuss that. From @233, have I made any false statements? Can you see where I'm going? If not, I am pleased to clarify my position or arguments. -
Riccardo at 01:06 AM on 4 June 2010CO2 is not the only driver of climate
theendisfar, I take as a form of due respect to listen to what people say regardless their degree, not even scientific journals ask for the degree. I do have a physics degree but i'm not interested in discussing it. -
JMurphy at 01:00 AM on 4 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part II – Here Comes the Sun?
How is it possible for Monckton to keep getting away with all these falsehoods ? I really can't understand it. -
John Cook at 00:56 AM on 4 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part II – Here Comes the Sun?
Just letting everyone know George Monbiot has written an article about John Abraham's comprehensive rebuttal of Monckton in the Guardian. The article is Viscount Monckton, another fallen idol of climate denial. An exerpt:Abraham, like the other brave souls who have taken on this thankless task, has plainly spent a very long time on it. He investigates a single lecture Monckton delivered in October last year. He was struck by the amazing claims that Monckton made: that climate science is catalogue of lies and conspiracies. If they were true, it would be a matter of the utmost seriousness: human-caused climate change would, as Monckton is fond of saying, be the greatest fraud in scientific history. If they were untrue, it was important to show why. As Abraham explains at the beginning of his investigation, his scientific credentials didn't mean that he was automatically right, any more than Monckton's lack of scientific credentials meant that he was automatically wrong. Every claim Monckton made would be judged on its merits. Where Monckton gave references, Abraham would follow them up, seeking to discover whether he had accurately represented the papers he cited, or whether the authors of those papers agreed with his interpretation. Where he did not give references, Abraham would see whether Monckton's claims were consistent with published scientific data. The results of Abraham's investigation are astonishing: not one of the claims he looks into withstands scrutiny. He exposes a repeated pattern of misinformation, distortion and manipulation, as he explains in the article he has written for the Guardian. Some of Monckton's assertions are breath-taking in their brazen disregard of facts. He has gravely misrepresented papers and authors he refers to, in some cases he appears to have created data, graphs and trends out of thin air: at least that was how it appeared to Abraham when Monckton gave no references and his graphs and figures starkly contradicted the published science.
Good to see JA's huge effort is getting more exposure. -
theendisfar at 00:52 AM on 4 June 2010CO2 is not the only driver of climate
@236 Riccardo, In the IPCC reports their diagrams note that convection is only responsible for ~10% of cooling the Earth's surface. This is plainly false, see #239. Are you suggesting that radiation is more efficient at transferring energy than convection because moist convection was included in a 1964 model? How about dry convection? While GHG's may slow the rate of Radiation cooling, the increase in temps will only cause the radiation and convection rates to increase, where the convection rate of cooling increases more than the radiation. Again, since convection is not impeded, no greenhouse, the cooling rate is free to increase as temps rise. Now assume that this is new data and you are the Peer reviewing. Are you qualified to answer or must you have a document to refer to? -
theendisfar at 00:34 AM on 4 June 2010CO2 is not the only driver of climate
@235 yocta, Here's the claim. If you heat a body with radiation and it has both radiation and convection as a means to cool, it will cool more so via convection and as you increase the surface temp, you increase the convection rate more so than the radiation rate. You be the Peer. Is this correct or is it incorrect? -
theendisfar at 00:29 AM on 4 June 2010CO2 is not the only driver of climate
@234 scaddenp, Not sure I understand you question exactly, but here's a start. Assumption: By TOA, I assume you mean the actual Top of Atmosphere at 0 ATM. Let's tackle convection and then we can get to evaporation. Convection is caused by a combination of gravity and differences in fluid density. When the Earth's surface is heated, it not only radiates energy to cool, but it also conducts heat energy to the adjacent air above it. When this occurs the air expands and becomes less dense than the cooler air above it. At this point gravity comes into play and pulls more strongly on the cooler more dense air above, effectively dragging the cooler air underneath the warmer air. The Earth's surface warms that parcel of air and the process repeats. Convection only occurs up to the tropopause because at that point the temperature scale inverts and temps get higher with altitude. This is why you often see thunderstorms form anvils since the cooler upper troposphere stops where the stratosphere begins to warm. It is also worth mentioning that the atmosphere is elastic in nature where the tropopause varies in altitude depending upon the temperature. Lower at the poles, cooler more dense air, higher in the tropics, warmer less dense air. This is important because if the atmosphere was fixed in size the temp would rise faster with more heat added since it could not expand to reduce both pressure and temp. So in real terms, convection is only relevant to the TOA in that it transports most of the energy the Earth is cooling up to the tropopause where radiation finishes the job. -
theendisfar at 00:01 AM on 4 June 2010CO2 is not the only driver of climate
Re 234, 235, and 236 Thank you for your replies, I am pleased to have a detailed discussion on this subject. So that I may better understand at what level I need to be responding will you please let me know if you are trained in physics? I am happy to provide and accept links as evidence, but I need to know whether the person 'providing' material understands the evidence or is simply referring to it as Peer-Reviewed and therefor fact. Can we agree to review the 'facts' ourselves? I claim that I have enough understanding of thermodynamics and related physical sciences to discuss these topics with anyone. I am not claiming this for any other reason than to let you all know that what I write is completely within my understanding and I will not be parroting someone else's understanding. I expect the same of you. I wish to convey that I do not have a problem with AGW believers, I only wish to get some answers and to provide some myself. While I will not resort to ad hominem, feel free to be as condescending as the moderators will allow, I understand emotions sometimes run high. With that, I look forward to gaining a better understanding of the believer's position and hopefully I can help you all understand the position of a scientific skeptic. My name is Steve A. Morris, but will keep theendisfar to remain consistent. Thanks -
JMurphy at 23:53 PM on 3 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
Berényi Péter wrote : "There are twenty two occurrences of expressions like "denial", "denialism", "denialist", "denier" or "deny" under this post so far. If it is not ranting, I don't know what the current rules are supposed to be." I have always been bemused by the way so-called skeptics are sensitive to those words you have highlighted, as if they can see the danger in being tagged with such descriptive words, while simultaneously showing how precisely those terms DO describe them exactly : anyone who denies the science is, by default, a denier, surely ? The fact that we have different words to describe those who hold the other types of denial (Creationist, Troofer, Birther, etc.), only shows that one word is not capable of encapsulating the whole gamut of Global Warming denial. Except, of course, for a word that involves the various forms of the verb 'to deny'. And the reason why all those forms of the word 'deny' are not ranting, as you think, is because 'ranting' involves anger, hyperbole, extravagance, noise, vehemence, bombast, etc. See any presentation by that Monckton chap for a good example of such... -
Marcus at 23:47 PM on 3 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
Hmmm, seems like your little "Convection/Evaporation" pseudo-hypothesis was still-born, theendisfar, given that you've got absolutely nothing solid to back it up. Your "theory" does nothing to explain current warming trends in the lower atmosphere, & is directly contradicted by the cooling in the upper atmosphere. All-in-all I'd say that this, & a lack of a little thing we like to call EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE gives your little pseudo-hypothesis the one-two knockout punch. I mean, I could claim that the atomic theory is *wrong* & that the universe is made up of gnomes, but if I can't back it up with PROOF, then I'd just end up looking a little bit silly-kind of the way you do right now! -
Blessthefall at 23:43 PM on 3 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
@tobyjoyce: I stated that both sides receive money and both sides are fueled by politics. Pointing out that Hansen and "libertarian" think tanks receive money from this or that organization only proves my point. Moreover, saying that it was "probably spent on lab equipment, salaries, etc." is akin to shrugging your shoulders: we'll never know what that money was spent on, but we do know that Hansen received money from a politically connected organization. @Riccardo: Bias exists in the scientific community. Not only in climate science, but in psychological science, biological science, and so forth. That "single scientist bias" is actually representative of the whole scientific community, regardless if someone is pointing out the bias. Impartial science is impossible and we're going to see bias on both sides of the argument. My point, which was eventually backed up by tobyjoyce, shows that climate science is not impartial. Whether some of these scientists are trying to be biased or hiding it is irrelevant. @Berényi Péter: I pointed out the exact same thing with a rather scathing response, but my post was deleted. I think anyone who wants to inject politics into the science (both of which I've shown to be inseparable - at least in the US) on this website can now do so because this guest post violates the comment policy and violates Skeptical Science's choice of "taking the politics out of the science." Mr. Cook, I'd like to know why my first post was deleted when others are saying the exact same thing I am and their posts are not getting deleted.Response: Early in these threads, I try to keep the discussion focused on science and adhering to the comments policies. I deleted comments from both sides (lately, it seems I've been deleting more "pro-AGW" comments than skeptic ones, particularly on the Monckton thread where people just couldn't help themselves.
Unfortunately sometimes the discussion degrades to the point where I just have to wash my hands of it - I only have limited hours in the day to get stuff done - and hope that discussion will move onto a more fruitful topic on the next post.
I wish I could give a more satisfying answer but at this point, I'm not particularly impressed by comments from both sides and would sit down and shred much of this whole thread if I could spare the time. -
theendisfar at 23:31 PM on 3 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
@ doug_bostrom 18 "You're simply wrong." Sorry, you won't convince a nonbeliever until he/she can repeat the methods and arrive at the same conclusions. I am most certainly open to persuasion if someone can give me their methods so I can repeat the test. And we don't need 1,000's of Earth to do tests. One simple exercise is to measure the cooling rate of an object in a vacuum, and then measure the cooling rate with 1 ATM of dry air, then add water. This will give us a good idea of the efficiencies of radiative and convective cooling. This will help determine if the models are calibrated correctly. You won't find a more reliable source. If you don't understand the weight this report carries I'm afraid there's really no perfectly kind way of saying you're quite out of your league in making judgments about this topic. Sigh, I'm often amazed that so few today take the time to check things for themselves and leave it up to others. Moody's Investment Ratings is a perfect example. You won't find a more reliable source. They still rate US Bonds as AAA. That's laughable at best and quite sad when you ponder it. Check out http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=5&t=239&&n=76#15225 on occasion. There I will point out exactly how the Greenhouse Effect is only a small piece of the Earth's thermo-system. Let's do the peer-review right here at Skeptical Science, no need to take someone else's word, right? We have scientists here. -
Ned at 23:29 PM on 3 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
John Russell writes: I could add more but perhaps it's best just to ask, do others share my unease? I do. In fact, my first reaction on seeing this new thread was "Oh no...." Clearly, some people would like to discuss "meta" issues, in ways that bring in all kinds of normally shunned topics (politics/ideology, other people's motivations, etc.) I guess my one suggestion or humble request would be that everybody try to keep the politics etc. "quarantined" in this one thread. And if this post attracts a lot of new visitors[1], let's all do our best to gently help them learn the standards that are maintained in the more normal science-centric threads on this site. [1] With the prominent reference to Anthony Watts in the title of this thread, I'm half expecting an influx of new visitors from WUWT-land. -
Marcus at 23:26 PM on 3 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
theendisfar. Well you'd know all about making incorrect conclusions, wouldn't you? So are you *honestly* saying that the Greenhouse Gas theory is wrong, and isn't the cause of our planet being 33 degrees warmer than its Black-Body temperature? As I said above, if you're going to challenge a theory that was established over a century ago-& has been built on via experimentation & observation over the intervening period-you'd better have something better than "well, it's wrong 'cause I just SAY SO"-which is, in effect, what you're doing. What you're also doing is applying extremely *simple* mechanics-like convection & evaporation-to an extremely complex thing like our climate. As to your answer to point (b), the thing is that global temperatures fluctuated between 18 & 24 degrees C over that 400 million year period-largely in line with shifts in CO2 concentrations. If your explanation held true, then the planet would have *only* gotten cooler. As to the 2nd part of your "proof", I could just as easily say that the reason Earth has been locked in ice over these time periods-in spite of a warmer sun-is that, compared to the pre-Quaternary era-Planet Earth is relatively CO2 constrained. That the coldest parts of Earth's history coincide with the lowest levels of CO2 in its history are surely not a coincidence, & highlight how much more important these gases are than incoming solar radiation (within reason) in government average temperatures. Similarly with your answer to (c). Long-term studies of past climate & sunspot proxies have shown an *extremely* close correlation-with the exception of the last 30-60 years, when CO2 emissions have been rising. Again, coincidence? Sounds to me like you're the one trying to spread red herrings around Theendisfar. Like I said before, there is plenty of empirical evidence out there for the Greenhouse Effect-& the enhanced Greenhouse Effect. When you can provide proof to rebut this evidence, then you might have some credibility. At the moment, though, you have precious little. -
Marcus at 23:14 PM on 3 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
"Anyway. If one thinks carbon dioxide is dangerous, the rational track to take is to promote nuclear energy. This is the only technology mature enough to supply all the electric power needed by the economy right now." Absolute rubbish Berenyi-given the CO2 intensity of the nuclear energy cycle-not to mention such issues as Waste Disposal, weapons proliferation & uranium being yet another *non-renewable resource*. This last part is most important. Best estimates suggest that uranium reserves will last 100 years *at current levels of use*. We'd need to *triple* total nuclear capacity just to reduce global CO2 emissions by 15%. How long do you *really* think that can be sustained? Meanwhile, far greater reductions in CO2 emissions can be achieved simply in how we *use* electricity & gasoline-even before we get to the question of using renewable fuels. Beyond efficiency, bio-sequestration (algae) offers a significantly cheaper alternative to nuclear as a means of significantly reducing the CO2 output of existing fossil-fuel power stations, as well as being an excellent source of oil &/or gas. Additionally, landfill & sewerage gas are extremely useful *distributed* sources of electricity & heat which would also be less costly to tap than nuclear, & without the by-products. Then you have such mature technologies such as PV's; wind power coupled with vanadium flow batteries (to smooth out supply); Solar Thermal Power with long-term heat storage; Geothermal Power, Micro & Mini-Hydro Power; Tidal Power-& rapidly up & coming power sources based on osmotic potential. What's particularly amazing is that the bulk of these technologies achieved maturity with only a *fraction* of the funding enjoyed by coal & nuclear power over the last 50 years. So in a nutshell-*no* an acceptance of the danger of CO2 induced global warming does not immediately suggest an automatic support for nuclear power. That sounds more like a product of lazy thinking-designed to enrich just another already wealthy member of the corporate community. -
dhogaza at 23:11 PM on 3 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
However, the point I'm making is that we still don't have a gold standard way of measuring what the ice is doing. Consequently, different algorithms give divergent results. We don't know what the trend would have been had the JAXA algorithm been available thirty years ago. I assume the likely answer would be 'more extensive ice' but in reality we don't know.
JAXA and NSIDC show similar trends, I don't get why you think they're significantly different. Similar trends with different algorithms applied to data from different sensors. A "divergent result" would be a significantly different trend, and this simply isn't the case. Area calculations by the cryosphere today people show a similar trend. And there's evidence that if anything the satellite sensors overestimate ice when it has broken up. If you believe that what we're seeing is an artifact of poor or reliable instrumentation, you're living in fantasy land. Those were real ships sailing the northeast passage last summer, encountering exactly the kind of ice conditions reported by the various satellite data processing groups. -
theendisfar at 23:04 PM on 3 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
@ Marcus 14 "If you're going to keep banging on about Convection & Evaporation as being major obstacles to AGW, then it is beholden upon you to provide the EVIDENCE-preferably in the form of peer-reviewed scientific journals." Forgive me doubting Peer-Review, especially today. We can easily get around Peer-Review with repeatable tests can we not? The common argument here that Peer-Review is necessary only tells me that there are no scientists here to think and answer for themselves. John is a physicist, but cannot answer questions? Heck, a well defined AGW Theory would help greatly. In any event, I was pointed to http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=5&t=239&&n=76#15225 in order to carry on the conversation about CO2. For your questions; (a) that in spite of having a black-body temperature of -18 degrees C, the planet has been around +8 to +15 degrees C for the better part of 80 million years; Do you mean in spite of having a BBT of 18 C today? The Earth's average temp is 14 or 15 C, where do you get 18 C? Regardless, when you average all the known temps of a vast thermo-system you end up knowing far less about the behavior of the thermo-system. For example, a body that is uniform in temperature will cool more slowly than one with a varied surface, where convection is available, because convective currents are more efficient over varied surfaces. (b) in spite of the sun being cooler 500 million to 1 billion years ago, the planet was around 6 to 8 degrees *warmer* than in modern times. The main difference back then there was 5 to 10 times more CO2 in our atmosphere; We know that the Earth saw an increase in cooling once the North and South American plates joined and the Himalaya formation also seems to have adjusted to the jet stream to carry polar air masses deep into the temperate zones. Don't forget that the Moon was also much closer so tidal energies were also higher, days were shorter, many variables were different. Also, in spite of the Sun being warmer than 500 million years ago, much of the Earth has been locked in Ice for the better part of the 5 million years with only brief, 25 thousand years or so, periods of interglacial. (c) in spite of 30 years of declining sun-spot activity, the planet has warmed at a rate of 0.16 degrees per decade Sun Spot numbers, TSI, and amount of Radiation reaching the Earth's surface are all different things, though correlations can be made. The correlations are not well defined and again using terms like 'despite' for single phenomena to explain highly complex systems can only lead to false conclusions. Now, if all your claims about Convection & Evaporation were correct, then neither (a), (b) nor (c) could hold true. See above. -
solarsparky at 22:57 PM on 3 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
Re 3;"If everyone bought an electric car, as did Anthony Watts, the grid would be quickly overwhelmed." Not true, an elegant solution to turn electric cars into distributed power can be found at 'better place', this company is rolling out demo site's world wide. IMHO electric cars may be the just best thing to happen to "smart grids'enabling storage of intemittent renewable inputs,
Prev 2357 2358 2359 2360 2361 2362 2363 2364 2365 2366 2367 2368 2369 2370 2371 2372 Next
