Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2435 2436 2437 2438 2439 2440 2441 2442 2443 2444 2445 2446 2447 2448 2449 2450 Next
Comments 122101 to 122150:
-
PaulK at 16:52 PM on 23 March 2010Understanding Trenberth's travesty
The use of SLR data to "validate" the Schuckmann conclusions is, in my view, not a robust argument. The long-term tidal guage data shows a (remarkably) constant gradient trend throughout the 20th century, despite the significant variation in both average surface temperature and estimates of OHC. This suggests that the prediction of OHC from SLR data is mathematically ill-conditioned. Given the now critical importance of the deep OHC data in underpinning the basic foundations of AGW, I would really like to see a full regional reconciliation of the Schuckmann findings with the more certain 0-700m data, and a realistic estimate of the uncertainty associated with the deep temperature measurements. I am honestly surprised that he did not include this analysis in the paper to add credibility. -
gallopingcamel at 16:47 PM on 23 March 2010What CO2 level would cause the Greenland ice sheet to collapse?
What I love about this blog is the wonderful statements at the head of each thread. This one includes a real gem: "The last time temperatures were this high were 125,000 years ago." If you believe this you must be a Medieval Warm Period denier. While most parts of Wikipedia relating to AGW have been re-written by William Connolly, the part that relates to the history of Greenland has survived. The link below shows that the Greenland ice sheet was less extensive during the MWP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_GreenlandResponse: I should clarify, 'the last time global temperatures were this high...' There were regions during the Medieval Warm Period that were as warm or warmer than the same regions today. -
Jeff Freymueller at 16:13 PM on 23 March 2010What CO2 level would cause the Greenland ice sheet to collapse?
#11 Humanity Rules. Darn it, I typed out a longish reply, then clicked in the wrong place and lost it. Not going to type it out all over again. But I will point out that the future predictions of the model are all for 400 years from now. They tuned the ice sheet model to match the present ice sheet, and they don't make any prediction about where things will melt first. It looks like the bedrock topography plays a big role in the pattern of predicted ice sheet retreat (see Figure 12 of the paper). However, they didn't discuss it in the paper that I could find, so this is my interpretation. In particular, it looks like the mountains in SE Greenland divide the ice sheet into a main part that has to drain out somewhere other than the SE, and the coastal strip in the SE, plus a few glaciers in the SE that cut through the mountains. So it appears the pattern is controlled by the principle that "water and ice go downhill". -
billkerr at 14:26 PM on 23 March 2010What CO2 level would cause the Greenland ice sheet to collapse?
hi john, Thanks for all the work you have put into this great blog. I read Hansen's book, it sounds like you have too. The paleoclimate information and ice and ocean inertia issues he raises worry me as well. From memory I think Hansen said it bordered on insanity to consider adaptation to significant sea level rise. Nevertheless, I looked further and found that Richard Tol et al have actually modelled an adaptation scenario for the complete collapse of the West Antarctic sheet: Global Estimates Of The Impact Of A Collapse Of The West Antarctic Ice Sheet: An Application Of Fund I expect you and your readers will be interested in the Tol et al study. I want to think about this a bit or probably a lot more before attempting to pass judgment. After all the consequences of reducing or stabilising CO2 are very significant as well especially since no governments have realistic energy plans for the future as currently being discussed on Barry Brook's blog, Brave New Climate -
scaddenp at 13:47 PM on 23 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
oracle2world - this is an extraordinarily weird definition of AGW theory that you are working with. It is really a physical theory of climate from which you deduce that if x extra amount forcings (GHG, land change, aerosols) is of human origin, then it will result in extra warmth, and that the observed warming since 1940s is primarily of human doing. AGW does not predict future emissions at all; nor super volcanoes, nor changes in solar. Instead, it is a theory which says that if you continue to increase GHG to this level, you get this climate. It can also happily tell you what the likely effects on climate of another volcanic eruption - or a prolonged solar minima. If you want to send a rocket to mars you don't rely on history - you calculate based on known physics. Just so with climate. Do you think greenhouse gas effect isn't hard science? Model is doing pretty good so far at predicting climate if you check the model /data comparisons. -
oracle2world at 13:24 PM on 23 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
Ned I said no expectation of reproducibility. Since the earth's state is constantly evolving, and nothing ever repeats through time, no climate model based on past history can predict the future. Certainly not to within a gnat's eyelash that fearmongers would like. This is just an extraordinarily difficult problem, even if climate scientists were completely dispassionate, with no grant riding on support of AGW, and no preconceived expectations to confound their research. And if AGW was discarded tomorrow, no one in the hard sciences would think much of the failure. Just another hard problem people took a crack at. Brownie points for effort. The Yellowstone supervolcano is overdue to erupt. That probability of eruption (which is unknown) is not taken into account by climate models. Why is that? The assumption is that the probability is low. But the probability is actually unknown. How about a "nuclear winter" that was fashionable years ago? Now the probability of total thermonuclear war, if one can believe the Union of Concerned Scientists, isn't low. So why is this scenario not taken into account? -
Tenney Naumer at 13:07 PM on 23 March 2010What CO2 level would cause the Greenland ice sheet to collapse?
Thanks for this post, John. I have a question about CO2 equivalents. Did the Stone paper have anything to say about these?Response: I didn't see any mention of CO2 equivalents and I did wonder that myself, considering the CO2 equivalent once you factor in methane and other man-made greenhouse gases is already well over 400 ppm. Please feel free to try contacting the author to enquire about this question and report back to us :-) -
ajgunther at 12:59 PM on 23 March 2010What CO2 level would cause the Greenland ice sheet to collapse?
Can you identify the source of the data in Figure 4? Thanks.Response: Good question - I'm getting more disciplined about citing my sources but this one slipped through the cracks. That graph came from The Copenhagen Diagnosis which I'm now adding to the caption. -
HumanityRules at 12:54 PM on 23 March 2010What CO2 level would cause the Greenland ice sheet to collapse?
9.Jeff Freymueller at 12:38 PM on 23 March, 2010 Again I could easily be wrong but this is not looking at temporal change. This model is saying if conditions are x, y and z what should the Greenland icesheet look like. It says nothing about what happens over the next 400years. As you say it does require that as the process continue there is a complete shift in how ice mass is lost. -
HumanityRules at 12:46 PM on 23 March 2010What CO2 level would cause the Greenland ice sheet to collapse?
How reliable can this model be if it miscalculates the expected size of the ice sheet by 25% based on present day conditions and observations? -
Ned at 12:46 PM on 23 March 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Contradictions, URLs and getting hacked
HR writes: Svalgaard seems like a perfectly good solar scientist. I was reading many of his posting on [WUWT] yesterday because I was going over the ACRIM gap debate again. He seems fairly independently minded, dry, witty and intelligent. I'd agree with 51.Arjan description of the guy. I was wondering whether he is generally seen as a denier because I find him hard to label. I agree with that assessment. Svalgaard is definitely hard to label. He will also probably be the first to admit that his views are not representative of others in the field. I wouldn't call him a "denialist" at all. His off-and-on forays into Watts's site show that he has more patience than I do. -
Jeff Freymueller at 12:38 PM on 23 March 2010What CO2 level would cause the Greenland ice sheet to collapse?
#5 HumanityRules I'm not sure that there is an inconsistency, or even an apparent one. One quantity is present loss, the other is predicted loss over 400 years. Not surprisingly, the warming has hit the southern part first, but that doesn't mean draining the southern part of Greenland ice sheet will contribute more mass in the long term if most of the ice sheet is lost over that long term (if nothing else, Greenland is skinnier in the south, so there may simply be less ice to lose). Differences in the sub-glacial bedrock surface, numbers of outlet glaciers to the sea, all can make a difference as well. Having said that, I just downloaded the paper, and I suspect the authors explain in more detail. (I just downloaded it from home for free, so probably you can too). -
Ned at 12:35 PM on 23 March 2010What CO2 level would cause the Greenland ice sheet to collapse?
I wrote: ... we still don't know convincingly where the water came from! To clarify, obviously we know the water came from melting ice. But at least as of a couple of years ago people were still arguing whether that ice was in the Antarctic, North America/northern Europe, or both. -
Ned at 12:28 PM on 23 March 2010What CO2 level would cause the Greenland ice sheet to collapse?
HR writes: Quick question. What do you mean by completely collaspe. How fast, exactly, can an ice sheet disappear? That's a good question, and I wish we knew the answer to that. I have generally been a bit skeptical about some of the hypothesized dynamics involved in "rapid" (century-scale) collapse of large ice sheets, even ones that are grounded below sea level. Greenland in particular is largely surrounded by mountains that would seem to give it a bit more structural support. On the other hand, if you want to lie awake worrying at night, think about meltwater pulse 1a. Sea levels rose on the order of 7-10m per century for a couple of centuries ... and we still don't know convincingly where the water came from! Until we have a better picture of how exactly the Laurentian and Fennoscandian ice sheets collapsed, and whether MWP1A was purely northern hemispheric or there was an Antarctic contribution, I think there's good cause to be concerned about Greenland and the WAIS. The series of meltwater pulses between the LGM and Younger Dryas would be high on my personal list of climate science topics that are in desperate need of more research. -
ProfMandia at 12:09 PM on 23 March 2010What CO2 level would cause the Greenland ice sheet to collapse?
Nice post, John. For those of you in the US, this is a nice page that illustrates sea level rise in coastal cities. Very scary. http://www.architecture2030.org/current_situation/cutting_edge.htmlResponse: Thanks for that link. I've added it to the list of links relevant to sea level predictions. -
Jim Eager at 12:09 PM on 23 March 2010What CO2 level would cause the Greenland ice sheet to collapse?
"Because it sounds like a very sudden, violent process the way you phrase it." Maybe because it would be, compared to how long we used to think it would take to melt large ice sheets like Greenland and West Antarctica. And as John replied, the fact that large portions of the Greenland ice cap and most of the West Antarctic ice sheet are grounded below sea level will allow intrusion of warm sea water beneath the ice, not only lubricating it, but also melting the ice from below. Moreover, it's a process that will continue well beyond 2100, so talk of just building higher dikes and sea walls to deal with a 1-2 meter rise is sheer nonsense. Oh, and remember, those dikes would have to be run up both banks of every river to the new, higher tidal point, mind you. -
HumanityRules at 12:05 PM on 23 March 2010What CO2 level would cause the Greenland ice sheet to collapse?
This Stone paper seems to model greatest mass loss from the north of the continent at CO2 of 400ppm. A recent Howat paper suggests up to 75% of present day mass loss is from the SE of the continent. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL034496.shtml Does this apparent inconsistency matter? -
HumanityRules at 11:19 AM on 23 March 2010What CO2 level would cause the Greenland ice sheet to collapse?
Quick question. What do you mean by completely collaspe. Do you mean slowly melt? Because it sounds like a very sudden, violent process the way you phrase it.Response: There are two main contributors to ice mass loss from the Greenland ice sheet: melting ice and increased discharge as glaciers are sliding faster into the ocean. Part of the reason why Greenland and West Antarctica are losing ice mass faster than East Antarctica is because part of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets are sitting on bedrock that is underwater - warming oceans speeds up the slide of glaciers that calve into the ocean.
I wouldn't characterise it as a sudden, violent process. I'd characterise it more like pushing a huge, heavy boulder from the top of a hill. It's difficult at first and moves slowly. But then you reach a tipping point where it's momentum starts to carry it down the hill and then there's no stopping it. -
HumanityRules at 11:02 AM on 23 March 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Contradictions, URLs and getting hacked
Sorry WUWT not CA -
canbanjo at 10:55 AM on 23 March 2010What CO2 level would cause the Greenland ice sheet to collapse?
Hi does this alter the sea level rise predictions this century? ThanksResponse: As far as I can tell, it's broadly consistent with the several papers that predict around 1 to 2 metres sea level rise by 2100. But this paper takes a longer view, looking at the impact over 400 years. -
Ned at 10:44 AM on 23 March 2010What CO2 level would cause the Greenland ice sheet to collapse?
Nice post, John. GRACE is really turning out to be one of the best investments of NASA's earth system science program. Your figure 4 is noteworthy. Emissions in the mid-2000s really were on an unsustainable trajectory. Presumably the economic downturn has dropped the line back down a bit, but as the global economy picks up steam again we may head back up towards that ugly BAU line. Melting Greenland is one of those things that will probably take a long time to accomplish but one it starts it will be hard to stop.Response: Hansen describes it well in 'Storms of my Grandchildren'. The Greenland (and Antarctic) ice sheets have great inertia. This means it takes a long time before they start moving. So early on, we think the massive inertia of the ice sheets is our friend. But once the ice sheets start moving and particularly when they reach the tipping point where collapse is inevitable, it's not like we can lassoo a rope over them and hold them back. At this point, the inertia is revealed to be not our friend but our enemy. -
HumanityRules at 10:28 AM on 23 March 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Contradictions, URLs and getting hacked
Svalgaard seems like a perfectly good solar scientist. I was reading many of his posting on CA yesterday because I was going over the ACRIM gap debate again. He seems fairly independently minded, dry, witty and intelligent. I'd agree with 51.Arjan description of the guy. I was wondering whether he is generally seen as a denier because I find him hard to label. -
Leo G at 08:36 AM on 23 March 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Contradictions, URLs and getting hacked
Dhozzer - K, will try to be more accurate - "world leading scientists in their disciplines" This too me of course includes Gavin, Jim, Ray L. Tammy, etc. Yes Doug, solar is one of the things we offer, but just being over the border a bit from you, we find the sale hard. For a lot of people, to long of a RFI. But at least in Vancouver propoer now, any new construction must rough-in for solar panels, so things are getting there. -
dhogaza at 08:26 AM on 23 March 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Contradictions, URLs and getting hacked
actually Dr. Svalgaard is a highly respected solar scientist.
Saying "he's not one of the world's leading scientists" isn't the same as saying "he's not respected", OK? -
Ned at 07:45 AM on 23 March 2010We're heading into an ice age
N/A writes: I do not know. I only see it as an important question to answer and have yet to see a satisfactory answer. Nothing wrong with that. Spend some time browsing through the pages on this site -- there is a lot of information, and a lot of very careful discussion of the current peer-reviewed literature. A number of the commenters here are scientists working either within climate science or in related fields ... they can provide a very valuable perspective, too. -
Ned at 07:35 AM on 23 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
Unlike hard science, climate science has no expectation that anything is reproducible. Actually, lots of research in climate science is reproducible. You can look at the delta O18 records from ice cores in Greenland and in Antarctica, and they match up quite nicely. The Clear Climate Code project has reproduced the results of GISTEMP using their own software operating on the same input data. Events like the PETM or the Younger Dryas show up in all kinds of different paleoclimate studies. Trends in CO2 concentration at stations ranging from the Arctic to the tropics are comparable. There are small differences among the UAH, RSS, GISTEMP, HADCRU, and NOAA global temperature data sets, but they generally match up pretty closely. And one could go on and on... I'm not sure where you get the idea that nothing is reproducible. Lots of stuff gets reproduced, in fact almost everything out there is being done by at least two groups. -
oracle2world at 07:08 AM on 23 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
And #2 ... when the AGW evidence gets sorted into the good, the bad, and the ugly ... AGW's credibility would be vastly improved. -
oracle2world at 07:06 AM on 23 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
I thought #17 was about climate change true-believers for a moment. Discoverers make their claims directly to the popular media, rather than to fellow scientists. The claimed effect appears so weak that observers can hardly distinguish it from noise. No amount of further work increases the signal. Anecdotal evidence is used to back up the claim. But I digress. The "Impossible expectations of what research can deliver." was most interesting to me. Unlike hard science, climate science has no expectation that anything is reproducible. The density of water is the same here as in Russia (there is consensus on this I believe). But the earth undergoes constant change that doesn't repeat. The day is slowing down, meteor strikes, radioactive elements decaying in the crust, the moon receding every year, continents drift, etc. So from the get-go, climate science is never going to meet expectations. Especially compared to hard science. AGW depends on about a dozen assumptions, some of which are very strong (China and India are not going to play ball), to some that are very weak (warm weather is universally bad). That secondhand smoke example? The NCI estimates 3,000 lung deaths per year due to secondhand smoke. It might even be true. Within the limits of what can be estimated, that is as good as it gets. Over 1,000 people die in highway accidents each MONTH in the US. That is not an estimate, actual numbers. In terms of risk mitigation, highway safety probably deserves 10 times the money spent compared to secondhand smoke. AGW has some hard numbers, CO2 rising, sunspot activity going back hundreds of years, recent satellite data ... and estimates like tree ring proxies, surface temps from ground stations, all the way to complete WAGs a hundred years out. They are not the same and no one in AGW appears to be especially troubled by it. And no matter how solid a theory is, there is no guarantee it won't be found lacking. Gamma ray bursts are a prime example. Energetic, and just HAD to be within the Milky Way, otherwise basic laws of physics would be violated. The key assumption was that the gamma radiation was uniformly radiated. That assumption turned out to be false. Science is replete with stuff like this. The key assumption in AGW is that CO2 determines global temperatures. Particularly CO2 emitted by fossil fuels. Within limits of climate research, this is really hard to pin down. Maybe impossible. It doesn't appear that CO2 was a driver at times in the past, so folks would like to understand what the differences are today that would make it so. Soooooooooooooooooooooo, great article. Since your website got hacked, figure you are now in the big leagues. -
scaddenp at 07:05 AM on 23 March 2010We're heading into an ice age
I hate to be reiterating an old point but its all about rate. The transition into and out of ice age is extremely slow by human terms. (around 10,000 years). The rate of warming we are creating is by comparison very fast. Rates of change that overwhelm species capacity to adapt are the danger. Also, an ice age hardly kills most of the life on the planet. We have been in and out of ice ages right through quaternary period. They affect temperate zones mostly. -
Doug Bostrom at 06:37 AM on 23 March 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Contradictions, URLs and getting hacked
Leo G at 06:22 AM on 23 March, 2010 I do my part by installing high efficiency heating boilers/systems for my customers. I don't know the application space of your customers and I have about 30 seconds available so I'll just put in a blind plug for solar DHW systems. I hope they're on your menu, check 'em out! 10x efficiency dollar/watt over PV, low hanging fruit. -
Leo G at 06:22 AM on 23 March 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Contradictions, URLs and getting hacked
Dhozzer - actually Dr. Svalgaard is a highly respected solar scientist. He was the one on the NASA committee that predicted the low of cycle 24, which all the others on same committee had wrong. And yes, I know that Williss is an amuater, but still, he did go after Goddard quite hard in said post. Actually, there are quite a few scientists such as Paul Dennis (who took to task the assumption that a post on clam shell dating was accurate), Jeff L, a geologist, who right now is trying to educate some on plate tectonics, etc. who post on skeptic blogs. As for Dr. Svalgaard, he just doesn't think that CO2 is going to cause all of those positive feedbacks. Not everyone who posts against AGW is a denier. Most of us agree on the warming, just not the consequences/pro forcings/calamities etc. I do my part by installing high efficiency heating boilers/systems for my customers. I just haven't been convinced yet that the world is going to hell in a handbasket from CO2. But I do keep a very open mind, and always read here, RC, OM and other pro sites, because in the end, I do understand that opinion does not matter, just the data and the facts. Now if I had the education to actually be able to analyze the data, then maybe I would be completely off the fence, and taking a trip down under to buy John a beer or two. :) -
aj1983 at 06:13 AM on 23 March 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Contradictions, URLs and getting hacked
Dr. Svalgaard usually only corrects things he knows that are incorrect. He does not seem to take any side in the global warming debate (you will sometimes see him refuting solar variability theories and the influence on climate if based on bullsh*t though.) He does however try to lecture people about solar physics at the solarcycle24 blog, which are often interesting comments. I respect him for that. He also has a lot of information on his website: http://www.leif.org/research/ -
dhogaza at 04:59 AM on 23 March 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Contradictions, URLs and getting hacked
But for me, what gives me shivers, is to be able to get answers for my silly questions, both pro and con, from some of the worlds leading scientists! Way to Kewl!
Before you get too excited, I hope you know that Willis is no scientists, and Svalgard is not one of the world's leading scientists ... Though at least he's done some research. Actually, i think he's pretty much the only scientist who routinely posts at WUWT, and it's mostly to tell people they're wrong (it's hard to understand his brand of skepticism, actually). -
Leo G at 04:57 AM on 23 March 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Contradictions, URLs and getting hacked
Oh PS - if you want to see warmers/skeptics and MOR's having some real good discussions right now on ststs, check out Lucia's Blackboard. Very much like this site, in that most of the time, the posters are civil, and trying to show thier view with logic and data. I don't understand much of it, but it sure is great to follow a real scientific discussion in the blog sphere. -
Leo G at 04:54 AM on 23 March 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Contradictions, URLs and getting hacked
Steve L @ 41 - I know most of you people hate this site, but if you want an example of skeptics "attacking" one another, just check out this post - http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/nsidc-reports-that-antarctica-is-cooling-and-sea-ice-is-increasing/. It ties in nicely to what John has posted here. Willis, Dr. Svalgard, etc. pretty much go after Goddard quite hard. Also, on another recent post about the Iceland volcanoe, a few geologists are trying to "help" certain skeptics, get their geology correct. To be honest, I cruise both pro and con sites every day, and find that there is less of a choir on the con sites. Now maybe that is because there happens to be more lay people on skeptic sites that have heads full of crap trivia and the scientists try to show them the real data, or maybe it is just the way of the skeptic side, that all science must be challenged. Don't really know. But for me, what gives me shivers, is to be able to get answers for my silly questions, both pro and con, from some of the worlds leading scientists! Way to Kewl! -
We're heading into an ice age
"If you're that concerned about an impending ice age," Really, I am not. My point is that it is possible warming will be good if it prevents an ice age. We seem to be in agreement that CO2 is preventing an ice age. We differ if the CO2 is good or bad. Butr I do not know. I only see it as an important question to answer and have yet to see a satisfactory answer. -
We're heading into an ice age
Well that makes your climate models easy. Are you familiar with the phrase "Dead Certain." Warmer may be inconvenient. Ice will kill most of the life on the planet. I think we should plan for every possible future and not pick only the ones we want to "solve." By the way - how do I get the nam "N/A" and how do I change it? I am having some degree of trouble here. -
Peter Hogarth at 19:58 PM on 22 March 2010Visual depictions of Sea Level Rise
zinfan94 at 05:05 AM on 22 March, 2010 There are of course uncertainties in both the ice melt and the steric contributions, and the fact that these components account for around "85%" of sea level rise, and this is regarded as "within the error bars" indicates that the numbers you mention are reasonable. I have also seen a number of papers indicating a decreased contribution to sea level from land run-off, as more of the river systems are dammed, and more water is used for irrigation etc. I'll look for some global estimates of this. The general view seems to be that Ice melt contributions are going to increasingly dominate sea level budget. -
Jeff Freymueller at 17:22 PM on 22 March 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Contradictions, URLs and getting hacked
#40 HUmanityRules: "The reality is that the people who don't seem to be able to allow any competing arguments or uncertainty in the science are those that support the 'IPCC concensus'." Nonsense. Science is all about competing arguments. If you want to see competing arguments hashed out, try going to a scientific conference some time. And I guessed you missed the arguments that the IPCC seriously underestimated future sea level rise (by assuming no contribution from melting glaciers). Seriously, there are so many counterexamples to your claim, and as Ned posted in #42 most if not all of what is now the consensus view started out as a hotly contested argument about competing ideas. -
James Wight at 16:38 PM on 22 March 2010Why does CO2 lag temperature?
In 2008, the Antarctic ice core record was extended back to 800,000 years ago using the bottom 200 m of the EPICA Dome C ice core. It shows a similar relationship between CO2 and temperature as the Vostok record does. -
climateresponse at 16:22 PM on 22 March 2010Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
Nobody reads peer reviewed science literature except for other scientists. So then, whose fault is when the average person doesn't have the information. Theirs, for behaving like they always have and you should have expected them to, or yours for waiting this long to spell it out for them. For years all we've heard is politicians telling us about global warming and climate change, but not giving us the evidence. Just because some slick talker in a suit says something is true, doesn't mean it is. If that were the case then there wouldn't be so many of them saying so many different things. If you want people to believe you then it is your responsibility to give them reason to. Otherwise you have no right to complain. -
Marcus at 15:25 PM on 22 March 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Contradictions, URLs and getting hacked
According to This Poll The majority of Australians still believe that CO2 is a Greenhouse gas, is being generated by man-made activity & will be catastrophic if not dealt with soon. I've no doubt that I could find similar polls for the UK & most of mainland Europe-but apparently a single poll in the US is more "proof" than all these other polls from across the globe! -
Ned at 13:19 PM on 22 March 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Contradictions, URLs and getting hacked
Not sure what polls of US public opinion have to do with science. Apparently, according to recent polls, only 39% of Americans accept the theory of evolution. But we're not about to give up on all the biological sciences (I hope) just because a large segment of the general public in one country is misinformed. The same applies to climate science. -
1077 at 13:05 PM on 22 March 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Contradictions, URLs and getting hacked
Hacking isn't any better than armed insurrection. Despicable, not enduring, used by idiots, condemned by history (see the "great" revolution of 1917. Common sense however does matter, eventhough you AGW supporters consider yourselves above it. You are wrong. Not as wrong as hackers but still wrong: Poll: Americans Least Worried About Global Warming Americans rank global warming dead last among eight environmental issues to be very worried about, a new Gallup Poll reveals. The percentage of respondents who said they worry “a great deal” about global warming was just 28 percent, down 5 percentage points from last year. The following are eight environmental issues and the percentage of people who said they are very worried are, according to the poll results released on March 16: Pollution of drinking water, 50 percent Pollution of rivers, lakes, and reservoirs, 46 percent Maintenance of the nation’s supply of fresh water for household needs, 45 percent Contamination of soil and water by toxic waste, 44 percent Air pollution, 38 percent The loss of tropical rain forests, 33 percent Extinction of plant and animal species, 31 percent Global warming, 28 percent For all eight issues, Americans are less worried now than they were a year ago, with the percentage drops ranging from 4 points for “maintenance of the nation’s supply of fresh water” to 9 points for “pollution of drinking water” and “the loss of tropical rain forests.” Worry about global warming peaked in 2007, at 41 percent, and stood at 40 percent in 2000. “Americans are now less worried about a series of environmental problems than at any time in the past 20 years,” Gallup observed. “That could be due in part to Americans’ belief that environmental conditions in the U.S. are improving. It also may reflect greater public concern about economic issues, which is usually associated with a drop in environmental concern.” -
HumanityRules at 12:07 PM on 22 March 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Contradictions, URLs and getting hacked
#41 I was replying to your point in #39 but I'll give #25 a go. We know enough about the climate system to be confident of the role of CO2. vs We know too little about the climate system to experiment with geo-engineering.Response: I'm actually writing a post that tangentially addresses this argument. Not specifically geo-engineering but the notion that high understanding in one area means we must have high understanding in all areas. Or conversely, the notion that if we have poor understanding in one area, it invalides all the areas of high understanding.
But please do keep the proposed AGW contradictions coming, they're interesting to read. -
Ned at 11:29 AM on 22 March 2010We're heading into an ice age
There isn't going to be an ice age in the next 50 or 100 years. If that was your concern, then you can rest easy tonight. And tomorrow you can wake up and start working on the real problem, which is preventing the potential catastrophe caused by too much warming rather than too much cooling. -
Ned at 11:25 AM on 22 March 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Contradictions, URLs and getting hacked
HR writes: It's been pointed out many times that 'deniers' very often do disagree with each other, often they are each others biggest critics because they have competing theories. Has that been pointed out many times? I'm not sure that it's even true, let alone that it's frequently pointed out. I think John's point in this thread is that skeptical arguments often implicitly contradict each other, but it doesn't follow from this that skeptical persons actually contradict or criticize each other. And in fact, in my experience, it's very rare for this to happen. When was the last time on this blog that a "skeptic" jumped in and disagreed or corrected another "skeptic"? I spend far too much time responding to even rather obviously mistaken claims by RSVP, gallopingcamel, etc. Personally, I would love it if other skeptics would debunk some of their claims too. Unfortunately, that never seems to happen. I think that the reason for this is that most "skeptics" are motivated more by opposition to the consensus view than by any deep investment in any one particular competing view. If someone were really, really convinced by the whole "galactic cosmic rays" argument, you might expect her/him to argue vociferously against AGW, and to argue equally vociferously against other skeptics who claim that the earth isn't warming at all. But you very rarely see that! And I think that's OK, actually. There's nothing wrong with being diffusely skeptical in opposition to a more coherent argument. Let's say that one of your co-workers suddenly can't find a book, and concludes that another co-worker must have stolen it. You could quite reasonably suggest a whole bunch of mutually contradictory hypotheses -- maybe she actually left the book at home, or maybe it's buried under the clutter on her desk, or maybe she forgot that she loaned it to somebody. Obviously those alternative hypotheses can't all be true, but that's OK. But I think we should be clear on the asymmetry here. The consensus view is, and has to be, very coherent about the big picture (though there's lots of disagreement among scientists about the details, something which many skeptics may not fully appreciate). If a British team claims to have detected a slowdown in the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation, and their claim seriously conflicts with other models or data, that's a contradiction that has to be resolved (generally, by examining other data or other analytical methods or whatever). Eventually, it becomes clear who was right and who was wrong, and the "consensus view" expands incrementally to incorporate that improved understanding. In contrast, the skeptical position can tolerate an almost unlimited range of internally contradictory claims. Very occasionally, you will see a higher-information skeptic contradicting a lower-information one, but usually only on a topic that is so far out (e.g., Beck's claims, or Steve Goddard's "CO2 snow at the south pole") as to be generally embarrassing to the skeptic cause. -
Steve L at 10:17 AM on 22 March 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Contradictions, URLs and getting hacked
HR #40: Anyone can just write things and pretend they're true, but you've been asked for examples (see #25). Rather than provide some solid and specific ones, you state something silly about the IPCC consensus not allowing any uncertainty (even though uncertainty and terms describing it are explicitly defined in IPCC documents). Rather than go on at length, I'll just say that I think you've got it backwards, upside-down, inside-out, and in the mirror, and you'll have to cite some good examples to change my mind. -
HumanityRules at 09:42 AM on 22 March 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Contradictions, URLs and getting hacked
39.Steve L at 01:42 AM on 22 March, 2010 You seem to have it upside down. The reality is that the people who don't seem to be able to allow any competing arguments or uncertainty in the science are those that support the 'IPCC concensus'. It's this fact that labels (and excludes) those that have something else to say. I don't see that Pielke et al want the label. It's been pointed out many times that 'deniers' very often do disagree with each other, often they are each others biggest critics because they have competing theories. This is the norm for science. It's the moral and political aspects of the climate debate that sets up this goodies vs baddies scenario. -
We're heading into an ice age
How about preventing an ice age in the next 50 years? Or 100? 50,000 wasy our number. I think you are nit picking.Response: Ice ages take thousands of years to develop. If you're that concerned about an impending ice age, just look to northern Canada. If there's a giant ice sheet slowly creeping down the North American continent, then you have reason to be concerned. But if glaciers are retreating worldwide and the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are losing ice mass at an accelerating rate, you can relax about the possibility of an upcoming ice age in your lifetime and the lifetime of your children and grandchildren.
Prev 2435 2436 2437 2438 2439 2440 2441 2442 2443 2444 2445 2446 2447 2448 2449 2450 Next
