Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2457 2458 2459 2460 2461 2462 2463 2464 2465 2466 2467 2468 2469 2470 2471 2472 Next
Comments 123201 to 123250:
-
anil_dabir at 21:45 PM on 3 March 2010What ended the Little Ice Age?
Most of the discussion went over my head. I get stumped when schoolboys ask me: *There were ice ages earlier. *Warming took place and they went away. *There were no contributory factors as we know them - no aerosol sprays, no fossil fuel burning, no automobiles and so on. Why then is there such a to-do about Global Warming now? Shall be grateful if someone can give me a jargon-free explanation which I can communicate to them. -
AndrewY at 21:18 PM on 3 March 2010Every skeptic argument ever used
Not too sure every link can be described as either "pro-AGW" or "skeptic", but I understand why you have done that... Under the "better to geoengineer" section I added a link to My MSc dissertation which examines the prospects for reversing dangerous global warming by directly capturing CO2 from the atmosphere ("dangerous" being defined as >2 degrees above pre-industrial temperature). It contains some back of the envelope estimates which gives some idea of the sheer scale and cost of the operation that would be needed to even reduce the atmospheric CO2 concentration by 150ppm (say from 500ppm to 350ppm), we are talking about capturing and storing over a trillion tonnes of CO2! It is theoretically possible but it would require an enormous global engineering effort, at best it would take many decades to achieve and it would cost many trillions of dollars... it's certainly not an alternative to making emissions cuts (but it may be needed IN ADDITION to severe emissions cuts if climate sensitivity turns out to be at the high of the estimate). Geoengineering solutions that block incoming solar radiation could be potentially as dangerous as AGW and are fraught with political problems (who controls them and who decides at what stage they should be used etc).Response: I will get around to adding Neutral as an option sooner or later.
I saw your paper on capturing CO2 and thought it very interesting. The prospect of capturing 150ppm is an exciting idea and I hope it is a practical proposition. I think it's inevitable that these kinds of solutions are explored in upcoming decades - you better get in at the grass-roots level :-) -
CBDunkerson at 21:16 PM on 3 March 2010Every skeptic argument ever used
I think the problem Josie is encountering may be that the scroll bar is off the right side of the page. Thus, only the top of the argument list is shown and there is no clear indication that more arguments are available below. I ran into this myself, but was able to get around it using the arrow keys to move up and down through the list.Response: Okay, I see the problem - in Firefox, the dropdown extends beyond the right side of the page. This doesn't happen in Internet Explorer. I'm looking into fixing this right now. I seriously have to stop using IE so exclusively! -
Si at 21:11 PM on 3 March 2010Every skeptic argument ever used
I am so glad you opened this up for discussion. My basic worry is that by including every skeptical argument you look like you are setting up strawmen only to knock them down which inevitably weakens your case. The one thing you can be sure of is that there is no consensus among skeptics - none. I think a general overview with specific examples would be better. -
Josie at 21:05 PM on 3 March 2010Every skeptic argument ever used
Hey John, It isn't working right. You say: "The parent argument for yours would be there's no correlation between CO2 and temperature". I wanted to put it under that, but it only gave me about 10 arguments to choose from, and none of them was that one. Cheers, JosieResponse: Okay, now that's weird. Are you going to:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/resources.php?a=addargform
And the parent argument only gives you ten or so arguments to choose from? Only thing I can think of is the page hadn't fully loaded - was the 'Submit New Argument' button visible? -
Si at 20:59 PM on 3 March 2010On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
Tom, agreed. Following on from there here are fascinating posts and discussion. http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/bump-new-thread-for-station-drop-out-analyses/ http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/a-simple-model-for-spatially-weighted-temp-analysis/ -
Riccardo at 20:34 PM on 3 March 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
gallopingcamel, did i say that stations has not been dropped? No for sure, i said that it has no significant effect on anomalies. Whatever the reason why stations have been dropped the only important thing is that it does not influence the final results. No reason to suspect any dirty business behind it. By the way, the GHCN dataset is not maintained by GISS folks. -
Pierre-Normand at 18:00 PM on 3 March 2010YouTube video on the empirical evidence for man-made global warming
RSVP at 16:12 PM on 3 March, 2010 The heat content energy in inferred from increasing temperature of the oceans and the troposphere (plus heat capacity of air and water and fusion heat of ice). So, escaping radiations aren't part of it. Neither are escaping radiations part of CO2 forcing. Increase in any GHG forcing results from summing the instantaneous (not accounting for feedbacks) decrease in outgoing radiation from the tropopause with the increase in surface irradiation from the atmosphere. This causes the transient energy imbalance of the Earth+troposphere system while GHG concentrations are increasing and before a new radiative equilibrium can be attained. -
Doug Bostrom at 17:49 PM on 3 March 2010YouTube video on the empirical evidence for man-made global warming
ike solem at 15:57 PM on 3 March, 2010 This business of whether C02 is or is not a pollutant is a big deal in some quarters. Tagging C02 with a "pollutant" label is going to cause a shift in public perceptions and that's an unaffordable loss for fossil fuel interests. Hence the sudden emergence of "grass roots" web sites and the like, extolling the virtues of gusting in great lungfuls of clean, healthy, natural and purely harmless C02. The proper quantity of fish oil in a fish is naturally occurring and undoubtedly absolutely necessary to the proper functioning of a fish. One thousand gallons of fish oil dumped in a river will impair the function of that river, is thus a pollutant and comes under the purview of the EPA. That's not complicated, and neither is the notion of C02 being a pollutant if its concentration is raised by humans to levels determined to interfere with the proper functioning of the planet. Expect your immediate future to include repeating variations of this argument an astronomical number of times using a multitude of analogies as a man made fog of obfuscation enshrouds this very simple concept. -
Doug Bostrom at 17:36 PM on 3 March 2010YouTube video on the empirical evidence for man-made global warming
Karl_from_Wylie at 15:28 PM on 3 March 2010 Karl, I'm afraid I've lost your plot. I gather you've some issue with IPCC being involved in pushing some sort of cause, but you're not able to supply any details so I've had to tease some meaning out of your words. "Conspiracy" was too strong, so I tried "shadowy" and apparently that won't do either. Perhaps "mysterious" or "unidentified" (come to think of it, I believe I tried that one) will do. You have the last word on this, be my guest. I don't see the relationship of your hypothesis to science but if reading tea leaves is your bag I'm not going to stand in your way. -
libertarianromanticideal at 17:02 PM on 3 March 2010YouTube video on the empirical evidence for man-made global warming
skepticalscience.com is one of the few blogs out there that's doing it right when it comes to the global warming "debate," i.e., going to the actual research papers. However, while this video is excellent, as well as the other posts knocking the legs out from under people who deny that the climate is getting warmer, I'm wondering -- who, really, are these deniers? Billy Bob living in a trailer park eating mayonnaise sandwiches? There are people who don't believe human ever went to the moon, but nobody really pays that much attention to them let alone puts in a lot of time and effort trying to debunk their arguments (which will never convince the Billy Bob's of the world anyway). So what's the point here -- or rather, what's the big news? The climate is warming? "Everybody" knows that. True, there are influential senators (Inhofe) and media personalities (Glen Beck) who are highly visible deniers, but -- again, really -- how much of a influence are they? Hard to believe that their uninformed opinions are somehow going to turn the tide of thinking on this issue. So, why is skepticalscience.com spending so much time on this? It's not where the real debate is. Recently, Fermilab invited MIT's Richard Lindzen to give a talk at one of their Colloquiums: http://vmsstreamer1.fnal.gov/VMS_Site_03/Lectures/Colloquium/100210Lindzen/f.htm Fermilab is interested because climate change is definitely topical but perhaps more importantly they're interested because almost all the research is based on computational-statistical models, and Fermilab has some of the world best experts in computational and statistical modeling in the world. They're clearly in a position to both understand and critique the computational and statistical methodology that lies at the heart of predictive-based climate research. The Colloquium is long -- it clocks in over an hour, which is a long time for an afternoon colloquium, and then there was a 30 Q&A. What might surprise readers of this blog is that Dr. Lindzen agrees with 98% of this video. I'm not an expert, but listening to his talk, he would disagree with almost nothing here: the climate is warming and C02 plays a role. You'd be hard pressed to find a climate scientist or a physicist that would disagree with that. Where might Dr. Lindzen part company with some readers of this blog? Dr. Lindzen is convinced that climate change global alarm is dead wrong because of the lack of evidence for positive feedback in the climate. Anyway, this was an influential talk and it's making it's way around the net and in professional academic circles. I'd like to see skepticalscience.com review this talk. - Cheers, libertarianromanticideal.com -
RSVP at 16:12 PM on 3 March 2010YouTube video on the empirical evidence for man-made global warming
CBDunkerson at 09:09 AM on 3 March, 2010 Thanks for answering, and I did like your Bic lighter analogy at least in terms of the humor. What I was saying is that the extra heat from CO2 shows up as a warmer atmosphere. Some part of that extra heat (I assume AGW theorists acknowledge this) IS escaping to infinity and some part could be going in "savings" (i.e., the ocean). My question is whether it is possible for that "small portion" of that "difference" could be sufficient to account for all that anomalous energy in your curve? -
ike solem at 15:57 PM on 3 March 2010YouTube video on the empirical evidence for man-made global warming
The term "pollutant" refers to toxicology, and the first thing you learn in toxicology is that effects are dose-dependent, or concentration-dependent. Paracelsus: "The only difference between poison and medicine is the dose." Fertilizer is a key ingredient for plant growth - but we don't call it a pollutant unless it is dumped into our fresh water supplies - and yes, ingesting ammonium nitrate is unhealthy. The herbicides and pesticides are of course far more toxic than fertilizer. So, this word, "pollutant" isn't really well-defined. Another example is ozone - in the stratosphere, it is a vital shield against ultraviolet radiation, but in cities, it is a dangerous component of automobile smog. So, the classic skeptic argument here is that CO2 is a life-giving fertilizer, a key raw material for plant growth - and that is true, if incomplete. Why? Plants take up atmospheric CO2, and use sunlight to split water into O2 and hydrogen atoms. Those atoms are then essentially attached to the CO2 atoms, while the oxygen atoms are sequentially removed, leaving the energy of sunlight stored in the chemical bonds inside sugar molecules. Refined sugar? Think of it as sunlight trapped within the molecular structure of the sugar molecule in the form of energetic electronic bonds... kind of like stretched rubber bands. Cut them, you release that stored sunlight as heat, light, pressure, muscular contractions, etc. No atmospheric CO2, no plant growth. Doubling CO2 across the planet could make photosynthesis easier, the argument goes - but in the real world, usually it's not the CO2 that is lacking - it's the nitrogen, the phosphate, the trace minerals that get depleted from the farmer's fields, and have to be replaced. You can now see why you can grow crops year after year - for millenia - with no effect on atmospheric CO2 - every year, the plants take the CO2 out of the air, and (with the assistance of animals, fungi & bacteria) it ends up being recycled back into the atmosphere. Hence, biofuels are sustainable at some scale. However, if you're dumping fossil carbon into the atmosphere, then you are adding to the pool (you can measure this in the radiocarbon signature of old fossil fuel carbon). CO2 (at these low levels) has no direct toxic effect (unlike on Pandora, where CO2 must be a few % - not bad on the science, there) - it is an indirect effect of slowing warming & destabilizing the climate. Now, the effects of acid rain are largely secondary as well - it strips nutrients out of the soil and that kills trees - and we call acid rain precursors (high-sulfur coal and diesel fuel) pollutants, don't we? If you can regulate secondary acid rain effects due to their impacts on people, pets, livestock, wildlife, and plants - well, yes, you should also be able to do the same with fossil fuel-sourced CO2. -
Karl_from_Wylie at 15:28 PM on 3 March 2010YouTube video on the empirical evidence for man-made global warming
#129 doug_bostrom Please do a word search and you'll see that "shadowy group" is your choice of words not mine. Either defend your words or choose them better. -
Doug Bostrom at 15:24 PM on 3 March 2010YouTube video on the empirical evidence for man-made global warming
gallopingcamel at 14:48 PM on 3 March, 2010 CO is a naturally occurring constituent of the atmosphere. Can it be labeled a pollutant? -
Doug Bostrom at 15:23 PM on 3 March 2010YouTube video on the empirical evidence for man-made global warming
Karl_from_Wylie at 15:15 PM on 3 March 2010 I guess I confused you, sorry. It's -your- argument. You have to support it, I don't. -
Doug Bostrom at 15:20 PM on 3 March 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
gallopingcamel at 14:04 PM on 3 March, 2010 Oops, w/regard to dropped stations, as Yogi Berra said "It's deja vu all over again!" I didn't remember I'd already produced the same answer to your durable misapprehension as recently as last night. Gallopingcamel, what is your argument about this? Kvetching about "fancy algorithms" does not really cut it. What have you got? -
Karl_from_Wylie at 15:15 PM on 3 March 2010YouTube video on the empirical evidence for man-made global warming
. #126 doug_bostrom Please define your "shadowy group" for which you have enmity. Please defend the words you use and don't attribute them to any one else. -
Doug Bostrom at 15:13 PM on 3 March 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
gallopingcamel at 14:04 PM on 3 March, 2010 You'll need to explain better than these folks why the station drop problem is indefensible: A simple model for spatially-weighted temp analysis False claims proven false Long story short: dropping stations has no deleterious effect on estimating temperature trends. In fact, if anything (though not statistically significant) it -reduces- apparent warming. -
gallopingcamel at 14:48 PM on 3 March 2010YouTube video on the empirical evidence for man-made global warming
Getting back to the video at the head of this thread. I am still asking myself whether there is a single respected scientist who could keep a straight face while publicly declaring: "Atmospheric carbon dioxide is a pollutant" -
gallopingcamel at 14:04 PM on 3 March 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
With regard to the "station drop off problem", you folks are defending the indefensible. Peterson, Schmidt and Hansen at NASA/GISS need to explain why they discard the vast majority of data that is reported to them. NASA told us they were dropping stations years ago but they failed to give a valid reason for so doing. See Peterson & Vose 1997. D'Aleo & Watts brought things up to date since stations are still dropping to this day. GHCN v2 now includes less than 1,000 stations compared to ~6,000 in the 1970s. Riccardo, you don't need any fancy algorithms to count stations; it is not rocket science. I used "gedit" to break the files down to sizes that Open Office Spreadsheet could digest. For Windows users "Wordpad" and "Excel" should work just as well. I broke the GHCN v2 files into individual countries using the fact that the first three digits of the station codes are country codes (e.g. "403" = Canada). After that it is a simple matter to sort by station number and by reporting year. Scoff at my lack of software skills all you like but it does not change the facts. I fail to see how y'all can be so sure the station drop out problem "makes no difference" unless you have access to the full data sets as well as the truncated ones. All the fancy algorithms Zeke can come up with won't help unless he has the data. Ooops! I forgot about the CRU and its ability to fill in the blanks as exposed in the HARRY_READ_ME file: http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt -
angliss at 13:47 PM on 3 March 2010Every skeptic argument ever used
John - the Venus thing is commenter Bob Armstrong's thing, but he's not the original source for it. He says, and I quote, "Also notable is that the temperature of Venus, commonly cited as what "runaway" warming could do to us, is twice as hot as the sun can possibly heat any object in its orbit. That is, Venus must have some internal source of heat because it is radiating much more energy than it is receiving from the sun." I've disproven this mathematically, but haven't had a chance to write it up as a post at scholarsandrogues.com yet. Too many equations, and I haven't found a good way to create equations for HTML yet. -
Riccardo at 13:03 PM on 3 March 2010Every skeptic argument ever used
Charlie A, the good old iris hypothesis is not supported by Lindzen itself anymore (beyond being contradicted by observations). Having said this, the problem of cloud feedback is a complicated one and can not be treated so easily on the basis of suppositions, local effect, one type of cloud, etc., the overall effect of warming must be addressed. -
Doug Bostrom at 11:46 AM on 3 March 2010YouTube video on the empirical evidence for man-made global warming
Karl_from_Wylie at 10:40 AM on 3 March, 2010 Would you remind me of exactly what you're arguing? You seem to be hypothesizing that a group of hazy identification is seeking to shift money from one place to another: "Please do a google search on "IPCC" and "funding", you'll see their efforts to secure "massive amounts" of funding for their cause." See, what I'm not clear on is who "they" are, and what is their "cause." If I misread what you posted and you're making a different argument, my apologies. I also apologize for assuming that by appearing on a site dedicated to debunking "skeptic" arguments regarding climate science and proceeding to describe a shadowy group seeking to use climate science to obtain funds for a "cause" you cannot identify, you might be a self-described "skeptic" regarding climate science. Perhaps it would be helpful if you restated your position? -
Mal Adapted at 11:22 AM on 3 March 2010Every skeptic argument ever used
John, this link: The Heat From a Global Warming Column http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/27/AR2009022702334.html is listed under "skeptic links" for "there is no consensus", but it's by the Washington Post's ombudsman acknowledging that a column by denier George Will contains significant errors. It might rather go into the "pro-AGW" list.Response: Thanks for pointing that out, have updated the link. -
yocta at 11:18 AM on 3 March 2010Every skeptic argument ever used
The same Willis Eschenbach mentioned here? http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/willis_eschenbach_caught_lying.php -
Mal Adapted at 11:12 AM on 3 March 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Woody Guthrie award, bug-fixes, Facebook and donations
SkepticalScience is one of two sites I recommend to anyone wanting well-supported arguments to counter anti-science; the other is RealClimate. I agree, it's only fair to support you financially -- $AUD 100.00 is on its way. -
omnologos at 11:09 AM on 3 March 2010YouTube video on the empirical evidence for man-made global warming
At 8:45 of the video one can hear the following: "with more moisture in the atmosphere due to warming, precipitation events are getting more extreme" ("both in Northern and Tropical areas") Could anybody please provide references for "more moisture in the atmosphere" and "precipitation events are getting more extreme"? I have asked at Romm's but only received references for the USA. -
Charlie A at 11:03 AM on 3 March 2010Every skeptic argument ever used
tobyjoyce at 09:51 AM on 3 March, 2010 "From my own reading, I do not recall any reported instances of negative climate feedback ... where have you seen that evidence?" Many climate scientists have noted that clouds provide both positive and negative feedback. IPCC also lists the effects of clouds as one of the biggest uncertainties in climate science. Indeed, the recent work by Willis Eschenbach is related to the daily variation in clouds very common in the tropics. Low clouds form in the late morning, often turning into thunderstorms in late afternoon, and then clearing around sunset. Several effects are at work. A low cloud generally is a positive feedback in that it adds to the greenhouse effect. But a low cloud also increases albedo. At local noon, a low cloud is an overall negative feedback. At night, it is clearly positive. So the phasing of diurnal cloud formation with respect to local noon affects the overall feedback. Cumulonibmus clouds have the additional effect of heat transport upward above a sizable fraction of the lower atmosphere water vapor and other GHGs. -
Charlie A at 10:44 AM on 3 March 2010Every skeptic argument ever used
barry at 09:53 AM on 3 March, 2010 " A weak change (>10%) in insolation at the surface at one pole (with the opposite change at the other) produces a world-wide climatic shift of 5C. If it weren't for well-mixed, rising GHGs, the heat would not be transported so evenly,..." Are you saying that well mixed greenhouse gases have a significant effect on hemisphere to hemisphere transport of heat ??? I don't understand your comment. Please clarify. -
Karl_from_Wylie at 10:40 AM on 3 March 2010YouTube video on the empirical evidence for man-made global warming
# 122 doug_bostrom My argument is very strong. You've already agreed with me. GOAL - Climate Scientists have biases just like others. My goal is neither prove or disprove Climate Change. Your assumption that it is my purpose, reveals a stereotyping of folks with differing views. When you make statement such as.... "...how did the conspirators you propose" "...fake science" You show you've not read any of my postings. No conspirators or alternate science has been discussed. Perhaps all skeptics look the same to you. -
barry1487 at 09:53 AM on 3 March 2010Every skeptic argument ever used
IPCC comes up with significantly positive feedback, based primarily upon modeling as opposed to analysis of empirical data.
Corroborated by empirical obs and analysis of ice age changes. A weak change (>10%) in insolation at the surface at one pole (with the opposite change at the other) produces a world-wide climatic shift of 5C. If it weren't for well-mixed, rising GHGs, the heat would not be transported so evenly, and if there weren't strong feedbacks to forcings, we wouldn't have ice ages. -
tobyjoyce at 09:51 AM on 3 March 2010Every skeptic argument ever used
Charlie A. Re: Arrhenius, here is the relevant statement from Wikpedia: "Arrhenius estimated that halving of CO2 would decrease temperatures by 4 - 5 °C (Celsius) and a doubling of CO2 would cause a temperature rise of 5 - 6 °C[4]. In his 1906 publication, Arrhenius adjusted the value downwards to 1.6 °C (including water vapour feedback: 2.1 °C). Recent (2007) estimates from IPCC say this value (the Climate sensitivity) is likely to be between 2 and 4.5 °C" Given that 0.5-1C is what is generally accepted for global average temperature rise up until now, and you agree with a climate sensitivity close to the low end of the IPCC estimate, I find it hard to see how you label yourself "sceptic". From my own reading, I do not recall any reported instances of negative climate feedback ... where have you seen that evidence? I don't accept the distinction between "models" and "empirical data" ... all empirical data has to go into some kind of black box (no matter what science). For acceptance, what comes out must in some manner be consistent with the initial hypothesis (represented by a different set of empirical observations), to within some degree of statistical significance. You will find every sceptic paper also has a model, or find me one that does not! -
JDoddsGW at 09:24 AM on 3 March 2010Every skeptic argument ever used
John, How about adding a comments section to each of the Arguments so that individuals (see all those above) can add their own thoughts. Any way to alphabetize them? or otherwise rank them in popularity? Sorting capability?Response: Currently they're ordered newest to oldest which I find useful for looking at the latest submissions. However, I'll probably add an ordering feature allowing you to order by date, alphabetically and if I feel really energetic, I might even add a ranking feature so most popular ones rise to the top.
Comments? Hmm, will think about this one. It's tough enough keeping track of all the comments on the blog posts and skeptic arguments. -
Josie at 09:15 AM on 3 March 2010Every skeptic argument ever used
I tried to submit a new skeptic argument, but it wouldn't let me unless I selected a parent argument, and none of the parent arguement options was right. So I'll do it here instead. It is one I ran across the other day: "Over geological time, there is no consistent correlation between CO2 and temperature" It is at this link: http://sbvor.blogspot.com/2009/10/climate-change-science-overview.html This is an absolutely fantastic idea John. I salute you sir, and will be back with arguments, and links as I find them. Lets create a proper database!Response: Yes, it is imperative to select a parent argument in order to keep it all organised and categorised. The parent argument for yours would be "there's no correlation between CO2 and temperature". This is a good suggested argument actually - the "no correlation" argument is more general and tends to be applied towards the 20th Century so a focus on more geological time periods is a good idea.
Please do continue to add arguments and links - it would be very handy for many people if we could build this into a useful and hopefully eventually comprehensive resource. -
CBDunkerson at 09:09 AM on 3 March 2010YouTube video on the empirical evidence for man-made global warming
RSVP, no the top line of the curve represents the total accumulated anomaly from the 1950 value. Also no, energy could not accumulate in the Earth's climate system as shown without the planet warming... as it has. Your analogy makes no sense to me (how is 'more energy being retained' equivalent to 'NO money being retained'?), but I gather that you are trying to claim that fluctuations in the ~0.1 watts/m^2 average energy emitted from within the Earth to the surface is a more likely candidate for ocean heat accumulations than better retention of the ~1370 watts/m^2 coming in from the Sun. Sorry, but its like claiming that you can boil a lake with a Bic lighter. On a global scale volcanoes are TINY. -
Doug Bostrom at 08:37 AM on 3 March 2010YouTube video on the empirical evidence for man-made global warming
Karl_from_Wylie at 08:22 AM on 3 March, 2010 Karl, that does not sound like a very robust argument against what we seem to know of physics-- principles that work in many areas other than climate research-- but let's pursue the idea for just a moment. At what point in time and concepts did real science stop and fake science begin? More specifically, when and how did the conspirators you propose are promoting a hidden agenda bridge the gap between accepted scientific principles and fiction? It seems to me that's the tricky part of conducting such a campaign. So, if you can pin down the transition from science that works everywhere else to how the same principles are made to appear to work for climate research without actually doing so you'll have the beginnings of a case. -
Karl_from_Wylie at 08:32 AM on 3 March 2010Every skeptic argument ever used
. # 23 CoalGeologist Do you use the term homosexual when referring to the gay community? Do you refer to mentally handicapped as retarded? Is the term "climate alarmist" a proper term or is it an epithet? I guess it is all according to whose "ox is being gored" -
Karl_from_Wylie at 08:22 AM on 3 March 2010YouTube video on the empirical evidence for man-made global warming
doug_bostrom The cause to which I referred above is actions (read money) that they prescribe others must take(read money) to reduce Global Warming. Link provided above. With regard their "ambition", I would not know. -
Doug Bostrom at 08:13 AM on 3 March 2010YouTube video on the empirical evidence for man-made global warming
Karl_from_Wylie at 08:06 AM on 3 March, 2010 I am indeed forced to read from your posts what you have not written. Your descriptions are incomplete and you leave me the reader to fill in the gaps you have left. What is it you would like me to understand about the IPCC "cause?" Who are the proponents of that cause? What is their ambition? -
KR at 08:08 AM on 3 March 2010Every skeptic argument ever used
CoalGeologist in #14 - an excellent description of the terms and context. -
Karl_from_Wylie at 08:06 AM on 3 March 2010YouTube video on the empirical evidence for man-made global warming
. #118 doug_bostrom You are once again reading into my posts what is not written. Read only what is written. You're a smart man, it is not hard to understand. -
Doug Bostrom at 07:57 AM on 3 March 2010YouTube video on the empirical evidence for man-made global warming
Karl_from_Wylie at 07:46 AM on 3 March 2010 Well, if you must leave it at that what I interpret from your writing is that you believe scientists have formed a political unit espousing an unstated cause. I don't see evidence for that in the IPCC reports. -
Riccardo at 07:54 AM on 3 March 2010Every skeptic argument ever used
Charlie A, John has written a post with some papers on climate sensitivity both from model studies and empirical observations. -
Karl_from_Wylie at 07:46 AM on 3 March 2010YouTube video on the empirical evidence for man-made global warming
. #117 doug_bostrom It does no good writing if you will not read. I clearly answer your question, "To what "cause" are you referring?" in the previous post. -
Doug Bostrom at 07:37 AM on 3 March 2010YouTube video on the empirical evidence for man-made global warming
Karl_from_Wylie at 07:24 AM on 3 March 2010 Karl, how I interpret what you write depends on the ambiguity your writing leaves unresolved. To what "cause" are you referring? Is there a manifesto, and if so where can I read it? And who are "they?" -
Charlie A at 07:36 AM on 3 March 2010Every skeptic argument ever used
Tobyjoyce "He proposed (I believe) 4-6C, which is now considered too high by about 1C, not "by a factor of 2". What was wrong with his estimate? Only askin'." He later revised his estimate to 1.6C for a doubling of CO2 in his 1906 paper. I agree with that as the starting point for doubling CO2. I also agree that CO2 is now approaching 390ppm from a level back in 1700's and 1800's of around 275ppm. 390/275=sqr(2), so since the CO2 effect is logarithmic, the expected effect from Arrhenius's 1906 calculations using today's CO2 number would be about 0.8C rise. Now the discussion goes to how much feedback is in the climate system and whether it is positive or negative feedback. IPCC comes up with significantly positive feedback, based primarily upon modeling as opposed to analysis of empirical data. -
CoalGeologist at 07:29 AM on 3 March 2010Every skeptic argument ever used
Karl_from_Wylie at #17: Nice notion, but impractical. I’m all for avoiding epithets, but unfortunately there’s no consensus how this group would like to be called. In a classic interview on The Weather Channel, Fred Singer proudly lays claim to being called a "skeptic", but then ends the interview by stating that he has no doubts that he may be wrong in rejecting AGW. Hmmmmm…. Many even dislike the term "skeptic", preferring instead to be called "Realists"! (No chance of my using THAT term!). The terms "rejectionist" or "denialist" are descriptors, and not necessarily intended as epithets. After all, were it not for rejection of theory of AGW and the threat it is inferred to pose to "quality of life", most of the non-climate scientists comprising this group would have no more opinion on attribution of climate change than they would on their favorite flavor of quarks! Rejection (or denial) of AGW is the sine qua non of this position, and "dancing around" this in an effort to protect sensibilities can be awkward at times. -
CoalGeologist at 07:26 AM on 3 March 2010Every skeptic argument ever used
CharlieA @#12 et al. It's difficult to find a formal definition of AGW, as it’s more of a vernacular term than a scientific term. The phrase “global warming” is neither defined nor used by the IPCC. In practice, however, AGW refers comprehensively to the interpreted human impact(s) on climate, including an increase in globally averaged temperatures. More specifically AGW describes warming of the Earth's surface due to enhanced retention of solar energy by anthropogenic greenhouse gases, especially CO2. (That is, GHGs added to the atmosphere by, or related to, human activity). A substantial proportion of the retained energy, however, goes toward melting ice and warming of the deep ocean, which may not be manifested in surface temperatures. Despite its limitations, the term AGW is useful because it is succinct and widely recognized. It is, nevertheless, potentially subject to misunderstanding and misuse. For example, some AGW "rejectionists" (TOTH to doug_bostrom!) use the term “global warming” to refer to non-anthropogenic warming occurring since the last glacial maximum (around 22,000 years BP), or to the slight warming observed in some regions following the (loosely defined) "Little Ice Age". This apparently intentional misuse of terminology sows confusion, not understanding. -
Karl_from_Wylie at 07:16 AM on 3 March 2010YouTube video on the empirical evidence for man-made global warming
. 113 doug_bostrom Please be more careful in reading what I've acturally written rather than how it can be interpreted. "massive amounts" of funding for THEIR CAUSE." IPCC seeks funding of the cause of Global Warming. See link below for list of edicts they have made sorted by industy. http://www.ipcc.ch/...mitigation_of_climate_change.htm
Prev 2457 2458 2459 2460 2461 2462 2463 2464 2465 2466 2467 2468 2469 2470 2471 2472 Next
