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:
-
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 -
Doug Bostrom at 07:08 AM on 3 March 2010Every skeptic argument ever used
By the way, self-professed practicing Skeptics are organized. Here's what the Official Skeptics say about skepticism: Some people believe that skepticism is the rejection of new ideas, or worse, they confuse “skeptic” with “cynic” and think that skeptics are a bunch of grumpy curmudgeons unwilling to accept any claim that challenges the status quo. This is wrong. Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas — no sacred cows allowed. In other words, skepticism is a method, not a position. Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be true. When we say we are “skeptical,” we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe. Find them here: Skeptic -
tobyjoyce at 07:01 AM on 3 March 2010Every skeptic argument ever used
Charlie A asked: "What's the term for those of us who agree the CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but believe that the IPCC estimates of climate sensitivity are off by at least a factor of 2?" Classical Climate Scientists? :) Didn't Svante Arrhenius provide the first estimate of climate sensitivity in 1896? Arrhenius was part of the move from classical to modern physics, and was one of the first Nobelists, so I think the name fits. 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'. -
Doug Bostrom at 06:59 AM on 3 March 2010Every skeptic argument ever used
Charlie A at 06:50 AM on 3 March, 2010 It seems reasonable to say that if you disagree with any particular research finding, your appropriate pigeonhole will depend on how effectively you express your disagreement. So, w/regard to C02 sensitivity, your particular label will depend on if you can cite or make a coherent argument for your assertion that IPCC is overestimating sensitivity, as opposed to simply saying "I don't believe it." -
Charlie A at 06:50 AM on 3 March 2010Every skeptic argument ever used
What's the term for those of us who agree the CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but believe that the IPCC estimates of climate sensitivity are off by at least a factor of 2?Response: Lukewarmists? -
Karl_from_Wylie at 06:42 AM on 3 March 2010Every skeptic argument ever used
. Why not utilize the names that groups call themselves, and then argue the merits of the discussion rather than utilizing connotative naming conventions that reveal the bias of the user? As an example....although possibly accurate, use of the term homosexual has become unacceptable since members of that group have rejected the moniker and now wish the term "gay" to be used for their group. In much the way that using the term homosexual would reveal bias from the user, use of terms such as "alarmists", "deniers", and "rejectionist" reveals the bias of the user. -
Riccardo at 06:32 AM on 3 March 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
gallopingcamel, even though in principle one experiment may disprove a theory, it is not any experiment. None of those you quote, even if accepted, disprove the AGW, at maximum would require some corrections. As for MWP, historians tell us the Europe was colder. We have no comprehensive reports from Asia or North America, let alone southern hemisphere. So we need to rely on proxies, which tell a different story. As for the station drop off Watts "suspect" that it might be a problem but not a single number came out. Those who looked at the numbers (Tamino for Northern Emisphere using "optimal averaging", Zeke at Lucia's blog using simple averages of raw data, people at Clear Climate Code reproducing GISS reference station method) found a different picture. Three methods, three different griddings, same result. Not a surprise indeed, a larger percent of urban stations have been dropped and the colder stations dropped show a larger temperature increase. If any, i would have expected a larger trend. If you got different results please describe your averaging algorithm, the gridding method and the results. -
RSVP at 06:27 AM on 3 March 2010YouTube video on the empirical evidence for man-made global warming
CBDunkerson The area under the curve (Calculus 101) represents the total energy accumulated over all these years. I guess I would ask just one question. Could GHG have trapped all this AND at the same time leave Earth´s temperatures more or less the same? Sort of like a household budget where for years every month you basically spent every penny with zero saving, and then find out you have million dollars in the bank. Unless you have a rich uncle (under sea volcanic action, etc.) this is quite impossible. -
Doug Bostrom at 06:24 AM on 3 March 2010YouTube video on the empirical evidence for man-made global warming
Karl_from_Wylie at 01:19 AM on 3 March, 2010 Karl, I need to tell you that I cannot sympathize with your worries about money as they relate to science. The vector of cash flow is dependent on physics and the outcome of physical processes but money cannot be used to describe physics. You're wrong; IPCC is not seeking massive amounts of funding. You need to refine your argument. I do not agree with you that bias significantly affects validated results of scientific inquiry, though I do believe personal predilections will help to steer any individual scientist's preferred course of inquiry. -
Doug Bostrom at 06:13 AM on 3 March 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
gallopingcamel at 03:10 AM on 3 March, 2010 Dropping stations is not a problem. To investigate the 1st claim, I computed separate northern-hemisphere averages for stations that stopped reporting after 1992.0 (the “pre-cutoff” stations) and those that continued to report after 1992 (the “post-cutoff” stations), in order to see whether there’s a significant difference between the trends according to those two subsets. ... Using only the post-cutoff stations did not introduce any false warming trend — if anything, the stations which were retained showed slightly less warming than those which stopped reporting, although the difference is not statistically significant. False claims proven false
These results are being submitted for publication but in any case you'll need to show how he's wrong in order to continue effectively promoting the "dropped stations introduce warming" argument. -
Doug Bostrom at 06:07 AM on 3 March 2010Every skeptic argument ever used
CoalGeologist at 05:50 AM on 3 March, 2010 More and more I'm inclined to apply the term "rejectionist" to generally describe folks who don't seem to be able to integrate facts in a coherent way leading to a useful argument countering our accepted understanding of how our climate functions. It's easily possible to generalize too much. I think Berényi Péter who frequently posts here with reasoned arguments backed up with numerical treatments is a close approximation to a skeptic in the traditional sense. This fellow is capable of concession, a key diagnostic of reasonable behavior. Another species are the cynics, speculating bad motivations on the part of researchers, but they share in common with rejectionists that they are not able to produce a robust argument justifying their position. We have such a rich language in English, stolen from many sources and with wonderful granularity. It's worth exploiting, even if only to avoid monotony. -
Ari Jokimäki at 06:07 AM on 3 March 2010Every skeptic argument ever used
Obvious place to look for the statement of the AGW theory is IPCC AR4. That is just one big review article of mainstream climate science written by climate scientists. -
CoalGeologist at 05:50 AM on 3 March 2010Every skeptic argument ever used
In this discussion, we again encounter the vexing problem of finding appropriate terms to describe the opposing "camps" in the debate over AGW. (Even the term "AGW" is problematic!!) "Pro-AGW" is intended to convey concurrence with the predominant scientific interpretation that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are causing enhanced warming of the Earth's surface. Unfortunately, "pro-AGW" inadvertently conveys bias, whereas this position is actually rooted in sound scientific evidence and reasoning. Admittedly, some who concur with AGW do so on the basis of faith or prejudice, and are equally as dogmatic as many of those who reject AGW. On the other side, the term "skepticism" has its own limitations. The Greek root "skepsis" conveys inquiry, examination, or thought. The word skepticism has come to convey doubt or uncertainty toward particular views. Historically, skepticism was intended to challenge "dogmatism", which represents an inflexible, unthinking certainty in one's views. Skepticism is now regarded as a required element of the scientific method, as science-based conclusions are in perpetual need of revision and refinement. Doubt, thought, and inquiry are essential for this process to be successful. In actual practice in the AGW debate, however, there is commonly little actual thought and effectively no doubt associated with the rejection of AGW. Too often this position is not truly skeptical but dogmatic, and is rooted in politics and ideology, not in science. Being rooted in politics, it is often laden with emotionalism as well. Some people (myself included) have used the term "Denialism" to describe this position. AGW Denialism presumes that AGW is wrong, then specifically seeks out evidence consistent with this presumption, while summarily rejecting evidence inconsistent with it. The down side of the term Denialism is that it is unfair to actual AGW skeptics (even if they be few in number). Moreover, skeptics and denialists alike find the term "Denialism" offensive, so it's a nonstarter if we are to retain any hope for dialogue. The term "Rejects AGW" conveys some process of reasoning, even if it is tainted by bias. It also has the advantage of being more descriptive and less judgmental. The term "Accepts AGW" conveys a conclusion that could be the result of a rational, science-based reasoning, but could encompass faith-based acceptance as well. Unfortunately, the terms "Accepts AGW" or "Rejects AGW" are awkward to apply. -
tobyjoyce at 05:49 AM on 3 March 2010Every skeptic argument ever used
Charlie A, RSvp etc., Try "CO2 Problem in 6 Easy Steps" at realclimate.org. Since global Warming is a composite (rather than a simple) hypothesis, each step is a component of the AGW case. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/ -
ike solem at 05:46 AM on 3 March 2010YouTube video on the empirical evidence for man-made global warming
P.S. on this comment: As for dead canaries in coal mines, the statament itself carries all one needs to know-canaries dont usually live in coal mines, they arent adapted to them, they have no biological exposure or history to them(unlike eg natural warmings) so how can one use this cruel analogy with anything to do with climate change? Well, we are taking what's down in the coal mine and exporting it all into the atmosphere, the rivers and streams, and the soil. Coal combustion releases tonnage quantities of mercury and arsenic and other potent toxins into the air and water - which makes sense, since coal plants burn as much as 10 million tons of coal a year, and resulting in a few tons of mercury and arsenic and several thousand tons of sulfur and nitrogen oxides being pumped into the atmosphere - plus your 27 million tons of CO2 (10 million tons of coal = 27 million tons of CO2 on combustion) From there, the mercury and arsenic rains out into rivers and streams, accumulates in insects and fish, and so enters the food web - everything from eagles to humans gets loaded up with mercury, leading to various levels of neurological damage, etc. A few people doing burning coal won't affect the climate, even if they poison their local surroundings - but what about 7 billion people burning coal? The canary in the coal mine analogy seems perfectly appropriate - since the idea, cruel as it may seem, was that by watching the canary, human lives could be saved (now, they have sophisticated gas monitors - no animals need be sacrificed). Of course, if you knew the mine was full of gas, you probably wouldn't send the canary down into it, would you? So, if we see a whole host of wild species uprooting themselves and changing their behavior, and it seems to correlate with the changing climate - well, maybe we should pay attention, huh? Maybe we shouldn't send hundreds of species down into the coal mine after the canary, just maybe? -
ike solem at 05:32 AM on 3 March 2010YouTube video on the empirical evidence for man-made global warming
RSVP: "The AGW model consists of pitting all known radiative forcings against one another, such that global temperatures will ultimate stabilize around the equilibrium that these vectors produce in their sum." That's a great example of cargo cult science - it has the appearance, but no substance. You're ignoring all the physics, the chemistry, the biology - that's not science. For example: the interior of the Earth is very warm. Is this a major factor in the surface temperature? No - it's a very minor factor. There's some heat transfer from hot springs and ocean vents, but it's tiny in comparison to the solar inputs. The ground gets cold at night, after all. Here's another: If you increase the percentage of infrared-absorbing gas in the atmosphere, does that result in a warmer atmosphere and surface? Yes! Clear nights are colder than overcast nights, everyone knows that. It's because the Earth's heat is lost more rapidly to space when there are fewer greenhouse gases in the air. To get estimates, you need models with complicated mathematical structures - and yes, vectors come into play. But what you are doing, RSVP, is just the cargo cult version. -
Mikemcc at 05:32 AM on 3 March 2010Predicting future sea level rise
Hi John, Great site, but I've just noticed something that doesn't, at first sight, seem right. The graph is taken from the Copenhagen Diagnosis report (fig 16) but that report says that the satellite data is taken from the Cazenave et al 2008 paper (Cazenave, A., et al., Sea level budget over 2003–2008: A reevaluation from GRACE space gravimetry, satellite altimetry and Argo, Glob. Planet. Change (2008), doi:10.1016/j.gloplacha.2008.10.004) But that paper only covers the 2003 - 2008 period. Nor does it indicate the bounds of the observational error.Response: I imagine the authors took the analysis from Cazenave 2008 and updated it with the latest data. You'd need to contact the authors to confirm this (and please report back here to let us know what they say if you do). -
Charlie A at 05:30 AM on 3 March 2010Every skeptic argument ever used
@jhudsy #4 ".... AGW is easy to attack. You simply need to prove that anthropogenic emissions are not able to cause an increase in global temperatures." You failed to reply to RSVP's question in #2. He simply asks for a statement of the AGW hypothesis. If a hypothesis is not defined, then it is difficult to discuss, test or falsify it. jhudgsy, or anyone else ..... I'd appreciate seeing some specific statements defining AGW. -
suckfish at 05:22 AM on 3 March 2010Satellites show no warming in the troposphere
One thing I don't get about the skeptical argument: Suppose that the tropospheric warming relative to the surface warming were less than the models predict. Won't that end up making the climate sensitivity bigger, not smaller? The troposphere is where heat is radiated back into space, so if it's responding less than expected to a forcing, then the result is less heat radiated from the earth = more heat retained = more temperature increase? -
Tom Dayton at 04:31 AM on 3 March 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
gallopingcamel, the "station drop off problem" and "station cherry picking" have been proven, empirically, to be bogus. Tamino has done the analyses, and at least two other people have replicated. Links to all that are here.Response: Just to plug the new links page, there is a page on the station drop off problem linking to the various analyses that show dropping stations has no effect on the warming trend.
Prev 2457 2458 2459 2460 2461 2462 2463 2464 2465 2466 2467 2468 2469 2470 2471 2472 Next
