Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2463 2464 2465 2466 2467 2468 2469 2470 2471 2472 2473 2474 2475 2476 2477 2478 Next
Comments 123501 to 123550:
-
tobyjoyce at 09:48 AM on 27 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
@garythompson, In my view, figure 5 destroys your revised statament in AT that: "Since half the wavenumbers experienced a decrease and the other half experienced an increase, the data is not compelling enough to make conclusions either way with regard to OLR for these wavenumbers associated with CO2 absorption" As Figure 5 shows,the vertical grey bans indicate regions where the differences in spectra are significantly different from zero. The legend beneath the chart says: "The regions of the difference spectrum with 95% statistical significance that the differences shown are nonzero are shaded with vertical gray lines." The number of such shaded areas is striking, particularly in Figure 5 (b). If you superposed the 3 charts (a), (b) & (c), the CO2 absorption band would be almost entirely grey, indicating uniform difference from 0 across the band. For you to prove your conjecture, you must demonstrate that these regions of statistically significance differences are of no consequence. Your handwaving explanation (above) just does not cut it. So I am sure where this came from: "...so the bottom two graphs on that figure (which look at deltas over 27 and 33 years) show a rise or no change in OLR emission in the spectrum associated with CO2 absorption" I repeat: the graphs show a statistically significant difference from 0 over substantial regions of the band. You can't argue black is white. This has nothing to do with time windows. The guys at RC prbably are top notch for climate science, but time windows are no part of the point I am trying to get across to you. The points you raised were interesting, and thank you for what we have all learned here. But your article at AT is grotesquely triumphalist in tone and should be retracted. -
Riccardo at 09:45 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
Karl_from_Wylie, "And it is imperative that we have ALL of the data available for review. Lost, misplaced, inaccessible data is unacceptble" Luckily we already have those numbers even though a lot of people didn't noticed. -
Riccardo at 09:41 AM on 27 February 2010Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
Argus, yes, you can claim whatever you wish untill you look at the data. Which tell a different story. By the way, in the '20s the arctic was already warming. -
ProfMandia at 09:37 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
To the few of you who still think the CRU email theft changes anything about the science, I suggest that you re-read the post from John Cook. How can any of you believe that email from a few scientists refutes these multiple, independent lines of evidence. Surely you do not think that ice sheets, glaciers, oceans, plants/animals, CO2, satellites, etc. can read email? Scott A. Mandia http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/ P.S. John, this is a great summary which I will be adding to my site and referring to when I post on anti-science blogs. -
Karl_from_Wylie at 09:34 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
"....Its imperative that we obtain our understanding of our climate from peer-reviewed science" And it is imperative that we have ALL of the data available for review. Lost, misplaced, inaccessible data is unacceptble And it is imperative that skeptical scientists are allowed and encouraged to enter into the peer-review process. And it is imperative that non-peer reviewed conclusions be labeled as such when inserted in reports used to request major funding. -
Argus at 09:27 AM on 27 February 2010Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
The Arctic seems to be warming up. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers … all point to a radical change in climate conditions, and hitherto unheard-of high temperatures in that part of the earth's surface. … Ice conditions were exceptional. In fact so little ice has never before been noted. The expedition all but established a record, sailing as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes in ice-free water. … Many old landmarks are so changed as to be unrecognizable. Where formerly great masses of ice have been were found, there are now often moraines... At many points where glaciers formerly extended far into the sea, they have entirely disappeared. - - - The above alarming excerpts were taken from an October report to the US Weather Bureau. October 1922, that is, not 2009. So it has happened before, and will happen again. We should not think that everything is so special for our time: the contents of this site strike me as very centered around here and now. It is 10 years this, 30 years that, highest since record began in 1978, and so on. That is a very short time perspective. Somehow the lack of perspective in the climate discussions remind me of the 2000+ year old quote attributed to Socrates that most people would place in our time frame: "The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers." It is presumptuous to think that mankind rules the earth's climate. There are other, more powerful, forces in play. But we think we can raise or lower the average temperature of the earth at will! 0.33 degrees up, or why not 4 degrees. Or raise the oceans, 38 centimeters up, or why not 6 meters, or whatever ! Invent a figure, and people will bow to you in awe. Ridiculous. Anything could happen, and probably will, but we are not in control. -
Stuart at 09:00 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
Marcus: Slight correction to your post #12 - Carbon-13 is stable and the reason fossil fuels are relatively depleted in C13 isn't radioactive decay, it's photosynthesis's affinity for lighter isotopes of carbon. The decay of Carbon-14 means it has very low concentrations in fossil fuels, and therefore burning fossil fuels should lead to a decrease in both C14 and C13 concentrations in the atmosphere (according to the Suess effect), but C14 is complicated by factors such as nuclear testing which greatly increased the atmospheric concentration. -
dhogaza at 08:42 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
If there is a fraud trial it will be interesting to see what the lawyers make of it all.
One word for you: Dover. -
shargash at 08:33 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
The Economist online has a good take on the Phil Jones misquote: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/climategate_distortions/. -
Riccardo at 08:32 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
gallopingcamel, wrong analogy, there's not third party. We do not need any "third party" to judge. We all know the context and we know what has been written. No need to have someone else in between. -
kwinters79 at 07:49 AM on 27 February 2010Misinterpreting a retraction of rising sea level predictions
Berényi Péter (61) wrote: "Kinematics, uniform acceleration. You've forgotten to divide by 2." I see the confusion. As Jeff (63) pointed out, I took your statement about fitting a quadratic function to be in the form: h0 + v*t + a*t^2 All my computed data is in this form. Berényi Péter (61) wrote: "Linear component is trivial, does not add much, depends on place. No accelerating acceleration (i.e. no jolt, snap, crackle, pop, etc.), no scare." The linear rise rate is actually the dominant part of the sea-level rise projection in my polynomial equation of the NY data. If the acceleration term were dropped, you're still looking at 20.5 cm rise by 2100 and over 42.8 cm by 2200 (the acceleration term only adds an additional 12.3 cm by 2100 or 33.4 cm by 2200). However you look at it, the current trend line from NY guage data shows an expected sea-level rise of an additional 32.8 cm by 2100 and 76.2 cm by 2200. I'd call those extremely low-ball estimates, since the ice sheet dynamics haven't yet really come into play and there was very little global warming during the early part of the NY tide guage dataset. If I start my NY guage data projection fit from 1950 or 1960 (vs. 1856) there's a significantly more rapid acceleration component. I'll gladly post the data, if anyones interested. Though my analysis here is much too simplistic, it certainly helps convince me that Siddall's results appear quite reasonable. -
SLRTX at 07:41 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
1077 - "Science is only used in support of one or the other political position." Your partially correct. The evidence can be used to support one position or the other. We all take positions for different reasons. But the argument doesn't work in reverse. The collective process of science itself is as a-political as any process we can use. The peer-reviewed process, isn't perfect, but it does move us in the right direction to the facts. The process mitigates personal biases and agendas. But the evidence supporting ACC is what it is. Backed up by numerous, independent measurements. The process to get to this point isn't political. Now, twisting the facts, and simply denying that evidence can and does serve political purposes. But, that's not science. John's article was dead-on. -
SLRTX at 07:33 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
RSVP - Follow up on my post #28. I see a lot of blog posts and radio appearances by Archibald, but no peer-reviewed work by this Geologist. I did find a critique of his methods at realclimate: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/my-model-used-for-deception/ So forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical (aren't we all?) of the point of page 46 (post #5), if it hangs on claims that can't be supported in peer-reviewed literature. -
gallopingcamel at 07:30 AM on 27 February 2010Misinterpreting a retraction of rising sea level predictions
Thanks to satellites we can be confident that sea levels have risen 55 mm in the last 17 years. That works out at about 320 mm/century. The 20th century rise was <220 mm so it seems plausible to suggest that the 21st century will see a rise in sea level greater than the last century. However, the 750 - 1,900 mm predictions by 2100 sound high given the current rate of rise. We may be in danger of missing the big picture by agonizing over what may turn out to be small, short term fluctuations. My understanding is that sea levels have risen by ~360 feet in the last 9,000 years. That works out at an average of 4 feet/century or 1,200 mm/century. My conclusion is that the rise in sea level is a good thing because it will be accompanied by longer growing seasons in the high latitudes and eventually the de-glaciating of the poles as in the Eocene. I don't buy your sea level "Catastrophe". Rapidly falling sea levels on the other hand will constitute a "Catastrophe" as they will be accompanied by famines on a horrific scale. -
1077 at 07:26 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
So this site did become political after all... It had to because the issue is a political and economic one. Science is only used in support of one or the other political position. And in this field science lends itself to be used as the analysis is statistical. Only those who did not work with statistical data can believe that results obtained this way are anything more than approximations of the reality, highly dependent on a number of simplifying assumptions which are necessary but can also be proven wrong. For example normal distribution assumptions, continuity assumptions, etc. So claiming that one is apolitical is disingenuous. -
Doug Bostrom at 07:12 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
allopingcamel at 06:48 AM on 27 February, 2010 How about we come to an agreement? If somebody mentions the word "fraud", let's follow this specification: 1) A specific reference to a specific case of fraud is stated, with a detailed explanation of exactly what the putative fraudulent behavior consists of; 2) The specific parties alleged to have committed that specific case of fraud are individually named, unambiguously identified; 3) The person making the allegation of fraud accompanies their accusation with their own identifying information, i.e. name, address, country of origin. Fair enough? I don't find at all persuasive your assertion that hearsay provided by third parties not involved in a conversation is suitable evidence to support allegations of misconduct. So I remain skeptical of Senator Inhofe's extrapolation of facts. -
SLRTX at 07:05 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
RSVP (#5) I read some of the paper your link points to. It's a bit long for me to read it all in one sitting. But on the surface, I did notice several edited charts that left some details out. Some charts run from 2000 to present, I guess to hide how much warming has occurred before that time. A chart on solar irradiance is clipped off at 2000. What happened since then? It's been on a decline. I guess that bit of information was inconvenient for the document's authors. Here's the link to the document referenced on your page 46: http://ncwatch.typepad.com/dalton_minimum_returns/files/solar_arch_ny_mar2_08.pdf The author, David Archibald, proposes the sun is driving our current warming trend, but then also seems to claim the recent minimum in sunspots should herald a cooling trend. Am I missing something? He also claims that as CO2 increases in the atm, the ability to retain heat goes down. That may be true (I'll leave that to the technical types here to verify), but he seems to miss that as ANY warming occurs, we do pump more moisture in the atm. THAT enhances the warming effects of CO2. Then he says increased CO2 is good (ah, now we see where he's going with this) for us. Plants love it, so it must be ok. And hey, CO2 levels were higher in the past, so it's just natural, right? Problem is, the RATE of climate change is outpacing the ability for the rest of the ecosystem to keep up. This is already being observed. So, even if CO2 levels were higher in the past, the RATE of increase/decrease was much, much slower than it is now. The rate of CO2 increase, with observable negative changes to the ecosystem, is tied to our use of fossil fuels. Can't change the evidence, only deny or accept it. -
gallopingcamel at 06:48 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
doug_bostrom, Looking at the CRU emails is often like listening to one side of a phone conversation. You need the other half of the dialog to fully understand what is going on. Fortunately, additional context has been supplied by McKittrick, McIntyre and many other folks who were communicating with the CRU. If you want more "Context" than can be found in the senate minority report try this: http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/ The "taken out of context" excuse does not fly in this case. The more context you fill in, the worse things look for the Hockey Team. If there is a fraud trial it will be interesting to see what the lawyers make of it all. -
garythompson at 06:34 AM on 27 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
@tobyjoice (89) - ah, the griggs, harries paper - got it now. i covered this in post #67 (6th paragraph) but i confined my comments to figure 4 and not figure 5. i'm sorry i dropped the ball on answering your question but i hope to rectify that now - here are my thoughts on figure 5. the bottom 2 graphs are over a longer time frame and as i'm told many times by those on RC, you need decades to assess climate change (not anything less than 10 years). so the bottom two graphs on that figure (which look at deltas over 27 and 33 years) show a rise or no change in OLR emission in the spectrum associated with CO2 absorption. Of course the spike in both of these figures i alluded to in my post #84. the author offers various expalanations for this spike down and i raised the question why it shows up here and not in the other Harries paper that covers the same geographical region and the same time period. i agree with you though that there was a decrease in OLR emission from 1997 to 2003 but then again, i'm going to side with the guidance i have received from others at RC about choosing my window of time wisely. otherwise i could say that global warming has stopped since the HADCRUT3 temperatures have been stable over the past 10 years. -
NewYorkJ at 06:32 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
One frustration I have with RealClimate right now is that they're having to spend a ridiculous amount of time defending themselves and their colleagues against defamatory attacks against their character from various media sources, while there's zero accountability for those making the accusations, much less people like Inhofe. While RealClimate is doing a necessary task and doing a pretty good job of it, it ultimately detracts from what has made the blog so useful over the years - discussion about science from credentialed climate scientists. I'm sure it will all die down (perhaps when clean energy legislation in the U.S. is resolved one way or the other this year), but in the meantime, where to go for the latest interesting climate studies? ScienceDaily is a nice site, as is this one, which has been a rare bright spot (and growing brighter) within all the loud noise. -
Tom Dayton at 06:15 AM on 27 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
Gary, you keep arguing that AGW theory requires OLR in the CO2 bands to decrease, while you refuse to allow any detailed qualifiers in that prediction. The actual prediction is not a short, obligatory phrase of introduction from a paper. The actual predictions are the models' outputs--the outputs that were compared to observations, and found to match. Those models' outputs are of total OLR in those bands, due to all mechanisms--CO2, water vapor, and a bunch of other things. All those are included in the model, because it is the net effect that is being compared to observations. The net effect must be the focus of the comparison of model to observation, because we can't directly observe only the OLR that is escaping past only the CO2. There do exist models that deal narrowly only with CO2. Those models are incorporated as subsets of the models we've been discussing. If those CO2-focused portions of the models were incorrect, the overall model's net output would be incorrect. But the overall model's net output is correct. So the AGW theory's prediction is validated. -
Dennis at 05:50 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
OK, I'll try again. My previous post was deleted, presumably for my ad hominem attack on Sen. Inhofe (a good honesty test that the policy here is balanced for both "sides"). I doubt there will ever be an criminal inquiry, but I suggest the National Academies of Science conduct a scientific inquiry, and the Academies personally invite Senator Inhofe to be a full participant in that. It will be a real education for everyone to have a scientist pull up the data and graphics from the supposed criminal emails ("hide the decline" and "trick"), and explain step by step what work was done and why. Inhofe -- a non-scientist -- can ask all the questions he wants. If he challenges a practice, other panel members can respond "It's perfect legit -- we all do this." -
Alexandre at 05:47 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
Minor typo: Parmeson 2003 is actually ParmesAn 2003. And it includes plant distribution as well.Response: Thanks for the typo alert. I was aware of the plant distribution but was trying to tighten up the text for readability purposes. Here is a more expansive list of the physical evidence that global warming is happening (which also had the Parmeson/Parmesan typo but is now fixed) -
tobyjoyce at 05:45 AM on 27 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
@garythompson, Ok, lets keep it simple: Go to: http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1175%2FJCLI4204.1 Open the pdf version. Figure 5 is on page 3990. Your comments, please? I tried to copy & paste one of the charts but only for the caption: FIG.5.The differences between the average observed spectra and their statistical signifi- cance.(a)TheAIRS–IMG(2003–1997)difference spectrum,(b)the AIRS–IRIS(2003–1970) difference spectrum,and(c)theIMG–IRIS(1997–1970)difference spectrum. -
Doug Bostrom at 05:44 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
Tony Noerpel at 02:53 AM on 27 February, 2010 That's a very thought provoking comment, thank you. RSVP at 05:15 AM on 27 February, 2010 "Lax" it is. Multiple claims citing Anthony Watts' blog, numerous other blogs cited in support of conclusions, also newspaper opinion pieces as well as a parade of papers many of which are familiar because their conclusions were invalidated with fanfare. Hardly authoritative. I was especially surprised by the claim that global temperatures have been declining based on a carefully selected endpoints including spans of as short as two years. That's a bit beyond "lax." This document is of course the famous Alan Carlin extracurricular project, widely discussed last year. -
Tom Dayton at 05:32 AM on 27 February 2010What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
gallopingcamel, that's because the old cosmic ray theory has been beaten to death: Svensmark and Friis-Christensen rebut Lockwood’s solar paper It’s cosmic rays Do cosmic rays cause clouds? It's easy to find such arguments and posts by typing "Svensmark" in the Search field at the top left of the page. Then do the same with "cosmic rays." -
garythompson at 05:28 AM on 27 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
Tom Dayton (#80) and Mileston (#82) - A note about hubris. Thankfully we aren't required to check our credentials at the door and as long as we abide by John's rules then we are allowed to stay and have fun at this party. but you never know who the other person is. I might be someone who has undergrad and grad degrees in a scientific discipline. I might have published a peer-reviewed paper in a technical journal as (Tom would say) a mere grad student. I might have 2 US Patents to my name. and although educated as an electrical engineer, i might have taken up the serious study of such topics as Astronomy, Cosmology, Quantum Mechanics and recently String Theory and Climate Science. or i could be a right wing-nut who listens to rush and fox news, couldn't think for myself and couldn't tell you the difference between an up quark and a down quark. either way, i continue to thank you all for allowing me to participate in the conversation. tobyjoice (86) - and no, i'm not taking my football and leaving. ot - was the football oblong or round? i figured we had finished up here but i'll stick around as long as you like although the frequency of my posts will diminish. it is obvious to me where our opinions differ and while you claim my opinion isn't grounded in solid science i still hold to my position. and will continue my learning journey to either prove or disprove what i now believe. as an example, it is apparent that we are having a tough time communicating (and that is because of me as much as anyone else). there is no figure 5 in Harries 2006. i assume you mean figure 3 (which is the last figure in the paper) and i updated my AT article to include that figure. And figure 1 of the first paper i cited supports my argument - actual measurements of OLR emission have increased in the area where CO2 absorbs. -
Tom Dayton at 05:24 AM on 27 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
guinganbresil wrote "I am having a hard time wrapping my head around a small decrease in one part of the outgoing spectrum being responsible for a larger increase in other parts of the spectrum AND an increase in the energy stored in the system." You're right that (total in) must equal [ (total out) plus (accumulation) ]. But there is an infinite number of combinations of the values of those three terms, that satisfy that equation. The extra output can be merely slightly higher as long as the accumulation is sufficiently large to make up for that slightness. I'll now strain my stream analogy to the breaking point. When you add pebbles (CO2) to the middle of the stream, the water being held back does not immediately flow around the edges. Instead, there is a lag during which water accumulates. During that lag, the input is larger than the output, which looks like a violation of the equation until you remember that the equation must include the accumulation as well. Then the extra weight of the accumulated water increases the pressure on the stream's edges, and finally the outward flow at the stream's edges increases in response. The equation has been true during that entire process, but the exact values of the three terms have varied. But the extra flow at the edges is not enough to allow all the accumulation to escape. The only reason extra water flows there is because the extra pressure from the accumulation is enough to overcome the resistance at the edges. As extra water escapes, the accumulation decreases, the pressure decreases, and the flow at the edges decreases. But if the flow at the edges decreases too far, accumulation starts again, which increases the flow at the edges. It's a feedback that results in a new equilibrium of input, accumulation, and output. The time at which that new equilibrium is reached is "the long run." But even in the short run, the equation holds. For us to see that it holds, we must be measuring all the terms of the equation: input, output and accumulation. We can't look only at the input and output and expect the resulting impoverished equation to hold. And then while you are semi-methodically adding pebbles (CO2) to the pile in the middle of the stream, your playmates are randomly adding and subtracting pebbles at the edges of the stream. And your pile of pebbles is sitting on a big flat rock that is sitting on a pointy rock so that as you add pebbles the flat rock moves, thereby moving rocks at the edges of the stream, thereby changing the resistance at the edges of the stream. It all gets complicated enough that you need a model more complicated than mere words can handle. So you start to use math, which you can calculate by hand. That's good enough for gross estimates, but when you want to model time periods less than the long run, and portions of the stream narrower than the entire width of the stream, you've got to turn to computers to do the calculations. -
Doug Bostrom at 05:23 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
gallopingcamel at 03:33 AM on 27 February 2010 I'm skeptical of your claim. The CRU email release was selective and represents a small fraction the actual discussion, so whatever information came out of this eavesdropping is ipso facto impossible to put into context. Senator Inhofe's interpretation of CRU's activities is necessarily unreliable since the folks who obtained the email files heavily edited and redacted their content prior to release. -
RSVP at 05:15 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
#8 doug_bostrom "What's is your point?" Not sure what more needs to be explained. There is a government agency called the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that published its own findings on global warming. (A url to the document is provided.) Personally, I found the document quite interesting, however its style is relatively lax, and at the same time seems to bias generally against AGW. I assume legistrators can use it as an authoritive guide for assessing their manner of voting on bills concerning control of GHG, and as such perhaps the biases found among senators should not come as a surprise. -
gallopingcamel at 05:03 AM on 27 February 2010What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
I slogged through all 90 comments, most of which appear to be based on good science. The comments support the conclusion that solar variations (TSI) are much too small to explain the climate fluctuations that have occurred over the last 400 years and in particular the "Maunder Minimum" as the nadir of the "Little Ice Age". However, variations in atmospheric CO2 don't provide a plausible explanation either. What astounded me is the lack of discussion or even an honorable mention for a (highly controversial) theory that provides a connection between sun spots and climate. I am referring to the 1997 paper by Svensmark & Friis-Christensen in the Journal of Atmospheric & Solar-Terrestrial Physics. http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate I think the above link provides a good explanation by someone who is not trying to oversell the idea. -
Riccardo at 04:52 AM on 27 February 2010Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
arthuredelstein, are you aware of a natural process that pours so much CO2 in the atmosphere in such a short time? I don't know any and none has been seen from when the time resolution of paleo data is good enough (hundreds thousands years). We can make any hypothesis, but it needs to be supported by facts or known science. -
tobyjoyce at 04:48 AM on 27 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
@garythompson, "i do have three parting questions that are still on this topic that i have not received an answer.." Sounds to me like you haved decided to take your football and not play any more.... I did take a look at the paper you mentioned in 2. I think Figure 1 should show you what you need. You did not respond to me suggestion that you review figure 5 of the Harries 20006 paper which clearly indicates the areas where the difference spectra are significantly different from 0. To me, those charts blow your conjecture out of the water. Now, I suggest you approach the editor of American Thinker and request that he publish a retraction of your article... -
Tom Dayton at 04:29 AM on 27 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
Gary, regarding your question "1," your phrasing "it is a difficult calculation to do by hand and requires models" might just have been casual phrasing, but then again might reflect a misunderstanding. Calculations by hand also involve models. I'm guessing you do in fact know that, because your first sentence was "I put forth a rather simplistic model." But to audiences such as the usual readers of American Thinker, your "requires models" phrasing might well be misunderstood. -
Ned at 04:27 AM on 27 February 2010Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
Fimblish wrote: Lord Monckton is quoted as saying that if every nation were to cut emissions by 30% over the next 10 years, "the warming forestalled would be 0.02 degrees celsius, at a cost of trillions". Is this true? It's not clear what Monckton even means by that. Does he mean that we cut the total 2010-2020 emissions by 30%, but then for the rest of the century our emissions are back up to the "business as usual" trend? If so, the reduction in warming would be relatively small. But that's an absurdly unrealistic scenario. If he's talking about gradually reducing emissions starting in 2010 by enough to put us 30% below BAU in 2020, then staying 30% below the BAU trend for the rest of the century, then he's wrong -- that would yield a much, much greater reduction in warming than 0.02C. In my experience, many people dramatically overestimate the difficulty of changing course while also underestimating the impacts. See Pacala and Socolow (2004) for a good demonstration that effective reductions in CO2 are very feasible, or google "stabilization wedges". -
gallopingcamel at 03:33 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
Sorry to disagree with John Cook. Senator Inhofe's staffers did a great job of putting the CRU emails into context. Maybe y'all should take another look at the "Minority Report" http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=7db3fbd8-f1b4-4fdf-bd15-12b7df1a0b63 -
Ian Forrester at 03:11 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
robrtl said:co2 continues to rise but according to phil jones there hasbeen "no discernable warming over last 15 years". que pasa ? could greeen house theory need clariication
Please cite where you found that quote. Are you equating "no discernable (sic) warming" with "no statistically significant warming"? I can assure you they are not the same at all. -
garythompson at 03:03 AM on 27 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
thanks again for John and all on here for allowing me to participate in this conversation. i have enjoyed it and i'm sure we'll bump into each other again on RC and SS and if there is something that sparks a question or comment you'll 'see' me. i do have three parting questions that are still on this topic that i have not received an answer to so i'd appreciate it if someone would either answer this or point me to a link that gets me to the answer. 1 - I put forth a rather simplistic model to try and correlate the delta BT to delta C. My rather simplistic model was dismissed and i have read on RC where it is a difficult calculation to do by hand and requires models. Has this been done? Even if i agree with you that all of these papers show a 1-2K drop in OLR emission in the 36 year period from 1970 to 2006, what temperature increase does that predict using the models/calcuations? it seems that would be a fairly important piece of information to 'close the loop' on this. for those who have cosmology/astronomy backgrounds i liken this to the cosmic microwave background radiation that validated the big bang theory. although there are still steady state people out there......skeptics die hard. anyway, delta k in BT is all nice but delta C/decade is what we are all concerned with. 2 - I still haven't heard any comments on the first paper i cited in the article (http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/24874.pdf). even with removing the effects of temperature and water vapor the OLR spectrum related to absorption by CO2 didn't show a reduction. 3 - The Griggs and Harries 2007 paper (http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1175%2FJCLI4204.1) has an interesting component to the 1997-1970 central pacific data set. there is a large spike down (~5k) in the measured difference spectra on page 3989. The authors give a suggested explanation of that and even allude to a channel issue but this is the same data that is in the Harries 2001 paper and that paper does not show this spike. why the difference? -
miguelveraleon at 02:56 AM on 27 February 2010A brief history of our iPhone app
Congrats on the success of the app John. -
Tony Noerpel at 02:53 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
The best explanation for the silicate rock weathering carbon cycle negative feedback is Robert Berner's book The Phanerozoic Carbon Cycle, though there is a rich literature. For Croll-Milankovitch cycles I like Rial, J. A., “Earth’s orbital eccentricity and the rhythm of the Pleistocene ice ages: the concealed pacemaker,” Global and Planetary Change 41 (2004) 81-93. I receive several investment opportunity newsletter emails every day, one from Casey Research. In a recent newsletter, they document the amount of money “invested” by Goldman Sachs and other banks in the political process (see http://www.caseyresearch.com/displayCdd.php?id=355). Their argument is that this money has a huge return on investment but that it borders on corruption in the Casey Research view. Now the writers at this group are avowed global warming deniers. They have stated that they believe the entire Earth should be paved over, not withstanding that if we managed to do that, we would go extinct. They do not see the irony that ExxonMobil, OPEC, API, WFA, the Koch Brothers and various coal companies also invest huge amounts of money in politicians, scientists and lobbyists (see for example http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1389), not to mention Saudi Arabia’s influence on Fox News (see for example http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/23/top-gop-investigator-rep-issa-open-to-probing-saudi-ownership-of-fox-news/ ). These companies and their lobbyists have gotten much better at this sort of thing and it is probably true that action on CFCs, acid rain and tetraethyl lead would not be successful in today’s political climate as Doug Bostrom opines above. Lobbying companies like the Heartland institute and scientists like S. Fred Singer honed their skills as disinformationists as tobacco lobbyists. This is easily understood. It is simply greed and companies have a responsibility to their shareholders to increase shareholder value. As a stock holder myself in ExxonMobil, that is what I want them to do. This problem would be easily solved (and can only be solved) by forbidding corporations from participating in the political process. Corporations are not citizens and should not be treated as such. Corporations are only tools of society and if they don’t serve the public good, we have a right to eliminate them or break them up. My own view on ExxonMobil, as a shareholder, is that they should stay out of the political process, let whatever regulation, which needs to happen to meet the requirements of society, happen and then compete fairly with other companies under whatever rules society deems necessary. This is easy because we understand the problem, but given the SCOTUS decision of the Supreme Court it pragmatically may not be solvable. Since corporations have to think in the short term, the long term outlook for our economy, our society and our survival is therefore in doubt. Even though global warming effects are obvious now, the real pain is further down the road and in a future heavily discounted by the corporate outlook. Kevin Phillips wrote a wonderful book Bad Money, which takes its name from Grisham’s law that bad money drives out good money. Phillips expands this into bad capitalism drives out good capitalism but good capitalism cannot drive out bad capitalism. Just one corrupt corporation will force all others to become corrupt as well in order to compete. This is his explanation for the current economic crises. There is another dimension to our problem which is rather more difficult to understand. I call it the Julian Simon effect. Simon is famous as a supply side neo-classical economists who made a bet with the ecologist Paul Ehrlich about the price of certain minerals. Simon won that bet but subsequently lost another. Timing is everything and the outcome of bets doesn’t really prove anything. Simon believed that free market capitalism is making the world a better place for everybody and can solve all of our problems so long as governments stay out of the way. Simon believed that global warming, acid rain, lead poisoning, DDT poisoning, the ozone hole, mountaintop removal, overfishing the oceans, ocean acidification and tobacco smoke could not possibly be problems because there is no way that private enterprise could create problems. We could call this Reaganomics. I think critical or rational thinkers might see the flaws in this extreme view. As Herman Daly describes it, neo classical economics, of one school or another, works reasonably well so long as we are far away from any thermodynamic limits, either low entropy resource limits (peak oil being one) or high entropy waste limits (CO2 emissions being one). For free market capitalism to work for the betterment of society, it needs to be regulated by democratically elected governments, elected by a well-informed citizenry. One of the amusing contradictions in Simon’s ideology is that Simon would hold out for fusion technology as a sure thing that will come along just in time when the market sends the appropriate price signals (fusion power is only limited by economics, you understand), ignoring that only governments have the resources to try to develop fusion and that there may be rather serious physical limits on our ability to develop a fusion reactor. Also, and this too is rather amusing, Simon had absolute faith in technology. He ignores the fact that technology is dependent on exactly the same science that he denies depending only on his arbitrary judgment of whether or not the science in question is convenient. It is also amusing because Simon appears to have been pretty technically illiterate. He was a brilliant economist who probably didn’t know how coal formed in the first place. He believes that every human advancement is due to greed completely discounting curiosity. My own view is that curiosity is responsible for the accumulation of nearly all human knowledge, so we disagree. This second problem may not be solvable because it is related to how we have evolved. Lots of people, all global warming deniers, think this way. That is also amusing because many of these folks are young Earth Creationists. I suppose it is solvable by education but as Yogi Berra said: “There are some people who, if they don't already know, you can't tell 'em.” So here we are. I don’t know how accurate this explanation is nor am I unaware that it may be an oversimplification. I am curious to see how our new friend Dave Thompson responds to the science and fact-based discussion which takes place at this web site compared to what passes for thought in the comments section at the American Thinker web site. I hope positively. As a former firefighter, I can attest that it takes vastly more courage to change one’s mind and admit that one was wrong (for example Governor Wallace) than it does to rush headlong into a burning building when one is told there may be a life hazard. Anyway, regards Tony -
guinganbresil at 02:49 AM on 27 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
Tom Dayton (71), You state (correctly): "The bottom line is that it is perfectly feasible to have simultaneously, increased energy accumulation, increased outgoing energy at non-CO2 wavelengths, and decreased outgoing energy at CO2 wavelengths." Would you agree that conservation of energy would mean that the decreasing outgoing energy at CO2 wavelengths cannot be fully responsible for this condition, but there must be an addition source of energy input? I am having a hard time wrapping my head around a small decrease in one part of the outgoing spectrum being responsible for a larger increase in other parts of the spectrum AND an increase in the energy stored in the system. (Riccardo - Thank you for a cogent response in 46.) -
dhogaza at 02:33 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
Senator Inhofe is brilliant compared to the republicans in the South Dakota State Legislature. ("Republicans" because 92% of the democrats voted against it). Astrology and thermology (infrared medical imaging) may be the cause of global warming, not increased CO2. No, it's not the Onion. I wish it were. -
arthuredelstein at 02:17 AM on 27 February 2010Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
Your statement, "atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009)" is not justified by the reference. The Tripati et al CO2 time series estimates do not have the time resolution to say if any millennium's CO2 concentration might have exceeded the current levels of 2010. The time-averaging inherent in their technique will mask the peaks and valleys of CO2 concentration that occur in time periods shorter than their time resolution (which, according to Figure 2A/B, varies between roughly 100,000 and 1000,000 years). You could say that Tripati et al suggest that current levels are higher than the average of the last 15~20 million years. -
milestone55 at 02:16 AM on 27 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
Gary, Good for you for responding to the comments. However, while you seem exceedingly humble, willing to learn and interested in constructive criticism, I feel these characteristics are in striking contrast to the tone in your article: "A key component of the scientific argument for anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has been disproven." Such hubris is astounding. I am wondering if you are going to the Comments section of American Thinker to defend the scientists that are being attacked regularly at that site and in the MSM of late. I hope you point out, not just your errors, but that such scientists have been remarkably responsive and helpful. Maybe, your penance should be, to review and criticize one of the newest pieces on American Thinker: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_hidden_flaw_in_greenhouse.html I will skip to the conclusion of the article: " Either way, therefore, the convoluted theory we've been going by is wrong." In no way, am I qualified to review that article, but I expect that you think that you are. I hope this is not too off topic, but I am frustrated that every random AGW atack has to be officially debunked due to the political atmosphere. If you are going to be skeptical of scientific consensus, you should be skeptical of all scientific papers "published." thank you, milestone -
SLRTX at 02:10 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
I find a re-occurring pattern in the thought-process of so-called "skeptics". They constantly confuse ideology (politics and policy) with science. For some, this could be plain ignorance regarding how science is done. But as in the case of "skeptics" like Inhofe, I'm pretty sure it's agenda-driven. Ok, so why do I call them "so-called skeptics"? To me, a skeptic is someone who isn't convinced, but is open to be convinced based on the evidence. A denier (the "so-called skeptic") has their mind made up, but to cherry-picks factoids to support their beliefs, and refuses to accept anything contrary to those beliefs. It's often easier for them to "muddy the waters" surrounding climate science by throwing in ideological junk. To a denier, ideology is a science. Good article, John. Challenge your readers to separate the science from the ideological debates. And separate the science that proves ACC is real, from the effects of ACC. -
Dan R at 02:04 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
Hi Ned, you may be interested in reading the Dec 2008 thoughts of James Hansen. He seems to be suggesting that negative feedback systems that have operated in the past to prevent 'runaway' situations may not have sufficient time to play their role this time around, as the positive forcings are increasing at a much faster rate than they have in the past. To top it off, the solar constant is higher today than in the past, due to the continuing evolution of the sun. Point being (I think) is that you can't discount the chances of a truly runaway system if you are going to increase the forcings as quickly as we are, with the current solar constant. (Don't take my word for it though, read what he has to say. Note, to the best of my knowledge, Hansen is yet to publish these views in the literature, and thus I guess they should only be considered as opinions at present.) http://www.mediafire.com/file/trm9gnmznde/AGU2008.Bjerknes_Lecture.pdf Worth a look, particularly p22-24. Cheers, Dan. -
Ned at 23:54 PM on 26 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
RSVP: There is nothing strange about a climate system that for a couple of million years has managed to oscillate back and forth between glacials and interglacials without veering into runaway warming or cooling. There are two simple and straightforward explanations for that: (1) The dominant pre-anthropogenic forcings in the Quaternary period were the Milankovich cycles, which are of course cyclical. (2) In addition to the positive feedbacks (ice albedo, CO2) there are negative feedbacks (weathering, some in the biosphere) that act to maintain an approximate homeostasis. Of course, if this planet had a naturally unstable climate that was subject to runaway warming or cooling, it seems unlikely that intelligent life would have evolved and survived to observe it. But note that what we're referring to as "stability" here includes oscillations that involve a shift from a warm earth with sea levels 6 m higher (think "not much Florida left") to a cold earth (think "Boston, New York, and Milwaukee buried under ice"). The fact that the climate can recover from both those extremes, and thus be described as "roughly stable" doesn't mean that either of the extremes would be healthy for our economy or our civilization. -
dygituljunky at 23:21 PM on 26 February 2010A brief history of our iPhone app
I would love to have either Android and BlackBerry versions of the iPhone app (I alternate between the two) or a mobile version of the website which loads fast and is easy to navigate using a trackball or non-multi-touch finger interface... An article iPhone app helped me discover the website and now I'm an instant fan. Thanks! -
Marcus at 23:17 PM on 26 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
Doug, RSVP is once again trying to blame global warming on thermal pollution-in spite of the overwhelming evidence against it. He talks of the EPA report referring to a period of 3 million years ago-yet there is no evidence of human control of fire prior to 1.5 million years BP. There is no *conclusive* evidence of any human control of fire prior to 1 million years BP! Even if humans had controlled fire from 3 million years BP, the amount of thermal energy these small numbers of fires would have generated would have been easily dwarfed by the energy of a single large forest fire! Fact is that RSVP continues to ignore the obvious discrepancy between direct heat generated by anthropogenic sources versus the much greater heat from natural sources (volcanic activity, forest fires & the sun). -
Marcus at 23:10 PM on 26 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
Arkadiusz Semczyszak-your claim contains a number of easily identifiable logical fallacies-which I'm happy to outline: 1) during the interglacial periods of the last 750,000 years, deltaT changed by as much as 10 degrees C, yet this was unable to increase CO2 concentrations by more than 90ppm-over a space of 20,000+ years-yet you're suggesting a "mere" 0.6 degree C change is capable of lifting CO2 emissions by almost 100ppm in the space of only 60 years! 2) During most of the past interglacial periods, changes in total solar irradiance generated significant warming which *led* to a rise in CO2 emissions. However, the increase in TSI over the 1st half of the 20th century produced *no* significant rise in CO2 emissions-yet CO2 emissions *did* rise significantly during a period when TSI was trending downwards. 3) Further to (2) rapid increases in CO2 concentrations are detected from the 1950's onwards, wheras rapid warming is only detected from the 1970's onwards, suggesting a lag between CO2 emissions & deltaT of 20-30 years. This also suggests that warming is the result-not the cause-of rising CO2 emissions. 4) As pointed out elsewhere, if the rise in CO2 concentrations were the result of release from natural carbon sinks, then we would see no change in the ratios of C13 & C12 in atmospheric CO2. Yet we're seeing a marked rise in ratio of C12:C13 in the atmosphere-suggesting that the new CO2 is from a source where there has been significant time for the 13C to decay to 12C-which is definitely true of coal & oil (where its constituent carbon atoms have had *millions* of years to decay from 13C to 12C). So, in spite of all the contortions engaged in to absolve human activity for global warming, all the available evidence strongly points to CO2-from anthropogenic sources-as the *cause* of recent global warming!
Prev 2463 2464 2465 2466 2467 2468 2469 2470 2471 2472 2473 2474 2475 2476 2477 2478 Next
