Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2566 2567 2568 2569 2570 2571 2572 2573 2574 2575 2576 2577 2578 2579 2580 2581 Next
Comments 128651 to 128700:
-
David Horton at 20:19 PM on 29 March 2009Climate's changed before
Ah, why oh why couldn't I see it before. Yes, I have been a denier of nature, of course I have. All that concern about increasing CO2 and the destruction of habitats all around the globe, and the extinction of species, and rising pollution levels in sea and air, all because I, um, deny nature. And those who are happy to see giant corporations wreaking havoc on the planet, and who have absolutely no concern for the consequences, indeed, can see none, other than to mindlessly chant about climate always changing (gee, who knew, what an eye opener it was when I discovered THAT!), they are the what? True conservationists? Humanists? Libertarians? Rhetorical questions, I'm afraid, I really don't want to know how you label the delusions you are working under. Just go away. Learn something about the real world. Come back. -
Quietman at 16:31 PM on 29 March 2009Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Philippe Conspiracies are covert. The green socialst threat is quite visible. This red/green indoctrination is NOT environmentalism, it is overt anti-capitalism, plain and simple that actually started in the late 1960s. The ones that yell the loudest are the absolute worst true polluters. The home of the green movement is in california, the dirtiest state in the U.S. and home of the biggest hypocrites. But CO2 is NOT a pollutant. Cap and Trade, that's just a money maker for crooked politicians. So where is your conspiracy? -
Quietman at 07:35 AM on 29 March 2009Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
ps About your points on correlation. It's how I made a successful livelyhood for 33 years. Troubleshooting and correcting problems for a major manufacturer, ie. I do have a firm grasp on correlations and know how to find the root cause of said symptoms. It's why I have a comfortable retirement. -
Quietman at 07:30 AM on 29 March 2009Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
Signal eruptions are in the Andes, in Chile, over the subducted pacific seabed. I posted a link to the Live Science article in this thread (somewhere). It's OUR signal of El Nino because it's symptomatic of the activation of the tectonic process. We THOUGHT thst plate movement was a slow constant process. It is not. Mountain building occurs in fits and spurts (another link I had posted) because plate tectonics are not a constant. Activity increases on a cyclic basis, not just ENSO but all over the planet. External forces such as lunar tides in the mantle and below are compounded by major alignments but since gravity is a weak force it is not noticed by us unless we look at the symptoms. This is what keeps our planet habitable. -
Quietman at 07:19 AM on 29 March 2009Climate's changed before
That IS a truism. One man's alarmist is another man's fundamentalist as well. Sorry, I'm agnostic. I see the greens as deniers of nature. CO2 is mans sin, pray for penance from the God Algore. -
Philippe Chantreau at 11:39 AM on 28 March 2009Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
You should get back to reality and get away from the conspiracy theories, Quietman. There aren't any green helicopters out there to watch you. -
Patrick 027 at 13:56 PM on 27 March 2009Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
sigh...:| There is an understandable and even justifiable amount of anger regarding Exxon's influences, but the policies being pursued by the mainstream green movement are not for the purpose of retribution; at the core, they are to correct an externality and stimulate innovation. There are some disagreements among fellow environmentalists/innovators/liberals/etc (and not aligned by group per se) regarding whether to cap-and-trade or tax-and-credit (or cap-and-dividend (Hansen), or tax-and cut other taxes, or cap-and compensate (for climate damages), etc.) - my concern is that, while I support some measures to cushion the economic shocks (ease into a tax rate (start low)), maybe aid for the poor and for some others who will be initially hit harder because of greater dependence on coal, oil, gas - but especially coal, - it concerns me that this may be seen as some permanent part of the solution. Ultimately, the tax/cap and trade portions of policy are supposed to work through market mechanisms and allocation of this or that to specific industries, regions, etc, will only muddy the price signals (if it is more efficient for industries to move to the sun belt to get cheaper energy, then maybe they should move there, and not be subsidized for staying elsewhere). This may be less of a problem for helping the poor (individuals and countries) specifically (increasing returns? - it might make them more energy efficient - but so long as the aid is in money back or some equivalent and not in a reduction in emissions taxes. That's not to say that it doesn't make sense to allow developing countries some grace period before being expected to join policies as full equals. See my referenced comments at 196 at http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm ). -
David Horton at 13:38 PM on 27 March 2009Climate's changed before
One man's sceptic is another man's denialist. -
Patrick 027 at 13:36 PM on 27 March 2009Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
IPCC and a whole lot'o other people: (2.0 +/- 0.5)*(1.0 +/- 0.1)+(2.0 +/- 0.2) + x = x + 4.05 +/- 0.9 ~= 4.0 +0.95/-0.85 if |x| << 4.05 and |x| << 0.85 (except that if the +/- are 90 % confidence intervals, the limiting values do not add and multiply directly to give the other limiting values (because the probability of two values being simultaneously outside their 90 % confidence interval is smaller than either one in isolation, etc.) Your argument: 45 +/- 10 + 0.001*? has resulted in 50, therefore 0.001 is HUGE! (What signal eruptions? 1. Without any reason to expect a strong causal link, a once-off correlation is not sufficient evidence for much of anything - you need a robust, persistent, statistically significant correlation (As with the CO2 - ice age correlations; wherein theory aids in analysis of the actual causal links). 2a. When looking for a correlation, it is not good to just define a broad range of frequencies and search for whatever falls into that portion of the spectrum and automatically conclude that component is correlated to some central frequency. 2b. Looking at a class of events that are relatively common, one can expect to find coincidental correlations with some other such events. One must ask - is this correlation the kind that would happen without actual physical relationship, direct or otherwise? -
Quietman at 13:25 PM on 27 March 2009Oceans are cooling
"Dust Responsible for Most of Atlantic Warming", By LiveScience Staff, 26 March 2009 The results: More than two-thirds of this upward trend in recent decades can be attributed to changes in African dust storm and tropical volcano activity during that time. This was a surprisingly large amount, Evan said. The results, detailed in the March 27 issue of the journal Science, suggest that only about 30 percent of the observed Atlantic temperature increases are due to other factors, such as a warming climate. "This makes sense, because we don't really expect global warming to make the ocean [temperature] increase that fast," Evan said. http://www.livescience.com/environment/090326-dust-ocean-warming.html -
Quietman at 13:03 PM on 27 March 2009Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
Or in other words, how exactly does a trade wind cause a volcanic eruption? Is 2+2 still 4 or do we go with the IPCC result of 5? -
Quietman at 13:01 PM on 27 March 2009Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
Remind me again what happenned in 1976? I remember you posted something about that... An extremely rare procession of the planets in perfect alignment. Predictions made in the early 1970s were based on the gravitational effects on the earth. But nothing major happened in 1976 as expected. They did not realize that something did happen but it was a delayed reaction which started before the full alignment and continued after. This is because the alignment with the gas giants was earlier by a few years and continued a few years after, stressing the earth with each annual alignment, small tug after small tug. It altered the plates, but as you are aware, earthquakes and volcanos are not immediate manidfestations, pressure had to build up first. Hence the increase in earthquakes, volcanos, and the record El Ninos. If El Nino is not caused by tectonics how do you explain the signal eruption at every El Nino? -
Quietman at 12:49 PM on 27 March 2009Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Sorry, I spoke from my college experience. Two "by the book" professors lowered my cum so I only graduated cum laude by giving me Cs. At least one of them apologized and admitted his error. The other one was an idiot that could not teach, most of the class flunked. I agree with you that it depends on the agenda. What do you think is the Green agenda is by trying to paralyze the country by destroying the energy giants? -
Patrick 027 at 05:34 AM on 27 March 2009Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
My teachers have not demonstrated any such lack of open-mindedness, but both they and I balance that with reasonable skepticism. Past tense, because I'm actually not currently enrolled in formal education (sorry for the wrong impression). Not that you should just trust people per se, but an agenda driven by awareness of a problem is not quite the same as an agenda that drives one to find a problem. -
Patrick 027 at 05:28 AM on 27 March 2009Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
"Trade winds are caused by ENSO's root cause, vulcanism/tectonics, not he other way around. " ENSO is a mode of internal variability that can be excited by external bumps but arises in computer models that do not use any submarine volcanic forcing. Changes in trade winds are both cause and effect - they are part of the package. You've never supplied evidence or supporting theory for your proposed mechanism of gravity driving changes in plate tectonics on such a time scale and with such subtle effects as the planet-caused tides on other planets. The theory of CO2-greenhouse effect is much much much much much much much much much better supported by reason and data. Remind me again what happenned in 1976? I remember you posted something about that... "Accordiing to his former boss, Hansen would have been fired for incompetance if he did not have Gore's support." Who was his former boss? And who would have been and not have been fired except for Bush/Cheney et al? "The communist/socialist supporters of the radicals are undermining us with their new "green" cover for their "red" agenda, trying to turn people against capitalism." You've flattered me in the past; now you've irked me. But I don't care about that. The obvious all-encompassing solutions to the problem of cliamte-changing emissions has at its core a fossil fuel sales tax and some similar measures regarding deforestation, cement production, etc. (See some of my comments here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/03/advice-for-a-young-climate-blogger/langswitch_lang/de (in particular, comments 387 and 388 - feel free to skip over 'PART II' - that's basically a compression of 50 pages of material into one paragraph). A true communist might not go for such a plan - or maybe s/he would - I really don't care either way. Environmentalists may be somewhat divided about specific policies. -
Quietman at 05:06 AM on 27 March 2009There is no consensus
Re: "Both John and Chris, and others have made many many observations and provided countless sources backing up their assertions, many of which have not been effectively countered, yet the deniers continue to proclaim their views almost unchanged." The question is the source material. Most if not all the references ASSUME the issue is CO2. An unproven assumption. Skeptics of AGW (not deniers) see the other more probable causes which the alarmists never respond to with a straight answer. They continually side step the issue and come back with another paper on CO2. I already understand CO2 and how it may cause heating as a GHG IF you assume water vapor's positive feedback is greater than it's negetive feedback. Again, an assumption. That's why their math doesn't show real world results, wrong assumption. I prefer to look at the more real forcings that are still only beginning to be understood, ie. the atmosphere is controllled by the oceans and the oceans by the earth's tectonic/vulcanic (not volcanic) forces. -
Quietman at 04:55 AM on 27 March 2009There is no consensus
Nicely said Bruce. But you are going to be asked for references (no free thinking permitted here, at least that's what the alarmists say, other people's work is all their proof. John's more tolerant since he's not alarmist). -
Quietman at 04:46 AM on 27 March 2009Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Re: Marc Morano I read articles on http://www.climatedebatedaily.com/ I don't look at the author's names, nor do I care. I read the latest posts bu BOTH sides (left and right columns) to see what the argument is. If you say this guy has an agenda, fine. Hansen has an agenda. Gore has an agenda. If I look for who has an agenda I will have nothing left to read. And yes Pat, good luck on the midterms. So far you have demonstrated an open mind but stick to the "consensus" views for the tests. Your teachers tend to be less open minded. -
Quietman at 04:34 AM on 27 March 2009Climate's changed before
Then it is the skeptics that should have a witch hunt. Ok, everyone, lock and load. :) -
PeterPan at 02:33 AM on 27 March 2009Are we heading into a new Little Ice Age?
#8, Thank you very much for your answer (I'm sorry I am so late...) and thanks a lot for your website, it's incredible helpful. -
David Horton at 09:10 AM on 26 March 2009Climate's changed before
Nah, witch hunts were against people who were merely imagined to be causing the community harm. -
Quietman at 06:18 AM on 26 March 2009Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
Patrick It is because we tend to look at the last steps in a process rather than the initial steps. I read recently how ENSO is caused bt trade winds. It's the same type of argument as CO2 causing warming. We look at the last step rather than the root cause. Trade winds are caused by ENSO's root cause, vulcanism/tectonics, not he other way around. I don't know about Australia but here in the U.S. education took a nose dive with JFK. I read articles and papers about "new" discoveries that I was taught in high school. So what do we do? We treat symptoms to cover up a problem and ignore root cause entirely. So what causes the cyclic natiure of tectonics? Gravity. The relationship of the Earth to other objects with gravity. Our math on this is wrong because we can't even determine what gravity is. By our current math bothing happened in 1976 but by observation of the real world it did. It initiated a change in plate tectonics. The change in spreading rates and subduction is proof positive. Compounding the problem is that the corruption is at an all time high. Accordiing to his former boss, Hansen would have been fired for incompetance if he did not have Gore's support. The communist/socialist supporters of the radicals are undermining us with their new "green" cover for their "red" agenda, trying to turn people against capitalism. -
Patrick 027 at 03:45 AM on 25 March 2009Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
"but we understand more about some things than others. We understand less about gravity than magnetism or electricity for instance." In what ways, exactly? Surely, quantum gravity and dark matter, dark energy, etc, are not well understood, whereas QED works out quite well, so far as I know (though there will ultimately some underpinning that is not yet understood thoroughly and that is likely to be related to quantum gravity, etc. - for example, string theory). But what difference does that make to gravitational interactions among the Sun, planets, moons, asteroids, comets, dust particles, ions, etc, of the Solar System? Meanwhile, there is a complexity to how the solar wind and interplanetary magnetic field, geomagnetic field, and the ionosphere interact, and how that might interact with the fluid mechanics of the atmosphere, and I don't see a good reason to expect this plays a big role in most climate changes. -
Quietman at 03:00 AM on 25 March 2009Climate's changed before
Sort of a witch hunt? That is how ignorance always reacts to real science. -
Quietman at 02:58 AM on 25 March 2009Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
Philippe Exactly, but we understand more about some things than others. We understand less about gravity than magnetism or electricity for instance. So we can be more certain about the things that we have a better understanding of. Example, we have a much better understanding of neandertal than australopithecus and therefore can draw better conclusions about the former than we can about the latter. -
Philippe Chantreau at 14:08 PM on 24 March 2009Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
Quietman:"What we have is a "working knowledge" of gravity." That applies also to evolution, the standard model, gene regulation, and everything in between. It's all a matter of how refined the working knowledge is and how precise the working can be. We don't really know what an electron is. We have a theory that we name that, we know how that theoretical unit behaves in a range of conditions, how it interacts with other theoretical units. We have an idea of subunits composing it, to the extent that we have broken it down as far as the energy levels required have been reached, but there may still be other levels waiting to be discovered. As good as that is, it's still only a "working" knowledge. Science does not provide absolute certainty or exhaustive knowledge, except perhaps at the most basic levels of a field. -
David Horton at 15:35 PM on 21 March 2009Climate's changed before
Anyone still following this thread will be interested in http://www.blognow.com.au/mrpickwick/131143/Wham_Bam_Climate_Spam.html. Comment number 94 suggests that it is much too mild and gentle and what is needed is a full blown offensive against denialists. -
Patrick 027 at 04:52 AM on 21 March 2009Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
... I was not. This volcano, according to the article, is being fed directly by a mantle plume. A growing plume - or at least one which is still growing in it's surficial manifestations. A mantle plume doesn't just happen overnight. This is all very interesting but has no bearing on climate changes over the last century, millenium, the Holocene, ... etc. -
Patrick 027 at 04:43 AM on 21 March 2009Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
Before I read that, I'm going to take a wild guess - that this is a volcano in northeastern Africa that produces lava with a very low melting point - it can be picked up with a spoon; the magma is produced by geological heating of some kind of sedimentary rocks with chemistry that is not very similar to bulk crustal compositions - although it might not be all that dissimilar from other sedimentary rocks (?) but it is unusual, perhaps, for such a molten mixture to not mix in with a much greater amount of magma of more common composition. Now I'll see if I'm on the right track... -
Steve L at 10:45 AM on 20 March 2009Christmas cartoon on melting North Pole
I don't see it, Quietman. I'd like to see an example of Chris denying those things as you've indicated in your post #19. Please give evidence. -
Patrick 027 at 06:17 AM on 20 March 2009Is Antarctic ice melting or growing?
Bruce Frykman - very interesting issues. The next ice age probably won't start for another 30,000 to 50,000 years from now (see IPCC AR4 WGI Chapter 6, also Berger and Loutre, "An Exceptionally Long Interglcial Ahead?", Science vol. 297, Aug 23 2002, pp.1287-1288) - without anthropogenic influences, Berger and Loutre's work find nearly constant Northern Hemisphere ice volume for the next 50,000 years (eyeballing the graph, slight peak 20,000 years from now just a few percent of the change since the last glacial peak, followed by a slight decrease to less ice than now between ~ 25,000 to 45,000 years from now; followed by a much larger increase, about 1/2 the difference since the last glacial maximum, between 50,000 and 60,000/65,000 years from now); with an anthropogenically-driven increase in CO2 to 750 ppm (easily attainable, unfortunately) and then decreasing to "natural" (presumably about preindustrial) values by 1000 years from now, the Greenland ice sheet dissappears, mostly in a few thousand years, essentially zeroing out Northern Hemisphere ice volume, which only starts to recover signifantly in 20,000 or 25,000 years and doesn't return to the natural trajectory until about 50,000 years (and results in the next glacial maximum between 60,000 and 70,000 years from now being about the equivalent of a Greenland less in ice volume). Most interglacials are shorter but there has been at least another long interglacial in the last 500,000 years. The ~20,000 year precession cycle also causes changes in low-latitude monsoons, so one might expect the Sahara to be more moist in ~ 10,000 years from now, as it was several thousand years ago - however, the strength of the precession effect is modulated by the eccentricity of the orbit, which is declining, so the next few cycles in precession will have a reduced effect. The changes in radiative forcing associated with Milankovitch cycles are very slow compared to recent anthropogenic changes (and have a different shape - the important effects are the regional and seasonal redistribution of solar energy, resulting in less or more favorable conditions for either ice sheet formation and growth, or disintegration or decay, which then has a globally-averaged feedback, to which CO2 responds as an additional positive feedback, etc.) However, some climate changes may occur more rapidly in association with the crossing of thresholds. Still, I suspect they would be (given our present and increasing knowledge and assuming continued survival of modern civilization) easier to prepare for and/or adapt to than the more immediate threat of anthropogenic climate change. Whether our descendents decide to mitigate the changes artificially or allow them to occur, well I guess that's up to them (it would be interesting for scientists to observe such long-term natural climate cycles, and with such a long history under the belt of a continuous society, people might get a little bored with Holocene conditions (or more likely, Anthropocene or post-Anthropocene, depending...), and it might be hard to maintain artificial forcing (some types may be prone to sudden collapse, worsenning the threat of sudden climate change - although other schemes could be much more resilient to short term 'mistakes' in management)...) I would argue that it is unwise to rely on unforeseen major game changers to solve global warming adaptation and mitigation problems in the future (at least to do so without correcting for the externality now to encourage such future advancements as well as to reduce the size of the future problem with more immediate advancements (energy-efficient buidings, cheap mass-produced solar cells and solar concentrators, safe C sequestration, perhaps 'Beano' for cows??) ), but how will technology, agriculture, medicine, politics, and culture have changed over 1000+ years? But there are still constraints - the second law of thermodynamics, the safety issues of bringing asteroids into Earth-orbit (?), the unlikelyhood that people will genetically-engineer their descendents to survive on smaller diets (prefering instead to pass down the joy of good food). Future climate-control mechanisms might be integrated into asteroid deflection systems. In preperation for disasters of limited predictability (next Yellowstone supereruption? - or will that become predictable 100+ years in advance?), population size might be reduced (humanely - etc.) from a peak around 2100 down to just a couple billion ?? - so that people have room to migrate (spare farmlands, etc). They wouldn't want to drop the population too low because of the economic advantages of specialization. -
Philippe Chantreau at 04:40 AM on 20 March 2009Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Good luck with your next mid terms! -
Patrick 027 at 15:06 PM on 19 March 2009Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Not a grad student - yet. -
Bruce Frykman at 09:42 AM on 19 March 2009Is Antarctic ice melting or growing?
As we slowly emerge from the last ice age does science predict glaciation to increase or decrease? At what phase of the Milankovitch cycles should we expect glaciation to increase? ie when will the teeter-totter reverse itself? Will it be less tan 25,000 years if so how shall we begin to prepare the next 100,000 generations to deal with it? What do "policy makers" say on this vital public matter? -
Bruce Frykman at 09:32 AM on 19 March 2009Temp record is unreliable
I need clarification on what is meant be "average" in the context of temperature station readings. What are we interested in here daily averages, monthly averages, hourly averages etc. Ie is "average" simply some arbitrarily collected(high+low)/2 or are we talking about some fully intergrated average. Just what is the standard? Another question is what does science say about the type of average that is used to calculate the presnet state of the earth's "fever" (referring to your spokesman Al Gore's expression for it.) Do we do RMS averages, a simple arithemetic mean, or is a modal or median average most appropriate in determing the state of the this "fever"? Maybe can we mix them all up and wave some abra-cadabra (correcting the data) over it and voila - the current state of the earths fever is determined to 5 decimal points. How does science deal with migrating weather stations? If I decide to place 500 weather stations in Arizona next year and call them "official" will the USA develop a strong "global warming" signal or just Arizona? or doesn't it matter at all? Conversely if I fund 10,000 weather stations in Siberia can I cool the planet's present fever? -
Bruce Frykman at 09:04 AM on 19 March 2009It's not bad
"This book has hundreds of references to objective peer-reviewed studies on the effects of global warming, at each degree C in global temperature rise. Essentially, costs immediately exceed benefits. With each degree of warming, the cost-benefit gap expands greatly." How much colder should the earth be to idealize the benificial ascpect for man. Of course I am most intested as to what "peer reviewed" studies have concluded. Another thing I am most intersested in is what "peer revied studies" have concluded thet the DOW jones should be at by the year 2025. Dont you alarmists have any sense of humility as to what you think you know. For the record "peer review" is simply a call for rudimentary error checking - it is not thesis confirming and it is by no means systematic, thorough, or even unbiased. It has its place but it is neither an essential nor required component of sound science. Theory confirmation is derived by outcome - not opinions of self proclaimed "experts" -
Bruce Frykman at 08:47 AM on 19 March 2009A Great Science Fiction Writer Passes - Goodbye Dr. Crichton
I did read state of fear and decided it was not great fiction but its commentary on environmentnal extremism and the global warming alarm scam was right on. I think many are attempting to diminish the man as a clear thinker just because he using science fiction as a venue. Many who work in science and are trained in core disciplines use fiction as a venue for their commentary Here is what got from the book and have had confirmed to my own satisfaction in a number of ways: 1) The environmental movement is not a movement of idealism but instead one of elitism. This is why the extremely wealthy global warming profiteers and hollywood and government elitists who push this nonsense will condemn joe 6-packs SUV but never their own use of private jets. The size of ones car is the issue but certainly not how many mansions one owns or the carbon footprint of each of them. The research grant con-artists equally jealously protect their budgets to consume fossil fuels and their world travel priveleges. No one holds tele-conferences, prefering resort venues and 5 star hotels and wining and dining on the taxpayer dime to hold "meetings" to discuss and condemn the rest of the world for attemping to improve their own lives. Invariably these meetings are held during the coldest winter months at places with low latitudes and a nearby beach. Their own world travel junkets are necerssary to condemn the thermostat setting of those who say home during our terribly frigid winters. 2) Global warming is not global. This an odd contradiction. If we "average" all of the surface temperatures we see a "warming signal" over the past 100 years or so. Individual monitoring stations do indeed simulataneously show cooling trends so that the US "warming" trend doesnt "bath" us in warmth but rather "spatters" us with it. New York City registers an alarming "global" warming signal while Albany a few short miles away simutaneously cools. Thats really odd and the only conclusion I can draw is that the data has been biased buy something other than planetery trace gases distributions in the atmosphere. -
Bruce Frykman at 06:39 AM on 19 March 2009There is no consensus
6) The surface 'record': There is none. There exists no instrumentation demonstrably designed to accumulate the earths "surface" record - Can any "scientist" out there tell me what the surface temp was in Green Valley AZ 100 years ago - dont try because it did not exist - so is it part of the surface "record" today? 7) Greenhouse warming theories are not about surface "records" anyway - its about atmospheric temps which appear to be very stable since they have been systematically collected for this purpose - that shoots the theory so the debate has to focus on a completely flawed surface "record" Why? 8) If there were a real climate threat this scam industry funded by criminal politicians who promote this hype would alter their own ways and no longer have "carbon club prints" the size of dinosaurs compared with the rest of the world's population of titmouse sized "carbon footsie prints." Why do you jet all over the world by the hundreds of thousands to attend gala conventions held at world class resorts and pleasure spas to condemn the little people in keeping their hearth warm back home where you all just left minus -20 in searh of "global" (read Bali) warming?. I know Bali, Rio, Durban, The Seychelles, etc etc are nice places to go on the public dime when its cold back home - but doesn't this realluy give the big fat lie to your message? 9) Computer models - GIGO: Modeling behavior is a legitimate method of science but you can't model behavior you can't possibly understand - if you could you could model next months temperature - of course you can't do that so you try to predict what will happen to us after we are all dead - and this brings us right back to the point of religion whose "peer-reviewed" theories compete head-on with yours as to just what happens to us after we all die. This is the only "science" outside of religion that cannot prove any of its assertions. This deligitizes the entire field and this state supported religion would more truthfully term you people "climate priests". No computer model has ever "predicted" climate change and "postdictions" (altering the model to fit past behavior) is nothing less than fraud. 10) Proxies - are only legitamate if the proxy can be used to confirm data flawlessly time and time again that can be directly collected by some other suitable means. Proxy A can not be used to confirm Proxy B If one can directly correlate proxies with directly collected data then the proxy is only a fantasy relationship that can never be proven. Carbon 14 is a legitimate proxy method since the accuracy and range of carbon 14 dating can be correlated through directly collected historical records. No one should have any cofidence in proxies whose accuracy cannot be demonstrated today. -- more later -- -
Bruce Frykman at 05:52 AM on 19 March 2009There is no consensus
Why I am a skeptic: 1) The climate change debate is fueled by cash: huge sums of it directed by politicians to research institutions, "green" businesses, and government "green" agencies and regulators, all of whom seek personel gain through profit or careerism. This is not unlike any other unwarrented influence attained by combining religion and state to the detriment of human liberty. Replacing black robed preists with white coated "scientists" does not alter this unwholesome relationship. 2) The politicians and press who promote AGW will entertain no counter arguments, we do not hear debates but only lectures by those who seek to gain from this scam. 3) No legitimate science would ever allow the many fradulent claims made for it by its most ardent political supporters to go unchallenged based upon any respect for honesty. ie a warm winter in Alaska is offered as "proof" of "global" warming while a cold European winter is just "weather". Nonsense of course, but no refutaion from the scam artists whose careers depend on the scam. 3) Science is never driven by 'belief' or 'consensus' and certainly science is never 'settled' Not even Newton's 'Laws' of motion. All of these nonsensical statemements have been made by the people who seek personal gain from this scam. And which authority claims to speak for these legions of lock stepped "scientists"? Who granted this authority over consensus taking other than politicians? Who "authorised" anyone to speak for this "science"? If science is "settled" by authority or consensus at what date did this policy begin? 4) If liberating fossil fuels is the problem, then planting trees to suck up excess carbon dioxide is nonsense since anthropogenically planted trees (APT) will utlimately die of either fire or rot both of which will liberate the previously assimilated carbon right back into the atmosphere. Yet the "scientists" (scam artists) allow the politicians who fund them to get away with touting this nonsense - no legitiamte science would ever allow this "indulgence buying" to go unchallenged. Equally if carbon dioxide is great tree food then nature will "plant" trees of its own naturally fecundity and not be dependant upon APTs.(Anthropogincally Planted Trees) 5) If the "average" (will some "scientist" define "average" global temperature in terms that have a precise meaning) temperatures are rising "globaly" then no place on the globe should be exempt. If it's on "average" warmer at point 'A' over the past 100 years it cannot possibly be true that the signal will not be equally felt 100 miles away at point 'B' If there is any significant difference between 'A' and 'B' then it is not "global" but only local. Can point 'A' "globally warm" while point 'B' "globally" cools? More points to follow.... -
Quietman at 08:26 AM on 17 March 2009Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
Why Is The Nyiragongo Volcano Lava Different From Others? Mar 13 2009 -
Quietman at 08:17 AM on 17 March 2009Climate's changed before
UW-Milwaukee Study Could Realign Climate Change Theory Scientists Claim Earth Is Undergoing Natural Climate Shift but like the telegraph said "Nobody listens to the real climate change experts". -
Quietman at 08:14 AM on 17 March 2009The link between hurricanes and global warming
Noteworthy: Global and Northern Hemisphere Tropical Cyclone Activity [still] lowest in 30-years IMO -
chris at 06:27 AM on 17 March 2009Did global warming cause Hurricane Katrina?
I didn't bring up newspaper articles, you did HS. You referred to a newspaper article (the Opinion section of the Wall Street Journal). It's right there in your post #12 above. The problem with getting your info from newspaper opinion articles is that the opinionator can say things that might not be a true representation of the scientific evidence. That seems to be the case with the newspaper piece you referred to. You didn't look at the evidence HS. You looked at an opinion piece in a newspaper. The science (see post #13) supports the interpretation that ocean warming is the result of enhanced greenhouse warming. -
Philippe Chantreau at 15:16 PM on 16 March 2009Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Your wealth of knowledge is impressive Patrick. I'm curious: are you a grad student of atmospheric physics? If yes, any specific area of study? -
HealthySkeptic at 14:02 PM on 16 March 2009Did global warming cause Hurricane Katrina?
No chris, unlike yourself I look at all the evidence, not just that offered up by the scientists embedded in the current paradigm. Why you keep bringing up newspaper articles all the time I have no idea. I respect Prof Gray's scientific opinion since he is one of the leading researchers in atmospheric science not because of something I have read in a newspaper! What credentials do you posess? (Besides being able to post a mass of vaguely-related papers and articles to prop up your a priori beliefs). -
HealthySkeptic at 13:51 PM on 16 March 2009The Mystery of the Vanishing Ocean Heat
Chris, We may know "how sea levels are measured" and we can certainly "look at the data directly" however there appears to be a wide spectrum of interpretation of the data and the potential consequences. More and more climate experts, such as Morner, are either changing their minds with respect to AGW, or speaking out against it. I am a scientist in an unrelated field but I remain skeptical because, despite protestations of the "party faithful" such as yourself, there simply is no scientific consensus. Until there is, I will remain a skeptic. -------------------------------------------------------- Some papers by Morner;- "Climatic Changes on a Yearly to Millennial Basis: Geological, Historical, and Instrumental Records" By Nils-Axel Mörner, W. Karlén Contributor Nils-Axel Mörner, W. Karlén Edition: illustrated Published by Springer, 1984 ISBN 9027717796, 9789027717795 Mörner, Nils-Axel (2004). "Estimating future sea level changes from past records". Global and Planetary Change 40 (1-2): 49–54. doi:10.1016/S0921-8181(03)00097-3 Mörner, Nils-Axel; Tooley, Michael; Possnert, Göran (2004). "New perspectives for the future of the Maldives". Global and Planetary Change 40 (1-2): 177–182. doi:10.1016/S0921-8181(03)00108-5. Mörner N.-A.; Laborel J., Tooley M., Dawson S., Allison W., Islam M.S., Laborel F., Collina J., Rufin C. (February 10 2005). "Sea Level Changes: The Maldives Project Freed From Condemnation to become Flooded" (PDF). IGCP Project No. 437 Puglia 2003 - Final Conference. -
tonydunc at 14:44 PM on 15 March 2009There is no consensus
I have been concerned about Climate change since the late 70's when my brother in law warned me about the dangers of the earth as a heat sink, and a room mate explained work she was doing about the degree of deforestation in th Amazon, Congo and Southeast Asia. When I heard about Mauna Loa I became, as the "deniers" here would call, an alarmist. The main deniers of ACC here all seem to present a reasonable face and continually provide information and links to support their arguments or to question assertions of those that support ACC. But many of their arguments appear to me to be strained at best, and most telling I have yet to see much admission of fallibility. Both John and Chris, and others have made many many observations and provided countless sources backing up their assertions, many of which have not been effectively countered, yet the deniers continue to proclaim their views almost unchanged. I was dissappointed that Chris left one of the discussions because some arguments were brought up to counter his assertions after he left, and I do not know enough to assess their validity. But in every case that he has responded his arguments have been clear and totally supported. the argument that the deniers here are not as critical of sources that object to ACC as they are to sources that support them is extremely important. Also that there is no competing theory. As with the anti evolution debate, there are dozens of competing theories, almost all mutually exclusive. The interest seems to be on proving ACC to be false rather than finding out the truth. Quitman keeps insisting it is a tectonic issue, and all very clear, yet it seems to me that Chris effectively demonstrated that every one of his contentions was not supported by research. that in fact we know the amount of carbon produced by tectonic effects, and it is 1% of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere. I have yet to read anything that Chris or John have written that was factually in error or where their conclusion was not justified. The fact that there are almost no peer reviewed articles that contradict ACC is a towering argument. That does not by itself mean that the consensus is right. It does not mean that there is not a huge conspiracy . But a huge conspiracy on this scale would require some massive fudging of data, or a degree of peer pressure that is clearly not occurring. Certainly in Soviet Russia there was a mass conspiracy supporting Lysenkian genetics. No papers were allowed to be published in scientific journals that did not support it. Yet all the real scientists knew that this was happening, and went along with it because they would face severe penalties if they didn't. I know of no scientist who supports ACC who is "pressured" to do so because of pressure and therefore does not publish valid research data that would counter it. I know of no scientists who refuse to look at research because they are scared it might force them to disbelieve ACC. This does not mean that there are not political pressures to support ACC that distort aspects of how it is presented and that have serious political imperatives. Those should be faced head on and counteracted. Many people on this site have pointed out the obvious and sometimes shameful attempts to bolster anti ACC views that were unscientific. this should not be disregarded. Nor should the funding by right wing and energy based organizations that have an ideological or financial agenda. but there has been sufficient time and thousands of research papers detailing ACC and if it was incorrect in the main then a competing theory that fit all the facts would have emerged. I consider myself an alarmist because there IS a consensus on climate change and almost nothing is being done about it. That is very alarming. There are potential consequences that are indeed catastrophic. ACC is not a problem in isolation. There are innumerable environmental crisis that are happening at the same time, many of which are greatly exacerbated by ACC. Not all are real and not all will be as bad as some predict. I do know that deforestation, certain kinds of pollution, the devastation of ocean life, biodiversity loss, and contamination of various parts of the environment are accelerating. Atmospheric CO2 is accelerating as well. Yet in spite of worldwide political and public consensus, almost nothing is being done that could conceivably have any effect. It is like a car heading toward a cliff, we can see it, but instead of taking our foot off the accelerator and on the brake, we are untying the shoe on the accelerator, so that if we do want to stop we can take the shoe off and press not quite so hard with our bare foot. As Risky puts it, why not just really slow down CO2 production. If we do cut it drastically and it turns out not to be a big problem, we can gear back up very easily. However if we don't, the risks of Greenland melting are quite real. It might not, but it might. There are many who believe that IPCC conclusions are ridiculously optimistic. There are thousands of scientists who are convinced research show significant ACC is happening, and that the consequences could be devastating. So lets cut back to pre 1990 levels for 20 years and see what the research shows then. There are extremists who either don't understand science and therefore make false exaggerated claims. And there are ideologues who believe that they have to overplay their hand to counter the "enemy". But I am in contact with some of these people and none of them believe that they are wrong but are pulling this scam because they will get rich. They all believe they are right, and just want to keep the evil corporation from destroying the planet. On the other hand we do know the tobacco companies knew they were wrong, but lied and obfuscated about cancer as long as possible. We know that Financial companies knowingly lied to all sorts of people. We know the govenrment covered up what companies like Enron and Anderson were doing, and knew that the current financial structure was "toxic". It does not seem unreasonable to suppose that Exxon,and the Heritage foundation would lie, knowingly lie, about ACC in order to keep making huge profits. The idea that the profit motive is what is driving the science behind ACC seems almost ludicrous given recent history and the structure of our economic system. I, however am fully an alarmist, because I think it is possible that the Greenland Ice cap could melt substantially in 50 years. I do believe that there could be a tipping point that affects the Sargasso ocean current or some other currently stable climactic factor in a period of a decade or two. I do believe there are potential consequences that could wreak havoc on our society and on the world. I also believe that there could be solutions that will mitigate the problems. I also believe that nothing serious will be done about the issue until there is some devastating crisis that puts the deniers into shell shock, and that forces action. By then it may be too late to avoid some of the seroius consequences. these polite websites that argue back and forth will seem rather bizarre then. ACC could be wrong. I think it extremely unlikely, and I think that it will be not because it is "wrong" but because there is some other deeper issue that really LOOKS like ACC, just as Quantum relativistic physics really LOOKS newtonian in daily life. the arguments of the deniers (except for Quietman, since he is convinced his theory explains everything) are not consistant systematic theories and are just flotsam thrown to obscure matters. If the consequences were not so serious I would think it was great. but the "debate" is actually causing serious delays in making necessary immediate changes in human activities. it has been the United States for the last 20 years being the lynchpin in stopping concerted efforts to cut back CO2 emissions, and that has allowed China and india and others to increase their CO2 output to US levels, and now they are starting to obfuscate as much as we have. -
Patrick 027 at 10:17 AM on 15 March 2009Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Upward expansion of the atmospheric mass and pressure levels by warming and additional moisture are distinct from the rising of the tropopause relative to pressure levels. -
Patrick 027 at 09:41 AM on 15 March 2009Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
The cooling of the stratosphere and layers above due to a greater greenhouse effect will cause a density increase; the mass falls somewhat (except below some level where the effect of thermal expansion of the troposphere pushing overlying mass upward dominates). But in pressure coordinates, there is little change (pressure levels fall to lower geometric heights, following the mass distribution, with some adjustment due to the variation in gravity with height (a very minor issue for most of the mass of the atmosphere - actually, if I bring that up then I think I should also mention that the increased humidity of the troposphere should cause some slight increase in surface pressure and push the atmosphere upward just slightly). What I was wondering about, though, is what the direct radiative effect of a greater greenhouse effect is on the horizontal temperature variations of the stratosphere. Generally, the warmer parts of the stratosphere should cool the most; and also the parts which lose the most heating by LW radiation from below (surface and troposphere) - so I wouldn't expect the direct effect to have a strong cooling of the polar winter stratosphere, for example . -
Patrick 027 at 09:26 AM on 15 March 2009Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
... see IPCC AR4 WGI Chapter 9 p.675 http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch09.pdf of course, these are annual average respones...
Prev 2566 2567 2568 2569 2570 2571 2572 2573 2574 2575 2576 2577 2578 2579 2580 2581 Next
