Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2633 2634 2635 2636 2637 2638 2639 2640 2641 2642 2643 2644 2645 2646 2647 2648 Next
Comments 132001 to 132050:
-
Wondering Aloud at 02:25 AM on 5 April 2008Global cooling: the new kid on the block
Except, environmental alarmism becomes public policy and law. Which makes your entire point that we can afford to ignore it and only pay attention to the science sadly wrong and deadly dangerous. If the "Ames " study was in the literature prior to 1980 that means I read it and everything associated with it at the time. Apparently neither I nor anyone at the University or EPA was convinced. Since I don't keep files of research from things I did 30 years ago I can't pull out every article I read. I think one thing you do well is find reference materials. That is helpful but you must have a lot more time than I have. USDA and EPA reports place the peak usage year for DDT as 1971 and as the ban was in 1972... My point that it was out of patent and therefore not very profitable is certainly still correct. If its use was declining that would further support my point that the chemical companies would not fight to keep it, so that would have been a piece of evidence that would tend to refute rather than support your comment on corporate culpability. Naming a few of the chemicals that replaced DDT in use is not a straw man. The simple question is were they less environmentally harmful? I didn't answer the question. More importantly neither did the environmental movement or the regulating agencies. I suspect that if you do dig into it you will find the answer is a resounding no. Actually much as I complain Phillippe, I suspect I actually would agree with you most of the time, as I do in this case. I just am more cynical about the danger of panic and the way politics is clouding the issues. -
Quietman at 18:25 PM on 4 April 2008Global cooling: the new kid on the block
Philippe Thanks for the explanation and the links. -
Philippe Chantreau at 17:45 PM on 4 April 2008Global cooling: the new kid on the block
"Stopping acid rain to a large extent did not require an end to internal combustion engine transportation, or the de-industrialization of the world; which were the proposed solutions of the panic spreaders at the time." OK. So, I take it we agree that panic spreaders are to be disregarded and that acid rain has to be stopped. Which was really my point. I don't know about panic spreaders, I don't listen to that kind of stuff. I know about the effects of acid rain and I know that, as you said, there is no reason to tolerate it, since not doing so does not involve de-industrialization and so forth. -
Philippe Chantreau at 16:47 PM on 4 April 2008Climate change on Mars
You answer your own question when you say that there is no correlation. As I said, as Mars was cooling down, the Earth was warming, then Earth was warming as Mars remained cool, then Mars was warming again as Earth's warming appeared to slow down, although that slowing is most likely statistical noise. -
Philippe Chantreau at 16:37 PM on 4 April 2008Global cooling: the new kid on the block
Quietman: "I do not agree with his paper. I was trying to point out that in theory tou could prove almost anything with the right math." That's exactly the point. Gerlich paper does not prove anything. His maths are dead wrong. Look it up at Rabett's. Just like Goodridge, and D'Aleo, and Copeland's maths are wrong, as analyzed in these posts: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/03/27/how-not-to-analyze-data-part-1/ http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/exclamation-points/ http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/03/30/how-not-to-analyze-data-part-deux/#more-663 However, for the non maths savvy, it could very well look credible if you don't dig deeper, especially because they're not intrinsically wrong, but wrong in their application. That's exactly what denialism is about. It does not foster debate, scientific integrity or diversity of opinion. It's just skillful BS. WA: You commented about India building less than par chemical plants, as if it was a good thing, and I asked why that would be a good thing. Your comment, not mine, suggested that it was a good thing. To make it clear: it's not. Large amounts of DDT tend to quickly yield very resistant organisms. See for example this paper, which is one of many: http://www.anobase.org/embo_meeting/2005/abstracts/Coetzee.pdf There is no such thing as a silver bullet. The wikipedia articles may not be at the level of environmental chemistry grad school but nonetheless seem more informative than what you've said so far, which was so black and white as to have no bearing to the historical reality of the product's use in the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#cite_note-Thurow-83. Plenty of references there. Throwing around molecules or brand names is impressive but does not replace scientific studies. References? "The ban did make effective control of insect spread disease much more difficult and expensive." Please substantiate. Links, studies, references? Your claim on the patent and timing of DDT use is wrong. It was first patented in 1943 and the peak use occured in 1959 (80 million tons, per EPA records), mostly on cotton crops, before the patent expiration. I'm a little surprised that, as someone who spent countless grad school hours working on that issue you don't seem to have a ready answer to, at least, the Ames 1966 paper. How about the DDT reliant WHO program that ended up with initial gains reversed when resistance kicked in? Could the switch to Malathion and Bendiocarb be due to the lost effectiveness of DDT rather than a ban that does not even exist in the countries where the problem is? I'll cite wikipedia for a change: "Today there is debate among professionals working on malaria control concerning the appropriate role of DDT. The range of disagreement is relatively narrow: Few believe either that large scale spraying should be resumed or that the use of DDT should be abandoned altogether." That's almost always where reality lies. Remember that I told you I did not think banning it was a good decision? However, I don't think that using millions of tons of it, on cotton crops or elsewhere, was good either. As for drilling in the G of M, your logic still does not hold. The vast majority of it is international waters, in which the US has no jurisdiction. China would drill there as it would anywhere else, regardless of what the US is doing. If CNOOC goes on drilling off the Nigerian coast, is that the because the US is not there (which it is)? Obviously not. You keep on suggesting causality that does not exist on this. And we don't force industries in places where they can do anything they want. Industries do their part, which is completely removed from certain considerations, but is nevertheless a matter of CHOICES made by human beings. They try to make as much money as they can, by all means they can come up with, so long as the cost-benefit balance is favorable. In that sense, one can say that capitalism is a profoundly amoral ideology. It does not even matter whether or not something is legal. If it's not, but doing it is overall financially advantageous now, corporations will do it anyway, regardless of the location (it happens in the US and developped countries too). That's how laws are broken and fines are paid because paying the fine is compensated by the profits generated from ignoring the law. There are things that money can't buy. Some crucial aspects of your quality of life are among them. Corporations do not worry about the big picture, or even the long term (see the housing bubble fiasco). Minding about the long term or the big picture belongs to us, the people, and our representatives. It is perfectly possible for an oil refinery (or a pipe factory, ot any other business) in the US to make profits and respect all environmental laws. It will make more profit, however, by operating somewhere without environmental laws. Or somewhere without labor laws. Or somewhere child labor is not frowned upon. Or whatever. By doing so, it will transfer costs to the local populations, with degraded living conditions and a variety of health problems. That is not a way to foster human progress. Capitalism is overall benefical only when properly guided by regulations. Since it does not contain any moral bounds, they must be imposed upon it. Those who deny that ALWAYS have self serving motives, or they're just parrots regurgitating well drilled conditioning. The competitive advantage you mention is not given, it is crafted by corporations influencing international trade laws. The only reason why there are places where environmental and other concerns are ignored is that there are places where people are desperate. Exploiting their desperation to scrap additional pennies when other options exist is despicable, even if made legal by GATT/WTO. It is also a very short term and eventually losing proposition. It can be done only because these people are desperate. The moment they're no longer desperate, they'll start speaking up and fighting for the decent living conditions they deserve. It's already starting in China. And then, there goes your additional margin. If we are talking past each other, it's because you keep on bringing up strawmen built from the most outrageous claims of environmental advocacy groups. I do not defend outrageous claims, whatever the side. I am favorable to widespread use of nuclear energy, at least for the medium term, especially in China and India. I am not opposed to drilling in the G of M. I am unfazed by alarmist claims, regardless of where they come from (remember Baliunas and the CFCs?). Focusing on environmental alarmism is as stupid as focusing on economic alarmism put forth to resist change or regulation. -
Quietman at 14:32 PM on 4 April 2008Determining the long term solar trend
John I assume that you are aware of the news for the past couple of days. There is something about changing the shape of the magnetic field that rings a bell but I can not remember what it is. Discovery - Source Of Slow Solar Wind 2 April 2008 - 1:54am Magnetic Substorms In Space 3 April 2008Response: I wasn't aware, thanks for the heads up. The links don't seem to work but googling your headlines brought up the info easy enough. Thanks, interesting stuff! -
Quietman at 14:17 PM on 4 April 2008Climate change on Mars
Philippe You are right of course in that there is no correlation between Mas's climate and Earth's. That is not what I was trying to point out. The Earth has oceans, cloud cover and thicker atmosphere just to name a few. What I am attempting to point out is that the suns effect on one planet should be reflected by a similar effect on another. If there is no effect then we can rule out TSI. This has nothing to do with skepticism, it was only meant to be an observation. Since you appear to know more about Mars, maybe you could explain why this observation is false? -
Quietman at 13:57 PM on 4 April 2008Global warming stopped in 1981... no, wait! 1991!
John Nice post but the title should be AGW versus the sun. Kidding aside I found it interesting. I started coming to this site from RealClimate because I wan't to learn more about the AGW hypothesis without getting into a shouting match. In the short time I have been reading your blogs I have picked up quite a few points. Thanks and keep it up. Open minds are somewhat refreshing. -
Quietman at 13:47 PM on 4 April 2008It's the sun
That is one of my issues with AGW. The environmental fanatics has seized upon one and only one factor involved, CO2. Granted that CO2 is a greenhouse gas it is not logical that it is either the only contributer or even the primary factor in global warming. AGW is a fact that needs to be accepted but we can not be blind to the other influences or we skew the results and may take actions in the wrong direction. The most powerful force controlling the climate is the earth and it's weather. The ocean currents, the jet stream, the vulcanism that drives the weather, the clouds and their specific composition, the magma flow of the earths engine and moreso the sun and it's internal tides and resulting changes in force and solar wind. By leaving out even small factors in models we skew the data. We should not be making corrections for urban heat islands but discarding bad information. Do you realize that there is not even a theory for how El Nino is driven? Only a hypothesis and that is very recent, but the phenomenon is well documented and studied. AGW needs to be addressed but properly, fully aware of it's cause and effect. Otherwise we just make it worse.Response: The most powerful force controlling climate is radiative forcing. Whatever causes the planet to be in energy imbalance - to accumulate or lose heat - is what drives long term global warming or cooling. The factors such as ocean currents and El Nino are responsible for internal variations but have very little impact on long term energy imbalance.
So what causes changes to the planet's energy imbalance? Not just CO2 - there are many forcings that drive climate (eg - aerosols, solar variations, cloud albedo). However, the reason for the focus on CO2 is because CO2 is the most dominant radiative forcing and is increasing faster than any other forcing. -
Quietman at 06:56 AM on 4 April 2008Global cooling: the new kid on the block
Philippe Chantreau I am sorry that you misunderstood my reference to Gerlich. I do not agree with his paper. I was trying to point out that in theory tou could prove almost anything with the right math. I was looking for a comment explaining WHY he was wrong, not THAT he was wrong. That is why I only mentioned it once. When I agree with a paper, such as Mackey's, I tend to mention it more often to see if anyone can rebuff it. -
Quietman at 06:31 AM on 4 April 2008Comparing IPCC projections to observations
frankbi Your sarcasm simply makes you sound like one of those fanatical short sighted environmentalists from california. Instead why don't you come up with a real solution or at least a way to determine the actual cause of AGW instead of knocking anyone who is actually trying to determine the truth. -
Wondering Aloud at 02:23 AM on 4 April 2008Global cooling: the new kid on the block
The other stuff will take me some time. The US is not the only place with good environmental regulations, I am sure some places do a better job. Some clarifications: Stopping acid rain to a large extent did not require an end to internal combustion engine transportation, or the de-industrialization of the world; which were the proposed solutions of the panic spreaders at the time. On the Golf of Mexico. The US refuses to develope it therefore China does... The Chinese company will not have to meet the stringent environmental requirements of a US company and will not be forced to clean up any mess they make, which a US company would be. Therfore we get reduced benefit coupled with increased risk of harm to the environment. This is the general pattern in a lot of industries, if we force the industries into places where environmental concerns are ignored the net effect to the environmment is much worse. A factory in the US has strict emission requirements, a factory in Shaghai probably doesn't. So what happens is we give a competitive advantage to the country that does the worst job on the environment. Rather than regulation we have created a system that indirectly prohibits the building of cleaner facilities in the US in favor of dirtier ones abroad. Not fixing the pollution problem but only shifting it out of our control. The net effect is a dirtier planet for everyone. You will notice I did not say there is anything wrong with US standards being high. But if they cause the facilities to be built elsewhere it defeats much of the purpose. I don't se an easy or even a good answer to this problem. On the harm of the ban, the ban of DDT did not stop or even reduce pesticide use. In fact it greatly increased the size and profit margins throughout the market. Which replacement for DDT could anyone argue in favor of? Which replacement was not much worse? Paration? Malthion? tetra-arsino-lead? The ban did make effective control of insect spread disease much more difficult and expensive. I think we are talking past each other a little here, I am much more focused on relative harm, the idea of any perfect solution is unrealistic to me and I think panic mongering tends to enable really bad policy decisions. I don't understand your one comment It seems you are saying that India building more dangerous and polluting chemical plants is good? Did you misread my point there? It isn't a good thing it is an unintended consequence of a bad policy decision. -
Quietman at 16:49 PM on 3 April 2008Global warming stopped in 1981... no, wait! 1991!
Harold Pierce Jr Interesting link but why do they think that water vapor is not to be included in man made gases? The INTENTIONAL output from cars and LDTs is Water Vapor and CO2 instead on HC, CO and NOx. We have been converting these gases since the early 1970's by installing emission controls that reduce fuel economy in favor of "cleaner air". -
frankbi at 15:09 PM on 3 April 2008Comparing IPCC projections to observations
Oh great, it's Al Gore again. Just imagine, someone sees a post on a paper by Rahmstorf et al., and he starts thinking about how to bash Al Gore. Cleraly a case of Gore Derangement Syndrome. -
Harold Pierce Jr at 12:14 PM on 3 April 2008Global warming stopped in 1981... no, wait! 1991!
Hello John! GO: http://www.John-Daly.com. scroll down, click on "Station Temperature Data" and find the charts for Death Valley and Alice Springs. These temperature-time plots show no evidence for any global warming at these sites as well as most of the rural (i.e., remote) sites. Note the Alice Springs plot which starts about 1880. Go read "What the Station Say..." to learn about the late John Daly's criteria for selecting these particular stations. He is not cherry picking these stations. Note the distibution of these remote stations. Most temperature data in the GISTEMP data base from or near urban areas has been adjusted for bias due to UHI effects. Rural station data is used to determine the adjustment algorithims. You can find a discussion about the slicing, dicing and homogenization (SDH)of these temperature data records over at Steve Mc's blog. GO: http://www.climateaudit.org. John Daly's solution to the SDH of data from urban areas or any comprised site is not use it. I used the GISTEMP data to extend the annual mean temperature-time plot for Death Valley to 2007. The extention continues the flat line trend of the plot. Here is a link to "Global Warming: A Closer Look at the Numbers. GO: www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html Monte Hieb is a mine safety engineer and works for the WV Dept of Mines. There is no conclusive evidence that the current warm years (i.e., 1975-2005) are the result of any CO2-induced "global warming". -
Philippe Chantreau at 03:45 AM on 3 April 2008Global cooling: the new kid on the block
Well then, you must have plenty to say about these links, especially the Ames 1966 and the Van Veltzen et al 1972 studies. I'm especially curious to hear about the Miller et al 2001 study, which I found quite interesting and has the advantage of underlying the enzymatic processes by which shell thinning occurs. Also, it would be nice to provide links or references to scientic work substantiating this assertion: "It just happens that issue really bugs me because the ban did so much more harm both to humans and to the environment than DDT ever could." It's vague and very wide, you need to give more (scientific) info on that. It's not because acid rain was not a catastrophy that it should not have been stopped. What exactly are the reasons to tolerate swaths of forest and land bleached by acid rain? That nobody got killed on the spot? The convenience for the industry causing it? I dont' think so. "The DDT ban was one of the motivating pieces in the rapid development and growth of the chemical industry in India. Did they build facilities that would have passed environmental muster in the US?" No, but why exactly is that a good thing? I agree on the nuclear idea and the "biofuel Garbage" notion, except that not all biofuels are garbage. Some could be promising, depending on the source, but the corn lobby has hijacked the all thing and corn is just about the worst source for biofuel. Your reasoning about the Golf of Mexico makes no sense. You are saying that because we don't do something bad, others are doing it. They would do it anyway, the US not drilling it is not the cause of their drilling. And then you say that because they do it, we should do it too. And my Shanghai story does not bring that point up at all, I don't see how you make that jump. Plus, you keep attributing to me views that are not mine. In my opinion, the G of M is a place where drilling might not necessarily be that harmful, provided it is properly monitored and everyone is accountable for their actions. Then you go on to say that the US has improved air quality, which is entirely true (albeit unrelated) and that was actually the point of my Shanghai story. The US has improved air quality because of the Clean Air Act. If you don't want to live in a place like Shanghai, you need regulations like the CAA. In fact, equally strict or stricter regulations should be in effect worldwide. I'd add that it's not because the rest of the world has weak standards (which, by the way, is not the case everywhere, China and India are obviously problematic and as such, bad examples) that we should have weak ones too. Do you stop living a principled life if you notice that your neighbor is a rake? -
Wondering Aloud at 23:55 PM on 2 April 2008Global cooling: the new kid on the block
Yes Phillippe, I actually did check with some Biology people some including one well known one hung on to the idea a lot longer but basically surrendered on it after a few more trials. It just happens that issue really bugs me because the ban did so much more harm both to humans and to the environment than DDT ever could. At the time I searched every professional publication on the subject and kept finding out the skeptics had the data right. So, assuming I was totally wrong I actually began tracking Rachel Carsons references, looking the people up calling or writting to them... lets not go there. I don't doubt the reality of acid rain, I do doubt that it was a catastrophy and I am mighty disgusted with the wide scale condemnation of US power generation and manufacturing at the time for Canada having a problem that was at least 99% self inflicted. Thanks anyway for being understanding, as I said we are all vulnerable where our prejudices are concerned and I've built a dandy on that issue. Your Shanghai story brings up a further point though, consequences of foolish environmental decisions. We in the US refuse to drill in much in fact most of the available areas because of supposed environmental concerns. This doesn't stop the rest of the world from doing so with much looser contrals than we have. A classic case in point is the current plans of China to drill in the golf of Mexico. We feel it's "too ecologically sensitive" so instead the Chinese will drill there with Cuban basing and look how much they care for the environment. The DDT ban was one of the motivating pieces in the rapid development and growth of the chemical industry in India. Did they build facilities that would have passed environmental muster in the US? The US has had improving air quality for more than a generation now, but still the first thing I would suggest is replace all coal burning electric power plants with nuclear. If any interest group that was pushing the AGW agenda would adopt that idea I would not only support it, I'd be a lot more ready to believe they believed in AGW. As it is I don't think they do. Instead we get bio fuels garbage that at best only rasies food prices and likely makes things worse. -
Philippe Chantreau at 10:33 AM on 2 April 2008Global cooling: the new kid on the block
When I said BTN, I meant GMB (they need more variety in scrren names really). -
Philippe Chantreau at 03:31 AM on 2 April 2008There is no consensus
"The perhaps painful truth is CO2 has not been a major cause of climate change in the past" That may be because there has not been a release of CO2 on the scale we experienced these last 150 years during the 600k years of very stable climate the planet has been through. If you try to go farther in time, there is too much uncertainty to do informative comparisons. There is nothing to prove that a massive injection of CO2 in an otherwise stable climate can not have serious consequences. And, by the way, spare me the exaggerations that have nothing to do with what the research actually shows and suggest is possible. I do not pay more attention to exaggerated claims from advocay groups, whether they're from one side of the spectrum or the other. And I also maintain that, if you are a true skeptic with physics background, you should be screaming bloody murder to the flat-earthers like Gerlich. If not, then you're applying a double standard far worse than anything you claim is practiced in the scientific peer-reviewed litterature. -
Philippe Chantreau at 03:15 AM on 2 April 2008Global cooling: the new kid on the block
You don't have to apologize for your tone. There is nothing wrong with being opinionated, so long as you can still communicate, and your tone is a model of courtesy compared to freaks like BTN. To get back to the topic of skepticism, one question. When you discovered that the DDT was a joke in the chemistry department of your University, did you check in the biology department? About acid rain and China, I was serious. An airline pilot friend of mine was recently in Shanghai, where He was lodged in a tall hotel with exterior elevators. On a "good" weather day (i.e. no clouds, rain, fog to obstruct visibility) he lost sight of the ground completely at the 16th floor. That's essentially man made weather. They have to shoot instrument approaches there all the time, even in weather that would be VFR anywhere else in the world. So I repeat my question, would you like to live in a place like that? If not, how do you avoid the place where you live to become like that? -
Philippe Chantreau at 10:52 AM on 1 April 2008Global cooling: the new kid on the block
Doesn't exist? At all? http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-08/998063731.En.r.html http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-8901(196606)3%3C87%3ADRITEO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Y http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-8901(197512)12%3A3%3C781%3ADEITAK%3E2.0.CO%3B2-X http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/172/3986/955 http://www.springerlink.com/content/d213435j6t82v118/ This one might be the most interesting found in that brief search: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-541X(197207)36%3A3%3C733%3ALMODBC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-3 Birds might do fine even on high doses, so long as they don't have to mobilize the stored substance. If they do, then the concentration in sensitive tissues (which fat is not, being a storage deposit) skyrockets and soon kills them. It's not only about chemistry, it's also about physiology and environemental dynamics. As for everything happening in Nature, complexity comes in to play. It's easy to show a population of healthy birds fed large amounts of a toxic. All you have to do is make sure they have plenty to eat. The toxic stays in storage tissues. What happens in the real world is another story. This is just a few minutes of surfing. Note that I did not say that it should have been banned either. As for lead paint, sorry but this is what kids do. They put stuff in their mouths. Small chips will be swallowed. Inevitably. Other countries banned the nonsensical lead paint for toys and other children accessories as early as the first half of th 20th century. Interior paints soon followed. http://www.mindfully.org/Health/Lead-Industry-Public-Health.htm http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/298/5594/732 -
Wondering Aloud at 07:34 AM on 1 April 2008Global cooling: the new kid on the block
On asbestos... amphibole or crysotile? Most asbestos actually used in buildings was made much more dangerous by the process of removing it. We wound up with a panic that caused far more problems with the fix than was present unfixed. Sorry for my immoderate tone there phillippe it isn't your fault. But when ones youthful idealism is squashed he tends to remember it. Especially when the entire chemistry department in a major university system considers the issue an open joke. -
leebert at 07:14 AM on 1 April 2008Has solar cycle 24 begun?
Quietman: The current rate of the sun's conveyors has slowed to a crawl which predicts sunspot activity 20 years from now: http://www.physorg.com/news66581392.html "...For more than a century ... the speed of the belt has been a good predictor of future solar activity... [ 2022 could be ] off the bottom of the charts." The shift to SC 24 might be slower than normal because the sun's internal conveyor mechanism appears to be running at 3/4 speed. Another thing to consider is the strong positive correlation of decreased solar luminance & far colder continental temperatures (hence this harsh past winter). Hansen authored a paper in 2001(?) predicting slowed continent-warming westerlies during periods of lower solar luminance / sun spot activity. When solar heating drops by 1 degree C over the oceans, continental winters become markedly more severe. I remember it took some coaxing a couple of years back to convince IPCC modelers to revise their predictions to account for our current solar minimum. We'll know by 2015 what SC 25 has in store for us. /leebert -
leebert at 06:41 AM on 1 April 2008Empirical evidence for positive feedback
Hi John, It's generally agreed that 1° increase would occur from a doubling of CO2 alone. What most of the best skeptic arguments hinge on is questioning how much additional forcing is caused through feedbacks? If CO2 ppm are 3/4's of the way to doubling and we haven't experienced a 2.5° - 3.0° temperature increase then it invites the question as to whether these projected feedback loops are as intense as modeled or perhaps there are counterveiling phenomena. Likewise skeptics cite the differential between temperature anomalies in the Northern vs. Southern hemispheres and the closer correlation with aerosols. Since August 2007 V. Ramanathan has authored papers citing mid-to-upper tropospheric soot as having: - 50% role in heating over the Indian ocean, half of what's ascribed to CO2 - 40% role in atmospheric heating globally Ramanathan is quite blunt in stating that this was contrary to the conventional wisdom that soot's heating effect was counterbalanced by other aerosols as well as its own shading effects. Wouldn't that impact the role of CO2 in general climate models? Others have likewise has found soot-fall to be particularly pernicious on the ground, with soot causing up to 90% of the Arctic melt-off, industrial soot having an 8x more powerful warming effect on snow and ice than that from wood fuels. Significantly, Hansen cites 25% of centennial global warming being due to the general Arctic melt-off. None of these statements seek to exculpate CO2, but it draws into question the margin of warming that CO2 is in fact responsible for. Surely Ramanathan's and Hansen's findings are reputable and yet they seem to me to weaken the brief for dangerous CO2-driven global warming. Best regards, /leebert -
leebert at 06:19 AM on 1 April 2008Empirical evidence for positive feedback
Hi John, It's generally agreed that 1° increase would occur from a doubling of CO2 alone. What most of the best skeptic arguments hinge on is questioning how much additional forcing is caused through feedbacks? If CO2 ppm are 3/4's of the way to doubling and we haven't experienced a 2.5° - 3.0° temperature increase then it invites the question as to whether these projected feedback loops are as intense as modeled or perhaps there are counterveiling phenomena. Likewise skeptics cite the differential between temperature anomalies in the Northern vs. Southern hemispheres and the closer correlation with aerosols. Since August 2007 V. Ramanathan has authored papers citing mid-to-upper tropospheric soot as having: - 50% role in heating over the Indian ocean, half of what's ascribed to CO2 - 40% role in atmospheric heating globally Ramanathan is quite blunt in stating that this was contrary to the conventional wisdom that soot's heating effect was counterbalanced by other aerosols as well as its own shading effects. Wouldn't that impact the role of CO2 in general climate models? Others have likewise has found soot-fall to be particularly pernicious on the ground, with soot causing up to 90% of the Arctic melt-off, industrial soot having an 8x more powerful warming effect on snow and ice than that from wood fuels. Significantly, Hansen cites 25% of centennial global warming being due to the general Arctic melt-off. None of these statements seek to exculpate CO2, but it draws into question the margin of warming that CO2 is in fact responsible for. Surely Ramanathan's and Hansen's findings are reputable and yet they seem to me to weaken the brief for dangerous CO2-driven global warming. Best regards, /leebert -
leebert at 05:53 AM on 1 April 2008Global warming stopped in 1981... no, wait! 1991!
Hi John, What trend line do we get if we remove the "noise" that originates from varying solar irradiance? Can't the solar wattage differentials can be factored out to show the actual GHG forcings, both with and without feedbacks? I think that'd be far more informative than trying to glean out the solar noise from the general climate noise. Any difference would represent GHG forcings, not solar. Best regards, /leeResponse: You don't ask much, do you?! As the long term solar trend has been one of slight cooling over the last 30 years, if you took out solar influence, if anything the global warming trend would be slightly higher. -
leebert at 05:45 AM on 1 April 2008Determining the long term solar trend
What about solar cycle #25? The current rate of the sun's conveyors has slowed to a crawl which predicts sunspot activity 20 years from now: http://www.physorg.com/news66581392.html "...For more than a century, "the speed of the belt has been a good predictor of future solar activity... [ 2022 could be ] "...off the bottom of the charts." -
Wondering Aloud at 04:07 AM on 1 April 2008Global cooling: the new kid on the block
Version? Go ahead and find research that shows that DDT harmed Raptor birds. I can save you time it doesn't exist. Audobon and hawk mountain bird counts clearly showed increased populations at the height of DDT use. Something I experienced first hand. The bird egg thing had already been disproven 30 years ago. Tests with real birds at even wildlly elevated levels ranged from inconclusive to downright favorable. Long term persistence in the environment was exaggerated. In fact the test they were using to detect it at the time required that it break down readily in the environment. I went to a professional conference 25 years ago where this precise issue was used as an example of bad scientific ethics. Not to be argued? You are aware of the huge residue levels of DDT found in elephants? Yes Siberian elephants found in permafrost and the resulting discovery that the supposed marker for DDT building up in living tissue was in fact not a marker for DDT at all. Then you hit me with that old saw about the manufacturers wanting to sell too much when in fact since it was long out of patent and they made the patented replacements they were quiet supporters of the ban. It was used foolishly and broadly and had an effect of messing up local food chains from misuse; but you'll have a tough time finding a replacement that wasn't worse on every particular. Or perhaps a quote from Ruckelshaus at the time of the ban "We admit there is no scientific evidence to support the ban of DDT never the less we are banning it." Sorry, I tried very hard my first year in grad school environmental chemistry to try to prove the DDT issue wasn't a politically motivated fraud, I failed completely. It is the only project in hundreds of grad hours I never managed to complete, and the professors involved admitted at the end that they couldn't do it either. It is probably why I switched to surface chemistry and later into physics. The one "Real" and "not to be argued" thing in the DDT issue is the bodies of the innocent children who have died as a result of the ban. On acid rain, being "real" doesn't make it a crisis, which I suspect you well know. As in Canada blaming emissions from Sudbury on Gary Indiana. The perpose of that scare was to reduce fossil fuel use. When it faded in the mid to late 1980s it was replaced by another scare. As I recall the lead paint thing was basically "they'd have to actually eat the paint for it to be a problem." Which is exactly the issue. Which part of NASA is such a good source? or NOAA for that matter as there are public figures on both extremes in both agencies. Several of AGW's best known skeptics are NASA scientists or retired NASA scientists. -
Philippe Chantreau at 03:17 AM on 1 April 2008Global cooling: the new kid on the block
Your take on DDT comes from propaganda. The manufacturers of DDT ruined themselves. They pushed public health managers for insane amounts of the product to be used so that they would sell more of it. As a result, insane amounts of the stuff accumulated in the environment and affected numerous species. This last point is not to be argued, it has been well documented in multiple studies. N.G is not telling lies about this. You'd die too, if exposed to the appropriate dose of the chemical. This would never have happened if the greedy idiots doing a business of selling DDT had not tried to make more money out of it than what the real need called for. When the backlash happened, they tried to get back to reason by showing that, at the proper doses, the product was safe. It's too bad they could not bring themselves to sell only what was necessary for proper dosage in the first place. Before regurgitating propaganda, why don't you look at how much DDT was used per square meter of beach for instance, vs. what was necessary to achieve the desired result. DDT did kill birds because it ended up in the doses needed to kill birds' eggs, instead of the much lower doses needed to kill mosquito eggs and larvae. Of course, once something is legislated, it's hard to track back. The DDT backlash was not created by environmentalists but by businessmen. Since we're talking about lies, why don't we examine the lies of the lead industry about the neurological effects of lead containing paints on children. Or we could also examine the lies of the tobacco industry. There are plenty of lies to go around, really. Acid rain is real, I've seen the effects of it. Take a trip to China, yuo'll see plenty for yourself. While you're there, reflect on how you would like to live in such a place. The new ice age is media created bunk. Asbestos does cause lung disease, I have not met a pulmonologist who'd deny that. It's easy to see where your list comes from. For each and any of those items, how closely have you looked at the "alternate" side of the story that you were presented? "Being a skeptic is usually what science is all about." This claim is often heard, along with the suggestion that all the climate scientists doing research full time are not exercising the proper amount of skepticism. What's funny is that most of the time, that half veiled accusation comes from people who are not scientists and would be hard pressed to distinguish between what warrants great skepticism and what's more likely to be truly interesting. Quietman's recent interest in the miserable Gerlich "paper" is a case in point. I'm not going to cut skeptics any slack if they are not aware of the all story and rely on sources that are worthless. GRL is a good source. Energy and Environment is not. Heartland is a miserable source. NOAA and NASA are good ones. There are objective criteria for this. If you decide to ignore them, your skepticism is nothing more than well dressed bias. Skepticism cuts both ways. How much skepticism did you direct toward the version of the DDT story that you were told? -
Wondering Aloud at 02:07 AM on 1 April 2008There is no consensus
paledriver, Read from the 3rd paragraph on of my post 16. That was my point. I do indeed think it is clear that the public is being duped. I think it is deliberate and I think the AGW alarmists are the ones doing it. The "many fake signatures" is both clearly incorrect and irrelevent. By your own references over 90% were verified. Phillippe I don't agree with your way of stating the consensus though It isn't far enough off to argue. On your double standard point though, Phillippe, that is exactly the contention I have been making from the other side of the issue for a long time so it is kind of funny. The correct hypothesis has to defeat all the others. It has to pass the experimental test and make predictions that other hypothesis don't. Being experimentally supported is the beginning of this; that isn't enough to prove it, but at this point we haven't even got that. Being only not much worse than the other explanations is not enough. Holding the accepted theory to the highest standard is what a scientist is supposed to do. It only takes one thing to prove it wrong. The perhaps painful truth is CO2 has not been a major cause of climate change in the past, despite levels many times the current level. In order to believe it is about to cause huge consequences today when it never did in the past you need some pretty convincing proof or some new physical reality. John I am pretty impressed with how current you keep your articles references. -
Neu at 01:27 AM on 1 April 2008Global warming stopped in 1981... no, wait! 1991!
John, Nice post. I have also looked at the influence of solar cycle on global temperature. However, although the correlation after 1960 looks quite impressive, it diminishes when going further back. You find also oscillations in the order of about 10 years, however, the correlation to the solar cycle is rather negative. This is hard to explain by data uncertainty (global temperature since 1870 is not too bad and the sunspot data is not either). And if you look a little bit closer to solar and temp cycle over the last decades there is a phase shift changing the sign over that period. So I am sceptical, if this quasi-10y-oscillation seen in global temperature really is a response to the solar cycle. It might also be an internal resonance frequency of the climate system and the correlation over some decades is accidental. Looking at longer time series, this seems more probable. In this case, the geographical patterns shown by Camp and Tung might just represent the difference between warm and cold years of this internal oscillation (like it exists e.g. for ENSO). However, be it a response to the solar cycle or an internal oscillation, we can expect that we are at the minimum now and there will be a rise over the next years; subject to the reservation that the oscillation has only been rather regular over a few decades, but not before...). Urs NeuResponse: Interesting analysis. Camp's study does only go as far back as 1960. There are other studies that find a similar solar signal (although not as much as Camp, they seem to find a 0.1C solar signal in global temperatures). Will track down some of these studies, see how far back they go. -
John Cross at 00:59 AM on 1 April 2008Global warming stopped in 1981... no, wait! 1991!
John: I think this is a really interesting post. I will have to think about it over a while. But I think the key thing is that this is to be expected yet all we hear about is warming stopped in 98, no wait, 2001, no it's really 2002, etc. Thanks again for Skeptical Science. John Cross -
Wondering Aloud at 00:29 AM on 1 April 2008Global cooling: the new kid on the block
Actually I think the graph in 28 was done by John Cook. It is a derived graph of a "corrected" value rather than a raw data graph and as a result tends to magnify trends, if any, near the end of the time line. It is very easy in that case to get suckered into seeing trends even if they aren't there. I don't have any idea what the time lag for any of this stuff is. I am trying to suggest that the instant response idea is wrong and unlikely because of the heat capacity of the system. There are a lot more than one or two interactiong variables here and how much of a factor the ocean plays and how long it takes to respond to a change are big factors. For example the 1890s increase could play a roll in the 1930s being warming. The correlation isn't that great. It just happens to be a bit better than CO2 temp one or the TSI temp one. I am just playing with the numbers, it seems obvious to me that simple answers to complicated questions are usually wrong. Which is why current cooling does not disprove AGW, however the warming of the late 20th century doesn't prove it either. Being a skeptic is usually what science is all about. Just because I posed another unllikely hypothesis doesn't meen I suddenly believe it's right. The way science works is the correct hypothesis has to take on and defeat all competing hypothesis. If it ever fails it's done. What you may not see is that people cut the CO2-warming idea a lot of slack, as you say, while holding all other ideas to tight scrutiny. Perhaps you are also dealing with people who have been around for the last 50 or more years and have been bitten by the distortion, dishonesty and alarmism that has been characteristic of every big environmental crusade I can think of. This has in the past led to policy that is in fact harmful to the environment. If you want a dandy example take a look at the story of DDT. Every thing used to replace it was more environmentally harmful more expensive less effective. Here we are 35 years since the ban, National Geographic still telling us it was killing the eagles, all long ago disproven and millions still paying for the lie with their lives. Or would you like to think about acid rain, logging, the new ice age, nuclear power dangers, alar, asbestos or how about compact florescent bulbs ?... the list goes on and on. Here is my question on this rant, how many times does it take for the same people to lie to you before being a skeptic becomes your knee jerk reaction? Maybe you should cut the skeptics a little slack, they are doing their job. The fact that anyone is even willing to listen to claims of global warming, or any impending environmental disaster, is a miracle. We better not be wrong this time, especially not for inciting another overblown panic, or we may never regain the influence to get anyone to believe us if we have a real warning. -
Philippe Chantreau at 15:56 PM on 29 March 2008There is no consensus
WA: "The claim that there is some vast number of scientists that constitute a consensus and that agree with catastrophic warming is not only not science it isn't even correct." Here is a strawman so big, it's more akin to the Chinese straw dogs. Let's merrily burn it. Indeed, it's not correct at all. The SCIENTIFIC consensus is that there is warming, happening quite fast, and that the massive CO2 release from the burning of fossil fuels is a major contributor to it. That is the real consensus. -
Philippe Chantreau at 15:41 PM on 29 March 2008There is no consensus
WA, I don't understand why you would even pay attention to the "my list is bigger than yours" type of attitude, which is obviously utter nonsense. Why are you trying to defend that so-called "petition project?" What does that have to do with science and evidence? Disputing that there is a consensus among climate scientists is downright futile. All sources of information arguing that point are non scientific (Heartland, Cato, Inhofe's office, CO2 science and all that crap). Real scientific organizations (AAAS, AGU, etc) endorse the AGW hypothesis, which is by itself an interesting fact. I find it really funny that "skeptics" both dispute the existence of a consensus and also argue that consensus is meaningless anyway, as Quietman does with a mightily inappropriate comparison. As for Quietman post about Gerlich's pathetic load of dung, Rabett Run has more on that than anyone really needs to know. And to answer his question, there is no doubt about the radiative properties of CO2 and the reality of the GH effect. It can be precisely measured in the lab, and if there was no GH effect, this planet would be an ice covered rock. The Gerlich paper is also funny in the sense that it denies the very existence of a GH effect at all but, later, the authors questioned about Venus go on explaining Venus' temps by GH effect from other sources than CO2. It's perfectly grotesque, a fine example of the worst BS that denialism can produce. The quality of skepticism here is on the way down if that's the kind of stuff we're going to talk about. Well, BTN had already set the bar so far down that we might have a margin anyway, but still. This my thought of the day to you, Quietman, and others. You can not apply extreme scrutiny to the CO2 hypothesis and lower scrutiny to alternate explanations. I know that it makes for a lot more work but that's the only way. If you apply the same extreme scrutiny to these other alternate explanations, what is left of them? Have you even tried (sincerely)? If not, you can not call yourself a skeptic in the true sense of the word. In my experience, if you try to take apart these alternate theories with any eagerness comparable to what "skeptics" use against the CO2 hypothesis, there is nothing left, zilch, nada. That's one reason why I'm skeptical about climate skepticism. -
Philippe Chantreau at 12:51 PM on 29 March 2008Global cooling: the new kid on the block
This "goofy" data happens to be compiled by Dr. Solanki. Since you're calling it goofy, perhaps you'd care to explain exactly what makes it so. You having difficulty to use it is not necessarily enough. I find it more plesant to look at than the graph in 38 with all the noise, and it's done with the same data, what's not to like? "The dip your talking about around 1920 (in post 31)would than be part of the cause of the mid century cooling." But then you would have no temp response to the increase of the 1890's. And the 1965 dip does not have a response either. No matter how you cut and slice it, it's hard to fit, to the point of being impossible. Especially when considering how small these variations actually are when you translate them in terms of energy received per square meter and what's reflected by albedo (roughly divide by 4, the multiply by 0.49). Sorry, but I don't find it convincing at all. Imagine you're applying your skeptical outlook to that hypothesis. How well is it truly defended? Being a real skeptic means you're equally skeptic of all hypotheses and HOLD THEM ALL TO THE SAME STANDARD OF SCUTINY (that which you're aplying to CO2). You can't cut slacks to the solar idea just because it's not CO2. I find that true skeptic attitutde profoundly lacking with all skeptics but very few (counted on one hand's fingers) whose writings I have read on blogs. Ironically, those show much greater intellectual integrity than "skeptic scientists" like Baliunas, Pielke Sr. and others. -
Wondering Aloud at 06:50 AM on 29 March 2008Global cooling: the new kid on the block
The dip your talking about around 1920 (in post 31)would than be part of the cause of the mid century cooling. -
Quietman at 05:58 AM on 29 March 2008Determining the long term solar trend
Wondering Aloud That is what converted me from passively accepting AGW to being skeptical (as to the source and strength of AGW) in the first place. There are too many variables that were not originally addressed and that may explain the large discrepancies between predicted behavior and observations. -
Wondering Aloud at 05:54 AM on 29 March 2008Global cooling: the new kid on the block
I dont think you understood me Phillippe I wasn't saying it was true but looking at the TSI graph, not this goofy one here with the 11 year averages etc I am asking if the increase in the TSI from the first half of the century could be part of the cause of late century warming. -
Quietman at 05:48 AM on 29 March 2008Determining the long term solar trend
Philippe I understood the main post but had some difficulty following the updates. His summary statement is logical but I can't seem to figure out if he reinforced the original statement or switched directions. -
Wondering Aloud at 05:45 AM on 29 March 2008Determining the long term solar trend
You're right Phillippe, interesting.. but oh no another variable that affects everything. -
frankbi at 05:39 AM on 29 March 2008Ice age predicted in the 70s
Um, for one thing Moran was writing about _Florida_ cooling, not _global_ cooling. I guess you'll need to relax your search criterion for "global cooling" a whole lot to prove that scientists did predict cooling... "they came from scientists who made suggestions (like the above 'possibly to a new ice age') which were then hyped and exaggerated by the media. Much the same thing is happening now with the global warming scare." Yeah, "much of the same thing" in the sense that the "media" is artificially inflating the voice of the global warming "skeptics". -
Quietman at 05:36 AM on 29 March 2008Comparing IPCC projections to observations
frankbi Also you appear to be under a misconception. I never said that I deny AGW, only that I am skeptical that CO2 is in fact the prime mover. I won't repeat myself here but I explained my concerns in my comments to "Determining the long term solar trend". -
Quietman at 05:27 AM on 29 March 2008Comparing IPCC projections to observations
frankbi What I need to see to be convinced is simple. Make a prediction based on the hypothesis. If the prediction matches the actual data then you have proof. Using the climate model that Gore displayed the amount of warming to the increase in CO2 was actually 1/2 of the prediction. This is a large error. It tells me that the model is either using bad data or based on an erroneous concept. When I see a match I will accept the results. I am not a scientist but a retired engineer. I am accustomed to and expect precision. -
paledriver at 03:14 AM on 29 March 2008There is no consensus
and were do you get "1"? but please, wondering, rephrase your point for me. perhaps I have misunderstood? -
paledriver at 00:23 AM on 29 March 2008There is no consensus
if it's such a waste of your time, stay the heck away. You seriously don't understand that any "fake" signatures, and there were many on both, not to mention the fraudulant article to support the "petition project", you really mean to say that you can't grasp that that in and of itself shows the desperate need to dupe the public with policy driven pseudo-science? you're point is on your head. -
frankbi at 15:30 PM on 28 March 2008Comparing IPCC projections to observations
Quietman, I asked you what kind of evidence exactly you'd accept as proof of global warming. Apparently the results presented by Hansen, Rahmstorf, Lockwood, Santer, etc. etc. etc. aren't "proof" to you, so I'm just wanting to know what you _would_ consider "proof". What do you consider as actual "proof", and what do you consider as _not_ actual "proof"? You've repeatedly dodged the question. -
Philippe Chantreau at 13:48 PM on 28 March 2008Determining the long term solar trend
To stay in topic, this post and its sequel are mighty interesting: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/07/24/pmod-vs-acrim/ -
Philippe Chantreau at 18:05 PM on 27 March 2008Global cooling: the new kid on the block
"Just for fun assume the timelag for a solar affect on the Earth is about 35-40 years, probably not true but you see the result would fit interestingly" Disagreed, as I pointed in post #31. -
Philippe Chantreau at 18:02 PM on 27 March 2008Climate change on Mars
The lack of correlation between Mars and Earth' climates is well known to Mars enthusiasts. Dust storms and warm conditions prevailed at the time of the Viking landings in the 70's, while Earth was entering the recent global warming trend we know. Then, while Earth was warming, Mars cooled down, only to experience dust storms and warming again in the recent past. To my knowledge, there is no significant correlation with solar activity either. It is rather ironic that some skeptics will go at length on how Earth has not warmed since 1998 and then go on to attempt correlations with Mars, which did warm significantly since 1998. I have looked at a variety of claims about other planets' "climates" and so far nothing even remotely convincing has surfaced.
Prev 2633 2634 2635 2636 2637 2638 2639 2640 2641 2642 2643 2644 2645 2646 2647 2648 Next
