Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 Next
Comments 19951 to 20000:
-
BBHY at 08:50 AM on 23 April 2017Neil deGrasse Tyson on science vs. denial
It really weirds me out when I hear people say that scientists don't know what they are talking about,. Without science we would not have automobiles, airplanes, radios, TV, telephones, cameras, air conditioners, electric service, computers, internet, atomic bombs, etc. All that stuff actually works, right? So, scientists seem to have a lot of stuff pretty well figured out. The scientific method works very well at establishing how things work.
When people say they doubt scientists, they really mean, "I don't really like what the scientists are saying" which is something else entirely, and they need to be called out on that.
-
william5331 at 05:49 AM on 23 April 2017Heartland Institute's misinformation campaign into schools
The activity of these charlitans for the benefit of their financial masters is nothing less that child abuse. We should make sure to publicize where their funds come from and emphasize the motivations of their funders.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 03:58 AM on 23 April 2017Humans on the verge of causing Earth’s fastest climate change in 50m years
RR... The issue of global climate change isn't that we're going to push the system outside of all historical bounds, it's that we're pushing the system faster than at any point in historical bounds. The rate of change very much is the issue and always has been.
-
Humans on the verge of causing Earth’s fastest climate change in 50m years
I confess that I cannot say if Dana's article is good or bad.
My main observation is that the first chart puts together very different kind of data, which are related to different time scales. So when Dana proposes a comparison between the information of the last panel (h) with information from the previous ones, I am afraid he is pushing his hand in the wrong direction.
In a way, instead of highlighting the uniqueness of changes that are happening right now, the article promotes the sense that anthropogenic climate change can be fitted into the natural history of the planet.
Would do you guys think? -
Jim Eager at 03:19 AM on 23 April 2017Neil deGrasse Tyson on science vs. denial
And along comes 'nanuk' to illustrate the mind-numbing, brain dead, fact-free wilfull ignorance tha we are up agaainst.
-
nanuk at 01:34 AM on 23 April 2017Neil deGrasse Tyson on science vs. denial
The problem is "Scientists" have been lying to increase their funding! This is so obvious it is a wonder anyone accepts their word at face value! The moment even ONE gets caught lying on data to create a specific narrative, EVERYTHING they then put out is suspect! The true "Deniers" are the CAGW Alarmists who are now ignoring science to further their funding!
Moderator Response:[JH] Blatant sloganeering stricken.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
Mal Adapted at 00:40 AM on 23 April 2017It's too hard
I'm calling poe on andrewrussell @54, but Tom Curtis's reply was a good one anyway.
-
Mal Adapted at 22:54 PM on 22 April 2017Neil deGrasse Tyson on science vs. denial
So, the March for Science is happening today, and I'ma march. I don't know what will help to prepare the ground for public recognition of science, but if facts and logic don't, maybe marching will. I'm ambivalent about the March, for some of the reasons offered here, and some of my own. Then there's the near-certain futility of it.
Near-certainty is a big enough loophole for me, though. Let it be an atheist's act of faith.
Moderator Response:[JH] The Weekly News Roundup that I just posted includes a number of articles about the March for Science — be sure to check them out.
-
Tom Curtis at 18:00 PM on 22 April 2017It's too hard
andrewrussell @54, unfortunately your 70 mile wide hole, 10 miles deep only has enough volume to remove 87 mm of sea level rise, or 27 years of current sea level rise and 1/6 to 1/12th of the expected sea level rise by the end of the century. To do that we would only need to dig an open cut 4 times deeper than the deepest mine ever built, and with an area 65 times that of the world's most extensive open cut. That is probably not even technically possible with current mining technology, and is almost certainly an uneconomic partial solution to the problem.
If we were to try a solution in that area, it would be far cheaper to pump water into the Aral sea to raise it to its former volume. The lost volume of the Aral sea being about 1/3rd of that of your open cut. Potentially raising the Dead Sea to sea level (and hence flooding the Jordon Valley), and similarly raising the level of Lake Eyre in Australia would be cheap methods with regards to engineering (though probably prohibitive with regard to economic cost for the former, and environmental cost for the later) to reduce the rate and level of sea level rise. All such measures woudl be stop gaps, however, as the final volume of sea level rise will overwhelm anything we could do of this nature.
-
bjchip at 17:51 PM on 22 April 2017Neil deGrasse Tyson on science vs. denial
With climate, science collides directly into the power base of the wealthy elite that have been in control of the nation and now science is telling them they can't have all the money and all the power, they have to do something to keep the planet whole. So they hired the "Merchants of Doubt". This particular "tragedy" ends as badly as any imaginable, and deletes the "United" part of the national identity. Jefferson said it would happen. The experiment is over. It has failed. There is no return from where we are because the next steps do not lead to peaceful resolutions but to blood in the streets. We reached the abyss and proudly took a giant step forward. :-)
No... I do not have any optimism but I have to say that I could not wish for a better communicator or a better message. It simply will not be seen by the people who need to see it.
It won't feature on Breitbart, and it won't make waves at Heartland... but even worse than that, even if they did see it, it is unlikely that they can change their minds. They would rather die than admit such error. They would rather die than admit that they have sold a bill of goods by the Merchants of Doubt.
-
andrewrussell at 17:02 PM on 22 April 2017It's too hard
well i hate to brake it to you but a great majority of people running our countries are extrmily dumb. but i have a great idea and i am 100 percent positive it will work.
in canada there are plenty of places a giant 70 mile wide hole can be dug 10 miles deep and with a mile wide manmade river we it can slowly take up the access water from the melted ice caps.
the hole may need to be bigger im not a math matician. or a scientest but i am certain everyone else is two dumb to do anything less to fix the problem. -
nigelj at 10:47 AM on 22 April 2017Neil deGrasse Tyson on science vs. denial
Great video. It's so strange that at the height of the age of science and technology, with all the triumphs, some people are losing faith in science. I would have thought the evidence for climate science, vaccines and evolution is overwhelming.
I think the problems are a combination of the following issues:
Obviously vested interests can make people dismiss science, an issue with climate change.
Modern society has started to seriously question elites and conventional wisdom. This is liberal in essence, and can be healthy, but only if it's rationally based and it often isn't rationally based.
People also aren’t equipped with the mental analytical skills to sort the wheat from the chaff. We still don’t do a great job teaching young people (or old) about logical fallacies, poor quality arguments, and so on.
The Republican movement seems to have become more and more irrational. Maybe its a fear of science becoming too strong, and conflicting with their world views. But we all have to be prepared to modify our beliefs in light of new information. But there's just no sign of these guys seeing the light, so it's possible things are on a dismal downward spiral in America at least.
However polls do show the majority of people accept climate science, so it’s a stubborn minority who don’t. Sometimes it just takes time to process information and accept new theories, for example it took society some significant time to accept the tobacco / disease connection.
Also climate science has big implications, evolution collides with religion, and regarding vaccines people worry about side effects on children. These are therefore challenging debates, probably not indicative of science as a whole.
And there’s an annoying thing we have to contend with. Many theories require complex explanations, while a short and cleverly distorted sceptical slogan or lie can take off and become embedded. To analyse all this you need time to read both sides of debates, and many people don't have much time, and respond to the simplistic sound bites typical of our times.
You can’t convert people by totally rubbishing them. Try to reason with them, and most are receptive to this, eventually. But I have noticed it can take some time for them to come around.
-
Tom Curtis at 07:48 AM on 22 April 2017Neil deGrasse Tyson on science vs. denial
Mal Adapted @1, the 2016 US Presidential election has revealed a deep seated irrationality in the US electorate that extends well beyond the rejection of science. Like you, this has left me profoundly pessimistic about the prospects of our civilization. Much as we like to say, it could only happen in the USA, this wallowing in irrationality is not unique to the US. Brexit showed it to be alive and well in the UK. The popularity of Marine Le Pen shows it to be strong in France. The election of Clive Palmer four years ago, and Pauline Hanson in 2016 shows it has afflicted a substantial portion of the Australian population.
If this commitment to irrationality continues much longer, the Romano-germanic civilization that has dominated Europe since 1100 AD, and the world since about 1600 AD will not last much longer. That, of itself, will be tragic only to nations and people steped in that culture - but given the present threats of Anthropogenic Global Warming, habitat destruction, over-fishing and, in the background, nuclear war, the fall of the Romano-Germanic civilization may be the prelude to the fall of all civilization on this planet. These are all threats that can be dealt with, seperately and conjointly, but they require rational policy to do so.
-
Mal Adapted at 07:23 AM on 22 April 2017Neil deGrasse Tyson on science vs. denial
There is no daylight between my own and Dr. Tyson's positions on the privileged authority of science, or the importance of basic science literacy (or better, meta-literacy) to democracy.
That said, I'm pessimistic that his manifest certainty of science's epistemic authority will be persuasive to non-scientists in the PoMo era. The 2016 elections were a big shock to me, in my 7th decade. Telling people with little early exposure to science how ridiculous it is to deny AGW may be gratifying (personal experience), when you're a random guy on the Internet . It evidently hasn't done much to enhance science's credibility with the public, though, even coming from the likes of NDT.
IMHO there clearly is more to be done to prepare the ground before telling them they're fools for denying it. Damfino what, though. I'm hoping for a sort of heroic scientist-educator-politician; oxymoronic, I ruefully admit. Depressive realism, or mood-congruent thinking? You be the judge.
-
MA Rodger at 20:25 PM on 21 April 2017Heartland Institute's misinformation campaign into schools
I'm surprised there is no link to the offending book(let). If for nothing else, there is the idea set out in the audio (Ep8 in theOP) that the book(let) is so wrong in its message that it presents an educational opportunity. So a link is surely needed for all those educational institutes who the deluded denialists Heartland Institute have yet to reach.
I was also a bit shocked by the reference in the audio to Bob Carter's death. It is true that the booke(let) is the work (I should simply call it "lies" rather than "work") of three fake experts and such fake experts are indeed not such a numerous species. But Carter's name on the book(let) is not a case of postumous attribution of authorship. The book(let) was published a month or so prior to Bob Carter's death.Mind, the book(let) tells us it is based on a chapter from a far bigger work but that bigger work has yet to see the light of day. From what we are told, the bigger work would be 1,000 pages. (It is described as the third volume of a marathon 3-volume writing exercise which will apparently total 3,000 pages. The first two volumes comprise 933 pages & 1,062 pages.) Presumably, this Volume 3 of their magnus opus will be no more truthful than the preceeding pair. (I assume the second volume is nought but a pack of lies for the first certainly is. I checked a random section of their first volume (Section 2.1: Forcings & Feedbacks - Carbon Dioxide, pp151-165.) and found fifty-seven fundamental errors.)
The audio does discuss addressing the bare-faced lies within the book(let) ("...refute all the physical science claims they are making which are wrong...") but argues that it is more important to counter the bogus claim that "the 'scientific consensus' on the causes and consequences of climate change is without merit." While I would agree, pointing out the eye-watering stupidity of the bogus experts from NIPCC & Heartland can surely assist in showing how bogus is their primary claim.
And with that in mind, when I randomly picked a chapter from the book(let) and then examined the primary evidence presented to support their first claim in that chapter I found these liars are actually 'hiding the incline' in a manner many time more significantly than the famous 'hide the decline' which they made such a fuss over. Their 'hide the incline' is illustrated by this graphic (usually two clicks to 'download your attachment').
-
ubrew12 at 17:32 PM on 21 April 2017Heartland Institute's misinformation campaign into schools
Bast has done some reprehensible things in his long career, but mispronouncing 'Oregon' (25:29) is probably the least forgiveable. I'm 97% sure, or 0.3%, depending on who is counting.
Outside Heartland Package: "Why do Scientists disagree about Global Warming?"
Inside Heartland Package: "Send in this card with your name and address and you, too, can be a 'Scientist'! We'll ship your diploma out immediately!"
-
Tom Curtis at 13:35 PM on 21 April 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
DrBill @309, radiation models are not climate models. They determine the transfer of radiant energy within the atmosphere given a set of conditions which include well mixed greenhouse gases present, water vapour present, clouds present, and atmospheric density and temperature profiles. They were first developed for the US Airforce as part of its effort to develop infrared guided missiles (Sidewinders), and were later used for the development of FLIR systems, for interpreting microwave radiation from the atmosphere as temperature, and of course, for determining IR radiation from the atmosphere. As such, they can determine the change in Outgoing Infrared Radiation given a change in atmospheric profile, where such changes at the tropopause are also the change in atmospheric forcing.
In 1970, LBL radiation models could produce results as accurate as this if fed detailed atmospheric profile data gathered by a weather balloon:
By 2008 they could produce results with accuracies like this with more approximate profile information:
Further, for determining radiative forcing, the models are generally set with a temperature profile determined by radiative/convective equilibrium in the troposphere (ie, one that follows the adiabatic lapse rate), and with a radiative equilibrium above the tropopause, and therefore complies with the requirements of the laws of thermodynamics (including that for Gibbs free energy).
Of course, radiative models only determine forcing, and not the temperature response to forcing within the troposphere. (They can be used to calculate the initial temperature responce in the stratosphere and above were radiative equilibrium obtains.)
Global Circulation Models, which determine temperature responce as well as radiative response, also include approximations to the laws of thermodynamics governing movement of gases under gravity. (Approximations only given the limits of cell size required to make the models able to operate on modern super computers.)
Moderator Response:[JH] Spencer Wart has detailed the history of General Circulation Models here.
-
nigelj at 08:36 AM on 21 April 2017Heartland Institute's misinformation campaign into schools
The so called Heartland package on climate change is not so much a sceptical viewpoint, as a collection of lies, deceptions and plain nonsense. As such I would have thought it doesn't meet the threshold of quality and reliability, for material to be taught in schools.
However students will be aware of some disagreement with climate change theory, and its unwise to pretend this doesn't happen. If sceptical viewpoints must be mentioned in schools, at least keep them to the saner ones, and put them in context, and discuss their weaknesses (and there are many huge weaknesses).
It's also time we taught students tools to see through poor quality ideas, logical fallacies such as red herring arguments, cherrypicking information, non sequiters, etc,etc. There is so much fake news, and flakey theories, or conspiracy theories, and it's sadly not going to go away, and is the price we pay for an open society and freedom of speech. Students need to know how to evaluate this material rigorously.
-
Evan at 05:33 AM on 21 April 2017SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills
Because the original plot of the annual rate of increase of CO2 showed too much annual variability, I replaced the original figure with a 10-year average of annual CO2 flucuations. For reference, the original figure is shown here.
-
Evan at 05:08 AM on 21 April 2017SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills
Point taken William, and my mistake. I will be more careful in the future.
-
william5331 at 05:00 AM on 21 April 2017SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills
Perhaps it is a minor niggle but I wish we would agree on terminology and then continue to use it. As I understand it we are in an ice age which started some 2.5m years ago. During that period, we have had about 30 glacials or if you like glacial periods and about 30 interglacials. We are at present in the Holocene interglacial and the previous one about 125,000 years ago was the Eemian interglacial (or interglacial period). In the first half or so of this ice age, the period was about 41,000 years but more recently the period has been around 100,000 years. It doesn't help educating the non scientific community if we use sloppy terminology. I don't care if we decide to call glacial periods ice ages but then we need another term for the recent 2.5m years.
-
Evan at 04:50 AM on 21 April 2017SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills
I am not an expert on the CO2 dataset, but my expectation is that like temperature, the absolute values jump around a lot from year to year. That is why the best way to view the data is with a fitted curve. For the analogy I calculated the rate for each year. Converting the data into a 10-yr. average of the CO2 rate of increase produces the following plot, which loses the big variations in data, but preserves the overall trend.
-
bjchip at 04:50 AM on 21 April 2017SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills
The BBC also reported on the rate back in 2006
"The "scary thing", he added, was the rate of change now occurring in CO2 concentrations. In the core, the fastest increase seen was of the order of 30 parts per million (ppm) by volume over a period of roughly 1,000 years."... "The last 30 ppm of increase has occurred in just 17 years. We really are in the situation where we don't have an analogue in our records,"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5314592.stm
-
DrBill at 03:42 AM on 21 April 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
The free energy change of a process is the sum of energy and entropy*temp, and is generally regarded as happening spontaneously when the sum is <0. A version of free energy is that of Helmholtz, whose summation is ΔF (or ΔA) = ΔE -TΔS, but another is the Gibbs ΔG=ΔH-TΔS. The difference between the two expressions is that ΔE and ΔH are not the same thing: ΔE, as I've been used to thinking of it, is now named ΔU, while ΔH = ΔU + Δ(pV). In short, Gibbs Energy includes PV work, while Helmholtz does not when evaluating the possibility of a spontaneous process. A view of this, which I hold, is that the ΔE portion emphasizes the radiative changes, while the ΔH portion includes pV work.
Since the atmosphere not only radiates energy in trying to come to equilibrium, but also does substantial pV work, I believe a model that seems to rely on radiative transfers is not sufficient to explain the climate.
In support of this, I refer the reader to the 1962 and 1976 editions of The U.S. Standard Atmosphere. Google links lead to pdf's and I don't know if anyone wants to wade through dozens of derivations and perhaps 60 pages of notes and explanations, so I won't burden this post with the links themselves, unless someone wants them. In summary, the NASA, NOAA, and a host of other sponsors and contributors determine a model of the atmosphere based on gravity and Cp ((∂H/∂T)p [see @301], and regard CO2, methane and NOx as "trace gases" with no significant impact on temperature. Similarly, the lapse rate -g/Cp suggests the derivation from Gibbs.
The dichotomy is strong enough to get out the old slide rule, imo, and attempt to recognize something fundamental like Cp in the forcing equation. I have not so far.
-
kmoyd at 03:15 AM on 21 April 2017SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills
This is a very useful rebuttal to "The climate is always changing." argument.
For or those who don't care about nature, it would be helpful if there were a mention that agriculture is also affected.
is there an explanation for the three very high points?
-
Evan at 23:49 PM on 20 April 2017SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills
The post-1950's data is a simple linear fit in Excel. Nothing fancy. Although one can eaily make the case for CO2 rising faster than a linear trend (as pointed out in the responses), in this analogy the point was to simply introduce the idea of just how much faster we are moving than a "base rate" defined by deglaciation cycles.
-
DrBill at 12:59 PM on 20 April 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Just a quick thanks to Tom CurtiS, JH and RH. FWIW, I tried several ways to make the page show up and not until this evening did I try to quit and relog in, and that seemed to work. I agree with chriskoz about courtesy and thank Tom for recognizing a typo. If JH/RH don't mind, I wouldn't mind seeing my 302,3,4 deleted; 301 had all I had in mind to ask, as it had reference to the partial derivatives that result in Cp. It's late here, for me, and I'll post a new submission tomorrow.
-
Tom Curtis at 11:04 AM on 20 April 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
DrBill @301, the formula for radiative forcing was not directly derived from fundamental physics. Rather, the change in Outgoing Long Wave Radiation at the tropopause, as corrected for radiation from the stratosphere after a stratospheric adjustment (which is technically what the formula determines), was calculated across a wide range of representative conditions for the Earth using a variety of radiation models, for different CO2 concentrations. Ideally, the conditions include calculations for each cell in a 2.5o x 2.5o grid (or equivalent) on an hourly basis, with a representative distribution and type of cloud cover, although a very close approximationg can be made using a restricted number of latituded bands and seasonal conditions. The results are then have a curve fitted to it, which provides the formula. The same thing can be done with less accuracy with Global Circulation Models (ie, climate models).
The basic result was first stated in the IPCC FAR 1990. That the CO2 temperature response (and hence forcing) has followed basically a logarithmic function was determined in 1896 by Arrhenius from empirical data. The current version of the formula (which uses a different constant) was determined by Myhre et al (1998). They showed this graph:
The formula breaks down at very low and very high CO2 concentrations.
-
Digby Scorgie at 10:59 AM on 20 April 2017Humans on the verge of causing Earth’s fastest climate change in 50m years
Tom Curtis @9
When the "level of economic harm and natural disasters" becomes sufficiently catastrophic, I can't see anything less than a collapsing global civilization, with huge numbers of people dying of starvation and strife (Syria many times over) and economic activity plummeting as a consequence. Local civilizations will still survive but far less fossil fuel will perforce be burnt. Anyway, that's my gut-feeling — but then I'm a cynical old man.
-
amhartley at 10:48 AM on 20 April 2017Antarctica is gaining ice
Should this discussion be updated to account for the recent record lows in Antarctica's sea ice extent?
jlsoaz: Did you look at the National Snow & Ice Data Center's website, nsidc.org?
-
amhartley at 10:38 AM on 20 April 2017SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills
The analogy does make some good points, & clearly. Does anyone besides me worry, though, about using the period 1851-1950 as the comparator? For that period to be meaningful, it would have needed to last as long as we expect our current warming rate to last (probably many centuries, under a business-as-usual scenario), & we would need to have observed the warming's impacts on food supplies, sea level rise, weather & so on.
Since 1851-1950 was not that long, maybe a more meaningful comparator period would be the last previous period of warming of >1,000 years (ignoring any periods with other factors present that would grossly exacerbate extinctions & so on, such as asteroid hits). -
Tom Curtis at 10:19 AM on 20 April 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
chriskoz @305 while I agree that correct spellings of names is a matter of courtesy, DrBill spelled my name correctly in three posts prior to that @304, so it is reasonable to assume that that mispelling was entirely inadvertent. Further, "most accomplished" is a compliment that suggests significant acheivement in a scientific field, whereas I lack even a BSc. I take that as a compliment to my depth of understanding of the topic, for which thankyou. However, while I think is deserved, that depth is limited, especially relative to anybody with a PhD in atmospheric physics.
-
curiousd at 09:00 AM on 20 April 2017Science of Climate Change online class starting next week on Coursera
Hello All,
No the moderator is wrong. I have learned all I can learn, you folks have helped me, and I am on my way.
Cheers.
Curiousd
Moderator Response:[JH] May the Force be with you. :)
-
Cedders at 08:44 AM on 20 April 2017Corals are resilient to bleaching
A note that even after another hot summer of coral bleaching, this time without an El Niño, Jim Steele doesn't seem to have learned much. He's written an article on the web entitled "Falling Sea Level: The Critical Factor in 2016 Great Barrier Reef Bleaching!" attacking Hughes et al (2017). Global warming and recurrent mass bleaching of corals. Steele's article has been referred to by James Delingpole and others, presumably because it tries to blame anything other than sea temperatures for coral mortality despite their evident close relationship.
The article about coral mortality in Sulawesi he references would not explain bleaching and its authors support the overall picture of thermally-induced bleaching and mortality. One of his suggestions is that Hughes's demonstration of mass mortality of the northern GBR was based entirely on aerial surveys. That is false, as can be seen in reports for example in SciAm or New Scientist. Although this has been pointed out to him, Steele has as of 19 April yet to correct these errors.
-
chriskoz at 08:20 AM on 20 April 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
DrBill@304,
Please show a bit more respect to Mr Curtis by taking care to spell his name correctly. The fact that Mr Curtis in one of the most accomplished commenters on this site calls for even more care.
Then people will show more respect to you and your comments, reciprocally.
-
chriskoz at 08:05 AM on 20 April 2017SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills
Typo in my post@2.
"dppm/dy" should read "dppm/dt". Sorry.
-
chriskoz at 08:02 AM on 20 April 2017SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills
If I read the plot correctly, the linear trend since 1950 does not look to fit the data. The data rises faster than the line in the figure. And the data in more accurate than pre-1950 part (I'm assuming data comes from MaunaLoa and rapid accumulation ice cores respectively).
So, since the y-axis is already a first derivative (dppm/dy), while the x-axis is linear, the actual CO2 trend looks faster than quadratic since 1950. This is the first time I've realised it. I don't need to explain to people on this site what ultra-quadratic trend means in context of "Elevator Statement" above: more than freefall, more than gt2/2. Those politicians who still have such basic understanding of maths & kinetics (sadly none associated with GOP in US) should be given this post to read.
-
JWRebel at 05:00 AM on 20 April 2017Yes, we can do 'sound' climate science even though it's projecting the future
@ubrew12: Good points. The third point is also a giant misapprehension even if you grant the premise. I happen to agree with what Spencer says about the the Earth, but this does not give us a free pass — his conclusion is a total non sequitor. You cannot cross the street without looking and say nothing happens without God's will, so there's no danger. Not looking is part of what is happening; nothing anybody believes about the Earth or Mother Nature can suspend cause and effect. Balance is always restored. What we do and don't do matters a great deal. The Israelites are told to plant trees, to allow the land rest (fallow), etc., if they want to keep the land as their inheritance. Nowhere does it state that it doesn't matter what you do. Quite the opposite. There is no religion that states that you endanger your life and soul if you kill a fellow human being, but pouring infinite amounts of CO² into the atmosphere has no consequences, the indulgences have already been provided in advance at no cost.
-
MA Rodger at 04:41 AM on 20 April 2017Science of Climate Change online class starting next week on Coursera
curiousd @39.
So, concerning the graph you introduced @25, it is incorrect to say that "This image has to do with the last correction,"Correction Three" to MILA." In truth it has no bearing in the development of your "Correction Number Three" , the graph being the result of your use of SpectralCalc. As we continue to have great difficulty getting to grips with your use of MILA, adding the output of a different model into the discussion is a step too far.
Concerning your "Correction Number Three", I repeat my comment @33; it is only duplicating your correction resulting from the limited spectrum under analysis within MILA ( your "Correction Number One"). And I still see no reason for your "Correction Number Two" because there is no reason to believe that the MILA calculator is not already adjusting using a "diffusivity approximation".
And may I be so bold as to suggest an alternative to this torturous discourse we engage in here. You could approach UoC concerning their MILA asking for their understanding of the different approximations their model encompasses and their relative impact on the output.
Moderator Response:[JH] As long as you and/or Tom Curtis respond to his posts, curiousd will likely keep pursuing this matter on this website.
-
Quidam at 03:15 AM on 20 April 2017SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills
" Slam on the breaks" should be " Slam on the brakes"
Moderator Response:[JH] Glitch corrected. Thank you for pointing it out.
-
DrBill at 02:42 AM on 20 April 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Is this post system working? My last three tries have not produced a post after Tom Curtic @ 300.
Moderator Response:[JH] Yes, the system is working. All of your comments have appeared.
[RH] What's probably happening is, he's posting at the end of one page and the comments is showing up on the new following page. That one trips people up from time to time.
-
DrBill at 02:39 AM on 20 April 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Tom Curtis @ 300 I've been trying to post a physics question, but the page won't update with my submission, so I'll just use English. Does the forcing equation arise from fundamental physics to your knowledge, or is it something from curve-fitting efforts? Is it possible to put partial differential equations in this text-box?
Moderator Response:[JH] All of your prior posts were visible.
-
John Hartz at 02:17 AM on 20 April 2017Science of Climate Change online class starting next week on Coursera
curiousd: In the context of your commentary, the following caught my eye...
39-year-old drawing hints at what the Event Horizon Telescope may have just captured: the true shape of a black hole
What Does a Black Hole Really Look Like? by Amanda Montañez on April 17, 2017
-
DrBill at 02:07 AM on 20 April 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Tom Curtis @300. Thank you. Can you tell me if the formula for radiative forcing is a curve-fitting equation (ie, without the sensitivity factor), or is it derived from fundamental physics? I can't seem to locate something that ought to be related, say, to the partial derivative of enthalpy wrt T at constant p, . Have you seen something of the sort? My apologies if this is a duplicate. The page did not update with my submission, until I took the symbols out.
Moderator Response:[JH] They all appeared. Two of the duplicate posts have been deleted.
-
DrBill at 02:04 AM on 20 April 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Tom Curtis @300. Thank you. Can you tell me if the basic equation is a curve-fitting equation (ie, without the sensitivity factor), or is it derived from fundamental physics? I can't seem to locate something that ought to be related, say, to the partial derivative of enthalpy wrt T at constant p, (∂H/∂T)p. Have you seen something of the sort? My apologies if this is a duplicate. The page did not update with my submission.
Moderator Response:[JH] Your prior two duplicate posts have been deleted.
-
ubrew12 at 01:46 AM on 20 April 2017Yes, we can do 'sound' climate science even though it's projecting the future
Lamar Smith: "Anyone stating what the climate will be... at the end of the century is not credible" Then Chairman Smith is not credible, since the argument for doing nothing about fossil emissions is based on a prediction that climate in 2100 will be unaffected by it. This 'pushback' argument is not made often enough: the 'do nothing' alternative is still a course of action based on a prediction (that despite doing nothing, everything will be OK). On what is that prediction based? History? Intuition? Madam Costanza's crystal ball? No rational course of action, or inaction, is made without an estimate of its future impact. Since all courses of action, or inaction, require such future predictions, why are only the predictions of the climate scientists being questioned?
Deniers, when questioned on this, will often appeal to history: 'climate has always changed naturally over the course of Earth's history'. This is a non sequitor: if Smith shot his neighbors dog, his defense can't rest on the observation that most dogs throughout history died naturally. Besides: name something that hasn't changed naturally over the course of Earth's history.
Rarely, deniers will reveal something closer to the heart of their objection, as when Dr. Roy Spencer said "Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory." So, that's a prediction of future climate based on 'Everything is going to be OK, because God told me so'. Personally, I prefer Madam Costanza's crystal ball.
-
BBHY at 20:36 PM on 19 April 2017Humans on the verge of causing Earth’s fastest climate change in 50m years
Even if humans don't burn all the fossil fuels, the rapidly thawing permafrost could boost CO2 to that higher level, or to the GHG equivalent since that would add a lot of methane to the mix.
-
curiousd at 19:03 PM on 19 April 2017Science of Climate Change online class starting next week on Coursera
Another thing....I should call my corrections one and two "suggested supplements" to MILA. The potential for the user to obtain his/her emissivity of 0.92 would be solved simply if, someplace on the screen that the user sees when the website is opened, the statement is made that the emissivity used is 0.98.
I first brought this up at Science of Doom, and Steve Carson was the one who suggested working up a revised MILA estimate for the clear sky OLR. The other S of D responder posted that although he had used MILA he had never thought of investigating the button for the underlying program.
I will acknowledge Steve Carson when I contact David Archer. Again, S of D explains the diffusivity approximation at length, and recommends it in their section that derives the symbolic solution to the upward stream of the two stream solution to Schwarzchild's equation.
Finally, in post 38 above, the statement is made "I have tracked down this Schwarzchild Equation and, rather than the ones that explains the wobbles of the planet Mercury, it is a rather mundane equation that I didn't appreciate had a name and which is explained here."
1. The S.E. that is used in the present context was first used in elucidating the physics of the sun it is not:
2. The first solution to the general theory of relativity that is the "Schwarzchild Radius" of a black hole. And of course general relativity is what described the precession of the perihelion of mercury, and that discovery was independent of Schwarzchild.
3. I guess this thread is the first time you have heard of the Schwartzchild Equation, M.A. Rodger? The equation may look simple but I found it not so simple to apply in practice. There is a subtlety in the application of the boundary conditions, IMO.
Moderator Response:[JH] A reminder, MILA = "Modtran Infrared Light in the Atmosphere"
-
chriskoz at 17:25 PM on 19 April 2017Yes, we can do 'sound' climate science even though it's projecting the future
Thank you Kevin for that oped. Gavin's TED talk is an excellent complementary explanation, in case you haven't watched it yet. Be wise and source reality from the relevant experts rather than from fake news makers.
-
curiousd at 16:55 PM on 19 April 2017Science of Climate Change online class starting next week on Coursera
In the above, I state mistakenly that Note that my 1.7 factor is 1.666 or 2.3 rounded off. Mistake. my 1.7 factor is 1.666 rounded off. One over 1.666 equals the cosine of 53.96 degrees. 53.96 degrees rounds off to 54 degrees. One over 1.7 equals .5882, and the ArcCosine of 0.5882 is 53.9 degrees which rounds off to 54 degrees, which is the angle I choose.
I have by going through this exercise come to realize that Pierrehumbert stating that cos theta = 2/3 would be an equally valid choice as cos theta = 1/2 implies an upper limit for the angle of 60 degrees and a lower limit of 48.1 degrees.
Grant Petty's text suggests cos theta equals 3/5 which is the arccosine of 53.1 degrees.
Houghton chooses 3/5 as the ratio,a ratio which is the Arc cosine of 53.1 degrees, which is the same angle recommended by Petty.
My angle of 54 degrees lies within the range of 60 degrees upper limit to 48.1 degrees lower limit corresponding to page 191 of Pierrehumbert, and is only ~1 degree greater than the 53.1 degrees used by both Petty and Houghton.
Prev 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 Next
