Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 Next
Comments 21101 to 21150:
-
John Hartz at 13:16 PM on 16 February 2017This is why conservative media outlets like the Daily Mail are 'unreliable'
Recommended supplemental reading:
Climate Change Denial Is the Original Fake News by Eric Pooley, Time, Feb 14, 2017
Eric Pooley, a former managing editor of Fortune and chief political correspondent for Time, is a Senior Vice President at Environmental Defense Fund and the author of The Climate War.
-
John Hartz at 13:07 PM on 16 February 2017This is why conservative media outlets like the Daily Mail are 'unreliable'
Speaking of Lamar Smith…
Two Republican members of Congress sent a formal letter Tuesday to the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of the Inspector General, expressing concern that “approximately a dozen career EPA officials” are using the encrypted messaging app Signal to covertly plan strategy and may be running afoul of the Freedom of Information Act.
The open source app has gained renewed interest in the wake of the election of President Donald Trump.
House members: EPA officials may be using Signal to “spread their goals covertly” by Cyrus Farivar, Ars Technica, Feb 15, 2017
-
nigelj at 10:39 AM on 16 February 2017Why claiming that climate scientists are in it for the money is absurd
A lot of people above seem to be concluding much the same thing : The entire system of science, and it's publishing of results, has evolved to expose any problems within science, including unethical behaviour and mistakes, etc.
In essence,there are numerous whistle blowers, with various motivations. People have plenty of incentives to blow the whistle, or try to find different results. Then there are professional bodies and their standards. So its quite an intricate and advanced system of different things that helps expose mistakes or cheating rather well. Free speech is the underlying factor enabling all this. No other profession exposes problems in quite such a comprehensive way that I can think of.
And there's been no evidence of any significant problems, which proves the system works.
Contrast this to Trump, who is on the verge of censoring science among other things. The net result would be that scientist's will only say what they think Trump want's to hear, or they will leave the profession.
-
BBHY at 10:38 AM on 16 February 2017Is anything wrong with Forbes Climate Reporting?
So, to restate this logical fallacy, if tomorrow I should happen to crash my car into a brick wall at 80 MPH, I shouldn't worry about any resulting damage to the car because millions of years ago the metals that make up the car were buried deep in the ground and mixed up with all sorts of other minerals.
Well, I don't find this convincing, but I suppose there may be people out there who do.
-
Digby Scorgie at 09:58 AM on 16 February 2017This is why conservative media outlets like the Daily Mail are 'unreliable'
Jim Hunt @5
Lamar Smith makes me feel sick. I remember reading elsewhere that there was a time when he accepted the reality of climate change; he changed his mind when he discovered "how much it would cost" to combat it.
-
stephen baines14492 at 09:25 AM on 16 February 2017Why claiming that climate scientists are in it for the money is absurd
People have the wrong analogy in their heads when they think this way. Scientists are not like people selling dietary supplements and self help books to an ignorant public. They are not plumbers or mechanic exploiting the customers lack of expertise by piling on the costs.
Scientists are more like car sales-people trying to convince other car sales-people to buy their car. That is what peer review of grants and papers represents — you are essentially making a pitch to your competitor.
That's why consensus in science is so compelling. The incentive is always for someone to disagree with you — in large part that is your job as a scientist! — and the greatest rewards go to those who challenge the status quo successfully.
-
Tom Curtis at 08:21 AM on 16 February 2017CO2 lags temperature
Adri Norse Fire @532, first, let me say you are coping quite well with the language difference given that you are using a machine translator.
"''What is worse, you ask, "How do they know that CO2 does not come from other sources that also have low levels of radicarbon But or course, Daniel Bailey has already answered that question with 10 lines of evidence.'' He didn't and this answer was not addressed to him"
On the contrary, five of the ten lines of evidence falsify the theory that the increase in CO2 in modern times is a consequence of increased vulcansim; and a sixth renders it unlikely:
As fossil fuel and volcanic CO2 are the only C14 - free sources of carbon on the Earth, that precludes the origin being a C14 free source other than fossil fuels.
I am not sure what you meant by "this answer was not addressed to him" given that the sentence I quoted clearly came from the section of your comment headed "Daniel Bailey". I assume it is an inaccurate translation.
"I did not say that CO2 or CH3 does not produce a greenhouse effect, but the feedback effect of CO2 and other minor gases is irrelevant to climate compared to other greenhouse gases."
It is true that water vapour is a significant feedback on any warming. However, it contributes approximately 1C of warming for each 1 C contributed from another source. That means that for the glacial/interglacial cycle, including water vapour, albedo effects will have most likely contributed <30% directly, CO2 and CH4 <25%, with H2O most likely contributing <45%. Less than, because there are other short term feedbacks that are most likely to contribute about 0.5 C for each 1 C of direct warming, but may contribute 4 times that amount, but may have been a negative feedback.
Firstly, I will note that 6 - 25% contribution from CO2 and CH4 (once we account for the effect of water vapour) is not a negligible contribution.
Secondly, I will further note that H2O has a very short time to return to equilibrium in the atmosphere (weeks), so that its total atmospheric contribution is almost entirely governed by temperature. That means when we wish to determine the effect of an increase in CO2 concentration on the Earth's temperature, we can treat H2O as a feedback - and need not track it independently. That is particularly important for graphs such as this one:
It is well known that the direct temperature effect of a change in forcing is about 1 C to 1.2 C per 3.7 W/m^2 change, and hence about 0.8 to 0.9 C for the change in forcing from last glacial maximum to the holocene. The calculation of the implied sensitivity, therefore, is not an attempt to determine that direct effect, but to determine the result of the direct temperature effect plus all short term feedbacks, including H2O. That turns out to be about 2.8 C per 3.7 W/m^2.
Because I (and others) understand the purpose examining the causes of the difference in temperature between the last glacial maximum and the holocene, we do not bother mentioning the details about components of the short term feedbacks. I will grant that when talking with a popular audience, who are not aware of the reasons for focussing on CO2 and change in glacial ice extent, that is a mistake. We should clarrify the role of short term feedbacks, and why we are focussing on CO2 (as I have now done).
"If you like correlations so much why do not you look for some of the temperature and CO2 for the last 10,000 years? Does this correlation count as evidence?"
First, if you want to be taken seriously in a scientific discussion, don't source evidence from astrology sites, as you have done with that first chart. Granted the author of that site attributes the chart to a climate scientist (Schoenwiese) without specification as to year, or publication. Fortunately the chart has been examined as an example of the misuse of scientific charts by climate "skeptics" (Schneider et al 2014). The chart is from Schoenwiese 1995, and based on Daansgard (1984) (published online in 2013). Schneider et al (2014) comment:
"many authors of skeptical media (for example Avery, 2009, and Vahrenholt und Lüning, 2012) fail to mention that this temperature estimate is based on an ice-core record from Greenland and may thus not be representative of global temperatures."
Of course, in your version it is labelled Northern Hemisphere temperatures, not global temperatures. The point still stands, however. A Greenland ice core no more shows Northern Hemisphere temperatures by itself than does a thermometer in Moscow show temperatures in Tucson, Arizona. It can be used (as Daansgard used it) as an indication of North Atlantic temperatures, but beyond the North Atlantic, its accuracy as a temperature index will rapidly fall.
Schneider et al go on:
"Most importantly, in Schönwiese's 1995 version the current and near future temperature changes are included. The recent warming goes far beyond the historic warm periods of the last 12000 years and should therefore have been included in the graph."
(My emphasis)
You should recognize that yourself. Taken at face value, the chart indicates that the Little Ice Age terminated 400 years ago. If we allow a more recent (circa 1850) termination then we must, according to that chart, acknowledge that for most of the LIA it was as warm as the peak of the Medieval Warm Period; and of course, that temperatures have since risen significantly above that peak.
Finally, here is a chart which has a fair claim to represent global holocene temperatures (but note caveats):
Note that 2004 is significantly warmer than any period prior to 1900, and that it has warmed appreciably since then.
All of this may be a side issue, but I am unsure as to what point you are trying to make with two charts of CO2 concentration over the last 800,000 years, or the chart of CO2 concentration over the Holocene.
"why the current temperature is 1.5 ° lower than the medieval warm period?"
It isn't. See chart above.
Moderator Response:[PS] added obvious but important missing word.
-
chriskoz at 07:38 AM on 16 February 2017Is anything wrong with Forbes Climate Reporting?
I found out that Mario Loyola (uncletimrob @1 please note the correct spelling) also works for National Review. NR is another conservative outlet famous for e.g. deceptive temperature scaling. Such lame and primitive information distortion techniques championed by NR give an indication about the integrity of one of thier ranks (Loyola). So no surprise Mario came up to champion another science denial technique: this time cherry picking. He wants to mtach the "achievements" of his colleagues.
NR is also famous for their libels against scientists (well kniown case of Michael Mann).
-
nigelj at 07:11 AM on 16 February 2017Is anything wrong with Forbes Climate Reporting?
These logical fallacies described in the article are very important. It pays to know how to recognise these. It would be great if this material was better taught in schools.
The denialists claim of a so called pause involved a great deal of cherrypicking of start and end dates.
Cosmic rays are a red herring, and usually involved missrepresenting what the research really says, or cherrypicking a few papers by denialists.
However some things in the climate debate have simply become lies. People who claim natural causes have not been considered, are simply lying. This material on natural causes is in the peer reviewed research and IPCC reports, and the denialists must know this by now, so they are lying when they claim it's not been considered, or has been found to be the main cause.
The Trump Administration seems to embrace any convenient lie. I think people have forgotten the lessons of the serious lies of Nixon in the Watergate Scandal. Humanity tends to forget past issues, and the harshness of the issues becomes less present, and new generations are born that have no knowledge of them. We then repeat the mistakes of the past.
www.alternet.org/environment/climate-change-coal-mining-donald-trumps-reality-pure-science-fiction
-
scaddenp at 07:08 AM on 16 February 2017CO2 lags temperature
Ardi, I would second RH comment. When you see conflicting information from various sources, what are your processes in determining what information you trust? What raises a red-flag when something comes from a science source?
-
Paul D at 06:35 AM on 16 February 2017This is why conservative media outlets like the Daily Mail are 'unreliable'
I gave up on the Daily Fail in the early 1980s (maybe even earlier), it was a story about the discovery of Noahs Ark. The story turned out to be hyped and basically fiction, there was little effort made to confirm the reliability of the archeology described in the story.
It's 100 times worse now.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 06:32 AM on 16 February 2017CO2 lags temperature
Adri... Well, unfortunately, man-made climate change is very much is like the theory of gravity in terms of how solid the science is.
The point I'm trying to make is this. You currently have a very poor understanding of the science. By your own admission, what you do believe is not based in actual scientific research, but is derived from documentaries and magazines.
What I'm trying to understand is, why?
Why would you believe non-scientific sources over actual published science?
-
uncletimrob at 06:15 AM on 16 February 2017Is anything wrong with Forbes Climate Reporting?
Why is it that people with no qualifications and no experience - let alone no qualifications in any science - think they know enough to "debunk" the work of thousands of climate scientists? There is a certain arrogance there I think. Most people that I know with any intellectual honesty would not even dream of questioning the methods or conclusionsof someone in another field.
Ask questions and get answers - then ask more because you don't quite get it - well that's an entirely different matter that Layola and others clearly do not understand.
-
nigelj at 04:59 AM on 16 February 2017Why claiming that climate scientists are in it for the money is absurd
giniajim @6
My understanding is that the climate denialists believe scientists are exaggerating the severity of the climate issue, in order to scare governments, who will then want more research to get to the bottom of the problem. It keeps the research grants flowing.
But it could equally work the other way. Governments could go into denial about the climate problem, and stop any research. And we have a perfect example of this: The Trump Administration have signalled they will do this to a significant extent.
So it's absurd to believe scientists would engage in such unethical activities, when outcomes are so uncertain.
-
MA Rodger at 02:07 AM on 16 February 2017CO2 lags temperature
Adri Norse Fire @532.
You say you use "scientific data." The four graphs you present do not provide scientific data of temperature. Instead the one temperature graph you do present is schematic, and also flat wrong. It says it plots Northern Hemisphere temperatures yet shows less than 0.1ºC increase in NH temperature since 1850. HadCRUT4 (which is known to underestimate the warming due to poor Arctic coverage) puts the NH temperature increase since 1850 at 1.05ºC while GISTEMP (which provides a more realistic assessment of Arctic temperatures) puts the rise since 1880 as 1.25ºC. Note also that this graph you present does not support your assertion that "the current temperature is 1.5 ° lower than the medieval warm period."(And that stands whatever the º you intend.)
-
giniajim at 00:39 AM on 16 February 2017Why claiming that climate scientists are in it for the money is absurd
Very good article. However, it leaves out one important (imho) piece: that motivation(s) of the grantors. Why would a government employee, who gets paid a salary, want to skew climate science one way or another? What's in it for him/her? Another point of exploration: does the carbon fuel industry try to influence research by using carefully crafted grants to universities (carefully crafted to get the "right" answer).
Thanks!
-
Adri Norse Fire at 00:17 AM on 16 February 2017CO2 lags temperature
Well, I did not mean to sound pedantic. First of all I want to say that I am not a native speaker of English, I am using the translator to talk to you ... and that may cause some misunderstanding. Anyway, I apologize.
Rob Honeycutt
I am not working hard to deny anyone, what I say is what I have seen in documentaries and in magazines, that's all. I'm not an old scientist. But unlike you, Rob, I do not see that the establishment in which you believe has an indestructible foundation, this is not like the theory of gravity, there is a plenty of people who are also scientists who disagree with you In this subject or with the supposed orthodoxy to which you refer.
'' Why do you think you're dismissive of the science? ''
I do not despise science, I think that until now my arguments have not been ideological but scientific data that obviously are within the reach of all.
Tom Curtis
I want to remember that my first comment was a few months ago, having that in perspective; You're right when you say that my last answer does not exactly respond to his response, but I was thinking in the background of the whole conversation that was whether CO2 and therefore human industrial activity are causing the global rise in temperature.
''What is worse, you ask, "How do they know that CO2 does not come from other sources that also have low levels of radicarbon But or course, Daniel Bailey has already answered that question with 10 lines of evidence.'' He didn't and this answer was not addressed to him; That's why I said "sorry for my ignorance," because if you can not know how much low-radiocarbon CO2 comes from other natural sources due to lack of studies on the subject or for any reason, how can you faithfully calculate the amount Of CO2 emitted by human industrial activity? I mean, we can distinguish that something has different properties, but we do not seem to know how these properties work or whether they hold them through their natural cycles which is an imperative for the final calculation.
I did not say that CO2 or CH3 does not produce a greenhouse effect, but the feedback effect of CO2 and other minor gases is irrelevant to climate compared to other greenhouse gases.
If you like correlations so much why do not you look for some of the temperature and CO2 for the last 10,000 years? Does this correlation count as evidence?
http://www.lunarplanner.com/SolarCycles-images/Climate-Timeline-10000yrs.png
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/antarctic_cores_800kyr.jpg
And what about this chart?
http://kabarkampus.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Dede-Prabowo-Wiguna_ilustrasi-1.jpg
http://s3.amazonaws.com/wboc-digital/production/sites/wboc-weather/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/28214154/Capture21.png
The question is whether we have the highest concentration of atmospheric CO2 in 800,000 years, without going further, why the current temperature is 1.5 ° lower than the medieval warm period?
''Finally, I will note that "recovery from the Little Ice Age" is a description of what the temperature does over a period ending about 1850. It is not an explanation of that warming.'' Indeed it is an assumption that the rise in temperature was related to the Little Ice Age. This also explains the warming of the 20th century. Someday I'll explain my crazy theory, but not right now. I apologize again.
John Hartz
Only me?
-
Jim Hunt at 19:05 PM on 15 February 2017This is why conservative media outlets like the Daily Mail are 'unreliable'
Digby @4 - Quite so. For chapter and verse on the "Trump Administration emasculat[ion of] NOAA" please see:
"Climategate 2 Falls at the First Hurdle?"
Watch the video to discover how “The Land of the Free” has morphed into “TrumpLand” in a matter of weeks. The “interrogation” of Rush Holt of the AAAS. A show trial of the American Association for the Advancement of Science? Congressman Lamar Smith presiding!
-
bjchip at 17:34 PM on 15 February 2017Why claiming that climate scientists are in it for the money is absurd
Lets see all the climate scientists on earth united in a conspiracy to lie to us over more than a century, so tight that not ONE of them will spill the story, even though they'd make much MORE money for doing so and there are damned few examples of any such fraud lasting more than a few years... OR ... the CEO's and organizations that have repeatedly been indicted, repeatedly proved to be motivated by money and repeatedly conspired at apparently every opportunity they could to improve their monetary results (this is often a STATED PURPOSE of a corporation) are conspiring to lie to us... more recently.
Do we have evidence? Yes
Which one? The latter.
Is this ever considered by the denialists? No.
In fact, when this is brought up they are invariably ENTIRELY silent on the topic. As though it got trapped in a filter before they even perceived the question being asked.
Which is, in a psychological sense, actually pretty likely. Reality however, does not go away when you stop believing in it. - Thank you Phillip K. Dick
-
Forrest at 12:27 PM on 15 February 2017Why claiming that climate scientists are in it for the money is absurd
Seems to me that the best argument against this claim is to turn it on its head. Worldwide, we probably spend a few billions of dollars a year on climate change research. But we spend a few trillion dollars a year on fossil fuels. Any scientist who could conclusively show that climate change is wrong would instantly be rewarded by the fossil fuel industry with an endowed chair at a prestigious university, memberships on boards, and senior positions at industry think tanks and industry groups. He or she would instntly become immensely wealthy. With this opportunity readily available, either climate change is real, or capitalism is fundamentally flawed.
-
Digby Scorgie at 10:07 AM on 15 February 2017This is why conservative media outlets like the Daily Mail are 'unreliable'
Regarding the Daily Fail, it seems fake expert Judith Curry connived with fake journalist David Rose to concoct a fake scandal at NOAA, which the fake media promptly disseminated as widely and loudly as possible. Worse is the possibility that this fake news will be used as an excuse by the (valiantly refraining from invoking the adjective "fake") Trump Administration to emasculate NOAA. We are living in interesting times.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:14 AM on 15 February 2017Climate's changed before
KR @546, C14 is mostly formed from N14 (a stable isotope of Nitrogen) when a neutron strikes the nucleis of a Nitrogen atom, displacing a proton. Therefore an increase in C14 does represent a real increase in atmospheric CO2. Given that C14 represents just 0.0000000001% of all atmospheric carbon, any such increase would be negligible in terms of atmospheric forcing.
As a side note, about 1% of C14 is formed from C13, but 1% of 0.0000000001% not significant.
-
Climate's changed before
ergodicity - Conversion of one carbon isotope to another doesn't change the total amount of carbon dioxide present. And the data we have for the climate during the LaChamp anomaly indicates no discerneable change in temperatures.
To all intents and purposes, cosmic ray levels have negligible impact on the climate, and it's noteworthy that current variations in those cosmic rays are tiny compared to historic varations - variations that likewise had no effect.
-
nigelj at 07:51 AM on 15 February 2017Why claiming that climate scientists are in it for the money is absurd
I agree. The accusation that climate scientists are faking data to make things look worse, and that they are scaremongering, all so that they get research grants, is absurd. It would be much easier and less risky just to get a better paying private sector job.While all professions have a few people with little integrity, there is no evidence such things are widespread or the norm, or the courts would be ten times busier.
There is no proof of fake data, fake photos of glaciers, or incorrect data adjustments, or distorted exaggerations within climate models, or anything else. These issues have been investigated over and over by officially appointed people, (eg climategate, or The Best Study) and they found no problems.
The people investigating would clearly be rewarded for finding any slight problem, in terms of more prestige, promotions, and bonuses etc. This is important to realise. They have considerable reason to look closely and be very criticial.
-
John Hartz at 07:50 AM on 15 February 2017CO2 lags temperature
@ Adri Norse Fire #526:
I accept the overwhelming and ever-growing body of scientific evidence about manmade climate change. Why do you deny it?
-
JWRebel at 07:28 AM on 15 February 2017Why claiming that climate scientists are in it for the money is absurd
The argument about money is impervious to fact & logic because it is corollary to the theory that there is an alternative to climate change theory, which is that it is globally sourced collective conspiracy hoax theory. It's a little like arguing against the bodily resurrection of Jesus because a man in his condition would not have been able to move the stone blocking the entrance.
What I do think is important to present is that many in the science community in past decades did not in fact jump on their new meal ticket, but were reticent in slowly and reluctantly accepting the force of the evidence. It is a story which people understandably resist, desparate for another take on the events that are unfolding. And this reluctance can trigger personal recognition for many today.
-
ubrew12 at 06:23 AM on 15 February 2017Why claiming that climate scientists are in it for the money is absurd
If Scientific conclusions can be manufactured to support their funder, then Exxon and the Koch Brothers are missing a huge opportunity for continued profits. Is this because they are too stupid to realize they can manufacture Scientific conclusions, or too honest to do so? If A, then B. If notB, then notA: Scientific conclusions cannot be manufactured for money. Why not? Because they are conclusions about Nature, and Nature doesn't hide itself just because you got paid to lie about it. If James Hansen claims his climate model shows future warming, Exxon doesn't have to subpoena Hansen's climate model for inspection. The physics of our atmosphere is not Hansen's exclusive territory: Exxon can build its own model from scratch. Which they did, and it confirmed Hansen's conclusion. Unlike Wall Street, Nature cannot hide a fraud. It is equally available for sampling to anyone; certainly to any industry that collectively pulls in a trillion dollars in pure profit every year.
-
Tom Curtis at 02:29 AM on 15 February 2017CO2 lags temperature
Adri Norse Fire @526, with respect to your response to Daniel Bailey, when introducing the list of 10 points to which you respond, he wrote:
"The human-caused origin (anthropogenic) of the measured increase in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 is a cornerstone of predictions of future temperature rises.
As such, it has come under frequent attack by people who challenge the science of global warming. One thing noteworthy about those attacks is that the full range of evidence supporting the anthropogenic nature of the CO2 increase seems to slip from sight. So what is the full range of supporting evidence?
There are ten main lines of evidence to be considered:"
(My emphasis)
It is quite clear, then, that he was discussing evidence that the CO2 increase over the 19th-21st century was anthropogenic in origin, not the distinct claim that the temperature rise was also anthropogenic in origin. As such, your repeated iterations of "That does not prove that CO2 produces global warming" or variants is simply non-responsive. You have conveniently shown his evidence to be "irrelevant" by treating it as addressing of something it was not adduced in support of.
What is worse, you ask, "How do they know that CO2 does not come from other sources that also have low levels of radicarbon?" But or course, Daniel Bailey has already answered that question with 10 lines of evidence. So, your misapplication of the 10 lines of evidence serves you two purposes - both to make them easy to refute as irrelevant to the question they did not address; but also to treat them as not having addressed that question so that you can still consider it open.
With regard to your response to me:
"'' [...] Then it was driven by a feedback cycle of greenhouse gases (CO2 and methane) ''. Only?"
Of course not "only", but only those directly relevant to the discussion. You are directly denying that a CO2 and CH3 greenhouse effect can be a feedback on the glacial cycle. Evidence that the theory you are opposing without understanding incorporates such a feedback is, therefore, relevant, as is the evidence that such a feedback exists.
Actually, the correlations are not always based on recent times. If you want the correlations over 800,000 years of glacial cycle, see point 1 @520 above. You can ignore the correlations if you wish, but they are evidence, no matter how much you wish to not see it.
Finally, I will note that "recovery from the Little Ice Age" is a description of what the temperature does over a period ending about 1850. It is not an explanation of that warming. You do not explain things simply by redescribing them in different language. Now, if you ever come across a theory of what caused the general warming in the century prior to industiralization took of, you are welcome to try and show that it explains the warming in the 20th century as well. But absent that theory, your playing rhetorical games when you invoke a "recovery from the LIA". You are not practising, or expounding science.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 01:34 AM on 15 February 2017CO2 lags temperature
Adri... First of all, it seems as though you're working very hard to reject the established scientific understanding on these points, rather than working to try to actually understand them. Skepticism is a good thing when it's properly applied. That requires that you first learn the fundamental science.
Several folks have patiently explained the science and the article you posting on also explains it. But you've failed to acknowledge that you grasp what's being said and are, instead, compounding your misunderstanding with additional incorrect comments.
We see exactly this pattern over and over here at SkS. I'm very interested to get down to why this occurs.
Why do you think you're so dismissive of the science?
-
Adri Norse Fire at 01:09 AM on 15 February 2017CO2 lags temperature
Eclectic I still do not know what the problem is, don't worry about that. (I think the web does not allow that option, but I'm not sure anyway)
Of course, given that the present interglacial period has had shorter phases of warm and cold periods occurring on a regular basis, it is very plausible that the centuries after the end of the small Ice Age the temperature would stabilize again. Does it seem very logical?
-
Eclectic at 00:33 AM on 15 February 2017CO2 lags temperature
Adri Norse Fire @526 :
I am sorry to hear that no message arrived at your mail. Is it possible that you have got your pen-names mixed up for this occasion?
On your point No. 1 (addressed to Daniel Bailey) :- Why do you think the present rapid global warming must be natural, simply because its beginning coincides (roughly) with the ending of the Little Ice Age ?
Your argument seems to be a logical non-sequitur.
Can you explain your thinking?
-
Adri Norse Fire at 23:06 PM on 14 February 2017CO2 lags temperature
I do not understand why no message arrived in my mail, I'm sorry for not responding before.
Daniel Bailey.
-It is a joy to see that the conclusions of your "BEST" team coincide with virtually all studies on Antarctic ice cores: "Data from ice core records strongly suggest that the prehistoric carbon dioxide changes were largely a response, ''not a cause'', of temperature changes ''. But, they say: '' However, [...] Seawater has high radiocarbon; Fossil fuels have none. "Forgive my ignorance but how do they know that the radiocarbon is not lost in the process? How do they know that CO2 does not come from other sources that also have low levels of radicarbon? Let me disagree with your best team, but I find their conclusions a bit forced. And they end: "it is clear that it is the CO2 that comes first, not the warming". Well, it is not what your own data show, but I could make some concession for the last century.
And I think I can rebut some of your 10 main statements:
1. The beginning of global warming coincides with the end of the small Ice Age, therefore natural;
2. The stages of higher industrial growth of mankind do not coincide with the increase in temperature.
3. That does not prove that CO2 produces global warming.
4. The same.
5. Again, that only says that the source of co2 has no volcanic origins, but it is not a proof that CO2 produces warming.
6. Same.
7. Same.
8. Same.
9. Same.
10. And Same.
Come on man, my original question was not difficult; Or is it that the basis of global anthropogenic warming is a coincidence?
Tom Curtis.
'' [...] Then it was driven by a feedback cycle of greenhouse gases (CO2 and methane) ''. Only? Where are the biggest greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? Like water vapor, for example. Secondly, these are correlations always based on recent times. But the only certainty is that ice cores are not subject to interpretations or complicated mathematical operations that can be manipulated. Anyway, allow me the freedom to doubt the credibility of those correlations you have shown.
John Hartz.
Again, how do you know that CO2 is responsible for the observed warming since the end of the small Ice Age? The only way CO2 can influence climate is through the greenhouse effect, but CO2 is only a minor gas between greenhouse gases and the amount of CO2 produced by man is an even smaller percentage. How do you know that the rest of the greenhouse gases have nothing to do with it?
-
John Hartz at 13:14 PM on 14 February 2017This is why conservative media outlets like the Daily Mail are 'unreliable'
An informative analysis from a political science perspective...
One of the most unexpected political developments in recent months has been the political awakening of scientists in the United States.
A normally reticent group (at least when it comes to politics), scientists are speaking out, organizing a major march and planning to run for public office. There is a growing sense that the danger posed by the Trump administration to evidence-based policy, and perhaps science itself, is unprecedented. I share this concern. The Trump administration’s actions and rhetoric appear to signal an acceleration of Republican skepticism toward scientific research carried out in the public interest.
This said, what is keeping political scientists, particularly those like me who study political psychology, up at night is not the Trump administration’s ideologically driven science bias. Rather, it is the fact that Trump himself exhibits an authoritarian style of motivated reasoning that appears to be intended (consciously or not) to consolidate his power.
This combination – institutional challenges to the scientific integrity of government employees and Trump’s willingness to disregard evidence on a variety of matters – has broad and ominous implications beyond how science informs national policies.
Why politicians think they know better than scientists – and why that’s so dangerous, by Elizabeth Suhay, The Conversation US, Feb 12, 2017
Elizabeth Suhay is an Assistant Professor of Government, American University. She currently consults for the American Association for the Advancement of Science. She is assisting AAAS as they develop a new training program aimed at helping scientists better communicate their scientific findings to policymakers.
-
nigelj at 12:30 PM on 14 February 2017This is why conservative media outlets like the Daily Mail are 'unreliable'
This is perceptive from John Oliver at the Guardian:
"Oliver went on: “There is a pattern here: Trump sees something that jibes with his worldview, doesn’t check it, half-remembers it and then passes it on, at which point it takes on a life of its own and appears to validate itself.”
www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2017/feb/13/john-oliver-trump-relationship-truth-last-week-tonight
Doesn't this reflect what so many climate denialists do?
Oliver also talks about Trump's reliance on cable tv, Breitbart etc. He also talks about the issue of how policy debate usually agrees a basic set of facts. By dispensing with these facts, and just making stuff up, or believing nonsense, the Trump Administration risks bad policy emerging.
-
scaddenp at 11:44 AM on 14 February 2017Climate's changed before
You can have detectable change in C14 (formed from Nitrogen by cosmic ray interaction) with zero effect on climate. (well no effect that is discernable from noise). Can you see any discernible effect on climate by the Laschamp event?
Knudsen et al discerned some possible correlation in precipitation which others have also looked at. However if you look at papers citing Knudsen you will see that effect is regional, statistically weak and open to other interpretations. Other major transitions have been studied without much success and it is hard to give the hypothesis much support if a climatic effect cannot be detected in major magnetic changes. Eg try here for Laschamp, also here and here which looked for changes in cloud cover.
-
ergodicity at 09:50 AM on 14 February 2017Climate's changed before
Sorry Tom, missed your data and sources, reading now.
-
ergodicity at 09:48 AM on 14 February 2017Climate's changed before
Thanks all for the replies!
Tom Curtis Where does your statistics of "the direct contribution to the Earth's energy balance from cosmic rays is 0.0000032 W/m^2." come from? Is that stat during a weakened magnetic field or at full strength.
Rob: Thanks for mentioning the LaChamp anomaly: I have never heard of this and am excited to read about it more. But your statement "there was zero response in the climate system." is false.
https://phys.org/news/2012-10-extremely-reversal-geomagnetic-field-climate.html Clearly states, The reversed field was 75% weaker whereas the strength dropped to only 5% of the current strength during the transition. This resulted in greater radiation reaching the Earth, causing greater production of beryllium 10 and higher levels of carbon 14.[2 Detectable higher levels of carbon, even if negligible as to global warming, is not zero response.
Scaddenp: Knudsen et al 2009 is interesting. That also seems to indicate that the weakening magnetic field has some effect on climate: " In addition to supporting the notion that variations in the geomagnetic field may have influenced Earth's climate in the past, our study also provides some degree of support for the controversial link between GCR particles, cloud formation, and climate."
Again, I am not at all trying to refute the man made global warming effect. I am only trying to determine what effect the weakening magnetic field has on global warming. All links to any studies/articles/information on this subjuct would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks all for comments!
-
Tom Curtis at 09:18 AM on 14 February 2017Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
RedBaron @281, if the primary regulator of atmospheric CO2 is the biosphere, as you claim, covering vast swathes of that biosphere with land ice would reduce the fixing of CO2 into soil, and hence result in an increase in atmospheric CO2 durring glacials. Instead we see the reverse.
Although it is not yet entirely clear what drives the synchronous changes of pCO2 and GMST, the evidence strongly suggests the deep ocean has a major role. That role must be at least modulated by change in surface vegetation, which were extensive, even in the tropics. Specifically, the Sahara was not a desert (and much of the Australian outback was greened as well); but much land now covered with tropical rainforest was covered with grassland. The greening of the Sahara, however, survived several millenia past the start of the Holocene - so its contribution to pCO2 was minimal relative to the glacial/interglacial cycle. And total carbon sequestration in rain forest, per meter squared, exceeds that on grassland in every review I have seen, which would make that change, again, counter cyclical.
-
Tom Curtis at 08:59 AM on 14 February 2017Climate's changed before
ergodicity @539, the direct contribution to the Earth's energy balance from cosmic rays is 0.0000032 W/m^2. The direct contribution from the solar wind, in the absence of Van Allen belts would be 0.00035 W/m^2. Both are so negligible that their presence or absence would make no discirnible difference to the Global Mean Surface Temperature in the event of a collapse of the Earth's magnetic field.
The only way they could be significant would be through secondary effects, as proposed by Svensmark in "The Chilling Stars", but that hypothesis was always overblown given that it ignored the abundance of Cloud Condensation Nuclei generated by natural, earth bound events. Worse for that hypothesis, the LaChamp anomaly all but kills the hypothesis, as noted by Rob Honeycutt above.
(Data and sources here. I apologize for the formating. Blogger has decided to mess with the column widths on the table, but it appears with proper formating in the editing window, so I do not know how to fix it.)
Moderator Response:[PS] For context, doubling CO2 would add an extra 3.7W/m^2. Further discussions about GCR should take place on this article.
-
nigelj at 08:30 AM on 14 February 2017This is why conservative media outlets like the Daily Mail are 'unreliable'
The Daily Mail is clearly unreliable. They published inaccurate nonsense, and only half the relevent information about the issue. Conservative media too often seem comfortable with "lies by omission".
Plenty of conservative media also seem to see theories like free trade, or multiculturalism, or climate science as "Big Lies" but they are never able to show who is lying, or what the lies specifically are.
-
scaddenp at 08:12 AM on 14 February 2017Climate's changed before
The Viewzone article is a rather breathless take on Knudsen et al 2009 but the it is correct in that the supposed effect is from effects of GCR on cloud formation (which still lacks supporting evidence - see IPCC AR4 for papers that have examined this in detail). The amount of extra radiation (GCR) reaching the surface could not directly cause any measurable temperature change.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 07:39 AM on 14 February 2017Climate's changed before
ergodicity... Again, the earth's poles have flipped in the past, like during what's called the LaChamp anomaly, and there was zero response in the climate system.
-
ergodicity at 06:41 AM on 14 February 2017Climate's changed before
scaddenp Thanks for replying. I believe you misunderstood me. The theory I spoke of was of a polar shift: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-s-impending-magnetic-flip/
My question, not theory, not challenge to man made global warming, was, what is the effect of the magnetic field weakening http://www.livescience.com/46694-magnetic-field-weakens.html
on global warming. Are there any studies coorelating the polar flip, weakening magnetic field and global warming. http://viewzone.com/magnetic.weather.html
It seems logical that as the field weakens, more radiation get in and an increase in the surface temperature occurs. I am a firm believer that man made global warming exists, but so does natural global warming (there was a glacier here in Kentucky 20k years age), and I believe the magnetic field weakening is the trifecta that we are experiancing.
Thanks for reading!
-
nigelj at 05:52 AM on 14 February 2017Whistleblower: ‘I knew people would misuse this.’ They did - to attack climate science
Red Baron @7, I read the same thing somewhere that the data is actually machine readable. My initial reaction to this whole issue was that perhaps some minor procedural mistakes were made, but it appears even that may not be the case.
I think Bates is an angry, disgrunted former employee looking to score points. There's plenty of evidence he had conflcits with his employer. His emotional involvement could mean he has jumped to conclusions. Like with so many similar scandals, we will probably never really get to the bottom of it as he will become totally defensive, and will close up.
-
nigelj at 05:38 AM on 14 February 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #6
Tom Curtis, my understanding is the arctic is warming quite rapidly from the feedback of less ice cover etc. Could this partly explain why the global surface temperatures are warming slightly more rapidly, than higher up in the atmosphere (UAH)?
-
RedBaron at 04:23 AM on 14 February 2017Whistleblower: ‘I knew people would misuse this.’ They did - to attack climate science
I have been struggling to understand the real controversy John Bates brings to the table, rather than the hoax reported in the media. John claims he knew it would be misused. OK. So the proper use? The best I have been able to ascertain is this:
John Bates claim was that the archiving of the data wasn’t complete until six months after the paper appeared, and there was no format statement for the DATA, making it not in machine readable form, and it used a 90% rather than 95% confidence standard.
That is completely different than “all DATA from NOAA is worthless or tampered”.
In fact even the data in that controversial paper would have value, because although late to archive, it is there now. And although a format statement wasn’t made, The Data is in ascii format, which actually is machine readable, it simply lacked a format statement to that effect. And a 90% vs a 95% standard is simply a matter of recalculating the conclusions made from the data to the new higher standard. The actual measurements were not tampered with at all. So it is timing and format rather than fudged data.
How close am I? Did I understand the real issue brought up by Dr Bates? Or is there more? Thanks for your help.
-
RedBaron at 04:02 AM on 14 February 2017Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
@Tom 280,
That would make sense Tom, simply because the primary regulator of atmospheric gasses is the biosphere. When glaciation events were the main way the biological function was reduced by covering a significantly large area of land with ice, then the geological emissions would exceed natural uptake. The trend reverses till enough ice melts to allow the natural uptake to reign supreme again. So one would expect this. It would bracket the atmospheric CO2 in a range. This is what we see for the last 800k years.
This would support the idea that the degrading biosphere and ecological systems caused by mankind are what has allowed fossil fuel emissions to force the atmosphere to exceed that bracketed range. (very roughly ~170 - 320 ppm +/-) The biological stabilizing feedback function has been degraded simulataneously with increased emissions. Either alone is probably not enough to upset the balance. But both together obvious is since we are watching it happen.
-
John Hartz at 02:36 AM on 14 February 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #6
knox kp & Tom Curtis: More about what's happening in the Arctic this winter season...
Records are shattering left and right across the Arctic, much like the ever-dwindling sea ice that once covered the entire Arctic Ocean.
First, the facts. January sea ice area has never been so small. In November, the coverage fell short of average by an area the size of the eastern half of the United States. Northeast Greenland had its warmest February day ever (by almost four degrees). The current heat wave brought Friday’s temperatures near the North Pole to 50 degrees above average, which is like New York City having a January day in the mid-80s.
This kind of unprecedented weather leaves even seasoned researchers scratching their heads.
“We’re still trying to figure out what is happening here,” Mark Serreze, a senior research scientist with the Colorado-based Snow and Ice Data Center, told KUAC. “The sea ice is so low there in part because it’s just been so darn warm in the Arctic this winter.”
Once-in-a-decade heatwave melting the Arctic ... for the third time this year. Why? by Charlie Wood, Christian Science Monitor, Feb 11, 2017
-
chriskoz at 21:37 PM on 13 February 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #6
Poorly written poster. In:
...administration must accept this fact and work to fight against it.
"it" refers to "this fact". That's the only resonable meaning here, as is. Which is what current administration is doing: fighting against the fact of climate change, i.e. inventing an alternative reality where inconvenient facts are altered, then silencing the media who are trying to remind us of real facts.
Of course the author meant "fight against the threat of climate change" but failed to express it adequately.
-
knox kp at 15:29 PM on 13 February 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #6
Thanks so much!
Prev 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 Next
