Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 Next
Comments 25201 to 25250:
-
scttharding5 at 04:26 AM on 1 March 2016GWPF throws out centuries of physics, climate scientists laugh, conservative media fawns
It's like saying that the burner on my stove isn't going to heat up based on past patterns, and ignoring the fact that I just lit the gas.
-
Iceman at 04:00 AM on 1 March 2016Antarctica is gaining ice
"Update Nov. 7 2015
A study published by Jay Zwally and his team on Oct. 30 (Zwally et al. 2015) has suggested that until 2008 there might have been a bigger increase in ice on East Antarctica than there is a decrease in the west, meaning that total Antarctic land ice is increasing."
There is nothing in that study to suggest that he ice gain that has been occurring for 10,000 years has stopped.
The Science has shown that Antarctica is gaining ice. Clinging to this false claim that the "science says" Antarctica is losing land ice shows poor alligiance to science. -
Iceman at 03:54 AM on 1 March 2016Antarctica is gaining ice
"Satellites measure Antarctica is gaining sea ice but losing land ice at an accelerating rate which has implications for sea level rise."
This "argument" is clearly wrong. Antartica is gaining land ice mass and sea Ice. This should be corrected if this site claims to offer science as answers.
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses -
Jim Hunt at 02:33 AM on 1 March 2016GWPF throws out centuries of physics, climate scientists laugh, conservative media fawns
Note also that the Global Warming Policy Forum is attempting to pull the same stunt with a porky pie production line of Arctic sea ice misinformation. For all the gory details of this long running saga please see:
The Great Global Warming Policy Forum Con
Dear Benny,
I note that the GWPF webmaster has still not taken on board any of the helpful [Arctic sea ice] advice I have proffered over the last few weeks, and has now posted some inaccurate information about “global warming”. Will he or she never learn?
Apparently not!
-
wili at 01:53 AM on 1 March 2016Earth is warming 50x faster than when it comes out of an ice age
Thanks, ms and noa. Looking at earlier years, one might assume that this most recent divergence from the linear trend is just that--a temporary blip. But of course, it could be the beginning of a new, steeper linear, or the beginning of an exponential trend. If the latter, the question is what the doubling time will be.
As with many things, we won't know for sure till it's in the rearview mirror. -
noa at 22:50 PM on 29 February 2016Earth is warming 50x faster than when it comes out of an ice age
He might be refering to this graph from AVISO Data. If you look only at the data from Jason-2 you get a SLR rate of 4.31 mm/yr. Of course this is a very short time span, so I do not thin it has any significance as of yet.
-
scaddenp at 11:54 AM on 29 February 2016Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
Clapper, large volcanoes in this era mostly cool the earth temporarily thanks to aerosols which persist for a few years. In the distant past, gigantic volcanic eruptions sustained for a long time (Large Igneous Provences) are associated with mass extinctions. See here (and the other part) for more detail. Short answer is that you need volcanic activity like hasnt been experienced for 100s of million years to get something comparable to human FF emission rates.
-
michael sweet at 11:27 AM on 29 February 2016Earth is warming 50x faster than when it comes out of an ice age
Wili,
Here is a link to the Colorado data.
I am not sure what the last entered date is. Perhaps Gingerb has a better graph. 2015 goes way up, but 1997 did also. 2014 does not look bad to me. It looks like the data was close to the long term line until the start of 2015. We can hope that the data will return to the long term mean like it did in 1998.
Moderator Response:[PS] Please try again. You cant insert a PDF as an image.
-
Clapper55 at 11:14 AM on 29 February 2016Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
I would like to see more about what would have to occur in order for volcanic activity to make humans decreasing carbon emissions not effective. I also want know how much if any volcanic activity has on global warming and compared to humans effects.
-
wili at 10:03 AM on 29 February 2016Earth is warming 50x faster than when it comes out of an ice age
Gingerb, could you share your source on those figures?
-
Tom Curtis at 07:36 AM on 29 February 2016Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
hydman1 @58, in all photosynthesis in plants, molecules of CO2 combine with molecules of water to produce sugar and oxygen. This is the general formula:
There are different pathways to achieve this reaction, but the initial and final reaction products are the same for all pathways. Therefore there is no difference in the efficiency of plants in converting CO2 (plus H2O) to O2 (plus C6H12O6).
What there is is a difference in is the biomass of different ecosystemts and/or crops per hectare; and hence a difference in the amount of carbon stored per hectare. That difference, however, is accounted for under the rubric of Land Use Change (LUC).
Building CO2 converters, ie, machinery that takes CO2 and seperates the oxygen from the carbon cannot (due to conservation of energy) use less energy than is produced by burning coal, and due to inefficiencies, will likely use substantially more. Any such solution, therefore, cannot work without the majority of the economy being sustained by non-fossil fuel energy. At that point, it would be simpler, and much cheaper to simply substitute the non-fossil fuel energy for the current fossil fuel energy use.
-
hydman1 at 06:25 AM on 29 February 2016Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
The notion that there is an eco balance to cancel respirated co2 and only co2 emissions from other sources should be considered is rediculous. There is no proof that the crops that replaced other disiduous plants that were growning on the ground before the crops were planted were or are any more efficient at converting co2 to o2. The real fact is that the yield of crops have largley been increased by improved germination, resistance to disease, irragation, and the control of pests as much as the number of acres dedicated to agriculture over the last 50 years. Those changes do little or nothing to affect the co2 consumption by crops. In the US farmland was allowed to remain unplanted in order to reduce food surplus and increase crop futures. The reason that we contiune to hear the bable from environmentalist groups about carbon emmissions is that they are more about self preservation. The notion that population control is the real answer to all these issues is unthinkable to them because for many of the leaders of this cause, that is where there power base comes from. The earth has a finite capacity for filtering out co2 strictly based on vegetation. Maybe we should be building co2 converters instead or shutting down coal if favor of nuclear power or trying to convert to wind which can only work if it was a globally connected power grid. That is decades or centuries away.
Moderator Response:Thank you for taking the time to share with us. Skeptical Science is a user forum wherein the science of climate change can be discussed from the standpoint of the science itself. Ideology and politics get checked at the keyboard.
Please take the time to review the Comments Policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
In particular, please note the "No inflammatory statement and accusations of fraud".
-
There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
SOMMERSWERD - ...And your question is in fact a query about CO2 absorption saturation, which is more appropriately dealt with on the appropriate thread.
Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed link
-
There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
SOMMERSWERD - Actually, I did answer your question. Atmospheric absorption is concentration and hence pressure/altitude dependent, with sea level pressure and concentrations of CO2 absorbing all CO2 frequencies in a matter of meters.
What matters for the greenhouse effect is at what temperature (and hence rate) IR is emitted to space - that occurs at altitude, when there is insufficient CO2 above the effective emission altitude to absorb the majority of the outgoing IR.
Increasing CO2 simply raises the effective emission altitude - and there is in fact solid data showing that over the last 50 years the tropopause where the effective emission occurs has risen a few hundred meters. Given the lapse rate relationship, that altitude change accounts for the observed rise in temps over that period.
So in detail the answer is "it depends on what you're asking". All CO2 frequencies get fully absorbed at the surface (with corresponding thermal emission), the strongest absorption lines continue to absorb a majority of the IR at those frequencies until pressure drops enough to allow >50% through to space, and changes in CO2 concentration simply change that altitude - where again >50% of the emitted IR at those wavelengths escapes the atmosphere. Your question "...how much energy remains to be affected?" is therefore somewhat meaningless without more context.
-
SOMMERSWERD at 05:42 AM on 29 February 2016There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
KR
My question was simple but you have not responded. No discussion; just a question that you do not respond directly.
Moderator Response:[PS] KR pointed you to a more appropriate thread for discussion of question. It is off-topic here. Please take the discussion there. Offtopic discussion will be deleted from this thread.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 04:43 AM on 29 February 2016Earth is warming 50x faster than when it comes out of an ice age
sidd
Sounds like this is new findings from including the fracture mechanics of ice cliffs.Assentially it seems to be saying that an ice edge more than 1000 meters high, so 100 above the water, 900 below, in water 900 meters deep or more is unstable. So a sheet 200, 500, 800 meters thick at it's edge is stable, whether it is floating or not.
The ice in the WAIS is largely over 1000 meters thick then tapers to less than that at places like the Thwaites. So the edge of the Thwaites doesn't suffer from this instability. But if it retreats back into deeper water, where the ice is thicker, it can become unstable. -
There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
SOMMERSWERD - See CO2 is saturated for a discussion of this. The real effects of greenhouse gases take place in the upper atmosphere when the concentrations drop to the level that IR can escape to space, and increased levels of CO2 just raise that altitude. There is no 'saturation' issue.
Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed link
-
SOMMERSWERD at 01:25 AM on 29 February 2016There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
Hi from Spain. I have a question:
"How much of the thermal radiation energy from the Earth in the band centered on the 14.77micron wavelength that is resonant with the vibrational mode of CO2 has already been affected by the current atmospheric CO2 concentration, and how much energy remains to be affected?”
A greeting and thanks in advance
-
tcflood at 15:48 PM on 28 February 2016How Exxon Overstates the Uncertainty in Climate Science
It seems to me that the main problem is that the graph (at least at the scale in the online postings) is illegible for *anyone* and so it invites misrepresentation. It would best be presented as a set of five graphs: four that show all the model results for a each of the four RCPs so as to give a good impression of the scatter of the models; then one graph that shows four *averages* of all the results for each of the RCPs. Such a presentation would be much harder to misinterpret and misrepresent.
-
sidd at 14:07 PM on 28 February 2016Earth is warming 50x faster than when it comes out of an ice age
Interesting. Alley says "decades" for Thwaites ... possibly. First time i heard him say decades. -
Gingerbaker at 07:41 AM on 28 February 2016Earth is warming 50x faster than when it comes out of an ice age
"... a doubling time from a 1mm per year ice sheet contribution to sea level in the decade 2005-2015 would lead to a cumulative 5 meter rise by 2095.""
SLR doubled in 2015 from 4.1mm/year in 2014 to 10mm in 2015. Just sayin'.
-
swampfoxh at 06:58 AM on 28 February 2016How Exxon Overstates the Uncertainty in Climate Science
Up is still up. All of the RCP are "up". I think some of the problem has to do with a person's perception of the impact of a "couple degrees of temperature. With respect to the climate in the dining room on the night your boss is coming over for dinner, a couple of degrees means nothing. Climate scientists know that a, "couple of degrees of global averaged higher temperatures is a "big deal"". So, let us not fret much about the Exxon folks or anyone else that doesn't get it. Keep plugging away at the scientific efforts and the peer-reviewed results and more people will "sign on" to solutions, even if we "extinct-ify most of the human race before we "get there". After all, the globe could use a drastic population reduction...think how much CO2 we wouldn't be pumping into the atmosphere? (There, I've said it) Sorry.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 15:27 PM on 27 February 2016Earth is warming 50x faster than when it comes out of an ice age
wili
Roughly yes. He did think there was still some uncertainty about whether Thwaites is committed to going, and he also thought that it was possibly a century or 2 before is really ramps up, but then it is a multi-decadal rather than multicentury process for the WAIS.
The description of including the fracture mechanics of high ice-cliffs and how that can drive retreat was fascinating/horrifying. And that including that into the ice models 'solved' the Plioscene was telling.Like the best discoveries, once the original realisation that a mechanism needs to be included has been made, in hindsight it can seem like 'well, of course'. But in reality those are important advances in understanding.
It is probably one of those things a layman doesn't question when they see that land terminating glaciers taper down to their end while sea terminating glaciers end in ice cliffs. But when you think it through and realise the implications a lightbulb moment happens. -
michael sweet at 12:36 PM on 27 February 2016Earth is warming 50x faster than when it comes out of an ice age
Why leave out the Arctic Sea ice which is also setting a new record every day for lowest sea ice ? Alan Motorman is using last year's denier meme, there is a reason the deniers are not using it this year.
-
Tom Curtis at 10:47 AM on 27 February 2016Earth is warming 50x faster than when it comes out of an ice age
KR @10, you forgot the Antarctic Sea Ice area, which is currently below the 1979-2008 mean:
And global sea ice area which is currently setting a record minimum area in absolute terms, and one of the lowest anomalies on record:
-
Earth is warming 50x faster than when it comes out of an ice age
Alan_Motorman - What do you mean, the arctic ice caps are increasing? Antarctic land ice is decreasing at ~134 billion tons per year:
[Source]
(see GRACE data up through this year here, only one paper in disagreement, Zwally et al, and there are potential issues with that methodology), Greenland ice decreasing at 287 billion tons per year, Arctic ice is on a steep downward trend (albeit with yearly variations that do not reach statistical significance):
[Source]
There is no way anyone can seriously assert that the ice caps are increasing.
-
Alan_Motorman at 05:03 AM on 27 February 2016Earth is warming 50x faster than when it comes out of an ice age
The artic ice caps are increasing. Water levels will stabilize or even get lower over the next 50 years.
What can offset this trend of cooling is volcanic or methane gas leading to greenhouse affects.
I'm particularly concerned with methane gas pockets under the oceans. Slight temperature variations or earthquakes can lead to these "bubbles" releasing into the atmosphere.
-
wili at 02:31 AM on 27 February 2016Earth is warming 50x faster than when it comes out of an ice age
Thanks for that link, Glenn.
As I understand it, he's saying that Thwaites could destabilize at any time, and whenever it does, it is most likely to go in a matter of decades, leading to a rather abrupt sea level rise of about a 4 meters in the northern hemisphere. That is pretty shocking. Is that your understanding of the message?
-
sailingfree at 02:16 AM on 27 February 2016There's no empirical evidence
We have direct evidence, as the following news article and original paper show.
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
The above describe direct measurement of the incoming and outgoing radiation of the Globe at various wavelengths over a decade, and show that it is directly due to more CO2. -
scaddenp at 12:24 PM on 26 February 2016Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
Can you be more specific about you want? The gory detail can be found in Chapter 6 of the IPCC AR5 WG1 report.
-
Clapper55 at 11:37 AM on 26 February 2016Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
this article is very informative showing how humans are contributing to carbon emissions in to our atmosphere. I would be interested in seeing a more complex version of this showing exactly where natural emissions and man made go.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 09:59 AM on 26 February 2016Earth is warming 50x faster than when it comes out of an ice age
wili
You might find this talk by Richard Alley interesting. Particularly later in the talk where he discusses the Thwaites Glacier. -
John Hartz at 06:19 AM on 26 February 2016Models are unreliable
Tom Curtis: I have neither the time nor inclination to get into a protracted discussion about the details of Frank Shann's posts. Having said that, I believe that the word "simulate" would have been a better choice than "predict" in Dana's OP. "Predict" connotes to the average person the foretelling of something that is likely to happen in the future.
-
Tom Curtis at 01:39 AM on 26 February 2016Models are unreliable
John Harz @981, Frank Shann's premise of (not argument for) the need for effective communication is valid (and well known, and acknowledged). His belief that using only archetypal meanings represents effective communication is just false, something he conceals from himself by not asking the crucial question - what is misunderstood as a result of the use of the word 'predict' by Dana. The answer is nothing - something his survey does not address and he does not address in counter argument.
In constrast, his preferred word, 'describe' would introduce genuine misunderstanding, and has it happens is also not an archetypal use of the term.
Your link supports his premise - ie, that effective communication is important, but has only one bearing on his argument about whether a particular example of communication was more or less effective than alternatives. In fact, it only has one bearing on the topic. Specifically, he is a scientist, as were (in all probability) his colleagues who he surveyed. From your link we learn that scientists are poor judges of effective communication. That is, the linked article undermines his claim to relevant expertise on this issue.
I was prepared to allow his courtious granting of himself the last word @967 to stand, but not if you are going to step in and misrepresent the discussion in his favour.
-
John Hartz at 00:21 AM on 26 February 2016Models are unreliable
Framk Shann has, in my opinion, made a sound argument for improving the way SkS and others communicate the science of climate change. His central point is butressed by a just published editorial by Nature Climate Change, Reading science.
The tease-line of the editorial is:
Scientists are often accused of poorly communicating their findings, but improving scientific literacy is everyone's responsibility.
-
wili at 23:38 PM on 25 February 2016Earth is warming 50x faster than when it comes out of an ice age
Thanks for the clarification, KR. IRRC, Hansen somewhere also said we couldn't competely rule out a doubling time of 5 years. But I don't have the source at my fingertips, so maybe that's my memory playing tricks on me.
I still wonder why one shouldn't just multiply 50 (or 20, or whatever) to the rates given in #s 1 and 2 in my first post to get an approximation of the rates we should expect going forward. I know that there was a lot more ice then in the northern hemisphere, but as I understand it, the Antarctic ice sheet wasn't really in play then. And in any case, wouldn't a lower starting point just be another element to put into the same equation?
-
mwsmith12 at 23:19 PM on 25 February 2016Earth is warming 50x faster than when it comes out of an ice age
The title says "Earth is warming 50x faster than when it comes out of an ice age," but the article says "We’re already warming the Earth about 20 times faster than during the ice age transition, and over the next century that rate could increase to 50 times faster or more."
-
scaddenp at 12:45 PM on 25 February 2016Models are unreliable
I just had a quick look at Mann 2015 where this all started and at CMIP5 website. According to website, the runs were originally done in 2011. The CMIP5 graph is Mann, is the model ensemble but run with updated forcings. To my mind, this is indeed the correct way to evaluate the predictive power of a model, though the internal variability makes difference fom 2011 to 2015 insignificant. The continued predictive accuracy of even primitive models like Manabe and Weatherall, and FAR suggests to me that climate models are a very long way ahead of reading entrails as means of predicting future climate.
I wonder if Sks should publish a big list of the performance of the alternative "skeptic" models like David Evans, Scafetta, :"the Stadium wave" and other cycle-fitting exercises for comparison.
-
FrankShann at 11:53 AM on 25 February 2016Models are unreliable
scaddenp: thanks for taking the trouble to reply, and for the very useful link.
Despite the difficulties, it would be great to have a Skeptical Science resource page that was kept up to date with previous IPCC models (or even just two or three of them) and their forecasts (given the forcings that actually occurred), which would show that the models are accurate. I accept that's very easy for me to suggest, but a lot of work for someone else to do.
I agree about the wilfully ignorant, but surely we need to keep trying. It's one of the important functions of Skeptical Science. Most deniers don't read Skeptical Science, but it's a very useful resource for people trying to persuade the deniers and (more realistically) the undecided. Climate scientists will win in the end - because they're right. Let's hope they win soon enough to prevent catastrophe.
-
scaddenp at 11:06 AM on 25 February 2016Models are unreliable
Rerunning the actual climate models is not a trivial process. Serious computer time for version 4 and 5 models. Hassles with code for pre-CMIP days. However, outputs can be scaled for actual forcings. "Lessons for past climate predictions" series do this. Eg for the FAR models, see http://www.skepticalscience.com/lessons-from-past-climate-predictions-ipcc-far.html
However, I am very doubtful about the possibility of changing the minds of the wilfully ignorant. It seems to outsider, that in USA in particular, climate denial is part of right-wing political identity.
-
sailingfree at 11:05 AM on 25 February 2016Greenhouse effect has been falsified
Direct evidence of CO2 causing warming is in the following news article and original paper.
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
The above describe direct measurement of the incoming and outgoing radiation of the Globe at various wavelengths over a decade, and show that warming is directly due to more CO2.Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed link. Please learn to do this yourself with the link button in the comments editor.
-
FrankShann at 10:47 AM on 25 February 2016Models are unreliable
KR and scaddenp: I understand the role of the RCP scenarios, and that controlling emissions is key - I am not suggesting that either be abandoned.
However, many people don't distinguish between uncertainty in the climate models and uncertainty in the forecasts of forcings - and this is exploited by deniers ("the IPCC forecasts are flawed/too vague/too complex"). In addition, because cycles in some forcings cause a stepwise rise in temperature, deniers are able to pretend that temperature has stopped rising (a pause, or even a permanent pause). Climate scientists explain all this in advance and at the time (and produce The Escalator graph), but many of the public are not convinced (or are misled), and this delays reduction in emissions.
I merely proposed (@974) an extra tool (that complements The Escalator) to remove variations in the forcings from forecasts of temperature, and enable climate scientists to say that the models they produced 10 or 20 or 30 years ago have accurately forecast temperatures in advance given the forcings that subsequently actually occurred.
Would it be possible to go further and calculate what temperatures the FAR model predicted for 1990-2016 given the forcings that actually occurred each year, and the SAR model for 1995-2016, the TAR model for 2001-2016, AR4 for 2007-2016, and AR5 for 2013-2016? Perhaps it's not possible do this - but if it were, it would contribute greatly to answering the question posed by the title of this thread - "How reliable are climate models?" (It might be a good student research project.) And doing it again each year in the future would keep on showing that the models are accurate. Would it be possible to do this?
-
sailingfree at 09:31 AM on 25 February 2016Hansen predicted the West Side Highway would be underwater
When I read the relevant comments on WUWT, I note how successfull his propaganda is. That is, no one seems to notice (or maybe care) that Hansen had a contingency, that is, that CO2 must double.
-
sailingfree at 09:24 AM on 25 February 2016Republicans' favorite climate chart has some serious problems
KR @13 Your RATPAC data for 11,000m is the "Goldilocks Layer"!
Interpolation between the upward slope at the Surface, and the downward slope in the stratosphere, we should expect such a "Goldilocks Layer" with a trend of zero. That is why Christy, Curry, and Cruz cherry-pick the middle troposphere, to claim "not much warming".
-
sailingfree at 08:33 AM on 25 February 2016Surface Temperature or Satellite Brightness?
The preference of Christy, Curry, and Cruz for the mid-troposphere can be explained:
The Earth's surface temperature is in an upward trend. Above the troposphere, the stratosphere is in a downward trend. So by interpolation, in the troposphere is a "Goldilocks Layer" with a level temperature graph. So, "No warming forever!"
-
Tom Curtis at 08:13 AM on 25 February 2016A Response to the “Data or Dogma?” hearing
sailingfree @6, and unnecessarilly repeated @7, there is no such goldilocks layer. The reason is that part of the stratospheric cooling has been due to the impact of CFCs destroying ozone. When manufacture of CFCs was restricted, a regime in which both increasing CO2 and increasing CFCs combined to cool the stratosphere was replaced by one in which decreasing CFCs warmed the stratosphere while increasing CO2 cooled it slightly more. That means the stratospheric trends vary significantly over time, while the tropospheric trends are more or less constant. From that in turn it follows that the goldilocks layer in one time period is not the goldilocks layer in the second. In the moderately near future we will have a third regime of near constant O3 (due to the lack of CFCs) coupled with increasing CO2.
Further, as can be seen in this RATPAC data, the rate of cooling is different in different levels of the stratosphere:
We can compare that with the weighting profile of the TMT MSU channel:
We can then see that, first, in recent years the lower stratosphere has had a flat trend, or possibly even a slightly warming trend. Second, we see that TMT only significantly samples the lower statosphere. It follows that while lower stratospheric temperatures reduce the measured trend from 1979-2015, they have little effect on the measured trend from 1998-2015.
-
sailingfree at 08:13 AM on 25 February 2016Ted Cruz fact check: which temperature data are the best?
AuntSally @9 and BBHY @19. Yes, BBHY. Think about it.
The Earth's surface temperature is in an uptrend. Above the troposhere the stratosphere is in a downtrend. Interpolation would show a "Goldilocks Layer" somewhere in the troposhere with a level temperature plot.
As this article says, "The satellite data are best … if you want the data that show the least warming."
-
mancan18 at 08:11 AM on 25 February 2016Fossil fuel funded report denies the expert global warming consensus
One Planet Only Forever @7 and Jeff T @6
To evaluate a source of information you not only have to understand who the author is, but you need to pay careful attention to the language used, the style of writing and the material used to support the argument. Now, I suspect that some of the Heartland material is not written to seriously participate in the scientific debate. It is written to give a scientific veneer to the reference material used in non-scientific articles written by those who oppose the climate change argument in the popular media. These articles make it easier for denier motivated journalists who have a non-scientific background to make simple dismissive climate change denier arguments in the popular media. I have seen articles, particularly in the Murdoch press and some conservative journals like Quadrant, that use the word "discredited" when referring to John Cooke's Consensus Project. When reading opinion pieces in the Australian Press by the likes of Andrew Bolt, Miranda Devine, and Piers Ackerman, they often use a combination of words that are dismissive of the whole scientific basis for Climate Change without providing any real evidence. When they do provide "evidence", which is not very often, it is from institutions like Heartland and a few scientists attached to Australia's Institute of Public Affairs. I am sure that it is the same with the popular media in Canada, the US and the UK. It is very easy to make dismissive statements in this debate in the popular media. It is very difficult and not so easy for scientists and like minded journalists to refute those dismissive statements in the popular media. It requires the reader to have some understanding of scientific reasoning. Of course in scientific circles, where scientists argue in a scientific manner, dismissive arguments are not so easily made. They require evidence and logical argument. In science, it is the strength of the scientific argument and supporting evidence that wins the day, not necessarily who the author is.
-
sailingfree at 07:56 AM on 25 February 2016A Response to the “Data or Dogma?” hearing
6. Sailingfree I get why the troposhere for a denier:
The Earth's surface is warming. The stratosphere is cooling.
So somewhere in the troposphere, by interpolation, is a "Goldilocks Layer" with a level temperature graph. So "No warming since forever!" can be truthfully proclaimed.
-
Earth is warming 50x faster than when it comes out of an ice age
wili - In that Hansen and Sato 2011 they point out that we shouldn't ignore outlier estimates, noting that "...a 10-year doubling time was plausible, pointing out that such a doubling time from a 1mm per year ice sheet contribution to sea level in the decade 2005-2015 would lead to a cumulative 5 meter rise by 2095."
Note that they don't claim that is likely, but that it is plausible, and in the next paragraph note that "...more plausible but still accelerated conditions could lead to sea level rise of 80 cm by 2100." Note "more plausible" in that sentence. They then go on to discuss strong negative feedbacks as well.
The point they were making in that paper was that we can't at this time exclude extremely high sea level rise, and that more study is needed. They weren't claiming 5m by 2100 was the likely outcome, just that it wasn't impossible - despite multiple out of context claims by climate denialists, which seem IMO to be poor attempts to discredit Hansen.
Prev 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 Next
