Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 Next
Comments 27451 to 27500:
-
Tom Dayton at 10:37 AM on 31 August 2015There's no empirical evidence
Tom Curtis, the odd phrasing of Dilley's bio leaves unclear whether he actually got a B.S. or an M.S. Normally people list "B.S. Meteorology," or "B.S. major in Meteorology," and "M.S. Meteorology, emphasis on climatology." Instead Dilley wrote "studies for B.S." and "studies for M.S." It's possible to audit graduate classes, and in some schools to even take them for credit, without being in that school's Masters program. So maybe he took classes but never got his B.S., or got his B.S. but never got his M.S. His misunderstanding of what causes seasons is evidence that he was incapable of getting either degree.
-
Tom Curtis at 10:01 AM on 31 August 2015There's no empirical evidence
Rob Honeycutt @288, David Dilley claims on his website to have an MA in meteorology, and to have worked with the US Air Force and then NOAA as a meteorologist. He also claims only two, self published papers on climate, so no peer reviewed publications at all. His masters thesis appears to not have been published.
What I find interesting is his claim that:
"Global temperatures have cooled during the past 12 months. During 2008 and 2009 the first stage of global cooling will cool the world’s temperatures to those observed during the years from the 1940s through the 1970s. By the year 2023 global climate will become similar to the colder temperatures experienced during the 1800s."
The research justifying the claim is supposedly contained in an e-book for which his website no longer provides links. The prediction was made no later than August of 2008, so it predicts continued cooling in 2009 to "temperatures ... observed during the years from the 1940s through the 1970s". For the record, 2009 was 0.1 C warmer than 2008. It was also 0.6 C warmer than the 1940-1979 average, and 0.46 C warmer then the 95th percentile of 1940-1979 global temperatures (GISS LOTI). No year since 2008 (when the prediction was made) has been as cool as, let alone cooler than 2008.
For his 2023 prediction to be valid, global temperatures must fall by more than 0.1 C per year for eight years running - a rapidity of temperature change not witnessed at any time in the modern record. No doubt that prediction will be a bust as well.
As a predictions of global temperatures, these are among the most spectacular fails ever seen. It is also inconsistent with his claim to be a reliable predictor of short term climate and ENSO states in general. Consequently it is no surprise to find no archived copies of his predictions at his website. We 'know' he is a successful predictor only because in 2015 he tells us what his predictions for the years up to 2015 were.
-
DSL at 09:25 AM on 31 August 2015There's no empirical evidence
Oh, and ringingrocks, if you are actually skeptical (not simply doubtful), you might want to reverse your research process. Start with the basic physics and work from there.
-
Tom Dayton at 09:22 AM on 31 August 2015There's no empirical evidence
Oh, and we already are on our way to that 2025 catastrophic global low temperature, Diller claims, because global temperature peaked in 2012 and has been cooling ever since. Really, that's still on his web site.
-
Tom Dayton at 09:08 AM on 31 August 2015There's no empirical evidence
ringingrocks: The credibility of David Diller is low, given that he claims to be able to accurately predict ENSO events (El Nino & La Nina) and hurricanes four years in advance, yet does not show his past predictions versus the realities, despite him having been in his business for 25 years. He also claims to accurately predict earthquakes. And claims that in 2025 global temperatures will hit a catastrophically major low. And then there is this astonishingly wrong claim that a grade schooler could correct, but which apparently is a key basis for his predictions: "The gravitational cycles of the moon and sun cause the seasonal tilts of the earth's axis and the 4 seasons."
-
Rob Honeycutt at 08:42 AM on 31 August 2015There's no empirical evidence
ringingrocks... Your video from David A. Dilley is rather long and wide ranging, but has a large amount of incorrect information. You can easily go through each of the myths listed on the top left of this blog page and see responses to each and every issue.
Overall, best I can make out, Mr. Dilley does not have the credentials that he claims. A quick search on google scholar doesn't turn up any published research by a DA Dilley on any climate related issue. You're probably better served by sticking with actual researchers in the field of climate science.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 08:38 AM on 31 August 2015Arctic sea ice has recovered
ringingrocks... This is probably not the appropriate thread to be asking general questions about climate change. This thread is specific to Arctic sea ice. I will post a response on the "Empirical evidence" thread.
-
ringingrocks at 08:24 AM on 31 August 2015Arctic sea ice has recovered
Hi folks. I'm trying to get my head around the climate change science. I tend towards being sceptical, I am open to updating and correcting mu opinions. There's been a lot of sensationalism about this topic, and the reporting has flip-flopped all over the place for years. So I ran across this video on youtube that seems worthy of consideration. If any of you have some time to have a look and share your thooughts, I'd be grateful. Thanks.
-
Tom Curtis at 08:13 AM on 31 August 2015It's cosmic rays
Quikplay, if you read carefully, you will see that the myth is that "It is cosmic rays" that is causing the current warming, or more correctly, it is a paucity of cosmic rays that cause the warming. There is no claim that it is a myth that cosmic rays exist. Nor is there any claim that it is a myth that cloud extent effects global temperatures. Nor is there any claim that it is a myth that cosmic rays seed clouds.
As to your anecdotes, yes it snowed in July on Hawaii at 13,000 feet. At that altitude, with the normal lapse rates temperatures are 26 C less than surface temperatures due to altitude. As it happens, the temperature in Hawaii at sea level on the day of the snow (July 17th) was a 90 F (32 C) maximum, and 79 F (26 C) minimum, 2 and 5 F above average respectively. Noting the average July minimum temperature, it is evident that snow in July on the mountain peaks is a rarity primarilly due to lack of thunderstorms early in the day to lift the humidity that high.
As to Calgary, on average it snows in August in Calgary every ten years or so. And you want to count that as evidence of a "mini-ice age"? As somebody just said, "lol feeling stupid [much]?"
Meanwhile you are ignoring the massive, and extended heat wave in the state of Washington, the heat wave in the heat wave in Pakistan that killed 2000 people, and the heat wave in India which caused the deaths of 2,500 people, as well as the heat waves in Europe, and China. In fact, you ignore all the evidence that show 2015 to be the hottest year todate by a large margin, which along with a significant El Nino is causing predictions 2015 will be the warmest year on record:
So please, no more demonstrations of your complete lack of reading comprehension (ie, your persistent and obtuse misidentification of the myth); and no more cherry picking.
-
PhilippeChantreau at 08:10 AM on 31 August 2015It's cosmic rays
That's it already? Down with GCRs and jumping to the next thing? How boringly typical. Two suggestions, if you want to discuss the role of the Sun:
1-go to the appropriate thread
2- drop the YouTube horse puckey and start with published scientific litterature.
-
qikplay at 07:34 AM on 31 August 2015It's cosmic rays
can you comment on the correlation between the sun and climate and the graph they show that shows the correlation.
Moderator Response:[RH] The correlation was faked by Durkin.
[TD] Also, read the SkS post "It's the Sun"--the Basic tabbed pane, then watch the video lower on that page, then read the Intermediate one, then the Advanced one. If you want to comment further on the Sun, do so on that thread, not this one.
-
qikplay at 07:33 AM on 31 August 2015It's cosmic rays
wtach from 30minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-m09lKtYT4
Moderator Response:[RH] I think you need to watch this video that shows how Durkin fraudulently altered the materials, to the point where even skeptics complained.
[TD] Also watch the video by Peter Sinclair, on that Durkin's fake documentary and in particular his fakery regarding the Sun and cosmic rays.
-
BBHY at 07:23 AM on 31 August 2015How to make sense of 'alarming' sea level forecasts
I feel like the question of whether the new study from Hansen's group is accurate is not the right question. IMHO the right questions are:
1) Is is possible that the study is correct?
2) Even if it is not, willl sea level rise be great enough to cause us serious trouble?
3) How confident are we with the answer to #2?
4) After the sea rises, is there anything we can do to reverse it?
The answers are 1) Yes, 2) Yes, 3) Very 4) No.
Hence the urgent need to cut CO2 emissions as soon and as much as possible.
-
PhilippeChantreau at 07:16 AM on 31 August 2015It's cosmic rays
Qikplay, your lists of anecdotal blurbs is not even funny. Have you even tried to figure what the global temperatures have been so far this year? And last year, the warmest on record? With the immense majority of glaciers receding and loosing mass all over the world? It seems that your participation here is another thing not deserving of any attention. It seems the snow in Calgary has not prevented the region from enacting a fire ban. And what was the wildfire season like this year in Canada again? Do you honestly think that, on a website where scientific evidence is discussed, you rantings would have a chance to sway anyone? An ice age eh? Illustrated by a Arctic sea ice once again below average by more than 2 standard deviations? Makes perfect sense right?
Per environement Canada, the long term trend 1948-2013 for winter temperatures is +3.2 degrees C. The annual average has increased by 1.6 degrees over the past 67 years. Some ice age that is. Personally I think that moderators summarily delete such obvious nonsense as your last post.
-
qikplay at 07:11 AM on 31 August 2015It's cosmic rays
no clear evidence for GCRs actually being a significant factor
Yes, but that's a far cry from 'doesn't exist' dont you think?
Moderator Response:[RH] Your concern has been addressed already, saying that GCRs are responsible for global warming is the myth. You're going to have to find a way to accept that and move on. Repeating the same error is considered sloganeering is not allowed here.
-
PhilippeChantreau at 06:58 AM on 31 August 2015It's cosmic rays
It's even worse than Rob suggests. The hypothesis is that GCRs seed clouds and that the resulting cloud cover modulation is a forcing, i.e. responsible for the current warming. Not only there is still no clear evidence for GCRs actually being a significant factor in nebulosity, but the recent GCR count shows an increase, which would mean more cloud and a cooling effect. This whole idea that GCRs influence the climate is a joke, coming from people so desperate to distract attention that they will grasp at the most feeble of straws. It does not deserve any attention whatsoever.
-
qikplay at 06:53 AM on 31 August 2015It's cosmic rays
OK, sorry for the rude all caps shit..
BUT (whoops) You don't say something is a 'myth' then admit that it's not a myth in the first paragraph of your commentary! what are you thinking.. it's not a myth, rather its extent a bone of contension between you and other scientists, pundits etc..
you don't say something doesn't exist, oh but actually it exists just not that much.. big difference there and talk about being misleading perhaps you should take this off your 'myths' section lol feeling stupid?
and the reason its not responsible for the recent warming is that there is recent cooling like snow in calgary in august, snow in hawaii in july, polar vortex in 2014..how long do you think you can keep up this sham that the mini-ice age isn't really happening? (snip)
Moderator Response:[RH] Please be more careful. I'm going to drop out of commenting here and just moderate. You really need to go carefully read through the commenting policy before continuing to post.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 06:45 AM on 31 August 2015It's cosmic rays
qikplay... The myth would be that GCR are responsible for warming of the past 50 years. That GCR are "not very effective" at seeding clouds suggests that they are, in fact, not responsible for recent warming.
-
ivor at 06:07 AM on 31 August 2015New paper shows that renewables can supply 100% of all energy (not just electricity)
Also much larger turbines are being built and at 140 meters their capacity factors usually exceeds 60%. Furthermore the wind at that height is available in many more locations.
-
ivor at 06:02 AM on 31 August 2015New paper shows that renewables can supply 100% of all energy (not just electricity)
I'm a bit late to these comments too. The idea that renewable energy needs rare earths is outdated. As somebody already pointed out it is not used in normal solar panels. What has not been mentioned is that modern gearless wind turbine magnets only use .7% or less dysprosium and will soon use none. The neodymium may be considered rare but there is an endless supply throughout the world making the term "rare" not appropriate. For reference read the last three paragraphs of this BBC article: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26687605
-
qikplay at 05:22 AM on 31 August 2015It's cosmic rays
I like the way you write this, "The body of scientific research has determined that GCRs are actually not very effective at seeding clouds."
'not very effective' so it's not a 'myth'
don't say it's a myth and then admit that it's not a myth in the first paragraph of your editorial! That's called a fallacy of logic, something you people seem to excel at.Moderator Response:[Rob P] - All caps edited out - please note the comments policy that you agreed to adhere to when commenting here.
As for logic: note that the rebuttal points out that GCR's have increased in recent decades -which should have seeded more clouds and induced a cooling effect. Instead the Earth has warmed dramatically. The bottom graphic is very unintuitive though.
-
Jim Hunt at 22:42 PM on 30 August 2015New paper shows that renewables can supply 100% of all energy (not just electricity)
scaddenp et al.
Arriving at this discussion somewhat belatedly, it seems appropriate to point out at this juncture that Ricardo said recently they have designed a low cost, rare earth free EV motor:
-
TonyW at 18:06 PM on 30 August 2015The 1C Milestone
I would put it this way: "Safe" ≠ "benign."
Yes, indeed, Rob. It also appears to be true that 2C is not necessarily safe; there is no science which says it is. Kevin Anderson has said this and James Hansen has said this.
We may already be in unsafe territory at 1C (maybe 2C) with more already built in and, as ranyl pointed out, aerosols are masking some of the rise, so any decrease in burning fossil fuels (or maybe even a slowing of the increas), though necessary long term, could make matters worse over the medium term. To my mind, we're already in the non-benign range.
-
PluviAL at 15:50 PM on 30 August 2015How to make sense of 'alarming' sea level forecasts
SLR (sea level rise) estimates can only rise. A ratchering process in estimates is due to the trained conservatism of scientists, and the political make up of the IPCC pannel. As such, we must develop technologies to control SLR. We need to expand our sense of what is possible because we will have not choice SLR and agricultural inhospitability are programed into the world unfolding. To deny the possiblity of creating solutions is unwise.
-
suckfish at 15:02 PM on 30 August 2015How to make sense of 'alarming' sea level forecasts
Charlie, the source is hyperlinked, https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/unfccc/cop19/3_gregory13sbsta.pdfGuessing from the URL the linked version is a "COP19" paper rather than the actual AR5 report.The AR5 text does gives the 1993 - 2010 numbers, and "1.7 [1.5 to 1.9] mm yr between 1901 and 2010" (which is very similar to the 1901 - 1990 figures above). -
One Planet Only Forever at 13:57 PM on 30 August 2015Tracking the 2C Limit - July 2015
Bozza @ 22 and 23,
My reference to mountain climbing was an attempt to avoid the confrontational response often generated when I say that the real problem is the business operators, investors and consumers who prefer the perception of prosperity they have when they can get away with obtaining what they want quicker or cheaper (the quickest and cheapest way to do or get things is usually the least acceptable way it can be gotten away with, involving higher risk of damaging consequences to others).
The real problem is the way the free actions of people in the free market encourages businesses and consumers not to care about how unacceptable their personal pursuits of perceptions of prosperity are. It even leads them to consider any point made about the unacceptability of their perceived or desired prosperity to be a personal threat.
So, as I see it, the real problem is the way that socio-political-economic systems that determine acceptability of an activity based primarily on popularity and profitability encourage the development of activity that all others cannot be allowed to benefit from (people compete to benefit the most from those limited opportunities). It also encourages the development of activity that creates consequences for others with investors and consumers doing anything they can get away with to avoid personally suffering the full deserved consequences of their risk taking pursuits of pleasure and prosperity. Those who get away with being the least acceptable win the most.
The unacceptability of already fortunate people getting even more benefit from burning fossil fuels is not the only developing better understanding that challenges the perceived prosperity of many of the wealthiest and most powerful. But of all the developing better understandings of the unacceptability of 'developed human enterprise' the climate change challenge clearly affects the largest amout of illigitimately developed perceptions of prosperity. And it generates the expected perception of threat and expected response to a threat by those who feel threatened by it.
That undersanding is the best explanation I have for the popularity of the lack of action to date to avoid the creation of more significant problems for future generations. It is why the achievable 1.5C limit (easily achieved if the wealthiest seriously tried to do what should have been started 25 years ago), was never seriously attempted to be achieved. And it is why 2C and 3C and 4C and 5C would also not seriously be attempted to be achieved.
Collectively, the success of unacceptable pursuits of what people want is, and always has been, the most serious challenge facing humanity. And this climate change challenge has increased awareness of how deliberately unacceptable many of the wealthiest and most powerful actually are.
-
Digby Scorgie at 13:38 PM on 30 August 2015Tracking the 2C Limit - July 2015
Rob @29
Yes, that's much better: keep as close to 2 degrees as possible (even when we exceed it).
As for a definite zero-point for the temperature anomaly, this is something I've wanted for a long time. I love it. I just wish that henceforth the IPCC standardize on it too.
-
Charlie A at 11:22 AM on 30 August 2015How to make sense of 'alarming' sea level forecasts
What is the source of Figure 13.3e shown in this article?
The figure in WG1AR5 doesn't have the 1901-1990 and 1993-2010 boxes or show the rates for those periods. The AR 5 figure is at www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/images/Assessment%20Reports/AR5%20-%20WG1/Chapter%2013/Fig13-03.jpg
It shows tide gauge records, which don't show the 3.2mm/yr recent rise .... that only shows in the satellite record, not the tide gauge record.
Please show a 3.2mm trend line from 1993 to 2010.
One can easily look at the chart and see that there is not a doubling or rate in the data presented. (I believe the data is Church and White 2011 and Jevrejeva et al. (2008). The purple and blue appear to be paleo/salt marsh data.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 09:50 AM on 30 August 2015Tracking the 2C Limit - July 2015
Tom... I'm hoping, if I just keep posting this month-after-month, eventually more authoritative researchers and institutions will establish an agreed upon measure of preindustrial temperature. Who knows, they may never even notice this but it's certainly worth a try.
As you say, this is probably good enough for where we are now. I think you're also right that it's worth noting that the 1880-1909 baseline may not account for some additional preindustrial warming. I'll include that for the next update.
-
Tom Curtis at 08:38 AM on 30 August 2015Tracking the 2C Limit - July 2015
TonyW @28, Rob Honeycutt @29, the article by David Spratt uses Mann et al 2008 (cited as Mann, Zhang et al*), although he does not specify whether or not he used the CPS or EIV reconstruction. He also used a 1750-1779 baseline unlike the 1736 - 1765 baseline I used @11. Further, it is not clear whether or not the Mann 2008 data was renormalized for the NOAA dataset. For a more direct comparison, I get a 0.135 C temperature increase from the 1750-1779 baseline relative to GISSTEMP, and 0.148 C if normalized using the EIV reconstruction.
Curiously, in his article Spratt links to a chart indicating research on paleotemperatures which does not contain Mann et al 2008 (and indeed, which contains primarilly NH temperature reconstructions, and in at least one case a NH extra-tropical temperature reconstruction):
For comparison, here is the Mann 2008 global EIV reconstruction:
The key point from this is that the uncertainties in paleoreconstructions are such that preindustrial temperatures could be greater than the 1880-1909 average (by as much as 0.1 C), but are far likely to be less than that average. Indeed, they could be 0.4 C below that level. Given this, there is nothing wrong with just using the 1880-1909 average a a preindustrial estimate. It is worthwhile noting, however, that that baseline is likely to give a low estimate of the temperature increase since the preindustrial.
(* In the citation of Mann et al, 2008, Spratt mistyped the page number as 14252, whereas it is actually 13252)
-
Rob Honeycutt at 01:49 AM on 30 August 2015Tracking the 2C Limit - July 2015
Digby @27... Psychologically speaking, I think it's probably important to keep referencing 2C even when we go over that line, rather than start thinking about avoiding an even higher number. Rather than talk about 4C, talk about how close we can keep temps to 2C, else 4C will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
TonyW @28... I've seen Mann make this argument before, and I'm sure he's correct. It's just hard for me to (currently) justify making that adjustment to the baseline without specific data to base it on. I had thought about this when creating the graph, but decided to stick with a 30 year baseline that's as close to pre-industrial as I could get with the available GISS data.
-
braintic at 23:16 PM on 29 August 2015Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
Giaever has made a new address to the Lindau Nobel Laureate 2015 meeting.
Here is a link to the video:
Here is a link to my rebuttal of his speech:
His speech is full of poorly researched data which does not represent what he says it does.
-
TonyW at 19:36 PM on 29 August 2015Tracking the 2C Limit - July 2015
Regarding the 2C limit, James Hansen had this to say in one of his recent missives, "Why have policymakers turned away from GHG amount to temperature as the metric with a value (2°C) seemingly pulled from a hat? Could it be because 2°C allows politicians to set emission targets to be achieved in the future when they will be out of office?"
Regarding baseline, what do you make of this article (look for "it's hotter than you think") that claims surface temperature in 1750 was 0.2C less than the 1880 baseline? If it's right, we're already at 1.2C above pre-industrial. -
mancan18 at 17:08 PM on 29 August 2015Here’s what happens when you try to replicate climate contrarian papers
Tom Curtis @13
I am well aware of the works and the scientific approach of Roger Bacon and also that Aristotle was not just some simple philosopher who didn't study any science using empirical evidence. I am also aware that Greek philosophers like Erastothenes did make observations and used them in empirical ways, like for instance, estimating the circumference of the Earth. Yes, my statements were simplistic, but that was because I did not want give a full account of the development of modern empirical science. As for Newton, I am also aware that he spent more time on religious works and alchemy than he did on the scientific and mathematical studies that caused the revolution in the science that now underpins the modern world. The development of modern science is not a black and white affair where suddenly alchemists become chemists, or astrologers become astronomers. My main point is that at the cusp of the 17th century the study of science was done mostly by deeply religious men and was more used to verifying what was in the Bible, than about what the real world was actually like. It is true that if it weren't for the observations of Brahe, Kepler would not have been able to refine the Copernican theory. In fact, Brahe was so much a believer in the Ptolemic view of the motion of the planets because of his religious beliefs and his faith in the teachings of Aristotle, that he developed his own geocentric theory to account for the anomalies of planetary motion rather than simply accepting the Copernican view. As for Kepler, he spent most of his life trying to fit the planets into a geocentric model where the orbits fitted the platonic solids. He abandon his ideas because the actual observations, Tycho Brahe's observations, of the real world did not fit his theory. It was only then that he introduced ellitical orbits into the Copernican model. This was truly a new way of thinking for the time, as he had to abandon deeply held beliefs that he had gained through his religious faith. The vast majority of scientists of this time were highly religious and their scientific efforts were to enhance religious belief and glorify the church. This period is truly unique in that at the beginning of the 17th century, science was done mostly by religious men and used more to verify the prevailing religious orthodoxy. By the end of the 17th century, science was more focussed on the real world and what was actually being observed, i.e. done for its own sake. The Galileo story is just a part of that narrative, and yes he did have contray views to what was generally accepted at the time. However, most of what was accepted was because it verified the religious teachings of the church. Galileo's assertions were not based on religious orthodoxy, although it was obvious from his treatment that there were some religious figures who were sympathetic to his views.
-
Digby Scorgie at 15:04 PM on 29 August 2015Tracking the 2C Limit - July 2015
One Planet @ 21
I think a misunderstanding has been committed! I meant that it is probably impossible to make an accurate portrayal on the graph of the amount of lag in the system, given that it might be anything from 0.3 to over 1.0 degrees.
Of course humanity needs to make every effort to avoid dangerous climate change. If we can't avoid 2 degrees, we should at least be trying our utmost to avoid 4 degrees of warming.
-
Tom Curtis at 13:00 PM on 29 August 2015Here’s what happens when you try to replicate climate contrarian papers
mancan18 @12, your account of the advance of science is too simplistic. It neglects the strong emperical vein in Aristotle's philospophy, which he put into practise especially as regards biology. It also neglects the development of that empericism by Roger Bacon (considered by some the inventor of modern science). It also neglects that the early scientific revolution developed out of medieval scientific enquiries, best illustrated by the fact that Newton's research in fact mirrored that of Roger Bacon.
Worse, you demonstrate an oversimplistic idea of empericism in science. It was the geocentrist Tycho Brahe that was the great observational astronomer, not Copernicus. And his 'refutation' of Copernicism stood at least in part on emperical grounds, notably the absence of stellar paralax (predicted by Copernicus), and initially by a wrong relation with regard to the parallax of Mars. While Copernicus's theory was in some ways emperically superior, was "intrinsically no more accurate than Ptolomy's", and commonly predicted "errors of a day" in the timing of lunar eclipses, not to mention the wrong length of year. (Kuhn, The Copernican Revolution p 288)
Likewise Galileo's theories faced emperical falsification from the start, predicting only one tide per day (for instance).
The fact is the transition from scholasticism to science was a messy affair. We cannot deprive Galileo's contemporarys of the mantle of scientist just because they were geocentrists, or employed some scholastic arguments unless we wish also to exclude Copernicus (who argued for his theory based on the "perfection" of the circle") and Newton (who was also an alchemist).
-
mancan18 at 09:18 AM on 29 August 2015Here’s what happens when you try to replicate climate contrarian papers
M Tucker at @5 and Ger@6
I think you will find that at the turn of 16th and 17th century when Galileo lived, that there was little scientific evidence for any theory. Science at that time was more philosophical, based on the thinking of Aristotle. This way of thinking came from the Greeks who preferred to philosophise. They used to just sit around and think about things rather than make actual observations and do experiments to collect data that supported their theories. The prevailing scientific method at the cusp of the 16th and 17th century was to only propose theories that reinforced the Bible. The vast majority of the "scientists" at the time studied in monasteries or were alchemists trying to convert lead into gold. Copernicus was a monk and proposed his heliocentric theory as an alternative to the Ptolemic biblical geocentric theory only as an interesting thought exercise which he saw as a much simpler explanation. He supported his heliocentric ideas with geometry but was too afraid to publish until he was on his death bed. It is no coincident that the spread of the Copernican theory to scientists like Galileo was only possible due to the recent invention of printing. This allowed ideas and findings to be spread more widely. Galileo at least made observations and collected evidence. His work on falling bodies was certainly unique since the prevailing Aristolitean scientific view at the time was that heavier objects fell faster that lighter objects. And we already know that through his observations of Jupiter and the Moon through his recently developed telescope, he gathered evidence of the correctness of the Copernican theory. This correctness was further refined by Kepler, also a deeply religious man, through proposing that the planets moved in elliptical orbits, a position that took him 20 years to come to using the highly accurate data collected by Tycho Brahe, who incidently still believed in a biblical geocentric theory. The whole issue, heliocentric versus geocentric, was finally put beyond all doubt later in the 17th century by Newton, incidentally another deeply religious man, with his Theory of Gravity and the invention of Calculus using the co-ordinate geometry that had recently been proposed by Descarte. Galileo was one of the first scientists who used a modern scientific approach (hypothesise, propose a theory, create experiments, observe, collect data, and test) to justify his ideas. This is quite unlike the many so called "scientists" at the time who were more philosophers who conducted few expirements, collected little supporting data and preferred to use the bible as evidence to justify for their ideas. Galileo was a modern scientific thinker unlike most of his contemporaries. The Galilean story just shows that all scientific ideas are the meticulous work of many scientists pursuing a common truth.
Theories, where the observations and evidence are contry, are thrown out. Theories, where observations and evidence are supporting, are further refined and become increasingly accepted as scientific truth until there is only one scientifically indisputable piece of evidence that can falsify the theory. In climate science, the contrarians have not found a single piece of evidence that disproves the fundamental scientific idea that rising greenhouse gases will warm the planet. Also, they have not proposed a single coherent alternative scientific idea, nor provided a single piece of indisputable evidence that explains why the current warming is happening. All they have provided are some interesting distracting talking points, which, so far, have only served to further reinforce the idea that AGW and CC is actually happening.
Just asking. What are the views of the primary scientists who actually collect the data from the primary sources (i.e those on the ice flows gathering the ice core data, those collecting the glacial retreat data, those gathering the sediment data, those collecting the carbon dioxide data, those actually creating and verifying the climate models etc.)? Are there any contrarians amongst the primary scientists who actually collect the data, or are the contrarians only found amongst the secondary scientists who use the data collected by others, in an effort to debunk the basic AGW and CC proposition?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:09 AM on 29 August 2015Tracking the 2C Limit - July 2015
bozzza @ 22 and 23,
We are probably thinking similar thoughts.
My point remains that it is not appropriate to declare 2C unachievable making the task impossible, therefore not to be attempted to be met.
The wise mountain climber will turn back rather than take the risk of attempting to summit a mountain when conditions are not favourable. The risk taker pursuing glory is more likely to die, never to reach the summit, or any others. That wise one gets to try again.
Unlike that experience, this pursuit of change to the way that humanity determines what is acceptable and permitted cannot take a break just because the current socio-political-economic conditions appear unfavourable.
Also, unlike a risk taking mountain climber who is the one to suffer the consequences of their thrill seeking irresponsible risk taking, the irresponsible pursuers of benefit for themselves from the burning of fossil fuels (chasing after undeserved perseptions of prosperity), create consequences faced by others.
That understanding of the unacceptability of risky, damaging and ultimately unsustainable pursuits by people who will not likely suffer the consequences of their grabs for personal benefit any way they can get away with needs to become common understanding ... forevermore.
-
You can’t rush the oceans (why CO2 emission rates matter)
Another great SKS article.
I remember when reading James Hansen's "'Storms of My Grandchildren" that he said at some point the oceans would slow down their uptake of CO2. I also remember being a bit surprised that he didn't seem to know when or at what rate this slowdown would happen. Is this because the 6 points of the domino effect of ocean chemistry and climate are too complicated to model or otherwise work out?
-
Tracking the 2C Limit - July 2015
This is a great idea. Maybe the graph could become a box on the right hand side of the home page, and if you click on it you go to the latest monthly update.
I reckon there's room on the graph for a pointer to the bottom of the CO2 graph giving the level there, a pointer giving the level at about 1940 and one at the end of the graph giving the current/latest value.
Maybe regarding the already committed 0.3 C (or 0.5 C - notice the space before the C) have an arrow along the 30 year trend line with a pointer saying 'Already committed"? I'm not sure about this last one.
-
denisaf at 16:21 PM on 28 August 2015Tracking the 2C Limit - July 2015
It is interesting that politicians and the media here in Australia talk in terms of the 2 deg C as being a limit as though it is possible to keep the warming below that limit if emissions are reduced drastcally globally. This view leads to misunderstanding in two regards. Firstly, there is already copious evidence that irreversible climate disruption and ocean warming and acidification is under way. Secondly, so long as there are greenhouse gas emissions the degree of atmospheric warming will increase even though some of the emissions will continue to be absorbed in the oceans.
-
bozzza at 15:52 PM on 28 August 2015Tracking the 2C Limit - July 2015
.. if a mountain climber were to be subject to groupthink: what would happen?
.. if a globalised patchwork of supposed democratically inspired superlatives were to think they added up to a clue: what would be the discoursive result?
WE DEMAND baked beans in absurdly small tins let alone the shelled crustacens that do oceanic distances to reach our fat-cat pensioner mouths: the mountain is our ego and once it gets smashed the problem is solved and people actually died for this!
No one cares: that's the problem.. there is no respect for what grandma and Grandpa went through to get us here!!!!!!1
-
bozzza at 15:43 PM on 28 August 2015Tracking the 2C Limit - July 2015
Dear OPOF,
Can we please forget the fallacy of the wise mountain-climber always climbing the mountain?
As someone famous once said: "Not all metaphors bear close examination!"
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:08 PM on 28 August 2015Tracking the 2C Limit - July 2015
Digby Scorgie @20,
Let me try to explain why saying "the task is impossible" is not applicable to this issue.
The task is to raise awarness of the change of human activity that is required for humanity to have a good chance of developing a lasting constantly improving future for all humanity (which requires a robust diversity of other life on this planet).
The 2C target is an aspiration and not in the sense of making it to the summit of a mountain. Unlike mountain climbing where the wise climber will 'give up the ascent when conditions clearly are not in favour of success', this is a matter where it is essential to achieve the best possible result (which, by the way, a wise mountain climber will be able to do and the risk takers will not), because the consequences of giving up or taking the risk are truly unacceptable (there will be no 'next chance to reach the summit' and others in the fuure will suffer the consequences of the joy-ride of the thrill seeking risk-taker).
-
Digby Scorgie at 13:41 PM on 28 August 2015Tracking the 2C Limit - July 2015
Dear Moderator, I thought the correct way to annotate the graph is relevant, but okay I'll go on to something that is:
I too would like to see some way of indicating the inherent lag in the system. However, I've seen estimates of 0.5 degrees already built in, not just 0.3 degrees. I've also seen comments to the effect that 2 degrees is now unavoidable. Uncertainties like this probably render the task impossible.
And before signing off, I'll quickly interpolate my defence (excuse?) regarding Celsius: I did say "a few decades" ago!
-
scaddenp at 10:37 AM on 28 August 2015Here’s what happens when you try to replicate climate contrarian papers
Looking at the "many scientific contemporaries" this conjectures that it would be less than a dozen. However, one of them was Kepler. I dont think any contemporary would-be-Galileo has someone in the same order supporting them.
-
Ed Wiebe at 01:25 AM on 28 August 2015Tracking the 2C Limit - July 2015
Digby, The only exception made to the space convention is for degrees, minutes, and seconds, °, ', " the symbols for the unit(s) of plane angle. °C is the the symbol for a specially defined SI derived unit "degree celsius". Yes, it's not an SI base unit but it is a clearly defined "derived unit". I agree that this detail is principally a style convention but it's a good one to follow. Number_space_unit.
It's very clearly laid out in this text from the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM). http://www.bipm.org/en/publications/si-brochure/section5-3-3.html
See also http://www.bipm.org/metrology/thermometry/units.html#si-brochure.
It's also explained clearly in documents from NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) for those who prefer a USA centric reference.
[And don't get me started on the way people embed C for carbon in units of mass or concentration or what not. That's completely wrong and adds to confusion rather than clarifies.]Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed link. Please use the link button in the editor to create links.
And please, no more. Dont derail this thread with offtopic discussion.
-
jja at 01:12 AM on 28 August 2015Tracking the 2C Limit - July 2015
We are waking up to the fact that the 2C limit is untenable for continuity of an integrated global modern society.
http://cleantechnica.com/2015/08/26/world-must-almost-completely-decarbonize-in-next-35-years-to-tackle-climate-change/Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed link. Please use the link button in the editor to create links
-
knaugle at 00:43 AM on 28 August 2015New paper shows that renewables can supply 100% of all energy (not just electricity)
@Michael Sweet
My numbers for Nuclear power are accurate and for wind power are reasonable. For nuclear power, average capacity factor (including outage time) has hovered right at 90%.
As for wind power, I still think 25% is a reasonable estimate, though there are numbers out there that are all over the board:
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=22452
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_States
Also several sources of data from 2008 suggest Europe was struggling to meet even 20%. So as we add wind turbines, there is the liklihood that as less optimal locations are selected the current USA CF declines from the current values.
Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed link. Please use the link button in the editor to create links
-
chapeaured at 00:37 AM on 28 August 2015Here’s what happens when you try to replicate climate contrarian papers
When you look closely at the surveys of the most qualified climate scientists — those actively doing research and publishing their results in peer reviewed journals — you find 97 to 97.5% who believe that the climate is warming and that man is a major cause and only 1% who reject this finding. The other 1.5 to 2% are the fence sitters — the undecided.
Prev 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 Next
