Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 Next
Comments 29901 to 29950:
-
mancan18 at 09:51 AM on 15 May 2015Lukewarmers – the third stage of climate denial, gambling on snake eyes
Attaching derogatory labels to opponents of your argument does not promote better understanding in non scientist. It allows your opponents to to stereotype you and then dismiss the worth of anything you say. This in turn polarises the argument to its extremes and eventually leads to a megaphone debate. In a scientific debate, it is the sober, well argued, revealation of scientific information, without resorting to stereotyping of opponents that will ultimately win through, i.e. the information will always trump the stereotype. Also, to convince genuinely skeptical people, rather than the so called climate denier/skeptic/obstructionists, you need good metaphors easily understood by non-scientists, to convince people. In other words SMILE, simple makes it lots easier, is better.
While Sks presents the scientific arguments, sometimes, the complexity of the scientific debate does not make the science easily accessible to the non-scientist. This leaves a chasm for opponents to AGW and CC to use dismissive stereotypes to drive through their scientific misinformation and political rhetoric. The CO2 problem for the Earth is similar to a swimming pool whose chlorine pump is broken. Even though the quantities are small, if too much chlorine accumulates, you will get burnt; if there is too little, you will get algae. In both cases you won't be able to swim in the pool. Other metaphors, like intravenous administration of a drug, again, only trace quantities are used, but too much you will die, too little you will get sicker and may die. The same goes for a fertilizer/farming metaphor. To much you can't grow anything, too little you get weeds. The minute increase trace argument, can be likened to interest rates on an investment account, and the climate models are unreliable argument, might be better counteracted by wondering why they rely on economic models to make their investements which is surely as complex, and not always accurate. There are plenty of simple metaphors to describe the CO2 problem before explaining the scientific complexity of the carbon cycle where the recent rise in CO2 is put into its proper geological context.
To question a scientist as eminent as say Richard Lindzen, there is no need to resort to a label. You can use what he presents scientifically. As I understand it, he predicts that doubling CO2 will only yield a 0.5 degree C increase in temperature, hence of no consequence. However, over the last century we have already seen a 0.8 degree C increase in temperature, while CO2 levels have increased by 40%, hardly a doubling. Without any other scientifically verifiable casuality, I would have thought that this would be enough to negate his key argument, that doubling CO2 is not significant. There is no need to use labels like denier. Leave the labels like warmist, carbonite, leftie, greenie etc. to those whose scientific arguments are so weak that they have to resort to them. Also, I would have thought that the 15 degree difference in the average global temperatures between the Earth, with its 200-300 ppm CO2 (today 400 ppm), and the Moon (zero CO2), and with the paleoclimate evidence, would be enough to address the climate sensitivity issue in the mind of non scientists. Presenting simple scientific inconsistencies in the argument of opponents by using simple metaphors is more likely to promote better understanding than resorting to yet another label.
-
PluviAL at 06:31 AM on 15 May 2015Monthly global carbon dioxide tops 400ppm for first time
@ 1 TomR, Both the Tory win and the battery hope are bad news. The good news is that if we look outside the box that we choose to think in, a solution is still possible for another 100 years or so. Political victory will go increasingly to the anti-climate control side, forever. One could extrapolate species self-extinction from this. People want more cars and junk, and they will do anything to get it. Self-delusion is no problem as we all know. As far as batteries? That’s a weak solution, the assumption is that renewable energy can then power our car cityscapes: 1) Pollution in creating the infrastructure, 2) expansion of demand to meet supply from car cityscape concept. 3) growing world wealth.
The good news is that at 20% of land, deserts represent about 100 million km2. Since they currently only hold less than 2 kg biological Carbon ( C ) per square meter. If these were forested C content could increase to 10 or even much higher, depending on water regimen. A little arithmetic tells us we could accommodate 160 GT into 20% of deserts. If we make them really rich forest, or sequester the biomass into the soil systematically, we can double that to 320 GT, then double the amount of desert we can take out 640 GT. That's greater than the current C budget for 2 degrees right?
The problem is our imagination is nailed down to old ideas, and new ideas must fit inside those old ideas. However, a good carbon-tax could free up our imagination through market mechanisms.
-
SkepticalRaptor at 06:21 AM on 15 May 2015Ask Me Anything about Climate Science Denial
"Scientific consensus" has a distinct meaning in science. It is not a debate, it is solely dependent upon the quantity and quality of evidence published in high level peer-reviewed journals. As I've written before, it is not a debate, it is not an argument. It is only one thing, it is collective agreement by the scientific experts on a particular scientific issue. It is absolutely based on evidence, and evidence alone.
Like "scientific theory", "scientific consensus" has been polluted by the the more common, and less scientific, definitions of these words. In science, a theory is essentially a fact, and a fact that can be predictive. The scientific consensus is not based on a debate amongst 10 scientists in a room. It is not some form of democratic voting. It is just a weighing of the quality and quantity of evidence.
Scientific consensus is what eventually forms a scientific theory, which is predictive in power. Anthropogenic climate change has already achieved a consensus.
The scientific consensus is solid about anthropogenic climate change. If someone wants to refute that, they need to bring real scientific data in the volume and quality that supports the consensus, not logical fallacies or conspiracy theories. -
Ronsch at 05:39 AM on 15 May 2015Ice loss in west Antarctica is speeding up
I'd like to point out that 100 years ago Einstein showed that gravity doesn't attract but rather distorts space which causes objects to move towards each other. Therefore you cannot say "The huge ice sheet has such a large mass that it attracts objects toward it", but rather that it distorts space around it and thus moving the satellite towards it.
-
michael sweet at 05:25 AM on 15 May 2015Lukewarmers – the third stage of climate denial, gambling on snake eyes
It strikes me that people who used to call themselves "skeptics" now often call themselves "lukewarmers". Anthony Watts and many others come to mind. Lundzen in 1989 said that warming would not exceed the noise in the data. Hansen was correct in predicting warming. The "skeptic" brand has been shown to be incorrect. They are trying to continue their stalling by putting on a new hat. How long will it take the mainstream media to see through the new outfit?
-
jenna at 23:43 PM on 14 May 2015Lukewarmers – the third stage of climate denial, gambling on snake eyes
The "Making Science Public" blog (The University of Nottingham) has a very interesting article on the 'Lukewarmer' label, well worth the read.
http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepublic/2015/05/14/lukewarmers/
Moderator Response:[JH] Thanks for bringing this most informative post to our attention. It's authored by Brigitte Nerlich, Professor of Science, Language and Society – Institute for Science and Society, The University of Nottingham. Director of the Leverhulme research programme ‘Making Science Public‘ and PI on ESRC funded project devoted to charting climate change debates.
Nerlich’s blog post has generated a lively comment thread discussion by a number of “luminaries” from Deniersville.
PS - Link activated.
-
Nick Palmer at 23:33 PM on 14 May 2015Lukewarmers – the third stage of climate denial, gambling on snake eyes
I have long suspected that the most voluble deniers, such as Morano, Inhofe, Monckton etc continue to use arguments that they surely know have been debunked for one reason. That is that those sound bite factoids and arguments work very well to sway the minds of the general public, in op-eds, lectures, articles or debates.
Why wouild they want to do that? I think that behind all the out and out antiscience they spout, these people have been secretly convinced by the lukewarmers, such as Lindzen and Spencer, that the ultimate results of us continuing to use fossil fuels won't be very much at all - benefits may balance harm and we'll have enough time to adapt to any harm.
The loudest deniers, I am speculating, are doing it, even though they don't believe it, because inwardly they have been convinced that we don't need to do much, if anything. However, as political animals, they know that selling the public that is a weak flawed message. FUD works better to achieve their ends.
If they told the public that a few scientists claim that the sensitivity is lowe enough that w wouldn't need to bother, they know that the public would then look at Dana's analogy of throwing dice and weigh up the risks of believing the lukewarmers or everybody else. I think most ordinary people are sensible enough to judge what to do. They look both ways when crossing the road, they don't buy outdated food. They wouldn't risk their climate on a minority scientific view.
I have come round to the belief that the danger of trusting in the lukewarmer position is the greatest problem we have. I think science and science communicators need to get that message out far bettre than has been the case previously -
bozzza at 17:08 PM on 14 May 2015It's not urgent
@7, another indicator worthy of attention in my mind is that Bjorn Lomborgs political message was that 3C was a more sensible target... what this indicates I don't like!
-
bozzza at 17:03 PM on 14 May 2015It's not urgent
@6, There was a famous interview/commerical-I-suppose on Youtube a number of years ago(not sure how many) where Dr David Mills was saying there is now no way we can stay under 440ppm....so the information being floated around does seem a little contradictory and the denial brigade can almost be forgiven for driving mack trucks through what seem like gaping holes of information. Yes, it all depends where you go for information of course.
My point was that I'm guessing a lot more than 440ppm is locked in- I'm not sure how This David Mills character came up with his numbers so I am of course merely guessing/being potentially paranoid... the IPCC reports are known to be conservative by nature for instance and there was an article just recently on Sterling Engines being tested in South Africa over the last 4 years... combining this with the new phenomenons of formula-e racing and possibly Virgin competing with Tesla for the electric car market and Tesla itself saying it may just go into producing batteries the world does seem to be displaying something of a turn !
(I could find that video but it may take some searching... the only relevant information was that he though 440ppm was locked in and they didn't know if it was possible to go over the limit and then come back down under at that time but that it would be impossible to not break it in the initial sense!)
-
uncletimrob at 16:58 PM on 14 May 2015Lukewarmers – the third stage of climate denial, gambling on snake eyes
@Neo. I believe that it is hierarchical in the same way that a person can be "situated" in one step of Bloom's Taxonomy for say Maths but in another lower or higher step for another subject, say English. My experience as a teacher suggests that even within one subject a student can move from one step to another depending on the topic.
So, I'd suugest that the people you describe are moving between steps of the denier hierarchy, perhaps depending on their level of understanding of each area of discussion/dispute.
-
Neo at 14:27 PM on 14 May 2015Lukewarmers – the third stage of climate denial, gambling on snake eyes
A very informative scale for climate change denial. However, would you describe it as a hierarchical because I notice deniers I converse with will tend to regress or default to lower levels depending upon the topic or even via their desperation. For example, they might admit to warming in relation to evidence of temperature rises but another time will say the planet has parts that are not warming or that these balance out the warming. It would be interesting to do a longitudinal study of deniers over time to see how their denial progresses and with what frequency they might regress.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 13:58 PM on 14 May 2015It's not urgent
Oh, and regarding "point of no return..." "Point of no return" would likely not be a term anyone would use since it leaves too many loose ends.
We are currently at about 0.8C over preindustrial global temperature, and with thermal inertia we've banked about 1.2C of temperature rise no matter what we do.
That, in and of itself, means there are going to be aspects of climate change that we can't stop and will have to adapt to. After we pass 2C over preindustrial temps we risk passing tipping points where we don't know how much additional warming will result. Researchers are urging us not to pass that 2C limit. At around 0.2C/decade... meh, we have a little bit of time, but we desperately need to be enacting policies now that can keep us below that 2C limit.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 13:51 PM on 14 May 2015It's not urgent
anticorncob6... The writer said concentrations "could" peak around 400ppm, but clearly we're screaming past that level right now. That was written four years ago, and I'd have to say was a very optimistic outlook.
-
Tom Dayton at 12:34 PM on 14 May 2015Ask Me Anything about Climate Science Denial
An intriguing case study in denialism is climate scientist Cynthia Nevison complaining about global warming deniers, but vigorously promoting anti-vaccine crankerism and even being a leader in that "field." Respectful Insolence has details. I truly am intrigued by her case, from a psychological standpoint; John Cook, do you have any thoughts on how she maintains those two contradictory positions?
-
Rolf Jander at 11:55 AM on 14 May 2015Tom Harris' Carleton University Climate Misinformation Class
Vancouver Province is definetly biased against climate science. I was mildly suprised to see my letter made it in at all.
-
Tom Dayton at 11:21 AM on 14 May 2015Ask Me Anything about Climate Science Denial
An interesting list of denialist tactics is on SkepticalRaptor.com.
-
anticorncob6 at 10:00 AM on 14 May 2015It's not urgent
You said here that carbon concentrations will peak at 400 ppm in 2025 under the ideal situation, but it's only 2015 and we're already at 400 ppm, and I see no signs of global emission reductions happening soon. Is this evidence that we will pass the point of no return?
-
scaddenp at 07:26 AM on 14 May 2015What do volcanic eruptions mean for the climate?
That's a very useful little diagram Howard.
-
Jim Hunt at 07:21 AM on 14 May 2015Antarctica is gaining ice
UW/bozzza - Perhaps this is a canonical example?
-
Jim Hunt at 06:39 AM on 14 May 2015Antarctica is gaining ice
UW - Perhaps I'm being naive. but it seems bozzza understands all that. I ultimately understood his question to be "how might one wrap all that up neatly in a catchy headline", or at most a sentence or two.
"Real-politik" rather than "Rignot et al."?
-
UltimateWarrior at 04:42 AM on 14 May 2015Antarctica is gaining ice
bozzza, Re the data you reference regarding 2D ice extent increases in Antarctica, the 3D ice mass budget studies indicate large accelarations in the rate of 3D ice loss (mass not 2D measurment).
See the article SOTC: Ice Sheets, which refernces these studies (Rignot et al. 2008).
The 2D ice extent in the Arctic (north pole) indicates a downward trend.
-
Tom Dayton at 02:10 AM on 14 May 20152015 SkS Weekly Digest #19
Black humor for today at the New Yorker:
Scientists: Earth Endangered by New Strain of Fact-Resistant Humans.
-
howardlee at 01:54 AM on 14 May 2015What do volcanic eruptions mean for the climate?
Just to note that this article relates to 'normal' volcanic eruptions. Regular visitors to this site will recall there have been several articles on Large Igneous Provinces that have occurred rarely in Earth's past, were colossal, and which generated dire environmental consequences including global warming. Some article links: here and here and here.
LIPs are an altogether different phenomenon than normal volcanic eruptions.
There have also been Supervolcano eruptions much larger than 'normal' volcanic eruptions (but much smaller than LIPs) as summarised by the USGS here.
I put together this handy dandy graphic so people can get an idea of the relative scale of these things. The area of each circle represents the volume of lava erupted.
Moderator Response:[RH] Resized image. Remember to keep images down to 500px.
-
greg_laden at 01:37 AM on 14 May 2015What do volcanic eruptions mean for the climate?
Nitpick: Maybe change the first sentence of the post to indicate that Calbuco erupted on April 22, 2015, rathe than last night.
-
DSL at 01:17 AM on 14 May 20152015 SkS Weekly Digest #19
Follow-up to HK on GISS L-OTI for April:
— 2nd warmest April (2010 - .85)
— 14th warmest month (tied)
— 2nd warmest 12-month period
— The last five 12-month periods have been top five warmest
— 2nd warmest 6-month period (last four are top four)
— Warmest 36-month period (last four are top four)
-
HK at 23:26 PM on 13 May 20152015 SkS Weekly Digest #19
GISS has released their April data: +0.75°C.
The average so far this year has been +0.79°C (record!), and the last 12 months +0.73°C (also record!).
Most forecasts predict a strengthening of the ongoing El Niño, so 2015 will almost certainly become the first year warmer than +0.7°C, and maybe even warmer than +0.8°C. The following months will be very interesting!
-
MA Rodger at 22:47 PM on 13 May 2015Climate's changed before
skeptic1223's over-enthusiasm for linking present-day CO2 levels to some threashold CO2 level which allowed the era of ice-ages to kick off appears to have run its course. Yet he did present one aspect of climate that seldom gets discussed.
skeptic1223 began his input way up @420 with the observation that orbital forcing had become a bigger feature of climate since the inception of the Arctic glaciation by creating higher ampitude oscillations in the global temperature record. The graphic below (derived from Lisiecki & Raymo (2005) Fig 4) was presented @423 by way of illustration.
Such apparent increases in ampitude do support the idea of an increase in climate sensitivity in some manner as in the long run orbital forcing cycles are constant in size. Such forcing is large at specific latitudes while small globally. To suggest this increased ampitude (and thus increased sensitivity) is somehow a function of CO2 levels is of course wrong. But it does beg the question - why doesn't this increased ampitude in oscillation make ECS vary with temperature/Arctic glaciation?
My view of this is that to calculate the sensitivity of climate to orbital forcing from what appears a hysteresis loop could be used to show big sensitivity changes but these would not be very helpful for our purpose of finding ECS under AGW. Thus the slow feedbacks of albedo, CO2, methane, etc. are considered as forcings rather than feedbacks to allow a meaningful ECS to be calculated.
The reference cited by AR5 in this matter is PALAEOSENS Project Members (2012) which states:-"Astronomical (orbital) forcing is a key driver of climate change. In global annual mean calculations of radiative change, astronomical forcing is very small and often ignored. Although this obscures its importance, mainly concerning seasonal changes in the spatial distribution of insolation over the planet, we propose that the contribution of the astronomical forcing to (the climate forcing) may be neglected initially. When other components of the system respond to the seasonal aspects of forcing, such as Quaternary ice-sheet variations, these may be accounted for as forcings themselves."
This accounting of slow feedbacks as forcings is a reason for ECS only accounting for fast feedbacks.
-
HK at 17:44 PM on 13 May 2015Monthly global carbon dioxide tops 400ppm for first time
Phil Plait has a very clear message about this topic here.
-
uncletimrob at 17:42 PM on 13 May 20152015 SkS Weekly Digest #19
Is it just me that gets some amusement/bemusement from the fact that Newsel did not bother to post to the moderator suggested links? I seems that one statement of misinformation is much better than actually educating ones-self.
-
chriskoz at 12:41 PM on 13 May 2015Monthly global carbon dioxide tops 400ppm for first time
CBDunkerson @5,
in another year or so we'll hit 400 ppm as the annual average
Note the trend column in the monthly data, which just topped 399 in March. So, at current rate of over 2ppm/y, the trend will hit 400 in jsut 5-6months, very likely sooner than in a year.
As for your FF future assessment, unfortunately, there are big areas where FF cannot be replaced by renewables yet, e.g. transport, esp. aviation. That's why oil and gas still have future beyond your decadal limit. I agree with you with respect to coal: it's use as the source of energy should've already been superceded by cheper and cleaner renewables, political will being the biggest barrier at the moment.
-
bozzza at 12:02 PM on 13 May 2015Tom Harris' Carleton University Climate Misinformation Class
Newspapers are biased: it's hard not to be when all human relations is tribal.
Saying that a well worded short letter to the editor is hardly ever published because it can't be easily edited: hence the success of online forums and the associated troll phenomenon! Saying that well worded short letters than can't be easily edited into non-meaningful blather have real bite but only over time.. go democracy!
-
Rolf Jander at 11:42 AM on 13 May 2015Tom Harris' Carleton University Climate Misinformation Class
Tom wrote a letter to the editor of the local paper where I live. It was an anti Earth day piece. He made secveal common denialist points. I wrote a rebuttal refuting each point he made (very easy) but only about half of my short letter made it into the paper. It was the Vancouver Province.
-
scaddenp at 10:36 AM on 13 May 2015GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
Interesting article http://www.vox.com/2015/5/12/8588273/the-arguments-that-convinced-this-libertarian-to-support-a-carbon-tax
on what convinced a liberatarian and his solution.
-
wili at 23:38 PM on 12 May 20152015 SkS Weekly Digest #19
Good points, utr. If events alone could sway people's minds, states like Oklahoma and Texas, which have been through harrowing droughts recently, should be in the forefront of climate awareness.
But as it is, they host some of the most backward thinking people and senators in the Union.
-
SirCharles at 23:22 PM on 12 May 2015Ice loss in west Antarctica is speeding up
Also => Sea Level Rising Faster. Ice Loss Speeding Up.
Moderator Response:[RH] Resized video. Please try to keep the image width to 500px as anything above that breaks the page formatting for this website.
-
Tom Curtis at 22:16 PM on 12 May 2015Climate's changed before
skeptic123 @463, looking at the Vostock data another way, I examined in detail each of the four transitions from inter-glacial to glacial in the Vostock data. From each such transition, I determined the minimum interval for the transition, calculated as the time from the most recent relevant datapoint above -2 C to the time of the first datapoint following which was below -4 C. The relevant intervals were, from oldest to newest:
3426 years (average rate of decline = -0.006 C per decade)
4399 years (average rate of decline = -0.005 C per decade)
2654 years (average rate of decline = - 0.008 C per decade)
2028 years (average rate of decline = -0.01 C per decade)
(Note: the rates of decline are for a regional temperature value. Global values would be about half that.)
No matter how many times you repeat the quote, the data does not support it. Further, science proceeds by evidence, not by out of context quotation (which is rather the mark of pseudoscience).
Now, it is possible that the scientists who made that claim define an "ice age" as any period with a temperature anomaly less than x, where x is -0.5, or -0.1, or some other arbitrary value. It is also possible that they consider temperatures of x + 0.5 C as "a warm climate". In that case, what they say is true, trivial, and so vague without the specification that that is how they interpret their words, and a specification of x as to be useless. If you want to use the quote, it is therefore incumbent on you to find out the exact interpretation the authors give to the words.
Absent that effort, however, it remains that the data directly contradicts the claim supposedly based upon it. So, if you are not prepared to make the effort to provide the context of the quote on whose authority you rest, it is incumbent on you to follow the data. Failure to do so simply demonstrates that you accept data only if you think it supports your position. Worse, it shows that you present data that in fact falsifies your position as supporting it, and refuse to acknowledge the detailed examination that shows that the data refutes your position. Again, those are the hallmarks of pseudoscience.
Long experience has shown that debating with pseudoscientists is completely unprofitable in that their positions are not based on reason and evidence, and therefore cannot be altered by either reason or evidence. I also think that the complete divorce of your opinions from actual data is sufficiently evident to any interested readers that I do not need to spell it out again. Consequently I will ignore your responses in future until such time that you start correcting your position based in the actual data.
Moderator Response:[JH] Your above comment is actually directed at skeptic1223.
-
bozzza at 22:10 PM on 12 May 2015Antarctica is gaining ice
I am saying it makes the fight to have climate science recognised by the trolls more difficult, yes!
-
Jim Hunt at 21:35 PM on 12 May 2015Antarctica is gaining ice
bozzza@391 - So you're seeking a punchy "elevator pitch" that addresses the misleading headlines of Nova et al.?
And/or suggesting that this article needs updating to include the 2014/15 numbers? -
Rob Painting at 19:47 PM on 12 May 2015The Carbon Bubble - Unburnable Fossil Fuels - Seminar and Discussion
Rolf - oxygen makes up about 21% of Earth's atmosphere and CO2 about 0.039%. Furthermore, we know life has flourished prior to the addition of fossil fuel CO2 to the atmosphere by humans so, if we could bring back to a pre-industrial level, there would be ample oxygen available for plant and animal life.
There's no need to worry about CCS other than that it is so far as useful as the tooth fairy and unicorns.
-
uncletimrob at 17:52 PM on 12 May 20152015 SkS Weekly Digest #19
@ Will. It will be interesting to see how "natural variabilty" (eg El Nino) is viewed in western Queensland which is already suffering a drought. My - admittedly limited with some friends who live in Roma - experience is that their political leanings prevent any discussion that the climate is changing and that these extended droughts may become the norm. I certainly feel their pain as their livelyhoods are destroyed, but dissociating politics from science is a hard one in a tough, unforgiving (climate wise) region.
-
wili at 16:10 PM on 12 May 20152015 SkS Weekly Digest #19
BoM just called it: "the Bureau's ENSO Tracker has been raised to El Niño status"
-
bozzza at 12:50 PM on 12 May 2015Antarctica is gaining ice
Ok, I was just saying the numbers look weird and I think that is worthy of considered comment as to why.. I haven't understood the meaning of statistical significance but as far as sea-ice area graphs of Antarctica are concerned the last few results seems to be worth talking about.
I get the mechanisms discussed but the real-politik of statistics and publicly inspired meaningful thresholds cannot go unanswered.
-
Rolf Jander at 12:31 PM on 12 May 2015The Carbon Bubble - Unburnable Fossil Fuels - Seminar and Discussion
CCS worries me because CO2 is two thirds oxgen. CO2 in the air could eventually be used by plants and the oxygen returned to us. If it is locked away forever we have lost that oxygen and reduced the atmosphere as a whole. Let's just focused on reducing the production of co2.
-
scaddenp at 12:15 PM on 12 May 2015Antarctica is gaining ice
I not entirely sure I understand your concern. As far as I can see, the article is comparing Winter Antarctica seaice (no climaticalogical effect because it happens when the sun isnt shining), versus Summer Arctic sea ice (where the loss is significant due to reduce albedo). The skeptic narrative is that northern hemisphere warming is more than matched by southern hemisphere cooling (sea ice as evidence). However the narrative fails because sea ice increase isnt due to SH cooling - the Antarctic is warming too. Its just that real situation is more complicated.
A better comparison is to compare the climatological effect from sea ice albedo between hemispheres. Tamino did that here - compare that with the rather deceptive approach at Nova.
-
denisaf at 12:04 PM on 12 May 20152015 SkS Weekly Digest #19
Climatologists are obtaining copious amounts of evidence of unusual events such as icebergs melting, ocean currents changing, etc, etc. to be taken into account in models and in the logical arguments to arrive at a sound view of what is almost certainly happening, global atmospheric warming with associated ocean heating and acidification.
The unsubstantiated beliefs of deniers of irreversible, rapid climate change caused largely by the emissions from the combsution of fossil fuels are not making a contribution to the understanding that would help society to adopt mitigation measures. Are they proud of their malfeasance?
-
bozzza at 10:19 AM on 12 May 2015Antarctica is gaining ice
I'm not denying the article is helpful in explaining that ozone depletion is causing wind increases and melting of land ice plus rain increases are freshening the Southern ocean changing the layers so that warm and cold waters don't mix like they once did... I'm simply saying the numbers look curious.
-
MA Rodger at 04:52 AM on 12 May 2015Climate's changed before
skeptic1223@470.
"It doesn't directly," you write. Indeed it doesn't make that assertion at all.
Now you are asserting that "we know that 3 million years ago CO2 concentrations were the same as today's." You provide a quote from a livescience blog but is your assertion supported by this livescience blog? The answer is "no".
If you could be bothered to examine the Scripps posting referenced by your livescience blog, you will see that it talks of "The Pliocene is the geologic era between five million and three million years ago. ... It is trickier to estimate carbon dioxide levels before then(800kybp), but in 2009, one research team reported finding evidence of carbon dioxide levels ranging between 365 and 415 ppm roughly 4.5 million years ago." So this citation is actually a little early for our purpose and the range of CO2 level has mostly been left behind by today's anthropogenic emissions.
Perhaps you can find some support for your assertion elsewhere. But then do bear in mind the actual age we are interested in is the point that Arctic glaciation kicked off which I believe was 2.7Mybp. -
Jim Hunt at 03:33 AM on 12 May 2015Antarctica is gaining ice
In which case doesn't this very article answer your question in great detail?
If not you will need to elucidate in much greater detail!
-
rocketeer at 02:21 AM on 12 May 20152015 SkS Weekly Digest #19
I find it amusing that deniers (recently) admit the climate is changing but claim it has "always changed". Of course, the climate has changed in the past, but it has not "always changed" in the sense that there have been long periods of relative stability/very slow change in the recent and distant past. But the really telling thing about this argument is the implicit acceptance of the paleoclimate research that identified dramatic climate change events going back as far as hundreds of millions of years. Of course, these are bona fide research results which should be accepted in the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary. But these same deniers will scoff at paleoclimate reconstructions going back only a few thousand years and showing that the recent onset of global warming is highly unusual, unexpected and unexplainable in the absence of AGW theory.
So I put the question to Newsel: Is paleoclimatology a legitimate science or not? If not, quit claiming that the climate "has always changed" because there is no evidence for that outside of paleoclimatology. If it is legitimate, then you must accept the work of Mann, Marcott and many others who have proven that the recent GW event does not look like a natural event and can only be explained by human GHG emissions.
-
michael sweet at 01:43 AM on 12 May 20152015 SkS Weekly Digest #19
It might be interesting to open a thread where people can post old quotes from deniers claiming that the climate is not changing. They used to argue that climate was not changing. Now they claim that:
"The reality is that the climate changes and that no one on either side of the debate argues otherwise."
It might not be necessary to have an OP, just a place where people can put links to old quotes. I recall that Lindzen testified to congress in 1989 that the climate would stay the same. WUWT claimed the climate was not changing until a few years ago. Singer still claims that change is natural and the climate is not changing at the same time.
Prev 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 Next
