Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 Next
Comments 39001 to 39050:
-
Dikran Marsupial at 21:34 PM on 4 February 2014OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
vonnegut
(1) again you have missed the point that saying that a coral reef can withstand a particular range of pH over the course of a day does not mean that they can withstand the more permanent change of that size that would result from OA. You still have not addressed this point.
BTW "Acidification" means to become more acidic, if you go from a pH of 12 to a pH of 11, that is more acidic, and less alkaline, even though both pHs are alkaline. Please no quibbling on this point, it has been addressed repeatedly.
(2) You wrote "(2) well apart from sunlight and water what else do algae need?" they need nutrients other than carbon, oxygen and hydrogen, just like any other organism consisting of proteins. Thus the factor limiting growth of algae is not necessarily carbon dioxide. My objection is relevant as it is the answer to your question.
(3) you STILL have not specified the annual mean pH gvining the working range for coral and your answer is yet more evasion.
@41 "no it isn't does it need to be". Yes, that is the way scientific discussion works, if a direct question is posed, you give a direct answer, and admit when you are in the wrong rather than engaging in evasion. If you want to have a rhetorical argument instead, then evasion is sufficient, but you will find that it won't go down well here.
Scientists don't use "may" to be deliberately vague, they use "may" when the evidence is anything but completely unequivocal. The article you post states that OA is projected to cause coral dissociation, and contains no statement that casts doubt on that projection. This means that trying to use it to suggest otherwise is quote mining.
-
Vonnegut at 21:19 PM on 4 February 2014OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
@ 39 No it isnt, does it need to be? "may" sounds about as vague as it gets. No evidence it will or it wont.
-
Vonnegut at 21:14 PM on 4 February 2014OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
(1) Sorry I missed the "mean" but a 15 degree change in mean temp is not the same as a change in ph changes we are discussing. thats equivalent of the sea becoming acidic which its not.
(2) Ive ignored the point because its not relevant, whatever else they need is there already obviously or we wouldnt get algal blooms would we?
(3) extremes of ph will have more effect on life than a change in mean
nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?org=NSF&cntn_id=130129&preview=false
iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/2/024026/article
Some fauna seems to do well with more food available
-
Dikran Marsupial at 20:54 PM on 4 February 2014OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
vonnegut @ 37 Sorry that is plain evasion, I asked a straightforward question, to which the answer is "no, the opening sentence of the abstract is not refuted by anything in the paper", but you were not able to acknowledge that. This gives the strong impression that you are just trolling. Life is too short to waste discussing science with people who can't admit to shortcomings in their arguments. I suggest we all ignore vonnegut.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 20:51 PM on 4 February 2014OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
vonnegut
(1) I said much of UK flora and fauna would be unable to withstand a 15 degree change in MEAN temperature, of course they can and do withstand that sort of variability over the course of a day. I suspect the last time mean U.K. temperatures were 15 degrees lower than today, much of the country was under an ice sheet. Do you think that U.K. flora and fauna could withstand that?
(2) you have just completely ignored the point on this one. I said that algaes need more than carbon, oxygen and hydrogen to survive, you have not addressed that point in any way.(3) Ph may vary around the globe, but then again so does the flora and fauna, which are adapted to local conditions, so you still haven't established that OA will not take sea creatures out of their "working range". Lets make it easy and stick with the barrier reef, what is the working range for the barrier reef in terms of annual mean pH?
-
Vonnegut at 20:43 PM on 4 February 2014OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
@35
It uses the scientific get out clause "may"
I wonder how they can tell the difference between natural and anthropogenic co2?
-
Vonnegut at 20:34 PM on 4 February 2014OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
(1) yes its one location among the barrier reef one of the most diverse sources of tropical aquatic life on the planet , If Uk flora and fauna are not tolerant to 15c change they wouldnt be in the UK so I would call them tolerant.
(2) No the planet would explode but thats not relevant. co2 is food for algae if its not used by them directly, its used in building the reefs
(3) Its the sea, its alkaline, across the globe it varies between those figures.
www.ukmarinesac.org.uk/activities/water-quality/wq9_6.htm from around the UK look at the differences
-
Dikran Marsupial at 20:29 PM on 4 February 2014OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
BTW, the first line of the abstract of the paper voneggut mentions reads as follows: "Ocean acidification is projected to shift coral reefs from a state of net accretion to one of net dissolution this century", is this projection explicitly refuted anywhere in the paper? Not as far as I can see.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 20:20 PM on 4 February 2014OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
vonnegut
(1) that is one location only, it is also variation over one day, that sort of variability does not mean that a change of that size in mean pH is tolearble. In the U.K. temparatues often vary by 15 degrees C or more during the course of 24 hours. That does not mean that all of our fauna and flora are tolerant to a change in average temperatures of 15 degrees C.
(2) if you increase the amount of oxygen in the air to 100% do we use all of it? No. Algae do have requirements for other nutrients, they are not wholly composed of carbon, oxygen and hydrogen.
(3) again that applies for one location only, and as I pointed out the variability is diurnal, so it is not a reasonable guide to the "working range".You have not yet provided evidence that actually justifies your position.
-
Vonnegut at 20:09 PM on 4 February 2014OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
(1) Lady Elliot Island reef flat (Great Barrier Reef, Australia)
can range from preindustrial values pH 8.6 to future ocean acidification scenarios pH 7.6) over the course of a day.www.biogeosciences.net/10/6747/2013/bg-10-6747-2013.pdf
(2) well apart from sunlight and water what else do algae need?
(3) For the working range for the ocean we could use the figures above i.e alkaline
-
Dikran Marsupial at 19:48 PM on 4 February 2014OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
vonnegut, in your post at 31 you make several unsupported assertions, please provide references to support the contention that:
(1) creatures are well adaptend to variability in pH. I don't doubt that some creatures are well adapted, but that does not mean that all are well adapted. If you want to argue that this is not a problem, it is incumbent on you to provide the evidence that changes in pH will not result in ecologial change.
(2) More Co2 means more food for algae which coral need to survive. You need to show that CO2 is the rate limiting factor for this to be relevant.
(3) drop in pH is going inside the working range not outside it. This is a very specific claim, please provide references detailing the "working range".
-
Vonnegut at 19:31 PM on 4 February 2014OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
The reason Im questioning is because ph and temp are very variable in the oceans, creatures are well adapted to that variability, for instance ph can and does change with the tides sometimes over 0.8 ph, there is also the fact more co2 is more food for algae which coral need to survive. The drop in ph is going inside the working range not outside it.
-
Rob Painting at 19:14 PM on 4 February 2014OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
Vonnegut - "@27 yeah easier said than done when you have a bank account."
......Or know how to use Google apparently. A free copy is available here: Extensive dissolution of live pteropods in the Southern Ocean - Bednarsek (2012).
As for CO2 in the Southern Ocean during the last ice age - that's somewhat of a mystery. How was it stored? What caused it to be released back into the atmosphere? We don't yet have suitable answers for that.
If, as suggested, this CO2 was stored in the Southern Ocean (in whatever form) and then vented into the atmosphere as the Earth warmed it would have become well-mixed in the air and thus raised the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere. Consequently more CO2 would dissolve into the oceans - lowering pH in the surface ocean.
It only seems counterintuitive to you because you are (I suspect) thinking the CO2 (supposedly) stored in the Southern Ocean during the last ice age is well-mixed throughout the surface ocean. That's not correct, and is not the idea put forward.
-
chuck101 at 19:05 PM on 4 February 2014A Historical Perspective on Arctic Warming: Part One
Maurice Winn,
I too have trouble with parsing your "land mass surrounding the Arctic area is ill defined comment". After looking very carefully at both maps, sure there are a few areas of difference along coastal inlets, but they are minor innaccuracies. Certainly not enough to dismiss the whole 1938 ice reconstruction as innaccurate.
Also, there are better ways to analyse the data than just eyeballing it. Did you even read the main part of the post?
This is typical of "Fake Skeptics", trying to use minor discrepancies to discredit anything to do with Global Warming. Also, there are better ways to analyse the data than just eyeballing it. Did you even read the main part of the post?
Just looking at the map shows a massive loss of ice by 2012, and I really can't believe that you can't see it. A visit to Spec Savers is required perhaps?
-
Vonnegut at 18:22 PM on 4 February 2014OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
After the ice age I guess the oceans outgassed co2 as the seas would have been almost saturated due to temperature? wouldnt the sea then be closer than we are today to ph neutral?
-
Vonnegut at 18:16 PM on 4 February 2014OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
@27 yeah easier said than done when you have a bank account.
-
jja at 16:12 PM on 4 February 2014Warming oceans consistent with rising sea level & global energy imbalance
Tom,
I wasn't selecting the data for any reason except to duplicate the graphic produced in Nuttecelli 2012. in this effort I was (mostly) successfulclick for larger image
http://oi57.tinypic.com/2iu2gs9.jpg years 1978-2008http://oi62.tinypic.com/2jfg4tk.jpg years 1978-2048
-
Why rainbows and oil slicks help to show the greenhouse effect
Thanks, for the correction, Tom.
I'd read David Randall's "Atmosphere, Clouds and Climate" last year, but clearly need another go-through for it to begin to stick. Maybe this time I'll work through some of the equations instead of just filing them under "more greek symbols".
-
Tom Curtis at 14:12 PM on 4 February 2014Warming oceans consistent with rising sea level & global energy imbalance
jja @49:
1) I did not consider the 2002-2008 period because it was significantly less than a decade. If even decadal values are eratic, as is apparent, than a seven year interval is also going to be eratic, and not necessarilly projectable for future trends.
2) I did not question your calculation of the correct values for the episodes you chose. I questioned your projection from three decadal averages when decadal averages obviously vary substantially depending on start date. Decades are obviously too short a period to be projectable on this data.
3) If you want to project the data, you need to calculate the change in heat year by year over the whole interval, and find which curve is the best fit to that data. (Make sure you use a test that accounts for the loss of simplicity by introducing greater curvature to the fit.) Reducing the data to three decades when the choise of a different three decades on which to make the fit would radically alter the result is not good science, and not informative.
-
Tom Curtis at 14:03 PM on 4 February 2014Why rainbows and oil slicks help to show the greenhouse effect
bf @8, clouds are (depending on thickness) almost perfect black or grey bodies in the IR spectrum. That is, they absorb and radiate equally at all IR wavelengths. So also does the ground and and water at the surface. In contrast, CO2 and H2O in gaseous form only absorb and radiate at certain wavelengths. Satellites designed to observe clouds will almost certainly have instruments tuned to wavelengths at which CO2 and gaseous H2O do not absorb. That is so that clouds at even low levels of the atmosphere can be detected. Consequently, while the satellite imagary of clouds you link to is impressive evidence that the upper troposphere is cooler than the surface, it is not evidence of the greenhouse effect. Of course, evidence that altitude cools is abundant, the most obvious example being snow capped mountains.
All else being equal, the greenhouse effect would actually cool the atmosphere with altitutude faster than it does, but convection results in a much warmer upper troposphere. Howeve, convection by itself would also cool with altitude. The reason is simple conservation of energy. As gas particles rise higher in the sky, they gain gravitational potential energy. Because of conservation of energy, that energy gained must come from somewhere else, and typically comes from the kinetic energy - that is the energy of motion plus energy of vibration - of the molecules. If the rising air column contains water vapour, the water vapour will precipitate out as it cools, also providing energy, and therefore allowing a slower loss of temperature with altitude.
Below the tropopause, vertical transfer of energy via convection dominates over vertical transfer by radiation. The result is that the loss of temperature with altitude is governed by convection and the loss of latent heat as water vapour precipitates, such that the loss of temperature with altitude would be the same even with no greenhouse effect.
-
jja at 13:14 PM on 4 February 2014Warming oceans consistent with rising sea level & global energy imbalance
Tom,
why did you not include the 2002-2008 value of .73?
The calculation of flux that you use is full of assumptions and neglects significant potential errors, plus it is unnecessary. The total heat accumulation, averaged over the decade yeilds the average TOA flux for that period. correct?
The change in average decadel flu that you list is total AF forcing, right?
Again, I don't see why that is important. The total net heat content increase in Nuttecelli produces the average TOA value for the time period.
I checked the climateskeptic letter to PLA and found their algorithm to TOA asTOA = 0.62[d(OHC)/dt] I used this to check my math and found the following average forcing values to match my calculations.
decade average TOA
1978-1988 9.32E-02
1988-1998 2.17E-01
1998-2008 5.90E-01The correct function that graphs these values is the binomial that I quoted in 46. (y=.1243*x^2 - .2485*x +.2175)
The first order derivative of the function shows the instantaneous decadel rate of change of TOA. (y=.2486*x - .2485) -- The rate of change of TOA at the end of each decade.The binomial function produces the following average TOA values for each year as noted:
TOA 1983 0.0933, delta = .0933
TOA 1993 0.2177, delta = .1244
TOA 2003 0.5907, delta = .373
TOA 2013 1.2123, delta = .6216
TOA 2023 2.0825, delta = .8702
TOA 2033 3.2013, delta = 1.1188
TOA 2043 4.5687, delta = 1.3674The (average decadel) rate of change of TOA for each year is
dTOA/dt 1983 = 0.1244
dTOA/dt 1993 = 0.373
dTOA/dt 2003 = 0.6216
dTOA/dt 2013 = 0.8702
dTOA/dt 2023 = 1.1188
dTOA/dt 2033 = 1.3674
dTOA/dt 2043 = 1.6160which happens to equal the delta values shown above.
Moderator Response:[PW] Unnecessary white space removed.
-
Why rainbows and oil slicks help to show the greenhouse effect
Doug, the link to Met Office's world IR satellite imagery might help to make the greenhouse/IR link clear to people. Looking at it in this season, Australia provides a good example of hot land, and overlying cloud tops being much cooler due to the warmth being trapped at lower levels due to the greenhouse action of water vapor.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/satellite/ shows the world, but you can click to select parts of the planet, and look at differences between daytime and nighttime, too.
-
Matt Fitzpatrick at 10:50 AM on 4 February 2014Why rainbows and oil slicks help to show the greenhouse effect
It's not just physics that's studied infrared (IR).
In chemistry, the interaction between IR and matter is studied in great detail. Today, IR spectroscopy is routine in any chemistry lab. It helps identify unknown compounds, because we know which IR absorption peak shapes (similar to Figure 4) correspond to many types of bonds between specific atoms. Even a C student in undergrad organic chemistry can tell an alcohol from an aldehyde by glancing at the IR signatures.
How would those who deny the basic physics of IR-matter interaction propose we identify chemical unknowns? Look them up in a scratch and sniff index?
-
Tom Curtis at 09:47 AM on 4 February 2014Warming oceans consistent with rising sea level & global energy imbalance
jja, from table 1 of Nucutelli et al, we have the following average TOA energy imbalance for various periods:
Interval------ Flux
1970-2008--- 0.31
1980-2008--- 0.37
1990-2008--- 0.46
2000-2008--- 0.53From that you can calculate the total energy input over the intervals 1970-1979, 1980-1989, 1990-1999, and 2000-2008, and from them the average flux in W/m^2 over those intervals, which are in order:
1.36 W/m^2
1.99 W/m^2
3.97 W/m^2
4.77 W/m^2The last three of these approximately correspond to the three intervals you examine @45, but vary significantly from them. In particular, your 1978-1988 average is less than half of the 1980-1989 average, despite the very substantial overlap. Looking at the graph shows the disparity arises primarilly from your choice of start year, which is obviously well above trend. There is not suggestion this was a deliberate cherry pick. Rather it results from simply taking each successive decade back from the final year. Never-the-less, it does mean your result is primarilly the product of a short term fluctuation.
Using the figures from the table, the change in average "decadal" TOA flux (with, of course, only 9 years for the final "decade") are:
0.63 W/m^2
1.98 W/m^2
0.8 W/m^2These values certainly do not support your quadratic curve. Indeed, I doubt they can be sensibly extrapolated. Given all values in the data, a sensible fit might be obtained, but it would clearly not support increases in the TOA energy imbalance of 0.3 W/m^2 per decade.
It should be noted that the 1970-2008 rate is 0.31 W/m^2. It is possible that the authors intended to quote this rate, and mistated a rate as an acceleration.
-
Tom Dayton at 08:23 AM on 4 February 2014Corals are resilient to bleaching
Vonnegut: Temperature of ocean water is not the only factor affecting the pH of the oceans. Among other factors, an important one is the partial pressure of CO2 in the air. You've already been pointed at the thorough explanation in the series of posts OA Is Not OK. Read them, please, and if you have relevant questions after reading, then post questions there.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 07:38 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Vonnegut... Out of 8500 emails sent out we received responses from 1500 scientists.
For an email blast, 15% is a very high response rate! Remember, researchers tend to be under paid and over worked. Lots of them are going to be out doing field research at any given time (when you're working in Antarctica on an ice core, you're not spending a lot of time going through emails). Lots of the emails are going to have just been bad addresses. Lots probably went straight into spam filters.
Most mass email blasts would expect less than 1% response rate. Anything over 1% would be considered highly successful. The fact that we got a 15% participation rate suggests to me, exactly what you're saying, that scientists believe this is a very important issue.
-
Vonnegut at 07:32 AM on 4 February 2014Corals are resilient to bleaching
I know there are other factors which can change the ph levels but bear with me.
The ph level in seawater changes with temperature, warmer water holding less co2 than cold water meaning in tropical areas the ph level should hardly change if the water is warmed and co2 level rises (there is more likelyhood of tropical waters outgassing)
In polar waters, its already co2 rich so the ph level should be very low in comparison to tropical waters.
If it gets colder the polar seas will become more acid ......if it gets warmer they will become less acidWhat am I not understanding?
-
jja at 06:58 AM on 4 February 2014Warming oceans consistent with rising sea level & global energy imbalance
correction, taking the first order derivative of the polynomial function directly above yeilds the instantaneous accumulation rate at the end of each decade. The derivative function is y=.2486*x - .2485
this yeilds the actual instantaneous value (the values directly above were decadel averages)
1E-04 1978-1988
0.2487 1988-1998
0.4973 1998-2008
(0.7459 2008-2018)
(0.9945 2018-2028)
(1.2431 2028-2038)
(1.4917 2038-2048)incidentally, using this derivative function, the actual TOA at the end of 2013 was
0.57188 Watts/Meter Squared
-
Tom Dayton at 06:57 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Vonnegut, you should use the interactive widget that shows the evolution of the numbers of papers across the many decades. It illustrates the point that CBDunkerson made to you. It is the Interactive History of Climate Science widget that is linked from the graphic in the left margin of every Skeptical Science page.
-
jja at 06:50 AM on 4 February 2014Warming oceans consistent with rising sea level & global energy imbalance
However, a second order polynomial function fits the data with an R^2 value of 1.0
the equation for this function is y=.1243*x^2 - .2485*x +.2175
the values of this funciton shows the expected increase in TOA watts/meter squared based on the previous 3 decades of data going forward the decadel rate of TOA based on accumulation rates are (will be):0.0933 1978-1988
0.1244 1988-1998
0.373 1998-2008
(0.6216 2008-2018)
(0.8702 2018-2028)
(1.1188 2028-2038)
(1.3674 2038-2048)all values in watts/meter^2 TOA instantaneous value at the end of each decade
-
jja at 06:40 AM on 4 February 2014Warming oceans consistent with rising sea level & global energy imbalance
the Nuccitteli (2012) graph of total heat content through 1800M depth yeilded a heat accumulation of 9.5E22joules between 1998 and 2008.
3.5E22 joules between 1988 and 1998
and 1.5E22 joules between 1978 and 1998By taking the difference in heat accumulated per decade and dividing by the seconds per decade and square meters of the earth, this total heat accumulation rate value can be converted to a W/m^2/decade.
Plotting this accumulation of heat produces an exponential curve with an R^2 value of .9978
The equation for this exponential rate of total accumulation is 0.0361*exp(0.9229*x)the values of this funciton shows the expected increase in TOA watts/meter squared based on the previous 3 decades of data going forward the decadel rate of TOA based on accumulation rates are (will be):
0.090848 1978-1988
0.137779 1988-1998
0.346731 1998-2008
(0.872576 2008-2018)
(2.195904 2018-2028)
(5.526165 2028-2038)
(13.90702 2038-2048) -
Vonnegut at 06:22 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
@297 Rob
Do you require a vote by every single scientist stating their position on gravity in order to believe the theory?
No, I was surprised how low the response was considering AGW is such an important issue to mankind.
Thank you for providing informed responses, I appreciate that.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 06:19 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Another analogy... I can "sample" a spoonful of the soup to get a rational estimation on whether I would like to have a full bowl of it for lunch. It's very unlikely that, once I sample it, the rest of the soup is going to taste substantially different.
The sample of 1200 researchers is something akin to eating a full bowl of the soup to estimate the taste of the full pot back in the kitchen. It's extremely unlikely we're going to have a nice bowl of cream of potato and then go back to the kitchen and find it came from a pot of french onion soup.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 06:12 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Vonnegut... I have to ask, do you understand the idea of "sampling?"
You don't have to test every last bit of the ocean to see if it is salty. You can make a reasonable estimation of ocean salinity by taking very small samples.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 06:00 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
And Vonnegut said, "You seem to be convinced that all climate scientists would say man was the cause but many havent had an opportunity to have any input either way."
When you have a sampling of 1200 researchers you are virtually guaranteed to have captured the dominant positions on the issue. Any position that might have slipped through such a large sampling is going to be an extreme minority position.
It's just a basic fact that you do not have to ask every single last person their position in order to understand the dominant conclusions.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 05:56 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Vonnegut said, "would you believe the theory of gravity if only 10% of scientists studying gravity agreed with it?"
Do you require a vote by every single scientist stating their position on gravity in order to believe the theory?
If you did a sampling of 10% of scientists (a huge portion, by the way) then I would definitely trust that as being representative of the scientific community overall.
-
DSL at 05:31 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
And you, Vonnegut, don't seem to understand that only a handful of those 30,000 actually perform attribution studies. In other words, the opinion of the rest--whatever it means--is just as meaningful as those who did answer the surveys or engage in assessing their own work.
Note that no one of any of the minorities in any of the studies has actually produced an attribution study that counters the "more than 50% since 1950" claim. In other words, that position has no scientific basis.
-
michael sweet at 05:30 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Vonegut,
As others have said but you will not hear there is a complete census of scientific opinion about AGW. It is called the IPCC report. Every scientist in the world is allowed to contribute. That report is reviewed by every government in the world and the summary is approved word by word. How could you get a more consensus document?? Even the oil producing countries accept the result. There is no other science that has a comparable document summarizing what the scientists feel. If anything, the IPCC document is too conservative since it must be approved by oil governments.
Pleae suggest how you would be satisified by a survey of scientists that is not already done in the IPCC report.
-
Vonnegut at 05:28 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
@292 would you believe the theory of gravity if only 10% of scientists studying gravity agreed with it?
-
Vonnegut at 05:22 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
@291
If you're truly concerned that the 97% figure does not reflect the actual science, by all means do engage the science on attribution.
Im not saying it doesnt reflect the science Im saying it doesnt reflect all climate scientists views.
You seem to be convinced that all climate scientists would say man was the cause but many havent had an opportunity to have any input either way.
-
DSL at 05:18 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
And how many of those 30,000 would it take to convince you, Vonnegut? If 29,000 responded, and 97% of those agreed with the IPCC assessment? 20,000? 15,000?
-
DSL at 05:15 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
What Rob says, Vonnegut.
The consensus studies--those that are simple opinion surveys (not Cook et al.)--are performed in part to counter the idea that no consensus exists. That idea is spread by people who have not read the work on attribution. I've directly confronted at least 150 people who have made that "no consensus" claim publicly. Not one attempted to defend their claims with science. Not one. Yes, they did say things like "It's volcanoes" or "It's the sun," but they couldn't provide a single reference. Many provided links to "sciencey" blogs like WUWT, blogs designed (and paid) to sway public opinion rather than advance the science.
So the consensus studies may be "mularky" as far as their use as actual evidence for anthropogenic global warming goes, but they do serve a role in communicating the science to those members of the general public who have not the time, energy, training, means, and/or motivation to engage the actual science.
If you're truly concerned that the 97% figure does not reflect the actual science, by all means do engage the science on attribution. You'll find that the IPCC conclusions are actually conservative: humans are responsible for close to 100% of the warming since 1950.
Without engaging the science, it's easy to stand back and be incredulous. Guffaw to your heart's content, but if you want to be right, you'll need to actually stick your head in paper or two. I think you'll find people here more than willing to be open minded about the science if you're actually discussing the science.
-
Vonnegut at 05:12 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Rob why do you keep mentioning 97% it only has relevence if you know how many people is involves. 'Your' 97% doesnt mean 97% of climate scientists does it? I believe there are 30,000 scientists involved in the climate field.
-
airscottdenning at 05:10 AM on 4 February 2014Why rainbows and oil slicks help to show the greenhouse effect
Here's another "proof" that's very simple: weknow the greenhouse effect is there because we can survive at night!
If the ground temperature at sundown in summer is 60 F (about 15 C or 288 Kelvin), then by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law it is emitting sigma * T^4 = 6.67e-8 * (288)^4 = 390 Watts per square meter. If this cooling were felt through a 10 cm thick layer of soil, the ground temperature would cool by 75 Kelvin over 8 hours of darkness, reaching -60 C (-78 F) by morning.
Luckily for us CO2 and water vapor molecules in the air emit infrared radiation downward at over 300 Watts per square meter, so we can survive night on Earth!
To be fair, only the really wacky fringe actually deny that CO2 emits heat. But I have actually met a few, and of course the original post links to some of these claims.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 04:56 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Vonnegut... Hypothetical situation: Your friend goes to the doctor and is diagnosed with cancer. He's referred to an oncologist. The oncologist says, "Here is the treatment I recommend. This treatment is what is recommended by 97% of practising oncologists."
Doctors regularly recommend treatments that are based on the consensus of the current research. No vote is taken. Some researchers even disagree on the treatment they would recommend. But based on a thorough reading of the existing research, there is a "consensus position" on how treatment should be approached.
Does that mean the 97% is "mullarky (sic)?"
If you take the time to read a sampling of the existing research, you will find that nearly all the published research agrees that humans are the primary cause of the warming of the past ~50 years.
It's just a fact.
-
Rob Painting at 04:55 AM on 4 February 2014OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
Read the paper linked to in the comment.
-
Vonnegut at 04:42 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Yes. It would have been difficult. It is difficult. Many scientists see this sort of project as catering to the whimsy of a handful of conspiracy nuts.
And you dont think they think the same with this 97% mullarky?
-
Dan Olner at 03:50 AM on 4 February 2014Why rainbows and oil slicks help to show the greenhouse effect
Given that, as already said, it's rather difficult to write anything that will convince a skeptic, I keep on mulling whether it's possible to build some sort of `greenhouse room' that could be used in science museums to illustrate the effect. Can someone actually able to do the science sums tell me if this is nonsense? I have a feeling you'd need lots of other factors like cold enough co2...
Would it be possible to have: (a) the bottom half of a 20 foot high ceiling room open to people via a door (with air controls, see below); (b) the top half a sealed container with two separate compartments, one containing the same air mix as the room itself, the other pure co2? Each part could be moved over the room, hiding the other, with some powerful light source above it. The floor of the room could be something that's reflecting back more of the IR. (You'd also need to carefully define the in-out flow of air to the room itself so you're not suffocating people while also allowing for a predictable change in temps as the IR bouncing back heats things up).
What would it take for that to show a measurable effect? Given I don't much know what I'm talking about, are there are other similar room setups that might allow people to directly experience the effect of a CO2 blanket on the air temp of the room they're in? (If I were being cruel, I'd quite like one where skeptics who claim no such effect exist could be put in one where the temp could be raised to 60C this way...)
Of course, I suppose if you build such a thing, skeptics would simply say "the atmosphere's completely different, don't be silly". As a general rule, though, it'd be targetting sensible waverers to innoculate them against FUD, not skeptics themselves, who are beyond our aid I suspect.
-
DSL at 03:12 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Vonnegut: "Would it have been so hard to get the whole scientific community involved in climate research to vote on what they thought? and then publish the results?"
Yes. It would have been difficult. It is difficult. Many scientists see this sort of project as catering to the whimsy of a handful of conspiracy nuts. It's a waste of time. How much research work has been done just to provide a response to the fake skepticism generated by the highly successful rhetorical project of the Heartland Institute, SPPI, GWPF, CA, WUWT, FoS, and other opinion-shaping organizations? Too much.
If you want a summary of the science, go to the summary of the science: IPCC AR5 WG1 -- composed by 300+ unpaid scientists, experts in their fields.
-
DSL at 03:06 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Vonnegut, you want a consensus and you don't accept the existing attempts to establish one. The best place to go to find a consensus is one which summarizes the existing science--not the existing opinion. The 5th IPCC Assessment Report does that. It references several thousand publications directly, and thousands more indirectly.
Have you read the attribution studies that form the basis of the claim that more than half of the warming of the past 50 years is human-sourced? Do you understand that anyone who provided a response for the Cook et al. study--and other "consensus" studies--was not required to have read the existing literature on attribution? Nor was anyone required to give evidence for their answers. The ~3% may not have read a single attribution study. Are you willing to blindly trust that ~3%? Or are you trying to point out that a consensus study has limitations?
If so, then duh. That's why you go to the science itself. If you don't understand the science, then you're at the mercy of opinion-makers. If you have no basis for trusting or mistrusting the 3% or the 97% or whatever %, then how is it that you are able to generate a dismissive attitude?If you do have science-based reasons for doubting the clear consensus of evidence (represented in IPCC AR5), then bring it (to the appropriate thread). If you can't, then at least have the integrity to recognize that you can't.
Prev 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 Next
