If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New Scientist)   Climate scientists, geology conspire to counter another global warming denier talking point   (newscientist.com) divider line 182
    More: Cool, climate change denial, climate scientists, talking points, geology, counter, Climate Change Topic Guides, ice ages, volcanic activity  
•       •       •

4464 clicks; posted to Geek » on 15 Mar 2010 at 3:48 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



182 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-03-15 04:45:47 PM
FishyFred: Pro Zack: I think they would probably argue that sufficient volume has not yet been achieved.

Then it's on them to propose a better explanation for the recent rise in temperature.

It's the worst thing I can say about them: They aren't doing science to support their claim that it's being caused by natural fluctuations instead of anthropogenic greenhouse gases.


I'm no climatologist, but I stayed in a holiday inn express last night. and so far the effects are rather small.
 
2010-03-15 04:47:10 PM
Pro Zack: I'm no climatologist, but I stayed in a holiday inn express last night. and so far the effects are rather small.

Compared to the geologic record, rather small they are not.
 
2010-03-15 04:48:02 PM
I just wish there were some sort of graphs that went along with this story so I could more easily understand all of the information.

Can someone help with this please?
 
2010-03-15 04:49:48 PM
BergZ: EmployeeOfTheMinute 2010-03-15 04:32:21 PM
"Attention Warmers:
I am glad you that found a flavor of Kool-Aid you like. Do not expect me to drink it, though"

mrexcess posted a link, in another thread, to Psychology Today about the paranoia that drives the TEA parties ("big government", black-hawk helicopters, tin foil hats, Obama-Muslim/Marxist... etc).

As I was reading it, I couldn't help but notice the similarities between TEA partiers and Global Warming "Truthers" (OMG! Conspiracy! Religion! Communism!) Very interesting article (new window).


and this reminds me of a book about conspiracy theories

Link (new window)

Part of a review about the same book:

"[The author] also examines why people believe in conspiracy theories and why they can exert such a strong grip on them. He points out that conspiracists tend to be on the "losing side" (politically, socially, or economically) of society, and that believing in conspiracies is therapeutic for them. They can explain why they are on the losing side ("we were robbed, deceived") salve their hurt ("the people who deceived us are so powerful, so evil, it's understandable that they appear to be the winners") and then restore their egos ("we have seen the truth, we are so much cleverer than ordinary people who are happy to be sheep-like in their acceptance of things; we are illuminated, in the know, we are special")."
 
2010-03-15 04:50:24 PM
Zafler: Pro Zack: I'm no climatologist, but I stayed in a holiday inn express last night. and so far the effects are rather small.

Compared to the geologic record, rather small they are not.


Why thank you. I grew them myself.

//we are quibbling over how many tenths of a degree?
 
2010-03-15 04:54:24 PM
i41.tinypic.com
 
2010-03-15 04:59:58 PM
Baryogenesis: "We've all seen that list of what makes up acceptance of evolutionary theory. You post it, then ask evolution deniers which part they disagree with. When broken down into its constituent parts it becomes pretty difficult to deny. I'm going to try to do the same for global warming:

#1. The Earth undergoes natural warming/cooling cycles.
#2. These cycles are driven by a number of factors, including solar fluctuation.
#3. Certain industrial activities release what are known as "greenhouse gases".
#5. A shared property of these gases is that they absorb and emit infrared radiation.
#6. If these gases were released into the atmosphere over an extended period and in sufficient volume, it would have a heat trapping effect.

That's global warming. Which one of these do you disagree with? Because if you accept all of them or even a few key elements, then the argument is no longer about whether or not warming is occurring, or whether or not human activity is contributing to it, it's about the specific *extent* to which human activity is contributing. That places you squarely in the "accepter" camp, at that point we're just niggling over details."


Not a bad start, but it needs work. Get Jon Snow to rip into it.

My $0.02: since much of the objections are nominally about the extent of Anthropogenic contribution, you might want to address it as a separate point -- which will at least focus the debate. Similarly, even given that Anthropogenic Climate Change IS happening, this still leaves open the question of what if anything OUGHT to be done about it; however, debate about OUGHT should be limited to those with basic agreement as to IS.

(There also seems to be no #4.)
 
2010-03-15 05:00:38 PM
Too late. Can't believe a damn thing any of them says at this point.
And they have no one to blame but their arrogant un-self-policed selves.

Back to square one with ALL of the fraudsters!
 
2010-03-15 05:03:18 PM
sweetmelissa31: I think we lost most deniers at this sentence:

The Ordovician ice age happened 444 million years ago, and records have suggested that CO2 levels were relatively high then.


reaaaaaally, is there a paleontologist in da house? I know two who think anthropomorphic causes of global warming is total horseshiat. They be strong in the evolutionary sciences and the digging in the badlands and finding nothing but popcorn rock.
 
2010-03-15 05:08:34 PM
I am btw, directly accusing you of claiming that all who call the global warming scarefest to be a scam and a money grab (Call it global climate disruption if you really want accuracy) OR claim it to be a red herring (to distract from freshwater pollution) or claim it to be long term cycles to be CREATIONISTS. Thats just plain wrong. Around here the greenies and the fundies are one and the same, while the rest of us roll our eyes and sigh. they say shiat like "jesus gave us this earth to care for, and these bastards are ruining it" usually coming from the wife of a suncor dude whose entire family is employed by the oilfeild. SO yeah, creationists are fools and there is no cause SO true that you won't find fools following it. There are idiot creationists on both sides of the debate. Me I defer to the JPL, when they say they have made a working climate model, make predictions for 10yrs, then 10 yrs later those predictions turn out to be EVEN CLOSE to the actual weather, then I will concede humanity has built its FIRST long term functional climate model.
 
2010-03-15 05:14:47 PM
PersistantRash: Me I defer to the JPL, when they say they have made a working climate model, make predictions for 10yrs, then 10 yrs later those predictions turn out to be EVEN CLOSE to the actual weather, then I will concede humanity has built its FIRST long term functional climate model.

How convenient, seeing as JPL doesn't study the climate. But Goddard Institute for Space Studies does. Would you accept them as a substitute?
 
2010-03-15 05:15:08 PM
abb3w: Baryogenesis: "We've all seen that list of what makes up acceptance of evolutionary theory. You post it, then ask evolution deniers which part they disagree with. When broken down into its constituent parts it becomes pretty difficult to deny. I'm going to try to do the same for global warming:

#1. The Earth undergoes natural warming/cooling cycles.
#2. These cycles are driven by a number of factors, including solar fluctuation.
#3. Certain industrial activities release what are known as "greenhouse gases".
#5. A shared property of these gases is that they absorb and emit infrared radiation.
#6. If these gases were released into the atmosphere over an extended period and in sufficient volume, it would have a heat trapping effect.

That's global warming. Which one of these do you disagree with? Because if you accept all of them or even a few key elements, then the argument is no longer about whether or not warming is occurring, or whether or not human activity is contributing to it, it's about the specific *extent* to which human activity is contributing. That places you squarely in the "accepter" camp, at that point we're just niggling over details."

Not a bad start, but it needs work. Get Jon Snow to rip into it.

My $0.02: since much of the objections are nominally about the extent of Anthropogenic contribution, you might want to address it as a separate point -- which will at least focus the debate. Similarly, even given that Anthropogenic Climate Change IS happening, this still leaves open the question of what if anything OUGHT to be done about it; however, debate about OUGHT should be limited to those with basic agreement as to IS.

(There also seems to be no #4.)


You're right, there's no number 4.

I think Zamboro's point (I could be wrong here) is to show the average Fark AGW denier that he doesn't actually deny AGW, but rather the extent of it.
 
2010-03-15 05:15:42 PM
 
2010-03-15 05:15:59 PM
I know I got directed to these on Fark and just finished watching all of them, so I figure I'll repost for other who might have missed them:

Climate Change and Myths

Does an excellent job explaining the science and statistics involved. If you're actually interested in being informed and not just looking for talking points, it's a great series.
 
2010-03-15 05:16:48 PM
PersistantRash: I am btw, directly accusing you of claiming that all who call the global warming scarefest to be a scam and a money grab (Call it global climate disruption if you really want accuracy) OR claim it to be a red herring (to distract from freshwater pollution) or claim it to be long term cycles to be CREATIONISTS. Thats just plain wrong. Around here the greenies and the fundies are one and the same, while the rest of us roll our eyes and sigh. they say shiat like "jesus gave us this earth to care for, and these bastards are ruining it" usually coming from the wife of a suncor dude whose entire family is employed by the oilfeild. SO yeah, creationists are fools and there is no cause SO true that you won't find fools following it. There are idiot creationists on both sides of the debate. Me I defer to the JPL, when they say they have made a working climate model, make predictions for 10yrs, then 10 yrs later those predictions turn out to be EVEN CLOSE to the actual weather, then I will concede humanity has built its FIRST long term functional climate model.

And I want to be the first one to thank Gabby Johnson PersistantRash for that post. Not only was it authentic frontier gibberish, but it expressed a courage that is little seen in this day and age.
 
2010-03-15 05:37:02 PM
I found nicksteel.

www.persellus.com
 
2010-03-15 05:57:25 PM
Baryogenesis: justGreg: Well no. I accept that list. But I don't think that arguing about whether the magnitude of #6 is worth worrying about -- or even relevant given #1 -- is "niggling over details" unless that is a euphemism for "crux of the matter."

A more detailed list is need, so don't take those numbered points as the final word on what it means to accept or reject the theory. Another point would be that #6 is significant enough to affect #1.


You see, it is this "accept or reject the theory" shiat that makes this all sound like a religion. I can in fact accept large parts of a theory and then quibble with other parts.

There are people who have solid scientific backgrounds, who work in science, who accept the basic tenets of the theory as you outlined above, but who are not global warming alarmists ready to take the loyalty oath that some seem to think is necessary to avoid being called a denier, or flat-Earther, or creationist, or Palin-American, none of which accurately describe my views.

But I do think the GCMs are meh, the medieval warming period likely to have occurred despite the protestations of Michael Mann, and am entirely unconvinced that there are more positive feedback mechanisms in the system than there are dampening negative mechanisms. I don't in fact NEED to come up with independent research to give an alternate explanation for recent warming, because I don't find it to be unprecedented or out of line with natural variation.
 
2010-03-15 06:00:28 PM
RockIsDead: Too late. Can't believe a damn thing any of them says at this point.
And they have no one to blame but their arrogant un-self-policed selves.

Back to square one with ALL of the fraudsters!


i had a more detailed response typed up, but instead i'm just going to go with a

HUUUUUURRRR SCIENCE BAD
 
2010-03-15 06:01:53 PM
Has anyone else lost their will to care about Global Warming Climate Change™?
 
2010-03-15 06:10:34 PM
ManRay: I am not afraid of Global Warming so much as I am what is being dreamt up to fix it.

irritatedtulsan.files.wordpress.com
 
2010-03-15 06:18:55 PM
justGreg: You see, it is this "accept or reject the theory" shiat that makes this all sound like a religion. I can in fact accept large parts of a theory and then quibble with other parts.

Why do you assume that I'm saying if you accept the basic principles you must accept every other detail that follows? I have no inherent problem with someone disagreeing with, say, the exact amount of climate sensitivity to C02.

justGreg: There are people who have solid scientific backgrounds, who work in science, who accept the basic tenets of the theory as you outlined above, but who are not global warming alarmists ready to take the loyalty oath that some seem to think is necessary to avoid being called a denier, or flat-Earther, or creationist, or Palin-American, none of which accurately describe my views.

I think you've confused the misinformation and propaganda spread by anti-AGW folks with the reality of the situation.

justGreg: But I do think the GCMs are meh, the medieval warming period likely to have occurred despite the protestations of Michael Mann, and am entirely unconvinced that there are more positive feedback mechanisms in the system than there are dampening negative mechanisms. I don't in fact NEED to come up with independent research to give an alternate explanation for recent warming, because I don't find it to be unprecedented or out of line with natural variation.


Here's where you don't accept AGW. The rate of change is what puts it out of line with natural variation. If it were mainly natural variation we wouldn't bother with the anthropogenic descriptor.

I have no issue with skepticism when it is phrased like you have put (most) of you comment, but you should be able to explain/justify your position on the issue.

What negative feedback mechanisms will out "compete" positive feedbacks like decreased albedo due to ice melting and methane release from permafrost?
 
2010-03-15 06:27:54 PM
How do geology conspire?
 
2010-03-15 06:34:54 PM
Mordant: make me some tea: Somehow I doubt this finding will have any impact on global warming deniers. It's a matter of religion for them.

I'm still trying to figure out why we need to "convince" them. Who cares what they believe ? Even if they tried to help they'd only manage to accidentally set themselves on fire.


Paradoxically, this would help more than anything else they are likely to do.
 
2010-03-15 07:01:55 PM
FTA: "... earlier studies missed the dip because they calculated levels at 10-million-year intervals and the ice age lasted only half a million years."

Time scales, kids, don't forget the time scales.

As I have pointed out before, when the CO2 levels were at 180 ppm about 20,000 years ago, it was the depths of a glaciation, and global temperatures were 5-6 degrees Celsius lower than in recent times.

When CO2 levels were a 280 ppm, 100 ppm more, it was the height of the Great Enlightenment. There were smart people in Scotland. (Carbon dioxide was discovered by Joseph Black, Scottish physician, in 1754--the Industrial Revolution is often considered to have started in England in 1755, although it didn't get properly underway on the Continent until the 1800s, and the USA was getting most of its energy from wood and water in 1850.) Compare 180 ppm--there were no people in Scotland, or England, or Ireland, or much of Canada and the United States, because they were covered with ice as much as two or three miles thick.

We are now (checks iGoogle gadget) at 387.968 ppm. Even rising at the leisurely rate of 2 ppm per annum, we can expect another 200 ppm a century for several centuries to come. Which means that in less than 300 years we are likely to hit levels that are 5-6 degrees Celsius above the "normal" conditions which produced not only the Great Englightenment, but agriculture, cities and our technologically advanced but unsustainable society.

Thing, is, past global scale climate changes have taken geological scale periods of time. We're facing a time lag on temperatures, partly because half of our CO2 has been sequestered and partly because we've been adding coolants to the atmosphere in the form of smog, increased cloud cover (enough to reduce sunlight by a phenomenon called "global dimming"), and land surface changes (some of which cool, some of which heat the atmosphere).

But let us say for the purposes of argument that the time lag is 50 years (I have heard that!)--that means we are currently facing the warming from 1960, when the population of the Earth was half what it is today, and the GDP per capita was half what it is today, and less than one fifth as much coal was being burned in the USA to produce electricity, and China and India were poor as dirt--they've gotten ten times richer since then.

You want to stick your head up your arse and go to sleep, fine. That reduces your emissions two ways. But please, don't talk in your sleep. Because you're talking donkey balls. Not a farking word of scientific fact comes out of the average anti-global warming troll.
 
2010-03-15 07:05:13 PM
sweetmelissa31: ManRay: I am not afraid of Global Warming so much as I am what is being dreamt up to fix it.

Yeah, recycling and solar power are terrifying.


No, no, no. He's got a real solid point. Eventually Republicans are going to get into the act. Pickens is already talking a good game right now, and I'm sure he's no liberal.
 
2010-03-15 07:08:13 PM
Zafler: Pro Zack: I'm no climatologist, but I stayed in a holiday inn express last night. and so far the effects are rather small.

Compared to the geologic record, rather small they are not.


Most of the studies and debates on potential climate change, along with its ecological and economic impacts, have focused on the ongoing buildup of industrial greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and a gradual increase in global temperatures. This line of thinking, however, fails to consider another potentially disruptive climate scenario. It ignores recent and rapidly advancing evidence that Earth's climate repeatedly has shifted abruptly and dramatically in the past, and is capable of doing so in the future.

Fossil evidence clearly demonstrates that Earthvs climate can shift gears within a decade, establishing new and different patterns that can persist for decades to centuries. In addition, these climate shifts do not necessarily have universal, global effects. They can generate a counterintuitive scenario: Even as the earth as a whole continues to warm gradually, large regions may experience a precipitous and disruptive shift into colder climates.

This new paradigm of abrupt climate change has been well established over the last decade by research of ocean, earth and atmosphere scientists at many institutions worldwide. But the concept remains little known and scarcely appreciated in the wider community of scientists, economists, policy makers, and world political and business leaders. Thus, world leaders may be planning for climate scenarios of global warming that are opposite to what might actually occur.

http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=9986
 
2010-03-15 07:23:54 PM
I'm just reading up on Joseph Black. In 1756, James Watt joined him at Glasgow University and they worked together on the problem of steam.

From Wikipedia, article on "John Black": "In 1761 Black deduced that the application of heat to ice at its melting point does not cause a rise in temperature of the ice/water mixture, but rather an increase in the amount of water in the mixture. Additionally, Black observed that the application of heat to boiling water does not result in a rise in temperature of a water/steam mixture, but rather an increase in the amount of steam. From these observations, he concluded that the heat applied must have combined with the ice particles and boiling water and become latent. The theory of latent heat marks the beginning of thermal science."

Isn't that special!

Apparently I neglected to add "the latent energy of melting ice" to my list of things which are currently slowing the rise in temperatures and allowing fools to live in their own private paradise. Presumably, every time in geological history that there's been a retreat of the glaciers (and ice flows), it's taken a huge amount of heat to get that ice moving.

It takes scores of times the amount of heat to melt ice as it does to raise the temperature of the resultant water once it is melted.

Melting ice--and evaporating water--use up tremendous amounts of energy before you run out of ice and the atmosphere becomes saturated with water. So we have that working for us--temporarily.

Unfortunately, melting ice was taken out of the Fourth IPCC report because it was not well understood. They wanted that 90% certainty level. Putting it back in means that we'll be less certain what is going to happen but more certain by several orders of magnitude that it is going to be catastrophic. So it's working against us, too.

By the time Exxon-Mobil's ass is thoroughly covered against lawsuits, there will be millions of people, if not billions, in a real fix.

Do the math. How much extra heat does it take to 1) raise the mean temperature of the Earth by 1 degree? raise the mean temperature of Canada and Australia by 2 degrees? raise the MT of the Arctic by 4 degrees? raise the temperature of bits of the Arctic (the size of large countries) by 8-9 degrees? de-ice 4,000,000 or 5,000,000 square kilometers of sea ice several meters thick? Oh, and let's throw in Greenland (82 cubic kilometers of ice a year) and Antarctica, now that we know that it is also warming, despite all the bumph to the contrary over the last few years.

We aren't really feeling the heat yet because we have the refrigerator door open and are basking in its cooling de-icing.

And then the motor burns out. (That's what we mean by feedback loops.) Whatever cooling factors there may be, they are not resulting in a net cooling. Even in this Denialist Ice Age we're in, world temperature records are still being broken and the global mean temperature is still inching up. It's supposed to be getting cold like it was when us middle aged global warmers were kids in the 1960s. But we've only see cold spots here and there, and now and then, including the usual unusual winters in Florida and Arizona, which happen every twenty or thirty years or so any way.

We've got steaaaaaaam heat! Well, steam AC, for a little while yet.
 
2010-03-15 07:26:28 PM
justGreg: I do think the GCMs are meh

All models are wrong. Some are useful. The questions then become whether or not A) GCMs are necessary to demonstrate the reality of anthropogenic warming and B) whether GCMs are of the useful sort.

A) GCMs are completely unnecessary to make the case for anthropogenic warming[1][2][3].

i43.tinypic.com
Radiative Forcings

i41.tinypic.com
Forcings plus SOI vs. Temp

B) They seem to be useful enough from a policy-level perspective for the broad strokes issues like global temp, precip, etc.

i41.tinypic.com
i39.tinypic.com

the medieval warming period likely to have occurred despite the protestations of Michael Mann

No one denies that there was some amount of warming around the Middle Ages, especially in the Northern Hemisphere- the point is that it was not a temporally coherent global phenomena.

Nor would the existence of a global Medieval Warm Period somehow invalidate the idea that GHGs cause warming and that we should try to limit the amount of GHGs we're emitting- quite the opposite in fact:

We have a good idea of what the main drivers of climate have been doing for the last 800,000 years or so[4]. The existence of large, sustained, global temperature changes of the magnitude you seem to believe happened during the MCA would mean that the climate system is more sensitive to forcings than we believe it to be. That would mean that we would expect more warming in response to GHGs, not less.

and am entirely unconvinced that there are more positive feedback mechanisms in the system than there are dampening negative mechanisms.

There exist no large, negative feedbacks in the climate system capable of preventing global changes on the order of 6°C. See "Pleistocene, The".

I don't in fact NEED to come up with independent research to give an alternate explanation for recent warming, because I don't find it to be unprecedented or out of line with natural variation.

What you "find" is irrelevant to reality, which is that the increases in GHGs, warming, etc. are outside what we'd expect from natural variability[5][6][7]:

i44.tinypic.com

i43.tinypic.com
 
2010-03-15 07:34:31 PM
Jon Snow: justGreg: I do think the GCMs are meh

All models are wrong. Some are useful. The questions then become whether or not A) GCMs are necessary to demonstrate the reality of anthropogenic warming and B) whether GCMs are of the useful sort.

A) GCMs are completely unnecessary to make the case for anthropogenic warming[1][2][3].


Radiative Forcings


Forcings plus SOI vs. Temp

B) They seem to be useful enough from a policy-level perspective for the broad strokes issues like global temp, precip, etc.

the medieval warming period likely to have occurred despite the protestations of Michael Mann

No one denies that there was some amount of warming around the Middle Ages, especially in the Northern Hemisphere- the point is that it was not a temporally coherent global phenomena.

Nor would the existence of a global Medieval Warm Period somehow invalidate the idea that GHGs cause warming and that we should try to limit the amount of GHGs we're emitting- quite the opposite in fact:

We have a good idea of what the main drivers of climate have been doing for the last 800,000 years or so[4]. The existence of large, sustained, global temperature changes of the magnitude you seem to believe happened during the MCA would mean that the climate system is more sensitive to forcings than we believe it to be. That would mean that we would expect more warming in response to GHGs, not less.

and am entirely unconvinced that there are more positive feedback mechanisms in the system than there are dampening negative mechanisms.

There exist no large, negative feedbacks in the climate system capable of preventing global changes on the order of 6°C. See "Pleistocene, The".

I don't in fact NEED to come up with independent research to give an alternate explanation for recent warming, because I don't find it to be unprecedented or out of line with natural variation.

What you "find" is irrelevant to reality, which is that the increases in GHGs, warming, etc. are outside what we'd expect from natural variability[5][6][7]:


look who just went all postal. come in, you must have more charts than that.
 
2010-03-15 07:38:12 PM
Professor John Christy:

0:00 /3:37Duke: 80% less carbon by 2050

His most controversial argument is that the surface temperature readings upon which global warming theory is built have been distorted by urbanization. Due to the solar heat captured by bricks and pavement and due to the changing wind patterns caused by large buildings, a weather station placed in a rural village in 1900 will inevitably show higher temperature readings if that village has, over time, been transformed into small city or a suburban shopping district, Christy says.

The only way to control for such surface distortions is by measuring atmospheric temperatures. And when Christy and his co-researcher Roy Spencer, a former NASA scientist now teaching at UA-Huntsville, began analyzing temperature readings from NOAA and NASA satellites, they found much slighter increases in atmospheric temperatures than what was being recorded on the surface. Christy and Spencer also found that nearly all the increases in average surface temperatures are related to nighttime readings - which makes sense if bricks and pavement are in fact retaining heat that would otherwise be dispersed.
 
2010-03-15 07:38:48 PM
Jon Snow: justGreg: I do think the GCMs are meh

All models are wrong. Some are useful. The questions then become whether or not A) GCMs are necessary to demonstrate the reality of anthropogenic warming and B) whether GCMs are of the useful sort.

A) GCMs are completely unnecessary to make the case for anthropogenic warming[1][2][3].


Radiative Forcings


Forcings plus SOI vs. Temp

B) They seem to be useful enough from a policy-level perspective for the broad strokes issues like global temp, precip, etc.

the medieval warming period likely to have occurred despite the protestations of Michael Mann

No one denies that there was some amount of warming around the Middle Ages, especially in the Northern Hemisphere- the point is that it was not a temporally coherent global phenomena.

Nor would the existence of a global Medieval Warm Period somehow invalidate the idea that GHGs cause warming and that we should try to limit the amount of GHGs we're emitting- quite the opposite in fact:

We have a good idea of what the main drivers of climate have been doing for the last 800,000 years or so[4]. The existence of large, sustained, global temperature changes of the magnitude you seem to believe happened during the MCA would mean that the climate system is more sensitive to forcings than we believe it to be. That would mean that we would expect more warming in response to GHGs, not less.

and am entirely unconvinced that there are more positive feedback mechanisms in the system than there are dampening negative mechanisms.

There exist no large, negative feedbacks in the climate system capable of preventing global changes on the order of 6°C. See "Pleistocene, The".

I don't in fact NEED to come up with independent research to give an alternate explanation for recent warming, because I don't find it to be unprecedented or out of line with natural variation.

What you "find" is irrelevant to reality, which is that the increases in GHGs, warming, etc. are outside what we'd expect from natural variability[5][6][7]:


In testimony to the House Ways and Means Committee in February, Christy displayed a chart showing central California temperature trends for both the developed San Joaquin Valley and the largely undeveloped Sierra foothills. "The daytime temperatures of both regions show virtually no change over the past 100 years, while the nighttime temperatures indicate the developed Valley has warmed significantly while the undeveloped Sierra foothills have not," Christy told the committee.
 
2010-03-15 07:40:29 PM
The sky is falling. Buy my magic umbrellas.
 
2010-03-15 07:43:53 PM
Here's a thought: if you were to offer the oil, gas, coal, automobile and aviation companies tort reform (immunity against prosecution for civil damages in climate change lawsuits and liability in criminal prosecutions) in exchange for a confession that they have indeed begun to defrost the Earth, do you think they'd take it? What if it were a now or never type of thing, with their liabilities assessed Tobacco Industry-style should they refuse?

You'd bet your sweet bippy they'd take it. One of the industries that believes in climate change is the insurance industry. They've already stopped insuring a lot of coastal properties (Florida, New Orleans) and they'll stop insuring the fossil fuel producers and users before long. Even if the US Government is the fossil fuel industry's bi-atch, there are other industries in town, pimping other politicians, PR flacks and advertisers. It's only a matter of time before the interests of the insurance companies and banks collide with the interests of industry and government.

The same companies are behind both "tort reform" and climate change denial: tobacco, asbestos, automobiles, aviation, coal, oil and natural gas.

Let's all sing: "Uninsurable, uninsurable you! Uninsurable, in every way!"

And the least of these is natural gas, because if you replaced all the coal and oil with natural gas, it would do quite a lot towards solving a really big slice of the problem without the heat going off, the ACs stopping, or the cars being forced to park.

Speaking of cars: in the early 1960s, Americans drove an average of 2,000 miles a year. 10,000 miles a year now, which is five hundred percent! And there are a lot more cars. And their mileage has scarcely improved as a whole--small cars have largely been offset by SUVs and light trucks.

Somebody is going to figure out they can make as much money tearing up highways and suburbs as they did laying down the ticky-tacky in the first place.

Here's another song: "Little houses, little houses. Little house in a row. Little houses made of ticky-tacky ...."

It's the American Dream Nightmare.

Suck asbestos and die, you PR flacks!

Did you know that Bernays, one of the great PR men, had Big Tobacco accounts and told his wife to stop smoking? And before he died at a very ripe old age, he had the Anti-Smoking accounts.

Bullshiatters only love you when you're paying.


And if there is one thing that "greens" and "environmentalists" and "conservationists" are willing to do that Conservatives are not, it is pay for things.

We all love shopping for a better future.
 
2010-03-15 07:45:08 PM
Insanity: doing (thinking/saying) the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein

- emphasis/enhancement added

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you nicksteel as Exhibit A.
 
2010-03-15 07:53:59 PM
Jon Snow: They seem to be useful enough from a policy-level perspective for the broad strokes issues like global temp, precip, etc.

I disagree. I work in a field (clinical research) where you have to prospectively state null and alternate hypotheses and then test against them. That is the level of evidence with which I am accustomed to dealing. I am never going to be that impressed by someone who manages to mathematically massage variables to make them fit a curve retroactively. I can prove that popcorn sales and fark references to "die in a fire" drive climate if that is the level of science that is required.

GHGs have a role in retaining heat, that much is physics. Assigning weights to all the various forcings - as if we have even identified them all - and then separating that from natural longterm (millions of year time scale) variability when the reasonably reliable measurements (satellite) provide thirty years of data and the marginally accurate ones (GISS, HadCRUT) provide 100 years or so, is smoke and mirrors.
 
2010-03-15 07:54:50 PM
brantgoose: Here's a thought: if you were to offer the oil, gas, coal, automobile and aviation companies tort reform (immunity against prosecution for civil damages in climate change lawsuits and liability in criminal prosecutions) in exchange for a confession that they have indeed begun to defrost the Earth, do you think they'd take it? What if it were a now or never type of thing, with their liabilities assessed Tobacco Industry-style should they refuse?

You'd bet your sweet bippy they'd take it. One of the industries that believes in climate change is the insurance industry. They've already stopped insuring a lot of coastal properties (Florida, New Orleans) and they'll stop insuring the fossil fuel producers and users before long. Even if the US Government is the fossil fuel industry's bi-atch, there are other industries in town, pimping other politicians, PR flacks and advertisers. It's only a matter of time before the interests of the insurance companies and banks collide with the interests of industry and government.

The same companies are behind both "tort reform" and climate change denial: tobacco, asbestos, automobiles, aviation, coal, oil and natural gas.

Let's all sing: "Uninsurable, uninsurable you! Uninsurable, in every way!"

And the least of these is natural gas, because if you replaced all the coal and oil with natural gas, it would do quite a lot towards solving a really big slice of the problem without the heat going off, the ACs stopping, or the cars being forced to park.

Speaking of cars: in the early 1960s, Americans drove an average of 2,000 miles a year. 10,000 miles a year now, which is five hundred percent! And there are a lot more cars. And their mileage has scarcely improved as a whole--small cars have largely been offset by SUVs and light trucks.

Somebody is going to figure out they can make as much money tearing up highways and suburbs as they did laying down the ticky-tacky in the first place.

Here's another song: "Little houses, little houses. Little house in a row. Little houses made of ticky-tacky ...."

It's the American Dream Nightmare.

Suck asbestos and die, you PR flacks!

Did you know that Bernays, one of the great PR men, had Big Tobacco accounts and told his wife to stop smoking? And before he died at a very ripe old age, he had the Anti-Smoking accounts.

Bullshiatters only love you when you're paying.

And if there is one thing that "greens" and "environmentalists" and "conservationists" are willing to do that Conservatives are not, it is pay for things.

We all love shopping for a better future.


Insurance companies not insuring coastal areas??? That is pure bullshiat. They might raise the rates, but they would never cancel policies.

Make up some more, crap, but make it sound more logical.
 
2010-03-15 07:57:20 PM
justGreg: Jon Snow: They seem to be useful enough from a policy-level perspective for the broad strokes issues like global temp, precip, etc.

I disagree. I work in a field (clinical research) where you have to prospectively state null and alternate hypotheses and then test against them. That is the level of evidence with which I am accustomed to dealing. I am never going to be that impressed by someone who manages to mathematically massage variables to make them fit a curve retroactively. I can prove that popcorn sales and fark references to "die in a fire" drive climate if that is the level of science that is required.

GHGs have a role in retaining heat, that much is physics. Assigning weights to all the various forcings - as if we have even identified them all - and then separating that from natural longterm (millions of year time scale) variability when the reasonably reliable measurements (satellite) provide thirty years of data and the marginally accurate ones (GISS, HadCRUT) provide 100 years or so, is smoke and mirrors.


If you are expecting an honest dialogue, jonblojob is not the guy to talk to.
 
2010-03-15 08:09:41 PM
justGreg: I am never going to be that impressed by someone who manages to mathematically massage variables to make them fit a curve retroactively.

That happened where, exactly?

I can prove that popcorn sales and fark references to "die in a fire" drive climate if that is the level of science that is required.

Ah, I see. So it's going to strawmen and reductio ad absurdum then.

There aren't an incredible number of first order climate forcings that act on the time scales we're concerned with. We've got the magnitudes of both the natural and man-made ones fairly well constrained. We know how the climate reacts to changes of similar magnitudes. This is all pretty elementary stuff that most students are expected to grasp in introductory level earth sciences courses.

What do you expect responding that you can correlate unrelated factors to climate would earn you in one of those classes, or better yet a submitted journal article? You're wasting no one's time but your own with such garbage.
 
2010-03-15 08:24:29 PM
Jon Snow: justGreg: I am never going to be that impressed by someone who manages to mathematically massage variables to make them fit a curve retroactively.

That happened where, exactly?

I can prove that popcorn sales and fark references to "die in a fire" drive climate if that is the level of science that is required.

Ah, I see. So it's going to strawmen and reductio ad absurdum then.

There aren't an incredible number of first order climate forcings that act on the time scales we're concerned with. We've got the magnitudes of both the natural and man-made ones fairly well constrained. We know how the climate reacts to changes of similar magnitudes. This is all pretty elementary stuff that most students are expected to grasp in introductory level earth sciences courses.

What do you expect responding that you can correlate unrelated factors to climate would earn you in one of those classes, or better yet a submitted journal article? You're wasting no one's time but your own with such garbage.


Garth Paltridge, Visiting Fellow ANU and retired Chief Research Scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired Director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre."There are good and straightforward scientific reasons to believe that the burning of fossil fuel and consequent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide will lead to an increase in the average temperature of the world above that which would otherwise be the case. Whether the increase will be large enough to be noticeable is still an unanswered question.
 
2010-03-15 08:27:04 PM
Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute: "The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate 'realistic' simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic. From my background in turbulence I look forward with grim anticipation to the day that climate models will run with a horizontal resolution of less than a kilometer. The horrible predictability problems of turbulent flows then will descend on climate science with a vengeance.
 
2010-03-15 08:46:34 PM
nicksteel: Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute: "The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate 'realistic' simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic. From my background in turbulence I look forward with grim anticipation to the day that climate models will run with a horizontal resolution of less than a kilometer. The horrible predictability problems of turbulent flows then will descend on climate science with a vengeance.

nicksteel: you people believe that somebody's opinion is evidence.
 
2010-03-15 08:49:57 PM
nicksteel: [copypasta]
nicksteel: [more copypasta]
nicksteel: [even more copypasta]


nicksteel: Have you ever had an original thought?? Have you ever looked into an issue to form your own opinion or do you always follow somebody else's opinions? You are like some pathetic robot that just keeps spitting out the bull that you were fed.
 
2010-03-15 08:50:32 PM
nicksteel: Garth Paltridge

nicksteel: Hendrik Tennekes

Even Bevets knows that when you quotespam a thread, you don't do so with retirees who've now gone to work for industry front groups[1][2][3].
 
2010-03-15 09:21:18 PM
so they are saying that their original data (about CO2 levels) was wrong?

Okay.

What else is wrong?
 
2010-03-15 09:51:42 PM
Jon Snow: Even Bevets knows that when you quotespam a thread, you don't do so with retirees who've now gone to work for industry front groups

Wut? Bevets quotes Stephen C. Meyer fairly regularly. Although I'm not sure the Discovery Institute qualifies as "industry".

Care to take a swipe at refining Zamboro's list?
 
2010-03-15 09:54:42 PM
Jon Snow: nicksteel: Garth Paltridge

nicksteel: Hendrik Tennekes

Even Bevets knows that when you quotespam a thread, you don't do so with retirees who've now gone to work for industry front groups[1][2][3].


once again, you completely ignore what the man said and attack the man. If just once you would have the balls (or is it brains??) to try to discuss something honestly, you might get a bit of credibility. As it stands, you come off looking really weak.
 
2010-03-15 09:56:04 PM
tenpoundsofcheese: so they are saying that their original data (about CO2 levels) was wrong?

Okay.

What else is wrong?


Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists : "models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view".[15] He has also said, "It is not possible to exclude that the observed phenomena may have natural causes. It may be that man has little or nothing to do with it.
 
2010-03-15 09:59:40 PM
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences: "Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity...Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated...Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away.
 
2010-03-15 10:03:30 PM
William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential." "I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people." "So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing-all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more.
 
2010-03-15 10:13:06 PM
Read(past tense) the article. That's not a denier argument. Not as put in that article there. 444 million years? That's not a denier argument.


/reformed denier, non-alarmist.
 
Displayed 50 of 182 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report