Dr. Ricky Rood's Climate Change Blog

Rhetoric Again - Cycles

Posted by: Dr. Ricky Rood, 06:39 GMT le 25 avril 2012

+14

Rhetoric Again - Cycles:

A few entries ago I wrote about the form of argument and the rhetoric used by those who advocate that the science of climate change is flawed in some fundamental and philosophical way (also here). In that piece I made reference to long-reaching metaphors and isolated facts that are used to create doubt about climate science. These metaphors and facts, for example that there was a lot of carbon dioxide when there were dinosaurs, create a stop or a pause in the conversation and pose as seeming contradictions and serve as distractions to make logically flawed points. For those who want to hone up on your arguments, I find the Marshall Institute’s Cocktail Party Guide to Global Warming some of the better coaching of anti-climate-science rhetoric.

I have been thinking about one of the common statements that is made, and that is the one about their being a lot of carbon dioxide when there were dinosaurs and, more generally, that there is a long record of cycles between times of high and low carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere. This has been presented to me many times, and I often wonder, what exactly is the point that is being made?

At first, when I heard statements that there was very high carbon dioxide in the past, it seemed to be with the implication that this was one, a natural occurrence and two, a fact that was being hidden by climate scientists. True, it is a natural occurrence. Any comprehensive text book on climate change will discuss the past variations in carbon dioxide and that there have been times when carbon dioxide was much higher, and the Earth was much warmer. It is not hidden, rather it is used to inform our future.

Following from the introduction into the argument that the high values of carbon dioxide in the past were a natural occurrence, there seemed to be two points. First, was that very high values of carbon dioxide were possible in the absence of human-responsible emissions and second, that changes in carbon dioxide amounts were beyond our control and hence there was little sensibility in reducing our emissions. There is the further implication that since this is natural then it is OK.

Our real concern about climate change is that climate change impacts humans. If it were not for the impact on humans, climate change would be a curious problem of natural science. When there was a lot of carbon dioxide and dinosaurs, there were no humans. That does not mean that with high carbon dioxide that humans can’t survive and that dinosaurs will return. However, getting from the stable temperate climate in which our civilizations evolved to a climate where the temperatures are several degrees warmer will be a disruptive path. There will be less land as sea level rises, and since there is a huge concentration along the coasts of the world, there will be huge relocation of people, disruption to nations, and loss of infrastructure. There will be enormous changes in ecosystems and domestic plants and animals.

So yes, there are cycles and there has been a lot more carbon dioxide in the air, but that has been in the absence of billions of humans, our built environment, and our fragile balances of nations and economies. It is the disruption of the fragile balances of human enterprise where the risk lies – so how does the fact that carbon dioxide was high when there were dinosaurs bear on the current concerns about increasing carbon dioxide and global warming?

Carbon dioxide was high in the distant path – does this suggest that carbon dioxide amounts in the atmosphere are beyond our control? Why was carbon dioxide high? Is that simply an unknowable mystery?

The composition of our atmosphere is determined by many factors. In the long term, my geologist friends always remind me that the composition of the atmosphere is determined by geology and the cycling of gases between the atmosphere and ocean and the solid Earth. This long time frame, millions or billions of years, is not exactly relevant to our human experience. On a shorter amount of time, like the ice age cycles, or the large amounts of carbon dioxide when the dinosaurs were present, biological processes are important for determining the composition of the atmosphere. We have benefitted from many millions of years when carbon dioxide and oxygen existed in a balance that support plants and animals. Those cycles, those extended periods of high carbon dioxide, are characterized by changes in balance of plant and animal life. They are characterized by the ocean taking up and giving back large amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere through both chemical and biological processes.

So are we destined to simply be at the fate of these major shifts? Are these shifts beyond our control? Aren’t they natural?

Let’s get back to humans. There is little doubt that humans are the dominant life form on the planet today. We shape every ecosystem. We consume all forms of energy. Like the balances between plants and animals in the past we change the atmosphere and the ocean. Not only are we a dominant life form, we have this amazing ability to extract rocks and liquids and gas from the Earth and burn it. We have the ability to push around land, to make concrete, to remove mountains, and build islands. We are, therefore, not only biological, we are geological.

We are part of the cycle. We don’t simply exist at the mercy of the cycle.

So what is the point of a far reaching reference to the time of the dinosaurs and high amounts of carbon dioxide? Perhaps the point is to take us out of the equation, to absolve us of our responsibility to the planet, to allow us to do that which we want to do.

In the end this takes us to some very basic questions about humans and knowledge. I recently saw an idea attributed to Tim Flannery (also here), that humans are a species prone to destroying their future by destroying ecosystems. As I understand the argument, because of our intellect, we can continue to extract from the Earth resources beyond which a less creative species would be limited by brutal, natural barriers. We can rapidly cause extinctions. So far we can find and perhaps nurture new resources as we destroy the old.

We have this unique capacity of knowledge. We can place ourselves into our environment and see ourselves as shaping our environment, and have responsibility for maintaining our environment. We are not, entirely, at the fate of nature, or cycles, but we are part of nature, of cycles. And as such we might not be able to determine our future, but we are able to influence our future. We don’t have to be destined to destroy our future.

Scientifically, the statement of facts about cycles and high carbon dioxide millions of years ago has little bearing on whether or not we are burning fossil fuels, increasing carbon dioxide and warming the planet. Such presented facts are a diversionary part of a belief-based and politically based argument. Some advocates of the politically based arguments are trying to stop a societal response to carbon dioxide emissions. Other advocates are making a basic belief based argument that humans are somehow outside of biology and geology of the planet as a whole; that we are not just another age of some dominant life form. To me, what makes humans different is we have this ability to accumulate science-based knowledge, which is actionable, which imbues responsibility, which allows us to be different, and to sustain our future.

r

Categories: Climate Change Politics Climate Impacts and Risks Climate Change

Permalink | A A A

Top of Page

Reader Comments

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200

Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 251 - 301

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 — Blog Index

251. Patrap 01:53 GMT le 02 mai 2012
True dat. ..never argue with a fool, as he has the advantage.. or, "Wise men never argue with fools, because people from a distance can't tell who is who" Member Since: 3 juillet 2005 Posts: 377 Comments: 113014

252. Birthmark 03:30 GMT le 02 mai 2012
Quoting Patrap: True dat. ..never argue with a fool, as he has the advantage.. Good lord! Is that what I was doing? I was just amusing myself. I've always enjoyed watching contortionists -especially those that take requests. Quoting Patrap: "Wise men never argue with fools, because people from a distance can't tell who is who" I'm the one with the goatee, if that's any help to anyone. Member Since: 30 octobre 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1815

253. Some1Has2BtheRookie 03:50 GMT le 02 mai 2012
Quoting Birthmark: Good lord! Is that what I was doing? I was just amusing myself. I've always enjoyed watching contortionists -especially those that take requests. I'm the one with the goatee, if that's any help to anyone. A goatee? I thought your avatar was a picture of a bob cat. Now you say it is a baby goat? ;-) Member Since: 24 août 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4141

254. vanwx 04:11 GMT le 02 mai 2012
Quoting Patrap: True dat. ..never argue with a fool, as he has the advantage.. or, "Wise men never argue with fools, because people from a distance can't tell who is who" Patrap, I've always valued your insight but here I have to differ. Snow..123 has brought out some of the best critisism, the clearest and just shifts position to continue the game; we are educating him for free. It(snow...123) may be a team and or an AI that is fun/challenging to ripost but this continual A/B marketing scam or their team/DARPA research technique sucks. My and my children's future is in the balance and I can't think of one place where Snow..123 contributed(other than the capitulation to AGW). Member Since: 6 février 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 126

255. Birthmark 04:58 GMT le 02 mai 2012
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie: A goatee? I thought your avatar was a picture of a bob cat. Now you say it is a baby goat? ;-) It is a baby goat who knows how to avoid predators. I'm sure that there's a lesson there somewhere, but thanks to patrap I had to listen to Dark Side of the Moon to vanquish an earworm and my brain has turned to mush. Good night to you, Rookie. Member Since: 30 octobre 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1815

256. greentortuloni 07:50 GMT le 02 mai 2012
Quoting Snowlover123: Hi Green, I would never suggest such a thing. Some wacky environmentalists are suggesting that we pump pollution into the atmosphere so we can halt Global Warming. I'm an environmentalist myself, and the health consequences if such measures were to be taken would be extremely detremental. Strawman argument. So given the current situation, what is your solution? Member Since: 5 juin 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1198

257. vanwx 08:55 GMT le 02 mai 2012
snowlover123 changes horses mid stream. Member Since: 6 février 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 126

258. Snowlover123 09:58 GMT le 02 mai 2012
Quoting Daisyworld: I hate to break this to you, but they're not YOUR papers. You didn't do the work to collect the information. Nevertheless, nine papers would not constitute a concise bibliography for anything worth publishing in the primary literature, regardless of their content. Snowlover123, will you please just stop? This has gone beyond the ridiculous, and crossed over into the ludicrous. You've done everything but hijack the comments on this blog entry, and not ONE of your rants has any mathematical or scientific merit whatsoever. You absolutely know what I mean when I refer to them being as 'my papers.' They were the papers I posted in MY posts. I have never claimed credit for any of my papers. You haven't contributed to this board at all except throw ad hominem attacks at people who disagree with your religious viewpoints. That is someone who has crossed into the ludicrous. Ignore list time! Member Since: 1 avril 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2594

259. Snowlover123 10:09 GMT le 02 mai 2012
Quoting Birthmark: Staying "relatively constant" and "not changing" are not the same thing, though. Relatively constant generally has all sorts of interesting bumps and wiggles. Not changing is a flat line. You still haven't answered my question about the cooler upper stratosphere. If you can't answer it, just say so. What do you want me to answer? Staying relatively constant implies bumps and noise on an overall flat line. They are the same thing. A cooler upper stratosphere can be expected with ozone depletion, though the trend may be steeper than the lower stratospheric cooling trend because this is the portion of the stratosphere that can be expected to cool with increased Gas Emissions. Member Since: 1 avril 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2594

260. Snowlover123 10:16 GMT le 02 mai 2012
Quoting Birthmark: Yes, you are. Let me put it more simply, then. There is more warming in the winter than in the summer. That is impossible if the Sun is the cause of the current warming. Wrong, wrong and more wrong. You keep resorting to the same falsehood to try and disprove my argument. Did you even look at what the Skeptical Science link had to say? More energy is used in heating the upper ocean during the summertime, more energy than before because of declining snow/ice not reflecting as much energy as before. The upper ocean then releases this extra energy to the Arctic atmosphere during winter time, because the oceans are now colder due to it being winter. This is why the atmospheric winter temperatures are warming the fastest. I don't know how else to explain it without you resorting to using this falsehood as a reply. Member Since: 1 avril 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2594

261. Snowlover123 10:21 GMT le 02 mai 2012
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie: Your post #202 has been addressed several times by others on here and yet you persist in using these examples? And what is this???? This looks like it was put together using MS Paint. The graphic(?) is not attributed to anyone or any study. Surely you do not suggest that this is Science???? Would you care to go back and address Post #186? Yes, it's been adressed with unsubstantial comments that dismiss the papers just because they don't like them. There is no science involved in those "rebittals." I created that chart. It took me about 2-3 hours to do. I got the idea from Skeptical Science's charts showing "total human contriution" and "total natural contribution. It references papers published in the peer reviewed literature with a color code on the right hand side. I'll adress your post 186 later. Member Since: 1 avril 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2594

262. Snowlover123 10:34 GMT le 02 mai 2012
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie: "That's a tough question, since it is uncertain how much CO2 has contributed to climate change." ... And yet, you seem so certain as to know how much the Sun has changed the climate. Do you want to break it down for me? 50% CO2 - 50% Sun? "Mars and Moon do not have as thick of atmospheres as Earth's does, hence why the temperature at the surface fluctuates wildly." .... Then we are complete agreement? The atmosphere of a planet or a moon plays a large part in as to how much heat is retained from the energy of the Sun. And, no, I am not just talking about how much atmosphere it has. The chemical composition of the atmosphere plays a large role in as to how much of the Sun's energy is retained by the planet. Please remember, the thicker the atmosphere, the less of the Sun's energy that makes it to the surface of the planet. "No one says it's been solely due to solar activity, simply solar activity has been the main driver of climate change. That does not mean it has been the "sole cause." solar activity increasing sharply, and being at record levels is fairly compelling that the sun has at least part to do with the 20th Century warming." ... OK, let us go with this. Since you say that solar activity is not exclusively responsible for the warmer climate that we are now experiencing and that CO2 does have a role in the warming, then what happens if the solar activity flattens and anthropogenic CO2 levels continue to climb? Chevron seems to admit that CO2 released by fossil fuels is a problem with our climate. They do this to the extent to say they are working on a carbon capture process: Chevron and its plans for carbon capture What Chevron's PR team does not say is this: Carbon capture is a new technology, may not work, is years away from being an efficient process even if it does work and is EXPENSIVE Do you really think that Chevron is serious about this or do you see this as another delay tactic while Chevron works out all the details? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Well I'm not a scientist, so I don't think it's really appropriate for me to answer the first question, because my answers have little to no value. I will provide an answer though. I think the sun is responsible for all of the climate change up until 1980 where it then becomes responsible for some-most of the climate change that was observed. The chemical composition of the atmosphere definitely plays a role. (Look at Venus compared to Mercury!) I don't know what to think about "Chevron's Carbon Capture" since I haven't studied this to a greater extent. Solar activity has reached where it was in the beginning of the late-20th Century during the SC 23 minima, and we haven't warmed. Coincidence? I think not. Member Since: 1 avril 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2594

263. Snowlover123 10:37 GMT le 02 mai 2012
Sigh, unfortunately there is nothing left for me to contribute here, since all the discussion has turned into are ad-hominem attacks against myself, and me having to repeat basic facts of climate science to those who cannot comprehend them. So I will wish you all a good day, as this will probably be my last post, unless I see a substsntial reply that is worth typing a post for. Member Since: 1 avril 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2594

264. greentortuloni 11:41 GMT le 02 mai 2012
Quoting Snowlover123: Sigh, unfortunately there is nothing left for me to contribute here, since all the discussion has turned into are ad-hominem attacks against myself, and me having to repeat basic facts of climate science to those who cannot comprehend them. So I will wish you all a good day, as this will probably be my last post, unless I see a substsntial reply that is worth typing a post for. Good! From my point of view, you've presented a large number of attacks but nothing substantial. You've presented a 'new' theory to replace an old theory but you: - haven't presented convincing arguments that the old theory is wrong. Especially in light of the well documented sucesses of the old theory re prediction/result. - haven't given any new predictions (though fiar enough I've skipped a lot of your posts on days I was too busy). Therefore your theory remains untestable. - a bunch more. Really, before you go, can you state your theory in four sentences or less? Because all i've read so far has left the impression in my mind that you are simply out to score points and spread confusion. If this isn't your aim, then put your theory before the blog simply and logically. Member Since: 5 juin 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1198

265. percylives 12:26 GMT le 02 mai 2012
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie: Good day, Barefoot! "Thanks for a thought-provoking article - especially the part that postulates mankind is "geological." Considering the vast geology of Earth, not to mention what science says about worlds beyond Earth's atmosphere, I'm not sure the idea of man being geological is logical, and, in a way, this idea perpetuates the attitudes of humans who have been involved in energy conquest since the Industrial Revolution. Other advocates are making a basic belief based argument that humans are somehow outside of biology and geology of the planet as a whole; that we are not just another age of some dominate life form." I agree with you that I had never thought of mankind as being geological. The statement did provoke some thought. When you consider that anytime man plants a non native plant then man has began to change the natural geology of the local area. The more aggressive the non native plant is, the more this becomes apparent. When we move to a larger scale, such as filling in a swamp to provide more farmland or housing, then it begins to become more apparent that man changed the natural geology of the area. Man has then become the primary geological factor and has, indeed, become the geology of the area. Also I consider that almost any place we look, on our planet, we will find man. Man, nearly everywhere, has tried to change the local geology to suit man's needs above the interests of anything else. We divert rivers or change their natural flow rates. We build lakes where none had existed before. We clear forests where the forests have long dominated the local geology. "Regardless of what has brought mankind and Earth to the relationship perceived at this moment, I doubt we can "sustain our future" as this (edit) Genus/species has done, making, in my mind anyway, the dominant human state biological." The human state is biological and so is the roach. What man does and that the roach does not do is try to change the geology of where it lives. The roach, unlike industrialized man, has always lived its life within the bounds that nature has provided it. Man, on the other hand, has always tried to make changes to feel more comfortable and not to just survive as all of the other species are doing. No other species alive, or has ever lived, on Earth has tried to change the planet for its sole benefit. Man is not just biological. Man is also geological. "Also a couple things I have observed about human nature in general. ~Humans tend to be more reactive than proactive. ~While fear can and does drive human behavior, the two strongest motivators are Love and Money." Man tends to be reactive when man should have been proactive. Our own caring for our health is a prime example of this. Many times man will get it wrong as when to be proactive as well. Stopping a river from flooding upstream almost always causes greater harm downstream. Fear, love and money. I would imagine that most will fear they will never have enough love or money and this is what drives them. When you get to be an old geezer, such as myself, your greatest fear may be that you live too long and see too much. ;-) Much of the attributes you attach to humans are really just attributes of one culture, ours. There are still a few other cultures on the planet that we haven't assimilated or killed off. Some of these have lived for thousands of years and are still living in a sustainable manner. This is very good news. We don't have to change the human being; we just have to change a few of the memes we used to build and sustain our very destructive culture. I see evidence that this is beginning to happen. The monied interests are fighting the change, hence our march to a police state, but the river of change is deepening and widening with every passing day. BTW, this old geezer thinks your last statement is very well said. Or as Norman Finkelstein said, "Spoken like a true atheist, thank God, that in all his wisdom, he made us mortal. We don't have to endure this for eternity." :>) Member Since: 23 août 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 73

266. Xandra 13:20 GMT le 02 mai 2012
From the post The Real Global Warming Signal by Tamino: Many different factors affect Global temperature. Fake "skeptics" like to claim that mainstream climate scientists ignore everything but greenhouse gases like CO2, when in fact it’s mainstream climate scientists who identified those other influences. Natural factors cause temperature fluctuations which make the man-made global warming signal less clear, fluctuations which are often exploited by fake skeptics to suggest that global warming has paused, or slowed down, or isn’t happening at all. A new paper by Foster & Rahmstorf accounts for some of those other factors, and by removing their influence from the temperature record makes the progress of global warming much more clear. Read more here The authors conclude: "When the fluctuations in temperature over the last 32 years (which tend to obscure the continuation of the global warming trend) are accounted for, it becomes obvious that there has not been any cessation, or even any slowing, of global warming over the last decade (or at any time during this time span). In other words, any deviations from an unchanging linear warming trend are explained by the influence of ENSO, volcanoes and solar variability.... It is worthy of note that for all five adjusted data sets, 2009 and 2010 are the two hottest years on record... All five data sets show statistically significant warming even for the time span from 2000 to the present." Temperature data before and after the Foster and Rahmstorf exogeneous factor removal: Image credit: Skeptical Science From Skeptical Science: Based on this average of all five adjusted data sets, the warming trend has not slowed significantly in recent years (0.163°C per decade from 1979 through 2010, 0.155°C per decade from 1998 through 2010, and 0.187°C per decade from 2000 through 2010). The real global warming signal look like this: Member Since: 22 novembre 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 796

267. biff4ugo 13:30 GMT le 02 mai 2012
233, Thank you for posting that ACRIM graph. So the solar minimum increased .037% between the 3 that you show. But the Maximums have also decreased since 1978 on your graph. Did you notice that trend too? from 1369 to 1368, about twice the change of the minimum, shown on your graph. The magnetic field is interesting but the energy reaching the atmosphere and surface is the most important. Thanks again. Member Since: 28 décembre 2006 Posts: 107 Comments: 1215

268. JupiterKen 15:01 GMT le 02 mai 2012
Link Member Since: 3 mai 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 295

269. biff4ugo 15:09 GMT le 02 mai 2012
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2011/ Look near the bottom of the page, at total solar irradiance graph. If the global temperature increase is due to increase in solar output, the temperatures should have decreased from 2002 to 2008 as the irradiance decreased, right? The hottest year on record (2007?) is during a solar minimum. Do you want to rethink the solar flux is the climate culprit stance? Member Since: 28 décembre 2006 Posts: 107 Comments: 1215

270. greentortuloni 15:19 GMT le 02 mai 2012
Quoting JupiterKen: Link Wasted 8 minutes of my life on that. Lost most of me in the beginning. Lost the rest of me with the arrest photo. It's really scary the mentality of the denialists. Seriously something is wrong with them. There is so much hate inside. Where does it come from? Member Since: 5 juin 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1198

271. Xandra 15:28 GMT le 02 mai 2012
Quoting JupiterKen: Link Who is 'Rocket Scientist' David Evans? Member Since: 22 novembre 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 796

272. biff4ugo 15:56 GMT le 02 mai 2012
One way to help further the climate conversation is to cut down on the extreme and insulting labels. Calling someone a climate conservative rather than a denier, or unbeliever cuts down on the dogma and elevates it to a discussion or debate rather than a shouting match between zealots. Questioning the data and conclusions can and should strengthen the science. Reposting something over and over, is not helpful. Member Since: 28 décembre 2006 Posts: 107 Comments: 1215

273. sirmaelstrom 15:56 GMT le 02 mai 2012
It just occurred to me...Isn't the Grant Foster of the Foster & Rahmstorf paper and the blogger Tamino of the Open Mind blog one and the same? If so, what are his credentials as far as climate science goes? As quick as some are to attack the qualifications of authors of papers skeptical of AGW, I'm surprised this hasn't come up before. Unless of course, it has and I missed it. Member Since: 19 février 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 568

274. Birthmark 16:06 GMT le 02 mai 2012
Quoting Snowlover123: I don't know how else to explain it without you resorting to using this falsehood as a reply. You. Are. Missing. The. Point. Let me try this with pictures. Here is what the Arctic looks like currently. It usually has more ice in the winter. How is heat coming from an ocean that is covered by ice (which remains at a relatively constant temperature) heating the atmosphere above that ice? The scale of the heating in the Arctic winter for the last 31 years is more than 2%uFFFDC and more than 4%uFFFDC in places. You might also note that the heating in the Arctic is greater than that in places near both the Arctic and the open ocean. You might further notice that one of the regions with the greatest heating is hundreds of miles from open water. Here is the Arctic warming in summer for the same time period. What you are telling me is that ice is warming the atmosphere more than the Sun is. If so, then the Sun hasn't warmed very much or at all. You might also notice that the Antarctic is warming in winter as well. ;^D Buh-bye, Sun hypothesis! Member Since: 30 octobre 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1815

275. Birthmark 16:14 GMT le 02 mai 2012
Quoting Snowlover123: Yes, it's been adressed with unsubstantial comments that dismiss the papers just because they don't like them. There is no science involved in those "rebittals." Now, that's just silly. You've been linked to scientific papers that rebut or supersede the sorry papers that you are clinging to. Member Since: 30 octobre 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1815

276. Birthmark 16:16 GMT le 02 mai 2012
Quoting Snowlover123: What do you want me to answer? Staying relatively constant implies bumps and noise on an overall flat line. They are the same thing. A cooler upper stratosphere can be expected with ozone depletion, though the trend may be steeper than the lower stratospheric cooling trend because this is the portion of the stratosphere that can be expected to cool with increased Gas Emissions. Says who? Member Since: 30 octobre 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1815

277. Birthmark 16:22 GMT le 02 mai 2012
Quoting JupiterKen: Link Why is it always (ok, often) the engineers? Engineers seem more likely to have a penchant for commenting outside their realm of expertise than any other group, ime. I noticed the same thing in the evolution/creation debates. I wonder why that is? Member Since: 30 octobre 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1815

278. Birthmark 16:30 GMT le 02 mai 2012
Quoting biff4ugo: One way to help further the climate conversation is to cut down on the extreme and insulting labels. Calling someone a climate conservative rather than a denier, or unbeliever cuts down on the dogma and elevates it to a discussion or debate rather than a shouting match between zealots. Questioning the data and conclusions can and should strengthen the science. Reposting something over and over, is not helpful. I understand your POV and I applaud your intent in theory. However, I have to disagree in practice. Personally, I find it quite insulting that a group of people have usurped the title "skeptics" for themselves when the majority of them are nothing of the sort. I am a skeptic. I have already "switched sides" on this topic. I did so on the basis of the evidence. (The evidence was there the whole time, I was ignorant of it.) I will gladly do so again should the evidence lead elsewhere. That, biff4ugo (great handle, btw), is skepticism. Denying good evidence for bad, trivial, or no reasons is not skepticism. It is denialism. On that basis, I call such people "denialists." My apology to any that I unfairly label "denialist." I do try to avoid that until I am sure, but like everyone else I make mistakes and sometimes jump the gun. Member Since: 30 octobre 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1815

279. Birthmark 16:38 GMT le 02 mai 2012
Quoting sirmaelstrom: It just occurred to me...Isn't the Grant Foster of the Foster & Rahmstorf paper and the blogger Tamino of the Open Mind blog one and the same? If so, what are his credentials as far as climate science goes? As quick as some are to attack the qualifications of authors of papers skeptical of AGW, I'm surprised this hasn't come up before. Unless of course, it has and I missed it. It is, indeed, the same Foster. He is a statistician, which makes his expertise very useful for ascertaining the global warming signal, which is after all statistical in nature. In addition to F&R2011, he has published several other papers over the years, including this one. Member Since: 30 octobre 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1815

280. cyclonebuster 17:00 GMT le 02 mai 2012
It is all about Mass,thickness and extent. Notice the downward trend on the bottom chart............ OUCH!!!!!!! Member Since: 2 janvier 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 19032

281. Neapolitan 17:06 GMT le 02 mai 2012
Quoting biff4ugo: One way to help further the climate conversation is to cut down on the extreme and insulting labels. Calling someone a climate conservative rather than a denier, or unbeliever cuts down on the dogma and elevates it to a discussion or debate rather than a shouting match between zealots. Questioning the data and conclusions can and should strengthen the science. Reposting something over and over, is not helpful. I hear what you're saying, but we've been down this road before, so I'm going to have to disagree with you. The fact is, no matter how they're labeled, denialists are doing the world--my world--a grave disservice, so they'll have to pardon me for not referring to them in politically-correct terms like "climate conservative", or "contrarian", or (especially) "skeptic". In fact, "denialist" is probably too nice a term for many of them; I think "ideologically-motivated, financially-driven enemies of science and common sense on a well-funded quest to push the world over the brink" is pretty fitting. Or maybe "gullible, unwitting pawns of unrestricted laissez-faire proponents willing to sell their own children's future to make a buck". The thing is, the exercise Snowlover123 has been involved in has nothing to do with the honest and open pursuit of science; he hasn't been merely "questioning the data and conclusions". He has, rather, posted hundreds of words and dozens of graphs repeating everything from scientifically-disproven statistics to outright lies. And when he's been called out on those errors, he's merely doubled down on his position. That's not "questioning". That's not the pursuit of scientific truth. That's not an honest and vital part of ongoing research. No, what that is is denialism. Period. Member Since: 8 novembre 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 11309

282. Neapolitan 17:10 GMT le 02 mai 2012
Quoting Birthmark: Why is it always (ok, often) the engineers? Engineers seem more likely to have a penchant for commenting outside their realm of expertise than any other group, ime. I noticed the same thing in the evolution/creation debates. I wonder why that is? Ego? Arrogance? The ability and willingness to engage in high-level jargon of such complexity that they know most lay people can and will be bamboozled by their, er, bovine excrement? Evans is, in my book, one of the worst. Member Since: 8 novembre 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 11309

283. Birthmark 17:24 GMT le 02 mai 2012
Quoting Neapolitan: Ego? Arrogance? The ability and willingness to engage in high-level jargon of such complexity that they know most lay people can and will be bamboozled by their, er, bovine excrement? Evans is, in my book, one of the worst. That's certainly true in a few cases, Evans being a good example. But I don't think that can be applied generally to engineers. I've tried various hypotheses to explain my observation (which might not represent the real situation) but have come up with nothing substantive. Member Since: 30 octobre 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1815

284. sirmaelstrom 17:29 GMT le 02 mai 2012
№ 279 Quoting Birthmark: It is, indeed, the same Foster. He is a statistician, which makes his expertise very useful for ascertaining the global warming signal, which is after all statistical in nature. In addition to F&R2011, he has published several other papers over the years, including this one. I thought it was, although it sort of seemed like he was referring to the paper in his blog as if it were written by someone else. As for him being a statistician, that is the impression I get from his blog, which I am familiar with, but I have no idea what his training is or what degrees he may or may not hold. Searching turns up nothing concrete concerning this. I suspect however that if a climate science blogger would author (or co-author) a paper in climate science based only on his expertise as a blogger in climate science it might draw some criticism, which is why I was sort of surprised to have not seen the question brought up previously. Obviously it hasn't kept the paper from being quite widely circulated. As far as any previous papers, he has apparently authored/co-authored other papers concerning statistics and astronomy, but nothing in the field of climate science as far as I can tell. So, as a philosophical query to everyone, having authored a paper in climate science and regardless of whether his prior credentials are ever known, is he now considered a "climatologist"? Member Since: 19 février 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 568

285. Birthmark 17:36 GMT le 02 mai 2012
Quoting sirmaelstrom: № 279 I thought it was, although it sort of seemed like he was referring to the paper in his blog as if it were written by someone else. As for him being a statistician, that is the impression I get from his blog, which I am familiar with, but I have no idea what his training is or what degrees he may or may not hold. Searching turns up nothing concrete concerning this. I suspect however that if a climate science blogger would author (or co-author) a paper in climate science based only on his expertise as a blogger in climate science it might draw some criticism, which is why I was sort of surprised to have not seen the question brought up previously. Obviously it hasn't kept the paper from being quite widely circulated. As far as any previous papers, he has apparently authored/co-authored other papers concerning statistics and astronomy, but nothing in the field of climate science as far as I can tell. So, as a philosophical query to everyone, having authored a paper in climate science and regardless of whether his prior credentials are ever known, is he now considered a "climatologist"? Good question. Probably not, since his specialty isn't directly related to climate. However, a case can be made for saying yes given that he has published on the topic and his specialty is important climatology. Short answer: Beats me. :) Member Since: 30 octobre 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1815

286. sirmaelstrom 17:38 GMT le 02 mai 2012
Quoting Birthmark: [...] Short answer: Beats me. :) Ha! That would probably be my answer as well! Member Since: 19 février 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 568

287. Xandra 18:04 GMT le 02 mai 2012
Quoting sirmaelstrom: It just occurred to me...Isn't the Grant Foster* of the Foster & Rahmstorf paper and the blogger Tamino of the Open Mind blog one and the same?* Yes Tamino is the professional statistician Grant Foster, and co-author of the paper is Professor Stefan Rahmstorf at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. Rahmstorf was portrayed as one of the worlds 10 leading climate scientists by the Financial Times in 2009, and 2007 he was awarded an Honorary Fellowship of the University of Wales/Bangor. Member Since: 22 novembre 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 796

288. Xandra 18:36 GMT le 02 mai 2012
Quoting sirmaelstrom: № 279 I thought it was, although it sort of seemed like he was referring to the paper in his blog as if it were written by someone else. It's common practice to use the authors' names when referring to a study. Member Since: 22 novembre 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 796

289. Xandra 19:33 GMT le 02 mai 2012
Arctic Sea-Ice Loss Didn't Happen by Chance Member Since: 22 novembre 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 796

290. Neapolitan 19:46 GMT le 02 mai 2012
Quoting sirmaelstrom: № 279 I thought it was, although it sort of seemed like he was referring to the paper in his blog as if it were written by someone else. As for him being a statistician, that is the impression I get from his blog, which I am familiar with, but I have no idea what his training is or what degrees he may or may not hold. Searching turns up nothing concrete concerning this. I suspect however that if a climate science blogger would author (or co-author) a paper in climate science based only on his expertise as a blogger in climate science it might draw some criticism, which is why I was sort of surprised to have not seen the question brought up previously. Obviously it hasn't kept the paper from being quite widely circulated. As far as any previous papers, he has apparently authored/co-authored other papers concerning statistics and astronomy, but nothing in the field of climate science as far as I can tell. So, as a philosophical query to everyone, having authored a paper in climate science and regardless of whether his prior credentials are ever known, is he now considered a "climatologist"? I would say "No". That is, even were I to publish an article on, say, a heretofore unknown interstellar object I'd found with my backyard telescope, I still wouldn't think of calling myself an astronomer. However-- The single climate paper authored by Foster is infinitely more than have been authored by the majority of the Big Names in climate denialism. So I suppose on a purely comparative basis, Foster would have a lot more right calling himself a climatologist than you, say, Anthony Watts. At any rate, anyone sufficiently knowledgeable in a particular subject is free to write and submit for peer-review/publication an article on that subject; some "established" scientists in that field may grumble and criticize about an outsider--an interloper--infringing on his lofty academic aerie, but that's how science should work... Member Since: 8 novembre 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 11309

291. greentortuloni 19:56 GMT le 02 mai 2012
Quoting Birthmark: That's certainly true in a few cases, Evans being a good example. But I don't think that can be applied generally to engineers. I've tried various hypotheses to explain my observation (which might not represent the real situation) but have come up with nothing substantive. Hey! I am an engineer, sorta. I'm on your side! Besides, most engineers just became engineers for the women, not for the ego. Member Since: 5 juin 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1198

292. Birthmark 20:08 GMT le 02 mai 2012
Well, lookee here! Hot off the press. EDIT: I see that Xandra already posted a link to a story on this paper. This is the abstract for that same paper. Observations reveal external driver for Arctic sea-ice retreat Key Points %u2022Internal variability as estimated from observations can't explain sea-ice loss %u2022Superposition of a linear trend and internal variability explains sea-ice loss %u2022Observational sea-ice record shows no signs of self-acceleration Dirk Notz Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, Germany Jochem Marotzke Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, Germany The very low summer extent of Arctic sea ice that has been observed in recent years is often casually interpreted as an early-warning sign of anthropogenic global warming. For examining the validity of this claim, previously IPCC model simulations have been used. Here, we focus on the available observational record to examine if this record allows us to identify either internal variability, self-acceleration, or a specific external forcing as the main driver for the observed sea-ice retreat. We find that the available observations are sufficient to virtually exclude internal variability and self-acceleration as an explanation for the observed long-term trend, clustering, and magnitude of recent sea-ice minima. Instead, the recent retreat is well described by the superposition of an externally forced linear trend and internal variability. For the externally forced trend, we find a physically plausible strong correlation only with increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration. Our results hence show that the observed evolution of Arctic sea-ice extent is consistent with the claim that virtually certainly the impact of an anthropogenic climate change is observable in Arctic sea ice already today. GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 39, L08502, 6 PP., 2012 I'll say it once more...buh-bye, Sun hypothesis! Member Since: 30 octobre 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1815

293. Birthmark 20:14 GMT le 02 mai 2012
Quoting greentortuloni: Hey! I am an engineer, sorta. I'm on your side! Besides, most engineers just became engineers for the women, not for the ego. Women? That's plural! I just have the one. She makes me do enough stuff by herself. There's no telling what I'd be forced to become if I had more than one woman. Gah! Left to my own devices, I'd pretty much wander about in a loincloth and eat berries and whatever was so stupid that it didn't run away from me --people excluded, of course. For people, I'd wear my Sunday-go-to-meeting loin cloth and possibly some sort of shirt contrivance. Topic? What topic? My Father-in-law was an engineer, too. He wasn't like the denialist engineers at all. That would have interfered with making sure all his tools were properly maintained, placed, and dust-free. He was a really great guy. Member Since: 30 octobre 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1815

295. Birthmark 22:20 GMT le 02 mai 2012
Quoting EugeneTillman: Ok. Just making sure you understand that. That should always be recognized on some level. What it shouldn't be is used as some sort of shield from the facts as we understand them. Quoting EugeneTillman: And what kind of question is that for me? Am I real? What is this, online dating? LOL Get real, dude. Well, I guess you can always hope. ;^P Member Since: 30 octobre 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1815

296. OldLeatherneck 23:54 GMT le 02 mai 2012
Engineers vs Scientists This is my first post on Wunderblog. I'm a retired systems engineer from the defense industry and also a firm believer in AGW. In a much younger life I was a US Marine who served in Vietnam. I wanted to make some comments about some of the chat regarding the differences between engineers and scientists. I've worked with both engineers and scientist who have PhDs in a multiple of disciplines. Basically it amounts to engineers having to be able to design, develop an implement a product, while the scientists have to provide the detailed knowledge and understanding of the physics behind the phenomena or technology in question. Both disciplines are required to address any problem, including the complexities of Climate Change. The one difference between engineers and scientists is that engineers strive to fix the problem while the passion of scientists is to understand the problem. I will post more often here, as time permits. Regarding AGW, I'm following closely the rapid increase of Methane (CH4) release from the Arctic Regions, particularly the East Siberian Arctic Shelf. Member Since: 2 mai 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 159

297. Birthmark 00:52 GMT le 03 mai 2012
OldLeatherneck, you're even older than me! I missed Nam by a few months, but I only did a hitch in the Army. I think my posts on this board will lead one to a reasonably accurate prediction of how that turned out. lol Thanks for your personal insight. I've often thought it might just be the way engineers approach a problem as opposed to pure science. Seems plausible enough. I've kinda sorta ignored the methane problem. I've probably done that because that's too close to a "game over" scenario. That doesn't mean it won't/isn't happening, just that that would probably be such a catastrophe that it's pointless for me to worry about --somewhat like living in the middle of a large city in a nuclear war. However, I think I can deal with the CO2-based disaster that's unfolding. Member Since: 30 octobre 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1815

298. Daisyworld 03:18 GMT le 03 mai 2012
Quoting OldLeatherneck: Engineers vs Scientists This is my first post on Wunderblog. I'm a retired systems engineer from the defense industry and also a firm believer in AGW. In a much younger life I was a US Marine who served in Vietnam. Greetings Marine, from an old army grunt. Welcome aboard, and it's good to see a fellow veteran interested in the science of AGW (you too, Birthmark). Wunderground has excellent climate change resources, and they've gotten only better over the years. While I just started posting myself recently, I've been watching for many years now. I would warn you, too, that climate change denialists/skeptics are fairly aggressive here. I've already received spam mail from them on my account, and I haven't even been active very long. I see you're interested in methane hydrates. Are you familiar at all with the works of Dr. Keith Kvenvolden at the USGS? He has decades of research on the subject: Gas Hydrate and Humans Semper Fi. Member Since: 11 janvier 2012 Posts: 4 Comments: 330

299. greentortuloni 07:56 GMT le 03 mai 2012
Quoting Birthmark: Women? That's plural! I just have the one. She makes me do enough stuff by herself. There's no telling what I'd be forced to become if I had more than one woman. Gah! Left to my own devices, I'd pretty much wander about in a loincloth and eat berries and whatever was so stupid that it didn't run away from me --people excluded, of course. For people, I'd wear my Sunday-go-to-meeting loin cloth and possibly some sort of shirt contrivance. Topic? What topic? My Father-in-law was an engineer, too. He wasn't like the denialist engineers at all. That would have interfered with making sure all his tools were properly maintained, placed, and dust-free. He was a really great guy. I just remember being in engineering classes in college and looking around the room and seeing no women at all. Then looking out the window and seeing women walk by on their way to other classes, thinking: wow, this is really a great profession I've got myself into. There is an arrogance and problem with a lot of engineering mentality if you let the mentallity pervade your entire life. Engineering is a brilliant way to see part of life, but not all of it. For me, it took a very conscious effort to be able to balance the two. Probably the same in any profession: spend 8 hours a day looking at the world in a certain way and it has to filter over into the rest of your life. Freeman Dyson (physicist) wrote about his time designing nuclear reactors with engineers and how different the concept was. the gist of it, as I remember, is that engineers love theory as well but they love creation more. So for engineers, a theory that works 99% of the time is sufficient if they can patch over the 1%. For a scientist, that 1% is fatal to the theory. Time and a place for both. Member Since: 5 juin 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1198

301. greentortuloni 12:41 GMT le 03 mai 2012
Quoting TemplesOfSyrinxC4: Fake ass posers crawling out the woodwork again, what else is new!? smh Hey Temple, how are you? I'm bored, so tell me, what's the conspiracy of the day that only you are clever enough to discover? Member Since: 5 juin 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1198

Viewing: 251 - 301

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 — Blog Index

Top of Page

New Comment

Community Standards Policy Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

About RickyRood