What is Digg?Sponsored by Gilt Man
It's a Gilt Man's world view!
giltman.com - Get gear and gadgets at up to 70% off. Shop like a guy, dress like a man. You're invited.
39 Comments
- throwdini, on 11/12/2009, -3/+34Yet another article about this myth. I am so tired of these liberal lies. There never was and there never will be any such things as deltas.
- TobiasParker, on 11/12/2009, -3/+21Wow, nice one, i almost blocked and buried you before i finished reading your comment, then i lold.
- wrathchilde, on 11/12/2009, -3/+11Hi Curt.
For perspective, your comment that "every extra pound of CO2 released has a diminishing effect on the globe" extends beyond temperature. In fact the 25 gigatons (50 trillion pounds) of CO2 released by human activity each year has effects beyond heat insulation. The chemistry of the ocean, and every aquatic system is also affected, just so you know. - wrathchilde, on 11/12/2009, -1/+9Whatever Happened to the hole in the ozone layer? Excellent example: here's what happened.
By 1987, 24 nations had ratified the Montreal Protocol, a landmark agreement that calls for a ban on producing and using nearly 100 of the most important ozone-depleting chemicals. As of September 2009, with the addition of East Timor, the protocol has been ratified by every member of the United Nations.
What was the effect of this action?
Ninety-seven percent of the substances regulated under the Montreal Protocol have now been phased out and replaced in manufacturing with more ozone-friendly alternatives, like hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). The remaining gases will be phased out globally by 2040. According to the United Nations Environmental Programme, enactment of the protocol has prevented some 20 million cases of skin cancer and 130 million cases of eye cataracts.
Silly scientists, and their "cause and effect". - TheMoniker, on 11/12/2009, -0/+8Ah, wrathechilde beat me to the punch here, but yes, the short answer regarding the ozone layer is "The Montreal Protocol happened."
- budboomer, on 11/12/2009, -4/+12Could, maybe, possibly.
Then again, maybe not. - wrathchilde, on 11/12/2009, -3/+10That's a good point. I recently attended a lecture by Dr. Jerry Mitrovica, professor of geophysics at Harvard, who discussed the physics of moving large masses (i.e. ice volumes) on tides and earth's orbit. The math suggests that if you remove large masses, that is melt ice sheets, then the geoid (the relative graviational surface of the planet) changes. The point is, the ocean does not act as a "bathtub" where when you add water, seea level rises the same amount everywhere.
http://www.science.ca/scientists/scientistprofile. ... - TheMoniker, on 11/12/2009, -2/+8A review and analysis of the scientific literature from the period shows that, during the period of 1965-1979, 44 papers predicted warming and 7 papers predicted cooling.
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf
More on this here:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11643-climat ...
It's important to note that science in general and climate science in particular have come a long way since the 1970s. The body of evidence clearly demonstrating the anthropogenic effect on climate (global warming) is enormous. If you are curious as to what the scientific literature has to say, it should be available at your local library. Here are the abstracts from a few of the major journals online:
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-ar ...
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/4735/ho ...
http://www.agu.org/journals/gb/
While misinformation campaigns that urge us not to "rush into action" may be seductive, it's important to note that among the scientific community, the debate as to whether or not anthropogenic global warming is occurring has been settled (as is clearly evinced by looking through the research journals above) for more than a decade. The tactic of "exploring the controversy" is one taken from the intelligent design play book, another instance where there is no controversy in the scientific community, and similar tactics have been used regarding tobacco (whom many of the shills such as Singer and Lindzen used to work for before spreading misinformation about global warming).
We understand that global warming is occurring, and that the effects will be negative on the whole. Either contact a few of your local climate science researchers to discuss this, look over the journals, or read the IPCC summaries here: http://www.ipcc.ch/ - Ragzouken, on 11/12/2009, -3/+9Did human life exist during the Cambrian Explosion? Would life during the Cambrian Explosion be pleasant for humans? Did CO2 levels change as rapidly as they do now during the Cambrian Explosion?
- wrathchilde, on 11/12/2009, -2/+8Indeed, CO2 concentrations have been MUCH higher in the past, as have global temperatures. That does not address the question about rates of change, or the impact human activity has on those rates.
I'm an observational scientist. I respect the evidence that demonstrates how rapidly conditions are changing. I leave it to others to argue if it is "bad" or "good", but contend it is real. Human activity is affecting the environment. Certainly there are periods in the distant past where conditions were different. Also, in the period you cite, most of North America was a shallow sea. Would that be bad or good for the economy? - wrathchilde, on 11/12/2009, -3/+8Curt, feel free to disagree with any action that affects you. I would never suggest that is inappropriate. My intention is to point out, where possible, that the changes we are seeing in the global environment are real, that they are most likely caused by human activity, and will continue. I am talking specifically about observable phenomena, not forward models.
If people, such as yourself, chose to oppose changes in human activity that could mitigate those impacts then all I ask is that you consider the consequences of inaction.
Nothing is certain about science. Einstein said "if we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be research", that does not mean that the preponderance of evidence should be ignored. Peace. - TheMoniker, on 11/12/2009, -2/+7"I don't deny global warming"
Good to hear.
"I'm just skeptical of models which purport to predict the weather 100 years ahead of time based on the past trend."
Are you aware of the distinction between terms in this context? In case you're not 'weather': the meteorological conditions at a specific place, at a specific time—and climate: the statistics of weather, including extremes, over timescales on the order of at least 30 years. Climate models do not predict weather as such (in fact there are theorems demonstrating that you cannot do this), what they do predict is the climate over this period. The distinction may seem like a fine one, but it is an important one.
"The climate has negative feedback mechanisms as well as positive."
True.
"The net may be positive right now, but the recent decrease in temperatures since 1998 seems to indicate that cyclical changes in the climate also play a large role at the very least."
First, to clarify, we haven't seen a simple cooling since 1998. Here is the GISS data, graphed:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lr ... Here is the NCAR global ocean heat content, graphed: http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/ Here is the HadCRUT temperature data, graphed: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhsh ...
You'll notice the fluctuations in the data with a cooling following the abating of the El Nino in '98 and then a subsequent warming until 2005, then a subsequent cooling. (Though the overall warming trend is clear in each of them.) To get to what you were saying though, it's true that there are cyclical factors at work, from solar cycles to various climate feedback mechanisms. However, when analyzed, the natural cycles do not account for global warming (if they were all that was affecting climate, we would have seen a slight overall cooling since 1900). However, once we include the anthropogenic emissions, the warming is clear as day and can even be reproduced on a continental scale: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/upload/2007/04/spm ...
"So before you go reducing the standard of living of everybody globally and creating a global tax to redistribute wealth from the West to developing nations using dirty energy"
There are many possible solutions to global warming, reducing emissions would obviously be the safest. But even within the emissions reductions strategies there is a broad variance, from revenue-neutral carbon taxes, to cap and trade schemes. Once we're agreed that there's a problem (which the scientific community has been for more than a decade) the issue of solving it becomes a matter of urgent public policy.
"Current models do not understand how clouds affect the climate, this is critical to understanding this issue. Until they understand cloud modeling any model's predictions are pure speculation."
This is not true at all, from global precipitation to temperature patterns, climate models are accurate to within their stated errors on a continental scale. We also don't understand how to precisely parameterize breaking waves or forest carbon litter pools, etc. but the point is that each of these have an associated maximum uncertainty that can be accounted for. - aderek, on 11/12/2009, -0/+3why are most of the global warmer deniers american?
- HuangFeng, on 11/12/2009, -0/+3They are the focus of the denial "marketing"
- nu66et, on 11/12/2009, -3/+5It's because all river deltas are equal, but some are more equal than others.
- TheMoniker, on 11/12/2009, -1/+3Except, of course, an analysis of the natural forcings alone cannot account for global warming, whereas, once anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are considered, the climate can be resolved to a continental scale: http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ritter/geog101/tex ...
- HuangFeng, on 11/12/2009, -2/+4Only the climate isn't cooling. Since about May this year, we have been on a heating spike thanks to an El Nino. If you use the UAH data we have possibly been flat over the last 10 years, but absolutely not cooling. If you use GISS data then the heating over the last 10 years actually very close to the predicted increase from the ratio of atmospheric carbon dioxide over the period, although the 10 year period is arguably too small for the CO2 heating signal to be apparent over the noise from natural variation.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1975 ... - TheMoniker, on 11/12/2009, -0/+2"Tell me then...since they can clearly tell what "natural forcings" are, what IS the top end of "normal" variation?"
For which time period? If you're talking about the temperature anomaly of the present climate (30 year average) you would be looking at roughly -0.1 degrees Celsius compared to a baseline period of 1900 - 1950.
"No???"
I know that you meant that as a rhetorical question, but the answer is readily available. You might want to save a few of those question marks for later.
"Ok, maybe an easier one... to within +/- 10% what is the total forcing on the environment from CO2 and feedbacks?"
For which year and relative to which year? Each of the forcings has its own associated uncertainty. You can start here: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/arcpac/scienceintro.h ...
"+/-20%??? "
Same answer.
"See, not so cut and dry now is it."
Here is where you needed one of those question marks. Actually, though cut-and-dry isn't how I would have put it, the answers to your questions could have been found in 5 minutes on Google.
"Its all well and good to go around talking like you actually know the answer but you quite frankly...do not know."
Which answer? The answers to your questions thus far are above.
"BTW, you can't ACTUALLY average the models together, they have WILDLY different outcomes based on wildly different input scenarios (different assumed forcings)."
I believe that the IPCC runs used the same input scenarios: anthropogenic emissions trajectories, volcanic contributions and solar data (for the natural forcings runs they omit the anthropogenic emissions). The models have different internal structure though, sure. That doesn't mean that they can't be averaged.
"It would be like averaging together the various versions of string theory and calling it complete."
I don't work in string theory (I've only had a bit offered by profs here and there as it relates to quantum chromodynamics, I've been introduced to generator functions etc. but haven't had the opportunity to do a course on it), (do you?) I'm guessing that this is a fair bit different from that though.
"Each model is full of different assumed forcings, feedbacks and relationships."
To some degree, yes. Though to some degree, that's irrelevant. If you were to run a simple Paillard model for ice, for instance, and compare it with the output for a Parrenin model you'd find broadly similar results despite the difference in complexity and methods of modeling the same phenomenon.
"With that in mind there is little reason to believe we would ever see more than the warming suggested by CO2 forcing alone (supposedly 1.2C for doubling)...and probably not even that."
That's ridiculous, you do realize that climate sensitivity is calculated in line-by-line radiation models, GCMs, from ice cores, etc. and you still arrive at a value of ~3 degrees/doubling of carbon dioxide? Where are you getting that figure from (I'm guessing Pielke, Lindzen or Spencer)?
"The observational data (you know...the way REAL science is done) actually agrees with this assessment"
No it doesn't, for one, it would contradict ice core data. With that aside, Lindzen and Choi's paper* seems to have used uncorrected ERBE data and was using the AMIP which is forced by historical SSTs this is compounded by him subtracting 1/G without any explanation (in paragraph 13, it has a value of 4 Watts per metre squared Kelvin and he subtracts it from the outgoing short wave flux, if you're looking to spot the error). So, if you're looking for why his paper disagrees with basically the entire field of climate science on this matter, there are a few spots to look.
"Feedbacks are almost certainly negative."
Which ones? All of them taken as a whole? Over what time period?
* http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2 ... - TobiasParker, on 11/12/2009, -0/+1"wait till govt prints all your tax dollars"
Look up the federal reserve hotshot. - Dipsomaniac, on 11/15/2009, -0/+1*clap clap clap*
Well played, sir. Well played. - TheMoniker, on 11/12/2009, -3/+4It could be, in a strictly logical sense, in the same way that anything that isn't logically necessary (in the strict sense) could be a myth: evolution, the moon landing, World War 1 or gravity—it's just exceedingly, exceedingly unlikely. So, part of the reason that you're seen as a crackpot while endorsing the view that global warming is a myth has to do with the extremely unlikely nature of the claim that it is a myth.
- inactive, on 11/12/2009, -6/+7Ah yet another "Global Warming "could" do this and that" story.
Yet if I say man-made Global Warming "could" be a myth I am the crackpot. - stilesja, on 11/12/2009, -3/+3Exactly, for example global warming would have negligible effect on the climate of Mars.
- Ferretman, on 11/12/2009, -10/+9In other news:
- Clouds won't affect all river deltas equally;
- Rainfall won't fall on all river deltas equally;
- Birds won't fly over all river deltas equally;
- The sun won't shine on all plains equally;
- Continental drift won't affect all continents equally;
- Taxes to combat potentially mythical climate effects won't affect all people equally.
Nothing has *ever* affected all things equally on the planet--it's one of the glories of having a dynamic and diverse ecosystem.
***shakes head**** - zoomaKabu, on 11/12/2009, -2/+1Global warming and or cooling might or might not effect the earth and or weather patterns over either a short or long period of time, with or without people doing anything about it, or not. Obviously we must act now to avoid this.
- curtisag, on 11/12/2009, -5/+3I know about ocean acidification, but isn't it also true that at one time CO2 concentrations were much higher while life was simultaneously exploding (particularly during the Cambrian Explosion)? I'm just calling for more study before major changes are made to the global economy.
- poitsplace, on 11/12/2009, -2/+0Ha, funny. Tell me then...since they can clearly tell what "natural forcings" are, what IS the top end of "normal" variation? No??? Ok, maybe an easier one... to within +/- 10%...what is the total forcing on the environment from CO2 and feedbacks? +/-20%??? See, not so cut and dry now is it. Its all well and good to go around talking like you actually know the answer but you quite frankly...do not know. BTW, you can't ACTUALLY average the models together, they have WILDLY different outcomes based on wildly different input scenarios (different assumed forcings). It would be like averaging together the various versions of string theory and calling it complete. Each model is full of different assumed forcings, feedbacks and relationships.
The bottom line is that the relative temperature stability of the interglacial periods requires very weak feedback...and most likely negative feedback. With that in mind there is little reason to believe we would ever see more than the warming suggested by CO2 forcing alone (supposedly 1.2C for doubling)...and probably not even that. The observational data (you know...the way REAL science is done) actually agrees with this assessment...as do the recent peer reviewed studies that bothered to look at earth's outgoing radiation to see what was going on (Lindzen and Choi, Dr. Roy Spencer). Feedbacks are almost certainly negative. Congratulations...catastrophy averted and we didn't have to do a thing. Oh, and amusing side effect, most of the warming was natural. Go figure. - kitfox385, on 11/12/2009, -7/+4The way global warming is being presented is a fraud. What ever happened to the hole in the o-zone layer, or save the rain forest? Come on people, lets find a cause with solid data behind it.
- curtisag, on 11/12/2009, -5/+2As a scientist of course you know that correlation does not imply causation. I respect the education you have as a scientist which exceeds my own scientific understanding, but it was not long ago that many of your fellow scientists were predicting global cooling in the 1970's. The justification for a rush to action is all I disagree with. When people like Al Gore get up on TV and say we have X amount of time to solve this problem before Y happens, my ***** meter goes off the scale.
- tiresias2, on 11/11/2009, -20/+17The effects of global warming aren't uniform everywhere... global warming deniers will undoubtedly incorrectly use that fact as propaganda to raise doubts over it...
- dhartin, on 11/12/2009, -8/+4totally agree, I bet if I had enough money to pay for the research, I bet I could make a study showing global warming will 'possibly' turn the world into a tropical paradise.
- curtisag, on 11/12/2009, -6/+2Good questions Raz, more study is clearly called for before conclusions affecting the lives of billions are taken in a rush to action.
- curtisag, on 11/12/2009, -10/+5I don't deny global warming, I'm just skeptical of models which purport to predict the weather 100 years ahead of time based on the past trend. The climate has negative feedback mechanisms as well as positive. The net may be positive right now, but the recent decrease in temperatures since 1998 seems to indicate that cyclical changes in the climate also play a large role at the very least.
So before you go reducing the standard of living of everybody globally and creating a global tax to redistribute wealth from the West to developing nations using dirty energy, I'd like to see if the current downtrend in temperatures holds or breaks out to the upside in the next 5 years. It's possible every extra pound of CO2 released has a diminishing effect on the globe due to other negative feedbacks like increased clouds which reflect more sunlight into space. Current models do not understand how clouds affect the climate, this is critical to understanding this issue. Until they understand cloud modeling any model's predictions are pure speculation. - chinaman1212, on 11/12/2009, -14/+8you see, our government is going to ride this thing out for another 5 or so years, while the earth is steadily cooling off. when they decide the time is right they are going to start touting about how they are cooling the planet by cutting back on carbon. They already know its cooling off, but why stop now when they can tax carbon, and gain control.
- veganroofer, on 11/12/2009, -9/+2Where the hell is greenfyre??
- prakash1234, on 11/12/2009, -10/+2wait till govt prints all your tax dollars and fund cooling the earth..a bunch of political bozos running loose
- DSink, on 11/12/2009, -16/+7But Al Gore said...
- hereticoftruth, on 11/12/2009, -16/+5By all means let us spend trillions of dollars fighting Mother Nature. Otherwise, how could we justify that transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich? Keeping up appearances is the cost of doing business.
- prakash1234, on 11/12/2009, -14/+1algore ***** his pants during his keynote presentation..
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
