Whether you're new to climate topics or an expert you are most welcome. Before you can comment you'll need to register or sign in. Click one of the buttons below.
Whether you're new to climate topics or an expert you are most welcome. Before you can comment you'll need to register or sign in. Click one of the buttons below.
Comments
It would appear all of his graphs have the present time temp curve going down.
Amazing proof of this is that nights are colder than days.
Regarding the relentless attack on "CO2 science" - I think there's another tool to counter such armchair rhetorical knowitalls.
With some help from a few friends I put together a list of modern marvels that would be impossible without scientists having achieved a thorough understanding of atmospheric greenhouse physics. It's somewhat rough, more like a first working draft, sitting there waiting for something.
I like to think it's a good list awaiting further refinement, but at least it's a start. Anyone is welcome to copy - attribution is unimportant, besides deep down I think it would be cool if someone used the list as a starting point (it's full of potential) for making it their own impactful presentation.
Then there's the Air Force Studies. Not just US, Australia, Russia, China and others - and they weren't collaborating. Still all arrived at the same answers. Untold exciting story waiting for the right person to turn into something real.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomy
* geared towards the informed layperson.
Or are you mistaking it for WUWT ?
"What's Up With That Watts, et al."
is the inspired work of a long time spectator of the climate science dialogue, (debacle may be more appropriate), who was banned from commenting at WUWT and decided to fight back.
It's a tad confrontational at times, which turns off some good people.
It's not near as polished as it could be, which probably chases away many more.
But, it's creator is always looking for constructive "tough-love" feedback.
Even as he barges ahead in his naive style.
But then he is sort of a 'naive' - being a tradesman (culinary arts, carpentry) rather than a scholar, scientist, or professional writer type -
That's offset by the fact he learned about the science behind Global Warming around 1970/71 during high school science classes. (he's class of '73)
And he certainly has been a life long passionate student of our Earth, her systems and her life story, if at a novice level.
And like I said I know the author is always thirsty for serious feedback - the only way to learn and improve.
PS. I feel comfortable talking about said author, since it's me.
I smell a rat - someone with an agenda has just come up with a headline that states a conclusion, then throws together a bunch of bad charts at random to attempt to give the headline credibility - I have seen other posts from cranks that are formatted the same way.
Such as that garbage in the last paragraph. No scientist has ever said anything close to "climate depends solely CO2". Our planet's insulation does depend on CO2 along with other greenhouse gases. More GHGs more insulation. It really is that simple.
Well okay not quite that simple, we have aerosols that cool. Then there's the stuff that unfolds over centuries and millennia such as the distance from the Sun and the Earth's inclination, even Earth's geography and position of continents.
_____________
Ask him to explain why it's too far fetched?
Ask him if he's interesting in understand why scientists make the claims they make?
Ask him why he believes his opinion is better than that of experts who's learned opinions are based on learning, full-time study and experience?
wwscherk: As for cloud feedback Skeptical Science is a good source: What is the net feedback of clouds?
they seem to treat climate science like some sort of "Da Vinci code" - something to be cracked
so they can blow the whole scam wide open
as they sit there in front of their computer, tin foil hat and anti-knowledge cloak securely fastened
I have two interlocutors. One has said that 'all the models he has seen' are failures. I asked him to fork up one or two of the models he has seen for discussion, and he came back with the statement that he didn't keep a catalogue of model failures and in any case, the old models are hard to find. They, in his words, "don't tend to remain easily publicly accessible once they've seriously gone down in flames. They just kind of disappear"
I had tried to find a common ground of understanding by referring both to the chapter on "Simple models" in Weart's online book. One returned a response that he isn't interested in opinion ... but is seeking reliable, repeatable experiment. In his words, "
The other interlocutor cites nothing either. I'd like to find one of the 'failed models' to discuss with both. The best clue I have got is "The failing predictions can be found on the anti- AGW websites."
It feels like a loop: "What models do you mean?" ... "Look it up." Argh
I received this. I bold the part that I think I can find in the literature:
What I found quite useful in preparing for this discussion is the taxology of skeptical arguments/claims at Skeptical Science.
I am afraid you get this all the time
they sort of want to release a tiny molecule of CO2 and then run outside to a thermometer a record the result
it is a combination of unreasonable expectations and a misunderstanding of how science works
I am sure he has also wittered on about how he wants "proof"
although there are plenty of simple experiments on youtube of CO2 increasing temperate maybe show him one of those
and ask him why this behaviour would be any different outside of the lab
ps you also get this with evolution deniers - unless you can show them a dolphin giving birth to one with legs that can walk on land - you simply haven't "proved" evolution
Ask how the CMIP3 model ensemble below is a failure? What does the failure of the models even mean? The models are meant to project the long term future, but cannot predict because of the unknown variables--variables that we cannot predict--such as unforced variability, aerosols (volcanic or manmade), or solar output.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/denial101x-videos-and-references.html#week4
Meanwhile, the other interlocutor is laying out something I have seen before, a boggy, sucking kind of argument with no firm thesis. Any part of the swamp seems to be solid, but nothing really is, and there are no paths to evidence, analysis, or conclusive claim about the things he mentions, nor why then are laid out together.
In this particular case, the Second Interlocutor begins by plugging the new Pat Michaels book ... to hint I suppose that he too is a "lukewarmer." But in response to a quite stupid interjection from Interlocutor 3 ("it's the "global warming" in(festing) science.") he heads for the soft bed of assertion ... "The world has been warming up a bit since the depths of the Little Ice Age."
I think everyone can imagine where that intro goes given my context (if not here's the link). In response I posted the brilliant cartoon timeline of average earth temperature over time.
Now to the fun part:
- to my attempt at cartoon good humour and a making evident as sense of proportion, the resulting response was ...
- Little Ice Age
- Greenland was great
- Roman Warm Period
- Northwest Passage
- Michael Mann bad hockey stick.
Does that strike anyone else as stringing beads -- without posting an actual argument? Am I right in thinking this is just bogland? It seems to me that I am supposed to assemble these items into a coherent whole without the writer's guidance.Anyway, my last attempt to address and assess the swampy claims ... is here ... any further insight and fun suggestions are welcome. That this same interlocutor has today cited SkepticalScience in an attempt to 'splain the Little Ice Age and Northwest Passage makes me go 'hmmmmm.' This might be an opening. The rest of the forum is overwhelmingly hostile to "Warmism." Because the SkS articles he cites do not support a hostile reading, maybe there is a chance of altering an obdurate insistence on "It's all bulloney" ...
PS -- oh, and didn't I know that we aren't about to turn into Venus? Sigh. When I was asking what were the causes of the Little Ice Age and Roman Warm Period.
Sorry that this is a bit long and unfocused.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/213/4511/957
Abstract
The global temperature rose by 0.2°C between the middle 1960's and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.
http://www.californiadrought.org/drought/current-conditions/
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160916005705/en/Mission-Accomplished-Crystal-Serenity-Completes-32-Day-Northwest
In general, the first thing that occurs to me when people say that nature will take anything, is that what they are talking about is the planet will continue to exist, not "Nature" as such. (There've been five major extinctions after all, and we're now heading for the sixth.)
In our case, we are most concerned with what we humans can tolerate. The more thoughtful people are also concerned with what other life forms can tolerate. Some because they know we rely on other life forms, some because they are altruistic.
The article below might explain why, as that one person wrote, Mars is not like Venus. For one thing, it's more like our moon when it comes to diurnal temperature because the atmosphere is so thin. For another, it's quite a bit further from the sun than is Venus.
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast09feb_1/
yes, I have long thought that the "Save the Planet" meme was misplaced
as you say we should be concentrating on humanity (and our co-inhabitants)
the Planet will survive whatever we can throw at it
What, you mean they didn't stick around to defend their positions?
Funny that, I've noticed that happening too. ALL the time.
I think it has something to do with a fear of having their self-certitude cracked.
That's the difference between, them and the proverbial us.
We like to learn and discover.
We like to think about the world and try to figure out things and develop our own understanding and opinions. But, we're always willing to put our understanding up to examination, precisely because we appreciate that we have much to learn and aren't infallible about what we have learned in the past. We appreciate that getting caught in mistakes, though not enjoyable, are valuable learning tools that leave us better informed every time.
yes, precisely
when I first came to the climate science debate - I think I initially bought into a few of the "myths"
from memory they were "Global Cooling in the 70's" and the other one about "they" have simply changed the name for "Global Warming" to the catch all "Climate Change"
in both cases when I actually looked passed the media hype I realised, quite quickly, I was wrong
I made a post about this sort of phenomena on the Open Mind blog
the problem is that it is so easy to accuse Climate Science - and hence the Scientist of "making it up as they go along"
my post - which I will simply repeat below, was in response to the realisation that the physics of Sea Level may see localised lowering sea level as a result of melting ice sheets not a rise
----
I think this sea level issue – i.e. that the melting of the Greenland Ice sheet may cause a lowering of “localised” sea level goes to the heart of some peoples “distrust/sceptism” of climate science
it plays well into the “they are making things up as they go along” meme which morphs into all sorts of Popper falsification nonsense.
if you don’t understand how gravity affects sea level (which I confess I did not until I watched that wonderful minute physics video) then it is easy to assume that too
“sea level goes up – due to melting ice sheets” “sea level goes down – due to melting ice sheets”
“gee – it is heads they win tails you loose with these guys, they are making it up as they go along blah blah blah”
when the reality is they simply won’t admit they don’t understand the science well enough to form a judgement and fail to understand that some science is actually counter intuitive
----
and the minute physics video I reference in the Open Mind post
CC - agreed
i think the wider point is that Climate Science is both extremely accessible and extremely relevant/important
this inevitably means you get the armchair “experts” continually second guessing the science with varying levels of in-expertise -- also bringing a whole host of preconceived ideas and biases that tragically (and comically) they simply won’t let go of