Actually, that citation does not support my claim, but neither does he directly refute it. As far as I can tell, that's one of his tactics. Try to find where he's said something definitive.
Furthermore, I'm not one of these "the sky is falling" alarmists. I'm just saying that we are mainly to blame. That does not exaggerate the problem. It states the cause.
CO2 absorbs energy, and CO2 concentration has increased. Fine, great. Now tell me how much more energy that traps, and tell me if that energy can explain the current 1 degree Fahrenheit increase in world-wide temperatures.
\delta F = 5.3 * ln(C/C_0), Where C is the actual CO2 concentration (~385 ppmv) and C_0 = 280 ppmv.
So the \delta F = 1.7 W/m^2.
Your education and fancy pieces of paper do not make you right. I honest feel sorry for the field of Computer Science, and am very glad you didn't get your Ph. D. in Astronomy. You can't do any damage with a Masters in Astronomy.
Your divisive and dismissive language ("pseudo-skeptics") doesn't actually get us anywhere. Setting yourself up as judge over which skepticism is warranted and which is not a scientific approach -- this is the model of a Religion, where there is acceptable dogma and unacceptable dogma. Show me the errors in their logic or explain why their experiments are inaccurate, don't call them names.
When people actually bring new arguments to the table, that's fine. However, when they bring out tired arguments (global cooling, medieval warm period) that have been debunked time and time again, they're not really interested in the truth. Yes, you're right. There is no one "truth" that we can all agree on. However, it gets frustrating when you hear the same non-truths repeated ad nauseum.
Granted, perhaps I am too sensitive. I've heard these same arguments so many times that I convince myself that it's out of malice when it might be out of... other reasons.
I'm not being sanctimonious, but I'm not going to waste my time watching some infomercial. Have you watched "An Inconvenient Truth" yet or are you too sanctimonious?
I already know that Steve McIntyre and Dr. Ross McKitrick are not climatologists. Are any of them?
Prof. Tim Patterson: Geologist
Prof. Edward J Wegman: Statistician
Prof. Bob Carter: Marine Geophysicist
Dr. Willie Soon: Astrophysicist
Dr. Madhya Khandekar: ???
Prof. Wibjorn Karlen: Paleoclimatologist
Dr. Henrik Svensmark: Physicist
Dr. Dick Morgan: Law Professor?
Dr. Fred Goldberg: Physicist
Hans H.J. Labohm: Economist
Steve McIntyre: Mineralogist
Dr. Ross McKitrick: Economist
Dr. Chris Landsea: Meteorologist
OK. So I've had to do a lot of work to get one name. Prof. Karlen is a climatologist. So, what was his contribution? If I do a Scirus search, I don't find much, but perhaps I'm not searching on the right terms. He wrote a paper in 1973 on Holocene climatic variations and another in 2000 on high-altitude fresh waters.
Ahah. I did another Scirus search and found this article. Unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be anything there. I really wish I knew what he had written as every other article I can find only deals with the holocene. Although the title is suggestive, it wouldn't be the first time that what one would infer from a title did not agree with the conclusions.
How do gun-shot fatalities help explain cancer deaths? They don't. Why do you think that the current warming trend must have the same causes as much more gradual warming trends in the past?
The Earth's average temperature is constantly changing, sometimes going up, sometimes down and right now it happens to be going up. Don't panic, it will go down again, possibly farther than you'd like.
I've heard this before. Ten years ago, I heard that we'd see it in 5 years. Ten years later and the hottest ten years on record have happened in the last ten years.
I would also be interested in that. However, just as with the theory of evolution, there is only consensus on the general concepts. There is, and most likely always will be, debate on the specifics. Nevertheless, a clear-cut list of factors from a group would be welcome.
So, I've perused the article you referred to. It's a pretty good paper. It calls into question some of the conclusions of Mann et al., but mostly supports the IPCC TAR. I asked for a paper that disputes AGW. This doesn't appear to be one - if I've missed something (I scanned it rather quickly), let me know. I really liked Figure 3.
Huh. I just realized that it's hosted by junkscience. Since junkscience is funded by fossil-fuel companies, I guess they must see something that I don't see. Please tell me what it is - I'm genuinely interested.
I'm trying to understand how you went from a quote that says human-made factors should have an effect on climate to the proclamation that "They are in almost complete agreement that it is primarily anthropogenic in nature".
You're drawing a connection where there isn't one. I never said the quote proved that they were almost in complete agreement that it is primarily anthropogenic in nature. That I've never read an article by a climatologist who disputes this is why I said they're almost in complete agreement. Funny, I thought that was clear - I guess not.
How do you interpret those words? I do not feel that the context changes them other than to give him room to please the fossil fuel companies that support him. Seriously: tell me how you interpret this phrase: "At some level, it has never been widely contested."
Keep in mind, that he also wrote (as you yourself quoted):
There is also little disagreement that levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have risen from about 280 parts per million by volume in the 19th century to about 387 ppmv today. Finally, there has been no question whatever that carbon dioxide is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas--albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming.
As we add more CO2 to the air it acts to drive the pendulum of temperature. That is not what is in question. What is in question is the extent of the driving.
Amongst scientists, yes. That is what is in question. Amongst lay people and pseudo-skeptics there is the illusion that the first is in question.
I'm curious. Perhaps I'm not reading carefully enough, but I don't see where you challenged anything I said. Where do you think I was not entirely accurate?
To accuse anyone who uses the word "denial" as trying to add "connotations" to the holocaust (which I'm sure is what he was implying) is like using the term "racist" or "misogynist" where there's little proof of either. IMNSHO, it weakens your case.
Nevertheless, I do appreciate your distinction between "connotation" and "reference". I am, perhaps, somewhat sensitive to this issue for being accused of dragging the holocaust into it when I've used that term in the past. In respect of that, I've started using the term "pseudo-skeptic". I assume that has no such connotation.
If the numbers don't add up then the science that claims to explain them is wrong.
Correction: if the numbers [from various different sources] don't add up, then either the science behind some of those sources is wrong or the numbers weren't meant to add in a linear fashion. Not at all the same thing.
That's how we measure science: by its ability to accurately predict the numbers.
I'm not going to watch that trash. If you've watched it and there's a name and article, then give it to me. Spare me the pain of having to watch that. (Clue: Youtube is not a journal.)
There are extremists in defense of global warming. However, the basic science behind anthropogenic global warming is solid. The cure is uncertain, but the problem is real. As for your comments about scientists getting things wrong sometimes, you're right. However, very rarely has there been such unanimity as there is with AGW. What's even crazier than to believe a bunch of scientists is to believe a bunch of economists who claim that trying to reduce CO2 output will cripple the US economy. Additionally, there is no such unanimity with economists. Many think it will actually benefit the US economy!
Our scientists don't have a very good track record in predicting what will happen in complex systems when things change. Decreasing mercury and lead pollution was a good idea, dropping CO2 emissions is also a good idea.
It seems like we're in basic agreement. I'm not claiming to know what the solution is, but I am tired of these pseudo-skeptics who like to pretend that it's the height of "arrogance" to assume that humans can have any influence on the environment.
Absorbing infrared radiation leads to an increased thermal equilibrium.
Do you deny that?
(Implied) Causality 3:
We have increased the CO2 concentration by 100 ppmv.
Do you deny that?
Where is this "correlation" that you're describing? I'm talking causes.
I'm really tired of back seat scientists. Skepticism is good, and I'd argue that skepticism is even better when everyone seems to follow one view. The skeptics may not be right, but they are necessary to keep everyone honest. If you do not understand that, you have no right to comment.
Do a google search on "Ben Hocking". I'm not a back seat scientist. I might not be that credentialed, but I do have an MS in astrophysics, a Masters of Computer Science and I will soon have a Ph.D. in CS. I've also published several articles in Journal of Neuroscience and have written two grant proposals to the NIH. What are your credentials?
Skeptics are great - they look for the truth. Pseudo-skeptics who only look to prove their preconceived ideas or try to make themselves look smart give real skeptics a bad name.
Not true. They are in almost complete agreement that it is primarily anthropogenic in nature
No, they're not.
Can you name one climatologist who disagrees with that statement? If they're not in almost complete agreement, that should be an easy request. Just name one, and provide an article they've written which backs up your assertion.
No, it's not, in fact most of it is correlative which is why you get terminology like relying on global "fingerprints," as in it's just an assumption based two things that look like they could be affecting each other but haven't been proven to with any direct evidence.
Back in the 60's - when the correlational evidence was being masked by particulates - the evidence was already mounting. The underlying science is really quite simple. Because of the sheer number of feedback (positive and negative) systems it is really hard to determine the magnitude of the effect, but the existence is not in doubt, and nor is the fact that it is the dominant factor in our current climate change.
This whole "deniers" thing is an obvious infraction of Godwin's Law...
Only to someone who's looking for such an infraction. The word denier is very apt. They deny the truth. However, for sake of argument, let's just agree to call them pseudo-skeptics. True skeptics are actually interested in the truth and not in reinforcing their preconceived notions or trying to sound smart.
(Although I'll agree that there are some environmentalists who will get quite bent out of shape. The less you actually know about the topic the more likely you are to resort to anger. That's why it is much more common on the pseudo-skeptic side of the aisle. You know, things like claiming that the word "denier" is a holocaust reference. I'm just sayin'...)
He was making an oblique reference to holocaust deniers, I believe. That the word "denial" is taken by these people to be associated with the holocaust strikes me as acute over-sensitivity. However, I've taken to calling them pseudo-skeptics (someone else whose name I've forgotten gave me that term) because they're not really interested in the truth. They're only interested in either supporting their preconceived notions or trying to sound smart.
As for cracking a book, you'd be better off cracking a research journal. State of Fear is a work of fiction.
Find one by an actual climatologist and not by an author who has also warned us about the "summer of the shark". The truth is that during this global cooling scare manufactured by Time and Newsweek, real scientists were already doing research on global warming.
It is the height of meglomania to suggest that human beings have a greater impact on the planet than that big-ass hot thing that comes over the horizon every morning.
Humans tend to think that the span of our lifetimes are significant, when in the scope of Universe, our lifespans, and indeed human life on this planet are nothing but a blip, a footnote, a grain of sand on the beach.
It's the height of ignorance to believe otherwise. If you don't trust environmentalists, perhaps you'll believe what Lindzen himself has said:
At some level, [that there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system] has never been widely contested.
The scientific community isn't saying that global warming isn't happening; they're just not agreeing about how it is being caused.
Not true. They are in almost complete agreement that it is primarily anthropogenic in nature, and that greenhouse gases are the anthropogenic culprit. The evidence for this is overwhelming. Heck, even Lindzen says so:
At some level, [that there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system] has never been widely contested.
While it [sort of] correlates to CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, it correlates to other things as well.
Forget correlation. It's basic science. CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. Absorbing infrared radiation leads to an increased thermal equilibrium. We have increased the CO2 concentration by 100 ppmv. Over the last 800,000 years it has fluctuated between 180 ppmv (ice age) and 280 ppmv. It is now at 380 ppmv. Lest you argue that it could be the oceans releasing CO2 (people actually argue that), levels in the oceans are increasing too.
But I do agree that there's just as much money to be made on the Green side of the fence as on the Exxon-Mobil side (or whatever).
Really? You really believe that? On what basis do you make such a radical claim? What is the profit motive on the Green side of the fence and how does that come close to the profit motive on the ExxonMobil side of the fence? Luckily, ExxonMobil is gradually beginning to reconsider its position.
My understanding is that this would only be true if it were year round. Accidents increase on both the days that we spring forward (less sleep) and the days that we fall back (interruption in our "circadian rhythms").
Of course, it turns out that it might not even save lives if year round (search for "school bus accidents").
That's why I specifically referred to the non-electric variety as an antique. The point was that they don't need electricity in order to run, and that one could theoretically use them to generate electricity just like one could generate electricity from a stairmaster (although at a much reduced efficiency). I've just heard a lot of nonsense from pseudo-scientists (usually citing "friction") who think that treadmills require electricity in order to run.
Are you working on the assumption that treadmills require electricity? Because I can tell you from experience that they do not. My grandparents had an antique treadmill that still worked 10 years ago (I have no idea what happened to it after they died), and there was no electricity involved.
If your merely stating that treadmills are not as efficient at generating electricity (or if there is some joke I'm just not getting, which is quite possible), then I won't disagree with you on that one.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, that citation does not support my claim, but neither does he directly refute it. As far as I can tell, that's one of his tactics. Try to find where he's said something definitive.
Furthermore, I'm not one of these "the sky is falling" alarmists. I'm just saying that we are mainly to blame. That does not exaggerate the problem. It states the cause.
I love you, too. xxoo
When people actually bring new arguments to the table, that's fine. However, when they bring out tired arguments (global cooling, medieval warm period) that have been debunked time and time again, they're not really interested in the truth. Yes, you're right. There is no one "truth" that we can all agree on. However, it gets frustrating when you hear the same non-truths repeated ad nauseum.
Granted, perhaps I am too sensitive. I've heard these same arguments so many times that I convince myself that it's out of malice when it might be out of ... other reasons.
I'm not being sanctimonious, but I'm not going to waste my time watching some infomercial. Have you watched "An Inconvenient Truth" yet or are you too sanctimonious?
I already know that Steve McIntyre and Dr. Ross McKitrick are not climatologists. Are any of them?
Prof. Tim Patterson: GeologistProf. Edward J Wegman: Statistician
Prof. Bob Carter: Marine Geophysicist
Dr. Willie Soon: Astrophysicist
Dr. Madhya Khandekar: ???
Prof. Wibjorn Karlen: Paleoclimatologist
Dr. Henrik Svensmark: Physicist
Dr. Dick Morgan: Law Professor?
Dr. Fred Goldberg: Physicist
Hans H.J. Labohm: Economist
Steve McIntyre: Mineralogist
Dr. Ross McKitrick: Economist
Dr. Chris Landsea: Meteorologist
OK. So I've had to do a lot of work to get one name. Prof. Karlen is a climatologist. So, what was his contribution? If I do a Scirus search, I don't find much, but perhaps I'm not searching on the right terms. He wrote a paper in 1973 on Holocene climatic variations and another in 2000 on high-altitude fresh waters.
Ahah. I did another Scirus search and found this article. Unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be anything there. I really wish I knew what he had written as every other article I can find only deals with the holocene. Although the title is suggestive, it wouldn't be the first time that what one would infer from a title did not agree with the conclusions.
How do gun-shot fatalities help explain cancer deaths? They don't. Why do you think that the current warming trend must have the same causes as much more gradual warming trends in the past?
I've heard this before. Ten years ago, I heard that we'd see it in 5 years. Ten years later and the hottest ten years on record have happened in the last ten years.
I would also be interested in that. However, just as with the theory of evolution, there is only consensus on the general concepts. There is, and most likely always will be, debate on the specifics. Nevertheless, a clear-cut list of factors from a group would be welcome.
So, I've perused the article you referred to. It's a pretty good paper. It calls into question some of the conclusions of Mann et al., but mostly supports the IPCC TAR. I asked for a paper that disputes AGW. This doesn't appear to be one - if I've missed something (I scanned it rather quickly), let me know. I really liked Figure 3.
Huh. I just realized that it's hosted by junkscience. Since junkscience is funded by fossil-fuel companies, I guess they must see something that I don't see. Please tell me what it is - I'm genuinely interested.
You're drawing a connection where there isn't one. I never said the quote proved that they were almost in complete agreement that it is primarily anthropogenic in nature. That I've never read an article by a climatologist who disputes this is why I said they're almost in complete agreement. Funny, I thought that was clear - I guess not.
How do you interpret those words? I do not feel that the context changes them other than to give him room to please the fossil fuel companies that support him. Seriously: tell me how you interpret this phrase: "At some level, it has never been widely contested."
Keep in mind, that he also wrote (as you yourself quoted):
So, educate me. What did he really mean?
Read the entire article and not just the abstract which he admits "is tantalizing for its ambiguity."
Amongst scientists, yes. That is what is in question. Amongst lay people and pseudo-skeptics there is the illusion that the first is in question.
I'm curious. Perhaps I'm not reading carefully enough, but I don't see where you challenged anything I said. Where do you think I was not entirely accurate?
To accuse anyone who uses the word "denial" as trying to add "connotations" to the holocaust (which I'm sure is what he was implying) is like using the term "racist" or "misogynist" where there's little proof of either. IMNSHO, it weakens your case.
Nevertheless, I do appreciate your distinction between "connotation" and "reference". I am, perhaps, somewhat sensitive to this issue for being accused of dragging the holocaust into it when I've used that term in the past. In respect of that, I've started using the term "pseudo-skeptic". I assume that has no such connotation.
I'm not going to watch that trash. If you've watched it and there's a name and article, then give it to me. Spare me the pain of having to watch that. (Clue: Youtube is not a journal.)
There are extremists in defense of global warming. However, the basic science behind anthropogenic global warming is solid. The cure is uncertain, but the problem is real. As for your comments about scientists getting things wrong sometimes, you're right. However, very rarely has there been such unanimity as there is with AGW. What's even crazier than to believe a bunch of scientists is to believe a bunch of economists who claim that trying to reduce CO2 output will cripple the US economy. Additionally, there is no such unanimity with economists. Many think it will actually benefit the US economy!
It seems like we're in basic agreement. I'm not claiming to know what the solution is, but I am tired of these pseudo-skeptics who like to pretend that it's the height of "arrogance" to assume that humans can have any influence on the environment.
Causality 2: Do you deny that?
(Implied) Causality 3: Do you deny that?
Where is this "correlation" that you're describing? I'm talking causes.
Do a google search on "Ben Hocking". I'm not a back seat scientist. I might not be that credentialed, but I do have an MS in astrophysics, a Masters of Computer Science and I will soon have a Ph.D. in CS. I've also published several articles in Journal of Neuroscience and have written two grant proposals to the NIH. What are your credentials?
Skeptics are great - they look for the truth. Pseudo-skeptics who only look to prove their preconceived ideas or try to make themselves look smart give real skeptics a bad name.
Does he? Oh, yeah. He gets grant money from the NSF, NASA, and the DOE. Yeah, no grant money there.
You get grant money for doing novel research - not for toeing the line. Anyone who thinks otherwise has never applied for a grant.
Only to someone who's looking for such an infraction. The word denier is very apt. They deny the truth. However, for sake of argument, let's just agree to call them pseudo-skeptics. True skeptics are actually interested in the truth and not in reinforcing their preconceived notions or trying to sound smart.
(Although I'll agree that there are some environmentalists who will get quite bent out of shape. The less you actually know about the topic the more likely you are to resort to anger. That's why it is much more common on the pseudo-skeptic side of the aisle. You know, things like claiming that the word "denier" is a holocaust reference. I'm just sayin'...)
He was making an oblique reference to holocaust deniers, I believe. That the word "denial" is taken by these people to be associated with the holocaust strikes me as acute over-sensitivity. However, I've taken to calling them pseudo-skeptics (someone else whose name I've forgotten gave me that term) because they're not really interested in the truth. They're only interested in either supporting their preconceived notions or trying to sound smart.
As for cracking a book, you'd be better off cracking a research journal. State of Fear is a work of fiction.
Find one by an actual climatologist and not by an author who has also warned us about the "summer of the shark". The truth is that during this global cooling scare manufactured by Time and Newsweek, real scientists were already doing research on global warming.
It's the height of ignorance to believe otherwise. If you don't trust environmentalists, perhaps you'll believe what Lindzen himself has said:
Only for those with the drug. And, tellingly, they were immune to the first tone and not the second (repeated, but different) tone.
They still responded to the second tone (post-drug) that was paired with the shock.
Very limited super powers, as they still responded to the second tone. I know this is /. but you could at least read the summary completely. ;)
My understanding is that this would only be true if it were year round. Accidents increase on both the days that we spring forward (less sleep) and the days that we fall back (interruption in our "circadian rhythms").
Of course, it turns out that it might not even save lives if year round (search for "school bus accidents").
That's why I specifically referred to the non-electric variety as an antique. The point was that they don't need electricity in order to run, and that one could theoretically use them to generate electricity just like one could generate electricity from a stairmaster (although at a much reduced efficiency). I've just heard a lot of nonsense from pseudo-scientists (usually citing "friction") who think that treadmills require electricity in order to run.
Are you working on the assumption that treadmills require electricity? Because I can tell you from experience that they do not. My grandparents had an antique treadmill that still worked 10 years ago (I have no idea what happened to it after they died), and there was no electricity involved.
If your merely stating that treadmills are not as efficient at generating electricity (or if there is some joke I'm just not getting, which is quite possible), then I won't disagree with you on that one.