Prev  1  2  

Comments 51 to 66 out of 66:

51. Paul D at 20:00 PM on 15 December, 2011
    Richard Arrett said: "However, I also thought that the data was also consistent with other hypotheses, and that we did not have enough data to rule out one or the other yet." That is incorrect, skeptic hypotheses are only consistent with cherry picked parts of data. When you collate all the skeptic hypotheses and try to make sense of them, they either don't fit together, or in some cases even conflict with each other. What is usually bizarre is that the skeptics that have conflicting theories don't argue and attack each other! I think we all know why.
    0 0
52. MarkR at 20:45 PM on 15 December, 2011
    Richard Arrett @ 30 : That's what we have quantitative science for. Clever wordsmithing by the 'skeptics' has confused a lot of people about things. In the case of CO2, if you _only_ look at the ice cores then you find that yes, CO2 has lagged temperature in the past 800ka. I agree in this case that there is a burden of proof to show that a) the increase is human caused and b) CO2 can cause warming too. a) is shown by how human emissions (30 bn tons/year) are bigger than the amount going into the atmosphere (15 bn tons), and by how the oceans are gaining carbon. It's effectively certain that the entire CO2 rise is caused by humans - unless one of the skeptics' Harry Potter theories (transmuting carbon, astrology, whatever) is true. On top, you can do calculations using Henry's Law showing that the current CO2 concentration couldn't be achieved without massive fossil fuel emissions or burning down huge quantities of forest (much more than we see with satellites). b) is shown by physics, which you already accept. Once you add this evidence to the ice cores, isn't the burden of proof now on those who claim that the CO2 rise is natural? After all, they are claiming that chemistry, physics and measurements are all wrong.
    0 0
53. Brian Purdue at 20:59 PM on 15 December, 2011
    Richard Arrett talks a lot about the burden of proof – the science is much clearer then he thinks, as repeatedly shown on this website – so how about the burden of responsibility Mr. Arrett.
    0 0
54. John Russell at 22:43 PM on 15 December, 2011
    It seems that since I first posted a response to Richard Arrett back at #4, he has been given many reasons why he's wrong, seemingly to little effect. So I thought it might be worth summarising his position in the hope that he might see how illogical it is. Mr Arrett accepts that the rapid warming that we've experienced since 1950 is coincidental with a massive increase in CO2. However -- for reasons known only to him, and which he won't reveal -- Mr Arrett does not accept the mainstream science on which the consensus is built, that is generally acknowledged by the scientific community to explain the rapid warming. Instead, Mr Arrett wants to believe that there is an alternative cause that falls outside all the known natural and man-made forcings. Unfortunately he can't think what it might be, so he just endlessly repeats that there has to be another cause. What? Like maybe the turtle whose back the Earth stands on has caught a cold and is running a temperature? Last -- although he can't come up with a convincing alternative explanation himself -- he's asking scientists to disprove the alternative explanation (the 'turtle') that he just knows has to be there. The problem is, Mr Arrett, some elusive figment of your imagination, which constantly rewrites the laws of physics in order to survive, cannot be disproved if you won't accept the science. Sorry, the onus is on you.
    0 0
55. pbjamm at 02:09 AM on 16 December, 2011
    Richard Arnett@30 "I thought that CO2 followed temperature by around 700 years." & "...the natural warming which may have occurred since 1850 could be the cause of the higher CO2 levels." 1850 was not 700 years ago. So either, no it is not the cause of the current CO2 increase or CO2 response to temperature increase is MUCH larger than we think. 600 more years of this would put as at ~1000ppm Of course all this ignores the known output of CO2 due to human activities.
    0 0
56. Dave123 at 02:37 AM on 16 December, 2011
    Richard Arnett: One can be mild mannered and still be arrogant, condescending and rude. From Mel Brooks "History of the World" As noted you've traipsed merrily into a thread about peer-reviewed literature supporting a "skeptical" take on AGW, and have nothing to cite. I hope you've moved your discussion over to any of the threads about the numerous areas you are misinformed about.
    0 0
    Moderator Response: Richard Arnett, there is a requirement, not just a suggestion, by this site's Comments Policy, for all comments to be on topic of the particular original post. Your initial comments were allowed to stand, so that you could be gently pointed to the relevant threads. Your comments most certainly are welcome, but only if they are on the relevant threads. If you want to comment on multiple topics, you must split your comments across the relevant threads. Your grace period has passed, so if you post irrelevant comments on threads where you already have been warned not to, your comments will be deleted.
57. ahaynes at 03:02 AM on 16 December, 2011
    (A lot of comments above, some of which might have addressed my Q) This series examines whether there's "a substantial case against human-caused global warming" but I think that's too broadly worded and doesn't get at the major objection now - some people these days will admit humans make some (unspecified but nonzero) contribution but raise the prospect that natural factors are more or equally important; would this constitute making "a case against human-caused GW"?. Also it's not clear whether "human-caused" would include other human actions whose effects don't include increased GHGs. I'd like to see a clarification of what's being looked at. (perhaps this has been addressed & I've overlooked it.)
    0 0
58. dana1981 at 03:34 AM on 16 December, 2011
    For those arguing that Douglass et al. should be included in the rejecting papers, this is simply not correct. The tropical troposphere 'hot spot' is not an anthropogenic fingerprint, as we have discussed on SkS several times. Thus this paper cannot bring the human-caused global warming theory into question. The authors of the paper suggest that their results might mean less future warming than is currently expected. Whether or not that conclusion is supported by their research (which I think is questionable), again, it does not bring human-caused global warming into question, but rather the magnitude of futhre human-caused warming. Thus it does not belong on the 'reject' list.
    0 0
59. dana1981 at 03:38 AM on 16 December, 2011
    ahaynes - this is basically an update to Oreskes' original paper which examined the AGW consensus in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. If a paper puts forth an alternative explanation which might explain a large chunk of the recent warming, I believe it's counted on the 'skeptic' list. However, such papers are rare, as this survey found.
    0 0
60. Richard Arrett at 04:27 AM on 16 December, 2011
    Thank you for your patience. I will not respond to the later comments directed to me, as it appears my responses would be considered off topic.
    0 0
61. John Russell at 04:50 AM on 16 December, 2011
    @Richard Arrett If you're trying to suggest that you've in effect been banned, then you're wrong. Make any comment you like (within the rules) on the relevant threads and they will be answered. For instance for questions and comments about CO2 and its relation to current warming, put the relevant words into the search box (top left) and it will show you all the suitable threads. Don't worry, everybody will know you've posted there because the regulars monitor the 'comments' link directly at the top of this column. Happy browsing.
    0 0
62. MarkR at 05:14 AM on 16 December, 2011
    #58 dana: Soden & Held, 2006 found, if I understand it correctly, that the size of the 'hot spot' makes no difference to final warming in models. It can be undetectable, or it can be huge. It doesn't matter. The reason being that the 'hot spot' comes from more water condensing in the upper atmosphere, the latent heat causes the warming. This cools the surface (the latent heat comes from surface evaporation). The bigger the hot spot, the bigger the surface cooling. But the bigger the hot spot, the more water vapour stays in the upper atmosphere too so the more greenhouse effect you have. Iirc, Soden & Held found that models always found that the greenhouse effect of the extra water vapour always outweighed the latent heat cooling (the 'lapse rate feedback' or 'Earth cooling by sweating'), and always by about the same amount. This leaves Douglass' speculation with no evidence that I'm aware of, but I do plan to research this in more detail in the future.
    0 0
63. angliss at 05:27 AM on 17 December, 2011
    dana1981 (#58): In my opinion, the portions of the summary I quoted indicate that the Douglass et al 2008 authors are calling into question whether or not any tropical tropospheric amplification has occurred since 1979. This implies to me that they're calling into question whether AGW is occurring at all and whether models have any predictive ability. Again, I feel that meets Jim's original criteria. You and Chris clearly disagree. Fair enough. My concern remains, however - given the small number of papers (~60) Jim identified, I'm simply concerned that the criteria were too stringent and kept out a number of what are, IMO, anti-AGW papers. I understand that the line has to be drawn somewhere, and that someone will criticize where it was drawn wherever you draw it. I also understand that some papers will lie atop that line no matter where you draw it. But I think that applying stringent criteria in this case detracts from the conclusions and provides a point of contention that "skeptics" can use to minimize your conclusions. Less stringent criteria would likely still have made the point (that "skeptics" have almost no actual peer-reviewed papers) and yet left those "skeptics" less ground upon which the conclusions could be criticized. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, I guess.
    0 0
64. Tristan at 09:09 AM on 17 December, 2011
    I'm looking for a comprehensive rebuttal of Sherwood Idso's 1998 paper. I heard that there was an issue of Climatic Change which served to do just that, but try as I might I couldn't locate it. Although it's pretty much guaranteed by the literature that his result for CS (0.4C) is wrong, I'm interested in a deconstruction of his methods. His paper consists of 8 simple experiments/analyses. I suspect any of the mods here could do it themselves (in their sleep with their pjs on backwards). Thanks in advance.
    0 0
    Moderator Response: [muon] You're referring to Idso's CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change.
65. Tristan at 13:24 PM on 17 December, 2011
    Yes, that's the paper. Unfortunately I don't have the scientific background to eloquently describe how bad it is.
    0 0
66. JoeTheScientist at 03:30 AM on 18 December, 2011
    Richard Arnett@30 "I thought that CO2 followed temperature by around 700 years." There is more than one mechanism at work causing the temperature increase associated with ice age terminations: Ice age termination is initiated by orbitally driven (Milankovich) increases in insolation. This insolation causes the initial leading temperature increase - the first mechanism. In ice sheets that have grown to a critical mass in terms of latitude and elevation extent, this temperature increase initiates runaway melting of the ice sheet. Said runaway melting dumps enormous amounts of fresh water into the oceans, which alters ocean circulation. Altered ocean circulation results in venting of the deep ocean - where atmospheric CO2 was being sequestered during the ice age - and releases it back to the atmosphere, causing the atmospheric CO2 increase associated with warm interglacial periods. This increased CO2 results in greenhouse warming which causes additional temperature increase above and beyond the insolation-driven energy balance. Thus, in this second mechanism, CO2 leads temperature. The additional warming due to CO2 greenhouse provides the additional boost needed to melt the entire North American and Euro-Scandian ice sheets. Insolation alone would probably not do the job.
    0 0
    Moderator Response: [muon] Any follow up to this informative comment should go to the End of the Hothouse thread, which specifically deals with mechanism for the onset/termination of a glacial stage.

Prev  1  2  

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.