|
Post by numerouno on Jan 30, 2012 14:32:02 GMT
Everybody has a world view on such stuff but it doesn't mean its science. Icefisher, spot on, it's the denialists who think their world view equals science. Each with a different private body of the laws of physics, their understanding of physics can be compared to Wittgenstein's "private languages" plato.stanford.edu/entries/private-language/t's useless to argue with them, as they are not cohesive nor are their views part of a unified documented whole. Iceskater, by all means use the proper "CO2" instead of "C02" (C-zero-two), as there's no such thing, and you claimed to have been scientifically educated.
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Jan 30, 2012 16:42:29 GMT
"Icefisher, spot on, it's the denialists who think their world view equals science."
90% probabilities, warming estimates ranging from .08 C to 5.3 C by the end of the century and poorly performing models do not do much to increase ones faith in the science. I have a hard time supporting cap and trade bills if the warming is going to be on the lower end of that scale.
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Jan 30, 2012 17:30:37 GMT
90% probabilities, warming estimates ranging from .08 C to 5.3 C by the end of the century and poorly performing models do not do much to increase ones faith in the science.
And how come? The statistics, it's all there in front of you!
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 30, 2012 18:54:01 GMT
Icefisher, spot on, it's the denialists who think their world view equals science.
Each with a different private body of the laws of physics, their understanding of physics can be compared to Wittgenstein's "private languages" plato.stanford.edu/entries/private-language/You would be well advised to not exclusively assign the effect to climate skeptics. World views have their own form of motivations they are not simply randomly collected. If you are not aware of that you might consider supplementing your education with a bit of psychology and or self-realization education. Better yet you would be advised that if you want to engage in a science discussion you should challenge some of the assertions you were challenged to challenge in reply #20 to this thread rather than resorting to your typical ad hominem crapola. p.s.I do want to thank you though. If I err on using the zero key its because of proximity of the 0 key to the O key and my basic inability to type words with numbers in it via touch typing.
I was not even aware I was doing it. Typing CO2 causes me to kind of resort to hunt and peck and throwing a couple of shift keys in it does not help. Something to pay more attention to so thanks for that observation. And yes I did take chemistry so I know what the O stands for in CO2 (I just did it again but caught it).
I have no trouble typing a capital O but typing capital C causes me to reach for the O key with my index finger (as opposed to touch typing it with the ring finger) while continuing to hold the shift key with my right hand pinky.
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Jan 30, 2012 20:27:23 GMT
"And how come? The statistics, it's all there in front of you!"
I'm not sure .08 degrees of warming merits increasing energy costs via cap and trade or other more creative taxation schemes. Increased energy bills are much harder on the poor than other taxes because they can't be avoided. There are many other, more economically friendly approaches to reducing our carbon footprint that the elaborate tax scheme that is cap and trade.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 30, 2012 21:15:01 GMT
glenn: Cap and Trade is an idea that was initiated by Enron, then followed up by Goldman Sachs. It is a lousy deal for any taxpayer......period. There is a discussion about volcanoes and the LIA on WUWT wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/30/new-paper-speculates-on-volcanoes-during-the-little-ice-age/This paper, if published as it appears it will be, confirms Dr. Svalgaards findings that TSI has been flat for a long time. It also explains the LIA, the increase in Arctic Ice etc. The Arctic had much less ice during most of the Holocene. That is why I have a hard time getting excited about lower volumes/area of Arctic ice. It would seem we are finally on the cusp of the MWP temperatures and will need to substain these temperatures for a 100 years to get our clmate back to its "Normal" stage of the Holocene. We do know that variations of the composition of TSI has a weather/climatic effect. This has ben shown in studies done on the stream flow of the Nile and the Mississippi and a river in South America. What that increase/decrease in precip does for temps, one has to speculate as I don't believe the resolution is good enough for temperatures to be somewhat precise on less than century scales. There is also a resolution problem that no one wants to talk about concerning CO2 ice core data. But that is a subject for another time. I have no question that CO2 is a logarithmic green house gas. I have serious questions as to the sensativity of climate to that gas. CO2 catches a bit more radiation in the mesophere that H20 doesn't trap below it. I have tried to find reliable long term RH levels of the globe, but that is wishful thinking as we did not have the ability to measure those with precission across a wide enough area to build a comprehensive data base. The level of H20 in the atmosphere can totally offset what ever C02 would do. There are just too many unanswered scientific questions as of yet. The wide variations within the models show us this. They are actually good at showing us what we do not know, but as far a predictors, nada. The variations are too large to be useful for policy etc. Just my take in a nutshell.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 30, 2012 21:50:12 GMT
Iceskater,
I believe you are right that radiation models are approximations. If you are unhappy about that then I can't really help you. Probably you need to follow up in detail papers such as Myrhe 1997 to decide whether you are happy with the analysis.
If we get to a point where we can agree on what we disagree on, then that would be a good start.
At the moment I've an early start so I'm off to bed.
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Jan 30, 2012 23:06:12 GMT
sigurdur, I am not a fan of WUWT but I am glad I followed your link.
“The eruptions could have triggered a chain reaction, affecting sea ice and ocean currents in a way that lowered temperatures for centuries.”
It is certainly possible that two or more large scale volcanic eruptions could have lead to arctic ice creation and a "freshing" of the North Atlantic that disrupted the normal oceanic currents. But I seriously doubt that any of the models have this possiblity factored in.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 30, 2012 23:39:35 GMT
glenn: WUWT has some really good stuff at times, and has some really poor stuff at times. I used to post at SKS but was banned there because I didn't post the "accepted" science. I attempted to post a paper on Arctic Sea Ice 4 times in a row, and I was then banned. The findings on the WUWT link actually confirm the findings of that paper.
I have always had a problem that the LIA was solar based. I do think there are variations of bands within the TSI that cause climate disruption, but that is like AGW, it is only theory at this time.
But yet, a pretty good read there.
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Jan 31, 2012 0:09:04 GMT
sigurdur, I don't spend much time at WUWT for the same reasons I don't at SKS. It is hard enough to sort through everything and make an informed decision without having to cut through the bias with a chainsaw. On a political level the same can be said for FOX or MSNBC which are one and the same just from different political hemispheres.
It certainly seems that the polar air that invaded your part of the world is gone and your back to 25-30 degrees above normal once again. If continued is this going to go down as one of the warmest years on record for your state?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 31, 2012 1:48:42 GMT
Glenn: It will have to continue and actually get warmer. I think Dec, as warm as it was was 11th. IF I can find the durn link to local climatology....I will confirm.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 31, 2012 1:52:06 GMT
Ok.....official now.....it is the 6th warmest in the measured time.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 31, 2012 1:58:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 31, 2012 2:18:09 GMT
When you observe the temp variations that I live in year in and year out, it is prob easier for you to understand why I don't get too alarmed about AGW. A 1.0C rise in temps is not going to be any different than what I live in. If you shorten the temp period to around 1930 to present you will also note that there has been very little warming. The bulk of the trend happened in the early 20th century and since then it has been pretty flat.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jan 31, 2012 4:01:07 GMT
glenn: Cap and Trade is an idea that was initiated by Enron, then followed up by Goldman Sachs. It is a lousy deal for any taxpayer......period. There is a discussion about volcanoes and the LIA on WUWT wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/30/new-paper-speculates-on-volcanoes-during-the-little-ice-age/This paper, if published as it appears it will be, confirms Dr. Svalgaards findings that TSI has been flat for a long time. It also explains the LIA, the increase in Arctic Ice etc. The Arctic had much less ice during most of the Holocene. That is why I have a hard time getting excited about lower volumes/area of Arctic ice. It would seem we are finally on the cusp of the MWP temperatures and will need to substain these temperatures for a 100 years to get our clmate back to its "Normal" stage of the Holocene. We do know that variations of the composition of TSI has a weather/climatic effect. This has ben shown in studies done on the stream flow of the Nile and the Mississippi and a river in South America. What that increase/decrease in precip does for temps, one has to speculate as I don't believe the resolution is good enough for temperatures to be somewhat precise on less than century scales. There is also a resolution problem that no one wants to talk about concerning CO2 ice core data. But that is a subject for another time. I have no question that CO2 is a logarithmic green house gas. I have serious questions as to the sensativity of climate to that gas. CO2 catches a bit more radiation in the mesophere that H20 doesn't trap below it. I have tried to find reliable long term RH levels of the globe, but that is wishful thinking as we did not have the ability to measure those with precission across a wide enough area to build a comprehensive data base. The level of H20 in the atmosphere can totally offset what ever C02 would do. There are just too many unanswered scientific questions as of yet. The wide variations within the models show us this. They are actually good at showing us what we do not know, but as far a predictors, nada. The variations are too large to be useful for policy etc. Just my take in a nutshell. Sigurdur, LS discounts virtually any connection between the sun and climate. There's a reason why both he and Archibald aren't high on my list of reliable sources. Anyone disagreeing with LS receives 30 lashes. What cemented my view of him? This: wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/01/spot-the-science-error/Only public humiliation forced him to cry uncle. He was wrong. 100%. There is very strong evidence for solar/climate interaction. Will Alexander studied solar/hydrology in South Africa for 40 years; it was not a new discovery. LS' favorite line is "correlation is not causation". Well guess what, there cannot be causation without correlation either. He simply refuses to allow room for lag responses in the climate system, which are well known and documented. He makes big statements and expects it to be the end of the discussion. I recall first reading his posts at CA in 2007 when SM gave him a guest post. Even there in the beginning he admitted he did not have much knowledge of climate processes. May I suggest going there and look up his posts. He has painted himself in a corner and will not budge one inch....ever. While there and at WUWT he mercilessly attacked Svensmark and is on record saying CLOUD was a waste of money and would never validate any of Svensmark's findings. He was wrong, but could he at least acknowledge Svensmark was on the right track all along? Not one bit. Why can't he have a peer-to-peer discussion with Scafetta who has published many papers on the subject? No, the Almighty Leif has spoken, everyone shut up. I'm surprised you are putting such faith in this latest paper when it is completely derived from climate models. What is different with this version than all the others? They use words like "very powerful" to give the impression this model is somehow more believable than the myriad of others that fail at simulating the very basic essential climate processes in nature for even the last 30 years let alone 750.
|
|