Rhetoric Again - Cycles

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 6:39 AM GMT on April 25, 2012

Share this Blog
15
+

Rhetoric Again - Cycles:

A few entries ago I wrote about the form of argument and the rhetoric used by those who advocate that the science of climate change is flawed in some fundamental and philosophical way (also here). In that piece I made reference to long-reaching metaphors and isolated facts that are used to create doubt about climate science. These metaphors and facts, for example that there was a lot of carbon dioxide when there were dinosaurs, create a stop or a pause in the conversation and pose as seeming contradictions and serve as distractions to make logically flawed points. For those who want to hone up on your arguments, I find the Marshall Institute’s Cocktail Party Guide to Global Warming some of the better coaching of anti-climate-science rhetoric.

I have been thinking about one of the common statements that is made, and that is the one about their being a lot of carbon dioxide when there were dinosaurs and, more generally, that there is a long record of cycles between times of high and low carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere. This has been presented to me many times, and I often wonder, what exactly is the point that is being made?

At first, when I heard statements that there was very high carbon dioxide in the past, it seemed to be with the implication that this was one, a natural occurrence and two, a fact that was being hidden by climate scientists. True, it is a natural occurrence. Any comprehensive text book on climate change will discuss the past variations in carbon dioxide and that there have been times when carbon dioxide was much higher, and the Earth was much warmer. It is not hidden, rather it is used to inform our future.

Following from the introduction into the argument that the high values of carbon dioxide in the past were a natural occurrence, there seemed to be two points. First, was that very high values of carbon dioxide were possible in the absence of human-responsible emissions and second, that changes in carbon dioxide amounts were beyond our control and hence there was little sensibility in reducing our emissions. There is the further implication that since this is natural then it is OK.

Our real concern about climate change is that climate change impacts humans. If it were not for the impact on humans, climate change would be a curious problem of natural science. When there was a lot of carbon dioxide and dinosaurs, there were no humans. That does not mean that with high carbon dioxide that humans can’t survive and that dinosaurs will return. However, getting from the stable temperate climate in which our civilizations evolved to a climate where the temperatures are several degrees warmer will be a disruptive path. There will be less land as sea level rises, and since there is a huge concentration along the coasts of the world, there will be huge relocation of people, disruption to nations, and loss of infrastructure. There will be enormous changes in ecosystems and domestic plants and animals.

So yes, there are cycles and there has been a lot more carbon dioxide in the air, but that has been in the absence of billions of humans, our built environment, and our fragile balances of nations and economies. It is the disruption of the fragile balances of human enterprise where the risk lies – so how does the fact that carbon dioxide was high when there were dinosaurs bear on the current concerns about increasing carbon dioxide and global warming?

Carbon dioxide was high in the distant path – does this suggest that carbon dioxide amounts in the atmosphere are beyond our control? Why was carbon dioxide high? Is that simply an unknowable mystery?

The composition of our atmosphere is determined by many factors. In the long term, my geologist friends always remind me that the composition of the atmosphere is determined by geology and the cycling of gases between the atmosphere and ocean and the solid Earth. This long time frame, millions or billions of years, is not exactly relevant to our human experience. On a shorter amount of time, like the ice age cycles, or the large amounts of carbon dioxide when the dinosaurs were present, biological processes are important for determining the composition of the atmosphere. We have benefitted from many millions of years when carbon dioxide and oxygen existed in a balance that support plants and animals. Those cycles, those extended periods of high carbon dioxide, are characterized by changes in balance of plant and animal life. They are characterized by the ocean taking up and giving back large amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere through both chemical and biological processes.

So are we destined to simply be at the fate of these major shifts? Are these shifts beyond our control? Aren’t they natural?

Let’s get back to humans. There is little doubt that humans are the dominant life form on the planet today. We shape every ecosystem. We consume all forms of energy. Like the balances between plants and animals in the past we change the atmosphere and the ocean. Not only are we a dominant life form, we have this amazing ability to extract rocks and liquids and gas from the Earth and burn it. We have the ability to push around land, to make concrete, to remove mountains, and build islands. We are, therefore, not only biological, we are geological.

We are part of the cycle. We don’t simply exist at the mercy of the cycle.

So what is the point of a far reaching reference to the time of the dinosaurs and high amounts of carbon dioxide? Perhaps the point is to take us out of the equation, to absolve us of our responsibility to the planet, to allow us to do that which we want to do.

In the end this takes us to some very basic questions about humans and knowledge. I recently saw an idea attributed to Tim Flannery (also here), that humans are a species prone to destroying their future by destroying ecosystems. As I understand the argument, because of our intellect, we can continue to extract from the Earth resources beyond which a less creative species would be limited by brutal, natural barriers. We can rapidly cause extinctions. So far we can find and perhaps nurture new resources as we destroy the old.

We have this unique capacity of knowledge. We can place ourselves into our environment and see ourselves as shaping our environment, and have responsibility for maintaining our environment. We are not, entirely, at the fate of nature, or cycles, but we are part of nature, of cycles. And as such we might not be able to determine our future, but we are able to influence our future. We don’t have to be destined to destroy our future.

Scientifically, the statement of facts about cycles and high carbon dioxide millions of years ago has little bearing on whether or not we are burning fossil fuels, increasing carbon dioxide and warming the planet. Such presented facts are a diversionary part of a belief-based and politically based argument. Some advocates of the politically based arguments are trying to stop a societal response to carbon dioxide emissions. Other advocates are making a basic belief based argument that humans are somehow outside of biology and geology of the planet as a whole; that we are not just another age of some dominant life form. To me, what makes humans different is we have this ability to accumulate science-based knowledge, which is actionable, which imbues responsibility, which allows us to be different, and to sustain our future.

r

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 270 - 220

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9Blog Index

Quoting JupiterKen:

Link


Wasted 8 minutes of my life on that. Lost most of me in the beginning. Lost the rest of me with the arrest photo.

It's really scary the mentality of the denialists. Seriously something is wrong with them. There is so much hate inside. Where does it come from?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2011/
Look near the bottom of the page, at total solar irradiance graph.
If the global temperature increase is due to increase in solar output, the temperatures should have decreased from 2002 to 2008 as the irradiance decreased, right?
The hottest year on record (2007?) is during a solar minimum.

Do you want to rethink the solar flux is the climate culprit stance?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
233,

Thank you for posting that ACRIM graph.

So the solar minimum increased .037% between the 3 that you show. But the Maximums have also decreased since 1978 on your graph. Did you notice that trend too? from 1369 to 1368, about twice the change of the minimum, shown on your graph.

The magnetic field is interesting but the energy reaching the atmosphere and surface is the most important.

Thanks again.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
From the post The Real Global Warming Signal by Tamino:

Many different factors affect Global temperature. Fake "skeptics" like to claim that mainstream climate scientists ignore everything but greenhouse gases like CO2, when in fact it’s mainstream climate scientists who identified those other influences. Natural factors cause temperature fluctuations which make the man-made global warming signal less clear, fluctuations which are often exploited by fake skeptics to suggest that global warming has paused, or slowed down, or isn’t happening at all. A new paper by Foster & Rahmstorf accounts for some of those other factors, and by removing their influence from the temperature record makes the progress of global warming much more clear. Read more here


The authors conclude:

"When the fluctuations in temperature over the last 32 years (which tend to obscure the continuation of the global warming trend) are accounted for, it becomes obvious that there has not been any cessation, or even any slowing, of global warming over the last decade (or at any time during this time span). In other words, any deviations from an unchanging linear warming trend are explained by the influence of ENSO, volcanoes and solar variability.... It is worthy of note that for all five adjusted data sets, 2009 and 2010 are the two hottest years on record... All five data sets show statistically significant warming even for the time span from 2000 to the present."


Temperature data before and after the Foster and Rahmstorf exogeneous factor removal:


Image credit: Skeptical Science


From Skeptical Science:

Based on this average of all five adjusted data sets, the warming trend has not slowed significantly in recent years (0.163°C per decade from 1979 through 2010, 0.155°C per decade from 1998 through 2010, and 0.187°C per decade from 2000 through 2010).


The real global warming signal look like this:


Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Good day, Barefoot!

"Thanks for a thought-provoking article - especially the part that postulates mankind is "geological." Considering the vast geology of Earth, not to mention what science says about worlds beyond Earth's atmosphere, I'm not sure the idea of man being geological is logical, and, in a way, this idea perpetuates the attitudes of humans who have been involved in energy conquest since the Industrial Revolution.

Other advocates are making a basic belief based argument that humans are somehow outside of biology and geology of the planet as a whole; that we are not just another age of some dominate life form."


I agree with you that I had never thought of mankind as being geological. The statement did provoke some thought. When you consider that anytime man plants a non native plant then man has began to change the natural geology of the local area. The more aggressive the non native plant is, the more this becomes apparent. When we move to a larger scale, such as filling in a swamp to provide more farmland or housing, then it begins to become more apparent that man changed the natural geology of the area. Man has then become the primary geological factor and has, indeed, become the geology of the area. Also I consider that almost any place we look, on our planet, we will find man. Man, nearly everywhere, has tried to change the local geology to suit man's needs above the interests of anything else. We divert rivers or change their natural flow rates. We build lakes where none had existed before. We clear forests where the forests have long dominated the local geology.

"Regardless of what has brought mankind and Earth to the relationship perceived at this moment, I doubt we can "sustain our future" as this (edit) Genus/species has done, making, in my mind anyway, the dominant human state biological."

The human state is biological and so is the roach. What man does and that the roach does not do is try to change the geology of where it lives. The roach, unlike industrialized man, has always lived its life within the bounds that nature has provided it. Man, on the other hand, has always tried to make changes to feel more comfortable and not to just survive as all of the other species are doing. No other species alive, or has ever lived, on Earth has tried to change the planet for its sole benefit. Man is not just biological. Man is also geological.

"Also a couple things I have observed about human nature in general.
~Humans tend to be more reactive than proactive.
~While fear can and does drive human behavior, the two strongest motivators are Love and Money."


Man tends to be reactive when man should have been proactive. Our own caring for our health is a prime example of this. Many times man will get it wrong as when to be proactive as well. Stopping a river from flooding upstream almost always causes greater harm downstream.

Fear, love and money. I would imagine that most will fear they will never have enough love or money and this is what drives them. When you get to be an old geezer, such as myself, your greatest fear may be that you live too long and see too much. ;-)


Much of the attributes you attach to humans are really just attributes of one culture, ours.

There are still a few other cultures on the planet that we haven't assimilated or killed off. Some of these have lived for thousands of years and are still living in a sustainable manner.

This is very good news. We don't have to change the human being; we just have to change a few of the memes we used to build and sustain our very destructive culture. I see evidence that this is beginning to happen. The monied interests are fighting the change, hence our march to a police state, but the river of change is deepening and widening with every passing day.

BTW, this old geezer thinks your last statement is very well said. Or as Norman Finkelstein said, "Spoken like a true atheist, thank God, that in all his wisdom, he made us mortal. We don't have to endure this for eternity." :>)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:
Sigh, unfortunately there is nothing left for me to contribute here, since all the discussion has turned into are ad-hominem attacks against myself, and me having to repeat basic facts of climate science to those who cannot comprehend them.

So I will wish you all a good day, as this will probably be my last post, unless I see a substsntial reply that is worth typing a post for.


Good!

From my point of view, you've presented a large number of attacks but nothing substantial. You've presented a 'new' theory to replace an old theory but you:

- haven't presented convincing arguments that the old theory is wrong. Especially in light of the well documented sucesses of the old theory re prediction/result.

- haven't given any new predictions (though fiar enough I've skipped a lot of your posts on days I was too busy). Therefore your theory remains untestable.

- a bunch more.

Really, before you go, can you state your theory in four sentences or less? Because all i've read so far has left the impression in my mind that you are simply out to score points and spread confusion. If this isn't your aim, then put your theory before the blog simply and logically.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Sigh, unfortunately there is nothing left for me to contribute here, since all the discussion has turned into are ad-hominem attacks against myself, and me having to repeat basic facts of climate science to those who cannot comprehend them.

So I will wish you all a good day, as this will probably be my last post, unless I see a substsntial reply that is worth typing a post for.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


"That's a tough question, since it is uncertain how much CO2 has contributed to climate change." ... And yet, you seem so certain as to know how much the Sun has changed the climate. Do you want to break it down for me? 50% CO2 - 50% Sun?

"Mars and Moon do not have as thick of atmospheres as Earth's does, hence why the temperature at the surface fluctuates wildly." .... Then we are complete agreement? The atmosphere of a planet or a moon plays a large part in as to how much heat is retained from the energy of the Sun. And, no, I am not just talking about how much atmosphere it has. The chemical composition of the atmosphere plays a large role in as to how much of the Sun's energy is retained by the planet. Please remember, the thicker the atmosphere, the less of the Sun's energy that makes it to the surface of the planet.

"No one says it's been solely due to solar activity, simply solar activity has been the main driver of climate change. That does not mean it has been the "sole cause."

solar activity increasing sharply, and being at record levels is fairly compelling that the sun has at least part to do with the 20th Century warming."
... OK, let us go with this. Since you say that solar activity is not exclusively responsible for the warmer climate that we are now experiencing and that CO2 does have a role in the warming, then what happens if the solar activity flattens and anthropogenic CO2 levels continue to climb?

Chevron seems to admit that CO2 released by fossil fuels is a problem with our climate. They do this to the extent to say they are working on a carbon capture process:

Chevron and its plans for carbon capture

What Chevron's PR team does not say is this:

Carbon capture is a new technology, may not work, is years away from being an efficient process even if it does work and is EXPENSIVE

Do you really think that Chevron is serious about this or do you see this as another delay tactic while Chevron works out all the details? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm


Well I'm not a scientist, so I don't think it's really appropriate for me to answer the first question, because my answers have little to no value. I will provide an answer though. I think the sun is responsible for all of the climate change up until 1980 where it then becomes responsible for some-most of the climate change that was observed.

The chemical composition of the atmosphere definitely plays a role. (Look at Venus compared to Mercury!)

I don't know what to think about "Chevron's Carbon Capture" since I haven't studied this to a greater extent.

Solar activity has reached where it was in the beginning of the late-20th Century during the SC 23 minima, and we haven't warmed. Coincidence? I think not.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Your post #202 has been addressed several times by others on here and yet you persist in using these examples?

And what is this????



This looks like it was put together using MS Paint. The graphic(?) is not attributed to anyone or any study. Surely you do not suggest that this is Science????

Would you care to go back and address Post #186?


Yes, it's been adressed with unsubstantial comments that dismiss the papers just because they don't like them. There is no science involved in those "rebittals."

I created that chart. It took me about 2-3 hours to do. I got the idea from Skeptical Science's charts showing "total human contriution" and "total natural contribution. It references papers published in the peer reviewed literature with a color code on the right hand side.

I'll adress your post 186 later.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Birthmark:
Yes, you are. Let me put it more simply, then. There is more warming in the winter than in the summer. That is impossible if the Sun is the cause of the current warming.


Wrong, wrong and more wrong. You keep resorting to the same falsehood to try and disprove my argument. Did you even look at what the Skeptical Science link had to say? More energy is used in heating the upper ocean during the summertime, more energy than before because of declining snow/ice not reflecting as much energy as before. The upper ocean then releases this extra energy to the Arctic atmosphere during winter time, because the oceans are now colder due to it being winter. This is why the atmospheric winter temperatures are warming the fastest.

I don't know how else to explain it without you resorting to using this falsehood as a reply.

Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Birthmark:

Staying "relatively constant" and "not changing" are not the same thing, though. Relatively constant generally has all sorts of interesting bumps and wiggles. Not changing is a flat line.

You still haven't answered my question about the cooler upper stratosphere. If you can't answer it, just say so.


What do you want me to answer?

Staying relatively constant implies bumps and noise on an overall flat line.

They are the same thing.

A cooler upper stratosphere can be expected with ozone depletion, though the trend may be steeper than the lower stratospheric cooling trend because this is the portion of the stratosphere that can be expected to cool with increased Gas Emissions.

Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Daisyworld:

I hate to break this to you, but they're not YOUR papers. You didn't do the work to collect the information. Nevertheless, nine papers would not constitute a concise bibliography for anything worth publishing in the primary literature, regardless of their content.


Snowlover123, will you please just stop? This has gone beyond the ridiculous, and crossed over into the ludicrous. You've done everything but hijack the comments on this blog entry, and not ONE of your rants has any mathematical or scientific merit whatsoever.


You absolutely know what I mean when I refer to them being as 'my papers.' They were the papers I posted in MY posts. I have never claimed credit for any of my papers.

You haven't contributed to this board at all except throw ad hominem attacks at people who disagree with your religious viewpoints.

That is someone who has crossed into the ludicrous.

Ignore list time!
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
257. vanwx
snowlover123 changes horses mid stream.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:


Hi Green,

I would never suggest such a thing.

Some wacky environmentalists are suggesting that we pump pollution into the atmosphere so we can halt Global Warming.

I'm an environmentalist myself, and the health consequences if such measures were to be taken would be extremely detremental.


Strawman argument.

So given the current situation, what is your solution?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


A goatee? I thought your avatar was a picture of a bob cat. Now you say it is a baby goat? ;-)

It is a baby goat who knows how to avoid predators.

I'm sure that there's a lesson there somewhere, but thanks to patrap I had to listen to Dark Side of the Moon to vanquish an earworm and my brain has turned to mush.

Good night to you, Rookie.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
254. vanwx
Quoting Patrap:
True dat.

..never argue with a fool, as he has the advantage..

or,


"Wise men never argue with fools, because people from a distance can't tell who is who"


Patrap, I've always valued your insight but here I have to differ. Snow..123 has brought out some of the best critisism, the clearest and just shifts position to continue the game; we are educating him for free. It(snow...123) may be a team and or an AI that is fun/challenging to ripost but this continual A/B marketing scam or their team/DARPA research technique sucks. My and my children's future is in the balance and I can't think of one place where Snow..123 contributed(other than the capitulation to AGW).
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Birthmark:

Good lord! Is that what I was doing? I was just amusing myself. I've always enjoyed watching contortionists -especially those that take requests.

I'm the one with the goatee, if that's any help to anyone.


A goatee? I thought your avatar was a picture of a bob cat. Now you say it is a baby goat? ;-)
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4749
Quoting Patrap:
True dat.

..never argue with a fool, as he has the advantage..

Good lord! Is that what I was doing? I was just amusing myself. I've always enjoyed watching contortionists -especially those that take requests.
Quoting Patrap:
"Wise men never argue with fools, because people from a distance can't tell who is who"

I'm the one with the goatee, if that's any help to anyone.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
True dat.

..never argue with a fool, as he has the advantage..

or,


"Wise men never argue with fools, because people from a distance can't tell who is who"
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:
All nine of my papers.

I hate to break this to you, but they're not YOUR papers. You didn't do the work to collect the information. Nevertheless, nine papers would not constitute a concise bibliography for anything worth publishing in the primary literature, regardless of their content.
Quoting Snowlover123:
Here is the John Cook link again. ... This is why the greatest atmospheric temperature trends are occuring in the wintertime in the Arctic.


Snowlover123, will you please just stop? This has gone beyond the ridiculous, and crossed over into the ludicrous. You've done everything but hijack the comments on this blog entry, and not ONE of your rants has any mathematical or scientific merit whatsoever.

If you truly believe the distortions and inaccuracies you cite, then why don't you start your own blog using these colorful yet useless charts? I'm sure the Marshall Institute would be happy to offer you some webspace, and you'll have a much more receptive audience. After all, that's why you came here, isn't it? To find an audience because no one else in the scientific community will listen to you? Or are you here as a megaphone for the Manufactured Doubt industry to drown out substantive dialog using unproductive banter? If you are, I wish you would just fess up and get it over with.

Otherwise, please stop ruining someone else's blog just because you have nothing better to do with your time. You're proving nothing more than your own willful ignorance based on obfuscation and deceit.
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 858
Quoting Snowlover123:




See post 202.


Your post #202 has been addressed several times by others on here and yet you persist in using these examples?

And what is this????



This looks like it was put together using MS Paint. The graphic(?) is not attributed to anyone or any study. Surely you do not suggest that this is Science????

Would you care to go back and address Post #186?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4749
Quoting EugeneTillman:

Thought after a nice dinner you would have calmed down?

Thank you for your concern

Quoting EugeneTillman:
Have you ever been to the sun?

No, parts of it come to me everyday. I am quite happy with that arrangement.

Quoting EugeneTillman:
By the way, remember what I said about science in my post 229. Nothing can be definitively proven.

You're a little late to the party on that one. I've discussed that very point in some depth on other discussions on this blog.

Now, if you want to use that fact that nothing can be known with certainty to infer that nothing can be known...well, there's not much point in discussion, is there?

After all, I have no definitive proof that you exist. I might well be talking to myself...which would really irk me since I became so outraged at something that I once wrote that I swore a blood oath never to talk to myself again.

I'm sure you'll understand my position, providing that you really exist.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Snowlover123:


It says the exact same thing as I said, except it is worded differently. "staying constant" and "not changing" are the same thing.

So why have stratospheric temperatures "stayed constant" while concentrations of CO2 have increased quite substantially if GHGs are the main driver of stratospheric cooling?

Staying "relatively constant" and "not changing" are not the same thing, though. Relatively constant generally has all sorts of interesting bumps and wiggles. Not changing is a flat line.

You still haven't answered my question about the cooler upper stratosphere. If you can't answer it, just say so.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Snowlover123:


All nine of my papers.

Yep. All nine of them have been dismissed, ignored, refuted, etc. And that nine compares to how many from the mainstream view?

Quoting Snowlover123:
GCRs reached a record low, AA levels were at record highs, TSI may have increased, etc.

The data points to an increasingly active sun over the last 30 years.

Again, nonsense based on papers that are demonstrated to be wrong, incomplete, etc.

Quoting Snowlover123:
You are still confused about Arctic Amplification.

Yes, you are. Let me put it more simply, then. There is more warming in the winter than in the summer. That is impossible if the Sun is the cause of the current warming. The reason being that your hypothetical warming by the Sun is less than the warming caused by ice. Meaning, any extra warming from the Sun is trivial to non-existent.

Buh-bye, yet again Sun hypothesis.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Birthmark:
. The paper doesn't say that the stratospheric cooling stopped in 1995. It says, "Temperature anomalies throughout the stratosphere were relatively constant during the decade 1995 - 2005. Long records of lidar temperature measurements at a few locations show reasonable agreement with SSU trends, although sampling uncertainties are large in the localized lidar measurements."


It says the exact same thing as I said, except it is worded differently. "staying constant" and "not changing" are the same thing.

So why have stratospheric temperatures "stayed constant" while concentrations of CO2 have increased quite substantially if GHGs are the main driver of stratospheric cooling?
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Birthmark:
Combining your last two posts for ease of operation or something.


Nonsense. It is not necessarily a one-step process, although in egregious cases it can be. However, most often it is because your paper disagrees with the overwhelming majority of other published science and some other factor which either supports the existing science or further indicates that yours is wrong


All nine of my papers.

Quoting Birthmark:

Gibberish. Nothing but gibberish. The Sun can't cause amplification if it isn't present. Further, it can't cause amplification if it isn't warming --which is what the data indicate. Further still, albedo is not a factor in the Arctic winter --providing you know what albedo is. (Particularly this past winter!)


GCRs reached a record low, AA levels were at record highs, TSI may have increased, etc.

The data points to an increasingly active sun over the last 30 years.

You are still confused about Arctic Amplification.

Here is the John Cook link again.

Using higher resolution temperature data supplemented with updated satellite measurements, Screen 2010 analyse the observe warming trend in each season. What they find is maximum Arctic warming at the surface and that warming lessens with height in all seasons except summer. This vertical structure suggests that changes at the surface, such as decreases in sea ice and snow cover, are the primary causes of recent Arctic amplification.


The surface warming is modest in summer because energy is used to melt remaining sea ice and warm the upper ocean.
The majority of the winter warming is associated with changes in sea ice cover even though the sea ice declines at this time of the year are relatively small. During summer, the atmosphere loses heat to the ocean whereas during winter, the flux of heat is reversed. Reduced summer sea ice cover allows for greater warming of the upper ocean but atmospheric warming is modest. The excess heat stored in the upper ocean is subsequently released to the atmosphere during winter.


This is why the greatest atmospheric temperature trends are occuring in the wintertime in the Arctic.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Xandra:
Solar Schmolar




Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:
. As a skeptic, you need to show me the science that shows otherwise. Should I still insist that I am correct, then all I am is a denier of the science.


See post 202.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Combining your last two posts for ease of operation or something.

Quoting Snowlover123:


My summary was of course an exaggeration.

If your reasoning for saying that the paper is junk because it disagrees with other papers on the subject, then that's as poor of a rebuttal as my exaggerated summary of your "rebuttals."

Nonsense. It is not necessarily a one-step process, although in egregious cases it can be. However, most often it is because your paper disagrees with the overwhelming majority of other published science and some other factor which either supports the existing science or further indicates that yours is wrong.

Quoting Snowlover123:
The Arctic Amplification is what is caused by the sun! Climate change and natural variability from the AMO/PDO are causing the snow/ice albedo to decrease, creating Arctic Amplification.




All debunked in previous posts of mine.

Sigh.

Gibberish. Nothing but gibberish. The Sun can't cause amplification if it isn't present. Further, it can't cause amplification if it isn't warming --which is what the data indicate. Further still, albedo is not a factor in the Arctic winter --providing you know what albedo is. (Particularly this past winter!)

And you debunked nothing. Rationalizing is not debunking. Giving your opinion is not debunking. In fact, it is impossible for you to debunk those points since the scientific evidence agrees with me, or rather I agree with it.

Quoting Snowlover123:
The paper also says that stratospheric cooling stopped in 1995. What's your take on that if changes in CO2 are supposedly driving stratospheric temperature changes?

No, no. We don't do that here in the jungle. (I love Balo, great character.) Anyway, I have a question on the table. That is, if the Sun is the cause of the current warming, then why is the upper stratosphere cooling faster than the lower stratosphere?

But I'll indulge you anyway. The paper doesn't say that the stratospheric cooling stopped in 1995. It says, "Temperature anomalies throughout the stratosphere were relatively constant during the decade 1995 - 2005. Long records of lidar temperature measurements at a few locations show reasonable agreement with SSU trends, although sampling uncertainties are large in the localized lidar measurements."
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Birthmark:

Yep. It also says, "The results show mean cooling of 0.5–1.5 K/decade during 1979–2005, with the greatest cooling in the upper stratosphere near 40–50 km."

Now how's that happen if the Sun is the cause? ;^D


The paper also says that stratospheric cooling stopped in 1995. What's your take on that if changes in CO2 are supposedly driving stratospheric temperature changes?
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Solar Schmolar


Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
Quoting Birthmark:

Nope. That is what you need to hear, but that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that "this paper sucks because it has been refuted by subsequent work/makes no sense based on physics/uses partial and(or)non-representative data/reaches conclusions not supported by the work in the paper/reaches conclusions at odds with most or all other work done on the topic/etc., depending on the paper and the circumstances. All of those are valid reasons for dismissing a paper


My summary was of course an exaggeration.

If your reasoning for saying that the paper is junk because it disagrees with other papers on the subject, then that's as poor of a rebuttal as my exaggerated summary of your "rebuttals."

Quoting Birthmark:

The Arctic argument is still killer to your hypothesis, though, since your hypothesis means that the forces you cite for the Arctic Amplification must outweigh the effects of your warming Sun. You see, the Cook passage you quote is predicated on a Sun showing no warming. That quote would look remarkably different if the Sun was actually driving the current warming.


The Arctic Amplification is what is caused by the sun! Climate change and natural variability from the AMO/PDO are causing the snow/ice albedo to decrease, creating Arctic Amplification.


Quoting Birthmark:

Other nifty reasons on why it can't be the Sun (not an exhaustive list):
1. Solar output has been flat-to-slightly-down during the current warming, according to the vast majority of the science
2. The upper layers of the atmosphere, including the stratosphere are cooling, again negating the Sun.
3. GCRs show no trend over the past 60 years or so.


All debunked in previous posts of mine.

Sigh.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Snowlover123:


Yes.


Finally you get it.....
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Quoting Snowlover123:




ACRIM shows TSI increasing from 1986-1996. Others disagree with this piece of data.

GCRs reaching record lows in 1992 adds onto the idea that solar activity increased over the 2nd half of the 20th Century.


More partial data. There is no valid reason to accept ACRIM over PMOD. None.

With that, I have to go make dinner before I really get cranky. LOL BBL
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Snowlover123:
From your paper Birthmark:

The lower
stratospheric cooling was believed to be mostly driven by
ozone depletion,
with a possible, but very uncertain, contribution
from increases in stratospheric water vapor.

Yep. It also says, "The results show mean cooling of 0.5–1.5 K/decade during 1979–2005, with the greatest cooling in the upper stratosphere near 40–50 km."

Now how's that happen if the Sun is the cause? ;^D
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Snowlover123:


Basic summary of your "rebuttal:"

"This paper sucks because it disagrees with me, this paper sucks because it disagrees with my favorite scientist, this paper sucks because it has cranks as authors."

Nope. That is what you need to hear, but that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that "this paper sucks because it has been refuted by subsequent work/makes no sense based on physics/uses partial and(or)non-representative data/reaches conclusions not supported by the work in the paper/reaches conclusions at odds with most or all other work done on the topic/etc., depending on the paper and the circumstances. All of those are valid reasons for dismissing a paper.


Quoting Snowlover123:



Are you kidding me?

Are you resorting to your debunked Arctic hypothesis again? Sigh.

Arctic hypothesis? LMAO. It is a fact that some of the most dramatic warming in the Arctic takes place when the Sun isn't in the sky. Buh-bye Sun hypothesis!

Other nifty reasons on why it can't be the Sun (not an exhaustive list):
1. Solar output has been flat-to-slightly-down during the current warming, according to the vast majority of the science
2. The upper layers of the atmosphere, including the stratosphere are cooling, again negating the Sun.
3. GCRs show no trend over the past 60 years or so.

So, the debunked hypothesis in these parts is that the Sun is the cause of the current warming.

The Arctic argument is still killer to your hypothesis, though, since your hypothesis means that the forces you cite for the Arctic Amplification must outweigh the effects of your warming Sun. You see, the Cook passage you quote is predicated on a Sun showing no warming. That quote would look remarkably different if the Sun was actually driving the current warming.

Buh-bye Sun hypothesis...again! LOL
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting biff4ugo:
OK, show me the solar radiation record indicating incoming solar radiation has increased over the last 20 years.
I have seen your hand drawn, crayon graph enough.
You say it is from the sun, show me the radiation measurements.
Not clouds and temperature anomalies, if it is the sun, show the radiation increase to me.




ACRIM shows TSI increasing from 1986-1996. Others disagree with this piece of data.

GCRs reaching record lows in 1992 adds onto the idea that solar activity increased over the 2nd half of the 20th Century.

Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Snowlover123:


You are one of the only people who I have met on an internet forum that do not believe that natural variability and the ice albedo feedback have a large impact on Arctic amplification and the differential trends during each season.

That is where a consensus on the science exists. And you, my friend refuse to accept the scientific consensus.

I never thought I'd be quoting John Cook, but he represents the science of Arctic Amplification well.

Quoting Link:

Using higher resolution temperature data supplemented with updated satellite measurements, Screen 2010 analyse the observe warming trend in each season. What they find is maximum Arctic warming at the surface and that warming lessens with height in all seasons except summer. This vertical structure suggests that changes at the surface, such as decreases in sea ice and snow cover, are the primary causes of recent Arctic amplification.

The surface warming is modest in summer because energy is used to melt remaining sea ice and warm the upper ocean. The majority of the winter warming is associated with changes in sea ice cover even though the sea ice declines at this time of the year are relatively small. During summer, the atmosphere loses heat to the ocean whereas during winter, the flux of heat is reversed. Reduced summer sea ice cover allows for greater warming of the upper ocean but atmospheric warming is modest. The excess heat stored in the upper ocean is subsequently released to the atmosphere during winter.


So can we please stop with the false commentary that Arctic Amplification somehow "disproves" Global solar warming?

Thanks.




Bumpity Bump Bump.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Birthmark:

Is there a point to your questions, or do you just think that "?" thingy looks cool?

Snowlover has made his position clear, no need for me to make one up for him. I have dismembered it, but he clings to the pieces, frantically looking for duct tape. If you have any, please send it his way.


So do you accept the current science of Arctic Amplification? If not, why?
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
From your paper Birthmark:

The lower
stratospheric cooling was believed to be mostly driven by
ozone depletion,
with a possible, but very uncertain, contribution
from increases in stratospheric water vapor.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting EugeneTillman:

Does the door swing both ways?

Is there a point to your questions, or do you just think that "?" thingy looks cool?

Snowlover has made his position clear, no need for me to make one up for him. I have dismembered it, but he clings to the pieces, frantically looking for duct tape. If you have any, please send it his way.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Birthmark:

Yep. You should probably read this before telling the experts that they're wrong, but that you have it figured out. You should probably stop posting unsourced graphics, too. There really is nothing to be said for about such graphs since no context is included.


You may believe what you like, but I have proven beyond all but a perverse doubt that the Sun hypothesis is impossible. Your appeal to refuted papers is silly. Anyone can cite papers that are wrong. The scientific literature is full of them.

Your own assertions about the stratosphere further refutes your Sun hypothesis.


Oh, boy! Correlation...except that there's no known mechanism in that paper for generating clouds of any kind from GCRs. IOW, correlation isn't causation. GCRs have been eliminated by serious scientists from having any large-scale effect on climate. Again, you ferret in corners in search of unnecessary explanations.


Do you imagine that if you keep citing the same papers that they will have some new effect? This was answered yesterday. The same answer still applies today.


Again, this paper was refuted in the peer-reviewed literature. The fact that you keep citing it is laughable. Face it, Scafetta is a crank.


This paper is not representative of the published scientific literature. The range in most (perhaps all) other papers is 15% or less, and that is primarily contained in the early 20th century. There is little or no solar contribution since 1980.


That's hilarious! 100% is attributable to the Sun? Why stop there? Why not give it 100% and claim that GHGs actually cool the atmosphere? LOL

I see that even you are embarrassed by that and arbitrarily reduce the percentage. I guess you know more than even the experts that you cite. LOL

Btw, how can the mighty Sun be heating places it isn't even visible when at the same time the Sun is so feeble that it can't even warm the stratosphere? Tis a stumper, ain't it?


Thank you for displaying beyond all doubt that you espouse crank science. The out-of-context quote tactic is one of the favorite ploys of crank science. That tactic shows up extensively to "prove" evolution wrong, too. In neither case is it effective. It is a tactic designed to mislead the ignorant and the lazy. That you use it highlights the failures of your argument.




Basic summary of your "rebuttal:"

"This paper sucks because it disagrees with me, this paper sucks because it disagrees with my favorite scientist, this paper sucks because it has cranks as authors."

Are you kidding me?

Are you resorting to your debunked Arctic hypothesis again? Sigh.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Birthmark:

we were discussing your position...which makes no sense. I


Why does arctic amplification, caused by natural variability from the oceans and the ice albedo feedback make zero sense?
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting AlwaysThinkin:


I think we are talking past each other. What I meant by upper atmosphere was the mesosphere and thermosphere rather than the stratosphere which I thought how it was divided. Those layers have cooled in the last few decades.


Well...

Quoting Link:

From NASA News. New measurements from a NASA satellite show a dramatic cooling in the upper atmosphere that correlates with the declining phase of the current solar cycle. For the first time, researchers can show a timely link between the Sun and the climate of Earth’s thermosphere, the region above 100 km, an essential step in making accurate predictions of climate change in the high atmosphere.

Where have we had an accurate measurement of the thermospheric temperatures over the last 30 or so years? I can't find any. Could you provide a link, perhaps?
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Snowlover123:


You are one of the only people who I have met on an internet forum that do not believe that natural variability and the ice albedo feedback have a large impact on Arctic amplification and the differential trends during each season.

I appreciate the trouble you went to, making up a position for me and all, but you needn't bother. If you are interested in my position you may ask.

But we were discussing your position...which makes no sense. I have been kind enough to point this out on many occasions on this thread. I anticipate having to point it out many more times.

For clarification, my stated position thus far is that your assertion that the Sun is causing global warming is impossible based on the evidence. Incidentally, if you do the math on the Cook quote you used, you'll see that in your effort to defend your view, you actually further undermined it. ;^D
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting cyclonebuster:


So do they add to the warming of the planet or not?


Yes.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting greentortuloni:


Sure thing buddy, you've found a few papers that MAY say something different from what all the other scientists are saying. My guess is that it is bunch of hooey like the other papers you've posted.

At least you agree global warming is happening. My guess you're next step to show that the only way to prevent the sun from scorching the planet is to burn as much coal/oil as possible.


Hi Green,

I would never suggest such a thing.

Some wacky environmentalists are suggesting that we pump pollution into the atmosphere so we can halt Global Warming.

I'm an environmentalist myself, and the health consequences if such measures were to be taken would be extremely detremental.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Birthmark:

That's odd. I very nearly posted "You run and you run to catch up with the Sun but it's sinking" earlier to day.

Now I have to post "racing around, to come up behind you again" or my pedantry will become terminal. LOL



...The Lunatic is on da "Neutral Ground".
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 270 - 220

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.