Dr. Ricky Rood's Climate Change Blog

Rhetoric Again - Cycles

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

+14

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

Categories: Climate Change Politics Climate Impacts and Risks Climate Change

Permalink | A A A

Top of Page

Reader Comments

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200

Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 151 - 201

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

151. Snowlover123 10:42 PM GMT on April 30, 2012
. Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2513

152. Snowlover123 10:43 PM GMT on April 30, 2012
Quoting Xandra: The papers by Scafetta & West (2008) and Scafetta & Willson (2009), have been debunked by Benestad & Schmidt (2009) and Krivova et al. (2009). Other studies on solar influence on climate: Huber and Knutti 2011: ”Even for a reconstruction with high variability in total irradiance, solar forcing contributed only about 0.07°C (0.03-0.13°C) to the warming since 1950." Erlykin 2009: "We deduce that the maximum recent increase in the mean surface temperature of the Earth which can be ascribed to solar activity is 14% of the observed global warming." Benestad 2009: "Our analysis shows that the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980." Lockwood 2008: "It is shown that the contribution of solar variability to the temperature trend since 1987 is small and downward; the best estimate is -1.3% and the 2σ confidence level sets the uncertainty range of -0.7 to -1.9%." Lean 2008: "According to this analysis, solar forcing contributed negligible long-term warming in the past 25 years and 10% of the warming in the past 100 years..." Lockwood 2008: "The conclusions of our previous paper, that solar forcing has declined over the past 20 years while surface air temperatures have continued to rise, are shown to apply for the full range of potential time constants for the climate response to the variations in the solar forcings." Ammann 2007: "Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century." Foukal 2006: "The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years." Usoskin 2005: "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source." Solanki 2004: "solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades". Haigh 2003: "Observational data suggest that the Sun has influenced temperatures on decadal, centennial and millennial time-scales, but radiative forcing considerations and the results of energy-balance models and general circulation models suggest that the warming during the latter part of the 20th century cannot be ascribed entirely to solar effects." Stott 2003: "most warming over the last 50 yr is likely to have been caused by increases in greenhouse gases." Lean 1999: "it is unlikely that Sun–climate relationships can account for much of the warming since 1970." Waple 1999 finds "little evidence to suggest that changes in irradiance are having a large impact on the current warming trend." Nice parroting of Skeptical Science without giving proper credence to that website. And there are papers supporting the skeptical side and the uncertainties, 20 of such papers can be viewed here here, here, here here here here here here here here here here here here and here We can start off with these studies and go from here. Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2513

153. Birthmark 10:44 PM GMT on April 30, 2012
Quoting Snowlover123: Why are you using the SSN to quantify the solar impact on climate change? Using the SSN leads to an estimation of the solar impact on climate change because the sunspot number only accounts for part of the solar magnetic activity changes. Georgieva et. al 2005. Quoting Paper: We show that the index commonly used for quantifying long-term changes in solar activity, the sunspot number, accounts for only one part of solar activity and using this index leads to the underestimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming in the recent decades. A more suitable index is the geomagnetic activity which reflects all solar activity, and it is highly correlated to global temperature variations in the whole period for which we have data. The correlation coefficient between the aa index and global temperatures is 0.85, meaning that the AA Index can explain 85% of the variability in temperatures over the last 150 years. Now what is it the denialists say...ah, yes, "correlation is not causation." Neat thing about sunspots --with fairly inexpensive equipment you or I can go out and count 'em ourselves, so we don't have to rely on those socialist scientists who are in it for the money. Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1428

154. Xandra 10:45 PM GMT on April 30, 2012
Quoting Snowlover123: And there are papers supporting the skeptical side and the uncertainties, 20 of such papers can be viewed Were in these papers it says that the sun have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades? Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 758

155. Snowlover123 10:46 PM GMT on April 30, 2012
Quoting Birthmark: Neat thing about sunspots --with fairly inexpensive equipment you or I can go out and count 'em ourselves, so we don't have to rely on those socialist scientists who are in it for the money. That's correct, but... I would be interested if you have a legitimate reply to this piece of evidence from this paper. Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2513

156. Birthmark 10:55 PM GMT on April 30, 2012
Quoting Snowlover123: I'm guessing you didn't read the quote that I posted from the paper about winter arctic temperature changes but yet you will still continue to use the Arctic warming fastest during the winter as the fingerprint that most of the warming is due to Greenhouse Gases? What a nice try you make to change the discussion! Unfortunately, I pay attention. You see, what the winter warming in the Arctic clearly does is dispose of the Sun hypothesis. Whether it is warming most, least or somewhere in between is irrelevant. What's relevant is that it is warming in the absence of any sunlight. Buh-bye, sun hypothesis...again. Quoting Snowlover123: That in itself is quite telling. You still ignore the fact that the climate system is chaotic and can have multiple factors causing different observable changes in the climate system. The climate system is NOT chaotic. We've been over this. It's not going to be 266C tomorrow, nor is it going to plunge -255C tonight. Go away, chaos! Shoo! Quoting Snowlover123: You automatically assume that all of these changes MUST be caused by one thing. LOL Nope. What I assume is that the answer having the most explanatory power with the fewest assumptions that explains observations the best is almost always the correct answer. (I say "almost always" out of an extreme of caution. In reality, I can't think of when that principle has been violated in science.) You, OTOH, will cling to any ad hoc answer that suits your needs. You rely on rejected, refuted, and ignored papers and blogs. As a result, your "explanations" are little more than a patchwork that doesn't hold up under scrutiny. You need to learn that, yes, climatologists, like most scientists, really are just that darned smart in their areas of study. Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1428

157. Birthmark 10:57 PM GMT on April 30, 2012
Quoting Snowlover123: That's correct, but... I would be interested if you have a legitimate reply to this piece of evidence from this paper. What is it you think needs replying to? They found a correlation. Yay! Good for them! Really. Because if there's one thing we all know, it's that no one has ever found a correlation that didn't hold up. LOL Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1428

158. Birthmark 11:04 PM GMT on April 30, 2012
Quoting Snowlover123: The PMOD dataset used by Frolich et. al is questionable as there is another TSI dataset with increasing TSI from 1970-2000. The hiatus in Global temperatures as of recent can also be very clearly identified in that graph. Yeah, we've seen it. Are you sure it helps you? lol By the way, I'm still waiting for you to post any statistically significant trend that shows either a cooling trend or a flat trend. If you can't do that, then I trust the whole "it hasn't warmed since year X argument is over, right? Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1428

159. Snowlover123 11:15 PM GMT on April 30, 2012
Quoting Birthmark: Yeah, we've seen it. Are you sure it helps you? lol By the way, I'm still waiting for you to post any statistically significant trend that shows either a cooling trend or a flat trend. If you can't do that, then I trust the whole "it hasn't warmed since year X argument is over, right? Nope, RSS shows we haven't warmed since 1995. That's totally different than showing that statistically significant cooling has taken shape, and does not change the fact that since 1995 on RSS we have not warmed. At all. Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2513

160. Snowlover123 11:17 PM GMT on April 30, 2012
Quoting Birthmark: What is it you think needs replying to? They found a correlation. Yay! Good for them! Really. Because if there's one thing we all know, it's that no one has ever found a correlation that didn't hold up. LOL From the paper: A more suitable index is the geomagnetic activity which reflects all solar activity, and it is highly correlated to global temperature variations in the whole period for which we have data. The "whole period for which we have data" part includes the later half of the 20th Century, does it not? Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2513

161. Snowlover123 11:19 PM GMT on April 30, 2012
Quoting Xandra: Were in these papers it says that the sun have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades? Did I claim all of these papers show that? These papers support a more skeptical position that most of the 20th Century warming is due to the sun, and some of them support that significant uncertainties remain with the TSI trends and solar activity over the last 30 years. Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2513

162. Neapolitan 11:41 PM GMT on April 30, 2012
Quoting Snowlover123: Great, you picked out three names. Muller never said that his BEST project showed that humans were to blame. In otherwords, he was establishing a well known fact about climate science that the world has heated up. Not very impressive. And a 2 and a half year old paper is old and outdated? What the heck? A) It wasn't a "paper", but a letter signed by a bunch of crotchety old denialists, many with no formal training or experience in climate science. B) I didn't "pick out three names", I simply scanned the list and realized you were doing nothing but again bringing up the same batch of bad actors, as represented by two names that stood out. (Suggest you read Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes; Fred Singer's name is repeated more than any other)/ The point being, once you throw in the likes of Singer and Scafetta, you have immediately lost almost all credibility. C) I merely brought up Muller's name to note that, if you're trying to make a case against global warming, he's no longer a very good witness for your side, since he's been forced by fact to recant much of his denialism. Next time you cut and paste that list, you may wish to excise his name. Just trying to be helpful. So, again: what else you got? Or is that about it? Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 11156

163. Birthmark 11:47 PM GMT on April 30, 2012
Quoting Snowlover123: Nope, RSS shows we haven't warmed since 1995. That's nonsense. What RSS shows is 0.055 �0.203�C/decade warming. Now what that means to those of us interested in reality is four things: 1. the warming isn't statistically significant 2. the real trend might as high as 0.258�C/decade 3. the real trend might be as low as -0.148�C/decade 4. it is impossible to make a sound conclusion as to whether it is warming, cooling, or stable based on the information at hand. Crank science calls this an absence of warming. That's deliberate deceit. It is a play on the fact that it takes many years to establish a statistically significant trend --at least 17 years, according to Santer. 1995-2012 isn't even seventeen years at this point. Of course, fans of crank science also fail to note that both GISTEMP and HADCRUT4 do show statistically significant warming -UAH does not, though it may by the end of the year. So, you are cherry picking, failing to give a fair assessment of the totality of the data. Quoting Snowlover123: That's totally different than showing that statistically significant cooling has taken shape, and does not change the fact that since 1995 on RSS we have not warmed. At all. That is a blatant lie. Sorry, there's no other correct term for it. You use data that isn't even expected to show a trend, from a single source (ignoring the other sources of at least equal repute), and even manage to misstate that cherry picked information. You couldn't be more wrong if you had planned it. LOL Sorry, but RSS shows warming from 1995 - present. I realize that you find that troubling, but reality isn't here to amuse you. lol I accept your concession that you cannot show a statistically significant flat or cool trend since the current warming began. I knew that you couldn't. That is why you use meaningless data, after all. ;^D Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1428

164. Birthmark 11:57 PM GMT on April 30, 2012
Quoting Snowlover123: Did I claim all of these papers show that? These papers support a more skeptical position that most of the 20th Century warming is due to the sun, and some of them support that significant uncertainties remain with the TSI trends and solar activity over the last 30 years. Yes, bad papers only get refuted or ignored. They usually don't get expunged from the scientific literature. And that's a good thing, imho. Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1428

165. Birthmark 12:18 AM GMT on May 01, 2012
Quoting Snowlover123: From the paper: A more suitable index is the geomagnetic activity which reflects all solar activity, and it is highly correlated to global temperature variations in the whole period for which we have data. The "whole period for which we have data" part includes the later half of the 20th Century, does it not? Again. Yippee! They believe that they found a correlation. Have you noticed how it is completely not taking the scientific world by storm? LOL Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1428

166. Xandra 12:38 AM GMT on May 01, 2012
Quoting Snowlover123: Did I claim all of these papers show that? These papers support a more skeptical position that most of the 20th Century warming is due to the sun, and some of them support that significant uncertainties remain with the TSI trends and solar activity over the last 30 years. I repeat what I wrote to you in a previous blog: There are no scientists who question the sun's influence on climate, they know that the sun has a strong influence, but in the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend while the global temperature has continued to rise. The sun and climate have been going in opposite directions as you can see in the image below and therefore, the sun cannot be the cause of the recent global warming. So I ask you again: Which of these 20 papers support you and says that the sun and not CO2 have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades? Image credit: Skeptical Science Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 758

167. Snowlover123 12:45 AM GMT on May 01, 2012
Quoting Birthmark: What a nice try you make to change the discussion! Unfortunately, I pay attention. You see, what the winter warming in the Arctic clearly does is dispose of the Sun hypothesis. Whether it is warming most, least or somewhere in between is irrelevant. What's relevant is that it is warming in the absence of any sunlight. Buh-bye, sun hypothesis...again. What are you "Buh-Bye-ing" to the sun hypothesis about? Why are you "Buh-Bying" the sun causing a Global temperature rise if natural variability has taken control of temperature changes IN THE ARCTIC?? Sorry, I'm not following your logic. So because natural variability is causing temperature changes in the Arctic means that the sun can't be responsible for Global Temperature changes? What? Quoting Birthmark: The climate system is NOT chaotic. We've been over this. It's not going to be 266C tomorrow, nor is it going to plunge -255C tonight. Go away, chaos! Shoo! Yes, we've been over this fact that your definition of chaos is mistaken and not correct. Chaos refers to multiple forcings in the climate system creating energy imbalances, not wild fluctuations in day to day weather. The strongest forcing that causes chaos on a year to year basis is the Cloud Forcng. Quoting Birthmark: Nope. What I assume is that the answer having the most explanatory power with the fewest assumptions that explains observations the best is almost always the correct answer. That does not apply to climate science, and it explains why you are mistaken on this issue. Because you think that only one factor can lead to all of the observed temperature changes, when it is a lot that is going on at once in the climate system. Quoting Birthmark: As a result, your "explanations" are little more than a patchwork that doesn't hold up under scrutiny. That is not true. Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2513

168. Snowlover123 12:49 AM GMT on May 01, 2012
Quoting Neapolitan: A) It wasn't a "paper", but a letter signed by a bunch of crotchety old denialists, many with no formal training or experience in climate science. B) I didn't "pick out three names", I simply scanned the list and realized you were doing nothing but again bringing up the same batch of bad actors, as represented by two names that stood out. (Suggest you read Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes; Fred Singer's name is repeated more than any other)/ The point being, once you throw in the likes of Singer and Scafetta, you have immediately lost almost all credibility. C) I merely brought up Muller's name to note that, if you're trying to make a case against global warming, he's no longer a very good witness for your side, since he's been forced by fact to recant much of his denialism. Next time you cut and paste that list, you may wish to excise his name. Just trying to be helpful. So, again: what else you got? Or is that about it? A couple of points. A couple of scientists in the list does not mean the rest of the scientists who signed that list are "bad." Three "bad actors" out of a sea of 260+? Are you kidding me? I have never argued against the rise in Global temperatures by ~0.6 Degrees C. It is a little late for me to make an extensive post on this issue. I'll probably make one later this week. Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2513

169. Snowlover123 12:57 AM GMT on May 01, 2012
Quoting Birthmark: Crank science calls this an absence of warming. That's deliberate deceit. It is a play on the fact that it takes many years to establish a statistically significant trend --at least 17 years, according to Santer. 1995-2012 isn't even seventeen years at this point. Of course, fans of crank science also fail to note that both GISTEMP and HADCRUT4 do show statistically significant warming -UAH does not, though it may by the end of the year. So, you are cherry picking, failing to give a fair assessment of the totality of the data. That is a blatant lie. Sorry, there's no other correct term for it. You use data that isn't even expected to show a trend, from a single source (ignoring the other sources of at least equal repute), and even manage to misstate that cherry picked information. You couldn't be more wrong if you had planned it. LOL Sorry, but RSS shows warming from 1995 - present. I realize that you find that troubling, but reality isn't here to amuse you. lol I accept your concession that you cannot show a statistically significant flat or cool trend since the current warming began. I knew that you couldn't. That is why you use meaningless data, after all. ;^D I'll admit when I'm wrong, and this is one of those occasions. On the graph, the OLS slope started at 1996, not 1995, so yes, still no trend because there is no statistically significant warming over this timeframe. You cannot claim that there has been warming, when a you, yourself have just said, there is an equal chance that it could also be cooling. In these cases of trends that are not statistically significant, there is no trend. This applies to skeptics who cherry pick 2002 as a starting date and say we've been cooling since 2002. There is statistically insignificant cooling, but not cooling. Quoting Birthmark: It is a play on the fact that it takes many years to establish a statistically significant trend --at least 17 years, according to Santer. 1995-2012 isn't even seventeen years at this point Check your math, the beginning of 1995 to the beginning of 2012 is 17 years. Quoting Birthmark: Of course, fans of crank science also fail to note that both GISTEMP and HADCRUT4 do show statistically significant warming -UAH does not, though it may by the end of the year. So, you are cherry picking, failing to give a fair assessment of the totality of the data. So you're selecting GISTEMP and HADCRUT4 for your arguments sake, and yet you accuse me of cherry picking when you totally ignore UAH and RSS? Am I missing something? Does anyone else see this blantant double standard? Quoting Birthmark: Sorry, but RSS shows warming from 1995 - present. I realize that you find that troubling, but reality isn't here to amuse you. lol Congratulations, you have demonstrated yet again that you don't know what a statistically significant trend is verses a statistically insignificant trend. Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2513

170. Snowlover123 12:58 AM GMT on May 01, 2012
Quoting Birthmark: Yes, bad papers only get refuted or ignored. They usually don't get expunged from the scientific literature. And that's a good thing, imho. That explains why all of the Dessler papers got refuted by Spencer, Braswell et. al... Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2513

171. Snowlover123 12:58 AM GMT on May 01, 2012
Quoting Birthmark: Again. Yippee! They believe that they found a correlation. Have you noticed how it is completely not* taking the scientific world by storm? LOL* If you didn't have anything constructive to say about the paper, you could have just said so. Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2513

172. Snowlover123 1:01 AM GMT on May 01, 2012
Quoting Xandra: I repeat what I wrote to you in a previous blog: There are no scientists who question the sun's influence on climate, they know that the sun has a strong influence, but in the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend while the global temperature has continued to rise. The sun and climate have been going in opposite directions as you can see in the image below and therefore, the sun cannot be the cause of the recent global warming. So I ask you again: Which of these 20 papers support you and says that the sun and not CO2 have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades? Image credit: Skeptical Science The problem is that most of these papers evaluate the trend over the past century. There are some in the mix that do point to the last 30 years has having a solar force for driving the temperatures (ex: Link et. al 2011, SW 07 etc.) You posted that same chart and you are going to get the same reply to that chart, because there are huge uncertainties surrounding the PMOD TSI Composite. Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2513

173. Snowlover123 1:02 AM GMT on May 01, 2012
Can any of our advocates explain the impressive correlation between the sun's output and temperature? Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2513

174. Birthmark 1:06 AM GMT on May 01, 2012
Quoting Snowlover123: What are you "Buh-Bye-ing" to the sun hypothesis about? Why are you "Buh-Bying" the sun causing a Global temperature rise if natural variability has taken control of temperature changes IN THE ARCTIC?? You mean if we assume that there's some mysterious, unknown process warming the Arctic, then the Sun hypothesis is still valid? LOL Buh-bye, sun hypothesis. Come back when you find your unknown, mysterious process that can warm the Arctic in the absence of sunlight...and then just as mysteriously fails to operate in the Arctic summer. (Otherwise, the two forcings would combine and summer would easily be warming the most quickly in the Arctic. Hadn't thought of that, had you? LOL) Quoting Snowlover123: Sorry, I'm not following your logic. So because natural variability is causing temperature changes in the Arctic means that the sun can't be responsible for Global Temperature changes? You can't follow my logic because you seem to be unacquainted with logic that doesn't rest on false assumptions and bum data. This quote is a prime example of your difficulty. There is zero evidence that natural variability is the cause of the current Arctic warming. You simply assume that to salvage your vain hope that the Sun is the cause. Again, not only do you need some unknown variability to explain winter warming, you need that unknown variability to disappear in the Arctic summer, or find yet another unknown factor to explain the fact that the Sun + your unknown variability fails to cause the greatest warming in Arctic summer. Quoting Snowlover123: Yes, we've been over this fact that your definition of chaos is mistaken and not correct. Chaos refers to multiple forcings in the climate system creating energy imbalances, not wild fluctuations in day to day weather. The strongest forcing that causes chaos on a year to year basis is the Cloud Forcng. That does not apply to climate science, and it explains why you are mistaken on this issue. Because you think that only one factor can lead to all of the observed temperature changes, when it is a lot that is going on at once in the climate system. That is not true. That is utter bafflegab. Climate, at least in terms of average temperature, is anything but chaotic --in any sense of the term. If climate was chaotic, then models would be useless. Models are not useless. In point of fact, they do pretty well. No, they are not 100% accurate --nor are they expected to be. But they've done a very good job of predicting global temperature. That would be impossible if climate was chaotic. Weather, OTOH, is much closer to chaos, though it is bounded as I said in my previous post. "Really complicated" and "chaos" are not interchangeable terms. Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1428

175. AlwaysThinkin 1:10 AM GMT on May 01, 2012
Snowlover you forgot to give us a link to the studies you used in the chart. Don't worry I found them. Here they are Left to Right on the chart: Palle Bago and Butler 2001 Georgieva et. al 2005 Cliver et. al 1998 Solheim et. al 2012 Link et. al 2011 Scafetta and West 2008 Scafetta and West 2007 Ogurtsov 2007 Blanter et. al 2008 Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 195

176. Birthmark 1:12 AM GMT on May 01, 2012
Quoting Snowlover123: Can any of our advocates explain the impressive correlation between the sun's output and temperature? Yes. Yes, I can. They use ACRIM data and ignore PMOD...then they only apply it to the Northern Hemisphere. Anything else? (I can add something further about their use of wavelet analysis, but I don't think it's particularly relevant to your comic, er, graph.) Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1428

177. Snowlover123 1:12 AM GMT on May 01, 2012
Quoting AlwaysThinkin: Snowlover you forgot to give us a link to the studies you used in the chart. Don't worry I found them. Here they are Left to Right on the chart: Palle Bago and Butler 2001 Georgieva et. al 2005 Cliver et. al 1998 Solheim et. al 2012 Link et. al 2011 Scafetta and West 2008 Scafetta and West 2007 Ogurtsov 2007 Blanter et. al 2008 Thanks for referencing that. That happens to be the forum I moderate, actually. :) Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2513

178. Snowlover123 1:15 AM GMT on May 01, 2012
Quoting Birthmark: Yes. Yes, I can. They use ACRIM data and ignore PMOD...then they only apply it to the Northern Hemisphere. Anything else? (I can add something further about their use of wavelet analysis, but I don't think it's particularly relevant to your comic, er, graph.) See the huge differences between PMOD and ACRIM? That's why this uncertainty needs to be resolved. Northern Hemispheric proxy reconstructions are easier to achieve since there are more landmasses in the NH, making there more possible land proxies. There is a very good correlation between solar activity and temperature over this entire timeframe. Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2513

179. Snowlover123 1:19 AM GMT on May 01, 2012
Quoting Birthmark: You mean if we assume that there's some mysterious, unknown process warming the Arctic, then the Sun hypothesis is still valid? LOL Buh-bye, sun hypothesis. Come back when you find your unknown, mysterious process that can warm the Arctic in the absence of sunlight...and then just as mysteriously fails to operate in the Arctic summer. (Otherwise, the two forcings would combine and summer would easily be warming the most quickly in the Arctic. Hadn't thought of that, had you? LOL) You can't follow my logic because you seem to be unacquainted with logic that doesn't rest on false assumptions and bum data. This quote is a prime example of your difficulty. There is zero evidence that natural variability is the cause of the current Arctic warming. You simply assume that to salvage your vain hope that the Sun is the cause. Again, not only do you need some unknown variability to explain winter warming, you need that unknown variability to disappear in the Arctic summer, or find yet another unknown factor to explain the fact that the Sun your unknown variability fails to cause the greatest warming in Arctic summer. That is utter bafflegab. Climate, at least in terms of average temperature, is anything but chaotic --in any sense of the term. If climate was chaotic, then models would be useless. Models are not useless. In point of fact, they do pretty well. No, they are not 100% accurate --nor are they expected to be. But they've done a very good job of predicting global temperature. That would be impossible if climate was chaotic. Weather, OTOH, is much closer to chaos, though it is bounded as I said in my previous post. "Really complicated" and "chaos" are not interchangeable terms. I'm done arguing about this topic, since it seems like you don't have anything constructive to say about this paper, and you are choosing to ignore the portion I quoted from the paper that specifically talked about natural variability as being the cause of Arctic temperature changes. You also are making a false assumption by assuming that the GLOBAL temperature cannot possibly be driven by solar activity because a miniscule portion of the globe is not following changes in solar activity, and instead is following internal climatic variability. Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2513

180. Birthmark 1:22 AM GMT on May 01, 2012
Quoting Snowlover123: See the huge differences between PMOD and ACRIM? That's why this uncertainty needs to be resolved. Northern Hemispheric proxy reconstructions are easier to achieve since there are more landmasses in the NH, making there more possible land proxies. There is a very good correlation between solar activity and temperature over this entire timeframe. According to one paper that uses the dubious ACRIM data. Hey, if that's what floats yer boat...well, I guess that makes it easier to understand your appeal to magic, unknown forces in the Arctic. Btw, looking at that comic, er, graphic makes it appear that CO2 has no GH effect at all. Has anyone shown this to the chemists? I'd think that they'd be interested. And where does your magic, conveniently part-time Arctic winter warming in that comic, er, graph? Oooh, and volcanoes! I guess there's no real effect from volcanoes, either. This wouldn't happen to you if you weren't so eagerly credulous. LOL Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1428

181. Snowlover123 1:28 AM GMT on May 01, 2012
Quoting Birthmark: According to one paper that uses the dubious ACRIM data. Hey, if that's what floats yer boat...well, I guess that makes it easier to understand your appeal to magic, unknown forces in the Arctic. Btw, looking at that comic, er, graphic makes it appear that CO2 has no GH effect at all. Has anyone shown this to the chemists? I'd think that they'd be interested. And where does your magic, conveniently part-time Arctic winter warming in that comic, er, graph? Oooh, and volcanoes! I guess there's no real effect from volcanoes, either. This wouldn't happen to you if you weren't so eagerly credulous. LOL The graph comes from the peer reviewed science, not a comic. As much as you would like for it to be a comic, it is not. And LOL at unknown magic forces in the Arctic. Try and misrepresent internal variability all you want, it will still be there, whether you like it or not. It will cause temperature changes in the Arctic, whether you like it or not. Link Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2513

182. Birthmark 1:43 AM GMT on May 01, 2012
Quoting Snowlover123: I'm done arguing about this topic, since it seems like you don't have anything constructive to say about this paper, and you are choosing to ignore the portion I quoted from the paper that specifically talked about natural variability as being the cause of Arctic temperature changes. Yep. They said that. I thought it was very nice. Now, only if it were true. For instance, how many other papers support this? (The answer is "none" as far as I can tell, if you mean climatic changes.) Therefore, it may be ignored. Quoting Snowlover123: You also are making a false assumption by assuming that the GLOBAL temperature cannot possibly be driven by solar activity because a miniscule portion of the globe is not following changes in solar activity, and instead is following internal climatic variability. Nope. I am assuming that the Sun cannot warm a region in which it is not present. I assume that for the extremely good reason that it is incontrovertibly true. Therefore, if the Sun was warming the globe then the Arctic would experience it's greatest temperature increase in the summer due to both the Sun and whatever causes the winter warming acting to warm the Arctic. So, you are actually postulating three things: 1. Some mysterious thing warms the Arctic in the winter 2. The Sun warms the rest of the Earth 3. However, either the Sun doesn't warm the Arctic; or the mysterious thing disappears in Arctic summer; or yet a different mysterious thing counteracts the first mysterious thing so that the Sun can warm the Arctic in summer. Your hypothesis is ridiculous and without any realistic observed or even hypothesized support. Oh, and your mysterious thing(s) also have to counteract the known warming effect of CO2. Rube Goldberg climate science at its finest. LOL Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1428

183. Daisyworld 1:48 AM GMT on May 01, 2012
Quoting Snowlover123: The graph comes from the peer reviewed science, not a comic. As much as you would like for it to be a comic, it is not. Why do you keep referring to your graph like it's some sort of holy grail? It's meaningless. Your error bars have no associated P value, and there's absolutely no context as to what "solar contribution" actually means. Snowlover123, to put it bluntly, I've watched your numerous, extensive and vacuous comments in Dr. Rood's blog for the past day now, and all I can say is this: I'm tired of you. I'm tired of your scientifically illiterate viewpoint, your inane and recycled arguments from decades past that have long been proven insubstantial, and I'm tired of how you parade your misinformed opinion around as fact. The real reason you're here is because you're grandstanding on political reasons, not scientific ones. You haven't even performed any of the field work to collect the information you cherry-pick, nor have you analyzed any of it critically. You simply slap it up on the web to try and legitimize it without knowing what it is. You waste the web space here for no other reason but to push an agenda based on a manufactured controversy. There's nothing new you're presenting here, and you're performing a disservice to yourself and those around you by diverting attention away from the important issues that Dr. Rood is discussing in his blog. In short, what you're doing here is not science; it's trolling. Good day, sir. Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 4 Comments: 315

184. Birthmark 1:50 AM GMT on May 01, 2012
Quoting Snowlover123: The graph comes from the peer reviewed science, not a comic. As much as you would like for it to be a comic, it is not. And LOL at unknown magic forces in the Arctic. Try and misrepresent internal variability all you want, it will still be there, whether you like it or not. It will cause temperature changes in the Arctic, whether you like it or not. Link Yes, cling to a single paper. After all, it just might be correct. (Did you ever wonder where they got their temperature data for the Arctic in, say 1880? I do.) LOL But don't forget that that paper also says that after 1970, the models have it right. Darn the luck! ;^D Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1428

185. Birthmark 1:52 AM GMT on May 01, 2012
Quoting Daisyworld: So when did you and subtlety have your falling out? LOL You're my new best friend, btw. :) Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1428

186. Some1Has2BtheRookie 3:49 AM GMT on May 01, 2012
Quoting Snowlover123: Right, that's because these are well accepted facts, and are not questioned by any scientifically literate person. That's a tough question, since it is uncertain how much CO2 has contributed to climate change. Mars and Moon do not have as thick of atmospheres as Earth's does, hence why the temperature at the surface fluctuates wildly. I would say that they would not be warming as fast as they are now. 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. "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 Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4102

187. Some1Has2BtheRookie 3:53 AM GMT on May 01, 2012
Quoting Snowlover123: Which is still smaller than the solar influence on climate. You need to bring some scientific evidence with you when you say this. I did "+" you for your original thought. ;-) Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4102

188. Snowlover123 10:48 AM GMT on May 01, 2012
Quoting Daisyworld: Why do you keep referring to your graph like it's some sort of holy grail? It's meaningless. Your error bars have no associated P value, and there's absolutely no context as to what "solar contribution" actually means. Snowlover123, to put it bluntly, I've watched your numerous, extensive and vacuous comments in Dr. Rood's blog for the past day now, and all I can say is this: I'm tired of you. I'm tired of your scientifically illiterate viewpoint, your inane and recycled arguments from decades past that have long been proven insubstantial, and I'm tired of how you parade your misinformed opinion around as fact. The real reason you're is because you're grandstanding on political reasons, not scientific ones. You haven't even performed any of the field work to collect the information you cherry-pick, nor have you analyzed any of it critically. You simply slap it up on the web to try and legitimize it without knowing what it is. You waste the web space here for no other reason but to push an agenda based on a manufactured controversy. There's nothing new you're presenting here, and you're performing a disservice to yourself and those around you by diverting attention away from the important issues that Dr. Rood is discussing in his blog. In short, what you're doing here is not science; it's trolling. Good day, sir. So in other words I'm trolling because I'm disagreeing with the idea that Carbon Dioxide is very likely causing dangerous Global Warming, and I'm trolling because I'm disagreeing with your viewpoints? You're already sick of my position even though you've read it through for only one day? You will probably be having a 104 Degree fever then by the time this week is done. ;) Using that logic, there are a lot of trolls in this world. Good day. Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2513

189. Snowlover123 10:54 AM GMT on May 01, 2012
Quoting Birthmark: Yep. They said that. I thought it was very nice. Now, only if it were true. For instance, how many other papers support this? (The answer is "none" as far as I can tell, if you mean climatic changes.) Therefore, it may be ignored \ That's nice, because there are plenty of papers that acknowledge that natural variability + climate change creates decreasing sea ice/albedo which creates a change in the atmospheric weather patterns, and creates different trends of warming in the Arctic. CO2 has nothing to do with arctic amplification, as much as you would like it to be. Quoting Birthmark: Nope. I am assuming that the Sun cannot warm a region in which it is not present. I assume that for the extremely good reason that it is incontrovertibly true. But Arctic Amplification through natural variability and climate change can. Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2513

190. Neapolitan 11:44 AM GMT on May 01, 2012
There's a great article over at the New York Times this morning discussing how real climate change "skeptics" are putting pretty much all their remaining chips on the Lindzen theory/hope/fantasy that clouds will be the savior despite the trillions of liters of CO2 we pump into the environment each day. A few notable highlights: For decades, a small group of scientific dissenters has been trying to shoot holes in the prevailing science of climate change, offering one reason after another why the outlook simply must be wrong. Over time, nearly every one of their arguments has been knocked down by accumulating evidence, and polls say 97 percent of working climate scientists now see global warming as a serious risk. Yet in recent years, the climate change skeptics have seized on one last argument that cannot be so readily dismissed. Their theory is that clouds will save us. Dr. Lindzen says the earth is not especially sensitive to greenhouse gases because clouds will react to counter them, and he believes he has identified a specific mechanism. On a warming planet, he says, less coverage by high clouds in the tropics will allow more heat to escape to space, countering the temperature increase. His idea has drawn withering criticism from other scientists, who cite errors in his papers and say proof is lacking. Enough evidence is already in hand, they say, to rule out the powerful cooling effect from clouds that would be needed to offset the increase of greenhouse gases. However, politicians looking for reasons not to tackle climate change have embraced Dr. Lindzen and other skeptics, elevating their role in the public debate. Dr. Lindzen is "feeding upon an audience that wants to hear a certain message, and wants to hear it put forth by people with enough scientific reputation that it can be sustained for a while, even if it's wrong science," said Christopher S. Bretherton, an atmospheric researcher at the University of Washington. "I don't think it's intellectually honest at all." The most elaborate computer programs have agreed on a broad conclusion: clouds are not likely to change enough to offset the bulk of the human-caused warming. Some of the analyses predict that clouds could actually amplify the warming trend sharply through several mechanisms, including a reduction of some of the low clouds that reflect a lot of sunlight back to space. Other computer analyses foresee a largely neutral effect. The result is a big spread in forecasts of future temperature, one that scientists have not been able to narrow much in 30 years of effort. Today, most mainstream researchers consider Dr. Lindzen's theory discredited. He does not agree, but he has had difficulty establishing his case in the scientific literature. Dr. Lindzen published a paper in 2009 offering more support for his case that the earth's sensitivity to greenhouse gases is low, but once again scientists identified errors, including a failure to account for known inaccuracies in satellite measurements. Dr. Lindzen acknowledged that the 2009 paper contained "some stupid mistakes" in his handling of the satellite data. "It was just embarrassing," he said in an interview. "The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque." Among the experts most offended by Dr. Lindzen's stance are many of his colleagues in the M.I.T. atmospheric sciences department, some of whom were once as skeptical as he about climate change. "Even if there were no political implications, it just seems deeply unprofessional and irresponsible to look at this and say, 'We're sure it's not a problem,' " said Kerry A. Emanuel, another M.I.T. scientist. "It's a special kind of risk, because it's a risk to the collective civilization." Bottom line: Lindzen's so-called 'Iris Effect' is a debunked joke, and Lindzen is either scientifically illiterate or intellectually dishonest--if not a little of both. Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 11156

192. cyclonebuster 12:26 PM GMT on May 01, 2012
Snowlover123, What happens to you when you place more blankets on top of you when you are sleeping at night. Do you become warmer or colder? Does it depend on the thickness of the blankets? Do thin blankets warm more than the thicker ones? Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 18774

193. Neapolitan 1:36 PM GMT on May 01, 2012
Quoting TemplesOfSyrinxC4: Solyndra Not Dealing With Toxic Waste At Milpitas Facility April 28, 2012 11:00 PM Share this 677 View Comments Solyndra Headquarters in Fremont (Solyndra Inc.) Filed Under http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/04/28/solyn dra-not-dealing-with-toxic-waste-at-milpitas-facil ity/ Business, Local, News, Syndicated Local, Tech Related Tags Bankruptcy, Fremont, Milpitas, Solyndra, Stimulus, Toxic Waste MILPITAS (CBS 5) — Three months ago, CBS 5 caught Solyndra tossing millions of dollars worth of brand new glass tubes used to make solar panels. Now the bankrupt solar firm, once touted as a symbol of green technology, may be trying to abandon toxic waste. It’s a tedious process. Slowly but surely, the shattered remains of brand new solar panel tubes head to a recycling plant in Hayward. Meanwhile the next phase of the company’s liquidation is under way. It involves getting rid of all the heavy metals left inside the building that were used to make the panels. The Fremont Fire Department’s Jay Swardenski oversees the cleanup. He said some materials, such as cadmium, are toxic, and hard to dispose of. “They don’t degrade at all, so we want to make sure we don’t allow these materials to get into the environment,” he said. It’s not just the leftover hazardous materials, but also the machinery used to apply them to the glass tubes. “Certainly those tools will need to be decontaminated, cleaned up, handled correctly as they are taken apart,” he said. Swardenski told CBS 5 the disposal process is going smoothly in Fremont, but what about nearby Milpitas? Solyndra leased a building on California Circle for the final assembly of its solar panels. But the cleanup at the leased building in Milpitas is in limbo, because Solyndra doesn’t want to pay. CBS 5 found the building locked up, with no one around. At the back, a hazardous storage area was found. There were discarded buckets half filled with liquids and barrels labeled “hazardous waste.” The building’s owner, a company called iStar, claimed in court documents, “there may be serious environmental, health and safety issues” at the premises. According to the documents, they include, “numerous containers of solvents and chemicals…and processing equipment contaminated with lead.” “Essentially it looks like they left a pretty big mess behind,” San Jose State Assistant Professor Dustin Mulvaney told CBS 5. Mulvaney has written a white paper (.pdf) on solar industry waste for the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition. Looking at CBS 5’s video, Mulvaney said it’s hard to tell how much hazardous waste is at the Milpitas facility. But he said one thing is for sure. “Materials labeled hazardous waste require a lot more protocol, so its actually a lot more expensive to clean,” Mulvaney said. “It’s very sad looking at this facility taken apart like this, because a lot of money went into building this.” Swardenski feels the same way. “It is hard. They are beautiful buildings; there was a lot of effort put into them. But we’ll work as hard to pout them back into productive use,” he said. CBS 5 asked both Solyndra and iStar for comment on this story. But as of the original airdate, neither company has replied. So a now-bankrupt company that once handled toxic materials left some of those materials behind. Got it. A couple of things: 1) The article merely asks whether Solyndra plans to clean up those materials, using words like "is" and "may"; it never even says that Solyndra is leaving behind a dump; 2) The articles also states that Solyndra followed procedure and left the materials appropriately contained. That is, they didn't dump them wholesale into, say, a nearby creek; 3) More importantly, this story absolutely pales in comparison to, say, what BP did to the Gulf, or the 40 trillion liters a day of CO2 Big Energy's products pump into the environment; 4) Far more importantly, even if Solyndra turned out to be the nastiest, most evil, highest-polluting company in the history of the planet, it wouldn't change one iota humanity's need to get as far away from fossil fuel as quickly as possible. And solar is, and will continue to be, a huge part of that move. So...what else you got? Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 11156

194. Xandra 2:38 PM GMT on May 01, 2012
Quoting Snowlover123: The problem is that most of these papers evaluate the trend over the past century. There are some in the mix that do point to the last 30 years has having a solar force for driving the temperatures (ex: Link et. al 2011, SW 07 etc.) LOL. In other words - your 20 links you posted had no value. The paper by Link et al 2011, is based on selected stations and Horst-Joachim Lüdecke, who is one of the authors, is just one more from the denialist mumbo-jumbo machine. The papers by Scafetta & West have been debunked over and over again. You have nothing to support you. Nothing! Anyway, I have now decided to not help you spreading your non-science nonsense on this blog so this will be my last response to your posts. I'll finish this post by quoting Daisyworld: "I'm tired of you. I'm tired of your scientifically illiterate viewpoint, your inane and recycled arguments from decades past that have long been proven insubstantial, and I'm tired of how you parade your misinformed opinion around as fact. The real reason you're is because you're grandstanding on political reasons, not scientific ones. You haven't even performed any of the field work to collect the information you cherry-pick, nor have you analyzed any of it critically. You simply slap it up on the web to try and legitimize it without knowing what it is. You waste the web space here for no other reason but to push an agenda based on a manufactured controversy. There's nothing new you're presenting here, and you're performing a disservice to yourself and those around you by diverting attention away from the important issues that Dr. Rood is discussing in his blog." Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 758

195. iceagecoming 3:16 PM GMT on May 01, 2012
Happy May Day from Socialist Tea! May 1, 2012 by Socialist Tea Admin In honor of International Workers’ Day, we thought that it would be a good idea to share with everyone the last chapter of the Communist Manifesto. Though we all have read it, some more then once, it truly crystalizes how we should move forward as socialists, communists, anti-capitalists, etc. Please enjoy, take the words in, and from all of us at Socialist Tea, have a Happy May Day! The Communists fight for the attainment of the immediate aims, for the enforcement of the momentary interests of the working class; but in the movement of the present, they also represent and take care of the future of that movement. In France, the Communists ally with the Social-Democrats against the conservative and radical bourgeoisie, reserving, however, the right to take up a critical position in regard to phases and illusions traditionally handed down from the great Revolution. Link Update from Occupy Portland, ME. Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 21 Comments: 852

196. AlwaysThinkin 3:26 PM GMT on May 01, 2012
Snowlover just what do you think is causing the upper atmosphere to cool also while the surface warms (as if something is trapping more heat on earths surface)? If it were the sun wouldn't it cause the upper atmosphere to warm also? Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 195

197. iceagecoming 3:30 PM GMT on May 01, 2012
Lindzen, Richard S. Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences Professor Lindzen is a dynamical meteorologist with interests in the broad topics of climate, planetary waves, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, and hydrodynamic instability. His research involves studies of the role of the tropics in mid-latitude weather and global heat transport, the moisture budget and its role in global change, the origins of ice ages, seasonal effects in atmospheric transport, stratospheric waves, and the observational determination of climate sensitivity. He has made major contributions to the development of the current theory for the Hadley Circulation, which dominates the atmospheric transport of heat and momentum from the tropics to higher latitudes, and has advanced the understanding of the role of small scale gravity waves in producing the reversal of global temperature gradients at the mesopause, and provided accepted explanations for atmospheric tides and the quasi-biennial oscillation of the tropical stratosphere. He pioneered the study of how ozone photochemistry, radiative transfer and dynamics interact with each other. He is currently studying what determines the pole to equator temperature difference, the nonlinear equilibration of baroclinic instability and the contribution of such instabilities to global heat transport. He has also been developing a new approach to air-sea interaction in the tropics, and is actively involved in parameterizing the role of cumulus convection in heating and drying the atmosphere and in generating upper level cirrus clouds. He has developed models for the Earth's climate with specific concern for the stability of the ice caps, the sensitivity to increases in CO2, the origin of the 100,000 year cycle in glaciation, and the maintenance of regional variations in climate. Prof. Lindzen is a recipient of the AMS's Meisinger, and Charney Awards, the AGU's Macelwane Medal, and the Leo Huss Walin Prize. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and the Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters, and a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences, the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society. He is a corresponding member of the NAS Committee on Human Rights, and has been a member of the NRC Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate and the Council of the AMS. He has also been a consultant to the Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. (Ph.D., '64, S.M., '61, A.B., '60, Harvard University) Recent Publications: 232. Lindzen, R.S. (2008) Climate science: is it designed to answer questions. arXiv:0809.3762, available as pdf file on www.arxiv.org, Physics and Society. 233. Choi, Y-S., C. Ho, J. Kim, and R. S. Lindzen (2010), Satellite retrievals of (quasi-)spherical particles at cold temperatures, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L05703, doi:10.1029/2009GL041818. [pdf] 234. Rondanelli, R. and R.S. Lindzen, 2010:Can thin cirrus clouds in the tropics provide a solution to the faint young Sun paradox?, J.Geophys. Res,. 115, D02108, 12 pp. [pdf] 235. Lindzen, R.S. and Y.-S. Choi, 2009: On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data, Geophys. Res. Ltrs., 36, L16705, doi:10.1029/2009GL039628. [pdf] 236. Lindzen, R.S. and Y.-S. Choi, 2011: On the observational determination of climate sensitivity and its implications. in press Asian Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Science. [pdf] 237. Y.‑S. Choi, R. S. Lindzen, C.‑H. Ho, and J. Kim, 2010: Space observations of cold‑cloud phase change. Proc .Nat .Acad. Sci., 107, 11211-11216. [pdf] 238. Y.-S. Choi, C.H. Ho, S.-W. Kim and R.S. Lindzen, 2010: Observational diagnosis of cloud phase in the winter antarctic atmosphere for parameterizations in climate models. Adv. Atm. Sci., 27, 1233-1245. [pdf] 239. Covey, C., A. Dai, D. Marsh, and R.S. Lindzen, 2010: The Surface-Pressure Signature of Atmospheric Tides in Modern Climate Models, J. Atmos. Sci., 68, 495-514, DOI: 10.1175/2010JAS3560.1. 240. Choi, Y.-S., H. Cho, R.S. Lindzen, and S.-K. Park (2011) An effect od non-feedback cloud variations on determination of cloud feedback. Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, submitted. Notable awards NCAR Outstanding Publication Award, Member of the NAS, AMS Meisinger Award, AMS Charney Award, AGU Macelwane Award, Leo Prize of the Wallin Foundation At the very beginning, Lindzen corrects the host that he is no "skeptic": a "denier" (or "realist") is actually more accurate. Lindzen's impressive list of publications is mentioned, among many other things. It's the kind of a BBC program that would be unthinkable just a year ago. Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 21 Comments: 852

198. Xandra 4:00 PM GMT on May 01, 2012
Richard Lindzen Illusions Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 758

199. Birthmark 4:44 PM GMT on May 01, 2012
Quoting Snowlover123: \ That's nice, because there are plenty of papers that acknowledge that natural variability + climate change creates decreasing sea ice/albedo which creates a change in the atmospheric weather patterns, and creates different trends of warming in the Arctic. You're not thinking this through, Snowlover. What possible effect can albedo change have in Arctic winter...when the sea ice returns. This winter, for example, Arctic sea ice extent was very near the mean. Therefore, there was no real albedo change. Yet winter warming continues despite a lack of albedo change and complete lack of heat from the Sun. I've said it once, and I'll say it again --Buh-bye Sun hypothesis. It's over. You are without any mechanism to explain the winter warming in the Arctic. Might I be so bold as to suggest CO2? LOL Quoting Snowlover123: CO2 has nothing to do with arctic amplification, as much as you would like it to be. But Arctic Amplification through natural variability and climate change can. There is simply no evidence that the current warming is due to natural variability. Climate change primarily induced by CO2, yep. There's plenty of evidence for that. Let me help you out by explaining why your in the logical and scientific position that your are. You consistently take the outlying scientific position or paper as truth, while rejecting the overwhelming majority of climate science. Now, that in and of itself isn't a big problem...if those outlying positions and papers together tell a compelling story. In the case of climate, they don't. They are a hodgepodge that tell several different stories, some contradicting each other, some contradicting observation, some contradicting physics itself. So, you end up posting all kinds of fallacious things that have little to no bearing on reality when taken in context. AGW, OTOH, tells a very consistent story that comports with observation and the known laws of physics. And that is why denialists will continue to lose on the science. "Nuh-uh" isn't a very compelling scientific or logical position. And it is certainly not skepticism. It is denialism. Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1428

200. Snowlover123 6:42 PM GMT on May 01, 2012
Quoting cyclonebuster: Snowlover123, What happens to you when you place more blankets on top of you when you are sleeping at night. Do you become warmer or colder? Does it depend on the thickness of the blankets? Do thin blankets warm more than the thicker ones? Those are the basic principles of the Greenhouse Effect, which I have not disputed whatsoever. Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2513

201. Snowlover123 6:45 PM GMT on May 01, 2012
Quoting Xandra: LOL. In other words - your 20 links you posted had no value. The paper by Link et al 2011, is based on selected stations and Horst-Joachim Lüdecke, who is one of the authors, is just one more from the denialist mumbo-jumbo machine. The papers by Scafetta & West have been debunked over and over again. You have nothing to support you. Nothing! They did have value. They represented the skeptical position, and came to different conclusions than the papers that you posted. Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2513

Viewing: 151 - 201

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

Top of Page

New Comment

Community Standards Policy 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.

About RickyRood