Send your question to Umbra!
Q. Dear Umbra,
This “year with no summer” and some alleged statistics I have seen quoted about earth-wide temperatures for the last ten years have resulted in claims that the earth is not heating—it may even be cooling. What about it?
Arthur Waskow
Shalom Center, Philadelphia
A. Dearest Arthur,
The oceans are too getting warmer!That would be great. The planet needs some cooling, and humans certainly aren’t doing anything to help. But let us remember the difference between weather and climate.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration does confirm that summer 2009 in the contiguous U.S. was 0.4 degrees Fahrenheit below the 20th Century average of 72.1 degrees. We notice no concomitant change in policy from the U.S. Global Change Research Program, or any other reputable source, so we must conclude that a cool summer was only weather, and that in general the overall climate remains on track for warming.
After all, the last decades have included the hottest years on record, when you look at ocean and surface temperatures. Last year was the eighth-warmest on record; full stats are not yet in on 2009, of course, but already we know that the world’s oceans set a heat record in July. All this does not seem to indicate ten years worth of cooling temperatures.
As our country pushes further toward actually having an organized response to climate change, it’s important for us all to be as informed as we can be, and to be ready to respond to those who are dubious about the need for action. Or who write whatever weird stuff you’ve been reading about cooling temperatures.
I have given out some resources before, and Grist as a whole is a good resource for tracking climate action in senate chambers, chat rooms, and other tangible and intangible locations. But today I’d like to be sure our browser bookmarks contain lists with some helpful easy-to-read FAQ compilations. These are for use when confused by news stories or “deniers,” and are mostly organized by the issues deniers raise.
I’ll just give a few. There’s Grist’s own “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic” series. There’s Real Climate’s Start Here page as well as their index, and my beloved Union of Concerned Scientists’ Climate FAQ list. Britain’s Natural Environment Research Council also has a nice summary of an open session it held a few years ago, organized by debate points.
I hope those will help with the confusing moments.
Cheerfully,
Umbra
Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting
What to make of the new climate poll
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Comments
View as Flat
Lanben Posted 6:28 am
16 Sep 2009
Permalink
LFLindell Posted 9:06 am
16 Sep 2009
local weather (and doesn't weather cumulatively add up to climate,
anyway?) see this dramatic graphic from the
National Climatic Data Center, which shows that "the year with no
summer" would be a misnomer for most areas of the globe:www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/index.php?report=global&year=2009&month=jun
Scroll
down to the two small maps titled Temperature Anomalies June 2009, and
click to enlarge them (one map is for land surface temperatures, the other
for blended land and sea surface temps.) The dots show variation
from average, red = warmer, blue = cooler, with bigger dots
representing bigger variation. In case you have trouble seeing it for
yourself, the "global highlighs" section just above the maps states
plainly, "Large portions of each inhabited continent were substantially
warmer than average during June 2009."
I
was
directed to
this graphic by Dr James Dontje, who directs an environmental center at
a small midwestern college, where June was indeed cooler than usual.
Other resources he suggested are ClimateProgress.org, and (if you want
"just the facts, ma'am")
ClimateData.info, which aims to provide facts apart from position-oriented contexts.
Permalink
Bud Dingler Posted 10:07 am
16 Sep 2009
Permalink
SkyHunter Posted 11:15 am
16 Sep 2009
Permalink
Bud Dingler Posted 5:48 pm
16 Sep 2009
Permalink
gnovak Posted 7:29 pm
16 Sep 2009
Permalink
kjma Posted 7:53 am
17 Sep 2009
Permalink
gnovak Posted 8:22 am
17 Sep 2009
It's unreal to say "the evidence has been gone over very thoroughly." Climatologists don't have the slightest ability to quantitate the factors which influence climate. Not the least reason is that oceans control about 98% of climate variation, not the atmosphere. The oceans have a thousand times as much heat capacity as the atmosphere. This means the oceans heat the air easily, while the air has almost no ability to heat the oceans. Hansen and the IPCC forgot to take into account the oceans. In other words, all they produce is political propaganda, and you assume they thoroughly studied the science. How naive can anyone be.
Permalink
kjma Posted 8:57 am
17 Sep 2009
Permalink
gnovak Posted 9:19 am
17 Sep 2009
Permalink
kjma Posted 1:47 pm
17 Sep 2009
Permalink
kjma Posted 1:48 pm
17 Sep 2009
Permalink
SkyHunter Posted 9:57 am
17 Sep 2009
Permalink
gnovak Posted 10:56 am
17 Sep 2009
Permalink
Matt Petryni Posted 2:30 pm
17 Sep 2009
Permalink
Bud Dingler Posted 11:58 am
17 Sep 2009
Permalink
sindark Posted 1:08 pm
17 Sep 2009
You can see them here, and perhaps get some tips for responding to common denier arguments.
Permalink
gnovak Posted 2:22 pm
17 Sep 2009
Permalink
sindark Posted 8:13 am
18 Sep 2009
Those wanting a better understanding of the long history of climate science, and the strength of the present consensus, should consider reading:
Spencer Weart’s The Discovery of Global Warming (available free online)
Richard Alley’s The Two Mile Time Machine. Ice Cores, Abrupt Climate Change, and Our Future.
Permalink
SkyHunter Posted 2:54 pm
17 Sep 2009
Permalink
kjma Posted 3:02 pm
17 Sep 2009
Permalink
gnovak Posted 5:13 pm
17 Sep 2009
You missed a lot in your description of radiation.
1.) You said, "The energy absorbed is then emitted and reabsorbed, until it finally escapes the atmosphere."
Wrong. After the first absorption of radiation leaving the earth, emission and absorption is in all directions equally, which means the energy is not moved closer to the top of the atmosphere. Nor is there any increase or decrease in atmospheric energy each time energy is emitted and absorbed, when considering the wavelengths relevant to greenhouse gasses. Energy leaves the earth through long wave infrared which is not absorbed by greenhouse gasses.
2.) You said, "The black body temperature of the Earth is ~255K, the surface is ~288K the difference, ~33K is a result of the so called greenhouse effect."
Wrong. The effect of so-called greenhouse gasses is a small part of the heat in the atmosphere, as most of the energy enters the atmosphere through conduction, convection and evaporation. The NASA "energy budget" says 41% of the energy leaving the earth is in the form of radiation, which is absurd, but even at that, it's mostly effects other than "greenhouse gasses." Of course, your use of the term "greenhouse effect" could mean anything, but the implication and common assumption (sometimes stated by uninformed scientists) is that nothing but greenhouse gasses heat the atmosphere.
3.) You said, "The Oregon petition is sponsored by the same people..." If it matters who sponsored it, you are talking about religious values, not objective reality. I signed the petition for scientific reasons, as did everyone else who signed it; and you claim there is supposed to be a particularly set of values involved. I consider myself to be a pre-1980 type of liberal--meaning I promote progressive values related to development instead of stifling development as modern liberals do in fear of more worthless eaters polluting the planet.
-----------------------
KJMA says I'm supposed to have read Matt Petryni and skyhunter, because they have the science described. Are they the apostles of the new liberalism that everyone is expected to have their Bible on hand? As uninformed as skyhunter is, I can't imagine why the heretics would be so indoctrinated.
Permalink
kjma Posted 6:13 pm
17 Sep 2009
Permalink
kjma Posted 6:32 pm
17 Sep 2009
As far as your interpretation of the difference of a modern liberal versus as a pre 1980 liberal, who cares. You can be pro development and still be pro environment.
Thank you.
Permalink
SkyHunter Posted 5:55 pm
17 Sep 2009
1. The only way energy leaves the Earth is by radiation.
2. In order for the Earth to balance the energy received from the Sun it must emit at a temperature of 255K. The surface temperature is 288K. The additional 33C of temperature at the surface is due to the greenhouse effect. Adding greenhouse gases such as CO2 makes the atmosphere optically thicker and slows the rate of thermal emission. Consequently the atmospheric layer at which equilibrium temperature (255K) occurs is higher. The dry adiabat is 6.5C per kilometer.
3. The Oregon petition makes no scientific argument. It is sponsored by a religious/political organization.
You have a very distorted understanding of atmospheric physics.
If you are representative of the signors of the Oregon petition... then I rest my case.
Permalink
gnovak Posted 6:35 pm
17 Sep 2009
You and other alarmists are way too concerned about who I am and what my qualifications are, while you are clueless on the science and try to chastise me for being ignorant. If you are going to properly represent the science of the subject, you need to spend a lot more of your time studying science and a lot less time fixing someone else.
1.) You said, "In order for the Earth to balance the energy received from the Sun it must emit at a temperature of 255K." Nothing could be more preposterous. Infrared radiation leaves the earth from all points of the atmosphere and the surface of the earth, very little of which is 255K. Satellite measurements show this. Brain dead physicists use the Stephan-Boltzmann constant to convert the 235 W/m² leaving the earth into a temperature of 255K. Even if the Stephan-Boltzmann constant were correct ( and it's an obvious fraud) applying it to gasses would be the most absurd thing a climatologist could do. The radiation given off by solids is nothing resembling radiation given off by gasses.
2.) You said, "Adding greenhouse gases such as CO2 makes the atmosphere optically thicker and slows the rate of thermal emission." The term "optically thicker" is nonsense. All increased CO2 can do is shorten the distance radiation travels before being absorbed. Shortening the distance is not increasing the heat or temperature. Physicists measure CO2 absorption in a tube in a laboratory and extrapolate to the atmosphere. The atmosphere is not in a tube. Some of the radiation leaving a ten centimeter tube will be absorbed when CO2 increases. In the atmosphere, where there is no tube to exit, the radiation is absorbed at various distances based on the density of CO2. Some of it at 100 meters; some at 1,000 meters. Doubling the CO2 only reduces the distance by one half, which is not an increase in temperature.
3.) You said, "Consequently the atmospheric layer at which equilibrium temperature (255K) occurs is higher. The dry adiabat is 6.5C per kilometer." Nothing could be more brain dead. If all of the energy were leaving the atmosphere from the same temperature, all of the energy in the atmosphere would have to move to the location which is at that temperature. Yet there is a continuous gradient of temperature reductions in the atmosphere due to radiation leaving at all points in the atmosphere.
Permalink
gnovak Posted 7:00 pm
17 Sep 2009
You are way too rationalistic in trying to reduce the 31 thousand scientists to a religious cause. They are scientists; and they say humans are not the cause of global warming. The reason why is not a part of the question. The fact that so many scientists take a position against AGW is the question.
First, alarmists say no one could question AGW but a few crazies. Then when 31,000 scientists question AGW; you say, they are just religious fanatics. Alarmists go in circles with ulterior motives in place of objective rationality.
Permalink
SkyHunter Posted 8:51 pm
17 Sep 2009
I am not at all concerned about who you are. Do you know who Max Planck is?
Permalink
gnovak Posted 10:05 pm
17 Sep 2009
Your second sentence contradicts your first sentence. You are saying it has to be Max Planck who determines the result instead of me. How about neither. Science is not a cult of personalities. The problem with Max Planck, Albert Einstein, James Hansen and all the rest of your deities in physics is that they pull mathematics out of thin air and claim that it represents laws of nature. It never does represent nature, because nature is always more complex than their math. It works for technology, and therefore the idiot gods assume it must be science. Technology is not science. Any shortcut equation can facilitate technology, but it cannot represent nature. Physicists have become nothing but super engineers. They gave up being scientists long ago, because the demands of science were too much for them, and they needed shortcut routes to being gods.
When you say, "The dry adiabat is 6.5C per kilometer," you make a self contradictory statement. First, it shows that radiation escapes the earth from all points in the atmosphere, because there would not be a uniform temperature gradient otherwise. "Adiabatic" only applies to convection. Convection is not uniform; it forms columns; and it is miniscule. There would not be a uniform temperature gradient if convection were significantly involved. It means there is a temperature gradient in the atmosphere but no adiabatic gradient. The temperature gradient results from radiation being emitted from all points in the atmosphere into outer space at wavelengths which are longer than those absorbed by greenhouse gasses. Satellites show this.
Permalink
Matt Petryni Posted 1:43 am
18 Sep 2009
This obvious question this begs, of course, is: how can the second half of your argument carry any validity if what you say in the first half is true? Either modern science and physics provides a reasonable basis for understanding our world or it does not. Either position has reasonable arguments to support it. But if you choose to argue that it does not, you can't then assert further claims to support your argument based on the principle that it does, for it will make your argument self-contradictory.
Anyway, all of that aside, I do think many scientists do have legitimate problems with the standing theory of anthropogenic global climate change. This is the nature of science (and for that matter, of liberalism), to constantly challenge and re-evaluate assertions upon which you base your worldview. However, admitting that your understanding is limited and not perfect should not also paralyze you from action. Thus, we have chosen to take both arguments supporting and refuting the best current science into account, and reach cautious conclusions upon which to base both future decisions and further inquiry.
In this debate, the problem has not been that you disagree with our assertions, or even that you attempt to challenge them. It is always a valuable contribution to a discussion, and reasoned argument is critical to worthwhile progress. The problem is that you don't seem to very well understand our assertions, and the underlying science behind them. I don't think you're completely ignorant of the basic science, as you have managed to cherry-pick a number of marginally important thermodynamic principles in your critique, but you have failed to fully explain the argument of your supposed opposition in a way that shows you actually understand it; and then, more importantly, identify cogently and effectively where it goes wrong. It appears as a result that your logic is either very twisted or you simply express that logic so very, very poorly that others cannot easily understand it.
Again, there may be scientific disagreement about the result and mechanism of global warming; that CO2 absorbs radiation such that it may "trap" heat energy for a longer period of time is really not very well-contested. Additionally, the issue is not that gasses do not re-emit the heat they trap. You're right to argue that they do. But shortening the distance between CO2 molecules, for the last fucking time, makes it so that the this heat energy passes through the atmosphere containing them more slowly, leading to an increase in equilibrium temperature as long as solar forcing remains relatively constant (which by the way, it does not; but so far changes in this variable have not been significant to affect climate dramatically). Further, the increase in the DENSITY of CO2 molecules present in the atmosphere increases the atmosphere's net ability to absorb that radiation as it is reflected from the planetary surface.
You correctly state that this increase in radiative absorption is itself not an increase in temperature. This is true. However, the radiation increases the kinetic energy of the molecules which absorb it, thereby resulting in more molecular movement, or "higher temperature." Energy, therefore, does not "leave the atmosphere at the same temperature," as energy is the very property that gives something a temperature. Energy cannot have a "temperature." Only matter can have a "temperature." (Please read a very basic definition of the word "temperature," we appear to be on totally different pages as to how this word is defined.)
I'm not going to try to explain this again, so if you choose to continue to argue this point, you should describe specifically how shortening the distance radiation would have to travel before being locally absorbed would not cause heat energy to be reflected into space more slowly. So far, you have failed in this respect. SEVERAL times. It's becoming a waste of everyone's time. (...As if it weren't already...)
Permalink
Matt Petryni Posted 1:44 am
18 Sep 2009
Permalink
gnovak Posted 4:30 am
18 Sep 2009
You think out loud too much trying to study physics by writing about it, as if you were saying something about me. I've never discussed, questioned or criticized the relationship between heat and temperature. Your concern seems to be how "slowly" heat leaves the atmosphere. Heat does not significantly leave the atmosphere from the troposphere at wavelengths which greenhouse gasses absorb. Heat leaves the atmosphere at longer wavelengths. Traces of radiation at a wavelength of 15 microns will leave at heights such as 50 to 100 kilometers, which has no influence over the troposphere. Below that height, increasing the CO2 density only shortens the distance radiation travels before being absorbed. Energy does not move closer to outer space through emission and absorption at moderate wavelengths, because it is emitted in all directions equally. Rationalizers claim there are open spots which let some radiation out, but doubling the CO2 density in those areas is always nothing more than halving the distance the radiation travels. If the radiation were traveling 10 kilometers before the doubling, it travels 5 kilometers after the doubling. Spreading miniscule amounts of heat over 5 kilometers does nothing significant to increase temperatures near the surface of the earth. There is no explanation of how increased heat high in the atmosphere (which is very cold) moves heat to ground level. You don't understand the difference between studying science and studying someone's fraudulent math. Science involves all of the knowledge which has accumulated over centuries. Fraudulent math is in conflict with it.
Permalink
SkyHunter Posted 6:49 am
18 Sep 2009
If you have a theory that disproves thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, and relativity... Then I am sure the scientific community would love to see it.
Publish it in a peer reviewed journal and stop trolling here.
Permalink
Anna Haynes Posted 1:45 pm
18 Sep 2009
Any chance the Grist folks could moderate, if only to the extent of ensuring that "it is/isn't happening" comments go in a separate thread?
Permalink
gnovak Posted 4:15 pm
18 Sep 2009
Permalink
Matt Petryni Posted 5:24 pm
18 Sep 2009
My understanding of global warming science is limited: essentially a survey of the existing science that every vaguely informed person should probably know at this point. I'm ignorant of the finer points of thermodynamics, as I spend my life and energy studying the finer points of other fields. This is why I pay money to physicists to comprehensively study and theorize about those finer points. I then trust, given that they've spent all the time doing that, that they usually know what they're talking about. Sometimes they're wrong. But I'm sure I'm wrong about their field even more often than that. Similarly, I don't make my own shoes or grow all of my own food, as other people are better at those things than I am.
That being said, based on my admittedly basic understanding, it seems you're totally distorting the scientific explanation of how the greenhouse effect works so that you can argue that increasing the atmospheric density of CO2 has no affect on the average Earth surface temperature. Your basis, it seems, for this argument relies on the idea that more CO2 will not absorb more radiation reflected from the Earth's surface, but will only shorten the distance that radiation has to travel to be absorbed. The shortening of this distance, in your view, thus does not mean more radiation is absorbed than would be if CO2 concentrations were lower; and therefore it cannot be argued that surface temperature would increase. Finally, where temperature increases would make sense, they would not be significant to surface temperature because the absorption in question would be higher in the atmosphere. I think this is what you're trying to say. It is very hard to understand your writing style.
My understanding is simply that this is not how the greenhouse effect works, and that more radiative absorption by the atmosphere leads to increases in temperature. Further, my understanding is that more radiative absorption is made possible by and results from an increase in atmospheric concentrations of a number of "greenhouse gases," including CO2, which is because of the unique thermodynamic properties of those compounds.
But perhaps I just don't know enough about this to effectively refute your argument, given that it is not my field, in which case you win. Woohoo. Go buy yourself a beer or something and revel in this moment of perceived superiority over the masses of ignorant environmentalists.
Permalink
SkyHunter Posted 4:33 am
19 Sep 2009
I have never had any intention of arguing with you here. I directed you to the physics forums thread because it is a better venue to discuss climate science.
As for calling you a troll...
Well you are hanging out on an "alarmist" website calling people names and trying to pick fights.
You are not my opponent. Arguing with idiots is not only unproductive... people may not be discerning enough of such a complex subject to be able to tell the difference.
Permalink
gnovak Posted 8:39 am
19 Sep 2009
Permalink
Matt Petryni Posted 9:58 am
19 Sep 2009
Conversely, if you define your purposes and standards such that only you can be qualified to debate anything at all, you're simply not going to be very convincing in persuading us we should or shouldn't tell society anything. Indeed, we'll base our conclusions and arguments on our subjective assessment of the various material we take in, with your critique included among the differing opinions of professional scientists who spend their lives studying these issues.
I would actually argue that there is no such thing as a "objective attack": if your critique seems poorly informed or useless, we may choose to, while not ignoring it, allow it to take less precedence over our political decisions relative to the arguments of other, more convincing, people. But everyone does this very thing all the time, just as they use subjective assessments to determine whether wars are worth fighting, taxes are worth raising, and services are worth funding. This discussion is no different and it's a mistake to pretend like it is. However, if it makes you feel better to think you've "won" a conversation about the issue, I'm perfectly fine with allowing you to think that.
Permalink
gnovak Posted 3:41 pm
19 Sep 2009
While there are no absolutes, there is a significant difference between subjective attack and objective attack. Objective is something which originates outside a person's own mind. Properly representing it is truth. To attack with truth is an objective attack.; and it is constructive and necessary for solving problems which need to be solved.
People have a responsibility to relate to each other through the objective medium of realities which exist outside their own minds and to properly represent it, which is to produce truth. There will always be subjective influences with everything humans do or say, but they must be secondary to and compatible with objective reality which defines a higher purpose.
The problem with the alarmism on this web page (and everywhere else) is that there is no objective reality with the subjective concerns. The absence of objective reality creates a totally subjective result and purpose. The subjectivity is de-legitimatized by an absence of objective reality to give it a more justifiable purpose.
In other words, If I attack you with objective reality including evidence, implied or stated, it's constructive and legitimate. But if you attack me without objective reality, it is not legitimate. This is because truth is legitimate; falsehood is not. Absence of objective reality is falsehood, at least through default, if not through purpose.
In other words, there are right ways to communicate, and it isn't being done right by alarmists. The obvious reason is because they would defeat themselves attempting to promote an invalid position through proper and constructive communication. Pulling off a fraud requires corrupt communication.
Permalink
Matt Petryni Posted 4:08 pm
19 Sep 2009
Basically, we could argue there exists a "subjective" and "objective" reality as two distinct entities, but doing so requires someone in the argument to determine which is which. And currently, we seem unable to agree on which reality is "objective": you think only yours is objective, and mine (that of the so-called "alarmists") is based in the subjective; by contrast, I'm open to the idea that both of our realities are simultaneously both objective and subjective.
That being said, I'm not really sure that anything originates outside of a person's own mind. This to me may be an ignorance. At the very least, everything you perceive as originating "outside" of your mind must be processed, interpreted and represented "inside" of your mind, and is therefore shaped by it. But that is really another discussion for another time, and probably is a little easier to explain if you drop acid...
Permalink
gnovak Posted 4:48 pm
19 Sep 2009
There is an underlying philosophical theme to what you are saying; and you are wrong about it. You are saying someone needs to arbitrate truth. It's not truth if someone needs to arbitrate it. Truth evolves, and all humans can do is try to represent it and increase it by providing evidence.
So the only question is, how good is the evidence--implied or stated. You and the alarmists are not providing significant evidence for your claims. In fact, what you are saying is preposterous.
You are saying you don't understand the science, you just trust the scientists; yet you are forcing your version of the subject onto me and society demanding that the economy be destroyed, the transportation system be destroyed and the energy system be destroyed to remove carbon dioxide from the air, while all real science shows that there needs to be more carbon dioxide in the air, not less.
If you don't understand the science, you have no business forcing your version of it onto others.
Permalink
Matt Petryni Posted 5:28 pm
19 Sep 2009
That aside, I have laid out the scientific argument and many, many others have provided manifold evidence that is available virtually everywhere, including that of the IPCC. But really, and you well know, that's not good enough. Your claim is that all of that evidence is "subjective reality," shaped by their "alarmist," and not scientific, perspective. And that is your arbitration of the "truth": you know, that objective reality that all these scientists besides you have gotten sooo wrong...
Even so, it's absurd to think I'm forcing my idea on anyone. Posting an argument up on a blog is a far cry from an authoritarian fiat. Even cap-and-trade is a far cry from that. If by "forcing," you mean presenting what we perceive to be an objective observation of reality for others to examine, and then making arguments for policies based upon that observation for others to freely choose to support or reject, then I'll stand guilty as charged. The other people still have the ability to make up their own minds whether they agree with our assessment and proposed policy responses. But there's a huge difference between forcing someone to do something and persuading them it's a good idea.
Thus you would be right to say I have no business forcing my version of science unto others if I did not understand it. But we've been arguing that's not the case, objectively or subjectively; and that it's pretty much just you, not scientific experts, who says we don't understand the basic science. And I argue that it's only you who feels we're forcing it onto anyone. In what I see as an objective reality, I have yet to hold anyone at gunpoint for not agreeing with my ideas. (Maybe I held someone at gunpoint and didn't know it? Hahahaha. Good lord.)
Permalink
gnovak Posted 7:15 pm
19 Sep 2009
What you are saying now is a total misrepresentation of every fact involved to a point of fraud. If you were explaining with evidence, the subject could be discussed, and forward motion would be possible in determining the truth. But you omit all explanation and evidence; so it's just your word imposed upon the subject. Imposition is force; it's not justifiable.
You said, "I have laid out the scientific argument..." Earlier, you said you don't understand the science, because it is not your background, so you were not going to clarify the questions involved.
You said, "many, many others have provided manifold evidence that is available virtually everywhere,
including that of the IPCC." There is no information available to the public beyond propaganda which makes a mockery of science. If this subject were about science, Al Gore would be irrelevant. He has not studied an iota of science in his life. Yet he is in the schools propagandizing the kids. There is not a single alarmists who will debate their opponents on this subject, as hard as many persons have tried to get a debate, including Marc Morano. The Chamber of Commerce called for a debate in a courtroom, but alarmists won't hear of it. Alarmists fall back on the fraudulent claim that "the science is settled." The IPCC did not produce real science, they produced guesswork based on Hansen's computer models, which are not science. And then they hedged their conclusions saying probably. The link to the Physics Forum above showed nothing but irrelevant muddle and fakery, as I stated above. Surely, you will say otherwise, but not with evidence and clarification, only with arbitrary contention.
You said, "And that is your arbitration of the "truth": you know, that objective reality that all these scientists besides you have gotten sooo wrong." You assume I do what you do. I don't count heads and promote authority as unquestionable fact. I explain with evidence, or I don't say it. I showed a link to 31,000 scientists who signed a petition saying humans are not the cause of global warming; and now you are claiming I'm the only one saying so. You don't properly represent the subject.
You say you and the alarmists are not forcing anything onto anyone. Without information, force is all you have; and alarmists are doing everything in their power to force their agenda onto society. Where's the information that gives people the freedom to decide? The IPCC did not provide information; it drew conclusions which could not be questioned by anyone, because they are supposed to be the last word on the subject. Alarmists use the IPCC as the only basis for their agenda. If there were real information provided by the IPCC, why not explain it. Not an iota of explanatory material is every derived from the IPCC.
In other words, you are making a bunch of absurd statements of the accusatory type without an iota of explanation or evidence. That's not proper communication. That's a railroad job; it's fraud; and it's the standard by which alarmists are destroying the social order to remove carbon dioxide from the air.
You are forcing me to provide the evidence for your arguments. Such an approach is doomed to failure. The burden is on you to provide the evidence for your own arguments, so I can demolish your fakery, instead of you demolishing my inability to review the entire subject of global warming and its sociology in a few paragraphs.
Permalink
Matt Petryni Posted 8:31 pm
19 Sep 2009
For example, I suggest the IPCC just to start; you immediately dismiss this extensive report as "not [providing] information;" "[drawing] conclusions that could not be questioned by anyone," and add that "not an iota of explanatory material is every [sic] derived from the IPCC." I could explain again what the IPCC says, but I've done that twice, maybe three times already. And to be honest, they're better at explaining it than I am, as they do this for a living. I just do it for fun.
That being said, there is plenty of evidence available if you want it, I assume if you actually are trying to understand arguments so that you may refute them, you yourself would take the time to seek them out, for that is what I do. If you really want me to, I can provide abundant links to peer-reviewed articles substantiating the existing theory. I have a couple nice textbooks on it I'd be happy to direct you to, and they themselves cite dozens of articles reporting this "evidence." My problem with that is that it takes time, and I still cannot trust we'd actually discuss them in good faith. I feel like you'd do the same thing to them as you do to the IPCC: endlessly and redundantly debate the same facts neither of us really fully understand (neither me nor even the scientists "fully understand" the "facts," by our own admission) and then arbitrarily dismiss them as subjective propaganda and "fakery," or "fraud." This is simply not worth my time because I can't have faith you're actually trying to communicate, I can only assume that you're merely trying to "win." Which is fine for you I guess, but doesn't help me.
But this isn't even the point. I am not trying to provide you with a perfect, unquestionable argument for which all evidence is consistent all of the time. Nor do I seek to hold up any authority as unquestionable. I don't know how you keep getting that out of what I'm saying; if I imply it, I apologize. It is a central tenet of my argument that no such authority will ever exist, as I do not believe in an exclusively objective "truth." Citing such an objective authority has never been my mission, and my fear is that anything short of this, seems to be, in your view, a "imposition of force." I think a person can present a reasonable argument without having to assume it is the end-all, be-all conclusion on what is an "objective" reality. I admit there are inconsistencies and shortcomings to the prevailing theory; as I think this is the case with everything, I don't think it should not prevent us from trying to explaining it to other people and using it to justify policy.
Perhaps this is just where we fundamentally differ: you would have us paralyzed from action by the lack of existence of an absolutely unassailable theory, while I (believing no such theory will ever exist) would prefer to trust the opinions of the people who spend their lives assailing the theories themselves to help guide my own opinion. Most of the people we usually talk to about climate change don't demand unquestionable evidence either, they just want to know what the current science generally is, as they find that pretty convincing.
Finally, in exhaustive redundancy, I am not forcing you to do anything. If you don't want to seek out evidence for my arguments, just don't. If you choose to ignore me, then that's your choice also. If I provide an argument without the evidence you demand, you can choose to disregard it. Nothing bad will happen to you as a result. Most people are convinced by the arguments we present, and thus are themselves not forced. They could still choose to do the same thing as you and just ignore those arguments, they just choose instead to do something else. It's up to them, not me.
Force, by contrast, would be if I were to say "agree with me or I'll kill you." This has never been and will never be my argument.
Permalink
Maitri Posted 5:55 am
21 Sep 2009
Permalink
Max Weintraub Posted 12:12 pm
21 Sep 2009
Hilarious.... You cite a petition about climate change signed by scientists with unknown expertise based on an article published in a "medical" journal (that in the Fall 2009 issue did not contain a single original medical research article) published by a VERY right-wing group of physicians. And yet you discount the IPCC work.
Oh...and the link you gave is wrong. The petition you cite is found at http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php
Permalink
Bud Dingler Posted 3:05 pm
22 Sep 2009
"The National Snow and Ice Data Center announced today that the Arctic sea ice reached its annual low last week. Ice extended just shy of 2 million square miles. That's 620,000 square miles less than the 30-year average.
"The summer melt of Arctic sea ice wasn't quite as bad this year as the past two years, but it still ranked as the third biggest melt on record. But there was more ice this September than the record low set in 2007 -- about one-third of a million square miles more. Last year ranked No. 2."
Sounds ominous right? PRoblem is these statistics of 3rd biggest melt is in the context of a 30 years period of data. They did not have the technology to determine the extent of Arctic Ice coverage until 1979> My god man the earth has been around how long? All I'm saying Is if you look around long enough to learn both sides of the argument you realize its not as cut and dry as they'd like to make it out.
Permalink
SkyHunter Posted 9:53 am
23 Sep 2009
While it is true that we have only been able to observe and measure Arctic sea ice extent with satellites since 1979, sea ice extent is only one metric. Perennial ice, ie thicker ice accumulating over years has also shown significant decline.
Thinner ice is not only more susceptible to melt, it is also more easily blown around by winds. The Arctic is warmed significantly during the past century, reversing a 2000 year cooling trend. So it is reasonable to expect that the conditions in the Arctic are well outside the bounds of normal.
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2009/arctic2k.jsp
Permalink
CAcationu2 Posted 4:37 pm
22 Sep 2009
Given that not everyone could possibly be an expert on science here, consider disputing something more on our level we can debate about.
Whether or not you believe in global warming is of course your own choice. It's not like we're jumping out of our offices suddenly with no infomation exclaiming the world is ending. Likewise, I will assume that you too have information that leads you to disbelieve climate change.
Either way, how well can human beings breathe air filled with carbon dioxide or methane? Despite whether you believe if those and other gases have warming effects on the climate, wouldn't you rather breathe clean air? If you disagree, please explain coherently why trying to clean up the environment for a better way of life is not an appealing idea to you. I am curious to understand all points of view.
--Live Long and Prosper
Permalink
stv_57 Posted 7:51 pm
22 Sep 2009
With all due respect, you claim that you are the one who is being objective and then you go on to say that those who take the scientists seriously are "...demanding that the economy be destroyed, the transportation system be destroyed and the energy system be destroyed..."
On the face of it you don't exactly come off of as a neutral voice of reason.
For some reason the mental image I have is of a playground see-saw with a lead weight on one end, and a feather on the other. The lead weight is your agenda, and the feather is your argument about the distance between CO2 molecules.
If you applied a little objectivity to your own apparently deeply held beliefs that managing our carbon emissions will completely destroy our precious way of life, we might be able to move on to more important discussions.
And remember...
BiggerFasterMore...
Is so last millennium...
Permalink
gnovak Posted 2:13 am
23 Sep 2009
You go on and on about me, and you can't say anything about carbon dioxide. This is because alarmist causes are taken up by persons who are driven to win at any cost, and they don't care what the subject matter is. It's exactly the same as creationism. The creationists would hold discussions with scientists, be taken apart up and down, not be able to deny it, and then repeat the same errors the next day and the next day, over and over.
Besides winning at any cost, the obsessed persons align with sources of power and form groups which give them security. They take sides which are the opposite of their enemies. Their enemies are critics of corruption, particularly corrupt power. We're called conspiracy theorists, whether we talk about conspiracies or not, because we function as individuals and focus on problems which majorities and power structures are not correcting. To oppose majorities supposedly makes us wrong.
In other words, you cannot discuss an objective subject, all you can do is attack enemies. You don't care whether carbon dioxide exists. So I'm supposed to discuss carbon dioxide in order to be degraded regardless of what I say. I've got massive amounts of science above, and you claim I'm not discussing science. Mockery is your standard.
Permalink
Matt Petryni Posted 4:04 am
23 Sep 2009
It's almost like you aren't even considering what we're saying and just repeating yourself until, miraculously, someone chooses to ignore all the other science and believes whatever you say. This, you suggest, is the only equivalent to an 'objective subject,' (nevermind the oxymoronic nature of "objective subject"), as everyone who disagrees with you is automatically and undeniably a "alarmist." (And then you say we're trying to 'force' our opinion on you by not providing the sheer mountain of scientific literature easily available to anyone with half a research brain. Oh god...)
So, again, we'll try one more time mostly for the sake of everyone else, with obvious suggestions of where you could easily dismantle this explanation with evidence, if you are actually interested in that, as you so state:
My understanding, which I'll admit is basic, is that carbon dioxide has the unique property of absorbing and re-emitting radiation at infrared wavelengths. You should discuss more in detail why you believe it does not have this property, if you believe this is the case. I'd really like to know, and this is your chance to educate us with your so unquestionably superior knowledge of the subject. So far you have provided no explanation hereto.
An increase in its density and overall concentration allows more infrared radiation to be absorbed and re-emitted within the atmosphere in addition to shortening the length said radiation must travel, as you constantly point out. To refute this point, you should discuss cogently, with evidence, why more infrared radiation would not be absorbed by more CO2 molecules, if you believe this to be the case. Again, you have not yet answered this question to any extent. You so far have merely repeated the theory that has already been acknowledged as only one part of the mechanism without providing an analysis of why, despite all the evidence to the contrary (see below to start), an increased number of CO2 molecules in a given system would not increase its that system's ability to absorb radiation.
This causes warming in the atmosphere at all levels it is present, as the absorption of infrared radiation by atmospheric molecules increases their kinetic energy. You should discuss in detail why the increased absorption of infrared radiation would not cause increases in kinetic energy, or explain how kinetic energy does not contribute to temperature (basically, you may embark on rewriting the definition of 'temperature' here).
Finally, this suggests that an increased atmospheric concentration of CO2 therefore leads to increases in temperature.
All of this is covered in Chapter 4 of the IPCC, but because that's "alarmist propaganda," I'll cite the following as my evidence, among many, many others I'm sure you can find yourself with absolutely minimal effort:
For the thermodynamic properties of CO2, see:
Botkin and Keller. [2008] Environmental Science ch. 22
Fleming. [1998] Historical Perspectives on Climate Change
Hoyt and Schatten [1993]. A discussion of plausible solar irradiance variations 1700-1992. Journal of Geophysical Research.
Charlson, Langer and Rhode. [1990]. Sulfur, aerosol and climate. Nature.
Many, many more are available in Weart [2003]. The Discovery of Global Warming. The basics of this theory date back to, oh, 1681 and have been tested many, many times. Because of the self-questioning nature of all science, it is still being tested today.
For the ability of CO2 concentrations to increase infrared absorption, see:
Zumdahl. [2002]. Chemistry. chs. 6 and 12.
Petit et al. [1999]. Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 from the Vostok ice core. Nature.
Olson, et al. [1997]. Results from the photochemical model intercomparison. J. of Geophys. Research
Penner, et al. [1992]. Effects of aerosol from biomass burning on the global radiation budget. Science.
Again, you may find other evidence confirming these reports from the citations of Botkin & Keller and Weart.
For the mechanism of infrared radiation resulting in temperature increases, see:
Siegel and Howell. [2002]. Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer. chs. 2, 10 and 11.
I can provide more on this if need be, but this is basically providing evidence for the very definition of the word "temperature," so I feel it less necessary than the earlier points of the argument (hopefully, but God knows...).
Please respond specifically to the evidence if you think it's invalid. I'm interested to know where they went wrong, I'd love to dismiss these articles and books as propaganda too if possible. You may also provide your own sources, and I'll look into them as well. I'd at least like to hear your view on it. I mean, that is, if you're serious about this conversation and not just trying to "win" (I see you're adopting some of my Habermas here too, nice job). If you wanna win, I'll let you do it right now: I give up, YOU WIN! (Feel better now? Haha.)
Permalink
prohb Posted 5:42 am
23 Sep 2009
Another point, It is interesting that the conservatives scream about how we are saddling our children with debt and then ignore and prolong doing something about global warming which will pose a greater threat to our future generations.
Permalink
Matt Petryni Posted 10:55 am
23 Sep 2009
The point is mainly to explore the suggestions in order to better understand the mechanism of climate change for ourselves. It allows us to examine some commonly raised discrepancies with the theory, and further questions the evidence scientists have discovered that seem to refute and resolve those discrepancies. This provides everyone with a more nuanced understanding of the issue in general, something that is worth having in order to move forward.
Permalink