Correction – “…late Cretaceous…”
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by JustinWonder
↧
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Jim D
ordvic, regarding paleo, check out Realclimate who researched the origins of the graph you showed as a hand-drawn idealization that gradually got more wiggles added but is now far out of date with current knowledge. The paleoscientists use better ones nowadays.
↧
Comment on Cold logic on climate change policy by Daniel
+1
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Shub Niggurath
Did you really coin lukewarmer? You, Fuller, McIntyre, Liljegren, Montford and Watts (as a representative set) coined and framed a lot of 2006-2009 issues. There is no question about it. But bring in academics and they struggle *so hard* to grasp the outlines of the storylines and the people involved.
Take the larger point – A few days back WUWT features a post on ocean pH. At face value, it all looks a bit incriminating for the climate consensus position. Richard Telford at quantpaleo writes a ‘rebuttal’ post on it. Subsequently Skepticalscience picks up on it (so says Dana Nuc). Skepticalscience will doubtless write a rebuttal but they won’t link to WUWT. Measuring, or documenting this flow of constructs is what’s needed but it is not so easily done.
Look at this page as a hierarchical tree of skeptical arguments
http://www.skepticalscience.com/resources.php.
A lot of material but, once again, Skepticalscience are on record they try to link to WUWT as little as possible.
↧
Comment on Cold logic on climate change policy by David in TX
AK writes: Point being, C4 grasses are best adapted to low pCO2 conditions, not because they can’t grow better with more CO2, but because competing C3 plants (e.g. shrubs/trees) can grow better, faster, and overshade them.
——————————————————————
Wrong.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/biology/phoc.html#c2
“C3 plants have the disadvantage that in hot dry conditions their photosynthetic efficiency suffers because of a process called photorespiration.”
“C4 plants almost never saturate with light and under hot, dry conditions much outperform C3 plants.”
CO2 raises temperature which is an advantage to C4 at the same time a disadvantage to C3. The result is a wash with net primary productivity rising globally as CO2 increases. Individual niches may rearrange which plants prosper the most during different times of year and differences from year to year.
The greening of the planet over the past 30 years is a satellite observation not a hypothesis.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Jim D
I like the main headings, under which are many subheadings and a few levels.
– It’s not happening
– It’s not us
– It’s not bad
– It’s too hard
– It’s too late
Skeptics variously adopt all of these positions depending who they are arguing with or which WUWT post they are believing at the moment.
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by David Wojick
Shub, it depends on what you mean by not easily done. An issue tree is relatively easy but laborious. What I have found to be the real obstacle is that no one wants to catalog the other sides arguments in accurate detail, so there is no sponsor.
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by phatboy
Jim D, well I, for one, have not read any WUWT posts for at least a year now, and not posted any comments for many years.
What sort of sceptic does that make me?
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Evil Denier
Surely the “V” is redundant, unnecessary, should be deleted &c.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Don Monfort
If he announced that he was skeptical of CAGW, you would say to ignore him: “He’s the Pope fer Chrissake! What do you expect from a Creationist maroon?”
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Shub Niggurath
That’s what I meant to say David. Skepticalscience, for example, tries hard to pretend some skeptics’ arguments are ‘widespread’ and at the same time tries to find an obscure source to exemplify it, instead of coming out honestly and saying “I read it on WUWT”.
The concept of rebuttal is also very interesting. As a rhetorical position to adopt, you always operate from a position of strength when you are the questioner. As an originator of theory, you carry the burden of fitting or accommodating every little fact with your (pet) theory whereas as a questioner all you need to do is bring a single aspect into focus and argue a counter-point. With the above, it is extremely interesting to now how Skepticalscience will make as though a given skeptic is a primary claimsmaker and proceed to ‘rebut’ the skeptic, instead of answering to the defect or deficit he point to, forgetting that it is climate orthodoxy who’s the primary claimsmaker.
↧
Comment on Cold logic on climate change policy by Interested Bystander
Gates wrote, “Climate change is in fact one of the main causes for civilizations to collapse, with much social upheaval, warfare, economic collapse wrapped into that. In the past, of course natural cycles and forcings were key causes for climate change, but there is absolutely no reason that anthropogenic forcing can’t be a trigger. See:
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/1010/ .”
Two points:
1. Claiming that “Climate change is in fact one of the main causes for civilizations to collapse..” requires strong evidence. The article you cite certainly doesn’t rise to that standard. In fact the article itself claims, “Climate change (drought in particular) has been at least partly responsible for the rise and fall of many ancient civilizations.” From “partly responsible” to claiming it is a fact that climate change is “one of the main causes” is a leap.
2. It is not clear what definition of climate change the NASA article is using. Actually, much of what they describe might be the result of unfortunate weather patterns that lasted longer than the civilization’s food supply. For example, the article states, “Droughts have also been linked to the fall of the Maya around 900 AD…” Was this climate change or was it a series of unfortunate multi-year droughts? After all, the Mayan ruins are oftentimes difficult to find because they are covered over by jungle not because they are buried in sand that resulted when climate change converted a lush area into an inhospitable desert.
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by ordvic
Jim D, yes I’m aware of the different takes on paleo and prolly already read the real climate but I’ll check later. I think it’s pretty well established that temps plunged late ordovician with mass extinctions and there were two more after that. CO2 lagged by hundreds of thousands of years. CO2 was as high as 4000 to 7000 ppm in the early years with the weak sun yadda yadda. I grabbed that one but I’ve seen many other including Royer who did his best to smooth it out. Regardless, I’m more interested in this idea of CO2 working with incoming solar and water (clouds) that is why I pointed to the pseudo science site. You and Gates don’t believe water has something to do with the greenhouse effect?
If that paper is the one I was looking for it talks about CO2 working with clouds in feed back and that the natural forces of oceans cycles etc. That could explain the poor perdictive ability of Hansen and the IPPC. I’m just not accepting the simplistic reasoning of CO2 to Temp in direct correlation. The effect could be any best guess at this point.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Tonyb
Jimd
You need to add ;
It’s happened before
Tonyb
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by curryja
Thanks brandon, the challenge is that my dashboard shows the comments in reverse time order (most recent first), so I don’t see the threading
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Fernando Leanme
Wagathon, if you check this graph you can see fruit production has been increasing:
However, watermelons are disconnected from these statistics. My preliminary research seems to show most watermelons think extreme weather has shrunk the fruit crop.
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Steven Mosher
“Did you really coin lukewarmer? You, Fuller, McIntyre, Liljegren, Montford and Watts (as a representative set) coined and framed a lot of 2006-2009 issues. There is no question about it. But bring in academics and they struggle *so hard* to grasp the outlines of the storylines and the people involved.”
It was actually David Smith who coined it. Then Bender picked it up
and Lucia, Tom and I put some flesh on it and started the drive to popularize the notion.
To this day people still want the battle forced into two camps. I was talking to a journalist the other day and he was kind perplexed cause he found me criticizing both sides. I had to explain that I do this as a ritual of sorts.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Fernando Leanme
Danny, move up your diet game and try the banana split and chocolate sundae diet.
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Jim D
ordvic, the NASA link I gave you also explains how water vapor is important, and clouds. It really is worth reading.
In paleo the main solar effect as pointed out by Royer is that the sun has been strengthening at about 1% per 100 million years, so given CO2 amounts in the distant past have much less effect than now.
↧
Comment on Cold logic on climate change policy by TJA
I used to believe that too. That the science was settled. Until I watched warmie after warmie say it, but none could show it.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
