Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Scientific integrity versus ideologically-fueled research by billw1984

0
0

Reminds me of this:


Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by dikranmarsupial

0
0

Mike Flynn, sorry if you are going to dismiss any material that contradicts your perspective (especially when it is the work of genuine experts – such as David Archer or the IPCC), then it is perhaps unsurprising that you end up having some rather odd ideas (such as there being a plausible risk of CO2 falling to dangerous levels) and cannot be disabused of them.

Your fundamental lack of understanding is demonstrated by your question:

“So which do think is likely to prove more dangerous? Increasing the CO2 level by 100%, or decreasing it by the same amount?”

The radiative forcing due to CO2 is logarithmic in the concentration, so obviously the answer would be a 100% decrease, but then the only way to get a 100% decrease would be to take ALL of the carbon out of the atmosphere AND the oceans (as otherwise Henry’s law would just replenish it again from the ocean). It would also mean taking all the carbon out of the biosphere – which would be bad (duh!). HOWEVER, there is no way that is going to happen. Increasing atmospheric CO2 on the other hand is pretty straightforward and is what we are doing at the moment. In other words it is a silly (or perhaps disingenuous – am going to assume silly) question as you are comparing something that will happen with something that is essentially impossible.

Now if you were to ask which would be worse, doubling CO2 or halving it, my first estimate would be that they would be about equally bad, as it is the CHANGE that is the problem, not the temperature itself. This is because our civilization is rather heavily adapted to the pre-industrial climate (especially agriculture), and current population levels mean we can’t just move somewhere else with a more pleasant climate.

However it is clear that you are not really interested in the answers to your questions as you have just rudely dismissed the answers so far (if you think “We are just supposed your believe your assurances, are we? Or do you have some actual science to back up your your hopeful assumptions?” is not rude, then you were pretty badly brought up; if you want people to be polite to you, don’t be rude to them first).

Comment on Scientific integrity versus ideologically-fueled research by Mike Flynn

0
0

/sarc on

rhhardin,

Next you’ll be telling us that scientists should be curious. They don’t need curiosity – just obedience!

/sarc off

Comment on Scientific integrity versus ideologically-fueled research by aneipris

0
0

“Obama has set an predictably bad lead on this.”

The great uniter has in so many ways become the great divider. With hard to believe cynicism especially given his first campaign, he purposely inflames both sides as a means to shoring up his base. It’s a profoundly narcissistic, scorched earth approach that has weakened us as a country. The first black President is personally responsible for setting race relations back 50 years.

(aka pokerguy)

Comment on Scientific integrity versus ideologically-fueled research by David Wojick

0
0

Duarte’s concern about environmentalism capturing social science is the same problem as with physical climate science. Environmentalism is a massive ideological movement, one that has gained political power steadily for the last sixty years. Climate and the attack on fire is its high water mark (so far). It has captured both the scientists and the governments. But I think it has finally overeached because what it wants cannot be done.

Comment on Scientific integrity versus ideologically-fueled research by aneipris

0
0

“How the Left is Killing Free Speech”

The good news is, in the long run it won’t work.

Comment on Scientific integrity versus ideologically-fueled research by Richard Drake

0
0
<blockquote>I figure we need to win the climate war, not every skirmisch therein. So Pick targets and ‘ammo’ carefully.</blockquote> At least someone understands. Is skirmisch Yiddish?

Comment on Scientific integrity versus ideologically-fueled research by Richard Drake

0
0

I think the same. Happily we’re nowhere near all.


Comment on Scientific integrity versus ideologically-fueled research by Centinel2012

0
0

Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
Sir Karl Raimund Popper (28 July 1902 – 17 September 1994) was an Austrian and British philosopher and a professor at the London School of Economics. He is considered one of the most influential philosophers of science of the 20th century, and he also wrote extensively on social and political philosophy. The following quotes of his apply to this subject.

If we are uncritical we shall always find what we want: we shall look for, and find, confirmations, and we shall look away from, and not see, whatever might be dangerous to our pet theories.

Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve.

… (S)cience is one of the very few human activities — perhaps the only one — in which errors are systematically criticized and fairly often, in time, corrected

I think we have lost what Popper taught us!

Comment on Scientific integrity versus ideologically-fueled research by Rob Starkey (@Robbuffy)

0
0

Jim D-
Simple quesion—

What reliable information is there that leads you to conclude that any warming that occurs will lead to a negative change in conditions for the USA or the world overall?

Comment on Scientific integrity versus ideologically-fueled research by Rob Starkey (@Robbuffy)

0
0

Judith
Would you consider writing a post reviewing what reliable information leads science to conclude that AGW will result in a worsening of environmental conditions for the USA or the world overall?

Comment on Scientific integrity versus ideologically-fueled research by Rob Starkey (@Robbuffy)

0
0

Kind of like someone’s 2.7 climate sensitivity guess.

Comment on Scientific integrity versus ideologically-fueled research by AK

0
0
OK folks, here we go: <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/99EO00132/pdf" rel="nofollow">Human Contribution to Climate Change Remains Questionable</a> SF Singer - <i>EOS</i>, Vol. 80, No. 16, April 20, 1999<blockquote>The principal focus of climate science is certainly atmospheric science and meteorology, but the subject involves many other areas of the Earth sciences as well as different disciplines, such as physics, chemistry and even biology.This complexity makes climate science both fascinating and controversial. It also undergoes rapid change as new facts and analyses emerge.Yet public interest in the possibility that human activities can change climate has become so intense that far-reaching policies are instituted even before final judgments are possible.</blockquote>[...]<blockquote>The second assessment (in 1996) no longer made this claim; instead, <b>it found it necessary to introduce a previously overlooked factor, human-caused atmospheric sulfate aerosols</b>, to reach the conclusion that "the balance of evidence suggests there is a discernible human influence on global climate." This ambiguous statement does not do justice to the vast compilation of data and model results brought together in the report itself by some hundred climate scientists.Their important work (more than 500 pages, but lacking an index) has been largely ignored by the public, while attention has focused on the politically negotiated (5-page) Summary for Policymakers.Those who are skeptical of the IPCC conclusion have viewed the statement about "discernible human influence" as trivial and meaningless. On the other hand, the media and many policy experts have welcomed its convenient formula, which they regard as scientific proof of a coming climate catastrophe.[my bold]</blockquote>[...]<blockquote>There is general agreement that the global climate warmed between about 1880 and 1940, following several centuries of the "little ice age," which in turn was preceded by the "medieval climate optimum" around 1100 A.D. There is less agreement about the causes of this recent warming, but the human component is thought to be quite small. [See Sidebar] This conclusion seems to be borne out also by the fact that the climate cooled between 1940 and 1975, just as industrial activity grew rapidly after World War II. It has been difficult to reconcile this cooling with the observed increases in greenhouse gases. To account for the discrepancy the <b>1996 IPCC report has focused attention on the previously ignored (direct) cooling effects of sulfate aerosols</b> (from coal burning and other industrial activities), which reflect a portion of incident sunlight. <b>But this explanation</b> to support the "discernible human influence" conclusion <b>is no longer considered as valid</b>. Leading modelers [Tett et al., 1996; Penner et al., 1998; Hansen et al, 1998] all agree that the <b>aerosol forcing is more uncertain than any other feature of the climate models.</b> Models have not yet incorporated the much larger indirect cooling effects of sulfate aerosols (by increasing cloudiness), or the quite different optical effects of carbon soot from industrial and biomass burning and of mineral dust arising from disturbances of the land. [my bold]</blockquote>Looks to me like Douglas lied. Certainly the juxtaposition of her statement with these excerpts from a <b>1999</b> article (less than <b>three years</b> after the 1996 “<i>Second Assessment</i>”) offer <i>prima facie</i> evidence of bad faith, and lack of integrity on Douglas' part, in accusing Singer of such lack.

Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by Salvatore del Prete

0
0
Here is what I have concluded. My explanation as to how the climate may change conforms to the historical climatic data record which has led me to this type of an explanation. It does not try to make the historical climatic record conform to my explanation. It is in two parts. PART ONE HOW THE CLIMATE MAY CHANGE Below are my thoughts about how the climatic system may work. It starts with interesting observations made by Don Easterbrook. I then reply and ask some intriguing questions at the end which I hope might generate some feedback responses. I then conclude with my own thoughts to the questions I pose. From Don Easterbrook – Aside from the statistical analyses, there are very serious problems with the Milankovitch theory. For example, (1) as John Mercer pointed out decades ago, the synchronicity of glaciations in both hemispheres is ‘’a fly in the Malankovitch soup,’ (2) glaciations typically end very abruptly, not slowly, (3) the Dansgaard-Oeschger events are so abrupt that they could not possibility be caused by Milankovitch changes (this is why the YD is so significant), and (4) since the magnitude of the Younger Dryas changes were from full non-glacial to full glacial temperatures for 1000+ years and back to full non-glacial temperatures (20+ degrees in a century), it is clear that something other than Milankovitch cycles can cause full Pleistocene glaciations. Until we more clearly understand abrupt climate changes that are simultaneous in both hemispheres we will not understand the cause of glaciations and climate changes. . My explanation: I agree that the data does give rise to the questions/thoughts Don Easterbrook, presents in the above. That data in turn leads me to believe along with the questions I pose at the end of this article, that a climatic variable force which changes often which is superimposed upon the climate trend has to be at play in the changing climatic scheme of things. The most likely candidate for that climatic variable force that comes to mind is solar variability (because I can think of no other force that can change or reverse in a different trend often enough, and quick enough to account for the historical climatic record) and the primary and secondary effects associated with this solar variability which I feel are a significant player in glacial/inter-glacial cycles, counter climatic trends when taken into consideration with these factors which are , land/ocean arrangements , mean land elevation ,mean magnetic field strength of the earth(magnetic excursions), the mean state of the climate (average global temperature gradient equator to pole), the initial state of the earth’s climate(how close to interglacial-glacial threshold condition it is/ average global temperature) the state of random terrestrial(violent volcanic eruption, or a random atmospheric circulation/oceanic pattern that feeds upon itself possibly) /extra terrestrial events (super-nova in vicinity of earth or a random impact) along with Milankovitch Cycles. What I think happens is land /ocean arrangements, mean land elevation, mean magnetic field strength of the earth, the mean state of the climate, the initial state of the climate, and Milankovitch Cycles, keep the climate of the earth moving in a general trend toward either cooling or warming on a very loose cyclic or semi cyclic beat but get consistently interrupted by solar variability and the associated primary and secondary effects associated with this solar variability, and on occasion from random terrestrial/extra terrestrial events, which brings about at times counter trends in the climate of the earth within the overall trend. While at other times when the factors I have mentioned setting the gradual background for the climate trend for either cooling or warming, those being land/ocean arrangements, mean land elevation, mean state of the climate, initial state of the climate, Milankovitch Cycles , then drive the climate of the earth gradually into a cooler/warmer trend(unless interrupted by a random terrestrial or extra terrestrial event in which case it would drive the climate to a different state much more rapidly even if the climate initially was far from the glacial /inter-glacial threshold, or whatever general trend it may have been in ) UNTIL it is near that inter- glacial/glacial threshold or climate intersection at which time allows any solar variability and the associated secondary effects no matter how SLIGHT at that point to be enough to not only promote a counter trend to the climate, but cascade the climate into an abrupt climatic change. The back ground for the abrupt climatic change being in the making all along until the threshold glacial/inter-glacial intersection for the climate is reached ,which then gives rise to the abrupt climatic changes that occur and possibly feed upon themselves while the climate is around that glacial/inter-glacial threshold resulting in dramatic semi cyclic constant swings in the climate from glacial to inter-glacial while factors allow such an occurrence to take place. The climatic back ground factors (those factors being previously mentioned) driving the climate gradually toward or away from the climate intersection or threshold of glacial versus interglacial, however when the climate is at the intersection the climate gets wild and abrupt, while once away from that intersection the climate is more stable. Although random terrestrial events and extra terrestrial events could be involved some times to account for some of the dramatic swings in the climatic history of the earth( perhaps to the tune of 10% ) at any time , while solar variability and the associated secondary effects are superimposed upon the otherwise gradual climatic trend, resulting in counter climatic trends, no matter where the initial state of the climate is although the further from the glacial/inter-glacial threshold the climate is the less dramatic the overall climatic change should be, all other items being equal. The climate is chaotic, random, and non linear, but in addition it is never in the same mean state or initial state which gives rise to given forcing to the climatic system always resulting in a different climatic out-come although the semi cyclic nature of the climate can still be derived to a degree amongst all the noise and counter trends within the main trend. QUESTIONS: Why is it when ever the climate changes the climate does not stray indefinitely from it's mean in either a positive or negative direction? Why or rather what ALWAYS brings the climate back toward it's mean value ? Why does the climate never go in the same direction once it heads in that direction? Along those lines ,why is it that when the ice sheets expand the higher albedo /lower temperature more ice expansion positive feedback cycle does not keep going on once it is set into motion? What causes it not only to stop but reverse? Vice Versa why is it when the Paleocene – Eocene Thermal Maximum once set into motion, that being an increase in CO2/higher temperature positive feedback cycle did not feed upon itself? Again it did not only stop but reversed? My conclusion is the climate system is always in a general gradual trend toward a warmer or cooler climate in a semi cyclic fashion which at times brings the climate system toward thresholds which make it subject to dramatic change with the slightest change of force superimposed upon the general trend and applied to it. While at other times the climate is subject to randomness being brought about from terrestrial /extra terrestrial events which can set up a rapid counter trend within the general slow moving climatic trend. . Despite this ,if enough time goes by (much time) the same factors that drive the climate toward a general gradual warming trend or cooling trend will prevail bringing the climate away from glacial/inter-glacial threshold conditions it had once brought the climate toward ending abrupt climatic change periods eventually, or reversing over time dramatic climate changes from randomness. NOTE 1- Thermohaline Circulation Changes are more likely in my opinion when the climate is near the glacial/ inter-glacial threshold probably due to greater sources of fresh water input into the North Atlantic.

Comment on Scientific integrity versus ideologically-fueled research by Don Monfort

0
0

Yes, that’s what they told us and we are still waiting.

The BIGGER AND MORE FREQUENT EL NINOS have been due since 1998.


Comment on Scientific integrity versus ideologically-fueled research by Rob Starkey (@Robbuffy)

0
0

Gary writes- “It’s very similar to the libertarian/progressive deconstruction of sexual morality on college campuses.”

Wrong

Your beliefs about how people should behave is solely based on your cultural perspective. (religion)

Views about climate science will ultimately be determined by a better understanding of how the system operates.

Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by Salvatore del Prete

0
0

PART TWO

HOW THE CLIMATE MAY CHANGE

Below I list my low average solar parameters criteria which I think will result in secondary effects being exerted upon the climatic system.

My biggest hurdle I think is not if these low average solar parameters would exert an influence upon the climate but rather will they be reached and if reached for how long a period of time?

I think each of the items I list , both primary and secondary effects due to solar variability if reached are more then enough to bring the global temperatures down by at least .5c in the coming years.

Even a .15 % decrease from just solar irradiance alone is going to bring the average global temperature down by .2c or so all other things being equal. That is 40% of the .5c drop I think can be attained. Never mind the contribution from everything else that is mentioned.

What I am going to do is look into research on sun like stars to try to get some sort of a gage as to how much possible variation might be inherent with the total solar irradiance of the sun. That said we know EUV light varies by much greater amounts, and within the spectrum of total solar irradiance some of it is in anti phase which mask total variability within the spectrum. It makes the total irradiance variation seem less then it is.

I also think the .1% variation that is so acceptable for TSI is on flimsy ground in that measurements for this item are not consistent and the history of measuring this item with instrumentation is just to short to draw these conclusions not to mention I know some sun like stars (which I am going to look into more) have much greater variability of .1%.

I think Milankovich Cycles, the Initial State of the Climate or Mean State of the Climate , State of Earth’s Magnetic Field set the background for long run climate change and how effective given solar variability will be when it changes when combined with those items. Nevertheless I think solar variability within itself will always be able to exert some kind of an influence on the climate regardless if , and that is my hurdle IF the solar variability is great enough in magnitude and duration of time. Sometimes solar variability acting in concert with factors setting the long term climatic trend while at other times acting in opposition.

THE CRITERIA

Solar Flux avg. sub 90

Solar Wind avg. sub 350 km/sec

AP index avg. sub 5.0

Cosmic ray counts north of 6500 counts per minute

Total Solar Irradiance off .15% or more

EUV light average 0-105 nm sub 100 units (or off 100% or more) and longer UV light emissions around 300 nm off by several percent.

IMF around 4.0 nt or lower.

The above solar parameter averages following several years of sub solar activity in general which commenced in year 2005..

If , these average solar parameters are the rule going forward for the remainder of this decade expect global average temperatures to fall by -.5C, with the largest global temperature declines occurring over the high latitudes of N.H. land areas.

The decline in temperatures should begin to take place within six months after the ending of the maximum of solar cycle 24.

Secondary Effects With Prolonged Minimum Solar Activity. A Brief Overview.

A Greater Meridional Atmospheric Circulation- due to less UV Light Lower Ozone in Lower Stratosphere.

Increase In Low Clouds- due to an increase in Galactic Cosmic Rays.

Greater Snow-Ice Cover- associated with a Meridional Atmospheric Circulation/an Increase In Clouds.

Greater Snow-Ice Cover probably resulting over time to a more Zonal Atmospheric Circulation. This Circulation increasing the Aridity over the Ice Sheets eventually. Dust probably increasing into the atmosphere over time.

Increase in Volcanic Activity – Since 1600 AD, data shows 85 % approximately of all major Volcanic eruptions have been associated with Prolonged Solar Minimum Conditions. Data from the Space and Science Center headed by Dr. Casey.

Volcanic Activity -acting as a cooling agent for the climate,(SO2) and enhancing Aerosols possibly aiding in greater Cloud formation.

Decrease In Ocean Heat Content/Sea Surface Temperature -due to a decline in Visible Light and Near UV light.

This in turn should diminish the Greenhouse Gas Effect over time, while promoting a slow drying out of the atmosphere over time. This may be part of the reason why Aridity is very common with glacial periods.

In addition sea surface temperature distribution changes should come about ,which probably results in different oceanic current patterns.

Comment on Scientific integrity versus ideologically-fueled research by PA

0
0

If this value of science is to be protected, evidence must be able to challenge currently held views. This requirement creates certain demands for the structure of how other values (whether ethical, social, political, or cognitive) can play a role in science.

Her viewpoint is somewhat poisoned by her politics.

Science is the known body of facts. Scientists seek to increase the known body of facts (unless you a global warmer and they tend to work in the opposite direction).

Saying values affect facts is a sign of extreme bias, or of mental illness or defect. The fact that global warming alarmists think values affect science and science can be used as a political tool indicate there is something wrong with their understanding or science – or something is wrong with them.

Comment on Scientific integrity versus ideologically-fueled research by curryja

0
0

Well I thought the AR5 WG2 did a reasonable job of this, although the way the media portrayed this and policy makers continue to portray this is very different

Comment on Scientific integrity versus ideologically-fueled research by PA

0
0

Well, yeah.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/26/science/maligned-study-on-gay-marriage-is-shaking-trust.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=2
Critics said the intense competition by graduate students to be published in prestigious journals, weak oversight by academic advisers and the rush by journals to publish studies that will attract attention too often led to sloppy and even unethical research methods. The now disputed study was covered by The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal, among others.

“You don’t get a faculty position at Princeton by publishing something in the Journal Nobody-Ever-Heard-Of,” Dr. Oransky said. Is being lead author on a big study published in Science “enough to get a position in a prestigious university?” he asked, then answered: “They don’t care how well you taught. They don’t care about your peer reviews. They don’t care about your collegiality. They care about how many papers you publish in major journals.”

Science has lost integrity. Without integrity the only science that makes sense is hard science that improves processes (this can be tested in a lab).

Without integrity any science that can’t be immediately and objectively tested is paid storytelling.

Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images