Webster, “Why are you always behind the curve, cappy?”
Does that mean you agree with what I posted?
Comment on Cause of hiatus found deep in the Atlantic Ocean by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
↧
↧
Comment on Cause of hiatus found deep in the Atlantic Ocean by gbaikie
“So what is the case that radical alteration of the atmosphere wouldn’t ultimately and significantly change things climate wise?” Can’t follow this question. Skip the adverbs, stick to the numbers. If we radically altered the atmosphere adding 1% neon, I might well believe that it would not significantly change anything. CO2 will have an impact, because of the greenhouse effect. We can make some estimates of how much CO2 will be added, including guess on when the adding will slow (mid-century?). Now, numbers: precisely how much change will that cause? 1 degree, 3 degrees, ten degrees? Will sea level rise by 50 meters? Are you seriously suggesting that it is a distraction to wonder which of these numbers is right?”
As for following question, suppose what causes Earth to not act as Mars with it’s 100 C swings in temperature in it’s 24 hour day or what called “greenhouse effect” has little to do with type of gases. Or you say if added a significant amount neon- 1% of an Earth amount atmosphere to Mars [double it] it’s improvement in it’s “greenhouse effect” would be same as compared to doubling it’s existing atmosphere of mostly CO2.
[In terms of kilograms or tons of atmosphere, Earth has 5.1 x 10^18 kg
of atmosphere, and 1% is 5.1 x 10^16 kg or 5.1 x 10^13 tons [51 trillion tonnes]. Whereas Mars has about 25 trillion tonnes of mostly CO2. So actually it’s closer to 200% increase in Mars atmosphere.]
Another thing is 1% is 10,000 ppm. So as per our question what effect would having global CO2 levels of 10,400 ppm CO2 in Earth atmosphere be, in terms of sea level and temperature?
It should be noted that earth has in it’s past had atmosphere of more than 10,000 ppm of CO2. And some seem to think in distance past of having Earth have 10,000 ppm CO2 and it being a snowball Earth- both could occur in same period of time. Or cooler earth than we have now, but far more CO2 in it’s atmosphere and having condition last for thousands of years. Or Earth was saved from a frozen hell due to higher levels of CO2 which took a long time to build up, and this require a long time to warm earth.
Personally I don’t accept hypothesis of snowball Earth. Or I think during last 10 million year and during glacial periods, Earth has experienced cool conditions rough equal to any other cold period in Earth 4.5 billion year history. So during glacial periods, Earth has average temperature of about 10 C cooler than present temperatures. So perhaps Earth has been as cool a 15 C colder than present Earth, but what mean is don’t think it’s been more than 20 C cooler [or what I would characterize a Earth which could called a snowball Earth [rather simply what could associate with a colder glacial period].
As far as turning some magical switch and getting 50 trillion tonnes CO2 added to atmosphere. It seems to me, few people would claim this would have an immediate effect [within 10 years] and it would be dramatic in terms of temperature or sea level. Or if instead one had a non scientific people [people not measuring things like air temperature] would not notice any obvious effects- days are not noticeably warmer, nor are winters noticeably warmer- as compared to “normal” variation in having warmer days and warmer winters [or cooler days and winters]. Or one could still get snow storms in winter, if one is in region which normally gets snowstorms in winter. Or if one randomly travels 1000 miles in some direction one could get a greater variation in terms of climate temperatures.
The argument which say there would a more dramatic effect, would include the idea that if one had such increase in CO2, one would get also get a significant increase in water vapor and such increase in water vapor is considered a much stronger effect than merely increase in CO2.
So I am not including any significant increase in water vapor- but which few would assume is rapid response [less than 10 years] in any case.
↧
Comment on JC interview with oilprice.com by Dave VanArsdale
The “Pain at the Pump” is already overwhelming to Non-Elites.
↧
Comment on JC interview with oilprice.com by popesclimatetheory
Again, this conundrum is evidence of the wickedness of the climate change problem.
Climate change is well inside the bounds of the past ten thousand years.
Climate change Alarmism is out of bounds.
↧
Comment on Cause of hiatus found deep in the Atlantic Ocean by vukcevic
A polite note to
Dr. Curry
and
Dr. Schmidt
Many articles are written by experts and those with less expertise on the subject of the AMO.
Relationship between the North Atlantic SST and the Reykjavik atmospheric pressure (the north component of the NAO, leading the AMO by number of years)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AP-SST.htm
is currently far from being understood, whereby the origins of the atmospheric pressure variability is the important factor here.
Without such understanding, the AGW/Natural variability attribution cannot be made with any degree of confidence.
↧
↧
Comment on JC interview with oilprice.com by Adam
JC, I think you’ll find this funny:
From the comments on oilprice.com there’s this excerpt from YellowJacketHive: “At least she isn’t parroting the global cooling talking point. She is probably avoiding the rath of her scientific peers.”
Keep up the good work, and make sure you avoid the wrath of your peers. ;)
↧
Comment on JC interview with oilprice.com by Joe Born
Judith Curry: “While some of the smartest people on the planet are university professors, most of them simply don’t matter in today’s great debates.”
“The chief one that concerns me as a scientist is that strident advocacy and alarmism is causing the public to lose trust in scientists.”
I have indeed met university professors who were pretty smart, but I doubt that they comprise a very high percentage of “the smartest people on the planet.” In any event, they do not as a group display much care in the accuracy of their public statements. Sometimes even when they are pressed for clarification the resultant statements give us little basis for confidence.
Based on such experiences, my opinion is that we laymen would be well advised to lose some of our trust in scientists.
Trust science, not scientists.
↧
Comment on Cause of hiatus found deep in the Atlantic Ocean by Zinjanthropus
So “A Horse with No Name” had it right all along. The ocean really IS a desert with its life underground and a perfect disguise above.
↧
Comment on JC interview with oilprice.com by Joshua
PCT –
==> “Just read the alarmist media and watch the alarmist media.”
???
I’m asking for evidence of the theorized cause-and-effect that causes the public to lose trust in scientists. Not sure why your response referred to the media.
Anyway, w/r/t evidence.
First, the data on a loss of “trust in scientists” are weak, at best.
Second, to the extent that there has been a loss of trust, I haven’t seen any data that supports Judith’s assertion of causality. She make this claim of causality repeatedly, but to my knowledge has never provided any actual supporting data.
I would like to look at evidence if you have some to provide?
(And please, don’t provide me with a link to cross-sectional data to support an assertion that can only be supported with longitudinal data. Other “skeptics” have done that before and it just doesn’t cut the mustard.)
Anyway, no, she “does not need to provide any evidence.” It is quite apparent that she can repeatedly make the claim without providing evidence. The question is whether she will continue to do so, and if so, why?
↧
↧
Comment on JC interview with oilprice.com by Steve
Please be more precise.
Are you saying Judith has not provided evidence she is concerned?
Or that she has not provided evidence of ‘strident advocacy and alarmism’?
Or that she has not provided evidence this ‘strident advocacy and alarmism’ has an effect on public trust in scientists?
Or some combination of the three?
↧
Comment on JC interview with oilprice.com by Jeffn
Here’s evidence of strident advocacy and alarmism with a bonus that it’s for fun and profit and caught the eye of a left-of-center publication.
A three-fer!
↧
Comment on JC interview with oilprice.com by Joshua
Steve –
==> “Are you saying Judith has not provided evidence she is concerned?
Fair point.
No – she has provided evidence that she is concerned. That isn’t in question. Her wording was somewhat ambiguous in this interview.
And concern about a public lost of trust in scientists (due to scientific alarmism or advocacy or other factors) seems perfectly fine to me.
But Judith has stated in the past, and it is a commonly found article of faith among many “skeptics,” that there is an observable and significant loss of trust in scientists due to those factors – and in particular, due to scientific alarmism and advocacy among climate scientists.
What I’m saying, to anyone who is making that argument, is please show me the data. Anecdotal data, obviously subject to observer bias, confirmation bias or other well-known tendencies towards bias, does not cut the mustard.
I’m talking about providing longitudinal data, collected as a part of empirical analysis. If people self-describe as skeptics, and if they are concerned about activism and politicization affecting public opinion relative to science, then it stands to reason that they wouldn’t make repeated claims about a cause-and-effect w/o having evidence in support.
↧
Comment on JC interview with oilprice.com by Walt Allensworth
Climate science, in general, is perceived by some demographic groups as being morally bankrupt.
There are a few diamonds in the mudpit… our hostess here being one.
↧
↧
Comment on JC interview with oilprice.com by naq
Look how big their feet are,…
where does this put us?
↧
Comment on JC interview with oilprice.com by Steve
Joshua,
Thanks for the clarification.
I’m assuming your study would involve defining ‘strident advocacy and alarmism’ and then interviewing members of the public who had been exposed, as well as a control group who had not been exposed (good luck with that). Assuming the sample size was sufficient, what would the percentage of people exposed who expressed a lessening of trust in scientists have to be before you would accept this as a valid issue?
As on a single data point I don’t carry much weight, but I would say my trust of certain scientists has been affected by ‘strident advocacy and alarmism’, but not in scientists as a whole. Since I didn’t have any opinion of them prior to exposure to their behavior, I can’t say I lost a trust I didn’t have to begin with.
↧
Comment on JC interview with oilprice.com by Sam
My experience is evidence- it was one of the things that galvanized my skepticism while transitioning from believer to thinker on climate change.
↧
Comment on Cause of hiatus found deep in the Atlantic Ocean by HaroldW
Plan B was successful!
↧
↧
Comment on No bodies by John Vonderlin
Having read a number of intelligent comments upthread on a range of aspects of evolutionary theory and observation I think a few of you might be interested in reading at least a summary of a new book “40 Years of Evolution.” by the Grants, well-known evolutionary biologists.
I was reminded of this from Mr. Turner’s cogent mentioning that weeping willows in Phoenix was an example of the circumstance likely to generate new species.
“The authors’ most spectacular discovery is the initiation and establishment of a new lineage that now behaves as a new species, differing from others in size, song, and other characteristics.”
Their research on finches was centered on a small island, Daphne Major, in the Galapagos Archipelago, made famous by Darwin, the giant whose shoulders they stand upon.
Personally, I think while Climate Change, land use, and species utilization (tasting like chicken is a bad thing) might all be crucial in the evolutionary success of a species, it is the growing power of the invasive species’ dynamic that is most threatening in our rapidly shrinking (or is it flattening?) world. The present Ebola scare, where a traveler infected by an extremely rare and deadly virus acquired in the deepest Dark of Africa, can be sharing it with you in Any Town U.S.A., in less than 24 hours is but one face of this evolutionary New World we live in.
To end on a positive note; for those that think diversity is headed for a world inhabited with only humans, cockroaches and ravens, I’d note that West Nile Virus has ravens dropping from the sky regularly here in Silicon Valley these days. It might be time to recycle your Raid and make friends with the future rulers of Earth.
↧
Comment on JC interview with oilprice.com by Steven Mosher
Question 3
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/tabs_HP_science_20131209.pdf
The real question is what type of evidence does Judith have to have to make the argument.
In short, very little. her personal anecdotal perception would be enough.
she is a scientist, so I would give her the benefit of the doubt in claims she made about loss of trust. As for the cause, that’s always open to speculation.
The next question is what type of evidence do you require to be convinced
here we can assume nothing anyone here could produce would change your mind. That’s because you reasoning is motivated.
In short, judith doesnt need much evidence to advance an argument.
When you grow a pair and explain what kind of evidence will make you change your mind, then you can join the debate.
↧
Comment on Cause of hiatus found deep in the Atlantic Ocean by KNR
The very best thing about the deep ocean is that its deep and vast so you can claim you can finds of lots of ‘missing ‘ things in it, space ships , sunken cities , heat knowing that it’s very hard to prove you wrong. Especially when there is very little data at all about the deep ocean in the first place. But life teaches you that sometimes the reason you cannot find something is because it does not exist in the first place.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
