|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 2, 2011 12:22:03 GMT 1
Here's Lubos Motl's rejoinder to Louise's guru, John Cook "Climate Alarmist 101 on How To Argue with Sceptics", which is such a favourite source of material for alarmists like Louise, Listener and Helen, alongside wikipedia, of course. 19. "It's just a natural cycle":
Cook claims that the "recent global warming" is the first one in which both hemispheres change in the same direction. That's ludicrous. In history, the "aligned" trends on both hemisphere were more frequent than the "opposite" trends. After all, the whole Earth was cold in ice ages. The idea that the heat is moving from one hemisphere to another, only as long as natural factors dominate, is scientifically naive. Most of the heat transfer is between the Earth and outer space - vertical radiation - and changes of the local albedo, cloudiness, and perhaps even greenhouse gases matter.
There are lots of natural cycles that are indisputably real and if Mr Cook believes that he can distinguish the recent changes from all of them by a 3-word argument, then he is crazy.
Find all Lubos's responses to John Cook's 104 cribsheet points here motls.blogspot.com/2010/03/john-cook-skeptical-science.html
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Jul 2, 2011 22:25:25 GMT 1
This is where we would disagree. I would acknowledge that we don't have certainty but I think that the balance of evidence is great enough to take action if we want to prevent serious problems for future generations.
Having said that, I would be very surprised if we do take the relevant action (whatever that may be, see below). As a species I don't think that we are capable of taking any significant action which we perceive as harmful in the short term, for the benefit of people who may not even have been born yet.
Except of course the balance of evidence suggests that humans almost certainly are responsible for the recent rise in temperature.
Fair question. The obvious answers are probably relevant, e.g. reduce use of fossil fuels etc. I don't think that the economic consequences of these solutions are as great as sceptics would have us believe.
However ultimately all environmental problems are just a consequence of the fact that there are far too many people on this planet. I don't see any obvious way that this problem is likely to be resolved. Most likely human population will just continue to increase until we run out of resources or some other disaster forces a solution upon us. As you can see, I'm not an optimist in this regard!
|
|
|
Post by louise on Jul 2, 2011 22:27:02 GMT 1
Cook claims that the "recent global warming" is the first one in which both hemispheres change in the same direction. Please point out where John Cook claims this because I can't find it Strawman anyone?
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jul 2, 2011 23:01:23 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 6, 2011 10:52:29 GMT 1
ARCTIC ENVIRONMENT BY THE MIDDLE OF THIS CENTURY Nils-Axel Mörner Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Rösundavägen 17, 13336 Saltsjöbaden, Sweden, morner@pog.nu ABSTRACT: At around 2040-2050 we will be in a new major Solar Minimum. It is to be expected that we will then have a new “Little Ice Age” over the Arctic and NW Europe. The past Solar Minima were linked to a general speeding-up of the Earth’s rate of rotation. This affected the surface currents and southward penetration of Arctic water in the North Atlantic causing “Little Ice Ages” over northwestern Europe and the Arctic. read the full paper here www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/Moerner_Science_environm_sea_level_3_11_Paper_534.pdfPerhaps Buckleymanor would care to comment since she has expressed an interest in rates of rotation and planetary warming/cooling?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 6, 2011 10:55:25 GMT 1
I can only assume he deleted it in response to criticism!
|
|
|
Post by louise on Jul 6, 2011 13:09:48 GMT 1
I can only assume he deleted it in response to criticism! I can only assume you made it up to support your position as there is no evidence that it actually existed.
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jul 6, 2011 14:27:27 GMT 1
Louise, is this the page You were looking for... www.skepticalscience.com/argument.phpand true enough it is a difficult one to track down, but this seems to be the the likely candidate... "28 "Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle" Thick arctic sea ice is undergoing a rapid retreat." www.skepticalscience.com/Arctic-sea-ice-melt-natural-or-man-made.htmThen I thought 'why would a bloke write an article about a non-existant [to us now] point ? Well they did exist with that original reference, but the "The original posting with responses to the top 60 talking points was released on March 25th. Now, you can think about all the 104 observations." motls.blogspot.com/2010/03/john-cook-skeptical-science.html dated "Monday, March 29, 2010" but now they are, at the time of writing, 165 . The article entitled "Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle" was last updated "Rebuttal written by doug_bostrom. Last updated on 29 December 2010." So the writer should refrain from changing the point numbers and titles of his reference document "Global Warming & Climate Change Myths" StuartG
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jul 8, 2011 21:33:53 GMT 1
I received this document yesterday, it's called "Global warming and melting glaciers" 07 July 2011 www.publicserviceeurope.com/article/574/global-warming-and-melting-glaciersThe header read... "Retreating glaciers in Antarctica and rising sea levels are a trap we have fallen into by pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, writes Stan Jacobs" A bit of Googling then produced this... www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/articles/view/2704"No Longer Anchored, Antarctic Ice Stream Surges to Sea Under-Ice Sub Finds Ridge That May Have Held Back Pine Island Glacier" posted: 2010-06-21 That turns out to be the same information/references as the first, and saying "It is the initial result from a two-month expedition to western Antarctica’s Amundsen Sea in early 2009." This earlier document is ... www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n7/full/ngeo890.html"Observations beneath Pine Island Glacier in West Antarctica and implications for its retreat" Published online: 20 June 2010 The British Antarctic Survey issued a press release around the same time... www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/press_releases/press_release.php?id=1526"Press Release - Warm ocean speeds melting of Antarctic glacier" Issue date: 09 Nov 2009 www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/press_releases/press_release.php?id=1526This is just 'Re-Branding' of the information. Why? Could it be that the information gets 're-jigged' or 'spun' in a more acceptable direction? Newspeak in short. StuartG ps. Every ice melt has a silver lining... www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/press_releases/press_release.php?id=1526"Press Release - Antarctica glacier retreat creates new carbon dioxide store" Issue date: 09 Nov 2009 but doesn't seem to get the same 'promotion' "Newspeak - The official language of Oceania. Newspeak is "politically correct" speech taken to its maximum extent. Newspeak is based on standard English, but all words describing "unorthodox" political ideas have been removed."
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 8, 2011 22:06:27 GMT 1
Phew that's alright then 'cos the GRACE satellites were recently found to have OVERestimated the ice loss by 50 per cent!
These two "findings" cancel eachother out, don't they?
Does anyone except alarmists believe any of this stuff?
|
|
|
Post by louise on Jul 10, 2011 0:37:18 GMT 1
Phew that's alright then 'cos the GRACE satellites were recently found to have OVERestimated the ice loss by 50 per cent! These two "findings" cancel eachother out, don't they? No Anyone with a basic understanding in maths would realise that "it’s melting 50 percent faster" is referring to an acceleration whereas "OVERestimated the ice loss by 50 per cent" is referring to a specific measurement, For example, my eldest son might be 50% taller than his little brother but he's not growing at a rate that is 50% faster than his brother. I do think that you should try to understand some of these basic maths principles before you post on them, if only to save the inevitable embarrassment we all feel on your behalf.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 10, 2011 9:34:10 GMT 1
It was a joke, Louise.
The bit that was serious was this
Does anyone except alarmists believe any of this stuff?
Sadly, we know YOU swallow anything!
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 10, 2011 10:07:32 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jul 10, 2011 10:29:57 GMT 1
#37 & 38 refers. radio4scienceboards.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=witter&thread=819&post=12754"A team of scientists visiting the region last year [2009] discovered one reason for the speed-up: warm ocean water eating away at the glacier’s base has lifted the ice off a rocky underwater ridge that once slowed the glacier’s advance into the sea. Discovery of the submarine ridge, standing about 300 meters tall, and 30 kilometers from where the glacier currently meets the sea floor," " The ridge came as a surprise, the scientists say, and helped explain why the glacier has accelerated, and its grounding line—the place where the glacier stops being anchored to land and becomes an ice shelf, floating in the sea—has retreated over recent decades. The glacier used to scrape across this ridge, which probably slowed it down, said study co-author Stan Jacobs" ""Once the thinning glacier moved off the ridge, the relatively warm ocean water in this region began to melt deeper ice on the back side of the ridge," he said. Unlike the ice sheets of Greenland and eastern Antarctica, much of West Antarctica’s ice sheet lies below sea level, and so may be particularly vulnerable to fast erosion by seawater." That's why the the ice is melting faster. It further makes the general point about leglislation based on information that is in no-way near complete. Perhaps they might find a seamount under there too. StuartG
|
|
|
Post by louise on Jul 22, 2011 20:38:42 GMT 1
On Tuesday I flew from London to Vancouver. The flight path passes over Iceland and then the lower part of Greenland. Being April (meltiong season) and having read so much about the rapidly retreating ice sheet, I expected to see broken ice sheets intersposed with open sea. How wrong. In the approx 3 hrs we took to fly over the sea between Greenland and the northern reaches of Canada there was one unbroken sheet of sea ice and no water in sight. It would appear that April is not 'meltiong[sic] season' and only now are we seeing the extent of the melt. April might be melt season in Bognor Regis but not in the Arctic! www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png[edit - this graphic is too large for the page. You will have to make do with a link - joanne.] from wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/
|
|