Monday, February 28, 2011
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Another reply to climate science skepticism
Ok, shall we exchange assignments then, Mark? Here, below are your Deniers. What's your point? For each one of these, there are literally hundreds who concur in the view accepted by 97% of climate scientists worldwide, and the National Academy of Sciences or equivalent body of at least 19 countries, that anthropogenic causes are affecting climate. (http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf: "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures? "97.5% of [3,146] climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures.") And don't get hung up on the jargon--warming, change, perturbation, whatever. That some use different terminology is not some concerted ruse intended to obfuscate and confuse. Quite the contrary. Rather, "warming" became "change" because as the understanding of the processes advanced, so did the understanding that the consequences likely would result in climate "weirding," evidenced by increased frequency of anomalies and extreme weather events during both winter and summer seasons in both the northern and southern hemispheres. Change was a more accurate term, even under conditions of rising annual global mean temperature. The real disingenuousness with respect to the terms has been from the right, e.g., the Einsteins on Fox who use the fact that it was cold and snowy in winter in America this year and last as "proof" that "warming" can't be occurring and Al Gore must be a lying dolt. The likely explanation for that is here: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2011/020211.html and here: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2010/20100115_Temperature2009.pdf. Christ, Bill O'Reilly doesn't understand enough science to know that the moon's gravitational forces cause the tides, or why the Sun, Earth and moon even exist. The man's a buffoon and a moron, and he's supposedly the smart guy over there. If you take your science lessons from Fox ...
Deniers/Skeptics:
Dr. Edward Wegman--Who purportedly "demolished" the hockey stick graph. Except he didn't. He truncated the timeframe and focused on only a segment of it.
Dr. David Bromwich--"it's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now." First, you've got to be kidding. In the past 10 years Antarctica has calved icebergs the size of Luxembourg. http://www.livescience.com/10641-huge-iceberg-breaks-antarctica.html. I don't know what kind of spectacles Bromwich wears that he can't see signals from mainland Antarctica. Second, what about the global warming signal from the other pole? The signal is very apparent there--see the graph depicting temperature anomalies, and focus in particular on the red areas in the Arctic, here: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110112_globalstats.html. These data are consistent with model predictions.
Prof. Paul Reiter--"no major scientist with any long record in this field" accepts Al Gore's claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases. Even if true, does this disprove anthropogenic climate change? No. What if we focus not on mosquitoes but on North American pine beetles? http://www.hcn.org/issues/278/14853
Are warming conditions pushing them further south? Seems so. Evidence for global warming? Likely. Evidence for human-caused global warming? Not necessarily; that comes from the physical sciences.
Prof. Hendrik Tennekes--"there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies" used for global warming forecasts. That's just flat wrong. Sorry, professor. Climate models are based on known physical processes taking into account physics, solar irradiance, thermodynamics, ocean surface and land surface reflectivity a/k/a albido, ocean gyres and other currents, land use patterns and rates of deforestation, and dozens of other processes and variables. The models are run through a Monte Carlo simulation factoring in the uncertainty ascribed to the variables to produce a range of outcomes with associated likelihoods. Of course, the models are only as good as the data inputs and the algorithms, both of which have improved since GCMs (global circulation models) began 20 years ago and continue to improve.
Dr. Christopher Landsea--"there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity." That's stating what every climatologist says: That no one weather event proves or disproves global warming. However, is the frequency of extreme weather events increasing consistent with predictions going back at least 25 years? Yes. Are extreme weather events, such as the recent cold in north America and cyclone Yasi that hit Australia, "some" evidence that global warming is occurring? Yes. (In law, "some" evidence is suggestive, not dispositive.) Have the warmest years on record occurred in the past decade? Yes.
Dr. Antonino Zichichi--calls global warming models "incoherent and invalid." I call Dr. Zichichi's terms hyperbolic and wrong. Are the models perfect? No. Are uncertainties factored in? Yes, see above.
Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski--says the U.N. "based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false." The assumptions are neither arbitrary nor have they been proven false. See above; See also the 2007 IPCC report, which was the product of contributions from 2,500 scientists. Jaworoski sees something that everyone else missed, apparently.
Prof. Tom V. Segalstad--"most leading geologists" know the U.N.'s views "of Earth processes are implausible." Who are they and what are the implausible processes? Another singularly gifted individual who apparently possesses unique vision that only he can see what the majority of others fail to.
Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu--says much "Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change." What constitutes much? 5%? 70%? "Most" other scientists hold a contrary view that Arctic warming is indeed not natural.
Dr. Richard Lindzen--says global warming alarmists "are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right." Dick Lindzen was a member of the Bush administration and a favorite of Cheney's. His positions have been roundly countered, most notably by Dr. James Hansen.
Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov--says "the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations." Again, wrong. Sorry. The causal connections, based on the laws of physics, flow logically from cause to effect, to wit: increasing concentration of atmospheric GHGs as caused by fossil fuel burning and deforestation (280ppm pre-Industrial Revolution to 390 ppm today, a 39% increase) --> increased capacity of the atmosphere to trap long-wave (heat) radiation --> increased energy in the system (entropy) --> increase in mean global temperature --> increased frequency of extreme weather events and long term climate patterns.
Dr. Sami Solanki--"The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures." May? Or is? What is the level of scientific certainty with that "may"? I recall reading data that solar irradiance has been essentially stable within 0.02% and 0.03% for the past 2,000 years. Solanki may be a doubter, but it doesn't seem he's an outright denier of man-made climate change. He seems less than certain that his own hypothesis is correct.
Now, my assignment for you. If you really want to persist in litigating this issue with me, please Read the AR4 Synthesis Report, http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/main.html. Read Jim Hansen's paper (see link above). Watch Naomi Areskes' lecture if you haven't already. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio&feature=autofb. Spend some time on the Goddard Institute of Space Studies website--
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/
and NOAA's website:
http://www.climate.gov/#understandingClimate
Here's another link with good information on climate science:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
And Dennis Miller is a douche, but thanks for the compliment. ;-) I'd prefer a comparison to Lewis Black, although his erudition isn't quite up to Miller's.
Deniers/Skeptics:
Dr. Edward Wegman--Who purportedly "demolished" the hockey stick graph. Except he didn't. He truncated the timeframe and focused on only a segment of it.
Dr. David Bromwich--"it's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now." First, you've got to be kidding. In the past 10 years Antarctica has calved icebergs the size of Luxembourg. http://www.livescience.com/10641-huge-iceberg-breaks-antarctica.html. I don't know what kind of spectacles Bromwich wears that he can't see signals from mainland Antarctica. Second, what about the global warming signal from the other pole? The signal is very apparent there--see the graph depicting temperature anomalies, and focus in particular on the red areas in the Arctic, here: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110112_globalstats.html. These data are consistent with model predictions.
Prof. Paul Reiter--"no major scientist with any long record in this field" accepts Al Gore's claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases. Even if true, does this disprove anthropogenic climate change? No. What if we focus not on mosquitoes but on North American pine beetles? http://www.hcn.org/issues/278/14853
Are warming conditions pushing them further south? Seems so. Evidence for global warming? Likely. Evidence for human-caused global warming? Not necessarily; that comes from the physical sciences.
Prof. Hendrik Tennekes--"there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies" used for global warming forecasts. That's just flat wrong. Sorry, professor. Climate models are based on known physical processes taking into account physics, solar irradiance, thermodynamics, ocean surface and land surface reflectivity a/k/a albido, ocean gyres and other currents, land use patterns and rates of deforestation, and dozens of other processes and variables. The models are run through a Monte Carlo simulation factoring in the uncertainty ascribed to the variables to produce a range of outcomes with associated likelihoods. Of course, the models are only as good as the data inputs and the algorithms, both of which have improved since GCMs (global circulation models) began 20 years ago and continue to improve.
Dr. Christopher Landsea--"there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity." That's stating what every climatologist says: That no one weather event proves or disproves global warming. However, is the frequency of extreme weather events increasing consistent with predictions going back at least 25 years? Yes. Are extreme weather events, such as the recent cold in north America and cyclone Yasi that hit Australia, "some" evidence that global warming is occurring? Yes. (In law, "some" evidence is suggestive, not dispositive.) Have the warmest years on record occurred in the past decade? Yes.
Dr. Antonino Zichichi--calls global warming models "incoherent and invalid." I call Dr. Zichichi's terms hyperbolic and wrong. Are the models perfect? No. Are uncertainties factored in? Yes, see above.
Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski--says the U.N. "based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false." The assumptions are neither arbitrary nor have they been proven false. See above; See also the 2007 IPCC report, which was the product of contributions from 2,500 scientists. Jaworoski sees something that everyone else missed, apparently.
Prof. Tom V. Segalstad--"most leading geologists" know the U.N.'s views "of Earth processes are implausible." Who are they and what are the implausible processes? Another singularly gifted individual who apparently possesses unique vision that only he can see what the majority of others fail to.
Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu--says much "Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change." What constitutes much? 5%? 70%? "Most" other scientists hold a contrary view that Arctic warming is indeed not natural.
Dr. Richard Lindzen--says global warming alarmists "are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right." Dick Lindzen was a member of the Bush administration and a favorite of Cheney's. His positions have been roundly countered, most notably by Dr. James Hansen.
Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov--says "the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations." Again, wrong. Sorry. The causal connections, based on the laws of physics, flow logically from cause to effect, to wit: increasing concentration of atmospheric GHGs as caused by fossil fuel burning and deforestation (280ppm pre-Industrial Revolution to 390 ppm today, a 39% increase) --> increased capacity of the atmosphere to trap long-wave (heat) radiation --> increased energy in the system (entropy) --> increase in mean global temperature --> increased frequency of extreme weather events and long term climate patterns.
Dr. Sami Solanki--"The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures." May? Or is? What is the level of scientific certainty with that "may"? I recall reading data that solar irradiance has been essentially stable within 0.02% and 0.03% for the past 2,000 years. Solanki may be a doubter, but it doesn't seem he's an outright denier of man-made climate change. He seems less than certain that his own hypothesis is correct.
Now, my assignment for you. If you really want to persist in litigating this issue with me, please Read the AR4 Synthesis Report, http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/main.html. Read Jim Hansen's paper (see link above). Watch Naomi Areskes' lecture if you haven't already. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio&feature=autofb. Spend some time on the Goddard Institute of Space Studies website--
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/
and NOAA's website:
http://www.climate.gov/#understandingClimate
Here's another link with good information on climate science:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
And Dennis Miller is a douche, but thanks for the compliment. ;-) I'd prefer a comparison to Lewis Black, although his erudition isn't quite up to Miller's.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)