I'll take figures and tables over op-eds any day of the week when the topic is science...
Climate Debate Should Stick to Facts
- Thread starter I think not
- Start date
I'll take figures and tables over op-eds any day of the week when the topic is science...
That's because you easily understand what you're looking at, or what it says. You also know who is and isn't trustworthy. Because you understand their language.
I know what amperage and rod to weld an H beam buttress with.
Yes, but I would never get welding information, from say... 9/11 truthers. Knowing what you're looking at is only part of it, a big part is knowing where to bother looking.
Again, because you know science, the language and the peeps that know.
It's easy for you.
As I've said before, I trust you. YOU don't have an agenda. So I tend to follow your posts and try and learn. But then I get bombarded with a ton of intel, that puts it in a shadow.
Now you've explained the Anglia thing.
But I'm still reeling from the deceit I saw and read and that.
In so much as I trust you. It's the people you source that I don't have an ounce of faith in.
WTF Captain... that "large green hedge fund" made him carbon neutral. How many others in here can claim they are carbon neutral?
I suppose that you'd need to determine exactly who is buying into that theory to begin with... I suspect that there will only be a handful of folks that could accurately and honestly make that claim.
One of Al Gore's greatest moments in my opinion was when he accepted his Academy Award. He then went on to tell the Hollywood Elite that in their gift packages is a years worth of carbon credits. Basically telling them all they a free to use as much energy as they wish and to go out and spread the word of the dangers of global warming. In other words... do as we say, not as we do.
Did Levant just call himself a politician? lol
Also, I've gone over the CERN study. Just flip back a page.
Okay, here.. I'll do the leg work for you.. The "professor at Carleton" interviewed by Levant is basing his ideology on Sven's work..
...we can examine the claims made by Svensmark, Shaviv, and others who proclaim GCRs drive climate and see whether or not they hold up.
They don’t:
We can look at the paleoclimatic record during periods of significant changes in GCR activity, and there is no corresponding change in climate, e.g. the Laschamp excursion ~40kya (Muscheler 2005).
We can examine the change in GCRs in response to solar variability over recent decades or the course of a solar cycle, and find there is no or little corresponding change in climate (Lockwood 2007, Lockwood 2008, Kulmala 2010).
We can look at alleged correlations between GCRs and climate in the geologic past due to our sun passing through galactic spiral arms, and find that these “correlations” were based on an unrealistic, overly-simplified model of spiral structure and are not valid (Overholt 2009). Standard climatic processes (like CO2) more parsimoniously explained the climatic changes even before taking the flawed spiral model into account (Rahmstorf 2004).
We can examine the specific mechanisms by which Svensmark and others have claimed GCRs influence climate via cloud behavior and show that alleged correlations between GCRs and clouds were incorrectly calculated or insufficiently large, proposed mechanisms (e.g. Forbush decreases) are too short lived, too small in magnitude, or otherwise incapable of altering cloud behavior on a large enough scale to drive significant climatic change (Sloan 2008, Erlykin 2009, Erlykin 2009a, Pierce 2009, Calogovic 2010, Snow-Kropla 2011, Erlykin 2011).
Basically, what’s actually been demonstrated by Kirkby, et al. isn’t at odds with the IPCC. What is at odds with the IPCC hasn’t been demonstrated by Kirkby, et al. And the claims by Svensmark, Shaviv, and other ‘GCRs drive climate’ proponents have been debunked at pretty much every step of the way. GCRs may have some influence on cloud behavior, but they’re not responsible for significant climatic changes now or in the geologic past.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ConCERN-Trolling-on-Cosmic-Rays-Clouds-and-Climate-Change.html
So what changes did they show as a function of the CR activity? In going from neutral (shielded) conditions to ambient CR levels typical of the lower atmosphere, the ionisation changed by a factor of 2 to 10 (depending on the temperature – colder conditions are more sensitive). However this is a much bigger change (by an order of magnitude or more) than the percentage change in CR activity over a solar cycle (i.e. ~10-20%). A rough calculation (by way of Jeff Pierce) that takes into account the square root dependence of ion concentrations on GCRs and the neutral nucleation in the CLOUD results, suggests that for average conditions the solar modulation of GCR would impact nucleation by about 1% – rising to perhaps 12% for the biggest changes in GCR seen in figure 2 at very cold temperatures. Thus the nucleation change as a result of real world GCR modulation is going to be much smaller than seen in these experiments, and much less important than the amount of pollutants.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...rncloud-results-are-surprisingly-interesting/
And here's a direct link to the study itself (published by Nature, no less!)..
We find that ion-induced binary nucleation of H2SO4–H2O can occur in the mid-troposphere but is negligible in the boundary layer. However, even with the large enhancements in rate due to ammonia and ions, atmospheric concentrations of ammonia and sulphuric acid are insufficient to account for observed boundary-layer nucleation.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7361/full/nature10343.html
This new guy is just spewing bullcrap to plug his "skeptics" organization funded by the Heartland Institute (which has ties to the tobacco industry).
Ezra should stick to free speech - that's his forte.
And my original post is Tonnington endorsed if that means anything.
Last edited:
You just did it for me, using Al Gore's hedge fund as the example.
See how that works?
Unless you're trying to claim that there were no investment bankers involved in Al Gore's hedge fund.
... Not to mention that Gore controls a carbon trading entity. I'll wager that he offered the credits in order to get a tax deduction.
What a maroon!
Kinda interesting eh?
Gore engages the bankers to provide a service and it is Al that (conveniently) is the one that provides the "science" behind it... Make no mistake, someone with Gore's massive ego would never accept the research of anyone else.
Exactly what I said about the National Post - what they print is what they're fed by those who have an interest in the outcome.
So, it's been a warm summer in the Arctic again. Those who don't like charts and facts can skip over this post.
Ice volume reached a new record low since measurements began:
Sea ice area reached a new record low since measurements began, though you have to go to the data at Cryosphere Today to actually see the difference:
And sea ice extent as measured by University of Bremen reached a new historic low:
There are two other popular datasets that do not yet show new minimums, the NSIDC chart:
And the IJIS chart:
What is remarkable though, is the differences in the two years with the lowest extent. In 2007-the previous record in some datasets- there was a substantial amount of ice compaction due to a weather pattern over the Arctic. There was substantial surface melting, which was followed by winds which compacted the ice. This year, there was greater melting from underneath, as the Arctic ocean heated up. But there was or rather has been no significant wind compacting the ice.
Whatever happens with the extent numbers, 2011 is now the new record low for ice. Sea ice extent may yet be unambiguous amongst the three datasets, though I think that is unlikely. Sea ice extent for those who don't know is defined as a unit of area with 15% ice or more....not really a very definitive quantity for establishing record amounts of ice.
Ice volume reached a new record low since measurements began:
Sea ice area reached a new record low since measurements began, though you have to go to the data at Cryosphere Today to actually see the difference:
And sea ice extent as measured by University of Bremen reached a new historic low:
There are two other popular datasets that do not yet show new minimums, the NSIDC chart:
And the IJIS chart:
What is remarkable though, is the differences in the two years with the lowest extent. In 2007-the previous record in some datasets- there was a substantial amount of ice compaction due to a weather pattern over the Arctic. There was substantial surface melting, which was followed by winds which compacted the ice. This year, there was greater melting from underneath, as the Arctic ocean heated up. But there was or rather has been no significant wind compacting the ice.
Whatever happens with the extent numbers, 2011 is now the new record low for ice. Sea ice extent may yet be unambiguous amongst the three datasets, though I think that is unlikely. Sea ice extent for those who don't know is defined as a unit of area with 15% ice or more....not really a very definitive quantity for establishing record amounts of ice.