“Climate Change (which started as Global Warming, remember?)
Having done a great deal of historical research on climate science and written about it, I can state with 100% certainty that global climate change - which was discovered by Ignaz Venetz following the 'year without a summer', 1816, was from the early 1800s until about the 1950s known as 'climate amelioration' or 'climate deterioration'.
Strange to tell, the idea that the global climate could change was attacked by people who didn't want to believe it. It was only about 1890 that the idea that 'the climate has always changed' became settled science. By 1895 it was known that changes in solar output, changes in axial tilt, changes in orbital path and changes in geographical distribution of land and sea could not, even if acting all together, account for the ice ages. And then Arrhenius showed that CO2 was the missing factor.
Now, it may not be obvious to people who get their "science" from the likes of the Heartland Institute or GWPF but the 'year without a summer' marks the start of modern evidence based climate science. In 1816 Al Gore had yet to be born and the free world's media did not, thankfully, consist mainly of Morlocks controlled by a Moloch.”
“"Atmospheric CO2 absorbs energy and reradiates it in all directions."
By George, I think he's got it!
In the simplest possible terms: heat energy within the atmosphere is emitted in all directions. In any one of those directions, a GHG molecule may intercept and re-radiate the energy in all directions yet again. The heat will eventually escape to space, but the escape of heat to space must be delayed for at least some amount of time. In any period of time t, if the average photon is delayed by an amount greater than t then the atmosphere must be warmer than if there was no delay.
So you understand the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect. So your arguments would appear not to be based on your obvious understanding of what is really physics 101, but on your personal political biases. Would that be an accurate assessment of your case?”
“"If the science is settled why do you need more than 1 model?"
A naval shell exploding in a shore installation will do great damage: the science is settled.
However, in order to score a hit, the gunner firing only one shell must rely on dumb luck. The scientific approach is to use bracketing, a series of test shots followed by a bombardment. This is also known in industry as the 'Goldilocks Test': too much of something, elevation or propellant, too little and 'just right'. It is what a computer programmer might call the 'Monte Carlo method' or what a climate modeler would call an ensemble forecast. By implementing the math and science of ballistics multiple times, the gunner is virtually certain to score a hit.
We, the human race, can rely on dumb luck or proven scientific methods to determine whether or not we shall exterminate ourselves.
What is your pleasure?”
jdey123 on Jan 26, 2012 at 07:21:11
“I think the correct analogy here is that you're trying to hit a target which moves unpredictably. So far the gunners seem to be randomly shooting within a broad range of the moving target and mostly way over the top. The gunners don't appear to be getting any more accurate. The solution appears to be to eliminate the veteran gunners who were furthest off target and bring in some new recruits.
The science can only be considered settled once you consistently hit the target. So why do warmists claim that it's job done already?”
“The military knew about the importance of analyzing information centuries before the foundations of modern science. They aren't persuaded by rhetoric, only cold hard facts. And their conclusion is? Climate change is as real as bullets.
The military analysis of the climate science can be summed up as: Houston - we have a problem!
“I learned at a taxpayer funded school that we can never be 100% certain of anything. For example: speedometers are not very accurate; vehicles don't always stop when you put your foot on the brake pedal; there is a random element in the motions of pedestrians.
Armed with that knowledge, what should I do if I'm driving at 50 mph and an anti-science politician steps in front of me? According to their own publicly-stated position on science I should observe the uncertainties in the driver-pedestrian systems interface and do nothing until I can be certain of the outcome of any attempt I might make at intervention in a natural dynamic process.”
“Back in the 1950s when I was at school, we used to call coal and oil 'bottled sunshine'. Like the Victorian scientists, we junior school kids understood that when nature took all that carbon out of the atmosphere and sequestered it, it changed the planet's entire biosphere.
In what way does our global scale liberation of carbon from its geological prison not cause changes?
As a junior school kid I wouldn't have understood words like 'sequestered' and biosphere'. But I completely understood the concept that nature's coal and oil production changed the face of the planet. Now, in my 60s, I understand the process more. For me the biggest single unanswered question in climate science is this: why do so many educated adults not understand something so simple that even a small child can easily grasp it?”
fumes on Apr 10, 2011 at 13:18:29
“''As a junior school kid I wouldn't have understood words like 'sequestered' and biosphere'.''
''..something so simple that even a small child can easily grasp it?''
“Scientists quote statements with sources.
Deniers repeat internet gossip with errors.
Who was it who said there has been no warming since 1995?
Asked in a BBC interview about the warming trend from 1995 to 2008 Professor Phil Jones replied to the effect that the warming did not quite reach the 95% significance level.
People who use the 'no warming since 1995' argument never tell their audience that the statement is about statistical uncertainty from 1995 to 2008.
Applying a statement made about statistics in a 2008 context to the years 2009, 2010 2011 etc. is patently absurd. One may as well cite 2008 population statistics as 'proof' that no babies have been born since then.
“"Obviously I slightly overstated the dearth of weather stations in the arctic."
There was no 'slight overstatement: your statement that there are no weather stations in the Arctic is now a matter of public record. When you find yourself in a hole: stop digging!
You cited a Steve Goddard article. I showed that he is not clued up about one of the most basic Arctic facts, hence - impliedly - he does not write about the arctic from a basis of knowledge. His article claiming an increase in volume is based on his not understanding that ice volume has declined due to declining age of Arctic ice. The claim is also contradicted by direct observation.
Here's a coldly logical argument against a 4 year period in which ice increased by 25%.
The ice increased by 25% and - despite many thousands of people watching the Arctic every single day and compiling records of ice extent - Steve Goddard was the only man on the entire planet who noticed the ice growing.
"Making a coherent, logical argument takes work. Ad hominem, strawmen and innuendo are the hallmarks of losers. If you had put a few minutes of thought into your comment I am sure you could come up with something far better than this. "
Oh, I do so agree. I have put a few years of research behind my comments. And you have put how many minutes?”
“'drivel' response to 'drivel' claim - a rebuttal:
"The field has been waterflooded for 14 years and was producing near its economic limit at the time this project was started. ... The results presented in this paper indicate that, without the DOE incentive program, the economics for this project would still be uncertain at this time. "
“The biggest machine ever built by humans is the global economy. Humans have never, ever built an infallible machine. Doing nothing to slow global warming - despite the scientific evidence - in case it hurts the economy is like doing nothing to slow the Titanic - despite ice warnings - in case it hurts the White Star Line's profits.
Wake up, world! Extreme weather will be knocking on your very own door real soon. Just keep pumping out that nice CO2 that your house plants thrive on - but be sure to stock up on bottled water and MREs.
Switching to renewables isn't going to destroy the global economy. But if we simply continue to let the CO2 juggernaut accelerate then the planet-wide changes in climate will destroy the global economy just as sure as ursine animals defecate in arboreal environments.”
jimboy71 on Apr 10, 2011 at 20:58:48
“The biggest machine we ever built was culture. The "economy" is simply one aspect of this information system that comprises ideology and technology.
When ideology ceases to cohere with reality, and technology is used not to freely communicate information that increases systemic progress in a sustainable manner, the whole system is stressed. When that system is global, it has global ramifications.
The warped ideology of modern capitalism states that the economy must grow exponentially in order to create ever increasing profits. This from a finite system (the planet). It can only carry on for so long before the entire system undergoes massive collapse.
The only question is, will it be a controlled demolition or something much worse.”
Genders on Apr 10, 2011 at 18:46:57
“Yup. ff. rooftop solar, offshore wind and waste bio char can and should provide all the world energy needs.”
hogtown on Apr 10, 2011 at 11:59:37
“"Doing nothing to slow global warming - despite the scientific evidence - in case it hurts the economy is like doing nothing to slow the Titanic - despite ice warnings - in case it hurts the White Star Line's profits."
It doesn't get truer (or plainer) than that. F&F”
Jim Schaal on Apr 10, 2011 at 10:59:44
“I agree with most of Your comments as stated and yes I am pro environment BUT...until the other countries begin cleaning up Their emissions..,the whole save the planet movement is applying a
undesirable throttle on our country and economy.
Based on the climate research of today CO2 is the major culprit of global warming, which may be correct.
Another cause of global warming is the Suns' influence on Our planet,
The radiation blasted threw space at the earth is not just One type... but many different frequencies of X rays and ultraviolet bands that have a direct impact on everything on Our planet.
To assume that the source of Our life... has so few influences on everything is incorrect.
So before We commit so much to CO2's reduction, I suggest We leave well enough alone, and concentrate resources on cleaning up the other man made chemicals that are really causing a environmental disasters.”
“No weather stations in the Arctic? How can anyone take you as a serious commenter with unfounded statements like that.
You obviously either do not know or do not care that the Arctic is home to millions of people who need weather reports for their daily lives. Where should they get their weather reports? From WUWT or from Arctic weather stations?
"The VOLUME of arctic sea Ice increased has increased 25% from May 2008 to May 2010 according to research done by Steven Goddard."
Steve Goddard, in his own blog, asks the question "How can Arctic ice get younger?"
If a person cannot understand how a population of ice floes of various ages can get younger then what sensible person will accept anything he says about volume.
The volume of Arctic ice has been in decline since 1850 and the decline is accelerating.