A recent blog post purports to offer “great questions and statements” about global warming. Actually, it’s a thinly veiled attempt to cast doubt, and not even a very sophisticated attempt at that. But no matter; I’ll answer the questions anyway.
1) Why cannot those climate models be run backwards?
They can. That’s one of the ways we test how well they perform. Typically a model will be run using estimated forcings for the last century and a half, then its output is compared to observations for that same period. The agreement between the “postdiction” of the models and the observed data is astoundingly good.
2) Why is Mars warming right along with earth? (Perhaps the Mars rover is pumping out CO2? Then again, there’s no atmosphere or greenhouse effect on Mars to trap the gas.)
I don’t know why Mars is warming. I haven’t even seen the evidence that it is, although I’ve noticed that global warming skeptics are all too eager to pronounce as fact global warming on a planet many millions of miles away, but are just as eager to pronounce as a hoax global warming on this planet right here. Which planet do you think has more reliable climate data?
By the way, Mars does have an atmosphere, and it does have a greenhouse effect since the martian atmosphere is mostly CO2.
3) What happens to the carbon “trapped” in trees when the trees are burned or die or decay?
When trees are burned, most of the carbon is oxidized to form carbon dioxide (CO2) which then enters the atmosphere. When they die and decay, most of the carbon is converted to other living things or processed by living things to create CO2 which again enters the atmosphere. A small fraction can be buried or frozen so that its carbon is “sequestered” — kept out of the atmosphere. However, botanical carbon can be released by burning the long-buried carbon compounds (oil, gas, and coal) or by melting the “permafrost” in which much of it is frozen.
4) Why was China exempted from the Kyoto Accords, when next year she will be the world’s #1 producer of so-called greenhouse gases?
China was classified as a “developing” country, and it was decided that the economies of developing countries were less able to bear the burden of greenhouse gas reductions, especially since they have a lot of “catching up” to do to get the same standard of living we in the developed countries enjoy. It is also argued that developing countries weren’t responsible for the problem we’ve got now; why should they pay for the problem we created?
IF next year China becomes the #1 emitter of greenhouse gases (the U.S. is currently #1), bear in mind that with a population of about 1.3 billion people, it’ll be producing about the same emissions as the U.S. with around 300 million. Who’s the more profligate emitter?
5) What did Lief Ericsson do about icebergs on his journey to Greenland? (Trick question, of course, there were no icebergs back then. Imagine if they suddenly appeared today — oh the panic!)
There were plenty of icebergs in Leif Ericsson’s day. Norse mariners dealt with them the same way they do today: avoid them.
6) Since Greenland was…um…green in Lief’s time, who’s to say that it’s present state is “natural”?
Greenland was not “green” in Lief’s time. It was not unlike it has been in the twentieth century, with some green at the edges especially in the south, but mostly a giant frozen sheet of ice. It’s most likely that it was named “Greenland” as a marketing ploy, to lure settlers by painting it as a hospitable land. For similar reasons, Iceland (which is a hospitable place due to geothermal heating) was probably named to discourage oversettlement, by painting it as an inhospitable land.
7) Why did the recent UN climate report slash in half the predicted level of sea rise? The IPCC’s new report has cut in half the prediction of sea level rise to a knee-dampening 17 inches. So why does Al Gore claim a whopping 20 to 30-FOOT — an order of magnitude 14 to 21 times larger than the UN…consensus?
Hmmm… maybe because that was the best estimate available, and unlike denialists, most climate scientists state what they believe to be the truth, rather than what makes “their side” look good or the “other side” look bad. As for Al Gore’s claim, he clearly stated that we’d have 20 ft. or more of sea level rise IF the Greenland ice sheet, or the West Antarctic ice sheet, collapses. If either one goes, we’ll have to deal with sea level rise of about 7 meters (23 feet).
8) Since far more people die of cold in the world than from heat, why do we never hear of the posit
I assume the question (which is incomplete) asks why we never hear of the positive impact of global warming. Maybe that’s because far more people die of drought, crop failure, flood, natural disaster, and disease, all of which will be on the rise due to global warming.
9) What happened to the ozone hole, AIDS, homelessness, CFCs, the pace movement, starving in Africa, nuclear disarmament and any number of other cause célèbres? Are these issues all solved, or is it just that we can never have any
Another incomplete question. Those other problems still exist. That we have lots of problems, doesn’t mean global warming isn’t one of them. Maybe the biggest one of all.
10) Why did I freeze my nether regions off walking across Manhattan this morning, when we’re told cold days in March are a thing of the past?
Now where did you get that information, that “cold days in March are a thing of the past?” This is a classic bit of illogic from denialists: to claim that global warming implies something which it most certainly does not, then show that the “something” isn’t happening.
11) Why, when someone sights a day as being a short bit of anecdotal evidence, do they not also realize that in the age of this globe, a year or twenty years or 100 years are similar blinks of an eye?
It’s the science called “statistics.” When you apply it to data analysis, you’ll soon discover that a single day’s temperature doesn’t pass the test for the establishment of a meaningful trend. But when you apply the science of statistics to the temperature record for the last 150 years, there is undeniably a trend which is statistically significant. When you analyze all the available clues about temperature over the last 2000 years, it becomes clear (and statistically significant) that the trend we’re seeing today is unlike those that have happened in the last several thousand years. One hundred years may be the “blink of an eye” on the cosmic timescale, but that doesn’t mean we don’t have enough data to determine meaningful trends, using statistical analysis.
12) When will Newsweek and TIME retract their articles reporting on “global cooling” from the 1970s — specifically Newsweek’s (and I love this) suggestion that we NUKE THE POLAR ICE CAPS.
Newsweek has already published a statement that their article was not only wrong, it wasn’t even an accurate representation of the science of the 1970s.
13) Why, when it’s hot do they say global warming and when it’s cold “climate change”? Is there ever just “weather”?
When it’s “so hot,” we don’t say “global warming.” In fact, this winter during December and January, when record-breaking warmth gripped the nation, the climate scientists at RealClimate (those global warming advocates) posted an article about how the warmth of a single day, a week, or even a month — even record-breaking warmth — cannot by itself be considered evidence of global warming. I believe they used the phrase, “Anything less than a full season is just weather.” And they made it clear that even a full season, unless it’s a super-record-breaker, is also just weather.
14) Why was no mention made of the fact that unseasonably cold weather exacerbated the recent tornadoes?
Did it? Are you an atmospheric scientist? I’m not — so I would never make such a claim unless I had the information from the most reliable sources (the peer-reviewed scientific literature). What’s your source for that information?
15) In 2005, we were told that hurricanes of Katrina-strength (although she was not particularly massive, historically, only in terms of damage. I know you don’t like links, but, I like to cite sources. Scientists do: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/2315076.html?page=4)) would become the norm and that the 2006 season would be even worse. How many hurricanes of any strength made landfall in the US last year? (hint, it’s less than one) As a bonus question, how many of significant strength formed?
Is that the best you can do for a scientific reference? Popular mechanics? We were not told by climate scientists that “hurricanes of Katrina-strength … would become the norm and that the 2006 season would be even worse.” This is another case of the “straw man” argument, claiming global warming implies something which it doesn’t. Current research indicates that hurricanes (tropical cyclones, to use a world-wide term) are likely to become stronger (on average) but no more numerous, so damage like that from Katrina might be a once-in-a-decade event rather than once-in-a-century.
And NOBODY said 2006 would be even worse. That’s just a lie. In fact 2006 was an “average” year — for the Atlantic ocean basin. If you lived in Asia or Australia, you’d be talking about how bad the 2006 season was.
16) Did the approximately 800 automobiles in 1900 cause the great Galveston hurricane which killed 6,000?
This question is so ridiculous it doesn’t merit a response. I have a question for the reader: is this the kind of thinking you want to be deciding our environmental policy?
17) Is it not always unseasonably hot or cold somewhere in the world, and isn’t there a chance we simply see it more because there are cameras everywhere and news organizations anxious to fill time and sell Velveeta?
Of course there are colder-than-normal and hotter-than-normal spots on earth, just about all the time. That’s why, in order reliably to establish that a global trend exists, we apply the science of statistics. Global warming isn’t just a number of coincidental but believable extremes — it’s a genuine, bona-fide, undeniable, statistically significant, and very dangerous trend.
18) Since Al Gore is a college drop out, why does his citing scientists he “respects” give added credence to a person’s scientific qualifications?
Al gore graduated with honors (cum laude) from Harvard University in June 1969. The question itself says quite a lot about how reliable your facts are.
19) How come every one of Gore’s ways to stop global warming, are available at Lowes — which just happens to be underwriting his campaign?
Oh, let’s see … maybe it’s because Gore’s suggestions are targeted at ordinary citizens and involve home improvement and energy efficiency — and that’s the business Lowes is in?
20) How come Mr. Gore purchases carbon credits in the form of buying stock in companies — the very companies he’s pushing others to buy from?
How empty is your belief, when you take to criticizing Gore for doing what he believes in?
21) Since “An Inconvenient Truth” is Paramount’s highest grossing film ever, and we are all told to conserve and reduce our lifestyles to fight global warming, how much is Mr. Gore giving of his cut to fight the issue?
An Inconvenient Truth is not even close to being Paramount’s highest grossing film ever. That honor goes to the film Titanic, which earned $1,845,034,188 (yes, over a billion dollars) for Paramount. An Inconvenient Truth earned $24,146,161, which makes it Paramount’s top-grossing documentary, a category which is well-known (except by you) to be a poor money-maker compared to feature films.
All of Gore’s proceeds from the film go to his nonprofit organization to fight global warming.
22) When, exactly, was this period of cleanliness before the automobile, when the streets of cities ran yellow and brown with the waste from horses?
Another rather stupid statement. Yes: stupid. To the reader: is this the quality of thought you want guiding our environmental policy?
23) What happened to the nuclear winter-like conditions Carl Sagan predicted if Saddam set Kuwait’s oil fields on fire? Everyone took the prediction as gospel, and likewise the insistence that the fires would burn for 20 years. Neither happened, and yet at the time, it was the scientific “consensus.”
It was not the scientific concensus. It was one idea from one man. It turned out to be wrong. Global warming is a scientific concensus; it is the belief of 99% of climate scientists, based on decades of research.
24) Why did the IPCC dump the much-ballyhooed “hockey stick graph”? Clearly, it’s because “skeptics” pointed out that the graphic — claming to illustrate that the earth is warmer than it has been in 1,000 years — ignored the medieval warm period and the Little Ice Age.
The “hockey stick” wasn’t “dumped,” it simply wasn’t necessary. Since the last IPCC report (in 2001) the case for global warming is so much stronger that it’s no longer necessary to include all the evidence. Also, the “hockey stick” (actually there are many, from many different research teams) does not ignore the medieval warm period or little ice age. It does show that they are tiny compared to the temperature change we’re experiencing today, and will experience in the next century.
25) Speaking of the Little Ice Age, why did it end, exactly — or to put a finer point on it, why did the globe warm THEN, and why is it not the same factor at play now?
No one knows for sure, but the most prominent theory is a slight increase in solar activity. The same factor is in play now; part (but only part) of the warming in the 1st half of the 20th century is due to an increase in solar activity. But again, the warming experienced THEN is small compared to what has happened lately, and what’s gonna happen SOON.
26) If the facts are so on his side, why did Mr. Gore back out of an interview with Denmark’s largest newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, and Bjorn Lomborg, author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist”?
Lomborg is not a scientist, he’s an economist. He’s also a well-known global warming denier. Perhaps Mr. Gore didn’t consider it worthwhile for dealing with such an important issue, to give credence or legitimacy to Lomborg. Just a guess — I don’t speak for Al Gore.
27) “An Inconvenient Truth” shows that scary 20-feet flooding of Florida, New York, Calcutta and Beijing. But the U.N. climate panel expects only a foot of sea-level rise over this century — and sea levels actually climbed that much over the past 150 years. Why the exaggeration and panic?
The danger is the collapse of the Greenland or West Antarctic ice sheets, either of which will lead to 7 meters sea level rise in a very short time. A number of glacier specialists have criticized the IPCC report for underplaying the likelihood of such a disastrous event, but IPCC policy is not to make statements that don’t represent a strong concensus.
28) Gore threatens an increase in malaria, specifically in Nairobi. In fact, the World Health Organization’s declares Nairobi malaria-free. More to the point, in the 1920s and ’30s, temperatures colder than today, and malaria epidemics occurred regularly.
If the 1920s and 30s were subject to malaria epidemics while modern times are malaria-free in Nairobi, I’d say that’s probably due to advances in the science of medicine. The threat of increase in disease from global warming is very real.
29) Gore ignores the 98% of Antarctica that has cooled over the past 35 years in favor of the melting 2%, and ignores that The U.N. panel predicts — by “consensus” one would assume, since no one can truly see the future — that the frozen continent’s ice mass will INCREASE in the next 100 years.
The IPCC does not predict that Antarctic ice mass will increase in the next 100 years. A much better question is, “Where did you get your ‘facts’?”
30) Gore laments the shrinkage of sea ice in the northern half of the globe, but conveniently ignores the inconvenient truth that it’s INCREASING in the southern half.
Again, where did you get your ‘facts’?
31) The UK Department of Health: “With winters becoming milder, there are likely to be up to 20,000 fewer cold-related deaths,” yet Gore focuses only on the 2,000 deaths per year he estimates from a hotter world.
With literally billions of people living within a meter of sea level, with the American midwest (in many ways the “breadbasket of the world”) in danger of turning into a desert, with the possible collapse of the ocean food chain due to acidification of the sea, with increased drought and flood, with stronger tropical storms, with increased disease and invasive species … we’d be fools to ignore the threat. Yes: fools. As for Gore estimating “2,000 deaths per year from a hotter world,” where did you get your ‘facts’?
32) The U.N. estimates that fighting this “danger” will cost us $553 trillion — that’s 553,000,000,000,000 — this century. Not only is that a burden placed on the people of the world, but it also requires those living in giant mansions like Mr. Gore to tell the vast majority of the world struggling in back-breaking poverty, “Sit right there and do not advance. Stay in the Stone Age.”
You may be stunned to find that I don’t believe you. Where did you get your ‘facts’?
31 responses so far ↓
Cathy // March 7, 2007 at 5:10 am |
Wow – this is getting interesting. I don’t have time to dispute all of your so-called “facts” tonight (I wasn’t the one who posted the questions to begin with – I’m simply an observer) but you asked for reliable facts about Gore’s education so here goes:
Gore’s undergraduate transcript from Harvard is riddled with C’s, including a C-minus in introductory economics, a D in one science course, and a C-plus in another. In his sophomore year at Harvard, Gore’s grades were lower than any semester recorded on Bush’s transcript from Yale. Moreover, Gore’s graduate school record – consistently glossed over by the press – is nothing short of shameful. In 1971, Gore enrolled in Vanderbilt Divinity School where he received F’s in five of the eight classes he took over the course of three semesters. Not surprisingly, Gore did not receive a degree from the divinity school. Nor did Gore graduate from Vanderbilt Law School, where he enrolled for a brief time and received his fair share of C’s.
[Response: What's your source for this information? I got the information that he graduated with honors from Harvard from Wikipedia. If his Harvard transcript is "riddled with C's" then how did he get a degree cum laude? It casts doubt on your claims.
And assuming your information is correct: so what? He is a graduate with honors from Harvard, and has been an honorable public servant. Character assassination is not only unethical, it's also completely irrelevant to the issue of the truth or falsehood of global warming.
If you want to dispute my "so-called facts," you'd better have references for your claims from the peer-reviewed scientific literature. As to whether or not you're up to it -- I'm skeptical.]
Cathy // March 7, 2007 at 6:02 am |
Wikipedia is your source? Anyone can submit false information to Wikipedia and suddenly it’s declared a “fact”!
The Washington Post was my source for Harvard. You won’t find it on their web site – you’ll have to check their archives. It was published prior to the 2000 election. Also, Bill Turque – “Inventing Al Gore” for the divinity school failure.
I’m assassinating no one’s character here! Just giving you some facts that were already published.
unitedcats // March 7, 2007 at 6:12 am |
Global warming deniers have pretty much entered the realm of 911 conspiracists or evolution deniers, it ’s pointless to argue with them. Time will tell, interesting post. JMO —Doug
Cathy // March 7, 2007 at 6:14 am |
The Post did say that he graduated cum laude, so Wikipedia was correct. I was also correct in my additional information. I’m not out to assassinate Al Gore, or to argue with you about his abilities in politics. Just wanted you and your readers to know that his “cum laude” degree also is followed by a “flunked out”.
Cathy // March 7, 2007 at 6:16 am |
Thanks for your time and conversation – I’m off to crank up my heat. It’s cold where I live and I have many more important issues to contemplate than global warming.
plum // March 7, 2007 at 8:12 am |
Conventional wisdom on Mars’ warming is that it’s caused by wobbles in its tilt. See the second page of this National Geographic article.
(This seems to be the article, incidentally, that has so many sceptics up in arms. Perhaps they didn’t click through to the second page.)
Nice point about the way sceptics are so quick to see global warming in other planets, when they spent decades denying it here on Earth. So often with right-wing authoritarian types, the conclusion predetermines the line of reasoning.
Global Warming Debate « Kyle Gebhart // March 7, 2007 at 10:27 am |
[...] March 7th, 2007 · No Comments For those interested – there is a thorough, thoughtful and patient set of answers to fillmore’s queries (i just love that word!) here. [...]
CraigM // March 7, 2007 at 10:38 am |
Quickly on mars warming. I hear this all the time. As far as I’m aware the evidence is that a section of the polar ice cap is melting. Why should this mean that there is GLOBAL warming on mars? You cant infer GLOBAL warming from a local event. I cant say that Earth is warming because one glacier somewhere on Earth melts.
I believe realclimate has already dealt with this issue. And…I believe (from memory) that orbital cycles may be the cause of mars caps melting. Anyway, its all an attempt to claim that the sun is the cause of warming here on Earth. They forget that the sun is being measured, and really has shown no trend for 50 years. The posts here on this blog regarding solar forcing shut that argument down well I think.
Cosmic rays? I’m not completely up with this, but it seems to be dodgy and speculative. My scant reading at the minute says that cosmic rays would have little effect on the martial atmosphere which is very different from ours (no clouds).
It’s all silly. There is warming on Earth. There is possibly warming on mars. OK. But its not right to then make the jump and conclude that each warming is caused by the same thing as far as I see. Which is when someone will jump in and say Pluto is warming too. We’ll, yeah, i’m not confident we know anything at all about Pluto.
kylegebhart // March 7, 2007 at 10:41 am |
tamino: thanks for the extensive response.
i’m basically an ‘undecided voter’ on the entire debate trying to hear both sides of the story – but what I’m really interested in is some of the most readable (accessible language for a non-scientist) scientific views that challenge global warming.
I’ve seen ‘the movie’ but am interested in a book, journal articles, etc. that challenge what I referred to as the prevailing consensus (your clear stance) Anything you would recommend?
i’d go light on ‘fillmore’ – obviously quite a few of the questions are inflammatory – but i’m all for everybody playing nice in cyberspace.
[Response: As you surmise, I'm clearly in the concensus camp, so I'm definitely the wrong person to ask for good works which challenge it. Unfortunately for real debate, the non-concensus literature I've seen is very shoddy work.
Also, it's difficult for most people to comprehend just how strong the "concensus" case really is. You might as well ask whether I could recommend good books or articles which challenge the theory of relativity!]
steeno // March 7, 2007 at 11:23 am |
Cathy pretty much said it all.
You said my post was a thinly veiled attempt to cast doubt but I believe yours is a thinly veiled attempt at trying to defend a lie. HA!
Anyways, I appreciate your response to my posts but your answers are strangly absent of facts.
steeno // March 7, 2007 at 11:25 am |
Actually Cathy was not doing a character attack.
She was simply stating the background of one of the leading global warming backers.
Plus, dont you think if Al Gore himself believed that Global Warming was as great of an issue as he is making it he would actually change his lifestyle?
Andrew Dodds // March 7, 2007 at 11:30 am |
Cathy -
Not that gore’s education has anything whatsoever to do with the science of global warming, but would this be your source? Your comment does have an uncanny similarity..
http://www.larryelder.com/Gore/goredubiousrecord.htm
Fielding Mellish // March 7, 2007 at 12:22 pm |
The situation apparently is that the former Vice President struggled with his first undergraduate major at Harvard (English), then excelled after he switched majors to Government. Under that scenario, you both would be correct on the Harvard experience. That sort of thing happens to only, oh, maybe a third of American undergraduates. As to those “great questions and statements” about global warming, they nearly qualify to be a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham.
steeno // March 7, 2007 at 3:10 pm |
Tamino –
In further reading your response to my post I greatly appreciate your response. Athough I do not agree with you 100% I still value you opinion.
I hope to learn more from you in the future on this topic and many other topics.
Be blessed!
Millard Fillmore // March 7, 2007 at 3:39 pm |
You have not “answered” the questions. You have “responded” to them, which are not one and the same. My sources are there if you have the courage to look for them — or is “open-mind” an oxymoron in the title? Your mind sounds quite snarkily closed on the subject. You’ve also started by saying “a thinly veiled attempt to cast doubt.” If you think asking 32 questions is thinly veiled, no wonder you’d believe something so absurd as Al Gore can control the weather. Thirty-two question marks! Question marks are the ultimate symbol of doubt. I wouldn’t use that many unless I was seeking to cast doubt, or tailoring a costume for Batman’s nemesis The Riddler. No, you know it’s not thinly veiled — but using that phrase casts doubt on my honest, and whispers in the ear of the reader that you alone are telling the truth. As for casting doubt on Gore’s character, it’s another one of these things said only by one side of the debate to shut up the other. No person on the right ever whines about their character being attacked. (A similar phrase to squash legitimate criticism alike is “questioning patriotism.” The next conservatism who is said to have his “patriotism questioned” will be the very first.) That being said, I will question the character of a man who — living in his giant mansion and flying all over the world — lies in a documentary to enrich himself while telling the poor of the world to sit in their miserable squalor. It’s not the job of the questioner to disprove the manmade global warming THEORY. The burden of proof is on those of you who wish to tell us it is fact. Al Gore is not a scientist. In fact, he’s not even a terribly smart man. As for his school record, I’ll leave these blogs with a single post September 2000 Boston Globe: “Gore’s graduate school record – consistently glossed over by the press – is nothing short of shameful. In 1971, Gore enrolled in Vanderbilt Divinity School where, according to Bill Turque, author of ‘Inventing Al Gore,’ he received F’s in five of the eight classes he took over the course of three semesters. Not surprisingly, Gore did not receive a degree from the divinity school. Nor did Gore graduate from Vanderbilt Law School, where he enrolled for a brief time and received his fair share of C’s.” It’s hardly irrelevant or an ad hominem attack to point this out, when we’re told this man’s evaluation of respect for scientists garners them with infalability. In the Sixties, we used to say “Question Authority,” folks. It’s still true today — even when former Sixties kids are the Authority.
[Response: Anybody who knows how to read can see that the questions were actually answered, except those that are so stupid they don't deserve answers. There are several of those, which speaks ill of him who posed them (I guess that would be you). But I suspect you don't really want answers. You want to insult those who believe global warming is a genuine threat, especially Al Gore.
Judging by the extraordinary naivete of your questions, your ignorance on the science of global warming is staggering. Yet in your position of ignorance you feel entitled to pose very "snarky" questions which are rooted in ridicule rather than reason. I'm not interested in checking your sources; I get my climate science from the peer-reviewed literature, not "Popular Mechanics," and I've already given you far more consideration than you deserve. As for failing to have an open mind, that description fits you so well I suggest you wear it.]
Millard Fillmore // March 7, 2007 at 3:50 pm |
Early flurry of killer tornadoes linked to cold winter
17:38 02 March 2007
NewScientist.com news service
Catherine Brahic
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn11303-early-flurry-of-killer-tornadoes-linked-to-cold-winter.html
Millard Fillmore // March 7, 2007 at 4:23 pm |
The UK Department of Health: “With winters… 32) The U.N. estimates that fighting this “danger
…
I would love a real, intelligent discussion on the manmade global warming theory, but really, if you’re going to just deliberately miss points — such as Mars does have an atmosphere when clearly the point is not one like earth — and demand I cite sources when I cite them right up front as THE UN says, etc, it’s quite pointless. It’s too bad science has become polticized and angry, and I say this as a scientist without lording it over anyone or demanding credentials. For conditions on Lief’s route, obvoiusly not the intention that there was no ice cube ever in the sea, and the differnece in sea ice, read: A Viking Voyage. W. Carter, Hodding, who replicated the voyage in 1997. Or, since that’s hard to do, just look up what someone who hates him might’ve typed on Wikipedia or keep putting “facts” in quotation marks. Also, you can claim climate models can run backwards but without jiggering they will not predict the little ice age or previous periods of warming and cooling. The earth is too complex, and no one understands it. We do know it’s always warmed and cooled, and even those who insist it’s manmade — as you admit, kudos — have had to revise or delete things like the hockey stick graph. It is wrong to say “IF” an ice sheet melts which no one is predicting, just as it would be wrong to say “if the moon hit into Manhattan…” and make a movie showing it as fact. No one is predicting that. As to a single corner of a planet warming, that’s precisely what people are doing by focusing on glaciers that naturally receede and grow back as “evidence.” Now, one more item — and I thank you for the space. The UK Telegraph: “Thick pack ice, the like of which has not been seen for decades, stretched into the western fjords as temperatures plummeted and a bitter wind blew in from -Greenland. The ice has proved a headache for fishermen, who have been unable to put to sea…” (Please not “The UK Telegraph” is what’s known as a “source.”)
[Response: Here's what you said about Mars: "Then again, there’s no atmosphere or greenhouse effect on Mars to trap the gas." I respond with, "By the way, Mars does have an atmosphere, and it does have a greenhouse effect." You retort, "if you’re going to just deliberately miss points — such as Mars does have an atmosphere when clearly the point is not one like earth ..."
Here's the REAL point: you're entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. But the facts don't support your desired result, so you seem willing to make up your own.
We agree on this much, regarding discussion between us on the subject of global warming, "it's quite pointless."]
Peaseblossom // March 7, 2007 at 5:25 pm |
Tamino, you’ve got a lot more patience than I’d ever have. Mad props to you.
There’s a collection of “laws” of Internet behavior, known as Jurisimprudence Laws (first and best known, of course, is Godwin’s Law). It’s an amusing read, to say the least. The idea of:
“Point.”
“Counterpoint.”
“You’re missing my point!” falls under a Jurisimprudence Law called The Law of Being on Point.
*chuckle* Didn’t have icebergs back then. Where do they get this stuff?
Tornadoes and Cold Temperatures? : Atmoz // March 7, 2007 at 6:59 pm |
[...] a response to a comment on Open Mind: MF: Why was no mention made of the fact that unseasonably cold weather exacerbated the recent [...]
Glen Raphael // March 7, 2007 at 9:14 pm |
On Gore’s grades, here’s the original Washington Post article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18
Kyle: to keep track of the /good/ skeptical literature you should be following Climate Audit. URL is: http://climateaudit.org
There’s a useful collection of resources and articles towards the bottom of the left side of the main page. (Look for the labels: Links, Articles, Weblogs and Resources, Favorite posts.)
CraigM // March 8, 2007 at 3:43 am |
Back to global warming on mars. There is a lot I could say, but it’s already been said. So i’ll just post two links.
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/theres-global-warming-on-mars-too.html
^^This place should be a first stop for anyone confused about denialist claims regarding AGW (it’s approved by http://www.realclimate.org ). Above is a simple, easy to read response to the claim that there is warming on mars. If you browse around you’ll find a response to the claim that gweeenland was weelly gweeen too. Worth a look.
And here’s realclimate’s discussion of global warming on mars:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192
guthrie // March 8, 2007 at 2:44 pm |
I have read Jared Diamond’s “Collapse” recently.
With regards to Icebergs up near Greenland, I seem to recall that there were sufficient of them to make trading trips somewhat hazardous, especially inshore where the bergs could block the fiords outlets to the ocean. Eventually when things cooled slightly there were so many icebergs that noody from Norway bothered to go sailing up that way, since access to the settlements was so restricted.
britandgrit // March 8, 2007 at 6:48 pm |
Hi tamino,
I miss your visits since we moved.
Oh, and Al Gore did flunk (or drop, I can find references for both) out of graduate school. I can’t recall which one, wait (praise Google), it was Vanderbilt, possibly because he was more interested in Tipper than his classes.
the Grit
[Response: Alas, while we should be discussing what can be done to avoid environmental disaster without inviting economic disaster, instead we're pondering whether Al Gore dropped out of Vanderbilt because he was more interested in romancing his future wife than studying for his mid-terms.
I continue to use the tag surfer, and I'll "drop in" from time to time.]
John Cross // March 8, 2007 at 7:06 pm |
Millard Fillmore: I am not sure I see the nuance between answered and responded. I do see that Tamino responded to your questions / statements and explained what was wrong with them. For example in #7 you have not considered that the timeframe for the IPCC is different than the time frame that AG was talking about.
In light of Timino’s comments above, are there any statements that you are willing to retract? If not, why not?
[Response: After the last round of exchanges, I recieved some rather nasty comments from Millard which prompted me to use the "delete" button. This is not a site for pointless argument, and I think further comments from Millard would be pointless.]
John Cross // March 8, 2007 at 9:37 pm |
Humm, I can’t say I am surprised. Feel free to delete my previous comment if you wish (and this one of course).
As an aside, in my experience, people like Fillmore can never retract a statement they have made. It is my acid test about whether the argument will be interesting and/or useful.
kylegebhart // March 9, 2007 at 1:28 am |
thanks for the tips – i just like to hear two sides of the story before weighing in – and though the scientific consesus seems to be growing increasingly universal – my innate skepticism demands i hear the other side of the spin (though unfortunately it tends to be inflammatory).
Eli Rabett // March 9, 2007 at 4:45 pm |
Hi Tamino, climate models are not run backwards, they are run with past forcings as deduced from paleo proxys. Thus they are run forward in time starting from past positions. Their predictions can be compared to past climate (which is not very well known). The weakness of this is that past forcings (solar, land use, etc.) are also not very well known, and probably one needs to use an ensemble of forcings. For periods where forcings are better known (1850- today) the models do a very good job, to the point where one can seriously ask whether the models or the data are better before 1900.
[Response: Indeed, thanks for the correction. One might argue that they *can* be run backwards -- but to my knowledge this has never been done, and you've certainly characterized the actual situation correctly.]
Eli Rabett // March 9, 2007 at 9:58 pm |
Hi, allow me to comment on #7. There are two mechanisms that control sea level, the first is the expansion (contraction) of water as global temperature increases (decreases). This is pretty well understood.
The second is what happens to the rate of melting of the ice caps and shelfs in Greenland and Antartica (most other ice sheets are small change) as temperatures change. At the time of the TAR it was thought that the response of the ice sheets was well enough known to estimate this and that the process would take hundreds of years under the various warming scenerios.
Please understand that the question about what the ULTIMATE sea level rise would be for a particular temperature scenerio is well known, and that Gore is absolutely right when he says that if the global temperature goes up 5 C or so, ice caps will melt and the sea level rise will be 20-30 feet. The real issue is WHEN this will happen, e.g. how fast.
Recent (within 2-3 years) measurements have shown that our understanding of ice sheet behavior is incomplete, and that the Greenland ice sheet is moving into the sea at a much FASTER rate than was assumed for the TAR. Thus the AR4 summary said, hey wait, lets take this second part out of our estimate and invest a lot more time and effort into trying to understand ice sheet dynamics.
Thus, the major threat is no longer included in the estimate of sea level rise, because we simply don’t know enough about it, except that it is a very serious issue. You can hear Jim Hansen talk about this by following this link
Eli Rabett // March 10, 2007 at 4:44 pm |
Craig asks a good question: Quickly on mars warming. I hear this all the time. As far as I’m aware the evidence is that a section of the polar ice cap is melting. Why should this mean that there is GLOBAL warming on mars? You cant infer GLOBAL warming from a local event. I cant say that Earth is warming because one glacier somewhere on Earth melts.
The answer has to do with the fact that, for all practical purposes Mars does not have an atmosphere (the atmospheric pressure at the surface is low 7 mbar in winter, 9 in summer, the Earths is 1 bar at the surface, a mbar is a thousandth of a bar) and is mostly CO2 with a trace of water. That is a variation of 30% or so between summer and winter. melting the poles will inject more CO2 and probably a relatively high amount of water vapor…..and then you get an enhanced greenhouse effect.
In that case the forcing is orbital, and the feedback is polar melting releasing greenhouse gases, much as what is thought to have happened in the ice ages, where the melting of the ice caps due to orbital changes (Milankovitch cycles), resulted in a release of CO2 trapped in the ice, permafrost and the oceans (warm coke effect).
Today we have taken over for the Celestrial Mechanic, and just simply dumped a bunch of CO2 in the atmosphere. Same effect.
Steve Bloom // March 10, 2007 at 10:05 pm |
Just to mention that the paleo modeling efforts appear to be making great progress. See here regarding the last two thousand years (and note that this pretty well vindicates the MBH “hockey stick”) and here regarding the glacial cycles (they seem to have things pretty well nailed, although they avoided dealing with the mid-Pleistocene transition).
BTW, regarding the HS and the TAR, the problem was never with the study itself but with the emphasis placed on it; IOW, it was used as a symbol of the extent of our knowledge about climate. One can argue about whether it was a good idea to do that, but the inevitable result was six years of trench warfare over the details of a single, relatively early paper that was never very important in terms of the main conclusions of the TAR. Another benefit of using the HS in that way (recalling that the great emphasis was in the aptly-named Summary for *Policymakers*) was to implicitly answer what might be called the first ignorant question about climate, i.e.: How do we know this kind of thing isn’t a common event in climate history? I say ignorant because of course the key point is that even if such temp excursions were found to be relatively common, the cause and rate of the present warming is unique. Very fortunately the HS debate is mostly behind us now, and even the Climate Audit crowd has moved on to attacking the surface record and the models (although now it’s mostly just for their own amusement; they lack the expertise to engage on the models and Phil Jones et al are pretty much free to ignore them on surface temp issues.)
inel // August 1, 2007 at 5:57 am |
Dear tamino,
Can you and your knowledgeable readers help me get a better understanding of Atlantic tropical storm forecasts, please? I began by noticing the Met Office forecast numbers for the 2007 hurricane season are lower than those provided by scientists at NOAA CPC/NHC/HRD/HPC. Then I read about the Met Office’s relatively new methodology: it is interesting and quite different from that of traditional tropical storm forecasting systems.
I would appreciate some background history, especially to the forecasting of sea surface temperatures. The Met Office predicts North Atlantic SSTs cooling while NOAA and other forecasters emphasise SSTs warming (hence storms increasing) for this 2007 season. I have no idea how reliable tropical storm forecasts have been in previous years, nor whether the Official numbers published by NHC would include these new-kid-on-the-storm-block Met Office forecasts.
This is what I have discovered so far today.