shopping cart CART ITEMS: -
| CHECKOUT
Conferences Series Events
SPACE   |   EVOLUTION   |   PHYSICS   |   SOCIAL SCIENCES   |   NATURAL SCIENCES   |   DNA   |   PSYCHOLOGY   |   BIOTECH   |   MEDICINE   |   ANTHROPOLOGY   |   ASTRONOMY
INTERNET   |   NEW MEDIA   |   START-UPS   |   PERSONAL TECHNOLOGY   |   WIRELESS   |   COMPUTING   |   ENGINEERING   |   CEOS
RELIGION   |   GAMING   |   FILM   |   FASHION   |   SEX   |   PHILOSOPHY   |   EDUCATION   |   HISTORY   |   ARTS   |   MUSIC   |   TRAVEL   |   PHOTOGRAPHY
Watch Now

A REALLY Inconvenient Truth: Dan Miller

73
Likes
1
Dislikes
RATE
93,257 Views

  • Info
  • Bio
  • Chapters
  • Highlights
  • Transcript
  • Download
  • More
Please or register to post a comment.

Page 7 of 12 « First 56 7 89 Last »
Lloyd Burt Avatar
Lloyd Burt
Posts: 14
Posted: 11.02.09, 11:52 PM
LOL, call me names but you've lost. It doesn't matter if you have a little brainwashed love-in (sorry, worry-in) here with these guys. There is not sufficient feedback left at any temperature range that the suggested forcing could reach to do what he says. He is demonstrably wrong and apparently just lacks the common sense to catch the error (not unlike yourself).

There is not enough ice albedo feedback available including the greenland and antarctic ice sheets...to in conjunction with CO2...raise temperature high enough to melt the greenland and antarctic ice sheets in the first place.

The world is already a wet world with water tying up 30% of the earth's energy budget as latent heat...I don't see that share going up by very much. Mind you the difference between northern hemisphere rainfall in the glacial/interglacial period was huge...now THERE was some potential for feedback (now almost fully realized).

Ironically the only sources left for substantial feedback would involve the world becoming better. Africa and australia could become greener like they were during the holocene optimum. Tree lines could extend into what is now tundra. These are things that are good for wildlife.

Also, if you want to claim desertification in a hotter, drier world you run into a substantial problem...deserts are high albedo, especially in the tropics. They even extend their reach through dust albedo and cloud nucleation. Oh, you also lose a disproportionate amount of the water vapor feedback for that region.

As I keep saying, you just can't get there (4C as a minimum that the guy claims) from here (these low amounts of forcing and feedbacks). The only way we MIGHT be able to get there if Africa, Australia and all the tundra of the world was covered in trees...but that's not the kind of apocalyptic world you're talking about, more a tropical paradise with increased land, water and food availability.
Permalink
ClimateCriminal Avatar
ClimateCriminal
Posts: 17
Posted: 11.02.09, 10:24 PM
Confusing
diziizle
  1. Your post is confused me.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by diziizle
    He talks about Greenland and Antartica losing it ice when in fact it has been thickening in both places.
    and
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by diziizle
    Dude, have you been to Greenland? 'Cuz I have. Don't look like it's falling into a deep freeze to me.
  2. Quote:
    Originally Posted by diziizle
    (basically, if you can cherry pick observations, so can I
    Unlike the Lloyd Burt troll, I don't cherry-pick.
  3. I didn't find anything about Greenland from the link http://www.sanaldizi.net/sanaldizi_kategori-3143.html, but I can't understand the language in which the page is written.
  4. Quote:
    Originally Posted by diziizle
    My personal observation and the general consensus of the people I met was along the lines of "boy the ice is retreating awfully fast." Looking at the radar .., and satellite data, you see that even in years like 2008 when the ice recovers to some extent, it is thinner and there is more first year ice. The multi-year core of the ice pack is in consistent decline.
    Your post about Arctic ice is in agreement with my understanding of the science. I have no dispute with the science. By science I mean what the scientific community means by science. i.e. science that is peer-reviewed and published in a web of science journal.
  5. I suspect your post is directed at someone else! Perhaps the Lloyd Burt troll?
Permalink
diziizle Avatar
diziizle
Posts: 2
Posted: 11.02.09, 04:52 PM
He talks about Greenland and Antartica losing it ice when in fact it has been thickening in both places.

Dude, have you been to Greenland? 'Cuz I have. Don't look like it's falling into a deep freeze to me.

I haven't been to the antarctic, but I was in the arctic for long periods of time in 2007 and 2008. Strong winds blowing the ice south? Then how come the ice edge was further north? My personal observation and the general consensus of the people I met was along the lines of "boy the ice is retreating awfully fast." Looking at the radar <a href="http://www.sanaldizi.net/sanaldizi_kategori-3143.html" title="kahramanlar izle ">kahramanlar izle</a> and satellite data, you see that even in years like 2008 when the ice recovers to some extent, it is thinner and there is more first year ice. The multi-year core of the ice pack is in consistent decline.

(basically, if you can cherry pick observations, so can I
Permalink
Lloyd Burt Avatar
Lloyd Burt
Posts: 14
Posted: 10.27.09, 12:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyAstro
For those of you reading these comments who are confused about the claim that the Earth is cooling, not warming, it is simply not true. The last 10 years as a whole have been the warmest 10 years in recorded history. Period.

There is a relevant news story out today. The Associated Press evaluated the claims that the Earth is cooling.
Oh, I'm sorry...was this supposed to support YOUR position? They asked them to see if there was a trend in very noisy data. Obviously they're not going to go out on any kind of limb with that. On the other hand you are posting in this comment section in which you are claiming that it is an accelerating upward trend. This is problematic for someone such as yourself...trying doggedly to support the inept maker of this video...clinging to the notion like a little baby when its mother tries to take away something the baby isn't supposed to have.

So correct me if I'm wrong here but is "no trend" .45C+ per decade or not? I didn't think it was. Was the warming so far "unprecedented"? Well if that's the case then natural variation can't possibly cover up your .45C/decade since the "unprecedented" warming was only a little over half that amount.

So there you go...a bunch of hand waving to divert attention because your only evidence goes in the wrong direction to support this video. It would require strong feedback to cause substantial warming and unfortunately there's nothing left to be an ACTUAL tipping point in the temperature ranges suggested. Sea ice melting entirely in the summer constitutes a level point of a step, not the rapidly increasing point. We've got no powerful, nonlinear feedbacks in this temperature range.

Ironically there's only one good positive feedback possible and it flies in the face of your "warmer=harmful" mentality....the greening of equatorial africa is the only available step in this temperature range. It could indeed cause a step change toward warming. It would stop dust albedo from the desert and greatly diminish albedo of the African continent ...but it would also be one of the best things to happen to Africa since the Holocene optimum.
Permalink
DannyAstro Avatar
DannyAstro
Posts: 21
Posted: 10.27.09, 12:19 AM
For those of you reading these comments who are confused about the claim that the Earth is cooling, not warming, it is simply not true. The last 10 years as a whole have been the warmest 10 years in recorded history. Period.

There is a relevant news story out today. The Associated Press evaluated the claims that the Earth is cooling.

Quote:
In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time.
Quote:
"The last 10 years are the warmest 10-year period of the modern record," said NOAA climate monitoring chief Deke Arndt. "Even if you analyze the trend during that 10 years, the trend is actually positive, which means warming."
The AP sent expert statisticians NOAA's year-to-year ground temperature changes over 130 years and the 30 years of satellite-measured temperatures preferred by skeptics and gathered by scientists at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Statisticians who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880.

Saying there's a downward trend since 1998 is not scientifically legitimate, said David Peterson, a retired Duke University statistics professor and one of those analyzing the numbers.

Identifying a downward trend is a case of "people coming at the data with preconceived notions," said Peterson, author of the book "Why Did They Do That? An Introduction to Forensic Decision Analysis."
Read the entire article for more information on how skeptics claim the Earth is cooling and why they are wrong.

It does take a certain amount of hutzpah to claim the warmest 10 years in recorded history represents a cooling trend. For those who need a definition of hutzpah, it is usually defined by example: a child who kills his parents then asks the judge for leniency because he is an orphan.
Permalink
Lloyd Burt Avatar
Lloyd Burt
Posts: 14
Posted: 10.26.09, 02:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClimateCriminal
Lloyd Burt
What part of I'm not going to respond further to your repeated fabrications, do you not understand?
Who cares about you. You're a lost cause...a brainwashed sheep worshiping your little prophet Al Gore and soaking up his global warming message even as his speaking engagements get snowed out.

Quote:
You can cherry-pick and misrepresent the science as much as you like, but it does not make your bogus and unsubstantiated claims true.
Yours is the side the cherry picks and somehow doesn't lose tenure. Yours is the side that is has been citing higher and higher maximum temperatures...even as the temperatures went the other way. You don't just cherry pick...you fabricate and lie.

Quote:
If your claims were true, you should write them up and submit them to Nature for peer-review and publication? If published you could win a Nobel Prize, but I wouldn't clear a space for it just yet!

The answer is of course that the drivel you post won't get past expert review. The target for your pseudo-scientific garbage is the gullible public, which is why you post it here, rather than in the scientific literature.
Yes, we can see how much one's achievements count...just look at all obama has done. I'd honestly say Al Gore deserved a prize more. Even though he misrepresented the truth and outright lied...at least he did something.


Quote:
How much are you paid for this?
Have you noticed that just about all of your "evidence" is a logical fallacy? You say more people believe your side. You attack the individuals. You point to times with radically different conditions (ice age) and say that sensitivity must be the same now. You even cite FAILED models as your proof...how stupid can you possibly be?

See here's the difference between you and me...I would at least believe and admit it was a problem if there were significant warming (say...over 1C/century). Unfortunately we have proof that YOU won't admit to lower sensitivity even if the world showed no signs of high sensitivity (because it hasn't) and even if it started cooling (because it has). I think the real question that should be asked is...who's paying YOU?
Permalink
ClimateCriminal Avatar
ClimateCriminal
Posts: 17
Posted: 10.26.09, 10:51 AM
Lloyd Burt

What part of I'm not going to respond further to your repeated fabrications, do you not understand?

You can cherry-pick and misrepresent the science as much as you like, but it does not make your bogus and unsubstantiated claims true.

If your claims were true, you should write them up and submit them to Nature for peer-review and publication? If published you could win a Nobel Prize, but I wouldn't clear a space for it just yet!

The answer is of course that the drivel you post won't get past expert review. The target for your pseudo-scientific garbage is the gullible public, which is why you post it here, rather than in the scientific literature.

How much are you paid for this?
Permalink
Lloyd Burt Avatar
Lloyd Burt
Posts: 14
Posted: 10.26.09, 06:02 AM
Here's the problem that somehow escapes everyone's attention. During the ice age there is a HUGE amount of ice far closer to the equator and (if you'll bother to check) vast tracts of desert across much of eurasia. The feedback at the end and start of the ice age IS high.

This is why the temperature goes up and down so abruptly during the periods between AND the reason people make the assertion that most feedbacks in nature are weak to negative. Strong positive feedbacks act to switch themselves all the way on or off. They leave the affected systems with little stability during the periods of high feedback.

Currently however, it's low. In fact, its likely negative UNTIL we cross the threshold of somewhere over 4C total anomaly. Its a bit of a chicken and egg issue in that to get to 4C we'd need high feedback but we're not there, so we won't have enough feedback to get there. The remaining amounts of ice are far too small to provide significant feedback over the temperature ranges involved.
Permalink
ClimateCriminal Avatar
ClimateCriminal
Posts: 17
Posted: 10.24.09, 11:13 PM
It is perfectly clear that the message Dan Miller presents isn't undermined by the fact that he isn't a climate scientist. I'm sure that you would find a similar bogus pretext to make effectively similar claims even if 99% of all climate scientists made the same claims. You would be pointing to the usual suspects, the industry shills: Michaels; Singer; Ball; Balling; etc. and make the point that science doesn't know everything.

As I mentioned previously a considerable number of climate scientists consider the 4 degree plus scenario is quite possible and perhaps rather more.

The Environmental Change Institute International Climate Conference
www.eci.ox.ac.uk/4degrees/index.php


I realise that your point wasn't answered by my earlier reply. But of course it is perfectly clear that you aren't interested in the scientific truth! You are clearly one of those individuals who is not interested in the actual science. Otherwise you would be reading it! Instead you are intent in arguing the anti-science of the vested interests in blog posts.

Corresponding with you is like:

http://tinyurl.com/dffhgv

and

http://tinyurl.com/y8hdhqe

I choose option three!
Permalink
ClimateCriminal Avatar
ClimateCriminal
Posts: 17
Posted: 10.24.09, 11:04 PM
Climate sensitivity from empirical observations
Lloyd Burt
There have been a number of studies that calculate climate sensitivity directly from empirical observations, independent of models.
Lorius 1990 examined Vostok ice core data and calculates a range of 3 to 4°C. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../347139a0.html

Hoffert 1992 reconstructs two paleoclimate records (one colder, one warmer) to yield a range 1.4 to 3.2°C.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../360573a0.html

Hansen 1993 looks at the last 20,000 years when the last ice age ended and empirically calculates a climate sensitivity of 3 ± 1°C.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1993/...sen_etal_1.pdf

Gregory 2002 used observations of ocean heat uptake to calculate a minimum climate sensitivity of 1.5.
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/reference/b...regory0201.pdf

Chylek 2007 examines the period from the Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene transition. They calculate a climate sensitivy range of 1.3°C and 2.3°C. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...x%C5%9Ehop.Com

Tung 2007 performs statistical analysis on 20th century temperature response to the solar cycle to calculate a range 2.3 to 4.1°C. http://www.amath.washington.edu/rese.../solar-jgr.pdf

That CO2 lags and amplifies temperature was actually predicted [over a decade before ice core records were accurate enough to confirm a CO2 lag] in 1990 in a paper The ice-core record: climate sensitivity and future greenhouse warming*by Claude Lorius (co-authored by James Hansen): The paper also notes that orbital changes are one initial cause for ice ages.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1990/...orius_etal.pdf


You seem to believe that uncertainty is reason for inaction. The exact reverse is true!
I'll spell it out: uncertainty is every reason for great caution!

Would you willingly walk across a minefield if there was 'only' a 25% chance of having your manhood blown off; a 12% chance of losing a leg; 5% chance of being quadraplegic; and 1% of dying? I think that you would be very reluctant, especially if there was a choice of not crossing the minefield.

Your arguments are fatuous. How much does the coal industry pay you to lie?

Climate Sensitivity Uncertainty and the Need for Energy Without CO2 Emission
Caldeira et al. 2003
Permalink
Page 7 of 12 « First 56 7 89 Last »
Advertisement
NO ADS + DOWNLOADS + HQ VIEWING
UPGRADE TO FORA.tv PLUS
JOIN NOW >>

Recommended

Sylvia Earle on the Oceans Sylvia Earle on the Oceans
00:00:00 min | 1,911 Views
Green Buildings: Best Practices from Switzerland Green Buildings: Best Practices from Switzerland
00:04:07 min | 578 Views
Maya Lin's 'What Is Missing' Maya Lin's 'What Is Missing'
00:31:42 min | 9,822 Views
Stewart Brand: Rethinking Green Stewart Brand: Rethinking Green
01:33:38 min | 37,653 Views
Food Security and Climate Change Food Security and Climate Change
01:37:01 min | 8,028 Views

Get Our Free Newsletter

Advertisement