But these are not tidal rivers. The impact of any rise in the oceans would not be seen in rivers in Central Europe. I don't think you want to die on this hill.
I simply used tidal rivers as one example to illustrate a point, but the principle isn't confined to that. For instance, the Sammamish river empties into Lake Washington. Before the lake was lowered, the river used to be navigable by ferry boat but after the lake was lowered that simultaneously lowered the Sammamish river, rendering it unnavigable by ferry boat, since it no longer had sufficient depth to clear the draft.
Yeah and we've all pointed out how whatever way you look like at it. Your point is an idiotic one that doesn't refute the evidence for sea level rise or climate change.
Uh, rolo, what's this "we all" talk? The only person in this thread that's attempted to make a counterargument worth responding to is Grifman. All you've done is scoff.
Also, you're acting like a village atheist to dismiss climate change skepticism as "idiotic" and "absolutely stupid" when there are reasonable arguments for climate change skepticism including by experts like these:
It's possible the arguments are wrong, but they're hardly "absolutely stupid" and "idiotic". At least you never bother to show how they are stupid and idiotic. You just assume they are so far.
Lake Washington is 16 feet above sea level. I fail to see how that is even closely relevant to Central Europe. You keep using inapplicable examples. Please explain how sea level rise would impact the level of rivers in Central Europe over 115 meters above sea level.
i) Are you suggesting rivers have a uniform elevation?
ii) With respect to my illustration, the relevant comparison isn't how much Lake Washington is above sea level but the relationship between Lake Washington and the Sammamish river.
As the other commenters have noted, this is a really dumb post on the level of those Boomer politicians who say "Global warming? It snowed yesterday!". Try and cast aside the knee-jerk partisanship which naturally arises from the beliefs commonly associated with climate change (leftism, atheism).
At least to my knowledge, speaking to this particular post as well as climate change in general:
1. Hardly anyone denies climate change is occurring. However, the more pertinent questions are over the nature of man-made climate change, the significance of its effects, and its power and scope.
2. On the one hand, man-made climate change proponents argue man-made climate change leads to (among other things) water levels rising. This is partly evidenced by increased flooding in certain regions of the world.
On the other hand, man-made climate change proponents argue man-made climate change leads to (among other things) water levels lowering. This is partly evidenced by increased droughts in certain regions of the world.
3. Are these apparent inconsistencies reconcilable on man-made climate change grounds or is it more of a "heads I win, tails you lose" situation?
4. Are man-made climate change proponents arguing from man-made climate change to floods and droughts or are man-made climate change proponents arguing from floods and droughts to man-made climate change?
5. Are these correlations or causations?
6. Assuming man-made climate change is occurring, which is plausible, does it have the power and scope to cause global river flooding and droughts?
Indeed, does man-made climate change have the power and scope to cause the kinds of apocalyptic scenarios often depicted in man-made climate change literature (e.g. the Earth will be rendered uninhabitable by most animals except for the most hardy like cockroaches and certain bacteria and viruses; millions of humans will die and millions will be displaced; humans will eventually become extinct)?
7. Stepping back, is man-made climate change leading to such effects falsifiable in principle? If so, how so? Is anything consistent with man-made climate change?
Speaking for myself, I suspect the debate over man-made climate change is a tempest in a teapot. I suspect much of the debate over man-made climate change will be resolved when there's a widely used clean renewable energy source over and against using the combustion of fossil fuels, which are the primary contributors to greenhouse gases. That may take some time, but it seems to be the way our society is moving anyway.
8. How do we distinguish between man-made climate change (greenhouse gas emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels) causing global flooding vs. natural climate change (climate change absent man-made causes) causing droughts and global flooding and droughts? How do we factor out the man-made climate change in a world that's already inhabited by humans burning fossil fuels?
Epistle of Dude. You'll need to ask the experts. The website Skeptical Science is a very valuable resource to help layman learn about climate change and the science behind it.
The overwhelming majority of the experts are on the side of climate change.Furthermore the evidence is solidly in their camp as well. There's no point in entertaining alchemy when you have chemistry. In the same way. If the supposed "controversy" over global warming has been one sided it's because only one side has the lion's share of objective evidence. Simple as that.
"The overwhelming majority of the experts are on the side of climate change."
Truth, including scientific truth, isn't decided by majority vote.
"Furthermore the evidence is solidly in their camp as well."
So you keep saying, but experts on the climate change skepticism side say the exact opposite.
"There's no point in entertaining alchemy when you have chemistry."
So you think being skeptical about climate change is equivalent to subscribing to alchemy? This is just more dismissive invective from you, in line with your earlier calling the other side's position "idiotic" and "absolutely stupid". You're not behaving any differently than atheists and evolutionists who dismiss creationism as pseudo-science or worse. When they say things like one shouldn't teach creationism any more than one should teach astrology instead of astronomy, but offer scant (if any) argument for why they think so.
"In the same way. If the supposed "controversy" over global warming has been one sided it's because only one side has the lion's share of objective evidence. Simple as that."
Um, no, I didn't say the climate change debate as a whole is "one-sided". I said you recommending the website of a known climate change proponent is one-sided.
By contrast, I gave you a link that lists experts on both sides of the debate. And the debate is hardly "one-sided" if there are experts including scientists on both sides.
Speaking for myself, from what I've seen, I do think man-made climate change is occurring, but I don't think it has the power and scope most man-made climate change proponents argue it has, though I'm open to being mistaken.
Moreover, I'm not at all dismissive toward the other side like you obviously are. I think they hold a reasonable and defensible position, even if I don't completely agree with their position.
So basically you're a lukewarmer. Look I know your experts and their arguments. Climate scientists have openly discussed and addressed their arguments. There's a simple reason the website you linked to could only find 5 experts on the opposing side instead of 10 on the affirmative side. I'm not dismissive and the climate science community as a whole isn't dismissive we're just waiting for much better evidence and argumentation from the supposedly opposing side.
But do you? You've been saying so, but you never demonstrate it. You're long on assertions, but short on arguments.
"Climate scientists have openly discussed and addressed their arguments."
Once again, so you say, but saying so doesn't make it so.
"There's a simple reason the website you linked to could only find 5 experts on the opposing side instead of 10 on the affirmative side."
1. My pointing out even a single expert is really all that's necessary to rebut your claims about the position being "absolutely stupid" and "idiotic" and akin to "alchemy" because I wasn't arguing for its truth, but for its reasonableness.
2. However, as far as the truth is concerned, like I said, truth isn't decided by majority. It just takes one person to be right even if the entire scientific establishment is against the person. That's science in action too.
3. Unless you're the author of the article, or perhaps the editor of the site, you have no idea why they picked 10 vs. 5.
"I'm not dismissive and the climate science community as a whole isn't dismissive we're just waiting for much better evidence and argumentation from the supposedly opposing side."
You claimed that the position was "absolutely stupid" and "idiotic" and akin to "alchemy" without providing any argument whatsoever.
I'm not going to do your homework for you. I linked you to a very good website that can help you get familiar with the scientific evidence and even gives you citations to read the peer reviewed scientific literature yourself. It's that simple.
All you’ve done in this thread is act like a village atheist who simply “knows” God doesn’t exist and who sneers at anyone who thinks otherwise as living in the dark ages (e.g. practicing “alchemy”). You’ve got a lot of attitude, but nothing to back it up with.
And you attempt to mimic a lot of Steve’s coined catchphrases, but your imitation is more faltering than flattering.
Again, that’s a question a teacher asks a student or a parent asks a child. The fact that you’re the one asking illustrates your condescending attitude, which has been in evidence ever since you dismissed the opposing viewpoint as “idiotic”, “absolutely stupid”, and like “alchemy”. What makes you think you’re a teacher?
The point of the post was never to marshall a full-blown case against the global warming scam. I'm unimpressed by appeals to scientific consensus when the "science" is so politicized and dissidents are blacklisted.
I didn't just appeal to scientific consensus but also the abundance of objective evidence. We all understand your post wasn't a full blown case against global warming but it's still illustrative of your lack of careful reasoning and understanding when it comes to this and other issues.
Steve just admit you made an ass of yourself and be done with it. Don't worry your other posts on various subjects from biblical studies to evolution are offer a mountain of support.
Rolo, just admit you weren’t part of any “we” as if you were part of a group of people who pointed out anything noteworthy in this thread. The only person who made any somewhat coherent counterargument in this thread was Grifman. All you did was jump on the bandwagon and attempt to pile on after the fact. It’s laughable you think you did anything more than that.
That’s a question a teacher asks a student or a parent asks a child. The fact that you’re the one asking illustrates your condescending attitude, which has been in evidence ever since you dismissed the opposing viewpoint as “idiotic”, “absolutely stupid”, and like “alchemy”. What makes you think you’re a teacher?
So if you asked about x, I respond with the name of a known anti-x website, and you point out that’s a partisan website, then it’s perfectly legitimate for me to keep asking you, “Have you done your homework? Have you done your homework?”. Got it.
If you don't like the website I linked to that's fine. Just go to your nearest library and start reading the latest peer reviewed scientific literature on the subject. In other words go straight to the source.
And? Do you have anything more substantial than this because again the mass of peer reviewed scientific literature is still there unrefuted. Furthermore this doesn't disprove the consensus since there's only a handful of people presenting.
Funny how some people act as if peer review is evidence. It only takes a group of like-minded people to set up a peer review process. There's peer-reviewed journals in young-earth creationism.
And what you wrote on this blog post is still as idiotic as ever though you won't admit it. Yes, you would think young earth creationist "peer reviewed" journals as the same as actual peer reviewed scientific journals because you don't understand the actual process of scientific peer review and are unwilling to learn. Just as you're unwilling to learn about the actual effects of sea rise or drought.
I'm not saying that this refutes anything, but only that you also need to do the homework and not just assume that one side is right because it is the majority.
If you do not accept evidence that contradicts your position, it will always remain irrefutable. Your position becomes a dogma.
Assumptions make an ass out of you and me. You're assuming I haven't done my homework. I never said I believe the consensus itself means climate change is real. Rather the consensus is highly suggestive of the compelling nature of the evidence for climate change. Again it's the objective evidence that matters and once again the evidence is on the side of climate change.
"If you don't like the website I linked to that's fine."
Are you illiterate? Do you have a memory like a sieve? I never said I don't "like the website". I even said to you earlier: "I don't have a problem examining his arguments and evidence, but people should keep in mind it's one sided."
"Just go to your nearest library and start reading the latest peer reviewed scientific literature on the subject. In other words go straight to the source."
Don't be idiotic. For one thing, what makes you think the "latest" scientific research is going to be what's published in the scientific literature? That illustrates how little you know about how "science" works. The "latest" research is typically presented at reputable national conferences (e.g. submitted abstracts).
Also, unless your "nearest library" is a university library, or a library like the NYPL or the LoC, a local library isn't very likely to have "the latest peer reviewed scientific literature on the subject".
Most importantly, what do you do when "the source" itself differs? For example, here are some "peer reviewed scientific literature" that are skeptical about man-made climate change to one degree or another:
Lindzen, R.S. (2007) Taking Greenhouse Warming Seriously, Energy & Environment, 18, 937-950. Rondanelli, R., and R. S. Lindzen (2008), Observed variations in convective precipitation fraction and stratiform area with sea surface temperature. J. Geophys. Res., 113, D16119, doi:10.1029/2008JD010064. Rondanelli, R.F. and R.S. Lindzen (2008) Comments on "Variations of tropical upper tropospheric clouds with sea surface temperature and implications for radiative effects" by Su et al. [2008], J. Geophys. Res, 115, D06202, doi:10.1029/2008JD011189. Lindzen, R.S. (2008) Climate science: is it designed to answer questions. arXiv:0809.3762, available as pdf file on www.arxiv.org, Physics and Society. Also in Euresis Journal, 2012, 2, 161-193 Choi, Y-S., C. Ho, J. Kim, and R. S. Lindzen (2010), Satellite retrievals of (quasi-)spherical particles at cold temperatures, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L05703, doi:10.1029/2009GL041818. Rondanelli, R. and R.S. Lindzen, 2010:Can thin cirrus clouds in the tropics provide a solution to the faint young Sun paradox?, J.Geophys. Res,. 115, D02108, 12 pp. Lindzen, R.S. and Y.-S. Choi, 2009: On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data, Geophys. Res. Ltrs., 36, L16705, doi:10.1029/2009GL039628. Lindzen, R.S. and Y.-S. Choi, 2011: On the observational determination of climate sensitivity and its implications. in press Asian Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Science. Y.S. Choi, R. S. Lindzen, C.‑H. Ho, and J. Kim, 2010: Space observations of cold‑cloud phase change. Proc .Nat .Acad. Sci., 107, 11211-11216.
Y.-S. Choi, C.H. Ho, S.-W. Kim and R.S. Lindzen, 2010: Observational diagnosis of cloud phase in the winter antarctic atmosphere for parameterizations in climate models. Adv. Atm. Sci., 27, 1233-1245. Covey, C., A. Dai, D. Marsh, and R.S. Lindzen, 2010: The Surface-Pressure Signature of Atmospheric Tides in Modern Climate Models, J. Atmos. Sci., 68, 495-514, DOI: 10.1175/2010JAS3560.1. Lindzen, R.S. (2011) A case against precipitous climate action. Energy and Environment, 6, 747-751. Rondanelli, R. and R.S. Lindzen, 2012: Comment on “Clouds and the Faint Young Sun Paradox” by Goldblatt and Zahnle (2011), Climate of the Past Discussions, 8, 701-703, doi:10.5194/cp-8-701-2012 Lindzen, R.S. (2012) Climate physics, feedbacks, and reductionism (and when does reductionism go too far?), Eur. Phys. J. Plus, 127: 52 DOI 10.1140/epjp/i2012-12052-8 Y.-S. Choi, Cho, H., Ho, C.-H., Lindzen, R.S., Park, S.K. & Yu, X. (2014) Influence of non-feedback variations of radiation on the determination of climate feedback. Theor Appl Climatol DOI 10.1007/s00704-013-0998-6 R.S. Lindzen (2013) Science in the Public Square: Global Climate Alarmism and Historical Precedents, Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, 18, Fall issue. Covey, C., A. Dai,, R.S. Lindzen and D. Marsh (2014) Atmospheric Tides in the Latest Generation of Climate Models, J. Atmos. Sci., 71, 1905-1913 DOI: 10.1175/JAS-D-13-0358.1 Zhang, B., R.S. Lindzen, V. Tallapragada, F. Weng, Q. Liu, J.A. Sippel, Z. Ma, and M.A. Bender (2016) Increasing vertical resolution in US models to improve track forecasts of Hurricane Joaquin with HWRF as an example. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 113, 11765-11769 doi/10.1073/pnas.1613800113.
Agudelo, P.A., J.A. Curry, C.D. Hoyos, P.J. Webster, 2006: Transition between suppressed and active phases of intraseasonal oscillations in the Indo-Pacific warm pool. J. Climate, 19, 5515-5530. Curry, J.A., P.J. Webster and G.J. Holland, 2006: Mixing Politics and Science in Testing the Hypothesis That Greenhouse Warming Is Causing a Global Increase in Hurricane Intensity. Bull. Amer. Met. Soc., 87 (8), 1025-1037. Hoyos C.D., P.A. Agudelo, P.J. Webster, and J.A. Curry, 2006: Deconvolution of the factors contributing to the increase in global hurricane intensity, Science, 312 (5770), 94-97. Inoue, J., J. Liu and J.A. Curry, 2006: Intercomparison of arctic regional climate models: Modeling clouds and radiation for SHEBA in May 1998. J. Climate, 19 (17): 4167-4178. Khvorostyanov, V.I. and J.A. Curry, 2006: Aerosol size spectra and CCN activity spectra: Reconciling the lognormal, algebraic, and power laws . J. Geophys. Res., 111 (D12): Art. No. D12202. Khvorostyanov, V.I., H. Morrison, J.A Curry, P. Lawson, D. Baumgardner, 2006: High supersaturation and modes of ice nucleation in thin tropopause cirrus: Simulation of the 13 July 2002 CRYSTAL case. J. Geophys. Res., 111 (D2): Art No. D0220. Liu, J.P. and J.A. Curry, 2006: Variability of the tropical and subtropical ocean surface latent heat flux during 1989-2000. Geophys. Res. Lett., 33(5): Art. No. L05706. Rinke, A., K. Dethloff, J.J. Cassano, J.H. Christensen, J.A. Curry, P. Du, E. Girard, J.E. Haugen, D. Jacob, C.G. Jones, M. Koltzow, R. Laprise, A.H. Lynch, S. Pfeifer, M.C. Serreze, M.J. Shaw, M. Tjernstrom, K. Wyser, M. Zagar, 2006: Evaluation of an ensemble of Arctic regional climate models: spatiotemporal fields during the SHEBA year. Climate Dyn., 26 (5): 459-472. Webster P.J., J.A. Curry, J. Liu, and G. J. Holland, 2006: Response to comment on "Changes in tropical cyclone number, duration, and intensity in a warming environment", Science, 311 (5768), 1713c. Khvorostyanov, Vitaly I., Curry, Judith A., 2007: Refinements to the Köhler's theory of aerosol equilibrium radii, size spectra, and droplet activation: Effects of humidity and insoluble fraction. J. Geophys. Res., Vol. 112, No. D5, D05206. (08 March 2007).
Liu, J.P., J.A. Curry, Y.J. Dai, et al., 2007: Causes of the northern high-latitude land surface winter climate change. Geophys. Res. Lett., 34 (14): Art. No. L14702. Agudelo, P.A., C. D. Hoyos, P. J. Webster, J. A. Curry, 2008: Prediction skill of intraseasonal variability of an operational model in a serial extended forecast experiment. Climate Dynamics, 32, 855-872. Morrison, H., J.O. Pinto, J.A. Curry, and G.M. McFarquhar, 2008: Sensitivity of modeled arctic mixed-phase stratocumulus to cloud condensation and ice nuclei over regionally varying surface conditions. J. Geophys. Res., 113, D5, D05203. Inoue, J., J.A. Curry, J.A. Maslanik, 2008: Application of Aerosondes to melt-pond observations over Arctic Sea ice. J. Atmos. Oceanic Tech., 25 (2): 327-334. Wyser, K., C.G. Jones, P. Du, E. Girard, U. Willen, J. Cassano, J.H. Christensen, J.A. Curry, K. Dethloff, J.E. Haugen, D. Jacob, M. Koltzow, R. Laprise, A. Lynch, S. Pfeifer, A. Rinke, M. Serreze, M.J. Shaw, M. Tjernstrom, M. Zagar, 2008: An evaluation of Arctic cloud and radiation processes during the SHEBA year: simulation results from eight Arctic regional climate models. Clim. Dyn., 30 (2-3): 203-223. Khvorostyanov, Vitaly I., Curry, Judith A., 2008: Analytical Solutions to the Stochastic Kinetic Equation for Liquid and Ice Particle Size Spectra. Part I: Small-size fraction. J. Atmos. Sci., . Khvorostyanov, Vitaly I., Curry, Judith A., 2008: Analytical Solutions to the Stochastic Kinetic Equation for Liquid and Ice Particle Size Spectra. Part II: Large-Size Fraction in Precipitating Clouds. J. Atmos. Sci., . Khvorostyanov, Vitaly I., Curry, Judith A., 2008: Kinetics of Cloud Drop Formation and Its Parameterization for Cloud and Climate Models. J. Atmos. Sci., . Khvorostyanov, VI and JA Curry, 2009: Critical humidities of homogeneous and heterogeneous ice nucleation: inferences from extended classical nucleation theory. J. Geophys. Res., 114, D04207. Kim, HM, PJ Webster, JA Curry, 2009: Impact of shifting patterns of Pacific Ocean Warming on North Atlantic tropical cyclones. Science, 325, 77-80. Khvorostyanov, VI, JA Curry, 2009: Parameterization of cloud drop activation based on analytical asymptotic solutions to the supersaturation equation. J. Atmos. Sci., 66, 1905-1925. Khvorostyanov, VI, JA Curry, 2009: Comment on “Comparisons with analytical solutions from Khvorostyanov and Curry (2007) on the critical droplet radii and supersaturations of CCN with insoluble fractions” by Kokkola et al. (2008). Atmos. Chem. Phys., 9, 6033-6039. Belanger, JI, JA Curry, CD Hoyos, 2009: Variability in tornado frequency associated with U.S. landfalling tropical cyclones. Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L17805. Liu, JP and JA Curry, 2010: Accelerated warming of the Southern Ocean and its impacts on the hydrological cycle and sea ice. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 107, 34, 14987-14992. Romanou, A., G. Tseloudis, CS Zerefos, JA Curry, et al.: 2010: Evaporation-precipitation variability over the Mediterranean and the Black Seas from satellite and reanalysis estimates. J. Climate, 23, 5268-5287. Belanger, JI, JA Curry, PJ Webster, 2010: Predictability of North Atlantic tropical cyclone activity on intraseasonal time scales. Mon. Weather. Rev., 128, 4362-4374. Webster, PJ, J. Jian, TM Hopson, . . . JA Curry, et al., 2010: Extended-range probabilistic forecasts of Ganges and Brahmaputra floods in Bangladesh. Bull. Amer. Meteorol. Soc., 91, 1493l-U121. Curry, JA and PJ Webster, 2011: Climate Science and the Uncertainty Monster. Bull. Amer. Meteorol. Soc., in revision. Curry, JA, 2011: Reasoning about climate uncertainty. Clim. Change, submitted. Liu, JP, JA Curry, et al.: 2011: Evaluation of satellite sea surface temperature in the Southern Hemisphere using Chinese Antarctic research cruise observations. Int. J. Rem. Sens, 32, 171-184. Liu, J., J. A. Curry, C. A. Clayson, and M. A. Bourassa, 2011: High-resolution satellite surface latent heat fluxes in North Atlantic hurricanes. Mon. Wea. Rev. accepted
"Dynamics of fronts in thermally bi-stable fluids,” Astrophysical Journal, 1992, 392: 106 — 117. ”Origin of the high energy extragalactic diffuse gamma ray background,” Physical Review Letters, 1995, 75: 3052 — 3055. ”The Eddington luminosity limit for multiphased media,” Astrophysical Journal Letters, 1998, 494: L193 — L197. ”The theory of steady-state super-Eddington winds and its application to novae,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 2001, 326: 126 — 146. ”The spiral structure of the Milky Way, cosmic rays, and ice age epochs on Earth,” New Astronomy, 2002, 8: 39 — 77. ”Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?,” GSA Today, July 2003, 13(7): 4 — 10. ”Climate Change and the Cosmic Ray Connection,” in Richard C. Ragaini, ed., International Seminar on Nuclear War and Planetary Emergencies: 30th Session: Erice, Italy, 18 — 26 August 2003. Singapore: World Scientific, 2004. ”On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget,” Journal of Geophysical Research, 2005, 110: A08105. ”On the link between cosmic rays and terrestrial climate”, International Journal of Modern Physics A, 2005, 20: 6662 — 6665. ”Interstellar-terrestrial relations: variable cosmic environments, the dynamic heliosphere, and their imprints on terrestrial archives and climate,” Space Science Reviews, 2006, 127: 327 — 465. ”The maximal runaway temperature of Earth-like planets”, Icarus, 2011, 216: 403 — 414. ”Quantifying the role of solar radiative forcing over the 20th century,” Advances in Space Research, 2012, 50: 762 — 776. ”The sensitivity of the greenhouse effect to changes in the concentration of gases in planetary atmospheres,” Acta Polytechnica, 2013, 53(Supplement): 832 — 838. ”An outburst from a massive star 40 days before a supernova explosion,” Nature, 2013, 494: 65 — 67. ”Variability in daily, zonal mean lower-stratospheric temperatures,” Journal of Climate, 1994, 7: 106 — 120. ”Precision global temperatures from satellites and urban warming effects of non-satellite data,” Atmospheric Environment, 1995, 29: 1957 — 1961. ”How accurate are satellite ’thermometers’?,” Nature, 1997, 389: 342 — 343. “Multidecadal changes in the vertical structure of the tropical troposphere,” Science, 2000, 287: 1242 — 1245. ”Assessing levels of uncertainty in recent temperature time series,” Climate Dynamics, 2000, 16: 587 — 601. ”Reliability of satellite data sets,” Science, 2003, 301: 1046 — 1047. ”Temperature changes in the bulk atmosphere: beyond the IPCC,” in Patrick J. Michaels, ed., Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005. ”A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions,” International Journal of Climatology, 2008, 28: 1693 — 1701. ”Limits on CO2 climate forcing from recent temperature data of Earth,” Energy & Environment, 2009, 20: 178 — 189. ”What do observational datasets say about modeled tropospheric temperature trends since 1979?,” Remote Sensing, 2010, 2: 2148 — 2169. ”IPCC: cherish it, tweak it or scrap it?,” Nature, 2010, 463: 730 — 732. ”The international surface temperature initiative global land surface databank: monthly temperature data release description and methods,” Geoscience Data Journal, 2014, 1: 75 — 102.
Conhecereis a Verdade By climate change I mean the mainstream consensus position.
Epistle Wow simply amazing. You basically spammed this thread with a list of articles the vast majority of which don't actually even argue the issue of climate change caused by man made activity. Most of them deal with various aspects of the climate and are at best only tangentially related to the topic under discussion. I'm almost certain you've not read or understood the vast bulk of these articles you cited. You probably just copied and pasted them from some denialist website in the hopes that they would cow and impress someone reading this thread. Dolt.
"Wow simply amazing. You basically spammed this thread with a list of articles the vast majority of which don't actually even argue the issue of climate change caused by man made activity. Most of them deal with various aspects of the climate and are at best only tangentially related to the topic under discussion. I'm almost certain you've not read or understood the vast bulk of these articles you cited. You probably just copied and pasted them from some denialist website in the hopes that they would cow and impress someone reading this thread. Dolt."
Walked straight into my trap, rolo! (Or should I say rofl?) :)
I did indeed copy and paste the publications, but I copied them and pasted them from the university or academic websites of the professors and scientists who are climate change skeptics in the earlier link I provided for you (here). It's their work and publications you're taking issue with. Why don't you have a discussion with them if that's how you're going to characterize their work? Dolt. ;)
In any case, it looks like Steve Hays has recently posted a more detailed response on the topic in "The noble lie".
I guess there's no more fun to be had responding to rolo since he got banned!
rolo got rolled! :(
Anyway, I noticed I forgot to address this part:
"the vast majority of which don't actually even argue the issue of climate change caused by man made activity"
1. Actually, many of the papers above are about man-made climate change.
2. Also, keep in mind what I copied and pasted is a mere sampling of what's available. There are plenty more published papers by scientists who are skeptical about man-made climate change having the kind of power and scope man-made climate change is said to have.
In any case, the fact that many skeptical papers have been published and exist is really all that's needed to disprove rolo's original contention that the evidence is entirely on his side. (And I haven't even discussed the quality of the papers on either side. Their methodology, validity, biases, etc. That'd probably cause rolo to blow a gasket.)
3. A paper can be about something tangentially or indirectly related to climate change, but still be addressing climate change by undercutting or overturning the related issue, for example.
4. Besides, rolo missed the big picture: all the papers I copied and pasted were from academic scientists working and publishing in the field or a related relevant field who are skeptical about man-made climate change. The fact that there are tenured professors and scientists at academic institutions who are skeptical about man-made climate change having the kind of power and scope it reputedly has is enough to undermine rolo's simple-minded notion that no scholar disputes it.
5. Earlier rolo cited the website Skeptical Science created by John Cook. Cook is a psychologist, not a climatologist or the like. Hence, according to rolo's own yardstick, Cook should be disqualified or at least distrusted when he talks about climate change.
"5. Earlier rolo cited the website Skeptical Science created by John Cook. Cook is a psychologist, not a climatologist or the like. Hence, according to rolo's own yardstick, Cook should be disqualified or at least distrusted when he talks about climate change."
Or I should say: according to rolo's own yardstick, we ought to be skeptical about Cook's Skeptical Science because Cook is a psychologist rather than a climatologist or in a related discipline! :)
Just to keep tabs on the actual state of the argument, Grifman raised an intelligent objection to my modest little post. I then mentioned a counterexample (tidal rivers) to illustrate the principle that the water level of a body of water a river empties into can affect the water level of the river. He responded that the river in question wasn't a tidal river. Mind you, I didn't say it was. I used used that illustration to demonstrate a principle. I then gave another example (Lake Washington/Sammamish river), not involving tidal rivers, in which the water level of a body of water a river empties into can affect the water level of the river. Unless I missed it, I didn't see any commenter refute that principle.
The influence on the level of the river is just at the mouth causing flooding, unless the river is channeled. So the principle is valid but only near the mouth of the river.
Lake Washington is 16 feet above sea level. The river in question in Central Europe if 115 meters+ above sea level. Please explain how any reasonable increase/decrease in sea level is going to have a significant impact of a point on such a river hundreds of miles from the ocean. A far greater impact would be local condition controlling the amount of water flowing into the river (rainfall, irrigation, drinking water, etc).
1. Some of the hunger stones are closer to the ocean than others. Take the hunger stone located north of Angermünde. According to a quick Google search, Angermünde is about 75 km (~50 mi) from Dąbie Lake, which eventually connects to the Baltic Sea. That's much closer than "hundreds of miles" from the ocean.
2. The Elbe river appears to be the main river where the hunger stones are found, though there are several other rivers involved (e.g. Rhine, Weser). The main source of the Elbe lies in the mountains and the main part of the Elbe empties into the North Sea. So the elevation of the Elbe presumably varies between 1400 m (mountains) to 0 m (sea level), depending on the specific point we're referring to. Moreover, isn't the last 50-100 km of the Elbe basically flat 0 m (sea level)?
3. Regardless, the general point is true: it is possible for sea level changes (rises) to impact inland water including water tables. Although, of course, not all aquifers are impacted in the same way. There are several variables involved. Such as the kind and quantity of sea water intrusion into the fresh water lens, the fresh water pressure, soil permeability, flow rates, and so on. For example, take Florida. Much of Florida sits atop porous limestone. If the Gulf of Mexico or Atlantic sea levels rise enough, then Florida's water table could increase in salinity and acidification.
Uh, these stones are along inland rivers in Central Europe. Last time I checked, the Czech Republic wasn't on the ocean :)
ReplyDeleteAlthough rivers connect to oceans. Take tidal rivers whose water level varies from high tide to low tide.
DeleteBut these are not tidal rivers. The impact of any rise in the oceans would not be seen in rivers in Central Europe. I don't think you want to die on this hill.
DeleteThe lowest point in the Czech Republic is 115 meters. You have a ways to go before rising oceans impact river water levels there.
DeleteI simply used tidal rivers as one example to illustrate a point, but the principle isn't confined to that. For instance, the Sammamish river empties into Lake Washington. Before the lake was lowered, the river used to be navigable by ferry boat but after the lake was lowered that simultaneously lowered the Sammamish river, rendering it unnavigable by ferry boat, since it no longer had sufficient depth to clear the draft.
DeleteYeah and we've all pointed out how whatever way you look like at it. Your point is an idiotic one that doesn't refute the evidence for sea level rise or climate change.
Delete"Yeah and we've all pointed out..."
DeleteUh, rolo, what's this "we all" talk? The only person in this thread that's attempted to make a counterargument worth responding to is Grifman. All you've done is scoff.
Also, you're acting like a village atheist to dismiss climate change skepticism as "idiotic" and "absolutely stupid" when there are reasonable arguments for climate change skepticism including by experts like these:
Deletehttps://thebestschools.org/features/top-climate-change-scientists/
It's possible the arguments are wrong, but they're hardly "absolutely stupid" and "idiotic". At least you never bother to show how they are stupid and idiotic. You just assume they are so far.
Lake Washington is 16 feet above sea level. I fail to see how that is even closely relevant to Central Europe. You keep using inapplicable examples. Please explain how sea level rise would impact the level of rivers in Central Europe over 115 meters above sea level.
Deletei) Are you suggesting rivers have a uniform elevation?
Deleteii) With respect to my illustration, the relevant comparison isn't how much Lake Washington is above sea level but the relationship between Lake Washington and the Sammamish river.
Steve your point is still absolutely stupid and doesn't disprove the science
ReplyDeleteAs the other commenters have noted, this is a really dumb post on the level of those Boomer politicians who say "Global warming? It snowed yesterday!". Try and cast aside the knee-jerk partisanship which naturally arises from the beliefs commonly associated with climate change (leftism, atheism).
ReplyDeleteAt least to my knowledge, speaking to this particular post as well as climate change in general:
ReplyDelete1. Hardly anyone denies climate change is occurring. However, the more pertinent questions are over the nature of man-made climate change, the significance of its effects, and its power and scope.
2. On the one hand, man-made climate change proponents argue man-made climate change leads to (among other things) water levels rising. This is partly evidenced by increased flooding in certain regions of the world.
On the other hand, man-made climate change proponents argue man-made climate change leads to (among other things) water levels lowering. This is partly evidenced by increased droughts in certain regions of the world.
3. Are these apparent inconsistencies reconcilable on man-made climate change grounds or is it more of a "heads I win, tails you lose" situation?
4. Are man-made climate change proponents arguing from man-made climate change to floods and droughts or are man-made climate change proponents arguing from floods and droughts to man-made climate change?
5. Are these correlations or causations?
6. Assuming man-made climate change is occurring, which is plausible, does it have the power and scope to cause global river flooding and droughts?
Indeed, does man-made climate change have the power and scope to cause the kinds of apocalyptic scenarios often depicted in man-made climate change literature (e.g. the Earth will be rendered uninhabitable by most animals except for the most hardy like cockroaches and certain bacteria and viruses; millions of humans will die and millions will be displaced; humans will eventually become extinct)?
7. Stepping back, is man-made climate change leading to such effects falsifiable in principle? If so, how so? Is anything consistent with man-made climate change?
Speaking for myself, I suspect the debate over man-made climate change is a tempest in a teapot. I suspect much of the debate over man-made climate change will be resolved when there's a widely used clean renewable energy source over and against using the combustion of fossil fuels, which are the primary contributors to greenhouse gases. That may take some time, but it seems to be the way our society is moving anyway.
Delete"fossil fuels"
DeleteOf course, I'm referring to fuels like coal, petroleum, and natural gas.
8. How do we distinguish between man-made climate change (greenhouse gas emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels) causing global flooding vs. natural climate change (climate change absent man-made causes) causing droughts and global flooding and droughts? How do we factor out the man-made climate change in a world that's already inhabited by humans burning fossil fuels?
DeleteEpistle of Dude.
DeleteYou'll need to ask the experts. The website Skeptical Science is a very valuable resource to help layman learn about climate change and the science behind it.
Is Skeptical Science the same website that's run by man-made climate change proponent James Cook?
DeleteIf so, I don't have a problem examining his arguments and evidence, but people should keep in mind it's one sided.
I think it'd better to see experts on both sides of the issue. For example:
http://thebestschools.org/features/top-climate-change-scientists
The overwhelming majority of the experts are on the side of climate change.Furthermore the evidence is solidly in their camp as well. There's no point in entertaining alchemy when you have chemistry. In the same way. If the supposed "controversy" over global warming has been one sided it's because only one side has the lion's share of objective evidence. Simple as that.
Deleterolo
Delete"The overwhelming majority of the experts are on the side of climate change."
Truth, including scientific truth, isn't decided by majority vote.
"Furthermore the evidence is solidly in their camp as well."
So you keep saying, but experts on the climate change skepticism side say the exact opposite.
"There's no point in entertaining alchemy when you have chemistry."
So you think being skeptical about climate change is equivalent to subscribing to alchemy? This is just more dismissive invective from you, in line with your earlier calling the other side's position "idiotic" and "absolutely stupid". You're not behaving any differently than atheists and evolutionists who dismiss creationism as pseudo-science or worse. When they say things like one shouldn't teach creationism any more than one should teach astrology instead of astronomy, but offer scant (if any) argument for why they think so.
"In the same way. If the supposed "controversy" over global warming has been one sided it's because only one side has the lion's share of objective evidence. Simple as that."
Um, no, I didn't say the climate change debate as a whole is "one-sided". I said you recommending the website of a known climate change proponent is one-sided.
By contrast, I gave you a link that lists experts on both sides of the debate. And the debate is hardly "one-sided" if there are experts including scientists on both sides.
Speaking for myself, from what I've seen, I do think man-made climate change is occurring, but I don't think it has the power and scope most man-made climate change proponents argue it has, though I'm open to being mistaken.
Moreover, I'm not at all dismissive toward the other side like you obviously are. I think they hold a reasonable and defensible position, even if I don't completely agree with their position.
So basically you're a lukewarmer. Look I know your experts and their arguments. Climate scientists have openly discussed and addressed their arguments. There's a simple reason the website you linked to could only find 5 experts on the opposing side instead of 10 on the affirmative side. I'm not dismissive and the climate science community as a whole isn't dismissive we're just waiting for much better evidence and argumentation from the supposedly opposing side.
Deleterolo
Delete"So basically you're a lukewarmer."
I'd say agnostic is closer to the truth.
"Look I know your experts and their arguments."
But do you? You've been saying so, but you never demonstrate it. You're long on assertions, but short on arguments.
"Climate scientists have openly discussed and addressed their arguments."
Once again, so you say, but saying so doesn't make it so.
"There's a simple reason the website you linked to could only find 5 experts on the opposing side instead of 10 on the affirmative side."
1. My pointing out even a single expert is really all that's necessary to rebut your claims about the position being "absolutely stupid" and "idiotic" and akin to "alchemy" because I wasn't arguing for its truth, but for its reasonableness.
2. However, as far as the truth is concerned, like I said, truth isn't decided by majority. It just takes one person to be right even if the entire scientific establishment is against the person. That's science in action too.
3. Unless you're the author of the article, or perhaps the editor of the site, you have no idea why they picked 10 vs. 5.
"I'm not dismissive and the climate science community as a whole isn't dismissive we're just waiting for much better evidence and argumentation from the supposedly opposing side."
You claimed that the position was "absolutely stupid" and "idiotic" and akin to "alchemy" without providing any argument whatsoever.
I'm not going to do your homework for you. I linked you to a very good website that can help you get familiar with the scientific evidence and even gives you citations to read the peer reviewed scientific literature yourself. It's that simple.
DeleteAll you’ve done in this thread is act like a village atheist who simply “knows” God doesn’t exist and who sneers at anyone who thinks otherwise as living in the dark ages (e.g. practicing “alchemy”). You’ve got a lot of attitude, but nothing to back it up with.
DeleteAnd you attempt to mimic a lot of Steve’s coined catchphrases, but your imitation is more faltering than flattering.
Again have you done your homework yet?
DeleteAgain, that’s a question a teacher asks a student or a parent asks a child. The fact that you’re the one asking illustrates your condescending attitude, which has been in evidence ever since you dismissed the opposing viewpoint as “idiotic”, “absolutely stupid”, and like “alchemy”. What makes you think you’re a teacher?
DeleteThe point of the post was never to marshall a full-blown case against the global warming scam. I'm unimpressed by appeals to scientific consensus when the "science" is so politicized and dissidents are blacklisted.
ReplyDeleteI didn't just appeal to scientific consensus but also the abundance of objective evidence. We all understand your post wasn't a full blown case against global warming but it's still illustrative of your lack of careful reasoning and understanding when it comes to this and other issues.
DeleteImpressive how much you presume to infer from a one-sentence post (a question, in fact).
DeleteSteve just admit you made an ass of yourself and be done with it. Don't worry your other posts on various subjects from biblical studies to evolution are offer a mountain of support.
DeleteRolo, just admit you weren’t part of any “we” as if you were part of a group of people who pointed out anything noteworthy in this thread. The only person who made any somewhat coherent counterargument in this thread was Grifman. All you did was jump on the bandwagon and attempt to pile on after the fact. It’s laughable you think you did anything more than that.
DeleteHave you done your homework yet?
DeleteThat’s a question a teacher asks a student or a parent asks a child. The fact that you’re the one asking illustrates your condescending attitude, which has been in evidence ever since you dismissed the opposing viewpoint as “idiotic”, “absolutely stupid”, and like “alchemy”. What makes you think you’re a teacher?
DeleteYou're the one who asked a series of questions about climate change.
DeleteSo if you asked about x, I respond with the name of a known anti-x website, and you point out that’s a partisan website, then it’s perfectly legitimate for me to keep asking you, “Have you done your homework? Have you done your homework?”. Got it.
DeleteIf you don't like the website I linked to that's fine. Just go to your nearest library and start reading the latest peer reviewed scientific literature on the subject. In other words go straight to the source.
DeleteHomework for you too
Deletehttps://www.portoconference2018.org/presentations.html
Just to show that "scientific consensus" is not so consensual...
And? Do you have anything more substantial than this because again the mass of peer reviewed scientific literature is still there unrefuted. Furthermore this doesn't disprove the consensus since there's only a handful of people presenting.
DeleteFunny how some people act as if peer review is evidence. It only takes a group of like-minded people to set up a peer review process. There's peer-reviewed journals in young-earth creationism.
DeleteAnd what you wrote on this blog post is still as idiotic as ever though you won't admit it. Yes, you would think young earth creationist "peer reviewed" journals as the same as actual peer reviewed scientific journals because you don't understand the actual process of scientific peer review and are unwilling to learn. Just as you're unwilling to learn about the actual effects of sea rise or drought.
DeleteI'm not saying that this refutes anything, but only that you also need to do the homework and not just assume that one side is right because it is the majority.
DeleteIf you do not accept evidence that contradicts your position, it will always remain irrefutable. Your position becomes a dogma.
Assumptions make an ass out of you and me. You're assuming I haven't done my homework. I never said I believe the consensus itself means climate change is real. Rather the consensus is highly suggestive of the compelling nature of the evidence for climate change. Again it's the objective evidence that matters and once again the evidence is on the side of climate change.
DeleteYou did not do your homework well. For I know, no one denies climate change. What is discussed is the causes of climate change.
Deleterolo
Delete"If you don't like the website I linked to that's fine."
Are you illiterate? Do you have a memory like a sieve? I never said I don't "like the website". I even said to you earlier: "I don't have a problem examining his arguments and evidence, but people should keep in mind it's one sided."
"Just go to your nearest library and start reading the latest peer reviewed scientific literature on the subject. In other words go straight to the source."
Don't be idiotic. For one thing, what makes you think the "latest" scientific research is going to be what's published in the scientific literature? That illustrates how little you know about how "science" works. The "latest" research is typically presented at reputable national conferences (e.g. submitted abstracts).
Also, unless your "nearest library" is a university library, or a library like the NYPL or the LoC, a local library isn't very likely to have "the latest peer reviewed scientific literature on the subject".
Most importantly, what do you do when "the source" itself differs? For example, here are some "peer reviewed scientific literature" that are skeptical about man-made climate change to one degree or another:
Lindzen, R.S. (2007) Taking Greenhouse Warming Seriously, Energy & Environment, 18, 937-950.
Rondanelli, R., and R. S. Lindzen (2008), Observed variations in convective precipitation fraction and stratiform area with sea surface temperature. J. Geophys. Res., 113, D16119, doi:10.1029/2008JD010064.
Rondanelli, R.F. and R.S. Lindzen (2008) Comments on "Variations of tropical upper tropospheric clouds with sea surface temperature and implications for radiative effects" by Su et al. [2008], J. Geophys. Res, 115, D06202, doi:10.1029/2008JD011189.
Lindzen, R.S. (2008) Climate science: is it designed to answer questions. arXiv:0809.3762, available as pdf file on www.arxiv.org, Physics and Society. Also in Euresis Journal, 2012, 2, 161-193
Choi, Y-S., C. Ho, J. Kim, and R. S. Lindzen (2010), Satellite retrievals of (quasi-)spherical particles at cold temperatures, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L05703, doi:10.1029/2009GL041818.
Rondanelli, R. and R.S. Lindzen, 2010:Can thin cirrus clouds in the tropics provide a solution to the faint young Sun paradox?, J.Geophys. Res,. 115, D02108, 12 pp.
Lindzen, R.S. and Y.-S. Choi, 2009: On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data, Geophys. Res. Ltrs., 36, L16705, doi:10.1029/2009GL039628.
Lindzen, R.S. and Y.-S. Choi, 2011: On the observational determination of climate sensitivity and its implications. in press Asian Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Science.
Y.S. Choi, R. S. Lindzen, C.‑H. Ho, and J. Kim, 2010: Space observations of cold‑cloud phase change. Proc .Nat .Acad. Sci., 107, 11211-11216.
Y.-S. Choi, C.H. Ho, S.-W. Kim and R.S. Lindzen, 2010: Observational diagnosis of cloud phase in the winter antarctic atmosphere for parameterizations in climate models. Adv. Atm. Sci., 27, 1233-1245.
DeleteCovey, C., A. Dai, D. Marsh, and R.S. Lindzen, 2010: The Surface-Pressure Signature of Atmospheric Tides in Modern Climate Models, J. Atmos. Sci., 68, 495-514, DOI: 10.1175/2010JAS3560.1.
Lindzen, R.S. (2011) A case against precipitous climate action. Energy and Environment, 6, 747-751.
Rondanelli, R. and R.S. Lindzen, 2012: Comment on “Clouds and the Faint Young Sun Paradox” by Goldblatt and Zahnle (2011), Climate of the Past Discussions, 8, 701-703, doi:10.5194/cp-8-701-2012
Lindzen, R.S. (2012) Climate physics, feedbacks, and reductionism (and when does reductionism go too far?), Eur. Phys. J. Plus, 127: 52 DOI 10.1140/epjp/i2012-12052-8
Y.-S. Choi, Cho, H., Ho, C.-H., Lindzen, R.S., Park, S.K. & Yu, X. (2014) Influence of non-feedback variations of radiation on the determination of climate feedback. Theor Appl Climatol DOI 10.1007/s00704-013-0998-6
R.S. Lindzen (2013) Science in the Public Square: Global Climate Alarmism and Historical Precedents, Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, 18, Fall issue.
Covey, C., A. Dai,, R.S. Lindzen and D. Marsh (2014) Atmospheric Tides in the Latest Generation of Climate Models, J. Atmos. Sci., 71, 1905-1913 DOI: 10.1175/JAS-D-13-0358.1
Zhang, B., R.S. Lindzen, V. Tallapragada, F. Weng, Q. Liu, J.A. Sippel, Z. Ma, and M.A. Bender (2016) Increasing vertical resolution in US models to improve track forecasts of Hurricane Joaquin with HWRF as an example. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 113, 11765-11769 doi/10.1073/pnas.1613800113.
Agudelo, P.A., J.A. Curry, C.D. Hoyos, P.J. Webster, 2006: Transition between suppressed and active phases of intraseasonal oscillations in the Indo-Pacific warm pool. J. Climate, 19, 5515-5530.
DeleteCurry, J.A., P.J. Webster and G.J. Holland, 2006: Mixing Politics and Science in Testing the Hypothesis That Greenhouse Warming Is Causing a Global Increase in Hurricane Intensity. Bull. Amer. Met. Soc., 87 (8), 1025-1037.
Hoyos C.D., P.A. Agudelo, P.J. Webster, and J.A. Curry, 2006: Deconvolution of the factors contributing to the increase in global hurricane intensity, Science, 312 (5770), 94-97.
Inoue, J., J. Liu and J.A. Curry, 2006: Intercomparison of arctic regional climate models: Modeling clouds and radiation for SHEBA in May 1998. J. Climate, 19 (17): 4167-4178.
Khvorostyanov, V.I. and J.A. Curry, 2006: Aerosol size spectra and CCN activity spectra: Reconciling the lognormal, algebraic, and power laws . J. Geophys. Res., 111 (D12): Art. No. D12202.
Khvorostyanov, V.I., H. Morrison, J.A Curry, P. Lawson, D. Baumgardner, 2006: High supersaturation and modes of ice nucleation in thin tropopause cirrus: Simulation of the 13 July 2002 CRYSTAL case. J. Geophys. Res., 111 (D2): Art No. D0220.
Liu, J.P. and J.A. Curry, 2006: Variability of the tropical and subtropical ocean surface latent heat flux during 1989-2000. Geophys. Res. Lett., 33(5): Art. No. L05706.
Rinke, A., K. Dethloff, J.J. Cassano, J.H. Christensen, J.A. Curry, P. Du, E. Girard, J.E. Haugen, D. Jacob, C.G. Jones, M. Koltzow, R. Laprise, A.H. Lynch, S. Pfeifer, M.C. Serreze, M.J. Shaw, M. Tjernstrom, K. Wyser, M. Zagar, 2006: Evaluation of an ensemble of Arctic regional climate models: spatiotemporal fields during the SHEBA year. Climate Dyn., 26 (5): 459-472.
Webster P.J., J.A. Curry, J. Liu, and G. J. Holland, 2006: Response to comment on "Changes in tropical cyclone number, duration, and intensity in a warming environment", Science, 311 (5768), 1713c.
Khvorostyanov, Vitaly I., Curry, Judith A., 2007: Refinements to the Köhler's theory of aerosol equilibrium radii, size spectra, and droplet activation: Effects of humidity and insoluble fraction. J. Geophys. Res., Vol. 112, No. D5, D05206. (08 March 2007).
Liu, J.P., J.A. Curry, Y.J. Dai, et al., 2007: Causes of the northern high-latitude land surface winter climate change. Geophys. Res. Lett., 34 (14): Art. No. L14702.
DeleteAgudelo, P.A., C. D. Hoyos, P. J. Webster, J. A. Curry, 2008: Prediction skill of intraseasonal variability of an operational model in a serial extended forecast experiment. Climate Dynamics, 32, 855-872.
Morrison, H., J.O. Pinto, J.A. Curry, and G.M. McFarquhar, 2008: Sensitivity of modeled arctic mixed-phase stratocumulus to cloud condensation and ice nuclei over regionally varying surface conditions. J. Geophys. Res., 113, D5, D05203.
Inoue, J., J.A. Curry, J.A. Maslanik, 2008: Application of Aerosondes to melt-pond observations over Arctic Sea ice. J. Atmos. Oceanic Tech., 25 (2): 327-334.
Wyser, K., C.G. Jones, P. Du, E. Girard, U. Willen, J. Cassano, J.H. Christensen, J.A. Curry, K. Dethloff, J.E. Haugen, D. Jacob, M. Koltzow, R. Laprise, A. Lynch, S. Pfeifer, A. Rinke, M. Serreze, M.J. Shaw, M. Tjernstrom, M. Zagar, 2008: An evaluation of Arctic cloud and radiation processes during the SHEBA year: simulation results from eight Arctic regional climate models. Clim. Dyn., 30 (2-3): 203-223.
Khvorostyanov, Vitaly I., Curry, Judith A., 2008: Analytical Solutions to the Stochastic Kinetic Equation for Liquid and Ice Particle Size Spectra. Part I: Small-size fraction. J. Atmos. Sci., .
Khvorostyanov, Vitaly I., Curry, Judith A., 2008: Analytical Solutions to the Stochastic Kinetic Equation for Liquid and Ice Particle Size Spectra. Part II: Large-Size Fraction in Precipitating Clouds. J. Atmos. Sci., .
Khvorostyanov, Vitaly I., Curry, Judith A., 2008: Kinetics of Cloud Drop Formation and Its Parameterization for Cloud and Climate Models. J. Atmos. Sci., .
Khvorostyanov, VI and JA Curry, 2009: Critical humidities of homogeneous and heterogeneous ice nucleation: inferences from extended classical nucleation theory. J. Geophys. Res., 114, D04207.
Kim, HM, PJ Webster, JA Curry, 2009: Impact of shifting patterns of Pacific Ocean Warming on North Atlantic tropical cyclones. Science, 325, 77-80.
Khvorostyanov, VI, JA Curry, 2009: Parameterization of cloud drop activation based on analytical asymptotic solutions to the supersaturation equation. J. Atmos. Sci., 66, 1905-1925.
Khvorostyanov, VI, JA Curry, 2009: Comment on “Comparisons with analytical solutions from Khvorostyanov and Curry (2007) on the critical droplet radii and supersaturations of CCN with insoluble fractions” by Kokkola et al. (2008). Atmos. Chem. Phys., 9, 6033-6039.
Belanger, JI, JA Curry, CD Hoyos, 2009: Variability in tornado frequency associated with U.S. landfalling tropical cyclones. Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L17805.
Liu, JP and JA Curry, 2010: Accelerated warming of the Southern Ocean and its impacts on the hydrological cycle and sea ice. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 107, 34, 14987-14992.
Romanou, A., G. Tseloudis, CS Zerefos, JA Curry, et al.: 2010: Evaporation-precipitation variability over the Mediterranean and the Black Seas from satellite and reanalysis estimates. J. Climate, 23, 5268-5287.
Belanger, JI, JA Curry, PJ Webster, 2010: Predictability of North Atlantic tropical cyclone activity on intraseasonal time scales. Mon. Weather. Rev., 128, 4362-4374.
Webster, PJ, J. Jian, TM Hopson, . . . JA Curry, et al., 2010: Extended-range probabilistic forecasts of Ganges and Brahmaputra floods in Bangladesh. Bull. Amer. Meteorol. Soc., 91, 1493l-U121.
Curry, JA and PJ Webster, 2011: Climate Science and the Uncertainty Monster. Bull. Amer. Meteorol. Soc., in revision.
Curry, JA, 2011: Reasoning about climate uncertainty. Clim. Change, submitted.
Liu, JP, JA Curry, et al.: 2011: Evaluation of satellite sea surface temperature in the Southern Hemisphere using Chinese Antarctic research cruise observations. Int. J. Rem. Sens, 32, 171-184.
Liu, J., J. A. Curry, C. A. Clayson, and M. A. Bourassa, 2011: High-resolution satellite surface latent heat fluxes in North Atlantic hurricanes. Mon. Wea. Rev. accepted
"Dynamics of fronts in thermally bi-stable fluids,” Astrophysical Journal, 1992, 392: 106 — 117.
Delete”Origin of the high energy extragalactic diffuse gamma ray background,” Physical Review Letters, 1995, 75: 3052 — 3055.
”The Eddington luminosity limit for multiphased media,” Astrophysical Journal Letters, 1998, 494: L193 — L197.
”The theory of steady-state super-Eddington winds and its application to novae,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 2001, 326: 126 — 146.
”The spiral structure of the Milky Way, cosmic rays, and ice age epochs on Earth,” New Astronomy, 2002, 8: 39 — 77.
”Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?,” GSA Today, July 2003, 13(7): 4 — 10.
”Climate Change and the Cosmic Ray Connection,” in Richard C. Ragaini, ed., International Seminar on Nuclear War and Planetary Emergencies: 30th Session: Erice, Italy, 18 — 26 August 2003. Singapore: World Scientific, 2004.
”On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget,” Journal of Geophysical Research, 2005, 110: A08105.
”On the link between cosmic rays and terrestrial climate”, International Journal of Modern Physics A, 2005, 20: 6662 — 6665.
”Interstellar-terrestrial relations: variable cosmic environments, the dynamic heliosphere, and their imprints on terrestrial archives and climate,” Space Science Reviews, 2006, 127: 327 — 465.
”The maximal runaway temperature of Earth-like planets”, Icarus, 2011, 216: 403 — 414.
”Quantifying the role of solar radiative forcing over the 20th century,” Advances in Space Research, 2012, 50: 762 — 776.
”The sensitivity of the greenhouse effect to changes in the concentration of gases in planetary atmospheres,” Acta Polytechnica, 2013, 53(Supplement): 832 — 838.
”An outburst from a massive star 40 days before a supernova explosion,” Nature, 2013, 494: 65 — 67.
”Variability in daily, zonal mean lower-stratospheric temperatures,” Journal of Climate, 1994, 7: 106 — 120.
”Precision global temperatures from satellites and urban warming effects of non-satellite data,” Atmospheric Environment, 1995, 29: 1957 — 1961.
”How accurate are satellite ’thermometers’?,” Nature, 1997, 389: 342 — 343.
“Multidecadal changes in the vertical structure of the tropical troposphere,” Science, 2000, 287: 1242 — 1245.
”Assessing levels of uncertainty in recent temperature time series,” Climate Dynamics, 2000, 16: 587 — 601.
”Reliability of satellite data sets,” Science, 2003, 301: 1046 — 1047.
”Temperature changes in the bulk atmosphere: beyond the IPCC,” in Patrick J. Michaels, ed., Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005.
”A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions,” International Journal of Climatology, 2008, 28: 1693 — 1701.
”Limits on CO2 climate forcing from recent temperature data of Earth,” Energy & Environment, 2009, 20: 178 — 189.
”What do observational datasets say about modeled tropospheric temperature trends since 1979?,” Remote Sensing, 2010, 2: 2148 — 2169.
”IPCC: cherish it, tweak it or scrap it?,” Nature, 2010, 463: 730 — 732.
”The international surface temperature initiative global land surface databank: monthly temperature data release description and methods,” Geoscience Data Journal, 2014, 1: 75 — 102.
Conhecereis a Verdade
DeleteBy climate change I mean the mainstream consensus position.
Epistle
Wow simply amazing. You basically spammed this thread with a list of articles the vast majority of which don't actually even argue the issue of climate change caused by man made activity. Most of them deal with various aspects of the climate and are at best only tangentially related to the topic under discussion. I'm almost certain you've not read or understood the vast bulk of these articles you cited. You probably just copied and pasted them from some denialist website in the hopes that they would cow and impress someone reading this thread. Dolt.
rolo
Delete"Wow simply amazing. You basically spammed this thread with a list of articles the vast majority of which don't actually even argue the issue of climate change caused by man made activity. Most of them deal with various aspects of the climate and are at best only tangentially related to the topic under discussion. I'm almost certain you've not read or understood the vast bulk of these articles you cited. You probably just copied and pasted them from some denialist website in the hopes that they would cow and impress someone reading this thread. Dolt."
Walked straight into my trap, rolo! (Or should I say rofl?) :)
I did indeed copy and paste the publications, but I copied them and pasted them from the university or academic websites of the professors and scientists who are climate change skeptics in the earlier link I provided for you (here). It's their work and publications you're taking issue with. Why don't you have a discussion with them if that's how you're going to characterize their work? Dolt. ;)
In any case, it looks like Steve Hays has recently posted a more detailed response on the topic in "The noble lie".
I guess there's no more fun to be had responding to rolo since he got banned!
Deleterolo got rolled! :(
Anyway, I noticed I forgot to address this part:
"the vast majority of which don't actually even argue the issue of climate change caused by man made activity"
1. Actually, many of the papers above are about man-made climate change.
2. Also, keep in mind what I copied and pasted is a mere sampling of what's available. There are plenty more published papers by scientists who are skeptical about man-made climate change having the kind of power and scope man-made climate change is said to have.
In any case, the fact that many skeptical papers have been published and exist is really all that's needed to disprove rolo's original contention that the evidence is entirely on his side. (And I haven't even discussed the quality of the papers on either side. Their methodology, validity, biases, etc. That'd probably cause rolo to blow a gasket.)
3. A paper can be about something tangentially or indirectly related to climate change, but still be addressing climate change by undercutting or overturning the related issue, for example.
4. Besides, rolo missed the big picture: all the papers I copied and pasted were from academic scientists working and publishing in the field or a related relevant field who are skeptical about man-made climate change. The fact that there are tenured professors and scientists at academic institutions who are skeptical about man-made climate change having the kind of power and scope it reputedly has is enough to undermine rolo's simple-minded notion that no scholar disputes it.
5. Earlier rolo cited the website Skeptical Science created by John Cook. Cook is a psychologist, not a climatologist or the like. Hence, according to rolo's own yardstick, Cook should be disqualified or at least distrusted when he talks about climate change.
"5. Earlier rolo cited the website Skeptical Science created by John Cook. Cook is a psychologist, not a climatologist or the like. Hence, according to rolo's own yardstick, Cook should be disqualified or at least distrusted when he talks about climate change."
DeleteOr I should say: according to rolo's own yardstick, we ought to be skeptical about Cook's Skeptical Science because Cook is a psychologist rather than a climatologist or in a related discipline! :)
Just to keep tabs on the actual state of the argument, Grifman raised an intelligent objection to my modest little post. I then mentioned a counterexample (tidal rivers) to illustrate the principle that the water level of a body of water a river empties into can affect the water level of the river. He responded that the river in question wasn't a tidal river. Mind you, I didn't say it was. I used used that illustration to demonstrate a principle. I then gave another example (Lake Washington/Sammamish river), not involving tidal rivers, in which the water level of a body of water a river empties into can affect the water level of the river. Unless I missed it, I didn't see any commenter refute that principle.
ReplyDeleteThe influence on the level of the river is just at the mouth causing flooding, unless the river is channeled. So the principle is valid but only near the mouth of the river.
DeleteLake Washington is 16 feet above sea level. The river in question in Central Europe if 115 meters+ above sea level. Please explain how any reasonable increase/decrease in sea level is going to have a significant impact of a point on such a river hundreds of miles from the ocean. A far greater impact would be local condition controlling the amount of water flowing into the river (rainfall, irrigation, drinking water, etc).
DeleteA few thoughts:
Delete1. Some of the hunger stones are closer to the ocean than others. Take the hunger stone located north of Angermünde. According to a quick Google search, Angermünde is about 75 km (~50 mi) from Dąbie Lake, which eventually connects to the Baltic Sea. That's much closer than "hundreds of miles" from the ocean.
2. The Elbe river appears to be the main river where the hunger stones are found, though there are several other rivers involved (e.g. Rhine, Weser). The main source of the Elbe lies in the mountains and the main part of the Elbe empties into the North Sea. So the elevation of the Elbe presumably varies between 1400 m (mountains) to 0 m (sea level), depending on the specific point we're referring to. Moreover, isn't the last 50-100 km of the Elbe basically flat 0 m (sea level)?
3. Regardless, the general point is true: it is possible for sea level changes (rises) to impact inland water including water tables. Although, of course, not all aquifers are impacted in the same way. There are several variables involved. Such as the kind and quantity of sea water intrusion into the fresh water lens, the fresh water pressure, soil permeability, flow rates, and so on. For example, take Florida. Much of Florida sits atop porous limestone. If the Gulf of Mexico or Atlantic sea levels rise enough, then Florida's water table could increase in salinity and acidification.
Wow I can tell someone went on a block spree, because they couldn't answer the simple questions or objections I made of them. Petty.
ReplyDelete