Comments on: How to talk to a climate skeptic http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/11/01/how-to-talk-to-a-climate-skeptic/ hopping along the corridors of power Thu, 08 Jan 2009 20:15:52 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: terence http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/11/01/how-to-talk-to-a-climate-skeptic/#comment-18444 terence Sun, 05 Nov 2006 03:06:00 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/11/01/how-to-talk-to-a-climate-skeptic/#comment-18444 Hi there Kiore1, Real Climate (where else) has a good explanation of carbon isotopes. The carbon most definately <b> is ours </b>. www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87 Hi there Kiore1,

Real Climate (where else) has a good explanation of carbon isotopes. The carbon most definately is ours .

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

]]> By: kiore1 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/11/01/how-to-talk-to-a-climate-skeptic/#comment-18428 kiore1 Sat, 04 Nov 2006 01:54:22 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/11/01/how-to-talk-to-a-climate-skeptic/#comment-18428 BJ - I would appreciate a link to the isotopes studies if you can find it. If we can show the CO2 is ours, then that would really clinch the argument IMO. Without it there could still be some uncertainty, but I am not as convinced it is a great as insider seems to think. kiore1 www.epf.og.nz BJ - I would appreciate a link to the isotopes studies if you can find it. If we can show the CO2 is ours, then that would really clinch the argument IMO. Without it there could still be some uncertainty, but I am not as convinced it is a great as insider seems to think.

kiore1
http://www.epf.og.nz

]]> By: bjchip http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/11/01/how-to-talk-to-a-climate-skeptic/#comment-18403 bjchip Fri, 03 Nov 2006 09:00:32 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/11/01/how-to-talk-to-a-climate-skeptic/#comment-18403 The CO2 has risen to higher levels than have been seen through the last 5 ice-ages, and faster than it has ever risen by any measure we can establish by ORDERS-OF-MAGNITUDE. Temperature is the lagging indicator, like 30-50 years during a stable interglacial. So we are seeing the effects of the middle of the LAST century at this point. Temp precedes a CO2 spike at the end of the ice-age. The end of the ice-age is driven by other phenomena and the CO2 amplifies other signals but doesn't by itself drive. The temperature continues to rise with the CO2 contribution added at that point... and the starting concentrations are quite low.... particularly compared to the present. With respect to the isotopes, those have certainly been used to good effect and we know quite clearly that the CO2 is ours. BJ The CO2 has risen to higher levels than have been seen through the last 5 ice-ages, and faster than it has ever risen by any measure we can establish by ORDERS-OF-MAGNITUDE. Temperature is the lagging indicator, like 30-50 years during a stable interglacial. So we are seeing the effects of the middle of the LAST century at this point.

Temp precedes a CO2 spike at the end of the ice-age. The end of the ice-age is driven by other phenomena and the CO2 amplifies other signals but doesn’t by itself drive. The temperature continues to rise with the CO2 contribution added at that point… and the starting concentrations are quite low…. particularly compared to the present.

With respect to the isotopes, those have certainly been used to good effect and we know quite clearly that the CO2 is ours.

BJ

]]> By: insider http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/11/01/how-to-talk-to-a-climate-skeptic/#comment-18374 insider Fri, 03 Nov 2006 03:43:19 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/11/01/how-to-talk-to-a-climate-skeptic/#comment-18374 Kiore I think you are overestimating the certainty 1. Not in dispute 2. risen markedly? I think this is what much debate focuses on. It has risen, it appears to have risen out of line with recent historic values but not unprecedented in geological time. 3. No. It is believed to be partially/significantly responsible for some/most of the change but as you point out the signal is not exact. 4. I'm not sure that is as precise a view as that. Isn't there an argument that the temp precedes the CO2 increase. On your question about C13 I don't believe there's any argument that fossil CO2 is not in old samples - I believe it has been studied. Kiore

I think you are overestimating the certainty

1. Not in dispute

2. risen markedly? I think this is what much debate focuses on. It has risen, it appears to have risen out of line with recent historic values but not unprecedented in geological time.

3. No. It is believed to be partially/significantly responsible for some/most of the change but as you point out the signal is not exact.

4. I’m not sure that is as precise a view as that. Isn’t there an argument that the temp precedes the CO2 increase. On your question about C13 I don’t believe there’s any argument that fossil CO2 is not in old samples - I believe it has been studied.

]]> By: kiore1 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/11/01/how-to-talk-to-a-climate-skeptic/#comment-18329 kiore1 Thu, 02 Nov 2006 22:01:17 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/11/01/how-to-talk-to-a-climate-skeptic/#comment-18329 Chefen If the models are not actually independent then your critique is fair enough, and maybe they are all the same model. To use the smoking analogy this would be like continually sampling the same population. But my understanding is that atmospheric modeling is not the only metholodogy used and is not the only evidence. It seems the following are indisputable. 1. Humans are putting a lot more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. 2. The termperature of the earth has risen markedly in the last 100 years, more so than prviously, and more than can be accounted for through simple random effects. 3. The rise in CO2 is correlated with the rise in temperature. 4. Ice samples have shown that there is always a correlation between CO2 rise and temperaure. Of course a correlation is not the same as a causal relationship, and it is possible that the termperature caused the CO2 rise, or the temperature and the CO2 rise are both caused by an unknown factor X. Mitigating against this however are the following. A. Physical chemistry predicts a rise in temperature with a rise in CO2 B. No candidate for X has been identified. Sunspots and various other factors have been ruled out. C. No plausible model has been found for a way in which the temperature rise could cause a rise in CO2 levels. One that does come to mind is simply more release of CO2 from solution in the oceans, but if that was what caused the rise then the atmospheric concentration of other gases found in the oceans should also increase. I would like to know if anyone has studied the level of C13 in CO2 in the present atmosphere and made comparisons with CO2 trapped in the ice. If there is a much lower concentration of C13 now then that would indicate that the increase is coming from fossil fuel burning. As far as the "hockey stick" argument goes, it seems as if Coby is making the quite reasonable and honest admission that he does not know enought about it to say whether it is valid, so he/she will give others the benefit of the doubt and assume it is invalid. But Coby then says that the nobody needs to rely on the hockey stick because there is plenty of other evidence, which actually backs up what I said about cumulative evidence. kiore1 www.epf.org.nz Chefen

If the models are not actually independent then your critique is fair enough, and maybe they are all the same model. To use the smoking analogy this would be like continually sampling the same population.

But my understanding is that atmospheric modeling is not the only metholodogy used and is not the only evidence.

It seems the following are indisputable.

1. Humans are putting a lot more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution.

2. The termperature of the earth has risen markedly in the last 100 years, more so than prviously, and more than can be accounted for through simple random effects.

3. The rise in CO2 is correlated with the rise in temperature.

4. Ice samples have shown that there is always a correlation between CO2 rise and temperaure.

Of course a correlation is not the same as a causal relationship, and it is possible that the termperature caused the CO2 rise, or the temperature and the CO2 rise are both caused by an unknown factor X.

Mitigating against this however are the following.

A. Physical chemistry predicts a rise in temperature with a rise in CO2

B. No candidate for X has been identified. Sunspots and various other factors have been ruled out.

C. No plausible model has been found for a way in which the temperature rise could cause a rise in CO2 levels. One that does come to mind is simply more release of CO2 from solution in the oceans, but if that was what caused the rise then the atmospheric concentration of other gases found in the oceans should also increase.

I would like to know if anyone has studied the level of C13 in CO2 in the present atmosphere and made comparisons with CO2 trapped in the ice. If there is a much lower concentration of C13 now then that would indicate that the increase is coming from fossil fuel burning.

As far as the “hockey stick” argument goes, it seems as if Coby is making the quite reasonable and honest admission that he does not know enought about it to say whether it is valid, so he/she will give others the benefit of the doubt and assume it is invalid. But Coby then says that the nobody needs to rely on the hockey stick because there is plenty of other evidence, which actually backs up what I said about cumulative evidence.

kiore1
http://www.epf.org.nz

]]> By: bjchip http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/11/01/how-to-talk-to-a-climate-skeptic/#comment-18318 bjchip Thu, 02 Nov 2006 18:13:06 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/11/01/how-to-talk-to-a-climate-skeptic/#comment-18318 HA I see the blog software has cleverly removed my xml delimiters for the fake mexican accent. This rather spoils the joke. One day I'm going to have to have a chat with the SW source code. Not today though. BJ HA

I see the blog software has cleverly removed my xml delimiters for the fake mexican accent. This rather spoils the joke.

One day I’m going to have to have a chat with the SW source code.

Not today though.

BJ

]]> By: bjchip http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/11/01/how-to-talk-to-a-climate-skeptic/#comment-18317 bjchip Thu, 02 Nov 2006 18:11:00 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/11/01/how-to-talk-to-a-climate-skeptic/#comment-18317 Chefen Please :-) We're in New Zealand ... We done neeed no steeenking decisions .... and more seriously It is what it is respectfully BJ Chefen

Please :-)

We’re in New Zealand …

We done neeed no steeenking decisions

…. and more seriously

It is what it is

respectfully
BJ

]]> By: Chefen http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/11/01/how-to-talk-to-a-climate-skeptic/#comment-18316 Chefen Thu, 02 Nov 2006 17:43:01 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/11/01/how-to-talk-to-a-climate-skeptic/#comment-18316 "We rely on the fact that people who actually KNOW what they are talking about are not climate change deniers…" Well so long as we are all clear about how to decide who is who then. “We rely on the fact that people who actually KNOW what they are talking about are not climate change deniers…”

Well so long as we are all clear about how to decide who is who then.

]]> By: bjchip http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/11/01/how-to-talk-to-a-climate-skeptic/#comment-18315 bjchip Thu, 02 Nov 2006 17:00:40 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/11/01/how-to-talk-to-a-climate-skeptic/#comment-18315 Chefen - We don't rely on it. We rely on the fact that people who actually KNOW what they are talking about are not climate change deniers... Not all Greens are equally qualified at science, but you will find that there are more than a few scientists and engineers among the Greens. respectfully BJ Chefen - We don’t rely on it. We rely on the fact that people who actually KNOW what they are talking about are not climate change deniers…

Not all Greens are equally qualified at science, but you will find that there are more than a few scientists and engineers among the Greens.

respectfully
BJ

]]> By: Chefen http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/11/01/how-to-talk-to-a-climate-skeptic/#comment-18311 Chefen Thu, 02 Nov 2006 13:39:20 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/11/01/how-to-talk-to-a-climate-skeptic/#comment-18311 Well his description of chaos and its application to climate for a start, that is wrong. The "objection" it answers is itself faulty but his rebuttal makes the same error, that chaotic systems are not deterministic. The objection is bad, the rebuttal is worse, so it's all a bit pointless. He tries to address that but doesn't seem to understand chaos very well. Ditto for the hockey stick stuff, where he goes basically from "I don't really understand it" to "well it doesn't matter anyway". He doesn't even come near addressing the question of "are these actually temperature proxies?". General inconsistencies, you need to read through a few of his entries and and match up the arguments, but I pointed out a few of those above. Unfortunately the RC comments don't really say much more than 'good work'. Really all I'm saying is that I wouldn't rely on it for "defeating" someone who knew what they were talking about and sat down with the whole thing. Well his description of chaos and its application to climate for a start, that is wrong. The “objection” it answers is itself faulty but his rebuttal makes the same error, that chaotic systems are not deterministic. The objection is bad, the rebuttal is worse, so it’s all a bit pointless. He tries to address that but doesn’t seem to understand chaos very well.

Ditto for the hockey stick stuff, where he goes basically from “I don’t really understand it” to “well it doesn’t matter anyway”. He doesn’t even come near addressing the question of “are these actually temperature proxies?”.

General inconsistencies, you need to read through a few of his entries and and match up the arguments, but I pointed out a few of those above. Unfortunately the RC comments don’t really say much more than ‘good work’.

Really all I’m saying is that I wouldn’t rely on it for “defeating” someone who knew what they were talking about and sat down with the whole thing.

]]>