RealClimate logo


The Bore Hole

Classé dans: — group @ 6 décembre 2004

A place for comments that would otherwise disrupt sensible conversations.

1,946 Responses to “The Bore Hole”

  1. 251
    Jimmy Haigh says:

    Make a contribution? Like tax isn’t enough?

  2. 252
    Punksta says:

    Climate blogging happens because of the huge political implications of the topic.
    And as virtually all climate science is politically funded, it quite predictably comes down on he side of conclusions favourable to political action, occasionally even employing dirty tricks as per climategate.
    Climate blogging is largely driven by either support vs opposition to this politically-driven nature of climate science.

  3. 253
    Frank Giger says:

    “As for the ‘WE ALL NEED POWER 24/7′ or we can’t survive, that is pure BS!”

    So says a man with no ice cream in his freezer. :)

    Seriously, think of what 12 of 24 hours without electricity means to food storage, both in commercial and residential implications.

    Or hospitals going dark at dusk. Lighting a candle will do well in identifying who died in the ward in the last hour.

  4. 254
    Titus says:

    To Jim’s response @31. Thanks for the moderation. To get a middle ground an extreme is general needed to answer the opposite extreme. Just need somebody to point it out at times:)

    Robert Murphy @33: In my world we have lots of data and knowledge which we are very effective a capitilizing on. However, we have no understanding of how it all works together from the bottom up. We are very top down and cause and effect alludes us because we don’t know the basic mechanisms. We have theroies but no understanding.

    It’s called the natural world. Yours by my contrast appears very unnatural and superficial.

  5. 255
    Dan H. says:

    Robert,
    I think that the weather and climate are more accurately described by Titus than either Nigel or yourself. While many of us would prefer to live in a place which is peaceful and ordered, the reality is that the climatic events of this planet are rather chaotic. Through diligent observation and analsyis, we can ascertain the occurrance of some of these events a few days in advance.

  6. 256
    NikFromNYC says:

    ““pre-government-organized-meteorological or weather service” observations”

    I have lots of these plotted in a single glance for your readers to digest and ponder upon, here: http://i49.tinypic.com/rc93fa.jpg

    In the last couple years the CET one at the bottom has plunged below the trend line.

  7. 257
    John Dodds says:

    Just a question for you all to contemplate:
    Re AGW.
    As I understand AGW, the theory goes that added CO2 combines with an energy photon (ie the greenhouse effect) to warm the world, & heat the air which results in more water vapor which absorbs more photons which results in Man caused warming feedback.
    So the questions are Given that there are more water vaopr molecules already in the air, why do ONLY the ones brought in by CO2 warming get counted as warming the air? What happens to the natural ones? Why don’t photons get absorbed by all the other water vapor molecules to cause warming? (I’ve seen Gavins argument on why water vapor is a feedback and not a forcing agent – it doesn’t hold water!!) A radiated IR photon is going to be absorbed directly, and not wait around for man to release CO2 to cause warming to cause more water vapor molecules!
    Now we do know that there is more water vapor available than photons because the GHE has not vaporized (to 900C) all the water in the world. We also know that when it rains the added GHGs do not result in more warming. And we know that when the temperature is lower than the (daily, monthly yearly…)maximum then there is less GHE absorbtion because there are less photona available to be absorbed. Therefore those GHGs that were absorbing at the higher temp are now excess just sitting in the air (along with the excess CO2 that no longer have a photon to absorb) So why does Hansen & Gavin insist that all the CO2 released is always absorbing a photon in a GHE process to cause warming? & why does ALL the feedback water vapor always absorb a photon to cause warming? Why doesn’t all the added CO2 & water vapor just sit in the air as excess, not causing any more warming than what already exists?

  8. 258
    Dennis says:

    I get it, environmental activists will be so succesfull in destroying our energy infrastructure, that our refrigerators will no longer function. It’s time for me to fight the evil power.

  9. 259
    Kozlowski says:

    I’m quite certain you have already reached “joe sixpack” and perhaps over-reached as well. He has heard for years about global warming and apparently rejects the notion. Polls support this. So its not about “reaching” people, its about re-educating them – again.

  10. 260
    Jerry says:

    From “About”:
    “RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science.”

    I’ve found this site straying further and further away from the science and more and more into politics. This post is untterly unscientific, wholly political and indicative of a pervasive flippancy that has now apparently fully matured.

    I’d suggest either sticking to the site’s STATED mission or updating the “About” section because the content does not match the description.

  11. 261
    Tom Fuller says:

    That’s two really good, helpful and informative posts in a row.

  12. 262
    Joe Alderman says:

    I could use the “knowledge” of just how you determine the lack of another person’s “knowledge”.

    You wrote: “(again without any actual knowledge of the issues)”

    You may be right but I suspect that this is an ass-umption?

  13. 263
    Laws of Nature says:

    Re: #370 Vendicar Decarian

    Hmm, just a quick question, what corner I would end up!?
    I think there is proof that additional CO2 in the amtosphere contributes to the sufrace temperature (for example the 3.7W/m^2 direct radiation effect cited in the IPCC-report).
    However I see also valid points in the arguments of J. Curry, R. Pielke and S. McIntyre, which basically challange if we really know the science as well as seen in the IPCC-reports.
    For example if it would turn out that the models fail to predict the ocean oscillations or the water feedback correctly, the estimate from gavin in the answer to post #365 could be to narrow.

    Does that mean, since I see evidence for a global warming in the last 100 years and also an anthropogenic influence, that I am in the “apocalyptic half” of this study, beside the fact, that I am indeed very skeptical of the predictions for our future as given in the IPCC-reports?
    Doesn’t that just indicate a bad study?

  14. 264
    J. Bob says:

    #418 Snapple,
    this might be a better item to read, put out by the American Univ. School of Communication on Climate Shift. In the introduction it notes that:

    “For more than 20 years, environmentalists, scientists and philanthropists have worked together to mobilize action in the United States on climate change and to implement policies that address the undeniable, human causes of the problem. The many successes of this coalition, however, have been obscured over the past year by the failure of cap and trade legislation and the inability to achieve a binding international agreement on emissions”.

    http://climateshiftproject.org/report/climate-shift-clear-vision-for-the-next-decade-of-public-debate/#movements-networks-and-progress

    It had a interesting comment over at First Things on the report:
    http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2011/04/21/global-warming-hysteria-alarmists-postmortem-begins/

  15. 265

    Carbon based oxygen can not hurt the environment.
    ~ water vapor and CO2 caused the environment ~
    If not for water vapor and CO2 there would be no nitrogen from decomposing soil or (O2) dioxide to breath, there would be no greenhouse.
    Please go to http://co2u.info
    Bruce A. Kershaw

  16. 266
    Charles says:

    This is great – you guys here at RC are tying yourselves up in knots about AGW in pre-history. What next? Farting dinosaurs?
    Additionally, one of the most amusing/ridiculous comments (Jamie @23) wondered if the Spanish Armada had contributed to Global Warming. Thanks Jamie, you had me laughing out loud – I’ll treasure that comment for ever :)

  17. 267
    Dan H. says:

    Brian,
    It appears that Vegas (aka Mother Nature) has regained the upper hand. After two decades of rising temperatures, she has reigned in the mercury. Now those who monitor such things are acknowledging the cylcical nature that has occurred over the past century or so. The weather extremes wax and wane, with no clear direction. The only thing that has been the consistently rising sea levels, although slightly less in the past decade.
    Betting on changes not warranted by the data is like letting your pot ride after winning ten hands in a row. The antiscience denialists and alarmists need to look more closely at the probabilities to which you refer.

  18. 268
    Jon P says:

    Chum for the sharks, yawn boring.

  19. 269
    Charles says:

    @77 There you go – I’ve been barred from the thread, just for mentioning the ‘hotspot’. You lot here at RC are so touchy and so easy to wind up!
    Warmists only get so hot under the collar so easily (pun intended), because they realise the AGW theory is complete bunk – as soon as someone mentions the models’ problems and all their failed predictions the warmists start throwing their toys out of their pram.
    “it’s perfectly clear that you’re here to argue, not to learn”. I am here to learn, and what this article has taught me is how unbelievable silly it is to start talking about the carbon footprint of a cavemen. Obviously I’m not allowed to ‘argue’ as RC doesn’t allow for an dissent!
    Toodle pip and a whole load of sceptic love to you and all your families!
    Charles

  20. 270
    Charles says:

    Yet more evidence that Schneider believed in a coming ice age:
    In 1976 in ‘The Genesis Strategy’ he wrote: “I have cited many examples of recent climatic variability and repeated the warnings of several well-known climatologists that a cooling trend has set in–perhaps one akin to the Little Ice Age–and that climatic variability, which is the bane of reliable food production, can be expected to increase along with the cooling.”

    More interestingly, Stephen Schneider said in a 1978 television programme called ‘The Coming Ice Age’ that: “We can’t predict with any certainty what’s happening to our own climatic future. How can we come along and intervene then in that ignorance?”
    How come Stephen then went on to believe that we now CAN intervene, despite our ignorance?

    Another enlightening quote of Stephen’s comes from a 1989 issue of Discover Magazine. He said: “We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have”. It seems Schneider was quite willing to make hyperbolic and not wholly truthful statements, doesn’t it?

  21. 271
    Jerry says:

    From About”
    “The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science.”

    This topic – and dozens of others of late – are about nothing more than the political/social/economic implications. Real Climate even had a feed for commentary on congressional testimony. How much did the beer post contribute to a “scientific topic?”

    I’d think that Real Climate should either update its “About” section or go back to dealing with science.

  22. 272
    Mike C says:

    Ironically so may greens would have us do without cold beer along with other selfish pleasures.

  23. 273
    William Jackson says:

    Re: “The himalayan glacier figure (2035) was a typo not an overestimate”

    Why is it that all of the typos AGW proponents make seem to favor the alarmist cause? Hmmm.

  24. 274
    Big Dave says:

    Please pull this post. The bodies are still being pulled from the debris! The timing could not be worse. It is no longer “coincidental….”.

  25. 275
    D. Price says:

    Just read the post which says the Holocene was warmer and wetter than the LGM. I find that hard to believe concidering that in the LGM the West Antartic Ice sheet melted. That didn’t happen in the Holocene.

  26. 276
    Dan H. says:

    Yes Jimin and companies like Enron made billions of the sulpher cap and trade program. It was so successful that they spent billions trying to institute a cap and trade for carbon dioxie in which they hoped to make ten times that amount. They advocate an agreement in Kyoto for this sole purpose. However, the US Congress would have none of this. Imagine the Congress standing up to big oil and rejecting cap and trade. Who would have thunk it?

  27. 277
    Septic Matthew says:

    Another hard thing to understand is belief. Why did Newton believe that he had decoded the Revelation of St. John, and knew who the Antichrist was? Why did Einstein believe that God does not play at dice, when even he know that he did not know the mind of God?

    Why does any sensible person believe anything written or said by either Paul Ehrlich or John Holdren?

    There is a great deal of evidence concerning the spectrum of insolation, the spectrum of light re-radiated from earth, and the absorption and emission spectra of CO2, CH4, H2O; but the complete story of how that produces an increase in global ave temp from the next increases in CO2 has a lot of lacunae: starting with Kevin Trenberth’s observation that a lot of the energy in the gross flow is unaccounted for. It is not even known whether the net average albedo due to clouds will increase or decrease in the next decade or ten decades. Why then is there even a single scientist who has a “belief” in the truth of the theory?

    You should look into the part of the lizard’s brain that turns a vague percept into the belief that “That’s food”, when it’s a predatory snake instead.

  28. 278
    Teddy says:

    The blog says “science must become more ‘domesticated’ in order to make progress”

    Domestication (wikipedia defn) is the process whereby a population of animals or plants, through a process of selection, becomes accustomed to human provision and control.

    Seriously? You really want science to become accustomed to human control? Shouldn’t it become more open?

    In what way is the internet “too vast and disorganized”? In fact, it is highly organized with hierarchy, layering, abstraction and modularity – from the protocol layer to the addressing it may be the most structured success humans have ever come up with.

  29. 279
    oakwood says:

    This book review is certainly entertaining – and a classic case of denial. Makes a good case study in itself.

  30. 280
    Dan H. says:

    Zeke,
    I believe the real deniers will not be convinced regardless of the arguements presented. The skeptics are those who have not been convinced due to lack of compelling evidence. The skeptics are not skeptical because a reasonable arguement has not been presented to them, rather they are skeptical because they are not satisfied with the scientific evidence to date. This group will be convinced (one way or the other) when sufficient evidence is provided to satisfy them. This group includes many prominent scientists.

  31. 281

    And is the belief of 97.5% of climate scientologists in CAGW based on the need for there to be a scare for research money to continue to flow to climate scientology research? Wake up and smell the coffee. Only the financialy dependent and eco warrior class really believe the chicken little story now.

  32. 282
    Ian says:

    So if denial arises from the reptillian part of all human brains, what is the likelihood that proponents of cAGW are in denial of the possibility of groupthink and those that dismiss AGW outright are prisoners of groupthink in regards to their denial…

  33. 283
    PaulD says:

    I haven’t read the book, but I do find the word “denier” to be rather tiresome and unproductive. It implies that the world can be divided into two groups: those who believe scientists and those who don’t. In fact, there are many shades of gray in the viewpoints I encounter. A person who raises questions whether computer models accurately describe the climate system (e.g. Freeman Dyson) is much different from someone who wants to dispute the physics of greenhouse gases. And while one may certainly be critical of Mr.Dyson’s position, I certainly don’t think that many people will be persuaded that Freeman Dyson relies too much on his reptilian brain.

  34. 284
    Dan H. says:

    John,
    It is difficult to ignore the evidence that over the past 13 decades, ten decades have been warmer than the previous, while only three have been cooler. Add to that, the long term trend has been largely unchanged for 130 years, except for oscillating movement (The first three months of 2011 are 0.015C below the long term trend). I also find it extremely difficult to believe that this century will differ significantly from last, and that temperatures will continue their methodical rise.
    I know that Ray seems to disagree with this, but he may be one of those of whom Paul alluded to earlier.

  35. 285
    Walter says:

    The fact that denier is still used is proof that science has nothing to do with anthropogenic global warming. Describing me that way simply tells me that no evidence exists. The argument is philosophical, not scientific.

    Attempts by government and university “scientists” to frighten me about saccharine, saturated animal fat, and carbon dioxide have failed.

  36. 286
    Bill says:

    This site used to have a good reputation for independent discussion of good climate science, but now we are advertising new books, one after the other……….please, no more !

  37. 287
    J. Bob says:

    #36 SecularAnimist

    you might check you theory about spending habits, by looking at the CA Prop. 23 spending. It would appear that AGW’s outspent “Big Oil” by over 3::1 ($31.5 vs. $9.9 mill).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_23_%282010%29

  38. 288
    Steeptown says:

    Yes indeed. There are lots of people who deny natural climate change.

  39. 289
    BillS says:

    Re: Climate model genealogy, Masson & Knutti

    Is there anything surprising about their conclusions?

    Is not model building an iterative process, one of constant
    refinement, and, perhaps expansion? Are they not built over
    a period of years starting with a core idea that emphasizes one or
    a few aspects of a problem while assigning lesser importance to other
    aspects? Is it any wonder that “models developed at the same
    institution show the most striking similarities”?

    If you’re trying to model surface temperature just how many
    “independent models” does the basic physics have room for?

    What is the purpose of a model inter-comparison study? Is it not
    to see whether various models of a particular problem converge to a
    similar result?

    ….questions from a non-modeler….

  40. 290
    David Wojick says:

    ROT might be applicable to scientific studies, but the climate debate is about competing assessments of the entire body of scientific literature. Different standards apply, primarily coherence and balance.

    Is there anything new in this book?

  41. 291
    Dan H. says:

    Thomas,
    As David mentioned, a warmer atmosphere will hold more water vapor and lead to higher precipitation events. Storm strength is determined by wind speed, which is largely influenced by pressure and temperature gradients. The recent tornadic outbreak in the US resulted from a large cold air mass lingering over the central plains. The collision between this air mass and the warm, moist gulf air triggered the large outbreak of intense storms. The SST was largely irrelevant in these scenarios, as the small change in ocean temperature pales in comparison to the large change in atmospheric temperature over the land in the central US. These patterns are more typical during strong La Ninas. Many comparisons are being made with this year’s tornado outbreak and that of another strong La Nina year, 1974.
    You may have noticed that these events occurred during springtime, which is typically when the greatest temperature gradients can occur.
    Lastly, predictions of a warming Arctic combined with relatively stable tropics should result in fewer intense storms of this nature. However, this is only speculation, and not backed up with long term scientific data (many potential trends are confounded by the better reporting of tornadoes and super cells in recent years which overwhelm other effects).

  42. 292
    David Wojick says:

    John Cook’s skepticalscience.com provides an interesting perspective on the complexity and breadth of the debate, one that is no doubt unintended.

    Last I looked he listed over 100 skeptical arguments. He frames them in an unsophisticated way, suggesting that skeptics are ignorant, but still they are there. Then he provides a sophisticated pro-AW rebuttal to each one, hoping no doubt to settle the issue. Looking closely one finds that most rebuttals actually contain several distinct arguments, let’s say 300 to 400 arguments in all.

    What scientifically informed skeptics know is that there are sophisticated rebuttals to each of these pro-AGW arguments, again probably several to each, making perhaps 1000 distinct scientific arguments. And this is just the tip of the argument iceberg.

    This is a good measure of how unsettled the science actually is. It is also a framework for a proper climate research program, if the USA ever decides to pursue one, instead of simply funding pro-AGW research.

  43. 293
    Dan H. says:

    291.Thomas,
    As David mentioned, a warmer atmosphere will hold more water vapor and lead to higher precipitation events. Storm strength is determined by wind speed, which is largely influenced by pressure and temperature gradients. The recent tornadic outbreak in the US resulted from a large cold air mass lingering over the central plains. The collision between this air mass and the warm, moist gulf air triggered the large outbreak of intense storms. The SST was largely irrelevant in these scenarios, as the small change in ocean temperature pales in comparison to the large change in atmospheric temperature over the land in the central US. These patterns are more typical during strong La Ninas. Many comparisons are being made with this year’s tornado outbreak and that of another strong La Nina year, 1974.
    You may have noticed that these events occurred during springtime, which is typically when the greatest temperature gradients can occur.
    Lastly, predictions of a warming Arctic combined with relatively stable tropics should result in fewer intense storms of this nature. However, this is only speculation, and not backed up with long term scientific data (many potential trends are confounded by the better reporting of tornadoes and super cells in recent years which overwhelm other effects).

  44. 294
    Shibui says:

    Just in terms of balance, there would seem to be a need for studies on those psychologists, sociologists, warmists etc. who base their analysis of denial on the assumption that CO2 theory is proven, and hence is undeniable.

  45. 295
    W Jackson says:

    Oh I see – if I don’t believe the AGW hype I have a ‘lizard brainstem’? Nice. I guess if you can’t win the scientific argument you try other approaches.

  46. 296
    peter kirkos says:

    “Denial is apparently caused by our lizard brainstem”. I wonder what part of the brain gullibility stems from.

  47. 297
    David Wojick says:

    John Cook’s skepticalscience.com provides an interesting perspective on the complexity and breadth of the debate, one that is no doubt unintended.

    Last I looked he listed over 100 skeptical arguments. He frames them in an unsophisticated way, suggesting that skeptics are ignorant, but still the arguments are real. Then he provides a sophisticated pro-AW rebuttal to each one, hoping no doubt to settle the issue. Looking closely one finds that most rebuttals actually contain several distinct arguments, let’s say 300 to 400 arguments in all.

    What scientifically informed skeptics know is that there are sophisticated rebuttals to each of these pro-AGW arguments, again probably several to each, making perhaps 1000 distinct scientific arguments. And this is just the tip of the argument iceberg. The debate is very real.

  48. 298
    Dan H. says:

    David,
    I agree. Making the arguments look stupid is part of the approach he using in contering them. Any reasonable debate should be on solid scientific terms and regress into a shouting match or name-calling. No one likes to have their intelligence challenged or be lied to.
    The issues are real, and the concerns are valid. One should approach these concerns in a valid, scientific manner. Trying to change the psychology of people before the science of the topic is futile. Unless, the purpose is an Orwellian attempt to confound them.

  49. 299
    Dan H. says:

    Jim,
    I understand quite fine, thank you. Maybe you should look at the scientific data again to see how it compares with your predictions. People are not denying the science. They are looking at the science and asking themselves how do some people expect to move from where we are today to where they predict we will be in the future. Until they receive a satisfactory answer to that question, no amount of psychology will change their minds. Newspeak is only effective on the weak minded.

  50. 300
    Dan H. says:

    John,
    At least you may be beginning to understand why so many have not accepted the predictions for large temperature or sea level rises. There is a difference between the general understanding of the tangible as opposed to the abstract. While many can grasp that which is occurring today, they have difficulty grasping the possibility that tomorrow may changes drastically. The problem lies not with convincing people that tomorrow’s predictions will come true, but with explaining how we will move from today’s measurements to tomorrow’s calculations. There is a huge gap which has not been bridged.
    Martin,
    Most data suggests that temperatures were quite pleasant during the Roman Era, scientists even named it for such. By your claims, do you believe that temperatures will decrease then back to 1900 levels?