Reader comments
My view: Global-warming skeptic aims to mislead
115 comments | Read story
- Page:
- < Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
robert davies | 9:06 p.m. Nov. 20, 2007
Ian,
I have undergraduate degrees in both physics and atmospheric physics, and a PhD in Physics. I�ve worked as an Air Force meteorologist; for NASA; on several programs using spacecraft to study Earth�s upper atmosphere; and taught physics on the faculty of three universities.
That said, I don't consider myself a climate expert. But there are many who are; I have the background to understand their work, and I�ve spent a great deal of time and effort studying the literature and the subject.
I�m don�t belong to any political parties or environmental organizations. I�m also not trying to drum up money for my own climate research - as I�m not a climate researcher. I�m a well-trained scienist who has studied the issue intently and concluded (i) the consensus of the climate science community is broad and deep, and founded on an absolute mountain of research; and (ii) risk management dictates swift, prudent action.
By the way, given the extreme level of disinformation being proffered, and the subject of my commentary, I think your question about credentials is reasonable and warranted.
I have undergraduate degrees in both physics and atmospheric physics, and a PhD in Physics. I�ve worked as an Air Force meteorologist; for NASA; on several programs using spacecraft to study Earth�s upper atmosphere; and taught physics on the faculty of three universities.
That said, I don't consider myself a climate expert. But there are many who are; I have the background to understand their work, and I�ve spent a great deal of time and effort studying the literature and the subject.
I�m don�t belong to any political parties or environmental organizations. I�m also not trying to drum up money for my own climate research - as I�m not a climate researcher. I�m a well-trained scienist who has studied the issue intently and concluded (i) the consensus of the climate science community is broad and deep, and founded on an absolute mountain of research; and (ii) risk management dictates swift, prudent action.
By the way, given the extreme level of disinformation being proffered, and the subject of my commentary, I think your question about credentials is reasonable and warranted.
Ryan | 9:27 p.m. Nov. 20, 2007
Dr. Davies,
You respond with a number of statements I agree with (rather than addressing my main argument) so it's difficult to pin you down.
"Earth has no preferred temperature"
I agree. Of course, I didn't say anything about preferred temperature.
"nothing in nature is trying to keep us at one temperature or another."
I think we all agree on that.
"The only real question is: how much higher?"
Exactly. The difference of opinion is over how much difference man's contribution to greenhouse gases makes. That is what we've been discussing, right?
Now I want to be very clear so there will be no confusion this time.
From all natural causes and all human causes--with the exception of human caused greenhouse gas emissions--is there a way to calculate the precise average temperature the earth would be expected to have?
If I need to clarify the question, let me know. Otherwise, I'd like your answer.
I strongly suspect there is currently no way to calculate such a thing. Without such a number, you can not say that the current average global temperature is substantially artificially inflated. If you feel the number exists, what is it?
Respectfully,
Ryan
You respond with a number of statements I agree with (rather than addressing my main argument) so it's difficult to pin you down.
"Earth has no preferred temperature"
I agree. Of course, I didn't say anything about preferred temperature.
"nothing in nature is trying to keep us at one temperature or another."
I think we all agree on that.
"The only real question is: how much higher?"
Exactly. The difference of opinion is over how much difference man's contribution to greenhouse gases makes. That is what we've been discussing, right?
Now I want to be very clear so there will be no confusion this time.
From all natural causes and all human causes--with the exception of human caused greenhouse gas emissions--is there a way to calculate the precise average temperature the earth would be expected to have?
If I need to clarify the question, let me know. Otherwise, I'd like your answer.
I strongly suspect there is currently no way to calculate such a thing. Without such a number, you can not say that the current average global temperature is substantially artificially inflated. If you feel the number exists, what is it?
Respectfully,
Ryan
Comments continue below
robert davies | 9:52 p.m. Nov. 20, 2007
Ryan,
Careful w/ the word �precise.� Given knowledge of past global ave. temps, and conditions which gave rise to them, it�s possible to calculate what we might expect today, in the absence of the man made CO2 - with error bars. This is one thing that modelers do. Uncertainty in the calculation comes from imperfect knowledge of past conditions and all relevant feedbacks.
But phrasing the question as you have, I suspect you�re missing the main point: it�s not the actual, absolute temperature we�re really interested in, but the recent (past 50 yrs) upward trend. This trend cannot be accounted for with the natural tugs on the system, and can be accounted for very well by including the known physics of greenhouse gases. Furthermore, if you play the tape to the end of the century, you find high probability for additional expected warming that is dramatic and dangerous. Very dangerous.
Again, not to sound like a broken record, but go to RealClimate. Peruse the modeling posts located in the Archive, and the many additional links you�ll find there. You can even pose questions to the climate scientists who run the site; they don�t impose space restrictions on their answers.
Careful w/ the word �precise.� Given knowledge of past global ave. temps, and conditions which gave rise to them, it�s possible to calculate what we might expect today, in the absence of the man made CO2 - with error bars. This is one thing that modelers do. Uncertainty in the calculation comes from imperfect knowledge of past conditions and all relevant feedbacks.
But phrasing the question as you have, I suspect you�re missing the main point: it�s not the actual, absolute temperature we�re really interested in, but the recent (past 50 yrs) upward trend. This trend cannot be accounted for with the natural tugs on the system, and can be accounted for very well by including the known physics of greenhouse gases. Furthermore, if you play the tape to the end of the century, you find high probability for additional expected warming that is dramatic and dangerous. Very dangerous.
Again, not to sound like a broken record, but go to RealClimate. Peruse the modeling posts located in the Archive, and the many additional links you�ll find there. You can even pose questions to the climate scientists who run the site; they don�t impose space restrictions on their answers.
Ryan | 9:58 p.m. Nov. 20, 2007
Other planets are warming,
I think the issue of other planets exhibiting substantial warming/cooling is very relevant. I have not been satisfied with the answers and suspect a double standard, for what it's worth.
-Ryan
I think the issue of other planets exhibiting substantial warming/cooling is very relevant. I have not been satisfied with the answers and suspect a double standard, for what it's worth.
-Ryan
robert davies | 10:19 p.m. Nov. 20, 2007
On absolute temperature:
Ryan�s question raises the issue of �what should the temperature be?� But Earth�s climate is such a complex system, with so many feedbacks, it�s impossible to calculate �precisely� from first principles alone. So what one does is use past climate data, and knowledge of conditions, to estimate the magnitude of many of the feedbacks. One then reintroduces this information back into the calculation.
But absolute temperature isn�t so important. It�s akin to being in a boat at sea; you�re not really interested in the depth of the water, but the height of the waves - i.e., the changing depth of the top few meters. The human ecosystem evolved within a certain temperature range; it�s not so important what that range is, but that temperatures are rapidly increasing. All evidence points strongly toward anthropogenic increase of greenhouse gases as the reason for the big wave. And soon, under business-as-usual, we will drive temperatures higher than the human ecosystem has ever experienced, and with a much faster rate of increase.
Past climate data tells us the natural temp. range. We�re quickly leaving that range, and the question is �why?�
Ryan�s question raises the issue of �what should the temperature be?� But Earth�s climate is such a complex system, with so many feedbacks, it�s impossible to calculate �precisely� from first principles alone. So what one does is use past climate data, and knowledge of conditions, to estimate the magnitude of many of the feedbacks. One then reintroduces this information back into the calculation.
But absolute temperature isn�t so important. It�s akin to being in a boat at sea; you�re not really interested in the depth of the water, but the height of the waves - i.e., the changing depth of the top few meters. The human ecosystem evolved within a certain temperature range; it�s not so important what that range is, but that temperatures are rapidly increasing. All evidence points strongly toward anthropogenic increase of greenhouse gases as the reason for the big wave. And soon, under business-as-usual, we will drive temperatures higher than the human ecosystem has ever experienced, and with a much faster rate of increase.
Past climate data tells us the natural temp. range. We�re quickly leaving that range, and the question is �why?�
Thomas | 11:48 p.m. Nov. 20, 2007
Re: the guy who keeps going on about yellowish-brown air, could someone please
explain that global warming has nothing to do with that stuff?
Ryan | 9:39 a.m. Nov. 21, 2007
"Careful w/ the word
�precise.�"
I used the word "precise" because I meant "precise." How about that?
"with error bars"
In other words, the answer is no. I don't blame you for avoiding a straight answer, but it would have been nice.
"But phrasing the question as you have, I suspect you�re missing the main point"
No, I understand your main point. Your point and my point are two separate points. When I make my point it doesn't mean I don't understand yours. See how that works?
As I have explained, your point assumes the earth has been reacting rather than normalizing. It doesn't help that you use a cooling trend as your start point (50 years ago).
At issue is artificial temperature inflation. If we don't know what the temperature would naturally be, we can not claim substantial artificial inflation. As we have established, there is no such precise temperature. Of course, this does not mean that range is insignificant. But a range does not give us the clarity we need. Since you volunteered that you believe a range has been determined, will you provide the exact numbers and confidence level on the estimates?
Respectfully,
Ryan
I used the word "precise" because I meant "precise." How about that?
"with error bars"
In other words, the answer is no. I don't blame you for avoiding a straight answer, but it would have been nice.
"But phrasing the question as you have, I suspect you�re missing the main point"
No, I understand your main point. Your point and my point are two separate points. When I make my point it doesn't mean I don't understand yours. See how that works?
As I have explained, your point assumes the earth has been reacting rather than normalizing. It doesn't help that you use a cooling trend as your start point (50 years ago).
At issue is artificial temperature inflation. If we don't know what the temperature would naturally be, we can not claim substantial artificial inflation. As we have established, there is no such precise temperature. Of course, this does not mean that range is insignificant. But a range does not give us the clarity we need. Since you volunteered that you believe a range has been determined, will you provide the exact numbers and confidence level on the estimates?
Respectfully,
Ryan
Other planet warming | 2:12 p.m. Nov. 21, 2007
I did my homework and found out that Realclimate is run by Environmental Media
Services.
Google it. I will not get my information from this site. It has its own agenda and is not a credible site.
Google it. I will not get my information from this site. It has its own agenda and is not a credible site.
RD | 12:15 a.m. Nov. 22, 2007
Ryan,
The term 'precise', as you are trying to use it (i.e., exact), is simply meaningless in science. EVERY MEASUREMENT HAS UNCERTAINTY. Scientists don't use the term as you do. When we say "how precise?" - i.e., "with what precision?" - we mean "to what decimal place is your measurement valid?"
I cannot tell you 'precisely' what I weigh; my scale rounds to the nearest 0.10 lb. Nevertheless, I can tell you when I'm gaining weight.
You want me to tell you science understands everything about climate, with infinite precision; if I can't, you choose not to acknowledge the things it does understand with high confidence. So be it. Your choice. We don't understand everything about quantum mechanics either; yet your cell phone works.
I wish I could help you understand the science of climate change. Clearly I cannot - at least in this forum. You will believe what you choose. I wish your children well. I will choose to believe the science, and fight for the prudent, conservative path of caution in twiddling knobs we don't fully understand.
Cheerio, my friend...
The term 'precise', as you are trying to use it (i.e., exact), is simply meaningless in science. EVERY MEASUREMENT HAS UNCERTAINTY. Scientists don't use the term as you do. When we say "how precise?" - i.e., "with what precision?" - we mean "to what decimal place is your measurement valid?"
I cannot tell you 'precisely' what I weigh; my scale rounds to the nearest 0.10 lb. Nevertheless, I can tell you when I'm gaining weight.
You want me to tell you science understands everything about climate, with infinite precision; if I can't, you choose not to acknowledge the things it does understand with high confidence. So be it. Your choice. We don't understand everything about quantum mechanics either; yet your cell phone works.
I wish I could help you understand the science of climate change. Clearly I cannot - at least in this forum. You will believe what you choose. I wish your children well. I will choose to believe the science, and fight for the prudent, conservative path of caution in twiddling knobs we don't fully understand.
Cheerio, my friend...
Ryan | 12:23 p.m. Nov. 22, 2007
Davies,
By "precise" I mean "with a high degree of precision."
I thought it was obvious, but if you didn't understand you should have asked for clarification (I told you I would be happy to clarify--you might have missed that part).
Since you didn't answer the question directly, I was forced to surmise from your response that the error range is too large to constitute a high degree of precision.
You are right about one thing. If you continue dodging the questions, it will be impossible for you to explain why you think I am wrong.
So without further ado, I'll give you another chance:
Will you provide the range numbers and confidence level on the estimates?
As always, if you don't understand, simply ask and I will gladly clarify. There is no such thing as a dumb question.
Respectfully,
Ryan
By "precise" I mean "with a high degree of precision."
I thought it was obvious, but if you didn't understand you should have asked for clarification (I told you I would be happy to clarify--you might have missed that part).
Since you didn't answer the question directly, I was forced to surmise from your response that the error range is too large to constitute a high degree of precision.
You are right about one thing. If you continue dodging the questions, it will be impossible for you to explain why you think I am wrong.
So without further ado, I'll give you another chance:
Will you provide the range numbers and confidence level on the estimates?
As always, if you don't understand, simply ask and I will gladly clarify. There is no such thing as a dumb question.
Respectfully,
Ryan
RD | 4:00 p.m. Nov. 23, 2007
Ryan,
I don't personally do these calculations. But some of the scientists at RealClimate do (Gavin Schmidt, in particular). Pose your question to them; I'm sure they will answer it.
I do have some papers with representative ensemble model runs, with and without human effects. They show that, only considering natural forcings, the current Global Ave. Temp. should be from 0.7 - 1.0 deg C cooler than it is today, to within two standard deviations (95% confidence level).
I don't personally do these calculations. But some of the scientists at RealClimate do (Gavin Schmidt, in particular). Pose your question to them; I'm sure they will answer it.
I do have some papers with representative ensemble model runs, with and without human effects. They show that, only considering natural forcings, the current Global Ave. Temp. should be from 0.7 - 1.0 deg C cooler than it is today, to within two standard deviations (95% confidence level).
Ryan | 11:31 p.m. Nov. 23, 2007
Dr. Davies,
Thank you for the info. What are the titles of the papers you refer to? I'd like a chance to go over them and let you know what I think. I haven't been to realclimate yet, but I intend to do so soon.
Thanks,
Ryan
Thank you for the info. What are the titles of the papers you refer to? I'd like a chance to go over them and let you know what I think. I haven't been to realclimate yet, but I intend to do so soon.
Thanks,
Ryan
RD | 4:50 p.m. Nov. 25, 2007
A nice summary analysis of modeling is found in the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) , Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), Working Group 1, Chaps.
8 and 9. If you google IPCC, you'll find links to pdf versions of this
material.
With regard to your specific question, you'll find Chap. 9, Sec. 9.4.1.2 particularly relevant, especially Fig. 9.5 (p. 684). The analysis encapsulated in this figure derives from several papers, referenced in the caption, with detailed citation in the References section at the end of the chapter.
Best,
rob davies
With regard to your specific question, you'll find Chap. 9, Sec. 9.4.1.2 particularly relevant, especially Fig. 9.5 (p. 684). The analysis encapsulated in this figure derives from several papers, referenced in the caption, with detailed citation in the References section at the end of the chapter.
Best,
rob davies
Ryan | 10:10 a.m. Dec. 15, 2007
Haven't looked up the papers yet, but thank you for getting back with the
info. I plan on making time soon to go over them so check back
- Page:
- < Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
- New plans for Sandy Proscenium land 3:27 p.m.
- Holladay development appeal denied 2:59 p.m.
- BYU bug to aid in soil clean up 2:50 p.m.
- Provo council members say goodbye 2:49 p.m.
- Rancher run over by tractor, injured 2:45 p.m.
- Stronger retail boost stocks 2:44 p.m.
- Snow hampers missing mom search 2:24 p.m.
- Gun laws becoming more loose 2:16 p.m.
- Drug combo improves cancer survival 2:13 p.m.
- Cable falls on I-80; lanes reopened 2:11 p.m.
- Letters: Global warming a lie
268 - TCU to play Boise in Fiesta Bowl207
- BYU football: Bronco weighs in on Hall195
- Palin signs books, chats with fans169
- Utah/BYU rivalry can be more civil151
- Cougars going back to Vegas150
- Andersen apologizes for Jordan hoax142
- Nude bathers cited for lewdness133
- Max Hall wants to look ahead130
- Jazz fall apart late at L.A.110
Love him or hate him, Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch knows how to get attention.
For the latest news in the health care debate and how it affects you...
Latest comments
'Care to tell me exactly how this is different than natural radiation outside...
I am so glad that the people who claim Global Warming is a hoax is a very...
Didn't the other teams start with the posts about the score in scope of the...
A guy went camping at midnight with a 2 and 4 year old - without his wife? A...
The inquisition over a period of a few hundred years killed around 2000...
There is no way in hades that Unga will stick around. A rebuilding year,...
It's about time someone writes an article on wrestling. Quite frankly, I'm...
The difference between a democrat with a few guns and a conservative with 20...
Once again the arrogance of the people of the world thinking the world...
Michigan football fan, you asked about why the NCAA doesn't make a playoff....
Advertisements
Our solar system comprises 176 known planets and moons; some are warming, some are cooling - all for many and varied reasons. Pluto, for instance, requires 248 Earth years to orbit the sun, in a fairly elliptical orbit. It warms and cools as it�s distance from the sun changes. The dissemblers would have you believe that because this or that planet or moon is warming, the sun is heating up and therefore warming Earth as well. This is utter nonsense. First: we monitor the solar output and find no significant change in the past fifty years (the period of interest for the current warming), save the few hundredths of a percent of oscillation associated w/ the 11-year sunspot cycle. Second, it suggests an �either/or� scenario. There are many simultaneous tugs on our climate, natural and anthropogenic. Our very best physics, supported by an immense volume of diverse, independent data sets, tells us the human tug is now roughly ten times greater than the natural tug.
There are numerous places to find detailed discussions on this common misconception: I recommend RealClimate, and other links you�ll find there.
Homework: Are any planets or moons cooling?