Form of Argument: Adventures in Rhetoric

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 4:59 AM GMT en Marzo 09, 2012

Share this Blog
16
+

Form of Argument: Adventures in Rhetoric

In 2009 I received some questions from Westview High School in San Diego, California (see here). A few weeks ago I heard from the same teacher, Bob Whitney, and he was curious about how I would respond to the issues raised in this posting on Rogues and Scholars. This is a long exchange of postings between two engineers, Burt Rutan and Brian Angliss.

In my blog, for better or worse, I have tended away from engaging in the type of discussions that are represented by this exchange. A couple of reasons: One, this line of argument that works to discredit climate change is at this point political, and as I argued here, engagement in this argument is not productive. Two, while it is necessary to address the factual inaccuracies that are stated in this type of discussion, it has been done repeatedly and well by many others (look around, for instance, at Real Climate). That said – what do you say to students who have the discussion between Rutan and Angliss at hand and want to make sense of it all?

When I look at the words used by Rutan, I see words anchored around fraud, dishonesty, alarmist - this is an argument that relies on discredit and personal attacks. Such an attack quickly raises the emotion and takes the discussion away from a knowledge base. It is the sort of attack that has become pervasive in our political conversation in general, and it is an excellent diversionary tactic. It raises the specter of distrust.

I tell students to look for the form of argument. So, first, does it rely on discredit? In this case, it does rely on discredit, and it relies on discrediting thousands of scientists, writing many thousands of papers, over many years, from many countries. It is fundamentally conspiratorial, and not only is it conspiratorial it requires that many years before climate change emerged as an important environmental problem, that the foundation for the conspiracy was being laid down. To me, this lacks any credibility in reason, but if conspiratorial beliefs are held, then it is virtually impossible to provide convincing counterarguments to the person who holds those beliefs. If the form of argument relies on conspiracy, then it is immediately suspect.

One way to address, rationally, issues of dishonesty and conspiracy is to seek external review and, ultimately, judgment. The body of climate science research has been subject to extensive external review. Governments, the National Academy (here as well), non-climate-science scientists, and lawyers have reviewed climate science. They have all affirmed the results to be well founded and based on proper scientific investigation. The studies have documented that scientists have foibles and that peer review captures the vast majority of errors and prejudices and that there are no fundamental shortcomings in the conclusions that the Earth has, at its surface, on average, warmed and with virtual certainty will continue to warm. But if you dismiss climate science on the principle of conspiratorial malfeasance, then it is simple to dismiss external review. If you stand on only your own review and have the foundation to dismiss all external review because of conspiracy, then you are always right. Hence there is no discussion. There is no possible way forward for the student other than looking at the evidence and behavior and form of argument and standing as judge.

Does the argument rely on invoking moral levers of trust and distrust based on the belief of conspiratorial fraud?

Does the argument pull out single pieces of information and ignore other pieces of information? Does the argument rely on planting belief and disbelief by reaching for metaphors outside of the field? Does the argument assert that broad claims are made when there is no evidence to support such assertion?

So for the student – you have to think about the whole, not just isolated points that are meant to be provocative and planted to grow on an emotional state fueled by claims of amoral behavior.

Yes, carbon dioxide acts as a fertilizer, but is that the complete story of the vigor of plants? Is there any denial of this role of carbon dioxide in the climate literature? Can you find quantitative, science-based studies of the carbon dioxide fertilization effect?

Yes, there was a lot of carbon dioxide when there were dinosaurs; it was warm – what is the relevance of that argument? Does that establish that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant? Can’t things that are natural also be a pollutant? Isn’t that why we don’t want mine tailings in our drinking water? Isn’t that why we manage our sewage?

There is a wealth of information out there. There are ways to analyze that information, to evaluate its validity. If this sort of argument is encumbering, then there is a need to synthesize, personally, that information to form defensible conclusions.

If you look at the form of argument that relies on emotion, picks out pieces of information to support the argument, ignores pieces of information that do not support the argument, paints moods by long reaching metaphors, and ultimately relies on a belief that a field is corrupt, and that corruption requires a conspiratorial organization extending across decades and all nations – if that is the form of argument, then how is that robust? How is that believable? It is a prejudicial form of argument directed only at making someone believe the person making the argument; it is not seeking knowledge-based understanding.

That’s how I would look at that discussion.

r



Figure 1: A summary figure I use after I walk through about 10 lectures on the basics of climate science and global warming.

If you made it here - Here are links to a PDF and a Powerpoint Slide Show that includes several viewgraphs on thinking about arguments that are frequently raised in the political argument opposing the science of climate change. (They are each about 5 MB).

PDF

PPS


Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 100 - 50

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12Blog Index

Quoting MassiveCranium:
No Need to Panic About Global Warming. CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle:

Link


See post #51

Read Science journals.

Take a Chemistry course.

Buy a canary, Place it in an eight cubic foot chamber with normal atmospheric pressure and current concentrations of gas mix at sea level. Make certain that your canary has ample food and water. Slowly introduce CO2 into the chamber. Note the CO2 concentration at which the canary begins to show side effects from the increased CO2. Note the CO2 concentration when the canary dies from the increased CO2. Return here with your report and then try to convince ANYONE that CO2 is not a pollutant.

CO2 is both beneficial and harmful to life. Concentration is key to determining which it is. CO2 introduced into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels is absolutely a pollutant. The burning of fossil fuels also introduces other pollutants into the environment. Why is that information so difficult for your MassiveCranium to absorb???

Your debate points are some of the most spurious and specious debate points that one could imagine ever being presented! Ossqss seems to have a method to "learn to learn". Perhaps he may reveal his method to you?
Member Since: Agosto 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4764
Why do people on the AGW side seem to treat (Deniers) as being unintelligent? If you can't have a healthy debate on the subject matter, then why bother?

To be honest and truthful,I don't think anybody can be 100% SURE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER AT THIS POINT!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RickyRood:


You introduced the word "pejorative" and linked my post to "every alarmist" using "pejoratives" and suggested that through blind ideology I had endorsed that form of arguments by warmists.

Now you introduce the lever of guilt.

You haven't actually said anything that directly follows from the post. You use emotionally provocative words , broaden my statements to generalizations, which end at a personal label, and then evoke some sort of ethical conflict that should cause me guilt.


You wrote explicitly that I accused you of using pejoratives, which, if you look at my comments, I never wrote. It's as simple as that. I said that those of the forefront of the AGW theory used snide and rude comments when referring to skeptics. I suppose, in your mind, you elevated yourself to one of those in the forefront. Since you're responding to my comments, how does your science determine to what extent this questionable warming is natural and what portion is due to man's "indiscretions?" This global warming "science" is pretty good for government work. The hucksters involved have almost unlimited funding and still can't pull off this fraud. Usually those who work for the government can't make it in the private sector. They'd rather take the easy money and toe the government line, whether they believe the BS or not. Also, those who can, do; those who can't, teach.
Member Since: Diciembre 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
Quoting iceagecoming:


More environmentalist nonsense, get a clue. Gaia really?
Last time I saw that was on the the back of a malfunctioning mercedes diesel wagon in Cambridge MA.
It also had a love your Mother sticker too!


What is Gaia?

... do I just start listening to the crickets now?, cricket.
Member Since: Junio 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Quoting MassiveCranium:
Ten Myths of Global Warming. A must read for the "Neapolitan-type Alarmists" who get off on fear mongering.

Link
It seems to me that the time you spend scouring the web for debunked anti-science tidbits to support your ideological-driven stance would be better spent studying actual science. That's just my opinion, of course...
Member Since: Noviembre 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13743
Quoting MassiveCranium:

What that your version of "debunking" the article?
No, that's my telling you that the assertion you made wasn't supported in any way by the WUWT blog post to which you linked. That was also me asking you to provide an alternate theory for sea level rise if it's not being caused by warming.
Member Since: Noviembre 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13743
Quoting MassiveCranium:
Another example the alarmists are wrong. No direct evidence to support Global Climate Change is the culprit behind slightly higher sea levels:

Link
First, that's not at all what the WUWT blog posts says.

"Kiribati President Anote Tong told The Associated Press on Friday that...changing rainfall, tidal and storm patterns pose as least as much threat as ocean levels..."

Second--and on a much larger note--if the planet's seas aren't rising from warming, pray tell what is the mechanism behind that rise?
Member Since: Noviembre 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13743
Member Since: Noviembre 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
Quoting NeapolitanFan:


Why don't you do some research before you make moronic statements? I stand corrected. I was wrong about the percentage of incorrectly-sited NOAA weather stations. It's not 80%. It's 90%.

Link


Howdy Cricket!
Member Since: Junio 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Quoting NeapolitanFan:


Ask Neapolitan. He's probably told me a dozen times that UHI and the vast majority of improperly sited temperature stations throughout the US have NO effect on the temperature record, which, in my humble opinion, defies the laws of physics. I don't recall, because it's been a while, but he cited a couple of "experts" who supposedly "debunked" (his favorite word) all the work by people proving that the improperly-positioned official NOAA weather stations broke NOAA's own directives. The last count, I believe, was that about 80% of the stations were too close to exhaust vents, airports, asphalt, cement, etc. You don't have to be a physicist to realize that man made materials are going to capture and store heat much longer an empty field.


Sigh, cricket, already taken into account. Read that study by sceptics from Berkely who had to change their mind.
Member Since: Junio 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Quoting TemplesOfSyrinxC4:


Goldman Sachs IMF/WorldBank economic hitmen got Italy and Greece to sign on to loans that were never intended to be repaid, rather they were used to intentionally crash their economies after they shorted the debts with derivatives and credit-default swaps, then their technocratic 'experts' were put in as saviors(from the organization that deliberately caused the crisis to begin with), Goldman Sachs alums Mario Monti in Italy and Papademos in Greece, before he was run out for another Goldman puppet. The people of the countries left holding the bag for these fraudulant Goldman Sachs engineered schemes and now have had their sovereignty stripped from them. So in that regard you're correct, as the people no longer have real representative government in Italy and Greece, EU/IMF/Worldbankster installed technocrats are running the show.



I won't speak about Greece because i am not that informed except to say that taking a 75% hit on tens of billions has to be one of the least efficient ways to take control of a country.

In Italy, you are simply wrong. I've followed Italian politics for 10 years and although no one, not even God I think, understands all the details of the deals that go on between the parties, Monti is a breath of fresh air.

He is doing his level best to return Italy to a functioning country. FYI, Burlusconi still holds the power to have him kicked out of office. Monti is in power because all the kids finally recognized that the game was getting out of control and they had to call in an adult to fix the toys before they could play again. Monti's actions are open, transparent and dignified. If you think yuo understand the situation here based on a conspiracy theory, you don't know Italy and you are being very simple minded.

If you want to discuss Italian politics, I am happy to do so. I love Italy: flawed, crazy, corrupt, exasperating wonderful warm hearted courageous brilliant Italians who live insane lives and look good doing it. I am happy to discuss the cultural memes that are still in Italy after 3000 years of civilizations washing over the peninsula. But leave your global conspiracies at home, there are a lot simpler more real explanations for Italy.
Member Since: Junio 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Quoting NeapolitanFan:


Ask Neapolitan. He's probably told me a dozen times that UHI and the vast majority of improperly sited temperature stations throughout the US have NO effect on the temperature record, which, in my humble opinion, defies the laws of physics. I don't recall, because it's been a while, but he cited a couple of "experts" who supposedly "debunked" (his favorite word) all the work by people proving that the improperly-positioned official NOAA weather stations broke NOAA's own directives. The last count, I believe, was that about 80% of the stations were too close to exhaust vents, airports, asphalt, cement, etc. You don't have to be a physicist to realize that man made materials are going to capture and store heat much longer an empty field.
I really don't know why I bother. Just know that I don't respond to these for your benefit, but rather for the benefit of any curious passers-by not solidly welded to a denialist stance.

In regards to UHIE:

"We observe the opposite of an urban heating effect over the period 1950 to 2010... This...effect is very small, and almost insignificant on the scale of the observed warming."

"Even if all these urban areas had a heat island effect as large as that of Tokyo, roughly 3C per century, the contribution to the world average once properly weighted for land area would be only 0.5% of that, or 0.015C per century... We note that our averaging procedure uses only land temperature records. Inclusion of ocean temperatures will further decrease the influence of urban heating since it is not an ocean phenomenon."

In regards to station siting:

"Based on both slope analysis and on temperature record reconstruction for the contiguous United States, using the temperature evaluations of Fall et al. [2009], we conclude that poor station quality in the United States does not unduly bias estimates of land surface average monthly temperature trends"

"The station slope analysis shows that there are also a large number of sites with negative trend lines. Some of these are due to microclimate, but others could be due to various biases, including urban and rural cooling effects. For example, if an asphalt surface is replaced by concrete, we might expect the solar absorption to decrease, leading to a net cooling effect. Rural areas could show temperature biases due to anthropogenic effects, for example, changes in irrigation."
Member Since: Noviembre 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13743
Quoting iceagecoming:
The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming.
Oddly enough, the APS's own website seems to disagree with that statement:

"The Council of the American Physical Society has overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to replace the Society's 2007 Statement on Climate Change with a version that raised doubts about global warming. The Council's vote came after it received a report from a committee of eminent scientists who reviewed the existing statement in response to a petition submitted by a group of APS members." (Link)

"Overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to replace the Society's 2007 Statement on Climate Change with a version that raised doubts about global warming" sure sounds a little different from your statement that "The American Physical Society...has reversed its stance on climate change". You wouldn't be trying to pull a fast one, would you?
Member Since: Noviembre 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13743
Quoting NeapolitanFan:


Why don't you do some research before you make moronic statements? I stand corrected. I was wrong about the percentage of incorrectly-sited NOAA weather stations. It's not 80%. It's 90%.

Link


Evidently you do not know what the term average means.
Member Since: Enero 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
Thank you for an outstanding article, Ricky. I very much enjoyed it.

I use the term denialists or deniers because those denying AGW are in no way skeptics. I object to their attempts to claim that term. Being a skeptic requires accepting the verifiable evidence in its proper context. They ignore good evidence frequently, and even more frequently use evidence out of context. So, IMHO, "skeptic" doesn't apply to them.

Even though few, if any, of their arguments are worthwhile, the field cannot be wholly abandoned to them. Silence leaves an impression with the uninformed that the denialists actually have a valid point. Such a situation helps only the denialists and hurts everyone else.

It's a dirty job. I understand those that won't do that job, particularly scientists since you are actually working to solve the problem. But I'm very glad that there are those willing to do the dirty work of making sure those who seek to deceive are thwarted with actual in context facts.

In a perfect world, I'd much rather discuss and read about AGW and its effects than argue with those that pretend it doesn't exist, but as a wise man once said, "It only takes one side to start a fight."
Member Since: Octubre 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting NeapolitanFan:


I didn't say you were making the statements with pejoratives. Did I? You must be feeling guilty. I did say that many people in the forefront of the AGW "movement" were guilty of using such words. After reading the Climategate email, the people involved had nothing but disdain (and worse) for anyone who would question the "science." Recently, people such as Trenberth et al don't hesitate to use words such as "denier" and the like, even in public statements.
Last, the very suggestion that we can compute a global average temperature defies any sort of logic. We don't have temperature readings for the entire globe. How can we compute global temperature, especially to an accuracy of tenths of a degree?


You introduced the word "pejorative" and linked my post to "every alarmist" using "pejoratives" and suggested that through blind ideology I had endorsed that form of arguments by warmists.

Now you introduce the lever of guilt.

You haven't actually said anything that directly follows from the post. You use emotionally provocative words , broaden my statements to generalizations, which end at a personal label, and then evoke some sort of ethical conflict that should cause me guilt.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting NeapolitanFan:


Ask Neapolitan. He's probably told me a dozen times that UHI and the vast majority of improperly sited temperature stations throughout the US have NO effect on the temperature record, which, in my humble opinion, defies the laws of physics. I don't recall, because it's been a while, but he cited a couple of "experts" who supposedly "debunked" (his favorite word) all the work by people proving that the improperly-positioned official NOAA weather stations broke NOAA's own directives. The last count, I believe, was that about 80% of the stations were too close to exhaust vents, airports, asphalt, cement, etc. You don't have to be a physicist to realize that man made materials are going to capture and store heat much longer an empty field.

You have to understand that scientists, on the whole, are pretty smart. Believe it or not they can compensate for the UHI. In fact, some slightly over compensate for it, but no biggie.

Hope that helps.
Member Since: Octubre 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting cyclonebuster:


LOL 80% more like .08%


Why don't you do some research before you make moronic statements? I stand corrected. I was wrong about the percentage of incorrectly-sited NOAA weather stations. It's not 80%. It's 90%.

Link
Member Since: Diciembre 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
Oh please. You linked to Alex Jones in your first blog entry in your comments. And Alex Jones is a holocaust denier. You are obsessed with the Rothschilds too. And that obsession is part of most antisemitic conspiracy theories. Give it up.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TemplesOfSyrinxC4:
lol, come on, Tunnelman- 3 consecutive posts with that, and I'm the one getting 72 hr. bans for 'spamming'? lulz!:) I'm not complaining, I understand that as a private website they can do whatever they want, including selective enforcement and don't owe anyone an explanation, so it's alright with me. I know that unlike a lot of authoritarian enviro-malthusian-death-cultists (admittedly a term I used meant to be provocative and planted to grow on an emotional state, much like the word "denier", that is used as emotional cue designed to have people associate the word on a subconscious level with holocaust deniers) whose motives I distrust, I can tell CB that you are a good person and your heart is in the right place, I believe you want to do it to help the planet and all of it's species including humans. Of course you would want to capitalize on your invention as well if it ever came to fruition, as well you should, so why don't you file for a patent on it and try to get in touch with people big time enough to make it happen. If it's actually a feasible idea, I'd want to keep it as close to the vest as possible to stop somebody from stealing your plans.


Patent is pending. The great thing about the information they will give us is it won't be

Member Since: Enero 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
Quoting NeapolitanFan:


Ask Neapolitan. He's probably told me a dozen times that UHI and the vast majority of improperly sited temperature stations throughout the US have NO effect on the temperature record, which, in my humble opinion, defies the laws of physics. I don't recall, because it's been a while, but he cited a couple of "experts" who supposedly "debunked" (his favorite word) all the work by people proving that the improperly-positioned official NOAA weather stations broke NOAA's own directives. The last count, I believe, was that about 80% of the stations were too close to exhaust vents, airports, asphalt, cement, etc. You don't have to be a physicist to realize that man made materials are going to capture and store heat much longer an empty field.


LOL 80% more like .08%
Member Since: Enero 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
Quoting BriarCraft:
Very well said.

Your logical explanation of types of arguments applies to so much politically-driven discourse these days. I always new the climate-change-deniers were using smoke-and-mirrors to "cloud" the issue, but I never knew how to explain it, let alone have any chance of countering such arguments. It is true, you can't change "beliefs" based on discredit and personal attacks, but at least you have helped me to avoid responding emotionally.


Quite an interesting post.

"Cloud the issue" is the pertinent part of this post.

Framing an argument is simply a distraction on all sides when evaluating an inverted pyramid of cultured science. What does that mean you may ask?

The development of the AGW Philosophy comes from experience. 20 years ago the global decision makers decided that Ozone was a problem and took drastic action to change it (Trillions of dollars involved). They got the Montreal protocol and it has thus far shown us no statistically viable (for one frequent poster) and physically observed difference in state.

So how did this create the AGW inverted pyramid?

First we must look at Agenda 21 from Rio. In Rio, the self appointed decision makers determined we cannot live like this and they would tell us how to appropriately live moving forward, in a framework of their choice. Subsequently, CO2 developed as a tool for implementation of their philosophy. Montreal worked, why not Kyoto?

During the initiative to fill the science in around a theory, billions of dollars were spent on finding out how CO2 could be substantiated as the culprit of a new man made warming theory that would destroy the world. If you made progress on substantiation, you got more money.

People are not going to fire themselves from a job, right?

So the hot science money getter was born. There was lots of it too.

Now to keep it short for I really don't want to be here right now, but find myself compelled.

Clouds! Just one of many things.

Any inverted pyramid is very susceptible to tipping. It does not take much to poke a hole in the AGW theory really. We can make arguments on how to frame the argument and homogenize the information for the vulnerable, but thorns are thorns.

We know very little about cloud formation. The models don't even, to any statistically significant way, take into consideration nucleation as part of cloud formation. Aside from that, the debate as to how clouds "force" is quite the amorphous discussion since there is no real data on such when all things are considered. Everything impacts everything when considering tertiary forcings. Quite complex, period. Edit: Does anyone really think that increased cloud cover, in the long run, would heat the planet when the sun is the only real source of surface warmth, if its rays cannot reach through the overcast?

Remember, the IPCC is forcing policy based upon the climate model output that we already know is not accurate when we do proof testing.

Show me I am wrong if you can.



Have a good night all and I think it would be good to temper the interaction a bit. Thanks for the post Doc, it actually solidified much of what I believe.



Member Since: Junio 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8188
TemplesOfSyrinxC4 links to holocaust deniers like Alex Jones and TemplesOfSyrinxC4 also goes on about the Rothschild family using points straight out of the Protocols of Zion.

TemplesOfSyrinxC4 posts conspiracy theories (except when making personal attacks) but not about climate change. Everyone else here posts about climate change in the majority of their posts whether you agree with their side on not. Except TemplesOfSyrinxC4.

We all know what we're dealing with here.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting misanthrope:

You just keep the hits coming, don't you. Please do provide us with some examples of "warmists" stating that the UHI effect does not increase global average temperatures. I really do love hearing from straw men.



Ask Neapolitan. He's probably told me a dozen times that UHI and the vast majority of improperly sited temperature stations throughout the US have NO effect on the temperature record, which, in my humble opinion, defies the laws of physics. I don't recall, because it's been a while, but he cited a couple of "experts" who supposedly "debunked" (his favorite word) all the work by people proving that the improperly-positioned official NOAA weather stations broke NOAA's own directives. The last count, I believe, was that about 80% of the stations were too close to exhaust vents, airports, asphalt, cement, etc. You don't have to be a physicist to realize that man made materials are going to capture and store heat much longer an empty field.
Member Since: Diciembre 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
Very well said.

Your logical explanation of types of arguments applies to so much politically-driven discourse these days. I always new the climate-change-deniers were using smoke-and-mirrors to "cloud" the issue, but I never knew how to explain it, let alone have any chance of countering such arguments. It is true, you can't change "beliefs" based on discredit and personal attacks, but at least you have helped me to avoid responding emotionally.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
We need a new thermostat. Here it is:


Member Since: Enero 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
This




fixes this!


Link








.
Member Since: Enero 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
Dr.Rood why would this Link censor my idea about how to restore Arctic Ice? Could you look into that for me and get back to me about it?
Member Since: Enero 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
???
Member Since: Enero 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


"we could be headed toward a little ice age."



Not to fear. Earth has its "blanket" on. We will stay nice and toasty.


Problem is the thermostat is broken and the temperature is running away.
Member Since: Enero 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
Quoting iceagecoming:


"we could be headed toward a little ice age."



Not to fear. Earth has its "blanket" on. We will stay nice and toasty.
Member Since: Agosto 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4764
Quoting iceagecoming:


More environmentalist nonsense, get a clue. Gaia really?
Last time I saw that was on the the back of a malfunctioning mercedes diesel wagon in Cambridge MA.
It also had a love your Mother sticker too!


Hey! I already told that it was a borrowed car. ;-)
Member Since: Agosto 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4764
Quoting Patrap:
Bravo, r,

Bravo.


The truth, be it what it is, makes Man tremble, for he and His "Thought" are the Destroyer of Gaia.



More environmentalist nonsense, get a clue. Gaia really?
Last time I saw that was on the the back of a malfunctioning mercedes diesel wagon in Cambridge MA.
It also had a love your Mother sticker too!
Member Since: Enero 27, 2009 Posts: 26 Comments: 1094
Quoting nymore:
What exactly is a climatologist. What degrees does it take to become one. I believe the term is very subjective like Medical Doctor or Construction Worker, or Engineer these terms are general.


A climatolgist here is anyone who buys the propaganda
diatribe espoused here and in the press.

So Dr Gray, stay away, might spread some facts this
way.



The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming “incontrovertible.”

In a posting to the APS forum, editor Jeffrey Marque explains,”There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution.”




Long Range Solar Forecast

Solar Cycle 25 peaking around 2022 could be one of the weakest in centuries.


May 10, 2006: The Sun's Great Conveyor Belt has slowed to a record-low crawl, according to research by NASA solar physicist David Hathaway. "It's off the bottom of the charts," he says. "This has important repercussions for future solar activity."

see captionThe Great Conveyor Belt is a massive circulating current of fire (hot plasma) within the Sun. It has two branches, north and south, each taking about 40 years to perform one complete circuit. Researchers believe the turning of the belt controls the sunspot cycle, and that's why the slowdown is important.

Right: The sun's "Great Conveyor Belt" in profile.

"Normally, the conveyor belt moves about 1 meter per second—walking pace," says Hathaway. "That's how it has been since the late 19th century." In recent years, however, the belt has decelerated to 0.75 m/s in the north and 0.35 m/s in the south. "We've never seen speeds so low."

According to theory and observation, the speed of the belt foretells the intensity of sunspot activity ~20 years in the future. A slow belt means lower solar activity; a fast belt means stronger activity. The reasons for this are explained in the Science@NASA story Solar Storm Warning.

"The slowdown we see now means that Solar Cycle 25, peaking around the year 2022, could be one of the weakest in centuries," says Hathaway.

This is interesting news for astronauts. Solar Cycle 25 is when the Vision for Space Exploration should be in full flower, with men and women back on the Moon preparing to go to Mars. A weak solar cycle means they won't have to worry so much about solar flares and radiation storms.




We experienced “a dramatic fall in activity” in February, says Geoff Sharp on his “Beyond Landscheidt” website. “My predictions show that SC24 will be similar to SC5.”

The sunspot number for February from SIDC is down again, to 33.1,” agrees meteorologist Anthony Watts. “So far, cycle 24 is significantly lower in SSN number that the last three cycles, in addition to having a delayed start.” Cycle 24 is so far “on par with cycle 12 and cycle 6 in amplitude.”

If Sharp and Watts are correct that solar cycle 24 will be similar to solar cycles 5 or 6 – and I fear that they are – then we’re looking at another Dalton minimum … or worse.

In other words, we could be headed toward a little ice age.




Member Since: Enero 27, 2009 Posts: 26 Comments: 1094
Quoting Patrap:


He's a weird cat with weird thinking is all I'm pointing out.


: )
Hey pot meet kettle. Reminds me of the time while working in northern Georgia, Where I watched a redneck call a redneck a redneck. A few of us had to walk away because we were laughing so hard.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting greentortuloni:


Apologies, I didn't mean you. I meant all the posters that post some piece of junk and then never respond when their junk link/article/diagram/graph is trashed.

I really thought you stated well what was going on.


I knew which ones you meant and it was not directed at misanthrope. ;-)
Member Since: Agosto 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4764
James Hansen: "Why I must speak out about climate change"

TED Talk link

I don't brake for trolls !
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Dirty Energy Money
Member Since: Noviembre 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
"Political Posturing", and the Pro's Pol's who use it to all our disadvantge, for personal gain should begin with those who make the Laws..and also those who influence policy.

Thus Sen. Inhofe, from His C-Street Family values to his handling of his FAA disaster, slightly averted by Luck,...and his big tamale, AGW,

I duly exercise "My" right to criticize Him, his efforts at distorting the Science on "Climate Change" being foremost.


Your natural affinity for a Home Boy is admired, but I'm from Se. La. as you know, so dat means "das squat" to me.

He's a weird cat with weird thinking is all I'm pointing out.

Delving into his last 4 years closely, any sane individual agrees.

By a Majority easily.

My Dads family lost their farm in Iowa in 35.
I hold them in the highest respect.


And they suffer greatly due to the Changes AGW has brought.


and that will continue....sans a change in thinking.

Conflict, rules here.

And in men's and women's thoughts.

When all that's left, the ones bankrolling all this, will find they cannot eat their money.

So what's new?

Time to walk the Dog, and be in nature.

Humans kinda dull the mind.


And we will enjoy da shrimps dawlin'

: )
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
Warmists are fond of stating that urban heat effect doesn't not increase average temperature nor affect the temperature record. Tell that to the plants that bloom earlier in urban areas.

Link

You just keep the hits coming, don't you. Please do provide us with some examples of "warmists" stating that the UHI effect does not increase global average temperatures. I really do love hearing from straw men.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
A very well written topic of discussion, Professor Rood. Is there any way to "+" your current topic 1,000 times?

When a scientific discussion is not about the actual science, then it is merely a "discussion". Perhaps better stated, the "discussion" may be better termed as a "deflection", "distraction" or "a conveyance of dis-information". Countless links and "You-Tube" videos of others offering their "opinions" would hardly qualify as a scientific discussion. Yet, they persist.

What I find most disingenuous are the ones that believe that the Laws of Physics do not apply to the AGWT.

When asking someone if CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the answer should never be, "Well, that depends of who you ask.". CO2 is a greenhouse gas, no matter who you ask or what their reply may be. Desires for it to not be so or simply denying that it is a greenhouse gas does not change The Laws of Physics.

When someone is asked if mankind's activities release tons per day of CO2 into the atmosphere, the answer should never be, "Our activities are not the only source of CO2" or "Should we all just stop breathing? We exhale CO2.". The discussion is well beyond the amount of CO2 we exhale or any other lesser contributors to the atmospheric CO2. What is a natural part of nature is one thing. What we add beyond this is another. What we add beyond this is not insignificant.

When Earth receives more heat than it releases back into space, then there will be a warming of Earth. There is no way around this. Until an equilibrium is achieved, there is no way around Earth continuing to warm.

When physical observations show that there is a net loss of Arctic sea ice then any attempts to explain this is an avoidance of all of the facts, without the inclusion of a discussion of the upward trend of the atmospheric CO2 level.

When having a discussion that more glaciers are losing mass than there are glaciers that are stable or gaining mass it is an avoidance of all of the facts, without the inclusion of a discussion of the upward trend of the atmospheric CO2 level.

When having a discussion that the oceans are becoming more acidic it is an avoidance of all of the facts, without the inclusion of a discussion of an upward trend in the atmospheric CO2 level.

The list goes on. A rising level of atmospheric CO2 levels is at least a part of the explanation for all of the above. We are seeing more extremes of these events as atmospheric CO2 levels continue to climb. I find it extremely disingenuous for anyone to say that the rising atmospheric CO2 levels do not play a key role in all of this. Unless you can manufacture, in sufficient quantities, anti-CO2, then we must reduce the amount of CO2 we emit into the atmosphere. The consequences for not doing so are real and they are supported by The Laws of Physics.
Member Since: Agosto 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4764
Quoting NeapolitanFan:


I didn't say you were making the statements with pejoratives. Did I?

From your comment #16:

"Dr. Rood writes that Burt Rutan uses pejoratives when referring to warmists, but neglects to mention that every alarmist currently at the forefront of the AGW fraud prefaces any comment about skeptics with just as many or more of the same types of pejoratives, including every warmist on this blog."

So yeah, you kinda did say that Dr. Rood was making statements with pejoratives.


Quoting NeapolitanFan:


Last, the very suggestion that we can compute a global average temperature defies any sort of logic. We don't have temperature readings for the entire globe. How can we compute global temperature, especially to an accuracy of tenths of a degree?


You're right about this but, of course, nobody is really claiming that we can measure a global surface temperature. See The Elusive Absolute Surface Air Temperature on the GISS site. You also might want to check out GISS Surface Temperature Analysis. From the second link:


Anomalies and Absolute Temperatures

Our analysis concerns only temperature anomalies, not absolute temperature. Temperature anomalies are computed relative to the base period 1951-1980. The reason to work with anomalies, rather than absolute temperature is that absolute temperature varies markedly in short distances, while monthly or annual temperature anomalies are representative of a much larger region. Indeed, we have shown (Hansen and Lebedeff, 1987) that temperature anomalies are strongly correlated out to distances of the order of 1000 km.



Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 100 - 50

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.

Local Weather

Clear
41 ° F
Despejado