Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME ENTER FORUMS OUR BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Mon Jul 22, 2019 8:28 pm





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 195 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next
Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science" 
Author Message
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
Quote:
No, I did not ignore them, I pointed out that they are not integral parts of the basic model which implies that we need to do something about warming


This is brilliant. Except for one thing:
There's no evidence that the policies being implemented WILL ACTUALLY DO ANYTHING to offset warming and sea rising.
Essentially youre just irrationally screaming we have to do something with zero evidence that whats being done will "do something"

ZING!



Sat Aug 29, 2015 8:34 pm
Profile Email
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Just realized BookTalk.org is awesome!


Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 794
Thanks: 35
Thanked: 453 times in 346 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
geo wrote:
The current state of climate science is pretty nebulous, I think. We can draw a big inference that our carbon emissions can and do contribute to the greenhouse effect. But, as they say, the devil is in the details.

I was wondering lately about the extreme drought experienced in the U.S. and other areas of the world in 1930s, one of the worst in 300 years, that led to the Dust Bowl and exodus out of the plains states. If this happened today, I'm pretty sure some would try to connect it to anthropogenic emissions. It's easy to draw such correlations, but as we know, correlation doesn't equal causation. The 1930s drought seems to be cyclical event and such droughts happen on a fairly regular basis. I haven't heard of anyone trying to retrofit the facts of the 1930s drought to climate change, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone did.


The Dust Bowl was largely anthropogenic. Not carbon emissions, of course, but it was partly caused by human interference. The drought and the Dust Bowl were not the same thing but concurrent events.

http://www.history.com/news/10-things-y ... -dust-bowl

http://opus1journal.org/articles/article.asp?docID=24

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilder ... sters/dust



The following user would like to thank DB Roy for this post:
Harry Marks
Sat Aug 29, 2015 8:54 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Book King


Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1334
Thanks: 1389
Thanked: 658 times in 537 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
ant -
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-climate

An opinion piece. In the Wall Street Journal, whose op-ed page has lost all touch with reality. Behind a paywall.

Pretty hard to take seriously.



Sun Aug 30, 2015 5:55 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Book King


Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1334
Thanks: 1389
Thanked: 658 times in 537 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
ant wrote:
Except for one thing:
There's no evidence that the policies being implemented WILL ACTUALLY DO ANYTHING to offset warming and sea rising.
Essentially youre just irrationally screaming we have to do something with zero evidence that whats being done will "do something.

I am unable to make sense of this. We know the CO2 accumulation is raising the temperature of the earth. We know we are dumping 10 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. We have reason to believe the probability of permanent, catastrophic damage is around 30% if we keep the warming to 2 degrees, and goes up drastically after that. We know that means we have to hit zero GHG emissions in around 25 years to remain within budget, or cut sooner so we can continue longer.

The clear implementation is that all possible conversions to renewables must be made while we still have a carbon budget left to fashion the machinery with and pour the concrete with.

So I really have no idea what your statement meant to say.



Sun Aug 30, 2015 6:03 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
Harry Marks wrote:
ant -
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-climate

An opinion piece. In the Wall Street Journal, whose op-ed page has lost all touch with reality. Behind a paywall.

Pretty hard to take seriously.


No such thing.
Im not a subscriber. It's totally accessible.



Sun Aug 30, 2015 8:03 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
Stanford study says ocean levels may not rise as fast (or high) as once thought:

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2015/sept ... 90315.html

Let me guess:
Stanford is on big oil's payroll.
"Yeah, but ocean levels will rise in the future"
"We can save the planet. We just know we can"
"You are a climate change denier, ant"



Last edited by ant on Thu Sep 03, 2015 10:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Thu Sep 03, 2015 10:05 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Book King


Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1334
Thanks: 1389
Thanked: 658 times in 537 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
Ant -

There is nothing wrong with the Stanford study. It may mean we can stabilise CO2 levels quite a bit higher, giving us several decades longer to kick the fossil fuel habit. The Pliocene levels analysed were only a bit above the IPCC targets, though. Higher East Antarctic pack resilience doesn't mean we can pour it on to twice those levels and, Canute-like, expect the sea to stop rising because it went no higher in the Pliocene.

Slower and milder doesn't mean we can avoid the reckoning.



Fri Sep 04, 2015 2:48 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
It
Quote:
has been indicated that the temperatures started rising about 500 rather than 150 years ago as adherents of the anthropogenic impact on climate consider..,The stabilization of the global temperature in the last decades at a constant increase in the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere contradicts the concept, according to which an increase in the global temperature in the last decades is only explained by the anthropogenic impact


http://link.springer.com/article/10.113 ... 321003014X



Fri Sep 04, 2015 8:52 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
Harry Marks wrote:
Ant -

There is nothing wrong with the Stanford study. It may mean we can stabilise CO2 levels quite a bit higher, giving us several decades longer to kick the fossil fuel habit. The Pliocene levels analysed were only a bit above the IPCC targets, though. Higher East Antarctic pack resilience doesn't mean we can pour it on to twice those levels and, Canute-like, expect the sea to stop rising because it went no higher in the Pliocene.

Slower and milder doesn't mean we can avoid the reckoning.


No one said we can pour it on as a result.

"Reckoning" sounds apocalyptic and prophetic.
There has been no prophetic accuracy to date from climate experts that represent the IPCC and the EPA.



Fri Sep 04, 2015 8:56 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Book Discussion Leader
BookTalk.org Moderator
Silver Contributor

Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 2039
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Thanks: 74
Thanked: 768 times in 594 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
Incorrect.
Quote:
To conclude, a projection from 1981 for rising temperatures in a major science journal, at a time that the temperature rise was not yet obvious in the observations, has been found to agree well with the observations since then, underestimating the observed trend by about 30%, and easily beating naive predictions of no-change or a linear continuation of trends. It is also a nice example of a statement based on theory that could be falsified and up to now has withstood the test. The “global warming hypothesis” has been developed according to the principles of sound science.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... rojection/



The following user would like to thank LanDroid for this post:
Harry Marks
Sat Sep 05, 2015 9:09 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
Whats incorrect?
Thats a cherry pick of the data from 1981 and does not mention the warming pause thats been going on for 17 years.
Does it? Where?

Are you going to deny the warming pause and the hurricane drought?



Sat Sep 05, 2015 9:24 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7040
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1071
Thanked: 2064 times in 1656 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... tudy-finds :evil:

“The myth of the global warming pause has been heavily promoted by climate change sceptics seeking to undermine the case for strong and urgent cuts in greenhouse gas emissions,” said Ward.


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


The following user would like to thank Interbane for this post:
Harry Marks
Sat Sep 05, 2015 9:41 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Book King


Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1334
Thanks: 1389
Thanked: 658 times in 537 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
Ant,
The hurricane drought is a gap in those hurricanes actually going to the U.S. They are still happening in the North Atlantic at the usual pace. Only one in four typically makes U.S. landfall, so this appears to be a fluke, not a pattern.

http://www.livescience.com/50704-hurricane-drought.html

If the theory behind predictions of global warming said that only GHG matter, i.e. there are no solar cycles or Pacific oscillations or deep-sea mixing that influence temperature rises, then the pause in rate of increase would falsify the theory. But of course these other factors do matter. Are you prepared to bet that the next six years will see no further rise? If so, please let me know so I can send you my email and we can begin to formalize the matter.



Sun Sep 06, 2015 12:41 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
Harry Marks wrote:
Ant,
The hurricane drought is a gap in those hurricanes actually going to the U.S. They are still happening in the North Atlantic at the usual pace. Only one in four typically makes U.S. landfall, so this appears to be a fluke, not a pattern.

http://www.livescience.com/50704-hurricane-drought.html

If the theory behind predictions of global warming said that only GHG matter, i.e. there are no solar cycles or Pacific oscillations or deep-sea mixing that influence temperature rises, then the pause in rate of increase would falsify the theory. But of course these other factors do matter. Are you prepared to bet that the next six years will see no further rise? If so, please let me know so I can send you my email and we can begin to formalize the matter.




Right, a "fluke"
I appreciate that scientific term, Harry. The term explains a lot.


Some studies recognize a warming hiatus and attempt to determine at what point natural variability will eventually give way to temperature surges.
That has to be modeled of course because there is no evidence, to my knowledge, that a surge is underway.

Anyway, here's one:

Quote:
The recent warming “hiatus” is subject to intense interest, with proposed causes including natural forcing and internal variability. Here we derive samples of all natural and internal variability from observations and a recent proxy reconstruction to investigate the likelihood that these two sources of variability could produce a hiatus or rapid warming in surface temperature. The likelihood is found to be consistent with that calculated previously for models and exhibits a similar spatial pattern, with an Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation-like structure, although with more signal in the Atlantic than in model patterns. The number and length of events increases if natural forcing is also considered, particularly in the models. From the reconstruction it can be seen that large eruptions, such as Mount Tambora in 1815, or clusters of eruptions, may result in a hiatus of over 20 years, a finding supported by model results


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 8/abstract



Sun Sep 06, 2015 2:09 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
Interbane wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/04/global-warming-hasnt-paused-study-finds :evil:

“The myth of the global warming pause has been heavily promoted by climate change sceptics seeking to undermine the case for strong and urgent cuts in greenhouse gas emissions,” said Ward.



MUWAHAHAHAHAHHA!!
I want the planet to cook!
I love greenhouse gases!
I want to undermine NATURE!
MUAAHHAHAHAHAHHAHA!!



Sun Sep 06, 2015 3:09 pm
Profile Email
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 195 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:



Site Resources 
HELPFUL INFO:
Forum Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Author Interview Transcripts
Be a Book Discussion Leader!

IDEAS FOR WHAT TO READ:
Bestsellers
Book Awards
• Book Reviews
• Online Books
• Team Picks
Newspaper Book Sections

WHERE TO BUY BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

BEHIND THE BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

PROMOTE YOUR BOOK!
Advertise on BookTalk.org
How To Promote Your Book





BookTalk.org is a thriving book discussion forum, online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a community. Our forums are open to anyone in the world. While discussing books is our passion we also have active forums for talking about poetry, short stories, writing and authors. Our general discussion forum section includes forums for discussing science, religion, philosophy, politics, history, current events, arts, entertainment and more. We hope you join us!


Navigation 
MAIN NAVIGATION

HOMEFORUMSOUR BOOKSAUTHOR INTERVIEWSADVERTISELINKSFAQDONATETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICYSITEMAP

OTHER PAGES WORTH EXPLORING
Banned Book ListOnline Reading GroupTop 10 Atheism Books

Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2019. All rights reserved.
Display Pagerank