tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6322916946732811685.post6346497519431919966..comments2024-03-28T14:50:06.806-04:00Comments on Borepatch: Should you be a Global Warming Skeptic?Borepatchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05029434172945099693noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6322916946732811685.post-42808206735321400332013-04-04T16:11:24.013-04:002013-04-04T16:11:24.013-04:00Oops!Oops!Squirrelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05981488851865840713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6322916946732811685.post-60858719794496475472012-06-27T13:01:36.596-04:002012-06-27T13:01:36.596-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6322916946732811685.post-31977224812633136342012-06-27T01:17:27.340-04:002012-06-27T01:17:27.340-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6322916946732811685.post-39575097744007380522012-06-26T17:10:19.243-04:002012-06-26T17:10:19.243-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6322916946732811685.post-76677312572924568432012-06-25T18:44:26.058-04:002012-06-25T18:44:26.058-04:00Hey There. I found your weblog the usage of msn. T...Hey There. I found your weblog the usage of msn. This is a very well written article.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6322916946732811685.post-39631901640178141292011-11-27T22:32:19.550-05:002011-11-27T22:32:19.550-05:00More seriously, Ed, you are in essence restating B...More seriously, Ed, you are in essence restating Bjorn Lomborg's position: that if the climate is changing, we're better off adapting to the change.<br /><br />I actually have some sympathy for this position. The advantage here is that it's irrelevant whether the change is man made or simply part of a long term natural trend.Borepatchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05029434172945099693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6322916946732811685.post-4733819874556102052011-11-27T22:29:37.757-05:002011-11-27T22:29:37.757-05:00Ed, I've put up a number of arguments, each ba...Ed, I've put up a number of arguments, each backed up to sources that support it. You've basically made a bunch of generalized assertions.<br /><br />Which of my arguments are inconsequential? Why? What backs up your arguments? This is the sort of thing that drives intelligent discussion in general, and the scientific method in particular.<br /><br />As to the supposed deaths from global warming, the part of the IPCC report that's being walked back the fastest and the furthest is the bit about storm deaths and damage. Roger Pielke, Jr.s blog is all over this issue, and it seems that even the IPCC no longer is trying to make the case for increased storm damage and death due to global warming.<br /><br />As to "pollution" including carbon dioxide, feel free to come back and elaborate on this particular topic, but not until you stop breathing. Come on, seriously - some of us are trying to breathe here. Your CO2 exhalations are polluting out air.<br /><br />Of course, if you weren't talking about CO2, please let us know what you meant. All the discussion is on CO2, so something other than this would be novel, to say the least.Borepatchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05029434172945099693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6322916946732811685.post-2757358124427556412011-11-24T13:08:08.205-05:002011-11-24T13:08:08.205-05:00Now that we know most of your complaints about dat...Now that we know most of your complaints about data are inconsequential at best, and wrong in several cases, isn't it time to revise your views?<br /><br />You also failed to discuss the most important data we've been using for 60 years -- the changes in plant zones, the migratory changes of birds, insects and mammals, and the physical changes of the planet itself connected to warming.<br /><br />Warming is not the question. The question is, what is the cause of the unnatural warming?<br /><br />Which would you rather spend a billion dollars on: Graves for those who drowned in the storm surge, rebuilding the houses of the survivors, or preparing those same people in those same places to survive the storm? <br /><br />Prevention is almost always cheaper than mitigation, especially if we prevent deaths.<br /><br />Air pollution control shouldn't be an issue. You're arguing for polluting the air. That is, at base, wrong.Ed Darrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10056539160596825210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6322916946732811685.post-28965917621624993292011-08-16T16:55:57.638-04:002011-08-16T16:55:57.638-04:00"If you were to moot spending a trillion doll..."If you were to moot spending a trillion dollars, would you spend it on a not very well justified carbon reduction program, or would you spend it on programs to reduce local pollution and land despoilation?"<br /><br />Oh, absolutely. I am always heartened to see any action towards dealing with this problem, but local solutions using some of that cash would definitely go farther and be better spent. <br /> <br />I advocate that people spend much more of their time and energy fighting the local battles. Sadly, more seem interested in national politics than in real change at a local level. With the national argument seeming to consist mostly of toddlers yelling "drill baby drill" against other toddlers yelling "tax carbon" that's not even an argument, and neither makes sense. <br /><br />Anyway, thanks again for letting me comment, no apology needed for the lazy moderating, I'm just as guilty. :-DJenniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03994844081172979101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6322916946732811685.post-13857897333093344702011-08-10T00:49:19.090-04:002011-08-10T00:49:19.090-04:00Jennie,
Older posts are moderated, and sadly I...Jennie,<br /><br />Older posts are moderated, and sadly I'm a lazy blogger. Sorry if this was stuck in a moderation queue for a while.<br /><br />I think you hit of two key issues in your comment: the "A" in "AGW", and local impacts to the environment (crop mono culture, destruction of lands in the developing world). Let me take them one at a time.<br /><br />1. I'm willing to be convinced that the "A" in "AGW" is the decisive component of the warming signal since ~ 1860. However, we have to look at the data. The correlation with CO2 in the 20th Century is simply terrible, and needs to be much better explained. It's fine to say "it's really complicated" (I believe it is), but you need more than 30% of the data set to line up with you. <br /><br />Well, for me, anyway.<br /><br />2. I personally believe that local pollution and land use problems are the dominant problem most people face. If you were to moot spending a trillion dollars (and the IPCC proposed programs are 10 or 20 times that), would you spend it on a not very well justified carbon reduction program, or would you spend it on programs to reduce local pollution and land despoilation?<br /><br />You could probably toss in an anti-Malaria program, and really supercharge the results.<br /><br />And so I find the "precautionary principle" as currently described somewhat wanting. The reason is that the principle never gets applied to the proposers: if there's even a slight chance that you could make a much bigger impact funding different mitigation proposals, doesn't the Precautionary Principle say you're obligated to do so?<br /><br />And no, I'm not being snarky. This is the lives of millions we're talking about.Borepatchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05029434172945099693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6322916946732811685.post-49373935377498906062011-08-04T16:06:34.106-04:002011-08-04T16:06:34.106-04:00Hi Borepatch,
are you tired of taking comments on...Hi Borepatch, <br />are you tired of taking comments on this post? :-D<br /><br />I like your skeptical slant. I appreciate your level headed approach.<br />I'm not sure where I stand on AGW. <br /><br />At first I thought it was highly plausible. I look at what humans are doing right now to the planet. We burn down forests and plant crops in inappropriate places, using up and polluting our own resource base in the process. Erin mentioned the obvious air pollution problems over major cities. If we can do all that, it doesn't seem that far fetched to me that we're having an affect on the natural balances that control climate. But, then as you say, the data doesn't seem to correlate between CO2 and warming.<br /><br />I do agree that these climate changes are cyclical, and that it's likely things were much warmer at some point(s) in the earth's past. <br /><br />BUT, here's the kicker for me personally, and you even touched on some of it. Those temperature swings were devastating for human populations. Human populations that were much smaller than what we're dealing with now. Populations that HADN'T damaged their land/water/air/wild food stocks to the extent that we have today.<br /><br />I think arguing over the A part of AGW misses the more salient point. IF we are in a warming trend, it's going to be devastating. I've seen some pretty convincing papers on some of the feedback loops we may be dealing with. Ice caps that melt, thus reflecting less heat back out to space, warming the oceans even faster, shutting down some current loops through the combination of temp change and salinity change. Warming temps allowing pine beetles to thrive in higher altitudes, destroying the white pines, which leads to faster snow melt in the spring and rivers that no longer run all year, which has consequences all the way down stream to the ocean. Those are just the two off the top of my head. <br /><br />Arguing about the W part seems silly too, although it seems you're not arguing that part, thankfully. :-D<br /><br />I think if we can slow the process, it would be in our best interest as a species, regardless of who or what is causing it. And while I agree we should be skeptical, if we wait too long to accept the data,the consequences will be catastrophic. <br /><br />We need to be addressing even the chance of this happening, and making plans and putting strategies into place to deal with weirder weather and water patterns. Our current agricultural practice of large monocrops is not suitable for these climate changes. Our current population distribution is not suitable for the sea level rises we could be looking at. We're not going to have the fossil fuels to coast our way through anything as long lasting as a climate change. Strategies need to be devised and tested and implemented to keep people fed and healthy without further damaging the systems we rely on.<br /><br />Is there a way, you think, to move past the sticking point of the Anthropogenic part, and deal with the GW part? Deal with it like rational people, facing a challenge, knowing we don't all agree on all the truths, but seeing enough to know we need to work together to mitigate the suffering that will happen after a few crop losses. I feel like we're already seeing some of it in Africa. And in the arable land grabs being seen from large population countries like China.<br /><br />Anyway, this comment has gone long enough, thanks for letting me comment on such an old post. I don't remember how I stumbled onto your blog, but I'll probably swing back by.Jenniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03994844081172979101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6322916946732811685.post-62703686849765708062011-08-01T02:55:29.503-04:002011-08-01T02:55:29.503-04:00According to the book "1421", it was pos...According to the book "1421", it was possible to circumnavigate Greenland as late as the mid 1400s. So the medieval warming period must have been much hotter than today.bohuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08035291180746263838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6322916946732811685.post-24757857161128429532010-10-28T22:19:51.648-04:002010-10-28T22:19:51.648-04:00Erin, thanks for coming back, and for engaging in ...Erin, thanks for coming back, and for engaging in rational dialog (unfortunately rare these days).<br /><br />I agree 100% that pollution is a problem, and we're still cleaning up from past mistakes. You can't eat the fish from the river in myu town because of PCB contamination.<br /><br />I'd argue, though, that the biggest pollution issues we see are local, not global. Good policies can help a lot here; bad policies can hurt terribly. For example, the Gasohol policy seems pretty clearly to be contributing to rainforest clearcutting in the Amazon.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the major proposed policies (Kyoto, Can and Trade) seem to fall on the "Bad" side of the line. IOW, they will hurt poor people (raising energy costs, reduce employment, etc) without doing anything to clean up actual pollution issues.<br /><br />The suspicion is that the environmental movement is focusing on huge, fundraising scare campaigns rather than on actual problems. There's not a lot else that explains what's going on.Borepatchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05029434172945099693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6322916946732811685.post-12392330782550080622010-10-27T07:51:00.474-04:002010-10-27T07:51:00.474-04:00Sorry about my dio/mono mixup.
Charts and scienc...Sorry about my dio/mono mixup. <br /><br />Charts and science and arguments aside, I now that there's a terrible dome of brown/gray muck that hovers over most municipal areas. We have it here in Cleveland, but I think Los Angeles is the worst I've ever seen.<br /><br />It comes from our cars, but where does it all go? <br /><br />The old-timers used to say "dilution is the solution for pollution." That's why you had your old-time smokestacks, but the peeps got wise to that after a while.<br /><br />And even if our emissions dilute, they haven't gone away.<br /><br />All the crap we pump into the air has to go somewhere. Maybe it turns into unicorn food and rains down on green Elysian fields, where pink cherubs frolic among mythical creatures.<br /><br />Yeah, yeah. All I know is that I do my damndest to reduce my filthy contributions, it ain't much, but it's the best I can do.Erin O'Brienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09089592061725346901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6322916946732811685.post-53159258017678291542010-10-26T20:00:56.046-04:002010-10-26T20:00:56.046-04:00Erin, thanks for stopping by.
Several comments: Y...Erin, thanks for stopping by.<br /><br />Several comments: Your Mini Cooper would not be deadly because of the Carbon DiOxide. It would be deadly because of the Carbon MonOxide. CO2 needs to have much higher concentrations to be dangerous (e.g. call for scrubbers on submarines or space ships).<br /><br />It also seems strange for NASA to only go back 400,000 years - geologically this is only the blink of an eye. The CO2 levels seem to have been <a href="http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html" rel="nofollow">much higher in the past than today</a>.<br /><br />Even so, the CO2 concentrations suffer from precisely the same problems the temperature reconstructions do: there is a splicing of proxy (ice core) and measured data that occurs 120 years or so ago.<br /><br />But let's assume that the "More CO2 -> Higher temperatures" hypothesis as the null hypothesis. If we test this against the 20th century's (raw) temperature data (in the GHCN), we find that 75% of the century shows no correlation between CO2 and temperature, or negative correlation. It's pretty hard to take the hypothesis seriously when the observed data over such a long period don't validate it. In fact, the data appear to falsify it.Borepatchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05029434172945099693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6322916946732811685.post-37429552371799247322010-10-26T11:21:32.462-04:002010-10-26T11:21:32.462-04:00Here is an atmospheric CO2 graph spanning 650,000...Here is <a href="http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/" rel="nofollow">an atmospheric CO2 graph spanning 650,000 years</a> from NASA.<br /><br />As for a more personal assessment of the dangers of CO2, I'm pretty sure if I pull my Mini Cooper into my garage, close the door and start the engine, things will not end well.<br /><br />Thank you for your perspective on this topic.Erin O'Brienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09089592061725346901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6322916946732811685.post-9019570720438729712010-07-05T11:31:00.686-04:002010-07-05T11:31:00.686-04:00Anonymous, you are correct that my analysis is sim...Anonymous, you are correct that my analysis is simplified, and I'm not approaching this with the goal of sufficiency.<br /><br />Rather, my goal is a sniff test. If, as you correctly point out, other gases (e.g. water vapor) have much more powerful greenhouse effects, and if the computer models rely on forcing (small increases in CO2 lead to large increases in water vapor, leading to > 5 deg temperature increase), then the mechanisms seem broken.<br /><br />It's all well and good to say that decade-by-decade ranges are not scientifically interesting, but 70% of the last century does not show the claimed correlation.<br /><br />At some point, we're justified in saying "It seems that the scientists don't know as much as they claim, because the data is not backing their hypothesis very well."<br /><br />A different way to say this is that the models poorly predict or retrodict the climate record (which is, BTW, manipulated in a way that further increases skepticism).<br /><br />As I said, my arguments are admittedly not sufficient. However, it appears that the current hypothesis is equally lacking.Borepatchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05029434172945099693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6322916946732811685.post-47556972792454573622010-07-04T13:21:16.121-04:002010-07-04T13:21:16.121-04:00It seems like you have forgotten that there are al...It seems like you have forgotten that there are also other, more effective greenhouse gases than co2. You should compare the emissions of all those gases (e.g. using CD equivalent) and the temperatures in the 20th and 21st century to be more specific. Or to be even more specific, understand that the effect is not as simple since we are talking about an entire planet. Looking at the temperature range decade by decade is not scientifically interesting. In my opinion your arguments are simply too simplistic to be scientifically sufficient.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6322916946732811685.post-17938176993674326072010-06-05T09:32:57.876-04:002010-06-05T09:32:57.876-04:00Borepatch,
Just discovered this post. It's o...Borepatch,<br /><br />Just discovered this post. It's one of the longest pro-skeptic posts on global-warming that I've seen, with <a href="http://aretae.blogspot.com/2010/02/epistemology-and-unknowns-agw-case.html" rel="nofollow">mine</a> being the other one.<br /><br />I love your pro-skepticism (as opposed to anti-AGW) approach. I wish more folks took it.Aretaehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01573380416713150843noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6322916946732811685.post-2750810263888483412010-05-16T02:02:14.499-04:002010-05-16T02:02:14.499-04:00Great Blog.
My blog supports your assertions in e...Great Blog.<br /><br />My blog supports your assertions in every way, but with an entertaining/layperson can understand slant.<br />I notice you mention New Zealand and our climate temp data. Check on my blog for a video of an Member of Parliament questioning the house on this.<br />Last Tues I spoke to this MP and our Department of Climate(NIWA) is now trying to back engineer the reasons for the adjustments.<br /><br />Great work you are doing!<br /><br />Cheers<br /><br />Roger<br /><br />http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.comRogerhttp://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6322916946732811685.post-46267853989196376962009-12-20T18:08:08.216-05:002009-12-20T18:08:08.216-05:00This is an outstanding overview of the problems wi...This is an outstanding overview of the problems with the general global warming argument.<br />Its obvious that much of the general acceptance of the theory comes from the media hype of the matter. This hype has made the masses confuse their "benevolent" and environmental agendas with support of the global warming theory.<br />Environmentalism is fine but it needs to be focused on realistic and important matters like reforestation, wildlife support, and pollution. (CO2 is NOT pollution)EnlightenedSpartannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6322916946732811685.post-41707928348526608642009-12-08T11:11:30.463-05:002009-12-08T11:11:30.463-05:00You may want to mention that water vapor contribut...You may want to mention that water vapor contributes about 95% of the greenhouse effect on Earth. That was always pointed out in an *asterisk* on all graphs, with a footnote stating, "Water vapor excluded". About a decade ago they stopped putting that note on their graphs of relative greenhouse effects, since it was "accepted as a convention by climate scientists that it was simply assumed, and no longer needed".<br /><br />And I've got bridge for sale in Brooklyn.Blackwing1noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6322916946732811685.post-72354045326506187642009-12-07T07:46:44.854-05:002009-12-07T07:46:44.854-05:00Excellent summary. I'm linking to it from my ...Excellent summary. I'm linking to it from my FB page (something that seems to annoy my green-leaning friends !).<br /><br />Boudu<br /><br />And please have a look at my graphic:<br />http://www.kane-tv.com/iphib/iPhib.jpgAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6322916946732811685.post-12797531954346664582009-12-06T16:57:14.823-05:002009-12-06T16:57:14.823-05:00Very well put. I'm going to link to this tonig...Very well put. I'm going to link to this tonight.Lord Thttp://pro-liberi.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6322916946732811685.post-57210329373779505872009-12-06T14:15:48.803-05:002009-12-06T14:15:48.803-05:00Well done sir, well thought out and well presented...Well done sir, well thought out and well presented!Old NFOhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16404197287935017147noreply@blogger.com