Comments on: Interesting http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/03/interesting.html Fri, 10 Feb 2012 00:05:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.3 By: Scientist http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/03/interesting.html/comment-page-1#comment-864 Scientist Fri, 14 Mar 2008 15:59:32 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/03/interesting.html#comment-864 <p>I'm not making that argument.</p> I’m not making that argument.

]]> By: Alan D. McIntire http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/03/interesting.html/comment-page-1#comment-863 Alan D. McIntire Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:01:20 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/03/interesting.html#comment-863 <p>RE: 3/11/2008 2:51 post by "Scientist"</p> <p>"A. McIntire - are you arguing that comet impacts and rapid global warming are both good things, inevitably and always?"</p> <p>No, I'd never offer such a silly argument. I was trying to point out the absurdity of the argument that YOU'RE making, that any global warming, even a measly 1.4 C in a century, is automatically going to be catastrophic.</p> RE: 3/11/2008 2:51 post by “Scientist”

“A. McIntire – are you arguing that comet impacts and rapid global warming are both good things, inevitably and always?”

No, I’d never offer such a silly argument. I was trying to point out the absurdity of the argument that YOU’RE making, that any global warming, even a measly 1.4 C in a century, is automatically going to be catastrophic.

]]> By: Stevo http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/03/interesting.html/comment-page-1#comment-862 Stevo Wed, 12 Mar 2008 19:40:59 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/03/interesting.html#comment-862 <p>For anyone interested, doubt has been cast over at Climate Audit, on the message board / Physics Issues.</p> For anyone interested, doubt has been cast over at Climate Audit, on the message board / Physics Issues.

]]> By: Stevo http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/03/interesting.html/comment-page-1#comment-861 Stevo Tue, 11 Mar 2008 20:07:57 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/03/interesting.html#comment-861 <p>Scientist,</p> <p><i>"I would worry about the journal it's published in, to be honest, just a bit. Why hasn't it been published in Science or Nature?"</i></p> <p>Good question. But should I worry more for the paper, or for the journal?</p> Scientist,

“I would worry about the journal it’s published in, to be honest, just a bit. Why hasn’t it been published in Science or Nature?”

Good question. But should I worry more for the paper, or for the journal?

]]> By: Scientist http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/03/interesting.html/comment-page-1#comment-860 Scientist Tue, 11 Mar 2008 09:51:21 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/03/interesting.html#comment-860 <p>Brian Macker - you're just putting up a massive straw man, then. No-one thinks that Venus-like is a realistic possibility.</p> <p>A. McIntire - are you arguing that comet impacts and rapid global warming are both good things, inevitably and always?</p> Brian Macker – you’re just putting up a massive straw man, then. No-one thinks that Venus-like is a realistic possibility.

A. McIntire – are you arguing that comet impacts and rapid global warming are both good things, inevitably and always?

]]> By: Alan D. McIntire http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/03/interesting.html/comment-page-1#comment-859 Alan D. McIntire Tue, 11 Mar 2008 03:45:15 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/03/interesting.html#comment-859 <p>Regarding the March 10, 2008 3:58 PM post by "Scientist". You seem to imply that the warming was a disaster to be avoided. </p> <p>From</p> <p>http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.php?file=article&name=News&op=modload&sid=2285</p> <p>"Diversification didn't really take off until the Eocene epoch, about 56 to 34 million years ago, but the reasons are unclear."</p> <p><br /> and</p> <p>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/2997404.stm</p> <p>it looks like the Paleocene-Eocene warming was all to the benefit of mammals-</p> <p>"Mammals' lucky space impact<br /> <br /> By Paul Rincon <br /> BBC science </p> <p><br /> A comet collision with Earth around 55 million years ago may have kick-started a crucial early phase of mammal evolution. <br /> <br /> Did a comet strike deliver carbon to heat up the Earth <br /> The impact could have triggered the greenhouse warming thought to have encouraged primitive mammals to disperse across the world and diversify into three important groups still with us today. "</p> <p> - A. McIntire<br /> </p> Regarding the March 10, 2008 3:58 PM post by “Scientist”. You seem to imply that the warming was a disaster to be avoided.

From

http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.php?file=article&name=News&op=modload&sid=2285

“Diversification didn’t really take off until the Eocene epoch, about 56 to 34 million years ago, but the reasons are unclear.”

and

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/2997404.stm

it looks like the Paleocene-Eocene warming was all to the benefit of mammals-

“Mammals’ lucky space impact

By Paul Rincon
BBC science

A comet collision with Earth around 55 million years ago may have kick-started a crucial early phase of mammal evolution.

Did a comet strike deliver carbon to heat up the Earth
The impact could have triggered the greenhouse warming thought to have encouraged primitive mammals to disperse across the world and diversify into three important groups still with us today. “

– A. McIntire

]]> By: Brian Macker http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/03/interesting.html/comment-page-1#comment-858 Brian Macker Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:55:00 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/03/interesting.html#comment-858 <p>They are exactly what I appear to believe they are. No runaway greenhouse effect like on Venus otherwise we wouldn't be around, would we.</p> They are exactly what I appear to believe they are. No runaway greenhouse effect like on Venus otherwise we wouldn’t be around, would we.

]]> By: Scientist http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/03/interesting.html/comment-page-1#comment-857 Scientist Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:58:21 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/03/interesting.html#comment-857 <p>Stevo - I would worry about the journal it's published in, to be honest, just a bit. Why hasn't it been published in <i>Science</i> or <i>Nature</i>? If it really did demonstrate what it claims to, it would surely merit that. Why only an obscure Hungarian journal? You warn against assuming all peer-reviewed results are correct, and I certainly agree with that. I think an element of that is judging the relative merits of different journals. In my field, there are some journals which are much easier to get published in than others. So typically, less important things are published in the lesser journals. If I saw a claimed major new advance in one of the lesser journals, I'd be inclined towards suspicion.</p> <p>Brian Macker - yes, the experiment <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5824/587" rel="nofollow">has been run</a>. The results are not what you appear to believe they are.</p> Stevo – I would worry about the journal it’s published in, to be honest, just a bit. Why hasn’t it been published in Science or Nature? If it really did demonstrate what it claims to, it would surely merit that. Why only an obscure Hungarian journal? You warn against assuming all peer-reviewed results are correct, and I certainly agree with that. I think an element of that is judging the relative merits of different journals. In my field, there are some journals which are much easier to get published in than others. So typically, less important things are published in the lesser journals. If I saw a claimed major new advance in one of the lesser journals, I’d be inclined towards suspicion.

Brian Macker – yes, the experiment has been run. The results are not what you appear to believe they are.

]]> By: Brian Macker http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/03/interesting.html/comment-page-1#comment-856 Brian Macker Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:22:33 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/03/interesting.html#comment-856 <p>One good reason to disbelieve in runaway greenhouse effect is that it hasn't happened despite high CO2 concentrations in the past. In other words the experiment has already been run and failed to result in the predicted outcome. </p> One good reason to disbelieve in runaway greenhouse effect is that it hasn’t happened despite high CO2 concentrations in the past. In other words the experiment has already been run and failed to result in the predicted outcome.

]]> By: Stevo http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/03/interesting.html/comment-page-1#comment-855 Stevo Mon, 10 Mar 2008 21:25:22 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/03/interesting.html#comment-855 <p>Alan,</p> <p>You are quite correct that gravity is limited to the speed of light and the solar system is fairly stable. But this is pure luck. If you modify Newton by inserting a simple propagation delay, the Earth is pulled towards the sun, but the sun is pulled towards where the Earth was 8 minutes ago. The forces don't balance, and the difference accumulates. Newton's law is wrong because it propagates changes instantaneously, and Newton's law with a light-speed delay is wrong because it doesn't conserve momentum.</p> <p>But my analogy wasn't between orbital mechanics and climate, it was between physicists quoting Newton and climatologists quoting Milne and Eddington. The intention was to give a familiar example of a physical law that many scientists might believably use automatically but which could be seriously wrong without them noticing it. Specialists in General Relativity know about it, but I've found that the average physicist on the street does not. But if you don't think any scientist would ever use Newton's law by default, or any textbook quote it as the standard method, then my analogy failed.</p> Alan,

You are quite correct that gravity is limited to the speed of light and the solar system is fairly stable. But this is pure luck. If you modify Newton by inserting a simple propagation delay, the Earth is pulled towards the sun, but the sun is pulled towards where the Earth was 8 minutes ago. The forces don’t balance, and the difference accumulates. Newton’s law is wrong because it propagates changes instantaneously, and Newton’s law with a light-speed delay is wrong because it doesn’t conserve momentum.

But my analogy wasn’t between orbital mechanics and climate, it was between physicists quoting Newton and climatologists quoting Milne and Eddington. The intention was to give a familiar example of a physical law that many scientists might believably use automatically but which could be seriously wrong without them noticing it. Specialists in General Relativity know about it, but I’ve found that the average physicist on the street does not. But if you don’t think any scientist would ever use Newton’s law by default, or any textbook quote it as the standard method, then my analogy failed.

]]>