Global Warming Debate - Q&A 1, part 8 of 10

[Igneous01]

Gavin Schmidt - "The respected astrophysicist who examined cosmic rays is wrong." What an argument.

[slytown]

There is no done in science Gavin Schmidt. I can't listen to you talk.

[MewCat100]

It was much warmer around 1100 BC than it is now, a time when human civilizations flourished!

[MewCat100]

Battery park is built on fill dirt. That part of Manhattan island actually wasn't even present years ago, prior to the World Trade Center Construction. His argument is inept because the "climate we've adapted to" is the climate that began roughly 200,000 years ago which has been significantly COLDER and WARMER than it is now. In other words, we and many other species have managed to survive much larger variations in temperature IN BOTH DIRECTIONS! What an idiot.

[timdnwd]

Nearly every species on this earth depends on specific environmental conditions to breed.Change the environmental conditions like temperature and rainfall we will see many species and arguably a great percentage of them will die out...

[slytown]

Did Gavin Schmidt just say consensus is whats in the textbooks after what happens after the science has been done? Textbook s, if he's referring to secondary/higher edu. texts, are so political, they rarely resemble the academia they mimic. I had the same issue with historical textbooks. Textbooks are designed to make "better citizens" not critical thinkers and professors.

[DamLazyFuk]

@TheTempestSpark You are a dim one.

[TheTempestSpark]

@DamLazyFuk Sorry, I apologize for disturbing your grazing. I have respectively removed my offensive comment. please continue!

[ALFIEAJAPAN]

Always fascinates me to hear this tired line: "The science is done." Has me wondering: so I guess you climatologists are not needed anymore.

Guaranteed, 10, 20 or 30 years from now, the climate scare is going to be the punch line of jokes.

[demigod197]

i dont think is takes a scientist to figure out the sun keeps us warm. its mind boggling to think cosmic rays from the sun doesent play a part PS: we are debating CO2. but what about all the other chemicals we release in the air everyday. one thing im stuck on.

[timdnwd]

@demigod197 The sun does not keep us warm..it is the greenhouse gases which RETAIN the suns heat to keep us warm. Take away the greenhouse gases and the earths temperature drops dramatically, increase the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the temperature rises.other gases in the atmosphere DO NOT retain heat from the sun, why? That's the way chemistry works, every atom/molecule has different properties.

[SuperGuitarman69]

It's really wonderful that 57% of our country are completely stupid

[ShinyChuck]

Gavin's butting into a discussion here at the beginning where he spoke out of turn and was not asked to speak revealed part of the AGW agenda. To FREEZE the natural climate change to today's perceived norm. So, isn't Gavin against nature?

[pointyhead1]

@ShinyChuck

Gavin Schmidt

excitable nitwit.

[Ibin55]

continued. Also at the end, the debate is opened up to a completely pointless Q&A session with the audience during which the debate leader decides which questions should be answered and which should be glossed over or deemed "too hard to understand".

But really the big problem with the debate is that whenever the human action causing global warming argument is made, 'we' are given the blame.

It is not us that are to blame but the oil companies who I'm sure are quite happy.

[Ibin55]

Have a little look at the video series "The Great Global Warming Swindle Debate". To me, it is very obvious why the this debate took place and why one smiling, arrogant, interrupting individual (see if you guess who im talking about) gets a disproportionate amount of time to make his case. The idea that human action is causing global warming is coming more and more under fire from scientists in the field and those with a vested interest in proving 'we' are to blame want those to shut peeps up.

[Richard482]

@Ibin55

Here's one video about the Great Global Warming Swindle which I found interesting

[DrewAWeeks]

Richard said in detail about the stability of the climate arising from the poles being higher temperatures (from the models). Brendas answer was 'yes we will have those risks.. and furthermore'.. then started talking about credit cards again.

[anolmec]

hey how about those emails

[jbfla2006]

I love Crichton's quote about consensus science and Einstein.

When asked this about Nazi propaganda, "How does it feel to have 200 scientists against you?", Einstein said, "It only

take's one scientist to prove me wrong."

Priceless...

[anoniab]

The IPCC was only instructed to research manmade global warming - they didn't have to look at other causes. Anybody else see a problem with that?

[anoniab]

Why should the non-scientist believe the 3on the left? The question presumes the rest of us are idiots. There are way too many variables to determine that CO2 is the cause, there have been changes in the way we measure temps, problems with the placement of instruments and no one knows what "normal" is; we only know "averages".

[peter0ne]

There is sufficient understanding of the physics of C02 to expect a warming effect, to calculate the magnitude of this effect and real world data that shows a temp rise in line with this. Other variables are well enough understood to rule them out as the main cause of current warming. Short term natural fluctuations should not be seen as long term trends ie rapid warming in the 1990's and no warming in the last few years.

Normal average temp for the last few thousand years can be determined.

[anoniab]

peter0ne- An "average" is not a temperature. All temps are local. Only actual temps mean anything. You can average 100degrees in Chicago in the summer and -100below in the Antarctica on the same day and get an average of 0 - which is exactly what the average would mean. Does a furnace run according to the "global average"? If not, then neither does the planet. Thus, the "global average temperature" is irrelevant and meaningless, and so is "global warming".

[peter0ne]

anoniab- Your right, an average is an average.

A furnace does not have a uniform temperature through out. Some bits are warmer ,some cooler. So when we ask 'what is the temp of the furnace' we give its average temp say 3000C.

This is an average through space but also one can average through time ie today it is 10C, yesterday was 0C so the av is 5C.

Global av surface temp has an instantaneous value ie what it is now, and this figure can be averaged over time ie av temp for last 1000 years.

[anoniab]

peter0ne-It's not the furnace temp that I'm refering to; it's what temp the thermostat responds to. The furnace does not responde to an "average" of 60(the approx "global average") The average means nothing to the thermostat - it only respondes to temps that fall below what it is set at. So, too, the "average" means nothing to the planet. It only responds to actual temps in any given area. You might be able to find out if a specific location had warmed or cooled provided the thermometer (cont'd)

[anoniab]

peter0ne-cont'd-

not been moved and the conditions (shade, pavement, trees, etc) had not been altered, but on a global scale, it's meaningless because there is no "global temperature". You can average 100 in Chicago and -100below in Antarctica on the same day and end up with 0. But the average would mean nothing.

[anoniab]

One more point; you can have two places at 0 degrees and the average would still be 0. Going by the average in either case would tell us nothing about reality.

[peter0ne]

anoniab- If the average temp of all points on the earths surface were to change ,ie become +2 instead of 0, then it does tell us somthing about reality namely that the amount of thermal energy in the system has increased.

You may think that this is not significant but it is wrong to say it tells us nothing about reality.

A number of ice shelves have collapsed in the last few years( See Wilkins Ice shelf)Some were several thousands of years old. They are responding to changes in the av temp.

[anoniab]

peterOne-I have 2 questions for you:

1. What is/has been the ambient air temp at the location of those ice shelves?

2. At what temp does fresh water ice melt?

[peter0ne]

Anoniab- Qu 1, I notice you do not ask for the average temp at those sites which tells us more than somthing like 'last thursday afternoon it was +4C.'QED.

A typical Mean Annual (ie average) air temp for an ice shelf is -15C.

It is obvious that you think you have caught me out when I then ans QU2 as zero C. (do you understand Centigrade).

Qu for you- do you think ice shelf stability is simply a case of if the av T is below freezing then it is stable.

Clue- T goes above freezing in summer.

[anoniab]

Coldest Temp:

-129°F (-89°C) on July 21, 1983

Location: Vostok Station

Warmest Temp:

+59°F (+15°C) on Jan 5, 1974

Location: Vanda Station

Mean Temps:

Winter: -40 to -94°F (-40 to -70°C)

Summer: -5 to -31°F (-15 to -35°C)

Source: antarcticconnectiondotcom

[peter0ne]

Hi. Why do you choose these two sites as they are both inland. Is it because one shows a record high in 1974 the other a rec low in 1989.

Are you implying that temps are not rising so this does not explain ice shelf collapse.

Why do you think there have been so many notable ice shelf collapses in the last decade both in the arctic and antarctic.

Look at the station data for Vostok and you will see a rising trend in mean annual temp since the 60's of between 0.5 and 1C

[anoniab]

peter0ne-I didn't choose the sites. They are what was posted at the website antarcticconnectiondotcom.

[peter0ne]

Why did you draw them to my attention.

[Brantoc]

Gavin saying the science is done is totally idiotic. If the science is done, then why can't the models with 1960 data show proper temps and air in 2000? or for that matter, why can't the weatherman tell me if tomorrow there will be rain.

[amb85]

Gavin Schmidt is such a tool.

[PaigeVRC]

agreed.

[dragknuckle]

Schmidt clearly mistates the "cosmic ray model". We do not assert that changes in cosmic radiation cause climate change, but rather that changes in solar out put affect cosmic rays, which affect cloud cover, which affect temperature.

Either he is too stupid to understand the concept (which I doubt) or he has just shown his hand about a willingness to mislead the audience in order to win the debate.

[usmcphrog46]

The sun doesn't cause global warming? Gavin is not too bright, hehe.

[bighitter42]

Gavin and Brenda both should have their credentials revoked.

[justtex1975]

Although I did enjoy seeing & hearing this debate again, sadly, for some unknown reason, blackghost76 chose not to post the last & most important segment of the debate, showing that Dr.s Linzen, Crichton & Stott had won the debate over the warminista alarmist. To hear the ENTIRE 93 minute debate, go to NPR & search "Lindzen". Be sure to scroll down & choose "Hear the full debate".

[SAJse]

Which is funny considering that Lindzen bores me to death.

[peter0ne]

Climate contrairians are often compelling public speakers,like politicians, but have little expertise in the given subect area. Scientists on the other hand are on the whole, not professional speakers so often do not come across well in this type of discussion.

[TacticusPrime]

dude... what? they give the credentials of these people at the beginning of the debate. these are serious scientists, lindzen and summerville probably share the title for most credentialed. ok Crichton is not much of a scientist but the others are.

[Gwynne66]

You mean not much of a *climate scientist*, right? Crichton is a scientist though.

[dragknuckle]

If scientific expertise is the strength of the proponents of AGW, and political expertise the strength of the denier, then why are the deniers discussing data and the proponents appealing to the popularity of their positions?

[peter0ne]

The Deniers create the impression that they are discussing data when,in fact,they are often making misleading statements which play on the lay audiences lack of knowlage in the appropriate areas.

[dragknuckle]

If that were true, the AGW proponents could easily correct these misleading statements. I have yet to see anyone do so. Your decision to refer to skeptics as "Deniers" with a capital "D" and your accusation that they are deliberately "playing on the lay audiences lack of knowlage (sic)" assumes an ulterior motive on the part of skeptics. Has it entered your mind that reasonable people can disagree? Bohr disagreed with Einstein about quantum physics, and it turned out he was right.

[robtul12]

Can you substantiate that assertion? Actually, I found it to be rather the other way around. What is your experience on the topic?

[peter0ne]

robtul- to take an example from the start of this clip Lindzen very cooly says that there is no reason to think current temp is optimum, Gavin Shmitt can't contain himself because of the unqualified implication that GW could actualy be a good thing so Gavins point is lost.

Lindzen knows full well that life and human civilization are adapted to the current climate and will find it hard to adapt to rapid change, e.g a large proportion of the worlds most fertile soils are close to sea level.

[cedricandbob2]

Gotta love how the denier side doesn't need to spread their facts and figures out in front of them on their desk... because they don't have any.

[brokenlenspro]

denier? i think they are saying yeah, the earth is getting warmer, but so are the other planets & our SUN. it's just a scare-tactic that we are causing it

[BeachofDreams]

Stott also misrepresented Gavin's point that we have to look at the edge of scientific discussion. Gavin didn't mean to say that the edge is where you will find the correct arguments, but it is here where you will be able to judge the consensus. Stott simply assumed that cosmic rays=cutting edge, therefore cosmic rays=correct.

[BeachofDreams]

Stott may have gotten claps, but actually he isn't dismissing Gavin's argument at all. All he's doing is making adaptation seem easy and inexpensive, which of course it isn't.

[Reactionary20]

Why would adaptation not be easy and expensive?

[Reactionary20]

Sorry i meant inexpensive.

[Reactionary20]

"He's wrong" Gavin Schmidt says. Well that says it all really doesnt it. Rational debate to Mr Schmidt is like a naked flame to hydrogen; they don't go together. I have a sneaking suspicion Mr Schmidt has been studying Joseph Goebbels' '101 things every good propagandist should know about debate'. The first being simply deny your opponents statement is correct.

[stormywinter2004]

We only believe what we see? Well look around in the world, scan the anomalies. Know that on the whole planet people are killing environment 24x7, all year around. I don't need these debates, the world needs people who act!

[cedricandbob2]

Summary: Michael Crighton invokes Nazis, Einstein and proofs (is it an idea for a new book?), Lindzen seconds the proof idea (tsk, tsk he should know better), Philip Stott invokes cosmic rays and gets laughed at.

[bakerbaker450]

You miss a very important part at the end of this clip that has Gavin Schmidt acting like the tool that he is, basically calling everyone in the audience idiots and showing up his HOPELESS communication skills.

Needless to say its why the audience responded not so well to his side of the debate. He alone basically reduced a fairly strong argument to naught.

[BeachofDreams]

So people don't like him = Gavin's wrong?

[charlieonehorse]

i hate gavin schmidt so much...the other anti side people are smart and level headed but he is such a wank