Depends on your definition of climate change denier. The Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark, has a theory that much of the warming is due to something to do with cosmic rays and cloud formation and has published quite a lot on that subject.
I pointed many times before on the definitions used by science writer Peter Hadfield (Worked for New Scientist and many other publications) Henrick Svensmark was pointed out as an skeptic researcher, not a denier, by the simple fact that he published and faced peer review criticism, as it turns out, in science things do not end with the criticism alone (that was very convincing) if there is very little follow ups or supporting evidence the paper is not taken seriously.
(link goes to the specific mention of Svensmark)
The problem remains that for the hypotheses to be correct an increase in the cosmic rays should had happened, and that is/was missing.
Deniers just concentrate on misrepresentations of science and/or the refusal to check the evidence, people who are not fake skeptics check the evidence and follow it even if the conclusions recommend us to do things that they disagree with, like Barry Bickmore and Muller.
I thought so … the energy rattling around within the atmosphere is measure directly using temperature. Forcing is the energy leaving the atmosphere out into space. We have satellites with very sensitive infra-red spectrometers reading the out-going energy, and using the known spectra of the various gases in the atmosphere we can deduce the amount of flux associated with each component. The key here is that W/m^2 is using a unit area, the square meter. That’s each square meter of the shell called “Top of Atmosphere”, and we’re measuring the energy heading out.
The process you’re describing is called “Thermal Lag”, it takes time for the energy to rattle around the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere before it’s ejected into interplanetary space. The more greenhouse gases, the longer this delay. Global Warming is caused by the build up of energy within the atmosphere because it’s taking longer to get out. The important point is we measure this using ºC, as in “average global temperatures are rising 0.21ºC every twenty years”.
The hottest part of the day is several hours after local noon, and the hottest months are several weeks after the solstice. This type of Thermal Lag is very similar to the above, just using the Earth herself instead of the atmosphere
Hey … anyone can come here and see how a wind farm can be run profitably, in the free market, and without government help. It does take an amount of ‘volunteerism’, but 2¢ per kW-hr extra might look like the bargain compared to carbon taxes.
You can also watch our grassroots effort to get the State to divest it’s securities from the fossil fuel sector, like our larger municipalities that have already done so.
…Okay. So why is what is clearly a matter of scientific examination something you consider “personal belief”?
Stop liking things I like.
Of course, what areas thaw or become undesertified (I’m sure there’s a word I’m looking for somewhere…) is utterly irrelevant to the big picture. What matters is overall gain or loss of arable land. And those figures? not great. Problems caused by global warming? Well, how about the loss of arable land and disruption in global food networks? :rolleyes:
Also, on a side note, it’s worth pointing out that when climate change deniers do publish, it almost always falls into one of three categories:
- Vague, barely scientific hypotheses (Lindzen’s Cosmic Rays hypothesis)
- Actually in support of the mainstream hypothesis (most of what these people actually publish)
- Vacuous crap that reveals itself as utterly incompetent in the field or downright fraudulent (Soon & Balilunas)
Food for thought.
I think the globe is warming, as scientifically demonstrated …
I think man may contribute to this warming, as being scientifically demonstrated …
I believe this is a good thing, and science does not deal with what is “good” and what is “evil” very well.
It’s that last line, to some, that makes me a Global Warming Denialist. Referencing the OP, there is a segment of denialism for which it is inappropriate to publish in scientific journals. It’s philosophy, and a choice. Simply for a minor, out-of-context, small difference of belief system … see how they whip me, and beat me, and scream their mantras whilst kicking me. I’m just trying to be helpful, a good Samaritan, kind and generous … did you see that map I found? Who knew such research had been done …
That is most assuredly NOT what forcing is.
I’m honestly trying to figure out what your post is supposed to mean. Are you trying to contradict something I said?
Aside from the misstatement of what forcing is, above, I have no problem with anything you said, nor is it inconsistent with anything I said. Although if you think you’re describing how greenhouse gases work, you forgot to mention the most important thing: climate equilibrium. The practical impact of increasing CO2 is that it moves the earth’s temperature equilibrium higher, and with more CO2 under any given set of conditions the temperature stabilizes at a higher equilibrium for as long as those conditions prevail.
Except that when you say something like “Global warming is good”, there’s a lot of subtext implying that “good” means beneficial for the continued survival of modern human society; reducing global suffering; etc. Of course, if that’s not what you’re talking about, it’d do you well to dispel those notions, rather than feeding into them by providing examples of what you believe the beneficial effects of global warming are (which happen to fit those definitions quite well).
So stop being so damn obtuse and make it clear what you’re talking about. When you say “I think global warming is good”, make it clear what you mean. Don’t just say something which, to most of us, means a certain thing, then cry foul when we miss your (unknown) definition. What do you expect was going to happen? That we would automatically understand what you mean by that when most people involved in the debate mean something entirely different when they say “global warming is good”?
Of course, if it was just that, people probably wouldn’t give you so much crap. But you also seem quite content to repost misinformation, state things which are simply false, and support denialists who don’t just offer such “philosophical” objections. Oh, and a word of advice: if your philosophy’s definition of “good” has nothing to do with what benefits human society, there’s probably a problem.
Let’s face it: climate change deniers need to be disenfranchised. Democracy is not a suicide pact; those of us in the reality-based community are not obligated to let those who want to kill us all participate in our decision-making processes.
“In climate science, radiative forcing is defined as the difference of radiant energy received by the earth and energy radiated back to space. Typically, radiative forcing is quantified at the tropopause in units of watts per square meter of earth’s surface. A positive forcing (more incoming energy) warms the system, while negative forcing (more outgoing energy) cools it. Causes of radiative forcing include changes in insolation (incident solar radiation) and in concentrations of radiatively active gases and aerosols.” – Wikipedia for what it’s worth.
That’s exactly what I mean, except I believe modern human society will continue thriving. None of us today are smart enough to know just how good things will be in 200 years. My question to you is, are you one of those “some people” who would classify me as a denialist, and hold me responsible for the same actions displayed by … say … those Steely Dan Fan is railing against? [shakes head] Or do I have to believe the doom and gloom?
Well, I have seen this movie before, the disenfranchisement will be self inflicted, and I do think a few climate change deniers are smart enough to not follow the footsteps of the creationists, they know that if they dare to take their case to court they will lose just as the creationists when the contradictory nature of the evidence they continue to use will be obvious to a judge.
So they concentrate on side issues, like trying to get emails from Mann and other researchers in fishing expeditions (Cuccinelli lost the case, ta bum). More to the point lawsuits are boasted by the deniers, they claim breathlessly that they are coming, any day now, but as time goes by it looks more and more like just pandering.
It is notorious to me that even when there is a clear case to make against Peter Gleick , the denier Heartland Institute has let what should be a clear lawsuit slide even after the institute Gleik works for reinstated him after confessing to getting the insider information from Heartland, I do think that Heartland does not want to face the revealing discovery phase.
As Richard Alley explained (quoted many times and clearly ignored), there is indeed reason to be optimists, but it does depend on people realizing how penny smart but pound foolish is the advise coming from many deniers and lukewarmers.
That’s not what you said. At all. I will always apologize if I misinterpreted something except that what you said, and I quote, was “Forcing is the energy leaving the atmosphere out into space”. That’s not even remotely correct.
Wikipedia is correct, you were not.
There’s more, too. The Wikipedia definition is for radiative forcing. There are other kinds of climate forcing. The most general definition of forcing is any imbalance that drives the climate to a different point of equilibrium.
There’s that word again, fellow wolf – equilibrium – that you forgot to mention in your description of radiative forcing that made it sound like it’s some kind of temporary slowdown of the rate at which the earth loses heat. More CO2 raises the earth’s temperature, and it stays raised, in the absence of equal and opposite forcings. Indeed, the carbon content of the atmosphere at any given amount of solar TSI is THE major determinant of climate.
[giggle] Yeah, I admit I explained flux to you … how better to get you to understand (Input Flux + Output Flux = Forcing). Let’s just make sure we use these scientific terms correctly, eh, or just don’t use them at all. Because when you use them incorrectly, makes you look like you don’t have a grasp of the underlining physical principles involved. Just curious, input flux is 1300 W/m^2 and output flux is 250 W/m^2 … do you understand how adding these two gives zero? I get the feeling there’s still some things you don’t understand about forcing.
And, apparently, neither do most scientists, or at least the ones who are part of the consensus regarding global warming. A pity they remain so ignorant, when your expert guidance is available.
If you weren’t being sarcastic, please explain. If the area is the same for the two (surface of the Earth, presumably), I get the obvious nonzero answer. Is insolation only for half the Earth? Even then it’s a huge difference – too huge to make sense to me. Please fight my ignorance.
The 1300 W/m2 flux you mention here is the total incident solar radiation to the earth, and the outgoing flux you mention here is the longwave radiation emitted at the earth’s surface (I think - your numbers are close, but don’t exactly match the literature). Most of that longwave radiation is then absorbed by the atmosphere, which re-emits it in both directions (upward to space and downward back to the earth’s surface).
While the 1300 (closer to 1366) W/m2 is the entirety of the incoming energy to the earth, longwave radiation is far from the only negative flux. You’re neglecting the shortwave albedos of the atmosphere itself, of clouds, and of the earth’s surface, as well as the role of the atmosphere in the energy balance - it absorbs not only the longwave radiation emitted by the earth’s surface (as noted above), but it also absorbs shortwave a fraction of the incoming shortwave and emits that (up and down) as longwave radiation as well.
You’re correct that “radiative forcing” is generally used to denote the balance of radiated energy, both shortwave and longwave (although it’s critical to include all the components of the energy balance). In the more specialized language of climate change studies, though, the term refers to the net change in the earth’s radiative energy flux rather than the net flux itself.
Lots of missing components in watchwolf’s energy balance. Here is a bit more complete discussion of full energy budget.