Comments on: “Let me introduce you to my little friend”: 2014, warmest year

By: Russell Seitz

Russell Seitz — Sat, 24 Jan 2015 01:07:31 +0000

Asrtolevo, I’ve been doing research in this area for a long time- and suggest you read what I published on climate policy in 1990: “A War against Fire The National Interest, Summer 1990, pp. 54-62

And on radiative forcing and mitigation in 2011 in Climatic Change :
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-010-9965-8#page-1

By: Susan Anderson

Susan Anderson — Fri, 23 Jan 2015 16:49:22 +0000

Clarification:

“That kind of ‘skepticism'” does not refer to Andy Revkin. While I deplore his embrace of “bridge fuels” I do know this is a matter of proportion and he does make an effort to point out the dangers of extreme fuels. In addition to promoting big fossil, the self-labeled “skeptics” are eager to discredit any development of clean energy sources and any effort to control/regulate the more dangerous effects of fossil exploitation. This attempt to slam the door on progress does not serve them, as humans inhabiting the planet in common with the rest of us, but rather condemns them to the same difficult future we all face.

By: Susan Anderson

Susan Anderson — Fri, 23 Jan 2015 16:37:25 +0000

Thanks for your effort to clarify the issues here. While I would like to focus Andy Revkin’s argument with which I largely agree, the fact that his comments are dominated by the worst kind of cleversides distractionalism makes it hard. Every effort to introduce reasonableness into the conversation simply enables the reverse. He seems unable to perceive that he is encouraging the thieves of reason. He tends to blame the victims, not the perpetrators.

The problem with that kind of “skepticism” is that it is not skeptical at all. It has a monofocus on “proving” that nothing in the conversation is relevant except removing any obstacles to big fossil’s deregulation and expansion efforts.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Fri, 23 Jan 2015 13:29:07 +0000

Russell, my FAQ applies to your use of K. Not a miscue!

By: Astrostevo

Astrostevo — Fri, 23 Jan 2015 09:11:07 +0000

PS. Oh & Russell Seitz who here brought up the quibble over which temperature unit you use to measure things exactly?

Whatever unit you use, reality is what it is.

Our globe is overheating because of the GHG emissions we’re pumping into our atmosphere and its having grave consequences and has worse implications that we’re finding coming faster than predicted.

Do you really disagree with the words in the above paragraph and, if so, why and what evidence have you to say otherwise?

By: Astrostevo

Astrostevo — Fri, 23 Jan 2015 08:43:22 +0000

@ ^ Existential threat for some for sure.

Maybe not an existential threat for you just yet but the implications and the damage and carnage already being wrecked and almost certain to be wrecked. Is bloody well grim. Not to be downplayed and underestimated.

By: Russell Seitz

Russell Seitz — Fri, 23 Jan 2015 06:14:25 +0000

Complete miscue Greg- Your FAQ’s are scarcely relevant to what I have just written. , because the issue is not absolute temperture , but rather the magnitude of rates of change whatever the choice of degrees : as a simple matter of the anthropology of science I reflexively chose degrees K because i’m a physicist and Kelvin’s are what degrees are called in the vernacular of physics.

It would nor much signify if they were F. C. Reamur or Rankine- any way you cut it , the world is and has been warming at a tate of some tens of microdegrees per day,

While this is bad news for temperate and boreal forest ecotremes, I think it way over the top to call it an existential threat,

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Thu, 22 Jan 2015 19:52:25 +0000

Russell, my credibility is fine. I can help you with your misunderstanding by pointing to this FAQ item: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/about/#ZeroKelvin

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Thu, 22 Jan 2015 19:49:19 +0000

Rob, good suggestion. It is a point. But a point can punctuate. They do it all the time!

By: Russell Seitz

Russell Seitz — Thu, 22 Jan 2015 18:51:57 +0000

Andy, What really matters about rates of change is what the rate is .

Greg’s trope that < 1microKelvin an hour is an "existential threat" is a threat to its own credibility– the hyperbole in which mechants of fear indulge merely legitimates the motivational rhetoric of mechants of doubt .