SkepticLance

fattyjwoods What Greenpeace should do is very clear and has been for years. Accosting whaling ships in the Southern Ocean does not work. If the leadership of Greenpeace is sincere, which I doubt, then they will work on the democratic process, since Japan is a democracy. They will set up an anti-whaling organisation within Japan, using the many conservation minded Japanese to run, and educate the Japanese people, in Japanese, about what is going on. Then the process will play out at the ballot box. To lucaspa There is already a ready made test for sentience. It is the mirror test. Show an animal its reflection in the mirror, and look for evidence that it recognises said reflection as being itself. A dumb animal will not, and will treat the reflection as a rival to be attacked; a potential mate to be courted, or in some other way depending on its species behaviour patterns. A sentient animal will show it understands that the reflection is itself. Chimps, for example, will examine their own behinds in the mirror - something they cannot do any other way. This test has been passed in various ways by several species of dolphins, chimps, gorillas, bonobos, orang utan, and by elephants. It may be a bit tricky making and mounting a mirror large enough for a blue whale, but is possible in theory.

Swansont said : Sunspots can't cause warming for only those 30 years and then not at other times. Correct. If we look back in time, we see the correlation between sunspot activity and temperature holds true, with provision for variations due to other factors, for 1000 years. The classic example is the Maunder Minimum (meaning few or no sunspots) 'coinciding' with the central and coldest part of the Little Ice Age. 1veedo said : Because the data indicates CO2 is responsible for ~half of the temperature increase during the first half of the century. In this, you are certainly consistent. However, you have simply quoted authority. I have shown in published graphs that the correlation with sunspots is much better than any with CO2 increase. Dak said : quantify 'minor and quite unexceptional'. the CO2 had, after all, been steadily increasing for decades by 1910. All is relative. The CO2 increase from 1880 to 1910 was minor and unexceptional compared to the much greater increases after that time, and especially from the late 1980's onwards. as for sunspots increase to their highest level in 8,000 years, the graph shows a higher frequency in 1850-1910, and 1940-2000. iow, the period we're talking about has the lowest frequency of the dates represented on the graph. Sunspots are at a relatively low level in 1910, and by 1940 have reached an exceptionally high level. 8,000 year high refers to the last 70 years, according to New Scientist. If you deny this simple fact, you belong with Homer Simpson and the Doh brigade. no need for ad-homs. No need to get defensive, either. You at least admit to the facts.

Dak That graph just happened to be one I had picked up recently. There are a number of publications showing that graph or something very similar. I do not actually know why you argue that point. Even the IPCC accepts that sunspot numbers at that time correlate with warming. It is kind of strange. I have told you I accept that the world is warming, and that the last 30 years that warming correlates most closely with CO2 increase. Why are you so bloody minded about the historical nature of the 1910 to 1940 warming? Why can you not accept that back then things were different? The facts are clear cut. CO2 increase from 1880 to 1940 was minor and pretty much a straight line on the graph. Cooling and warming occurred which was not in any way closely related to that CO2 increase. However, cooling and warming followed quite closely with sunspot number change. The correlation is not, of course, perfect, since climate is multi-factorial. But the correlation is much closer than with CO2 increase. Why can you not admit that utterly obvious fact? The warming of 1910 to 1940 was 0.4 C. That is a MASSIVE warming for only 3 decades, and only the warming of the last 3 decades compares. At that time, CO2 increase was minor and quite unexceptional compared to the period that preceded it. However, we also saw an increase in sunspots, lifted to the highest level in 8,000 years. If you deny this simple fact, you belong with Homer Simpson and the Doh brigade.

lucaspa said : Now, you also said that population in developing nations would come with access to birth control. Can you be assured that will happen? Of course not. All I can say is that a number of surveys of third world countries have shown that women in general do not actually want to be turned into child bearing machines. They would like to have access to birth control, and limit their families to 2 or 3 children. Whether this actually happens depends on many factors, including various cultural factors. However, average fertility in third world nations has been dropping for 50 years, as stated before. It makes sense that if those women are given access to birth control, they will use it.

lucaspa said : As to "preferring pessimism", it's obvious you aren't a scientist. Every scientist knows Murphy's Law: whatever can go wrong, will go wrong. Wrong. It is engineers who so revere Murphy's Law. Scientists revere objective truth. Murphy's Law is a specific principle based on an exaggeration - therefore not objective truth. For a scientist, only the actual data will do - not an exaggerated data base.

To Dak. I do see your point. If the situation was entirely simple, you would be absolutely correct. I think, though, we would all agree that many factors are at play. I have been told so many times by 1veedo, bascule etc about sulphate effects after 1940. If correct, then that is the reason for the cooling after 1940. I have simply said that sunspots correlate better with the 1910 to 1940 warming than CO2. And you should agree that the data shows this.

to bombus I agree that habitat loss is a tragedy. My wife and I own 1.85 hectares (4 acres) of land that we will be building our new home on soon. Most of that land is covered in regenerating rain forest. We are busy planting new 'forest giants' and rooting out alien weeds such as English gorse, and Argentine pampas. We trap and poison alien predators such as stoats, rats and possums so that the native birds can thrive. We are recreating natural habitat for native New Zealand plants and animals, and we consider this an important and worthwhile activity. However, the point that Lomborg made was that loss of habitat was not a major cause of extinctions. He did not say it was unimportant in itself. Lomborg is indeed saying that most human related extinctions are not due to habitat loss. I do not believe this can be said to be widely accepted. I have read numerous conservation articles, and have encountered the statement many times that habitat loss is a prime cause of extinctions in the world today. Since most current extinctions tend to be ascribed to human activity, that meets your definition.

1veedo said : You do realize that CO2 correlates just as well as solar irradiance during this period, I assume? No, it does not. From 1880 to 1910 the correlation with CO2 is negative, since the world is cooling. From 1910 to 1940 the correlation would be positive since the world was warming. However, over the whole 60 years, any correlation is exceedingly weak, since we go from negative to positive. Because the warming is greater than the cooling, and because CO2 is increasing over that 60 year period, albeit only to a small degree compared with later decades, there would be a slight positive correlation. However, it is way weaker than the correlation with sunspot number. Yopu see, from 1880 to 1910 sunspot numbers drop. From 1910 to 1940, sunspot numbers increase substantially. Thus, a very strong correlation.

To 1veedo As I have said before, you seem to be more impressed by authority than by data. I do not care what scientists or IPCC or anyone else says. I care about the data. If you want to change my mind, you will not do so by telling me that scientist X disagrees with me. You will change my mind if you show me actual data that proves me wrong. The 1880 to 1940 set of data is clear cut. I have said this so often. 30 years, cooling. Then 30 years substantial warming. Greenhouse gas increase stable throughout. You cannot use that data to show that greenhouse gas is even 50% of the warming influence, because if it were, we would see warming over the 30 year period 1880 to 1910. Instead we saw cooling. However, there is a clear and strong correlation between sunspot number and warming influence. And you are wrong about correlation. Sure it does not prove causation, but it often implies it. We have to be careful about drawing a firm conclusion on causation, because an implication is only an implication and can be wrong. But the implication is often there.

bombus I am not really trying to point anything out to you. I was interested in what Lomborg had to say. My own reading and observations seemed to bear out his point. I was trying to find out if other people were able to refute his point. So far, not really.

Sayonara I do not think that events that occurred 60 million years ago can be quoted in this discussion. Humanity did not even exist then. And this debate is related to the current set of extinctions, which humanity is largely, one way or another, responsible for.

Sayonara said : The request "please provide clear examples of extinctions due to loss of habitat" is more appropriately provided as "please provide clear examples of extinctions due to loss of habitat that we know about". But by comparison, if we ask the same about extinctions due to over-hunting, or introductions of alien species, we get literally hundreds of examples. I could quote at least 20 examples from memory. I could not quote even one extinction example due to loss of habitat.

To fattyjwoods We are all on your side when it comes to the goal. We all love whales, and respect their intelligence. We all want to stop the whaling and try to get this magnificent animal to thrive. The difference is the way we do it. To me, it is utterly clear as crystal that Greenpeace is using the wrong approach. They have been sending out volunteers to accost whaling ships, for decades now. End result? The Japanese government is so determined to thwart Greenpeace that it is prepared to continue despite being unable to sell the meat, and in the face of losing millions of dollars each year. Isn't it time Greenpeace turned around and said :"We need to try something else."

1veedo said : Correlation does not imply causation. Ever. You can make the exact same argument about CO2 during this period as well. What matters is that when you calculate the total energy influx from solar irradiance and greenhouse gases you find that the two are about equal in magnitude. You have said this before, but only when it suits you. In fact, you are wrong. Correlation does not prove causation, but it frequently implies it. And as I have said before, I am seriously unhappy about some of the calculations carried out by those you quote. Solar forcings, calculated from sunspot activity, should reflect that activity. Frequently they do not. And any rational scientific argument shows they should. I suspect manipulation of the calculations to get a result preferred by those who are involved. Thus, I prefer to look at the raw data, such as numbers of sunspots, and correlate them with warming. If we look at the period of 1880 to 1910, which is what I have been arguing about, then greenhouse gas increase is almost a straight line on the graph. Yet 1880 to 1910 saw a decrease in temperature while 1910 to 1940 saw one of the biggest increases ever measured. The only significant difference that might be causal is number of sunspots. Low in the 1880 to 1910 period, and rapidly increasing in the 1910 to 1940 period. These are facts that can be verified by any scientific record of the time. To suggest that greenhouse gases are the cause of a rapid increase in temperature when the greenhouse gas emissions remain constant - well that is just plain idiotic. Certainly not good science!

Let me remind you guys what we are arguing about, since you have a tendency to misquote me. I have accepted that 1975 to the present, warming correlates closest to CO2 increase. I have been arguing, however, that the period of 1910 to 1940, the warming correlated closer to sunspot activity. This is shown clearly in the following Wikipedia article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation If you look at the posted graphs of sunspot activity versus temperature, you will see a close correlation for the periods before 1940.

1veedo. Neither have you posted data. A published opinion is not data. To give you an idea what I mean, you will recall that, on another thread, you pulled me up with data on ozone depletion. That data was sound and forced me to change my mind. However, you have not done that on this thread. Opinions, no matter who publishes them, do not count.

An interesting item in the New Scientist. Australian printed edition. 16 June 2007, psage 24. Psychologist Rosemary Rowe states that, in young children, the symptoms of ADHD closely resemble the symptoms of a child who is severely frightened. She suggests that a lot of kids are diagnosed wrongly, and put onto drugs, when what they need is reassurance from parents and a good cuddle. Lots of things frighten young children, including scary stories, their own imaginations, and actions of adults. According to Rosemary Rowe, the extreme symptoms of strong fear in young children strongly resemble the symptoms of bipolar disorder, and she notes that those diagnoses jumped from 13 per 100,000 to 73 per 100,000, going from 1996 to 2004. I am not a psychologist, so would like to hear people's views.

To lucaspa Please read my postings more carefully, and try to avoid drawing conclusions that are not there. Take the following. "I had a look at your colby reference. Essentially, it agrees with what I said on warming 1910 to 1940, with the main criticism being that we do not understand the mechanism as yet. That is true, but does not make the correlation incorrect. In science we start with observation, and sort out the mechanism later." But you said what the mechanism was, didn't you? You said the mechanism was solar irradiation. Solar activity is measured by sunspot activity. That is an observation. Not a mechanism. The mechanism is how sunspot activity translates into warming. High sunsport activity causes increases in ultra violet, and also changes in solar magnetic fields. Probably one of these leads to warming of the Earth, but that mechanism is not properly understood. Repeat, solar activity is an observation - not a mechanism. Incidentally, increased sunspot activity leading to global warming is not my crackpot theory. Even the IPCC admits that is true. They just do not like applying it to the 20th and 21st Centuries. But this destroys the rationale behind the graph! If sunspots are at an all time high and have been for 70 years, then why does the graph have an increase in solar activity from 1930 to 1960, if it is based on sunspots? This statement is not correct. The graph does not show an increase from 1930 to 1960. It shows an increase from 1910 to 1940, and a decrease from 1940 to 1970. They then extrapolated the tree ring data backwards in time and discovered that no period in the last 8000 years has been as active as the last 70. About 75 sunspots have appeared every year in this period, compared to an annual average of about 30 over the last 11,400 years." That being the case, the graph should have a constant solar activity from 1920 to present during a period of increasing temperature. And there goes your "correlation" out the window. Your maths needed correcting. Subtract 70 from 2007 and you get 1937. So sunspot activity has been at an 8000 year high (although still varying up and down to a degree) since 1937. This ties in with my original statement about sunspot activity increasing from 1910 to 1940 and causing the associated warming. This is where you blew it. IPCC is not a person, and therefore not an "authority" like you are using. The word 'authority' as I used it, can refer to a person, or an organisation.

lucaspa said And where is YOUR data for that? You wanted data from us, but have failed to provide data of your own. I began this thread with a question, based on an entry in Lomborg's book. I asked for clear examples of extinctions due to loss of habitat. The answer from yourself and others to day has been few such extinctions. I am already aware of any number of extinctions caused by over-hunting, or by alien introductions. For example : google Guam+"brown tree snake" to get a number of accounts how the introduction of the brown tree snake into Guam led to a number of extinctions. In Australia, humans arrived 50,000 to 60,000 years ago. (The oldest skeleton is Mungo Man from a lake bed in New South Wales, dated at 50,000 years ago). The arrival of people 'coincided' with the loss of over 100 species of mega-fauna - exactly the kind of animals people like to hunt. Polynesians crossed the Pacific over a period from 10,000 years ago to 1,000 years ago. Their movement coincided with a massive extinction event - about 2,000 species of endemic birds being lost. This was partly hunting, and partly the introduction of the polynesian rat. Here in New Zealand 36 species of birds went extinct within 200 years of the arrival of humans, while only a third of the rain forest was lost. Such extinctions with known causes were ascribed either to over hunting (11 species of moa) or to the polynesian rat. There is no doubt at all that over-hunting and the introduction of alien species has caused, and continues to cause extinctions on the largest scale. The doubt lies with extinctions caused by habitat loss. Very few are the examples you, and others, can give of clear cut cases of species extinction due to habitat loss.

lucaspa said I've looked carefully thru this thread --twice -- and haven't seen ANY data posted by you on the subject. You must carefgully have ignored http://www.mps.mpg.de/images/projekte/sun-climate/climate.gif Yes, these are reconstructions. As I understand it, they are reconstructed from sunspot counts, for which there is an unbroken record for about 400 years. I had a look at your colby reference. Essentially, it agrees with what I said on warming 1910 to 1940, with the main criticism being that we do not understand the mechanism as yet. That is true, but does not make the correlation incorrect. In science we start with observation, and sort out the mechanism later. Your second reference says no increase in solar activity since 1940. That is also true. In fact, the period following 1940 saw a reduction in solar activity, and a cooling. After that reduction, solar activity has changed little through to the present, outside the normal 11 year cycle. It is still at an 8000 year high, though. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6591.html

1veedo said The CO2 release between 1900 and 1950 is responsible for about half, or 50%, of the total increase in temperatures during this period. 1veedo, I think the big difference between you and I on this subject is that you are convinced by authority, and I am not. I am only interested in data. If the IPCC makes the statement that CO2 accounts for half the temperature rise, you appear convinced by that. I am not. I want to see the basic data. I have shown you that basic data, and you still refuse to accept that solar activity is more important. It probably does not matter anyway. As I am sure others will be pointing out, what happened from 1900 to 1940 is not longer of importance. It is what is happening today that counts. And in the situation today, the data, as well as the opinions of authority, suggest that CO2 is much more important.

To Paralith No-one disputes yourt statement that habitat is important. Conservation must address that problem also, and work to stop loss of vital habitat. This is especially true for certain places (such as South East Asian rain forest)where the remaining habitat is looking to become scarce. However, that is not what this thread was about. In my own view, as I said before, it is more about prioritising effort. If the goal is to prevent an extinction, where do we put our efforts? As I see it, the biggest causes of extinctions, in order of importance, and approximately, are : 1. Over-hunting/over-fishing by humans. 2. Introduction of alien species into ecosystems that have not adapted to their presense. 3. Habitat loss. 4. Pollution. 5. Global warming. 1 and 2 are the biggest by far. This statement is based on the number of species we know have been made extinct by these two factors. There appears to be a big gap between 2 and 3. Habitat loss seems to be more important as a contributing factor than as a direct cause of extinctions, in most cases. The last one, global warming, probably has had little effect so far. Quantifying these, of course, is probably an impossible task, and my list remains open to debate.

Dak said : i'd hardly say that from 1880 to 1910 the world is cooling. you seem to be measuring from the top of a peak to the bottom of a trough, which gives false impressions. eg, this period seems to have changed by -0.2C (with a period of heating in the middle); however, reading from 1875 to 1915 gives an increase of what looks to be about +0.05C. odd, that. You can argue that the cooling is minor, and I accept that. The point is that, in spite of little or no difference in greenhouse gas emissions, the first 30 years shows cooling, if slight, and the second 30 years shows very substantial warming at 0.4 C. You cannot blame the substantial warming on greenhouse gases, since they are pretty similar to the 1880 to 1910 lot. Your graph of sunspot activity is hard to interpret. There are other graphs which do not track the 11 year cycle so closely - instead plotting longer term trends, which show the differences more clearly. For example : http://www.mps.mpg.de/images/projekte/sun-climate/climate.gif

Dak That approach appears to consist of redefining your terms to make your argument true. I do not think, in terms of this debate, we can define habitat loss to include the two main causes of extinction. That is : Over-hunting, and introduction of alien species. Perhaps we should agree on habitat loss to mean removal of the main structure of the habitat. So if it is a forest, then removing the trees is what we talk about. If a coral reef, then removal of the hard corals. This would exclude the two factors above, and exclude damage that happens without removing the main structures - such as pollution, which causes harm to a forest but does not remove the trees. To waitforufo A nice example. Perhaps a lesson in the need to think outside the square?

1veedo As before, you evade the evidence. Two periods, each 30 years. Each had equivalent increase in CO2. The first had a significant temperature drop and the second a major temperature increase. The only major difference in warming influence was solar. And you still say that the greenhouse gas influence was just as potent. I give up. You are a lost cause! You have no interest in data. Instead, you read what your personal god (IPCC) says and bow down and worship.