billvon 3,008
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Recommended Posts
rushmc 23
billvon>And don't believe it's reasonable to expect the climate science community to be
>unbiased. The community has locked itself in. It's made predictions. It's said the
>science is sound. It's said the science is settled.
Yes. So has, say, the physics community. They have made predictions - and many have come to pass. They say the science is sound. They say that _most_ of the science is settled. I guess you could say they're very biased towards physics.
> It jas said there is no room for debate.
No, they haven't. That's your imagination (or more charitably something you heard on FOX.) Rather than getting your information from such outlets I'd encourage you to use sources like Nature, where actual science is debated. If you did you'd see reports like:
Improve economic models of climate change
The missing aerosol response in twentieth-century mid-latitude precipitation observations
Inter-hemispheric temperature variability over the past millennium - "Our results imply that climate system predictability on decadal to century timescales may be lower than expected based on assessments of external climate forcing and Northern Hemisphere temperature variations"
Seems a bit below you to many times imply someone has gotten their thoughts and opinions given to them from places like FOX
I guess you believe only you and those who agree with you have thoughts of their own
your own down your nose posts to others only indicates to me that you have accepted the Chicago way
Nice Bill
Very nice.......
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
brenthutch 444
I think Obama said the debate is over.
Yes. I'm familiar with the recent studies. In particular, the latest and greatest explanations for the problem, "namely that recent studies using the observed changes in Earth’s surface temperature suggested climate sensitivity is likely towards the lower end of the estimated range" are to focus on forcings by aerosols. Shindell posits that aerosols are more powerful in climate forcings than was estimated.
Which brings a question: why did climate scientists so underestimate the power of aerosols? And another question: why are they reading my posts here, using my ideas, and not crediting me with the ideas?
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4341577#4341577
This was almost two years ago I wrote this. And it's now coming into vogue?
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Which brings a question: why did climate scientists so underestimate the power of aerosols? And another question: why are they reading my posts here, using my ideas, and not crediting me with the ideas?
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4341577#4341577
QuoteIt leads me to wonder whether industrial aerosol emissions from Asia and other developing countries is polluting the air enough to keep the climate from spiking.
This was almost two years ago I wrote this. And it's now coming into vogue?
My wife is hotter than your wife.
brenthutchI think Obama said the debate is over.
He did. He won't tolerate "flat earthers."
If you want your debate you can keep your debate.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
billvon 3,008
>Yes. I'm familiar with the recent studies.
Then why did you claim that the scientific community - the very same community that published those studies debating the finer points of climate change - said "there is no room for debate?"
>Which brings a question: why did climate scientists so underestimate the
>power of aerosols?
They didn't. Indeed, a group of climate scientists that deniers enjoy mocking did a lot of work on aerosols back in the 1970's. They saw the increase in aerosols created by countries like China, and said if that was continued (which it wasn't) you'd actually see cooling rather than warming. Of course the popular media took that as "the next ice age is imminent!"
>why are they reading my posts here, using my ideas, and not crediting me with the ideas?
Same reason you "stole" the earlier studies I imagine . . . .
Then why did you claim that the scientific community - the very same community that published those studies debating the finer points of climate change - said "there is no room for debate?"
>Which brings a question: why did climate scientists so underestimate the
>power of aerosols?
They didn't. Indeed, a group of climate scientists that deniers enjoy mocking did a lot of work on aerosols back in the 1970's. They saw the increase in aerosols created by countries like China, and said if that was continued (which it wasn't) you'd actually see cooling rather than warming. Of course the popular media took that as "the next ice age is imminent!"
>why are they reading my posts here, using my ideas, and not crediting me with the ideas?
Same reason you "stole" the earlier studies I imagine . . . .
SkyDekker 1,465
They just found a new particle they can't explain with current scientific theories.
Clearly science is wrong about everything. Idiots couldn't even predict this particle, nor explain it when they found it.
Clearly science is wrong about everything. Idiots couldn't even predict this particle, nor explain it when they found it.
billvon 3,008
>Clearly science is wrong about everything. Idiots couldn't even predict this
>particle, nor explain it when they found it.
Yep. And I bet those nuclear physics 'alarmists' still want to spend taxpayer money to keep nuclear waste stored safely. "Oh no, the radiation will kill us all!" they keep saying. You know who invests in companies that manage nuclear waste? Al Gore, that's who.
>particle, nor explain it when they found it.
Yep. And I bet those nuclear physics 'alarmists' still want to spend taxpayer money to keep nuclear waste stored safely. "Oh no, the radiation will kill us all!" they keep saying. You know who invests in companies that manage nuclear waste? Al Gore, that's who.
SkyDekkerThey just found a new particle they can't explain with current scientific theories.
Clearly science is wrong about everything. Idiots couldn't even predict this particle, nor explain it when they found it.
Kind of interesting how other sciences work. A couple of years ago I revisited a Brief history of Time and was taken aback at how much of it was obsolete.
As I've repeatedly stated with climate science: it is arrogance bordering on hubris to suggest that we know what the climate will be in 100 years. We don't. And because of the massive uncertainties, we should hold back on stoking massive social change because of the uncertainties.
We learn new stuff all the time. Science is rarely ever "settled." Especially science that has millions of interrelations calculated trillions of times.
Science progresses when concepts are proven. And also when disproven. When something shows up that was unexpected, then yes, we want to find out what is causing it. We're seeing that now in climate science - the empirical evidence poked too many holes.
I'm actually glad. In my opinion, we are seeing the climate science community move back to being a science community focusing on climate again. It has no choice but to take another look at other forcings. Even, as Bill wrote, going back to the 70s thinking about the effect of aerosols. What is underlying these new ideas has been unspoken - perhaps CO2 is NOT the "dominant forcing."
I'm seeing a re-examination of the current paradigm. I think it's refreshing. There's still a lot of, "we're still right" but we're seeing some new mechanisms being proposed.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
billvon>Clearly science is wrong about everything. Idiots couldn't even predict this
>particle, nor explain it when they found it.
Yep. And I bet those nuclear physics 'alarmists' still want to spend taxpayer money to keep nuclear waste stored safely. "Oh no, the radiation will kill us all!" they keep saying. You know who invests in companies that manage nuclear waste? Al Gore, that's who.
Kinda weird, isn't it? We've got a new type of particle. Scientists announced it. And didn't say anything about how dangerous it is to the population or that they know how to save the world if we just give them more money and power. Instead they said they found a particle and it doesn't make sense to them and it doesn't fit with any theory, so do what you want with that knowledge.
The announcement displayed a lack of policy advocacy.
Note: I have always supported government funding of basic science because basic science is public domain and there isn't money in it. It's acquiring knowledge for the sake of knowledge.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
billvon 3,008
>And didn't say anything about how dangerous it is to the population
Well I guess there are two possible explanations to that:
1) There's a conspiracy that all climate scientists belong to and no physicists belong to
2) There really is a threat posed by climate change and there is, as of yet, no known threat posed by this new particle.
>if we just give them more money and power.
Oh, they've already said that. "Give us more money and power and only then will we be able to discover these new particles." And given that they've spent billions, their evil plot is working very well indeed.
Well I guess there are two possible explanations to that:
1) There's a conspiracy that all climate scientists belong to and no physicists belong to
2) There really is a threat posed by climate change and there is, as of yet, no known threat posed by this new particle.
>if we just give them more money and power.
Oh, they've already said that. "Give us more money and power and only then will we be able to discover these new particles." And given that they've spent billions, their evil plot is working very well indeed.
Quote
In terms of how the denial industry operates?
For the sake of clear communication, and a meaningful discussion, what is being denied here, in the context of AGW?
We are all engines of karma
Quote
It is, but the point of the post in question was that people who are paid by someone generally take that someone's interests into account when advocating.
Wendy, we're not really talking about advocating here. We are talking about science. Three questions for you:
1) What is the weight fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere, at present?
2) What is the dominant green house gas?
3) How much green house warming is due to this dominant green house gas?
Answer those for me, then will continue from there.
We are all engines of karma
billvon 3,008
>or the sake of clear communication, and a meaningful discussion, what is being
>denied here, in the context of AGW?
A good question. The term "denier" is generally used to describe someone who denies all aspects of AGW, and generally denotes someone with a political agenda based on denial of AGW science. (Separate from "skeptic," who is questioning specific parts of AGW while agreeing with the science overall.)
That, to me, is somewhat imprecise, so I generally break it down into three categories of denier.
Type I denier. This type denies that the climate is changing. Such people are exemplified by posts along the lines of "it was cold this winter so it's not getting warmer and all AGW scientists are lying!" or "the climate hasn't changed much since 2005 so there's no such thing as climate change."
Type II denier. This type accepts that the climate is changing, but mankind cannot possibly have anything to do with it. "It's all natural" "we couldn't possibly affect the whole world" "termites did it" are examples here.
Type III denier. I do not usually refer to this group when talking about deniers because they have a very specific denial - that climate change will not and cannot do anything bad. They accept that the climate is changing, and that we are a large part of the reason, but the changes will all be good. "CO2 is an amazingly effective aerial fertilizer! Why do you want to kill forests by reducing it?" is one angle, taken by the Heartland Institute. "It's cold here and if it were warmer everyone would be happier" is another.
While those are discrete definitions they are often very fluid; many deniers hop from one type to the other depending on which argument they are having. For example, someone who seems to be a Type II denier (i.e. "I don't claim that the climate isn't changing but it's all natural") will, a few days later, claim that the climate really isn't changing because of a new report talking about climate change since 2005. Thus the breakdown into types isn't generally critical in a discussion. You will often see two (or even all three) types coming from a denier over the course of a long discussion. This isn't contradictory to them because their goal is denial, not gathering evidence, determining causes or weighing mitigation strategies. Thus all types of denial support the same ideological goal.
>denied here, in the context of AGW?
A good question. The term "denier" is generally used to describe someone who denies all aspects of AGW, and generally denotes someone with a political agenda based on denial of AGW science. (Separate from "skeptic," who is questioning specific parts of AGW while agreeing with the science overall.)
That, to me, is somewhat imprecise, so I generally break it down into three categories of denier.
Type I denier. This type denies that the climate is changing. Such people are exemplified by posts along the lines of "it was cold this winter so it's not getting warmer and all AGW scientists are lying!" or "the climate hasn't changed much since 2005 so there's no such thing as climate change."
Type II denier. This type accepts that the climate is changing, but mankind cannot possibly have anything to do with it. "It's all natural" "we couldn't possibly affect the whole world" "termites did it" are examples here.
Type III denier. I do not usually refer to this group when talking about deniers because they have a very specific denial - that climate change will not and cannot do anything bad. They accept that the climate is changing, and that we are a large part of the reason, but the changes will all be good. "CO2 is an amazingly effective aerial fertilizer! Why do you want to kill forests by reducing it?" is one angle, taken by the Heartland Institute. "It's cold here and if it were warmer everyone would be happier" is another.
While those are discrete definitions they are often very fluid; many deniers hop from one type to the other depending on which argument they are having. For example, someone who seems to be a Type II denier (i.e. "I don't claim that the climate isn't changing but it's all natural") will, a few days later, claim that the climate really isn't changing because of a new report talking about climate change since 2005. Thus the breakdown into types isn't generally critical in a discussion. You will often see two (or even all three) types coming from a denier over the course of a long discussion. This isn't contradictory to them because their goal is denial, not gathering evidence, determining causes or weighing mitigation strategies. Thus all types of denial support the same ideological goal.
billvon 3,008
I know you asked Wendy but I figured I'd jump in here (Wendy feel free to tell me to butt out)
>1) What is the weight fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere, at present?
It's about 400 parts per million as a molar quantity. In other words, out of every million molecules of gas in the atmosphere, about 400 of them are CO2. By weight that's about .06%. (It's not .04% because CO2 is heavier than most other gases.)
>2) What is the dominant green house gas?
Water vapor, by far.
>3) How much green house warming is due to this dominant green house gas?
Between 35% and 75% depending on local conditions. (Daytime desert, 35% - nighttime clouds, 75%) Note that this is overall greenhouse effect, distinct from forcings. Forcings are greenhouse gas effects which are changes from the long term average.
>1) What is the weight fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere, at present?
It's about 400 parts per million as a molar quantity. In other words, out of every million molecules of gas in the atmosphere, about 400 of them are CO2. By weight that's about .06%. (It's not .04% because CO2 is heavier than most other gases.)
>2) What is the dominant green house gas?
Water vapor, by far.
>3) How much green house warming is due to this dominant green house gas?
Between 35% and 75% depending on local conditions. (Daytime desert, 35% - nighttime clouds, 75%) Note that this is overall greenhouse effect, distinct from forcings. Forcings are greenhouse gas effects which are changes from the long term average.
turtlespeed 221
StreetScoobyQuote
In terms of how the denial industry operates?
For the sake of clear communication, and a meaningful discussion, what is being denied here, in the context of AGW?
Simple . . . anyone who is not an Alarmist is a denier.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
Where do you put a "lukewarmer," Bill? I know that plenty would categorize me as a "denier" because I disagree with the "alarmist" projections.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
billvon 3,008
> I know that plenty would categorize me as a "denier" because I disagree with the
>"alarmist" projections.
So do I - but I don't consider myself a denier because I don't deny the data or the science behind climate change.
>"alarmist" projections.
So do I - but I don't consider myself a denier because I don't deny the data or the science behind climate change.
Nor do it. That is, I don't deny the raw data or observational data. I do deny the validity of projection data. And I seriously question the veracity of much of the "adjusted data."
And above all I question assumptions. I wrote a critique of Mann's Scientific American article a couple of weeks ago. [Url]http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4613621#4613621[/url]
At the end wrote, "If there's anyone who can explain why he went with such things as .3 albedo, exponentially decreasing aerosols and 1.370 kw solar constant, I'd be glad to entertain it." Not a peep.
That article showed exactly why I have problems with the climate science community. He waffled by saying the preindustrial temperature from his math was "realistic" without comparing it to actual observations. He went low on albedo, predicted "exponentially lower" aerosols (from even the preindustrial level), went with an unprecedented insolation of 1370, and went "midrange" with an ECS of 3.0 (which is actually the one thing criticized, but less criticism).
His choices of assumptions skewed the results toward worst case. The exercise was predestined to yield catastrophic results. Does he do that with all of his models? We don't know - he won't show his work.
This is why I mistrust. As Feyman said,
"Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can — if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong — to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.
In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another."
My wife is hotter than your wife.
And above all I question assumptions. I wrote a critique of Mann's Scientific American article a couple of weeks ago. [Url]http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4613621#4613621[/url]
At the end wrote, "If there's anyone who can explain why he went with such things as .3 albedo, exponentially decreasing aerosols and 1.370 kw solar constant, I'd be glad to entertain it." Not a peep.
That article showed exactly why I have problems with the climate science community. He waffled by saying the preindustrial temperature from his math was "realistic" without comparing it to actual observations. He went low on albedo, predicted "exponentially lower" aerosols (from even the preindustrial level), went with an unprecedented insolation of 1370, and went "midrange" with an ECS of 3.0 (which is actually the one thing criticized, but less criticism).
His choices of assumptions skewed the results toward worst case. The exercise was predestined to yield catastrophic results. Does he do that with all of his models? We don't know - he won't show his work.
This is why I mistrust. As Feyman said,
"Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can — if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong — to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.
In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another."
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Quote
It's about 400 parts per million as a molar quantity. In other words, out of every million molecules of gas in the atmosphere, about 400 of them are CO2. By weight that's about .06%. (It's not .04% because CO2 is heavier than most other gases.)
The answer I've heard consistently quoted is 0.0004, weight fraction. Even if it is 0.0006, it's still pretty small. Yes, I understand about forcing and it's power, but still, this is a really small number.
Quote
Water vapor, by far.
Yes.
Quote
Between 35% and 75% depending on local conditions. (Daytime desert, 35% - nighttime clouds, 75%) Note that this is overall greenhouse effect, distinct from forcings. Forcings are greenhouse gas effects which are changes from the long term average.
The answer I expect to hear is about 60 degF. Our species wouldn't be on this planet without that.
While I fully agree that we shouldn't keep pumping large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, at this point in time I have come to view the Al Gores of this world as hucksters. Even if CO2 is doubled to 0.0008 and the earth's avg temp rises by 2 degF (over the next 100 years), this is not going to kill us off. It might even be a good thing.
Nothing being advocated/forced onto developed countries by these folks is going to make one bit of difference in practical terms to this problem. It looks more and more like a power play in my perspective. All that will change is government will have more power over our lives, and take more money from us.
The only practical solution in the near to mid term is nuclear, and there are no Al Gore types even remotely advocating this. If folks were really concerned, we'd be on this path, IMO. If anything is being denied in my post, it's the solutions (rather lack of meaningful solutions) being advocated by alarmists.
We are all engines of karma
billvon 3,008
>Even if CO2 is doubled to 0.0008 and the earth's avg temp rises by 2 degF
>(over the next 100 years), this is not going to kill us off. It might even be a good
>thing.
It will almost certainly be a good thing for some people, a bad thing for other people. As long as we are willing to take responsibility for the bad as well as the good, then we can rationally figure out whether we want the cheap energy now and risk paying for it later, or spend more money now and decrease our risk of paying later.
In a way it's like smoking. Want to enjoy it now and risk lung cancer later? That's fine as long as you go in knowing you have a risk of developing lung cancer. Or if you don't want to take that risk you might want to stop. It's not a guarantee - people who don't smoke still get lung cancer, and people who smoke might well die of something else - but as long as people make the decision knowing the risks, then they're making a rational decision.
Unfortunately there are a large number of people who are effectively saying "no, it's not happening and even if it is, we had nothing to do with it." And denial of that risk is irrational, and in the long term will lead to poor decisionmaking.
>The only practical solution in the near to mid term is nuclear
Nuclear will have to be one of the base load generation technologies, along with large hydro (in areas that support it) and geothermal (in areas that support it.) Solar and wind will generate opportunity power, and natural gas will provide power for peakers.
>(over the next 100 years), this is not going to kill us off. It might even be a good
>thing.
It will almost certainly be a good thing for some people, a bad thing for other people. As long as we are willing to take responsibility for the bad as well as the good, then we can rationally figure out whether we want the cheap energy now and risk paying for it later, or spend more money now and decrease our risk of paying later.
In a way it's like smoking. Want to enjoy it now and risk lung cancer later? That's fine as long as you go in knowing you have a risk of developing lung cancer. Or if you don't want to take that risk you might want to stop. It's not a guarantee - people who don't smoke still get lung cancer, and people who smoke might well die of something else - but as long as people make the decision knowing the risks, then they're making a rational decision.
Unfortunately there are a large number of people who are effectively saying "no, it's not happening and even if it is, we had nothing to do with it." And denial of that risk is irrational, and in the long term will lead to poor decisionmaking.
>The only practical solution in the near to mid term is nuclear
Nuclear will have to be one of the base load generation technologies, along with large hydro (in areas that support it) and geothermal (in areas that support it.) Solar and wind will generate opportunity power, and natural gas will provide power for peakers.
Stumpy 284
1/2 of NZ energy is hydro, and 3/4 is renewable, but I guess we are lucky to have a reasonably small population compared to the resources.
It does seem that for bigger countries the next best option is probably nukular, which despite recent technological advances still concerns me a little.
It does seem that for bigger countries the next best option is probably nukular, which despite recent technological advances still concerns me a little.
Never try to eat more than you can lift
billvon 3,008
>It does seem that for bigger countries the next best option is probably nukular,
>which despite recent technological advances still concerns me a little.
Yeah. It's far from ideal - it's just the least bad option.
>which despite recent technological advances still concerns me a little.
Yeah. It's far from ideal - it's just the least bad option.
Quote
It will almost certainly be a good thing for some people, a bad thing for other people.
How do you know this?
Quote
As long as we are willing to take responsibility..
Who is we?
Quote
we can rationally figure out
Just double checking here, are you saying Al Gore types are rational?
Quote
In a way it's like smoking.
Unbelievably specious analogy. Not at all relevant to this thread.
Quote
And denial of that risk is irrational,
So, even if all of the USA said "Yes, we must do something now!", what impact would that really have on this problem?
Quote
Nuclear will have to be one of the base load generation technologies, along with large hydro (in areas that support it) and geothermal (in areas that support it.) Solar and wind will generate opportunity power, and natural gas will provide power for peakers.
+1, as long as pilots stop getting blinded by the solar farms, and we figure some way for the eagles to stop flying into the turbines.
We are all engines of karma
>unbiased. The community has locked itself in. It's made predictions. It's said the
>science is sound. It's said the science is settled.
Yes. So has, say, the physics community. They have made predictions - and many have come to pass. They say the science is sound. They say that _most_ of the science is settled. I guess you could say they're very biased towards physics.
> It jas said there is no room for debate.
No, they haven't. That's your imagination (or more charitably something you heard on FOX.) Rather than getting your information from such outlets I'd encourage you to use sources like Nature, where actual science is debated. If you did you'd see reports like:
Improve economic models of climate change
The missing aerosol response in twentieth-century mid-latitude precipitation observations
Inter-hemispheric temperature variability over the past millennium - "Our results imply that climate system predictability on decadal to century timescales may be lower than expected based on assessments of external climate forcing and Northern Hemisphere temperature variations"
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites