This page is a continuation of the first, second, third and fourth Challenge pages. I made this to allow for new comments so they will show up. I am working with Disqus to allow all comments to show up through their service. It is working fine on some pages, but I cannot get it to work on others. We are communicating on this issue and I hope to have it resolved soon.
Sorry for the trouble
Chris Keating
NEW: There is now a challenge deadline of midnight (CDT) July 31, 2014 for the challenge. All submissions will be posted with my response no later than the end of the day September 30, 2014.
UPDATE: I AM TRYING TO GET TO EVERY SUBMISSION AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. I HAVE RESPONDED (AS OF 7/2) TO 13 SPECIFIC SUBMISSIONS (PLUS SOME GENERAL POSTINGS ADDRESSING FREQUENTLY MADE CLAIMS) AND CURRENTLY HAVE 26 QUEUED UP. THE QUICK ONES TYPICALLY DON'T TAKE LONG TO RESPOND TO. THE MORE INVOLVED ONES CAN TAKE A FULL DAY. PLEASE BE PATIENT AND I WILL DO MY BEST TO RESPOND TO ALL GENUINE SUBMISSIONS. IF I MISS YOURS I WILL BE GLAD TO CORRECT MY ERROR.
I APOLOGIZE IF I DON'T REPLY TO EVERY COMMENT. I HAVE RECEIVED OVER 1000 COMMENTS IN THE LAST FEW WEEKS. THERE JUST ISN'T TIME TO RESPOND TO ALL OF THEM. HOWEVER, I READ THROUGH THE COMMENTS EVERY DAY AND RESPOND TO THE ONES I CAN.
I HAVE SAID THIS MANY TIMES, BUT IT IS WORTH SAYING AGAIN: I AM NOT ASKING ANYONE TO PROVE ME WRONG, OR TO PROVE ANYTHING AT ALL. I AM MERELY PROVIDING A VENUE FOR PEOPLE WHO MAKE A CLAIM TO FOLLOW THROUGH ON THAT CLAIM. IF YOU ARE SAYING MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT REAL AND YOU CAN PROVE IT, I AM GIVING YOU THE CHANCE. IF YOU ARE NOT MAKING THAT CLAIM, THEN THIS CHALLENGE IS NOT FOR YOU.
I NEVER THOUGHT THAT SOMEONE MAKING A SUBMISSION WOULD ACCEPT MY RESPONSE. IN MY EXPERIENCE, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO CONVINCE A DENIER TO CHANGE HIS MIND WITH ANY AMOUNT OF SCIENCE, EVIDENCE OR LOGIC. BEFORE I GET INTO A DISCUSSION WITH DENIERS ON CLIMATE CHANGE I LIKE TO ASK THEM ONE QUESTION, "IS THERE ANYTHING I CAN DO OR SAY THAT WILL CHANGE YOUR MIND?" IF THE ANSWER IS, "NO," THEN THERE IS NO NEED TO PROCEED. I HAVE NEVER HAD ANYONE TELL ME, "YES." IT REALLY DOES SAVE ME A LOT OF AGGRAVATION.
THIS CHALLENGE AND MY RESPONSES ARE FOR PEOPLE THAT HAVE NOT MADE UP THEIR MINDS YET. I WANT THEM TO BE ABLE TO MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION AND PART OF THAT IS TO SHOW HOW INVALID CLAIMS MADE BY DENIERS ARE.
I have heard global warming skeptics make all sorts of statements about how the science doesn't support claims of man-made climate change. I have found all of those statements to be empty and without any kind of supporting evidence. I have, in turn, stated that it is not possible for the skeptics to prove their claims. And, I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is.
I am announcing the start of the $30,000 Global Warming Skeptic Challenge. The rules are easy:
1. I will award $10,000 of my own money, plus another $20,000 vouched for by The Young Turks, to anyone that can prove, via the scientific method, that man-made global climate change is not occurring;
2. There is no entry fee;
3. You must be 18 years old or older to enter;
4. Entries do not have to be original, they only need to be first;
5. I am the final judge of all entries but will provide my comments on why any entry fails to prove the point.
That's it! I know you are not going to get rich with $10,000. But, tell me, wouldn't you like to have a spare $30,000? After all, the skeptics all claim it is a simple matter, and it doesn't even have to be original. If it is so easy, just cut and paste the proof from somewhere. Provide the scientific evidence and prove your point and the $30,000 is yours!
This is no joke. If someone can provide a proof that I can't refute, using scientific evidence, then I will write them a check.
But, I am sure I will never have to because it can't be proven. The scientific evidence for global warming is overwhelming and no one can prove otherwise.
Any takers?
NOTE: DISQUS IS NOT IMPORTING PREVIOUS COMMENTS PROPERLY. UNTIL I AM ABLE FIX THIS PROBLEM, I AM POSTING ALL PREVIOUS COMMENTS AS PART OF THE PAGE.
170 comments:
Mr. Keating, it seems that
whenever the proxy data from past climate is inconvenient you want to shift
focus and say it doesn't matter. It matters profoundly if you are trying to
claim such a thing as present warming, as you must prove it is warmer today
that at some point in the past. To do that you must provide a reference point
from past climate. So what warming exactly are you referring to when you claim
present warming? The surface temperature record has shown temperatures to be
flat or cooling since 1998. If you ask NOAA, they'll tell you it's been cooling
since 1936. If we go by ice cores it's been cooling for 10,000 years. If we go
by proxy data from coastal caves in Mallorca
it's been cooling for 81,000 years. If we go by the geologic record it's been
cooling for 65 million years. So what warming do you think counts when all of
this somehow does not?
I have been very consistent
about what I say about past climate data. The data shows that the climate goes
through natural cycles, but there is no evidence that it has anything to do
with today's global warming. Past cycles were naturally caused (I hope there is
no debate about that), while the evidence is that today's warming trend is not
only human caused, but is contrary to the natural cycle that is currently
existing.
And, no, I do not have to prove it is warmer today than it was thousands of years ago. Again, that falls under the natural cycle issue. The issue is, has the global temperature increased in recent decades? And, we have very good data, separate from the ice cores, on that matter.
No, the temperature has not been flat since 1998. The surface temperature has been increasing, but at a slower rate. Include the heat content of the ocean (why do people keep insisting on ignoring the 93% of warming that is going on?) then the record is very clear - warming is continuing.
If you can show how geologic climate change is relevant to today, then you will have a submission. One that has already been addressed, but at least a submission. Right now, all you have is the claim that it was warmer thousands of years ago without ever showing how it is relevant to the way we have changed the environment in modern times.
And, no, I do not have to prove it is warmer today than it was thousands of years ago. Again, that falls under the natural cycle issue. The issue is, has the global temperature increased in recent decades? And, we have very good data, separate from the ice cores, on that matter.
No, the temperature has not been flat since 1998. The surface temperature has been increasing, but at a slower rate. Include the heat content of the ocean (why do people keep insisting on ignoring the 93% of warming that is going on?) then the record is very clear - warming is continuing.
If you can show how geologic climate change is relevant to today, then you will have a submission. One that has already been addressed, but at least a submission. Right now, all you have is the claim that it was warmer thousands of years ago without ever showing how it is relevant to the way we have changed the environment in modern times.
"at a slower
rate"??? I provided in MY challenge the data on the amount of Co2 man has
been putting in the atmosphere. We have INCREASED man-caused Co2 by 13,040%
since 1948. You failed to address that part of my challenge at all, sir. How
can you claim "at a slower rate" of increases in temperature due to
man-caused Co2 emissions when we are adding 13,000% MORE Co2 and global
temperatures have risen by what? Half a degree?!?!?!
Once again, you show how
deniers reject science in favor of their preconceived conclusions. No, we have not
increased CO2 by 13,000% since 1948. Your math is certainly part of your
problem. CO2 levels have increased from 280 ppm in pre-industrial days to about
400 ppm today. That is an increase of around 43% total. Your math, and your
logic, are completely flawed.
Mr. Keating, sir. I'm doing
my best to understand you but you keep coming back with rebuttals that totally
ignore the point I'm making. You are saying that ppm has increased by 43%. That
is the amount of Co2 IN the air... the amount that is measured that is ALREADY
FLOATING AROUND IN OUR ATMOSPHERE! I have CLEARLY, sir, and PLEASE pay
attention... My statement was about Co2 EMISSIONS! We have increased Co2
EMISSIONS, the stuff that man is spewing into the atmosphere, is MUCH MORE than
your 43%! You've just made my point thank you! If I use my pool analogy that
you totally dismissed, you are measuring the amount of sewage IN the pool and
it's is increased by 43% over the last 50 years but I have been increasing the
amount I'm DUMPING into the pool by 32,000%! So the simple fact that the amount
actually floating around the pool is SO MUCH LESS than the amount of increase
that I'm DUMPING into the pool makes no sense right? Mr. Keating, you're a
smart man so why don't you answer a VERY specific question! What was the METRIC
TON estimation of Co2 EMISSIONS that was being spewed in 1948? Then what was
the amount of Co2 EMISSIONS that are being spewed in 2013? You give me those
two numbers, sir! I want YOU to give ME those two numbers! If you come back
with anything else except those simple to find numbers, it will prove you only
want your irrelevant narrative to keep deflecting from the science that many of
us have been trying to get you to see! I'll repeat the question: WHAT IS THE
1948 MAN-CAUSED CO2 EMISSIONS... EMISSIONS, NOT PPM, THE NUMBER IS GIVEN IN
METRIC TONS. AND THEN WHAT IS THAT SAME NUMBER FOR 2013??? Let's start there,
sir! Can't wait for your reply!
You are talking about ppm
and I'm talking about emissions in metric tons! Why do you keep doing that?
Deflecting the truth by claiming something that has NOTHING to do with what I
was saying! YOU TELL ME, SIR. What was the estimated Co2 EMISSIONS, in metric
tons, in 1948 and then that same number for 2013! You tell ME those two numbers
and cite the source! And then you explain how a 43% total increase in ppm
(which is the stuff already floating around IN the atmosphere), when our Co2
EMISSIONS have increased by a much greater amount! What are the two number?
You stated, "We have
INCREASED man-caused Co2 by 13,040% since 1948." That does not sound like
emissions to me. But, let's look at emissions. Take a look at the graph on
global emissions here:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html
This shows worldwide emissions in the 1940s was about 4500 gigatons per year and about 35000 gigatons per year today. That comes out to be about an 700% increase ( (35000 - 4500)/4500 x 100% and rounding up in your favor) . That is significantly less than the 13,000% increase you stated. A 13,000% increase would raise our emissions to about 6 million gigatons and would be more than 160 times as much as we are currently emitting.
So, I think I answered your questions, but let's make sure:
The amount of CO2 emissions in 1948 - about 4500 gigatons/year
The amount of CO2 emissions today - about 35000 gigatons/year
The percentage increase of CO2 emissions between 1948 and today - about 700%
The multiplicative number of times we have increased our CO2 emissions since 1948 - about 7 times as much today as in 1948.
The sewage analogy doesn't apply because sewage breeds bacteria. CO2 doesn't breed anything. If you want to make an analogy, discuss adding particulate matter to the pool.
You are really ranting here and being very offensive. I have been asked to refrain from speaking harshly to contrarians (notice I changed my terminology?), but I will respond in kind to people that are rude or try to bully me. So, in that spirit, I am asking you to please be more civil in your comments in the future.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html
This shows worldwide emissions in the 1940s was about 4500 gigatons per year and about 35000 gigatons per year today. That comes out to be about an 700% increase ( (35000 - 4500)/4500 x 100% and rounding up in your favor) . That is significantly less than the 13,000% increase you stated. A 13,000% increase would raise our emissions to about 6 million gigatons and would be more than 160 times as much as we are currently emitting.
So, I think I answered your questions, but let's make sure:
The amount of CO2 emissions in 1948 - about 4500 gigatons/year
The amount of CO2 emissions today - about 35000 gigatons/year
The percentage increase of CO2 emissions between 1948 and today - about 700%
The multiplicative number of times we have increased our CO2 emissions since 1948 - about 7 times as much today as in 1948.
The sewage analogy doesn't apply because sewage breeds bacteria. CO2 doesn't breed anything. If you want to make an analogy, discuss adding particulate matter to the pool.
You are really ranting here and being very offensive. I have been asked to refrain from speaking harshly to contrarians (notice I changed my terminology?), but I will respond in kind to people that are rude or try to bully me. So, in that spirit, I am asking you to please be more civil in your comments in the future.
If you are saying the past
30-40 years are relevant, then should we not also consider the 30-40 years
prior? Everyone was in agreement then, it had been cooling for decades and
nobody could explain why. But they were all certain it was a crisis.
http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
This story has been debunked repeatedly. I keep
wondering why deniers pull this out. So what? A news reporter wrote an article
and got it wrong. Where is the news there? Read about what the writer of that
article had to say:
http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2014/06/new-ice-age-journalist-speaks-out.html
Here are a couple more references:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-global-cooling-story-came-to-be/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm
There are lots more. Like I said, this claim has been totally debunked.
As for the period of time before the late 1970s, the temperature was up through the last part of the first half of the 20th century, before dropping through the 70s. Is this relevant? Yes, it is and must be accounted for in the science. What we now know is that the natural cycles were still the dominant force during the period of time and it wasn't until we go into the 70s that man made greenhouse gases reached the point where the greenhouse effect started becoming more and more influential.
If you have a problem with the idea that greenhouse gas emissions were increasing during this time, take a look at this article with the graph that shows CO2 emissions since 1900. They were pretty flat until about 1950 when they really started to take off:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html
At about that time we began to see global the global heat index start to pull away from the natural cycles.
http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2014/06/new-ice-age-journalist-speaks-out.html
Here are a couple more references:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-global-cooling-story-came-to-be/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm
There are lots more. Like I said, this claim has been totally debunked.
As for the period of time before the late 1970s, the temperature was up through the last part of the first half of the 20th century, before dropping through the 70s. Is this relevant? Yes, it is and must be accounted for in the science. What we now know is that the natural cycles were still the dominant force during the period of time and it wasn't until we go into the 70s that man made greenhouse gases reached the point where the greenhouse effect started becoming more and more influential.
If you have a problem with the idea that greenhouse gas emissions were increasing during this time, take a look at this article with the graph that shows CO2 emissions since 1900. They were pretty flat until about 1950 when they really started to take off:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html
At about that time we began to see global the global heat index start to pull away from the natural cycles.
From one of your links.
"And still, Gwynne notes of his story, "I stand by it. It was accurate at the time."
Which is exactly what I said.
"And still, Gwynne notes of his story, "I stand by it. It was accurate at the time."
Which is exactly what I said.
So, your argument is that a
news reporter wrote an article that was wrong, therefore climate science is not
valid. Tell me something, when you need to see a doctor about cancer are you
going to ignore him because some reporter for Newsweek wrote a story about
cancer in the 1970s that was wrong?
The truth is, climate scientist were not predicting a new ice age. It was all a reporter, not the scientists. So, why are you pulling this out? What point are you trying to make, other than that you didn't do your homework?
The truth is, climate scientist were not predicting a new ice age. It was all a reporter, not the scientists. So, why are you pulling this out? What point are you trying to make, other than that you didn't do your homework?
No, that is not my argument
at all. I was merely highlighting the fact that it cooled for several decades
into the 1970s. Nobody disputes that. It wasn't just made up by some reporter.
And it was cooling over those decades while CO2 was rising.
The idea that there is such a thing as modern warming requires that you cherry pick your date of past climate to compare it with. So of course you would want to use the bottom of the Little Ice Age, or the Ice Age scare of the 1970s as your starting point and ignore the bigger picture. It simply doesn't work if you use the Medieval Warm Period, or the Roman Warm Period, or the 1930s, or even the 1990s. Your argument falls apart and there is no such thing as modern warming.
Your claim that the temperature is somehow pulling away from the natural cycle is also absurd. There isn't enough data to know what is or isn't the natural cycle. The greenhouse theory and CO2's affect on temperature has also proven a grand failure. Not a single climate model predicted the flat temperatures over the past 16 years. What you believe to be undeniable fact is really a failed hypothesis.
The idea that there is such a thing as modern warming requires that you cherry pick your date of past climate to compare it with. So of course you would want to use the bottom of the Little Ice Age, or the Ice Age scare of the 1970s as your starting point and ignore the bigger picture. It simply doesn't work if you use the Medieval Warm Period, or the Roman Warm Period, or the 1930s, or even the 1990s. Your argument falls apart and there is no such thing as modern warming.
Your claim that the temperature is somehow pulling away from the natural cycle is also absurd. There isn't enough data to know what is or isn't the natural cycle. The greenhouse theory and CO2's affect on temperature has also proven a grand failure. Not a single climate model predicted the flat temperatures over the past 16 years. What you believe to be undeniable fact is really a failed hypothesis.
Absolutely false and that is
a poor indicator of how much you have done your homework. If you will check,
climate scientists look at the performance of the temperature average over the
entire database. What has been found is that the temperature record changes in
accordance with known climatic factors throughout the historical record - up to
the late-1970s when it began to diverge. This divergence continues to this day
and the global average heat index is moving contrary to what it should be doing
if natural causes were the only thing involved. There is most definitely no
cherry picking by scientists, only by deniers who choose 1998 as a starting
point and try to make the case that there has been no global warming. Try
starting with 1997 or 1999 and do the same exercise and you get an entirely
different result, and that is just the surface average without including the
ocean warming.
Again, you still have not shown how any of your claims about ice cores relates to the issue of modern man-made global warming.
Again, you still have not shown how any of your claims about ice cores relates to the issue of modern man-made global warming.
When your climate scientists
look at the "historical record", I can only assume you are talking
about the thermometer records covering the past 150 years that have been
thoroughly tortured by James Hansen. Or is it perhaps Michael Mann's fraudulent
Hockey Stick graph, put together from tree rings, bubble gum and spit. Or is it
the ice core delusion that Al Gore blew up to fifty feet long before he got on
that lift that took him up to the ceiling for dramatic effect. Just what
historical record are you talking about that makes you think anyone has a clue
what the climate "should" be doing?
If any of your climate scientists actually knew what the climate "should" be doing you'd think at least one of them might have put together a climate model that wasn't a total failure.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means/
If any of your climate scientists actually knew what the climate "should" be doing you'd think at least one of them might have put together a climate model that wasn't a total failure.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means/
As soon as you start saying
things like that you lose all credibility. Once again, I ask you to do some
homework before you start discrediting people and their work. As for Roy Spencer,
I did my homework on him and you can see what I found here:
http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2014/07/30000-challenge-submission-roy-spencer.html
I assure you, I researched him quite well and stand by everything I said in that posting. If you are basing any of your work on his, then your work is in error.
http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2014/07/30000-challenge-submission-roy-spencer.html
I assure you, I researched him quite well and stand by everything I said in that posting. If you are basing any of your work on his, then your work is in error.
Yet every climate model did
fail. Can you point to a single climate model that got anything right? No.
Garbage in, garbage out.
And if you need me to explain how ice cores relate to issues of man-made global warming, then I would ask why you have used them in your response to challenge submissions? You clearly think they relate or you wouldn't post them.
And if you need me to explain how ice cores relate to issues of man-made global warming, then I would ask why you have used them in your response to challenge submissions? You clearly think they relate or you wouldn't post them.
You continue to prove you
just won't do your homework. You really are a denier. Anything that might
contradict you preconceived conclusion just isn't within your radar horizon.
Try these to start with, then do you own homework from there.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/mar/27/climate-change-model-global-warming
http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/ask/2013/climate-modeling.html
As for me using ice core data, I am pretty sure the only time I refer to ice core data is when I state that there were changes in the climate in the past. I cannot think of anytime I have used it other than that. There may be, but that is the only thing I can think of.
Now, this conversation is done. You have evolved into a troll that just wants to waste my time and take over the blog. If you have a submission that you think proves man made global warming is not real, then fine. If you have something relevant to the issue of global warming, that is fine. But, I am not here to debate paleoclimatology or to do your homework. You reject the hockey stick and cite Roy Spencer. That is enough by itself to show you have rejected science.
Now, please go away.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/mar/27/climate-change-model-global-warming
http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/ask/2013/climate-modeling.html
As for me using ice core data, I am pretty sure the only time I refer to ice core data is when I state that there were changes in the climate in the past. I cannot think of anytime I have used it other than that. There may be, but that is the only thing I can think of.
Now, this conversation is done. You have evolved into a troll that just wants to waste my time and take over the blog. If you have a submission that you think proves man made global warming is not real, then fine. If you have something relevant to the issue of global warming, that is fine. But, I am not here to debate paleoclimatology or to do your homework. You reject the hockey stick and cite Roy Spencer. That is enough by itself to show you have rejected science.
Now, please go away.
Mr. Keating, you are the one
who offered this "challenge". I merely responded.
Regarding the ice core data; You wrote in response to a challenge submission "Greenhouse Gasses", dated July 10: "Yes, there have been times in the past where the CO2 level was higher than today, but not within the last 800,000 years." Under that you posted a graph of ice core data.
http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2014/07/30000-challenge-submission-greenhouse.html
I have directed you to the proxy data that refutes this as evidence, and explained why you cannot make such claims.
In any case, I am now convinced that this is not and never was a real challenge. It is akin to a religious fanatic offering up $10,000 to anyone who can disprove the existence of God. You would have as much luck disproving the existence of God as I or anyone would have in disproving the existence of the Manbearpig (who's true believers now say is hiding at the bottom of the ocean).
Good day, sir.
Regarding the ice core data; You wrote in response to a challenge submission "Greenhouse Gasses", dated July 10: "Yes, there have been times in the past where the CO2 level was higher than today, but not within the last 800,000 years." Under that you posted a graph of ice core data.
http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2014/07/30000-challenge-submission-greenhouse.html
I have directed you to the proxy data that refutes this as evidence, and explained why you cannot make such claims.
In any case, I am now convinced that this is not and never was a real challenge. It is akin to a religious fanatic offering up $10,000 to anyone who can disprove the existence of God. You would have as much luck disproving the existence of God as I or anyone would have in disproving the existence of the Manbearpig (who's true believers now say is hiding at the bottom of the ocean).
Good day, sir.
I tell you what, I'll accept
you submission as a challenge to modern day levels of CO2. Not that it matters
because there have been times in the past where the CO2 level was over five
times what it is today and none of that has any bearing on today's issues. But,
I'll look at it. Your submission is called "$30,000 Challenge Submission -
Ice Core Issues" and you can track my progress on the submission page:
http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/p/challlenge-submissions.html
http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/p/challlenge-submissions.html
As an aside I'll happily
take on your challenge of disproving the existence of God. But first, you'll
have to tell me which god (abrahamic? muslim? hindu? egyptian? greek? etc.) and
provide a meaningful definition. if no meaningful definition is provided, i'll
use that provided by the religion's official dogma, such as the christian bible
or the Quran, etc. Thanks and I hope to hear from you soon.
To Mr Robert J. Sammon: I
received your submission in the mail and have accepted it. Your submission is
called, "$30,000 Challenge Submission - There Is No Average
Temperature" and I will respond as quickly as I can. Meanwhile, you can
track my progress here:
http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/p/challlenge-submissions.html
http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/p/challlenge-submissions.html
The question is not what
dynamic caused the ice ages, at least not for this discussion, but rather what
is causing the current global warming trend that is running contrary to the
natural cooling cycle that should be taking place?
Quote from Nova:
"Ever since the Pre-Cambrian (600 million years ago), ice ages have occurred at widely spaced intervals of geologic time—approximately 200 million years—lasting for millions, or even tens of millions of years. For the Cenozoic period, which began about 70 million years ago and continues today, evidence derived from marine sediments provide a detailed, and fairly continuous, record for climate change. This record indicates decreasing deep-water temperature, along with the build-up of continental ice sheets. Much of this deep-water cooling occurred in three major steps about 36, 15 and 3 million years ago—the most recent of which continues today.."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/cause-ice-age.html
Quote from Nova:
"Ever since the Pre-Cambrian (600 million years ago), ice ages have occurred at widely spaced intervals of geologic time—approximately 200 million years—lasting for millions, or even tens of millions of years. For the Cenozoic period, which began about 70 million years ago and continues today, evidence derived from marine sediments provide a detailed, and fairly continuous, record for climate change. This record indicates decreasing deep-water temperature, along with the build-up of continental ice sheets. Much of this deep-water cooling occurred in three major steps about 36, 15 and 3 million years ago—the most recent of which continues today.."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/cause-ice-age.html
As I keep saying, the
naturally occurring cycle we are currently in is a cooling one. So, why does it
keep getting warmer? Something must be happening that isn't natural.
AnonymousJuly
19, 2014 at 6:13 PM
Mike Smith,
Thank you. This is interesting.
Anonymous #2
Thank you. This is interesting.
Anonymous #2
Subject: Dangerous warming
hypothesis rejected by the evidence
Dear Dr Keating,
We are delighted that you have expressed willingness to accept evidence that would lead an independent judge to reject the hypothesis of dangerous manmade global warming. We are writing to take up your challenge to provide such evidence...
Because submissions to your blog have a character limit and because embedded links to supporting evidence do not appear to be possible, we have posted our letter of response to your challenge here: http://www.kestencgreen.com/GAS-Keating.pdf
We look forward to your response. We are particularly interested in how you define "scientific evidence," and how you plan to make such judgments in an objective and scientific manner. Perhaps you might want to consider a science court? We would be happy to propose scientists for such a court.
Kesten C. Green
J. Scott Armstrong
Willie Soon
July 20, 2014
Dear Dr Keating,
We are delighted that you have expressed willingness to accept evidence that would lead an independent judge to reject the hypothesis of dangerous manmade global warming. We are writing to take up your challenge to provide such evidence...
Because submissions to your blog have a character limit and because embedded links to supporting evidence do not appear to be possible, we have posted our letter of response to your challenge here: http://www.kestencgreen.com/GAS-Keating.pdf
We look forward to your response. We are particularly interested in how you define "scientific evidence," and how you plan to make such judgments in an objective and scientific manner. Perhaps you might want to consider a science court? We would be happy to propose scientists for such a court.
Kesten C. Green
J. Scott Armstrong
Willie Soon
July 20, 2014
I have received your
submission and will respond as quickly as I can. It is called "$30,000
Challenge Submission - Rejected by the Evidence" and you can follow my
progress here:
http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/p/challlenge-submissions.html
http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/p/challlenge-submissions.html
How many of the scientists
in this group would be in your court?
1
Drafting Authors:
Ottmar Edenhofer (Germany), Ramón Pichs-Madruga (Cuba), Youba Sokona (Mali), Shardul
Agrawala (France), Igor Alexeyevich Bashmakov (Russia), Gabriel Blanco (Argentina),
John Broome (UK), Thomas Bruckner (Germany), Steffen Brunner (Germany), Mercedes
Bustamante (Brazil), Leon Clarke (USA), Felix Creutzig (Germany), Shobhakar Dhakal
(Nepal / Thailand), Navroz K. Dubash (India), Patrick Eickemeier (Germany), Ellie Farahani
(Canada), Manfred Fischedick (Germany), Marc Fleurbaey (France), Reyer Gerlagh
(Netherlands), Luis Gómez-Echeverri (Colombia / Austria), Sujata Gupta (India / Philippines),
Jochen Harnisch (Germany), Kejun Jiang (China), Susanne Kadner (Germany), Sivan Kartha
(USA), Stephan Klasen (Germany), Charles Kolstad (USA), Volker Krey (Austria / Germany),
Howard Kunreuther (USA), Oswaldo Lucon (Brazil), Omar Masera (México), Jan Minx
(Germany), Yacob Mulugetta (UK / Ethiopia), Anthony Patt (Austria / Switzerland), Nijavalli
H. Ravindranath (India), Keywan Riahi (Austria), Joyashree Roy (India), Roberto Schaeffer
(Brazil), Steffen Schlömer (Germany), Karen Seto (USA), Kristin Seyboth (USA), Ralph Sims
(New Zealand), Jim Skea (UK), Pete Smith (UK), Eswaran Somanathan (India), Robert Stavins
(USA), Christoph von Stechow (Germany), Thomas Sterner (Sweden), Taishi Sugiyama
(Japan), Sangwon Suh (Republic of Korea / USA), Kevin Chika Urama (Nigeria / UK), Diana
Ürge-Vorsatz (Hungary), David Victor (USA), Dadi Zhou (China), Ji Zou (China), Timm Zwickel
(Germany)
Draft Contributing Authors
Giovanni Baiocchi (UK / Italy), Helena Chum (USA / Brazil), Jan Fuglestvedt (Norway), Helmut
Haberl (Austria), Edgar Hertwich (Norway / Austria), Elmar Kriegler (Germany), Joeri Rogelj
(Switzerland / Belgium), H.-Holger Rogner (Germany), Michiel Schaeffer (Netherlands),
Steven J. Smith (USA), Detlef van Vuuren (Netherlands), Ryan Wiser (USA)
1
Drafting Authors:
Ottmar Edenhofer (Germany), Ramón Pichs-Madruga (Cuba), Youba Sokona (Mali), Shardul
Agrawala (France), Igor Alexeyevich Bashmakov (Russia), Gabriel Blanco (Argentina),
John Broome (UK), Thomas Bruckner (Germany), Steffen Brunner (Germany), Mercedes
Bustamante (Brazil), Leon Clarke (USA), Felix Creutzig (Germany), Shobhakar Dhakal
(Nepal / Thailand), Navroz K. Dubash (India), Patrick Eickemeier (Germany), Ellie Farahani
(Canada), Manfred Fischedick (Germany), Marc Fleurbaey (France), Reyer Gerlagh
(Netherlands), Luis Gómez-Echeverri (Colombia / Austria), Sujata Gupta (India / Philippines),
Jochen Harnisch (Germany), Kejun Jiang (China), Susanne Kadner (Germany), Sivan Kartha
(USA), Stephan Klasen (Germany), Charles Kolstad (USA), Volker Krey (Austria / Germany),
Howard Kunreuther (USA), Oswaldo Lucon (Brazil), Omar Masera (México), Jan Minx
(Germany), Yacob Mulugetta (UK / Ethiopia), Anthony Patt (Austria / Switzerland), Nijavalli
H. Ravindranath (India), Keywan Riahi (Austria), Joyashree Roy (India), Roberto Schaeffer
(Brazil), Steffen Schlömer (Germany), Karen Seto (USA), Kristin Seyboth (USA), Ralph Sims
(New Zealand), Jim Skea (UK), Pete Smith (UK), Eswaran Somanathan (India), Robert Stavins
(USA), Christoph von Stechow (Germany), Thomas Sterner (Sweden), Taishi Sugiyama
(Japan), Sangwon Suh (Republic of Korea / USA), Kevin Chika Urama (Nigeria / UK), Diana
Ürge-Vorsatz (Hungary), David Victor (USA), Dadi Zhou (China), Ji Zou (China), Timm Zwickel
(Germany)
Draft Contributing Authors
Giovanni Baiocchi (UK / Italy), Helena Chum (USA / Brazil), Jan Fuglestvedt (Norway), Helmut
Haberl (Austria), Edgar Hertwich (Norway / Austria), Elmar Kriegler (Germany), Joeri Rogelj
(Switzerland / Belgium), H.-Holger Rogner (Germany), Michiel Schaeffer (Netherlands),
Steven J. Smith (USA), Detlef van Vuuren (Netherlands), Ryan Wiser (USA)
AnonymousJuly
21, 2014 at 8:38 PM
Green et al.,
These 'Principles of Forecasting' appear to be derived from the field of econometrics forecasting with the main paper referenced from a Dr. J. Scott Armstrong, who appears to come from a Marketing background.
Here is the 'Principles of Forecasting' referenced in your paper:
http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/files/standardshort.pdf
Dr. Kesten C. Green appears to come from a management background.
Dr. Willie Soon is the only geoscientist/physicist out of this trio.
In your paper you make the statement:
"Kesten Green and I examined the references to determine whether the
authors of Chapter 8 were familiar with the evidence-based literature on forecasting. We found that none of their 788 references related to that body of literature. We could find no references that validated their choice of forecasting procedures. In other words, the IPCC report contained no evidence that the forecasting procedures they used were based on evidence of their predictive ability."
If the 788 people who you surveyed did not come from an econometrics forecasting background, then how exactly do you expect them to know about these principles? Meteorological forecasting has been around a lot longer than that paper from 2001.
As for a science court, surely you do not mean this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_Court
Do you? Scientific knowledge is not a thing that can be validated or invalidated in a legislative court. This doesn't necessarily stop people from trying, like when some folks from Indiana tried to pass the 'Indiana Pi Bill'.
http://www.agecon.purdue.edu/crd/Localgov/Second%20Level%20pages/indiana_pi_bill.htm
Or perhaps you intend on a more nasty affair? Perhaps you intend to replay a modern version of Galileo's papal condemnation? Instead of Galileo versus the Papacy you would have the Wharton School of Management versus the Climate scientists?
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/galileoaccount.html
An audit of the procedures used by the IPCC would not necessarily hurt anything, but if you manage to convince congress to defund climate science as a field altogether; then how exactly are we ever going to develop or have a predicatively useful set of climate models?
Are you sure that by defunding climate science that you would not merely be making the same mistakes that caused the world economy to collapse, around 2008, in the first place; by putting short term profits ahead of long term architecture?
Anonymous #2
These 'Principles of Forecasting' appear to be derived from the field of econometrics forecasting with the main paper referenced from a Dr. J. Scott Armstrong, who appears to come from a Marketing background.
Here is the 'Principles of Forecasting' referenced in your paper:
http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/files/standardshort.pdf
Dr. Kesten C. Green appears to come from a management background.
Dr. Willie Soon is the only geoscientist/physicist out of this trio.
In your paper you make the statement:
"Kesten Green and I examined the references to determine whether the
authors of Chapter 8 were familiar with the evidence-based literature on forecasting. We found that none of their 788 references related to that body of literature. We could find no references that validated their choice of forecasting procedures. In other words, the IPCC report contained no evidence that the forecasting procedures they used were based on evidence of their predictive ability."
If the 788 people who you surveyed did not come from an econometrics forecasting background, then how exactly do you expect them to know about these principles? Meteorological forecasting has been around a lot longer than that paper from 2001.
As for a science court, surely you do not mean this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_Court
Do you? Scientific knowledge is not a thing that can be validated or invalidated in a legislative court. This doesn't necessarily stop people from trying, like when some folks from Indiana tried to pass the 'Indiana Pi Bill'.
http://www.agecon.purdue.edu/crd/Localgov/Second%20Level%20pages/indiana_pi_bill.htm
Or perhaps you intend on a more nasty affair? Perhaps you intend to replay a modern version of Galileo's papal condemnation? Instead of Galileo versus the Papacy you would have the Wharton School of Management versus the Climate scientists?
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/galileoaccount.html
An audit of the procedures used by the IPCC would not necessarily hurt anything, but if you manage to convince congress to defund climate science as a field altogether; then how exactly are we ever going to develop or have a predicatively useful set of climate models?
Are you sure that by defunding climate science that you would not merely be making the same mistakes that caused the world economy to collapse, around 2008, in the first place; by putting short term profits ahead of long term architecture?
Anonymous #2
AnonymousJuly
21, 2014 at 8:46 PM
Long term infrastructure;
not 'architecture'.
AnonymousJuly
21, 2014 at 9:40 PM
Dr. Armstrong,
To be honest, your "Seer-Sucker" idea reflects some concerns that I have had in the past regarding the same issue.
I feel that I should remind you that it was "seers" much like this who managed to pull off the Manhattan Project.
In this case, they are trying to model the behavior of a very complex system. If they manage to succeed with developing predictive climate models, then you would have an infrastructure that can tell you how the larger climate behaves under different conditions.
Should the Climate scientists get together and write a 13 page treatise on how CFOs should stop paying for marketing entirely, because, their sales forecasts are not completely representative of reality?
Anonymous #2
To be honest, your "Seer-Sucker" idea reflects some concerns that I have had in the past regarding the same issue.
I feel that I should remind you that it was "seers" much like this who managed to pull off the Manhattan Project.
In this case, they are trying to model the behavior of a very complex system. If they manage to succeed with developing predictive climate models, then you would have an infrastructure that can tell you how the larger climate behaves under different conditions.
Should the Climate scientists get together and write a 13 page treatise on how CFOs should stop paying for marketing entirely, because, their sales forecasts are not completely representative of reality?
Anonymous #2
AnonymousJuly
22, 2014 at 3:03 AM
Dr. Green,
From:
http://www.kestencgreen.com/green&armstrong-agw-analogies.pdf
"Using structured analogies, we forecast that the global warming alarm
movement, like the previous alarmist movements that we were able to identify and analyze, will continue to produce poor forecasts and cause harm to people. Resources will be used inefficiently, and most people will be worse off than they would have been had the alarm never been raised. Alarms based on unscientific forecasts are a common social phenomenon.
The alarms are used to support political movements. Dissent is punished. Expensive government interventions are frequently recommended and often implemented. Once in place they continue even when the alarming forecasts prove to be groundless, perhaps because a large sector of the economy depends on jobs created to “protect” against the predicted catastrophe." Green et al.
Well spoken. I am concerned that I have seen this phenomenon as well. Your words echo strangely, particularly when coupled with this:
“The trouble with Eichmann was precisely that so many were like him, and that the many were neither perverted nor sadistic, that they were, and still are, terribly and terrifyingly normal. From the viewpoint of our legal institutions and of our moral standards of judgment, this normality was much more terrifying than all the atrocities put together.”
--- Hannah Arendt
Anonymous #2
From:
http://www.kestencgreen.com/green&armstrong-agw-analogies.pdf
"Using structured analogies, we forecast that the global warming alarm
movement, like the previous alarmist movements that we were able to identify and analyze, will continue to produce poor forecasts and cause harm to people. Resources will be used inefficiently, and most people will be worse off than they would have been had the alarm never been raised. Alarms based on unscientific forecasts are a common social phenomenon.
The alarms are used to support political movements. Dissent is punished. Expensive government interventions are frequently recommended and often implemented. Once in place they continue even when the alarming forecasts prove to be groundless, perhaps because a large sector of the economy depends on jobs created to “protect” against the predicted catastrophe." Green et al.
Well spoken. I am concerned that I have seen this phenomenon as well. Your words echo strangely, particularly when coupled with this:
“The trouble with Eichmann was precisely that so many were like him, and that the many were neither perverted nor sadistic, that they were, and still are, terribly and terrifyingly normal. From the viewpoint of our legal institutions and of our moral standards of judgment, this normality was much more terrifying than all the atrocities put together.”
--- Hannah Arendt
Anonymous #2
AnonymousJuly
21, 2014 at 5:34 PM
Nitrogen & Oxygen absorb
more LWIR heat than do the GHG's. And it is amazing to think that no one seems
to care about Thermal heat capacity. N2 is 1.0 , O2 is 0.9 and H2O is 1.8 , CH4
is 2.2 , But CO2 is only 0.8 What is most interesting CO2's Thermal capacity is
less than the some of its' parts Carbon and oxygen....if the dipole moment was
so incredible with heat it should be greater.
That is not a true
statement. O2 and N2 molecules are too small to absorb large IR waves. O2 and
N2 are heated by shortwaves.
http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/radiation_hays/
http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/radiation_hays/
AnonymousJuly
30, 2014 at 9:48 PM
Anonymous,
Check this out:
http://openi.nlm.nih.gov/imgs/512/49/3247748/3247748_sensors-10-06081f2.png
It's really more of a radiation absorption and a global illumination problem than a thermal 'storage' problem.
You know; what is the typical energy density of LWIR that you have hanging around during the day?
If it can take as long as 200 years for the CO2 in the atmosphere to be removed from the atmosphere; and if the average person emits about 18 tonnes per year:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
The total amount of air in the atmosphere is roughly 5.149e15 tonnes
The total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 2.06e12 tonnes
http://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/03/30/math-how-much-co2-by-weight-in-the-atmosphere/
See?
Cm ~ Concentration by mass
Cv ~ Concentration by volume
mCO2 ~ Mass of CO2
mAir ~ Mass of Air
mCO2People ~ Mass of CO2 emitted by people's activities
k = 3/ln(2)
(I am not sure if this k is wrong or right, I read it somewhere; and I can't seem to remember where)
dT = k*ln(Cv/Co)
---------
MMCO2 ~ Molar mass of CO2
MMAir ~ Molar mass of Air
r = MMCO2/MMAir
Cv*r = Cm --->
Cv = Cm/r
Cm = N/D
N = mCO2 + mCO2People
D = mAir
Cv = Cm/r
Assuming I haven't made a mistake; this is how you can calculate the human contribution.
You would be looking at a maximum Cv of about:
Cvmax = Nmax/Dmax
Cap ~ CO2 consumption per person
Pop ~ World Population
mCO2People = Cap*Pop
t ~ time (~~ 200 years)
Nmax = mCO2+mCO2People*t
Dmax = r*mAir
Now plug that into your favorite calculator; IDL, matlab, wolfram, etc.
If I have built a glass house out of this little model... do me a favor and shatter it for me. Please?
Anonymous #2
Check this out:
http://openi.nlm.nih.gov/imgs/512/49/3247748/3247748_sensors-10-06081f2.png
It's really more of a radiation absorption and a global illumination problem than a thermal 'storage' problem.
You know; what is the typical energy density of LWIR that you have hanging around during the day?
If it can take as long as 200 years for the CO2 in the atmosphere to be removed from the atmosphere; and if the average person emits about 18 tonnes per year:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
The total amount of air in the atmosphere is roughly 5.149e15 tonnes
The total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 2.06e12 tonnes
http://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/03/30/math-how-much-co2-by-weight-in-the-atmosphere/
See?
Cm ~ Concentration by mass
Cv ~ Concentration by volume
mCO2 ~ Mass of CO2
mAir ~ Mass of Air
mCO2People ~ Mass of CO2 emitted by people's activities
k = 3/ln(2)
(I am not sure if this k is wrong or right, I read it somewhere; and I can't seem to remember where)
dT = k*ln(Cv/Co)
---------
MMCO2 ~ Molar mass of CO2
MMAir ~ Molar mass of Air
r = MMCO2/MMAir
Cv*r = Cm --->
Cv = Cm/r
Cm = N/D
N = mCO2 + mCO2People
D = mAir
Cv = Cm/r
Assuming I haven't made a mistake; this is how you can calculate the human contribution.
You would be looking at a maximum Cv of about:
Cvmax = Nmax/Dmax
Cap ~ CO2 consumption per person
Pop ~ World Population
mCO2People = Cap*Pop
t ~ time (~~ 200 years)
Nmax = mCO2+mCO2People*t
Dmax = r*mAir
Now plug that into your favorite calculator; IDL, matlab, wolfram, etc.
If I have built a glass house out of this little model... do me a favor and shatter it for me. Please?
Anonymous #2
This is an exercise in a
futile strawman fallacy. Climate sceptics do not deny that radiative gasses in
the atmosphere cause it to retain energy. There is no way to disprove it. So
the money will stay in the pocket. Simple. But what does that proof or
disprove? It's not the issue at all.
The issue is that sceptics have all the reasons to doubt that climate sensitivity for doubling radiative gasses is leading to untenable heating of the atmosphere. The issue is whether or not doubling CO2 will lead to more than 1.5C average global temperature increase.
You can find many basic sensitivities ranging from about 0.8C (modtran) to 1.2C (Myhre 1997) without feedbacks. So you need positive feedbacks to attain the higher values as claimed by IPCC.
Hence the challenge should have been: falsify that climate sensitivity to CO2 enrichment undergoes positive feedback. That challenge could easily end up differently.
The issue is that sceptics have all the reasons to doubt that climate sensitivity for doubling radiative gasses is leading to untenable heating of the atmosphere. The issue is whether or not doubling CO2 will lead to more than 1.5C average global temperature increase.
You can find many basic sensitivities ranging from about 0.8C (modtran) to 1.2C (Myhre 1997) without feedbacks. So you need positive feedbacks to attain the higher values as claimed by IPCC.
Hence the challenge should have been: falsify that climate sensitivity to CO2 enrichment undergoes positive feedback. That challenge could easily end up differently.
Once again, a denier is
showing how they want to weasel out of being held responsible for what they
say. It is most certainly not a straw man. Deniers have made a claim and I am
giving them a chance to prove their claim. Where is the straw man in that?
And, I love how you claim no one is denying global warming. Is that the limit of your credibility? Just read the submissions and comments on this blog for proof that you are wrong on that issue, too.
And, once again, some denier wants to redefine my challenge in order to weasel out of their claims. This challenge is all about deniers that claim man made global warming is not real and they can prove it. If you can, then fine. Do it. If not, then shut up and stop deceiving the public.
And, stop trying to weasel out of being held accountable for what you say. If you are calling yourself a climate change skeptic, that means you don't believe AGW is real. Don't go and pretend that its all about something else. That is the real straw man in this argument. If you believe that man made global warming is real, but we need to discuss what to do about it, then you are not a 'skeptic', in your parlance. I call people like you 'deniers' because you deny global warming, you deny taking responsibility for your own words, you deny science and you deny that you are lying to the public for the purpose of deceiving them.
Own up and accept science.
And, I love how you claim no one is denying global warming. Is that the limit of your credibility? Just read the submissions and comments on this blog for proof that you are wrong on that issue, too.
And, once again, some denier wants to redefine my challenge in order to weasel out of their claims. This challenge is all about deniers that claim man made global warming is not real and they can prove it. If you can, then fine. Do it. If not, then shut up and stop deceiving the public.
And, stop trying to weasel out of being held accountable for what you say. If you are calling yourself a climate change skeptic, that means you don't believe AGW is real. Don't go and pretend that its all about something else. That is the real straw man in this argument. If you believe that man made global warming is real, but we need to discuss what to do about it, then you are not a 'skeptic', in your parlance. I call people like you 'deniers' because you deny global warming, you deny taking responsibility for your own words, you deny science and you deny that you are lying to the public for the purpose of deceiving them.
Own up and accept science.
Christopher Keating,
From what you have already said, it seems to me that no one will succeed in winning your prize. As you are both judge and jury, you will always find some reason to dispute any argument that the sceptics bring up.
If you are not convinced by this evidence, nothing will convince you.
1 the world has not warmed for the last 17 years thus proving that man-made carbon dioxide does not cause dangerous global warming. (That it causes some warming is not in doubt, but we can now be certain that it is not large.)
2 the climate models cannot predict El Nino events which is the major climate disturbance. This proves that they are not an accurate model of the Earth's climate system and proves that they are worthless.
3 the climate models have never been properly validated as they should be (proof is in the fact that they have failed to make accurate predictions) and they are not fed with accurate input data because it is not possible to gather accurate data from all over the world for a single time period. Therefore they are worthless.
4 sea levels have not risen at any abnormal rate and proof of this is provided by the extremely accurate sea level gauges installed by the Bureau of Meteorology all around the Australian Coast and in the Pacific Islands.
5 studies of sunspot defects and other natural cycles tell us there is a high probability that the world has started on a cooling cycle. A vast amount of evidence demonstrates that when a short sunspot cycle is followed by a long sun spot cycle - as has recently happened - the next sunspot cycle is cold
6 it is often claimed that various phenomena are signs of increased warming. Maybe they are. But this is not prove it is man made or that it is caused by increasing carbon dioxide levels.
7 it is often claimed that the world is warmer than it has been for the last thousand years and therefore any further warming would be seriously abnormal. But as glaziers retreat in Greenland, they reveal the ruins of old farmhouses and recent evidence is that, 5800 years ago, the European Alps were devoid of glaziers.
8 1000 years ago during the Middle Ages warm period, the Polynesians voyaged backwards and forwards to New Zealand. To do this in open canoes, required calm seas and warm weather. Otherwise they would have died of exposure. When the Little ice age came along, two-way voyaging stopped.
But, as noted, I suspect that none of this will convince you. I fear that you will remain supremely confident that the failed models are the Word of God.
From what you have already said, it seems to me that no one will succeed in winning your prize. As you are both judge and jury, you will always find some reason to dispute any argument that the sceptics bring up.
If you are not convinced by this evidence, nothing will convince you.
1 the world has not warmed for the last 17 years thus proving that man-made carbon dioxide does not cause dangerous global warming. (That it causes some warming is not in doubt, but we can now be certain that it is not large.)
2 the climate models cannot predict El Nino events which is the major climate disturbance. This proves that they are not an accurate model of the Earth's climate system and proves that they are worthless.
3 the climate models have never been properly validated as they should be (proof is in the fact that they have failed to make accurate predictions) and they are not fed with accurate input data because it is not possible to gather accurate data from all over the world for a single time period. Therefore they are worthless.
4 sea levels have not risen at any abnormal rate and proof of this is provided by the extremely accurate sea level gauges installed by the Bureau of Meteorology all around the Australian Coast and in the Pacific Islands.
5 studies of sunspot defects and other natural cycles tell us there is a high probability that the world has started on a cooling cycle. A vast amount of evidence demonstrates that when a short sunspot cycle is followed by a long sun spot cycle - as has recently happened - the next sunspot cycle is cold
6 it is often claimed that various phenomena are signs of increased warming. Maybe they are. But this is not prove it is man made or that it is caused by increasing carbon dioxide levels.
7 it is often claimed that the world is warmer than it has been for the last thousand years and therefore any further warming would be seriously abnormal. But as glaziers retreat in Greenland, they reveal the ruins of old farmhouses and recent evidence is that, 5800 years ago, the European Alps were devoid of glaziers.
8 1000 years ago during the Middle Ages warm period, the Polynesians voyaged backwards and forwards to New Zealand. To do this in open canoes, required calm seas and warm weather. Otherwise they would have died of exposure. When the Little ice age came along, two-way voyaging stopped.
But, as noted, I suspect that none of this will convince you. I fear that you will remain supremely confident that the failed models are the Word of God.
Deniers always complain
about me being the sole judge, but never complain about the denier challenges
that are the same way. Why is that?
I have your submission. Everything you have submitted has already been debunked. If you would do some homework, you would quickly find that everything you said here is not valid. But, it is called "$30,000 Challenge Submission - Same Old Claims" and I will get to it as quickly as I can. You can follow my progress here:
http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/p/challlenge-submissions.html
By the way, if you want to be try and be as informed as you would like people to think you are, do your homework on models. Climate science isn't about models. Models are just one of many tools used by scientists. Stop reading just the denier blogs and read some real science for a change. You might even get an education from it.
I have your submission. Everything you have submitted has already been debunked. If you would do some homework, you would quickly find that everything you said here is not valid. But, it is called "$30,000 Challenge Submission - Same Old Claims" and I will get to it as quickly as I can. You can follow my progress here:
http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/p/challlenge-submissions.html
By the way, if you want to be try and be as informed as you would like people to think you are, do your homework on models. Climate science isn't about models. Models are just one of many tools used by scientists. Stop reading just the denier blogs and read some real science for a change. You might even get an education from it.
Christopher, you call me a
"denier" which is a transparent attempt to equate me with
"Holocaust deniers". It is therefore a quite disgraceful personal
attack.
I do not deny that the climate changes naturally. It appears that you do.
I do not deny that the world has not warmed for the last 17 years. It appears that you do.
I do not deny that studies of sunspot cycles and temperatures show that when a short cycle follows a long cycle, the next cycle shows cooling. It appears that you do.
I do not deny that virtually all the climate models failed to predict the lack of warming. It appears that you do.
And so on.
When people make personal attacks on me I am always reminded of Maggie Thatcher: "I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left."
As you have chosen to attack me, rather than respond to my points, I assume you do not have a single substantial scientific argument. The fact that you rely on consensus, which is in the field of politics, rather than scientific evidence, would seem to confirm this.
Haven't you heard about Galileo and a horde of other people that overturned the consensus science?
So if you want to recover your reputation, please go through each of my points and demonstrate that I am quite wrong or accept that is you, not me, who should be called a denier.
I do not deny that the climate changes naturally. It appears that you do.
I do not deny that the world has not warmed for the last 17 years. It appears that you do.
I do not deny that studies of sunspot cycles and temperatures show that when a short cycle follows a long cycle, the next cycle shows cooling. It appears that you do.
I do not deny that virtually all the climate models failed to predict the lack of warming. It appears that you do.
And so on.
When people make personal attacks on me I am always reminded of Maggie Thatcher: "I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left."
As you have chosen to attack me, rather than respond to my points, I assume you do not have a single substantial scientific argument. The fact that you rely on consensus, which is in the field of politics, rather than scientific evidence, would seem to confirm this.
Haven't you heard about Galileo and a horde of other people that overturned the consensus science?
So if you want to recover your reputation, please go through each of my points and demonstrate that I am quite wrong or accept that is you, not me, who should be called a denier.
And, this is why I am rude
to deniers. You presented all of those statements as either fact or relevant,
and they are neither. What you are doing is trying to deceive people with false
arguments.
Has the climate changed in the past? Certainly! How do we know this? Because climate scientists have done the hard work to show it. Now, you want to connect events of today with past climate change, but you never present any evidence to that effect.
Has the world warmed for over the last 17 years? Yes, it most certainly has. Take a look here:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/02/05/global-warming-has-stopped-how-to-fool-people-using-cherry-picked-climate-data/
Studies of solar activity show that when solar activity is greater, temperature is higher and when solar activity is lower, temperature is lower. Except today. Solar activity is lower (and dropping), but temperature is higher (and rising).
Climate models have been much more accurate than deniers claim. Some denier blog made that claim and you guys just keep repeating it without doing any homework because it is convenient for you preconceived conclusions. See these two for starters, then try and do your own homework:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/mar/27/climate-change-model-global-warming
http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/ask/2013/climate-modeling.html
So, I refuted every one of your points. But, I'll bet you'll still tell people that AGW isn't real and we shouldn't do anything about it. All the while, people's standard of living (probably including yours) is being lowered because of global warming. Every time you say it isn't real, take out your checkbook and send a check to some billionaire.
Has the climate changed in the past? Certainly! How do we know this? Because climate scientists have done the hard work to show it. Now, you want to connect events of today with past climate change, but you never present any evidence to that effect.
Has the world warmed for over the last 17 years? Yes, it most certainly has. Take a look here:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/02/05/global-warming-has-stopped-how-to-fool-people-using-cherry-picked-climate-data/
Studies of solar activity show that when solar activity is greater, temperature is higher and when solar activity is lower, temperature is lower. Except today. Solar activity is lower (and dropping), but temperature is higher (and rising).
Climate models have been much more accurate than deniers claim. Some denier blog made that claim and you guys just keep repeating it without doing any homework because it is convenient for you preconceived conclusions. See these two for starters, then try and do your own homework:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/mar/27/climate-change-model-global-warming
http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/ask/2013/climate-modeling.html
So, I refuted every one of your points. But, I'll bet you'll still tell people that AGW isn't real and we shouldn't do anything about it. All the while, people's standard of living (probably including yours) is being lowered because of global warming. Every time you say it isn't real, take out your checkbook and send a check to some billionaire.
Christopher,
I asked for hard data and you responded with newspaper articles. I pointed out that the world has not warmed for the last 17 years and the article pointed out – quite correctly – that there has been steadily warming since 1900. Much of that occurred before carbon dioxide levels started rising.
Roy Spencer – DrRoySpencer.com has plotted the predictions of a large number of climate models against actual temperatures. That shows that virtually every one of them was wrong. 10 years ago, one of New Zealand's most prominent climate scientists – and a prominent member of the IPCC - assured me that warming would soon restart. He said that climate models would not be accurate over a period of less than five years or so. One of his colleagues had an expectation that, quite soon, temperatures will climb again and prove the models right. I need a lot more than "an expectation".
Your article on global warming states "That’s why it is incorrect to focus on 15-year increments when we’re talking about temperature increases over decades, if not centuries." He must be talking about natural warming. He also invokes ocean warming which is problematic - not enough measurements and, anyway, how did all the heat mysteriously get there.
And you didn't answer all of the points I originally made.
You'll have to try a lot harder or accept defeat.
I asked for hard data and you responded with newspaper articles. I pointed out that the world has not warmed for the last 17 years and the article pointed out – quite correctly – that there has been steadily warming since 1900. Much of that occurred before carbon dioxide levels started rising.
Roy Spencer – DrRoySpencer.com has plotted the predictions of a large number of climate models against actual temperatures. That shows that virtually every one of them was wrong. 10 years ago, one of New Zealand's most prominent climate scientists – and a prominent member of the IPCC - assured me that warming would soon restart. He said that climate models would not be accurate over a period of less than five years or so. One of his colleagues had an expectation that, quite soon, temperatures will climb again and prove the models right. I need a lot more than "an expectation".
Your article on global warming states "That’s why it is incorrect to focus on 15-year increments when we’re talking about temperature increases over decades, if not centuries." He must be talking about natural warming. He also invokes ocean warming which is problematic - not enough measurements and, anyway, how did all the heat mysteriously get there.
And you didn't answer all of the points I originally made.
You'll have to try a lot harder or accept defeat.
As I said, I have your submission
and will respond to it.
Chris, you say:
"I will award $30,000 of my own money to anyone that can prove, via the scientific method, that man-made global climate change is not occurring"
You have it backwards, old son. If you're putting forward the proposal that man changes the climate you must offer evidence for it or nobody will believe you.
My challenge to you is to present your evidence (and not merely to claim that evidence exists, but elsewhere) in a courteous manner free of ad hominem remarks — just as you expect of the sceptics.
What I ask of you is in keeping with the scientific method — to present an hypothesis that is falsifiable, not some ill-defined proposal impossible to refute. Good luck.
"I will award $30,000 of my own money to anyone that can prove, via the scientific method, that man-made global climate change is not occurring"
You have it backwards, old son. If you're putting forward the proposal that man changes the climate you must offer evidence for it or nobody will believe you.
My challenge to you is to present your evidence (and not merely to claim that evidence exists, but elsewhere) in a courteous manner free of ad hominem remarks — just as you expect of the sceptics.
What I ask of you is in keeping with the scientific method — to present an hypothesis that is falsifiable, not some ill-defined proposal impossible to refute. Good luck.
Chris, you say:
"No, the temperature has not been flat since 1998. The surface temperature has been increasing, but at a slower rate."
This is incorrect. According to several global temperature series the trend has been flat or declining for up to 20 years.
"Include the heat content of the ocean (why do people keep insisting on ignoring the 93% of warming that is going on?) then the record is very clear - warming is continuing."
There is much about climate that is mysterious or utterly unknown but one thing we can depend on is that the atmosphere cannot heat the ocean; only the sun heats the ocean. Therefore you cannot claim that mankind has influence over oceanic heat content. If you do, you really must describe the mechanism (please)—without referring to that shallow description of the thin skin effect at "sceptical" science which persuades nobody.
"No, the temperature has not been flat since 1998. The surface temperature has been increasing, but at a slower rate."
This is incorrect. According to several global temperature series the trend has been flat or declining for up to 20 years.
"Include the heat content of the ocean (why do people keep insisting on ignoring the 93% of warming that is going on?) then the record is very clear - warming is continuing."
There is much about climate that is mysterious or utterly unknown but one thing we can depend on is that the atmosphere cannot heat the ocean; only the sun heats the ocean. Therefore you cannot claim that mankind has influence over oceanic heat content. If you do, you really must describe the mechanism (please)—without referring to that shallow description of the thin skin effect at "sceptical" science which persuades nobody.
Is it that deniers don't
understand science, or do you just ignore it?
No one is claiming the atmosphere is heating the surface no more than someone will claim a coat heats you in the winter. What the atmosphere is doing is preventing the surface from cooling. It acts as an insulator. As we increase the amount of greenhouse gases, it becomes a more efficient insulator. There is nothing new or mysterious in my statement and you know that if you did a little homework.
As for the temperature being flat since 1998, you again did not do your homework. Here is just one reference on the subject. I will leave it to you to find others.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/02/05/global-warming-has-stopped-how-to-fool-people-using-cherry-picked-climate-data/
No one is claiming the atmosphere is heating the surface no more than someone will claim a coat heats you in the winter. What the atmosphere is doing is preventing the surface from cooling. It acts as an insulator. As we increase the amount of greenhouse gases, it becomes a more efficient insulator. There is nothing new or mysterious in my statement and you know that if you did a little homework.
As for the temperature being flat since 1998, you again did not do your homework. Here is just one reference on the subject. I will leave it to you to find others.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/02/05/global-warming-has-stopped-how-to-fool-people-using-cherry-picked-climate-data/
AnonymousJuly
24, 2014 at 5:34 PM
Richard,
You made this statement:
"Therefore you cannot claim that mankind has influence over oceanic heat content. If you do, you really must describe the mechanism (please)—without referring to that shallow description of the thin skin effect at "sceptical" science which persuades nobody."
Do you know how a laser works? It is really interesting, and it is related to how the atmosphere can heat the ocean. It is also fairly simple.
[1 "Material" 2] ----------> "L"
(1) A close to 100% reflective mirror. When light hits this, it is almost completely reflected.
(2) A 50% reflective, 50% transmissive mirror. When light hits this, half of it is reflected, and half of it is let through.
"Material": This can be lot's of things, helium-neon, titanium-sapphire, yttrium-lithium-flouride, etc. There is a good reason why you need at least two materials for this to work, but it is not really important for the point I intend to make.
"L": This is light emitted from the laser. It is really just photons.
So, the next thing that you need is for the material in the laser to get really "excited". You know how really hot metal glows? All that hot metal is... is a bunch of particles that are all moving really fast and bashing into other particles at some average speed. When the particles bash into other particles, you have kinetic energy converted into pushing the particle's electron cloud into a higher energy level. There is a tendency for the electron cloud to rest in a lower energy level, whenever possible. So when the electron cloud jumps into a lower energy level, it releases energy as light... and this is why really hot metal glows, because most of the particles in the metal are going through this same process at the same time.
The frequency, at which, the metal glows, the "color" of the light that is generated depends on how high the energy level was that the electron cloud gets thrown into before it releases the energy as light and jumps back down into a lower energy level.
It turns out, all particles are like this. All particles have their own electron clouds.
There are certain things that we know about how these electron clouds surrounding particles can jump into a higher energy level. The electron cloud can absorb light or other photons and be thrown into a higher energy level.
There are certain rules regarding how likely light is to be absorbed by a particle's electron cloud. These rules depend on the relative size and wavelength of the light with respect to the size of the electron cloud. These rules are also dictated by exactly which energy levels exist in the particular electron cloud. These rules become complicated, and the math behind it is really hard.
But the idea behind it can be summarized like this: when light "hits" a particle's electron cloud there are three main things that can happen:
1) The light can be absorbed by the electron cloud. The cloud jumps into some energy level, then jumps back down, releasing light of some "different" frequency.
2) The light can be reflected by the electron cloud.
3) The light can be transmitted through the electron cloud.
So, this is how a laser works. You give the material inside of it some kind of a jolt of electricity, which stimulates most of the electrons in most of the particles in the material into a higher energy level; and when all of the electrons jump back down into their respective lower energy levels, they generate light.
This light get's mostly reflected by mirror "1", this light get's partially reflected by mirror "2", then some of it is transmitted out of mirror "2" to entertain your cat, or whatever else you are doing with your laser.
You made this statement:
"Therefore you cannot claim that mankind has influence over oceanic heat content. If you do, you really must describe the mechanism (please)—without referring to that shallow description of the thin skin effect at "sceptical" science which persuades nobody."
Do you know how a laser works? It is really interesting, and it is related to how the atmosphere can heat the ocean. It is also fairly simple.
[1 "Material" 2] ----------> "L"
(1) A close to 100% reflective mirror. When light hits this, it is almost completely reflected.
(2) A 50% reflective, 50% transmissive mirror. When light hits this, half of it is reflected, and half of it is let through.
"Material": This can be lot's of things, helium-neon, titanium-sapphire, yttrium-lithium-flouride, etc. There is a good reason why you need at least two materials for this to work, but it is not really important for the point I intend to make.
"L": This is light emitted from the laser. It is really just photons.
So, the next thing that you need is for the material in the laser to get really "excited". You know how really hot metal glows? All that hot metal is... is a bunch of particles that are all moving really fast and bashing into other particles at some average speed. When the particles bash into other particles, you have kinetic energy converted into pushing the particle's electron cloud into a higher energy level. There is a tendency for the electron cloud to rest in a lower energy level, whenever possible. So when the electron cloud jumps into a lower energy level, it releases energy as light... and this is why really hot metal glows, because most of the particles in the metal are going through this same process at the same time.
The frequency, at which, the metal glows, the "color" of the light that is generated depends on how high the energy level was that the electron cloud gets thrown into before it releases the energy as light and jumps back down into a lower energy level.
It turns out, all particles are like this. All particles have their own electron clouds.
There are certain things that we know about how these electron clouds surrounding particles can jump into a higher energy level. The electron cloud can absorb light or other photons and be thrown into a higher energy level.
There are certain rules regarding how likely light is to be absorbed by a particle's electron cloud. These rules depend on the relative size and wavelength of the light with respect to the size of the electron cloud. These rules are also dictated by exactly which energy levels exist in the particular electron cloud. These rules become complicated, and the math behind it is really hard.
But the idea behind it can be summarized like this: when light "hits" a particle's electron cloud there are three main things that can happen:
1) The light can be absorbed by the electron cloud. The cloud jumps into some energy level, then jumps back down, releasing light of some "different" frequency.
2) The light can be reflected by the electron cloud.
3) The light can be transmitted through the electron cloud.
So, this is how a laser works. You give the material inside of it some kind of a jolt of electricity, which stimulates most of the electrons in most of the particles in the material into a higher energy level; and when all of the electrons jump back down into their respective lower energy levels, they generate light.
This light get's mostly reflected by mirror "1", this light get's partially reflected by mirror "2", then some of it is transmitted out of mirror "2" to entertain your cat, or whatever else you are doing with your laser.
AnonymousJuly
24, 2014 at 5:35 PM
So what does this have to do
with the atmosphere? Well, it's the same idea!
S] "Material" [G
"S": This is the sun, it makes light.
"G": This is the ground, it can absorb and reflect light.
"Material": This is the layer of green house gasses, it can absorb and reflect, and transmit light.
Now here is the interesting thing. Whenever any of these materials absorb light, their electron clouds jump into a higher energy level... then they jump back down and release light in the process... but the funny thing is that the "kind" of light that they usually release is Infra-Red "light". Infra-Red light has some funny properties. It is more likely for Infra-Red "light" to be reflected by the stuff in the atmosphere, like CO2.
There is some Infra-red light which is stuck between the ground and the stuff in the atmosphere that can reflect it. There is more of this Infra-red light in summer-time, which is why it feels hotter in the summer. Your car sitting out in the heat also does this. Except it looks a little more like this in the car:
S] 1] "Sweating Passenger" [1
(1) Car window
"S": Sun
The "skin" effect is basically all of this, in a nutshell... it's not necessarily the "best" way to describe it, but the full explanation requires some really tough math; so we don't usually give people the full explanation.
Anonymous #2
S] "Material" [G
"S": This is the sun, it makes light.
"G": This is the ground, it can absorb and reflect light.
"Material": This is the layer of green house gasses, it can absorb and reflect, and transmit light.
Now here is the interesting thing. Whenever any of these materials absorb light, their electron clouds jump into a higher energy level... then they jump back down and release light in the process... but the funny thing is that the "kind" of light that they usually release is Infra-Red "light". Infra-Red light has some funny properties. It is more likely for Infra-Red "light" to be reflected by the stuff in the atmosphere, like CO2.
There is some Infra-red light which is stuck between the ground and the stuff in the atmosphere that can reflect it. There is more of this Infra-red light in summer-time, which is why it feels hotter in the summer. Your car sitting out in the heat also does this. Except it looks a little more like this in the car:
S] 1] "Sweating Passenger" [1
(1) Car window
"S": Sun
The "skin" effect is basically all of this, in a nutshell... it's not necessarily the "best" way to describe it, but the full explanation requires some really tough math; so we don't usually give people the full explanation.
Anonymous #2
AnonymousJuly
24, 2014 at 5:59 PM
Oh, yeah... "how can
this heat the ocean?"
S] "Material" [G
"S": This is the sun, it makes light.
"G": This is the ground, it can absorb and reflect light.
"G": This can also be the ocean, it can absorb and reflect light.
Sometimes when the ocean absorbs the IR, it will just heat up.
It's just the way that stuff works when it interacts with light.
Anonymous #2
S] "Material" [G
"S": This is the sun, it makes light.
"G": This is the ground, it can absorb and reflect light.
"G": This can also be the ocean, it can absorb and reflect light.
Sometimes when the ocean absorbs the IR, it will just heat up.
It's just the way that stuff works when it interacts with light.
Anonymous #2
AnonymousJuly
24, 2014 at 6:26 PM
In some of the papers that
talk about the climate models, you will see a lot of jargon that they throw
around, like SW and LW radiation. Best as I have been able to interpret you
have:
SW: Short Wave radiation from the sun. One great big mixed bag of photons.
LW: Long Wave radiation generated after SW is absorbed by all the stuff in the atmosphere and on the ground. Infra-red should be a kind of LW radiation.
Our scientific journals have this really silly tendency to try and sound as complex and as convoluted as possible, because it makes people take the journal more "seriously". Unfortunately, if the scientists want money from the public, they need to be able to communicate what they are doing in a way that the public can understand. Unfortunately, if the scientists want grant money, then they need to be able to get published, they use convoluted speech patterns because it impresses journal editors more than referring to things the way I did in my description above. If journal editors are not impressed, you don't get published, if you don't get published, you don't get grant money.
Really, when I think about how our scientific institutions really operate, these days, the best way to explain it would be to the tune of, "Entry of the Gladiators" by Julius Fucik.
Anonymous #2
SW: Short Wave radiation from the sun. One great big mixed bag of photons.
LW: Long Wave radiation generated after SW is absorbed by all the stuff in the atmosphere and on the ground. Infra-red should be a kind of LW radiation.
Our scientific journals have this really silly tendency to try and sound as complex and as convoluted as possible, because it makes people take the journal more "seriously". Unfortunately, if the scientists want money from the public, they need to be able to communicate what they are doing in a way that the public can understand. Unfortunately, if the scientists want grant money, then they need to be able to get published, they use convoluted speech patterns because it impresses journal editors more than referring to things the way I did in my description above. If journal editors are not impressed, you don't get published, if you don't get published, you don't get grant money.
Really, when I think about how our scientific institutions really operate, these days, the best way to explain it would be to the tune of, "Entry of the Gladiators" by Julius Fucik.
Anonymous #2
You are correct about both
SW and LW. We use jargon because we want to be as precise as possible. People
in the field not only understand the jargon, but also the subtleties involved
and will object to any error in terminology. Light is any form of
electromagnetic radiation, but there are different kinds of light. The things
short wavelength light does is much different than the things long wavelength
light will do.
Scientific papers aren't written to communicate to the general public, or even the general scientific community. They are written to communicate to people in the same field.
But, you are absolutely right about how we need to be better at communicating to the public and there is a big push to improve this point.
And, no, we don't use convoluted language to get grant money. Grants are decided by specialists in the field that you apply for. You don't just go into NSF, or any other funding agency, and ask for money. They announce opportunities for funding under a specific program. If you are qualified for the program, you then submit your grant proposal and it is reviewed by the panel put together for that opportunity and whom understand the science. The grants are awarded in a competitive manner. The proposals that score highest with the judges will get the money.
Certainly part of the process is being published, but it is much more competitive than that. Depending on the specific program you apply for, grant approval rates can range from 5% to maybe as high as 20%. In my field, approval rate at the time I graduated was about 30%. It is now less than 10%. Money is very scarce for research nowadays and the competition is fierce. This is why I always laugh when deniers claim researchers are going to always find evidence of global warming so that they can keep getting their grants. If you are ever even accused of faking your research you will never see another penny of grant money. There are too many people out there prepared to do honest research for anyone to be able to afford to do dishonest research. And, yes, you will get caught. It might take time, but you will get caught.
Scientific papers aren't written to communicate to the general public, or even the general scientific community. They are written to communicate to people in the same field.
But, you are absolutely right about how we need to be better at communicating to the public and there is a big push to improve this point.
And, no, we don't use convoluted language to get grant money. Grants are decided by specialists in the field that you apply for. You don't just go into NSF, or any other funding agency, and ask for money. They announce opportunities for funding under a specific program. If you are qualified for the program, you then submit your grant proposal and it is reviewed by the panel put together for that opportunity and whom understand the science. The grants are awarded in a competitive manner. The proposals that score highest with the judges will get the money.
Certainly part of the process is being published, but it is much more competitive than that. Depending on the specific program you apply for, grant approval rates can range from 5% to maybe as high as 20%. In my field, approval rate at the time I graduated was about 30%. It is now less than 10%. Money is very scarce for research nowadays and the competition is fierce. This is why I always laugh when deniers claim researchers are going to always find evidence of global warming so that they can keep getting their grants. If you are ever even accused of faking your research you will never see another penny of grant money. There are too many people out there prepared to do honest research for anyone to be able to afford to do dishonest research. And, yes, you will get caught. It might take time, but you will get caught.
AnonymousJuly
24, 2014 at 10:09 PM
It is a simple
"supply" vs "demand" scenario. The US government
get's something on the order of around $3.8 Trillion from tax revenue every
year. Out of that some $500-600 Billion usually goes to the military. Some $7
Billion goes to the NSF. The year range on these numbers are somewhere between
2010-2014, I think... I am pulling these from memory.
I ran these numbers at one point. These are the numbers in the US from 2012, I think...
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43061.pdf
Some 6.2e6 scientists/engineers exist altogether
Some 1.5e6 engineers exist
Some 0.545e6 science/engineering managers exist
There are only 274,600 physical scientists
There are roughly 260,000 life scientists
There are about 120,560 math scientists
"You don't just go into NSF, or any other funding agency, and ask for money. They announce opportunities for funding under a specific program."
Oh, and who is in the esteemed authority to decide on the research priorities that get funded?
"Depending on the specific program you apply for, grant approval rates can range from 5% to maybe as high as 20%. In my field, approval rate at the time I graduated was about 30%. It is now less than 10%. Money is very scarce for research nowadays and the competition is fierce."
Wonderful isn't it? A 30% grant approval rate means all that you need to do is fill out roughly 3-6 grant applications every year just to have the money that you need to do your job as a scientist.
A 10% grant rate means that you would need to fill out between 10-20 just to scrape by at the same rate. The time that you need to spend on "rent-seeking" has more than tripled. And it eats into everyone's time in the academic community.
It's no wonder that we see scientists fleeing from academia to go into wall street. It is no wonder that instead of deciding to stay and fighting tooth and nail for scraps like rats on the sinking ship that is academic funding, we see physicists going to wall street to design nifty new financial derivatives that can be repackaged as leveraged securities that their managers can then sell as high-risk high-reward engines to the highest bidder.
And when the math behind these securities becomes too complex for the banks who ultimately buy these things to intelligently manage their risk; they have to make some decision with them, ill-informed or not. And when these securities ultimately financially-detonate taking huge chunks of the economy out along with them, we must ask, how did this benefit the public? At the very least, a bear market is a buyer's market... assuming you weren't rendered insolvent and unemployed from the resulting shockwave resonating from the credit crunch.
How was the public good ultimately served by this inefficient use of our country's brainpower?
Anonymous #2
I ran these numbers at one point. These are the numbers in the US from 2012, I think...
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43061.pdf
Some 6.2e6 scientists/engineers exist altogether
Some 1.5e6 engineers exist
Some 0.545e6 science/engineering managers exist
There are only 274,600 physical scientists
There are roughly 260,000 life scientists
There are about 120,560 math scientists
"You don't just go into NSF, or any other funding agency, and ask for money. They announce opportunities for funding under a specific program."
Oh, and who is in the esteemed authority to decide on the research priorities that get funded?
"Depending on the specific program you apply for, grant approval rates can range from 5% to maybe as high as 20%. In my field, approval rate at the time I graduated was about 30%. It is now less than 10%. Money is very scarce for research nowadays and the competition is fierce."
Wonderful isn't it? A 30% grant approval rate means all that you need to do is fill out roughly 3-6 grant applications every year just to have the money that you need to do your job as a scientist.
A 10% grant rate means that you would need to fill out between 10-20 just to scrape by at the same rate. The time that you need to spend on "rent-seeking" has more than tripled. And it eats into everyone's time in the academic community.
It's no wonder that we see scientists fleeing from academia to go into wall street. It is no wonder that instead of deciding to stay and fighting tooth and nail for scraps like rats on the sinking ship that is academic funding, we see physicists going to wall street to design nifty new financial derivatives that can be repackaged as leveraged securities that their managers can then sell as high-risk high-reward engines to the highest bidder.
And when the math behind these securities becomes too complex for the banks who ultimately buy these things to intelligently manage their risk; they have to make some decision with them, ill-informed or not. And when these securities ultimately financially-detonate taking huge chunks of the economy out along with them, we must ask, how did this benefit the public? At the very least, a bear market is a buyer's market... assuming you weren't rendered insolvent and unemployed from the resulting shockwave resonating from the credit crunch.
How was the public good ultimately served by this inefficient use of our country's brainpower?
Anonymous #2
The public is not served.
But, when you start talking about cutting the budget, things like NASA and NSF
are the first things they think about cutting. $1 trillion deficits and people
think it will be balanced by cutting $20 billion programs. Its not the
politicians fault, it is what the public demands.
AnonymousJuly
25, 2014 at 12:57 AM
I never said that it was the
politicians fault. They seem to be stuck in their own rent-seeking rat race.
Like I said before... they don't really seem all that different from
professors, in this regard.
I do not know how to fix it. I am not interested in any kind of a witch hunt. I am just frustrated, and I want to see a better tomorrow than what we have today.
I find the politicization of some of these issues in science irritating. It just seems to confuse things.
Hmm... this looks interesting...
http://www.core77.com/blog/sustainable_design/if_researchers_are_right_this_rock_will_make_solar_power_cheaper_than_coal_27349.asp
Sounds like a pipe dream, but if it actually worked...
We would still need a way to store the energy.
Anonymous #2
I do not know how to fix it. I am not interested in any kind of a witch hunt. I am just frustrated, and I want to see a better tomorrow than what we have today.
I find the politicization of some of these issues in science irritating. It just seems to confuse things.
Hmm... this looks interesting...
http://www.core77.com/blog/sustainable_design/if_researchers_are_right_this_rock_will_make_solar_power_cheaper_than_coal_27349.asp
Sounds like a pipe dream, but if it actually worked...
We would still need a way to store the energy.
Anonymous #2
AnonymousJuly
25, 2014 at 1:15 AM
Most of the problems in our
system appear to have evolved as are by accident more than by design.
As we become ever more specialized, the ones among us who are capable of seeing and understanding how the whole machine is running seem to becoming ever fewer.
In our own myopic worlds we seem to try and solve the easiest to solve and the most pressing issues first. And if there is anything else lies outside of our area of specialization, we simply assume that someone else will solve it.
The C-Suite of most companies focus on their quarterly profits because with the risks that they run, there is no assurance that their personal half-life within the company is any greater than 1-2 years. This encourages a necessarily short term view of the world. As a result, much infrastructure seems to be cannibalized or ignored in the process of 'business-as-usual'.
Surely there has to be a way to encourage the maintenance and development of long term infrastructure, in spite of 'business-as-usual'.
How would you do it?
Anonymous #2
As we become ever more specialized, the ones among us who are capable of seeing and understanding how the whole machine is running seem to becoming ever fewer.
In our own myopic worlds we seem to try and solve the easiest to solve and the most pressing issues first. And if there is anything else lies outside of our area of specialization, we simply assume that someone else will solve it.
The C-Suite of most companies focus on their quarterly profits because with the risks that they run, there is no assurance that their personal half-life within the company is any greater than 1-2 years. This encourages a necessarily short term view of the world. As a result, much infrastructure seems to be cannibalized or ignored in the process of 'business-as-usual'.
Surely there has to be a way to encourage the maintenance and development of long term infrastructure, in spite of 'business-as-usual'.
How would you do it?
Anonymous #2
Christopher Keating says:
"Is it that deniers don't understand science, or do you just ignore
it?"
Don't call me a denier. What words, precisely, do you claim are denial? May you stew, sir, quietly, in your own ignorance.
"No one is claiming the atmosphere is heating the surface no more [sic] than someone will claim a coat heats you in the winter."
You mentioned the "heat content of the ocean". I didn't refer to "the surface," I said (following your lead) "the ocean." So you don't claim that the atmosphere heats the ocean. Interesting.
"What the atmosphere is doing is preventing the surface from cooling. It acts as an insulator."
I see. Considering thermal radiation moves from the sea surface to space at the speed of light, I would be curious to know how the air — even thick with CO2 — keeps it in the water.
Thanks for the reference to Peter Gleick's article. He cites the UK Met Office so I read their report "Observing changes in the climate system" published in July 2013. Their graph on p.9 shows clearly that since about 1998 the trend in temperature has been level. In addition, they say:
'Global mean surface temperatures rose rapidly from the 1970s, but have been relatively flat over the most recent 15 years to 2013.'
Steven Goddard, using the RSS dataset, shows no warming for half the satellite record:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/04/26/milestone-reached-no-global-warming-for-more-than-half-of-the-satellite-record/
A recent paper in The Cryosphere finds glacier ice mass in the Karakoram region of the Himalayas is stable to increasing over the last 3 to 4 decades:
http://www.the-cryosphere.net/8/977/2014/tc-8-977-2014.html
Recent HADCRUT figures find February 2014 third-coldest since 1994:
http://www.thegwpf.org/global-temperature-report-feb-2014/
That same link shows no discernible increase for 12 years in four global temperature datasets.
Peter Gleick raises some silly strawman arguments, like "it hasn't warmed in 15 years, therefore global warming is over."
He concludes: "The next time you hear someone say it isn’t warming, or it hasn’t warmed for “xx” years, or “it’s actually cooling,” remember: someone is trying to deceive you with cherry-picked numbers."
This is wrong. I never said "global warming has finished" but I definitely say "it has stopped since 1997." It may well start again — who knows? But one important consequence of this extended, unexpected period of stasis is that the temperature trajectory has a bit to make up if it's to catch the modelled projections. It's a bit of a worry, because warming must become unprecedented to be steep enough to reach 4°C or 6°C by 2100.
It's important to recognise that when the mercury in the thermometer doesn't rise, the temperature hasn't gone up, no matter where the trendline might be drawn. Therefore (for the moment) global warming has indeed stopped. By definition. Can I express it any more clearly than that?
Don't call me a denier. What words, precisely, do you claim are denial? May you stew, sir, quietly, in your own ignorance.
"No one is claiming the atmosphere is heating the surface no more [sic] than someone will claim a coat heats you in the winter."
You mentioned the "heat content of the ocean". I didn't refer to "the surface," I said (following your lead) "the ocean." So you don't claim that the atmosphere heats the ocean. Interesting.
"What the atmosphere is doing is preventing the surface from cooling. It acts as an insulator."
I see. Considering thermal radiation moves from the sea surface to space at the speed of light, I would be curious to know how the air — even thick with CO2 — keeps it in the water.
Thanks for the reference to Peter Gleick's article. He cites the UK Met Office so I read their report "Observing changes in the climate system" published in July 2013. Their graph on p.9 shows clearly that since about 1998 the trend in temperature has been level. In addition, they say:
'Global mean surface temperatures rose rapidly from the 1970s, but have been relatively flat over the most recent 15 years to 2013.'
Steven Goddard, using the RSS dataset, shows no warming for half the satellite record:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/04/26/milestone-reached-no-global-warming-for-more-than-half-of-the-satellite-record/
A recent paper in The Cryosphere finds glacier ice mass in the Karakoram region of the Himalayas is stable to increasing over the last 3 to 4 decades:
http://www.the-cryosphere.net/8/977/2014/tc-8-977-2014.html
Recent HADCRUT figures find February 2014 third-coldest since 1994:
http://www.thegwpf.org/global-temperature-report-feb-2014/
That same link shows no discernible increase for 12 years in four global temperature datasets.
Peter Gleick raises some silly strawman arguments, like "it hasn't warmed in 15 years, therefore global warming is over."
He concludes: "The next time you hear someone say it isn’t warming, or it hasn’t warmed for “xx” years, or “it’s actually cooling,” remember: someone is trying to deceive you with cherry-picked numbers."
This is wrong. I never said "global warming has finished" but I definitely say "it has stopped since 1997." It may well start again — who knows? But one important consequence of this extended, unexpected period of stasis is that the temperature trajectory has a bit to make up if it's to catch the modelled projections. It's a bit of a worry, because warming must become unprecedented to be steep enough to reach 4°C or 6°C by 2100.
It's important to recognise that when the mercury in the thermometer doesn't rise, the temperature hasn't gone up, no matter where the trendline might be drawn. Therefore (for the moment) global warming has indeed stopped. By definition. Can I express it any more clearly than that?
Richard,
It would seem that you are trying to rewrite the challenge. Science deniers / science liars claim that man-made global warming does not exist and they can prove it. That is what this challenge is about. Simply submit fact based, evidence, following the scientific method that disproves that the current global warming is not man-made.
Don't try to change the rules. Just follow them.
It would seem that you are trying to rewrite the challenge. Science deniers / science liars claim that man-made global warming does not exist and they can prove it. That is what this challenge is about. Simply submit fact based, evidence, following the scientific method that disproves that the current global warming is not man-made.
Don't try to change the rules. Just follow them.
To Mike Smith: Thank you.
To Richard Treadgold: I presented a proof of AGW through the scientific method in my book: Undeniable! Dialogues on Global Warming. Not that I expect you to read it, but just to show you that I have already done what you demand. Besides, thousands of climate scientists have published thousands of scientific papers doing exactly what you requested.
To Richard Treadgold: I presented a proof of AGW through the scientific method in my book: Undeniable! Dialogues on Global Warming. Not that I expect you to read it, but just to show you that I have already done what you demand. Besides, thousands of climate scientists have published thousands of scientific papers doing exactly what you requested.
Mike Smith: Well, rather
than trying to rewrite the challenge or change the rules, I'm criticising the
basis of the challenge, yes. You might like to answer the criticism. It's true
that the DAGW hypothesis has never been presented in a paper or expressed in a
falsifiable form and it is re-expressed everywhere to suit the author's agenda
(it seems). It goes without saying that therefore it's quite impossible to
refute. I'm sure you agree that we should be perfectly clear on what the
hypothesis states. So what is it?
It's hard to ignore your inflammatory remarks about "deniers and liars." Primarily, they make you appear discourteous. It's also hard to ignore the double negative you use which asks me to prove that the current warming is man-made (I don't believe it is). Should I insult you for the obvious blunder? I don't think so. You've already been insulting enough for a brief conversation between strangers (thank you!).
It's hard to ignore your inflammatory remarks about "deniers and liars." Primarily, they make you appear discourteous. It's also hard to ignore the double negative you use which asks me to prove that the current warming is man-made (I don't believe it is). Should I insult you for the obvious blunder? I don't think so. You've already been insulting enough for a brief conversation between strangers (thank you!).
To Richard Treadgold:
This is an easy to follow video on the science of man-made global warming. It runs for some 14 minutes and is very informative.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ6Z04VJDco
This is an easy to follow video on the science of man-made global warming. It runs for some 14 minutes and is very informative.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ6Z04VJDco
Mike Smith, you referred me
to a video which I watched. The video begins by depicting a questioner with a
paper bag over his head in denial. The voiceover (is it Christopher Keating?)
moves into patronising explanations and strawman arguing points which prove
unpersuasive. He's an uninspiring, condescending presenter who apparently
believes sceptics' beliefs are everywhere the same and lack justification.
At the end he challenges the viewer, if he disagrees with the views presented, to explain (my answers follow):
1. Why are the experiments showing the radiation absorption of CO2 flawed?
Answer: You imply that the more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the more warming occurs, but that's a flawed interpretation of the experiments and of the nature of carbon dioxide's radiative properties, which in fact diminish logarithmically. The first 20 ppm have more effect than the next 400 ppm. See MODTRANS facility, University of Chicago at http://www.modtran5.com/index.html.
2. How did the earth thaw from its pre-Cambrian snowball?
Answer: Evidence for the snowball earth hypothesis is ambiguous and highly controversial. There's little agreement it occurred.
3. Why was the earth much hotter than today during the Cambrian, even though solar output was much lower?
Answer: A good question that I cannot answer. But your likely conclusion, that because I cannot prove otherwise, it was hotter due to carbon dioxide, is an example of the logical error argumentum ad ignorantiam, or an appeal to ignorance.
4. Why is there a very good correlation between global temperatures and CO2 levels over the last 500 million years?
Answer: Evidence of correlation is not evidence of causation. But what's the evidence? The video didn't explain it.
5. How did the earth warm enough to emerge from recent glaciations?
Answer: Milankovitch cycles produce variations in timing and intensity of insolation and therefore the seasons over periods up to 100,000 years and are widely considered responsible for beginning and ending glaciations.
6. Why have we had 35 years of warming even though solar radiation has been lower?
Answer: Assuming you mean the last 35 years, it hasn't been warming. We've had about 20 years of stasis following about 20 years of warming. You seem to be suggesting that only solar variations and CO2 affect the rate of warming or cooling; of course that's wrong, and other factors are involved, including cloud cover, aerosols and albedo.
At the end he challenges the viewer, if he disagrees with the views presented, to explain (my answers follow):
1. Why are the experiments showing the radiation absorption of CO2 flawed?
Answer: You imply that the more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the more warming occurs, but that's a flawed interpretation of the experiments and of the nature of carbon dioxide's radiative properties, which in fact diminish logarithmically. The first 20 ppm have more effect than the next 400 ppm. See MODTRANS facility, University of Chicago at http://www.modtran5.com/index.html.
2. How did the earth thaw from its pre-Cambrian snowball?
Answer: Evidence for the snowball earth hypothesis is ambiguous and highly controversial. There's little agreement it occurred.
3. Why was the earth much hotter than today during the Cambrian, even though solar output was much lower?
Answer: A good question that I cannot answer. But your likely conclusion, that because I cannot prove otherwise, it was hotter due to carbon dioxide, is an example of the logical error argumentum ad ignorantiam, or an appeal to ignorance.
4. Why is there a very good correlation between global temperatures and CO2 levels over the last 500 million years?
Answer: Evidence of correlation is not evidence of causation. But what's the evidence? The video didn't explain it.
5. How did the earth warm enough to emerge from recent glaciations?
Answer: Milankovitch cycles produce variations in timing and intensity of insolation and therefore the seasons over periods up to 100,000 years and are widely considered responsible for beginning and ending glaciations.
6. Why have we had 35 years of warming even though solar radiation has been lower?
Answer: Assuming you mean the last 35 years, it hasn't been warming. We've had about 20 years of stasis following about 20 years of warming. You seem to be suggesting that only solar variations and CO2 affect the rate of warming or cooling; of course that's wrong, and other factors are involved, including cloud cover, aerosols and albedo.
Simply submit your
scientific proof that man-made global warming is not real. Have it judged by
Dr. Keating. That is simple. Make your submission.
Of 10,885 Peer-Reviewed
Articles on Climate Change in 2013, Only 2 Question Human Involvement
QUOTE:
James L. Powell is an MIT-educated geologist who taught students about the earth for 20 years at Oberlin College and served on the prestigious National Science Board at the request of two Republican presidents (Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush). He’s also a believer in human-made global warming, and has spent considerable time reviewing scientific and academic papers on the subject.
In 2013 alone, Powell found 10,885 peer-reviewed articles that discussed global warming or climate change. But only two described as peer-reviewed denied the widely-held belief that the planet is warming up because of humans, he says, and one of the two turned out not to be peer-reviewed.
One of those papers was produced by a Russian scientist, S. V. Avakyan, who claims global warming is a product of solar activity. Avakyan also says that calls for reducing the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere not only won’t help, but could cripple Russia’s economy and the oil industry. The other paper, published by a German chemistry publication, amounted to a one-page opinion piece that wasn’t peer-reviewed, according to Powell.
In addition to the more than 10,000 articles he found for last year, Powell says he’s reviewed more than another 15,000 papers on climate change. Of the grand total of 25,182 scientific articles he’s read, only 26 rejected the idea that humans are causing global warming.
END QUOTE:
URL: http://www.allgov.com/news/controversies/of-10885-peer-reviewed-articles-on-climate-change-in-2013-only-2-question-human-involvement-140403?news=852832
URL END:
SECOND SOURCE:
Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie Chart
URL:
http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart
URL END:
Richard,
To put it bluntly, you are simply calling the thousands of scientists that submitted over 25,000 published, peer reviewed articles liars and frauds. It even goes beyond that. You are calling the scientists that did the peer reviews liars and frauds. You are also calling the reviewer of the reviewers, a scientist that worked for two Republican Presidents, a liar and a fraud.
Just to be clear. You are claiming that 99.9% of the published papers and the scientists that wrote and review them, that support the conclusion that global warming is occurring and that it is man-made are all lies and the scientists are all liars and frauds.
QUOTE:
James L. Powell is an MIT-educated geologist who taught students about the earth for 20 years at Oberlin College and served on the prestigious National Science Board at the request of two Republican presidents (Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush). He’s also a believer in human-made global warming, and has spent considerable time reviewing scientific and academic papers on the subject.
In 2013 alone, Powell found 10,885 peer-reviewed articles that discussed global warming or climate change. But only two described as peer-reviewed denied the widely-held belief that the planet is warming up because of humans, he says, and one of the two turned out not to be peer-reviewed.
One of those papers was produced by a Russian scientist, S. V. Avakyan, who claims global warming is a product of solar activity. Avakyan also says that calls for reducing the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere not only won’t help, but could cripple Russia’s economy and the oil industry. The other paper, published by a German chemistry publication, amounted to a one-page opinion piece that wasn’t peer-reviewed, according to Powell.
In addition to the more than 10,000 articles he found for last year, Powell says he’s reviewed more than another 15,000 papers on climate change. Of the grand total of 25,182 scientific articles he’s read, only 26 rejected the idea that humans are causing global warming.
END QUOTE:
URL: http://www.allgov.com/news/controversies/of-10885-peer-reviewed-articles-on-climate-change-in-2013-only-2-question-human-involvement-140403?news=852832
URL END:
SECOND SOURCE:
Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie Chart
URL:
http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart
URL END:
Richard,
To put it bluntly, you are simply calling the thousands of scientists that submitted over 25,000 published, peer reviewed articles liars and frauds. It even goes beyond that. You are calling the scientists that did the peer reviews liars and frauds. You are also calling the reviewer of the reviewers, a scientist that worked for two Republican Presidents, a liar and a fraud.
Just to be clear. You are claiming that 99.9% of the published papers and the scientists that wrote and review them, that support the conclusion that global warming is occurring and that it is man-made are all lies and the scientists are all liars and frauds.
Christopher Keating
Thank you for this collection of publicly available topical data, but you have not addressed my central comment:-
"The main flaw in your AGW argument is that the sea has to heat BEFORE there is any increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, as per Henry's Law, so CO2 cannot affect the earth's surface temperature, if in fact it does, until after the sea has heated."
Unless you can show that human activity initially heated the oceans, all we can do is agree that "I win - You lose". Such is life.
On the side issue you raise regarding submarine volcanoes heating the surface waters. Collecting valuable raw data is a challenge we are yet to master, given that we are looking for fractions of a degree to match the small changes we have measured in atmospheric CO2. Hot water rises in plumes - not horizons, before ponding across the surface. This makes it very difficult for the ARGO buoys to detect because they tend to get pushed out of the way by the rising plumes.
However, I can point to a correlation between shallow volcanic activity along the Mid Atlantic Ridge and Atlantic storm activity. See my report at http://www.bosmin.com/SeismicWeather.pdf
quod erat demonstrandum
Best regards, BobBeatty@bosmin.com
Thank you for this collection of publicly available topical data, but you have not addressed my central comment:-
"The main flaw in your AGW argument is that the sea has to heat BEFORE there is any increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, as per Henry's Law, so CO2 cannot affect the earth's surface temperature, if in fact it does, until after the sea has heated."
Unless you can show that human activity initially heated the oceans, all we can do is agree that "I win - You lose". Such is life.
On the side issue you raise regarding submarine volcanoes heating the surface waters. Collecting valuable raw data is a challenge we are yet to master, given that we are looking for fractions of a degree to match the small changes we have measured in atmospheric CO2. Hot water rises in plumes - not horizons, before ponding across the surface. This makes it very difficult for the ARGO buoys to detect because they tend to get pushed out of the way by the rising plumes.
However, I can point to a correlation between shallow volcanic activity along the Mid Atlantic Ridge and Atlantic storm activity. See my report at http://www.bosmin.com/SeismicWeather.pdf
quod erat demonstrandum
Best regards, BobBeatty@bosmin.com
AnonymousJuly
25, 2014 at 2:16 AM
You are a mining engineer?
How has the industry been doing in the past couple of years?
Anonymous #2
Anonymous #2
There is absolutely no
speaking truth to Mr. Keating's blind ignorance. I showed mathematically that
every single thing that produces man-made pollution, all the cars, SUVs,
trucks, planes, boats, motorcycles, and factories in the world would add up to
a SINGLE pollution pipe that is about 12 sq. miles in size. If you call the
planet down to the size of a 12" desk globe, that 12 sq. mile pipe would
be 10 TIMES smaller than a red blood cell!! He completely dismissed this entire
premise and posted charts of warming over the last 100 years. 100 years over
4,000 years of recorded human history where we have remarkable evidence that
the world had MANY warm periods before all the man-caused Co2. He really is a
joke!
Do you really believe a 12
square mile smokestack emitting pollution 24/7 would not change the
environment? I think we have found the source of your problem. Maybe, instead
of using false logic (yes, it is false), you should look a the real world data and
see how the environment is actually being changed by all of those emissions.
But, of course, that wouldn't fit in with your preconceived conclusions.
There is another way to look
at how you are making a false argument. Let's begin by assuming your math is
correct. This is not a reasonable thing to do because you are the same person
that calculated we have increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere by 13,000% when
the total increase in CO2 levels since pre-industrial days is only about 43%.
But, for the sake of the argument, let's use your number.
The problem with your claim is that you have turned a three-dimensional problem into a two-dimensional one. The issue is not how large is the emitting source, the issue is how much is being emitted.
So, using your 12 square miles for the size of the emitter, that comes out to an emitter with an area of 3.1 x 10^7 square meters. Assuming the gases are leaving this pipe at 2 m/s, that give us emissions of 6.2 x 10^7 cubic meters of gas per second, or about 2 x 10^15 cubic meters per year. I calculated the volume of the atmosphere up to 11 kilometers using an Earth radius of 6,357,100 meters to get a volume of 5.7 x 10^18 m3. This means this pipe or yours is emitting .035% of the planets atmosphere every year. That is a significantly different picture than the one you paint of it being a pin hole on the planet. In comparison, that is close to the entire CO2 composition of the atmosphere and in the last 50 years we have pushed 1.75% of the atmosphere through that pipe. Lock yourself in a room and change .035% of the air in that room to pollution and tell me that it isn't significant.
Your claim is just one more denier false argument designed to fool and deceive.
The problem with your claim is that you have turned a three-dimensional problem into a two-dimensional one. The issue is not how large is the emitting source, the issue is how much is being emitted.
So, using your 12 square miles for the size of the emitter, that comes out to an emitter with an area of 3.1 x 10^7 square meters. Assuming the gases are leaving this pipe at 2 m/s, that give us emissions of 6.2 x 10^7 cubic meters of gas per second, or about 2 x 10^15 cubic meters per year. I calculated the volume of the atmosphere up to 11 kilometers using an Earth radius of 6,357,100 meters to get a volume of 5.7 x 10^18 m3. This means this pipe or yours is emitting .035% of the planets atmosphere every year. That is a significantly different picture than the one you paint of it being a pin hole on the planet. In comparison, that is close to the entire CO2 composition of the atmosphere and in the last 50 years we have pushed 1.75% of the atmosphere through that pipe. Lock yourself in a room and change .035% of the air in that room to pollution and tell me that it isn't significant.
Your claim is just one more denier false argument designed to fool and deceive.
AnonymousJuly
25, 2014 at 5:07 PM
Jason Jones,
" I showed mathematically that every single thing that produces man-made pollution, all the cars, SUVs, trucks, planes, boats, motorcycles, and factories in the world would add up to a SINGLE pollution pipe that is about 12 sq. miles in size."
You just described a 'super-volcano', not unlike the one that we have got under yellow stone national park.
"Lock yourself in a room and change .035% of the air in that room to pollution and tell me that it isn't significant."
Umm... don't do that.
"Your claim is just one more denier false argument designed to fool and deceive."
The techniques to model the transmission and screening effect of the CO2 in the atmosphere theoretically *do* come from some rather difficult quantum mechanics. Not everyone intentionally tries to fool or deceive. A member of the public could simply be confused.
Anonymous #2
" I showed mathematically that every single thing that produces man-made pollution, all the cars, SUVs, trucks, planes, boats, motorcycles, and factories in the world would add up to a SINGLE pollution pipe that is about 12 sq. miles in size."
You just described a 'super-volcano', not unlike the one that we have got under yellow stone national park.
"Lock yourself in a room and change .035% of the air in that room to pollution and tell me that it isn't significant."
Umm... don't do that.
"Your claim is just one more denier false argument designed to fool and deceive."
The techniques to model the transmission and screening effect of the CO2 in the atmosphere theoretically *do* come from some rather difficult quantum mechanics. Not everyone intentionally tries to fool or deceive. A member of the public could simply be confused.
Anonymous #2
Mike Smith, you say: "It
would seem that you are trying to rewrite the challenge."
Well, no, but I'm criticising the basis of the challenge. You might like to answer that criticism. Nobody has published a theory of dangerous anthropogenic global warming. That gives us a problem. I'm sure you agree the hypothesis should be clearly expressed and it should be possible to falsify it. So what is the theory?
"Science deniers / science liars claim that man-made global warming does not exist and they can prove it."
Depends on the period. Since about 1997 it hasn't been warming. That's statistically significant, but it's a short period (< 30 years) and doesn't set a trend. But it's also a fact that the predictions of 4°C to 6°C by 2100 are less likely to eventuate.
btw, your reference to deniers and liars makes you appear discourteous. It doesn't suit you. The discourteous claim that questioners of man-made global warming are mentally ill, should be prosecuted or even put to death.
I say the discourteous are running scared because they know they're wrong.
Well, no, but I'm criticising the basis of the challenge. You might like to answer that criticism. Nobody has published a theory of dangerous anthropogenic global warming. That gives us a problem. I'm sure you agree the hypothesis should be clearly expressed and it should be possible to falsify it. So what is the theory?
"Science deniers / science liars claim that man-made global warming does not exist and they can prove it."
Depends on the period. Since about 1997 it hasn't been warming. That's statistically significant, but it's a short period (< 30 years) and doesn't set a trend. But it's also a fact that the predictions of 4°C to 6°C by 2100 are less likely to eventuate.
btw, your reference to deniers and liars makes you appear discourteous. It doesn't suit you. The discourteous claim that questioners of man-made global warming are mentally ill, should be prosecuted or even put to death.
I say the discourteous are running scared because they know they're wrong.
I have two different ways I
refer to people that don't believe in AGW. Skeptics are people that, for
whatever reason, simply don't believe in it, but they let other people live
their lives. Deniers are people that actively proclaim that global warming
isn't real and people should reject it. I call them deniers because they deny
global warming, they deny science and they deny other people to make their own
decisions.
I know deniers are offended by the term, but I am offended that they reject science and lie to people for the purpose of deceiving them. So, I guess we're even.
This post is an example of what I'm talking about. You continue to claim that there has been no warming since 1997, even though that has been shown, many times, to be a completely false statement. You know it is false, but you keep saying it. Why? That is why I call you a denier. If that offends you, then stop being a denier. How hard is that to figure out?
I know deniers are offended by the term, but I am offended that they reject science and lie to people for the purpose of deceiving them. So, I guess we're even.
This post is an example of what I'm talking about. You continue to claim that there has been no warming since 1997, even though that has been shown, many times, to be a completely false statement. You know it is false, but you keep saying it. Why? That is why I call you a denier. If that offends you, then stop being a denier. How hard is that to figure out?
This is a duplicate of what
I posted earlier.
Of 10,885 Peer-Reviewed Articles on Climate Change in 2013, Only 2 Question Human Involvement
QUOTE:
James L. Powell is an MIT-educated geologist who taught students about the earth for 20 years at Oberlin College and served on the prestigious National Science Board at the request of two Republican presidents (Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush). He’s also a believer in human-made global warming, and has spent considerable time reviewing scientific and academic papers on the subject.
In 2013 alone, Powell found 10,885 peer-reviewed articles that discussed global warming or climate change. But only two described as peer-reviewed denied the widely-held belief that the planet is warming up because of humans, he says, and one of the two turned out not to be peer-reviewed.
One of those papers was produced by a Russian scientist, S. V. Avakyan, who claims global warming is a product of solar activity. Avakyan also says that calls for reducing the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere not only won’t help, but could cripple Russia’s economy and the oil industry. The other paper, published by a German chemistry publication, amounted to a one-page opinion piece that wasn’t peer-reviewed, according to Powell.
In addition to the more than 10,000 articles he found for last year, Powell says he’s reviewed more than another 15,000 papers on climate change. Of the grand total of
25,182 scientific articles he’s read, only 26 rejected the idea that humans are causing global warming.
END QUOTE:
URL: http://www.allgov.com/news/controversies/of-10885-peer-reviewed-articles-on-climate-change-in-2013-only-2-question-human-involvement-140403?news=852832
URL END:
Richard,
To put it bluntly, you are simply calling the thousands of scientists that submitted over 25,000 published, peer reviewed articles liars and frauds. It even goes beyond that. You are calling the scientists that did the peer reviews liars and frauds. You are also calling the reviewer of the reviewers, a scientist that worked for two Republican Presidents, a liar and a fraud.
Just to be clear. You are claiming that 99.9% of the published papers and the scientists that wrote and review them, that support the conclusion that global warming is occurring and that it is man-made are all lies and the scientists are all liars and frauds.
Of 10,885 Peer-Reviewed Articles on Climate Change in 2013, Only 2 Question Human Involvement
QUOTE:
James L. Powell is an MIT-educated geologist who taught students about the earth for 20 years at Oberlin College and served on the prestigious National Science Board at the request of two Republican presidents (Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush). He’s also a believer in human-made global warming, and has spent considerable time reviewing scientific and academic papers on the subject.
In 2013 alone, Powell found 10,885 peer-reviewed articles that discussed global warming or climate change. But only two described as peer-reviewed denied the widely-held belief that the planet is warming up because of humans, he says, and one of the two turned out not to be peer-reviewed.
One of those papers was produced by a Russian scientist, S. V. Avakyan, who claims global warming is a product of solar activity. Avakyan also says that calls for reducing the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere not only won’t help, but could cripple Russia’s economy and the oil industry. The other paper, published by a German chemistry publication, amounted to a one-page opinion piece that wasn’t peer-reviewed, according to Powell.
In addition to the more than 10,000 articles he found for last year, Powell says he’s reviewed more than another 15,000 papers on climate change. Of the grand total of
25,182 scientific articles he’s read, only 26 rejected the idea that humans are causing global warming.
END QUOTE:
URL: http://www.allgov.com/news/controversies/of-10885-peer-reviewed-articles-on-climate-change-in-2013-only-2-question-human-involvement-140403?news=852832
URL END:
Richard,
To put it bluntly, you are simply calling the thousands of scientists that submitted over 25,000 published, peer reviewed articles liars and frauds. It even goes beyond that. You are calling the scientists that did the peer reviews liars and frauds. You are also calling the reviewer of the reviewers, a scientist that worked for two Republican Presidents, a liar and a fraud.
Just to be clear. You are claiming that 99.9% of the published papers and the scientists that wrote and review them, that support the conclusion that global warming is occurring and that it is man-made are all lies and the scientists are all liars and frauds.
This is an amazing piece of
work. Thank you for sharing it.
It was my pleasure. I am
truly humbled by the very thought of the amount of work and dedication it took
to perform this analysis.
Thanks, Mike Smith, this is
probably the most convincing post so far regarding Scientific Agreement in
published peer-reviewed journal articles. Now, I'm a nobody; I'm just the Fool
in the Shakespearean Tragedy of Life. However, I'm going to complicate the
matter a bit.
There are a couple issues with what Powell is asserting. The first glaring issue to me is the assumption that all Journals are equal. They in fact are not. There are tier 1 journals, tier 2, tier 3...etc...I might be completely wrong but if you look at something like Eigenfactor (with which I am not too familiar so I'm not sure how well accepted it is) The Journal of Nature gets an EF of 1.655 as compared to the Review of Geophysics which gets an EF of .0109. The question to ask is are these article being published in something akin to The Journal of Nature or the Review of Geophysics? I don't know. And I'm trying to do the homework but the internet is a hodgepodge of opinions, books and I still cannot find one reference to the name of one Climate Change Journal article. I find tons of opinions but not one reference to the complete listing of a peer reviewed article. I'm not indicating it doesn't exist but apparently it is not made available.
Now, another issue of concern is that Powell indicates that only 26 of these peer-reviewed articles rejected that humans are causing Global Warming. There are a couple of problems with this. One, do they all agree on the degree of Human influence? Is the question of Human influence even the subject of inquiry in their article or is it just a byproduct of the article? I mean Human influence can be relatively benign or it can be relatively catastrophic, it's a matter of degrees. If the direct concern of the article is not whether Human influence is the cause of climate change then what premise does the researcher conclude anything about Human influence?
There are a couple issues with what Powell is asserting. The first glaring issue to me is the assumption that all Journals are equal. They in fact are not. There are tier 1 journals, tier 2, tier 3...etc...I might be completely wrong but if you look at something like Eigenfactor (with which I am not too familiar so I'm not sure how well accepted it is) The Journal of Nature gets an EF of 1.655 as compared to the Review of Geophysics which gets an EF of .0109. The question to ask is are these article being published in something akin to The Journal of Nature or the Review of Geophysics? I don't know. And I'm trying to do the homework but the internet is a hodgepodge of opinions, books and I still cannot find one reference to the name of one Climate Change Journal article. I find tons of opinions but not one reference to the complete listing of a peer reviewed article. I'm not indicating it doesn't exist but apparently it is not made available.
Now, another issue of concern is that Powell indicates that only 26 of these peer-reviewed articles rejected that humans are causing Global Warming. There are a couple of problems with this. One, do they all agree on the degree of Human influence? Is the question of Human influence even the subject of inquiry in their article or is it just a byproduct of the article? I mean Human influence can be relatively benign or it can be relatively catastrophic, it's a matter of degrees. If the direct concern of the article is not whether Human influence is the cause of climate change then what premise does the researcher conclude anything about Human influence?
Just as a funny aside, in my
quest to find Peer Reviewed Articles regard Climate Change, I had the
misfortune of chancing upon Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. I'm
not certain whether to find it funny or disturbing but their most recent,
"peer reviewed," article hinges around how to better communicate to
the public 97% of Scientists agree about the question of climate change. Their
article hinges on whether the number itself, a pie chart, or condescending and
inaccurate metaphors constitute the best way to communicate this number to the
public. There are tons of ironies in this, "peer reviewed," article
the biggest being that in attempting to assert a scientific approach they are
"peer reviewed," in one of the most dubious sources. Also, another
irony is that it reeks of elitism with the sad truth that it is premised on
ignorance i.e. the little people don't get it because they don't understand the
number, but we don't truly understand the number itself but the number is all
that matters. I think I read a while back that Yale's sociology department a
long time ago was premised on how to understand people to effectively
disseminate propaganda...geeze, not much has changed guys...really...
No, people aren't stupid. If you truly want them to be on board make all the peer-reviewed articles public and accessible for them to review themselves. Not a book written by someone whose agenda is to interpret the peer review articles in such a way as to convince people of what they mean. No. Just a database of all the peer-review articles where people can pull them up, read them and come to their own conclusion. Then you can have a real discussion.
I mean I can care less if theoretical physicists want to spend the rest of their life waxing poetic on the possibility of multiple universes it doesn't effect me any. However, if you want people to be on board with something that may impact them economically then give them access to all the information unfiltered. Or, come up with solutions that are not political and economic in nature.
No, people aren't stupid. If you truly want them to be on board make all the peer-reviewed articles public and accessible for them to review themselves. Not a book written by someone whose agenda is to interpret the peer review articles in such a way as to convince people of what they mean. No. Just a database of all the peer-review articles where people can pull them up, read them and come to their own conclusion. Then you can have a real discussion.
I mean I can care less if theoretical physicists want to spend the rest of their life waxing poetic on the possibility of multiple universes it doesn't effect me any. However, if you want people to be on board with something that may impact them economically then give them access to all the information unfiltered. Or, come up with solutions that are not political and economic in nature.
AnonymousJuly
26, 2014 at 12:06 AM
Do you have any idea how
cheap it would be to keep such a database?
Just a server to contain all of the articles produced by all scholars contained in a year?
It would be cheap. Likely less than $1,000,000 a year cheap. Just one grant from the NSF every year would do it. If you want me to support that conclusion with data and real numbers... just ask. I will do it.
This is what you were referring to?
http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/article/how-to-communicate-the-scientific-consensus-on-climate-change/
"the little people don't get it because they don't understand the number, but we don't truly understand the number itself but the number is all that matters."
A 97% consensus is not a useful idea in defining how accurately the current form of science reflects reality. Scientific laws were never determined based on consensus in the first place.
97% consensus is more useful as a political propaganda bandwagon that everyone can jump on in order to change policy.
If you read how the 97% consensus number was derived, it really is a joke.
What was the consensus? That human activities may have an effect on the global climate. What rational thinking person could truly discount this as a possibility?
What rational thinking person would not wonder if the issue might not be more complex than either side of this argument seems willing to admit?
Article by Naomi Oreskes:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full
"That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords “climate change”"
"The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. "
This study was not detailed enough to truly distinguish between the different stances on this issue. There are academics discussing these issues, arguing about the minutiae regarding these issues. But does the public have access to these discussions? Not really.
Yet again we have the enlightened few, the priest caste dictating wisdom to the rest of us. And those who question the authority derived from the consensus... well, they must be anti-science bumpkins, or liars paid off by 'big oil'.
Anonymous #2
Just a server to contain all of the articles produced by all scholars contained in a year?
It would be cheap. Likely less than $1,000,000 a year cheap. Just one grant from the NSF every year would do it. If you want me to support that conclusion with data and real numbers... just ask. I will do it.
This is what you were referring to?
http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/article/how-to-communicate-the-scientific-consensus-on-climate-change/
"the little people don't get it because they don't understand the number, but we don't truly understand the number itself but the number is all that matters."
A 97% consensus is not a useful idea in defining how accurately the current form of science reflects reality. Scientific laws were never determined based on consensus in the first place.
97% consensus is more useful as a political propaganda bandwagon that everyone can jump on in order to change policy.
If you read how the 97% consensus number was derived, it really is a joke.
What was the consensus? That human activities may have an effect on the global climate. What rational thinking person could truly discount this as a possibility?
What rational thinking person would not wonder if the issue might not be more complex than either side of this argument seems willing to admit?
Article by Naomi Oreskes:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full
"That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords “climate change”"
"The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. "
This study was not detailed enough to truly distinguish between the different stances on this issue. There are academics discussing these issues, arguing about the minutiae regarding these issues. But does the public have access to these discussions? Not really.
Yet again we have the enlightened few, the priest caste dictating wisdom to the rest of us. And those who question the authority derived from the consensus... well, they must be anti-science bumpkins, or liars paid off by 'big oil'.
Anonymous #2
Keep in mind that published
scientific papers are copyrighted and most of them belong to the publisher. You
would need to factor that into your cost estimate.
You criticize the 97% consensus as just being political. Well, that was the whole purpose. The deniers have always claimed that we don't have to believe in the scientists because there is no consensus. This was an effort to debunk that claim. So, yes, it was all political.
You criticize the 97% consensus as just being political. Well, that was the whole purpose. The deniers have always claimed that we don't have to believe in the scientists because there is no consensus. This was an effort to debunk that claim. So, yes, it was all political.
AnonymousJuly
26, 2014 at 6:45 PM
"You criticize the 97%
consensus as just being political. Well, that was the whole purpose."
To use an analogy from chess:
I think they managed to put you and your camp into 'check'. To argue the politics is foolish, particularly for your side. Your cause is far stronger when it focuses on the science.
What I think that you must think about the statement is that there is a "97% consensus among scientists that people are changing the climate." and you hope that message gets across.
What happens by the time your message is finished resonating through great echo chamber of reporter spin is the concept of, "97% consensus", on it's own, full stop. This get's converted to propaganda and constantly gets parroted by well meaning idiots who ultimately undermine your point.
And ultimately these arguments are pointless, because...
Peak oil is coming.
And we need a solution.
So, what do you propose as the best solution?
Anonymous #2
To use an analogy from chess:
I think they managed to put you and your camp into 'check'. To argue the politics is foolish, particularly for your side. Your cause is far stronger when it focuses on the science.
What I think that you must think about the statement is that there is a "97% consensus among scientists that people are changing the climate." and you hope that message gets across.
What happens by the time your message is finished resonating through great echo chamber of reporter spin is the concept of, "97% consensus", on it's own, full stop. This get's converted to propaganda and constantly gets parroted by well meaning idiots who ultimately undermine your point.
And ultimately these arguments are pointless, because...
Peak oil is coming.
And we need a solution.
So, what do you propose as the best solution?
Anonymous #2
The professional denier
organizations are definitely better at this game than the scientists are. Add
to that the bullying tactic of deniers to chase off scientists and the deniers
end up with the public forum all to themselves. They have tried to bully and
intimidate me several times, but it really doesn't work well with me.
As for the best solution? To me, the best solution would be for us to stop debating whether AGW is real and to move on as a country to find solutions together. But, there are special interests that are making mountains of money from polluting the atmosphere and they fear they will lose money if we address the problem.
As for the best solution? To me, the best solution would be for us to stop debating whether AGW is real and to move on as a country to find solutions together. But, there are special interests that are making mountains of money from polluting the atmosphere and they fear they will lose money if we address the problem.
AnonymousJuly
27, 2014 at 2:01 AM
"But, there are special
interests that are making mountains of money from polluting the atmosphere and
they fear they will lose money if we address the problem."
If these special interests were smart, they would be leading the charge for developing brand new methods of producing cheap carbon-neutral energy. Sure, some will resist the march of progress, some will badger the scientists, some will put their heads in the sand, but these are the fools.
The oil companies have mountains of money, yes. They have a lot of power. But if they are smart, and if they are thinking with their brains instead of with their Limbic systems, they would realize that after peak oil, they could end up with no more lucrative infrastructure. The ones who develop the technology and hold the patents on the most promising supplies of energy will own the future.
They will either invest in the carbon free future, or they will be decimated by the smarter competition. Then they will be lost to history... and they will not be missed.
Anonymous #2
If these special interests were smart, they would be leading the charge for developing brand new methods of producing cheap carbon-neutral energy. Sure, some will resist the march of progress, some will badger the scientists, some will put their heads in the sand, but these are the fools.
The oil companies have mountains of money, yes. They have a lot of power. But if they are smart, and if they are thinking with their brains instead of with their Limbic systems, they would realize that after peak oil, they could end up with no more lucrative infrastructure. The ones who develop the technology and hold the patents on the most promising supplies of energy will own the future.
They will either invest in the carbon free future, or they will be decimated by the smarter competition. Then they will be lost to history... and they will not be missed.
Anonymous #2
Preaching to the choir.
History supports everything you have said. This isn't the first time there has
been a shift in the way we do business. Those that adapt make tons of money and
those that don't usually end up broke.
Yes yes yes... you will
certainly claim that a SINGLE month of data isn't "climate" but only
"weather" and I'll turn around and claim that 100 years of data can't
definitively prove man-made global warming is happening WHEN THE SIMPLE FACT IS
THAT WE ARE PUTTING MORE CO2 INTO THE ATMOSPHERE THAN ANY TIME IN OUR HISTORY
AND WE HAVE THE 7TH COLDEST MONTH ON RECORD IN JULY... JULY!?!?!?!?! If
man-caused global warming were taking place, Mr. Keating, as a direct result of
all the man-made CO2, then we shouldn't be experiencing ANY record cold
temperatures, sir!!! If all that CO2 were trapping greenhouse gases to the
level of "boiling our oceans away" as National Geographic put it a
few years ago, then explain the recent and unprecidented COOLING!!!! Can
someone say, CYCLICAL... Man-made global warming! What a joke you and your kind
are and the next several years will prove it!
http://www.13abc.com/story/26058193/july-2014-is-the-7th-coldest-on-record-so-far
And the fact that the NOAA's
OWN report only shows that he combined average temperature over global land and
ocean surfaces for June 2014 was the highest on record for the month, at 0.72°C
(1.30°F) above the 20th century average of 15.5°C (59.9°F) is absolutely
laughable, sir! 1.3 degrees F when the AVERAGE is just 59.9 degrees??? 59.9
DEGREES? Can I just say it again... the 100 year average is 59.9 degrees!!!!
Once more so you can really get the point here: FIFTY NINE POINT NINE DEGREES
IS OUR 20TH CENTURY AVERAGE!!!! Holy Mary mother of God almighty the Earth's
oceans really ARE going to boil away!!!
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/
All twelve of the hottest
months ever recorded have occurred since 1997. All twelve of the coldest months
ever recorded occurred before 1917. That should be enough for you, but I know
it won't because your very statement proves how you have rejected science. July
is not a cold month for the globe, it is merely below average in the U.S., which makes up less than 2% of the global
surface area (and, we are ignoring the record heat on the West Coast and Alaska). Also, you are
making claims about a month that isn't even over, yet. Why do deniers keep
pulling out data for one location and keep claiming it represents the whole
world? It is not valid to pull out one datum point and then ignore the mountain
of data that doesn't agree with you.
Interesting that you
reference the NOAA page, which states that June was the hottest June ever
recorded. How does that support you claim?
As for the temperature average, this again proves how deniers have rejected the science in favor of their preconceived conclusions. You rant (and, yes, that was a rant) about 1.3 degrees F difference over the 20th century average as if it isn't important. For reference, the 20th century average is about 11 degrees F above the average of the coldest part of the last ice age and that was enough to melt ice sheets that were miles thick. So, in just a few decades we warmed up the planet about 1/10 as much as was done in 20,000 years. Daily temperature change is much different than global average.
As for the temperature average, this again proves how deniers have rejected the science in favor of their preconceived conclusions. You rant (and, yes, that was a rant) about 1.3 degrees F difference over the 20th century average as if it isn't important. For reference, the 20th century average is about 11 degrees F above the average of the coldest part of the last ice age and that was enough to melt ice sheets that were miles thick. So, in just a few decades we warmed up the planet about 1/10 as much as was done in 20,000 years. Daily temperature change is much different than global average.
Mr. Keating, of course I'm
ranting, so are you! You steep your replies in irrelevance. This whole thread
isn't about the ACTUAL TEMPERATURES at all! I mean, seriously, the total global
average temperature is what? 66 degrees? So even if we have a 5 degree swing,
which is like 10 times what the actual increase is, then we would have an
average global temperature of 71. ooooo... 71 degrees! DEAR GOD THE OCEANS WILL
BOIL! And for you to cite the coldest month and the hottest month over 20 years
as some revelation that an 11 degree swing somehow proves YOUR point... it
doesn't because THIS ENTIRE THREAT IS ABOUT MAN BEING THE CAUSE! So the earth
is warming a bit over the last 100 years! Has it been warmer in the past? yes
or no? Was man the cause of the more warm temperatures beyond 100 years ago?
yes or no? So while you make many of us look foolish for point to short term
data (weather) when you are talking about long term (climate) is disingenuous
because 100 years of data doesn't prove ANYTHING when we have 4,000 years of
recorded human history where SCIENCE has proven there were MANY periods that
were WARMER than it is today!
You need to do some more
homework. The average temperature is much different than the daily temperature.
To put it in perspective, the difference in the average temperature for the
depth of the last ice age and today is about 6 degrees C. That occurred over
20,000 years. We have raised it by 1 degree C in the last 30.
Citing the past climatic cycles is a false argument because you cannot show the causes of those past cycles are relevant to today's warming trend. In fact, the naturally occurring cycles present today would result in a cooling period, not a warming one. So, you can't blame natural cycles. And, we have 800,000 years of data (thanks to climate scientists) that shows these natural cycles and helps us to understand them better.
Citing the past climatic cycles is a false argument because you cannot show the causes of those past cycles are relevant to today's warming trend. In fact, the naturally occurring cycles present today would result in a cooling period, not a warming one. So, you can't blame natural cycles. And, we have 800,000 years of data (thanks to climate scientists) that shows these natural cycles and helps us to understand them better.
AnonymousJuly
25, 2014 at 10:02 AM
Here's the link to my theory:
http://phys.org/news/2014-07-synchronization-north-atlantic-pacific-abrupt.html#firstCmt
Alias is Scroofinator.
I hypothesize it is a combination of the Sun's polar magnetic fields and the alignment of the planets, the latter of which is the only thing that could reproduce such repetitive cycles of temperature over the last 400k+ years.
http://phys.org/news/2014-07-synchronization-north-atlantic-pacific-abrupt.html#firstCmt
Alias is Scroofinator.
I hypothesize it is a combination of the Sun's polar magnetic fields and the alignment of the planets, the latter of which is the only thing that could reproduce such repetitive cycles of temperature over the last 400k+ years.
I have your submission. It is
called "$30,000 Challenge Submission - Solar System Activity" and I
will respond as quickly as I can. You can follow my progress here:
http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/p/challlenge-submissions.html
http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/p/challlenge-submissions.html
I will award, to Christopher
Keating, 30,000 dollars of my own money, if he can prove via the scientific
method, that humming bird caused global climate change is not occurring. The
deadline for submission of proof is July 31, 2014.
To: Tilo Reber
I could do that, but you are just trying to hijack my blog and the post. Your challenge is very childish and doesn't prove any point. Not only could I prove that, but I am not going around making statements, contrary to science, that hummingbirds are responsible for climate change and that I can prove it. If deniers don't like the challenge, then either stop saying you can prove man made global warming is not real, or prove that you really can prove it, as you claim. It is just that simple.
I could do that, but you are just trying to hijack my blog and the post. Your challenge is very childish and doesn't prove any point. Not only could I prove that, but I am not going around making statements, contrary to science, that hummingbirds are responsible for climate change and that I can prove it. If deniers don't like the challenge, then either stop saying you can prove man made global warming is not real, or prove that you really can prove it, as you claim. It is just that simple.
Unlike you, skeptics are
smart enough to know that anything, including hummingbirds, effect the climate.
The effect may be so small that it cannot be easily meausured, but there must
be an effect. The wording of your bet is a show of your cowardice because such
a negative with no specific magnitude specified is impossible to prove. And
since my bet is stated exactly like yours, you are simply blowing hot air,
since you could never prove that hummingbirds have no effect on climate.
The real issue, which you did not include as the limiting factor of your bet is what everyone is talking about when they talk about AGW. In other words, is man producing a dangerous amount of CO2 based warming. Attacking straw man "denialists" based on the straw man argument that there is no change at all is simply you grandstanding for you sycophants.
If climate sensitivity is 1C per CO2 doubling or less, and given that the effect is logarithmic, then there is no reason for concern about man made climate change. Because that would mean that it takes 280 extra ppm for the first 1C, 560 ppm for the second 1C, 1120 for the third 1C, 2240 for the fourth 1C, etc.
At this point in time it has not even been proven that feedback is positive. And unless there is significant positive feedback, there is no climate danger.
Your bet is as childish and meaningless as your ideas about climate alarmism.
The real issue, which you did not include as the limiting factor of your bet is what everyone is talking about when they talk about AGW. In other words, is man producing a dangerous amount of CO2 based warming. Attacking straw man "denialists" based on the straw man argument that there is no change at all is simply you grandstanding for you sycophants.
If climate sensitivity is 1C per CO2 doubling or less, and given that the effect is logarithmic, then there is no reason for concern about man made climate change. Because that would mean that it takes 280 extra ppm for the first 1C, 560 ppm for the second 1C, 1120 for the third 1C, 2240 for the fourth 1C, etc.
At this point in time it has not even been proven that feedback is positive. And unless there is significant positive feedback, there is no climate danger.
Your bet is as childish and meaningless as your ideas about climate alarmism.
AnonymousJuly
26, 2014 at 7:21 PM
Tilo,
The concern comes from the fact that CO2 *is* pretty long lived in the atmosphere.
Check this out:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jan/16/greenhouse-gases-remain-air
It can last for 20-200 years before being absorbed by the ocean. Which means there is a good chance that the carbon dioxide that we produce could stay in the atmosphere for as long as 200 years. That is about how long our industrial civilization has 'existed'. And our tendency to burn oil dumps fantastic quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere, make no mistake about that.
"At this point in time it has not even been proven that feedback is positive. And unless there is significant positive feedback, there is no climate danger."
Check this out, these kids actually don't do a bad job of describing feedback loops:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tVxloCKJN0
So here is an example of a positive feedback loop (that honestly has me a little bit spooked):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLCgybStZ4g
So, here is the process:
1. Driving our cars and burning coal produces lots of CO2 in the Atmosphere.
2. The CO2, methane, and other greenhouse gasses trap infrared radiation between the atmospheric layers and the ground. With more of the infrared trapped between atmospheric layers and the ground, the probability of that infrared radiation being absorbed by the ocean, or the ground increases. When the infrared radiation is absorbed by the ocean or the ground, the temperature of ocean or the ground goes up.
3. If the temperature of the permafrost goes up, the permafrost releases *much* more CO2 and Methane into the atmosphere.
4. The extra methane and CO2 trap more infrared radiation between the ground and the atmosphere.
Actually, this is kind of cool:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YegdEOSQotE
Combustion of Methane:
CH4 + O2 ---> CO2 + 2H2O
That shows you this particular feedback *is* positive.
Anonymous #2
The concern comes from the fact that CO2 *is* pretty long lived in the atmosphere.
Check this out:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jan/16/greenhouse-gases-remain-air
It can last for 20-200 years before being absorbed by the ocean. Which means there is a good chance that the carbon dioxide that we produce could stay in the atmosphere for as long as 200 years. That is about how long our industrial civilization has 'existed'. And our tendency to burn oil dumps fantastic quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere, make no mistake about that.
"At this point in time it has not even been proven that feedback is positive. And unless there is significant positive feedback, there is no climate danger."
Check this out, these kids actually don't do a bad job of describing feedback loops:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tVxloCKJN0
So here is an example of a positive feedback loop (that honestly has me a little bit spooked):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLCgybStZ4g
So, here is the process:
1. Driving our cars and burning coal produces lots of CO2 in the Atmosphere.
2. The CO2, methane, and other greenhouse gasses trap infrared radiation between the atmospheric layers and the ground. With more of the infrared trapped between atmospheric layers and the ground, the probability of that infrared radiation being absorbed by the ocean, or the ground increases. When the infrared radiation is absorbed by the ocean or the ground, the temperature of ocean or the ground goes up.
3. If the temperature of the permafrost goes up, the permafrost releases *much* more CO2 and Methane into the atmosphere.
4. The extra methane and CO2 trap more infrared radiation between the ground and the atmosphere.
Actually, this is kind of cool:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YegdEOSQotE
Combustion of Methane:
CH4 + O2 ---> CO2 + 2H2O
That shows you this particular feedback *is* positive.
Anonymous #2
AnonymousJuly
26, 2014 at 7:25 PM
Combustion of Methane:
CH4 + 2O2 ---> CO2 + 2H2O
Err... leave it to me to not balance my equation correctly. Sorry about that.
Anonymous #2
CH4 + 2O2 ---> CO2 + 2H2O
Err... leave it to me to not balance my equation correctly. Sorry about that.
Anonymous #2
AnonymousJuly
26, 2014 at 7:26 PM
Combustion of Methane:
CH4 + 2O2 ---> CO2 + 2H2O
Leave it to me to not balance my equation correctly. Sorry about that.
Anonymous #2
CH4 + 2O2 ---> CO2 + 2H2O
Leave it to me to not balance my equation correctly. Sorry about that.
Anonymous #2
Burning methane may create
CO2, but methane is also 21 times as efficient as a greenhouse gas as CO2. So,
burning it still reduces the amount of greenhouse CO2 equivalent in the air.
To Tilo Reber:
I am not the least bit convinced you would ever pay $30,000, or that you even have $30,000 to award. But, I have accepted your submission and will respond as quickly as I can. Your submission is "$30,000 Challenge Submission - Hummingbirds" and you can follow my progress here:
http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/p/challlenge-submissions.html
I am not the least bit convinced you would ever pay $30,000, or that you even have $30,000 to award. But, I have accepted your submission and will respond as quickly as I can. Your submission is "$30,000 Challenge Submission - Hummingbirds" and you can follow my progress here:
http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/p/challlenge-submissions.html
AnonymousJuly
27, 2014 at 1:12 AM
"Burning methane may
create CO2, but methane is also 21 times as efficient as a greenhouse gas as
CO2. So, burning it still reduces the amount of greenhouse CO2 equivalent in
the air."
True. I wasn't criticizing what Dr. Megan Otts was doing. I was merely pointing out that CH4 is combustible so her demonstration should have left no doubt as to what would happen if that ice were to melt. A contribution to a positive feedback loop that would almost certainly lead to much higher global temperatures.
Anonymous #2
True. I wasn't criticizing what Dr. Megan Otts was doing. I was merely pointing out that CH4 is combustible so her demonstration should have left no doubt as to what would happen if that ice were to melt. A contribution to a positive feedback loop that would almost certainly lead to much higher global temperatures.
Anonymous #2
By the way, I submitted my
proof that hummingbirds are not causing global warming. So, where's my money?
Or, I bet the more accurate question is: How are you going to go about reneging
on your promise?
http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2014/07/30000-challenge-submission-hummingbirds.html
http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2014/07/30000-challenge-submission-hummingbirds.html
Mr. Keating,
as you get closer to formulating a response to my challenge submission “Ice Core Issues”, I would like to clarify just what I am submitting and add a little more data as evidence. My submission is not simply an ice core issue, but a new theory as to what is happening in our climate.
I am not calling for the ice core records to be thrown out as evidence, I believe they have useful data that simply has not been interpreted correctly. In short, they are not continuous records, but the fragmented sections of a larger ice age/glacial cycle lasting over 300,000 years. That being the case, we would expect sea levels to reach a highstand near the top of this cycle 80-90k years ago. That is exactly what sea level data shows.(link provided in a previous post)
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5967/860.abstract
We would also expect to see another sea level highstand at the top of this cycle 400k years ago. Again, that is exactly what sea level data shows, at +21 meters above the present level. (also a contradiction to the ice core if read as continuous records.)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379108003144
If you look at further data for sea level highstands, you will find they also occur every 300k+ years, as expected. Marine Isotope Stages(MIS) 17-19 at 700kya-776kya, and MIS 31 at 1,072kya.
The comparison of past sea level data as continuous record, and the ice core data as non-continuous records together reveal the true cycle of past climate being over 300,000 years with a temperature swing of +9 degrees C to -9 degrees C.
Also, if we extrapolate CO2 content from the ice core records, which show concentrations at close to 200ppm at the bottom of the cycle, and concentrations close to 300ppm at the “Interglacials” which we now know to be closer to the middle of the cycle, we could guess that CO2 levels at the top of that cycle would have been closer to today’s 400ppm.
So the statement that “the earth has not seen CO2 levels this high in 800,000 years” cannot be backed up with evidence. It is more likely the earth has seen CO2 levels close to today’s level 8 times in the last 2.5 million years, and each of those times despite the increased level, it did not stop the earth from going back into a glacial stage right on schedule. Thus CO2 is not driving the climate and the theory of man-made global warming is proven false.
I would also like to add, the closest fit shows the larger glacial/iceage cycle to be about 327,000 years. This is interesting because the diameter of the galaxy has been calculated to be 104,000 light years across. Multipliying by Pi puts the circumference of our galaxy at 327,000 light years. Perhaps a better name for my submission would be “The Galactic Climate Cycle”, since our climate is governed both by Milankovitch insolation factors, and what I believe to be an overriding galactic cycle.
as you get closer to formulating a response to my challenge submission “Ice Core Issues”, I would like to clarify just what I am submitting and add a little more data as evidence. My submission is not simply an ice core issue, but a new theory as to what is happening in our climate.
I am not calling for the ice core records to be thrown out as evidence, I believe they have useful data that simply has not been interpreted correctly. In short, they are not continuous records, but the fragmented sections of a larger ice age/glacial cycle lasting over 300,000 years. That being the case, we would expect sea levels to reach a highstand near the top of this cycle 80-90k years ago. That is exactly what sea level data shows.(link provided in a previous post)
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5967/860.abstract
We would also expect to see another sea level highstand at the top of this cycle 400k years ago. Again, that is exactly what sea level data shows, at +21 meters above the present level. (also a contradiction to the ice core if read as continuous records.)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379108003144
If you look at further data for sea level highstands, you will find they also occur every 300k+ years, as expected. Marine Isotope Stages(MIS) 17-19 at 700kya-776kya, and MIS 31 at 1,072kya.
The comparison of past sea level data as continuous record, and the ice core data as non-continuous records together reveal the true cycle of past climate being over 300,000 years with a temperature swing of +9 degrees C to -9 degrees C.
Also, if we extrapolate CO2 content from the ice core records, which show concentrations at close to 200ppm at the bottom of the cycle, and concentrations close to 300ppm at the “Interglacials” which we now know to be closer to the middle of the cycle, we could guess that CO2 levels at the top of that cycle would have been closer to today’s 400ppm.
So the statement that “the earth has not seen CO2 levels this high in 800,000 years” cannot be backed up with evidence. It is more likely the earth has seen CO2 levels close to today’s level 8 times in the last 2.5 million years, and each of those times despite the increased level, it did not stop the earth from going back into a glacial stage right on schedule. Thus CO2 is not driving the climate and the theory of man-made global warming is proven false.
I would also like to add, the closest fit shows the larger glacial/iceage cycle to be about 327,000 years. This is interesting because the diameter of the galaxy has been calculated to be 104,000 light years across. Multipliying by Pi puts the circumference of our galaxy at 327,000 light years. Perhaps a better name for my submission would be “The Galactic Climate Cycle”, since our climate is governed both by Milankovitch insolation factors, and what I believe to be an overriding galactic cycle.
AnonymousJuly
26, 2014 at 12:35 AM
Iceman,
"Multipliying by Pi puts the circumference of our galaxy at 327,000 light years. Perhaps a better name for my submission would be “The Galactic Climate Cycle”, since our climate is governed both by Milankovitch insolation factors, and what I believe to be an overriding galactic cycle."
You are bringing the galaxy into this discussion about climate!?
I suppose no one can accuse you of not thinking outside of the box. Way... way outside of the box. The idea *is* interesting, though, isn't it? What if galactic cycles could effect our climate? Whether your idea and description of it turns out to be right or not. You should be credited for creativity.
That is an interesting idea.
By the way, you might find this interesting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpDDqGqN16s
Dr. Svensmark's idea was *not* well received by the climate community.
Here is Dr. Keating's 2 cents on Dr. Svensmark's idea:
http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2014/07/30000-challenge-submission-cloud.html
The scientific community can be truly nasty if they think your idea is too far out there. Just ask Boltzmann.
Don't be discouraged.
Anonymous #2
"Multipliying by Pi puts the circumference of our galaxy at 327,000 light years. Perhaps a better name for my submission would be “The Galactic Climate Cycle”, since our climate is governed both by Milankovitch insolation factors, and what I believe to be an overriding galactic cycle."
You are bringing the galaxy into this discussion about climate!?
I suppose no one can accuse you of not thinking outside of the box. Way... way outside of the box. The idea *is* interesting, though, isn't it? What if galactic cycles could effect our climate? Whether your idea and description of it turns out to be right or not. You should be credited for creativity.
That is an interesting idea.
By the way, you might find this interesting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpDDqGqN16s
Dr. Svensmark's idea was *not* well received by the climate community.
Here is Dr. Keating's 2 cents on Dr. Svensmark's idea:
http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2014/07/30000-challenge-submission-cloud.html
The scientific community can be truly nasty if they think your idea is too far out there. Just ask Boltzmann.
Don't be discouraged.
Anonymous #2
I have added your additional
comments to your submission.
Before you cite Botzmann as
a source of inspiration for the downtrodden, you need to make sure you get the
story straight. Boltzmann was criticized in some circle for his work, but he
was actually widely acclaimed and received many awards and accolades. Yes, it
is true he committed suicide, but he suffered from chronic bipolar depression.
There has never been any evidence to like his suicide to any criticism of his
work.
AnonymousJuly
26, 2014 at 8:11 PM
"Boltzmann was
criticized in some circle for his work,"
"There has never been any evidence to like his suicide to any criticism of his work."
Oh come on! You cannot seriously deny the possibility.
http://www.physics.umd.edu/~einstein/HONR228K/MachBoltzmann.pdf
Observe pdf page 3.
"Concerning kinetic theory, it may be well to keep in mind that there is a difference between atomists who objected to one or more technical aspects of Boltzmann's work (such as virtually all the contributors to the kinetic discussion in the British Isles) but who in general favoured the kinetic theory and anti-atomists who opposed the kinetic theory and anti-atomists who opposed the kinetic theory in principle (such as Mach, Ostwald, and their followers). Also, it might be helpful to remember that especially on the Continent physicists with a strong knowledge of mathematics were still rare birds. (Even the extensive interest in kinetic theory in England and Ireland, which presumably had been stimulated by Maxwell, was led primarily by mathematicians with an interest in physics rather than by professional physicists, though Lord Kelvin would be an exception.) Most Continental physicists (such as Mach) were experimentalists who did not feel competent to handle complex mathematics. They could carefully follow neither the technical arguments of Boltzmann nor his critics. To justify this weakness it was natural to appeal both to a form of thermodynamic reductionism and to positivist arguments that the purpose of science was merely to discover relations between physical appearances and to remind each other that atoms and molecules were still unobservable"
Fact: He had critics. (Anti-atomists)
Fact: Critics can be uncivil.
Fact: He was bipolar.
Fact: He committed suicide.
Nature can be a tricky bitch. You never know when some idea way the heck out in left field may turn out to have merit.
Ergo... be civil with people. Try to be nice to them. Even when someone's idea has even the remotest possibility of competing with your pet ideas. Even when you think that they have a high probability of being wrong.
Anonymous #2
"There has never been any evidence to like his suicide to any criticism of his work."
Oh come on! You cannot seriously deny the possibility.
http://www.physics.umd.edu/~einstein/HONR228K/MachBoltzmann.pdf
Observe pdf page 3.
"Concerning kinetic theory, it may be well to keep in mind that there is a difference between atomists who objected to one or more technical aspects of Boltzmann's work (such as virtually all the contributors to the kinetic discussion in the British Isles) but who in general favoured the kinetic theory and anti-atomists who opposed the kinetic theory and anti-atomists who opposed the kinetic theory in principle (such as Mach, Ostwald, and their followers). Also, it might be helpful to remember that especially on the Continent physicists with a strong knowledge of mathematics were still rare birds. (Even the extensive interest in kinetic theory in England and Ireland, which presumably had been stimulated by Maxwell, was led primarily by mathematicians with an interest in physics rather than by professional physicists, though Lord Kelvin would be an exception.) Most Continental physicists (such as Mach) were experimentalists who did not feel competent to handle complex mathematics. They could carefully follow neither the technical arguments of Boltzmann nor his critics. To justify this weakness it was natural to appeal both to a form of thermodynamic reductionism and to positivist arguments that the purpose of science was merely to discover relations between physical appearances and to remind each other that atoms and molecules were still unobservable"
Fact: He had critics. (Anti-atomists)
Fact: Critics can be uncivil.
Fact: He was bipolar.
Fact: He committed suicide.
Nature can be a tricky bitch. You never know when some idea way the heck out in left field may turn out to have merit.
Ergo... be civil with people. Try to be nice to them. Even when someone's idea has even the remotest possibility of competing with your pet ideas. Even when you think that they have a high probability of being wrong.
Anonymous #2
You said it yourself - he was bipolar. The fact is,
while some criticized him, he also received great praise at the same time. This
is from Wikipedia. Note that he had attempted suicide before his final
successful attempt:
In 1885 he became a member of the Imperial Austrian Academy of Sciences and in 1887 he became the President of the University of Graz. He was elected a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in 1888.
Boltzmann was appointed to the Chair of Theoretical Physics at the University of Munich in Bavaria, Germany in 1890. In 1893, Boltzmann succeeded his teacher Joseph Stefan as Professor of Theoretical Physics at the University of Vienna.
Final years
Boltzmann spent a great deal of effort in his final years defending his theories. He did not get along with some of his colleagues in Vienna, particularly Ernst Mach, who became a professor of philosophy and history of sciences in 1895. That same year Georg Helm and Wilhelm Ostwald presented their position on Energetics, at a meeting in Lübeck in 1895. They saw energy, and not matter, as the chief component of the universe. Boltzmann's position carried the day among other physicists who supported his atomic theories in the debate.[4] In 1900, Boltzmann went to the University of Leipzig, on the invitation of Wilhelm Ostwald.[5] After the retirement of Mach due to bad health, Boltzmann came back to Vienna in 1902.[6] In 1903 he founded the Austrian Mathematical Society together with Gustav von Escherich and Emil Müller. His students included Karl Przibram, Paul Ehrenfest and Lise Meitner.
In Vienna, Boltzmann taught physics and also lectured on philosophy. Boltzmann's lectures on natural philosophy were very popular, and received a considerable attention at that time. His first lecture was an enormous success. Even though the largest lecture hall had been chosen for it, the people stood all the way down the staircase. Because of the great successes of Boltzmann's philosophical lectures, the Emperor invited him for a reception at the Palace.
Boltzmann was subject to rapid alternation of depressed moods with elevated, expansive or irritable moods, likely the symptoms of undiagnosed bipolar disorder. He himself jestingly attributed his rapid swings in temperament to the fact that he was born during the night between Shrove Tuesday and Ash Wednesday.[7] Meitner relates that those who were close to Boltzmann were aware of his bouts of severe depression and his suicide attempts.
On September 5, 1906, while on a summer vacation in Duino, near Trieste, Boltzmann hanged himself during an attack of depression.
In 1885 he became a member of the Imperial Austrian Academy of Sciences and in 1887 he became the President of the University of Graz. He was elected a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in 1888.
Boltzmann was appointed to the Chair of Theoretical Physics at the University of Munich in Bavaria, Germany in 1890. In 1893, Boltzmann succeeded his teacher Joseph Stefan as Professor of Theoretical Physics at the University of Vienna.
Final years
Boltzmann spent a great deal of effort in his final years defending his theories. He did not get along with some of his colleagues in Vienna, particularly Ernst Mach, who became a professor of philosophy and history of sciences in 1895. That same year Georg Helm and Wilhelm Ostwald presented their position on Energetics, at a meeting in Lübeck in 1895. They saw energy, and not matter, as the chief component of the universe. Boltzmann's position carried the day among other physicists who supported his atomic theories in the debate.[4] In 1900, Boltzmann went to the University of Leipzig, on the invitation of Wilhelm Ostwald.[5] After the retirement of Mach due to bad health, Boltzmann came back to Vienna in 1902.[6] In 1903 he founded the Austrian Mathematical Society together with Gustav von Escherich and Emil Müller. His students included Karl Przibram, Paul Ehrenfest and Lise Meitner.
In Vienna, Boltzmann taught physics and also lectured on philosophy. Boltzmann's lectures on natural philosophy were very popular, and received a considerable attention at that time. His first lecture was an enormous success. Even though the largest lecture hall had been chosen for it, the people stood all the way down the staircase. Because of the great successes of Boltzmann's philosophical lectures, the Emperor invited him for a reception at the Palace.
Boltzmann was subject to rapid alternation of depressed moods with elevated, expansive or irritable moods, likely the symptoms of undiagnosed bipolar disorder. He himself jestingly attributed his rapid swings in temperament to the fact that he was born during the night between Shrove Tuesday and Ash Wednesday.[7] Meitner relates that those who were close to Boltzmann were aware of his bouts of severe depression and his suicide attempts.
On September 5, 1906, while on a summer vacation in Duino, near Trieste, Boltzmann hanged himself during an attack of depression.
AnonymousJuly
27, 2014 at 3:35 AM
I love history.
Using the same resource...
http://www.physics.umd.edu/~einstein/HONR228K/MachBoltzmann.pdf
pdf page 4:
"There can be little question that more physicists at least in Central Europe were familiar with Mach's anti-atomistic books such as Erhaltung der Arbeit [1872], Die Mechanik [1883], and Principien der Warmelehre [1896] than with technical objections to Boltzmann's kinetic theory published abroad in English. As already mentioned, semi-philosophical objections, which still interest many people including Sir Karl Popper [1974], such as those of Loschmidt on reversibility of motion [1876] and Zermelo in his extension of Nietzsche's 'eternal recurrence' speculation [1896] were widely known. It was Boltzmann's answers which were not sufficiently circulated or comprehended (and even today his notorious 'H-theorem' can seem mindboggling).
Mach's anti-atomism and opposition to a mechanical 'explanation' of thermodynamics, however, preceded both the arguments of Boltzmann and those of his critics and at least on the Continent helped to dispose physicists and many chemists against Boltzmann's work before they had even read it. Mach stopped using the atomic theory in his work in 1863 and attacked it in 1872. Boltzmann began publishing the late 1860s, replied to Loschmidt's objections in the middle 1870s, became well-known for his ideas in the 1880s, and was strongly criticised on mathematical, physical, and philosophical grounds in the 1890s."
Boltzmann hung himself in 1906. Now that being said; criticising other people's ideas in academic circles has been a long time honored tradition that has carried on to this day.
The funny thing is, even the unassuming, random members of the public find that they are not exempt from this hallowed tradition from the practitioners of the ivory tower. Under the illusion that they suggest the most innocent of ideas, the unfortunate member of the public may find themselves subjected to an earful of ire; undiluted by such trivial matters as civility, common courtesy, or alas, not even mundane garden variety kindness.
See, here is someone complaining about this very tradition only 3 years ago...
----> http://leavingacademia.blogspot.com/2011/07/reason-im-leaving-8-endless-criticism.html
Was Boltzmann exempt from this time honored tradition? No, of course not. And, given that he was bipolar, one might *even* be given to suspect, under the wildest possible speculation, that he was not immune to this tradition either. Alas, I think we all can agree that Boltzmann turned out to be mortal.
Yes, Boltzmann had many awards and accolades. But at the end of the day they were not enough.
Your point that Boltzmann had many awards and accolades can be interpreted to either belittle Tilo's idea; or perhaps, it was an attempt to demonstrate that Boltzmann's death was never linked to organizational deficiencies in keeping it's member's psychologically healthy. If you are trying to imply that Academia is a psychologically healthy place...
I can offer some possible evidence to the contrary:
http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2014/mar/06/mental-health-academics-growing-problem-pressure-university
http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2014/mar/01/mental-health-issue-phd-research-university
My ultimate point was:
Be nice to people.
Anonymous #2
Using the same resource...
http://www.physics.umd.edu/~einstein/HONR228K/MachBoltzmann.pdf
pdf page 4:
"There can be little question that more physicists at least in Central Europe were familiar with Mach's anti-atomistic books such as Erhaltung der Arbeit [1872], Die Mechanik [1883], and Principien der Warmelehre [1896] than with technical objections to Boltzmann's kinetic theory published abroad in English. As already mentioned, semi-philosophical objections, which still interest many people including Sir Karl Popper [1974], such as those of Loschmidt on reversibility of motion [1876] and Zermelo in his extension of Nietzsche's 'eternal recurrence' speculation [1896] were widely known. It was Boltzmann's answers which were not sufficiently circulated or comprehended (and even today his notorious 'H-theorem' can seem mindboggling).
Mach's anti-atomism and opposition to a mechanical 'explanation' of thermodynamics, however, preceded both the arguments of Boltzmann and those of his critics and at least on the Continent helped to dispose physicists and many chemists against Boltzmann's work before they had even read it. Mach stopped using the atomic theory in his work in 1863 and attacked it in 1872. Boltzmann began publishing the late 1860s, replied to Loschmidt's objections in the middle 1870s, became well-known for his ideas in the 1880s, and was strongly criticised on mathematical, physical, and philosophical grounds in the 1890s."
Boltzmann hung himself in 1906. Now that being said; criticising other people's ideas in academic circles has been a long time honored tradition that has carried on to this day.
The funny thing is, even the unassuming, random members of the public find that they are not exempt from this hallowed tradition from the practitioners of the ivory tower. Under the illusion that they suggest the most innocent of ideas, the unfortunate member of the public may find themselves subjected to an earful of ire; undiluted by such trivial matters as civility, common courtesy, or alas, not even mundane garden variety kindness.
See, here is someone complaining about this very tradition only 3 years ago...
----> http://leavingacademia.blogspot.com/2011/07/reason-im-leaving-8-endless-criticism.html
Was Boltzmann exempt from this time honored tradition? No, of course not. And, given that he was bipolar, one might *even* be given to suspect, under the wildest possible speculation, that he was not immune to this tradition either. Alas, I think we all can agree that Boltzmann turned out to be mortal.
Yes, Boltzmann had many awards and accolades. But at the end of the day they were not enough.
Your point that Boltzmann had many awards and accolades can be interpreted to either belittle Tilo's idea; or perhaps, it was an attempt to demonstrate that Boltzmann's death was never linked to organizational deficiencies in keeping it's member's psychologically healthy. If you are trying to imply that Academia is a psychologically healthy place...
I can offer some possible evidence to the contrary:
http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2014/mar/06/mental-health-academics-growing-problem-pressure-university
http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2014/mar/01/mental-health-issue-phd-research-university
My ultimate point was:
Be nice to people.
Anonymous #2
AnonymousJuly
27, 2014 at 4:20 AM
Now that I have made that
statement I feel compelled to mention...
This culture of criticizing other people's ideas in academia can be harsh. The concept behind it is a kind of 'idea-darwinism' where, in theory, only the 'fittest' ideas survive.
The 'fittest' ideas are the ones that hold up even after they have been compared to the evidence and have been subjected to criticism. One might be able to say that within academia, you are obligated to attack the weaker ideas so that the stronger can have their turn at the intellectual gauntlet.
Without careful scrutiny, sometimes it is hard to tell which is which.
I saw Tilo's idea as being creative and actually quite clever. That does not mean that it is right. That does not mean that it is wrong. Here is what I am supposed to do with it...
I am supposed to be skeptical of it. If I wanted to take the time I would need to compare his idea with the data. If the idea appears to fit the data, then there should be a set of predictions that we can make from it. This would require building a mathematical model out of it. After building the model; we would compare it with the data directly again. Rinse, repeat.
Most people who come up with an idea or a theory end up being rather attached to it. After developing the theory it is your job and the job of the academic community to try and render the theory obsolete, if at all possible. If all attempts fail; the theory might be pretty good. If a century goes by and all attempts still fail; the theory might be pretty damn good.
Unfortunately this process can be psychologically stressful to the originator of the theory. You are supposed to learn to steel yourself, and not grow too emotionally attached to your ideas. Because the next assault on your theory may be it's last.
This is how we make progress. Preferably without ad hominem.
Anonymous #2
This culture of criticizing other people's ideas in academia can be harsh. The concept behind it is a kind of 'idea-darwinism' where, in theory, only the 'fittest' ideas survive.
The 'fittest' ideas are the ones that hold up even after they have been compared to the evidence and have been subjected to criticism. One might be able to say that within academia, you are obligated to attack the weaker ideas so that the stronger can have their turn at the intellectual gauntlet.
Without careful scrutiny, sometimes it is hard to tell which is which.
I saw Tilo's idea as being creative and actually quite clever. That does not mean that it is right. That does not mean that it is wrong. Here is what I am supposed to do with it...
I am supposed to be skeptical of it. If I wanted to take the time I would need to compare his idea with the data. If the idea appears to fit the data, then there should be a set of predictions that we can make from it. This would require building a mathematical model out of it. After building the model; we would compare it with the data directly again. Rinse, repeat.
Most people who come up with an idea or a theory end up being rather attached to it. After developing the theory it is your job and the job of the academic community to try and render the theory obsolete, if at all possible. If all attempts fail; the theory might be pretty good. If a century goes by and all attempts still fail; the theory might be pretty damn good.
Unfortunately this process can be psychologically stressful to the originator of the theory. You are supposed to learn to steel yourself, and not grow too emotionally attached to your ideas. Because the next assault on your theory may be it's last.
This is how we make progress. Preferably without ad hominem.
Anonymous #2
AnonymousJuly
27, 2014 at 4:22 AM
Oi,
Everywhere in the last two posts where I typed 'Tilo', that should have been 'Iceman'. Sorry about that.
Anonymous #2
Everywhere in the last two posts where I typed 'Tilo', that should have been 'Iceman'. Sorry about that.
Anonymous #2
My comments about Boltzmann
was to illustrate that he was not someone that was beaten down into the shadows
and turned out, many years later, to have been discovered to be correct. He was
recognized in his own lifetime for his accomplishments. BTW, he succeeded Mach
at the university after Mach died.
AnonymousJuly
27, 2014 at 8:36 PM
You are right. For that, I'm
sure that I could find plenty of other examples. I thought Iceman's idea
sounded creative. It might fall apart as soon as it is analyzed critically; but
this is true of most ideas. It *is* creative, though. So I give him props for
that. Lord Kelvin's 'vortex model' of the atom was creative too; but it was
replaced by it's competitors.
AnonymousJuly
26, 2014 at 6:22 PM
Dr. Keating,
Do you know how you might be able to make your case against the 'deniers' a lot easier? Do you know how you could get people to trust the IPCC predictions a little bit more? It would be easy, for you.
Show people the process of building a climate model. Take them through an exercise where they build one of their own. This will give them a sense of 'ownership' over the concept; and it could show people how foolish the statements of those who deny that climate change is happening as a result of human activities really are.
Anonymous #2
Do you know how you might be able to make your case against the 'deniers' a lot easier? Do you know how you could get people to trust the IPCC predictions a little bit more? It would be easy, for you.
Show people the process of building a climate model. Take them through an exercise where they build one of their own. This will give them a sense of 'ownership' over the concept; and it could show people how foolish the statements of those who deny that climate change is happening as a result of human activities really are.
Anonymous #2
I think that is an excellent
idea. I will give it some serious thought on just how to do that. The challenge
deadline is Friday (yeah!) and I should be able to wrap up the responses within
a week or so (barring a last minute rush). I could then turn my attention to
that issue.
Thank you for the suggestion.
Thank you for the suggestion.
AnonymousJuly
26, 2014 at 8:38 PM
Of course. I am trying to
help.
I admit that my approach to this issue might be ill-advised.
Anonymous #2
I admit that my approach to this issue might be ill-advised.
Anonymous #2
AnonymousJuly
27, 2014 at 6:39 AM
I just thought of something.
I am not sure if it has merit or not, but hear me out.
Is it possible that the Carbon Tax is actually a method of fighting wage inflation?
We know that India and China, developing countries are not too keen on the idea of a Carbon Tax because it will cost them far more to produce electricity for all of their people. I guess that having a population in excess of 1 Billion people can do that. So, naturally they aren't very happy about it.
But what is the main export from China and India? Well... their brain drain is our brain gain. Lot's of cheap, highly motivated workers in technical fields. So what happens to an economy when you have lots of cheap workers in the field of technology? It brings down the wages.
If it is too expensive for them to generate electricity; then generally these nations will stay poor. And since people in poor nations don't like to stay in poor nations they will flock into the first world and will fight the horrible evil that is 'wage inflation'.
The path of technology is generally one of progress. It would improve whether we implemented the carbon credit system or not. And knowing that Peak Oil is coming; we know that it would improve away from the direction of oil naturally anyways.
This would mean that the carbon credit system is at best redundant; and at worst, harmful to developing countries, and would keep wages down in the first world countries.
So... here is a crazy idea; is the carbon credit system really Geopolitical or Economic in nature instead of Environmental?
By the way, I am not sure this comes across in my posts. I trust the climate scientists to be honest as a community. I don't trust the IPCC even as far as I could throw it. The institution looks *highly* political in nature, which is not surprising, because it seems to be in direct communication with the UN. I trust the IPCC only slightly more than the Heartland Institute. And my opinion of the Heartland Institute, is really quite low. I could use more colorful words to describe it, but would make this post quite uncivil.
We should use more technology that uses less oil, and less coal, if possible.
Anonymous #2
Is it possible that the Carbon Tax is actually a method of fighting wage inflation?
We know that India and China, developing countries are not too keen on the idea of a Carbon Tax because it will cost them far more to produce electricity for all of their people. I guess that having a population in excess of 1 Billion people can do that. So, naturally they aren't very happy about it.
But what is the main export from China and India? Well... their brain drain is our brain gain. Lot's of cheap, highly motivated workers in technical fields. So what happens to an economy when you have lots of cheap workers in the field of technology? It brings down the wages.
If it is too expensive for them to generate electricity; then generally these nations will stay poor. And since people in poor nations don't like to stay in poor nations they will flock into the first world and will fight the horrible evil that is 'wage inflation'.
The path of technology is generally one of progress. It would improve whether we implemented the carbon credit system or not. And knowing that Peak Oil is coming; we know that it would improve away from the direction of oil naturally anyways.
This would mean that the carbon credit system is at best redundant; and at worst, harmful to developing countries, and would keep wages down in the first world countries.
So... here is a crazy idea; is the carbon credit system really Geopolitical or Economic in nature instead of Environmental?
By the way, I am not sure this comes across in my posts. I trust the climate scientists to be honest as a community. I don't trust the IPCC even as far as I could throw it. The institution looks *highly* political in nature, which is not surprising, because it seems to be in direct communication with the UN. I trust the IPCC only slightly more than the Heartland Institute. And my opinion of the Heartland Institute, is really quite low. I could use more colorful words to describe it, but would make this post quite uncivil.
We should use more technology that uses less oil, and less coal, if possible.
Anonymous #2
Anything that deals with the
issue is going be more political than environmental. Ultimately, whatever we
do, we are really talking about people's lives and standards of living and that
is all politics. Having said that, there are other methods of generating
electricity than coal. ExxonMobil is on record as saying it prefers the carbon
tax over cap and trade. Take that for what its worth.
AnonymousJuly
27, 2014 at 4:57 PM
Economically speaking, the
carbon tax doesn't really hurt the oil companies. they can efficiently and
easily transfer the cost of the tax to the consumers.
Anonymous #2
Anonymous #2
All costs are always passed
on to the customer until you reach the end point that cannot pass it on (all of
us consumers on the bottom of the food chain). This is just basic economics.
The question is which strategy will most efficiently get us to the point where
we reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases. I don't want to weigh in on this
topic because it is off topic from the challenge. But, what we do about global
warming is, without a debate, an important issue.
AnonymousJuly
27, 2014 at 8:24 PM
Well, I might nitpick some
of the details of the kinds of feedback loops that can exist outside of what
has been coded into the models.
But you will also find that I do not disagree with the idea that global warming is happening; that we should use develop new technology that completely weans us off of petrol and coal.
Coal has it's advantages... it is cheap. But that pretty much summarizes all of it's advantages.
It's disadvantages... extensive use increases the probability of people within breathing distance of the coal plants developing cancer. This makes our healthcare system more expensive. It produces a lot of CO2... yes, but that is actually one of it's more benign effects. It produces sulfur dioxide SO2. This can mix with gaseous H2O to produce sulfuric acid. This is nasty stuff. You do *not* want it raining on your crops.
I thought that it was really rather sad that with Germany going through it's 'Energiewende' right now, they are actually forced to use more coal than they used to. And this on top of the cost of electricity becoming more expensive. But maybe I judge their solution too harshly too soon. Maybe their electricity prices are high now, but in 10-20 years they will be significantly lower. I don't know, I would have to see their predicted economic models in order to know. At the moment, it is not looking good.
After the economic collapse, Germany's ability to invest was much better than most other countries in the world. They invested a huge amount of money into their 'Energiewende' and the cost of electricity still shot up. I shudder to think of what would happen if we were to try the same thing here in the US.
"But, what we do about global warming is, without a debate, an important issue."
You are going to get debate whether you want it or not. Debate can be great, because you can show people what you really think and why.
Anonymous #2
But you will also find that I do not disagree with the idea that global warming is happening; that we should use develop new technology that completely weans us off of petrol and coal.
Coal has it's advantages... it is cheap. But that pretty much summarizes all of it's advantages.
It's disadvantages... extensive use increases the probability of people within breathing distance of the coal plants developing cancer. This makes our healthcare system more expensive. It produces a lot of CO2... yes, but that is actually one of it's more benign effects. It produces sulfur dioxide SO2. This can mix with gaseous H2O to produce sulfuric acid. This is nasty stuff. You do *not* want it raining on your crops.
I thought that it was really rather sad that with Germany going through it's 'Energiewende' right now, they are actually forced to use more coal than they used to. And this on top of the cost of electricity becoming more expensive. But maybe I judge their solution too harshly too soon. Maybe their electricity prices are high now, but in 10-20 years they will be significantly lower. I don't know, I would have to see their predicted economic models in order to know. At the moment, it is not looking good.
After the economic collapse, Germany's ability to invest was much better than most other countries in the world. They invested a huge amount of money into their 'Energiewende' and the cost of electricity still shot up. I shudder to think of what would happen if we were to try the same thing here in the US.
"But, what we do about global warming is, without a debate, an important issue."
You are going to get debate whether you want it or not. Debate can be great, because you can show people what you really think and why.
Anonymous #2
Dr. Keating
Pse see this study:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JC007255/abstract
especially this image:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1029/2011JC007255/asset/supinfo/jgrc12191-sup-0010-fs09.pdf?v=1&s=79e93e124ca1fd8a33753fc667ff17deaa20b3e6
They give a reconstruction of the DEEP ocean temperatures over the last 108 million years. Around 84 mya the deep oceans were ~18K warmer than today.
I assume you have no indications for the dinosaurs burning fossil fuels, so these warm oceans should have a natural cause.
The deep oceans have on average been cooling since ~84 mya. Last ~3 million years Earth has alternating glacials and interglacials. Reason simply being the temperature of the deep oceans having cooled below the required temperature.
If (big if) the deep oceans are warming presently, this would be great news, since Earth might be warming again, iso sinking deeper into the glacial cycles.
Once the deep oceans are approaching the temperature as ~84 million years ago, we can start the discussion wether this additional warming is natural or not.
Won't happen in the foreseeable future ;-)
For the reason of the warming see:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/03/03/ben-wouters-influence-of-geothermal-heat-on-past-and-present-climate/
This text also explains why the average temperature on Earth is ~93K above that of our moon, which has an Effective Temperature of ~270K, but actual ~ 197K only
regards
Ben Wouters
Pse see this study:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JC007255/abstract
especially this image:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1029/2011JC007255/asset/supinfo/jgrc12191-sup-0010-fs09.pdf?v=1&s=79e93e124ca1fd8a33753fc667ff17deaa20b3e6
They give a reconstruction of the DEEP ocean temperatures over the last 108 million years. Around 84 mya the deep oceans were ~18K warmer than today.
I assume you have no indications for the dinosaurs burning fossil fuels, so these warm oceans should have a natural cause.
The deep oceans have on average been cooling since ~84 mya. Last ~3 million years Earth has alternating glacials and interglacials. Reason simply being the temperature of the deep oceans having cooled below the required temperature.
If (big if) the deep oceans are warming presently, this would be great news, since Earth might be warming again, iso sinking deeper into the glacial cycles.
Once the deep oceans are approaching the temperature as ~84 million years ago, we can start the discussion wether this additional warming is natural or not.
Won't happen in the foreseeable future ;-)
For the reason of the warming see:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/03/03/ben-wouters-influence-of-geothermal-heat-on-past-and-present-climate/
This text also explains why the average temperature on Earth is ~93K above that of our moon, which has an Effective Temperature of ~270K, but actual ~ 197K only
regards
Ben Wouters
Christopher Keating, you say
(July 15, 2014 at 11:54 AM): "And, no, I do not have to prove it is warmer
today than it was thousands of years ago."
But if you do not, people will be able to say that the current warming is within natural limits, so there's no cause for concern.
You also said: "No, the temperature has not been flat since 1998. The surface temperature has been increasing, but at a slower rate."
Yes, slower and statistically insignificant—in other words, flat. As in NOAA's graph of Global Land and Ocean annual Temperature Anomalies 2001–2013, which you will find at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/2001-2013?trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=2001&lasttrendyear=2013
Notice that the trend line is quite flat. That graph represents observations and it gives me a problem, because it means I cannot accept without question statements like yours that our emissions are dangerously increasing the temperature. Can you explain, perhaps, why the temperature has not recently been increasing even though our emissions have been larger than ever?
Then, Dr Keating, you say (July 15, 2014 at 6:44 PM): "If you will check, climate scientists look at the performance of the temperature average over the entire database. What has been found is that the temperature record changes in accordance with known climatic factors throughout the historical record - up to the late 1970s when it began to diverge. This divergence continues to this day and the global average heat index is moving contrary to what it should be doing if natural causes were the only thing involved. There is most definitely no cherry picking by scientists, only by deniers who choose 1998 as a starting point and try to make the case that there has been no global warming. Try starting with 1997 or 1999 and do the same exercise and you get an entirely different result, and that is just the surface average without including the ocean warming."
Your second sentence is obscure, since nobody claims to know why the temperature varies so much, such as to produce a mini ice age or to come out if it, or create a medieval warm period, or a 20-year period of stasis. Nobody is predicting these periods. So to claim the temperature changes according to "known factors" is absurd. Then it "diverges" and you say the "global heat index" (whatever that is) moves contrary to what it "should"? This is insanely illogical and you are the only one saying it.
Iceman presented to you this graph from June 6th, 2013, by Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D, at http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png.
It's a simple construction that shows the output of some 73 models of global temperature and compares them with observations. You'll see that actual temperatures from about 1983 are at the low end of the model projections and, from about 1988, emerge from them entirely, leaving them to soar beyond reality. But to refute this depiction of the actual world, you abandoned science and mounted a vicious personal attack, do you remember? You said (June 23, 2014 at 8:15 PM) this:
"His credentials are real. What he is also known for [sic] a series of papers he published in the early 1990s with another scientist, John Christy. In these papers they claimed their analysis of satellite temperature measurements showed no warming in the atmosphere. They became the heroes of the global warming denier crowd as a result. [TBC]
But if you do not, people will be able to say that the current warming is within natural limits, so there's no cause for concern.
You also said: "No, the temperature has not been flat since 1998. The surface temperature has been increasing, but at a slower rate."
Yes, slower and statistically insignificant—in other words, flat. As in NOAA's graph of Global Land and Ocean annual Temperature Anomalies 2001–2013, which you will find at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/2001-2013?trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=2001&lasttrendyear=2013
Notice that the trend line is quite flat. That graph represents observations and it gives me a problem, because it means I cannot accept without question statements like yours that our emissions are dangerously increasing the temperature. Can you explain, perhaps, why the temperature has not recently been increasing even though our emissions have been larger than ever?
Then, Dr Keating, you say (July 15, 2014 at 6:44 PM): "If you will check, climate scientists look at the performance of the temperature average over the entire database. What has been found is that the temperature record changes in accordance with known climatic factors throughout the historical record - up to the late 1970s when it began to diverge. This divergence continues to this day and the global average heat index is moving contrary to what it should be doing if natural causes were the only thing involved. There is most definitely no cherry picking by scientists, only by deniers who choose 1998 as a starting point and try to make the case that there has been no global warming. Try starting with 1997 or 1999 and do the same exercise and you get an entirely different result, and that is just the surface average without including the ocean warming."
Your second sentence is obscure, since nobody claims to know why the temperature varies so much, such as to produce a mini ice age or to come out if it, or create a medieval warm period, or a 20-year period of stasis. Nobody is predicting these periods. So to claim the temperature changes according to "known factors" is absurd. Then it "diverges" and you say the "global heat index" (whatever that is) moves contrary to what it "should"? This is insanely illogical and you are the only one saying it.
Iceman presented to you this graph from June 6th, 2013, by Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D, at http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png.
It's a simple construction that shows the output of some 73 models of global temperature and compares them with observations. You'll see that actual temperatures from about 1983 are at the low end of the model projections and, from about 1988, emerge from them entirely, leaving them to soar beyond reality. But to refute this depiction of the actual world, you abandoned science and mounted a vicious personal attack, do you remember? You said (June 23, 2014 at 8:15 PM) this:
"His credentials are real. What he is also known for [sic] a series of papers he published in the early 1990s with another scientist, John Christy. In these papers they claimed their analysis of satellite temperature measurements showed no warming in the atmosphere. They became the heroes of the global warming denier crowd as a result. [TBC]
"But, by the end of the
1990s it was shown they were not only wrong, they were so wrong they even
admitted it themselves, but only after being confronted with the evidence from
others. Separate studies showed four significant flaws in their work. What I
find really interesting is that these two are undeniable experts in this
process, yet they made four major errors in their data and each of those errors
worked to remove global warming. And, these errors were found by other people.
I really have to wonder, what are the chances that two experts will make so
many errors and all of those errors work to show the results they wanted? If
they were random errors you would expect at least one of them to work to
enhance the global warming evidence.
I will not say they deliberately falsified their research. I believe there is enough evidence to convince a jury, but it has never been put to one, so we will probably never know. But, there is certainly enough evidence to convince me."
These are unjustified, disgraceful smears. The truth is that all the global temperature projects have been corrected and adjusted many times. For instance, from Wikipedia:
The CCSP SAP 1.1 Executive Summary refers to "Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere" and "Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected."
To allege malfeasance against Dr Spencer without cause is nothing short of scurrilous. All teams have made hundreds of alterations and corrections over the years—it's a normal part of complex scientific calculations, not a sign of misbehaviour.
Regarding the increase in oceanic heat content, observations show that it has been fairly constant over the last four or five decades and it has been minuscule, at about 0.065°C over 45 years, the equivalent of only 0.14°C per century. That's about 20 times smaller than the warming predicted for the surface. See The Reference Frame at http://motls.blogspot.co.nz/2013/09/ocean-heat-content-relentless-but.html.
I asked you to describe the mechanism by which our atmospheric emissions warm the ocean. I don't believe the warming could be significant, so I look forward to hearing how it works. I see now that Anonymous is busy on that; he might save you the job.
You cited Peter Gleick in support of your contention that temperatures have risen since 1998. (Incidentally, I didn't specify 1998, just "about 20 years.") The period of stasis depends which dataset you examine and varies between about 15 and 20 years, or between 1995 and 1999.
Gleick says: "These statements [of lack of warming] are scurrilous deceptions and falsehoods. The planet is warming … The actual data are easy for anyone to find – they are posted and regularly updated, freely, on public websites around the world." He then provides three references, from GISS, NOAA and HadCRUT3. The first HadCRUT3 graph is especially clear and striking, but I encourage you to view them all.
For, without exception, the graphs contradict what Gleick says. Each one shows a period of variability with no clear trend, beginning about 1999. It means that since that time the temperature has not risen significantly and so by definition there has been no global warming. Warming may resume, of course—although there are strong signs that lead many scientists to predict cooling—but we must wait and see. [TBC]
I will not say they deliberately falsified their research. I believe there is enough evidence to convince a jury, but it has never been put to one, so we will probably never know. But, there is certainly enough evidence to convince me."
These are unjustified, disgraceful smears. The truth is that all the global temperature projects have been corrected and adjusted many times. For instance, from Wikipedia:
The CCSP SAP 1.1 Executive Summary refers to "Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere" and "Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected."
To allege malfeasance against Dr Spencer without cause is nothing short of scurrilous. All teams have made hundreds of alterations and corrections over the years—it's a normal part of complex scientific calculations, not a sign of misbehaviour.
Regarding the increase in oceanic heat content, observations show that it has been fairly constant over the last four or five decades and it has been minuscule, at about 0.065°C over 45 years, the equivalent of only 0.14°C per century. That's about 20 times smaller than the warming predicted for the surface. See The Reference Frame at http://motls.blogspot.co.nz/2013/09/ocean-heat-content-relentless-but.html.
I asked you to describe the mechanism by which our atmospheric emissions warm the ocean. I don't believe the warming could be significant, so I look forward to hearing how it works. I see now that Anonymous is busy on that; he might save you the job.
You cited Peter Gleick in support of your contention that temperatures have risen since 1998. (Incidentally, I didn't specify 1998, just "about 20 years.") The period of stasis depends which dataset you examine and varies between about 15 and 20 years, or between 1995 and 1999.
Gleick says: "These statements [of lack of warming] are scurrilous deceptions and falsehoods. The planet is warming … The actual data are easy for anyone to find – they are posted and regularly updated, freely, on public websites around the world." He then provides three references, from GISS, NOAA and HadCRUT3. The first HadCRUT3 graph is especially clear and striking, but I encourage you to view them all.
For, without exception, the graphs contradict what Gleick says. Each one shows a period of variability with no clear trend, beginning about 1999. It means that since that time the temperature has not risen significantly and so by definition there has been no global warming. Warming may resume, of course—although there are strong signs that lead many scientists to predict cooling—but we must wait and see. [TBC]
These graphs you reference
show your statements are wrong. Yet you said to me: "You continue to claim
that there has been no warming since 1997, even though that has been shown, many
times, to be a completely false statement. You know it is false, but you keep
saying it. Why? That is why I call you a denier. If that offends you, then stop
being a denier. How hard is that to figure out?"
Please don't take my word for it, but examine the graphs for yourself.
There have been many observations of lack of warming in recent years. I have already cited the Met Office, Steven Goddard, The Cryosphere and HadCRUT temperatures.
Mike Smith (July 25, 2014 at 12:17 PM) said: "Richard, to put it bluntly, you are simply calling the thousands of scientists that submitted over 25,000 published, peer reviewed articles liars and frauds. It even goes beyond that. You are calling the scientists that did the peer reviews liars and frauds. You are also calling the reviewer of the reviewers, a scientist that worked for two Republican Presidents, a liar and a fraud. Just to be clear. You are claiming that 99.9% of the published papers and the scientists that wrote and review them, that support the conclusion that global warming is occurring and that it is man-made are all lies and the scientists are all liars and frauds."
No, he's grossly distorting for his own purposes what I clearly said. I didn't use the words liar or fraud, nor did I attempt to explain why other people did or said things. I answered those points from the video to the best of my understanding. Instead of being offensive, he (and you) might explain where I have things wrong.
The climate is complex, and many fields of study are required to study the climate. Over the years I have found a few facts that contradict some of what is claimed for global warming, and I wonder what they mean. For example, as the chairman of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, the UK Met Office and other bodies acknowledge, we're in a prolonged stasis in global average surface temperature rise. What does it mean? One obvious consequence is that the climate will be hard-pressed to fulfil the projections of substantial temperature rise by 2100.
An obvious question to ask oneself is: what is causing the temperature stasis? One answer is natural variation, which would in turn mean that natural forces can, at least temporarily, overwhelm the anthropogenic influence. One wonders how often and to what extent natural forces might dominate in the future?
There's no such thing as 'the science is settled.' These and others are good questions, yet all you do is call the questioner names. [TBC]
Please don't take my word for it, but examine the graphs for yourself.
There have been many observations of lack of warming in recent years. I have already cited the Met Office, Steven Goddard, The Cryosphere and HadCRUT temperatures.
Mike Smith (July 25, 2014 at 12:17 PM) said: "Richard, to put it bluntly, you are simply calling the thousands of scientists that submitted over 25,000 published, peer reviewed articles liars and frauds. It even goes beyond that. You are calling the scientists that did the peer reviews liars and frauds. You are also calling the reviewer of the reviewers, a scientist that worked for two Republican Presidents, a liar and a fraud. Just to be clear. You are claiming that 99.9% of the published papers and the scientists that wrote and review them, that support the conclusion that global warming is occurring and that it is man-made are all lies and the scientists are all liars and frauds."
No, he's grossly distorting for his own purposes what I clearly said. I didn't use the words liar or fraud, nor did I attempt to explain why other people did or said things. I answered those points from the video to the best of my understanding. Instead of being offensive, he (and you) might explain where I have things wrong.
The climate is complex, and many fields of study are required to study the climate. Over the years I have found a few facts that contradict some of what is claimed for global warming, and I wonder what they mean. For example, as the chairman of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, the UK Met Office and other bodies acknowledge, we're in a prolonged stasis in global average surface temperature rise. What does it mean? One obvious consequence is that the climate will be hard-pressed to fulfil the projections of substantial temperature rise by 2100.
An obvious question to ask oneself is: what is causing the temperature stasis? One answer is natural variation, which would in turn mean that natural forces can, at least temporarily, overwhelm the anthropogenic influence. One wonders how often and to what extent natural forces might dominate in the future?
There's no such thing as 'the science is settled.' These and others are good questions, yet all you do is call the questioner names. [TBC]
Finally, Christopher, you say
(July 25, 2014 at 10:46 AM): "I have two different ways I refer to people
that don't believe in AGW. Skeptics are people that, for whatever reason,
simply don't believe in it, but they let other people live their lives. Deniers
are people that actively proclaim that global warming isn't real and people
should reject it. I call them deniers because they deny global warming, they
deny science and they deny other people to make their own decisions. I know
deniers are offended by the term, but I am offended that they reject science
and lie to people for the purpose of deceiving them. So, I guess we're even."
Well, you're being thoroughly obnoxious, but leaving that aside, you prohibit honest questioning, an odd thing to do if you're a scientist. For example, when I observe the short period of stasis in those Gleick graphs, should I have such strong belief in dangerous anthropogenic global warming (DAGW) that I see a temperature rise where none exists?
When I learn about the logarithmic effect of carbon dioxide, whereby most of its warming occurs with the first 20 ppm, should I have such strong belief in DAGW that I see a linear temperature response where none exists?
When I learn that clouds might change their coverage by only 2% and have more impact on global temperature than all the threatened greenhouse effect, should I have such strong belief in DAGW that I see no variation in cloud cover even where it's occurring?
When I hear alarmists demonising carbon dioxide as 'pollution', should I have such strong belief in DAGW that I see no good in CO2 even as it feeds every plant on earth?
When I see Antarctic sea ice coverage increasing every year since 1979, should I have such strong belief in DAGW that I see a reduction in southern sea ice where none exists?
I don't understand your criticism of me.
Richard Treadgold.
Well, you're being thoroughly obnoxious, but leaving that aside, you prohibit honest questioning, an odd thing to do if you're a scientist. For example, when I observe the short period of stasis in those Gleick graphs, should I have such strong belief in dangerous anthropogenic global warming (DAGW) that I see a temperature rise where none exists?
When I learn about the logarithmic effect of carbon dioxide, whereby most of its warming occurs with the first 20 ppm, should I have such strong belief in DAGW that I see a linear temperature response where none exists?
When I learn that clouds might change their coverage by only 2% and have more impact on global temperature than all the threatened greenhouse effect, should I have such strong belief in DAGW that I see no variation in cloud cover even where it's occurring?
When I hear alarmists demonising carbon dioxide as 'pollution', should I have such strong belief in DAGW that I see no good in CO2 even as it feeds every plant on earth?
When I see Antarctic sea ice coverage increasing every year since 1979, should I have such strong belief in DAGW that I see a reduction in southern sea ice where none exists?
I don't understand your criticism of me.
Richard Treadgold.
AnonymousJuly
28, 2014 at 1:09 AM
Richard Treadgold,
Do you come from a journalism background? I think I just found your website:
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2014/07/letter-to-the-editor-9/
Dr. Keating was a professor at the University of South Dakota and at the US Naval Academy.
To me; he comes across as being quite knowledgeable of climate dynamics. He has admitted that he has done some work on climate models in the past. I don't know if he is more strongly an experimental physicist or if he is more strongly a theoretical physicist, or perhaps more of a computational physicist.
Professors can be brilliant researchers, and simultaneously be terrible teachers. I think it is a certain special kind of mind that does this to a person. My father is like this, actually.
In Dr. Keatings case, he comes across like this to me, actually. Extremely intelligent; he knows his subject, he knows his research area; more than likely, he is brilliant researcher. But when it comes to addressing the public, he may very well be more than a little bit socially inept.
If you have an engineering company... this kind of a person is great to have working on the technical minutiae in the background. They will build systems that work, and the systems will be a masterpiece. This kind of a person is brilliant... but you want to keep them as far away from the marketing side of the company and your customers as humanly possible.
There are some people who are brilliant, but they do not have patience to explain to people what they understand.
And by the way, Richard, about your graph from NOAA (which is a fantastic resource for good data, by the way):
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/2001-2013?trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=2001&lasttrendyear=2013
You are right, actually; that slope looks kind of pitiful, doesn't it? But look at the full time range from 1880 to 2013. That slope looks more convincing. Also notice in the corner of the graph how it says (0.06 degrees C/decade) for the trendline.
You seem like a nice fellow, I look forward to hearing from you.
Anonymous #2
Do you come from a journalism background? I think I just found your website:
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2014/07/letter-to-the-editor-9/
Dr. Keating was a professor at the University of South Dakota and at the US Naval Academy.
To me; he comes across as being quite knowledgeable of climate dynamics. He has admitted that he has done some work on climate models in the past. I don't know if he is more strongly an experimental physicist or if he is more strongly a theoretical physicist, or perhaps more of a computational physicist.
Professors can be brilliant researchers, and simultaneously be terrible teachers. I think it is a certain special kind of mind that does this to a person. My father is like this, actually.
In Dr. Keatings case, he comes across like this to me, actually. Extremely intelligent; he knows his subject, he knows his research area; more than likely, he is brilliant researcher. But when it comes to addressing the public, he may very well be more than a little bit socially inept.
If you have an engineering company... this kind of a person is great to have working on the technical minutiae in the background. They will build systems that work, and the systems will be a masterpiece. This kind of a person is brilliant... but you want to keep them as far away from the marketing side of the company and your customers as humanly possible.
There are some people who are brilliant, but they do not have patience to explain to people what they understand.
And by the way, Richard, about your graph from NOAA (which is a fantastic resource for good data, by the way):
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/2001-2013?trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=2001&lasttrendyear=2013
You are right, actually; that slope looks kind of pitiful, doesn't it? But look at the full time range from 1880 to 2013. That slope looks more convincing. Also notice in the corner of the graph how it says (0.06 degrees C/decade) for the trendline.
You seem like a nice fellow, I look forward to hearing from you.
Anonymous #2
Anonymous, you say: "Do
you come from a journalism background? I think I just found your website"
Not journalism, but writing, yes. Yes, that's my web site.
"There are some people who are brilliant, but they do not have patience to explain to people what they understand."
You offer some good insights into those personalities, though that is no justification for offering respondents such naked abuse as Dr Keating offers here. He receives nothing of the sort back from them and deserves no sympathy. Though he claims to be offended, no offence is aimed at him, while he specifically targets the individual. Nasty stuff.
"But look at the full time range from 1880 to 2013. That slope looks more convincing."
It's a more definite rise, for sure, but I was commenting on a different period. Remember that I'm not saying the global warming has permanently stopped, only that it was stopped in the recent past for a specific, observed period and has not yet restarted. It's visible in the data. Certain consequences arise from that, but the impossibility of future warming is not among them. Apparently some people with intellectual attachments to the hypothesis of man-made warming cannot concede the briefest halt in that warming.
The trendline on the graph I saw was -0.01°C/decade. See
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/ncdc_loti_2001-2013.png.
btw, what can we call you? 'Anonymous' doesn't cut it.
I am a nice fellow and there are more of us at the Climate Conversation. You're welcome to hang out there.
Not journalism, but writing, yes. Yes, that's my web site.
"There are some people who are brilliant, but they do not have patience to explain to people what they understand."
You offer some good insights into those personalities, though that is no justification for offering respondents such naked abuse as Dr Keating offers here. He receives nothing of the sort back from them and deserves no sympathy. Though he claims to be offended, no offence is aimed at him, while he specifically targets the individual. Nasty stuff.
"But look at the full time range from 1880 to 2013. That slope looks more convincing."
It's a more definite rise, for sure, but I was commenting on a different period. Remember that I'm not saying the global warming has permanently stopped, only that it was stopped in the recent past for a specific, observed period and has not yet restarted. It's visible in the data. Certain consequences arise from that, but the impossibility of future warming is not among them. Apparently some people with intellectual attachments to the hypothesis of man-made warming cannot concede the briefest halt in that warming.
The trendline on the graph I saw was -0.01°C/decade. See
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/ncdc_loti_2001-2013.png.
btw, what can we call you? 'Anonymous' doesn't cut it.
I am a nice fellow and there are more of us at the Climate Conversation. You're welcome to hang out there.
AnonymousJuly
28, 2014 at 3:25 AM
"I am a nice fellow and
there are more of us at the Climate Conversation. You're welcome to hang out
there."
Thank you, I appreciate it.
"btw, what can we call you? 'Anonymous' doesn't cut it."
I would really prefer to stay Anonymous. Character assassination from both the pro-IPCC and the pro-Heartland-Institute crowd is a common tactic. And I have skeletons in my closet as much as the next man. The last thing that I want is a smear campaign from political groups under the 'fair-game philosophy'.
I think both sides could find reasons to slight me.
Gavin Schmidt, a brilliant man, found himself subjected to some rather unfair abuse.
And Michael Mann, on the pro-IPCC side has seen some abuse too:
http://observationdeck.io9.com/is-libeling-a-climatologist-defensible-free-speech-1513914373
And so has Richard Lindzen from the pro-Cato side:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/13/lindzen-libeled-by-nuccitelli/
And even those with a more moderate take, with a Nobel Prize in quantum field theory have caught some abuse, as well, like Freeman Dyson:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2009/03/25/203866/new-york-times-magazine-profile-global-warming-crackpot-freeman-dyson-slander-james-hansen/
Think progress... um...
People can get downright nasty on the issue of global warming. I would be quite annoyed if I found my identity revealed by a 'helpful' hacker.
I am sorry, I would happily give you more information about me if it were not for fear.
"You offer some good insights into those personalities, though that is no justification for offering respondents such naked abuse as Dr Keating offers here."
Yes, but it does offer a possible explanation, I don't know his past. For all I know, he *might* have been subjected to some abuse from conservative groups. Such an event would lead someone to be bitter and angry, and more likely to lash out at innocent bystanders.
Not an excuse for his behavior, no, but an explanation. I really don't think that he intends to alienate people.
"Though he claims to be offended, no offence is aimed at him, while he specifically targets the individual. Nasty stuff."
The best way to teach is often by example. There is probably a good reason for why Dr. Keating is the way he is. He can be a little prickly at times, but personally, I like him.
Anonymous #2
Thank you, I appreciate it.
"btw, what can we call you? 'Anonymous' doesn't cut it."
I would really prefer to stay Anonymous. Character assassination from both the pro-IPCC and the pro-Heartland-Institute crowd is a common tactic. And I have skeletons in my closet as much as the next man. The last thing that I want is a smear campaign from political groups under the 'fair-game philosophy'.
I think both sides could find reasons to slight me.
Gavin Schmidt, a brilliant man, found himself subjected to some rather unfair abuse.
And Michael Mann, on the pro-IPCC side has seen some abuse too:
http://observationdeck.io9.com/is-libeling-a-climatologist-defensible-free-speech-1513914373
And so has Richard Lindzen from the pro-Cato side:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/13/lindzen-libeled-by-nuccitelli/
And even those with a more moderate take, with a Nobel Prize in quantum field theory have caught some abuse, as well, like Freeman Dyson:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2009/03/25/203866/new-york-times-magazine-profile-global-warming-crackpot-freeman-dyson-slander-james-hansen/
Think progress... um...
People can get downright nasty on the issue of global warming. I would be quite annoyed if I found my identity revealed by a 'helpful' hacker.
I am sorry, I would happily give you more information about me if it were not for fear.
"You offer some good insights into those personalities, though that is no justification for offering respondents such naked abuse as Dr Keating offers here."
Yes, but it does offer a possible explanation, I don't know his past. For all I know, he *might* have been subjected to some abuse from conservative groups. Such an event would lead someone to be bitter and angry, and more likely to lash out at innocent bystanders.
Not an excuse for his behavior, no, but an explanation. I really don't think that he intends to alienate people.
"Though he claims to be offended, no offence is aimed at him, while he specifically targets the individual. Nasty stuff."
The best way to teach is often by example. There is probably a good reason for why Dr. Keating is the way he is. He can be a little prickly at times, but personally, I like him.
Anonymous #2
AnonymousJuly
28, 2014 at 4:06 AM
Hah, I was looking for this
earlier.
I liked this article:
http://www.davidbrin.com/climatechange2.html
Anonymous #2
I liked this article:
http://www.davidbrin.com/climatechange2.html
Anonymous #2
I understand that you don't
want to use your name. Perhaps you could make up a false name—let's call it a
nom de plume. It would be easier to use than this long non-name.
AnonymousJuly
28, 2014 at 5:25 AM
Ah, sure.
Call me Kalium.
Anonymous #2
Call me Kalium.
Anonymous #2
Nice. Hi Kalium.
David Brin's piece is very long and replete with familiar truisms and not-so-truisms which cede too little validity to the sceptics. I haven't finished it yet.
David Brin's piece is very long and replete with familiar truisms and not-so-truisms which cede too little validity to the sceptics. I haven't finished it yet.
AnonymousJuly
28, 2014 at 6:06 AM
No, but it does give a
flavor for how the average climatologist who is afraid of a venus-like runaway
greenhouse scenario might feel when speaking to skeptics.
I liked this guys perspective because it offered a slightly more complex idea mindset than the "us vs them" that you find with "alarmist" and "denier" folks.
It cedes to the possibility of "us vs them vs the others".
Anonyoums #2 / Kalium
I liked this guys perspective because it offered a slightly more complex idea mindset than the "us vs them" that you find with "alarmist" and "denier" folks.
It cedes to the possibility of "us vs them vs the others".
Anonyoums #2 / Kalium
To Anonymous #2:
You have posted a considerable amount of information about modeling. I think it is a valuable contribution and will be deleting if from this page and posting it in its own page. Don't be alarmed if you look and find all you comments have disappeared. The reason I'm doing that is because of the Blobspot issue with comment limits.
You have posted a considerable amount of information about modeling. I think it is a valuable contribution and will be deleting if from this page and posting it in its own page. Don't be alarmed if you look and find all you comments have disappeared. The reason I'm doing that is because of the Blobspot issue with comment limits.
AnonymousJuly
28, 2014 at 3:35 PM
Christopher Keating,
I would appreciate it if you left that on the discussion forum, please? Those were wild guesses; and I have no idea how it compares to how the real climate models are created. Feel free to post add them elsewhere, if you would like.
Anonymous #2 / Kalium
I would appreciate it if you left that on the discussion forum, please? Those were wild guesses; and I have no idea how it compares to how the real climate models are created. Feel free to post add them elsewhere, if you would like.
Anonymous #2 / Kalium
They will definitely be on
the forum, just on a separate page, which I will provide the link to. I think
they are a very valuable discussion and have no desire to lose them.
AnonymousJuly
28, 2014 at 5:29 PM
Well, no wonder you are
defensive...
You are living at ground zero in politically one of the goofiest states in the US. There really are some people in some religious groups that are common in that area who really neither understand nor care to understand the science. Don't be worried about these. They are a minority in the country at large.
When addressing the public; it is the moderates who you are likely to convince regarding *some* aspects of what you are saying. When they are convinced that there is a problem that should be solved; things get done. They will usually try to borrow from what they see as the best of both sides of the argument (because usually, for some reason that I don't quite understand, there usually seems to be two very loud sides of the discussion).
Being uncivil tends to decrease the signal-to-noise ratio in the discussion. Which, when you are discussing the minutiae behind the complexities of the physics; and not to mention the math... you *really* want a high signal-to-noise ratio when it comes to describing these concepts. These concepts, are ultimately the reason why you are afraid of the idea of global warming.
You have seen the physics, you have seen the differential equations; you *know* how things can shift and change over time. The question that nags you at night that bedevils you the entire time that you are developing the climate models is that the average global temperature is increasing; but the question is... how much?
Actually, there is a reason why I ask if the average global temperature is a less chaotic system than the weather; it might very well be. But, it comes to the question of the double-pendulum problem...
Mathematically speaking; the model for the double pendulum is trivially easy to derive. But we find that we can get vastly different solutions if we change the constants in the equations. You come from a physics background, you *know* what the double-pendulum problem is.
Our climate has far more feedback loops than the double-pendulum does. So our climate models, might be be analogized with an averaged solution to the N-pendulum problem. So I ask you... first is this analogy between the climate and the averaged solution to the N-pendulum-problem wrong, and if not; is it possible that the solution to what the *real* climate equations might be, could turn out to have many possible descriptions for very similar boundary conditions?
I would expect that a clever application of Fourier analysis might slay this dragon. It might answer this question.
I am being completely honest here. I have not seen an adequate explanation for why we should expect the averaged solution for the weather equations; these are based on the Navier-Stokes equations, the fluid equations that describe the motion of the atmosphere, which are indisputably chaotic, and nonlinear; why should we expect that the 'equations' that Nature would follow for climate to be any less chaotic?
This question is, ultimately, the reason why I am kindly disposed towards the skeptics; and at the same time, why I believe that the climatologists are in the currently process of slaying one hell of a hydra in trying to understand the climate problem. This question is the reason why I am kindly disposed towards the climatologists.
If you can answer this question. Then in my mind, the science really would be settled; because the predictions of science require the math to work.
Anonymous #2 / Kalium
You are living at ground zero in politically one of the goofiest states in the US. There really are some people in some religious groups that are common in that area who really neither understand nor care to understand the science. Don't be worried about these. They are a minority in the country at large.
When addressing the public; it is the moderates who you are likely to convince regarding *some* aspects of what you are saying. When they are convinced that there is a problem that should be solved; things get done. They will usually try to borrow from what they see as the best of both sides of the argument (because usually, for some reason that I don't quite understand, there usually seems to be two very loud sides of the discussion).
Being uncivil tends to decrease the signal-to-noise ratio in the discussion. Which, when you are discussing the minutiae behind the complexities of the physics; and not to mention the math... you *really* want a high signal-to-noise ratio when it comes to describing these concepts. These concepts, are ultimately the reason why you are afraid of the idea of global warming.
You have seen the physics, you have seen the differential equations; you *know* how things can shift and change over time. The question that nags you at night that bedevils you the entire time that you are developing the climate models is that the average global temperature is increasing; but the question is... how much?
Actually, there is a reason why I ask if the average global temperature is a less chaotic system than the weather; it might very well be. But, it comes to the question of the double-pendulum problem...
Mathematically speaking; the model for the double pendulum is trivially easy to derive. But we find that we can get vastly different solutions if we change the constants in the equations. You come from a physics background, you *know* what the double-pendulum problem is.
Our climate has far more feedback loops than the double-pendulum does. So our climate models, might be be analogized with an averaged solution to the N-pendulum problem. So I ask you... first is this analogy between the climate and the averaged solution to the N-pendulum-problem wrong, and if not; is it possible that the solution to what the *real* climate equations might be, could turn out to have many possible descriptions for very similar boundary conditions?
I would expect that a clever application of Fourier analysis might slay this dragon. It might answer this question.
I am being completely honest here. I have not seen an adequate explanation for why we should expect the averaged solution for the weather equations; these are based on the Navier-Stokes equations, the fluid equations that describe the motion of the atmosphere, which are indisputably chaotic, and nonlinear; why should we expect that the 'equations' that Nature would follow for climate to be any less chaotic?
This question is, ultimately, the reason why I am kindly disposed towards the skeptics; and at the same time, why I believe that the climatologists are in the currently process of slaying one hell of a hydra in trying to understand the climate problem. This question is the reason why I am kindly disposed towards the climatologists.
If you can answer this question. Then in my mind, the science really would be settled; because the predictions of science require the math to work.
Anonymous #2 / Kalium
As a single comment on your
question on the way I address deniers. The reason is pure and simple - I hate
seeing people suffer because some people feel they should be actively blocking
the advancement of society for the profit of a few. The cost to society is
horrendous. The cost to individuals is frequently heartbreaking. People are
being killed, they are having their lives ruined, they are loosing their jobs
and they are having their standard of living lowered, all because we are not
addressing the issue of global warming. When I meet someone that is actively
preaching false arguments and lies in an attempt to deny global warming, I
think of all of the people that are suffering as a result.
Yes, the science is settled. One of the things that should be apparent from this blog and the challenge is that no credible challenge has been submitted that has any supporting science to it. Anyone that reviews the literature can see that there is no credible science refuting it. It really is a done deal.
Deniers have been treated with kid gloves by the scientific establishment over the years and the result has been that deniers take that opportunity to bully scientists off the stage so they have the public forum to themselves. I know many scientists that simply refuse to discuss any of the science or the issues with the public because of this tactic. The deniers have won the fight for the public forum.
Being civil obviously has not been successful for science. So, I call them the way I see them. To be fair, when someone addresses me in a civil manner, I work hard to be civil back. It is when people go into the attack mode and try to bully me that they find they have picked the wrong guy to try that tactic on.
As for my background - I got my Ph.D. from the University of Texas at Dallas. I got my degree at the same time they canceled the Superconducting Super Collider and put 2000 physicists on the streets, so I started out as an adjunct. I did a one-year visiting professor spot at Angelo State University before going to the University of South Dakota. I left there and went the U.S. Coast Guard Academy for a temporary position before taking active duty orders to go to the U.S. Naval Academy. When I retired from the Navy I was in a position to retire and took the opportunity to move home to Texas and I now live in a small community in the Texas Hill Country (aka - Heaven).
I did my research in space physics (where I did my modeling) and in planetary geophysics. Some of my work was related to climate change and climate change was involved in much of what I studied. I first became involved with climate change in the early 1980s and was a skeptic until I started reading the science and realized it was real. I have been involved with climate change, at various levels, ever since.
Yes, the science is settled. One of the things that should be apparent from this blog and the challenge is that no credible challenge has been submitted that has any supporting science to it. Anyone that reviews the literature can see that there is no credible science refuting it. It really is a done deal.
Deniers have been treated with kid gloves by the scientific establishment over the years and the result has been that deniers take that opportunity to bully scientists off the stage so they have the public forum to themselves. I know many scientists that simply refuse to discuss any of the science or the issues with the public because of this tactic. The deniers have won the fight for the public forum.
Being civil obviously has not been successful for science. So, I call them the way I see them. To be fair, when someone addresses me in a civil manner, I work hard to be civil back. It is when people go into the attack mode and try to bully me that they find they have picked the wrong guy to try that tactic on.
As for my background - I got my Ph.D. from the University of Texas at Dallas. I got my degree at the same time they canceled the Superconducting Super Collider and put 2000 physicists on the streets, so I started out as an adjunct. I did a one-year visiting professor spot at Angelo State University before going to the University of South Dakota. I left there and went the U.S. Coast Guard Academy for a temporary position before taking active duty orders to go to the U.S. Naval Academy. When I retired from the Navy I was in a position to retire and took the opportunity to move home to Texas and I now live in a small community in the Texas Hill Country (aka - Heaven).
I did my research in space physics (where I did my modeling) and in planetary geophysics. Some of my work was related to climate change and climate change was involved in much of what I studied. I first became involved with climate change in the early 1980s and was a skeptic until I started reading the science and realized it was real. I have been involved with climate change, at various levels, ever since.
AnonymousJuly
28, 2014 at 8:50 PM
Earlier on I said this:
"I am being completely honest here. I have not seen an adequate explanation for why we should expect the averaged solution for the weather equations; these are based on the Navier-Stokes equations, the fluid equations that describe the motion of the atmosphere, which are indisputably chaotic, and nonlinear; why should we expect that the 'equations' that Nature would follow for climate to be any less chaotic?"
No sooner had I asked what I thought might be a "good" question that I found a possible "really good" answer.
Thank you, again, Gavin Schmidt!
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/chaos-and-climate/
And he even links to several papers. And I can even read them!
http://wind.mit.edu/~hansen/papers/LeaQJRMS.pdf
It looks like Dr. Lea applied "Adjoint Sensitivity Methods" to the Advective Vorticity Transport model. That's an interesting numerical technique, actually this looks *extremely* clever. Wow, I'm going to have to try and wrap my head around this... I think I can use this...
Here is an example description of the process of applying Adjoint Sensitivity methods to solving another problem:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xiObD3hczc
This gets into some of the more advanced numerical techniques. I need to wrap my head around it more before I can begin to see how it answers my question.
You need a few things to have a useful, predictive model:
(1) You need a good mathematical framework that emulates the behavior of real quantities.
(2) You need to know how your mathematical framework can break and do you best to prevent "breaking" from happening.
(3) You need a *solid* set of numerical approximation techniques to implement your mathematical framework. If you don't have this; your solution can fall apart.
(4) You need to know *exactly* how your numerical approximation techniques can break, and when they will start spitting out junk.
(5) You need to prevent both your mathematical framework and your numerical approximation framework from breaking.
-- By the way; no computer code is written by this point ---> This is all math, and some of it can get nasty.
(6) Write your code based on the numerical approximation framework that you created.
(7) Debug the code.
(8) When you are satisfied that all the previous steps are sound; *now* you start to run your predictive simulations.
(9) You test your simulation against reality. If any of the previous steps have issues; your simulation will not fare well against reality.
(10) Rinse and repeat all of the previous steps until you have a simulation that is predicatively useful.
(11) Open up the Champagne; give yourself a pat on the back, then repeat all previous steps until you have a better model.
Don't kid yourself; what the climatologists do is *hard*.
Anonymous #2 / Kalium
"I am being completely honest here. I have not seen an adequate explanation for why we should expect the averaged solution for the weather equations; these are based on the Navier-Stokes equations, the fluid equations that describe the motion of the atmosphere, which are indisputably chaotic, and nonlinear; why should we expect that the 'equations' that Nature would follow for climate to be any less chaotic?"
No sooner had I asked what I thought might be a "good" question that I found a possible "really good" answer.
Thank you, again, Gavin Schmidt!
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/chaos-and-climate/
And he even links to several papers. And I can even read them!
http://wind.mit.edu/~hansen/papers/LeaQJRMS.pdf
It looks like Dr. Lea applied "Adjoint Sensitivity Methods" to the Advective Vorticity Transport model. That's an interesting numerical technique, actually this looks *extremely* clever. Wow, I'm going to have to try and wrap my head around this... I think I can use this...
Here is an example description of the process of applying Adjoint Sensitivity methods to solving another problem:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xiObD3hczc
This gets into some of the more advanced numerical techniques. I need to wrap my head around it more before I can begin to see how it answers my question.
You need a few things to have a useful, predictive model:
(1) You need a good mathematical framework that emulates the behavior of real quantities.
(2) You need to know how your mathematical framework can break and do you best to prevent "breaking" from happening.
(3) You need a *solid* set of numerical approximation techniques to implement your mathematical framework. If you don't have this; your solution can fall apart.
(4) You need to know *exactly* how your numerical approximation techniques can break, and when they will start spitting out junk.
(5) You need to prevent both your mathematical framework and your numerical approximation framework from breaking.
-- By the way; no computer code is written by this point ---> This is all math, and some of it can get nasty.
(6) Write your code based on the numerical approximation framework that you created.
(7) Debug the code.
(8) When you are satisfied that all the previous steps are sound; *now* you start to run your predictive simulations.
(9) You test your simulation against reality. If any of the previous steps have issues; your simulation will not fare well against reality.
(10) Rinse and repeat all of the previous steps until you have a simulation that is predicatively useful.
(11) Open up the Champagne; give yourself a pat on the back, then repeat all previous steps until you have a better model.
Don't kid yourself; what the climatologists do is *hard*.
Anonymous #2 / Kalium
Richard Treadgold:
QUOTE:
Mike Smith (July 25, 2014 at 12:17 PM) said: "Richard, to put it bluntly, you are simply calling the thousands of scientists that submitted over 25,000 published, peer reviewed articles liars and frauds. It even goes beyond that. You are calling the scientists that did the peer reviews liars and frauds. You are also calling the reviewer of the reviewers, a scientist that worked for two Republican Presidents, a liar and a fraud. Just to be clear. You are claiming that 99.9% of the published papers and the scientists that wrote and review them, that support the conclusion that global warming is occurring and that it is man-made are all lies and the scientists are all liars and frauds."
No, he's grossly distorting for his own purposes what I clearly said. I didn't use the words liar or fraud, nor did I attempt to explain why other people did or said things. I answered those points from the video to the best of my understanding. Instead of being offensive, he (and you) might explain where I have things wrong.
END QUOTE:
Richard,
You stated that you do not believe in man-made global warming. If that is a true statement, then what exactly are you stating about the 99.9% of peer reviewed climate research? To be more succinct, exactly what would be settled science with a consistency of 99.999% for the year 2013? Let us not discount that the two articles that are listed as dissenters, are entirely questionable and at least one was not peer reviewed.
Exactly what type of denial are you engaged in, to blatantly dismiss their research and their conclusions? You most assuredly are challenging their credibility, because, you have bluntly stated that you do not believe in man-made global warming and have stated that the science is not settled.
Finding a single point to question is one thing, but to completely dismiss, as your admitted denial of man-made global warming does mean that you are impugning all parts of the veracity, honor and integrity of the scientists and the scientific process that submitted the 25,000 plus papers.
QUOTE:
Mike Smith (July 25, 2014 at 12:17 PM) said: "Richard, to put it bluntly, you are simply calling the thousands of scientists that submitted over 25,000 published, peer reviewed articles liars and frauds. It even goes beyond that. You are calling the scientists that did the peer reviews liars and frauds. You are also calling the reviewer of the reviewers, a scientist that worked for two Republican Presidents, a liar and a fraud. Just to be clear. You are claiming that 99.9% of the published papers and the scientists that wrote and review them, that support the conclusion that global warming is occurring and that it is man-made are all lies and the scientists are all liars and frauds."
No, he's grossly distorting for his own purposes what I clearly said. I didn't use the words liar or fraud, nor did I attempt to explain why other people did or said things. I answered those points from the video to the best of my understanding. Instead of being offensive, he (and you) might explain where I have things wrong.
END QUOTE:
Richard,
You stated that you do not believe in man-made global warming. If that is a true statement, then what exactly are you stating about the 99.9% of peer reviewed climate research? To be more succinct, exactly what would be settled science with a consistency of 99.999% for the year 2013? Let us not discount that the two articles that are listed as dissenters, are entirely questionable and at least one was not peer reviewed.
Exactly what type of denial are you engaged in, to blatantly dismiss their research and their conclusions? You most assuredly are challenging their credibility, because, you have bluntly stated that you do not believe in man-made global warming and have stated that the science is not settled.
Finding a single point to question is one thing, but to completely dismiss, as your admitted denial of man-made global warming does mean that you are impugning all parts of the veracity, honor and integrity of the scientists and the scientific process that submitted the 25,000 plus papers.
Mike, you say: "You
stated that you do not believe in man-made global warming."
The only instances of the phrase "believe in man-made global warming" on this page are both in your post. Please provide a reference to the statement you believe I made, as I don't recall making it.
If you disagree with my rebuttals of the video points, please address them and let go of this pretence that I'm insulting yet other scientists who disagree with me and for some reason you feel obliged to defend them. From what I write, you can clearly see that I'm not mentioning people, but observations. It's the observations I'm asking about.
The only instances of the phrase "believe in man-made global warming" on this page are both in your post. Please provide a reference to the statement you believe I made, as I don't recall making it.
If you disagree with my rebuttals of the video points, please address them and let go of this pretence that I'm insulting yet other scientists who disagree with me and for some reason you feel obliged to defend them. From what I write, you can clearly see that I'm not mentioning people, but observations. It's the observations I'm asking about.
Richard Treadgold:
QUOTE:
An obvious question to ask oneself is: what is causing the temperature stasis? One answer is natural variation, which would in turn mean that natural forces can, at least temporarily, overwhelm the anthropogenic influence. One wonders how often and to what extent natural forces might dominate in the future?
END QUOTE
This statement is simply false. The temperature has not entered into a state of stasis.
QUOTE:
Abstract
Global warming first became evident beyond the bounds of natural variability in the 1970s, but increases in global mean surface temperatures have stalled in the 2000s. Increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide, create an energy imbalance at the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) even as the planet warms to adjust to this imbalance, which is estimated to be 0.5–1 W m−2 over the 2000s. Annual global fluctuations in TOA energy of up to 0.2 W m−2 occur from natural variations in clouds, aerosols, and changes in the Sun. At times of major volcanic eruptions the effects can be much larger. Yet global mean surface temperatures fluctuate much more than these can account for. An energy imbalance is manifested not just as surface atmospheric or ground warming but also as melting sea and land ice, and heating of the oceans. More than 90% of the heat goes into the oceans and, with melting land ice, causes sea level to rise. For the past decade, more than 30% of the heat has apparently penetrated below 700 m depth that is traceable to changes in surface winds mainly over the Pacific in association with a switch to a negative phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) in 1999. Surface warming was much more in evidence during the 1976–1998 positive phase of the PDO, suggesting that natural decadal variability modulates the rate of change of global surface temperatures while sea-level rise is more relentless. Global warming has not stopped; it is merely manifested in different ways................................
..................The 2000s are by far the warmest decade on record (Figure 1).
END QUOTE
FULL TEXT:
URL: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EF000165/full END URL
QUOTE:
An obvious question to ask oneself is: what is causing the temperature stasis? One answer is natural variation, which would in turn mean that natural forces can, at least temporarily, overwhelm the anthropogenic influence. One wonders how often and to what extent natural forces might dominate in the future?
END QUOTE
This statement is simply false. The temperature has not entered into a state of stasis.
QUOTE:
Abstract
Global warming first became evident beyond the bounds of natural variability in the 1970s, but increases in global mean surface temperatures have stalled in the 2000s. Increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide, create an energy imbalance at the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) even as the planet warms to adjust to this imbalance, which is estimated to be 0.5–1 W m−2 over the 2000s. Annual global fluctuations in TOA energy of up to 0.2 W m−2 occur from natural variations in clouds, aerosols, and changes in the Sun. At times of major volcanic eruptions the effects can be much larger. Yet global mean surface temperatures fluctuate much more than these can account for. An energy imbalance is manifested not just as surface atmospheric or ground warming but also as melting sea and land ice, and heating of the oceans. More than 90% of the heat goes into the oceans and, with melting land ice, causes sea level to rise. For the past decade, more than 30% of the heat has apparently penetrated below 700 m depth that is traceable to changes in surface winds mainly over the Pacific in association with a switch to a negative phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) in 1999. Surface warming was much more in evidence during the 1976–1998 positive phase of the PDO, suggesting that natural decadal variability modulates the rate of change of global surface temperatures while sea-level rise is more relentless. Global warming has not stopped; it is merely manifested in different ways................................
..................The 2000s are by far the warmest decade on record (Figure 1).
END QUOTE
FULL TEXT:
URL: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EF000165/full END URL
Mike, you say: "This
statement is simply false. The temperature has not entered into a state of
stasis."
But the graphs you're looking at show no warming trend from about 1998. I don't understand how you're not persuaded. How do you explain the lack of rise? Have you looked at them?
But the graphs you're looking at show no warming trend from about 1998. I don't understand how you're not persuaded. How do you explain the lack of rise? Have you looked at them?
QUOTE FROM: Richard Treadgold
There's no such thing as 'the science is settled.' These and others are good questions, yet all you do is call the questioner names. END QUOTE
QUOTE:
This is where there is a consensus.
Specifically, the “consensus” about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:
•the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;
•the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
•the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;
•if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and
•a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.
END QUOTE
SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS:
•Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
•Royal Society of Canada
•Chinese Academy of Sciences
•Academié des Sciences (France)
•Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
•Indian National Science Academy
•Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
•Science Council of Japan
•Russian Academy of Sciences
•Royal Society (United Kingdom)
•National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
•Australian Academy of Sciences
•Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
•Caribbean Academy of Sciences
•Indonesian Academy of Sciences
•Royal Irish Academy
•Academy of Sciences Malaysia
•Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
•Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
_________________________________________
TAR report:
•NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
•National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
•National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
•State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
•Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
•Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
•American Geophysical Union (AGU)
•American Institute of Physics (AIP)
•National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
•American Meteorological Society (AMS)
•Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
If this is not scientific consensus, what in the world would a consensus look like?
END ORGANIZATIONS
URL: http://grist.org/climate-energy/there-is-no-consensus/ END URL
Supporting Documents:
URL: http://grist.files.wordpress.com/2005/06/06072005.pdf END URL
Richard,
Once again you have made a plainly false statement.
There's no such thing as 'the science is settled.' These and others are good questions, yet all you do is call the questioner names. END QUOTE
QUOTE:
This is where there is a consensus.
Specifically, the “consensus” about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:
•the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;
•the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
•the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;
•if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and
•a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.
END QUOTE
SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS:
•Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
•Royal Society of Canada
•Chinese Academy of Sciences
•Academié des Sciences (France)
•Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
•Indian National Science Academy
•Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
•Science Council of Japan
•Russian Academy of Sciences
•Royal Society (United Kingdom)
•National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
•Australian Academy of Sciences
•Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
•Caribbean Academy of Sciences
•Indonesian Academy of Sciences
•Royal Irish Academy
•Academy of Sciences Malaysia
•Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
•Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
_________________________________________
TAR report:
•NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
•National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
•National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
•State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
•Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
•Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
•American Geophysical Union (AGU)
•American Institute of Physics (AIP)
•National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
•American Meteorological Society (AMS)
•Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
If this is not scientific consensus, what in the world would a consensus look like?
END ORGANIZATIONS
URL: http://grist.org/climate-energy/there-is-no-consensus/ END URL
Supporting Documents:
URL: http://grist.files.wordpress.com/2005/06/06072005.pdf END URL
Richard,
Once again you have made a plainly false statement.
AnonymousJuly
28, 2014 at 4:28 PM
Mike Smith,
Is this you?
http://www.mikesmithenterprises.com/
If so, then it sounds like you would be quite knowledgeable about meteorology and weather physics.
Actually, it sounds like you would also know how forecasting works from the perspective of Meteorology. Can you confirm that the 'Forecasting Principles' described by J. Scott Armstrong earlier, *do* in fact originate from the field of Marketing and not from the field of Meteorology?
QUOTE FROM: Richard Treadgold
There's no such thing as 'the science is settled.' These and others are good questions, yet all you do is call the questioner names. END QUOTE
QUOTE FROM: Mike Smith
Once again you have made a plainly false statement. END QUOTE
It's quite possible that Mr. Smith may, in fact, believe that statement. I also don't think that he comes from a physics background, either. Or if he has, I doubt that he has ever taken an advanced course Optics (Optics is, in fact, a common subject to leave out of the undergraduate physics curriculum. And the graduate curriculum is often specialized.).
Mike Smith makes the statement:
"Global warming first became evident beyond the bounds of natural variability in the 1970s, but increases in global mean surface temperatures have stalled in the 2000s. Increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide, create an energy imbalance at the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) even as the planet warms to adjust to this imbalance, which is estimated to be 0.5–1 W m−2 over the 2000s. Annual global fluctuations in TOA energy of up to 0.2 W m−2 occur from natural variations in clouds, aerosols, and changes in the Sun. At times of major volcanic eruptions the effects can be much larger. Yet global mean surface temperatures fluctuate much more than these can account for. An energy imbalance is manifested not just as surface atmospheric or ground warming but also as melting sea and land ice, and heating of the oceans. More than 90% of the heat goes into the oceans and, with melting land ice, causes sea level to rise. For the past decade, more than 30% of the heat has apparently penetrated below 700 m depth that is traceable to changes in surface winds mainly over the Pacific in association with a switch to a negative phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) in 1999. Surface warming was much more in evidence during the 1976–1998 positive phase of the PDO, suggesting that natural decadal variability modulates the rate of change of global surface temperatures while sea-level rise is more relentless. Global warming has not stopped; it is merely manifested in different ways................................
..................The 2000s are by far the warmest decade on record (Figure 1)."
Taking into account Latent Heat; which does not increase the temperature of a material, but goes into changing the state of something. Yes, this would be correct.
This can become a point of confusion for the many people in our country who have never taken a physics or a chemistry course. When most people say that something is hotter, what they think they mean is that the temperature is higher; something being hotter -- in the physical sense -- simply means that the substance is in a higher energy state (ie. has a higher kinetic energy, has higher internal molecular vibrational energy, and so on).
As a result most people would look at liquid water at 32 degrees F and solid water (ice) at 32 degrees F, and they might think that the solid form is as "hot" as the liquid form.
It would be wiser to see this as confusion regarding the physics. And it should be dealt with as such.
Don't forget how physics is perceived by the public. "Physics is hard."
Most objections are more likely to be due to a misunderstanding of the physics than a conspiracy against the physicists.
Anonymous #2 / Kalium
Is this you?
http://www.mikesmithenterprises.com/
If so, then it sounds like you would be quite knowledgeable about meteorology and weather physics.
Actually, it sounds like you would also know how forecasting works from the perspective of Meteorology. Can you confirm that the 'Forecasting Principles' described by J. Scott Armstrong earlier, *do* in fact originate from the field of Marketing and not from the field of Meteorology?
QUOTE FROM: Richard Treadgold
There's no such thing as 'the science is settled.' These and others are good questions, yet all you do is call the questioner names. END QUOTE
QUOTE FROM: Mike Smith
Once again you have made a plainly false statement. END QUOTE
It's quite possible that Mr. Smith may, in fact, believe that statement. I also don't think that he comes from a physics background, either. Or if he has, I doubt that he has ever taken an advanced course Optics (Optics is, in fact, a common subject to leave out of the undergraduate physics curriculum. And the graduate curriculum is often specialized.).
Mike Smith makes the statement:
"Global warming first became evident beyond the bounds of natural variability in the 1970s, but increases in global mean surface temperatures have stalled in the 2000s. Increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide, create an energy imbalance at the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) even as the planet warms to adjust to this imbalance, which is estimated to be 0.5–1 W m−2 over the 2000s. Annual global fluctuations in TOA energy of up to 0.2 W m−2 occur from natural variations in clouds, aerosols, and changes in the Sun. At times of major volcanic eruptions the effects can be much larger. Yet global mean surface temperatures fluctuate much more than these can account for. An energy imbalance is manifested not just as surface atmospheric or ground warming but also as melting sea and land ice, and heating of the oceans. More than 90% of the heat goes into the oceans and, with melting land ice, causes sea level to rise. For the past decade, more than 30% of the heat has apparently penetrated below 700 m depth that is traceable to changes in surface winds mainly over the Pacific in association with a switch to a negative phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) in 1999. Surface warming was much more in evidence during the 1976–1998 positive phase of the PDO, suggesting that natural decadal variability modulates the rate of change of global surface temperatures while sea-level rise is more relentless. Global warming has not stopped; it is merely manifested in different ways................................
..................The 2000s are by far the warmest decade on record (Figure 1)."
Taking into account Latent Heat; which does not increase the temperature of a material, but goes into changing the state of something. Yes, this would be correct.
This can become a point of confusion for the many people in our country who have never taken a physics or a chemistry course. When most people say that something is hotter, what they think they mean is that the temperature is higher; something being hotter -- in the physical sense -- simply means that the substance is in a higher energy state (ie. has a higher kinetic energy, has higher internal molecular vibrational energy, and so on).
As a result most people would look at liquid water at 32 degrees F and solid water (ice) at 32 degrees F, and they might think that the solid form is as "hot" as the liquid form.
It would be wiser to see this as confusion regarding the physics. And it should be dealt with as such.
Don't forget how physics is perceived by the public. "Physics is hard."
Most objections are more likely to be due to a misunderstanding of the physics than a conspiracy against the physicists.
Anonymous #2 / Kalium
To Kalium:
I have moved your comments on modeling to another page to free up room on this page for comments. The things you said about modeling are very interesting and useful, so I do not want to lose them. I am putting them together in one place for easy reference.
http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/p/comments-on-constructing-climate-models.html
I have moved your comments on modeling to another page to free up room on this page for comments. The things you said about modeling are very interesting and useful, so I do not want to lose them. I am putting them together in one place for easy reference.
http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/p/comments-on-constructing-climate-models.html
AnonymousJuly
28, 2014 at 9:51 PM
Christopher Keating,
I just hope that the context of what I was discussing isn't lost.
Anonymous #2 / Kalium
I just hope that the context of what I was discussing isn't lost.
Anonymous #2 / Kalium
They were copied verbatim.
AnonymousJuly
30, 2014 at 7:56 PM
Err... I didn't realize this when I posted this
before, but I just caught an error in my logic. I named the wrong person!!
"It's quite possible that Mr. Smith may, in fact, believe that statement. I also don't think that he comes from a physics background, either. Or if he has, I doubt that he has ever taken an advanced course Optics (Optics is, in fact, a common subject to leave out of the undergraduate physics curriculum. And the graduate curriculum is often specialized.)."
No wonder you seemed annoyed. I am so sorry! I flipped your names in my head.
Mike Smith; I am so sorry! I was referring to Richard Treadgold, not to you.
"It's quite possible that Mr. Smith may, in fact, believe that statement. I also don't think that he comes from a physics background, either. Or if he has, I doubt that he has ever taken an advanced course Optics (Optics is, in fact, a common subject to leave out of the undergraduate physics curriculum. And the graduate curriculum is often specialized.)."
No wonder you seemed annoyed. I am so sorry! I flipped your names in my head.
Mike Smith; I am so sorry! I was referring to Richard Treadgold, not to you.
AnonymousJuly
30, 2014 at 7:58 PM
This is biggest mistake that
I've made on this blog.
I'm sorry Mike Smith.
Anonymous #2
I'm sorry Mike Smith.
Anonymous #2
AnonymousJuly
30, 2014 at 8:08 PM
Meteorologists by the way,
take more physics classes than most of the public.
Writers, don't often take optics courses. This is why I spilled so much ink on how radiation absorption in materials works.
Mike Smith, I should have noticed that error before. "Oops" does not quite cover what I am feeling right now.
Anonymous #2
Writers, don't often take optics courses. This is why I spilled so much ink on how radiation absorption in materials works.
Mike Smith, I should have noticed that error before. "Oops" does not quite cover what I am feeling right now.
Anonymous #2
Oh, stop being so humble.
I'm sure you've made bigger mistakes here. ;)
AnonymousJuly
30, 2014 at 9:56 PM
Well, feel free to point
them out as you see them. You won't bruise my ego. :)
Anonymous #2
Anonymous #2
AnonymousJuly
30, 2014 at 10:36 PM
Much of the point of
everything that I've been trying to say is:
Physicists are people too.
Don't demonize the physicists. Please.
Then much of the rest was speculation on how systems of people work. Then trying to figure out how systems of climate work.
I think I have a better handle on how the climate systems work, now. I need to read more about Spectroscopy.
Then some of it was more of my own limbic-system driven wilder speculation on what I think the motives of the Lobbying institutions might be, and my objections to their methods.
I was serious when I said that I thought the Heartland Institute was transparent. Very easy to understand their motivations.
I still don't know what the IPCC really wants. I know they suggested the Carbon Credit system. I know the "official" reason why they want it. I 'fear' there is more to it than what they say. Personally, I think the Carbon Credit system is a bad solution to the climate change problem.
Propaganda irritates me.
We have *lots* of clever ways to generate energy. We only use very *few* on a large scale.
Biomass ethanol from corn crops looks dangerous and foolish.
Wind looks excessively expensive for not enough power.
Coal is cheap; but systematically expensive. (Our healthcare system, in the US is too expensive as it is)
Oil is ok. But we need a better option if it is going away.
Photovoltaic looks not half bad, actually.
Research into graphene and nanotubes might produce a better cheaper battery.
Uranium Fission has lots of bang for it's buck.
-- Chernobyl was terrible. But graphite burns. That reactor design was cheap; but it was also known to be *so* risky, that the US government decided not to use it.
-- If the later generation reactor designs work as advertised; then this will be great.
-- Thorium seems like it could generate a huge amount of energy with no risk of meltdown.
Continue to research solutions that can have great potential to fix our most pressing problems.
Mass transportation in the US should have a less distributed and lower aggregate Oil consumption.
I need to run the math first; but in aggregate, I suspect that we can save the environment, reduce CO2 emissions AND have cheap electricity at the same time... we just need to be clever about how we do it.
We might have a few systemic issues, but remember:
Food is important for civilization.
Cheap energy is the blood and life of modern civilization.
So I guess that just about summarizes my thoughts.
Oh, and MIT sponge, just because it is clever and it's cool:
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/186704-mit-creates-graphite-solar-sponge-that-converts-sunlight-into-steam-with-85-efficiency
Question: How does it scale?
Anonymous #2
Physicists are people too.
Don't demonize the physicists. Please.
Then much of the rest was speculation on how systems of people work. Then trying to figure out how systems of climate work.
I think I have a better handle on how the climate systems work, now. I need to read more about Spectroscopy.
Then some of it was more of my own limbic-system driven wilder speculation on what I think the motives of the Lobbying institutions might be, and my objections to their methods.
I was serious when I said that I thought the Heartland Institute was transparent. Very easy to understand their motivations.
I still don't know what the IPCC really wants. I know they suggested the Carbon Credit system. I know the "official" reason why they want it. I 'fear' there is more to it than what they say. Personally, I think the Carbon Credit system is a bad solution to the climate change problem.
Propaganda irritates me.
We have *lots* of clever ways to generate energy. We only use very *few* on a large scale.
Biomass ethanol from corn crops looks dangerous and foolish.
Wind looks excessively expensive for not enough power.
Coal is cheap; but systematically expensive. (Our healthcare system, in the US is too expensive as it is)
Oil is ok. But we need a better option if it is going away.
Photovoltaic looks not half bad, actually.
Research into graphene and nanotubes might produce a better cheaper battery.
Uranium Fission has lots of bang for it's buck.
-- Chernobyl was terrible. But graphite burns. That reactor design was cheap; but it was also known to be *so* risky, that the US government decided not to use it.
-- If the later generation reactor designs work as advertised; then this will be great.
-- Thorium seems like it could generate a huge amount of energy with no risk of meltdown.
Continue to research solutions that can have great potential to fix our most pressing problems.
Mass transportation in the US should have a less distributed and lower aggregate Oil consumption.
I need to run the math first; but in aggregate, I suspect that we can save the environment, reduce CO2 emissions AND have cheap electricity at the same time... we just need to be clever about how we do it.
We might have a few systemic issues, but remember:
Food is important for civilization.
Cheap energy is the blood and life of modern civilization.
So I guess that just about summarizes my thoughts.
Oh, and MIT sponge, just because it is clever and it's cool:
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/186704-mit-creates-graphite-solar-sponge-that-converts-sunlight-into-steam-with-85-efficiency
Question: How does it scale?
Anonymous #2
IMPORTANT!
I have gotten so tired of the problems with Blogger that I am transferring the blog to WordPress. This site will be up, but I will gradually maintain it less and less. It will not be much longer before the comment section for this page is filled and your comments (though accepted) will not appear.
Please use my new blog site for future comments:
thermaleffects.wordpress.com
Thank you.
I have gotten so tired of the problems with Blogger that I am transferring the blog to WordPress. This site will be up, but I will gradually maintain it less and less. It will not be much longer before the comment section for this page is filled and your comments (though accepted) will not appear.
Please use my new blog site for future comments:
thermaleffects.wordpress.com
Thank you.
AnonymousJuly
29, 2014 at 4:02 PM
I will not be posting at all
in the next 2-4 days. I am moving to my new place.
I plan on being back.
The best resource that I have found on the topic of global warming is actually this website:
http://www.realclimate.org/
The man who runs it appears to be honest, appears to know the physics well, and his website is actually pretty good at explaining the concepts. The links to other articles are really good. (His website was where I learned about HITRAN, which is a brilliant resource for spectroscopic data)
Anonymous #2
I plan on being back.
The best resource that I have found on the topic of global warming is actually this website:
http://www.realclimate.org/
The man who runs it appears to be honest, appears to know the physics well, and his website is actually pretty good at explaining the concepts. The links to other articles are really good. (His website was where I learned about HITRAN, which is a brilliant resource for spectroscopic data)
Anonymous #2
Christopher, you say:
"However, over the years, independent researchers found four separate
errors in the work that invalidated their findings. They even admitted
themselves that the work was invalid."
Yes, and they corrected them and moved on. That's the scientific method. RSS also responded to critical papers and made corrections. You're being unnecessarily harsh.
Yes, and they corrected them and moved on. That's the scientific method. RSS also responded to critical papers and made corrections. You're being unnecessarily harsh.
I would agree with you about
being harsh if this was the only issue. Like I said, everyone makes mistakes.
The issue with Spencer is that I do not believe it was a mistake, I believe it
was intentional and so do many other people. Then, he followed it up with a
track record of many other errors and 'mistakes'. He has demonstrated, in my
opinion, that he has a program to undermine climate science by any means
available to him. In that light, I am not being very harsh at all.
Mike, you say: "This
clown also denies evolution and supports creationism. Anyone that uses Roy
Spencer as a reference has dived, head first, into the vat of science liars /
science deniers."
If I could comment on this without starting a debate, I would ask this: Could evolution begin without a creator providing some building blocks?
You say you use the citing of Spencer to justify defaming anybody; are you serious? What if they're unaware of your criticism of Spencer?
You seem to engage in precious little discussion of science, Mr Smith. You appear all too ready to slander those you simply disagree with, and you vomit up the most rancid abuse I've ever seen.
Keating is leading you astray, as he doesn't rein you in, but lets you do all his muckraking for him. I wouldn't visit his new WordPress site if he paid me to.
If I could comment on this without starting a debate, I would ask this: Could evolution begin without a creator providing some building blocks?
You say you use the citing of Spencer to justify defaming anybody; are you serious? What if they're unaware of your criticism of Spencer?
You seem to engage in precious little discussion of science, Mr Smith. You appear all too ready to slander those you simply disagree with, and you vomit up the most rancid abuse I've ever seen.
Keating is leading you astray, as he doesn't rein you in, but lets you do all his muckraking for him. I wouldn't visit his new WordPress site if he paid me to.
I do very little to 'rein
in' anyone commenting on this blog. Why weren't you critical of any of the
deniers that come on here and make extremely offensive remarks (which I allow
to remain)? I feel it is part of the public forum for everyone to see that is
going on. It isn't just something playing out on CNN or Fox News.
AnonymousJuly
31, 2014 at 5:37 AM
Richard Treadgold,
You said:
"If I could comment on this without starting a debate, I would ask this: Could evolution begin without a creator providing some building blocks?"
Consider Michael Faraday. He was one of the most brilliant physicists who ever lived. He was also very deeply religious.
Or consider Blaise Pascal; we use much of the mathematics that he derived to this day.
Another person who you may be interested in reading about may be Copernicus who often wrote about God in his work.
My perspective is that of an agnostic. There are many details regarding how the natural world works that we do not understand (we might work them out, in time; I hope). For some people, the idea of the study of science and the idea of religion are mutually exclusive; for others, the two ideas are in perfect harmony with one another, there is no contradiction. Einstein spoke eloquently on this. (If you get a chance, you might be interested in reading his writing, it won't go over your head; he had some really interesting perspectives. Particularly on the subject of religion.)
I have been too mocking in my representations of religious ideas on this board. This serves to exclude other people's mindsets; and this is not the best way to interact with people. Actually, it's particularly stupid in this case... because a large majority of people believe in God; and if I offend them too much, they won't listen to what I say.
There is what? More than 80% of people on this world who believe in some kind of a creator? It would be arrogant to say they are wrong in what they believe. How would I know I am right?
Is it possible that some creator somewhere built the rules that governs the way that energy forms into sub-atomic particles, that particles form into atoms, that atoms that form into molecules, the molecules that form into cells, and the cells that form into the vibrant life that we see around us; and all of the dynamics that govern their interactions?
Yeah, I really wouldn't know where to begin answering that question...
it is a compelling idea, but I don't know how to touch it. I study dynamics because it is beautiful; I can begin to see the laws that govern how things interact.
But this is only a glimpse of how Nature works, because all of our models are broken, and we continuously improve them. It is just a question of how much and to what degree.
Good luck to you Richard.
Anonymous #2
You said:
"If I could comment on this without starting a debate, I would ask this: Could evolution begin without a creator providing some building blocks?"
Consider Michael Faraday. He was one of the most brilliant physicists who ever lived. He was also very deeply religious.
Or consider Blaise Pascal; we use much of the mathematics that he derived to this day.
Another person who you may be interested in reading about may be Copernicus who often wrote about God in his work.
My perspective is that of an agnostic. There are many details regarding how the natural world works that we do not understand (we might work them out, in time; I hope). For some people, the idea of the study of science and the idea of religion are mutually exclusive; for others, the two ideas are in perfect harmony with one another, there is no contradiction. Einstein spoke eloquently on this. (If you get a chance, you might be interested in reading his writing, it won't go over your head; he had some really interesting perspectives. Particularly on the subject of religion.)
I have been too mocking in my representations of religious ideas on this board. This serves to exclude other people's mindsets; and this is not the best way to interact with people. Actually, it's particularly stupid in this case... because a large majority of people believe in God; and if I offend them too much, they won't listen to what I say.
There is what? More than 80% of people on this world who believe in some kind of a creator? It would be arrogant to say they are wrong in what they believe. How would I know I am right?
Is it possible that some creator somewhere built the rules that governs the way that energy forms into sub-atomic particles, that particles form into atoms, that atoms that form into molecules, the molecules that form into cells, and the cells that form into the vibrant life that we see around us; and all of the dynamics that govern their interactions?
Yeah, I really wouldn't know where to begin answering that question...
it is a compelling idea, but I don't know how to touch it. I study dynamics because it is beautiful; I can begin to see the laws that govern how things interact.
But this is only a glimpse of how Nature works, because all of our models are broken, and we continuously improve them. It is just a question of how much and to what degree.
Good luck to you Richard.
Anonymous #2
AnonymousJuly
31, 2014 at 5:53 AM
Heh, here is an interesting
quote I found on the subject:
Job 37: 16-18
"16 Do you know how the clouds hang poised,
those wonders of him who has perfect knowledge?
17 You who swelter in your clothes
when the land lies hushed under the south wind,
18 can you join him in spreading out the skies,
hard as a mirror of cast bronze?"
Umm... yeah, about that; clouds are complicated.
Anonymous #2
Job 37: 16-18
"16 Do you know how the clouds hang poised,
those wonders of him who has perfect knowledge?
17 You who swelter in your clothes
when the land lies hushed under the south wind,
18 can you join him in spreading out the skies,
hard as a mirror of cast bronze?"
Umm... yeah, about that; clouds are complicated.
Anonymous #2
To your query about
evolution, as far as I can tell, the creationism/evolution debate is a purely
American Christian issue. I am not aware of evolution being an issue with other
religions. And, I am not even aware of it being an issue with many Christians.
I know many scientists that are profoundly religious and have no problem with
evolution.
You are right about not wanting to start a debate, and I don't want to get into one. More importantly, I don't want this blog to become about evolution/creationism. I mentioned Roy Spencer is a creationist as an example of how he has rejected science when it isn't what he wants to hear.
You are right about not wanting to start a debate, and I don't want to get into one. More importantly, I don't want this blog to become about evolution/creationism. I mentioned Roy Spencer is a creationist as an example of how he has rejected science when it isn't what he wants to hear.
Sorry, men, I must leave.
You're all too full of deniers and liars and claiming dissidents are controlled
by evil forces like Heartland and all the rest. When you become serious about a
debate, come across to the climate conversation blog. You're all very welcome.
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/
To Richard Treadgold, Kalium
and Mike Smith - I moved your comments that are principally concerned with
modeling to the page on modeling comments in order to free up space on this
page for more comments. I apologize for this and assure you that nothing was
deleted. This is part of my own going difficulties surround Blogger (Blogspot)
that limits the number of comments that will actually appear on a page. Here is
modeling page:
http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/p/comments-on-constructing-climate-models.html
http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/p/comments-on-constructing-climate-models.html
Well, sir, the there is only
one day left in the challenge. Thank you very much for allowing the discussion
to occur. I think Anonymous #2 and I got a little concession with you accepting
that the 97% is political statement. With humility, there are always dangers to
anything being politicized. It tends to end up being divisive with an us vs.
them resulting, which is echoed throughout this discussion from both sides. Not
for everyone, but for me it calls into question the credibility of not just the
proponents but the deniers as well.
This is going to sound cliche but I don't believe any scientist should stoop to that level. At the end of the day it sets bad precedence and it just may be a slippery slope to a future where if a consensus is all that is required well I'm sure people who need a consensus will make great efforts to get the consensus. That might end up being a counter tactic inadvertently resulting from this experience.
Thanks again!
This is going to sound cliche but I don't believe any scientist should stoop to that level. At the end of the day it sets bad precedence and it just may be a slippery slope to a future where if a consensus is all that is required well I'm sure people who need a consensus will make great efforts to get the consensus. That might end up being a counter tactic inadvertently resulting from this experience.
Thanks again!
The discussion doesn't have
to end with the challenge.
AnonymousJuly
30, 2014 at 7:44 PM
I plan on being back later
this month.
This discussion has been interesting. I have learned a lot about this subject that I did not know before.
It looks like you could turn a climate model into a global illumination problem.
With the GISS modelE: I would really like to find a schematic, or some kind of diagram describing how all of the functions that it calls fit together.
It's one thing to read the raw code and speculate about how everything fits together... it's quite another to have a nice top down reference for it. For that, I need to spend more time on the GISS website.
I have no problem with renewable energy, in principle; as long as the cost of electricity is kept relatively low. And there should be plenty of options for cheap electricity as long as people are thinking with their heads and not with their limbic systems.
Anonymous #2
This discussion has been interesting. I have learned a lot about this subject that I did not know before.
It looks like you could turn a climate model into a global illumination problem.
With the GISS modelE: I would really like to find a schematic, or some kind of diagram describing how all of the functions that it calls fit together.
It's one thing to read the raw code and speculate about how everything fits together... it's quite another to have a nice top down reference for it. For that, I need to spend more time on the GISS website.
I have no problem with renewable energy, in principle; as long as the cost of electricity is kept relatively low. And there should be plenty of options for cheap electricity as long as people are thinking with their heads and not with their limbic systems.
Anonymous #2
AnonymousJuly
31, 2014 at 12:28 AM
By the way. One last thing
regarding one of my... err, more problematic posts; I said this:
July 28, 2014 1:09 AM
"In Dr. Keatings case, he comes across like this to me, actually. Extremely intelligent; he knows his subject, he knows his research area; more than likely, he is brilliant researcher."
People like this can be wrong, like anyone else, but...
When they have intuition about something; one should pay close attention, because although they may be wrong... there's a good chance that they are probably right. At the very least, take what they say into consideration.
Anonymous #2
July 28, 2014 1:09 AM
"In Dr. Keatings case, he comes across like this to me, actually. Extremely intelligent; he knows his subject, he knows his research area; more than likely, he is brilliant researcher."
People like this can be wrong, like anyone else, but...
When they have intuition about something; one should pay close attention, because although they may be wrong... there's a good chance that they are probably right. At the very least, take what they say into consideration.
Anonymous #2
$30,000 Challenge Submission
– No Change in Temperature Rate
1. Michael Mann’s data shows global warming started in 1800’s (not mid-1900's
2. Phil Jones said the rate is the same (0.16 ± 0.05 oC/decade) for: 1860 to 1880, 1910 to 1940, 1975 to 1988, and 1975 to 2009. Two natural warming periods before post-1950 increases in C02.
3. Total thermal energy of a system can be defined as Q = mcT. Assumes no phase change. Energy inside system is not dependent on the method of heat transfer in (conduction, convection, or radiation).
4. Temperature record from GISS show a cyclical pattern of periods of cooling (1880 to 1916, 1945 to 1963, and 1998 to present) followed by periods of warming (1917 to 1944 and 1964 to 1998).
5. Rate was the same for both pre-1950 and post-1950 period at 0.16 ± 0.05 oC/decade. Any temperature increase due to man-made CO2 emissions is less than the ± 0.05 oC/decade uncertainty and cannot be detected in the global temperature record alone.
6. Heat transfer rate must be the same for both periods using t = q/mc.
- (q(natural 1917) + q(CO2 1917))/mc = 0.16 ± 0.05 oC/decade = (q(natural 1964) + q(CO2 1964))/mc
- q(natural 1917) - q(natural 1964) = q(CO2 1964) - q(CO2 1917)
7. Analogy: 4 buckets of water at different temperatures represent the 4 components above. Mix together into a common container which represents the global temperature record. You can measure the temperature in the combined container, but you cannot determine the input from each bucket based on the single temperature measurement. Mathematically, you cannot solve for 4 variables in 2 equations. Scientific method is based on data which can be measured.
8. "The sum of the natural cycles is that we are in a naturally cooling phase, not a warming one. If it was not for man-made greenhouse gas emissions, the climate would be much cooler than the long-term average." - Christopher Keating
9. No rate difference means there is no increase in heat. If the pre-1950 rate and post-1950 rates are the same AND there Earth is in a cooling mode, the global warming due to man-made CO2 must EXACTLY match the natural cooling.
10. What are the odds that the sum of 4 separate heat calculations cancel each other out and show no net overall change? Pre-1950 CO2 heat cannot be zero because Guy Callendar's 1938 paper is the origin of the Callendar equation describing the relationship between temperature and CO2. Post-1950 natural heat transfer cannot be zero because we know that volcanoes, solar activity, and El Nino affect global temperatures.
11. No rate difference means there is no acceleration in temperature change,
12. Comparing pre-1950 and post-1950 temperature graphs (using GISS data) normalized to the same 0,0 start, we see that the pre-1950 & post-1950 temperatures have similar curves. The first 13 years of both periods are almost identical. This would be expected if both following a natural cycle. Differences after year 13 can be attributed to volcanoes (which reduce temperature) and El Nino (which increase temperature).
13. The pre-1950 period contributed more to overall temperature rise than post-1950 period. Percentage of global temperature change pre-1950 to overall 1917-1998 period (using GISS data)
- (T(1944) - T(1917) * 100)/(T(1998) - T(1917)) = (0.13 - (-0.44) *100)/(0.61-(-0.44) ) = 54% despite a shorter time period (28 years vs 35 years)
14. Global temperature change is not uniform because much of the temperature change occurred within first 17 % of each period.
- pre-1950 (4 of 28 years) = (T(1921) - T(1917) *100)/(T(1944) - T(1917) ) = (-0.20 - (-0.44) *100)/(0.13-(-0.44) ) = 42%
- post-1950 (5 of 35 years) = (T(1969) - T(1964) *100)/(T(1998) - T(1964) ) = (0.06 - (-0.20) *100)/(0.61-(-0.20) ) = 32%
15. Two articles which refute claim that “missing heat” is going to deep oceans. http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n2/full/ngeo1375.html
http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/KD_InPress_final.pdf
1. Michael Mann’s data shows global warming started in 1800’s (not mid-1900's
2. Phil Jones said the rate is the same (0.16 ± 0.05 oC/decade) for: 1860 to 1880, 1910 to 1940, 1975 to 1988, and 1975 to 2009. Two natural warming periods before post-1950 increases in C02.
3. Total thermal energy of a system can be defined as Q = mcT. Assumes no phase change. Energy inside system is not dependent on the method of heat transfer in (conduction, convection, or radiation).
4. Temperature record from GISS show a cyclical pattern of periods of cooling (1880 to 1916, 1945 to 1963, and 1998 to present) followed by periods of warming (1917 to 1944 and 1964 to 1998).
5. Rate was the same for both pre-1950 and post-1950 period at 0.16 ± 0.05 oC/decade. Any temperature increase due to man-made CO2 emissions is less than the ± 0.05 oC/decade uncertainty and cannot be detected in the global temperature record alone.
6. Heat transfer rate must be the same for both periods using t = q/mc.
- (q(natural 1917) + q(CO2 1917))/mc = 0.16 ± 0.05 oC/decade = (q(natural 1964) + q(CO2 1964))/mc
- q(natural 1917) - q(natural 1964) = q(CO2 1964) - q(CO2 1917)
7. Analogy: 4 buckets of water at different temperatures represent the 4 components above. Mix together into a common container which represents the global temperature record. You can measure the temperature in the combined container, but you cannot determine the input from each bucket based on the single temperature measurement. Mathematically, you cannot solve for 4 variables in 2 equations. Scientific method is based on data which can be measured.
8. "The sum of the natural cycles is that we are in a naturally cooling phase, not a warming one. If it was not for man-made greenhouse gas emissions, the climate would be much cooler than the long-term average." - Christopher Keating
9. No rate difference means there is no increase in heat. If the pre-1950 rate and post-1950 rates are the same AND there Earth is in a cooling mode, the global warming due to man-made CO2 must EXACTLY match the natural cooling.
10. What are the odds that the sum of 4 separate heat calculations cancel each other out and show no net overall change? Pre-1950 CO2 heat cannot be zero because Guy Callendar's 1938 paper is the origin of the Callendar equation describing the relationship between temperature and CO2. Post-1950 natural heat transfer cannot be zero because we know that volcanoes, solar activity, and El Nino affect global temperatures.
11. No rate difference means there is no acceleration in temperature change,
12. Comparing pre-1950 and post-1950 temperature graphs (using GISS data) normalized to the same 0,0 start, we see that the pre-1950 & post-1950 temperatures have similar curves. The first 13 years of both periods are almost identical. This would be expected if both following a natural cycle. Differences after year 13 can be attributed to volcanoes (which reduce temperature) and El Nino (which increase temperature).
13. The pre-1950 period contributed more to overall temperature rise than post-1950 period. Percentage of global temperature change pre-1950 to overall 1917-1998 period (using GISS data)
- (T(1944) - T(1917) * 100)/(T(1998) - T(1917)) = (0.13 - (-0.44) *100)/(0.61-(-0.44) ) = 54% despite a shorter time period (28 years vs 35 years)
14. Global temperature change is not uniform because much of the temperature change occurred within first 17 % of each period.
- pre-1950 (4 of 28 years) = (T(1921) - T(1917) *100)/(T(1944) - T(1917) ) = (-0.20 - (-0.44) *100)/(0.13-(-0.44) ) = 42%
- post-1950 (5 of 35 years) = (T(1969) - T(1964) *100)/(T(1998) - T(1964) ) = (0.06 - (-0.20) *100)/(0.61-(-0.20) ) = 32%
15. Two articles which refute claim that “missing heat” is going to deep oceans. http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n2/full/ngeo1375.html
http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/KD_InPress_final.pdf
I have your submission and
will respond as quickly as I can. Your submission is "$30,000 Challenge
Submission - No Change In Temperature Rate" and you can follow my progress
here:
http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/p/challlenge-submissions.html
http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/p/challlenge-submissions.html
Mr. Keating, it seems that whenever the proxy data from past climate is inconvenient you want to shift focus and say it doesn't matter. It matters profoundly if you are trying to claim such a thing as present warming, as you must prove it is warmer today that at some point in the past. To do that you must provide a reference point from past climate. So what warming exactly are you referring to when you claim present warming? The surface temperature record has shown temperatures to be flat or cooling since 1998. If you ask NOAA, they'll tell you it's been cooling since 1936. If we go by ice cores it's been cooling for 10,000 years. If we go by proxy data from coastal caves in Mallorca it's been cooling for 81,000 years. If we go by the geologic record it's been cooling for 65 million years. So what warming do you think counts when all of this somehow does not?
ReplyDeleteI have been very consistent about what I say about past climate data. The data shows that the climate goes through natural cycles, but there is no evidence that it has anything to do with today's global warming. Past cycles were naturally caused (I hope there is no debate about that), while the evidence is that today's warming trend is not only human caused, but is contrary to the natural cycle that is currently existing.
ReplyDeleteAnd, no, I do not have to prove it is warmer today than it was thousands of years ago. Again, that falls under the natural cycle issue. The issue is, has the global temperature increased in recent decades? And, we have very good data, separate from the ice cores, on that matter.
No, the temperature has not been flat since 1998. The surface temperature has been increasing, but at a slower rate. Include the heat content of the ocean (why do people keep insisting on ignoring the 93% of warming that is going on?) then the record is very clear - warming is continuing.
If you can show how geologic climate change is relevant to today, then you will have a submission. One that has already been addressed, but at least a submission. Right now, all you have is the claim that it was warmer thousands of years ago without ever showing how it is relevant to the way we have changed the environment in modern times.
"at a slower rate"??? I provided in MY challenge the data on the amount of Co2 man has been putting in the atmosphere. We have INCREASED man-caused Co2 by 13,040% since 1948. You failed to address that part of my challenge at all, sir. How can you claim "at a slower rate" of increases in temperature due to man-caused Co2 emissions when we are adding 13,000% MORE Co2 and global temperatures have risen by what? Half a degree?!?!?!
DeleteOnce again, you show how deniers reject science in favor of their preconceived conclusions. No, we have not increased CO2 by 13,000% since 1948. Your math is certainly part of your problem. CO2 levels have increased from 280 ppm in pre-industrial days to about 400 ppm today. That is an increase of around 43% total. Your math, and your logic, are completely flawed.
DeleteMr. Keating, sir. I'm doing my best to understand you but you keep coming back with rebuttals that totally ignore the point I'm making. You are saying that ppm has increased by 43%. That is the amount of Co2 IN the air... the amount that is measured that is ALREADY FLOATING AROUND IN OUR ATMOSPHERE! I have CLEARLY, sir, and PLEASE pay attention... My statement was about Co2 EMISSIONS! We have increased Co2 EMISSIONS, the stuff that man is spewing into the atmosphere, is MUCH MORE than your 43%! You've just made my point thank you! If I use my pool analogy that you totally dismissed, you are measuring the amount of sewage IN the pool and it's is increased by 43% over the last 50 years but I have been increasing the amount I'm DUMPING into the pool by 32,000%! So the simple fact that the amount actually floating around the pool is SO MUCH LESS than the amount of increase that I'm DUMPING into the pool makes no sense right? Mr. Keating, you're a smart man so why don't you answer a VERY specific question! What was the METRIC TON estimation of Co2 EMISSIONS that was being spewed in 1948? Then what was the amount of Co2 EMISSIONS that are being spewed in 2013? You give me those two numbers, sir! I want YOU to give ME those two numbers! If you come back with anything else except those simple to find numbers, it will prove you only want your irrelevant narrative to keep deflecting from the science that many of us have been trying to get you to see! I'll repeat the question: WHAT IS THE 1948 MAN-CAUSED CO2 EMISSIONS... EMISSIONS, NOT PPM, THE NUMBER IS GIVEN IN METRIC TONS. AND THEN WHAT IS THAT SAME NUMBER FOR 2013??? Let's start there, sir! Can't wait for your reply!
DeleteYou are talking about ppm and I'm talking about emissions in metric tons! Why do you keep doing that? Deflecting the truth by claiming something that has NOTHING to do with what I was saying! YOU TELL ME, SIR. What was the estimated Co2 EMISSIONS, in metric tons, in 1948 and then that same number for 2013! You tell ME those two numbers and cite the source! And then you explain how a 43% total increase in ppm (which is the stuff already floating around IN the atmosphere), when our Co2 EMISSIONS have increased by a much greater amount! What are the two number?
DeleteYou stated, "We have INCREASED man-caused Co2 by 13,040% since 1948." That does not sound like emissions to me. But, let's look at emissions. Take a look at the graph on global emissions here:
Deletehttp://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html
This shows worldwide emissions in the 1940s was about 4500 gigatons per year and about 35000 gigatons per year today. That comes out to be about an 700% increase ( (35000 - 4500)/4500 x 100% and rounding up in your favor) . That is significantly less than the 13,000% increase you stated. A 13,000% increase would raise our emissions to about 6 million gigatons and would be more than 160 times as much as we are currently emitting.
So, I think I answered your questions, but let's make sure:
The amount of CO2 emissions in 1948 - about 4500 gigatons/year
The amount of CO2 emissions today - about 35000 gigatons/year
The percentage increase of CO2 emissions between 1948 and today - about 700%
The multiplicative number of times we have increased our CO2 emissions since 1948 - about 7 times as much today as in 1948.
The sewage analogy doesn't apply because sewage breeds bacteria. CO2 doesn't breed anything. If you want to make an analogy, discuss adding particulate matter to the pool.
You are really ranting here and being very offensive. I have been asked to refrain from speaking harshly to contrarians (notice I changed my terminology?), but I will respond in kind to people that are rude or try to bully me. So, in that spirit, I am asking you to please be more civil in your comments in the future.
If you are saying the past 30-40 years are relevant, then should we not also consider the 30-40 years prior? Everyone was in agreement then, it had been cooling for decades and nobody could explain why. But they were all certain it was a crisis.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
This story has been debunked repeatedly. I keep wondering why deniers pull this out. So what? A news reporter wrote an article and got it wrong. Where is the news there? Read about what the writer of that article had to say:
ReplyDeletehttp://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2014/06/new-ice-age-journalist-speaks-out.html
Here are a couple more references:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-global-cooling-story-came-to-be/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm
There are lots more. Like I said, this claim has been totally debunked.
As for the period of time before the late 1970s, the temperature was up through the last part of the first half of the 20th century, before dropping through the 70s. Is this relevant? Yes, it is and must be accounted for in the science. What we now know is that the natural cycles were still the dominant force during the period of time and it wasn't until we go into the 70s that man made greenhouse gases reached the point where the greenhouse effect started becoming more and more influential.
If you have a problem with the idea that greenhouse gas emissions were increasing during this time, take a look at this article with the graph that shows CO2 emissions since 1900. They were pretty flat until about 1950 when they really started to take off:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html
At about that time we began to see global the global heat index start to pull away from the natural cycles.
From one of your links.
Delete"And still, Gwynne notes of his story, "I stand by it. It was accurate at the time."
Which is exactly what I said.
So, your argument is that a news reporter wrote an article that was wrong, therefore climate science is not valid. Tell me something, when you need to see a doctor about cancer are you going to ignore him because some reporter for Newsweek wrote a story about cancer in the 1970s that was wrong?
ReplyDeleteThe truth is, climate scientist were not predicting a new ice age. It was all a reporter, not the scientists. So, why are you pulling this out? What point are you trying to make, other than that you didn't do your homework?
No, that is not my argument at all. I was merely highlighting the fact that it cooled for several decades into the 1970s. Nobody disputes that. It wasn't just made up by some reporter. And it was cooling over those decades while CO2 was rising.
DeleteThe idea that there is such a thing as modern warming requires that you cherry pick your date of past climate to compare it with. So of course you would want to use the bottom of the Little Ice Age, or the Ice Age scare of the 1970s as your starting point and ignore the bigger picture. It simply doesn't work if you use the Medieval Warm Period, or the Roman Warm Period, or the 1930s, or even the 1990s. Your argument falls apart and there is no such thing as modern warming.
Your claim that the temperature is somehow pulling away from the natural cycle is also absurd. There isn't enough data to know what is or isn't the natural cycle. The greenhouse theory and CO2's affect on temperature has also proven a grand failure. Not a single climate model predicted the flat temperatures over the past 16 years. What you believe to be undeniable fact is really a failed hypothesis.
Absolutely false and that is a poor indicator of how much you have done your homework. If you will check, climate scientists look at the performance of the temperature average over the entire database. What has been found is that the temperature record changes in accordance with known climatic factors throughout the historical record - up to the late-1970s when it began to diverge. This divergence continues to this day and the global average heat index is moving contrary to what it should be doing if natural causes were the only thing involved. There is most definitely no cherry picking by scientists, only by deniers who choose 1998 as a starting point and try to make the case that there has been no global warming. Try starting with 1997 or 1999 and do the same exercise and you get an entirely different result, and that is just the surface average without including the ocean warming.
DeleteAgain, you still have not shown how any of your claims about ice cores relates to the issue of modern man-made global warming.
When your climate scientists look at the "historical record", I can only assume you are talking about the thermometer records covering the past 150 years that have been thoroughly tortured by James Hansen. Or is it perhaps Michael Mann's fraudulent Hockey Stick graph, put together from tree rings, bubble gum and spit. Or is it the ice core delusion that Al Gore blew up to fifty feet long before he got on that lift that took him up to the ceiling for dramatic effect. Just what historical record are you talking about that makes you think anyone has a clue what the climate "should" be doing?
DeleteIf any of your climate scientists actually knew what the climate "should" be doing you'd think at least one of them might have put together a climate model that wasn't a total failure.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means/
As soon as you start saying things like that you lose all credibility. Once again, I ask you to do some homework before you start discrediting people and their work. As for Roy Spencer, I did my homework on him and you can see what I found here:
Deletehttp://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2014/07/30000-challenge-submission-roy-spencer.html
I assure you, I researched him quite well and stand by everything I said in that posting. If you are basing any of your work on his, then your work is in error.
Yet every climate model did fail. Can you point to a single climate model that got anything right? No. Garbage in, garbage out.
DeleteAnd if you need me to explain how ice cores relate to issues of man-made global warming, then I would ask why you have used them in your response to challenge submissions? You clearly think they relate or you wouldn't post them.
You continue to prove you just won't do your homework. You really are a denier. Anything that might contradict you preconceived conclusion just isn't within your radar horizon. Try these to start with, then do you own homework from there.
Deletehttp://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/mar/27/climate-change-model-global-warming
http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/ask/2013/climate-modeling.html
As for me using ice core data, I am pretty sure the only time I refer to ice core data is when I state that there were changes in the climate in the past. I cannot think of anytime I have used it other than that. There may be, but that is the only thing I can think of.
Now, this conversation is done. You have evolved into a troll that just wants to waste my time and take over the blog. If you have a submission that you think proves man made global warming is not real, then fine. If you have something relevant to the issue of global warming, that is fine. But, I am not here to debate paleoclimatology or to do your homework. You reject the hockey stick and cite Roy Spencer. That is enough by itself to show you have rejected science.
Now, please go away.
Mr. Keating, you are the one who offered this "challenge". I merely responded.
DeleteRegarding the ice core data; You wrote in response to a challenge submission "Greenhouse Gasses", dated July 10: "Yes, there have been times in the past where the CO2 level was higher than today, but not within the last 800,000 years." Under that you posted a graph of ice core data.
http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2014/07/30000-challenge-submission-greenhouse.html
I have directed you to the proxy data that refutes this as evidence, and explained why you cannot make such claims.
In any case, I am now convinced that this is not and never was a real challenge. It is akin to a religious fanatic offering up $10,000 to anyone who can disprove the existence of God. You would have as much luck disproving the existence of God as I or anyone would have in disproving the existence of the Manbearpig (who's true believers now say is hiding at the bottom of the ocean).
Good day, sir.
I tell you what, I'll accept you submission as a challenge to modern day levels of CO2. Not that it matters because there have been times in the past where the CO2 level was over five times what it is today and none of that has any bearing on today's issues. But, I'll look at it. Your submission is called "$30,000 Challenge Submission - Ice Core Issues" and you can track my progress on the submission page:
Deletehttp://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/p/challlenge-submissions.html
As an aside I'll happily take on your challenge of disproving the existence of God. But first, you'll have to tell me which god (abrahamic? muslim? hindu? egyptian? greek? etc.) and provide a meaningful definition. if no meaningful definition is provided, i'll use that provided by the religion's official dogma, such as the christian bible or the Quran, etc. Thanks and I hope to hear from you soon.
DeleteTo Mr Robert J. Sammon: I received your submission in the mail and have accepted it. Your submission is called, "$30,000 Challenge Submission - There Is No Average Temperature" and I will respond as quickly as I can. Meanwhile, you can track my progress here:
ReplyDeletehttp://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/p/challlenge-submissions.html
The question is not what dynamic caused the ice ages, at least not for this discussion, but rather what is causing the current global warming trend that is running contrary to the natural cooling cycle that should be taking place?
ReplyDeleteQuote from Nova:
"Ever since the Pre-Cambrian (600 million years ago), ice ages have occurred at widely spaced intervals of geologic time—approximately 200 million years—lasting for millions, or even tens of millions of years. For the Cenozoic period, which began about 70 million years ago and continues today, evidence derived from marine sediments provide a detailed, and fairly continuous, record for climate change. This record indicates decreasing deep-water temperature, along with the build-up of continental ice sheets. Much of this deep-water cooling occurred in three major steps about 36, 15 and 3 million years ago—the most recent of which continues today.."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/cause-ice-age.html
As I keep saying, the naturally occurring cycle we are currently in is a cooling one. So, why does it keep getting warmer? Something must be happening that isn't natural.
DeleteMike Smith,
DeleteThank you. This is interesting.
Anonymous #2
I have received your submission and will respond as quickly as I can. It is called "$30,000 Challenge Submission - Rejected by the Evidence" and you can follow my progress here:
ReplyDeletehttp://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/p/challlenge-submissions.html
How many of the scientists in this group would be in your court?
ReplyDelete1
Drafting Authors:
Ottmar Edenhofer (Germany), Ramón Pichs-Madruga (Cuba), Youba Sokona (Mali), Shardul
Agrawala (France), Igor Alexeyevich Bashmakov (Russia), Gabriel Blanco (Argentina),
John Broome (UK), Thomas Bruckner (Germany), Steffen Brunner (Germany), Mercedes
Bustamante (Brazil), Leon Clarke (USA), Felix Creutzig (Germany), Shobhakar Dhakal
(Nepal / Thailand), Navroz K. Dubash (India), Patrick Eickemeier (Germany), Ellie Farahani
(Canada), Manfred Fischedick (Germany), Marc Fleurbaey (France), Reyer Gerlagh
(Netherlands), Luis Gómez-Echeverri (Colombia / Austria), Sujata Gupta (India / Philippines),
Jochen Harnisch (Germany), Kejun Jiang (China), Susanne Kadner (Germany), Sivan Kartha
(USA), Stephan Klasen (Germany), Charles Kolstad (USA), Volker Krey (Austria / Germany),
Howard Kunreuther (USA), Oswaldo Lucon (Brazil), Omar Masera (México), Jan Minx
(Germany), Yacob Mulugetta (UK / Ethiopia), Anthony Patt (Austria / Switzerland), Nijavalli
H. Ravindranath (India), Keywan Riahi (Austria), Joyashree Roy (India), Roberto Schaeffer
(Brazil), Steffen Schlömer (Germany), Karen Seto (USA), Kristin Seyboth (USA), Ralph Sims
(New Zealand), Jim Skea (UK), Pete Smith (UK), Eswaran Somanathan (India), Robert Stavins
(USA), Christoph von Stechow (Germany), Thomas Sterner (Sweden), Taishi Sugiyama
(Japan), Sangwon Suh (Republic of Korea / USA), Kevin Chika Urama (Nigeria / UK), Diana
Ürge-Vorsatz (Hungary), David Victor (USA), Dadi Zhou (China), Ji Zou (China), Timm Zwickel
(Germany)
Draft Contributing Authors
Giovanni Baiocchi (UK / Italy), Helena Chum (USA / Brazil), Jan Fuglestvedt (Norway), Helmut
Haberl (Austria), Edgar Hertwich (Norway / Austria), Elmar Kriegler (Germany), Joeri Rogelj
(Switzerland / Belgium), H.-Holger Rogner (Germany), Michiel Schaeffer (Netherlands),
Steven J. Smith (USA), Detlef van Vuuren (Netherlands), Ryan Wiser (USA)
Nitrogen & Oxygen absorb more LWIR heat than do the GHG's. And it is amazing to think that no one seems to care about Thermal heat capacity. N2 is 1.0 , O2 is 0.9 and H2O is 1.8 , CH4 is 2.2 , But CO2 is only 0.8 What is most interesting CO2's Thermal capacity is less than the some of its' parts Carbon and oxygen....if the dipole moment was so incredible with heat it should be greater.
ReplyDeleteThat is not a true statement. O2 and N2 molecules are too small to absorb large IR waves. O2 and N2 are heated by shortwaves.
Deletehttp://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/radiation_hays/
Anonymous,
DeleteCheck this out:
http://openi.nlm.nih.gov/imgs/512/49/3247748/3247748_sensors-10-06081f2.png
It's really more of a radiation absorption and a global illumination problem than a thermal 'storage' problem.
You know; what is the typical energy density of LWIR that you have hanging around during the day?
If it can take as long as 200 years for the CO2 in the atmosphere to be removed from the atmosphere; and if the average person emits about 18 tonnes per year:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
The total amount of air in the atmosphere is roughly 5.149e15 tonnes
The total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 2.06e12 tonnes
http://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/03/30/math-how-much-co2-by-weight-in-the-atmosphere/
See?
Cm ~ Concentration by mass
Cv ~ Concentration by volume
mCO2 ~ Mass of CO2
mAir ~ Mass of Air
mCO2People ~ Mass of CO2 emitted by people's activities
k = 3/ln(2)
(I am not sure if this k is wrong or right, I read it somewhere; and I can't seem to remember where)
dT = k*ln(Cv/Co)
---------
MMCO2 ~ Molar mass of CO2
MMAir ~ Molar mass of Air
r = MMCO2/MMAir
Cv*r = Cm --->
Cv = Cm/r
Cm = N/D
N = mCO2 + mCO2People
D = mAir
Cv = Cm/r
Assuming I haven't made a mistake; this is how you can calculate the human contribution.
You would be looking at a maximum Cv of about:
Cvmax = Nmax/Dmax
Cap ~ CO2 consumption per person
Pop ~ World Population
mCO2People = Cap*Pop
t ~ time (~~ 200 years)
Nmax = mCO2+mCO2People*t
Dmax = r*mAir
Now plug that into your favorite calculator; IDL, matlab, wolfram, etc.
If I have built a glass house out of this little model... do me a favor and shatter it for me. Please?
Anonymous #2
Long term infrastructure; not 'architecture'.
ReplyDeleteDr. Armstrong,
ReplyDeleteTo be honest, your "Seer-Sucker" idea reflects some concerns that I have had in the past regarding the same issue.
I feel that I should remind you that it was "seers" much like this who managed to pull off the Manhattan Project.
In this case, they are trying to model the behavior of a very complex system. If they manage to succeed with developing predictive climate models, then you would have an infrastructure that can tell you how the larger climate behaves under different conditions.
Should the Climate scientists get together and write a 13 page treatise on how CFOs should stop paying for marketing entirely, because, their sales forecasts are not completely representative of reality?
Anonymous #2
Dr. Green,
ReplyDeleteFrom:
http://www.kestencgreen.com/green&armstrong-agw-analogies.pdf
"Using structured analogies, we forecast that the global warming alarm
movement, like the previous alarmist movements that we were able to identify and analyze, will continue to produce poor forecasts and cause harm to people. Resources will be used inefficiently, and most people will be worse off than they would have been had the alarm never been raised. Alarms based on unscientific forecasts are a common social phenomenon.
The alarms are used to support political movements. Dissent is punished. Expensive government interventions are frequently recommended and often implemented. Once in place they continue even when the alarming forecasts prove to be groundless, perhaps because a large sector of the economy depends on jobs created to “protect” against the predicted catastrophe." Green et al.
Well spoken. I am concerned that I have seen this phenomenon as well. Your words echo strangely, particularly when coupled with this:
“The trouble with Eichmann was precisely that so many were like him, and that the many were neither perverted nor sadistic, that they were, and still are, terribly and terrifyingly normal. From the viewpoint of our legal institutions and of our moral standards of judgment, this normality was much more terrifying than all the atrocities put together.”
--- Hannah Arendt
Anonymous #2
This is an exercise in a futile strawman fallacy. Climate sceptics do not deny that radiative gasses in the atmosphere cause it to retain energy. There is no way to disprove it. So the money will stay in the pocket. Simple. But what does that proof or disprove? It's not the issue at all.
ReplyDeleteThe issue is that sceptics have all the reasons to doubt that climate sensitivity for doubling radiative gasses is leading to untenable heating of the atmosphere. The issue is whether or not doubling CO2 will lead to more than 1.5C average global temperature increase.
You can find many basic sensitivities ranging from about 0.8C (modtran) to 1.2C (Myhre 1997) without feedbacks. So you need positive feedbacks to attain the higher values as claimed by IPCC.
Hence the challenge should have been: falsify that climate sensitivity to CO2 enrichment undergoes positive feedback. That challenge could easily end up differently.
Once again, a denier is showing how they want to weasel out of being held responsible for what they say. It is most certainly not a straw man. Deniers have made a claim and I am giving them a chance to prove their claim. Where is the straw man in that?
ReplyDeleteAnd, I love how you claim no one is denying global warming. Is that the limit of your credibility? Just read the submissions and comments on this blog for proof that you are wrong on that issue, too.
And, once again, some denier wants to redefine my challenge in order to weasel out of their claims. This challenge is all about deniers that claim man made global warming is not real and they can prove it. If you can, then fine. Do it. If not, then shut up and stop deceiving the public.
And, stop trying to weasel out of being held accountable for what you say. If you are calling yourself a climate change skeptic, that means you don't believe AGW is real. Don't go and pretend that its all about something else. That is the real straw man in this argument. If you believe that man made global warming is real, but we need to discuss what to do about it, then you are not a 'skeptic', in your parlance. I call people like you 'deniers' because you deny global warming, you deny taking responsibility for your own words, you deny science and you deny that you are lying to the public for the purpose of deceiving them.
Own up and accept science.
Christopher Keating,
ReplyDeleteFrom what you have already said, it seems to me that no one will succeed in winning your prize. As you are both judge and jury, you will always find some reason to dispute any argument that the sceptics bring up.
If you are not convinced by this evidence, nothing will convince you.
1 the world has not warmed for the last 17 years thus proving that man-made carbon dioxide does not cause dangerous global warming. (That it causes some warming is not in doubt, but we can now be certain that it is not large.)
2 the climate models cannot predict El Nino events which is the major climate disturbance. This proves that they are not an accurate model of the Earth's climate system and proves that they are worthless.
3 the climate models have never been properly validated as they should be (proof is in the fact that they have failed to make accurate predictions) and they are not fed with accurate input data because it is not possible to gather accurate data from all over the world for a single time period. Therefore they are worthless.
4 sea levels have not risen at any abnormal rate and proof of this is provided by the extremely accurate sea level gauges installed by the Bureau of Meteorology all around the Australian Coast and in the Pacific Islands.
5 studies of sunspot defects and other natural cycles tell us there is a high probability that the world has started on a cooling cycle. A vast amount of evidence demonstrates that when a short sunspot cycle is followed by a long sun spot cycle - as has recently happened - the next sunspot cycle is cold
6 it is often claimed that various phenomena are signs of increased warming. Maybe they are. But this is not prove it is man made or that it is caused by increasing carbon dioxide levels.
7 it is often claimed that the world is warmer than it has been for the last thousand years and therefore any further warming would be seriously abnormal. But as glaziers retreat in Greenland, they reveal the ruins of old farmhouses and recent evidence is that, 5800 years ago, the European Alps were devoid of glaziers.
8 1000 years ago during the Middle Ages warm period, the Polynesians voyaged backwards and forwards to New Zealand. To do this in open canoes, required calm seas and warm weather. Otherwise they would have died of exposure. When the Little ice age came along, two-way voyaging stopped.
But, as noted, I suspect that none of this will convince you. I fear that you will remain supremely confident that the failed models are the Word of God.
Deniers always complain about me being the sole judge, but never complain about the denier challenges that are the same way. Why is that?
DeleteI have your submission. Everything you have submitted has already been debunked. If you would do some homework, you would quickly find that everything you said here is not valid. But, it is called "$30,000 Challenge Submission - Same Old Claims" and I will get to it as quickly as I can. You can follow my progress here:
http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/p/challlenge-submissions.html
By the way, if you want to be try and be as informed as you would like people to think you are, do your homework on models. Climate science isn't about models. Models are just one of many tools used by scientists. Stop reading just the denier blogs and read some real science for a change. You might even get an education from it.
Christopher, you call me a "denier" which is a transparent attempt to equate me with "Holocaust deniers". It is therefore a quite disgraceful personal attack.
DeleteI do not deny that the climate changes naturally. It appears that you do.
I do not deny that the world has not warmed for the last 17 years. It appears that you do.
I do not deny that studies of sunspot cycles and temperatures show that when a short cycle follows a long cycle, the next cycle shows cooling. It appears that you do.
I do not deny that virtually all the climate models failed to predict the lack of warming. It appears that you do.
And so on.
When people make personal attacks on me I am always reminded of Maggie Thatcher: "I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left."
As you have chosen to attack me, rather than respond to my points, I assume you do not have a single substantial scientific argument. The fact that you rely on consensus, which is in the field of politics, rather than scientific evidence, would seem to confirm this.
Haven't you heard about Galileo and a horde of other people that overturned the consensus science?
So if you want to recover your reputation, please go through each of my points and demonstrate that I am quite wrong or accept that is you, not me, who should be called a denier.
And, this is why I am rude to deniers. You presented all of those statements as either fact or relevant, and they are neither. What you are doing is trying to deceive people with false arguments.
DeleteHas the climate changed in the past? Certainly! How do we know this? Because climate scientists have done the hard work to show it. Now, you want to connect events of today with past climate change, but you never present any evidence to that effect.
Has the world warmed for over the last 17 years? Yes, it most certainly has. Take a look here:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/02/05/global-warming-has-stopped-how-to-fool-people-using-cherry-picked-climate-data/
Studies of solar activity show that when solar activity is greater, temperature is higher and when solar activity is lower, temperature is lower. Except today. Solar activity is lower (and dropping), but temperature is higher (and rising).
Climate models have been much more accurate than deniers claim. Some denier blog made that claim and you guys just keep repeating it without doing any homework because it is convenient for you preconceived conclusions. See these two for starters, then try and do your own homework:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/mar/27/climate-change-model-global-warming
http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/ask/2013/climate-modeling.html
So, I refuted every one of your points. But, I'll bet you'll still tell people that AGW isn't real and we shouldn't do anything about it. All the while, people's standard of living (probably including yours) is being lowered because of global warming. Every time you say it isn't real, take out your checkbook and send a check to some billionaire.
Christopher,
DeleteI asked for hard data and you responded with newspaper articles. I pointed out that the world has not warmed for the last 17 years and the article pointed out – quite correctly – that there has been steadily warming since 1900. Much of that occurred before carbon dioxide levels started rising.
Roy Spencer – DrRoySpencer.com has plotted the predictions of a large number of climate models against actual temperatures. That shows that virtually every one of them was wrong. 10 years ago, one of New Zealand's most prominent climate scientists – and a prominent member of the IPCC - assured me that warming would soon restart. He said that climate models would not be accurate over a period of less than five years or so. One of his colleagues had an expectation that, quite soon, temperatures will climb again and prove the models right. I need a lot more than "an expectation".
Your article on global warming states "That’s why it is incorrect to focus on 15-year increments when we’re talking about temperature increases over decades, if not centuries." He must be talking about natural warming. He also invokes ocean warming which is problematic - not enough measurements and, anyway, how did all the heat mysteriously get there.
And you didn't answer all of the points I originally made.
You'll have to try a lot harder or accept defeat.
As I said, I have your submission and will respond to it.
DeleteChris, you say:
ReplyDelete"I will award $30,000 of my own money to anyone that can prove, via the scientific method, that man-made global climate change is not occurring"
You have it backwards, old son. If you're putting forward the proposal that man changes the climate you must offer evidence for it or nobody will believe you.
My challenge to you is to present your evidence (and not merely to claim that evidence exists, but elsewhere) in a courteous manner free of ad hominem remarks — just as you expect of the sceptics.
What I ask of you is in keeping with the scientific method — to present an hypothesis that is falsifiable, not some ill-defined proposal impossible to refute. Good luck.
Chris, you say:
ReplyDelete"No, the temperature has not been flat since 1998. The surface temperature has been increasing, but at a slower rate."
This is incorrect. According to several global temperature series the trend has been flat or declining for up to 20 years.
"Include the heat content of the ocean (why do people keep insisting on ignoring the 93% of warming that is going on?) then the record is very clear - warming is continuing."
There is much about climate that is mysterious or utterly unknown but one thing we can depend on is that the atmosphere cannot heat the ocean; only the sun heats the ocean. Therefore you cannot claim that mankind has influence over oceanic heat content. If you do, you really must describe the mechanism (please)—without referring to that shallow description of the thin skin effect at "sceptical" science which persuades nobody.
Is it that deniers don't understand science, or do you just ignore it?
DeleteNo one is claiming the atmosphere is heating the surface no more than someone will claim a coat heats you in the winter. What the atmosphere is doing is preventing the surface from cooling. It acts as an insulator. As we increase the amount of greenhouse gases, it becomes a more efficient insulator. There is nothing new or mysterious in my statement and you know that if you did a little homework.
As for the temperature being flat since 1998, you again did not do your homework. Here is just one reference on the subject. I will leave it to you to find others.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/02/05/global-warming-has-stopped-how-to-fool-people-using-cherry-picked-climate-data/
Richard,
DeleteYou made this statement:
"Therefore you cannot claim that mankind has influence over oceanic heat content. If you do, you really must describe the mechanism (please)—without referring to that shallow description of the thin skin effect at "sceptical" science which persuades nobody."
Do you know how a laser works? It is really interesting, and it is related to how the atmosphere can heat the ocean. It is also fairly simple.
[1 "Material" 2] ----------> "L"
(1) A close to 100% reflective mirror. When light hits this, it is almost completely reflected.
(2) A 50% reflective, 50% transmissive mirror. When light hits this, half of it is reflected, and half of it is let through.
"Material": This can be lot's of things, helium-neon, titanium-sapphire, yttrium-lithium-flouride, etc. There is a good reason why you need at least two materials for this to work, but it is not really important for the point I intend to make.
"L": This is light emitted from the laser. It is really just photons.
So, the next thing that you need is for the material in the laser to get really "excited". You know how really hot metal glows? All that hot metal is... is a bunch of particles that are all moving really fast and bashing into other particles at some average speed. When the particles bash into other particles, you have kinetic energy converted into pushing the particle's electron cloud into a higher energy level. There is a tendency for the electron cloud to rest in a lower energy level, whenever possible. So when the electron cloud jumps into a lower energy level, it releases energy as light... and this is why really hot metal glows, because most of the particles in the metal are going through this same process at the same time.
The frequency, at which, the metal glows, the "color" of the light that is generated depends on how high the energy level was that the electron cloud gets thrown into before it releases the energy as light and jumps back down into a lower energy level.
It turns out, all particles are like this. All particles have their own electron clouds.
There are certain things that we know about how these electron clouds surrounding particles can jump into a higher energy level. The electron cloud can absorb light or other photons and be thrown into a higher energy level.
There are certain rules regarding how likely light is to be absorbed by a particle's electron cloud. These rules depend on the relative size and wavelength of the light with respect to the size of the electron cloud. These rules are also dictated by exactly which energy levels exist in the particular electron cloud. These rules become complicated, and the math behind it is really hard.
But the idea behind it can be summarized like this: when light "hits" a particle's electron cloud there are three main things that can happen:
1) The light can be absorbed by the electron cloud. The cloud jumps into some energy level, then jumps back down, releasing light of some "different" frequency.
2) The light can be reflected by the electron cloud.
3) The light can be transmitted through the electron cloud.
So, this is how a laser works. You give the material inside of it some kind of a jolt of electricity, which stimulates most of the electrons in most of the particles in the material into a higher energy level; and when all of the electrons jump back down into their respective lower energy levels, they generate light.
This light get's mostly reflected by mirror "1", this light get's partially reflected by mirror "2", then some of it is transmitted out of mirror "2" to entertain your cat, or whatever else you are doing with your laser.
So what does this have to do with the atmosphere? Well, it's the same idea!
DeleteS] "Material" [G
"S": This is the sun, it makes light.
"G": This is the ground, it can absorb and reflect light.
"Material": This is the layer of green house gasses, it can absorb and reflect, and transmit light.
Now here is the interesting thing. Whenever any of these materials absorb light, their electron clouds jump into a higher energy level... then they jump back down and release light in the process... but the funny thing is that the "kind" of light that they usually release is Infra-Red "light". Infra-Red light has some funny properties. It is more likely for Infra-Red "light" to be reflected by the stuff in the atmosphere, like CO2.
There is some Infra-red light which is stuck between the ground and the stuff in the atmosphere that can reflect it. There is more of this Infra-red light in summer-time, which is why it feels hotter in the summer. Your car sitting out in the heat also does this. Except it looks a little more like this in the car:
S] 1] "Sweating Passenger" [1
(1) Car window
"S": Sun
The "skin" effect is basically all of this, in a nutshell... it's not necessarily the "best" way to describe it, but the full explanation requires some really tough math; so we don't usually give people the full explanation.
Anonymous #2
Oh, yeah... "how can this heat the ocean?"
DeleteS] "Material" [G
"S": This is the sun, it makes light.
"G": This is the ground, it can absorb and reflect light.
"G": This can also be the ocean, it can absorb and reflect light.
Sometimes when the ocean absorbs the IR, it will just heat up.
It's just the way that stuff works when it interacts with light.
Anonymous #2
In some of the papers that talk about the climate models, you will see a lot of jargon that they throw around, like SW and LW radiation. Best as I have been able to interpret you have:
DeleteSW: Short Wave radiation from the sun. One great big mixed bag of photons.
LW: Long Wave radiation generated after SW is absorbed by all the stuff in the atmosphere and on the ground. Infra-red should be a kind of LW radiation.
Our scientific journals have this really silly tendency to try and sound as complex and as convoluted as possible, because it makes people take the journal more "seriously". Unfortunately, if the scientists want money from the public, they need to be able to communicate what they are doing in a way that the public can understand. Unfortunately, if the scientists want grant money, then they need to be able to get published, they use convoluted speech patterns because it impresses journal editors more than referring to things the way I did in my description above. If journal editors are not impressed, you don't get published, if you don't get published, you don't get grant money.
Really, when I think about how our scientific institutions really operate, these days, the best way to explain it would be to the tune of, "Entry of the Gladiators" by Julius Fucik.
Anonymous #2
You are correct about both SW and LW. We use jargon because we want to be as precise as possible. People in the field not only understand the jargon, but also the subtleties involved and will object to any error in terminology. Light is any form of electromagnetic radiation, but there are different kinds of light. The things short wavelength light does is much different than the things long wavelength light will do.
DeleteScientific papers aren't written to communicate to the general public, or even the general scientific community. They are written to communicate to people in the same field.
But, you are absolutely right about how we need to be better at communicating to the public and there is a big push to improve this point.
And, no, we don't use convoluted language to get grant money. Grants are decided by specialists in the field that you apply for. You don't just go into NSF, or any other funding agency, and ask for money. They announce opportunities for funding under a specific program. If you are qualified for the program, you then submit your grant proposal and it is reviewed by the panel put together for that opportunity and whom understand the science. The grants are awarded in a competitive manner. The proposals that score highest with the judges will get the money.
Certainly part of the process is being published, but it is much more competitive than that. Depending on the specific program you apply for, grant approval rates can range from 5% to maybe as high as 20%. In my field, approval rate at the time I graduated was about 30%. It is now less than 10%. Money is very scarce for research nowadays and the competition is fierce. This is why I always laugh when deniers claim researchers are going to always find evidence of global warming so that they can keep getting their grants. If you are ever even accused of faking your research you will never see another penny of grant money. There are too many people out there prepared to do honest research for anyone to be able to afford to do dishonest research. And, yes, you will get caught. It might take time, but you will get caught.
It is a simple "supply" vs "demand" scenario. The US government get's something on the order of around $3.8 Trillion from tax revenue every year. Out of that some $500-600 Billion usually goes to the military. Some $7 Billion goes to the NSF. The year range on these numbers are somewhere between 2010-2014, I think... I am pulling these from memory.
DeleteI ran these numbers at one point. These are the numbers in the US from 2012, I think...
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43061.pdf
Some 6.2e6 scientists/engineers exist altogether
Some 1.5e6 engineers exist
Some 0.545e6 science/engineering managers exist
There are only 274,600 physical scientists
There are roughly 260,000 life scientists
There are about 120,560 math scientists
"You don't just go into NSF, or any other funding agency, and ask for money. They announce opportunities for funding under a specific program."
Oh, and who is in the esteemed authority to decide on the research priorities that get funded?
"Depending on the specific program you apply for, grant approval rates can range from 5% to maybe as high as 20%. In my field, approval rate at the time I graduated was about 30%. It is now less than 10%. Money is very scarce for research nowadays and the competition is fierce."
Wonderful isn't it? A 30% grant approval rate means all that you need to do is fill out roughly 3-6 grant applications every year just to have the money that you need to do your job as a scientist.
A 10% grant rate means that you would need to fill out between 10-20 just to scrape by at the same rate. The time that you need to spend on "rent-seeking" has more than tripled. And it eats into everyone's time in the academic community.
It's no wonder that we see scientists fleeing from academia to go into wall street. It is no wonder that instead of deciding to stay and fighting tooth and nail for scraps like rats on the sinking ship that is academic funding, we see physicists going to wall street to design nifty new financial derivatives that can be repackaged as leveraged securities that their managers can then sell as high-risk high-reward engines to the highest bidder.
And when the math behind these securities becomes too complex for the banks who ultimately buy these things to intelligently manage their risk; they have to make some decision with them, ill-informed or not. And when these securities ultimately financially-detonate taking huge chunks of the economy out along with them, we must ask, how did this benefit the public? At the very least, a bear market is a buyer's market... assuming you weren't rendered insolvent and unemployed from the resulting shockwave resonating from the credit crunch.
How was the public good ultimately served by this inefficient use of our country's brainpower?
Anonymous #2
The public is not served. But, when you start talking about cutting the budget, things like NASA and NSF are the first things they think about cutting. $1 trillion deficits and people think it will be balanced by cutting $20 billion programs. Its not the politicians fault, it is what the public demands.
DeleteMost of the problems in our system appear to have evolved as are by accident more than by design.
DeleteAs we become ever more specialized, the ones among us who are capable of seeing and understanding how the whole machine is running seem to becoming ever fewer.
In our own myopic worlds we seem to try and solve the easiest to solve and the most pressing issues first. And if there is anything else lies outside of our area of specialization, we simply assume that someone else will solve it.
The C-Suite of most companies focus on their quarterly profits because with the risks that they run, there is no assurance that their personal half-life within the company is any greater than 1-2 years. This encourages a necessarily short term view of the world. As a result, much infrastructure seems to be cannibalized or ignored in the process of 'business-as-usual'.
Surely there has to be a way to encourage the maintenance and development of long term infrastructure, in spite of 'business-as-usual'.
How would you do it?
Anonymous #2
Richard,
ReplyDeleteIt would seem that you are trying to rewrite the challenge. Science deniers / science liars claim that man-made global warming does not exist and they can prove it. That is what this challenge is about. Simply submit fact based, evidence, following the scientific method that disproves that the current global warming is not man-made.
Don't try to change the rules. Just follow them.
To Mike Smith: Thank you.
DeleteTo Richard Treadgold: I presented a proof of AGW through the scientific method in my book: Undeniable! Dialogues on Global Warming. Not that I expect you to read it, but just to show you that I have already done what you demand. Besides, thousands of climate scientists have published thousands of scientific papers doing exactly what you requested.
Mike Smith: Well, rather than trying to rewrite the challenge or change the rules, I'm criticising the basis of the challenge, yes. You might like to answer the criticism. It's true that the DAGW hypothesis has never been presented in a paper or expressed in a falsifiable form and it is re-expressed everywhere to suit the author's agenda (it seems). It goes without saying that therefore it's quite impossible to refute. I'm sure you agree that we should be perfectly clear on what the hypothesis states. So what is it?
DeleteIt's hard to ignore your inflammatory remarks about "deniers and liars." Primarily, they make you appear discourteous. It's also hard to ignore the double negative you use which asks me to prove that the current warming is man-made (I don't believe it is). Should I insult you for the obvious blunder? I don't think so. You've already been insulting enough for a brief conversation between strangers (thank you!).
To Richard Treadgold:
ReplyDeleteThis is an easy to follow video on the science of man-made global warming. It runs for some 14 minutes and is very informative.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ6Z04VJDco
Mike Smith, you referred me to a video which I watched. The video begins by depicting a questioner with a paper bag over his head in denial. The voiceover (is it Christopher Keating?) moves into patronising explanations and strawman arguing points which prove unpersuasive. He's an uninspiring, condescending presenter who apparently believes sceptics' beliefs are everywhere the same and lack justification.
DeleteAt the end he challenges the viewer, if he disagrees with the views presented, to explain (my answers follow):
1. Why are the experiments showing the radiation absorption of CO2 flawed?
Answer: You imply that the more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the more warming occurs, but that's a flawed interpretation of the experiments and of the nature of carbon dioxide's radiative properties, which in fact diminish logarithmically. The first 20 ppm have more effect than the next 400 ppm. See MODTRANS facility, University of Chicago at http://www.modtran5.com/index.html.
2. How did the earth thaw from its pre-Cambrian snowball?
Answer: Evidence for the snowball earth hypothesis is ambiguous and highly controversial. There's little agreement it occurred.
3. Why was the earth much hotter than today during the Cambrian, even though solar output was much lower?
Answer: A good question that I cannot answer. But your likely conclusion, that because I cannot prove otherwise, it was hotter due to carbon dioxide, is an example of the logical error argumentum ad ignorantiam, or an appeal to ignorance.
4. Why is there a very good correlation between global temperatures and CO2 levels over the last 500 million years?
Answer: Evidence of correlation is not evidence of causation. But what's the evidence? The video didn't explain it.
5. How did the earth warm enough to emerge from recent glaciations?
Answer: Milankovitch cycles produce variations in timing and intensity of insolation and therefore the seasons over periods up to 100,000 years and are widely considered responsible for beginning and ending glaciations.
6. Why have we had 35 years of warming even though solar radiation has been lower?
Answer: Assuming you mean the last 35 years, it hasn't been warming. We've had about 20 years of stasis following about 20 years of warming. You seem to be suggesting that only solar variations and CO2 affect the rate of warming or cooling; of course that's wrong, and other factors are involved, including cloud cover, aerosols and albedo.
Simply submit your scientific proof that man-made global warming is not real. Have it judged by Dr. Keating. That is simple. Make your submission.
DeleteOf 10,885 Peer-Reviewed Articles on Climate Change in 2013, Only 2 Question Human Involvement
DeleteQUOTE:
James L. Powell is an MIT-educated geologist who taught students about the earth for 20 years at Oberlin College and served on the prestigious National Science Board at the request of two Republican presidents (Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush). He’s also a believer in human-made global warming, and has spent considerable time reviewing scientific and academic papers on the subject.
In 2013 alone, Powell found 10,885 peer-reviewed articles that discussed global warming or climate change. But only two described as peer-reviewed denied the widely-held belief that the planet is warming up because of humans, he says, and one of the two turned out not to be peer-reviewed.
One of those papers was produced by a Russian scientist, S. V. Avakyan, who claims global warming is a product of solar activity. Avakyan also says that calls for reducing the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere not only won’t help, but could cripple Russia’s economy and the oil industry. The other paper, published by a German chemistry publication, amounted to a one-page opinion piece that wasn’t peer-reviewed, according to Powell.
In addition to the more than 10,000 articles he found for last year, Powell says he’s reviewed more than another 15,000 papers on climate change. Of the grand total of 25,182 scientific articles he’s read, only 26 rejected the idea that humans are causing global warming.
END QUOTE:
URL: http://www.allgov.com/news/controversies/of-10885-peer-reviewed-articles-on-climate-change-in-2013-only-2-question-human-involvement-140403?news=852832
URL END:
SECOND SOURCE:
Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie Chart
URL:
http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart
URL END:
Richard,
To put it bluntly, you are simply calling the thousands of scientists that submitted over 25,000 published, peer reviewed articles liars and frauds. It even goes beyond that. You are calling the scientists that did the peer reviews liars and frauds. You are also calling the reviewer of the reviewers, a scientist that worked for two Republican Presidents, a liar and a fraud.
Just to be clear. You are claiming that 99.9% of the published papers and the scientists that wrote and review them, that support the conclusion that global warming is occurring and that it is man-made are all lies and the scientists are all liars and frauds.
Christopher Keating
ReplyDeleteThank you for this collection of publicly available topical data, but you have not addressed my central comment:-
"The main flaw in your AGW argument is that the sea has to heat BEFORE there is any increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, as per Henry's Law, so CO2 cannot affect the earth's surface temperature, if in fact it does, until after the sea has heated."
Unless you can show that human activity initially heated the oceans, all we can do is agree that "I win - You lose". Such is life.
On the side issue you raise regarding submarine volcanoes heating the surface waters. Collecting valuable raw data is a challenge we are yet to master, given that we are looking for fractions of a degree to match the small changes we have measured in atmospheric CO2. Hot water rises in plumes - not horizons, before ponding across the surface. This makes it very difficult for the ARGO buoys to detect because they tend to get pushed out of the way by the rising plumes.
However, I can point to a correlation between shallow volcanic activity along the Mid Atlantic Ridge and Atlantic storm activity. See my report at http://www.bosmin.com/SeismicWeather.pdf
quod erat demonstrandum
Best regards, BobBeatty@bosmin.com
You are a mining engineer? How has the industry been doing in the past couple of years?
DeleteAnonymous #2
There is absolutely no speaking truth to Mr. Keating's blind ignorance. I showed mathematically that every single thing that produces man-made pollution, all the cars, SUVs, trucks, planes, boats, motorcycles, and factories in the world would add up to a SINGLE pollution pipe that is about 12 sq. miles in size. If you call the planet down to the size of a 12" desk globe, that 12 sq. mile pipe would be 10 TIMES smaller than a red blood cell!! He completely dismissed this entire premise and posted charts of warming over the last 100 years. 100 years over 4,000 years of recorded human history where we have remarkable evidence that the world had MANY warm periods before all the man-caused Co2. He really is a joke!
DeleteDo you really believe a 12 square mile smokestack emitting pollution 24/7 would not change the environment? I think we have found the source of your problem. Maybe, instead of using false logic (yes, it is false), you should look a the real world data and see how the environment is actually being changed by all of those emissions. But, of course, that wouldn't fit in with your preconceived conclusions.
DeleteThere is another way to look at how you are making a false argument. Let's begin by assuming your math is correct. This is not a reasonable thing to do because you are the same person that calculated we have increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere by 13,000% when the total increase in CO2 levels since pre-industrial days is only about 43%. But, for the sake of the argument, let's use your number.
DeleteThe problem with your claim is that you have turned a three-dimensional problem into a two-dimensional one. The issue is not how large is the emitting source, the issue is how much is being emitted.
So, using your 12 square miles for the size of the emitter, that comes out to an emitter with an area of 3.1 x 10^7 square meters. Assuming the gases are leaving this pipe at 2 m/s, that give us emissions of 6.2 x 10^7 cubic meters of gas per second, or about 2 x 10^15 cubic meters per year. I calculated the volume of the atmosphere up to 11 kilometers using an Earth radius of 6,357,100 meters to get a volume of 5.7 x 10^18 m3. This means this pipe or yours is emitting .035% of the planets atmosphere every year. That is a significantly different picture than the one you paint of it being a pin hole on the planet. In comparison, that is close to the entire CO2 composition of the atmosphere and in the last 50 years we have pushed 1.75% of the atmosphere through that pipe. Lock yourself in a room and change .035% of the air in that room to pollution and tell me that it isn't significant.
Your claim is just one more denier false argument designed to fool and deceive.
Jason Jones,
Delete" I showed mathematically that every single thing that produces man-made pollution, all the cars, SUVs, trucks, planes, boats, motorcycles, and factories in the world would add up to a SINGLE pollution pipe that is about 12 sq. miles in size."
You just described a 'super-volcano', not unlike the one that we have got under yellow stone national park.
"Lock yourself in a room and change .035% of the air in that room to pollution and tell me that it isn't significant."
Umm... don't do that.
"Your claim is just one more denier false argument designed to fool and deceive."
The techniques to model the transmission and screening effect of the CO2 in the atmosphere theoretically *do* come from some rather difficult quantum mechanics. Not everyone intentionally tries to fool or deceive. A member of the public could simply be confused.
Anonymous #2
Mike Smith, you say: "It would seem that you are trying to rewrite the challenge."
ReplyDeleteWell, no, but I'm criticising the basis of the challenge. You might like to answer that criticism. Nobody has published a theory of dangerous anthropogenic global warming. That gives us a problem. I'm sure you agree the hypothesis should be clearly expressed and it should be possible to falsify it. So what is the theory?
"Science deniers / science liars claim that man-made global warming does not exist and they can prove it."
Depends on the period. Since about 1997 it hasn't been warming. That's statistically significant, but it's a short period (< 30 years) and doesn't set a trend. But it's also a fact that the predictions of 4°C to 6°C by 2100 are less likely to eventuate.
btw, your reference to deniers and liars makes you appear discourteous. It doesn't suit you. The discourteous claim that questioners of man-made global warming are mentally ill, should be prosecuted or even put to death.
I say the discourteous are running scared because they know they're wrong.
I have two different ways I refer to people that don't believe in AGW. Skeptics are people that, for whatever reason, simply don't believe in it, but they let other people live their lives. Deniers are people that actively proclaim that global warming isn't real and people should reject it. I call them deniers because they deny global warming, they deny science and they deny other people to make their own decisions.
DeleteI know deniers are offended by the term, but I am offended that they reject science and lie to people for the purpose of deceiving them. So, I guess we're even.
This post is an example of what I'm talking about. You continue to claim that there has been no warming since 1997, even though that has been shown, many times, to be a completely false statement. You know it is false, but you keep saying it. Why? That is why I call you a denier. If that offends you, then stop being a denier. How hard is that to figure out?
This is a duplicate of what I posted earlier.
DeleteOf 10,885 Peer-Reviewed Articles on Climate Change in 2013, Only 2 Question Human Involvement
QUOTE:
James L. Powell is an MIT-educated geologist who taught students about the earth for 20 years at Oberlin College and served on the prestigious National Science Board at the request of two Republican presidents (Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush). He’s also a believer in human-made global warming, and has spent considerable time reviewing scientific and academic papers on the subject.
In 2013 alone, Powell found 10,885 peer-reviewed articles that discussed global warming or climate change. But only two described as peer-reviewed denied the widely-held belief that the planet is warming up because of humans, he says, and one of the two turned out not to be peer-reviewed.
One of those papers was produced by a Russian scientist, S. V. Avakyan, who claims global warming is a product of solar activity. Avakyan also says that calls for reducing the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere not only won’t help, but could cripple Russia’s economy and the oil industry. The other paper, published by a German chemistry publication, amounted to a one-page opinion piece that wasn’t peer-reviewed, according to Powell.
In addition to the more than 10,000 articles he found for last year, Powell says he’s reviewed more than another 15,000 papers on climate change. Of the grand total of
25,182 scientific articles he’s read, only 26 rejected the idea that humans are causing global warming.
END QUOTE:
URL: http://www.allgov.com/news/controversies/of-10885-peer-reviewed-articles-on-climate-change-in-2013-only-2-question-human-involvement-140403?news=852832
URL END:
Richard,
To put it bluntly, you are simply calling the thousands of scientists that submitted over 25,000 published, peer reviewed articles liars and frauds. It even goes beyond that. You are calling the scientists that did the peer reviews liars and frauds. You are also calling the reviewer of the reviewers, a scientist that worked for two Republican Presidents, a liar and a fraud.
Just to be clear. You are claiming that 99.9% of the published papers and the scientists that wrote and review them, that support the conclusion that global warming is occurring and that it is man-made are all lies and the scientists are all liars and frauds.
This is an amazing piece of work. Thank you for sharing it.
DeleteIt was my pleasure. I am truly humbled by the very thought of the amount of work and dedication it took to perform this analysis.
DeleteThanks, Mike Smith, this is probably the most convincing post so far regarding Scientific Agreement in published peer-reviewed journal articles. Now, I'm a nobody; I'm just the Fool in the Shakespearean Tragedy of Life. However, I'm going to complicate the matter a bit.
DeleteThere are a couple issues with what Powell is asserting. The first glaring issue to me is the assumption that all Journals are equal. They in fact are not. There are tier 1 journals, tier 2, tier 3...etc...I might be completely wrong but if you look at something like Eigenfactor (with which I am not too familiar so I'm not sure how well accepted it is) The Journal of Nature gets an EF of 1.655 as compared to the Review of Geophysics which gets an EF of .0109. The question to ask is are these article being published in something akin to The Journal of Nature or the Review of Geophysics? I don't know. And I'm trying to do the homework but the internet is a hodgepodge of opinions, books and I still cannot find one reference to the name of one Climate Change Journal article. I find tons of opinions but not one reference to the complete listing of a peer reviewed article. I'm not indicating it doesn't exist but apparently it is not made available.
Now, another issue of concern is that Powell indicates that only 26 of these peer-reviewed articles rejected that humans are causing Global Warming. There are a couple of problems with this. One, do they all agree on the degree of Human influence? Is the question of Human influence even the subject of inquiry in their article or is it just a byproduct of the article? I mean Human influence can be relatively benign or it can be relatively catastrophic, it's a matter of degrees. If the direct concern of the article is not whether Human influence is the cause of climate change then what premise does the researcher conclude anything about Human influence?
Just as a funny aside, in my quest to find Peer Reviewed Articles regard Climate Change, I had the misfortune of chancing upon Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. I'm not certain whether to find it funny or disturbing but their most recent, "peer reviewed," article hinges around how to better communicate to the public 97% of Scientists agree about the question of climate change. Their article hinges on whether the number itself, a pie chart, or condescending and inaccurate metaphors constitute the best way to communicate this number to the public. There are tons of ironies in this, "peer reviewed," article the biggest being that in attempting to assert a scientific approach they are "peer reviewed," in one of the most dubious sources. Also, another irony is that it reeks of elitism with the sad truth that it is premised on ignorance i.e. the little people don't get it because they don't understand the number, but we don't truly understand the number itself but the number is all that matters. I think I read a while back that Yale's sociology department a long time ago was premised on how to understand people to effectively disseminate propaganda...geeze, not much has changed guys...really...
DeleteNo, people aren't stupid. If you truly want them to be on board make all the peer-reviewed articles public and accessible for them to review themselves. Not a book written by someone whose agenda is to interpret the peer review articles in such a way as to convince people of what they mean. No. Just a database of all the peer-review articles where people can pull them up, read them and come to their own conclusion. Then you can have a real discussion.
I mean I can care less if theoretical physicists want to spend the rest of their life waxing poetic on the possibility of multiple universes it doesn't effect me any. However, if you want people to be on board with something that may impact them economically then give them access to all the information unfiltered. Or, come up with solutions that are not political and economic in nature.
Keep in mind that published scientific papers are copyrighted and most of them belong to the publisher. You would need to factor that into your cost estimate.
DeleteYou criticize the 97% consensus as just being political. Well, that was the whole purpose. The deniers have always claimed that we don't have to believe in the scientists because there is no consensus. This was an effort to debunk that claim. So, yes, it was all political.
"You criticize the 97% consensus as just being political. Well, that was the whole purpose."
DeleteTo use an analogy from chess:
I think they managed to put you and your camp into 'check'. To argue the politics is foolish, particularly for your side. Your cause is far stronger when it focuses on the science.
What I think that you must think about the statement is that there is a "97% consensus among scientists that people are changing the climate." and you hope that message gets across.
What happens by the time your message is finished resonating through great echo chamber of reporter spin is the concept of, "97% consensus", on it's own, full stop. This get's converted to propaganda and constantly gets parroted by well meaning idiots who ultimately undermine your point.
And ultimately these arguments are pointless, because...
Peak oil is coming.
And we need a solution.
So, what do you propose as the best solution?
Anonymous #2
The professional denier organizations are definitely better at this game than the scientists are. Add to that the bullying tactic of deniers to chase off scientists and the deniers end up with the public forum all to themselves. They have tried to bully and intimidate me several times, but it really doesn't work well with me.
DeleteAs for the best solution? To me, the best solution would be for us to stop debating whether AGW is real and to move on as a country to find solutions together. But, there are special interests that are making mountains of money from polluting the atmosphere and they fear they will lose money if we address the problem.
"But, there are special interests that are making mountains of money from polluting the atmosphere and they fear they will lose money if we address the problem."
DeleteIf these special interests were smart, they would be leading the charge for developing brand new methods of producing cheap carbon-neutral energy. Sure, some will resist the march of progress, some will badger the scientists, some will put their heads in the sand, but these are the fools.
The oil companies have mountains of money, yes. They have a lot of power. But if they are smart, and if they are thinking with their brains instead of with their Limbic systems, they would realize that after peak oil, they could end up with no more lucrative infrastructure. The ones who develop the technology and hold the patents on the most promising supplies of energy will own the future.
They will either invest in the carbon free future, or they will be decimated by the smarter competition. Then they will be lost to history... and they will not be missed.
Anonymous #2
Preaching to the choir. History supports everything you have said. This isn't the first time there has been a shift in the way we do business. Those that adapt make tons of money and those that don't usually end up broke.
DeleteYes yes yes... you will certainly claim that a SINGLE month of data isn't "climate" but only "weather" and I'll turn around and claim that 100 years of data can't definitively prove man-made global warming is happening WHEN THE SIMPLE FACT IS THAT WE ARE PUTTING MORE CO2 INTO THE ATMOSPHERE THAN ANY TIME IN OUR HISTORY AND WE HAVE THE 7TH COLDEST MONTH ON RECORD IN JULY... JULY!?!?!?!?! If man-caused global warming were taking place, Mr. Keating, as a direct result of all the man-made CO2, then we shouldn't be experiencing ANY record cold temperatures, sir!!! If all that CO2 were trapping greenhouse gases to the level of "boiling our oceans away" as National Geographic put it a few years ago, then explain the recent and unprecidented COOLING!!!! Can someone say, CYCLICAL... Man-made global warming! What a joke you and your kind are and the next several years will prove it! http://www.13abc.com/story/26058193/july-2014-is-the-7th-coldest-on-record-so-far
ReplyDeleteAnd the fact that the NOAA's OWN report only shows that he combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for June 2014 was the highest on record for the month, at 0.72°C (1.30°F) above the 20th century average of 15.5°C (59.9°F) is absolutely laughable, sir! 1.3 degrees F when the AVERAGE is just 59.9 degrees??? 59.9 DEGREES? Can I just say it again... the 100 year average is 59.9 degrees!!!! Once more so you can really get the point here: FIFTY NINE POINT NINE DEGREES IS OUR 20TH CENTURY AVERAGE!!!! Holy Mary mother of God almighty the Earth's oceans really ARE going to boil away!!!
Deletehttp://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/
DeleteAll twelve of the hottest months ever recorded have occurred since 1997. All twelve of the coldest months ever recorded occurred before 1917. That should be enough for you, but I know it won't because your very statement proves how you have rejected science. July is not a cold month for the globe, it is merely below average in the U.S., which makes up less than 2% of the global surface area (and, we are ignoring the record heat on the West Coast and Alaska). Also, you are making claims about a month that isn't even over, yet. Why do deniers keep pulling out data for one location and keep claiming it represents the whole world? It is not valid to pull out one datum point and then ignore the mountain of data that doesn't agree with you.
DeleteInteresting that you reference the NOAA page, which states that June was the hottest June ever recorded. How does that support you claim?
DeleteAs for the temperature average, this again proves how deniers have rejected the science in favor of their preconceived conclusions. You rant (and, yes, that was a rant) about 1.3 degrees F difference over the 20th century average as if it isn't important. For reference, the 20th century average is about 11 degrees F above the average of the coldest part of the last ice age and that was enough to melt ice sheets that were miles thick. So, in just a few decades we warmed up the planet about 1/10 as much as was done in 20,000 years. Daily temperature change is much different than global average.
Mr. Keating, of course I'm ranting, so are you! You steep your replies in irrelevance. This whole thread isn't about the ACTUAL TEMPERATURES at all! I mean, seriously, the total global average temperature is what? 66 degrees? So even if we have a 5 degree swing, which is like 10 times what the actual increase is, then we would have an average global temperature of 71. ooooo... 71 degrees! DEAR GOD THE OCEANS WILL BOIL! And for you to cite the coldest month and the hottest month over 20 years as some revelation that an 11 degree swing somehow proves YOUR point... it doesn't because THIS ENTIRE THREAT IS ABOUT MAN BEING THE CAUSE! So the earth is warming a bit over the last 100 years! Has it been warmer in the past? yes or no? Was man the cause of the more warm temperatures beyond 100 years ago? yes or no? So while you make many of us look foolish for point to short term data (weather) when you are talking about long term (climate) is disingenuous because 100 years of data doesn't prove ANYTHING when we have 4,000 years of recorded human history where SCIENCE has proven there were MANY periods that were WARMER than it is today!
DeleteYou need to do some more homework. The average temperature is much different than the daily temperature. To put it in perspective, the difference in the average temperature for the depth of the last ice age and today is about 6 degrees C. That occurred over 20,000 years. We have raised it by 1 degree C in the last 30.
DeleteCiting the past climatic cycles is a false argument because you cannot show the causes of those past cycles are relevant to today's warming trend. In fact, the naturally occurring cycles present today would result in a cooling period, not a warming one. So, you can't blame natural cycles. And, we have 800,000 years of data (thanks to climate scientists) that shows these natural cycles and helps us to understand them better.
I have your submission. It is called "$30,000 Challenge Submission - Solar System Activity" and I will respond as quickly as I can. You can follow my progress here:
ReplyDeletehttp://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/p/challlenge-submissions.html
I will award, to Christopher Keating, 30,000 dollars of my own money, if he can prove via the scientific method, that humming bird caused global climate change is not occurring. The deadline for submission of proof is July 31, 2014.
ReplyDeleteTo: Tilo Reber
ReplyDeleteI could do that, but you are just trying to hijack my blog and the post. Your challenge is very childish and doesn't prove any point. Not only could I prove that, but I am not going around making statements, contrary to science, that hummingbirds are responsible for climate change and that I can prove it. If deniers don't like the challenge, then either stop saying you can prove man made global warming is not real, or prove that you really can prove it, as you claim. It is just that simple.
Unlike you, skeptics are smart enough to know that anything, including hummingbirds, effect the climate. The effect may be so small that it cannot be easily meausured, but there must be an effect. The wording of your bet is a show of your cowardice because such a negative with no specific magnitude specified is impossible to prove. And since my bet is stated exactly like yours, you are simply blowing hot air, since you could never prove that hummingbirds have no effect on climate.
DeleteThe real issue, which you did not include as the limiting factor of your bet is what everyone is talking about when they talk about AGW. In other words, is man producing a dangerous amount of CO2 based warming. Attacking straw man "denialists" based on the straw man argument that there is no change at all is simply you grandstanding for you sycophants.
If climate sensitivity is 1C per CO2 doubling or less, and given that the effect is logarithmic, then there is no reason for concern about man made climate change. Because that would mean that it takes 280 extra ppm for the first 1C, 560 ppm for the second 1C, 1120 for the third 1C, 2240 for the fourth 1C, etc.
At this point in time it has not even been proven that feedback is positive. And unless there is significant positive feedback, there is no climate danger.
Your bet is as childish and meaningless as your ideas about climate alarmism.
Combustion of Methane:
DeleteCH4 + 2O2 ---> CO2 + 2H2O
Err... leave it to me to not balance my equation correctly. Sorry about that.
Anonymous #2
Combustion of Methane:
DeleteCH4 + 2O2 ---> CO2 + 2H2O
Leave it to me to not balance my equation correctly. Sorry about that.
Anonymous #2
Burning methane may create CO2, but methane is also 21 times as efficient as a greenhouse gas as CO2. So, burning it still reduces the amount of greenhouse CO2 equivalent in the air.
DeleteTo Tilo Reber:
DeleteI am not the least bit convinced you would ever pay $30,000, or that you even have $30,000 to award. But, I have accepted your submission and will respond as quickly as I can. Your submission is "$30,000 Challenge Submission - Hummingbirds" and you can follow my progress here:
http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/p/challlenge-submissions.html
"Burning methane may create CO2, but methane is also 21 times as efficient as a greenhouse gas as CO2. So, burning it still reduces the amount of greenhouse CO2 equivalent in the air."
DeleteTrue. I wasn't criticizing what Dr. Megan Otts was doing. I was merely pointing out that CH4 is combustible so her demonstration should have left no doubt as to what would happen if that ice were to melt. A contribution to a positive feedback loop that would almost certainly lead to much higher global temperatures.
Anonymous #2
By the way, I submitted my proof that hummingbirds are not causing global warming. So, where's my money? Or, I bet the more accurate question is: How are you going to go about reneging on your promise?
Deletehttp://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2014/07/30000-challenge-submission-hummingbirds.html
Mr. Keating,
ReplyDeleteas you get closer to formulating a response to my challenge submission “Ice Core Issues”, I would like to clarify just what I am submitting and add a little more data as evidence. My submission is not simply an ice core issue, but a new theory as to what is happening in our climate.
I am not calling for the ice core records to be thrown out as evidence, I believe they have useful data that simply has not been interpreted correctly. In short, they are not continuous records, but the fragmented sections of a larger ice age/glacial cycle lasting over 300,000 years. That being the case, we would expect sea levels to reach a highstand near the top of this cycle 80-90k years ago. That is exactly what sea level data shows.(link provided in a previous post)
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5967/860.abstract
We would also expect to see another sea level highstand at the top of this cycle 400k years ago. Again, that is exactly what sea level data shows, at +21 meters above the present level. (also a contradiction to the ice core if read as continuous records.)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379108003144
If you look at further data for sea level highstands, you will find they also occur every 300k+ years, as expected. Marine Isotope Stages(MIS) 17-19 at 700kya-776kya, and MIS 31 at 1,072kya.
The comparison of past sea level data as continuous record, and the ice core data as non-continuous records together reveal the true cycle of past climate being over 300,000 years with a temperature swing of +9 degrees C to -9 degrees C.
Also, if we extrapolate CO2 content from the ice core records, which show concentrations at close to 200ppm at the bottom of the cycle, and concentrations close to 300ppm at the “Interglacials” which we now know to be closer to the middle of the cycle, we could guess that CO2 levels at the top of that cycle would have been closer to today’s 400ppm.
So the statement that “the earth has not seen CO2 levels this high in 800,000 years” cannot be backed up with evidence. It is more likely the earth has seen CO2 levels close to today’s level 8 times in the last 2.5 million years, and each of those times despite the increased level, it did not stop the earth from going back into a glacial stage right on schedule. Thus CO2 is not driving the climate and the theory of man-made global warming is proven false.
I would also like to add, the closest fit shows the larger glacial/iceage cycle to be about 327,000 years. This is interesting because the diameter of the galaxy has been calculated to be 104,000 light years across. Multipliying by Pi puts the circumference of our galaxy at 327,000 light years. Perhaps a better name for my submission would be “The Galactic Climate Cycle”, since our climate is governed both by Milankovitch insolation factors, and what I believe to be an overriding galactic cycle.
I have added your additional comments to your submission.
DeleteBefore you cite Botzmann as a source of inspiration for the downtrodden, you need to make sure you get the story straight. Boltzmann was criticized in some circle for his work, but he was actually widely acclaimed and received many awards and accolades. Yes, it is true he committed suicide, but he suffered from chronic bipolar depression. There has never been any evidence to like his suicide to any criticism of his work.
DeleteYou said it yourself - he was bipolar. The fact is, while some criticized him, he also received great praise at the same time. This is from Wikipedia. Note that he had attempted suicide before his final successful attempt:
DeleteIn 1885 he became a member of the Imperial Austrian Academy of Sciences and in 1887 he became the President of the University of Graz. He was elected a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in 1888.
Boltzmann was appointed to the Chair of Theoretical Physics at the University of Munich in Bavaria, Germany in 1890. In 1893, Boltzmann succeeded his teacher Joseph Stefan as Professor of Theoretical Physics at the University of Vienna.
Final years
Boltzmann spent a great deal of effort in his final years defending his theories. He did not get along with some of his colleagues in Vienna, particularly Ernst Mach, who became a professor of philosophy and history of sciences in 1895. That same year Georg Helm and Wilhelm Ostwald presented their position on Energetics, at a meeting in Lübeck in 1895. They saw energy, and not matter, as the chief component of the universe. Boltzmann's position carried the day among other physicists who supported his atomic theories in the debate.[4] In 1900, Boltzmann went to the University of Leipzig, on the invitation of Wilhelm Ostwald.[5] After the retirement of Mach due to bad health, Boltzmann came back to Vienna in 1902.[6] In 1903 he founded the Austrian Mathematical Society together with Gustav von Escherich and Emil Müller. His students included Karl Przibram, Paul Ehrenfest and Lise Meitner.
In Vienna, Boltzmann taught physics and also lectured on philosophy. Boltzmann's lectures on natural philosophy were very popular, and received a considerable attention at that time. His first lecture was an enormous success. Even though the largest lecture hall had been chosen for it, the people stood all the way down the staircase. Because of the great successes of Boltzmann's philosophical lectures, the Emperor invited him for a reception at the Palace.
Boltzmann was subject to rapid alternation of depressed moods with elevated, expansive or irritable moods, likely the symptoms of undiagnosed bipolar disorder. He himself jestingly attributed his rapid swings in temperament to the fact that he was born during the night between Shrove Tuesday and Ash Wednesday.[7] Meitner relates that those who were close to Boltzmann were aware of his bouts of severe depression and his suicide attempts.
On September 5, 1906, while on a summer vacation in Duino, near Trieste, Boltzmann hanged himself during an attack of depression.
Now that I have made that statement I feel compelled to mention...
DeleteThis culture of criticizing other people's ideas in academia can be harsh. The concept behind it is a kind of 'idea-darwinism' where, in theory, only the 'fittest' ideas survive.
The 'fittest' ideas are the ones that hold up even after they have been compared to the evidence and have been subjected to criticism. One might be able to say that within academia, you are obligated to attack the weaker ideas so that the stronger can have their turn at the intellectual gauntlet.
Without careful scrutiny, sometimes it is hard to tell which is which.
I saw Tilo's idea as being creative and actually quite clever. That does not mean that it is right. That does not mean that it is wrong. Here is what I am supposed to do with it...
I am supposed to be skeptical of it. If I wanted to take the time I would need to compare his idea with the data. If the idea appears to fit the data, then there should be a set of predictions that we can make from it. This would require building a mathematical model out of it. After building the model; we would compare it with the data directly again. Rinse, repeat.
Most people who come up with an idea or a theory end up being rather attached to it. After developing the theory it is your job and the job of the academic community to try and render the theory obsolete, if at all possible. If all attempts fail; the theory might be pretty good. If a century goes by and all attempts still fail; the theory might be pretty damn good.
Unfortunately this process can be psychologically stressful to the originator of the theory. You are supposed to learn to steel yourself, and not grow too emotionally attached to your ideas. Because the next assault on your theory may be it's last.
This is how we make progress. Preferably without ad hominem.
Anonymous #2
Oi,
DeleteEverywhere in the last two posts where I typed 'Tilo', that should have been 'Iceman'. Sorry about that.
Anonymous #2
My comments about Boltzmann was to illustrate that he was not someone that was beaten down into the shadows and turned out, many years later, to have been discovered to be correct. He was recognized in his own lifetime for his accomplishments. BTW, he succeeded Mach at the university after Mach died.
DeleteYou are right. For that, I'm sure that I could find plenty of other examples. I thought Iceman's idea sounded creative. It might fall apart as soon as it is analyzed critically; but this is true of most ideas. It *is* creative, though. So I give him props for that. Lord Kelvin's 'vortex model' of the atom was creative too; but it was replaced by it's competitors.
DeleteDr. Keating,
ReplyDeleteDo you know how you might be able to make your case against the 'deniers' a lot easier? Do you know how you could get people to trust the IPCC predictions a little bit more? It would be easy, for you.
Show people the process of building a climate model. Take them through an exercise where they build one of their own. This will give them a sense of 'ownership' over the concept; and it could show people how foolish the statements of those who deny that climate change is happening as a result of human activities really are.
Anonymous #2
I think that is an excellent idea. I will give it some serious thought on just how to do that. The challenge deadline is Friday (yeah!) and I should be able to wrap up the responses within a week or so (barring a last minute rush). I could then turn my attention to that issue.
DeleteThank you for the suggestion.
Of course. I am trying to help.
DeleteI admit that my approach to this issue might be ill-advised.
Anonymous #2
I just thought of something. I am not sure if it has merit or not, but hear me out.
DeleteIs it possible that the Carbon Tax is actually a method of fighting wage inflation?
We know that India and China, developing countries are not too keen on the idea of a Carbon Tax because it will cost them far more to produce electricity for all of their people. I guess that having a population in excess of 1 Billion people can do that. So, naturally they aren't very happy about it.
But what is the main export from China and India? Well... their brain drain is our brain gain. Lot's of cheap, highly motivated workers in technical fields. So what happens to an economy when you have lots of cheap workers in the field of technology? It brings down the wages.
If it is too expensive for them to generate electricity; then generally these nations will stay poor. And since people in poor nations don't like to stay in poor nations they will flock into the first world and will fight the horrible evil that is 'wage inflation'.
The path of technology is generally one of progress. It would improve whether we implemented the carbon credit system or not. And knowing that Peak Oil is coming; we know that it would improve away from the direction of oil naturally anyways.
This would mean that the carbon credit system is at best redundant; and at worst, harmful to developing countries, and would keep wages down in the first world countries.
So... here is a crazy idea; is the carbon credit system really Geopolitical or Economic in nature instead of Environmental?
By the way, I am not sure this comes across in my posts. I trust the climate scientists to be honest as a community. I don't trust the IPCC even as far as I could throw it. The institution looks *highly* political in nature, which is not surprising, because it seems to be in direct communication with the UN. I trust the IPCC only slightly more than the Heartland Institute. And my opinion of the Heartland Institute, is really quite low. I could use more colorful words to describe it, but would make this post quite uncivil.
We should use more technology that uses less oil, and less coal, if possible.
Anonymous #2
Anything that deals with the issue is going be more political than environmental. Ultimately, whatever we do, we are really talking about people's lives and standards of living and that is all politics. Having said that, there are other methods of generating electricity than coal. ExxonMobil is on record as saying it prefers the carbon tax over cap and trade. Take that for what its worth.
DeleteEconomically speaking, the carbon tax doesn't really hurt the oil companies. they can efficiently and easily transfer the cost of the tax to the consumers.
DeleteAnonymous #2
All costs are always passed on to the customer until you reach the end point that cannot pass it on (all of us consumers on the bottom of the food chain). This is just basic economics. The question is which strategy will most efficiently get us to the point where we reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases. I don't want to weigh in on this topic because it is off topic from the challenge. But, what we do about global warming is, without a debate, an important issue.
DeleteWell, I might nitpick some of the details of the kinds of feedback loops that can exist outside of what has been coded into the models.
DeleteBut you will also find that I do not disagree with the idea that global warming is happening; that we should use develop new technology that completely weans us off of petrol and coal.
Coal has it's advantages... it is cheap. But that pretty much summarizes all of it's advantages.
It's disadvantages... extensive use increases the probability of people within breathing distance of the coal plants developing cancer. This makes our healthcare system more expensive. It produces a lot of CO2... yes, but that is actually one of it's more benign effects. It produces sulfur dioxide SO2. This can mix with gaseous H2O to produce sulfuric acid. This is nasty stuff. You do *not* want it raining on your crops.
I thought that it was really rather sad that with Germany going through it's 'Energiewende' right now, they are actually forced to use more coal than they used to. And this on top of the cost of electricity becoming more expensive. But maybe I judge their solution too harshly too soon. Maybe their electricity prices are high now, but in 10-20 years they will be significantly lower. I don't know, I would have to see their predicted economic models in order to know. At the moment, it is not looking good.
After the economic collapse, Germany's ability to invest was much better than most other countries in the world. They invested a huge amount of money into their 'Energiewende' and the cost of electricity still shot up. I shudder to think of what would happen if we were to try the same thing here in the US.
"But, what we do about global warming is, without a debate, an important issue."
You are going to get debate whether you want it or not. Debate can be great, because you can show people what you really think and why.
Anonymous #2
Dr. Keating
ReplyDeletePse see this study:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JC007255/abstract
especially this image:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1029/2011JC007255/asset/supinfo/jgrc12191-sup-0010-fs09.pdf?v=1&s=79e93e124ca1fd8a33753fc667ff17deaa20b3e6
They give a reconstruction of the DEEP ocean temperatures over the last 108 million years. Around 84 mya the deep oceans were ~18K warmer than today.
I assume you have no indications for the dinosaurs burning fossil fuels, so these warm oceans should have a natural cause.
The deep oceans have on average been cooling since ~84 mya. Last ~3 million years Earth has alternating glacials and interglacials. Reason simply being the temperature of the deep oceans having cooled below the required temperature.
If (big if) the deep oceans are warming presently, this would be great news, since Earth might be warming again, iso sinking deeper into the glacial cycles.
Once the deep oceans are approaching the temperature as ~84 million years ago, we can start the discussion wether this additional warming is natural or not.
Won't happen in the foreseeable future ;-)
For the reason of the warming see:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/03/03/ben-wouters-influence-of-geothermal-heat-on-past-and-present-climate/
This text also explains why the average temperature on Earth is ~93K above that of our moon, which has an Effective Temperature of ~270K, but actual ~ 197K only
regards
Ben Wouters
Christopher Keating, you say (July 15, 2014 at 11:54 AM): "And, no, I do not have to prove it is warmer today than it was thousands of years ago."
ReplyDeleteBut if you do not, people will be able to say that the current warming is within natural limits, so there's no cause for concern.
You also said: "No, the temperature has not been flat since 1998. The surface temperature has been increasing, but at a slower rate."
Yes, slower and statistically insignificant—in other words, flat. As in NOAA's graph of Global Land and Ocean annual Temperature Anomalies 2001–2013, which you will find at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/2001-2013?trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=2001&lasttrendyear=2013
Notice that the trend line is quite flat. That graph represents observations and it gives me a problem, because it means I cannot accept without question statements like yours that our emissions are dangerously increasing the temperature. Can you explain, perhaps, why the temperature has not recently been increasing even though our emissions have been larger than ever?
Then, Dr Keating, you say (July 15, 2014 at 6:44 PM): "If you will check, climate scientists look at the performance of the temperature average over the entire database. What has been found is that the temperature record changes in accordance with known climatic factors throughout the historical record - up to the late 1970s when it began to diverge. This divergence continues to this day and the global average heat index is moving contrary to what it should be doing if natural causes were the only thing involved. There is most definitely no cherry picking by scientists, only by deniers who choose 1998 as a starting point and try to make the case that there has been no global warming. Try starting with 1997 or 1999 and do the same exercise and you get an entirely different result, and that is just the surface average without including the ocean warming."
Your second sentence is obscure, since nobody claims to know why the temperature varies so much, such as to produce a mini ice age or to come out if it, or create a medieval warm period, or a 20-year period of stasis. Nobody is predicting these periods. So to claim the temperature changes according to "known factors" is absurd. Then it "diverges" and you say the "global heat index" (whatever that is) moves contrary to what it "should"? This is insanely illogical and you are the only one saying it.
Iceman presented to you this graph from June 6th, 2013, by Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D, at http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png.
It's a simple construction that shows the output of some 73 models of global temperature and compares them with observations. You'll see that actual temperatures from about 1983 are at the low end of the model projections and, from about 1988, emerge from them entirely, leaving them to soar beyond reality. But to refute this depiction of the actual world, you abandoned science and mounted a vicious personal attack, do you remember? You said (June 23, 2014 at 8:15 PM) this:
"His credentials are real. What he is also known for [sic] a series of papers he published in the early 1990s with another scientist, John Christy. In these papers they claimed their analysis of satellite temperature measurements showed no warming in the atmosphere. They became the heroes of the global warming denier crowd as a result. [TBC]
"But, by the end of the 1990s it was shown they were not only wrong, they were so wrong they even admitted it themselves, but only after being confronted with the evidence from others. Separate studies showed four significant flaws in their work. What I find really interesting is that these two are undeniable experts in this process, yet they made four major errors in their data and each of those errors worked to remove global warming. And, these errors were found by other people. I really have to wonder, what are the chances that two experts will make so many errors and all of those errors work to show the results they wanted? If they were random errors you would expect at least one of them to work to enhance the global warming evidence.
ReplyDeleteI will not say they deliberately falsified their research. I believe there is enough evidence to convince a jury, but it has never been put to one, so we will probably never know. But, there is certainly enough evidence to convince me."
These are unjustified, disgraceful smears. The truth is that all the global temperature projects have been corrected and adjusted many times. For instance, from Wikipedia:
The CCSP SAP 1.1 Executive Summary refers to "Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere" and "Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected."
To allege malfeasance against Dr Spencer without cause is nothing short of scurrilous. All teams have made hundreds of alterations and corrections over the years—it's a normal part of complex scientific calculations, not a sign of misbehaviour.
Regarding the increase in oceanic heat content, observations show that it has been fairly constant over the last four or five decades and it has been minuscule, at about 0.065°C over 45 years, the equivalent of only 0.14°C per century. That's about 20 times smaller than the warming predicted for the surface. See The Reference Frame at http://motls.blogspot.co.nz/2013/09/ocean-heat-content-relentless-but.html.
I asked you to describe the mechanism by which our atmospheric emissions warm the ocean. I don't believe the warming could be significant, so I look forward to hearing how it works. I see now that Anonymous is busy on that; he might save you the job.
You cited Peter Gleick in support of your contention that temperatures have risen since 1998. (Incidentally, I didn't specify 1998, just "about 20 years.") The period of stasis depends which dataset you examine and varies between about 15 and 20 years, or between 1995 and 1999.
Gleick says: "These statements [of lack of warming] are scurrilous deceptions and falsehoods. The planet is warming … The actual data are easy for anyone to find – they are posted and regularly updated, freely, on public websites around the world." He then provides three references, from GISS, NOAA and HadCRUT3. The first HadCRUT3 graph is especially clear and striking, but I encourage you to view them all.
For, without exception, the graphs contradict what Gleick says. Each one shows a period of variability with no clear trend, beginning about 1999. It means that since that time the temperature has not risen significantly and so by definition there has been no global warming. Warming may resume, of course—although there are strong signs that lead many scientists to predict cooling—but we must wait and see. [TBC]
These graphs you reference show your statements are wrong. Yet you said to me: "You continue to claim that there has been no warming since 1997, even though that has been shown, many times, to be a completely false statement. You know it is false, but you keep saying it. Why? That is why I call you a denier. If that offends you, then stop being a denier. How hard is that to figure out?"
ReplyDeletePlease don't take my word for it, but examine the graphs for yourself.
There have been many observations of lack of warming in recent years. I have already cited the Met Office, Steven Goddard, The Cryosphere and HadCRUT temperatures.
Mike Smith (July 25, 2014 at 12:17 PM) said: "Richard, to put it bluntly, you are simply calling the thousands of scientists that submitted over 25,000 published, peer reviewed articles liars and frauds. It even goes beyond that. You are calling the scientists that did the peer reviews liars and frauds. You are also calling the reviewer of the reviewers, a scientist that worked for two Republican Presidents, a liar and a fraud. Just to be clear. You are claiming that 99.9% of the published papers and the scientists that wrote and review them, that support the conclusion that global warming is occurring and that it is man-made are all lies and the scientists are all liars and frauds."
No, he's grossly distorting for his own purposes what I clearly said. I didn't use the words liar or fraud, nor did I attempt to explain why other people did or said things. I answered those points from the video to the best of my understanding. Instead of being offensive, he (and you) might explain where I have things wrong.
The climate is complex, and many fields of study are required to study the climate. Over the years I have found a few facts that contradict some of what is claimed for global warming, and I wonder what they mean. For example, as the chairman of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, the UK Met Office and other bodies acknowledge, we're in a prolonged stasis in global average surface temperature rise. What does it mean? One obvious consequence is that the climate will be hard-pressed to fulfil the projections of substantial temperature rise by 2100.
An obvious question to ask oneself is: what is causing the temperature stasis? One answer is natural variation, which would in turn mean that natural forces can, at least temporarily, overwhelm the anthropogenic influence. One wonders how often and to what extent natural forces might dominate in the future?
There's no such thing as 'the science is settled.' These and others are good questions, yet all you do is call the questioner names. [TBC]
Finally, Christopher, you say (July 25, 2014 at 10:46 AM): "I have two different ways I refer to people that don't believe in AGW. Skeptics are people that, for whatever reason, simply don't believe in it, but they let other people live their lives. Deniers are people that actively proclaim that global warming isn't real and people should reject it. I call them deniers because they deny global warming, they deny science and they deny other people to make their own decisions. I know deniers are offended by the term, but I am offended that they reject science and lie to people for the purpose of deceiving them. So, I guess we're even."
ReplyDeleteWell, you're being thoroughly obnoxious, but leaving that aside, you prohibit honest questioning, an odd thing to do if you're a scientist. For example, when I observe the short period of stasis in those Gleick graphs, should I have such strong belief in dangerous anthropogenic global warming (DAGW) that I see a temperature rise where none exists?
When I learn about the logarithmic effect of carbon dioxide, whereby most of its warming occurs with the first 20 ppm, should I have such strong belief in DAGW that I see a linear temperature response where none exists?
When I learn that clouds might change their coverage by only 2% and have more impact on global temperature than all the threatened greenhouse effect, should I have such strong belief in DAGW that I see no variation in cloud cover even where it's occurring?
When I hear alarmists demonising carbon dioxide as 'pollution', should I have such strong belief in DAGW that I see no good in CO2 even as it feeds every plant on earth?
When I see Antarctic sea ice coverage increasing every year since 1979, should I have such strong belief in DAGW that I see a reduction in southern sea ice where none exists?
I don't understand your criticism of me.
Richard Treadgold.
Richard Treadgold,
DeleteDo you come from a journalism background? I think I just found your website:
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2014/07/letter-to-the-editor-9/
Dr. Keating was a professor at the University of South Dakota and at the US Naval Academy.
To me; he comes across as being quite knowledgeable of climate dynamics. He has admitted that he has done some work on climate models in the past. I don't know if he is more strongly an experimental physicist or if he is more strongly a theoretical physicist, or perhaps more of a computational physicist.
Professors can be brilliant researchers, and simultaneously be terrible teachers. I think it is a certain special kind of mind that does this to a person. My father is like this, actually.
In Dr. Keatings case, he comes across like this to me, actually. Extremely intelligent; he knows his subject, he knows his research area; more than likely, he is brilliant researcher. But when it comes to addressing the public, he may very well be more than a little bit socially inept.
If you have an engineering company... this kind of a person is great to have working on the technical minutiae in the background. They will build systems that work, and the systems will be a masterpiece. This kind of a person is brilliant... but you want to keep them as far away from the marketing side of the company and your customers as humanly possible.
There are some people who are brilliant, but they do not have patience to explain to people what they understand.
And by the way, Richard, about your graph from NOAA (which is a fantastic resource for good data, by the way):
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/2001-2013?trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=2001&lasttrendyear=2013
You are right, actually; that slope looks kind of pitiful, doesn't it? But look at the full time range from 1880 to 2013. That slope looks more convincing. Also notice in the corner of the graph how it says (0.06 degrees C/decade) for the trendline.
You seem like a nice fellow, I look forward to hearing from you.
Anonymous #2
Anonymous, you say: "Do you come from a journalism background? I think I just found your website"
DeleteNot journalism, but writing, yes. Yes, that's my web site.
"There are some people who are brilliant, but they do not have patience to explain to people what they understand."
You offer some good insights into those personalities, though that is no justification for offering respondents such naked abuse as Dr Keating offers here. He receives nothing of the sort back from them and deserves no sympathy. Though he claims to be offended, no offence is aimed at him, while he specifically targets the individual. Nasty stuff.
"But look at the full time range from 1880 to 2013. That slope looks more convincing."
It's a more definite rise, for sure, but I was commenting on a different period. Remember that I'm not saying the global warming has permanently stopped, only that it was stopped in the recent past for a specific, observed period and has not yet restarted. It's visible in the data. Certain consequences arise from that, but the impossibility of future warming is not among them. Apparently some people with intellectual attachments to the hypothesis of man-made warming cannot concede the briefest halt in that warming.
The trendline on the graph I saw was -0.01°C/decade. See
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/ncdc_loti_2001-2013.png.
btw, what can we call you? 'Anonymous' doesn't cut it.
I am a nice fellow and there are more of us at the Climate Conversation. You're welcome to hang out there.
"I am a nice fellow and there are more of us at the Climate Conversation. You're welcome to hang out there."
DeleteThank you, I appreciate it.
"btw, what can we call you? 'Anonymous' doesn't cut it."
I would really prefer to stay Anonymous. Character assassination from both the pro-IPCC and the pro-Heartland-Institute crowd is a common tactic. And I have skeletons in my closet as much as the next man. The last thing that I want is a smear campaign from political groups under the 'fair-game philosophy'.
I think both sides could find reasons to slight me.
Gavin Schmidt, a brilliant man, found himself subjected to some rather unfair abuse.
And Michael Mann, on the pro-IPCC side has seen some abuse too:
http://observationdeck.io9.com/is-libeling-a-climatologist-defensible-free-speech-1513914373
And so has Richard Lindzen from the pro-Cato side:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/13/lindzen-libeled-by-nuccitelli/
And even those with a more moderate take, with a Nobel Prize in quantum field theory have caught some abuse, as well, like Freeman Dyson:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2009/03/25/203866/new-york-times-magazine-profile-global-warming-crackpot-freeman-dyson-slander-james-hansen/
Think progress... um...
People can get downright nasty on the issue of global warming. I would be quite annoyed if I found my identity revealed by a 'helpful' hacker.
I am sorry, I would happily give you more information about me if it were not for fear.
"You offer some good insights into those personalities, though that is no justification for offering respondents such naked abuse as Dr Keating offers here."
Yes, but it does offer a possible explanation, I don't know his past. For all I know, he *might* have been subjected to some abuse from conservative groups. Such an event would lead someone to be bitter and angry, and more likely to lash out at innocent bystanders.
Not an excuse for his behavior, no, but an explanation. I really don't think that he intends to alienate people.
"Though he claims to be offended, no offence is aimed at him, while he specifically targets the individual. Nasty stuff."
The best way to teach is often by example. There is probably a good reason for why Dr. Keating is the way he is. He can be a little prickly at times, but personally, I like him.
Anonymous #2
I understand that you don't want to use your name. Perhaps you could make up a false name—let's call it a nom de plume. It would be easier to use than this long non-name.
DeleteAh, sure.
DeleteCall me Kalium.
Anonymous #2
Nice. Hi Kalium.
DeleteDavid Brin's piece is very long and replete with familiar truisms and not-so-truisms which cede too little validity to the sceptics. I haven't finished it yet.
No, but it does give a flavor for how the average climatologist who is afraid of a venus-like runaway greenhouse scenario might feel when speaking to skeptics.
DeleteI liked this guys perspective because it offered a slightly more complex idea mindset than the "us vs them" that you find with "alarmist" and "denier" folks.
It cedes to the possibility of "us vs them vs the others".
Anonyoums #2 / Kalium
To Anonymous #2:
DeleteYou have posted a considerable amount of information about modeling. I think it is a valuable contribution and will be deleting if from this page and posting it in its own page. Don't be alarmed if you look and find all you comments have disappeared. The reason I'm doing that is because of the Blobspot issue with comment limits.
Christopher Keating,
DeleteI would appreciate it if you left that on the discussion forum, please? Those were wild guesses; and I have no idea how it compares to how the real climate models are created. Feel free to post add them elsewhere, if you would like.
Anonymous #2 / Kalium
They will definitely be on the forum, just on a separate page, which I will provide the link to. I think they are a very valuable discussion and have no desire to lose them.
DeleteWell, no wonder you are defensive...
DeleteYou are living at ground zero in politically one of the goofiest states in the US. There really are some people in some religious groups that are common in that area who really neither understand nor care to understand the science. Don't be worried about these. They are a minority in the country at large.
When addressing the public; it is the moderates who you are likely to convince regarding *some* aspects of what you are saying. When they are convinced that there is a problem that should be solved; things get done. They will usually try to borrow from what they see as the best of both sides of the argument (because usually, for some reason that I don't quite understand, there usually seems to be two very loud sides of the discussion).
Being uncivil tends to decrease the signal-to-noise ratio in the discussion. Which, when you are discussing the minutiae behind the complexities of the physics; and not to mention the math... you *really* want a high signal-to-noise ratio when it comes to describing these concepts. These concepts, are ultimately the reason why you are afraid of the idea of global warming.
You have seen the physics, you have seen the differential equations; you *know* how things can shift and change over time. The question that nags you at night that bedevils you the entire time that you are developing the climate models is that the average global temperature is increasing; but the question is... how much?
Actually, there is a reason why I ask if the average global temperature is a less chaotic system than the weather; it might very well be. But, it comes to the question of the double-pendulum problem...
Mathematically speaking; the model for the double pendulum is trivially easy to derive. But we find that we can get vastly different solutions if we change the constants in the equations. You come from a physics background, you *know* what the double-pendulum problem is.
Our climate has far more feedback loops than the double-pendulum does. So our climate models, might be be analogized with an averaged solution to the N-pendulum problem. So I ask you... first is this analogy between the climate and the averaged solution to the N-pendulum-problem wrong, and if not; is it possible that the solution to what the *real* climate equations might be, could turn out to have many possible descriptions for very similar boundary conditions?
I would expect that a clever application of Fourier analysis might slay this dragon. It might answer this question.
I am being completely honest here. I have not seen an adequate explanation for why we should expect the averaged solution for the weather equations; these are based on the Navier-Stokes equations, the fluid equations that describe the motion of the atmosphere, which are indisputably chaotic, and nonlinear; why should we expect that the 'equations' that Nature would follow for climate to be any less chaotic?
This question is, ultimately, the reason why I am kindly disposed towards the skeptics; and at the same time, why I believe that the climatologists are in the currently process of slaying one hell of a hydra in trying to understand the climate problem. This question is the reason why I am kindly disposed towards the climatologists.
If you can answer this question. Then in my mind, the science really would be settled; because the predictions of science require the math to work.
Anonymous #2 / Kalium
As a single comment on your question on the way I address deniers. The reason is pure and simple - I hate seeing people suffer because some people feel they should be actively blocking the advancement of society for the profit of a few. The cost to society is horrendous. The cost to individuals is frequently heartbreaking. People are being killed, they are having their lives ruined, they are loosing their jobs and they are having their standard of living lowered, all because we are not addressing the issue of global warming. When I meet someone that is actively preaching false arguments and lies in an attempt to deny global warming, I think of all of the people that are suffering as a result.
DeleteYes, the science is settled. One of the things that should be apparent from this blog and the challenge is that no credible challenge has been submitted that has any supporting science to it. Anyone that reviews the literature can see that there is no credible science refuting it. It really is a done deal.
Deniers have been treated with kid gloves by the scientific establishment over the years and the result has been that deniers take that opportunity to bully scientists off the stage so they have the public forum to themselves. I know many scientists that simply refuse to discuss any of the science or the issues with the public because of this tactic. The deniers have won the fight for the public forum.
Being civil obviously has not been successful for science. So, I call them the way I see them. To be fair, when someone addresses me in a civil manner, I work hard to be civil back. It is when people go into the attack mode and try to bully me that they find they have picked the wrong guy to try that tactic on.
As for my background - I got my Ph.D. from the University of Texas at Dallas. I got my degree at the same time they canceled the Superconducting Super Collider and put 2000 physicists on the streets, so I started out as an adjunct. I did a one-year visiting professor spot at Angelo State University before going to the University of South Dakota. I left there and went the U.S. Coast Guard Academy for a temporary position before taking active duty orders to go to the U.S. Naval Academy. When I retired from the Navy I was in a position to retire and took the opportunity to move home to Texas and I now live in a small community in the Texas Hill Country (aka - Heaven).
I did my research in space physics (where I did my modeling) and in planetary geophysics. Some of my work was related to climate change and climate change was involved in much of what I studied. I first became involved with climate change in the early 1980s and was a skeptic until I started reading the science and realized it was real. I have been involved with climate change, at various levels, ever since.
Richard Treadgold:
ReplyDeleteQUOTE:
Mike Smith (July 25, 2014 at 12:17 PM) said: "Richard, to put it bluntly, you are simply calling the thousands of scientists that submitted over 25,000 published, peer reviewed articles liars and frauds. It even goes beyond that. You are calling the scientists that did the peer reviews liars and frauds. You are also calling the reviewer of the reviewers, a scientist that worked for two Republican Presidents, a liar and a fraud. Just to be clear. You are claiming that 99.9% of the published papers and the scientists that wrote and review them, that support the conclusion that global warming is occurring and that it is man-made are all lies and the scientists are all liars and frauds."
No, he's grossly distorting for his own purposes what I clearly said. I didn't use the words liar or fraud, nor did I attempt to explain why other people did or said things. I answered those points from the video to the best of my understanding. Instead of being offensive, he (and you) might explain where I have things wrong.
END QUOTE:
Richard,
You stated that you do not believe in man-made global warming. If that is a true statement, then what exactly are you stating about the 99.9% of peer reviewed climate research? To be more succinct, exactly what would be settled science with a consistency of 99.999% for the year 2013? Let us not discount that the two articles that are listed as dissenters, are entirely questionable and at least one was not peer reviewed.
Exactly what type of denial are you engaged in, to blatantly dismiss their research and their conclusions? You most assuredly are challenging their credibility, because, you have bluntly stated that you do not believe in man-made global warming and have stated that the science is not settled.
Finding a single point to question is one thing, but to completely dismiss, as your admitted denial of man-made global warming does mean that you are impugning all parts of the veracity, honor and integrity of the scientists and the scientific process that submitted the 25,000 plus papers.
Mike, you say: "You stated that you do not believe in man-made global warming."
DeleteThe only instances of the phrase "believe in man-made global warming" on this page are both in your post. Please provide a reference to the statement you believe I made, as I don't recall making it.
If you disagree with my rebuttals of the video points, please address them and let go of this pretence that I'm insulting yet other scientists who disagree with me and for some reason you feel obliged to defend them. From what I write, you can clearly see that I'm not mentioning people, but observations. It's the observations I'm asking about.
Richard Treadgold:
ReplyDeleteQUOTE:
An obvious question to ask oneself is: what is causing the temperature stasis? One answer is natural variation, which would in turn mean that natural forces can, at least temporarily, overwhelm the anthropogenic influence. One wonders how often and to what extent natural forces might dominate in the future?
END QUOTE
This statement is simply false. The temperature has not entered into a state of stasis.
QUOTE:
Abstract
Global warming first became evident beyond the bounds of natural variability in the 1970s, but increases in global mean surface temperatures have stalled in the 2000s. Increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide, create an energy imbalance at the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) even as the planet warms to adjust to this imbalance, which is estimated to be 0.5–1 W m−2 over the 2000s. Annual global fluctuations in TOA energy of up to 0.2 W m−2 occur from natural variations in clouds, aerosols, and changes in the Sun. At times of major volcanic eruptions the effects can be much larger. Yet global mean surface temperatures fluctuate much more than these can account for. An energy imbalance is manifested not just as surface atmospheric or ground warming but also as melting sea and land ice, and heating of the oceans. More than 90% of the heat goes into the oceans and, with melting land ice, causes sea level to rise. For the past decade, more than 30% of the heat has apparently penetrated below 700 m depth that is traceable to changes in surface winds mainly over the Pacific in association with a switch to a negative phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) in 1999. Surface warming was much more in evidence during the 1976–1998 positive phase of the PDO, suggesting that natural decadal variability modulates the rate of change of global surface temperatures while sea-level rise is more relentless. Global warming has not stopped; it is merely manifested in different ways................................
..................The 2000s are by far the warmest decade on record (Figure 1).
END QUOTE
FULL TEXT:
URL: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EF000165/full END URL
Mike, you say: "This statement is simply false. The temperature has not entered into a state of stasis."
DeleteBut the graphs you're looking at show no warming trend from about 1998. I don't understand how you're not persuaded. How do you explain the lack of rise? Have you looked at them?
QUOTE FROM: Richard Treadgold
ReplyDeleteThere's no such thing as 'the science is settled.' These and others are good questions, yet all you do is call the questioner names. END QUOTE
QUOTE:
This is where there is a consensus.
Specifically, the “consensus” about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:
•the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;
•the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
•the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;
•if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and
•a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.
END QUOTE
SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS:
•Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
•Royal Society of Canada
•Chinese Academy of Sciences
•Academié des Sciences (France)
•Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
•Indian National Science Academy
•Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
•Science Council of Japan
•Russian Academy of Sciences
•Royal Society (United Kingdom)
•National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
•Australian Academy of Sciences
•Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
•Caribbean Academy of Sciences
•Indonesian Academy of Sciences
•Royal Irish Academy
•Academy of Sciences Malaysia
•Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
•Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
_________________________________________
TAR report:
•NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
•National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
•National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
•State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
•Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
•Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
•American Geophysical Union (AGU)
•American Institute of Physics (AIP)
•National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
•American Meteorological Society (AMS)
•Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
If this is not scientific consensus, what in the world would a consensus look like?
END ORGANIZATIONS
URL: http://grist.org/climate-energy/there-is-no-consensus/ END URL
Supporting Documents:
URL: http://grist.files.wordpress.com/2005/06/06072005.pdf END URL
Richard,
Once again you have made a plainly false statement.
To Kalium:
DeleteI have moved your comments on modeling to another page to free up room on this page for comments. The things you said about modeling are very interesting and useful, so I do not want to lose them. I am putting them together in one place for easy reference.
http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/p/comments-on-constructing-climate-models.html
Christopher Keating,
DeleteI just hope that the context of what I was discussing isn't lost.
Anonymous #2 / Kalium
They were copied verbatim.
DeleteErr... I didn't realize this when I posted this before, but I just caught an error in my logic. I named the wrong person!!
Delete"It's quite possible that Mr. Smith may, in fact, believe that statement. I also don't think that he comes from a physics background, either. Or if he has, I doubt that he has ever taken an advanced course Optics (Optics is, in fact, a common subject to leave out of the undergraduate physics curriculum. And the graduate curriculum is often specialized.)."
No wonder you seemed annoyed. I am so sorry! I flipped your names in my head.
Mike Smith; I am so sorry! I was referring to Richard Treadgold, not to you.
This is biggest mistake that I've made on this blog.
DeleteI'm sorry Mike Smith.
Anonymous #2
Meteorologists by the way, take more physics classes than most of the public.
DeleteWriters, don't often take optics courses. This is why I spilled so much ink on how radiation absorption in materials works.
Mike Smith, I should have noticed that error before. "Oops" does not quite cover what I am feeling right now.
Anonymous #2
Oh, stop being so humble. I'm sure you've made bigger mistakes here. ;)
DeleteWell, feel free to point them out as you see them. You won't bruise my ego. :)
DeleteAnonymous #2
Much of the point of everything that I've been trying to say is:
DeletePhysicists are people too.
Don't demonize the physicists. Please.
Then much of the rest was speculation on how systems of people work. Then trying to figure out how systems of climate work.
I think I have a better handle on how the climate systems work, now. I need to read more about Spectroscopy.
Then some of it was more of my own limbic-system driven wilder speculation on what I think the motives of the Lobbying institutions might be, and my objections to their methods.
I was serious when I said that I thought the Heartland Institute was transparent. Very easy to understand their motivations.
I still don't know what the IPCC really wants. I know they suggested the Carbon Credit system. I know the "official" reason why they want it. I 'fear' there is more to it than what they say. Personally, I think the Carbon Credit system is a bad solution to the climate change problem.
Propaganda irritates me.
We have *lots* of clever ways to generate energy. We only use very *few* on a large scale.
Biomass ethanol from corn crops looks dangerous and foolish.
Wind looks excessively expensive for not enough power.
Coal is cheap; but systematically expensive. (Our healthcare system, in the US is too expensive as it is)
Oil is ok. But we need a better option if it is going away.
Photovoltaic looks not half bad, actually.
Research into graphene and nanotubes might produce a better cheaper battery.
Uranium Fission has lots of bang for it's buck.
-- Chernobyl was terrible. But graphite burns. That reactor design was cheap; but it was also known to be *so* risky, that the US government decided not to use it.
-- If the later generation reactor designs work as advertised; then this will be great.
-- Thorium seems like it could generate a huge amount of energy with no risk of meltdown.
Continue to research solutions that can have great potential to fix our most pressing problems.
Mass transportation in the US should have a less distributed and lower aggregate Oil consumption.
I need to run the math first; but in aggregate, I suspect that we can save the environment, reduce CO2 emissions AND have cheap electricity at the same time... we just need to be clever about how we do it.
We might have a few systemic issues, but remember:
Food is important for civilization.
Cheap energy is the blood and life of modern civilization.
So I guess that just about summarizes my thoughts.
Oh, and MIT sponge, just because it is clever and it's cool:
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/186704-mit-creates-graphite-solar-sponge-that-converts-sunlight-into-steam-with-85-efficiency
Question: How does it scale?
Anonymous #2
IMPORTANT!
ReplyDeleteI have gotten so tired of the problems with Blogger that I am transferring the blog to WordPress. This site will be up, but I will gradually maintain it less and less. It will not be much longer before the comment section for this page is filled and your comments (though accepted) will not appear.
Please use my new blog site for future comments:
thermaleffects.wordpress.com
Thank you.
Christopher, you say: "However, over the years, independent researchers found four separate errors in the work that invalidated their findings. They even admitted themselves that the work was invalid."
ReplyDeleteYes, and they corrected them and moved on. That's the scientific method. RSS also responded to critical papers and made corrections. You're being unnecessarily harsh.
I would agree with you about being harsh if this was the only issue. Like I said, everyone makes mistakes. The issue with Spencer is that I do not believe it was a mistake, I believe it was intentional and so do many other people. Then, he followed it up with a track record of many other errors and 'mistakes'. He has demonstrated, in my opinion, that he has a program to undermine climate science by any means available to him. In that light, I am not being very harsh at all.
DeleteMike, you say: "This clown also denies evolution and supports creationism. Anyone that uses Roy Spencer as a reference has dived, head first, into the vat of science liars / science deniers."
ReplyDeleteIf I could comment on this without starting a debate, I would ask this: Could evolution begin without a creator providing some building blocks?
You say you use the citing of Spencer to justify defaming anybody; are you serious? What if they're unaware of your criticism of Spencer?
You seem to engage in precious little discussion of science, Mr Smith. You appear all too ready to slander those you simply disagree with, and you vomit up the most rancid abuse I've ever seen.
Keating is leading you astray, as he doesn't rein you in, but lets you do all his muckraking for him. I wouldn't visit his new WordPress site if he paid me to.
I do very little to 'rein in' anyone commenting on this blog. Why weren't you critical of any of the deniers that come on here and make extremely offensive remarks (which I allow to remain)? I feel it is part of the public forum for everyone to see that is going on. It isn't just something playing out on CNN or Fox News.
DeleteRichard Treadgold,
DeleteYou said:
"If I could comment on this without starting a debate, I would ask this: Could evolution begin without a creator providing some building blocks?"
Consider Michael Faraday. He was one of the most brilliant physicists who ever lived. He was also very deeply religious.
Or consider Blaise Pascal; we use much of the mathematics that he derived to this day.
Another person who you may be interested in reading about may be Copernicus who often wrote about God in his work.
My perspective is that of an agnostic. There are many details regarding how the natural world works that we do not understand (we might work them out, in time; I hope). For some people, the idea of the study of science and the idea of religion are mutually exclusive; for others, the two ideas are in perfect harmony with one another, there is no contradiction. Einstein spoke eloquently on this. (If you get a chance, you might be interested in reading his writing, it won't go over your head; he had some really interesting perspectives. Particularly on the subject of religion.)
I have been too mocking in my representations of religious ideas on this board. This serves to exclude other people's mindsets; and this is not the best way to interact with people. Actually, it's particularly stupid in this case... because a large majority of people believe in God; and if I offend them too much, they won't listen to what I say.
There is what? More than 80% of people on this world who believe in some kind of a creator? It would be arrogant to say they are wrong in what they believe. How would I know I am right?
Is it possible that some creator somewhere built the rules that governs the way that energy forms into sub-atomic particles, that particles form into atoms, that atoms that form into molecules, the molecules that form into cells, and the cells that form into the vibrant life that we see around us; and all of the dynamics that govern their interactions?
Yeah, I really wouldn't know where to begin answering that question...
it is a compelling idea, but I don't know how to touch it. I study dynamics because it is beautiful; I can begin to see the laws that govern how things interact.
But this is only a glimpse of how Nature works, because all of our models are broken, and we continuously improve them. It is just a question of how much and to what degree.
Good luck to you Richard.
Anonymous #2
Heh, here is an interesting quote I found on the subject:
DeleteJob 37: 16-18
"16 Do you know how the clouds hang poised,
those wonders of him who has perfect knowledge?
17 You who swelter in your clothes
when the land lies hushed under the south wind,
18 can you join him in spreading out the skies,
hard as a mirror of cast bronze?"
Umm... yeah, about that; clouds are complicated.
Anonymous #2
To your query about evolution, as far as I can tell, the creationism/evolution debate is a purely American Christian issue. I am not aware of evolution being an issue with other religions. And, I am not even aware of it being an issue with many Christians. I know many scientists that are profoundly religious and have no problem with evolution.
DeleteYou are right about not wanting to start a debate, and I don't want to get into one. More importantly, I don't want this blog to become about evolution/creationism. I mentioned Roy Spencer is a creationist as an example of how he has rejected science when it isn't what he wants to hear.
Sorry, men, I must leave. You're all too full of deniers and liars and claiming dissidents are controlled by evil forces like Heartland and all the rest. When you become serious about a debate, come across to the climate conversation blog. You're all very welcome.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/
To Richard Treadgold, Kalium and Mike Smith - I moved your comments that are principally concerned with modeling to the page on modeling comments in order to free up space on this page for more comments. I apologize for this and assure you that nothing was deleted. This is part of my own going difficulties surround Blogger (Blogspot) that limits the number of comments that will actually appear on a page. Here is modeling page:
ReplyDeletehttp://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/p/comments-on-constructing-climate-models.html
Well, sir, the there is only one day left in the challenge. Thank you very much for allowing the discussion to occur. I think Anonymous #2 and I got a little concession with you accepting that the 97% is political statement. With humility, there are always dangers to anything being politicized. It tends to end up being divisive with an us vs. them resulting, which is echoed throughout this discussion from both sides. Not for everyone, but for me it calls into question the credibility of not just the proponents but the deniers as well.
ReplyDeleteThis is going to sound cliche but I don't believe any scientist should stoop to that level. At the end of the day it sets bad precedence and it just may be a slippery slope to a future where if a consensus is all that is required well I'm sure people who need a consensus will make great efforts to get the consensus. That might end up being a counter tactic inadvertently resulting from this experience.
Thanks again!
The discussion doesn't have to end with the challenge.
DeleteI plan on being back later this month.
DeleteThis discussion has been interesting. I have learned a lot about this subject that I did not know before.
It looks like you could turn a climate model into a global illumination problem.
With the GISS modelE: I would really like to find a schematic, or some kind of diagram describing how all of the functions that it calls fit together.
It's one thing to read the raw code and speculate about how everything fits together... it's quite another to have a nice top down reference for it. For that, I need to spend more time on the GISS website.
I have no problem with renewable energy, in principle; as long as the cost of electricity is kept relatively low. And there should be plenty of options for cheap electricity as long as people are thinking with their heads and not with their limbic systems.
Anonymous #2
By the way. One last thing regarding one of my... err, more problematic posts; I said this:
DeleteJuly 28, 2014 1:09 AM
"In Dr. Keatings case, he comes across like this to me, actually. Extremely intelligent; he knows his subject, he knows his research area; more than likely, he is brilliant researcher."
People like this can be wrong, like anyone else, but...
When they have intuition about something; one should pay close attention, because although they may be wrong... there's a good chance that they are probably right. At the very least, take what they say into consideration.
Anonymous #2
$30,000 Challenge Submission – No Change in Temperature Rate
ReplyDelete1. Michael Mann’s data shows global warming started in 1800’s (not mid-1900's
2. Phil Jones said the rate is the same (0.16 ± 0.05 oC/decade) for: 1860 to 1880, 1910 to 1940, 1975 to 1988, and 1975 to 2009. Two natural warming periods before post-1950 increases in C02.
3. Total thermal energy of a system can be defined as Q = mcT. Assumes no phase change. Energy inside system is not dependent on the method of heat transfer in (conduction, convection, or radiation).
4. Temperature record from GISS show a cyclical pattern of periods of cooling (1880 to 1916, 1945 to 1963, and 1998 to present) followed by periods of warming (1917 to 1944 and 1964 to 1998).
5. Rate was the same for both pre-1950 and post-1950 period at 0.16 ± 0.05 oC/decade. Any temperature increase due to man-made CO2 emissions is less than the ± 0.05 oC/decade uncertainty and cannot be detected in the global temperature record alone.
6. Heat transfer rate must be the same for both periods using t = q/mc.
- (q(natural 1917) + q(CO2 1917))/mc = 0.16 ± 0.05 oC/decade = (q(natural 1964) + q(CO2 1964))/mc
- q(natural 1917) - q(natural 1964) = q(CO2 1964) - q(CO2 1917)
7. Analogy: 4 buckets of water at different temperatures represent the 4 components above. Mix together into a common container which represents the global temperature record. You can measure the temperature in the combined container, but you cannot determine the input from each bucket based on the single temperature measurement. Mathematically, you cannot solve for 4 variables in 2 equations. Scientific method is based on data which can be measured.
8. "The sum of the natural cycles is that we are in a naturally cooling phase, not a warming one. If it was not for man-made greenhouse gas emissions, the climate would be much cooler than the long-term average." - Christopher Keating
9. No rate difference means there is no increase in heat. If the pre-1950 rate and post-1950 rates are the same AND there Earth is in a cooling mode, the global warming due to man-made CO2 must EXACTLY match the natural cooling.
10. What are the odds that the sum of 4 separate heat calculations cancel each other out and show no net overall change? Pre-1950 CO2 heat cannot be zero because Guy Callendar's 1938 paper is the origin of the Callendar equation describing the relationship between temperature and CO2. Post-1950 natural heat transfer cannot be zero because we know that volcanoes, solar activity, and El Nino affect global temperatures.
11. No rate difference means there is no acceleration in temperature change,
12. Comparing pre-1950 and post-1950 temperature graphs (using GISS data) normalized to the same 0,0 start, we see that the pre-1950 & post-1950 temperatures have similar curves. The first 13 years of both periods are almost identical. This would be expected if both following a natural cycle. Differences after year 13 can be attributed to volcanoes (which reduce temperature) and El Nino (which increase temperature).
13. The pre-1950 period contributed more to overall temperature rise than post-1950 period. Percentage of global temperature change pre-1950 to overall 1917-1998 period (using GISS data)
- (T(1944) - T(1917) * 100)/(T(1998) - T(1917)) = (0.13 - (-0.44) *100)/(0.61-(-0.44) ) = 54% despite a shorter time period (28 years vs 35 years)
14. Global temperature change is not uniform because much of the temperature change occurred within first 17 % of each period.
- pre-1950 (4 of 28 years) = (T(1921) - T(1917) *100)/(T(1944) - T(1917) ) = (-0.20 - (-0.44) *100)/(0.13-(-0.44) ) = 42%
- post-1950 (5 of 35 years) = (T(1969) - T(1964) *100)/(T(1998) - T(1964) ) = (0.06 - (-0.20) *100)/(0.61-(-0.20) ) = 32%
15. Two articles which refute claim that “missing heat” is going to deep oceans. http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n2/full/ngeo1375.html
http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/KD_InPress_final.pdf
I have your submission and will respond as quickly as I can. Your submission is "$30,000 Challenge Submission - No Change In Temperature Rate" and you can follow my progress here:
ReplyDeletehttp://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/p/challlenge-submissions.html