Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

The jet stream idea sounds wicked cool to me.

They had the comment in there along the lines of "scientists say tapping 1% of the energy in the jet stream would not adversely affect the environment." I'm skeptical that we really know what that would do, but I tend to also think it wouldn't be really bad.

Is the energy in the jet stream coming primarily from the rotation of the earth or from the sun? Do we (very slowly) make our days longer if we tap the jet stream?

Posted by Jeff Mauldin at May 8, 2007 08:50 AM

I think it mostly comes from coriolis effects combined perhaps with the seasons or daily heating. I imagine that tapping into them would make days slowly longer, but at a rate that would incredibly hard to measure. For example, the slowing in Earth's rotation due to the tidal forces of the Moon which would be IMHO far larger than the effect above and to my understanding is the largest effect slowing the Earth's rotation (Solar tidal forces are second). In any case, Earth's day has apparently lengthened by about 2 hours in the past 600 million years.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at May 8, 2007 09:06 AM

"overemotionalized the climate debate"

I am interested how often I see discussions and complaints about how science is not being done properly, in the sense that it should be done dispassionately and with an open mind willing to accept any outcome which the evidence leads to.

People who love science are disappointed when scientists do not act this way. I saw a good example of this disappointment reading some essays by James Hogan. I think it was in a book along the lines of "Rockets, Redheads, and Revolutions," and I'm pretty sure much of the material found its way into "Kicking the Sacred Cow," which I haven't read. In any case one of his big complaints was that scientists were acting emotionally and viciously and not hashing out ideas on purely scientific grounds. Shockingly, scientists were acting like emotional people.

I think the best science is indeed done with a mind willing to be swayed by the evidence. But can we really divorce science completely from our emotions? It seems to me that most great science has been done by people who care, people who have a great passion for what they are doing--and even sometimes by people who were really, really hoping to get a particular answer. For example, wasn't there a time when an earth-centered astronomical model gave better planet position predictions, but there were scientists who kept pursuing a sun-centered model partly for emotional reasons--they were convinced it was true even though the other model gave better results?

This is not to say that the climate debate is sensible. I am completely unconvinced that climate change is largely affected by our own carbon dioxide emissions, and I certainly think we don't know enough to destroy our economy in order to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions. I think the global warming touts are horrible alarmists.

But can we really get emotion out of science? Does it make sense to? Is there some complete definition of "pure science" unaffected by emotionalism?

Posted by Jeff Mauldin at May 8, 2007 09:10 AM

My first reaction to jet stream wind turbine idea was to think: "Adios to the space solar power satellite schemes!"

Posted by Bill White at May 8, 2007 09:19 AM

Over what span of geography does the ground track of a jet streams vary? Looking at these jet stream animations it looks like hundreds of miles: http://squall.sfsu.edu/scripts/nhemjet_archloop.html.

If a jet stream "power plant" can economically drift in and out of the path of fastest currents, it could just remain anchored down wind of the same patch of land.

But if the power plant needed to "fly" within the center of a jet stream, the anchor cable would have to stretch at many different acute angels to Earth's surface. This range of obstruction would be very inconvenient for air traffic. Much more so than the Mexican border radar balloons mentioned in the article.

Sounds like a good test bed for carbon nanotubule cabling, though.

Posted by John Kavanagh at May 8, 2007 10:05 AM

you can find more info about the high altitude wind generators (and MANY interesting LINKS) in my comments posted two months ago on Cosmic Log:

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/26/101655.aspx

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/16/92315.aspx

I think that the high altitude wind generators have a GREAT FUTURE as low cost energy source!

Posted by Gaetano Marano - Italy at May 8, 2007 10:20 AM

I think a huge problem is that a big portion of politicians in USA still doesn't accept even the basic scientific research results about anthropogenic climate change.

Industry lobbying, disinformation and irrationality seem to sit tight. The latter is demonstrated by that if you think some scientific discovery might lead to an inconvenient policy outcome, you deny the evidence that it is happening, not thinking if it actually is happening or not. But that is a route to failure. You should instead admit the reality (the sooner the better) and try to work on the policy from there on.

The data was on the Prometheus science policy weblog, but I can't seem to relocate it now. Something like over 90% of republican congressmen didn't believe anthropogenic climate change is happening (or something in that vein). That would be absurd if it weren't so sad.

Since IPCC is perhaps frustrated that a big portion of the politicians don't listen, they say that they hope politicians are impressed and convinced this time.

Does that make them very imbalanced? Or perhaps corrupt? Should the whole IPCC be disbanded?
Of course not.

What kind of an axe does Rand then have to grind here? It seems to be just hypocricy. We see a string of climate articles with his blurbs suggesting "Warmmongers are in trouble" or some such. Why oh why?

Because the policy outcomes, if global warming is admitted to be real, are something he is against in principle? And yet he advocates against denying evolution in a few posts to the side. Oh, the irony.

Posted by mz at May 8, 2007 11:24 AM

"...doesn't accept even the basic scientific research results about anthropogenic climate change."

Where are these results? Although there is pretty convincing evidence of global warming, there hasn't been much (if any) significant *basic* research which connects that warming with a human stimulus that doesn't involve a whole lot of hand-waving (which includes both the liberal use of the word "could" and comedic extrapolations using crude models). It will be nice if the IPCC technical reports that are supposed to be delivered this summer will provide some of this, but I expect that they won't.

Posted by snellenr at May 8, 2007 11:55 AM

Where are these results?

The primary scientific literature of the climatology community. The IPCC reports have had and will continue to have references into this literature. Follow the links and learn.

Hint: you'll be able to understand it better if you open your eyes, remove your fingers from your ears, and stop chanting "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU".

Posted by Paul Dietz at May 8, 2007 12:22 PM

Okay, the Jet Stream changes a LOT in the US. What about other places on the earth? How much does it swing around above, say, Siberia? Or around the Equator?

I would think that the cost of getting power from remote areas where the jet stream doesn't change too much might end up cheaper in the long run than figuring out the dynamics of air traffic control if they were installed in heavily populated areas such as the U.S.

Posted by John Breen III at May 8, 2007 12:53 PM

I guess you could call me a climate skeptic. See, I have a problem with scientists interested in suppressing dissent, or at least questioning the models.

This became apparent to me when "The Skeptical Environmentalist" came out a few years back, and Scientific American did its best to denounce it without offering an opportunity for the author to have his say.

It appears that some of the debate is occurring on a more even footing. The Nature blog recently discussed how flawed the "hockey sticks" model was and the proposals for fixing it, so there's hope yet.

Posted by Bill Peschel at May 8, 2007 01:01 PM

Paul: "The primary scientific literature of the climatology community" is, unfortunately, replete with raw data that is unavailable for review or verification, analyses that are either undocumented or (when documented) demonstrably invalid, and for that reason is not as reliable as you apparently think it is.

Hint #1: The following logical "proof" isn't valid:
(1) Human activities are emitting additional CO2 into the atmosphere;
(2) When increased levels of CO2 are input into climatological models, it results in increased global temperatures;
(3) Therefore, human activities are responsible for the existing observed temperature increase.

Hint #2: you may be able to understand this better if you read and comprehend [critically] the underlying research, rather than keeping a glossily-bound (yet unread) copy of the IPCC summary report on your coffee table because the chicks dig it...

Posted by snellenr at May 8, 2007 01:08 PM

"The primary scientific literature of the climatology community" is, unfortunately, replete with raw data that is unavailable for review or verification, analyses that are either undocumented or (when documented) demonstrably invalid, and for that reason is not as reliable as you apparently think it is.

That's very special, "snellenr". It also doesn't contradict what I wrote. The literature doesn't have to be perfect in order to contain the results that you asked for.

You reject climate model results, apparently even if the climate models are the result of voluminous peer reviewed work. What, exactly, would you accept as results sufficient to cause policy action?

Posted by Paul Dietz at May 8, 2007 01:59 PM

Well, it would be nice if the models could predict the past, Paul.

And that doesn't even get into the discussion of what the policy action should be. I've not noticed that climate scientists are that great at policy prescription, or even basic economics.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 8, 2007 02:02 PM

The Nature blog recently discussed how flawed the "hockey sticks" model was and the proposals for fixing it, so there's hope yet.

That particular entry was a self-congratulatory piece by two people who had published a critical paper against Mann et al. Their paper was rather unfavorably received, as this comment to that blog entry indicates. See also this entry for more on the sad tale.

The denialist literature seems to have more than its share of bad science, doesn't it?

Posted by Paul Dietz at May 8, 2007 02:11 PM

Ah, thanks for the discussion, Rand. You say:
"My "axe to grind" is against the overrighteous and hypocritical moralists who want to preach to the rest of us how to live while refusing to live by their own sermons, and purchasing indulgences for themselves."

Are you talking about Al Gore? Whatever he says, it doesn't move the solid science. It's not about Al Gore ffs. You are throwing the baby with the bathwater.

"It is against the watermelon socialists who are using this new religion as a means to implement the collectivist (and ultimately totalitarian) social goals that they couldn't achieve in the Cold War."

And here you tell you base your claims against the _science_ on the possible awkwardness of _policy_ outcomes?

Exactly as I criticized! Science doesn't exactly work that way.

It's like saying we can't accept evolution as true since it could lead to uncomfortabilities elsewhere. Nevermind if it is true in the physical world!

If you said that "ok, AGW is very probably true" and then "I differ on what we need to do about it though, or how it's accomplished", it'd be a much more defendable and truthful position. And if you acted accordingly to that.

Instead we get sniping at the science, trying to paint the picture as if the whole thing wasn't happening.

And it's frustrating to start talking about policy options if a big percentage is denying the basic reason for doing anything in the first place.

If you really want to prevent the watermelon socialists, you should really start talking on how to do it (reducing CO2 emissions or whatever is done to reduce the severity) otherwise, and not sit in the bunker denying the whole thing is happening.

Posted by mz at May 8, 2007 03:20 PM

Anyone who believes in AGW has to explain Martian global warming and how that is irrelevant to the discussion. If you don't understand why I make that assertion, thanks for playing.

Once past that, explain the focus on CO2, when it should probably be on H2O.

Posted by Rick C at May 8, 2007 03:25 PM

Are you talking about Al Gore?

And Laury David and other high priests of the movement.

And here you tell you base your claims against the _science_ on the possible awkwardness of _policy_ outcomes?

I make no claims against the "science." As I said, I'm a skeptic (i.e., agnostic) about "the science." My claims are against the hysterical prescriptions from the True Believers.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 8, 2007 03:26 PM

Paul: "That's very special, "snellenr". It also doesn't contradict what I wrote. The literature doesn't have to be perfect in order to contain the results that you asked for."

True enough... but it has to *at a minimum* contain the results that I asked for...

"You reject climate model results, apparently even if the climate models are the result of voluminous peer reviewed work. What, exactly, would you accept as results sufficient to cause policy action?"

I don't "reject" them necessarily -- like any model, they are an approximation of the real world that requires a knowledge of the simplifications that have been made to create the model. I do apparently understand the peer review process better than you -- probably because I've been through it -- and realize that it doesn't equate to "verified" (peer reviewers don't attempt to verify the paper they're reviewing), but instead means that one or more other researchers think that the paper deserves publication in that journal (i.e., fits the target audience, reaches conclusions which are consistent with the data and/or analysis and not inconsistent with other results without explaining the inconsistency, has gud speling, etc.).

I would accept results that have been independently verified by at least one (but preferably more) researcher, for one thing. That means that all of the raw data used by the original researcher (tree ring data, temperature data from remote measuring stations, ice core measurements) be made freely available *in total* reasonably close to the publication date. It also means that the full details of the techniques used (computer programs, algorithms, computing environment where appropriate) also be made available.

The analogy I'd draw here is to research papers in chemistry, where the full details of the synthesis (reagents, temperatures, timing, etc) are provided so that *anyone* with the requisite skills and equipment could reproduce the results -- if they were in fact reproducible. If Mann et al. (the hockey stick paper) had made all of their data and programs available from the outset, *any* decent statistics researcher would have identified the statistical errors and been able to publish a detailed rebuttal very quickly. That's how science is *supposed* to work -- but instead, they retained their data and code by-and-large as a proprietary resource until disclosure was forced by the publication of the McIntyre & McKitrick paper.

Posted by snellenr at May 8, 2007 04:01 PM

Orson Scott Card is demanding proof of anthropoegenic global warming.

Posted by Ed Minchau at May 8, 2007 04:36 PM

RickC: two global warming myth bingo points!
Your comments are exactly the kind of myths that are spread by anti-science people. What are your sources for these claims?

If you examine backgrounds, you can see that there is no global warming on Mars, some seasonal and local changes yes. Also there are no significant changes in solar output (which the Mars "revelation" implies), since that has been tracked with satellites and no big changes have been found.
Also the upper atmosphere is cooling, which fits the CO2 theory, but not solar forcing.

The second myth relates to the fact that CO2 has a much longer dwell time in the atmosphere, and people are putting a lot of CO2 to the air (compared to natural sources). Water vapor on the other hand is dependant on the temperature - if the air warms, it can hold more moisture which quickly evaporates from the earth's surface to fill the air. If air gets cold, water rains down to the surface again. Actually water vapor accounts for the majority of the greenhouse effect, about 80%, and CO2 much less.
One can see that since it is temperature-dependent, water vapor is a positive feedback, it increases when temperature from other causes increases, and that then increases the temperature even more.
CO2 is somewhat temperature-dependent too but on a longer timescale (like in paleoclimate) as it is absorbed into or removed from the oceans.
What humans have done is they have put a lot of CO2 into the air really quick, and that has warmed the planet. With the water vapor positive feedback, the warming is bigger than without it.

Posted by mz at May 8, 2007 04:44 PM

snellenr:"I would accept results that have been independently verified by at least one (but preferably more) researcher, for one thing. That means that all of the raw data used by the original researcher (tree ring data, temperature data from remote measuring stations, ice core measurements) be made freely available *in total* reasonably close to the publication date. It also means that the full details of the techniques used (computer programs, algorithms, computing environment where appropriate) also be made available."

IPCC uses multiple independent different data sets and models. Page 646, chapter 8 has some list.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
There's lots of interesting material if you read the index... too bad the supplements are not published yet.

You can get very crude results that point that investigation perhaps is warranted with simple analytically solvable models already, needing no computer simulation. Starting from basic physics, like radiation power equilibrium and Stefan-Boltzmann law.
I think even junk science did something like that, and found 0.5 C sensitivity to CO2 doubling. IIRC they left the water vapor feedback out.
Here's some material on simple models
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/learning-from-a-simple-model/

Trying to get further into the problem of course better modelling is required.

Posted by mz at May 8, 2007 05:27 PM

I'm just fascinated by how the solutions to "anthropogenic global climate change" are no different from the solutions that have been proposed for all sorts of ephemeral disasters by the Gaian Left for close to half a century now. Just the fact that the Goreite True Believers never mention the role for nuclear power shows that Global Warming is simply the latest way to impose their policies on an unwilling world.

Posted by Raoul Ortega at May 8, 2007 05:52 PM

Mr. Dietz,

Respectfully, I don't find a critique of the motivations of article writers to be relevant. Rather, I prefer a critique of the content, and why it is at variance with fact.

The link you provided to "realclimate.org" a couple days ago inlcuded dismissal of the critique of Mann's 1999 work because the initial critics were an economist and mining engineer.

That dismissal is not science. The relevant questions would be:

1. Are they factually correct that Mann did not provide all information necessary to duplicate his results, and to explain how he achieved those results?

2. What shortcomings exist in their own analysis of Mann's data sets and methods?

3. How can those shortcomings be remedied?

As I have written in other posts, my trust is broken, and is slow to recover. If the science were examining an economically unimportant matter (say, string theory), I would care less.

Since the science is examining fundamental matters of human existence, the data collection, methods, and argumentation need to be public, transparent, and available to anyone with the time and inclination to replicate the investigation.

When these criteria are not met, why should I trust the science (or, if you will, the "scientific community")?

Posted by MG at May 8, 2007 06:48 PM

And what about the models predicting the past? Rand raised that issue earlier, and neither mz nor Paul Dietz have touched it.

I have heard that mentioned before (that the models predicting catastrophic warming in the future cannot predict the present from the past). Can someone point to (reliable) info that confirms or rebuts this?

Posted by T.L. James at May 8, 2007 07:04 PM

The idea of jet stream wind generators is not new.

http://skywindpower.com/ww/index.htm

Has been unchanged on the web for nearly two years, and the concept pre-dates that by decades.

Personally, I think the idea has merit, and could be a cost-effective addition to the national power grid. It is surely worth funding a few million dollars to get some prototypes operating.

Posted by Charlie at May 9, 2007 01:14 AM

T.L. James

The models are validated by using the past of course, you can read that in the IPCC report I linked to above.

Posted by mz at May 9, 2007 06:53 AM

I accept that human activity is one cause of global warming which I believe is very real. Arctic sea ice simply is melting far faster than even the most alarmist greenies were predicting 10 years ago.

Also, over geologic time scales, the past 10,000 years or so appear to have been a period of exceptional climatic stability. It is in the interest of our species to figure out how to maintain that stability, fast.

Moving beyond the petroleum era to a combination of nuclear and other alternate sources (jet stream turbines being more feasible IMHO than space solar power for example) has a number of benefits including:

(1) Carbon neutral; and we can
(2) Stop sending gadzillions of dollars to the Islamic nations.

Actually, New Zealand scientists appear to close to developing solar panels based on organic dyes and inks rather than silicon photovoltaics which will reduce the capital cost of solar power by a factor of ten.

Anyway, propose increased nuclear power for electricity as part of a comprehensive plan to move beyond the petroleum era and I betcha moer than 50% of the Daily Kos crowd will jump on-board.

Posted by Bill White at May 9, 2007 07:53 AM

> the result of voluminous peer reviewed work

Ah yes, the "1000 German scientists" argument.

Truth still isn't determined by a vote, even a vote of all the cool kids.

Posted by Andy Freeman at May 9, 2007 08:51 AM

Would a blue water Arctic suffice as proof of warming?

If warming is NOT human caused then our species will find itself in a big heap of trouble and we will need to learn terra-forming technologies very quickly.

Posted by Bill White at May 9, 2007 08:56 AM

From the Energize America FAQ (A Daily Kos spin off):

6. Why don’t we just build more nuclear plants for electricity and convert corn crops to biodiesel for oil?
There is growing interest politically in nuclear power, which generates 20% of baseload electricity today, though no new plants have been started in over 30 years due to environmental concerns, safety risks and unattractive financial returns. But the biggest obstacle to greater nuclear power may be the enormous philosophical divide in the country over its costs and benefits. Energize America seeks to inform this highly charged and often clouded debate by providing for a ‘fast track’ demonstration project that uses modern nuclear design technologies and methodologies, as well as honest and transparent documentation of total costs and benefits – including radioactive waste disposal. Energize America also calls for significant investment in biofuels, but does not favor corn (which has relatively very low energy content) over any other biofuels source (such as algae, soybean or switchgrass).

It appears to me that Energize America is supportive of deploying new designs in nuclear reactors as part of a comprehensive energy policy.

Posted by Bill White at May 9, 2007 12:36 PM

> If warming is NOT human caused then our species will find itself in a big heap of trouble and we will need to learn terra-forming technologies very quickly.

If warming occurs, it's unclear how the cause affects the effects.

If you believe the warming advocates, the temperature changes are well within what we've seen before. Why will this time be different?(The oceans will be higher, but that trend predates man.)

Posted by Andy Freeman at May 9, 2007 02:45 PM

If you believe the warming advocates, the temperature changes are well within what we've seen before. Why will this time be different?(The oceans will be higher, but that trend predates man.)

Well within what the Earth has seen? Yes I agree.

But not within what has seen by modern homo sapiens, with an increasing number of nations armed with nuclear weapons. Life on Earth will continue even if all the ice sheets melt. But civilization? I am less sanguine about that.

Gosh, life on Earth will continue even after a full-on nuclear war. Just not with very many mammals as part of the mix.

Posted by Bill White at May 9, 2007 03:24 PM

Here's a nice paper by a real scientist:
http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/2007/akasofu_3_07/Earth_recovering_from_LIA_R.pdf
Note the human caused GW is a "hypothesis". It seems to have been promoted from "conjecture". It is not a "fact" as assumed by mz and Paul Dietz in promoting their circular logic.

Mike

Posted by Mike Borgelt at May 9, 2007 03:24 PM

Mike,

I read the paper you linked to say that there is doubt concerning what faction of warming is human caused, not that there is doubt that human CO2 is one of several causes.

If natural oscillations are one cause of warming (perhaps even the largest cause) it remains true that reducing the human component of that is still prudent. If warming is "natural" and there is NOTHING we can do then it looks like the human race will be in for some very bumpy times.

A stable climate (unusual in Earth's geologic history) is part of what made stable agriculture feasible and thus civilization.

Another factoid in favor of the "Rare Earth" hypothesis which holds that primitive life (bacteria and lichens) may indeed to abundant in the cosmos but that intelligent technological life shall be exceedingly rare.

If we get this wrong, we may well lose out on our one and only chance playing at Drake's Lottery.

Posted by Bill White at May 9, 2007 03:33 PM

If we get this wrong, we may well lose out on our one and only chance playing at Drake's Lottery.

Bill, mankind has many challenges facing it in the coming decades. I'd say that climate change isn't even in the top ten. In fact, if that's our biggest problem, I'd say that we've got it made.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 9, 2007 03:50 PM

Bill,

The number commonly quoted for the surface temperature rise over the last century or so is +0.7 +/-0.6 deg C. If the paper is correct and there is a natural rise of 0.5 deg/century going back 2 centuries where does that leave room for human caused warming?

Note also the paper talks about the differences between the northern and southern hemispheres. "Global" warming?

Contrary to popular belief, there is no real reason to believe that extra water vapor as a result of CO2 caused warming is a positive feedback, largely because of the effect of clouds and condensation which the GCMs don't handle well. These models start out based on physics and wind up with fudge factors which are tuned to produce the results the modelers want which are then alleged to produce "agreement" with the temperature record despite the uncertainties, corrections and large error bars on any of the"record".

Rand is correct. This long ago ceased to be about science.

Hopefully some good will eventually come out of this in 25 to 30 years when there may be some interesting social science PhD's on the pathologies of bad science using AGW as an example.

Posted by Mike Borgelt at May 9, 2007 06:28 PM

Methane clathrates and the Permian extinction event. Link

But anyway, it appears that your minds are firmly resolved that this is all a hoax. May we all live long enough to see the answer, although the idea of gambling with species extinction is troubling to me.

Posted by Bill White at May 9, 2007 09:25 PM

Bill,

Not a hoax necessarily at first but a few "political" scientists pushing a line to the right politicians, some fortuitous events leading to this being taken up by a few more politicians and the resulting funding being seen by others in vaguely related fields and then they get on the bandwagon. Even some in the field are now getting worried about what has been created.
The "warming" hype started on less than 10 years' "trend" after the 1940 to 1975 cooling.
If, as some think, the temperature starts to fall in a few years where do you think this will leave the reputations of the AGW scientists and science in general? As I said, this will then make for some interesting social science PhD's. Maybe even some interesting class action lawsuits.

Posted by Mike Borgelt at May 10, 2007 02:04 AM

Mike Borgelt:

The "warming" hype started on less than 10 years' "trend" after the 1940 to 1975 cooling.

Well, the CO2 forcing theory was already discovered in the 1800:s, it's when good measurements of CO2 were being done and a consistent trend was found, when it started dawning on scientists...
The cooling you claim (I haven't examined this claim more closely, but I think sulfates might have played a role.) sure wasn't big if glaciers worldwide have melted significantly compared to 100 years ago.

Like with the creationists, the criticisms in themselves can be vaguely interesting but when you see the sceptics' alternatives proposed, you realize it's just not solid.

The denialists are trying to deny every part of the evidence, making it a not very coherent argument:
1) some say warming has not occurred
2) some say co2 has not increased
3) some say humans have not increased co2
4) some say it's not co2 but solar forcing / cosmic rays
5) some say the positive feedbacks aren't there

It's like saying "I didn't fight, and by the way, he started it!"

Industry-funded think thanks sure make a lot of money by spreading this disinformation. In every comment thread here we can see the old tired myths, proposed with clear blue eyes by misled people. (Ice age in 70:s, mars is warming, soda in the fridge.) And when the people who are called on it realize they are wrong at the point (weird, don't you think some climate scientists would have thought of that basic physics issue? I admire the confidence), they don't change their position, instead they start to claim something else that supposedly supports their theory that AGW is a hoax. Eventually they end up with crumbs.

If you've been misled, realize that and change your position. Stop trusting the sources that misled you.

And btw, I said it is very likely that there is now global warming and very likely that humans have caused most of it. Not that it's a fact or that it's demonstrated beyond all doubt. I'm not religious about it. I'm for science. If new well demonstrated evidence points that it will be less than predicted before, then that is taken into account and everybody is happy.

Rand is claiming "it's not about the science, it's a religion", is IPCC not about the science at all? What kind of a more scientific body would you suggest should start researching climate? Cato institute?
Maybe it's that if you're a conservative or a neo-libertarian, you have to stupidly attack global warming science, it's kind of a club membership requirement. That of course results in many egg-in-the-face moments so to speak.

Even if global warming turned out not to happen for the so far believed reasons, it's probably because of some other discovered phenomenon, not the falsehoods promoted by the petroleum industry think tanks.

I've seen people claim, in good faith, that the USGS data shows volcanoes release much more CO2 than humans. I don't know where the hell people get such ideas, but that sounds like a very interesting subject for a study in social sciences.

Posted by mz at May 10, 2007 08:51 AM

...is IPCC not about the science at all?

No, but it's naive in the extreme to think that there isn't a lot of politics involved in any organization associated with the UN. Several of the scientists cited by the latest report have disavowed it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 10, 2007 08:59 AM

Who have?

Posted by mz at May 10, 2007 01:10 PM

'My first reaction to jet stream wind turbine idea was to think: "Adios to the space solar power satellite schemes!"'

SPS would still be less geography-bound.

Posted by Mike Combs at May 11, 2007 06:25 AM

The link you provided to "realclimate.org" a couple days ago inlcuded dismissal of the critique of Mann's 1999 work because the initial critics were an economist and mining engineer.

Actually, that was an offhand comment there. The majority of the cricicism was technical and devastating.

Also, numerous independent reconstructions yield the hockey stick shape (low level of variability, followed by recent rapid increase), so attempting to portray this as due to fraud is not reality based.

Truth still isn't determined by a vote, even a vote of all the cool kids.

No, but that's usually the way to bet.

As a layman trying to decide what to believe, you have a choice:

(1) You can read the primary literature and make your own decision.

(2) You can trust the judgments of the scientists.

If you do (2), then how is it that you have decided on trusting the judgment of a small minority, many of whom are not experts in the field? The choice seems perilously close to that of choosing them because they are telling you what you are most comfortable hearing.

John Mashey (of MIPS fame) has a good comment on how a skeptical layman can reach an informed position on things like this by combining these two approaches.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=427#comment-30607

Posted by Paul Dietz at May 11, 2007 12:42 PM

Post a comment