Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Well we might have more conclusive proof in 2030:

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=780&tstamp=200709

Hopefully Steve McIntyre will be around for the celebration.

Posted by Offside at September 8, 2007 03:55 PM

Polar Ice melts without global temperature change. Who would have thunk. May be a local effect from all that methane from the permafrost, eh? Is that possible?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/sep/05/climatechange.sciencenews

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at September 8, 2007 04:37 PM

"this was always my understanding of how science is done"

Silly you....

Posted by Barbara Skolaut at September 8, 2007 07:02 PM

"...this was always my understanding of how science is done."

I guess you didn't get Gore's memo, Rand. The science is already done.

Posted by T.L. James at September 8, 2007 07:59 PM

Anyone interested in starting a pool on how long it will take for someone to find a glaring error in Hansen's analysis?

I give it 72 hours, give or take 6.

The guy is a fruitcake. His data is just the raisins (an appropriate consequence of GW).

Posted by Dave G at September 8, 2007 08:00 PM

Hanson may be thinking with his political organs, but he's no fool. He wouldn't have released this without knowing it was more or less solid, so I doubt there's going to be anything else worth finding in it. The best thing about this is that it could set a precedent for greater transperancy in climate science.

Posted by K at September 8, 2007 08:34 PM

Ah, so that blue water Arctic is merely the result of bad calculations. No need for the US to join that Sea Treaty apparatus and Canada, Denmark and Russia are wasting their money preparing to fight over North Pole oil drilling rights.

Good.

Just explain to the ice that Hanson did his sums wrong and next summer the ice cap will remain frozen.

Posted by Bill White at September 8, 2007 08:41 PM

Well we might have more conclusive proof in 2030:

23 years is a long time in politics. No matter how hot it gets, by that time the gaia worshipers will be denying AGW due to the necessity of clear cutting all the old growth forests for carbon sequestration purposes. That and the nuclear reactors. :)

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/data/ushcn/
stationoftheweek.jsp

Posted by K at September 8, 2007 08:47 PM

I give it 72 hours, give or take 6.

You should give it minus two years, because the Republican spin doctors decided that Hansen's work must have mistakes the minute that he started to badmouth Bush in 2005. After all, every good scientist does make mistakes from time to time. Or does things that could be construed as mistakes.

The truth is that James Hansen's work isn't any kind of linchpin of global warming. He's a generally respectable scientist, maybe right sometimes and maybe wrong sometimes. If he had a mistaken analysis that the earth is round, then the earth would still be round.

The one really useful thing that Hansen has done is accuse the Bush Administration of laundering scientific reports on global warming. The accusation is true. Bush and Cheney would never accept an expert opinion on any topic, not even Newton's Laws of Motion, without first cleansing it of "bias".

Polar Ice melts without global temperature change.

No, it's melting with global warming, it's just moving ahead faster. Warming begets melting and melting begets warming. The reason is very simple and has nothing to do with methane release. Water is darker than snow; it absorbs more sunlight.

But Hansen (among others) has made the point that soot landing on snow has also led to many turns of the screw, possibly more to date than greenhouse gases.

Posted by at September 8, 2007 10:53 PM

Well, it's certainly nice to know that the big old ball of hot gas in the sky has nothing to do with it...

Posted by Big D at September 9, 2007 01:55 AM

This is very interesting:

http://www.wunderground.com/education/ozone_skeptics.asp

Posted by Offside at September 9, 2007 10:22 AM

Why are people talking about the polar icecap as if it had permanence until the late 20th century? The pack ice was known to circulate from one location to another since the 19th century; that was the whole point of Nansen's expedition, right?

Also, I've read material to the effect that there was also a lot less ice in the arctic during the medieval warm period. (You know, the one they've worked so hard to show didn't exist).

Posted by Phil Fraering at September 9, 2007 10:40 AM

Jim Hansen vs Jim Henson, I suddenly flashed on Kermit singing, "It ain't easy, being Green...."

Posted by Doug Jones at September 9, 2007 10:51 AM

Why are people talking about the polar icecap as if it had permanence until the late 20th century?

I'm sure Jeff Masters knows nothing about the medieval warm period. I mean the guy is a climatologist. And apparently a liberal.

Posted by Offside at September 9, 2007 11:05 AM

It's good for the science but of course all kinds of second order media effects with "brouhaha" will follow. As witnessed by the idiotry in a big portion of these comments.

For example we haven't seen much news in this part of the blogosphere (right wing and libertarian) about the recent study of an even further downward revision of the "medieval warm period" temperatures. It's just that science doesn't fit the agenda of anti-regulation people most of the time in the whole global warming issue. So we get some bogus stories about a sailor in Siberia.

Posted by mz at September 9, 2007 11:14 AM

Ok for all the brilliant ones who just know that global warming is happening, here is a chance to earn $100k!

http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at September 9, 2007 12:39 PM

Offside:

I'm sure Jeff Masters knows nothing about the medieval warm period. I mean the guy is a climatologist. And apparently a liberal.

You're not here to actually make an argument, just cite authorities who are on your side as if that settles everything, right?

mz:

For example we haven't seen much news in this part of the blogosphere (right wing and libertarian) about the recent study of an even further downward revision of the "medieval warm period" temperatures. It's just that science doesn't fit the agenda of anti-regulation people most of the time in the whole global warming issue. So we get some bogus stories about a sailor in Siberia.

What about this link, from Rand's site just last year:

First, the UN implies that carbon dioxide ended the last four ice ages. It displays two 450,000-year graphs: a sawtooth curve of temperature and a sawtooth of airborne CO2 that's scaled to look similar. Usually, similar curves are superimposed for comparison. The UN didn't do that. If it had, the truth would have shown: the changes in temperature preceded the changes in CO2 levels.

Next, the UN abolished the medieval warm period (the global warming at the end of the First Millennium AD). In 1995, David Deming, a geoscientist at the University of Oklahoma, had written an article reconstructing 150 years of North American temperatures from borehole data. He later wrote: "With the publication of the article in Science, I gained significant credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them, someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. One of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said: 'We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.' "

Posted by Phil Fraering at September 9, 2007 01:12 PM

Phil,

I'm not sure where you stand on this whole thing. The whole deal about Hansen is irrelevant if we can clearly observe that indeed the globe is warming up.

Are you a believer in Global Warming or not? Note that a good 50% of posters here apparently don't believe it.

If not, what is your explanation for the rapid melting of the Polar ice?

Thanks.

Posted by Offside at September 9, 2007 01:56 PM

Big D,

It's not the big ball of gas:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200708240003?f=h_latest

Posted by at September 9, 2007 02:05 PM

Offside:

Are you a believer in Global Warming or not? Note that a good 50% of posters here apparently don't believe it.

Offside, is this gonna be one of those "BELIEEEEEEEVE AND BE SAAAAAAAAAVED" things?

Posted by Phil Fraering at September 9, 2007 02:18 PM

No, Phil, don't drift away into salvation.

It's a simple question. Let me re-phrase it. Do you support the hypothesis that the global temperature is increasing? Yes or No? Simple question.

There is hardly any point discussing the MWP if you refuse to answer this.

Posted by Offside at September 9, 2007 02:36 PM

More to the point, Offside, if there has been an increase in global temperature (and based upon the weather recording stations shown recently on small dead animals, and based on Hansen's own comments, that is highly doubtful), has the increase in temperature been largely anthropoegenic?

And if the source for your response has been Al Gore rather than the actual data, then please look up the definition of religion.

Posted by Ed Minchau at September 9, 2007 02:49 PM

I don't know if it is or not, Offside.

However, I am suspicious of the hypothesis because the post I quoted earlier hinted that those that do both believe in it, and believe it's wholly anthropogenic, and believe the answer to this is to nationalize the economy or something equivalent, are damned liars and petty totalitarians without enough honesty to admit their real motives.

I have spent the last twenty years working in the US oil industry watching the petty totalitarians, in the name of saving the environment, western civilization, and the planet, EXPORT MY ENTIRE INDUSTRY to intolerant religious totalitarians in the middle east. Where we used to extract over 60% of our oil domestically, we now extract only 40%, and in the process, we send money to those who would kill us and/or destroy our civilization, and in general destroy freedom globally. All in the name of Saving The Environment, which as near as I can tell, was NOT done, and according to the petty totalitarians own suspect models, wasn't done either.

They have funded the joint Pakistani/Saudi nuclear bomb program, and when the result of the Pakistani bomb is terrorist attacks on our soil, the petty totalitarians were the first to start bitching "No blood for oil! No war for oil!" while at the same time continuing to foreclose the possibility of drilling for more oil here.

(Or, for that matter, building new nuclear power plants here. Or even offshore wind farms. Oh, they're good about bitching about how the Omnipotent Oil Industry can keep the alleged two hundred mile per gallon carburateur off the market, never mind the laws of thermodynamics, young lady! But actual construction of the non-carbon-dioxide producing energy technologies we have that ACTUALLY WORK are anamathea to them. None of them seem to act as if they actually believe in anthropogenic global warming, instead of yet another opportunity to get us to try out Marxism Once Again. I'll believe otherwise when they actually manage to get another fission plant built.)

The funny thing is, every time I start to "believe" (well, I think "believe" is the wrong word, you start moving away from science and into religion) there may be something to anthropogenic global warming I run across something like what I linked to above, which strongly suggests the proponents of the theory are damned liars.

I hope the theory isn't true. It would be a shame if it were true after so many damn lies were told on its behalf, causing me to disbelieve in it.

Posted by Phil Fraering at September 9, 2007 02:58 PM

Do you support the hypothesis that the global temperature is increasing? Yes or No? Simple question.

Indeed it is. In fact it's so simple as to be meaningless. Over what time scale? Do you mean a secular increase or a periodic one (after all, history indicates that the climate, or "global temperature" (whatever that means) isn't a constant)? Is it caused by humans, or natural (defined here as non-human phenomena)?

My answer to the question, given how nebulous it is, is "maybe." See? There is another answer than "yes" or "no." There's yet another answer. "I don't know."

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 9, 2007 03:04 PM

I should add, that when I say I don't know, I am being merely a skeptic (not a "denier," which is the global warmmongers' word for heretic), which is (not coincidentally) my position on whether or not God exists. Yet another indication that it's become a religion.

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 9, 2007 03:22 PM

It's not a religion, it's a scientific issue that's pretty certain and has multiple lines of evidence.
Nothing is ever 100% certain.

Calling it religion or saying "maybe it's true, maybe it's not", is just posturing.

Posted by mz at September 9, 2007 03:43 PM

It's not a religion, it's a scientific issue that's pretty certain and has multiple lines of evidence. Nothing is ever 100% certain.

If it were "pretty certain" they wouldn't have felt the need to hide their source code for so long, or write emails like "The Medieval Warm Period needs to go away."

Posted by Phil Fraering at September 9, 2007 03:47 PM

Fair enough and thank you all. I agree that believe has too many unwanted connotations, and that maybe is an acceptable answer.

If there have been lies on behalf of AGW, then there have been at least as many lies on behalf of the AGW deniers. It's upto the skeptic to carefully make a judgement on who lies least. I have a hard time imagining that folks such as Jeff Masters have been co-opted by a grand conspiracy that spans continents; I've read the Crichton book and recognize fiction.

When I looked at Jeff Master's link and the pictures of Polar ice cover showing a 40% decrease, the simplest answer is obviously the best: ice melts when the temperature rises. I can't think of any other satisfactory explanation. If that's belief in GW, then so be it.

As regards AGW, I think it is also valid to consider what that link says. Yes, the climate models could have errors, and yes the fudge factors may be many. But that's the best science we have right now. And if these models projected the disappearance of the polar cap in the 2070 time frame, and yet now they have to be revised down to the 2030 frame, it would seem that the models need to be revised and not in a direction that will please the AGW deniers.

Posted by Offside at September 9, 2007 03:57 PM

There was a similar topic on the Pharyngula Blog. Look for MikeB's Al Capone quote (comment #100) to see the real motivation of the Gaians.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/dont_look_to_bjrn_lomborg_thou.php#comments

Posted by Robert at September 9, 2007 04:56 PM

My actual position on "global warming" is that manmade CO2 maybe a problem.If so the solutions that I support are: building more fission nuclear plants, an X-Prize for the first fusion plant with net positive energy (Bussard's Polywell seems promising), and more efficient renewables. My solutions are essentially to replace fossil fuels with other energy. For the plus side, one gets to reduce ones dependence on the Middle East as well.

If manmade CO2 was the problem, one would expect a multitude of "cures" for the problem coming out of these large institutions. Instead there is only consensus on one "cure", forcing people at gunpoint to lower their living standards (forcing cuts in fossil fuel use without an adequate replacement), this makes me awfully SUSPICIOUS of the priesthood promoting global warming as the "End of the World".

Posted by Robert at September 9, 2007 05:11 PM

Big D,

It's not the big ball of gas:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200708240003?f=h_latest

We will know within the next decade, especially if cycle 24 is as week as many are now predicting.

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at September 9, 2007 06:54 PM

Robert: nobody is preventing the fusion or even fission reactors. Some greens oppose nuclear power plants, some not. And this is not even relevant in the whole scientific issue if the anthropogenic warming is true or not, and if it's based on scientific evidence versus being just a religion (Rand claims it's just a religion).

Kyoto protocol and all that gives you freedom to do the reductions the way you like, you can even pay to do reductions where they are cheaper outside your own country (carbon trade, which the USA insisted to be in the treaty. It works inside USA for other pollutants. Of course you have to supervise it sternly so that no bogus carbon credits are sold).

The amount of myths in this blog's comments section is staggering. And I do know where most of them come from.

Posted by mz at September 9, 2007 08:06 PM

Investigating Global Warming is a science.

Believing that Global Warming is Anthropoegenic, and therefore we must start doing whatever comes to mind to stop it; that's religion.

For instance, suggesting the Nortwest Passage is Open ergo AGW exists is religious.

Kyoto protocol and all that gives you freedom to do the reductions the way you like

The Kyoto protocol failed because it excluded some of the worst polluting countries in the world. It's some odd religion that thinks AGW is serious enough to need Kyoto limitations, but that some poor countries (though China and India are far from poor) should be excluded. Science should not take into account whether a nation is poor or not. Either AGW is happening and everything in the system effects it, or AGW is not happening, thus it doesn't matter what events in the system are doing.

mz, the people you seem to disagree with aren't denying GW but are unconvinced of AGW. As such, they are not too impressed with human capabilities to regulate the sun. If you asked any of them if they like pollution, they would probably tell you they don't and have no problem working to limit pollution.

Posted by Leland at September 10, 2007 07:47 AM

Leland, what is your point again? Is believing scientists, with some insight into what they claim, religion?

Well, I don't have the time and expertise to do all the research myself.

Sure, one can have reasonable doubt by him or herself if one hasn't looked much what the science says, but claiming that it's religious to state something with considerable certainty, when one has looked at the issues and used good judgement and listened to the experts, is just idiotic.

You are being hypocritical and generating lots of strawmen.

Posted by mz at September 10, 2007 12:33 PM

Here's a list (below) of testable statements which are all pretty poorly proven to the extent they are proven at all. On NPR today a book was reviewed, Cool It..., that includes the factlet consensus estimate among economists is that carbon mitigation using today's technology is using $1 to produce $0.30 of benefit. In any case, a shaky proof of any one of these links would make very poor justification for spending tens of billions of dollars or hundreds of billions of dollars annually. But the fallacy of chain logic makes the partially proven case for each of the propositions below seem to support the case for the others. Actually if each one is 75% likely to be true, that they are all true may be 13% if they are uncorrelated or lower if they are negatively correlated.

1. Global warming (GW) is happening
2. GW is significant
3. GW is caused by humans
4. Removing human GW cause can halt or reverse GW
5. GW mitigation by humans would cause more good than harm
6. GW mitigation by humans would cause more good than not doing GW prevention
7. GW mitigation with participation by US would be better than GW mitigation without participation by the US

Posted by Sam Dinkin at September 10, 2007 12:38 PM

That depends hugely on stuff like discount rates and estimates on how rich the society will be in the future. If you imagine we are fabulously rich in the future and interest rates are high, then it's not worth doing anything. But stuff like sea level rise can be fabulously expensive.

What is suspicious, is the "it's not worth doing anything" claims coming from the same side that denied anything happening in the first place. (Ie industry funded think tanks.) That does not necessarily make it wrong, but I'm fairly sceptical.

Posted by mz at September 10, 2007 01:27 PM

If we are going to be spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year to mitigte an existential threat, then let's do so on an actual threat (such as possible asteroid collisions), not one that is being made up by latter-day Marxists trying desperately to revive their failed ideology.

Posted by Ed Minchau at September 10, 2007 01:42 PM

Here's a list (below) of testable statements which are all pretty poorly proven to the extent they are proven at all. On NPR today a book was reviewed, Cool It..., that includes the factlet consensus estimate among economists is that carbon mitigation using today's technology is using $1 to produce $0.30 of benefit. In any case, a shaky proof of any one of these links would make very poor justification for spending tens of billions of dollars or hundreds of billions of dollars annually. But the fallacy of chain logic makes the partially proven case for each of the propositions below seem to support the case for the others. Actually if each one is 75% likely to be true, that they are all true may be 13% if they are uncorrelated or lower if they are negatively correlated.

I would much rather see that money spent on space. It would be interesting to see what the cost/benefit ratio of opening the solar system for energy and resource importation would be.

Posted by at September 10, 2007 04:27 PM

Indeed, anonymous. And part of that cost/benefit analysis would have to include the environmental benefits of moving heavy industry (mining and smelting and power generation and so on) off the earth.

Posted by Ed Minchau at September 10, 2007 04:36 PM

Ah, Ed returns to bedazzle us with his informative statements about the issue.

You done with the "CO2 is from oceans" claim yet?

Posted by mz at September 10, 2007 05:22 PM

Here's a nice way to prove Global Warming:

http://www.eh2r.com/

Pretty cool.

If that Arctic ice actually disappears by 2030, it's quite possible we may face some very serious consequences.

Sam, I heard the NPR piece today. I don't think that Bjorn's estimates will hold any longer. Just based on the Arctic ice loss they would have to be revised. Anyway he would have sold enough copies of his book by then. ;-)

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at September 10, 2007 06:31 PM

You done with the "CO2 is from oceans" claim yet?

When are you going to show some physics that indicate how CO2 increases temperature at the partial pressures of the Earth's atmosphere today?

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at September 10, 2007 07:55 PM

Why would I be done with that claim, mz?

The vast majority of the biomass on the earth is plankton, ocean-dwelling organisms that absorb CO2. If there were no dissolved CO2 in the oceans then plankton wouldn't survive. Therefore there is CO2 dissolved in the oceans, and lots of it.

I once posted in this comments section a simple experiment: take two bottles of soda, place one in the fridge and the other in the sun, and after some time open both; note which one releases more of its dissolved CO2.

This experiment shows why increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere lags the increased temperature of the atmosphere by 800 years: cold water can hold a higher concentration of dissolved CO2 than can warm water, QED.

By the way mz, this is the way *real* science is done: repeatable experiments with falsifiable hypotheses (and if your results do not match mine, please share your results). "The map is not the territory", and computer models - no matter how detailed - are no substitute for actual experimentation and observation.

How inconvenient that must be for the Marxists. That's why CO2 is being treated as a pollutant by the Kyoto crowd, instead of the actual pollutants produced by the backward industries of countries such as China (which is exempt from Kyoto, isn't that convenient?). CO2 is being used as a bludgeon to target the western democracies. The motivations are so transparent, it is a wonder that the Kyoto accord wasn't written solely with the hammer-and-sickle symbol repeated over and over.

Posted by Ed Minchau at September 10, 2007 09:23 PM

One more thing: before anyone accuses me of being a shill for oil companies or some other crap like that, this is where I work:

http://www.angels-nest.org

I am working on solutions to *actual* environmental problems, such as ending fresh water pollution and developing new methods of solar energy production, rather than seeking to punish the western democracies for being capitalist. What are your motiations and what are you doing? Hmm, I think I already have the answers to those questions.

Posted by Ed Minchau at September 10, 2007 09:31 PM

*motivations

Posted by Ed Minchau at September 10, 2007 09:32 PM

Ed, yes as I understand, CO2 is dissolved in the ocean. And more of it is released as the temperature rises. And the temperature rises again since CO2 is a greenhouse gas. So what point are you trying to make?

Posted by Offside at September 11, 2007 07:28 AM

Leland, what is your point again? Is believing scientists, with some insight into what they claim, religion?

Well, I don't have the time and expertise to do all the research myself.

mz, that's generally referred to as "faith". I rest my case.

Posted by Leland at September 11, 2007 08:47 AM

Offside, the point is that it is not necessarily a driver, and the climate record shows that it actually follows increases in global temperature by 800 years, and that the whole crux of the argument put forward by AGW proponents amounts to a religious argument, and that Kyoto is therefore going to do nothing except punish the western democracies for being capitalist.

All of these points are listed in the comments above and I shouldn't have to spell them out for you.

Posted by Ed Minchau at September 11, 2007 11:33 AM

Ignoring the jester? An amusing irony, given the history of the position:

In societies where the Freedom of Speech was not recognized as a right, the court jester - precisely because anything he said was by definition "a jest" and "the uttering of a fool" - could speak frankly on controversial issues in a way in which anyone else would have been severely punished for, and monarchs understood the usefulness of having such a person at their side.

Posted by Mike Earl at September 11, 2007 12:20 PM

Ed, so, you've returned back to your previous state and learned nothing. How sad.

The soda in the refrigerator phenomenon is true of course, and paleoclimate shows it to be relevant, in long time scales. In the warm ages of the past CO2 acted as a feedback, like you say yourself, with some delay of hundreds of years.

It doesn't invalidate the point that human-released CO2 raises temperatures.

More so, the delay supports the idea that the current warm spell has not liberated that much CO2 from the oceans yet. (If it were caused by the sun for example, which it is not.)

You can estimate the amount of human CO2 release from both coal and oil usage statistics. You can also do isotope analysis (well, read about some groups that have done) of the CO2 in the air and find that the carbon has not been exposed to cosmic radiation in a long time, just like the carbon in coal or oil. Or that's at least how I understand the isotope analysis. I haven't checked too deeply into it, as I don't think there's a vast conspiracy about it.

This is all standard stuff. The links have been provided in the previous comments to you, I guess I could dig them back to you...

I don't think you're an oil shill, it's just that their propaganda machinery has worked, like much of the right wing blogosphere, it is believed that accepting what the science says about global warming would be "being leftist", and that's something that many people don't want to be. It's the unwanted consequences of a real world phenomenon that lead to the saying that the phenomenon isn't happening, rather than trying to change the response to the phenomenon.

Although we are starting to see the last stand by the libertarians, saying "nothing needs to be done", when it was "it's not human caused" before that and "it's not happening" before that. I think this is more defensible actually.

And Leland, oh, you wanna do it the hard way then.

Let's use an example then: what's the radius of Pluto? You really can't measure that for yourself. Now, how are you going to find out? You can examine textbooks and scientific literature and search out reasonable evidence to believe what the scientists (ie people who have done reasonably sane research) have written about the issue. You can understand mostly how the measurements were done, and you get data that point to an estimate with some error bars that one can have a pretty good trust in.

Or do you have a belief that the sun will rise tomorrow?
"It's just faith! Totally based on nothing!"

Your position is laughable. You end up claiming everything is based on faith, and thus meaningless or somehow utterly unreliable. Your claim is intellectually vacuous.

The crux of the matter is that you should have more trust if a matter is found by science that is open and traceable (and Hansen releasing the algorithm sources helps with that, it's a good thing) to it's elements, and that you perhaps have some familiarity with. It also helps if there are multiple lines of evidence pointing to the same direction. And it helps if many others can check the same results and find no significant flaws.

In the world there is so much information that you have no way of doing, verifying or seeing it yourself, you just have to have some level of trust.

I trust science more than some intereted parties (CEI, tech central station for example, former tobacco shills like Milloy...), or some media third hand reports.

Science is the best way we have so far to get reliable information about the world.

Posted by mz at September 11, 2007 02:04 PM

mz, I do know that some individual greens are rethinking about nuclear power, but the various institutions in the international "community" and Green organizations oppose nuclear power while advocating forcing cuts in fossil fuel use at gunpoint without an adequate replacement.

You believe scientific studies carried out by institutions like Tech Central Station are biased but scientific studies carried out by international bureaucrats and NGO's are not?

Do you really think the Kyoto Treaty is feasible?

Is leaving China and India out of this while keeping Western Democracies in make sense to you?

Do you honestly think the leaders of China (who are fully aware of Ancient Chinese Dynasties being overthrown by angry peasants for passing onerous imperial decrees in economically troubled times) will force the already pissed off peasants to cut fossil fuel use without adequate replacement?

If so, then your expertise in socio-political matters is just as inept and ass-headed as the scientists who think that mandatory cuts are feasible.

mz, I suggest you answer Ed's question on the political *motivations* of these institutions.

Posted by Robert at September 11, 2007 03:43 PM

Lol, what research by TCS?
They don't do any, and when one follows their links to some research they quote, it's either false or doesn't say what they claim.

This is just hilarious, stuff by CEI:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq_Bj-av3g0
They quote some studies which show small local growing of ice sheets at some places...
"[CO2], we call it life"

Posted by mz at September 12, 2007 11:12 AM

And what? The U.N. does its own research? The NGO activist groups do their own research? So TCS trots out its "experts" and the Gaians trot out their own "experts", you do know what Century you're living in, right mz?

Why don't you answer Ed's question on *motivations* hmmm?

Since a cut in CO2 emissions must be global, do you still think Kyoto is a good idea?

Since a cut in CO2 emissions must be global, what about China, India, Mexico, Brazil, and other countries and lands not covered by the Kyoto Treaty?

Are global *mandatory* fossil fuel cuts (ie. telling people to stop using this energy at gunpoint) without adequate replacement, feasible mz?

Posted by Robert at September 12, 2007 07:27 PM

What motivations? "Gaians"? Hello? Sure, there are many NGO:s and political greens. But I'm not talking about them.

I'm talking about a group of experts, scientists, who research the natural phenomena because it's their job, and their work is and should be open and verifiable.

On one hand we have good scientific expertise, massive amounts of data, physical principles etc etc. On the other hand we have some industry funded think tank hacks that provide the "Glaciers are not retreating" disinformation.

What do you believe about global glacier mass? Is it increasing or decreasing? Do you believe the experts or the think tanks?

It's a completely unsymmetrical situation. It's not a "truth is somewhere in the middle" thing.

It's the same thing with the ozone hole and smoking causes cancer. Interested parties have tried to bend the science.

Then, this is a separate issue, not talking about the scientific validity of global warming research anymore, but the things that should be done about it, if it is true:
About Kyoto, well, it's a start, I'd say. Fossil fuel use in western countries is very large per capita. Of course all countries should get in, but since they use much less per capita, it'd be hypocritical to ask them to cut while we still produce much more than them. One reason China produces so much CO2 is because it has over one sixth of the whole world's population.
And the "at gunpoint" thing is weird to say the least. You are prevented from taking a shit on the floor of a public library, at gunpoint too! How horrible, this oppression must make your life unbearable.
If you really don't wanna cut the emissions, pay someone else to cut theirs. The net result is less CO2 emissions. And it might become cheaper too. Pick the low franging fruit first. Isn't that exactly what free market people and libertarians like? It makes sense to me. It has some problems of course, but every approach has.

Posted by mz at September 13, 2007 06:51 AM

mz says,

I'm talking about a group of experts, scientists, who research the natural phenomena because it's their job, and their work is and should be open and verifiable.

Ahh, I guess institutional bias and rot doesn't exist eh? At least I agree that the work of such "experts" should be open and verifiable. FYI, arguing from authority isn't an effective way to argue. Especially when that authority says "do something!" then trots out politically retarded "cures" for the "disease". Anyway, there are much more important problems that recommend replacing fossil fuels with nuclear (fission today, fusion tommorrow)power and other *adequate* energy sources, such problems are: eventual fossil fuel depletion without adequate replacements (ex. peak oil crisis), and the supplies of cash going to Islamic Fascist Countries to buy their oil.

mz said,

About Kyoto, well, it's a start, I'd say. Fossil fuel use in western countries is very large per capita. Of course all countries should get in, but since they use much less per capita, it'd be hypocritical to ask them to cut while we still produce much more than them. One reason China produces so much CO2 is because it has over one sixth of the whole world's population.

Kyoto does nothing to reduce CO2 emissions! It excludes major industrial non-Western Countries. Cuts in CO2 must be global. The U.S. won't put itself at an economic disadvantage to its geopolitical and military rival China. Who taught you in socio-political topics, Captain Crunch?

You're arguing the "per capita" excuse for China and India? Your kidding right? China's total output just exceeded the U.S.'s total output this year! If a van with ten people throws out 2 lbm of trash out the window; they will still produce more litter on the road than a van with one person throwing out 1 lbm of trash out the window even though the one-man-van has a higher "per capita" litter level.

mz, said

And the "at gunpoint" thing is weird to say the least. You are prevented from taking a shit on the floor of a public library, at gunpoint too! How horrible, this oppression must make your life unbearable.
True, pointing a gun at someone who damages your property with shit on your carpet would probably prevent him from doing so and many others would support you. But point a gun at people and tell them to lower their living standards drastically, and you will have a gun pointed back at you by the enemies you have created. Governments aren't invincible. Even Totalitarian China knows that. mz the political midget doesn't.

mz said,

If you really don't wanna cut the emissions, pay someone else to cut theirs.

Holy Cardinal mz recommends forcing people at gunpoint to pay Indulgences to others instead of Carbon Taxes to Almighty Government eh? You're still using force to make people pay other people. Hey Your Holiness, I have a peaceful solution to the problem, set up prizes for functioning fusion reactors (Bussard's PolyWell seems promising) and other possible replacements, allow more fission reactors to replace fossil fuels. Look! No forcing people to pay other people!

Posted by Robert at September 13, 2007 08:17 PM

Let's use an example then: what's the radius of Pluto? You really can't measure that for yourself.

What makes you believe that? Because you are ignorant of how to do science, doesn't mean the rest of us are. Some of us actually learned the Physics of Optics in school. Indeed, it's that education that makes me skeptical about using simple correlation to claim AGW rather than science.

It's ok, mz, if you don't know how to do the math and research to understand science yourself. It's pathethic that you come to a site full of people who can, and then try to claim we are ignorant.

Posted by Leland at September 14, 2007 03:49 AM

mz said: I'm talking about a group of experts, scientists, who research the natural phenomena because it's their job, and their work is and should be open and verifiable.

Robert said:
Ahh, I guess institutional bias and rot doesn't exist eh? At least I agree that the work of such "experts" should be open and verifiable.
Do you have any idea about the breadth of scientific evidence supporting global warming? For example you can do searches on google scholar about it. You can read textbooks. You can read blogs by scientists that link to actual peer reviewed papers. All open and reviewed and you can follow the data as deep as you want.
But of course you can ignore it all. Believe CEI on glaciers. Do you believe there is a massive conspiracy among the majority of climate cientists? That satellite data is faked? What goes on in your head?
If you do some research, something like this might happen to you:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1480279,00.html

FYI, arguing from authority isn't an effective way to argue. Especially when that authority says "do something!" then trots out politically retarded "cures" for the "disease".

Science comes first and policy after that. You can't say the science is bogus since the policies proposed to mitigate it are uncomfortable to you. It's not the Gaians vs Reasonable people on the science issue. It's science vs corruption.

The policy issues can be discussed after that. But the evidence must stand on its own.

Everybody should pay in person for the trash they throw out.

Leland:
So you claim physics of optics can be fact based but other empirical sciences are not? Did you know that one branch of evidence for human caused global warming IS physics. I don't know where you got the "simple correletaion to claim AGW" soundbite. There is hugely more behind it. You just have to open your eyes and ears and do a little research yourself. Start from textbooks or Nature or Science for example, not because of authority but because of openness and hard peer review.

And still, you can't verify anything to absolute elemental certainty, not even the optics of physics. Demanding absolute proof, you end up with solipsism. That's what you claimed originally, that accepting science or taking other people's verified methods or research as reasonably close to truth is just faith.

Posted by mz at September 16, 2007 09:02 AM

mz thinks that institutions don't have institutional bias and rot. Apparently he doesn't think grants in politically charged and motivated studies won't skew their results toward a certain ideological conclusion. He then trots out a source:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1480279,00.html

that has a bias towards more governmental power and control. Newsflash mz, there is no such thing as an unbiased source.

You still ignored my posts that stated that CO2 added to the Carbon cycle from fossil fuels maybe a problem:

My actual position on "global warming" is that manmade CO2 maybe a problem.If so the solutions that I support are: building more fission nuclear plants, an X-Prize for the first fusion plant with net positive energy (Bussard's Polywell seems promising), and more efficient renewables. My solutions are essentially to *replace* fossil fuels with other energy. For the plus side, one gets to reduce ones dependence on the Middle East as well.

If manmade CO2 was the problem, one would expect a multitude of "cures" for the problem coming out of these large institutions. Instead there is only consensus on one "cure", forcing people at gunpoint to lower their living standards (forcing cuts in fossil fuel use without an adequate replacement), this makes me awfully SUSPICIOUS of the *priesthood* promoting global warming as the "End of the World".

But no, mz just wants the U.S. and other Western Countries to slash their economies while geopolitical military-industrial rivals such as China are left off the hook. I suggest you check your fascism at the door. Governments aren't invincible. China knows this, that's why it won't cut fossil fuel use until it has a replacement. It knows damn well that governmental striking power
is finite.

The placing of mandatory cuts in fossil fuel CO2 globally without replacements is politically infeasible and retarded.

Posted by Robert at September 16, 2007 04:12 PM

mz,

How about you show us the evidence that: "Did you know that one branch of evidence for human caused global warming IS physics. "

I mean, isn't that exactly what this thread was about in the first place? Finally, Hansen is showing us whether or not he used physics or correlation?

I don't know where you got the "simple correletaion to claim AGW" soundbite.

Are you suggesting that AGW evangelists are not trying to correlate GW to the Industrial development? If so, then why do you support the Kyoto protocol, which did?

Face it, you are a faithful AGW evangelist, who hasn't provided one fact to support any of your strawman arguments. Instead, you demand others go read books. Hey mz, we want to read the model sourcecode, because again, WE CAN UNDERSTAND PHYSICS AND MATH. Why do you fear this?

As Pen and Teller once said, you can not convince true believers their faith is BS.

Posted by Leland at September 16, 2007 05:38 PM

Leland said:
As Pen and Teller once said, you can not convince true believers their faith is BS.

Very true. Leftist Socialists like mz and PZ Meyers
think that they are the only "freethinkers" and secularists.

Posted by Robert at September 16, 2007 06:08 PM

There is a Penn and Teller Episode on Environmental Hysteria. However I cannot post the link to the video due to finicky programming on this blog.

(Transterrestrial Musings
Comment Submission Error
Your comment submission failed for the following reasons:

Your comment could not be submitted due to questionable content: mispace

Please correct the error in the form below, then press Post to post your comment.)

Search video google for "Dihygrogen Monoxide" and "Penn and Teller" if one should wish to see it.

"Ban Dihygrogen Monoxide!" ;)

Posted by Robert at September 16, 2007 10:13 PM

I meant "Dihydrogen Monoxide".

Posted by Robert at September 17, 2007 01:53 AM

Your comments are of quite lousy quality. I have divided the response in two parts.

Part 1: Emissions Reduction

Kyoto is but one possible mechanism in cutting emissions. It is quite imperfect but at least technically in the realm of possibility, by trying to freeze emissions rise in the industrialized countries.

As it creates a cost for CO2 emissions (that without any legislation, don't have *any* direct cost to the polluter!) it encourages technologies and solutions that don't produce as much CO2. That includes nuclear plants and yes, Bussard's fusion reactors (the latter may work or may not). Kyoto makes them more profitable. It's a "let the market decide" type solution, not a "let's hope the government invests our money a solution" type. There are lots of possible small technical solutions that add up to bigger savings: frequency converters to increase electrical efficiency in motors, better insulation and heat exchangers in housing, more efficient automobiles, nuclear and wind power...

Does supporting such a mechanism make me a leftist?

You suggest that causing the harm to others should be done with no cost whatsoever. Maybe you don't support wastewater cleaning either.
Is the problem that the atmosphere is not anyone's property?

What about the per capita approach to emissions rights? I find it pretty fair in a philosophical sense. If it was absolutely country based (like your car vs van example), a country's industry and population could double its CO2 quotas by splitting in two nations. :P That should demonstrate how crazy the thought is.
Of course a country's CO2 emissions right should be tied to it's population size.

The US and Chinese emissions are roughly at equilibrium but China has about 4X the population. You refuse to cut your emissions before China cuts its own. So you must think that a chinaman has only a right to one quarter the CO2 emission than you. Why is he at such a disadvantaged position? How is this fair?

If China was split in four countries each having 300 million people like USA, each would produce one quarter of US emissions. Would you now allow them to raise one quarter their living standards to approach your level by burning more coal, if you had to keep your living standard constant? It's 300 million people like in USA. All other economic competition would be allowed of course, just not gaining the advantage by polluting more than the other.
Or are they are born inferior, and have no right to pollute as much as you do?

In principle the whole thing should be individual and not country based. A person should not get advantage if his or her neighbour lived frugally and polluted little, lowering the national average, enabling those who don't care to pollute more. This is the aim but it's hard to do right: adding some cost to CO2 emissions is one way to approach it, but it's not perfect.

Part 2: Climate Science

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Anyway, above is a link to the history of discovering the science behind global warming, with references to actual publications. Most of the physics of infrared absorption was done in the fifties and sixties so there are no pdf files available. I wish there were, and I do wish it was more open. Nevertheless it should give an overview. It's a fascinating read.

As I have said, it is good that Hansen has released the code, although it has a lot of bad side effects too.

I've slept only a little for the last few nights because of a work thing, so the post might have some continuity problems.
I shall probably stop responding now and leave you two scream your leftist fascist dihydrogen monoxide midget crazy stuff. The issues should be mostly clear to a reasonable observer.

Posted by mz at September 18, 2007 06:07 AM

As I have said, it is good that Hansen has released the code, although it has a lot of bad side effects too.

bad side effects? Like what?

I shall probably stop responding now

Afraid to tell us what the bad side effects are?

Posted by Leland at September 19, 2007 08:13 AM

So mz, according to you, China is just an innocent Third World country. Newsflash, China is a military and geopolitical rival of the United States, last time I checked, rivals are equals. Per Capita emissions are irrelevant.

Did you know that Dihydrogen Monoxide is a greenhouse gas and a primary component of acid rain? Perhaps one should put monoxide taxes on it then ban it just like the Greens shown on that Penn and Teller episode wanted to do.

Posted by Robert at September 19, 2007 03:44 PM

Post a comment