Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Contact Denis
About Me
- Denis Navratil
- I love Racine Wisconsin. But I am not naive about the challenges we face. I have chosen the name Free Racine for a reason. For Racine to realize its great potential, we must free ourselves from our own failed policies, from high taxes, failing schools, and self serving politicians.
College Fix
- Althouse
- College Fix
- Journal Times
- LiberTEA Racine Blog
- Protein Wisdom
- WSJ opinion
- blogging blue
- breitbart
- caledonia unplugged
- charlie sykes
- city of racine
- drudge report
- instapundit
- investors editorials
- jihadwatch
- lucianne
- national review
- newsbusters
- racine uncovered
- real clear politics
- real debate wisconsin
- root river siren
- townhall
- wisconsin opinion
76 comments:
Thanks Denis, I truly appreciate the framework you supply to promote the free exchange of ideas. This would imply that you don't fear thoughtful, spirited debate. The world would be a better place if there were more of you and less closed minded, book burning types. That reminds me...Hi Kay!
sean, I hope you don't mind picking up the Mann-made global warming debate here rather than over at the BURlington area Progressives blog (BURP). The conversation would be better suited in an environment that does not banish, censor and otherwise live by the pejorative. I'm not saying that BURP practices these forensic techniques, but you can hopefully understand my past experience with liberal blogs and the free exchange of ideas.
In the replies to your Nemo's World post that were subsequently burned over at KBR, I addressed your dismissal of Dr Spencer and included some other sources critical of the blending of science and religion that is Mann-made global warming. Let's start with Dr Roy.
The Dr Roy piece was well written, timely, and something about the title reminded me of you (but I kid!). You dismissed this climatologist and former NASA scientist's reasoning because he is purported to hold strange positions on other unrelated subjects. Would you ignore f=ma and calculus as the ravings of a fool because Isaac Newton devoted a great deal of time to alchemy? You would do better to address the 19 theses the good Doctor has nailed to your church door than question him about the freshness of his underpants. The first few comments could go a long way in your deprogramming as well.
Later and thanks again Denis.
My $5 says this debate won't be "proved" by either party because no matter the arguments, neither side will accept the other's as conclusive statements of fact (for multiple reasons, I'm sure).
This isn't even a "Sean vs Nemo" thing, it's pretty much prevalent in nearly every topic where the speakers are passionate.
That said... assuming Sean wishes to jump back into this one, this will likely be very entertaining.
Warming up my popcorn now...
B
Brad, you're no doubt right. Nemo and Denis, I'm fine with doing it here, but know that no one has ever been banished from the BAP site for disagreeing with anyone.
Nemo is there something specific in your four paragraphs you'd like me to respond to regarding global warming? I didn't see it.
BradK, logically sean's got a much tougher row to hoe. All I have to do is find one fact contrary to his premise that Mann-made global is a real significant problem and all his reasoning and pejoratives go poof.
For instance most, if not all, of the computer models that gigo global warming hysteria use the "Ocean Conveyor Belt" to model much of the heat transfer. All I would have to do is show that this model has been dismissed among the world's oceanographers to show the programs flawed. In short, if the conveyor belt model is wrong then none of the IPCC's model results can be taken seriously. Now all I would have to do is find a source that sean would accept say a review article in the journal Science of a number of studies conducted over the past few years.
Like this. That will do nicely"
To which a thoughtful sean will reply by doing a great impression of Hudson in Aliens (1986),"That's it man, game over man, game over! What the fuck are we gonna do now? What are we gonna do?". Maybe you could respond to his lament as did Burke in the movie,"Maybe we could build a fire, sing a couple of songs, huh? Why don't we try that? "
Heh!
Hmm, I think I'm going to play "judge" here because I'm not convinced either side is totally right, and both sides may have merit in components of the argument.
So, Nemo, first impression -
Paragraph 1, stated your objective. Understood. Your assertion that Sean has the tougher sell is noted, but dismissed at this point as opinion.
Paragraph 2 and the URL, you presented an "if-then" scenario which is a valid point, but the "if" is supposed and not YET widely accepted. However, it's not a bad opener.
Paragraph 3 references one of my favorite movies and reinforces why I am eating popcorn :)
Sean, you're up dude!
(Will he open with a direct rebuttal to paragraph 2, or will he go for a flanking maneuver? Time will tell!!!!)
I feel like I'm watching that show on ESPN where the judge guy gives and takes points based on the sports reporters answers!! THIS IS FUN!!! :D
Sorry... should have left the disclaimer...
I admit to having ABSOLUTELY NO AUTHORITY or qualifications to judge anything! I just thought it would be fun!
BradK, I'm not sure I agree with your analysis when you say, "..but the "if" is supposed and not YET widely accepted. "
From the link,"In light of these new discoveries, the demise of the conveyor belt model has been become the new majority opinion among the world's oceanographers. According to M. Susan Lozier, of Duke University, “the conveyor-belt model no longer serves the community well.”"
Science should not rely on "majority opinion", but when a majority find a flaw in an underlying assumption, the conclusion becomes suspect.
Mrs Nemo and I are headed up north soon to try to catch some of the last of the summer so I may not be as diligent with my responses. Sorry. Will that cost me points? Shouldn't there be a 3 or 4 judge panel? Do we have to sing? Will the work on Hwy 64 ever be done?
Nemo,
Thanks for the clarification, (remember you're not debating ME though!) :)
No points lost for slow responses. More judges are certainly welcome, I'm not cornering the market. You may have to sing. And no, Hwy 64 will NEVER be finished.
Again Nemo uses as his source a glogal wearming denial blog, a blog. I suppose I could go try and find the Science journal article that is refered to but not linked to see for myself. However, in sympathy with Nemo's situation, I just back from up nort and have a lot of catching up to do, so limited time to devote to this endeavor.
Is skimmed the blog entry and would simply respond as follows. Computerized models are neccessarly a simplification of an extremely complex set of systems. Reality is complicated, it's just that simple. They are never going to be perfect and will continuously refining. To point out these uncertainties is not only the type of whittling round the edges that typifies the deniers and global climate conspiracy theorists, it completely misses the point.
The models are only trying to predict the complicated results of the MEASURABLY increasing green house gas concentrations resulting from human activities. Fact: atmospheric greenhouse gases are increasing in correspondence with the on going industrial revolution. Fact: Greenhouse trap and hold heat, that is simple and undisputable physics. How, when and where this plays out on our planet still retains some uncertainty. The reality that it WILL play out however, is quite certain.
sean replied,"How, when and where this plays out on our planet still retains some uncertainty."
Translation,"That's it man, game over man, game over! What the fuck are we gonna do now? What are we gonna do?".
sean, it gets hard to disagree with you when you parrot what I've been saying all along. I did enjoy your admitting that IPCC's climate models are not reality based. Think the UN could make a few bucks selling them to Stan Lee?
Well look, a dishonest spinning of my statement while conveniently ignoring my main point, providing yet another example to bolster my ascertion of Nemo's lack of intellectual integrity. What gambling a Rick's? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you!
Here's the abstract of the bloggedabout article from Science Magazine:
For the past several decades, oceanographers have embraced the dominant paradigm that the ocean’s meridional overturning circulation operates like a conveyor belt, transporting cold waters equatorward at depth and warm waters poleward at the surface. Within this paradigm, the conveyor, driven by changes in deepwater production at high latitudes, moves deep waters and their attendant properties continuously along western boundary currents and returns surface waters unimpeded to deepwater formation sites. A number of studies conducted over the past few years have challenged this paradigm by revealing the vital role of the ocean’s eddy and wind fields in establishing the structure and variability of the ocean’s overturning. Here, we review those studies and discuss how they have collectively changed our view of the simple conveyor-belt model.
Notice that it doesn't even mention climate change, because that's not what the article is about. Who wants to bet the $15 it costs to read it that I'm right? The climate change spin is all added in the always reliable blogisphere by Mr. Hoffman who is not a climate scientist.
sean, it's simple. If the IPCC's model results are to be taken seriously the conveyor-belt model has to be true (if P then Q). But the conveyor-belt model is dismissed (~Q). Therefore the IPCC's model results are not to be taken seriously (~P). The logic is so simple I would expect even someone with your limited gifts to be able to grasp it. Why would you think that the mentioning of Mann-made global warming in the Science review would make a difference?
Your reality problem may not adversely effect your affiliation with your fellow acolytes but the words that Mann-Made types can not hear, "not certain", could get you in trouble. Does the Wisconsin Synod allow such heresy? If I got you in trouble with your fellow parisheners I apologize.
PARAGRAPH 1: Who art thou who are so wise in the ways of computer climate modeling science? I find it very intriguing that you know your way around the IPCC modeling. Gosh, I coulda sworn you said you were an engineer not a climatologist.
QUESTION 1: Are you claiming that CO2 cannot heat the atmosphere unless the ocean currents are in the reality operating in just that exact same manner as contained inside the IPCC simulating computer codes?
It should be obvious why your simplistic P & Q logic doesn't wash and misses the point completely.
PARAGRAPH 2: WTF are you talking about? You are WAYYYYYYY off track dude.
s,"It should be obvious why your simplistic P & Q logic doesn't wash and misses the point completely."
The "point" was the validity of Mann-made global warming. By showing that the computer models that it's based on are flawed proves the point quite nicely. While I have not seen the code or have a complete understanding of the algorithms, it has been made known from both the IPCC and some leaks that the conveyor-belt model is used. You claim my logic is flawed, show us.
Answer to question 1: I am claiming that computer models not based on reality (flawed) should not be used to prove theories*. I do not believe that an increase of 100 ppm (1 hundredth of 1 percent) will have a significant effect. Prove me wrong and keep your proof based in reality (you know, that place where your social and economic ideas are not. Heh.).
* Unless the flawed software is being used to show a theory about software "correctness". While taking a software engineering course I was introduced to a "mutation testing" technique that essentially used buggy code to establish confidence in other related code.
Nemo,
For my clarification, can you please cite the sources showing the IPCC's models rely on the Conveyor-Belt as a critical contributing factor to the development of their conclusions.
What I mean by "critical contributing factor" is: does the presence or absence of the conveyor belt significantly affect the conclusions put forth by the IPCC.
Thank you.
(Sheesh, moderating was more fun when it was just snarky comments and threatening the debaters with "singing")
Nemo said: "I do not believe that an increase of 100 ppm (1 hundredth of 1 percent) will have a significant effect." Baseless and foolish logic. Perhaps you'd like to eat 9 grams arsenic which (assuming you're 200 lbs) would be 1 hundredth of 1 percent of your body mass. Small amounts of things can have great effects on much larger system depending on their properties.
ΔF = α ln(C/C0) is the equation developed by Svante Arrhenius in 1896. It is not in dispute and it is not a complex computer model. It shows that increasing CO2 will increase temperature. And that's only one greenhouse gas. FACT: increasing CO2 will increae temperature and CO2 levels are predicted top double within the next 100 years.
If you turn on the furnace the house will heat up no matter where your ducts run. The different way in which ocean currents may be circulating only effects how the additional heat will be distributed. Hell, for all you know if the the difference in circulation is factored in it may actually make the predicted out comes even worse!
Once again, you and your blogish global conspiracy theory sources are just whittling around the edges of uncertainty surrounding the established science.
Sean
How do you get those wonderful triangle and fishy-looking keys on your computer!!! COOL!!!
Also - how much CO2 concentration did we have 100 years ago? (And how accurate was the ability to measure it)?
Brad, Triangle? Search me, I copied and pasted the equation.
According to the graph produced by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) here: http://nomads.gfdl.noaa.gov/CM2.X/faq/images/co2timeseries.png Atmospheric CO2 concentrations went from 288 PPM in 1900 to 375 PPM in 2000.
The atmospheric CO2 concentrations from 100 years ago can be measured very precisely today from ice cores.
Btw, can someone tell me how I can make links like the one above a hyperlink?
Sean,
To make a hyperlink, you need to "encapsulate" whatever it is you want to link in an "a" html tag. If I try to show you on here it's tricky, so I'll show you here!
B
I honestly don't know why I'm bothering, but Seany, how can the CO2 ice core information from 1900 be validated as "accurate"? Procedures such as carbon dating CAN be validated because they follow a strict physical pricinple that is not affected by temperature, humidity, leaching, etc. BTW, you said "precisely" and there is a big difference between "precision" and "accuracy" - you might want to Google that and read about it, or keep posting your cut and paste ignorance (I'm sure that works well over at Kay's Blue F***ing Racine).
Again, you might want to also read about the Scientific Method and how hypotheses and theories are developed. Go back to the thread about education and answer my question about taking a drug developed through a computer model.
Thanks Brad!
Well Anon, ice core data is known to be accurate because for one thing it correlates precisely with rising and falling global temperatures of the glacial and interglacial periods. But if you want to quibble with the scientists in that field of study perhaps you'd prefer the direct measurements that have been collected continuously (and increasing continuously) since 1958: NOAA
btw Anon, I am a scientist, a geologist to be specific. So I'm not in need of your suggested readings. And honestly I couldn't make heads or tails of your gobbletygook on the education thread, let alone see its relevance, hence my lack of response.
I think perhaps a little background is in order. Nemo and I have had an on again off again exchange on the topic of climate change for at least a year, maybe two. My premise with global warming deniers is that they engage in a practice that conservatives in general are particularly good at, deciding what they want to believe based on their ideology and then selecting/constructing a "reality" and a set of "facts" to support their "reality". This global war on reality is reflected in the quality of the sources of information used to support it. And Nemo has offered up some real duezzies, usually some blog from some guy in Australia or the U.K., etc.
What amazes me most about the deniers is that they actually believe that there is a massive, wide-spread, yet secret global conspiracy behind the science. If this isn't wild nuttiness it certainly borders on it.
The last time I asked Nemo for a source he passed along this link:
So I asked him explain how this guy is credible when you consider this:
On the site linked by Nemo, the good doctor goes to great links to say that he's never taken a dime from the fossil industries. The only problem is he was employed writing columns for TCS Daily which was owned by the DCI Group, a lobbying firm that works for ExxonMobil. He is also a board Member at the George C Marshall Institute, one of the Merchants of Doubt that works for "sound science" on behalf of . . . you guessed it, the fossil and tobacco industries.
He was a speaker (paid? unpaid?) at an anti-global warming conference sponsored by the Heartland Group. The conference was funded largely by the fossil industry. The Heartland Group is a Public Relations (deception) firm that is funded by the fossil and tobaccoo industries.
Best of all Spencer is a religious nut. He works at the University of Alabama Huntsville along with his reality-denial collegue and fellow fundamentalist nut, Prof. John Christy who, by the way believes that man does not have the power to affect the climate. His position is that only God has that power. The absurdity of which is readily apparent with only the briefest consideration of the man-made destructive force held in the American and Russian nuclear arsenals.
Mr. Spencer believes that intelligent design and not evolution should be taught in our schools and advocates that environmental policy should be based on a biblical view (whatever that is) rather than science. And this guy calls himself a scientist?
Like many deniers (Christy for one) and like our own GOPster state rep Jim Ott, whose special skills involve standing in front of a weather map, pointing and talking, Mr. Spencer is a meteorologist NOT a climatologist.
This is the type of source that Nemo always brings to the table to support his belief in a global climate conspiracy. Got any more stellar sources Nemo? How's bout another roughly translated Czech blog? That'd be just spiffy.
I think perhaps a little background is in order. Nemo and I have had an on again off again exchange on the topic of climate change for at least a year, maybe two. My premise with global warming deniers is that they engage in a practice that conservatives in general are particularly good at, deciding what they want to believe based on their ideology and then selecting/constructing a "reality" and a set of "facts" to support their "reality". This global war on reality is reflected in the quality of the sources of information used to support it. And Nemo has offered up some real duezzies, usually some blog from some guy in Australia or the U.K., etc.
What amazes me most about the deniers is that they actually believe that there is a massive, wide-spread, yet secret global conspiracy behind the science. If this isn't wild nuttiness it certainly borders on it.
The last time I asked Nemo for a source he passed along this link:
So I asked him explain how this guy is credible when you consider this:
On the site linked by Nemo, the good doctor goes to great links to say that he's never taken a dime from the fossil industries. The only problem is he was employed writing columns for TCS Daily which was owned by the DCI Group, a lobbying firm that works for ExxonMobil. He is also a board Member at the George C Marshall Institute, one of the Merchants of Doubt that works for "sound science" on behalf of . . . you guessed it, the fossil and tobacco industries.
He was a speaker (paid? unpaid?) at an anti-global warming conference sponsored by the Heartland Group. The conference was funded largely by the fossil industry. The Heartland Group is a Public Relations (deception) firm that is funded by the fossil and tobaccoo industries.
Best of all Spencer is a religious nut. He works at the University of Alabama Huntsville along with his reality-denial collegue and fellow fundamentalist nut, Prof. John Christy who, by the way believes that man does not have the power to affect the climate. His position is that only God has that power. The absurdity of which is readily apparent with only the briefest consideration of the man-made destructive force held in the American and Russian nuclear arsenals.
Mr. Spencer believes that intelligent design and not evolution should be taught in our schools and advocates that environmental policy should be based on a biblical view (whatever that is) rather than science. And this guy calls himself a scientist?
Like many deniers (Christy for one) and like our own GOPster state rep Jim Ott, whose special skills involve standing in front of a weather map, pointing and talking, Mr. Spencer is a meteorologist NOT a climatologist.
This is the type of source that Nemo always brings to the table to support his belief in a global climate conspiracy. Got any more stellar sources Nemo? How's bout another roughly translated Czech blog? That'd be just spiffy.
Oops.
Nemos link
scranleys link
Sean / Nemo,
This is a late-in-the-game question, but, can we please clarify what exactly it is we are debating?
The world is getting warmer?
The world is getting warmer because of human impact?
The world is getting warmer at a significant / concerning rate because of human impact?
The world is getting warmer at a significant / concerning rate because of human impact in a irreversible way?
The world may or may not be getting warmer and the "evidence" from a scientific nature is conclusive / inconclusive?
Can you please both clarify what your "thesis statement" is (for lack of a better term)?
Human activities have changed and are continuing to change the composition of our atmosphere. While there is still some uncertainty about precisely how these changes will impact us, the body of scientific evidence that these changes are affecting our climate is overwhelming.
The Merchants of Doubt (who cut their teeth working for the tobacco industry to convince us of the benign gift of cigarettes) seek to exploit these small uncertainties to convince the public that there is still a reasoned and responsible debate on the reality of climate change. There is not. In doing so they use junk science, sources lacking credibility and even go so far as the convince those they seek to cynically manipulate that there is a vast global conspiracy at work pursuing their dark goal of destoying America for fun and profit.
"The atmospheric CO2 concentrations from 100 years ago can be measured very precisely today from ice cores."
"Well Anon, ice core data is known to be accurate because for one thing it correlates precisely with rising and falling global temperatures of the glacial and interglacial periods."
So is it CO2 or temperature? You do realize that temperature is not the same thing as CO2 concntration don't you? Please explain to me and the other readers here how ice core data from many thousands of years ago can be validated. It must be wonderful to find digital thermometers in those ice cores from a hundred thousand years ago.
I skimmed enough to see that you are a "geologist". Interesting.
OK, I'll go back to watching Rush on TV now because anyone skeptical of scientific methodologies must have some politcal agenda.
Five minutes of conciouslness I'll never get back, but as long as Brad and Nemo are reading . . .
Wait - I just used tree ring data from thousands of years ago to validate ice core data from thousands of years ago, then I used the ice core data to validate the tree ring data - and they wre both right! You win!!!
Ah I see, you're one of those forest for the trees challenged folks.
The evidence for glaciation beyond CO2 and temp is manifold and there's really no dispute about it outside the 6,000 yar old earth fundy crowd.
We know when the galcial periods occured and when the inter-glacial periods occured. The ice core data corresponds with the glacial/inter-glacial periods. You see when ice sheets covered much of the northern hemisphere and temperatures were cooler there was substantially less plant growth. Plants contribute CO2 to the atmosphere through respiration. Hence during glacial periods there was less CO2 in the air due to less plant growth and this is reflected in the ice core data. During interglacial periods with higher temperatures and more land mass available for plant growth CO2 levels were higher. This too is reflected in the ice core data.
See? It's not really that tough. And btw, you're welcome.
Sean is correct there have been numerous periods of "change" and the Glacial periods reflect those changes. In fact as i sit here typing on Lake Michigan's Shoreline under a 1 mile thick sheet of ice. (Which contains untold bits of critical information within it's "core). I anticipate the day when I will be able to look out upon the beautiful horizon and watch the beautiful boats go by. But it will take a few thousand years of global warming to have that occur.
Wait!! Is it possible Global Warming has been occurring in waves for thousands of years?? how did that happen if Aerosol cans have only existed for 100 years and my Ford Explorer is only 10 years old! Sean help me with my logic. I'm struggling here..I need more made up "Pseudo-Science" to explain this crazy behavior of the planet.
If this phenomenon has been occurring for millenium's then isn't it possible the waves of change are simply cycles of change of our planet. Furthermore how do I know what year is the "perfect" year, from which to base all of our future goals and the changes on Mars are similar to the changes on our planet? How many SUV's are on the Planet Mars? Is that one little solar powered rover the cause of the Mar's warming trends?
I'm not a Scientist or a geologist, but I'm pretty keen observer of BS. Saint Algore the Pontificator has never been known for allowing a Fact to get in the way of his point. But what do i know i don't have bunch of useless plaques and trophies on my mantle. Hell they even gave Paul Krugman and Barack Obama Nobel Prize's. Evidently it doesn't require logic or an understanding of fact to get one as long as you make the Lefties in Norway "feel good" about Socialism and One world order.
Anyway I'm gonna go fire up the charcoal grill with some lighter fluid and toast up some Jiffy Pop. (Brad want some?) I'll keep watching this is always great theater.
DTB, you think that aerosol cans cause global warming? Don't you mean the ozone hole? Do you know what you're talking about?
Do you think that natural climate cycles can't be affected by human activities like say emitting 29 BILLION metric tons of previously sequestered CO2 into the atmosphere per year and increasing that amount every year?
If you want psuedo-science to reinforce your ideologically predetermined articles of faith get with Nemo. He's got tons of sources for the shtuff, like the Heartland Group and roughly translated Czech blogs!
Seany baby - you still haven't answered my question: how can you validate the accuracy of temperature or CO2 concentrations in ice core data? You keep bleeting about "data corresponding and being reflected with glacers and non-glacers", well clearly one is cold and one is not-so-cold, but meaurements to within a tenth of a degree? One degree? TEN DEGREES?
Good luck as a geologist - I hope you do well as a Jiffy Lube tech.
As for the 6,000 year old Earth crowd, you are pretty funny. Actually idiotic.
Oh and Seany baby, as a geologist, do you study rocks or pictures of rocks that correlate with what a real rock looks like?
Well Ano, I don't study ice cores or CO2 concentrations and I'm guessing that you don't either. So I'm going to put the onus where it belongs, on you.
Since you obviously take issue with the scientists who've spent their careers studying this subject, publishing their findings and subjecting their work to critical scrutiny from their peers, then I simply must assume that you've got credible evidence from a respected source to show that this entire field of study is wrong and you are right.
So put up or shut up (that means I'll accept your silence as confession) and present the evidence that you're smarter, better informed and standing on firmer ground than our scientific community who make this subject their business. In other words welcome to la la la la, la la la la Nemo's world!
In case you can't hear it that's the sound of my foot tapping in atticipation of your prompt and credible response.
Sean, I study proteomics and genomics as part of drug discovery/diagnostics efforts, in which we have to measure things in the course of experimentation. The FDA (and no scientists in those fields) accept models. However, we ARE building this kind of data into what is termed "systems biology" which tries to model the functioning of a single cell, and we aren't even close to having it sort-of-work. This is probably 15 or even 20 years away because there are too many inmputs and outputs.
Imagine my thoughts on anyone claiming that they can model an entire planet well enough to pretend they are making any more of a prediction than using a Ouija board.
Have the scientists collected temperature and CO2 information at the time the ice cores were formed in order to validate the methodology? The answer is no, so their methodology is open to wide enough error bars to make the whole process meaningless. Just think about the logic here, don't just accept this because they posit themselves as smart.
As I said before, carbon dating is quite accurate and the physical process can be validated in a physics lab today, and this process is not affected by temperature, humidity, sunlight, etc. I have heard challenges to this methodology, however, I accept with little aprehension dating that goes back billions of years. The global warming foplks would have you believe that ice cores are as solid evidence as carbon dating, and it just isn't so. It went from "look, this is our best estimate because it is all we have" to "some of us accept this" to "this is fact", and nothing has changed.
Ano, you're engaing in irrelevant analogies and substanceless rambling. Please provide some evidence from a credible source that the ice core CO2 data is suspect, if you can. If you don't, I'll assume that you can't.
Think about it dumbass - would you calibrate a machine with standards from a hundred thousand years ago? Rambling? I try to be nice but you are stupid and arrogant and quite idiotic and I only hope the other readers have actually digested what I wrote.
So you have nothing but name calling. You have no evidence that the science is flawed and the scientists who study this are wrong.
This is exactly my point. You have nothing solid on which to base your opinion regarding ice cores. You simply deny its validity without any evidence because it provides material support for the reality of climate change, a reality which you have predetermined to be unacceptable. In your war on reality, you'd rather put your faith in the validiy of a global conspiracy theory than on science.
Think about this Ano, if there were a continual loss over time of the CO2 that is frozen in the arctic ice as you seem to alledge, then you would see less and less CO2 in the ice as you go back thousands and thousands of years. But that is not reflected at all in the historical graphs that I linked.
I'm afraid you're all wet, deluged in self delusion. Unless that is, you can provide some real evidence. Just a shred for starters?
Pssst, you calibrate the instrument with a current standard and then measure SAMPLES from 100,000 years ago.
If I strip away the emotion and rhetoric... which is a very time-consuming process - I think "Anonymous" is simply stating that you cannot *validate* the accuracy of the temperatures from 100,000 years ago because, dang it, we still haven't invented a time machine that lets us go back there with a thermometer and compare it's reading against what the current science posits the temperature to have been based on the other data.
Fine, fair enough. Is that enough evidence to rebuttal Sean's "thesis" of:
"Human activities have changed and are continuing to change the composition of our atmosphere. While there is still some uncertainty about precisely how these changes will impact us, the body of scientific evidence that these changes are affecting our climate is overwhelming."
I don't really think so. It challenges perhaps the final clause referencing overwhelming scientific evidence by challenging the scientific process used to present this evidence, but certainly it doesn't prove anything. There's certainly nothing presented by Anon's responses that would suggest a variation rate that would or would not support the existing findings either. Is the current evidence invalid because of a 1% variance? 1 degree variance? etc etc. I'm also keeping in mind the wording used by Sean in his thesis. He did not use the terms "significantly", "irreversibly", "catastrophically", or "apocolyptically" in the sentence where he stated these changes are affecting our climate. In fact, he specifically stated that "there is still some uncertainty about precisely how these changes will impact us" - which to me speaks more about taking care of our only source of natural resources (our planet) and not about panicking over it.
Sean, again, don't mean to put words in your mouth (keyboard) but your thesis suggests a goal state of responsible stewardship of the Earth, not "the end is near and it's all our fault"!!!
That being said, this observer of the debate would simply like to move on from the "accuracy of 100,000 year old temperature reading that we have no way to 100% validate" if possible. (Also waiting for Nemo to come back from his fishing trip to see his response to everything since he left!)
As always, IMHO
B
Actually what we're arguing over is not what the temperature was 1K, 10K, 100K years ago, but rather what the CO3 level in the atmosphere was. The question that you posed Brad was "how much CO2 concentration did we have 100 years ago? (And how accurate was the ability to measure it)?
I'm confident that in 1910 we had the science down to measure the composition of our atmoshpere quite accurately. Unfortunately, I've yet to find evidence to support that. I do know that we've been continuously measuring atmospheric CO2 since 1958 and it's been rising the entire time and you don't have to take my word for that just google "NOAA CO2".
Ano has changed the subject to paleo temperatures and would have us believe that the science surrounding ice core CO2 concentrations is flawed and the coorelation of those CO2 levels to temperature variations is also flawed. But he has provided ZERO evidence from any source to support his claim.
I'm confident that the CO2 levels in ice cores can be measured very very accurately today. I'm also confident that the scientists who study these CO2 levels and their peers have considered how the concentrations may not be representative of actual atmospheric CO2 at the time of deposition. CO2 is a very inert (unreactive) gas and is stable over time. Think about it, if CO2 easily reacted to form something else we could easily treat it at the point of emissions and convert it to a compound that is less of a problem. So I'm confident that CO2 levels retrieved from ice cores are accurate and representative and if not that Ano should be able to scrounge up some even marginally credible evidence to support his article of faith that they are not.
By the way Brad, you're right. I don't think we should panic about our effects on the climate, neither should we hade our head in the sand.
"Think about it, if CO2 easily reacted to form something else we could easily treat it at the point of emissions and convert it to a compound that is less of a problem."
Now that would be the invention of the century!!!
...or a tree. Albeit... LOTS of trees!
hey, Brad wrote, the only comments I'll read now. Brad, do you think we are talking about 1%? How do you know it isn't 50% - we have no way of knowing. When current models are using hundredths of degrees and drawing linear projections, wouldn't you expect that all measurements had the same degree of accuracy? Would you measure your gas mileage over the life of your car by only measuring distance and amout of gas used 80% of the time and guessing at the rest? Not a very good experiment.
Years ago, people made estimates basded on tree rings and ice cores, noting that it was "the best we have". Somehow this has morphed into fact. Like I said, would you take a drug that resulted only from a computer model?
And you don't have to defend me against dolts, but do think about what I write.
. . . and Brad, the work of real scientists should not be used to promote political agendas, nor to disparage them. We are supposed to be critical and skeptical. If my work made Hugo Chavez look good, I shouldn't apologize or lose a minute's sleep. I don't lose any sleep over dolts, except when it comes to the fact that the stupidest people make the most decisions the affect people's lives. Yes, people who actually think that fifty pounds of material might be trapped in their colons and they need a doctor of chiropractic to get it out - these people tell others what to do.
Sean, you should ask for the very long tube. Tell them to shove until you have to roll your tongue.
Well more opaque and substanceless ramblings, punctuated with pointless off topic insults from Ano.
Such flacid flailings are typical of one who has failed to construct a reasoned argument to support articles of faith they're invested in emotionally but incapable of defending logically or supporting with any real evidence. Pity
Anon,
Please note I am not looking to defend anyone, but rather to observe as the self-appointed (though woefully unqualified) moderator of the forum until such a time as Denis tells me to shut up :)
My "1%" comment was in reference to the lack of an acceptable variation to support or disprove a scientific method. I could have easily said 50% or 20% or whatever.
I have accepted your point about validation of accuracy, and am simply looking to move forward in the conversation. You are correct that science uses the best tools at their disposal at any given time... well... modern science we'll say (I think we can ignore the archaic practices of pre-Galilaen science, can't we?). These tools allow for observation, interpolation and extrapolation to produce a set of evidence that must stand up to scrutinization of the scientific methods used to generate the data, and if reasonable challenges are not enough to rebut the presented data, then yes, that evidence often begins to become accepted as fact. When I was a kid, it was a fact that Pluto was a planet. Apparently the science that "proved" that was challenged by new evidence that eventually changed that fact.
Science isn't an exact science, it is an evolving method of understanding the nature of, well, everything. I wouldn't like to think we've even come close to scratching the surface of the "possible" in terms of understanding. It literally would depress me if we as a species knew everything and there was nothing left to discover, re-discover, re-validate, etc.
Back to the debate - you stated "When current models are using hundredths of degrees and drawing linear projections, wouldn't you expect that all measurements had the same degree of accuracy?"
Ideally, yes you would, but when you do not have the ability to do so, science does allow for supporting evidence and correlating evidence to extrapolate - in this case prior to recorded history - using strict sets of controls.
Now - as I stated earlier, I am woefully unqualified to be a debate moderator, and just as unqualified as a scientist, so I cannot comment on how strictly those controls were held to in the extrapolation process. I believe that's one of the key issues being debated by Sean and Nemo (and now yourself) in this thread.
As always, IMHO
B
And he's back!
In the micro, I find it telling that sean has yet to mount any defense of the flaws in the IPCC's climate models (link provided for BradK).
But in the macro, anon makes a much more powerful point. A scientist should be more than a person with a poor understanding of statistics and a equally dubious data sent to work with.
Welcome back Nemo. You've discredited yourself righ off the bat by characterizing Ano's incoherent ramblings as making a powerful point. If I made point like he does I'd prefer to remain anonymous too.
Same old same old Nemo. Your sources are a blog piece you already cited which I already addressed, another blog with computerese gobbltygook which is pulled from a portugese blog and the "Reverend" (and well known wingnut) Sun Myong Moon's own rag the Washington Times quoting, you guessed it, a blog. Par for Nemo's source course.
Nemo of course doesn't do any work here in provding insight or analysis of what these linked blogisphoids supposedly mean. Anyone can thow up a bunch of links, but I encourage anyone who's intersted to really look at them and see if you think they're credible or, in some cases, if you can even make heads or tails out of them. Sheesh!
Here's an example of the quality and selective subjectivity of one of Nemo's sources, Watt's Up With That? (btw Mr. Watt was also the source for the the piece in the Rev's WT Rag linked by Nemo). Here are the posts on climategate on Mr. Watt's blog: Watt's What?
Notice that the posts include an announcement of the investigation U of Penn Prof Mann (Nemo's arch nemisis). Funny but the bloggy one fails to follow up with mention that Mann was cleared by that investigation.
There is also no mention that two independent investigations of the climate scientists at U of East Anglia cleared them as well in what is no doubt a climate conspiracy of global reach.
Very telling omissions indeed.
" if reasonable challenges are not enough to rebut the presented data, then yes, that evidence often begins to become accepted as fact."
They have been raised, often.
Here is something else to think about, obviously only for those of you who don't think you're intelligent because you can cut and paste:
If a biologist or chemist or particle physicist made a model of a cell, chemical reaction or disintigration of a particle (respectively), and that model did not adequately represent the system in question, their peers would tell them to "come back when it works". If the model were published, referees would insist that all of the inadequacies were published as well, and no scientist in those fields would object.
How many times have you heard that a global warming model "wasn't predicting climate accurately - so we need to be even more worried about climate change"? Other sciences - model not working - back to the lab. Global warming - model not working - run to the media and be famous and get more money.
Very telling omissions indeed.
sean, just a word of caution, that "computerese gobbltygook" you speak of is some of the actual code in the models. You might want to refer to it with a bit more reverence lest ye be cast into the fiery pit or whatever happens to Mann-made global warming skeptics when they dare speak heresy.
Anon, you speak with a voice that betrays you as a man of science. It is no wonder that cultists find your thoughts "incoherent ramblings".
By Ano's logic since we don't have a unified field theory that works without flaws or gaps in our knowledge then the entire study of physics is bunk. Just more unsupported unsourced and only tangently relevent rambling from Ano that stems from murky blogviation.
You guys insist on focusing on the models which as simplifications of a complex reality will never work perfectly in predicting how increased forcing will propagate through the global climate. But the bottom line is the FACT that CO2 increases heating and we've been adding CO2 to the atmosphere since the industrial revolution in greater and greater amounts amounting to the current 29 BILLION metric tons per year! CO2 levels in the atmospere are in FACT increasing substantially. These are points that you fella's can't address even with your hyperlinked blogaciousness.
But go ahead, push the gas pedal to the floor. If you don't believe what the speedometer says then I guess you're not moving and are perfectly safe.
Btw Nemo I have at several points (including directly above) addressed your point about the IPCC models, so don't say the I haven't. Simply "refudiate" my repudiation, if you can.
Alright Nemo, you tell me, Your Blogginness exactly what that excerpted computese gobbletygook means since you obviously understand it. Btw, how's your portugese?
Furthermore, please tell us exactly who got the computer code, from where, whether it's complete and accurate and what their qualifications for interpreting the cade are.
s,"CO2 levels in the atmospere are in FACT increasing substantially."
1 hundredth of 1 percent is "increasing substantially"? If a dieter decreases their caloric intake by less than a fraction of 1 calorie a day you would call that a "substantial" change? The only think you are proving is that you have a complete lack of understanding of the topic.
The origin of of the computer code is interesting. Since the priests of Mann-made global warming keep their data and methods hidden (in some sort of an ark I would guess), as opposed to real scientists that share their evidence, the source was a leak (see climategate). sean, why do Mann-made global warming "scientists" hide their methods and their raw data or even destroy data sets to prevent others from seeing them?
Got a good link for BradK. The money line,"there is no direct evidence showing that CO2 caused the 20th century warming, or as a matter of fact, any warming."
Thank you Nemo, now perhaps we're getting somewhere. Granted, your source is once again a blog, but at least it's connected with a real professor at at a real university, lending it a certain amount of credibility.
First of all if one reads the blog entry you linked the good professor never says that global warming isn't caused by anthropogenic CO2. He simply states that there is uncertainty and that there may be other causes/contributing factors.
Secondly, if you take a look at another entry in the blog the professor has this to say; "According to the common perception, the temperature over the 20th century has been warming, and it is mostly anthropogenic in origin, with greenhouse gases (GHGs) being the dominant driver. Others, usually called "skeptics", challenge this view and instead claim that the temperature variations are all part of natural variability. As I try to demonstrate below, Following empirical evidence I describe below, about 2/3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes."
In other words we're heating up the planet and our contribution to the heating will be increasing in the future.
Finally, and again, your 1/100th of 1% figure for CO2 increase is very misleading because it is a percentage of the atmosphere as a whole. As illustrated on Figure 4 in the piece that I linked above from your source, atmospheric CO2 has increased from 278 ppm in 1750 to 370 ppm in 2000. That is a 33% increase.
As I said before, Perhaps you'd like to eat 9 grams arsenic which (assuming you're 200 lbs) would be 1 hundredth of 1 percent of your body mass. Small amounts of things can have great effects on much larger systems depending on their properties.
Please let's not have this sort of deceptive playing with numbers again. It doesn't help to advance honest debate.
DANG! I tried bold face the critical sentence from the quote of the professor in my post above and apparently removed it. The shtuff you have to do in this blog to provide links and emphasis is really clunky. Anyway, here is the critical sentence followed by the full paragraph (paragraph#2 btw):
"As I try to demonstrate below, the truth is probably somewhere in between, with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century."
"According to the common perception, the temperature over the 20th century has been warming, and it is mostly anthropogenic in origin, with greenhouse gases (GHGs) being the dominant driver. Others, usually called "skeptics", challenge this view and instead claim that the temperature variations are all part of natural variability. As I try to demonstrate below, the truth is probably somewhere in between, with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. Following empirical evidence I describe below, about 2/3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes."
Nemo,
Can I please re-ask for your basic "thesis statement" or summary position on this topic, just to clarify and streamline the conversation?
B
BradK, the skeptic's (my) view of Mann-made global warming can be summed up as follows:
We don't know.
Since sean has just restated this apostasy I win. Yeah me. Now buy me a beer. Mrs Nemo and I (and a few other friends) will be at Irishfest tomorrow evening and at Footstock on Saturday. Any Miller product will be fine. No Bud please, I prefer rice in my food, not in my beer thank you very much.
Cheers!
Thanks Nemo - someone is reading my observations besides BradK. I am a man of science (and thanks for noting that too) and I have felt for many years that every scientist in this country needs to make more of an effort to explain what they do to Americans, who pay for a lot of the work. I used to know a guy (arrogant ass) who used to bitch about flying because someone would ask what he did and he'd tell them he was a cancer biologist and then he'd have to spend hours answering questions. He (we) owe that to the people, and you know what, if you can't explain at least some of what you're doing to average people, you are in the wrong line of work (and you don't deserve to have a university position).
Having said this, I get nothing but arrogance both in public and private from most climate changers (not all, but most). Why is it that I can talk to chemists, physicists, mathematicians, computer engineers and come to some understanding through shared methodologies, but not the climateers? Is it a coincidence that I get nothing but arrogance from average Americans - who have been led to believe in the "science" of climate change - when I try to tell them about the Scientific Method?
What the heck is Footstock??? I'll have to look at this!
So, here's what I've read so far.
Sean's position is due to the high levels of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere - especially since the dawn of the industrial revolution - that by correlation, there is an impact to the normal global climate patterns, however there's not enough empirical data to definitively state how much. So, in effect, what's the human impact on the global climate - we don't know.
Nemo's position - as he succinctly stated in the most recent post was "we don't know" - this based on the fact that the models he's been shown to track and predict the global climate and the impact of humans on it are - to him - questionable in their ability to accurately present proven evidence.
It would appear that the divide in this case is the "so what now" part of the conversation, and in many ways, this next step is heavily politicized (even more-so than the analysis of the presented data).
I don't think either of you are saying "panic!" and I don't think either of you are saying "ignore it" but I think the political aspect here has to do with those next steps - what should we do (as a race) in the near, mid, and long term to responsibly dwell on a planet with finite resources and a finite number of copies (ie, there's only 1 Earth).
Conservatives (generally, and I hate making general statements, but bear with me) would typically consider liberal policies as "overreacting". Liberals would typically consider conservative policies as "under-reacting" (or ignoring).
How much of this is because of political power struggle versus doing what's right? How many times does a member of team red disagree with a member of team blue (or vise versa) because it's the best way to energize the animosity toward the other party - despite what's right or wrong?
Once again, like many ideological battles, stripping away emotion and rhetoric (which, though, does make for some good popcorn-eating-entertainment), shows us time and time again that we're more alike in many ways than we care to admit.
BASED ON THE THESIS STATEMENTS provided by both Sean and Nemo, I'd like to declare the result of this particular debate a "draw." I believe both sides presented valid evidence supporting their thesi (is that the plural of thesis?) which, broken down, were very similar to each other. I'm going to end my faux-moderation of this debate.
Please feel free to go back and forth about the follow-up "so what now" part of the conversation, but from my perspective I really enjoyed this. Thank you both for participating, and to Denis for not telling me to shut up (it helps he was on vacation, of course! HA!).
And anon and DB, your participation was very fun as well. I occasionally like to poke the smoldering fires of debates myself.
Completely-unqualified-self-appointed-moderator BradK,last survivor of the Nostromo,
Signing Off
Fair enough Brad and thanks for your part in moderation. And thanks to the rest involved as well, it's been entertaining.
Nemo, I might make it to Irishfest myself and would buy you that beer on the principle of general conviviality, that is if I knew you from Fitzadam. And btw, there'll be no clydesdale piss for this Wisco kid either!
Catch ya later on down the trail.
O'Cranley
I'm starting to tear up... you've "basically" agreed on two things now... the second being... BUDWEISER SUCKS!
(I'm in on that club as well)
Gee Brad, thanks for the note on my "participation". Pleaase don't take this as arrogant, but I'm glad a group of non-scientists has "debated" the issue and agreed to disagree.
This isn't rhetoric or persuasive speaking, science should be debated based on facts. In this area of "science", facts are for the "participants", not the policy makers. With the exception of Nemo, no one else has any idea what I was talking about.
Y'all have fun!
I need to modify that post - actually I have no idea if Sean Cranley understands what I was talking about because, thankfully, he signs his name so I don't have to read one word of his stupidity.
Anon,
I framed yours and DB's posts as participation *only* because the debate as defined and called by Denis was between Sean and Nemo.
B
I understand, but again, scientific debates need to take place based on facts and data, and here, facts need to be in quotation marks.
I bought you several beers and even a we dram of Jameson at Irishfest Nemo, but since I couldn't find you, I had to drink them all myself. Up the Republic!
O'Cranley
Honestly Ano, it's obvious from your dense and erratic writing "skills" that no one, including you know what your were talking about.
And ignoring my posts is not only your only defense, but embematic of your fear of confronting information uncomfortable for your world view and your unwillingness to engage in an honest exchange. At least Nemo isn't ascared like you, you poor little anomymous thing.
Checked back here - thanks again Sean for signing your name!
Can you head if I repost this kind of to the site my site?
Among the finest to make sure credit history emerged wherever it truly is
expected. Have a good one!
My site : www.zuneauto.com
There is absolutely no wrong or right approach to create a website.
We certainly have web-sites relevant to just one niche market
and as well internet sites on totally not related products.
It’s actually your decision that method you wish to visit.
One thing though…you advise Blogger, why should you would spend funds on using a .
internet.. I’ve continually asked yourself if the has been important.
An answer could well be awesome!
Also visit my site :: People Records
You would still however, use the press to stop the steeping process. But what about taking glutathione in pill form through supplements and not inside of a cosmetic product? Does glutathione have side effects this way as well? That is what we'll talk about in the next section. Taking a few minutes and using items that you probably already have in your house will save you a lot of money every year. Perhaps we should look into the way we view these fetus' and do more research to what negative long-term affects are.
Different Leadership Style Definitions. At a working distance greater than a few millimeters, no optical system will match the resolving power and magnification of these Questar Long Distance Microscopes. There are a wide choice of objectives and eyepieces, enhanced with attachment lenses and coaxial illuminators that are fitted to the microscope as an
Post a Comment