Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Change?"

Communicate with fellow Zoners

Moderators: SkiDork, spanky, Bubba

killyfan
Blue Chatterbox
Posts: 128
Joined: Feb 27th, '17, 09:44

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by killyfan »

Oh and I forgot - I meant to post this link too:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017 ... l-warming/
In a world where you can be anything, why not choose to be kind...
Sgt Eddy Brewers
Slalom Racer
Posts: 1145
Joined: Aug 24th, '11, 14:57

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Sgt Eddy Brewers »

killyfan wrote:Oh and I forgot - I meant to post this link too:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017 ... l-warming/
Sorry been away and busy also...a lot to try to catch up on. Will try to work my way backwards. Your link to the NatGeo article is a claim that "climate change" actually does mean "global warming" (when they think rubes will buy that idea). So this claim extends the "CO2 drives global warming" meme to infer that heat waves can and will increase in frequency and severity...such that by 2100 it will be a leading cause of deaths.

Its summer for the target audience and summer, virtually always means heatwaves somewhere. And the MSM will pump up all the stories about anomalous heat, while ignoring late June snow storms : Snow is coating parts of the mountain West for the beginning of June's second full week as an unseasonably cold air mass infiltrates the northwestern United States. https://weather.com/storms/winter/news/ ... rn-rockies" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Anyway, to try and attempt adversarial dialogue based on reality (science) the claims made in your link are nonsense. There is no increase in incidence of heat waves. The dustbowl thirties, not the current decade were the worst heatwave decade in the USA (in modern climatological record... probably MUCH worse at some times in the distant past). Here is some relevant data.
00heatwaves116-jul-21-17-55.jpg
00heatwaves116-jul-21-17-55.jpg (51.18 KiB) Viewed 585 times
Heat waves in USA(lower 48)
00heatwavedays.png
00heatwavedays.png (18.2 KiB) Viewed 585 times
More USA heat data
and ...since you will of course doubt the data let me point out the first graph is from Obama EPA
00 EPA heat wave.gif
00 EPA heat wave.gif (44.08 KiB) Viewed 583 times
And let me add this video...less than 7 minutes and it is a good intro to what is happening in climate science:
Summer Heat Fraud From Climate Central
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pc0nCM59vss" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Some data so we can argue.
Be back later to catch up on earlier ideas from you and Coydog.
Last edited by Sgt Eddy Brewers on Jun 23rd, '17, 08:00, edited 1 time in total.
Ski the edges!
Sgt Eddy Brewers
Slalom Racer
Posts: 1145
Joined: Aug 24th, '11, 14:57

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Sgt Eddy Brewers »

And before I get back to the real world ...
Here is a really well-stated opinion from Roy Spencer CLIMATE SCIENTIST (capping that because somehow that matters a lot to some of you!) He is a principle scientist involved in generating one of the major global climate metrics (UAH glaobal temp) based primarily on satellite data.

The AMS Scolds Rick Perry for Believing the Oceans are Stronger than Your SUV
June 22nd, 2017 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/the ... -your-suv/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yesterday, the American Meteorological Society (AMS) sent a letter to DOE Secretary Rick Perry, scolding him for the following opinion he uttered in a CNBC interview on June 19.

Quoting from a Washington Post article:
Asked in an interview on CNBCs “Squawk Box” whether he believed that carbon dioxide was “the primary control knob for the temperature of the Earth and for climate”, Perry said that “No, most likely the primary control knob is the ocean waters and this environment that we live in.” Perry added that “the fact is this shouldn’t be a debate about, ‘Is the climate changing, is man having an effect on it?’ Yeah, we are. The question should be just how much, and what are the policy changes that we need to make to effect that?” (Most of the headlines I’ve seen on the CNBC interview, including the WaPo piece, refer to Perry with the usual “denier” terms.)

Basically, Perry is saying he believes that nature has a larger role than humans in recent warming. I, too, believe that the oceans might well be a primary driver of climate change, but whether the human/nature ratio is 50/50, or less, or more than that is up for debate. We simply don’t know.

So, while Sec. Perry goes against the supposed consensus of scientists, it was not outlandish, it wasn’t a denial of a known fact.
It was a valid opinion on an uncertain area of science.

AMS, me thinks thou doth protest too much

In response to Sec. Perry’s comments, the Executive Director of the AMS, Keith Seitter, said this in his letter to Perry (emphasis added):
While you acknowledged that the climate is changing and that humans are having an impact on it, it is critically important that you understand that emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are the primary cause. This is a conclusion based on the comprehensive assessment of scientific evidence. It is based on multiple independent lines of evidence that have been affirmed by thousands of independent scientists and numerous scientific institutions around the world. We are not familiar with any scientific institution with relevant subject matter expertise that has reached a different conclusion. These indisputable findings have shaped our current AMS Statement on Climate Change, which states: “It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide.”

Indisputable findings? Really? In my opinion, the AMS view (which draws upon the U.N. IPCC view) is much more definitively stated than the evidence warrants.

Sure, all of the scientific institutions are going to jump on the bandwagon, with politically savvy committees agreeing with each other; they are in effect being paid by the government to agree with the consensus through billions of dollars in grants and contracts.
If there is no global warming crisis, there would be little congressional funding to study it, and thousands of climate-dependent careers (including mine) simply wouldn’t exist.


That money also trickles down to the AMS, which is paid to hold scientific conferences, workshops, and publish the resulting research studies in scientific journals. They have a vested interest in the gravy train continuing.

So, maybe I can ask the AMS: Just what percentage of recent warming was natural in origin? None? 10%? 40%? How do you know? Why was the pre-1940 warming rate — caused by Mother Nature — almost as strong as recent warming?

The truth is, no one knows just how much of recent warming was human-caused, including those thousands of “independent” scientists. They pin the blame on CO2 partly because that’s all they can think of, and we still don’t understand natural sources of climate change.

Besides, in the climate business, there are no thousands of independent scientists, anyway. They live and work in an echo chamber, and very few of them have the breadth and depth of knowledge to make an informed judgement on the issue. The vast majority are specialists in some narrow field of research. They go along to get along… and to continue to get funding
.

Young climate researchers today cannot voice any doubts about anthropogenic global warming, or they might not have a career.
They can’t go to Big Energy for research funding because, as far as I know, such funding does not exist. Big Energy knows they don’t have to pay people to prop up petroleum, natural gas, and coal, because the world runs on the stuff, and for the foreseeable future there are no large-scale, cost-effective, reliable, and readily dispatchable alternatives.

What we DO know with considerable confidence is that increasing CO2 should cause some warming. I’ll admit that my opinion here is mostly based upon a theoretical extrapolation from laboratory measurements of how CO2 absorbs and emits infrared energy. But we really don’t know how much warming. We certainly do not have enough confidence to claim it is indisputable that our greenhouse gas emissions are the dominant cause, as the AMS letter claims.

I am ashamed that the climate research community allows such pronouncements to be made. The AMS became a global warming advocacy group many years ago, and as a result it lost a lot of established members, including myself.

Really well stated (IMO) insider view on the state of "climate science"

Killyfan hope his resume impresses you...maybe then you MIGHT consider the actual claims he is making??
Ski the edges!
Sgt Eddy Brewers
Slalom Racer
Posts: 1145
Joined: Aug 24th, '11, 14:57

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Sgt Eddy Brewers »

Coydog wrote:
Sgt Eddy Brewers wrote:
Awkwardly primitive response Coydog.
Here's another one for you.

Maybe you should fire off a tweet to Mathis and the rest of the military because they seem hell bent on making significant and costly preparations for climate change. Think of the tax dollars we'll save. In any case, you’ve made it abundantly clear you’re a full member of the Lindzen-Curry-Pielke et. el. tribe seemingly caught up in Mann’s "six stages of denial":

1) CO2 is not actually increasing. Well I actually NEVER claimed this but LIKE ALL SCIENTIFIC CLAIMS it needs to be constantly reassessed against evolving data sets

2) Even if it is, the increase has no impact on the climate since there is no convincing evidence of warming. Two ideas conflated. CO2s impact on climate is highly debatable. Convincing evidence of warming is complex. Some warming, somewhere, has always been occurring throughout the history of our planet. Global temperature is a virtually impossible metric to produce with our current technology. The metrics produced by satellites show little to no warming over the past two decades . IN DIRECT CONTRAVENTION of the consensus theory.

3) Even if there is warming, it is due to natural causes. And you can disprove this claim by...???? No one is sure on this account . Not even close, if they are bright and honest.

4) Even if the warming cannot be explained by natural causes, the human impact is small, and the impact of continued greenhouse gas emissions will be minor. And you can disprove this claim by...???? No one is sure on this account . Not even close, if they are bright and honest.

5) Even if the current and future projected human effects on Earth's climate are not negligible, the changes are generally going to be good for us. And you can disprove this claim by...???? No one is sure on this account . Not even close, if they are bright and honest.

6) Whether or not the changes are going to be good for us, humans are very adept at adapting to changes; besides, it’s too late to do anything about it, and/or a technological fix is bound to come along when we really need it. The strategies for adjusting to the dramas future climate will certainly bring (horrible climate events are as old as the earth itself) us is certainly an interesting topic. IMO the pathway that focuses on combating a problem that isn't actually a problem (CO2 enrichment)..has to be the most ridiculous and wasteful strategy imaginable.

Look, I’m not a scientist and it is rather apparent neither are you, however I can do numbers and the numbers clearly show this decade will be hotter than the previous and the one before that and the one before that and the one before that and, well, you get the picture.
Again...20k years ago there was a mile thick slab of ice over Killington. It has warmed since then??? "this decade will be hotter than the previous and the one before that and the one before that and the one before..." holds for most of the decades since then... The earth is warmer than it was then (thank goodness!)

WHAT CAUSED THE WARMING???? It is absolutely clear, except to the truly delusional, that the VAST MAJORITY of the warming since those times had to be "natural." What were the causes of that warming?? No one is sure.

Could the drivers that melted the glaciers covering Killington be impacting modern warming? For some absurd reason the consensus crowd are CERTAIN that the answer to this has been settled. And they suppress any data or arguments which question their certainty.

Bad science.
Ski the edges!
Sgt Eddy Brewers
Slalom Racer
Posts: 1145
Joined: Aug 24th, '11, 14:57

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Sgt Eddy Brewers »

Coydog wrote:
Yeah, a bit like saying since it was 58.7 degrees on January 21 and 58.7 degrees on June 21, it didn't get hotter in between.

No actually it is NOT. Not at all. The numbers referenced are global annual means....averaged to the nearest tenth of a degree. And it turns out, if you want to be an absurd activist (which many consensus folk are) you can carry the mean temperature out to the HUNDREDTHS of a degree and claim that 2016 is hotter.

And just to keep you current without getting too sciencey:

Global Climate Report - Annual 2016

With the contribution of eight consecutive high monthly temperature records set from January to August, and the remainder of the months ranking among their five warmest, 2016 became the warmest year in NOAA's 137-year series. Remarkably, this is the third consecutive year a new global annual temperature record has been set. The average global temperature across land and ocean surface areas for 2016 was 0.94°C (1.69°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F), surpassing the previous record warmth of 2015 by 0.04°C (0.07°F). The global temperatures in 2016 were majorly influenced by strong El Niño conditions that prevailed at the beginning of the year.

This marks the fifth time in the 21st century a new record high annual temperature has been set (along with 2005, 2010, 2014, and 2015) and also marks the 40th consecutive year (since 1977) that the annual temperature has been above the 20th century average. To date, all 16 years of the 21st century rank among the seventeen warmest on record (1998 is currently the eighth warmest.) The five warmest years have all occurred since 2010.

Overall, the global annual temperature has increased at an average rate of 0.07°C (0.13°F) per decade since 1880 and at an average rate of 0.17°C (0.31°F) per decade since 1970.
I think NASA and NOAA have become entirely political (they are after all government agencies yes??) and their contribution to global mean metrics is corrupted. Here is a good intro analysis (which I know you won't watch):
The US Temperature Record : NASA And NOAA Cooking The Books
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xpx27-00NgE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The guy in the video is a committed environmentalist who happened to look at the actual data (which is one of his areas of expertise.) Honestly if you do care about understanding climate why won't you consider these data. He presents DIRECT EVIDENCE from NASA NOAA data sets to show corruption. You won't watch it. It shows compelling evidence of activist bias.
Ski the edges!
madhatter
Signature Poster
Posts: 18340
Joined: Apr 2nd, '08, 17:26

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by madhatter »

Sgt Eddy Brewers wrote:
Coydog wrote:
Yeah, a bit like saying since it was 58.7 degrees on January 21 and 58.7 degrees on June 21, it didn't get hotter in between.

No actually it is NOT. Not at all. The numbers referenced are global annual means....averaged to the nearest tenth of a degree. And it turns out, if you want to be an absurd activist (which many consensus folk are) you can carry the mean temperature out to the HUNDREDTHS of a degree and claim that 2016 is hotter.

And just to keep you current without getting too sciencey:

Global Climate Report - Annual 2016

With the contribution of eight consecutive high monthly temperature records set from January to August, and the remainder of the months ranking among their five warmest, 2016 became the warmest year in NOAA's 137-year series. Remarkably, this is the third consecutive year a new global annual temperature record has been set. The average global temperature across land and ocean surface areas for 2016 was 0.94°C (1.69°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F), surpassing the previous record warmth of 2015 by 0.04°C (0.07°F). The global temperatures in 2016 were majorly influenced by strong El Niño conditions that prevailed at the beginning of the year.

This marks the fifth time in the 21st century a new record high annual temperature has been set (along with 2005, 2010, 2014, and 2015) and also marks the 40th consecutive year (since 1977) that the annual temperature has been above the 20th century average. To date, all 16 years of the 21st century rank among the seventeen warmest on record (1998 is currently the eighth warmest.) The five warmest years have all occurred since 2010.

Overall, the global annual temperature has increased at an average rate of 0.07°C (0.13°F) per decade since 1880 and at an average rate of 0.17°C (0.31°F) per decade since 1970.
I think NASA and NOAA have become entirely political (they are after all government agencies yes??) and their contribution to global mean metrics is corrupted. Here is a good intro analysis (which I know you won't watch):
The US Temperature Record : NASA And NOAA Cooking The Books
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xpx27-00NgE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The guy in the video is a committed environmentalist who happened to look at the actual data (which is one of his areas of expertise.) Honestly if you do care about understanding climate why won't you consider these data. He presents DIRECT EVIDENCE from NASA NOAA data sets to show corruption. You won't watch it. It shows compelling evidence of activist bias.
no such thing... :roll:
mach es sehr schnell

'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
User avatar
Mister Moose
Level 10K poster
Posts: 11595
Joined: Jan 4th, '05, 18:23
Location: Waiting for the next one

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Mister Moose »

Sgt Eddy Brewers wrote:What we DO know with considerable confidence is that increasing CO2 should cause some warming. I’ll admit that my opinion here is mostly based upon a theoretical extrapolation from laboratory measurements of how CO2 absorbs and emits infrared energy. But we really don’t know how much warming. We certainly do not have enough confidence to claim it is indisputable that our greenhouse gas emissions are the dominant cause, as the AMS letter claims.
Here I'm fairly certain this theory has merit. I have not verified that some of the lower electron orbital excitement states of CO² are in the infra red range. I'm giving the scientific community a pass on that as A) it's easily proven and B) I don't have the time. I'm not a climate activist.

However, a direct comparison can be made with Nitrogen. I happen to know that the light emitted from the collapse from the first stage of excitement in Nitrogen is in the blue range of the visible spectrum. It is always the exact same precise frequency, always the exact same color. This is due to the quantum nature of sub atomic physics. As sunlight enters the atmosphere blue light is first absorbed and then re-emitted by the high concentration of Nitrogen. It is being scattered. This scattering reaches your eye from points other than in a direct line from the sun, for the entire horizon of atmosphere. This is why the sky is blue. With no scattering in any visible frequency, the sky would appear black as it does in space.

CO² scattering returns some of the emitted radiation back towards the earth. The higher the density of CO², the more energy is reflected.

Now that I've proven global warming.... the same questions still apply.

How much of the current observed warming is bent from the agenda of the field?
How much of the current observed warming is from added CO²?
What is the accurate rate of change in the observed warming?
How long a time period of measurement is needed to break out of the random noise that the data is immersed in?
How much man made warming is acceptable vs the benefit of economically available energy production?
How accurate is the "Tipping Point" theory?
If rising oceans are so certain, why is New York City building dozens of new skyscrapers in Manhattan, but not building any dikes?
Why do the greatest proponents of AGW have the largest carbon footprints?
Why do the solutions proposed involve redistribution of dollars, rather than legislated change in energy production?
Why do certain countries get a pass on legislating changes, but others do not?
Image
User avatar
Mister Moose
Level 10K poster
Posts: 11595
Joined: Jan 4th, '05, 18:23
Location: Waiting for the next one

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Mister Moose »

liv4ski wrote:
Mister Moose wrote: Your question carries with it an assumption, that the world is at near certain risk of doom from global warming.
Scientists predict this doom scenario if greenhouse gas emissions are not dramatically reduced quickly to prevent the climate from reaching a tipping point beyond which a doomed planet would be irreversible for centuries.

It appears you believe the risk of doom is low based on the evidence you have seen or not seen. You support further research on climate change. Without waiting for the doom to occur, what evidence, and from whom, would persuade you that the risk of doom has reached a high enough level where society must take meaningful efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

To be clear, I am not arguing for or against the doom predictions. I am more interested in how you assess the risk with respect to the doom predictions, and more importantly, how you think our leaders should assess the risk.
I assess the risk based on observations of the nature of the proposed solutions vs the claimed cause.
I assess the risk based on the accuracy of the models.
I assess the risk based on the veracity of the dissenters, ie I listen to both sides.

Oh, and Killyfan - I don't now, nor have I ever smoked. You mis-read.
Image
Sgt Eddy Brewers
Slalom Racer
Posts: 1145
Joined: Aug 24th, '11, 14:57

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Sgt Eddy Brewers »

Mister Moose wrote:
Sgt Eddy Brewers wrote:What we DO know with considerable confidence is that increasing CO2 should cause some warming. I’ll admit that my opinion here is mostly based upon a theoretical extrapolation from laboratory measurements of how CO2 absorbs and emits infrared energy. But we really don’t know how much warming. We certainly do not have enough confidence to claim it is indisputable that our greenhouse gas emissions are the dominant cause, as the AMS letter claims.
Here I'm fairly certain this theory has merit. I have not verified that some of the lower electron orbital excitement states of CO² are in the infra red range. I'm giving the scientific community a pass on that as A) it's easily proven and B) I don't have the time. I'm not a climate activist.

However, a direct comparison can be made with Nitrogen. I happen to know that the light emitted from the collapse from the first stage of excitement in Nitrogen is in the blue range of the visible spectrum. It is always the exact same precise frequency, always the exact same color. This is due to the quantum nature of sub atomic physics. As sunlight enters the atmosphere blue light is first absorbed and then re-emitted by the high concentration of Nitrogen. It is being scattered. This scattering reaches your eye from points other than in a direct line from the sun, for the entire horizon of atmosphere. This is why the sky is blue. With no scattering in any visible frequency, the sky would appear black as it does in space.

CO² scattering returns some of the emitted radiation back towards the earth. The higher the density of CO², the more energy is reflected.

Now that I've proven global warming.... the same questions still apply.

How much of the current observed warming is bent from the agenda of the field?
How much of the current observed warming is from added CO²?
What is the accurate rate of change in the observed warming?
How long a time period of measurement is needed to break out of the random noise that the data is immersed in?
How much man made warming is acceptable vs the benefit of economically available energy production?
How accurate is the "Tipping Point" theory?
If rising oceans are so certain, why is New York City building dozens of new skyscrapers in Manhattan, but not building any dikes?
Why do the greatest proponents of AGW have the largest carbon footprints?
Why do the solutions proposed involve redistribution of dollars, rather than legislated change in energy production?
Why do certain countries get a pass on legislating changes, but others do not?
Pretty useful response. I think you have asked a lot of useful questions that are without doubt relevant when trying to understand climate and adjust our world to maximize human benefit.

Just a quibbling point. CO2 absorbs only photons from a pretty narrow range in the IR. Most of that absorbance is redundant with H2O absorbance pattern . The absorbed photon either: results in an excited electron state for the molecule or increases its energy of motion(vibrational /rotational or translational) I have read some very technical papers on the fate of that elevated energy state which claim (I understand PChem well enough to read the papers but lack the expertise to judge their validity) that in normal earths surface atmosphere the energy is almost always transferred by "thermalization" NOT re-radiation of another IR photon. The argument made is that the CO2 molecule will almost certainly collide with another molecule BEFORE it will emit a photon. That seems quite reasonable given the collision rate at 1ATM pressure. ( Different outside the troposphere) The vast majority of collisions will be with N2 and O2, neither of which are greenhouse gases. This will be the actual method for energy transfer between capture of IR photons by "greenhouse gases" and the neighboring components of the system. Not a big deal but... that seems to be the best outline of the energy transfer of which I am aware.
Ski the edges!
Sgt Eddy Brewers
Slalom Racer
Posts: 1145
Joined: Aug 24th, '11, 14:57

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Sgt Eddy Brewers »

killyfan wrote:Had to take a few days off from KZ due to a work overload, so I'm playing catch up here...

SEB - So you have a master's degree and are a high school teacher now? Wow. Yikes. That's freaking impressive. (Not.) I had a HS physics teacher just like you - he would berate and scream at all of us and had an overwhelming need to do so. We all hated him and physics was the one class in school that I did do poorly in - IMHO due to his unencouraging and nasty teaching style. I did well in college physics, so I'm pretty sure that I'm right on that opinion about Mr. Jensky. Almost nobody did well in that HS teacher's physics class. I sincerely hope that your statement about "this is the internet" truly means that you DO NOT treat your young students this way.

Honestly, I think your adamant insistence that all of these climate change arguments MUST BE PROVEN BEFORE any preventative actions are taken is absolutely idiotic. That is where we differ. Gee - my afore-mentioned almost-father-in-law behaves the same way. He'll send me scientific study after scientific study on how it has never been proven that Chinese Medicine/Acupuncture etc are beneficial, but never responds to the facts I present him on people and animals who accept or are given treatment in those medical practices and then see drastic improvement in their conditions. When I send to him peer-reviewed double blind placebo controlled studies on a certain plant remedy or non-mainstream medical treatment that does absolutely work (e.g. Yunnan baiyao herb blend actually STOPS a hemangioscarcoma rupture, or acupuncture actually DOES make it possible for a 14 year old large-breed K9 with an degenerating spine to stand up, eat, walk around and poop happily) he just doesn't respond. I've seen before and after films on a K9 (Mr Killy's) with a HS rupture who was given a Yunnan baiyao injection. The results were dramatic and my local (non TCM) vet was astounded.

Nobody responded to my earlier statement (re-stated below) that falls right in line with my very first post on KZone:

"DON'T BE A (SELFISH) DICK TO OUR PLANET JUST BECAUSE THERE IS NOT YET ANY DEFINITIVE PROOF THAT THIS BEHAVIOR IS BAD."

I see this as common sense and I most certainly don't need to physically observe scientific proof on climate change to choose to behave this way and to encourage others to do so too. I strongly believe that common sense dictates that we take more precautions in OUR treatment of our planet since it is almost certain that none of us will be alive when the effects of climate change actually DO make earth uninhabitable by humans. Maybe this is uninhabitability is unavoidable even if humans had never evolved, but why-the-f RUSH it?

Moose - I hope you quit smoking. I hope you can admit to yourself that your nicotine addiction is what is fueling your viewpoint on this topic. If you happen to be one of the people whose body will eventually react negatively to the effects of carcinogens, I already feel sorry for you. If I misunderstood your posts and you actually aren't a smoker but were just making statements to prove a point, then please disregard this paragraph.

IMO Scientists who disparage Sagan and deGrasse Tyson are only jealous of their successes. A high school teacher who is an unknown in the scientific community is a perfect example of this. SEB - have you ever worked for NASA? Have you ever had tenure at a university? Please stop disparaging scientists who are more successful than you (career-wise) just because you subscribe to the thought that popularizing science so the mainstream can better understand it is bad. It's not. Have you ever taken your kids to a science museum? Did they like it? Did they start learning about things that they had never thought about before? Probably. I have taken several young children to the planetarium at the Natural History Museum in NYC and it was really exciting to see them so happy to be there. What exactly, pray tell, is bad about that?

To your first point
…sorry you had a bad science teacher. They are not rare. LIKE YOU I tend to be a bit of an a$$hole on the internet because… it’s fun to shake people’s trees…when they have every right to ignore you. In class students cannot ignore teachers so it’s a different situation. So being a jerk as a teacher is not my deal. I have had lots of students tell me they chose a career in science because I inspired them. Inspired them to push themselves and NOT accept science as dogma.

That being said I still think the Bill Nye version of science (Sagan? Tyson) (IFL Science site for the collegiate crowd is the same drivel) is not a net benefit for science. Science is not the thing for slow thinkers. Sorry but it is true. Bill Nye’s need to make science “poppy” has some obvious benefits but also has costs. His acolytes diminish science to a series of pop truisms that are FUN and easy to digest but… filled with erroneous assumptions.

Fun, as defined by the Sagan/Tyson, is not what you are looking for in a quality science education. What you want is rigor. One of my favorite professors at UConn, Emory Braswell was tough as hell. I took a course in Molecular Biophysics from him and he was insanely difficult. Way harder than PChem. He gave homework that a PChem professor couldn’t solve (some students took their homework to a PChem professor…he couldn’t solve it..) Braswell was pissed that the students sought help and was unperturbed that a PChem professor couldn’t do our homework (neither could I). Anyway he was really demanding, called UConn a “cow college” and… REALLY INSPIRING. He wanted us to really develop the power of scientific reasoning. Maybe my favorite teacher ever.

So I am not jealous of Sagan or Tyson any more than I am jealous of any pop celebrity. I don’t think they are truly helpful influence to anyone beyond grade school.

As for your analysis of my CV I notice you actually only note my academic credentials and IGNORE my experience as an oceanographer and physical chemist. Very telling detail that. You have a false appreciation for academia and seem to devalue actual employment. Had this debate earlier on this thread. Although I acknowledge there are some really bright science professors….there are some actual morons. They don’t get fired. If you are not aware of that…oh well.

In my job as a physical chemist I interacted with hundreds of scientists…trading ideas. Never really met any chemists or physicists, at a supervisory level, in industry who weren’t really bright. Met lots of academics (more than a dozen?) who were actually pretty dumb. Sorry but it happens. So PhD in science means very little to me. Some are very bright, some not.

On your analysis of nutritional science….guess what????

I think we would AGREE about a lot of things
. I think nutritional science is just as INSANELY COMPLEX and poorly understood as “climate science."

It is almost impossible at our current state on science to make definitive statements on nutritional outcomes. Lots of bright people working in the field but because the problem (what is the health impact of intake of nutrient X) is so impossibly difficult to clarify...lots of attitude masquerading as science is present. Industrial scientists have their obvious biases influencing their “findings” but so do academics. They all buy into an “anti-outsider” bias that insists that any claim not originating in an industrial or PhD lab setting (often in tandem) …is just pure rubbish and NOT worth investigating. (As I suppose your example illustrates.)
So when it comes to nutrition somehow HERE you accept outsider input (but not climate science??...OK)

Anyway, glad we seem to agree (you seem pretty bright)

Then you digress into the “we have to act without definitive proof…because… there will never be DEFINITIVE proof!”
On this point I totally agree with you!

But… without definitive proof…WHICH theory will we respond to???? The consensus theory demands the reversal of industrial progress (IMO) because elimination of hydrocarbon use before we master other energy technologies (I like well-sited nuclear) is the end of modernity. OR…at least it prevents poor peoples from experiencing the benefits of electricity.

You like analogies so …your solution (ending hydrocarbon use) would be the medical equivalent of cutting off both your legs!!


If it NEEDS to happen….OK get out the saw. But I would want to be VERY sure that the surgery was required.
SO I am not willing to shut down use of hydrocarbon fuels for a poorly supported claim.

The you finish your post by popping off about how jealous I am. Silly.

Actually…Richard Feynman makes those jokers look like…jokers…got a well-deserved goddamn Nobel Prize . Hewas almost the same type of social role… a “pop” scientist…if you will. I adore Feynman…amazing scientist. I am a moron compared to him (so are you). (I think). If your theory was right I would disparage him too. I don’t. He was a truly great scientist and I wish more students listened to his advice rather than the nonsense you hear from Sagan and Tyson.

Then you advocate … “field trips” which are merely recess at the High School level. The kids have fun but they never learn a damn thing (I ask them and they admit it. It’s all just social) So I’m not surprised you value them…fun but not actually educational.
Ski the edges!
Sgt Eddy Brewers
Slalom Racer
Posts: 1145
Joined: Aug 24th, '11, 14:57

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Sgt Eddy Brewers »

IN THE CATEGORY OF: SHOULD WE SHUT DOWN ALL FEDERALLY FUNDED SCIENCE??

Kidding but....this is actually NOT fake news (despite being unbelievable)

Feds Spent $412,930 Studying ‘Relationship Between Gender and Glaciers’


Easy Read summary
http://freebeacon.com/issues/feds-spent ... -glaciers/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

actual abstract
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10. ... lCode=phgb" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Glaciers are key icons of climate change and global environmental change. However, the relationships among gender, science, and glaciers – particularly related to epistemological questions about the production of glaciological knowledge – remain understudied. This paper thus proposes a feminist glaciology framework with four key components: 1) knowledge producers; (2) gendered science and knowledge; (3) systems of scientific domination; and (4) alternative representations of glaciers. Merging feminist postcolonial science studies and feminist political ecology, the feminist glaciology framework generates robust analysis of gender, power, and epistemologies in dynamic social-ecological systems, thereby leading to more just and equitable science and human-ice interactions."

WOW!!

It is real. including the funding from the NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION!! ( https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAwa ... ID=1253779" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; )

Modern science has allowed ridiculous activities to be called research.... and YOU are funding it!

And some of you complain when I choose not to genuflect before the mighty "climate consensus!"

How dare mere mortals doubt our peer-reviewed priesthood!
Ski the edges!
Sgt Eddy Brewers
Slalom Racer
Posts: 1145
Joined: Aug 24th, '11, 14:57

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Sgt Eddy Brewers »

And Ben Santer (one of the worst of the Climategate thugs) heads a paper which ADMITS that the models have OVERESTIMATED HEATING and tries to figure out why!!

PRICELESS!! (its been a good week)

Causes of differences in model and satellite tropospheric warming rates
https://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vao ... o2973.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

abstract (with my highlighting)

In the early twenty-first century, satellite-derived tropospheric warming trends were generally smaller than trends estimated from a large multi-model ensemble. Because observations and coupled model simulations do not have the same phasing of natural internal variability, such decadal differences in simulated and observed warming rates invariably occur. Here we analyse global-mean tropospheric temperatures from satellites and climate model simulations to examine whether warming rate differences over the satellite era can be explained by internal climate variability alone. We find that in the last two decades of the twentieth century, differences between modelled and observed tropospheric temperature trends are broadly consistent with internal variability. (which is exactly what skeptics have been claiming) Over most of the early twenty-first century, however, model tropospheric warming is substantially larger than observed; warming rate differences are generally outside the range of trends arising from internal variability. The probability that multi-decadal internal variability fully explains the asymmetry between the late twentieth and early twenty-first century results is low (between zero and about 9%). It is also unlikely that this asymmetry is due to the combined effects of internal variability and a model error in climate sensitivity. We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.


FOR THOSE WITH THEIR HEADS STILL STUCK IN THE SAND THIS IS CONSENSUS ICON BEN SANTER ADMITTING THAT THEIR MODELS HAVE FAILED.

If you do not agree with my summary look up the definitions of overestimation and deficiencies in a dictionary.
Ski the edges!
Bubba
Site Admin
Posts: 26274
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 08:42
Location: Where the climate suits my clothes

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Bubba »

Sgt Eddy Brewers wrote:IN THE CATEGORY OF: SHOULD WE SHUT DOWN ALL FEDERALLY FUNDED SCIENCE??

Kidding but....this is actually NOT fake news (despite being unbelievable)

Feds Spent $412,930 Studying ‘Relationship Between Gender and Glaciers’


Easy Read summary
http://freebeacon.com/issues/feds-spent ... -glaciers/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

actual abstract
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10. ... lCode=phgb" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Glaciers are key icons of climate change and global environmental change. However, the relationships among gender, science, and glaciers – particularly related to epistemological questions about the production of glaciological knowledge – remain understudied. This paper thus proposes a feminist glaciology framework with four key components: 1) knowledge producers; (2) gendered science and knowledge; (3) systems of scientific domination; and (4) alternative representations of glaciers. Merging feminist postcolonial science studies and feminist political ecology, the feminist glaciology framework generates robust analysis of gender, power, and epistemologies in dynamic social-ecological systems, thereby leading to more just and equitable science and human-ice interactions."

WOW!!

It is real. including the funding from the NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION!! ( https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAwa ... ID=1253779" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; )

Modern science has allowed ridiculous activities to be called research.... and YOU are funding it!

And some of you complain when I choose not to genuflect before the mighty "climate consensus!"

How dare mere mortals doubt our peer-reviewed priesthood!
Not sure if my appropriate gender driven response is to laugh or cry.
"Abandon hope all ye who enter here"

Killington Zone
You can checkout any time you like,
but you can never leave

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" =
F. Scott Fitzgerald

"There's nothing more frightening than ignorance in action" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
killyfan
Blue Chatterbox
Posts: 128
Joined: Feb 27th, '17, 09:44

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by killyfan »

Oy. Where to start.... OK

1) Mister Moose, I am really glad to hear that you don't smoke! I like you and didn't think you were the smoking type - so thanks for clarifying. I was starting to worry that Ms Moose was going to have to deal in the future with a despondent, critically ill man who had finally realized that his stupid behavior had put him on death row. So glad to hear that is not the case. Whew!

2) SEB - I'm also glad to hear you aren't an a-hole to your students and they (as you say) find you inspiring. That's great - a good teacher is priceless. Yes, you are right, I did neglect to say that your job experience does have merit, for that I apologize. I was specifically asking about your cv because I wanted to know about any peer-reviewed studies that you may have published. I'm no fan of Nye - he's not a freaking scientist. In fact I have never even heard his show. Sagan and deGrasse Tyson ARE scientists. And when I was talking about the Natural History Museum, I wasn't talking about high schoolers - it could definitely be considered a boring place if you're older than about 12... I was talking about my 4 and 6 year old nieces, and my ex-boss's daughters who were 5 and 9. Those visits were mind opening to them.

And I definitely DO NOT have a false appreciation for academia. I can be quoted repeatedly as saying to young (high-school senior aged) folks that college is great, but it's just a tool that will help you make some decisions about where you want to end up, and that you don't actually learn anything until you get out of it and join the workforce full time. I was in college for 8 years, and to this day know that I didn't learn much of note about my career-path until I starting working with the best of the best in my chosen field. It was my college WORK EXPERIENCE that got my foot in the door at my first post-grad-school job, not my GPA. College helped me decide where I wanted to focus my career, but it was the career that taught me a sh*t-ton-more of useful stuff.

I met an 18 year old last week though who has a large Sagan quote tattooed to his chest. Not a revolver, skull, iron cross, or his girlfriend's name. This kid has his head on straight and is wise beyond his years. We're going hiking today, went target shooting twice last week, did a 3 hour hike with him last weekend... (He's up here from the south section hiking the LT for a couple of weeks.) He's joining a fire academy instead of going to college this fall because school bores him. He probably didn't have any inspiring teachers at his school. That is sad.

3) That all being said, I absolutely agree with you SEB that the alarmists OVERESTIMATE the speed and severity of warming effects of additional carbons that humans are adding to our atmosphere. And here I re-state. I am not a hippy tree-hugger who makes mindless choices and follows a leader blindly while drinking purple Kool-Aid. I want proof established before I set my beliefs. In my opinion, ENOUGH PROOF has been established.

You like analogies so …your solution (ending hydrocarbon use) would be the medical equivalent of cutting off both your legs!!


Nowhere did I EVER say that we should, end hydrocarbon use and cut our legs off. That would be idiotic. All I ever asked for was for people to stop being selfish about their cold butts on their daily commute to work and put on some proper f-n clothing when you go outside in the winter so you can turn off your damn car while you pop into a store to grab your coffee and donut. I love my hat and glove collection. They keep me toasty warm along with my (responsibly sourced) down, knee-length winter coat. I can't take it when I see jackasses idling their cars with the heat on full throttle (after the windows are defrosted) who jump out wearing cotton summer weight clothing, no coat, no hat, no gloves and improper footwear when it is 10 degrees F outside. Do they think they look cool and hip when they do that? To me they look like soft, selfish, inconsiderate dunces. Hence my initial rant. You can keep trying, but you will NEVER change my opinion that we, as logical human beings, should take simple measures to reduce our individual carbon footprints. You can keep trying, but I will NEVER CHANGE MY OPINION ON THAT.

4) I'm confused by your quote:
What we DO know with considerable confidence is that increasing CO2 should cause some warming.
Here you place a quote that agrees that CO2 has a negative effect... but you spend 99% of your time on this thread arguing that CO2 doesn't do that. Please explain.

5) I don't know what Moose does for a living - but his posts are the most objective, rational and open minded posts on this thread. Bravo to you Moose for setting a good example. He can see both sides of the story clearly, and boil a lot of bs down to a few simple statements.

I'm definitely not a slow thinker. The stupid disease I have forces me to make, on average, an extra 200+ definitive decisions a day over a person who doesn't have this illness. If I was a slow thinker I'd be dead. Next to music, science was the field that I was most interested in as a student. I didn't have time in college after my freshman year to take many science classes at all, and so yes, I am an armchair studier of these things. But I prefer to use a lot of my own observations in nature to form opinions. If frogs are growing extra legs like hotcakes in locales all over the planet, (this is documented on more than one continent, and I have personally seen the freaky-octo-frogs in Northern MN and one in Ontario, and it's f*** scary) I highly doubt that there is a random genetic anomaly forcing this to present. Human intervention is most likely the cause here. Not good. Frogs need to be able to hop and swim properly, and we need them to be able to do that too.
In a world where you can be anything, why not choose to be kind...
Sgt Eddy Brewers
Slalom Racer
Posts: 1145
Joined: Aug 24th, '11, 14:57

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Sgt Eddy Brewers »

killyfan wrote:Oy. Where to start.... OK

1) Mister Moose, I am really glad to hear that you don't smoke! I like you and didn't think you were the smoking type - so thanks for clarifying. I was starting to worry that Ms Moose was going to have to deal in the future with a despondent, critically ill man who had finally realized that his stupid behavior had put him on death row. So glad to hear that is not the case. Whew!

2) SEB - I'm also glad to hear you aren't an a-hole to your students and they (as you say) find you inspiring. That's great - a good teacher is priceless. Yes, you are right, I did neglect to say that your job experience does have merit, for that I apologize. I was specifically asking about your cv because I wanted to know about any peer-reviewed studies that you may have published. I'm no fan of Nye - he's not a freaking scientist. In fact I have never even heard his show. Sagan and deGrasse Tyson ARE scientists. And when I was talking about the Natural History Museum, I wasn't talking about high schoolers - it could definitely be considered a boring place if you're older than about 12... I was talking about my 4 and 6 year old nieces, and my ex-boss's daughters who were 5 and 9. Those visits were mind opening to them.

And I definitely DO NOT have a false appreciation for academia. I can be quoted repeatedly as saying to young (high-school senior aged) folks that college is great, but it's just a tool that will help you make some decisions about where you want to end up, and that you don't actually learn anything until you get out of it and join the workforce full time. I was in college for 8 years, and to this day know that I didn't learn much of note about my career-path until I starting working with the best of the best in my chosen field. It was my college WORK EXPERIENCE that got my foot in the door at my first post-grad-school job, not my GPA. College helped me decide where I wanted to focus my career, but it was the career that taught me a sh*t-ton-more of useful stuff.

I met an 18 year old last week though who has a large Sagan quote tattooed to his chest. Not a revolver, skull, iron cross, or his girlfriend's name. This kid has his head on straight and is wise beyond his years. We're going hiking today, went target shooting twice last week, did a 3 hour hike with him last weekend... (He's up here from the south section hiking the LT for a couple of weeks.) He's joining a fire academy instead of going to college this fall because school bores him. He probably didn't have any inspiring teachers at his school. That is sad.

3) That all being said, I absolutely agree with you SEB that the alarmists OVERESTIMATE the speed and severity of warming effects of additional carbons that humans are adding to our atmosphere. And here I re-state. I am not a hippy tree-hugger who makes mindless choices and follows a leader blindly while drinking purple Kool-Aid. I want proof established before I set my beliefs. In my opinion, ENOUGH PROOF has been established.

You like analogies so …your solution (ending hydrocarbon use) would be the medical equivalent of cutting off both your legs!!


Nowhere did I EVER say that we should, end hydrocarbon use and cut our legs off. That would be idiotic. All I ever asked for was for people to stop being selfish about their cold butts on their daily commute to work and put on some proper f-n clothing when you go outside in the winter so you can turn off your damn car while you pop into a store to grab your coffee and donut. I love my hat and glove collection. They keep me toasty warm along with my (responsibly sourced) down, knee-length winter coat. I can't take it when I see jackasses idling their cars with the heat on full throttle (after the windows are defrosted) who jump out wearing cotton summer weight clothing, no coat, no hat, no gloves and improper footwear when it is 10 degrees F outside. Do they think they look cool and hip when they do that? To me they look like soft, selfish, inconsiderate dunces. Hence my initial rant. You can keep trying, but you will NEVER change my opinion that we, as logical human beings, should take simple measures to reduce our individual carbon footprints. You can keep trying, but I will NEVER CHANGE MY OPINION ON THAT.

4) I'm confused by your quote:
What we DO know with considerable confidence is that increasing CO2 should cause some warming.
Here you place a quote that agrees that CO2 has a negative effect... but you spend 99% of your time on this thread arguing that CO2 doesn't do that. Please explain.

5) I don't know what Moose does for a living - but his posts are the most objective, rational and open minded posts on this thread. Bravo to you Moose for setting a good example. He can see both sides of the story clearly, and boil a lot of bs down to a few simple statements.

I'm definitely not a slow thinker. The stupid disease I have forces me to make, on average, an extra 200+ definitive decisions a day over a person who doesn't have this illness. If I was a slow thinker I'd be dead. Next to music, science was the field that I was most interested in as a student. I didn't have time in college after my freshman year to take many science classes at all, and so yes, I am an armchair studier of these things. But I prefer to use a lot of my own observations in nature to form opinions. If frogs are growing extra legs like hotcakes in locales all over the planet, (this is documented on more than one continent, and I have personally seen the freaky-octo-frogs in Northern MN and one in Ontario, and it's f*** scary) I highly doubt that there is a random genetic anomaly forcing this to present. Human intervention is most likely the cause here. Not good. Frogs need to be able to hop and swim properly, and we need them to be able to do that too.
Thanks for the long thoughtful response. Indeed you are no fool. I suppose the best way to characterize a lot of human conflict is that, although we agree about a lot we loudly shout past each other on the points for which we disagree.

What is the Sagan quote? I might really like it.

I FULLY agree that the world is heavily populated by INCONSIDERATE dunces. And for me the real crime is not that we are so easy to fool but that we find it so easy to justify our selfishness. I DO NOT believe the answer to this problem is to write more laws. I believe the answer is mostly conversational(?) Yeah. We need to change our culture. We need to reinvigorate the focus on personal responsibility / cohesive families and communities. I REALLY BELIEVE YOU ARE PROBABLY AN EXEMPLARY COMMUNITY MEMBER.... because you give a damn. That matters a lot to me.

If I got a tattoo it would be counter to the prevailing programming of my youth = "If it feels good...do it!!"
That terrible advise has harmed our culture.

Better advice (and a good tattoo) = "Duty before Desire."

As to the CO2 issue the KEY word in that sentence, which you choose to diminish is: SOME.

In my well-considered scientific analysis...SOME means almost none. Or...not enough to matter given the vast array of other impacts.
Are we causing other problems? Yup. More significant than CO2? Yup.
Ski the edges!
Post Reply