Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Global Warming - Page 31







Post#751 at 05-30-2007 07:55 PM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
05-30-2007, 07:55 PM #751
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77 View Post
Ah yes. Good old post hoc. How I've missed you.

Even though you're not even demonstrably post in this scenario, it's still good to see an old acquaintance.
Off your meds again? I thought we'd gotten past "CO2 is not a greenhouse gas." Should I start over again from the top?







Post#752 at 05-30-2007 08:35 PM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
05-30-2007, 08:35 PM #752
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

Quote Originally Posted by The Rani View Post
Why are YOU the only one permitted to insult others on this thread?
That was frustration. A while ago he acknowledged CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Now, he is back to no linkage between CO2 increase and global warming. Some consistency in his stance would be appreciated.







Post#753 at 05-30-2007 08:44 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
05-30-2007, 08:44 PM #753
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Anyone who denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is an utter, ignorant, moron.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#754 at 05-30-2007 09:03 PM by Mustang [at Confederate States of America joined May 2003 #posts 2,303]
---
05-30-2007, 09:03 PM #754
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Confederate States of America
Posts
2,303

Quote Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54 View Post
Now, he is back to no linkage between CO2 increase and global warming.

Your chart above simply shows an increase in CO2 emissions. But what I'd think you really need to show is that the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased. Even then, I'm not absolutely certain that such an increased proportion would necessarily cause increased temperatures, but it would be far more useful information than simple emissions data. Regardless, can it be demonstrated that the actual proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased?

Forgive me if I cause you to repeat yourself, but I have not followed this thread.
"What went unforeseen, however, was that the elephant would at some point in the last years of the 20th century be possessed, in both body and spirit, by a coincident fusion of mutant ex-Liberals and holy-rolling Theocrats masquerading as conservatives in the tradition of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan: Death by transmogrification, beginning with The Invasion of the Party Snatchers."

-- Victor Gold, Aide to Barry Goldwater







Post#755 at 05-31-2007 05:02 AM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
05-31-2007, 05:02 AM #755
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

Quote Originally Posted by The Rani View Post
CO2 is only one factor involved in climate change, so even if it is a "proven" greenhouse gas, that doesn't "prove" that it's the entire cause of global warming. No inconsistency in that at all.
Didn't say it was. I agree with Justin's matching of the solar forcing factor squiggly lines with the temperature curve as the dominant factor prior to 1950. I'll cheerfully talk of stellar arms, Milankovitch orbital shifts, glaciation, methane and what ever else you'd care to discuss. Mike and many of the others into the scientific approach to the issue will do the same.

Thing is, Milankovitch and stellar arms are too slow. Solar forcing has been neutral since 1950. There have been no observed novas or stellar jets altering interstellar cosmic flux. Soot release from volcanoes and factories have been pushing in the direction of cooling. That leaves reduced glaciation and greenhouse as the two basic forcing factors pushing towards warm since 1950, and reduced glaciation will amplify another warming factor, does not act on its own.

So we have a large input of a known warming factor and an observable warming which 'just happens' to occur at the same time, and he is quoting post hoc ergo propter hoc?

Sorry I 'went negative.' I shall strive to behave myself. I do appreciate the suspension of argument by seeing which faction can invoke Hitler most obnoxiously, and would rather talk science. I'll detour into blogger etiquette if you like, but neither etiquette or misapplying the classic fallacies support the 'skeptic' position. I'd really like an alternate theory as to what is causing the warming, and some evidence to support the alternate theory as active.







Post#756 at 05-31-2007 04:24 PM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
05-31-2007, 04:24 PM #756
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Quote Originally Posted by Tristan View Post
Here is an interesting fact about grapes in England. People who say the Medieval Warm period was warmer than today, cite that grapes were grown in England back then.

However today grapes and quite good wine can be grown in Southern England from Ely River in East to Severn in the West, which is exactly the same region of England vineyards were recorded in the Domesday book.
We have vinyards here in Michigan.







Post#757 at 05-31-2007 05:05 PM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
05-31-2007, 05:05 PM #757
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

Quote Originally Posted by The Rani View Post
Sometimes, in real science, we have to accept "I don't know" as the correct answer. Whether you like it or not, whether it frustrates you or not, and whether you are comfortable with it or not.
In some issues, this is so. In a scientific debate or discussion, consideration ought to be made for which side has theory, data, and calculations favoring that side of the argument. When one faction has all three of the above, and the other has none of the above, and yet the side which cannot back its position proceeds with misleading propaganda, censorship of true science and political obstructionism, there is an obligation to stand and be heard.

Do I expect to persuade those whose political values are more potent than their loyalty to scientific principles? Of course not. However, those who have done their scientific due diligence ought not remain silent in the face of those who have not.







Post#758 at 05-31-2007 06:15 PM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
05-31-2007, 06:15 PM #758
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

I thought I would try to illustrate Justin's argument about curve fitting based on some work I am doing now on climate. If you plot the global temperature since 1850 you will see a rising trend plus a lot of wiggles. If you run a trend line through it and subtract the trend you will see a plot of just the wiggles. These wiggles show a cyclical structure that aligns with the 11-year solar cycle. When solar activity is high (and theory predicts a warming effect) temepratures are high and vice-versa. Based on this observation it stands to reason that solar activity, which fluctuates with the solar cycle, is exerting an effect, a "forcing", on the climate. The average size of the deviations from trend over the entire 150 years period is just under a quarter degrees (0.24 C). If we assume ALL of the fluctuation was produced by solar activity, then th effect of the solar cycle is a forcing that produces a 0.24 degree temperature change.

A plot of annual data showing an 11-year cycle should, on average, show 2 points marking max/min extrema of the cycle every 11 years. That is 9/11 = 82% of the points should lie withing the extreme values. If we assume that the distribution of temperatures about the trend (the wiggles) are roughly normally distributed then the cycle extremes are 1.3 standard deviations from the trend, because 82% of the bellcurve lies withing 1.3 SDs. If you caulcate the standard deviation of the the fluctuations from the trend, you get about 0.09. The average size of the fluctuations is from +0.12 to -0.12 C (0.24 cycle size) and 0.12/0.09 = ~1.3, so ti works out.

What that means is the sensitivity of temperature change to forcing is 0.24 C /2.6 = ~0.09/std. Now if we calcuate the standard deviation of a measure of solar activity like sunspots or open solar flux over the post 1950 period when the trend in these quantities is horizontal we can obtain a measure of their standard deviation wrt to trend. If we average the post 1950 values for these measures and subtract them from the whole 1850-present set of solar acticity measures we obtain a description of solar activity in terms of deviation from recent behavior. If we divide these by the standard deviation we have a measure of the changes in solar activity in terms of post-1950 standard deviations--which we have already determined produce a 0.09C temperature impact. For sunspots we find that the trend in sunspots rose about 1.4 standard deviations over the first half of the 20th century. If we look at open solar flux we find a rise of about 1.8 standard deviations. Multiplying by 0.09 gives 0.13 to 0.17 degree rise compared to the actual rise of 0.3-0.35 degrees.

So far this is a perfectly empirical approach to the problem that doesn't use any "curve fitting" to which Justin so objects. There is a problem. In an 11 -year cycle there is only 5.5 years for the temperature to rise the full 0.24 degrees and another 5.5 years for it to fall back down. The oceans are as massive heat sink and they exert an effect on how fast the climate can respond to a forcing. It turns out 5.5 years is simply too short.

The sluggishness produced by the oceans will serve to damp the size of the oscillations. It acts as a filter or moving average to reduce the size of the fluctuations and if it sufficiently strong there would be no fluctuations at all.

So what we need is a "damping" factor defined as the undamped fluctuation divided by the actual (damped) fluctuation. To do that we need to employ a model to take into account the effect of damping. The model I employed is a simple one. I assumed that the surface waters of the ocean down to depth L were well-mixed and in equilibrium with (i.e. equal to) the surface temperature (at which the Earth radiates). Any forcing F applied to the oceanic surface would not immediately warm tis surface lamda*F degress. Instead it would warm a slab of seawater of thickness L. The amount of heat needed to do this is large and so it takes quite a bit of time to accomplish this warming. The forcing is cyclic which I represented as F = 1/2Fmax(1-cos(0.571t)). Here Fmax is the maximum forcing and 0.571 means an 11-year cycle length. The forcing applied is in additionto to the pre-existing forcings that produce the global average temperature of Ti degress (I employed the current global average temp of 15C). The additional forcing F produces a temperature rise dT which is added to Ti to get Ti+dT.

The rate of heat loss at the surface is governed by the Stefan-Boltzman equation and is dependent on the fourth power of T. For my purpose I was interested in the additional radiative heat loss by the extra dT temeprature rise. That is I was interested in radiation at temperature Ti+dt minus radiation at Ti. Since dT was going to be small compared to Ti, the S_B equation can be approximated by the one-term Taylor expansion around Ti. From this we get the following relation describing the warming of the slab by the cyclical forcing:

LCp DT/dt = F(t) - (1/lambda)T

Here T stands in for the temperature increase dT from the forcing F(t),which is a cyclical function. This is a first order linear differential equation and can be solved analytical or numerically on Excel using a 0.1 year step size. I have done both and have found that the numerical solution (much easier to do) exactly falls on top of the analytical (exact) solution--which I ground out by hand, using integral tables of course. (How does an engineer perform integration: by parts, substitution, etc? Of course not--by Table!--that's what mathematicians are for!)

For a given value of L and Fmax one can obtain the size of the temperature oscillation. One can also calculate the undamped oscillation size as lambda*Fmax. The ratio of undamped to damped oscillation is the damping parameter. I simply multiply the 0.13-0.17 degrees rise by the damping parameter to get the true rise.

This analysis works fie for the oceans, but what about the land. Unlike the oceans there is no massive heat sink. Land will function like ocean with very small L (< 5 meters) for which the analytical solutions shows essentially undamped behavior. So to obtain a global average temperature I simply perform a weighted average of the land (30%) and ocean (70%) temperatures. Doing this gives me value of 1 for the damping parameter for L < 25 meters and ranged from 1 to about 3 for L = 400 meters.

A problem is apparent. The model suggests that the land oscillations are going to be much much greater than the ocean oscillations. But if you look at actual global land and ocean temperature plots, the fluctuations are about the same size. This must mean that the land and ocean are exchanging energy through atmospheric flows, carrying energy from one to the other.

To test the importance of this factor, the model was modified in order to accomodate an energy flow from land to ocean and vice versa. Constancy of pressure means that the average flow from land to ocean must equal the average flow from ocean to land, so a single parameter I (the interchange rate is used). I is represented as total volumes of the atmosphere exchanged per year.

The result is a set of two coupled, but still linear, differential equations, that I could probably solve analytically (with a lot of work), but did so numerically with step size of 0.01 year. I love the modern PC's they are so fast. To do this 20 years ago in grad school it would have taken about 2-10 minutes of CPU time per evaluation. With the modern machines it happens in the bat of an eye, simply unreal. I wonder how many people realize that the machine they use to type stuff on internet chat boards is like a million times more powerful that the machines the early "rocket scientists" used.

Anyways, what I found was for L <150 meters the damping parameter didn't change much (< 10%) over a wide range of I. That is, for the purpose of obtaining a value for the damping parameter (the whole purpose of this effort) simple averaging of independently calculated land and ocean results works as long as L is small (< 150 meters).

This shows a very common situation. Simple models often work well enough even if they are not a physically realistic as more complex models. This is tested by demonstrating that for the situation of interest adding the greater complexity doesn't matter. For this particular application, as long as L < 150 we can ignore I. But if L > 150 then we cannot ignore I.

The reason why this is important is we don't know I (or L). These are both adjustible parameters. To use the model we have to calibrate the model by fitting it to real world data. Since there is only one world and only one set of data, of we have to use that data to fit the model, and then we cannot use the model to explain the data because we have just adjusted the model to fit the data--so of of course it matches up with the data. This is Justin's issue. (running our of battery--continued in a second post).







Post#759 at 06-01-2007 10:57 AM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
06-01-2007, 10:57 AM #759
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

GW continued

It turns out that L is less than 150 meters and so I can safely ignore I. This still leaves the task of determining a value for L. I could take the observed temperature rise of 0.3-0.35 degrees between 1900 and 1950 and divide it by the 0.13-0.17 value predicted based on no damping to get a damping factor of 2.0-2.3 and then back out what L must be to give these values (100-150 meters). But if I do that then I cannot use the solar-forcing model to predict what the temperature rise should have been because I fit the model to that data. I need to find a different way to get L that doesn't use the temperature data. Then the predicted value will be independent of the temperature and how well it fits will mean something.

The damping in the model I have been using is caused by the large capacity of a surface ocean layer of depth L to absorb heat. This capacity is dependent on the amount of water in the layer, which is proportional to its thickness (L) and on the ability of seawater to absorb heat, its specific heat capacity.



I can make a similar argument about the ability of the ocean to absorb CO2. This ability of the surface layer to absorb CO2 is dependent on the amount of water (i.e. L) and on the ability of seawater to absorb CO2 (the solubility of CO2 in seawater). Some time back I plotted this graph of total CO2 absorbed since 1950 versus the solubility of CO2 in seawater (which rises over time because of rising CO2 in the atmosphere). An excellent straight-line correlation was obtained, which I used to show how projections of future CO2 levels could be made if future CO2 emissions were known. But that wasn't the reason why I collected this data. The reason was to obtain the slope of the line, which gives L. The value I obtained was 125 meters, which gives a damping factor of 2.2 and a predicted temperature rise of 0.28-0.38 degrees. If you add the 0.07 degrees expected for rising CO2 over the first half of the century you get 0.35-0.45, compared to 0.3-0.35 degrees actually seen. Since I haven't put in effects of aerosols, which cool, I would expect the solar and greenhouse effects to be larger so as to offset the aerosol cooling.

Here is one of Bob's graphs showing a 0.1 C cooling due to sulfate aerosols over the 1900-1950 period, which pretty much offsets the 0.1 C of extra warming.



Where my model differs from the one Bob posted is that I use the minimum 0.3 lambda value and so my CO2 effect (0.07 C) is smaller than the one they have. My solar factor is about twice what they have because I assume that the cosmic ray mechanism is operating and I assign ALL of the short-term solar fluctuations to solar activity. So my solar effect is a maximum value, the "true" value is going to be lower. Certainly some of the fluctuations are due to volcanic effects which I have not considered at this point. I have not, however "fit anything" to the temperature and so the "stacked polynomials" criticism Justin levies does not apply to my work.

Of particular importance is the fact that the trend in solar activity since 1950 is flat. This means the 0.28-0.38 degrees of solar-mediated temperature rise I calculate for 1900-1950 is the same for the entire period since 1900. In contrast the CO2 rise since 1950 is enough to give another 0.33 degrees of warming. So total CO2-mediate CO2 rise over the post-1900 period comes to 0.4 C compared to ~0.35 C for solar. So CO2 is responsible for more than half of the warming since 1900 and the majority of the recent warming.

The sum of the solar and CO2 warming is about 0.75, which is about the same as what has been seen. That is, there is no "room" for net cooling effects of aerosols. This suggests that my model is underestimating the effect of CO2 (which I am explicitly doing by using lambda = 0.3 instead of 0.5) and overestimating the effect of solar activity (which I am explicitly doing by assume all of the short term temperature fluctuations reflect solar activity when I know that some of them reflect vulcanism).

It is no so easily to airily wave one's hand and dismiss inconvenient facts as Justin does when one actually works out the problems. If the solar effect was responsible for a significant part of the recent rising temperature effect, then its impact is [i]large[i]. Such a large impact would mean large fluctuations in global temperatures with the solar cycle. They simply are not there, period. The only way one could have a large solar effect with the small observed temperature fluctuations is if the damping is large (i.e. big L). But if L is big then the oceans must have a much bigger ability to absorb CO2 because there would be more water to absorbed it in (bigger L). With L=125 meters, sufficient water is available to absorb about half what humans put into the atmosphere. So humans have put 200 ppm into the atmosphere since 1780, of which 100 ppm is left. With L = 500 there is four times as much surface water to absorbing power and CO2 levels would have risen only 40 ppm. That hasn't happened.

So the solar activity factor cannot be much bigger than the size I estimated or things would have happened that did not happen.







Post#760 at 06-01-2007 05:47 PM by Mustang [at Confederate States of America joined May 2003 #posts 2,303]
---
06-01-2007, 05:47 PM #760
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Confederate States of America
Posts
2,303

Quote Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54 View Post
In some issues, this is so. In a scientific debate or discussion, consideration ought to be made for which side has theory, data, and calculations favoring that side of the argument. When one faction has all three of the above, and the other has none of the above, and yet the side which cannot back its position proceeds with misleading propaganda, censorship of true science and political obstructionism, there is an obligation to stand and be heard.

I really do not see how you can claim any of this. Truth is at a real premium these days. If you haven't noticed, even our moral guardians, the "social conservatives," have sold their souls in order to run interference for the all-encompassing Big Lie of the Bush Cabal. Anybody can find alleged scientific data to back up anything anymore. I have seen data that every planet in the solar system is heating up (i.e. the sun is responsible for any alleged global warming). So what is one to believe? At this point in time, one can only accept any global warming theory on faith.

In that this whole "global warming" deal is foisted upon us as a "global problem" requiring a "global solution" or, short of that, as an excuse for the domestic cabal here to assume vastly greater control over the economy, every lover of liberty (and of Truth) has a moral obligation to ignore all this nonsense. If things are indeed heating up due to whatever cause, then we should simply improvise with regard to our behavior when the time comes that we need to...locally and, most importantly, free of any federal (or higher!) involvement.

Do I expect to persuade those whose political values are more potent than their loyalty to scientific principles? Of course not. However, those who have done their scientific due diligence ought not remain silent in the face of those who have not.
Sounds like you've started your own denomination, Bob. What time is the hummus-and-V8 eucharist?
Last edited by Mustang; 06-01-2007 at 05:50 PM.
"What went unforeseen, however, was that the elephant would at some point in the last years of the 20th century be possessed, in both body and spirit, by a coincident fusion of mutant ex-Liberals and holy-rolling Theocrats masquerading as conservatives in the tradition of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan: Death by transmogrification, beginning with The Invasion of the Party Snatchers."

-- Victor Gold, Aide to Barry Goldwater







Post#761 at 06-01-2007 05:56 PM by Finch [at In the belly of the Beast joined Feb 2004 #posts 1,734]
---
06-01-2007, 05:56 PM #761
Join Date
Feb 2004
Location
In the belly of the Beast
Posts
1,734

Quote Originally Posted by Mustang View Post
Sounds like you've started your own denomination, Bob.
Hmmmmm. The Church of Bob. Now where have I heard that before?
Yes we did!







Post#762 at 06-01-2007 08:12 PM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
06-01-2007, 08:12 PM #762
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

Quote Originally Posted by Mustang View Post
I really do not see how you can claim any of this. Truth is at a real premium these days. If you haven't noticed, even our moral guardians, the "social conservatives," have sold their souls in order to run interference for the all-encompassing Big Lie of the Bush Cabal. Anybody can find alleged scientific data to back up anything anymore. I have seen data that every planet in the solar system is heating up (i.e. the sun is responsible for any alleged global warming). So what is one to believe? At this point in time, one can only accept any global warming theory on faith.
Have you seen the "every planet in the solar system is heating up" allegation in a reputable journal? If so, I'd like to see a reference or a URL. Provide me a link. Let's talk about it. Yes, folks on both sides have gone beyond dry science and into propaganda. I'm really dubious about that reference to that Science article that didn't exist. It isn't just the 'skeptics' that are throwing stuff up without being able to backing it up. The less of that sort of thing done by both sides, the better, so far as I am concerned.

But if you can't reference the data, can't verify it is real, why spread the wild rumor? That seems to be all the 'skeptic' side can do at this point, quote wild stuff they can't back up, that proves bogus if one chases it down. Worse, they throw it up before they chase it down. The science side faction has to do the chasing for them.

Meanwhile, while you throw up wild rumor, I'll provide a link to an IEEE Spectrum Magazine article on Climate Control. People ought to try to keep informed. What else can I do?

Quote Originally Posted by Mustang View Post
In that this whole "global warming" deal is foisted upon us as a "global problem" requiring a "global solution" or, short of that, as an excuse for the domestic cabal here to assume vastly greater control over the economy, every lover of liberty (and of Truth) has a moral obligation to ignore all this nonsense. If things are indeed heating up due to whatever cause, then we should simply improvise with regard to our behavior when the time comes that we need to...locally and, most importantly, free of any federal (or higher!) involvement.
I could provide you with squiggly lines showing CO2 emissions per capita, population increase rates, and various proposed targets that would keep the temperature rise in line. If I provided these basic numbers, would you follow up with how you would change your life style to meet the proposed goals? Do you think you could propose an approach that individuals in general would be willing to change their life styles to meet various proposed targets?

I'm all in favor of doing as much as reasonable out of individual choice such that the government need force as little action as possible. If such required government action turns out to be none at all, so much the better. Still, I haven't seen a lot of skeptics stepping forward with workable all volunteer plans. They generally seem more interested in promoting inaction.

Give me a proposed target, and how you would meet it.

But switching from climate science to S&H cycle theory, judging on past crises, the selfish individual values of the 3T simply can't solve 4T scale problems. In a 4T, people work together for the common good to solve problems which just couldn't be touched given the values and politics of the 3T. Prove me wrong. Show me a CO2 target, and how you intend to meet it as an individual. Argue that individuals everywhere will follow your example. See if other skeptics pledge to follow similar plans to what you propose. Go for it. Convince me.

Quote Originally Posted by Mustang View Post
Sounds like you've started your own denomination, Bob. What time is the hummus-and-V8 eucharist?
Now we're going back to the science is religion argument. If it's my denomination, the holy trinity is data, theory and correlation, where the correlations could take the form of equations, charts, computer models, truth tables or any similar technique. Alleging data exists without providing references would be a minor sin. The guy with the better data, theory and correlation would be closer to Truth, while the guy who makes assertions without being able to back them with either theory, data or correlation has Fallen from the Way. Newton's Principia Mathematica might stand as a base Holy Writ, but even that would be subject to overturn given sufficient data, theory and correlation.

But science is religion is a false argument. Principia Mathematica is not Holy Writ under the commonly understood use of the phrase. There is a real difference in methodology between scientists and priests. The claims by the 'skeptics' that scientists are acting on religious motivation and methodology is just strawman Big Lie, indicating a total lack of honesty and integrity among those using the argument. That style of argument has no more validity than the Hitler comparisons.







Post#763 at 06-01-2007 08:19 PM by Mustang [at Confederate States of America joined May 2003 #posts 2,303]
---
06-01-2007, 08:19 PM #763
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Confederate States of America
Posts
2,303

I would imagine that most here are aware of this:


Rupert Murdoch joins climate crusade
News Corp. chairman shows conservative can be concerned as well


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18746241/


The article points out that Rupert buttboy Sean Hannity will fall into line with his new "Green" agenda. Elsewhere, McCain has signed onto the "global warming" program, and New Gingrich is apparently drawing up ambition plans to address "global warming" as well.

So we see that the "Neo-Con" Neo-Fascists have joined in the hysteria and gotten on the bandwagon. The hungriest of the power-hungry have apparently seen a great "opportunity" here. All the more reason for those who love their liberty and value Truth to steer well clear of the global warming hysteria.
"What went unforeseen, however, was that the elephant would at some point in the last years of the 20th century be possessed, in both body and spirit, by a coincident fusion of mutant ex-Liberals and holy-rolling Theocrats masquerading as conservatives in the tradition of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan: Death by transmogrification, beginning with The Invasion of the Party Snatchers."

-- Victor Gold, Aide to Barry Goldwater







Post#764 at 06-01-2007 08:30 PM by Finch [at In the belly of the Beast joined Feb 2004 #posts 1,734]
---
06-01-2007, 08:30 PM #764
Join Date
Feb 2004
Location
In the belly of the Beast
Posts
1,734

Quote Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54 View Post
But switching from climate science to S&H cycle theory, judging on past crises, the selfish individual values of the 3T simply can't solve 4T scale problems. In a 4T, people work together for the common good to solve problems which just couldn't be touched given the values and politics of the 3T. Prove me wrong. Show me a CO2 target, and how you intend to meet it as an individual. Argue that individuals everywhere will follow your example. See if other skeptics pledge to follow similar plans to what you propose. Go for it. Convince me.
I expect that there would be much more support for voluntary actions if there were some indication that my individual action would actually make a difference. As I said before, so far I have seen little in the scientific or political press to indicate that even the most aggressive reductions in CO2 emissions will have any measurable effect in slowing global warming.

Not that I'm recommending an "eat, drink, and be merry" attitude; my carbon footprint is probably lower than yours, but it stems less from scientific principles, and more from a Buddhist-motivated desire to live more lightly on the earth.
Yes we did!







Post#765 at 06-01-2007 08:40 PM by Mustang [at Confederate States of America joined May 2003 #posts 2,303]
---
06-01-2007, 08:40 PM #765
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Confederate States of America
Posts
2,303

Bob,

You are obviously way too emotionally involved with this issue (global warming), and I really do not care remotely enough about it to get sufficiently motivated to post meticulously footnoted posts on it for your benefit. I enjoy reading your posts on a number of other subjects, so let's leave it at that.

But I will say that, while digging up the article on Herr Murdoch above, I did come across recent articles on a NASA spokesman (or the head of NASA maybe?) addressing global warming on Neptune. This is consistent with what I am sure was NASA data I saw that indicated that every planet in the solar system is heating up. No, I'm not going to go digging for the relevant articles. Just cannot get sufficiently interested. And I do not attach the greatest degree of credibility to the claims of this (or any other) federal agency. You may not either. Where we might differ is in the level of credibility we attach to those making competing or contrary claims. In this age of grotesque Untruth, I just do not share your faith in the integrity (impartiality, if you will) of those making the competing or contrary claims. So I will just back out of this one and wait to respond when it is clear that the earth is about to melt into the sun.
"What went unforeseen, however, was that the elephant would at some point in the last years of the 20th century be possessed, in both body and spirit, by a coincident fusion of mutant ex-Liberals and holy-rolling Theocrats masquerading as conservatives in the tradition of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan: Death by transmogrification, beginning with The Invasion of the Party Snatchers."

-- Victor Gold, Aide to Barry Goldwater







Post#766 at 06-02-2007 01:27 AM by Tristan [at Melbourne, Australia joined Oct 2003 #posts 1,249]
---
06-02-2007, 01:27 AM #766
Join Date
Oct 2003
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Posts
1,249

Why Carbon Trading is probably not a good thing

"The f****** place should be wiped off the face of the earth".

David Bowie on Los Angeles







Post#767 at 06-02-2007 05:22 AM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
06-02-2007, 05:22 AM #767
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54 View Post
That was frustration. A while ago he acknowledged CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Now, he is back to no linkage between CO2 increase and global warming. Some consistency in his stance would be appreciated.
...teach me to post right before leaving town (thanks to everyone who stepped in in my absence)....

Bob, the CO2-as-greenhouse-gas contention was neither contained in the claim of yours to which I was responding, nor particularly essential to the issue.

Simply, the fact that the two variables appear to move in concert in your graph (the post hoc part) you take to mean that the one of the variables is the essential driver of the other (the propter part). The two can be quite reasonable related, but both driven in the main by some meta-, and your example does nothing to address this possibility. That it, with nothing to actually demonstrate causality.

Which is the root of that particular logical fallacy.
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch

"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy

"[it]
is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky







Post#768 at 06-02-2007 09:16 AM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
06-02-2007, 09:16 AM #768
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77 View Post
Simply, the fact that the two variables appear to move in concert in your graph (the post hoc part) you take to mean that the one of the variables is the essential driver of the other (the propter part).
But that isn't the case. It is known that CO2 causes warming. Therefore what Bob shows was a correlation between warming and a known cause of warming The fallacy does not apply.







Post#769 at 06-02-2007 03:09 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
06-02-2007, 03:09 PM #769
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Talking

To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#770 at 06-02-2007 03:33 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
06-02-2007, 03:33 PM #770
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

A helping of dishonesty from Denialist E. G. Beck

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...st-millennium/

Much research effort over the past years has gone into reconstructing the temperature history of the last millennium and beyond. The new IPCC report compiles a dozen reconstructions for the temperature of the Northern Hemisphere (including of course the original "hockey stick" reconstruction, despite opposite claims by the Wall Street Journal). Lack of data does not permit robust reconstructions for the Southern Hemisphere. Without exception, the reconstructions show that Northern Hemisphere temperatures are now higher than at any time during the past 1,000 years (Figure 1), confirming and strengthening the conclusions drawn in the previous IPCC report of 2001.



Fig. 1: Figure 6.10 (panel b) from the paleoclimate chapter of the current IPCC report (see there for details).

“Climate sceptics” do not like this and keep coming up with their own temperature histories. One of the weirdest has been circulated for years by German high-school teacher E.G. Beck (notorious for his equally weird CO2 curve). This history shows a medieval warm phase that is warmer than current climate by more than 1 ºC (see Figure 2). So how did Beck get this curve?



Fig. 2, modified from E.G. Beck (we added the green parts).
The curve is a fake in several respects. It originally is taken from the first IPCC report of 1990: a scan of the original is shown in Figure 3. At that time, no large-scale temperature reconstructions were available yet. To give an indication of past climate variability, the report showed Lamb’s Central England estimate. (Unfortunately this was not stated in the report – an oversight which shows that IPCC review procedures in the early days were not what they are now. We will post in more detail on the history of this curve another time.)





Fig. 3. The past millennium as shown in the first IPCC report of 1990, before quantitative large-scale reconstructions were available. This curve was based on Lamb's estimated climate history for central England.
But Beck did not stop at simply using this outdated curve, he modified it as highlighted in green in Figure 2. First, he added a wrong temperature scale – the tick marks in the old IPCC report represent 1 ºC, so Beck’s claimed range of 5 ºC exaggerates the past temperature variations by more than a factor of three. Second, the original curve only goes up to the 1970’s. Since then, Northern Hemisphere temperatures have increased by about 0.6 ºC and those in central England even more – so whatever you take this curve for, if it were continued to present, the current temperature would be above the Medieval level, as in the proper reconstructions available today. As this would destroy his message, Beck applied another fakery: he extended the curve flat up to the year 2000, thereby denying the measured warming since the 1970s. With this trick, his curve looks as if it was warmer in Medieval times than now.


When approached directly about these issues, Beck published a modified curve on a website. He changed the temperature range from 5 ºC to 4.5 ºC – but he shortened the arrow as well, so this was just cosmetics. He also added instrumental temperatures for the 20th Century at the end – but with his wrong temperature scale, they are completely out of proportion. (In fact his version suggests temperatures have warmed by 2 ºC since 1900, more than twice of what is actually observed!)


Beck goes even further: in a recent article (in German), he has the audacity to claim that his manipulated curve is right and the more recent scientific results shown by IPCC are wrong. And for years, he has offered his curve on an internet site (biokurs.de) that distributes teaching materials for schools, with support from German school authorities. It is quite likely that his fake curve has been shown (and will continue to be shown) to many school children.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#771 at 06-02-2007 03:42 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
06-02-2007, 03:42 PM #771
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

When Denialists bring up Medieval English vineyards...

Readers may recall a thorough examination of the history of English wine here a few months ago - chiefly because the subject tends to come up as a contrarian climate talking point every now and again. The bottom line from that post was that the English wine industry is currently thriving and has a geographical extent and quality levels that are unprecedented in recorded history. So whether vineyards are a good proxy for climate or not, you certainly can't use the supposed lack of present day English vineyards in any serious discussion about climate....

So along comes this quote today (promoting Fred Singer's latest turnaround) (my emphasis):
"The Romans wrote about growing wine grapes in Britain in the first century," says Avery, "and then it got too cold during the Dark Ages. Ancient tax records show the Britons grew their own wine grapes in the 11th century, during the Medieval Warming, and then it got too cold during the Little Ice Age. It isn't yet warm enough for wine grapes in today's Britain. Wine grapes are among the most accurate and sensitive indicators of temperature and they are telling us about a cycle. They also indicate that today's warming is not unprecedented."
Hmmm.... so where did that bottle of Chapel Down in my fridge come from? (thanks Dad!) Or the winners of the 'Best Sparkling Wine' for the last two years at the International Wine and Spirit Competition? This is of course a trivial point, but it demonstrates (once again) that our contrarian friends don't even have a semblence of a desire to get it right. The lure of a talking point clearly trumps the desire for accuracy.


In vino veritas (though not in this case).


Update: We had the Chapel Down Flint Dry last night. Fruity, hints of apple and pear and one of better whites I've had in a while. Highly recommended!
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#772 at 06-02-2007 08:17 PM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
06-02-2007, 08:17 PM #772
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

What Rani said.

To repeat: His wigglies, along with the fact that CO2 concentrations can drive temperature steady-states, are taken to the unjustified conclusion that CO2 is the main driver in a massive, multivariate system.
Again, this is the very essence of post hoc.

(and it does seem that a pathological inability to come to terms with "I don't know right now" is a frequent contributor to the persistence of that particular fallacy)
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch

"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy

"[it]
is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky







Post#773 at 06-03-2007 11:30 AM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
06-03-2007, 11:30 AM #773
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77 View Post
To repeat: His wigglies, along with the fact that CO2 concentrations can drive temperature steady-states, are taken to the unjustified conclusion that CO2 is the main driver in a massive, multivariate system.
Again, this is the very essence of post hoc.
No its not. Here is a definition I looked up: http://skepdic.com/posthoc.html

The post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this therefore because of this) fallacy is based upon the mistaken notion that simply because one thing happens after another, the first event was a cause of the second event...

Many events follow sequential patterns without being causally related. For example, you have a cold, so you drink fluids and two weeks later your cold goes away. You have a headache so you stand on your head and six hours later your headache goes away. You put acne medication on a pimple and three weeks later the pimple goes away. You perform some task exceptionally well after forgetting to bathe, so the next time you have to perform the same task you don't bathe. A solar eclipse occurs so you beat your drums to make the gods spit back the sun. The sun returns, proving to you the efficacy of your action.
It is quite clear from this definition that the fallacy applies to wrongly assigning causation to events that are simply sequentially correlated in time.

Bob's assertion would be a post hoc fallacy only if CO2 did not produce warming. It does, so it is not an example of post hoc.

Assertions about how important CO2 is in warming are not examples of post hoc fallacy; they are hypotheses to be supported or rejected based on the evidence--not simply rejected out of hand because you don't like them.

Bob's graph does not exist in isolation. It is part of a larger body of work posted here in which it has previously been shown that the solar driver has not been active for post-1975 warming, leaving CO2 as the only known warming driver of the necessary size to account for the warming.

You can address his theory by presenting evidence of another driver that can explain the warming and forming you own hypothesis. But simply dismissing it by claiming it a falacious argument is just pounding the table.







Post#774 at 06-03-2007 11:39 AM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
06-03-2007, 11:39 AM #774
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Quote Originally Posted by The Rani View Post
Ohhh yes it does. What "causes" something in one situation doesn't mean that it "causes" that same something in every situation.
In the case of climate yes it does.

To go back to the smoking-causes-lung-cancer example, just because a smoker develops lung cancer doesn't mean that smoking was the "cause."
But this is because smoking doesn't cause every lung cancer.

We don't use the word "cause" in medicine anyway, and prefer to say something more like "increased risk."
Yes because you are ignorant of so much you can never untangle all the causative relations.

That's because we KNOW that there is no way to absolutely prove causation when there are numerous variables involved. A lot of smokers never develop lung cancer, so the word "cause" is actually a misnomer.
Exactly you KNOW there are tons of other variables that play a role. These other variables are not invisible things that we are speculating might be "out there". But in the case of CO2 and climate there aren't a bunch of variables we know exert an effect, of which we don't understand the workings. Your analogy isn't a good one.
Last edited by Mikebert; 06-03-2007 at 03:05 PM.







Post#775 at 06-03-2007 03:09 PM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
06-03-2007, 03:09 PM #775
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
No its not.
Strange. You disagree with what is right in front of you. Allow me grab the definition from what you posted...

...is based upon the mistaken notion that simply because one thing happens after another, the first event was a cause of the second event
Bob's argument sums up to:
Since global temperature is seen to move in a pattern that correlates to the pattern of atmospheric CO2 emissions (that is, since the one thing -- global temperature rise -- happens after, or apparently so, the other thing -- atmospheric CO2 level increase -- the relationship between them is a causal one). In fact, Bob asserts not merely a causal relationship, but a relationship wherein his one element is the prime mover of the system.

The fact that under univariate conditions CO2 concentrations affect steady-state temperatures means next to nothing in terms of determining the importance of that parameter in multivariate systems.

To illustrate: one could also use the argument that since the process of metabolism in the human organism is a net exothermic process, the presence of more human beings in a system merely as heat-generators will result in a higher steady-state temperature. One could then also find temporal correlation between the number of human beings on the planet and the recent rise in global temperatures. All manner of squiggly lines could be drawn to correlate the two. But would such correlation demonstrate that the number of homo sap on the planet is itself the driver of global temperature increase? That therefore the solution to the problem would be in a reduction of the number of metabolic heat-engines in the biosphere?

Bob's argument is no less unfounded. Post hoc.
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch

"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy

"[it]
is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky
-----------------------------------------