Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[applecorped]

It'll be true, or it won't. In the meantime I will burn old light bulbs, spray my hair, use too much electricity, and not really care. To future generations I say, good luck, you might need it, you might not, It'll be up to you to figure out what's what. You may look at us as alarmists or prophets, I don't really care. Pay my debts or figure it out. Good luck, good night, over and out.

 

[lomiller]

Not at all.

Dyson doesn’t challenge the basic physics, rather he thinks that geo-engineering will solve the problem.

1. This is not my understanding of Dyson's position.

Clearly you did think Dyson is someone who disagrees with the basic physics. He is not.

 

[Mikemcc]

I'll accept feedback, but this isn't it.

Feedback is everything, even the 'greenhouse effect' is a feedback mechanism

I'm trying to get some basic agreement on how thermometers work and what produces variation in readings.

Why? I assume you want to bring TOBs into the your gish-gallop but are too afraid to mention it because it because you already know that you will be shot down in flames.

Settling disagreement verbally starts with finding common ground, right? Where did anyone disagree with anything I wrote about how the thermometers would respond? Anyone with:...
a) the ability to analyse dynamic systems.
b) the ability to analyse complex systems.
c) the ability to potentially distinguish between a function, its derivative and its primitive....
d) the skills and education to select a proper set of variables to pay attention

Function? What function, you are assuming that you can boil observations down to a simple formula that allows for differential and integral analysis? if you are talking about climate measurements then you have to account for TOBs, environmental changes, changes to instrumentation and shelter. Funnily enough, this is already done. It's been analysed to the nth degree and there has been no discernable problem with the approaches already used, check the BEST study for the latest information and look at how it compares to ALL of the other studies. The only outlier was HadCRUT3, which was known to be low due to coverage issues, since largely corrected by HadCUT4.

or just enough "basic physics" to discuss physics and not personalities care to start?

Here's another question: Suppose we have a well-insulated container (double-wall thermos flask) that holds, say, 8 kilos of water at 60F. Suppose we place into the flask a 2 1 kilo glass-coated bricks of some material (metal, ceramic) that we heat to, say, 80F. Will the equilibrium temperature of the system depend in any way on the material inside the glass coat of the bricks? I suspect not but I'm willing to accept correction here.

Why should we care about another high artifical mind experiment with no relevence?

 

[aleCcowaN]

Where did anyone disagree with anything I wrote about how the thermometers would respond? Anyone with:...

You have been already answered on that.

Here's another question: Suppose we have a well-insulated container (double-wall thermos flask) that holds, say, 8 kilos of water at 60F. Suppose we place into the flask a 2 1 kilo glass-coated bricks of some material (metal, ceramic) that we heat to, say, 80F. Will the equilibrium temperature of the system depend in any way on the material inside the glass coat of the bricks? I suspect not but I'm willing to accept correction here.

Why don't you skip directly to the conclusion you want to make. It'll save time. You also can get a text version of your experiments that is well written -avoiding ambiguous terminologies and idealization of every day objects- so we can see what are you trying to ask?

It's difficult to fathom what's in your mind when you get fixed with "glass coats" and other stuff that don't belong to the problem. A different problem, 100% calorimetric, involving an adiabatic container and different masses at different temperatures placed inside at time 0 will reach an equilibrium temperature that depends of the material expression of every particle of the mass that is inside the container, unless there's some sort of adiabatic container inside. Features like glass coatings or even vacuum-flask will only affect the way the equilibrium is reached. Not the final value of temperature.

On the contrary, suppose the problem is not 100% calorimetric. That you have for instance different mixes of masses including phase transitions, solutes and solvents, chemical reactions, etc. well, you have different approaches. You may even imagine problems where there's a bottle made from ice that divides solutions. You have a lot of possibilities. The question is, what do you pursue with this little problems you are placing here? If you need knowledge in basic science, try somewhere else to get it, for instance, go to McIntyre's .

Is this a new way to make us to waste our time?

 

[lomiller]

or just enough "basic physics" to discuss physics and not personalities care to start?

Here's another question: Suppose we have a well-insulated container (double-wall thermos flask) that holds, say, 8 kilos of water at 60F. Suppose we place into the flask a 2 1 kilo glass-coated bricks of some material (metal, ceramic) that we heat to, say, 80F. Will the equilibrium temperature of the system depend in any way on the material inside the glass coat of the bricks? I suspect not but I'm willing to accept correction here.

Clearly you still don't understand the distinction between power and energy because you question isn't one that is relevant to global temperature.

If you want a thermos analogy, it would go like this. Take a heating element and put it inside the thermos. Turn it on the a liquid in the thermos warms, but not indefinitely. Eventually it reaches a stable temperature where the energy entering the thermos is in balance with the energy leaving it.

From this state, if you spray a new insulation layer on the thermos it will warm up.

 

[uke2se]

It'll be true, or it won't. In the meantime I will burn old light bulbs, spray my hair, use too much electricity, and not really care. To future generations I say, good luck, you might need it, you might not, It'll be up to you to figure out what's what. You may look at us as alarmists or prophets, I don't really care. Pay my debts or figure it out. Good luck, good night, over and out.

Why would you post that you're proud to be ignorant and irresponsible in a science thread?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Clearly you did think Dyson is someone who disagrees with the basic physics.

No. Dyson is a world-class physicist. He understands "basic physics" and a lot more. That's the point (one of them, anyway) of my argument. The conclusion that AGW theorists draw from their models depends on a lot more than "basic physics", or Dyson would share the conclusions that the AGW faithful draw.
(Added) or, perhaps, the AGW modelers do not understand "basic physics".

 

[uke2se]

No. Dyson is a world-class physicist. He understands "basic physics" and a lot more. That's the point (one of them, anyway) of my argument. The conclusion that AGW theorists draw from their models depends on a lot more than "basic physics", or Dyson would share the conclusions that the AGW faithful draw.

Or, it could be as has been explained to you, and Dyson thinks the problems that are predicted from the applied physics underpinning AGW theory can all be solved with some kind of geo-engineering technology.

Why do you keep talking about physics when Dyson's dissent has nothing to do with the physics of AGW? Wait, I know why. Because lying by innuendo is all you've got.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

I assume you want to bring TOBs into the your gish-gallop but are too afraid to mention it because it because you already know that you will be shot down in flames.

I suppose there's a telepathy thread somewhere, but this isn't it.

Function? What function, you are assuming that you can boil observations down to a simple formula that allows for differential and integral analysis?

Ask Alec Cowan or Jimbo. I just copied them.

 

[Mikemcc]

Ask Alec Cowan or Jimbo. I just copied them.

Link? Or just your imagination again...

 

[aleCcowaN]

By the way, congratulations everybody!

Since this thread was liberated last 13th little happened until Malcolm disembarked here the 31st, I think. Since then, 300 messages have been posted and everything is OK. A few posts were thrown to the dungeons and only one poster -Malcolm- got an infraction.

As this thread is for general discussion, not for proving that an AGW process is going on nor for stating its main causes (remember the sentence pronounced in the case of "The Global Warming Swindle": the science is already settled), well, we don't need to go only downwards to reach the level of certain forum members.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Except that isn't what he said, so you just made that up, I can quote exactly what Dyson said.

"That"? What did I "make up"? He said a lot of things. Which quote do you suppose matters to this discussion? Link?

Why can't you?

Dunno 'bout "can't". I'm waiting to see how far you'all go in (misre)presenting Dyson's position.

 

[lomiller]

No. Dyson is a world-class physicist.

And not a climate scientist.

He understands "basic physics" and a lot more.

And doesn't dispute the physics of climate science,m nor would anyone care if he did since he's never published on the subject.

The conclusion that AGW theorists draw from their models depends on a lot more than "basic physics", or

They are also math. The climate models exist to calculate the warming expected from physics, that's it.

Dyson has admitted he hasn't actually looked into them, but again, even if he had he's never published on the topic so his opinion would have little value either way.

or Dyson would share the conclusions that the AGW faithful draw.

IF he had actually studied the question and published on it I expect he would reach the same conclusions.

(Added) or, perhaps, the AGW modelers do not understand "basic physics".

So you are suggesting people who regularly publish in physics journals (not to mention Science, Nature, PNAS, etc) don't actually know physics? I find this unlikely to say the least.

 

[uke2se]

"That"? What did I "make up"? He said a lot of things. Which quote do you suppose matters to this discussion? Link?

Sorry, but switching the burden of proof isn't going to work for you this time. You said (implied strongly) that Dyson did not agree with climate scientists about the physics underpinning AGW theory. There is no other way to read your posts, and you know it. You have thus far failed to present a link to any claim by Dyson that the physics underpinning AGW theory is faulty. You have side-stepped and dodged and tried to move goal-posts, but your lie by innuendo remains, and has been reiterated by you several times since.

I'm quite fed up with your dishonesty, but then again, every time you lie like this and get called on it, a little bit of credibility is filed away from you and your "movement". In the long run, we are going to have to rename the denial movement into the lying movement. It's almost all there right now.

Dunno 'bout "can't". I'm waiting to see how far you'all go in (misre)presenting Dyson's position.

The only one misrepresenting Dyson's position is you.

 

[Reality Check]

Celestial mechanics is well-enough understood to allow probes to intersect the orbit of Pluto. AGW theorists have to adjust thermometer readings and exclude adverse tree ring samples to get agreement with their models.

You are correct that climate sceince is not as exact as celestial mechanics.
But to go onto accusing scientists of scientific fraud by fudging the data ("thermometer readings and exclude adverse tree ring samples") is ridiculous and smacks of some of the AGW denier insanity.

• Surface station thermometer readings are affected by the history of the stattion, e.g. the position that it is in, the instruments that it contains, the housing, urban heating effect, etc.. It would be insane not to take that in account. Thus climate sceintitsts adjust the thermometer readings to take account of the station history.
• There are no "adverse" tree ring samples.
  There are some tree ring samples in specific regions that do not agree with instrumental readings from around the 1960's. These are ignored because there is something other than climate affecting these specific trees though AFAIK no one really knows what it is.

 

[Reality Check]

What will happen to Foraminifera when CO2 changes over decades

Both considerations imply that plankton will adapt fairly quickly. As I said earlier, they've been through periods of high CO₂ (and rapidly rising or falling CO₂) before, and adapted.

And you are still wrong.
Periods of "rapidly" rising or falling CO₂ (as over millions of years) has caused the extermination of Foraminifera species.

More excusable is your ignorance of the effect of sudden changes in CO2 on Foraminifera.
Coral Reefs an Ocial Acidification (PDF)

Calcareous benthic foraminifera are important contributors to reef sediments, sometimes producing the bulk of carbonate sands in shallower environments (Hohenegger, 2006; Figure 1E).
Data from previous ocean acidification events identified in the geologic record (e.g., deep-sea sediment cores) indicate that calcifying benthic foraminifera are vulnerable to ocean acidification.
Approximately 40% of benthic foraminifera species went extinct at the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (55 million years ago), which included a strong ocean acidification event (Zachos et al., 2005; Kump et al., 2009), and calcifying foraminifera went extinct at the Permian-Triassic boundary (around 250 million years ago) although the agglutinated forms did not (Knoll et al., 2007). Note that these extinction events also coincided with elevated temperatures and hypoxia, so it is difficult to discern which environmental change was the smoking gun. However, experiments that exposed both calcareous and noncalcareous benthic foraminifera to high CO2 levels confirm that calcareous species are indeed sensitive to high CO2 perturbations while noncalcareous species are not (Bernhard et al., 2009).

(my emphasis added)

(my emphasis added in red so that you might read it )

Malcolm Kirkpatrick: Species of Foraminifera could not adapt to CO₂ changes that took millions of years to happen.
What do you think will happen to Foraminifera when CO₂ changes over decades?

 

[Reality Check]

Not at all. The point is that Dyson certainly understands "basic physics".

So do high school students. So what is the obsession with the simple fact that Dyson understands basic physics? Why are you not citing a random high school student? Why are you of citing any of the climate sceintists that understand basic physics?

 

[Reality Check]

Malcolm Kirkpatrick: Clitations for your Dyson assertion

Apparently Dyson does not agree that that "basic physics" implies what AGW believers suggest.

As other posters have replied: You are repeating this unsupported assertion yet again !

So: Malcolm Kirkpatrick
Please cite the sources in which Dyson states the basic physics that implies that AGW consequences will not happen?
First asked 10 September 2012 (actually days ago but no response).

We know that Dyson had doubts about climate models in 2007 but he was wrong: How reliable are climate models?

We know that (according to you) Dyson said "The polar bears will be just fine" which wrong:
How will global warming affect polar bears?

Polar bears are in danger of extinction as well as many other species.
...
With this caveat in mind, what do the figures actually say? According to a 2009 report by the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group, of the 19 recognised subpopulations of polar bears, 8 are in decline, 1 is increasing, 3 are stable and 7 don’t have enough data to draw any conclusions. Figure 1 below compares the data for 2005 and 2009.

Effects of Climate Warming on Polar Bears: A Review of the Evidence - Stirling & Derocher (2012)

But you seem to be parroting an internet fantasy.
Dyson was not talking about polar bears in general. The context was an animation sequence depicting a small patch of floating ice disintegrating under a struggling polar bear until it was left swimming alone in a vast expanse of open ocean in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. In addition "The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm."
Dyson seems to saying to his wife that in his personal opinion, polar bears will not get into that situation often.

 

[aleCcowaN]

That says something about moderation, seems to me. moderators about that.

Stop distributing your wrong deeds among people around you.

Furthermore, there's no lie in what I asserted about Dyson's position. That doesn't stop uke2se.

You were purposely ambiguous and you answered almost nothing so everybody is insisting about you being explicit and clear. You only give a little push to the pedal each time to avoid your bicycle falling on the ground. Yours is a slow trip to nowhere, the slowest I've ever seen. You're deliberately playing the pariah here, but the fact is that you have failed to sketch an argument here or even to select some argument elsewhere that speaks for you.

By the way, your Dyson quote fails to show him disagreeing with the physics upholding AGW.

 

[Reality Check]

btw. Here's Dyson:...

btw, a link to Dyson not commenting about basic physics!
There are a few unfortunate statements which suggest that his knowledge of climate sceince is lacking:

There is no doubt that parts of the world are getting warmer, but the warming is not global.

The rest is just him suggesting ways to combat this "non-global" warming, e.g. wishful thinking about genetic engineeering (he seems to think that it is very cheap or even free!).

When I listen to the public debates about climate change, I am impressed by the enormous gaps in our knowledge, the sparseness of our observations and the superficiality of our theories.

What a minute - he is relying on public debates for his knowledge of climate science !

He does end with something sensible though:

The moral of this story is clear. Even a smart twenty-two-year-old is not a reliable guide to the future of science. And the twenty-two-year-old has become even less reliable now that he is eighty-two.