Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[lomiller]

Not all of it, likely,

"likely"

Sequestration of Carbon into carbonate rock is meaningful on time scales in the hundreds of thousands of years. It's meaningless on any human timescale.

The fact that some (a very tiny amount) of Carbon is being sequestered this way doesn't change the fact that the mechanism you presented was wrong.

 

[Halsu]

I don't see any reason to argue against that, although if any component of the atmosphere didn't absorb some frequency of solar radiation, that radiation would then strike the ground and either reflect or be absorbed there (then warming the lowest few feet of air by contact or promoting plant growth or ...?).

If some frequency of incoming radiation (say, visible light) passes through the atmosphere and then hits the ground, it will partially reflect back as visible light, partially warm the soil and also partially radiate back as heat.

And this is at the heart of the greenhouse effect: the atmosphere is transparent to some frequencies of radiation (visible light), and much more opaque to some others (heat). The radiation gets in as one, but fails to get out as the other.

I suspect that most of the difference between skeptics and believers turns on "how strong an effect?" and that turns on the absolute amount of CO₂ (it's a trace gas) and on atmosphere/ocean, atmosphere/biosphere, atmosphere/geochemical interactions (feedbacks). The point of "trace" here goes back to the thermos flask of warm water to which we add a heated brick. Suppose we add heated BB pellets. Won't the thermometer response depend on temperature and mass?

The argument of CO2 being a trace gas is just ignorance. A small concentration of a potent substance can have a strong effect.

And it's not as if we're talking about all of the greenhouse effect being due to CO2. It obviously is not. Increasing CO2 concentration by about 30% so far has strengthened the greenhouse effect only by a few percent, resulting in a little less than one degree rise in the global temperature at sea level. It has also caused an equivalent drop in the temperature in the higher parts of the atmosphere, a telltale sign of strengthened greenhouse effect (less heat is escaping).

But let's go through the arguments again:

- You agree that the atmosphere traps heat.
- You also agree that there is a greenhouse effect as described by mainstream science and that changes in the strength of the greenhouse effect can change the temperature on earth.
- You seem to agree that there's an energy balance that will always seek a new equilibrium, when parameters change (this follows from the other points).
- You agree that a change in the composition of gasses (like increasing CO2) in the atmosphere changes the strength of the greenhouse effect.

Here are the next baby steps: Do you, in the light of the above, agree that a rising concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause global warming? Do you agree that human activity is the main cause for the increase in atmospheric CO2?

 

[aleCcowaN]

The thing is he's just parroting what he's heard in the echo-chamber, not contributing any original thought - until he gets onto fantastical geo-engineering, of course, which is his thing.

Someone who's brilliance is earned in an essentially mathematical field is not necessarily going to have much intellectual depth when it comes to more generalised thinking. Dyson clearly doesn't question the prominence he gives to what are pretty trivial issues beloved of deniers for decades - it's all models, we don't understand clouds, polar bears, Al Gore and (most telling of all) anyone questioning the Party Line is harshly treated. They're not invited to give evidence in Congress (not that Dyson's noticed, anyway) nor do they appear on TV regularly nor get to write op-eds in the mainstream press. Events of the last few decades seem to have passed him by.

But I didn't say he was right in any possible way. It has to do with perception and it has to do with power. It never had to do with the scientific method as society is a talk show, not a lab. It is in that context that I try to understand Dyson's reasons. "We choose to go to the moon" and do also every task needed to turn our planet upside down and then repair it, "not because they are easy but because they are hard". There's a distant echo of that in Dyson's words.

Let us remember that this thread is not to settle the science about AGW as it is already done, but to analyse, like the whole site and fora, all the human miserableness that lead to that wide arch that ranges from Van Pragh to McIntyre, and luckily there's never a shortage of people who support them and are offering themselves here for vivisection. The goal is learning how modern societies work and help them heal of the excess of human reassurance. A collaborative and permanent task. Sort of Sisyphean task, like a goal of a crime-free society.

 

[a_unique_person]

So your argument is that McIntyre is right because he says he is. Not something many people will find convincing I'm afraid.

Ah, but no one else in the world is so convinced of their rightness.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

A small concentration of a potent substance can have a strong effect.

Explain "potent". This goes back to the thought experiment of putting heated BBs in an insulated tank of water. The profile of the response of an immersed thermometer will depend on the temperature of the water, the mass of water, the temperature of the BBs and the mass of BBs. Heating CO₂ can only have so much effect without feedbacks.

You seem to agree that there's an energy balance that will always seek a new equilibrium, when parameters change (this follows from the other points).

Pretty much. We don't use "parameter" the same way. Solar flux and CO₂ concentration are variables in models. But that's a small issue over terminology.

 

[Megalodon]

A- What's happen to the carbon you just had for lunch?

B- It gets buried in the geological record.

A-Wrong, mostly it will get respired and excreted under different forms, after being used in the cells metabolism.

B-No, I've heard that biomass gets turned into oil.

A-*Long explanation of different processes being misunderstood*

B-Well if *Cherry-picking of small points* then I'm right

Repeat ad nauseum

A- A tiny amount of that carbon might find it's way into the geological record, but it's in no way, shape or form significant or relevant.

B- Finally!!1!

The tragedy of that little fable is that B is actually less wrong than MP

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

The post to which you replied was about McIntyre's FOI request

That post replied to my contention that honest scientists make their data available. Lomiller said that climate scientists do this. They do not. That's what the Mcintyre cites discuss. I wanted to link another Climate Audit post that makes the basic issue starkly, but couldn't find it earlier. He illustrates the problem thus: suppose a drug company administers an experimental drug to 100 people and reports a comparison of 20 of those people to a control group. Wouldn't people naturally ask: "What happened to the other 80 people in the treatment group?"

 

[uke2se]

That post replied to my contention that honest scientists make their data available. Lomiller said that climate scientists do this. They do not. That's what the Mcintyre cites discuss.

McIntyre says that they don't, but they really do. McIntyre is lying to you.

 

[Halsu]

Explain "potent".

Lets take alcohol as an example.

The same concentration we're talking about, 0,038% or 380 ppm of alcohol in your blood means you are on the verge of being too drunk to drive. The legal limit varies from country to country, but here in Finland it's 0,05% or 500 ppm.

Alcohol is a potent drug, you only need to have "traces" of it in your blood to be intoxicated. Some other drugs are even more potent - much smaller concentrations can intoxicate, or even kill you.

In other words, a seemingly minuscule concentration of a substance can have a profound influence.

This goes back to the thought experiment of putting heated BBs in an insulated tank of water. The profile of the response of an immersed thermometer will depend on the temperature of the water, the mass of water, the temperature of the BBs and the mass of BBs. Heating CO₂ can only have so much effect without feedbacks. Pretty much.

Your thought experiment has no relation to the issue at hand.

We don't use "parameter" the same way. Solar flux and CO₂ concentration are variables in models. But that's a small issue over terminology.

"Variable" is fine with me too. But i am NOT talking about models, i am talking about the real world physics and chemistry behind those models.

In the light of these clarifications, i would appreciate it if you could first confirm that you accept the french-lined baby steps, then answer the next two questions?

- You agree that the atmosphere traps heat.
- You also agree that there is a greenhouse effect as described by mainstream science and that changes in the strength of the greenhouse effect can change the temperature on earth.
- You seem to agree that there's an energy balance that will always seek a new equilibrium, when parameters change (this follows from the other points).
- You agree that a change in the composition of gasses (like increasing CO2) in the atmosphere changes the strength of the greenhouse effect.

Here are the next baby steps: Do you, in the light of the above, agree that a rising concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause global warming? Do you agree that human activity is the main cause for the increase in atmospheric CO2?

 

[jimbob]

Explain "potent". This goes back to the thought experiment of putting heated BBs in an insulated tank of water. The profile of the response of an immersed thermometer will depend on the temperature of the water, the mass of water, the temperature of the BBs and the mass of BBs. Heating CO₂ can only have so much effect without feedbacks. Pretty much. We don't use "parameter" the same way. Solar flux and CO₂ concentration are variables in models. But that's a small issue over terminology.

What has this got to do with global warming?

A better thought experiment might be to have a (say steel) ball suspended in a vacuum that is irradiated by a black body at about 6000K, and arranged so that its equilibrium temperature is -23°C.

You then provide a magical coating that is transparent to visible light, but completely reflective to light with a wavelength longer than red light.

The equilibrium temperature would now be nearly red hot.

This is obviously silly, but Venus has the hottest surface temperature of the planets because of the greenhouse effect, so we know that there are several hundred degrees of warming that a runaway greenhouse effect can cause.

Can you explain what the point of your thought experiment was?

 

[lomiller]

That post replied to my contention that honest scientists make their data available.

There is no requirement for scientists to make their data available, but as a courtesy they will usually do so if asked nicely. Giving out someone elses data, now that I think, most scientists would find dishonest.

This of course is exactly what McIntyre is demanding, and he's being rude enough about it that no scientist in any field would bother giving him the time of day. Oh, and he's also lies to the cool-aid drinkers who frequent his web site saying he's asking for scientists data when he's asking for things that are not data and/or not their to give out. This too is dishonest.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

McIntyre says that they don't, but they really do. McIntyre is lying to you.

You know this, how? You might have an informative argument with lomiller, who agrees that climate scientists withhold data (he approves of their stated reasons, so to him it's the same as not whitholding data). Anyway, McIntyre provides sufficient cites that you can check his assertions about, for example, ice cores that were drilled with NSF money but not archived. Those data are public property.

 

[Reality Check]

That post replied to my contention that honest scientists make their data available.

Wrong:

Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick
hey don't. That was the issue with Steve Macintyre's FOI.

Wrong. McIntyre's FOI request were for:
data already made public
data that did not belong to the people he was asking and could not legally be released by them. (In much the same way I can't legally sell you someone eases property)
This is why the freedom information officer who reviewed his requests ruled that the requests did not qualify under FOI laws

None of your links were about the FOI requests so:

The post to which you replied was about McIntyre's FOI request
What bad recommendations, Malcolm Kirkpatrick!
Nothing to do with the FOI requests.
and nothing to do with the FOI requests.
and nothing to do with the FOI requests.
and nothing to do with the FOI requests.
Quadruple failure there, Malcolm Kirkpatrick.
ETA
If you really want to honestly address the FOI issue then a start would be reading Climategate and the Freedom of Information (FOI) requests

He illustrates the problem thus: suppose a drug company administers an experimental drug to 100 people and reports a comparison of 20 of those people to a control group. Wouldn't people naturally ask: "What happened to the other 80 people in the treatment group?"

That is a doubly stupid illustration by Steve Macintyre that ignores the actual situation.
Firstly most of the climate science data was available. Macintyre was just incapable of finding it without the
Secondly drug companies are commercial operations - FOI requests do not appply to them.
A better one would be:
Suppose a university research lab administers an experimental drug to 100 people and reports a comparison of 100 of those people to a control group. 10 of these people signed consent forms allowing the raw data to be released to anyone. 90 of these peoiple only allowed their data to be given on the condition that it not be disclosed to third parties.
The handful of scientists involved in the trial then are given 50 FOI requests for each person's raw data. This is a 50-fold increase in FOI requests (usually 2 or 3 a year, not 50 in a couple of mounths).
It is obvious that that 90 out to the 100 requests will be refused.
If is obvious that this is a harassment campaign designed to waste time and money. However the scientists are still obliged to reply to the requests.

 

[Reality Check]

That post replied to my contention that honest scientists make their data available.

Thank you, Malcolm Kirkpatrick, for pointing out that the CRU scientists were honest because they made the data that they could legally make freely available, freely available !

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Thank you, Malcolm Kirkpatrick, for pointing out that the CRU scientists were honest because they made the data that they could legally make freely available, freely available.

That's lomiller's contention, not mine or McIntyre's. I observe that lomiller, McIntyre, and I agree that CRU (and Mann) DO NOT comply with requests for raw data. Lomiller has a different explanation.

 

[a_unique_person]

You're in real trouble now, Professor. You've come to the attention of The Auditor. He has asked you Questions. You now have two choices:-

(1) You could assume the questions are posed in good faith, The Auditor is genuinely interested in the knowing the answers, and will make constructive and reasonable use of the information. This would be a category error. It's like those email scams where if you respond the spammers know the address they've hit is real. Next thing you know there will be a second round of followup questions, and so on ad nauseum. Dr Gerald North writes:-

"This guy can just wear you out. He has started it with me but I just don’t bite. But there are some guys, Ben Santer comes to mind, who if they are questioned will take a lot of time to answer. He’s sincere and he just can’t leave these things along. If you get yourself in a back-and-forth with these guys it can be never ending, and basically they shut you down with requests. They want everything, all your computer programs. Then they send you back a comment saying, “I don’t understand this, can you explain it to me.” It’s never ending. And the first thing you know you’re spending all your time dealing with these guys.”

Do you really want that?

(2) You ignore the Questions. This will lead to a post at the Audit weblog using words like 'stonewall', 'petulance', 'refusal'. You won't be directly accused of malpractice or fraud, naturally, however the comments will be a playground where those with a desire to speculate about 'What is Lewandowsky hiding?' will be given free rein. There will then be a short hiatus during which you may think your life is getting back to normal, but then the orchestrated FOI requests for any and all emails relating to the paper will start ...

Do you really want that?

There is no 3rd choice.

http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/celebrity-deathmatch.html

As pointed out already, if there was something that was unavailable, such as the GISSTEMP code, when it is made available, it is usually completely ignored. Their "auditing" requests aren't genuine and made in good faith. They are about personal grandstanding and ego.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

The post to which you replied was about McIntyre's FOI request

That post replied to my contention that honest scientists make their data available.

Wrong.

I reviewed the sequence of exchanges between lomiller and me here. It's not about FOI. It's about access to the raw data. Please read the Climate Audit posts I linked.

 

[Reality Check]

You might have an informative argument with lomiller, who agrees that climate scientists withhold data (he approves of their stated reasons, so to him it's the same as not whitholding data).

You may want to actually read what lomiller wrote and try to learn what the CRU situation actually was. The stated reason was that there were requests for data that the CRU had no legal right to release.
So McIntyre (and maybe you?) is advocating that scientists become criminals and steal data!

Anyway, McIntyre provides sufficient cites that you can check his assertions about, for example, ice cores that were drilled with NSF money but not archived. Those data are public property.

That is not an example of scientists withholding data. It is impossible to withhold data that does not exist !
That is an example of data storage problems. It could be incompetence if the NSF grant money was supplied with the requirement that this data be archived.

 

[Reality Check]

I observe that lomiller, McIntyre, and I agree that CRU (and Mann) DO NOT comply with requests for raw data. Lomiller has a different explanation.

I observe that lomiller, McIntyre, Malcolm Kirkpatrick, and I agree that CRU DID NOT comply with requests for raw data. Lomiller has a couple of actual explanations

• data already made public
• data that did not belong to the people he was asking and could not legally be released by them. In much the same way I can't legally sell you someone elses property.

In addition Climategate and the Freedom of Information (FOI) requests

 

[a_unique_person]

I reviewed the sequence of exchanges between lomiller and me here. It's not about FOI. It's about access to the raw data. Please read the Climate Audit posts I linked.

RAW data is usually not owned by the scientists investigating climate. BEST managed to get a completely independent temperature record together without any of the histrionics of the self proclaimed 'auditors'.