Hey Greenpeace guy, it's gonna get colder, then hotter, then colder, ad infinitum. And here's the real shocker: humans won't mean squat in the equation.
Hey Green Peace co-founder dude. Your organization has been funding public policies to the contrary of your assertions, so here is a giant FUCK YOU for your efforts ASSHOLE!!! Next time you decide that you want to save the fucking world, DON'T!!!
I have a checkered career in science and math, and two things I happen to know run up against climate science.
1. You can't solve the Navier Stokes equations, which govern the atmosphere (to say nothing of the oceans, a harder problem, but ignore that). In 3D flows go to shorter and shorter scales, so that no grid no matter how fine is adequate to capture the motion. Yet NS solvers pass through climate science peer review without objection.
2. You can't tell a cycle from a trend with data short compared to the cycle to be excluded (the eigenvalues of the distinguishing matrix explode, making every observation useless). Yet trends make it through climate science peer review without objection.
Conclusion, long ago now, climate science is not science. It has no peer review. It's something else, like horoscopes.
You can't tell whether the earth or warming, is the current state.
You can get lots of funding though if you say it is.
So I'm a climate science field denier, not a climate change denier. I'm a you-can't-teller on the warming, just as you could never tell for all of history.
Some thing we don't know and are not going to know, and that's life.
At breakfast, responding to a news item, Dad asked me how can a man lose his own company. He couldn't see how a man who builds a company does not stay on top of it as it grows. Greenpeace had so much useful righteous early success that it attracted fierce ecology-minded crackpots worldwide like a powerful magnet. A powerful electromagnet, turn on the power VOOOOOP the rapture enacted, faithful are drawn from their homes, from their conversations, from their sleep, from their vehicles, from wherever they are at the time, from whatever they're doing ineluctably irresistibly pulled to Greenpeace and by their presence, by their sheer mass, by their new influx of money change the character of Greenpeace forever. In this case he did not fail to stay on top of his company, nor get pushed out, nor bought, rather, his company grew instantly, exponentially, and became something else entirely so he departed. Nothing within himself changed, every bit as rational as when he started, when Greenpeace was a force of good.
Methadras, Dr. Moore long ago split ways with Greenpeace since it lost it's mind.
I see things pretty much like he does. I agreed with him when he started GreenPeace and supported him then. Now we both think they are nuts, and scary radicals. I also see climate change as he does.
Eric, "Global warming is a fact." Is a meaningless statement which could be true, false, or good or bad depending on what you mean. Over what period? To what degree? How long will it last? Is it natural?, Is it serious? Is it controllable? Most importantly of all, is it a negative or a positive thing? Until those things are known with some degree of certainty, saying the planet is warming has as much value as saying your diet has changed.
I'm also not excited about NASA models on thermal analysis. Considering how inaccurate they were for the Space Shuttle (a rather simple system compared to the entire Earth), I'm not impressed with people who believe those models can't accurately predict Global Warming as being caused by humans and can predict temperatures within a fraction of a degree over a decade.
I have a checkered career in science and math, and two things I happen to know run up against climate science.
1. You can't solve the Navier Stokes equations, which govern the atmosphere (to say nothing of the oceans, a harder problem, but ignore that). In 3D flows go to shorter and shorter scales, so that no grid no matter how fine is adequate to capture the motion. Yet NS solvers pass through climate science peer review without objection.
2. You can't tell a cycle from a trend with data short compared to the cycle to be excluded (the eigenvalues of the distinguishing matrix explode, making every observation useless). Yet trends make it through climate science peer review without objection.
Conclusion, long ago now, climate science is not science. It has no peer review. It's something else, like horoscopes.
You can't tell whether the earth or warming, is the current state.
You can get lots of funding though if you say it is.
So I'm a climate science field denier, not a climate change denier. I'm a you-can't-teller on the warming, just as you could never tell for all of history.
Some thing we don't know and are not going to know, and that's life.
Translation: Dumping enough carbon into the atmosphere to change its overall composition will do nothing and isn't worth doing anything about.
In the meantime we're melting the north pole before our very eyes.
I guess the new "skeptical science" says you should never believe what can be directly observed.
Interesting way to go about it. Maybe it will catch on.
Ok. So this ding-dong says we're going to make the planet cloudier, while simultaneously planting more trees and increasing agriculture. Not that they'll need sunlight or anything.
He sure has a lot of hypotheses. But not one to tell us why CO2 will no longer affect climate strongly enough to overwhelm the others. Maybe he can move to Venus, then. Commune with his fellow Venusians on the favorability of its runaway greenhouse effect. Start planting some crops, there, even.
You're right Ritmo. We should do something,... anything, because it might need done, maybe it will work, and maybe it won't be a really dumb idea, because Venus is hot.
You do realize Venus was a hothouse long before the millions of years Earth's atmosphere had much higher levels of CO2 than today as well as higher and lower temperatures that do not correlate with those CO2 levels.
Over the last billion years the earth's AVERAGE temperature was over 7 degrees Celsius higher than today's, with much higher peaks, and yet no Venus here. It still managed to cool back to ice age over and over. Did you watch the video? Is his data wrong?
Why do you assume a warmer earth is something we should even try to prevent?. Do you really think we could or would do it? Do you think controlling the climate is more or less likely than just adjusting to it? Do you think pursuing something so unlikely and expensive make sense with the current level of scientific certainty and model failure?
Over the last billion years the earth's AVERAGE temperature was over 7 degrees Celsius higher than today's, with much higher peaks, and yet no Venus here.
Agriculture as we've known it, the civilization it allows for, and the physical infrastructure we've built to develop it have only been around for 10,000 years, at most.
It is an act of utter stupidity to take the conditions allowing that for granted just because other forms of life could eke by in a billion years excepting those 10 thousand.
Venus is the cautionary tale. The only conditions we know that have allowed for civilization are within the narrow confines that existed for a tiny fraction (one-one hundred thousandth) of the "billion" years you take as viable.
Imagine that some people are actually happy with our human form and our human lives - and understand this as a decent ideal or even necessity to maintain. Once you figure out how to transform yourself into an ameba, dinosaur, wooly mammoth or giant fern or cockroach then you can wax nostalgically and enthusiastically about "returning" the weather patterns on this planet to pre-agricultural conditions.
It is by far advisable when working with a complex system to maintain the conditions that have been proven to work.
When modifying a biological system, it is far likelier that a change will be disastrous than productive.
Gene mutation is overwhelmingly harmful. Only a one-in-a-million chance (or thereabouts) does it lead to something possibly beneficial.
The conditions allowing for agriculture are, likewise, situational ideals and necessities - changes in which no one is at liberty to predict as being neutral or good.
And yet, the presenter is worried about the uncertainty of AGW. Talk about a perverse logical inversion!
Before agriculture there was no such thing as industry. Forgetting that is what happens when economic bullshitters who have precious little grasp of history or science or just basic civic responsibility pretend that advanced economies can exist or ever would have existed absent a stable and reliable way of producing FOOD.
I suggest you write up a paper on this new theory of climate-based evolution of civilization that requires this narrow temperature band of just a degree or two. Get that published quick. You may be on to something about those uncivilized peoples of the lower latitudes. Careful though, some lefty will call you a racist. They do that when they don't like stuff.
Everything I said was factual. Everything you said was speculative.
You are a radical who prefers fidgeting with the conditions that allowed for agriculture to modifying a very specific way of producing industrial energy.
You are a pseudo-conservative phony.
Go try growing large scale crops at a seven-degree greater average temperature (as existed in the mesozoic, paleozoic and beyond) and let me know how that works out for you.
As it stands, you're telling society that you're more concerned with changing industrial habits than you are with forcing changes to the soil, climate and atmosphere that all agriculture rely on.
Remember, your famed scientist proposes offsetting greater tree cover with greater cloud cover. Must have been a glitch in his thinking.
Give a serious response or STFU and admit that you don't like being exposed as a fool who sees planetary systems as his own personal Tinker Toy set, much like the one he broke when he was a kid.
There were periods of temperature just like the modern times millions of years ago. We know this because of the advanced dino/human culture of the Flintstone era. I always wondered about that. Maybe their barefoot car propulsion technology was an attempt to prevent greenhouse gases. We could try that too. I guess things got too warm and wiped them out. See, that's why I'm not too thrilled about this attempt we are making. They clearly sacrificed a lot to fight global warming, and they all died out, even the pets. Can we really do better?
If you've been to Troopers's place, you know that Betty and Wilma heated things up pretty well. The womens - that's our Achilles heel.
For anyone keeping score: Bag placed human evolution and the agricultural revolution in the mesozoic and paleozoic geological eras and called the person pointing out how ludicrous that was, "dumb".
Remember, he was the one that saw a billion years of geological history as an equivalent setting in which to place modern agriculture - but to him it's anyone who points out the folly of that equivalence as "dumb".
But he's going to say what industrial conditions are open to change and which are not.
I repeat, he actually believes that he can grow crops anywhere, under any planetary conditions, but that a very specific industrial design must stay a certain way for all time. Either that, OR, he forgot that maintaining that industry required food to do so.
My my. He sure doesn't like revealing himself to be wrong, does he?
You just go and stick to that whole "vision" thing, Bags. Leave the details to the guys in the white coats.
They'll give you the grand master plan for maintaining both industry AND a stable agricultural system at ANY temperature, in ANY climate.
Well, they'll probably just lie to you about it, though. But it looks like that's what you prefer paying them to do, anyway.
Bags pays good money for good lies. His ego and obtuseness require nothing less… than the very best.
"Everything I said was factual. Everything you said was speculative."
Are you sure you know the difference? Maybe you have our comments mixed up. I'm the one hugging the one-eyed Pitbull. He buys the whole climate change thing too, and yet I still love him like a one-eyed Pitbull.
"he actually believes that he can grow crops anywhere, under any planetary conditions,"
Norway to the equator. Yes, I can grow crops and support humans over a wide band of climate - far wider than the narrow band you fear. I must admit though that I didn't come up with the techniques all by myself. I got some help during the sixties while I was off writing the entire works of the Beatles, and getting wasted.
I don't see why we should confine our outlook to only the last billion years. Why, if we only went back a few billion more or so, we could try feeding the planet on nothing but one big boiling hot ocean, or a molten ball of magma, even.
Surely there's got to be an industrial engineer out there somewhere willing to take the work it takes to put this sweet vision into place. ;-)
Ritmo, I beg to differ. I'm humbled by your comedy genius. You made me laugh my ass off tonight. I've never heard anyone make such funny climate change arguments before. You made my night, and took way the fear.
At Bags Industrial Food Systems, Inc., we're currently working on ways of growing the planet's dietary demands on orbs of steel, launched into space, shielded from cosmic radiation with lead protective covers that block out all sunlight.
That's right. We're growing food without sunlight, even.
Why stick to food grown in the temperate conditions we've lived with since agriculture made civilization possible? At Bags Inc, we go one step further.
We will grow our crops in outer space, without an atmosphere, and just distant, uncaptured starlight… assuming it penetrates those lead shields.
No vision is too great for us.
Soon we won't even use crops. We'll just make hologram images of livestock, and provide spaces for you to envision their butchering, preparation and mastication.
No job is too big, no vision too small, no proposal as thoroughly unreasearched in its lunacy, for Bags Incorporated.
You made me laugh my ass off tonight. I've never heard anyone make such funny climate change arguments before.
Oh. Such as the "argument" (i.e fact) that agriculture precedes and makes industry possible, and that it has never been tried under the mesozoic or paleozoic planetary conditions you propose we return to?
Yep. That was so much funnier than you proposing that we do precisely that in the first place.
You can't make me out to be the funny guy for simply throwing in the punch lines. Give yourself credit for setting yourself up like a fool, first. You did a hell of a job of that.
We will have giant megaflora producing greater levels of oxygen to maintain the gigantic insects that roamed the planet hundreds of millions of years ago - relegating us once again to the caves for shelter.
But that's ok, because Bags will direct us to grow crops in those caves!. Yes, he's got a plan. He's got… just… that… much… ingenuity.
The caves are dark, but perhaps we won't need plants.
We will live on fungus and mushrooms alone.
Photosynthesis will finally be banished. If sunlight can't be restricted with limited licensing rights, then it would have to no doubt go.
"But, but... Venus!" is about the dumbest thing said when people wet themselves about "climate change". Venus' atmosphere and Earth's are completely different.
Ritmo, without looking, how much CO2 is in Venus' atmosphere? For a reference point, Earth's is currently at 400 ppm.
I'll save you the Google search: 965,000 ppm. That is 96.5% of the atmosphere is CO2. Earth's is a mere 0.04%. If you, like others, think Earth is going to end up like that then you are a special level of stupid.
Here are 1350+ peer-reviewed articles that dispute the global warming fear campaign.
Methadras, Dr. Moore long ago split ways with Greenpeace since it lost it's mind.
I see things pretty much like he does. I agreed with him when he started GreenPeace and supported him then. Now we both think they are nuts, and scary radicals. I also see climate change as he does.
Eric, "Global warming is a fact." Is a meaningless statement which could be true, false, or good or bad depending on what you mean. Over what period? To what degree? How long will it last? Is it natural?, Is it serious? Is it controllable? Most importantly of all, is it a negative or a positive thing? Until those things are known with some degree of certainty, saying the planet is warming has as much value as saying your diet has changed.
Do not care. There are certain people that should have been strangled from the day of their birth in order for the world to not be polluted by their idiocy as they attain adulthood. He's one of them. That said, his attempt at redemption is admirable in the face of the current political and cultural schism that we 'deniers' seem to be inflicted with by the current crop of 'accepters' of climate change. Hey guys, climate change is everywhere because atmosphere and stuff.
The only real question to ask any of the douche bag 'accepters' which I always do is, "What do you want the global mean surface temperature of the earth to be." let them sit on that for awhile why you walk on by and laugh at their utter stupidity. That's what I do.
Well, I guess that settles it, then. We should do nothing.
The course of action is settled - Do nothing.
That's actually the smartest thing you can do. Do nothing. Let the system work itself out with respect to tolerance back feedback. Doing nothing costs nothing to do. Therefore no one will be asked to give up their life force in the form of money to be forcibly given to governments or their privately-coupled apparatchiks to take care of.
Gee Matt - somewhere between 0.04 and 96.5 there are a whole lot of numbers. It's not like CO2 only started affecting Venus once it got up to a certain point. Of course, you imply otherwise, which is as dumb as saying that between the "2" setting and "10" setting on my range nothing will happen if I dial it anywhere upwards from "2". Or that between 31 degrees and 54 degrees on a thermometer nothing will happen if the temperature increases above 31.
You guys have a seriously deficient understanding of the concept of ranges and how detailed nature's uses for them is.
Matt, which part of the concept of "scale" are you finding difficulty with?
Venus shows what happens when you're closer to the sun and go to nearly total carbon. That doesn't mean it's not instructive for people who don't presume the link between carbon and heat-retention is restricted to ONLY two temperatures and two carbon content scenarios, but includes lesser increases for lesser increases. There are other outcomes besides 0.04% and 96.5% that would still link temperatures lower than Venus' with carbon increases less than Venus'.
Why do right-wingers make this stuff seem so complicated? It's not that hard. Just because you're less likely to drown in 5 feet of water than in an ocean doesn't mean that I recommend flooding your house.
Is there even enough carbon on/in Earth to become a significant fraction of the atmosphere, assuming it were all burned to CO2? Elements have different distribution of different planets
Is there enough carbon on earth to make a venus heat trap?
It's pretty well accepted, as I understand it, that carbon (CO2) is responsible - at even the tiny fraction that exists in earth's atmosphere - for the majority of what keeps our planet at a stable, warm temperature.
Venus, or so it's thought, is the "victim" of a "runaway" greenhouse effect. That is, warming has a positive feedback loop that releases more CO2 from stored/trapped spaces, increasing warming further.
I "doubt" we'd get to Venus' CO2 concentration or temperature. (I use the word "doubt" in quotes because in that sense I'm speaking from my gut in the same way conservative amateur scientists/skeptics do. No top-of-my-head knowledge to back it up). But that doesn't mean we could get to a point where it's still unstable and very much a problem. I think there are a lot of temperatures between our own and Venus' 900 degrees that we'd still like to avoid. And at almost any cost, depending on how sensitive our planet's agriculture is to small global shifts in average temperatures.
"Venus, or so it's thought, is the 'victim' of a 'runaway' greenhouse effect."
More of that firm scientific belief you have there...
Also, Venus is only in the conversation because YOU brought it up! You are the one who turned the dial from 0.04 to 96.5. And, when called on it, you want to dial it back. Want to be taken seriously? Drop the dopey rhetoric!
What is the purpose of Venus as an example of what we should fear (even though it is a laughable suggestion)? To instill ungrounded, UNSCIENTIFIC fear? 'You don't want a carbon tax!? What, would you rather live on Venus!?'
"Why do right-wingers make this stuff seem so complicated?"
Yep. I disagree with you therefore I must be a right winger. Did I ever say, 'you liberal this or that' or any such nonsense? No, because I am engaging you as the individual you are rather than as a caricature conjured in the mind.
I find interesting in you bloviating that you conveniently ignored the link I posted earlier. Why? You are interested in the truth, right? As such, you want as complete a picture as possible, right? Thus, you seek to understand the arguments against your position and find how those arguments are flawed, right?
Take a look at this and point out the correlation (much less, causation) between CO2 levels and temperatures, please.
What is the purpose of Venus as an example of what we should fear (even though it is a laughable suggestion)? To instill ungrounded, UNSCIENTIFIC fear? 'You don't want a carbon tax!? What, would you rather live on Venus!?'
You seem to be having a persistent problem with the phenomenon of example. Just because a parent teaches a kid to avoid hot stoves doesn't mean they're going to encourage the kid to sunburn. Or hike without water in a desert. Venus proves that the greenhouse effect is real. Just because the scale on which it exists there is greater than it is here, doesn't mean that your emotional reaction to a phenomenon that significant needs to prevent you from appreciating that it still exists, even if on a lesser scale, in atmospheres where less CO2 is present.
And thanks for the links. When it comes to serious topics, I prefer to read things written by people who have actual reputations to stake on their findings. Not opinion pieces written by polemicists, editorialists, and pundits. Thanks!
Just so you know, Venus and Earth are, like, completely different planets! The idea that conditions on one could happen to the other just because they are of similar sizes is asinine. It really, really is stupid. And it was a comparison YOU brought up. Not me.
Wait, so the 1350+ peer reviewed science papers that do not support global warming were written by "polemicists, editorialists, and pundits"? Really?
If the content of what I linked is so awful, should it not be easy for you to refute it? Why just dismiss them because you don't like who said it? That seems not too terribly intellectual. The image in my mind is you, Ritmo, fingers in your ears yelling, "LA LA LA LA LA!!"
The last link I posted was an image based on data. In other words: just the facts. Either the data used was inaccurate or it was not. What editorializing was included in it? Bad data? Why, Ritmo, did you reject the image out of hand? What political bias was included within it? Is it not considered accurate?
Just so you know, Venus and Earth are, like, completely different planets!
Just so you know, Matt - the same science actually works everywhere in the universe including on every single planet!
Wait, so the 1350+ peer reviewed science papers that do not support global warming were written by "polemicists, editorialists, and pundits"? Really?
Then link to them or to a collective statement issued by them instead of to a website called "wattsupwiththat". There's something about unprofessional/silly names that I find distracting. Kind of like Matt Drudge's flashing sirens.
If the content of what I linked is so awful, should it not be easy for you to refute it?
I've actually taken an opportunity to look at it, and I don't know what to make of it. Does it show something different than the evil, "mainstream" charts? If so, in what way would the data sources have differed?
These are the sorts of questions that scientists require consideration of when reviewing conflicting findings.
Are you pivoting back to 'the Earth is going to be like Venus' now?
"Then link to them..."
I did.
"...or to a collective statement issued by them instead of to a website called 'wattsupwiththat'. There's something about unprofessional/silly names that I find distracting."
So, I can conclude that you never followed the link? Because, if you had, you would have seen that it was just an image. The image has a note at the bottom as to its progeny. Easy to investigate.
It does not show anything none "mainstream". It is a chart that, as far as I know, is not disputed but skeptics or non-skeptics.
The website is called "wattsupwiththat" because the guy who runs it has the last name "Watts". Perhaps had he called it "Watts Post" you would have found it more acceptable.
Interestingly, Watts, while a skeptic, is "green".
http://wattsupwiththat.com/about-wuwt/about2/
Trigger warning, Ritmo: that link has a "weird" domain name. Following it might suck or something.
If you take the chance and follow it, you will see images of Anthony Watts solar panels and electric roller skate, er, car.
I mention this because I when I saw it, I chuckled in recognition for I consider myself "green" in a similar manner. I used CFLs and LEDs before the government made it mandatory, I put the liter bottle of water in the toilets to conserve water, and I had our front yard converted from grass to a drought resistant garden.
Where I live, there are many small ponds and streams. Every summer, they fill with runoff that results in smelly, stagnant algae pools. People in my area have in ground sprinklers and pay Chem-Lawn(?) to keep their yards very green. I see that as wasteful of water and adding unnecessary chemicals into the water. So, I didn't do it and our yard looked like crap.
I don't fault my neighbors for wanting their pretty yards but I just couldn't do it. But also did not like my eyesore, which probably (and justly) irritated my neighbors. So, my wife and I converted our yard into a garden. It gets no water (other than rain) and no fertilizer. It looks great and even produces some food.
The reason I mention this is because I, like Anthony Watts and other skeptics, GIVE A SHIT ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT! You treat us like lepers. Why? Because we looked at the science and saw problems with it. Rather than engages us, you marginalize us. That is not a terribly convincing argument.
Because we looked at the science and saw problems with it.
The problem with people who follow this line of thought is they fail to realize that the contrary case has more problems with it. Science is not about "perfection". That's what Christian theology's for. Science is just another domain in which opposing arguments vie for acceptance based on which one has stronger evidence and explanatory power, and therefore wins. If it were about "perfection" then Newtonian physics would be thrown out the window because it breaks down on large and small scales, the relativity that completed it would be thrown out the window because it fails to explain particle behavior adequately, the quantum mechanics that fills in relativity's gaps would be thrown out the window because it can't, on its own, explain the things that we'd need string theory/multiverses for, etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum ad nauseam.
That is a fascinating response. It seems we have transitioned from one side being all about science and the other side science deniers. Now, it is ‘my side uses flawed science but yours is even worse!’ That is interesting because, to my knowledge, skeptics’ positions are that the ‘warmists’ science is flawed. That is, skeptics are generally not offering up alternative theories; only studying and evaluating ‘your’ side’s science.
At the very least, we now have you on the record acknowledging that climate science is flawed. Now the question is HOW flawed is it?
Trigger Warning: the following link goes to a site with a goofy domain name. It happens to also be the site of a climatologist… from NASA even!
You can read it if you like but the most pertinent part is the chart which shows 90 climate model projections versus that actually observed results. Wow! Those models are stunningly bad! They also nearly all seem to be wrong in the same direction. It might lead one to think that the science behind it is bad. Very, very bad. Though, no doubt, that would make one a science denier.
53 comments:
If he's skeptical, call me shocked. Who knew?
Hey Greenpeace guy, it's gonna get colder, then hotter, then colder, ad infinitum. And here's the real shocker: humans won't mean squat in the equation.
Clouds, Truly The Wild Card In Climate Change
I've been thinking that for years
yet we are told “the debate is over” and “the science is settled.”
I don't know who he's quoting and I don't care because it's beside the point, unless your goal is to profit from the yammering.
Global warming is a fact, irrespective of the cause. What, if anything at all, should be done about it is the question.
Or rather, about a million questions.
I'm skeptical of the intentions of anyone who sees matters like these as simple.
All of China's pollution acts to blot out the sun.
Funny you never hear leftist global climate change religionists discuss the pollution pouring out of China... and India, for that matter.
He needs to work on his slide show skills.
Here's a pro at work.
Hey Green Peace co-founder dude. Your organization has been funding public policies to the contrary of your assertions, so here is a giant FUCK YOU for your efforts ASSHOLE!!! Next time you decide that you want to save the fucking world, DON'T!!!
I have a checkered career in science and math, and two things I happen to know run up against climate science.
1. You can't solve the Navier Stokes equations, which govern the atmosphere (to say nothing of the oceans, a harder problem, but ignore that). In 3D flows go to shorter and shorter scales, so that no grid no matter how fine is adequate to capture the motion. Yet NS solvers pass through climate science peer review without objection.
2. You can't tell a cycle from a trend with data short compared to the cycle to be excluded (the eigenvalues of the distinguishing matrix explode, making every observation useless). Yet trends make it through climate science peer review without objection.
Conclusion, long ago now, climate science is not science. It has no peer review. It's something else, like horoscopes.
You can't tell whether the earth or warming, is the current state.
You can get lots of funding though if you say it is.
So I'm a climate science field denier, not a climate change denier. I'm a you-can't-teller on the warming, just as you could never tell for all of history.
Some thing we don't know and are not going to know, and that's life.
@Methadras: Aren't you attacking Saul rather than Paul?
Side note: I wish more Saul Alinsky types would become Paul Alinsky types.
You can say that again.
Here in Florida it could rain unexpectedly any time.
There is really no point in watching the local weather segment.
Clouds, Truly The Wild Card In Climate Change
Find the sexy side of clouds and they be hacked in a NY minute.
I like this a lot, nice find, Lem.
At breakfast, responding to a news item, Dad asked me how can a man lose his own company. He couldn't see how a man who builds a company does not stay on top of it as it grows. Greenpeace had so much useful righteous early success that it attracted fierce ecology-minded crackpots worldwide like a powerful magnet. A powerful electromagnet, turn on the power VOOOOOP the rapture enacted, faithful are drawn from their homes, from their conversations, from their sleep, from their vehicles, from wherever they are at the time, from whatever they're doing ineluctably irresistibly pulled to Greenpeace and by their presence, by their sheer mass, by their new influx of money change the character of Greenpeace forever. In this case he did not fail to stay on top of his company, nor get pushed out, nor bought, rather, his company grew instantly, exponentially, and became something else entirely so he departed. Nothing within himself changed, every bit as rational as when he started, when Greenpeace was a force of good.
Methadras, Dr. Moore long ago split ways with Greenpeace since it lost it's mind.
I see things pretty much like he does. I agreed with him when he started GreenPeace and supported him then. Now we both think they are nuts, and scary radicals. I also see climate change as he does.
Eric, "Global warming is a fact." Is a meaningless statement which could be true, false, or good or bad depending on what you mean. Over what period? To what degree? How long will it last? Is it natural?, Is it serious? Is it controllable? Most importantly of all, is it a negative or a positive thing? Until those things are known with some degree of certainty, saying the planet is warming has as much value as saying your diet has changed.
It as if you gained weight and people started panicking and telling you it's gonna kill you without even knowing if you're obese or anorexic.
Many, of course, would sell you expensive cures for your "problem" regardless.
That entire quoted part sums it up for me.
I'm also not excited about NASA models on thermal analysis. Considering how inaccurate they were for the Space Shuttle (a rather simple system compared to the entire Earth), I'm not impressed with people who believe those models can't accurately predict Global Warming as being caused by humans and can predict temperatures within a fraction of a degree over a decade.
Well, I guess that settles it, then. We should do nothing.
The course of action is settled - Do nothing.
I have a checkered career in science and math, and two things I happen to know run up against climate science.
1. You can't solve the Navier Stokes equations, which govern the atmosphere (to say nothing of the oceans, a harder problem, but ignore that). In 3D flows go to shorter and shorter scales, so that no grid no matter how fine is adequate to capture the motion. Yet NS solvers pass through climate science peer review without objection.
2. You can't tell a cycle from a trend with data short compared to the cycle to be excluded (the eigenvalues of the distinguishing matrix explode, making every observation useless). Yet trends make it through climate science peer review without objection.
Conclusion, long ago now, climate science is not science. It has no peer review. It's something else, like horoscopes.
You can't tell whether the earth or warming, is the current state.
You can get lots of funding though if you say it is.
So I'm a climate science field denier, not a climate change denier. I'm a you-can't-teller on the warming, just as you could never tell for all of history.
Some thing we don't know and are not going to know, and that's life.
Translation: Dumping enough carbon into the atmosphere to change its overall composition will do nothing and isn't worth doing anything about.
In the meantime we're melting the north pole before our very eyes.
I guess the new "skeptical science" says you should never believe what can be directly observed.
Interesting way to go about it. Maybe it will catch on.
Ok. So this ding-dong says we're going to make the planet cloudier, while simultaneously planting more trees and increasing agriculture. Not that they'll need sunlight or anything.
He sure has a lot of hypotheses. But not one to tell us why CO2 will no longer affect climate strongly enough to overwhelm the others. Maybe he can move to Venus, then. Commune with his fellow Venusians on the favorability of its runaway greenhouse effect. Start planting some crops, there, even.
You're right Ritmo. We should do something,... anything, because it might need done, maybe it will work, and maybe it won't be a really dumb idea, because Venus is hot.
You do realize Venus was a hothouse long before the millions of years Earth's atmosphere had much higher levels of CO2 than today as well as higher and lower temperatures that do not correlate with those CO2 levels.
Over the last billion years the earth's AVERAGE temperature was over 7 degrees Celsius higher than today's, with much higher peaks, and yet no Venus here. It still managed to cool back to ice age over and over. Did you watch the video? Is his data wrong?
Why do you assume a warmer earth is something we should even try to prevent?. Do you really think we could or would do it? Do you think controlling the climate is more or less likely than just adjusting to it? Do you think pursuing something so unlikely and expensive make sense with the current level of scientific certainty and model failure?
Over the last billion years the earth's AVERAGE temperature was over 7 degrees Celsius higher than today's, with much higher peaks, and yet no Venus here.
Agriculture as we've known it, the civilization it allows for, and the physical infrastructure we've built to develop it have only been around for 10,000 years, at most.
It is an act of utter stupidity to take the conditions allowing that for granted just because other forms of life could eke by in a billion years excepting those 10 thousand.
Venus is the cautionary tale. The only conditions we know that have allowed for civilization are within the narrow confines that existed for a tiny fraction (one-one hundred thousandth) of the "billion" years you take as viable.
Imagine that some people are actually happy with our human form and our human lives - and understand this as a decent ideal or even necessity to maintain. Once you figure out how to transform yourself into an ameba, dinosaur, wooly mammoth or giant fern or cockroach then you can wax nostalgically and enthusiastically about "returning" the weather patterns on this planet to pre-agricultural conditions.
Don't they teach anything these days?
It is by far advisable when working with a complex system to maintain the conditions that have been proven to work.
When modifying a biological system, it is far likelier that a change will be disastrous than productive.
Gene mutation is overwhelmingly harmful. Only a one-in-a-million chance (or thereabouts) does it lead to something possibly beneficial.
The conditions allowing for agriculture are, likewise, situational ideals and necessities - changes in which no one is at liberty to predict as being neutral or good.
And yet, the presenter is worried about the uncertainty of AGW. Talk about a perverse logical inversion!
Before agriculture there was no such thing as industry. Forgetting that is what happens when economic bullshitters who have precious little grasp of history or science or just basic civic responsibility pretend that advanced economies can exist or ever would have existed absent a stable and reliable way of producing FOOD.
With all due respect, holyshit, that dumb!
I suggest you write up a paper on this new theory of climate-based evolution of civilization that requires this narrow temperature band of just a degree or two. Get that published quick. You may be on to something about those uncivilized peoples of the lower latitudes. Careful though, some lefty will call you a racist. They do that when they don't like stuff.
Everything I said was factual. Everything you said was speculative.
You are a radical who prefers fidgeting with the conditions that allowed for agriculture to modifying a very specific way of producing industrial energy.
You are a pseudo-conservative phony.
Go try growing large scale crops at a seven-degree greater average temperature (as existed in the mesozoic, paleozoic and beyond) and let me know how that works out for you.
As it stands, you're telling society that you're more concerned with changing industrial habits than you are with forcing changes to the soil, climate and atmosphere that all agriculture rely on.
Remember, your famed scientist proposes offsetting greater tree cover with greater cloud cover. Must have been a glitch in his thinking.
Give a serious response or STFU and admit that you don't like being exposed as a fool who sees planetary systems as his own personal Tinker Toy set, much like the one he broke when he was a kid.
Neither do most people.
There were periods of temperature just like the modern times millions of years ago. We know this because of the advanced dino/human culture of the Flintstone era. I always wondered about that. Maybe their barefoot car propulsion technology was an attempt to prevent greenhouse gases. We could try that too. I guess things got too warm and wiped them out. See, that's why I'm not too thrilled about this attempt we are making. They clearly sacrificed a lot to fight global warming, and they all died out, even the pets. Can we really do better?
If you've been to Troopers's place, you know that Betty and Wilma heated things up pretty well. The womens - that's our Achilles heel.
For anyone keeping score: Bag placed human evolution and the agricultural revolution in the mesozoic and paleozoic geological eras and called the person pointing out how ludicrous that was, "dumb".
Remember, he was the one that saw a billion years of geological history as an equivalent setting in which to place modern agriculture - but to him it's anyone who points out the folly of that equivalence as "dumb".
But he's going to say what industrial conditions are open to change and which are not.
I repeat, he actually believes that he can grow crops anywhere, under any planetary conditions, but that a very specific industrial design must stay a certain way for all time. Either that, OR, he forgot that maintaining that industry required food to do so.
My my. He sure doesn't like revealing himself to be wrong, does he?
You just go and stick to that whole "vision" thing, Bags. Leave the details to the guys in the white coats.
They'll give you the grand master plan for maintaining both industry AND a stable agricultural system at ANY temperature, in ANY climate.
Well, they'll probably just lie to you about it, though. But it looks like that's what you prefer paying them to do, anyway.
Bags pays good money for good lies. His ego and obtuseness require nothing less… than the very best.
Only the best lies will do.
"Everything I said was factual. Everything you said was speculative."
Are you sure you know the difference? Maybe you have our comments mixed up. I'm the one hugging the one-eyed Pitbull. He buys the whole climate change thing too, and yet I still love him like a one-eyed Pitbull.
Well, I guess it's one-liner amateur comedy hour.
I suggest you start paying for better comedy writers, also.
Or you could try out on an open mike night at the improv. But you'd best wait to recreate "Old Earth" conditions before doing so.
Otherwise, it might still be possible for them to throw tomatoes at you. ;-)
"he actually believes that he can grow crops anywhere, under any planetary conditions,"
Norway to the equator. Yes, I can grow crops and support humans over a wide band of climate - far wider than the narrow band you fear. I must admit though that I didn't come up with the techniques all by myself. I got some help during the sixties while I was off writing the entire works of the Beatles, and getting wasted.
Okaaaaay, so I guess this is your way of saying you didn't seriously mean what you first said to begin with.
You've gotta love Bags. When his ego takes a hit, he just makes a joke.
It's ordinarily a virtuous courtesy.
Meanwhile though, the meager modern humans want to know how he's going to maintain industrial agriculture on a few scrap patches of Stegosaurus food.
I don't see why we should confine our outlook to only the last billion years. Why, if we only went back a few billion more or so, we could try feeding the planet on nothing but one big boiling hot ocean, or a molten ball of magma, even.
Surely there's got to be an industrial engineer out there somewhere willing to take the work it takes to put this sweet vision into place. ;-)
Ritmo, I beg to differ. I'm humbled by your comedy genius. You made me laugh my ass off tonight. I've never heard anyone make such funny climate change arguments before. You made my night, and took way the fear.
At Bags Industrial Food Systems, Inc., we're currently working on ways of growing the planet's dietary demands on orbs of steel, launched into space, shielded from cosmic radiation with lead protective covers that block out all sunlight.
That's right. We're growing food without sunlight, even.
Why stick to food grown in the temperate conditions we've lived with since agriculture made civilization possible? At Bags Inc, we go one step further.
We will grow our crops in outer space, without an atmosphere, and just distant, uncaptured starlight… assuming it penetrates those lead shields.
No vision is too great for us.
Soon we won't even use crops. We'll just make hologram images of livestock, and provide spaces for you to envision their butchering, preparation and mastication.
No job is too big, no vision too small, no proposal as thoroughly unreasearched in its lunacy, for Bags Incorporated.
We're on the cutting edge. Of a pair of scissors.
You made me laugh my ass off tonight. I've never heard anyone make such funny climate change arguments before.
Oh. Such as the "argument" (i.e fact) that agriculture precedes and makes industry possible, and that it has never been tried under the mesozoic or paleozoic planetary conditions you propose we return to?
Yep. That was so much funnier than you proposing that we do precisely that in the first place.
You can't make me out to be the funny guy for simply throwing in the punch lines. Give yourself credit for setting yourself up like a fool, first. You did a hell of a job of that.
Come on, Bags. Give yourself some credit.
Bags envisions humanity's reinvention as a new race of caveman-farmers.
We will have giant megaflora producing greater levels of oxygen to maintain the gigantic insects that roamed the planet hundreds of millions of years ago - relegating us once again to the caves for shelter.
But that's ok, because Bags will direct us to grow crops in those caves!. Yes, he's got a plan. He's got… just… that… much… ingenuity.
The caves are dark, but perhaps we won't need plants.
We will live on fungus and mushrooms alone.
Photosynthesis will finally be banished. If sunlight can't be restricted with limited licensing rights, then it would have to no doubt go.
Capitalism demands nothing less.
"But, but... Venus!" is about the dumbest thing said when people wet themselves about "climate change". Venus' atmosphere and Earth's are completely different.
Ritmo, without looking, how much CO2 is in Venus' atmosphere? For a reference point, Earth's is currently at 400 ppm.
I'll save you the Google search: 965,000 ppm. That is 96.5% of the atmosphere is CO2. Earth's is a mere 0.04%. If you, like others, think Earth is going to end up like that then you are a special level of stupid.
Here are 1350+ peer-reviewed articles that dispute the global warming fear campaign.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
bagoh20 said...
Methadras, Dr. Moore long ago split ways with Greenpeace since it lost it's mind.
I see things pretty much like he does. I agreed with him when he started GreenPeace and supported him then. Now we both think they are nuts, and scary radicals. I also see climate change as he does.
Eric, "Global warming is a fact." Is a meaningless statement which could be true, false, or good or bad depending on what you mean. Over what period? To what degree? How long will it last? Is it natural?, Is it serious? Is it controllable? Most importantly of all, is it a negative or a positive thing? Until those things are known with some degree of certainty, saying the planet is warming has as much value as saying your diet has changed.
Do not care. There are certain people that should have been strangled from the day of their birth in order for the world to not be polluted by their idiocy as they attain adulthood. He's one of them. That said, his attempt at redemption is admirable in the face of the current political and cultural schism that we 'deniers' seem to be inflicted with by the current crop of 'accepters' of climate change. Hey guys, climate change is everywhere because atmosphere and stuff.
The only real question to ask any of the douche bag 'accepters' which I always do is, "What do you want the global mean surface temperature of the earth to be." let them sit on that for awhile why you walk on by and laugh at their utter stupidity. That's what I do.
Rhythm and Balls said...
Well, I guess that settles it, then. We should do nothing.
The course of action is settled - Do nothing.
That's actually the smartest thing you can do. Do nothing. Let the system work itself out with respect to tolerance back feedback. Doing nothing costs nothing to do. Therefore no one will be asked to give up their life force in the form of money to be forcibly given to governments or their privately-coupled apparatchiks to take care of.
Gee Matt - somewhere between 0.04 and 96.5 there are a whole lot of numbers. It's not like CO2 only started affecting Venus once it got up to a certain point. Of course, you imply otherwise, which is as dumb as saying that between the "2" setting and "10" setting on my range nothing will happen if I dial it anywhere upwards from "2". Or that between 31 degrees and 54 degrees on a thermometer nothing will happen if the temperature increases above 31.
You guys have a seriously deficient understanding of the concept of ranges and how detailed nature's uses for them is.
Ritmo,
You honestly believe that if nothing is done about CO2 that Earth's atmosphere is likely to change into Venus'?
Matt, which part of the concept of "scale" are you finding difficulty with?
Venus shows what happens when you're closer to the sun and go to nearly total carbon. That doesn't mean it's not instructive for people who don't presume the link between carbon and heat-retention is restricted to ONLY two temperatures and two carbon content scenarios, but includes lesser increases for lesser increases. There are other outcomes besides 0.04% and 96.5% that would still link temperatures lower than Venus' with carbon increases less than Venus'.
Why do right-wingers make this stuff seem so complicated? It's not that hard. Just because you're less likely to drown in 5 feet of water than in an ocean doesn't mean that I recommend flooding your house.
Is there even enough carbon on/in Earth to become a significant fraction of the atmosphere, assuming it were all burned to CO2? Elements have different distribution of different planets
Is there enough carbon on earth to make a venus heat trap?
It's pretty well accepted, as I understand it, that carbon (CO2) is responsible - at even the tiny fraction that exists in earth's atmosphere - for the majority of what keeps our planet at a stable, warm temperature.
Venus, or so it's thought, is the "victim" of a "runaway" greenhouse effect. That is, warming has a positive feedback loop that releases more CO2 from stored/trapped spaces, increasing warming further.
I "doubt" we'd get to Venus' CO2 concentration or temperature. (I use the word "doubt" in quotes because in that sense I'm speaking from my gut in the same way conservative amateur scientists/skeptics do. No top-of-my-head knowledge to back it up). But that doesn't mean we could get to a point where it's still unstable and very much a problem. I think there are a lot of temperatures between our own and Venus' 900 degrees that we'd still like to avoid. And at almost any cost, depending on how sensitive our planet's agriculture is to small global shifts in average temperatures.
"...pretty well accepted, as I understand it..."
You sound so certain!
"Venus, or so it's thought, is the 'victim' of a 'runaway' greenhouse effect."
More of that firm scientific belief you have there...
Also, Venus is only in the conversation because YOU brought it up! You are the one who turned the dial from 0.04 to 96.5. And, when called on it, you want to dial it back. Want to be taken seriously? Drop the dopey rhetoric!
What is the purpose of Venus as an example of what we should fear (even though it is a laughable suggestion)? To instill ungrounded, UNSCIENTIFIC fear? 'You don't want a carbon tax!? What, would you rather live on Venus!?'
"Why do right-wingers make this stuff seem so complicated?"
Yep. I disagree with you therefore I must be a right winger. Did I ever say, 'you liberal this or that' or any such nonsense? No, because I am engaging you as the individual you are rather than as a caricature conjured in the mind.
I find interesting in you bloviating that you conveniently ignored the link I posted earlier. Why? You are interested in the truth, right? As such, you want as complete a picture as possible, right? Thus, you seek to understand the arguments against your position and find how those arguments are flawed, right?
Take a look at this and point out the correlation (much less, causation) between CO2 levels and temperatures, please.
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/co2_temperature_historical.png?w=720
What is the purpose of Venus as an example of what we should fear (even though it is a laughable suggestion)? To instill ungrounded, UNSCIENTIFIC fear? 'You don't want a carbon tax!? What, would you rather live on Venus!?'
You seem to be having a persistent problem with the phenomenon of example. Just because a parent teaches a kid to avoid hot stoves doesn't mean they're going to encourage the kid to sunburn. Or hike without water in a desert. Venus proves that the greenhouse effect is real. Just because the scale on which it exists there is greater than it is here, doesn't mean that your emotional reaction to a phenomenon that significant needs to prevent you from appreciating that it still exists, even if on a lesser scale, in atmospheres where less CO2 is present.
And thanks for the links. When it comes to serious topics, I prefer to read things written by people who have actual reputations to stake on their findings. Not opinion pieces written by polemicists, editorialists, and pundits. Thanks!
Ritmo,
Just so you know, Venus and Earth are, like, completely different planets! The idea that conditions on one could happen to the other just because they are of similar sizes is asinine. It really, really is stupid. And it was a comparison YOU brought up. Not me.
Wait, so the 1350+ peer reviewed science papers that do not support global warming were written by "polemicists, editorialists, and pundits"? Really?
If the content of what I linked is so awful, should it not be easy for you to refute it? Why just dismiss them because you don't like who said it? That seems not too terribly intellectual. The image in my mind is you, Ritmo, fingers in your ears yelling, "LA LA LA LA LA!!"
The last link I posted was an image based on data. In other words: just the facts. Either the data used was inaccurate or it was not. What editorializing was included in it? Bad data? Why, Ritmo, did you reject the image out of hand? What political bias was included within it? Is it not considered accurate?
Just so you know, Venus and Earth are, like, completely different planets!
Just so you know, Matt - the same science actually works everywhere in the universe including on every single planet!
Wait, so the 1350+ peer reviewed science papers that do not support global warming were written by "polemicists, editorialists, and pundits"? Really?
Then link to them or to a collective statement issued by them instead of to a website called "wattsupwiththat". There's something about unprofessional/silly names that I find distracting. Kind of like Matt Drudge's flashing sirens.
If the content of what I linked is so awful, should it not be easy for you to refute it?
I've actually taken an opportunity to look at it, and I don't know what to make of it. Does it show something different than the evil, "mainstream" charts? If so, in what way would the data sources have differed?
These are the sorts of questions that scientists require consideration of when reviewing conflicting findings.
Thanks.
Are you pivoting back to 'the Earth is going to be like Venus' now?
"Then link to them..."
I did.
"...or to a collective statement issued by them instead of to a website called 'wattsupwiththat'. There's something about unprofessional/silly names that I find distracting."
So, I can conclude that you never followed the link? Because, if you had, you would have seen that it was just an image. The image has a note at the bottom as to its progeny. Easy to investigate.
It does not show anything none "mainstream". It is a chart that, as far as I know, is not disputed but skeptics or non-skeptics.
The website is called "wattsupwiththat" because the guy who runs it has the last name "Watts". Perhaps had he called it "Watts Post" you would have found it more acceptable.
Interestingly, Watts, while a skeptic, is "green".
http://wattsupwiththat.com/about-wuwt/about2/
Trigger warning, Ritmo: that link has a "weird" domain name. Following it might suck or something.
If you take the chance and follow it, you will see images of Anthony Watts solar panels and electric roller skate, er, car.
I mention this because I when I saw it, I chuckled in recognition for I consider myself "green" in a similar manner. I used CFLs and LEDs before the government made it mandatory, I put the liter bottle of water in the toilets to conserve water, and I had our front yard converted from grass to a drought resistant garden.
Where I live, there are many small ponds and streams. Every summer, they fill with runoff that results in smelly, stagnant algae pools. People in my area have in ground sprinklers and pay Chem-Lawn(?) to keep their yards very green. I see that as wasteful of water and adding unnecessary chemicals into the water. So, I didn't do it and our yard looked like crap.
I don't fault my neighbors for wanting their pretty yards but I just couldn't do it. But also did not like my eyesore, which probably (and justly) irritated my neighbors. So, my wife and I converted our yard into a garden. It gets no water (other than rain) and no fertilizer. It looks great and even produces some food.
The reason I mention this is because I, like Anthony Watts and other skeptics, GIVE A SHIT ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT! You treat us like lepers. Why? Because we looked at the science and saw problems with it. Rather than engages us, you marginalize us. That is not a terribly convincing argument.
Because we looked at the science and saw problems with it.
The problem with people who follow this line of thought is they fail to realize that the contrary case has more problems with it. Science is not about "perfection". That's what Christian theology's for. Science is just another domain in which opposing arguments vie for acceptance based on which one has stronger evidence and explanatory power, and therefore wins. If it were about "perfection" then Newtonian physics would be thrown out the window because it breaks down on large and small scales, the relativity that completed it would be thrown out the window because it fails to explain particle behavior adequately, the quantum mechanics that fills in relativity's gaps would be thrown out the window because it can't, on its own, explain the things that we'd need string theory/multiverses for, etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum ad nauseam.
That is a fascinating response. It seems we have transitioned from one side being all about science and the other side science deniers. Now, it is ‘my side uses flawed science but yours is even worse!’ That is interesting because, to my knowledge, skeptics’ positions are that the ‘warmists’ science is flawed. That is, skeptics are generally not offering up alternative theories; only studying and evaluating ‘your’ side’s science.
At the very least, we now have you on the record acknowledging that climate science is flawed. Now the question is HOW flawed is it?
Trigger Warning: the following link goes to a site with a goofy domain name. It happens to also be the site of a climatologist… from NASA even!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/
You can read it if you like but the most pertinent part is the chart which shows 90 climate model projections versus that actually observed results. Wow! Those models are stunningly bad! They also nearly all seem to be wrong in the same direction. It might lead one to think that the science behind it is bad. Very, very bad. Though, no doubt, that would make one a science denier.
Post a Comment