Subscribe Contribute Advertise Facebook Twitter Instagram Forums Newsletter
The Carbon Flame War
Display Avatars Sort By:
Dave T
(DaveT) - F
snideness. on 12/13/2010 10:04:24 MST Print View

"...snide and worthless comments you put into it."


Shucks Rog. I think you'll find YOUR first snide and worthless comments about 85 pages before I added any in.

Snide-physician, heal thyself!

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: snideness. on 12/13/2010 10:09:21 MST Print View

You're a joke.

Dave T
(DaveT) - F
comedy. on 12/13/2010 11:19:03 MST Print View

As is your way, you fail to respond to my substantive post pointing out specifics abotu our first snide and worthless comments and their relative positions to one another, instead choosing to engage in simple name calling.

Why not address the facts?

Why obfuscate the truth?

I posit that it is because you are a snidepostrelativelocationobfuscatorist!

(I have done a large amount of statistics and graphing which, once released, will show that you engaged in 407% more insults and 4.7x more worthless comments an average of 49 forum pages earlier than me. Of course, it will be a while before I am able to release these stats and graphs [if the powers that be have their way], but I will continue to refer to them as if they are peer-reviewed fact. Unwavering! Unquestionable!)

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: comedy. on 12/13/2010 15:33:24 MST Print View

Whatever.

Ken Thompson
(kthompson) - MLife

Locale: Behind the Redwood Curtain
Snidley on 12/13/2010 18:40:03 MST Print View

whip

George Matthews
(gmatthews) - MLife
Re: Snidley - LOL on 12/13/2010 20:15:44 MST Print View

HILARIOUS!!! I'd forgotten about him. LOL

Here is the whole story for those who are bullwinkless...


dudley

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Snidley - LOL on 12/13/2010 20:20:57 MST Print View

"HILARIOUS!!! I'd forgotten about him. LOL"

Ah, yes, Ol' Oilcan Harry himself. It was "The Perils of Paula Pureheart", IIRC. An old favorite of a kid who didn't know what a TV was until he was 12 years old. Things were so much simpler back then. Sigh....

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Re: Re: So how far will you go? on 12/13/2010 20:52:17 MST Print View

"If that were true we would have thousands of years to sort it out."

That's a lot of certainty, Rog, given the complexity of the subject. All I can say is that a fair number of pretty competent and, IMO, honorable scientists are hard at work trying to better understand the problem out of a stated concern that the implications for humanity are extremely serious. Their timeframe for a potentially catastrophic drop in PH of .3-.4 is one hundred years. And that's only the oceanic half of the problem. Let us not forget the impact of deforestation, poor agricultural practices, and desertification, which are also thought to contribute to a decline in atmospheric O2. A lot of people are studying these factors, and none of them seem to feel quite as confident as you. From the perspective of one who is not expert but perfectly able to comprehend, their arguments are far more convincing on the subject than anything you have offered so far. Thus, I remain concerned, though I shall, as per your advice, try not to worry about it too much.

"It's not as black and white as that."

I wasn't looking for a black and white explanation, Rog. We all know "sold out" comes in many shades of gray, a la Le Carre, in the real world. If we summed up all those who have a detectable trace of gray in their behavior, could you give me even a rough guestimate of the magnitude of the sell out? I would be quite content with something as imprecise as "a majority", or "a small minority", etc. Just trying to get a sense of the seriousness of the problem. I certainly wouldn't want to lay awake nights worrying about something a scientist published if it turned out that there was a better than even chance he/she was a charlatan.

"No Tom, they haven't paid the price. A shell shocked establishment is still in denial and propping up the house of cards by 'exonerating' these people with whitewash Inquiries. The public is looking askance at the naked emperor. Belief in the official line is down to 26% in the UK."

I'd say that if only 26% of the public has any confidence in the official line, then they have indeed paid the price, both in terms of respect and, ultimately, the grants that keep them in business.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: So how far will you go? on 12/14/2010 01:15:56 MST Print View

Hi Tom,

going back to the article I linked for you,
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/O2DroppingFasterThanCO2Rising.php
the author says:
"The researchers speculated that the large decrease in atmospheric oxygen since 2003 could have been the result of oxygen being taken up by the ocean, either due to a cooling of water in the North Atlantic, or water moving northwards from the tropic cooling, both of which would increase the water’s ability to take up more oxygen. However, it would require unrealistic cooling to account for the change in O2concentration. And all the indications are that the ocean waters have warmed since records began"

This is classic climate cooling denial. The empirical evidence is that the worlds oceans have been cooling since 2003. The ARGO system has 3000 diving buoys worldwide which measure various aspects of the ocean's behaviour, including temperature at various depths, salinity and so on.

Here's the heat content graph:

.ohc 2003

The North atlantic has indeed been cooling, quite rapidly since 2005, and this will affect oxygen readings at Puy de Dome in southeastern France and in Switzerland, the two stations used in the study.

Here's the north Atlantic graph:

.North Atlantic OHC

As ken Griffith pointed out, the study is half baked. I would want to see more data from more places around the world before starting to form any judgement. Biomass on land has increased by 7% or so over the last 20 years due to the richer co2 environment, and I would guess that measurements of o2 at the eastern edge of continents will likely tell a different story.

I note that although you state:
"that a fair number of pretty competent and, IMO, honorable scientists are hard at work trying to better understand the problem out of a stated concern"
you haven't linked to any of their studies. It's not easy for me to help allay your concern on the basis of such vague assertions. Please be specific.

I'd say that if only 26% of the public has any confidence in the official line, then they have indeed paid the price, both in terms of respect and, ultimately, the grants that keep them in business.

The whole endeavour of science is paying the price for the actions of these individuals in terms of the loss of public trust in the outputs of science. This is a terrible state of affairs, and is a major theme of the conference I've been invited to.

And it's true that The CRU's home, the University of East Anglia will suffer. The MET office has just announced a new partnership with three UK universities, and UEA is not on the list.

This is the tip of the iceberg. I could spend a lot of time listing studies which use partial and selective data to 'suggest' that warming is causing problems, where the authors come to the conclusions which will win them grants for further study. I say 'suggest' rather than prove, because these studies are always sprinkled with strategically placed weasel words such as 'maybe' and 'could'. However, I'm unwilling to spend the time on something which is unproductive as far as I'm concerned. Historians of science will pick over the bones in future years.

Edited by tallbloke on 12/14/2010 07:59:54 MST.

Arapiles .
(Arapiles) - M

Locale: Melbourne
Re: Re: So how far will you go? on 12/14/2010 03:07:31 MST Print View

"Biomass on land has increased by 7% or so over the last 20 years due to the richer co2 environment,"

I find that a little hard to believe given the amount of deforestation over the last 20 years: what's the source for that?

And aren't half of the doppers insisting that CO2 hasn't increased at all?

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: So how far will you go? on 12/14/2010 04:18:40 MST Print View

Ah, no figures on pumped storage then Arapiles? Back to name calling and deceitful innuendo as usual. How edifying.

Not.

Get the figures to back up your claims about pumped storage for windmills, then we'll talk about biomass.

Here are your primers:

Evidence for a recent increase in forest growth
Sean M. McMahona, Geoffrey G. Parkera, and Dawn R. Millera
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/02/02/0912376107.full.pdf+html

Growth, biomass production, and assimilatory characters in Cenchrus ciliaris L. Under elevated CO2 condition
R. K. Bhatt, M. J. Baig and H. S. Tiwari
http://www.springerlink.com/content/44r345881w804016/

Climate-Driven Increases in Global Terrestrial Net Primary Production from 1982 to 1999

1. Ramakrishna R. Nemani1,*†,
2. Charles D. Keeling2,
3. Hirofumi Hashimoto1,3,
4. William M. Jolly1,
5. Stephen C. Piper2,
6. Compton J. Tucker4,
7. Ranga B. Myneni5 and
8. Steven W. Running1

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/300/5625/1560 (paywall)
http://www.geofaculty.org:16080/figures/Rood_Climate_Change_AOSS480_Documents/Nemani_Primary_Productivity_Science_2003.pdf (Free download)

From the abstract:

"We present a global investigation of vegetation responses to climatic changes by analyzing 18 years (1982 to 1999) of both climatic data and satellite observations of vegetation activity. Our results indicate that global changes in climate have eased several critical climatic constraints to plant growth, such that net primary production increased 6% (3.4 petagrams of carbon over 18 years) globally. The largest increase was in tropical ecosystems. Amazon rain forests accounted for 42% of the global increase in net primary production, owing mainly to decreased cloud cover and the resulting increase in solar radiation."

You won't catch Charles D. Keeling admitting co2 is also partly responsible for the increase in biomass production, but the facts elucidated by the other papers speak for themselves.

And just to nicely bring the thread back to the original topic: 3.4 Petagrams is 3.4 Billion Tonnes. Plenty of spare twigs there for your backcountry cooking fire.

Edited by tallbloke on 12/14/2010 09:06:27 MST.

Lynn Tramper
(retropump) - F

Locale: The Antipodes of La Coruna
Re: greenies on 12/14/2010 13:25:48 MST Print View

Why all the greenie hate, Rog. Seems a broad brush stroke. My biggest interest outside of my profession, as a "greenie", is in permaculture. I hardly feel it is a totally worthless pursuit to move towards a more sustainable means of living off the planet, and trying to educate those around me to move in the same direction. I work with a highly motivated group of very intelligent people to make our community a more wholistic and integrated one. Again, the idea is to think globally, but act locally. There ARE solutions out there, we just have to work harder. In some cases, like many parts of Australia for instance, the 'solution' may be that people just shouldn't live there (not picking on Oz in particular), especially where water supply is unreliable. Oz is well situated to take advantage of solar. Most countries have boundless capacities to tap geothermal energy. In other cases, like the UK, the solution may include reducing energy demands, especially in the short term until other resources become available. There are many ways to do this, like having elderly and poor people live together in group housing to make more efficient use of heating and commuting, and more efficient heating systems like geothermal, heat inverters etc...we need to think outside the square. And of course I totally agree about diversifying our crop supplies and securing our routes of distribution. But again, from a permaculture perspective, I would rather see more reliance on diversified locally grown produce replacing imported supplies. This may mean, in many places, a move of populations away from land that cannot support diverse production of local crops and livestock. This is my 'ideal', my dream as Miguel would put it...

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Re: greenies on 12/14/2010 13:38:27 MST Print View

Lynn, I am one of you guys. I've told you repeatedly about my growing veg, building rainwater systems, my solar hot water panel, rebuilding efficient old motorcycles etc etc.

I was very specific about the group I referred to as hypocrites, and you, me , Joe working out of his garage are not among them.

I specifically referred to Al Gore, George Soros, and the green jet set.

What I've pointed up several times in the course of this thread is the danger I see for the grassroots green movement in hitching its wagon to the AGW anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. It's bad science, and when it gets rejected, as it surely will, the green baby will get thrown out with the carbonated bathwater. People quite rightly will not accept means justifies ends arguments. that way lies totalitarianism, and the warping of reality.

Think globally, act locally, and kick the backside of anyone who wants you to obey a lie.

Edited by tallbloke on 12/14/2010 15:02:22 MST.

Lynn Tramper
(retropump) - F

Locale: The Antipodes of La Coruna
Re: Re: Re: greenies on 12/14/2010 14:01:33 MST Print View

I totally agree with you on the hypocrisy of the global warming jetset, on this we are on the same wave length, as on the think globally, act locally concept. In my mind the jury is still out on the anthropogenic warming debate. It may never be resolved...!

Roger Caffin
(rcaffin) - BPL Staff - MLife

Locale: Wollemi & Kosciusko NPs, Europe
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So how far will you go? on 12/14/2010 14:15:13 MST Print View

Hi Tom

> Their timeframe for a potentially catastrophic drop in PH of .3-.4 is one hundred years.
Forgive me, but ... trusting an extrapolation of noisy data taken over a fairly short period out for 100 years seems a bit enthusiastic to me. Hum?

Cheers

Roger Caffin
(rcaffin) - BPL Staff - MLife

Locale: Wollemi & Kosciusko NPs, Europe
Re: Re: Re: Re: Dreams on 12/14/2010 14:25:58 MST Print View

Hi Arapiles

> Energy storage? Well I don't know about the UK, but over here standby power capacity is covered by
> hydro: gravity x several billion litres of water = stored energy.

Ahhh ... I know the Snowy Mountains Authority uses pumped storage, but have you checked to see just how much energy they actually create using that storage? The figures I saw suggest that if the entire SMA electricity production was stopped it would not make a huge difference to Australia. Elsewhere in Australia we have neither the water nor the altitude for significant pumped energy storage.

Instead, most of what the SMA really does is to divert water from the coastal rivers to the Murray for irrigation - to the detriment of the coastal environment and the farmers along the coast. That is slowly being reversed - although the willingness of the SMA to comply with the orders and restore the flows to the coastal rivers is not entirely obvious yet.

Cheers

Bob Gross
(--B.G.--) - F

Locale: Silicon Valley
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dreams on 12/14/2010 14:58:18 MST Print View

I grew up near one of the first pumped storage energy projects. I think it was done almost 50 years ago. It uses 3 watts of energy to pump the water uphill, and then when it runs back down, 2 watts are recovered. At first, it sounds like a loss. But then you have to understand that the 3 watts are spent late at night when steam-generated electricity is cheap, and they get the 2 watts back in the afternoon when the pumped storage hydro electricity is valuable.

Hey, it looks good on paper.

--B.G.--

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Re: Re: Re: greenies on 12/14/2010 15:29:33 MST Print View

Lynn says:
I totally agree with you on the hypocrisy of the global warming jetset, on this we are on the same wave length, as on the think globally, act locally concept. In my mind the jury is still out on the anthropogenic warming debate. It may never be resolved...!


It'll be resolved by Mama Nature in around 3 years time when the temperatures really tumble. We are unprepared for it because of all the global warming hype, and there are going to be a lot of very angry people on the warpath.

You can call that a prediction.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So how far will you go? on 12/14/2010 15:41:36 MST Print View

Roger C says:
trusting an extrapolation of noisy data taken over a fairly short period out for 100 years seems a bit enthusiastic to me. Hum?


Tut tut Roger C, it's not an extrapolation, oh no. It's a projection made using a supercomputerpoweredclimatemodel.

Say three Hail Jim Hansen's and wash your mouth out with carbonic acid. :-)

Lynn Tramper
(retropump) - F

Locale: The Antipodes of La Coruna
Most scientists don't lie... on 12/14/2010 16:32:25 MST Print View

But they often present a one-sided point of view!

And this article re-affirms this observation:

"The truth wears off...(From Deric Bownd's MindBlog)

Jonah Lehrer has a fascinating article in the recent New Yorker which describes in detail a disturbing trend:
..all sorts of well-established multiply confirmed findings have started to look increasingly uncertain, It's as if our facts were losing their truth: claims that have been enshrined in textbooks are suddenly unprovable. This phenomenon doesn't yet have an official name, but it's occurring across a wide range of fields, from psychology to ecology. In the field of medicine the phenomenon seems extremely widespread, affecting not only antipsychotics but also therapies from cardiac stents to Vitamin E and antidepressants...a forthcoming analysis demonstrates that the efficacy of antidepressants has gone down as much as three-fold in recent decades.
Lehrer tells the story of a number of serious scientists who have reported statistically significant effects with appropriate controls, only to find then disappear over time, seemingly iron-clad results that on repetition seemed to fade away...

It is not entirely clear why this is happening, and several possibilities are mentioned:
-statistical regression to the mean, an early statistical fluke gets canceled out.
-publication bias on the part of journals, who prefer positive data over null results
-selective reporting, or significance chasing. A review found that over 90% of psychological studies reporting statistically significant data, i.e. odds of being produced by chance less than 5% of the time, found the effect they were looking for. (One classic example of selective reporting concerns testing acupuncture in Asian countries - largely positive data - versus Western countries - less than half confirming. See today's other posting on MindBlog).

The problem of selective reporting doesn't derive necessarily from dishonesty, but from the fundamental cognitive flaw that we like proving ourselves right and hate being wrong. The decline effect may actually be a decline of illusion.

We shouldn't throw out the baby with the bath water, as Lehrer notes in a subsequent blog posting. These problems don't mean we shouldn't believe in evolution or climate change:
One of the sad ironies of scientific denialism is that we tend to be skeptical of precisely the wrong kind of scientific claims. In poll after poll, Americans have dismissed two of the most robust and widely tested theories of modern science: evolution by natural selection and climate change. These are theories that have been verified in thousands of different ways by thousands of different scientists working in many different fields. (This doesn’t mean, of course, that such theories won’t change or get modified – the strength of science is that nothing is settled.) Instead of wasting public debate on creationism or the rhetoric of Senator Inhofe, I wish we’d spend more time considering the value of spinal fusion surgery, or second generation antipsychotics, or the verity of the latest gene association study."