The Carbon Flame War
Display Avatars Sort By:
Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: So how far will you go? on 12/14/2010 16:58:21 MST Print View

"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."

Aw, c'mon. Rog. I gave you a list of 7 links several posts ago. There are dozens more out there, but I thought that might be enough to at least raise your blood pressure a mm or two. I'm disappointed you didn't take the bait.

"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."

Sources? Type of biomass?

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So how far will you go? on 12/14/2010 17:08:54 MST Print View

"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?"

Perhaps, perhaps not. All the studies I read came up independently(I assume) with the same numbers. I am not qualified to exercise judgment as to the validity of their assumptions. What is your rationale for making that call, no disrespect intended? Might it be a worst case scenario? Perhaps not a bad idea given the consequences if they turn out to be right. Alternatively, I suppose we could assume they are using scare tactics to drum up more grant money. Depressing.

George Matthews
(gmatthews) - MLife
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So how far will you go? on 12/14/2010 20:56:30 MST Print View

Nature works in basic simple patterns. Iterations upon iterations upon iterations make things appear complex to humans. A single tree can tell us about the whole forest.

Was watching part of a show about fractals a little while ago. An interesting observation made on the show was that an elephant is many times the size of a mouse. Yet the calories that the elephant needs is a fraction of the size difference. The smaller animal needs much more food per gram. E=m^3/4 I think was the formula.

My prediction is that we will discover that climate change is really less complicated than most of us believe it to be. Exposing the bad science helps filter the noise so we can hear the music.

I want to sing that rock and roll.
I want to 'lectrify my soul,
'Cause everybody been making a shout
So big and loud, been drowning me out.
I want to sing that rock and roll.

- Gillian Welch

Brandon Sanchez
(dharmabumpkin) - F

Locale: San Gabriel Mtns
flames on 12/14/2010 21:27:58 MST Print View

I thought this might apply to this thread, a commentary about a new coal mine next to Bryce Canyon National Park:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-redford/utah-approves-a-mine-next_b_795955.html

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Most scientists don't lie... on 12/15/2010 00:39:14 MST Print View

Lynn says (quoting mindblog):
But they often present a one-sided point of view!
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.


This is precisely what the scientific method is designed to prevent. One of the greatest scientists of the C20th, Richard Feynman, put it this way:

"you should not fool the
laymen when you're talking as a scientist. . . . I'm talking about a
specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over
backwards to show how you're may be wrong, [an integrity] that you ought
to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as
scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen."


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.

Ah, here we go. Lump those skeptical of the man made global warming hypothesis together with the creationists so they can be dismissed as 'unscientific'. So, an article about dishonest science reporting being dishonest about science reporting...

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Re: Re: So how far will you go? on 12/15/2010 00:47:28 MST Print View

Tom says:
Aw, c'mon. Rog. I gave you a list of 7 links several posts ago.


I meant for your oxygen worries, but anyway, let's have a look at the list of ph worries.

http://www.pics.uvic.ca/assets/pdf/publications/BN_Ocean_Acidification_2010.15.pdf
http://www.pics.uvic.ca/assets/pdf/publications/BN_Ocean_Acidification_2010.15.pdf
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/icdc7/proceedings/abstracts/mcneil2-1HI76.pdf
http://ic.ucsc.edu/~mdmccar/ocea80b/public/lectures/lect_notes_2/13_ocean_acidification_2010_F.pdf
http://co2.cms.udel.edu/Ocean_Acidification.htm
http://www.stanford.edu/~longcao/Cao&Caldeira(2010).pdf

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=rising-acidity-in-the-ocean

Ok, I'll spend a bit of time on these.

"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."

Sources? Type of biomass?


Aw c'mon Tom, I gave a list of 3 links on the last page in response to DW. ;-)

Edited by tallbloke on 12/15/2010 04:08:59 MST.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Re: Re: So how far will you go? on 12/15/2010 00:59:57 MST Print View

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


I'm still not too sure what 'doppers' are, but I doubt Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski
Chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection
Warsaw, Poland is one.

Read it and weep for the integrity of science:

http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm

"More than 20 physico-chemical processes, mostly related to the presence of liquid water, contribute to the alteration of the original chemical composition of the air inclusions in polar ice[3].

One of these processes is formation of gas hydrates or clathrates. In the highly compressed deep ice all air bubbles disappear, as under the influence of pressure the gases change into the solid clathrates, which are tiny crystals formed by interaction of gas with water molecules. Drilling decompresses cores excavated from deep ice, and contaminates them with the drilling fluid filling the borehole. Decompression leads to dense horizontal cracking of cores, by a well known sheeting process. After decompression of the ice cores, the solid clathrates decompose into a gas form, exploding in the process as if they were microscopic grenades. In the bubble-free ice the explosions form a new gas cavities and new cracks[4]. Through these cracks, and cracks formed by sheeting, a part of gas escapes first into the drilling liquid which fills the borehole, and then at the surface to the atmospheric air. Particular gases, CO2, O2 and N2 trapped in the deep cold ice start to form clathrates, and leave the air bubbles, at different pressures and depth. At the ice temperature of -15°C dissociation pressure for N2 is about 100 bars, for O2 75 bars, and for CO2 5 bars. Formation of CO2 clathrates starts in the ice sheets at about 200 meter depth, and that of O2 and N2 at 600 to 1000 meters. This leads to depletion of CO2 in the gas trapped in the ice sheets. This is why the records of CO2 concentration in the gas inclusions from deep polar ice show the values lower than in the contemporary atmosphere, even for the epochs when the global surface temperature was higher than now."

Arapiles .
(Arapiles) - M

Locale: Melbourne
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dreams on 12/15/2010 02:04:09 MST Print View

"> 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?"

Rog and Rog

I did say standby capacity: the SMA hydro is mostly used to generate electricity when the south-eastern grid is at full capacity - for example on heat-wave days like Black Saturday. The reason for that is that the spot rate is so astronomical on those days that it makes it extremely profitable for them to run the turbines. I understand that they don't do that continuously because they are primarily a water storage.

The point is that contrary to Rog Tall's doom mongering there are natural ways of storing wind and solar energy, for example by pumping water to high point storages. There will of course be a net loss of energy by doing so, but it's better than nothing.

Interestingly the current Economist has a tech article on batteries being used as back-ups to coal power stations: one battery on order is 2.2 megawatt-hour (!!!!) and the makers say that 40+ megawatt-hours is possible. So it will be possible to generate power in the day and draw down at night.

Rog C

Trust me, I am all for restoring the Snowy.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dreams on 12/15/2010 02:24:49 MST Print View

Arapiles says:
The point is that contrary to Rog Tall's doom mongering there are natural ways of storing wind and solar energy, for example by pumping water to high point storages.


HAHAHA! I ask you for the figures on the amount of power available from pumped storage and the identified potential. Roger C chimes in and points out there are not many suitable high mountain sites around Australia and that the Snowy Mountain project amounts to an insignificant portion of Aus power needs, and DW comes back with an accusation that I'm "doom mongering" and an irrelevance about how much SMA gets paid for the little they can produce.

I asked you to get real about the possible contribution of wind power to the Australian energy budget, and you avoid, avoid, avoid, addressing the substantive issue.

Your credibility is going down the pan matey boy.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So how far will you go? on 12/15/2010 04:19:14 MST Print View

Tom says:
Perhaps, perhaps not. All the studies I read came up independently(I assume) with the same numbers....Might it be a worst case scenario? Perhaps not a bad idea given the consequences if they turn out to be right.


Are you aware the long term surface temperature datasets independently produced by GISS and HadCRU are both based on GHCN data?

How much funding should be devoted to planning for severe global cooling given the uncertainty of climate projections and the more devastating consequences of severe cold?

None at all?

Miguel Arboleda
(butuki) - MLife

Locale: Kanto Plain, Japan
Re: Dreams on 12/15/2010 08:41:33 MST Print View

Just what IS with the constant disdain going on here, the constant need to rag on someone and try to be better than they are? The disrespect is getting really tiring and makes any serious consideration of things being said here completely irrelevant. Isn't this supposed to be a reasoned and important debate? What does any of the character bashing have to do with what is being talked about here? A lot of you keep criticizing all the tomfoolery going on among scientists and whatnot, but I see absolutely no difference in attitude here. It's the same thing happening, no different at all from the e-mail fiasco among scientists. And no, Rog, this isn't license for you to find more fodder for your diatribe against the "warmists". All of you calm down and show some maturity and respect! We're supposed to be a community that respects one another and learns from one another, even if we disagree. Listen to each other and try to hear what they are saying instead of calling each other stupid and worthless. How idiotic! 86 pages of poking and slapping each other in the face? COME ON!!!

Edited by butuki on 12/15/2010 08:42:40 MST.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Re: Dreams on 12/15/2010 09:16:33 MST Print View

Miguel, It is an important debate, and when people deliberately avoid the substantive issues and attempt to distract with irrelevances, you can be sure I'll point it out. Lawyer speak is all very well for befuddling pollys and parrots, but with engineers, reality talks and b*llsh*t walks.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Mark Twain: On Consensus on 12/15/2010 15:50:24 MST Print View

“In the drift of years I by and by found that a Consensus examines a new thing by its feelings rather oftener than with its mind. You know, yourself, that this is so.…
“Do you know of a case where a Consensus won a game? You can go back as far as you want to and you will find history furnishing you this (until now) unwritten maxim for your guidance and profit: Whatever new thing a Consensus [bets against], bet your money on that very card and do not be afraid.
“There was that primitive steam engine— ages back, in Greek times: a consensus made fun of it. There was the Marquis of Worcester’s steam engine, 250 years ago: a Consensus made fun of it. There was Fulton’s steamboat of a century ago: a French Consensus, including the Great Napoleon, made fun of it. There was Priestly, with his oxygen: a consensus scoffed at him, mobbed him, burned him out, banished him. While a Consensus was proving, by statistics and things, that a steamship could not cross the Atlantic, a steamship did it.
“A Consensus consisting of all the medical experts in Great Britain made fun of Jenner and inoculation. A Consensus consisting of all the medical experts in France made fun of the stethoscope. A Consensus of all the medical experts in Germany made fun of that young doctor (his name? forgotten by all but doctors, now, revered by doctors alone) who discovered and abolished the cause of that awful disease, puerperal fever; made fun of him, reviled him, hunted him, persecuted him, broke his heart, killed him.
“Electric telegraph, Atlantic cable, telephone, all ‘toys,’ of no practical value-verdict of the Consensuses. Geology, paleontology, evolution—all brushed into space by a Consensus of theological experts, comprising all the preachers in Christendom, assisted by the Duke of Argyle and (at first) the other scientists
“And do look at Pasteur and his majestic honor rolll of prodigious benefactions! Damned—each and every one of them in its turn—by frenzied and ferocious consensuses of medical and chemical experts comprising, for years, every member of the tribe in Europe; damned without even a casual look at what he was doing—and he pathetically imploring them to come and take at least one little look before making the damnation eternal.
“They shortened his life by their malignities and persecution; and thus robbed the world of the further and priceless services of a man who—along certain lines and within certain limits—had done more for the human race than any other one man in all its long history; a man whom it had taken the Expert brotherhood ten thousand years to produce, and whose mate and match the brotherhood may possibly not be able to bring forth and assassinate in another ten thousand.
“The preacher has an old and tough reputation for bullheaded and unreasoning hostility to new light; why, he is not ‘in it’ with the doctor! Nor, perhaps, with some of the other breeds of experts that sit around and get up the consensuses and squelch the new things as fast as they come from the hands of the plodders, the searchers, the inspired dreamers, the Pasteurs that come bearing pearls to scatter in the Consensus sty.
“These sorrows have made me suspicious of Consensuses. Do you know, I tremble and the goose flesh rises on my skin every time I encounter one, now.”

-Mark Twain-

George Matthews
(gmatthews) - MLife
Re: Mark Twain: On Consensus on 12/15/2010 16:10:40 MST Print View

Excellent! So true. I too am "suspicious of Consensuses".

another Twain...
Winter is begun here, now, I suppose. It blew part of the hair off the dog yesterday & got the rest this morning.
- letter to Chatto and Windus, October 21, 1892.

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Re: Re: So how far will you go? on 12/15/2010 17:05:52 MST Print View

"Aw c'mon Tom, I gave a list of 3 links on the last page in response to DW. ;-)"

The difference being that the ones I gave were in direct response to a post of yours, whereas your links were buried in a reply to a third party whose post I admittedly did not read in my next pass through the thread-can't read 'em all all of the time. That being said, it is all grist for the mill as far as I'm concerned, and I shall read the articles in your link list with interest.

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So how far will you go? on 12/15/2010 17:26:28 MST Print View

"Are you aware the long term surface temperature datasets independently produced by GISS and HadCRU are both based on GHCN data?"

Nope, but I am curious how, exactly, this relates to the end of century Ph projections Roger C was commenting on? I am no doubt missing something here. Could you spell out the relationship a bit more clearly?

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So how far will you go? on 12/15/2010 19:35:13 MST Print View

"How much funding should be devoted to planning for severe global cooling given the uncertainty of climate projections and the more devastating consequences of severe cold?

None at all?"

I'm almost certain that if you sallied forth, engaged the accursed Warmista in a contest of ideas, and proved to one and all the correctness of your stance on climate change, the funds would come pouring in.

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Re: Re: So how far will you go? on 12/15/2010 19:45:20 MST Print View

"Tom says:
Aw, c'mon. Rog. I gave you a list of 7 links several posts ago.

I meant for your oxygen worries, but anyway, let's have a look at the list of ph worries."

Perhaps this would be an opportune time to connect the dots: 1) Ph goes down; 2) Phytoplankton populations diminish; 3) Atmospheric O2 level decreases-one likely cause = diminished populations of photsynthesizing phytoplankton.

Got to go, I'm feeling a bit short of breath. ;-)

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: So how far will you go? on 12/15/2010 20:10:39 MST Print View

"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."

And of course such deceptiveness is limited to those who fall in the Warmista camp. How convenient. As someone mentioned earlier, Lynn IIRC, you could as well be cherry picking data to support your position and no one participating in this thread would be the wiser, with the possible exception of Roger C or Lynn. Somehow I doubt if either of them is much inclined to devote the requisite time and energy to finding out. I guess what I am returning to is the question I posed to you earlier: Why not debate the Warmista face to face or publication to publication and let the scientific community determine whose ideas have more validity? If we are faced with either catastrophic warming OR cooling, it would be of enormous benefit to sort out which is the more likely and get on with devising strategies for mitigating the process, or at least the impacts.

"This is classic climate cooling denial."

Which seems to reflect the opinion of the vast majority of climate scientists, or am I misinformed here?

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: greenies on 12/15/2010 20:22:35 MST Print View

"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........

Very well said, indeed.