Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

[we_are_toast]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

The right wing denier community will crack over the next few years as natural forces align with AGM and temperatures again move up.

I strongly disagree with you!

There is no amount of data, no amount of direct measurement or observation, no amount of published science, no amount of sea level rise, no amount of crop failure or forest degradation, no amount of species extinction, that will make the deniers admit they are wrong. For every piece of new evidence they simply come up with another nonscientific, nonsensical claim to keep their denial delusion alive.

20 years ago the deniers denied the earth was warming. When the direct measurements were simply too much, many moved to denying the warming was man-made (notice some deniers here still deny any warming, while others post geologic temperature graphs to claim a natural temperature rise). The next phase is to move to adaptation rather than prevention.

At each phase there is never an admission that they were wrong, they simply move the goal post to change the discussion.

[c1ue]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Without analyzing the numbers I'd say bravo! We come out on the other side with a new economy. Energy is simply a thing we use and not a driving force. It's unimportant, it's a tool. This is the future I work for every day of my life. You see a spreadsheet with big numbers, I see an energy efficient, and very low cost future.

The difference between you and I is that you think these big numbers will represent new investment in technology and energy generation.

I think that these numbers represent bureaucrats and taxation schemes.

History is on my side.

You idealistically think that those pushing an agenda which presently benefits your industry, will continue to do so. The report from Germany says otherwise

Lastly you don't seem to understand that there are differences between wholesale commitment of huge resources towards a goal vs. net benefits achieved from said goal.

While Nordhaus is assuming AGW, the point from the projections is that even IF AGW is real, the choices being presented by Gore and Stern vs. a do nothing path vs. a moderate path seem to dictate less draconian measures than are being pushed forward by politicians today.

If you read the full review, you might also notice that there are plenty of potentially better ways to handle CO2 - the alternative energy focus is only one possibility.

At each phase there is never an admission that they were wrong, they simply move the goal post to change the discussion.

Yes, that is how skeptical inquiry and science works.

You assert something, it is proven or disproven, and you move on.

Science isn't baseball - you don't get just 3 strikes.

Once again, those pushing for radical action to support a supposed scientific conclusion are the ones with the burden of proof.

[santafe2]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

At each phase there is never an admission that they were wrong, they simply move the goal post to change the discussion.

...You're probably correct. I've read about a couple of geoengineering schemes that are just plain spooky. And their new approach to denial - global warming just may be a good thing. It certainly would solve the Florida housing crisis...no Florida, no crisis!

[jneal3]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

20 years ago the deniers denied the earth was warming. When the direct measurements were simply too much, many moved to denying the warming was man-made (notice some deniers here still deny any warming, while others post geologic temperature graphs to claim a natural temperature rise). The next phase is to move to adaptation rather than prevention.

At each phase there is never an admission that they were wrong, they simply move the goal post to change the discussion.

I swore to myself I wouldn't post in this thread again until I could learn something and comment about the science, but come on! What do you call this?:

Global warming -----> Climate change

Who's changing the goalposts? Who, when the data might (caveat, since I don't personally know it is) be giving them trouble, re-words their position? Jesus.

[we_are_toast]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

I swore to myself I wouldn't post in this thread again until I could learn something and comment about the science, but come on! What do you call this?:

Global warming -----> Climate change

Who's changing the goalposts? Who, when the data might (caveat, since I don't personally know it is) be giving them trouble, re-words their position? Jesus.

No need to be formal, you can just call me toast. ;)

I think you're trying to imply that those who have all the science on their side changed the term from global warming to climate change, of course you would be wrong.

Those who believe that global warming is caused by humans and their activities call it global warming, not meaning warming of the globe, but meaning that human activity is causing this dangerous situation," says Payack. "Those who believe that the climate changes over the eons, like it has for millions of years and that it's not exacerbated by human beings, are more likely to use the term climate change."

Payack says climate change is often the choice of those who think the situation can't be fixed by emissions treaties or hybrid cars or drastic changes to the American way of life.

In fact, a 2002 memo encouraged Republicans to go with climate change because it "sounds a more controllable and less emotional challenge," whereas global warming sounds like it has "catastrophic connotations."

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/dis...7/11/09/terms/

[jneal3]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

No need to be formal, you can just call me toast. ;)

I think you're trying to imply that those who have all the science on their side changed the term from global warming to climate change, of course you would be wrong.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/dis...7/11/09/terms/

Sorry, I got the term 'climate change' from the IPCC website, my bad. :rolleyes:. Pretty sure it was 'global warming' when I first saw 'An Inconvenient Truth', but the stress from the fear that induced must've affected my short-term memory.

[santafe2]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

The difference between you and I is that you think these big numbers will represent new investment in technology and energy generation.

I think that these numbers represent bureaucrats and taxation schemes.

Again you're attempting to frame the debate to suit your own ends. I am this and you are that. It's just nonsense, a tactic but not an interesting one.

I am investigating a solution to a problem you deny exists. Now you've decided to quit denying and post an unreviewed paper that suggests that even if we are correct, our solution is wrong. And you ask us to respond?! Classic! Nordhaus or other experts in the field will respond as they have time. Your appeal to authority, (aren't you fond of formal arumentation rules?), is BS.

And although you've not been so polite to reciprocate, I've noted a few times in this debate that while I utterly disagree with every point you've made, I respect you and your intellect. I mean none of this as a personal attack and I try not to judge your motives. If I have, I apologize.

I see AGM as the largest issue humanity will face over the next 100 years. I'd like to hand off a functional world to my children and grandchildren and I'm sure we're not doing that now.

You have a different opinion but I never sense that you're generationally invested. I'm not judging, just explaining...If you don't have children you can't imagine how your center changes from the present to the future. I don't have grand children but I can see how my parents and my wife's parents are invested beyond us and concerned about that generation once removed from them.

As I look at the science, I'm deeply concerned. The economics are secondary.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

You have a different opinion but I never sense that you're generationally invested.

One can be an AGW "denier" and still be generationally invested. Indeed, if one views the proposed "solutions" to AGW to be a major threat to our future and if one views the advocacy of an AGW threat to be erroneous and corrupt, while one denies there is a significant AGW problem itself, then if one is generationally invested, one will avidly oppose the proposed solutions.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

:It certainly would solve the Florida housing crisis...no Florida, no crisis!

According to the USGS, Citibank on Wall Street is at 0 feet.

[c1ue]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Again you're attempting to frame the debate to suit your own ends. I am this and you are that. It's just nonsense, a tactic but not an interesting one.

I am investigating a solution to a problem you deny exists. Now you've decided to quit denying and post an unreviewed paper that suggests that even if we are correct, our solution is wrong. And you ask us to respond?! Classic! Nordhaus or other experts in the field will respond as they have time. Your appeal to authority, (aren't you fond of formal arumentation rules?), is BS.

Excuse me, but again your grasp of debate is poor.

I appeal to no authority. I merely point out that even those who are assuming AGW is real are pointing out that the extremist solutions are not the best path. It is ridiculous to say that I consider Nordhaus an authority when I am skeptical of AGW to start with.

But it is perfectly consistent to note that even those who assume AGW and who assign large economic damages due to this phenomenon, can see that not all solutions are necessarily worth pursuing.

As for investigating a solution - I fail to see why global warming is necessary in order to investigate a better energy source.

And although you've not been so polite to reciprocate, I've noted a few times in this debate that while I utterly disagree with every point you've made, I respect you and your intellect. I mean none of this as a personal attack and I try not to judge your motives. If I have, I apologize.

SF, I don't believe you have been attempting to attack me personally; however this statement does not apply to the others on your side of the debate. With 'friends' like those, AGW doesn't need enemies.

I will still reiterate that from a 'Golden Rule' perspective, your acceptance of the 'safe' solution violates the precept of non-interference in others' affairs. There are absolutely instances where this is necessary but a perquisite of such interference should be a rock solid, bullet proof rationale and I have raised a number of questions which would contraindicate this status for AGW.

I see AGM as the largest issue humanity will face over the next 100 years. I'd like to hand off a functional world to my children and grandchildren and I'm sure we're not doing that now.

You have a different opinion but I never sense that you're generationally invested. I'm not judging, just explaining...If you don't have children you can't imagine how your center changes from the present to the future. I don't have grand children but I can see how my parents and my wife's parents are invested beyond us and concerned about that generation once removed from them.

As I look at the science, I'm deeply concerned. The economics are secondary.

This statement is nothing but a rewording of your previous statement that it is better to be safe than sorry.

I've already said that I reject Pascal's Wager and why.

Furthermore I don't see you attacking the Social Security pyramid, the devaluation of the dollar/deep capture of the US government, the degradation of personal liberties, the failure of the health care system in the US, proliferation of nuclear weapons, wealth inequality, etc etc.

All of these issues are equally 'generational investment' and each are arguably of much greater impact on future generations as well as the present ones.

It seems hypocritical to focus on one single issue when there are so many of equal or greater impact on future generations.

As for the science - I still cannot comprehend why there is such faith in mathematical models. Besides the very specific criticisms of the climate 'science' models, there are numerous other examples where mathematical models have been complete failures including LTCM, AIDS progression, and population growth.

While I am not a climate scientist nor a professional mathematical modeler, I have been on the forefront for 4 generations of computer engineering. As you probably know, computer engineering is heavily dependent on mathematical modeling of the basic components, principally the transistor but also resistors, capacitors, and other electrical components.

Despite the very limited set of behaviors and devices in question, every single new generation has required reworking of the basic models. Effects which mattered at 0.5 micron, disappeared at 0.18 micron, then returned at 65nm. New effects show up.

Computer engineering is able to continuously update these models because every new generation has literally tens of thousands of physical tests run before the first production chip rolls out. Millions of simulations are run with all sorts of very specific test cases for very specific effects. In fact every single wafer that is created has at least a few test structures in the scribe line.

But climate 'science' doesn't have this. There are no real life test cases unless you dive down into relatively small scales - and even then simulations of tornados or rain are generalized.

In fact 'climate science' has much more in common with economics than it does with other forms of science: huge numbers of variables, a high number of poorly understood micro-phenomena, and an agenda.

The possibility that climate 'science' as we see it today is behaving identically as the neoliberal economists is very high: premises being confirmed rather than testing to create better models of reality.

As the economics field has shown us in the past 30 years, neither a consensus nor a huge investment in mathematical modeling guarantees a usable result.

Furthermore the economics field has already amply demonstrated the malinvestment which reliance on false models can engender.

That is why I continue to beat the drum on why 'climate science' is unable to reconcile even very high level contradictions to AGW assertions: both because the science is not rigorous and because the potential malinvestment being advocated is extremely high.

I close with a 'debate' between Bill Nye, the 'science guy' and Richard Lindzen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McsZ1U20W0M
-----------------------------
Bill Nye: "I think it is real [global warming], I know it is real ... these molecules hold heat in the same way as glass holds heat in a greenhouse ... The weather around the world is gonna change ... the ice caps are melting and that fresh water flows into the sea and that upsets the flow of the thermo-haline heating or the salt-heat driven ocean currents ... and thats what makes the Gulf Stream go"

Richard Lindzen: "There is a certain climate of fear. For instance, Nye was talking about fresh water perhaps shutting down the Gulf Stream. But that isn't what physical oceanographers think. First of all, we've measured the heat transport from the tropics to high latitudes, it is almost all in the atmosphere. The Gulf Stream is mostly driven by wind. To shut it down you'd have to stop the rotation of the earth."

Bill Nye (round 2): (Larry King: Where is Richard Lindzen wrong?) Well, I'm not sure. I'm not an expert on his ideas. But the IPCC is pretty compelling and as you know I'm a member of the advisory board of the Union of Concerned Scientists. And I find my colleagues pretty compelling - much more so, his view is a minority on a scale that is pretty impressive. It is probably 100,000 to 1 vs. him. But I don't want to get into a personal attack.

Richard Lindzen: (Larry King: Are you one of the alone ones in this) You know, on what I was just saying, it is textbook material. If the textbooks are outvoiced by environmental advocacy groups like UCS by 100,000 to 1, that would be bizarre, we should close down our schools. It makes no sense what Mr. Nye is saying. I'm simply saying that his comments about the Gulf Stream are wrong. And his comments on heat transport are wrong. And that is not 100,000 to one.

Bill Nye: Just to clarify, Larry asked me about fresh water falling on the ocean. That would be the ultimate consequence.

Richard Lindzen: All I'm saying is the thermo haline circulation is not the major driver of the Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream is not...

Bill Nye: (interrupts) So you're saying we should not be concerned about global climate change because the wind drives the Gulf Stream? That's not enough for me.

Richard Lindzen: Nobody is saying anything of the sort. We're just saying if you wish to issue scare remarks, you should make them accurate according to the science.

Bill Nye: So it would be very dangerous if the world gets 2 degrees Fahrenheit warmer in say the next 50 years. It would be dangerous for everyone. Do you disagree with that?

Richard Lindzen: Yes of course I do. There is no study saying that the world will be appreciably more dangerous.
-----------------------------

I would like to point out that the mechanism for AGW ascribed by Bill Nye here is completely, absolutely wrong.

Greenhouses work by limiting convection.

The Greenhouse Effect via Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) works by radiation - specifically CO2 somehow magnifies the temperature effect of the normal water vapor radiative process.

I don't know anything about the Gulf Stream - someone else can comment on that.

[Chris]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Ian Plimer, Author and Professor in the School of Earth & Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide, "Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science"

Some pretty convincing arguments from a geologist and very amusing guy. Worth a listen.

[ggirod]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Greenhouses work by limiting convection.

The Greenhouse Effect via Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) works by radiation - specifically CO2 somehow magnifies the temperature effect of the normal water vapor radiative process.

I don't know anything about the Gulf Stream - someone else can comment on
that.

The following is written for consumption by a general audience and is not intended to be condescending toward those who understand more. In fact, should you understand more or differently, you are invited to refine the descriptions I have provided because there may be better metaphors to describe the concepts. Past issues (over the past decade or maybe more) of Scientific American have excellent summary and survey articles on the same topics and are highly recommended.

Indeed, greenhouses work by limiting convection and the greenhouse gas effect is not the same. I think that the term was selected since the net effect of many contributors "feels" like a greenhouse and the term is a simplification for communicating with the general public. You are right, though, nobody put a glass roof on the earth.

Instead greenhouse gases reflect back to earth the longer wavelength infrared radiated from the earth while passing the wider spectrum of incoming radiation from the sun. The net effect is a warming of the earth because reflection is not symmetrical in and out.

Water vapor actually acts differently. It carries many times the heat of dry air. So, it is not entirely the same mechanism, but it is a similar effect at the outcome. Water vapor, which originates at the oceans, lakes, vegetation, etc. as the temperature increases, releases its heat when it condenses, usually in the form of rain/snow, and it powers storms. In addition to its role in carrying heat, though, it forms clouds that, at night, limit radiation from earth into space and hence cooling. For those in a winter or desert climate, go out in a crystal clear starry night midway near sunrise, and compare temperatures with similar temperatures measured with clouds. In fact, as a connoisseur of winter, I get to see cold nights so clear that you can actually feel the radiative loss from your body as you stand near windows or step outside. It is a tiny, minor sample of what being in space would be like. Those nights are becoming progressively more rare as clouds and CO2 etc. proliferate.

There is a further example of radiative cooling you can witness for yourself. It may be darkest before the dawn, or seem so, at least, but it is coldest after the dawn if the sky is clear. The reason is that a truly clear sky continues to pass radiation from the earth into space as the sun rises and "tries" to replace the radiated heat with its own. Only after a while, when the sun rises enough, can the radiation from the sun match the radiation losses from the earth and start the usually welcomed warming. Another observation you can use to make the greenhouse effect more "real". Often, especially spring and fall, you won't be able to see the temperature effect near dawn unless it is a very dry day. Instead, you will have to observe the condensation of dew for cooling because the water vapor (see above) is condensing and "resisting" further cooling. Water vapor has a moderating effect on temperatures until it gets too concentrated, when it causes undesired temperature increases.

Finally, the gulf stream is powered primarily, not by wind, but by the saline concentration in the ocean. Cold water has a higher concentration; warm tropical water has less. Concentrations will tend toward equilibrium in any open system, so dilute saltwater will flow to concentrated salt water to produce a balance. It does the same in the ocean. Dilute tropical salt water flows toward concentrated cold salt water in the north. There the dilute water is "fooled" because it cools, some of it forms ice, leaving the rest to become more concentrated and joins the "forces" of attraction up north. When ice melting lowers the concentration of salt enough, the game is over and the flow will stop; reaching, instead, the South Carolina coast or thereabouts instead of Scandanavia. It will then await the return of the ice caps and salt concentrations to reach a threshold and the gulf stream will return. There is scientific dispute of when the gulf stream will stop, but I don't think there is much dispute that it will. I remember seeing a reference that it had slowed this year (sorry, no link). Much of the concern re: the gulf stream is that it shows signs of being a chaotic system with multiple attractors (stable states); one of which is today with it flowing, and one without. Once it stops, if it does, it will take more salt concentration (like a hysterisis effect) to restart it. Nobody knows at this point, with a chaotic system when it will stop.

When it stops, Scandinavia, the UK, northern Europe, and Russia will be deprived of a moderating heat source that has made their climate comfortable and they will be returned to conditions appropriate to their latitude. I suspect that it is one of Earth's controls that will return normality a few thousand years after CO2 drops but that is probably speculation. Reflectance from the snow cover in the large area affected by the Gulf Stream will tend to cool the planet and contribute to returning the ice caps and the full flow of the gulf stream. Northern fisheries are fed by organic materials from the tropics and dropped in the arctic so changes will be extensive when the stream stops.

Of course, when northern Europe and Asia are plunged into the cold, it will be met with relief by those who say ... see? the earth isn't warming. See? We told you so. Look at the Germany and -30C temperatures. You call that warming?

[c1ue]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

The following is written for consumption by a general audience and is not intended to be condescending toward those who understand more.

...

Instead greenhouse gases reflect back to earth the longer wavelength infrared radiated from the earth while passing the wider spectrum of incoming radiation from the sun. The net effect is a warming
of the earth because reflection is not symmetrical in and out.

The point of the 'debate' posting was the the AGW proponent was both obscuring the actual science (GHGs equal greenhouse glass) as well as making a scientific statement which Dr. Lindzen asserts is just plain wrong - on top of which Bill Nye was very much on the negative edge of polite discourse.

Dr. Lindzen's work is also one which points to an opposite effect to the said radiative GHG effect than one asserted by the IPCC and its models.

The reason this is of interest is that a positive feedback system trends towards extremes, while a negative feedback system trends towards status quo.

Thus the subject of the 'water vapour positive feedback' which both Dr. John Reid and Dr. Lindzen cover.

A climate which may be warming but which will not trend toward extremes is a very different climate than one which might suddenly turn violent once a tipping point of CO2 is exceeded.

This seems like a very reasonable criticism: Dr. Lindzen shows experimentally and via peer reviewed papers that the actual climate GHG feedback appears to be negative, while Dr. John Reid notes that the 'water vapour positive feedback' mechanism is used to compensate for sub-mesh oscillation damping effects such as "friction and molecular diffusion" and is modeling artifact.

[santafe2]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Excuse me, but again your grasp of debate is poor.

I appeal to no authority. I merely point out that even those who are assuming AGW is real are pointing out that the extremist solutions are not the best path. It is ridiculous to say that I consider Nordhaus an authority when I am skeptical of AGW to start with.

Thanks for your help with regard to my failings in logical argument...:rolleyes:. I was having some fun as we all appeal to authority, (sorry...you too), with our arguments. It's Hansen says, or Lindzen says, or...etc. I would also think it ridiculous that you appeal to Nordhous...but of course if you want to, I'd have an easier time offering a checkmate. You appeal to your own gods. I withdraw my criticism.

But it is perfectly consistent to note that even those who assume AGW and who assign large economic damages due to this phenomenon, can see that not all solutions are necessarily worth pursuing.

Of course. Many solutions will be designed to produce a profit for the well connected and will have no long term positive effect. Do we at least agree that there is global warming? If not, the debate must go back to square one. If so, maybe we'll find a path forward. If not, I see no value in this discussion.

As for investigating a solution - I fail to see why global warming is necessary in order to investigate a better energy source.

As do I. Short term, I'm more concerned about our now constant state of war to maintain our connection to fossil energy but the war funding is driving renewable energy with multiple hundreds of millions. Talk about a conflict?! One of my key concerns is that renewable energy research in the US will go underfunded for so many years that we'll fall behind several other countries who in my US centic point of view will not push the reseach. We've a fanatical entreprenureal base here in the US. I know, I've given up my saftey net twice in my life to pursue a business dream.

We have nano solar cells in the lab working at 45% efficiency and currently being driven to 50% by DARPA/DOW funding so soldiers/etc. in Afghanistan/Iraq can be connected for several days in the field with a 50 lb. backpack instead of 125 lb back breaker. Life is very complex. Without the oil wars, we're not driven to reseach nano solar techology.

SF, I don't believe you have been attempting to attack me personally; however this statement does not apply to the others on your side of the debate. With 'friends' like those, AGW doesn't need enemies.

Ok, just checking in. I don't think Toast or Necron or ggirod have ever intended a personal attack and I learn from their posts. And I do think your team, especially Cow have been nothing short of reasonable but utterly wrong.

I will still reiterate that from a 'Golden Rule' perspective, your acceptance of the 'safe' solution violates the precept of non-interference in others' affairs. There are absolutely instances where this is necessary but a perquisite of such interference should be a rock solid, bullet proof rationale and I have raised a number of questions which would contraindicate this status for AGW.

The Golden Rule, would allow that I would only expect/do unto you what I would expect of myself. I uphold that value as I assume, you do as well. But, the Golden Rule in the hands of the wrong people is genocide. I've no respect for the Golden Rule.

This statement is nothing but a rewording of your previous statement that it is better to be safe than sorry.

I make my kids wear seatbelts. I don't ride my bike at night without a light. I see my doctor yearly. I could go on but, it's better to be safe than sorry. You're a gambler. I respect your right to gamble. That's who we are as Americans. But I despise your request that I gamble my family's future on your bet. Throw a seven, get lucky. I respect your right to do that, but don't involve me or anyone in my circle. When you do, I'd rather crush you than risk those close to me.

I've already said that I reject Pascal's Wager and why.

You are a gambler and I am not. I know I'm characterizing you unfairly but I'm of the opinion that humantity is always one big mistake away from extinction. As you reject Pascal's Wager, you gamble with humanity's future. I'd rather we took a measured path through the next 100 years. I think we're at a crossroad and we'd better get our compass correct. You have the dice in your hand and you see a seven. I'm not taking that chance.

Furthermore I don't see you attacking the Social Security pyramid, the devaluation of the dollar/deep capture of the US government, the degradation of personal liberties, the failure of the health care system in the US, proliferation of nuclear weapons, wealth inequality, etc etc.

Ok, I only have so much time outside my business and family. Others, including EJ are doing a much better job with these issues. All that said, I think AGW is a much large issue. We obviously disagree.

All of these issues are equally 'generational investment' and each are arguably of much greater impact on future generations as well as the present ones.

I don't except any of those arguments. All are constucts within a working envriornment. If AGW scientists are correct, no one is going to care about the US$ or SSI.

It seems hypocritical to focus on one single issue when there are so many of equal or greater impact on future generations.

This is like being concerned with your favorite pair of shoes when your house is burning down. Let's not go down this road, it will take us well off track.

As for the science - I still cannot comprehend why there is such faith in mathematical models. Besides the very specific criticisms of the climate 'science' models, there are numerous other examples where mathematical models have been complete failures including LTCM, AIDS progression, and population growth.

I'll be polite and not beat on you for referring to findings of the best climate scientists in the world as "faith". We both know that's complete crap. How can you honestly talk about climate research as if it's all based on computer models? You've posted your objection to our on-the-ground research. Scientists use on-the-ground research, satellite observations and other methods to understand our climate.

While I am not a climate scientist nor a professional mathematical modeler, I have been on the forefront for 4 generations of computer engineering. As you probably know, computer engineering is heavily dependent on mathematical modeling of the basic components, principally the transistor but also resistors, capacitors, and other electrical components.

I'll avoid offering my credentials as neither of our backgrounds matter unless one of us is a published and reviewed climatologist.

Despite the very limited set of behaviors and devices in question, every single new generation has required reworking of the basic models. Effects which mattered at 0.5 micron, disappeared at 0.18 micron, then returned at 65nm. New effects show up.

Computer engineering is able to continuously update these models because every new generation has literally tens of thousands of physical tests run before the first production chip rolls out. Millions of simulations are run with all sorts of very specific test cases for very specific effects. In fact every single wafer that is created has at least a few test structures in the scribe line.

You deny the value of Pascal's wager and offer your knowledge of computer engineering as a defense. As a human being, I'm offended by your spreadsheet view of the world.

But climate 'science' doesn't have this. There are no real life test cases unless you dive down into relatively small scales - and even then simulations of tornados or rain are generalized.

Really? Ice cores are 'simulated'? Are small scale?

In fact 'climate science' has much more in common with economics than it does with other forms of science: huge numbers of variables, a high number of poorly understood micro-phenomena, and an agenda.

Economics is a faux science, a non science. Good try but complete BS.

The possibility that climate 'science' as we see it today is behaving identically as the neoliberal economists is very high: premises being confirmed rather than testing to create better models of reality.

I get bored when you try to compare climate science to something out of context and assume a thinking person will buy into your "very high" association. Let's turn it around. Deniers are like Hitler. Do you really just want to scream at each other? Could you please quit this nonsense?

As the economics field has shown us in the past 30 years, neither a consensus nor a huge investment in mathematical modeling guarantees a usable result.

Um, you can talk about economics for as long as you'd like to but it has nothing to do with the science of AGM. Computer modeling is only one aspect of the reseach.

Furthermore the economics field has already amply demonstrated the malinvestment which reliance on false models can engender.

Please don't ever defend this statement and I'll just let it pass. I hope you'll never offer up economics as a comparible field to climate science.

That is why I continue to beat the drum on why 'climate science' is unable to reconcile even very high level contradictions to AGW assertions: both because the science is not rigorous and because the potential malinvestment being advocated is extremely high.

The science is not rigorous? Please offer your peer reviewed papers that show climate science to have an "extremely high" correlation to say, astrology. We await your drum beat.

I close with a 'debate' between Bill Nye, the 'science guy' and Richard Lindzen

Really, I disrespect you for doing this. I could find 100 people on your side that have taken on a world class scientist and been slammed. Leave Bill Nye alone. He's a TV personality. WTF, you should apologize. When you pull this nonsense out, I suspect you only care about winning.

[c1ue]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Thanks for your help with regard to my failings in logical argument...:rolleyes:. I was having some fun as we all appeal to authority, (sorry...you too), with our arguments. It's Hansen says, or Lindzen says, or...etc. I would also think it ridiculous that you appeal to Nordhous...but of course if you want to, I'd have an easier time offering a checkmate. You appeal to your own gods. I withdraw my criticism.

I appeal to no authority - in fact I am the one attacking 'authority' in the AGW case. In every case I point out the specific assertions which individuals have brought up as opposed to use their credentials.

If you cannot understand the difference, so be it.

Do we at least agree that there is global warming? If not, the debate must go back to square one. If so, maybe we'll find a path forward. If not, I see no value in this discussion.

There was global warming just as there was global cooling before that. And now there appears to be global cooling.

So if we can agree on that, then yes. And again, global warming due to natural causes doesn't dictate radical action now. Man made CO2 not being a principal driver of global warming also doesn't dictate radical action now. Climate change is a reality with or without man.

Do we at least agree that there is global warming? If not, the debate must go back to square one. If so, maybe we'll find a path forward. If not, I see no value in this discussion.

And yet much of the political focus, domestic and international, seems to be on anthropogenic global warming.

Ok, just checking in. I don't think Toast or Necron or ggirod have ever intended a personal attack and I learn from their posts. And I do think your team, especially Cow have been nothing short of reasonable but utterly wrong.

I'm afraid I disagree with you on this assertion. The Toast'd one in particular seems to think that anyone who disagrees with his thesis is an oil industry sellout, stupid, and/or a right wing think tank-er.

I've seen very few questions answered substantively by any of the pro-AGW advocates thus far in this thread.

But, the Golden Rule in the hands of the wrong people is genocide. I've no respect for the Golden Rule.

I make my kids wear seatbelts. I don't ride my bike at night without a light. I see my doctor yearly. I could go on but, it's better to be safe than sorry. You're a gambler. I respect your right to gamble. That's who we are as Americans. But I despise your request that I gamble my family's future on your bet. Throw a seven, get lucky. I respect your right to do that, but don't involve me or anyone in my circle. When you do, I'd rather crush you than risk those close to me.

Ah, the truth comes out. Those who disagree with AGW are aiding and abetting genocide. Therefore in the pursuit of avoiding genocide - all other considerations are secondary.

You say buckling seat belts is 'being safe' - but that is being safe only for you. It doesn't affect anyone else except in the general sense of insurance premiums.

You don't ride bikes at night without a light. Again, that helps you. It might save some paint on someone else's car, but that's all.

You see a doctor regularly. Again that is only selfish. Your not seeing a doctor doesn't affect anyone else even financially since you have insurance.

You'd rather 'crush me' than try to see if the premise which you follow is wrong. But you see, I'm not requesting anything - I am in fact requesting nothing whereas you are trying to force action onto me.

You are talking about forcing EVERYONE to not take a chance. You're talking about a world filled with cotton balls - with bubble wrap around anything and everything. A world where some will diktat to all.

I reject that world and I reject attempts to scare me into it. If you can prove a clear and present danger, then I could at least potentially agree to it but so far every substantive question I've raised has been ignored.

The entirety of your argument is consensus and IPCC.

Then of course there's the 'gambler' line. Asserting I'm a gambler is irrelevant to the facts of the discussion in addition to being a passive aggressive attack.

I don't exceptaccept any of those arguments. All are constucts within a working envriornment. If AGW scientists are correct, no one is going to care about the US$ or SSI.

That IF is a big one. And even were the IF to be true, there will still be plenty of people who care about the US$ and/or SSI.

For one thing, weather related deaths are down both in absolute and relative terms with the sole exception of Katrina - which itself was not during the 'hottest' year of 1998 but rather 2005:

(source: census.gov for population, http://www.weather.gov/os/hazstats/images/69-years.pdf for weather related deaths. Lightning deaths excluded due to likely other factors such as fewer farmers hence fewer people outdoors)

weather deaths 1940 2008 absolute.bmp

weather deaths 1940 2008 percentage.bmp

So the historical trend seems against the AGW scaremongers: even during the warming cycle there were very few weather related deaths both in absolute and relative terms at least in the United States. Even the great tragedy of Katrina only matched levels seen previously and was a 1 year, 1 event incident.

There are other reports showing similar trends worldwide.

You deny the value of Pascal's wager and offer your knowledge of computer engineering as a defense. As a human being, I'm offended by your spreadsheet view of the world.

If you cannot understand how my background gives me direct experience with the vagaries of modeling vs. reality via testing, then clearly you are not reading what was written.

As for your last sentence, another passive aggressive attack, this time with the implication is that somehow I am not a human being. Yeah, that's constructive.

To respond: As an intelligent, independent, and critical thinker, I am offended by your touchy feely view of the world.

Really? Ice cores are 'simulated'? Are small scale?

The problem AGW has is the inability to see scale. What's looked at is the last 50 or 100 years of ice core data and the conclusion is man made global warming. This is called "its different this time" or Now-ism.

An examination of the data from the last 400K years reveals a different picture:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

ice core CO2 400K.jpg

Ice Core temp 400K.jpg

There are clearly 3 major spikes in the last 400K years of higher magnitude than the present one - both temperature AND CO2. And none of the previous 3 spikes involved man made CO2.

I believe the term that applies to the short term ice core data is cherry picking.

Economics is a faux science, a non science. Good try but complete BS.

Whether economics is a real science or not isn't the question. The question was: is there a resemblence between economics and climate science given neither can be directly proven or disproven in the short term; both involve massive amounts of variables and data, and both make extensive use of mathematical models.

The science is not rigorous? Please offer your peer reviewed papers that show climate science to have an "extremely high" correlation to say, astrology. We await your drum beat.

I've posted in Rant 'N Rave: Climate Modeling Nonsense - there are 4 different cited peer reviewed papers supporting the 'negative feedback' cycle asserted by Dr. Richard Lindzen's experiment.

This is in direct opposition to the the 'positive feedback' cycle cited by IPCC and used in the IPCC climate models.

I've also referred to this previously in this thread. Clearly not reading.

I've also shown that hurricane incidence and severity are NOT higher despite the warming trend up to 1998.

Do I have to show a peer reviewed paper showing that storm surge is greater than 3 feet?

Really, I disrespect you for doing this. I could find 100 people on your side that have taken on a world class scientist and been slammed. Leave Bill Nye alone. He's a TV personality. WTF, you should apologize. When you pull this nonsense out, I suspect you only care about winning.

Your disrespect is already patently obvious. In this thread you've already called me a gambler whose actions you despise and implied I'm not a human being.

As for Nye, let's see:

1) Bill Nye chose to defend the AGW position on Larry King Live.
2) Bill Nye asserted he is a scientist
3) Bill Nye furthermore asserted he must be knowledgeable being a member of the advisory board of the Union of Concerned Scientists
4) Bill Nye asserted his opinion outrepresents Dr. Lindzen's views 100,000 to 1 even though Dr. Lindzen had yet to even say anything about global warming up to that point.
5) Bill Nye asserted his views are based on IPCC

That's funny, the use of the consensus and the IPCC. Where have I seen that before?

As for the 100 people getting slammed - I'm not sure what your point is?

Is 100 morons getting slammed equivalent to the truth?

This is an identical argument with the Bill Nye 100,000 to 1 statement in response to Dr. Richard Lindzen's assertion that Nye's statement was scientifically wrong.

This entire discussion is emblematic of the AGW view of things.

At best the other side is misinformed, wrong, inhuman, and gambling with our collective future.

At worst the other side is an oil lobby advocate. A denier on the scale of creationists. A Fox news right wing redneck American.

The whole 'environmentalism as the new secular religion' view is something which many people have commented on already (and I've documented). It is not inherently bad - I'd bet money that I use less gasoline, less electricity, eat less meat and red meat fish than almost anyone here.

I have likely spit out more CO2 due to my past flying.

But there is a huge difference between making personal choices and forcing actions on others.

Religion itself is absolutely not a bad thing. What is bad is when religion trips over into dogma - that is when the believers turn into the Spanish Inquisition, when witches get burned, when Crusades arise. Those with influence in the new secular religion ought to be aware what happens when religious extremism occurs: a backlash against even the good in the belief system.

I conclude with this:

The unwillingness to further the discussion and the science, the urgency to act upon incomplete information and a half-formed thesis, the ad hominem attacks, and the ad populum arguments only serve to brand the AGW movement even should that thesis be accurate.