Climate science denial being taught at Carleton University

[Mikemcc]

Going back toi the original wording in the report.

Harris now falls back on the second line of defence, which is to claim that the causes of global warming are not anthropogenic:

 "We would be arrogant to think that we understand and we control the climate of the earth" (TH)
 ‚The only constant about climate is change.‛ (TH)

However, there is now strong and growing evidence that the contemporary phase of environmental warming (since the 1950s) cannot be explained without the inclusion of anthropogenic forcings, specifically the increase of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere as a result of the burning of fossil fuels. Natural climate variability and forcing due to solar variability and volcanic activity are insufficient to account for climate change.

I'm not keen on the use of simple quotes like this because it's open to choosing statements out-of-context. The implication in the report is that Harris is denying that humans influence the climate, that natural variation is the cause of the present warming.

I say again that the use of the word control depends on the definition used. Humans do control climate because we force change on it (hence the use of the words impact and influence). At present this is very much in the way of an 'open-loop' control with, to use your own metaphor, the throttle stuck open.

We are able to control the forcing that we apply to the climate system by curbing CO2 emissions, but that is only acting to limit the forcing (taking the foot off the accelerator). Our present technology cannot reduce the level of CO2 in the air by any significant factor.

It is possible for us to develop such technology, simple experiments such as dumping iron filings into the sea have been attempted. The results so far have been not terribly impressive.

For Harris to say that it's arrogant to assume that we 'understand' climate is blindingly obvious nonsense. We understand the mechanisms quite well, and are continuing to improve on the level of understanding and build in increasing levels of detail using data from systems such as the GRACE satellite and the ARGOS floats.

 

[mhaze]

Going back toi the original wording in the report.

I'm not keen on the use of simple quotes like this because it's open to choosing statements out-of-context. The implication in the report is that Harris is denying that humans influence the climate, that natural variation is the cause of the present warming.

I say again that the use of the word control depends on the definition used. Humans do control climate because we force change on it (hence the use of the words impact and influence). At present this is very much in the way of an 'open-loop' control with, to use your own metaphor, the throttle stuck open.

We are able to control the forcing that we apply to the climate system by curbing CO2 emissions, but that is only acting to limit the forcing (taking the foot off the accelerator). Our present technology cannot reduce the level of CO2 in the air by any significant factor.

It is possible for us to develop such technology, simple experiments such as dumping iron filings into the sea have been attempted. The results so far have been not terribly impressive.

For Harris to say that it's arrogant to assume that we 'understand' climate is blindingly obvious nonsense. We understand the mechanisms quite well, and are continuing to improve on the level of understanding and build in increasing levels of detail using data from systems such as the GRACE satellite and the ARGOS floats.

Given the poor quality of the report, quoting out of context either by error or to try to bolster their "Report" is certainly plausible. Could we control climate? Yes, there are some chemicals that could be put in the atmosphere that have effects. And there's the concept from the 1970's, when global cooling was a worry, of dropping soot directly on the icecaps. Etc.

But let's take a step back. Look at OMGT's concept of well, I would call it, "attempting to control" climate so as to miss the next glaciation. If someone told me that we needed 300 ppm co2 to be likely to miss the next 10,000 year glaciar, I tell you what I would do.

I'd go for 600 ppm. Because I REALLY want to miss that nightmare.

 

[OMGturt1es]

Harris said, "We would be arrogant to think that we understand and we control the climate of the earth."

• First you tried to argue by reframing, focusing on "understand" and ignroing the entirety of Harris's statement.
• Then you tried to misdirect by saying we "understand and impact" climate.
• I am specifically saying that we understand and impact climate. Absolutely. That's what the science says.
• Then mikecc tried to help or something...saying we "understand and influence" climate.
• Now you are arguing that we could possibly control climate.
  

But all of these variations of position imply that Harris was correct in what he said. They are either NOT control, or they assert the future possibility of control, which implies it's current absence.

You beat your wife and apples are green.

 

[mhaze]

Suite yourself. You might want to just say that report is crap, but Harris I don't like because he doesn't see things my way, but some of his opinions I agree with etc., etc etc.

Anyway, this thing about our AGW guilt trip causing us to miss the next glaciation, that's pretty strange. I guess I'd put it like this (voicing the opinion of a rabid Warmer).

We want CO2 to be the cause of global warming. But also of extreme weather both hot and cold. But it's got to be more powerful than the sun so that even something like a Great Solar Minimum doesn't stop the warming. So much more powerful than anything else that it stops the next Glaciation.

Whoops! Uh,,,,, that's a good thing. We're supposed to just list bad things. WTF?

Maybe I'm the only one that sees the humor in this.

 

[a_unique_person]

I think so. Strawman arguments are usually a waste of everyone's time.

 

[RobDegraves]

Maybe I'm the only one that sees the humor in this.

Nope... I find your arguments very amusing.

I find it also amusing that a few people still haven't clued into what you are doing. Feel free to waste their time too.

 

[mhaze]

Nope... I find your arguments very amusing.

I find it also amusing that a few people still haven't clued into what you are doing. Feel free to waste their time too.

Really? Perhaps you should share your clue with them. I know that you can help out here. I'll describe the domain of the central processing unit of the clue possessor. It has a cpu 1 bit wide and a two bit memory. Each bit can contain a one or a zero, and these can be shifted into the cpu, which can then perform the four basic logic operations on the clue, based on the contents of the alternate memory cell. The result of the computation, however, must be placed in that alternate memory cell. I'm sure you can see the resulting infinite series.

Because of the limited size of the CPU and memory, this is very, very important. At least to the clue possessor, this comprises the entire universe, as well as the universe of information.

It is a ponderous and profound feat to operate this small computing device, because the memory cycle operation is once per year in turbo mode.

Wait...what is your clue?

 

[Trakar]

So what is wrong with going through the CLAIMS and debunking the RESPONSES?

I guess you could just go with "well, the guy's a DENIER", so everything he says I disagree with.

That'd work nicely. Wait, that's what you've basically done, isn't it?

No, it isn't even close to anything I've said. What I have said is that he has a monied interest and professional (as in "paid advocate") bias with regards to a field of science that he is unqualified to teach (even introductorially) as a part of any respectable collegiate science program. Further, in the course of actually teaching such a class he presented pseudoscience that is not congruent or consistent with mainstream scientific understandings. I don't fault Harris that much, he was doing what he is paid to do. I do fault the university for not exercising better judgement on this issue.

 

[mhaze]

No, it isn't even close to anything I've said. What I have said is that he has a monied interest and professional (as in "paid advocate") bias with regards to a field of science that he is unqualified to teach (even introductorially) as a part of any respectable collegiate science program. Further, in the course of actually teaching such a class he presented pseudoscience that is not congruent or consistent with mainstream scientific understandings. I don't fault Harris that much, he was doing what he is paid to do. I do fault the university for not exercising better judgement on this issue.

Right, I understood your approach to the issue. You don't care whether the "Report" has massive factual and logical errors. You've simply looked at Harris and decided he was well within your classification of "denier", and then found a reason or two as to qualifications and other supportive evidence why he shouldn't be teaching. All well and good in terms of confirming the pre existing and prejudicial attitude.

I'll address your opinion about Harris's "qualifications" next. First, that's the decision of a University committee, not yours. That should pretty much end this subject but I have another comment.

You'll note this odd dialogue with OMGT and Mikecc concerning the issue of them believing the "next glaciation will be missed" and man can (control, influence, impact....) climate.

It happens that "controlling" climate would be exactly the domain of a mechanical engineer in practice. As a very simple example, they typically design climate control systems for buildings. Or aircraft. Or spacecraft. Yes, many sub specialties are involved. None the less, this specific issue raised by the "Report", and seemingly defended by OMGT and MikeCC, sits smack dab right in the middle of Harris's educational qualifications. Let's take a look at my prior comment in that:

But let's take a step back. Look at OMGT's concept of well, I would call it, "attempting to control" climate so as to miss the next glaciation. If someone told me that we needed 300 ppm co2 to be likely to miss the next 10,000 year glaciar, I tell you what I would do.

I'd go for 600 ppm. Because I REALLY want to miss that nightmare.​

That's a practical result of the engineering method. It's no different than figuring, say, minimum safety margins for man-rated aircraft structural strength at multiples of a failure point.

Do you have a problem with the engineering method?

 

[Trakar]

Right, I understood your approach to the issue...

Given the unsupported and distorted diatribe you follow the above line with, all I can say is that the evidence does not support your assertion, though I've little doubt that your perception leads you to believe such despite evidences to the contrary.

 

[mhaze]

Well, what do you think SHOULD be taught in a university about the issue of man affecting and controlling climate? That we absolutely will miss the next glaciation because of CO2 emissions? That this is bad, or good? That we need to lower co2 emissions and thus not affect the natural cycle of glaciations, eg, let them occur?

 

[lomiller]

Well, what do you think SHOULD be taught in a university about the issue of man affecting and controlling climate?

Something that represents the views of the scientific community and is representative of the peer reviewed literature rather that something that is in disagreement with both would be a good starting point.

 

[mhaze]

Something that represents the views of the scientific community and is representative of the peer reviewed literature rather that something that is in disagreement with both would be a good starting point.

That's a convenient non answer, so let's try again. I understand that this subject is difficult for a True Believer. But here's a way that it can be discussed.

You are in a college class. Your term paper required to be on Man Affecting and Controlling Climate, and the specfic topic is

...

Assume for the purpose of discussion that man's co2 output has a warming effect on the climate, then what should the output be set to in order to positively cause the next glaciation to be missed, while minimizing harmful side effects?


Hint. There's only one correct answer to this question.

 

[Mikemcc]

That's a convenient non answer, so let's try again. I understand that this subject is difficult for a True Believer. But here's a way that it can be discussed.

You are in a college class. Your term paper required to be on Man Affecting and Controlling Climate, and the specfic topic is

...

Assume for the purpose of discussion that man's co2 output has a warming effect on the climate, then what should the output be set to in order to positively cause the next glaciation to be missed, while minimizing harmful side effects?


Hint. There's only one correct answer to this question.

A pointless question. The glaciation phase may happen 'sometime in the next few thousand years', the rate of glaciation is also easier to respond to because it's slow. The adverse effects of the present levels of CO2 emission and the rates of acceleration of those emissons are a cause for concern now, not in some remote point in the future.

 

[mhaze]

You are in a college class. Your term paper required to be on Man Affecting and Controlling Climate, and the specfic topic is

...

Assume for the purpose of discussion that man's co2 output has a warming effect on the climate, then what should the output be set to in order to positively cause the next glaciation to be missed, while minimizing harmful side effects?

A pointless question. The glaciation phase may happen 'sometime in the next few thousand years', the rate of glaciation is also easier to respond to because it's slow. The adverse effects of the present levels of CO2 emission and the rates of acceleration of those emissons are a cause for concern now, not in some remote point in the future.

F.

 

[Mikemcc]

Right, I understood your approach to the issue. You don't care whether the "Report" has massive factual and logical errors. You've simply looked at Harris and decided he was well within your classification of "denier", and then found a reason or two as to qualifications and other supportive evidence why he shouldn't be teaching. All well and good in terms of confirming the pre existing and prejudicial attitude.

I'll address your opinion about Harris's "qualifications" next. First, that's the decision of a University committee, not yours. That should pretty much end this subject but I have another comment.

You'll note this odd dialogue with OMGT and Mikecc concerning the issue of them believing the "next glaciation will be missed" and man can (control, influence, impact....) climate.

It happens that "controlling" climate would be exactly the domain of a mechanical engineer in practice. As a very simple example, they typically design climate control systems for buildings. Or aircraft. Or spacecraft. Yes, many sub specialties are involved. None the less, this specific issue raised by the "Report", and seemingly defended by OMGT and MikeCC, sits smack dab right in the middle of Harris's educational qualifications. Let's take a look at my prior comment in that:

But let's take a step back. Look at OMGT's concept of well, I would call it, "attempting to control" climate so as to miss the next glaciation. If someone told me that we needed 300 ppm co2 to be likely to miss the next 10,000 year glaciar, I tell you what I would do.

I'd go for 600 ppm. Because I REALLY want to miss that nightmare.​

That's a practical result of the engineering method. It's no different than figuring, say, minimum safety margins for man-rated aircraft structural strength at multiples of a failure point.

Do you have a problem with the engineering method?

Yes, YOUR'engineering method' is barking! If we designed and build machines using your methodology they would be unsellable. To use your analogy of an aircraft, for the sake of safety you would like to reinforce it to the point where it can't get off the ground. Well done on inventing an impractical and inefficent car/truck/bus...

If you want 600ppm I'm assuming that you are happy that Americans and Australians are going to pay significantly more for their insurance to deal with increased storm and flood damage, that crops are not going to be able to be produced on the scale they presently are, that portions of the US may become uninhabitable (in terms of their present populations) due to water loss. That you are happy to accept rather more sea level rise than is presently anticipated, which also implies more flooding events.

 

[Mikemcc]

You are in a college class. Your term paper required to be on Man Affecting and Controlling Climate, and the specfic topic is

...

Assume for the purpose of discussion that man's co2 output has a warming effect on the climate, then what should the output be set to in order to positively cause the next glaciation to be missed, while minimizing harmful side effects?


F.

To reiterate - it's a pointless question. My last response to this silliness because it does not warrant a reply or expansion.

 

[mhaze]

Yes, YOUR'engineering method' is barking! If we designed and build machines using your methodology they would be unsellable. To use your analogy of an aircraft, for the sake of safety you would like to reinforce it to the point where it can't get off the ground. Well done on inventing an impractical and inefficent car/truck/bus...
.

Welcome to the wold of Completely and Totally Wrong Answers regarding the bold section above. The ONLY WAY to design structures is with margins of safety, because otherwise we don't know what the lightest acceptable weight and lowest safe cost is.

From a simple explanation on wikipedia:

Buildings commonly use a factor of safety of 2.0 for each structural member. The value for buildings is relatively low because the loads are well understood and most structures are redundant. Pressure vessels use 3.5 to 4.0, automobiles use 3.0, and aircraft and spacecraft use 1.2 to 3.0 depending on the application and materials. Ductile, metallic materials tend to use the lower value while brittle materials use the higher values. The field of aerospace engineering uses generally lower design factors because the costs associated with structural weight are high (e.g. an aircraft with an overall safety factor of 5 would probably be too heavy to get off the ground). This low design factor is why aerospace parts and materials are subject to very stringent quality control and strict preventative maintenance schedules to help ensure reliability. The usually applied Safety Factor is 1.5, but for pressurized fuselage it is 2.0, and for main landing gear structures it is often 1.25.​

Incidentally, your misunderstanding is exactly why I commented earlier that this is the stuff engineers DO....not scientists or ordinary people. And there's good reasons for that.

If you want 600ppm I'm assuming that you are happy that Americans and Australians are going to pay significantly more for their insurance to deal with increased storm and flood damage, that crops are not going to be able to be produced on the scale they presently are, that portions of the US may become uninhabitable (in terms of their present populations) due to water loss. That you are happy to accept rather more sea level rise than is presently anticipated, which also implies more flooding events.

Now here are some issues that are more matter of opinion than the safety and load factors above discussed.

Do I "want 600 ppm"? I don't particularly care about what % co2 is in the air.

But given the scenario being discussed....

If someone told me that we needed 300 ppm co2 to be likely to miss the next 10,000 year glaciar, I tell you what I would do. I'd go for 600 ppm. Because I REALLY want to miss that nightmare.​

If this scenario is analogous to one requiring a margin of safety, and it looks clear that it is, then what would you propose?

 

[Trakar]

You are in a college class. Your term paper required to be on Man Affecting and Controlling Climate, and the specfic topic is

...

Assume for the purpose of discussion that man's co2 output has a warming effect on the climate, then what should the output be set to in order to positively cause the next glaciation to be missed, while minimizing harmful side effects?


F.

Empirically, significantly less than the current levels as levels sufficient to forestall an impending glaciation would only need to be sufficient to maintain existent temperatures. Best evidence indicates this may have been reached through anthropogenic land management practices thousands of years ago (forest clearing, farming, etc.,.).

 

[Trakar]

To reiterate - it's a pointless question. My last response to this silliness because it does not warrant a reply or expansion.

It isn't pointless, but it is irrelevent and generally a red herring.