Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[CapelDodger]

I still don't give Muller much personal credit for anything other than being smart enough to understand that his work was going to undergo peer-review and he had to carefully report his findings. His personal druthers always have been, and are still, in the denier camp. There are and were too many in the science community looking too carefully at all the work being done for there to be anything but a straght forward evaluation of the data.

I give Muller no credit for anything, frankly. He's of a familiar type, attention-hungry and safely contrarian in a traditional mode. His natural bias is towards climate denial, and he may well have thought that BEST really would change the game - he doesn't appear to be very bright, after all. As a scientist he knows when the game is up, and unlike, say, Lindzen he doesn't need to cling to denial because that's all he's got in life.

What struck me was how dispirited the denier assault on Muller was. BEST quickly become taboo and not to be spoken of; instead there'll always be McIntyre to tune into as he drones on about his one big trick. Nostalgia is the final retreat of the denier mob, which is why it will always be about 2009 for them. Let's face it, and I'm not one for ageism, few of them qualify for premature senility.

The denier campaign is fading fast, and soon we'll need a different explanation for the lack of co-ordinated international action, or even national action in many cases. I already have my explanation, which is that humanity hasn't yet developed the political and diplomatic systems necessary to deal with an issue like AGW. Such systems don't develop quickly; it took half a century to get a handle on industrialised warfare when warfare had been the very stuff of politics and diplomacy for thousands of years. We're much further behind the game on this one.

Responses of the "raise the levees" variety is all I expect to see in real terms, although there'll be no end of targets set, fine words spoken, and pledges made to meet again soon to finalise preparations for a decisive conference setting the terms for negotiation of a binding Pact (or Treaty, the working-group of the sub-committee is yet to determine the precise nomenclature and as for a logo, that could be years away. And yet rightwingers are terrified of the UN. Go figure ). Said final Pact (or Treaty, perhaps even Covenant) to be negotiated in Geneva.

 

[Trakar]

...Responses of the "raise the levees" variety is all I expect to see in real terms, although there'll be no end of targets set, fine words spoken, and pledges made to meet again soon to finalise preparations for a decisive conference setting the terms for negotiation of a binding Pact (or Treaty, the working-group of the sub-committee is yet to determine the precise nomenclature and as for a logo, that could be years away. And yet rightwingers are terrified of the UN. Go figure ). Said final Pact (or Treaty, perhaps even Covenant) to be negotiated in Geneva.

I actually expect that serious moves away from fossil fuels will be made, I just believe that the "day late and dollar short" maxim will rule the day.

"Global emissions hit record levels" - http://www.energylivenews.com/2012/05/24/global-emissions-hit-record-levels/

Global CO2 emissions hit a record high of 31.6 gigatonnes in 2011. According to the International Energy Association (IEA) the new peak, which is 1Gt higher than the year before, threatens to scupper plans to prevent global warming.

The IEA has a climate change scenario which requires global CO2 emissions to reach a maximum of 32.6 Gt no later than 2017. This is necessary should we have a chance of limiting a 2°C global temperature increase needed to prevent disaster.

The ‘450 scenario’ is only 1Gt higher than last year’s emissions levels, painting a grim picture for the world’s climate ambitions...

 

[lomiller]

I give Muller no credit for anything, frankly. He's of a familiar type, attention-hungry and safely contrarian in a traditional mode. His natural bias is towards climate denial, and he may well have thought that BEST really would change the game - he doesn't appear to be very bright, after all. As a scientist he knows when the game is up, and unlike, say, Lindzen he doesn't need to cling to denial because that's all he's got in life.

You are being too harsh IMO. He clearly thought BEST would reveal something new or interesting and this tells us he had paid a lot more attention to various denier blogs than the actual published research. Given that he started from this basis and still reported his results the way he did showed a decent amount of integrity.

I’m less enamoured by his belief that now that he has reported his results we can rest easy assured that the temperature recorded really is as reported. He added nothing to the real debate, but as I said reporting his results does show a measure of personal integrity.

 

[CapelDodger]

You are being too harsh IMO. He clearly thought BEST would reveal something new or interesting and this tells us he had paid a lot more attention to various denier blogs than the actual published research. Given that he started from this basis and still reported his results the way he did showed a decent amount of integrity.

I’m less enamoured by his belief that now that he has reported his results we can rest easy assured that the temperature recorded really is as reported. He added nothing to the real debate, but as I said reporting his results does show a measure of personal integrity.

Given how much the project was promoted (not least by leading deniers) it wan't possible for it to go the way of Watts's surface stations fiasco. It had to be reported, and with the involvement of a respected statistician the reults couldn't be manipulated.

It's telling that the deniers assumed the results from the funding and involvement of Muller, his daughter, and Judith Curry. It was not "pro-AGW research" so must therefore be anti-AGW research. Their distorted picture of what science is has caught them out again, rather splendidly.

 

[Trakar]

You are being too harsh IMO. He clearly thought BEST would reveal something new or interesting and this tells us he had paid a lot more attention to various denier blogs than the actual published research. Given that he started from this basis and still reported his results the way he did showed a decent amount of integrity.

I’m less enamoured by his belief that now that he has reported his results we can rest easy assured that the temperature recorded really is as reported. He added nothing to the real debate, but as I said reporting his results does show a measure of personal integrity.

I think it is more than this, and he's more frustrated than de-programmed. I'm not sure we've heard the last from the BEST "team," Muller was more than just a curious blog reader, he was an active participant involved in several of the Heartland gatherings and events, it was this grouping with big names in Mainstream denialism that got the Koch brothers funding for the project in the first place. I guess it is possible he just schilled the corporate denialists to accomplish some real science, but I not sure that I trust or respect him more for that behavior.

 

[CapelDodger]

I think it is more than this, and he's more frustrated than de-programmed. I'm not sure we've heard the last from the BEST "team," Muller was more than just a curious blog reader, he was an active participant involved in several of the Heartland gatherings and events ...

There's no doubt he demeaned himself by that association.

... it was this grouping with big names in Mainstream denialism that got the Koch brothers funding for the project in the first place.

I wonder who first proposed the project? People like us have been proposing that deniers produce their own reconstructions for years to no effect. Why did it suddenly appear to be a good idea? You'd have to be deluded to imagine any other outcome than confirmation of a team-full of Hockey Sticks.

I don't doubt the Kochs were deluded, thinking that funding buys the results you want - it always has for them before. Perhaps Muller was deluded enough to buy the conspiracy theories he was introduced to at Heatland.

I guess it is possible he just schilled the corporate denialists to accomplish some real science, but I not sure that I trust or respect him more for that behavior.

I don't even entertain the possibility. Whatever Muller did he did for Muller, not for science.

If it turned out right (from the Koch perspective) Muller becomes a power in the land, God-Emperor of the denier-cult, and a FoxNews regular. If it turns out wrong he becomes an early heretic by graciously conceding the point. Another safe "maverick" ploy.

I reckon the germ of the project was sown by Muller. Cui bono?

 

[lomiller]

I think it is more than this, and he's more frustrated than de-programmed. I'm not sure we've heard the last from the BEST "team," Muller was more than just a curious blog reader, he was an active participant involved in several of the Heartland gatherings and events, it was this grouping with big names in Mainstream denialism that got the Koch brothers funding for the project in the first place. I guess it is possible he just schilled the corporate denialists to accomplish some real science, but I not sure that I trust or respect him more for that behavior.

That much is certainly true, but I think the source of his frustration is that he didn't look at the actual literature, only the blogs and firmly believed "properly performed science would give some other result. This is true of most deniers.

The fact that he can't look at the huge body of research and see what it says and that he's ready to buy into pretty much any CT that gets floated in the blogosphere show he doesn't have much credibility.

All I'm saying is that he did manage to get a correct result and he was honest enough to report it. This alone makes puts him above most deniers. I have been clear he isn't adding anything to the science.

Will he shows up again, I'm not sure. The treatment he got from bloggers like Watts and McIntyre was pretty harsh and he's bound to be a little sensitive from here on in.

 

[Warmer1]

Thanks for the links to the climate humor Trakar and to all for the feedback on Best.

I am interested in anime chemicals that can capture and release CO2. A new test project has just been opened in Norway and I'm wondering if anyone here has any information about anime compounds that can be reused or regenerated?

I used to dive with a rebreather and we used calcium hydroxide and lithium hydroxide to capture our exhaled CO2 but the material was not reusable. I saw the demonstration of the plastic trees that could capture CO2 and release it but that was a while ago.

Is there any new information regarding CO2 capture?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18009623

Norway aims for carbon leadership

The first two technologies to be tested at Mongstad both involve absorption of CO2 by liqids

The immediate focus of the research is on liquid-based technologies, the oldest and most established.

In the 60-metre tower that dominates the Mongstad skyline, a liquid amine - a relative of ammonia - trickles down through an intricate set of metal baffles.

As it comes down, gas containing CO2 flows upwards. The amine's task is to capture the CO2 and lock it into solution.

The baffles increase the surface area over which the liquid and gas are in contact.

"If you compare it to your lung, you're pumping blood to get oxygen into your body; and if you are fit you have a big lung, a big surface, to be able to absorb a certain amount of oxygen," says Mr Falk-Pedersen.
Gas flare Flue gas can come from the refinery next door, or from the gas-fired power station

"In that tower, the liquid surface is the same as eight soccer fields, so it's a very big surface."

When the gas reaches the top of the amine tower and vents into the atmosphere, it has lost about 90% of its CO2.

The amine is then heated up with steam, releasing the CO2 which is captured and can be sent for storage.


Any insights? TIA

 

[a_unique_person]

Here are a few things which will remain true in the minds of some people until they breathe their last :

The data is not available.
The code is not available.
There has been no warming since 1995.
All of AGW rests on the Hockey-Stick.

This requires the ability to still be living before BEST (a more common skill than one might think, in my experience). Living in the past can be so much more comfortable than an unwelcome present, let alone facing up to what's coming in the next few brief years.

The work which McIntyre is demanding access to is due for publication in October this year, but we can rest assured that in some minds it will remain unpublished for ever.

Yet he never asks for code for the UAH satellite temperature record, because it is run by like minded deniers like Spencer and Christy. The man is a hypocrite of the first order.

 

[Trakar]

There's no doubt he demeaned himself by that association.

I'm not sure that he considers it demeanment, but I didn't respect or trust Muller before this incident. Regardless, I've said about enough on Muller himself. I don't like talking bad about people who aren't around to look guilty while I'm doing it.

Cui bono?

or in this case, "who sought the benefit" and we could probably include all the likely suspects in that round-up.

 

[lomiller]

Yet he never asks for code for the UAH satellite temperature record, because it is run by like minded deniers like Spencer and Christy. The man is a hypocrite of the first order.

This despite the fact UAH is the data set that seems to have problems over and over again. The latest can be found here
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JTECH-D-11-00147.1

This study evaluates the selection of the MSU TMT warm target factor for the NOAA-9 satellite using five homogenized radiosonde products as references. The analysis reveals that the UAH TMT product has a positive bias of 0.051 ± 0.031 in the warm target factor that artificially reduces the global TMT trend by 0.042 K decade−1 for 1979–2009.

They don’t really go after RSS either, though, so the reason could be that the math involved in the satellite numbers is more than they can handle. With the surface station numbers they can sort of get their head around then appeal to their “complexity” to “raise questions” but working with the satellite numbers is so complex they are happy to use it as a magic number.

 

[Trakar]

That much is certainly true, but I think the source of his frustration is that he didn't look at the actual literature, only the blogs and firmly believed "properly performed science would give some other result. This is true of most deniers.

The fact that he can't look at the huge body of research and see what it says and that he's ready to buy into pretty much any CT that gets floated in the blogosphere show he doesn't have much credibility.

All I'm saying is that he did manage to get a correct result and he was honest enough to report it. This alone makes puts him above most deniers. I have been clear he isn't adding anything to the science.

Will he shows up again, I'm not sure. The treatment he got from bloggers like Watts and McIntyre was pretty harsh and he's bound to be a little sensitive from here on in.

First off, a bit of an apology, a re-read of a few of my responses to you in particular over the last week or so have had an edgy tone that I didn't recognize or notice when I was making them. I'm not sure what that was all about or what motivated my word selection, I do apologize, however, and hope that I have not been too off-putting or grumpy. Its getting close to vacation time and I evidently need it!

Secondly, I did run across a most interesting article the other day that I feel has a place in this type of discussion about the practices and mindset of denialists but I haven't yet figured out how to best make all the connections for a good presentation. Here's the article, perhaps if we all toss it around a bit we can get the pieces to fall together in an attractive fashion.

"Public Apathy Over Climate Change Unrelated To Science Literacy: Study"
http://www.newsroomamerica.com/stor...nge_unrelated_to_science_literacy:_study.html

(Newsroom America) -- Public apathy over climate change would not change if Americans knew more basic science and were more proficient in technical reasoning, according to a new study...

"The aim of the study was to test two hypotheses," said Dan Kahan, Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Law and Professor of Psychology at Yale Law School and a member of the study team. "The first attributes political controversy over climate change to the public's limited ability to comprehend science, and the second, to opposing sets of cultural values. The findings supported the second hypothesis and not the first," he said...

"In effect," Kahan said, "ordinary members of the public credit or dismiss scientific information on disputed issues based on whether the information strengthens or weakens their ties to others who share their values. At least among ordinary members of the public, individuals with higher science comprehension are even better at fitting the evidence to their group commitments."

Kahan said that the study supports no inferences about the reasoning of scientific experts in climate change...

"More information can help solve the climate change conflict," Kahan said, "but that information has to do more than communicate the scientific evidence. It also has to create a climate of deliberations in which no group perceives that accepting any piece of evidence is akin to betrayal of their cultural group."

This is all somewhat similar to Chris Mooney's "The Republican Brain," but that book wears a lot of biases on top of the science it presents. (
http://www.lefteyeonbooks.com/2012/...n-interview-with-science-writer-chris-mooney/ )
"The Republican Brain: Interview with Chris Mooney"

 

[Trakar]

Thanks for the links to the climate humor Trakar and to all for the feedback on Best.

I am interested in anime chemicals that can capture and release CO2. A new test project has just been opened in Norway and I'm wondering if anyone here has any information about anime compounds that can be reused or regenerated?

I used to dive with a rebreather and we used calcium hydroxide and lithium hydroxide to capture our exhaled CO2 but the material was not reusable. I saw the demonstration of the plastic trees that could capture CO2 and release it but that was a while ago.

Is there any new information regarding CO2 capture?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18009623

Norway aims for carbon leadership

The first two technologies to be tested at Mongstad both involve absorption of CO2 by liqids

The immediate focus of the research is on liquid-based technologies, the oldest and most established.

In the 60-metre tower that dominates the Mongstad skyline, a liquid amine - a relative of ammonia - trickles down through an intricate set of metal baffles.

As it comes down, gas containing CO2 flows upwards. The amine's task is to capture the CO2 and lock it into solution.

The baffles increase the surface area over which the liquid and gas are in contact.

"If you compare it to your lung, you're pumping blood to get oxygen into your body; and if you are fit you have a big lung, a big surface, to be able to absorb a certain amount of oxygen," says Mr Falk-Pedersen.
Gas flare Flue gas can come from the refinery next door, or from the gas-fired power station

"In that tower, the liquid surface is the same as eight soccer fields, so it's a very big surface."

When the gas reaches the top of the amine tower and vents into the atmosphere, it has lost about 90% of its CO2.

The amine is then heated up with steam, releasing the CO2 which is captured and can be sent for storage.

Any insights? TIA

Interesting chemicals, I don't know how much I could contribute to your understanding at this time, but I'll give a look around and see what's out and about.

 

[lomiller]

First off, a bit of an apology, a re-read of a few of my responses to you in particular over the last week or so have had an edgy tone that I didn't recognize or notice when I was making them. I'm not sure what that was all about or what motivated my word selection, I do apologize, however, and hope that I have not been too off-putting or grumpy. Its getting close to vacation time and I evidently need it! "

You didn’t say anything I took offense to so it couldn’t have been that bad. The clearest writing styles can sound abrupt at times, even if it’s unintentional. You posts were clear and valid which is the most important thing.

Re: Muller perhaps I’m just quibbling but whatever his other shortcomings I just don’t think Capel’s suggestion that he’s have been dishonest if he thought he could get away with it is justified. It may be true for all I know, but I just don’t see evidence for it in the way things played out.

Secondly, I did run across a most interesting article the other day that I feel has a place in this type of discussion about the practices and mindset of denialists but I haven't yet figured out how to best make all the connections for a good presentation. Here's the article, perhaps if we all toss it around a bit we can get the pieces to fall together in an attractive fashion.

"Public Apathy Over Climate Change Unrelated To Science Literacy: Study"
http://www.newsroomamerica.com/stor...nge_unrelated_to_science_literacy:_study.html

Interesting, but TBH I have to wonder if science literacy is really what needs to be looked at.
Science produces the answer that best fits the know information not a collection of true facts. If true facts are what you were really looking for then anything that creates controversy and low grade doubt is sufficient to not accept any science that doesn’t fit with your worldview. Since no science is ever absolute, this can be applied to any of its products to selectively disbelieve whatever doesn’t fit.

What people need to learn is in many ways more like philosophy than science. By necessity most science is taught as if it’s the proven truth so many people are really looking for, so science education by itself doesn’t always give people the skills to evaluate science. In a sense they are still learning it as if it’s a religious belief where you go to a book, read it and memorize it to learn truth. The book is usually a lot better but the reason for believing it really isn’t.

 

[This is The End]

"Interesting" climate change data from Nature Climate Change (and funded by National Science Foundation) as reported by FoxNews.com

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012...ics-know-more-about-science-new-study-claims/

Are global warming skeptics anti-science? Or just ignorant about science?

Maybe neither. A study published Sunday in the journal Nature Climate Change finds that people who are not that worried about the effects of global warming tend to have a slightly higher level of scientific knowledge than those who are worried

<snip>

That people’s cultural views – how much they value things like individualism and equality -- affect their views on global warming much more than actual knowledge about science. Regardless of how much they know about science, individualists were relatively unconcerned about global warming, whereas those who value equality were very concerned.

...and of course:

Both sides of the global warming debate say the study's findings support their views.

-------------

as determined by their answers to questions like:

"Electrons are smaller than atoms -- true or false?”

"How long does it take the Earth to go around the Sun? One day, one month, or one year?"

“Lasers work by focusing sound waves -- true or false?”

The quiz, containing 22 questions about both science and statistics, was given to 1,540 representative Americans.

If all 22 questions are as easy as those 3 I would hope that everyone got 100% correct...


-------------

...and of course they bring up:

"But some of the 16 scientists who signed a letter this January titled "No Need to Panic About Global Warming" disagree." [that "that human activity is altering the climate"]

 

[Trakar]

...What people need to learn is in many ways more like philosophy than science. By necessity most science is taught as if it’s the proven truth so many people are really looking for, so science education by itself doesn’t always give people the skills to evaluate science. In a sense they are still learning it as if it’s a religious belief where you go to a book, read it and memorize it to learn truth. The book is usually a lot better but the reason for believing it really isn’t.

Your statement of experience with learning science seems unlike my own. I'm sure that there is probably some segment of the professional and academic scientific community to whom this might apply, particularly in early, more general, science and math studies (the rounded education approach). But I am not familiar with any professional researcher who has not developed an intimately detailed, interactive discovery of their field of focus and specialty.

If you are simply speaking of, say, a chemist's understanding of biology, or of either of their base general science understandings, the overall mainstream principles up to each level of organizational specialization is remarkably consistent and stable for most issues, as they are generally taught in undergrad mixed major classes. Relativity by example brought new understanding, but for the most part it didn't drastically change other understandings it merely brought new and better understanding to the framework of those other scientific understandings. It's that "least complication necessary" attribute of science.

What you seem to be talking about is more the way non-science majors approach their required adventures into the periphery of general science classes, and in thinking about it, seems to be the approach also taken by many field specialty engineers who aren't as focussed on the theory and understanding as much as the application derived or surmised from determined constraints and specifications.

But maybe I'm just misunderstanding what you are trying to say.

 

[CapelDodger]

Re: Muller perhaps I’m just quibbling but whatever his other shortcomings I just don’t think Capel’s suggestion that he’s have been dishonest if he thought he could get away with it is justified.

I didn't mean to suggest that; perhaps I left it implicit that Muller is scientist enough not to imagine he could ever get away with such a thing. Once the BEST project was rolling the result was out of anyone's control, and Muller (unlike the Kochs) was well aware of that.

That's what intrigued me about BEST from the announcement. Everything was to be in the open - data, methods, code - and eager eyes were ready to roll over them. The only possible outcome was a Hockey-Stick, because there's no way it could fade out like Watts's surface stations fiasco and there is, of course, no great conspiracy.

For me the big question remains : who conceived and first proposed this disastrous exercise? My money's on Muller; I didn't remember hearing of him pre-BEST so to that extent it's worked out well for an attention-seeker.

 

[CapelDodger]

or in this case, "who sought the benefit" and we could probably include all the likely suspects in that round-up.

If by the usual suspects we mean McIntyre, Lindzen, Pielke Snr, Christy and the like, they are far to savvy to think the BEST project a good idea. I suspect it was presented to them as a fait accompli.

While Muller mixes with that crowd he's not really of them, and connects to funders such as the Kochs via academia rather than through think-tanks. He could easily have slipped this past the denier establishment.

Perhaps he'll reveal all in an autobiography .

 

[CapelDodger]

What people need to learn is in many ways more like philosophy than science. By necessity most science is taught as if it’s the proven truth so many people are really looking for, so science education by itself doesn’t always give people the skills to evaluate science. In a sense they are still learning it as if it’s a religious belief where you go to a book, read it and memorize it to learn truth. The book is usually a lot better but the reason for believing it really isn’t.

In my culture (general UK) scientists are commonly expected to do what priests used to do - you have a question, they know the answer. They are authorities and have authoritative answers. An unfortunate cultural dislocation, but there it is.

 

[DC]

Climate change and evolution denial--the parallels