Conservatives and climate change

[mhaze]

The radiation balance is what AGW predicts; The Stratosphere gets COOLER as the Troposphere warms.

I have explained this mechanism repeatedly, and given the physical reasons for it, but MHaze appears to be intellectually unable to comprehend the science.

leave the lying, misdirection and ad hominems aside for a while, please.

I know it's tempting, though.

The issue was "The math is simple".

You either agree or disagree.

Which is it?

 

[TimCallahan]

I continue to be sceptical that many people's climate change views are anything to do with science: Left-Right politics as a predictor of AGW stance

Yes, but consider the OP. Here's a conservative who accepts AGW based on science.

 

[JudeBrando]

When has climate not changed?

What is the correct temperature?

 

[mhaze]

When has climate not changed?

What is the correct temperature?

What are the effects of this?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/...ding-spots-signal-big-drop-in-solar-activity/

Remember....the math is easy .....

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas
We are dumping loads of fossil carbon dioxide into the atmosphere
The math is easy

When you say the "math is easy", I can only assume you're talking about the grade-school arithmetic required to calculate that we humans have been dumping about 100 times as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as has been released by volcanoes and other natural processes.

If you honestly say that, you need to study the matter a bit more. Navier stokes applies? Eh?

The Navier-Stokes equations are a basic tool of fluid dynamics. They're a little more difficult than Maxwell's equations (which are taught to freshmen physics majors) but considerably less difficult than Einstein's field equations for general relativity.

The Navier-Stokes equations are not a recent development. Claude-Louis Navier died in 1836. George Stokes died in 1903. The Navier-Stokes equations have been used for decades to design all sorts of things, including automobiles and aircraft.

Look, you made a statement that's just plain false. And I corrected you on it. One way to validate that is to note math that is used in climate science, and go back and enumerate similar courses in undergraduate and graduate math.

Go ahead, do it.

Pretty soon you'll realize that the math which is required is "NOT easy".

My freshman-level calculus textbook used the velocity of fluid flows to motivate vector fields. That's the general problem whose solutions are described by the Navier-Stokes equations. The general Navier-Stokes equations are nonlinear partial differential equations, as would be covered during an engineering major's sophomore or junior year within a course on advanced calculus or differential equations. Numerical methods for solving equations such as Navier-Stokes are taught at the undergraduate level. (I took one of those courses when I was a freshman, but that's unusual.)

The issue was "The math is simple".

You either agree or disagree.

Which is it?

I wouldn't say the math is easy or simple. I'd say the math is not hard.

Using Navier-Stokes equations to model fluid flows is perfectly standard, and the use of numerical methods to solve such flows on digital computers is also perfectly standard. Anyone who questions that math should be suspected of pushing a political agenda.

 

[BenBurch]

The maths are not simple to understand, but those that do understand them universally agree with them. The conclusions are also simple to understand, and that is the problem that propagandists have; They need to obfuscate the issue of AGW sufficiently that people don't know what to believe. If the people were exposed only to the most reliable conclusions to be drawn from the scientific investigation of the issue, we would see major societal changes happening very quickly.

 

[leftysergeant]

When has climate not changed?

Irrelevant to the fact that it is moving in a direction which will result in catastrophic conditions world-wide, and that we may be causing it.

What is the correct temperature?

Low enough to keep the Artic and Antarctic ice sheets forming every winter. When they stop, we're screwed.

 

[mhaze]

Mine have entirely to do with the views of the vast majority of climate scientists and the National Academy of Sciences. If they revise their position, I will revise mine. My areas of expertise are genetics, cell biology, and genomic analysis. My views in that area are based on the views of recognized experts, and my 20 years experience. In the areas of climate science, economics, geology, etc., I rely on experts in the field, not talk show hosts and industry scientists. Those are the two sides of this coin.

Daredelvis

Hmmm....you also will "believe the experts". Gosh, I guess the math isn't that easy?

....I wouldn't say the math is easy....

I've summarized the part of your explanations which is relevant to the question posed by Travis.

The maths are not simple to understand....

Same with you, Ben, except you go forward to dictate "Believe those who do understand the math".

While I hate to agree with MHaze, are you suggesting that "us" (who?) and the overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe the math behind climate change is easy?

.....

The question I posed earlier was "Does Navier Stokes apply?" This is the sort of issue that makes "math in climate science" very difficult. The simplifications and assumptions of any issue modeled or calculated must be very carefully considered. Lots and lots of discussion and issues here, not just with Navier stokes but in general, in application of our math to systems with natural chaos and chaotic behavior (in addition to phase changes, of course).

If you look at the thread, you'll see a problem. Most of the replies initiate with a statement of belief. Very religious like, and totally improper in scientific discussion. But to see it arise in the context of a simple question "Is the math in climate science easy" is actually moronic, as it is destructive to the scientific method itself. Note I have no problem with "belief" per se or with a statement such as "I can't understand it, but I believe...", just commenting on a complete falsehood.

Cheers!

 

[TimCallahan]

Chicken Little Hysteria.

Let me see if I understand you correctly. The article in OP states that a politically conservative science advisor is convinced by the science that AGW is true, and your response is to dismiss this as "Chicken Little hysteria"? Even if you don't agree with the man, there seems to be nothing of hysteria in the article - unless, of course, hysteria is defined as disagreeing with Robert Prey.

 

[mhaze]

Let me see if I understand you correctly. The article in OP states that a politically conservative science advisor is convinced by the science that AGW is true, and your response is to dismiss this as "Chicken Little hysteria"? Even if you don't agree with the man, there seems to be nothing of hysteria in the article - unless, of course, hysteria is defined as disagreeing with Robert Prey.

I'll comment.

the article...

And it’s fair to ask whether the best data suggests that Earth’s temperature has not risen in more than a decade; and if so, why that’s the case.

No right minded individual needs the paid blogger, Cook, bit-pattern, or tim callahan to tell him or comment on what's "fair to ask".

 

[mhaze]

Let me see if I understand you correctly. The article in OP states that a politically conservative science advisor is convinced by the science that AGW is true, and your response is to dismiss this as "Chicken Little hysteria"? Even if you don't agree with the man, there seems to be nothing of hysteria in the article - unless, of course, hysteria is defined as disagreeing with Robert Prey.

I'll comment.

the article...

And it’s fair to ask whether the best data suggests that Earth’s temperature has not risen in more than a decade; and if so, why that’s the case.

No right minded individual needs the paid blogger, Cook, bit-pattern, or tim callahan to instruct, moralize, or adjudicate what's "fair to ask".

That indicates a mind set of framing the discussion according to some implicit rules of political correctness. This is not appropriate in science regardless of your desires or beliefs.

Having prefaced my comment with this point of view, I'll proceed to your error.

Robert's comment is simply correct regarding the article.

Wehner makes a nod to scientific uncertainties and the potential dangers of excessive government intervention, and he firmly rejects alarmism.

 

[lomiller]

Still waiting for some smart person to cite any significant period of time in the known history of the earth, when the climate was not changing.

Easy, the period where human civilization has existed on the earth. Can you think if a period more significant than that?


At least you seem to accept the earth is more that 5000 years old, this is actually a surprisingly positive sign given who it's coming from.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

The question I posed earlier was "Does Navier Stokes apply?" This is the sort of issue that makes "math in climate science" very difficult. The simplifications and assumptions of any issue modeled or calculated must be very carefully considered. Lots and lots of discussion and issues here, not just with Navier stokes but in general, in application of our math to systems with natural chaos and chaotic behavior (in addition to phase changes, of course).

That's like asking whether Maxwell's equations apply to a problem involving electromagnetic fields. When the scientific questions involve fluid flows, as in the oceans or atmosphere, the Navier-Stokes equations will be applicable.

When someone tries to suggest that's anything other than obvious, we have to conclude he doesn't know what he's talking about.

When someone who doesn't know what he's talking about tries to cast doubt upon the applicability of basic applied mathematics and physics, we have to conclude he has some ulterior motive.

Which brings us back to the topic of this thread.

 

[bikerdruid]

Easy, the period where human civilization has existed on the earth. Can you think if a period more significant than that?


At least you seem to accept the earth is more that 5000 years old, this is actually a surprisingly positive sign given who it's coming from.

to be fair, most YECers don't still cling to that theory that the earth is only 5-6000 years old.
heck, they have extended their estimate to at least 10-12000 years old.

 

[mhaze]

That's like asking whether Maxwell's equations apply to a problem involving electromagnetic fields. ......

Surrreeee, bucko. It's like asking can we use those handy dandy Maxwell set to predict field string on Titan as it merrily chugs along around the big planet. Few problems there?

.... When the scientific questions involve fluid flows, as in the oceans or atmosphere, the Navier-Stokes equations will be applicable......

Really? When that has a $1M prize for a handy solution that's not been found, when it doesn't handle phase changes, which are critical in the task set, when we could debate at length the grid size for accurate results in a climate simulation. Yes we could do all that and more. Do not, please, OVERSIMPLIFY the reality of the situation to correspond with your belief set.

And while you seek to move the discussion to what you consider a manageable area, you only confirm will succeed in confirming further the facts: Climate math is not easy.

 

[citizenzen]

The issue was "The math is simple".

You either agree or disagree.

Which is it?

I think that would depend on who you ask. I'm a graphic designer. For me, composing a kick-ass magazine is simple. Put that task in the hands of your average professional mathematician on the other hand ...

One thing I know for sure from my time at JRFER ... the nit-picking is simple.

 

[citizenzen]

When has climate not changed?

What is the correct temperature?

And if the Earth's orbit were to deviate from it's path and hurtle toward the Sun, Robert Prey and JudeBrando would ask ...

When has the Earth not moved through space?

What is the correct temperature?

 

[daenku32]

A related news item:
Gingrich kills chapter on climate change in upcoming book

Limbaugh picked up on those quotes on Dec. 19, including Hayhoe's poke at talk-show hosts. He called her "one of Newt's experts" and said she believes in man-made global warming. That was apparently enough to create heartburn for Team Newt.

The conservatives get their climate change marching orders from an overpaid radio hate-talk host.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

That's like asking whether Maxwell's equations apply to a problem involving electromagnetic fields. ......

Surrreeee, bucko. It's like asking can we use those handy dandy Maxwell set to predict field string on Titan as it merrily chugs along around the big planet. Few problems there?

Field string?

Whether we're smart enough to use the applicable equations to calculate all the answers we want is not the same as asking whether the equations apply. You asked whether the relevant equations apply. Of course they do.

.... When the scientific questions involve fluid flows, as in the oceans or atmosphere, the Navier-Stokes equations will be applicable......

Really? When that has a $1M prize for a handy solution that's not been found, when it doesn't handle phase changes, which are critical in the task set, when we could debate at length the grid size for accurate results in a climate simulation. Yes we could do all that and more. Do not, please, OVERSIMPLIFY the reality of the situation to correspond with your belief set.

mhaze is the fellow who chose to "OVERSIMPLIFY the reality of the situation" by pretending there was some question as to whether the Navier-Stokes equations apply to the problem.

The Navier-Stokes equations were first mentioned in this thread when mhaze pretended there might be some real question as to whether they're applicable:

If you honestly say that, you need to study the matter a bit more. Navier stokes applies?

It was mhaze who insisted upon a simple yes or no answer:

The issue was "The math is simple".

You either agree or disagree.

Which is it?

It was mhaze who confirmed his question was whether the Navier-Stokes equations apply. He himself put that word in bold face:

The question I posed earlier was "Does Navier Stokes apply?" This is the sort of issue that makes "math in climate science" very difficult.

Did mhaze suggest we shouldn't fly airplanes? The Navier-Stokes equations are used to design aircraft.

Did mhaze suggest we shouldn't build the Keystone Pipeline? The Navier-Stokes equations are used to design pipelines.

Did mhaze suggest we should pay no attention to weather forecasts? The Navier-Stokes equations are used to predict weather.

Did mhaze suggest we should doubt climate science because that science uses the Navier-Stokes equations? Yes, he did.

When someone like mhaze mentions the Navier-Stokes equations in hope of convincing us that climate science is too difficult to be believed, but neglects to mention that Navier-Stokes is a basic tool of fluid dynamics that applies to all sorts of things we accept without a moment's thought, then it's reasonable to conclude mhaze has some ulterior motive, such as a political agenda.

mhaze deserves our thanks for providing such a stark illustration of the anti-science bias decried by Mr Wehner.

 

[Robert Prey]

Let me see if I understand you correctly. The article in OP states that a politically conservative science advisor is convinced by the science that AGW is true, and your response is to dismiss this as "Chicken Little hysteria"? Even if you don't agree with the man, there seems to be nothing of hysteria in the article - unless, of course, hysteria is defined as disagreeing with Robert Prey.

The phrase "politically conservative" has nothing to do with science. The earth may be very slightly warming in certain regions for a lot of reasons, mostly natural. Melting ice caps and high seas that devastate coastal cities is Chicken Little Hysteria backed by nothing but politically correct junk science.