Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[CapelDodger]

So that about wraps it up for the Global Warming Discussion, apparently. The only surprise is that it happened so soon, which is perhaps explained by the natural conservatism of Science.

 

[BenBurch]

The Chinese will do what they will. This does not mean we need to model their behavior.

For example I don't think you want us executing political prisoners and selling their bodies as anatomical specimens, right?

 

[macdoc]

a) All

b) do you have a point other than quote mining

 

[Matt Giwer]

An that exactly what I'm asking you about. The post was:



Though I suppose that "under the ice built back when the earth was too hot for human habitation" doesn't mean Martians built them, I ask you again about specific places in Switzerland. Once you state a minimal info that allow spotting the archaeological sites we can move on and analyze the climate connexion. I think you are just repeating what some blogs have, but they took real findings and shaped them and built on them to fit their "needs". The same is happening these days about similar findings in another country.

It could mean Martians built them. It is difficult to come to any other conclusion if those bewailing the coming Thermogedon are correct and it is the end of life as we know it.

As to analyzing any climate connection that is impossible as the entire climate thing is based upon the irrational application of statistics. I use irrational for lack of a word that does not imply deliberately fraudulent.

 

[Matt Giwer]

more
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101019121922.htm

Drought May Threaten Much of Globe Within Decades, Analysis Predicts

ScienceDaily (Oct. 19, 2010) — The United States and many other heavily populated countries face a growing threat of severe and prolonged drought in coming decades, according to a new study by National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) scientist Aiguo Dai.

Science Daily is not an academic resource.

May and May Not are equally applicable to the headline.

There is no scientific analysis presented in the article.

Writers, at best journalism majors, are neither credible not reliable sources.

Science is not done by press release.

Given these facts the article is as worthless as the headline.

 

[Mikemcc]

Science Daily is not an academic resource.

May and May Not are equally applicable to the headline.

There is no scientific analysis presented in the article.

Writers, at best journalism majors, are neither credible not reliable sources.

Science is not done by press release.

Given these facts the article is as worthless as the headline.

You obviously missed this part of the article:

Journal Reference:

1.Aiguo Dai. Drought under global warming: a review. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 2010; DOI: 10.1002/wcc.81

Science Daily always provides links to the papers that the story refers to, though they may be behind paywalls.

 

[aleCcowaN]

It could mean Martians built them. It is difficult to come to any other conclusion if those bewailing the coming Thermogedon are correct and it is the end of life as we know it.

As to analyzing any climate connection that is impossible as the entire climate thing is based upon the irrational application of statistics. I use irrational for lack of a word that does not imply deliberately fraudulent.

Text not related to any epistemology of science. That might be good as emotional speech, or political, or literary or whatever, but coming back to the point, can you name the places in Switzerland where human premises from warmer times were find under a recent melting glacier? You made the assertion and this is the third time I'm asking you the locations. I think we can safely say you don't know even one because you were repeating something you read in elsewhere. Bear in mind it's important to separate evidence from irrational or deliberately fraudulent.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Science Daily is not an academic resource.

May and May Not are equally applicable to the headline.

There is no scientific analysis presented in the article.

Writers, at best journalism majors, are neither credible not reliable sources.

Science is not done by press release.

Given these facts the article is as worthless as the headline.

What part of

Drought under global warming: a review

didn't you get.

Tell me how applies your post to that article and its author.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

The Chinese will do what they will. This does not mean we need to model their behavior.

For example I don't think you want us executing political prisoners and selling their bodies as anatomical specimens, right?

a) All

b) do you have a point other than quote mining

I assume you guys are talking to me, not that one could really tell.

My point Ben is that Macs attack on the west by holding China up as some paragon of effective change is nonsense. Mac is the one wanting us to model their behavious; if you want to make the comparison about executing prisoners it should be directed at him.

Mac. With nothing that will replace our coal powered energy needs yet, closing down the power stations will harm millions and kill many.

If you were unable to glean the point in my post I am amazed. As I said, you put the Chinese up as some sort of measuring stick; the reality is a lot different.

 

[macdoc]

Introducing the 'A-Train': Satellites Help Scientists Understand Earth's Changing Climate

ScienceDaily (Oct. 27, 2010) — Mention the "A-Train" and most people probably think of the jazz legend Billy Strayhorn or perhaps New York City subway trains -- not climate change. However, it turns out that a convoy of "A-Train" satellites has emerged as one of the most powerful tools scientists have for understanding our planet's changing climate.

more

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101027111352.htm

 

[CapelDodger]

As to analyzing any climate connection that is impossible as the entire climate thing is based upon the irrational application of statistics.

It's actually based on Physics. You'll recall that the current warming period was predicted before the event purely on the basis of Physics.

I use irrational for lack of a word that does not imply deliberately fraudulent.

"Irrational" does not imply "deliberately fraudulent", so you don't lack the word at all. I suspect you just want to get the phrase "deliberately fraudulent" out there without actually making the claim. You know, the claim that everybody engaged in climate science, oceanography and glaciology is also engaged in a deliberate fraud, and have been for decades. A thoroughly irrational claim, as I'm sure you'd agree, worthy only of nutters like Monckton.

So anyway, these old Swiss dwellings that have been released from the Alpine ice recently, have you tracked down where you got that idea from yet? I didn't notice the reports myself so I may have missed them when they showed up on ScienceDaily.

 

[CapelDodger]

Science Daily is not an academic resource. /quote]

No, but how many of us are academics? It's a fine resource for those of us who take an interest in Science generally.

May and May Not are equally applicable to the headline.

Put not your faith in headlines, for they are often written by subs.

There is no scientific analysis presented in the article.

No, that's in the research they're reporting on.

Writers, at best journalism majors, are neither credible not reliable sources.

Can't argue with that. Monckton has some sort of journalism credentials, after all.

Science is not done by press release.

True. Your point being?

Given these facts the article is as worthless as the headline.

You wish.

The value in any such article (or any journalism for that matter) is that it alerts us to the existence of the research, and gives a general overview of what its conclusions are. So if (for instance) glaciologists and archaeologists report on Alpine dwellings recently released from very old perennial ice we can probably hear about it from ScienceDaily, whereas the mainstream press is unlikely to cover the story prominently.

Journalism is not completely worthless, even to someone as jaded as me.

 

[CapelDodger]

That might be good as emotional speech, or political, or literary or whatever, but coming back to the point, can you name the places in Switzerland where human premises from warmer times were find under a recent melting glacier?

I've not heard of this either, and I take an interest in archaeology. There was Otzi (the Ice-Man) of course, but that's old news and there was never any suggestion that he was living up there. High Alpine valleys were never lived in permanently until very recent times.

I read something recently about prehistoric artefacts emerging from retreating ice in Canada, but again no suggestion that their owners were living there. The items may even have been laid down on existing ice and melted their way down, in the way that dark objects on ice or snow are known to do.

The real news from retreating ice will be when it no longer reveals ancient tree-lines, but of course that won't be news. An absence of stuff happening only ever features on the Sports pages.

 

[Matt Giwer]

You obviously missed this part of the article:

Science Daily always provides links to the papers that the story refers to, though they may be behind paywalls.

That changes nothing. Only reading the paper matters.

The observation that "may" and "may not" are equally valid titles remains true.

Should read the paper it would be good if you would at least quote the exactly probability calculated, the places where it is applicable, and a summary of the methodology.

 

[Matt Giwer]

What part of

Drought under global warming: a review

didn't you get.

Tell me how applies your post to that article and its author.

Neither of us have any idea what the paper says. Is that not clear? All we know is what some writer produced.

And we know from the recent banning of the Green politician from wikipedia for changing all the "warming" articles to favor his political slant, no rational person would accept a second hand opinion on this subject.

 

[Matt Giwer]

Let me make of point of order on the use of statistics

Take for example a test of the heads to tails ratio of the flip of a fair coin. Statistics requires the fair coin else statistical analysis does not apply. If in the process of recording the test results of heads and tails one does not use the actual results but decides a head should have been a tail for other reasons statistics is no longer a legitimate tool. The best one can do is to compare the actually results with the "massaged" results and get some sort of estimate of the consequences of the bias introduced.

So also it is with temperature data. One can only apply statistics to the raw data. Anything other than the raw data and statistics is inapplicable.

Do not blame me. This is what statistics is all about. The only thing of interest to measure with massaged data is to compare the raw and massaged with the same method and get a measure of the effect of the massaging. It is impossible to honestly say it is anything else.

This is the way it is. All results of massaged input data are no more than a measure of the massaging and nothing else. Massaging temperature data is no different from declaring a head to be a tail in the input data testing the fair coin.

 

[Trakar]

(...)
The value in any such article (or any journalism for that matter) is that it alerts us to the existence of the research, and gives a general overview of what its conclusions are. So if (for instance) glaciologists and archaeologists report on Alpine dwellings recently released from very old perennial ice we can probably hear about it from ScienceDaily, whereas the mainstream press is unlikely to cover the story prominently.

Journalism is not completely worthless, even to someone as jaded as me.

And that is the point. Journalistic sources and even such populist monstrosities as Wiki, are fine to use to help one discover general details and understandings of complex scientific discoveries and findings, especially in fields of information that are beyond our normal area of personal knowledge and expertise. As long as you accept that a good portion of the material may be misstated or in error due to the author's own misperceptions and misunderstandings. Not a good primary source, but can lead you to them and give you a general handle for the information. I tend to disdain these sources primarily because most science journalism just isn't very good anymore, tending toward "sensationalism" rather than good, solid, accurate, reporting. That being said, ScienceDaily, the assorted Nature blogs, Phys.org, and the stand-bys (New Scientist and SciAm) generally include references to the specific research and papers their stories are based upon and these researches and papers are generally good primary science sources of information and understanding.

 

[Trakar]

...Mac. With nothing that will replace our coal powered energy needs yet, closing down the power stations will harm millions and kill many...

Upon what do you base your assertion that there exists "nothing that will replace our coal powered energy needs"?

The first step is not to close existing coal plants but to stop the new ones. After all new construction and planning is ended, then we can work on replacing and decommissioning the existing power plants.

 

[Trakar]

ORNL has a CO2 FAQ page up that has been substantially added to since my last encounter with it, complete with hyperlinked data and support pages,...shades of skepticalscience but less polished. Lots of good information:

Q. Can you quantify the sources and sinks of the global carbon cycle?

A. View an illustration of the global carbon cycle. Source: Mac Post (Oak Ridge National Laboratory)

Note: GtC = gigatons of carbon and giga = 109


For further reading, we suggest:


Amthor, J. S. 1995. Terrestrial higher-plant response to increasing atmospheric [CO2] in relation to the global carbon cycle. Global Change Biology 1:243-274.
Moore, B. III, and B. H. Braswell. 1994. The lifetime of excess atmospheric carbon dioxide. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 8:23-38.

Post, W. M., T.-H. Peng, W. R. Emanuel, A. W. King, V. H. Dale, and D. L. De Angelis. 1990. The global carbon cycle. American Scientist, 78:310-326.

Schimel, D. S. 1995. Terrestrial ecosystems and the carbon cycle. Global Change Biology , 1:77-91.[TAB]
And, click here to see figures summarizing the global cycles of biologically active elements. Source: William S. Reeburgh, Professor Marine and Terrestrial Biogeochemistry, University of California.

Q. I am curious about the global warming potential of water vapor. Do you know if estimates are done of this in the same way as global warming potentials are calculated for other greenhouse gases? I am also interested in why no mention is ever made of the enhanced greenhouse effect caused by anthropogenic emissions of water vapor. Are the anthropogenic emissions not significant?

A. Water vapor is indeed a very potent "greenhouse" gas, in terms of its absorbing and re-radiating outgoing infrared radiation. It is commonly not mentioned as an important factor in global warming, because it is not clear that the atmospheric concentration (as compared with CO2, methane, etc.) is rising. Some (Richard Lindzen at MIT, prominently) have argued that the uncertain potential feedbacks involving water vapor represent a serious shortcoming in models of climate warming. See the following online resource for a good discussion of this issue:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/pubs_html/attf94_v2/chap2.html

Interesting addressment, am becoming more and more impressed with the national laboratories and their primary roles in science and science education.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html

 

[Trakar]

In my post concerning ORNL, the link in the discussion on water vapor is broken, here is a working link to the same information. If a moderator would care to fix the link it would be greatly appreciated.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/environment/chap2.html