Science/Environment The Carbon Debate, pt III

[SaintsSeptember]

Take it up with India!

But, yeah, don't really have an answer for you on that one. I'm sure there'd be a logical solution but I certainly can't think of one right now.

Not sure most broad brush solutions ( like tax ) pick up a bit of collateral damage along the way.
ie taxes designed to make trucks pay for the cost of "heavy duty" roads also discourage people from buying efficient diesel cars.
Not too many perfect solutions.
Maybe a company using coal in non-polluting ways could claim credits or something.

 

[skilts]

If I have to delete or edit another post of sniping between posters in this thread, the poster will receive an infraction.

You're safe for now. My rifle has become jammed. My camouflage seems to be becoming iridescent too. Many apologies for making things untidy for you.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

fishardansin

Many papers have looked at the expected contribution of thawing permafrost to climate change. For example, Schaeffer et al. (2011) and Schuur and Abbott (2011) have both published estimates of the effect that the thawing and decomposition of organic matter in Arctic soils will have on future climates. Aspects that these studies neglected were the feedback that the permafrost carbon release would have on causing further permafrost degradation and the varying response that the carbon release would have on the climate in different emission scenarios and for a range of climate sensitivities.
To explore this matter further, a recent paper in Nature Geoscience (paywalled) by Andrew MacDougall, Christopher Avis and Andrew Weaver couples together climate and carbon-cycle models. Using the University of Victoria Earth System Climate Model adapted to include a permafrost response module, the researchers calculated the contribution to climate warming of thawing permafrost over a range of varying parameters.

Figure 1. Taken from MacDougall et al. (2012) showing the additional warming induced by permafrost thawing for four diagnosed emissions pathways (DEP, see text below for explanation). The coloured areas are the ranges of likely additional temperature ranges and the black lines show the median responses. The uncertainty within each DEP run results from uncertainties in the density of carbon in the permafrost and the climate sensitivity (the temperature effect of a given rise in carbon dioxide concentration in the air). Figure with original caption here.​

​

 

[fishardansin]

Thanks Upton Sinclair. I also have no idea why I got no notification for you tagging me.

EDIT: I notice they only look at Carbon feedbacks and not methane as well. I think that is the real time bomb, especially in combination with the fact that the warmer the oceans get the more Co2 they release, or should I say the less they hold, and the fact that the warmer the atmosphere the more water it holds as strong feedback loops. Not to mention that once the ocean reaches capacity for Co2 combining with the massive amounts of deforesting we've done then, anyhow lets hope it doesn't turn out like that!!

 

[Windhover]

Well it looks like all the AGW deniers who frequent this blog site have gone home to sulk and nurse their stupidity. According to Essential Research (at p.11) 39% of us think climate change is just natural fluctuation and another 12% don't know. http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/files/2012/10/Essential-Report_121015.pdf

Meanwhile, in the real world evidence of catastrophic AGW continues unabated. In fact it looks like all those conspiratorial modellers have underestimated the extent of arctic ice sheet melt, for which see the last chart: http://reneweconomy.com.au/2012/ten-charts-that-make-clear-the-planet-just-keeps-warming-60676

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Well it looks like all the AGW deniers who frequent this blog site have gone home to sulk and nurse their stupidity. According to Essential Research (at p.11) 39% of us think climate change is just natural fluctuation and another 12% don't know. http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/files/2012/10/Essential-Report_121015.pdf

Meanwhile, in the real world evidence of catastrophic AGW continues unabated. In fact it looks like all those conspiratorial modellers have underestimated the extent of arctic ice sheet melt, for which see the last chart: http://reneweconomy.com.au/2012/ten-charts-that-make-clear-the-planet-just-keeps-warming-60676

Oh well If there is a catastrophy due to global warming you will be happy to be proven correct.

 

[fishardansin]

Oh well If there is a catastrophy due to global warming you will be happy to be proven correct.

Well as we watch the civilization as we now know it break down because of the exasperating stupidity of a number of overly represented nutters getting in the way of any solutions because their ego was more important than the issue so they could never back down, it will be the only joy we could possibly still have.

 

[Windhover]

Oh well If there is a catastrophy due to global warming you will be happy to be proven correct.

What do you mean by "if"? And I ain't happy about it so there goes that "theory".
(Hint: look at the last graph showing the reduction in arctic summer sea ice. Then think about the extreme weather changes predicted to be caused by that change (hot and cold). Then think about the ecological systems being destroyed - like lemmings that feed migrating seabirds. Then think this is only the start of change, not the end of change. Then think about all the possible disasters associated with a warming sea.

Oh yeah, and I am meant to be happy because I simply accept orthodox science. That is no kudos to me - it is a no brainer.

 

[Malifice]

The following article from that bastion of the left, the UK Telegraph:

Climate change deniers 'are either extreme free marketeers or conspiracy theorists'

An Australian study says avid climate change deniers tend to be either extreme free marketeers or conspiracy theorists who believe the moon landing was faked or Princess Diana was murdered. “We find that endorsement of a laissez-faire conception of free-market economics predicts rejection of climate science,” the paper says.

The paper says that a staunch belief in free markets was an overwhelmingly strong factor in the rejection of climate science and was a stronger factor than conspiratorial thinking.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/9503044/Climate-change-deniers-are-either-extreme-free-marketeers-or-conspiracy-theorists.html

Now I wonder why that little phenomena exists?

 

[Dan26]

You are behind the eight-ball malifice.

That is an insulting paper written by Lewandowsy, which has been pillored and criticized.

It has absolutely no credibility.

Steve McIntyre (the SOCIALIST) who exposed the Hockey Stick grpah as a fraud and who is a hero to the sceptics writes:

One day a terrific psychological study is going to be written on the madness and mass lunacy which arose after climate change swam into the public’s ken…

The cornerstone of this future pathological report may well be the peer-reviewed Psychological Science paper “NASA faked the moon landing—Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science” by Stephan Lewandowsky, Klaus Oberauer, and Gilles Gignac, perhaps the completest, most representative work of its odd era.

“Everything that could have been done wrong, was done wrong. Every bias that could have been manifested, was manifested. Every fallacy pertinent to the matter at hand was made. The conclusions, regurgitated from unnecessarily complicated statistical procedures, did not follow from the evidence gathered, which itself was suspect. In its way, then, the paper is a jewel, a gift to the future, a fundamental text to how easy it is to fool oneself. “


Some flaws in Lewandowsky et al 2012:

1. The entire work is based on a logical fallacy – argument from authority — but particularly, that experts paid by the government are 100% right, and independent scientists are 100% wrong or corrupt. Lewandowsky cannot name empirical evidence to support his base assumptions about a complex scientific phenomenon in an immature scientific field, and does not take into account that committees, associations, the “peer reviewed” scientific process are human activities dependent on imperfect human opinion and potentially corruptible. If his assumption is wrong, everything about his research is meaningless, yet he does not reference empirical climate evidence.
2. His sample size is too small to be statistically meaningful. This single point on its own prevents any meaningful scientific conclusions about “conspiracy ideation”.
3. His sampling method was likely to be scammed by fake responses, and if the responses that are likely to be fake are removed his conclusions would be entirely different. He did not take adequate precautions to stop fake responses, even though his conclusions are utterly dependent on them (see Steve McIntyres analysis). His use of vitriolic anti-skeptic sites made the fake responses nearly inevitable, and the nature of the fake responses (like a belief that smoking doesn’t cause cancer) matches misinformation on those anti-skeptic sites rather than any belief ever cited by real skeptics. His work fails by his own standards: He describes a different survey as worthless because they cannot verify the integrity of the data, but he cannot verify his own data.
4. Lewandowsky has not reported 25% of the answers to his questions, nor the results of a version hosted by an internal UWA site, leaving open questions of “cherry picked” conclusions.
5. He frequently uses unscientific name-calling that he has not justified either in English or scientific terms. What scientific observations do “deniers” deny, or do “deniers” simply deny that official government positions are 100% right?
6. He defines “science” as a consensus conclusion which is counter to the scientific method, and breaks a basic tenet of science that conclusions are based on empirical evidence and not on opinions.
7. Despite basing his conclusions on something called “Conspiracy Ideation” he is unable to define conspiracy scientifically, evidently defining a conspiracy as a theory that he personally does not agree with.
8. A researcher with an equal but opposite personal bias could produce exactly the opposite conclusion (but without basing their work on a logical fallacy) by creating a self-selecting on-line survey that asks questions about green left conspiracies, posting it on anti-green sites, and with only a sample of 10 positive responses “show” that those who believe in man-made global warming did so because they held anti-free market philosophies, because they gullibly assumed that government funded work was always right, and because they believed in outlandish conspiracy theories that fossil fuel corporations were funding thousands of scientists. These conspiracy theorists denied conclusive documented evidence showing that funding for man-made global warming was 3,500 times larger than funding for skeptics of the theory and that large fossil fuel corporations were actively lobbying for carbon markets(see point 2) rather than against them.

A good article summing up the idiocy of the much lampooned paper

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/09/10...fan-lewandowsky-part-ii-and-all-40-questions/

 

[Dan26]

And the fact Malifice that you (and Windhover) would STLL use the term "deniers" does both of you no credit.

You have both discussed this scientific topic with me, and you both know the debate is not about WHETHER humans are causing warming. The debate is how much and is it dangerous. There is no empirical evidene whatsoever to support the catastrophic alarmist fear-mongerers

No sceptic denies that humans have an impact. The debate is how much of an impact.

The fact that both of you resort to name calling (i.e deniers) shows how the debate has been lost by the alarmists. You don't even know what the debate is about. None of the 31,000 scientists who signed the petition project deny human are having an impact. http://www.petitionproject.org/

Now for the love of God will both of you stop feeling that because you are left-wing that you need to be a bloody alarmist! YOU DON'T. Look at the bloody evidence evidence for once in your lives. The fact that the politics has totally corrupted this debate makes it impossible for naive people like the two of you to look at the evidence.

You think that if you are a sceptic you are right-wing and how dare either of you be right-wing. I know thats how you think. It's stupid but that's how both of you think.

IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU ARE RIGHT-WING !

Look at the evidence. Look at the data, the lack of empirical evidence from the alarmsits, the swathe of scientists changing their opinion with NONE going in the other direction. ALL of the opinion changers are going in one direction. Yes, all of them. Bar none.

I'm not asking either of you to change your politics. I am asking you to change your opinion on the science to suit the evidence. Do it.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Surely the best way to convince someone that your point of view is correct, would be first to convince them that they are an idiot. No?

 

[Dan26]

Surely the best way to convince someone that your point of view is correct, would be first to convince them that they are an idiot. No?

The best way to convince someone is with evidence.

The only reason both of them cling to the alarmist theory (a theory being deserted in droves) is because they are both left-wing and wrongly think that left-wingers need to be alarmist.

That's bullshit. It's got nothing to do with left-wing/right-wing and the sooner they both realise it, the sooner they will change their opinion like the rest of the world is doing.

 

[Patrick Bullet]

<snip>
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/09/10...fan-lewandowsky-part-ii-and-all-40-questions/

Can't wait to see Jo and Steve's ideas published in some peer-reviewed journals.

 

[Dan26]

Can't wait to see Jo and Steve's ideas published in some peer-reviewed journals.

Peer review doesn't "prove" anything.

Evidence does.

There has been a myth surround this debate that the scientists are the supreme authority. NO! The evidence and the data is the supreme authority.

here are 1,100 peer-reviewed papers supporting the sceptics case

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

The difference is I would never use those paper as evidence in and of themsevles. The real-world empirical evidence does that.

 

[fishardansin]

Peer review doesn't "prove" anything.

Evidence does.

There has been a myth surround this debate that the scientists are the supreme authority. NO! The evidence and the data is the supreme authority.

here are 1,100 peer-reviewed papers supporting the sceptics case

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

The difference is I would never use those paper as evidence in and of themsevles. The real-world empirical evidence does that.

You obviously have no idea how the peer review process works.

 

[Patrick Bullet]

Peer review doesn't "prove" anything.

Evidence does.

There has been a myth surround this debate that the scientists are the supreme authority. NO! The evidence and the data is the supreme authority.

here are 1,100 peer-reviewed papers supporting the sceptics case

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

The difference is I would never use those paper as evidence in and of themsevles. The real-world empirical evidence does that.

I asked you this before, but you ignored me. What do you think the peer review process involves?

 

[Windhover]

Peer review doesn't "prove" anything.

Evidence does.

Dan, earlier in this thread you posted something similar and I asked you a "serious question" which I have cut and pasted.
[Dan26 said: ↑

Science should be judged on its own merits, not by whether it has been peer-reviewed.​

Dan this is a serious question, how do you judge science "on its own merits" except by the rigorous process of peer-review?]

Then you left this thread for 2 months. I had hoped you were working out an informative answer. You disappoint again. Now how about an answer?

 

[blured]

No sceptic denies that humans have an impact. The debate is how much of an impact.

I would consider Spp redistribution as a very real impact of climate change. How much of an impact is that dan26?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-17/climate-change-sees-tropical-fish-head-south/4203830

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Peer review doesn't "prove" anything.

It proves a standard of evidence & without it your Blog Science © isn't worth a pinch of ****

Your just another conspiracy theorist eager to believe anything that confirms your political biases & deny anything that contradicts them.

While you drool over idiots like Jo Nova and David Evans, in the real world, week in week out, real scientists are publishing reams of real science, virtually none of rich even vaguely supports your deluded ideas about climate change.

There has been quite a number of new papers published since you last gave up in the face of an avalanche of real peer reviewed literature, do you need me to post them all for you?

 

[Upton Sinclair]

You are behind the eight-ball malifice.

That is an insulting paper written by Lewandowsy, which has been pillored and criticized./[/url]

So you are saying you're insulted st being called a "free marketeer"?

And if a cabal of scientists working in cahoots to manipulate scientific data to try and foist a hoax on the world ISN'T a conspiracy can you explain WTF is then?

And big lulz at "pilloried & criticised" when your source is Steve McIntyre, whose shoddy statistical analyses would be laughed out of the room were he ever yo man up and submit them for review by a serious science journal

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Surely the best way to convince someone that your point of view is correct, would be first to convince them that they are an idiot. No?

Only if they really ARE an idiot

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Posting from my phone so don't have the capacity to copy & paste a bunch of links, sadly, but here is just one example of some if the excellent research released recently that not only does not support their worldview but smashes one of the most prevalent denier canards that global warming has slowed over the last decade:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375960112010389

Abstract
A recent paper by Douglass and Knox (hereafter DK12) states that the global flux imbalance between 2002 and 2008 was approximately −0.03±0.06 W/m2, from which they concluded the CO2 forcing feedback is negative. However, DK12 only consider the ocean heat content (OHC) increase from 0 to 700 meters, neglecting the OHC increase at greater depths. Here we include OHC data to a depth of 2000 meters and demonstrate this data explains the majority of the discrepancies between DK12 and previous works, and that the current global flux imbalance is consistent with continued anthropogenic climate change.

Highlights
► DK12 did not consider the ocean heat content (OHC) increase below the upper 700 meters. ► DK12 focused on interannual data with large uncertainty rather than multidecadal data. ► When considering OHC data to 2000 meters, our results are consistent with previous studies. ► We find no evidence that the global flux imbalance has declined significantly. ► We find no evidence that the CO2 feedback is inconsistent with climate models.

And some cool infographics to really paint the picture:

 

[Dan26]

Upton, you still don't get it. You never will. Despite NO empirical evidence to support your whacky religion that hundreds of scientists are running away from and NONE are joining, you still cling to it.

You still havn't answered why NO scientists are changing from sceptic to alarmsit, and why all the opinion changers are going from alarmist to sceptic. You are like a crazy religious freak, waving his flag furiously on global warming hill, increasingly alone.



3 R.S. Knox and D.H. Douglass – The missing heat is not in the ocean.

The dominant explanation for where Trenberth’s missing warming or heat is that it is in the ocean. This missing heat is the difference between the climate effects, particularly change in global average temperature, which global warming predicted we would have and the much lower change in global average temperature we have had. In 2009 modeling von Shuckmann et al15 seemed to have found this missing heat at depths of 2000 metres in the ocean. One immediate problem for von Shuckmann et al is found in the NOAA graph in Figure 3. This graph is based on data for ocean heat content to depths of 700 metres which show no warming from 2003:
Figure 3: [http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index.html]

​

​

The problem this shows for von Shuckmann et al [and other papers which also use modeling to ‘find’ deep-ocean warming16] is; how could the ocean depths be warming when the ocean top was cooling?
A second problem was raised in 2 papers by the team of Ablain17 and Cazenave18; they showed that not only was the rate of sea level rise decreasing but the steric part of the sea level rise, which is based on ocean heat content, was also decreasing from 2006.
The third contradiction to von Shuckmann et al and the missing heat is in Knox and Douglass’s paper19. Knox & Douglass are both imminent atmospheric physicists and have already written a number of papers dealing with ocean based climatic events and the connection between the ocean radiative rate of change [Fohc] and the radiative rate of change at the top of the atmosphere [Ftoa].
In their latest paper Knox & Douglass showed that not only was ocean heat content declining but that the Fohc was negative, which meant more radiative energy was leaving the ocean than being stored:
Figure 4 From Knox & Douglass page 1. Fohc left scale.

​

​

Figure 1. Ocean heat content from Argo (left scale: blue, original data; red, filtered) and ocean surface temperatures (right scale, green). Conversion of the OHC slope to W/m2 is made by multiplying by 0.62, yielding –0.161 W/m2.
Knox & Douglass’s findings about ocean heat content were based on empirical measurements and are consistent with studies by Willis, Loehle, and Pielke, and NOAA data [see Figure 3].
Knox & Douglass conclude that because “90% of the variable heat content resides in the upper ocean” the Fohc can accurately infer the Ftoa. Therefore if Fohc is negative then Ftoa is as well. A negative Ftoa is contrary to Trenberth’s claims of missing heat being stored most likely in the oceans. Without missing heat the models have greatly overestimated the effect of global warming.

 

[Dan26]

Dan, earlier in this thread you posted something similar and I asked you a "serious question" which I have cut and pasted.
[Dan26 said: ↑

Science should be judged on its own merits, not by whether it has been peer-reviewed.​

Dan this is a serious question, how do you judge science "on its own merits" except by the rigorous process of peer-review?]

Then you left this thread for 2 months. I had hoped you were working out an informative answer. You disappoint again. Now how about an answer?

Peer review is not, in itself evidence.

It is a moot point anyway, because if you are going to argue by consensus (which is what is what peer review esentially is) then you will have to become sceptical. There is no consensus at all anymore. The most important chapter of the last IPCC report was signed off by a mere 25 scientists.

25!!

It was over 50, but after climategate only 25 could bring themselves to sign it.

I can show you a petition with 31,000 scientists who disagree with the alarmism. Can you show me a petition showing a similar number of alarmist scientists? I can show you 1,100 peer reviewed paper sceptical of the alarmism.

It's a myth that there is a consenus favouring the alarmists. The consensus is with the sceptics.

But you know the difference? I would NEVER use that consensus to say I am right. That's cave-man stuff. That's science by consensus isntead of science by results. I know I'm roght because we have the empirical evidence on our side and that is why no scientists in his right mind would change his opinion into becoming an alarmist. They are all going in one direction. Hasn't that made you sit up and take notice? Hasn't that set off MAJOR alarm bells with you?

If you paid some attention to this and looked at the science, instead of the politics, you would change your mind.

I think deep down you know the debate has been lost. Alarmist scientists refuse to debate in public anymore. They used to, but they were always defeated. Why don't they want to debate anymore? It's because they know they have a flimsy case which they can't defend with any empirical evidence.