The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-23-2013, 12:22 PM   #101
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

I wouldn't classify myself as a denier at all. The theory itself makes some sense. Only the significance is uncertain. But that's a huge, and important uncertainty.

I've seen that every time you get into one of these debates you throw around labels like "Denier" to anyone and everyone who says anything resembling "We're not sure yet if the sky is falling or not"

It's a heretical/orthodoxy test. And one based on a need to shout down all opposing ideas. Anathema to Science. And exactly what Von Storch is talking about when he talks about "preachers"

If he keeps his eyes open, as Von Storch does, a scientist's perception can change based on observation. Data over the last 15 years has seriously called into question large assumptions made beforehand. It's not unreasonable to proceed with caution on world-bending regulation in the face of such uncertainty.

Stating that obviousness doesn't make one a "Denier." It's just as likely that they're being realists, and you're in your own denial state.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2013, 12:27 PM   #102
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

http://www.science20.com/science_20/...hinking-114100

Quote:
Back to Hansen and his last five years; he's right, the science has become stronger since the 1990s and even beyond.(4) The problem is that the science was so settled in 2001 that anyone who disagreed was thrown off the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The few people in the whole field of climate science who disagreed were bogged down in nuisance Freedom of Information Act requests and hate mail campaigns and blocked from larger journals. If they ever took any expense money from a fossil fuel company to be on a panel about the environment they were a 'shill'.

'Follow the money' arguments are mostly bogus - and people recognize it, unless they are about the political opposition. So if a climate researcher at MIT got $5,000 from an oil company in the early 1990s and disagrees on feedbacks, follow the money, he is a shill. But if James Hansen got paid $1.2 million to fly around and talk about global warming, above and beyond his government salary over those 5 years he is now complaining about, well, those were prizes for telling the truth.

ClimateGate, the release of East Anglia emails showing a conspiracy to prevent any opposing studies from making their way into peer-reviewed studies and how to 'hide the decline', has a nefarious source also: "Who knows how the East Anglia email fiasco came about?" Hansen hints conspiratorially.

What is missing from his concern? That the emails were proof of exactly what people worried about. The scientists didn't make up any data, they weren't engaged in fraud, they didn't need to be, the evidence was there - but they were out to insure nothing a secret clique did not approve of made its way into publication. Hansen never mentioned how their behavior was 'not an accident', he defended their actions.
A good read. And further evidence that you don't have to be a "Denier" to recognize a corrupt process.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2013, 12:30 PM   #103
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,950
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baja View Post
You don't think you actually made some kind of a case here do you?
Coming from someone who thinks 3% of us are reptilians, your credibility is zero.
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2013, 12:32 PM   #104
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
http://www.science20.com/science_20/...hinking-114100



A good read. And further evidence that you don't have to be a "Denier" to recognize a corrupt process.
The climategate myth again, I see.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2013, 12:34 PM   #105
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
Translation: More "I don't know, but I think I do."

Not sure what the point of any debate is if the sum total of a response is someone using their inferior knowledge to impress their opinion on someone with far superior knowledge of the subject.

Fortunately though, we can't go there short of taking a brick to the head and losing all of the information we've learned over the years.

You, on the other hand, have a ways to go in many areas. Google is your friend, but you shouldn't let it take the place of a ****ing education.
Is it okay if I read your "inferior knowledge" line in a John Travolta/Saturday Night Fever voice? That's kinda how it comes out to me for some reason.

I'm sorry to say, but if you've ever banked yourself as having won an argument based on your "superior knowledge" I'm think Objectivity itself would have to hold you mistaken.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2013, 12:35 PM   #106
baja
Happy camper
 
baja's Avatar
 
Sweet

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 60,013

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Ware
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
Coming from someone who thinks 3% of us are reptilians, your credibility is zero.
I do that for you and a few others. Most of the good posters get that and laugh at you behind your back via rep and PM's.
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2013, 12:38 PM   #107
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
The climategate myth again, I see.
Von Storch wrote about that too...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...947078538.html


Quote:
Good Science, Bad Politics
'Climategate' reveals a concerted effort to emphasize scientific results useful to a political agenda.

By HANS VON STORCH
Oh Noes! Wagsy's gonna kick him outta the club!
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2013, 12:43 PM   #108
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Von Storch wrote about that too...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...947078538.html




Oh Noes! Wagsy's gonna kick him outta the club!
And then it was debunked. Several times.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_642980.html
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2013, 12:46 PM   #109
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
And then it was debunked. Several times.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_642980.html
Quote:
"Climategate -- a mini media tempest that briefly provided climate change deniers with what they believed to be grist for their favorite mill: that climate change is some sort of worldwide conspiratorial scam.
There's that purity test "Denier" word again. And nobody said it was a conspiracy. Groupthink rarely is.

So your article debunked a scarecrow. Good work.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2013, 12:53 PM   #110
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,950
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
A good read. And further evidence that you don't have to be a "Denier" to recognize a corrupt process.
An op-ed piece by a guy who's primary claim to fame is a book about the "anti-science left", and you're sold?

Campbell relies a little too much on attacking Hansen - even when he admits that the science is solid and correct.

I don't think you read what you reference.
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2013, 12:54 PM   #111
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,950
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baja View Post
I do that for you and a few others. Most of the good posters get that and laugh at you behind your back via rep and PM's.
Oooh - do you say beatchy-things in the girls' bathroom about other girls while sneaking smokes, too?
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2013, 12:54 PM   #112
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,978

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
There's that purity test "Denier" word again. And nobody said it was a conspiracy. Groupthink rarely is.

So your article debunked a scarecrow. Good work.

LMAO

Beavis: Look, climategate!!
Houghtam: Actually, that's been completely debunked...
Beavis: BUT, BUT, THEY USE A WORD I DON'T LIKE!!!! *waaaaaaa*
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2013, 01:01 PM   #113
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Face it, Beavis. Much like Donny, you are out of your element.

Again.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2013, 01:05 PM   #114
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,950
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
I wouldn't classify myself as a denier at all. The theory itself makes some sense. Only the significance is uncertain. But that's a huge, and important uncertainty.
There's very little science to support the idea that increasing radiatively-important gases in the atmosphere by ~40% over the last ~150 years will not appreciably alter the energy balance of the climate system.

That's what you're claiming.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis
Data over the last 15 years has seriously called into question large assumptions made beforehand.
Not really. 15 years is too short to assess a trend with certainty.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis
It's not unreasonable to proceed with caution on world-bending regulation in the face of such uncertainty.
Who says we have to choose "world-bending regulation"? I don't.

Why do you assume uncertainty only goes one way?
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2013, 01:49 PM   #115
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
There's very little science to support the idea that increasing radiatively-important gases in the atmosphere by ~40% over the last ~150 years will not appreciably alter the energy balance of the climate system.

That's what you're claiming.
CO2 could never increase total Greenhouse gases by 40%, because it only comprises about 25% of greenhouse gases.

I know you'll argue that they'll contribute to a possible feedback loop with water vapor, but that relies on CO2 warming in line with models which currently appear unrealistic. Essentially you're saying "if my prediction is right, we'll see this much extra water vapor." But that argument already relies on that prediction being right. Which would make it a circular argument. And one that would bring in numerous other factors and barely understood variables as well.

Quote:

Not really. 15 years is too short to assess a trend with certainty.
You simply can't make the argument that a period is "too short" to be significant when that period comprises at least half or more of the models' lifespans. And we've only had satellite measurements for 45 years. Are you seriously saying that a third of that data can't be definitively considered significant?

Simply put, a theory that really started gaining traction less than 30 years ago can't pooh-pooh 15 years of subsequent data. If mankind had 150 years of reliable global temperature data, 15 years would be significant. But we don't have 150 years of that data. Not even close. The range from about 1970 to the late 90's is what got people all fired up about where we were headed. There's no way to argue that we should heed that, but then ignore 1998-2013.


Quote:
Who says we have to choose "world-bending regulation"? I don't.
Carbon tax? It's obvious you haven't fully thought through what a reasonable enforcement of that would entail. But that's another argument for another day.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2013, 01:53 PM   #116
baja
Happy camper
 
baja's Avatar
 
Sweet

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 60,013

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Ware
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
Oooh - do you say beatchy-things in the girls' bathroom about other girls while sneaking smokes, too?
ha ha I would never even think of that.
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2013, 01:53 PM   #117
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
LMAO

Beavis: Look, climategate!!
Houghtam: Actually, that's been completely debunked...
Beavis: BUT, BUT, THEY USE A WORD I DON'T LIKE!!!! *waaaaaaa*
Oh, and there's that part about how it debunked a "conspiracy theory" that nobody ever brought up. What point exactly did Huffpo "debunk?"
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2013, 02:10 PM   #118
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,950
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
CO2 could never increase total Greenhouse gases by 40%, because it only comprises about 25% of greenhouse gases.
Pre-industrial CO2: ~280 ppm
Current CO2: ~400 ppm
% change = (400-280)/280 = ~43%.

What are your numbers?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis
I know you'll argue that they'll contribute to a possible feedback loop with water vapor, but that relies on CO2 warming in line with models which currently appear unrealistic.
Define "unrealistic".

Specific humidity trend:


Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis
Essentially you're saying "if my prediction is right, we'll see this much extra water vapor." But that argument already relies on that prediction being right. Which would make it a circular argument. And one that would bring in numerous other factors and barely understood variables as well.
You're trying to overturn decades of understanding of the climate system, and not providing any theory that better explains the observations. Einstein didn't just state that Newton was wrong, and leave it at that. Of course, the deniers have lots of ideas - many of which contradict each other - but they have yet to come up with a better theory. Until that day arrives, we stick with what we have that works best.

Care to proffer a better theory?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis
You simply can't make the argument that a period is "too short" to be significant when that period comprises at least half or more of the models' lifespans. And we've only had satellite measurements for 45 years. Are you seriously saying that a third of that data can't be definitively considered significant?
No. A period of less than 30 years is insufficient to detect a significant trend. That doesn't mean the data is insignificant. Please learn the terminology so you don't make such silly mistakes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis
Simply put, a theory that really started gaining traction less than 30 years ago can't pooh-pooh 15 years of subsequent data.
Uh, lots more than "less than 30 years ago":

On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground, Philosophical Magazine 1896(41): 237-76.

and

Bell Telephone Science Hour, 1958:



Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis
If mankind had 150 years of reliable global temperature data, 15 years would be significant. But we don't have 150 years of that data. Not even close. The range from about 1970 to the late 90's is what got people all fired up about where we were headed.
Not at all. Why do you suppose Keating started taking CO2 measurements in the late 1950s?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis
There's no way to argue that we should heed that, but then ignore 1998-2013.
You ignore ~400,000 B.C.E. to 1998, and claim the last 15 years is all that matters. Try again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis
Carbon tax? It's obvious you haven't fully thought through what a reasonable enforcement of that would entail. But that's another argument for another day.
What's your preferred policy?
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2013, 02:30 PM   #119
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
Please learn the terminology so you don't make such silly mistakes.
Weather/Climate

/end thread
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2013, 02:51 PM   #120
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

I understand the theory. Increased heat from CO2 will lead to more H2O in the atmosphere as well. Models calling for significant heat increase will assume significant water vapor increase, which will further increase heat and water vapor and on and on.

Unfortunately, this does nothing to address a scenario where the models had exaggerated vapor-inducing heat in the first place. Recent temperature data seems to indicate that is happening.

And none of this is an adequate argument against any particular theory. The earth is not a laboratory. Many theories, even outside of this debate, could be completely sound science and yet utterly unprovable or even irrelevant when plugged into a global climate.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2013, 03:15 PM   #121
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
Pre-industrial CO2: ~280 ppm
Current CO2: ~400 ppm
% change = (400-280)/280 = ~43%.

What are your numbers?
Pre-Industrial CO2 + H2O: ~400,280 ppm
Current CO2 + H2O: ~400,400 ppm
% change = (400,400-400,280)/400,280 = ~00.03%

And yes, I realize that the greenhouse capacity of CO2 and H2O are different. But as I've said earlier. CO2 isn't the major driver of the greenhouse effect. Water is. And you can't pretend like CO2 in the atmosphere lives by itself as some sort of global thermostat.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2013, 04:06 PM   #122
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,950
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
And yes, I realize that the greenhouse capacity of CO2 and H2O are different. But as I've said earlier. CO2 isn't the major driver of the greenhouse effect. Water is. And you can't pretend like CO2 in the atmosphere lives by itself as some sort of global thermostat.
H2O as vapor isn't a forcing, it's a feedback. It condenses out too easily and is present almost entirely in the lower atmosphere and isn't well-mixed.

CO2 doesn't condense out, has a lifetime of decades to centuries, and is well-mixed throughout the column.

Are you familiar with Richard Alley's 2009 AGU Bjerknes lecture, "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History"?



What makes your claim more credible than his science?

Last edited by W*GS; 08-23-2013 at 04:10 PM..
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2013, 04:08 PM   #123
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,950
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
I understand the theory. Increased heat from CO2 will lead to more H2O in the atmosphere as well.
CO2 doesn't create heat - its radiative properties lessen the amount of outgoing IR from the surface that can be emitted to space. Surface temperatures then increase until the energy balance is attained. Since warmer air can hold more water vapor, as the atmosphere warms, more H2O is evaporated and thus increases.

These two facts were known long before climate models existed.
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2013, 04:42 PM   #124
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
H2O as vapor isn't a forcing, it's a feedback. It condenses out too easily and is present almost entirely in the lower atmosphere and isn't well-mixed.

CO2 doesn't condense out, has a lifetime of decades to centuries, and is well-mixed throughout the column.

Are you familiar with Richard Alley's 2009 AGU Bjerknes lecture, "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History"?



What makes your claim more credible than his science?
The stability of the vapor makes zero difference. Only it's average contribution to the makeup of the atmosphere. If I could invent a machine that sequestered atmospheric CO2 but then spit an equal amount of CO2 out the other side, you'd say this did nothing to prevent greenhouse warming. Water vapor becoming water and then vapor again is essentially the same thing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2013, 04:49 PM   #125
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,950
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
The stability of the vapor makes zero difference. Only it's average contribution to the makeup of the atmosphere. If I could invent a machine that sequestered atmospheric CO2 but then spit an equal amount of CO2 out the other side, you'd say this did nothing to prevent greenhouse warming. Water vapor becoming water and then vapor again is essentially the same thing.
Remove all the H2O from the atmosphere, and the CO2 is still there and keeping temperatures above the freezing point of H2O. Well above.

Remove all the CO2 from the atmosphere, and the temperature will drop until the H2O condenses out and eventually freezes, becoming completely unimportant to the radiative balance of the climate system. Eventually every lake, sea, and ocean is frozen all the way to the bottom.

CO2 is by far the more important forcing in the climate system. H2O is just along for the ride.
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:06 PM.


Denver Broncos