The Junk Science of Climate Change

[william.scherk]

And on a perhaps related note, what's this business about making petrol out of the CO2 in the air?

http://www.foxnews.c...intcmp=features

They're calling it a "carbon neutral" fuel. Come again?

It is applied science. As explained in a report from the UK's New Scientist, The big question mark over gasoline from air, the larger issue concerns efficiency -- energy in (electricity) versus energy out (gasoline). It is sweet technical news, but the economics are uncertain at the moment. The carbon-neutrality is dependent on two things: atmospheric carbon-dioxide 'captured' and 'released' in exhaust from the cultured gasoline -- and 'renewable' source for the electricity doing the work of conversion.

My first image was of a table-top Galt's Machine, extracting something negligible to produce something marketable. Good luck to the guys riding that pony.

Here's NS's quickdraw of the process:

The AFS plant comprises a CO

2

capture unit in one shipping container, with a methanol reactor and miniature gasoline refining system in another. Air is blown into a sodium hydroxide mist, snagging CO

2

as sodium carbonate. A condenser collects water from the same air. To make methanol – formula CH3OH – hydrogen is generated by electrolysing the water while the carbon and oxygen come from electrolysing the sodium carbonate. The methanol is then converted to gasoline.

More cogent detail and some nasty comments at Physics org:

"

Which means this is never going to happen

`"

Yes, Kelvin has said too, the planes heavier than air are impossible. And he was top expert of his era, not just an anonymous Internet windbag..

Which means this is never going to happen. Yes, Kelvin has said too, the planes heavier than air are impossible. And he was top expert of his era, not just an anonymous Internet windbag..

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-10-air-fuel-synthesis-petrol-future.html#jCp

Which means this is never going to happen. Yes, Kelvin has said too, the planes heavier than air are impossible. And he was top expert of his era, not just an anonymous Internet windbag..

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-10-air-fuel-synthesis-petrol-future.html#jCp

Which means this is never going to happen. Yes, Kelvin has said too, the planes heavier than air are impossible. And he was top expert of his era, not just an anonymous Internet windbag..

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-10-air-fuel-synthesis-petrol-future.html#jCp

Which means this is never going to happen. Yes, Kelvin has said too, the planes heavier than air are impossible. And he was top expert of his era, not just an anonymous Internet windbag..

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-10-air-fuel-synthesis-petrol-future.html#jCp

Which means this is never going to happen. Yes, Kelvin has said too, the planes heavier than air are impossible. And he was top expert of his era, not just an anonymous Internet windbag..

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-10-air-fuel-synthesis-petrol-future.html#jCp

Edited October 23, 2012 by william.scherk

[Robert Campbell]

Hmm...

Apart from the energy cost of making gasoline out of atmospheric CO₂, it's worth considering how there are plenty of natural processes already grabbing CO₂ out of the air.

We might want to leave some for the green plants.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

But as for the Oregon Institute of etcetera, the name conceals a crank (from http://www.durangobi...ndMedicine.html ):

Durango Bill’s Debunking the Deniers of Global Warming

Global Warming Denial Liars

The “Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine” (It’s actually Arthur Robinson’s farm in very rural Oregon)

The “Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine” (OISM) advertises itself as “a non-profit research institute”. Global Warming Deniers frequently promote the “Oregon Petition” which is one of the OISM’s products. In reality, the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine is a farm in very rural Oregon some 6 linear miles southeast of Cave Junction, Oregon. (Population ~1,425 http://www.city-data...ion-Oregon.html)

Its founder/owner, Arthur B Robinson, promotes the “Robinson Curriculum” - a “Jesus-Plus-Nothing-Else” home-school system. http://groups.yahoo....onUsers4Christ/.

Isn’t it amazing how the Internet can be used to transform a farm into the “Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine”? (There may have been a tax advantage in registering the farm as “a non-profit research institute”.)

WSS,

You might have learned by now not to trust any source that refers to skeptics regarding Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change as "deniers."

'Cause anyone who talks that way has definitely got something besides science on his mind.

Art Robinson's got his quirks (as did the late Petr Beckmann, whose newsletter he took over) but if you want to refute him, you're going to have to do better than this.

Robert Campbell

[william.scherk]

But as for the Oregon Institute of etcetera, the name conceals a crank (from http://www.durangobi...ndMedicine.html ):

You might have learned by now not to trust any source that refers to skeptics regarding Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change as "deniers."

'Cause anyone who talks that way has definitely got something besides science on his mind.

I don't know. This just instructs me that Bill Butler (the author of the page I linked to and excerpted) is not-to-be-trusted and that he definitely has something other than science on his mind, according to your rule of thumb. But I don't really get it. What is the point of avoiding what Bill Butler writes about Robinson? Because he uses the words 'denial' and 'liars' to refer to such as Monckton and Robinson?

If I follow this reasoning, when someone like Robinson decries liars and fraud and swindles, we should do what in turn? Avoid? Trust? Know they got something on the mind besides science?

Surely heated rhetoric (or fighting words) can be discounted, scraped away, and the arguments laid bare. If we avoided the arguments of anyone who charges "Denial" against the No-Anthropogenic-Warming adherent, how would we otherwise examine arguments?

Art Robinson's got his quirks (as did the late Petr Beckmann, whose newsletter he took over) but if you want to refute him, you're going to have to do better than this.

I don't know what your attitude towards Robinson is (beyond unmentioned 'quirks') ... whether you accept his effusions on global warming or not. The notes on Robinson were a counter to Brant's one-line link, and to the notion that an Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine is an authority on the subject at hand.

It is disturbing to me that attention to a (real or imagined) threat of global temperature increases is divvied up on ideological (left/right) grounds or on wishful thinking/philosophical grounds. I cannot think of one Objectivist who 'believes' in human-augmented global warming, who publishes, who is accorded a measure of respect.

But these issues are not about to be settled on OL. I have never managed to get a basic discussion enjoined (I usually plug Weart's Discovery of Global Warming -- to no avail. I cannot get anyone here to read and/or comment on it).

In the interest of opening up a new line of discussion, here is my favourite energy story of the week, my favourite bit of applied science. Kind of fun and kind of freaky:

School Girls Invent Urine Powered Generator: Pee In - Electricity Out

Edited November 9, 2012 by william.scherk

[Robert Campbell]

WSS,

I am not a particular fan of Arthur Robinson. I subscribed to Access to Energy for many years. After Petr Beckmann died and Arthur Robinson took over, I let my subscription lapse the next time it came up for renewal.

I'm happy to discuss Weart's book, which I purchased several months ago. (I don't expect it will take that long to read.)

From what I've learned about the subject, I'm inclined to agree with Bob K that climatology is a long, hard slog from being ready for prime time, and that those who seek accurate near-term predictions from it, let alone policy guidance, are expecting far too much from it.

But, no, I'm no more interested in what Bill Butler has to say about Arthur Robinson than in what Al Gore would have to say about him. Or what Bill McKibben would have to say about him. Or what Kevin Trenberth or Jim Hansen or Michael Mann or Rajendra Pachauri would have to say about him.

People who refer to their critics as deniers (on the consciously intended model of Holocaust deniers) are not practicing science.

They are merely practicing what some people on the Left presently refer to as "eliminationist rhetoric" (though they notice it only when they think it is being aimed at them).

People who call their critics "deniers" definitely have something other than science on their minds.

As do people who engage in misleading presentations of data on behalf of a cause.

As do people who try to organize boycotts of journals that publish work by their critics, or who boast of getting journal editors fired for allowing the publication of work by their critics.

As do people who obtain internal documents under false pretenses from an organization that they believe promotes "denial," then, when the internal documents fail to support their fevered imaginings, forge an internal memo to "prove" their assertions regarding the aims and motives of that organization.

I've come to the conclusion that anyone who indulges in "denier" rhetoric deserves to be ignored. Such conduct is beyond the pale, and should be so regarded by all parties.

These proponents of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change have been doing far greater damage to the positions they espouse than their most vociferous antagonists ever could.

Robert Campbell

PS. R. Paul Drake is a physicist who has been active in The Atlas Society for many years. The last time I heard him talk about the subject (which was several years ago) he definitely believed that human production of CO₂ is producing significant global warming, though I can't say which Global Circulation Models he thinks are the best, or whether he personally views the trends as catastrophic or in need of the immediate application of governmental and transnational measures to suppress the consumption of fossil fuels.

[BaalChatzaf]

PS. R. Paul Drake is a physicist who has been active in The Atlas Society for many years. The last time I heard him talk about the subject (which was several years ago) he definitely believed that human production of CO₂ is producing significant global warming, though I can't say which Global Circulation Models he thinks are the best, or whether he personally views the trends as catastrophic or in need of the immediate application of governmental and transnational measures to suppress the consumption of fossil fuels.

Notice that he invokes models.

There is no decent -theory- of climate and weather (because they are the result of chaotic dynamic processes)

Ba'al Chatzaf

[william.scherk]

Robert, happy to hear you have Weart's book in the house. I hope we could get a start on a discussion once you get into it. The best part of the book for me is the website.

I respect that you don't like name-calling in global-warming discussions. I promise not to call anyone a denier.

[Robert Campbell]

Bob K,

I'm actually hoping that Paul Drake doesn't think much of any Global Circulation Model.

But I don't know what his view is.

Robert Campbell

[william.scherk]

Robert, thanks muchly for the note on Paul Drake. He is quite an impressive scientist to have on the TAS board of advisors. He has written a great article/chapter on 'State Science' that I can recommend. I have not yet read anything more pertinent to his stance on particular issues.

I sort of want to write a brief query to him asking him about his 'beliefs,' but that seems a bit stupid and forward. Maybe a note asking him for recommended reading on 'warming' for interested Objectivish folks ...

For those who do not want to lay out money for Spencer Weart's book "The Discovery of Global Warming," there is a companion website. From the index page:

This Website created by Spencer Weart supplements his much shorter book, which tells the history of climate change research as a single story. On this Website you will find a more complete history in dozens of essays on separate topics, occasionally updated.

If you want basic facts about climate change, or detailed current technical information, you might do better using the links page. But if you want to use history to really understand it all...

Second edition, revised

and updated (2008)

• A GOOD PLACE TO START is the Summary of the history of climate change science.
  
• For a scholarly preface, look at Methodology and Sources.
  
• If you are somewhat familiar with the subject, you could select topics from
  the Table of Contents (site map).
  
• You can download this site (Zip file) and put in on your own hard drive or burn a CD/DVD,
  or print out individual essays using PDF files. These files are for the December 2011 version and will not include more recent updates.
  
• You can Search the entire text.
  

[william.scherk]

I am quoting myself from January, 2011, plugging for Weart in an earlier thread where global warming discussion stalled, but this time explaining why reading his stuff is recommended especially to skeptics or agnostics on this issue. If you doubt the procedures and actors of recent years in 'climate science,' this book (or website) will give you a long-view sweep.

I recommended Spencer Weart's book The Discovery of Global Warming, but didn't mention why I recommended it, nor why I thought it would be useful for anyone thinking of debating anthropogenic global warming.

Firstly, it is primarily a history book. If you wonder how scientists and lay people could have been gulled by a hoax or fraud, this book will take you back to the first notions that carbon dioxide played a part in world climate, and then tell the story of the following scientific back and forth. It shows the process that resulted in what some call the present scientific consensus.

Secondly, this book is recommended by AGW skeptics -- Weart is one of the few partisans of the AGW 'side' who has not been excoriated as a fraudster, hoaxer or worse.

Thirdly, the book is accompanied by some in-depth web-based resources.

[Brant Gaede]

Basic facts as I understand them: CO2 has significantly increased in the atmosphere. There as been no increase in mean temperatures since 1997. The three biggest sources of CO2 are China, India an the United States. (I don't know where the European Union figures in this, but it must be significant too.) Half the electricity in the US is generated by coal and a significant amount by natural gas. India and China are using coal galore. No matter what foreseeable what, short or intermediate term, humans will continue to pour CO2 into the atmosphere. They can badly damage their economies by trying to do something about this CO2 infusion with the possible exception of embracing nuclear power.

--Brant

argumentum ad hominem implicitly and explicitly informs the entire debate about AGW, including this thread, for it's really not about science but politics--getting governments to do or not do something for both ostensive and hidden reasons

[BaalChatzaf]

When the next ice age begins the chickens will cluck and they will blame the capitalists and the industrialists.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[syrakusos]

... but the next ice age is inevitable. In the mean time, here in Austin, we have gone another month without rain, the first dry November in 115 years. At the Battle of the Alamo, both sides were inconvenienced by snow. You don't get that here any more. Global warming is real. Anthropogenic Global Warming is possible but unproved. Regardless of that, climate change is not junk science, it is just mainstream earth science, planetary science. The "junk" view would be uniformitarianism, the idea that everything always was and will be the way it is now.

[Selene]

Qualifying question for you'all:

In any discussion, or, advocacy of AGW, is the human race incorporated into the environment?

[caroljane]

Qualifying question for you'all:

In any discussion, or, advocacy of AGW, is the human race incorporated into the environment?

Chop-logic. It is about the way the human race incorporates.

[Brant Gaede]

[Brant Gaede]

Qualifying question for you'all:

In any discussion, or, advocacy of AGW, is the human race incorporated into the environment?

Only Martians.

--Brant

[Selene]

Qualifying question for you'all:

In any discussion, or, advocacy of AGW, is the human race incorporated into the environment?

Chop-logic.

Chop-logic means?

[caroljane]

Qualifying question for you'all:

In any discussion, or, advocacy of AGW, is the human race incorporated into the environment?

Chop-logic.

Chop-logic means?

Beats me, it just came into my head.

[Selene]

Qualifying question for you'all:

In any discussion, or, advocacy of AGW, is the human race incorporated into the environment?

Chop-logic.

Chop-logic means?

Beats me, it just came into my head.

Hmm...there are therapists for that dear...

[caroljane]

So they tell me. But my motto is, when things come into your head where usually there is not much traffic, you should make the most of them.

[william.scherk]

Qualifying question for you'all:

In any discussion, or, advocacy of AGW, is the human race incorporated into the environment?

This is pointless, Adam. The qualifier for any discussion is the means and aptitude for discussion. Have you taken a gander at the Weart materials posted here?

If not, you are not qualified for discussion, let alone qualified to set the terms. In all my time attempting to discuss with you, you have proposed nothing but improvised dodges.

The question you ask is needlessly larded with confusing assumptions that lay unexamined.

If you have an assertion, make it. If you your own point to make about "human race incorporated into the environment," you will have to de-murkify. Is the human race incorporated into the environment? Why don't you answer your question and get to the next stage ... ?

[Reidy]

Here's your chance to do something about it. Michael Mann, climategater-in-chief, is trying to silence Mark Steyn and National Review with legal actions. They are fighting back and, to that end, soliciting contributions, so fork over the dough: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335221/we-need-your-help-jack-fowler.

There's more: http://www.climatedepot.com/a/17202/Michael-Mann-says-lawsuit-against-National-Review-is-on-Climate-Depot-responds-to-Mann-and-his-lawyers-claims-about-the-Hockey-Stick--Climategate.

[william.scherk]

It is within Michael Mann's rights to file a defamation lawsuit against Steyn and the National Review. Legal minds can differ over his likelihood of success in getting a judgement.

It is within our rights to characterize a lawsuit (any lawsuit) as an attempt to "silence" another. We can also, rightfully, direct interested readers to Mann's complaint.

Now, if we agree that everyone has rights and right ought triumph, we can fall into ldeological formation on the Right side, whichever our biases tell us that may be.

"Oh, help, help, help. Help us pay for a lawsuit. We don't have any money. Sob sob." Puhleaze.

[Selene]

William:

You know I have always had respect for you.

However, your outburst and assumptive assertions in your post #72 above, actually surprised me.

I will again state my premise.

In terms of the discussion of AGW, is the human race part of the environment, or not? This is a simple yes or no question.

A...