Search the Community

Showing results for 'Greenhouse' in content updated between 01/01/2006 and 12/31/2018.

Didn't find what you were looking for? Try searching for:

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Objectivist Living Corner Office
    • Purpose of Objectivist Living and Legal Stuff (please read)
    • Selective Index and Updates
    • Tech Support / IPB Help Desk
    • Links
    • Web Stuff and Other Tech Issues (not OL specific)
  • Objectivist Philosophy
    • About Objectivism
    • 1 - Metaphysics
    • 2 - Epistemology
    • 3 - Ethics
    • 4 - Politics
    • 5 - Aesthetics
  • Objectivist Living
    • Meet and Greet
    • Objectivist Living Room
    • Art Gallery
    • Articles
    • Creative Writing
    • Writing Techniques
    • Persuasion Techniques
    • Psychology
    • Parenting
    • Humor - OL LOLOLOLOL
    • The Library
    • Quotes
    • Romance Room
    • Movies and Entertainment
    • Music
    • News and Interesting Articles
    • Events and Happenings
    • Tips for Everyday Living
    • Inky's Room
    • The Kitchen
    • Science & Mathematics
    • Sports and Recreation
    • Stumping in the Backyard
  • Objectivist Living Den
    • The Objectivist Living Den
    • Offers from OL Members
    • The Culture of Reason Center Corner
    • The Objectivist Living Boutique
  • Corners of Insight
    • Roger Bissell Corner
    • Stephen Boydstun Corner
    • Barbara Branden Corner
    • Nathaniel Branden Corner
    • Robert Campbell Corner
    • Ed Hudgins Corner
    • David Kelley Corner
    • Chris Sciabarra Corner
    • George H. Smith Corner
    • Corners of Further Insight
    • TAS Corner
    • ARI Corner
  • Outer Limits


  • Objectivist Living Community Calendar
  • Self-Esteem Every Day


  • Kat's Blog
  • wanderlustig
  • Hussein El-Gohary's Blog
  • CLASSical Liberalism
  • Ted Keer' Blog
  • RaviKissoon's Blog
  • hbar24's Blog
  • brucemajors' Blog
  • Ross Barlow's Blog
  • James Heaps-Nelson's Blog
  • Matus1976's Blog
  • X
  • Tee-Jay's Blog
  • Jeff Kremer's Blog
  • Mark Weiss' Blog
  • Etisoppa's Blog
  • Friends and Foes
  • neale's Blog
  • Better Living Thru Blogging!
  • Chris Grieb's Blog
  • Gay TOC
  • Sandra Rice's Blog
  • novus-vir's Blog
  • Neil Parille's Blog
  • Jody Gomez's Blog
  • George Donnelly
  • plnchannel
  • F L Light's Blog
  • Donovan A's Blog
  • Julian's Writings
  • Aspberger's World
  • The Naturalist
  • Broader than Measurement Omission
  • The Melinda's Blog
  • Benevolist Ponderings
  • Shane's Blog
  • On Creative Writing (Chrys Jordan)
  • Think's Blog
  • Kate Herrick's Blog
  • Rich Engle's Blog
  • thelema's Blog
  • cyber bullying
  • Shane's Blog
  • x
  • Mary Lee Harsha's Blog
  • Mary Lee Harsha's Blog
  • George H. Smith's Blog
  • Jim Henderson's Blog
  • Mike Hansen's Blog
  • Bruce's Blogations
  • Prometheus Fire
  • equality72521's Blog
  • Sum Ergo Cogitabo's Blog
  • Robert Bumbalough's Blog
  • Troll reads Atlas
  • dustt's Blog
  • dustt's Blog
  • Closed
  • Tim Hopkins' Blog
  • Objectivism 401
  • PDS' Blog
  • PDS' Blog
  • Rich Engle's Beyond Even Bat Country
  • Negative Meat Popsicle's Blog
  • politics and education
  • J.S. McGowan's Blog
  • Aeternitas
  • Shrinkiatrist
  • AnarchObjectivist
  • Brant Gaede's Blog

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL







Full Name



Favorite Music, Artworks, Movies, Shows, etc.

Found 194 results

  1. There is a blog post from HotWhopper that takes issue with the Ridley Quadrant article, in great detail. In Sou's eyes, it is a farrago of nonsense: Matt Ridley spins Lysenko conspiracy theories and more in a classic denial of science. I don't think the analogy is apt. CO2 is indeed one of several greenhouse gases. It is not a carcinogen‡. The human body is not a metaphorical stand-in for the atmosphere and its greenhouse effect. It sounds like you do not understand what the greenhouse effect is. To argue effectively against AGW alarmism you need to understand what is generally accepted as the greenhouse effect. Even Matt Ridley does not deny there is a greenhouse effect. Standing on one foot, I can try to sketch the important concept. In a nutshell, the greenhouse gases (GG) are relatively transparent to the energy of visible light (a portion of the electromagnetic spectrum of energy streaming from the sun), but are not transparent to the energy of infrared light rays. They absorb and emit infrared (heat/thermal) energy. Here is a much-simplified graphic that depicts the energy equation: What this means is that without the GGs in the atmosphere, the Earth's average temperature would be like the Moon's temperature. Here is a slightly-less simplified explanation of the greenhouse effect from NASA's Earth Observatory site: The Natural Greenhouse Effect Just as the major atmospheric gases (oxygen and nitrogen) are transparent to incoming sunlight, they are also transparent to outgoing thermal infrared. However, water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and other trace gases are opaque to many wavelengths of thermal infrared energy. Remember that the surface radiates the net equivalent of 17 percent of incoming solar energy as thermal infrared. However, the amount that directly escapes to space is only about 12 percent of incoming solar energy. The remaining fraction—a net 5-6 percent of incoming solar energy—is transferred to the atmosphere when greenhouse gas molecules absorb thermal infrared energy radiated by the surface. When greenhouse gas molecules absorb thermal infrared energy, their temperature rises. Like coals from a fire that are warm but not glowing, greenhouse gases then radiate an increased amount of thermal infrared energy in all directions. Heat radiated upward continues to encounter greenhouse gas molecules; those molecules absorb the heat, their temperature rises, and the amount of heat they radiate increases. At an altitude of roughly 5-6 kilometers, the concentration of greenhouse gases in the overlying atmosphere is so small that heat can radiate freely to space. Because greenhouse gas molecules radiate heat in all directions, some of it spreads downward and ultimately comes back into contact with the Earth’s surface, where it is absorbed. The temperature of the surface becomes warmer than it would be if it were heated only by direct solar heating. This supplemental heating of the Earth’s surface by the atmosphere is the natural greenhouse effect.** In common parlance, you are mistaken. Ridley is a 'lukewarmer,' meaning he understands and accepts the greenhouse effect of our atmosphere. In his own words: “I am not a 'denier'. I fully accept that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, the climate has been warming and that man is very likely to be at least partly responsible. […] you can accept all the basic tenets of greenhouse physics and still conclude that the threat of a dangerously large warming is so improbable as to be negligible, while the threat of real harm from climate-mitigation policies is already so high as to be worrying, that the cure is proving far worse than the disease is ever likely to be.” Water vapour is indeed a powerful greenhouse 'gas' -- but bear in mind that water-vapour is part of a process, and part of the energy system of the atmosphere, and bear in mind that the energy (latent heat) of water in the atmosphere is variable according to its concentrations: vapour 'rains out' whereas CO2, methane, etc do not. They cycle in the atmosphere for a much longer time than does water. Although water vapor is a powerful absorber of many wavelengths of thermal infrared energy, it is almost transparent to others. The transparency at those wavelengths is like a window the atmosphere leaves open for radiative cooling of the Earth’s surface. The most important of these “water vapor windows” is for thermal infrared with wavelengths centered around 10 micrometers. (The maximum transparency occurs at 10 micrometers, but partial transparency occurs for wavelengths between about 8 and about 14 micrometers.) Again, you are mistaken. Water vapour is an integral part of any atmospheric 'energy budget' -- and it modulates/amplifies the effect of other greenhouse gases. See "water vapour feedback"†... It's a crap-shoot. Matt Ridley thinks that the costs of mitigation are the greatest danger to humans. His erstwhile opponents believe that mitigation is the better bet. Even if one places all faith in Ridley's analyses and beliefs, there is still an ongoing debate. There is still another (or more) side. It does Objectivish good to rationally examine claims and 'evidence' -- from all sides. ______________________ ‡ ** † from RealClimate "Water vapour: feedback or forcing?" (recommended for its clarity and detail; please read for comprehension): Whenever three or more contrarians are gathered together, one will inevitably claim that water vapour is being unjustly neglected by ‘IPCC’ scientists. “Why isn’t water vapour acknowledged as a greenhouse gas?”, “Why does anyone even care about the other greenhouse gases since water vapour is 98% of the effect?”, “Why isn’t water vapour included in climate models?”, “Why isn’t included on the forcings bar charts?” etc. Any mainstream scientist present will trot out the standard response that water vapour is indeed an important greenhouse gas, it is included in all climate models, but it is a feedback and not a forcing. From personal experience, I am aware that these distinctions are not clear to many, and so here is a more in-depth response ...
  2. A podcast from NPR/NYT caught some reaction elsewhere: I'll do my best to put in an unofficial transcript here, once Voicebase does its business. -- textarea test text from a machine-transcription of the audio, vvia Voicebase (the page at the link shows a sound file, text-transcription, extracted keywords and concepts IDed by presumably AI, all in all decent means to aid analysis of the text): From the New York Times on Michael Barbaro this is the day. Today. Three years ago the United States had a chance to stop climate change almost nothing stood in the way except human resistance. What went wrong. It's Friday August thirty first. So by the one nine hundred fifty S. scientists had known for more than half a century that the use of fossil fuels was warm in the atmosphere but it was only in that decade that scientists started to worry about what that might mean for human society Nathanial which reported this story for The Times Magazine. And there were a number of articles published during that time trying to alert the public about the dangers that we are facing even now man may be unwittingly changing the world's climate through the waste products of his civilization due to our release factories and automobiles every year more than six billion tons of carbon dioxide which helps air absorb heat from the Sun our atmosphere seems to be getting warmer and although these articles appeared in places like the Times or Time in Life magazine or on educational programs on primetime T.V. a few degrees rise in the Earth's temperature. Not much attention has really paid to it outside of scientific circles for another couple of decades. This is very few Americans. But then in one nine hundred seventy nine I can actually remember the moment quite well I came across a paragraph on the environmental impacts of coal use Rafe Palmer and this political lobbyist and activist for environmental organization is sitting in his office on Capitol Hill reading an obscure government report about coal and acid rain when he comes across this paragraph at the end of a chapter and that section of the report was devoted to the possibility that coal and other fossil fuels would mourn the planet through their emissions of carbon dioxide Pomerantz reads all this and is astonished and terrified but it seems that he must have misread something or that he doesn't understand it and he kind of puts it out of his mind I said to myself This can't be it just seemed like a transformation of the planet and all in that one sentence a couple days later however he comes across an article that interview scored a McDonalds who's this prominent government scientist who is warning about the exact same problem and he immediately called Gordon McDonald and asks if they can meet a set I'm very curious about this I need to know more and I said will you see me and he said yes so I did so McDonald explained the whole issue to him and Palmer and says at the end of this long meeting if I set up briefings. Move forward ministration officials people on Capitol Hill will you do them will you tell them what you just told me and he said yes Pomerantz basic idea is that surely if we communicate this problem to the people who are in power in this country they will understand the necessity of action and they will do the responsible thing. So they start having meetings on Capitol Hill. They meet with the P.T.A. and then actual Security Council the State Department Council on Environmental Quality they meet with the New York Times and Frank Press who is the president's science advisor and after meeting with people from the White House the White House commissions a report to determine whether the dangers as good MacDonald saw them were accurate and whether action should be taken and a very high level group of scientists gathered in Woods Hole Massachusetts in July of seventy nine and issued a report on the whole problem known as the Charney report and that in the way formulated the baseline science that to this day people look back at. What I think the environment at a protection agency in many instances. Has gone to an extreme but Reagan wins the election and Pomerantz realizes that he has to start fighting other battles Reagan appointed the worst possible people to the key agencies. In Gore such a D.P.A. Jim Watt interior there's a very anti environmental ground about AS and I environmentalists. We've got environmentalist who would like to build a house unless it looks like a bird's nest and they must be restrained and the climate issue basically goes off the map and Pomerantz doesn't know what to do right now the biggest of the federal government could be would be to get out with some of its regulations as Reagan tries to roll everything back essentially to. Teddy Roosevelt's administration you know I remember at a meeting in one nine hundred eighty shortly after the election I was sitting in meeting in my bar male colleagues they said we're finished you know this is this is this. This is a side which is starting from the. Shelves full of. Containing a whole variety of products to chemists recognize that these very interactive compounds accumulate in the atmosphere and could lead to a decrease in the amount of ozone in the stratosphere but in one nine hundred eighty five there's a major study published by a bunch of British scientists who have observed that the level of ozone above the Antarctic has dramatically declined recently scientists discovered a weak spot in the ozone layer over Antarctica the. Whole there it was this huge hole the size of North America over Antarctica they say increased ultraviolet radiation through a hole in the ozone could raise temperatures damage farm crops and cause a lot more somber and almost overnight there is an enormous amount of public panic about what this might mean yet the ozone hole had a powerful effect on the public even though it was a different kind of event in the atmosphere it made it believable that human beings could alter things on a global scale the most popular theory is that chemicals. In a sea of seas a causing the problem now with an eye on what's happening over and pick up some scientists want to ban all uses of C.F.C. and by one thousand nine hundred seventy you have the Montreal Protocol which is the first global atmospheric environmental treaty. By. And it becomes a template for a possible global warming solution. Requires. That. The ozone hole kind open the door to the credibility in the certain way of the climate problem. Well Steve Newman is standing by now to fill us in on what went on weather wise today and I can tell you this one thing we set a brand new record which may never be broken again and then we get to the summer of one nine hundred eighty eight June one thousand nine hundred eighty eight global temperatures for the first five months of the year were the warmest ever recorded the hottest summer in recorded history Good evening it wasn't even noon today when the temperature at Sioux Falls in South Dakota was over one hundred how many days is a been one hundred this year fifty three in Georgia a woman died from heat stroke while she was working in a tobacco field this was her fifteenth day since Memorial Day with temperatures of ninety degrees or better if the air is so thick you can see that it should be no surprise you could also feel it and we could be heading for new records over the weekend a third straight day of record high temperatures and heat waves shivering across the area you have an incredible drought across the U.S. severe drought conditions caused half of the nation's agricultural counties to be declared disaster areas that's the worst I've seen it. It's the worst five father has seen and he's seventy six years old you have headlines all summer long that are apocalyptic where some people have become so distraught they have told their congressman gone is against its. Washington was having unusually hot weather too all of that tended to fall. A hearing here on Capitol Hill so at the height of the summer in June there said to be a hearing before the Senate about global warming and the night before the hearing Pomerantz gets a phone call from the lead witness a NASA scientist named James Hansen and Hansen tells them tomorrow at this hearing I'm going to make a major statement. Of a number of senators here and we want to move very rapidly into questions let me just first of all ask a short Dr Hansen and then ask others to comment if they would like. The question that everybody is asking today with all of the everything going on across the Middle West in the southwest and so on is is the current heat wave. Related to the greenhouse effect. Global warming is now large enough that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship to the greenhouse effect. The signal has emerged. The temperature of the planet is telling us that climate change the greenhouse effect is underway we're now seeing the effects of what we predicted years ago it's no longer theory it's happening now and afterwards in a press conference he says it's time to stop waffling and it's time to take action the scientist was Dr James Hansen director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City he told a Senate committee the warming trend of the one nine hundred eighty S. which included the five hottest years on record was not normal not a natural climate variation. This seems like a dramatic moment along the lines of There is now a hole in the ozone there is now evidence. That global warming is happening now yes it's a perfect corollary to there's a hole in the ozone layer. And it has a major effect there are dozens and dozens of headlines across the country the week of the hearing the consensus in favor of taking action has been building slowly and haltingly Hansen becomes overnight a kind of celebrity the face of the global warming problem the Congress is considering legislation to coordinate and strengthen U.S. policy with regard to the problem by the end of one thousand nine hundred thirty two climate bills the environment minister agrees Canadians must get ready for a warmer globe but he's also pushing for an international agreement that would control carbon dioxide emissions and a process begins in earnest to formulate a global treaty to prevent catastrophic global warming the idea is to convince everyone that all of this isn't just scientific speculation it's real and it's cause for great concern so at this point POMERANZ is feeling pretty good I think we were feeling like we were making progress. Nine hundred eighty eight was also an election year and today I'd like to begin to outline what I do about the environment my plan for how we as a nation and as a people can lead the world to a new recognition of the importance of the environment and so George W. Bush campaigns on the issue some say these problems are too big that it's impossible for an individual or even a nation as great as ours to solve the problem of global warming he says it can be done and we must do it it means we're going to do something about the problem the White House will do something about the problem. From N.B.C. News election headquarters this is a once a month eighty year. So George H.W. Bush gets elected and industry starts to brace for new regulatory policy or even climate legislation but shortly after he enters office there emerges a very strong divide between different factions within the White House on one side the E.P.A. administrator and the secretary of state who are pushing strongly for a global treaty and on the other side Johnson a new chief of staff who's deeply skeptical of the science and of any efforts to introduce regulatory policy related to climate then Sununu became basically a difficult obstacle to moving forward so in response to this internal back and forth conflict within the White House Al Gore decides to hold another hearing again with James Hansen to put pressure on the White House to commit fully to the global negotiation process for a treaty so as usual James Hansen sends his prepared testimony to the White House for approval but this time it comes back heavily censored with all kinds of deletions that distort his scientific findings and also additions that make arguments about economic policy centrally saying that there should be no regulations that at all compromise the economic goals of the country. So Hansen rather than fighting with the White House censors he accepts all of the changes but then he makes a call to Gore and tells them what happened Gore asks Hansen can I tell this to the New York Times and Hansen says shore and the Times publishes a bombshell story saying that the White House is trying to censor a NASA scientist the administration's censored testimony by Dr Hansen to make his conclusions seem less serious and less certain So it's a huge embarrassment to the White House. And they have to apologize they claim that the censorship came from a functionary five levels down from the top and they shortly thereafter recommit to the international negotiation process for a climate treaty and they say furthermore that the US will lead the effort and who is that anonymous censor Hanson anyway behind the deletions on the editions so nobody knew who the censor was at the time but when I asked John Sununu about this during my reporting he said that the directive it come from him. We need action and we need it now every American deserves to breathe clean air so in November there's a meeting in the Netherlands which will be the first high level diplomatic meeting about the framework for a global treaty on climate change. Every country sends its environmental minister so that the U.S. is acquittal and is the head of the P.A. William Reilly who's the strongest proponent of a treaty and the White House but soon it doesn't trust him so he sends an ally as a kind of minder to make sure that the U.S. doesn't accept any kind of binding proposal there were a group of us advocates who were there on the last day there's a major session that's close to everyone except for the diplomats and Pomerantz and his fellow activists camped out outside of the big conference room at a hotel where this is taking place we were there to bring attention to the success or failure of the meeting and they waited at the meeting goes longer than expected deep into the night and finally into the next morning and we'd try to find out what was going on trying to bring some attention. The meeting to the media that sort of thing and finally in the early hours the Swedish minister emerges and they ask him what's happening and he says your country is fucking. The US led by a. Guy has refused to endorse any global treaty that has any hard targets or demands any specific emissions reductions and with that the best opportunity that we've had for a binding global treaty to prevent climate change falls apart. Will be right back. The daily is supported by made well the denim brand where the motto is good day start with great genes along with making great genes made while works with blue jeans go green to turn old jeans into housing insulation for communities in need visit any made while store to recycle a pair and you'll get twenty dollars off new ones consider it an instant upgrade from those jeans that have been fits it's college find out more at made well dot com slash denim recycling. And then what went wrong here how do you understand the Bush administration's opposition to participating in something that the entire scientific community as well as the vast majority of the rest of the world agree is an accidental threat to all of us that has to be addressed by all of us well there's a simple political explanation which is that the chief of staff John Sununu won this political fight within the White House but I think you can also ask well why was the level of support of the political and public support for. Solving the problem not strong enough to overcome the will of. One man who wasn't even the president and I think that leads you into some larger questions about our ability to grapple meaningfully with a problem of such enormous stakes and the problem is ramifications wouldn't be felt for decades or even generations we talk about the effects of climate change we're talking about civilizational death and I don't think we like looking at that in the face and so we do whatever we can not to. Our responsibility is to Main the quality maintain the quality of our approach our commitment to sound science and an open mind to policy options by nine hundred ninety Bush is entire economic council comes out against climate policy at the same time Exxon Mobil has long been criticized for allegedly hiding what it knew about climate change just today a pair of researchers say that Exxon's own documents prove that is true the oil and gas industry mobilizes on the issue and develops a strategy. And the campaign funding this information propaganda to assess Exxon Mobil's public statements they cast doubt on whether climate change was real it discounted human impacts and they suggested there was nothing practical to do about it anyway pain scientists and politicians and ultimately the entire Republican Party to embrace this notion of uncertainty in the science you know it's a climate change is manmade well. I don't know that that is a resolved issue in science today and ultimately to deny the existence of climate change all together we keep hearing that two thousand and fourteen has been the warmest year on record I asked the chair you know what this is it's a snowball and that just from outside here so it's very very cold out very unseasoned so that Mr President catch this I don't buy that Joe I mean you don't buy I just don't buy that I don't buy the fact that it's a crisis saw gonna suck at about for all of this with the global warming and that a lot of it's a hoax it's a hoax I mean it's a money making industry OK as a result of industry's efforts the politics around the issue become sharply divided for those who believe it would have to be dealt with on a worldwide basis so let's take a look at that even if you believe that that is a serious problem has to be addressed one country doing it is going to have no and. It taken so long for the interest to special interests it's that utility companies and of the petroleum companies and the other special interests they're the ones that that apply to progress in the in the Congress United States and in the administration. At the same time the seas continue to rise and natural disasters continue to occur at increasing frequency there are reports from New Orleans of all people try. In buildings that have come down around the area and just split it in. Your house do it now Hurricane Sandy threatening a massive stretch of the US from Virginia to New England all the way to the Great Lakes so this is the highest the water has ever gotten here in New York City a monumental flooding and humanitarian disaster continues to unfold after Harvey with. The island of by beach I was once a kind of be in paradise hurricane Emma has reduced it to rubble all fourteen Caribbean community countries together produce less than zero point one percent of global emissions we have the least of the polluters but the largest of the casualties now to Maria this is the one I am most frightened about damn it this is not a good news story this is a people are dying story and temperatures keep getting warmer more than fifty million Americans are under excessive heat warnings and it's not going to end anytime soon at least twenty two thousand people have been treated in hospitals what heat stroke at least ten large fires are burning across the state ranch far as of our three hundred fifty one thousand acres making it the largest wildfire in state history excessive heat is also a threat thousands of miles away in Europe in Lisbon Portugal Mercury peaked at one hundred eleven degrees the highest temperature ever measured in Britain was recorded at Heathrow Airport two men thirty seven point nine degrees Celsius more than one hundred and in Frankfurt Germany the thermometer reached ninety seven Bunny's fighting back against a heat wave that many of the country's famine threatened Somalia for the second time this decade almost had a temperature over the last twenty four hours it never dropped below one hundred eight point seven degrees if this verifies it would set the record for the hottest minimum have her across the entire world for that happened this morning when they. Are. It feels like this decade that you examined nine hundred ninety nine is this moment when everybody is willing to meet from all these industries and all these advocacy groups and the government and to talk about this without yet becoming so entrenched in their positions and in their self-interest even though those things all begin to rear their heads when this was actually still about the science for a moment and that after this decade everything would become so much harder yeah absolutely I think you are still in the window at which a relatively gradual intervention would have had major positive benefits and maybe it takes a couple decades to get it right but it would have been enough Now that's not enough that window is closed. But it's not too late there are plans out there that present a pretty clear path towards solving this and keeping global temperatures under two degrees Celsius rise but what's lacking is the political will to achieve the kind of transformation of our energy system and really of the global economy that's required to do this and I don't think we're going to muster up that level of political Well until we understand the issue in moral terms and until everybody or most people feel some sense of moral obligation to demand action. If you know thank you very much we appreciate it thank you for having me. The daily is produced by feel welcome. Rachel Quest any brown. CAMMARATA Clare tennis getter page coward Michael Simon Johnson and Jessica with editing help from the recent Anderson Lisa token is our executive producer Samantha head it is our editorial director our technical manager is Brad Karsh our engineer is Chris Wallace and our theories is by Jim Bromberg and Ben Lance for of one really special thanks to Sandal. And Stella to him. That's it for the day on Michael Bob I. See you Tuesday after. This is dead bam one crossword columnist for The New York Times solving the Times crossword is like entering another world where your mind can stretch its legs the wordplay column has your back if you need some help and soon you'll want to solve every day start a puzzle over breakfast and finish it by bedtime it's everything a habit should be fun relaxing and able to go anywhere with you download the app or start playing on line at N.Y. Times dot com slash solve to experience life in the grid.
  3. Define: fisking "Fisking" is named after British reporter Robert Fisk. it refers to a kind of line-by-line, or claim-by-claim riposte. I don't put much faith in latter-day Fisk reporting, especially his Syria theatre of war 'taxi-driver' all-seeing narrator romps, and that is where earlier better critics began to pick apart his otherwise persuasively constructed tales of war. OL members often 'fisk' other's comments, offering commentary or discussion on each point made by the interlocutor. I think somebody called it 'venetian blinds' ... Anyway, there is a kind of science-reportage Fisking being done via When a large-bore article or opinion piece appears that may need context or correction, a bench of players is consulted. So ... that boring backstory aside, check out this one: Analysis of “Why are climate-change models so flawed? Because climate science is so incomplete” Christopher Colose, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, NASA GISS: First, it is true that water vapor constitutes the bulk of Earth’s present-day greenhouse effect (measured in terms of infrared absorption). Quantitatively, however, Jacoby is off by quite a bit. In fact, water vapor constitutes ~50% of the terrestrial greenhouse effect, not 95% (see here*). Clouds (solid and liquid water that form when the vapor condenses) constitute another ~25%, but CO2contributes to almost all of the remaining fraction (only ~5% or so from all of the other combined gases). This is because CO2 still absorbs well in spectral regions where water vapor doesn’t, and also because the upper troposphere is very dry; the ability to absorb intense surface emission and re-emit it at colder, higher layers of the atmosphere is critical for the maintenance of a planetary greenhouse effect. Secondly, the water vapor greenhouse effect is not independent of the CO2 in the atmosphere. Jacoby stresses that CO2 is only a trace component of the atmosphere, an argument that is irritatingly unoriginal and provides useless context when describing the flow of radiation through the atmosphere. As before, CO2 accounts for ~20% of Earth’s greenhouse effect. N2 and O2account for nearly all of Earth’s atmospheric mass. However, if the atmosphere were purely N2and O2, the planet would likely be in a snowball state due to the lack of greenhouse trapping. This is where the equations of radiative transfer must be applied, rather than a naive intuition about proportions. Schmidt et al (2010) Attribution of the present-day total greenhouse effect, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. Mark Zelinka, Research Scientist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory: Another helpful quote comes from this article: “The contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse effect, considerable though it is, understates the central role of the gas as a controller of climate. The atmosphere, if CO2 were removed from it, would cool enough that much of the water vapor would rain out. That precipitation, in turn, would cause further cooling and ultimately spiral Earth into a globally glaciated snowball state. It is only the present of CO2 that keeps Earth’s atmosphere warm enough to contain much water vapor.” I like to think of CO2 as analogous to a military commander and water vapor as analogous to an army of foot soldiers. Even though the water vapor foot soldiers do most of the fighting, the CO2commander sends the army to battle. [...] This is evidence the writer had a lot of fun writing for the Urban Dictionary. Whiner.
  4. Wonderful. We both are suited up on the same general team as Curry, Lindzen, Christy etcetera (whose antipathy to alarmism is predicated on their estimations of uncertainty in prognosticatin,g). Poor Bob is on the other team with Velikovsky, claiming as he did in the opening post that the 'greenhouse effect' is a pile of shite because Gehrlich. Gehrlich's math is correct. Bob, I have to ask -- have you looked for or read any of the rebuttals to the Gehrlich paper on the Greenhouse Effect (GHE)? If not, are you interested or willing to read some of them (published in the same journal where Gehrlich's paper appeared). If not, why not? Is it possible in your mind that Gehrlich is wrong about the GHE, and that his 'falsification' is no such thing? I mean to probe your ability to sift wheat from chaff. Your touting of Gehrlich and Casey and Siddons is fine and dandy, but if you haven't explored the opposing side, and considered objections to these folks' notions, then you aren't showing much good faith effort. The Hockey Schtick blog is run by a nameless somebody named MJ. The link you posted in the other thread is to a 'guest post' by a fellow named Alan Siddons. Why should a guest blog post or anonymously-written internet publication overturn the basic atmospheric physics of the GHE? Have you not read and 'checked' for critical reactions to the blog post? Your new link is written by ... apparently the same somebody named MJ. Or maybe it was Siddons and they forgot to cite him. Who knows ... Here is a clue to where Siddons stands in the anti-alarmist camp, from the comments at your first touted Hockey Schtick link: Reply from Alan Siddons: AGW skeptics are mad at me for swimming upstream too — Lindzen, Spencer, Singer, Monckton et al despise me — but to me their defense of shoddy physics (i.e., "the settled science") only enables the alarmist cause. Anyway, you will not be surprised that there is some push-back to the whole argument of Anonymous, MJ, Siddon and Gehrlich and the physical models they tout. It is in your interest to entertain objections to the 'falsifiication by blog post' ... if you don't, you are not being a rational inquirer, and you have given up engaging in good-faith discussion. What makes me say that about good-faith? Because, in your output here, you put a stress on the importance of rigorous peer-review in mainline journals. Does this work only for the goose and not for the gander? Look at what you say at multiple times in multiple comments -- these are just the most recent: mainline peer reviewed scientific journalsscience deprived ignoramuses of the open publicationsA reference to a peer reviewed (or refereed journal) would be appreciated. If you do not publish and it is not peer review it does not count.If peer review was good enough for Richard Feynman it is good enough for me.Have you published and has it been peer reviewed?When a scientist goes to the mass-media instead of a refereed journal or does not post a short article to Phys Revs (or like journal) my bullshit alarm starts to ring.So, seriously -- what value does Ba'al Chatzaf place in the anonymous blog entries and assorted websites and pal-reviewed publications you have cited in this and the other current thread? Why? If there is zero 'greenhouse' effect in earthly reality, if CO2 has zero effect on global temperature rise since the Industrial Age began, there is no reason not to churn out CO2 until the cows come home. Just to open up your mind to the possibility that the 'falsification of GHE' is wrong, here's a snippet from Skeptical Science: Empirical Evidence for the Greenhouse Effect We only have to look to our moon for evidence of what the Earth might be like without an atmosphere that sustained the greenhouse effect. While the moon’s surface reaches 130 degrees C in direct sunlight at the equator (266 degrees F), when the sun ‘goes down’ on the moon, the temperature drops almost immediately, and plunges in several hours down to minus 110 degrees C (-166F). Since the moon is virtually the same distance from the sun as we are, it is reasonable to ask why at night the Earth doesn’t get as cold as the moon. The answer is that, unlike the Earth, the moon has no water vapour or other greenhouse gases, because of course it has no atmosphere at all. Without our protective atmosphere and the greenhouse effect, the Earth would be as barren as our lifeless moon; without the heat trapped overnight in the atmosphere (and in the ground and oceans) our nights would be so cold that few plants or animals could survive even a single one. The most conclusive evidence for the greenhouse effect – and the role CO2 plays – can be seen in data from the surface and from satellites. By comparing the Sun’s heat reaching the Earth with the heat leaving it, we can see that less long-wave radiation (heat) is leaving than arriving (and since the 1970s, that less and less radiation is leaving the Earth, as CO2 and equivalents build up). Since all radiation is measured by its wavelength, we can also see that the frequencies being trapped in the atmosphere are the same frequencies absorbed by greenhouse gases. Disputing that the greenhouse effect is real is to attempt to discredit centuries of science, laws of physics and direct observation. Without the greenhouse effect, we would not even be here to argue about it. See also, please, another dismantling of the 'falsification of GHE' claims at SS, this one taking on the Joseph Postma claim. A short excerpt from the conclusion. In summary, Joseph Postma published an article criticizing a very simple model that nonetheless produces useful results. He made several very simple errors along the way, none of which are very technical in nature. More sophisticated models are obviously designed to handle the uneven distribution of solar heating (which is why we have weather!); nonetheless, the educational tools are useful for their purpose, and in no way does Postma undermine the existence or necessity of the greenhouse effect. Without agreenhouse effect, multiple studies have shown that the Earth collapses into a frozen iceball (Pierrehumbert et al., 2007; Voigt and Marotzke 2009, Lacis et al 2010) and indeed, after an ice-albedo feedback, plummets below the modern effective temperature of 255 K. This work makes extraordinary claims and yet no effort was made to put it in a real climate science journal, since it was never intended to educate climate scientists or improve the field; it is a sham, intended only to confuse casual readers and provide a citation on blogs. The author should be ashamed. So, to winnow my concerns about your easy acceptance of non-peer reviewed whoopee on the fringes of debate: what makes you suspend your usual critical attitude towards crackpot science -- what makes the peer-review process in mainline journals of high value in some contexts and not in others? In the end, I think you are willing to look at the materials I am amassing that take issue with Gehrlich -- please give me a sign. If you aren't willing to check your own assumptions, then of course, the material will fall on deaf ears and the pointlessness of my research will be clear. In which case, I will bail on this thread and any other where you tout crackpot theory ... Okay, I have read the transcript ... and I don't understand what recommends it to the issue in this thread: falsification of the GHE. For example, Ridley has repeatedly described himself as a 'lukewarmer,' as he does in the interview podcast. Nothing he writes as a science journalist takes exception with the Greenhouse Effect. See, for example, "My Life as a Climate Lukewarmer," by Matt Ridley. Rational Optimist, February 2015. From the podcast ... What I mean by a lukewarmer is somebody who is not challenging the idea that carbon dioxide levels are increasing or that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas or that we have seen warming in recent years or are likely to see warming to continue. But is challenging the idea that there is a strong likelihood that this will turn dangerous at some point in the future. In fact, I would often go further and say, actually, there's pretty good evidence that the carbon dioxide emissions we are putting into the atmosphere as fossil fuels are in many ways improving the environment.
  5. Let's trust Victor! No. Let's maybe take the time to read the Scott Adams column first. Then choose whether or not to read the VV entry and its following commentary. Then if the VV blog article raises interesting puzzles or makes a good point or two, refer to the arguments and claims and exposition ... Or ... ignore, evade, rubbish without reading or analyzing for oneself. This approaches vacancy. This implies you are not going to read Adams and then Venema. If I infer correctly, you aren't curious enough to examine the arguments made therein ... This is quite vacant. If you prefer not to acquaint yourself with her "Lukewarm" or "skeptical" positions on a variety of front-and-centre issues that are subject to debate, that is further indicative of incuriosity, if not unwarranted prejudice. For me, it ain't about trust, it is about getting to know the subjects by components, getting to know the disagreements by being exposed to both "sides." Should one 'trust' the claims and statements and opinions and analysis? Well, nope -- not without getting acquainted. A reader of the Adams column might find it a useful heuristic, but then wonder to herself, "has anyone responded to this with a critical, inquiring eye?" If it confirms her beliefs, why would she care about a dissent or critical response? "Lots of other scientists" with arguments, stances, publications, and other expressions of doubt, certainty, clarification ... about their particular subject area and the broader outlines of a given issue that is contested. For me at least, the contestation is interesting. I don't know about you or this mythical "we," so can only speak for myself. Reverse the polarity and answer for yourself, "How did Jonathan decide to mistrust Scott Adams and Victor Venema, or Judith Curry or the other five 'both sides' / Red Team-Blue Team presenters at the APS workshop?" How does anyone maintain a barrier of mistrust and ignorance? You do you. If angry feelings are among your best guides to knowledge, have at 'er. And any time you want to construct a comment that explains specifically what you believe, know, or suspect about components (ie, GHE, projections, scenarios, models), I will have the most feeling of all. You do you, Jonathan. Tell us what it is you actually believe about, say the Greenhouse Effect and its scientific support ... and everyone can have some feelings about that ... This is worthy of ridicule. It is many long bargepole lengths from the Adams/Venema reading invitation. If someone is this incurious, I don't always quite trust them to discuss in good faith. -- since I could be entirely wrong, I am going to do some of Jonathan's postponed or dog-eaten homework. That is, reach out to some of the climate scientists who I share information with, and see if they have a road-map for the inquiry I could put under the rubric "Things Jonathan would like to know." A person thoroughly unacquainted with the fruitless discussion here might suggest the search function at Weart's book-site, or suggest a trawl and note-taking session at Skeptical Science. Pre-keyed words at Variable Variability: Quote Quote Labels acceleration adaptation airports altruism annual climate data Arctic asthma atmospheric models atmospheric temperature slowdown Australiaautomatic weather stations BBC benchmarking Berkeley Earth bibliographic metrics Bjorn Stevens blog moderation blog review blog scienceblogging body fat book review boundary layer meteorology Budapest carbohydrates cherry picking Christians circadian cycle citations citizen scienceclimate "debate" climate audit climate change climate communication climate consensus climate data climate dissentersclimate history climate impacts climate intermittence climate models climate ostriches climate prediction climate projection climate reference networks climate sensitivity climate summit climate variability ClimateFeedback climatology clouds CMIP community competitionconference consensus conservatives conspiracies cooling bias COOP COP corruption creativity crowd sourcing daily climate data data qualitydata rescue data sharing democracy digitisation diversity downscaling DWD dynamics earth quakes ECA&D economic games economic growtheconomics econtalk Ed Hawkins education EGU elections EMS energy transition essential climate variables EUMETNET evolution evolutionary searchexperiment extreme weather fact checking fairness fast warming feedback firm surface fractals freedom of information freedom of research French screen fruit funding future GCOS genetic programming geo-intervention Germany GHCN GISTEMP global seismic change global temperatureglobal warming grassroots journals greenhouse gasses guest post gwpf harassment health HISTALP HOME HOMERhomogenization homogenization workshop humidity IMSC inhomogeneities inhomogeneous reference intelligent search intermittent fasting interpolation IPCC irrigation ISTI ISTI-POST journalism Judith Curry lakes land-use changes language library lidar life style LOESS long range dependence machine learning Matt Ridley mattress media medicine meetings meteorology methodological diversity methodology metrology milkmitigation mitigation sceptics monthly climate data motivation multiple breakpoints nature network analysis network thinking NOAA noise generator non-climatic changes North-wall observations obesity open data open review open science open-access publishing optimizationorganization of science paleo parallel measurements pastured cows pause peer review perturbed-physics. impacts petition philosophypolitics polling popular science POST post publication review posture precipitation productivity publicity publishing quality control radar radiometerrain reasons inhomogeneities records Reinhard Böhm research ideas research proposal rivers satellite data scale sceptical societies science science communication science funding scientific community scientific literature scientific method screen design sea surface temperature sleep social web society spatial variability station data station quality
  6. Epstein's talk in text with timecode. This is the auto-generated caption file from Youtube, so it is not a perfect transcription. But for folks who prefer the written record ... [OL textarea kludge since the forum no longer allows a *.txt file inside an iframe Full text captions: 00:00:06,910 - 00:00:11,439 I decided to become a philosopher by the 00:00:11,440 - 00:00:13,869 way if you guys could set the time up 00:00:13,870 - 00:00:15,558 here that would be helpful so I 00:00:15,559 - 00:00:18,909 super long and crowd anyone else out 00:00:18,910 - 00:00:20,929 yeah that's just considered the most 00:00:20,930 - 00:00:23,028 irrelevant thing and Jim just mentioned 00:00:23,029 - 00:00:24,799 Barbara Boxer in fact when I went in 00:00:24,800 - 00:00:27,049 front of the Senate Environment and 00:00:27,050 - 00:00:29,769 Public Works Committee two years ago she 00:00:29,770 - 00:00:32,179 reassured me that I had no business 00:00:32,180 - 00:00:34,968 talking about energy mr. Epstein are you 00:00:34,969 - 00:00:38,449 a scientist no philosopher you're a 00:00:38,450 - 00:00:42,369 philosopher yes okay well this is the 00:00:42,370 - 00:00:44,659 Environment and Public Works Committee I 00:00:44,660 - 00:00:45,709 think it's interesting we have a 00:00:45,710 - 00:00:47,689 philosopher here talking about an issue 00:00:47,690 - 00:00:49,308 it's to teach you how to think more 00:00:49,309 - 00:00:57,309 clearly you don't have to teach me so I 00:01:01,370 - 00:01:04,819 did not have that plant but it's just 00:01:04,820 - 00:01:07,579 what came to mind because I really 00:01:07,580 - 00:01:10,069 believe that it's it's true I actually 00:01:10,070 - 00:01:12,769 believe that of all the subjects that we 00:01:12,770 - 00:01:15,709 need right now at a time where we've got 00:01:15,710 - 00:01:18,019 so much opportunity to advance this 00:01:18,020 - 00:01:20,688 country forward energy wise and also so 00:01:20,689 - 00:01:24,169 much peril I think that philosophy is a 00:01:24,170 - 00:01:30,468 crucial crucial subject and before I go 00:01:30,469 - 00:01:32,118 into why that is I just want to share 00:01:32,119 - 00:01:34,519 with you what I want to cover today 00:01:34,520 - 00:01:37,218 which is really not so much the moral 00:01:37,219 - 00:01:40,038 case for fossil fuels but how you can 00:01:40,039 - 00:01:42,349 use the moral case for fossil fuels to 00:01:42,350 - 00:01:44,179 be far more influential over the 00:01:44,180 - 00:01:46,008 conversation today I think that's what's 00:01:46,009 - 00:01:48,319 really needed people in this room have a 00:01:48,320 - 00:01:49,728 lot more knowledge than the average 00:01:49,729 - 00:01:50,959 person to say the least about these 00:01:50,960 - 00:01:53,148 issues what I want to try to be useful 00:01:53,149 - 00:01:56,508 on is how to be far more persuasive how 00:01:56,509 - 00:02:00,019 to win more people over and that's 00:02:00,020 - 00:02:01,728 something over the years I feel like 00:02:01,729 - 00:02:03,408 I've had a lot of success at and in fact 00:02:03,409 - 00:02:05,658 we started doing studies about before 00:02:05,659 - 00:02:07,368 and after people encountered my work 00:02:07,369 - 00:02:09,919 what happened to them and for instance 00:02:09,920 - 00:02:11,719 we saw that in terms of people who felt 00:02:11,720 - 00:02:13,789 confident turning non supporters into 00:02:13,790 - 00:02:16,669 supporters you had a doubling or people 00:02:16,670 - 00:02:19,039 who felt an understanding of the 00:02:19,040 - 00:02:20,869 positive impacts of the fossil fuel 00:02:20,870 - 00:02:23,109 industry on our environment that also 00:02:23,110 - 00:02:25,939 increased dramatically and routinely I 00:02:25,940 - 00:02:27,839 get notes like this this 00:02:27,840 - 00:02:29,699 as a kid from Harvard who talked about 00:02:29,700 - 00:02:32,098 me changing his mind on fossil fuels 00:02:32,099 - 00:02:34,259 this is this is someone I spoke to who 00:02:34,260 - 00:02:36,598 considered themselves a Marxist and now 00:02:36,599 - 00:02:42,289 runs pro fossil fuel study groups and 00:02:42,290 - 00:02:45,238 what they're being persuaded by I think 00:02:45,239 - 00:02:47,969 is is something very definite that I 00:02:47,970 - 00:02:49,949 think that we could do a lot more of as 00:02:49,950 - 00:02:52,048 a movement and it really comes down to 00:02:52,049 - 00:02:54,598 one word there's one key I think to 00:02:54,599 - 00:02:56,249 being far more influential and 00:02:56,250 - 00:02:59,039 persuasive and I'll give you a head the 00:02:59,040 - 00:03:01,469 word begins with F can anyone guess what 00:03:01,470 - 00:03:09,470 it is flattery no freedom fact fracking 00:03:16,530 - 00:03:20,869 I might have heard flourish no 00:03:20,870 - 00:03:23,189 flourishing that's close that's gonna be 00:03:23,190 - 00:03:25,798 close but actually the word is framework 00:03:25,799 - 00:03:28,409 so framework I think the reason 00:03:28,410 - 00:03:30,238 philosophy is so valuable is because 00:03:30,239 - 00:03:32,669 philosophy deals with frameworks 00:03:32,670 - 00:03:34,349 now when I say framework what I mean is 00:03:34,350 - 00:03:36,988 a framework as a starting structure so 00:03:36,989 - 00:03:38,939 just as when you build a building it has 00:03:38,940 - 00:03:40,919 a starting structure and that determines 00:03:40,920 - 00:03:42,719 and influences everything else about the 00:03:42,720 - 00:03:45,119 building so with any thought process or 00:03:45,120 - 00:03:47,939 any conversation it's built on a certain 00:03:47,940 - 00:03:51,268 framework and I think what happens is we 00:03:51,269 - 00:03:53,939 often get sucked into a framework that's 00:03:53,940 - 00:03:55,619 not the right way of thinking of it and 00:03:55,620 - 00:03:58,078 then we we fall into that framework and 00:03:58,079 - 00:03:59,608 we try to argue within that framework 00:03:59,609 - 00:04:01,979 and I think the reason that I have had a 00:04:01,980 - 00:04:04,798 lot of success on this issue is that 00:04:04,799 - 00:04:06,929 coming from a philosophical background I 00:04:06,930 - 00:04:09,598 very quickly found the framework that we 00:04:09,599 - 00:04:12,149 were using to think about energy and to 00:04:12,150 - 00:04:14,249 talk about energy to be deeply wrong and 00:04:14,250 - 00:04:16,738 then I was able to challenge so I want 00:04:16,739 - 00:04:19,288 to just share my journey thinking about 00:04:19,289 - 00:04:20,488 the framework and challenging the 00:04:20,489 - 00:04:21,869 framework cuz I think that's the key 00:04:21,870 - 00:04:25,079 thing to do the the thing that got me 00:04:25,080 - 00:04:26,579 interested in energy in the first place 00:04:26,580 - 00:04:29,459 was the truth characterized by these 00:04:29,460 - 00:04:32,219 graphs which is that sheep plentiful 00:04:32,220 - 00:04:35,129 reliable energy is fundamental to human 00:04:35,130 - 00:04:37,799 flourishing to human beings living at 00:04:37,800 - 00:04:39,509 their best because cheap plentiful 00:04:39,510 - 00:04:41,649 reliable energy allows us to go 00:04:41,650 - 00:04:45,239 manual labor society to a machine labor 00:04:45,240 - 00:04:47,679 society and that empowers us to get 00:04:47,680 - 00:04:50,109 machines to do our work for us and and 00:04:50,110 - 00:04:52,989 just leads to more prosperity more power 00:04:52,990 - 00:04:56,079 in every area of life and I became 00:04:56,080 - 00:04:58,059 really interested okay if energy is so 00:04:58,060 - 00:05:00,219 important that means that our decisions 00:05:00,220 - 00:05:02,019 about energy are going to be very 00:05:02,020 - 00:05:03,369 leveraged they're going to matter so 00:05:03,370 - 00:05:05,978 much because making energy better is 00:05:05,979 - 00:05:07,239 going to make everything better 00:05:07,240 - 00:05:09,099 and making energy worse is going to make 00:05:09,100 - 00:05:10,959 everything worse and so I thought about 00:05:10,960 - 00:05:13,599 okay well how good is our thinking about 00:05:13,600 - 00:05:16,418 energy and I pretty quickly concluded 00:05:16,419 - 00:05:19,869 it's very very bad and when I say it's 00:05:19,870 - 00:05:23,349 bad I don't mean that quote-unquote dumb 00:05:23,350 - 00:05:25,478 people the uneducated are thinking badly 00:05:25,479 - 00:05:28,299 I mean that so-called smart people these 00:05:28,300 - 00:05:30,129 super educated people are thinking about 00:05:30,130 - 00:05:32,679 it very badly and there are three big 00:05:32,680 - 00:05:34,569 ways I think today's energy conversation 00:05:34,570 - 00:05:37,119 is biased if it gets sloppy and I think 00:05:37,120 - 00:05:39,369 it's anti human so just to give you some 00:05:39,370 - 00:05:41,739 examples that convinced me of this so in 00:05:41,740 - 00:05:44,529 terms of biased one thing is when we're 00:05:44,530 - 00:05:47,469 looking at something like co2 we need to 00:05:47,470 - 00:05:49,659 clearly look at both potential positives 00:05:49,660 - 00:05:52,089 and potential negatives and I learned in 00:05:52,090 - 00:05:54,728 school like okay co2 has a fertilizing 00:05:54,729 - 00:05:56,619 effect on plants and so it was really 00:05:56,620 - 00:05:58,239 surprising that when people talked about 00:05:58,240 - 00:06:01,179 the influence of co2 they almost never 00:06:01,180 - 00:06:03,399 mentioned global greening which is a 00:06:03,400 - 00:06:05,918 significant thing but however 00:06:05,919 - 00:06:07,538 significant it is it would just make 00:06:07,539 - 00:06:09,698 sense logically if you were going to be 00:06:09,699 - 00:06:11,469 fair on the issue to talk about the 00:06:11,470 - 00:06:12,999 potential positives and negatives and 00:06:13,000 - 00:06:14,109 yet they ignored it 00:06:14,110 - 00:06:16,149 which made me think that there's a 00:06:16,150 - 00:06:17,769 certain bias here that's not going to 00:06:17,770 - 00:06:21,219 lead us to the right conclusion or when 00:06:21,220 - 00:06:22,899 I started studying the issue of fracking 00:06:22,900 - 00:06:24,609 hydraulic fracturing and more broadly 00:06:24,610 - 00:06:27,519 shale energy I saw that when people 00:06:27,520 - 00:06:28,959 talked about fracking they would be 00:06:28,960 - 00:06:30,219 obsessed with oh it's going to 00:06:30,220 - 00:06:33,549 contaminate water and yet when I studied 00:06:33,550 - 00:06:36,219 it the basic operations of fracking are 00:06:36,220 - 00:06:37,689 incredibly unlikely to contaminate water 00:06:37,690 - 00:06:39,549 and much less likely to contaminate 00:06:39,550 - 00:06:41,319 water than certain parts of the 00:06:41,320 - 00:06:43,179 production of solar energy such as waste 00:06:43,180 - 00:06:45,519 disposal and mining and yet people only 00:06:45,520 - 00:06:47,168 talk about water danger with fracking 00:06:47,169 - 00:06:50,259 and not with solar so again there's a 00:06:50,260 - 00:06:53,138 bias in our and our framework of 00:06:53,139 - 00:06:55,568 discussing these issues there's an idea 00:06:55,569 - 00:06:57,908 that it's okay to be biased as long as 00:06:57,909 - 00:07:00,158 you're for solar and wind and against 00:07:00,159 - 00:07:02,888 fossil fuels a nuclear and I didn't know 00:07:02,889 - 00:07:05,019 what the truth was but I knew that if we 00:07:05,020 - 00:07:07,628 had this bias we could never reach the 00:07:07,629 - 00:07:09,299 right answer 00:07:09,300 - 00:07:11,769 now there's also this though the worst 00:07:11,770 - 00:07:14,198 form of bias I think is the term climate 00:07:14,199 - 00:07:16,989 change denier because think about what 00:07:16,990 - 00:07:19,148 this means when when I looked into the 00:07:19,149 - 00:07:20,829 so called climate change deniers what I 00:07:20,830 - 00:07:24,098 saw is actually their view was that any 00:07:24,099 - 00:07:26,468 potential risks of co2 were far 00:07:26,469 - 00:07:28,088 outweighed by the benefits of fossil 00:07:28,089 - 00:07:29,588 fuels which is a completely coherent 00:07:29,589 - 00:07:31,688 type of argument and yet the people 00:07:31,689 - 00:07:33,998 calling them climate change deniers what 00:07:33,999 - 00:07:35,829 they're basically saying is it's not 00:07:35,830 - 00:07:37,958 okay to talk about the benefits it's 00:07:37,959 - 00:07:39,848 only okay to talk about the negatives 00:07:39,849 - 00:07:42,158 and so if you support fossil fuels that 00:07:42,159 - 00:07:44,198 must mean you deny any potential 00:07:44,199 - 00:07:45,728 negatives now doesn't mean I think there 00:07:45,729 - 00:07:47,408 are negatives but the logic of their 00:07:47,409 - 00:07:50,049 argument is that it's invalid to 00:07:50,050 - 00:07:51,579 consider the potential positives of 00:07:51,580 - 00:07:53,859 fossil fuels and if you talk about that 00:07:53,860 - 00:07:55,178 and if you think they're positive then 00:07:55,179 - 00:07:56,888 we're going to attack you and analogize 00:07:56,889 - 00:07:59,109 you to a Holocaust denier so this is 00:07:59,110 - 00:08:01,288 just really really bad 00:08:01,289 - 00:08:05,228 now the discussion is also sloppy so in 00:08:05,229 - 00:08:07,388 addition to only looking for positives 00:08:07,389 - 00:08:08,799 with solar and wind and only looking for 00:08:08,800 - 00:08:10,778 negatives with fossil fuels and nuclear 00:08:10,779 - 00:08:12,878 there's a huge tendency toward 00:08:12,879 - 00:08:14,828 exaggeration depending on people's 00:08:14,829 - 00:08:17,528 biases so for example we have Elon Musk 00:08:17,529 - 00:08:20,049 and he talks about he's leaving the 00:08:20,050 - 00:08:22,299 presidential council why because climate 00:08:22,300 - 00:08:24,788 change is real now think about how vague 00:08:24,789 - 00:08:26,888 and sloppy that is climate change is 00:08:26,889 - 00:08:30,098 real to know if if it's a problem 00:08:30,099 - 00:08:31,958 quote-unquote climate change we need to 00:08:31,959 - 00:08:34,418 know how significant is it how 00:08:34,419 - 00:08:36,549 significant is it is its effect on human 00:08:36,550 - 00:08:39,818 life and then what is its what is that 00:08:39,819 - 00:08:41,648 relationship to any posit is a fossil 00:08:41,649 - 00:08:42,908 fuels if you just say climate change is 00:08:42,909 - 00:08:44,168 real that's like you're talking about 00:08:44,169 - 00:08:46,328 vaccines and you say Oh vaccine side 00:08:46,329 - 00:08:48,099 effects are real therefore should be 00:08:48,100 - 00:08:49,719 against vaccines well no it depends on 00:08:49,720 - 00:08:51,669 how big the side effects are and how big 00:08:51,670 - 00:08:53,979 the benefits are so if I support 00:08:53,980 - 00:08:55,448 vaccines that doesn't mean I'm a vaccine 00:08:55,449 - 00:08:57,879 side effect denier it just means that I 00:08:57,880 - 00:09:02,109 have a different evaluation one thing I 00:09:02,110 - 00:09:03,759 saw when I started studying the science 00:09:03,760 - 00:09:04,600 was people just completely 00:09:04,601 - 00:09:06,249 misrepresented the greenhouse effect 00:09:06,250 - 00:09:08,018 they said oh the greenhouse effect is 00:09:08,019 - 00:09:09,189 real leads to warming 00:09:09,190 - 00:09:10,719 but they weren't clear on the nature of 00:09:10,720 - 00:09:13,209 the effect and as I explained in my book 00:09:13,210 - 00:09:15,279 a lot it's a logarithmic or diminishing 00:09:15,280 - 00:09:17,049 effect which means that when you isolate 00:09:17,050 - 00:09:19,089 the effect each new molecule of co2 00:09:19,090 - 00:09:21,819 warms less than the last and but if 00:09:21,820 - 00:09:23,229 people were precise about that we 00:09:23,230 - 00:09:25,059 wouldn't probably be nearly as scared 00:09:25,060 - 00:09:26,829 about warming so there's just this 00:09:26,830 - 00:09:28,479 sloppiness which is really really bad 00:09:28,480 - 00:09:31,779 and this 97% of climate scientists agree 00:09:31,780 - 00:09:33,789 is the same kind of sloppiness agree on 00:09:33,790 - 00:09:35,529 what climate change is real again that's 00:09:35,530 - 00:09:38,109 meaningless it's it's it's sloppy so if 00:09:38,110 - 00:09:40,329 we're biased and sloppy and this way 00:09:40,330 - 00:09:42,219 we're guaranteed to make bad decisions 00:09:42,220 - 00:09:45,159 and sea-level rise from here but 00:09:45,160 - 00:09:47,139 unprecedented sea level rise yet even 00:09:47,140 - 00:09:49,089 wikipedia acknowledges that today's sea 00:09:49,090 - 00:09:50,769 level rises tiny compared to that 00:09:50,770 - 00:09:54,009 experienced by our ancestors ten plus 00:09:54,010 - 00:09:56,619 thousand years ago so there's just this 00:09:56,620 - 00:09:58,119 bias and sloppiness that make it 00:09:58,120 - 00:10:00,129 impossible to determine the truth it 00:10:00,130 - 00:10:01,269 doesn't mean that fossil fuels are 00:10:01,270 - 00:10:02,799 necessarily good it just means that our 00:10:02,800 - 00:10:07,359 discussion is necessarily bad one more 00:10:07,360 - 00:10:09,219 of these is when people talk about solar 00:10:09,220 - 00:10:10,839 and wind capacity oh they're they're 00:10:10,840 - 00:10:13,719 building up this huge capacity but they 00:10:13,720 - 00:10:15,699 neglect that the capacity of an 00:10:15,700 - 00:10:17,799 unreliable uncontrollable source of 00:10:17,800 - 00:10:19,749 energy is totally different than the 00:10:19,750 - 00:10:21,999 capacity of a reliable source of energy 00:10:22,000 - 00:10:23,799 so when people say oh it's a hundred 00:10:23,800 - 00:10:25,329 megawatts of solar and a hundred 00:10:25,330 - 00:10:26,529 megawatts of coal those are two totally 00:10:26,530 - 00:10:29,109 different things that's like saying oh 00:10:29,110 - 00:10:32,109 it's it's a worker who works 40 hours a 00:10:32,110 - 00:10:33,879 week which is like the coal worker and 00:10:33,880 - 00:10:35,769 as reliable versus the worker who works 00:10:35,770 - 00:10:37,269 12 hours a week and you don't know when 00:10:37,270 - 00:10:38,679 they're and come in they have the same 00:10:38,680 - 00:10:40,749 quote-unquote capacity well that's a 00:10:40,750 - 00:10:42,119 real Distortion 00:10:42,120 - 00:10:45,099 the worst part though the deepest thing 00:10:45,100 - 00:10:46,719 that's wrong I believe is that our 00:10:46,720 - 00:10:50,109 conversation is anti-human and the issue 00:10:50,110 - 00:10:51,729 and philosophy of this relates to is 00:10:51,730 - 00:10:53,289 whenever we're talking about any issue 00:10:53,290 - 00:10:54,489 we're talking about making the right 00:10:54,490 - 00:10:56,409 choice or the wrong choice we have to be 00:10:56,410 - 00:10:58,179 really clear about what's our standard 00:10:58,180 - 00:11:00,249 of good or what's our standard of value 00:11:00,250 - 00:11:02,829 how are we measuring good and bad now 00:11:02,830 - 00:11:04,569 the way that I measure good and bad is 00:11:04,570 - 00:11:07,239 by human flourishing by how much a given 00:11:07,240 - 00:11:09,189 course of action is going to benefit 00:11:09,190 - 00:11:11,679 human beings now and in the long run but 00:11:11,680 - 00:11:13,509 what I noticed was in the popular 00:11:13,510 - 00:11:15,939 conversation there was almost no concern 00:11:15,940 - 00:11:18,669 about human flourishing for example the 00:11:18,670 - 00:11:20,709 energy poverty issue there about three 00:11:20,710 - 00:11:21,999 billion people in the world with 00:11:22,000 - 00:11:23,889 no energy and remember energy is 00:11:23,890 - 00:11:26,019 fundamental to human flourishing and we 00:11:26,020 - 00:11:27,909 talk about energy every day and nobody 00:11:27,910 - 00:11:28,660 cares 00:11:28,661 - 00:11:31,269 there's like a thirty thousand word hit 00:11:31,270 - 00:11:32,739 piece in New York Times the other day 00:11:32,740 - 00:11:34,959 and it's completely unimportant to 00:11:34,960 - 00:11:36,549 mention energy poverty and the need for 00:11:36,550 - 00:11:38,109 energy that was trivial that didn't make 00:11:38,110 - 00:11:40,989 the 30,000 word cut in their magazine 00:11:40,990 - 00:11:43,809 and yet what do we agonize about every 00:11:43,810 - 00:11:46,329 day we agonize about Oh a polar bear had 00:11:46,330 - 00:11:48,609 to move from one piece of ice to another 00:11:48,610 - 00:11:51,639 and polar bears literally my favorite 00:11:51,640 - 00:11:54,639 animal but they're still just a very 00:11:54,640 - 00:11:57,339 problematic thing of being worried about 00:11:57,340 - 00:11:58,599 it particularly consecutive more polar 00:11:58,600 - 00:12:01,089 bears than before but why don't we care 00:12:01,090 - 00:12:03,069 about human flourishing and the reason 00:12:03,070 - 00:12:04,749 is because the standard of good in our 00:12:04,750 - 00:12:07,179 discussion is not human flourishing it's 00:12:07,180 - 00:12:10,509 being green and green means unchanged 00:12:10,510 - 00:12:12,969 nature or minimum impact and I think 00:12:12,970 - 00:12:15,069 Green is a horrible standard to use 00:12:15,070 - 00:12:16,839 because human beings survive by 00:12:16,840 - 00:12:18,459 impacting nature we survive by 00:12:18,460 - 00:12:20,259 transforming nature so if we try to 00:12:20,260 - 00:12:22,089 evaluate our energy choices by how green 00:12:22,090 - 00:12:23,559 they are we're going to end up making 00:12:23,560 - 00:12:26,049 anti human energy choices and we're 00:12:26,050 - 00:12:28,239 going to very much dislike the effective 00:12:28,240 - 00:12:30,249 sources of energy such as fossil fuels 00:12:30,250 - 00:12:32,889 nuclear and hydro and guess what guess 00:12:32,890 - 00:12:34,299 which sources of energy the Greens 00:12:34,300 - 00:12:36,789 oppose not the ones that just emit co2 00:12:36,790 - 00:12:38,799 because they oppose nuclear and hydro 00:12:38,800 - 00:12:40,869 which are the best non carbon ones they 00:12:40,870 - 00:12:43,629 oppose any practical form of energy they 00:12:43,630 - 00:12:45,519 only support imaginary energy energy 00:12:45,520 - 00:12:47,379 that they claim will be practical in the 00:12:47,380 - 00:12:49,149 future and then if it ever works then 00:12:49,150 - 00:12:50,379 they're against it because if you're 00:12:50,380 - 00:12:52,869 green in the true sense you're against 00:12:52,870 - 00:12:54,489 industry you're against industrial 00:12:54,490 - 00:12:56,609 progress you're against effective energy 00:12:56,610 - 00:12:59,919 so what I noticed was that the framework 00:12:59,920 - 00:13:02,829 in our culture inevitably made people 00:13:02,830 - 00:13:04,989 against fossil fuels because it was 00:13:04,990 - 00:13:08,619 biased and sloppy and anti human and one 00:13:08,620 - 00:13:11,139 lesson to draw is that unless we can 00:13:11,140 - 00:13:13,389 change people's framework then they're 00:13:13,390 - 00:13:15,699 gonna process anything we say including 00:13:15,700 - 00:13:17,349 any claims to fact they're gonna process 00:13:17,350 - 00:13:19,599 it in that bias sloppy and anti human 00:13:19,600 - 00:13:21,819 way so we need to somehow get around 00:13:21,820 - 00:13:24,429 that and in my own research when I 00:13:24,430 - 00:13:25,959 started thinking about it I tried to 00:13:25,960 - 00:13:27,939 think about it in the opposite way in as 00:13:27,940 - 00:13:30,849 even-handed and precise and Pro human 00:13:30,850 - 00:13:31,830 flourishing way 00:13:31,831 - 00:13:34,589 as possible and usually when I talk to 00:13:34,590 - 00:13:36,479 general audiences I spend a lot of time 00:13:36,480 - 00:13:38,789 on okay here are all the facts about 00:13:38,790 - 00:13:40,559 fossil fuels now at this conference 00:13:40,560 - 00:13:43,049 you've learned just about any fact that 00:13:43,050 - 00:13:44,369 I would present in my book and that I 00:13:44,370 - 00:13:46,409 could tell you but the key thing is that 00:13:46,410 - 00:13:48,869 those facts will not be processed 00:13:48,870 - 00:13:51,569 correctly unless people have the right 00:13:51,570 - 00:13:54,029 framework and so once I became 00:13:54,030 - 00:13:59,789 passionate oh thank you once I became 00:13:59,790 - 00:14:02,189 passionate about the right framework I 00:14:02,190 - 00:14:04,259 and realizing that framework is 00:14:04,260 - 00:14:05,939 fundamental I became very interested in 00:14:05,940 - 00:14:11,729 how do I persuade people and here is the 00:14:11,730 - 00:14:13,199 basic thing that I do and it's it's 00:14:13,200 - 00:14:16,259 almost too simple but it's super super 00:14:16,260 - 00:14:18,719 effective essentially whenever I'm in a 00:14:18,720 - 00:14:20,429 conversation or even whenever I'm 00:14:20,430 - 00:14:22,799 writing I want to make sure that three 00:14:22,800 - 00:14:26,129 things happen that three ideas three 00:14:26,130 - 00:14:27,779 pieces of the framework get established 00:14:27,780 - 00:14:29,639 and that's the pro human flourishing 00:14:29,640 - 00:14:32,489 piece the even-handed piece and the 00:14:32,490 - 00:14:34,259 precise piece so if I'm in a discussion 00:14:34,260 - 00:14:36,119 with somebody and some issue comes up 00:14:36,120 - 00:14:38,039 like the Paris climate Accords I'll I 00:14:38,040 - 00:14:39,479 want to get I don't want to jump into 00:14:39,480 - 00:14:42,089 the facts because how do we even know 00:14:42,090 - 00:14:43,709 what facts to talk about or how to talk 00:14:43,710 - 00:14:46,259 about them I want to ask first hey would 00:14:46,260 - 00:14:49,139 you agree that our goal here is we want 00:14:49,140 - 00:14:51,119 the energy policy that's best for human 00:14:51,120 - 00:14:53,039 beings now and in the future and what I 00:14:53,040 - 00:14:54,779 find is almost everyone will agree some 00:14:54,780 - 00:14:56,189 people won't but then if they don't 00:14:56,190 - 00:14:57,689 agree that the goal is the best policy 00:14:57,690 - 00:14:59,909 for human beings you can't just proceed 00:14:59,910 - 00:15:01,709 and jump into the facts you need to 00:15:01,710 - 00:15:02,789 challenge them and if they're not 00:15:02,790 - 00:15:04,769 willing to value human life then you 00:15:04,770 - 00:15:06,269 need to leave I mean it when people 00:15:06,270 - 00:15:07,829 really won't value human life I just say 00:15:07,830 - 00:15:09,419 well you know what if you don't value 00:15:09,420 - 00:15:10,859 human life then you should absolutely 00:15:10,860 - 00:15:12,599 oppose fossil fuels because you'll get a 00:15:12,600 - 00:15:14,519 lot of people killed and then they don't 00:15:14,520 - 00:15:17,429 usually like that but and sometimes they 00:15:17,430 - 00:15:19,469 then come back so that's one thing that 00:15:19,470 - 00:15:21,119 has to happen another thing that has to 00:15:21,120 - 00:15:22,110 happen is we have to agree to be 00:15:22,111 - 00:15:23,639 even-handed would you agree that to 00:15:23,640 - 00:15:25,439 determine the best policy we need to 00:15:25,440 - 00:15:27,569 look at both the potential positives and 00:15:27,570 - 00:15:29,249 negatives and when you ask that question 00:15:29,250 - 00:15:31,109 a hundred percent of people I've never 00:15:31,110 - 00:15:33,419 had anyone who said I'm only going to 00:15:33,420 - 00:15:34,859 look at the positives or I'm only gonna 00:15:34,860 - 00:15:36,269 look at the negatives and yet if you 00:15:36,270 - 00:15:37,709 don't ask that question that's what 00:15:37,710 - 00:15:39,599 people do all the time they're super 00:15:39,600 - 00:15:42,059 super biased so by making the issue of 00:15:42,060 - 00:15:44,699 framework explicit you can get people to 00:15:44,700 - 00:15:45,510 think way back 00:15:45,511 - 00:15:47,459 than they would if you didn't and the 00:15:47,460 - 00:15:48,959 same thing is true with precision if I 00:15:48,960 - 00:15:50,639 say hey would you do you agree that we 00:15:50,640 - 00:15:52,949 need to be as precise as possible for 00:15:52,950 - 00:15:53,999 instance when we talk about sea level 00:15:54,000 - 00:15:55,679 rise we have to be clear do we mean two 00:15:55,680 - 00:15:57,749 feet in a hundred years like the UN says 00:15:57,750 - 00:16:00,269 or 20 feet in 30 years like Al Gore says 00:16:00,270 - 00:16:02,549 we have to be precise and they'll say of 00:16:02,550 - 00:16:05,279 course but if you didn't establish that 00:16:05,280 - 00:16:07,259 framework they would never do it on 00:16:07,260 - 00:16:09,899 their own so once you establish the 00:16:09,900 - 00:16:11,759 framework whether it's in conversation 00:16:11,760 - 00:16:14,789 or in your writing then people process 00:16:14,790 - 00:16:18,359 the facts in a much better way and I 00:16:18,360 - 00:16:20,399 think the inevitable conclusion once you 00:16:20,400 - 00:16:22,199 start looking at the facts from the 00:16:22,200 - 00:16:24,149 right framework from a human flourishing 00:16:24,150 - 00:16:27,569 based framework is overall that freeing 00:16:27,570 - 00:16:29,429 fossil fuel use instead of restricting 00:16:29,430 - 00:16:31,529 it is going to give billions more people 00:16:31,530 - 00:16:33,419 access to cheap plentiful reliable 00:16:33,420 - 00:16:35,849 energy and I see some of you taking 00:16:35,850 - 00:16:37,709 pictures which I really appreciate 00:16:37,710 - 00:16:39,539 I'm happy to send out the slides but I'm 00:16:39,540 - 00:16:42,599 also going to send out some think 00:16:42,600 - 00:16:44,249 handouts that will be really valuable to 00:16:44,250 - 00:16:45,509 you I'll tell you in a second how to get 00:16:45,510 - 00:16:47,339 them but including there's a five-page 00:16:47,340 - 00:16:49,049 memo that we created for some government 00:16:49,050 - 00:16:51,509 officials on all the key talking points 00:16:51,510 - 00:16:52,949 for the moral case for fossil fuels 00:16:52,950 - 00:16:55,259 including the framing and the facts so 00:16:55,260 - 00:16:57,029 hopefully that'll be really useful to 00:16:57,030 - 00:16:59,009 you and so that's on the the potential 00:16:59,010 - 00:17:01,019 positives of fossil fuels and then when 00:17:01,020 - 00:17:02,489 people really look at the potential 00:17:02,490 - 00:17:04,739 negatives of fossil fuels from a human 00:17:04,740 - 00:17:06,599 flourishing framework what they find is 00:17:06,600 - 00:17:08,809 actually using fossil fuels is 00:17:08,810 - 00:17:10,889 completely compatible with the safe 00:17:10,890 - 00:17:13,919 climate and a clean environment and a 00:17:13,920 - 00:17:16,799 long-term future but it all comes down 00:17:16,800 - 00:17:24,800 to the framework 00:17:26,420 - 00:17:30,149 so one example this happened a few years 00:17:30,150 - 00:17:31,739 ago and this is one when I really 00:17:31,740 - 00:17:33,239 started getting that the key was to 00:17:33,240 - 00:17:35,759 frame things I got interviewed about the 00:17:35,760 - 00:17:38,249 Paris climate Accords and they asked me 00:17:38,250 - 00:17:40,289 the question hey do you think it's good 00:17:40,290 - 00:17:41,939 that society is doing something about 00:17:41,940 - 00:17:43,919 climate change and think about that's a 00:17:43,920 - 00:17:45,779 totally loaded question because the way 00:17:45,780 - 00:17:48,149 it's being framed is should we do 00:17:48,150 - 00:17:49,499 something about climate change which 00:17:49,500 - 00:17:51,239 basically means the only thing we should 00:17:51,240 - 00:17:53,399 be focused on is are we changing climate 00:17:53,400 - 00:17:55,349 are we changing nature but that's not 00:17:55,350 - 00:17:57,329 the human perspective and so what I did 00:17:57,330 - 00:17:59,579 instead of answering that I said and 00:17:59,580 - 00:18:01,649 this is the actual quote I said anytime 00:18:01,650 - 00:18:03,119 world leaders are gathering their 00:18:03,120 - 00:18:04,979 number-one focus needs to be what will 00:18:04,980 - 00:18:07,079 promote human progress and so that 00:18:07,080 - 00:18:09,569 reframed it from the goal is to prevent 00:18:09,570 - 00:18:11,909 climate change from no the goal is to 00:18:11,910 - 00:18:14,549 promote human progress and that totally 00:18:14,550 - 00:18:16,499 flips it and it totally changes it in 00:18:16,500 - 00:18:18,209 the right direction and you can do the 00:18:18,210 - 00:18:20,009 same thing in any conversation as long 00:18:20,010 - 00:18:21,659 as you're aware of making sure that 00:18:21,660 - 00:18:23,519 those three things are in place you got 00:18:23,520 - 00:18:25,019 to be Pro human you have to be 00:18:25,020 - 00:18:27,959 even-handed and precise and if you can 00:18:27,960 - 00:18:30,029 get people on that framework it's 00:18:30,030 - 00:18:32,339 incredibly compelling so the fascinating 00:18:32,340 - 00:18:34,919 thing about framework is framework is 00:18:34,920 - 00:18:36,719 fundamental so it affects how people 00:18:36,720 - 00:18:38,969 process everything but the right 00:18:38,970 - 00:18:41,999 framework is super easy to convince most 00:18:42,000 - 00:18:43,919 people of because the wrong framework 00:18:43,920 - 00:18:47,279 cannot survive unless it's hidden you 00:18:47,280 - 00:18:49,409 can't be biased and sloppy an anti-human 00:18:49,410 - 00:18:52,259 out in the open it has to be hidden so 00:18:52,260 - 00:18:53,759 if we can get the framework issue 00:18:53,760 - 00:18:56,789 explicit we can win over a lot of people 00:18:56,790 - 00:18:58,649 and I think that's really the key to the 00:18:58,650 - 00:19:00,509 success I've had and the key to a lot 00:19:00,510 - 00:19:02,789 more success I can have and we all can 00:19:02,790 - 00:19:06,779 have you take one idea away today it's 00:19:06,780 - 00:19:08,549 that the strategy for successful 00:19:08,550 - 00:19:12,569 persuasion is framework before facts 00:19:12,570 - 00:19:14,999 that is that is really the key and then 00:19:15,000 - 00:19:16,799 it should be a human flourishing based 00:19:16,800 - 00:19:19,589 framework so my goal today was to 00:19:19,590 - 00:19:21,299 convince you of this at a high level 00:19:21,300 - 00:19:23,459 with some examples but so you can see 00:19:23,460 - 00:19:25,169 that yeah it's all about framework and 00:19:25,170 - 00:19:27,599 then hopefully I've given you enough to 00:19:27,600 - 00:19:30,359 have more success immediately but I can 00:19:30,360 - 00:19:32,399 make it a lot lot easier because over 00:19:32,400 - 00:19:34,019 the years I've developed a lot of 00:19:34,020 - 00:19:37,049 materials that very specifically give 00:19:37,050 - 00:19:38,658 you the exact words you need 00:19:38,659 - 00:19:40,608 to reframe these issues in all sorts of 00:19:40,609 - 00:19:42,528 contexts I have videos you can share 00:19:42,529 - 00:19:43,878 with people that frame issues the right 00:19:43,879 - 00:19:44,210 way 00:19:44,211 - 00:19:46,428 I have talking points I have stuff for 00:19:46,429 - 00:19:47,658 companies I have stuff for one-on-one 00:19:47,659 - 00:19:50,028 conversations definitely for political 00:19:50,029 - 00:19:52,368 officials we have things and so I just I 00:19:52,369 - 00:19:54,048 want to empower everyone as much as 00:19:54,049 - 00:19:57,138 possible and all I need from you is just 00:19:57,139 - 00:19:58,939 to get in touch and to give me your 00:19:58,940 - 00:20:01,158 email address now you got cards in your 00:20:01,159 - 00:20:02,748 goodie bag which you probably haven't 00:20:02,749 - 00:20:05,089 carried with you so you have kind of two 00:20:05,090 - 00:20:07,278 options easiest option if you have a 00:20:07,279 - 00:20:09,199 smart phone I won't find it rude just 00:20:09,200 - 00:20:11,959 email me at Alex at Alex Epstein comm 00:20:11,960 - 00:20:14,658 Alex at Alex F CENTCOM and put Heartland 00:20:14,659 - 00:20:16,579 in the subject and anyone viewing online 00:20:16,580 - 00:20:18,978 same deal so just Alex Alex epsilon comm 00:20:18,979 - 00:20:21,768 Heartland and then we can send you all 00:20:21,769 - 00:20:24,288 the resources tomorrow otherwise you can 00:20:24,289 - 00:20:27,168 send your fill out your card so that I 00:20:27,169 - 00:20:29,628 think can just in my experience just we 00:20:29,629 - 00:20:31,158 have the benefit of the Internet where 00:20:31,159 - 00:20:33,168 we can where we can store information we 00:20:33,169 - 00:20:34,638 can share with everyone and so we have 00:20:34,639 - 00:20:37,069 all these resources there in many cases 00:20:37,070 - 00:20:38,238 just sitting there so I would like you 00:20:38,239 - 00:20:40,449 to use them and get a lot of really good 00:20:40,450 - 00:20:43,788 results one favor since I know we have a 00:20:43,789 - 00:20:47,508 really influential audience here is in 00:20:47,509 - 00:20:50,079 terms of my own mission which is really 00:20:50,080 - 00:20:52,459 advancing human flourishing via 00:20:52,460 - 00:20:55,728 industrial progress is and really 00:20:55,729 - 00:20:58,098 helping people frame these discussions 00:20:58,099 - 00:20:59,988 better is if you can think of any 00:20:59,989 - 00:21:01,758 audiences like you who would be 00:21:01,759 - 00:21:03,829 interested in this message if in your 00:21:03,830 - 00:21:05,778 email you could write them particularly 00:21:05,779 - 00:21:07,878 if there are any influential high-level 00:21:07,879 - 00:21:09,168 audiences that you think I should speak 00:21:09,169 - 00:21:10,728 to if you can just if you're willing to 00:21:10,729 - 00:21:12,108 recommend me to them or it's your own 00:21:12,109 - 00:21:13,939 company or own organization if you just 00:21:13,940 - 00:21:15,829 put that name there that would be super 00:21:15,830 - 00:21:17,868 valuable and that'll help me take this 00:21:17,869 - 00:21:20,058 message and all of those resources to 00:21:20,059 - 00:21:22,158 other people so big takeaway today is 00:21:22,159 - 00:21:24,138 the number one thing we need to do is 00:21:24,139 - 00:21:26,658 reframe the conversation based on a 00:21:26,659 - 00:21:28,878 human flourishing framework and easiest 00:21:28,879 - 00:21:30,558 way to get started email me at Alex 00:21:30,559 - 00:21:32,478 italics epsilon comm Heartland in the 00:21:32,479 - 00:21:34,308 subject and I look forward to hearing 00:21:34,309 - 00:21:36,348 all of your success stories thank you 00:21:36,349 - 00:21:37,518 for having me and thanks for everything 00:21:37,519 - 00:21:38,988 Heartland has done to create an amazing 00:21:38,989 - 00:21:45,859 community 00:21:45,860 - 00:21:47,920 you
  7. I will put the whole list of unremarkables and red-zoned claims/statements, perhaps regrouping them, and adding links where appropriate. I have been hungering for some kind of discussion with OLers on climatology's raging discourse. This may be the opening, a list of contentious contentions, and notes on same. Sharpen the dialogue, deepen the inquiry, get over the hurdles of shared knowledge. To the curb with unwarranted assumptions, as we dig. I do believe reasoned and reasonable inquiry can give us great tubers and fruits of reliable knowledge ... +++++++++++++++++++++++++++= Here's a helpful bit of exposition from a summary article at Wikipedia. This gives a little further edge to unremarkable science, but perhaps sharpens our focus on just what it is that Dennis May considers fraudulencing and hoaxeronony: [T]he primary cause of ozone depletion is the presence of chlorine-containing source gases (primarily CFCs and related halocarbons). In the presence of UV light, these gases dissociate, releasing chlorine atoms, which then go on to catalyze ozone destruction. The Cl-catalyzed ozone depletion can take place in the gas phase, but it is dramatically enhanced in the presence of polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs). In the rest of this comment, Emphases added. Bold for claims by Dennis May. Bold blue for unremarkable scientific findings. Red bold for iffy-ish statements IDed by Dennis's sniffs, clues from earlier statements on OL and Atlantis II, What we think we may know so far ... Ozone is a type of oxygen, three oxygen molecules bound together. Where Ozone comes from, where it lives, how it dies, where and how it travels in its life-cycle, this is generally understood. Today, in 2012, there just aren't any large Ozone mysteries Ozone is, like oxygen itself, a powerful, changeable, 'sticky'/repulsive, catalytic chemical under certain circumstances. Ozone is most heavily concentrated in a band of Earth's uppermost atmosphere (the stratosphere); Ozone concentrations can be measured. The heaviest concentration in the vertical column we call our atmosphere is in the so-called Ozone layer.' Ozone concentrations are not regionally diffuse; some areas of earth have stronger on average, some weaker. Ozone is most heavily "produced" in lower latitudes (the 'tropics' or equatorial latitudes) because of how most Ozone is produced -- photolysis. Ozone is made when solar radiation 'splits' a common atmospheric Oxygen molecule (two coupled O atoms). Ozone results when a 'single' O atom meets a twinned/couple Oxygen molecule. Solar radiation can also 'split' Ozone. Ozone effectively acts as a 'sun-screen' for Solar Radiation in several frequency bands, especially Ultraviolet B. Ozone 'absorbs' the energy of the Ultraviolet B, allowing less UV-b to strike living organisms on the earth's surface. Ozone concentrations in the stratsophere over the poles have marked seasonal variations. Stratospheric ozone levels will be changeable, from day to day, from season to seaon, and varying by latitude. The Ozone 'band' or layer can have differing 'thickness' as well as 'saturation.' Heavy Ozone layers can usually be found at the highest latitudes (ie, Canada, Siberia). There are essentially no remaining robust disagreements about the atmospheric chemistry of Ozone; how it is produced and how it is depleted is well-understood. adduce some evidence showing robust disagreements about the atmospheric chemistry of Ozone, how it is produced and how it is depleted Current review of Atmospheric Science in re Ozone depletion Outlier arguments in re Ozone depletion: published; online rants; online corrections;crazy arguments; Ozone depletion can refer to two things. It can refer to: an observed decline (4%/decade) in the total volume in the Earth's upper atmosphere (stratosphere) a much larger 'springtime' decline of levels of ozone in the polar stratosphere. The seasonal 'springtime' decline over the Arctic and Antarctic is commonly referred to as the "Ozone Hole." This Ozone 'hole' (area of strong, persistent, seasonal depletion) depletion is characterized by 'destruction' of Ozone by the catalysis of Halogens. find some evidence against the discovery of 'destruction' of Ozone by the catalysis of Halogens. This is mainstream science. Two or three cites. Such as ... [*]Atmospheric halogens contain a marked proportion of 'atomic' halogens find research findings or observations that supplant the accepted measurements, that atmospheric halogens contain a marked proportion of 'atomic' halogens. Find 'measures' and 'definitions' of atmospheric halogens; contrast with proportions of 'atomic' halogens. Do they jibe? If yes, scour the literature for some differences regarding proportions/measurement If cannot find ... [*]Atomic halogens are derived from "Photodissociation" of human-made 'halocarbon' refrigerants. Evidence against the scientific finding that atmospheric Atomic halogens are derived from "Photodissociation" of human-made 'halocarbon' refrigerants. Again, this is atmospheric chemistry, a measurement and an observation. The claim is that human-manufactured refrigerents enter the atmosphere and leave catalytic derivatives (atomic halogens) that act to 'crack' Ozone. Two things must be disproved to disprove the conclusions of 23. I must find the studies and experiments that disprove the chemistry observed and predicted by photodissociation; the catalytic agents traceable directly to human production; those same catalytic agents' ability to crack Ozone via atmospheric chemical reactions in the PSCs (polar stratospheric clouds) [*]Halocarbons (human-made, refrigerents such as Freon, CFSs, Halons) have been determined -- through multiple, mutually-reinforcing scientific observation and experiment) to be 'Ozone-depleting substances' (ODS). multiple instances in which the halocarbons (Freon, CFSs, Halons) have been determined to have no role to play in the atmospheric chemistry of Ozone, and thus show evidence that the halocarbons should not be seen as Ozone-depleting substances (ODS). This will be difficult to knock over. Four or five cites from observation and experiment on the chemistry of halocarbons as ODSs. If there are no experimental evidence to be found to subvert the findings ... [*]Ozone layers or Ozone bands, or Ozone directly contributed to 'protection' of living things from excess, harmful UVB wavelengths of light. [*]The 'Monteal Protocol' is an international protocol that effectively banned ODS production (or banned their introduction into the atmosphere by propellants) world-wide. [*]The so-called Ozone Hole (properly holes, more properly, areas of Ozone Depletion) is a cause for concern, IF a demonstrated connection between ODS and declining Ozone concentrations worldwide can be demonstrated. If Ozone Holes do expose the surface of the earth (and its living biota) to increased amounts of UVB -- AND -- if a causal connection can be demonstrated between ODS and Ozone depletion in the stratosphere, sone certainly would argue that such increased harmful radiation is a cause for concern -- especially if the connection dials back to human-produced catalytic substances. This is perhaps the only one worth arguing about on list, on the main rink: first we have to look at current and recent (decadal) measurements and agree upon their utility. IF the survey says that the declines have paused, peaked or begun to reverse, let's speculate on why, according to standard atmospheric chemistry ... If the one went up, the chemistry is correct, the samples bear out the theory, then the time-lapse of Ozone depletion should make sense in the theory, and not in the counter-theory (which has not been advance anyhow) [*]In much of the world of climatology and atmospheric chemistry, etcetera, there is no particular scientific disarray or confusion in regard to the Ozone Hole(s). show something from the atmospherics and climatological literature that features clashes, disagreements, disarray and confusion with regard to Ozone holes. The fact is there isn't much confusion in re Ozone holes to be found. Where are the papers that would have pinpointed fraud or misrepresentation in a way that corresponds to Dennis's charge. If the mechanics are generally agreed upon, and the seasonal variations are fairly well understood, and if the mechanics of ozone-depletion are straight, then the final connection is the mechanics of ozone depletion, which is not much in discussion today, in the science. [*]Some overlapping concerns have been publicized that more fully engage ODS (especially CFCs) in the major concerns of present-day climatology: Anthropogenic Global Warming; some of the ODS have been rightly characterized as 'greenhouse gases' in their own right. notes overlapping concerns with CFCs in climatology. I have no idea what is wrong with that observation. That CFCs are part of what are called 'greenhouse gases' is hardly counterfactual. If Dennis can find otherwise, supercalifragilistic. Likewise a convenient detour into another discussion. Ellen has once or twice taken issue with this kind of 'GHG' uneasy-analogy manner of understanding AGW. [*]Some 'critics' have charged Hoax and Fraud with regard to Ozone Depletion. [*]It is up to the 'critic' charging Fraudulization and Hoaxering to provide evidence and warrants for such a charge makes me sigh for him, his wife, the local feedlot staff, and for the future of armchair de-hoaxerology. This one he will never answer to, sigh sigh sigh. Source: The Junk Science of Climate Change
  8. The IPPC GCMs (Global Climate Models) are based on a scientific error committed back in 1906. Here is the abstract of an article that explains why the so called "Greenhouse Effect" has no thermodynamic basis: This article explores the "Greenhouse Effect" in contemporary literature and in the frame of physics,finding a conspicuous lack of clear thermodynamic definition. The "Greenhouse Effect" is defined byArrhenius' (1896) modification of Pouillet's backradiation idea so that instead of being anexplanation of how a thermal gradient is maintained at thermal equilibrium, Arrhenius' incarnationof the backradiation hypothesis offered an extra source of power in addition to the thermallyconducted heat which produces the thermal gradient in the material. The general idea as expressedin contemporary literature, though seemingly chaotic in its diversity of emphasis, shows littlechange since its revision by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, and subsequent refutation by Robert Wood in1909. The "Greenhouse Effect" is presented as a radiation trap whereby changes in atmosphericcomposition resulting in increased absorption lead to increased surface temperatures. However,since the composition of a body, isolated from thermal contact by a vacuum, cannot affect meanbody temperature, the "Greenhouse Effect" has, in fact, no material foundation. Compositionalvariation can change the distribution of heat within a body in accordance with Fourier's Law, but itcannot change the overall temperature of the body. Arrhenius' Backradiation mechanism did, infact, duplicate the radiative heat transfer component by adding this component to the conductiveheat flow between the earth's surface and the atmosphere, when thermal conduction includes bothcontact and radiative modes of heat transfer between bodies in thermal contact. Moreover, thetemperature of the earth's surface and the temperature in a greenhouse are adequately explainedby elementary physics. Consequently, the dubious explanation presented by the "Greenhouse Effect"hypothesis is an unnecessary complication. Furthermore, this hypothesis has neither directexperimental confirmation nor direct empirical evidence of a material nature. Thus the notion of"Anthropogenic Global Warming", which rests on the "Greenhouse Effect", also has no realfoundation. For the entire article see: Some math is necessary to fully grasp the nature of the error. But the analogy between the CO2 absorbtion of long wave IR light in a certain frequency range the warming of a glass house (or your car parked in the sun) is analyzed. In effect a causeless heat source is implied by the error which violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Make out what you can. I thought the article was rather interesting and it explains why the IPCC doom and gloom prediction never quite come out the way there presumed to. If you recall that t.v. commercial "Where are all the flying cars????"" then I asked "Where is all the ocean flooding??? And why hasn't Earth turned into the Planet Venus????" The above article is based on G. Gehrlich's paper Which has a complete bibliography at the end including journal articles. This paper is clearly of a technical nature and was not intended for those without the mathematical and physics background. The bottom line is that a heat source is being counted twice which is the moral and mathematical of heat from nothing which is a violation of thermodynamic law. Yes, the CO2, water vapor and methane -is- slowing down the radiative dissipation of heat somewhat, so there will be some temperature increase. But the atmospheric convection which is not stopped by the CO2 is moving that heat up to the outer bounds of the atmosphere where it will radiate out into cold space according to the Stephan-Boltzmann law. The rate at which a body of Kelvin temperature T radiates to a cold sink is proportional to T^4, the fourth power of the temperature. So the earth is not going to turn into Venus anytime soon.
  9. Check out the math. I didn't find any mistakes. The analogy between atmospheric temperature dispersion and a solid glass window is flawed. That is the problem. I am not competent to 'check' the mathematics. That is why I wanted to know where Timothy Casey had published this work (besides his website). I wanted to know what impact Casey's article has had in the context of climatology -- where and by whom it was analyzed, supported, argued against. I wanted to know what other competent folks have subsequently written about it, and in which journals ... What I found since I began looking was that no one has published a response to the Casey article. Not even in the climate-skeptic blogosphere. Nowhere. Nothing. A few cryptic comments in three places (SkepticalScience among them). In other words, Casey has not had his article subject to peer review or the sturm und drang of scientific attention subsequent to publication. It has exactly zero citations in the scientific literature, as far as I can tell. Casey's article has had zero impact on substantive debate and discussion. Does that mean it is completely crank physics? Of course not. But I am suspicious of the work of someone who sits out the actual hard game played in the big leagues. Even if every dang thing is the article is true, warranted, well-supported, Casey has evaded the attention of scientific process ... To my layperson mind, Casey's supreme refutation of the 'greenhouse effect' exists in a bubble. Since he hasn't published, his work moulders in a drawer (I have written to him asking him a couple of questions about publication -- trying to gauge his attitude toward publishing in peer-reviewed journals, to see if he submitted and was rejected. I haven't yet received a reply). What would you suggest Casey do to contribute to the dis-assembly of the IPCC consensus? What could he do to make a bigger 'splash' in the world of climatology and related fields? To my eyes -- given what I know right now -- Casey's does not assess a value in submitting his article to a scientific journal (though he had earlier in his career published at least three co-written peer-reviewed articles in his sub-speciality in geology, of which he sports a BSc with honours). See the bibliography in the G. Gehrlich paper which I have edited into my original posting. It is extensive. It includes treatises and journal articles.... Perhaps you misunderstand my questions -- or the direction I am looking at. Sure enough Casey cites Gehrlich's article(s) (which appeared in two versions, 2007/2009). Casey's full 'bibliography' in footnote below. And certainly Gehrlich and co-author published their own references for the two versions (abstracts below). What I wanted to read and review were subsequent articles (in journals or not) which discussed the Casey article. You know, what did other competent folks think about it, its strengths, weaknesses, possible errors ... as became apparent, Casey's article is essentially locked in a cupboard (in a similar but not exact sense that Petr Beckmann's work was self-published in several 'in-house' organs under his complete control). Sure, normal, expected, as things should be -- critical attention and attempts to refute papers and conjectures are essential components of scientific blood, so to speak, without which the enterprise stalls. I shall do some more days' digging, and see what were the attempts to repudiate the Gehrlich paper(s) -- and then post them here with commentary. Wegman was the statistician who presented the Wegman report (and a subsequently retracted journal article). You are thinking of Alfred Wegener. To call Wegerner a mere meterologist (weatherman) is to simplify beyond reason -- it forgets his training in physics and astronomy and makes him sound like he could be mistaken for a crank like Beckmann. I quote from the excellent Wikipedia article linked in the last sentence: His brother Kurt remarked that Alfred Wegener’s motivation was to “reestablish the connection between geophysics on the one hand and geography and geology on the other, which had become completely ruptured because of the specialized development of these branches of science.” Now, one of my central interests is in bias, psychological concepts and findings that help explain bias, motivated reasoning, and other cognitive obstructions to rational thinking. I strive to examine my own biases and correct for them. Here is another question for you, Bob. If you have read and digested the Gehrlich papers, and followed the subsequent 'contentiousness,' do you have any extant doubts about the 'falsification'? To winnow that further, which rebuttals or criticisms of the papers would you consider worthy of attention (even if they haven't altered your position on the 'greenhouse effect)? Can you direct us to cogent criticism of the papers? Gehrlich's "Falsification" papers ... arXiv:0707.1161v1 [2007) Abstract The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861 and Arrhenius 1896 and is still supported in global climatology essentially describes a fictitious mechanism in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, © the frequently mentioned difference of 33 ?C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified. arXiv:0707.1161v4 (2009) Abstract: The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics, such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature, it is taken for granted that such a mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper, the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, © the frequently mentioned difference of 33° is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified. ____________________ ** (Casey's 'bibliography')
  10. I paste in a fairly instructive extract from Weart's online version of his book. This section was one of the most rewarding for me to study, as I understood the limits, purpose and process and necessity of making up 'models' ... The simple models ... The Discovery of Global Warming February 2016 Simple Models of Climate Change What determines the climate? Explanations proliferated — models for climate built out of little more than basic physics, a few equations aided by hand-waving. All began with a traditional picture of a stable system, self-regulated by natural feedbacks. A few nineteenth-century scientists suggested that a change in the level of carbon dioxide gas might cause an ice age or global warming, but most scientists thought the gas could not possibly have such effects. Yet climate did change, as proven by past ice ages. Some pointed out that feedbacks did not necessarily bring stability: in particular, changes in snow cover might amplify rather than dampen a climate shift. In the 1950s, an ingenious (although faulty) model involving changes in the Arctic Ocean suggested a disturbing possibility of arbitrary shifts. Experiments with fluids made that more plausible. Apparently the interlinked system of atmosphere, ice sheets, and oceans could swing in regular cycles or even in random jerks. Worse, around 1970 highly simplified computer models raised the specter of a catastrophic climate runaway. In the 1980s, the center of research shifted to large and complex computer models. These did not show a runaway, but reinforced what many simpler models had been suggesting: the next century would probably see significant greenhouse warming. Meanwhile the simple models remained useful for exploring questions that the large models could not handle efficiently. ( Basic general greenhouse effect ideas and observations are covered in the core essay on The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect. Technical calculations on how radiation and heat move through levels of the atmosphere are described in a supplementary essay on Basic Radiation Calculations. For the large-scale computer work, see the essay onGeneral Circulation Models of the Atmosphere.) Subsections: Basic Ideas, Right and Wrong - Elementary Physics (19th Century) - Arrhenius: Carbon Dioxide as Control Knob - Chamberlin and the Carbon System - A Fundamentally Stable System? - Many Sorts of Models (1900-1930s) - Dishpan Experiments - Ewing and Donn's Unstable Climate - Feedback Catastrophes? (1960s) - Budyko and Sellers - Other Planets: Venus, Mars, Ice-Age Earth (1970s) - The Persistence of Simple Models (1980s) - Simple Models vs. Skeptics (1990s-2000s) - A Tool with Many Uses "This is a difficult subject: by long tradition the happy hunting ground for robust speculation, it suffers much because so few can separate fact from fancy." — G.S. Callendar(1) SA -- in a simple sense, there is a well-supported model of the so-called greenhouse effect, to my mind. That might even fit under the rubric "settled science," but I don't use that term much. Sort of not on topic is the set of temperature records set this past year. Do you accept as reasonably accurate the products of such as NASA and the other official investigators? Maybe more fruitful than getting bogged down in the wrongness of all models, or the defects of unnamed models, would be figuring out what knowledge we both agree is reasonably reliable. So, I am going to take a chance and figure that we won't have too much to argue about on a few basics: the CO2 greenhouse effect and the actual rise in global temperature.
  11. Bob, you will probably enjoy this article from ... This is of course not only questions the increasing human-caused greenhouse effect, but in general our understanding of temperatures on all planets, which goes back to Joseph Fourier, who in 1824 was the first to understand the importance of the greenhouse effect. The atmosphere acts like a blanket which inhibits heat loss. In fact according to Roberts’ logic, a blanket could also not have a warming effect: The answer is simple. The warm body loses heat to the cold air. The blanket inhibits and slows this heat loss. Therefore you stay warmer under a blanket. The Earth loses heat to the cold universe. The atmosphere inhibits this heat loss. Therefore, the surface remains warmer than it would be without the atmosphere. It is true that the surface loses heat to the atmosphere – but less than it would otherwise lose directly to space. Just as I lose less heat to the blanket than I would otherwise lose to the air, without blanket. Of course, in neither case is the second law of thermodynamics violated. The heat always flows from warm to cold – just more or less effectively. The processes of heat transfer are quite different – for the blanket it is mainly heat conduction, for the greenhouse effect it is thermal radiation. The climate deniers claim that the colder atmosphere cannot radiate thermal radiation towards the warmer surface. This is of course nonsense. The cool Earth also sends thermal radiation towards the hot sun – how would thermal radiation leaving Earth know how warm the surface is that it’s going to hit? It’s just that the sun sends more radiation back to us – the netflow is from hot to cold. More is not implied by the second law of thermodynamics. Thanks to two Germans (Gerlich and Tscheuschner of the TU Braunscheig – deeply embarrassing for this university), the absurd claim that the greenhouse effect violates the second law of thermodynamics even made it into an obscure physics journal – obviously there was no peer review to speak of. The bizarre article was promptly demolished by some US physicists. Just recently I read the claim again in an article of coal lobbyist Lars Schernikau – with such fairy-tale beliefs of its representatives, one is not surprised by the decline of the coal industry. The thermal radiation from the atmosphere toward the ground, which allegedly cannot exist, is of course routinely measured, including its increase (see e.g. Philipona et al. 2004, 2012). And you can even feel it. Those who sometimes sit outside in the garden after dark know this. Under a dense, low cloud layer you do not nearly get cold as fast as on a clear starry night. This is due to the thermal radiation coming from the clouds. They are colder than our body, but warmer than the night sky in clear air. Roberts said: “Like Socrates, I love asking questions to get to the truth.” Perhaps he will ponder my answer next time he sits in his garden at night, or slips under a blanket. [...] -- more fun on the subject of the Australian climate-expert/Senator at Hotwhopper. Figure 1 | Global mean surface temperature anomaly for the 12 months to September each year. The base period is 1951-1980. Data source: GISS NASA
  12. I did some research recently, and I decided to take a look at the recent IPCC report itself. I think that the AR5 report for policy makers summarizes the consensus of the whole field and does a great job of stating and supporting the AGW claims. (The full report is even better, but it's over 1500 pages long and the file size is huge). Basically, according to Hartmann (and the scientific community), the climate works like this: The Earth receives energy from the sun in the form of radiation. The Earth also emits blackbody radiation out into space, and thereby loses energy. Because of the law of conservation of energy, the amount of energy dumped into the climate system must balance the amount that leaves and stays in it. Since greenhouse gases, such as CO2 and H2O have absorption spectra in the infrared range, they let radiation from the sun reach the Earth's surface. However, since the Earth radiates blackbody radiation in the form of infrared waves, these gases absorb that radiation, and its energy remains trapped in the atmosphere. This energy heats the atmosphere and the Earth's surface. Thus, if the atmosphere wasn't there, the Earth's surface would be much cooler than it is. Now, any increase in the concentration of a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, makes the climate system absorb more infrared radiation, thus making it heat up overall. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and humans have increased its concentration from 278 ppm in the pre-industrial era, to 391 ppm in 2011 (an increase of about 40%), primarily through the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land-use such as deforestation. Thus, from what we know of physics, it is physically impossible that human activity could not have contributed directly to the increase in average global temperatures. Furthermore, this temperature increase has important effects on other aspects of the climate system. An increase in average global temperatures results in more boiling of the Oceans, thereby increasing the concentration of H2O (the most important greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere, trapping even more infrared radiation. An increase in the amount of CO2 also means that the oceans absorb more CO2 from the atmosphere, and thereby heat up as well. This has a number of important effects for weather phenomena. Furthermore, an increase in the amount of CO2 in the ocean also increases its acidity levels, which affects its ecology. Higher temperatures also contribute to increased melting of the polar ice caps. This melt results not only in an increase in sea levels, but also exacerbates the greenhouse effect since less radiation from the sun is reflected back into space by polar ice. Cumulatively, these processes explain all of the recent climatic trends. Current climate models fit historical data, and have only increased in their accuracy over time. They also make a number of predictions up to 2100 under several possible scenarios with regard to CO2 and other gas emissions. According to the AR5, the official consensus of climate scientists is that: Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased (see Figures SPM.1, SPM.2, SPM.3 and SPM.4). {2.2, 2.4, 3.2, 3.7, 4.2–4.7, 5.2, 5.3, 5.5–5.6, 6.2, 13.2}Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850 (see Figure SPM.1). In the Northern Hemisphere, 1983–2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years (medium confidence). {2.4, 5.3}Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence). It is virtually certain that the upper ocean (0−700 m) warmed from 1971 to 2010 (see Figure SPM.3), and it likely warmed between the 1870s and 1971. {3.2, Box 3.1}Over the last two decades, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been losing mass, glaciers have continued to shrink almost worldwide, and Arctic sea ice and Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover have continued to decrease in extent (high confidence) (see Figure SPM.3). {4.2–4.7}The rate of sea level rise since the mid-19th century has been larger than the mean rate during the previous two millennia (high confidence). Over the period 1901 to 2010, global mean sea level rose by 0.19 [0.17 to 0.21] m (see Figure SPM.3). {3.7, 5.6, 13.2}The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Carbon dioxide concentrations have increased by 40% since pre-industrial times, primarily from fossil fuel emissions and secondarily from net land use change emissions. The ocean has absorbed about 30% of the emitted anthropogenic carbon dioxide, causing ocean acidification (see Figure SPM.4). {2.2, 3.8, 5.2, 6.2, 6.3}Total radiative forcing is positive, and has led to an uptake of energy by the climate system. The largest contribution to total radiative forcing is caused by the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 since 1750 (see Figure SPM.5). {3.2, Box 3.1, 8.3, 8.5}Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and understanding of the climate system. {2–14}Climate models have improved since the AR4. Models reproduce observed continentalscale surface temperature patterns and trends over many decades, including the more rapid warming since the mid-20th century and the cooling immediately following large volcanic eruptions (very high confidence). {9.4, 9.6, 9.8}Observational and model studies of temperature change, climate feedbacks and changes in the Earth’s energy budget together provide confidence in the magnitude of global warming in response to past and future forcing. {Box 12.2, Box 13.1}Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes (see Figure SPM.6 and Table SPM.1). This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {10.3–10.6, 10.9}Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system. Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. {6, 11–14}Global surface temperature change for the end of the 21st century is likely to exceed 1.5°C relative to 1850 to 1900 for all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6. It is likely to exceed 2°C for RCP6.0 and RCP8.5, and more likely than not to exceed 2°C for RCP4.5. Warming will continue beyond 2100 under all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6. Warming will continue to exhibit interannual-to-decadal variability and will not be regionally uniform (see Figures SPM.7 and SPM.8). {11.3, 12.3, 12.4, 14.8}Changes in the global water cycle in response to the warming over the 21st century will not be uniform. The contrast in precipitation between wet and dry regions and between wet and dry seasons will increase, although there may be regional exceptions (see Figure SPM.8). {12.4, 14.3}The global ocean will continue to warm during the 21st century. Heat will penetrate from the surface to the deep ocean and affect ocean circulation. {11.3, 12.4}It is very likely that the Arctic sea ice cover will continue to shrink and thin and that Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover will decrease during the 21st century as global mean surface temperature rises. Global glacier volume will further decrease. {12.4, 13.4}Global mean sea level will continue to rise during the 21st century (see Figure SPM.9). Under all RCP scenarios, the rate of sea level rise will very likely exceed that observed during 1971 to 2010 due to increased ocean warming and increased loss of mass from glaciers and ice sheets. {13.3–13.5}Climate change will affect carbon cycle processes in a way that will exacerbate the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere (high confidence). Further uptake of carbon by the ocean will increase ocean acidification. {6.4}Cumulative emissions of CO2 largely determine global mean surface warming by the late 21st century and beyond (see Figure SPM.10). Most aspects of climate change will persist for many centuries even if emissions of CO2 are stopped. This represents a substantial multi-century climate change commitment created by past, present and future emissions of CO2. {12.5}The supporting facts and figures can be found within the AR5 for policy makers as well as the full AR5 report linked above. EDIT: I hope this also answers your questions in post #257
  13. More Pierrehumbert, with a brief explanation of the Greenhouse-CO2 effect (the Tyndall Gases Effect):
  14. All maps are wrong, all models are wrong, all scenarios are not equally-plausible. "This might interest folks following climate discussions ... who are somewhat skeptical of the Scott Adams take:" Or not. We aren't all big readers, especially of unknown bloggers like Victor Venema. There are models and models, one could say. There could be 'settled science' and 'contested science' about any particular aspect of what Brant calls Anthropogenic Global Warming. There are so-called attribution studies, allied with the finicky business of estimating 'climate sensitivity' to increased concentrations of CO2. There are "model runs" of the giant climate models (call them computer climate models?). Forcing is another term in models of the atmosphere more particularly concerned with the physics of the so-called Greenhouse Effect. GHE. Thinking of components of a physical model -- be it metaphoric or mathematical -- can help a person figure out which bits are 'settled' enough in his or her mind to call an item -- say the GHE -- more or less well understood, more or less solid, more or less fully understood in terms of physics atmospheric processes. Brant**, it can help to disassemble the package deal. Climate change is a truism when no time-span is specified. The last time there was a different climate in Tucson, for example, there was no Tucson. Climate change is the larger concept, as climate is not simply temperature. -- I recommend, as ever, Spencer Weart's book and website The Discovery of Global Warming. For those wondering especially about the stages of discovery of the atmospheric properties of CO2, it's a good resource and will bring you up to speed on how some people came to be convinced the GHE is quite real. You can come up to speed on the entailments of GHE and the simplest predictions of the modern era. You can become familiar with the 'building blocks' of a present day understanding of the effect of CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere. For models, it is important to define what kind of models (or which model failures) you have in mind. Here's a bit of the Variable Variability material I linked to in the clickable image above. Arrhenius! Physics! Scott Adams! ______________________ ** Brant and I have trod the same ground already: Recursion!
  15. This is a bit confusing, Bob. At an earlier point in discussion you cited Gerlich et al and told us that there was no such thing as a 'greenhouse effect' as generally understood. At the same time, you wrote "The CO2 in the atmosphere does inhibit the radiation of infrared wavelength in the sense that it slow down the rate at which such energy is radiated back into space. " In another line of discussion, you wrote, "Back radiation is at odds with thermodynamics." Can you give either a fuller explanation of the basics of conventionally-understood atmospheric heat transfer, or an explanation of 'back radiation' issues as noted in your own statement? What is the reason CO2 in the atmosphere 'inhibits' the radiation of infrared energy (to space), as you understand it? I mean, I think I generally understand the basics of the mechanism of radiative tranfer. Maybe you could help readers grasp not only the (conventional) process -- but also just where the 'back radiation' (or downwelling infrared) is mismeasured or misunderstood. -- in case Bob cares not to explain some of his claims, I can recommend a basic 'radiative transfer' introduction, but I am not sure anyone is interested. To grossly simplify, as I have written before, solar energy is full-spectrum 'light' -- comprising visible light energy and invisible-to-humans radiation on the full spectrum between ultraviolet and infrared. The spectrum of solar energy is not completely blocked by oxygen, nitrogen, or greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The energy hits the surface of the earth, and a portion is radiated upward at a different wavelength. As noted, the radiation back up from the surface has differing profiles to visible light or solar energy as received from the sun. This radiation up from the earth has particular characteristics, among which is 'heat energy' in the infrared band.. In grossly simple terms, that infrared radiation is 'absorbed' and re-emitted by greenhouse gases such as CO2. The radiation is re-emitted by the CO2 downward, sideward, and upward. I think Bob has his eye on the downward radiation as 'back radiation' -- but I could be wrong. Another term for infrared energy being re-emitted toward the earth is 'downwelling' radiation. Here is an illustration that puts the 'downwelling (back) radiation in the context of simplified atmospheric processes. CO2 is a gas in the atmosphere, yes, well-mixed, yes, of long relative duration, yes (it doesn't quickly 'rain out' as with water vapour). It has had a concentration in the atmosphere lurching between upper and lower bounds for 400,000 years. Now, when you write, Brant, that carbon dioxide is "no competition for oxygen and nitrogen" and that carbon dioxide is good climate change public relations and propaganda to ignore the fact, I don't really understand the conclusion. I will take a stab at interpreting. I can reorder the statements to make a different declarative meaning. -- carbon dioxide is a trace gas in the atmosphere. It is measured in parts per million (currently around 400ppm) -- compare the concentration of oxygen and nitrogen to the trace gas. -- now that we aren't ignoring the proportions, how can we best proceed, Brant? By exposing the proportions of a trace gas to other atmospheric components, does this obviate charges that I may be merely uttering 'climate change propaganda'? I think I understand the point, but I might be in error. You may think that to talk about 'greenhouse effect' -- or/and associated 'warming' of the earth from radiative processes of sun-earth-oceans-atmosphere over time -- is not meaningful, because the effects of a tiny thing can only be tiny (relatively). So, to link CO2 to temperature, for example as a thermostatic thing, a control-knob, would not only be simplistic but also deceptive by omission. By not featuring the tiny scale of their atmospheric effect (GHE), results in the sense of conclusions are faulty. Is that the gist of what you mean? Scale is what I think you are insisting on. That's good. To appreciate scale, one has to think like a billion-year old man. You don't think in terms of moments, seconds, minutes, you think in terms of hundreds of millions of years, tens of millions, millions, hundreds of thousands and tens of thousands, and centuries, decades and seasons. So to appreciate CO2 in 'scale' means zooming in and out through orders of magnitude, at the same time as keeping the eye on human history zooming by. Anyway, Brant, it is a good excursion for reason, for the mind, to model 'what if' scenarios, once one grasps historical magnitudes. Is it even possible for an agent on earth (viz Man / Volcano) to 'alter' a climate over scales within and beyond the human adult life-span? If yes, somewhat or it depends, well, who do you trust to assess the relative contributions over the various meaningful scales? That tiny fraction of buoyant carbon dioxide in the air, rising and falling within bounds over billion-year spans, what does that tell us about the coming decades of the 21st century? Is it possible, is it plausible, that an increase in a tiny fraction of atmospheric energy agents can alter the otherwise contingent processes enough to trouble human beings in their present state, at their present extent, at their present distribution? Here's an extract from the last time we had a reasonable discussion of central issues. I found revisiting earlier agreements aids ongoing discussion. I often wish this list was of a size and power and funded strength that we could have an OL convention (as did SOLO, as does TAS, fitfully). I'd give a presentation on climate change. Some intuition tells me that there are a few Objectivish folks on the fence, not fully rejecting all climatology as perfused with corruption, deception, self-delusion and political evil. I'd like to reach a kind of understanding of where the best Objectivish objections are -- by presenting a 'what I believe and why I believe it' kind of overview. My grasp of the schmozzle of issues under the heading Climate Change. I still pay attention to a variety of sites both skeptic and not. I try to keep abreast of current and long-roiling controversies. I try to keep on top of what is a massive set of interests and inquiries. It sometime occurs to me that the apparent overwhelming consensus at OL, one that rejects and disdains fields of inquiry dubbed climatological, is not representative. There can't be a 99.9% consensus. Some variables are hidden. Anyhow, as part of my continuing education, I watch videos of various personalities doing their best to instruct, warn, counsel, explain, discuss fraught questions. This video shared below is not a debate, but a discussion in which the two worthies each come from a skeptical position. It allowed me to understand the strongest objections and the extent to which these prominent skeptics 'accept' components of conventional thinking (ie, radiative forcing, so-called greenhouse effect, CO2's role in temperature). Here I cue the hour-long video at an interesting moment. It speaks to scale, CO2 and the grand epochs of time -- and a chart much like the second one above. Richard Lindzen takes issue with assessing 400,000 year BP CO2 to present, suggesting larger scales of time (before 400k BP) show other higher bounds (to 600ppm) looking further back, and even more high at certain points going back further.
  16. The post on my blog to which Merlin referred offers a number of physics arguments undercutting some of the more common theories offered for substantial to catastrophic warming effects of infra-red active gases on the Earth's surface temperature. Many of those arguments are completely laid out in this post and are hence available for anyone's reasoned evaluation. No one here has yet made such comments. There have been a number of comments that my viewpoint is not a consensus viewpoint, which is indeed the case. Nonetheless, there are many scientists who agree with me on many major criticisms of the UN IPCC viewpoint. Some of those who so agree have made their arguments public and some radiation experts have only been willing to tell me privately that they agree with me. In the end, I leave it to the reader of the referred to post or to another longer post on the basic physics to evaluate my arguments. I do not like the idea of convincing people as an authority despite my using radiation physics daily in my laboratory to characterize materials and to solve problems in the utilization of materials. I tend to use few links, because their use might well just be cherry-picking opinions that suit me. I want my intelligent and diligent readers to use the massive searching power of the internet to check out the issues that they believe should be checked themselves. You should not accept my arguments until you understand them fully. You also should not use the force of government to impose restrictions on the exercise of individual freedom to save the planet from catastrophic man-made global warming when you do not understand the physics that purports to be the basis of that alarm. I put a heavy intellectual burden on those who would prevent the exercise of individual rights with the use of force. I made it very clear that what does not exist is a scientific consensus. One may argue plausibly for a limited political consensus, but not for a scientific consensus. One may say that most scientists believe that CO2 warms the Earth, but you cannot say that most scientists understand the basic physics that causes such a warming and are in agreement about what that physics is. The former case is a political consensus, while the latter is a scientific consensus. Of course, even a scientific consensus can be wrong. As Albert Einstein once said about the book "One Hundred Authors Against Einstein": “Why one hundred? If I were wrong, one would be enough.” I am one of a few at least who provide rational reasons for the fundamental error of the catastrophic man-made global warming hypothesis. In December 2010, I submitted an article to a group putting together a book called Slaying the Sky Dragon. In doing so, I was not endorsing all of the other articles in that book. Indeed, I had not read them and was busy at the time moving my laboratory into a larger and improved facility. Because of my article, when PSI was set up, I was listed as a founding member of PSI, though I really had nothing to do with setting the group up. A few of my blog posts have been re-posted there since it was set up. Some of the people who have posted there have provided me with good information and have helped to expand my knowledge of the complex field of climate science, however, there are also things published there that I do not agree with. If I submit an opinion piece to the Washington Post, am I saddled with endorsing all or most of what the Washington Post publishes? Now there have been cases in which some of the "Dragon Slayers" have been excessively derisive of lukewarmers who I do not think deserved such treatment, but there are also many cases in which some lukewarmers and many alarmists have been very inclined to call those who do not agree with them nasty names. I have always been respectful in my interactions with such people as Judith Curry, Richard Lindzen, and Roy Spencer. However, I have no use for James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt, or Michael Mann. The effect of CO2 is very small. It does very slightly reduce the power emitted through the atmospheric window, which is a warming effect. On the other hand, it slightly increases the absorption of solar insolation in the atmosphere before it can reach the surface, which is a cooling effect. Because the mean free path length for radiation emitted from the surface into the air is very short and it remains very short throughout the lower troposphere, and because the gas molecule collision rate is very high in the lower troposphere, almost all of the radiant energy that either water vapor or CO2 can absorb is converted into kinetic energy in non-radiating nitrogen, oxygen, and argon gases. That energy is transported by convection which is slow. To the degree that a small fraction of the energy in a CO2 or water molecule is emitted as infra-red, that effect transports energy instead at the speed of light over a short distance, which is a cooling effect. Also, adding water vapor or carbon dioxide to rising thermal currents increases the heat they carry upward due to their high heat capacity compared to nitrogen, oxygen, and argon gases. These last two effects are cooling effects. There is a great deal of data documenting the cooling effect of water vapor in these ways. All of these effects are small and not one of them can produce catastrophic results. The sum of the effects are also small and there is some very reasonable question as to whether the sum is very slightly warming or very slightly cooling. I have been leaning more and more toward a very slight cooling effect. One of the mistakes that is very clear is the idea that infra-red active (so-called greenhouse) gases are responsible for about a 33K warming of the surface of the Earth. This is the so-called greenhouse effect and it is nonsense, as the article Merlin referred to shows. The Earth's gravitational field provides about 29K of the temperature difference between the Earth's surface and the effective temperature providing the net radiative power of the Earth into space. The direct solar insolation incident upon and absorbed by the Earth's surface and all other effects only need to provide another 4K of warming. The difference between scaling "greenhouse gas" effects to 33K and to some fraction of 4K is huge. Since there are other minor warming mechanisms, the effect of all infra-red active gases may well be negative or may be close enough to zero that the effect of CO2 may never prove measurable.
  17. consensus as broad agreement -- as a tool of persuasion -- humanistic overreach -- propaganda -- science communication -- alarmism -- catastrophism -- model 'skill' and predictive ability -- greenhouse theory 'refutations' I have not delved very deeply into the issue. I believe it is an extremely complicated one. You wrote that Anderson's posting deserved our consideration, so I wondered what resulted from your consideration -- why you recommended it. I recommend the website version of Spencer Weart's The Discovery of Global Warming because it gives history -- because it goes back in time to foundational work on what we now call the GHE (Greenhouse Effect). On my first go at Anderson's article, I realized that he was denying any but negligible GHE in the Earth's atmosphere. For me that put him in that part of the spectrum called "dragon slayers" -- those who claim to have disproved or refuted or falsified some central physics at issue. (That nomenclature comes from the book "Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory.") I've noted the three 'warm' physicists and three 'lukewarm' physicists at the APS expert workshop, Richard Lindzen, Judith Curry, William Collins, Ben Santer, John Christy and Isaac Held. None of them dispute the 'foundational' GHE. That is not where their disagreements lie. Back to recommending Anderson and his refutation of the GHE. Anderson is one of the authors of the Sky Dragon book, and a founding member of Principia Scientific International. Curry, while just over the edge into skeptic from a lukewarm opinion, is impatient with the dragon slayers of PSI. Here is what she had to say following a guest post "Letter to the dragon slayers." This is just to point out that there is a fringe of ultra-skeptical opinion that does not readily accept a GHE -- and that major climate skeptic sites (starting with Watts Up With That) have set aside the supposed refutations as unsound, invalid, and in some cases ridiculous. Back to persuasion, propaganda, metaphor and agreement. The edge of disagreement is over 'sensitivity' and 'uncertainty' -- I mean where I personally find interesting disputes. The dragon-slaying Death of CO2 Warming Theory gents are on a different plane of understanding and mostly irrelevant to these disputes -- the real disputes as I see them. Some skeptical opinion (who do reject alarmism, IPCC shenanigans, leaky models, unjustified policy recommendations, 'consensus science') describe the Anderson wing of GHE-denying authors as inimical to an anti-AGWAlarmism agenda -- "they give alarmists a tool to bash skeptics"**) I'll try to entice my few physicist/scientist/climatologist online acquaintances to give consideration to the Anderson article. I speak to you as a lukewarmer. Yes, CO2 and CH4 do retard the re-radiation of energy received from the sun. They act somewhat like a blanket. Yeahbut. Anderson says that is all wrong. And he has equations! He says any additional CO2 emissions will cool the earth. "As I discussed in Do IR-Absorbing Gases Warm or Cool the Earth’s Surface? the effect of carbon dioxide and methane is a net cooling effect, not a warming effect." ............................... ** from the Amazon link to the "Skydragon book," from the top and bottom of the most recommended reader review:
  18. I stated my views on the class 'Lukewarmers' (see also here and here** in OL topics) That is roughly my understanding, As usual it takes me five paragraphs to sketch it out: I think your opinions are mostly Lukewarm, but it has been a while since you laid out what/who you believe or trust [..] It essentially means that you understand and accept the effect of the so-called Greenhouse Gases in maintaining a human-friendly climate. That there is a physical mechanism by which the GHGs contribute to making the earth warmer than it would be without them in the atmosphere. Further, I'd say a Lukewarmer has spent some time looking at hundreds of items of research and observation -- including temperature 'reconstructions' of the past. Among that welter of evidence -- especially observations -- a Lukewarmer will conclude that there is a chance or a relative probability that increasing carbon dioxide and other GHGs will have nudged the earth's temperature up, over and above, and visible through so-called 'natural variation.' Finally, my concept of the Lukewarmer includes that he has found some convincing, persuasive, probative or very suggestive 'signals' in observations of the earth and sea and atmosphere -- that the earth is in general warming (relative to pre-industrial levels) more than it would without the increase in atmospheric CO2, etc. So this will usually mean that discussion can be grounded. A warming world is at least tentatively accepted. Then the nitty-gritty arguments over who is zooming who can roost. I see now just where you differ from a generic Lukewarmer. You surely have spent time with research and observation, even if all contaminated thoroughly. You do give a 'chance' calculation of anthropogenic warming, if any warming is detectable by uncorrupted means. But you have no confidence in any 'grounding' as I see it. You don't yet accept (much/any?) evidence of a warming world. From the thread linked above, some terminology/position discussion at Climate Etc, Judith Curry's climate-related blog. – Denier: CO2 does not cause any change in temperature – Skeptic: CO2 has an effect, but sensitivity is somewhere in the range 0-1.2 deg C (i.e. negative or neutral feedback) – Lukewarmer: CO2 has a warming effect and feedback is weakly to moderately positive. Sensitivity is probably within the lower part of the IPCC range. – Warmers: CO2 has a warming effect with moderate to strongly positive feedbacks. Warming likely to be around the mid-point of the IPCC range – Catastrophists: CO2 warming with very strong feedbacks leading to rapid warming in or above the upper portion of the IPCC range. Insert climate deception porn. I don't even "ratify" that there's precisely a "conspiracy" pertaining to climate issues. There are people who are deliberately trying to put something over. There are people who go along for money and/or prestige and/or security in their academic positions. There are scientists who don't know the area but assume that other scientists wouldn't be engaged in deceit. There isn't some organized "conspiracy." I made a mistake, then. I read this as general agreement with the four selected items on "The List" ... [inserted above] What mistake are you saying you made? I read that you 'ratified' the four bolded statements. That you believed all four are true. That your 'ratification' meant you endorsed the conspiracy-tinged fringe who see an international plot that implicates every national science body on earth in deception. Right. Not quite a conspiracy. A plot by corrupt actors, maybe, with an international crew, and deployed almost everywhere -- from the American Physical Society to NASA, from the Chinese national science superstructure to the Dutch? As you generically state, "There are people who are deliberately" deceiving and sowing panic, there are people who 'go along' with that deception and alarmism, and there are scientists who are effectively hoodwinked, shackled, or silenced by their brethren in climatology and beyond, through lures and motives extra-scientific -- prestige, lucre, power. A plot to deceive and panic, then. A major international plot, and a continuing plot. No, endorsing four out of 59 generic statements isn't -- as you note -- diagnostic, especially if the weight given to the 'true' statements falls nearer the neutral middle of the Likert scale. It depends on the weight of agreement. When I answered the online version of the Generic survey as Alex Jones, I gave full weight to those claims I think the Infowars conspiracy crank would endorse. Which in his case was every one. But even he hedged a bit and did not give full weight, and so his 'score' was not 5/5 but a quarter point below. I am guessing that your 'score' would come in below Korben and my 1.2/5. Weather porn! Click to read the lurid details, from the corrupt NOAA ___________________________________ ** A self-labeled Lukewarmer: “I am not a 'denier'. I fully accept that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, the climate has been warming and that man is very likely to be at least partly responsible. […] you can accept all the basic tenets of greenhouse physics and still conclude that the threat of a dangerously large warming is so improbable as to be negligible, while the threat of real harm from climate-mitigation policies is already so high as to be worrying, that the cure is proving far worse than the disease is ever likely to be.” -- a video from four 'corrupt' bodies within the international plan to deceive and alarm. I find it not very alarming at all, but a neat thing to watch thinking about all the kinds of corruption and deception and collusion that went into the making of it.
  19. The Sun is the primary driver of global temperatures. CO2, water vapor and other trace "greenhouse" gases modulate (in some cases) or amplify (in other cases) the Sun's effect on the atmosphere. The other modulator of the Sun's effects are the seas and oceans. Water has a very high heat capacity which means it can absorb a lot of heat with only small temperature increases.
  20. Bob, I think you might enjoy a page of experimental evidence at the Watts Up With That blog (the home of Anthony Watts, where a longstanding skeptical position regarding 'alarmist' claims and bullshit is the reigning paradigm. It is the position of Casey/Gehrlick/Postma -- under the rubric Sky Dragon Slayers -- that the Greenhouse Effect (GHE) does not exist at all. That is the whole point of Gehrlich's article ... I am not understanding if you wholly accept the Gehrlich/Casey/Postma/Dragon-slayers position, as your comments are somewhat ambiguous. Maybe a straight up question can tease out your position: Do you believe that Gehrich et al have falsified the Greenhouse Effect? Anyway, have a look at the WUWT page and see what you think. "New WUWT-TV segment: Slaying the ‘slayers’ with Watts." I am still distilling what I have discovered in the published to-and-fro from the Gehrlich article you (and Casey) cited. I will try to winnow down and summarize what might be a black hole of boredom for some readers! Check out the math. [...] None of this should be taken as disproof that human activity has some effect on climate. There is no doubt that humans have affected climate. The only question is how much and by what mechanisms. Okay, I infer that you leave open the possibility that Casey is a crank or crackpot -- using the same standards by which you dismiss Brant's friend Beckmann as a crank. So, how will you know (how can you know) if Gehrlich's article is also a lot of crankery or not? While you are mulling that over, have a gander at the Postma, Sullivan et al book "Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory." Here's the blurb: Even before publication, Slaying the Sky Dragon was destined to be the benchmark for future generations of climate researchers. This is the world's first and only full volume refutation of the greenhouse gas theory of man-made global warming. Nine leading international experts methodically expose how willful fakery and outright incompetence were hidden within the politicized realm of government climatology. Applying a thoughtful and sympathetic writing style, the authors help even the untrained mind to navigate the maze of atmospheric thermodynamics. Step-by-step the reader is shown why the so-called greenhouse effect cannot possibly exist in nature. By deft statistical analysis the cornerstones of climate equations – incorrectly calculated by an incredible factor of three - are exposed then shattered. This volume is a scientific tour de force and the game-changer for international environmental policymakers as well as being a joy to read for hard-pressed taxpayers everywhere.
  21. Very informative-and, at the base, wishy-washy. At least until I stopped reading maybe 1/2 the way through. He doesn't work off CO2 being beneficient and maybe the more the better. He says it's a "greenhouse gas." True. But that's like saying smoking causes lung cancer even if you only inhale one cigarette once. He does say, if I remember correctly, there's no telling the effect--or he's an agnostic. In common parlance a greenhouse gas causes global warming, but that's not true. I think water vapor is a greenhouse gas, for instance, exponentially more effective and important as a greenhouse gas than CO2. All we can say is that greenhouse gases play a role in temperature stability by damping down its volatility over decades, centuries and even much longer--and we would not/could not exist without them. Then comes the next ice age? This is why the demon of water vapor is hardly ever mentioned but the man-made demon of CO2 is, for, you see, man is the earth's demon so it's a good match. Shape up, man, for the Earth is in the balance. --Brant war on man so men and their families suffer through deprivation of energy and mis-allocation of resources, never mind anyone's intent which may be good or bad--even evil, albeit an unknowing evil (did Hitler think he was evil or the savior of the German people and Germany?)
  22. The defects of Mann's climate studies, in particularly his (in)famous Hockey Stick have been knows for several years. "Have been knows" uses the passive voice and has no subject. Be that as it may, I think the lawsuit's progress is poorly reported by John O'Sullivan. There are a lot of claims made in his article at Principia (which Merlin noted was reproduced elsewhere, though not in mainstream news media). There are a lot of claims made, but some or all may prove not be true. An Objectivist approach ...? Maybe examine the 'sides' ... and maybe examine the herald. It should be remembered that O'Sullivan is the key-holder to Principia, that he is lead author of the book "Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory" ... and that he shares with Sky Dragon co-author Tim Ball (whom Mann is suing) a firm belief that there is no Tydall-gas effect (or "Greenhouse Gas Effect"). In other words, CO2 does not contribute to warming. In other words, the GHE is fake, false. Yeah, that is the tribune, John O'Sullivan. As for O'Sullivan's ability to 'read' the progress of the lawsuit, I am skeptical. He has been wrong before. I wonder why O'Sullivan does not quote from any actual action in BC Supreme Court ... as someone noted in the comments below O'Sullivan's July 4 article: On his Facebook page, Mann has posted a retort from his lawyer categorically denying any duty to produce model data for discovery. Can you substantiate the main premise of this article? Do you have the order from the judge demanding the production of the data from Mann? Interested readers can integrate Mann's lawyer's response to O'Sullivan's earlier storytelling (from February, available at Principia here) with some fresh storytelling from O'Sullivan published two days ago -- alongside Mann's lawyer's most recent response. I also note that Tim Ball is being sued for defamation by another person ... Andrew Weaver, whose Green party holds the balance of power in our provincial legislature ... ****************************** Not on the same topic, but my province is now under a state of emergency due to a spectacular genesis of new wildfires. My second sister and my step-dad sold their property before joining us in our new home in Chilliwack in April. Their former property is in one of the rural evacuation zones and may be destroyed. No deaths reported, but much dislocation and fears of destruction. -- for Peter, who is annoyed by weather porn:
  23. No science is "settled" in the absolute sense. The settled science underlying the climate and weather models is thermodynamics, which has been a substantial and important part of physics since the 1850's when Joule, Kelvin and Claussius figured two laws of thermodynamics. 1. energy is conserved and 2. heat engines have to operate between a high temperature and a low temperature. The is no way of converting all the heat energy from a hot source completely into work. Some of the heat must be dumped into a low temperature sink. This is the second law of thermodynamics. Later in in the 19 th century Boltzmann and Stephan figured out that all hot bodies must radiate out their energy until thermal equilibrium with the surrounding are reached. In short no heated body can become infinitely hot. Also late in the 19 th century Tyndal and Arheneous found that CO2 (the gas) can slow down the radiation of energy in the infra-red frequencies. The little CO2 we have in our atmosphere (currently 390 ppm) along with methane and water vapor keeps the earth at about 288 K roughly. Without the greenhouse gases the earth would be in a permanent ice age barely above freezing at the equator. So the chilly evening blanket formed by the greenhouse gases keeps the earth about 33 deg Celsius warmer than we would be without them. Human life would be impossible w.o. the greenhouse gases we have in our atmosphere. On a chilly Fall or Winter evening one uses a blanket or quilt. This slows down the rate at which our hot bodies (310 K) loose heat while we sleep. The CO2, methane and water vapor in our atmosphere do the same. (Note: the freezing temperature of water at one atmosphere pressure is 273.15 K) See
  24. We have no clear idea to what extent human CO2 loading of the atmosphere has contributed to the current warm spell. The eco-crazies are telling us The Day of Judgement is at hand and we are on the verge of a runaway greenhouse effect (like the planet Venus). The more sophisticated of the AGW crew do not say outright such things. The hint at it. Carl Sagan and Neil DeGrasse Tyson have done this to some extent. They refer to the anthropocene era, the era of manmade warming. They only hint at runaway greenhouse effect but they don't say it outright. When the late Carl Sagan was alive and broadcasting his version of Cosmos (N. DeGrasse Tyson has his own reboot of Cosmos) Carl would talk about the pale blue dot (that is to say Earth) and say very gloomy things about Venus. He hinted at a fatal outcome billyuns and billyuns of times. We were told how AGW would bring on more and worse hurricanes and they trumpeted Hurricane Katrina as the result of AGW. In fact hurricane activity since Katrina has been relatively mild compared to the historical record. Here is the interesting thing. If humans switched over to non CO2 technology to produce electrical power and we did away with ICE transportation modes it would take 50 to 100 years to bring the CO2 level down to the 1950 level. Why? Because in the 70 years since a lot of deforesting has happened particularly in Brazil and China. The Boys from Brazil are busy hacking away at the Amazon Rain Forest and China has follow policies that have turned thousands of square miles of agricultural and forest land into desert. So the CO2 went up and the trees came down. Even so the alarmists and eco-crazies tell us that as soon as we generate electricity with solar and wind power and as soon as ICE cars and trucks are replaced by electric vehicles the world will be a lovely place. Meanwhile the eco-crazies oppose nuclear fission generation of electricity which produces not a molecule of CO2 and which can generate electricity at night and when the wind does not blow.
  25. Yet another good source of climate data. Have a look at this blog site; The basic Url is The paper he posted on the "greenhouse" effect mirrors my view. It is a bad misleading metaphor when applied to earth climate and atmosphere. The reason why a greenhouse gets hot and stays hot (while the sun shines in) is that the glass prevents convection. If the air could rise freely the greenhouse would not be so hot. Here is an experiment you can do yourself. Park you car so that the sun shines in. Close all the windows. In a short time the car will become very hot. How open the windows. It cools off fast, but the sun is still shining in. Why did the car cool down, even in the sun? Answer: Convection. The IPCC climate models treat the earths atmosphere, at low levels, as a glass enclosure. Bzzzzzt. Wrong! The CO2 in the atmosphere does NOT prevent convection so that both wet and dry adiabatic lapse can occur and the earths atmosphere will eventually radiate its heat out into cold dark space. The CO2 in the atmosphere can slow down the radiation exchange but it can not stop it. So if more and more CO2 is put in the atmosphere the temperature will rise a bit. No more than a 0.1 degree Celsius a decade. Can such a temperature rise trigger off a not so pleasant climate change. Yes. If the ice in the northern hemisphere continues to melt it will dilute the salt content of the oceans and that may inhibit or stop the thermal-halocene conveyor currents (such as the Gulf Stream) If so countries in Northern Europe will experience much colder winters than they do now. It is possible that something like this could trigger off a major cooling spell (in its worst form a reglaciation cycle). More snow. More light reflected, weather gets colder, more snow, more light reflected. Before too too long the glaciers start to form again. Our planet has been through over a dozen major ice ages in the past billion years and about 600,000,000 years ago it might have turned into a snowball with the oceans freezing. There is a potential hazard in rising temperatures. The temperatures are currently rising, but at such a slow rate I do not thing we will see a major hazard in this century. In any case Earth will NOT, I repeat NOT turn into Venus despite what Carl Sagan and Neil deGrasse Tyson have hinted.