Canadian Tar Sands Mining/Keystone Pipeline

[joeblast]

missed this.

 

If you read his past posts in the pit on AGW then you will see my point. Witch stopped debating him because of his patronizing attitude toward her even though she has a B.S. in Math. Witch also mused at how she truly believed the co2 sensitivity should be more like 6! degrees! which is utterly preposterous, I dont care if she's got a BS in math, even the most zealoty zealots dont assert a 6 degree sensitivity. She stopped debating me because she was starting to figure out her activism was all for nothing...her words, not mine!

 

His argument appeals to junk science purveyors and is a rehash of what he gleans from a few blogs and in particular Anthony Watts who entertains AGW deniers. JB believes he has debunked Dr. Hansens work via email exchanges on AGW, by claiming that the sun is responsible for global warming as opposed to co2. That issue has been addressed by the research community and found to be baseless. Yet the denier crowd still holds this point of view. Sorry dude a ton of people debunk Hansen's work. Had to laugh at the bold - care to oh...give some SUBSTANCE on that?

 

If you care to read the data on the research, Google it. However, an understanding of non-linear chaotic dynamic systems will be required. The anti AGW crowd fails to understand the biosphere as such a system. When the forecasts slightly change, the research scientists are accused of manipulating the data. Such are baseless accusations given that such systems are sensitive to initial conditions with the only constant being change. Yeah...I just asked you about some very significant non linear events that the models have zero predictive capability for. Tough one to address?

 

I don't believe for one minute given JB's past history on this issue that he wants to debate but slam me down for adhering to real science based on sound research. Seems more like an inquisition as opposed to debate. I'm only slamming you for having your eyes shut and ears plugged. Like I said if you could actually articulate and debate your point I'd at least be able to respect it, but all you've got for me is poo-pooing my sources and wont ever say a single concrete thing about what I write, all you say is blah, I dont like your source!

 

Watts blog entertains junk science purveyors who cherry pick data to prove a point. Go read, you might learn a little something!

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

Edited March 8, 2013 by joeblast

[JustARandomPanda]

If you read his past posts in the pit on AGW then you will see my point. Witch stopped debating him because of his patronizing attitude toward her even though she has a B.S. in Math.

 

Yes I know about Witch. I've read her posts around various forums for years. She used to post at Thundersplace.org and Measurection.org under the name Zaneblue and would get into loooooong threads (50+ pages deep) on why we are all dooming ourselves to a cooked atmosphere like Venus in the next few years.

 

I remember when she posted at Thundersplace she was ecstatic (her words) at the Wall Street Derivatives/ Housing Bubble bust and subsequent Great Recession because she saw it as the only means to slow the U.S's race toward turning the world into a Venus hot-house. I like Witch/Zaneblue but if you are going to say JB is biased then Witch/Zaneblue is every bit as much so. Just because she has a degree in mathematics from Harvard (I think it was Harvard...maybe it was Princeton but whatever...) doesn't mean she is exempt from falling into the same logical fallacy traps I have often done.

 

Indeed if I understand Drew correctly the mathematization of these questions can often be used to draw people's attention away from (in Drew's opinion) faulty logic underlying many math models used to justify arguments one way or the other.

 

His argument appeals to junk science purveyors and is a rehash of what he gleans from a few blogs and in particular Anthony Watts who entertains AGW deniers. JB believes he has debunked Dr. Hansens work via email exchanges on AGW, by claiming that the sun is responsible for global warming as opposed to co2 That issue has not been peer reviewed but thrown out by climate researchers. Yet the denier crowd still holds this point of view.

 

I don't believe for one minute given JB's past history on this issue that he wants to debate but slam me down for adhering to real science based on sound science.

 

Watts blog entertains junk science purveyors who cherry pick data to prove a point.

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

 

But the above info all about JB doesn't answer my question which actually has nothing to do with what I'm trying to look into. I'm not interested in JB's personality, biases or conclusions.

 

AGW has axioms - just like the Global Warming Deniers do.

 

I'm wanting to know what axioms those initial climatologists used to formulate their hypotheses and then subsequently test. And I want to know why subsequent climatologists found those axioms convincing and started building a whole body of research upon those axioms. Why those axioms and not some other? This same question can be asked equally of the climate deniers btw.

 

Yes..JB's tossing in his opinions. Most people do it at some point or other in a debate. I do it plenty. I've seen you, Drew and NAJA do it plenty too. I've seen Witch do it a lot too. And I get that out of that list you don't take JB seriously. But that's still beside the point because I wasn't wondering about that in the first place.

 

Maybe JB does have a biased axe to grind? So what? According to logic even if he is a secret paid shill junk science purveyor it doesn't address my original question. At best it just obfuscates it and gets people off-track. It's doing what JMG talked about earlier. It's basically hollering "JB Alert! - Cold Prickly, Cold Prickly, COLD PRICKLY!!!!!"

 

By focusing on the original climatologist axioms and hypothesis it negates any power JB might have to spin-doctor the debate if that's what he's on a mission to do.

[joeblast]

the Venus argument is just laughable - because the hothouse there is entirely due to atmospheric pressure.

 

 

what's the temperature on Venus where the atmospheric pressure equals that of earth? why, how strange, its pretty much the same as earth's! coincidence?

[JustARandomPanda]

This same question can be asked equally of the climate deniers btw.

 

BTW - wanted to emphasize this. I'm equally wanting to see the axioms the climate deniers are using too. Someone hopefully will post them here.

[ralis]

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

 

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/pollack.html

 

http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/glacier_balance.html

 

http://nsidc.org/news/press/20050928_trendscontinue.html

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18725124.500

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaotic_system

 

The above is a good start. Furthermore, I don't see the deniers taking measurements at the polar ice caps, drilling ice core samples, taking ocean ph readings, conducting atmospheric measurements of co2, collecting satellite data and so forth. The research data are massive and the above will point in the right direction. The question is what observations are the anti AGW persons engaged in?

 

Articles from 'Nature' are only available in abstract form and must be paid for.

Edited March 8, 2013 by ralis

[ralis]

Brief overview of the process whereby the research and modeling are being conducted on AGW.

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=discovery-of-global-warming

Edited March 8, 2013 by ralis

[joeblast]

 

 

BTW - wanted to emphasize this. I'm equally wanting to see the axioms the climate deniers are using too. Someone hopefully will post them here.

the funny thing is we're all a lot closer than people would think, we all just differ a bit on the weights of various drivers. see my post #70 and the graphic there wrt volcanism. low solar activity and high volcanic activity are very strongly correlated with severe climactic downturns. cosmic rays play a minor role in cloud seeding which has albedo implications. carbon dioxide does have a bit of IR absorptivity to it, but some significant areas of its spectral signature overlap with water vapor (see post 61,) which outweighs it on a coefficient scale by an order of magnitude, and out-volumes it by several.

 

like a lot of other non-believers, I think if one begins the question asking about the energy balance in a more holistic fashion, i.e. the sun is a *very* significant part of the equation and the other planets (esp jovian) appear to have a significant interplay wrt/ longer periodicities on the sun. we all know about the 11-22 year one (11+,11-) but planetary dynamics introduces other perturbations that will do things like cause the low field strength phenomena that led to the almost sheer absence of sunspots on the sun in 2009-2010 - hey, I remember Saturn having a huge hexagonal polar vortex in 06 or 07 when the sun was winding down SC23...so does anyone remember the polar vortex that the earth had this past year, alaska and siberia were batshit cold while most of the continental US enjoyed higher than normal temps.

 

so yeah, that change in magnetism led to a change in behavior at the poles (I'm sure ralis doesnt dispute the existence of auroras,) and a lot of this prediction stuff, well, we have to be able to predict this mixing. did climate models predict that polar vortex?? or was that just another nonlinear result that just happened to pop out of the woodwork, predicated by events that werent necessarily terrestrial in origin.

 

you simply cant begin the equation with measurements of the earth's temperatures and attempt to proxy-explain your way to the final result. without being able to explain solar dynamics, you have uncertainty in the input, and by the time you're extrapolating out 100 years, then by that time, nonlinear events have happened that the models dont account for, drastically changing the result.

 

So in a nutshell, most of what I have done is point out very significant areas of uncertainty in the AGW models - and I'm not simply going to take "hogwash, you dont know what you're talking about" as an excuse. What I guess ralis is missing my asking is this:

 

Are you going to address the uncertainties and shortcomings in the models? Are you denying the importance of these couple things I have pointed out?

 

So I've pointed out some very significant things that have very significant long term consequences for the evolution of the biosphere, and the AGW models say next to NOTHING about them. AGW models cannot predict the volcanism, the sun, or other interplanetary dynamics. Magnetism motivates a lot of these things and the models dont even acknowledge the flipping of the sun's magnetic orientation - I'll go easy on that one though, much work left to be done in figuring out how that manifests.

 

Wrt/ observations...looks like ralis is missing another point - a lot of this is data analysis. By and large we're all looking at the same data, its the analysis where the AGWers are going wrong (to clarify, I dont consider post-black-box-mangled data like GISS to be 'raw data'.) Like McIntyre having to give Mann lessons in statistics after him & briffa super cherry picked their Yamal data all the way to the hockey stick presented in the old IPCC presentations and used by al gore to scaremonger. Your first link was GISS, dont worry bud, I'm gonna start out with GISS since that is the most skewed one out of them all, Hansen's dirty little black box and sparse measurement & extrapolation arent going to stand the test of time.

 

In light of these rather glaring omissions, how on earth can an AGW supporter declare their point of view is comprehensive and correct? Especially the long term predictions, which are false, false, and false?

 

With so many holes already poked, I simply cannot believe the dire predictions, they are based on faulty models - because let's face it - every single last one of these dire predictions came straight from a model. And I'm saying the models only loosely correlate to reality at best since they are still too young and missing too many important factors.

 

I stand for Objectivity here

Edited March 8, 2013 by joeblast

[ralis]

edit

Edited March 8, 2013 by ralis

[ralis]

the Venus argument is just laughable - because the hothouse there is entirely due to atmospheric pressure.

 

 

what's the temperature on Venus where the atmospheric pressure equals that of earth? why, how strange, its pretty much the same as earth's! coincidence?

 

 

Out of the blue the Venus argument crops up? I guess Witch made an analogy to Venus but in no way was stating that the earth would heat to 460 degrees. What is your point?

Edited March 8, 2013 by ralis

[ralis]

 

the funny thing is we're all a lot closer than people would think, we all just differ a bit on the weights of various drivers. see my post #70 and the graphic there wrt volcanism. low solar activity and high volcanic activity are very strongly correlated with severe climactic downturns. cosmic rays play a minor role in cloud seeding which has albedo implications. carbon dioxide does have a bit of IR absorptivity to it, but some significant areas of its spectral signature overlap with water vapor (see post 61,) which outweighs it on a coefficient scale by an order of magnitude, and out-volumes it by several.

 

On what basis are you weighting the various drivers according your research that is different from the published climatology research? Volcanism and other factors will drive climate change but in this instance are you comparing and contrasting with CO2 absorption? Does not follow. Are you positing that the CO2 in the atmosphere is from volcanic activity? Are you aware that volcanoes have signatures in the ash that can be traced back to the source? The output from volcanic emissions are 130 million tonnes.http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php Emissions from fossil fuels are as of 2010 were 9 billion tonnes/year. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/glo.html

 

Your comparison in the last sentence so as to minimize the effect of CO2 and give greater weight to water vapor does not take into account that CO2 increase absorbs more water vapor. To claim coefficients of greater magnitude of water vapor as opposed to CO2 absorption by posting graphs that have no authorship and I can only assume the data contained in the graphs are not from climatology research. BTW, I tried to find the author of the graphs to no avail. Gvien that I have no way to substantiate by what order of magnitude you are referring to. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

 

like a lot of other non-believers, I think if one begins the question asking about the energy balance in a more holistic fashion, i.e. the sun is a *very* significant part of the equation and the other planets (esp jovian) appear to have a significant interplay wrt/ longer periodicities on the sun. we all know about the 11-22 year one (11+,11-) but planetary dynamics introduces other perturbations that will do things like cause the low field strength phenomena that led to the almost sheer absence of sunspots on the sun in 2009-2010 - hey, I remember Saturn having a huge hexagonal polar vortex in 06 or 07 when the sun was winding down SC23...so does anyone remember the polar vortex that the earth had this past year, alaska and siberia were batshit cold while most of the continental US enjoyed higher than normal temps.

 

To conflate weather patterns with long term climate change models might fit in a linear model but in a complex system such as the biosphere short term weather patterns are tiny iterations or a fragment of the whole climate picture.

 

On what basis do you claim the sun is 'very significant' in terms of global warming? I have yet to find any documented research to substantiate your claims. http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/

Edited March 9, 2013 by ralis

[voidisyinyang]

 

 

BTW - wanted to emphasize this. I'm equally wanting to see the axioms the climate deniers are using too. Someone hopefully will post them here.

 

Please tell Ralis not to waste his energy on JoeBlast -- this is just a power struggle. The climate deniars are in power using authoritarian means to enforce it.

 

Consider that the activists against Fracking are now investigated as ecoterrorists. This is fascism people.

 

You can't argue with fascists.

 

I'm not saying fight the fascists. I think Mother Nature will take revenge.

[ralis]

Please tell Ralis not to waste his energy on JoeBlast -- this is just a power struggle. The climate deniars are in power using authoritarian means to enforce it.

 

Consider that the activists against Fracking are now investigated as ecoterrorists. This is fascism people.

 

You can't argue with fascists.

 

I'm not saying fight the fascists. I think Mother Nature will take revenge.

 

I agree. The 'classic double bind' applies here. Any answer I provide is the wrong answer. Reminds me of this scene from 'Full Metal Jacket'. This movie explores the 'double bind'.

 

[JustARandomPanda]

****Edit*****

 

 

Bowing out of the thread.

 

Cheers to everyone.

Edited March 9, 2013 by SereneBlue

[ralis]

Then perhaps JB will do something unique - play Devil's Advocate and highlight and deconstruct the weaknesses of his own side's axioms and assumptions? It's a time honored tradition and one that was a high art in the Middle Ages from what I understand. I'd do it myself except I admit I suck at it. Which is why I'm going to be reading this book soon once I finish the one I'm currently on. And this one after it if I can get it from my library or inter-library loan.

 

Care to have a go at it JB?

 

 

p.s. yes I'm sure there's a "who's argument is the better argument" thing going on. I just hoped I could uncover the axioms and assumptions used as a foundation by both sides.

 

 

JB has repeatedly stated that he will beat down, poke holes and destroy any argument I bring to this issue. See his previous posts. Like I said, what ever answer no matter how precise, will be wrong. Seems like bullying to me.

Edited March 9, 2013 by ralis

[ralis]

I provided many links to valid research and the Scientific American article which is a brief overview of the research.

[JustARandomPanda]

I provided many links to valid research and the Scientific American article which is a brief overview of the research.

 

 

Will definitely go through them. Thanks

 

 

***Edit***

 

Bowing out. Will not be checking this thread anymore.

 

Cheers to everyone.

[joeblast]

Have spent all of about 3 minutes on this since my last post, been busy

 

Please tell Ralis not to waste his energy on JoeBlast -- this is just a power struggle. The climate deniars are in power using authoritarian means to enforce it.

 

Consider that the activists against Fracking are now investigated as ecoterrorists. This is fascism people.

 

You can't argue with fascists.

 

I'm not saying fight the fascists. I think Mother Nature will take revenge.

I think its kind of funny you make that assertion that 'deniers' are in power and using authoritarian means to enforce it, because depending on which aspect you look at, it is exactly the opposite. So while there may be enough balance in congress to prevent drastic (not to mention unnecessary) action on co2, look at some local governments, look at academia, look at the MSM and AGW is basically gospel and you're loony to even question "the experts" aka the "climate scientists," regardless of how shaky their understandings are of various mathematical rigors. Fascism is as fascism does - who's doing what? Who's willing to use force to make others do as we wish? Who's saying I am correct no you may not look in my black-box-number-cruncher?

 

To the extent that revenge is possible or necessary, mother nature will take it. To the extent it isnt, she wont.

 

I've said many a time that the carbon crusade merely diverts resources from real environmental efforts. But then, every time you say something about co2, you bring in other environmental efforts. You're smarter than that, drew. Look at the math, look at the TSI, look at the history, look at the cooling coefficient for aerosols trying to explain the 70s cooling, look at how they 'fixed it' with a heavy co2 warming coefficient, note how every model that makes these mistakes 'breaks' and makes absolutely preposterous predictions on timescales longer than a decade or three - can you honestly tell me that crap stands up to rigor?

 

All I see is that "its generally in line with your environmentalism" so you support it - but ffs, support it if its real - rail against real pollution, dont support more taxes for nothing, dont support a trillion paid out for a phantom .2 degrees of warming "saved or prevented." Politicians have a great many scams and the less we all buy into them, the better.

 

On what basis are you weighting the various drivers according your research that is different from the published climatology research? Volcanism and other factors will drive climate change but in this instance are you comparing and contrasting with CO2 absorption? Does not follow. Are you positing that the CO2 in the atmosphere is from volcanic activity? Are you aware that volcanoes have signatures in the ash that can be traced back to the source? The output from volcanic emissions are 130 million tonnes.http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php Emissions from fossil fuels are as of 2010 were 9 billion tonnes/year. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/glo.html

You dream up some funny stuff sometimes. That's not what I said. I said the models dont predict these events that have massive cooling effects and many times in the past enough of them clumped together have precipitated ice ages. Cant predict their frequency, their intensity, their distribution. Another significant hole in the wall.

 

Your comparison in the last sentence so as to minimize the effect of CO2 and give greater weight to water vapor does not take into account that CO2 increase absorbs more water vapor. To claim coefficients of greater magnitude of water vapor as opposed to CO2 absorption by posting graphs that have no authorship and I can only assume the data contained in the graphs are not from climatology research. BTW, I tried to find the author of the graphs to no avail. Gvien that I have no way to substantiate by what order of magnitude you are referring to. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

Oh, so you're asserting that we can accurately pick that signal out of the noise. That'd be included under the "co2 sensitivity coefficient" aspect of all this. You pointing out that co2 has an impact on water vapor basically IS its "climate sensitivity" if you consider that + its IR absorption.

Anyway, I'll go find it at some point, but your dismissal of anything that doesnt come from the church of climatology is getting to be pretty annoying. I dont understand what you think I have to gain by posting untruthful things. I personally dont have much at all to gain from this stuff, I mainly do it because this carbon issue has gotten out of the hands of science and into the hands of politics - and when political considerations trump out real world considerations, that's a recipe for lost fundamentals...ya know, like pal review, finding back doors to get certain views presented and other explicitly omitted, crabbing that you dont want to show you work because the other person looking at it might just have the sole reason of finding something wrong with it - something you should have done as part of your own scientific due diligence.

 

To conflate weather patterns with long term climate change models might fit in a linear model but in a complex system such as the biosphere short term weather patterns are tiny iterations or a fragment of the whole climate picture.

that's a great conflating weather and climate you did there - all while asserting that's exactly the mistake I made. bravo, why is it that progressives seem to always have that 'trick' in their top 3 of the playbook? why are you trying to say that a decently sized shift in the jetstream is simply weather, especially given the magnetic origins of the phenomena...the more I talk to you, the more I am convinced of your subscription to preconceived notions - more interested in refuting my argument than getting to the bottom of things. Instead of some possibly interesting discussion on an evolving aspect of the debate...

 

On what basis do you claim the sun is 'very significant' in terms of global warming? I have yet to find any documented research to substantiate your claims. http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/

Oh sweet comedy - "If there is indeed a solar effect on climate, it is manifested by changes in general circulation rather than in a direct temperature signal." C'mon, the models are trying to model the general circulation, but hey, general circulation is used as a dismissal when suitable? Is it redundant to point out that our heat source is not a constant? It simply logically follows that if your TSI input isnt modeled well at all, then you have a very significant input in the equation that is lacking - oh, no biggie, what comes out the other end is still correct

 

Sorry to see you regret asking perfectly acceptable and valid questions, SB.

 

So I asks questions that shoot a ton of holes in these models that predict disaster, but then I'm asked to explain everything and give out a perfectly correct theory of all this? Methinks if I could, I know of a certain person or three that wouldnt believe it anyway even if I had begun with omnisciently procuring the surrounding ten centuries of climate data and pulling sets of equations that perfectly describe it all out of thin air.

 

Bottom line,

 

The questions I ask about the fantasy models are straightforward questions, and they point out valid gaps in predictive capability for the models that make the preposterous predictions.

 

I havent seen anyone post anything that refutes these gaps I have spoken of - only assertions that they are nevertheless correct overall. Little disconnect? The whole "well, you describe it all perfectly to us, then" is merely avoiding the questions I've asked.

 

I'll be back later on things like why giss is skewed as hell, but really...in court if there is significant reasonable doubt you committed a crime, most often you are not convicted. Wrt/ AGW its like a kangaroo court where reasonable doubt isnt enough, you have to prove explicitly and unequivocally, and even then, you're told you're off your rocker because the people that run the court (i.e. agw peer review process) perverted it and actively suppressed dissent, all for wont of being correct for the scientists, all for wont of endless amounts of tax money to buy votes if you're a politician.

[voidisyinyang]

redrum

 

Joe I feel your pain.

 

I have an uncle who was an engineer for 3M -- and he's a big Michelle Bachmann and Faux news fan....

 

Anyway so he tells me he doesn't even think global warming is real and also he says he thinks there is no oil crisis.

 

So I know what I'm dealing with -- I know that there's no way I can convince this guy.

 

Also I know that he knows that I'm a raving eco-activist, etc. former Greenpeace worker, etc.

 

So I say to him -- first of all oil comes from algae and guess what? The future of humanity is algae -- whether we make oil from algae or we destroy the environment -- algae will be the foundation for a new environment.

 

Secondly I said - o.k. even if there is an ecological crisis the only answer will be a techno-fix which means the machines will take over and automation is the number one cause of job loss.

 

So I said there's no point in even trying to save the planet because it just means that technology will be in control and humans will lose out anyway.

 

So then my uncle mentions how they just got this new smart meter at their house and then later my aunt complains how they can not adjust their thermostat and that their A.C. goes off and on without their control.

 

My uncle then says -- yep you're right -- the technology is taking over.

 

So Joe you want a "rational" argument but rationalism is a myth!

 

Humans are animals - we're controlled by emotions -- and rationalism means the machines are in control.

 

You are scared of the big government ecofascists like Al Gore making billions off of carbon credits.

 

I personally confronted Al Gore when he was Vice President - with his dozen secret service. I yelled across the room at him - "The blood of the U'wa is on your conscience" and I got pulled over by the cops -- taking my license info but not saying why they pulled me over. haha.

 

I told Al: Everyone knows the CIA is complicit to the drug trade.

 

Al and I have a face to face chat for half an hour, along with my dozen activist friends.

 

We confronted Al about U.S. imperialism.

 

I told Al - his family oil money was about to destroy a protected tribal Amazonian area in Columbia....

 

I told Al:

 

"Look Al it's all over. There's no point in drilling for more oil."

 

I'm serious - Al looked at me and really listened to me. He took me seriously.

 

That was in 2000 - before Al went on his climate change crusade.

 

 

The winner, Sara Volz, 17, of Colorado Springs, Colo, examined the ways that can help in creating numerous algae cells with high oil content. The algae oil produced can be used to convert it into biofuel, which is economically feasible.

David Marker, a mathematics professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, was the chairman of the judging panel. He said the winner had worked for years on her project. He added that her work depicted a certain passion and drive that is usually not found in the projects that are strongly mentored.

He said the most important thing that had helped her bang the prize was her knowledge in all areas of science. He also explained about his experience of getting correct answers from her on being asked advanced mathematics questions.

 

http://frenchtribune.com/teneur/1316691-colorado-student-wins-first-prize-growing-oil-algae

 

From one day ago.

 

O.K. so my engineer uncle who claimed there was no oil crisis...

 

he didn't even know that oil comes from algae!!

 

http://www.fastcoexist.com/1680909/now-at-your-local-gas-pump-algae-oil

 

Some algae biofuel is already on the market.

 

But we've used hundreds of millions of years of stored algae -- solar energy -- as oil extraction in the last 100 years or so.

 

It is common sense that we've taken all that solar energy and spewed it back into the atmosphere.

 

So this effect is stronger than the previous effects of the climatic solar-earth cycles based on axial precession (the Earth's backwards wobble) and other solar effects.

 

On the other hand scientifically -- there is a very strong case that humans as a species evolved larger brains for complex social culture which has completely transformed the climate on Earth -- why? Due to a cooling trend on Earth starting two million years ago.

 

http://www.des.ucdavis.edu/faculty/Richerson/Speed.htm

 

 

The deterioration of the Earth's climate since the Miocene, leading to the Pleistocene ice age during the last 2 million years, is a major event in the history of the planet's physical environment. Over the last 6 million years, the climate has gotten colder, drier, and more variable. Geology records several other glacial episodes, but the last was the Permo-Carboniferous ice ages that ended 250 million years ago (Lamb, 1977:296). Perhaps the ongoing evolution of the hominid lineage was driven by the ongoing changes in the Earth's climate. DeMenocal (1996) and Potts (1996) give impressive evidence in favor of this hypothesis.

 

redrum

Edited March 14, 2013 by pythagoreanfulllotus

[joeblast]

yeah, I know about the EROI conundrum - imho, that EROI should be what's driving the new technologies. that's simple fundamentals of supply and demand, albeit with everyone over or underreporting their reserves to suit their particular case. instead the whole issue is usurped by the government as a means to extract further tax revenue to fund its myriad variations of favoritism.

 

what I mean by a rational argument is one where passions and emotions are given their proper weight, context considered - so if one is trying to make a case one way or another for CO2, emotion clearly should not take precedence over real data - no matter how much one feels it is going to save humanity by shutting our power plants, the reality of the situation is that we have a dance that plays out, and taking it seriously means that you admit shortcomings and admit when you're wrong, that doesnt mean you paper over your errors and invent some things to make a good looking presentation for the masses like the banks do. or like much of our climate scientists™ have been doing.

 

so I keep getting the peer reviewed argument - but hey, then we see utter and complete crap like the Marcott paper, with the PEER REVIEWED™ issue well covered, but then a second look reveals that hey, they were just trying to resurrect the hockey stick that's all, and they had to resort to using bad statistics and splicing dissimilar datasets together to get their "result." just like mann and briffa did with the yama tree ring data to try and lessen the imprint of the medeival warm period on the results, show a cooler past and a steeper curve at present.

 

http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/16/the-marcott-shakun-dating-service/

 

http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/17/hiding-the-decline-the-md01-2421-splice/

 

its reasons like this that I dont automatically believe a paper that comes with the climate-science-peer-review "seal of approval." it is plain as day with things like this once pointed out by a sufficiently expertise'd source - in olden days, scientists would listen when corrected by another of a different discipline when the disciplines crossed and the contrarian was the one with the particular specialization. but since politics is of more importance, those who decided to be AGW cheerleaders are rewarded and the social circle pats them on the back saying you dont need to listen to the other discipline, they arent climate scientists, as if the disciplines did not overlap.

 

which I see is partially outlined in the last paper you referenced,

 

 

Social learning short-cuts the costly trials of individual learning, and hence in is potentially an adaptive advantage compared to individual learning. Indeed, when social learners are rare they do have an advantage. They practically always copy an individual learner, getting the same, usually adaptive, behavior at lower cost. The trouble is, in Rogers' model, they keep on increasing in frequency until the chances of a social learner copying another social learner becomes high. As the chain connecting copiers to reamers increases, there is an increasing chance that the environment has changed and that the social learner will copy the wrong trait. The only equilibrium in the system is when the fitness of social reamers falls to the same level as reamers. At equilibrium the mean fitness of the population is exactly the same as a population of individual reamers. Through a sort of parasitic system the potential benefits of social learning are dissipated by excessive copying.

 

 

thus the potential benefits of the peer review process, the process having been hijacked, its code trojan horse'd to reinforce certain behaviors and discourage other behaviors...in favor of a predetermined result.

 

its the same reason Hansen felt it necessary to skew his GISS data and keep his little black box that processes the data hidden from view - following a predetermined conclusion, I was right forever ago, now let's keep on making that data fit what I decided was how reality was 30 years ago, hell with all that new data we've got now, but we'll make it all fit just to be sure.

 

need better than that if you really want to separate the signal from the noise.

Edited March 18, 2013 by joeblast

[voidisyinyang]

Why Climate Change Denial Is Just Hot Air

 

 

 

geochemist and National Science Board member James Lawrence Powell wrote a post that is basically a slam-dunk of debunking. His premise was simple: If global warming isn’t real and there’s an actual scientific debate about it, that should be reflected in the scientific journals.

He looked up how many peer-reviewed scientific papers were published in professional journals about global warming, and compared the ones supporting the idea that we’re heating up compared to those that don’t. What did he find? This: Powell looked at 13,950 articles. Out of all those reams of scientific results, how many disputed the reality of climate change?

Twenty-four. Yup. Two dozen. Out of nearly 14,000.

 

http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart

 

 

 

The articles have a total of 33,690 individual authors. The top ten countries represented, in order, are USA, England, China, Germany, Japan, Canada, Australia, France, Spain, and Netherlands. (The chart shows results through 9 November 2012.)

Global warming deniers often claim that bias prevents them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. But 24 articles in 18 different journals, collectively making several different arguments against global warming, expose that claim as false. Articles rejecting global warming can be published, but those that have been have earned little support or notice, even from other deniers.

[joeblast]

argumentum ad verecundiam, get that bs outta here. procuring an article that confirms what my previous post said wrt/ the climate pal review process is not a scientific argument in the least and merely highlights the captured mechanism. I mean cripes, that's the fascist response galileo received. you can do better, especially since you dislike fascism

 

 

NASA owes it to the citizens from whom it asks support to be frank, honest, and informative, so that these citizens can make the wisest decisions for the use of their limited resources.
For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.

-Feynman, from the challenger report

Edited March 19, 2013 by joeblast

[ralis]

argumentum ad verecundiam, get that bs outta here. procuring an article that confirms what my previous post said wrt/ the climate pal review process is not a scientific argument in the least and merely highlights the captured mechanism. I mean cripes, that's the fascist response galileo received. you can do better, especially since you dislike fascism

 

Your arguments are not scientific in the least. As I have stated before, the denier assumptions are not based on the entire body of scientific work but on authoritarian nitpicking of a few points to distract and control the conversation. To side with 14 articles as compared to thousands is unreasonable and you know it.

 

What does fascism have to do with it?

Edited March 19, 2013 by ralis

[joeblast]

and when I do put up a scientific argument, you say the same thing, it is null and void. ironically, you miss the authoritarianism in that, you miss the authoritarianism in the pal review process, and you attempt to control the conversation with disparaging terms and absolute refusal to consider any data or assessments not borne of the "official" AGW-approved sources.

 

I pointed out your tactic ascribing your own failings to others' arguments before, here I point it out again.

 

you dont score a point by ignoring another's that you dont want to address.

[ralis]

and when I do put up a scientific argument, you say the same thing, it is null and void. ironically, you miss the authoritarianism in that, you miss the authoritarianism in the pal review process, and you attempt to control the conversation with disparaging terms and absolute refusal to consider any data or assessments not borne of the "official" AGW-approved sources.

 

I pointed out your tactic ascribing your own failings to others' arguments before, here I point it out again.

 

you dont score a point by ignoring another's that you dont want to address.

 

Your arguments are not scientific but assumptions which are not peer reviewed! When you make statements such as 'scientists have little understanding of the mechanics of the sun' or in your vernacular 'radiative physics', that lends no credibility to what you posit. What you consistently assume is that most research scientists are stupid and uneducated in proper scientific research. Furthermore, you position yourself as having a vaster intellect and having a far greater knowledge of AGW than the entire research community.

 

Do you actually believe what you write?

[joeblast]

I gotta stop clicking on "view ralis' posts." Zero value in 'em whatsoever. If you want to address me ralis, you're going to have to write something good enough for someone else to quote, I've had enough of your badgering. If you dont know what our solar theories are missing, git on to some reading and you might figure out why we cant make decent solar predictions. If it doesnt make sense to you that the energy equation kinda needs to start with the most significant heat source and then proceed towards its balance with earth from a radiative physics standpoint, then well...I cant give you some magic potion that will get rid of a lack of imagination. The sun's a variable star in case you never noticed, and when your model omits things via an oversimplified coefficient TSI, add on an incomplete understanding of the sun and its cycles and you already have a long term catastrophic flaw in your "model"....its only a model, like camelot, shhh! Add in volcanism that isnt represented in the models and you're cooked, any retrodiction is coincidental or artificial, prediction, hah, laughable...and wrong. I've given you many chances to address those couple very simple points and you simply just cant do it.

 

Later on, enjoy that kool aid.