Disqus - Latest Comments for mikkel

Re: Responding to a Republican Friend

mikkel — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 17:51:54 -0000

"This same friend argues that the pork doled out to Nebraska — to help secure Sen. Ben Nelson’s yes-vote on his chamber’s health care reform bill — was unprecedented. I believe it was very precedented, including among Republicans, but have not yet had time to research relevant examples, i.e., cases where a 60th (or 58-60th) vote was secured after substantial pork was promised to one or more hesitant Republican Senators."

Yeah the Medicare Drug bill. Of course several people changed amid accusations they were threatened if they didn't.

Then-Representative Nick Smith (R-MI) claimed he was offered campaign funds for his son, who was running to replace him, in return for a change in his vote from "nay" to "yea." After controversy ensued, Smith clarified no explicit offer of campaign funds was made, but that that he was offered "substantial and aggressive campaign support" which he had assumed included financial support.

Re: Are Vegetarians And Vegans Biased Against Plants?

mikkel — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 12:00:09 -0000

No I agree fully. I only meant "moral" in regards to killing individual creatures. For instance I think that our current way of producing food is highly immoral as it is unsustainable, cruel and unhealthy. I agree that one should try to do the "least harm" and hopefully I will be able to live that way sometime in the future. However I personally think of least harm in terms of what you listed, which doesn't preclude eating meat. Yes cows are huge environmental stressors and don't make sense except as luxury meat, but other animals aren't nearly as bad. Chickens, ducks, goats, pigs, sheep, fish and shellfish are examples of animals that do have a low food and environmental footprint -- especially if you recycle wastes through them -- and if not raised in an industrial setting I have a hard time thinking of it as causing "harm."

Re: Are Vegetarians And Vegans Biased Against Plants?

mikkel — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 00:39:25 -0000

I like the word stewardship because it implies responsibility but not necessarily control. It has a sense of humility built in, which I guess is the essence of wisdom. To me dominion implies total control.

Hope this finds you well too.

Re: Is Nathan Myrhvold Onto Something?

mikkel — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 00:13:01 -0000

Why do you believe that is practically impossible? There are many maturing technologies that have nearly identical cost/kwh over their lifespan as coal, not to mention the myriad of building/insulation/blah blah (I know you know everything so I won't bother continuing the list) that save tons of money over their lifespan. That is a huge chunk of the problem addressed, and I've read you advocating alternative transportation energy stores in the past as they are developed over the next 20 years.

Re: Is Nathan Myrhvold Onto Something?

mikkel — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 00:05:39 -0000

"Show the raw data, look at all available proxy series, and provide the raw surface temperature data. Let learned statisticians, climatologists, and any other trained person examine that data. Replicate each other's results, change opinions according to the results. Science in the open."

Yes. Do you think I haven't done a good enough job of explaining that is my position?

Re: Are Vegetarians And Vegans Biased Against Plants?

mikkel — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:44:35 -0000

DLS: how come no matter how much I disagree with your blanket assertions about the world in general you're always so sensible about personal attitudes and living.

Re: Is Nathan Myrhvold Onto Something?

mikkel — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 17:17:38 -0000

Solar activity is NOT discounted in current models, it's one of the main parameters. Geez louise. The sun's activity has not increased since 1950 and that's the argument it can't be due to the sun for the last six decades.

"Additionally, I guess another undocumented solar cycle accounts for the Little Ice Age too."

Uh, yes but not so undocumented. You'll notice a very strong correlation with reconstructed solar activity and the little ice age.

Now there are some people that believe that solar activity is going to diminish, but that doesn't say anything about the validity of AGW, if it diminishes and you plug that into the models then the output diminishes. If you want to attack the models as being a poor predictor because of what they assume about the sun and have evidence the assumptions are incorrect then that would be a very valid point. I haven't heard any critique like that though.

"The CRU emails poo-pooed by the warmists really does show active attempts of scientists, to withhold data, manipulate the historical record, and to bully scientific publications from publishing counter arguments."

Even the prominent scientist skeptics like Pielke say the emails are a tempest in a teapot. Did you even read my post on that that I linked?

Maybe you're right about the clouds, I dunno. If you can make a model that works like that then feel free.

As I said in the CRU post, it's long past time that they made all the adjustments and models -- every single step -- completely available so the skeptics can make their own models and adjustments with different assumptions. I think that is immensely important, and for all I know other mechanisms will be able to explain the warming. I'm not saying that it's impossible, I'm just saying that the current objections have flaws in that they have already been studied (or have foundational flaws like the argument that since the environment has changed in the past that this means we're not doing anything now) and the model of that mechanism didn't seem to explain the current warming.

I am very critical of the assumptions of the current economics, but instead of just complaining about what it can't predict and whatifs, I support the alternative explanations and models that have very concrete mechanisms and which Steve Keen amongst others have used to make alternative models with the different assumptions and showed that it emulated what we see far better than the standard models. THAT is how you attack a consensus theory, make a better one. If you do that I would be on your side in an instant, but it's just not there.

Re: Is Nathan Myrhvold Onto Something?

mikkel — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:57:24 -0000

The club of Rome model type stuff predicted limits and political consequences would be hit later this century, starting around 2030-2070. You really are going to go out on a limb and say it was all wrong when you look at the massive shortages in water and energy and the demographics problems we're having right now?

Re: Is Nathan Myrhvold Onto Something?

mikkel — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:54:54 -0000

2013 is easy. The last 7 or 8 years has seen little warming most likely due to decadal oscillations, the lowest solar activity in several hundred years and two strong La Ninas with one weak El Nino. So 2013 is the time where if there isn't significant warming then the averaged temperature on the timescales that they use for talking about climate (5-15 years depending on application) will have flattened off completely or decreased. Plus the sun's activity should have increased by then and we'll have seen another El Nino and La Nina (most likely). Thus if the trend has really stopped we should know by then.

Now you may argue that the trend not stopping doesn't mean that it's due to human influences, which is true, but a lot of people are saying that the trend has stopped, and we'll know then. So my 2013 is not over one or two years, it's picked precisely because of when the temperatures currently plateaued and that they show two shorter term cycles.

Again your historical/geological data is about measurements not mechanism. I hate to sound like a broken record but you haven't addressed that at all, especially the part where the study that you were using to back your statement was authored by someone that believed the mechanism was solar forcing...something that other scientists believe can't be responsible for the last 60 years of warming because it's stopped increasing.

"I know all about CO2 and greenhouse effects. If we take ANY of the naturally occurring atmospheric gases and increase them too much, it will have detrimental effects. That's a no-brainer. "

Yes, exactly that's what I have kept saying about why it's important to keep track of, and how solar and orbital oscillations don't account for the past few decades of warming. So what is your definition of "too much?" The scientists are pressing for peaking at 400-450 and going back down to 350-375. If we don't change our current emissions growth then we'll get up to 500-650. Do you disagree that is too much?

Tons of the research and measurements that are done in the US about this issue is by NOAA, NASA and the Navy. I must have missed the memo about how they are all bought and paid for by the left, especially since the latter two have strong military incentives.

Re: Is Nathan Myrhvold Onto Something?

mikkel — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 11:48:06 -0000

You are correct, there isn't a record of high CO2 concentration during the MWP, the current hypothesis is that it was a combination of increased solar activity and changes (perhaps induced by the solar activity) of atmospheric flow that made the northern hemisphere warmer, although there is still argument about whether global mean was all that hot. But that is precisely the point: we are experiencing solar activity similar to the MWP (although again, it's flattened for the last 60 years and their understanding of sensitivity to solar activity suggests that temperatures should not have gone up in the 90s and this decade) AND we are filling the atmosphere with carbon, which in the past there is conclusive evidence has led to higher temperatures.

I've said before that if solar activity remains as low as it has the past few years indefinitely then we shouldn't get much more warming, even with increased CO2. That could happen. We could also get a new high in solar activity, it's uncertain. However CO2 acts as strengthen the activity that we're seeing. The fact that the MWP doesn't seem to be the result of a carbon hiccup, but an external input (which we are seeing similar levels now) is a reason to be worried at the moment, not an argument against it.

Re: Is Nathan Myrhvold Onto Something?

mikkel — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 11:19:19 -0000

I'm sorry, but what you said is BS on so many levels:

The greenhouse effect from CO2 was first proposed near the turn of the 20th century. As the video I linked to above showed, it was first talked about at high levels of government under Eisenhower. It also was vigorously challenged and took decades for it to reach consensus, which didn't occur until a little over 10 years ago. That is a very long time for a liberal conspiracy.

The key point is CO2 balance. Just because some idiots say stupid stuff about how we shouldn't emit anything doesn't mean that's what the scientists say. They say the key point is to lower emissions to the point where the cycle can handle the amount of CO2 coming out and recycle it back.

Also most of the scientists are agnostic about the political way to do it and most of them that aren't are against cap and trade. Heck even the current chiefs of cap and trade for sulfur think it won't work for carbon along with the inventor of cap and trade and the most prominent scientific voice. Don't confuse political means and messaging with the actual science. Of course the entrenched interests are trying to use it to make money and get a step up on their competitors, that's what happens for everything.

Again, geologic history is simply measurements it doesn't tell us how. I have already linked to material that showed that the author of the study you previously talked about believed the mechanism was solar activity, and how solar activity isn't sufficient to explain the last six decades. Yes there is carbon content in every geological layer in the earth, and guess what -- that is what provides support for the argument that increased carbon leads to higher temperatures! It's also how they have sketched out most of their feedback loops.

I'm not in the field but I know several people working on parts of it (not long term, they are more short term oriented and they are actually getting really good at predictions) and know what the lifestyle is like. They are working 50-60 hour weeks for a fraction of what they could get in the private sector, kill themselves to try to figure this out the best they can, are open to real criticisms and are generally the most thoughtful people I know.

Yet they are under constant attack under "criticism" like you have. You started out saying that you had scientific criticisms and I was genuinely interested without attacking you, then you stated it and I looked it up and showed that they had looked into that and incorporated it into their understanding and how at present they don't believe that's a good explanation. You stated: "We have caused ALL of this through our mismanagement of Carbon." And I pointed out that isn't true, which you acknowledged but then shrugged off. You then used "common sense" argumentation about how carbon is "natural" and "self sustaining cycle" which I pointed out no one is arguing, except when its increasing so quickly that it can't be processed -- a fact true for any cycle -- and leads to higher concentration, which in the past has created warmer temperatures.

So you besmirch everyone as being in the largest and longest conspiracy of all time.

This is the typical cycle and then people complain (and of course say it's proof) when scientists aren't "objective" because they are getting angry. It's insane and an embarrassing statement about the state of our country honestly.

I mean look, I make my living by learning about existing systems and theories, then seeing what is wrong on a fundamental level and poking holes in it. That is literally why I am valuable. I have vigorously attacked the consensus economic theory, am in the process of inventing new ways of energy by taking advantage of an oversight that other people had made, am trying to completely change how biologic data is analyzed because the current way relies on incorrect assumptions and am soon planning on getting into improving health care information collection and analysis.

It's nearly impossible for me to learn about a system and not see massive flaws in it. I love poking holes in everything and the more ingrained it is the more fun I have. Yet I know quite a lot about climate theory (not an expert level but not any less than my other areas) and I can't find really anything to object to. [You can always fall back on the philosophical argument that it's impossible to know conclusively which is true, but that is true in general for all these types of systems. The point is whether we can know enough.] Yet on the skeptic side I can poke holes in those arguments all day and have never heard any point that comes even close to being a rigorous criticism. They are all half truths, non sequiturs, conspiracy theories and outright lies.

I'll make you the same deal I made HemmD a while ago. If we get to 2013 and we aren't at significantly higher temperatures (barring a volcanic eruption) then I'll apologize and say that the theory is obviously severely flawed and shouldn't be paid attention to.

Re: Is Nathan Myrhvold Onto Something?

mikkel — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 15:02:49 -0000

"it is far past time that an easy to use cohesive database of every single step was made publicly available"

As I said to JD (which I'm truly interested in what he meant by oscillations) you are pointing to measurements of the past. There are theories about mechanisms that caused those changes. The currently theories about said mechanisms cannot account for warming except for CO2 concentration.

It is always possible that a new mechanism will be suggested that fits better, but at the current time the timescales and direction of warming cannot be explained by solar irradiance, orbits, or decadal oscillations amongst other things (I may be missing one or two off hand), mechanisms that do a good job of explaining historical changes. The greenhouse gases (which again historically have shown changes) seems to be by far the best explanation.

Re: Is Nathan Myrhvold Onto Something?

mikkel — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 00:51:44 -0000

Yes, it is naturally occurring gas, but there are hundreds of millions of years of biocarbon that was stored in the ground and we are digging it up, burning it and putting it in the atmosphere. It is also rising at an enormous rate. Levels aren't the only thing that matters, so does velocity. That is what is straining the cycles.

Your "bill of goods" #2 is factually incorrect. The ipcc estimates that 55-60% of the warming post industrial age is due to natural factors (primarily the sun), especially before 1950 and that the bulk of warming after 1950 is due to carbon increases. The understanding is that there is also a severe lag time between carbon emissions and effects, on the order of 30 years. As such we've already built in 30 years of warming with our present emissions.

Since we have a very carbon heavy economy and the economy must grow exponentially in order to work (due to its nature), that means that in another few decades we will have contributed another huge chunk of carbon into the air that will add to concentration levels about 50-70% on top of what we have already done. Getting into the 450-500 ppm range and you're looking at it correlated with very much warmer periods. In order to prevent that we do have to start acting now.

You highlight all the "natural" cycles but leave out major pro-feedback cycles such as methane in permafrost and the ocean. There is also the decreasing ability for the ocean to absorb carbon as it gets warmer and eventually it'll start releasing it. The warmer it gets the more likely this will occur, and it has a chance of running away until there is much more water. So even if you think the impacts are "slight" what do you define as slight? If it means that in 50 years you think the world will be 0.7c warmer than without slowly down...well that could be a huge factor once you figure in the positive feedback loops.

Re: Is Nathan Myrhvold Onto Something?

mikkel — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 00:36:20 -0000

This is a good overview of what Myrhvold is talking about in what is nearly a completely neutral way.

It's the One True Solution because it tackles the core mechanism of what they view is causing the problem. It's also the One True Solution because they are spending all their money trying to convince people that there is a problem at all. I mean look at this thread. Here is what we have:

a) It's a scam to control the public and there hasn't been warming.
b) There has been warming but it's not our fault, it's due to natural variation.
c) There is warming and it might be our fault but we shouldn't care because we can just manage
d) There is warming, it's our fault but we probably can't stop emissions in time so we should develop geoengineering
e) There is warming, it's our fault and we should do all we can to stop emissions because we don't know whether geoengineering will work and the side effects are harsh

That's just this one thread! If they are spending all their time to get people to know about the issue then obviously not many people will be working on solutions.

The one thing the video points out is that ALL of this has been around for many many decades. None of it is new, I mean heck the UN was barely born when it first came up. Myrhvold didn't come up with any of it, he is just ripping off the thinkers and marketing it.

Re: Is Nathan Myrhvold Onto Something?

mikkel — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 00:20:18 -0000

From his obit: "In the late 90's, seeking to understand the causes of the 1,500-year cycles, Dr. Bond theorized that variations in solar activity - the appearance of sunspots and changes in the emission of solar radiation - might be driving them, said a colleague, Wallace S. Broecker, a professor of geochemistry at Columbia. Other scientists are exploring the theory, and trying to determine whether the natural cycle is acting in concert with human-generated greenhouse gases to accelerate global warming."

What you linked to is just the measurement of temperature, not the mechanism. The author of the study postulated it was due to solar forcing, which as I said in the other comment has deviated from observed temperature changes over the last six decades.

From wikipedia:

"The hypothesis holds that the 1,500-year cycle displays nonlinear behavior and stochastic resonance; not every instance of the pattern is a significant climate event, though some rise to major prominence in environmental history.[7] Causes and determining factors of the cycle are under study; researchers have focused attention on patterns of tides, variations in solar output, and "reorganizations of atmospheric circulation."

As I mentioned in the previous comment, this is just one factor that can be augmented, overridden, etc. by other factors in a highly complex fashion. There is no such thing as a "master" oscillatory signal(s) that determine the output.

Re: Is Nathan Myrhvold Onto Something?

mikkel — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 00:13:18 -0000

Everything is speculative, including the past. I am having a hard time seeing what your argument is.

Re: Is Nathan Myrhvold Onto Something?

mikkel — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 00:10:43 -0000

You didn't address the question about the higher concentration of greenhouse gases in the past. Just because there are natural cycles (of which there are many..but I'll read more on this) doesn't preclude additive effects...indeed in any nonlinear system forcings can create perturbations that cause massive jumps to a new attractor.

By conclusively saying "has not been caused by man" you're stating a logical fallacy based on a couple variables. There are obviously more variables at work as seen by other times in history and basic physics.

Re: Is Nathan Myrhvold Onto Something?

mikkel — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 23:39:05 -0000

What "earth cycles and the solar cycles" are you referring to? The correlation between solar output and temperatures diverged in the 1950s, and we are in a decreasing phase due to the earth orbits(An often-cited 1980 study by Imbrie and Imbrie determined that, "Ignoring anthropogenic and other possible sources of variation acting at frequencies higher than one cycle per 19,000 years, this model predicts that the long-term cooling trend which began some 6,000 years ago will continue for the next 23,000 years.").

Also, the sun has been increasing in output for millions of years and the orbits haven't changed, so why did it used to be much much warmer than it was now if not for greenhouse gases? And if they caused warming then then why not now?

Re: Is Nathan Myrhvold Onto Something?

mikkel — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 23:31:18 -0000

Uh well yeah that's a political problem. There are some scientists that think that we shouldn't spend that much on geoengineering research because it will encourage people to keep status quo and it may not work, so the research makes the political problem worse.

I'm not in that camp. I think that we need to incorporate based on our current understanding now and explore geoengineering along side that.

One HUGE problem with putting sulfur up in the air (which everyone agrees would cool the earth) is that a) it leads to acid rain and b) there are many other issues besides just warming caused by rapid co2 increases, such as the acidification of the ocean, which unchecked will kill most things in it and c) geoengineering is even MORE political: who determines how much and where to pump it? The effects won't be uniform, and countries will be jockeying for control over the button to maximize to their own advantage.

Geoengineering research is similar to a state that global warming was in the 70s. The basic science principles are pretty well explored, but there needs to be tons of work into figuring out what all the side effects will be.

I think Myrhvold's argument is extremely dangerous and not conservative at all (if it causes people to stop the other steps). It depends on the assumption that we can create huge forcings and then figure out how to control it at the last instant. I find his arguments about economics to be wholly misguided and captured by the status quo. There have been many reports including by McKinsey and RAND that suggest that mitigation is not that costly over intermediate terms and highly productive over long terms. That's not to mention that most poor countries aren't poor because there isn't enough cheap capital, but because of poor political situations.

His message about exploring possibilities is completely spot on, but the political messaging about a "solution" and how it's naive to even try to cut down on emissions is wrongheaded at this juncture.

Re: Is Nathan Myrhvold Onto Something?

mikkel — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 23:02:54 -0000

The primary issue is that he is pushing basic mistruths and obfuscations about well accepted engineering approaches towards mitigation and that he is pushing "solutions" that are highly speculative and may have localized effects.

So I'd say the issue is both: he is overstating the scientific merit and they are attacking him from a political perspective because they feel that it is wiser to lower emissions now rather than chance it later.

Here is a second post post about it in more detail.

I think work should continue on both.

P.S. I also see in the video he is talking about different things than much of the second post was addressing. Also unlike the author of climate progress I don't think cap and trade is the best approach.

Re: Is Nathan Myrhvold Onto Something?

mikkel — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 22:56:09 -0000

huh that work?

Re: Is Nathan Myrhvold Onto Something?

mikkel — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 21:39:58 -0000

Myrhvold has been strongly criticized in some quarters that should be read.

Re: Nelson to Support Health Care Reform; Summary of Reid’s Newest Amendment; States Get Power to Limit Abortion Coverage

mikkel — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 11:49:40 -0000

"builds upon the strong bill?"

This list of things is basically the entire point of it. I'll have to wait until I see the full final language but they seem to address the vast majority of the criticisms.

Re: SNEAKY END-RUN ON HEALTHCARE

mikkel — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:37:46 -0000

"This short and sweeping legislation would not immediately address any costs considerations but it would solve one-half the problem – the need for universal coverage. The issue of cost containment for the entire U.S. healthcare industry would be greatly simplified. With Medicare-for-All in place, then HHS would only need to concentrate on controlling healthcare expenses from the powerful position of being the single national entity that really has the negotiating power to dictate all healthcare pricing. The President himself said if he were starting over he’d favor the single-payer public option. In a sense, we are starting over because working within the current system is no longer possible."

I am in favor of single payer in theory as it makes the most logical sense, however our establishment is so broken that if we did it now it'd just bring down the government (or a complete collapse in health care) instead of leading to substantive reform.

Re: Congress Has Really Dropped The Ball On Its Most Pressing Concern (P.S. Not Healthcare)

mikkel — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:25:15 -0000

"I feel that almost a year has already been wasted because the stimulus package wasn't focused on job creation."

Which we both were saying at the time, along with several prominent economists...none of whom are in any policy positions. The most depressing thing to me (and something that is causing a mild crisis of faith) is that there seems to be almost zero correlation between having understanding/foresight of core issues and getting credit for it. As someone pointed out a few months ago, our society seems to define "leadership" as waiting until a problem is so bad that it is unavoidable and then having a strong response that may or may not make sense, as opposed to having a systemic approach the tries to head off issues far in advance.