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: Is Nathan Myrhvold Onto Something?

JeffersonDavis — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 16:22:31 -0000

2012 will be a good year for differences in that respect, Mikkel. The sun at flare-peak and perihelion at the solstice should be interesting. Maybe the Mayans were right? LOL

You are confusing my stance against the Gore ideal as my not thinking that we have ANY effect on our environment. We absolutely do, but not on the scale that these nuts put forth. Let me illustrate. If every nation were to adopt the laws America PRESENTLY has on the books (environmental laws); this would be a non-issue.
However, China, India, Russia (et al) do not and are much like the US was during their industrial build-up period (with rivers on fire, acid rain, mass erosion, etc). It is these nations that should tote the line. But the environmental purity is not the goal for Al Gore and the gang.
As I've said many times, if these clowns can get the populace to embrace the "we're all gonna die" scenarios they weave, then they can implement their carbon-based economy. This would, in turn, lead to total control of the world economy, which would, in turn, lead to their ultimate goal of one world government.

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: Is Nathan Myrhvold Onto Something?

HemmD — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 09:22:09 -0000

Mikkel

The only problem I've had with your comments has been the deafening silence concerning the actions of CRU et al. I do remember that you were quick to say no data was lost despite the deniers' claims. The CRU emails clearly show that only adjusted data was kept by Mann and that he consistently refused that release.

Hearing you call for that release at the time would have been a nice indication of the position you currently espouse. Your responses concerning AGW theory has always been consistently favoring the hockey stick. Would you now say you’re your confidence level about this presentation remains high?

The publicity campaign of CRU scientists has been a major stumbling block to science.

!n 1922, William Wallace Campbell, director of the Lick Observatory and long time opponent of Einstein's theory, tested the theory during an eclipse. After confirming the apparent shift in stars as predicted, he never again questioned that theory. I believe much of the struggle seen today with AGW would well have been avoided if open analysis by skeptics had been allowed.

There are many, many studies that confirm the MWP, but the Mann, Jones, Briffa series appears to deny these other proxy studies. I suggest good science should start there, without the "help" of journal gate keeping or blocking of scientific papers. In this we seem to agree. If many studies show one thing and three working together show another, I suggest you should be skeptical.

Re: Is Nathan Myrhvold Onto Something?

DLS — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 01:02:25 -0000

"Why do you believe that is practically impossible?"

For the world as a whole, I just scoff right away at it. World population growth retardation and eventual stasis, the decline, is possible (amazing to Sixties types, but true) -- we've already seen this in numerous countries. (Note that that this itself implies a brake eventually on energy use and emissions, though not reversal.) If you look at the portion of the world that is undeveloped currently, and what it takes for them to modernize now, and what realistically we can expect to do with our own (developed nations') energy use and emissions now, there's no way that we can expect to sharply curtail emission growth, then total emissions, then reduce them. That's unrealistic, just like starry-eyed promises disconnected with the facts (and with the responsibility throughout the projected time period to accomplish it) that politicians make and activists say we should achieve, for emissions reductions. This is without additional irritations like
the likely outbidding and one-upsmanship that some politicians, and multiple nations, are tempted to do. Why take that seriously?

"There are many maturing technologies that have nearly identical cost/kwh over their lifespan as coal,

Well, right now, if some cost problems were addressed, nuclear power still looks great for electricity production (a nuke and hydro combination is still hard to beat for cleanliness and practicality). The two favored future electricity sources (since the 1960s) have been wind and solar power, but these always will be diffuse and intermittent. Where they make sense (exploiting good local wind power; solar power for peak shaving in the Sunbelt, for example), I think they're great. But they don't promise to replace coal or gas (the typical replacement for coal, cleaner but expensive!) for electricity production soon.

"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."

Conservation never will be "the" solution, particularly with a still-growing nation and economy. But it helps, obviously! In fact, normally I don't like big government spending sprees, but you know I was ready to relent and do a big experiment with government stimulus this year. It would have been good to have had insulation and weatherstripping, etc., done as part of this, along with (especially in the East with old, oft-substandard housing in modern eyes) demolition and removal of really bad structures (as in cities like Detroit) and complete rebuilding of structures -- energy-efficient, of course. (Why not start with federal government buildings, as long as the urge to create lavish accomodations can be resisted, and reduce the cost of the federal government's daily existence and operations?)

"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."

That's twenty years from now. (Transportation is a really important thing to note, because often when thinking of "energy" people think primarily of sources for producing electricity, and forget or neglect the transportation component, which is where so much oil use goes. I'd like to see electric vehicles someday and believe I will, along with fuel cells that may also be electricity sources for other uses and replace to a large extent our electrical transmission and distribution system in the world today.) What do we do currently, though? What should we do currently?

It makes no sense to try to force people and businesses (and governments) to do what is uneconomical (which is to say, wasteful, too, the opposite of practicing conservation) as well as often impractical. What we also see is a whole boatload (to use an efficient transportation metaphor) of lefty goals (replacing the private sector with the government equivalent or alternatives; going from a free to a planned, directed, and heavily controlled economy and society) that are the same since the 1960s. There is no need for this (and no reason to accept misuse of science to rationalize or defend this, or the same with energy-policy preferences). All of this is an overreaction and something that in no way follows logically from either the valid or the invalid claims about what we are doing to the climate, what it is doing on its own, and what we can expect about it.

Current strategy? Get rid of the political bugs with nuclear power, and figure out how to do a good job converting coal to liquid fuels that we can use to reduce our need for imported oil. (We can use the clean synthetic oils to make chemicals and other materials more useful than engine fuels, just as we do with natural oils now.) Pump R&D into fuel cells and directed electric vehicle research, as well as bettering wind and solar power. (We don't know the extent and actual nature of all the applications for wind and solar -- radiation -- generated electricity yet. What about more small, portable applications?) This coming year, to the extent we can afford to do it or are willing, anyway, proceed with retrofitting energy-conserving means into structures, and rebuilding structures, as part of a new stimulus measure. (A serious stimulus would also involve other conventional things, like uprating and completing planned transmission systems for
electricity, for example.) We may as well try some real stimulus measures, that are known to be good measures and which benefit us without question. (That's true for sensible, cost-effective continued emissions reduction programs and research, which also should continue or proceed.) Find something, hopefully, that can be done of value with coal ash, as coal isn't going away completely.

There's no reason for climate hype (or overreaction to that hype). But we don't know enough. Put more research into climate. Not to find prejudged conclusions that conform to a political agenda, but to learn about what we don't know. Try to ascertain better than we have so far what may happen if the climate changes (both hotter and colder than now) and what it means for our future. (That implies changes to what we know about our future. Do we know all we should? If not, what will be the needs for water not only in the Southwest but elsewhere, like the Southeast, where so many more people eventually will reside? What water supplies do we have now, what do we need, how can we develop more supplies or transport water? What about electricity? Rising water levels and coastal protection? And so on.)

Rather than aiming for far distant goals, that typically are unrealistic, and of course rather than engaging in radical change of our nation that is unwanted and unneeded and destructive (in instances, perverse, too),
we should just understand what we can do (practically, realistically), and do that, while doing R&D for the future. What brake on emissions we do achieve is what we achieve. It's worth far more than unrealistic goals, in this case.

We can even add a carbon tax or a similar tax (an energy use tax), which is better than any "cap and trade" emissions-related scam, that is energy rationing (and is sininster in its implications). The tax is not necessary and should be questioned, because it's counterintuitive (I'm being kind) to act against energy use that constitutes progress. It's even dangerous to consider things that often are favored by lefties, which if approached dispassionately might work well (a tax on motor vehicle weight, and perhaps on distance traveled, though a fuel tax is more than suffiicient and more practical as a substitute, that exists already, too), but which threaten to be abused. Proceed with the utmost caution, especially if it is just something done to make (some of) us feel good, rather than for any necessity or truly positive objective.

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?

DLS — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:59:42 -0000

Thanks. I try to be sensible (which includes having a small "footprint" and leaving things better than how I found it, picking up litter, helping little old ladies, all that stuff -- better than I found it, though some might have reservations about that here on TMV).

They aren't blanket assertions of the world, Mikkel. I just have a low tolerance for silly, destructive politics. Time and experience have worn down my tolerance, I guess while removing (after exposing) a lot of youthful idealism and illusions (like weathering of our terrain, those Applachians and Ozarks). I've also come to prefer simplification of prose, speaking or writing more plainly. (My favorite lefty talker is straightforward Ed Schultz, followed by angry but often-good Thom Hartmann.) "Blanket assertions"? Okay, so I risk over-generalization -- I've been warned about that before. [grin]

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?

HemmD — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 21:16:53 -0000

mikkel
"it's one of the main parameters. Geez louise"

If solar cycles are incorporated into the models and the sun's effect is negligible since 1975, what even theoretic kind of solar activity could be responsible for the MWP?

This was my point. If the sun can be discounted for the past 25 years worth of heating, AND co2 levels were not much higher around 1000AD, how can you make the explicit statement that co2 is the primary cause now. The AGW argument is circular. It's due to co2 now, but it was due to the sun 1000 years ago. At best, your argument points to a third, unknown cause. Why bet the world economy upon a circular argument. After you find a suitable explanation for the rise, please tell just what brought the little ice age hard after. Mann's solution was to minimize these two huge variations as insignificant blips of statistical irrelevance.

"I'm just saying that the current objections have flaws in that they have already been studied"

A shame you don't have the same complaint about the AGW theory. At least the skeptics haven't blocked papers running counter to their beliefs. As much as the warmists want the purloined emails to just go away, there is plenty of evidence that papers submitted to scientific papers were discussed by the group, and suitable response papers developed prior to their publication so as to minimize their effect. That is ethically wrong. Gate keeping of scientific papers are not done through bias.
You clearly know the scientific studies of Mann, Jones, et al, but have you read their discussions how to minimize past temps and cut off proxy series endings to make their cause seem right?

You mentioned that solar activity was a close proxy for temps until 1975, what if that proxy study was curtailed on graphs at 1974? Would you call that good science? This is what was done by these guys.

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.

If that would be done and AGW is found, I'll back it completely. Kill the raw data, manipulate it's weighted significance, block counter hypothesis, and ridicule people who find problems with your methods, you have something more akin to the proof of WMD under Bush than you do science.

Thanks again for your time and patience.

Re: Is Nathan Myrhvold Onto Something?

DLS — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 17:22:57 -0000

"... you look at the massive shortages in water and energy and the demographics problems we're having right now[.]"

The shortages that are being hyped by some (and any solutions to water and energy shortages fought), and the problems such as in the USA and the West that will be worse later, affecting government retirement programs, that their defenders routinely deny? (The same kind of hypesters, opponents of progress, and deniers of real problems, I notice.)

We'll see water shortages that are for real later, not only in the Middle East but here in the USA. (As I've already written elsewhere, I'm currently again in the desert Southwest and being able to live here for a while before the [real] water shortages happen and it affects everybody's lifestyle.) We'll also see demographic problems and related problems, like other states besides California becoming notably crowded and expensive and growing nevertheless. (Look to other southeastern locales in addition to Florida, as well as to northern Florida and its Panhandle, including the zone where cooling degree-days exceed heating-degree days because of the mild winter weather.)

The Club of Rome and the predictable response to it that made most of the news was another example of hype and alarmism-catastrophism, which was used to rationalize those oh, so familiar Sixties goals.

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?

JeffersonDavis — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 14:38:37 -0000

My main point was not BS, as you put it. My main point about a "liberal conspiracy" was that academia is bought and paid for by the left - period. That's really not such a "conspiracy theory", since those I know within academia (including my own experiences with blackballing) have shown it consistently.
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.
The left is one-sided on this one. Oxygen balance, nitrogen balance, and C02 balance (among others) is crucial for a stable atmosphere.

And 2013 is YOUR point of no return?
Why 2013?
You are making the same mistake some of your more liberal colleagues are making. Your "global warming" cannot be intrinsically measure in one or two years. We've only been measuring it for 70 years - not even close to one cycle.
The ONLY verifiable information we have is historical/geological data which show definitively that heating and cooling cycles exist.

Re: Is Nathan Myrhvold Onto Something?

HemmD — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 12:54:30 -0000

Mikkel

Your answer, of course, assumes that either co2 or solar activity are the only reasons for a rise in temperature. Assuming that solar activity was the primary cause of the MWP requires something beyond a guess. If the MWP was caused by solar activity which AGW now discounts as a primary cause of warming, it appears that the argument is at best convenient. None of the current AGW theory employs variations in solar activity as a driving force, and of course, none of the climate models make use of this primary heat variable.

So, how is the science settled if the only way to account for a historic variance is to point to a cause that is now discounted in current models? Additionally, I guess another undocumented solar cycle accounts for the Little Ice Age too. When is the next solar generated heat wave or cool down coming?

This again is besides the point I've asked you to address throughout our exchange concerning AGW. 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.

The Mann historic proxy series runs counter to several other proxy studies. Mann hockey stick reduces the MWP to practical insignificance while other studies show that period as warm as today. Let me be clear one more time, CO2 of course has an effect on Global Climate. As much as warmists would like the public to believe, the vast majority of skeptics believe this. The question is not that fact, but it is a primary cause of global warming? That is not proved.

Cloud cover is a major factor is warming, but AGW insists that CO2 warming lessens cloud cover. What evidence can you point to that it's not the other way around? What scientific reason can be pointed to that shows that thinning clouds increase temperature and not higher temperatures result in thinner cloud cover? In short, there is no proof, yet all models work from the same CO2 Assumption.

Thanks for responding

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?

JeffersonDavis — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 10:22:02 -0000

" The currently theories about said mechanisms cannot account for warming except for CO2 concentration. "

Mikkel.... This is because the entire agenda of the left and their pawns in academia require it. Yes I know this sounds very much like conspiracy theory. But it is fact that academia is allowing politics to guide it, instead of objective science.

You cannot dismiss geologic history as a "theory". It's there in "black and white" for all to see. Carbon content in every geological layer in the earth is there. Temperature data is there. Conversely, the CO2 theories are new, yet accepted as fact. Why do you suppose that is?

Re: Is Nathan Myrhvold Onto Something?

JeffersonDavis — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 10:15:36 -0000

Methane and the ocean are, themselves, among self-sufficient systems (as are most of the rest of the naturally occurring gases.). And you are correct about the 55-60% numbers attributed to natural factors. That data is extremely old, however, and was based (partially) upon data that is pre-EPA. I cannot remember the source, but if you check your data, you should see that the numbers are much higher after the EPA initiatives had taken effect.

You alluded to carbon economies. We should not continue to attempt to limit human activity based upon carbon use. Since we are carbon-based creatures (as is everything on this planet - we are organic after all), of course we will walk the balance with everything being equated to "carbon". The carbon credit scheme is a fallacy and yet a new way to control individuals. I just saw on the news today that we should not own pets because of their carbon "paw print". We should also not take hot showers, drive, breath, eat meat, or just about every other natural human activity.
This is unacceptable.
Regulate wasteful SUVs. Regulate industrial emissions. Find new ways to "be human" that is more green. And especially find viable replacements for fossil fuels. Those are all great ideas.

Re: Is Nathan Myrhvold Onto Something?

HemmD — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 17:32:57 -0000

mikkel
"{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."

I'm not sure how much of this is directed toward JD's discussion and how much toward my comments.

"The currently theories about said mechanisms cannot account for warming except for CO2 concentration."

I have to ask, is a record of high CO2 concentrations during the MWP? I don't believe one exists. What does exist are discussion via the infamous emails that show jones et al consciously working to remove the peaks and valleys of the MWP and the Little Ice Age. Prior to their adjustments to the historic record, the MWP was thought to have experienced higher temps than today. Higher temps then mean no unusual spike today. Look to the hockey stick graph and show me where these historic records have gone.

As to the proxy studies, selecting only certain series out of many can certainly determine a pre-determined outcome. The selection of Mann's series shows a bias toward higher proxy series with higher readings than similar series existing within close geographic proximity to those chosen.

My other comment about the adjustments to ground station records also still stands. The Homogenized temps of both Australia and Siberia both shows elevated trends but raw data from all area stations shows no rise or even a slight downward trend. Siberian temp were weighted toward the urban centers but then adjusted to compensate for the urban heat effect. Maybe a good deal of warming relies more on station selection than on real elevated temperatures.

You can discount my points if you wish, you have in the past; but now at least their are specific emails that demonstrate that something particularly unscientific has taken place in the formation of basics of AGW theory.

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?

Dr_J — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 09:35:32 -0000

It's the One True Solution because it tackles the core mechanism of what they view is causing the problem.

Economic development? Yes, it does tackle that. Or would, if climatologists were actually to get their way.

Certainly the goal of decoupling economic development from emitting carbon is a reasonable one we should work towards, but it's not the reality we're faced with. Myrhvold put it pointedly: emissions reduction is tantamount to killing people.

Re: Is Nathan Myrhvold Onto Something?

HemmD — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 09:02:18 -0000

mikkel

"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."

That logical fallacy cuts both ways. If the MWP experienced temperatures as high as they are today, where's the man-made CO2 cause that explains that spike. Multiple variables, many not currently included in AGW research makes your definitive conclusion just as fallacious.

I've attempted to point out to you that the early work of Mann, Jones, et al has served as the basis of current AGW theories, and you have in past exchanges said in effect that their work stood up to peer review in the best scientific tradition. You and Jeff are jousting over the MWP, but let me point out that it was the hockey stick study that reduced that warming and subsequent Little Ice Age to mere minor blips in the historic record. If the rise in temps in the past 20 years is similar to that of the MWP, why are you so sure that man has caused the problem AGW theorists surmise?

Additionally, the CRU flap has also been accompanied by objections that ground station measurements taken in both Russia and Australia have been adjusted by means of station selection and homogenizing data. The bandwagon toward ever higher recorded temps should be open to critical review. You apparently know the science, do you also require examination by peers other than those that support the hypothesis? The CRU emails clearly show these guys don't believe in such scrutiny.

The earth may be warming, and man's lack of elegance in living in this world are worthy topics, but selective science is another matter. If the CRU emails do not concern you, please explain why they do not.