Deal with Climate Reality as it Unfolds....

[GostHacked]

Michael...... the GHG effect is only one small component of the debate. CO2 is only a miniscule portion of our GHG umbrella - roughly 4 molecules out of 10,000.....with water vapour being by far the most relevant. So I grant you that the GHG effect is pretty well tested or agreed upon as a theory......but the role that CO2 actually plays along with all the other feedback variables, solar and orbit variations.....that's why I say there has been no repeated testing - only computer modeling.

I agree that CO2 is not the big one. I am also under the thinking that the computer models are not accurate enough to where they can predict with any specificity on future climate trends. I am assuming there are still many variables that we don't know about yet. The atmosphere is hyper-dynamic and always changing. Climates are always changing. The real problem is what are we going to do to adapt to these changes when they happen?

Unless people think we can modify the weather enough to combat climate change .

[waldo]

Are there, in your opinion, ANY climate scientists who are reputable skeptics then ?

I have my sources, and they abide by his credentials.

why Michael... all climate scientists are reputable skeptics... it's the nature of science and it's inherent reliance on skepticism. As for Lindzen, you may want to look up his recent embarrassment in London - notwithstanding none of his work stands up to scientific scrutiny. Notwithstanding this earlier exchange:

Read his credentials - he's not a blogger, but a climate scientist who was part of IPCC.

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

anyone with time invested around the AGW climate change debate recognizes who Lindzen is... we had an earlier MLW thread that included the MIT sponsored debate between Emanuel, Layzer, Prinn, Ansolabehere and Lindzen. His early non-climate related work has carried him - certainly, nothing he's contributed in presumed opposition to the theory of AGW climate change has gained him the "respect" you accord... he's been wrong on water vapour, he's been wrong on climate sensitivity, he's been wrong on model robustness, etc. His latest paper/position that I referenced clearly highlights the dismissive ranking Lindzen deserves. To me, a real respect should also include a measure of his outside ties and past engagements, particularly those related to Big Tobacco, Big Oil, and Conservative Think Tanks... and with those, there is little credibility to assign Lindzen accredited respect.

[GostHacked]

Are there, in your opinion, ANY climate scientists who are reputable skeptics then ?

I have my sources, and they abide by his credentials.

Scientists are skeptics by nature and design.

Scientist A - I have a theory that *.*

Scientist B - How do you prove that *.* is as you say it is?

Scientist A - Well, I've done these repeatable tests that show this result all the time.

Scientist B - I'd like to test your theory with your procedures to see if I get the same result.

If scientists were not skeptics (and dreamers) then there would be no falsification of things.

[waldo]

Michael...... the GHG effect is only one small component of the debate. CO2 is only a miniscule portion of our GHG umbrella - roughly 4 molecules out of 10,000.....with water vapour being by far the most relevant. So I grant you that the GHG effect is pretty well tested or agreed upon as a theory......but the role that CO2 actually plays along with all the other feedback variables, solar and orbit variations.....that's why I say there has been no repeated testing - only computer modeling.

utter BS! ... and, once again, Simple talk is cheap. Care to substantiate... anything... you're saying?

you tried your same water vapour nonsense in the past with your cut/paste charade to denier "Essenhigh":

-

R. Essenhigh states

: “Hence, anthropogenic CO2 is too small to be a significant or relevant factor in the global warming process, particularly when comparing with the far more potent greenhouse gas water vapour.”

False

– anthropogenic CO2 upsets the rough natural carbon cycle emission-absorption balance… where a percentage of human CO2 emissions are not being absorbed and remain in the atmosphere.

False

– Essenhigh’s claim reflects upon water vapour’s radiative transfer impact range as limited to the lowest 2km of the atmosphere and discounts the radiative transfer aspects of CO2 within the 2km-to-8km portion of the atmosphere… notwithstanding, the positive warming feedback loop between increased CO2 and water vapour.

[wyly]

Michael...... the GHG effect is only one small component of the debate. CO2 is only a miniscule portion of our GHG umbrella - roughly 4 molecules out of 10,000.....with water vapour being by far the most relevant. So I grant you that the GHG effect is pretty well tested or agreed upon as a theory......but the role that CO2 actually plays along with all the other feedback variables, solar and orbit variations.....that's why I say there has been no repeated testing - only computer modeling.

H20 cycles through the atmosphere in 2 weeks, CO2 has a long atmospheric life cycle that can be measured in hundreds of years, it's effects are cumulative...

atmospheric proportions are irrelevant, elements can have a power far in excess what they're volume would indicate...a room full of oxygen is in the short term harmless, a miniscule amount of H2S will kill you in minutes...

you can fill a 50ft pool with water and sunlight will hit the bottom with no problem, cover the same pool with a thin sheet of black paper and you will effectively block all light from reaching bottom...volume/mass is not equal to effect...once again your understanding of science is very simplistic, properties of elements/compounds are not equal...

[waldo]

I agree that CO2 is not the big one.

equally, GostHacked talk is cheap... would you also like to substantiate your claim/statement on CO2 influence on the enhanced Greenhouse Effect, particularly in regards Simple's nonsensical water vapour emphasis?

(Note: per past discussions, the methane caveat holds)

[waldo]

H20 cycles through the atmosphere in 2 weeks, CO2 has a long atmospheric life cycle that can be measured in hundreds of years, it's effects are cumulative...

clearly... this CO2 residence time was also a part of the Simple nonsense in regards my earlier post highlighting the Simple cut/paste charade to denier "Essenhigh":

In regards R. Essenhigh’s principal assertion concerning CO2 residence times, he addresses the simple molecule focused residence time of CO2 and completely discounts the much longer effective residence time relative to the near equilibrium between ocean/atmosphere and atmosphere/biosphere.

The following paper from David Archer, one of the world’s pre-eminent climatologists, soundly refutes any of R. Essenhigh’s claims concerning CO2 residence times:

Summary

The carbon cycle of the biosphere will take a long time to completely neutralize and sequester anthropogenic CO2. We show a wide range of model forecasts of this effect. For the best guess cases, which include air/seawater, CaCO3, and silicate weathering equilibria as affected by an ocean temperature feedback, we expect that 17–33% of the fossil fuel carbon will still reside in the atmosphere 1 kyr from now, decreasing to 10–15% at 10 kyr, and 7% at 100 kyr. The mean lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 is about 30–35 kyr.

A mean atmospheric lifetime of order 104 years is in start contrast with the ‘‘popular’’ perception of several hundred year lifetime for atmospheric CO2. In fairness, if the fate of anthropogenic carbon must be boiled down into a single number for popular discussion, then 300 years is a sensible number to choose, because it captures the behaviour of the majority of the carbon. A single exponential decay of 300 years is arguably a better approximation than a single exponential decay of 30,000 years, if one is forced to choose. However, the 300 year simplification misses the immense longevity of the tail on the CO2 lifetime, and hence its interaction with major ice sheets, ocean methane clathrate deposits, and future glacial/interglacial cycles. One could sensibly argue that public discussion should focus on a time frame within which we live our lives, rather than concern ourselves with climate impacts tens of thousands of years in the future. On the other hand, the 10 kyr lifetime of nuclear waste seems quite relevant to public perception of nuclear energy decisions today.

A better approximation of the lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 for public discussion might be ‘‘300 years, plus 25% that lasts forever.’’

[GostHacked]

equally, GostHacked talk is cheap... would you also like to substantiate your claim/statement on CO2 influence on the enhanced Greenhouse Effect, particularly in regards Simple's nonsensical water vapour emphasis?

(Note: per past discussions, the methane caveat holds)

Actually in many of your posts you also eluded to the water vapor being a bigger problem, as the methane is a bigger problem. But I will admit for the most part now, I simply glaze over most of your posts, they way you always belittle someone is quite annoying. You could be right on all this, but unless you change your approach, not many want to read what you have to say. And that is not limited to threads that talk about global warming... sorry. 'climate change' .. the climate is always changing.

But no matter what anyone posts, you always have a 'come back'. A scientist finds different results, you have a nice little marginalization box you can put them in making it easy to dismiss anything that that scientist has put forth. Even when they have been long standing supporters of climate change and then discover something else which changes their views, you throw them all in that box.

But that seems to be the whole crux of this thread. Dealing with the new information as it comes out, in a constructive way. There should be no consensus on the science. The science IS or it IS NOT.

We scientists agree on A.

We scientists agree on B.

Well, what does the real science say?

[waldo]

Actually in many of your posts you also eluded to the water vapor being a bigger problem, as the methane is a bigger problem.

no - quit making shyte up. I've never stated water vapour is a "bigger problem" than CO2. I provided the methane caveat above... certainly methane is a stronger, but in relation to CO2 levels (today) it is not as significant. Of course, the methane warming temperature feedback (re: melting permafrost) is set to potentially usurp CO2 as the principal influence within the enhanced Greenhouse Effect.

You could be right on all this, but unless you change your approach, not many want to read what you have to say.

I could care less about your sensitivities... your personal disinformation campaign will be responded to. I note you haven't bothered to take up the 'provide substantiation' challenge, hey? Like I said, your (and Simple's) talk is cheap... very cheap!

[dre]

Yes, and the moon landing isn';t the greatest analogy...but I was addressing the analogy already present.

As it stands, I completely agree that it was not possible in 1900.

That entire claim is a straw-man based on nothing more than Timmys intellectual dishonesty.

That was in response to me... And what I said is that IF we make energy reform a priority we might be able to move into the next energy age within 50 or 100 years. Heres my post...

Depends on which snapshot in time you decide to look at. Can we completely resolve these issues today? Nope... But if we start taking energy technology seriously today and make these reforms a central policy objective, then we could certainly enter the next energy age within the next 50 or 100 years.

Not exactly a radical post on my part. And certainly no claim what-so-ever that the we can immediately resolve this problem by spending money. His rebuttal? "The government could not have pulled off the moonlanding in 1900 no matter how much they spent". :lol:

With all due respect, Timmy is quite simply a liar.

Edited May 29, 2012 by dre

[bush_cheney2004]

....With all due respect, Timmy is quite simply a liar.

Not in the case of "moon landings"....the comparison is spot on.

Have government spend all you wish in 1900 and you would still be left with something akin to this:

[TimG]

That was in response to me... And what I said is that IF we make energy reform a priority we might be able to move into the next energy age within 50 or 100 years. Heres my post...

You need to re-read what your write before you complain.

You said:

As I said before though "we" have little relevance now. We had our chance and did next to nothing. All we can do now is hope that somebody else solves this problem before energy costs destroy the global economy.

To which I responded that there was never any lost window of opportunity.

Sure there was. We could have taken energy development seriously... instead of more or less stopped building 30 years ago, and now we have a huge infrastructure defecit. We are on a path towards a major energy crisis that is the predictable result of our inaction and our failure to take the problem seriously.

Which is where you brought up the argument that if government had only spent more money 30 years ago we would have solved the 'energy crisis'.

This is what started the thread on the moon landing as an example of why that statement above is completely wrong.

What actually said was:

It was not made a priority UNTIL the technology existed to make it feasible. In 1900 the technology did not exist so no amount of government funding would have changed anything. You ***are basically arguing*** that any government could have got to the moon in 1900 if they spent enough money. That claim is so ridiculous I don't understand why you are making it.

Notice the phrasing. I was saying that your argument that things would have been different if the government spent a lot more money 30 years ago is the same as arguing that the moonshot could have been done in 1900 if only the government had spent more money. A fair comment that did not put any 'words in your mouth'.

So no misrepresentation. Only a poster that lost track of the thread and did not read the responses carefully.

Edited May 29, 2012 by TimG

[bleeding heart]

Notice the phrasing. I was saying that your argument that things would have been different if the government spent a lot more money 30 years ago is the same as arguing that the moonshot could have been done in 1900 if only the government had spent more money. A fair comment that did not put any 'words in your mouth'.

Again: that's not a "fair comment," because the two situations aren't analogous.

So no misrepresentation.

Not necessarily an intentional misrepresentation, but nonetheless divorced from reason.

[TimG]

Again: that's not a "fair comment," because the two situations aren't analogous.

Why not? I explained myself in detail. You should do the same.

[GostHacked]

I could care less about your sensitivities... your personal disinformation campaign will be responded to. I note you haven't bothered to take up the 'provide substantiation' challenge, hey? Like I said, your (and Simple's) talk is cheap... very cheap!

Disinformation? When all this AGW bullshit ponzi scheme comes crashing down, and it will, soon ... you and the scientists who have been duped will feel like the real idiots.

[bleeding heart]

Why not? I explained myself in detail. You should do the same.

???

You say we won't have the tech savvy to deal with climate change until...until...we have it. And you know this because we couldn't have sent people to the moon any earlier than we did.

I've already explained it in detail: I don't believe in numerology, or fate, or in the temporal inevitability that both imply. Also, your argument is a tautology, that claims it's correct because it claims it's correct.

Putting more effort and more money into tackling the problem could well increase the spped at which we have the requisaite technology.

The moon landing is irrelevant to this basic fact.

Or...since you wish to use the analogy--there was no massive technological brealthrough that meant, with things going just slightly differently, the moon landing couldn't have happened, say, a few months earlier.

That alone rips up your argument, which allows for zero hypothetical deviation from what has actually occured.

And if the moon landing could have happened months earlier (not technologically unfeasible), there's nothig--nothing!--to say that tech to improve our current situation couldn't happen years earlier.

Edited May 29, 2012 by bleeding heart

[TimG]

You say we won't have the tech savvy to deal with climate change until...until...we have it. And you know this because we couldn't have sent people to the moon any earlier than we did.

The moonshot demonstrates that excess government spending on political driven technology objectives is useless if the time is not right. The only question is: how do you determine if the time is right? I argue that since we are still a long way away from viable renewables that is evidence that prerequisites do not exist today and therefore must not have existed 30 years ago. ergo: money spent 30 years would have been wasted.

Putting more effort and more money into tackling the problem could well increase the spped at which we have the requisaite technology.

Wrong. If the money is spent at the wrong time it will be simply wasted because the 'requisite technologies' are often unrelated to the immediate problem and cannot be anticipated or accelerated by government money because bureaucrats are not psychic. Do you have any idea how much of what we call innovation is the result of years of trial and error by techs designing factories - trial and error that is only viable because large volumns of unrelated products are being manufactured?

Or...since you wish to use the analogy--there was no massive technological brealthrough that meant, with things going just slightly differently, the moon landing couldn't have happened, say, a few months earlier.

It would help if you read what I said instead of arguing with yourself. I specifically said that the governments could shift the development of a technology by a few years once the 'prerequisite technologies' are known.

Note that 'prerequisite technologies' are always appearing on their own schedule because governments and industry are always investing and always generating new technologies. The question we are debating is whether this process can be accelerated by large injections of cash targeted at politically desirable technologies. Am saying no in most cases and you still have not presented a counter argument that addresses what I say instead of stuff you made up.

Edited May 29, 2012 by TimG

[bush_cheney2004]

The moonshot demonstrates that excess government spending on political driven technology objectives is useless if the time is not right.

Agreed...."moonshots" were politically driven events that were funded and enabled by technology developed for the real objective...satellite espionage and terrain mapping. Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo as well as their Soviet counterparts were cover programs for Cold War objectives.

It would help if you read what I said instead of arguing with yourself. I specifically said that the governments could shift the development of a technology by a few years once the 'prerequisite technologies' are known.

Yep...they sure can, but won't do so without a compelling reason. This is something that the die hard GW extremists don't understand. They have failed to sell their version of necessary "moonshots".

Criticism of your "moonshot" analogy just reinforces your point.

[Wild Bill]

This might be appropriate to the argument:

http://www.noahbrier.com/archives/2011/11/steam-engine-time/

The article deals with a long standing and popular notion of "steam engine time" which holds that when all the underlying facts and inventions have been discovered and invented, then and only then will someone build something new, based upon the old finally being common knowledge and available.

"When it is steam-engine-time, steam engines will occur everywhere. But not before. Because all the precursor and supporting ideas and inventions need to be present. The Romans had the idea of steam engines, but not of strong iron to contain the pressure, nor valves to regulate it, nor the cheap fuel to power it. No idea – even steam engines — are solitary. A new idea rests on a web of related previous ideas. When all the precursor ideas to cyberspace are knitted together, cyberspace erupts everywhere. When it is robot-car-time, robot cars will come. When it is steam-engine-time, you can’t stop steam engines."

"Economic leadership in particular must hence be distinguished from “invention.” As long as they are not carried into practice, inventions are economically irrelevant. And to carry any improvement into effect is a task entirely different from the inventing of it, and a task, moreover, requiring entirely different kinds of aptitudes. Although entrepreneurs of course may be inventors just as they may be capitalists, they are inventors not by nature of their function but by coincidence and vice versa. Besides, the innovations which it is the function of entrepreneurs to carry out need not necessarily be any inventions at all. It is, therefore, not advisable, and it may be downright misleading, to stress the element of invention as much as many writers do."

Writers of "hard" or "techie" science fiction birthed this concept decades ago and used it many times in Alternate History plots.

Anyhow, some folks may find the article interesting. A deeper google would also prove worth while. One of the leading sources of the notion is William Gibson, the author who first coined the genre "cyper punk".

[TimG]

The article deals with a long standing and popular notion of "steam engine time" which holds that when all the underlying facts and inventions have been discovered and invented, then and only then will someone build something new, based upon the old finally being common knowledge and available.

Cool! It makes a lot of sense logically. Too bad there are so many people that are addicted to the 'if the government just spent enough money it would come' mindset.

strong iron to contain the pressure, nor valves to regulate it, nor the cheap fuel to power it.

This is a concrete example of why innovations in manufacturing are necessary prerequisites to any technological shift.

The layered nature of technological development is really illustrated by chips because each generation of chips are used to make the equipment used to build the next generation. This means that even if you went back in time 30 years and gave the engineers at Intel the plans to the latest CPU it would not help them much since they do not have to the tools to build it. In fact, it is likely impossible to represent the design of a modern chip with the tools available in the 80s so they could not even read it.

Edited May 29, 2012 by TimG

[bush_cheney2004]

....The article deals with a long standing and popular notion of "steam engine time" which holds that when all the underlying facts and inventions have been discovered and invented, then and only then will someone build something new, based upon the old finally being common knowledge and available.

..and this is the foundation of James Burke's Connections series on the BBC:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcSxL8GUn-g

Edited May 29, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[Michael Hardner]

This might be appropriate to the argument:

http://www.noahbrier.com/archives/2011/11/steam-engine-time/

The article deals with a long standing and popular notion of "steam engine time" which holds that when all the underlying facts and inventions have been discovered and invented, then and only then will someone build something new, based upon the old finally being common knowledge and available.

It's a neat idea, but invention and innovation happen in a lot of different ways. Sometimes you wonder why they didn't have the idea years ago, other times it's based on a network as described in the article.

[Michael Hardner]

Noah Brier

Noah Brier is co-founder of Percolate, a technology company based in New York. Percolate helps brands create content at social scale, working with companies like American Express, GE, NOKIA and MasterCard to publish content across social channels and branded websites.

[dre]

Cool! It makes a lot of sense logically. Too bad there are so many people that are addicted to the 'if the government just spent enough money it would come' mindset.

This is a concrete example of why innovations in manufacturing are necessary prerequisites to any technological shift.

The layered nature of technological development is really illustrated by chips because each generation of chips are used to make the equipment used to build the next generation. This means that even if you went back in time 30 years and gave the engineers at Intel the plans to the latest CPU it would not help them much since they do not have to the tools to build it. In fact, it is likely impossible to represent the design of a modern chip with the tools available in the 80s so they may could not even read it.

Thats fine but it its not a salient reply to anything I said. Youre still arguing against a made up position in your head. Im talking about investing in the incremental advances to make the end game come sooner, I never suggested that the government can just solve this problem today by spending enough money. That again is a magic voice inside your head.

Heres an excerpt from Bills post...

A new idea rests on a web of related previous ideas. When all the precursor ideas to cyberspace are knitted together, cyberspace erupts everywhere.

And thats exactly what Im talking about. Its called R&D. Cyperspace didnt "erupt" everywhere until we did a lot of research on those precursors, and that research required funding - both public and private - in electronic computing, networking, telecommunications etc. And besides the research a huge investment had to be made in infrastructure as well.

This doesnt contradict anything I said in any way. And whether it contradicts the bullshit you made up inside your head or not is wholly irrelevant.

[TimG]

Im talking about investing in the incremental advances to make the end game come sooner

Pure sophistry. Without the prerequisites necessary to make renewables viable government money cannot even accelerate the process. Without those prerequisites the government simply dumps money into dead end technology that provide few insights on how to make renewables viable.

For example, a government program promoting the widespread production of vacuum tube computers in the 50s would have been rendered obsolete once semiconductor computers arrived. All of the money dumped into the 'vacuum tube computer' program would have been wasted and progress would not have been accelerated one bit.

The analogy to renewables is extremely apt here. All we have today is 'vacuum tube' technology for renewables and spending tonnes of money deploying is economically wasteful.

Edited May 30, 2012 by TimG