A Rational Look at the "Settled Science"

[TimG]

Or are you telling us that you think we should treat crackpots on the internet the same as a panel of experts in their respective fields?

A false appeal to authority. A majority "experts" may think that CO2 is a problem but none of these people have any expertise in engineering or economics which is what is required to determine what should be done (if anything).

If you listen to what the majority of experts in engineering say the consensus is we need fossil fuels and they are not going away and the only viable technologies for low emission large scale energy production are nuclear, hydro and natural gas. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people insisting that we listen to experts on CO2 quickly dismiss the experts on engineering and instead prefer to listen to various crackpots and rent seekers promising unicorns and rainbows with wind/solar.

What this means is unless you are willing to castigate your fellow CO2-phobes for questioning the consensus science when it comes to engineering you really have no business criticizing people for questioning consensus science when it comes to the effects of CO2.

Edited December 6, 2014 by TimG

[ReeferMadness]

A majority "experts" may think that CO2 is a problem but none of these people have any expertise in engineering or economics which is what is required to determine what should be done (if anything).

That's quite an extravagant claim. I'm sure you must have done some research to back up your contention that nobody who thinks C02 is a problem has any expertise in engineering or economics.

Please share it with us.

[TimG]

That's quite an extravagant claim. I'm sure you must have done some research to back up your contention that nobody who thinks C02 is a problem has any expertise in engineering or economics.

What I said is that "experts" whose authority you appealed to are theoretical scientists and their opinion on engineering matters not relevant. If you want to cite different experts who do have the engineering knowledge you will likely find that they would not qualify as an "expert" in your first attempt to appeal to authority.

My suspicion is you have not thought through these things and simply take the position that anyone who says things that you like is an "expert" that should not be ignored and anyone you disagree with is a "non-expert" and should be ignored. If this is the case it makes me wonder why you bother posting an "appeals to authority" when it is clearly just an attempt to avoid engaging in an actual discussion of the issues.

Edited December 7, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

Is 134 cubic km of ice. The total ice stored in the Antarctic is 26.5 million cubic km. Or if the current melting rates continue it would take 400,000 years to melt entirely.

Once again ignorant alarmists quote stats without context in order to generate headlines. The position of almost every skeptic is not that warming is not happening but that it is nothing to be alarmed about. Factoids like this only serve to support the skeptic case.

So you are saying NASA scientists are ignorant? I think it's not hard to tell where that evaluation actually belongs here.

[TimG]

So you are saying NASA scientists are ignorant? I think it's not hard to tell where that evaluation actually belongs here.

Depends. Where they completely misrepresenting the data in order to suggest that a tiny melt is the harbinger of some catastrophe? If so then they are ignorant. However, most of the these kinds of misrepresentations come from non-scientists seeking to use science a propaganda tool for their pet cause. Edited December 7, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

Depends. Where they completely misrepresenting the data in order to suggest that a tiny melt is the harbinger of some catastrophe? If so then they are ignorant. However, most of the these kinds of misrepresentations come from non-scientists seeking to use science a propaganda tool for their pet cause.

The water weight of Mt. Everest melting on an annual basis currently is not a "tiny" melt. Their job is science and they have access to lot's of fun stuff, including satellites which give them images of what's going on. Like I say, get ready to roll up your pant legs.

[TimG]

The water weight of Mt. Everest melting on an annual basis currently is not a "tiny" melt.

I did the math. At current rates the Antarctic ice sheet would melt in 400,000 years. So by any reasonable definition the melt is tiny. You can play as many games with irrelevant comparisons but they do not change the fact that the data does not support the claim that you would like to make. Edited December 7, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

I did the math. At current rates the Antarctic ice sheet would melt in 400,000 years. So by any reasonable definition the melt is tiny. You can play as many games with irrelevant comparisons but they do not change the fact that the data does not support the claim that you would like to make.

I'm to believe your math over a trained scientist who works for NASA? Nope. But what the hell, who really cares about what the place will look like in 200 years. My house will still be high and dry but if I lived on the Maldives I might think about a move.

[TimG]

I'm to believe your math over a trained scientist who works for NASA? Nope.

The data is available. Anyone with a brain and an inclination to investigate can do the calculations. But instead of thinking for yourself you are just going assume that a press release is a accurate representation of the facts. It would be pathetic if it was not so sad. Especially since I know that you would never be so credulous if the press release said something that you did not agree with. So spare us you pathetic and hypocritical attempts to appeal to authority and try come up with your own argument for once.

[On Guard for Thee]

Depends. Where they completely misrepresenting the data in order to suggest that a tiny melt is the harbinger of some catastrophe? If so then they are ignorant. However, most of the these kinds of misrepresentations come from non-scientists seeking to use science a propaganda tool for their pet cause.

We all know that NASA hires untrained faux scientist's who's jog it is to misrepresent the data they so erroneously collect . Could you just tell me agian what the purpose of this activity is?

[Bonam]

The antarctic ice sheet has 26.5 million km³ of ice.

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

1 metric ton of ice = 1 cubic meter (rounding, it's actually about 1.07 cubic meters).

1 cubic kilometer = 1,000 x 1,000 x 1,000 cubic meters, that's 1 billion cubic meters.

Therefore, 134 billion metric tons = 134 billion cubic meters = 134 cubic kilometers.

Dividing the total volume of the ice sheet by the amount of yearly melt yields the number of years it would take to melt the whole thing:

26,500,000/134 = 197,761 years ~ 200,000 years

No NASA scientist will disagree with any of the above statements.

That being said, further investigation might show that the rate of melting is increasing, or that meltwater under the icesheet can significantly speed the melting of more ice. But there's no point arguing with the above hard numbers.

[On Guard for Thee]

The antarctic ice sheet has 26.5 million km³ of ice.

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

1 metric ton of ice = 1 cubic meter (rounding, it's actually about 1.07 cubic meters).

1 cubic kilometer = 1,000 x 1,000 x 1,000 cubic meters, that's 1 billion cubic meters.

Therefore, 134 billion metric tons = 134 billion cubic meters = 134 cubic kilometers.

Dividing the total volume of the ice sheet by the amount of yearly melt yields the number of years it would take to melt the whole thing:

26,500,000/134 = 197,761 years ~ 200,000 years

No NASA scientist will disagree with any of the above statements.

That being said, further investigation might show that the rate of melting is increasing, or that meltwater under the icesheet can significantly speed the melting of more ice. But there's no point arguing with the above hard numbers.

Oh buddy, you don't seem to get it. Those numbers are boring and easily accessible for anybody who wants to google and then play calculator games. However, the thing you have glossed over, and it's the actual important thing, is the rate of melt. That's what actually drives the numbers the actual scientist's at NASA are speaking of.

[ReeferMadness]

What I said is that "experts" whose authority you appealed to are theoretical scientists and their opinion on engineering matters not relevant. If you want to cite different experts who do have the engineering knowledge you will likely find that they would not qualify as an "expert" in your first attempt to appeal to authority.

What you've said is that none of the people who think C02 is a problem have expertise in Engineering and Economics. So, I'm asking you to back that up. If you can't, you're just making shit up. Not that that would shock anyone who's read the nonsense you've written before. And don't ask me to do research to disprove your fatuous claim - you said it - back it up.

My suspicion is you have not thought through these things and simply take the position that anyone who says things that you like is an "expert" that should not be ignored and anyone you disagree with is a "non-expert" and should be ignored. If this is the case it makes me wonder why you bother posting an "appeals to authority" when it is clearly just an attempt to avoid engaging in an actual discussion of the issues.

You're suspicions of what I think are only mildly amusing and completely irrelevant.

[ReeferMadness]

Is 134 cubic km of ice. The total ice stored in the Antarctic is 26.5 million cubic km. Or if the current melting rates continue it would take 400,000 years to melt entirely.

Yes, assuming that the ice melted at a uniform rate. Is that what you think would happen? The last ice cube melts at the same rate as the first glacier?

I have to say that your vast store of engineering expertise isn't looking that impressive.

[TimG]

What you've said is that none of the people who think C02 is a problem have expertise in Engineering and Economics. So, I'm asking you to back that up.

You are creating a strawman to avoid addressing my point. You are one who made the claim that "thousands of experts" think that CO2 is problem. The only people that would qualify under that definition of expert are theoretical scientists who know nothing of engineering because, by definition, engineers are experts in actually building and deploying technology and could not be experts in the theoretical science behind CO2. If you wish to claim otherwise then the onus is on you to explain a definition of expert that would allow an engineer to be an "expert" on the theoretical science of CO2 while remaining an expert in building and deploying technology.

I would be happy to work with your special expanded definition of "expert" but I suspect that what you really want to say is "anyone with some kind of credentials who agrees with me is an expert" but I don't know if you know this and just don't want to admit it or you are just too dim to understand the implications of your own argument.

But the more important point which you ignored: the majority of engineers think that if CO2 is a problem then the only viable technologies are nuclear, big hydro and natural gas. Yet environmentalists routinely say these experts don't matter and instead choose to believe a minority of crackpots that claim the energy system can be run with solar and wind.

So my challenge to you is: why should the concerns of theoretical scientists be treated as gospel but the concerns of the majority experts in deploying technology be ignored? Will you answer the question or will you just run away and make up more strawman?

Edited December 7, 2014 by TimG

[TimG]

Yes, assuming that the ice melted at a uniform rate. Is that what you think would happen?

Why would it change? 3 years of data provides no evidence supporting the notion that the melt will increase exponentially. You can speculate that it might happen but it is just speculation with no basis in fact or data. If you want to make the claim that the the rate will increase then the onus is on you to show it with data. In the absence of any data the only reasonable assumption is the rate will be constant.

This example illustrates how alarmists constantly take a little data and use it to make propaganda claims which have little or no connections to reality.

Edited December 7, 2014 by TimG

[TimG]

That's what actually drives the numbers the actual scientist's at NASA are speaking of.

No it does not. It is fiction that you created because it supports what you want to believe. Any conclusions about the *rate of increase* would require at least 10 years of data - possibly 30-40 years if it is extremely variable from year to year. Edited December 7, 2014 by TimG

[ReeferMadness]

You are creating a strawman to avoid addressing my point.

I'm doing nothing of the sort. You've claimed that none of the people who think C02 is a problem have expertise in Engineering and Economics. I'm asking how you came to that conclusion. Did you personally interview all of the engineers and economists? Did you read something that made this ridiculous claim?

But the more important point which you ignored: the majority of engineers think that if CO2 is a problem then the only viable technologies are nuclear, big hydro and natural gas.

Oh, look. Now, you've changed your tune. Originally, you claimed that only theoretical scientists think that C02 is a problem. Now you're saying that the majority of engineers think the only viable fixes to this problem (which, according to you, engineers don't think exists) are nuclear, big hydro and natural gas. One thing hasn't changed though - still nothing to back up your claims. Do you have any actual evidence of your claim that most engineers believe only in these solutions??? Come on, at least try to back up one of your claims. Go for it - you can do it!

And if it were to be that most engineers support these technologies, could it be that most engineers are employed by private sector firms that benefit from those same, earth-destroying technologies?

So my challenge to you is: why should the concerns of theoretical scientists be treated as gospel but the concerns of the majority experts in deploying technology be ignored? Will you answer the question or will you just run away and make up more strawman?

I've never said that only the concerns of theoretical scientists should be addressed. It's you who are making up the straw man.

[TimG]

You've claimed that none of the people who think C02 is a problem have expertise in Engineering and Economics.

That is not what I said. That is a fabrication you created to avoid addressing the point I actually made.

Oh, look. Now, you've changed your tune.

I changed nothing. I simply repeated exactly what I said in my original post. The only thing is now you seem to be reading what I say instead of manufacturing strawmen.

Now you're saying that the majority of engineers think the only viable fixes to this problem (which, according to you, engineers don't think exists) are nuclear, big hydro and natural gas. One thing hasn't changed though - still nothing to back up your claims. Do you have any actual evidence of your claim that most engineers believe only in these solutions?

Where is your evidence of the reverse? It is You are the one making an appeal to authority argument by referring to some completely unidentified "1000s of experts". Why don't you start by providing evidence of your claim that these "1000s of experts" hold the views that you claim they hold?

And if it were to be that most engineers support these technologies, could it be that most engineers are employed by private sector firms that benefit from those same, earth-destroying technologies?

And most scientists work for government grants and need to manufacture crises in order to keep the funding coming. Are you sure you want to play that game?

I've never said that only the concerns of theoretical scientists should be addressed.

Fine. Then state for the record that you recognize that building nuclear, hydro and natural gas fracking capacity are good options because they reduce CO2 emissions. If you refuse to state that then your ARE ignoring the advice of people who's job it is to know how to deploy technology. Edited December 7, 2014 by TimG

[ReeferMadness]

Why would it change? 3 years of data provides no evidence supporting the notion that the melt will increase exponentially. You can speculate that it might happen but it is just speculation with no basis in fact or data. If you want to make the claim that the the rate will increase then the onus is on you to show it with data. In the absence of any data the only reasonable assumption is the rate will be constant.

This example illustrates how alarmists constantly take a little data and use it to make propaganda claims which have little or no connections to reality.

Do you always take your mistakes and accuse people around you of making them? I've made no claims at all - I'm simply questioning your calculations. The fact that the single largest store of ice is melting at all should alarm everyone.

Climate is a chaotic system - do you have any reason to believe that melting will continue at a steady state?

[TimG]

The fact that the single largest store of ice is melting at all should alarm everyone.

Why should it? The data provided does not support any call for alarm. If you disagree provide more data.

Climate is a chaotic system - do you have any reason to believe that melting will continue at a steady state?

Is there any reason to believe it will even continue to melt at all? Perhaps it will melt for a few decades and then start to grow again. As you said, climate is chaotic which implies it can't be predicted. Why are you trying to make predictions? Edited December 7, 2014 by TimG

[ReeferMadness]

That is not what I said. That is a fabrication you created to avoid addressing the point I actually made.

Oh? Let's play back Tim's exact words for the audience.

A majority "experts" may think that CO2 is a problem but none of these people have any expertise in engineering or economics which is what is required to determine what should be done (if anything).

You've claimed that none of the people who think C02 is a problem are engineers or economists? So, are you still claiming this or not?

Where is your evidence of the reverse?

Oh, so that's the way you think it should work. You pull shit out of your ass with absolutely nothing to back you up. And we're supposed to run around the internet finding evidence of the reverse?

[On Guard for Thee]

No it does not. It is fiction that you created because it supports what you want to believe. Any conclusions about the *rate of increase* would require at least 10 years of data - possibly 30-40 years if it is extremely variable from year to year.

And that's exactly the nature of the research NASA has presented.

[TimG]

You've claimed that none of the people who think C02 is a problem are engineers or economists?

Context is everything. In this case the context is your statement:

...panel of experts in their respective fields?

By setting that context you defined expertise to mean people who are experts in specific fields. My response simply built on your definition and claimed that the majority of "experts [in the field of climate science]" may think...

Obviously, you are so intent on demolishing strawman you did not go back and read the context.

Oh, so that's the way you think it should work. You pull shit out of your ass with absolutely nothing to back you up.

You pull shit out your hat with your appeal to the authority of unnamed "experts". So let's start: who are the "experts in their respective fields" which you think should be listened when it comes to engineering questions?

[ReeferMadness]

No it does not. It is fiction that you created because it supports what you want to believe. Any conclusions about the *rate of increase* would require at least 10 years of data - possibly 30-40 years if it is extremely variable from year to year.

Oh, yes. Let's wait 40 years for the data to become clearer. And let's ignore all those "alarmists" with PhDs who are so readily eager to sacrifice their credibility to suck a few more research dollars out of the government. And if it turns out that Antarctica, which contains enough water to render my house inhabitable only by crabs and dogfish, really were to melt? Well, that's OK because it turns out that there is a secret cabal of engineers, that, known only to you, have a secret plan to save us with gas fracking and nuclear power.

That's great, Tim. Please do continue to shower us with your wisdom and secret knowledge. I'm truly sorry for not just trusting your superior knowledge and having the audacity to ask for evidence.