In Search of an Eco-Ethic for Our Times

Several years ago, my oldest son (now 7) came back from preschool one day and announced that we shouldn’t drive our car anymore. “It causes pollution and that kills animals,” he said. I tried explaining to him that things were a bit more complicated than that.

It didn’t help that our family (which includes my wife and his younger brother, now 5) hopped in our Subaru Forrester virtually every weekend to drive all over Colorado (we were living in Boulder at the time), in search of majestic landscapes and wild animals at places such as Rocky Mountain National Park.

We found much to marvel at during these mini-road trips, and didn’t dwell on the mixed messages that my oldest son was already trying to process. Instead, we had fun teaching his precocious mind new words like “ubiquitous,” which he quickly learned by pointing at every McDonald’s that we passed in the car. (“Ubiquitous!” he would yell.)

My boys are still not old enough to understand the contradictions between an environmental ethic and modern life. Take the recent news encapsulated in this New York Times headline: “Deepwater Oil Drilling Picks up Again as BP Disaster fades.”  Amy Myers Jaffe, associate director of the Rice University energy program, spelled out an uncomfortable truth in the NYT article:

We need the oil. The industry will have to improve and regulators will have to adjust, but the public will have to deal with the risk of drilling in deep waters or get out of their cars.

Yes, and since many Americans also like to fly to Disney World, take cruises to the Caribbean, and live in sprawling houses in the suburbs, it seems a safe bet that we’ll deal with that risk.

So how do my wife and I raise two young eco-citizens without going off the grid and living like the Amish? For starters, we moved back to New York City and live an urban lifestyle, which means we mostly walk/scooter/bike and ride the subway. (We still use the trusty, weather-beaten Forrester for weekend road trips out of the city and for bi-monthly food hauls to Fairway.) We live in–ahem–a cozy apartment, instead of the 2500 square foot house in the Boulder foothills (which came with a wrap around porch and menacing bears). We dutifully recycle, I routinely chase down neighborhood litterers, and my wife berates me when I forget to bring our canvass shopping bags to the supermarket.

To stay in touch with nature, we try to go as often as we can to the local botanical gardens, parks, and sanctuaries. (N had his 5th birthday party at the Audubon Nature Center in Brooklyn’s Prospect Park. Unfortunately, we weren’t able to keep Chuck E Cheese out of the birthday rotation one year.) For hands-on ecological immersion, we planted a flower garden last Spring (on Earth Day!) in the tiny dirt patch outside our building’s front step. But every few weeks a villainous thief would uproot one of our precious saplings. That was not a pleasant lesson for the kids, who looked forward every morning to seeing the progress of their plants. Dug-out holes were met with disappointment and puzzlement.

All these experiences, however they turned out, are how my wife and I have sought to imbue our boys with some semblance of environmental awareness and appreciation.

But what they learn from their teachers seems to trigger the hardest questions for us to answer. For example, recently my 7-year old came home from an after-school science program and described what causes global warming. He got the basic science right but then he also told me that not everybody cares about global warming and that this was why nothing was being done about it. Once again, I tried explaining to him that the issue was a bit more complicated than that.

I said that lots of people cared about global warming, but that it was a hard problem for individuals to do anything about. I explained that the same pollution that comes out of our cars is partly responsible for creating greenhouse gases (a term he knew). The same, I said, goes for much of the energy that provides electricity for us to turn on our lights at home. I said that we needed to use cleaner sources of energy (like solar and wind) but that those couldn’t as of yet replace the fossil fuels the world relies on for its energy needs. (I’m waiting a few more years before I complicate his world even more with the whole nuclear power question.) As I recall, my son thought about all this for about 30 seconds before asking if he could play wii Mariocart.

Another teachable opportunity presented itself this past weekend, when I took the boys to see to the new hit children’s movie, The Lorax. For those of you unfamiliar with this classic, here’s a good primer from NYT movie reviewer A.O. Scott:

Since its publication in 1971 “The Lorax,” by Dr. Seuss, has occasionally been caught up in squalls of controversy, most of it cooked up by people choosing to be outraged by the book’s mild allegorical moral of ecological responsibility. In our own globally warmed, ideologically fevered moment there has been a minor flurry of predictable, pre-emptive bloviation aimed at Universal’s movie version, “Dr. Seuss’ The Lorax,” which is supposedly part of a left-wing Hollywood conspiracy to brainwash America’s children into hating capitalism and loving trees.

The bloviaters needn’t have worried. As Scott (who wrote a scathing review) notes, the movie’s simplistic anti-business/pro-eco message collides with the “reigning imperatives of marketing and brand extension.”  Bryan Walsh at Time was similarly disapproving:

Universal Pictures wasn’t content just to turn The Lorax into an incredibly valuable film property. The studio also inked more than 70 promotional tie-ins to the movie, with everyone from Mazda to the Environmental Protection Agency to XFinity TV.

Whatever. My kids don’t pay much attention to product placement. For them, the movie was a gaudy entertainment that they seemed to enjoy. They’re also too young to understand the irony of critics who lambast a movie for wanting to have its cake and eat it, too. After all, isn’t that what green-minded consumers (with their latest i-pods) and their Whole Foods sensibilities do as well? Personally, I’m less concerned with brand tie-ins than I am with the movie’s one-dimensional, cartoonish characters. Then there was this quote that appeared at the film’s end, which echoes the message my son received  several weeks ago about global warming:

“Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. Its not.” -Dr.Seuss.

But what happens when caring is not enough? Moreover, can you still care and keep your cars and gadgets and airplane-enabled conferences and vacations? I’d like to see a movie that addresses that. It might even help me and my kids make some sense of the world we live in.

229 Responses to “In Search of an Eco-Ethic for Our Times”

  1. Sashka says:

    can you still care and keep your cars and gadgets and airplane-enabled conferences and vacations?
     
    Of course you can. And be called hypocrite, too.

  2. Menth says:

    “Several years ago, my oldest son (now 7) came back from preschool one day and announced that we shouldn’t drive our car anymore. “It causes pollution and that kills animals,” he said. I tried explaining to him that things were a bit more complicated than that.”
     
    Sadly, this is basically the same conversation I have with many grown ups.

     

  3. Andy says:

    A good start is to adopt a classic conservation approach.  The real problem is if/when that is not sufficient.

  4. Steve Fitzpatrick says:

    Keith,
    Too bad you hadn’t included nuclear with wind and solar in the conversation on alternatives to fossil fuels.

  5. Keith Kloor says:

    Steve (4) You seemed to have read past the part just after that, where I mention I’m waiting a few years before throwing nuclear into the mix.

  6. Jay Currie says:

    So Keith, have you discussed attribution and uncertainty with your kids?

    Given how little we know and the uncertainty which surrounds even that knowledge it might be a good idea to explain to your kids that before they worry too much about their family’s emissions the science has to firm up a fair bit.

    The advantage of this approach is that it begins the process of teaching critical thinking. As in, “Teachers and text books can be wrong.”  This is a valuable life skill especially given the tendency of schools to present contested information as “the truth”.

    The only people who can protect their children from a lack of critical thinking are those children’s parents. The teacher is not going to. 

  7. BBD says:

    Keith
     
    Interesting piece, thanks. It’s the old problem afflicting the eco-worthies: you can do it for the feelsmug/feelgood factor, but it will not ‘save the planet’. While nobody rational embraces wanton profligacy there really isn’t much global value in a personal hair shirt. The answer is policy-driven and involves Big Stuff: national energy efficiency through improved insulation, nuclear vs coal vs technosolar vs gas etc. We can worry about it, but not really change it through ‘lifestyle choices’.
     
    God alone knows what to tell children. My son is four (“and a half!”) and hasn’t got an inkling. Five, six, seven, GHGs at school, eight, nine , ten (?) that chat with the old man about nooks. Fills me with horror. If he’s lucky, he’ll live into his eighties. What will he see, I wonder?

  8. BBD says:

    Jay Currie
     
    As in, “Teachers and text books can be wrong.”  This is a valuable life skill especially given the tendency of schools to present contested information as “the truth”.
     
    Don’t you worry – Heartland’s going to fix that. David ‘Galieo’ Wojick and chums have it all squared away.

  9. harrywr2 says:

    Keith Kloor,
     I’m waiting a few years before throwing nuclear into the mix.
    It’s never too early to take a child on a tour of a nuclear power plant.
    Entergy claims to have given 1500 people tours last year. I’d write and ask for a tour.

  10. Keith Kloor says:

    harrywr2,

    Good point. Maybe I take him to Indian point, but also all other on-location sources of our energy, to round it out. Thanks for the suggestion. 

  11. Hi Keith,
    Thank you for this article and for sharing a personal experience that resonates with so many of us who try to have these conversations with our children, friends, colleagues, etc.  Maybe it’s important to remind ourselves and our children that though personal example alone can’t solve the problem, it can raise awareness, change behavior and deepen our individual and collective sense of purpose and meaning. I draw a lot strength from a teaching from Jewish tradition, “It is not upon you to finish the task, yet neither are you free to desist from it.”

  12. Menth says:

    Very good column btw.
     
     
    “Once again, I tried explaining to him that the issue was a bit more complicated than that.”
     


     
    In search of an eco-ethic for our times? “It’s complicated”
     
     
     
    Works for me.
     

  13. Nullius in Verba says:

    Nice story!
     
    “For example, recently my 7-year old came home from an after-school science program and described what causes global warming. He got the basic science right…”
    Heh. It’s a bit more complicated than that…
     
    But still, it’s a good preparation for when they become teenagers, and seek to rebel against the system.  The inconsistencies of parents and indeed teachers is a fine source of material. You’ve got that to look forward to.
     
    But as a motto for the eco-ethical, I agree with Menth that “It’s a bit more complicated than that” counts as true wisdom.

  14. Jack Hughes says:

    Keith you can never answer your children’s questions until you resolve your own inner turmoil.

    I teach my daughter about science and about nature. We love family trips outdoors – to the forest and to the beach. We pick things up and examine them. We try to identify things we don’t recognize – birds, trees, flowers, seaweed, shells.

    I think we have a lot in common so far.

    But I don’t do sermonising about endangered this or endangered that – or casting human beings as the villains of the plot. I despise those that do (eg BBC childrens TV).

    And I don’t hold any philosophy about mankind versus nature. I don’t even think “the environment” is a useful concept for understanding the world. 

    I explain to my daughter that at school she needs to memorise and repeat things that may not be true so she can pass her exams and get where she wants to be.

    She already has this concept from Religion classes which are compulsory until 16 in the UK. So it’s not a big stretch to apply the same idea to other subjects: the teacher says “X” but the truth is “Y”.

    She already gets that teachers are not infallible.

    I will repeat that you cannot help your children with this until you fix your own thoughts. 

  15. Keith Kloor says:

    Jack,

    What thoughts of mine require fixing?

    I happen to think it’s perfectly acceptable to let kids know that the world is full of contradictions? Why do you interpret this as “inner “turmoil”?

    Most of us are walking contradictions. Better that my kids come to grips with this sooner rather than later.
     

  16. kdk33 says:

    Cute piece.  Just a few notes…

    Deepwater Oil Drilling Picks up Again as BP Disaster fades.” 

    Lives were lost in the deepwater tragedy – and that needs to be prevented.  BP has a terrible safety record, both on and offshore – think Texas City refinery. 

    But ecologically, it was pretty much the disaster that wasn’t.  I understand search is ongoing for the missing oil.

    we moved back to New York City

    So the world would be a better place if everyone moved to NYC.  Are you serious?

    Pre-emptive bloviation

    I must live a sheltered life.  I read the Lorax.  I read it to my kids.  I’ll take them to see the movie.  The bloviating must not have penetrated into the bible belt.  Perhaps this is what folks in NYC worry about, when their not worrying about how to house to other 294 million new inhabitants.

  17. Keith Kloor says:

    The world would be a better place if more people lived in cities. (And not just for ecological reasons.) But that is already happening…

  18. Steve Mennie says:

    With all due respect Jack (@14) seems you may have a few thoughts to fix as well…maybe a little inner turmoil would be a good thing in your case….just sayin’…

  19. Jack Hughes says:

    Keith – your inner turmoil is that you think your family car journeys are “wrecking the planet” but you carry on driving anyway.
    This will always be hard to explain to your children.
    Not really sure about the walking contradiction bit. I sometimes break the speed limit and yes I forgot to check the smoke alarms last week but I don’t see myself as a walking contradiction.
     

  20. D. Robinson says:

    Nice column Keith!  My nine year old son came home from school one day to tell us we we shouldn’t waste so much energy!  I’ve since brought up the fact that he’s the one turning the hall lights on each and every night.  The irony was lost & ignored, so I need some Cree LED’s.
    Driving a Subby Forrester and living in Boulder, CO is SO cliched:)

  21. Keith Kloor says:

    We bought the car years before moving to Boulder–and we moved there for an academic year, so I could do a journalism fellowship at the university. That said, I love it there, and have many dear friends and colleagues in Boulder, so I’d consider moving back if circumstances allowed.

  22. Marlowe Johnson says:

    A little over a year ago I met with some folks from Nine Mile Point and they were kind enough to give me a tour of the facility.  This was just after the events in Japan and so I was particularly interested to get a sense of the safety aspects, given that it was the same reactor technology as the Daiichi plant. I agree with Harry that seeing this sort of tech up front helps to put things in perspective.

    On the other hand, I’d be lying if I didn’t also admit to being a little unsettled when I went into the control room.  For those who haven’t had the pleasure, it’s not far off from the depiction in the Simpson’s 🙂 . A couple of guys in sweatpants wandering on a color coded carpet checking red lights, dials, etc.  

  23. Marlowe Johnson says:

    “Most of us are walking contradictions. Better that my kids come to grips with this sooner rather than later.”

    “Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself.  I am large and contain multitudes”. 

     

     

  24. Tom Scharf says:

    I don’t see any problem with infusing kids with idealism at the early stages.  They have to understand the goals before they can begin to see the nuances.  Fears of indoctrination are 99% unfounded paranoia.  

    Sadly it seems some never grow out of this idealistic stage…you must learn that being unrealistic is the same as being ineffective.

    Low cost, low impact energy is what we want.  There seems to be a sect inside the green movement that is anti-energy period, the “let’s all move to the commune and hold hands” group.   However this group is pretty small, although they tend to scream the loudest.  

    Nuclear energy, electric cars, more efficient electronics.  With cars it is really battery technology that is holding everything back.  Slow to recharge, low capacity, hard and dirty to manufacture.  Whoever solves this problem will be rich beyond belief, and that is motivation enough.

    It will be interesting to see what if anything today’s youth think 30 years from now if/when this global warming scare turns out to be unfounded.  I think it is a huge gamble by the greens to press this issue so hard based on what many perceive as weak science.  An entire generation may view the greens with much less credibility after they move on to the next “end of times” meme.   
     

  25. BBD says:

    Marlowe Johnson
     
    Or alternatively:
     
    “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.”

  26. Marlowe Johnson says:

    @25
    Indeed.  

    Personally, I continue to grapple with the when/how to let my 5yr old daughter know that the world is not all roses and sunshine and that everyone including her parents are full of moral failings.  Not being a vegetarian and routinely driving 130 km/hr on the highway are high on my list of personal shortcomings.  

    I’ve often thought that the true transition from adolescence to adulthood occurs when we see our parents as flawed, fallible individuals rather than near perfect guardians of our well being. For most people, I’d suggest that this transition occurs after experiencing parenthood for a few years, not after going to college or getting your first job.

    Oh and the Lorax android app is great 🙂

     

  27. stan says:

    The message of the Lorax is simple for kids to get — tragedy of the commons.  If only the trees were someone’s private property!  They all understand very well the notion that they are a heckuva lot more careful with their own stuff than they are with stuff that isn’t theirs.

  28. Keith Kloor says:

    Stan (27),

    That is precisely the argument that Jonathan Adler has previously made here

  29. BBD says:

    MJ
     
    Play gentle practical jokes on her: pretend you are going to make food she doesn’t like for supper etc (so long as she says: ‘you’re tricking me!’ its okay). Tell her you do not know the answers to some of her questions then let her watch as you look them up. Tell her mummy is usually right and you are often wrong. She will confirm this by observation.
     
    The ultimate shock – that we are imperfect – may be lessened. Or at least I hope so. I don’t think my little lad has an especially idealised impression of me 😉
     
    The true transition from adolescence to adulthood comes with the demonstration that your parents as mortal. As well as flawed and fallible.

  30. Jarmo says:

     Keith, you better be careful.

    You remember the old joke from the cold war days:  If you want to turn your child into a capitalist, send him/her to the University of Moscow.

    If you want a budding socialist, send him/her to Berkeley 😉 

  31. Menth says:

    Not being a vegetarian and routinely driving 130 km/hr on the highway are high on my list of personal strengths.

  32. hunter says:

    Has anyone actually run the numbers to determine the environmental footprint of the urban infrastrucutre that enables you to live the “urban lifestyle”? Please include the pavement, the use of watersheds, hydro, coal, etc. power plants, the energy to truck and train in the vast amounts of goods the urban lifestyle requirees (basically everything you consume, wear, use, etc.).
    If honestly and accurately done, I bet it would be very revealing.

  33. hunter says:

    as for education, I bet if you play the famous 10:10 video a few times a week for them, they will get the message about being ‘climate concerned’. ;^)

  34. Marlowe Johnson says:

    Keith, how’s this for 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon:

    in the Volokh article you linked to, he quotes Paul Feine of the Institute for Humane Studies who views the story through the lens of property rights.  Given recent events with Heartland, I decided to Mashey ‘the Institute for Humane Studies’ and discovered that it was founded by none other than Dr. F. A. “Baldy” Harper.  Now as it happens I hadn’t come across that particular name until I read a blog post by Adam Curtis. In the post Curtis describes how Harper is the father of the modern day think tank. What makes this all very interesting and circular is that i came across the Curtis post by way of BBD who posted it here a couple of threads back! 

    small world eh? 

  35. Steve Mennie says:

    A short addendum to Marlowe Johnson @ 34…BBC and Marlowe are the two reasons I return to this blog…again, just sayin’…

  36. Steve Mennie says:

    BBD, that is. 

  37. stan says:

    Keith,

    I’m not surprised that someone has written the same thought.  It’s pretty basic.  I’ve read Seuss to my kids since my 18 yr old was small.  The Lorax is a fine story.  I just always pointed out the obvious solution to the problem when we got to the end of the book.  I guess it was the economics major.  Or maybe law school.  Property rights matter because incentives matter.  Basic stuff.

  38. Marlowe Johnson says:

    @37
    I had no idea you were in favour of cap and trade!

  39. Marlowe Johnson says:

    @35
    Thanks.  For what it’s worth, one of the reasons I post in this particular forum is that I’ve learned that you never know when or whose mind will be changed.  As BBD has said in the past, it was his participation here that prompted him to take a closer look at things and revise his views on climate change.   We’re still having it out on the nuclear file but I have hope that i’ll wear him down on that one eventually :).

  40. Lewis Deane says:

    Ethics. I think, is a broken arrow, for most of you. Something you learnt from a half parentage and wanted to forget. Like a half-dad and a half -mother. It isn’t parsed. It isn’t agreed upon. It isn’t excused. But it is there and more than fundamental. Someday, you must stand up.

  41. BBD says:

    @ 35 Also thanks. Good to know it’s not all balderdash and bile 😉
     
    MJ has a point – although to be fair, there was a worm in the apple already concerning my lately-held belief in a low climate sensitivity. But Marlowe most certainly did play a part in making me review the evidence properly. And I remain grateful for that.
     
    Marlowe, in the spirit of open enquiry I did ask about Reinventing Fire (Lovins, 2011?) the other day – any thoughts? In all probability I will buy it anyway because I am genuinely curious about the detail supporting Lovins’ current thinking, but your view (if you have read it) is genuinely sought.

  42. Marlowe Johnson says:

    @41
    I’m embarrassed to say that I haven’t really looked at any material from  RMI in about 10 years.  I can’t say why exactly, other than a vague suspicion that they tended to overcook their arguments.  Not really fair, since as I’ve said I haven’t looked at their work closely in quite some time.

    Let me know what you think! 

  43. BBD says:

    Marlowe
     
    Not to worry. There isn’t time to read it all. Given the currently hefty UK price I’ll probably wait for the paperback edition or pick up second hand. Is there anything you would recommend in the mean time? It strikes me now, with some force, that asking for book recommendations in places like this is something that I should do much, much more often.
     
    I might learn something 😉

  44. OPatrick says:

    stan @27
    They all understand very well the notion that they are a heckuva lot more careful with their own stuff than they are with stuff that isn’t theirs.

    I think that may be the saddest comment I have seen and one of the starkest demonstrations of the gulfs involved in this debate.  

  45. Marlowe Johnson says:

    @43
    ‘Voltaire’s Bastard’s’ by J.R. Saul and ‘World Risk Society’ by Ulrich Beck are among my personal favorites (as far as non-fiction goes), but they’re not everyone’s cup of tea. If you’re looking for something more along the lines of energy/carbon/politics, I’d  suggest David Victor’s ‘Global Warming Gridlock’.  I also hear that Dan Yergin’s ‘The Quest’ isn’t bad. In fact I gave my wife a softball this year and put it down as a birthday request — i have enough sweaters thank you very much and could use some reading material for when I head out to Florida in a couple of weeks 🙂

  46. kdk33 says:

    OP #44,

    Have you ever talked to someone from a communist country.  I have.  With many.  Mostly scientists from eastern european bloc or china.  They will tell you the exact same thing.  Welcome to the real world.

    I do agree with you that this illustrates the gulf in this debate.  It touches on another issue: free markets.  The scare side just doesn’t seem to grasp how millions of people, each making selfish decision, will results in the common good.  They insist of government “policy” – euphomysim for government planning.  When these “policies” backfire – community reinvestment act – they can’t imagine it being the fault of the policy.  Instead, it becomes ever more evidence of greed and the failure of markets – as in greedy bankers caused the housing crises.

    This even extends to free debate.  The idea that people can be exposed to a wide variety of opinions and collectively make good decisions just doesn’t seemt to compute.  Instead, we have to protect the public from “liers” and those with bad intentions – so people don’t get confused.

    Different paradigms, I suppose.

  47. Carmen S says:

    As they say in the STD clinic,  there’s none so pure as the purified;)

  48. Steve E says:

    Keith,
    Sometimes I wonder what happened. Was there some kind of euphoric explosion when economic good times arrived? I believe something was lost between generations.

    I am 52. I was a boy in the 60s, a teen in the 70s. My Ukrainian grandmother who was born in 1901 lived next door to me when I was a boy. She came to Canada at the end of the First World War and built a comfortable life from nothing. She owned property, outlived all but one of her children (at 99) and left behind more than she came to this country with.

    My grandmother saved everything. Every sour cream container she ever bought got another 3 or 4 years of use for leftover food storage. I believe that if she could have gone to the dairy and refilled the container she would have. She was this way with many things–reuse, reuse, reuse, forget recycle, it wasn’t an option back then.

    Of course I, in my childish wisdom, would always tell her what she was doing was foolish–that there were sour cream containers aplenty. You know, for most of my life, this seemed true.

    I’ve done well for myself and my family. I’ve been able to travel to warmer climes to escape the cold and dullness of the Canadian winter. When I first visited the caribbean and saw that there was no place for extra sour cream containers on a small island it made me see that perhaps grandma was right.

    What are your thoughts? 

  49. Steve Mennie says:

    @kd33 #46…

    … Instead, we have to protect the public from “liers” and those with bad intentions ““ so people don’t get confused.

    If you removed the scare quotes from the word liars you would have my full support…I’m assuming your’e referring to the Heartland Institute…?

  50. Tom Fuller says:

    #45, The Quest by Yergin is a bit pedestrian. He just walks everybody through the relevant history sector by sector. If you remembered all the newspaper articles that covered energy subjects over the past 50 years you’d have everything he wrote.

  51. OPatrick says:

    kdk33 @46
    Have you ever talked to someone from a communist country.  

    I think you have become so obsessed that you can no longer tell the difference between basic ethics, good manners and respect of others and communism. You might reflect on this.

    You might also take pause to consider your concept of the self. Try to understand that your ‘self’ includes concepts, values, ideas and ideals and these extend into others and into the future.  

  52. BBD says:

    Marlowe @ 45
     
    Thank you. I originally meant texts presenting a rigorous analysis of renewable energy and energy efficiency roadmaps, or a least a solidly researched exploration of same, but I’m glad I failed to make this clear 😉
     
    I see Tom isn’t too impressed with Yergin, but I haven’t read it and don’t have his in-depth knowledge, so it can stay on the table for now but perhaps in pile #2. I’ve been meaning to read Victor and your recommendation is the final nudge – it will be in the next cardboard wrapper but one. Possibly along with Beck. 
     
    Mustn’t be too ambitious though – for the last four (‘and a half!’) years I seem to have been oddly short of time… Voltaire’s Bastards and The Quest are biggies. Also, if this review is accurate, Saul’s ideas are not entirely novel to me and are aired in political (and extra-political) debate in the UK. This is far from saying that I think that he is mistaken.
     
    Thanks again. 

  53. Lewis Deane says:

    Kdk33 (re #46)

    Yes, I know what you mean. I went to ‘Eastern Europe’ just after the fall of the Wall. But there was, as I should have expected but didn’t, an ambiguous feeling then – and still is. Not just an Ost Nostalgia but a sense in which standing on ones own legs, for once, legs tottery and unused to the burden, was too much. And it is still, it seems, to much for even us who have alleged centuries of freedom. For, surely, there is no ‘ethics’ without fully autonomous, self-responsible, fully grown human beings? And yet there are so many who want to retreat back to an infantile world where mummy will tell us what’s what, back even further, to the womb. I think all people of good will want a conversation of adults and thereby ethical human beings. We all regress, sometimes, but being a responsible being is about knowing oneself, acknowledging ones faults, yes, and taking ownership of them. If I could put a Chinese ideogram here, I’d put the ancient one for sincerity – it is of a man standing by his words. That is ethics.

  54. Lewis Deane says:

    Liam: “Remember – no fear, no envy, no meanness.” Bob: “Right.”

  55. kdk33 says:

    think you have become so obsessed

    Obsessed by what, exactly

     that you can no longer tell the difference between basic ethics, good manners and respect of others and communism.

    N.  My point echoes that posted previously.  Good manners and respect of others and proper (not over) exploitation happens best when private property rights are allowed.  Sorry if you missed the point.

    You might reflect on this.
    Yes, I was.  I was reflecting that the misunderstanding that causes you to not recognize that private prperty rights are the system most likely to avoid overexploitation (as in the lorax) and foster ethical behavior, is the same misunderstanding that causes you to want government to “guide the economy with good policy”, and is the same misunderstanding that cuases you to want to “protect” the public from “liars” like HI.

    It is the counter-intuitive that a system that allows greedy individuals to pursue their own self-interests, own stuff, accumulate wealth and freely share their opinion is actually the system most likely to result in the common good.  Instead, you require some guiding force to require the people to do good, usually government.

    Funnily, you (and others) grant yourselves the wisdom to know the common good, but argue for a system whose underlying premise that others cannot.  I find that strange.

    You might also take pause to consider your concept of the self. Try to understand that your “˜self’ includes concepts, values, ideas and ideals and these extend into others and into the future.  

    Such pretty words.  No idea what you mean.  We didn’t cover this in 8th grade.

  56. Keith Kloor says:

    BBD & Marlowe,

    I just started reading Gernot Wagner’s But Will the Planet Notice: How smart economics can save the world. I’m pleasantly surprised at how engaging it is–since its from a wonk. 

    Steve E (48),

    I have a similarly thrifty Ukrainian mother-in-law, who my children adore. (She’s a saint, too. Goodness personified.) 

  57. OPatrick says:

    kdk33 @55
    Obsessed by what, exactly

    Communism, it would appear. You seemed to take a comment about respecting other people’s property, and rights, as much as your own and turned this into pro-communist propaganda.

    No idea what you mean.

    The idea I am trying to convey there is that what selfishness is depends on your concept of the self. I suspect we have different concepts, but I recommend exploring wider concepts. Altruism and self-interest are not incompatible, which in some ways I think may be something we both conclude, but in very different ways.

    I’m am not sure that I have used the word “protect” in reference to the prevention of Heartland being free to spread their dishonesty to the public, but presumably given that you quote it I have. However, this is not what I mean (I wonder what the full context was that I used it in?) – I think the public shold have access to full, balanced information on their actions, and I don’t think that is happening yet. I suppose this could be interpreted as ‘protection’, but that seems a stretch. 

  58. BBD says:

    Hi Keith
     
    Thank you. This looks interesting too. Wagner seems to share my view that neither science nor activism will move the levers much. That he argues for economics rather than politics is interesting, since we all know that money makes the world – and politicians – go round.
     
    Speaking of which, still more money might vanish into Amazon’s coffers. Mrs BBD will be adding you to a list, along with Marlowe…
     
    Is there a blog post in books? Just a round-up of interesting things you’ve come across – nothing too time-consuming 😉
     
    (The link to Wagner/Amazon is broken. I think this is okay though).

  59. Marlowe Johnson says:

    @BBD
    If you’re looking for technology analyses you might want to check out the IEA’s Energy Technology Perspectives 2010. A bit dated now, but on the plus side it’s free.

    @TF
    Thanks for the heads up.  The secret to happiness is low expectations, so now I’m all set for my b-day present :).

  60. kdk33 says:

    OP

    Obsessed by communism?  No, not really.  I certainly oppose socialist politics… I asked if you had to talked to people from former communist states – they would help you understand that the comment you find sad is in fact a natural result of human nature (sad or not).

    I agreed that it highlighted the gulf in the debate. 

    I’m am not sure that I have used the word “protect” in reference to the prevention of Heartland being free to spread their dishonesty to the public,

    Perhaps not.  I have a liberal interpretation of punctuation (it is ny one leftest tendency).  It sometimes causes confusion.

    OTOH, HI’s “dishonesty” (actual quote, this time) is in the eye of the beholder.  HI is free to spread their opinion.  You might ask yourself why you want the public to know more. 

    I submit that asking for “full” information is based on an assumption that others, not being as wise as you, cannot evaluate HI’s opinion on their own.  You want to smeai HI, hence devalue their argument via ad hom.  You want to intimidate HI into not speaking.

    I’m wondering, are you calling for “full” information to “prevent” RMI from spreading their dishonesty?  If so, you would at least be consistent, though, I think, wrong.

    I think this kind of rationalizing derives from not understanding how all use selfish little people can collectively move toward a common good.  Instead, some think we need a force that imposes good – government.  I think this is wrongheaded.

  61. BBD says:

    Marlowe
     
    Been there, got the frontal lobe headache 😉

  62. Sashka says:

    On the subject of smart economics:

    We just had a young visitor from Germany, a friend’s son. Among other things, I mentioned their silly closure of nuclear facilities and high cost of their renewable energy. To that he replied:

    “Depending on how you compute the cost. Yes, on the face of it it looks more expensive. But on the other hand we don’t have to pay for your oil wars. In the worst case we’ll import cheap gas from Russia.”

    Being a good host I left it hang without further comment.

  63. harrywr2 says:

    57 OPatrick

    I’m am not sure that I have used the word “protect” in reference to the prevention of Heartland being free to spread their dishonesty to the public
    The endless attribution motive is one of the most tiresome aspects of the ‘climate debate’. It changes no ones mind, educates no one. All it does is push people farther and farther into a ‘we vs them’ mentality.
    Libertarian’s by definition believe ‘Government Cures’ are almost always worse then the disease. That is their belief system.
    Everybody views everything thru their own personal belief systems.
    The Heatrland Institute was founded as a ‘Libertarian Think Tank’. Press reports almost always refer to them as a ‘Libertarian Think Tank’.
    Every document HI has ever produced is the exact same thing. ‘The Government Cure’ is worse then the disease. 
    If I wander over to the ‘Center for American Progress’, a progressive think tank everything is ‘It’s worse then we thought and urgent government action is required’.
    It doesn’t even matter what the subject it.
    Neither organization has ‘evil intent’. They simply view the world the way they do.
    I’m colorblind. I can’t tell the difference between red and green.
    If I tell you something is red that is actually green…I’m not being dishonest. I’m telling you what I see. I have a beautiful red car sitting in my driveway. For some reason ‘the consensus’ thinks  thinks it’s green.
    Everybody see’s everything thru their own philosophical ‘colored’ glasses. They can’t view the world thru any other set of glasses.
    The best anyone can do is acknowledge that maybe their glasses are ‘tinted’ and maybe the world they are viewing isn’t the world as it is.
    Heartland Institute acknowledges it is a ‘libertarian’ think thank and the Center for American Progress acknowledges it is a ‘progressive’ think tank. Everything coming out of either is going to be filtered thru those philosophical lenses.

  64. BBD says:

    harrywr2
     
    Every document HI has ever produced is the exact same thing. “˜The Government Cure’ is worse then the disease.
     
    This is to miss the point by some distance. The HI can only claim this by dismissing the *entire body* of climate science built up over the last several decades as seriously in error.
     
    Not being a scientific institution, HI attempts to do this by producing its own cut’n’paste version of ‘science’ which is no such thing. This is both deliberately misleading and fundamentally dishonest. Nor can such activity arise as the result of an ‘honest mistake’. It is a calculated strategy.
     
    It is no accident that these same people did exactly the same thing with the real science pointing to the real risks over smoking.
     
    This argument of yours that HI and CAP are just sides of the same coin is thus deeply flawed. For it to be true, there would need to be a genuine scientific debate over AGW. There isn’t.

  65. Lewis Deane says:

    ‘Private property’ means people! In fact, there is no private property or even public property without them. So let’s not deify and ossify a mere historical expression. The Marxists had an infamous expression for this – to ‘fetishise’. Always, it is human beings we have to deal with, not laws, not politics, not, least of all, ‘property rights’.

  66. Lewis Deane says:

     BBD,

    As usual, you confuse science with policy and disagreements with the science with disagreements with policy. Provisionaly, I might except your science but, for the life of me, I will never except your politics. For what, in the end, does it amount to – live  ‘virtuasly’, in your terms, or…you will either die a horrible death or your children or their children will or, worse, we will impose upon you.
    But let us give a hypothetical, let us say that your worst case was right, was what will happen – do you believe, in that case, that the ‘moronic’, though nevertheless democratic people should be imposed upon with your ‘solutions’? And even assuming the latter, what if that ‘people’ refuses the burden? What if they head straight for the heart of the sun and refuse your blandishments? Isn’t that choice and their, our choice? 

  67. Lewis Deane says:

    There is no absolute commandment which says “Mankind should live forever.” just as there is no commandment about ourselves personally. Each thing has it’s own term. ‘Life’ will, almost certainly, survive us, depending on how we go. So what is this ‘anxiety’, for it is not for ‘life’, by definition? It must be for human life, for our life. And what does that mean – does that mean for this life, as we have it now or an imagined past or an imagined future? Ask yourself, what is it you want and desire.

  68. kdk33 says:

    why am I in moderation?

  69. OPatrick says:

    harrywr2 @62
    Every document HI has ever produced is the exact same thing. “˜The Government Cure’ is worse then the disease. 

    Heartland were responsible for publishing and promoting the NIPCC report. This was purporting to be a scienitific document. As BBD has already pointed out you are not correct, they are not just promoting a political point of view. They are dishonest.  

  70. Keith Kloor says:

    Regular commenters who act all put out when a stray comment ends up in moderation or the spam filter for some unknown reason (if it’s not due to a link) should know better by now.

    You can also email me to inquire. if there’s an actual reason why I might have put a comment in moderation, I would explain and then tell you, if you insisted on throwing up your hands in offense, that you sound like one of my kids when they ask: “Why am I in a timeout?”

    But you wouldn’t have to worry about that. I always personally email people when I snip (which is rarely) or moderate. 

  71. BBD says:

    Lewis Dean
     
    As usual, you confuse science with policy and disagreements with the science with disagreements with policy.
     
    You are mistaken. I do no such thing. Please see # 64.

  72. kdk33 says:

    Keith, my deepest apologies.

    I did not think you would take “why am I in moderation?” as being “all put out”.  I wasn’t.  Sorry if you thought that.

  73. kdk33 says:

    OP and BBD,

    You guys are free to hold the opinion that HI is dishonest and lieing and that they smoke cigarettes.  You are free to share that opinion.  You can pool your resources with like minded individuals and by a super bowl commercial.  You are free to do so anonymously, so as not to worry about retribution form radical right wing employers or republican neighbors.

    But then you need to let the public, the little people, evaluate the arguments for themselves.  They are pretty smart, those little people. 

  74. Steve Mennie says:

    Lewis Dean @66 & 67
    ….what are you talking about? 

  75. jeffn says:

    #63 Harry. Love the color blind reference. My dad actually brought home a really ugly brown car from the dealership one time- completely convinced it was green. Mom made him take it back. Luckily, they did take it back. The funniest tho is the towns that try to look cool by mounting the traffic lights horizontally instead of vertically. To a red/green colorblind person, they stop if the light is intense at the top and go if it is on the bottom. No clue what to do with a horizontal light.
    You’re dead on right about the politics. The tribe is able to see the ideological filters on groups they don’t agree with, but simply assume groups like CAP or Greenpeace are about the science. The fact is, CAP wants to promote fights over the science, otherwise BBD and Hunter will suddenly discover that they are in complete agreement on energy policy- build nukes. And that would be a travesty for a certain political persuasion that has made being anti-nuke a matter of course. But to avoid that, all you have to do is shout “climate sensitivity is 3C- discuss!” and you have 20 more years to call Republicans “anti-science.”

  76. OPatrick says:

    kdk33 @60
    the comment you find sad is in fact a natural result of human nature

    No, it’s not a natural result, or rather it’s not an inevitable result. There are many undesirable things that have been present in our societies which were ‘natural results of human nature’ but which we have managed to transcend. If my children grow up with less respect for the property of others than their own then I have failed as a parent. I think it very unlikely that they will.

    HI’s “dishonesty” (actual quote, this time) is in the eye of the beholder.

    No, it’s demonstrable and has been copiously demonstrated. The NIPCC document is dishonest.

    I submit that asking for “full” information is based on an assumption that others, not being as wise as you, cannot evaluate HI’s opinion on their own. You want to smeai HI, hence devalue their argument via ad hom. You want to intimidate HI into not speaking. 

    Your submission is not correct. The assumption is that no-one has the time to analyse everything to the detail needed to reach a reasoned conclusion, so we often rely on sources that are worthy of trust to do this analysis, make the checks and present their conclusions. I spend a fair amount of time looking at climate-related topics and have gone into a number of these topics in soime depth. Most people do not have the time, or inclination, to do this. Likewise there are many other areas not related to climate that interest me but which I have very little familiarity with. I pick up information on these topics primarily from the main-stream media.

    I want the main-stream media to expose the dishonesty of Heartland because there are people that are not pre-convinced who are being influenced by their dishonest presentations.

    I know almost nothing of RMI, but if they are being dishonest then I would hope this dishonesty gets exposed. I doubt they are being dishonest as there is no reason to do so, the arguments are strong enough as they stand, they don’t require embellishment.

    I think this kind of rationalizing derives from not understanding how all use selfish little people can collectively move toward a common good.

    And I think you have failed to understand my point about selfishness being dependent on your concept of the self.

    However, if you take the narrow concept of self-interest, restricting it to the interests of the self delineated by our bodies, for example, and prehaps our children’s interests, then I am perfectly open to arguments that we can solve complex problems such as climate change, where the problems are often remote from the causes, through competetive self-interest. I’ve not seen any such argument made with any credibility, but I have seen a lot of people trying to solve it by pretending there isn’t a problem in the first place.

  77. kdk33 says:

    I want the main-stream media to expose the dishonesty of Heartland because there are people that are not pre-convinced who are being influenced by their dishonest presentations.

    I don’t see how this is any different that what I submitted.  You want to protect the little people form being influenced by dishonest information.  Why don’t you trust the little people to sort this out on their own? 

    I further submit that this you would find this ‘protection’ less palatable if it were, say, me, who got to decide who was and wasn’t honest.   

    I’ve not seen any such argument made with any credibility, but I have seen a lot of people trying to solve it by pretending there isn’t a problem in the first place.

    And you have very much assumed the answer.  As far as I can tell, there is no climate change problem.  Do you think I am a liar?  Are you smarter than me?  More educated?  More informed?  Do these comparisons apply if we replace me with, say, Richard Lindzen. 

    Paraphrasing what I sadi earlier.  All those who want to control information operate with two assumptions:  1) they have unique access to truth, 2) others do not. 

    I am perfectly open to arguments that we can solve complex problems such as climate change, where the problems are often remote from the causes, through competetive self-interest.  I’ve not seen any such argument made with any credibility

    I submit you can apply this rationale to justify all manner of perfidity.

    If my children grow up with less respect for the property of others than their own then I have failed as a parent. I think it very unlikely that they will.

    If you suceed you will be a very unique parent, indeed.  Perhaps too much so.

  78. BBD says:

    kdk33
     
    You frequently mention Lindzen. Why do you think he is a lone voice? Is the entire field mistaken? Or is he?
     
    Which is more probable?
     
    What would happen to your belief system if it turned out that Lindzen was in fact wrong?
     
    Where is your evidence (supporting papers by other researchers) that Lindzen is right? Or Spencer, come to that?
     
    If you persist in arguing for a position for which there is no supporting evidence, does that make you honest, smart, educated, or informed?
     
     

  79. kdk33 says:

    You frequently mention Lindzen.

    Do I.  I hadn’t noticed.

    Why do you think he is a lone voice?

    I don’t.  I think he is an accomplished scientist at at top technical university.

    Is the entire field mistaken? Or is he?

    Mistaken about what.  One of the problems in this debate is how the “scare” side extrapolates from some basic physics (on which most skeptics agree) to climate doom. 

    What is it EXACTLY, that you think the entire field is agreed on.

    Which is more probable?

    I have no idea and neither do you.
     
    What would happen to your belief system

    I ‘believe’ many things.  Which belief, exactly, are you referring to?

    if it turned out that Lindzen was in fact wrong?

    Wrong about what?  Be specific.

    Where is your evidence (supporting papers by other researchers) that Lindzen is right? Or Spencer, come to that?

    Or Curry.  One of the logical fallacies on the scare side is that counting up publications is scientific evidence in support of a theory.  It isn’t.  

    If you persist in arguing for a position for which there is no supporting evidence,

    Exactly which position do you think I hold, for which there is no evidence.  Don’t confuse literature for evidence.

  80. Lewis Deane says:

    #74 – About ethics. You know, like the title says, inviting us to think. So I tried, however clumsy I am. 

  81. RickA says:

    BBD @ 78:

    Where is your evidence (supporting papers by other researchers) that Lindzen is right? Or Spencer, come to that?

    Nobody knows who is right.

    We will have to wait until CO2 hits 560 ppm to find out what climate sensitivity is.

    We will have to wait until 2100 to see how high the sea level has risen.

    What most people have forgotten is who has the burden of proof.

    The null hypothesis is that the changes to the climate are the result of natural causes.  That remains the default scientific position until science has proven that humans are causing the climate to change, and shown by how much humans are causing the climate to change.

    To-date, science merely hypothesizes that humans are changing the climate – but the burden is currently on scientists to prove this and they have not done that yet.

    Not enough data – the signal is to small – the error bars are to large – not enough time has gone by yet, etc.

    The very fact that so many scientists are calling for application of the precautionary principal is an admission that they have not met their burden of proof.  That is why so many scientists are saying that we cannot wait until we are certain (i.e. they have met their burden of proof) – we must take action now!  Before it is to late!  And so on.

    This is merely a scientist’s way of saying – yes I know we have not yet proven the null hypothesis wrong with proper scientific statistical certainty – but we are really really worried about the future and think that even though we have no idea what will actually  happen in the future, we advocate a certain course of action based on our theory about what might happen in the future.

    Even though not a single one of our climate models has been properly validated, and are being changed all the time to incorporate new information and even whole new climate processes which are being discovered all the time, some scientists are advocating spending trillions of dollars.

    Without even doing a proper cost benefit analysis.

    If people really wanted to move to a non-carbon energy economy, I would advocate hydro and nuclear power generation of all electrical power, worldwide.

    Guess what – a large proportion of the population don’t want to go nuclear.  Guess what – even doing hydro and nuclear would cost trillions and take 30 years to implement.  Guess what – we don’t actually have a workable technological solution to generate all the non-carbon power we need without nuclear.  Wind and solar are intermittent and therefore cannot provide baseload power.  Period.

    Maybe someday we will invent power storage sufficient to use wind and solar, and meter it out to the grid from storage – but we haven’t invented this technology yet.

    If you persist in advocating a course of action without having overcome the null hypothesis, does that make you honest, smart, educated, or informed?

  82. kdk33 says:

    Now, BBD, I will help you a little, by telling you some of what I ‘believe’.

    1. I know the radiative properties of CO2 well
    2.  I know that increasing atmospheric CO2 will warm the planet
    3. I don’t know, but accept that zero feedback sensitivity is about 1C. 
    4. I think it almost certain that the recent increase in CO2 is anthropogenic
    5.  I don’t know, but don’t quibble that there has been some warming this century – some cooling also, but overall warming.  I believe the satellite data.

    Now, given all that, I’m not willing to do one damn thing about CO2.

    Maybe that will help you narrow down to meaningful issues and avoid some of the more typical strawmen. 

  83. BBD says:

    kdk33
     
    Wrong about what?  Be specific.
     
    That equilibrium climate sensitivity for 2xCO2 is about 3C. What do you think Lindzen is noted for arguing exactly? Or are you just being obtuse to avoid having to answer the questions posed?
     
    Anyway, try responding to # 78 again, from the top, with this clarification.

  84. kdk33 says:

    We will have to wait until CO2 hits 560 ppm to find out what climate sensitivity is.

    I won’t even go that far.  We will have to wait until we can, with some certainty, quantify all non-co2 climate effects and their time constants.  Only then can we know what is attributable to CO2 and related feedbacks.

  85. BBD says:

    Just so there is absolutely no room for evasion:
     
    You frequently mention Lindzen. Why do you think he is a lone voice in arguing for a low climate sensitivity? Is the entire field mistaken in its most likely value estimate of ~3C for 2xCO2? Or is Lindzen mistaken to argue – alone – for a significantly lower value?
     
    Which is more probable? (Lindzen wrong or everybody else wrong?)
     
    What would happen to your belief system if it turned out that Lindzen was in fact wrong?
     
    Where is your evidence (supporting papers by other researchers) that Lindzen is right? Or Spencer, come to that?
     
    If you persist in arguing for a position for which there is no supporting evidence, does that make you honest, smart, educated, or informed?

  86. RickA says:

    kdk33 @84:

    We will have to wait until we can, with some certainty, quantify all non-co2 climate effects and their time constants.  

    Maybe – but I bet we hit 560 ppm before we can quantify all non-co2 climate effects and their time constants. 

  87. BBD says:

    ‘we will have to wait, we will have to wait, we will have to wait’.
     
    Listen to the two of you. Casuistry.

  88. kdk33 says:

    kdk33
     
    Wrong about what?  Be specific.
     
    That equilibrium climate sensitivity for 2xCO2 is about 3C. What do you think Lindzen is noted for arguing exactly?

    Lindzen arguemetns are more nuance than that.  Specifically he argues that the connection between even significant warming and ‘catastrophe’ is speculative.  I agree. 

    In support of lower climate sensitivity is the argument that climate is dominated by negative, not postive, feedbacks.  The most overwheleming evidence is that we are still here. 

    Or are you just being obtuse to avoid having to answer the questions posed?
     
    Which question do you think I have not answered.  Perhaps you could ask again.  Nicely.  I’ll point out that you rarely answer my questions.  You have a peculiar expectation that I will answer yours and in the manner you choose.  I find that strange.

    Anyway, try responding to # 78 again, from the top, with this clarification.

    I’ve alredy responded to #78.  Shall I refer you to the many questions of mine you have not answerd to my satisfaction?

  89. kdk33 says:

    BBD #85

    You also have a peculiar habit of repeating yourself.  Please stop.

  90. RickA says:

    BBD @85:

    The 3C estimate has not been scientifically proven. 

    This value is an estimate.

    When we hit 560 ppm, we will go outside and measure the temperature and then we will know scientifically whether this estimate is correct or not.

    The null hypothesis is more probable – which is why it is the null hypothesis.

    It will take quite some time to prove the 3C theory is correct. 

  91. BBD says:

    kdk33
     
    I’ll stop when you stop being evasive.

  92. kdk33 says:

    Maybe ““ but I bet we hit 560 ppm before we can quantify all non-co2 climate effects and their time constants. 

    I agree.  I agree because climate is terribly complex.  The notion that we have a near complete enough understanding to predict much of anything, much less catastrophe, is rather sophomoric.  IMO.

    My point was this.  It might be hotter, or colder, when CO2 hits 560 and the reason for the heating, or cooling, might be perfectly natural.  The temperature at CO2=560 won’t really answer the CO2 sensitivity question.

  93. BBD says:

    kdk33 #88
     
    You are being evasive. You are *not responsive* to the questions repeated at 85.
     
    Bad faith.

  94. BBD says:

    Which is more probable? (Lindzen wrong or everybody else wrong?)
     
    What would happen to your belief system if it turned out that Lindzen was in fact wrong?
     
    Where is your evidence (supporting papers by other researchers) that Lindzen is right? Or Spencer, come to that?
     
    If you persist in arguing for a position for which there is no supporting evidence, does that make you honest, smart, educated, or informed?

  95. kdk33 says:

    I’ll stop when you stop being evasive.

    BBD.  To which question am I being evasive.  If there a specific question you want answered.  Ask it.  Nicely.

  96. Lewis Deane says:

    Kdk33,

    People think, if one does not exactly anchor ones words in his or her detail, one is talking nonsense. That by the bye, BBD, otherwise seemingly rational (an old British ‘leftist’ in the best of that term) (talk to him about nuclear and he is the mother of all rationality, because, perhaps, it suits him), is completely cuckoo on this subject. For instance, I noticed, in his rejection of my contention, that he confuses science with policy, he just had a mere unargued denial. But it is the politics that matters to him. If he doesn’t like the avowedly right-wing Heartland Institute (and who likes any ‘Institute’ not you or I?) (both BBD and OPatrick have the same argument – they are wrong about the science – they never specify any specific statements of course – just general hand waving about the NIPPC etc – and say, therefore, they are lieing – well more than two can play that game!) what about Spiked On Line and Ben Pile, who are from a very left wing origin – the former from the ashes of what was once Late Marxism? For, unlike him, they understand Marx, that he welcomed the benefits of ‘bourgeois progress’, of civilization, however contradictory they found it and thought anyone who would try to short circuit it, ‘Utopian‘, or in Marx’ less than generous term, imbeciles!

  97. BBD says:

    @95
     
    Do, please, look up. At 94.

  98. RickA says:

    kdk33 @92:

    The temperature at CO2=560 won’t really answer the CO2 sensitivity question.

  99. kdk33 says:

    BBD,

    This is crazy.  You posted questions.  I reponded to every single one.  If you would like to discuss one or more further, you will need to acknowledge my response and we can move from there.

    Otherwise, I am simply going to stop, because I think you are just playing a game.

  100. BBD says:

    kdk33
     
    Here, let me number them for clarity:
     
    1/. Which is more probable? (Lindzen wrong or everybody else wrong?)
     
    2/. What would happen to your belief system if it turned out that Lindzen was in fact wrong?
     
    3/. Where is your evidence (supporting papers by other researchers) that Lindzen is right? Or Spencer, come to that?
     
    4/. If you persist in arguing for a position for which there is no supporting evidence, does that make you honest, smart, educated, or informed?

  101. BBD says:

    kdk33
     
    I am not playing games. You are. And it’s very bloody obvious too.

  102. RickA says:

    RickA @98:

    Something got cut off – I meant to add that it could invalidate the model giving the 3C temperature.

    Probably not, given the plus or minus 1.5C around 3C – but it could (if CS was 1.3C for example). 

  103. kdk33 says:

    These were your questions and these were my replies (see 79).  Now, we can move forward from my replies, but I am not going to answer them again, nor do I understand why you keep insisting. 

    How about this.  You respond to my responses and we’ll just kind of like have a conversation.  Whadyasay?

    Which is more probable?
    I have no idea and neither do you.
     
    What would happen to your belief system
    I “˜believe’ many things.  Which belief, exactly, are you referring to?
    if it turned out that Lindzen was in fact wrong?
    Wrong about what?  Be specific.
    Where is your evidence (supporting papers by other researchers) that Lindzen is right? Or Spencer, come to that?
    Or Curry.  One of the logical fallacies on the scare side is that counting up publications is scientific evidence in support of a theory.  It isn’t.  
    If you persist in arguing for a position for which there is no supporting evidence,
    Exactly which position do you think I hold, for which there isno evidence.  Don’t confuse literature for evidence.

  104. BBD says:

    Which is more probable?
    I have no idea and neither do you.
     
    Evasion. Yes I do. I believe the parsimonious explanation is more probably correct: Lindzen is wrong. If you believe otherwise, you need to explain why the less likely explanation is correct: Lindzen is right and *everybody else is wrong*
     
    What would happen to your belief system if it turned out that Lindzen was in fact wrong?
    I “˜believe’ many things.  Which belief, exactly, are you referring to?
    Wrong about what?  Be specific.



    Evasion: what would happen to your belief system (in low climate sensitivity *obviously*)?

    Where is your evidence (supporting papers by other researchers) that Lindzen is right? Or Spencer, come to that?
    Or Curry.  One of the logical fallacies on the scare side is that counting up publications is scientific evidence in support of a theory.  It isn’t.  



    Evasion. So what do we do? Count up chicken bones? Don’t be so daft man.


    If you persist in arguing for a position for which there is no supporting evidence,
    Exactly which position do you think I hold, for which there isno evidence.  Don’t confuse literature for evidence.
     
    Evasion. *Obviously* the position you hold is that Lindzen is right and CS is low.
     
    This is a catalogue of deliberate evasions.

  105. BBD says:

    Lets try again, without the evasions:
     
    1/. Which is more probable? (Lindzen wrong or everybody else wrong?)
     
    2/. What would happen to your belief system if it turned out that Lindzen was in fact wrong?
     
    3/. Where is your evidence (supporting papers by other researchers) that Lindzen is right? Or Spencer, come to that?
     
    4/. If you persist in arguing for a position for which there is no supporting evidence, does that make you honest, smart, educated, or informed?

  106. BBD says:

    Midnight, my local. Off to bed.
     
    A feeble, evasive mess, kdk33.

  107. Lewis Deane says:

    BBD

    Midnight, my local. Off to bed. 

    Dream peaceful and calm, rational dreams! 

  108. kdk33 says:

    Which is more probable?

    I have no idea and neither do you.
     
    Evasion. Yes I do. I believe the parsimonious explanation is more probably correct: Lindzen is wrong. If you believe otherwise, you need to explain why the less likely explanation is correct: Lindzen is right and *everybody else is wrong*

    BBD, you asked me which was more probable; i said I had no idea.  You don’t like my answer, so you accuse me of being evasive.  On the one hand, how pathetic; OTOH, perfectly consistent with your belief that anyone who disagrees with you is a liar.

    Lookit, kiddo, nobody knows climate sensitivity.  Not you, not me, not Lindzen, not Gavin.  And there is certainly no way to assign a probability distribution.  Your question is meaningless.  How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

    What you think you have fallen back on is an appeal to authority – which is sad enough in itself.  But it isn’t even that.  It is an appeal to the climate science literature.  It’s a logical fallacy.  

    You are free to use this (il)logic to guide your decision making.  Calling me evasive for disagreeing is… well pathetic.
     
    What would happen to your belief system if it turned out that Lindzen was in fact wrong?

    I “˜believe’ many things.  Which belief, exactly, are you referring to?
    Wrong about what?  Be specific.

    Evasion: what would happen to your belief system (in low climate sensitivity *obviously*)?

    Evasion?  Seriously?  You asked a very poor question, and I asked you to clarify.  Now you are asking a different, perfectly trivial, question, which is also a strawman.  I believe climate feedbacks are more likely to be negative than positive.  That is different than, as you say, believing it to be low.  I know it’s subtle, but try to work on it..  

    The answer to your new and trivial question is this:  If climate sensitivity is shown conclusively to be X, I will believe it to be X.  Were you expecting something different?

    My belief system is much deeper and broader than climate sensitivity.  I would assume that to be true of others, but perhaps not you.  Perhaps that is why you do not recognize how poorly posed was your original question.

    Where is your evidence (supporting papers by other researchers) that Lindzen is right? Or Spencer, come to that?

    Or Curry.  One of the logical fallacies on the scare side is that counting up publications is scientific evidence in support of a theory.  It isn’t.  

    Evasion. So what do we do? Count up chicken bones? Don’t be so daft man.

    This is the most revealing thing you’ve said in a while.  Thank you.  We don’t count anything!  We look at the evidence.  Counting up publications is not science. 

    I’ve already offered that since climate has not runaway, this is a strong argument for negative feedbacks.  If we count all GHG, not just CO2, and attribute all of the warming over the last 100 years or so, to anthropogenic GHG, the data says climate sensitivity is about 1.  I don’t think it is reasonable to attribute all of the warming to anthropogenic causes, so this argues for low climate sensitivity.

    If you persist in arguing for a position for which there is no supporting evidence,

    Exactly which position do you think I hold, for which there isno evidence.  Don’t confuse literature for evidence.
     
    Evasion. *Obviously* the position you hold is that Lindzen is right and CS is low.

    This isn’t a genuine question, so I think I’ve provided enough in previous answers.  Perhaps you could take this issue up with Lindzen (or Spencer, or Curry).  Do you think Lindzen is a liar?  Is he in the pay of “big oil”, “entrenched interests”? Do you want to expose his donors? 

    Why do you think Richard Lindzen, an accomplished scientists at a highly regarded technical university, would belive climate sensitivity to be low, if there was no evidence?
    ————————————————————————————–

    It would be cordial if you would actually answer one or two of my questions, bTW.

  109. kdk33 says:

    A feeble, evasive mess, kdk33.

    My, my, BBD.  You have become quite the name caller.  It isn’t becoming.  (pun intended.)

  110. OPatrick says:

    I can sympathise with BBD’s frustrations, kdk33’s response to me @77 demonstrates the futility of continued discussion here, I think.

    I don’t see how this is any different that what I submitted. You want to protect the little people form being influenced by dishonest information. Why don’t you trust the little people to sort this out on their own?

    You have ignored my response to your previous comment and simply repeat the same question with the same implied slight, using the phrase “the little people” to try to set up false impression of my position.

    I further submit that this you would find this “˜protection’ less palatable if it were, say, me, who got to decide who was and wasn’t honest. 

    As I have said the NIPCC document is objectively dishonest and by extension so is Heartland. This isn’t an arbitrary decision, I think it can be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt. I want the media, in particular, to explore and demonstrate this, or demonstrate if I am wrong – I am not. No-one is ‘deciding’ who is honest.

    And you have very much assumed the answer. As far as I can tell, there is no climate change problem. Do you think I am a liar? Are you smarter than me? More educated? More informed? Do these comparisons apply if we replace me with, say, Richard Lindzen. 

    I have not assumed the answer. I have reached my conclusion primarily by accepting the informed opinions of people who have demonstrated that they are deserving of trust, for example all the major scientific academies, but I have also gone into enough depth on some of these issues to be confident that these positions are justified by the evidence.

    I think you are dishonest, I don’t know whether your dishonesty is with yourself or towards others. I am not sure how introducing Lindzen moves this question on. I think Lindzen is dishonest, I don’t know whether he is dishonest with himself or towards others.

    Paraphrasing what I sadi earlier. All those who want to control information operate with two assumptions: 1) they have unique access to truth, 2) others do not.

    As you acknowledge you are repeating the same (false) accusation. You are deliberately choosing to misrepresent my argument, ‘controlling information’, presumably because you find this easier to rail against. I have repeatedly stated that I do not want to control information, in the sense you imply, I want to make information more readily available so it is easier for people to make informed decisions.

    If you suceed you will be a very unique parent, indeed.

    I think you are wrong. I see around me the vast majority of people with a respect for other people’s, and public, property which is at least as great as for their own. People who have had instilled in them an instinctive respect for their environment.

        

  111. BBD says:

    kdk33

    What you think you have fallen back on is an appeal to authority ““ which is sad enough in itself.  But it isn’t even that.  It is an appeal to the climate science literature.  It’s a logical fallacy.

    The best current scientific understanding isn’t an ‘appeal to authority’ nor is it a ‘logical fallacy’. It is the best current scientific understanding. To test this, would you dismiss the best current scientific understanding of, say, superconducting alloys as ‘an appeal to authority’ and ‘a logical fallacy’? I don’t think so.

    Deny the science and what is left? Your belief system. And what is that? Unsupported wish-fulfilment:

    I believe climate feedbacks are more likely to be negative than positive.  That is different than, as you say, believing it to be low.  I know it’s subtle, but try to work on it.. 

    […]

    We don’t count anything!  We look at the evidence.  Counting up publications is not science.

    Science is science, and denial is denial. I look at the former and you are indulging in the latter.

    I’ve already offered that since climate has not runaway, this is a strong argument for negative feedbacks.  If we count all GHG, not just CO2, and attribute all of the warming over the last 100 years or so, to anthropogenic GHG, the data says climate sensitivity is about 1.  I don’t think it is reasonable to attribute all of the warming to anthropogenic causes, so this argues for low climate sensitivity.

    The problem is that you don’t understand feedbacks. Positive feedback (amplification is a better, less potentially confusing term) does not automatically lead to a ‘runaway’ effect. The increase in output is *not proportional* to the increase in input. It *falls* progressively over time (it is logarithmic). So the feedback effect is strong initially but diminishes.

    The answer to your new and trivial question is this:  If climate sensitivity is shown conclusively to be X, I will believe it to be X.  Were you expecting something different?

    Climate sensitivity (at equilibrium) has been shown to be about 3C for 2xCO2. Multiple independent studies using a variety of methodologies all converge on this value. There’s very little real argument about this except from Lindzen. Who is a lone voice. So why don’t you accept the most likely value?

    Why instead do you accept Lindzen’s papers but deny the vast mass of work that contradicts them? Your ‘logic’ is puzzling. Either we accept the science or we don’t. You can’t just pick a tiny little bit that suits your belief system and reject the rest because it doesn’t.

    That’s mad. That’s denial.

    Why do you think Richard Lindzen, an accomplished scientists at a highly regarded technical university, would belive climate sensitivity to be low, if there was no evidence?

    Lindzen hasn’t provided any evidence to support his ideas. He’s tried, but his papers collapse under scrutiny. Every time. That’s why he’s a lone voice and there’s no ‘school of Lindzen’ in atmospheric physics challenging the current understanding. It is strongly suggestive that Lindzen is wrong. Obviously.

    Now if Lindzen is wrong, where does that leave you? 

  112. BBD says:

    I believe climate feedbacks are more likely to be negative than positive.  That is different than, as you say, believing it [climate sensitivity] to be low.  I know it’s subtle, but try to work on it..


    Oh, and since you mention it, climate sensitivity is determined by feedbacks. Apparently you don’t understand this, either.

  113. Lewis Deane says:

    BBD, OPatrik

    Have you ever seen Sartres’ In Camara, whence the phrase “Hell is other people.”? To read you two go on and on and on… to a still controlled, if exasperated Kdk33, makes one feel one is in another kind of Hell. Kdk33, to this relatively ‘neutral’ observer, kind of answered most of your questions but you insist on him beating over the head with parsed details. In such a circumstance, it isn’t really a dialectic, is it? Get the idee fixe out of your own eyes first, then perhaps you can help Kdk33 to remove his!

  114. Lewis Deane says:

    And, actually, Kdk33 doesn’t have to answer your questions, at all, assuming the real null hypotheses still holds. It’s you who has the proving and answering to do, no?

  115. BBD says:

    Lewis Deane
     
    You are missing a huge chunk of the sense of the above exchange. May I politely suggest that you clear you mind and read again. More carefully.

  116. BBD says:

    Start at # 77

  117. Lewis Deane says:

    BBD, nonesense and you must know it.

  118. Sashka says:

    I see that while I was not looking the legal thought soared to the new heights.

    What is more probable: that you will stop drinking in the mornings or that you will stop beating your wide?

  119. BBD says:

    Lewis
     
    Really? Then show me exactly where my logic is flawed.

  120. kdk33 says:

    Let us first consider BBD and OP notion for full disclosure of the donors behind HI and RMI…

    This is a profoundly flawed and naive understanding of how freedom is maintained in a free society and how a free people establish an appropriate relationship with their government.  In the US, we have a bill of rights.  The first one reads, in part:  The amendment prohibits the making of any law… abridging the freedom of speech,  Requiring the names is a direct conditions for free speech and is unconstitutional.

    The argument is also absurd on its face.  To whit:

    1.  HI offers their argument and RMI offers theirs.  BBD and OP are free to evaluate those arguments on their merits.  BBD and OP claim their evaluation will be better if they know who offers it.  This is argumentum ad homenum.  It is a logical fallacy.  And silly.

    2.  Now let’s say the names of all the donors are known.  What shall we do with this information.  Well, perhaps BBD and OP will simply incorporate it into their evaluation.  But other, less altruistic, folk will do more.  They will advertise these names, these people who dare hold such an absurd option, these people who are threatening the planet.  The argument will then advance to “we need to do something about them“.  That something could be subtle – passed over for promotion at work – less subtle – your children are harrassed at school and your house graffitied – or downright dangerous – you recieve death threats, you are assaulted on the street.

    So, one of the reasons that anonymity is required is to protect the minority from the majority.  To protect people from other people.  Anonymous free speech is one way in which we avoid the tyranny of the majority.

    As a pedagogical excercise, OP and BBD might consider why we have secret ballots.

    3. Again let us assume that the names are made public.  Now, it may be that the government wants to enact policy, but the public isn’t supportive.  The government will argue that the public is being ‘mislead’.  And ‘mislead’ by certain people.  Remember that the government has guns and tanks and bombs and stuff.  The government may rationalize that it needs to do something about them for the sake of the public good.  When government does something it is usually not subtle: jail time, fines, that kind of thing.

    So another reason that anonymity is required is to protect the people from the government.

    ——————————————————————–

    I think that BBD and OP are, in their way, well intentioned.  They are, however, profoundly misguided.  These kinds of ideas have been tried many times and the oucome is always bad.  These ideas are anathema in a free society.

  121. Lewis Deane says:

    The daft, dispiriting world,
    A mere adjunkt to ‘something better’.

  122. BBD says:

    kdk33
     
    Let us first respond to # 111…

  123. BBD says:

    … instead of yet more evasion.

  124. harrywr2 says:

    OPatrick Says:
    As I have said the NIPCC document is objectively dishonest and by extension so is Heartland.


    dis·hon·est  (ds-nst)adj.1. Disposed to lie, cheat, defraud, or deceive
    The NIPCC document may be shown to be ‘incorrect’.
    Dishonestu requires an element of ‘intent’.
    You might be able to ‘objectively’ show that the NIPCC document is ‘incorrect’…but unless you can get inside of the mind of the person who wrote it and see the world thru the lens they see the world through you can not prove ‘intent’.
    This whole discussion is just like being in kindergarten and being sent to the principals office because I was repeatedly and deliberately mis-identifying my colors.
    The world hasn’t changed much in 50 years…there is still no shortage of people who would punish a 5 year old child for being physically incapable of distinguishing between red and green and then in the next sentence talk about ‘sharing and caring’.
    It is just so much easier to label anyone that views the world thru a different lens as ‘dishonest’ or ‘evil’ or a ‘trouble maker’.

  125. BBD says:

    As a pedagogical excercise, OP and BBD might consider why we have secret ballots.
     
    To protect ordinary people from powerful ones (eg billionaires with self-serving agendas; the bosses etc). It’s a trades union thing.
     
    Interesting that you invert this to serve your argument.

  126. OPatrick says:

    harrywr2 @124
    You might be able to “˜objectively’ show that the NIPCC document is “˜incorrect'”¦but unless you can get inside of the mind of the person who wrote it and see the world thru the lens they see the world through you can not prove “˜intent’.

    I believe it is beyond reasonable doubt that those behind the NIPCC document are acting with dishonest intent.

    As I said before it is conceivable that those in Heartland who are publishing and promoting the NIPCC report are genuinely ignorant enough of the science to be acting honestly, though I think that highly unlikely. It is not conceivable that those who wrote the report did so with honest intent.  
     

  127. BBD says:

    Lest anyone forget – the argument has always been that the *money* needs to be transparent. The big money. The big vested interests. The billionaires, the corporations. This peculiar notion that freedom of speech will be served by allowing the plutocracy to buy influence in secret isn’t worth revisiting. It’s patent nonsense.
     
    Now, back to that delayed response to # 111 – I haven’t got long – meetings for ~ 2 hours coming up.

  128. OPatrick says:

    kdk33 @120

    You have shown utter disregard for what I have written and no interest in trying to understand the points I am making.   

  129. BBD says:

    OPatrick
     
    Did you notice that too? I thought it was just me…
     
    😉

  130. OPatrick says:

    BBD, I admire your willingness to continue here but, sorry Keith, I think it’s a broken forum for meaningful discussion.

  131. Keith Kloor says:

    @130  Sorry, but not every thread will meet everyone’s satisfaction. 

  132. BBD says:

    OPatrick
     
    kdk33’s on the back foot. He won’t answer me, he won’t answer you, he’s now trying to conflate the two of us to avoid addressing either of us…
     
    He’ll have to ask the Lord for guidance soon…

  133. OPatrick says:

    Keith @131, if it were just the odd thread, but it’s a consistent pattern. I don’t have any easy answers to what you can do about it.

  134. OPatrick says:

    BBD, I’m not sure that kdk33 is in the same ring so he will be blithely unaware of which foot he is on.

  135. BBD says:

    OPatrick @ 134
     
    🙂
     
    @ 133
     
    I have a feeling that Keith leaves that up to us. Collide-a-scape and all that…

  136. Keith Kloor says:

    @133 You show me a blog where the threads aren’t dominated by those who feel most passionate. Specifically, In cases where threads go on for days, arguers become more strident.

    I also think it’s a mistake to characterize a forum as broken because you can’t see eye to eye with a few commenters.

    On balance, I’d rather have a diverse readership (which is the case here), even if that results in cantankerous debates among readers, as opposed to a politically or ideologically homogenous  audience , which results in echo chambers. 

  137. jeffn says:

    Interesting contribution to the subject of business money in politics from the Washington Post:
    “Although many Americans complain about the role of big business in funding political campaigns in the United States, the roots of the corruption and criminalization of Indian politics, ironically, lie in the outlawing of corporate contributions by then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in 1967, in an attempt to cripple a right-wing opposition movement by depriving it of funds.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/criminals-flourish-in-indian-elections/2012/03/03/gIQA1E1JsR_story.html
     
    By the way OP and BBD- many people have noted that Greenpeace’s reports on renewable energy are objectively wrong- are you able to call them “liars,” do you think they should be “shamed” out of the discussion? Or do we just keep the same old boring double standard going?

  138. Lewis Deane says:

    BBD, your outrageous – you accuse people of being ‘dishonest’, of being ‘lyrers'(what’s the spelling?)? Is that right? Do you feel right in making such absurdities? Please think, though this is the last time I will ask you.

  139. BBD says:

    jeffn
     
    By the way OP and BBD- many people have noted that Greenpeace’s reports on renewable energy are objectively wrong – are you able to call them “liars,” do you think they should be “shamed” out of the discussion? Or do we just keep the same old boring double standard going?
     
    No. No double standards here. I thought the SRREN was biased (too much emphasis on Teske et al. in Section 10 etc) and undermined the IPCC claim to objectivity in the very specific case of its presentation of the potential of renewables. That said, the press release and the misrepresentation of the 80% figure (vs 30% – the report’s actual conclusion) was the most visible problem.
     
     
     
     

  140. BBD says:

    Lewis Dean
     
    It’s unclear what you are specifically objecting to (not for the first time). But I will stand by what I have said. You are free to regard it as ‘outrageous’ but it would be helpful if you were more specific.
     
    Also, this leaves me utterly baffled:
     
    of being “˜lyrers'(what’s the spelling?)?

  141. BBD says:

    Keith
     
    which results in echo chambers.
     
    This place does echo sometimes, but only with the sound of argument…
     
    😉

  142. kdk33 says:

    Now let us consider, in some detail, and just for fun, BBD’s post on ‘the science’:

    What you think you have fallen back on is an appeal to authority ““ which is sad enough in itself.  But it isn’t even that.  It is an appeal to the climate science literature.  It’s a logical fallacy.
    The best current scientific understanding isn’t an “˜appeal to authority’ nor is it a “˜logical fallacy’. It is the best current scientific understanding.

    You seem to have missed the point.  Yes, the best understanding is the best understanding – that is tautology.  But the best understanding does not mean it is understood.  Your appeal to authority is that you fall back on “all other scientists agree”, “the preponderance of the literature says”, and etc.  And these are very formal appeals to authority.  And counting journal publications is not even a very good way to assess authority.

    Now, as regards climate sensitivity, the best scientific understanding is this:  we don’t know.  I do not find model results compelling, and for the reasons I have already stated, i think it more likely that climate sensitivity is low.

    To test this, would you dismiss the best current scientific understanding of, say, superconducting alloys as “˜an appeal to authority’ and “˜a logical fallacy’? I don’t think so.

    Thats utter nonsense. Superconducting alloys can be made and tested repeatedly and that data made available and on the basis of that data I would conclude that superconducting alloys have certain properties.  I  would base my understanding on the data.  Now, that would imply that I trusted scientist to not make up data – I don’t – but if the results were independantly replicated in various labs, then I would accept them as valid. 

    Climate is very different.  We cannot experiment with it.  We are, in a sense, arguing over what the data means, not if the data is valid (well, in general that’s true, though there is still some fussing around the edges).  Computer modeling is even more ambiguous.  For example, I find nothing at all alarming in sea level rise data – many ‘authorities’ think differently.

    Deny
    the science and what is left? Your belief system. And what is that? Unsupported wish-fulfilment:

    You are confusing literature and opinion with science.  Science is a methodology for seeking truth; not a result.  In no way do I deny science.  I have a different opinion than some scientists on what the data means and what, if anything, we should do.  So what?

    I’m assuming, BBD, that you are not a scientist and that you have not published in ‘the learned literature’.  I’ll let you in on a little secret: science journals are just magazines.  Nothing more.  They are published to please a narrow audience and that audience has a direct voice (via peer review) in choosing.  If the audience doesn’t like the publication, the publication dies. 

    Climate doom is popular.  It begets funding.  Scientist need funding.  Scientist submite climate doom articles because it attracts more funding.  Magazines publish climate doom articles because they are popular; they help drive funding.  Scientists look unkindly on not-climate-doom articles as this might divert the limited pool of funding to other topics.  This doesn’t prove anything right or wrong, but it goes a long way explaining what does and does not get in the magazine.
    I believe climate feedbacks are more likely to be negative than positive.  That is different than, as you say, believing it to be low.  I know it’s subtle, but try to work on it.. 
    […]
    We don’t count anything!  We look at the evidence.  Counting up publications is not science.
    Science is science, and denial is denial. I look at the former and you are indulging in the latter.

    You are not looking at the science.   You are reading magazines.
    I’ve already offered that since climate has not runaway, this is a strong argument for negative feedbacks.  If we count all GHG, not just CO2, and attribute all of the warming over the last 100 years or so, to anthropogenic GHG, the data says climate sensitivity is about 1.  I don’t think it is reasonable to attribute all of the warming to anthropogenic causes, so this argues for low climate sensitivity.
    The problem is that you don’t understand feedbacks.

    Thank you BBD.  I needed a good laugh.

    Positive feedback (amplification is a better, less potentially confusing term) does not automatically lead to a “˜runaway’ effect.

    That is correct.  I never said it did.

    The increase in output is *not proportional* to the increase in input.

    Actually, It depends.  But, in a complex system like climate where there are many feedbacks acting in concert, I’ll accept it.

    It *falls* progressively over time (it is logarithmic). So the feedback effect is strong initially but diminishes.

    This is wrong, though I know why you are confused

    None of these prove anything one way or another.

    The answer to your new and trivial question is this:  If climate sensitivity is shown conclusively to be X, I will believe it to be X.  Were you expecting something different?
    Climate sensitivity (at equilibrium) has been shown to be about 3C for 2xCO2.

    No it has not.

    Multiple independent studies using a variety of methodologies all converge on this value.

    This sounds very impressive.  Perhaps you could be specific. 

    There’s very little real argument about this except from Lindzen.

    Really, that must explain the rapid pace of decarbonization legislation :-).  OK, that was snark.  Lindzen isn’t the only denier, and even if he were, that doesn’t mean anything.

    Who is a lone voice. So why don’t you accept the most likely value?

    You want to take a vote to know a physical property of the climate.  it doesn’t work that way.  That isn’t science.  I, obviously, don’t consider it the most likely value.
    Why instead do you accept Lindzen’s papers but deny the vast mass of work that contradicts them?

    Magazines aren’t science.

    Your “˜logic’ is puzzling.

    Yes, you seem very puzzled.

    Either we accept the science or we don’t.

    Agreed, but you and I don’t agree on what science is.

    You can’t just pick a tiny little bit that suits your belief system and reject the rest because it doesn’t.

    My belief system doesn’t have anthing to do with climate sensitivity.  I have an opinion on what climate sensitivity likely is (and I’ve told you partly why), and it factors into my cost benefit analysis that tells me to do nothing about CO2.

    That’s mad. That’s denial.

    Please.
    Why do you think Richard Lindzen, an accomplished scientists at a highly regarded technical university, would belive climate sensitivity to be low, if there was no evidence?
    Lindzen hasn’t provided any evidence to support his ideas.

    This is incorrect.

    He’s tried, but his papers collapse under scrutiny. Every time.

    Does Lindzen agree with this?

    That’s why he’s a lone voice and there’s no “˜school of Lindzen’ in atmospheric physics challenging the current understanding. It is strongly suggestive that Lindzen is wrong. Obviously.

    Suggested by what?  A vote?  Counting magazine articles? 
    Now if Lindzen is wrong, where does that leave you? 

    What if he is right?

  143. BBD says:

    kdk33

    our appeal to authority is that you fall back on “all other scientists agree”, “the preponderance of the literature says”, and etc.  And these are very formal appeals to authority.  And counting journal publications is not even a very good way to assess authority.

    You are still rejecting the entire body of work that constitutes the best current scientific understanding without:

    – giving any reason

    – suggesting an alternative that makes any sense

    In other words, you are denying the science while pretending not to.

    Now, as regards climate sensitivity, the best scientific understanding is this:  we don’t know.  I do not find model results compelling, and for the reasons I have already stated, i think it more likely that climate sensitivity is low.

    We have converging estimates. It is nonsense to claim that ‘we don’t know’. Self-serving nonsense at that. Next, who cares what you think? There is a stack of published work by actual atmospheric scientists which says ~3C for 2xCO2. You can deny it, but it won’t go away.

    Now, as regards climate sensitivity, the best scientific understanding is this:  we don’t know.  I do not find model results compelling, and for the reasons I have already stated, i think it more likely that climate sensitivity is low.

    There you go again: self-serving nonsense. Who cares what you find compelling? There is a stack of published work by actual atmospheric scientists which says ~3C for 2xCO2. You can deny it, but it won’t go away.

    You are confusing literature and opinion with science.  Science is a methodology for seeking truth; not a result.

    No I’m not. And yes I know. And you are denying the validity of the scientific process as a mechanism for clarifying the workings of nature: ‘the data’s fudged; the models are rubbish; the published literature’s just magazine op-eds’ etc. All self-serving nonsense.

    You don’t understand amplification through eg water vapour. Your odd commentary on this point demonstrates this once again. Why this is occasion for a ‘good laugh’ on your part escapes me. Tell you what though, just explain to me why I’m wrong about positive feedbacks in the climate system being logarithmic and not liable to trigger a ‘runaway’ greenhouse. I’m curious.

    This sounds very impressive.  Perhaps you could be specific.

    See here, here, here and IPCC AR4 WG1. There’s lots more, but that’ll do for starters.

    Lindzen hasn’t provided any robust evidence to back up his ideas and his work does not withstand scrutiny. Would you like me to post a list of replies to his papers over the last decade or so? Just ask.

    What if he is right?

    We’ve been through this. Nobody agrees with him. There is no ‘school of Lindzen’. The logical inference is that he is wrong. This is basic reasoning.

    You have no evidence to back up your unreasonably-held position. That is why I refer to it as a belief system. You have re-hashed various empty statements you made earlier and added exactly nothing of substance.

    No evidence. Denial of the science. Unfounded belief system. Repeat. Boring and pointless.

  144. OPatrick says:

    Keith @136

    No, it’s not to do with not seeing eye to eye, it’s not being able to have any meaningful discussion. I know you are aiming for a diverse readership, which is why I said I don’t know what you can do about it – if you didn’t want a diverse readership it would be easy to moderate one side away. But it’s not cantakerous debate you end up with, it’s meaningless disagreement. In the end it’s not worth the time or the stress.

  145. Sashka says:

    @ 136

    Tamsin’s blog so far is good. But of course it’s too young to know how it turns out. Let’s wait until the legal team deploys.

    Of course, it’s your prerogative to set the policies as you see fit, Keith. But if you don’t see the difference in the signal to noise ratio between just a few months ago and now then it’s going downhill from here.

  146. kdk33 says:

    Wow BBD, that was quite a screed.  I must point out that you have yet to answer any of my questions.  I have answered all of yours.  Because I disagree with you it is “self-serving nonsense”.  OP argues I should be censored.  Yous guys are quite a pair.  This will be pointless, but I’ll try once more, just for giggles.
    ———————————————————–

    You are still rejecting the entire body of work that constitutes the best current scientific understanding without:

    No that’s not true.  We just disagree on the certainty with which we can state our ‘best understanding’, and the difference between magazine articles and science

    giving any reason

    I’ve given you many.  You just don’t like them so are pretending they aren’t there – much like you never answer any of my questions.

    suggesting an alternative that makes any sense

    No, that isn’t true
    In other words, you are denying the science while pretending not to.

    I employ the scientific method to conclude that a) we don’t know climate sensitivity and b) I think it more likely to be low.  You say “all other scientist disagree”.  This is a) not true, and b) not relevant.
    We have converging estimates.

    Other people have a different opinion.  I’m fine with that.

    It is nonsense to claim that “˜we don’t know’

    No.  It is accurate

    Who cares what you think?

    Apparently you do.  You asked.  And then you insisted, over, and over, and over, again, that I answer you.  Shall we review?


    There is a stack of published work by actual atmospheric scientists which says ~3C for 2xCO2. You can deny it, but it won’t go away.

    I don’t deny that stack exists.  I just don’t agree.  Why is that so hard for you?

    You don’t understand amplification through eg water vapour.

    Actually, I do.  Water vapor is but one feedback. 


    Your odd commentary on this point demonstrates this once again.

    No, your comment above demonstrates your incomplete understanding.


    Why this is occasion for a “˜good laugh’ on your part escapes me.

    Does it really?


    Tell you what though, just explain to me why I’m wrong about positive feedbacks in the climate system being logarithmic and not liable to trigger a “˜runaway’ greenhouse. I’m curious.

    Of course you continue to twist my words.  I said you were wrong that the feedback was logarithmic.  I don’t know what  you mean by ‘liable to trigger’.  My answer is above, water is but one feedback.  The others are frequently discussed.  I’m sure one as astute as yourself can name a couple.  If not, perhaps another reader will assist you.


    We’ve been through this [lindzen]. Nobody agrees with him.

    Really?  Choi?  Perhaps you don’t understand the meaning of ‘nobody’.


    There is no “˜school of Lindzen’. The logical inference is that he is wrong. This is basic reasoning.

    What nonsense.

    You have no evidence to back up your unreasonably-held position.

    Actually, the burden of proof is on your side (Trenberth not-withstanding).  Climate has changed in the past without any anthropogenic input.  There is no need to invoke anthropogenic causes because climate is changing now.  We certainly don’t understand ‘natural variation’ as it is euphamistically referenced.

    try this:  according to GISS (the hottest of the temp record), the GAT has increased about 0.7C since 1880.  CO2 has increased from about 280 ppm to about 395 ppm.  The response to CO2 is logarithmic.  Using this data, calculate climate sensitivity.  Now, let’s assume about 50% of the warming is anthropogenic, recalculate climate sensitivity. 

    I dare you.


    That is why I refer to it as a belief system.

    No, are you are implying something else. 


    You have re-hashed various empty statements you made earlier and added exactly nothing of substance. No evidence. Denial of the science. Unfounded belief system. Repeat. Boring and pointless.

    Well, BBD, you have certainly made a compelling case.  I’m sure everyone (but me) is just a’raring to rush on out and decarbonize. 

    Right? 

    Right?

    No?
     

  147. Steve Mennie says:

    In reply to Jack Hughes @ 19

    This may be a tad late but it took me some time to locate the quote. It’s from an essay entitled “The Time of Man” by the noted anthropologist, Loren Eiseley and I thought it pertinent to your remarks about not being a walking contradiction…

    “…Thus life is never perfectly adjusted. It is malleable and imperfect because it is always slipping from one world into another. The perfectly adjusted perish with the environment that created them. It is not really surprising, when one thinks about it, that man, who evolved with comparative rapidity, should be among earth’s most dangerous juvenile delinquents.

    He is literally compounded of contradictions, mentally and physically. He is at one and the same time archaic and advanced. His body and his mind are as stuffed with evolutionary refuse as a New England attic. Once he comes to accept and recognize this fact, his chances for survival may improve…”

  148. BBD says:

    OPatrick @ 144
     
    This captures the spirit of things for me:
     
    “It seems very pretty,” she said when she had finished it, “but it’s rather hard to understand!” (You see she didn’t like to confess, even to herself, that she couldn’t make it out at all.)
    “Somehow it seems to fill my head with ideas – only I don’t exactly know what they are! However, somebody killed something: that’s clear, at any rate -“
     “You seem very clever at explaining words, Sir,” said Alice. “Would you kindly tell me the meaning of the poem called ‘Jabberwocky‘?”
    “Let’s hear it,” said Humpty Dumpty. “I can explain all the poems that ever were invented – and a good many that haven’t been invented just yet.”
    This sounded very hopeful, so Alice repeated the first verse:
    “‘Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
    Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
    All mimsy were the borogoves,
    And the mome raths outgrabe.”
     
    🙂
     
    In the end it’s not worth the time or the stress.
     
    I’m inclined to agree, but very reluctant to leave the field to the Jabberwocky.
     
    Damnant quod non intellegunt.

  149. BBD says:

    kdk33 @ 146

    try this:  according to GISS (the hottest of the temp record), the GAT has increased about 0.7C since 1880.  CO2 has increased from about 280 ppm to about 395 ppm.  The response to CO2 is logarithmic.  Using this data, calculate climate sensitivity.  Now, let’s assume about 50% of the warming is anthropogenic, recalculate climate sensitivity.

    I dare you.

    – GAT has risen by ~0.5C since 1975.

    – CO2 only began to rise rapidly from the mid-C20th.

    – Trying to stretch the cause/effect period from 1880 – present is misleading.

    – Net natural forcings 1950 – present are insignificant and do not account for the observed increase in GAT over the period.

    – So why do you assume that only 50% of the warming is anthropogenic?

    – The estimated transient climate response for an equilibrium sensitivity of ~3C is ~0.2C/decade.

    – There is some uncertainty over the effect of negative aerosol forcing (including equatorial volcanism since 2000), ocean heat uptake and solar quiescence on recent flat global T.

    – The cooling of GAT by DJF temperatures in the NH extratropics as a response to anthropogenic warming of the Arctic has also contributed to a decade of flat global T. It may even be the dominant factor (here’s the link to Cohen et al. (2012) I posted on the other thread again – it’s interesting and I urge you to read it. This time).

    – Observed is ~0.15C/decade. Although 0.2C/decade is justifiable from the land-only data* rather than GAT, as expected.

    – Despite the relatively early stage of transient response and the uncertainties and possible unexpected anthropogenic cooling effects, the observations are still in line with estimates.

    – Where’s your evidence for a low climate sensitivity again? You still haven’t provided any.

    *To avoid the spam filter, I’ll post this link separately.

  150. BBD says:

    *
    1979 ““ present BEST; UAH land only; RSS land only; CRUTEM3 land only (common 1981 -2010 baseline).

    Decadal trends (C):
    BEST:  0.28
    UAH land only: 0.14
    RSS land only: 0.2
    CRUTEM3: 0.21
    0.2C/decade is supported by land-only data even from 1979 – present.

  151. kdk33 says:

    GAT has risen by ~0.5C since 1975.

    Yes, this is about right.  Temperature has been changing in a herky jerky fashion.  You must also agree the the rise since 1880 is about 0.7 C.  Are you claiming that CO2 rise began in 1975?
    CO2 only began to rise rapidly from the mid-C20th.

    The when doesn’t matter.  The  only thing that matters is the change in CO2. 

    Just out of curiousity, does mid-C20th and 1975 mean the same thing.  Or are you misleading me?
    Trying to stretch the cause/effect period from 1880 ““ present is misleading.

    No it’s not.  It is irrelevant. 

    OTOH, mismatching the time of CO2 increase (say from 1950 to now) and the time of temperature increase (say 1975 to now) is definately misleading.  Are you trying to mislead me?

    Net natural forcings 1950 ““ present are insignificant and do not account for the observed increase in GAT over the period.

    Neither you, nor anyone else knows this.  Can you show me the overwhelming consensus that predicted the pause in warming these last dozen years or so.  Can you show me the overwhelming consensus the tells when it will restart, or when it will start to cool.  ‘natural variation’ has not been solved.  The claim you make above cannot be supported.
    So why do you assume that only 50% of the warming is anthropogenic?

    I don’t.  I asked you to do it both ways.  I chose 50% because it is not unreasonable to think that some of the warming has been natural – it was warming up before, why would it suddenly(conveniently, coincidently) stop.  I don’t know the precentage (nor do you), but 50% makes an interesting calculation.
    The estimated transient climate response for an equilibrium sensitivity of ~3C is ~0.2C/decade.

    Over your cherry picked time period.  This is not, however, climate sensitivity.  This is a rate of change.  Not the same thing.

    There is some uncertainty over the effect of negative aerosol forcing (including equatorial volcanism since 2000), ocean heat uptake and solar quiescence on recent flat global T.

    Indeed

    The cooling of GAT by DJF temperatures in the NH extratropics as a response to anthropogenic warming of the Arctic has also contributed to a decade of flat global T. It may even be the dominant factor (here’s the link to Cohen et al. (2012) I posted on the other thread again ““ it’s interesting and I urge you to read it. This time).

    I won’t read it.  It sounds like interesting speculation.  Show me the pre-1997 prediction and we will have something to talk about.  Otherwise, I have read way to many climate a-posteriori attribution claims and lack the stomach for more.
    Observed is ~0.15C/decade. Although 0.2C/decade is justifiable from the land-only data* rather than GAT, as expected.

    Not sure what this is about (editing error?).  See comment on climate sensitivity versus rate of change.
    Despite the relatively early stage of transient response and the uncertainties and possible unexpected anthropogenic cooling effects, the observations are still in line with estimates.

    Wow.  That’s a lot of weasel words. By estimates of course, you mean models. 

    Where’s your evidence for a low climate sensitivity again? You still haven’t provided any.

    Of course I have, you are just pretending.  In fact, you didn’t bother to do the calculation.  At this point I would normally just call you on that, but you have provided some numbers which will make an interesting illustration.

    If you do the calculation with the numbers I provided you will find climate sensitivity to be about 1.4C per doubling of CO2 or 0.7C per doubline if 50% of the warming is natural. 

    Using numbers from 1950 to present – 0.5 C increase since 1950, and CO2 increasing from about 310 to 395 – you will find climate sensitivity to be about 1.4C per doubling or 0.7C per doubling if 50% of the warming is natural.

    It seems my methods are robust and converge on a low sensitivity.  Strange.

    Using your mismatched numbers:  0.5C from 1975 to now and 310ppm to 395 ppm from 1950 to now you get… well the same as above.

    Wow, it seems my methods are even immune to obfuscation.

    Using 0.5C from 1975 to now and CO2 from 1975 to now, 330 ppm to 395 ppm you get, 1.9C or 1.0 C if 50% of the warming is natural.

    Well, my methods aren’t entirely immune to cherry picking.  Interestingly the probable climate sensitivity is still low at 1.0 C.  And even you can’t argue that anthropogenic CO2 kicked in in 1975(!).

    You were saying something earlier, but I seem to have forgotten what it was…

  152. BBD says:

    kdk33

    The when doesn’t matter.  The  only thing that matters is the change in CO2. 

    Um, no.

    The climate system is big and sluggish. It doesn’t respond instantly to CO2 forcing. That is why the concept of transient climate sensitivity exists. It describes the lag between gradually increasing CO2 forcing and effect on GAT.

    You go on to reproduce Monckton’s argument about TCR which has been debunked elsewhere.

    Please, show me a body of published work that supports your belief in a low climate sensitivity.

    Better yet, remind me how a low CS is compatible with observed and reconstructed climate variability in response to slight changes in natural forcings.

    I won’t read it.  It sounds like interesting speculation.

    There it is in a nutshell. Detailed and fascinating spatial/seasonal analysis in the bin. There’s no potential for progress when you do this.

  153. BBD says:

    While we’re at it, let’s have another look at the familiar AR4 graph of GHG forcing change 10ka – present. It’s a classic 🙂

    GHG forcing from CO2, methane and nitrous oxide, 10ka to present.

    We can chortle about *this* hockey stick all night long, but it won’t go away.

  154. kdk33 says:

    The climate system is big and sluggish. It doesn’t respond instantly to CO2 forcing. That is why the concept of transient climate sensitivity exists. It describes the lag between gradually increasing CO2 forcing and effect on GAT.

    Yes, but we were not talking about transient sensitivity, were we?

    If you are pointing out that my calculations ignores response time, you are correct.  Nevertheless, I think my calculation informative – I never claimed more than that.  If you have something meaningful to say about earths time constant, that might lead to a discussion of how that could be accounted in my simple calculation.  Otherwise, you are just changing the subject.
    Please, show me a body of published work that supports your belief in a low climate sensitivity.

    Why do you do this.  We have covered this ad nauseum  Appeals to authority do not interest me.
    Better yet, remind me how a low CS is compatible with observed and reconstructed climate variability in response to slight changes in natural forcings.

    And we have covered this before. 

    I won’t read it.  It sounds like interesting speculation.There it is in a nutshell. Detailed and fascinating spatial/seasonal analysis in the bin. There’s no potential for progress when you do this.

    Of course, you left our my challenge to you to find the pre-1997 literature that predicted that recent pause in warming.  Why did you do that?  As I said, I am not impressed with a-posteriori attribution claims.  Perhaps you are, but you can’t deny that they are much less impressive than the a-priori kind. 

  155. BBD says:

    Why do you do this.  We have covered this ad nauseum  Appeals to authority do not interest me.
     
    Supporting evidence interests me.
     
    Of course, you left our my challenge to you to find the pre-1997 literature that predicted that recent pause in warming.  Why did you do that?
     
    Because it’s a red herring. And analysis of observations (eg Cohen 2012) is valid.

  156. kdk33 says:

    And you offer nothing substantive on time constants.  Sad.

  157. Lewis Deane says:

    BBD, Kdk33 et al,

    You have the strength of 100 year old elephants. And your still going on?! I was thinking, though, don’t accuse your enemies of lying, for lying takes character, is a mark of character and, hence, is a kind of compliment. This is called the Gleik Mistake. Nobody is more chuffed and ‘puffed up’, now, than the Heartland institute, something which I find, being an ‘old lefty’, like you, BBD, objectionable, merely on principle. As I once commented, I hate being on the side of world class bores, though ‘world class’ is, again, overdoing it (I think, perhaps, the Daly Lama takes that biscuit! Apologies to the religiously sensitive).
    No, don’t accuse your enemies of lying, for lying takes courage, takes character, is a conscious choice – accuse them of cowardice, which means lying unconsciously, without intention, through weakness. Now that deserves contempt. 
    And not resentment. One only resents those one fears. Laughter or contempt are the best medicine, the best acids. To quote someone who might be your bete noir (you being an ‘old lefty’, old in the sense of venerable!), Nietzsche:

    Error is not stupidity, error is cowardice!

    (Now, children, I’ve given you your words – go tell them in the playground!) 

  158. Nullius in Verba says:

    kdk33,
    Regarding time constants, have a look at Isaac Held’s graph here.
    He shows the effect of suddenly turning off the post-industrial GHGs at various points in the future. The fast response takes about 5 years. There is also a slower response, due to heat accumulation in the deep ocean, which appears to have a time constant of several hundred years, but because of that hasn’t built up to a large amount yet. Slow in, slow out.
     
    All models, of course.
     
    It’s a matter of common sense that the climate response to forcing is very fast. The entire world warms and cools every summer/winter: many degrees in a few months. The peak temperature lags behind the peak insolation by about a month.

  159. Lewis Deane says:

    I want to overturn all old, ossified ways of thinking. For instance, watching an old, classic Western and a character say “Let nature take it’s course.” before a fight, I thought it isn’t naturally true that Mankind, Womankind, men and women, are violent, greedy and unethical. On the contrary, our natural tendency is to be ethical, to be good, even eco-ethical. Now, some might call that naivety but I have some the best thinkers on my side (also, against me! (Yes, Anteros, the exclamation marks and the ‘idiosyncratic b*ll*cks’!)). Thomas Aquinus, for instance, defined ‘sin’ as ‘misplaced love’, ie love for the wrong ‘object’, ‘thing’. The thought is rather beautiful – that we are naturally people who love but, through mis-direction and, perhaps, obtuseness, just happen to love the wrong thing. For Aquinus, the ‘right thing’ was God and for us? We are still in those groping, early stages of trying to find out. For we must love something, surely?

  160. Lewis Deane says:

    Of course, someone might argue, on the contrary, the ‘human personality’ is an historical construct and then all my arguments are changed to dust. I don’t believe that, and it is a question of belief, in the end, of faith in a few verities. And yet can one argue against such disbelief? I think one can, for experience tells. Experience not just ones own but of the generations before one. Perhaps the lack of our old, ‘extended’ families has bred this brittle (because easily broken) cynicism. I want to overturn that, too.

  161. kdk33 says:

    NiV,

    It’s a matter of common sense that the climate response to forcing is very fast.

    I’m thinkin’:  boundary condition.  :-).

  162. Nullius in Verba says:

    #159,
    The Noble Savage?
    Humanity is not ‘naturally’ violent, greedy or unethical; nor are they ‘naturally’ the contrary. It depends on the circumstances in which they find themselves; both sides are parts of the same nature. Having a system of ethics is instinctive, but so is greed. Violence is a tool that may be used for good or ill.
     
    Humanity’s fall from innocence occurs when we judge between good and evil. We draw a line across indivisible creation and declare one side of it a mistake. What hubris! There are no sharp lines in nature – it is all one thing; continuous, unbreakable, the whole reflected in its every part and every element implying every other. And yet we dare to declare parts of it not to our liking? It is fundamentally inconsistent, but a successful strategy nevertheless.
    We are finite, with finite vision. We are what we are. Our values and judgements are a part of that, they are a part of what is, but they are also no more than a useful and necessary tool that can be used well or ill, as we define it. Greed can be good – it’s what makes progress possible.
     
    “And sin, young man, is when you treat people as things. Including yourself. That’s what sin is.” Granny Weatherwax, Carpe Jugulum.

  163. harrywr2 says:

    OPatrick Says:
    March 9th, 2012 at 11:02 am
     
    I believe it is beyond reasonable doubt that those behind the NIPCC document are acting with dishonest intent.


    And exactly what evidence do you have of that?
    I will lay out the case against.
    HI is a libertarian think tank.
    The ‘world view’ of libertarians is that government inference in the affairs of private individuals does more harm then good.
    This is their ‘idealogical’ core.
    Everyone on the face of the planet will place more weight on evidence that supports their ideological core beliefs and place less weight or even be dismissive of evidence that opposes a core belief.
    This is basic ‘cognitive science’ 101. (My daughter has a degree in cognitive science)
    There is even a colloquialism coined by some famous scientist.
    The easiest person to fool is yourself.
    Just a simple example.
    Widely quoted in the press is a figure of $14 billion for th Voglte nuclear project. Which is a pair of AP1000 nuclear reactors being built in Georgia and also widely quoted  is the ‘loan guarantee’ subsidy. The case is then made that ‘nuclear is expensive and can’t be built without subsidy.
    VC Summer #2 and #3 are being built in South Carolina and are  6  months behind the  Georgia plants. The budget is 25% less then the prices being bandied about in the press and there are no loan guarantees.
    Why is the press not including in it’s statements the fact the Vogtle project is a ‘first of it’s kind’ and ‘first of it’s kind’ are always more expensive?  Why are they ignoring the contradictory cost numbers between the Vogtle and VC Summer projects? Why are they ignoring the fact that VC Summer didn’t even bother applying for loan guarantees?
    I know…they found a set of ‘facts’ that agrees with what they already believe. They will look no further for the truth. They will ignore VC Summer until it is ‘up and running’ because it disagrees with their ‘widely held’ beliefs.
    It’s the ‘standard operating procedure’ of the human mind. Science tells us it is the ‘standard operating procedure’ of the human mind.
     
    To be dishonest one has to ‘perceive’ that what they are saying is wrong.
    Some Libertarians  never ‘perceive’ that a problem is so serious that it warrants government intervention.  Their minds will just automatically toss any facts that would indicate otherwise straight in the waste bucket.
    Just as some  progressives can’t perceive that ‘Government Intervention’ sometimes causes damage to society that exceeds whatever problem the intervention was attempting to solve.
    To me since everyone has ‘cognitive blind-spots’ assigning ‘malevolent intent’ to a group that has a different ‘cognitive blind-spot’ is  self-destructive.
    If you achieve your goal and manage to silence them there will be no one left to point out that you are driving the bus over a cliff that is in your own cognitive blind-spot.
    History  has some pretty good lessons about what happens to societies when one set of ‘perceptions’ succeeds in silencing all others. The society ends up going over a cliff.
     
     

  164. Lewis Deane says:

    Nice one, Nullius, though I think your ‘wrong’ about that neutral, ‘original’ human. I was never born neutral but, if you’ll excuse me (and not gag), born hot and desiring. For, would you believe it, I had to be born conscious, assuming the particular, bad world I was entering. In fact, I don’t believe one can ever be undecided. That is why I hate the way some patronise children. Yes, they’re uninformed (not as ‘uninformed’ as some ‘grown ups’ who, after half reading, one or two things, have that stupid lack of humility to believe they ‘know’ something) but often clearer of eye than their parents. No, we are not born ‘stupid’ or unethical, we become so.

  165. Lewis Deane says:

    I mourn John Lennon, I mourn him deeply and I think we do not quite listen to him. I think, we must be a bit more ‘generous of heart’, a bit more ‘good’ to ourselves. For I think we are ‘wrong’ to ourselves. By definition, we misunderstand ourselves. Then how to ‘see’ ourselves? We can’t. But we try!

  166. kdk33 says:

    So, as regards climate sensitivity.  Using NiV’s rapid response time of 5 years.  I can recalculate cliamte sensiktivity ignoring the last 5 years of CO2 increse to find that if 100% of industrial age warming is anthropogenic, then climate sensitivity is 1.5C, 0.8C if 50% is anthropogenic.  Not exactly scary.

    So, high climate sensitivity is not derived from observational temperature and CO2 data, but from an assumption that the pre-industrial age warming suddenly, coincidently, remarkably, not only stopped, but reversed itself to a cooling trend, just in the nick of time for anthropogenic warming to take over.  And alarm flows from the assumption that this remarkably coincident cooling trend will soon stop and we will experience the truly alarming rate of warming that we have so far been unable to observe in the real world, but can only know via compuer modeling.  Whew!  I think I have that about right.

    Moreover, we are to believe this while simultaneously being told that the unpredicted pause in warming over the last 12 or so years is caused by natural variability.  Natural variablity powerful enough to overwhelm the alarming rate of anthropogenic warming, but not significant enough to cast doubt on all of the assumptions required to create alarm in the first place.

    Of particular note is this:  according to GISS, the hottest of the temp records IIRC, warming in the industrial age amounts to 0.5C.  That’s right, 0.5C.  1F.  And grown up human beings are decrying the end of civilization; the earth will not long tolerate our abuse; an existential crises looms.  Because the GAT has risen, over the last 50 years, 1 degree farenheit. One.  OP and BBD call for censorship.  MT asks if democracy is capable of meeting the crises.  Climate reparations.  UN control of the worlds economies.  Massive subsidies for non-competitive energy programs.  Plans to inject sulfate aerosols…

    So, why am I not willing to do one damn thing about CO2.  Because nothing is happenning in the real world that is alarming.  Sure, there are some intersting hypothesis out there about what might maybe happen in the distant future, but alarm rests on a foundation of multiple questionable assumptions (we haven’t even covered the consequences or warming, which might well be beneficial).  Is it possible that CO2 is a problem?  Sure, it’s possible.  But we don’t have near enough evidence to say with any certainty.  We don’t have any idea what the actual consequences might be.  And we certainly have no idea what we could possibly do to change the worlds CO2 trajectory.

    So.  I’m getting into my SUV and driving around the block a few extra times on my way to the store to get a beer.  Then I’m gonna crank up the A/C and watch an old John Wayne movie with every incandescent light in the house turned on.

  167. Steve Mennie says:

    @166…

    Maybe it’s time to go to the grumpy corner…. 

  168. kdk33 says:

    @167

    😉

  169. Lewis Deane says:

    Is it possible that someone could wake up? ‘Blue’, as Joni Mitchell puts it, is a ‘state of mind’. For, everyone is ‘fashionably’ stupid and, therefore, having a more than good time with themselves. Could it occur to anyone, someone, that being boring is by definition, absurd?

  170. Lewis Deane says:

    And, I think (sorry for my thinking, Keith) we are wrong, by definition. There is not any way out – how could there be? – the idea that ‘we’ forget what is most ‘essential’ is absurd, in essence, in itself. The fact that we, on the alleged ‘sceptic’ ‘side’, are somehow obtuse, somewhat not ‘of your class’ is both absurd and ‘wrong’. And, finally, we object to the policy, not to the science!

  171. Lewis Deane says:

    OK, ‘we’ have made absurd attempts against the ‘science’. And, yes, that is more than absurd. What I want to think about is luck, what John Lennon tried to call ‘love. 

  172. BBD says:

    kdk33

    Still banging this drum? I thought you might have had second thoughts by now.
     
    Warming since 1950 = 0.7C (Monckton; GISS; NOAA)

    Since the increase in net anthropogenic RF has been roughly linear 1950 – present, we can have a stab at estimating *transient climate response (TCR)*. This is what you are attempting, but you are confusing it with equilibrium sensitivity. Monckton did the same – quite possibly deliberately.

    Net anthropogenic forcing 1950 – 2010 is estimated to be 1.2W/m^2 (Skeie et al. 2011). Net Natural forcings 1950 – 2010 are negligible (see literature review here). TCR is estimated:
     
    TCR = dT/dF

    Where dT = change in temperature and dF = change in radiative forcing. So we get:

    TCR = 0.7/1.2 = 0.58

    TCR = 0.58C per W/m^2 increase in RF.

    RF from 2xCO2 relative to 1750 = 3.7W/m^2, so TCR to 2 x CO2 is 2.1C, pretty much as expected, eg AR4 WG1 Ch. 9:

    Stott et al. (2006c) estimate TCR based on scaling factors for the response to greenhouse gases only (separated from aerosol and natural forcing in a three-pattern optimal detection analysis) using fingerprints from three different model simulations (Figure 9.21) and find a relatively tight constraint. Using three model simulations together, their estimated median TCR is 2.1°C at the time of CO2 doubling (based on a 1% yr”“1 increase in CO2), with a 5 to 95% range of 1.5°C to 2.8°C.

    Equilibrium climate sensitivity to 2 x CO2 is about 3C (AR4 WG1 Ch. 10):

    Since the TAR, the levels of scientific understanding and confidence in quantitative estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity have increased substantially. Basing our assessment on a combination of several independent lines of evidence, as summarised in Box 10.2 Figures 1 and 2, including observed climate change and the strength of known feedbacks simulated in GCMs, we conclude that the global mean equilibrium warming for doubling CO2, or “˜equilibrium climate sensitivity’, is likely to lie in the range 2°C to 4.5°C, with a most likely value of about 3°C. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is very likely larger than 1.5°C.

    This is what happens when you regurgitate a Monckton argument: wrong result and a bad taste in the mouth 😉

    *Transient climate response as defined in AR4 WG1 Ch. 9:

    While ECS is the equilibrium global mean temperature change that eventually results from atmospheric CO2 doubling, the smaller TCR refers to the global mean temperature change that is realised at the time of CO2 doubling under an idealised scenario in which CO2 concentrations increase by 1% yr”“1 (Cubasch et al., 2001; see also Section 8.6.2.1). The TCR is therefore indicative of the temperature trend associated with external forcing, and can be constrained by an observable quantity, the observed warming trend that is attributable to greenhouse gas forcing. Since external forcing is likely to continue to increase through the coming century, TCR may be more relevant to determining near-term climate change than ECS.

  173. Jarmo says:

    #166

     

  174. harrywr2 says:

    BBD Says:

    <i>Warming since 1950 = 0.7C (Monckton; GISS; NOAA)…Since the increase in net anthropogenic RF has been roughly linear 1950 ““ present</i>
    And if you change the start date to 1930 or the year 2000 you would get a different answer.
    I can run out and look at the local tide guage at low tide…then look at it at high tide and based on those two measurements provide a calculation that will demonstrate sea level will rise by 1,000’s of meters by the end of the year.
    Of course if I measure again at tomorrows low tide  my previous calculations will be shown to be absurd.
    A lot of things in ‘nature’ look like sine waves.
    When you have figured out the precise frequency and height of  of all the  ‘natural sine waves’ that make up ‘climate’ and then figured out how much of the current warming is do to land use changes and other things that have nothing to do with CO2 then you can ‘take a stab’ at calculating ‘climate sensitivity’.

  175. BBD says:

    harrywr2
     
    When you have figured out the precise frequency and height of  of all the  “˜natural sine waves’ that make up “˜climate’ and then figured out how much of the current warming is do to land use changes and other things that have nothing to do with CO2 then you can “˜take a stab’ at calculating “˜climate sensitivity’.
     
    Do have a look at the literature review I linked at (173). Considerable efforts have been directed at just this.
     
    Jarmo
     
    # 173

  176. BBD says:

    harrywr2

    And if you change the start date to 1930 or the year 2000 you would get a different answer.

    To estimate TCR we need a period where increase in RF from CO2 has been fairly linear – and we have this from 1950 to present (increase in CO2 ppmv is essentially linear over the period). This enables a meaningful comparison of dF with dT over two climatologies (60 years).

    We also have good evidence that net natural forcings are not significant over this period (see link @ 176). So even a crude calculation of TCR = dT/dF is at least based on a reliable correlation between mainly anthropogenic forcing and T: 0.7C/1.2W/m^2 = 0.58C per W/m^2 = 2.1C TCR for 2 x CO2. It’s instructive that the result is in line with AR4.

    And again, this is the transient climate response, not the equilibrium:

    Transient climate response as defined in AR4 WG1 Ch. 9 (link @ 173):

    While ECS is the equilibrium global mean temperature change that eventually results from atmospheric CO2 doubling, the smaller TCR refers to the global mean temperature change that is realised at the time of CO2 doubling under an idealised scenario in which CO2 concentrations increase by 1% yr”“1 (Cubasch et al., 2001; see also Section 8.6.2.1). The TCR is therefore indicative of the temperature trend associated with external forcing, and can be constrained by an observable quantity, the observed warming trend that is attributable to greenhouse gas forcing. Since external forcing is likely to continue to increase through the coming century, TCR may be more relevant to determining near-term climate change than ECS.

  177. harrywr2 says:

    BBD Says:

     
    <i>To estimate TCR we need a period where increase in RF from CO2 has been fairly linear</i>
    And all other variable are accounted for.
    If there is a ‘coincident amplitude’ your numbers end up skewed by the coincident amplitude.
     
    http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/ResearchProjects/Hartmann%20and%20Wendler%202005.pdf
    <i>The 1976 Pacific climate shift is examined, and its manifestations and significance in Alaskan climatology during the last half-century are demonstrated. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation index shifted in 1976 from dominantly negative values for the 25-yr time period 1951″“75 to dominantly positive values for the period
    1977″“2001.</i>
    The PDO is at least one potential source of ‘coincident’ amplitude.
     

  178. BBD says:

    harrywr2
     
    The PDO is at least one potential source of “˜coincident’ amplitude.
     
    But it is not energetically sufficient to account for the increase in GAT over the C20th. RF from CO2 is. The parsimonious explanation is that CO2 is the causative agent. 

  179. BBD says:

    harrywr2

    To illustrate the point that the PDO is natural variability let’s compare it with GISTEMP. The PDO (pseudo?) oscillation does not correlate with the rise in GAT from ~1975.

  180. BBD says:

    The PDO (pseudo?) oscillation.

  181. kdk33 says:

    BBD,

    What a fascinating post.  You certainly have masterd the art of cut and paste.

    Warming since 1950 = 0.7C

    My eyeball says you might could argue for 0.6, but no way 0.7.  Moreover, the 0.5 was actually your number, IIRC.  But, the conclusions don’t change.

    transient climate response (TCR)*. This is what you are attempting, but you are confusing it with equilibrium sensitivity.

    No, BBD, it is not.  Nice try though.  You do have a bit of an argument here, but you seem unable to recognize it.

    Now, you did not do the calculation I asked, but instead choose to copy something from an article you read – why is that, I wonder?- so it’s hard to know what other fudges are worked into it.  Either way, if we use 0.6 C for warming since 1950 I would get 1.7 C and your authority would get 1.8 C. 

    Of course, if we use all of the available Giss Data and not cherry pick the start points the answer is about 1.5 C (My result was 1.4C).

    All of this assumes:  Net Natural forcings 1950 ““ 2010 are negligible

    You offer this as a throw away (with the obligatory appeal to authority).  This is of course the issue.  That natural warming remarkably, conincidently, not only stopped just in the nick of time to let anthropogenic warming take over, but it reverted to cooling. 

    This is what happens when you regurgitate a Monckton argument

    I have no idea what Monckton argued.  I doubt you do.  And it is irrelevant to our discussion. 
    —————————————————————–

    What’s most fascinating, is that you offer nothing beyond liaterature citations to challenge my conclusions.  All of the brew-ha-ha is from a warming since 1950 of 1 F.  One degree farhenheit.  One.

    All of the alarm is generated from a multitude of questionable assumptions:  natural warming suddenly stopped, cooling effects are further masking the alarming warming.  At some point in the (presumably near) future, the alarming warming will be realized, the alarming warming will be very dangerous.  And so it goes.

    You’re willing to bet the future of the developed world on those assumptions.  I’m not.  See you at the polls.

  182. Jonas N says:

    BBD once more starts abbling about ‘energetically insufficient’ and once more shows how little of the stuff he pretends to argue he knows, let alone understands ..

    As usually, he doesn’t even understand what is said. Instead shearches and copy-pastes from varios things he has found at (mostly) Skeptica Science …

  183. BBD says:

    kdk33
     
    My eyeball says you might could argue for 0.6, but no way 0.7.  Moreover, the 0.5 was actually your number, IIRC.  But, the conclusions don’t change.
     
    Monckton: at WUWT:


    Warming from 1950 to date was 0.7 C°
     
    I also said (correctly) that there has been 0.5C warming since 1975. I’m sorry if you find this confusing. 
     
    I have no idea what Monckton argued.  I doubt you do.  And it is irrelevant to our discussion.
     
    He makes the same (faulty) argument that you do. And he confuses TCR and ECS. What you say is so close to what he does that I assumed you had picked it up at WUWT. Only you claim 0.7C since 1880.
     
    No, BBD, it is not [TCR].  Nice try though.  You do have a bit of an argument here, but you seem unable to recognize it.
     
    It is TCR. I provided the necessary definition at (173). Read it again. Also, you haven’t shown why I’m wrong to say this – you just repeat that I am mistaken. That’s not good enough.
     
    It’s obvious you haven’t got a clue here, but if you made the effort to read my comments (eg 173) you would learn. There is a deeper problem here: you should *not* be indulging in ‘sceptical’ debate if you don’t understand the difference between TCR and ECS.
     
    Now, you did not do the calculation I asked,
     
    How could I? You don’t provide enough information. Here’s what you said originally @ 146 and it’s is a joke:
     
    try this:  according to GISS (the hottest of the temp record), the GAT has increased about 0.7C since 1880.  CO2 has increased from about 280 ppm to about 395 ppm.  The response to CO2 is logarithmic.  Using this data, calculate climate sensitivity.  Now, let’s assume about 50% of the warming is anthropogenic, recalculate climate sensitivity. 
     
    Are you serious? And where are your workings? Just how *do* you come up with the numbers that you get? Show, please.
     
    but instead choose to copy something from an article you read – why is that, I wonder?- so it’s hard to know what other fudges are worked into it.  Either way, if we use 0.6 C for warming since 1950 I would get 1.7 C and your authority would get 1.8 C.
     
    There are no fudges in the calculation I used – and unlike you I showed my working (such as it is) so we can all *see* what I did. Now, how do you make out that the simple calculation I used is incorrect? Please show the error. And what is the functional difference between 1.85C and 2.1C as a value for TCR? Seriously. What? Your point leads to nothing. And we are both assuming that CO2 does not rise about 560 ppmv for the sake of this discussion, when there is every likelihood that it will. So >2C TCR and >3C at equilibrium. If we continue as you argue we should – doing nothing.
     
    You offer this as a throw away (with the obligatory appeal to authority).
     
    No, I offered a well-supported argument. I’m absolutely sick of your ‘tactic’ of *denying the evidence*. If you will not accept a single study that contradicts your belief system, then I cannot debate with you. No-one can. Perhaps this is your only workable strategy.
     
    This is the second time that I have been forced to accept that you are beyond the reach of reason. Prove me wrong. Go back to (173) and try again. See also (177).

  184. Jonas N says:

    BBD

    ‘accepting the words’ that seems to be your method. Nad insults when your bleifs aren’t accepted.

    And BBD, and this is serious: If you don’t understand both thwe words, their inherent meaning and additionally how they are arrived at based on the science actually done and presented ..

    .. you still are only blatheringg! especially when you fill in yoru won words between the copy-paster words.

    You are sick of things, you inform us! Why? 

    Does your sickness explain anything? You seem to be inherently incapable of arguing even the things you have copy-pasted. Your ‘conclusions’ (~’acceptance’) of what you think they mean, are often completely off. And you don’t even understand what those who are trying to explain what part is not just ‘accepted’, or trying to help you understand the meaning of words and terms (you use), what they are saying. Sometimes on a bafflingly simple level.

    Insted you start insulting people, and because you don’t know what you are talking about.

    If this makes you sick, you probably deserve that. Because you seem patently incapable of discussing even the things you drag to the table. Your displayed method seems to be: ‘Accept’ and particularly ‘accept’ as BBD believes it to be.

    I wouldn’t use ‘sickening’ about your ignorant attempts to sound/appear authoritative and knowledgeable. Rather, I’d say:

    Pathetic!

  185. BBD says:

    Jonas N
     
    I wouldn’t use “˜sickening’ about your ignorant attempts to sound/appear authoritative and knowledgeable. Rather, I’d say:
     
    Pathetic!
     
    Abusive, content-free trolling.

  186. BBD says:

    kdk33
     
    My eyeball says you might could argue for 0.6, but no way 0.7.

     
    I did a quick check on GISTEMP (monthly means):
     
    1950    -0.25
    1950.08    -0.28
    1950.17    -0.03
    1950.25    -0.19
    1950.33    -0.14
    1950.42    -0.06
    1950.5    -0.08
    1950.58    -0.19
    1950.67    -0.12
    1950.75    -0.17
    1950.83    -0.29
    1950.92    -0.11

    Sum: -1.91
    Annual mean: -0.16

    2010    0.68
    2010.08    0.74
    2010.17    0.85
    2010.25    0.76
    2010.33    0.65
    2010.42    0.55
    2010.5    0.49
    2010.58    0.53
    2010.67    0.53
    2010.75    0.62
    2010.83    0.7
    2010.92    0.42

    Sum: 7.52
    Annual mean: 0.63


    The annual mean in 2010 was 0.79C higher than the annual mean in 1950.

  187. Jonas N says:

    No BBD

    I am commenting your repeated attempts at establishing ‘acceptance’ of your (ill informed) beliefs by claiming they are the truth (to be ‘accepted’) and that your repetition of them (which you most likley picked up at SkSc etc) make them a “well-supported argument“!

    Quite often you haven’t even understood your own side’s argument, and even get their stance wrong (badly so)

    And that ‘insults’ is the method when your beliefs/repetitions aren’t accepted. Just as you just calimed! And too that you start complaining/bitching when this is pointed out to you.

    If you really think that reading at SkSc and copypasting statements there or from articles found there (which you haven’t read nor understood) makes you an ‘authority’ in the comments here and elsewhere, you are delusional! (And your repeated behavior indicates that this is what you believe or at least want to be true)

    I will not go as far as (you, and) to call you a Loon and a Liar, I stay at: Pathetic 

    However, you seem to think the us of insults somehow bolsters your ‘argument’. And they really don’t. Especially when your ‘argument’ is barely more than: But at Skeptical Science they say this is the only and complete truth … Why can’t you just accept it as the final word?

  188. BBD says:

    So Jonas, what’s wrong with 173?
     
    Let’s have some *content* out of you instead of your usual trolling. What makes you think I haven’t understood what I am saying? Where are the errors? What is your alternative argument? What studies support your position?

  189. kdk33 says:

    BBD,

    This will be my final response to you:

    I also said (correctly) that there has been 0.5C warming since 1975. I’m sorry if you find this confusing. 

    No, you cherry picked.  Rather aggregiously, I might add.
    GISS anamolies

    1948=-.04
    1949=-.06
    1950=-.16
    1951=-.04
    1952=-.02
    avg=.06
    avg(ignore1950)=.04

    incdently 1975=-.04

    2008=0.43
    2009=0.56
    2010=0.63
    2011=0.51
    avg(ignore2010) = 0.5

    It is TCR. I provided the necessary definition at (173). Read it again. Also, you haven’t shown why I’m wrong to say this ““ you just repeat that I am mistaken. That’s not good enough.
     
    Yes, you have this peculiar notion that you own the terms of the debate:  I will remind you again that you haven’t answered any of my quetions.  I wonder why?

    I am calculating equilibrium climate sensitivity – admittedly with (mutliple) simplifying assumption.  Ignoring response times is one of those.  We could have discussed response times and how that might change the results.  I offered this to you earlier, but you have yet to produce anything substantive.  I wonder why?

    you should *not* be indulging in “˜sceptical’ debate if you don’t understand the difference between TCR and ECS.
     
    Indeed.

    How could I? [do the calculation I asked] You don’t provide enough information. 

    Really?  I also provided several examples.  You also claimed to know that I did the exact same thing Monckton did.  Now  you claim you can’t follow the calculation.  Strange.  Which is it?  You should have been able to easily do the calculation.  I gave you everything you needed.
     
    Just how *do* you come up with the numbers that you get? Show, please.

    I showed all my work.  You copied someone elses and apparently don’t even know what you have done.  Your calculation begins with 2 appeals to authority.  

    unlike you I showed my working (such as it is) so we can all *see* what I did.

    No, we can see which articles you cited.  There is a difference.

    I offered a well-supported argument.

    You cited articles.  Big deal. 

    I’m absolutely sick of your “˜tactic’

    I’m sorry you are not feeling well.

    If you will not accept a single study that contradicts your belief system, then I cannot debate with you.

    We have covered appeals to aurthority many times.  I would have been interested in arguing through the data – for a moment or two I thought that might happen (you had a mildly intelligent response), but you floundered at response times…  Too bad.

    ———————————————–

    You have yet to offer any response to my conclusions.  1) all the brew ha-ha is because of an industrial age warming of 1 degree F.  2) Alarm requires us to assume a)  that natural warming suddently remarkably stopped, just in the nick of time. and b) cooling effects suddenly took over.
    ————————————————–

    My time is limited and I have spent enough on you.  You have your literature and your citations and I don’t accept them as science.  I’ve tried to argue with you through the data, but you are either unwilling or unable. 

    Too bad.

  190. Jonas N says:

    BBD – I don’t seem to be the only one noticing that you have difficulties answering questions (presumably because SkSc isn’t organized to help you with that).

    But I noted above, that you once more tried ‘energetically insufficient’ as your ‘argument’. Do you care to elaborate about what you meant (I mean if you meant something, beyond thinking these were cool words)?

    Please?

  191. BBD says:

    Jonas N
     
    How does a quasi-periodic oscillation cause GAT to increase over a century? And why did this apparently not occur in the past if it is supposed to be the dominant driver of C20th climate change?

  192. Jonas N says:

    BBD #192

    I could  of course answer that question, in fact I have already tried (albeit, when discussing (on my part, trying to help you with) another difficulty) and repeatedly so … with if I recall correctly, no cognitive response at all.

    But now, I was asking about your ‘energetically insignificant’

  193. BBD says:

    kdk33
     
    No, you cherry picked.  Rather aggregiously, I might add.


    I didn’t cherry-pick: 1950  and 0.7 are *Monckton’s* date and figure. And what do we see? >0.7C temperature increase between 1950 and 2010. As stated. Sorry if you have a problem with that.
     
    Go and tell Monckton he’s an egregious cherry-picker 🙂 And if you are going to use words like ‘egregious’, learn how to spell them.
     
    I am calculating equilibrium climate sensitivity ““ admittedly with (mutliple) simplifying assumption.  Ignoring response times is one of those.
     
    It really is hopeless. You are confused, biased and irrational. How am I supposed to talk to you? So yes, let’s stop; it’s a waste of time.
     
    This was the last straw:
     
    My time is limited and I have spent enough on you.  You have your literature and your citations and I don’t accept them as science.  I’ve tried to argue with you through the data, but you are either unwilling or unable.


    Unbelievable.

  194. BBD says:

    Jonas
     
    It was ‘energetically sufficient’ on this thread. Let’s not start making stuff up.
     
    See (179). How does an oscillation cause a rising trend? And why only in the C20th? And why the divergence between GAT and the PDO?
     
    And what happened to the RF from CO2? Which is energetically sufficient to account for the increase in GAT since 1950. Where did that go?

  195. Jonas N says:

    BBD

    “It was “˜energetically sufficient’ on this thread.”

    that is correct. And there was a “not” in front of those two words

    “Let’s not start making stuff up.”

    I don’t need to make things up (or lie, another of you preferred insults), hence I didn’t use quotemarks, just correctly stated your argument in #179 which was: 

    “not energetically sufficient ”

    I wondered why you made that claim, what you possibly could have meant by it, on what basis you made it. (reference is OK, if you have read them, and they contain this or physically equvalent quantified claims )

    Did you understand the question? I am glad to help you even further if you (really) think that it wasn’t clear enough.

    Because: You make a quantified statement about physical reality. One that cannot be both wrong and correct at the same time. I wonder on what basis you made that assertion? And what you meant?

  196. BBD says:

    Jonas N

    See 180, 181, 192, 195 – it’s clear enough.
     
    So, over to you, if you have a point.

  197. Jonas N says:

    BBD 

    My point, so far is a question directed at you.

    I have seen all these comments. They don’t even address the issue at all. Two contain links, one to the PDO index (nothing more), Bob Tisdale’s post neither contained the word ‘energy’ nor ‘temperature’, so these were both duds.

    The two others mention your preferred other hypothesis, but there is nothing about available energy from oceans (or lack thereof) in them either.

    Was my question too difficult, BBD? I try once more:

    You were making claims about the insufficient amount of energy available in something which is observed and called the PDO. 

    I still wonder how you arrived at that claim. (And your repeated attempts to divert the question, to point at other things, to lead me to think, that you didn’t have any idea about what you claimed, you just made it up, and possibly wanted to believe it to be the case)

    Yes, that’s what I think. But instead of accusing you of lying or inventing ‘facts’ without any basis, I asked and ask again:

    What prompted you to make that claim? On what did you base this quantification about the physical world?

    Clear enough? 

     

  198. BBD says:

    Jonas N
     
    I don’t understand the problem here. Language perhaps?
     
    What prompted you to make that claim? On what did you base this quantification about the physical world?
     
    The PDO is a pseudo-periodic oscillation. It has positive and negative phases and they cancel out energetically. So it cannot be an energetically sufficient explanation for the increase in GAT over the C20th.
     
    Far from trying to ‘divert the question’ I’ve not only explained this several times but provided comment numbers for you as well.
     
    Clear enough?

  199. BBD says:

    I’ve just looked back and your last seven comments say absolutely nothing at all. You’re just trolling.

  200. Jonas N says:

    BBD

    You have explained exactly nothing so far. But, yes, you have repeated the word ‘oscillation‘ many times.  

    And also implied that if it is ‘energetically insufficient’ then it can’t explain the change in GAT. Ie a self evident observation, containing one big ‘if‘ on which all hinges!

    Now you’ve added the claim ‘cancelled out energetically‘ (which is  consistent with your previous claim), essentially a similar claim, but still is only a claim about the energies being moved about.

    My question still is: 

    How do you know the amount (magnitudes)  of energies being moved around, and how do you know that they must cancel over so short periods as discussed here? Or that their residual is ‘insufficien’? 

    How!?

    Note: This is a refinement of the previous question: The energy content, and additionally its resulting mean value over a limited time span?

    (There are many more objections I have to your above claims above, big ones and minor ones. But with you, lets address one at the time. And repeat them till you too know what it is you were saying (if anything). If that occasionally takes repeating it seven times or more, so be it. Sorry)

  201. Jonas N says:

    Look BBD, I’ll help you even a little bit more here:

    It is obviously clear that you believe that the PDO does not provide sufficient energy to change the GAT over the relevant time span. And that you think, the explanation is another one. And if so, and to the magnitude you and some to hypothesize about, then no PDO needs to be part of the explanation of changing GAT. 

    And that hypothesis may very well be correct (or it may not, or only partly so, leaving room for both explanations).   
     
    But what you believe, or your favored hypothesis is not the issue here. You made definite claims about an alternative hypothesis, and that it cannot be true. 

    And I wonder how you think you can make such definite claims.
    (So far nothing of what you’ve said/linked has even addressed the energies you mentioned)

    PS And I ask also because you earlier had made claims (using almost identical wordings)  which you, when asked, could not explain at all. Which actually showed that you completely had misunderstood the issue of UHI-effects
     

  202. BBD says:

    The PDO is an oscillation – an energy exchange between the atmosphere and the ocean. It doesn’t create energy and so over time it will net to zero. Jonas – it is not a forcing. Okay?



    Funny how we’re all about the PDO now, and not calculating TCR. You’ve managed to cover up for kdk33 coming unravelled with his ‘it’s not TCR’ rubbish. Nice bit of tactical trolling there but your work is done.
     

  203. BBD says:

    Jonas, let me help you out a bit here. If you do not understand this:
     
    The PDO is an oscillation ““ an energy exchange between the atmosphere and the ocean. It doesn’t create energy and so over time it will net to zero. Jonas ““ it is not a forcing.
     
    There is no point in continuing the conversation. Because it means that you have failed a necessary comprehension test.

  204. Jonas N says:

    BBD

    CO2 does not create energy over time. Its  function is to redirect IR of certain wavelengths in arbitrary direction, and regardless from which direction it came from. It will net to zero. 

    Were you aware of this? Or why did you just make the  this own goal?

    I am still asking about the amount of energies involved, the ones you made claims about. 

    You have now, three times, claimed that the PDO energies will amount to zero. (And over geological times, this is of course correct). However, the claim you have made is over a few decades. 

    My question was, and still is:

    How did you arrive at such a claim. Nothing you’ve tried so far has even addressed that claim (the magnitudes of the energies moved around)

    Is my question really that hard to comprehend?

    (Or is it giving a truthful answer in public, BBD?)

     

  205. Jonas N says:

    Oh, and I should have mentioned this own goal too, about the PDO. And without changing one single word, equally applicable to CO2:

    “it doesn’t create energy and so over time it will net to zero. [BBD] ““ it is not a forcing.
     
    There is no point in continuing the conversation. Because it means that you have failed a necessary comprehension test” 

     

  206. BBD says:

    However, the claim you have made is over a few decades.
     
    No, it was over the whole C20th. I also asked why there is no evidence of the PDO’s alleged multi-decdal influence on earlier climates.
     
    Misrepresenting the effects of CO2 is an own-goal Jonas. Increasing the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere heats the troposphere until radiative equilibrium is reached. So CO2 is a forcing. The PDO is internal variability.
     
    Looks like we’ve come up against the limits of your understanding on two fronts now: the PDO and CO2.
     
    I reiterate, if you don’t understand the statement that the PDO is not energetically sufficient to force the observed increase in GAT over the C20th there is no point in continuing this exchange.

  207. BBD says:

    Can I remind you that there is no evidence that the PDO operates on a 60-year cycle? It is quasi-periodical at best (that’s what the link to Tisdale illustrates – try reading).
     
    The amount of energy involved in the PDO is irrelevant. If you were listening instead of being a troll, you would have noted that:
     
    The PDO is an oscillation ““ an energy exchange between the atmosphere and the ocean. It doesn’t create energy and so over time the positive and negative phases will net to zero.

  208. Jonas N says:

    BBD .. the claim you made was since 1950. You subsequently changed it to the the 20th century. Once you do that, you can exclude CO2 as a driving agent too for quite a bit of it. 

    “Misrepresenting the effects of CO2 is an own-goal Jonas”

    ?? I have not even addressed CO2. Only pointed out what you said, and what that would imply to your own favored explanation.  I don’t make own goals, because I don’t use terms or make statements I barely understand BBD.

    In spite of your own goal explanation and dismissal, you now say that PD is internal variability. OK, lets assume that (because it is of course correct over thousands of years)

    You cliamed that its energy contribution is insignificant over a few decades (the ones where CO2 and Temp have correlated).

    I asked, and still ask (maybe for the 10th time) how you arrived at that.

    You now claim:

    “The amount of energy involved in the PDO is irrelevant” 

    which is an even more outlandish claim. How did you arrive at that BBD?  

    You even note that whatever the cause of the PDO is, it does not appear to be periodic,  implying that whatever energies are moved around cannot be said to cancel out based on simple harmonic oscillations!? 

    My initial question is still unanswered, and your increasingly erratic ‘replies’ only show what I suspected from the startout!  

    You said:

    “I reiterate, if you don’t understand the statement that the PDO is not energetically sufficient to force the observed increase in GAT over the C20th there is no point in continuing this exchange”

    I fully understand what you’ve stated, even acknowledged it under the proviso of your ‘if’ being correct.

    I still have not seen any attempt from you providing any basis for that if being anything else but your own wishful thinking!

    So BBD:

    What do you actually know about what energies are being moved around by that PDO?

    It is still a very simple question. You have avoided at all costs. And which once again prompted you going on an insult spree!  

  209. BBD says:

    ?? I have not even addressed CO2.
     
    Rubbish. Here’s you inserting CO2 into the discussion in a badly mistaken attempt to score some sort of point:
     
    CO2 does not create energy over time. Its  function is to redirect IR of certain wavelengths in arbitrary direction, and regardless from which direction it came from. It will net to zero. 
     
    Were you aware of this? Or why did you just make the  this own goal?


    Sigh. Then we get this, *again*:
     
    What do you actually know about what energies are being moved around by that PDO?
     
    Why is it that you ignore what I write and just repeat yourself? Is it because you are trolling, perhaps?
     
    I’ve explained why this is a red herring already, several times, and also that if you do not understand the answer there is no point in continuing this exchange.
     
    You cliamed that its energy contribution is insignificant over a few decades (the ones where CO2 and Temp have correlated).
     
    I’ve dealt with this at 207.
     
     
    You even note that whatever the cause of the PDO is, it does not appear to be periodic,  implying that whatever energies are moved around cannot be said to cancel out based on simple harmonic oscillations!?
     
    You do not understand the term quasi-periodic, so don’t start crapping on about harmonic oscillations.
     
    Believe what you like about the PDO Jonas. I don’t care what delusions you entertain and your inability to understand straightforward prose is fantastically tiresome. 
     
    You aren’t worth talking to – do you understand that?

  210. kdk33 says:

    I think it would be interesting for readers if I close the chapter on cliamte sensitivity vis-a-vis BBD.

    As some will recall, I offered a simple estimate from modern warming and modern increses in CO2 under the assumption that the response is logarithmic in CO2. 

    Now BBD objected for all manner of reasons.  He was, firstly, unable to understand the calculation.  He also claimed, among other things, that I was calculate TSR not climate sensitivity.  This is nonsense, of course, as we can see from BBD’s own 173.  BBD offers that dT/dF (F is forcing) is the defnition of TSR.  It is not.  It is a climate sensitivity, but an incomplete definition.  Whether it is equilibrium or transient requires additional information. 

    It is well known that forcing is a logarithmic function of CO2.  ie dF/dln(CO2) = C1, a constant.  climate sensitivity assumes that dT/dF = C2, another constant.  (This isn’t necessarily true, but few seem to object.)  Anyway, it can be readily shown that dT/dln(CO2) is C1*C2 and is constant.  In fact this is the much more common definition of climate sensitivity: the temperature response to a doubling of CO2.

    Now BBD, copied a calculation from one of his authorities.  He cherry picked start and end dates to get a relatively high sensitivity of 2.1 C.  Of course there are a variety of fudges included in this calculation related to the “net forcing’ – net being the key fudge, I believe.  We’ll see this shortly.  In the meantime, ther reader can review #173 to see that all of the basic assumptions are justified by citation – ye ‘ol appeal to authority.

    Wiki, it turns out, has some simple calculations.  They work directly with forcings.   Now, wiki claims that total temperature over the industrial age is 0.8 C (I quibble and think it is 0.7 C, but nevermind that.)  They attribute a total greenhouse gas forcing (CO2 + others) of 2.6 W/m2.  They find a climate sensitivty (to a doubling of CO2, my definition) of 1.1 C.  This is less than my estimate of 1.4 C, but I only included CO2 so my sensitivity would, of course, be higher.  Fair enough to say that these are consistent, and mine even conservative (high).

    BBD, offers the throw away that natural forcings suddenly became zero at the start of the industrial age.  If he is honest, he is also including some cooling effects.  When all these other forcings are counted, wiki has a total forcing of 1.6 w/m2.  Taken from IPCC, but as wiki explains “albeit with substantial uncertainty”.  This is of course the major issue.  How much of the current warming is anthropogenic, and how much is from ‘natural’ causes.  Nobody knows.  No matter how many references BBD find.  Wiki gets a climate sensoitivity of 1.8 C per doubling, using the net forcing. 

    The next correection in Wiki is to subtract an additional 0.2 w/m2.  This heat is conceptually going into the ocean.  It is one way to fudge response time.  I used an actual response time correction – a simple lag time.  We’ll see below that these methods are very similar.  Anyway, subtracting this additional forcing wiki finds an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 2.1 C.

    BBD claims a net forcing since 1950 of 1.2 w/m2.  This is roughly consistent with the (highly uncertain) net forcing in wiki  of 1.6 over the industrial age.  BBD, using his cherry picked temperatures, gets a sensitivity of 2.1.  BBD identifies 2.1 C as TSR then claims equilibrium sensitivity is 3.0 C.  It is hard to see how this comes about.  If we subtract 0.2 w/m2 for non-equlibrium the sensitivity only increases to 2.6 C.  But BBD shows no math and provides only citations.

    One other interesting note on TSR versus equilibrium  My correction was to just ignore the last five years of CO2.  Doing this, my sensitivity increases from 1.4 C to 1.52 C.  Now, I can take my 1.4 C I can back out an effective forcing of 2 w/m2.  If I subtract 0.2 w/m2 to correct for equilibrium, I will get a climate sensitiviy of 1.56 C (a difference of .04 C).  So the ‘subtract five year method’ is very nearly equivalent to the subtract 0.2 w/m2 method.  Interesting.

    Now, the last part is a bit of a matter of opinion.  I find it unlikely that warming suddenly coincidently stopped just in the nick of time for the industrial age.  I don’t know (nor does anyone else) how much of the warming is natural, and I accept that some must be anthropogenic.  Assuming 50% seems like a good best guess to me.  With this assumption, climate sensitivity is about 0.8 C (or less, depending on specific assumptions) assuming all the forcing is from CO2 (it isn’t, as the wiki example illustrate)

    Again there are two lessons:

    1) total warming over the industrial age is about 1 F.  Hardly alarming.

    2) While climate sensitivity is not now known, it is not at all obvious that it should be ‘high’, and in fact the alarm requires a series of questionable assumptions – warming having suddenly reverted to cooling to mask the alarming CO2 driven warming.

    Many apologies for spelling and grammer errors.  I only completed 8th grade and am a bad typist to boot.

  211. Jonas N says:

    BBD 

    I asked you about your claim in #170

    The PDO .. 
     
    …  it is not energetically sufficient to account for the increase in GAT”

    Its a very specific claim.  I have asked you (now some ten times or so) why, and based on what you made that claim. 

    You have not even addressed the energies you have made claims about. You have rephrased you initial statement by claiming the energies cancel out, by referring to the PDO as an oscillation. 

    Over millenia this is a correct position. To make such a claim over the time span of increasing human CO2 emissions, or you over 1950-2010 (as you tried here #177), needs some very specific support. 

    As does your even stronger claim in #208:

    “The amount of energy involved in the PDO is irrelevant” 
    Opionons, beliefs, preferred hyptheses etc, won’t cut it. I still ask on what foundations did you make such claims. 

    And your blustering indicates that you are extremely reluctant to give an honest answer. And your stupid attempt at a dismissal were your own words. 

    I am still waiting for you to support what you have claimed about those energies. And nota bene, it is you who definitely made and repeated those claims.

    Your repetions and imagined hopeful cancellation of short time frames are not sufficient support.

    So do you know, or don’t you?

    It is a very simple question BBD.
    _____________________________________________________________

    PS your many attempts  as:

    “you have failed a necessary comprehension test”

    “Looks like we’ve come up against the limits of your understanding on two fronts now: the PDO and CO2″
     
    “You do not understand the term quasi-periodic, so don’t start crapping on about harmonic oscillations” 

    are other examples of you making unsupported blind guesses, wishfully hoping that they support or your position or help you out of your mess. Not a god call, either of them, I’d say. Especially, when you can’t even back up your own factual claims.

  212. Jonas N says:

    BBD contd:

    Believe what you like about the PDO Jonas. I don’t care what delusions you entertain and your inability to understand straightforward prose is fantastically tiresome”

    I don’t believe anything. It is you who has expressed beliefs about PDO, about its energies, specific beliefs, several (by now) and repeated.

    I asked on what you based those beliefs. You seem not to know ..

    PS As I said: Own goals don’t make you look smarter. Why do you keep making them?

  213. BBD says:

    Jonas
     
    If you do not understand the answer provided – repeatedly – to your question, that is your problem, not mine. 
     
    I asked you a question which, predictably, you ignored. I asked you what happened to the (exhaustively) calculated RF from CO2 over the C20th? In your haste to seek alternative – and energetically insufficient – explanations, you have discarded the very obvious energetically sufficient forcing that we know about.
     
    A sure sign of bias and flawed reasoning.

  214. BBD says:

    kdk33
     
    What’s TSR?
     
    I really think you need to go back and start again. You are horribly, hopelessly muddled. And by God it shows.
     
    🙂

  215. BBD says:

    kdk33
     
    Since you have elected to use Wikipedia as your source of choice, why not read it properly?
     
    A model estimate of equilibrium sensitivity thus requires a very long model integration. A measure requiring shorter integrations is the transient climate response (TCR) which is defined as the average temperature response over a twenty year period centered at CO2 doubling in a transient simulation with CO2 increasing at 1% per year.[5] The transient response is lower than the equilibrium sensitivity, due to the “inertia” of ocean heat uptake. Fully equilibrating ocean temperatures requires integrations of thousands of model years.
    Over the 50-100 year timescale, the climate response to forcing is likely to follow the TCR; for considerations of climate stabalisation, the ECS is more useful.
    An estimate of the equilibrium climate sensitivity may be made from combining the effective climate sensitivity with the known properties of the ocean reservoirs and the surface heat fluxes; this is the effective climate sensitivity. This “may vary with forcing history and climate state”.[6] [7]
     
    If this were less time-consuming and tedious, it would – almost – be funny.

  216. Jonas N says:

    BBD

    You have not made any references to the energies involved. Just repeated your assertions. You even tried:

    “The amount of energy involved in the PDO is irrelevant

    You are the one who expressed beliefs about the PDO. (While claiming that I had done so. A practice you readily label as ‘lying’)

    And wrt to your diverting question: I have not discarded anything (stop making things up, BBD!). I am still at the question you are trying to avoid at all costs:

    How can you make such claims about the energies involved with the PDO? And specifically over timespans of some decades?

    How?

  217. BBD says:

    Jonas N
     
    Still no progress I see. Okay, let’s try another tack.
     
    First, let me repeat (again) that the amount of energy exchange between atmosphere and ocean by the PDO is irrelevant on a centennial timescale. You assert – but do not justify – that geological timescales are required for the energetic exchange to net to zero and I think you are wrong. Keywords: decadal and oscillation.
     
    But think about it this way: since the PDO is an energy exchange between ocean and atmosphere and does not create energy then it would not be possible for *both* SSTs *and* atmospheric temperatures to rise over the course of a century. For that to happen energy has to accumulate in the climate system and *that* requires a forcing. 
     
    What do we see if we compare the two 1900 – present? We see that SSTs *and* surface temperatures have risen substantially. So energy is clearly accumulating in the climate system *as a whole*. How does the PDO provide an energetically sufficient explanation for what we actually see? Well, it doesn’t. It’s an energy *exchange* between the oceans and the atmosphere. It does not *create* energy. 
     
    Trends compared:

    CRUTEM3
    1900 – present: 0.08
    1910 – 1945: 0.11
    1975 – present: 0.22
     
    HADSST2
    1900 – present: 0.07
    1910 – 1945: 0.17
    1975 – present: 0.14
     
    There’s a more subtle difficulty too. Look at the PDOI again. As we all know, there are two positive phases of the PDO that roughly coincide with the 1910 – 1945 and 1975 – present warming episodes.
     
    But look at the SSTs vs surface T again. During the early C20th SSTs trended higher than land temperatures. But from 1975 – present the relationship was *reversed*. Now *both* occurred during *positive phases* of the PDO, but they are different. Why? How did the early C20th positive PDO affect GAT by a release of energy from the ocean and the late C20th positive phase somehow cause significantly more surface warming? There is no explanation for this except, of course, that the PDO is *not* the primary driver of C20th climate change.
     
    What does make sense is an observed response to increased atmospheric forcing (evident in the second half of the C20th). Surface temperatures are rising faster over land because its heat capacity is lower than ocean (as we all know).
     
    Everything hinges on whether you want to *think* about this, or just argue, argue, argue. 

  218. kdk33 says:

    If this were less time-consuming and tedious, it would ““ almost ““ be funny

    Indeed.

  219. Jonas N says:

    BBD

    One thing at the time. Don’t bring up any other of your pet beliefs (I am fully aware of them too). We are still at your claim (belief?) that: ‘PDO is energetically insignificant’

    It is a definite statement!

    Now you say that: “PDO is an energy exchange between ocean and atmosphere”

    Well, yes, and you made statements about how much this energy was, and amounted to (or rather: ‘didn’t) over a relatively short time span.

    My question is and was: How did you arrive at this assertion?

    The ‘does not create energy’ is a total red herring. Heat content, its changes and currents in the ocean operate and vary over millenia. You made claims that the net contribution over a few years (decades) must amount to zero.

    How did you arrive at that assertion!?

    And why is it so darn hard to answer that simple question?

    (I am not interested in hearing once more that: Your preferred hypthesis looks more palpable if (!) your assertion were true!  I know that. I asked how you established that it indeed was true!? Got it?)

    PS I noted you new added ‘argument’ about trends. There is plenty to say about that too. But on a far higher technical/physical level. Lets stick with energy dismissal for now: How did you ‘establish’ that? 

  220. Jonas N says:

    Correction: I mean to write ‘palatable‘ … (not palpable)

  221. BBD says:

    Oh dear. This isn’t going anywhere is it?
     
    (I am not interested in hearing once more that: Your preferred hypthesis looks more palpable if (!) your assertion were true!  I know that. I asked how you established that it indeed was true!? Got it?)
     
    Look Jonas, if you don’t agree with the statement that the PDO is an oscillation, an energy exchange that does not create energy within the climate system and consequently energetically insufficient to drive the increase in GAT over the C20th, why don’t you provide your reasoning? 
     
    As I see it, I do not need to say any more. If you think I’m wrong – show why. If you can’t, then there’s nothing more to say. 
     
    Especially since when I try to provide additional supporting argument you refuse even to consider it and – once *again* – repeat your redundant question. Why redundant? Because if you *understood* my original and oft-repeated answer then you wouldn’t keep on asking this question.
     
    I have to conclude that you don’t understand the response. Therefore this conversation is pointless. And you are *far* less intelligent and well-informed that you believe yourself to be.
     
    This is more-or-less conclusively indicated by this statement:
     
    The “˜does not create energy’ is a total red herring. Heat content, its changes and currents in the ocean operate and vary over millenia. You made claims that the net contribution over a few years (decades) must amount to zero.
     
    Now I’ve linked to the PDOI at least twice in this thread (the last time at 218). Do we see significantly higher positive values for the recent positive phase? No, we don’t. So where’s this millennial variability that you mysteriously conflate with the PDO? Nowhere. 
     
    The point is correctly stated: the PDO does not create energy. If the recent positive phase exhibited significantly higher values or a longer duration than the previous one there might – just might – be an argument that it was contributing to the modern warm episode. But that’s not in the data. So when you start up about millennial this and that you are simply spinning your wheels. It’s tiresome Jonas.

  222. BBD says:

    PDOI and GISTEMP *divergence* in late C20th.

  223. Jonas N says:

    BBD

    You are still not anywhere near providing any basis for your assertion about the amounts of energy.

    Instead you repeat pointing at the word ‘oscillation’ in the label of the phenomenon.

    The ‘does not create energy’ is a total red herring, especially since you even yourself wrote that eneregies are exhanged between atmosphere and sea.
     
    Your ‘argument’ if there is any(?) seems to be, that since it is called an ‘oscillation’ the energies must cancel out (to zero) over a short timeperiod (which additionally, you seem to feel entitled to pick)

    I see absolutely no physcal basis for such a ‘conclusion’

    A second ‘argument’ you seem to be trying is that the GAT somehow should follow its descriptive metric, the PDO-index, if energies were transferred. And conversely, that if they didn’t, this somehow would veryfy your claim. That is an even more remarkable non-physical ‘argument’. 

    Don’t get heat transfer and energy content or temperature mixed up.

    Your initial claim was, and (apparently still is):

    That the PDO phenomenon is not energetically significant withing the time frame of your choice (1950 to now).

    So far, none of you ‘answers’ or supporting links, trendlines etc, have even attempted to quantifying the actual heat transferred. Which you first denied existed, then claimed amounted to zero over a few decades, and even claimed was irrelevant.

    Not anything supporting your claim! None!

    (Instead you’ve tried: ‘If my favored hypthesis is true, then it alone can explain what is observed, therefor nothing else can have been going on’. Which is scientific hogwash)

  224. Jonas N says:

    Look BBD

    The PDO is an observed phenomenon, its physics are not undertood, nor its periodicity, or deviations from such, what makes it go from one phase to another, or why it (the index) within such an apparent phase may display values within the opposite regime etc. And (to my knowledge) nobody makes claims about what energies are transferred between atmosphere and oceans with/related to that phenomenon (*)

    You however, made and stuck with very definite such claims.

    I simply asked how you could possibly arrive at such a ‘conclusion’

    So far you have not answered.

    (*) What we do know is that energy transfer from oceans and currents, and shifting such and energies have timescales of up to millenia. Thus your ‘does not create heat’ is irrelevant as an argument.

  225. BBD says:

    Jonas N
     
    This will be my last response.
     
    The “˜does not create energy’ is a total red herring, especially since you even yourself wrote that eneregies are exhanged between atmosphere and sea.
     
    Your “˜argument’ if there is any(?) seems to be, that since it is called an “˜oscillation’ the energies must cancel out (to zero) over a short timeperiod (which additionally, you seem to feel entitled to pick)


    Your first paragraph illustrates where you are confused. Energy exchange is not energy creation. You have ignored more detailed analysis of SST and SATs that supports this point.


    You *again* misrepresent what I have said, substituting “short time period” for century (see 207 where I first pulled you up for doing this).


    You have repeatedly skipped over the question of why there is no evidence for the effect of PDO on earlier climates. This needs answering.


    You have repeatedly skipped over the question of what happens to the (exhaustively) calculated RF from CO2 over the C20th. In your haste to seek alternative ““ and energetically insufficient ““ explanations, you have discarded the very obvious energetically sufficient forcing that we know about already.
     
    Finally – and most tellingly – you have ignored what I asked at (222):
     
    if you don’t agree with the statement that the PDO is an oscillation, an energy exchange that does not create energy within the climate system and consequently energetically insufficient to drive the increase in GAT over the C20th, why don’t you provide your reasoning? 
     
    As I see it, I do not need to say any more. If you think I’m wrong ““ show why. If you can’t, then there’s nothing more to say.
     
    This doesn’t even come close:
     
    A second “˜argument’ you seem to be trying is that the GAT somehow should follow its descriptive metric, the PDO-index, if energies were transferred. And conversely, that if they didn’t, this somehow would veryfy your claim. That is an even more remarkable non-physical “˜argument’. 
    Don’t get heat transfer and energy content or temperature mixed up.


    First, it’s not non-physical, second there’s no ‘muddle’ about anything, and third you do not show why the argument is flawed. As always, you sneer and snipe but say absolutely nothing.


    That’s why I know for certain that you are trolling and that’s why this exchange is over.

  226. Jonas N says:

    BBD #226

    Can’t you get anything correct? Really? Is it really that hard?

    Energies are exchanged between atmosphere and oceans on all kinds of of time scales:  Diurnal, monthly, seasonally, yearly, multi-year, decadal … up to millenia. Got it!?

    Energies are not created (or destroyed) in such exchange. However, they are transferred.

    That the net ccumulated transferred energy amounts to zero over a few decades (which you have picked, which is what you claim) is quite extrordinary, and thus needs very good support. You have given none!

    Instead you bark back:

    “If you think I’m wrong ““ show why
    “you sneer and snipe but say absolutely nothing”

    I neither have said that you are wrong nor that I think you are. (My beliefs are entirely different issues). The ‘thinking’ (=believing) here is done by you: When you ‘think’ that your claim is correct.

    I have so far only asked how you can possibly make such a claim.

    As you point out, I have not made claims about how much energy there is transferred related to that phenomenon. Because I cannot, because I do not know. You are the one pretending to know.

    But I have said one thing quite firmly: Not one of the answers and links you have provided assertions to your alleged knowledge!

    This still holds.  And you are correct: I have not accepted you pet hypothesis as support for your assertion. Because this would be a circular argument, another big scientific no-no!

    As is: If you can’t prove me wrong, then I am right! 

    That’s kiddie-level, BBD, and essentially what your retort amounts to:

    “If you think I’m wrong ““ show why. If you can’t, then there’s nothing more to say”

     

    “That’s why I know for certain that you are trolling ..”

    Yes, you often do claim to know things for certain, while simply guessing or blindly hoping them to be so …  That’s kiddie level too, BBD (if you didn’t already know)

    ______________________________________________________________

    Finally, if BBD, doesn’t come up with some quite substantial and quantitative support for his claim in the next hours, I will provide what I think is the most plausible answer …

  227. Jonas N says:

    Well, here is what I think about the matter:

    The question was why BBD would claim in #179 that:

    The PDO …  is not energetically sufficient to account for the increase in GAT”

    and where he got it from.

    While, taken at face value, it might very well be correct. But such an assertion (about real world physics) needs more than just a gut feeling, some irrelevant links or trendlines in a plot to be made. 

    However, it was made to counter the perfectly reasonable (and scientifically correct) stance that other factors (than CO2) also may have influenced observations. (Such scnearious undermine the case for/belief in these high positive feedbacks needed by the alarmist side to maintain the scare. And N.B. those are not the same as CO2 RF ‘forcing’ as claimed by BBD)

    Well, once this assertionwas questioned, the statement then further evolved into even stronger claims about reality. Now it was not only insufficient, the net contribution was zero. Even that this has been demonstrated with well supported arguments.

    I spent one day asking BBD how he arrived at such claims. (I even accepted a reference, since BBD obviously isn’t that well versed in physics, and real science). None came! Instead we got the usual, demands that we should answer his questions instead (about other things), or prove his assertion to be wrong. Ie the usual alarmist clap trap.

    If I were to guess why BBD first made these claims, and then ‘defended’ them in this (now quite familiar) manner, my contention would be that if he had answered honestly, he would have said (something to the effect of)
    :
    1. I didn’t know that. But I think it is so, and I would like it to be tru, because other parts of my stance rely on PDO (and other natural causes) not causing any of the observed 20thC warming. And I think ‘energetically’ and ‘insignificant’ or ‘not sufficient’ are cool sounding sciency words. They make ones statements sound more educated and well informed.

    2. No, I had no other source for my assertion than pt 1 above. But of course, I coudn’t write that publicly.

    3. I tried to construct various anekdotal and remotely related parallels that did not contradict my beliefs. And said these were strong arguments. That couldn’t be refuted. Even that these were physical demonstrations of my claim.

    4. Of course I cannot take back or correct anything I have written in blog comments. That would be admitting an error, or (as in the inital case) overstating my position. Which could be interpreted as me not knowing as much as I want to pretend, or want to be seen as knowing.

    Note: This is (or something like this) is what I believe is the most plausible explanation for BBDs behavior. Here, and in several previous and similar instances.

  228. Ryan Dyne says:

    <deep breath>
    (I’m going to make a lot of controversial statements, and I’m not going to make this comment twice as long as it needs to be by qualifying each one to the Nth degree.)

    Let’s start with a review of the essence of the case here:
     
    1. Although I submit that very very few people know the science well enough to opine on it, the opinion of this person with two degrees from MIT in 6 years, who has studied the most-recent IPCC report, is that AGW has by no means been proven to the degree that would be necessary to warrant action being taken – either on the individual or the political level.
    For instance, the IPCC people didn’t act as though they were even aware of the established guidelines for developing forecasting models.  What they produced was forecasts by scientists, rather than scientific forecasts.

    (See http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/files/WarmAudit31.pdf.)

    2. Even if the AGW theory were true, it would remain that an enormous question is whether we could do anything about it (or better, whether the cost of doing so would be worth it).  Subpoint:  It seems obvious that wjhile China is wise enough to not waste its resources on this, it would be a waste for us to.    

    3. Even if we could afford to do something about it, it would remain that there are enormous ethical questions that would be involved in doing so.
    One is implicit in the above:  Worth it?  to whom?
    To take that issue to one level more detail, it is whether it is moral for the lives of people living today should be diminished – by individual choice or government mandate – so as to possibly make the environment better (than it otherwise would be) for those potential future generations (who, note, do not exist).
    My understanding, having studied Ethice for 47 years, is that the use of government force in such a situation (or in any situation not provided for by our Constitution) is immoral.  As far as individual choice goes, it is entirely up to the individual, as long as he doesn’t tread on others’ rights – but it will surely diminish the quality of your life – even if it makes you feel good.

    With that in hand, let’s look at the issue that you asked about:

    First, the environmentalists’ most powerful tool is scare mongering.  A scared person will tend to follow “experts” who allege to be able to show him the path to rescue.

    And sadly, their message gets through loud & clear to a populace that has been told – if implicitly and subtly – that Man should consider it an immense favor to have been allowed to exist on the Earth, that it doesn’t belong to him in any sense. that it is his duty to preserve it, regardless of the cost to himself and his happiness.

    This is balderdash, but let’s end this digression.

    Add that (before the digression) to the fact that almost no one nowadays appreciates the essential aspects of either science or education. 

    I submit that your son’s teacher has succumbed to the environmentalists’ propaganda – almost certainly because she has internalized their subtext (identified above in the digression).

    It is a teacher’s moral responsibility to get very very clear on what it’s appropriate when to “teach” what age of children.  Clearly, she is “teacing” the party line here – uncritically – and thereby (no surprise at all!) scaring the bejeesus out of the children.  That’s criminal.

    So you’re in a real pickle.  You’ve bought in to this..
    ..”meme”..
    (a notion that spreads in the context of a lack of critical thinking)  

    ..and thereby, you’re stuck with your son’s plight as a direct consequence.

    The only thing that I can see that you can do is challenge your beliefs.  

    If you do, you will set out on a path that you can share with your sion when he’s old enough – and it will be the greatest prize you could give hiim.

    Until then, all of you have no alternative but to suffer from the unintended consequences of your prior decisions.     

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.