finally... a non nutter criticism of global warming.

I can't quite put my finger on on what bothered me with this one, but both sides of this diavlog made me cringe a little. Perhaps both Jim and David are incredibly knowledgble about this subject, but they didn't really show it in this Diavlog. I think they would of come off better if they had been a little less generalist, and stuck to a few specific narrow issues.

It's always great to have a pair of serious and knowledgeable people on BHtv. Manzi asked many of the same questions that I have. Manzi presented Orr with Orr's own sensational description of a catastrophe involving millions of fleeing citizens. This was followed quickly by Orr's complaint that it's hard to get people interested in problems that develop slowly. Was Manzi too polite to ask Orr to resolve this seeming contradiction? On the other hand, I thought Orr's argument that we need to make changes in our energy infrastructure for other reasons was very strong. I continue to think the major predictions of the climate scientists will come true, little will be done to counteract climate change, and we will simply adapt and live in that altered world. In retrospect it will look like one of mankind's lessor problems.

It's always great to have a pair of serious and knowledgeable people on BHtv. Manzi asked many of the same questions that I have.

Absolutely! Great conversation. I thought David's democratization recommendations were brilliant; it is not often (or often enough) that people tie campaign finance reform to global warming. I was surprised that Jim did not push back on that. Maybe he agrees?

I don't have the stomach to actually listen to Manzi. For those that do, what numbers is he using for growth rates and discount rates? I'm guessing he's rigging them to rationalize destroying our planet.

I continue to think the major predictions of the climate scientists will come true, little will be done to counteract climate change, and we will simply adapt and live in that altered world. In retrospect it will look like one of mankind's lessor problems.

This reminds me a little of a profound statement made somewhere - it could be another podcast or here??? - that the political system is designed to handle crises, not chronic situations. I think, though, you underestimate, or under-appreciate, the amount of pain involved in your evolutionary prescription.

Quoting Simon Willard:
I continue to think the major predictions of the climate scientists will come true, little will be done to counteract climate change, and we will simply adapt and live in that altered world. In retrospect it will look like one of mankind's lessor problems.

You're assuming it'll get a little hotter and then stop. That's wishful thinking.

Quoting claymisher: I don't have the stomach to actually listen to Manzi.

For those that do, what numbers is he using for growth rates and discount rates? I'm guessing he's rigging them to rationalize destroying our planet.

Give it a chance. I know what you mean about Jim, but he's not like that in this diavlog. He comes across a very honest, reasonably skeptical interviewer and does not try to score points. This was quite a good diavlog, although it may be that, depending on how much you already know, you don't get a whole lot of new information. But even if you're fully conversant in the issues, this one is worth watching to see how a debate over AGW ought to be conducted.

I agree on both counts, Manzi's moron questions and democratization. But, on this issue and many others, I wish antagonists would lay out their allegiances, associations, and sources of income more transparently. I just don't trust anymore that an individual can hold a perspective without some loss or gain in either time or money.

Quoting Wonderment: I thought David's democratization recommendations were brilliant; it is not often (or often enough) that people tie campaign finance reform to global warming.

He will only get lukewarm support from me on CFR -- I view this mostly as a pipe dream, I guess. Not gonna happen, no matter how much we believe it ought to. He will get no support from me on his wish to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. That was the only moment of clank I heard from David. I do not think it is even theoretically possible to regulate the airwaves so that "both sides" or "all views" are consistently presented. You think the problem of working the refs now is bad; it'd be an occasional polite whisper compared to what a new FD would cause. The appointment of people to enforce the FD would lead to endless political maneuvering, far beyond what we already see in the appointment of, say, Cabinet officials. No one hates TV yakfests and hate radio -- for the fire hose of mis- and disinformation they spew out every minute -- more than I do. But we're going to have to find other ways to deal with it besides government regulation of who

The Internet has been a very effective alternative channel for knocking down the nonsense, even as it helps spread more.

Actually, after that Fowler diavlog about social networks, I'm beginning to become less and less satisfied with answers like this. I could see how someone in the middle of a network might get disoriented by contradictory information coming from different people, while another person with like-thinking friends would get only confirmation for what he/she thinks.

Quoting Baltimoron: [...] But, on this issue and many others, I wish antagonists would lay out their allegiances, associations, and sources of income more transparently. I just don't trust anymore that an individual can hold a perspective without some loss or gain in either time or money.

While I take your point in the abstract, I strongly disagree in this instance. Both diavloggers introduced themselves, both had their affiliations hyperlinked on the video page, right under their names, and more information about either is just a Google away.

Quoting Baltimoron: Actually, after that Fowler diavlog about social networks, I'm beginning to become less and less satisfied with answers like this. I could see how someone in the middle of a network might get disoriented by contradictory information coming from different people, while another person with like-thinking friends would get only confirmation for what he/she thinks.

I'll certainly agree there are problems. However, even painting matters as you have, I fiercely believe it's far better than imposing a new Fairness Doctrine.

Quoting claymisher: You're assuming it'll get a little hotter and then stop. That's wishful thinking.

Good point. I think you're forgetting about feedback effects and tipping points, Simon.

I'm so lazy! In South Korea, employees and even management wear uniforms festooned with company logos. No one hides where his/her thoughts originated.

There was also a "black swan" effect Orr mentioned resulting from complex systems.

Quoting Baltimoron: I'm so lazy!

In South Korea, employees and even management wear uniforms festooned with company logos. No one hides where his/her thoughts originated.

I'd say the fact that Jim said he worked for NRO and had a link pointing to NRO right above his face is all the company logo one could ask for. Ditto David and his PCAP affiliation. If you claim to care about such things, but refuse even to move your mouse or your eyeballs, you're beyond asking to be spoon-fed, it seems to me.

I'm not as pessimistic as you on Campaign Finance Reform. Well, maybe I am, but I just view it as so absolutely critically important that I try not to get discouraged.

He will get no support from me on his wish to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. That was the only moment of clank I heard from David.

I agree. Clank is a good way to put it. I was somewhat jarred by that too, although I understand the frustration. COMMEMORATIVE MOMENT: Health care just passed in the house this second!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quoting Wonderment: I'm not as pessimistic as you on Campaign Finance Reform. Well, maybe I am, but I just view it as so absolutely critically important that I try not to get discouraged.

Good man. The only way we'll ever get it is by idealists like you keeping up the push. I just have no gas left for this one.

I agree. Clank is a good way to put it. I was somewhat jarred by that too, although I understand the frustration.

Mildly surprised, but very glad, to hear you say this.

COMMEMORATIVE MOMENT: Health care just passed in the house this second!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! is right! Thanks for the heads-up.

Quoting Simon Willard: I continue to think the major predictions of the climate scientists will come true, little will be done to counteract climate change, and we will simply adapt and live in that altered world. In retrospect it will look like one of mankind's lessor problems.

"Doing nothing" might very well be the cheapest and safest way to go (black swans and non-linearities cut both ways). If indeed the only realistic way to do something about this is drastic geo-engineered solutions, then rapid global growth, i.e. technological advances, might be our only hope. However, I think human hubris and political opportunism will end-up making things worse: slowing growth and progress enough to make this problem a serious problem.

Quoting Wonderment: COMMEMORATIVE MOMENT: Health care just passed in the house this second!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Noticed on the Twitter:

AdamSerwer #hcr passes like a kidney stone.

[Added] Also tweeted:

Atrios Stupak (n) - The sepsis commonly experienced after unsafe back alley abortions

I'm looking for a better understanding of the horrible calamities that are coming. The planet can warm up quite a bit before I'm uncomfortable. I shouldn't discount the fact that there will be dislocations which will hurt some people. But there will be beneficiaries too. And it's not real hard to see the change coming, so there's plenty of time to say "let's not build our next house 2 feet above sea level. Does anyone notice that the temperate regions of the earth have high population density, while the vast areas of Canada and Siberia are relatively sparse? Does anyone notice that most people vacation in warm places? Does anyone notice that the earth's flora love CO2? Does anyone notice that the earth is so cold, water routinely freezes? Be more graphic and explicit, guys. Scare me! I'm just not getting it. I expect to die from a terrorist bomb, or a flu epidemic, or an auto accident on Route 128. I don't see global warming as anything but positive for me. OK, I'm happy if you want to keep the earth at 350 ppm CO2.. With 7 billion people, it ain't gonna happen.

Quoting Baltimoron: I think, though, you underestimate, or under-appreciate, the amount of pain involved in your evolutionary prescription.

Please elaborate on the climate change pain. I'm trying to understand this and it doesn't add up. What's your great fear?

Quoting Wonderment:
COMMEMORATIVE MOMENT: Health care just passed in the house this second!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yay! Great news!!! And all this happened while I was having flashbacks listening to Orr and Manzi... dejŕ vu all over again!

Quoting Simon Willard: Please elaborate on the climate change pain. I'm trying to understand this and it doesn't add up. What's your great fear?

I think my great-grandkids are going to have a hard time evolving gills quick enough.

Climate Change: Death Panel for our Granchildren!

Calm down, guy! My self-deprecating humor aside, I referred to generic "antagonists" in the original, not just these two. I'm not overly concerned about these two, but rather the talking heads who zip across the cable TV shows with a smile and barely an introduction.

Quoting bjkeefe: I think you're forgetting about feedback effects and tipping points, Simon.

It may indeed be that I don't understand some tipping points. I'm naturally suspicious of tipping point arguments because I know that most feedback is negative feedback. Climate scientists really need to get out in public and explain the mechanisms a bit more. The public is not responsive to arguments like "my computer simulation predicts A,B and C". And the public is right to be sceptical. It's easy to grasp the idea of the greenhouse effect, so there's little controversy there. But statements like "storms will be more severe" have not been explained well. There's also the "cry wolf" problem. Or maybe the "Al Gore" problem. I mean, two years ago my 9-th grade daughter came home from school frightened, and told everyone the oceans were going to rise and everyone would drown. Now, my (11-th grade) daughter thinks it was all a lot of nonsense.

Quoting Baltimoron: Calm down, guy! My self-deprecating humor aside, I referred to generic "antagonists" in the original, not just these two. I'm not overly concerned about these two, but rather the talking heads who zip across the cable TV shows with a smile and barely an introduction.

So, just so I have this straight, you're using this thread to criticize other people, not these two, who appear on a different medium, not this one, and I should have been able to discern that from this? Ooooo-kay.

Quoting claymisher: I think my great-grandkids are going to have a hard time evolving gills quick enough.

I predict those kids will have legs to take them somewhere above sea level, even if sea level increases by several meters.

Quoting Simon Willard: I predict those kids will have legs to take them somewhere above sea level, even if sea level increases by several meters.

Yeah, it's really triggering the new ice age that's the problem.

Quoting Simon Willard: It may indeed be that I don't understand some tipping points. I'm naturally suspicious of tipping point arguments because I know that most feedback is negative feedback.

Climate scientists really need to get out in public and explain the mechanisms a bit more. The public is not responsive to arguments like "my computer simulation predicts A,B and C". And the public is right to be sceptical.

It's easy to grasp the idea of the greenhouse effect, so there's little controversy there. But statements like "storms will be more severe" have not been explained well.

There's also the "cry wolf" problem. Or maybe the "Al Gore" problem. I mean, two years ago my 9-th grade daughter came home from school frightened, and told everyone the oceans were going to rise and everyone would drown. Now, my (11-th grade) daughter thinks it was all a lot of nonsense.

I don't think anybody is going to be persuaded by that kind of argument. Anyway, this is the issue: It's true, nobody knows what going to happen when you double (triple, quadruple, etc) atmospheric CO2, but I'd rather not find out. But hey, since most berries aren't poisonous, why don't you eat all of them? Let me know how that

Quoting claymisher: Yeah, it's really triggering the new ice age that's the problem.

Now your humor escapes me. Was that sarcasm? When I think of ice, I think death. When I think of warmth, life. Damn, I need to get out of Massachusetts and go some place warmer.

Quoting claymisher: It's true, nobody knows what going to happen when you double (triple, quadruple, etc) atmospheric CO2, but I'd rather not find out. But hey, since most berries aren't poisonous, why don't you eat all of them? Let me know how that works out.

I'm actually quite familiar with the numbers. The CO2 concentration measurements are highly accurate. And yes, the unknown is scary. I'm not going to oppose you if you want to slow the rise of CO2. Good luck with that!

Quoting Simon Willard: It may indeed be that I don't understand some tipping points. I'm naturally suspicious of tipping point arguments because I know that most feedback is negative feedback.

A few examples I can think of: First, comparatively moderate temperature increase leads to melting of the permafrost. Result: a rapid release of a lot more greenhouse gases (esp. methane), further aggravating the greenhouse effect, further driving the temperature up. Second: melting of the polar ice caps and permanent snow cover nearby reduces Earth's albedo, meaning less light reflected back into space but instead scattered. Some of this light is IR radiation; i.e., heat. This, in turn, leads to more melting, lower albedo. So a small temp. increase causes, by itself, a larger temp. increase. A third: warmer oceans are less able to dissolve and hold greenhouse gases. The warmer they get, the less able they are. Granted, any or all of these may have mitigating factors, or may not work out as simply as I've sketched it. But these scenarios are fairly well accepted as plausible, as I understand it.

Climate scientists really need to get out in public and explain the mechanisms a bit more. The public is not responsive to arguments like "my computer simulation predicts A,B and C". And the public is right

Quoting Simon Willard: Now your humor escapes me. Was that sarcasm?

When I think of ice, I think death. When I think of warmth, life.

Damn, I need to get out of Massachusetts and go some place warmer.

Man, you've got an easy heuristic for everything. Don't mess with the thermohaline circulation: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...mar_arctic.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutdow...ne_circulation

I don't want to carry water for Paul Collier, whose books I actually haven't read, but Orr seems to get his point about the "Bottom Billion" backward. Collier is saying that there have been tremendous economic gains for the large majority of the earth's population, this "bottom billion" is an exception he thinks we can fix if we intervene to reshape & integrate them properly into the global economy. William Easterly has been very critical about some of his methods and his enthusiasm for interventions (particularly the military sort) but that's beside the point. Insofar as one can trust happiness research, Orr is also wrong that the affluent are not happier. They are. The effect is just more modest than many would expect. His point about getting in a car was frustrating because it is such a large component of early mortality in the U.S and so we do in fact get in cars with the distinct possibility of fatal accidents (we also buy car and life insurance) [I was writing this while listening, glad Manzi made the point]. My impression from what I've read of economic commentary leads me to believe he is incorrect that economists only look[/i]

Quoting bjkeefe: A few examples I can think of: First, comparatively moderate temperature increase leads to melting of the permafrost. Result: a rapid release of a lot more greenhouse gases (esp. methane), further aggravating the greenhouse effect, further driving the temperature up.

Second: melting of the polar ice caps and permanent snow cover nearby reduces Earth's albedo, meaning less light reflected back into space but instead scattered. Some of this light is IR radiation; i.e., heat. This, in turn, leads to more melting, lower albedo. So a small temp. increase causes, by itself, a larger temp. increase.

A third: warmer oceans are less able to dissolve and hold greenhouse gases. The warmer they get, the less able they are.

Granted, any or all of these may have mitigating factors, or may not work out as simply as I've sketched it. But these scenarios are fairly well accepted as plausible, as I understand it.

Could be. Clearly there's no net positive-feedback today, otherwise the thing would have long ago taken off down the slippery slopes you cite. But I do admit those mechanisms are believable, and I am not a global warming denier. I'm asking about bad effects vs good effects of warming.

Quoting Simon Willard: [...]

Does anyone notice that the earth's flora love CO2?

[...]

Rant On:
The idea that increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere will be a net boon to our ecosystem is thrown around quite abit, unfortunatly, it, like many other of the more common ideas floating around regarding climate change, is inaccurate. First, for the majority of plant life, CO2 is NOT a limiting nutrient. Usually the limiting nutrients are Nitrogen and Phosporous. So for the majority of plants, increased CO2 levels will mean diddly for them. However, I will admit that a few of the more important strains of maize and I think rice also will exhibit heightened growth. However, the higher C:N ratio will cause them to produce less natural herbicides, this, coupled with the fact that for many herbivores, Nitrogen is a limiting nutrient and will thus incur more damage to plant life, means there is no gurantee that even those species will benefit from more CO2. There will also undoutebly be some weeds that will become problematic. Not to mention this will all happen in a backdrop of highly fragmented ecosystems that have had their genetic diversity already culled already by humans. Well, the overarching point is that this

Quoting claymisher:
Don't mess with the thermohaline circulation:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...mar_arctic.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutdow...ne_circulation

Speculation.

To my knowledge, the PETM was the only time we are aware of where there was a large temperture spike (5-8C) in a relatively short time interval, and even then it was over a few hundred years. So while I am not willing to discount huge runaway climate shifts within, lets say, three generations, as a possibility, I am somewhat skeptical that climate sensitvity could be much higher then the proposed upper bounds. Edit:
A few thousand years. I really should check these thing before I post. I have such a bad memory for facts and figures.

Quoting Simon Willard: Speculation.

Alright then, tell me at what level of atmospheric CO2 we should start to worry. 400 ppmv? 800 ppmv? 1,000,000 ppmv? What?

Quoting Starwatcher162536: Rant On:
...
Rant off

Well anyways, you won't find much out there to scare you about climate change, because it isn't that terrifiying a thing. I wouldn't put Climate Change in my top 5 or maybe even top 10 list of things that worry me.

Thanks for your reply. And I accept your rant.

Quoting claymisher: Alright then, tell me at what level of atmospheric CO2 we should start to worry. 400 ppmv? 800 ppmv? 1,000,000 ppmv? What?

Well, that's a fair question. We need to know what effects we are worried about. The CO2 per se isn't a problem. If climate change causes a famine and I starve, that's a problem. I am not a climate scientist, so I don't have this information. (I doubt they do either). I'm happy to see the median temperature increase by 10 degrees Celsius I suppose 15 C would make me worried. You can probably convert that to a ppmv CO2 number.

Quoting bjkeefe: [...]
[Added] I'd also point out that despite the lack of an FD, not to mention a concerted effort to spread FUD by vested interests, we somehow managed to turn the tide on awareness of the AGW problem.
[...]

I am not sure I would chalk up AGW greater awareness in the public to new news mediums as much as I would chalk it up to alot of business's realizing that they can make more money with green subsidies then they could with business as usual. Yes, I know I am a cynical bastard.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: I am not sure I would chalk up AGW greater awareness in the public to new news mediums as much as I would chalk it up to alot of business's realizing that they can make more money with green subsidies then they could with business as usual.

Yes, I know I am a cynical bastard.

I'm not saying there aren't other factors. I do think, however, to take your cynical outlook at face value, that part of the reason these businesses made the shifts that they did had to do with the proper information getting out there, despite the best efforts by the denialists to drown it out with noise.

Quoting Unit: I think human hubris and political opportunism will end-up making things worse: slowing growth and progress enough to make this problem a serious problem.

What progress? How much slower can progress get? Outside of video games, laissez faire has stunted progress for sixty years. No; we need planning to direct resources to technology aimed specifically at dealing with climate change. The market will not provide, nor will individuals.

This is exactly I can't swallow the line handed out by climate alarmists like Gore and company. The party position more or less is that climate catastrophe is imminent, millions will be displaced or killed, and action is required NOW, BUT there aren't really any tradeoffs. (That is of course any more trade offs than giving the democrats exactly what they want politically)

Quoting Simon Willard: Well, that's a fair question.

We need to know what effects we are worried about. The CO2 per se isn't a problem. If climate change causes a famine and I starve, that's a problem. I am not a climate scientist, so I don't have this information. (I doubt they do either).

I'm happy to see the median temperature increase by 10 degrees Celsius I suppose 15 C would make me worried. You can probably convert that to a ppmv CO2 number.

You know what C is, right?

David Orr (famous last words): "It's really time for great leadership...." And when was it ever not time for great leadership? The trouble, however, is that in our time as in no previous time, there has to be great leadership in many countries if future catastrophe is to be averted. What is the likelihood of that? Anyone who thinks that democracy will bring forth the necessary great leadership has, I am afraid, never thought about the nature of democracy---the short-sightedness, willful ignorance and, not to put too fine a point on it, the stupidity of voters imprisoned in their narrow self-interest. Both speakers allude to this little problem of "governance," but they seem to think it will vanish once all the facts are known and correctly interpreted. Yeah, right.

You heard right. C=5/9 F.

Quoting Simon Willard: You heard right. C=5/9 F.

Ratio: 1 C: 1.8 F

Quoting Ray: What progress?

How much slower can progress get? Outside of video games, laissez faire has stunted progress for sixty years.

No; we need planning to direct resources to technology aimed specifically at dealing with climate change. The market will not provide, nor will individuals.

Huh? laissez-faire has stunted progress? I object to both the premise and the conclusion. We haven't had laissez-faire in the last sixty year, but the little we had was enough to create progress: lot's of it and for a lot of people. "Planning" might be a nice friendly word to you, but what you're really saying is we need "authoritarianism" to commandeer private choices and resources in ways few special and privileged elites prefer (or have a self-interest in preferring).

Give the Devil his due. Manzi can frame a question with a damn good metaphor. And Orr proved he's up to answering such questions. http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/236...4:22&out=40:12

Quoting Ocean: Ratio:

1 C: 1.8 F

Oh, you know what I mean. I was looking for a delta symbol. dTc = 5/9 dTf

Quoting AemJeff: Give the Devil his due. Manzi can frame a question with a damn good metaphor.

And Orr proved he's up to answering such questions.

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/236...4:22&out=40:12

That is a great dingalink because it shows both guys with their best arguments.

Quoting Simon Willard: Oh, you know what I mean. I was looking for a delta symbol. dTc = 5/9 dTf

One degree Celsius change in temperature is equal to 1.8 degrees Farenheit change in temperature. Celsius goes from 0 to 10 degrees, Farenheit goes from 32 (0 C) to 50 (32+18). Is that what you are saying? Or are you testing my poor math skills?

Quoting Ocean: One degree Celsius change in temperature is equal to 1.8 degrees Farenheit change in temperature.

Celsius goes from 0 to 10 degrees, Farenheit goes from 32 (0 C) to 50 (32+18).

Is that what you are saying? Or are you testing my poor math skills?

Your math skills are fine - and so are mine. I was trying to do a bit of calculus, and complaining about the fonts..

So your threshold of concern of a 10-15 C increase would result in daytime temps in the southern US in the 115 - 125 F range. Sure sounds like a recipe for desert formation and people dropping like flies.

Quoting AemJeff: Give the Devil his due. Manzi can frame a question with a damn good metaphor.

And Orr proved he's up to answering such questions.

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/236...4:22&out=40:12

I was not that impressed with Orr's answer. He first brought up far-fetched analogies with the Civil War, the New Deal etc...what if abolishing slavery turns out to be easier than "cooling the earth"? This is a bit like the arguments for going to war that bring up Munich and all that (if we don't act etc....): irrelevant historical comparison. Orr talks about "governance" repeatedly, but that's not what he really means, he's talking about "authoritarianism": use the "power" of government to do it his way or else. The idea of solving many problems at once is appealing, but totally unrealistic, politics is able to make a mess even of single perceived problem. He likes local agriculture, but who's to decide if that's really the way to go: greenhouses in cold places instead of growing food in Africa and then exporting it up north, protectionism and autarky versus free-trade and economies of scale. These are not obvious questions. Orr doesn't have a monopoly on truth here and neither would

Orr makes a moving appeal to our sense of responsibility to our children. But the more I think about this, the less certain I know what it means. Energy powers civilization. Energy consumption makes it possible for us to travel and interact with different people. Energy consumption simplifies domestic tasks and enables women to participate as equals. It keeps us warm in our homes and gives us the luxury of time for intellectual and creative activities. I don't want to live in a world where I must grow my own food in the backyard, and scrub my pants in a bucket of cold water. I'm grateful to my ancestors for developing the energy-intensive infrastructure we enjoy today. So this is my beef: I'm afraid too many people don't understand the crucial importance of energy. Solar and wind are great, but it's hard too see them taking over the job any time soon. Sure, it makes sense to tell the caveman not to let the feces pile up inside the cave. Similarly, we don't want our CO2 piling up in the atmosphere. The problem is we can't carry the CO2 outside of our cave - we

Quoting cragger: So your threshold of concern of a 10-15 C increase would result in daytime temps in the southern US in the 115 - 125 F range. Sure sounds like a recipe for desert formation and people dropping like flies.

That's right. Except people don't drop like flies. They go where the climate is to their liking.

Quoting Unit: I was not that impressed with Orr's answer. He first brought up far-fetched analogies with the Civil War, the New Deal etc...what if abolishing slavery turns out to be easier than "cooling the earth"? This is a bit like the arguments for going to war that bring up Munich and all that (if we don't act etc....): irrelevant historical comparison. Orr talks about "governance" repeatedly, but that's not what he really means, he's talking about "authoritarianism": use the "power" of government to do it his way or else. The idea of solving many problems at once is appealing, but totally unrealistic, politics is able to make a mess even of single perceived problem. He likes local agriculture, but who's to decide if that's really the way to go: greenhouses in cold places instead of growing food in Africa and then exporting it up north, protectionism and autarky versus free-trade and economies of scale. These are not obvious questions. Orr doesn't have a monopoly on truth here and neither would the politicians in government that he would trust to implement his ideas. He wants to go back, go back to what? WWI and WWII, famines, wars of

Quoting cragger: So your threshold of concern of a 10-15 C increase would result in daytime temps in the southern US in the 115 - 125 F range. Sure sounds like a recipe for desert formation and people dropping like flies.

I think Simon may have a side job selling land in Canada.

Quoting AemJeff: He was making a general structural argument about dealing unknowns. You're apparently complaining because the unknowns in his analogies might not resemble the unknowns is a specific case. I think that misses the point. Most of the rest of your post seems more ideological than analytical.

I don't understand your objections to what I wrote.

Quoting Unit: I don't understand your objections to what I wrote.

Ok.

what if abolishing slavery turns out to be easier than "cooling the earth"

The argument wasn't that these problems resembled each other, so what point is there to your question? (Which also ignores the scale of the projected consequences of not "cooling the earth".)

Orr talks about "governance" repeatedly, but that's not what he really means, he's talking about "authoritarianism": use the "power" of government to do it his way or else.

That's just a tendentious use of language with which few people who don't share your outlook will agree. etc...

Quoting Simon Willard: Orr makes a moving appeal to our sense of responsibility to our children.

But the more I think about this, the less certain I know what it means. Energy powers civilization. Energy consumption makes it possible for us to travel and interact with different people. Energy consumption simplifies domestic tasks and enables women to participate as equals. It keeps us warm in our homes and gives us the luxury of time for intellectual and creative activities. I don't want to live in a world where I must grow my own food in the backyard, and scrub my pants in a bucket of cold water. I'm grateful to my ancestors for developing the energy-intensive infrastructure we enjoy today.

So this is my beef: I'm afraid too many people don't understand the crucial importance of energy. Solar and wind are great, but it's hard too see them taking over the job any time soon.

Sure, it makes sense to tell the caveman not to let the feces pile up inside the cave. Similarly, we don't want our CO2 piling up in the atmosphere. The problem is we can't carry the CO2 outside of our cave - we

Quoting AemJeff:
That's just a tendentious use of language with which few people who don't share your outlook will agree.

etc...

I'm not sure Unit has ever posted anything besides "government is bad."

Quoting AemJeff:

what if abolishing slavery turns out to be easier than "cooling the earth"

The argument wasn't that these problems resembled each other, so what point is there to your question? (Which also ignores the scale of the projected consequences of not "cooling the earth".)

What was the argument then? Why did he bring up the Civil War? (which by the way was not the best way to abolish slavery). He's trying to make the case for concentrating government power by appealing to dubious and quite unrelated historical events.

Orr talks about "governance" repeatedly, but that's not what he really means, he's talking about "authoritarianism": use the "power" of government to do it his way or else.

That's just a tendentious use of language with which few people who don't share your outlook will agree.

"Governance" is a well understood term in the economics literature, it is not confined to government action. I agree with him that this is a "governance problem", but I sense that his preferred solution is to give the govt exceptional powers to deal with it. Let's do the following hypothetical: Suppose we all agreed to give Obama pluri-potential powers

Quoting claymisher: I'm not sure Unit has ever posted anything besides "government is bad."

In the context of a family it might make sense to concentrate powers in the hand of the mom, say, or in the context of a firm solving problems by asking someone to fix things might actually work. But here we're talking about a global problem, where complexity reaches a point where it is beyond the expertise of any one person or community. Even a scientist might be highly specialized about carbon, but doesn't know much about economics or political science or even some other branch of physics. This I think was Manzi's point to which Orr didn't have an answer. Why should we trust that this problem can be solved simply by concentrating power a little more?

Quoting Unit: What was the argument then? Why did he bring up the Civil War? (which by the way was not the best way to abolish slavery). He's trying to make the case for concentrating government power by appealing to dubious and quite unrelated historical events.

He named three relatively arbitrary flex points from history - the Civil War, the Progressive Era, and the New Deal. His stated point was in regard to dealing with changing circumstances (at the grandest scale), and how Government responds to that. Even if you want to use the verb "concentrating," a lot of other people would say "using."

Quoting Unit: Let's do the following hypothetical: Suppose we all agreed to give Obama pluri-potential powers of executive and legislative decision-making in order to solve this climate problem. Do you think anything good will come of it? I don't.

I think you're going to have to propose a more detailed hypothetical before I believe it has anything to do with what we're discussing. Remember, it was Manzi who took the position that at some point it becomes desirable to suspend the rules of Democracy. I don't think that's where we are.

[quote=Unit;136803However, I think human hubris and political opportunism will end-up making things worse: slowing growth and progress enough to make this problem a serious problem.[/QUOTE] Hubris is at the core of our problems and at the core of our greatest triumphs. Not sure where your opinion falls in all of this, but the quote above presents a solution to all kinds of our dilemmas. Slowing growth and progress in fact would satisfy the most vehement environmentalist. The problem is that only a very few will ever go along with this prescription. It is not in our DNA to slow growth and progress whether it be the dirty kind or the green kind. We are growth and progress addicted. And certainly those countires which have been at the back of the line for heaping helpings of growth and progress aren't about to get out of line as they stand to get paid off by the countries which have basked in growth and progress for so long.

Quoting Simon Willard: I continue to think the major predictions of the climate scientists will come true, little will be done to counteract climate change, and we will simply adapt and live in that altered world. In retrospect it will look like one of mankind's lessor problems.

So, is it that you think that climate change will occur? or that if climate change occurs it will be because man caused it and did nothing to mitigate or ameliorate it? I think climate change will occur and that as you say, we will simply adapt (as we have before). It may, as some are saying, even have aspects which are favorable to human enterprise. But in the meantime there is money and reputation to be made. Never waste a good crisis!!

Quoting AemJeff: He was making a general structural argument about dealing unknowns. You're apparently complaining because the unknowns in his analogies might not resemble the unknowns is a specific case. I think that misses the point. Most of the rest of your post seems more ideological than analytical.

Sorry, Unit, reading that back, I see that there were typos and dropped words that could have made it seem hard to parse. Here's a corrected version :

He was making a general structural argument about dealing with unknowns. You're apparently complaining because the unknowns in his analogies might not resemble the unknowns in a specific case. I think that misses the point. Most of the rest of your post seems more ideological than analytical.

Quoting Unit: The idea of solving many problems at once is appealing, but totally unrealistic, politics is able to make a mess even of single perceived problem. He likes local agriculture, but who's to decide if that's really the way to go: greenhouses in cold places instead of growing food in Africa and then exporting it up north, protectionism and autarky versus free-trade and economies of scale. These are not obvious questions. Orr doesn't have a monopoly on truth here and neither would the politicians in government that he would trust to implement his ideas. He wants to go back, go back to what? WWI and WWII, famines, wars of religion, feudalism, what?

This is a truly wonderful laying out of the objections some people (myself included) have to big projects such as are being proposed to stop the climate from changing.
I say we start to deal with some of the smaller issues. Things like 1) the growing problems on the Sacramento River Delta (which feeds a huge portion of our farmland). 2) the condition of the Mississippi Delta where the river wants to go to the sea by way of very populated areas. These may

Quoting AemJeff: He named three relatively arbitrary flex points from history - the Civil War, the Progressive Era, and the New Deal. His stated point was in regard to dealing with changing circumstances (at the grandest scale), and how Government responds to that. Even if you want to use the verb "concentrating," a lot of other people would say "using."

I still don't understand this analogy: three historical events, some of which saw the government as both the originator of the problem and the perceived solver. How is that supposed to answer Manzi's conundrum I don't know. But thanks for trying to clarify this point.

I think you're going to have to propose a more detailed hypothetical before I believe it has anything to do with what we're discussing. Remember, it was Manzi who took the position that at some point it becomes desirable to suspend the rules of Democracy. I don't think that's where we are.

My point is simple: we can discuss all day about what "we should be doing". There are millions of diverging opinions. Is giving a little more power to govt officials going to move us in the right direction? I doubt it. In fact, if

Quoting Unit: I still don't understand this analogy: three historical events, some of which saw the government as both the originator of the problem and the perceived solver. How is that supposed to answer Manzi's conundrum I don't know. But thanks for trying to clarify this point.

My point is simple: we can discuss all day about what "we should be doing". There are millions of diverging opinions. Is giving a little more power to govt officials going to move us in the right direction? I doubt it. In fact, if we go overboard they might mess up so badly that it will hold progress back just enough to make our resilience in response to climate change an actual problem. Orr talks about non-linearities, but the same problem arises when you consider govt plans and actions to try to correct a problem that is beyond the scope of the legalistic approach. If indeed the Hollywood scenarios of people running for high ground become a reality, then that's a problem more akin to a meteorite strike. So drastic geo-engineered solutions might be attempted. But that's quite far in the future in my opinion

Quoting bjkeefe: [Added] Also tweeted:

Atrios Stupak (n) - The sepsis commonly experienced after unsafe back alley abortions

This, shockingly, makes K-Lo has a sad.

... interesting to think about, in and of itself, too:

So here's the upshot: of the 4.6 Gy of Earth's known history, there's only been enough oxygen in the atmosphere for us to survive for about 0.5 Gy. For roughly 90% of the Earth's history we couldn't even breathe the air. And about 10-25% of the time, there have been ice ages so savagely fierce that the glaciers reached the tropics: odds are good that any meat probe landing on solid ground during these periods would rapidly die of exposure. So historically, Earth has only been inhabitable about 8% of the time — assuming you are lucky enough to find some solid ground. Once you factor in the random surface distribution, we're down to about 2% survivability.

The above is from a long post by Charlie Stross (via Meteor Blades) considering an extraterrestrial intelligence trying to decide whether the Earth is habitable. ==========

(habitable? inhabitable? inflammable? flammable?)

Interesting piece by Tim Flannery, Chair of the Copenhagen Climate Council, on James Lovelock's new book, The Vanishing Face of Gaia: The Final Warning. In his latest book, The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning, (Lovelock) argues that Earth's system of self-regulation is being overwhelmed by greenhouse gas pollution and that Earth will soon jump from its current cool, stable state into a dramatically hotter one. All climatologists acknowledge the existence of such climatic jumps—as occurred for example at the end of the last ice age. But chaos theory dictates that the scale and timing of such leaps are inherently unpredictable, which means that they cannot be incorporated into the computer models of Earth's climate system that such scientists use to project future climate change. Yet this is precisely what Lovelock attempts to do—using his own computer modeling—in The Vanishing Face of Gaia. A new climatic jump, he concludes, will occur within the next few years or decades, and will involve an abrupt increase in average global surface temperature of 9 degrees Celsius—from 15 to 24 degrees Celsius (59 to 75 degrees Fahrenheit). Such a shift, he contends, will trigger the collapse of our global civilization and

Quoting Unit: ... Orr talks about non-linearities, but the same problem arises when you consider govt plans and actions to try to correct a problem that is beyond the scope of the legalistic approach. If indeed the Hollywood scenarios of people running for high ground become a reality, then that's a problem more akin to a meteorite strike. So drastic geo-engineered solutions might be attempted. But that's quite far in the future in my opinion and then I hope that if that happens we will be as technologically evolved as possible. ...

Your mention of meteors reminds me of an effort a few years ago by the physicist Edward Teller. He became concerned about the possibility of a meteor wiping out human life. I believe he petitioned Congress on the matter. The argument was that we need to develop a defense, possibly involving rockets carrying hydrogen bombs to break up the meteor. And since this effort will take considerable time and money, the project needs to begin now, long before any individual meteor threat has been confirmed. Given that the very existence of the humanity is at stake, how can you

Excellent discussion. To me, the key quote from Manzi comes in the cliff parable: the fear that we will *irrevocably* commit to a solution that might not turn out to be the right one. His worry is that if we commit to draconian measures to combat climate change, it will be too late to undo those changes if the threat of climate change turns out to be overblown. Orr sort of dodges that issue and returns to a chapter of his book, and, well, fair enough. But the truth is, there's a perfectly good answer to the question, "What if we learn that climate change isn't that bad but it's too late to fix our eco-smothered economy?" The answer is, "it won't be too late." Look at China. They did their damnedest to choke out their economy, in their case for ideology rather than global safety. But guess what? They decided to stop that, and guess what? Their economy is catching up in record time. Like many who love free markets above all else, Manzi doesn't seem to have much *faith* in free markets. In his formulation, an economy is a delicate flower, never to bloom again once

Quoting Simon Willard: Your mention of meteors reminds me of an effort a few years ago by the physicist Edward Teller. He became concerned about the possibility of a meteor wiping out human life. I believe he petitioned Congress on the matter. The argument was that we need to develop a defense, possibly involving rockets carrying hydrogen bombs to break up the meteor. And since this effort will take considerable time and money, the project needs to begin now, long before any individual meteor threat has been confirmed. Given that the very existence of the humanity is at stake, how can you deny Edward the funding he requests?

There's some similarity here with the argument from people who warn of a sudden and catastrophic climate collapse, the timing of which cannot be predicted.

I think there's a pretty wide disparity here, between the projected probabilities of each outcome to a reasonable time horizon. The odds of a catastrophic asteroid strike in any, let's say, hundred year interval are vanishingly small and relatively constant. Not doing something about it today doesn't mean the odds of a strike tomorrow have increased, or that the strike, if

Quoting fredrik: Excellent discussion.

To me, the key quote from Manzi comes in the cliff parable: the fear that we will *irrevocably* commit to a solution that might not turn out to be the right one. His worry is that if we commit to draconian measures to combat climate change, it will be too late to undo those changes if the threat of climate change turns out to be overblown. Orr sort of dodges that issue and returns to a chapter of his book, and, well, fair enough.

But the truth is, there's a perfectly good answer to the question, "What if we learn that climate change isn't that bad but it's too late to fix our eco-smothered economy?" The answer is, "it won't be too late."

Look at China. They did their damnedest to choke out their economy, in their case for ideology rather than global safety. But guess what? They decided to stop that, and guess what? Their economy is catching up in record time.

Like many who love free markets above all else, Manzi doesn't seem to have much *faith* in free markets. In his formulation, an economy is a delicate flower, never to bloom again once

Quoting Simon Willard: Well, that's a fair question.

We need to know what effects we are worried about. The CO2 per se isn't a problem. If climate change causes a famine and I starve, that's a problem. I am not a climate scientist, so I don't have this information. (I doubt they do either).

I'm happy to see the median temperature increase by 10 degrees Celsius I suppose 15 C would make me worried. You can probably convert that to a ppmv CO2 number.

shocking, world class levels of stupid. i hope you're wearing your helmet simple simon.

Quoting popcorn_karate: shocking, world class levels of stupid. i hope you're wearing your helmet simple simon.

Simon doesn't need any defense from me; but, that was neither fair nor accurate. I think he's wrong, but that's another issue entirely.

There is no evidence in this diavlog that Manzi is "a brilliant guy." Every single one of his questions could have been asked in 20% of the time it took him to pose the question. I thought the discussion was tedious beyond belief, they could and should have covered much more ground in an hour. And the bottom line was, Manzi doesn't believe that things are as dire as Orr does. Manzi never says why is he is more optimistic than Orr, why, for example, the faster melting of ice than had been predicted five years ago does not bother him as much as it bothers Orr. Unless the answer is, "Well, yes, the melting is going faster than scientists or I thought it would five years ago, but we cannot predict with precision what the results of this acceleration will be. Given this uncertainty, I choose to forsake less income today than Orr would be prepared to do." But it's simple, if you believe that a catastrophic result is unlikely, you'll be less willing to give up a lot to forestall it than someone who thinks that catastrophe is fairly likely. And another

It's not an exact comparison. But please note that here I'm restricting the comparison to the "unexpected unpredictable catastrophic climate collapse" people; I'm not knocking AGW in general. The unpredictable aspect puts this in the same class of argument as the asteroid because you can't argue against it. I believe better science will clarify this question in the future, but with the current state of understanding, it's something of a scare tactic. If it scares up some money for climate research, that's OK.

Sure, I could be wrong. 15C is fairly bad. I don't know if AWG will come to that point, but I think there's no way of stopping CO2 increase short of shocking solutions that would make huge numbers of people accuse popcorn of stupidity. Few solutions have been offered here. Let's hear some. Something more concrete than "good governance". The best I can come up with is massive amounts of nuclear power, or culling the earth's population, or retreat to the 16th century. 15C doesn't look so bad by comparison.

We may already have the answer to the CO2 problem. It may even be cheap. I don't know why it wasn't mentioned during the diavlog, except that the diavlog sounds Frankfurt School approved. Anyway.

Quoting breadcrust: We may already have the answer to the CO2 problem. It may even be cheap. I don't know why it wasn't mentioned during the diavlog, except that the diavlog sounds Frankfurt School approved. Anyway.

Oh great. A synthetic tree with 1000 times the CO2 absorption efficiency of a real tree. Let's see... there are about 10 trillion trees on the planet, so we only need to build 10 billion synthetic trees to have a comparable effect. Sure, put one in my yard. But make it more attractive that what's pictured in the link.

Quoting Simon Willard: Oh great. A synthetic tree with 1000 times the CO2 absorption efficiency of a real tree. Let's see... there are about 10 trillion trees on the planet, so we only need to build 10 billion synthetic trees to have a comparable effect. Sure, put one in my yard. But make it more attractive that what's pictured in the link.

It's funny. I've met Lackner, and he's got a strange capacity for brushing aside any practical concerns about what he's proposing with airy turns of rhetoric. Also by pointing out the practical challenges to other people's solutions.

15 C would be catastrophic. Luckily, I think there is a good chance we would run out of coal/oil before we would get to those kind of extremes. As for solutions, I am not really sure why you are so pessimistic. We could probably cut down our carbon emissions by 90% in the next 7 years if we really wanted to. All it would entail is everything costing us another 25% or so, not enjoyable, but by no means unbearable. *That last 10% or so would be tough to stop though, as then we would be getting into the petrochemical industry, which is already regulated rather well, and is dreadfully important. P.S.
Forget diseases, climate change, famine, wars, etc. The one thing that keeps me up at night is how vulnerable the port of Houston is. If you want to cripple a country, you don't go for its center of commerce, you go after its center of industry, and that's Houston. We could probably lose half of New York, and it would hurt us less in the long run, then us losing that one port.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: 15 C would be catastrophic. Luckily, I think there is a good chance we would run out of coal/oil before we would get to those kind of extremes.

As for solutions, I am not really sure why you are so pessimistic. We could probably cut down our carbon emissions by 90% in the next 7 years if we really wanted to. All it would entail is everything costing us another 25% or so, not enjoyable, but by no means unbearable.

You're right about oil - it will be mostly burned before a climate catastrophe, (And that's a bad thing. “It's far too valuable to burn.” -Dmitri Mendeleev upon isolating the structure of crude oil). I wouldn't say that about coal -- they keep finding ways to make use of the low-quality stuff and there's a lot of that. Aren't you discounting the effect on lifestyle and, well, what we call civilization? I think we need lots of energy, and I don't understand how we get there for only 25% more cost. Believe me, if it's that simple, I'm on-board. And don't forget about our "friends" in China and the rest of the developing world. They have to be on-board as well.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: Forget diseases, climate change, famine, wars, etc. The one thing that keeps

Manzi is excellent here. That is all.

Quoting breadcrust: [...]

Elizabeth Kolbert, via DougJ:

To be skeptical of climate models and credulous about things like carbon-eating trees and cloudmaking machinery and hoses that shoot sulfur into the sky is to replace a faith in science with a belief in science fiction. This is the turn that “SuperFreakonomics” takes, even as its authors repeatedly extoll their hard-headedness. All of which goes to show that, while some forms of horseshit are no longer a problem, others will always be with us.

EK's whole article is well worth a read.

Quoting bjkeefe: Elizabeth Kolbert, via DougJ:

EK's whole article is well worth a read.

As far as I am concerned the only horsesh*t is viewing every negative consequence of climate change as immutable and ever changing and worsening and at the same time holding our future capacity to deal with current and new problems static.
Our knowledge of how to manipulate nature and the world will not remain static over time. That is another non linear dynamic no one cares to factor in on the doomsayer side. I'm betting on humanity, not betting on them standing still and dying off.
And the irony is I am for alot of the things people say they want anyway. I want electric cars, and better batteries, and less reliance on coal. I just want better alternatives to shift people away. The solar guys have gotten to a point that even without subsidy they can compete in certain locations for peak power during the middle of the day. New things are coming on line, getting cheaper, I do not see an ever darkening cloud. And while I do not see or conceive of all the answers to all the

Quoting AemJeff: Simon doesn't need any defense from me; but, that was neither fair nor accurate. I think he's wrong, but that's another issue entirely.

I think it is a fair reaction to this statement:

Quoting Simon: I'm happy to see the median temperature increase by 10 degrees Celsius

and we can just leave it at that, if that's ok with you.

Quoting JonIrenicus: [...]

You're arguing against a straw man, not me. I don't doubt we humans will come up with stuff I can't even imagine. That does not conflict with my belief that we also have to start doing, now, what we already know how to do.

I am not advocating we consume less energy. I am advocating that we get that energy from alternative sources. Solar, geothermal, wind, hydro, natural gas,etc. could all supplement fission. These are all proven technologies that we could mobilize on a fairly short notice, we just don't want everything from the price of milk to plastic to crayons to increase by 20-30%. Edit:
Oh yeah, about China and India, the only way we will get them on board is if we come up with alternative supplies of energy that are much cheaper then what we currently have. That is why I think any sort of taxes that are brought in from whatever legislation is going to be passed, should not be put into the general funds, but should instead be allocated to the DoE. Who knows, maybe someone will finally come up with a way to make polywell fusion work tomorrow and all of this will be a moot point anyways.

Quoting bjkeefe: You're arguing against a straw man, not me. I don't doubt we humans will come up with stuff I can't even imagine.

That does not conflict with my belief that we also have to start doing, now, what we already know how to do.

Let's call it a "Straw Santa Claus" theory.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: I am not advocating we consume less energy. I am advocating that we get that energy from alternative sources. Solar, geothermal, wind, hydro, natural gas,etc. could all supplement fission. These are all proven technologies that we could mobilize on a fairly short notice.
...
Who knows, maybe someone will finally come up with a way to make polywell fusion work tomorrow and all of this will be a moot point anyways.

Solar - good but provides limited amounts of energy outside the southwest
Geothermal - difficult/expensive to do in most places
Hydro - forget about dams, eco damage, very unpopular
Gas - hey, that's a hydrocarbon!
Wind is interesting. I have underestimated this in the past, but now it seems like a workable way to get a significant amount of energy, although you must live with the ugly noisy infrastructure.
Fission - the best source we have at the moment, but public opposition is huge.
Fusion - this is where I pin my hopes, but despite a huge effort, the engineering problems have not been surmounted, and there seems to be a dearth of new ideas. I don't care if the cost of energy doubles; I just very sceptical that these can be mobilized "on fairly short notice" to replace the huge appetite

Quoting Simon Willard: Solar - good but provides limited amounts of energy outside the southwest
Geothermal - difficult/expensive to do in most places
Hydro - forget about dams, eco damage, very unpopular
Gas - hey, that's a hydrocarbon!
Wind is interesting. I have underestimated this in the past, but now it seems like a workable way to get a significant amount of energy, although you must live with the ugly noisy infrastructure.
Fission - the best source we have at the moment, but public opposition is huge.
Fusion - this is where I pin my hopes, but despite a huge effort, the engineering problems have not been surmounted, and there seems to be a dearth of new ideas.

I don't care if the cost of energy doubles; I just very sceptical that these can be mobilized "on fairly short notice" to replace the huge appetite for coal and oil in the US. And overseas? You gotta be kidding me.

Fission creates more problems than it solves, I think; but generally alternatives have to be a significant part of any strategy going forward. New types of solar collectors are being developed, and I think eventually it will be the best bridge between hydrocarbons and fusion. The ability to solve these problems on a

Quoting AemJeff: Fission creates more problems than it solves, I think; but generally alternatives have to be a significant part of any strategy going forward. New types of solar collectors are being developed, and I think eventually it will be the best bridge between hydrocarbons and fusion. The ability to solve these problems on a smaller time scale would be nice, but in the mean-time, the goal of renewable energy with a minimal waste footprint seems like the solution to quite a few problems. The scale of the effort solving that isn't variable we can control. That doesn't make it an any less serious goal.

The problem storing fission waste was always greatly exaggerated IMO, although the dangers of proliferation have become more troubling in recent years. I won't disagree that we should be trying all things seriously.

Actually enjoyed this. A few things I took from it... this and this and this and finally this. Bottom line is I believe Mr. Orr believes Mr. Orr but if he really thinks us selfish humans are going to be compelled to minimize our/their lifestyles based on theory so as to make the human race more comfortable a 100 years from now or 1000 years from now well then he is largely fooling himself. Coercion techniques like Crap and Tax will have no affect or have such a minimal affect that the negatives of it will be far more visable. The political fortitude and governance he requires for this cannot happen in the U.S...would not be allowed to happen. Now, if Miami or New Orleans is under water well maybe...but even then some will say it was only a matter of time...and not a matter of CO2. Sorry Mr. Orr, you are dreaming, and even if you were able to shut up your opposition when you tell Mary in CA that she can only visit her mother in MA once every 5 years unless she wishes to bike there, she is going to give you a

Quoting bjkeefe: You're arguing against a straw man, not me. I don't doubt we humans will come up with stuff I can't even imagine.

That does not conflict with my belief that we also have to start doing, now, what we already know how to do.

Fine, just get people to let up on trying to force feed economically crippling solutions to the third world, and to a lesser extent, the first world.

Quoting JonIrenicus: Fine, just get people to let up on trying to force feed economically crippling solutions to the third world, and to a lesser extent, the first world.

Yup. Let's stick with unsolved economically devastating problems.

"The average October temperature of 50.8°F was 4.0°F below the 20th Century average and ranked as the 3rd coolest based on preliminary data". "The U.S. recorded its wettest October in the 115-year period of record. The nationwide precipitation of 4.15 inches was nearly double the long-term average of 2.11 inches." I'm not an expert, but is this type of data in line with model predictions? (Also hurricane season was not that active this year. )

Quoting Unit: I'm not an expert ...

Glad you acknowledged that. But you don't have to be one to know that climate models don't even attempt to predict short term weather on the scale of one month or one hurricane season. All you have to do is read more a bit more widely than you evidently have been. Or, to put it another way: Would you accept an argument that global warming was definitely happening if I talked about one unusually warm month? [Added] Here is a visual example -- dated, but just to illustrate -- what would be considered good agreement between model and data. Note the horizontal scale, and then imagine zooming in to the resolution of one month.

Quoting bjkeefe: Glad you acknowledged that.

But you don't have to be one to know that climate models don't even attempt to predict short term weather on the scale of one month or one hurricane season. All you have to do is read more a bit more widely than you evidently have been.

Or, to put it another way: Would you accept an argument that global warming was definitely happening if I talked about one unusually warm month?

[Added] Here is a visual example -- dated, but just to illustrate -- what would be considered good agreement between model and data. Note the horizontal scale, and then imagine zooming in to the resolution of one month.

Ok but people (e.g. Orr) do point to worse and worse storm seasons. As I said I'm not and expert, but I remember reading that 1998 was the last unusually warm year, that's more than 11 years ago. I'm just wondering by how much will scientists update their estimates and predictions, as the new data points come in.

Quoting Unit: Ok but people (e.g. Orr) do point to worse and worse storm seasons. As I said I'm not and expert, but I remember reading that 1998 was the last unusually warm year, that's more than 11 years ago. I'm just wondering by how much will scientists update their estimates and predictions, as the new data points come in.

The last part's easy: all the time. The work is ongoing. Whether anyone who's not a professional climate scientist can or does keep up is, of course, another matter, and it's probably safe to say that there's likely to be a bit of a lag among many of the people who report on the doings of the people who are actually doing the science. But, you know, there's an Internet out there, just filled with people who do make it their business to stay on top of these things. ClimateProgress.org, RealClimate.org, and Andrew Revkin's DotEarth are three blogs that strike me as accessible and up-to-date -- certainly good starting points at the minimum -- though I don't read them as regularly as I'd like. (I should repeat, though, that it's my impression that people who run climate models do not generally seize upon the

Keep in mind that statements about increased storm activity, or drought here and flood there, are rather detailed predictions from the models. Temperature rise is not a detail, but a big, easy to understand result of CO2 in the atmosphere. The precipitation patterns may be more important to us than temperature, but read those with more scepticism. It's not so much a matter of incorporating the latest observations as it is a matter of developing better understanding of all the physical interactions that produce the weather. It's a fairly complex business.

Quoting Simon Willard: Keep in mind that statements about increased storm activity, or drought here and flood there, are rather detailed predictions from the models.

Agreed, although I have to say, I'm unsure about how well-founded a lot of these statements are, particularly the ones about a specific "drought here and flood there." My overwhelming impression is that people who know what they're talking about are extremely unlikely to say such a thing. Instead, they will always say something like, "We can't attribute any one event to climate change." It does get a little murkier when we start talking about things like "increased storm activity" and the like. Certainly, the consensus is that climate change will likely lead to this as one of the consequences. I'm not sure (due to lack of expertise) how much truly informed people would say they're sure we're already seeing that now, but my impression is that they are not, generally speaking.

Temperature rise is not a detail, but a big, easy to understand result of CO2 in the atmosphere. The precipitation patterns may be more important to us than temperature, but read those with more scepticism.

Probably, yes, although this is really beyond what I know

Quoting Simon Willard: Keep in mind that statements about increased storm activity, or drought here and flood there, are rather detailed predictions from the models. Temperature rise is not a detail, but a big, easy to understand result of CO2 in the atmosphere. The precipitation patterns may be more important to us than temperature, but read those with more scepticism.

It's not so much a matter of incorporating the latest observations as it is a matter of developing better understanding of all the physical interactions that produce the weather. It's a fairly complex business.

Not just complex business, but this all is under the realm of chaos theory. In general, things like weather that fall under this are SO susceptible to such a wide variety of factors that modeling them is interesting, but relying on any of these models is audacious.

Quoting Whatfur: Not just complex business, but this all is under the realm of chaos theory. In general, things like weather that fall under this are SO susceptible to such a wide variety of factors that modeling them is interesting, but relying on any of these models is audacious.

I'm not positive, but I think there may be differences between trying to model the weather (certainly very hard, as you note) and trying to model climate. It may be partly a matter of long enough time scales that the hard- or impossible-to-predict variations can be smoothed out. In other words, we may never get to a point where we can say what the average temperature will be in a given month twenty years from now, but we may be able to say with some confidence how much warmer an average month at that time of year is likely to be, compared to the corresponding month in the present.

Quoting bjkeefe: I'm not positive, but I think there may be differences between trying to model the weather (certainly very hard, as you note) and trying to model climate. It may be partly a matter of long enough time scales that the hard- or impossible-to-predict variations can be smoothed out.

In other words, we may never get to a point where we can say what the average temperature will be in a given month twenty years from now, but we may be able to say with some confidence how much warmer an average month at that time of year is likely to be, compared to the corresponding month in the present.

Could not one also argue that multiplying a bunch of unknowns seldom equates to a specific? But sure, trends can be developed that make for a picture that is more clear. Kind of like watching a baby develop in the womb. I do find it funny though that the GW people (now CC people) always wish to discount the current year, decade, half-century as not being a large enough sample (especially after their own models have fallen apart) but when realists point out

Quoting Whatfur: Could not one also argue that multiplying a bunch of unknowns seldom equates to a specific?

Yes, but I don't really think that's what climate modelers are doing. I think that they have at least some idea of the bounds on their variables, and as I mentioned before, if you're careful about what you're doing, you can successfully reduce some of your uncertainty by averaging.

But sure, trends can be developed that make for a picture that is more clear. Kind of like watching a baby develop in the womb. I do find it funny though that the GW people (now CC people) always wish to discount the current year, decade, half-century as not being a large enough sample (especially after their own models have fallen apart) but when realists point out the fact that 1000 years is really not a large enough sample either or when they are told that CO2 levels have been higher in the past prior to advent of the internal combustion engine they seem to start throwing around a bunch of "Yeah but"s.

This strikes me as such a mishmash of out-of-context fragments and unsupported assertions that it

Quoting Unit: "The average October temperature of 50.8°F was 4.0°F below the 20th Century average and ranked as the 3rd coolest based on preliminary data".

Surface land Temperature? Troposphere? Ocean? Global mean? Regional? What does "preliminary data" mean? Is this comparing datasets from different sources? There are different biases in different datasets. I know one of the things people do to try and downplay climate change is use data with an positive bias for the past and then compare that to current temperatures using data that has a negative bias. It's hard to comment on such a vague statement.

"The U.S. recorded its wettest October in the 115-year period of record. The nationwide precipitation of 4.15 inches was nearly double the long-term average of 2.11 inches."

I'm not an expert, but is this type of data in line with model predictions?

I don't think the majority of models even attempt to predict precipitation patterns. Most still operate at the synoptic scale. As for hurricanes, I have never seen anything about them relating to climate change that was more specific then "well, gee, they're basically a heat engine and we are increasing the heat gradient..."

This is probably totally wrong, but I kind of look at these upward/downward swings like this: If you hook up an oscilloscope to a tuned circuit, you can play around with these two knobs, which are the gain and damp knobs. Now, if you crank up the gain (CO2 emissions), or crank down the damp (Cutting down trees, easing regulations, etc.), your reading is not going to just swing to one of the extremes right away, it is going to start oscillating violently and then swing to one extreme. So the above is one reason I care less about whether the upward swings are on average greater or lesser then the downward swings, then I do about if the magnitude of the swings are increasing in time.

Of asteroids.

Quoting Whatfur: Of asteroids.

Some details from the article:

But before you head for the nuclear bunkers you will be relieved to learn the tumbling rock was only 23ft across. Similar sized objects pass by this close to Earth about twice a year and impact on the planet about once every five years.

Astronomers believe the object, called 2009 VA, would have almost completely burned up while entering Earth's atmosphere, causing a brilliant fireball in the sky but no major damage to the surface.

Quoting Whatfur: Of asteroids.

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying you're so scared of something that your recommendation for dealing with a completely unrelated problem is to do nothing? If so, do you make other decisions following this logic, say, refusing to clean and bandage a cut because who cares if it gets infected, you might get hit by a bus next week? Or are you saying that we must choose between enhancing our ability to detect near-Earth objects and getting smarter about our energy use, that we have become so feeble as a species that we are incapable of doing both? Pretty sad worldview, if either is the case.

Quoting bjkeefe: I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying you're so scared of something that your recommendation for dealing with a completely unrelated problem is to do nothing? If so, do you make other decisions following this logic, say, refusing to clean and bandage a cut because who cares if it gets infected, you might get hit by a bus next week?

Or are you saying that we must choose between enhancing our ability to detect near-Earth objects and getting smarter about our energy use, that we have become so feeble as a species that we are incapable of doing both?

Pretty sad worldview, if either is the case.

None of those things, asshole. And I would not amputate my arm because of a that cut on my hand either, Einstein. The asteroid concept was presented in the vlog. I just thought it was timely. Did you actually watch the vlog?

Quoting Whatfur: None of those things, asshole. [...]

Guess I cut a little too close to the truth. Sorry about that.

Quoting Whatfur: The asteroid concept was presented in the vlog. I just thought it was timely. Did you actually watch the vlog?

Yes, I watched it, as should be obvious from some of the earlier comments I posted. Maybe if you hadn't just jumped into the middle of the thread, looking only for yet another opportunity to be unpleasant, you might not have needed to ask this question. Also, if you really had wanted to present a link to a story that "was timely," you might have done so in a way that made it clear you weren't continuing the exchange, say, by starting a new sub-thread, or by using more than two words plus a subject line that came across as a response to the post to which you attached your response. In other words, it looked like what you were after was delivering what you would pass in your mind for a clever retort. Especially given your history, this seems like a reasonable impression to have formed.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: As for hurricanes, I have never seen anything about them relating to climate change that was more specific then "well, gee, they're basically a heat engine and we are increasing the heat gradient..."

This is what baffles me. Why should the heat gradient increase with global warming? I expect it to decrease - the cold places will heat up more. What makes any place on earth cold? Radiative cooling. Radiation (mostly infa-red) going into outer space. That's the only cooling mechanism there is. That's what the greenhouse layer blocks.

Quoting bjkeefe: Guess I cut a little too close to the truth. Sorry about that.

As I did with the "asshole". Albeit not sorry about that.

Quoting bjkeefe: Yes, I watched it, as should be obvious from some of the earlier comments I posted. Maybe if you hadn't just jumped into the middle of the thread, looking only for yet another opportunity to be unpleasant, you might not have needed to ask this question.

Unlike you with my posts, I generally ignore yours.

Quoting bjkeefe: Also, if you really had wanted to present a link to a story that "was timely," you might have done so in a way that made it clear you weren't continuing the exchange, say, by starting a new sub-thread, or by using more than two words plus a subject line that came across as a response to the post to which you attached your response.

Thanks for the suggestion. But I will post when and where I want. <--I think that might be a quote from you.

Quoting bjkeefe: ...a clever retort. Especially given your history, this seems like a reasonable impression to have formed.

Given YOUR history, I depend on no reasonable impression from you. I can however depend on you being an asshole.

Quoting Whatfur: As I did with the "asshole". Albeit not sorry about that.

[...]

I can however depend on you being an asshole.

Noted.

Quoting bjkeefe: Noted.

I suggest you tattoo it on your forehead.

Quoting Simon Willard: This is what baffles me. Why should the heat gradient increase with global warming? I expect it to decrease - the cold places will heat up more. What makes any place on earth cold? Radiative cooling. Radiation (mostly infa-red) going into outer space. That's the only cooling mechanism there is. That's what the greenhouse layer blocks.

There is no reason to expect that the Earth will warm uniformly. In fact, it has always been predicted as far as I can remember that AGW (which is why some prefer the term "climate change") will be characterized by uneven temperature changes across the globe -- some regions may even get cooler. This is what leads to the prediction of more storms, and storms of greater intensity.

Those pesky models.

Quoting Whatfur: Those pesky models.

Wow. Really? You're going to identify yourself with George Eff Will on this topic? Oooo-kay.

Quoting bjkeefe: Wow. Really? You're going to identify yourself with George Eff Will on this topic?

Oooo-kay.

I see you responded before reading. And so it goes. Sorry, I should have waited for Balloon Juice or Wonkette to link to it.

Quoting Whatfur: I see you responded before reading. And so it goes. Sorry, I should have waited for Balloon Juice or Wonkette to link to it.

Sorry to inform you that not everyone reads as slowly as you apparently do. I clicked over, saw who it was, read the first page, saw it was essentially the same column he's been regurgitating for years now, and ... well, like I said, if that's who you're going to rely on for information on this topic, that's all on you. However, if by some remote chance you want to open your tiny mind a tiny bit, I need not spend any more time on this here. You can see for yourself that Will's latest piece of fail is already being laughed at and ripped apart by others. Will's record on this is consistent. Consistently ill-informed and dishonest. See for yourself.

Quoting bjkeefe: Sorry to inform you that not everyone reads as slowly as you apparently do. I clicked over, saw who it was, read the first page, saw it was essentially the same column he's been regurgitating for years now, and ... well, like I said, if that's who you're going to rely on for information on this topic, that's all on you.

However, if by some remote chance you want to open your tiny mind a tiny bit, I need not spend any more time on this here. You can see for yourself that Will's latest piece of fail is already being laughed at and ripped apart by others.

Will's record on this is consistent. Consistently ill-informed and dishonest. See for yourself.

OMG, some unknown, media mutters, Jim Rome, and TPM....I think I will still wait for Wonkette.

Quoting Whatfur: OMG, some unknown, media mutters, Jim Rome, and TPM....I think I will still wait for Wonkette.

I figured you'd be too lazy (afraid?) to look at any of the Google results. Thanks for the confirmation.

Quoting Unit: ...

Thanks to both Brendan and Starwatcher for your answers.

Quoting Unit: Thanks to both Brendan and Starwatcher for your answers.

y/w

Quoting Whatfur: ....I think I will still wait for Wonkette.

That'd be a smart decision. Looks like your favorite blogger has screwed the pooch once again. Wingnuts are so cute when they try to use statistics and such. This is George Will-quality work. All that's missing is a blurry video to "prove" that 60,000=2,000,000. (h/t: The Great Light Blue Satan)

Quoting bjkeefe: That'd be a smart decision. Looks like your favorite blogger has screwed the pooch once again.

Wingnuts are so cute when they try to use statistics and such. This is George Will-quality work. All that's missing is a blurry video to "prove" that 60,000=2,000,000.

(h/t: The Great Light Blue Satan)

Either you are just doing more misrepresentation or you have linked to the wrong media mutters piece. I guess you were reading so fast your fingers didn't catch up. Or being the hypocrite you are, in the same day in the same thread you have made a tangential leap of the kind you just got through reprimanding me for. You are such a technicolor yawn.

Hmmm... I doubt a change in the surface distribution of heat would change anything as far as hurricanes are concerned. What you are talking about would instead mess with the jet streams. Hurricanes only care about the heat gradient that exists as a function of elevation, which would increase as a result of higher CO2 concentrations. Edit:
I will admit it's possible I'm wrong, like I said, I have never read anything that mentions hurricanes in anything but passing. But I don't think I am.

Quoting Whatfur: Either you are just doing more misrepresentation or you have linked to the wrong media mutters piece. I guess you were reading so fast your fingers didn't catch up. Or being the hypocrite you are, in the same day in the same thread you have made a tangential leap of the kind you just got through reprimanding me for. You are such a technicolor yawn.

Nope. Checked the link. Sorry you're unable to understand the allusions, though. Like I said before, I understand your mind as tiny and resistant to opening, so I'm not surprised. And no, I did not accuse you of going off on tangents. That was your friend Lyle I was talking about. Glad to see you're back to calling people "pukes," though. I do love when you start trotting our your greatest hits, such as they are, especially with the cowardly paraphrasing. Can some variation on "prick" be far behind?

Quoting bjkeefe: Nope. Checked the link. Sorry you're unable to understand the allusions, though.

Your right, prick, I don't. How does you link have anything to do with George Will and climate change? and Your wrong, prick, moments ago you were whimpering about my asteroid linking disturbing your train of insult.

Quoting Whatfur: Your right, prick, I don't. How does you link have anything to do with George Will and climate change?

and

Your wrong, prick, moments ago you were whimpering about my asteroid linking disturbing your train of insult.

No, I wasn't. In fact, as I explained right after you started sputtering, your "was timely" post was easily interpreted as you trying to throw a jab. I have a feeling you were embarrassed at how weak the jab was shown to be, and so started making shit up, and backing and filling, as you so often do. I suppose it's possible I misread your intentions there, but it's not worth discussing any further. Your past precedes you. People will judge you in that light and find you wanting. Or not. In any case, I'm tired of running all over the board to dig up links just to show you that the reasons for your hurt feelings are imaginary. I think you should just go read this and think about it for a while. Not for the first time, I'm of a mind to start addressing you as Vic.

Quoting bjkeefe: No, I wasn't. In fact, as I explained...

Ahhh yes...back to projection when shown to be mistaken. Whatever.

Two questions. How much highly radio active nuclear waste has been produced in America since the initial spiting of the atom? How much waste do the 100 or so reactors that are currently running in America produce a year? I would think that a basic understanding of the answers to these two questions would be important to any discussion of the wisdom/folly of building another 100 or so reactors to meet our power needs.

I wonder if Mr. Orr would like to censor both George Will and the Wall Street Journal. For those not wishing to read... a couple questions from it: "When so much of his position and prestige are invested in a predicted climate crisis, is Mr. Gore likely to be open to contrary evidence? Is he likely to be particularly fastidious about whether proposed steps will actually have an effect on global warming if they also happen to benefit his investments?" or in the case of some others...book sales. Oh and who was it who doubted me when I first spoke here of Gore's profitting from this?

Quoting piscivorous: Two questions.

How much highly radio active nuclear waste has been produced in America since the initial spiting of the atom?

How much waste do the 100 or so reactors that are currently running in America produce a year?

I would think that a basic understanding of the answers to these two questions would be important to any discussion of the wisdom/folly of building another 100 or so reactors to meet our power needs.

That's right. I'm not an expert on the numbers, and it's probably large. But there's another kind of large -- the large effect that 6 billion people have on a planet by just living. I do know the OECD estimates 4 billion tonnes of (non-radioactive) waste generated each year from its 30 member countries. Can we solve a problem of this magnitude? It will take energy. From an environmental point of view, radioactive waste has one nice characteristic: it's more dangerous to humans than to the earth's other fauna and flora, and people are afraid of it, so we are cognizant about where it is and how it is handled. Too bad we don't treat throw-away plastic like that.

Some of that stuff we didn't really know but relied on models.

Quoting Whatfur: I wonder if Mr. Orr would like to censor both George Will and the Wall Street Journal.

I doubt David would waste the time even to consider the question. Will we've already dismissed as irrelevant to serious discussion on this topic, where here he is a dishonest and ill-informed hack listened to only by mouth-breathers. As to Gore, the WSJ piece asks legitimate questions, I suppose. Gore is a rich and powerful guy with unusual amounts of prestige, access, and clout. However, for denialists to continue their obstructionist efforts by -- still! -- making it all about their personal dislike for Al Gore ...

... (and, yes, according to two reporters present, he sighed).

... (Jenkins just couldn't resist playing that old song again, could he? Surprised he didn't jam a Clenis reference in there, too.) ... ... means that they will continue to be taken less seriously than they otherwise might. The questions about the best approaches to take in mitigating the effects of human activity on the planet's climate remain far from settled. There is plenty of room to examine the options; in fact, there is a need for differing perspectives. If the WSJ opinionators actually want to be part of the discussion, rather than just wanking

Quoting Whatfur: Some of that stuff we didn't really know but relied on models.

For some perspective, here is a short interview with Wolfgang Knorr, the lead scientist for the work described in the above article.

Quoting bjkeefe: For some perspective, here is a short interview with Wolfgang Knorr, the lead scientist for the work described in the above article.

More from WK:

The research doesn't mean people can get back in their cars and stop recycling however. Dr Knorr said: "It's astounding that the sinks have been very, very stable but our research is looking at the past. You can't predict the future.

"There's no indication that increased levels of CO2 make it worse, but you can only push the system so far before it breaks.

"Like all studies of this kind, there are uncertainties in the data, so rather than relying on nature to provide a free service, soaking up our waste carbon, we need to ascertain why the proportion being absorbed has not changed."

Quoting bjkeefe: I doubt David would waste the time even to consider the question.

Let me rephrase then. Is it voices like Will's and the WSJ that Mr. Orr was referring to as media he wanted to squelch?

Quoting bjkeefe: Will we've already dismissed.

Funny, Newsweek has not. And I swear I see him every Sunday morning.

Quoting bjkeefe: As to Gore, the WSJ piece asks legitimate questions, I suppose.

Of course they are. Why is it that those questions never seem to come from the left?

Quoting bjkeefe: ... means that they will continue to be taken less seriously than they otherwise might.

Ummm...you may want to check on the viability of the WSJ as opposed to say the NYTs.

Quoting bjkeefe: The questions about the best approaches to take in mitigating the effects of human activity on the planet's climate remain far from settled. There is plenty of room to examine the options; in fact, there is a need for differing perspectives.

Glad and surprised you feel that way and I look forward to working with you to permanently stopping Crap and Tax. (I see Harry has already backburnered it).

Quoting bjkeefe: If the WSJ opinionators actually want to be part of the discussion, rather than just wanking for the benefit of their

Quoting bjkeefe: For some perspective, here is a short interview with Wolfgang Knorr, the lead scientist for the work described in the above article.

And here is the abstract for the paper he published in Geophysical Research Letters. Link to full paper there, too, though you have to pay if you don't have academic access.

Quoting Whatfur: Let me rephrase then. Is it voices like Will's and the WSJ that Mr. Orr was referring to as media he wanted to squelch?

Dunno. Doubt he'll bother to check the forum at this point, but there's always hope, I suppose.

Quoting Whatfur:

Will we've already dismissed.

Funny, Newsweek has not. And I swear I see him every Sunday morning.

Yep. I didn't mean completely. Here's what I edited it to say while you were composing your response:

Quoting bjkeefe: Will we've already dismissed as irrelevant to serious discussion on this topic, where here he is a dishonest and ill-informed hack listened to only by mouth-breathers.

Of course Will will be able to continue bloviating on the Sunday yakfests and in middlebrow places like Newsweek. He's one of the few conservatives left who can be counted on to talk about something other than what Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin think. Very occasionally, he even says something not completely worthless. But not, so far as I've ever heard, on AGW.

Quoting Whatfur: Of course they are. Why is it that those questions never seem to come from the left?

The idea that you are well-versed in what "the left" has to say strikes me as somewhat south of plausible. That

Not to be overly flippant but I don't believe you would say that if you were gathering nuts and berries in the wild! 1.) References to a DOE estimate of football field 15 feet deep are numerous on the WEB. though I haven't been able to find it on the DOE site myself. 2.) With an additional 100 reactors about 1 foot per year to the depth of that football field.

Quoting piscivorous: Not to be overly flippant but I don't believe you would say that if you were gathering nuts and berries in the wild!

1.) References to a DOE estimate of football field 15 feet deep are numerous on the WEB. though I haven't been able to find it on the DOE site myself.

2.) With an additional 100 reactors about 1 foot per year to the depth of that football field.

Your figure is 58000 cu. ft. / yr. and may assume the stuff is compacted, when it needs to be more spread out than that to be stored safely. Still, I would claim that's a modest volume compared to the other messes we make. Of course, a lot depends on how you handle the stuff. It has to be treated with respect, not just buried and forgotten.

Quoting Simon Willard: Your figure is 58000 cu. ft. / yr. and may assume the stuff is compacted, when it needs to be more spread out than that to be stored safely.

Still, I would claim that's a modest volume compared to the other messes we make.

Of course, a lot depends on how you handle the stuff. It has to be treated with respect, not just buried and forgotten.

Are you guys seriously using volume as a proxy for environmental impact in comparisons between radioactive and non-radioactive waste?

Quoting Simon Willard: Your figure is 58000 cu. ft. / yr. and may assume the stuff is compacted, when it needs to be more spread out than that to be stored safely.

Still, I would claim that's a modest volume compared to the other messes we make.

Of course, a lot depends on how you handle the stuff. It has to be treated with respect, not just buried and forgotten.

I couldn't visualize 58,000 cu. ft./yr but I, and most others, have seen a football field, be it American field or soccer field, and yes I know the later is officially larger than the former, hence the analogy is more understandable to the layperson. I would say that "...modest volume compared to the other messes we make." is a modest understatement. Yes the stuff is dangerous, finicky and not to be lightly treated but the hue and cry over the amount is way out of proportion to it's actual volume. The actual volume need to store it would be larger and is in main a function of how it is containerized; or we could switch to breeder type reactors and eliminate 80-90% of the problem but we have chosen not to do so because

Or we could all succumb to fear mongering and let that dictate our fate.

Quoting AemJeff: Are you guys seriously using volume as a proxy for environmental impact in comparisons between radioactive and non-radioactive waste?

Not exactly, no, but volume comparisons do help stimulate intuition about the magnitude of the problem.

Quoting Simon Willard: Not exactly, no, but volume comparisons do help stimulate intuition about the magnitude of the problem.

Would you rather have a cubic centimeter of gold or five hundred barrels of chicken shit? In what sense does a volumetric comparison shed light on the value (positive or negative) of completely disparate substances? Can you name a ratio of technetium-99 to organic sewage that yields effective parity, for instance?

Quoting Simon Willard: Not exactly, no, but volume comparisons do help stimulate intuition about the magnitude of the problem.

I think you are exactly wrong about that. your intuition will completely mislead you about the danger because your mind works mostly in a linear manner, while the effects of radiation compared to say, pcbs on a volume by volume basis is an exponential relationship rather than a linear one.

Quoting bjkeefe: Dunno. Doubt he'll bother to check the forum at this point, but there's always hope, I suppose.

Not really looking for an answer. I seriously did enjoy Mr. Orr and I don't discount everything he has to say, but when he made the "Fairness Doctrine"-like statement he lost a measure of credibility. How much did he lose?..I will have to check my models.

Quoting bjkeefe: Yep. I didn't mean completely. Here's what I edited it to say while you were composing your response:

How convenient for you.

Quoting bjkeefe: The idea that you are well-versed in what "the left" has to say strikes me as somewhat south of plausible. That said, there is no "of course." I said "I suppose." Contain yourself.

More convenience. Your assumption about me would carry more weight if you could actually back it up with something "the left" had to say. I said "Of course" to counter your "I suppose" not to replace it. Where did you get this high opinion of yourself?

Quoting bjkeefe: Any line you begin with "Ummm" I know is going to be some vapidity pulled from your ass. This one is no different.

I assume you would pull more things from your ass if your head was not in the way.

Quoting bjkeefe: If you think the NYT is going away

Quoting Simon Willard: Not exactly, no, but volume comparisons do help stimulate intuition about the magnitude of the problem.

If there's one thing you should take away from this discussion it's that your intuition is a poor guide. Leave thinking with your gut to Stephen Colbert.

Quoting Whatfur: Not really looking for an answer.

I'm aware of that. Everyone is aware of that. It's a big part of your problems.

Quoting Whatfur: This administration would not let the NYT fail anyway...constitution be damned.

Noted for the record, because someday, people will be asking about you, "Were there any signs that we should have noticed?"

Quoting Whatfur: I shut you up then.

Declaring yourself the victor is tantamount to acknowledging your loss.

Quoting Whatfur: Almost as good as Bad Hat Harry ...

I think it's sad how when we get into these things, you keep having to call for help. Maybe you shouldn't start what you can't finish.

Quoting bjkeefe: I'm aware of that. Everyone is aware of that. It's a big part of your problems.

Then that would make your previous response to it rather idiotic and this one a backpedal. A big part of YOUR problem is the fact you are an asshole.

Quoting bjkeefe: Declaring yourself the victor is tantamount to acknowledging your loss.

YES! Keefe finally admitting to all his losses!!!! No one here has declared himself the "victor" more than you.

Quoting bjkeefe: I think it's sad how when we get into these things, you keep having to call for help. Maybe you shouldn't start what you can't finish.

Not a call for help, but a little praise. And where have I ever called for help? You are not only an idiot, but you are delusional.

Quoting Whatfur: A big part of YOUR problem is the fact you are an asshole.

Noted.

Gee, guys, we are NOT comparing the toxicity of different substances, we were discussing how big the storage problem is. Can you imagine taking care of a certain volume of dangerous material. The volume is measured in football fields to help the intuition grasp the problem. That's all. Don't misquote us. I understand the danger of certain substances. I've worked with radioactive materials in the past.

Quoting bjkeefe: Noted.

Scary stuff...yeah they all can be added to validate the truth of the statement being made when you go running to Admin again and Admin, as 'she' is "noted" as doing. will ignore the truth behind the statement irrespective of the vast quantities of proof.

Quoting Whatfur: Scary stuff...yeah they all can be added to validate the truth of the statement being made when you go running to Admin again and Admin, as 'she' is "noted" as doing. will ignore the truth behind the statement irrespective of the vast quantities of proof.

Calm yourself, 'fur. By saying "noted," I am merely acknowledging that I read your comment. I am not the one who goes "running to Admin." That has been your approach. By contrast, I fight my own battles.

Quoting bjkeefe: Calm yourself, 'fur. By saying "noted," I am merely acknowledging that I read your comment.

I am not the one who goes "running to Admin." That has been your approach. By contrast, I fight my own battles.

Liar.

Quoting Whatfur: Liar.

Say what you like, 'fur, but it is not going to help you to keep operating under these delusions. Your efforts to get admin to intervene on your behalf, particularly against me, are all over this board. There isn't a regular commenter here who doesn't know that. I'm sorry you're such an unhappy person. If it helps you to come here every day and hurl accusations against me, well, go ahead, I guess, but it really doesn't seem to be doing anything of use for you. As far as I can tell, all it's doing is aggravating your already disturbingly over-developed persecution complex. There has got to be a healthier outlet that you can find to help you deal with your problems.

Quoting bjkeefe: ...As far as I can tell, all it's doing is aggravating your already disturbingly over-developed persecution complex...

That's not fair... He pales in comparison to Palin and Prejean.

Quoting piscivorous: or we could switch to breeder type reactors and eliminate 80-90% of the problem but we have chosen not to do so because one of their primary waste products is almost directly weaponizable.

I can understand why this would be a problem if it was happening in some quasi-third world country, but do not see why weaponizable waste products is an especially large problem in this instance. Do we really think we can't even secure the necessary supply lines and containment facilities when they would be located on US soil? I realize corruption of the gatekeepers will be a concern no matter what country you are in, but I would imagine that the type of person that would be willing to look the other way as highly radioactive material was stolen can't be that terribly common. Especially after 9/11.

No way!!! Way!

the article says that there is a pause due to oceanic currents in the pacific that will change in about 5-6 years or due to variation in solar output (based on sunspots) that will turn around in a year or two. did you read the article?

Aren't those just matters of opinion!

Quoting popcorn_karate: the article says that there is a pause due to oceanic currents in the pacific that will change in about 5-6 years or due to variation in solar output (based on sunspots) that will turn around in a year or two.

did you read the article?

Why yes I did and funny...I have some difficulty remembering it making the point using the numbers you are above. Care to share the quotes?
They are guesses, popcorn. Guesses based on models yet to be created. Here are a couple things you should take from the article: From the the title?

"Climatologists Baffled"

or how about:

"However, no one really knows what exactly the world climate will look like in the not-so-distant future, that is, in 2015, 2030 or 2050.

This is because it is not just human influence but natural factors that affect the Earth's climate."

And also funny when others like myself have made comments like "Its the sun stupid" they were castigated. Now you are conveniently using it as excuses. Hopefully, people like Al Gore (did you hear the latest) or David Orr don't turn the world upside down before we realize it is what it is

Shorter Whatfur:

Yeah, pretty much all I read was the title. Until you busted me. Then I went back, sweating, until I found this quote I could cherry-pick. Win!!!1!

P.S. Al Gore!!!1!

Quoting Whatfur: Why yes I did and funny...I have some difficulty remembering it making the point using the numbers you are above. Care to share the quotes?

Quoting ARTICLE: scientists agree that temperatures will continue to rise in the long term. The big question is: When will it start getting warmer again?

If the deep waters of the Pacific are, in fact, the most important factor holding up global warming, climate change will remain at a standstill until the middle of the next decade, says Latif. But if the cooling trend is the result of reduced solar activity, things could start getting warmer again much sooner. Based on past experience, solar activity will likely increase again in the next few years.

and also:

Quoting ARTICLE: "We have to explain to the public that greenhouse gases will not cause temperatures to keep rising from one record temperature to the next, but that they are still subject to natural fluctuations," says Latif. For this reason, he adds, it is dangerous to cite individual weather-related occurrences, such as a drought in Mali or a hurricane, as proof positive that climate change is already fully underway.

"Perhaps we suggested too strongly in the past that

Oh and I get to throw in Brendan at the same time... Brendan,
Popcorn another one that you don't think can fight his own battles? You may be right this time. Popcorn, Isn't the first statement in the "boyscout" oath, "On My Honor". Most people I think figure that when you start a sentence with "the article says" that you actually then follow that up with something the article actually said.

Quoting Popcorn: the article says that there is a pause due to oceanic currents in the pacific that will change in about 5-6 years or due to variation in solar output (based on sunspots) that will turn around in a year or two.

did you read the article?

So, then when I ask you to produce that information from the article you quote and accuse me of not reading... it might actually be nice if you to actually produce the fucking quote instead of trying to "baffle" idiots like Brendan into thinking you have Fur on the run. Too funny. Thanks for other various other quotes, but of course that is not what I was asking for. Was it? I had read that. Where does it say anything about

With his team at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, Latif has been one of the first to develop a model to create medium-term prognoses for the next five to 10 years. "We are slowly starting to attempt (such models)," says Marotzke, who is also launching a major project in this area, funded by the Federal Ministry for Research and Technology.

Despite their current findings, scientists agree that temperatures will continue to rise in the long term. The big question is: When will it start getting warmer again?

If the deep waters of the Pacific are, in fact, the most important factor holding up global warming, climate change will remain at a standstill until the middle of the next decade, says Latif. But if the cooling trend is the result of reduced solar activity, things could start getting warmer again much sooner. Based on past experience, solar activity will likely increase again in the next few years.

Yep.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: Yep.

Yep what?

Quoting Whatfur: Yep what?

I think he was agreeing with your need to call me an "asshole" in every one of your posts.

Quoting bjkeefe: I think he was agreeing with your need to call me an "asshole" in every one of your posts.

Ohhh ok but, not every one...just those where you are one. High % yes...but no, not all.

Maybe this should be posted on the FUN science thread.

Quoting Whatfur: Maybe this should be posted on the FUN science thread.

Why waste the time? You already tried to spread this once, and I already shot it down. That was fun, exposing that bit of wingnuttery, I admit, but it'd be boring to go through again. Besides, I think you started crying by the end of it (something about "too many links," IIRC), and I don't think it would be any more fun for you this time around. [Added] Charles Johnson does have some more to say (as do the people at RealClimate) about this latest permutation, though, if you'd really like. [Added2] Nate Silver weighs in: "I Read Through 160,000,000 Bytes of Hacked Files And All I Got Was This Lousy E-Mail." For extra comedy, he notes the email that has Malkkkin, 'fur, etc., all hot and bothered is from ... 1999. Some cover-up! [Added3] Wonk Room has a short and sweet post, featuring a picture of a 'furry friend, which concludes:

Evidently due to this e-mail conspiracy, Arctic sea ice is at historically low levels, Australia is on fire, the northern United Kingdom is underwater, and the world’s glaciers are disappearing. Oh yeah, and it’s the hottest decade in history.

[Added4] Interesting take from the BBC, which points out how hard it will be to be sure

Still waiting on your response.. Richard.

Quoting bjkeefe: Why waste the time? You already tried to spread this once, and I already shot it down.

Again, a bit of deflection. I know my link here mentions the other, "The Dog Ate My Global Warming" link, but that was a totally different cover up than the recent leaking. Do you think lying perpetuates your point? No Brundin, it just shows you to be a jackass.

Quoting bjkeefe: [Added] Charles Johnson does have URL="http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/35184_Global_Warming_Nontroversy_of_the_Day#"]some more to say[/url]

I love that YOU now are quoting a washed-up, jazz musician as your GW source. WOW it must be true.

Quoting bjkeefe: (as do the people at RealClimate) about this latest permutation,though, if you'd really like.

This I found rather hilarious as instead of addressing what was discovered they wanted to point to the illegality of its discovery, point out things that were not discovered, like George Soros emails were not found, suggest that what was discovered was what was editted etc. Did I ever mention I had a little brother whose nickname was "Yeahbut".

Quoting bjkeefe: [Added2] Nate Silver weighs in: "I Read Through 160,000,000 Bytes of Hacked Files And All I Got Was This Lousy E-Mail." For extra comedy, he notes the email that has Malkkkin, 'fur, etc., all hot and bothered is from ... 1999.

Yeah Nate is great...after he does a

while I am generally waiting to see how this one shakes out, this post has some interesting clips from the emails Climate cuttings 33

If only there was some sort of operation that could tell us what the time interval between now and the middle of the next decade is. If only this operation would tell us that the time interval would be 5-6 years. If only the article mentioned that if it is indeed the PDO or QDO causing the current temperature plateau then according to the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences temperatures will start to rise again in said interval. Oh wait...

With his team at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, Latif has been one of the first to develop a model to create medium-term prognoses for the next five to 10 years. "We are slowly starting to attempt (such models)," says Marotzke, who is also launching a major project in this area, funded by the Federal Ministry for Research and Technology.

Despite their current findings, scientists agree that temperatures will continue to rise in the long term. The big question is: When will it start getting warmer again?

If the deep waters of the Pacific are, in fact, the most important factor holding up global warming, climate change will remain at

Clearly the most damning thing is the emails regarding the FoI requests. All the other stuff seems to be fairly trivial.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: Clearly the most damning thing is the emails regarding the FoI requests. All the other stuff seems to be fairly trivial.

I think that's exactly right. I hope the idiots responsible for that lose their jobs. And I hope they didn't manage to destroy any data.

The FOI stuff is defiantly bad but so is some of the stuff about the need to achieve this or that result to make a more convincing argument. Some of it may just be casual usage of language but the bunker mentality that they obviously feel themselves in, which I believe the emails make clear, makes me suspicious that the language argument holds all that much water. P.S. I'm not to pleased about some of the stuff I am seeing about trying to influence what does and does not get published in certain journals and publications either.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: If only there was some sort of operation that could tell us what the time interval between now and the middle of the next decade is.

If only this operation would tell us that the time interval would be 5-6 years.

If only the article mentioned that if it is indeed the PDO or QDO causing the current temperature plateau then according to the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences temperatures will start to rise again in said interval.

Oh wait...

While it is nice for you, too (two), to be fighting (losing) battles for Popcorn_Karate... he made a specific statement with specfic numbers in a way to portray that he was quoting something from the article... which he accused ME of not reading. YOU quoting something else, multiple times, that does not match what he actually said does not make it any more true. You may think by doing so that you are fooling those who are not really paying attention, but that just makes you both stupid and dishonest. (and I thought Brindon had that market cornered)

I guess he should have saved a few of his jokes.

I was going to post that earlier as I think it is one of the only post I've seen that begins to follow a particular thread in the email dump. Most everything I had seen prior to this had been individual emails, both in whole and parts. A much better understanding will come as these threads are analyzed providing an understanding of context and meaning. The individual emails and the quotes from them are too open to misrepresentation and misinterpretation but they do provide some interesting lines. It's sort of like in politics if you want to find the crooks follow the money. Oh wait these guys seem to have been freely discussing how to hide that trail too.

Quoting Whatfur: [...]

Your name-calling and boldface and all caps might impress your partner in this denialist circle-jerk, but I am not going to waste the time to engage with you on this any further. This "scandal of the century" as your heroes are calling it will be shown in a few days to be nothing in the grand scheme of things, and the fury of your fapping isn't going to make the reality of AGW vanish. Sorry. Well, not really. Why should I feel bad for someone who takes such an ideologically rigid stance, and on a point that is so obviously not true? You're a lost cause, and on this, as with so many other issues, a sad little old man who would rather believe in conspiracy theories because he cares more about nursing grievances than in increasing his understanding.

Quoting bjkeefe: Your name-calling and boldface and all caps might impress your partner in this denialist circle-jerk, but I am not going to waste the time to engage with you on this any further. This "scandal of the century" as your heroes are calling it will be shown in a few days to be nothing in the grand scheme of things, and the fury of your fapping isn't going to make the reality of AGW vanish.

Sorry.

Well, not really. Why should I feel bad for someone who takes such an ideologically rigid stance, and on a point that is so obviously not true? You're a lost cause, and on this, as with so many other issues, a sad little old man who would rather believe in conspiracy theories because he cares more about nursing grievances than in increasing his understanding.

Poor, poor Broodan. The "sad little old man", once again, and as usual, makes you look the fool and like the hypocrite you are, once again, and as usual, you start your projections about insult with insult. You were right the first time...you ARE sorry.

Quoting piscivorous: while I am generally waiting to see how this one shakes out, this post has some interesting clips from the emails Climate cuttings 33

I had actually missed this from you. I suggest others do not. Nate Silver would like us to believe that this type of massaging of information is rampant everywhere and thus this is ok. I wonder if osmium has an opinion on this. Sure would be nice to see/feel people who call themselves scientists rise above it.

Quoting Whatfur: [...]

It is comedy gold to hear complaints about repetition from you -- someone who has typed some variant of "shit your pants," what, a couple dozen times? Not to mention some other overuses we could name. Glad to hear you acknowledging your habit of projection, though. Progress?

u funny...keep flailing.

Quoting Whatfur: u funny...keep flailing.

At such a loss for comebacks you've resorted to linking to videos again, I see. Thanks for the acknowledgment.

The now infamous e-mail:

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.

The response:

That is the same one I mentioned last time. As I said previously: I've seen in particular the file 0942777075.txt which has been widely repeated online; and I am pretty sure I know what it is about..

Mk -- it is not an "excuse" to say you lack context. This is a straight description of what is and is not in the stolen files. There's no context; and that means you don't have a good basis for even knowing what the email is about. If it was what everyone seems to be insinuating -- deliberate distortions of data or concealing information, this would not be excusable at all. But

The two parts that were of particular interest to me were;

Mention is also made of avoiding post 1960 data from Briffa's chronology, to "hide the decline". This "decline" is also no secret at all. There is an extensive literature about the spurious decline in certain proxy temperature measures from some tree ring datasets in the Northern Hemisphere. This is called the "divergence problem", and has been clearly identified and explained now for over a decade. It is certainly explicit in the cited reference of the diragram (Briffa, 2000), and in numerous others of his publications. A modern review paper (to which I alluded in my earlier post) is;

* D'Arrigo R. et. al. (2007) On the ‘Divergence Problem’ in Northern Forests: A review of the tree-ring evidence and possible causes in Global and Planetary Change 60(3) Feb 2008 pp289-305

Kind of calls into question the validity of this particular proxy. I'll have to read to see if they still rely on data that is exhibiting this "divergence problem", and if so what there justifications is for doing so.

These are stolen files. There's no returning them to the private domain; and by now anyone really interested can read them and get

Hate to say it, but its true...

I don't know that "only the files the hacker wants us to see' is applicable to a 60 + mb compressed file that expands to a over 150 mb. It would take a pretty fast reader to get through that much data, cull it, and pack it in what a little more than a week. The sheer volume precludes the likely hood of the info being cherry pick.

All of it is 157 MB, but 149 MB are things like graphs and PDF's. There are only 1073 e-mails.

My understanding is that it 7 mb consisting of is 1073 txt files that contain emails not 1073 emails. But time will tell.

Quoting piscivorous: ... But time will tell.

Looks like it just got worse:

If you own any shares in companies that produce reflecting telescopes, use differential and integral calculus, or rely on the laws of motion, I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the calculus myth has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after volumes of Newton’s private correspondence were compiled and published.

When you read some of these letters, you realise just why Newton and his collaborators might have preferred to keep them confidential. This scandal could well be the biggest in Renaissance science. These alleged letters – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists behind really hard math lessons – suggest:

Read the rest of "Newtongate: the final nail in the coffin of Renaissance and Enlightenment ‘thinking’." (h/t: LGF)

Is there a point in there somewhere?

I was originally not going to link this, as it is stolen data. But given that it's more or less openly available everywhere now, here you go. http://www.megaupload.com/?d=XD050VKY

Quoting piscivorous: Is there a point in there somewhere?

Oh, yes. I'll let you think about it some more, rather than just spoon-feeding it to you, though, because the insight will be more profound when (if?) you realize it for yourself. I will say in the meantime your failure to get the point immediately says something rather significant about your understanding of how science is done, your sense of humor, or, most likely, the lack of both.

Pay no attention to the fraud behind the curtain.

Some duplication, some new, necessary insight.

Quoting Whatfur: Pay no attention to the fraud behind the curtain.

Hilarious (and thoroughly unsurprising) that "News" "Busters" sees the editorial judgment of the non-wingnut media as PROOF OF CONSPIRACY. Sing louder, choir! Sing louder!

Quoting bjkeefe: Hilarious (and thoroughly unsurprising) that "News" "Busters" sees the editorial judgment of the non-wingnut media as PROOF OF CONSPIRACY.

Sing louder, choir! Sing louder!

Yes...put hands over ears and sing "LaLALALALALALAL"

Quoting Whatfur: Some duplication, some new, necessary insight.

The subtitle ...

This could prove to be climate science's Vietnam.

... is an interesting phrasing. Nice to see that at least some of the fringe right is now ready to retire the "we could have won in Vietnam if only ..." revisionism. Or will Iain Murray be next up to be banished for insufficient purity?

Quoting Whatfur: Yes...put hands over ears and sing "LaLALALALALALAL"

Glad to see that for once, you're taking your own advice. For myself, I'm happy to sit back and watch Malkin and the like (you and pisc included) go hoarse trying to keep the GLOBAL SCANDAL OF THE CENTURY meme alive for another week, while knowing that this will soon die out, due to there being no there there. And then you can all start looking for the next thing to be OUTRAGED!!!1! about.

Quoting bjkeefe: Glad to see that for once, you're taking your own advice.

For myself, I'm happy to sit back and watch Malkin and the like (you and pisc included) go hoarse trying to keep the GLOBAL SCANDAL OF THE CENTURY meme alive for another week, while knowing that this will soon die out, due to there being no there there. And then you can all start looking for the next thing to be OUTRAGED!!!1! about.

OMG Branflake, Don't tell me you have turned to utilizing CAPS and multiples of punctuation (even with the "1" thrown in as you let go of the shift key and wiped the spit off your screen). Next thing we know it will be the dreaded boldface.

Quoting Whatfur: OMG Branflake, Don't tell me you have turned to utilizing CAPS and multiples of punctuation (even with the "1" thrown in as you let go of the shift key and wiped the spit off your screen). Next thing we know it will be the dreaded boldface.

I'm not going to bet on the likelihood of this ever happening, but maybe, just maybe, you will someday grasp the concept of parody. Until then, please keep serving up this weak sauce. It's lulz for the rest of us. P.S. I notice you have ducked the main point of my last response in this thread. Thanks for the implicit acknowledgment.

Quoting Whatfur: Pay no attention to the fraud behind the curtain.

No Way! Not CBS! Way! (lets see if it hits the evening news) This has some new stuff too...fudges in their computer programs. Oh my.

Quoting Whatfur: No Way! Not CBS! Way! (lets see if it hits the evening news)

This has some new stuff too...fudges in their computer programs. Oh my.

It wouldn't surprise me to see some fudging going on. I had a spirited debate with AemJeff on this point a while ago. But, in a way, any controversy makes me feel good about climate science. Controversy puts more light on everyone who is trying to publish papers, and that's really beneficial to the truth in the long run. In no way is this "the Vietnam of climate science".

Quoting Simon Willard: It wouldn't surprise me to see some fudging going on. I had a spirited debate with AemJeff on this point a while ago.

But, in a way, any controversy makes me feel good about climate science. Controversy puts more light on everyone who is trying to publish papers, and that's really beneficial to the truth in the long run. In no way is this "the Vietnam of climate science".

Yikes...just bounced through it. Jeff may want to revisit it....hmmm...maybe not. You're correct of course, this is no more the "Vietnam of climate science" than the Iraq war was a "Quagmire" during the initial march to Baghdad. Yes, more light!!! Sunlight even!!

I have been told if I want to fully understand the aforementioned email, then I should read this: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2009/...nes_etal_2.pdf

I've seen a few places where an e-mail is talking about hacking off the last few years of a graph to get rid of some cooling.

Difficulty near the boundaries is, in fact, a recurrent problem with curve-fitting in general.

More info here.

Of course, if lives our our soldiers are at risk its a different story...
Of course, if national security is at risk it is a different story... If it flys it the face of some liberal ideal well the NYT finds some principle
stuck to the bottom of some editors shoe.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: I've seen a few places where an e-mail is talking about hacking off the last few years of a graph to get rid of some cooling.

More info here.

Starwatcher, there is a difference between generating curves that are a best-fit for the data you have and manipulating the data you wish to include and exclude to make it fit your desired end case. I am sure the AGW scientists errr advocates that were busted here appreciate people like you trotting out Butterworth Filters and trigonomic regression analysis in efforts to baffle with bullshit but...well...like your article its "dangerous" trotting with your pants down at your ankles.

Some more breakdown of another sequence of emails. Bottom line, faced with the fact that their own models were starting to show cooling and not warming... instead of being happy to report the positive trend they fancied ways to discount it. Has Mr. Jones resigned yet?

I don't know if this was already discussed, but from what I gather some scientists are reluctant to share their data.

Quoting Unit: I don't know if this was already discussed, but from what I gather some scientists are reluctant to share their data.

The problem doesn't originate in the scientific method. In a competitive/capitalistic society, data becomes a "good", with a value attached to it. It is the product of someone's skills and effort, and therefore "owned". After the data is analyzed and published and all due credits collected, then it can be made public. I couldn't resist the propaganda aspect of this post...

Quoting Ocean: The problem doesn't originate in the scientific method. In a competitive/capitalistic society, data becomes a "good", with a value attached to it. It is the product of someone's skills and effort, and therefore "owned". After the data is analyzed and published and all due credits collected, then it can be made public.

I couldn't resist the propaganda aspect of this post...

My understanding was that the data was public, they were just reluctant to say exactly how it was used to reach their conclusions. The analogy with copyright is a bit stretched, it's not like these scientists were going to sell their results for many years to come. In other discipline when people publish a result they make their method and their data easily available, so it can be replicated or at least double-checked. I'm not sure what you mean about propaganda.

Quoting Unit: My understanding was that the data was public, they were just reluctant to say exactly how it was used to reach their conclusions. The analogy with copyright is a bit stretched, it's not like these scientists were going to sell their results for many years to come. In other discipline when people publish a result they make their method and their data easily available, so it can be replicated or at least double-checked. I'm not sure what you mean about propaganda.

My comment was really very tangential to the topic. The propaganda part refers to my motivation to make this comment. It's a criticism of the problem of scientists 'hiding' data, protecting their work in ways that limit public access because otherwise they would risk their own careers and continuing their work, funding, etc. It is a structural problem to the way science is conducted and funded. So, never mind, it's not too closely related to your specific comment.

Quoting Ocean: My comment was really very tangential to the topic. The propaganda part refers to my motivation to make this comment. It's a criticism of the problem of scientists 'hiding' data, protecting their work in ways that limit public access because otherwise they would risk their own careers and continuing their work, funding, etc. It is a structural problem to the way science is conducted and funded. So, never mind, it's not too closely related to your specific comment.

Yes it's not an easy problem. I guess one way to reward people that make their research transparent and available is to give more weight to their results as opposed to people who hide their tricks.

Quoting Unit: Yes it's not an easy problem. I guess one way to reward people that make their research transparent and available is to give more weight to their results as opposed to people who hide their tricks.

We are talking about two different issues here. I take that you are talking about people who may be dishonest in the way they use, analyze or interpret data. And in order to prevent that, certainly transparency may be the best protection. On the other hand, scientist tend to keep their data unavailable until they are done interpreting, publishing, etc, so that others don't steal the product of their hard work and then take credit for it, or use it to compete for funding. Recently, there was a diavlog about anthropology that touches on the general topic of researchers keeping their data from public access.

Quoting Ocean: We are talking about two different issues here. I take that you are talking about people who may be dishonest in the way they use, analyze or interpret data. And in order to prevent that, certainly transparency may be the best protection.

On the other hand, scientist tend to keep their data unavailable until they are done interpreting, publishing, etc, so that others don't steal the product of their hard work and then take credit for it, or use it to compete for funding.

Recently, there was a diavlog about anthropology that touches on the general topic of researchers keeping their data from public access.

I didn't get the impression from the link I posted that people were overtly trying to be dishonest, it sounded more like laziness (defensiveness?), not wanting to respond to questions, queries, etc...and it seemed to be a uniform policy over many years, not simply for the duration of a particular project. Thanks for the tip, I didn't see that one.

Especially for you Starwatcher. [added] Excuses going global?

IPCC reviewer one blackballed now vindicated...

All I see here is a portion of a smoothed trend that can't be said to be statistically relevant not being showed graphically. My oversight to the obvious grand meaning of this incident must stem from me not sharing your ability to peer into people's souls. Such a pity I have to stick to observables.

Quoting Whatfur: [added] Excuses going global?

Oh my! http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009...science_co.php So very shocking that a group that screams bloody murder about the urban heat island effect later comes to the conclusion that said effect is a myth, and data should never be adjusted to account for changing conditions. How unsurprising that NRO wouldn't notice this.

Maybe CO2 won't help plant life, but just plain heat will. http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/...1uhigreen.html I am not really sure what to make of this, as I have heard from several sources that a good overall rule of thumb is to expect agricultural yields to fall 5-10% for every one Kelvin rise in temperature.

Gee imagine that. One more unsettled uncertainty amidst the settled science of anthropomorphic global warming whoops sorry climate change.

Quoting piscivorous: Gee imagine that. One more unsettled uncertainty amidst the settled science of anthropomorphic global warming whoops sorry climate change.

That's what they call a classic straw-man argument. The only thing that seems settled is the opinion of people like you, dude.

It was snark not an argument!

This is an argument, from a well documented believer, Lord Monckton: CLIMATEGATE: CAUGHT GREEN-HANDED. So I guess your argument "The only thing that seems settled is the opinion of people like you, dude." is a settled as the science itself. Dude/Dudet

Quoting piscivorous: This is an argument, from a well documented believer, Lord Monckton: CLIMATEGATE: CAUGHT GREEN-HANDED. So I guess your argument "The only thing that seems settled is the opinion of people like you, dude." is a settled as the science itself. Dude/Dudet

I don't get your point. You've found somebody who is just like you, in exactly the sense I meant when I originally said that, who has written something consistent with his (and your) well known point of view. What does that tell us that we didn't know before?

I can see you spent the time necessary to digest the 43 page pdf, all of 8 minutes between my post and yours, to return with your witty and cognitive critique.
While it has taken more time than I consider appropriate the fearists are finally figuring out that they should be afraid, very afraid. Professor at centre of climate change email row stands down temporarily.

Quoting piscivorous: I can see you spent the time necessary to digest the 43 page pdf, all of 8 minutes between my post and yours, to return with your witty and cognitive critique.
While it has taken more time than I consider appropriate the fearists are finally figuring out that they should be afraid, very afraid. Professor at centre of climate change email row stands down temporarily.

Pisc, I'm sorry. Monckton is a polemicist with an apparently invariant point of view. I know you like to link to politically charged, often compromised sources and submit them as if they should be accorded significant weight in what is essentially a question of science; but that doesn't obligate your interlocutors to allocate equivalent weight to those sources. Monckton:

In less than three weeks, the world’s governing class – its classe politique – would meet in Copenhagen, Denmark, to discuss a treaty to inflict an unelected and tyrannical global government on us, with vast and unprecedented powers to control all once-free world markets and to tax and regulate the world’s wealthier nations for its own enrichment: in short, to bring freedom, democracy, and prosperity to an instant end worldwide, at the stroke of a

Quoting Monckton: In less than three weeks, the world’s governing class – its classe politique – would meet in Copenhagen, Denmark, to discuss a treaty to inflict an unelected and tyrannical global government on us, with vast and unprecedented powers to control all once-free world markets and to tax and regulate the world’s wealthier nations for its own enrichment: in short, to bring freedom, democracy, and prosperity to an instant end worldwide, at the stroke of a pen, on the pretext of addressing what is now known to be the non-problem of manmade “global warming”.

I believe the proper term for the above is "hysterical lunacy."

Quoting AemJeff: Pisc, I'm sorry. Monckton is a polemicist, with an apparently invariant point of view. I know you like to link to politically charged, often compromised sources and submit them as if they should be accorded significant weight in what is essentially a question of science; but that doesn't obligate your interlocutors to allocate equivalent weight to those sources.

Indeed. For a little context, it's worth reading this short column by George Monbiot (via), published in 2006 in response to Monckton's last big "paper." Here's how it begins:

This is a dazzling debunking of climate change science. It is also wildly wrong

For the past nine days my inbox has been filling up with messages labelled "Your scam exposed", "The great fraud unravels" and "How do you feel now, asshole?". They are referring to a new "scientific paper", which proves that the "climate change scare" is a tale "worthier of St John the Divine than of science".

Published in two parts on consecutive Sundays, it runs to a total of 52 pages, containing graphs, tables and references. To my correspondents, to a good many journalists and to thousands of delighted bloggers, this paper clinches it: climate change is a hoax perpetrated by