The truth at last

On Mar 13, 2:48 pm, "Wolfgang" wrote:
wrote in message

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/GLOB_CHA..._figs/fig3.gif

the last 50 years can be "accurately" reproduced when both

I wanted to write "can only be" up there, but my fingers didn't
listen...

When has anything that produced the results you wanted to see ever failed to
be convincing enough?

Plenty. Even if results come out as a scientist suspects they would,
they should immediately be asking themselves about the internal
validity, external validity, construct validity, etc., of their
experiment. Plenty of things can go wrong, even if the p-values look
great. Unfortunately, scientists being the human and social creatures
they are, are not always as objective as they'd like to believe
themselves to be. Science, for better or worse, is a social process.

Jon.

daytripper wrote:
Scott Seidman wrote:
Especially the end:
"Scientists are most effective when they provide sound, impartial advice,
but their reputation for impartiality is severely compromised by the
shocking lack of political diversity among American academics, who suffer
from the kind of group-think that develops in cloistered cultures. Until
this profound and well documented intellectual homogeneity changes,
scientists will be suspected of constituting a leftist think tank."

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias"

/daytripper (And all the true dumb****s I know aren't liberals ;-)

This is just one more in a long line of things that liberals are
supposed to be apologetic about. We're sorry America that most of
the people in academia are liberals, we wanted to be more diverse
but the right-wingers with above room temp IQs became lawyers and
investment bankers. We don't really set out to be smarter than you
it just works out that way, please accept our sincere apologies.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 06:26:55 -0500, Old Guy
wrote:


http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...11497638&hl=en


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...7/03/swindled/


Real Climate's take on "Swindled". But why listen to them, they're
only climatologists. Better to listen to a program produced by
Revolutionary Communist Party members (I'm serious) and an assortment
of libertarian kooks.

The RCP is a Stalinist organization (not name calling, I don't think
they'd deny it) who would, if granted the power to do so, turn the
entire planet into a replica of the Environmental Paradise that was
the Soviet Union.


g.c.

On Mar 13, 12:46 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
wrote:
That didn't answer my questions (what amount of CO2 is
generated from natural vs human sources), but I'll look at the URL.

I don't know, but if the historical, all-time high before the
industrial age is ~300 ppm and there is now 379 ppm (and growing)
I'd venture a wild guess and say some of it anyway.

I'm certain it's "some of it". I'd feel better if I knew relative
percentages.


Another question for you in the meantime: If global warming
started after the industrial revolution, why did the glaciers
begin receding before then?

Natural causes ? I'm just guessing.

Yeah, that's not very comforting. If the glaciers have been
receding for 150-200 years, but CO2 has only started
increasing the last 40 years is it possible that you are
attacking a symptom and not the cause of the warming?
- Ken

Ken Fortenberry wrote in news:wcDJh.7140
:

I don't know, but if the historical, all-time high before the
industrial age is ~300 ppm and there is now 379 ppm (and growing)
I'd venture a wild guess and say some of it anyway. Maybe one of
these days we can talk the CO2 molecules into wearing little name
tags while we count them so we can tell "natural" from "human". ;-)


I can't find any reviews of the physics underlying the ice core data, but
the idea that we can melt ice and "know" the CO2 history of the planet
grates on me.

Can anyone in the know tell me for certain that there wouldn't be Fickian
diffusion of the gas throughout the core over the course of hundreds of
thousands of years. Even very slow diffusion adds up, and it will smooth
out the bumps in the CO2 record, flattening out highs and lows.

I honestly don't know the answer, but it certainly is one of the things I'd
ask about if I were refereeing. I'd almost guarantee that the
climatologists who wrote the original Nature paper (cited more than 1,200
times!) don't know, either, and neither would the climatologists solicited
for peer review.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

wrote:
On Mar 13, 12:46 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
wrote:
That didn't answer my questions (what amount of CO2 is
generated from natural vs human sources), but I'll look at the URL.
I don't know, but if the historical, all-time high before the
industrial age is ~300 ppm and there is now 379 ppm (and growing)
I'd venture a wild guess and say some of it anyway.

I'm certain it's "some of it". I'd feel better if I knew relative
percentages.


Another question for you in the meantime: If global warming
started after the industrial revolution, why did the glaciers
begin receding before then?
Natural causes ? I'm just guessing.

Yeah, that's not very comforting. If the glaciers have been
receding for 150-200 years, but CO2 has only started
increasing the last 40 years is it possible that you are
attacking a symptom and not the cause of the warming?
- Ken


Glaciers have been receding for longer than 200 years. Exit Glacier
near Seward, AK has a record of glacial positions that extend far down
the valley toward Resurrection Bay. The glacial positions noted extend
back more than 500 years.

On Mar 13, 11:44 am, Scott Seidman
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote . net:

Scott Seidman wrote:
The answer is, of course, no. The same bunch of scientists who are
suggesting we need to change our lifestyles to counter global warming
are unwilling to put a firm estimate on how much our lifestyles
contribute to global warming.

More unable than unwilling, I imagine. So the crystal ball isn't
perfect, it's still better to do something than nothing. Reducing
greenhouse gases certainly won't make the problem worse but it
might make the situation a little better.

Or it might not. My agnosticism might damn me to hell if there really is a
God. Should I thus believe, because its thus the safest option?

1. Agnosticism
a. Rotting in hell for all eternity sounds like a personal
problem
b. You don't choose to believe. You believe that crap or you
don't.
c. You don't believe that crap.
d. It doesn't make any difference whether you believe that crap
or not.

2. Global warming
a. Global warming affects billions of people (REAL people) around
the world (in addition to countless other creatures), and will
continue to do so.....possibly for centuries to come.
b. You don't choose to believe. You believe or you don't.
c. You do.
d. This isn't about preserving some self-image as a professional
skeptic through the presentation of transparently bogus analogies.
You should be ashamed of yourself.


You don't undertake a massive infrastructure change in the name of the
environment because it "might" help.

As a matter of fact, it happens all the time. Sometimes it works,
sometimes it doesn't. Using the possibility of failure as a rationale
for doing nothing does nothing but guarantee that nothing will be
accomplished.

You sink your resources into what
careful analysis shows stands a reasonable chance of success. Of course,
while all this analysis is going on, you don't stop turning off the lights
in empty rooms.

When falling from the top of a tall building, on the other hand,
stopping to complete that careful analysis would be very wise indeed.

I'm a little sensitive these days, watching the steamroller of alternative
fuels barreling over town planning and zoning boards.

Ah! So it IS a personal matter after all.

Wolfgang

On Mar 13, 11:46 am, Scott Seidman
wrote:
Scott Seidman wrote 3.1.4:





Ken Fortenberry wrote in
et:

Scott Seidman wrote:
The answer is, of course, no. The same bunch of scientists who are
suggesting we need to change our lifestyles to counter global
warming are unwilling to put a firm estimate on how much our
lifestyles contribute to global warming.

More unable than unwilling, I imagine. So the crystal ball isn't
perfect, it's still better to do something than nothing. Reducing
greenhouse gases certainly won't make the problem worse but it
might make the situation a little better.

Or it might not. My agnosticism might damn me to hell if there really
is a God. Should I thus believe, because its thus the safest option?

You don't undertake a massive infrastructure change in the name of the
environment because it "might" help. You sink your resources into
what careful analysis shows stands a reasonable chance of success. Of
course, while all this analysis is going on, you don't stop turning
off the lights in empty rooms.

I'm a little sensitive these days, watching the steamroller of
alternative fuels barreling over town planning and zoning boards.

Also, about once a month, some editor or other sends me a manuscript for
review, where the authors assert the contents contain solid science.
About half the time, its true, about half the time its not.

And this is germane because........?

Wolfgang

" wrote in message
You are missing the efficiency. I high efficiency furnace consumes
1000kWh of energy and turns it into 970kWh of heat. A light bulb
consumes 1000kWh of energy into 200kWh of heat (I'm making up #s).
There is always energy lost in the conversion. A light bulb gives
off a lot of it's energy as light.

I agree; but where does that light energy go? It's my contention the light
is absorbed by the furnishings & surfaces & becomes heat. That kinda
illustrates the rationale behind my question. Because that light-heat
conversion isn't obvious, it only appears wasteful; but in reality, all of
the energy entering the house has to go somewhere; it doesn't "evaporate"
with no effect. Energy enters the house via the power lines. It leaves
through heat loss through the exterior surfaces. Energy in = energy out.
Light, fossil fuels, electricity; doesn't matter. Energy is energy. Leaving
a light bulb burning is just another energy input. Anything coming in that
route has to reduce the energy demand from other sources by an equivalent
amount. Yeah, it seems wasteful; but I can't justify that with the physics.

Joe F.

"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
I'm amazed that the remarkable culinary capabilities of the easy bake oven
have not entered into this subthread.

Well, that omission has been remedied now. Tx. :-)

Joe F.