@TMTisFree

Falsifying AGW hypothesis by Dr W. DiPuccio

Part I

Quote:

The Global Warming Hypothesis Albert Einstein once said, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” Einstein’s words express a foundational principle of science intoned by the logician, Karl Popper: Falsifiability. In order to verify a hypothesis there must be a test by which it can be proved false. A thousand observations may appear to verify a hypothesis, but one critical failure could result in its demise. The history of science is littered with such examples. A hypothesis that cannot be falsified by empirical observations, is not science. The current hypothesis on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), presented by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is no exception to this principle. Indeed, it is the job of scientists to expose the weaknesses of this hypothesis as it undergoes peer review. This paper will examine one key criterion for falsification: ocean heat. Ocean heat plays a crucial role in the AGW hypothesis, which maintains that climate change is dominated by human-added, well-mixed green house gasses (GHG). IR radiation that is absorbed and re-emitted by these gases, particularly CO², is said to be amplified by positive feedback from clouds and water vapor. This process results in a gradual accumulation of heat throughout the climate system, which includes the atmosphere, cryosphere, biosphere, lithosphere, and, most importantly, the hydrosphere. The increase in retained heat is projected to result in rising atmospheric temperatures of 2-6ºC by the year 2100. In 2005 James Hansen, Josh Willis, and Gavin Schmidt of NASA coauthored a significant article (in collaboration with twelve other scientists), on the “Earth’s Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications” (Science, 3 June 2005, 1431-35). This paper affirmed the critical role of ocean heat as a robust metric for AGW. “Confirmation of the planetary energy imbalance,” they maintained, “can be obtained by measuring the heat content of the ocean, which must be the principal reservoir for excess energy” (1432). Monotonic Heating. Since the level of CO² and other well-mixed GHG is on the rise, the overall accumulation of heat in the climate system, measured by ocean heat, should be fairly steady and uninterrupted (monotonic) according to IPCC models, provided there are no major volcanic eruptions. According to the hypothesis, major feedbacks in the climate system are positive (i.e., amplifying), so there is no mechanism in this hypothesis that would cause a suspension or reversal of overall heat accumulation. Indeed, any suspension or reversal would suggest that the heating caused by GHG can be overwhelmed by other human or natural processes in the climate system. A reversal of sufficient magnitude could conceivably reset the counter back to “zero” (i.e., the initial point from which a current set of measurements began). If this were to take place, the process of heat accumulation would have to start again. In either case, a suspension or reversal of heat accumulation (excepting major volcanic eruptions) would mean that we are dealing with a form of cyclical rather than monotonic heating. Most scientists who oppose the conclusions of the IPCC have been outspoken in their advocacy of cyclical heating and cooling caused primarily by natural processes, and modified by long-term human climate forcings such as land use change and aerosols. These natural forcings include ocean cycles (PDO, AMO), solar cycles (sunspots, total irradiance), and more speculative causes such as orbital oscillations, and cosmic rays.

Tell me when you are ready.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @HenryCase Quote: Yes there is consensus in science, it is just of a different kind from politics. Let me put it to you a different way, all those scientists you mentioned before, did any other scientists attempt to follow their work and check it's accuracy, and if they did check it's accuracy did they believe in the conclusions presented? If you don't believe in consensus in science what do you think the peer review process in scientific journals is for? I am sorry but you are digging your own grave here. Scientists do not believe. Scientists are convinced by evidences. Belief is for laymen, consensus is for politicians and evidence is for scientists. Period. In usual (read not corrupted) scientific fields, the peer reviewing process has nothing to do with belief: the peer reviewer evaluates the appropriateness of used methodologies with the scientific goal(s), in short the plausibility of the paper. And I am well aware of the peer reviewing process, having 'suffer' it many time.

Belief was maybe the wrong word to use, but my point still stands. Just replace what you thought I meant with 'belief' with what I actually was trying to say 'convinced through evidence'/plausibility (in your words). If you have 'suffered' the peer review process do you still undertstand why it is useful? Let me put my earlier question another way... were the findings of the scientists pointing to the premature peak oil point put through an adequate peer review process?

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: Also, did you manage to read the first part of the video transcription I posted? If you accept what I wrote was correct I'll post the second part. Done.

Excellent. I'll post second part soon.

Last edited by HenryCase on 06-May-2009 at 08:28 PM.

@TMTisFree

Quote:

The point of contention, precisely

Not sure what you mean by contend here. Effects of changing the water composition via pollution show some improvements. I know you hate the term but it applies, the scientific consensus, is coral still can be impacted by many features GW is amongst these.

Quote:

So why putting AGW in the balance just for the sake of it?

As for the proof that warming influences corals you can start here. NOAA did much of the observations and produced some nice visual models showing the flow of El Nino and La Nina hotspots along with the migration of bleaching events.

Quote:

founded by Exxon" was your first words

Every turn you close mindedly slag off 'unrealscience' and the IPCC. If my memory serves in one post you even requested people to provide you evidence that wasn't touched by either organization. I'd argue my stance read but be wary due the think tank's denialist agenda is less stringent and more open. As a last point, turn about is fair play. If you get to declare who is unacceptable to you, you must extend the right to others to declare who is unacceptable to them. (Even though I'm not even going that far.)

Quote:

It would be more interesting and time efficient to discuss the results presented.

First point of the CO2SceinceDenialClub was there is no evidence that temperature effects coral. FALSE. Okay discussion done on that point.

@HenryCase

Quote:

If you have 'suffered' the peer review process do you still undertstand why it is useful?

It is unclear why you ask this. What make you think I could have forgotten given my previous post?

Quote:

were the findings of the scientists pointing to the premature peak oil point put through an adequate peer review process?

I am not sure what you mean by "premature peak oil point". Do you mean the deep abiotic theory and scientists supporting it?

Quote:

Excellent. I'll post second part soon.

I will post mine just after.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: were the findings of the scientists pointing to the premature peak oil point put through an adequate peer review process? I am not sure what you mean by "premature peak oil point". Do you mean the deep abiotic theory and scientists supporting it?

What I'm asking is did the work of the people you mentioned before get put through a peer review process? I'm talking about : 'geologist Price (1947)', 'geologist C. A. Ashenbenner (Price, 1977)', 'petroleum geologist D. T. Day' (1906), 'chief geologist of the United States Geological Survey, D. White (Pratt, 1942)', 'geologist H. Hedberg (1971)'.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: Excellent. I'll post second part soon. I will post mine just after.

Okay, here's the second part of the video transcription. Starts getting into the core of the problems with overpopulation here (I don' t agree with his use of AIDS as an example though). As before, read through it, let me know if you spot any flaws in the points made, and confirm you've read it all so I can post next part.

Quote:

The Most IMPORTANT Video You'll Ever See (part 2 of 8): "...per year. Now that happens to match the present rate of growth of the population of the United States [1%], we are not at zero population growth. Right now the number of Americans is increasing by more than 3 million people every year. No member of the city council said Boulder should grow less rapidly than the United States is growing." "Now the highest answer any council member gave was 5% per year, well you know I felt compelled, I had to write him a letter and say 'did you know, that 5% growth, for just 70 ye...', I can remember when 70 years used to seem like an awful long time, it doesn't seem so long now. Well that means Boulder's population would increase by a factor of 32, that is where today we have one overloaded sewer treatment plant, in 70 years we'd need 32 overloaded sewer treatment plants." "Now did you realise that anything as completely All-American as 5% growth per year, could give such an incredible consequence, in such a modest period of time? Our city council people had zero understanding of this very simple arithmetic." "Well, a few years ago, I had a class of non-science students, who were interested in problems of science and society. We spent a good deal of time learning to use semi-logarithmic graph paper. It's printed in such a way that these equal intervals, along the vertical scale, each represent an increase by a factor of 10. So you go from a 1,000, to 10,000, to 100,000, and the reason you use this special paper is that on this paper a straight line represents steady growth." "We worked a lot of examples, I said to the students let's talk about inflation, let's talk about 7% per year. It wasn't this high when we did this, it's been higher since then, and fortunately it's lower now [N.B. the video was not made this year], and I said to the students, as I can say to you, you have roughly 60 years life expectancy ahead of you, let's see what some common things will cost if we have 60 years of 7% annual inflation." "Well the students found that a $0.55 gallon of gasoline will cost $35.20, $2.50 for a movie will be $160, the $15 sack of groceries, that my mother used to buy for $1.25, that'll be $960. A $100 suit of clothes, $6,400, a $4,000 automobile will cost $250,000, and a $45,000 home will cost nearly $3,000,000 [$2,880,000]." "Well I gave the students these data, these came from a Blue Cross, Blue Shield ad. The ad appeared in Newsweek magazine, and the ad gave these figures to show the cost escalation of gall bladder surgery. In the years since 1950 when that surgery cost $361, I said make a semi-logarithmic plot, let's see what's happening. The students found that the first four points lined up on a straight line, whose slope indicated inflation of about 6% per year, but the fourth, fifth and sixth were on a steeper line, almost 10% inflation per year." "Well then, I said to the students, run that steeper line on out to the year 2000, let's get an idea of what gall bladder surgery might cost. The answer is $25,000. The lesson there is awfully clear, if you're thinking about gall bladder surgery, do it now." "In the summer of 1986, the news reports indicated that the world population had reached the number five billion people, growing at the rate of 1.7% per year. Well your reaction to 1.7 might be to say 'that's so small, nothing bad could ever happen at 1.7% per year', so you calculate the doubling time, you find it's only 41 years." "More recently, in 1999, we read that the world population had increased from 5 billion to 6 billion people. The good news is that the growth rate had dropped from 1.7% per year to 1.3% per year, the bad news is that in spite of the drop in the growth rate, the world population today is increasing by something over 80 million people every year." "Now if this modest current 1.3% per year could continue, the world population would grow to a density of one person per square meter on the dry-land surface of the earth in just 780 years, and the mass of people would equal the mass of the earth in just 2,400 years." "Now we can smile at those, we know they couldn't happen, this one makes for a cute cartoon, the caption says 'Excuse me sir, but I am prepared to make you a rather attractive offer for your square'. Now there's a very profound lesson in that cartoon, the lesson is that zero population growth is going to happen." "Now we can debate whether we like zero population or don't like it, it's going to happen, whether we debate it or not, whether we like it or not, it's absolutely certain people could not live at that density on the dry land surface of the Earth. Therefore today's high birth rates will drop, today's low death rates will rise, until the have exactly the same numerical value, that will certainly be in a time short compared to 780 years." "So maybe you're wondering, 'what sort of options are available if we wanted to address the problem?'. In the left-hand column I've listed some of those things that we should encourage if we wanted to raise the rate of growth of population, and in so doing make the problem worse." "Just look at the list, everything in the list is as sacred as motherhood, there's immigration, medicine, public health, sanitation... these are all devoted to the humane goals of lowering the death rate, and that's very important to me if it's my death they're lowering, but then I have to realise that anything that just lowers the death rate makes the population problem worse. There's peace, law and order, scientific agriculture lowers the death rate due to famine, that just makes the population problem worse, the 55mph speed limit saved thousands of lives, that makes the population problem worse, clean air makes it worse." "Now in this column are some of the things we should encourage if we want to lower the rate of growth of population, and in so doing, help solve the population problem. Well there's abstention, contraception/abortion, small families, stop immigration, disease, war, murder, famine, accidents, now smoking clearly raises the death rate, now that helps solve the problem." "Well, remember our conclusion from the cartoon of one person per square meter, we concluded that zero population growth is going to happen. Let's state that conclusion in other terms and say it's obvious nature is going to choose from the right-hand list, and we don't have to do anything, except be prepared to live with whatever nature chooses from that right-hand list." "Or we can exercise the one option that's open to us, and that option, is to choose first from the right-hand list. We've got to find something here we can go out and campaign for. Anyone here for promoting disease? We now have the capability of incredible war. Would you like more murder, more famine, more accidents... well here we can see the human dilemma, because everything we regard as good makes the population problem worse, everything we regard as bad helps solve the problem, now there is a dilemma if ever there was one, and the one remaining question is education, does it go on the left-hand column or the right-hand column? Well I'd have to say thusfar it's been firmly in the left-hand column, it hasn't done much about reducing ignorance of the problem." "And nature is already choosing from that right-hand list, you've read about the AIDS epidemic, it's devastating the continent of Africa. I had a friend back from Zimbabwe, people he said are dying on the streets, nature is taking care of the problem." "So where do we start? Well, let's start in Boulder, Colorado. Here's a graph of Boulder's population. There's the 1950 US census figure, 1960, 1970, in that 20 year period the average growth rate of Boulder's population was about 6% per year. Now we've been able to slow the growth somewhat, there's the 2000 census figure, we'll I like to ask the people let's start with the 2000 census figure, go another 70 years, one more human lifetime, and ask 'what rate of growth for Boulder's population would we need in that 70 years so that the end of 70 years Boulder's population would equal today's population of your choice of major American cities?'. Well Boulder in 70 years could be as Boston is today if we just grew 2.58% per year, now if we thought Detroit..." [Continued in third part of video]

@BrianK

Quote:

Effects of changing the water composition via pollution show some improvements.

An euphemism: not 'some improvements' but full recovery and at least 2 times.

Quote:

As for the proof that warming influences corals you can start here. NOAA did much of the observations and produced some nice visual models showing the flow of El Nino and La Nina hotspots along with the migration of bleaching events.

And what ENSO events have to do with the potential negative effects of AGW claimed by alarmists? You fully exemplify here the difference between reading scientific information in diagonal (popular culture) and being able to draw correct scientific conclusions from same information (scientific culture).

Quote:

Every turn you close mindedly slag off 'unrealscience' and the IPCC.

The big difference is I have checked the alarmist work many time (UnRealClimate and IPCC being just 2 alarmist sources amongst others), found it repeatedly not being convincing and rejected it most of time before judging the authors accordingly. I continue to do so. Not you (remember the MWP on the same web site?).

Quote:

If you get to declare who is unacceptable to you, you must extend the right to others to declare who is unacceptable to them.

Who is speaking of who is unacceptable? I read Mann's paper or Schmidt's paper or Hansen's paper or whoever's potentially interesting paper to evaluate the work before having an opinion on the author relative to his work. Competence of scientists is judged on results. If the same scientists are repeatedly caught using unscientific methods/biased data/dishonest statistics/etc they just deserve the judgement of their peers. So before complaining 'funded by Big Oil' (btw one can wonder why public research is not done) or 'denier' before having actually evaluated the work, do ckeck the work first and then judge (common sense btw).

Quote:

First point of the CO2SceinceDenialClub was there is no evidence that temperature effects coral. FALSE. Okay discussion done on that point.

Once again moving target from supposed negative effect of AGW to warming only now? And you still have not read the book: let just quote some parts:

Summary
Quote:

1/ There is no simple linkage between high temperatures and coral bleaching. 2/ As living entities, corals are not only acted upon by the various elements of their environment, they also react or respond to them. And when changes in environmental factors pose a challenge to their continued existence, they sometimes take major defensive or adaptive actions to insure their survival. 3/ A particularly ingenious way by which almost any adaptive response to any type of environmental stress may be enhanced in the face of the occurrence of that stress would be to replace the zooxanthellae expelled by the coral host during a stress-induced bleaching episode by one or more varieties of zooxanthellae that are more tolerant of the stress that caused the bleaching. 4/ The persistence of coral reefs through geologic time – when temperatures were as much as 10-15°C warmer than at present, and atmospheric CO² concentrations were 2 to 7 times higher than they are currently – provides substantive evidence that these marine entities can successfully adapt to a dramatically changing global environment. Thus, the recent die-off of manycorals cannot be due solely, or even mostly, to global warming or the modest rise in atmospheric CO² concentration over the course of the Industrial Revolution. 5/ The 18- to 59-cm warming-induced sea level rise that is predicted for the coming century by the IPCC – which could be greatly exaggerated if predictions of CO²-induced global warming are wrong – falls well within the range (2 to 6 mm per year) of typical coral vertical extension rates, which exhibited a modal value of 7 to 8 mm per year during the Holocene and can be more than double that value in certain branching corals. Rising sea levels should therefore present no difficulties for coral reefs. In fact, rising sea levels may actually have a positive effect on reefs, permitting increased coral growth in areas that have already reached the upward limit imposed by current sea levels. 6/ The rising CO² content of the atmosphere may induce changes in ocean chemistry (pH) that could slightly reduce coral calcification rates; but potential positive effects of hydrospheric CO² enrichment may more than compensate for this modest negative phenomenon. 7/ Theoretical predictions indicate that coral calcification rates should decline as a result of increasing atmospheric CO² concentrations by as much as 40% by 2100. However, real-world observations indicate that elevated CO² and elevated temperatures are having just the opposite effect. In light of the above observations, and in conjunction with all of the material presented in this review, it is clear that climate-alarmist claims of impending marine species extinctions due to increases in both temperature and atmospheric CO² concentration are not only not supported by real-world evidence, they are actually refuted by it.

p17
Quote:

Coral bleaching is actually an adaptive strategy for "shuffling" symbiont genotypes to create associations better adapted to new environmental conditions that challenge the status quo of reef communities

Conclusion
Quote:

Atmospheric CO² enrichment has been postulated to possess the potential to harm coral reefs both directly and indirectly. With respect to marine life -- and especially that of calcifying organisms such as corals and coccolithophores -- neither increases in temperature, nor increases in atmospheric CO² concentration, nor increases in both of them together, have had any ill effects on the important processes of calcification and growth. In fact, out in the real world of nature, these processes have actually responded positively to the supposedly unprecedented concomitant increases in these “twin evils” of the radical environmentalist movement. If there is a lesson to be learned from the materials discussed in this review, it is that people should be paying much more attention to real-world observations than to theoretical predictions. Far too many predictions of CO²-induced catastrophes are treated as sure-to-occur, when real-world observations show them to be highly unlikely or even virtual impossibilities. The cases of CO²-induced coral bleaching and ocean acidification are no different. We have got to realize that rising atmospheric CO² concentrations are not the bane of the biosphere, but a boon to the planet’s many life forms.

Follow 23 pages of 304 scientific references to support the conclusion: no negative effect of hypothesized AGW, the opposite actually. Observations once again defeating unsupported alarmist claims. Case closed.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@HenryCase

Quote:

What I'm asking is did the work of the people you mentioned before get put through a peer review process? I'm talking about : 'geologist Price (1947)', 'geologist C. A. Ashenbenner (Price, 1977)', 'petroleum geologist D. T. Day' (1906), 'chief geologist of the United States Geological Survey, D. White (Pratt, 1942)', 'geologist H. Hedberg (1971)'.

I think so. Stop turning around, what is your real aim?

Quote:

"More recently, in 1999, we read that the world population had increased from 5 billion to 6 billion people. The good news is that the growth rate had dropped from 1.7% per year to 1.3% per year, the bad news is that in spite of the drop in the growth rate, the world population today is increasing by something over 80 million people every year."

The 'bad news'? Why this preconceived judgement before exposing his view? Is he thinking his own life has more weight than other one's? Too bad for him, he just pushes me to think the opposite.

Quote:

the lesson is that zero population growth is going to happen.

Strange. I though humans have already visited space and Moon and continue to do so. He is thinking humans will stay forever on Mother Earth or what?

Quote:

we concluded that zero population growth is going to happen

Narrow mind conclusion.

Quote:

it's obvious nature is going to choose from the right-hand list, and we don't have to do anything, except be prepared to live with whatever nature chooses from that right-hand list.

What is obvious is that he has limited imagination about human knowledge's potential and foreseeable adaptive paths.

Quote:

[Education] hasn't done much about reducing ignorance of the problem.

I would say "Education hasn't done much about reducing ignorance in general".

Quote:

And nature is already choosing from that right-hand list, you've read about the AIDS epidemic, it's devastating the continent of Africa. I had a friend back from Zimbabwe, people he said are dying on the streets, nature is taking care of the problem.

It is strange that you don't agree with his view here. Because I am. But not for the reason he wrote. It is not that 'nature is taking care of the problem': it is 'because humanity is watching at wrong problems, natural processes continue to exist as before'.

So I note in part 2:
1/ preconceived judgement before exposing any real ideas;
2/ a somewhat narrow mind and/or lack of imagination.

But let continue.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@HenryCase

Falsifying AGW hypothesis by Dr W. DiPuccio

Part II

Quote:

Temperature is not Heat! Despite a consensus among scientists on the use of ocean heat as a robust metric for AGW, near-surface air temperature (referred to as “surface temperature”) is generally employed to gauge global warming. The media and popular culture have certainly equated the two. But this equation is not simply the product of a naïve misunderstanding. NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), directed by James Hansen, and the British Hadley Centre for Climate Change, have consistently promoted the use of surface temperature as a metric for global warming. The highly publicized, monthly global surface temperature has become an icon of the AGW projections made by the IPCC. However, use of surface air temperature as a metric has weak scientific support, except, perhaps, on a multi-decadal or century time-scale. Surface temperature may not register the accumulation of heat in the climate system from year to year. Heat sinks with high specific heat (like water and ice) can absorb (and radiate) vast amounts of heat. Consequently the oceans and the cryosphere can significantly offset atmospheric temperature by heat transfer creating long time lags in surface temperature response time. Moreover, heat is continually being transported in the atmosphere between the poles and the equator. This reshuffling can create fluctuations in average global temperature caused, in part, by changes in cloud cover and water vapor, both of which can alter the earth’s radiative balance. Hype generated by scientists and institutions over short-term changes in global temperature (up or down) has diverted us from the real issue: heat accumulation. Heat is not the same as temperature. Two liters of boiling water contain twice as much heat as one liter of boiling water even though the water in both vessels is the same temperature. The larger container has more thermal mass which means it takes longer to heat and cool. Temperature measures the average kinetic energy of molecular motion at a specific point. But it does not measure the total kinetic energy of all the molecules in a substance. In the example above, there is twice as much heat in 2 liters of boiling water because there is twice as much kinetic energy. On average, the molecules in both vessels are moving at the same speed, but the larger container has twice as many molecules. Temperature may vary from point to point in a moving fluid such as the atmosphere or ocean, but its heat remains constant so long as energy is not added or removed from the system. Consequently, heat-not temperature-is the only sound metric for monitoring the total energy of the climate system. Since heat is a function of both mass and energy, it is normally measured in Joules per kilogram (or calories per gram): Q = mc∆T where Q is heat (Joules) m is mass (kg) c is the specific heat constant of the substance (J/kg/°C) ∆T is the change in temperature (°C) The Thermal Mass of the Oceans Water is a more appropriate metric for heat accumulation than air because of its ability to store heat. For this reason, it is also a more robust metric for assessing global warming and cooling. Seawater has a much higher mass than air (10^30 kg/m^3 vs. 1.20 kg/m^3 at 20ºC), and a higher specific heat (4.18 kJ/kg/°C vs. 1.01 kJ/kg/°C for air at 23°C and 41% humidity). One kilogram of water can retain 4.18x the heat of an equivalent mass of air. This amounts to a thermal mass which is nearly 3558x that of air per unit volume. For any given area on the ocean’s surface, the upper 2.6m of water has the same heat capacity as the entire atmosphere above it! Considering the enormous depth and global surface area of the ocean (70.5%), it is apparent that its heat capacity is greater than the atmosphere by many orders of magnitude. Consequently, as Hansen, et. al. have concluded, the ocean must be regarded as the main reservoir of atmospheric heat and the primary driver of climate fluctuations. Heat accumulating in the climate system can be determined by profiling ocean temperature, and from precise measurements of sea surface height as they relate to thermal expansion and contraction of ocean water. These measurements are now possible on a global scale with the ARGO buoy array and from satellite measurements of ocean surface heights. ARGO consists of a world-wide network of over 3000 free-drifting platforms that measure temperature and salinity in the upper 2000m of ocean. The robotic floats rise to the surface every 10 days and transmit data to a satellite which also determines their location.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@HenryCase

Wow. That's a very good lecture.

And to anyone foolish enough to not watch the videos for whatever reason: It's not a "youtube video", it's a taped university lecture on exponential growth. Seriously, grow up.

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@olegil

Major eye opener question:
Part 3, 4:30

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@olegil

Quote:

olegil wrote: @HenryCase Wow. That's a very good lecture.

I thought so too. Glad you watched it.

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @HenryCase Falsifying AGW hypothesis by Dr W. DiPuccio ...

If you don't mind we'll stick to discussing overpopulation for now as I think it's a more serious matter than AGW (though the two are linked IMO). Too often with heated debates like this lots of points are made without any progress because people try to take on too much at once. Once we've finished with the exponential growth lecture we can move on to other matters, is that okay?

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @HenryCase Quote: What I'm asking is did the work of the people you mentioned before get put through a peer review process? I'm talking about : 'geologist Price (1947)', 'geologist C. A. Ashenbenner (Price, 1977)', 'petroleum geologist D. T. Day' (1906), 'chief geologist of the United States Geological Survey, D. White (Pratt, 1942)', 'geologist H. Hedberg (1971)'. I think so. Stop turning around, what is your real aim?

Then I would like you to thank you for mentioning them. My point is we can all point to scientists who support our arguments, but it matters if the work we point to has been verified by other scientists. Let's leave it for now, it's distracting from the more important debate.

Quote:

Quote: "More recently, in 1999, we read that the world population had increased from 5 billion to 6 billion people. The good news is that the growth rate had dropped from 1.7% per year to 1.3% per year, the bad news is that in spite of the drop in the growth rate, the world population today is increasing by something over 80 million people every year." The 'bad news'? Why this preconceived judgement before exposing his view? Is he thinking his own life has more weight than other one's? Too bad for him, he just pushes me to think the opposite.

It's bad because of the consequences, which he elaborates on further later. You're free to think what you want of course, but I'd recommend waiting to see what outlined consequences are.

Quote:

Quote: the lesson is that zero population growth is going to happen. Strange. I though humans have already visited space and Moon and continue to do so. He is thinking humans will stay forever on Mother Earth or what?

We cannot rely on technology we don't have to solve our current problems because of the timescales involved. Seems like I'm going to keep reminding you of that. It's like saying natural gas running out isn't an issue because I'm going to build a cold fusion reactor next week.

Quote:

Quote: we concluded that zero population growth is going to happen Narrow mind conclusion.

Only narrow minded if you dismiss space travel in the forseeable future though isn't it. You'll have to lend me that book on practical terraforming you have, I'm sure it's a fascinating read.

Quote:

Quote: it's obvious nature is going to choose from the right-hand list, and we don't have to do anything, except be prepared to live with whatever nature chooses from that right-hand list. What is obvious is that he has limited imagination about human knowledge's potential and foreseeable adaptive paths.

Other than space travel how else do you intend the human population to continue growing?

Quote:

Quote: [Education] hasn't done much about reducing ignorance of the problem. I would say "Education hasn't done much about reducing ignorance in general".

Of course education has reduced ignorance, don't be silly. After all where would you be in this debate without your scientific education.

Quote:

Quote: And nature is already choosing from that right-hand list, you've read about the AIDS epidemic, it's devastating the continent of Africa. I had a friend back from Zimbabwe, people he said are dying on the streets, nature is taking care of the problem. It is strange that you don't agree with his view here. Because I am. But not for the reason he wrote. It is not that 'nature is taking care of the problem': it is 'because humanity is watching at wrong problems, natural processes continue to exist as before'.

I disagreed with the lecturer here because I don't think of nature as a single physical entity, so I don't think 'nature taking care of the problem' is accurate.

Quote:

So I note in part 2: 1/ preconceived judgement before exposing any real ideas; 2/ a somewhat narrow mind and/or lack of imagination. But let continue.

Thank you for your points, yes let's continue. Part 3 coming up soon.

@olegil

Quote:

And to anyone foolish enough to not watch the videos for whatever reason: It's not a "youtube video", it's a taped university lecture on exponential growth. Seriously, grow up.

And to anyone whose sole argument is name calling, it is appreciated to its actual value, nihil: much like the few random pathetic incursions here by limited mind(s).

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @olegil Quote: And to anyone foolish enough to not watch the videos for whatever reason: It's not a "youtube video", it's a taped university lecture on exponential growth. Seriously, grow up. And to anyone whose sole argument is name calling, it is appreciated to its actual value, nihil: much like the few random pathetic incursions here by limited mind(s).

Look I'm happy with your explanation, and happy to provide the transcriptions, let's all move on please.

@HenryCase

Quote:

If you don't mind we'll stick to discussing overpopulation for now as I think it's a more serious matter than AGW (though the two are linked IMO). Too often with heated debates like this lots of points are made without any progress because people try to take on too much at once. Once we've finished with the exponential growth lecture we can move on to other matters, is that okay?

Well, the thread's subject is not really about overpopulation but about hypothesis of AGW. In addition we choose to also discuss petroleum theories and epistemology, so I think it is fair that I have the opportunity to reply to you in the different matters with an on topic and related quote (you will see why on 2 counts). Being borderline Asperger, doing so in parallel is no problem for me, it is rather fun.

Quote:

Then I would like you to thank you for mentioning them. My point is we can all point to scientists who support our arguments, but it matters if the work we point to has been verified by other scientists.

Sure. It is trivially true.

Quote:

Let's leave it for now, it's distracting from the more important debate.

It is not distracting, it is fully on topic of the supposed energy scarcity scare and then really linked to your 'more important debate'. It is because a problem is ill-defined that it has to be discuss (providing goal is to progress).

Quote:

It's bad because of the consequences, which he elaborates on further later. You're free to think what you want of course, but I'd recommend waiting to see what outlined consequences are.

I have not drawn conclusion of anything for the moment, just noted the strange behaviour from a scientist.

Quote:

We cannot rely on technology we don't have to solve our current problems because of the timescales involved. Seems like I'm going to keep reminding you of that.

Please refrain to use this annoying professorial tone with me. You can of course keep repeating it but timescale is a non-problem when technologies are available.

Quote:

It's like saying natural gas running out isn't an issue because I'm going to build a cold fusion reactor next week.

So I say it. And more, I generalize it to all form of currently used energies. And even more it is not next week, but 15 years ago (IFR for ex.). In a wider perspective, USA took the wrong way 30-40 ago when they switched to financial engineering instead of physical engineering and fundamental research including energy. They moreover dropped promising technology for ideological reasons. Considering financialisation of the US economy, my point is that one can not create value from money alone. When only money creates money, problems are created/not resolved elsewhere: it is exemplary in energy domain for ex. with the rise [pipelines] and fall [derivatives] of Enron, but there exists other domains.

Quote:

Only narrow minded if you dismiss space travel in the forseeable future though isn't it. You'll have to lend me that book on practical terraforming you have, I'm sure it's a fascinating read.

Define foreseeable future. 2400 years is not foreseeable future. Not even 100. And no one has divination power.

Quote:

Other than space travel how else do you intend the human population to continue growing?

Again I don't know the future of population. If all humans are given our living standards population will stabilize (~2 children per couple in most of countries nowadays with few exceptions [no reference, I lost it last week sorry]).

Quote:

Of course education has reduced ignorance, don't be silly. After all where would you be in this debate without your scientific education.

Skipping the adjective. The ratio of graduated people / total population is very low in countries with modern educative system. But it is true that this small number has historically made the difference. Still I maintain that despite advancement in education of young people, current level of education is conveniently kept (very) low. I consider myself lucky.

Quote:

I disagreed with the lecturer here because I don't think of nature as a single physical entity, so I don't think 'nature taking care of the problem' is accurate.

I understand. That is why I wrote 'natural processes'. But formally he is correct here.

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 07-May-2009 at 07:20 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree
I have to go out now, but I thought I'd post the next section of the video transcription even though I didn't quite get to the end of the video, just because I think it's very relevant to what you are saying about continued growth. Feel free to comment on it.

Quote:

The Most IMPORTANT Video You'll Ever See (part 3 of 8): "...was a better model, we'd have to shoot for 3.27% per year, and remember the historic figure on the preceeding slide, 6% per year, if that could continue for one life time, Boulder would be larger than Los Angeles. Now this isn't Boulder plus Broomfield, Louisville, La Fayette, the other towns in the county, this is just Boulder." "Well it's obvious you couldn't put Los Angeles in the Boulder Valley, therefore it's obvious Boulder's population growth is going to stop. Now the only question is, will we be able to stop it while there's still some open space, or will we wait until it's wall to wall with people and we're all choking to death?" "Now it's interesting to read what the boosters [I couldn't quite make out this word, could be posters??] say, some years ago (~1960) we read that doubling its population in 10 years, Boulder is indeed a stable community. What in the world are they talking about? You're going 100 miles an hour, 7% growth per year, doubling in less than 10 years, and someone makes the idiotic statement that we're stable. We're standing still, we're not moving. They don't even understand the meaning of the words that they put down on paper." "Well every once in a while someone says 'but you know, a bigger city might be a better city', and I have to say 'wait a minute', we've already done that experiment, we don't need to wonder what will be the effect of growth on Boulder, because Boulder tomorrow can be seen in Los Angeles today, and for the price of an aeroplane ticket we can step 70 years into the future, and see exactly what it's like." "And what is it like? Well, here's an interesting headline from Los Angeles. [Study may help clear toxins from L.A. air: Levels of Carcinogens in air are 426 times the federal standard]. That headline probably has something to do with this headline [Smog kills 1,600 annually in LA area: WASHINGTON - Dirty air in the Los Angeles area kills an estimated 1,600 people and costs the economy about $10 billion annually, according to a study by a group of California scientists.]." "So, well, how are we doing in Colorado? The Denver Post tells us that we're the growth capital of the USA and proud of it. The Rocky Mountain News tells us to expect another million people in the front range in the next 20 years. But in the [Denver] Post there was an interesting story, someone was quoted as saying 'Colorado has a 3 percent growth rate ... that's like a third world country with no birth control'. We send foreign aid, family planning assistance to countries that have smaller population growth rates than Colorado has." "Well, as you can imagine, growth control is very controversial, and I treasure the letter from which these quotations are taken. Now this letter was written to me, by a leading citizen of this community. He's a leading proponent of controlled growth. Now controlled growth just means growth." "This man writes 'I take no exception to your arguments regarding exponential growth', 'I don't believe the exponential argument is valid at the local level'. So you see, arithmetic doesn't hold in Boulder. Now I have to admit, that man has a degree from the University of Colorado. It's not a degree in mathematics, in science or in engineering." "Let's look now at what happens when we have this kind of steady growth in a finite environment. Bacteria grow by doubling, and one bacterium divides to become two, the two divide to become four, the four become eight, sixteen and so on. Suppose we have bacteria that doubled in number this way every minute. Suppose we put one of these bacteria in an empty bottle at 11:00 in the morning and then observed that the bottle was full at 12:00 noon." "Now there's our case of just ordinary, steady, growth. It has a doubling time of one minute, it's in the finite environment of one bottle. I want to ask you three questions. 1. At what time was the bottle half full? Well would you believe, 11:59am, 1 minute before 12:00 [noon] because they double in number every minute." "And the second question... 2. If you were an average bacterium in the bottle, at what time would you realize that you were running out of space? Now think about this, this kind of steady growth is the centrepiece of the national economy, and of the entire global economy. Think about it." "Well let's just look at the last minutes in the bottle. At 12:00 noon it's full, at 1 minute before it's 1/2 full, two minutes before it's a 1/4 full, then an 1/8th, and a 1/16th. Let me ask you, at five minutes before 12:00 [noon], when the bottle is only 3% full, and is 97% open space just yearning for development, how many of you would realise that there was a problem?" "Now in the ongoing controversy over growth in Boulder, someone wrote to the newspaper some years ago and said 'look, there isn't any problem with population growth in Boulder, because' the writer said 'we have 15 times as much open space as we've already used'. So let me ask you, what time was it in Boulder when the open space was 15 times the space we'd already used? And the answer is, it was 4 minutes before 12:00 in Boulder Valley." "Well suppose that at 11:58am some of the bacteria realize that they are running out of space. So, they launch a great search for new bottles. They search offshore on the outer continental shelf, in the overthrust belt and in the arctic, and they find three new bottles. Now that is a collosal discovery, that discovery is three times the resource they ever knew about before, they now have four bottles. Before the discovery there was only one." "Now surely, this will give them a sustainable society. Won't it? Well you know what the third question is... 3. How long can the growth continue as a result of the discovery of three new bottles; this quadrupling of the proven resource? Well let's look at the score, at 12:00 noon one bottle is filled, there are three to go. 12:01 two bottles are filled, there are two to go, and at 12:02 all four are filled, and that's the end of the line." "Now you don't need any more arithmetic than this to evaluate the absolutely contradictory statements we've all heard and read, from experts, who tell us in one breath we can go on, increasing our rates of consumption of fossil fuels, and in the next breath they say 'don't worry, we'll always be able to make the discoveries of new resources that we need to meet the requirements of that growth'." "Well some years ago in Washington, our energy secretary observed that in the energy crisis 'we have a classic case of exponential growth against a finite source'. So let's look at some of these finite sources, from the work of the late Dr M. King Hubbert, we have here his semi-logarithmic plot of world oil production. The line has been approximately straight for over 100 years, clear here up to the year 1970, average growth rate very close to 7% per year [7.04% per year]. So it's logical to ask, how much longer could that 7% continue?" [Will post rest of part 3 soon]

@HenryCase

I do note a number of easy flaws:

1/ humans does not reproduce by fissiparousness and human growth is far from being exponential (half of the world under sub-replacement fertility with the notable exception of the USA);
2/ bacteria have no brain and thus regulate themselves by means which are not acceptable by most humans (except a few eco-fanatics in line with national socialist's doctrine);
3/ the calculation of the analogy is therefore grossly misleading.

The main flaw is however still the same: the crippled and short-sighted underlying theory of raw material scarcity (finite resource). At this point I see nothing really different from the Ehrlichs' thesis or the recent scare of a "perfect storm" in 2030 by Beddington.

But let assume it is for the sake of the argument.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@HenryCase

Falsifying AGW hypothesis by Dr W. DiPuccio

Part III

Quote:

Pielke’s Litmus Test In 2007 Roger Pielke, Sr. suggested that ocean heat should be used not just to monitor the energy imbalance in the climate system, but as a “litmus test” for falsifying the IPCC’s AGW hypothesis (Pielke, “A Litmus Test…”, climatesci.org, April 4, 2007). Dr. Pielke is a Senior Research Scientist in CIRES (Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences), at the University of Colorado in Boulder, and Professor Emeritus of the Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins. One of the world’s foremost atmospheric scientists, he has published nearly 350 papers in peer-reviewed journals, 50 chapters in books, and co-edited 9 books. Pielke’s test compares the net anthropogenic radiative forcing projected by GISS computer models (Hansen, Willis, Schmidt et al.) with actual ocean heat as measured by the ARGO array. To calculate the annual projected heat accumulation in the climate system or oceans, radiative forcing (Watts/m^2) must be converted to Joules (Watt seconds) and multiplied by the total surface area of the oceans or earth: [#1] Qannum = (Ri Pyear Aearth) .80 or, [#2] Qannum = (Ri Pyear Aocean) .85 where Qannum is the annual heat accumulation in Joules Ri is the mean global anthropogenic radiative imbalance in W/m^2 P is the period of time in seconds/year (31,557,600) Aocean is the total surface area of the oceans in m^2 (3.61132 x 10^14) Aearth is the total surface area of the earth in m^2 (5.10072 x 10^14) .80 & .85 are reductions for isolating upper ocean heat (see below). Radiative Imbalance. The IPCC and GISS calculate the global mean net anthropogenic radiative forcing at ~1.6 W/m^2(-1.0, +.8), (see, 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Summary for Policy Makers, figure SPM.2 and Hansen, Willis, Schmidt et al., page 1434, Table 1). This is the effective total of all anthropogenic forcings on the climate system. Projected heat accumulation is not calculated from this number, but from the mean global anthropogenic radiative imbalance (Ri). According to Hansen, Willis, Schmidt et al., the imbalance represents that fraction of the total net anthropogenic forcing which the climate system has not yet responded to due to thermal lag (caused primarily by the oceans). The assumption is that since the earth has warmed, a certain amount of energy is required to maintain the current global temperature. Continuing absorption will cause global temperatures to rise further until a new balance is reached. Physically, the climate system responds to the entire 1.6 W/m^2 forcing, not just a portion of it. But while energy is being absorbed, it is also being lost by radiation. The radiative imbalance is better described as the difference between the global mean net anthropogenic radiative forcing and its associated radiative loss. The global radiative imbalance of .75 W/m^2 (shown below) would mean that the earth system is radiating .85 W/m^2 in response to 1.6 W/m^2 of total forcing (1.6 - .85 = .75). For a more detailed discussion of radiative equilibrium see, Pielke Sr., R.A., 2003: “Heat storage within the Earth system.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 84, 331-335.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@HenryCase & BrianK

Just another example illustrating why consensus is a dead end in Science by Pr Hulme. Quote:

Just two years ago, Mike Hulme would have been about the last person you'd expect to hear criticising conventional climate change wisdom. Back then, he was the founding director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, an organisation so revered by environmentalists that it could be mistaken for the academic wing of the green movement. Since leaving Tyndall - and as we found out in a telephone interview - he has come out of the climate change closet as an outspoken critic of such sacred cows as the UN's IPCC, the "consensus", the over-emphasis on scientific evidence in political debates about climate change, and to defend the rights of so-called "deniers" to contribute to those debates.

Read the full interview Top British boffin: Time to ditch the climate consensus - Don't use science to get round politics, says Hulme.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

An euphemism: not 'some improvements' but full recovery and at least 2 times

I disagree. There is no indication of a full recovery but there is indication of an improvement. Coral growth slowest in 400 years. Now if we provided cooler water and less acidic would conditions improve further? The observed science says yes.

Quote:

And what ENSO events have to do with the potential negative effects of AGW claimed by alarmists?

The scientists studying these conditions see death in coral with temperature changes. Besides ENSO events there has been study of coral's changes during warmer and colder periods in the past. If GW is warming oceans, which it is and will, then at some point the warmth will impact the life of the coral.

Quote:

You fully exemplify here the difference between reading scientific information in diagonal (popular culture) and being able to draw correct scientific conclusions from same information (scientific culture).

Yeah I posted reading from science done and produced by climatologists, NOAA. You produced a reading that was an opinion hit piece masquerading as journalism. Yet I'm the one with the pop culture sping?

Quote:

There is no simple linkage between high temperatures and coral bleaching.

Because the linkage is not simple does not mean there is no linkage. History, in situ, and labs have shown impacts of warmer water and pH changes negatively impact coral.

Quote:

As living entities, corals are not only acted upon by the various elements of their environment, they also react or respond to them.

In the last 150 years coral is down ~40%. So whatever the environmental factors coral's response at this point is not flourishing but death. So yeah we see a response. True. He goes on to describe how coral will evolve and become stronger. You were worried about the in situ.. The in situ is a net loss of coral. So the reaction to evolve is being outstriped by the reaction to die. Observations once again defeating unsupported pseudoscientific denialist claims. Case closed

Last edited by BrianK on 08-May-2009 at 01:00 PM.

@TMTisFree

I find it interesting you find an author valid that's opposed to your take on GW and against your agreement that the only resource that limits man is his imagination. Isn't Hulme here showing us his limits on resources by saying he can't think of a way man can solve this?
Hulme Quote:

treats climate change not as a problem that we need to solve – indeed, he believes that the complexity of the issue means that it cannot be solved, only lived with – and instead considers it as much of a cultural idea as a physical phenomenon."

Quote:

“To hide behind the dubious precision of scientific numbers, and not actually expose one’s own ideologies or beliefs or values and judgements is undermining both politics and science

He seems to agree with me that we should expose people such as CO2Science who have a particular ideology they want to push. Again something you disageed.

His idea of 'dis-census' is bunk. The application of science comes from accepting the current paradigm and building physical applications utlizing that knowledge. We accepted Einstein's Equations for gravity, the leading most widely accepted paradigm, and got to the moon and lost the planet Vulcan.