Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old 07-17-2011, 08:17 PM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: An Occasion of Sin (Mark Schmitt & Tim Carney)

Quote:
Originally Posted by graz View Post
It's because we've got epidemiological closure.
Oh Jesus. That is funny.
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 07-18-2011, 09:55 AM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: An Occasion of Sin (Mark Schmitt & Tim Carney)

[QUOTE=miceelf;217121
There were no more hijinks in the ACA passage than in the Bush tax cuts or pretty much any bill passed under the Bush-Delay regime.
That's entirely different than what has gone on in the senate with appointments for example, or the new rule that no bill can pass without 60 votes, which didn't exist until 2009.[/QUOTE]

Well at least there weren't any more!
Do you really believe the dems are better than the republicans in that they act in good faith whilst the republicans don't? I'm not sure what rule you are talking about but whatever it was it passed while the democrats held the power exclusively.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 07-18-2011, 10:57 AM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: An Occasion of Sin (Mark Schmitt & Tim Carney)

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
Do you really believe the dems are better than the republicans in that they act in good faith whilst the republicans don't? I'm not sure what rule you are talking about but whatever it was it passed while the democrats held the power exclusively.
I am saying that up until 2008, both parties were roughly similar in the degree to which they behaved in terms of procedural methods of getting stuff done. The ACA falls within the parameters of this. The GOP methods of the last 2 years have not.

The ACA was passed in the narrow window in which the Dems had 60 seats. Up until Obama's presidency, a president didn't need a supermajority in the senate to pass signature legislation, or to confirm pretty much anyone in his administration..
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 07-18-2011, 12:21 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: An Occasion of Sin (Mark Schmitt & Tim Carney)

rcocean wrote (as quoted in the post to which I am replying):

Quote:
Oh Heavens, oh my. The Libertarians who are liberals with few conservative economic positions are OK. They support open borders, free trade & liberal social policy & are somewhat respectable ... but those others.... oh my.... how fatiguing they are.... they quite tire me out. I most go on the veranda and find my fan and mint julep. Oh my, the types one has to read on the internet.

Heavens. I just hope Bob won't tire us closed minded liberals anymore with any of the social conservative riff-raff, its simply too much.
What happened to this post? I saw the quote but couldn't find it?

Anyway, I think it's a bizarre paraphrase, too off the mark to achieve the humor that is apparently intended. It appears that rcocean's hate of liberals overcomes his ability to recognize that what some of us are saying, at least, is basically the same as what he's said over and over. I think the overrepresentation of libertarians here means that we are given a false picture of the right and of the real political debates going on. We end up discussing the TP as if they are Matt Welch's dream libertarians, which is just silly. Almost all debates on trade, for example, are between libertarians who worry that the pro free trade liberals aren't firm enough in their views. I'm generally against trade restrictions myself, but I can see why it irritates people like you. Similarly, immigration is an important issue to many on the right; it's weird that other than Pinkerton and Mickey we generally get a libertarian view -- you'd think the Republicans were openly in favor of amnesty or some such. I don't particularly want to have anti-immigration people here, but let's not pretend like the criticism of libertarian over-representation is something that is all pro liberal views or should offend you in some bizarre way.

Some of us have mentioned, for example, that the focus ignores the importance of social issues to the real right. Implicit in that (and I've said explicitly) is that if the point is to have representative right/left debates, social cons ought to be more represented. I know some people here have indicated that they see no need to give certain views a forum, and I think it's worth discussing -- the first amendment certainly does not require that the editor of a paper or owner of a site give all views equal representation, for example -- but your assumption here that the criticism directed against overrepresentation of libertarians was somehow directed against social cons is just odd.

Admittedly, I do find it tiresome when social cons and hawks and immigration opponents proclaim themselves libertarians and then proceed to argue for traditional Republican politics, including policies that libertarians ought to be suspicious of, but that's an issue of labeling.
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 07-18-2011, 01:40 PM
piscivorous piscivorous is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,593
Default Re: An Occasion of Sin (Mark Schmitt & Tim Carney)

Seems that the hysteria, over global warming, is soon to come to an end as the Chinese have not only managed to halt it but in a few years will have it reversed.
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 07-18-2011, 02:03 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: An Occasion of Sin (Mark Schmitt & Tim Carney)

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
The ACA was passed in the narrow window in which the Dems had 60 seats. Up until Obama's presidency, a president didn't need a supermajority in the senate to pass signature legislation, or to confirm pretty much anyone in his administration..
That ACA required a supermajority says not much about anything except that it was highly controversial. That they passed a bill which had to be passed at any cost and ammended later shows that they were, as you accused the Republicans of, "holding the country hostage".
And, that they passed it despite intense protestation explains a lot about what is happening now.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 07-18-2011, 02:04 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: An Occasion of Sin (Mark Schmitt & Tim Carney)

Quote:
Originally Posted by piscivorous View Post
Seems that the hysteria, over global warming, is soon to come to an end as the Chinese have not only managed to halt it but in a few years will have it reversed.
Oh, good. Clever, those Chinese!
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 07-18-2011, 02:05 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: An Occasion of Sin (Mark Schmitt & Tim Carney)

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
That ACA required a supermajority says not much about anything except that it was highly controversial.

Unlike anything the Bush administration came up with, of course.
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 07-18-2011, 02:11 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: An Occasion of Sin (Mark Schmitt & Tim Carney)

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
Unlike anything the Bush administration came up with, of course.
So here you are saying that despite the fact that they disagreed intensely with Bush's schemes they went along to get along? Besides, I'm not arguing for or against anything Bush did or didn't do, only about your one sided view of politics.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith

Last edited by badhatharry; 07-18-2011 at 02:18 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 07-18-2011, 03:01 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: An Occasion of Sin (Mark Schmitt & Tim Carney)

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
So here you are saying that despite the fact that they disagreed intensely with Bush's schemes they went along to get along? Besides, I'm not arguing for or against anything Bush did or didn't do, only about your one sided view of politics.
No, I am saying their understanding of the rules was similar to every other opposition party in history up until 2009- that the president had been elected and that there was a limit to what was reasonable to block using the filibuster.

you are no less one-sided than I am, or anyone else.
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 07-19-2011, 12:16 AM
aajax aajax is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 29
Default Re: An Occasion of Sin (Mark Schmitt & Tim Carney)

Libertarians as stooges? That's rich. What political thinkers are more principled and independent than Libertarians? The possibility that some billionaires may have deluded themselves into thinking that supporting libertarianism is more advantageous to them than buying off Congressmen is no argument against libertarianism. There are many more billionaires who support liberal policy than there are supporting libertarianism. Should that be a mark against those policies? (Perhaps it should, actually, since liberal policies provide more opportunity for corrupt gains at public expense, especially in healthcare, housing, and education).

You should make your case against libertarianism on more factual grounds.
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 07-19-2011, 12:20 AM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: An Occasion of Sin (Mark Schmitt & Tim Carney)

Quote:
Originally Posted by aajax View Post
Libertarians as stooges? That's rich. What political thinkers are more principled and independent than Libertarians? ...
Well, it's certainly true that they never stop telling us how principled and independent (and philosophically sophisticated, and..., aw shucks, just plain smart!) they are.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 07-19-2011, 12:29 AM
aajax aajax is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 29
Default Re: An Occasion of Sin (Mark Schmitt & Tim Carney)

"All of this being said, I fail to see the relevance of CAFE standards when discussing the merits of cap & trade."

Both are aimed at reducing the environmental and strategic impact of oil consumption.

"His tailpipe argument also seems bizarre when one considers that electricity, transportation, & cement account for some 75%** of emissions and for practical technicalities have to be produced domestically."

The tailpipe argument was about looking at only one part of the life cycle of oil consuming equipment. It had nothing to do with whether something was produced domestically or not. Of course, to the extent that a regulation such as CAFE or cap and trade might make the American economy more costly to operate in, it could be expected to drive industry off shore.

"Nor is it easy to see how either a carbon tax or cap & trade schema could potentially shift consumption in a way that would increase greenhouse gas emissions."


A global carbon tax or cap&trade might not do so, but unilateral action could drive industry to, say, China, where the same industry would cause more pollution.

"Tim seemed like a giant Non sequitur to me on that section."

Not really, as shown above.
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 07-19-2011, 11:54 AM
aajax aajax is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 29
Default Re: An Occasion of Sin (Mark Schmitt & Tim Carney)

[QUOTE=Rathertired;216777]I'm going to try to not get too snarky here, but how many libertarian puppets for rightwing billionaires do we have to be subject to on Bloggingheads?

Do billionaire's puppets write books like "The Big Ripoff: How Big Business and Big Government Steal Your Money"? Have you read it?
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 07-19-2011, 12:07 PM
aajax aajax is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 29
Default Re: An Occasion of Sin (Mark Schmitt & Tim Carney)

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
Well, it's certainly true that they never stop telling us how principled and independent (and philosophically sophisticated, and..., aw shucks, just plain smart!) they are.
Let me know if you find a serious libertarian who isn't! Their lack of humility in argumentation would be an issue for me if they were ever to gain power (or is 'powerful libertarian' an oxymoron?), but until then I can merely smile at it.
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 07-19-2011, 12:13 PM
Starwatcher162536 Starwatcher162536 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,658
Default Re: An Occasion of Sin (Mark Schmitt & Tim Carney)

The "equilibrium residence time"* for common aerosols in the troposphere ranges from a few weeks to two years. For CO2 it is centuries. This means in order for aerosols to mitigate the predicted warming humanity will have to replenish those aerosols every few months for, wait for it, centuries! How we are suppose to do this without adding yet more greenhouse gases and therefore increasing the amount of aerosols needed in the atmosphere is as of now an open question. It's also worth noting that man-made aerosols are estimated to decrease insolation by around .5 Wm^(-2) but a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere** decreases outgoing longwave radiation by 3.7Wm^(-2), therefore, we would need to substantially increase the amount of soot in the air for this to be a "solution" to global warming. Oh well, no biggie, we can all just get used to wearing gas masks when we go outside, no?

*(how long until it is washed out of the atmosphere)
**Which we are well on the way to and will probably substantially pass up without actions to reduce the burning of fossil fuels.

The following are from your link;
Quote:
"It needs to be emphasised that any masking is short-lived, and the increased CO2 from the same coal will remain in the atmosphere for many decades and dominate the long-term warming over the next decades."
Quote:
But Robert Kaufmann is in no doubt that temperatures will pick up if greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise.

"People can choose not to believe in [man-made] climate change - but the correct term here is 'belief' - believing is an act of faith, whereas science is a testing of hypotheses and seeing whether they hold up against real world data.

"Even before this paper there wasn't much scientific evidence for denying climate change, and now I don't see any credible scientific contradiction - if people don't believe it, it'll be because they choose not to believe it."
__________________
Six Phases of a Project: (1)Enthusiasm (2)Disillusionment (3)Panic (4)Search for the Guilty (5)Punishment of the Innocent (6)Praise and Honors for the Non-Participants
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 07-19-2011, 12:25 PM
Starwatcher162536 Starwatcher162536 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,658
Default Re: An Occasion of Sin (Mark Schmitt & Tim Carney)

Quote:
Originally Posted by aajax View Post
Both are aimed at reducing the environmental and strategic impact of oil consumption.
So what? Measures to reduce litter and CAFE standards are both environmental policies. That doesn't mean they are at all analogous and one can predict what the outcomes from one would be based on the outcomes of the other.

Quote:
The tailpipe argument was about looking at only one part of the life cycle of oil consuming equipment. It had nothing to do with whether something was produced domestically or not. Of course, to the extent that a regulation such as CAFE or cap and trade might make the American economy more costly to operate in, it could be expected to drive industry off shore.

A global carbon tax or cap&trade might not do so, but unilateral action could drive industry to, say, China, where the same industry would cause more pollution.
Which is why as I explained in my previous post why I'm focusing on economic sectors that cannot be outsourced.
__________________
Six Phases of a Project: (1)Enthusiasm (2)Disillusionment (3)Panic (4)Search for the Guilty (5)Punishment of the Innocent (6)Praise and Honors for the Non-Participants

Last edited by Starwatcher162536; 07-19-2011 at 12:36 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 07-19-2011, 01:28 PM
piscivorous piscivorous is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,593
Default Re: An Occasion of Sin (Mark Schmitt & Tim Carney)

It is not I who is making the claim that the last decade or so of non existent warming is due to the Chinese burning of coal; it comes from the camp of the true believers. Any port in a storm I guess. I would like to point out a minor contradiction. You make the claim "The "equilibrium residence time"* for common aerosols in the troposphere ranges from a few weeks to two years. For CO2 it is centuries." yet the quoted source places it in the many decades range, which I suppose could run into centuries but then why not say centuries. I have seen other that placed the half life of CO2 in the troposphere as short as 5 years but then again there must be some scientific consensus out there over this minor detail.
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 07-19-2011, 05:46 PM
Starwatcher162536 Starwatcher162536 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,658
Default Re: An Occasion of Sin (Mark Schmitt & Tim Carney)

Quote:
Originally Posted by piscivorous View Post
It is not I who is making the claim that the last decade or so of non existent warming is due to the Chinese burning of coal; it comes from the camp of the true believers. Any port in a storm I guess. I would like to point out a minor contradiction. You make the claim "The "equilibrium residence time"* for common aerosols in the troposphere ranges from a few weeks to two years. For CO2 it is centuries." yet the quoted source places it in the many decades range, which I suppose could run into centuries but then why not say centuries. I have seen other that placed the half life of CO2 in the troposphere as short as 5 years but then again there must be some scientific consensus out there over this minor detail.
Equilibrium residence time and residence time refer to two different things. Residence time for CO2 is the mean time interval it takes for a single specific CO2 molecule to exit the atmosphere. Equilibrium residence time is the time interval it takes for a perturbed CO2 concentration in the atmosphere to fall back to a rough equilibrium concentration. These two time intervals are not equal since the atmosphere and terrestrial biota/hydrosphere constantly exchange carbon (200Gt...maybe...) and every time a carbon of anthropic origin leaves the atmosphere it displaces a carbon of natural origin that is now going to stay in the atmosphere longer. This back and forth exchange of carbon is referred to as the carbon cycle.

It only takes a few moments of thought to realize that the idea that if we were to stop carbon emissions then the levels of atmospheric carbon could fall as quickly as the either mistaken and/or misinterpreted references you mention is ludicrous. We are emitting a huge amount of carbon dioxide each year. Approximately 9Gt per year (2.1 Gt=1ppm). If carbon were sequestered as quickly as your references state photosynthesis would have ceased hundreds of millions of years ago and none of us would be here. Ergo the rate of long term sequestration of carbon is tiny relative to our carbon emissions. There's a fair amount of confusion on this because a popular denilist meme obfuscated this issue lately.

Moving on to the contradiction you mention. It's hard to say without having access to the paper in question, but it sounds like he is talking about how long it would take for atmospheric carbon concentrations to fall assuming carbon emissions do not affect the carbon cycle. This, sort of first order guess, is stated by the IPCC as between 50 and 200 yrs. However using more realistic assumptions knowing that many of the fluxes from the atmosphere to the terrestrial biota/hydrosphere will shrink or even sign change gives estimates of an equilibrium residence time anywhere from between 600 and 2500 years. There are even a few outliers that postulate the COCO3-sediment feedback will be the only sequestration of carbon of note once we gain a few more Celsius that think it could be as long as 35,000 yrs.

{Edit: When refering to carbon emissions I meant to say 9Gt per year of carbon emissions. Not 9Gt per year of carbon dioxide emissions which is about 27Gt per year}
__________________
Six Phases of a Project: (1)Enthusiasm (2)Disillusionment (3)Panic (4)Search for the Guilty (5)Punishment of the Innocent (6)Praise and Honors for the Non-Participants

Last edited by Starwatcher162536; 07-19-2011 at 05:54 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 07-19-2011, 06:14 PM
Starwatcher162536 Starwatcher162536 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,658
Default Re: An Occasion of Sin (Mark Schmitt & Tim Carney)

A point I forgot to mention; It's hard to see how there could possible be mass hysteria related to Global Warming when the world at large has done the next best thing to nothing in order to mitigate Global Warming.
__________________
Six Phases of a Project: (1)Enthusiasm (2)Disillusionment (3)Panic (4)Search for the Guilty (5)Punishment of the Innocent (6)Praise and Honors for the Non-Participants
Reply With Quote
  #141  
Old 07-19-2011, 08:25 PM
piscivorous piscivorous is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,593
Default Re: An Occasion of Sin (Mark Schmitt & Tim Carney)

Perhaps you have finally found the vein in which my original comment is offered.

Last edited by piscivorous; 07-19-2011 at 08:46 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 07-19-2011, 09:35 PM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: An Occasion of Sin (Mark Schmitt & Tim Carney)

Quote:
Originally Posted by aajax View Post
You should make your case against libertarianism on more factual grounds.
And what factual grounds would you be looking at when libertarianism is a fantasy about how they would like the world to be?
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 07-19-2011, 10:03 PM
ledocs ledocs is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: France, Earth
Posts: 1,165
Default Re: An Occasion of Sin (Mark Schmitt & Tim Carney)

No one in his right mind cares about what the guy on the right side of the screen (from the viewer's point of view) thinks about political philosophy. We might as well start interviewing random people on the street and asking them what the ideal form of government is. That would be about as instructive as this dv.
__________________
ledocs
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 07-20-2011, 11:07 AM
Starwatcher162536 Starwatcher162536 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,658
Default Re: An Occasion of Sin (Mark Schmitt & Tim Carney)

Quote:
Originally Posted by piscivorous View Post
Perhaps you have finally found the vein in which my original comment is offered.
Attempting and failing to demolish irevalent strawman?
__________________
Six Phases of a Project: (1)Enthusiasm (2)Disillusionment (3)Panic (4)Search for the Guilty (5)Punishment of the Innocent (6)Praise and Honors for the Non-Participants
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 07-20-2011, 11:45 AM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: An Occasion of Sin (Mark Schmitt & Tim Carney)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536 View Post
A point I forgot to mention; It's hard to see how there could possible be mass hysteria related to Global Warming when the world at large has done the next best thing to nothing in order to mitigate Global Warming.
lightbulbs are big.

PS. Yellowstone might end up being a big help.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 07-20-2011, 02:50 PM
Starwatcher162536 Starwatcher162536 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,658
Default Re: An Occasion of Sin (Mark Schmitt & Tim Carney)

Are you being sarcastic? That people are going to need to switch from one type of lightbulb to another type of lightbulb that is close to being functionally equivalent is very much next to nothing.
__________________
Six Phases of a Project: (1)Enthusiasm (2)Disillusionment (3)Panic (4)Search for the Guilty (5)Punishment of the Innocent (6)Praise and Honors for the Non-Participants
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 07-20-2011, 03:37 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: An Occasion of Sin (Mark Schmitt & Tim Carney)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536 View Post
Are you being sarcastic? That people are going to need to switch from one type of lightbulb to another type of lightbulb that is close to being functionally equivalent is very much next to nothing.
I forgot my smiley face.

sorry.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 07-28-2011, 04:27 PM
piscivorous piscivorous is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,593
Default Re: An Occasion of Sin (Mark Schmitt & Tim Carney)

And the science is so settled and exact!
Quote:
NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.
According to NASA scientists

"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 07-28-2011, 10:01 PM
Starwatcher162536 Starwatcher162536 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,658
Default Uncertainty in Climate and it's implications

Quote:
Originally Posted by piscivorous View Post
And the science is so settled and exact!
My previous post mentions that the IPCC is using a range of uncertainty of 50 to 200 yrs on this issue because some of the dynamics which lead to uncertainties ranging from 600 to 2500 years which are probably more accurate are nevertheless highly speculative and hard to quantify. Plenty of uncertainty (=not exact) there. No one suggests otherwise.

There is also much uncertainty (=not settled) regarding climate models, though the implications are probably quite different then what your previous posts would lead me to believe your views are. A little bit of backstory; Climate Models are the Frankenstein of Climate Science. They are the synthesis of vast swaths of little bits of knowledge. This synthesis is done since the big questions such as "How does temperature relate to atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide?" cannot be answered by individual studies looking at say the trend in column-integrated atmospheric water vapor content. Trying to would be like trying to tell what a picture is when only looking at a few pixels. Now once all these little bits of knowledge (let's call them parameters) are synthesized we have a crude climate model. Now this crude climate model isn't very useful as the varying levels of uncertainties in the individual parameters combine in such a way that the uncertainty in the crude climate model leads to predictions that are "wider" then the conditions the Earth has ever experienced. As a tool of prediction this crude climate model is useless. Luckily though the story does not end here. It turns out in many cases certain segments of the possible range for some parameter is mutually exclusive with certain segments of the possible range of some other parameter. That is to say we may have one parameter that can be anywhere from 1-100 and we have another parameter (that we have more confidence in our ability to predict) that can be anywhere from 1-20 and through scientific knowledge of the Earth system we know if the second parameter is less then 20 the first parameter must be less then 40. When the uncertainty of a model is lessened like this it is called "tuning the model". Tuning the model also saves much computer processing time because it eliminates how many times a model needs to be run (All model predictions you see are an average of many many model runs in which the inputs & parameters values are slightly adjusted).

Synopsis so far; There are correlations in the parameters that make up climate that let climate scientists get more narrow model outputs by only choosing "parameter sets" that are "Earth-like". Hang on now, long-winded as I can be sometimes I am almost to my point.

Now this "tuning" is, wait for it now, subjective. This coupled with the wide uncertainties in such things as aerosol forcings (to keep this mildly related to earlier posts) and the close agreement of various climate model outputs led some women (don't remember her name offhand) in the mid 90's to question if the models were being "over-tuned". That is to say the models close agreement was not a function of their robustness but instead a result of them copying each other. This lead to something called "perturbed ensemble model physics". What this PEMP is is really just not tuning the model at all and running it for what can be tens of thousands of times varying the parameters (even with non earth like parameter-sets) a little each time. Many things can be learned from PEMP's, but what we are concerned with here is that PEMP's suggest how our estimate of climate sensitivity to perturbations in carbon dioxide concentrations changes as we add bit upon bit of uncertainty. Probably the most well known PEMP was done by climateprediction.net. What did they find? That with a huge increase in uncertainty in a litany of things the climate sensitivity changed from 2-4.7C per doubling of CO2 to 1.7C-11C per doubling of CO2.

So whenever I hear people questioning climate models veracity in the public discourse, I always want to say "You know this makes the problem of climate change MORE urgent not less, right?".
__________________
Six Phases of a Project: (1)Enthusiasm (2)Disillusionment (3)Panic (4)Search for the Guilty (5)Punishment of the Innocent (6)Praise and Honors for the Non-Participants

Last edited by Starwatcher162536; 07-28-2011 at 10:07 PM.. Reason: sp and remove redunancy
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 07-28-2011, 11:18 PM
Starwatcher162536 Starwatcher162536 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,658
Default Thoughts on mentioned paper

Dunno what your link has to do with what we are talking about [Aerosols & Climate]. Whatever.

I've done a real quick overview on Spencer's Paper. Both the paper and the article seem strange to me.

Quote:
Over 20 coupled ocean-atmosphere climate models tracked by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) produce a wide range of warming estimates in response to the infrared radiative forcing theoretically
expected from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions [2].
The first quote says a few things to me. One that your linked article is BS. That's the only thing that can be found about Earth Radiation Budget at top of atmosphere stuff. The estimated current imbalance is .75 W/m^2. Satellites can only measure to within an 1.5W/m^2. The paper in question never mentions anything that could improve satellites accuracy. Another strange thing is Spencer's use of "theoretically". True in a sense I suppose, but all that is needed to find this is to solve the radiative transfer equations across all wavelengths, gases, elevations (lapse rate). A lengthy but from theory perspective rather easy.

Given that it's Spencer and that it is in a respected journal I won't dismiss it and am assuming I'm missing something. The contributions to Climate Science made by Dr. Spencer cannot be overstated. I've talked to actual climate scienticists about Spencer and it's common to hear words like "ingenious" and "brilliant" when talking about Spencer's and Christie's "2LT Channel". It is however also true he has a history of perpetuation what are clearly misrepresentations when in the public sphere to further what I can only assume is a political agenda. Spencer is largely responsible for this "model vs. data" false dichotomy that is so rampant now.
__________________
Six Phases of a Project: (1)Enthusiasm (2)Disillusionment (3)Panic (4)Search for the Guilty (5)Punishment of the Innocent (6)Praise and Honors for the Non-Participants

Last edited by Starwatcher162536; 07-28-2011 at 11:34 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #151  
Old 07-28-2011, 11:22 PM
Starwatcher162536 Starwatcher162536 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,658
Default A note to Pisc

If you have something substantive to say that's fine. I won't consider anything you say as substantive unless it lays out your thought process, gives a synopsis of anything you link to in your own words, & explains the wider context (Overall importance) of your post.

I've already danced this dance of one line rejoinder's followed by a link where nothing is explained in enough detail not to have plausible deniability about the intent of the post in question to many times with Whatfur already. If you actually have something to say put yourself out there and actually say it.

...If not, then don't expect a reply as you'll be on my ignore list.
__________________
Six Phases of a Project: (1)Enthusiasm (2)Disillusionment (3)Panic (4)Search for the Guilty (5)Punishment of the Innocent (6)Praise and Honors for the Non-Participants

Last edited by Starwatcher162536; 07-29-2011 at 11:54 AM..
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.