So who can answer Jerry Pournelle's questions about Global Warming?

Great Debates
61

To all those who answered those issues: I’m already aware of them, thanks. I was just trying to point out that Pournelle’s specific argument hadn’t been addressed in this thread, other than the two posts who claimed that the accuracy of the readings could be improved through statistical analysis. My response to that was that you can only use such techniques of the data is randomly sampled and it can be assumed that there is no common-mode error.

I prefaced my original message by stating that I thought Pournelle was wrong in the first place, so you’re preaching to the converted. However, his questions are not silly, and even though I think the weight of the evidence is against him, his position is certainly not the equivalent of believing in intelligent design or some other pseudo-science.

As for global warming deniers being biased against big government in the first place, I hope you realize that that can be flipped around: The people who accept global warming are more likely than not to be people who are already biased towards big activist government.

The fact is, these populations self-select to a certain degree, because belief in the issue for people who are not educated on the subject is a form of signaling - supporting the dominant belief of the tribe you belong to. This is common on both the right and the left, even though you guys always try to paint your side as the smart ones. If Oprah Winfrey believes strongly in global warming, it’s not because she’s smart - it’s because she happens to play for the team that happens to be right in this particular case.

For example, I think that the left is generally right about the existence of anthropogenic global warming. I think the average lefty who doesn’t know much about the issue is wildly wrong in his or her opinion of what the consequences of it are likely to be, and I think they are utterly incapable of discussing solutions rationally. Because they instantly jump from ‘global warming is real’ to blind support of any hare-brained scheme a politician will come up with to ‘fix’ the problem, because that’s where their biases lead them and because they aren’t educationally equipped to understand the issue in the first place.

I’ll offer again to participate in a thread on global warming solutions that starts from the premise that global warming is happening, that the IPCC report is roughly correct, and which proceeds from those assumptions. I’ve tried that several times now, and never got anywhere. Because ones you get past basic atmospheric chemistry, the problem gets very complex and very hard, and there are no glib answers.

To give you an idea of how difficult this problem is, consider two companies making the same good:

Company A is in America, and uses the latest lean manufacturing, just-in-time inventory, advanced pollution controls, and automation to make a product. It is capital-intensive, but has a relatively low carbon footprint per product made.

Company B is in China, using outdated factories and manual labor. Its energy cost per product is five times higher, but its labor and capital cost per product is five times lower.

The result is that both companies have found a comparative advantage and sell roughly equivalent products at equivalent prices and each have 50% market share.

Now increase the cost of energy for the American company by slapping a carbon tax on it. The American company’s cost goes up 10%, and as a result it loses market share to the Chinese company.

Congratulations - you’ve lowered American manufacturing’s carbon footprint - because you shrunk American manufacturing. You can go and feel good about how you’re forcing them to pay for their externalities, and take comfort in the stats that will show America’s carbon emissions have declined.

In the meantime, each widget that is made in China instead of America produces five times as much carbon. So world carbon emissions actually increase. All you’ve managed to do is eliminate the comparative advantage of energy efficiency at the state level, and driven manufacturing from energy efficient production to energy inefficient production.

Will this happen? Certainly, in some cases. Will it on balance be a negative for world carbon emissions? No one knows, because markets aren’t predictable. But it’s certain as rain that taxing energy of American manufacturers will drive some manufacturing out of the country to other places where the tax doesn’t exist. Since America is one of the most energy efficient manufacturing countries, that change is likely to be carbon-negative to some degree, partially or completely offsetting any other gains you might find.

That’s just one small issue out of many that crop up when you talk about global management of long-term CO2 emissions.

62

Guess you missed the part earlier where I showed Israelis use solar power to for 90% of their water heaters.

Solar tech (and other green tech) is getting better all the time.

Yes, fossil fuels are cheaper and probably always will be till the resource becomes scarce (which it will in the future). There are more considerations than just being less expensive (e.g want to be beholden to the Middle East for your energy?).

63

Well…you said it yourself. Pournelle is squaring off against the weight of the evidence.

Is the evidence 100% rock solid and unassailable?

No.

But the weight of the evidence is vastly in favor of pointing to Global Warming.

Further, as I mentioned before, when deniers point out this or that flaw in the science the scientists seek to plug those holes and to date, when the denier issues are accounted for, the answer remains the same and points towards AGW (as I and others showed earlier).

I cannot think of an instance where it has been otherwise.

If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is best to assume it is a duck. One could demand DNA evidence that it is not an alien from Mars that just looks like a duck but which way are you gonna bet on the results of that?

I know you are playing Devil’s Advocate but those you are advocating for are protecting a position that gets weaker by the day with not a battle won. They are losing every challenge they put up. Perhaps they will win one tomorrow but I am not holding my breath.

64

Actually Chronos, I didn’t want anybody on on this thread to answer these questions. It seemed pointless since anyone could google the answers in a few minutes. My point was that anyone who had studied Climate Science enough to have a informed opinion would know the answers off the top of their head. My suggested responses are:

**1. Water Vapor, Methane and Nitrous Oxide. ** I’m not sure where you got the notion that ammonia is a significant GHG. If you don’t use Water Vapor, then Ozone would be #3.

**2. Water Vapor. **Most greenhouse warming is caused by water vapor. Current theory is that CO2 causes warming, which causes the amount of water vapor in the air to increase, which cause more warming. You end up with a positive feedback loop. There is vigorous disagreement about how much feedback occurs. Most of this concerns how climate system.

**3. This is a doofus filter. **Most people know that CO2 is necessary for plants to grow and if you reduce the CO2 levels too much, then plants stop growing and we would starve to death. Many climate activists suggest a target of 350PPM. I don’t know anyone off hand, that thinks going below 280PPM would be desirable.
280 is the estimate of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere at the start of the industrial revolution.

**4. Nuclear and Hydroelectric are the correct answers. ** France derives 90% of their electricity from Nuclear and Hydroelectricity. Their per capita CO2 emissions are 1/3 that of the US.

5. About 33 degrees Kelvin or Centigrade if you prefer. I found this number rather startling the first time I encountered it, but it does appear to be consensus number. Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth would be below freezing.

65

JoelUpchurch, the original point was that climate change deniers I have talked to have a fundamental lack of **VERY BASIC ** science knowledge.

I would love it if everyone who wants to offer an opinion on Climate Change would be able to answer your questions, or at least discuss them by using relevant science, or even if they could google the answers and understand the basics of the answers.

The trouble is, when my mother’s neighbor starts blabbering on about how “Global Warming is a scheme to steal his money and anyway it isn’t true because he read it on the internets”. The man is scientifically illiterate. I asked him what gasses are in the atmosphere. I had to explain to him what a gas was. I had to explain to him what I meant by the atmosphere. I told him that Nitrogen made up 78% of the atmosphere. He did not know what Nitrogen was.

Thus the discussion ended, with him saying “I know what I know, and Global Warming is Bunk!”

I don’t think that this guy should ever open his mouth about Global Climate Change.

Pournelle is essentially doing the same thing, albeit in a more sophisticated way. He is uninformed about how complex statistical analysis works. (see wevets post earlier here) Instead of educating himself about statistics, he uses his ignorance to bolster a claim about Climate Change.

66

[quote=“Whack-a-Mole, post:62, topic:556876”]

I guess you missed the part where I referred to solar CELLS. Solar thermal is coming down in price out west and shows great promise. It still lacks the capacity to run 24 hrs a day so it is requires another power system to make it work and that has to be additional capacity AND storage devices or nuclear power.

There is little that can be done with existing solar cells. Yes, there are exiting things that keep popping up but such as flexible plastic panels and I follow such developments but the current systems are a waste of money.

You keep talking about fossil fuels and I’ve never mentioned it once.

67

Euphonious Polemic

I agree that I wouldn’t bother to listen to somebody to someone’s opinion on AGW who didn’t know that Nitrogen is a gas, but I not sure why you would take seriously the opinions of someone who doesn’t know that water vapor is a greenhouse gas or that plants use carbon dioxide.

The trouble is that you seem to think that only the people that disagree with you are ignorant. If you start checking, most of the people who agree with you are also boobs.

I would be careful about what you say about Dr. Pournelle’s use of statistics. I have been reading his stuff for a long time and he discusses statistical topics fairly often. I checked his bio and it turns out that one of his Masters is in Experimental Statistics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Pournelle

68

I certainly would not take someone’s opinion on AGW seriously if they did not know that water vapour was a greenhouse gas.

Who I do listen to are scientists who work in the field. One of them I know quite well - he works directly in this area. I can assure you that he knows that water vapour is a greenhouse gas. I tend to trust his judgement in the area of climate science.

While there may indeed be people who simply take AGW on faith without an understanding of the science involved, I would say that they’re doing OK, since they usually acknowledge their own lack of subject knowledge, and defer to the experts in the field.

However the people who have no subject knowledge, but then form an (uneducated) opinion that GOES AGAINST the vast majority of scientific studies (which they don’t understand)… That does not sit well with me.

69

Ammonia isn’t a significant greenhouse gas for the simple reason that it’s an extremely small proportion of the atmosphere. If we had as much of it as we had carbon dioxide, it would be an extremely significant greenhouse gas (and we’d all be poisoned, but that’s a different issue). Really, though, the only gases which actually have a significant greenhouse effect in our atmosphere are water and CO2, so if you’re asking for more beyond that, then you’re going to either get something which isn’t very effective on a per-molecule basis, something that’s present only in trace amounts, or both.

70

Scientific progress…happens even for solar power.

71

Please read this paper by Sherwood Idso:

http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr/10/c010p069.pdf

Further points to consider:

  1. Earth has the most complex weather system is the system. Advanced modeling is giving a better picture, but… the number of variables needed to accurately represent climate is vast.

  2. Global climate change is not new. Mountain formation, volcanic activity, solar cycles, etc. alter our environment constantly, yet usually slowly.

  3. The sun. That glowing orange orb you see every day is a million times our size. However, as recently discovered the corona of the sun does not produce sufficient heat as observable here on earth. Scientist finally solved the riddle: sunspots or coronal mass ejections. Corona = 10,000 degrees; Sunspot = upwards 15 million degress. Therefore, high sunspot activity could result in global temperature change.

  4. Better global warming than global cooling. Last major ice age ended 14,000 years ago. Sea levels were lower, proving more coastline, however two-thirds of the planet would have been very cold. Bad for us and bad for most plant species and animals.

  5. Last point to clarify my opinions on the mattter. Emmissions and dependency on oil are a problem, one we must solve. Someone posted we should trust the scientists, in general I agree, wth some exceptions. One scientist was already caught fudging his data. Second, scientist are often wrong: Aristole, although a brilliant scientist and philosopher, was wrong about gravity, the spinning and position of the earth. Now some scientists, while not abandoning his laws, are rethinking Newton, and going back to Leibnitz. Very lastly, it angers me to no end the constant doomsday messages beamed into are heads by media outlets (worst offenders being Planet Green, History, and Nat Geo). The world is not going to end in 50 years or even a hundred, but I do support reasonable and sustainable measures to ensure it will last.

72

Do you have a reference for that? I checked the IPCC and EPA and they only mentioned GHGs released in the production of ammonia and not ammonia itself as a GHG, much less a stonger one than CO2.

73

Correct, the number of variables is vast, and also, modeling is getting much better, and all of the evidence points toward climate changes caused by increases in anthropogenic atmospheric CO2.

Correct, but the increase in CO2 in such a short period of time is unprecedented. That’s the problem. If the increase in CO2 were on a time scale similar to mountain formation, there would be no worries.

Our understanding of the sun’s activities, including sunspot cycles has increased rather a lot lately, and has been accounted for in the climate change models. The fact that the sun may have an influence on climate is not a revelation to climate scientists - they sort of know this and take it into account.

No, this is incorrect, and bad logic. The best case is NOT to have large, short term climate change AT ALL. You can’t simply say “better too hot than too cold”. What we want is as little (short term, dramatic) change as possible.

No, you are completely incorrect here. The scientist in question did not “fudge” any data, and independent inquiries have clearly shown this. You have bought the total BULLSHIT that deniers are peddling.

Again, you have very bad logic here: If “some scientist were wrong once” it does not logically follow that therefore climate scientists are wrong in this case.

I’m sorry you don’t like the messages. There have been “chicken little” types in the past, but I believe you should pay more attention to the more reputable scientists, who will tend to couch the facts very carefully, and not resort to extremist rhetoric.

74

Hi EP, I did not mention a scientist’s name, so how can you tell me I am wrong?

Next, scientists are often wrong. That is how science works. Science = best theory at the time.

Did you read Idso’s paper? In a nutshell, if carbon dioxide pollution is causing rapid temperature increase then why are Venus and Mars experiencing the same exact change in temperature? One paper does not debunk global warming, but… it is food for thought.

Lastly, I am here to debate. I have an open mind, is your mind open to the possibilty you’re wrong? Cause guess what… that’s the great adventure of discovery. Now I don’t know you so I won’t claim to know otherwise, but maybe our differences result in how we see the world. In physics nothing is certain, the field changes rapidly as our understanding of the universe changes. Sometimes this process is slow. For 50 years the Big Bang Theory has been widely accepted, however that picture is now slipping away. Dark physics is dying. Newton’s gravity and with the gravitational constant are in question. Hubble’s accepted red-shifting to measure acceleration and distance are in question. Problem with theory is math can sometimes prove what does not exist or is not true. However, as I type at this computer just because there is no mathematical formula to prove it does not mean it is not true. Catch my logic. Global temperature change may be occuring. My question is why? Pointing to carbon dioxide alone is over simplifying the an extremely complex system. And global cooling IS far more destructive. Global temperatures have been much higher is the past with much high carbon dioxide levels and plants especially thrived!

75

OK, name the “One scientist (who) was already caught fudging his data.”
Give me a reliable factual cite (not an opinion blog)

Yes, but that does not mean you can say “some scientists were wrong in the past, therefore we should doubt the veracity of current science”.

Indeed one paper does not “debunk” global warming. He seems to be saying that

(bolding mine)

I think you misinterpret what he says about Mars and Venus in this paper. He does not mention anywhere that they are experiencing the same exact change in temperature. Rather, he uses the measured greenhouse effect in the atmosphere of both Mars and Venus to interpolate what Earth’s climate will do if CO2 increases in Earth’s atmosphere.

Absolutely. But right now, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of rapid, Climate Change as a result of releasing massive amounts of CO2 due to human activities.

Once again, the problem is that this change is happening much, much MUCH too quickly, and the problems that it will cause will completely overwhelm any positive impacts. I’m sure that once everything settles out in 10,000 years, things will be just great.

76

EP, you are misinterpreting what I am saying about scientists.

I am not saying don’t listen to scientists or most scientist are wrong. I am saying our understanding as a species is limited. What is correct today may not be correct tomorrow. Well to an extent.

There is no such thing as overwhelming evidence. Either is it is or is not. Which changes based on which century one lives in. There was overwhelming evidence the earth was the center of the universe, some astronomers even came up with perfect models that predicted retrograde motion. But they were wrong and their work eventually led to the correct answer.

And once again I am not disputing that global temperature change is occuring. And my vote is to reduce carbon emmissions. But what if I told you CD alone cannot account for such rapid increases. And what happens if we slip into another “Little Ice Age”? Will we abandon conservation efforts? My point is, it is impossible to predict the future weather or climate of this planet, even in the short term. My dumb-ass weatherperson said the other day, “100% chance of rain”, but alas no rain. My worry is good reasonable initiatives will be abandoned if the predict they wrong occurence. You said earlier they were accounting for solar activity. How? We just started tracking solar weather and are nowhere close to understanding the intricacies. That big orange thingy is everything imo. Add that to greenhouse gases and we’ll have a much better picture.

I will concede on the “fudged data”. I don’t have the article saved any longer, don’t remeber the name, and you are quite possibly right that the allegations were unfounded. Unable to argue otherwise, I will concede the point.

Oh, last point for tonight. Ten years ago the world of physics frowned on the world of the paranormal, i.e. ghost hunters etc. Now with the Holographic principal, that idea is being re-worked. Ghosts may be 3D information stored in 2D, like on a wall. Who would have thought those two fields merging on a like concept? Never say never.

77

Quoth Freedom Is Not Free:

If anyone’s actually saying that, then you can just ignore whatever else they’re claiming about science, because they haven’t got a clue. First off, most of the energy the Earth gets from the Sun is from the photosphere, not the corona: The corona of the Sun is just too diffuse to emit a significant amount of energy. Second, the temperature of the corona is millions of degrees, not 10,000 (and in fact it’s a mystery that’s still not completely solved just how it gets to be that hot, though magnetic reconnection is probably involved). Third, the photosphere of the Sun (the part responsible for the energy actually radiated to Earth) is at about 6000 degrees, not 10,000, either. Fourth, sunspots are cooler than the rest of the photosphere, not hotter, which is why they appear black in images. Now, there may be some connection between the solar cycle and weather effects on Earth, but it’s clear that this guy has no actual clue what those connections are.

78

This is trademark crackpot language. With it, you can justify believing in magic and fairies. “The earth is so complicated, fairies only make sense.”

Correction: There was never any evidence the earth was the center of the universe, but if there had been, it would have right to believe it.

Yes, weather and climate are difficult for laypeople to distinguish.

Err, yes. That first thing I said.

79

You seem to be saying that since science cannot be absolutely sure about a theory, then it therefore follows that anything is possible.

This is incorrect, and as has been pointed out, simply leads to the acceptance of any sort of woo that you care to postulate. Like the existence of ghosts.

It’s fine to be skeptical. But there is such a thing as overwhelming evidence. I don’t recommend, for example, that you be skeptical of the germ theory of disease, and think that perhaps your raging bacterial infection is caused by “bad bodily humours”, and can be cured by positive thinking, or perhaps a poultice of old tea leaves.

80

The Ptolemaic model of a geocentric universe was hardly a “perfect model”; while the addition of successive epicycles could reduce error significantly, detailed observations still demonstrated deviation from prediction. Furthermore, although it was derived from the Aristotelian system, the epicycles-upon-epicycles were an arbitrary addition with no physical justification that defied the Platonic principle of the perfection of circular cycles. There was never any “overwhelming evidence [that] the earth was the center of the universe”; this was an assumption based upon the hubris that Earth and mankind occupied a special place in Creation, not any kind of scientific justification.

In fact, once something akin to the scientific method was applied to this problem, i.e. observation and formation of a hypothesis based upon strictly those observations, the Copernican Sun-centered model was quickly followed by Kepler’s laws of planetary motion, based upon the detail measurements of Tycho Brahe. Although it took Newton’s invention of calculus and formation of the law of gravity to give a mechanic behind this, it was evident upon inspection of actual data.

I don’t know where you are getting this, but it isn’t from “the world of physics”. The holographic principle has nothing to do with ghosts or consciousness.

Stranger