Entangled Histories: Climate Science and Nuclear Weapons Research

Harperdog writes "Paul N. Edwards has a great paper about the links between nuclear weapons testing and climate science. From the abstract: 'Tracing radioactive carbon as it cycles through the atmosphere, the oceans, and the biosphere has been crucial to understanding anthropogenic climate change. The earliest global climate models relied on numerical methods very similar to those developed by nuclear weapons designers for solving the fluid dynamics equations needed to analyze shock waves produced in nuclear explosions. The climatic consequences of nuclear war also represent a major historical intersection between climate science and nuclear affairs. Without the work done by nuclear weapons designers and testers, scientists would know much less than they now do about the atmosphere. In particular, this research has contributed enormously to knowledge about both carbon dioxide, which raises Earth's temperature, and aerosols, which lower it.'"

Comments

Nuclear winter and the big bombs of the 50's

[eis2718bob]

I wonder about the climate impact of the series of multi-megaton surface blasts by the US and USSR in the 1950's and 1960's. These tests put both dust and radionuclides into the atmosphere in large, possibly globally-significant quantities. When we see surface temperature changes over the last 50 years, how much of that is a recovery from an abnormal climate?

Re:Nuclear winter and the big bombs of the 50's

[Anonymous Coward]

On the scale of the whole Earth, I don't think the tests would have much effect. There were "only" a couple thousand nuclear tests spread over decades, most of which were underground rather than atmospheric. At the peak there were ~100 a year. The effect on climate was likely much less than from other processes, such as agriculture, volcanic eruptions, or smoke from forest fires. The radionuclides would have little or no effect on climate. They just make good tracers.

Re:Nuclear winter and the big bombs of the 50's

[cpu6502]

Probably nothing. Even the largest nukes were blown-up high above the ground, to avoid throwing-up a lot of dust, and they were less than 1/10th as powerful as the 1800s Krakatoa volcano

Re:Nuclear winter and the big bombs of the 50's

[Jane Q. Public]

Nonsense. Early on there were quite a few surface and near-surface tests, and after that there were quite a lot of "underground" tests, which did not always quite stay underground.

Re:Nuclear winter and the big bombs of the 50's

[Jane Q. Public]

In addition to that, you have to add in the radioactive releases of nuclear plants associated with bomb production, like the radioactive iodine releases from the Hanford nuclear reservation. Maybe not "bombs", but they were certainly related to bomb production, and they were not just environmental releases but DAMAGING environmental releases.

Re:Nuclear winter and the big bombs of the 50's

[rgbatduke]

Or, all together were probably less than Tambora: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Tambora -- at 800 Mt, considerably less. Tambora holds many records: Largest explosion in recorded history, loudest sound in recorded history, largest single-event influence on the climate in recorded history (it basically eliminated "summer" for two years in a row in at least some temperate latitudes) and helped make the decade of 1810 the coldest decade on historical record (but not the coldest year or part of the coldest half-century or century).

But I don't think we can be certain of the effect of the nuclear tests. Many of the largest were low over water and kicked a lot of water into the stratosphere. We just don't have the data, and hence any conclusions are likely to be guesses.

Nuke the whales

[James McGuigan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IUxK_0WLbg

Re:Nuke the whales

[Anonymous Coward]

Nuke the unborn gay vegan whales for Jesus.

(That should irritate almost all)

Re:Nuke the whales

[Anonymous Coward]

Especially people tired of ancient jokes.

Same Camera Tech used by Ansel Adams, Larry Flynt

[retroworks]

It seems the point is that scientists were employed during wartime, and the science they discovered has peacetime uses.

greenhouse gasses

[Black Parrot]

The effect of greenhouse gasses has been known for a couple of hundred years.

However, I think it was Sagan's group's concern about a possible Nuclear Winter that got people started actually thinking about greenhouse gasses and climate.

Re:greenhouse gasses

[marcosdumay]

Not only the nuclear winter. At around the same time, astronomers started* to study the climate of the other planets of the Solar System, palenontologues started* to study the ancient climate changes that happened on Earth, and the people thinking about nuclear warfare started* to study man-made climate change.

* Yeah, I know, there were older studies. But not with as strong conclusions.

Re:greenhouse gasses

[TapeCutter]

got people started actually thinking about greenhouse gasses and climate

That started a little over a century ago, however for the first 50yrs the killer argument was that the H2O absorption spectrum overlapped that of CO2. This was not resolved until the 50's when better spectoraphs were built for reasearch into heat seeking missiles. The role of CO2 as the main driver of Earth's climate came about from trying to work out what caused the ice ages, even though the discovery of the Milankovich cycles eventually explained the timing of the ice ages, it could not explain the maginitude of the change without including CO2 feedbacks (such as melting permafrost).

All this was known to science in the late 50's when the NAS first warned the US government that emmisions were causing the climate to warm. Areosols are much more complex, some (sulphur compounds) have a cooling effect because they reflect sunlight, others such a soot absorb sunlight and dump it into the ocean as heat. This complexity is reflected in the error bars put around it's contribution to climate change. This complexity and uncertainty is also the origin of the canard "they predicted global cooling in the 70'", it's true that ~30% of the papers that did attempt a climate prediction in the 70's, predicted the wrong sign. However that was 40yrs ago and there is no scientifically valid support for such a view now, particularly since Reagan pushed for and won a (successful) international cap and trade system on sulphur emmissions to combat acid rain.

Also, another interesting point.

[Anonymous Coward]

We know it was stupidly hot in the days of the dinos.

In fact, if humans never existed, at this moment in time, we'd probably be in the beginnings of an ice age and the global warming stage already happened probably around a 500-1000 years ago.
Humans killed off a considerable number of animals in their time. Equally they also killed off a number of trees too, but not enough that greenery can't handle it to a the extent it has. (we are also now replanting hundreds of thousands of trees around the world each year, so that component will die down again)

We had a considerable effect on the environment. We saved it from 2 kinds of hell for many more generations.
Or that is how it seems just now. We could have equally doomed it to all kinds of hell, we simply do not know the full consequences of artificially extending or shortening climate cycles. There is a few good estimates, but all are equally valid as each other, sadly.

Re:Also, another interesting point.

[The Snowman]

Equally they also killed off a number of trees too, but not enough that greenery can't handle it to a the extent it has.

Much of the CO2 processing occurs in the oceans by plankton. Trees definitely help, but plankton does more. Of course plankton is dying too and it's much more difficult to remedy than planting more trees.

tech is tech

[circletimessquare]

it can be used for good, it can be used for evil

Bah Humbug! Twice nothing ...

[Anonymous Coward]

is still nothing. We don't understand complex systems very well at all. On the other hand, we have scientists who will tell us things with absolute confidence.

"This nuclear plant is absolutely safe."

"We're all going to die because of anthropogenic carbon dioxide causing cataclysmic global warming."

To quote Freeman Dyson:

So it happens that the experts who talk publicly about politically contentious questions tend to speak more clearly than they think. They make confident predictions about the future, and end up believing their own predictions. Their predictions become dogmas which they do not question. The public is led to believe that the fashionable scientific dogmas are true, and it may sometimes happen that they are wrong. That is why heretics who question the dogmas are needed.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/08/freeman-dyson-m/

Re:Bah Humbug! Twice nothing ...

[smaddox]

I, myself, don't know how much climate scientists really know about the climate. Few people probably do, in much the same way that most people don't know anything about my field. However, based on my cursory understanding of general systems, the difficulty in climate science is that it's a chaotic system. The rules are well known, and the observations can be well modeled, but making predictions about the future of a chaotic system is inherently difficult.

Re:Bah Humbug! Twice nothing ...

[PopeRatzo]

I, myself, don't know how much climate scientists really know about the climate. Few people probably do, in much the same way that most people don't know anything about my field.

But do you know anything about your field? What would you think if someone said "I'm not sure the experts in smaddox's field really know anything about their field"? Saying, "experts aren't experts" can become very negative very quickly, and today there is an organized, committed effort to devalue all expertise. Once you do that, you can tell people anything at all because "I know as much as the so-called experts".

The rules are well known, and the observations can be well modeled, but making predictions about the future of a chaotic system is inherently difficult.

Yes, but chaotic systems are seldom made less so by adding greater instability. So may predictions about limits can not be accurate, but the prediction that "greater instability will make the chaotic system more unstable" is pretty straightforward. So while climate scientists can't predict the exact amount that temperature will change as greenhouse gas emissions increase, they can predict that continuing to increaase greenhouse gas emissions at the rate they have been increasing is not a good idea.

I, myself, believe that the expertise represented by the group of people known as "climate scientists" probably rates some consideration of their findings.

Re:Bah Humbug! Twice nothing ...

[Jane Q. Public]

Actually, the rules aren't even well-known. The majority of CO2 warming models rely on a concept of "back radiation" that (according to physicists) does not even exist.

I encourage you to read Spencer's explanation of "back radiation" (linked to from that page) before reading LaTour's rebuttal. Most CO2 models require this nonexistent "back radiation" for their calculations to work.

Re:Bah Humbug! Twice nothing ...

[rgbatduke]

Two comments -- just to be picky. One: Read Taleb's "The Black Swan". It is basically a systematic proof that in fact most experts aren't experts, with narrow exceptions in non-complex scientific fields such as physics. In complex systems, experts in fact are rarely experts, and almost invariably claim more knowledge than time and data prove that they have/had. It's quite understandable -- in the end you can understand why many experts aren't expert.

Two, chaotic systems are often made less so by increasing a driver. In fact, many of them have narrow parametric regions where they are chaotic, and if you move any parameter out of that region the system stabilizes.

As a single example, the most violent weather tends to occur when warm fronts and cold fronts are in close proximity, when/where high pressure systems and low pressure systems collide or interact. For any given heat input, temperature differentials on the surface of the Earth actually increase cooling efficiency because outgoing power is radiated proportional to the fourth power of the temperature but only the second power of the relevant surface length scale. The more uniform the temperature, the warmer the average temperature. It is therefore entirely possible for a warming climate to have more uniform temperatures and less violent weather. It is similarly quite possible for a globally cooling climate to be setting local temperature records (concentration of heat in a comparatively small area, from which it is relatively rapidly lost) while only cooling very slightly elsewhere, and to have more violent weather when cold fronts impinge on those heated areas.

I have code and descriptions if you want to numerically study a very simple actual chaotic system (or two, or three) so that you can see for yourself that you have to drive it at just the right frequencies, amplitudes, and dampings to observe a Feigenbaum tree (period doubling into chaos) and equally rapid emergence from the chaotic regime as you increase amplitude or frequency or damping. That doesn't make this a universal truth about chaotic systems, BTW, it just points out the danger of making sweeping statements about something you don't really know much about. One could go on -- is there a proof that adding more CO_2 creates greater instability? What, exactly, is greater instability (how do you define it)? I fully agree that adding more CO_2 (e.g. taking it to 600-700 ppm by 2100) is likely to raise global temperatures by some amount (the exact amount is a matter of considerable debate even among experts with a lower bound that is just over nothing).

It is by no means clear -- and to the best of my knowledge there is no statistically sound evidence to support the conclusion that -- the warming of the late twentieth century resulted in "greater instability" in the form of more violent weather, nor has any other kind of "instability" other than the motion of the mean global temperature itself been convincingly demonstrated. It has been drier, wetter, stormier, hotter, colder, both locally and globally, in the past without CO_2 forcing.

The really interesting thing is that many climate scientists are quite open about their lack of certain knowledge in climate science -- in a scientific forum where they might be called on it if they utter something really speculative as if they are sure. A George Mason survey of actual climate scientists found that roughly one in seven think that there will be little to no warming and no catastrophe by 2100. Over half think that there will be significant, but probably not catastrophic warming. In the end, I agree with you -- this honest lack of consensus among climate scientists probably rates some consideration.

For one thing, it makes the entire field more credible. When was the last time you were in a room full of scientists who agreed about everything, even important things for which there is far better experimental data and far more computable theory

Re:Bah Humbug! Twice nothing ...

[PopeRatzo]

In a sane world, we would build better instrumentation and wait and see, while taking modest measures that are likely to have an actual impact on global CO_2 levels

Modest measures that the energy industry would spend billions to block.

Cap and trade seemed like a very reasonable modest measure. It didn't require anyone to give up their cars or stop the use of coal. It just place a very modest and market-driven cost on the emission of greenhouse gas. Even the Kyoto Accord was fairly modest, and at least focused on a way to start dealing with the externalities of emissions without snuffing out the developing countries.

The discussion in the scientific community regarding AGW has been very modest, reasoned and data based. Just because there have been squeals and howls of outrage from the right and the fossil fuel industry, don't assume that those drama queen reactions are an indication otherwise.

Re:Bah Humbug! Twice nothing ...

[rgbatduke]

I've just been participating in a rather extended round of debate with Olsen (sky dragon slayer). Two comments again:

a) CO_2 warming models don't "rely" on back radiation. They are inferable from simple subtraction, using utterly empirical evidence. Find a website that shows top of atmosphere spectrographs, ideally ones taken at night over e.g. the arctic so that you can eliminate the confusion of reflected sunlight and focus only on radiation given off by the ground as it cools. Look at the hole in the CO_2 absorption/scattering band. The total power radiated from the area being photographed must, on average, match the total rate at which heat is delivered there by all sources. The CO_2 hole is clearly visible in daytime, equatorial, temperate, polar spectrographs. If one integrates the outgoing flux of the Poynting vector over the entire sphere above the TOA, this has to equal the rate power is delivered to the interior of that sphere. Since energy lost from the surface via blackbody radiation is blocked in the CO_2 band, the surface must warm up until total energy lost is (still) equal to the total energy input (averaged over both the surface and time and all wavelengths). End of story.

b) For what it's worth, one can actually take bottom of atmosphere spectrographs from the same place at the same time as one takes the TOA spectrographs. This has been done. The spectrographs compliment themselves (at least in the arctic where there is little water vapor or confounding signals from other stuff going on). One can see a nearly perfect match between downwelling radiation in the blocked bands so clearly visible up above.

IMO fairly professional opinion as a physicist, Olsen is not competent; his arguments are not sound, nor are they in any way quantitative (that I've been able to determine). For example, when he discusses how fission "must" be a missing source of energy and the real cause of climate change instead of CO_2 modulation, solar output modulation, albedo modulation, global circulation decadal oscillation modulation he fails to provide any sort of quantitative or plausible computation of the actual energy production one might expect in the interior, relying instead on a verbal/heuristic argument that reduces to "the interior is very hot, therefore fission must be important". I've tried fairly patiently to walk him through the spectrographic data -- which are for all practical purposes photographs of the greenhouse effect in action -- to no avail -- he doesn't seem to understand electromagnetic radiation theory very well (as in, as well as a bright undergrad physics major). Some things he states are blatently silly -- the assertion that a "space blanket" (reflective mylar sheet) works by blocking convection instead of trapping radiation (it's both, but the human body loses heat primarily through radiation, a simple fact that can once again be directly photographed). And he has somehow taken an experience where he was lost inside a cold cloud when he first learned to fly and turned it into an entire theory of cloud cooling.

For what it is worth, you can see back radiation and side radiation and all sorts of radiation from the sky with your eyes. Blue sky? Rayleigh scattering. Live in a city and want to do some stargazing? Sorry, too much backscattered radiation from the city lights, worst viewing on hazy nights (lots of greenhouse gas H_2O in the air), best on clear, cold, dry nights in the winter (not so much greenhouse H_2O in the air. Sure, you only see visible light "back radiation", but that's because of limitations in your eyes, not because it isn't there in other wavelengths of invisible light as well (such as infrared). In the CO_2 absorption band in the IR, the sky is so "hazy" it is completely opaque. Think of it as being a thick fog, visibility a few hundred feet. Not all radiation that is emitted from the surface in that band is reflected back -- some diffuses through to eventually escape above at a mu

Re:Bah Humbug! Twice nothing ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Mr. LaTour's "rebuttal" relies heavily on this assertion.

However, the absorption rate of real bodies depends on whether the absorber T (radiating or not), is less than the intercepted radiation T, or not. If the receiver T > intercepted T, no absorption occurs; if the receiver T < intercepted T the absorption rate may be as great as proportional to (T intercepted – T absorber), depending on the amounts reflected, transmitted or scattered.

Which, if true, suggests your microwave oven cannot cook anything, since it only emits thermal radiation at room temperature, and microwave radiation which, expressed as "radiation T", is far below 1K. Therefore, all the microwave radiation is not absorbed, right?

The (not-so-)cold hard fact that millions of microwave ovens do in fact heat food well above room temperature should easily put this threshold hypothesis to rest.

Re:Bah Humbug! Twice nothing ...

[TapeCutter]

Climate is not mathematically chaotic, exept on geologic time scales. Climate is the statistics of (mathematically chaotic) weather patterns, without man-made forcings it is remarkably stable on human time scales.

Re:Bah Humbug! Twice nothing ...

[TapeCutter]

Here's another quote from Dyson; "my objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have.".

In other words his argument is not based on facts, it's based on the way he percieves the behaviour of climate scientists ( coincidently that perception matches the propoganda put out by "for hire" anti-science lobbyists, not heretics). Don't get me wrong, I admire Dyson, however wrt climate science, he is the one clinging to dogma in a field of study "about which [he does] not know much".

Re:Bah Humbug! Twice nothing ...

[TapeCutter]

Cap and trade seemed like a very reasonable modest measure.

Here's the thing I don't get, "conservatives" have been leading the anti-science movement against these measures for 20yrs, yet their "hero" Ronald Reagan (prompted and supported by Thatcher who graduated as a Chemist from Oxford) enthusiastically campagined for a solution to acid rain, he was successful and his international cap and trade system on sulphur emmissions has been up and running for over 20yrs now.

Re:Bah Humbug! Twice nothing ...

[TapeCutter]

I'm impressed. You managed to put in a link to your sources this time. Sadly it's to a site trying to flog a book but the fact you managed to link to a source is an improvement.

Re:Bah Humbug! Twice nothing ...

[khayman80]

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 08:00

Wow, Mr. "khayman80". You sure do a wonderful job of distorting other people's statements and inflating your own ego here.

I remember our "discussions". As I recall, you were insufferably arrogant and pedantic, and rather consistently asserted I had stated things that actually I had not.

For example, you link to a statement above and write that I had threatened to sue you, when in fact I did not (as anybody who actually follows the link can see). What I *DID* write was that under different circumstances I would. Not the same thing. I made no "threat".

Your listing here of your own ego-stuffed accomplishments are just full of similar distortions. Which is exactly why I told you to get stuffed and told you that UNDER OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES I would sue you.

You are a pompous ass, and you distort other peoples' statements in order to try to make yourself look good. Then you use that as a self-advertisement to try to bolster your reputation as a "scientist". When in fact all it proves is... you are a pompous ass.

I'm not the first person you've accused of trying to put words into your mouth. Here's an example. I think this wastes my readers' time, but they can judge for themselves whether your statements are being distorted. Anyone else who's bored by this can skip ahead LINK LATER to more science.

***

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 08:09

Haha. I have just been reading more of the post above by "khayman80". The funny thing is: if you actually follow the links he provides, you can easily see how grossly he distorts and cherry-picks my own statements in an attempt to make himself look good.

At least he had the integrity to actually link to them... apparently (and probably correctly) assuming that other people would take him at his word and not actually follow them.

I've copied an example below, so other people don't have to follow the links. Also, here's my "grossly cherry-picked" version of a conversation we had regarding dark matter. Compare that to the originals that are available by following the links. I think this wastes my readers' time, but they can judge for themselves whether your statements are being cherry-picked in an attempt to make myself look good. Anyone else who's bored by this can skip ahead LINK LATER to more science.

***

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 09:50

"khayman80":

(To others: please pardon the multiple posts, but this is something that needs to be stated.)

As other people can clearly see if they actually follow your links, our exchange included an accusation by you that my comments were "fraudulent". And that was not stated as an opinion but as a claim of "obvious" fact.

As I mentioned to you then: the fact that this is internet does not constitute safe haven from libel. Other people have been sued in the real world for less, and lost. And I would probably throw in some of your public mis-characterizations of my other comments, just to add some spice.

I did not threaten to sue you, but I did state that if the accusation had been against my real name rather than a pseudonym, then I would have. An

Re:Bah Humbug! Twice nothing ...

[khayman80]

Oops, the previous comment used relative links that only work on Dumb Scientist. This version uses absolute links.

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 08:00

Wow, Mr. "khayman80". You sure do a wonderful job of distorting other people's statements and inflating your own ego here.

I remember our "discussions". As I recall, you were insufferably arrogant and pedantic, and rather consistently asserted I had stated things that actually I had not.

For example, you link to a statement above and write that I had threatened to sue you, when in fact I did not (as anybody who actually follows the link can see). What I *DID* write was that under different circumstances I would. Not the same thing. I made no "threat".

Your listing here of your own ego-stuffed accomplishments are just full of similar distortions. Which is exactly why I told you to get stuffed and told you that UNDER OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES I would sue you.

You are a pompous ass, and you distort other peoples' statements in order to try to make yourself look good. Then you use that as a self-advertisement to try to bolster your reputation as a "scientist". When in fact all it proves is... you are a pompous ass.

I'm not the first person you've accused of trying to put words into your mouth. Here's an example. I think this wastes my readers' time, but they can judge for themselves whether your statements are being distorted. Anyone else who's bored by this can skip ahead LINK LATER to more science.

***

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 08:09

Haha. I have just been reading more of the post above by "khayman80". The funny thing is: if you actually follow the links he provides, you can easily see how grossly he distorts and cherry-picks my own statements in an attempt to make himself look good.

At least he had the integrity to actually link to them... apparently (and probably correctly) assuming that other people would take him at his word and not actually follow them.

I've copied an example below, so other people don't have to follow the links. Also, here's my "grossly cherry-picked" version of a conversation we had regarding dark matter. Compare that to the originals that are available by following the links. I think this wastes my readers' time, but they can judge for themselves whether your statements are being cherry-picked in an attempt to make myself look good. Anyone else who's bored by this can skip ahead LINK LATER to more science.

***

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 09:50

"khayman80":

(To others: please pardon the multiple posts, but this is something that needs to be stated.)

As other people can clearly see if they actually follow your links, our exchange included an accusation by you that my comments were "fraudulent". And that was not stated as an opinion but as a claim of "obvious" fact.

As I mentioned to you then: the fact that this is internet does not constitute safe haven from libel. Other people have been sued in the real world for less, and lost. And I would probably throw in some of your

Re:Bah Humbug! Twice nothing ...

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Taleb is an idiot whose success can be boiled down to watching which way the market is going, then doing the opposite. No black swans or other ominous-coloured fowl required. He has no particular insights to share on any other topics, as far as I'm aware.

Re:Bah Humbug! Twice nothing ...

[Anonymous Coward]

From a blog: this does not look modest and it is the tip of the iceberg.
And how will we know if/when we are successful?
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/my-reply-to-paul-bain-the-name-caller-is-hurt-by-the-names-they-throw/#more-22651
"In any case, the government grants are the small dollars. It is apparently new information to you that the large monetary forces come not from an oil rig, but from the Carbon Markets ($176 bn turnover in 2011), the renewables investment market ($243 bn in 2010) and the potential financial rewards of brokering the once promising future Global Carbon Market valued at $2 Trillion per annum. Deutsche Bank doesn’t want a “tax” to save the planet, they want a “market” (which they can broker). I don’t need to spell out why, right?

Does any of this financial information tell us anything about the climate? Of course not. (Where is the climatic evidence? That question just won’t go away.)"

Australia has a new carbon tax system, please explain how this will affect local/global weather even if they submit ZERO CO2 to the global system?

Re:Bah Humbug! Twice nothing ...

[tgibbs]

One thing that is in my own opinion nearly certain -- we may or may not be on a track to catastrophic warming, but I very strongly doubt that we're on a fast track or an irreversible track.

It certainly is not irreversible in geological time, but given the slow relaxation of atmospheric CO2 concentrations, it is likely to persist for a period of time that is long in the scale of human lifetimes. Of course, there is the potential for intentional climate engineering (as opposed to the climate-engineering-by-neglect that we are currently engaged in)--but every such proposal I've seen so far seems to involve doing things that are as hard/slow to reverse (i.e. if they "go wrong") as increasing CO2.

There is a fair bit of evidence that the climate is actually remarkably stable against more than a degree or two of additional warming

I'm not sure what you consider to be a "fair bit of evidence." Certainly global temperature has been more than a degree or two warmer in the distant past, so any such stability mechanism must be of recent vintage, geologically speaking. And there is no statistical evidence that any such mechanism is currently limiting temperature increase. Once one corrects for known sources of short term fluctuation, global warming seems to be continuing unabated. So any such temperature limiting mechanism must have a very sharp threshold if it is going to save us from the temperature increase projected as a consequence of continued CO2 pollution. Sharp thresholds are somewhat hard to come by in nature, and generally require some sort of strong feedback. What specific physical mechanism do you have in mind, and what is the "fair bit of evidence" for it?

Re:Bah Humbug! Twice nothing ...

[Jane Q. Public]

"a) CO_2 warming models don't "rely" on back radiation. "

Your logic may be 100% accurate, but it says nothing about the majority of CO2 models. Please, if you wish to actually refute my statement, show me some generally accepted models that do not make use of the back-radiation concept.

Please note that I did not say CO2 wasn't a cause of warming, I simply claimed that many models are flawed.

"IMO fairly professional opinion as a physicist, Olsen is not competent;"

That's fine, since I didn't reference Olsen at all. Did you even visit the link and view both sides of the discussion to which I *WAS* referring?

Based on your completely out-of-context reply to my argument, I wouldn't call you very competent, either.

"For what it is worth, you can see back radiation and side radiation and all sorts of radiation from the sky with your eyes. Blue sky? Rayleigh scattering."

Obviously you did not bother to even read the reference I gave. Rayleigh scattering is NOT "back radiation", in the context given.

No matter how competent a scientist you actually may be, you should probably take the time to actually learn what someone is arguing before you attempt to refute it.

Re:Bah Humbug! Twice nothing ...

[Jane Q. Public]

I generally do link to my sources, troll. And your comment about "trying to flog a book" is entirely an ad hominem argument, not worthy of a response.

Re:Bah Humbug! Twice nothing ...

[Jane Q. Public]

If you are attempting to refute an actual argument I made, please point out where, in this massive pile of your own maunderings, it exists.

Re:Bah Humbug! Twice nothing ...

[Jane Q. Public]

And your own blog posts refer to "how to have a discussion".

Haha. So you have sunk yourself to blatantly obvious ad hominem. Not that I expected anything more from you.

Where is your refutation of any argument I made HERE, in this thread? Where is it? You are pretending that this stuff from your personal blog is RELEVANT to what I stated HERE?

You claim to be a scientist yourself, but you don't use logic and you don't address the actual issues. Instead, you would rather attempt to refute things I said MONTHS ago.

I think your posts reflect on you a lot more than they do on me. This is a gross example of nothing more than personal attack. Why aren't you discussing the issue I raised?

"Anyway, before you waste money hiring a lawyer, you might want to look up libel and copyright."

You persist in your implication that I "threatened" to sue you? That is laughable. I stated that I was NOT going to sue you. And just as I stated in that paragraph that you quoted above, anybody who clearly reads my whole, original comment can see that very clearly.

For someone claiming to be a scientist, you seem to be pretty weak at logic. I think your jumping in here was a pathetic attempt to justify yourself.

Re:Bah Humbug! Twice nothing ...

[Jane Q. Public]

To clarify my earlier reply: actually, if you want to refute my statement, you would have to show that the majority of CO2 warming models do not rely on the "back-radiation" concept.

But to clarify further, in light one of your own comments: "back radiation", in this context, is not the same as "back scatter".

The "reflection from clouds" idea of IR backscatter was disproved long, long ago. It was replaced with the concept of absorption then re-radiation. That is "back radiation", and it is distinct from "backscatter". And it also doesn't work in the manner used by the majority of CO2 models.

But this only proves that you did not even read the article I linked to, or the original article it was refuting, by Spencer.

If you DO ever get around to reading it, maybe then, if you know so much about it, you can come up with a model that actually does work:

"Since energy lost from the surface via blackbody radiation is blocked in the CO_2 band, the surface must warm up until total energy lost is (still) equal to the total energy input (averaged over both the surface and time and all wavelengths). End of story."

I'm not disputing this. But please: show me the mechanism. We know it can't be all backscatter (that was disproved long ago), and the "absorption and re-radiation" model doesn't work either, as LaTour clearly shows. I placed my argument in LaTour's hands; you have done nothing here to refute it.

Re:Bah Humbug! Twice nothing ...

[khayman80]

Charming. As I said in my responses, I'll address your Sky Dragon misinformation when I get the time, but first I need to address some of your other misinformation to put it in context. Patience.

Re:Bah Humbug! Twice nothing ...

[Jane Q. Public]

And by the way: I am NOT a "climate change contrarian". I simply dispute the validity of certain CO2 warming models. I have stated this MANY TIMES over the last couple of years. But it has seemed to keep going over your head.

Re:Bah Humbug! Twice nothing ...

[Jane Q. Public]

Correction: I was, at first, also arguing for other causes, too. I admit that. But I have since stopped doing so.

However, I have not, at any time, been denying that the climate is changing. The only thing that is even remotely in dispute, as far as I am concerned, is how much of it, if any, is due to CO2.

Re:Bah Humbug! Twice nothing ...

[khayman80]

That's the definition of a climate change contrarian: someone who disagrees with the overwhelming scientific consensus that most of the warming since 1950 is very likely due to human emissions of greenhouse gases like CO2.

Re:Bah Humbug! Twice nothing ...

[Jane Q. Public]

It's only "the definition" if you do not possess a frigging dictionary.

Re:Bah Humbug! Twice nothing ...

[Jane Q. Public]

"Charming. As I said in my responses, I'll address your Sky Dragon misinformation when I get the time, but first I need to address some of your other misinformation to put it in context. Patience."

Again, you sidestep my question. Why can't you answer it?

And your further ad hominem, in regard to that article happening to be on a particular website, just makes you look that much more foolish. It is an article about physics. Would you like to refute the actual content?

The fact is that I suspect you will not actually address this. Unlike other things you post on your blog (which appear to be in a glaringy, self-servingly edited form). Because I don't think you really CAN refute LaTour's physics. Instead you will try to prove ME wrong.

And by the way: I really do expect you to run into legal trouble with that blog of yours, if you keep doing it the way you have. I meant that sincerely. But that is a far cry from ever threatening to cause any of it myself... that is something I never stated or even implied.

Re:Bah Humbug! Twice nothing ...

[khayman80]

You've previously said: "Dictionaries do not accurately define words, they merely list popular usage. If you want technical accuracy, consult an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. "

That's why I'm referring to technical statements like these:

In 2005, 11 national science academies signed a joint statement saying "It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities ... The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action."

In 2007, 13 national science academies signed a joint statement referencing the earlier 2005 statement, and added: "Recent research strongly reinforces our previous conclusions. It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken. Our present energy course is not sustainable."

Re:Bah Humbug! Twice nothing ...

[Jane Q. Public]

"... but first I need to address some of your other misinformation to put it in context. Patience."

Ah. I see. You are preparing even further ad hominem arguments. And you insist upon doing that FIRST, before addressing any actual issues I raised.

I expected nothing else from you.

You post a link on your own website to a page about "how to disagree" , and it is pretty obvious that on that same scale you can't bring yourself to do better than "DH1".

Re:Bah Humbug! Twice nothing ...

[Jane Q. Public]

What does that have to do with my comment above? What you are saying, in effect, is that anybody who questions CO2 models is a "climate change contrarian", when even in POPULAR usage, "climate change" does not equal "CO2".

Dictionary or not, you can't just go around expecting English to mean anything you want, in any give month.

Re:Bah Humbug! Twice nothing ...

[Jane Q. Public]

I am busy with other things, so please pardon my frequent, overly-brief replies.

What I mean is, just because YOU and a few fellows define "climate change contrarian" to be anybody who disagrees with your viewpoint, that does not make it so.

Either by dictionary OR "popular usage", you are still wrong.

Re:Bah Humbug! Twice nothing ...

[Jane Q. Public]

"It's interesting that less than two hours after you noted [dumbscientist.com] that I had the integrity to link to the originals, you made a screenshot without a link to the originals and claimed it was "in exactly the same spirit" and "no more out of context than anything he has stated.""

What a completely ridiculous assertion. As you admit yourself, just prior to that WE HAD BEEN DISCUSSING THE CONTEXT in that very same thread, on the very same page. Anybody who saw that was EXTREMELY likely to have read prior parts of the discussion, in which the context was clearly spelled out. If they didn't, then they don't have a claim of "out of context" anyway.

That is far, far different from pulling something out of another thread, on another page, out of context. If you think they are the same things or even comparable, you have a lot to learn. But I suspect you really don't understand that difference, because I see you have done it on your blog, very often.

You are trying to compare apples and oranges and call it valid. Just another example of your foolish argument style. You would have been booted with prejudice from my high-school debate team.

Re:Bah Humbug! Twice nothing ...

[Jane Q. Public]

And yet another brief reply to another ridiculous portion of Khayman80's post:

... it is generally considered to be "fair use" to record something that is happening in public and not being charged for. There is a gray area, to be sure, but I think political speeches rightfully belong on the "fair use" side of the line. [Jane Q. Public, 2011-08-29] [slashdot.org]

... There is no justice involved in trying to hold a copyright on a speech that was given in PUBLIC, and broadcast to the public, almost 5 decades ago. ... I think we have to draw the line and say that public political speech, that wasn't done as a "performance" for profit, is public domain. [Jane Q. Public, 2011-08-29,30]

First, as I have pointed out earlier, I never "threatened" (your word) to sue you anyway. I did the opposite: I specifically stated that I was NOT going to sue you.

But second -- and this is most laughable of all -- YOU link to information about "libel", but you obviously don't understand the first things about it yourself. You demonstrate as much by somehow equating fair use of recordings of public figures with online libel. They haven't the slightest things to do with one another. As you further demonstrate, frequently, on your blog.

But that's just a comment about your behavior. No "threat" intended or implied. I'll let somebody else nail you for it, as they surely will if you keep it up.

Re:Bah Humbug! Twice nothing ...

[rgbatduke]

Please note that I did not say CO2 wasn't a cause of warming, I simply claimed that many models are flawed.

Difficult to refute, phrased that way. I'm sure that they are. But not necessarily through the use of back-radiation in the model, although frankly I don't care for it either simply because it is so open to pointless argument.

That's fine, since I didn't reference Olsen at all. Did you even visit the link and view both sides of the discussion to which I *WAS* referring?

Sky Dragon is Olsen. He loves crank science. He finds it and puts it on his website. Nobody sane actually argues that the GHE is a cold system "warming" a warmer system, nor is that what climate models implement. It simply slows the cooling of a warm system heated by a system warmer still. Olsen -- in direct communications to me -- has asserted that the sun warms the Earth primarily in the IR band, I suppose to avoid that "warming by a system warmer still". That's insane. I confess to your accusation of not visiting, though. I've spent too much time on Sky Dragon recently and got fed up with the pompously presented crank physics. Which is easy to do. I'll even apologize for (perhaps mistakenly) assuming that you were trying to assert that the GHE doesn't exist, that the Earth is warmed by the Sun primarily via IR, and so on. Sky Dragon is not my idea of an authoritative source of information these days but you are right, I shouldn't assume that just because you reference something there that you are a crank too.

Outside of that, I don't much care what insane people think about the GHE, but I do try to point out what it really is in the fond hope that sanity will be restored to them if only I explain it clearly enough...;-)

As for back radiation, downwelling radiation, scattered radiation, blackbody radiation, emissivity and Kirchoff's law, extinction and optical path -- as far as the actual processes involved are concerned there isn't a huge difference between one kind of optical scattering and another, not at the molecular scale. I can refer you to your choice of graduate physics textbooks or a fairly good book of physical meteorology if you want to review or learn it someplace that simply presents it and the data that support it. I teach a lot of the basic physics at both the graduate and undergraduate level (and have written one of those textbooks that covers at least part of this), but of course you are right, I might not be competent and the field of meteorology and climate modeling is broad enough that even if I were, I could be mistaken about lots of things in one context or another.

As for Rayleigh scattering not being "back radiation" -- I was merely offering that as an example of how molecules can and do reflect and scatter photons in a way that varies with frequency. The photons that are (resonantly or otherwise) back scattered from atmospheric CO_2 near the surface -- whatever you want to call them -- reflect some fraction of the otherwise outgoing energy in those bands towards the source quite independent of the relative temperature of the source that is radiating. One can directly measure this spectrally resolved back scattered radiation in bottom of atmosphere spectrographs, looking up. Call it "back radiation" or not, call it whatever you like, but it is a term that acts as a differential gain in the heat balance of the ground, at least if you believe in Maxwell's equations and that the power incident on a surface is the flux of the Poynting vector through the surface.

In models that focus on ground temperatures, it is thus pretty natural to have it and easy to semi-empirically justify it. On top of atmosphere models looking down (which is what I personally prefer when trying to convince people that do not want to "believe" in the GHE because they have a hard time with differential gain terms in resonant absorptive bands or get lost in the thermodynamics of multi-channel cooling processes at the surface)

Re:Bah Humbug! Twice nothing ...

[Jane Q. Public]

"But not necessarily through the use of back-radiation in the model, although frankly I don't care for it either simply because it is so open to pointless argument. "

That is a non-response and deserves no answer.

"Sky Dragon is Olsen"

NO... I specifically linked to an article by Pierre LaTour. The fact that it happens to be posted on the Sky Dragon site is incidental, and the article does not rely upon or even mention Olsen. Any argument of that sort is nothing but ad hominem. Surely you know what that is.

"Nobody sane actually argues that the GHE is a cold system "warming" a warmer system, nor is that what climate models implement."

On the contrary, as Spencer points out in his article (to which LaTour's article is a rebuttal, and which I did recommend you red first):

"This back radiation is a critical component of the theoretical explanation for the Greenhouse Effect. "

And if you read on, the back radiation he mentions is clearly the same as that being addressed by LaTour.

Please, if you will (as I originally pointed out): explain to me where these CO2 warming models do not rely on back radiation. All of those of which I am familiar do.

"As for back radiation, downwelling radiation, scattered radiation, blackbody radiation, emissivity and Kirchoff's law, extinction and optical path -- as far as the actual processes involved are concerned there isn't a huge difference between one kind of optical scattering and another, not at the molecular scale."

COMPLETE nonsense. While Spencer does not address the molecular or atomic scale, LaTour does. This is a bald (and rather bold) statement with no support; it is not a refutation.

"As for Rayleigh scattering not being "back radiation" -- I was merely offering that as an example of how molecules can and do reflect and scatter photons in a way that varies with frequency."

Of course they do, but that was not the subject under discussion. "Back radiation" has a very specific meaning in this context, which I was careful to point out.

"... reflect some fraction of the otherwise outgoing energy in those bands towards the source quite independent of the relative temperature of the source that is radiating."

Again, of course, but again: that is not the subject under discussion. It is the ABSORPTION of the radiation, not the emission of it, that is the relevant topic here. You cannot get temperature rise without absorption.

"Call it "back radiation" or not, call it whatever you like, but it is a term that acts as a differential gain in the heat balance of the ground, at least if you believe in Maxwell's equations and that the power incident on a surface is the flux of the Poynting vector through the surface. "

Again, not true, as shown by LaTour. A radiating body will only absorb radiation that is > T (its own radiative energy). When a radiative body radiates, and that radiation is absorbed and re-radiated by, say, a water molecule, some energy is inevitably given up in the process (this is simple thermodynamics).

So when the ground radiates, and its radiation is absorbed by water vapor, and re-radiated, it is always (it must be, according to elementary physics) at lower energy than the original radiation. THEREFORE, the ground cannot re-reabsorb it, because the energy of the "back radiation" is then
That is the "nutshell" summary of LaTour's argument; he gives it much more thorough treatment than I do here.

"On top of atmosphere models looking down (which is what I personally prefer when trying to convince people that do not want to 'believe' in the GHE because the

Re:Bah Humbug! Twice nothing ...

[Jane Q. Public]

Correction: formatting error due to Slashdot's Neanderthal character-handling. I don't know if this will work, either:

"... because the energy of the "back radiation" is then < T."

Re:Bah Humbug! Twice nothing ...

[Jane Q. Public]

Correction: formatting error due to Slashdot's Neanderthal character-handling: "... because the energy of the "back radiation" is then less than T."

Therefore the "back radiation" (which we know to be of a different nature and magnitude than "backscatter") cannot be absorbed by the ground, to cause surface temperature increase. It is physically impossible.

Re:Bah Humbug! Twice nothing ...

[khayman80]

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-07-16 at 11:33

Another example of cherry-picking what you reproduce here, in order to make yourself look good. You just can’t seem to resist.

After you cited an E&E paper to support the claim that sunspot cycle length is responsible for recent warming, I said: ...

You accused me of not citing my sources, and asked me to provide a peer-reviewed paper supporting my statement, implying that none existed. I did so, per your request. In fact it took me only a very short time to do so, because it was one of many.

You were not satisfied, and pointed out a flaw in the paper. This (as it turned out later) was a legitimate criticism of the paper BUT you did not cite your own sources for that. Instead, I was forced to spend time finding it myself. Which did indeed make you guilty of EXACTLY the same thing you had originally accused me of doing.

But you didn’t put those first parts here. In fact, it appears to me that most everything on this page is somewhat out of context. And I suspect that’s intentional.

I do know about “fair use”. I found it rather laughable that today, on Slashdot, you pointed me to references about libel long after I wrote that I did not intend to sue you. And in fact I stated as much in clear, concise, English, and never, at any point, wrote that I did intend to sue you.

You know very well that I did not “threaten” (your word) to sue you, so why are you linking to libel laws in association with my name? What is the point of bringing it up again in that fashion, unless it is to give readers a false and misleading impression?

Once again, I question your methods and your ethics.

I linked to libel laws in response to your comment:

This high-schooler somehow thinks he/she can protect him/her self from libel and copyright by stating on the blog that “someone” said something, while still partially quoting said “someone”. And then even including a link to the original exchange. Haha. If I were this person, and possessed some intelligence, I would shut this site down. Sadly, it is looking more like he/she is going to end up in Litigation Land. [Jane Q. Public]

Re:Bah Humbug! Twice nothing ...

[Jane Q. Public]

"I linked to libel laws in response to your comment: ..."

You think I didn't already see that?

This comment (and I will repeat it here myself):

"This high-schooler somehow thinks he/she can protect him/her self from libel and copyright by stating on the blog that âoesomeoneâ said something, while still partially quoting said âoesomeoneâ. And then even including a link to the original exchange. Haha. If I were this person, and possessed some intelligence, I would shut this site down. Sadly, it is looking more like he/she is going to end up in Litigation Land."

... stated my honest opinion at the time: your arguments were below the quality of a decent high-school debate, and that if you keep presenting things on your blog in the manner in which you have, then you are likely to get sued (the reference to "litigation land").

But as I also clearly stated: *I* was not threatening to do so. I told you in very clear English, where everybody could see it, that under current circumstances I had no reason to try to sue you.

Sheesh. Get it straight.

Re:Bah Humbug! Twice nothing ...

[Jane Q. Public]

This is one of the things you have failed to get straight: you seem to have trouble distinguishing between what people actually state, and your interpretation or inferences about what they state.

There is a difference. In your case, and in my opinion, that difference is large.

Re:Bah Humbug! Twice nothing ...

[Jane Q. Public]

"I linked to libel laws in response to your comment: ..."

And just in case you fail to understand the comments I just made above, as you have so thoroughly failed to comprehend so many of my other comments, I will sum it up for you here in fewer, simpler words:

The fact that I opined that you were screwing up and were likely to get sued, DOES NOT equal a "threat" to sue you myself!!!

Re:Same Camera Tech used by Ansel Adams, Larry Fly

[Anonymous Coward]

A pattern that can be found across human history.

A Useful Legacy?

[ks*nut]

So the contribution of nuclear weapons research to atmospheric understanding is the justification for billions (trillions?) of dollars spent on nuclear weapons stockpiles and the entire Cold War fiasco? Let's trot out nuclear medicine as the next justification or, gasp, nuclear power. Humanity has been on the brink of extinction through nuclear war for fifty years. If those benificent aliens are going to save us they had better hurry...

Re:A Useful Legacy?

[dreamchaser]

So the contribution of nuclear weapons research to atmospheric understanding is the justification for billions (trillions?) of dollars spent on nuclear weapons stockpiles and the entire Cold War fiasco? Let's trot out nuclear medicine as the next justification or, gasp, nuclear power. Humanity has been on the brink of extinction through nuclear war for fifty years. If those benificent aliens are going to save us they had better hurry...

I don't think anyone said it 'justified' it. Think of the old adage of making lemonade when life hands you lemons and maybe you'll actually get the point.

Re:A Useful Legacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

You think the cold war was a "fiasco"??????

Shocking. No doubt the natural result of a "modern education" at some school with unionized teachers (at the left wing of the Democrat party machine). I'd suspect you thought WWII and the whole Nazi thing was just a practical joke? (well... maybe you take the Nazi thing seriously since libs portray the National Socialist Workers Party as "right wing"... ) Perhaps the Revolutionary War was an overreaction? The Civil War a hissy fit?

Many people (military and civilian) died and millions were mistreated while two opposing world views stood in opposition over the future direction of the human race... I simply cannot comprehend the infantile, ignorant attitude...

Tell the families of those who died trying to escape from behind the Iron curtain, those (on both sides) who died on military duty or while working in intelligence services, those civilians who died on KAL007 when a paranoid Soviet Union decided to shoot down a civilian airliner that it was all a "fiasco"...

Tell the people of East Germany, Poland, etc that it was all just a "fiasco"

I wore a uniform and I served during the Cold War... What have you done to save the world from darkness?

Re:Same Camera Tech used by Ansel Adams, Larry Fly

[Anonymous Coward]

An interesting sentiment to find on slashdot considering its typically anti-military and liberal/progressive slant.

Ac because I'm posting from my phone and can't remember my login. /. Needs a mobile version.

Re:hippie pie

[Anonymous Coward]

I am against any kind of logging, including dialogging.

More AGW BS

[Anonymous Coward]

"Tracing radioactive carbon as it cycles through the atmosphere, the oceans, and the biosphere has been crucial to understanding anthropogenic climate change"

First of all, Anthropogenic Climate Change is still at this point only a hypothesis. There has thus far been no credible evidence that there is a causal relationship between human activity and global warming. Not one paper establishes a causal pathway between human activity and global warming. There is only rampant theorizing, speculation, confirmation bias, data manipulation, and political posturing behind the AGW hypothesis.

The article would have some credibility if it simply talked about how radioactive isotopes of carbon were used to study climate change. But, they just HAD to go there, and make themselves look like complete idiots in the process.

Re:More AGW BS

[Anonymous Coward]

There is only rampant theorizing, speculation, confirmation bias, data manipulation, and political posturing behind the AGW hypothesis

Don't forget fanny (American, not British) patting, and congecture based on heresay.

Re:More AGW BS

[Anonymous Coward]

"Tracing radioactive carbon as it cycles through the atmosphere, the oceans, and the biosphere has been crucial to understanding anthropogenic climate change"

First of all, Anthropogenic Climate Change is still at this point only a hypothesis. There has thus far been no credible evidence that there is a causal relationship between human activity and global warming. Not one paper establishes a causal pathway between human activity and global warming. There is only rampant theorizing, speculation, confirmation bias, data manipulation, and political posturing behind the AGW hypothesis.

The article would have some credibility if it simply talked about how radioactive isotopes of carbon were used to study climate change. But, they just HAD to go there, and make themselves look like complete idiots in the process.

That's because AGW is simply camouflage for a leftist/NWO political agenda. AGW is simply a convenient vehicle that was latched onto and pushed to the forefront in order to enact global wealth, power, and resource redistribution plans (Cap & Trade, Kyoto, UN's "Agenda for the 21st Century", etc etc) that had been on the global elite's "to do" list for many decades, but without a viable method to get people to go along with it.

They finally found something to get almost all the useful idiots to herp & derp in lockstep, and are now trying to march the entire world into a global totalitarian elitist tyranny.

So what are we all waiting for?

[dohzer]

Let's release some aerosols into the atmosphere!

Re:So what are we all waiting for?

[Jane Q. Public]

Absolutely! Let's start with CFC-based hairspray!

Nukes and Climate Change are related

[Anonymous Coward]

See, the nukes and climate change research are related, so the climate change research can't be all bad! Even a person upholding traditional values can now support research on global warming.

Lemme guess...

[Anonymous Coward]

you live in a tree forte.

Re:Lemme guess...

[Anonymous Coward]

Woosh!

Re:Same Camera Tech used by Ansel Adams, Larry Fly

[mug funky]

it is what you make it.

i see far too much herp derp from "both" sides of the fence. people's political affiliation seems to have defined their sense of morals as well. it's a really fucked way to think. human ethics are not a line between left and right. it's a bit more dimensional than that.

Nukes are fake.

[Capsaicin]

The majority of CO2 warming models rely on a concept of "back radiation" that (according to "physicists") does not even exist ...

You know these pseudo-scientific refutations of climate science are getting, well a bit lame, to be honest. Why don't you try something more exciting, like proving that thermo-nuclear weapons break the rules of thermodynamics and therefore can't even exist. C'mon you can do it!

Re:Nukes are fake.

[Jane Q. Public]

Pseudo-scientific? You are claiming that Pierre LaTour is a "lame pseudo-scientist"?

Interesting position you have there.

Re:Nukes are fake.

[Capsaicin]

Pseudo-scientific?

Dude, I looked at the site you linked to. Isn't it obvious?

Re:Nukes are fake.

[Jane Q. Public]

No, it's not obvious.

That is what is called an ad hominem argument, and it isn't a valid argument.

You can't just look at a website and judge the validity of what it has to say. You have to actually read it and refute what is written. Otherwise you're just blowing hot air.

Dr. Pierre Latour is a former NASA scientist. If you want to READ what he has to say, then argue about that, fine.

But until then, you have no argument to make.

Re:Nukes are fake.

[Capsaicin]

That is what is called an ad hominem argument, and it isn't a valid argument.

What was an ad hom? I'm passing no judgement on what Latour has written here, I just won't bother reading stuff (whatever position it is arguing) published on so ridiculous a forum.

You can't just look at a website and judge the validity of what it has to say.

I can though. It's a skill that comes with experience. Really, the site itself does not have the requisite authority or credibility to be taken seriously. With an abundance of quality science available, much of it for free, why even waste your time in such a place?

You have to actually read it and refute what is written.

I'd prefer to spend that time reading the actual science.

Dr. Pierre Latour is a former NASA scientist.

Argument from (erstwhile) authority? If Dr Latour's work on this subject is of sufficient rigour he will be able to publish. As it stands this seems to be outside the bounds of the normative scientific discussion.

But until then, you have no argument to make.

Sure. And I wasn't making any argument. I was asking you, by reference to similar pseudo-science, to prove that thermonuclear weapons do not exist. Are you up to it or not?

Re:Nukes are fake.

[Jane Q. Public]

"What was an ad hom? I'm passing no judgement on what Latour has written here, I just won't bother reading stuff (whatever position it is arguing) published on so ridiculous a forum."

Except that you did. You called it "obvious" pseudo-science and refused to read it... and that is precisely what ad hominem is all about. Or one of the things it is about, anyway.

"It's a skill that comes with experience."

It's BS that comes with stubbornness. Look, let me put it in plain words: you have every right to decide, based on the nature of the source, whether you want to listen to, or read, that source. Granted.

But having refused to look at the evidence, you have no pretense of having falsified it.

"I was asking you, by reference to similar pseudo-science, to prove that thermonuclear weapons do not exist. Are you up to it or not?"

This doesn't even qualify as straw-man argument. You refused to look at the actual evidence, ASSUMED it was invalid based on your personal impression (without having read it at all), and then ask me to compare it to some ridiculous proposition of your own.

Dude. Take a class in debate or logical argument. You are all over the place, and impress me not at all.

Re:Nukes are fake.

[Jane Q. Public]

"It's a skill that comes with experience."

Let me put this another way, since there is someone else here who seems to need to have things explained to him 5 or 6 different ways before it finally sinks in, so a couple of times is (relatively) a relief:

You have every right to consider the source and refuse to look at the evidence it is presenting.

However, once you have done that, you have voluntarily waived any credibility you may have had, when you try to argue against it.

But that's exactly what you did: you called it obvious "pseudo-science" based only on the website that hosts the article, without having seen the article itself.

Which means your judgment of "pseudo-science" need be given no credence.

Re:Nukes are fake.

[Capsaicin]

and that is precisely what ad hominem is all about

Don't presume to tell me what an ad hominem is. You seem confused about our respective roles here. To establish an ad hominem you would have to show that I dismissed the validity of an argument (or truth of a fact) based on a personal attribute of the "speaker." But we don't even get that far. Your source fails on the grounds of admissibility. I've made no claim of invalidity because there is no argument to address in the first place. That is not an ad hominem.

You called it "obvious" pseudo-science and refused to read it.

OK para-science or non-science then. Whatever you call it, if it is not immediately obvious to you that this site lacks credibility or authority that is not my failing. It is yours. And it is a failing I would urge you to rectify.

Let me put this in terms you can understand. If your term paper cites this source, as an authoritative source of the science (as opposed to say evidence on the pervasiveness of para-science), I will mark you down and I will in comments attempt to explain the appropriateness of your source. Just a few weeks ago I wrote that very comment. Though thankfully not in climate science! Can you imagine anything worse than having to deal with the self-righteous little twats citing garbage like this and then complaining of some giant conspiracy when they are called out?

But having refused to look at the evidence, you have no pretense of having falsified it.

You have presented no evidence worthy of consideration. Of course I'm not going to bother falsify it. In any case I was a pharmacology major, and while I do read the odd climate science paper, I would no be so impertinent as to prefer my own (mis)understand over that of the actual experts in the field.

This doesn't even qualify as straw-man argument.

You're right you know. It's not an argument at all, it's flippancy.

Dude. Take a class in debate or logical argument.

I'll give it to you ...for a good price. Seriously though, what you need to learn very quickly is to develop a good bullshit detector, which by your own admission you lack. Otherwise you'll spend the rest of your life being just as much of a mug as you are now.

You are all over the place, and impress me not at all.

Diddums.

Re:Nukes are fake.

[Jane Q. Public]

"To establish an ad hominem you would have to show that I dismissed the validity of an argument (or truth of a fact) based on a personal attribute of the "speaker.""

You are invalidly assuming what is meant by "the speaker". In essence, you are questioning the source based on where it happened to appear or who it happened to be hosted by, not the message itself or even the actual author.

You can pick nits until the sun gets cool, but this is still the essence of ad hominem.

"OK para-science or non-science then."

HAHAHAHAHA.

"If your term paper cites this source, as an authoritative source of the science (as opposed to say evidence on the pervasiveness of para-science), I will mark you down and I will in comments attempt to explain the appropriateness of your source"

BUT, dumbass (just my opinion), you DIDN'T EVEN EXAMINE THE ACTUAL SOURCE. You only examined the site it was posted on.

To show just how STUPID that position is, by analogy: I could post the Declaration of Independence on this website, or, let's say, Discovery.com, and you would ASSUME whether it was valid based on where you read it? After all, that IS what you wrote, several times now. Are you SERIOUSLY admitting to this?

"You have presented no evidence worthy of consideration"

You don't even know that, because by your own admission YOU DIDN'T EVEN LOOK.

And you know squat about the rules of scientific discussion. I did, in fact, present evidence. You refused to look at it. Therefor, in ANY discussion that can be said to follow the principles of science, you have waived any credibility in saying so. Dude... you CAN'T refuse to look at evidence then call that evidence invalid. That is the original meaning of "prejudice". You have pre-judged, without having seen the arguments.

"Seriously though, what you need to learn very quickly is to develop a good bullshit detector, which by your own admission you lack."

On the contrary, I possess a very good bullshit detector, which is the main reason I am replying here. It isn't in my own interest, because I don't really care about your BS, but rather in the interest of other readers, in the hope that they won't swallow any.

You write fairly well (that is the best compliment I can give you here), but according to science's own rules, there is no sense to your words.

Re:Nukes are fake.

[Capsaicin]

On the contrary, I possess a very good bullshit detector

I'm sorry but you just don't. You look at a site which is practically surrounded by signs flashing 'disinformation' and you have not an inkling as to why a serious visitor would be dubious about its contents. You need to exercise way more skepticism in assessing the credibility of your sources of information.

... this is still the essence of ad hominem.

Now pay attention and try to understand it this time! What I wrote was that "I've made no claim of invalidity" and since an ad hominem argument is in essence a claim of invalidity there can be no ad hom. Yes?

You'd be better off trying to characterise it as a species of argumentum ad verecundiam, which it is. But that's science for you. ;)

... you are questioning the source based on where it happened to appear ...

Just to clarify some terminology. The source is where it appears. You know the thing you italicise in your notes (have you actually ever done any academic writing?)

you DIDN'T EVEN EXAMINE THE ACTUAL SOURCE. You only examined the site it was posted on.

Do calm down. But yes, [translating] I didn't examine the actual article having dismissed the source as an overly obvious disinformation site. If Latour is presenting a serious scientific argument one would expect to find some form of it from a credible source (i.e. the scientific literature). If such a source exists, why not cite it? If it doesn't exist in the literature but only on an obvious disinformation site ... well forgive my skepticism.

It may seem counter-intuitive, but being well informed involves filtering out information perhaps as much as acquiring it. You could spend a lot of time reading all the information on timecube.org, but there is an opportunity cost. And after all, it is the uncritical acceptance of disinformation that has compromised your own grasp on reality

To show just how STUPID that position is, by analogy: I could post the Declaration of Independence on this website ... and you would ASSUME whether it was valid based on where you read it?

Again, it's not a question of validity, every word he wrote could be true. The nature of the source (site) is such that the threshold is not met at which validity of its contents even enters into consideration. But ... this has the makings of a good example. OK forget anything you know about the text of the Declaration and I will do as you suggest, publish it (the start anyway) right here:

When in the cause of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which had connected them to another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and the LORD God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of humankind requires that they should declare the courses which compelled them toward that separation.

Now the problem is that the text published in this comment on this site differs occasionally from that found on the National Archives site.

... you would ASSUME whether it was valid based on where you read it?

Bearing in mind that we have both forgotten the text how to resolve the discrepancies in the two published versions? I would simply presume that the version on the authoritative source more likely reflects the actual wording. Yes I admit it.

And yes, Latour's contribution, if it appeared in Nature Geosciences say, would warrant our attention in a way it does not when it appears exclusively on the Sky Dragon disinformation site. Of course the mere fact of existing in the scienti

Re:Nukes are fake.

[Jane Q. Public]

"You look at a site which is practically surrounded by signs flashing 'disinformation' and you have not an inkling as to why a serious visitor would be dubious about its contents. You need to exercise way more skepticism in assessing the credibility of your sources of information."

On the contrary, I do. You see, I didn't just look at the fluff and ASSUME, as you did. I took the trouble to look up Professor Latour and his reputation which, unlike the site on which it happened to reside, might actually have some bearing on the CONTENT, which is the important thing. YOU didn't even get that far.

"What I wrote was that "I've made no claim of invalidity" and since an ad hominem argument is in essence a claim of invalidity there can be no ad hom. Yes?"

First, you DID make a claim of invalidity (more on that in a moment). Second, that isn't what you wrote. You wrote this:

To establish an ad hominem you would have to show that I dismissed the validity of an argument (or truth of a fact) based on a personal attribute of the "speaker."

That is what the "hominem" part means, technically... but it is commonly used to refer to the "source", not necessarily a person. In this case, you looked at that "source", didn't like it's looks, and ON THAT BASIS, according to what YOU wrote later, decided it was among:

"... these pseudo-scientific refutations of climate science ..."

So, you did, in fact judge the validity of Latour's writing, based on the "source". And not even really the actual source (Latour), but the location you found it in. Just as I stated in my analogy. You are trying to claim that it is perfectly valid to dismiss, for example, the Declaration of Independence not because of its content, but whether you found it on Discovery.com or Disney.com.

Which, as I stated before, you are perfectly welcome to do. But you have no right, then, to judge the validity of its content based solely on that location, without having read it. Which you DID do.

"Again, it's not a question of validity, every word he wrote could be true. "

Yes, it is a question of validity. You were attempting to rebut my own comment by calling Latour's piece a "pseudo-scientific refutation", without having even read it.

QED. You can't talk your way out of that now.

Have a nice day.

Re:Nukes are fake.

[Capsaicin]

QED. You can't talk your way out of that now.

LOL. You actually believe you landed some logical killer-punch, don't you? Your level of self-flattery really does border on the pathological.

Yes, it is a question of validity. You were attempting to rebut my own comment by calling Latour's piece a "pseudo-scientific refutation"

Firstly the fact that a statement is "pseudo-scientific" does not require it to be untrue. However, I agree that it would be a natural reading of that term to imply factual invalidity. For that reason, and because you were obviously misreading it in this fashion, I conceded very early on in the piece that this was a poor choice of words and I should instead call it "para-scientific" or "non-scientific." Did you miss that? Oh you didn't ... actually you quoted it.

I have been at absolute pains to explain that I'm making no call as to the validity or truth of the article. I wrote "pseudo-scientific" what once? ... twice maybe. I've told you I'm making no call as to validity how many times? Nearly every damn post, count them! I must grant you this: you excel at being ignorant.

How could I pass judgement on the truth of a document I didn't even read? Huh?! You really, really, really want me to be saying that, but that is simply wishful (and formally incorrect) thinking.

What really concerns me though, is the triumphalist tone. What is happening here? Do you get some sort of self-valorisation from knocking down strawmen on online fora? "Yeah I really showed that guy, I'm the most awesome debater on all slashdot ..." That's just pathetic.

This is slashdot. You don't win an argument here. There's no system of authority to determine the winner, no judge sitting on a bench assessing the validity of either side. There is only you patting yourself on the head and deluding yourself (and none other) that you are oh so awesome. I hate to say it, but that strikes me as almost mastubatory.

When I wrote (repeatedly) that I was not impugning the validity of what was contained in the document, when I wrote that "every word could be true," I actually meant what I wrote. Fancy that! Let me repeat, every word he wrote could be true, but it is not science, in the sense that it is outside normative scientific discourse.

I took the trouble to look up Professor Latour and his reputation

In which case you would have access to his publication record and you should be able to cite a valid source for his argument ... if such exists.

... you looked at that "source", didn't like it's looks ...

Yes exactly.

Just put yourself in the position of someone who hasn't gone down the denialist rabbit hole for a moment. Look at the site and imagine what it looks like to a sober and rational professional. Really, anyone who spends more than 10 secs on that site and doesn't realise that anything published there ought be dismissed out of hand (without even attempting to assess validity) ought to have their head read. OK, I'm being too harsh ... it may have some mild entertainment value.

You are trying to claim that it is perfectly valid to dismiss, for example, the Declaration of Independence not because of its content, but whether you found it on Discovery.com or Disney.com.

Sorry sunshine, but that's how it works out here in the grown-up world. Turn up to a court where it is required that your case law be cited from the officially recognised reports with a printout of the exact same case from Disney.com, or your legislation where it is required to produce the official version with a printout from Discovery.com, and you will not be heard. Your law will not exist, just as Latour's article doesn't exist in science. And I'm a bit disappointed that you didn't work out that the National Archives versions sho

When Nuclear Winter Was HOT

[Anonymous Coward]

Sagan and company make the Global Warming Hooligans look ... timid and tepid.

Al Gore needs to stand on top of the Empire State Building and kill a 2-year old child to make his point that humans, he, will destroy the Earth.

Otherwise, everyone will just say ... piss-off.

LoL

Re:Same Camera Tech used by Ansel Adams, Larry Fly

[TapeCutter]

Why would your strawman "lefty" deny it?

I wish I had a modpoint for you

[zapyon]

YMMD :-D

This is actually part of the problem....

[Anonymous Coward]

Many of us older folks will remember that during the cold war there was a strong alliance between the anti-nukes left and the "nuclear winter" propaganda (which was being used to scare people in the West even more about nuclear war in order to encourage the general public to support the nuclear-freeze/disarmament movements)

After they lost that debate and the West came out ahead in the Cold War, it was only natural for these same lefties to migrate to the alliance between socialists and AGW

These people had no objectivity then and none now. They did not tolerate the views of critics than and they don't now. It's just the same left-wing groupthink in new and improved packaging

Los Alamos's contributions

[Ambitwistor]

The article hardly talks about climate research at Los Alamos National Laboratory, which develops the ocean (POP) and ice (CICE and CISM) components of one of the world's leading climate models, CESM. The climate group at Los Alamos got started studying nuclear winter (related work was mentioned in TFA), and built its strength in ocean modeling with new ideas in high performance computing for parallel partial differential equation solvers (fishing for new applications, since they had all these giant supercomputers lying around for nuclear hydrodynamics.). More history here.