If he let people win by 'statistics', he'd have a constant stream of people claiming they could predict a coin toss 75% of the time....and eventually one of them would happen to do that. Because that's how statistics work.
Here's the problem: even an event that happens 100% of the time under the tested conditions is a statistic. It's just that the probability of a random event happening the same way 100 times in a row is so small that it is considered a guaranteed event in common life. Just because something happens every time in the past doesn't mean that it will happen like that every time in the future.
The difference in toxicity is a well known fact. The difference in function of the two gases is a well-known fact.
Then stop arguing like they are identical.
And that's why regulating CO2 the same way you do SO2 is stupid.
And that's why they're subjected to different regulations.
In any case, the regulation of CO2 has nothing to do with quantity and distribution, it has everything to do with how much money can be made and how much power can be shifted where the regulators want it to wind up.
pics or GTFO. You're ascribing motivation to people you don't know. I'd like some proof, thank you.
But that's like focusing on fire suppression over fire avoidance. What you ultimately want is a system that optimizes the cost/benefit analysis (where cost and benefit can go far beyond calculating how much material was destroyed in a fire, and how much it cost to put out). There's a reason there are fire codes for buildings in fire areas: if you can prevent a house from catching on fire rather than putting it out, it is very likely that the overall cost to society is lower.
The same idea is behind carbon trading schemes. If you associate a cost with producing CO2, you can focus people on reducing production rather than cleaning up the mess. Bonus: you get market forces involved rather than strictly legislative forces. The trick is of course how to set up the market, because we are not used to associating value with the lack of a substance.
By the way, paying for the cost of cleaning up and compensating for damage caused by pollution IS "paying for the right to pollute". Every company does this kind of analysis before engaging in a potentially polluting activity. Why do you think BP did what it did in the Golf? Because it figured that the potential clean-up cost was less than the potential benefit. And now, it is paying for the right to pollute the golf.
Yes, because CO2 in the atmosphere has absolutely not drawback whatsoever, regardless of its concentration. Newsflash: everything and nothing is poisonous, once you disregard quantities and way of administration. That's what matters. Any regulation of any activity or product takes into account quantity and distribution.
Urea is a key component in clean diesel engines. If we're going to this level, I'm pretty sure that the output of urea is going to cover his CO2 production.
People forget that the US president is NOT supposed to have the power to change everything on a whim. The president is not a decider, he's the guy in charge of a branch of the US government that has very defined responsibilities and limits.
Sometimes I think that people don't deserve a well thought out democratic government.
What does the FCC not regulating the merger of two companies have to do with how it is regulating the internet? And why do you think that companies will fuck you over less than the FCC?
To be honest, quite a few on that list were obviously a wish list with a snowball's chance in hell of coming true (either because of legislative opposition or logistic impossibility): * Gitmo cannot close any time soon. We don't know what to do with who's there. * An entire bill being debated on C-SPAN from start to finish, where the bill goes beyond someone's birthday being acknowledged. * a health plan that includes anything smelling like a national health care system. America isn't ready for it. * Prosecution of anybody doing possibly, but not obviously illegal and unsavory things in the Bush administration * roll-back of anything tagged "National Security" * keeping lobbyists out of government * immigration reform.
The only items where I'm profoundly disappointed because he clearly has a different opinion on that matter is Net Neutrality and copyright enforcement. These are items that aren't political lightning rods and where the president has a lot of influence, but he chose to do The Wrong Thing (TM).
Anyone who can't see either a difference between him and Bush Jr or a standard Republican is lying to him/herself.
I mean, we have 1080p 3D stereovision with full-micron surround color effects, and yet, movies still stutter like mad on a fast pan because that damn 24 fps capture rate just can't keep up. Is it really so much harder to capture 60 fps and encode than it is to do a working 3D effect? I'd pay more for movies that have reliable framerates in the 60 Hz range than I would for 3D.
I would argue though that depriving a market from optimum prices and a competitive feature landscape is somewhat less evil than murdering someone in cold blood.
Interesting comparison though. Maybe someone should rework Crime and Punishment and put it into the Microserfs landscape. And I'm genuinely curious what Gates thinks of his current philanthropic work: is it atonement, legacy building or reaping the fruits of his hard work?
To repeat, reproduction, not consensus, is what matters.
Good point. Let me ask you something: what do you call it when a group of people rework the experiment and come to the same conclusion? In other words, what do you call it when a result is reproduced on a large scale? Yep, consensus.
Re:Article doesn't live up to expectations
on
Bastardi's Wager
·
· Score: 1
Your meaning isn't clear. You are saying that perhaps he doesn't understand that CO2 absorbs energy from light of certain wavelengths? Why do you think he wouldn't understand this?
Because he argues that changing CO2 concentrations are irrelevant to the current temperature changes we're seeing, or at least impossible to associate with. Feel free to argue that that is true. I'm expecting a paper from you published somewhere reputable refuting a couple of decades of physics research.
It's pretty clear that there are scientists who have as their goal, not to investigate the nature of reality, but to push their viewpoint. Whether their viewpoint is correct on its own or not remains to be seen. There are certainly very respectable scientists on both sides of the debate.
True. Feel free to name them. But unless you have proof that every single research paper arguing for ACC is fraudulent - or at least the ones that I'm citing - I'm really not interested in your vague statement that some people might be tainting their research. It's a completely pointless road to go down.
At the same time, I'm not sure why you think the paper you produced shows that a temperature increase of less than.25 degrees per decade is significant. It doesn't particularly seem related to that.
You really ought to keep up with the discussion, or at least with the points you bring up. Your quote I was responding to: "Maybe the warming for the last decade is because of CO2, or maybe it's not. But it is not provably outside natural variation, which of course, is annoying." That's a very different statement from what you are making now. Make up your mind.
The definition makes no distinction on whether the strawman was intentional or not.
A bald assertion, neatly side-stepping any argument I made. At least you're staying in character.
Re:Article doesn't live up to expectations
on
Bastardi's Wager
·
· Score: 1
Oh really? This ought to be interesting. What alterations specifically are you talking about?
Do you have any idea what impact the melting of permafrost has to anything operating in the polar circle?
Are you upset because he is insisting on using the satellite and not land-based stations?
That's not only wrong, but also irrelevant. Please go back and read what I wrote. You'll find that I'm not implying anything. Instead, I'd like you to educate yourself on how CO2 absorption actually works. Because you don't seem to know it.
Or maybe I don't. And neither does he.
Then quit bringing up examples that indicate that you don't. And so should he.
Maybe the warming for the last decade is because of CO2, or maybe it's not. But it is not provably outside natural variation, which of course, is annoying.
It actually is outside natural variation. Unless, of course, you believe that the vast majority of the thousands of climate papers are due to a vast international conspiracy of communist treehuggers. I'm starting to think that you do.
Then look it up, you will see I am right. As defined in Wikipedia (and other places if you look) [wikipedia.org]: "To 'attack a straw man' is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent[sic] proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position"
You might want to read the various definitions more closely. They all use active words, which indicate that an active distortion of the position is taking place, which in turn requires the offender to understand the original position. Verbs like "set up" or "counterfeit position" imply the active creation of the incorrect position.
In other words, purpose is key to the strawman argument. Otherwise, every argument based on misunderstanding is a strawman argument.
Re:Article doesn't live up to expectations
on
Bastardi's Wager
·
· Score: 1
His point was that the change in temperature is extremely small, and it is. The change in temperature we've had so far is not worth worrying about. If you've only gained five pounds in 50 years, it's not really worth worrying about. It's a reasonable point if you look at it straight.
It is, however, worth worrying about if those 5 lbs put you into irreversible change territory or significantly alter your life. Those 0.4 degrees change we've seen are an enormous change that are already altering the lives of many. That's the part that a lot of people - including him - don't seem to get.
The key here is to understand the argument that he is answering. Sometimes, including here on Slashdot, you'll hear people say, "How can we put so many tons of CO2 into the atmosphere and not expect it to change things?" This is a silly point, because really the resulting change in atmospheric composition is less than 1%, less than.01%. Intuitively, a small change has a small effect. But of course he is aware that not everything in the universe is intuitive, which is why he supports the intuition with other evidence.
Except the evidence he uses to support that intuition isn't evidence, and isn't supported by basic science. Look up IR absorption spectra to see what I mean. In other words, he either cherry-picked his evidence to support his world-view, or he didn't study the science enough. Either way, his argument is bogus. And you don't even have to trust me on this.
He was talking about temperature here; he wasn't saying that CO2 would magically disappear from the atmosphere. Why would you think he was saying that?
We're getting into shaky territory here, because I don't have access to the full transcript of the interview. But he mentioned atmosphere, and he didn't mentioned temperature. Furthermore, the context was CO2 concentration. You might be right if we see the full transcript, but we don't have that. I'm quite happy to revise my position on this in the face of more evidence.
And yet he has a point. Ultimately global warming will affect weather and local climate patterns, otherwise it doesn't matter as far as policy decisions are concerned. That it hasn't noticeably affected weather is worth paying attention to.
And you, like so many others, completely misunderstand the relationship between climate and weather. A few commenters have some good analogies to help you understand your mistake. What you're asking for is similar to pollsters telling you how you will vote in the next election. Or to a statistician telling you how the next coin flip will end up after looking at a long series of them. That's not how these things work. Anyone who tells you that this storm or that deluge is the direct result of global warming is either lying or clueless.
So no, he doesn't have a point.
And I do mind people who try to rebut an article without understanding/addressing the main points. Strawman, they call it
A strawman is the deliberate creation of a position that the original person doesn't hold for the sake of proving them wrong. Which isn't the same as not understanding a debate topic, nor the same as not addressing a debate topic. I'm not sure you have any idea what you're talking about.
Re:Carbon dioxide is a trace gas ...
on
Bastardi's Wager
·
· Score: 1
Dear Mr. AC, a measly 300-400 PPM does affect the earth's temperature significantly. Furthermore, even increasing the concentration of CO2 from its current level by 30-40 PPM will significantly affect the global temperature.
Any other calculations you want me to do?
Re:Article doesn't live up to expectations
on
Bastardi's Wager
·
· Score: 1
Feel free to introduce me to him. Alternatively, if you shell out money to Slashdot, you can actually find my post where I made a specific prediction about future evolution of global temperatures. Feel free to meet and take me up on that prediction. I doubt you're willing to go to that trouble though.
I'm confident in my position. That doesn't mean that I travel around the world to make bets with every idiot who believes something else.
Re:Article doesn't live up to expectations
on
Bastardi's Wager
·
· Score: 2
Rereading my points as you posted them, it is clear that... they're not that clear. And that fault is solely mine.
Let me rephrase them.
My main beef with the first paragraph is that he argues that he doesn't understand how it could be, therefore it isn't. The reason I lost confidence is that this is such a basic logical fallacy, rooted solely in a personal flaw, that I'm forced to consider whether that personal flaw is coloring his entire approach. My commentary after that about the sun and its impact on global warming is completely tangential to that main issue, and I probably should have better left it out. What I didn't like about it was that he considers the sun to be "obviously" the greatest contributor to the world's energy. I think he might be underestimating energy coming from the earth's core, and energy released into the activity through human activity. I don't have numbers, but I eye such statements with suspicion. They remind me too much of arguments about CO2 contribution from volcanoes, and the impact of clearcutting on a forest ecosystem.
My main beef with the second paragraph of his is that I took it to mean that CO2 can't contribute to global warming, because temperatures leveled off in the face of rising CO2 concentration. That position requires a lack of knowledge about what is contributing to global warming. Papers from 10 years ago argued that it's a ratio of about 1/1/2 for the sun, non-human activity and human activity (values are approximate, causes from memory; do not use for any serious work). Those models have been refined, but haven't been fundamentally altered.
I hope that makes my points a bit clearer. Heck, this is Slashdot. I'm surprised anyone read that wall of text.
Meteorologists are not foolish enough to pretend they understand climate well enough to predict what the climate will do for the whole earth over an extended period of time.
Uh. Did you read the article? That's exactly what Bastardi is doing.
They are also actually judged by results instead of claiming any result obtained verified what they were claiming.
Really? Care to point out where the predictions for global temperatures were wrong in the various IPCC reports? Oh wait - that's right. You have no idea what the actual predictions are.
Article doesn't live up to expectations
on
Bastardi's Wager
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Showmanship is fine. After all, the Randi foundation has used the showmanship of its million dollar prize for a while now to punch holes into all kinds of quackery. But as I read through Bastardi's claims and comments, I was disappointed to see nothing new and some pretty standard failings.
“The [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] says this is the warmest decade ever — well, that’s like you wake up every morning and weigh 175 pounds, and one morning you wake up and are 175.1.”
No, it's more like weighing 175 lbs in the last decade, and then discovering that your average in the current decade has been 176. And that your weight has been increasing for the last 5 decades.
We started using objective satellite data in 1978.
He must have missed all the commotion about satellite data that revolved around what satellites are measuring, how they're measuring it and how their data fits into all the other data that's been collected. Specifically: a temperature station on the ground that produces a different reading than that of a satellite looking at infrared emission for that geographic area isn't (necessarily) wrong. It is measuring something completely different, and merging the two is hard.
Carbon dioxide is a trace gas, a tiny gas, part of this huge system. You’re trying to tell me that’s going to control the system and influence the energy of the system? When you have things like the sun, which is obviously the greatest contributor to the world’s energy? It almost defies common sense.
I started to lose confidence at this point. It's a standard argument from incredulity: I don't understand this, therefore it can't be true. He also confuses what's causing global warming: it's not only the energy input that controls how much warming occurs, but also how much energy is lost to space. And the problem that everyone's been talking about is that less energy is lost to space than before.
CO2 is still increasing, and the overall temperature has leveled off.
Because CO2 isn't the only thing that controls the Earth's temperature. If he had actually read the research and would understand climate science, he'd know that, and he'd know that this bit of info is widely known. My personal prediction 5 years ago was that we'd be getting back to a regular warming schedule in the next 1-3 years, based on nothing else than knowing that the sun was entering a quiet period then.
That’s not how the atmosphere works — for every step it takes away from the norm, the more likely it is to turn back
I don't know if he was misquoted, but that's not how the atmosphere works. There is nothing in the atmospheric cycle that regulates CO2 movement. Oceans absorb CO2, plants consume it, but that's not the atmosphere. Finally, he is not providing any numbers for his belief that the atmospheric CO2 content is controlled by negative feedback loops. Historic data on CO2 concentrations would actually indicate the opposite - that there can be wild fluctuations.
Fifth, today’s weather exhibits no unique patterns that require a unique explanation. They’re nothing we haven’t seen before
Now we're getting into weather. If he's going to lecture people on climate patterns and predictions, he should stay on topic.
And that’s just Bastardi’s point. It’s disingenuous to say we have conclusive proof of the future of such a torturously complicated system.
Ok, not something he said, but still - another lame argument from incredulity. There's plenty of complex systems out there, and many have been understood - just not by everybody.
Whereas a significant portion of today’s climate scientists are politically motivated, Bastardi has only one incentive in his job: accuracy. He
Sorry, but $3 for something that takes a year or more to create isn't much money.
Sorry, but in a capitalistic market economy, how long it takes to create something is not what dictates price. Instead, what dictates price is supply and demand. And the supply of amateurishly written books (and yes, that applies to a lot of big name authors as well - like you, Dan Brown) is damn near infinite.
Want to make money writing? Better make sure it's loads better than the competition, or get out of the market.
Finally, I'm tired of people only looking at costs and using that to justify piracy. There's more to any business than per-unit costs.
Yes, that's called supply and demand. And that really is it. Unless you wanna go try that commie-socialist-childmolesting-terrorism-supporting directed economy thing.
Because it wasn't the American Indian Wars, in combat the southeastern and plains Indians killed about 1 US soldier for ever 1.3 Indians lost. Compared to a small war like Vietnam, where the Viet Cong lost about 3 soldiers for every US soldier killed, the American Indian Wars were pretty even, the American Indians just didn't have the numbers or political unity to hold out.
So mass-eradication as a government policy is ok if the losing party put up a good fight?
And also remember that in places like the Northern Great Plains, there was as much inter-tribal violence as there was violence between the American Indians and United States.
So mass eradication as a government policy is ok if there's at least some internecine fighting going on in the target population?
And even now there are at least 2.5 million full blooded American Indian and Alaska Natives and 1.6 million tribal members who are mixed blood.
So mass eradication as a government policy is ok if it wasn't 100% successful?
Lets compare that to a modern genocide like Poland. In 1938 there were 3.1 million Jews in Poland, in 1946 there were 44,000.
So mass eradication as a government policy is ok if there ever was a more successful mass eradication program in history?
I'd like to see you advocate that position to some American Indians.
Hey, you brought up the comparison to Islam. I'm sorry if that comment went over your head.
I sure hope he is just nuts, and isn't affiliated with the Tea Party. Because if he would be, chances are there are more like him. And that would change the Tea Party from being a side show circus to a dangerous organization.
Because arguing that Islam is a religion of violence means the vast majority of Muslims are heretics, to be killed by the fringe extremists who truly believe that Islam is a religion of violence. In other words, you'd be providing moral support to the terrorists.
Slashdot Mirror
If he let people win by 'statistics', he'd have a constant stream of people claiming they could predict a coin toss 75% of the time....and eventually one of them would happen to do that. Because that's how statistics work.
Here's the problem: even an event that happens 100% of the time under the tested conditions is a statistic. It's just that the probability of a random event happening the same way 100 times in a row is so small that it is considered a guaranteed event in common life. Just because something happens every time in the past doesn't mean that it will happen like that every time in the future.
The difference in toxicity is a well known fact. The difference in function of the two gases is a well-known fact.
Then stop arguing like they are identical.
And that's why regulating CO2 the same way you do SO2 is stupid.
And that's why they're subjected to different regulations.
In any case, the regulation of CO2 has nothing to do with quantity and distribution, it has everything to do with how much money can be made and how much power can be shifted where the regulators want it to wind up.
pics or GTFO. You're ascribing motivation to people you don't know. I'd like some proof, thank you.
But that's like focusing on fire suppression over fire avoidance. What you ultimately want is a system that optimizes the cost/benefit analysis (where cost and benefit can go far beyond calculating how much material was destroyed in a fire, and how much it cost to put out). There's a reason there are fire codes for buildings in fire areas: if you can prevent a house from catching on fire rather than putting it out, it is very likely that the overall cost to society is lower.
The same idea is behind carbon trading schemes. If you associate a cost with producing CO2, you can focus people on reducing production rather than cleaning up the mess. Bonus: you get market forces involved rather than strictly legislative forces. The trick is of course how to set up the market, because we are not used to associating value with the lack of a substance.
By the way, paying for the cost of cleaning up and compensating for damage caused by pollution IS "paying for the right to pollute". Every company does this kind of analysis before engaging in a potentially polluting activity. Why do you think BP did what it did in the Golf? Because it figured that the potential clean-up cost was less than the potential benefit. And now, it is paying for the right to pollute the golf.
Yes, because CO2 in the atmosphere has absolutely not drawback whatsoever, regardless of its concentration. Newsflash: everything and nothing is poisonous, once you disregard quantities and way of administration. That's what matters. Any regulation of any activity or product takes into account quantity and distribution.
Urea is a key component in clean diesel engines. If we're going to this level, I'm pretty sure that the output of urea is going to cover his CO2 production.
People forget that the US president is NOT supposed to have the power to change everything on a whim. The president is not a decider, he's the guy in charge of a branch of the US government that has very defined responsibilities and limits.
Sometimes I think that people don't deserve a well thought out democratic government.
What does the FCC not regulating the merger of two companies have to do with how it is regulating the internet? And why do you think that companies will fuck you over less than the FCC?
Someone needs his meds back.
To be honest, quite a few on that list were obviously a wish list with a snowball's chance in hell of coming true (either because of legislative opposition or logistic impossibility):
* Gitmo cannot close any time soon. We don't know what to do with who's there.
* An entire bill being debated on C-SPAN from start to finish, where the bill goes beyond someone's birthday being acknowledged.
* a health plan that includes anything smelling like a national health care system. America isn't ready for it.
* Prosecution of anybody doing possibly, but not obviously illegal and unsavory things in the Bush administration
* roll-back of anything tagged "National Security"
* keeping lobbyists out of government
* immigration reform.
The only items where I'm profoundly disappointed because he clearly has a different opinion on that matter is Net Neutrality and copyright enforcement. These are items that aren't political lightning rods and where the president has a lot of influence, but he chose to do The Wrong Thing (TM).
Anyone who can't see either a difference between him and Bush Jr or a standard Republican is lying to him/herself.
I mean, we have 1080p 3D stereovision with full-micron surround color effects, and yet, movies still stutter like mad on a fast pan because that damn 24 fps capture rate just can't keep up. Is it really so much harder to capture 60 fps and encode than it is to do a working 3D effect? I'd pay more for movies that have reliable framerates in the 60 Hz range than I would for 3D.
I would argue though that depriving a market from optimum prices and a competitive feature landscape is somewhat less evil than murdering someone in cold blood.
Interesting comparison though. Maybe someone should rework Crime and Punishment and put it into the Microserfs landscape. And I'm genuinely curious what Gates thinks of his current philanthropic work: is it atonement, legacy building or reaping the fruits of his hard work?
To repeat, reproduction, not consensus, is what matters.
Good point. Let me ask you something: what do you call it when a group of people rework the experiment and come to the same conclusion? In other words, what do you call it when a result is reproduced on a large scale? Yep, consensus.
Your meaning isn't clear. You are saying that perhaps he doesn't understand that CO2 absorbs energy from light of certain wavelengths? Why do you think he wouldn't understand this?
Because he argues that changing CO2 concentrations are irrelevant to the current temperature changes we're seeing, or at least impossible to associate with. Feel free to argue that that is true. I'm expecting a paper from you published somewhere reputable refuting a couple of decades of physics research.
It's pretty clear that there are scientists who have as their goal, not to investigate the nature of reality, but to push their viewpoint. Whether their viewpoint is correct on its own or not remains to be seen. There are certainly very respectable scientists on both sides of the debate.
True. Feel free to name them. But unless you have proof that every single research paper arguing for ACC is fraudulent - or at least the ones that I'm citing - I'm really not interested in your vague statement that some people might be tainting their research. It's a completely pointless road to go down.
At the same time, I'm not sure why you think the paper you produced shows that a temperature increase of less than .25 degrees per decade is significant. It doesn't particularly seem related to that.
You really ought to keep up with the discussion, or at least with the points you bring up. Your quote I was responding to: "Maybe the warming for the last decade is because of CO2, or maybe it's not. But it is not provably outside natural variation, which of course, is annoying." That's a very different statement from what you are making now. Make up your mind.
The definition makes no distinction on whether the strawman was intentional or not.
A bald assertion, neatly side-stepping any argument I made. At least you're staying in character.
Oh really? This ought to be interesting. What alterations specifically are you talking about?
Do you have any idea what impact the melting of permafrost has to anything operating in the polar circle?
Are you upset because he is insisting on using the satellite and not land-based stations?
That's not only wrong, but also irrelevant. Please go back and read what I wrote. You'll find that I'm not implying anything. Instead, I'd like you to educate yourself on how CO2 absorption actually works. Because you don't seem to know it.
Or maybe I don't. And neither does he.
Then quit bringing up examples that indicate that you don't. And so should he.
Maybe the warming for the last decade is because of CO2, or maybe it's not. But it is not provably outside natural variation, which of course, is annoying.
It actually is outside natural variation. Unless, of course, you believe that the vast majority of the thousands of climate papers are due to a vast international conspiracy of communist treehuggers. I'm starting to think that you do.
Then look it up, you will see I am right. As defined in Wikipedia (and other places if you look) [wikipedia.org]: "To 'attack a straw man' is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent[sic] proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position"
You might want to read the various definitions more closely. They all use active words, which indicate that an active distortion of the position is taking place, which in turn requires the offender to understand the original position. Verbs like "set up" or "counterfeit position" imply the active creation of the incorrect position.
In other words, purpose is key to the strawman argument. Otherwise, every argument based on misunderstanding is a strawman argument.
His point was that the change in temperature is extremely small, and it is. The change in temperature we've had so far is not worth worrying about. If you've only gained five pounds in 50 years, it's not really worth worrying about. It's a reasonable point if you look at it straight.
It is, however, worth worrying about if those 5 lbs put you into irreversible change territory or significantly alter your life. Those 0.4 degrees change we've seen are an enormous change that are already altering the lives of many. That's the part that a lot of people - including him - don't seem to get.
The key here is to understand the argument that he is answering. Sometimes, including here on Slashdot, you'll hear people say, "How can we put so many tons of CO2 into the atmosphere and not expect it to change things?" This is a silly point, because really the resulting change in atmospheric composition is less than 1%, less than .01%. Intuitively, a small change has a small effect. But of course he is aware that not everything in the universe is intuitive, which is why he supports the intuition with other evidence.
Except the evidence he uses to support that intuition isn't evidence, and isn't supported by basic science. Look up IR absorption spectra to see what I mean. In other words, he either cherry-picked his evidence to support his world-view, or he didn't study the science enough. Either way, his argument is bogus. And you don't even have to trust me on this.
He was talking about temperature here; he wasn't saying that CO2 would magically disappear from the atmosphere. Why would you think he was saying that?
We're getting into shaky territory here, because I don't have access to the full transcript of the interview. But he mentioned atmosphere, and he didn't mentioned temperature. Furthermore, the context was CO2 concentration. You might be right if we see the full transcript, but we don't have that. I'm quite happy to revise my position on this in the face of more evidence.
And yet he has a point. Ultimately global warming will affect weather and local climate patterns, otherwise it doesn't matter as far as policy decisions are concerned. That it hasn't noticeably affected weather is worth paying attention to.
And you, like so many others, completely misunderstand the relationship between climate and weather. A few commenters have some good analogies to help you understand your mistake. What you're asking for is similar to pollsters telling you how you will vote in the next election. Or to a statistician telling you how the next coin flip will end up after looking at a long series of them. That's not how these things work. Anyone who tells you that this storm or that deluge is the direct result of global warming is either lying or clueless.
So no, he doesn't have a point.
And I do mind people who try to rebut an article without understanding/addressing the main points. Strawman, they call it
A strawman is the deliberate creation of a position that the original person doesn't hold for the sake of proving them wrong. Which isn't the same as not understanding a debate topic, nor the same as not addressing a debate topic. I'm not sure you have any idea what you're talking about.
I'll do you one better:http://books.google.com/books?id=pNJA9IFvf4IC&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=300K+blackbody+spectrum+with+CO2's+absorption+spectrum++bands&source=bl&ots=vZkdYfrJST&sig=5B3ogAKKu5G72-jfp1gbeNY-Zjo&hl=en&ei=2vAwTd6eL4G8sQP2w7XQBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false
Dear Mr. AC, a measly 300-400 PPM does affect the earth's temperature significantly. Furthermore, even increasing the concentration of CO2 from its current level by 30-40 PPM will significantly affect the global temperature.
Any other calculations you want me to do?
Feel free to introduce me to him. Alternatively, if you shell out money to Slashdot, you can actually find my post where I made a specific prediction about future evolution of global temperatures. Feel free to meet and take me up on that prediction. I doubt you're willing to go to that trouble though.
I'm confident in my position. That doesn't mean that I travel around the world to make bets with every idiot who believes something else.
Rereading my points as you posted them, it is clear that... they're not that clear. And that fault is solely mine.
Let me rephrase them.
My main beef with the first paragraph is that he argues that he doesn't understand how it could be, therefore it isn't. The reason I lost confidence is that this is such a basic logical fallacy, rooted solely in a personal flaw, that I'm forced to consider whether that personal flaw is coloring his entire approach. My commentary after that about the sun and its impact on global warming is completely tangential to that main issue, and I probably should have better left it out. What I didn't like about it was that he considers the sun to be "obviously" the greatest contributor to the world's energy. I think he might be underestimating energy coming from the earth's core, and energy released into the activity through human activity. I don't have numbers, but I eye such statements with suspicion. They remind me too much of arguments about CO2 contribution from volcanoes, and the impact of clearcutting on a forest ecosystem.
My main beef with the second paragraph of his is that I took it to mean that CO2 can't contribute to global warming, because temperatures leveled off in the face of rising CO2 concentration. That position requires a lack of knowledge about what is contributing to global warming. Papers from 10 years ago argued that it's a ratio of about 1/1/2 for the sun, non-human activity and human activity (values are approximate, causes from memory; do not use for any serious work). Those models have been refined, but haven't been fundamentally altered.
I hope that makes my points a bit clearer. Heck, this is Slashdot. I'm surprised anyone read that wall of text.
Meteorologists are not foolish enough to pretend they understand climate well enough to predict what the climate will do for the whole earth over an extended period of time.
Uh. Did you read the article? That's exactly what Bastardi is doing.
They are also actually judged by results instead of claiming any result obtained verified what they were claiming.
Really? Care to point out where the predictions for global temperatures were wrong in the various IPCC reports? Oh wait - that's right. You have no idea what the actual predictions are.
Showmanship is fine. After all, the Randi foundation has used the showmanship of its million dollar prize for a while now to punch holes into all kinds of quackery. But as I read through Bastardi's claims and comments, I was disappointed to see nothing new and some pretty standard failings.
“The [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] says this is the warmest decade ever — well, that’s like you wake up every morning and weigh 175 pounds, and one morning you wake up and are 175.1.”
No, it's more like weighing 175 lbs in the last decade, and then discovering that your average in the current decade has been 176. And that your weight has been increasing for the last 5 decades.
We started using objective satellite data in 1978.
He must have missed all the commotion about satellite data that revolved around what satellites are measuring, how they're measuring it and how their data fits into all the other data that's been collected. Specifically: a temperature station on the ground that produces a different reading than that of a satellite looking at infrared emission for that geographic area isn't (necessarily) wrong. It is measuring something completely different, and merging the two is hard.
Carbon dioxide is a trace gas, a tiny gas, part of this huge system. You’re trying to tell me that’s going to control the system and influence the energy of the system? When you have things like the sun, which is obviously the greatest contributor to the world’s energy? It almost defies common sense.
I started to lose confidence at this point. It's a standard argument from incredulity: I don't understand this, therefore it can't be true. He also confuses what's causing global warming: it's not only the energy input that controls how much warming occurs, but also how much energy is lost to space. And the problem that everyone's been talking about is that less energy is lost to space than before.
CO2 is still increasing, and the overall temperature has leveled off.
Because CO2 isn't the only thing that controls the Earth's temperature. If he had actually read the research and would understand climate science, he'd know that, and he'd know that this bit of info is widely known. My personal prediction 5 years ago was that we'd be getting back to a regular warming schedule in the next 1-3 years, based on nothing else than knowing that the sun was entering a quiet period then.
That’s not how the atmosphere works — for every step it takes away from the norm, the more likely it is to turn back
I don't know if he was misquoted, but that's not how the atmosphere works. There is nothing in the atmospheric cycle that regulates CO2 movement. Oceans absorb CO2, plants consume it, but that's not the atmosphere. Finally, he is not providing any numbers for his belief that the atmospheric CO2 content is controlled by negative feedback loops. Historic data on CO2 concentrations would actually indicate the opposite - that there can be wild fluctuations.
Fifth, today’s weather exhibits no unique patterns that require a unique explanation. They’re nothing we haven’t seen before
Now we're getting into weather. If he's going to lecture people on climate patterns and predictions, he should stay on topic.
And that’s just Bastardi’s point. It’s disingenuous to say we have conclusive proof of the future of such a torturously complicated system.
Ok, not something he said, but still - another lame argument from incredulity. There's plenty of complex systems out there, and many have been understood - just not by everybody.
Whereas a significant portion of today’s climate scientists are politically motivated, Bastardi has only one incentive in his job: accuracy. He
Sorry, but $3 for something that takes a year or more to create isn't much money.
Sorry, but in a capitalistic market economy, how long it takes to create something is not what dictates price. Instead, what dictates price is supply and demand. And the supply of amateurishly written books (and yes, that applies to a lot of big name authors as well - like you, Dan Brown) is damn near infinite.
Want to make money writing? Better make sure it's loads better than the competition, or get out of the market.
Finally, I'm tired of people only looking at costs and using that to justify piracy. There's more to any business than per-unit costs.
Yes, that's called supply and demand. And that really is it. Unless you wanna go try that commie-socialist-childmolesting-terrorism-supporting directed economy thing.
Because it wasn't the American Indian Wars, in combat the southeastern and plains Indians killed about 1 US soldier for ever 1.3 Indians lost. Compared to a small war like Vietnam, where the Viet Cong lost about 3 soldiers for every US soldier killed, the American Indian Wars were pretty even, the American Indians just didn't have the numbers or political unity to hold out.
So mass-eradication as a government policy is ok if the losing party put up a good fight?
And also remember that in places like the Northern Great Plains, there was as much inter-tribal violence as there was violence between the American Indians and United States.
So mass eradication as a government policy is ok if there's at least some internecine fighting going on in the target population?
And even now there are at least 2.5 million full blooded American Indian and Alaska Natives and 1.6 million tribal members who are mixed blood.
So mass eradication as a government policy is ok if it wasn't 100% successful?
Lets compare that to a modern genocide like Poland. In 1938 there were 3.1 million Jews in Poland, in 1946 there were 44,000.
So mass eradication as a government policy is ok if there ever was a more successful mass eradication program in history?
I'd like to see you advocate that position to some American Indians.
Point taken. I hope that he isn't affiliated with any political group.
Hey, you brought up the comparison to Islam. I'm sorry if that comment went over your head.
I sure hope he is just nuts, and isn't affiliated with the Tea Party. Because if he would be, chances are there are more like him. And that would change the Tea Party from being a side show circus to a dangerous organization.
Because arguing that Islam is a religion of violence means the vast majority of Muslims are heretics, to be killed by the fringe extremists who truly believe that Islam is a religion of violence. In other words, you'd be providing moral support to the terrorists.
Fortunately, the Tea Party doesn't work that way.
And yet, Maher didn't actually shoot anybody. Want to revisit that statement when it turns out the shooter was a tea partier?