Northwest Passage

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

....Looks like there may just be one or two more skeptics than just SPENCER, SPENCER, SPENCER, SPENCER, SPENCER & SPENCER. Yet another misleading distortion from you on the actual state of the science.

I looked at your list of scientists who are skeptical of AGW.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...global_warming

Conveniently, as the article stated, only people who themselves have Wikipedia entries can be included in this list. So I took a look at the Wikipedia article for every tenth person. With the exception of Roy Spencer, the dates for when they published dissenting views, or were interviewed, or gave Congressional testimony, were roughly 10 or more years ago, and some as long ago as the 1970s and 1980s.

That struck me as a potentially important observation. It seems entirely reasonable to me that in the early years of the study of climate change that there would indeed be lots of uncertainty, with scientists identifying holes in the data and flaws in models. But as more research was done, data would become more complete, models would become more accurate, and, as expected, a consensus of scientific opinion would start to coalesce around whichever scientific hypotheses seemed to most accurately explain the data.

I think that is why we are seeing fewer scientists dissenting -- simply because many of their scientific concerns have been addressed. Even with a profoundly ignorant and aggressive denier-in-chief as President, NASA and NOAA are still ringing alarm bells, and at least a few GOP advisors are now recommending that Republicans would do well to quit being so blindly anti-AGW.

Even on the CF forum there are fewer aggressively anti-AGW posts than there were even a few years ago. Maybe the deniers are just getting bored with arguing. Maybe with a dotard-in-chief in the White House they feel that their point of view is on the ascendancy, so why waste the effort. Or maybe, just maybe, they've read enough of the recent science to start wondering if the alarmists really have a justifiable reason for concern.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Scientific organizations don't collect the data, do the actual research, and put their names on their published analyses & conclusions. The scientists who make up the organization do.

Universities and other institutions fund, organize and manage research; organizations are often the source of the peers who review the work. Said bodies are primarily made up of scientists and scholars...

Looks like there may just be one or two more skeptics than just SPENCER, SPENCER, SPENCER, SPENCER, SPENCER & SPENCER. Yet another misleading distortion from you on the actual state of the science.

I'm not referring to the real world, I'm referring to the scientifically stagnant little backwater known as CF. Where it's Spencer, Spencer, Spencer, Spencer, Spencer, Spencer, Spencer, Spencer, Spencer, Spencer, Spencer, etc. He's intelligent and eloquent, no doubt, but the taint on this one man is pretty thick, when it comes to opinions and drawing conclusions. From your voluminous list, can you not find other experts to cite?

I realize that the denier thought-leading sites are mostly Spencer, Spencer, Spencer, too, so it won't be an easy task.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Singularity

I'm not a global warming denier. But climatology is about as simplistic a scientific discipline as it gets. In secondary school and university earth science/meteorology/climatology was for people who liked to drink, smoke dope, and go camping. Not for students with more rigorous drive, fascination with interloping details, higher intellectual acumen, etc.

Respectfully, that generalization applies mainly to the secondary and undergraduate levels. The top level of any major field is demanding. And I can't imagine, say, Dr Spencer as a hippie slacker.


(drinking, smoking dope and camping pretty much describes cruising, if you add water to the list )

When you non-scientist climate enthusiasts attack real scientists it's bad for all science. You don't know what you're talking about because you surround yourself with other people who don't know what they don't know. It may be juvenile funny to you, but other people commit their lives to understanding what you can't. A sly joke doesn't earn you membership in the club that you don't have the capacity to join. Just get over it, or go back to school.

I share your respect and regard for people who dedicate their lives to the pursuit of knowledge. Possibly the #1 thing I object to in most denial arguments is the assertion that scientists and the scientific process are so influenced and distorted by perverse incentives and human frailty that the consensus around climate change is nothing more than groupthink co-opted for left-wing political ends. So basically, the majority of climate scientists must be spineless careerists and grant wh0r3s who will fake results and climb on any bandwagons to get ahead.

They need this as their explanation for why the consensus around CC can be ignored.

Not a whole lotta respect for science there, wouldn't you say?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Respectfully, that generalization applies mainly to the secondary and undergraduate levels. The top level of any major field is demanding. And I can't imagine, say, Dr Spencer as a hippie slacker.


(drinking, smoking dope and camping pretty much describes cruising, if you add water to the list )
I share your respect and regard for people who dedicate their lives to the pursuit of knowledge. Possibly the #1 thing I object to in most denial arguments is the assertion that scientists and the scientific process are so influenced and distorted by perverse incentives and human frailty that the consensus around climate change is nothing more than groupthink co-opted for left-wing political ends. So basically, the majority of climate scientists must be spineless careerists and grant wh0r3s who will fake results and climb on any bandwagons to get ahead.

They need this as their explanation for why the consensus around CC can be ignored.

Not a whole lotta respect for science there, wouldn't you say?

what with all of the failed pro agw predictions sorry but yes I have lost some faith in the scientific industry.

Show me 3 actual significant predictions that have come to pass that are not easily explained by natural forces.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SailOar

I looked at your list of scientists who are skeptical of AGW.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...global_warming

Conveniently, as the article stated, only people who themselves have Wikipedia entries can be included in this list. So I took a look at the Wikipedia article for every tenth person. With the exception of Roy Spencer, the dates for when they published dissenting views, or were interviewed, or gave Congressional testimony, were roughly 10 or more years ago, and some as long ago as the 1970s and 1980s.

That struck me as a potentially important observation. It seems entirely reasonable to me that in the early years of the study of climate change that there would indeed be lots of uncertainty, with scientists identifying holes in the data and flaws in models. But as more research was done, data would become more complete, models would become more accurate, and, as expected, a consensus of scientific opinion would start to coalesce around whichever scientific hypotheses seemed to most accurately explain the data.

I think that is why we are seeing fewer scientists dissenting -- simply because many of their scientific concerns have been addressed. Even with a profoundly ignorant and aggressive denier-in-chief as President, NASA and NOAA are still ringing alarm bells, and at least a few GOP advisors are now recommending that Republicans would do well to quit being so blindly anti-AGW.

Even on the CF forum there are fewer aggressively anti-AGW posts than there were even a few years ago. Maybe the deniers are just getting bored with arguing. Maybe with a dotard-in-chief in the White House they feel that their point of view is on the ascendancy, so why waste the effort. Or maybe, just maybe, they've read enough of the recent science to start wondering if the alarmists really have a justifiable reason for concern.

Helpful that you took the time to try and date some of the entries (really), but did your follow-up research actually confirm any on the list who have changed their views? If not, then your explanation amounts to conjecture on your part which depends entirely on whether there has been any significant progress made in the core science during the intervening years that might influence any of these skeptics to alter their opinions. There's certainly been no shortage of research papers done and articles with compelling photos published. And there's been a lot of additional modeling accomplished to try and predict the future, some of which is being used by dim-bulbed politicians to gain notoriety for themselves. But I'm not aware of refinements in the historical data that would help prove if what scientists are observing now exceeds earth's natural & normal fluctuations.

Maybe this is why there seems to be a lot of physicists populating the skeptic list. Unlike the field of climate science who's entire reputation & credibility rests on proving that humans are entirely or mostly culpable, other related scientific disciplines have little pressure on them to conform to the ever-present political & financial mandates. In any event, and whether dated or not, I think at the very least the skeptic list effectively dispels the false impression of near-unanimity constantly being thrown out in these threads in conclusory fashion.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Universities and other institutions fund, organize and manage research; organizations are often the source of the peers who review the work. Said bodies are primarily made up of scientists and scholars...

This is exactly why I think looking at the stated positions of individual scientists is far more compelling than the institutions they work for. As you just pointed out, institutions have responsibilities which go far beyond those of individuals, and often have to lobby for funding and then prioritize research projects accordingly. If anything, institutions have even more of a disincentive to question prevailing doctrine than individuals, since their responsibilities also include keeping the lights on in the buildings.

I'm not referring to the real world, I'm referring to the scientifically stagnant little backwater known as CF. Where it's Spencer, Spencer, Spencer, Spencer, Spencer, Spencer, Spencer, Spencer, Spencer, Spencer, Spencer, etc. He's intelligent and eloquent, no doubt, but the taint on this one man is pretty thick, when it comes to opinions and drawing conclusions. From your voluminous list, can you not find other experts to cite?

Not if others have been ostracized or otherwise prevented from publishing, or their works are not able to get peer reviewed. But keep relying on your "consensus" angle, even if it has been repeatedly shown to have limited relevance.

I realize that the denier thought-leading sites are mostly Spencer, Spencer, Spencer, too, so it won't be an easy task.

I don't spend much time on such sites, whether they are pro or con. Usually too blatantly one-sided, so it then requires reading a bunch of them to get more of a credible picture. But always much easier if you just want to pitch one side of an issue for your own partisan/political/personal reasons. But then you wind up being surprised when you find out there's another side to the story. That's the point where you have to resort to conjecture & speculation, you know like making stuff up, twisting other peoples' posts, politicizing, and accusing them of being bad people. The usual fallbacks when you can't otherwise persuade them on the merits. Momentarily satisfying I'm sure, but hardly credible.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Respectfully, that generalization applies mainly to the secondary and undergraduate levels. The top level of any major field is demanding. And I can't imagine, say, Dr Spencer as a hippie slacker.

Dr. Spencer is obviously not one of the ones accused of group-think, etc. Instead, he's accused of unprofessionalism based on his dissenting scientific opinions personal religious beliefs.

(drinking, smoking dope and camping pretty much describes cruising, if you add water to the list )

Not my experience with cruisers. Daysailors perhaps?

I share your respect and regard for people who dedicate their lives to the pursuit of knowledge. Possibly the #1 thing I object to in most denial arguments is the assertion that scientists and the scientific process are so influenced and distorted by perverse incentives and human frailty that the consensus around climate change is nothing more than groupthink co-opted for left-wing political ends. So basically, the majority of climate scientists must be spineless careerists and grant wh0r3s who will fake results and climb on any bandwagons to get ahead.

They need this as their explanation for why the consensus around CC can be ignored.

Not a whole lotta respect for science there, wouldn't you say?

Another gross distortion of mostly legitimate & healthy critique of a highly politicized field of modern science. Are there partisan critics who take it too far? Of course, but that's the nature of low-level partisan critique on both sides of every controversial issue, right?

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Possibly the #1 thing I object to in most denial arguments is the assertion that scientists and the scientific process are so influenced and distorted by perverse incentives and human frailty that the consensus around climate change is nothing more than groupthink co-opted for left-wing political ends.

From my perspective, the #1 problem with the entirety of the discussion here is the maintenance...of a context...that there are “deniers” in the first place. I’m not saying, per se, that AGW alarmists are chasing a boogey man named AGW (though I find it ordinarily the case...everyone has their existential fear hierarchy, who am i to judge most correct in that front), but more importantly the alarmists, in the discussion here, cannot seem to recognise that most everyone agrees with the underlying heating, CO2 thing....yet they’re still being pegged as non-believers. The alarmists, themselves extremists, persist with full force “my way or the highway” dialog, never addressing the semi-believers’ questions and concerns about the dogma. Instead the alarmists throw up charts, graphs, name drops.

So basically, the majority of climate scientists must be spineless careerists and grant wh0r3s who will fake results and climb on any bandwagons to get ahead.

By definition a scientist is predominantly a group-thinker. Where science is a path of knowledge, scientists for sure constantly go up and down the path looking around at things...looking for a more direct and/or interconnected path. But to be on the path means you have to share the same initial perspectives on many subordinate ideas.

So consider that the anti-science people are basically flat earth types. If a flat-earther attacked climate scientists I presume you wouldn’t care to waste time responding to them because they’re clearly nutty. So too, I suggest, when a real climate denier slanders your personal science chief...let it slide. Don’t respond. But what happens here is that a vehement response occurs wherein everyone who isn’t in lock step with the alarmist gets tossed in with the flat earth/nutty anti-science people. You don’t attract bees with vinegar...vinegar repels bees...more bees than you planned on.

Furthermore...where is the discussion on water vapour? At the same time, if threat to humans and animals is the main concern....do the alarmists really consider AGW to be the #1 threat to humanity? Really? If this is so, then for sure the tactics of the AGW alarmist academic community is effective in fear mongering.....assuming you’re familiar with all the other threats to mankind. Is the WHO’s position on antibiotic resistant organisms to be ignored? Space weather (particularly radiation) nonsense? Nuclear proliferation is all taken care of? Etc etc etc.

They need this as their explanation for why the consensus around CC can be ignored.

If I have been clear here, you’ll understand that I don’t agree that there is a “them.” In any population a few percent of people are nuts. The nuts are there to be listened to when they have bright ideas, not when they are acting as obstinate contrarians.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

....That's the point where you have to resort to conjecture & speculation, you know like making stuff up, twisting other peoples' posts, politicizing, and accusing them of being bad people. The usual fallbacks when you can't otherwise persuade them on the merits. Momentarily satisfying I'm sure, but hardly credible.

Sure. Twisted little ditties like:

But I'm not aware of refinements in the historical data that would help prove if what scientists are observing now exceeds earth's natural & normal fluctuations.

So, an unprecedented, very rapid CO2 buildup and temperature increase, which hasn't been previously experienced for millions of years, according to our best information... might just be natural. Riiiiight.

Unlike the field of climate science who's entire reputation & credibility rests on proving that humans are entirely or mostly culpable, other related scientific disciplines have little pressure on them to conform to the ever-present political & financial mandates.

Aaahh. The entire field of climate science has been corrupted, but only that field. Nice to know that you arren't slagging ALL scientists after all.


Wall-to-wall denial. Not a smidge of skepticism. It's freeing to come clean about this, isn't it?


(I think we're done. Same time next year?)

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Singularity

...but more importantly the alarmists, in the discussion here, cannot seem to recognise that most everyone agrees with the underlying heating, CO2 thing....yet they’re still being pegged as non-believers.

Fair comment. Guilty as charged. But there ARE some non-CO2-believers in our midst, and some of the professed skeptics sometimes let the mask slip.

Furthermore...where is the discussion on water vapour? At the same time, if threat to humans and animals is the main concern....do the alarmists really consider AGW to be the #1 threat to humanity? Really? If this is so, then for sure the tactics of the AGW alarmist academic community is effective in fear mongering.....assuming you’re familiar with all the other threats to mankind. Is the WHO’s position on antibiotic resistant organisms to be ignored? Space weather (particularly radiation) nonsense? Nuclear proliferation is all taken care of? Etc etc etc.

I don't believe that the CF AGW threads have very many people who are more interested in real science than their partisan stance. "Water vapour" is just something else to lob out as part of an anti-AGW argument.

A problem with the dominance of the AGW debate here and elsewhere is that it does suck up all the oxygen. I very much believe that this debate has become a proxy for just about all ecological/sustainability issues. And I'm fairly convinced that the majority of people who are against any proactive response to AGW are pretty much against significant action against those other weighty concerns as well. CF is mainly a low-information, partisan community when it comes to these topics.


I'm not helping, I know. I should probably desist.

[Singularity]

My point on water vapor is that it’s an elephant in the room +\- as bad as the CO2 issue (depending on how you want to slice it). If this discussion is all sciency, then I don’t know why the subject is neglected. I’m frankly not familiar with all the “pro” and “anti” camps, and don’t know why anti people could utilise the subject for their benefit...I mean h20 is the other component besides co2 in combustion/physiologic metabolism.

True the debate sucks oxygen, or more specifically costs x CO2 production per post, page view, etc, clearly with zero return on investment.

I suppose that if Freud were here he’d remind us that there are a bazillion possible subjects that people can spend time on, such that if they are investing time on this subject, for any reason...then they ordinarily find the subject matter very important to their personal survival. After all, they’re neglecting all other subjects. From this perspective, when you’re dialogging in a subject...you’ve already self-segregated...birds of a feather argue together. Freud otherwise described the narcissism of small differences...the natural phenomenon where people who are predominantly alike will find small differences between them, then magnify the differences so as to draw some artificial distinction where little exists. This is evident in the eye of the “politically independent” voter who sees little difference between democrats and republicans....or someone not from the Middle East who sees bearded guys with black skull caps who pray a lot always fighting bearded guys with white skull caps who pray a lot. At some point, maybe, when you find yourself in perpetual conflict with someone....you can recognise the likeness, call time-out, restart dialog. But this doesn’t work with a zealot in the midst...unless you mutually agree to ignore them.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Sure. Twisted little ditties like:




So, an unprecedented, very rapid CO2 buildup and temperature increase, which hasn't been previously experienced for millions of years, according to our best information... might just be natural. Riiiiight.





Aaahh. The entire field of climate science has been corrupted, but only that field. Nice to know that you arren't slagging ALL scientists after all.


Wall-to-wall denial. Not a smidge of skepticism. It's freeing to come clean about this, isn't it?


(I think we're done. Same time next year?)

Let's try and untwist a bit here. Based on my own words & opinions about the state of the science, and not what you've always tried so hard to make them into:

Rapid build-up of CO2? Yes. Largely from human sources, i.e. fossil fuels? Yes.

Higher avg. temps? Some dispute but mostly yes. A "rapid" build-up of avg. temps which corresponds to the rapid build-up of CO2? Disputed.

Something the earth hasn't seen for millions of years? An unfounded if not absurd conclusion based on the available evidence, but definitely the consensus amongst liberal politicians & pundits, and the media.

All scientists in the climate field who conform to the consensus perversely corrupted? No. Some number of them biased by group-think, pressure for grant money, prestige, career advancement? Would be unrealistic and naive not to assume so, at least for some portion of them.

A grossly disportionate amount of research devoted to proving the human connection to CC as opposed to proving natural forces are to blame? Beyond reasonable dispute. A distorting of lay public knowledge about the causes of CC due to the lopsided research & media reporting? No question about it.

It sounds like you're at least done, and have resorted to your usual tactics when you find yourself challenged as I predicted in my post. I'm hardly the "denier" here, as I acknowledge which side the weight of the evidence obviously favors, but don't ignore or try and minimize dissenting views because I know scientific issues aren't resolved by majority rule. I'm skeptical, and oftentimes dubious, but in my opinion, my skepticism more accurately reflects the actual (unsettled) state of the science. But I recognize that I'm also biased, less so on account of rank partisanship and more so based on distrust of the hyper-politicization of the entire environmental movement during my adult lifetime. You obviously disagree with my CC skepticism, but I can't understand why that's so disconcerting to you when there's a much higher consensus for reducing fossil fuel consumption, regardless of the reasons (that go well beyond CC).

But for whatever reasons (Singularity has provided a good deal of insight), it appears to trouble you greatly that others refuse to believe like you do. If that's the case (and I'm obviously not just referring to "you"), then maybe controversial threads like these don't suit you, and you should consider sitting them out. There are plenty of others to be sure that are filled with like-minded opinions & comments should you only be seeking confirmation. I don't suggest this because, as you just said, you don't often help (you do imo), but because your intolerance of other points of view all too often wind up dragging the thread down to inevitable closure.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

You obviously disagree with my CC skepticism, but I can't understand why that's so disconcerting to you when there's a much higher consensus for reducing fossil fuel consumption, regardless of the reasons (that go well beyond CC).

Primarily because of your previous defense of such consumptions and apparent opposition to any meaningful action to change that behaviour.

But for whatever reasons (Singularity has provided a good deal of insight), it appears to trouble you greatly that others refuse to believe like you do.

I don't too much mind if others refuse to believe like I do. I mind very much the attacks on science and the scientific process, and people not being sincere about the partisan underpinnings of their position.

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by Singularity

My point on water vapor is that it’s an elephant in the room +\- as bad as the CO2 issue (depending on how you want to slice it). If this discussion is all sciency, then I don’t know why the subject is neglected. I’m frankly not familiar with all the “pro” and “anti” camps, and don’t know why anti people could utilise the subject for their benefit...I mean h20 is the other component besides co2 in combustion/physiologic metabolism.

True the debate sucks oxygen, or more specifically costs x CO2 production per post, page view, etc, clearly with zero return on investment.

I suppose that if Freud were here he’d remind us that there are a bazillion possible subjects that people can spend time on, such that if they are investing time on this subject, for any reason...then they ordinarily find the subject matter very important to their personal survival. After all, they’re neglecting all other subjects. From this perspective, when you’re dialogging in a subject...you’ve already self-segregated...birds of a feather argue together. Freud otherwise described the narcissism of small differences...the natural phenomenon where people who are predominantly alike will find small differences between them, then magnify the differences so as to draw some artificial distinction where little exists. This is evident in the eye of the “politically independent” voter who sees little difference between democrats and republicans....or someone not from the Middle East who sees bearded guys with black skull caps who pray a lot always fighting bearded guys with white skull caps who pray a lot. At some point, maybe, when you find yourself in perpetual conflict with someone....you can recognise the likeness, call time-out, restart dialog. But this doesn’t work with a zealot in the midst...unless you mutually agree to ignore them.

Yes, water vapor is more potent than CO2, but it is not considered a well mixed gas in the atmosphere, instead the amount of water vapor is mostly in the lower atmosphere and the amount changes with temperature. As the atmosphere warms, more water vapor which causes more warming. Of course at some point it saturates and you get clouds and rain. So atmospheric system warms from co2, you get more water vapor which heats the atmosphere more (positive feedback). Nobody in the field of climate science ignores water vapor.
That said some believe that the water vapor might cause dramatically more clouds which may mitagate CO2 warming but I think most researchers are not that optimistic. Much of the variation in the models comes from uncertainty of how much positive feedback water vapor will cause.
Finally the water vapor from burning fossil fuels is very small as compared to that from evaporation. In contrast, 40% of the CO2 is from human sources and it is going to stay in the atmosphere for 100s of years unless we figure out some magical way to get it back out and into the ground.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

Yes, water vapor is more potent than CO2, but it is not considered a well mixed gas in the atmosphere, instead the amount of water vapor is mostly in the lower atmosphere and the amount changes with temperature. As the atmosphere warms, more water vapor which causes more warming. Of course at some point it saturates and you get clouds and rain. So atmospheric system warms from co2, you get more water vapor which heats the atmosphere more (positive feedback). Nobody in the field of climate science ignores water vapor.
That said some believe that the water vapor might cause dramatically more clouds which may mitagate CO2 warming but I think most researchers are not that optimistic. Much of the variation in the models comes from uncertainty of how much positive feedback water vapor will cause.
Finally the water vapor from burning fossil fuels is very small as compared to that from evaporation. In contrast, 40% of the CO2 is from human sources and it is going to stay in the atmosphere for 100s of years unless we figure out some magical way to get it back out and into the ground.

my specific question is how much of the actual June 2019 418 ppm of co2 in the atmosphere is provably from from burning of ancient plant matter?