Co2 Acquittal

[Turtle]

By the authority and knowledge vested in me by TV law school, I acquit CO2 of a felony charge of causing global warming and charge it with misdemeanor conspiracy to contribute to global warming, perjury, and promoting a riot. I also bring misdemeanor conspiracy indictments against the co-conspirators. If I loose in criminal court, I'll sue in civil court.

Indictment against meteoric dust:

News in Science - Cosmic dust may change climate - 25/08/2005

Dust, dust everywhere
...Klekociuk says the disintegration of the meteor is unlikely to have had any immediate impact on climate.
However, the findings about the size of the particles should cause us to rethink the cumulative effect of cosmic dust globally, he says.
Dust has the potential to warm or cool the Earth depending on the size and composition of the particles.
It can do this by either scattering or absorbing solar visible light. If light scatters away from the Earth cooling occurs, and if it's absorbed there's warming.
It can also trigger cloud nucleation, which occurs what drops of water cling to a speck of dust, eventually causing clouds to form.
Impact on climate?
The magnesium, iron and silica composition of the meteor dust could also react with chemicals in the atmosphere, potentially eroding the ozone layer.
"If the dust from large meteors was much larger it would have a much larger climate forcing potential," Klekociuk says.
Analysis of the dust could also predict how the climate would be affected if a meteor were to crash into Earth.

Klekociuk says around 40 tonnes of cosmic dust fall to Earth each day.

[freeztar]

I'll give you "promoting a riot", but I still don't understand why you are claiming "conspiracy to contribute to global warming"? There's no conspiracy about it, it's guilty.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by freeztar

I'll give you "promoting a riot", but I still don't understand why you are claiming "conspiracy to contribute to global warming"? There's no conspiracy about it, it's guilty.

It's conspiracy because it is only one contributor of many. I note you didn't care to discount any of the other contributors I indicted. A good choice because doing that is a logical fallacy; spitting in the wind so to speak. I do hope you read up on all you can find about heating in the oceans from volcanism and hydrothermal venting. If in fact as I say this is where a lot of the heat is coming from, and not the greenhouse effect, then spending money to reduce CO2 on that premise is a waste. The fact that the effects of these features is largely unknown, is exactly why the current 'best' model is inherently flawed by virtue of bias. Quite simply the argument/consensus goes that 'we are not bothered by any facts we don't use.'.

Do read the meteroic dust post above I put up while you were replying. Yet another indictment. Best model yet notwithstanding, to quote Winston quoting Korzybski, the map is NOT the territory.

[Zythryn]

Turtle, I do agree with you that there are other contributing factors. I don't think anyone would say that there are no factors other than CO2.
I hold that since we can do something about the co2 more easily and more cheaply than we can prepare ourselves for the consequences, it would behoove us to do so (as Freeztar has also said).
As for the dust. Since the dust can cause heating or cooling based on size of the dust particles, do we know the distribution of dust particle sizes?
If our current estimation of the contribution that CO2 lends to GWing is so off, why is it the models based on what we currently know are relatively close to reality? Sure, we may be of by 10%, but if we are off by magnitudes, wouldn't the models be off by more?

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Tuturtle

It's conspiracy because it is only one contributor of many.

If it's a contributer, it is guilty of...er...contributing.

I note you didn't care to discount any of the other contributors I indicted. A good choice because doing that is a logical fallacy; spitting in the wind so to speak.

Of course I wouldn't discount other contributers.

I do hope you read up on all you can find about heating in the oceans from volcanism and hydrothermal venting.

I plan to.

If in fact as I say this is where a lot of the heat is coming from, and not the greenhouse effect, then spending money to reduce CO2 on that premise is a waste.

A waste? Look where that money is going, cleaner energy and cleaner air. Sure it would be nice if we pursued these out of virtue, but either way I don't see it as a waste.

The fact that the effects of these features is largely unknown, is exactly why the current 'best' model is inherently flawed by virtue of bias. Quite simply the argument/consensus goes that 'we are not bothered by any facts we don't use.'.

You can't use facts that aren't there. Since underwater volcanoes seem to be scientifically mysterious at this point, we can't factor them into any model yet, at least not with any reliable certainty.

Do read the meteroic dust post above I put up while you were replying. Yet another indictment. Best model yet notwithstanding, to quote Winston quoting Korzybski, the map is NOT the territory.

I haven't read it yet, but I'll do so.
The map is not the territory, but it's certainly nice having a map.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by freeztar

If it's a contributer, it is guilty of...er...contributing.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by Freeztaroni

Of course I wouldn't discount other contributers.

Standing with you on a windy slope, I would not be concerned with your knowing which way to stand to discharge water.

Originally Posted by Freeztarifick

A waste? Look where that money is going, cleaner energy and cleaner air. Sure it would be nice if we pursued these out of virtue, but either way I don't see it as a waste.

This depends, the economic balance that is, on the specifics of each project. All the 'cleaner' air, alternate fuel, etcetera has been going on for 40 years on the merits of all the other pollutants alone without regard for the carbon. So in my view there is no need to add some other still-debated reason, and so expenditure, to efforts and programs already in place to reduce use of fossil fuel. How many trees are getting killed to send out all the new dire reports with the latest catch phrase?

Originally Posted by Freeztaruno

You can't use facts that aren't there. Since underwater volcanoes seem to be scientifically mysterious at this point, we can't factor them into any model yet, at least not with any reliable certainty.

Yes...sorta. But pretending they don't exist is perilous ground. Let's not foget that the 'latest-greatest' climate models have to be run on super-computers in order to model even the "well-understood" parameters. Practical decisions based on computer limits get made, such as leaving out as yet discovered (by necessity;duh), or not-yet-understood and quantified parameters.

The result can be the answer to Zythrn's insightful question:

Originally Posted by Zythrinator

... If our current estimation of the contribution that CO2 lends to GWing is so off, why is it the models based on what we currently know are relatively close to reality? Sure, we may be of by 10%, but if we are off by magnitudes, wouldn't the models be off by more?

Since the models don't include all the parameters, they cannot produce a result that uses them, that is a result that refers to them or their effects. If you don't count solar variance on compounded cycles for example, the conclusion must attribute whatever that amount is to some parameter that is in use in order for the result to match the observation.

Also, the model is constantly tweaked when observations don't meet predictions; this is what makes each new model "better". The modelers set their own threshold of variance so that past a certain point, whether 10% or whatever they choose, when the variance exceeds the threshold it's time to re-tweak. Perfectly acceptable practice...for making models, which are maps, which are not the territory.

Originally Posted by Frrezodinator

The map is not the territory, but it's certainly nice having a map.

Nice as in comforting, until you find it it's wrong when you get into the field with it. Then, not so much.

[InfiniteNow]

Turtle - You seem to understand what you're talking about.

In the spirit of science, and knowing this thread is in a science forum, the onus is on you (as the one making the claims) to tell us precisely which models are faulty, and precisely how significantly the results of those specific models are flawed due to the missing data you reference.

You raise valid points, but you have continued to do so with the tone of a denialist. If your intentions are sincerely to enhance a scholarly and accurate approach to global climate then you must show us specifically which study is wrong, erred, or inaccurate.


Your continued conceptual painting with the broad brush of doubt does little to enhance your claims or deflate those of others. You are a very cunning linguist, but your absence of specifics and lack of references serves to make your stance weaker, as it implies to the rest of us that you haven't even read the works which you are challenging... works specifically regarding natural forcing factors. Surely... that couldn't possibly be the case.

[Turtle]

The simple fact is, that when a general principle is established, all specific examples obey it. No one is going to publish a 'bad' model, that is, one that has a high variance from observed conditions, so what is published is a 'good' or 'best' model. Having a 'best' implies not only there is a 'worst' , but another 'best' to come. The change from 'bad' to 'good' to 'better' is acieved by tweaking, literally changing, either calculations, parameters, or constants.

I again point out that one of the main groups of professionals who disagree strongly with the climatologists are the meteorologists, both on the grounds of the modeling errors, as well as the fact that measures of temperature from many stations has risen over time because of urbanization, not global warming. GIGO

I am reminded of Ambrose Bearce's comment that a Christian is someone who thinks the Bible is ideally suited to direct the behavior of his neighbor; I submit that the same is true of the Inconvenient Truth.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Turtle

I again point out that one of the main groups of professionals who disagree strongly with the climatologists are the meteorologists, both on the grounds of the modeling errors, as well as the fact that measures of temperature from many stations has risen over time because of urbanization, not global warming. GIGO

Can you support this with citation, and let us know what percentage of the overall warming trend can be attributed to urban heat sinks?

Also, your comment here implies to me that you missed post #40. I've repeated that post below for your convenience.

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

It may not be obvious to you, but it's obvious to me. You're confusing two separate measures.

The basic claim you are making is, "Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead, yet we're asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future. Isn't this ridiculous?"

Let me give an example to show the two measures to which I refer.


You are at the beach, and the waves coming off the choppy waters hit a wall on the shore at that beach. None of us would be able to place a line on that wall that predicts the exact height or surface level of the next incoming wave at any specific point on the wall 30 seconds in advance. This is akin to predicting the weather of the coming week.

However, we could absolutely place a line on the wall that accurately predicts the mean surface level (+/- chop) four hours in advance as long as we knew know the state of the tide when we'd arrived. That is akin to predicting the future state of the climate, and it is based on measurable trends.

Here's another.
Just because I cannot tell you the exact outcome of a specific coin flip does not mean I cannot tell you what the average outcome of coin flips will be over 1,000 tosses (and that includes allowing for the possibility that the coin lands on it's edge).



They are two very different measurements, and I hope you realize why.



Also, I've already shown the relative forcing factors... volcanoes included. PLEASE read the previous posts and links if you are serious about this conversation. If you are not serious, then why participate?

The same concept applies to proxy data, which is gathered across research modalities. More on that below:

NOAA Paleoclimatology Global Warming - The Story

Proxy data is data that paleoclimatologists gather from natural recorders of climate variability, e.g., tree rings, ice cores, fossil pollen, ocean sediments, coral and historical data. By analyzing records taken from these and other proxy sources, scientists can extend our understanding of climate far beyond the 140 year instrumental record.

Speaking of paleoclimatology:

Last 2,000 years: NOAA Paleoclimatology Global Warming - The Data
Before 2,000 years ago: NOAA Paleoclimatology Global Warming - The Data

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Turtle

The simple fact is, that when a general principle is established, all specific examples obey it. No one is going to publish a 'bad' model, that is, one that has a high variance from observed conditions, so what is published is a 'good' or 'best' model. Having a 'best' implies not only there is a 'worst' , but another 'best' to come. The change from 'bad' to 'good' to 'better' is acieved by tweaking, literally changing, either calculations, parameters, or constants.

This is how science works though. We will never have a perfect model and we will always be tweaking the ones we have to make them more accurate. As we learn more of the feedback mechanisms, they are incorporated into the model.

I again point out that one of the main groups of professionals who disagree strongly with the climatologists are the meteorologists, both on the grounds of the modeling errors, as well as the fact that measures of temperature from many stations has risen over time because of urbanization, not global warming. GIGO

This is a common argument from those that deny a warming trend. Take a look at this:

When compiling temperature records, NASA GISS go to great pains to remove any possible influence from Urban Heat Island Effect. They compare urban long term trends to nearby rural trends. They then adjust the urban trend so it matches the rural trend. The process is described in detail on the NASA website (Hansen 2001).

They found in most cases, urban warming was small and fell within uncertainty ranges. Surprisingly, 42% of city trends are cooler relative to their country surroundings as weather stations are often sited in cool islands (eg - a park within the city). The point is they're aware of UHI and rigorously adjust for it when analysing temperature records. More on Urban Heat Island...

Surface temperature records are unreliable

I recommend that site in general actually.

I am reminded of Ambrose Bearce's comment that a Christian is someone who thinks the Bible is ideally suited to direct the behavior of his neighbor; I submit that the same is true of the Inconvenient Truth.

I still have not seen Inconvenient Truth, so I'm not qualified to argue either way. Nonetheless, that seems like a very tenuous extrapolation.