Jump to content
O.K. "None of them do it fearfully," but some "threat causes them to fear?"
Help me understand what "defined, specific threat?"
"Mars attacks?" They might fall off their horse and get their foot stuck in the stirrup, thus needing to shoot the horse to keep from being dragged? They may have taken "Cowboys and Aliens" a little too seriously?
I think we are in substantial agreement. We have all written similar letters to the WWUB. I have had some interesting conversations with climate scientists at Battelle Pacific Northwest labs over the past few months. If you are willing to email me at email@example.com, I would like to set up a time when the three of us could chat.
I would like to understand what technical background the two of you have. I am a retired Boeing Senior Technical Fellow. It was not my intention to study climate change in retirement, but I kept reading things that did not make sense. I do have some thoughts on what we might do next.
Rick - I think we should get together and chat about this. I have managed to contact Steve Singleton (another letter writer) and he is willing to meet and talk. I have an idea on how we might proceed. You can reach me at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Steve - I would like to chat with you about this. If you Google "Jim Robles," my LinkedIn and FaceBook (I just sent you a "friend request.) profiles should be the first thing to come up. We should sit down with Rick Barrett and have discuss this. I have an idea.
You, of course, do realize that "on record" refers to the past 150 years for which we have thermometer records? Our current warming will well within the range of natural variation.
At the time (2005) that Jared Diamond wrote "Collapse – How societies choose to fail or succeed," the consensus was that the increase in Earth’s temperature over the last 150 years had done nothing more than return Earth from the Little Ice Age to temperatures almost as warm as those that prevailed during the Medieval Warm Period. More recent work, published in the journal Science, has moved the “warmest since date,” back to 4,000 years, still within the natural variation of the current interglacial (warm period).
Additional highlights of Earth’s recent history include the beginning of the current interglacial 10,000 years ago with an increase of nearly 18 degrees (Fahrenheit) in about ten years. This interglacial does not appear to be as warm as at least three of the previous four that have occurred on an approximately 100,000-year cycle. 18,000 years ago, during the last Ice Age, the Mediterranean Sea level was three hundred feet lower than it is today. Three million years ago Earth was 3 to 6 degrees warmer than today, and sea level was 100 feet higher. 35 million years ago Earth was 9 to 15 degrees warmer than today, sea level was 200 feet
higher, and Earth was ice-free.
If there is interest, I do have references for all of this.
Hello again PearlY,
GIGO = garbage in => garbage out?
Some models are very good and people can and should rely on them. Some models are based on false assumptions, and people should not rely on them.
I am a retired Boeing Senior Technical Fellow with over thirty years of experience in electronic packaging disciplines including system architectures, hardware design for commercial and military ground and airborne avionics, mechanical tolerance analysis, thermal and dynamic/vibration analysis, weights/mass properties analysis, design of experiments, environmental analysis and test, reliability, and environmental stress screening.
The thermal, vibration, and structural finite element modeling we do in aerospace is conceptually similar to the models that generated the 95% confidence. I seen good and bad models. The big difference between aerospace and climate change is the the things we model are simply enough that we can build models that reflect reality within the constraints of available computing power.
Could you be more specific? The citations that come to mind, are the one, on professional weather men, from:
Kolbert, Elizabeth (2010, April 12). Up in the Air. The New Yorker.
and the one on scientific literacy from:
Kahan, Dan M. et al. (2012, May 27). The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change / Letter, 2, 732 – 735.
They are available on line, so it is easy to fact check and see if I got something wrong.
If I quoted some other survey, please give me a more specific reminder.
Here is a thought for you: whatever you provide, I will support my argument with facts and logic. I will not have to question your motives or if you really believe what you are saying. If you produce something that leaves me unable to support my argument with facts and logic, I will modify my argument. I still will not have to question your motives or if you really believe what you are saying. AKA - ad hominem attacks are the last refuge of those who can not make an argument with facts and logic.
Here is a second thought: my core argument that climate change is not anthropogenic is based on its two fatal flaws; first backward causation from Sunday's letter; second a natural experiment that I describe (again) in the letter I just submitted. That should be enough for those with reasonable scientific literacy. The commentary on the purported consensus is more explanatory for those who cannot follow an argument based on facts and logic. If you see flaws in the backward causation argument from Sunday, please let me know what they are.
I do not know how conversant you are with finite element models (FEMs) or finite element analysis (FEA)? The 95% confidence is based on the results of such models. Like all models the ones behind this estimate reflect the assumptions used in developing them. Zero percent of these models are capable of meeting the minimum test, for an useful model, of "predicting the past" (the "Medieval Warm Period," the end of the last ice age, etc.). It may be hard to believe that there is anything subject to limitations of available computing power, but Earth's climate system is far too complex to be usefully modeled within the constraints of available computing power. Developers of these models are forced to assume an otherwise constant temperature Earth (a manifestly false assumption) until anthropogenic carbon dioxide leads (another manifestly false assumption - it follows) to warming. There is nothing to the 95% confidence other than the results of models reflect the assumptions that go into building them. I think I am going to write another letter that will give pointers to a "natural experiment" that shows that our very real anthropogenic carbon dioxide has not had any effect on the GTA. I look forward to continuing our conversation.
Forth – And here is the real point: one hundred percent of the “ninety-seven percent” realize that, as I observed in my letter, that changes in the GTA (cause) precede changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide (effect).
If you believe that I have the cause and effect relationship backwards, are their other examples of “backward causation” that you accept? Probably not.
Did you notice, in the examples that Mr. Mighell mentioned in his letters, each and every one was a case where increasing temperature caused the release of carbon dioxide? Being concerned that the release of carbon dioxide, following (AKA caused by) an increase in temperature will lead to further increases in temperature is analogous to being afraid that having the light come on, after I flipped the switch, will make me flip the switch more.
From your comments you sound like concerned citizens who are vey concerned about the environment. Me too. The things we might do to restrict carbon emissions, such as encouraging fracking to produce more natural gas in China, carry substantial risk of precipitating a real ecological catastrophe. So here is a challenge for you? How do you resolve “backward causation?” Since changes in temperature always lead changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, how do you sustain the belief that changes in carbon dioxide levels cause (after the fact) changes in temperature?
In one of Plato’s “Dialogues,” Protagoras says, “as to the people, they have no understanding, and only repeat what their rulers are pleased to tell them.” I am sure that all of you understand that cause (changes in temperature) leads effect (changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide level). What does you “understanding,” vs. what your “leaders tell” you (albeit 97 percent), say about effect preceding cause? If we precipitate and (worldwide) ecological catastrophe in China, trying to limit carbon emissions, what will we tell our grandchildren?
First – Thank you to all for taking the time to read my letter and respond. I appreciate it.
Second – Carbon dioxide in a garage (or anywhere else), unlike carbon dioxide, will not harm you.
Third – I have a hard time addressing this issue within 400 words. . Another example of those of us outside the “97 percent” would be the Kolbert (2010, April 12, Up in the Air. The New Yorker) report that a number of recent polls have shown that the general public (including professional TV meteorologists) does not believe that Global Warming is serious. “Weather” is certainly not “climate,” but professional TV meteorologists are an example to the people who are scientifically literate, but whose personal interest does not depend on the view that climate change is anthropogenic: the majority are skeptics. I have more examples.
I have observed, previously in this forum, that a recently study funded by the National Science Foundation and published in the journal Nature Climate Change (Yale Law Professor Dan Kahan is the lead author) finds that people who are not that worried about the effects of global warming tend to have a slightly higher level of scientific knowledge than those who are worried - “As respondents’ science literacy scores increased, their concern with climate change decreased.”
Last login: Friday, September 18, 2015
2015 Best Of The Best Winners
The latest wine and dine news.
The Valley's people, wine & food.
Find your way around the Valley.
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2015 Union-Bulletin, 112 S. First Ave., Walla Walla, WA 99362/509-525-3300. All rights reserved.