Thursday, June 30, 2016

This is what constructive learning looks like - millimeter sea level precision impossible, or is it?


This post was inspired by one of the comments at the WUNC debate.

Dude to CC:
“You have written perhaps the stupidest justification for producing agitprop garbage and calling it science that I have seen so far.
It would not be fair to ask you how they derive their millimeter precision from measurements that are at best accurate to a centimeter.
____________________________________

CC responded:

Why the attitude? 

There's nothing wrong with asking the question, or others.  
My question is have you ever tried to find the answers to those questions?

Simply because you don't understand something doesn't mean others don’t.  
After all, that’s why we have experts who have dedicated their careers and lives to their particular field of expertise.  Our society would be impossible without it don't you know.

Let me start with honest curiosity and a constructive question: How do “they” derive millimeter sea level precision from measurements that are at best accurate to a centimeter?

Sunday, June 26, 2016

CO2 Science dependent modern marvels, For your consideration


In light of recent 'dialogues' I've had with Dave NC-20 Burton and others which reveal a profound self-inflicted ignorance and an even worse disinterest in giving climate science a fair shake, (that would be sans politically motivated fantasizing about grand conspiracy theories, slander towards accomplished experts and such paranoid thinking.) I'd like to share the reasons I, a non-expert, feel comfortable trusting the scientific community rather than passionate partisans of profits ├╝ber alles.

This post is an interesting sort of one way collaborative effort.  
You see, over the years I've communicated with a number of scientists and grads.  Asking straight forward questions and often receiving informative replies.  I try not to over do my welcome, after all these are very busy people with more important things to do.

But for this post I sent a grand shout out to a number of my correspondence pals and received more responses than I expected including some informative surprises for me. 

I have taken great liberty slicing and dicing their responses. Rewriting some, leaving other quotes untouched and giving all of it some order.

I mention this because I want to be clear the following List of "CO2 science dependent" modern marvels is not my own cleverness and I want to send out a big Thank You! to my informed anonymous heroes!  


Also see: February 21, 2016
Archive, Hanscom AFB Atmospheric Studies, Cambridge Research Lab

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The increase in atmospheric concentration of CO2 since preindustrial times is a given. Understand that the radiative physics of greenhouse gases are very well-understood.

Consider heat seeking missiles flying through different altitudes searching for a heat source who's signature is changing with altitude.  In order to program the computer, the programmer must know how to accurately compensate for the changing signature.  It requires a complete knowledge of the radiative properties of all the gases in the atmosphere, or all that hardware is for naught.

{Incidentally, there is not one contrarian "theory" or challenge to the physics that hasn't been looked at by informed individuals.  You just have to poke around*, you'll find that contrarian errors, omissions, and falsifications have been clearly explained.      *Or you can check out this one stop resource:

 http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomy


The Republican/libertarian PR machine makes its career out of ignoring all those treasure troves of valuable valid information, because they are scared of it.  It's very human, but cowardly just the same, but I digress.}

You may ask, by what right am I so sure about it? 
It comes down to, down to Earth reality over self-serving fantasizing.

Please consider the real life modern marvels that would be impossible without such understanding:

Thursday, June 16, 2016

NC-20 Burton's five 'challenging' questions - a study in deception.

Looks like we've got a debate doing after all.  Dave Burton has challenged me with a series of questions.  It's in the comments section after Dave Dewitt's  "The Changing Carolina Coast: Managing The Threat Of Rising Water," at http://wunc.org/post/changing-carolina-coast-managing-threat-rising-water#stream/0

As these things go it's gotten confused and convoluted in a hurry.  That's another tactic, Gish Gallop, tons of distracting questions that offer nothing, so far a learning is concerned, more like playing catch the ball with a dog, but using a bucket full of balls.

Though I'll admit Dave was kind enough to come up with 5 "straight forward" questions.  In this retelling I've been able to add a little more information.
____________________________________________

Dave Burton to citizenschallengeAE June 15, 2015

Nobody has identified any inaccuracies in what I've written, 
either here or on my web site. {Perhaps that has more to do with your lack of introspection and inability to admit being wrong and learning from said mistake.} But do feel free to try, Pete. Please be specific.  I suggest that you start with my list of five things which are surprising to many climate alarmists:

1. Do you dispute the fact that the new NC Sea Level Rise Report abandons the 2010 Report's erroneous claim that sea-level rise has accelerated due to global warming?

2. Do you doubt that the Obama Administration's Dr. Steven Koonin has acknowledged that sea-level is rising no faster now (at ~400 ppmv CO2 & 1.8 ppmv CH4) than it was 70 years ago (at ~310 ppmv CO2 & 1.1 ppmv CH4)?

3. Do you dispute the fact that incremental increases in atmospheric CO2 levels have a diminishing effect on temperatures?

4. Do you doubt that Scientific American called anthropogenic CO2 "The Precious Air Fertilizer," because it is so dramatically helpful for agriculture?

5. Do you question the fact that most of the apparent rise in sea-level at Duck, NC is because the land near the southern Chesapeake is sinking, rather than because the sea is rising?

Can you answer "yes" to any of those questions, Pete, or do you acknowledge that I am correct about all five?
_____________________________________________

Please note, how NC-20 Dave’s response has devolved this into a lawyerly word game.  Tossing down carefully crafted misdirections cloaked in questions, and demanding only a simple Yes/No answer.  No details please.  That’s how political games work.  But, that is not how any of us learn anything, nor how science works.

These global warming dialogues, exchanges, debates (whatever you want to call them) should be about constructive learning experiences so I’ll try to make some lemonade out of the lemons NC-20 Dave dropped at my feet.

Tuesday, June 14, 2016

Poptech's hermetically sealed echo-chamber, case in point.

      
What I'm doing here is dissecting and documenting the contrarian debate.  
I share these experiences because I believe rational students and others who want to communicate serious science and engage in a constructive learning debate, (as opposed to the political circus debate), should become aware of what they are dealing with when trying to rationally dialogue/debate with Republican/libertarian characters as they endlessly parrot their bankrupt jingles and ignore everything you try so hard to explain.

It will help younger students and scientists to be aware that every marginally effective communicator of serious science will find themselves under the sort of malicious venomous attack by dogma driven zealots that I've walked into.  The particulars will be different, but just as disconnected from actual reality.  Oh and yeah, they will toss every descriptive back in your face - though they never show the integrity to actually support their labeling with thoughtful arguments or real world facts. 

The thing to realize is that constructively engaging with others seems anathema to the new Republican/libertarian types.  Ridicule, marginalize, demonize seems their only response to challenging facts.  As for learning about what our society and we ourselves are doing to our Earth's biosphere and climate system, which enables that life-support system our society is dependent on - there, confusion and stupefaction is their goal.

Now to the funny, but sick, irony I want to share.

Monday, June 13, 2016

NC-20 Dave Burton runs to echo-chamber, Poptech's clubhouse.

As predicted I might add.  Rather then engaging in a good faith dialogue (or dispute if you like) Dave went running to his echo chamber to complain about what a nasty character I am and Poptech was happy to provide a stage.  

He posted the following comment at his blog, after marching over to that Republican/libertarian climate science attacking crowd to do his whining.  With their typical nasty brand of barroom derision, they are having a field day piling it on.  That it's contrived bull-shit purely intended to demean the messenger and self-justify their willfully ignoring the substance of the information I've confronted him/them with, goes over their heads.  They seem to feel oh so holy, not a doubt in their minds.

But that is one of the big tragedies, these people won't even honestly listen to what one is trying to explain to them.  They simply cannot handle crediting anyone they disagree with, everyone who opposes their self-certain fantasy, becomes the enemy and is open to any and every attack.

They reframe every fact to suit their faith-based conviction.  It's like they've created their own fantasy world from start to finish, one founded on their political dogma and paranoia - one frighteningly devoid of all basic awareness/appreciation for the physical world we depend on.  


My bias is understanding and appreciating this planet and I stand prepared to engage in a constructive debate with any climate science "skeptic-contrarian" type who has the intellectual integrity to actually listen to what his opponent is saying!  

And then to respond directly to those points, without juvenile meaningless distractions.  

As for my character references, what can I say? http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2016/05/considering-character-references.html)

Saturday, June 11, 2016

Open note to Dave Burton (NC-20).


I received another upset (code loaded) comment from Mr. Burton at my CC blog, he feels very put out that I haven't posted any more of his comments and accuses me of deleting stuff, when his repetitive code loaded comments are sitting in moderation.  Though odds are I won't ever post them, I don't do spam either.  Which is exactly what he's expecting of me.

I'm posting my latest communication with Dave Burton of the NC-20 so that we're all on the same page.  I expect Dave to respond to critique, not simply repeat his mantra.
_________________________________________

Mr. Burton @ 10:45PM, I have made myself clear. Let me do it one more time. This time please shut down that dialogue in your head long enough to listen to what I'm telling you.  This is not a negotiation. You won't even show me the courtesy of writing straight text, you still feel compelled to pack it full of your tricky dick coding, despite my request. You don't kid me, you aren't acting in good faith. You've got a malicious game going, rather than an honorable attempt to communicate with an 'opponent.'

I have made myself clear:  Straight text, no tricky dick coding. I'm not your billboard!

Furthermore, I have taken the time to review your first comment and write up my observations. It is your turn to systematically respond to my claims, in a clear good faith matter.

I don't care about your games or how many points you score within your echo-chamber.  I deal in the real world! Come on down.

If you have the intellectual integrity you are welcome to continue this dialogue by visiting WUWTW and responding to the thoughtful constructive critique of your claims. We don't need to like each other to have a constructive dialogue.* Respond to the specific and clearly defined critique of the comments I've posted.

Heck, send me an email for a guest post, I'll post it,
So long as you respond specifically to one of those three posts,
each of which seriously examines, critiques, and describes your various claims, while providing supporting evidence for why your claims are rhetorically crafted but fundamentally misleading and willfully deceptive.  

Can you handle scrutiny sir?

#1 considering malicious mischief in action: ncdave4life
The Seamonster does Dave Burton's sea level claims.
HOTWHOPPER does Dave Burton's sea level claims

Incidentally Dave, Citizenschallenge.blogspot has become my non-confrontational, debate free zone. My more assertive, let's debate, activities moved to WhatsUpWithThatWatts.blogspot.com five years ago, which explains why I've moved this to over there. Just in case you are wondering.

Over there the rules of serious constructive debate hold sway! 

*That would be as opposed to the lawyerly politician's circus-debate
June 12, 2016 at 12:25 AM 

Dave Burton complains, yet remains a no-show.


ncdave4life, aka David Burton, the NC-20 guy, showed up to offer two comments at my CC.blogspot today. I'm only sharing his one important line:
"Are you ever going to approve the rest of my comments, citizenschallenge?"   
Mr. Burton, here's my response:

Hell no.  Not until you rationally respond to my critiques of your first comments.  Like I told you before, I'm not a billboard for you, I'm about engaging in a constructive dialogue!

Now Mr. Burton, my question to you: 
ARE YOU GOING TO CONTINUE IGNORING MY ITEMIZED CRITIQUE OF YOUR FIRST COMMENT?

May 17, 2016
#1 considering malicious mischief in action: ncdave4life
________________________________________

I even published your second and third comments with the intention of reviewing them, but the weather cleared up and life is busy and I have my priorities.  

Besides, it didn't take much searching to find that much more informed individuals than I have taken the time to describe the many falsehoods you employ.  It gave me an easy out, and I produced the following posts.