Sunday, June 21, 2015

considering our climate system

(June 21, 2015)

Goal of this article: A) To convey a recognition and appreciation of the fundamental components of our planet's climate system.  B)  To explain the difference between "Global Surface Temperature" and the "Global Temperature" (Something everyone conflates way the heck too often!).

Our Earth's climate is a global heat and moisture distribution engine consisting of three major components.

There's the atmosphere with it's distinctive layers, the lowest one is called the troposphere, it's where our weather lives.  The troposphere varies in height from around five miles at the poles up to around twelve miles at the equator.  




The troposphere is held in place and insulated from space by the stratosphere, mesosphere, thermosphere and finally the exosphere topping out in the neighborhood of three hundred miles - actually, on the leeward side of Earth it goes way beyond, but that's a different story.

Fortunately for life, our atmosphere contains certain greenhouse gases that act to slow down the heat escaping from the surface thus acting as insulation that keeps our planet livable.  The troposphere holds pretty much all the water in the atmosphere, scientists calculate it adds up to a little over 3,000 cubic miles of liquid water.  If spread over the Earth's surface it would amount to an inch

Thursday, June 18, 2015

Considering the two species of debate.

          This was inspired by another comment over at Emily Blegvad's global warming documentary "The Science Behind Global Warming" a very nice effort by a high school student to explain our understanding of manmade global warming. 

Unfortunately the YouTube comments thread has been haunted by a few nasty characters who aren't at all interested in the video, or climate science, they just want to throw insults at us the "brainwashed", "=ucking gullible", and such lovely stuff.  As you can image, it's been a lively and weird comments thread and all sadly distracting from what Emily's documentary was all about.  

But, it does offer learning opportunities, here's a comment that makes for a perfect introduction into describing the anatomy of the two types of public debate.
  Emily, the ingredients to a good debate includes not joining in with herd mentality and siding with bullies that see it ok to attack people personally, that is actually "hate mongering", or are you still in kindergarten?  
And you never thought it was worth defending yourself from my original comments...which are now gone.*  
You see, in this world if you buy into things like this you have to be prepared to defend what you are promoting and not put your fingers in your ears and sing lalalalalala, you belong more to a cult than anything else sweetheart

As it happens I've given 'debate' lots of thought so let me share what I've learned.  (* Incidentally, I don't think anything was deleted.)

A debate is supposed to be about the information each side presents, it's examination and rebuttal - it has nothing to do herds or anything like that.  Also very important to understand is that there are two distinct kinds of debate.  

There's the Political/Lawyerly Debate where winning is everything.  Truth and understanding play second fiddle to winning.  In fact, quite often understanding is the enemy and much effort goes into confusing issues, rather than clarifying.

Then there's the Scientific/Learning Debate where each side argues their understanding using the evidence they have amassed.  You listen to your opponent,  you weigh their evidence according to your own understanding - then the 'other side' has their go at it.  There is an expectation to honestly relay ones evidence and yes, egos and good rhetoric play their part, but in the end it's all about the evidence and understanding the question as well as possible that matters.  

What that means is that if I am shown to be mistaken by the strength of the evidence, I accept it, bruised ego and all.  Because, learning from my mistakes give depth to my understanding of why things are as they are.    

The scientific community is all about a learning experience and always striving for better understanding our reality.  That's where the victory is.


It's not about ruthless defense of ego and ideology, it's about learning!

Wednesday, June 17, 2015

and now the ugly side of the AGW dialogue.

{updated with comments June 18 evening.}
Here we have Lee Stamper, he's been commenting at YouTube on a video I featured over here on May 4th, he doesn't pretend to be interested in understanding climate science. He's just pissed off and likes verbally attacking "alarmists".   

Since there's no substance to discuss, the only reason I'm devoting a blog post to him is because his verbal abuse has just crossed over the line into the threat territory. Thus, I'll document it over here.

Lee Stamper you are welcome to comment over here, please explain why are you so over the top upset with me?
The Science Behind Global Warming (Documentary)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-sy6rPJBj4 

Lee Stamper  3:30 PM | June 17, 2015  -  Writes: 
+citizenschallengeYT    now since you think you know everything about me I can see you have never been in the military bozo..if you know everything about me tell me how many Viet Cong I have notches on my knife for ? better look over your sholder you may piss the wrong person off next time

Hello Pascal Bruckner, two years and still waiting . . .


I was looking at WUWTW stats this morning and noticed that within the past day my review of Pascal Bruckner's "Fanaticism and the Apocalypse" received another 7 views (I never claimed to being a hugely visited site.) still in the two years since I wrote it, its received 2,165 views and all of one comment and that was a pathetic one-line drive-by. ( I don't call WUWTW a virtual dialogue for nothing ;- ).  

Still I'm constantly amazed that one of my most visited reviews involves the work of a "philosopher" who's bread and butter is weaving together fantastical head-trips that never need to touch on the actual physical realities of living on this planet.  Well, not beyond book sales, that is.

By coincidence, tomorrow is the second anniversary of that article so I figure I may as well give it a mention and remind Pascal I'm still waiting.  Who knows eventually maybe I can get a response.  Although I doubt it.  I imagine Pascal isn't the least bit interested in a critical review of his writing, or in actual constructive learning, nor in acknowledging the physical evidence.  Monsieur Pascal Brucker I invite you to show me where you believe I'm mistaken and that you are about more than selling books.

But, I won't be holding my breath.  If nothing else, this will serve as another reminder of the phoniness of his writings.

Pascal Bruckner's "Fanaticism of the Apocalypse" - A Citizen's Response
AGW denial industry, AGW educational links, carbon footprint as original sin, Pascal Bruckner, The Gallic Gadfly, WUWT


Pascal Bruckner a professional thinker who's been described as the "Gallic Gadfly" and "a goad, a self-declared man of the left who considers the influence of leftist ideology on contemporary France to have been, by and large, disastrous..." {see The Gallic Gadfly }.  

Thus it was odd to see Anthony WUWT embracing him, but who knows what's going on at WUWT these days.  In any event, I'm tired of stuff like this going unopposed so here's another critical review together with a few selected educational videos and links to sources that help describe some of the scientific aspects of climatology that Bruckner seems unaware of.  (link)

As for that comment:

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

Odin2 lets debate Fuhai Hong and Xiaojian Zhao "Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements"


At EarthSky.org I read a good article yesterday explaining the reasons why the so called "Global warming hiatus never happened."

Going though the comments section one "odin2" made numerous posts.  Superficially many sounded sciencie and "proper" for example at one point scolding another commenter:  

"Your post is not responsive to the peer reviewed article that I cited or my post. There is a vast difference between making adjustments and corrections and manipulation fabrication of data. But, if you define the climate models as "reality' then manipulating the observed data to fit the observations is OK in the minds of Believers. Isn't it?"

But, look at the wording of that.  Who's being the "believer" of what?  No intelligent person has ever claimed that climate models are "reality" - they are tools to help teach us about our climate.  Also in real life, adjustments and corrections are justified and documented in the literature.

But OK, I'm a sucker for chasing such tossed bones and couldn't resist looking up the article in question.  Turned out to be by a couple economics professors; and it's printed in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics; and it turns out to start with a gish gallop of Republican/libertarian soundbites attacking Al Gore's AIT that liberally misrepresents AIT in the bargain.  

Then it goes on to model a hypothetical asymmetric information game: "Moreover, we introduce a new player in the game..." - "There are N+2 risk-neutral players in the game: N ex ante identical countries, a message sender, and an IEA(International Environmental Agreement). Each country faces a binary decision: whether or not to make one unit of abatement." 
  
It turned out to be a "What if?" exercise, nothing more.1

The article had nothing to do with climate science, let alone fluctuations in the surface temperature record.

After getting my belly full of odin2's game, I decided to write him a note.  Now I'm posting a reworked version over here as an invitation to him (or any like minded) for a constructive debate.  

Friday, June 12, 2015

Denialists Dodging Debate, (the landscapesandcyles saga)


It'll probably be another few weeks before I can file the final installment(s) of my Landscapesandcycles project, namely, a "document of complaint," regarding Mr. Jim Steele's mis-representation of modern climate science understanding and worse his many slanders of honorable professional scientists.

I thought I'd try one last shout out to Mr. Steele, for that Climate Science Debate he keeps demanding of others.

Considering that my emails remain ignored, I've decided to share the 'update email' I sent to Mr. Steele and various Administrators of San Francisco State University a couple days ago. 

I appreciate many serious scientists don't like my seemingly belligerent approach, sorry, seems to me sometimes it takes a little table thumping for people to take notice of rapidly approaching situations they want to ignore.  I'm no scientist, I'm no scholar, I'm a witness trying to draw attention to a serious situation that's being ignored.  Namely, the acceptance and entertaining of the Big Lie, slander, misrepresentation of established facts, etc..

In any event, this blogpost will serve as my summation of my Landscapesandcycles-CC/Steele Debate Project, along with another invitation to Mr. Jim Steele to step up to a honorable debate of the specifics.  It is also an invitation for the Administrators of the San Francisco State University to start considering the nonsense that is being presented as science under their flag.

{Mr. Steele, you are invited to respond, I assure you I welcome and will post any complaints, corrects or thoughts you care to share over here at WUWTW.}
____________________________________

sent Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:52 AM - open email

Jim Steele, honorable individuals of the San Francisco State University, others,

Since Jim and SFSU folks ignored my earlier emails I haven't bothered sharing new installments as they've developed.  But, we're at a point I owe you an update.

It does concern the reputation of San Francisco State University insofar as the public perception of your commitment to 'fidelity to the ethic of truthfully teaching current scientific understanding'... and, matters such as not lying about the facts; not engaging in character assassination to argue science, and such.

I'm no scholar so I don't have experience organizing this sort of document thus I'm doing a bit of flailing but trust I'll figure it out. -  What you should know is that after much time and effort I have gathered extensive evidence and I hope to be able to put together a coherent persuasive 'complaint' before too long.
Major issues I want to focus on?  
Slander of honorable professional scientists - is unacceptable ... 
Dismissal of the scientific understanding of greenhouse gas geophysics - is unacceptable given contemporary understanding ... 
Misrepresenting scientific studies - is unacceptable … 
The notion that "landscapes and natural cycles" dominate the global climate system within which they exist - is science fantasy, more deception than science ...
With that, and the following list of pertinent background blog posts, I wish you all good days till we meet again.

Sincerely, PM/CC
_________________________________________

Jim has ignored my detailed critiques of his claims, he's ignored my evidence.  But he has posted about me within the protective confines of his echo-chamber.  

Here's a comparison of two different styles and attitudes toward learning - Mr. Steele's complete unaltered words along with my responses.

Tuesday, June 9, 2015
Clarifying Landscapesandcycles Dishonest Internet Sniping #1
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Wednesday, June 10, 2015
Clarifying Landscapesandcycles Smears and Internet Snipers #2
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

This is when I put my Steele/SFSU project aside and I went into a few weeks of letting it simmer, taking in new information and thinking about how best to explain myself, it's a work in progress for sure, but I'm getting closer.

Monday, May 11, 2015
Question: Best liar wins? re CC/Steele Debate
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

If Mr. Steele were sincerely into a Scientific Debate (the constructive type) here's a good place to start, it would establish a baseline upon which we could build.

Friday, January 30, 2015
Mr. Jim Steele, Can you clarify your argument?

A) That wildlife biologists working in extreme conditions and over continental landscapes make mistakes ?

B) Disputing that Anthropogenic Global Warming with it's profound changing climate driven landscapes alterations causes adverse cascading consequences for wildlife and eco-systems (read our biosphere) ?  
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
I admit I've played hardball and have written some harsh words, but please consider the difference of insults/sins of exasperation compared to the tactical use of insults/sins to negate your opponent's information.  

Jim seems all venom and anger.  Then the extrapolations begin, as he frantically paints me with all the hideous suspicion he can muster.  Watts up with that?  Where's the humor, where's an acknowledgement of our fellow humanity, where's a little self-skepticism and dare I say touch of self-deprecation?

Saturday, February 7, 2015
Jim Steele watt's up with your venomous self-indignation?

Sunday, January 25, 2015
Dear Mr. Steele, regarding your 1/7/15 WUWT post - an open letter...

Wednesday, June 10, 2015

What's the scientist's ethic? What motivates scientists? Professor Alley

Clarifying Landscapesandcycles Smears and Internet Snipers #2


I thought Jim wrote a second blog disputing my arguments, but it turned out that what he calls "clarifying" was actually a rant against me and Sou, over at HotWhopper.  Heavy on the name calling and hostile insinuations, but lacking in clarity and nothing that can be cross-examined. 

So there's little of substance in this post, beyond it being another case study in the ways of the denialista and an example of what you, dear defender of serious science and rational appreciation for this planet of ours, can expect should you decide to confront such characters with facts and pointed questions.  

I almost dropped working on it, but then decided, since I make a big deal about challenging him to a rational debate, and if this is the best effort he can muster, so be it, guess it's what I'm stuck working with.

Once again, Jim's words are in Courier fond and mine are in Verdana.  In my previous post I explained why I've deleted my christian name which Jim can't get enough of posting all over.
______________________________________


Clarifying the Smears of Alarmist Internet Snipers 

When you tell parnoids* their fears are overblown, no matter how much evidence, how logical, how honest the arguments may be, the paranoids' reactions is to heighten their fear
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
Jim likes talking smack.    
Calling me names and dismissing me is easy, but it still leaves him hiding from tons of authoritative logical evidence packed with explanations and links to even more supporting evidence. 
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/ 
http://cpo.noaa.gov/warmingworld/ 
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ 
https://www.climate.gov/teaching/resources/increased-emissions-climate-change-lines-evidence 
Forget about the 97% consensus, focus on the 99.999% scientific certainty !
Scientific Consensus on Global Warming 
Scientific societies and scientists have released statements and studies showing the growing consensus on climate change science. A common objection to taking action to reduce our heat-trapping emissions has been uncertainty within the scientific community on whether or not global warming is happening and if it is caused by humans.  
However, there is now an overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is indeed happening and humans are contributing to it. Below are links to documents and statements attesting to this consensus.

Tuesday, June 9, 2015

Clarifying Landscapesandcycles Dishonest Internet Sniping #1


OK, time to get back to my Landscapesandcycle's project or I'll never get it behind me.  While I stall on my complaint to San Francisco State University administration, I'll review a couple blog posts that Jim's dedicated to me.

Mr Steele's words are in Courier font, and since this is copied off his website the "I wrote's" are his words, and where he quotes me remains in Courier.  My response appears in Verdana font.  Please notice how much of Jim's defense depends on calling me offensive names as if that makes his words more authoritative.
_________________________________________________

Landscapesandcycles.net - "Clarifying P.M.’s (aka CitizenChallenged) Dishonest Internet Sniping: Emperor Penguins"
Citizenschallenge is not a scientist nor does he understand biology.1 He is simply obsessed with discrediting any skeptical interpretation.2 He refuses to accept any and all evidence that refutes climate driven extinction.3 Because my career has been dedicated to improving environmental stewardship, he seems overly obsessed with discrediting my essays and assassinating character.4 Lacking any background in science, he quickly mis-characterizes any discussions he doesn’t understand, to assert my words must be lies or deception.5
1)  I have never claimed to be a scientist or biologist.  I claim to have a reasonable understanding of our global heat and moisture distribution engine (climate system) - I'm aware of my limitations, that's why I've asked Mr. Steele for clarifying details.  It is he who refuses to respond to any emails I send him.  

Please notice at his Landscapesandcycles blog no comments are allowing.  The man who screams about scientists refusing to debate, refuses to allow discussion following his many blog posts. 

Monday, June 8, 2015

CAGW. Ask a simple question, get a revealing answer. Dodging the issue.

{edited 11:15 pm}
citizenschallenge asks, "Just what does it take to qualify as a 'catastrophe'?"
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
It seems to me that an intelligent, rational, constructive dialogue requires understanding what each other mean; and that each side takes the time to explain what they mean when using certain terms.  

For instance, CAGW (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) has become a term of derision among the climate science denying crowd, yet it's never defined.  

Their attitude baffles me.  These people profess that they don't deny the science behind how greenhouse gases make our planet habitable, implying they recognize that increasing our planet's greenhouse gas insulation will warm the planet.  Yet in the next sentence, you'll hear them ridicule the notion that a warming world will inflict increasing levels of catastrophe upon our society.

Makes me wonder just what do they mean with "catastrophe" anyways  -  what level of destruction are we talking about?

I mean, haven't these free marketeers learned the fundamentals of compounding interest?  Or do they conveniently suspend those mathematical realities when it comes to thinking about the geophysics of our planet... you know, that stuff that provides our life support system?

That's why I ask that opening question now and then, usually to silence, but this afternoon I got a bite.  

It turned out to be such a good example of a typical Republican/libertarian PR machine response that it deserves to be added to this collection.

Though I still can't enunciate exactly how this ties into "Seepage" there is a connection that I'm sure sharper minds can puzzle out once they decide to think about it.  What I can do is offer some observations on how these denialista's weave their intimidation while destroying constructive dialogue.
joseph p. 1:32 PM - 6/8/15 
Short version of an Answer: When the alleged cure to a still only alleged disease, is already known to be much worse than the alleged disease, and applying the "cure" just keeps on creating more of its own very real disease catastrophes. And then you yourself +citizenschallengeYT can even vie to become the "King of Catastrophes"!

Saturday, June 6, 2015

Instigators of "seepage" more Bush Administration suppression of climate science


It seems to me we as a society were supposed to be having a public education dialogue with two components.
  
First, to learn about how our global heat and moisture distribution engine operates. 

Second, resolving the great debate on how best to deal with slowing down the increasing levels of insulating greenhouse gases we're injecting into our thin atmosphere.

Both required good faith debates where learning from the best facts presented was the goal.  Instead we've been forced into lawyerly debate games that have nothing to do with honesty, or learning, or resolving important questions and everything to do with winning political battles at any costs.

This exhibit picks up where the previous one left off, as the Bush Administration continued their campaign of suppressing the climate science that was being collected while intimidating the scientists doing the collecting.

I suggest it's another example of the dynamics of forcing political Seepage into what's supposed to be reporting on the science as it is (not as they wish it).  This article was written by the late Rick Piltz from Climate Science Watch (which is a project sponsored by the Government Accountability Project). 
_______________________________


Court Rules that Bush Admin. Unlawfully failed to produce Scientific Assessment of Global Change


"A Federal judge says the Bush Administration has violated the Global Change Research Act by failing to produce a national global change research plan that was due by July 2006; and a scientific assessment of global change that was due in November 2004. The last scientific assessment, the US National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change, was submitted to Congress in November 2000. Climate Science Watch has long maintained that the Bush administration’s suppression of official use of the first National Assessment report and its termination of the national climate change assessment process for connecting scientists to policymakers and society is the central climate science scandal of the administration. 

Friday, June 5, 2015

Instigators of "seepage" Case Studies on the Abuses of Science, UCS

Manipulation of Global Warming Science

NOTE: The following is one of a series of case studies produced by the Union of Concerned Scientists' Scientific Integrity Program between 2004 and 2010 to document the abuses highlighted in our 2004 report, Scientific Integrity in Policy Making.

Since taking office, the George W. Bush administration has consistently sought to undermine the view held by the vast majority of climate scientists that human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases are making a discernible contribution to global warming.1  Despite promises by the president that “my Administration’s climate change policy will be science-based,”2 the past several years have seen widespread political interference in the work of federal climate scientists, edits to official scientific documents and a general attempt to foster uncertainty about robust scientific conclusions.