Thursday, May 29, 2014

Contemplating the Contrarian Mind in Action #2

{edited 5/30, AM}

So it continues, Krischel has responded to my last response.  
For the rest of the story see my previous post "Contemplating the Contrarian Mind in Action" 
Other than that, not much going on writing wise, clients are cracking their whips so I have other work to soak up my time for a while.  But I'll be back.  ;- )


krischel Says:  
May 29, 2014 at 16:37 @citizens challenge:
K-1) A set of google search parameters isn’t a citation. If you have a paper, or set of papers to cite, *specify* them.
( )
~ ~ ~ 
CC says: You act like you don't appreciate that scientists have been looking at climate changes in deep time long and hard - and they have learned a great many things, that you wouldn't know about if you aren't interested in learning from them.  For example:

Neoproterozoic 'snowball Earth' simulations with a coupled climate/ice-sheet model
A 'snowball Earth' climate triggered by continental break-up through changes in runoff

For a realistic review of climate models and how they are used by scientists here's an informative review written by a real climate scientist. 
On mismatches between models and observations 
Gavin Schmidt climate modeler NASA GISS @ 13 September 2013

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
K-2) The “deep ocean warming” trope is a clever ad hoc special pleading, but an unconvincing one. As for nobody claiming that oceans are drivers of global temperatures, exactly why do we have ENSO adjustments for global temperature if the ENSO cycle *doesn’t* drive global temperatures?
~ ~ ~ 
CC: What are you talking about ?  
Oceans a "clever ad hoc special pleading" you gotta be joking?
ENSO adjustments are made for all sorts of technical reasons - not because oceans are "drivers" of global temperatures. 

Jeez, it's like you don't care that we are talking about a substantial component of our global weather engine!  

Don't you realize that the oceans hold around 90% of the heat in our global heat distribution engine... or that our atmosphere is proportionally thin as finest silk upon your arm.  From your word-smithing I don't get the least hint of curiosity about understanding any on this.  No K, you've got some other agenda going here.  

I'm curious, in a few words, could you describe what I mean with the term: 
"our global heat distribution engine" ?  

Please, no deflection: What does the term "our global heat distribution engine" - refer to?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
K-3) Ad hoc special pleadings, if they are the only response to observations that contradict the central conceit of one’s hypothesis, are to be cursed. 
~ ~ ~ 
CC: That barely makes any sense.  Come on, get real.  
Please recall your original #3 was  "A strong rise or decline in the atmospheric CO2 level"

Present a real world example, not some vague gobbildy-gook. 
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
K... - In order to avoid such behavior, as exemplified by Duane Gish, we insist on a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, whose falsification criteria, if observed, definitively falsify the central conceit, and cannot be Gish Galloped away from with ad hoc special pleadings. Or do you find Duane Gish’s process of defending his position scientific? :)
~ ~ ~ 
CC: Again, enough with the fancy word-smithing.  Want something sufficient to falsify manmade global warming - falsify this:

Manmade global warming would be falsified if:

... if you could show that humans weren't injecting on the order of two gigatons CO2 into our thin atmosphere per month.

... if you could prove that the physical properties of CO2 as outlined within the scientific consensus was false - of course, then you would have to explain why a whole spectrum of modern marvels actually operates based on "false" physical properties.

... if you could show our global cryosphere has remained stable - instead we have compelling evidence of melting at increasing rates throughout our planet.

... if you could show that our biosphere has remained stable - instead we have compelling evidence of species habitat migrating to higher elevations and more northerly terrain, plus growing seasons lengthening.

... If ratio between record heat extremes and record cold extremes remained more or less equal - But they have not, 14 to 1 is pretty ugly odds.

- - - 
Furthermore, if you were actually into learning about this, you'd owe it to yourself to consider the information within this article:
The top ten global warming 'skeptic' arguments answered 
Contrarian climate scientist Roy Spencer put forth the top 10 'skeptic' arguments - all are easily answered
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
K-4) Weather forecast models are serious. Global climate models are toys. They’re not only entirely different animals, the problem being attacked by global climate models is quite possibly as non computable as an accurate regional weather forecast 1 year ahead of time. Your dishonest comparison of the two didn’t help your argument :)
~ ~ ~ 
CC: "Global climate models are toys." Listen to yourself.
Please explain your reasoning

Can you describe the difference between "weather models" and "climate models"? . . .

Why do you believe climate models are "toys" to be dismissed with contempt?  Can you explain the basics of our climate system? 

I've heard many people rail against "climate models" but when I ask a few questions it usually turns out they don't understand a thing about climate models, except that they hate climate models out of some principle... to some vague value-set they were taught somewhere . . .

Not being very intellectually honest, when you won't even question your own assumptions now and then.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
K-5) I explained myself – you didn’t understand what I was driving at by asserting that warming of the stratosphere (or other observations claimed as “consistent” with AGW) did not exclude natural warming.  
The assumption that a warming of the stratosphere must be driven by an independent source (human CO2 emissions in the case of AGW), is unjustified. CO2 cycles in our biosphere are not only complex, they’re interconnected, and lead rise to system behavior that is both complex and natural.
~ ~ ~ 
CC: Your playing games with words again - it is you who made that leap to "human CO2 emissions."

Please produce a citation of a climatologist who claims what you say they claim.

Incidentally, all the stuff I look at indicates that the Stratosphere is cooling, not warming.   Maybe you should show more interest in learning about your topics, rather than just parroting Anthony's soundbites.

The Human Fingerprint in Global Warming
Earth Observatory: Is Current Warming Natural?
- - - 
 Yes, CO2 cycles are complex and natural and currently human society continues injecting on the order of >2gigatons, and growing, of CO2, >>> a confirmed "greenhouse gas" {plus its pals}, into our oh so thin atmosphere.

Tell me again K what the hell are you going on about?  What part of the significants of that little reality escapes you?  What part of the climatological understanding do you think has been falsified?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
K-6) No. You’ve got an apocalyptic faith that asserts that we’re veering off towards a tree at high speed. Like evangelists who insist that hurricanes in florida are caused by gays, your key assumption is that our sins will lead to eternal damnation. {1} You have failed to specify a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, yet you insist that we must believe that unless we repent, and make sacrifices to your gods, wrath will fall down upon us. That seems much more in line with Duane Gish than anyone else, don’t you think? :)
~ ~ ~ 
CC: I find it tragic that you don't recognize the difference between Gay Bashing/religious crazies and serious science or attempts at seriously discussing it.  But, that's your fault not mine!

What is it about melting cryosphere and rising sea levels that you don't get?

What is it about more moisture, heat and energy in our atmosphere along with warmer oceans and higher sea levels leading to more extreme extremely destructive weather events - that you don't get?

What is it about our complex society having developed within a biosphere of minimal sea rise, moderate and predictable weather patterns - that makes you feel so secure and cavalier about future stability?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
K-7) Why haven’t you asked your experts for the foundation of the scientific method, a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement? As Feynman said, “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts” – what kind of strict scrutiny have you applied to the experts you’ve outsourced your rational thought processes to?
~ ~ ~ 
CC: I wish I had a sharper brain because that is one load of revealed psychology you just shared with me.

But, OK I'll play - what kind of strict scrutiny have you applied to the experts you’ve outsourced your rational thought processes to? - 
to begin with, I was fascinated by this Earth I was born into since before I was five.  Thankfully I was blessed by being born of two parents who where fascinated with the world around them, with an eight year older brother (future jet pilot) who subscribed to Popular Science and Popular Mechanic, with National Geographics over at Grandma's. 

You see, I been participating, as an interested spectator, in humanity's quest to understand our planet real time since the Trieste touched the Challenger Deep in 1960, and the space program first blasted off, the Plate tectonic Revolution wow'ed me, National Geographic's first map of the ocean floor and subsequent astonishing discoveries, the Leakey family discoveries about human origins and all the subsequent twists and turns of our own origins story, oh and those Voyager flights... all that jazz has been my playground, forget all your silly TV/Hollyworld Fictions, I wanted to know about the real world!  

Thus, I know a thing or two about the twisty trail that understanding requires; I also understand the difference between assumptions and evidence; I appreciate that scientific consensus includes caveat's and that scientific "consensus" remains provisional depending on new and compelling information.

I've also learned to recognize the difference between a con-job and a serious interest in learning/teaching.

And I've been watching this manmade global warming story unfold since the early seventies when I learned about it in high school - I been paying attention to this right-wing "driven" PR attack on science ever since, (though it was Reaganomics that really kicked it into high gear), so you're not dealing with some innocent here.
- - -
K - "What kind of strict scrutiny have you applied"

Well for one, I've spent a lot of years chasing a lot of Gish Gallop bone's "skeptics" like you love tossing out.  I actually know how to abandon myself and submerse myself in someone else's argument - for a short while at least, until the weight of evidence brings me back to reality.  I've listened to pretty near all the "Skeptical Arguments" and looked into them, up close, starting from the "skeptical" point of view and working out from there towards the scientists approach and the evidence.

I've been educated by comparing the two different approaches, and I continue doing the best I can with what I got.

I love reading (and listening) to books, and articles scientists have written, over past years on YouTube the amount of educational and fascinating scientific lectures that have become available has skyrocketed beyond anything I can keep up with.  Though my old favorite remains UCTV Perspectives on Ocean Sciences

I'd love to do a comparison of lectures sometime - K (or any other takers), you take a Lindzen, or a Curry, or heck Monckton and let's compare their talk to a research focused climatologist's talk.  

You game? - offer one "skeptical" talk by your favorite and I'll match it with one of my favorites - I'll even tip my hand and let you know I'll go with either Schneider or Santer - come on, let's have a little show down.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
K-8) See #7 – “respecting experts” is a very Gishy thing to ask for. Science democratizes the process of finding truth, although like most democracies, nobody can actually force you to vote :)
~ ~ ~ 
 CC: I think your politics is showing.  Sounds to me like you simply can not imagine the scientific community being on the up and up and with enough Checks and Balances that errors get caught out.

Interestingly, your type never brings up any actual examples for us to examine - you just got your faith-based suspicions that these scientists telling us this ugly news, must be part of the "bad folks" the faithless folks, the enemy.

... always the vague what-if's. - guess if one has their mind made up then "what-if's" are enough.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
K-9) So, 1914 was *not* better than 2014, even though it was less greed based and colder :) I wonder what kind of spiritual moment you must have experienced to now fear a warmer and more greed based 2114, given the fact that we’re still okay today :)
~ ~ ~ 
 CC: We are not at all okay, as a look outside your bubble would reveal. 

 {What a shame K, I've concluded that I don't believe you have any intellectual sincerity about you - otherwise, it would be quite interesting to do a serious comparison between 1914 and 2014.  Not just a comparison of different times, but also an look into our different perspectives and value judgements regarding recent human history.}

We have a worldwide degrading of the political atmosphere,
US driven international arms sales is about our only growth industry,
degrading human rights conditions abound,
degrading farmland situation, with increasing droughts and torrential rains only one of the many threats to future prosperity,
polluted and poisoned lands on a massive scale,
ocean fisheries depletion and destruction of all classes of habitat,
rising sea levels and how that's changing coastal areas now and into the future,
there's more. . . 
- - - 
K, my turn to ask a question: what metric do you use when asserting: all is fine and dandy in the world these days?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
K-10) When I have a citation, I’ll very specifically attribute it (for example, the Feynman quote, or the Spencer argument). And by the way, your citation for global forced displacement has *nothing* to do with climate, and everything to do with zealous foes fighting each other. If you’re trying to make the point with the UNHCR dataset that the # of refugees is increasing shows 1914 is better than 2014 (even though their data doesn’t go back that far), you might want to get a denominator of there of global population – unless of course, if part of your proposed solution is destroying a massive part of the human population to reduce the refugee numbers.
~ ~ ~ 
CC: If my citation has nothing to do with "climate" then why can't you focus on that citation and what you think I got wrong - instead you chose to paste up more labels, but you examine nothing...  

But then, that's the idea isn't it, run out the clock until there's no point is caring about any of it any longer.
- - -
Oh and I gotta give you bonus points for your kicker: "if part of your proposed solution is destroying a massive part of the human population"

Is that really all that's going on in your head?  Yea, well I guess, war is about all the right-wing has on their mind anyways ain't it, perhaps I shouldn't be surprised.

No comments: