Upcoming Interview With Michael Dowd About Global Warming

#41
IV. Another contributor is ALSO affecting both carbon ppmv's as well as global temperatures, and we have not adequately reflected the impact, nor sensitivity dynamic contribution for that supplemental feature.
Forgive me, TES, as a GW neophyte, but isn't this taken account of in feedbacks? In other words, carbon ppmv's affect both global temperatures and carbon ppmv's (e.g., because of heated oceans emitting more carbon), which is the mechanism you seek/suggest (one contributor affecting both carbon ppmv's and global temperatures). I'm not saying it's the only possible one, just that maybe "they've already got that covered".
 
#42
Wow, that's pretty shameless, David, to imply that efficiency entails death by fire... so, maybe we can't even trust the guys who come to install insulation in our roofs? It's not a conspiracy, it's an inspiracy!
The point is, for the most part people weren't wasting power for no reasons. There are always trade-offs, and if you emphasise one thing, something else - like safety - takes a back seat.

I wish you wouldn't keep trying to make this personal, I try to answer your posts in a respectful way.

David
 
#43
Forgive me, TES, as a GW neophyte, but isn't this taken account of in feedbacks? In other words, carbon ppmv's affect both global temperatures and carbon ppmv's (e.g., because of heated oceans emitting more carbon), which is the mechanism you seek/suggest (one contributor affecting both carbon ppmv's and global temperatures). I'm not saying it's the only possible one, just that maybe "they've already got that covered".
This would be part of a Technology Risk Strategy (which CC arguments are in essence). The point is that they do not have dynamic contributors all covered.

What you have adeptly described is an Unknown Known... and yes - those should be both measured for sensitivity magnitude and contribution... and then be taken into account. We struggle with this - but that is understandable. That takes time to hone in a model.

What I am describing is an Unknown or Ignored Uknown - this is what imparts the greatest risk into a model.

Our climate change Risk Horizon is much greater than we acknowledge. We are in a state of higher domain epistemological risk than we are willing to admit. Our PhD's are blinding us as to our explanatory power as a culture.

domain epistemological risk med.png
 
#44
Forgive me, TES, as a GW neophyte, but isn't this taken account of in feedbacks? In other words, carbon ppmv's affect both global temperatures and carbon ppmv's (e.g., because of heated oceans emitting more carbon), which is the mechanism you seek/suggest (one contributor affecting both carbon ppmv's and global temperatures). I'm not saying it's the only possible one, just that maybe "they've already got that covered".
I think the point is that the feedback involves a very poorly understood multiplying factor which either enhances the feedback or dampens it down. Probably you can only really estimate this by experiment!

The point is that an increment of warming from an increment of CO2 CO2 - dW/dC if you like - is modified by facts such as, for example, more heat means more water evaporates from the oceans - and clouds reflect heat back to space. There are a whole series of conjectured effects that contribute to what is known as the sensitivity factor.

David
 
#45
I wish you wouldn't keep trying to make this personal, I try to answer your posts in a respectful way.
Linda would say the same thing. She's ever so polite. But ultimately, what you're saying (to me and the rest of us) is: "Let the world burn. Screw you all." You, of course, would frame this as "justified skepticism" - but what if (when) you're wrong? Then your "skepticism" amounts to an affirmation: "Don't try to save the world - let it go up in flames". And that's the utter opposite of respectful.
 
#48
Laird, this is part of the story - not just with CC, but with ψ, the various medical science scandals, etc. It is incredibly hard to get sonsensus-scientists to debate their position - any 'consensus'. I would say that is always a hint that they are defending a very weak position. All the ad-hominems seem to work to cover up this reluctance to debate - either in public, or at conferences.

David
exactly! another way of saying it is that position is indistinguishable from b******* not saying it is b******* just saying it's indistinguishable from b*******.
 
#50
I have a feeling that michael will take this position frequently in our conversation.
Yeah, no s**t dude. Like I told you, he isn't qualified for this debate, with all due respect to the man for sticking his head up and volunteering for it - that takes guts and integrity (as you display in each and every one of your interviews). And in the meantime, are you going to simply ignore my suggestion for a man who is eminently qualified (whether he will agree to an interview is another question)? I was going to hold off on this post on the assumption that you were "thinking about it", but you've responded to posts further on than my suggestion, so should I assume that you've ignored it?

You write to David:

exactly! another way of saying it is that position is indistinguishable from b******* not saying it is b******* just saying it's indistinguishable from b*******.
I'll tell you what will be b******t: if we could get somebody of the calibre of Brian Soden on to your podcast on climate change, but you ignore that possibility and tacitly block it. Don't know if we can, but we might as well try.
 
#51
I don't feel qualified to comment on this.
also, and this is really one of the main points of the show, don't you think we should all feel qualified... IE like really really really confident about this stuff before we go about abolishing the constitution giving up democracy as we know it and starting world war 3.

Because one thing that's troubling about death cult environmentalist is it they haven't even tried to understand the issue from a policy / political / stakeholder vantage point. the inconvenience / undeniable truth is that you are never going to be able to pass the kind of legislation you would need to implement your scheme... at least not in a freely democratic system.

you guys can't even get over the fact that donald trump got 50% of the vote, what are you going to do when 90% of the people in china and india don't agree with you?
 
#53
But ultimately, what you're saying (to me and the rest of us) is: "Let the world burn. Screw you all."Then your "skepticism" amounts to an affirmation: "Don't try to save the world - let it go up in flames". And that's the utter opposite of respectful.
I resent that - particularly after I have been trying to explain the egregious consequences of the Climate Catastrophe nonsense.

If you say it about anyone else, I would consider it a moderation matter.

I have always spoken truthfully on this. I never even bothered about this subject until my curiosity was spiked by the fact that the emails between climate scientists were deemed worthy of publication on WikiLeaks.

David
 
#54
And in the meantime, are you going to simply ignore my suggestion for a man who is eminently qualified (whether he will agree to an interview is another question)?
You try getting him to come on the show - I'd be very, very surprised if he agrees, and I'm pretty sure Alex would be only too happy to interview him.

David
 
#55
Because one thing that's troubling about death cult environmentalist is it they haven't even tried to understand the issue from a policy / political / stakeholder vantage point. the inconvenience / undeniable truth is that you are never going to be able to pass the kind of legislation you would need to implement your scheme... at least not in a freely democratic system.
Alex, man, have you not looked into this? There is an eminently elegant solution to it. I forget what it's called (it's named after somebody) but it runs like this:
  1. Fossil fuels get taxed.
  2. The tax gets refunded on a pro rata basis to all taxpayers.
It's zero sum. All of the taxed funds get repaid to taxpayers. All that happens is that fossil fuels are less affordable.

I reckon that if everybody knew about this scheme, it would pass so easily you'd think you'd been drinking prune juice for a decade.
 
#57
I have been trying to explain the egregious consequences of the Climate Catastrophe nonsense.
You don't even think the science matters on this, David. You said so explicitly in the other thread. So, the only egregious consequences are those of your own deliberate ignorance. Just as I said. You've no right to be resentful - your position is one that would hinder progress towards a solution.
 
Top