Upcoming Interview With Jack Ward -- Global Nova Scotia Warming :)

Alex

Administrator
Jack Ward (of skeptiko-forum fame) and I are considering putting together a show(s) about the means and methods of hashing out stuff.

theme... how to find the heart and soul truth.

we're considering starting with "Global Nova Scotia Warming", since Jack and I chatted about it already.
 
BTW... not sure jack got the tongue in cheek title of this episode... but that's going to be part of the fun of hashing things out.

i.e. I don't think one can really approach the topic of global warming by looking at weather conditions in nova scotia. in fact, this seems to point to one of the methods of the psyop... it's an appeal to a common man empiricism... the kind of stuff you talk about over a cup of coffee versus anything that a serious climatologist would consider.
 
i.e. I don't think one can really approach the topic of global warming by looking at weather conditions in nova scotia. in fact, this seems to point to one of the methods of the psyop... it's an appeal to a common man empiricism... the kind of stuff you talk about over a cup of coffee versus anything that a serious climatologist would consider.
This will be an interesting discussion.

I struggle with where you, Alex, land on the layman's ability to understand technical subjects. On one hand you seem to imply that nothing is above one's ability to discern/understand directly (i.e., your ire at the notion of "above one's paygrade"). On the other, you're pushing back here on one's ability to understand directly via observation via an appeal to what a "serious climatologist" would consider. Just seems somewhat contradictory to me. Will obviously be something you and Jack kick around.

Look forward to listening.
 
This will be an interesting discussion.

I struggle with where you, Alex, land on the layman's ability to understand technical subjects. On one hand you seem to imply that nothing is above one's ability to discern/understand directly (i.e., your ire at the notion of "above one's paygrade"). On the other, you're pushing back here on one's ability to understand directly via observation via an appeal to what a "serious climatologist" would consider. Just seems somewhat contradictory to me. Will obviously be something you and Jack kick around.

Look forward to listening.

Excellent point. I acknowledge the contradiction... tough to navigate... at the same time it's something that is central to my experience on Skeptiko.

what I'm asking jack to do is the dig a little deeper re this science and see where it gets him. so, he has this very admirable community-centered mindset... like "I'll start talking to local scientists and will start gathering data" kind of stuff. this is his first go to... and it's understandable... it's admirable. but in order for this project to go anywhere he has to dig a little bit deeper and see how this would be futile in terms of coming to anything close to a conclusion regarding "global" warming.

So, let's say he got to this point... that would be level one. then, I want him to get to level 2 by asking" why did I fall for that?" i.e. now that I understand that local weather patterns could never really impact our understanding of the primary global warming question why are so many sources that I trust focusing on local weather? should I be willing to at least consider the possibility that this is a psyop?

Once he got to this point he might be ready to really look at cook et al and 97% and judith curry and sea levels and then we would be at level three... we would be at paygrade :)
 
Last edited:
My thinking on global warming is that the main issue always seems to be the role that humans are assumed to have in affecting it. So I think things like:
  1. If we assume that the greenhouse effect is a scientifically proven fact.
  2. And humans have increased greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere by some percentage
  3. Then how does that not increase the greenhouse effect?
  4. Or in layman's terms, why would adding some extra percentage of insulation to your attic have no effect?
That's just one example. The other one is knowing whether or not human influence alone is the primary concern, and if it's not, what can we do ( if anything ) to make a meaningful difference — not just shuffle responsibilities around like commodities for the sake of power and profit.

Also like to hear your thoughts on Bjørn Lomborg's perspective.

 
Excellent point. I acknowledge the contradiction... tough to navigate... at the same time it's something that is central to my experience on Skeptiko.

what I'm asking jack to do is the dig a little deeper re this science and see where it gets him. so, he has this very admirable community-centered mindset... like "I'll start talking to local scientists and will start gathering data" kind of stuff. this is his first go to... and it's understandable... it's admirable. but in order for this project to go anywhere he has to dig a little bit deeper and see how this would be futile in terms of coming to anything close to a conclusion regarding "global" warming.

So, let's say he got to this point... that would be level one. then, I want him to get to level 2 by asking" why did I fall for that?" i.e. now that I understand that local weather patterns could never really impact our understanding of the primary global warming question why are so many sources that I trust focusing on local weather? should I be willing to at least consider the possibility that this is a psyop?

Once he got to this point he might be ready to really look at cook et al and 97% and judith curry and sea levels and then we would be at level three... we would be at paygrade :)
This is a great idea and will be awesome, and I think Jack will do great. Don't be afraid to sell tickets to the live recording.
I feel like you could do a whole preliminary episode worth of debate just parsing out qualification of reliable sources, biases, and social programming, political influence, etc... What qualifies as good data? and how do you screen for it?
 
  1. If we assume that the greenhouse effect is a scientifically proven fact.
  2. And humans have increased greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere by some percentage
  3. Then how does that not increase the greenhouse effect?
  4. Or in layman's terms, why would adding some extra percentage of insulation to your attic have no effect?
1) I'm not sure if there is any clean proof of this because the Earth's atmosphere is not at equilibrium, so this is not easy.

2) People tend to attribute all the CO2 increase to man made causes, but the fact is the CO2 level has varied massively over the geological past. If you look at the correlation of atmospheric CO2 and temperature, it turns out the tises (falls) in CO2 seem to follow rises (falls) in Earth temperature. In other words it is temperature changes that cause changes in CO2 concentration! This actually makes good sense because the oceans are saturated with CO2, and a rise in temperature will cause them to release CO2, just as putting an open can of soda on a hot stove will cause it to froth with CO2.

3) Strangely enough the effect that is supposed to cause a rise in temperature with CO2 concentration has nothing to do with how a greenhouse works! Sun shines into a greenhouse and warms its contents. The greenhouse stops the convection of heat. What they call the greenhouse effect is actually an effect caused by CO2 being transparent to light frequencies but opaque to infra-red (heat) frequencies. If the effect is real, it must be desperately weak because the claimed rise in temperature of 1.2 C in 140 years doesn't seem to be a cause for panic. It is generally accepted (but I can't explain it off hand) that the temperature should rise as the log of the CO2 concentration. That means that to get another 1.2C of warming would require a doubling of the CO2 concentration.

4) This really isn't about insulation, but stopping the Earth radiating back into space.

5) There is also the problem of water vapour. Water vapour is a powerful 'greenhouse' gas and if the temperature rises by a small increment, more water vapour will enter the atmosphere from the oceans. This should act as a stabilizing effect.

6) The ice ages involve a much larger drop in temperature, and nobody knows when the next one will start. This seems to be far more dangerous to humans than any mild warming.

David
 
Jack Ward (of skeptiko-forum fame) and I are considering putting together a show(s) about the means and methods of hashing out stuff.

theme... how to find the heart and soul truth.

we're considering starting with "Global Nova Scotia Warming", since Jack and I chatted about it already.

How about having an interview with a top expert on climate change who claims co2 is warming the planet, then have one on who says climate change isn't anthropogenic. Then an anthropogenic one on again, then a non-anthropogenic one. And THEN you and Jack wrestle it to the ground

For such a topic I think at minimum 5 shows would do it justice
 
How about having an interview with a top expert on climate change who claims co2 is warming the planet,

Happy, delighted, ecstatic to have one on. have invited many many times over the years. they only do softball interviews. please verify this yourself by reaching out to them and inviting them on skeptiko out on my behalf.
 
Happy, delighted, ecstatic to have one on. have invited many many times over the years. they only do softball interviews. please verify this yourself by reaching out to them and inviting them on skeptiko out on my behalf.
While unsurprising, it is saddening.

The world needs more of these types of moderated discussions between opposing perspectives. A quasi-related example is the Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson "debate" series they did a few years back. May not have been everyone's cup of tea, but I personally really enjoyed them. Two clearly different metaphysical worldviews; cordial yet rigorous discussion. I found the sessions to be quite engaging.
 
1) I'm not sure if there is any clean proof of this because the Earth's atmosphere is not at equilibrium, so this is not easy ...
Or maybe it is that easy and some people don't want to admit it. Also notice I simply said "greenhouse gasses". I didn't specifically single out CO2 or anything else.

 
Or maybe it is that easy and some people don't want to admit it. Also notice I simply said "greenhouse gasses". I didn't specifically single out CO2 or anything else.
I used to accept the greenhouse effect was responsible for what has happened on Venus - an extremely hot atmosphere that was utterly hostile to life. Then someone pointed to the data from a Magellan spacecraft. Its atmosphere is famously almost entirely CO2.

http://www.shadetreephysics.com/vel/1918vpt.htm

When I was first shown them, they were on a science site associated with the project, but now they have to be stored elsewhere. Please read the text.

Hint: The enormous temperature at Venus' surface iscaused by its enormous atmospheric pressure. At a depth within its atmosphere where the pressure is 1 Bar, the temperature is 66C - which hotter than Earth, but it is far closer to the sun, but nothing like its surface temperature, which is sufficient to melt lead.

This is an atmosphere that is almost pure CO2!

David
 
My thinking on global warming is that the main issue always seems to be the role that humans are assumed to have in affecting it. So I think things like:
  1. If we assume that the greenhouse effect is a scientifically proven fact.
  2. And humans have increased greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere by some percentage
  3. Then how does that not increase the greenhouse effect?
  4. Or in layman's terms, why would adding some extra percentage of insulation to your attic have no effect?
That's just one example. The other one is knowing whether or not human influence alone is the primary concern, and if it's not, what can we do ( if anything ) to make a meaningful difference — not just shuffle responsibilities around like commodities for the sake of power and profit.

Also like to hear your thoughts on Bjørn Lomborg's perspective.


It isn't quite that simple as the 4-steps above.

1. Earth absorbs heat during the day from high frequency light from the sun and re-radiates it to space at night with low frequency infrared. CO2 absorbs only a small band of low frequency (low temperature) infrared radiation.
2. Once there is enough CO2 in the atmosphere, the atmosphere becomes opaque up to a certain altitude - depending on CO2 density - for that frequency (temperature)
3. When the atmosphere is already opaque to the CO2 absorption frequency, then increasing CO2 has a logarithmically declining effect on nightly heat transfer to space down to almost nothing.
4. At this point, adding more CO2 to an atmosphere that is mostly opaque (except at the poles) theoretically (yet to be observed) increases (slightly) the altitude at which the heat is re-radiated to space. Increasing the temperature in the upper troposphere increases the efficiency at which heat is re-radiated to space (greater temperature differential means greater heat transfer).
5. The heat absorbed by CO2 is re-radiated to space in the troposphere which experiences daily temperature inversions so is very turbulent and mixing. In this complex atmospheric system it is unclear what this slight theoretical CO2 temperature increase in the upper troposphere does to the overall heat transfer. You have water vapor, dew points, and temperature and pressure differentials to consider.
6. More CO2 means more food for plants and plants help cool the planet.
7. To get the disastrous climate models, the IPCC has to assume positive feedback loops which don't really seem to be there.

Other things to address...
The climate undergoes periodic temperature swings ice ages and interglacial warming periods. We have been in such a warming period for millennia. The North American plate is still rumbling and rising from relatively recently (in geological terms) taking the ice load off of it.

We will very likely have another ice age at some point soon and more CO2 wont stop that.

You can't lie with rocket science. If you lie, the rocket blows up.

But when effect sizes are very very small and the effect must be teased out with a lot of complex statistics and correction factors (How To Lie With Statistics anyone?), and there is no immediately obvious indication your science is wrong (like a rocket blowing up), and there are billions of dollars floating around available only to those who agree upon this very tiny effect size and its cause, then you have a recipe for corruption of "the science".
 
Last edited:
and there are billions of dollars floating around available only to those who agree upon this very tiny effect size and its cause, then you have a recipe for corruption of "the science".

Agreed. but I have some reservations about the phrasing "corruption of the science." as the plandemic has revealed, we have entered new territory regarding the relationship between science, media and culture. looking back on global warming it seems clear this was a very sophisticated and intentional use of the science.

What if this kind of " corruption of science" is the "new normal." I mean we can wave our arms in cry about the good old days, but it might be better to acknowledge it and deal with it head-on.
 
2. Once there is enough CO2 in the atmosphere, the atmosphere becomes opaque up to a certain altitude - depending on CO2 density - for that frequency (temperature)
3. When the atmosphere is already opaque to the CO2 absorption frequency, then increasing CO2 has a logarithmically declining effect on nightly heat transfer to space down to almost nothing.
4. At this point, adding more CO2 to an atmosphere that is mostly opaque (except at the poles) theoretically (yet to be observed) increases (slightly) the altitude at which the heat is re-radiated to space. Increasing the temperature in the upper troposphere increases the efficiency at which heat is re-radiated to space (greater temperature differential means greater heat transfer).

Thanks for that, Hurmanetar, that was the bit I had somehow never quite got. I knew that it was accepted that the effect was logarithmic (and therefore not that important), but I didn't quite see why that was so.

David
 
Last edited:
Agreed. but I have some reservations about the phrasing "corruption of the science." as the plandemic has revealed, we have entered new territory regarding the relationship between science, media and culture. looking back on global warming it seems clear this was a very sophisticated and intentional use of the science.

What if this kind of " corruption of science" is the "new normal." I mean we can wave our arms in cry about the good old days, but it might be better to acknowledge it and deal with it head-on.
I think science was at its purest when wealthy people put their own money into science because they were passionate about the subject.

The scientific method can still work well if the aim is to make something new that can either work or fail - semiconductors is the obvious example.

Notably you could argue that virus scientists are trying to make a 'vaccine', or maybe a drug, but then it would seem the thing they are making doesn't need to work well, or be safe - so COVID (and probably AIDS) science can turn bad too.

I got to the level of a postdoc before I left science and went into software development. Part of the reason for my move was that the head of our section reluctantly accepted when pushed that the equipment we were using was broken, and would sometimes produce worthless results, but he explained that he didn't want to do anything about it until his two PhD students had finished collecting their data! That was back in the mid 70's.

I'd argue that it was not as absurdly corrupt as it is now. This extraordinary statement by the Nobel Prize winner, Karry Mullis gives you some idea of how it works in recent times.

Yes, corrupt science is the "New Normal"!

David
 
Agreed. but I have some reservations about the phrasing "corruption of the science." as the plandemic has revealed, we have entered new territory regarding the relationship between science, media and culture. looking back on global warming it seems clear this was a very sophisticated and intentional use of the science.

What if this kind of " corruption of science" is the "new normal." I mean we can wave our arms in cry about the good old days, but it might be better to acknowledge it and deal with it head-on.

That's why I put "the science" in scare quotes... because that's how the media priesthood refers to it and demands that we trust "the science".

"The Science" is NLP like "Conspiracy Theorist" and it implies several things: that conclusions are settled, that the process is beyond reproach, that the complexity is too great for the layman to sort out, and that to support is is a sign of education/intelligence and to dispute it is a sign of ignorance.

More and more I think we have entered a phase where no amount of adjustment or reformation of institutions and laws (governments and academia) can rescue us from the widespread degeneration and corruption in mind/body/values/ethos of the population... the forest is choked out with deadfall and detritus and only a devastating fire can clear away and fertilize for new growth.
 
Back
Top