Talk-Polywell.org

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress. ... heresy.pdf

Newton was an alchemist.

Very good reading. Thanks a lot for that!

MSimon wrote:http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress. ... heresy.pdf

Newton was an alchemist.

Well, confirmation bias is just saying that people are bad at judging things, which is why we have the scientific method, all those peer-reviewed papers, independent journals with different editorial policy, requirement that when there are differences of view they get argued out in detail with references.

In Ridley's entertaining talk there is lots of repetition of internet arguments, and one newly raised (to me) point.

He says IPCC have cooked the figures using erroneous statistics. His graphs look convincing.

So how about we check this now and work through what is happening. I hhave looked at some of the source material:

Nick Lewis criticism of AR4 treatment of Forster & Gregory
http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/05/the-i ... y-results/

Frame 2005
http://www-atm.physics.ox.ac.uk/user/da ... ecasts.pdf

Who discusses very carefully the role of Bayesian priors, and problems with thm.

IPCC AR4 Section 9.6.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_dat ... 9s9-6.html

This reviews the whole area, It explicitly points out that using a uniform prior for S gives higher range for ECS (1.2-14.2), whereas using a uniform prior in climate feedback would give 1.0-4.1.

It spends some time explaining why higher values of ECS are not well constrained from evidence.

It notes the different assumptions under which different studies operate. It might seem from Lewis that FG06 is somehow better because less model-dependent than other studies. And that its "probabilities" are gold standard. In reality they all make assumptions (big ones) and are somewhat flakey.

OK, maybe anyone interested could read these refs, especially Frame, and then we can discuss what is the most appropriate prior to use for the IPCC4 judgement of propability of future temp increase?

PS - maybe we would also need:
http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/prob/book.pdf

A better question to ask is why the socialist solution is the one touted vs the cheaper solution: planting trees.

MSimon wrote:A better question to ask is why the socialist solution is the one touted vs the cheaper solution: planting trees.

Touted by whom?

I'm all for planting trees. I like them. I'm not entirely sure over life-cycle how much they help CO2 balance. There is some controversy. But obviously carbon cut down as wood and not burnt is sequestered.

That is a lot of wood you will need...

In the end it's just a question of whether scientists can elude human mind's limitations.

Some, very few, are humble enough to know how difficult that is, and courageous enough to try their best, and even so there's no guarantee.

Most are not that intelligent and think they are free from irrationality, one hundred percent objective, and that lie only makes things worse.

I recommend reading "Irrationality the Enemy Within", by late psychologist Stuart Sutherland. It should be mandatory for anyone claiming to be an "expert" in anything. Like Ridley says experts make very lousy futurologists, and that's not for lack of knowledge about their respective fields, but for lack of humility and self-knowledge.

MSimon wrote:http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress. ... heresy.pdf

Newton was an alchemist.

He was a good detective too!

http://h2g2.com/dna/h2g2/A72025599

tomclarke wrote:

MSimon wrote:A better question to ask is why the socialist solution is the one touted vs the cheaper solution: planting trees.

Touted by whom?

I'm all for planting trees. I like them. I'm not entirely sure over life-cycle how much they help CO2 balance. There is some controversy. But obviously carbon cut down as wood and not burnt is sequestered.

That is a lot of wood you will need...

All I hear from governments and media is reduce carbon production i.e. destroy civilization as we know it.

And the answer to your trees question: keep planting. In another 100 years we will be off carbon fuels - mostly.

In addition it is estimated that CO2 in the atmosphere has been as high as 7,000 ppm with no runaway heating - millions of years of that. The atmospheric CO2 has been as high as 1,000 ppm for hundreds of millions of years with no runaway heating.

Generally humans do fine in warmer environments. We have yet to find a way to grow food under ice. Warm ages are not a serious concern. Ice ages are. If CO2 is keeping us from an ice age I say keep burning.

Trees are a nice alternative. We can always burn them if CO2 gets too low. Of course if trees are the way to go North America is already a carbon sink. You can't bring down the US standard of living and wealth with such a regime. Thus - trees are not discussed in "serious" circles.

Look up the history of trees vs CO2 and you will find that a few people let the cat out of the bag. Funny - it never got much play. In fact you - who I assume to be reasonably knowledgeable haven't even heard of the history. Does it make you wonder?

H. L. Mencken:

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. ”

CO2 works for you. Fear of drugs works for Diogenes. Sadly nothing works for me. I had figured out how to live without fear by the time I was 28. You watch that knot in your belly and shrink it to nothing. Then the only fear you respond to is imminent danger. Which leads me to a little story.

The mate and I were cutting through the DePaul University campus in Chicago on our way home and came across a spot with very bad "vibes". We both thought "how unpleasant, how odd" and discussed it. The next day there was a report of a murder in that exact spot. If you clear up your fears you can see/feel trouble coming well in advance. The difficulty when that knot makes a home in your gut is that it is very difficult to tell real fear from the imaginary. "It starts when you are always afraid."

The only way we can become a free people again is to learn to live without that knot in the gut. But getting rid of it is hard work and most won't do it. The '76ers are long gone. It is doubtful we will see their like again. Ah. Well. Despotism is the most common form of human government now and more so in the past. We are just experiencing a reversion to the mean.

charliem wrote:In the end it's just a question of whether scientists can elude human mind's limitations.

Some, very few, are humble enough to know how difficult that is, and courageous enough to try their best, and even so there's no guarantee.

Most are not that intelligent and think they are free from irrationality, one hundred percent objective, and that lie only makes things worse.

I recommend reading "Irrationality the Enemy Within", by late psychologist Stuart Sutherland. It should be mandatory for anyone claiming to be an "expert" in anything. Like Ridley says experts make very lousy futurologists, and that's not for lack of knowledge about their respective fields, but for lack of humility and self-knowledge.

I see we are on the same page re: self-knowledge. Humility has never been one of my strong points.

choff wrote:

MSimon wrote:http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress. ... heresy.pdf

Newton was an alchemist.

He was a good detective too!

http://h2g2.com/dna/h2g2/A72025599

Modern police state methods. Very like those used in the Drug War. In my best Darth Vader voice, "Impressive." Commendable?

MSimon wrote:

tomclarke wrote:

MSimon wrote:A better question to ask is why the socialist solution is the one touted vs the cheaper solution: planting trees.

Touted by whom?

I'm all for planting trees. I like them. I'm not entirely sure over life-cycle how much they help CO2 balance. There is some controversy. But obviously carbon cut down as wood and not burnt is sequestered.

That is a lot of wood you will need...

All I hear from governments and media is reduce carbon production i.e. destroy civilization as we know it.

And the answer to your trees question: keep planting. In another 100 years we will be off carbon fuels - mostly.

In addition it is estimated that CO2 in the atmosphere has been as high as 7,000 ppm with no runaway heating - millions of years of that. The atmospheric CO2 has been as high as 1,000 ppm for hundreds of millions of years with no runaway heating.

Generally humans do fine in warmer environments. We have yet to find a way to grow food under ice. Warm ages are not a serious concern. Ice ages are. If CO2 is keeping us from an ice age I say keep burning.

Trees are a nice alternative. We can always burn them if CO2 gets too low. Of course if trees are the way to go North America is already a carbon sink. You can't bring down the US standard of living and wealth with such a regime. Thus - trees are not discussed in "serious" circles.

Look up the history of trees vs CO2 and you will find that a few people let the cat out of the bag. Funny - it never got much play. In fact you - who I assume to be reasonably knowledgeable haven't even heard of the history. Does it make you wonder?

H. L. Mencken:

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. ”

CO2 works for you. Fear of drugs works for Diogenes. Sadly nothing works for me. I had figured out how to live without fear by the time I was 28. You watch that knot in your belly and shrink it to nothing. Then the only fear you respond to is imminent danger. Which leads me to a little story.

The mate and I were cutting through the DePaul University campus in Chicago on our way home and came across a spot with very bad "vibes". We both thought "how unpleasant, how odd" and discussed it. The next day there was a report of a murder in that exact spot. If you clear up your fears you can see/feel trouble coming well in advance. The difficulty when that knot makes a home in your gut is that it is very difficult to tell real fear from the imaginary. "It starts when you are always afraid."

The only way we can become a free people again is to learn to live without that knot in the gut. But getting rid of it is hard work and most won't do it. The '76ers are long gone. It is doubtful we will see their like again. Ah. Well. Despotism is the most common form of human government now and more so in the past. We are just experiencing a reversion to the mean.

I think you are mixing politics, economics, and science.

Free thought is about pursuing arguments wherever they go without fear of political implications.

In this case, the politics is unclear. But I still believe that information is good, and we are all better off knowing more, even if that knowledge is not certain, and what to do about it even less so.

I have no idea how the CO2 from trees relates to that used: lets see...

1E6 trees sequester 1Tg over 40 year => 1 tree 25kg/year

US FF emissions 5000Tg/year => 200E9 trees needed.

Balll park suppose each tree needs area of 10m^2 that is 2Tm^2 area, or 2E6 km^2. 1000X1000 km extra under forest, with wood extracted and not burnt.

I'm all for it. Those plains in the middle of US could do with some forest. And doubtless all the planting & replanting (40,000km^2/year) will create jobs...

PS - wiki says trees currently offset 10% of US emissions.

In this case, the politics is unclear.

Only if you are not looking for it.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/282/5388/442.short

Contrary to popular opinion, when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, the United States cannot accurately be labeled as all give and no take. In fact, of the 5 billion tons of carbon dioxide our consumer driven country coughs up a year, roughly 15 to 30 percent is reabsorbed back into the land. Scientists refer to such a draw down of carbon as a carbon sink. Though researchers have known of this North American carbon sink for the better part of the 20th century, they do not understand precisely what is causing the sink or why the amount of carbon absorbed seems to increase over the years.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Featur ... Hydrology/

The North American Terrestrial Carbon Sink A Perspective on Managing Fossil Fuel CO2 Emissions Findings of the First U.S. Climate Change Science Program State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR)

North America is currently a net carbon source of 1336 ± 334 Mt C yr-1.
A net terrestrial sink of 520 ± 260 Mt C yr-1 is equivalent to about 30%
of fossil fuel emissions in 2003.

http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/pr ... nyKing.pdf

Given the error bands the range is 20% to 40%. BTW that report is from 2007.

The Wiki is edited by a notorious warmer - (Connolly IIRC) I wouldn't take anything from there at face value.

"But obviously carbon cut down as wood and not burnt is sequestered."

Until termites release it, or it rots.

Trees only sequester carbon if they turn into coal.

TDPerk wrote:"But obviously carbon cut down as wood and not burnt is sequestered."

Until termites release it, or it rots.

Trees only sequester carbon if they turn into coal.

Plant more trees. The sequestration need not be permanent. As long as the sun shines anyway. And if the sun stops shining? Who will care about CO2?