tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post906991364716428656..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Worst People in the World: Ignorant Global Warming DeniersAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-30924325968806694982009-12-11T15:45:38.942-07:002009-12-11T15:45:38.942-07:00I'm NOT interested in playing "gotcha.&qu...I'm NOT interested in playing "gotcha." I have no preconceived notion as to what is true and what is false. Your side might be correct. I am skeptical, but not an adversary. You made a mistake, big whoopee. Everybody makes mistakes. You were man enough to admit it. You gained tremendous amounts of credibility with me. <br /><br />I don't like advocates on either side of the issue. I want the truth to prevail, not the side which has the best advocates.John Doehttp://maaadddog.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-11874013609540678332009-12-11T14:21:22.183-07:002009-12-11T14:21:22.183-07:00John Doe
Yes, you are correct. I obviously cited ...<b>John Doe</b><br /><br />Yes, you are correct. I obviously cited the wrong part of the article and reported the wrong final number.<br /><br />1 degree C (instead of the 3 degrees C that I cited) is the correct number.<br /><br />Dang, I wish I had not done that.<br /><br />I am sorry for that. It should not have happened.<br /><br />Note that this was my mistake and not a mistake of the scientific community or in any way shows any flaw in the global warming science.<br /><br />Now that we have identified an error, let us look at its impliations for the original posting.<br /><br />Which was to criticize individuals who write that we have nothing to fear about global warming even though they no nothing about how global warming works.<br /><br />My post was written to condemn those who claim that we have nothing to worry about with respect to global warming science even though they know nothing about the basics of radiative forcing. It offers a simple test as to whether the agent has gone to the effort of knowing what he is talking about, and condemns those who say that the science is bad when they know nothing about the science they are criticizing.<br /><br />You struck me with valid criticism based on the peer-reviewed science. A legitimate criticism from which there is no escape. Against that there can be no defense. But it is not the criticism of those who know nothing about the issue.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-5299308939678182172009-12-11T13:53:35.925-07:002009-12-11T13:53:35.925-07:00Dude, you have a hair trigger temper. You assume...Dude, you have a hair trigger temper. You assume that you can divine what other people are thinking and you ascribe to them the worst possible motives. <br /><br />I just read what YOU cited to. There, THEY talk about models, and so I used their language, and you jumped all over me for it. If I'm wrong, sorry. <br /><br />But look what else I've found from the article: <br /><br />"Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1°C global warming, which is easy to calculate and is undisputed. The remaining uncertainty is due entirely feedbacks in the system [water vapor etc.]"<br /><br />NOTE: Your comment said this was the correct figure: "All else being equal, this amount of energy will result in 2.92 degrees C (approximately 5 degrees F)." THE ARTICLE SAYS 1 deg C, YOU SAID 2.92deg C!!! I believe that all of us can agree that a difference of 1.92between what you wrote and what they wrote is very significant. If this is so easy to calculate, how did you both come to different numbers? Who is wrong and who is right? <br /><br />Here is a portion of what you wrote: "Absolutely nothing that I have written about so far in presenting these facts is taken out of a climate model. These are applications of the basic laws of physics. They reveal the temperature change by radiative forcing alone, in the absence of any positive or negative feedback mechanisms." <br /><br />But I don't think it as cut and dried as you try to make it. Part of the simple equation is represented by the greek alphabet Lambda (my puter doesn't type greek symbols). As you probably are aware, different scientists ascribe different values to Lambda. Some say it is as low as .2something, others place it as high as .8; if so that is not just "basic laws of physics." Rather, that has injected subjectivity, or at least ample wiggle room for disagreement. That's similar to arguing 2 + 2 (or is it 1.5? Or 2.7?) = 4. Uh, no it doesn't = 4! It equals 3.5, or 4.7, depending upon what value Lambda really is. <br /><br />Sorry to get nit picky, but the Devil (or for you atheists, the irrational mythical being with evil traits ascribed to it) is in the details.John Doehttp://maaadddog.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-62470182973280134582009-12-11T11:57:27.043-07:002009-12-11T11:57:27.043-07:00John Joe
Ahhhh. Now that I've read the Wikipe...<b>John Joe</b><br /><br /><i>Ahhhh. Now that I've read the Wikipedia articles that you've cited, and others linked thereto, I'm beginning to understand. You're accepting hook line and sinker the "models" that the global warming scientists have set up...</i><br /><br />Absolutely nothing that I have written about so far in presenting these facts is taken out of a climate model. These are applications of the basic laws of physics. They reveal the temperature change by radiative forcing alone, in the absence of any positive or negative feedback mechanisms.<br /><br />Climate models are used to determine temperatures AFTER the effect of positive and negative feedback mechanisms.<br /><br />Now, here you are authoritatively asserted that I was giving the results of these climate models when, as a matter of fact, I had not.<br /><br />Clearly, you do not care whether your assertions are true or false. You do not have a sufficient sense of intellectual integrity that goes into doing basic research to support the claims you are making. You will state whatever it pleases you to state regardless of its truth value.<br /><br />And you are willing to do this to misdirect and mislead people on matters as important as those leading to the potential destruction of whole cities and the suffering of whole populations.<br /><br />What type of person acts this way?Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-28480222327003183012009-12-11T09:52:04.570-07:002009-12-11T09:52:04.570-07:00Ahhhh. Now that I've read the Wikipedia articl...Ahhhh. Now that I've read the Wikipedia articles that you've cited, and others linked thereto, I'm beginning to understand. You're accepting hook line and sinker the "models" that the global warming scientists have set up (you know, the scientists some of whom have been revealed to be charlatans). In other words, "it's true because the scientists say it is so." Clearly, that is simply an appeal to authority, which is not logical. <br /><br />And let's face it. Their models are simply their best guess about what might happen. They even admit that they don't know what happens when negative feed backs occur, such as increased water vapor and cloud cover. <br /><br />I'm no scientist but even I know that as the temperature of air increases, the amount of water vapor (clouds to you nimrods) increases, and the less sunlight reaches the earth, thereby causing tempertures (at earth's surface at least) to be lower. So, in the end, all they are really saying is that they think the earth might heat up the more CO2 is in the air, but they aren't sure. <br /><br />And then they try to measure the temperature in order to see if it jives with their theory, and it turns out that they fudge that data by "homogenizing" the data, and when asked in Freedom of Information requests for the raw temperature data, they hide the data, and later claim to have thrown it out in the trash. NOW do you see why those emails were so harmful to your cause? <br /><br />And I'm NOT even saying your cause is incorrect, I'm merely looking at information with a jaundiced eye. I look at the deniers' information the same way. I'm here, buddy, I'm open to being convinced by the power of your logic. I wouldn't be wasting my time leaving comments if I wasn't. By the way, you made good points about the 3% post. I'm still pondering it, but you made good points. Just to show I'm not disagreeing just to be a troll.John Doehttp://maaadddog.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-80107927468851526272009-12-10T16:26:51.253-07:002009-12-10T16:26:51.253-07:00John Doe
The numbers I referenced are basic numbe...<b>John Doe</b><br /><br />The numbers I referenced are basic numbers that can be found in just about any text on climate change.<br /><br />So, I'll just go to a nice, basic source: Wikipedia.<br /><br />See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere<br /><br />As of November 2007, the CO2 concentration in Earth's atmosphere was about 0.0384% by volume, or 384 parts per million by volume (ppmv).<br /><br />[A]tmospheric CO2 levels were about 260 – 280 ppmv immediately before industrial emissions began and did not vary much from this level during the preceding 10,000 years.<br /><br />And: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing<br /><br />Radiative forcing can be used to estimate a subsequent change in equilibrium surface temperature (ΔTs) arising from that radiative forcing via the equation ΔTs = λΔF, where λ is the climate sensitivity, usually with units in K/(W/m2), and ΔF is the radiative forcing. A typical value of λ is 0.8 K/(W/m2), which gives a warming of 3K for doubling of CO2.<br /><br />(3 degrees kelvin = 3 degrees celsius = approx 5 degrees fahrenheit.)Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-63033803171957037382009-12-10T12:33:18.716-07:002009-12-10T12:33:18.716-07:00Does being a condescending little punk work for yo...Does being a condescending little punk work for you in your regular occupation? I never said in my comment that we have nothing to worry about, I said you were arguing about something that nobody disagreed with you about. <br /><br />And, excuse me, I don't take some anonymous person's word for it. I'm interested in where you got your numbers: ..."270 ppmv to 550 ppmv will result in the atmosphere absorbing an additional 3.7 watts per square meter column of air. All else being equal, this amount of energy will result in 2.92 degrees C (approximately 5 degrees F)." <br /><br />Surely, a man as intelligent and all-knowing as youself can provide a link, or at least set forth the proof that what you say is true?John Doehttp://maaadddog.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-19590104041517619532009-12-09T15:05:29.540-07:002009-12-09T15:05:29.540-07:00Oh, and by the way.
0.042 grams of arsenic will k...Oh, and by the way.<br /><br />0.042 grams of arsenic will kill a person with a mass of 70kg.<br /><br />This is less than 1 part per million.<br /><br />Imagine what 100 parts per million of arsenic will do.<br /><br />By what rationality do you claim that 550 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere can have no effect and is not worth worrying about?Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-56980530422619580472009-12-09T14:14:53.740-07:002009-12-09T14:14:53.740-07:00John Doe
Thank you for providing me with an illus...<b>John Doe</b><br /><br />Thank you for providing me with an illustrative example of somebody telling us that we have nothing to be concerned about even though he knows almost nothing about the issue he is giving advice on.<br /><br />The pre-industrial level of CO2 in the atmosphere was approximately 275 ppmv (part per million by volume). Human greenhouse gas emissions have raised it to nearly 400 ppmv so far. Business as usual has the potential of raising it to over 1000 ppmv.<br /><br />Given the composition and intensity of sunlight and earth-emitted infrared radiation, a doubling of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere from 270 ppmv to 550 ppmv will result in the atmosphere absorbing an additional 3.7 watts per square meter column of air. All else being equal, this amount of energy will result in 2.92 degrees C (approximately 5 degrees F) of warming. This is more than enough to put whole cities and whole nations at risk and to create a great deal of death and suffering among significant populations.<br /><br />Of course, we know that all else will not be equal. However, that does not change the fact that greenhouse gas emissions (particularly CO2) creates a risk.<br /><br />This brings to light my comparison to the drunk driver or the person who picks up a gun, aims at, and pulls the trigger. Their moral culpability comes from creating a risk that others will be harmed - showing a callous disregard for their welfare.<br /><br />The moral character of somebody who does not understand global warming telling us we have nothing to worry about is orders of magnitude worse than that of the drunk driver or the person pointing a potentially loaded gun telling us we have nothing t worry about.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-60258976593131910552009-12-09T13:25:35.169-07:002009-12-09T13:25:35.169-07:00I realize that you are trying to simplify in order...I realize that you are trying to simplify in order to speak on the level of we mere mortals who aren't totally versed in all the science of global warming, but you forgot one important element. <br /><br />Saying that greenhouse gases are science that cannot be debated is akin to saying that arsenic is a poison. Duh. But the devil is in the details. A little arsenic in our shrimp and lobster never hurt anyone.<br /><br />CO2 molecules makes up only what, three hundred parts PER MILLION of the atmosphere? So when global warming alarmists say that CO2 has increased 100% what they mean is that it increased 150 parts per million. <br /><br />The real issue is whether that small of an amount of greenhouse gas makes a difference. The CO2 level has been higher in eras before the last 150 years and the world didn't come to an end. CO2 fluctuates. <br /><br />You seem to be arguing about something that nobody disagrees about. Nobody says CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas. Nobody says arsenic isn't a deadly poison, either. At high enough levels.John Doehttp://maaadddog.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-87606790050702795642009-12-08T21:56:41.414-07:002009-12-08T21:56:41.414-07:00Great idea. I doubt most global warming lobal warm...Great idea. I doubt most global warming lobal warming deniers could explain the the bit about how CO2 is largely transparent to visible light but absorbs a lot of infrared radiation. I could, but then I'm not a global warming denier.<br /><br />I sometimes listen to a local AFR station. They've got global warming denial on there almost every day. I doubt these dudes could explain why CO2 is thought by many to be a factor in global warming. They mostly ignore CO2 anyway and either deny that warming is happening at all, or attribute it to variations in the Earth's orbit or variations in solar intetensity.<br /><br />Why it's the case that the American Family Association feels the need to take a position on this issue at all is an interesting issue. Perhaps this blog will investigate this.Bacopanoreply@blogger.com