tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post3039007426082374725..comments2023-09-28T08:13:11.489-07:00Comments on Only In It For The Gold: Opposite of "skeptic"?Michael Tobishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-56214741356846322682018-02-11T01:21:11.642-08:002018-02-11T01:21:11.642-08:00If you find yourself believing the comment by norc...If you find yourself believing the comment by norcalguy101 that co2 cannot be a cause of the greenhouse effect, please do 10 minutes of research to learn the actual science, and don't be swindled by rationalized opinions such as his.<br /><br />https://www.ScientificAmerican.com/article/why-carbon-dioxide-is-greenhouse-gas/<br /><br />https://www.livescience.com/58203-how-carbon-dioxide-is-warming-earth.htmlJerry Lnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-74315073974392440342010-05-10T19:37:44.655-07:002010-05-10T19:37:44.655-07:00"Skeptics do not understand the physics, perh..."Skeptics do not understand the physics, perhaps willfully."<br /><br />You know what? I have never heard a "consensus" ever explain the physics involved in CO2 causing global warming.<br /><br />Now I understand water vapor's ability to condense under ordinary atmospheric temperatures and pressures. It is condensation in the form of cloud cover that entrapps heat preventing solar radiation from escaping to higher altituds.<br /><br />Now CO2? Just look at the phase diagrams for H2O and CO2 side by side.<br /><br />The triple point for CO2, where solid, liquid, and gases states of CO2 meet, is at 5.22 atmospheres (five times that of air at sea level), and -56.4 degrees celsius.<br /><br />The triple point for H2O is at 1 atmosphere of pressure and 0 degrees celsius.<br /><br />Here are the phase diagrams:<br /><br />http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~cchieh/cact/c123/phasesdgm.html<br /><br />CO2 cannot, under ordinary atmospheric conditions, condense into a CO2 cloud formation.<br /><br />Besides the temperature/pressure relationship of CO2, it's composision in the atmosphere at 350 parts per million constitutes only 0.035% of a given volume of air.<br /><br />CO2 is virtually insignificant.<br /><br />The true, factual cause of the now past warming trend was over 50 years of heightened solar sunspot activity.<br /><br />The sun has been quiet for over three years:<br /><br />http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/sunspots/<br /><br />NASA predicted a slowdown in solar activity but was not expecting a significant shut-down of the sun until Solar Cycle 25:<br /><br />http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/10may_longrange/<br /><br />Solar Cycle 24 was expected to be peaking at this time with from about 150 to 180 maximum sunspots. At this time Solar Cycle 24 has yet to begin.<br /><br />It is the lack of solar activity over the past three years that has led to progressively fiercer winter weather conditions.<br /><br />We are now in a very serious downward trend of global temperatures and have been since 2007 due the geatest span of solar inactivity not witnessed in 300 years:<br /><br />http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/sunspots/norcalguy101https://www.blogger.com/profile/05233484896165793383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-22407978161581687722009-03-22T12:57:00.000-07:002009-03-22T12:57:00.000-07:00I'm not entirely convinced that having a label (e....I'm not entirely convinced that having a label (e.g. "Cassandrite") is a good thing.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, we are going to be labeled as "alarmists" or "warmists" or etc., so picking our own label at least gives us a counter to that.<BR/><BR/>In that spirit, I suggest "Hansenite." There are two reasons: First, because he's arguably the person who best understands climate science; second, because by nature he prefers to stay out of politics but will take on an advocate's role due to the urgency of the situation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-83604646356631030382008-09-22T03:48:00.000-07:002008-09-22T03:48:00.000-07:00I tend to thomk of a spectrum of views, loosely li...I tend to thomk of a spectrum of views, loosely linked to view on climate sensitivity.<BR/><BR/>0: Denialists<BR/>1: Minimalists (warming is small and benign -- eq Pat Michaels)<BR/>2-3: Conservatives (IPCC)<BR/>4-5: Precautionists -- those who worry about the upper quartile of a poorly defined distribution (e.g. Stern to some extent)<BR/>Over 6 or 7: alarmists.Ianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01466343070140208641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-39336263900814209662008-05-12T21:52:00.000-07:002008-05-12T21:52:00.000-07:00Having thought about this staring at the ceiling, ...Having thought about this staring at the ceiling, something else occured to me. This is no argument point- I offer this nugget in a nuetral sense. <BR/><BR/>I would surely hope EVERYONE would come tot he climate issue at first *AS* a skeptic. Now, some will say that they have skeptically viewed the evidence and have become convinced. <BR/><BR/>I'm generally a skeptic, although that doesn't mean I don't believe in anything. Some things I have certainly been convinced of (in various topics) while others, "crysta healing", or invisible people who live in the sky for instance, I remain steadfastly skeptical.<BR/><BR/>I would be deeply concerned if anyone (scientists especially) came to this *believing* as their beginning state.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-90375728371814511862008-05-12T15:43:00.000-07:002008-05-12T15:43:00.000-07:00Sigh. Then I'll have to go back to being a Climat...Sigh. Then I'll have to go back to being a <B>Climate Reactionary</B>.<BR/><BR/>Which means explaining each time what I mean...David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-14249739800895736802008-05-12T04:28:00.000-07:002008-05-12T04:28:00.000-07:00Unfortunately, the term "climate realist" has alre...Unfortunately, the term "climate realist" has already been co-opted by S. Fred Singer and his ilk to refer to their brand of climate <I>sur</I>realism.<BR/><BR/>Back to the drawing board, I guess.<BR/><BR/>-- bi, <A HREF="http://frankbi.wordpress.com/" REL="nofollow"><I>International Journal of Inactivism</I></A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-50430760712349661432008-05-11T14:03:00.000-07:002008-05-11T14:03:00.000-07:00Tidal- you reveal exactly where the economic and s...Tidal- you reveal exactly where the economic and social ideology become so apparent.<BR/><BR/>Scientists at best are qualified to say XYZ is happening. That's about 10% of the AGW talking points. The rest is "we should do ABC"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-55151258449161971612008-05-10T10:29:00.000-07:002008-05-10T10:29:00.000-07:00I'll vote for 'Realist".I'll vote for 'Realist".David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-16228678107792275462008-05-09T19:59:00.000-07:002008-05-09T19:59:00.000-07:00Energy and Environment?Energy and Environment?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-90719513008462541932008-05-09T19:52:00.000-07:002008-05-09T19:52:00.000-07:00Point taken. Fortunately, there is not as yet a "D...Point taken. <BR/><BR/>Fortunately, there is not as yet a "Denialist" magazine as far as I know.<BR/><BR/>There was a famous satirical beatnik rag called <A HREF="http://www.ep.tc/realist/15/" REL="nofollow">the "Realist"</A> but I suppose we can tough it out and deny any connection. <BR/><BR/>Just the same "Realist" sounds good to me. Going once?Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-69967338845212150212008-05-09T19:02:00.000-07:002008-05-09T19:02:00.000-07:00Michael, you never were very good at this position...Michael, you never were very good at this positioning thing. Denialist is strong because it is both negative and true. Let the denialists flail about don't help them. Of course, Eli prefers realists but YMMVEliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-6874615275339893542008-05-09T18:52:00.000-07:002008-05-09T18:52:00.000-07:00Thank You for the follow up. Overall, I thought t...Thank You for the follow up. <BR/><BR/>Overall, I thought the lecture was certainly intellectual respectable, and I was expecting much less given the "summary" (on the school website) of what was going to be said prior to the presentation. I liked the fact that there were very few claims that were completely indefensible (like the idea that no changes in sea level rise can be due to us because daily tides show more variation than the secular trend). <BR/><BR/>I believe Walcek is also a member of the Inhofe 400, which further lowered by expectations, but I beleive he is a respectable guy and a good scientist, but should probably not be discussing this issue to audiences. <BR/><BR/>On to this post, I liked what you had to say. Of interest to me is not so much the "in between" position, but rather what exactly a "Skeptic" is. The term seems to have received a bad name to it, especially in scientific topic that are connected to the laymen (AGW, evolution). But skepticism is necessary for science, and is in itself a requirement for its advancement. For the most part outside of the peer-reviewed literature, I think we're faced with "denialism" rather than "skepticism." I don't consider people like Inhofe or the participants in the global warming swindle to be "skeptics." Maybe I'll do a post on this soon.<BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/>CAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-48333412555229578282008-05-09T16:16:00.000-07:002008-05-09T16:16:00.000-07:00Michael Tobis --- Actually, the term you want is '...Michael Tobis --- Actually, the term you want is 'climate reactionary', I think. A conservative would want to keep the current level of global warming (so-called greenhouse) gases.<BR/><BR/>I, at least, am a reactionary.David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-60861372363023617232008-05-09T15:02:00.000-07:002008-05-09T15:02:00.000-07:00Hmm, I myself have long felt a certain affinity wi...Hmm, I myself have long felt a certain affinity with Cassandra, actually. I may be an outlier on this as on other things. <BR/><BR/>True, Cassandrite or Cassandrist is sort of a defeatist name. I think we need a name, though, so we can say to the press, hey, you need a "X-ist" on that article if you are going to quote a "skeptic". <BR/><BR/>Oddly, the right name is "conservative", I think. Unfortunately the name has been usurped by some non-conservative types.<BR/><BR/>If I advise calling on a climate conservative, I doubt Broecker or Hansen or Pierrehumbert would spring to the journalist's mind.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-71871725756013371852008-05-09T14:51:00.000-07:002008-05-09T14:51:00.000-07:002 issues with the term "Cassandrists" - first, the...2 issues with the term "Cassandrists" - first, the (both current and mythological) public perception of C. - that she was an alarmist - and second, the mythological outcome - that, although she was right, she wasn't heeded.<BR/><BR/>Is there anyone in mythology who was perceptive, who warned of catastrophe, and who <I>was</I> heeded?<BR/><BR/>The trouble with looking to mythological or otherwise fictional characters for an appropriate term is that intelligent group action makes for a less memorable plot line than its opposite.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-90615098535797605542008-05-09T13:56:00.000-07:002008-05-09T13:56:00.000-07:00Well, the term needs to encompass both a) being re...Well, the term needs to encompass both a) being reality-based and b) strongly preferring a particular outcome (namely the survival of human civilization as we've come to know it)<BR/><BR/>The term "Activist" doesn't encompass the "reality-based" aspect.<BR/><BR/><BR/>But "reality-based activist" doesn't exactly trip off the tongue...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-16194243265312283882008-05-09T11:11:00.000-07:002008-05-09T11:11:00.000-07:00Steven, yes, really. E=m*c^2... marxist or liberta...Steven, yes, really. E=m*c^2... marxist or libertarian?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-83841282750195035792008-05-09T10:16:00.000-07:002008-05-09T10:16:00.000-07:00"Activist" is too political and skews left, which ..."Activist" is too political and skews left, which I'd really like to avoid since science has no economic or social ideology. <BR/>----------<BR/><BR/>Really?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com