Let’s continue this here -

http://climateprogress.org/ 2007/ 10/ 06/ climate-and-science-news-roundup/ #comments

I’m willing to concede that ‘GW’ may be taking place, based on observation; but the ‘A’ is still an unproved hypothesis. Until cause and effect are established with some degree of certainty, any ’solution’ is probably a waste of time and money.

So Joe is a prophet? Does that mean Al Gore is the Pope? Or is Gore one of the major prophets and maybe Joe is a minor prophet in the new religion? Perhaps Maurice Strong is the Pope. And that would make you an evangelist?

I’m just trying to get the terms right so I can better understand the conventions and dogma of this new warm-mongering faith. That must be what it is – a new faith – otherwise, somebody would defend its scientific basis.

My challenging the hypothesis is sort of like asking a Muslim how he knows for sure the Koran is really the word of Allah …..

You are a piece of work! Are you capable of sticking to a subject, or is it that your attention span is so deficient that you can’t focus on an object for more than 7 seconds — let alone a subject? No wonder you’re attention starved! Let me guess: you’re a child of the 7 second sound bite generation like a (very) few others who tend to populate this site seem to be. (Or was it that your daddy didn’t pay enough attention to you when you were younger?)

First, you whine about “hypothesis testing”. And then, given tangible example, you whine as to whether it’s this, that, or the other thing. Let me guess: you’re beggin’ for some more pearls so’s you can trample?

OK. Let me give you a couple. When I was talkin’ about the Mythbusters, I was thinkin’ that they’d put a clear, carbonated soda into “our” oven and irradiate it until Jamie got “big boom”. But then, I got to thinkin’. CO2 in the gaseous state is sp hybridized, whereas CO2 dissolved in water is sp2 hybridized. This means that we ought to expect a shift in CO2’s IR absorptive frequency upon aqueous dissolution, which means YOU need to do more research recalibrating CO2’s aqueous absorptive IR frequency. While this would be a great subject for you, you seem so object-focused as to be incapable of gathering substantive information in these regards. So, why not just trample with ignorant abandon — that’s the easy thing for swine to do, right?

The second part of this has to do with associated interactions. This means water & sugar & flavoring & the container. All of these things are going to have IR absorptive frequencies, especially if the container is polymer. While I was thinking that you might save Grant some research time by investigating the IR absorptive characteristics of water and glass, and the polymers of which soda bottles are typically made, I realize that that’s probably asking too much of you. You, being a child of the 7 second sound bite generation, probably aren’t capable of focusing your attention long enough to accomplish such feats of mental stamina. So while my 10-year-old would love to see the Mythbusters make soda go “boom” in “our” oven, who’s going to do the research to determine the best electromagnetic frequency at which to accomplish this? You? It seems not.

As far as your 666 wisecrack, I think Steven Colbert’s already got the trademark on that one there, but, again, you’re gonna need to overcome your attention deficit disorder and do a little research to know for sure.

And as far as “apocalypse”? My Webster’s dictionary defines this as “any prophetic writing”. Prophets aren’t just about the future but rather more about education; hence, Joe qualifies as “prophet”. So, what the BEEP are you talking about? Let me guess: you’re finally making concessions as to AGW (see Joe’s title: Hell and High Water). Well, it’s about time!

That was indeed a gross oversimplification, as you said. Thanks for the information.

So we’re going to use Venus as the EXAMPLE of what the evil carbon dioxide can do to a planet if it’s allowed to increase out-of-control. Truly a frightening thought.

I guess Venus must have once been very Earth-like, right? What do you think caused the atmosphere of Venus to build up so much carbon dioxide? How long do you think it took to get that way? Do you think the Venusians tried to head off the catastrophe? How does this make you feel?

Also, your talk about microwaves made me think (it’s been so long that it felt really good. Thanks). I wondered if maybe microwaves could be used to COOL carbon dioxide as well. Have you done any research along those lines? Maybe all we have to do is re-tune our microwave ovens to cool the planet. Sound plausible?Maybe we should patent the idea.

It seems like a simple, doable solution. Maybe we should patent the idea!

And by the way, some other folks have already been thinking along these same lines, so we’re in good company -

http://www.ecoenquirer.com/weather-control-radar.htm

Another idea I had, a bit off the topic of climate change, is that I’m thinking of trademarking ‘666′, so when the Anti-Christ shows up I can head off the Apocalypse by tying him up in court! Whaddya think? Is that brilliant or what?

What follows is really the 3rd part of my response to you, even though I wrote it first last Monday. (Hence, my Poet Homer wisecrack.) I was going to give you my Galileo-Kepler-Newton hypothesis-theory-law spiel 2nd, then ask you to stop being like Church officials who refuse to look through Galileo’s telescope and, instead, look through “Joe’s telescope”, but I see no sense in casting any more “pearls” to be trampled. What follows closes my attempt to clarify my “drunken rant”; let’s leave it at that.

Dear Ron,

I’m shocked! If it takes a “drunken-sounding rant” to pull away the veil and get a glimpse at your soul, then mission accomplished — and not in the G. W. Bush sense, either. How thrilling to see that we might just be dealing with a caring, sensitive (though albeit misguided) human being after all!

I don’t think that I have you confused with someone else. It’s not that you’ve discussed the planets; it’s that you don’t seem to understand the usefulness of scientific models. This is somewhat understandable given your initial response to my comment where you seem more concerned with STYLE than SUBSTANCE. Need I remind you that we’re discussing SCIENTIFIC models here – not fashion shows?

My point in bringing up Venus is to say that we don’t need a “model” here; The Boss Truth Almighty has given us a tangible EXAMPLE — one that we can metaphorically “taste & smell & hear” if YOU will — in the form of a paradox that’s incumbent upon us to understand, to rationalize, to make sense of, and most importantly, to explain. Perhaps you’re not prescient enough to see where I was leading, and perhaps I’m not prescient enough to have led you there effectively, but I should hope it sensible that a next logical step would be to determine what Earth’s temperature would be if Her atmosphere was upwards of 96% CO2. (Here’s a hint: the Moon’s max is 120C and Venus’ max is 480C, thus bounding a range. Think of it as a “gift” from The Boss Truth Almighty.) Obviously, we can never do that experiment, and, even if we could, we never SHOULD. So, what are our options? The next best thing? Hmmm…maybe a model…

For argument’s sake, let’s look at the simplest of models. Say a theoretical calculation predicted Earth’s average temperature would be 0C at 0% CO2 and 300C at 100% CO2. A simpleton should be able to LINEARLY INTERPOLATE between these two data points and predict a temperature rise of 3C for every 1% increase in CO2. This predicts only a 0.03C temperature increase for every 100 ppm CO2 rise (100ppm = 0.01%). Obviously, teasing a 0.03C trend out of the “noise”, or “ripples”, of daily fluctuations on the order of 10 to 20C (let alone seasonal variations on the order of 40 to 50C) is a daunting task that only the most brilliant & highest functioning human beings might begin to hope to accomplish, but it could be done given the Truth of the overriding trend.

But here, we have a problem. The historical record indicates a temperature increase more on the order of 4 or 5C for a 100 ppm increase in CO2 close to 0% (180 to 280 ppm). Since the actual “dead-nuts” value is debatable, for argument’s sake let’s be conservative and say it’s 2C. Again applying the simplest of models but this time performing a LINEAR EXTRAPOLATION, we would predict a 200C temperature rise for every 1% increase in CO2 and a final value of 20,000C for 100% CO2. Obviously, this can’t be the case: Venus only gets to 480C, and the driving force (the surface of the Sun) is only around 6,000C. We’d need to introduce a generation term into our model because accumulation alone won’t cut it. (Or, are you such a “hottie”, Ron, that you’ll pump us up there all by your self?) So, we have a problem: the simplest of models, linear models, don’t work.

No biggie. We need only reach into our proverbial “toolbox” and find a “tool” better suited to the job. Hmmm…let’s see. How about a HORIZONTAL ASYMTOTE? That starts out real steep at 0C, in accord with empirical observation, and then slowly levels out as it ASYMTOTICALLY approaches 300C. This not only fits theoretical predictions but also “jives” with fundamental principles of heat transfer. In fact, this curve isn’t arguably but rather IS most common in all of heat transfer.

Now, I realize that, for simpleton-simpletons, linear models are beyond their conception; spitfire, they can’t even make correct change at Big Box Mart without a machine telling them what to do. And then moving beyond linear systems into non-linear ones, like asymptotes? Forget about it. And then to drill down even deeper and realize that, with climate modeling, a third axis, TIME, is added to complicate matters even further with first- & second-order, non-linear differential equations? Then, throw in Ecological Feedback Loops?! Yeah Ron, I guess you’re right; my previous comment to you must have seemed more like some drunk guy trying to discuss this at midnight with the cashier at Big Box Mart. If that’s the case, please accept my humblest and most sincere apology. I guess I made a bad assumption: I got the impression that you were much higher functioning than that. In finishing this comment, I’m assuming that you’re at least high functioning enough to understand linear models…

In generating this overriding model, please note that it doesn’t matter what the absolute, specific details are. It doesn’t matter if the 0% CO2 value is 0 or -4 or -4.2819C, or if the 100% CO2 value is 300 or 320 or 322.9867C. The overall shape of the curve remains the same; the end-points merely need adjustment. May I suggest that you grab your proverbial “wrench” and get busy making said adjustments? Of course, there’s an old cliché, “The devil’s in the details.” If you wanna get hung-up on the details, Ron, instead of getting busy wrenching, if you’d rather ‘dance with the devil’ instead of dig in your toolbox and get to work, that’s fine. Who am I to judge? Just don’t come crying to me when you get burned unless you’re willingly to repent, to admit that it’s wrong to get lost in the details, to commit to turn away from dancing with the devil. If you’re not willing to repent, go cry to your mama.

Now, I realize that I may be making another bad assumption in what follows, but, in your whining about models, this is what you seem to be saying. You seem to be overlooking the overriding asymptote and “drowning” in the data of present climate specifics. To understand this, it’s helpful to use a tidal analogy (oh dear) where annual temperature fluctuations are likened to daily tides, weekly temperature fluctuations to ocean waves, and daily temperature fluctuations to ocean ripples. What you seem to be saying is that you’re so embryonic that even the smallest of ripples INTIMIDATE you — let alone periodic waves or daily tides. [And a global “geotide”, with a 100 meter change and a 120,000 year period? Forget it!] While I’d like to give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re not so embryonic as that — as Fred Thompson seems to be — if such is the case, let me give you a little advice: stay off the beach. Not because Big Kahunas are so busy looking for ‘the ultimate wave’ that they’ll ‘laugh you off the beach’, but rather because you’re so tiny & insignificant that they might squash you having not even noticed you.

Higher functioning statisticians & scientists have developed techniques to eliminate “ripples” & “waves” & “tides” from data in order to elucidate overriding trends & tendencies: both linear & non-linear. While I pray that such is not the case, you seem to be projecting your own deficiencies & inadequacies onto these people. If it’s the case that you’re so pea-brained that you can’t handle the data, I’ll put you on my prayer list (if you like) to pray that your brain might grow in size & stature. But for now: please stop projecting your own, personal limitations & shortcomings onto others.

OK, that’s enough drunken rambling for one comment. As a last word on this most basic of heat transfer models developed here, KNOW that I understand this a gross oversimplification. Not only do we need to account for other gases, like CH4, but also do we need to add INFLECTION POINTS due to transitions from latent to sensible heat when all the ice melts or all the water evaporates, among a myriad of other complexities. So, I realize that this is bare minimum, but it’s the simplest of starts.

Is this what this is about? That you know so little about “science” –just enough to be “dangerous”? My point in bringing up microwaves isn’t to pour more fodder into your “trough” but rather to give you some of that “sober science” that you SAID you craved. You know: a PRACTICAL, WORKING, EVERYDAY, NON-HYPOTHETICAL example of the MOST FUNDAMENTAL principle underlying AGW’s THEORY.

(I know: it appears from your Hansen response that it’s really attention that you crave, not science or viewpoint transformation, though it was interesting to note how your seeming “contempt” turned to “worship” at the feet of St. James upon Joe showering you with special attention, which I’m so glad that he did so as to cast even more light onto your soul. )

Microwave ovens are tuned to a particular electromagnetic frequency, a “magic frequency” if you will, engineered specifically for water; there are TWO such IR frequencies for CO2. My purpose in bringing this up was to point out that the exact same case presents itself for CO2 as for water, except in the IR part of the spectrum — no “ad nausea hypothesis testing” required. Sounds like we need to call in the Mythbusters on this one here, since Adam loves “soda” and Jamie loves “big boom”. You’re gonna need more than some petty “aluminum foil helmet”.

Thought I was reading classical Latin. Better check that punctuation key.

Should you bring your aluminum foil helmet? I fear that’s too little, too late!