Inconvenient Truth for Gore as Arctic Ice Claims Don't Add Up

[SavageEagle]

While these are all good methods of energy production, I don't see how I'm "badly misusing the concept of entropy." Entropy, especially as it concerns thermodynamics, is readily apparent. Heat transfers from high heat to low heat, energy transfer is always dissipates... heat is often produced as a side-product of energy production - nuclear reactions, for instance. Neutrons transferred, a chemical and physical process, produces a lot of thermal energy in the process. Inefficiencies are inherent in all forms of energy production, some far more than others. There will come a day when even too the Sun will self-extinguish, and even if homo sapiens manages to hold off that long, there will be little to be done after that occurs. And so it goes. Even with more technologies to gather more energy, an era of plentiful energy - or heat - cannot last forever.

If we as humans have a collective brain, we'll learn to travel and colonize and explore space LONG before the sun implodes.

 

[dburkhead]

While these are all good methods of energy production, I don't see how I'm "badly misusing the concept of entropy." Entropy, especially as it concerns thermodynamics, is readily apparent. Heat transfers from high heat to low heat, energy transfer always dissipates to some degree... heat is often produced as a side-product of energy production - nuclear reactions, for instance. Neutrons transferred, a chemical and physical process, produces a lot of thermal energy in the process. Inefficiencies are inherent in all forms of energy production, some far more than others. There will come a day when even too the Sun will self-extinguish, and even if homo sapiens manages to hold off that long, there will be little to be done after that occurs. And so it goes. Even with more technologies to gather more energy, an era of plentiful energy - or heat - cannot last forever.

The second law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems. This is a mistake that many people make. The Earth is not a closed system. That's why I pointed out the heat source and heat sink between which the Earth lies.

So long as the sun keeps shining and so long as interstellar space remains cold there is no requirement for entropy to always increase on the Earth. We can tap into that big change in entropy from sunlight radiating into space (and, as a planet, we do) to lead to locally reduced entropy.

Entropy is not just some philosophical idea about waste, loss, and inefficiency but is a very specific concept that can be manipulated just like Energy, Heat, etc.

Here's an example from history. The Romans used to produce ice in the desert using nothing more than a pit, large amounts of straw, and polished metal-faced shields. The procedure was:

- Dig pit.
- Line pit with straw.
- place container of water in center of lined pit.
- During the day, cover it with more straw and the polished shields face up.
- During the night, uncover it.
- Over the course of several days the water radiates heat away at night while the thick straw and reflective shields reduces the amount of heat picked up during the day.
- Eventually, so long as the sky remains clear at night (which it usually does in the desert) the water will freeze.

Congratulations, you have just used the fact that interstellar space has an average temperature of about 4 Kelvin to reduce entropy locally.

As for when the sun will die, well, that's a good 4-5 billion years in the future (if current theories hold) and not something I feel any need to worry about--particularly since there is exactly nothing we can do to affect that one way or another (although that might change in the future, the time to worry about it then will be in the future).

 

[bigus_D]

Did you look at the chart BloodEclipse posted by chance?

Yes, I looked at it. I don't believe it is completely accurate. Ice core studies have proven that the current rate of temperature increase is significantly more rapid than any in the past. There is no dispute that the earth was both warmer and cooler in the past than it is today, but the difference in the rate of change is exponential.

REGARDLESS. The earth is getting warmer, and we can either cover our eyes and ignore it, or try to do something about it.... perhaps it is just the sun causing all the change, or perhaps it is carbon dioxide. In either case, if we do nothing, we will all be able to enjoy working outside all year round... I can't wait.

 

[dburkhead]

Yes, I looked at it. I don't believe it is completely accurate. Ice core studies have proven that the current rate of temperature increase is significantly more rapid than any in the past. There is no dispute that the earth was both warmer and cooler in the past than it is today, but the difference in the rate of change is exponential.

They don't "prove" anything of the sort. That claim is made but,

1) the claims of average temperatures are inferences, not measurements, and are no more accurate than the assumptions that go into them.
1a) Treat with extreme skepticism any reported measurements in science that don't contain error bars or other indications of uncertainty in the measurements, let alone the predictions.
1b) The same thing is true of tree-ring measurements only more so.
1b.1) Note that one of the things that came out of Climategate was cherry picking tree ring data--selecting certain sets of measured results that "fit" the "theory" that is being proposed and excluding the data that doesn't. What makes you think that ice core data is any more honestly reported?

2) even ice core and tree ring measurements are a drop in the bucket compared to the entire history of the Earth. The chart posted uptopic has time as a log scale. On a linear scale the entire period covered by tree rings and ice cores would be an invisibly thin slice. Claiming that something hasn't happened in the previous eras is scientifically irresponsible to the point of fraud.

3) The "speed" of change comes almost entirely from Hansen's "hockey stick" graph, and
3a) Hansen used an algorithm that produces such a "hockey stick" given random, uncorrelated, data.
3b) The "data" marked on Hansen's data apparently claim that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age and the latter part of the 19th Century were all a flat line, which is utter poppycock.
3c) Hansen had the same data in his hand (less the following 30 years) in the 1970's when he was one of the alarmists predicting a coming ice age rather than global warming. Look at where his "hockey stick" starts shooting up--it was well before the 1970's. Why did he reverse his prediction if the conclusions are so clear?

REGARDLESS. The earth is getting warmer, and we can either cover our eyes and ignore it, or try to do something about it.... perhaps it is just the sun causing all the change, or perhaps it is carbon dioxide. In either case, if we do nothing, we will all be able to enjoy working outside all year round... I can't wait.

Um, no. The change being predicted, even by the alarmists theories is only a couple of degrees. This presumption that winter will go away is nonsense.

Another possibility that AGW alarmists ignore is that we might already be in an ice age. Based simply on chronology from the last several glacial advances we're about 50,000 years "overdue" for the next glaciation. Maybe "global warming" is all that's keeping us from being under a mile thick layer of ice right now.

You see, even if mankind can and does have a significant effect there is simply too little information to be making choices about the "best" approach. "Doing something" is as likely (or as unlikely) to cause disaster as not doing something. If something can be done, then what would be needed would be to gather more data--honestly, including letting skeptics look at the original data--all of the original data--and formulate alternate scenarios which can be tested against the "prefered" hypothesis.

It's called "doing science" and there's very little of it to be seen among the AGW crowd.

If the hypothesis and the data cannot stand up to critical analysis by non-believers in the hypothesis, then that's saying something right there.

 

[bigus_D]

They don't "prove" anything of the sort. That claim is made but,

1) the claims of average temperatures are inferences, not measurements, and are no more accurate than the assumptions that go into them.
1a) Treat with extreme skepticism any reported measurements in science that don't contain error bars or other indications of uncertainty in the measurements, let alone the predictions.
1b) The same thing is true of tree-ring measurements only more so.
1b.1) Note that one of the things that came out of Climategate was cherry picking tree ring data--selecting certain sets of measured results that "fit" the "theory" that is being proposed and excluding the data that doesn't. What makes you think that ice core data is any more honestly reported?

2) even ice core and tree ring measurements are a drop in the bucket compared to the entire history of the Earth. The chart posted uptopic has time as a log scale. On a linear scale the entire period covered by tree rings and ice cores would be an invisibly thin slice. Claiming that something hasn't happened in the previous eras is scientifically irresponsible to the point of fraud.

3) The "speed" of change comes almost entirely from Hansen's "hockey stick" graph, and
3a) Hansen used an algorithm that produces such a "hockey stick" given random, uncorrelated, data.
3b) The "data" marked on Hansen's data apparently claim that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age and the latter part of the 19th Century were all a flat line, which is utter poppycock.
3c) Hansen had the same data in his hand (less the following 30 years) in the 1970's when he was one of the alarmists predicting a coming ice age rather than global warming. Look at where his "hockey stick" starts shooting up--it was well before the 1970's. Why did he reverse his prediction if the conclusions are so clear?



Um, no. The change being predicted, even by the alarmists theories is only a couple of degrees. This presumption that winter will go away is nonsense.

Another possibility that AGW alarmists ignore is that we might already be in an ice age. Based simply on chronology from the last several glacial advances we're about 50,000 years "overdue" for the next glaciation. Maybe "global warming" is all that's keeping us from being under a mile thick layer of ice right now.

You see, even if mankind can and does have a significant effect there is simply too little information to be making choices about the "best" approach. "Doing something" is as likely (or as unlikely) to cause disaster as not doing something. If something can be done, then what would be needed would be to gather more data--honestly, including letting skeptics look at the original data--all of the original data--and formulate alternate scenarios which can be tested against the "prefered" hypothesis.

It's called "doing science" and there's very little of it to be seen among the AGW crowd.

If the hypothesis and the data cannot stand up to critical analysis by non-believers in the hypothesis, then that's saying something right there.

This just sounds like "you are wrong and I am right."

Never mind the science.

You keep quoting the leaked emails... don't you realize those were cherry picked?

rant on my brotha.

 

[dburkhead]

This just sounds like "you are wrong and I am right."

Well, yes, the AGW stuff does sound just like that.

Never mind the science.

Funny. Someone in this discussion is writing from the perspective of a working scientist. That you're doing nothing but repeating media talking points and then turning around and saying the above is incredibly ironic particularly in light of that "work outside all year around" statement which even alarmist "theories" doesn't support.

You keep quoting the leaked emails... don't you realize those were cherry picked?

The existence of fraud (which the mails cited do indicate) is sufficient to put everything else into question. That the original data is now gone so no one can check the rest of it is also telling.

It doesn't matter how many times they didn't commit scientific fraud, that they did it at all completely kills their credibility.

And that, by coincidence I'm sure, the fraudulent results agree with everyone else's "data" should also be a big red flag to any real scientists.

rant on my brotha.

And keep drinking.

 

[bigus_D]

Funny. Someone in this discussion is writing from the perspective of a working scientist.

so... are you an environmental scientist? NOTE: I'm a scientist as well! GO ME AND MY DEGREES!

That you're doing nothing but repeating media talking points and then turning around and saying the above is incredibly ironic particularly in light of that "work outside all year around" statement which even alarmist "theories" doesn't support.

um, yea... please re-read the entire thread (you can skip your own posts). Let me know when you find the first reference to "work outside all year round" statement, and then figure out if this is really my belief or not.

The existence of fraud (which the mails cited do indicate) is sufficient to put everything else into question. That the original data is now gone so no one can check the rest of it is also telling.

It doesn't matter how many times they didn't commit scientific fraud, that they did it at all completely kills their credibility.

And that, by coincidence I'm sure, the fraudulent results agree with everyone else's "data" should also be a big red flag to any real scientists.

so why not leak the other 99% of the scientists' emails? Could it be that these emails don't support the goals of the anti-warming crowd?

I am not a kool-aid drinker. And I'm definitely not drinking the juice that you are serving.

 

[dburkhead]

so... are you an environmental scientist? NOTE: I'm a scientist as well! GO ME AND MY DEGREES!

Did I say anything about degrees? I said working as a scientist.

um, yea... please re-read the entire thread (you can skip your own posts). Let me know when you find the first reference to "work outside all year round" statement, and then figure out if this is really my belief or not.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...tic_ice_claims_don_t_add_up-3.html#post720876

Specifically:

REGARDLESS. The earth is getting warmer, and we can either cover our eyes and ignore it, or try to do something about it.... perhaps it is just the sun causing all the change, or perhaps it is carbon dioxide. In either case, if we do nothing, we will all be able to enjoy working outside all year round... I can't wait.

so why not leak the other 99% of the scientists' emails? Could it be that these emails don't support the goals of the anti-warming crowd?

More than 62 megabytes of emails have been "leaked." The entire 62 megabytes is available from multiple sources.

And it doesn't matter what the rest of it says. That they committed fraud at all to get the results they claim is sufficient cause to bring everything they've done into question. And that, once this is discovered, we learn that they've dumped the original data, is just icing on the cake.

I am not a kool-aid drinker. And I'm definitely not drinking the juice that you are serving.

No kool-aid drinker admits to being a kool-aid drinker. You just repeat media talking points without even bothering to look at the actual science.

Everything I've said on this subject addresses actual scientific concerns (of which data fraud is a big one), trying to respond to that with "never mind the science" is the anti-scientific approach.

Science can handle criticism. Science doesn't have to find something like 2000 people to sign a petition (when there are five times as many working members of just the American Meteorological Society never mind scientists in related fields) and claim "there is a consensus, debate is over". Science doesn't have to deny skeptical views attendance, let alone podium time, at conferences. Science doesn't have to hide its raw data from skeptics and people with alternate views.

Debate is never over. Handle it? Science thrives on these things, on the free exchange of ideas and on the sharing of data. When you start trying to shut down debate and having people who ask inconvenient questions arrested, whatever it is you're doing, it's not science.

The people who are saying "never mind the science" are the AGW crowd, not the skeptics.

 

[Disposable Heart]

"You want to know what they're thinking? What are they thinking? They're thinking that it's running out, it's running out and ninety percent of whats left is in the Middle East. Look at the progression: Versailles; Suez; 1973; Gulf War 1; Gulf War 2. This is a fight to the death. So what are they thinking? 'Great!' They're thinking 'keep playing, keep buying yourself new toys, keep spending $50,000 a night on your hotel room, but don't invest in your infrastructure... don't build a real economy.' So that when you finally wake up, they will have sucked you dry, and you will have squandered the greatest natural resource in history... " - Matt Damon, 'Syriana'

LOVE that movie and that is awesome you have that quote memorized! Pretty much sums up my feeling on oil and the Middle East right now. Ending of that movie literally made me cry.

While I don't subscribe to the sky falling RIGHT NOW, we are doing some damage to the Earth that is irreversible. Maybe not now, but later we will have SOME repercussions from it. We have not been on this earth (technologically speaking, biologically still VERY short timers we are), we have no idea in the LONG run (like EONs) what our pollutive impact will be. Honestly, I think there is junk science on both sides of the arguement, both sides have alot to benefit from either doing nothing or forcing all actions to be taken.

To all: Maybe, instead of thinking the good ol' fashioned "burn it until dead" concept we WANT to live and the Al Gore "only me and my cronies will benefit from horror and scare tactics" concept, maybe a middle road? Improved environmental policies and better fuel economy, but not at the horrible cost and expense to taxpayers (slow and gradual change to our current technology and policies, not the quick change, expensive ones that benefit carbon credit holding flunkies like Gore).

 

[bigus_D]

Did I say anything about degrees? I said working as a scientist.

YES.... YES YOU DID... see post #14 above


Nice try finding the first year round outside reference... see post #8.

 

[dburkhead]

YES.... YES YOU DID... see post #14 above

Ah, mention of degree and specific coursework in the context of a discussion of entropy to which the degree and the coursework are completely relevant as opposed to discussion of the procedures and norms of science to which the fact that I actually work as a scientist in my "day job" is the more relevant piece of information.

But thank you for playing.

Nice try finding the first year round outside reference... see post #8.

Now why should I care what post #8 said when the one I was responding to in making comments about year round outside was the one I quoted above? That's the one to which I was responding. Those were your words, quoted verbatim.

Your words link the idea of being happy to work outside year round to "if we do nothing." Whether someone else takes that view is irrelevant. Had you actually been quoting post #8 and responding in ironic disagreement to it rather than taking a "We must do something!" position, then it might be relevant.

Here's one example of what I have learned not in getting a degree but from actually working in the field as a scientist. In school, once the lab unit was over, most folk just threw out the results. However, here in the lab where I work, I can still lay my hands on the data--both final results and the raw data--for the first project we ever did, and for nearly every project since. The only exceptions are for the handful of customers who demand a certain level of confidentiality and to whom all data is turned over at the completion of the project. We don't keep the data but they do. That's every project from the founding of the company to the present. In recent years we not only keep a copy of the raw data, we burn copies to CD or DVD and provide them to the customer as well.

If any question ever arises about any project we have ever done we can pull out the original data and show exactly how the conclusions were drawn.

And we are not exceptional. This is normal in science--unless, of course you're someone like the Hadley Climate Research Unit.

 

[Bubba]

Inefficiencies are inherent in all forms of energy production, some far more than others.

Dyson shell. Just sayin'. On a long enough time scale, we're all hosed. Might as well make the best of the time we've got left.

 

[mrjarrell]

Do remember that the hacked emails contain more than just communications. They also contain program and data files. Their hiding and falsifying of info is there for all to see.

 

[bigus_D]

i'm right and you're wrong

insert rant here.

 

[dburkhead]

insert rant here.

Thank you for admitting that you can't deal with content.

 

[SavageEagle]

I just wanted to say one thing. Since we're only here on this earth for a millisecond, shouldn't we just be more concerned about partying and dancing our life away instead of caring what impact we have? I mean, why worry about all the waste and and destruction?

I just wanted to say one thing. Since we're only here on this earth for a millisecond, shouldn't we just be more concerned about giving our all to making sure our grandchildren's grandchildren have the same earth to enjoy as we do today? Let's make everyone suffer beyond belief so we can save the earth from those who don't care and the destruction they cause.

Hmm... I have to go with option C, Bill.

I agree with Disposable Heart. There has to be a middle ground in there somewhere that allows us to flourish without killing our economies and taking away our sovereignty.

How do we do that? **** if I know. I'm not a scientist.

 

[bigus_D]

Thank you for admitting that you can't deal with content.

When the first sentence of your post is so off base that it doesn't even make sense, why would I read the remainder?

I love it that you are debating why "my assertion" that global warming will lead to enjoyable winter gardening. HILARIOUS.

..."Content"... HILARIOUS.

I'll exit this thread now. I look forward to entering another "moderate" opinion in another conservative rant in the future.

Cheers.

 

[bigus_D]

I just wanted to say one thing. Since we're only here on this earth for a millisecond, shouldn't we just be more concerned about partying and dancing our life away instead of caring what impact we have? I mean, why worry about all the waste and and destruction?

I just wanted to say one thing. Since we're only here on this earth for a millisecond, shouldn't we just be more concerned about giving our all to making sure our grandchildren's grandchildren have the same earth to enjoy as we do today? Let's make everyone suffer beyond belief so we can save the earth from those who don't care and the destruction they cause.

Hmm... I have to go with option C, Bill.

I agree with Disposable Heart. There has to be a middle ground in there somewhere that allows us to flourish without killing our economies and taking away our sovereignty.

How do we do that? **** if I know. I'm not a scientist.

I know I know... I said I was out... but I want to say that I like THIS post.

 

[dburkhead]

When the first sentence of your post is so off base that it doesn't even make sense, why would I read the remainder?

Your reading comprehension is not my problem.

I love it that you are debating why "my assertion" that global warming will lead to enjoyable winter gardening. HILARIOUS.

Yes, your making that claim was pretty funny.

I quoted your words. Do you now disavow them?

..."Content"... HILARIOUS.

Actual firsthand knowledge of practices of science and experiment. Check.
Actual knowlege of what the second law of thermodynamics actually means rather than what many people claim about it. Check.

As opposed to repeating media talking points as if they were laws of nature.

I'll exit this thread now. I look forward to entering another "moderate" opinion in another conservative rant in the future.

Just claiming that something is "moderate" does not make it so.

Next time try dealing with the actual substance of the debate rather than simply asserting media talking points.

 

[edsinger]

So we should pay trillions in new taxes to stop the heating of the earth, what can we do to help mars?