Free Energy is just a bad name...

[mtdoc]

How appropriate that this thread has made a home for all types of anti-science types trolls.

ad hominem: Latin for "to the man." An arguer who uses ad hominems attacks the person instead of the argument. Whenever an arguer cannot defend his position with evidence, facts or reason, he or she may resort to attacking an opponent either through: labeling, straw man arguments, name calling, offensive remarks and anger.

Which is perfectly acceptable around here, providing the person who you're having the debate with is arguing for free energy and against the scientific consensus on thermodynamics. But oh no, if they're arguing against anthropogenic climate change it's a cardinal sin.

Well if calling someone "anti-science" or a "troll" for posting anti-science stuff or for trolling is an ad hominem then I admit guilt - but of course by that definition then Dave and many others here use ad hominems frequently and that is acceptable - as you say.  Using descriptive labels to describe someones oft repeated position or postings is just normal shorthand and used by almost everyone (including Zapta) when they hold opinions they disagree with.

That is fine in my book as long as they are then willing to back up the label with an argument as to why the label is appropriate.

I also feel it is perfectly acceptable to point out when someone is using an ad hominem (please spare us the latin defintions though ) - just don't cry foul when the reason for the label is laid out and backed up with logical argument. Once they do that they've negated the ad hominem.

I enjoy a good debate about any topic but crying "ad hominem" or for "civility" in lieu of actually refuting the other sides argument with logic and/or credible evidence just doesn't do much for me - and is usually hypocritical and just a passive aggressive attack itself.   Attacking ones argument, no matter how voraciously, is not a personal attack and IME when it is cried out in the middle of a debate it's meant to distract from the debate and just means you have no reasoned response to the other sides position.



 

[mtdoc]

I find it odd that many people here seem to be fine with the scientific consensus on evolution but have a problem with anthropogenic climate change. Perhaps it's propaganda from the fossil fuel companies?

Because the later is a fake consensus. See Spencer's talk on how he, a catastrophic-man mad-global-warning skeptic would be counted in  97% and so are many if the skeptics.

The problem is Spencer's opinion is not justified by the actual  facts.   There are several studies not that have all confirmed the consensus. I have posted these before but here they are one more time:

See here,here,and here.

Within those links are both  original research articles and summaries with links to the underlying research.

There are now several studies - some looking at the published research and some surveying the opinion of climate scientists. They all confirm that there is a consensus on the matter - that AGW is real.

Here's an example of the question they asked climate scientists in one of the studies on which there was a consensus "yes"

Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

Man-contribute-to-measurable-temperature-increase is very different from man-is-the-main-contributor-to-catastrophic-global-warming.

The term "catastrophic" is a term you use over and over but it is not part of the science of AGW.   But I am glad to see you now agree at least that there is scientific consensus that humans are contributing to global warming. Even if only a partial truth -that's progress!   

[zapta]

The problem is Spencer's opinion is not justified by the actual  facts.   There are several studies not that have all confirmed the consensus. I have posted these before but here they are one more time: ...

Yes, several studies that 'confirm', but also studies and data that indicate that the models exaggerate the warming and the human casual.  Check for example the interview with Christy. In science there are no proofs, just refutations, and one is sufficient.

Man-contribute-to-measurable-temperature-increase is very different from man-is-the-main-contributor-to-catastrophic-global-warming.

The term "catastrophic" is a term you use over and over but it is not part of the science of AGW.

Well, the all the alarms are based on the catastrophic aspects, not just on a measurable man-caused temperature increase.

But I am glad to see you now agree at least that there is scientific consensus that humans are contributing to global warming. Even if only a partial truth -that's progress!   

I am glad that you are glad but you could be just as glad at the beginning of this conversation. I didn't said man induced CO2 forcing don't cause a measurable temperature increase.  I said that the claims of catastrophic-man-made-global-warming are grossly exaggerated. A good lie is based on a kernel of truth.

[mtdoc]

The problem is Spencer's opinion is not justified by the actual  facts.   There are several studies not that have all confirmed the consensus. I have posted these before but here they are one more time: ...

Yes, several studies that 'confirm', but also studies and data that indicate that the models exaggerate the warming and the human casual.  Check for example the interview with Christy. In science there are no proofs, just refutations, and one is sufficient.

Christy is again giving an opinion - not backed by any facts. That is not a refutation. (Never mind that Christy, along with Spencer have been caught publishing erroneous data several times),

I am glad that you are glad but you could be just as glad at the beginning of this conversation. I didn't said man induced CO2 forcing don't cause a measurable temperature increase.

  Then why make several statements and post several purposely misleading graphs meant to distort the truth and imply that the earth is not warming?

I said that the claims of catastrophic-man-made-global-warming are grossly exaggerated. A good lie is based on a kernel of truth.

Catastrophic is not a scientific term and I've seen no one use it on this forum other than you.  Or are you again accusing the climate science community of lying. If so, please offer some evidence.

[zapta]

Catastrophic is not a scientific term and I've seen no one use it on this forum other than you.

Good. The predictions of the catastrophic outcomes of man made CO2 emissions are not part of the scientific consensus. I am glad to see this progress.

https://www.edf.org/climate/climate-facts-dangers-and-what-you-can-do

[mtdoc]

Catastrophic is not a scientific term and I've seen no one use it on this forum other than you.

Good. The predictions of the catastrophic outcomes of man made CO2 emissions are not part of the scientific consensus. I am glad to see this progress.

https://www.edf.org/climate/climate-facts-dangers-and-what-you-can-do

Yep. Catastrophe is not a scientific term and is used by those who wish to sensationalize the issue. It is not used by climate scientists when discussing the science. It never was.

There is a new study published in PNAS that showed that the sea level rise in the 20th century was faster than in any of the previous 27 centuries. As quoted in a nice summary of the study by the NY Times, one of the primary authors of another study that looked at the implications of the this research says:

“I think we need a new way to think about most coastal flooding,” said Benjamin H. Strauss, the primary author of one of two related studies released on Monday. “It’s not the tide. It’s not the wind. It’s us. That’s true for most of the coastal floods we now experience.”

It's up to the public to make a judgement as to whether the outcome of that, if the trend continues, will be "catastrophic" or not. That is not the job of the scientist.

Also in that article is a nice link to a well done summary of the issues surrounding climate change.  It's worth a look:

Short Answers to Hard Questions About Climate Change.

[zapta]

There is a new study published in PNAS that showed that the sea level rise in the 20th century was faster than in any of the previous 27 centuries.

Why stop there? Here is a wider perspective:



The current data I saw suggest a rate of ~20"/century.

[mtdoc]

There is a new study published in PNAS that showed that the sea level rise in the 20th century was faster than in any of the previous 27 centuries.

Why stop there? Here is a wider perspective:


.

The current data I saw suggest a rate of ~20"/century rise.

I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make. Please explain

[mtdoc]

Since you haven't responded, let me guess: You're trying to imply that because there was a very large sea level rise between 20k and 8k years ago, that somehow makes the unprecedented in the common era rise over the last century unimportant?

If so then you are either being purposely misleading or you don't understand that the very large sea level rise between 20k and 8k years ago was due to the end of the last ice age. See where is says "last glacial maximum"? That is the peak glaciation of the last ice age. As the ice age ended and all that ice melted sea levels rose quite a bit - duh. But why stop there - why not plot the previous interglacial periods where sea levels drop and rose again?

Where did you get your 20" /century rise number - from averaging in the post ice age melt rise? 
You wouldn't be purposely trying to misrepresent the history of sea level change would you? I hope not.
This is an engineering forum - that kind of thing will not fly.

The history of sea level rise immediately following the last ice age is irrelevant to the question of how the rate of sea level change over the last century relates to the rate of sea level change over the previous 27 centuries. If you read the study I linked to you'll see that the whole point is that the rate of change has acclerated dramatically and the only explanation is the global warming that has occured during that period.

Below you'll find a few plots from that that study:

The first one shows global sea-level change and associated global temperature anomaly.

The second one shows counterfactual hindcasts of global mean sea-level rise in the absence of AGW.

As the authors conclude:

Counterfactual hindcasts with this model indicate that it is extremely likely (P=0.95P=0.95) that less than about half of the observed 20th century GSL rise would have occurred in the absence of global warming, and that it is very likely (P=0.90P=0.90) that, without global warming, 20th century GSL rise would have been between ?3 cm and +7 cm, rather than the observed 14 cm. Forward projections indicate a very likely 21st century GSL rise of 52–131 cm under RCP 8.5 and 24–61 cm under RCP 2.6, values that provide greater consistency with process model-based projections preferred by AR5 than previous semiempirical projections.

[zapta]

Since you haven't responded, let me guess: You're trying to imply that because there was a very large sea level rise between 20k and 8k years ago, that somehow makes the unprecedented in the common era rise over the last century unimportant?

This puts things in perspective.

As for the predictions in your post, that's nice, now let's see if they will materialize (don't confuse models with data).

So far sea level rises at a fix rate of 40cm/Century despite an increase in CO2 level.



http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/2015rel4-global-mean-sea-level-time-series-seasonal-signals-removed

[mtdoc]

So far sea level rises at a fix rate of 40cm/Century despite an increase in CO2 level.

I'm not sure how much can be concluded from only 20 years of data from one dataset,  but nevertheless what the plot actually shows it a linear rate of increase in sea level which of course correlates very well with the rate of temperature rise and rate of CO2 level rise over the same period.

Oh yeah - and 3.3mm/year = 33 cm/century not 40 - a rate that has been slowly increasing over the last century as the study I referenced shows. Keep in mind that with any curve - a small enough slice will appear linear.

Don't take this personally but you might want to look into a course in data analysis - (just sayin').   BTW - I've noticed you have excellent coding skills - something I am weak on (in fact I'm currently struggling through homework for an online embedded programming course) - we all have our strengths and weaknesses.

In any case, thanks for posting real data and especially a link to its primary source. 

[zapta]

Don't take this personally but you might want to look into a course in data analysis - (just sayin').

Well, well, well, we are getting cocky now.

[mtdoc]

Don't take this personally but you might want to look into a course in data analysis - (just sayin').

Well, well, well, we are getting cocky now.

Ok, if that's the way you want to take it. Given the errors in your post, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt - that you had trouble interpreting the data and not that you were purposely trying to mislead.

I was assuming the former and suggesting a solution. Just as I would hope someone would do for me in one of the many areas of electronics where I am still a beginner.  There certainly are many uncivil ways I could have responded to the errors in your post. 

One of the pitfalls of online discussion is that without body language cues - intent can be easily misread.

[zapta]

Don't take this personally but you might want to look into a course in data analysis - (just sayin').

Well, well, well, we are getting cocky now.

Ok, if that's the way you want to take it. Given the errors in your post, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt - that you had trouble interpreting the data and not that you were purposely trying to mislead.

I was assuming the former and suggesting a solution. Just as I would hope someone would do for me in one of the many areas of electronics where I am still a beginner.  There certainly are many uncivil ways I could have responded to the errors in your post. 

Well, well, well, we are getting even more cocky now.

[mtdoc]

The fable of the scorpion and the frog comes to mind...

[karrengold]

NOTE: This message has been deleted by the forum moderator Simon for being against the forum rules and/or at the discretion of the moderator as being in the best interests of the forum community and the nature of the thread.
If you believe this to be in error, please contact the moderator involved.
An optional additional explanation is:

[sourcecharge]

Is there a problem in here?
 

[Simon]

some one dug up and old thread and posted spam as their first post.