Climate Conversations with a Scientist

 

 

Jason,

I love your energy and creativity, and love to discuss science with someone who is actually interested. Keep inventing.

Lynn

I’d like to comment on your statements one by one. By the way, the information I sent you was only an introduction – not my scientific arguments a few of many follows. Note I’ve accumulated enough proof to fill a book. I will comment on the blogs you sent me over the next xxx days.

I worked for Monsanto 34 years as a physicist, chemist, and chemical engineer. I have direct experience in modeling complex chemical processes, which included mass and energy balance, methane, power, carbon dioxide, and hundreds of other variables. (My first assignment in 1966 was to test lasers– invented in 1964 – including a carbon dioxide laser.) I also had to translate these computer models to into actual equipment and chemical process that actually produced chemicals. So I know firsthand the weaknesses and strengths of modeling.

Your comments are in italics.

It’s a good thing for everyone that science doesn’t require a consensus to establish truth.

Actually, science does require consensus. However, complex problems like evolution and climate change require tools like consilience. “The goal of consilience is to achieve progressive unification of all strands of knowledge in service to the indefinite betterment of the human condition.” (From Charles Gillispie’s description in his review of the book, “Consilience,” by E.O. Wilson) E.O. Wilson has won most major scientific awards, a couple of Pulitzer’s and is considered “the father of sociobiology” and “the father of biodiversity.” Consilience means that when multiple sources of evidence are in agreement, the conclusion can be very strong even when none of the individual sources of evidence is very strong on its own, (Wikipedia).
Multiple lines of inquiry have converged to the conclusion that Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC) is scientifically correct. Climate deniers often single out weak evidence of a single inquiry to prove their point. However, they ignore the fact that it’s only one of many weak inquires that all converge to a strong proof. Note that since 1998 when I started to study ACC, each year new and improved lines of inquiry have only strengthened the proof of ACC.
I refer to Michael Shermer’s column titled ‘Consilience and Convergence’ in Scientific American. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-climate-skeptics-are-wrong/ Shermer explains that consilience helped prove the age and nature of the universe, evolution, and many other theories with multiple lines of inquiry. If theories do not converge, they remain unproven or simply incorrect. The theories of ACC deniers do not converge. Convergence of multiple lines of inquiry proves Anthropogenic Climate Change.

Mertonian norms c does stand for communism. I don’t have a billion $ super computer so only an elite group of technocrats have this advantage. Interesting that Oxford received its biggest donation to buy an IBM computer given by ex IBM employee. I follow the money and found many old colonial forces now support climate change eg Rockefeller, Leverhulme, Cadburry, and others. Also climate change is connected with population controllers. James Holdren thought an ice age was coming and said we need to limit population and development. Technology kicked in and Malthus was wrong. Michael Crichton compared climate science to eugenics. Apple don’t fall far from tree see Francis Galton, Arrhenius and Agenda 21 and Club of Rome.

Politics, religion, and business have no place in scientific investigation. I joined the Union of Concerned Scientists because climate deniers were using character assassination and dredging up long discarded theories to prove their point. This is unacceptable. Please refer to current scientifically obtained data and analysis if you want me to honor your argument.
In addition, I value scientists who actually run experiments and publish the data above opinions of non-scientists or those who don’t. I know how to evaluate data. I evaluated the non-scientist Al Gore’s information and used only that which stood up to my analysis.
Scientists like me formulate many theories that are eventually proven wrong based on new data. After evaluation new data and information, Holdren now advocates for ACC. Essentially all data gathered since he and others postulated that we were going into an ice age have proven this theory wrong. Any real scientist discarded the cooling theory long ago. The others you cite are philosophers, social scientists. Etc. Crichton is a medical doctor, but mostly a writing of fiction. Sorry, their chemical / physical science creds are poor.

Climate scientists only accept theories that say co2 is main driver. They also have got 2 billion per year since 1993 according GAO. Who knows how much money since Roger Revelle days? That is when JFK warned of climate modification in his last speech. Operation Popeyes ended this industry but started a new one. Attacking the climate a better enemy. Peace scares govt. see Iron Mountain Report and Global Business Network in Wired Magazine with connections to Greg Bateson and his plan for bro-colonialism via economic controls.

You know my stance on money, conspiracies, and non-science.

Climate scientists (including me – although I’m not a climate scientist I’ve extensive experience in related science) have concluded CO2 is main driver based on data and analysis. All other theories were exhaustively evaluated. I personally evaluated, among many others, the heat balance of solar variances, volcanoes, mini and maxi ice ages, methods of measuring gases in ancient ice, and of course methane – another chemical for which I have extensive knowledge. The only scientific papers I value are those that consider not only the data that proves their theory but also all data that does not.

It’s inconvenient that truth has no place in science. It’s just ever expanding knowledge.

The fact that science knows that a perfect truth is unattainable is the strength of science. The goal of science to always strive toward the truth. I pity those that think they already know the truth.
If an experiment or data proves a theory wrong, scientists might be disappointed. However, they actually treat failure as another piece of information that directs future experiments. They roll up their sleeves for another try. In Greek Mythology, Daedalus escapes form Crete with his son Icarus on wings he has fashioned from feathers and wax. Ignoring the warnings of his father, Icarus flies toward the sun whereupon his wings come apart and he falls into the sea. Was he foolish? As E.O. Wilson wrote in his book “Consilience,” I like to think Icarus’ “daring represents a saving human grace.” Astrophysicist Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar describes the essence of scientists and others that venture into the unknown: “Let us see how high we can fly before the sun melts the wax in our wings.”

Most climate scientists don’t study the greenhouse gas effect. Most study the assumed GHG effects on stuff. Many scientists don’t have much confidence in climate models. They aren’t good with clouds, aerosols, convection, and predicting future for example the recent hiatus since warming went into oceans. But models didn’t predict it would.

The greenhouse effect is basic science – simply a fact. It is part of natural law like the freezing point of water and black body radiation bands. Once I know that the acceleration of gravity at sea level is 32 ft/s/s why would I need to study it further. I already know what the greenhouse effect is.
I agree that clouds, aerosols, and convection complicate the heat balance analysis. Many scientists currently study these effects and other factors that affect the climate models. They incorporate these new discoveries into climate models, which are getting better. Indeed over the past 12 years, every time the models are improved with new data they converge to CO2 being the primary forcer of global warming.

Climate has been warming since last ice age. C02 effect is so small with and without water vapor feedback that it fits within the error bars of the other major forcings. We don’t know how warm the ocean was 100 years ago. We have some proxy records but not enough res to compare to today. The ocean is the main driver or the climate. In 1998 it burped and we got an increase in average temps larger than the last 75 years.

When the amount of energy absorbed by the earth matches the amount emitted, the earth the average temperature remains constant. Our oceans and atmosphere are primary reasons the temperature variation is small relative to other planets. When more energy is emitted than absorbed the average temperature cools and when less is emitted than absorbed the temperature rises. We’ve enjoyed long period at near equilibrium – the oceans and water vapor did their jobs at maintaining the temperature at near equilibrium for an extended period.
Now the earth’s temperature is rising 10 times faster than anytime the past 800,000 years. Something changed that trapped more energy. Did the water vapor change? There is no evidence of that. It was still the same doing its job keeping the earth at Goldilocks temperature (at least for humans). The main thing that could affect trapping more heat was CO2, which increased from about 280 ppm to 400 ppm. Its primary absorption band (15 micron wavelength) falls within the black body radiation band of the earth. Based solely on the laws of thermodynamics increasing the CO2 upsets the energy balance, which effect is in the temperature of the earth increasing.
We have a very good measure of the warmth of the ocean over time. There are several corroborating methods. For example, Ice coverage in the oceans varies with the temperature of the water. The polar ice cap is currently melting simply because the ocean is warming. It’s not a great leap to determine that the more total coverage of ice the cooler the ocean. The flora, fauna, dust, etc. in oceans are sensitive to ice coverage so analyzing sediment provides a reasonably good measurement of overall ocean temperature. I will write about other analytical techniques in the future including the difference between first principle modeling and statistical modeling.

There is no such thing as an average earth atmosphere. We don’t have a optimum CO2 level. During last ice age ppm was so low plants almost died.

There is an average temperature. The average temperature is currently 59 degrees F. If you mean the average temperature of the earth varies with time – that’s true. We’ve gone through seven major cycles of rising and falling temperature over the last 800,000 years. Note the Scientific American article on the methodology of measuring the earth’s temperature with sensitive GC Mass spec.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-are-past-temperatures/

I had the opportunity to use similar analysis for work (actually I gave my samples to very good analytical chemists most of the time, although I actually operated crude versions the analytical equipment myself.) I’ve studied and validated the veracity of the earth’s temperature (and CO2) measurements.

James Lovelock and Roger Revelle both turned denier in later years. Most deniers at iccc9 were over 60.
Richard Lindzen and Rhamstorf had a good debate.

It’s tough to teach old dogs new tricks.

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/L_R-Exchange.pdf

Note I plan to write additional memos for your pleasure. One topic will be why anecdotes are not useful as scientific proofs.

On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Jason Thompson <goi.thompson@gmail.com> wrote:
I don’t trust anybody. I try and weigh the facts and information by themselves.

Solar physicist sees global cooling ahead

This website gets a lot of traffic. They cite and report on peer reviewed climate journal articles.

We are at the end of an inter glacial period. Ice is way worse than warming… Historically.

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 11, 2016, at 11:32 AM, Lynn Lanier <climatelhlani@gmail.com> wrote:

Jason,

My comments on melting Antarctic Ice.

Following are links that describe what I was saying about melting/growing Antarctic Ice. It’s obvious a complex problem. Much of the Eastern side is growing based on NASA surveys. It’s logical that the ice sheet might grow since due to global warming there is more evaporation and subsequently more precipitation.
However, the oceans are warming. Al Gore has a slide that shows the enthalpy of the ocean increasing equivalent to 300,000 Hiroshima Bombs going off every day. (I checked the calculations – it’s about right.) Scientists have found that the warming oceans are undercutting the ice mainly under western Antarctica. (Note much of these glaciers are sitting on inlets of water and not land.) As these glaciers weaken they’ll eventually break off. Estimates are all over the map, but the most likely scenarist is that Antarctic Ice Melt will contribute significantly to sea level rise. However Greenland ice is currently melting at a faster rate than Antarctica – about 186 gigatonnes annually.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/antarctica-meltdown-could-double-sea-level-rise/
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/yet-another-antarctic-ice-mass-becoming-destabilized-scientists-report

https://www.esr.org/polarscience/padman_nature.html
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/greenland-ice-loss-accelerates-110-year-old-record-reveals/

Enjoy,
Lynn

P.S. I’m careful about my sources. I generally trust Scientific American and the Journal Nature. Also Yale, NASA and NOAA have been good sources for climate data. I do double check non-scientists like Al Gore, etc.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s