Jim D,
Theory, please. According to my understanding of your understanding we’ve been warming as a result of anthro CO2 since +/- 1950 (before, but attribution issues). CO2 has continued to increase yet sometime shortly after 1998 the associated heat was shifted to predominately the oceans. Can you account for that shift?
A final point Joshua (cause I’m posting too much and I don’t want Dr. Curry to moderate me. :) ) regarding good faith.
I don’t particularly care what Don or jim2 or Peter Lang or tim56 or kim or Springer or etc. think of my arguments because there would be no point in my caring about that. They aren’t interesting in good faith exchange with me. So I’m wondering if you’re speculating about some hypothetical effect that my praising Judith for her virtues might have on some theoretical and persuadable denizen who doesn’t actually exist.
I sincerely believe that but for dumb luck, we would not be having a good faith exchange. If I had misunderstood only one or two of your ideas or even idioms, like the scare quotes early enough in our discussion, I might have drawn the conclusion that you were engaging in bad faith. Heck, look at me even today. The quote I used was completely inappropriate, based on an uncharitable and negative preconception about your position that had no basis. You had the grace to ignore it, but this could easily have triggered a crisis of bad faith.
Because once one party decides the other is harboring bad faith, the other party is likely to notice and respond in kind. It becomes a crisis, or at least a breakdown. Even if it is realized that a mistake has been made, it’s hard for us to back down. We’re rational animals, but we are animals. Our intelligence serves us, but it’s not all there is that governs us. It’s easier to stay on the attack once the mistake is made, and then the attacks become a reinforcing feedback cycle.
I suspect that many who exhibit ‘bad faith’ have never taken the trouble to try to understand what you’re really getting at. Maybe Don was right, and I’m naive, but it hasn’t been my experience that people in general aren’t willing to meet me halfway, even when my ideas are strange and different, hey, even when I’m dead wrong, so long as I take extreme care in how I communicate with them. I think. :/
Night all.
Dr. Curry, Please add my congratulations for the honor and best wishes
To repeat a note on a previous post, If a summary is 1,000 words or less, I can get in a local daily paper Over 50,000 hard copies, plus what is online.
It is, of course, AGW leaning under local pressure.
This will need stronger, effective testimony, such as:
Barack Obama: I will no longer take the Boeing 747 AF1 to California to raise money and play golf while Michelle and our daughters fly AF2 to Aspen to ski. Instead, we will take a fully Secret-Service-secured Southwest Air 737 to the Aspen airport, where Michelle and the kids will depart, and I will fly to Palm Springs, then pick them up on the way back. These planes will have 60 regular passengers, 100% vetted by TSA to be safe, to make the flights per-person energy efficient.
For our Christmas vacation, we will no longer fly the 747 to Haawaii. We will get a comparable tropical vacation by going to Cuba; we’re going to enlist volunteer Team USA rowing members to take us in a replica Roman galley from Key West to Havana, and back. The oars people will be comprised of 50% women Olympians.
For our Martha’s Vineyard vacations, we will take the train, in a private car, with our dogs, and the rest of the train filled with regular, TSA-vetted passengers, then board a bus to take us to the island.
Al Gore: I’m opening my Montecito house to share with 20 UCSB and SB Community College students. They will grow organic fruits and vegetables in the back and front yard, for us to eat, and to sell at the weekend farmer’s market. I will no longer emit vast quantities of CO2 flying by private jet, but will do video conferencing.
All members of the IPCC who have left Sasquatch-sized CO2 footprints flying first class and private jets to Rio, Copenhagen, Bali, and Lima have signed a pledge to teleconference the Paris 2015 meeting, because they no longer wantt to give the blatant, true impression that they fecklessly produce vastly more CO2 than the little people whom they purport to be speaking for, who must accept
CO2 cutbacks.
Leonardo DeCaprio: I’m selling all my multi-million dollar residences. I’m moving to a fully-functional 600 sq foot sustainable condo in Santa Monica, and I’m buying a super-sustainable 240 sq foot apartment in New York, because I need to set an example, in standing for the need to reduce C)2 production. Also, I may attend another World Cup, and host parties on a boat. But next time, I’m sailing on a 50 foot sailboat, and helping man the manually-powered winches . No more renting a 400-foot motor megayacht that burns a $400,000 tank of diesel. I believe leaders in the fight against global warming need to walk the walk, not just talk the talk.
All these voices for C02 reduction are committed to set righteous examples for the little people to be inspired by and follow.
caugh/sard
We will no longer fly
Bulls-eye!
This is about where the extra CO2 is coming from. What is your opinion of that?
The ‘cascade’ is a social mechanism recognized by psychologists that serve to perpetuate perceptions that when expressed over and over, “trigger chains of individual responses,” as Kuran et al., say, “that make these perceptions appear increasingly plausible through their rising availability in public discourse. Availability cascades may be accompanied by counter-mechanisms that keep perceptions consistent with the relevant facts… The resulting mass delusions may last indefinitely, and they may produce wasteful or even detrimental laws and policies” (see, Kuran T and Sunstein CR (1999). Availability cascades and risk regulation. Stanford Law Review, 51(4): 683-768).
Mann’s fraudulent ‘hockey stick’ science and the continuing parroting of the nonsensical 97% consensus meme are examples of such social cascades. Believing the oceans are warming when there has been no global warming for going on up to 3 decades, depending on the data source used, is another cascade. Ask any Bostonian.
Dr. Curry and all the regulars here have been reading Josh’s gotchas and subtle misrepresentations for a long time. It’s great you two have hit it off, but the rest of us already know what Josh says and how he says it. We don’t misunderstand what he says. I find his general tactics despicable and I know I’m not the only one.
Well Mark, it could be that you are a better reader, more perceptive, luckier or just an all around better human being than Don or jim2 or Peter Lang or tim56 or kim or Springer or etc. or et al or ad infinitum and thus you are able to see that our joshie is a font of good faith. It could also be that the wisdom of the crowd is dead on in this case and joshie is a troll. Do you think that Judith is being dishonest here:
“Joshua, the key point is this. I have seen you comment very sensibly over at ATTP. Then you remark over there that you are trolling at CE.”
I don’t have any interest in seeing those ATTP clowns embrace and slap each other on the back so I haven’t read it myself, but I don’t doubt that joshie goes over there to brag to his fellow travelers that he is trolling grande dame heretic Judith’s blog and they enjoy a good chortle.
So you have on the one hand joshie being more than willing to talk the ears off a billygoat to convince anyone slightly receptive that he is conversing in good faith, out the other side of his mouth he is a self-confessed braggart troll. Is that a mixed metaphor, Mark? Am I making myself understood?
Jim D,
One thing I’ve come to know about your approach, and to be clear I respect your passion, you avoid questions. If you have no theory or explanation (no one can know all) then please just say so.
Yes my question interrupted a thread, but it’s still a valid question.
That’s what I’m talkin bout, jim2. You beat me to it with an economy that is refreshing among a thread of too many eyeglazing 9 inch long comments. We need an ignore feature.
It will be interesting to see what posture the democrats (if any show) take with you since your are one of the 7 deniers
you might experience a bit of rough weather
of the 100% anthropogenic sort
I mean, if they are human :)
lots of really great restaurants in DC
I fondly recall 3 am eggs benedict at Au Pied De Cochon
Your answer on Salby’s idea tells me what level I am going to answer at. In fact, if you agree with Salby, it is hardly worth my answering your question, because it won’t make any difference to a mind that is already made up.
I echo all the kind thoughts, congratulations and well wishes and add a hearty thank you.
I’ve not read Dr. Curry’s link yet. Started work today at 8 am and it’s now 10 pm. Had time to check in a bit at lunch and that question struck me while reading so I posted it. There’s my answer.
Yours? (I’ll read in the am if there is one). But I can’t imagine how if Salby exists or has a discussion out there, it would address my question but maybe it does. If so, just say so. Or you could answer.
You will be disappointed in my answer. Two words: natural variation. It can’t warm all the time. The last 15 years have been warming, and the next El Nino will probably be the warmest yet, the same way the La Ninas during the “pause” have been the warmest yet.
Judith:
Judith:
And yet, sadly, whatever you say will eventually be accepted as being wrong. I have given you the real reason for climate change–which has nothing to do with greenhouse gasses, and which you have unscientifically chosen to ignore.
thanks for taking the heat of Kim
JCH
“Almost all of the land uptake of anthropogenic emissions is done by forests. Grass, food crops, weeds, etc., pretty much net out.”
So ignore the biomass in the sea?
Look at Hadrian’s wall, 20 foot under sequestered biomass,
go to a river bank and look at all the buried logs in the bank.
Look at coal and oil
Not all CO2 storage is slow
Given the question in the title: Scientifically Justified or a New Tax on Americans? I think I would opt for scientifically justified. Judith should too. However, I don’t think this committee would like either answer.
Steve, after that I’d work with my “sales guy” on what were the maybe 3 points I wanted them to remember once they walked away, since that’s about all most people who listen are going to remember.
