Utopia Talk / Politics / Earth resilience to carbon-levels?

Nekran Member	Sun Jan 31 17:34:57 Dropping Water Vapor Levels are Naturally Negating Carbon's Warming Effects Mother Earth appears to be solving the carbon-based warming "problem" for us The U.S. is currently considering legislation that would enact steep restrictions on carbon emissions. Already burdened from high insurance costs, high taxes, and a struggling economy, Congress is asking Americans to shoulder another load -- an estimated cost of $1,600 per citizen per year to fight warming. And internationally climate change proponents have suggested other major lifestyle restrictions, such as bans on meat consumption and air travel. Recently there has been a rash of incidents in which climate alarmists have been embarrassingly caught falsifying data or exaggerating facts and figures. James Hansen, head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City, a leading climatology center, was found to have several curiously increased sets of temperature data in his studies, which he claimed were the result of a pesky Y2K bug. At England's East Anglia University, emails leaked from the prestigious Climate Research Unit that revealed that the university's researchers intentionally falsified data temperature data and suppressed scientists who criticized warming. The incident led to the center's director and prominent warming advocated, Phil Jones, to "temporarily" step down. And most recently Rajendra Pachauri, an Indian official who was curiously appointed head of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) despite not having any formal climate training, was forced to retract statements in a 2007 report which has been used by countries worldwide as a basis for the need to adopting sweeping emissions restrictions. Mr. Pachauri, who won the Nobel Peace Prize, along with Al Gore, for his warming work, is now being pressured to resign. Despite the apparent bias of many climate researchers, they do have one thing right; carbon levels have risen notably over the twentieth century from about 300 ppm to 375 ppm. While still far from the estimated levels of around 3,000 ppm during the time of the dinosaurs (appr. 150 MYA), the rising levels do mark a legitimate trend. However, there is increasing evidence that the rising carbon, contrary to alarmist reports is actually having remarkably little effect on global temperatures. A new study authored by Susan Solomon, lead author of the study and a researcher at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Boulder, Colo. could explain why atmospheric carbon is not contributing to warming significantly. According to the study, as carbon levels have risen, the cold air at high altitudes over the tropics has actually grown colder. The lower temperatures at this "coldest point" have caused global water vapor levels to drop, even as carbon levels rise. Water vapor helps trap heat, and is a far the strongest of the major greenhouse gases, contributing 36â??72 percent of the greenhouse effect. However more atmospheric carbon has actually decreased water vapor levels. Thus rather than a "doomsday" cycle of runaway warming, Mother Earth appears surprisingly tolerant of carbon, decreasing atmospheric levels of water vapor -- a more effective greenhouse gas -- to compensate. Describes Professor Solomon, "There is slow warming that has taken place over the last 100 years. But from one decade to another, there can be fluctuations in the warming trend." The study was published in the prestigious journal Science. The new research could help explain why despite tremendously higher carbon levels, the planet was not inhospitable hundreds of millions of years ago. By lowering water vapor levels, the planet might have been able to compensate, at least partially, for atmospheric carbon levels nearly 10 times higher than today's. Admittedly the picture is still not clear about how our planet reacts to changes in atmospheric composition. Other factors may also be at play in helping the Earth balance temperatures, including ocean currents and solar activity. Ironically, no global warming model appears to accurately consider changing water vapor levels, and few offer decent consideration to solar activity. Thus much of the model based research used to predict warming is likely badly flawed. Despite the fact that current evidence points to a minimum role of carbon in affecting our planet's climate, the expensive movement to ban or restrict carbon globally retains significant momentum. It remains to be seen whether politicians choose to consider the latest unbiased research, or instead forge ahead on a crusade against the rather weak greenhouse gas. ==== Mostly interested in hearing the opinions of our more scientifically inclined posters (like Saiko and Seb) on this article, considering it being published in Science. I myself have been following the debates with a lot of interest, but don't generally consider myself knowledgable enough to participate much.
Nekran Member	Sun Jan 31 17:35:34 Oops source is dailytech: http://tinyurl.com/ya6dnyr
Cthulhu Tentacle Rapist	Sun Jan 31 17:51:53 'Ironically, no global warming model appears to accurately consider changing water vapor levels,' Thank fucking God this has finally been brought up in the scientific community.
Seb Member	Sun Jan 31 18:10:21 The news article posted is crap: "According to the study, as carbon levels have risen, the cold air at high altitudes over the tropics has actually grown colder" This is a natural consequence of global warming, heat is trapped at lower levels, so heat input into the higher atmosphere drops. What it is reporting on (having brielfy read elsewhere) is very interesting. The keyword used regarding H20 is accurately. Water vapour models are considered, they may be modelled incorrectly or naively. But before we break out the champagne and start buying coal stocks, consider the following: Do we entirely know the water vapour effect is driven by CO2? If it is, do we know if this is long term, or merely CO2 forcing enhancing cyclical changes linked to large scale weather climate patterns (e.g. Souther Oscilation)? Will this effect saturate (giving us a sudden acceleration 20 years hence)? The fact that if this work is correct and models are inaccurate, it suggests a naive treatment fails dramatically, which means a more complex approach needs to be considered, and complex systems rarely give us "nice" answers (i.e. that water vapour will naturally cancel out global warming in a nice and ordered way). I look forward to reading the paper properly later, I would be very happy if it turns out we have a climate system that is balanced in this respect. But until it is shown, economic studies all seem to suggest pretty much that the precautionary approach is to cut emissions.
Cthulhu Tentacle Rapist	Sun Jan 31 18:15:30 What I want explained is why we need to worry so much about an increase of 75 ppm when carbon levels are estimated at 2625 ppm above current levels during the time of the dinosaurs. Estimated temperatures are not all that much higher at that range.
garyd Member	Sun Jan 31 19:33:44 As a matter of fact. The one thing the East anglia Emails taken in toto apear to full demonstrate is that this global warming crap has far more to do with getting funding than science. The minute global warming is proven to be nonsense a hell of a lot of climate scientist are going to lose a hell of a lot of funding and no one likes being kicked in the pocket book.
NeverWoods Member	Sun Jan 31 20:10:23 Nekran: Daily tech is usually good when it comes to tech news and when you want to know whats hot or not on the market, but when it covers science or even international news with there own writers they fail big time. Their staff is very pro US and anti-climate, so they are not the best source when you want to read about something objective. This is why i frequent daily tech less and less now days. Much better is arstechnica. http://arstechnica.com/science/
NeverWoods Member	Sun Jan 31 20:12:36 Same article you can compare it your self, I can't say i have read it tho. http://ars...dback-suggest-lower-impact.ars Estimate of CO2-temperature feedback suggests lower impact By John Timmer | Last updated January 27, 2010 6:03 PM NOAA It's fairly easy to calculate the direct impact of adding more greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere, since that involves basic radiative physics. But, as we mentioned previously, the climate isn't a static system, and changing the temperature induces all sorts of changes that can feed back into the climate. One of these is CO2 itself, as shifts in temperatures can induce alterations in its concentration in the atmosphere. A new paper in today's Nature suggests that this feedback is unlikely to be as large as some of the worst-case estimates. Estimating feedbacks is notoriously tricky business. Many of them take decades to reach a steady state, and our instrumental record is quite short. For longer time scales, researchers have to rely on temperature reconstructions from proxies, which have their own uncertainties, and only extend for about 1,000 years with any accuracy. Ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica allow us to go longer still, but that record is dominated by the glacial cycle, which is unlikely to be directly relevant to our current situationâ??in glacial cycles, changes are driven by orbital variations, and the feedbacks from the gain or loss of giant ice sheets are enormous. So, for better or for worse, the new paper focuses on the previous millennium, specifically the period from 1050 to 1800. That period eliminates earlier times, when the proxy temperature reconstructions are still considered a bit unreliable, and stops before industrialization started having a large impact on the atmosphere's composition. Still, the authors note that the human population was quite significant during this period, and could have driven significant changes in the atmosphere via land use. The estimates for this impact, however, are considered very speculative, so they were not examined as part of the primary analysis. That analysis gathered a number of proxy temperature reconstructions available in the literature, and used CO2 data from ice cores. The authors recognized that the proxy reconstructions involve a variety of assumptions: the period used for calibration, constraints for amplitude or absolute value of temperature changes, etc. So, to deal with that, they simply ran their analysis once for each possible combination of calibration and smoothing, producing almost 230,000 runs in all. Obviously, those different runs produced different results, but the authors used them to generate a statistical measure of the most likely feedback on CO2 levels, and to estimate the confidence interval for these measures. For the entire period, the median feedback comes in at 7.7 parts-per-million for each degree (C) of temperature change. The likely range is anywhere between 1.7 to 21.4 ppm per degree. Earlier estimates had run as high as 200ppm/°C, so that's quite good news in that sense. However, negative values are also unlikely based on this analysis, so there's no indication that some temperature-activated carbon sequestration mechanism (like accelerated plant growth) will help stabilize the climate, at least in the near term. One caveat to the results came when the authors split the analysis period roughly in half, so that the earlier portion (1050-1549) covered a relatively warm period, while the later one included the Little Ice Age. The warm period was characterized by a lower mean (4.3 ppm/°C) and smaller variation, but the value changed suddenly at the onset of the Little Ice Age, which raised the mean to 16.1 ppm/°C and increased the range of values. All of which suggests that the feedback value may be sensitive to the precise conditions. I could go on for a while listing other potential caveatsâ??the authors are extremely conservative, and their list of potential confounders is quite long. Their conclusions are bit mixed, as well. They start by saying that their results, combined with a few other recent studies, suggest "reduced possibilities for unwelcome surprises within the next century." But they follow that with a long list of factors that could produce unwelcome surprises in the presence of rapidly rising CO2 levels. So, the take home is a bit of a mixed bag. To provide one of my own, this seems to represent a solid initial effort, and the analysis performed here will produce better results when provided with less uncertain data regarding ice core measurements, temperature proxies, and the like. Better yet, the news appears to be good: under the conditions that prevailed during the last millennium, increasing temperatures add more CO2 to the atmosphere, but not the sorts of massive quantities that would make this a major feedback. The most significant uncertainties result from the fact that those conditions no longer prevail.
garyd Member	Sun Jan 31 20:18:25 The giant Spike in CO2 is almost certainly the Result of the Massive Tambora eruption which is now believed by many to have triggered the little ice age.
NeverWoods Member	Sun Jan 31 20:19:54 ^Ignore this clown, if you haven't already.
garyd Member	Sun Jan 31 20:25:37 You don't like the info argue with the science channel. That's where I got plus a little deduction.
NeverWoods Member	Sun Jan 31 20:26:54 Link?
garyd Member	Sun Jan 31 20:27:33 Oh and Never if that's waht you really want I'll ignore you igorant mindless drivel in the future.
saiko Member	Sun Jan 31 20:38:50 "The minute global warming is proven to be nonsense a hell of a lot of climate scientist are going to lose a hell of a lot of funding and no one likes being kicked in the pocket book." Yeah, tenure, academic freedom, all those other commie things you hate? They prevent that from being an argument, even if it were the case.
NeverWoods Member	Sun Jan 31 20:43:00 So let me get this straight, you are saying you get everything from science channel yet there is nothing that you can show that backs that up. You know what they call that on UP? The Garyd pulling it from his ass fact's. You are nothing but a clown, you are only here for our amusement and at times you do deliver on it. Keep on amusing us court jester.
NeverWoods Member	Sun Jan 31 20:44:13 Now that HR is gone you are a good replacement.
licker Sports Mod	Sun Jan 31 20:57:52 "Yeah, tenure, academic freedom, all those other commie things you hate? They prevent that from being an argument, even if it were the case. " You are quite simply wrong about how funding is obtained, and how important it is to most scientists. Sure tenure lets you keep your job (well until the regents agree to push you out) and academic freedom lets you propose to study whatever you want. But the bottom line is that if you are not bringing in funding to your university you are not getting the best lab space, the best students, administrative support, ... There are alot of ways unis can piss on profs they decide not to support anymore for whatever reason. Though your lack of understanding of the system (in the US anyway) doesn't really matter. It's the politicians who are running this show anyway, which is probably why it's getting such bad press lately, because, you know, everyone hates fucking politicians.
garyd Member	Sun Jan 31 21:04:24 http://a61...guides/ice_age_study_guide.pdf That's the Tambora link. If academic freedom wasn't being willfully suppressed by East Anglia likely among others you might actually have a point Saiko. For me and hopefully others that was to me the single most damning thing in those Emails was there attempts to silence their critics within the science community.
Nimatzo Member	Sun Jan 31 21:22:47 Isn't this part of the Gaia theory? I read it in the book we had for environmental studies back in the uni days. It raised a tiny bit of interest with me so I took it up during class, the teacher kinda laughed at the idea, but then added that, maybe in the future people will laugh at people like her for thinking like that...
garyd Member	Sun Jan 31 21:25:05 Gaia theory?
Nimatzo Member	Sun Jan 31 21:35:57 Hypothesis actually. It is worth reading about and if you don't look at world as a living organism, it bears some tiny merit.
Hrothgar Member	Sun Jan 31 21:55:55 I still maintain that whether global warming turns out to be man caused or not, it's happening currently. Melting glaciers and ice caps don't lie. Add to this that there is only good things to be said bad about humanity learning to live cleaner as a species and I don't see the case for outrage against global warming action. So in the worst case "global warming fight" scenario we spend huge money figuring out how to go about a modern world without pumping CO2 or other pollutants out into the air and it turns out global warming is out of our hands. We still win as a race for figuring out how to breath less smog and keeping some forests/wilderness around.
Seb Member	Sun Jan 31 22:18:01 Garyd: Your continued reference to east anglia emails is kind of like someone endlessly bleating "watergate" whenever anyone mentions republican. Be specific.
Nekran Member	Mon Feb 01 01:02:02 "Nekran: Daily tech is usually good when it comes to tech news and when you want to know whats hot or not on the market, but when it covers science or even international news with there own writers they fail big time. Their staff is very pro US and anti-climate, so they are not the best source when you want to read about something objective." I know, but I was assuming Seb/saiko would (have) read the study properly anyways... their introductory repetition of the little scandals is hardly the part that interested me. I do trust them to articulate the findings of the new study at least pretty accurately. "I look forward to reading the paper properly later" Would be cool if you'd share your thoughts on it too.
hoER Member	Mon Feb 01 05:42:49 Rofl, science staking its good reps and faking this to get better students to work with them (strange they want better students for intentionally bad science - I guess they want to get exposed) vs. enormous corporations once again faking shit to make billions...yeah, the motives really compare. dumbfucks
Seb Member	Mon Feb 01 08:13:59 nekran: Realcimate has a nice summary. Still not read the main paper, the link to our collaborators isn't working so I don't have journal access ATM. http://www.realclimate.org/
Nekran Member	Mon Feb 01 08:16:18 Thanks, will be reading that this afternoon :)
Seb Member	Mon Feb 01 08:18:06 licker: "if you are not bringing in funding to your university" The thing is, this model of funding is at it's most extreeme in the US, and in substantial parts of Europe the pressures just don't work in this fashion. If this was the case, you would think American science would be warbling about GW, and everyone else would be going "eh?", but this is not in fact the case. The hypothesis does not appear to explain the observed phenomena.
saiko Member	Mon Feb 01 08:42:26 You know, the sad thing about all this obvious hyperbole ("CRU FALSIFIED CLIMATEGATE WRBL") is that we're going to get used to ignoring claims of falsified data. If now someone actually finds falsified climate data, we're just going to lump them in with the retard cloud.
Seb Member	Mon Feb 01 08:50:28 True. Sigh... muppets.
saiko Member	Mon Feb 01 11:26:10 Related: http://xkcd.com/570/ (especially the m/o)
Seb Member	Mon Feb 01 15:13:59 annoyingly, I don't seem to have access to Science. This is most annoying.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Feb 01 16:30:41 Lots of problems with this article(and sebs response). First and most obviously there are currently about 4 reliable upper air balloon launches in the entire tropics of the entire planet. No, im not exagerating by much. And these dont go back that far. It wasnt long ago that only sporadic radiosounds were launched in the vicinity of tropical storms in tropical basins controlled by the US, and no where else in the tropics. So to claim you can accurately tell what the upper atmosphere is doing in the tropics accurate to a fraction of a degree is probably bullshit. To claim that you can see an accurate trend over a relevantly long period of time is CERTAINLY BULLSHIT, because their are no reliable records for upper atmospheric data that go back any more than a few decades. Even over major western population centers. It is hard to imagine that the upper atmosphere will A) cool or B) lose humidity as the planet warms. Neither of these statements would match well with basic weather theory. It is certainly possible that the upper atmosphere changes at a different rate, but to expect it(the average of the entire tropopausic region) to go the opposite direction of the surface is not logical. Now sebs reaction that the article is crap is correct. Your statement that warm air will be trapped down low is not correct. Why would you think warm air would stay low? Warm air rises. Especially the tropical circulation cell is powered most directly by its own hot air with little affect from other influences. Now, the honor for most retarded post in this thread goes straight to garyd for this little gem: "The giant Spike in CO2 is almost certainly the Result of the Massive Tambora eruption which is now believed by many to have triggered the little ice age. " lol. Where to start. Im just going to say that not only is everything in that statement wrong, but is in fact pretty much the exact opposite of what actually happened. --------------------- And like ive said a million times, a slowly warming planet will probably(almost certainly?) cost us less than drastic economic changes now.
Holocaust Harry Member	Mon Feb 01 16:57:23 "Now, the honor for most retarded post in this thread goes straight to garyd for this little gem: "The giant Spike in CO2 is almost certainly the Result of the Massive Tambora eruption which is now believed by many to have triggered the little ice age. " lol. Where to start. Im just going to say that not only is everything in that statement wrong, but is in fact pretty much the exact opposite of what actually happened." Lol
Seb Member	Mon Feb 01 20:07:46 Sam: Paper talks of stratosphere, not troposphere. As the main area where the CO2 kicks in is the troposphere/stratosphere boundary, the change in radiation transfer caused by CO2 that amounts to reflecting long wave radiation downward means a decrease in heat input into the stratosphere, and an increase into the troposphere and surface, which heats up until the heat "reflected" in long wave is transmitted through shorter wavelengths instead, which are less well retained in the stratosphere, hence the stratosphere cools. IIRC, the stratosphere actually has positive temperature gradient due to ultraviolet absorbtion, which makes it very stable, with next to no precipitation or weather phenomenon. Also my understanding that there is next to no convection into the stratopshere, and low densities mean that there is very little conduction of heat. That is my understanding. Yes, the paper is based on rather sparse data and has large error bars, so I read (anyone who has access to Science, would love to get a copy of the paper, PM me) that is some of the criticisms being brought to bear. What is highly amusing is to watch some denialists sieze upon it as proof that climate models are wrong (some climate models actually exhibit this effect as an emergent property... which is kind of a plus on the modelling side) and/or global warming is a fraud... despite the fact it is a single study, with sparse data and huge error bars, and doesn't even conclude what half the media are reporting it to conclude... BTW, when I said the article is crap, I don't mean that the paper is crap, I mean the article quoted in the OP. I haven't read the paper yet, but it sounds interesting and unlike the shitty cosmic cloud formation paper and some other solar related ones, it doesn't have obvious and immediate problems with it.
nubajes Member	Mon Feb 01 20:26:37 So now we know JB is the spammer
Judge Dredd Member	Mon Feb 01 20:45:28 When the creationistas cant win they try to destroy the evidence instead.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Feb 01 21:05:04 "IIRC, the stratosphere actually has positive temperature gradient due to ultraviolet absorbtion, which makes it very stable, with next to no precipitation or weather phenomenon. Also my understanding that there is next to no convection into the stratopshere" True. Powerful thunderstorms can briefly punch into the lowest levels of the stratosphere, thats about it. This is still in the tropopause boundary. Once you get into the stratosphere proper, you lack any weather at all and the atmosphere is so thin, it really is ignored in most forecast discussions, models, etc. And by definition, the statosphere proper is where heat from the ozone layer matters more than heat from the surface, this being why the stratosphere starts warming with height. So your talking about a secondary heating mechanism for an area of the atmosphere that 1) is usually ignored and 2) is really thin anyways. A fairly average start to the proper stratosphere is somewhere around 50mb... 95% of the atmosphere being below this height. So a slight change to the stratosphere would result in an even slighter change(if any) down here where it matters.
Seb Member	Mon Feb 01 21:49:23 Sam: So, you are telling me that your weather models do not model the area that is of key importance for radiation transport... Clearly the stratosphere is important for heat budget of the planet, as heat has to travel through it in order to be radiated into space. There is no where else for it to go... and if convection and conduction are limited, then the only mechanism is through long wave radiation (the surface isn't hot enough to glow...). Simply dismissing it as unimportant and unable to affect us down here clearly isn't correct. Perhaps for weather, but not for issues important to the climate. Perhaps this is where the big dissonance comes in between your weather models and global climate models... radiation transport is not important for weather formations, but critical for understanding global heat transport, and thus heat content of the entire system.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Feb 01 22:11:49 The main difference is simply time and grid scales. Radiation transport is KEY for any forecast. How much the surface cools tonight has a huge impact on weather tomorrow morning(and obviously everything after that)... and changes based on cloud cover, type of terrain, altitude, season, etc. Look, you have to draw the line somewhere. Your not going to model the atmosphere on up into low earth orbit, are you?
licker Sports Mod	Mon Feb 01 23:06:02 "The thing is, this model of funding is at it's most extreeme in the US," Which is the system I was talking about. "If this was the case, you would think American science would be warbling about GW," Maybe you have a different definition of 'warbling' than I do, but how do you figure that pleasing your regents by bringing in funding would make it more likely for researchers to submit grant proposals which are less likely to be accepted?
garyd Member	Mon Feb 01 23:24:56 Seb the first ten I looked at were often full of complaints about getting funding for one project or the other. The e mail I cited in the other thread was laced with caveats about proxie data. Data I might add upon which the whole of the warming battle is built. Hrothgar, We don;'t know what most of the glaciers in the world are doing. for the over whelming majority we simply don't have any long term data. A good bit of the antartic Ice sheet according to a 2004 study is getting thicker. The notion that global warming even if it is happening is an unmitigated disaster is not necessarily true.
hoER Member	Tue Feb 02 03:07:48 He obviously doesnt watch science channel very well since Sam just explained he posted almost the exact opposite of the truth...
Seb Member	Tue Feb 02 06:53:55 garyd: So your big complaint is, like licker, that the researchers were funded... as opposed to all the good science out there that is unfunded... and all the bad, untrustworthy, unfunded science like er.. all of it actually. As for caveats, in the literature my man, or addresed.
Holocaust Harry Member	Tue Feb 02 07:17:40 Damn those scientists and their millionaire yachts, Monte Carlo vacations, banquets and orgies with hot chicks, fast cars and general lifestyles of wallowing in luxury. Bring back those idealistic oil conglomerate executives, they dont do shit like that!
Seb Member	Tue Feb 02 07:21:17 Licker: Are of course, all the rest of the worlds climate researchers are finding the same things "deliverately" such is the awesome power of AMERICA!!! Besides, the mechanism works for every other area of science. Lets boil it down to the essence: Researchers will always find what the people who pay them most want to see. Licker, you are paid, are telling me that your findings are doctored to tell your ultimate paymaster what he wants to hear? Sam: Yeah, the point is that stratosphere is included in a lot of climate models because that is where the driving effect is.
Holocaust Harry Member	Tue Feb 02 07:42:38 Texaco vice chairman, John Watson: Compensation for 2008 Salary $800,417.00 Bonus $0.00 Restricted stock awards $3,283,279.00 All other compensation $79,239.00 Option awards $ $1,691,099.00 Non-equity incentive plan compensation $975,000.00 Change in pension value and nonqualified deferred compensation earnings $157,861.00 Total Compensation $6,986,895.00 Seb, hazard a guess on the vice headmaster of East Anglia Universitys salary and bonus?
Holocaust Harry Member	Tue Feb 02 07:45:44 Even more fun, could you hazard a guess at the headmasters annual compensation, compared to this: Salary $1,650,000.00 Bonus $0.00 Restricted stock awards $8,079,218.00 All other compensation $266,884.00 Option awards $ $5,008,413.00 Non-equity incentive plan compensation $3,220,000.00 Change in pension value and nonqualified deferred compensation earnings $1,046,734.00 Total Compensation $19,271,249.00
Holocaust Harry Member	Tue Feb 02 07:46:16 I couldnt find the boss of east anglia Uni at forbes...not sure why...
Holocaust Harry Member	Tue Feb 02 07:47:03 http://people.forbes.com/profile/david-j-o-reilly/18146
Holocaust Harry Member	Tue Feb 02 07:55:27 Whoops, missed another 30 million dollars or so. Number of securities underlying options exercisable 1,947,199 Number of securities underlying options unexercisable 885,001 Value of unexercised options, currently exercisable $28,364,470.00 Value of unexercised options, currently unexercisable $6,060,933.00
saiko Member	Tue Feb 02 07:56:22 licker, "pleasing your regents" I don't think most scientists care about 'pleasing their regents'. In fact, I doubt most scientists know who 'their regents' are. Seb, "you are paid, are telling me that your findings are doctored" Seriously, you haven't figured out licker's profession? :)
Seb Member	Tue Feb 02 08:51:17 Saiko: QC or something isn't it?
Seb Member	Tue Feb 02 08:53:20 I don't actually keep too much track of these things... even with the people I know are not trolls or multi's, in principle it is too easy to claim to be something you are not and that sort of bleeds into a general apathy. If people tell me, I am likely to remember. If they are a bit cryptic, I tend to not bother to find out.
saiko Member	Tue Feb 02 09:13:18 well, he's never said afaik. But he knows a bit, ut not too much, about academics, he occasionally takes in a seminar, has some basic knowledge of some scientific literature, and couldn't construct a logical argument to save his life. That makes him either a medical doctor or... :)
Sam Adams Member	Tue Feb 02 09:29:51 "Yeah, the point is that stratosphere is included in a lot of climate models because that is where the driving effect is. " I honestly dont know exactly where the operational models end... there exact internal works are a bit complicated:P I know where the model output ends(usually in the mid tropopause). There could be some higher level stuff that is calculated but never output, but I kindof doubt it. Logically that means I dont know what the climate models end either. But id be pretty surprised if all or even most of them went above the tropopause. Its a good place to stop.
Seb Member	Tue Feb 02 09:55:55 Sam: Not for a long term climate model! Weather models don't run for long enough time scales you would expect changes in the chemistry of the stratosphere on any significant level, so you would model it in terms of a boundary condition in terms of heat out and in heat in. Particularly if there is negligable conduction and convection. On the other hand climate models *have* to model it on some level, at least in terms of the temperature gradients and chance in chemistry and what effects those have on radiation transport: the main physics goes on there. Even if radiation transport isn't done explicitly in the climate models, but paramterised with rough scaling laws (radiative forcing and sensitivity) for various chemicals derived from a full treatment by radiative transport codes; you still need to model what changes in stratospheric composition and radiation transport occur as a consequence.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Feb 02 11:42:32 Since you cannot model the atmosphere to the very top, you are going to have to cut it off at some point and treat everything above as a relatively static boundary layer with a simpler set of equations. Indeed, it is possible that it would save computing power for the more important grids in the troposphere, making the model more accurate, with a lower cutoff rather than a higher. Many models use pressure levels rather than true altitude to set grid spacing, so the stratosphere only gets one layer, maybe 2. Maybe less than 1. Which would pretty much make it a boundary layer anyway. Im not sure how important this is given the inertness and thinness of the layer we are talking about. And im not sure anyone knows the answer to that question either, given that we have no verified climate forecasts as of yet over the time scales we are talking about
Seb Member	Tue Feb 02 11:49:14 Sam: You strike me as rather like a man complaining complaining about a ships propeller because it doesn't look very much like a jet engine fan. Ships propellers are designed to work in one fluid, jet engine fans in another. Climate models are looking for different effects than those which weather models seek to capture. The stratosphere ISN'T inert from the point of view of changes in radiative transport due to changes in stratospheric chemistry over periods of decades... this has to be modelled, or your climate model will simply be static. You simply can not model something if you leave out the physics you are trying to model. How they model is an open question, but they are likely to treat it rather differently to weather models.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Feb 02 11:55:54 But the stratosphere IS inert in that if we change its temperature by a degree or 2 by whatever radiative process you so choose, it doesnt have much effect on the atmospheric motion that is going on below it. And that is what you are looking at most closely if you are trying to get as specific as changes to precip patterns. And a lot of climate scientists claim to be able to model such things(haha, you know my opinion on that one).
Seb Member	Tue Feb 02 12:05:07 "But the stratosphere IS inert" Dude, the temperature change in the troposphere and the rest comes from the change in radiative transport in the stratosphere, which comes from the chemical composition of the stratosphere, not just in terms of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, but also natural CO2 emissions, water vapour and other feed back mechanisms. So the models have to model chemical changes, which would simply not be worthwhile in weather models. You may not get dramatic changes in pressures etc. (which is what you automatically think about in weather models), and what you do get may not have any impact at all on the troposphere, so weak is convective and conductive coupling between them, but you *do* get changes in radiative forcing and you have to model it: it's not inert, it's the driver for the rest of the system for a long term climate model.
Seb Member	Tue Feb 02 12:18:51 Nekran and others, another good article on the paper. http://www...r-vapor-in-global-warming.html
Seb Member	Tue Feb 02 12:19:08 Or at least, it smells good. Still can't find a copy.
charper Member	Tue Feb 02 12:24:39 Dude??? Yesterday we had to put up with Evil Seb, now we have to learn to live with Skateboard Seb?
Seb Member	Tue Feb 02 13:19:49 Damn... I've got this colleague and his californianesque language tics are very catching. We're all starting to use "Dude!" as an exclamatory prefix. I must introduce some Briticisms to the group, see if we can get people to start using "Don't be daft!".
Nekran Member	Tue Feb 02 13:20:40 Heh I use them both regularly... we pick and choose here on continental europe :D
licker Sports Mod	Tue Feb 02 14:03:43 I've never said what I do? Or you just don't want to admit that I know what I'm talking about. It doesn't really matter. Neither saiko nor seb are remotely qualified to discuss how funding is obtained in US graduate programs, so whatever you may believe about it is completely useless. You know where I work I assume? I know I've shared that.
Seb Member	Tue Feb 02 14:25:41 licker: Yeah, but you didn't make much of it and I am sloppy about retaining that kind of info once I am convinced "ok, this person has credentials and form that they get off of the instantly moderated to zero", a threshold which you are well above, even if we disagree on this issue. I know that's very rude of me, I appologise, I really ought to know what you do/where you work. There are two points I am making RE funding: 1. If the funding model in the US makes a warming bias, why is the science MORE warming results from outside the US? Generally, the political pressurs against warming (under republican admins anyway) seem to more than offset any such bias. 2. This line of argument can apply to *any* science... manifestly this isn't the case. So why is climate science a special case? It is not the only area of sciene with large scale economic policy impcat. And with the adendum that finding decisively against global warming would bring you dollars and kudos... particularly from those very rich organisations that would love to have such proof.
saiko Member	Tue Feb 02 15:23:21 "Neither saiko nor seb are remotely qualified to discuss how funding is obtained in US graduate programs" Graduate programs? I was talking about actual researchers, not grad students. AFAIK grad student funding is different from state to state and uni to uni, and half the time grad students do odd (teaching/admin) jobs to fund their costs. I have in fact worked in the US. "You know where I work I assume? I know I've shared that." Just ribbing. You sound like many of my engineer "oompa loompas of science" friends.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Feb 02 15:30:36 "Dude, the temperature change in the troposphere and the rest comes from the change in radiative transport in the stratosphere" no, most of the change comes from the radiative changes in the troposphere. The troposphere and tropopause(which includes the lower stratosphere) account for about 95% of the atmosphere.
licker Sports Mod	Tue Feb 02 15:31:13 "I was talking about actual researchers, not grad students. " So am I. "If the funding model in the US makes a warming bias, why is the science MORE warming results from outside the US?" I am unaware that this has been the case for the past 5+ years. Unless you are talking about the oil company scientists. However, it's pretty clear that I'm talking about academia. "his line of argument can apply to *any* science... manifestly this isn't the case." It can and it does. Manifestly no other research area has become as politicized as has this one. With possible exceptions to related fields such as renewable energy. Though in that field at least results are testable. Climate science is a unique field for a variety of reasons, all of which combine to form something of a perfect storm of funding requests. "And with the adendum that finding decisively against global warming would bring you dollars and kudos..." Though I think you agree with me that this isn't possible, not in the sense I think you mean it anyway.
Seb Member	Tue Feb 02 15:48:25 licker: "However, it's pretty clear that I'm talking about academia." That rather skates over the substantive point: If the results stem from funding models, why are the same results found when funding models are grosely different? F.ex in the UK, where EPSRC and PPARC hands university block grant studentships to award to whom the fuck they like to do whatever project they like, and research grants are asessed by peer review of dis-interested researchers (I.e. the particle physics rep has to sit out the voting on funding in awarded to pcle physics projects, though he may speak as to which is most important). It seems utterly bizarre to me that the funding model in the US should distort the thousands of researchers globally. As for the uniqueness of climate science, I disagree. Research in Economics, nuclear research, space research, evolution and biosciences, H1N1/vaccinations/health issues... All should see the same effects, yet we don't.
Seb Member	Tue Feb 02 15:49:32 "I am unaware that this has been the case for the past 5+ years." Was referring to Bush adminstrations insistance that government funded reports backpeddle, reword or supress results that disagreed with official govt. policy.
charper Member	Tue Feb 02 16:53:48 "F.ex in the UK, where EPSRC and PPARC hands university block grant studentships to award to whom the fuck they like" Oh great, now he's Hooligan Seb.
Cloud Strife Member	Tue Feb 02 16:57:26 The funding model in the US makes sense. You get funds if your project has potential benefit. If you want to do whatever you want, be a Math Professor.
licker Sports Mod	Tue Feb 02 17:40:40 "If the results stem from funding models, why are the same results found when funding models are grosely different? " They weren't until the politicians won the battle. There are still people who can make counter claims about GW, but as you know when you write a grant you usually have a conclusion in mind, something that the approvers will find nominally interesting, if not already in line with some claimed direction. In any case, are you claiming that there was no apparent collusion in the climatologist community to keep certain people from being published in certain journals? That at least was evident in the emails. "Research in Economics, nuclear research, space research, evolution and biosciences, H1N1/vaccinations/health issues... " I'll give you Economics, but it's not a science anyway. The rest? Are you daft?? ;) You cannot see the difference between science which relies entirely on models vs. science for which physical experiments can (and are) designed??? Do you think the H1N1 vaccine was designed off of some model with zero testing? Do you think that nuclear tests are not conducted (and I'm not talking bombs, I don't think you are either). Sure modeling may play a role in any number of scientific fields, but in the end it's the climatologists who are using the models as their sole case, since testing the hypotheses is utterly impractical. "Was referring to Bush adminstrations insistance that government funded reports backpeddle, reword or supress results that disagreed with official govt. policy. " That was NASA primarily, not an organization I was talking about. Though can I refer to the IPCC and those who have removed themselves as signatories from it due to the same pressure in reverse?
saiko Member	Wed Feb 03 06:23:17 "They weren't until the politicians won the battle." You're still sort of avoiding the point that American politicians are (a) against climate change mitigation and (b) not in a position to influence research in, say, Europe.
Seb Member	Wed Feb 03 09:19:03 licker: "That at least was evident in the emails." Not really. Some people said some rude things, no evidence of anything else (least of all because relevant stuff did, in fact, get published). "The rest? Are you daft?? ;)" You telling me that you don't have a problem in the states where people find teaching evolution in school controversial? "Do you think the H1N1 vaccine was designed off of some model with zero testing?" Do you think all of climate science is based of a computer model with no experimental data? The case doesn't really stack up. If it was all about securing funding, then why, when those pressures do not exist in the same way, are scientist in the rest of the world getting the same results?
saiko Member	Wed Feb 03 13:06:04 You should probably also be able to come up with a list of maverick scientists who published studies disproving AGW and losing their funding to people with worse CVs but different conclusions.
garyd Member	Wed Feb 03 18:45:10 Saiko even Bush was on board to some extent with global warming by the end of his first term he had nothing to do with killing Kyoto which was a dead letter here before he took office anyway. It died 95 to 1 in the US senate. And if you think the Majority of politicians -at least currently - don't buy into global warming you're not keeping up. The only thing their more into is getting reelected which has more to do with why we haven't yet gotten into the cap and trade scam that Europe has going yet and hasn't provably done anything yet. As far as oil companies sorry exxon and company could care less they do only slightly better than break even in any case on gasoline sales. the turn a much better profit of the food they sell in the convenience stores that are now attached at the hip to every gas pump in the country. Exxon for God's sake is now building wind farms and and inveting solar power research and they aren't alone. the people running those countries didn't get rich by being stupid.
charper Member	Wed Feb 03 19:03:28 rofl...where do you get the audacity to even post corporate fanboy... "High prices for crude oil, gasoline and natural gas helped Exxon Mobil Corp. to its highest-ever quarterly profit, $9.92 billion" Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico helped push futures prices for crude oil close to $70 a barrel and sent retail gasoline prices above $3 a gallon during the quarter. Natural gas prices rose to record highs. Members of Congress are under pressure from constituents to do something to bring down gasoline prices. A gallon of regular averaged about $2.57 nationally yesterday, according to an AAA-sponsored survey. "These gains come from pain at the pumps that the American people are feeling," Republican leaders, who have supported legislation to grant tax breaks to oil companies to encourage more production, yesterday called for an examination of high energy prices, including those for gasoline. "Whether it is fluctuating gas prices, disparities in gas prices at stations right next to each other, the sharp rise in natural gas costs, or the anticipated crunch for home heating oil, Americans are wondering what has happened to push costs through the roof," Frist said. The oil industry downplayed the profits. http://www...005/10/27/AR2005102700449.html
charper Member	Wed Feb 03 19:06:31 "The oil industry downplayed the profits. " Thats all the proof OilBoy needs.
garyd Member	Wed Feb 03 19:08:38 Helped does not mean caused dumb ass and who ever wrote that article doesn't know jack about exxon which buys far more oil than it produces. High crude prices hurt them more than they help them because of that. Ignoramus deluxi.
saiko Member	Thu Feb 04 04:15:28 "nd if you think the Majority of politicians -at least currently - don't buy into global warming you're not keeping up." Hardly the point. If politicians do drive research output, then between-country differences in political opinion should be reflected in between-country research conclusions. It is not. I know, I know, through grace and grace alone and so on, but this is a real-world application of logic.
charper Member	Thu Feb 04 04:40:04 "Helped does not mean caused " What? So? "who ever wrote that article doesn't know jack about exxon" Gay d vs. washingtonpost...who to believe, who to believe... ""The oil industry downplayed the profits. " Thats all the proof OilBoy needs. " Yupp.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: