The Observatory

12:00 PM - August 6, 2012

Muller’s media circus

Did the press fall for a climate-change publicity stunt?

By Curtis Brainard

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Email
• Print
• One Page

Comments Post a Comment

Please. It's should be its. Thanks.

#1 Posted by Brad Messer, CJR on Mon 6 Aug 2012 at 01:11 PM

Here we go again with the "climate change" thing:

1. The name of the computer model (or "ensemble" of computer models) that can accurately predict an average global temperature based on a specific atmospheric CO2 concentration is __________________.

2. The atmospheric CO2 concentration that will guarantee a steady average global temperature is __________ ppm.

3. The ideal average global temperature is _____________ K.

4. Assuming it's possible to set the global thermostat by varying the minute concentration of a single atmospheric constituent, the cost of lowering atmospheric CO2 is ____________ dollars, much cheaper than __________________ dollars, the cost of dealing with higher temperatures.

When you Warminginsts can fill in the blanks with defensible data, get back to us.

Until then, you need to be asking yourselves why you can respond to these rather fundamental questions.

#2 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 6 Aug 2012 at 01:11 PM

I meant in the article, not padlkiller's fine Comment.

#3 Posted by Brad Messer, CJR on Mon 6 Aug 2012 at 01:15 PM

Thank you, thank you, Mr. Brainard! Media bias and/or incompetence on AGW give me serious doubts about the future of science in America. I urge you would do more on the subject.

Sadly, Muller has degenerated into a self-promoting science huckster. He easily plays the media and the public for empty-headed fools. Richard Muller was NEVER a skeptic about AGW. Here are two telling examples of Muller's past statements on AGW.

"Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate." ---
17 Dec 03 MIT Tech Review ---http://www.technologyreview.com/news/402357/medieval-global-warming/2/

Wired: "And the third physics issue for presidents?"
Muller: "Global warming. There is a consensus that global warming is real. There has not been much so far, but it’s going to get much, much worse." --- 2Nov08 WIRED SCIENCE - Muller Interview -http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/11/physics-the-nex/

#4 Posted by Gerald Wilhite, CJR on Mon 6 Aug 2012 at 01:37 PM

I wonder on how many sites the bot that is padikiller has left the same factually challenged comment? The "criticisms" raised have been addressed countless times.

The number of molecules in a glass of beer is _________.

When you Denilaists can fill in that blank with a categorical figure, get back to us.

Until then, you need to be asking yourselves why you think glasses of beer exist.

#5 Posted by JG, CJR on Mon 6 Aug 2012 at 01:48 PM

The number of molecules in a [sixteen ounce] glass of [typical American] beer is 13,300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

Why?

A typical American beer is 90-95% water, 3-5% alcohol and and 1-2% other compounds.

Assuming we are dealing with a beer with 93% water content, 5% alcohol (ethanol) and 2% other inorganic and organic compounds, here is how it goes.

Water (H2O) has a molecular weight of 18 grams/mol.

Ethanol (CH3CH2OH) has a molecular weight of 46 grams/mol

The other compounds will have varying average molecular weights depending on the type of beer, however the molecular weight of gypsum (a common constituent) is 172 grams/mol.

A mole is a number (Avagadro's number) of molecules. Specifically it is 6.02 times 10 to the 23rd power.

So the average molecular weight of beer is 0.93 * 18 g/mol + 0.05 * 46 g/mol + 0.02 * 172 g/mol = 22.5 g/mol.

Now the density of beer is about 1.05 grams per cubic centimeter.

1 US fluid ounce = 29.57 cubic centimeters, so 16 US fluid ounces = 473.12 cubic centimeters.

473.12 cubic centimeters * 1.05 grams per cubic centimeter = 497 grams.

Thus, a 16 ounce glass of beer weighs 497 grams.

497 grams divided by 22.5 g/mol = 22.1 moles of beer.

Finally the total number of molecules of beer in a 16 ounce glass is 22.1 moles of beer times Avogadro's constant (6.02 * 10^23) = 1.33 * 10^25.

You Warminigists show this kind of data with your claims, and I'll be your first convert.

#6 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 6 Aug 2012 at 02:47 PM

Thanks, padikiller. My beer-denial days (hic) are finally over.

#7 Posted by warmingonger, CJR on Mon 6 Aug 2012 at 03:25 PM

Padikiller,
That was awesome. And you are correct. It is all statistical modelling and no one admits it. No empirical evidence. Period.

#8 Posted by Stephen, CJR on Mon 6 Aug 2012 at 04:15 PM

And even studies that have been peer reviewed should be viewed with a certain amount of skepticism until they have been confirmed in multiple subsequent studies and stood the test of time.

That has been the case............since the 1990's

#9 Posted by DS, CJR on Mon 6 Aug 2012 at 04:55 PM

We all know why Warmingists like Curtis are leery of Muller...

Muller isn't a Warmingist and they know it.

While in his so-called "conversion" he says he believes the BEST data indicates that AGW is a real phenomena, Muller has concluded that its effect is minimal and he isn't buying any the Chicken Little garbage that Warmingists need to sell to fulfill their anticapitalist agendas.

A single degree in 50 years won't cut it in the Warmingist circles. We need meltwater floods delivering polar bear carcasses to Central Park like next year... Not a couple of hundred years from now.

And if Watts is right, and if the BEST data is corrupt, then Muller's stance is subject to further revision.

#10 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 6 Aug 2012 at 05:47 PM

Brad Messer, when you can ask intelligent questions, we'll get back to you. For example, if you understood the thermal radiation heat transfer problems that describe global warming, you'd understand that CO2 doesn't create a stable global temperature. If people had a good solution to lowering the CO2, we'd be on that already. Calculating the cost of dealing with higher temperatures is unknown because, like your first question implies, the precise result of global warming and associated climate change is unknown. For example, how high will sea levels rise? Predictions vary by meters. If you've ever surveyed a coastal city, you'd know that the difference of one meter can mean the difference of thousands of acres being flooded or not flooded, just in one city. Ideal global temperature? Could possibly ask a more subjective question?

How about you go take a class on thermal radiation heat transfer and then get back to us.

#11 Posted by Jeff, CJR on Mon 6 Aug 2012 at 11:55 PM

"The number of molecules in a [sixteen ounce] glass of [typical American] beer is 13,300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000"

That's a suspiciously round number. I suspect you used a mental model of a glass far removed from the glasses in the real world, discounted what is known as the head effect of a freshly poured beer, omitted any temperature data which would affect the beer density, neglected to account any of the steps in the supposed beer cycle (pour, tip in mouth, tip in mouth, belch, tip in mouth, spill glass on patron, brawl, smash glass on floor, offer to buy another round, pour another beer - at which stage did you calculate your artificially round number?)

Doesn't all the data you left out make your implausible calculation irrelevant? How is anyone supposed to believe in beer based on your error ridden, unreflective of reality, math?

I'm afraid, based on your logic, you can't say beer exists for certain. It's probably a hoax brought to you by bartenders who are just after grant money and the women it attracts.

What a silly detour.

#12 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 7 Aug 2012 at 01:57 AM

Muller leaked the story in advance to gullible left-wing journalists who he knew would swallow the story unquestioningly and promote it with enthusiasm.
For example here is a tweet from the Guardian's climate propaganda man, Leo Hickman, on 28 July.
Leo Hickman ‏@leohickman
Significant climate-related news will be breaking on Guardian website in next 24-36 hours. Will post likely timing later...

#13 Posted by Janes, CJR on Tue 7 Aug 2012 at 04:36 AM

So what are you saying, Thimbles?

You don't trust the data in my beer calculation? Or the methodology?

You think that prudent practice demands skepticism of my conclusions?

I think you're onto something...

Thankfully, my data is there, my methodology is plain, my uncertainties are evident and the math is on paper, so anyone can criticize, correct or corroborate.

We call this type of thing S-C-I-E-N-C-E.

You Warmingists show me a similar process to support your conclusions, and I'll critique it similarly.

Until then, all you have is a religion, not science.

#14 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 7 Aug 2012 at 06:42 AM

I'm saying you're using the incompleteness of a model to deny the conclusions of the model, not because of SCIENCE, but because you don't like the conclusions.

And if you applied this standard to your everyday life, you'd deny the existence of beer based on lacking decimal points.

As I've said in the past:

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/lets_get_this_party_organized.php#comments

"Things have to be accounted for, not imagined they don't exist.
Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere has risen 60 ppmv in the last 50 years and the oceans have become more acidic, indicating a rise in carbon dioxide in solution.
If you do not believe that humans are not responsible, the A part in the AGW you deny, then you have to account where it is coming from. When someone says "Human activity is causing a rise in Carbon Doxide" you can't give the monty python argument guy answer "No, it isn't." and pretend that's scientific. You have to account for the source.

But let's say you don't. Carbon dioxide levels are just floating in the air in increasing amounts, no one knows why, but it's there. Science says that carbon dioxide absorbs radiation that would normally reflect back into space and transforms it into heat, which is why our planet is warm enough to sustain life. If you deny that increased Carbon Dioxide doesn't cause increased heat, the GW in the AGW you deny, you have to explain how that happens. You have to account for effect.

"No it isn't" is not a rebuttal of the theory of Carbon Dioxide induced global warming nor is it a rebuttal of our emissions being the culprit in the sudden rise. You have to account for the source and the effects. That there is a rise is measured numbers and they don't lie...

Predicting climate change is vastly more complicated than sending men to the moon [or calculating the molecules in a beer glass] because of the countless variables involved, but because some of the variables are dominant, we have predicted a a trajectory for global climate and, mainly because of political pressures and scientific trepidation towards pressing the panic button, the actual trajectory has exceeded the predicted model... I say the skeptics haven't produced a predictive model of the effects of rising carbon dioxide levels. They have always understated the effects and claim it will be a boon to most people since everybody likes warmer winters."

Where's your model Padi? What do you claim will happen as CO2 rates double? Oh. And do that thing where you show your data, explain your methodology, and put the math on paper, "so anyone can criticize, correct or corroborate.
We call this type of thing S-C-I-E-N-C-E."

You deny the findings of climate science, I want to know why, based on your conception of how the world really works.

Been waiting since 2009, perhaps today will be my lucky day.

#15 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 7 Aug 2012 at 10:51 AM

Thimbles tries to move the Warmingist goalposts: "Where's your model Padi?

padikiller responds: Why should I have a model? I'm not making any predictions about the climate. You are. I don't have the first clue what effect, if any, a minute increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration will have on global climate.

You Warminigists are the ones making predictions. You have the burden of proof. Defend your predictions with transparent data and methodology. That is ALL we skeptics are asking.

So let's try this again:

The name of the computer model (or "ensemble" of computer models) that can accurately predict the average global temperature based on a particular concentration of atmospheric CO2 is ________________________.

The data we can use to make accurate predictions can be found at ________________________.

The simple fact of the matter is that all you Warmingists have (aside from politically driven rhetoric) is a whole lot of nothin'.

When you can show the math (as I did in my beer calculation), I'll look at it. Methodology is proven by outcomes. You show me an accurate model and I'll become the Chief Warmingist.

But until then, all you have is a religion.

#16 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 7 Aug 2012 at 12:18 PM

padikiller: Uncertainty cuts both ways.

All scientific conclusions have uncertainties. Climate science has them too, as Thimbles explained, and they are larger than is desirable.

But many calculations through the decades say that some warming is expected from man's CO2 emissions. There's no doubt that it's nonzero, and past climate changes and state-of-the-art models say a doubling of atmospheric CO2 leads to about 2 to 4.5 C of warming. It may be a little less. It may be more -- climate is a very complex system, and has often changed quickly in the past. There are unknowns about this complex system.

So doing nothing has a cost, and it's large if reality turns out to be near the upper range of the uncertainties, or if it goes beyond them.

Besides, even the best physical model can't incorporate social factors like population increase and economic development. So your questions can't be accurately answered even in principle.

You are using ignorance as an excuse to avoid the problem. That's not how you run your own life -- you can't predict when your house will burn down, so you do all you can to see that it doesn't -- clean your chimney, for example, build with better materials, buy insurance, etc.

Uncertainty is not an excuse for inaction, especially when this is the only planet we have.

#17 Posted by David Appell, CJR on Tue 7 Aug 2012 at 10:23 PM

"padikiller responds: Why should I have a model? I'm not making any predictions about the climate. You are."

It is a scientific fact that carbon dioxide and other GHG levels have increased. It is a scientific fact that co2 and other GHG's convert certain wavelengths of radiation into thermal energy. It is a scientific fact that the fusion process within the sun produces large amounts of radiation.

Do you dispute these?

It is a prediction that, on a sunny day, a black car with a black interior will become hotter than a white car with a white interior given equal conditions.

Do you dispute this?

It is a prediction that the earth's atmosphere will become hotter as the atmosphere "darkens" due to rising levels of CO2 and other GHG's absorbing radiation in the non-visible spectrum.

Do you dispute this?

If you do, you must explain why. You must show the model which is the basis of your dispute. You have to be able to explain why an assumption is wrong, in spite of all the scientific facts which lead to the assumption.

Otherwise, we have nothing but your faith to follow on. After all, by your own admission, " I don't have the first clue what effect, if any, a minute increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration will have on global climate."

If you don't have a clue about something, then why do you presume to talk about it?

If you believe a doubling of CO2 will have little to no effect:

a) that's a prediction

b) you have to explain the basis of that belief. The scientific facts we have say that this will accumulate thermal energy.

What makes you say science is wrong?

#18 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 8 Aug 2012 at 02:10 AM

Evidently this is either a Fox News site, or the Mutual Admiration Society for the Mitt Machine and his Kochs. Hide your heads in teh sands, boys!
Meanwhile, we "uninformed" "Warmingists" are out here wondering about the drought, the unrelenting heat and the melting ice caps. So are the polar bears... They know well enough who "padikiller" wants to kill. How about some actual scientific data of your own to discredit the science of climate change. Uh oh, here comes the flying "merd!"

#19 Posted by Robespierre, CJR on Wed 8 Aug 2012 at 11:33 AM