Who is Dr. Guy McPherson

[EdEarl]

They are the possible solutions to the paradox not the paradox itself.

true

[Robittybob1]

true

I didn't want to stump the discussion. I am thinking about preparing a bunker to survive the runaway greenhouse temperatures. Gosh there would have to be some benefit in that for a few years latter the whole world would be mine! Food for thought. I wonder if it would be possible to survive the initial extinction period. I'll live on algae if I have to, so I'd better find some edible varieties. I'll also have to check how high the sea levels will get once Greenland ice sheet melts. Maybe this place is not elevated enough.

[EdEarl]

Spirulina is edible and easy to cultivate since it grows in soda water.

 

There are also edible sea weed (algae).

Edited February 29, 2016 by EdEarl

[Acme]

Swanson says that he studied particulates in the atmosphere, which reduce solar radiation before it affects the Earth. It falls from the sky quickly, as evinced by a shutdown of air traffic in the US for three days, whereupon temperature rose a measurable amount as particulates fell. ...

Presumably you are referring to air traffic shutdown after the 9/11 attacks. If so, it wasn't particulates falling out that led to a temperature increase, rather it was the clearing of the skies of jet aircrafts' contrails.

 

9/11 study: Air traffic affects climate

... During the three-day commercial flight hiatus, when the artificial clouds known as contrails all but disappeared, the variations in high and low temperatures increased by 1.1 degrees Celsius (2 degrees Fahrenheit) each day, said meteorological researchers. ...

[EdEarl]

Presumably you are referring to air traffic shutdown after the 9/11 attacks. If so, it wasn't particulates falling out that led to a temperature increase, rather it was the clearing of the skies of jet aircrafts' contrails.

 

9/11 study: Air traffic affects climate

Smoke in the contrails is particulates. Nice reference.

[Phi for All]

Dr McPherson's credentials seem OK. He is sincere, his data is probably OK. I question his conclusions.

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Guy_McPherson

 

I'm listening to McPherson ATM. I think he is wrong so far but he may just be right.

 

You guys are now onto fixing the climate, but you've forgotten how your initial take on this guy was questionable. He distorts facts, and he's a conspiracy nut. Come back out of the weeds.

[Acme]

Smoke in the contrails is particulates. Nice reference.

Erhm...the sunlight reflected by those particulates is nil in comparison to the contrails' water vapor reflectivity. If the particulates were significant I'd expect them to receive mention in my nice reference; they do not. If you have an acceptable reference to the contrary, please provide it.

[EdEarl]

TY Phi

[Robittybob1]

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Guy_McPherson

 

 

You guys are now onto fixing the climate, but you've forgotten how your initial take on this guy was questionable. He distorts facts, and he's a conspiracy nut. Come back out of the weeds.

We started off with McPherson's ideas but it soon lead to the study of the permafrost and the dissolution of the methane hydrates. Once I had seen several reports on these and how rapidly these are changing one would have to consider how right McPherson could be.

In the meantime we should attempt to correct the factors, we have not just given up as McPherson seems to have done.

[EdEarl]

McPherson stands almost alone with his opinions, and the majority of climate scientists contend his judgment is wrong. History tells of several scientists who pronounced things ahead of their ideas being generally accepted, for example, "The speculation that continents might have 'drifted' was first put forward by Abraham Ortelius in 1596." However, "The geoscientific community accepted plate-tectonic theory after seafloor spreading was validated in the late 1950s and early 1960s." That prediction was about four-hundred fifty years before general acceptance.

 

I think we need to proceed with all possible haste to control the climate, and with luck and effort we will survive. There is no reason to give up, and every reason to strive for a better future, regardless.

[Acme]

McPherson stands almost alone with his opinions, and the majority of climate scientists contend his judgment is wrong. History tells of several scientists who pronounced things ahead of their ideas being generally accepted, for example, "The speculation that continents might have 'drifted' was first put forward by Abraham Ortelius in 1596." However, "The geoscientific community accepted plate-tectonic theory after seafloor spreading was validated in the late 1950s and early 1960s." That prediction was about four-hundred fifty years before general acceptance. ...

Galileo gambit @ RationalWiki

 

 

... Form

The structure of the argument is:

 

P1: A is X and Y

P2: B is X.

C1: B is Y.

 

They made fun of Galileo, and he was right. They make fun of me, therefore I am right. ...

[EdEarl]

Galileo gambit @ RationalWiki

 

 

I don't claim to know who is right in the climate discussion. It is a complex system. I am not an expert. I don't know. McPherson may be wrong; I hope he is. I was merely pointing out that being in the minority doesn't necessarily mean a person is wrong.

[Acme]

 

Galileo gambit @ RationalWiki

I don't claim to know who is right in the climate discussion. It is a complex system. I am not an expert. I don't know. McPherson may be wrong; I hope he is. I was merely pointing out that being in the minority doesn't necessarily mean a person is wrong.

 

And I am merely pointing out that you have no rational basis for your equivocations.

[Robittybob1]

And I am merely pointing out that you have no rational basis for your equivocations.

equivocation Google definition:

 

noun

plural noun: equivocations

the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself; prevarication.

"I say this without equivocation"

synonyms: prevarication, vagueness, qualification, ambiguity, uncertainty, ambivalence, indecision, doubt;

 

I think a person can have doubts on the truth of the climate change issue without it needing to be called an "equivocation"! That seems a bit harsh. Do you deny climate change? Even if in the meantime we have a milder sun for 40 years and a mini ice age intervenes when that comes to an end the CO2 levels in the atmosphere will once again determine how hot it gets.

Maybe we will be lucky and have extra time to take remedial actions.

..

[Acme]

I think a person can have doubts on the truth of the climate change issue without it needing to be called an "equivocation"! That seems a bit harsh. Do you deny climate change? Even if in the meantime we have a milder sun for 40 years and a mini ice age intervenes when that comes to an end the CO2 levels in the atmosphere will once again determine how hot it gets.

Maybe we will be lucky and have extra time to take remedial actions.

..

Too bad if it sounds harsh. I don't deny climate change nor did I imply any such thing. Ed made a comment on particles settling to Earth as accounting for warming after the 9/11 attacks and I showed he was wrong. He then equivocated the evidence I gave by saying "Smoke in the contrails is particulates.", and that is also wrong. (Contrails aren't "smoke"; they are ice crystals condensed on particulates. The ice is what reflects light and causes cooling, not the particulates themselves.) Then Ed moved on to equivocate over the legitimacy of Dr. Guy McPherson saying "History tells of several scientists who pronounced things ahead of their ideas being generally accepted,...", after evidence was given that McPherson's a crank and I called out that equivocation as a logical fallacy.

 

Your further speculations on mini ice ages etcetera have nothing to do with the topic of Dr. Guy McPherson's legitimacy. Good grief.

[EdEarl]

And I am merely pointing out that you have no rational basis for your equivocations.

To be fair and balanced, I should have mentioned someone who made a prediction that did not occur...for example, my fortune cookie fortune. It is true that the prediction of plate tectonics being true is not equivalent to the situation with climate change, regardless outcome.

[Robittybob1]

Too bad if it sounds harsh. I don't deny climate change nor did I imply any such thing. Ed made a comment on particles settling to Earth as accounting for warming after the 9/11 attacks and I showed he was wrong. He then equivocated the evidence I gave by saying "Smoke in the contrails is particulates.", and that is also wrong. (Contrails aren't "smoke"; they are ice crystals condensed on particulates. The ice is what reflects light and causes cooling, not the particulates themselves.) Then Ed moved on to equivocate over the legitimacy of Dr. Guy McPherson saying "History tells of several scientists who pronounced things ahead of their ideas being generally accepted,...", after evidence was given that McPherson's a crank and I called out that equivocation as a logical fallacy.

 

Your further speculations on mini ice ages etcetera have nothing to do with the topic of Dr. Guy McPherson's legitimacy. Good grief.

I beg to differ for if a mini ice age intervenes it will look like McPherson fails again but it is just delayed.

[EdEarl]

Erhm...the sunlight reflected by those particulates is nil in comparison to the contrails' water vapor reflectivity. If the particulates were significant I'd expect them to receive mention in my nice reference; they do not. If you have an acceptable reference to the contrary, please provide it.

Burning jet fuel produces water, carbon dioxide, and some unburned carbon or smoke particles. There is no such thing as fuel burned perfectly, and alkanes used in jet fuel are not pure. Contrails are more complicated than water freezing. Wikipedia says, "The exhaust particles in the aircraft's exhaust act as this trigger, causing the trapped vapor to condense rapidly."

[Acme]

Burning jet fuel produces water, carbon dioxide, and some unburned carbon or smoke particles. There is no such thing as fuel burned perfectly, and alkanes used in jet fuel are not pure. Contrails are more complicated than water freezing. Wikipedia says, "The exhaust particles in the aircraft's exhaust act as this trigger, causing the trapped vapor to condense rapidly."

Nevertheless, your claim that the particles reflect sunlight and their falling out caused cooling during the flight restrictions is false. Again, it is the ice crystals that reflect light to cause cooling. Moreover, while all contrails result from jet exhaust not all jet exhaust results in contrails.

[Phi for All]

How Guy McPherson gets it wrong.

[Robittybob1]

Nevertheless, your claim that the particles reflect sunlight and their falling out caused cooling during the flight restrictions is false. Again, it is the ice crystals that reflect light to cause cooling. Moreover, while all contrails result from jet exhaust not all jet exhaust results in contrails.

The process seems to start off with the particulates. When the planes were grounded and there was less particulates in the air for the water to crystalize on, and consequently there was an increase in temperature. I think we have all learned how the process works, but let's move on please.

[Acme]

The process seems to start off with the particulates. When the planes were grounded and there was less particulates in the air for the water to crystalize on, and consequently there was an increase in temperature. I think we have all learned how the process works, but let's move on please.

Now your turn to equivocate. Ed is and was wrong and there are no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Do us all the favor of following your own admonition and move on.

[Robittybob1]

How Guy McPherson gets it wrong.

Within that link was a very interesting lecture

That science can't all be untrue.

 

The first half is about potentially catastrophic warming in the Arctic and the multi-gigaton methane release under way. The second half goes into more detail about our unsustainable economic system and how it is destroying the habitability of the planet for ourselves and all species.

.Particularly the first half. It gets a bit too political in the second half.

Edited March 1, 2016 by Robittybob1

[EdEarl]

How Guy McPherson gets it wrong.

TY again, Phi.

 

Scott K. Johnson writes a good rebuttal of McPherson's public statements about abrupt climate change in How Guy McPherson gets it wrong. To me the most credible predictions is an average of the various climate models. The people who develop these models are competing to have the most accurate model. None of them predict a near term catastrophe. Rather, they predict our survival past 2100. However McPherson makes his predictions, they are large variance with the others; thus, they seem less accurate and not as trustworthy.

[Robittybob1]

TY again, Phi.

 

Scott K. Johnson writes a good rebuttal of McPherson's public statements about abrupt climate change in How Guy McPherson gets it wrong. To me the most credible predictions is an average of the various climate models. The people who develop these models are competing to have the most accurate model. None of them predict a near term catastrophe. Rather, they predict our survival past 2100. However McPherson makes his predictions, they are large variance with the others; thus, they seem less accurate and not as trustworthy.

So are you implying McPherson is wrong (based on the average) by about 80 years? It is probably better to get an early wake up call rather than one too late. As long as this wake-up call doesn't precipitate inertia which I sensed McPherson was saying in the beginning, like preaching "do nothing for there is nothing that can save us". But let's not be lulled into thinking everything is going to be OK till 2100. I actually wished we were discussing climate change and what could be done years ago (personal perspective).

Edited March 1, 2016 by Robittybob1