2011-03-31 23:39:26From The Halls of Montezuma...
citizenschallenge
Peter Miesler
citizenschallenge7@gmail...
166.166.219.45

Finally including closing paragraph.  ;-)

Any thoughts, suggestions, or opinions would be much appreciated.

cheers, Peter M

If folks think this might be able to fly, please offer some title suggestions  ;-)

====================================================

 

A frustrating part of the public dialogue is the labels being bandied about - skeptic this and skeptic that.  Who is the real skeptic, and who is hiding behind labels to defend faith-based assumptions built around desires and fears?

While blogosphere climate change “skeptics” escalate their unscientific rhetorical attacks comfortably removed from the consequences of their actions, there’s a group of genuine skeptics who don’t have such a luxury. Our US Armed Forces Joint Chiefs of Staff and the rest of our military brass.  

USA's career military officers, many battlefield hardened and all thoroughly professional carry the weight of knowing that how they assess the incoming scientific information will have far reaching consequences.

Therefore, it’s worth reviewing how this group of leaders has approached the Global Warming debate and what conclusions they have drawn from the scientific information at hand.  For example:
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Navy Vice Admiral McGinn has pointed out: “You never have 100% certainty about anything, and if you wait for 100% certainty on the battle field something bad is going to happen.” he then goes on to remind us: “The challenges are certainly daunting, but at the same time create tremendous opportunities”
~ ~ ~

Wesley Clark Supreme Allied Commander of Nato (retired):  “We need a profound understanding of the urgency of the situation... It’s not an EPA problem, it is a National Security problem”

“We have Global Warming right now, and we have to deal with the consequences and we need to be preparing our government organizations, our command and control, exercise programs to deal with the effects of the climate change that’s already on us...”
~ ~ ~

USA Navy’s Chief Oceanographer David Titley was another long time serious skeptic regarding anthropogenic global warming.  Yet the weight of evidence caused him to have a change of heart which he does an elegant job of describing.

“US Navy Chief Oceanographer: I Was Formerly a Climate Skeptic” (9 min) 



~ ~ ~

In 2006 the Center for Naval Analyses convened a Military Advisory Board of eleven retired three-star and four-star admirals and generals to assess the impact of global climate change on key matters of national security, and to lay the groundwork for mounting responses to the threats found.  Finished in 2007 the report National Security and the Threat of Climate Change, found that: “... climate change acts as a threat multiplier for instability in critical regions of the world.” 
And that secondly: “energy security, climate change and international security are inextricably linked.”

This report was followed by another CNA report: Powering America’s Defense: Energy and the Risks to National Security  exploring the impact of America's energy choices on our national security policies.  
~ ~ ~

The Pew Trust initiated a study titled: The Pew Project on National Security, Energy and Climate” their report is available at:  “Reenergizing America’s Defense - How the Armed Forces Are Stepping Forward to Combat Climate Change and Improve the U.S. Energy Posture”
~ ~ ~

For further information, Peter Sinclair has done a great job of heavy lifting and produced a page packed with more resources over at  “Climate Denial Crock of the Week - Climate Change and National Security"

~ ~ ~

Retired General Zinni of the Marine Corps and member of the MAB panel, placed our challenge into perspective when he said:

"The point is if you just write off the science, if you don’t accept what seems to me to be the majority view, then you are saying your going to roll the dice and take the chance. I think if you look at the potential outcomes of that, we would see that for our children and our grandchildren that that would be a disaster, and they’ll look back at us and will say you should have seen this, you should have taken a prudent course and prepared for this.  You should have taken the action to lesson the impact"

~ ~ ~

While the establishment climatology community has come under withering attack and minute examination.  An attack founded on political principles rather than a good faith desire for better understanding.  We have science associations, insurance associations, international bankers, military leaders and many more who have examined the issue with a skeptical eye tempered by responsibility.  All accept the consensus of climatology experts.  Shouldn’t that tell a skeptic something?

~~~~~~~~~~~~

{Daniel feel free to take liberties with the text}

2011-03-31 23:44:14
citizenschallenge
Peter Miesler
citizenschallenge7@gmail...
166.166.219.45

looks like I could use some technical help in embedding a video.

 

US Navy Chief Oceanographer: I Was Formerly a Climate Skeptic  (9 min)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3dcc0mV-n4&feature=related

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Also looking at it now, it seems too long.

2011-04-01 02:29:58
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Fixed the video embedding for you.

I don't feel the length is the issue; length is a function of both what you want to cover and how well you cover it.  What's more important is to do it well.  If then it's too long, then that's when the wordsmithing & editing comes in. 

Given the scope of what you want to cover here, parts may need to be more succinct, while other parts may need augmenting.

I'll give it a bit more thought before I offer up any more suggestions.

 

Good start!

2011-04-01 12:57:32OFF TOPIC: Neal... OK globe isn't a heat engine... what is it?
citizenschallenge
Peter Miesler
citizenschallenge7@gmail...
166.164.152.155

 "Earth is a heat and energy circulation engine"

Does that make it any better?

~ ~ ~

"Our global is a heat and energy circulation machine

                          "                   circulating  pump

                          "                                   organism"

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I bring this up because I'm trying to explain to a pal why global temps and CO2 levels don't track one to one.

And since I've be thoroughly spanked on the "heat-engine" {at least until I can find a niftier way of explaining it  ;-)}

But I need that metaphor.

open to suggestions.

 

cheers,  peter

2011-04-01 13:45:58
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Ummm, this is off your topic, but since ya brought up heat engines (yeah, been doing some light reading on the side), here's what NASA has to say:

Heating Imbalances

Three hundred forty watts per square meter of incoming solar power is a global average; solar illumination varies in space and time. The annual amount of incoming solar energy varies considerably from tropical latitudes to polar latitudes (described on page 2). At middle and high latitudes, it also varies considerably from season to season.

The peak energy received at different latitudes changes throughout the year. This graph shows how the solar energy received at local noon each day of the year changes with latitude. At the equator (gray line), the peak energy changes very little throughout the year. At high northern (blue lines) and southern (green) latitudes, the seasonal change is extreme. (NASA illustration by Robert Simmon.)

If the Earth’s axis of rotation were vertical with respect to the path of its orbit around the Sun, the size of the heating imbalance between equator and the poles would be the same year round, and the seasons we experience would not occur. Instead Earth’s axis is tilted off vertical by about 23 degrees. As the Earth orbits the Sun, the tilt causes one hemisphere and then the other to receive more direct sunlight and to have longer days.

The total energy received each day at the top of the atmosphere depends on latitude. The highest daily amounts of incoming energy (pale pink) occur at high latitudes in summer, when days are long, rather than at the equator. In winter, some polar latitudes receive no light at all (black). The Southern Hemisphere receives more energy during December (southern summer) than the Northern Hemisphere does in June (northern summer) because Earth’s orbit is not a perfect circle and Earth is slightly closer to the Sun during that part of its orbit.

In the “summer hemisphere,” the combination of more direct sunlight and longer days means the pole can receive more incoming sunlight than the tropics, but in the winter hemisphere, it gets none. Even though illumination increases at the poles in the summer, bright white snow and sea ice reflect a significant portion of the incoming light, reducing the potential solar heating.

The amount of sunlight the Earth absorbs depends on the reflectivness of the atmosphere and the ground surface. This satellite map shows the amount of solar radiation (watts per square meter) reflected during September 2008. Along the equator, clouds reflected a large proportion of sunlight, while the pale sands of the Sahara caused the high reflectivness in North Africa. Neither pole is receiving much incoming sunlight at this time of year, so they reflect little energy even though both are ice-covered. (NASA map by Robert Simmon, based on CERES data.)

The differences in reflectivness (albedo) and solar illumination at different latitudes lead to net heating imbalances throughout the Earth system. At any place on Earth, the net heating is the difference between the amount of incoming sunlight and the amount heat radiated by the Earth back to space (for more on this energy exchange see Page 4). In the tropics there is a net energy surplus because the amount of sunlight absorbed is larger than the amount of heat radiated. In the polar regions, however, there is an annual energy deficit because the amount of heat radiated to space is larger than the amount of absorbed sunlight.

This map of net radiation (incoming sunlight minus reflected light and outgoing heat) shows global energy imbalances in September 2008, the month of an equinox. Areas around the equator absorbed about 200 watts per square meter more on average (orange and red) than they reflected or radiated. Areas near the poles reflected and/or radiated about 200 more watts per square meter (green and blue) than they absorbed. Mid-latitudes were roughly in balance. (NASA map by Robert Simmon, based on CERES data.)

  (here's the punch line...wait for it...)

The net heating imbalance between the equator and poles drives an atmospheric and oceanic circulation that climate scientists describe as a “heat engine.” (In our everyday experience, we associate the word engine with automobiles, but to a scientist, an engine is any device or system that converts energy into motion.) The climate is an engine that uses heat energy to keep the atmosphere and ocean moving. Evaporation, convection, rainfall, winds, and ocean currents are all part of the Earth’s heat engine.

  (and here's where I run like hell for the door...)

2011-04-01 13:48:56
citizenschallenge
Peter Miesler
citizenschallenge7@gmail...
166.164.152.155

Yea, it's off topic but I didn't want to start a fresh thread

and I sure do appreciate that information - will read it before I do anyting else.

~ ~ ~

meanwhile back at the ranch   ;-)

2011-04-01 14:04:57OK still Off Topic. . . . NEAL?
citizenschallenge
Peter Miesler
citizenschallenge7@gmail...
166.164.152.155

Punch line indeed - I'm almost tempted to start a new thread at GC. . .

Now isn't that the description I've been trying to convey ?

Of course, I also noticed Daniel's:  "(and here's where I run like hell for the door...)

so I sense another punchline is in there somewhere,

besides I don't doubt for a moment Neal's superior knowledge. . . (you know, compared to me... and I'm not being sarcastic.). 

So Neal, what do you make of this and my original question above? 

{I also know I've seen some NASA outreach webpages that have left me more disappointed than anything else.}

 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

(here's the punch line...wait for it...)

The net heating imbalance between the equator and poles drives an atmospheric and oceanic circulation that climate scientists describe as a “heat engine.” (In our everyday experience, we associate the word engine with automobiles, but to a scientist, an engine is any device or system that converts energy into motion.) The climate is an engine that uses heat energy to keep the atmosphere and ocean moving. Evaporation, convection, rainfall, winds, and ocean currents are all part of the Earth’s heat engine.

  (and here's where I run like hell for the door...)

2011-04-01 20:50:58Heat engines
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.123.131

citizenschallenge:

So we find a NASA page using the term "heat engine". But I'm not sure how commonly used a term it is in climate science generally.

When I do a little googling, what I find are descriptions of tropical storms as heat engines, or of Hadley cells: a rather narrower usage, that deals with a definite source of energy, a definite sink of heat, a closed cycle, and a definite mechanism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_thermodynamics : "1986 K. Emanuel conceptualizes tropical cyclone as Carnot heat engine"

http://hendrix2.uoregon.edu/~dlivelyb/phys161/L14.html#energy_equilibrators : on Hadley cells

What I find objectionable is the application of the term "engine" to the climate in a general sense, without a technical analogy. What does it add to the understanding? Why not say that the climate is like a polar bear, because it's going to be sacrificed through global warming?

In Daniel's quotation, at least the NASA folks here have built up a physical picture, which they then label a "heat engine", as a summary of their explanation. But without that context, to use the term "heat engine" as a replacement for an explanation is, I feel, not helpful. A metaphor can help you EXPRESS an explanation, but you have to have an explanation in mind that you want to express, first.

In particular, if what you want to explain is: "why global temps and CO2 levels don't track one to one.",

the following is NOT an explanation: "Earth is a heat and energy circulation machine/circulating pump/mechanism." That doesn't offer any insight into the question.

An explanation would be something like:

"The greenhouse effect's warming mechanism, and thus the global average temperature, has to do with the total amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, not with the instantaneous rate of build-up (CO2 emissions); just as your state of nutrition has to do with how much food you've had in the last 48 hours, not with whether you're eating at this very moment."

2011-04-02 05:54:00
citizenschallenge
Peter Miesler
citizenschallenge7@gmail...
96.14.25.245

Neal, Thanks for the thoughtful reply, I'll keep chewing on it.

Although I should point out I wound up using heat circulating engine, but then went on to point out some of the places that heat was being circulated to.

 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Alrighty then, meanwhile back at the ranch:

is Daniel the only one that sees any protential for the above proposed post?

2011-04-02 07:08:15potential
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Sorry, been busy with the Congressional hearings and whatnot.  I think it's got the potential to be a valuable post.  I'd add links to the sources of the first few quotes, and add some sort of concluding paragraph.  It's a good start though.

2011-04-04 07:06:29
citizenschallenge
Peter Miesler
citizenschallenge7@gmail...
205.201.209.6

Thank you Dana,

I got those links in and rearranged the last paragraphs, Gen. Zinni quote seems like a good ending note.

Daniel mentioned, he'd give a closing summation a shot, so I'm going to sit low to see what he comes up with.

2011-04-04 07:58:35
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
93.147.82.84

Good idea. I think you should add a final paragraph summarising your point.

2011-04-04 11:29:44
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
216.146.73.178

Will be back in the office Wednesday; sorry, I can't add anything substantive until then (on a not-so-smart phone/Kindle combo for now).

On the plus side, my family is having a great time on our vacation in Chicago...

2011-04-05 15:37:54considering the ending
citizenschallenge
Peter Miesler
citizenschallenge7@gmail...
96.14.14.235

Coming up with a closing summation has been tough, it keeps leading into whole new rough essays, I even posted one at a haunt of mine.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

One approach would be just a sentence or two and then let General Zinni speak for himself and end the post there.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Or there's a closing paragraph, but I worry it's going off in a different direction.  And I've been through a few variations beside this one.  Like I've lost sight of this post and am off into another essay:

"In closing, extreme skepticism is fine and fun when it doesn’t matter.  But, our society’s future depends on this generation.  Seems to me We The People received our first lessons and warning back in the seventies.  Every decade since has validated those early concerns, and every decade since scientists have increased their understanding of the underlying process.  The echo-chamber feeds on attacking and mangling experts, in order to avoid focusing in on the science.  But, real skeptics are into the science and learning - allowing the evidence to lead - often that includes admitting we were wrong.  Real skeptics appreciate there’s a reason for experts and respecting their judgement calls. "
~ ~ ~

maybe I'll do better tomorrow

2011-04-05 16:17:23
citizenschallenge
Peter Miesler
citizenschallenge7@gmail...
96.14.14.235

Perhaps this is better:

 

While the establishment climatology community has come under withering attack and minute examination.  An attack founded on political principles rather than a good faith desire for better understanding.  We have science associations, insurance associations, international bankers, military leaders and many more who have examined the issue with a skeptical eye tempered by responsibility.  All accept the consensus of climatology experts.  Shouldn’t that tell a skeptic something?

2011-04-06 05:43:02
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.217.218

CC, this will make a good post because it addresses the canard "it isn't 100% certain", but it comes across as a bit scattershot at the moment. What are the basic points you want readers to take home?.

2011-04-06 06:05:17risk management
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

What this ultimately boils down to is one of my favorite topics - risk management.

What these military experts are saying is that according to the scientific consensus, climate change poses a security threat to the USA.  It's possible that the consensus is wrong, but as with any good risk manager, the military doesn't put all their eggs in the low probability "consensus is wrong" basket and hope for the best.  Quite the opposite in fact: the military plans for all possible scenarios, including the worst case.  The question is, why isn't the US government doing the same?  By failing to plan for the worst case, and even for the most likely scenarios, they are putting our welfare and security at risk.

Feel free to use any of that in your conclusion if you'd like.

2011-04-06 06:13:27
citizenschallenge
Peter Miesler
citizenschallenge7@gmail...
166.164.189.186

Rob, I couldn't argue with your assessment, that's why I'm looking forward to Daniel's take when he has the time.

As for key points it pretty much comes down to:

"While blogosphere climate change “skeptics” escalate their unscientific rhetorical attacks comfortably removed from the consequences of their actions, there’s a group of genuine skeptics who don’t have such a luxury.

USA's career military officers, many battlefield hardened and all thoroughly professional carry the weight of knowing that how they assess the incoming scientific information will have far reaching consequences."

~ ~ ~

and then examples of how the military community has moved from no AGW, to yes we have AGW and need to act on that knowledge.  And that a "skeptic" who believes AGW is hoax, needs to question their own knowledge and motives in the face of all the important professionals that have over the past decade become convinced that the climatology communities assessment need to be respected and acted on. . . . .  (although that's woven in between the lines.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thank you Dana, excellent summation.

2011-04-07 03:08:35Try this
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

From The Halls of Montezuma...

Posted on 7 April 2011 by citizenschallenge

A frustrating part of the public dialogue is the labels being bandied about - skeptic this and skeptic that.  Who is the real skeptic, and who is hiding behind labels to defend faith-based assumptions built around desires and fears?

While blogosphere climate change “skeptics” escalate their unscientific rhetorical attacks comfortably removed from the consequences of their actions, there’s a group of genuine skeptics who don’t have such a luxury:  Our US Armed Forces Joint Chiefs of Staff and the rest of our military brass.

The Professionals in Risk Management

The USA's career military officers, many battlefield hardened, and all thoroughly professional, carry the weight of knowing that how they assess the incoming scientific information will have far-reaching consequences.

Therefore, it’s worth reviewing how this group of leaders has approached the Global Warming debate and what conclusions they have drawn from the scientific information at hand.  For example:

Navy Vice Admiral McGinn has pointed out:

“You never have 100% certainty about anything, and if you wait for 100% certainty on the battle field something bad is going to happen.”

McGinn then goes on to remind us:   

“The challenges are certainly daunting, but at the same time create tremendous opportunities”

Wesley Clark Supreme Allied Commander of Nato (retired):    

“We need a profound understanding of the urgency of the situation... It’s not an EPA problem, it is a National Security problem”

“We have Global Warming right now, and we have to deal with the consequences and we need to be preparing our government organizations, our command and control, exercise programs to deal with the effects of the climate change that’s already on us...”

Chief Oceanographer of the US Navy, David Titley was another long time serious skeptic regarding anthropogenic global warming.  Yet the weight of evidence caused him to have a change of heart which he does an elegant job of describing.

Video:  "I Was Formerly a Climate Skeptic” (9 min)

Reports and Assessments

In 2006 the Center for Naval Analyses convened a Military Advisory Board of eleven retired three-star and four-star admirals and generals to assess the impact of global climate change on key matters of national security, and to lay the groundwork for mounting responses to the threats found.

Finished in 2007 the report National Security and the Threat of Climate Change, found that:

“... climate change acts as a threat multiplier for instability in critical regions of the world.”

And that secondly:

“energy security, climate change and international security are inextricably linked.”

This report was followed by another CNA report: Powering America’s Defense: Energy and the Risks to National Security  exploring the impact of America's energy choices on our national security policies.  

The Pew Trust initiated a study titled: The Pew Project on National Security, Energy and Climate” their report is available at:  “Reenergizing America’s Defense - How the Armed Forces Are Stepping Forward to Combat Climate Change and Improve the U.S. Energy Posture”

For further information, Peter Sinclair has done a great job of heavy lifting and produced a page packed with more resources over at  “Climate Denial Crock of the Week - Climate Change and National Security"

Retired General Zinni of the Marine Corps and member of the MAB panel, placed our challenge into perspective when he said:

"The point is if you just write off the science, if you don’t accept what seems to me to be the majority view, then you are saying your going to roll the dice and take the chance. I think if you look at the potential outcomes of that, we would see that for our children and our grandchildren that that would be a disaster, and they’ll look back at us and will say you should have seen this, you should have taken a prudent course and prepared for this.  You should have taken the action to lessen the impact"

End Game

The establishment climatology community has come under attack and minute examination; an attack founded on political principles rather than a good faith desire for better understanding.  We have science associations, insurance associations, international bankers, military leaders and many more who have examined the issue with a skeptical eye tempered by responsibility.  All accept the consensus of climatology experts.  Shouldn’t that tell a skeptic something?

What these military experts are saying is that according to the scientific consensus, climate change poses a security threat to the USA.  It's possible that the consensus is wrong, but as with any good risk manager, the military doesn't put all their eggs in the low probability "consensus is wrong" basket and hope for the best.  Quite the opposite in fact: the military plans for all possible scenarios, including the worst case.  The question is, why isn't the US government doing the same?  By failing to plan for the worst case, and even for the most likely scenarios, they are putting our welfare and security at risk.

2011-04-07 03:19:35end
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Looks good.  I'd still modify the end to talk about risk management (something like my last comment), because you don't necessarily have to accept the consensus to prepare for the scenario where it's true.  There's a slim chance that the consensus may be wrong, but you have to be foolish and exceptionally poor at risk management to put all your eggs in that low probability basket.

2011-04-07 03:36:18Added dana's suggestion to the closing section
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Took the liberty of tweaking the ending per dana's suggestion (revised & shown above).

And the JCO's (the Joint Chiefs) plan the hell out of everything.  13 years of working for the DoD taught me that well.  Plans exist for the warrior in the field to prosecute any and every eventuality.  Risk management in its ultimate realization.

2011-04-07 03:49:42
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Thumby from me

2011-04-07 03:58:20opps
citizenschallenge
Peter Miesler
citizenschallenge7@gmail...
96.14.56.187

x

2011-04-07 04:14:11ok, let me try that again
citizenschallenge
Peter Miesler
citizenschallenge7@gmail...
96.14.56.187

Thanks Daniel,

I started writing this before your last edit, heck I was going to toss out my paragraph all together except for slicing in "Shouldn’t that tell a skeptic something?" and focus on Dana's paragraph instead since it really is more to the point and a much better summation.

But I just saw your edit and it looks good to me. 

Thumbs Up from me.

Dana, thank you for that closing paragraph, it makes a big difference.

Daniel, thank you for the encouragement and substantive help.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

One last thought, sometimes I worry that citizenschallenge comes off a bit aggressive and puts some people on edge - not that I have any plans of abandoning it.  However, for SkS I wonder if plain "citizen" might be more PC?  Any thoughts? 

Not that I wouldn't be proud to have my full moniker up there.

2011-04-07 04:24:26Heh
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

If you want to really rile people up, change it to "NWO Citizen"

I don't care what people call themselves, myself.  You're going to piss off someone no matter what you do, so pick something you are happy with & just eff the rest.

2011-04-07 04:47:57thumb
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Glad to help.  It's a good post, and thumbs-up from me.  I'll put this on the schedule for Saturday, Aussie time.  I created an embargoed blog post page for it if you want to make any more edits.

I personally don't have any problem with 'citizenschallenge', except that it's a lot of letters to type! :-)

2011-04-07 04:53:24
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Changed "lesson" in the final quote to "lessen".

Nice job, CC!

2011-04-07 07:03:20comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
142.162.204.197

Have a look at the book climate wars and articles by gwynn dyer (military historian) on the subject. He's very prominent.

2011-04-07 07:59:26good book
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Yes, Climate Wars is an excellent book!

2011-04-07 18:59:24
Glenn Tamblyn

glenn@thefoodgallery.com...
124.180.205.132

In Australia there is a term - Wedge Politics. How to use issues to drive a wedge between differeing parts of your oponents support base. This is a good example of that since AGW Scepticism/Denialism is a more Right-wing phenomena. And nothing resonates with 'real' conservatives like the military. Particularly in the US. Good Post. This might help split old style conservatives (I may not agree with them but I can respect them) from Denialists (Respect! Huh!!)

As an aside, probably not relevent to this post but having some applicability to references to the military in general wrt AGW. One of the commonest pieces of commercial software used for analysing Radiative Heat Transfer in the atmosphere is ModTran - Sceptics like David Archibald use it to create smokescreens. Patents for the algorithms in ModTran are split roughly 50/50 between the company that does the software development for it, under contract to the US DoD, and the DoD itself. Also the HiTran database that is the underlying foundation for it began life with research during WWII by the DoD (or its precursor) They have backed it ever since.

For obvious reasons. If you want to build a Star Wars system, Airborne Laser Systems, an air-to-air heat seeking missile sensor head, you really want to know the details of RHT in the atmosphere REALLY REALLY WELL! Starting WWIII because a satellits confused a lightning strike over Siberia with a missile launch would be a very very very big OOPSIE!.

The US Military (and any other military with more than 3rd world budgets) has bought into Radiative Physics BIG TIME. When the Pentagon says AGW is a load of old cobblers, then we might start to take the sceptics seriously

Climate Wars, the book. I don't want to go there. CW desribes the end of Civilisation. AGW and Food/Water/Soil Fertility/ etc etc etc  Pressures take us to a bad place. Social Upheavel and chaos compounds it. Then War from the remaining 'major states' drives the nail into the coffin. First we get hungry. Then we get scared and desperate, then we fight, the we die. Recipe for the collapse of a civilisation.

Sorry for the need to vent some negativity. Back to the fight. Stiff Upper Lip and all that.

CC, Good Post. More on this theme will be great!

2011-04-08 14:04:06
logicman

logicman_alf@yahoo.co...
86.145.234.252

A small tweak suggested:

the term 'consensus' raises the hackles of people who think it means that scientists have all got together and agreed something.  To me, it means that if you research what has already been written and then evaluate that, you get an idea of what an average scientist thinks of a topic.

 

What these military experts are saying is that according to the scientific consensus, climate change poses a security threat to the USA.

 

What these military experts are saying is that according to their own evaluation of all available scientific evidence backed by their own years of experience in the evaluation of information, climate change poses a security threat to the USA.

2011-04-08 14:08:26
logicman

logicman_alf@yahoo.co...
86.145.234.252

P.S.  the term 'heat engine' as used in physics and engineering refers to any manifestation of the movement of a mass caused by a temperature difference in a Carnot cycle.  Atmospheric circulation is a movement of mass caused by temperature differences.  The atmospheric circulation is, by definition, a Carnot heat engine.

2011-04-08 15:56:06
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Thanks, Patrick!  Recommended change implented.

2011-04-09 03:32:46thank you
citizenschallenge
Peter Miesler
citizenschallenge7@gmail...
96.14.38.92

Thanks for everyone's help and support. I'll admit it brought a big grin to this bumpkin seeing that post up at SkepticalScience website.  But, enough of that, time to get back to work.  Daniel I hope to team up with you again - I do appreciate all you've done.

~ ~ ~

hmmm, Carnot heat engine.  I'll be looking it up, thanks

2011-04-09 03:48:28
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Any time!  You did the hard parts:  the core idea and the introduction (these things tend to write themselves once you have those).  The rest is editing & graphic design, tempered with experience. 

I believe the proper ratio is 99% Inspiration, 1% Perspiration.

2011-04-11 01:12:04
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.58.208

I do not agree with logicman's usage of the term "Carnot cycle".

In my physics studies, I have always understood the Carnot cycle as an ideal example model for conversion of heat to work, and vice versa. Even a combustion engine is only an approximate implementation.

The bigger problem, as I've mentioned before, is that there doesn't seem to be any explanatory value in using the term to describe the workings of the climate; so why do it?