I wonder what sort of reactions will occur when the CO2 police come knocking on individual doors saying “you need to turn off your heater, you are killing the planet”? A video follows.
From Arizona State University:
Study maps greenhouse gas emissions to building, street level for US cities
Project to help overcome barriers to an international climate change treaty
TEMPE, Ariz. – Arizona State University researchers have developed a new software system capable of estimating greenhouse gas emissions across entire urban landscapes, all the way down to roads and individual buildings. Until now, scientists quantified carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions at a much broader level.
Dubbed “Hestia” after the Greek goddess of the hearth and home, researchers presented the new system in an article published October 9 in Environmental Science and Technology. Hestia combines extensive public database “data-mining” with traffic simulation and building-by-building energy-consumption modeling. Its high-resolution maps clearly identify CO2 emission sources in a way that policy-makers can utilize and the public can understand.
“Cities have had little information with which to guide reductions in greenhouse gas emissions – and you can’t reduce what you can’t measure,” said Kevin Gurney, an associate professor in ASU’s School of Life Sciences, and senior scientist with the Global Institute of Sustainability. “With Hestia, we can provide cities with a complete, three-dimensional picture of where, when and how carbon dioxide emissions are occurring.”
The research team collected data from a wide variety of sources such as local air pollution reports, traffic counts, and tax assessor parcel information. The data is then combined within a modeling system for quantifying CO2 emissions at the level of individual buildings and street segments.
So far, scientists have applied Hestia to the city of Indianapolis, Indiana, and work is ongoing for the cities of Los Angeles, California and Phoenix, Arizona. They hope to ultimately map the CO2 emissions in all major cities across the United States, which accounts for nearly one-quarter of all global CO2 emissions. The Hestia research team believes this type of detailed emissions information can help determine what we as a society, can do locally and globally about climate change.
“As a community, we must take a leadership role in sustaining our relationship with the environment,” said ASU President Michael M. Crow. “This research, and its implications for global engagement regarding climate change, is an exciting step forward. Hestia gives us the next tool we need to help policy-makers create effective greenhouse gas legislation.”
“These results may also help overcome current barriers to the United States joining an international climate change treaty,” agreed Gurney, Hestia’s lead scientist. “Many countries are unwilling to sign a treaty when greenhouse gas emission reductions cannot be independently verified.”
According to researchers, Hestia’s increased detail and accuracy will help cities, and possibly even other nations, identify where an investment in energy and greenhouse gas savings would have the greatest impact.
“Leading in sustainability is not easy; however, as Mayor, I am committed to doing so,” Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton said. “Undoubtedly, Hestia will be a good tool to help us make more informed decisions as leaders in Phoenix and the Valley around issues of air quality, health and a sustainable future.”
Although climate change presents society with tough challenges, Gurney believes this new system enables concrete, positive steps towards mitigating the problem.
“Hestia offers practical information we can use to identify the most cost-effective ways to reduce emissions and track progress over time,” Gurney said. “Scientists have spent decades describing the seriousness of climate change. Now, we are offering practical information to help do something about it.”
Purdue Showalter Trust, Knauf Insulation, and the National Institute for Standards and Technology funded the three-year Hestia project, which involved researchers Bedrich Benes and Michael Abdul-Massih from Purdue’s University Department of Computer Graphics and Technology.
Note:
Hestia is part of a larger effort that combines information about emissions with ground and satellite-based measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. It is now part of the INFLUX experiment in Indianapolis and is expected to complement NASA’s planned December 2013 launch of the Orbital Carbon Observatory satellite, which will measure the concentration of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere.
ASU’s School of Life Sciences is an academic unit of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences.
===================================================
“JJ”: The specific intent was to close the carbon budget over a large city to better understand the complete carbon cycle – anthro, vegetation, soils, etc. Funny how neither you nor anyone else involved in your press release managed to even mention “carbon cycle”.
KG: So, now you are quoting out of context. Come on “JJ”, do you work for one of the presidential campaigns? Fess up.
Yes, I did not write long-enough, explanatory responses late at night on this blog…. that I never had heard of before. So, let me back up a bit. The specific intent of the overall Hestia project was, and remains, principally focused on carbon cycle science. However, a very important side-benefit and exciting intermediate outcome of this work has been information that is policy-relevant to greenhouse gas emission reductions (yes, those things that I am pushing down the throats of every man, women and child). The PRESS RELEASE was aimed at the policy-enabling aspect of the work. PRESS RELEASES are for public consumption. I chose (consciously, fully) to emphasize the part that had applicable relevance to the public (that support my research, thank you public…oh, and I need more – all small bills). But, have no fear, I will likely punish the masses with another PRESS RELEASE associated with the next stage which will happily, probably have the words “carbon cycle” written all over it (and I have a very strong case to make regarding the smiley faces). That will occur when we hit the throaty climax of the project, bringing the bottom-up estimates (based on non-measurements inside our “guess machines”) and top-down measurements together (which will likely be followed by cold showers all around). But, in the meantime, you are implying again (over and over again to a level of redundancy that sort of makes most people think you should cut back on the red bull) that I somehow am running from the policy implications. I am not. I am very comfortable that this scientific research will improve and enable better policy. The policy we all know we are talking about is greenhouse gas reductions. Maybe it means more push for greenhouse gas emission reductions, maybe less? Maybe it will be ignored? Maybe people will point fingers at each other? Maybe they will see themselves as one pure spiritual truth and reduce into a puddle of pure greenhouse gas energy and commit mass suicide by throwing themselves into the sun. OK, that last part was because I am watching that burning asteroid movie right now. Whoa, the graphics are good.
“JJ”: Seems like if that is what you really considered to be the import and utility of your work, you would have mentioned it at least once between all of the other things that you actually said but now deny saying: The intent was not to push specific policy. Liar. The whole GD press release was about policy.
KG: Oh GD (I just learned that from you), the boldface again. You have no idea how the boldface hurts me……I just spilled my chai tea (my third) on the leather seat of my biodiesel volvo while I was trying to mock the SUV driver next to me (the asteroid movie ended and I have a need to stand around the recycling center, so I got on the road – though I hate roads because they are expressions of post-industrial, isolating metal machines that kill charismatic megafauna through fossil-hate-fuels). Drat and bother.
The intent was not to “push” “specific” policy. Nowehere in the release nor in the journal article (I know I keep mentioning it – sorry), do I advocate a specific policy. I do identify a specific policy that, though you may disagree with it, is actually happening in many places. Policy exists, it is happening, I agree with some, I disagree with some. What I do not like, is policy based on limited and poor information. To me, that is just bad policy. Imagine I am working on understanding leprosy growth better and I come up with a better way to identify a specific type of leprosy growth. And I say, “this information will help doctors trying to reduce the incidence of leprosy”….. see, I am not promoting reducing leprosy…. I like leprosy, we need more leprosy. Its those stupid goody-goody doctors that are doing that.
Look, “JJ”, I know you think that I am using my massive science cache to push everyone into reducing their greenhouse gases. But, I think you just have to face the reality that this is an ongoing operational policy in a lot of places. You may not like that, you may think climate change is a hoax made up by geniuses like me to…I always get stuck here…. why again, would we want to do that?…. oh yeah, to get more funding so we can spend our time making this massive conspiracy more cool and elaborate and threatening, which in turn gets more funding, and so on.
The bottom line from where I sit is that this policy is in play in many places. And I am really uncomfortable with the operationalization of that policy given the poor quantification that I know exists right now. If the public and policymakers want to head down that road, I want it done with the best information, with an accurate sense of proportion and an understanding of the processes that make it go. I want the counting done right. Now, if you think that is a promotion or me pushing the policy, you are entitled to that opinion. I don’t see it that way. If policy didn’t exist and I said “I have information that confirms the need to make greenhouse gas reducing policy”, you may be right. But, I was careful not to say that.
Your line of argumentation is not unfamiliar to me. You want scientists to say nothing about anything related to policy when the policy runs contrary to what you think should happen. I am supported by the taxpayers to increase what is known about the world… and I have no problem telling them when I have information that could improve or assist something they have expressed interest in doing through elected representatives and other democratic instruments. Heck, I consider it my duty.
“JJ”: The specific intent was to close the carbon budget over a large city to better understand the complete carbon cycle – anthro, vegetation, soils, etc. Funny how neither you nor anyone else involved in your press release managed to even mention “carbon cycle”.
KG: So, now you are quoting out of context. Come on “JJ”, do you work for one of the presidential campaigns? Fess up.
Yes, I did not write long-enough, explanatory responses late at night on this blog…. that I never had heard of before. So, let me back up a bit. The specific intent of the overall Hestia project was, and remains, principally focused on carbon cycle science. However, a very important side-benefit and exciting intermediate outcome of this work has been information that is policy-relevant to greenhouse gas emission reductions (yes, those things that I am pushing down the throats of every man, women and child). The PRESS RELEASE was aimed at the policy-enabling aspect of the work. PRESS RELEASES are for public consumption. I chose (consciously, fully) to emphasize the part that had applicable relevance to the public (that support my research, thank you public…oh, and I need more – all small bills). But, have no fear, I will likely punish the masses with another PRESS RELEASE associated with the next stage which will happily, probably have the words “carbon cycle” written all over it (and I have a very strong case to make regarding the smiley faces). That will occur when we hit the throaty climax of the project, bringing the bottom-up estimates (based on non-measurements inside our “guess machines”) and top-down measurements together (which will likely be followed by cold showers all around). But, in the meantime, you are implying again (over and over again to a level of redundancy that sort of makes most people think you should cut back on the red bull) that I somehow am running from the policy implications. I am not. I am very comfortable that this scientific research will improve and enable better policy. The policy we all know we are talking about is greenhouse gas reductions. Maybe it means more push for greenhouse gas emission reductions, maybe less? Maybe it will be ignored? Maybe people will point fingers at each other? Maybe they will see themselves as one pure spiritual truth and reduce into a puddle of pure greenhouse gas energy and commit mass suicide by throwing themselves into the sun. OK, that last part was because I am watching that burning asteroid movie right now. Whoa, the graphics are good.
“JJ”: Seems like if that is what you really considered to be the import and utility of your work, you would have mentioned it at least once between all of the other things that you actually said but now deny saying: The intent was not to push specific policy. Liar. The whole GD press release was about policy.
KG: Oh GD (I just learned that from you), the boldface again. You have no idea how the boldface hurts me……I just spilled my chai tea (my third) on the leather seat of my biodiesel volvo while I was trying to mock the SUV driver next to me (the asteroid movie ended and I have a need to stand around the recycling center, so I got on the road – though I hate roads because they are expressions of post-industrial, isolating metal machines that kill charismatic megafauna through fossil-hate-fuels). Drat and bother.
The intent was not to “push” “specific” policy. Nowehere in the release nor in the journal article (I know I keep mentioning it – sorry), do I advocate a specific policy. I do identify a specific policy that, though you may disagree with it, is actually happening in many places. Policy exists, it is happening, I agree with some, I disagree with some. What I do not like, is policy based on limited and poor information. To me, that is just bad policy. Imagine I am working on understanding leprosy growth better and I come up with a better way to identify a specific type of leprosy growth. And I say, “this information will help doctors trying to reduce the incidence of leprosy”….. see, I am not promoting reducing leprosy…. I like leprosy, we need more leprosy. Its those stupid goody-goody doctors that are doing that.
Look, “JJ”, I know you think that I am using my massive science cache to push everyone into reducing their greenhouse gases. But, I think you just have to face the reality that this is an ongoing operational policy in a lot of places. You may not like that, you may think climate change is a hoax made up by geniuses like me to…I always get stuck here…. why again, would we want to do that?…. oh yeah, to get more funding so we can spend our time making this massive conspiracy more cool and elaborate and threatening, which in turn gets more funding, and so on.
The bottom line from where I sit is that this policy is in play in many places. And I am really uncomfortable with the operationalization of that policy given the poor quantification that I know exists right now. If the public and policymakers want to head down that road, I want it done with the best information, with an accurate sense of proportion and an understanding of the processes that make it go. I want the counting done right. Now, if you think that is a promotion or me pushing the policy, you are entitled to that opinion. I don’t see it that way. If policy didn’t exist and I said “I have information that confirms the need to make greenhouse gas reducing policy”, you may be right. But, I was careful not to say that.
Your line of argumentation is not unfamiliar to me. You want scientists to say nothing about anything related to policy when the policy runs contrary to what you think should happen. I am supported by the taxpayers to increase what is known about the world… and I have no problem telling them when I have information that could improve or assist something they have expressed interest in doing through elected representatives and other democratic instruments. Heck, I consider it my duty.
“JJ”: It quotes you, talking about policy. It quotes your university president, talking about policy. Does it quote any scientists, talking about how their understanding of the carbon cycle is greatly expanded by your paper? No.
KG: That is correct…. and? Last time I checked policy is studied at Universities, policy is employed in just about every aspect of our lives, policy is what we do when we get together and actually do anything in the societal context (oh darn, now I see it….. I am a communist). Hey, I asked some scientists to say cool things about my science but they think I am a smartass (yes, I know, this is baffling).
Mr. Gurney, thread bombing with multiple identical comments isn’t cool, please stop.
“JJ”: Seems like if that is what you really considered to be the import and utility of your work, you would have mentioned it at least once between all of the other things that you actually said but now deny saying: The intent was not to push specific policy. Liar. The whole GD press release was about policy.
KG: Oh GD (I just learned that from you), the boldface again. You have no idea how the boldface hurts me……I just spilled my chai tea (my third) on the leather seat of my biodiesel volvo while I was trying to mock the SUV driver next to me (the asteroid movie ended and I have a need to stand around the recycling center, so I got on the road – though I hate roads because they are expressions of post-industrial, isolating metal machines that kill charismatic megafauna through fossil-hate-fuels). Drat and bother.
The intent was not to “push” “specific” policy. Nowehere in the release nor in the journal article (I know I keep mentioning it – sorry), do I advocate a specific policy. I do identify a specific policy that, though you may disagree with it, is actually happening in many places. Policy exists, it is happening, I agree with some, I disagree with some. What I do not like, is policy based on limited and poor information. To me, that is just bad policy. Imagine I am working on understanding leprosy growth better and I come up with a better way to identify a specific type of leprosy growth. And I say, “this information will help doctors trying to reduce the incidence of leprosy”….. see, I am not promoting reducing leprosy…. I like leprosy, we need more leprosy. Its those stupid goody-goody doctors that are doing that.
Look, “JJ”, I know you think that I am using my massive science cache to push everyone into reducing their greenhouse gases. But, I think you just have to face the reality that this is an ongoing operational policy in a lot of places. You may not like that, you may think climate change is a hoax made up by geniuses like me to…I always get stuck here…. why again, would we want to do that?…. oh yeah, to get more funding so we can spend our time making this massive conspiracy more cool and elaborate and threatening, which in turn gets more funding, and so on.
The bottom line from where I sit is that this policy is in play in many places. And I am really uncomfortable with the operationalization of that policy given the poor quantification that I know exists right now. If the public and policymakers want to head down that road, I want it done with the best information, with an accurate sense of proportion and an understanding of the processes that make it go. I want the counting done right. Now, if you think that is a promotion or me pushing the policy, you are entitled to that opinion. I don’t see it that way. If policy didn’t exist and I said “I have information that confirms the need to make greenhouse gas reducing policy”, you may be right. But, I was careful not to say that.
Your line of argumentation is not unfamiliar to me. You want scientists to say nothing about anything related to policy when the policy runs contrary to what you think should happen. I am supported by the taxpayers to increase what is known about the world… and I have no problem telling them when I have information that could improve or assist something they have expressed interest in doing through elected representatives and other democratic instruments. Heck, I consider it my duty.
“JJ”: It quotes you, talking about policy. It quotes your university president, talking about policy. Does it quote any scientists, talking about how their understanding of the carbon cycle is greatly expanded by your paper? No.
KG: That is correct…. and? Last time I checked policy is studied at Universities, policy is employed in just about every aspect of our lives, policy is what we do when we get together and actually do anything in the societal context (oh darn, now I see it….. I am a communist). Hey, I asked some scientists to say cool things about my science but they think I am a smartass (yes, I know, this is baffling).
“JJ”: But it does quote a politician, talking about how your models can be used to implement policy.
KG: Now, that is the last time I ever ask a politician to comment on my policy-relevant work. The idiots just go ahead and say how it might impact their policy. They are so clever, you just don’t know what crazy topic they will launch into.
“JJ”: And it quotes you stating that this was the intent of your work.
KG: Now, I can’t find that quote. This may seem overly subtle to you, but it really wasn’t the intent (really). It is an outcome, and one I think is pretty useful, but it was not the original intent. Science is wacky that way, things just happen that you don’t intend. Usually the ideas I start with are pretty stupid. So, I am always happy when dumb luck delivers something useful from stupidity, sort of like anti-stupid-entropy.
“JJ”: This information will be applied to many things, as science outcomes often are. However, I can’t let the many ways people might use this information to dictate whether or not I generate it,… These comments are surreal in their dishonesty.
KG: “surreal in their dishonesty”. Hey, is that a fancy way of accusing me of lying? Me can’t talk pretty.
“JJ”: As if you are some lonely little scientist, toiling away in the basement of the Life Sciences building, just trying to understand the universe.
KG: Well, not the universe actually……how did you know I was lonely? “JJ”, are you hitting on me? And that is Life Sciences Wing B, for your information! And “little”?
“JJ”: Why, you don’t even have any interest in how your work might be used to achieve political ends, let alone any input over such matters.
KG: How do you jump to that conclusion? I have an interest, of course I do. But, I can’t allow a specific application of the work among many applications alter how I ask questions about what is known and unknown. Are you familiar with the history of science. Sorry, check that, are you aware of the history of thought? If science were to self-censor because we imagined some way that the knowledge might be used that wasn’t consistent with the questions that drove us, there would be little of modern existence to enjoy. You wouldn’t be in your air-conditioned basement sipping your red bull, occasionally glancing at your star trek model, tapping away on your apple IIe right now.
“JJ”: Heavens no! If you were like that, why, you would work for an outfit with a policy objective in its name. Like the Global Institute of Sustainability.
KG: Uh, because I do research on aspects of sustainability? (shoot, do I mention 47% here or the guns and bibles thing again?) Did I miss something. Is “sustainability” a policy prescription? I will ask them to change the name to “Global Institute of maintaining non-sustainability”. That’s not political and it sounds awesome. Surely, monster-trucks will be involved.
“JJ”: And you would give press releases that misrepresented your work, and which quoted you talking about getting the US into international climate treaties, and providing tools to politicians. And you would publish position papers on fossil fuel CO2. Why, you would never do anything like that.
KG: Right. Wait, when did we start agreeing? Have I won? That happened fast.
I didn’t do any of those things. I represented the work. I did not suggest “getting the US into international climate treaties” (wait, is there more than one? When did that happen?). What I said was:
“These results may also help overcome current barriers to the United States joining an international climate change treaty,” agreed Gurney, Hestia’s lead scientist. “Many countries are unwilling to sign a treaty when greenhouse gas emission reductions cannot be independently verified.”
Please note that I refer to treaty as singular. Hey, if more treaties occurred they weren’t on my watch when I was making countries do things with my all-powerful science policy-pushing raygun.
The barriers I refer to are the barriers stated by the president (Bush and Obama), members of the state department, negotiators, representatives of both political parties and on and on. “JJ” – yes, I am a very powerful guy writing papers nobody reads, but I don’t think I could get a country into a treaty. If I could get a country to do something, it would probably be to bring back Gilligan’s Island 24/7. I mean, I really loved that show.
An outcome of this work is a step toward the lowering of that barrier. Whether the US joins a treaty or not is up to the taxpayers….or Hillary Clinton because, you know, she is such a total domineering female and all. Seriously, who wears the pants in this administration?
“JJ”: On your concern over the “verification” phrase, the point there is that a model/data system ingests a variety of independent datasets and tests that data within a physical understanding of a system (the model) can find inconsistencies and adjustments that examination of a single dataset cannot. This is an important point and really the basis of the “verification” idea. Unmitigated BS. Models are guesses.
KG: OK, so this is the part that I kept prematurely jumping to (I read ahead). Now this is patently wrong in so many ways that I am embarassed for you. Which is hard for me because most of the time I am embarassed for me. And you kind of have to admit that the BS is a bit mitigated by all the big words (there are 11 words of more than 3 syllables – that is a record for me because I actually only know 11 words of more than 3 syllables).
Now that I think about it, your phrasing is brilliant. Just think, you are driving down a swampy backroad aiming to pick up your potato moonshine and you inch up to the a-hole ahead of you only to see his bumper sticker: “models are guesses”. I mean, it is genius (have you copywritten that? I mean, I probably deserve co-authorship writes since you were pissed at me when you thought it up).
“JJ”: Models don’t verify. Models (sometimes) get verified. With measurements. Models aren’t measurements.
KG: Once again, I am so thankful to you for correcting my ways.
Look, “JJ” is this the climax? Am I nailed yet? I am getting tired and my pre-natal yoga class starts early.
“JJ”: We are not fully there, and I am always careful to point out that we have merely taken a step closer. Perhaps not even a big step but a step nonetheless Really. Always. Please point to that part of your press release about the wonderful utility of your models for policy making and enforcement that mentions your incomplete understanding of the carbon cycle, and how it is that you are only a small step closer to being there. What parts of the modeling system are you uncomfortable with? The modeler.
KG: And herein, the light shines. This isn’t actually about the content of a PRESS RELEASE, it is about me. Now while my totally self-centered ego loves this, the fact that this is about me makes clear that you aren’t really interested in content but ad hominom attack. OK, so I kind of like that too, but I probably shouldn’t ‘cause, I mean, I think that is bad.
“JJ”: He describes guesses as measurements, and more guesses as verification.
KG: OK, so enough of the hand-waving. Is this what passes for argument? You appear to feel strongly about observations, so why not bring some objective ones to the discussion next time? I was thinking that by now we would be having a spat about equation 5 in my paper but we are still on the PRESS RELEASE. Uh, this is tedious (and I just missed the fricking asteroid hitting the planet while I was typing, god they better have it on netflix).
“JJ”: And he has serious problems with the truth. He is an advocate, but pretends he isn’t.
KG: Does that mean I am liar? Wait, maybe you made a double negative and you like me now?
Look, I have already demonstrated that nothing in my statements advocate anything….. oh, sorry, other than the heretical, politically motivated notion that policy should be made better. “JJ” perhaps you don’t like that fact that greenhouse gas emission reductions are being pursued by policymakers and the fact that your hippy neighbors made it so. Hey, I am sorry. But, having a stress-moment over the fact that I am doing carbon cycle science while also producing information relevant to those policies does not make me an advocate. The worst thing it makes me is probably an opportunist…… my science outcomes could assist with an ongoing policy effort and a stated barrier to international policy. If I say “you win” – does that make the hurt go away?
“JJ”: He says he will talk about science, and then he rants about everything but.
KG: ok, this is actually your most embarassing statement slightly worse than the other (now) slightly less embarassing one (the model-guess thing). I have asked you to construct any argument based in science that counters anything in the peer-reviewed paper that has my name on it in a public journal (which you can get from my website which you can find by googling my name and “co2” or googling the title of the paper or googling “hestia” – please do it, I need the hits, my mom is tired of visiting my site every night). In the peer-reviewed paper I do talk about policy too. I talk science every day. I do it for a living which I really like, though I wish the pay were higher and I had a better parking spot.
“JJ”: He gives a press release saying his work is all about policy tools, and a blog post that says it is not about policy, but about baby steps in esoteric understanding of carbon cycle processes. He says that it is about “anthro, vegetation, soils, etc”,
KG: Is it just too hard to imagine it can be both? Strike up Lennon singing… “imagine all the carbon, cycling true and clean, spewing out of tailpipes, making ‘JJ’ scream”. I am copyrighting that – Lennon be damned. OK, I will share co-authorship with you since I was pissed at you when I thought of it.
“JJ”: but the paper is about fossil fuels, the press release for the paper is about tools for forming and implementing policies to reduce CO2 from fossil fuels, the little movie that accompanies the press release is about tools for forming and implementing policies to reduce CO2 from fossil fuels, and he finally admits in the fine print that the paper does not include any vegetation whatsoever and makes no mention of soils, etc.
KG: Funny, out of the now 100s of readers, news stories, colleagues reviewing, nobody was “led” to such conclusions. “JJ”, uh, perhaps it is you? The paper is about fossil fuel CO2. The PRESS RELEASE is about fossil fuel CO2. There is no sly fine print disclaimer that somehow hides the fact that none of the Hestia research is about vegetation, soils, etc. The wider context of vegetation, soils, etc is what the larger field is about, into which this paper and the research, along with many others, fits. I am sorry if that was too subtle for you. I won’t reproduce a lecture on the global carbon cycle but there are a lot of good texts that go into how the various portions of the carbon cycle are interconnected. But, then again, the only document that you have apparently read on the entirety of this branch of science, appears to be my PRESS RELEASE ……… and my totally, killer blog postings.
“JJ”: This is not disninterested, objective science. It isn’t science at all. It is tech to drive policy making and to implement those policies. It is not ‘carbon cycle’. It is fossil fuel use,
KG: Last time I checked, fossil fuel CO2 is the largest annual net source of carbon to the atmosphere. Uncertainty in fossil fuel CO2 is emerging as the a critical uncertainty in inverse-estimation of net carbon exchange in the terrestrial biosphere, also known as the missing sink. Lack of understanding regarding the missing sink is, in turn, emerging as one of the key poorly understood feedbacks in projections of anthropogenic climate change.
These are the type of little factoids, that would be worth researching before expressing your ignorance on a subject you appear to know little about. But then, there is nothing like a sock and a basement to bring out the man/woman in all of us.
“JJ”: and the primary benefit is advertised to be the facilitation of policies to reduce that use. You came into this discussion whining about how you were misunderstood by all of those mean, emotional posters, but your participation has demonstrated that they were correct in their assessment.
KG: Now, now, I never said they were mean…… moderator, he is being mean.
Stepping back, my observation is that the reason “JJ” bursts a brain-vein when scientists even hint at discussing policy or politics or anything that can possibly be construed as something having any political content at all is that science historically has led the way to forward movement, to change, to shedding light on ignorance and close-mindedness. And, if policy is built on that logic, it improves the probability that it will win by virtue of reason. And that strikes fear in the heart of people who don’t want to see a particular policy win the day.
So, what have we learned? Yeah, I can be a real prick. But, I have tried to be funny and sarcastic and hopefully you got a laugh. And, make a point. If you don’t get that point…..well, then you probably never will.
As my mother used to say, “one way to get ahead is to push everyone else down, but you are no better than you were before you did it, and everyone hates you”
Best of luck – may the echo chamber bring you comfort.
Anthony Watts: not my intention: just trying to get the complete response in. seems it was not done in the two times i tried the whole. so, thought, if I break in to small sizes, it would work. no interest in dupes…. just want to get the whole thing rather than doing all the small individuals. sorry about the confusion. If it is easier for me to send as a whole, happy to do it. let me know.
kevin gurney:
I tried to read your recent series of very long posts but failed. So, I used the Cntrl-F function in attempt to find your apology to D Böehm for your untrue demand of an apology from him: unfortunately, that did not work.
Please identify in which of those posts you provided the needed apology or, preferably, repeat it without hiding it in a diatribe.
Richard
kevin gurney,
I offered to apologize to you if I was wrong in thinking that you were feeding at the public trough. As it turns out, by your own admission I was correct, so no apology is due.
Speaking of that, you seem to lack professional ethics. Being employed largely at taxpayer expense, it is clear that most of your dozens of L-O-N-G comments were written and posted during your work day. So I can add cheating the taxpaying public to my charge.
I won’t bother to read your longer posts, but it seems you are of the belief that “carbon” [by which the scientifically illiterate mean CO2 — a gas, not an element] is a problem.
CO2 is not a problem. CO2 is harmless and beneficial. More is better. It may cause some minuscule warming, which is on balance a good thing. It does not, and cannot cause runaway global warming. That canard is debunked by the ultimate Authority: Planet Earth.
Further, the rise in global warming since the LIA has been along the same trend line. Warming has not accelerated, despite harmless, beneficial CO2 rising more than 40%. Since there has been no acceleration in the long term warming trend, CO2 cannot be the cause of measured global warming. QED
In fact, there is no measurable effect from the rise in CO2. But there is a clearly measurable effect on CO2 as a function of temperature. We have empirical evidence showing conclusively that ∆T is the cause of ∆CO2. But we have no such evidence showing that ∆CO2 causes ∆T.
So it turns out that you have cause and effect confused. No wonder your conclusions are easy to falsify.
kevin gurney says:
What has surprised me, however, is the fact that nearly all of the “smart” commentary by those who “know science” appear to revolve around my PRESS RELEASE.
That is the conversation that you joined, on a thread was was dedicated to that subject. And it is a conversation to which you have added precisely nothing, apart from increasingly flamboyant tantrums. Kudos on that last one, BTW. Acknowledged objective accomplished.
Perhaps if you were to join in the conversation like an adult, instead of sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming until everyone drops what they are doing and talks about what you want to talk about, you might find more success. Your press release raises many interesting and provactive issues regarding appropriate technology, science communication, epistemology, the maintenance mechanisms of the ‘global warming’ religious/political movement, and other important topics. Anthony understood that, and that is why he started this post.
It is a pity that you apparently do not, as it is likely that you have valuable insights that would inform such discussions – and vice versa. Some of those discussions would likely lead to things that you would enjoy discussing. The “my paper or my paroxysm” routine is arrogant, boorish, and not getting you there. Why don’t you try something else?
the guy calling himself kevin gurney aint. you are getting duped
REPLY: The email and address check out correctly to AZ state, so I think you are in error – Anthony