Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Saturday, September 19, 2009

Rosecrans: Homer Bailey: ‘100 pitch limit is (crap)’

Texans tend to do things just a little differently, and most often they stick together. So when Texas’ patron saint of pitching says something, Texas pitchers listen.

Homer Bailey believes in the gospel according to Nolan Ryan. Ryan, the Hall of Fame pitcher, is now the Texas Rangers’ club president and abolished the pitch count as the determining factor in determining when to pull a pitcher. Ryan argues that stamina is more important than numbers.

...“I feel better at 85, 90 pitches than when I start,” Bailey said. “Once you get to 100, 110, that’s when things are running on all cylinders. I think the 100-pitch limit is a bunch of… well, just put in a not-bad word. We’re starters, you can ask Bronson (Arroyo) or (Aaron) Harang and they want pitches.”

Bailey’s final pitch was his fastest of the night, 96.8 mph, according to Pitch FX.

“I feel fine,” Bailey said afterwards. “I’ll be tired tomorrow, but I won’t be sore. I’m don’t get sore.”

Yeah, but for the Reds to say that Matt Maloney is actually Jim Maloney and that he never hurt his arm. That’s just plain wrong!

Repoz Posted: September 19, 2009 at 11:39 AM | 65 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: projections, reds, sabermetrics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: September 19, 2009 at 12:00 PM (#3326620)
Well, yeah. I can completely understand why a pitcher would feel this way. In fact, I'd rather my pitchers have this kind of attitude than the assumption that they're done at 100 pitches. But as Grady Little so eloquently reminded us that cool fall evening six years ago, it's not the pitcher's job to manage his fatigue and workload. That's the manager's job (and by extension, the front office's.)
   2. Quinton McCracken's BFF Posted: September 19, 2009 at 12:22 PM (#3326622)
Pitch counts are baseball's global warming.
   3. Dolf Lucky Posted: September 19, 2009 at 12:55 PM (#3326625)
Does that mean that in a couple years, we'll start increasing pitch count limits, and refer to it all as "physiological change"?
   4. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: September 19, 2009 at 01:05 PM (#3326628)
Maybe Bailey should worry more about making it to the fifth inning, and less about his pitch count.
   5. Howie Menckel Posted: September 19, 2009 at 02:04 PM (#3326642)
Well, Homer has made it there 7 times in a row, 9 of 10, and 15 of 17 this season (including one time getting injured in the 1st inning), so I can see why he's not worried about that part.

8 ER in his last 39.3 IP, that works.
   6. NJ in DC (Now with temporary employment!) Posted: September 19, 2009 at 02:45 PM (#3326651)
There is nothing I would like more than to see Homer Bailey have success at the Major League level. Well...that may be an exaggeration, but still, I would like to see him do well.
   7. puck Posted: September 19, 2009 at 02:48 PM (#3326654)
8 ER in his last 39.3 IP, that works.


And 39 K's. I wonder if he's "finally" coming around (it seems like he's been around a while, but he's still just 23). His BB rate has improved each year at AAA, though he still gave up 10 HR in 89 innings this year--is that a lot for Louisville?
   8. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: September 19, 2009 at 03:04 PM (#3326664)
Eh, fair enough. When he's able to consistently do it without giving up a 5-spot, I'll be impressed.
   9. lonestarball Posted: September 19, 2009 at 03:10 PM (#3326667)
Ryan, the Hall of Fame pitcher, is now the Texas Rangers’ club president and abolished the pitch count as the determining factor in determining when to pull a pitcher.


Congratulations to Rosecrans, for being the 1 millionth writer to get this wrong. Here's Nolan himself, explaining pitch counts and the Rangers:

We basically have a pitch count for our kids that are 18 and 19 years old where we have them on a lower pitch count than our older kids in the minor league system. That is somewhere around 100 pitches for starters. On our kids that are in AA and AAA, we expand that number and can go up to 110 or 115, could go to 120 at AAA. Then what we try to do on the ML level is let the pitching coach, manager and pitcher's ability plus whatever his personal situation is (how many innings he's worked, what he did in his last start, performance that night as far as where his pitches are distributed and whether he had an easy time or if he struggled) that would impact how many pitches he might throw in that game.


http://www.lonestarball.com/2009/7/20/955472/nolan-ryan-chat

So, no, Ryan didn't "abolish the pitch count."
   10. cardsfanboy Posted: September 19, 2009 at 03:58 PM (#3326686)
Pitch counts are baseball's global warming

how is pitch counts a scientific fact, that is backed up with peer review studies, but is ignored by some based upon non-peer reviewed scientific studies?
   11. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 19, 2009 at 04:34 PM (#3326704)
how is pitch counts a scientific fact, that is backed up with peer review studies, but is ignored by some based upon non-peer reviewed scientific studies?

Careful. The fact is that the earth has warmed. Whether it's due to normal cyclicality (coming out of the mini-ice age), sun-spot activity, human activity, etc., is still complete conjecture. Remember, we only have accurate temperature data back to the 19th C.

In baseball terms, we know young pitchers get hurt a lot, and young pitchers pitch. The actual proof of causation is about the same for pitch counts and global warning.
   12. stealfirstbase Posted: September 19, 2009 at 05:11 PM (#3326722)
Careful. The fact is that the earth has warmed. Whether it's due to normal cyclicality (coming out of the mini-ice age), sun-spot activity, human activity, etc., is still complete conjecture. Remember, we only have accurate temperature data back to the 19th C.

I know I've posted this before, but the conservative position on global warming has been sickeningly intellectually dishonest.

First, they said the world couldn't warm. Then they said the globe was warming, but it was natural. Then, they said "OK, the world might be warming, but it's not caused by human behavior, and it's still nothing to worry about." Call this the "Global warming is a hoax" phase, where most conservatives are now. Now, some conservatives say that "The globe can warm, is warming, and human effects probably have something to do with it, and that's obvious. But it's been going on so long that there's nothing we can do about it now." I know people that have gone from stage III to stage IV in a month! Last month they were denying it, this month it's been going on so long that there's nothing to be done about it. WTF?!

They've done all this with a degree of swagger and hubris mixed with bizarre conspiracy theories that defies belief. At each of these steps they belittled scientists and liberals as unhinged and unamerican, members of a conspiracy to, well, something or other. At each step they asked for more time to gather more data. And when they lost on the science they funded industry groups to engage in scorched earth PR campaigns.

It's been 40 years of this crap. You know how you can tell a conservative is being dishonest about global warming when they speak? Their lips are moving. No American conservative has any credibility whatsoever to discuss global warming in anything but penitent tones anywhere. It would be as if Joe Morgan were to deny that there were any such thing as pitching, that there never had been, and that those who advocated pitch counts were actually alien terrorists intent on anally probing your family. And doing so for 40 years.

/End rant, back to your regularly scheduled baseball discussions
   13. cardsfanboy Posted: September 19, 2009 at 05:45 PM (#3326734)
have to agree with post 12, the intellectually dishonest portion is only surpassed by the intellectual dishonesty that comes from pro-creationist.

Careful. The fact is that the earth has warmed. Whether it's due to normal cyclicality (coming out of the mini-ice age), sun-spot activity, human activity, etc., is still complete conjecture. Remember, we only have accurate temperature data back to the 19th C.

well, sure if you want to not include the evidence or anything, the scientific consensus is that global warming is happening and is helped by man, wiki scientific opinion (and yes I know wiki isn't the best place to go, but it's a quick and massive overview start---the fact is that anybody that disputes global warming is helped by man, has yet to produce a peer review study that has held up to scrutiny)
   14. Norcan Posted: September 19, 2009 at 06:01 PM (#3326750)
Eh, fair enough. When he's able to consistently do it without giving up a 5-spot, I'll be impressed.


Eh, it's not that hard to check his gamelog. He hasn't given up a five spot in his last six starts, which include two scoreless starts spanning 15 innings. He's pitched very well lately. He's starting to deliver on his promise.
   15. chrisisasavage Posted: September 19, 2009 at 06:03 PM (#3326752)
Why is it a conservative/liberal thing? The conservative/liberal issue is crap anyway. Our country is run by extremists on all sides a there are a lot of idiots who buy into their extremist ideology like it's gospel. Global warming is no different. Idiotic extremists on both sides spreading mistruths to support their pocket bo... I mean cause.

Both sides of the issue are lying. One side is overstating the issue to sell "low carbon" crap and sell their carbon cap trading scams, and the other has traditionally shown reckless disregard for the environment, and have only jumped on the bandwagon because the other side has over sold their produ... case to the voters.
   16. bigboyinbroward1980 Posted: September 19, 2009 at 06:12 PM (#3326762)
This Homer Bailey guy is a badass, I love the way he pitches and his attitude.....Definitely has ace stuff and it'd be nice to see him get it all together for next year, and for the most part I agree with his side of the pitch count argument.
   17. Tripon Posted: September 19, 2009 at 06:13 PM (#3326763)
Dusty Baker is going to kill his arm. Kill him.
   18. chrisisasavage Posted: September 19, 2009 at 06:15 PM (#3326767)
They've done all this with a degree of swagger and hubris mixed with bizarre conspiracy theories that defies belief. At each of these steps they belittled scientists and liberals as unhinged and unamerican, members of a conspiracy to, well, something or other. At each step they asked for more time to gather more data. And when they lost on the science they funded industry groups to engage in scorched earth PR campaigns.


WOW. That's actually what the liberals have done. The case that the observed warming was due to sunspot activity and volcanic is stronger than you probably believe. The negative effect of the warming is overstated too.

On the flip side I have no problem with reducing CO2, if reducing CO2 is really a proxy for reducing the use of fossil fuels, particularly oil. There's also a strong correlation between fuels that create high CO2 output and other types of pollution.

My problem is we are possibly heading into a period of prolonged and severe cooling, and people are being misled about that.
   19. cardsfanboy Posted: September 19, 2009 at 06:16 PM (#3326768)
Why is it a conservative/liberal thing?
because unfortunately the conservatives have been unduly influenced by the radicals in their party of choice. You don't see democrats giving much leeway to Peta, but the Republican have sold their party to anti-intellectual, churches, and rednecks in order to get as many people that might not vote to vote for them. The prior presidency actively attacked scientific knowledge and pushed an agenda to keep people stupid. Instead of spending time debating education initiatives, they got this argument going that global warming is a hoax, and that there is something actually worth bringing into the schools when it comes to moronic design.

Both sides of the issue are lying. One side is overstating the issue to sell "low carbon" crap and sell their carbon cap trading scams, and the other has traditionally shown reckless disregard for the environment, and have only jumped on the bandwagon because the other side has over sold their produ... case to the voters.

maybe, but only one side has scientific facts on it side, if this was a baseball debate, republicans would be pushing that the best player in baseball is bengi molina and that those who use evidence and stats to say it's pujols are just lying to sell pujols jerseys.
   20. Dr. I likes his panda steak medium rare Posted: September 19, 2009 at 06:18 PM (#3326769)
I was at the game last night, and I doubt we would have this article if Cordero hadn't blown the game in the ninth.

Bailey has been very good in recent weeks. But his style of pitching makes it hard for him to go deep into games. He throws a lot of pitches out of the strike zone, and takes a lot of pitches per inning. Last night, he made it through 7 innings with only 117 pitches, but looking at his game log you will find that he racking up the high pitch counts and not making it very deep into games.
   21. cardsfanboy Posted: September 19, 2009 at 06:30 PM (#3326775)
We basically have a pitch count for our kids that are 18 and 19 years old where we have them on a lower pitch count than our older kids in the minor league system. That is somewhere around 100 pitches for starters. On our kids that are in AA and AAA, we expand that number and can go up to 110 or 115, could go to 120 at AAA. Then what we try to do on the ML level is let the pitching coach, manager and pitcher's ability plus whatever his personal situation is (how many innings he's worked, what he did in his last start, performance that night as far as where his pitches are distributed and whether he had an easy time or if he struggled) that would impact how many pitches he might throw in that game.


this makes me think Ryan knows what he is doing. At least he isn't pulling the old when we were kids, we pitched 200 pitches per game and it didn't hurt us, thought process out there, instead it seems he thinks that maybe each player is a little different and instead of going with arbitrary numbers, let's build up the arms and then teach the coaches to recognize when the player is getting tired. So it's not just arbitray numbers, it's a system in place that may work out or may not, but it's not like it's going to be any less successful than other systems out there (although I do want to see what the White Sox do behind the scenes, they seem to consistently be developing pitchers)
   22. chrisisasavage Posted: September 19, 2009 at 06:34 PM (#3326778)
but only one side has scientific facts on it side


I don't believe that at all. For one, they are not facts, they are theories. Scientific fact is an oxymoron. For another, the "other" side has a lot of evidence that some of the changes in temperature that are being attributed to global warming are caused by other things, like sunspot activity, urban heat island effect, fudged data by organizations and individuals (James Hansen) that are funded and supported by left leaning groups, volcanic activity, etc. It's only one aspect, and one greatly misunderstood aspect, of climate.

There is no scientific consensus, to believe otherwise is to be as misinformed as the other sides group of extremist shills. The scientific consensus statement is really a scare tactic against anyone who dares speak out and question the global warming dogma. It's really about: say "global warming" or there's no funding.

The global warming debate has made me hate the green movement as much as I hate already hate neocons and ultra rightwingers of any ilk. I like to ride my bike to work, partly for environmental reasons, but not for one catch all aspect of the environmental movement that has become more religion than science.
   23. Tripon Posted: September 19, 2009 at 06:41 PM (#3326779)
Are you seriously arguing fact vs. theory?
   24. cardsfanboy Posted: September 19, 2009 at 06:42 PM (#3326780)
I don't believe that at all. For one, they are not facts, they are theories.

oh god, the line that allows credence to moronic design. evolution is a theory and a scientific fact. Same with Global warming the evidence backs up the "theory".

There is no scientific consensus, to believe otherwise is to be as misinformed as the other sides group of extremist shills. The scientific consensus statement is really a scare tactic against anyone who dares speak out and question the global warming dogma. It's really about: say "global warming" or there's no funding.

really? ok, whatever you say,(I love right wing conspiracy nuts) I pointed to wiki article that states

Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organisations hold non-committal positions.


that is pretty much as conclusive as you can get to saying that scientific consensus exists. They debate the degree, the ultimate causes etc. but the consensus is that man has had a fairly significant hand in global warming.
   25. cardsfanboy Posted: September 19, 2009 at 06:46 PM (#3326781)
fudged data by organizations and individuals (James Hansen)

that is why data needs to be peer reviewed and "open source".
   26. chrisisasavage Posted: September 19, 2009 at 06:47 PM (#3326782)
Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has been allowed to maintain a dissenting opinion. A few smart organisations hold non-committal positions.


Fixed
   27. chrisisasavage Posted: September 19, 2009 at 06:49 PM (#3326784)
I love right wing conspiracy nuts


Why? So extremists on both sides love each other. Figures

Edit

I don't think you're an extremist, but come on, to question it makes me a right wing nut?
   28. Tripon Posted: September 19, 2009 at 06:52 PM (#3326785)
Wait, wait. Chrisisavage, are you telling me scientists are wussies that can't handle having their own opinion?
   29. Dr. I likes his panda steak medium rare Posted: September 19, 2009 at 06:55 PM (#3326788)
Phenomenological reconstructions of the solar signature in the Northern Hemisphere surface temperature records since 1600

I know better than to wade into this with you guys, but here we go. The paper linked above is one example of a paper that analyzes the effects of solar input variations. It is worth reading for those of you who want to talk about solar effects.

Also, as a disclaimer, I am not an expert in climate science, or anything like that. Learned a bit about it in grad school, but my specialty is in a much different area.

Basically, the authors use a different dataset for pre-industrial temperatures than what is often used, fit it to their phenomenological model for the time-response of temperature, and argue that you can reach different conclusions about the importance of solar effects if you build your model from this different dataset.

The authors look at a number of different modeling scenarios. Based on how you do the modeling, the authors find that you can go anywhere from solar variations having pretty much no effect on 1900-2005 temperatures to accounting for as much as 70% of the temperature increase. Most of the scenarios in the paper fall at 50% or less. If you look at the data from 1950-2005, the estimate of the size of solar effects are always smaller.

So there are a lot of different scenarios. But even in the cases where you give the greatest weight to solar effects, you have to still say that the solar effects (based on this analysis) account for less than half of the temperature increases since 1950.
   30. chrisisasavage Posted: September 19, 2009 at 06:56 PM (#3326789)
Not at all. A lot of them do. It's not like scientists don't talk out individually about warming.
   31. cardsfanboy Posted: September 19, 2009 at 07:00 PM (#3326792)
Fixed

I'm not a conspiracy nut though, I don't think people are having back door meetings and lying about peer reviewed studies. Making up a "global warming" to make some bucks on a green project. Seriously you are saying that there is a international conspiracy(you and Steve Carlton would get along) to overstate the effects of global warming, to outright force scientist to falsify their evidence, so that a few companies can profit off of the greening of the world...

nope, you're definately not a right wing conspiracy nutjob.

Wait, wait. Chrisisavage, are you telling me scientists are wussies that can't handle having their own opinion?
as a right winger, they think the bible is science, so they think that scientist have to be as sheepish as religious nutbacks in following the leader. Mind you the openess of the data to any who wants it means that the conspiracy goes into the millions, and only the 'clear thinking' right can see it. Remember this is the guy who wondered why it's about conservative vs liberal (which it is not outside of the U.S.---only the U.S. conservatives are sucked into believing is a massive conspiracy--remember these are the same people that voted for bush because he wasn't as rich as Kerry)
   32. Swedish Chef Posted: September 19, 2009 at 07:14 PM (#3326798)
Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organisations hold non-committal positions.


I really don't want to go into a fight on global warming, because I know little about it and care less, but I have to say that that's nothing more than an appeal to authority and this whole consensus thing is really getting on my nerves.

#### it, I don't want to know what the time servers are thinking, there have been complete consensus about some damn stupid things before and there will be again. If scientists shy away from trying to pull down global warming due to some perceived need to maintain a consensus for political reasons the theory will be worse off for it.

Anyway, I hope that the "consensus" is only a fiction designed for politicians who lack the cognitive ability to handle complex ideas, and that scientists maintain a vigorous debate in their own fora.
   33. chrisisasavage Posted: September 19, 2009 at 07:27 PM (#3326803)
Anyway, I hope that the "consensus" is only a fiction designed for politicians who lack the cognitive ability to handle complex ideas, and that scientists maintain a vigorous debate in their own fora


I hope so too. I don't disbelieve that we increase the temperature, hell we know we do, but there are many other factors, and the "consensus" is far less among individual scientists, with many top climate and solar scientists questioning the current dogma. It's gotten too political. The pol's love the idea because they can tax us as much as they want for whatever they want, and they control the money, so, it stands to reason the larger scientific organizations will shy away from being critical of those who give them money.

Also, apparently not being an ultra left wing nut makes you a right wing nut, which is actually hilarious.
   34. lonestarball Posted: September 19, 2009 at 07:36 PM (#3326808)
it seems he thinks that maybe each player is a little different and instead of going with arbitrary numbers, let's build up the arms and then teach the coaches to recognize when the player is getting tired.


Yeah. But writing that the Rangers are taking a nuanced approach, with pitch limits in place that scale up as pitchers get older, and are adjusted so that pitchers are put on pitch counts that take into account their particular abilities and durability rather than using a cookie cutter approach, doesn't make for nearly as good a soundbite in a story as "Nolan Ryan is abolishing pitch counts!"
   35. Vida Blew Over the Legal Limit Posted: September 19, 2009 at 08:22 PM (#3326823)
Homer Bailey has been excellent of late and yes, appears to get stronger later in the game. He appears to be building confidence, which in my opinion was the major component he was lacking before. Since that is my speculation, it is also my speculation that Dusty Baker is not to be trusted with his development.
   36. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: September 19, 2009 at 08:31 PM (#3326828)
So now there is a Rosenthal, a Rosenheck, and a Rosencrans.
   37. cardsfanboy Posted: September 19, 2009 at 08:38 PM (#3326831)
So now there is a Rosenthal, a Rosenheck, and a Rosencrans.

a Rose by any other name.....



Yeah. But writing that the Rangers are taking a nuanced approach, with pitch limits in place that scale up as pitchers get older, and are adjusted so that pitchers are put on pitch counts that take into account their particular abilities and durability rather than using a cookie cutter approach, doesn't make for nearly as good a soundbite in a story as "Nolan Ryan is abolishing pitch counts!"


true, and it causes 'arguments' when people don't read the whole point that Ryan is bringing to the table. Again I have no idea if his way is the right way, but it seems that he has a somewhat viable plan.
   38. RMc is a fine piece of cheese Posted: September 20, 2009 at 04:46 PM (#3327154)
You know how you can tell someone I don't like is being dishonest about (insert topic here) when they speak? Their lips are moving.


Fixed.

I really don't want to go into a fight on global warming, because I know little about it and care less, but I have to say that that's nothing more than an appeal to authority and this whole consensus thing is really getting on my nerves.


And that's the problem. "Experts" may well be right about global warming/climate change, but over the years "experts" have been wrong about all sorts of things: black people are inferior, women belong in the kitchen, tomatoes are poisonous, electricity can leak out of sockets, the Tigers will score a thousand runs.

Throw in the political taint that's attached to this issue (and just about every other issue these days, really) and the ecumenical flavour some have adopted ("The studies have spoken! Cut your carbon emissions now, sinner, or forever be damned!") and it can't help but leave a bad taste in a lotta mouths, like mine.

And if want to see people argue about global warming, I'll go to Fark.com, thanks. So knock it off.
   39. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: September 20, 2009 at 04:58 PM (#3327156)
I think RmC makes some good points about experts being wrong about things. What I don't understand is where the harm is in the belief in the idea that global warming is a man-made or at least man-influenced development. Obviously blind acceptance of anything sets a bad precedent but trying to reduce carbon emissions and "Reduce/Reuse/Recycle" seems unlikely to be harmful to anyone if the theory that man=global warming is in fact wrong. On the other hand, if the theory is correct and we fail to do anything about it that could be catastrophic.
   40. Dr. Vaux Posted: September 20, 2009 at 05:04 PM (#3327161)
And that's the problem. "Experts" may well be right about global warming/climate change, but over the years "experts" have been wrong about all sorts of things: black people are inferior, women belong in the kitchen, tomatoes are poisonous, electricity can leak out of sockets, the Tigers will score a thousand runs.


No real scientists ever said any of those things.
   41. Downtown Bookie Posted: September 20, 2009 at 05:12 PM (#3327166)
What I don't understand is where the harm is in the belief in the idea that global warming is a man-made or at least man-influenced development. Obviously blind acceptance of anything sets a bad precedent but trying to reduce carbon emissions and "Reduce/Reuse/Recycle" seems unlikely to be harmful to anyone if the theory that man=global warming is in fact wrong.


Just my opinion, of course, but the current solutions to the problem of global warming that I see being proposed are indeed quite harmful to the poor people of the world, as all the proposed solutions to reducing carbon emissions on a global scale seem to require that the poor and undeveloped countries in the world remain poor and undeveloped.

DB
   42. Shalimar Posted: September 20, 2009 at 05:49 PM (#3327183)
Why is it a conservative/liberal thing?


Because years ago, Rush Limbaugh and his ilk chose to take the position that global warming was an evil liberal hoax, and his listeners will believe anything as long as liberals are the bad guys. And oil companies have been paying scientists for years to find that there was no human cause for global warming, just like cigarette manufacturers paid scientists for decades to find that there was no link between smoking and cancer. Voila, conservative/liberal thing.
   43. Swedish Chef Posted: September 20, 2009 at 05:54 PM (#3327186)
No real scientists ever said any of those things.

Only if you believe science started around 1980.
   44. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: September 20, 2009 at 06:01 PM (#3327188)
I'm one of the more conservative contributors to BBTF, but I also (somewhat less known fact) spent 4 years in grad school studying climate change before I changed careers.

(1)Global warming is real.
(2)The number of qualified scientists who are true climate skeptics can be counted on your fingers.
(3)Solar cycles cannot explain the magnitude of the current warming, although they are poorly understood. Focusing on solar cycles also ignores the clear correlation and presumed positive feedback loop between CO2 and global temperature levels over the entirety of earth's history over all timescales. CO2=warmer.
(4)The climate models uniformly predict warming if you input current and expected CO2 levels. Now, they could all be wrong (especially since so much depends on parametrization), but many of them are developed and run independently. So if the models are wrong, we really have made some enormous, fundamental mistake in understanding the basic physics of climate. This is highly unlikely.
(5) We have temperature records going back for millions of years, and high resolution records going back for thousands of years. They're not instrumental records, they're calibrated proxy records. The proxies could be wrong, of course, but since there are several completely independent proxies all of which tell you the same story for global temperature, it is extraordinarily improbable that they're all flawed in the same way; if the tree rings match the stable isotope records which in turn match the pollen records, etc, confidence levels increase.
   45. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: September 20, 2009 at 06:08 PM (#3327195)
But guys, what's the problem? So a few coastal cities will get put underwater by the melting ice caps; big deal! The world was, like, way hotter than this back in the age of the dinosaurs.
   46. Steve Treder Posted: September 20, 2009 at 06:09 PM (#3327196)
(1)Global warming is real.
(2)The number of qualified scientists who are true climate skeptics can be counted on your fingers.
(3)Solar cycles cannot explain the magnitude of the current warming, although they are poorly understood. Focusing on solar cycles also ignores the clear positive feedback loop between CO2 and global temperature levels over the entirety of earth's history over all timescales. CO2=warmer.
(4)The climate models uniformly predict warming if you input current and expected CO2 levels. Now, they could all be wrong (especially since so much depends on parametrization), but many of them are developed and run independently. So if the models are wrong, we really have made some enormous, fundamental mistake in understanding the basic physics of climate. This is highly unlikely.
(5) We have temperature records going back for millions of years, and high resolution records going back for thousands of years. They're not instrumental records, they're calibrated proxy records. The proxies could be wrong, of course, but since there are several completely independent proxies all of which tell you the same story for global temperature, it is extraordinarily improbable that they're all flawed in the same way; if the tree rings match the stable isotope records which in turn match the pollen records, etc, confidence levels increase.


Thank you for posting this.

This has essentially been said, again and again, by reliable authority after reliable authority, for years and years. Yet the persistent capacity of many (almost exclusively on the US poltical right, it must be said) to pretend that it hasn't, to ignore it, to attempt to obfuscate it, and to actively toss misinformation into the discussion, would be funny if it weren't so harmful to our species' attempts to effectively address the all-too-real, all-too-ominous problem.
   47. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: September 20, 2009 at 06:41 PM (#3327216)
But guys, what's the problem? So a few coastal cities will get put underwater by the melting ice caps; big deal! The world was, like, way hotter than this back in the age of the dinosaurs.

Interestingly, the "sea level rise" issue is MUCH more controversial. I've sat in on sessions at the big annual geology conference with scientists raising their voices at each other about it (though this was in 2006, and the issue might be more settled now).

The issue is more complex because:
(1)Ice sheet modeling is much less evolved and sophisticated than climate modeling.
(2)Determining a precise historical sea level record is exceedingly difficult, for two reasons:

(a)the weight of the glaciers alters the elevation of pretty much the entire northern hemisphere through redistribution of the aesthenosphere- the fluid underneath the rigid crust flows away from where the glaciers sit down into the tropics (isostatic adjustment. So the temperate latitudes were lower during the last ice age, and the tropics were higher. Because the fluid is so viscous, the "rebound" of the surface in most of the US is still ongoing from the end of the last glacial maximum.
So if you want to get a sea level record, you need to subtract out the isostatic elevation change, which is very much a non-trivial problem, especially over long timscales.
(b) you also have to subtract out the non-isostatic local changes in elevation as a result of tectonic forces.

(3) Sea level rise is a mixture of easily modeled changes (like the increase in the volume of seawater as a result of the rise in mean ocean water temperature) and extremely difficult to model changes. For example, it is not clear whether the Antarctic ice sheet would grow or shrink in mass as a result of global warming, and this depends on the expected precipitation over the Antarctic interior, which is a small-scale effect which is difficult to calibrate against actual records because the area is so sparsely monitored.
(4) There's strong evidence that ice sheets experience catastrophic and potentially unpredictable collapses in certain climactic settings. So its may be that sea level will either stay mostly the same or rise 10m and not in between; a 10m rise is catastrophic, the status quo is harmless.
   48. Ned Garvin: Male Prostitute Posted: September 20, 2009 at 08:53 PM (#3327282)
#44 is excellent, so I won't try to add anything to it directly. But on a slightly related note...

I am a scientist (astronomer), and it seems possible that we are entering (or have entered) an extended period of low solar activity. The solar minimum has been exceptionally low in solar activity, and the Sun shows little sign of increased activity like it should. If this comes to pass (as it did during the "Little Ice Age" of a few hundred years ago), then this will have a (relative) cooling effect on Earth's climate. Which may help to cushion the effects of global warming. Whether this is good or bad depends on your point of view, and it may not even happen, but it is possible.
   49. Dr. I likes his panda steak medium rare Posted: September 20, 2009 at 10:19 PM (#3327307)
tomatoes are poisonous


Indeed. Don't eat them. Homer Bailey doesn't.
   50. Howie Menckel Posted: September 20, 2009 at 11:23 PM (#3327336)
44, 47 and 48 communicate mostly similar sentiments in a much different, and of course much more persuasive, manner than so many other posters here.

Part of it is from being more knowledgeable, no doubt.
But I don't think they come as across as "wanting" the science to flow one way or the other. And if a legitimate new breakthrough came along, you don't get the feeling that they would be at all reluctant to embrace it (once confirmed and further studied, of course).

There's a lot of emotion on topics like this on both sides of the political aisle, though, which may be why the discourse feels so fruitless.
   51. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: September 21, 2009 at 12:21 AM (#3327379)
But I don't think they come as across as "wanting" the science to flow one way or the other. And if a legitimate new breakthrough came along, you don't get the feeling that they would be at all reluctant to embrace it (once confirmed and further studied, of course).

I've always tried to emphasize to people that climate scientists, for the most part, treat their work with fastidious impartiality. And I took some of my classes at GISS, where James Hansen is esconsed.
(An aside: most of the scientists I worked with thought Hansen was a jackass for chosing to be politically active. But its important to remember that he was employed at GISS, a NASA lab, throughout the Bush administration.)

There's also a powerful incentive for academics to make discoveries that challenge the current climate science paradigm. Such studies, assuming they met the basic standards of science, would get published in Nature and Science; they'd be career-making papers.

When the stable isotope record from Hulu Cave, in China, first came out, it definitively challenged the climate science C.W. at that time. It wasn't quashed or ignored; it was published in Science (I think) and was probably one of the most cited papers in the field in the years immediately following its publication.

You have to remember that most climate science is either computer modeling or isotope geochemistry. Both fields are incredibly geeky: you're either doing coding and high level math/physics all day, or you're spending all day in the lab doing chemistry and operating mass spectrometers. It attracts as many conservative nerds as it does tree-hugging hippies.
   52. RMc is a fine piece of cheese Posted: September 21, 2009 at 06:04 AM (#3327612)
The number of qualified scientists who are true climate skeptics can be counted on your fingers.

But exactly who counts as a "qualified scientist"? I mean, is there a Qualified Scientist Club, with secret handshakes and decoder rings? (If so, I want in.)

There's also a powerful incentive for academics to make discoveries that challenge the current climate science paradigm. Such studies, assuming they met the basic standards of science, would get published in Nature and Science; they'd be career-making papers.

I may not know science, but I do know human nature. The need to fall in line with existing thought and existing social patterns -- lest one be considered an outcast -- is a very powerful one, and smart people are not immune from it. Ever feel like junior high school never ended? It hasn't.
   53. RMc is a fine piece of cheese Posted: September 21, 2009 at 06:05 AM (#3327611)
The number of qualified scientists who are true climate skeptics can be counted on your fingers.

But exactly who counts as a "qualified scientist"? I mean, is there a Qualified Scientist Club, with secret handshakes and decoder rings? (If so, I want in.)

There's also a powerful incentive for academics to make discoveries that challenge the current climate science paradigm. Such studies, assuming they met the basic standards of science, would get published in Nature and Science; they'd be career-making papers.

I may not know science, but I do know human nature. The need to fall in line with existing thought and existing social patterns -- lest one be considered an outcast -- is a very powerful one, and smart people are not immune from it. Ever feel like junior high school never ended? It hasn't.
   54. Athletic Supporter can feel the slow rot Posted: September 21, 2009 at 07:46 AM (#3327631)
But guys, what's the problem? So a few coastal cities will get put underwater by the melting ice caps; big deal! The world was, like, way hotter than this back in the age of the dinosaurs.

Carl Everett is not impressed by your argument.
   55. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: September 21, 2009 at 04:33 PM (#3327877)
But exactly who counts as a "qualified scientist"? I mean, is there a Qualified Scientist Club, with secret handshakes and decoder rings? (If so, I want in.)

More or less. If you look at lot of the "scientists" that sign the skeptic petitions, many of them have no background in Earth Sciences, Atmospheric Science, or anything relating to climate science. Some inorganic chemist from University of Alberta knows as much about climate change as my future mother-in-law. A more precise way to put it would be: the number of scientists with a rigorous educational or research background in climate science who are truly 'skeptics" can be counted on your fingers. Dick Lindzen immediately comes to mind, and I think there are a few others.

I may not know science, but I do know human nature. The need to fall in line with existing thought and existing social patterns -- lest one be considered an outcast -- is a very powerful one, and smart people are not immune from it. Ever feel like junior high school never ended? It hasn't.

Not in science. The best way to be successful in science in to challenge the status quo. Every year, hundreds of climate papers are published that reconfirm what we already know about climate change. You never hear of them because they get buried in G^3 or GRL or other second-tier journals. Maybe my experience was unique, but at Columbia you were encouraged to challenge the conventional wisdom with your research. (Columbia is probably the center of global climate reasearch, seeing as the faculty includes Wally Broecker, James Hansen, and Klaus Lackner, among others)
   56. GGC don't think it can get longer than a novella Posted: September 21, 2009 at 05:03 PM (#3327922)
I was expecting some (forgetting) jokes; not this.
   57. Ben Broussard Ramjet Posted: September 21, 2009 at 05:19 PM (#3327941)
I may not know science, but I do know human nature. The need to fall in line with existing thought and existing social patterns -- lest one be considered an outcast -- is a very powerful one, and smart people are not immune from it. Ever feel like junior high school never ended? It hasn't


Similarly, human nature also says that if we desperately want something to be true - e.g., the world isn't warming as a result of human activity, and we can all burn as much fossil fuel as we like without making any sacrifices or paying any penalty - then we will hunt furiously for evidence or hearsay to support this, and cast doubt on those who attempt to contradict us, particularly when those people are using models and analysis not easily replicated by the layperson.

Your property investments' value will definitely rise, not fall; you can lose weight while eating as much chocolate as you want; your screenplay will definitely get read if you follow these 12 secret rules to succeeding in Hollywood, and your behavior definitely isn't contributing to climate change, so don't worry about burning those fossil fuels.

As long as we are looking for a way of blaming scientists for a rough theoretical consensus, shouldn't we worry about the beam in our own eye first? Insofar as we are dependent on the filter human foibles for all our learning, I'll take the view of the qualified people first.
   58. BFFB Posted: September 21, 2009 at 05:51 PM (#3327981)
I think RmC makes some good points about experts being wrong about things. What I don't understand is where the harm is in the belief in the idea that global warming is a man-made or at least man-influenced development. Obviously blind acceptance of anything sets a bad precedent but trying to reduce carbon emissions and "Reduce/Reuse/Recycle" seems unlikely to be harmful to anyone if the theory that man=global warming is in fact wrong. On the other hand, if the theory is correct and we fail to do anything about it that could be catastrophic.


The problem is that a strict poltically motivated dogma on a topic that isn't closed can lead to bad decisions which either waste resources and do nothing to solve the problem or maybe make it worse.

Wind farms which are driven by the spectre of global warming, for example, are worse than useless. Utterly, utterly pointless.

Not in science. The best way to be successful in science in to challenge the status quo


That is complete bullshit, historically challenging the status quo gets you ostracised and villified in your own time and then recognized after you're dead and the prevaling majority opinion has changed. The best way to get ahead in science is to bring in funding which in many areas is as much to do with trends and poltical machinations as anything else.

the world isn't warming as a result of human activity, and we can all burn as much fossil fuel as we like without making any sacrifices or paying any penalty


Poor. The two opinions can not be mutually held at the same time.

And the other thing which most pisses me off about the global warming industry is that it focuses on the wrong thing. The debate should be about sustainability and instead we get a bunch of crap about using bio-ethanol (useless), putting up solar panels everywhere (also useless) and driving electric cars (where the #### does the electricity come from?).

Instead of pouring untold billions down the plughole on stuff which will have negligible impacts it should be invested in future technologies which might actually reduce dependancies on non-renewable resources, fusion being the big one which is criminally underfunded.
   59. Steve Treder Posted: September 21, 2009 at 05:55 PM (#3327987)
Similarly, human nature also says that if we desperately want something to be true - e.g., the world isn't warming as a result of human activity, and we can all burn as much fossil fuel as we like without making any sacrifices or paying any penalty - then we will hunt furiously for evidence or hearsay to support this, and cast doubt on those who attempt to contradict us, particularly when those people are using models and analysis not easily replicated by the layperson.

Bingo. Add to this the billion-dollar companies engaged in the fossil fuel industry, all too eager to mount sophisticated communications campaigns to cast such doubt.
   60. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: September 21, 2009 at 06:35 PM (#3328033)
That is complete ########, historically challenging the status quo gets you ostracised and villified in your own time and then recognized after you're dead and the prevaling majority opinion has changed. The best way to get ahead in science is to bring in funding which in many areas is as much to do with trends and poltical machinations as anything else.

You're not the first person to take this position. I'm familiar with the old saw that opinions change in science when the generation that holds the old opinion retires. But I think that geologists are perhaps uniquely malleable compared to other scientists because the plate tectonics revolution is still relatively fresh in the collective memory of the field. People who personally witnessed that sort of upheaval/reordering are less resistent to change.

(This isn't 100% true, obviously. Harmon Craig, who was one of the handful of scientists who formulated our understanding of how carbon dioxide behaves w/r/t the atmosphere and oceans, was notoriously unforgiving to work which challenged him and was reputed to destroy the careers of those who dared to cross him. He died in 2003).

My personal experience is that most climate scientists are not dogmatic and that they encourage others to challenge them. I also think that grant proposals which challenge the C.W. are more, not less, likely to be funded, although obviously you have to know whose ass to kiss and how to sell your idea.
   61. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: September 21, 2009 at 07:04 PM (#3328078)
fusion being the big one which is criminally underfunded.


We've been 30 years away from a working fusion reactor for over 50 years now. And fusion is at least as dirty if not more so than fission. We need more fission reactors, at least a couple of orders of magnitude more.
   62. Ben Broussard Ramjet Posted: September 22, 2009 at 06:42 AM (#3328687)
Poor. The two opinions can not be mutually held at the same time.


I don't see why not, and you've not told me why not. I think it's perfectly internally consistent (but wrong) to say that, 'no amount of burning fossil fuels will make a noticeable impact and therefore there is no significant environmental downside to burning all we can get our hands on'. Care to explain why that's not logically consistent?

And the other thing which most pisses me off about the global warming industry is that it focuses on the wrong thing. The debate should be about sustainability and instead we get a bunch of crap about using bio-ethanol (useless), putting up solar panels everywhere (also useless) and driving electric cars (where the #### does the electricity come from?).


I don't think there is an industry, really, just lots of little ones with very minimal co-ordination between them. Downside of capitalism? Anyway, solar panels aren't useless if the technology becomes cheap and flexible enough, which you accomplish by, well, learning to build solar panels better. Which takes building solar panels.

Similarly, electric cars are perfectly useful if the power source for them is sustainable, or at least low-carbon. This can be true in the case of solar, wind, tidal, nuclear power, though I grant you it's not yet possible to have a truly zero-emission car. Still, if we build massive solar arrays in the Nevada desert, there's no particular reason why electric cars in California couldn't be nearly zero-emission. Is there?

I ####### wish this meme would die, by the way. No-one is really stupid enough to think that making a car 'electric' makes it zero-emission. But if you can centralize the need for power production, you have the ability to alter the renewables mix much more easily, plus realize benefits in carbon capture, cleaner-burning power stations, etc.

For example, if you put 50 million electric cars on the road, and replaced all coal-fired power stations with natural gas, you significantly reduce carbon emissions, even though the cars themselves are still causing fossil fuels to be burned. Replace the coal stations with nuclear, distributed wind, solar, and tidal, and things get better still.

But that doesn't work if you need to put gas in your car. Hence electric cars. Is that really so complex?
   63. a bebop a rebop Posted: September 22, 2009 at 06:58 AM (#3328690)
That is complete ########, historically challenging the status quo gets you ostracised and villified in your own time and then recognized after you're dead and the prevaling majority opinion has changed. The best way to get ahead in science is to bring in funding which in many areas is as much to do with trends and poltical machinations as anything else.


This is a complicated question, but I'm inclined to disagree with you, at least with respect to my field of physics. My impression squares perfectly with 'zop, which is to say that theoretical physicists love to show off their creative powers by challenging the status quo -- that's how theorists get jobs. What you say is more true for experimentalists, who need money to pay for the big experiments. But theorists don't generally have that problem.

(Disclaimer: this is from the perspective of a 1st-year physics phd student currently getting his ass kicked by the Aharonov-Casher effect.)
   64. rfloh Posted: September 22, 2009 at 12:52 PM (#3328732)
And the other thing which most pisses me off about the global warming industry is that it focuses on the wrong thing. The debate should be about sustainability and instead we get a bunch of crap about using bio-ethanol (useless), putting up solar panels everywhere (also useless) and driving electric cars (where the #### does the electricity come from?).


No one talks about the fuel efficiency of cars? Or improving public transport systems, via buses and trains? Or building high speed rail to reduce the need for air travel?
   65. Howie Menckel Posted: September 22, 2009 at 01:10 PM (#3328740)
There are people whose political agenda drives them toward not accepting climate change analysis, regardless of the science.
There are other people whose political agenda drives them toward acceptance, regardless of the science.

The latter group is comfortable now, given the prevailing research.
My point is, what happens IF that starts to change (and of course it may not)?

Is there something magical about the second group that makes them more likely to "face facts" in that instance?

That's what a lot of independents wonder - and underscores my point about the scientifically-driven supporters, compared to the politically-driven ones who seem to dominate the air waves and BBTF forums.
   66. Ben Broussard Ramjet Posted: September 22, 2009 at 01:11 PM (#3328741)
On that note, encouraging article on Spanish efforts to replace short-haul flights with high-speed rail. As a regular flier, and having taken Eurostar from St. Pancras to Brussels over the New Year, I'm all for more rail travel, particularly if it can cut down on the ridiculous security requirements that are in place at airports.

Although I suspect neither form of travel will ever deliver the leg-room I crave . . .

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
TedBerg
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 9-21-2014
(81 - 8:23pm, Sep 21)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogCameron: The Stealth MVP Candidacy of Hunter Pence
(38 - 8:21pm, Sep 21)
Last: GGC don't think it can get longer than a novella

NewsblogHBT: Talking head says Jeter is “a fraud” and “you are all suckers”
(95 - 8:19pm, Sep 21)
Last: bobm

NewsblogJames Shields is the perfect pitcher at the perfect time
(42 - 7:52pm, Sep 21)
Last: ReggieThomasLives

NewsblogOT: Politics, September, 2014: ESPN honors Daily Worker sports editor Lester Rodney
(3422 - 7:47pm, Sep 21)
Last: GordonShumway

NewsblogOT August 2014:  Wrassle Mania I
(195 - 7:44pm, Sep 21)
Last: Chokeland Bill

NewsblogAthletics out of top wild-card spot, Texas sweeps
(17 - 6:16pm, Sep 21)
Last: Sonic Youk

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(347 - 6:05pm, Sep 21)
Last: The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB)

NewsblogEn Banc Court May Call Foul on Bonds Conviction
(39 - 5:54pm, Sep 21)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOT: September 2014 College Football thread
(323 - 5:08pm, Sep 21)
Last: spike

NewsblogLindbergh: Dellin Betances’s Season & Bullpen Strategy
(6 - 3:59pm, Sep 21)
Last: bobm

NewsblogRoyals encounter problem with online sale of playoff tickets
(30 - 3:30pm, Sep 21)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogEsquire: Martone: The Death of Derek Jeter
(314 - 2:34pm, Sep 21)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip

NewsblogJohn Thorn: Fame & Fandom
(11 - 1:14pm, Sep 21)
Last: Mike Emeigh

NewsblogLindbergh: Where Dellin Betances’s Season Ranks Historically, and What It Teaches Us About Bullpen Strategy
(2 - 12:31pm, Sep 21)
Last: bobm

Page rendered in 0.6590 seconds
52 querie(s) executed