Ten or Twelve More Studies Like This and Maybe We Can Be Absolutely Sure
73 Comments Published by Brian on Tuesday, January 23 at 10:58 AM.
On February 2nd, a segment of a report on global warming will be issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The segment was written by more than 600 scientists, reviewed by another 600 experts, and edited by bureaucrats from 154 countries, and is based on a wealth of new data. It concludes that human-caused global warming is here and is getting worse. Says Andrew Weaver, a Canadian climate scientist and co-author of the study: "This isn't a smoking gun; climate is a batallion of intergalactic smoking missiles." Says top American climate scientist Jerry Mahlman: "It's pretty much a no-brainer."
Are we still going to futz around or can we actually start talking about maybe engaging in some kind of action at some point down the road?
Are we still going to futz around or can we actually start talking about maybe engaging in some kind of action at some point down the road?
Labels: Brian, science and technology
Trouble is, it's a yawn.
Here's the deal. The earth is a massively-complex system that is currently coming out of the last Ice Age. It is *possible* that the carbon dioxide released by humanity may raise the temperature of the atmosphere a bit. *However*, there are tons of feedback mechanisms in play to *reduce* the temperature.
Let me give you an example of this:
If the temperature of the planet increases, the amount of water in the atmosphere increases. This increases the cloud cover and therefore the albeido. The increased albeido then lowers the amount of absorbed sunlight, lowering the world's temperature.
I firmly believe that NOTHING humanity is capable of doing can possibly alter the long-term viability of life on earth, and, on the contrary may actually save it in the long run.
[For those disputing this claim, let me point to the energy expended by a typical hurricane. The thermal energy of the hurricane involved in condensing the water vapor amounts to about 6 X 10^14 Joules/day (or about 200 times the entire planet's electrical production.) This is equivalent to a 100kt nuke going off daily until the hurricane dissipates. The kinetic energy to move the wind around is about a factor of 100 less.]
In other words, anything done by humans pales in comparison to what nature does every moment. If humans actually succeed in changing any major parameters, the global system will compensate, perhaps in ways that will render civilization ended, but life on earth will continue without so much as a blip.
Let me elaborate a bit on orders of magnitude. Deep under the Antarctic Ice, there's a 600km diameter crater that dates from the end of the Permian period. (20 times larger than the one that ended the Cretaceous and killed the dinosaurs) When that hit, it went so deep, it cracked AUSTRALIA off of Antarctica and sent it across the southern hemisphere to where it is today.
If you were a living thing on the earth when it hit, you had a 99.5% probability of dying. So much carbon and sulfur was burned that the oxygen content of the earth dropped from about 22% to half that. The upper levels of mountain ranges and most passes were too deadly to cross.
Net result--three million years later, the earth was once again flourishing, with our mammilian ancestors bounding across landscapes filled with the first, small dinosaurs.
We are an insignificant speck as a species, rapidly approaching our next evolutionary step which will remove us completely from interacting negatively with the earth.
How could we actually help the planet?--Find the next big asteroid that could wreck things for millions of years and move it. (or better yet, put it in an orbit that will gradually move the earth out from the sun as the sun gets warmer as its helium core increases in size--that'll be problem in 100 megayears or so.)
Tom
"...the global system will compensate, perhaps in ways that will render civilization ended..."
That's what you call a yawn? Huh.
brian, leave the arguing about science to the scientists.
Brian, it's only important to people.
Look, we're a superpredator--like velociraptors or army ants. (In other words, we eat competitors on the food chain, as well as what they eat.) We're responsible for despeciation.
Any superpredator has one interaction with a closed ecological system:
They breed until they can no longer support their popuation with their food supply, then there's a huge die-back.
So, this being human nature, we have three possible futures.
1) We combine with silicon chips in a manner similar to the inclusion of bacterial mitochonria in early cells to create a third family of living beings that are *not* superpredators. Let's call this borgification.
2) We open the system by colonizing space. This gives near-infinite room for expansion in the short-term, although even at slower than light speeds, it only takes 100 megayears or so to colonize the galaxy.
3) We die-back and the earth goes on just fine without us. Once we approach the maximum sustainable population, *anything* which tips the scale will begin the death cycle. It could be another asteroid stike, a nuclear exchange (even three EMP-type H-bombs would probably result in the deaths of most Americans with a couple months because of the fragility of the infrastructure), the Yellowstone Caldera exploding again (it's overdue by 20 or 30 thousand years.)
Which of the three options will probably be decided in your lifetime, guys. Personally, I'm rooting for #1, but you know that already.
We're an integral part of nature, Brian, the same ecological rules pertain to us as any other species. We're about to find out the answer to the Fermi Paradox.
Tom
Tom,
Although you and I like to believe crazy things called "numbers" and "science", Brian places his faith in "references" to experts and bureaucrats.
I think you are probably wasting your time, because you could show Brian a complex math equation proving your point, and he would still say, "well these people are experts, and clearly they're right and you are in 'error'". I mention this because thats what he did to my entire 2 posts on global warming.
Oh wait, strike that, he never even rebutted to my 2nd post becuase he was too proud to admit that he doesn't know the science behind this, and therefore doesn't even understand the arguement I'm trying to make.
I don't mean to sound like a intelligence snob, but I find it incredibly aggravating when someone like Brian, who specializes in nothing more scientific than finding the right clothes in the morning, argues with someone like myself, a young man who has an engineering degree from one of the most prestigious engineering universities in the world. But clearly, I'm in the wrong here.
Jaybandit,
I'm not at all too proud to admit I don't know the science behind this. I'm just saying in a contest between the 1200 experts on climate change and you, I'm putting my money on the former, and I don't know why you wouldn't as well. Engineering degree from one of the most prestigious engineering universities in the world or not, you aren't actually an expert on all things scientific. You have a field that you work in and (correct me if I'm wrong) it isn't climatology.
Only in this topsy-turvy blogging community could the guy who is exercising the HUMILITY of trusting the experts be called out on being too proud by the guy who thinks his engineering degree makes him a leading authority on global warming.
you are changing the point of my argument. I argue with numbers and scientific fact. Your argue based on assumptions, and not even assumptions made by you; assumptions made by others.
You are so ignorant of this situation, like most of the country, that you don't even realize how that is a difference.
Let me use an equally outrageous mathematical example that children often attempt to rationalize. If you wanted to push Earth off of its axis, many kids assume that you could get all the people in China (or I guess India at this point) to jump up and down at the same time to "push" earth out of orbit, even if its just slightly. Why? just for arguments sake, but it would be pretty cool if we could do that.
You would need 100's of billions of people standing on the same point on earth and jumping a mile in the air to come down with enough force to jolt the earth out of orbit by a small amount unnoticable to the human world.
The point is that just because people say its possible, and paint you a nice rosy picture of how they think it happens, it doesn't turn that theory into fact. If you gave me some actual mathematical information showing how we are contributing x amount of CO2 and that is clearly leading to y amount of heating, then i'd sit down and listen to you. But no one has done that yet. These people are saying THEY are sure that this is true, but that doesn't mean that THEY are correct.
just because millions of people agree on something doesn't mean that they are correct. Otherwise people wouldn't be mad that george bush is president. Science and our government allow for the minorities to speak up and voice their opinion because they know that they are not infalible.
Just look at Tom's math. Do you honestly know how to comprehend how much energy he is talking about? Because I don't. That is more energy that is fathomable by the human mind; yet you assume that because a bunch of people like me say they are experts that they know with 100% certainty. Nothing is certain, which is the first thing you learn in engineering school. The whole point is just to have the best idea possible. They have their idea, and I have mine.
and another thing, I don't think anyone can be an "expert" in a subject where they can't even achieve a definitive answer with less than 10% uncertainty on a day to day basis.
A person can be an expert at mathematics, or mechanical engineering...you can't be an expert at weather prediction anymore than you can at being a roulette expert.
Also, I hope you know that the term scientist doesn't make anyone THAT special.
I am a scientist, and so is kevin, and so is tom...you are not (amazing since all 3 of us scientists disagree with you, the non-scientist); anyone with a science-related degree can call themselves a scientist.
Brian, show me the composition of the 600 scientists. My guess is that it has the same percentage of expert in the relevant field as the "creation science" outfit has biologists, chemists and physicists.
The CNN news article has several glaring errors in it:
1) They're talking about an average global temperature--this is useless, since there is no such thing. The concept *itself* is faulty, since temperature varies from moment to moment and from Champaign to Mahomet.
2) They stated that this is higher now than in the last few thousand years. Faulty information, since the premise is flawed.
Some local temperatures were quite a bit higher during the period preceding the "Little Ice Age" during the middle of last Millenium. Both Labrador and Greenland were settled by colonies of Scandanavians who were forced to return when the climate became colder.
Personally, I don't give a rat's ass. The Earth will take care of itself, and whether or not humans are part of the future ecosystem is a lot more pressing question to me than anything that the human beings can do to Earth.
If 600 scientists of any ilk told me the world was flat, I wouldn't believe *them*, either.
The suspicion that I have is that this represents yet another attempt to exercise coercion on human interaction.
Project for you, Brian. Let's say that the scientists are absolutely correct. Propose to me a solution to the problem that does not involve coercion by one government or collection of governments. That takes the discussion out of the scientific field and into the political, economical and social--where I believe your abilities lie.
I'll be waiting.
Tom
JayBandit,
You have an engineering degree. So does that make you more of an expert than authors of Science or Nature publications who have reached a conclusion opposite of yours?
The fact is, climate models are too complex to produce an equation relating X amount of carbon dioxide to Y amount of heating. Of course, there is a whole system of equations that the variable have to go through. That's the whole point of modeling. To produce an output when a system is too complex to describe by an equation. Obviously your engineering degree didn't have much of an effect on you.
Additionally, you are being extremely presumptuous in your science knowledge. I am also an engineer, and I am in fact studying upper atmosphere phenomenon for my thesis, and I will freely admit that there are way too many papers in the climate change field for me to get caught up on the results after reading a few news reports and a few of these papers.
I'll concede for half a moment that all the current warming is manmade, because I want an answer to the great question: Where do you propose we stop trying to fix the climate?
There are hundreds and thousands of peer-reviewed yawns about past climates. We've been really hot. We've been really cold. And it was all 'natural'. If we suddenly perfected our ability to understand and predict the future of the climate, and our results showed that we were about to suffer an enormous natural climate shock - then what? It seems that we're all very comfortable with how things have been for the past couple thousand years. We're used to it. We've made our decisions where to live based on this consistency. But this aint how its always been or how it will always be. Do you propose resisting change nature to maintain the current status quo?
By the way, it's funny that this came up when it did. I've been toying with this for a couple days. Nothing there yet, but maybe some of you quasi-scientists will share some of the articles you base your stances on.
tet, if you are going to question the report based on the reputation, background and composition of the scientists referenced, how is this instead:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Jaybandit,
I wasn't quoting some poll of the American people or advocating belief in some pop culture myth held to be true by school children. I was citing people who know what they're talking about. And my whole point is that, as you say, the term scientist DOESN'T make anyone that special. That's exactly what I'm trying to point out when I say you may have an engineering degree but it doesn't mean I should care what you have to say, or what Kevin has to say, or what Michael Chrichton has to say. I care what the people who have made this their lives have to say, and they're as unanimous as most any group of people is ever gonna get on something that is unprovable, and given the dire consequences of global warming (which Tom actually DID agree with me on if you read his post, Jaybandit, he just shrugged the collapse of civilization off with the sentence "it's only important to people," which is a philosophical argument I am just as qualified as he is to argue about), and given the slowness with which governments do anything (let alone something of a global scope), we should probably trust the seventeen million studies all showing the exact same thing and get off our asses and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
BTW Daniel, the IPCC is one of those things that makes me throw up in my mouth a little.
Oh and Daniel again, science mag really isn't trying hard enough. They claim:
The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
I submit:
Journal: Space Science Reviews
Publisher: Springer Netherlands
ISSN: 0038-6308 (Print) 1572-9672 (Online)
Subject: Physics and Astronomy
Issue: Volume 81, Numbers 1-2 / July, 1997
DOI: 10.1023/A:1004953900299
Pages: 173-198
Daniel,
You are taking my disdain for Brian as my faith in my knowledge. I have never claimed to know more than any experts on climatology...only Brian Pierce.
Your paragraph on weather modeling proves my point. It is impossible to make an x to y connection...yet Brian and his "experts" are doing just that! If it is so complex, and we can't even be sure from day to day, how can we be sure that we're actually having such a significant impact. I'm just being a scientist and picking this proposal apart until it is full-proof.
I honestly don't get the point of your last two paragraphs. You are basically saying, "there is so much information out there, how can we make a clear agreement...so you should just be quiet and let Brian babble on like he knows everything". If its too much for you to bother with, then don't. I can bother with it if I want to.
I suggest you look into the archives here at Urbanagora and at Entropic Order to see the global warming debate which occured last year between Brian and myself.
I am angry because Brian titled his post in order to get a rise out of me...and he's getting exactly what he intended.
"Brian, show me the composition of the 600 scientists. My guess is that it has the same percentage of expert in the relevant field as the "creation science" outfit has biologists, chemists and physicists."
Get us this list. This reminds me a little bit of the 9/11 conspiracy, where the group of hundreds of "experts" consisted of about 2% engineers and physicists. It will be interesting to see how many experts on climate are in this report.
"I am angry because Brian titled his post in order to get a rise out of me"
*innocent look*
Would I ever do something like that? ;)
JayBandit,
Modeling is used in many areas of science. For example, semiconductor and material modelling; the equations in the models are correct, but an equation relating the input to the output would be impossible. This has not prevented researchers from drawing verifiable conclusions say, for example, about the transistors in your computer or carbon nanotube behavior in the lab. As such, modelling is an acceptable substitute for equations when the system is too complex. In fact, for example, glacier melting in Greenland has surpassed the rate predicted by climate change models. These models are usually run for different cases; conservative estimates, worst case estimates, etc, and all results are published.
You guys are fast posters! I wish I could stay, but I gotta get some wings.
Kevin,
I'm running out for some coffee right now, but I suggest you wikipedia Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. They also have their own website linked at the bottom of the wiki article. I haven't looked at it in depth, but it's got plenty of info. Hope it helps.
well fuck, i just lost a huge post because the site is bogged down...
I quit for now
let's just assume the message was like my most recent ones where i made valid points that Brian rebutted with the same single comment over and over, "they're scientists!"
you just basically said in your last comment that we're all just scientists...but since there is 600 that agree (which must be a magic number of agreement), we must assume they are correct.
Brian, in my honest opinion, it is as likely that I could enact reversing climate change by pissing off the roof of the Union onto the Quad as by anything that the human race can do at this time.
It might make you feel better that "something is being done," but there is absolutely no possibility for mankind to make any significant change in time to avoid the die-back if it is coming.
Global warming and climate change is the *least* of humanity's problems right now. At the rate of population growth, nuclear proliferation and the growing interdependence of the food supply on technology, I figure we've got until about 2040 to evolve or find a way out of the closed system--after that, most of the indicators get a near-vertical slope and we enter the Singularity.
Once we go hyper-critical like that, the merest shock to the system will send us into a rapid population decrease. It's a positive feedback loop--ask the engineers about how that works.
I thought Dr. Evil was the new head of the IPCC, Kofi, was that just a rumor?
Tom
"As such, modeling is an acceptable substitute for equations when the system is too complex."
As a grad student who sits at a computer and runs complex simulations all day, this statement makes me throw up in my mouth a little.
First off, scientific models, such as software to solve fluid flow or complex mechanics problems, are created by applying governing equations to the existing problems. Modeling is not a substitute for equations, it uses the equations to generate solutions.
That being said, models are NEVER complete substitutions for real systems. Let me reiterate, NEVER. If a "scholar" publishes a paper showing results from some code he developed without proving that the code works using EXPERIMENTAL VALIDATION, it usually gets thrown out as garbage. Short version: if results of a model or software are given without concrete validation that the model works, it's not worth looking at.
Furthermore, models are almost never 100% correct. I run simulations that compute flow fields in steel casters under certain conditions. I use the best modeling software in the world, and am happy with 70% accuracy. The real world is much more complicated than any set of equations that a model uses.
Why do you think there are so many weather "models" out there? Maybe it's because they're all so crappy we can't determine whether or not it's going to snow tomorrow with 90% certainty.
Finally, grouping all models together is like grouping all scientists together, what you accused Jaybandit of earlier. Modeling a semiconductor is not nearly the same as modeling the earth's weather patterns.
daniel,
Why do you keep telling me things I already know? Modeling for semiconductors is MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH more accurate than weather modeling.
Just because they're both mathematical models doesn't mean they are of the same level of accuracy. Looking at this from a purely statisical standpoint, we are using 200 years of somewhat accurate weather data against 600,000 years of assumed data from ice-cores in antartica...that gives you 10% error when you have a 99% confidence interval, and over 7% error at 95% confidence! How can you be that far off when we're talking about tenths of a degree of AVERAGE temperature for the entire fucking planet??????
Tell you what, I'm going to move away from philosophy here and actually talk about what science KNOWS.
The following are reasoned conclusions that are accepted by virtually every scientist in the world without question:
Over the last 2 million years, the Earth has experienced a series of Ice Ages. The exact cause of them is not known, although evidence seems to point to a combination of the ellipticity of the earth's orbit and the precession of the equinoxes. There are several "beats" that these two numbers exhibit, along with another couple that I don't quite understand. It's positive feedback between the various cycles' amplitude that are thought to drive the Ice Ages.
The Sun is gradually getting larger and warmer as the size of its Helium-burning core expands. Originally, it was thought that the Earth had another Gigayear of DNA-based life possible, but newer studies seem to indicate that the number is probably a tenth that.
The "default state" of the Earth has been to have no ice caps whatsoever. This is in spite of the lower insolation during the past billion years. The "Iceball" period that we currently are living in is an anomaly geo-historically.
There were two other periods during the Earth's history where there were large expanses of ice. At the Pre-Cambrian/Cambrian interface, there was a solid ice sheet covering the entire surface of the Earth for quite some time. This seems to have been connected with the existance of one huge supercontinent at the South Pole and a lack of continental shelves.
During the mid-to-late Permian, right before the huge asteroid strike, there was a major Ice Age in the southern hemisphere.
The rest of the time, no ice caps anywhere. As a matter of fact, during the Jurassic, there were coral reefs being built at the latitude of Greenland and during most of the Cretaceous, dinosaurs inhabited the entire Antarctic continent (as well as sub-arctic Canada and Australia.)
All of this is commonly accepted paleogeology.
Now, what does this mean? It means, first of all, the the Earth's biosphere exists perfectly well with no ice caps whatsoever.
Secondly, it means that percentage-wise, during the billion years of multi-cellular life on earth, 90% of the time the planet existed in such an ice-free state.
Thirdly, since the period we are in is anomalous, *and* there are no records at all from previous man-made CO2 emissions during a glacial interstitial, no conclusions can be made from studies of the past. There is no base-line for comparison, since the situation we are in has no precident.
This means that, no matter what *any* expert says, no predictions of the future can be made from the existing data.
Q
E
Fucking
D
So, let the goddamn caps melt, we've got bigger things to worry about. Personally, I'd like it if we had the climate of Florida here.
Tom
TC, I'm glad we're finally on the same side :)
illinikc33 and JayBandit,
You are missing the point. My point is that the results of multiple climate models should not be dismissed because the system is so complex. And I realize how inaccurate climate models can be because I've had to read papers on different upper atmosphere models. Again, my point is that the results of these published model shouldn't be dismissed due to the complexity of the system. Also, it's not like these are totally unverifiable. They are matched with past climate data.
daniel....you just don't get it. I'm not dismissing the models, I'm sure they're just as accurate as the information put in them. I'm dismissing the point that you and Brian make that they must be correct because they are using only a single data point for verification. If we had the glacial ice, and some other way to verify this information...yes I'd probably sit down and drink the kool-aid. Science does not dictate that as soon as you find a plausable answer that you just sit on your ass and say "ok, that sounds 100% to me". You do just the opposite, you pick it apart to make sure it is 100%...but you aren't doing that. You are using the words of "experts" as "good enough" and going on with your lives.
"Also, it's not like these are totally unverifiable. They are matched with past climate data."
Yes, they are totally unverifiable...unless you have a Delorian with a flux capacitor in it. I suggest you read the comment by Tom about your "past climate data." Just because they have an idea of how the bubbles in the ice correspond to weather, doesn't mean its proven.
I also reiterate that the BEST we can expect by going off of the glacier ice is an error of 7-10%...which basically means a lot. You cannot pinpoint one area and look at their weather on a system as complex as the earth; I wish you could, but you can't.
One more simple point before I go to sleep...Axis Tilt.
The axis that earth rotates on (approximately 23.5 degrees for all you trivia freaks out there) is always changing. The north pole is actually "falling" towards the equator as we speak. It is on something on the order of a 10,000 year cycle, which is lightning fast in terms of weather history. The point being this, in a few thousand years, the north pole will be on the old resting point of the equator, which means that the south pole will also be on the equator. This means that those two points will actually be hotter than the equator is anywhere on earth today, because instead of having the hottest band on earth rotate constantly in and out of sunlight, it will be like a merry-go-round of death. So how do we know this isn't a simple explanation?
more to come later.
JayBandit,
They are not unverifiable at all. They are routinely tested against past data and papers improving different models come out constantly. It's really not hard to plug in past data and see if the model correctly predicted last year's climate variables. I don't think you understood what I was saying about that point.
Secondly, I'm not saying the models are 100% accurate at all. However, we can sit here and qualitatively discuss climate effects but as you should know these discussions mean nothing until you plug the numbers in. And right now there is no better alternative than the models currently in use. With multiple models showing the same results, obviously I would tend to trust these results more than the opposite.
Edit:
I probably shouldn't say last year's. More like last decade's, etc etc.
Those of us who aren't scientists have no choice but to rely on the experts. Why are there 600 scientists who say global warming is happening, human activity is responsible for it, and it is a bad thing and not hear 600 scientists who share Tom's point of view?
They are not unverifiable at all. They are routinely tested against past data and papers improving different models come out constantly. It's really not hard to plug in past data and see if the model correctly predicted last year's climate variables. I don't think you understood what I was saying about
when initialized with past values, the models routinely fail to accurately predict the what did in fact occur. that is the problem. the models literally don't work when applied to the past. but we're supposed to trust their vision of the future?
this is like me telling you i've developed a computer program that can predict the exact score of all future football games. when applied to games that happened two years ago, or ten years ago, or forty years ago, my computer program routinely gets it wrong. but it's going to predict the future games right. trust me? trust me enough to start making wagers on MXLI?
"Those of us who aren't scientists have no choice but to rely on the experts."
It pains me to read this.
Actually, Jay, the orbital axis of the earth does not do that. The magnetic poles wander all over the place, but the north and south poles have been pretty much where they are for the last billion years or so (or possibly since the body that formed the moon collided with us.)
Karen, I think that the whole global warming argument falls into what we've been talking about in here.
Follow the money.
There are several groups using this on their agenda:
There are the Neo-Luddite faction of the Greens, who believe that everything since the beginning of the industrial revolution are evil, and want to return to 1800, despite the fact it would cause the starvation of 6 billion people.
There are the socialists, who want to tear down the capitalists and their industries, even though the communist countries of the 20th Century were the largest-scale polluters on earth.
There are the "hate America first" crowd, (as well as the hate developing nations crowd) who want Americans to lose their high standard of living.
There are also those who want to extend a larger amount of coercion on our day-to-day lives. The amount by which the "experts" want to reduce the carbon dioxide cannot be reached without new laws and more government control over the economy. Fascists again.
The bad science is a tool of those who want to destroy our freedom and our standard of living while ignoring the items that I mentioned earlier in my commentary, which actually will destroy humanity in a generation or two if not dealt with.
In other words, just as in political correctness, there's no money in opposing the viewpoint, and it's dangerous to your career.
However, Karen, you can use any paleogeology text to check the things that I said about the past--particularly the lack of ice over 90% of the last billion years.
It's common knowlege.
Tom
Common knowledge...I had no idea actually, so it can't be THAT common...especially if I'm in the top 10 or so percent of the population in terms of both education and by intelligence indicator I mean really Tom c'mon...
No response to my article that directly contradicts Science Magazine and Al Gore's contention that there were zero contradictory peer reviewed articles between 93 and 03, that says the warming is caused by the sun, that says the manmade global warming movement is wrong and politically motivated? Tear.
Tom -
You don't think there would be interest groups that would support someone who opposes the current consensus with regards to this issue? I find that hard to believe. As a non-scientist myself, do you not think it reasonable for me to not reject the opinions of those who supposedly do this for a living?
Having said that, listening to a lot of GW skeptics, I have actually become skeptical myself. I don't understand how we could think global cooling was happening 30 years ago, and then now be so sure that we're causing or going to cause catastrophic global warming, especially considering it seems to be a pretty inexact science. I just don't even see how you could be able to make a judgement in such a short time (including the relatively short time from the Industrial Revolution to now). It also seems like the cycles the globe goes through would be much more likely to be responsible for the change in temperature we see than anything humans could do.
On a related note, I thought I read an article that said that the globe hasn't warmed in 8 years.
Anyway, my only point is that I really have no idea and I couldn't really debate anyone on scientific "facts." It just seems like you'd defer to the "experts," kind of like a doctor could probably diagnose what is wrong with me if I get sick. Maybe he's not sure, but I would trust him over me.
Kofi,
when initialized with past values, the models routinely fail to accurately predict the what did in fact occur. that is the problem. the models literally don't work when applied to the past. but we're supposed to trust their vision of the future?
As I said, modeling is obviously not very accurate, and each model is run for many different cases, everything from most conservative to worst case. Obviously, obviously, they're not 100% accurate. Everything is a probability. Are we supposed to trust that? Do we have an alternative vision to trust? I suppose we do, one based on qualitative speculation and no numbers. I suppose you can pick which to listen to.
By the way, don't use phrases like "fail to accurately predict". They will be within a range of the actual result, and "accurately" is a relative term. Some studies on things like glacier melting rates have in fact underestimated the actual rates.
So, my comment didn't post, but I recovered it. Sorry if it shows up twice or anything.
Kofi,
I can't access the article right now past the abstract, vpn is killing my connection. Maybe I'll try to take a look at it tomorrow. But google says that the author gets funding from ExxonMobil, which is always suspicious looking. Even if this is a legitimate study, just by the odds I would still go with the consensus view. I mean, if 100 doctors told you you had lung cancer and 1 doctor told you you had leukemia, who would you listen to? And honestly, where does the political motivation come from? Are climate change researchers in a conspiracy to get more funding?
Whenever I see a climate change debate, I always acknowledge that while I believe the consensus position, there's always a possibility that that is wrong. But ultimately, why not pay a little insurance and control greenhouse gasses and develop alternative energy sources?
Kofi, I get it now. Daniel is saying that even though current predictions are horrendous, we should trust them anyway, because thats all we have at this time.
I love this mentality. Perhaps we shouldn't get up in the morning and try to better our lives, because we'll probably just end up in the same place we started from.
Please stop comparing the study of climate/weather/weather patterns to modern medicine. Last I checked, if you have a broken bone, you can get definitive proof beyond all doubt with a little thing called an x-ray. If you don't believe the doctor, he can actually show you the crack. I could give multiple more examples, but it's really not worth it. The analogy just started to annoy me. Weather science is speculative at best, and the majority of medicine is not.
LOL.
Kevin, you should never tell someone who has a heart that still beats (despite the fact that modern medical science does not know why) that medicine is an exact science.
Ever read Grey's Anatomy (the book, not the novelization of the TV show)? A good number of pages of the book are devoted to the low-percentage mutations in the human being that make individuals harder to diagnose.
[Couple real-world examples: my right side has the connecting tube between my kidney and bladder displaced by about three inches. My husband Sean's appendix was tucked *behind* his ascending colon. When it burst, that formed a pocket and delayed the onset of infection for 36 hours, which kept him alive when otherwise he would have died.]
Got a few rays of hope here for ya, Brian. You *really* want to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide that the US puts into the atmosphere? Here's a couple ways that it could be done without coercion:
1) De-regulate nuclear power to the largest extent that you can, concomant with the same degree of public safety involved with coal or natural gas burning plants. In other words, remove the artificial economic barriers which have prevented nuclear power from replacing the obsolete carbon-burners. Remove federal taxes from power companies that build and operate nuclear plants.
2) Announce a program by which the first American automaker that can mass-produce a five-person car in the $15,000 range that gets 100 miles per gallon will receive a five to ten-year moratorium on Federal taxes. Forbid state/federal sales tax on the product. Do the same for a diesel semi that costs the same as present models and gets 50 mpg.
If you can get folks to ante up, give the engineering design teams involved a million dollar prize for doing the above.
See--no coercion, standard of living goes *up* and the amount of carbon is reduced, as well as the Saudi princes getting screwed.
Plus, the FedGov has less stolen money to abuse.
What's not to like?
Oh, and Brandon, sorry about that, here's an excellent wiki reference on geologic history. It's not perfect, but it'll give you the same story as you'll find in the texts. For details, just click on the sub-units of the geologic eras.
http://tinyurl.com/2d4vff
Tom
JayBandit,
I didn't say that all. I think the results are pretty good actually, and pretty impressive for how complex the system is. And researchers are working to improve them every day. But let's face it, I think any way you cut it the opposing viewpoint's evidence would be weaker, with a lot of it based on qualitative speculation.
Illinikc,
The analogy I was trying to make was physicians analyzing a patient's symptoms, not going in for tests.
Haha, I love how daniel trys to act like he's putting my arm around me by saying, "But let's face it, I think any way you cut it the opposing viewpoint's evidence would be weaker, with a lot of it based on qualitative speculation." Actually, no my friend, I have provided countless calculations to show logical reasoning and evidence for my viewpoint. You have simply replied by telling me weather models are as close as we can get right now.
I'm sorry, but pretty accurate is not 100% accurate. They are worlds apart.
JayBandit,
What are you talking about? Papers trying to debunk the consensus view usually try to provide evidence to disprove it and don't provide a solid alternative model. I've looked through your posts, and that's all you've tried to do as well. Weather models ARE as close as we can get now to predicting the future. And I'm not trying to put my arm around you. I acknowledge there is always evidence for both sides of an issue and that I could always be wrong. But as I said the opposing viewpoint on this issue usually tries to disprove the consensus view without providing a good quantitative model of their own, which you exemplify.
"And I'm not trying to put my arm around you."
...Maybe ya should. You might get a little action...
Tom,
Why wouldn't the coal and oil industries have an interest in debunking the 600 scientists--seems like they could find 600 scientists to do that.
And, which category do the scientists at NOAA and NASA belong to--the neo-Luddites, socialists, "hate America first" crowd?
And, it's not common knowledge that the normal state of earth is ice-free. I don't disagree with anything you say--it's just that all of those other scientists would know that stuff too, so I wonder how significant it is.
And, where did you get the word, "borgification"? What exactly does that mean? I actually agree that humans will have to change to survive here on earth and in space.
*puts arm around brandon*
Daniel, are you saying that to disprove a certain point or to simply point out that a certain view has flaws, that one MUST provide an alternative?
illinikc33,
No, I'm not saying that. But there are only a certain number of viewpoints. If you're going to pick one to listen to, the consensus one has the strongest evidence. If you're going to not listen to any of them, that's fine too. But I think with what the stakes are, it would be prudent to buy a little insurance.
Karen, the oil and gas industries *have* gotten scientists to debunk global warming. That's part of the issue here--you have two biased sides getting completely different results from the same data sets. Politics makes for bad science.
The folks from NOAA and NASA fall under the "I don't want to get my grant pulled because I disagree" group. I have an advantage in that I actually *know* rocket scientists who work for Johns Hopkins and NASA and have witnessed the politics in those Fed agencies as well as the Department of Energy, for whom I was an independent contractor for 10 years.
See the thing is, Karen, you don't have to listen to the experts. You can do things like research the information yourself nowadays. Begin by perusing the geologic history site that I referenced for the periods that were ice-free. Move on to climate models and the studies on the structure of the sun.
Every statement I have made in my "scientific truths" post can be verified in a couple hours by anyone who can search the net properly. I personally, was amazed when Brandon didn't realize the truth about the history of the earth and icecaps.
See, the difference between me and the other scientists is that I don't have an agenda that will make me money. They all know these facts of terrestrial history. It's just that THEY are choosing to ignore them because they are inconvenient.
Borgification comes from Star Trek: The Next Generation. It refers to the possible hybridization of humans and computing machinery.
Hope this answers your questions.
Tom
It hardly seems worth the effort to spend even two hours doing the research, although I will do so this weekend.
The generally accepted conventional wisdom has it that human activity causes global warming, and, now on Feb. 2 we will be avalanched with more proof that this is happening, Al Gore's movie will win an Oscar--even the evangelicals are supporting the cause.
If I were really really cynical, I would say it was a plot by Democrats to take over the gov't. The timing, right before the election year, seems a little suspicious. It seems they will have two drums they will be beating--Iraq and global warming.
I still don't see why it's so difficult for Republicans, Libertarians, college engineering students, etc. to stand up to them if they have the better argument.
Karen, I am really cynical. As I wrote on 6/13/06:
In a preview of what will be a common theme over the next 2.5 years, Clinton railed against the Republicans inability to combat global warming:
"As Tropical Storm Alberto threatened to strengthen into the ninth hurricane in 22 months to affect Florida, former President Clinton predicted Monday that Republican environmental policies will lead to more severe storms.
"It is now generally recognized that while Al Gore and I were ridiculed, we were right about global warming," Clinton said at a fundraiser for the Florida Democratic Party. "It's a serious problem. It's going to lead to more hurricanes.""
The environment has always been an issue for liberals, but never have they packaged it like this. The environment is no longer a moral issue, it's a life or death issue. It's not about Styrofoam cups making landscapes ugly for our great-grand-children, it's about our own ability to survive another twenty-five or fifty years. Democrats are trying to construct a monster more fearsome and more dangerous than terrorism, a monster that they have a history of battling, a monster that Bush can't drop a laser-guided bomb on.
As for why it is so hard to fight the argument: 1) Any study with a shred of association to big energy is immediately dismissed by the media and the authors are called shills. There are organizations on the pro-man-made-warming side that are just as biased and questionable as big energy *cough*IPCC*cough* but association with these organizations is not painted in a negative light. 2) As Tom keeps pointing out, it's about the funding. If you can't do a study with a little financial help from big energy, who is going to pony up for you? In a world where radicals are suggesting that we treat "global warming deniers" as we treat holocaust deniers, it's not surprising many organizations are eager to step up and pigeon hole themselves as "deniers". 3) There's also a question of credibility and career impact. I've read (although I can't recall where) that newly minted scientists are afraid to tackle the subject for fear that if they publish a contrary article they will be shunned by their older peers and have their long term ambitions jeopardized. It's much easier to protect your ass my towing the line. Nobody would be surprised by this mentallity in any other field or business situation; it should not be so hard to accept it here. Afterall, science - especially climate science - is just another business. 4) And finally on the "investigate for yourself; why can't a college engineer show them up side" of things: we still need scientists. We need them to research and collect data, and publish their findings. Whether you spend two hours or two years digging through peer reviewed journals, you will not be able to find the one article that settles the entire global warming debate. Such a conclusion would require more data (just as a conclusion that it is definitely happening would require more data). What you can find is the doubt. In two hours you can find dozens of articles that essentially say "We think we might be getting warm because of this, but it might be enhanced by the manmade effect" or "This was definitely the primary cause of climate change for 800 years, but maybe it wasn't the only cause for the last 50 years." So while you can not disprove man-made global warming, you can easily disprove the notion that global warming is definitely, 100% man-made and every respectable scientists agrees.
By the way, would any of you quasi-scientists be willing to explain to me the effect hydrogen powered cars will have on the environment? They don't use oil and don't pollute CO2, but they do exhaust water vapor. Would the exhaust be so minimal that we wouldn't be doing more harm with hydrogen vehicles?
Kofi, the sun evaporates more water over the oceans in a day than a fleet of hydrogen powered cars would produce in a year.
Our body (and that of every other animal on earth) converts the hydrogen attached to the sugars we ingest into water. Remember, we're all just big bags of water with some CHON impurities and a little sulfur, phosophorus and some transition metals thrown in.
The big problem with hydrogen cars solving the CO2 emission problem is that in order to electrolize the hydrogen, you need to use a source of energy. Unless that energy comes from nuclear power or one of the other alts (wind, hydro, geothermal,) you've got a net *gain* in CO2 production by using Hydrogen cars.
It would be a great thing to me, personally, if the panic over man-made contributions to global warming caused us to go to nuclear power. We should have done that thirty or forty years ago, anyway.
[We have a fine example. The French get 80% of their power from nuclear sources and have for many years without a significant accident.]
My grandfather survived the Cherry Mine Disaster of 1909 (back when he was an illegal alien.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_Mine_Disaster
Nobody deserves to have to work under conditions like coal mining underground, and strip mining to produce coal devastates the environment in ways that can only be described in horror.
(The photos of the Eastern European slave states during the Soviet regime and modern China's surface mines should be enough to make anyone who is truly interested in environmental issues throw up.)
Anyway, the major French firm (Areva) is poised to make a lot of money from the new nuclear plants that could be built soon in the states. They're dedicated capitalists, so they'll have to be watched like a hawk, but I'm confident that their engineering is good.
Couldn't be any sooner to please me. They're elegant (and, if you count the Carbon-14 present in all fossil fuels) release far less radioactivity than coal or natural gas plants.
And, Kofi, I'm not a quasi-scientist at all. My college major was in Motality, so I am more of a Quasi-Moto than anything else. (I just made that up, but it seemed funny, so I left it in.)
I am a *real* scientist.
Tom
Hello Moto.
Kofi,
All I can say about hydrogen is that in at least the courses I've taken on renewable energy it's not emphasized very much. When it is talked about it is in the context of energy storage for excess generation from solar power during the day, etc.