Global warming and financial positioning

[Nords]

One really interesting (still in the research stage) technology is using enzymes to break down garbage to generate fuel.

Shucks, we did that ourselves last night after a chili dinner...

 

[arandomwalk07]

Heck, the best weather computers in the world are just getting comfortable with five-day forecasts-- and most of that progress has happened over the last two decades.

Weather forecasting is not climate forecasting.

 

[Nords]

Weather forecasting is not climate forecasting.

That's my point. If you can't do the former then you're certainly not ready to do the latter. Computers can handle the calculation process and the time intervals but there are too many factors left unaccounted for whose long-term effects will be much more critical over decades, let alone over hours.

After years of sleeping with a meteorologist I've heard 'em all. Here's another one: "Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get."

 

[Brat]

Here is a listing of energy technologies identified as promising:

http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/New_Energy_Congress

 

[arandomwalk07]

That's my point. If you can't do the former then you're certainly not ready to do the latter.

And what happens in 50 years time if it turns out to be true? The price of failure here is catastrophic. Would we prefer to just ignore the question because "it's too hard" and hope for the best? Why should those who want to be early retirees keep themselves in good physical shape, because we don't know if we're going to get run over by a bus the day we retire.

All science exists at this point in time i.e. we can only use basic principles of good science to draw conclusions as of this point today. If in the future it turns out to be wrong, then our conclusions obviously change (I'm not talking about the pseudo science done by those who get their scientific background from religious dogma). What we can't do is use this natural process by which we learn and grow with scientific discovery to dismiss all current results, neither should we say "it's too hard, we shouldn't try". We can only live with what we know now and with our current state of development in understanding complex systems.

 

[sgeeeee]

After my argument with SG, I decided to see if my claims had any merit.

. . .

I'm still not clear on what your claim is

-- that you don't understand global environmental models so you choose to believe whatever you want?

-- that they can't predict with absolute accuracy the weather tomorrow so you will choose to believe they have no merit for any other purpose?

-- that the problem is hard, so it is impossible?

 

[Nords]

And what happens in 50 years time if it turns out to be true? The price of failure here is catastrophic. Would we prefer to just ignore the question because "it's too hard" and hope for the best? Why should those who want to be early retirees keep themselves in good physical shape, because we don't know if we're going to get run over by a bus the day we retire.

Oh please. I thought we were discussing the quality of climate modeling. I'm not implying that it's a foundation for paralysis analysis.

As for global warning, I'm in favor of less pollution, more safety, and in anything that raises a business' productivity/profits without imposing costs on the environment. I think that most of the systems that businesses were force to implement (kicking & screaming) in the 1970s & 1980s have been proven to be economically as well as environmentally successful. OTOH Hawaii is a prime example of the EPA beating up a utility with irrelevant environmental requirements.

But I'm not swayed by cool graphics with scary endings run on supercomputers using models of dubious veracity.

 

[eridanus]

I'm with Texas Proud and Nords - less pollution is a GOOD thing, whether it helps with global warming or not. A higher CAFE would also mean we're less beholden to the crazy Arabs.

 

[Brat]

Ditto. But don't blame our situation on the Arabs, it could be any group with a corner on a vital resource.

 

[loosechickens]

I don't really have any idea how the question of global warming is going to work out, although I do realize that most of the voices I hear in opposition to a majority of the world's scientists seem to be in the employ of some of the largest polluters......

The one thing that does make me prick up my ears and believe is to realize that while this administration and the oil companies have been downplaying and suppressing information and disseminating disinformation, the Pentagon has been taking global warming VERY seriously and making plans accordingly. It is apparent that the Pentagon is a BIG believer in warming. Do you think they're on to something?

I also find myself amused at watching a bunch of people, most of whom are trusting a computer program or two to tell them whether or not they're going to go broke before heading off to the big stock exchange in the sky, belittle computer programs that attempt to answer questions about the future.

When I first started reading this forum, I remember saying to my spouse....."Boy, there are a lot of people on this board with some real expertise in early retirement".....upon more understanding of ways that many of you think, I feel a little more secure in my own conclusions, and take yours with a grain of salt, as I'm sure you will take mine.

Argue on......personally, I like clean air and water, and don't think it would harm us to reduce our carbon footprint whether or not it helps global warming. We've been living off the earth's capital all these years, and maybe it's time for some sustainable living.

If we manage to make the earth inhospitable to humans, c'est la vie.....other species will be happy to fill the niche we leave behind. And if we manage to make it inhospitable to all life, we can joint the many other dead planets circling a dying sun.....in the end, who cares? In the words of our "illustrious" commander in chief.... "What difference will it make? We'll all be dead by then."

Personally, I believe the majority of the world's scientists, the data that is becoming overwhelming and the prognosis that we are causing some big, big trouble for this earth that is the home for all of us.

Change is good.....why not change in advance of need rather than waiting until it might be too late? Better safe than sorry, especially when the consequences of poohpoohing this could be catastrophic.

Carry on......interesting to read..... LooseChickens

 

[wabmester]

I'm still not clear on what your claim is

OK, I'll make this easy for you. Here is a "scientific" assessment of the models in use:

link

In general, they provide credible simulations of climate, at least down to sub-continental scales and over temporal scales from seasonal to decadal. The varying sets of strengths and weaknesses that models display lead us to conclude that no single model can be considered “best” and it is important to utilise results from a range of coupled models.

Not bad, eh? The scientists think these models might even be credible.

Now, I'm making you King of the World for a day. Do you want to shutdown the carbon-burners based on these models?

 

[mb]

Now, I'm making you King of the World for a day. Do you want to shutdown the carbon-burners based on these models?

I think that taking away all the SUVs and replacing them with Mo-peds would do the trick

 

[2B]

whackos, socialists, atheists. Boy, it's tough to disagree with 2B anymore.

C'mon, 2B. All those scientists that believe the evidence that human induced climate change is real are at LEAST as dumb as someone who might run the numbers on an annuity. Don't mince words--isn't it about time you called someone an idiot again? Don't stop with socialist, whacko and atheist. People will think you are going soft!

I don't believe I've used "idiot" or "atheist" in this thread. If you like, you may claim them as your own this time.

I try to avoid what I consider direct personal insults or attacks but some people seem to prefer them.

What I see about "all those scientists that believe in human induced climate change" is a group trying to attribute agreement of other scientists that in some cases have had to sue to get their names removed from documents, a group that issues evidence that gets disputed by scientists actually involved in that area, a group trying to quash true scientific debate through accusations and political/academic/economic pressure and a group that is more focused on the "solution" than in anything that would represent science.

Having been a "scientist" in the past, I deplore what I have been seeing.

The EPA had a wonderful model on smog generation on the Texas Gulf Coast. It clearly linked the emissions of light hydrocarbons and NOX with smog/air quality in the Houston area. The only problem with it was that it didn't work. There would be horrifically high periods of smog without major releases of light hydrocarbons as the model predicted. Their answer was that companies were clearly not reporting their unpermitted light hydrocarbon releases. They began a major enforcement crackdown that led nowhere. Their model did not bother to consider thermal reversions that happen with Gulf weather. When that factor was included their model sorta, kinda started to work but not very well. Light hydrocarbon levels as permitted were shown to be a very small factor in smog. The biggest component is auto/truck emissions -- what a shock!

This was changed with a great deal of work over several years. I don't see anything like a real review of the "human induced global warming" subject being attempted. We "know" the cause and solution so we can't take the risk of not acting NOW. I've seen numerous mini-versions of this over the last few decades to tell me that this subject isn't any different except its been moved to the world stage.

 

[janeeyre]

The "60 Minutes" previews are showing a segment on energy issues, in particular nuclear energy.

 

[sgeeeee]

. . .
Not bad, eh? The scientists think these models might even be credible.

Now, I'm making you King of the World for a day. Do you want to shutdown the carbon-burners based on these models?

Well . . . wab. I think of it this way. Every day that passes we are choosing to act based on some model of the global environment.

The best models scientists have today are not that good. We know that their models are not mature and have serious limits. Those models have not been tested under the conditions we have today. They are complex and require massive data inputs and computer simulation. Used in concert, scientists think those models give us a qualitative picture that is consistent with reality and may predict the future. Those models indicate we should probably be cutting back on carbon-burners or we may make the earth unliveable.

On the other hand, we can use the implicit model that man has been using for thousands of years. That model assumes there is no limit to the amount of crap we can spew into the atmosphere. It assumes the earth can always correct for anything we do. That model has never been tested under the conditions we have today either. In fact, that model has never been mathematically formulated. It requires no computer to run. Put in anything, out comes livable conditions. That model indicates there is no reason to cut back on carbon-burners.

So I give it back to you, wab. Which model do you think we should act on today?

 

[wabmester]

So I give it back to you, wab. Which model do you think we should act on today?

As I've said, I prefer the self-correcting model for several reasons. Even if one believes that man is changing the climate (something I think is reasonable), I still think the problem is self correcting.

We will run out of oil. The earth has sustained life under many wildly varying circumstances. Our models are next to useless, and the costs to make sudden changes are huge. Even if dramatic changes to our infrastructure were possible, I don't think the end result would change much. We're already 100 years into the experiment. Let's see how it plays out, adapt, and stop pretending that we're smart enough to predict the future and re-engineer the world.

 

[Texas Proud]

I don't really have any idea how the question of global warming is going to work out, although I do realize that most of the voices I hear in opposition to a majority of the world's scientists seem to be in the employ of some of the largest polluters......



Argue on......personally, I like clean air and water, and don't think it would harm us to reduce our carbon footprint whether or not it helps global warming.

Hey loose...

Nope.. I work for a company that has declared they are going to be 'carbon neutral' and is spending money to get there... but, some is the construction of our buildings, using the florescence lights etc..

I agree about clean air and water... and most of the people posting here also agree... there is a difference in doing some of the things that have a positive payback AND cleans the air or water (or polutes less)..

However, I don't think that causing our economy to stagnate (and if it did, really read decline as there will be 100 million more of us in the next 40 to 50 years!!!) with claims based on models even the modelers say can not be relied upon...

As for the financial models... most have been backtested and withstand the testing... and most say 'future performance can not be guaranteed by past performance'.... the climate models can NOT even back test and then thay say 'our model tell us we are going to warm up a lot' (which by the way I an not arguing about... I think we WILL be a lot warmer)... 'and that HUMANS are the major cause'.... it is that last statement that gets me...

What about the wobble of the earth, the intensity of the sun, all the other factors that are involved in this complex system? And, how can they tell us 'for sure' that we are going to hell in a handbasket without DATA?? It might mean that the earth will be BETTER OFF...

I can tell you that we are better off today than back a few dozen thousand years when glaciers were covering half of America...

Another thing that turns me off is the ever changing claims... I had read not more than a few months ago that the sea level was going to rise 30 feet... now it is 18 inches to 24 inches... so if the second is 'better' 2 ft vs 30 ft is a pretty far off claim changed in a few months...

SO, let's do what we can that has a payback in the form of efficiency, cleaaner air and water and other 'hard' benefits and then see where things go... but that is not good enough for the scare mongers... it is TAX or CARBON CREDITS NOW....

 

[sgeeeee]

As I've said, I prefer the self-correcting model for several reasons. . . .

Remind us, wab. What are those reasons? Exactly how is that model formulated? tested? etc.? What scientific data indicates it is superior to the models that most scientists believe?

 

[wabmester]

Remind us, wab. What are those reasons? Exactly how is that model formulated? tested? etc.? What scientific data indicates it is superior to the models that most scientists believe?

[Hmm, play rhetorical games or move the discussion forward? Let's see what happens. ]

What we're talking about here is the intersection of science and public policy. Science says "here's a risk." Engineers say "here's a potential mitigation." Policy makers must ask "what is the magnitude and probability of the risk, and what is the probability and cost of mitigation?"

Tough problem. There is something called "decision science" that can help you deal with it:

book

So, my decision is based on the poor quality of the risk prediction, the high cost of mitigation, and a low probability of actually mitigating the risk. It's a heuristic. All decisions are.

Or do you really want me to discuss the science behind closed systems seeking equilibrium and ecological adaptation?

 

[Brat]

There is one irrefutable fact: we need to free ourselves from dependence on foreign oil.

Matters not whether or not global warming is coming, and if coming is the result of the human use of carbon energy sources.

Judicious financial positioning dictates some investment in US based energy generation.

 

[sgeeeee]

. . .Or do you really want me to discuss the science behind closed systems seeking equilibrium and ecological adaptation?

Actually, that's exactly what I wanted to get you to talk about. I was trying to expose the fact that you are avoiding any real scientific comparisons between the models of the scientific community and a vaguely defined, nearly non-existant "do nothing" model that you embrace instead.

You state cite poor quality of the risk prediction of current scientific models as one of your rationalizations for rejecting that model. How do you quantify that quality? and how does that quality metric compare to your "do nothing" model? By rejecting one model, you are assuming the alternative is better. Yet you seem to do that without any data -- for that matter, without any real model.

You cite high cost of risk mitigation as a second reason. What prescriptive actions are you assuming and what is that cost? How does it compare to the cost of doing nothing using each model? It seems invalid to assume that the cost of doing nothing is $0. That conclusion only occurs if the "do nothing" model is correct, and you haven't even specified what that model is yet -- never mind tested and confirmed it.

You also state that there is a low probability of mitigating the risk. As far as I can tell this is simply an assumption on your part. It is certainly not consistent with what many in the scientific community are saying.

By the way, I don't have any of the answers to these questions either. My point is not to claim that I (or any scientist) has the answer. It is that non-experts debating whether science is right or wrong is ludicrous. You or I may be more technically skilled than the average American, but we are still essentially clueless about the state-of-the-art in global environmental predictions. Reading an article in Wikkipedia does not replace decades of formal training, tireless reading of the technical literature, and thousands of hours of effort developing and running simulations.

Scientists are always wrong (it's just a matter of degree). But when laymen sit in front of their computer terminals and say things like, "I think scientists have underestimated X," they're just blowing hot air.

 

[wabmester]

But when laymen sit in front of their computer terminals and say things like, "I think scientists have underestimated X," they're just blowing hot air.

Of course we are, but we also have to remember that scientists don't set policy. I'm confident that we laymen can evaluate the evidence as well as GWB can.

The data are out there. I pointed you to a scientific assessment of the models, which are used to both predict the effects of current trends as well as the potential effects of mitigation, so the quality of those models is central to the discussion. There are also readily available estimates of the costs associated with implementing Kyoto, for example.

I'm sure we can all guess how this will play out. People will be outraged by the changes in the environment, but they won't want to radically change their behavior or sacrifice their lifestyle. Politicians will implement feel-good policies. And the results will be the same for both of our positions: we'll do virtually nothing, and adapt as things get worse. Eventually, things will get better again, and hopefully we'll be less dependent on oil in the end.

 

[sgeeeee]

Of course we are, but we also have to remember that scientists don't set policy. I'm confident that we laymen can evaluate the evidence as well as GWB can.

But the discussion wasn't about the qualifications of GWB. Although this thread has certainly mentioned public policy, the discussion was driven by posters making claims about the science and scientists. The discussion focused on whether the best models of the scientific community were better than an implied "do nothing" model.

I don't have a problem if people simply admit, "I don't have a clue about global environment, but a neo-con I like on FOX revved me up and convinced me that I can legitimately oppose policy by making fun of scientists. I've never read a scientific paper on the subject and probably wouldn't understand it if I did, but the guy on FOX sure made fun of those scientists. He called them liberal and implied that they had a political agenda and had missed some important points. That's good enough for me."

The data are out there. I pointed you to a scientific assessment of the models, which are used to both predict the effects of current trends as well as the potential effects of mitigation, so the quality of those models is central to the discussion.

Wab, I hate to tell you this, but your article on assessment of the models is far from complete and much less detailed than literature I was already familiar with. It certainly does not deliver a "death blow" to the validity question as you seem to want to imply. But let's ignore that for a minute and get down to the points you continue to conveniently ignore. Where is the assessment of your alternative. You might be able to dance around the facts on an internet discussion board, but in a refereed journal your repeated side-stepping of this critical point gets you rejected.

Pointing out limits of one model does not imply that a second model is better. You have repeatedly concluded the scientific community offering is inadequate while choosing to believe an unstated model in preference. As far as any of us can tell from your posts, your unstated model is worse than the scientific model in every respect -- making your conclusions the worst possible choices.

There are also readily available estimates of the costs associated with implementing Kyoto, for example.

Again, you avoid the question of assessing costs for doing nothing. The cost of a car is high. The cost of losing your job because you can't get to work may be considerably higher.

I'm sure we can all guess how this will play out. People will be outraged by the changes in the environment, but they won't want to radically change their behavior or sacrifice their lifestyle. Politicians will implement feel-good policies. And the results will be the same for both of our positions: we'll do virtually nothing, and adapt as things get worse. Eventually, things will get better again, and hopefully we'll be less dependent on oil in the end.

That may well be true. Of course that has nothing to do with the science.

 

[wabmester]

Wab, I hate to tell you this, but your article on assessment of the models is far from complete and much less detailed than literature I was already familiar with. It certainly does not deliver a "death blow" to the validity question as you seem to want to imply.

It wasn't intended to be a "death blow." You didn't trust my evaluation of the models, so I offered you an independent evaluation. My opinion of the models wasn't that they were "bad," it was "woefully incomplete." Please point me to an evaluation that suggests these are rock-solid models with great predictive power.

But let's ignore that for a minute and get down to the points you continue to conveniently ignore. Where is the assessment of your alternative. You might be able to dance around the facts on an internet discussion board, but in a refereed journal your repeated side-stepping of this critical point gets you rejected.

Sorry, I thought it was obvious that I was arguing from first principles. "Do nothing" doesn't require a model. Was there a specific outcome I mentioned that you have a problem with? I said we'll eventually run out of oil, and that will self-correct the carbon emission problem. It's a finite resource. Do you doubt that assertion?

Or do you doubt that earth has survived 3 billion years of wildly varying conditions? Or do you want me to recite something about ecological adaptation? I never said humans were guaranteed to survive the status quo, BTW.

Help me out here.

I'll admit to a strong "intuitive" bias against the possibility of the climate models ever being accurate, but this comes from being intimately involved with software simulations and scientific programming. Nothing specific to climate modeling, but I'd love to hear your insights into how they solved the problem of modeling complex non-linear feedback systems.

 

[baetis]

What if we for the sake of arguement concede that global warming is 1. happening and 2. it is man-made. Then what are our options that are clean and provide enough energy to sustain us. Solar power far too expensive and doesn't provide enough energy. Wind same issue and difficult to store due to expense of batteries etc. What else is there? Ethanol how does this help with CO2 emmisions. Nuclear energy? Why is no one talking about this. What happens if we propose nuclear plants. Every Sierra Club and Greenpeace attorney sues and it gets locked up in litigation for a century. The only logical conclusion is that these environuts are the very ones responsible for us burning up the filthy coal to provide our energy. How's that for hypocrisy. Why is no one calling these people out for the hypocrites they are.