Global warming and financial positioning

[Texas Proud]

SG....

I was remembering last night the doctor who had said stomach ulcers were caused by a virus.... the whole of the medical world said he was nuts (including scientists)... it was a consensus that he was wrong...

Well, he was right... not ALL consensus are right....

As to your question of 'alternative models'..... Why do we need one?? The scientist that are saying that there is MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING are the ones who say THEIR models are flawed. The alternative is NOT TO BELIEVE THEM... I don't have to come up with a model that says otherwise.

If I came up with a model that showed you would win the lottery on every 'blue moon' if you played a group of certain numbers and invested $100,000.... would you have to come up with a model to prove me wrong??

I do not know all that is involved with their models and like you say, none of us on this board is educated in the subject enough to be able to talk with any of them intelligently. But we are 'smart' and can make decisions on the facts as presented... some of us agree 100%, so 50% and some zero...

 

[kcowan]

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.

I agree with your post. But I would put a different spin on it:
1) Global Climate Change is happening, and
2) We know that this is part of a natural cycle, and that
3) Mankind can take steps to mitigate any contribution that our industrialization is causing to accelerate it.

What gets me is when someone claims that we must do X to solve the problem!

Take the Quiz. I got 9/10...

 

[sgeeeee]

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.

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.

Well . . . we're getting nowhere. You have offered no real evaluation of any models -- only opinions. You have not invoked first principles, or in fact, any principles. You repeatedly avoid questions that are critical to reaching your conclusions in a logical, analytical fashion. If this were a peer reviewed journal, your manuscript would simply be rejected and you would be encouraged to seek another outlet for your work.

In this case, I guess you've found that outlet.

 

[wabmester]

Well . . . we're getting nowhere.

True, but only because of your insistence on playing rhetorical games rather than trying to bring any light to the discussion.

My assertion is that it is extreme hubris to think that we have the ability to predict the future and to re-engineer the world. I'm more than open to arguments that would suggest I'm wrong. I've tried to tackle problems of similar complexity myself (like brain modeling back in the neural net heyday), so nothing would please me more than to learn that our abilities to model complex systems like the earth have improved to the point of being, say, "useful."

But I agree that this is going nowhere without interesting input or new insights, and I can only hope that whatever feel-good measures we implement as a result of this public discussion will do more good than harm.

 

[Nords]

Well . . . we're getting nowhere. You have offered no real evaluation of any models -- only opinions.

True, but only because of your insistence on playing rhetorical games rather than trying to bring any light to the discussion.

I think that if you two hired a director and a producer then you'd be able to take your show to the big screen in time for next year's Oscar nominations!

Of course you'd have to agree on a script...

 

[sgeeeee]

SG....

I was remembering last night the doctor who had said stomach ulcers were caused by a virus.... the whole of the medical world said he was nuts (including scientists)... it was a consensus that he was wrong...

Well, he was right... not ALL consensus are right....

I don't think you've been reading my posts. I've stated this explicitly several times. That's not the point.

As to your question of 'alternative models'..... Why do we need one?? . . . .

Whether you are wab understands it, you are assuming another model when you reject the existing ones in favor of doing nothing. I'm not sure what model you are assuming, but it could be one of the following:

model A1) Greenhouse gas doesn't exist. Global warming doesn't exist. This is all a conspiracy of a liberal scientific community.

model A2) Man's activity has a short-term impact on the earth, but long-term the earth can correct for anything we do. Our activity is unimportant and does not impact global warming.

model A3) Man has some small impact on long-term global warming, but global warming really is of little importance. Who cares about a bunch of ice caps and polar bears? We will learn to live with it.

model A4) Man has a significant impact on global warming. It may kill us all, but we can't do anything about it so let's ignore it.

model A5) Some variation or combination of above . . . or a completely different one I haven't captured.

Why does it matter which model you are using? . . . I suspect wab understands the answer to this question and that is why he has been so determined to avoid providing an answer.

What is going on with global warming discussions is very similar to what happens with evolution discussions. Evolution theories are not complete. We have millions of years of imperfect records. There are gaps in that record and some uncertainty in the data we have. Mistakes have been made in the science of evolution and some of those mistakes have been published and later exposed. We've even had fraud. Those who don't want to believe in evolution, love to point out the gaps, uncertainty, mistakes and fraud. "Ahhh haaa", they shout, "evolution theory is flawed so we want to replace it with this religious description." The problem is that if we hold their religious description up against the same scrutiny as we hold the scientific theory, it is far more limited and flawed. Evolution, is still the best theory we have. If we have to choose a course of action based on evolution or creation, we need to be aware of the differences in how these theories are, and have been, evaluated. The opponents of evolution never want to do this. The opponents of global warming action have taken a similar stance.

 

[samclem]

... I'm not sure what model you are assuming, but it could be one of the following:

model A1) Greenhouse gas doesn't exist. Global warming doesn't exist. This is all a conspiracy of a liberal scientific community.

model A2) Man's activity has a short-term impact on the earth, but long-term the earth can correct for anything we do. Our activity is unimportant and does not impact global warming.

model A3) Man has some small impact on long-term global warming, but global warming really is of little importance. Who cares about a bunch of ice caps and polar bears? We will learn to live with it.

model A4) Man has a significant impact on global warming. It may kill us all, but we can't do anything about it so let's ignore it.

model A5) Some variation or combination of above . . . or a completely different one I haven't captured.

Why does it matter which model you are using? . . . I suspect wab understands the answer to this question and that is why he has been so determined to avoid providing an answer.

None of these are "models." They are, perhaps, hypotheses. A model is intended to take inputs (including the base situation) and faithfully produce a result that replicates what could be expected in the real world with the same inputs. When people complain about not having an edequate model, they mean that we don't yet have a model (because we don't yet understand) that will account for how all the various factors will interact to produce a result. For example--will there be a feedback mechanism that will keep up with escalating manmade CO2 emissions? Some have postulated that plant/algae growth will increase enough due to the higher CO2 levels that the levels will decrease. There are millions of factors just like this, all of which are interrelated. Yes, it is complicated. To say that "we know the answer, the debate is over" is just not scientifically sound.

 

[sgeeeee]

None of these are "models." They are, perhaps, hypotheses.

That's because no one seems willing to define that alternative model. There seem to be plenty of posters who believe in some alternative model that leads them to conclude that the best answer is to do nothing. But none of them are willing to describe it. I was attempting to get a few statements that might form the basis for their models. Once we agreed on a basis, we could move on to fleshing out the details of their model.

Honestly, I think once we started to formulate this alternative model it would become clear that it would need to be just as complex and ambiguous as the existing scientific models. In fact, we might even find that we need exactly the same models and that it is only the input data that is different or debatable.

To say that "we know the answer, the debate is over" is just not scientifically sound.

I'm curious if you think you've heard someone say or imply that in these threads.

 

[samclem]

" To say that 'we know the answer, the debate is over' is just not scientifically sound. "

I'm curious if you think you've heard someone say or imply that in these threads.

Folks are saying it, in shrill tones--though not folks with credibility.

"The Debate is Over: Humans cause Global Warming

It's official, human actions and activities are causing climate change and global warming. At least that is what a new climate report from the UN is saying. "

http://www.developmentcrossing.com/development_crossing/2007/01/no_more_debate_.html

 

[haha]

It's been a long time since we have enjoyed any debate; mostly we just roll over and play dead if challenged. I know that has been my strategy.

Good to see it return.

Ha

 

[Texas Proud]

That's because no one seems willing to define that alternative model. There seem to be plenty of posters who believe in some alternative model that leads them to conclude that the best answer is to do nothing.

You are wrong in saying I need an alternative 'model'. As stated, a model is something that will predict what will happen. I just belive the people who have put together the models that shows global warming to be man made when they say themselves they are flawed. Hence, I don't have to belive in THEIR flawed model.

You want me to prove that I am right. That is completly different than what I am doing... I choose to voice skepticism in their model when the 'cure' is going to be a hugh tax on my society.

Let me give an example that I think you are doing... If I said "I don't like Johnny", you might conclude that I hate Johnny. You could be very wrong. All I had said is I did not LIKE him. I could be very neutral.. just don't care one way or the other... but I don't HATE him by just giving that statement....

So, 'I don't belive that man is the major cause of global warming due to the errors in the models that the owners of the models freely admit'... is my statement. I don't need anything else.


On another note.... we were talking about this subject today at lunch... someone pointed out that the last 'mini ice age' was due to volcano eruptions... so, all we need to do is get some nukes and start blasting those pesky volcanos and make the erupt and cause global cooling.... simple, and a good use of all those nukes laying around...

 

[2B]

Here's another denier that needs to lose his academic standing for daring to question the word of St. Al. He's probably just pandering to suck in oil company grants.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/

 

[sgeeeee]

You are wrong in saying I need an alternative 'model'.

No. I didn't say you needed a model. I said you were using a model and your are. Your model assumes that something is different about global warming than the existing scientific model. If you're model were not different, then you would agree with theirs.

You want me to prove that I am right. That is completly different than what I am doing... I choose to voice skepticism in their model when the 'cure' is going to be a hugh tax on my society.

No. I have never asked you to prove you are right. I haven't asked you to prove anything -- simply clarify the assumptions. Apparently your assumption is that science is wrong and you are willing to take that on faith without any idea of why they are wrong or what is right. I can accept that. You reject the scientific method. That is not what I expected any of the posters to say, but I believe you are being honest and accept your position.

Let me give an example that I think you are doing... If I said "I don't like Johnny", you might conclude that I hate Johnny. You could be very wrong. All I had said is I did not LIKE him. I could be very neutral.. just don't care one way or the other... but I don't HATE him by just giving that statement....

This really isn't a good analogy. Your like or dislike of Johnny is a personal feeling independent of facts. I accept your statement of your feelings at face value. It's more like if you said, "I don't like Johnny because he is big." Since I don't know Johnny and don't know what you consider "big", I might want to ask you some questions. If I found out that you claimed to like Billy who I knew to be 6'6" tall and weighing 280 pounds, I would probably want to know how Johnny compared to Billy.

 

[rigel]

Global Warming - biggest "greenhouse gas" - water vapor by far absorbing about 70%-90% or more of known absorpsion of sunlight (depending on the calculation method). CO2 is way down the list, and man's contribution is maybe 1% of that.

Reason's for global climate change: 11yr solar cycle, precession, changes in wobble, changes in the orbit, and, shock - the sun's output is not constant. That's why we have ice ages followed by brief warm periods - been happening for millions of years. Hate to break the news to you, but the earth's climate is not now and never has been constant.

We've been warming for the last 11,000 years - thank goodness. Man wouldn't do well on a cold, dry, desert planet.

Man isn't causing the increase of temperatures, which in the last 100 years has been very minor with ups and downs in 20-30 year cycles.

CO2 is food for plants, not a pollutant As temperature increases, CO2 increases follow - not the other way around.

The conflict of interest lies in the billions of dollars of taxpayer money sloshing around to be picked up by scientists if they agree with global warming, otherwise they are shunned -no profit in research disagreeing with the assumed answer. Like I would believe anything written by the UN which is so corrupt it makes Nigeria seem like a bank.

So why would we improvish the world (and ourselves) to make no measureable change in the climate - just to make a few people feel better about themselves - no thanks.

 

[wabmester]

I caught Warren Olney's show on NPR today. He interviewed a couple of climate scientists on their recent IPCC report.

I like Olney. He's one of the few journalists who asks fairly deep questions. And today he asked them "what about the skeptics who criticize your models?" I guess he must have been surfing this site.

Anyway, the answer was basically wab is those skeptics are correct -- they know their models suck at the details, but they think they may be OK at predicting the first-order effects, such as warming. Their models show that sometimes warming is good for us, and sometimes it is bad for us. But their guess is that it's mostly bad.

Another scientist was asked "what do we do about this imminent threat?" And the answer was basically that people first need to be convinced the threat is real, and then they need to buy energy-efficient appliances.

So, now I feel vindicated by the Real Scientists(TM).

 

[2B]

Another scientist was asked "what do we do about this imminent threat?" And the answer was basically that people first need to be convinced the threat is real, and then they need to buy energy-efficient appliances.

What threat? I'm not convinced. I'll buy energy efficient anything if it meets my needs and is cost effective.

 

[mb]

sgeee is right on the model.

If you have an opinion then you have a model. Your definition of "model" is to narrow and you just don't recognize the model for what it is.

If you don't have a model then you have no basis for forming an opinion on the future consequences of CO2 emissions and with out an opinion on the future you cannot arrive at a opinion on what if any action (including no action) should be taken.

That fact that some of you have strong opinions that CO2 emisssion are benign suggests that you place great faith in your model but the fact that you don't even recognize your model for what it is just suggests that not a lot of thought has gone into it and that it probably isn't a very good model!

MB

 

[wabmester]

If you have an opinion then you have a model. Your definition of "model" is to narrow and you just don't recognize the model for what it is.

OK, then my model is accept what you can't change, don't try to know what you can't know, and don't pretend you're smarter than the big analog computer called Earth.

There, now I have a "model." Can we move past the semantics now?

 

[2B]

That fact that some of you have strong opinions that CO2 emisssion are benign suggests that you place great faith in your model but the fact that you don't even recognize your model for what it is just suggests that not a lot of thought has gone into it and that it probably isn't a very good model!

I haven't seen any reason for a model. I haven't seen anything that isn't well within the normal variation of our planet over the last few thousand years. It amazes me how the subject is always framed by the supposition of a "problem."

Now if I hate industrialization and want a new world order, this would seem like a good topic to try to use for political advantage via a supportive, technically illiterate media. When our next solar cycle shifts I can tout the expected emergence of the new ice age again where we must stop CO2 emissions to prevent global cooling.

 

[bosco]

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.

I'm not a big fan of ethanol, but in theory, actually, it should be carbon-neutral. So long as the field where the corn was harvested is replanted, the carbon released when the ethanol is burned is impounded again.

Same with burning wood--so long as the forest that provided the wood is replanted. I'm NOT saying burning wood doesn't pollute, just that it is carbon-neutral. What tips the carbon balance is when you release carbon that is stored in the earth (coal, oil, etc.) without reimpounding it. Obviously, if you cause net deforestation, that is not carbon-neutral.

As for nuclear power, that's another matter. Personally, I'd rather have a nuke plant next door than a coal plant. That doesn't change the fact, however, that industry wants to build the things without knowing how they will be dismantled/decommissioned, and what will be done with the byproducts. They also (like nearly all power generation) generate thermal pollution because they require a heat sink for the thermodynamics to work

I don't know the answers, but I do know that conservation is the only sure-fire approach that doesn't have negative side-effects. Not that conservation alone will suffice.

 

[mb]

OK, then my model is accept what you can't change, don't try to know what you can't know, and don't pretend you're smarter than the big analog computer called Earth.

There, now I have a "model." Can we move past the semantics now?

Ya know wab I think that you are way to smart to believe this I think that you are just jealous of California weather and see this as an opportunity to get rid of that constant northwest drizzle

MB

 

[bosco]

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.

wrong

I could go on but human induced climate change has become a religion to othewise atheist populations.

The above statement is from this thread. 'idiot' was in another thread. I'm mainly pointing out that your pattern of using labels such as these to describe those that do not agree with your point of view does nothing to strengthen your argument. Since I have been the recipient of some of your attempted insults in other discussions, I'd merely like to suggest that it be toned down. I'm hard-nosed enough to not be bullied out of the forum, but you've suceeded in alienating others with this tactic in the past. At least this time, the labels were not directed at specific posters, rather the "set of people who don't agree with you." I guess we could call that progress. But to pass judgment on the ideology and motives of an entire group of scientists, whether they are right or wrong, is a bit much.

Personally, I don't consider 'atheist' or 'socialist' to be insults. I'll even plead guilty to being at least one of the two. However, I think their use in the discussion in this way is not helpful, and closes more minds than it opens. Would you care to present some actual evidence to back up these assertions?

For the record, I'm not convinced that human activity is causing global warming. But it is certainly causing other problems, and these problems won't go away so long as society is "consumption-based."

 

[sgeeeee]

sgeee is right on the model.

If you have an opinion then you have a model. Your definition of "model" is to narrow and you just don't recognize the model for what it is.

If you don't have a model then you have no basis for forming an opinion on the future consequences of CO2 emissions and with out an opinion on the future you cannot arrive at a opinion on what if any action (including no action) should be taken.

That fact that some of you have strong opinions that CO2 emisssion are benign suggests that you place great faith in your model but the fact that you don't even recognize your model for what it is just suggests that not a lot of thought has gone into it and that it probably isn't a very good model!

MB

Thanks for the confirmation, mb. I didn't think it would be difficult to lead the discusssion through a logical analysis process that would emulate a scientific discussion. . . I was clearly wrong.

 

[sgeeeee]

. . . So, now I feel vindicated by the Real Scientists(TM).

You shouldn't. Once again you've hit one point like a religious zealout with a hammer. Unfortunately, the point you keep hitting is irrelevant to the discussion. You continue to ignore the key point. I think you've avoided answering the direct questions about your alternatives 4 or 5 times now.

Why don't you write another post claiming that your incredible insight has seen that the scientific models have flaws and quote other sources that agree with this obvious conclusion. Then pretend that this point somehow makes your illogical conclusions on global warming valid. That kind of thing works on internet discussion boards sometimes.

 

[wabmester]

Ya know wab I think that you are way to smart to believe this I think that you are just jealous of California weather and see this as an opportunity to get rid of that constant northwest drizzle

I'm only smart enough to know what we can't know. Basically, I believe the models can accurately predict "warming." I'm doubtful that they can accurately predict how much, at what rate of change, and for how long. They can probably make some very crude approximations on second-order effects like "ice melts when it gets warmer." But tertiary effects on health, welfare, and species extinction? Fuhgetaboutit!

When you hear somebody predicting the future at this level of detail, just remember the famous butterfly effect, and then change the channel.

I'd also like to see a serious model of "Global Warming meets Peak Oil."