Hot Under The Collar (Climate Change Chatter) [Archive]

Golgot

02-08-09, 10:50 PM

We had a thread like this, but it got hijacked by a fantasist. Seems like a good a time as any to light another bonfire of vanities... and flush out some new opinions along the way :)

http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/7153/theghosttownofkolmanskobj9.th.jpg (http://img510.imageshack.us/my.php?image=theghosttownofkolmanskobj9.jpg)http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/7056/cloudsgatheroveringlefirt7.th.jpg (http://img510.imageshack.us/my.php?image=cloudsgatheroveringlefirt7.jpg)http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/5483/ourfirstelectricstormofpf6.th.png (http://img510.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ourfirstelectricstormofpf6.png)http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/7590/crystalsactlikeprisms22sy6.th.png (http://img510.imageshack.us/my.php?image=crystalsactlikeprisms22sy6.png)http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/4121/lightpollutionandfogcomty4.th.png (http://img16.imageshack.us/my.php?image=lightpollutionandfogcomty4.png)

---

Here's a couple of US-centric headlines from the last few weeks, just to get us started:

Climate shift 'killing US trees' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7841030.stm)
Analysis of undisturbed forests showed that the trees' mortality rate had doubled since 1955, researchers said

Drought warning as the tropics expand (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16516-drought-warning-as-the-tropics-expand.html)
Now new research suggests that the three-year drought in the Golden State may be a consequence of the expanding tropics

They seemed suitable, as they've probably already hit people's buttons in certain ways: Apprehension if you're concerned by climate change; derision if your highly sceptical of the scientist's claims; apathy if you don't know what to think about it either way. And so on...

So how about some positive ones?...

Fish Guts Explain Marine Carbon Cycle Mystery (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090115164607.htm)
[Fish will help rebalance ocean pH & lock away even more carbon if expected sea temp & CO2 rises take place]

Some locust plagues don't like it hot (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16137-locust-plagues-may-be-eased-by-global-warming.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news)
"Our results suggest that warming reduced climatic extremes and locust plagues in ancient China."

Chances are your buttons were getting pushed again one way or another: Scientists don't know everything; warming might be a good thing; why does China get to have all the fun these days? (etc ;))...

For what it's worth, I thought I'd state my position bluntly here:

The underlying physics connecting human emissions & activities to accelerated climate change seems too solid to ignore {*} (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=114)
To this layman, anyway. If there's one thing 'hard' scientists love doing it's tearing down a weak argument. You don't establish a consensus of this apparently unprecedented kind amongst these fractious types, over decades, (in a discipline that's accessible to government number-crunchers to analyse) unless the theory is testable & exceptionally flipping strong.

The debate should be about Mitigation vs Adaptation
There is plenty of uncertainty about how good the predictive models are. So the question should be how much do we direct our energies & money towards reducing our greenhouse gas influence (Mitigation) and how much towards 'everyday' concerns that will be an issue come climate change or not (Adaptation) - such as crop improvement & drought prevention etc (all of which are considered key to avoiding resource wars in the face of a 'peaking' global population)

Some human-influenced changes seem to be here. There are reasons to believe future changes will damaging for humanity.
Ongoing changes are increasingly (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7700387.stm) being directly connected to human influences. (Once things have happened that makes them much more testable ;)). Even if we were to hit the base level targets for reducing emissions, certain changes (http://www.aip.org/history/climate/impacts.htm) are liable to occur that will stress well known problems for global social stability (those like water, food & land-access that fall in the 'Adaptation' category)

---

A key issue to remember when pondering all this is that that CO2 emissions remain influential for centuries{*} (http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.122.html). (That's why all the fuss about it - in case ya didn't know ;)).

I'll happily admit that I've mainly posted this to flush out layman Climate Change deniers, so I can challenge any scepticism-lite objections they may have.

But I wouldn't want to leave those peturbed by these issues without a positive note. How's about this?... We might be able to scrub some of that CO2 back out again - & maybe power our cars with the 'proceeds' (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126901.200-can-technology-clear-the-air.html) :)

John McClane

02-08-09, 11:03 PM

I miss snow. :(

Golgot

02-08-09, 11:10 PM

We've got loads, i'll send you some. It's $20 a bottle tho mind ;)

Sir Toose

02-08-09, 11:35 PM

7thson

02-08-09, 11:42 PM

G.W. (not Bush) or Climate change or El Neenyo ;) or whatever..... I just do not see it. I mean sure I would rather play close to the vest JIC, but murphy's law just needs to be ousted in this case I think. Hope I am wrong however, 'cause it is better to be proved wrong and be safe, than to be proved right and be dead. :)

Loner

02-08-09, 11:46 PM

Hey Golgot why don't you do your part for the environment and not breed.

Now lets talk about something interesting, like everyones views on the Kennedy assassination.

mark f

02-09-09, 12:01 AM

The theory and the numbers (if you believe them) show that many places are warming (January in Southern Calfornia was the warmest on record), but they are counteracted by other locales where the climate is cooling "for the time being". I realize that among many people that Al Gore is a fool, but An Inconvenient Truth did "explain" why some places would have a "freeze" even if it was due to the "concept" of global warming. As far as what you believe, I have no way of telling what to do and it's not really my place, but before you pooh-pooh that Commie Nobel Prize winner, at least watch An Inconvenient Truth all the way through before you go to the right-wing sites which say it's all some Commie scheme to pick your pocket. :cool: I trust in the intelligence and objectivity of all my friends here.

Please try to ignore anything you see as scaremongering in the trailer, at least to get to the movie itself. It may be helpful to take notes and have something like a scorecard when you watch the film to fully decide what YOU really think its truths and lies are.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XMn_Ry3z6M&feature=PlayList&p=53C8EBCE7F1A8002&playnext=1&index=54

P.S. There's no way that Oswald killed Kennedy on his own, especially based on the Zapruder film. :cool:

Golgot

02-09-09, 12:06 AM

How come you don't call it Global Warming anymore? Now it's 'Climate Change' because the recent trends in cooler weather seem to suggest that "Global Warming" is a misnomer.

I'll give your links a glance tomorrow, Golgot. Right off the bat though your use of the word 'consensus' and hard science in the same paragraph bugs me. Like I said though, I'm not as stupidly rigid as I once was... I'm willing to be educated.

Hey Toosey :)

I opt for CC now over GW because of the very argument you're presenting. The cold-weather one ;). Lots of sceptic-leaners have jumped on the recent cooling without realising it doesn't contradict the science (http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/09/temperatures-plummeted-in-2008.php) - which is based on long-term cycles. This isn't a topic that's going to go away - some groups are predicting further drops/more-significant slowdowns (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926691.500-climate-change-the-next-ten-years.html?full=true) because of long-term sea-atmosphere cycles - but if you read the article (and they're all there so you can, if you want more than just my rhetoric on a point :)), you'll see that we wouldn't be any better off long-term under those conditions - in that we're currently better off having the heat 'in the air' (where it can radiate out into space) rather than locked in the oceans for a while (where it can't).

I don't expect, or want, you to take any of this as gospel. Glad you're up for engaging tho :)

Golgot

02-09-09, 12:09 AM

Harry Lime

02-09-09, 12:11 AM

Record amount of snow in Vancouver this year, really cold temperatures for this area.

I've got a wack load of theories on this subject, but like most of what I write while on this site, I'll just delete it and avoid posting my true thoughts, like I just did.

Golgot

02-09-09, 12:15 AM

Hey Golgot why don't you do your part for the environment and not breed.

Now lets talk about something interesting, like everyones views on the Kennedy assassination.

Kennedy was killed because he didn't fully support the breeding of pigs in Cuba (or something ;)).

But i can do better than that Loney. I can point out that the population is liable to come down (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026835.500-the-population-paradox.html) as developing countries industrialise. (Reverse those words as you see fit). In that birth-control education and lack of need for a large, medically-challenged arable family has historically empowered people to control their family size to a 'sustainable' level. The problem is that there's a lag between industrialisation allowing for even greater family growth & the limiting effect kicking in.

I'm willing to have one and a half kids - and wait :p

Loner

02-09-09, 12:25 AM

P.S. There's no way that Oswald killed Kennedy on his own, especially based on the Zapruder film. :cool:

I hope you're kidding.

I am.

Golgot

02-09-09, 12:29 AM

I realize that among many people that Al Gore is a fool, but An Inconvenient Truth did "explain" why some places would have a "freeze" even if it was due to the "concept" of global warming.

Gore really has stirred the sh*t backwards on some levels. Not because he's necessarily wrong in a lot of what he says (altho i hear he overplayed the hurricane theories a bit - & ran strongly with the Day After Tommorow scenario that's very much on the 'back burner' these days) - more because... he's Al Gore. And very prominently so. Everything he says gets equated by the hard-core Democrat-opposing community as automatically-wrong. And it seems people fall 'demographically' into those tendencies anyway to a degree - so Gore baby was just preaching to the choir, while entrenching the schismic apoplexy.

Golgot

02-09-09, 12:33 AM

Loner

02-09-09, 12:33 AM

Kennedy was killed because he didn't fully support the breeding of pigs in Cuba (or something ;)).

But i can do better than that Loney. I can point out that the population is liable to come down (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026835.500-the-population-paradox.html) as developing countries industrialise. (Reverse those words as you see fit). In that birth-control education and lack of need for a large, medically-challenged arable family has historically empowered people to control their family size to a 'sustainable' level. The problem is that there's a lag between industrialisation allowing for even greater family growth & the limiting effect kicking in.

I'm willing to have one and a half kids - and wait :p

I don't mind saying this.

I think you're a better person that I am.

I wouldn't have reacted that way.

Powdered Water

02-09-09, 12:35 AM

Well, I agree that this is a topic, I however don't believe in most of it for a second. I agree with the late great George Carlin on this issue. Global warming may seem like a big deal to some but at the end of the day nothing will come of us talking about it. Especially if the folks in power can't figure out a way to make money off of it. Ever notice how when you buy something "green" it costs 2 to 3 times more than something that is supposedly not good for the environment? Why do you suppose that is? That's a rhetorical question so please don't feel like you need to somehow convince me of something. Am I closed minded? Maybe. Probably. But to me there are way more important things that I feel humanity as a whole needs to address. Like for starters: How about we get everybody on the planet fed and then we can at least talk about global warming after someone who hasn't eaten in a week has a nice full belly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw

Golgot

02-09-09, 12:37 AM

I don't mind saying this.

I think you're a better person that I am.

I wouldn't have reacted that way.

Ach, I'm on a mission from Gaia. I've gotta have my good suit on ;)

mark f

02-09-09, 12:44 AM

That's true. I believe in caring for people here and now and not for the future, but if that is your actual bottom line, then you probably also don't care about all the deficit-spending which we've been doing on a yearly basis for quite awhile now. Just screw Americans or "world citizens" in the future when all they have to pay for the notes that China and Japan call in on the U.S. are pure Monopoly money. No biggie; we'll probably be covered in water by then anyway. Politics suck, almost as much as reality...

Golgot

02-09-09, 12:47 AM

But to me there are way more important things that I feel humanity as a whole needs to address. Like for starters: How about we get everybody on the planet fed and then we can at least talk about global warming after someone who hasn't eaten in a week has a nice full belly.

*cough*

Even if we were to hit the base level targets for reducing emissions, certain changes are liable to occur that will stress well known problems for global social stability (those like water, food & land-access that fall in the 'Adaptation' category)

Mitigation vs Adaptation man, as i said. Coz i am like, so wise ;)

Powdered Water

02-09-09, 12:55 AM

Golgot

02-09-09, 01:15 AM

I don't know who Moondog is but it should be the other way around. Carlin was talking about this well over 10 years ago.

And I get that you're trying to help in your own way and I wish you good luck with that, I truly do.

Heh yeah, i edited the Moondog bit out as he didn't quite fit (it was his 'Enough about Human Rights' (http://hypem.com/track/554271/Moondog-Enough+About+Human+Rights+!) song, for those that want to get their monotonous hippy on ;))

Carlin I like, but I think his argument there doesn't apply to the core issues on this one. No one's arguing that 'the planet' is ultimately in danger here (outside the overly-hairy-bike-riding community ;)). The implications of 'CC' hit on what you're worried about - food in bellies and the like (just in the long-term too - as mark pointed out).

I agree that you've gotta look out for 'greenwash' - but to differentiate between snake oil & long-term-sustenance you've gotta engage with the details a bit, no?

(PS thank you :))

Powdered Water

02-09-09, 01:51 AM

Carlin I like, but I think his argument there doesn't apply to the core issues on this one. No one's arguing that 'the planet' is ultimately in danger here (outside the overly-hairy-bike-riding community ;)). The implications of 'CC' hit on what you're worried about - food in bellies and the like (just in the long-term too - as mark pointed out).

I disagree, that isn't his only take on the world, he also has talked in the past about "Soft language" and Politicians, but his point is a valid one. We as a people most likely will be able to do very little about what is happening here. Why? Because most folks just don't care and the majority don't believe its an issue anyway. Besides, what is it we're really trying to get at here? If taking better care of the planet will somehow get folks to somehow stop killing each other then I'm all for it.

This isn't really germane to my point but in a way it is. I went ahead and read most of the first article about the trees and I found it to be a total fear based piece that basically told me that trees do in fact die. Really? Well thanks for that. The study only supposedly (I'm a hard line septic, does it show?) goes back to 1955. How long has this planet been around again? How can we as a species deign to think that some study that is barely even 50 years old will somehow help us understand our planet and these so-called changes?

Again this is where I agree wholeheartedly with Carlin. The planet is fine its the people that are f**ked. We may in fact be a minor irritation to the world in some way and if we are then the planet has already started things in motion to heal itself. What we need to do is get ready for the changes. If we can, it may be to late for us. It's very likely that we will not inhabit this earth forever. We can't stop what's going to happen. Its already happening by some peoples accounts and studies. So what am I to do?

I agree that you've gotta look out for 'greenwash' - but to differentiate between snake oil & long-term-sustenance you've gotta engage with the details a bit, no?

Well I suppose that's true. Don't you find though that when you are talking to someone about this "issue" that they already have their minds made up and in turn its next to impossible to get them to see reason? Or even enter into a debate about it? I mean for crying out loud there's still a very large group of people on this planet that believe some guy called Jesus is actually going to return from the grave. That sounds like a pretty tough nut to crack to this reporter. ;)

mark f

02-09-09, 02:14 AM

I just want more people to love each other and actually admit to it or do something about it (such as contribute to hunger programs or vote to reduce the possibility of things which WE DO/ DO NOT DO which will somehow keep any babies from eating enough. I mean, is there any single person here (I already know the answer, so forgive me) who doesn't believe that every baby conceived should be fed, at least if they are, truly, a baby? I love everybody here, even if I seemingly don't speak to you directly. I would wish you to respond as soon as you see this because YOU are loved. Sorry, this is nothing but a call for lost children who feel that they may actually have somehow lost or found their family. This is 100% not about bogus BS, so only respond if you can be honest and you're comfortable. :yup: God Bless.

Loner

02-09-09, 02:17 AM

mark f

02-09-09, 02:18 AM

I like Sam Kinison and George Carlin probably more than most...

Powdered Water

02-09-09, 10:20 AM

Me too. And I love you to Mark. You're a good man. I don't care what Holds says about ya.

Sir Toose

02-09-09, 11:29 AM

Golgot

02-09-09, 12:59 PM

I disagree, that isn't his only take on the world, he also has talked in the past about "Soft language" and Politicians,

Well i can only powwow about what you put in front of me Powdy ;)

but his point is a valid one. We as a people most likely will be able to do very little about what is happening here. Why? Because most folks just don't care and the majority don't believe its an issue anyway.

Ah, but people do care about the dollar in their pocket - and some of the most effective things we can do as individuals concerning CC often save us cash (simple things like insulating your house in cold climates etc). [There's lots of issues here - from the role of the economic downturn, to how saved money is spent etc, but ultimately there's a lot of overlap between simple 'energy saving' actions and personal 'lifestyle' benefit]

Besides, what is it we're really trying to get at here? If taking better care of the planet will somehow get folks to somehow stop killing each other then I'm all for it.

That is exactly the point. Resource stress (lack of food, water & space) are key drivers of conflict {*} (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5562906.ece). Tackling them is hard enough (as evinced by the continuing grumbling bellies in a world that currently has enough food to feed everyone, in theory). The last thing we need then is further attrition of resources in the face of a growing population. Tackling these challenging problems is another 'win-win' cross-over area in many ways.

This isn't really germane to my point but in a way it is. I went ahead and read most of the first article about the trees and I found it to be a total fear based piece that basically told me that trees do in fact die. Really? Well thanks for that. The study only supposedly (I'm a hard line septic, does it show?) goes back to 1955. How long has this planet been around again? How can we as a species deign to think that some study that is barely even 50 years old will somehow help us understand our planet and these so-called changes?

I knew that article would have an amusingly polemic effect :D

I do find uber-sceptic reactions like this intriguing.

Firstly, the study tells you more than 'trees die'. It asserts that US trees, of all types, are dying at an increasing rate and not being replaced. And that this is at least not a short-term trend but one extending over half a century. Why is that not interesting to you, as a stand alone fact? I find it intriguing that you could be so blase about it.

And secondly, this study is just a stand-alone work separate from the body of evidence on historical climate change and the 'basic physics' that may drive it. Its focus is... trees. Is a 50yr trend not good enough for you now when it comes to tree studies? Is that too piffling & lightweight an investigation for you?

Again this is where I agree wholeheartedly with Carlin. The planet is fine its the people that are f**ked. We may in fact be a minor irritation to the world in some way and if we are then the planet has already started things in motion to heal itself. What we need to do is get ready for the changes. If we can, it may be to late for us. It's very likely that we will not inhabit this earth forever. We can't stop what's going to happen. Its already happening by some peoples accounts and studies. So what am I to do?

Well, there are many suggestions that we can 'mitigate' some of the more extreme possibilities that are floating out there - & there are lots of 'natural human drives' which can harnessed to achieve this - from penny-pinching, to national desire for 'energy independence', to international preferences of peace-over-war 'business as usual' stability. Etc :)

There's no need to be such a fatalist. We've got more talents than just ****ing things up ;)

Well I suppose that's true. Don't you find though that when you are talking to someone about this "issue" that they already have their minds made up and in turn its next to impossible to get them to see reason? Or even enter into a debate about it?

Yes and no ;) I admit I like debunking 'silly' reasons that some sceptics come up with (IE ones that are technically errant etc) - but I find that every schism has an area in the middle where everyone can agree. Those who disagreed over Iraq still want things to work out there, ultimately. People who argue over economic stimulus still want a bustling, active, productive society at the end of the day. And you and me want to make sure everyone's got access to water, food & space for a long time to come, if at all possible. So it just comes down to discussing the details of how best to achieve these things as individuals (with any knock-on-effects for the bigger-scale coming as a bonus :))

Golgot

02-09-09, 01:07 PM

Golgot:

For the sake of argument would you concur that This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas) is a pretty fair and balanced assessment of greenhouse gases and how they pertain to your arguments?

Well, it's wiki, so i'm not sure we should use it as a gold standard or anything. But yeah, today's page impression seemed a reasonable summary to me, on a quick scan ;)

Now, what devilishness are you planning... :D

Sir Toose

02-09-09, 02:30 PM

Now, what devilishness are you planning... :D

No devilishness :)

It's just that your sources are a bit slanted and there are other sites who slant in the opposite direction.

I'm just looking for a baseline to start from before we waste a bunch of time discrediting each others sources.

Golgot

02-09-09, 05:14 PM

No devilishness :)

It's just that your sources are a bit slanted and there are other sites who slant in the opposite direction.

I'm just looking for a baseline to start from before we waste a bunch of time discrediting each others sources.

Why, dyou prefer Conservapedia (http://www.conservapedia.com/Greenhouse_gases)? ;)

Well tell you what, why don't you suggest some issues you have problems with - such as assertions on the wiki page you think are errant/contradicted elsewhere etc?

I think it's a given that I've bought into large swathes of CC thought/assertions, so sources I cite will often be supportive of that theory (but almost always based in scientific research for the most part - for what that's worth to you ;))

Powdered Water

02-09-09, 10:37 PM

Outbreak

02-10-09, 12:45 AM

I think we really need to do something about to help curve climate change... and soon.
Climate is the average weather of an area... like over a long period of time, so even though now it may still be cold, the earth in general is experiencing a general warming. That's not good in the least, as the earth warms, the permafrost thaws in the summer and realeases ages old CO2 and other greenhouse gasses in to the air, which will dramatically increase the already high levels in our atmosphere. On top of that, pieces of ice on the antarctic and glaciers and the like melt more and more each year... raising the water level. But what is more worrying is that for every 3 degrees (celcius) the water temp. rises, the water will expand and raise the sea level roughly... (can't remember exactly but we did the math and i have the notes somewhere around here) roughly 2-4 feet i believe, which is simply astonomical.

so thats some basic stuff i know about Climate change... and this is all pretty much what i've learnt in my Meteorology class at university over the past few weeks

Loner

02-10-09, 01:13 AM

so thats some basic stuff i know about Climate change... and this is all pretty much what i've learnt in my Meteorology class at university over the past few weeks

You must be an incredible athlete.

Outbreak

02-10-09, 01:22 AM

haha unfortunately not... but I go to York U in Canada so my school has been on strike for the past 3 months so half the stuff i forgot over the long brake... I've only been back one week, and have that class once so far... besides, I've smoked alot of weed during the strike :P

Golgot

02-10-09, 10:03 AM

Crap. I just lost a huge post trying to reply to you Gols. I'll try to revisit this with you later when I can muster up the energy to type it up again. It took me over an hour and I lost it all. I don't know what the story is with my internet connection lately but I've lost several long post in the last few days and its very frustrating.

Damn, sorry to hear that PW. Was looking forward to knocking about some ideas with you and maybe getting into some more detail and that. Hope you can find some time to have a go again (I'm sure there's plenty I wrote that you want to challenge, for a start ;))

(I guess just use the preview & back up occasionally in word - I'm kinda in that habit now days, coz my net eats some of my mammoth posts too on occasion. Bah)

Ðèstîñy

02-10-09, 01:45 PM

Hundreds Attend Global Warming Protest

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a249/nunions/Other%20Boards/GlobalWarmingProtest.jpg

Golgot

02-10-09, 02:03 PM

Climate Change sceptics say 'Damn, they told us so'

http://digitalrightsmanifesto.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/field.jpg

:p

SamsoniteDelilah

02-10-09, 02:27 PM

Golgot

02-10-09, 02:59 PM

Just as a first-glance overview, I find it interesting that the people who have taken the time to think about all this seem fairly-concerned-to-panicked about climate change, while the main comment from those opposed is that they don't want to think about it, or don't believe that they can do anything (but refuse to listen to suggestions).

Heh, I don't think anyone should be 'panicking' as such, but Outbreak's comment about positive feedback (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Feedback) definitely touches on the most worrying end of the science. That's the kind of stuff I always want to talk about with sceptics - but it normally takes a while to get past the "it's snowing so it can't be warming" / "it's just a natural cycle" style kneejerk rejections ;)

You can find lazy/'auto-partisan' thinking on all sides tho :|

(PS Toosey may attempt to devour you whole for lumping him in with the 'don't want to think about it' crowd ;))

SamsoniteDelilah

02-10-09, 03:07 PM

Heh, I don't think anyone should be 'panicking' as such, but Outbreak's comment about positive feedback (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Feedback) definitely touches on the most worrying end of the science. That's the kind of stuff I always want to talk about with sceptics - but it normally takes a while to get past the "it's snowing so it can't be warming" / "it's just a natural cycle" style kneejerk rejections ;)

You can find lazy/'auto-partisan' thinking on all sides tho :|
Yep, hence my love of your term "greenwashing". :D

(PS Toosey may attempt to devour you whole for lumping him in with the 'don't want to think about it' crowd ;))While I'm sure there are worse ways to go, this actually occurred to me while I was making lunch and I should clarify that he's not being lumped by me. He seems very interested in thinking about it, and with an open mind and eyes.

Yoda

02-10-09, 03:08 PM

Yeah, I'll concur with Toose, should he say what Gol guesses he might. I know a fair number of people who have gotten knee-deep in some of this stuff, and have become more skeptical, rather than less. Regardless, I think that's a pretty big generalization, and my own (admittedly anecdotal) evidence suggests otherwise.

I also think there's a small but important distinction between which people have been thinking about this the most, and which people have been talking about it the most. I know a fair number of (mostly younger) people who are pretty worked up about global warming, but not terribly interested in the details. I don't know that talking and thinking about it gets people worried, so much as some of the worried people are constantly talking and thinking about it.

Golgot

02-10-09, 03:45 PM

I know a fair number of (mostly younger) people who are pretty worked up about global warming, but not terribly interested in the details.

I think an interesting driver of some of the schisms is the eco-leftish 'appeal' of general CC summaries, and the concurrent backlash amongst more 'conservative' thinkers. (Certainly the implications for economy/growth limitation are anathema to the latter)

Add to that the propensity for scientists to be left-leaning athiests, and you've got a recipe for the science getting ignored and strawmen fights to ensue instead.

It is intriguing that no one's cropped up with a 'science-based' objection as yet tho. I know this is a movie forum (honest, i do ;)), & PW's 'what can/could we do anyway' rejoinder highlights the partially 'academic' nature of these discussions anyway - but still ;). There are lots of pertinent areas of debate that are still 'up in the air' (and ongoing 'down to earth' government decisions that will impact on us all) - so it's kind of intriguing that they aren't on the tip of people's tongues, in some ways.

---
EDIT
---

PS Yods, did any of your researching-mates give you any reasons for their increased scepticism? What sort of things were turning them off the idea even further?

SamsoniteDelilah

02-10-09, 05:18 PM

Sir Toose

02-10-09, 11:47 PM

Well, I think the thread is titled in an appropriately tongue-in-cheek manner, for starters.

I will admit to listening to some sources that out an out deny 'global warming' and/or 'climate change'. I'll also admit to quoting those sources on occasion because it was what I wanted to hear at the time.

Since then, though, I've done a little independent research and I don't think that there really is any question that the climate appears to be shifting.

Now, that said, it's difficult to find a reasonable presentation of fact. People are very passionate about this subject and the research seems to be polarized definitively on one side of the argument or the other. Since hard data is largely unavailable, it would seem that people are polarizing on what they perceive to be probability. This isn't science in any definitive degree beyond the hypothetical.

I hesitate to engage in these discussions because they will consist largely of opinion based upon analysis of available data that may or may not be skewed by the presenter.

Golgot, you have to have your doubts if you've applied any reason at all to your thoughts. If you're already sold on the idea that humans are the root cause then I would only say that you're jumping the gun and that reason hasn't caught up to you yet.

That being said, I can look at your 'evidence' and see a possibility that your viewpoint could be right.

My stance on all of this right now is that I believe that we should clean up our manufacturing processes, work toward cleaner energy sources and do whatever it takes to keep our environment as clean as possible (hey, we have to live in it) whether or not we're causing any trends in warming.

Thanks for not lumping me Sammy :D

Sir Toose

02-10-09, 11:55 PM

I know a fair number of (mostly younger) people who are pretty worked up about global warming, but not terribly interested in the details.

I could launch into a long social commentary diatribe based on that statement. These days, it seems like if something (or someone) has a cool logo, slick packaging, powerful sounding bullet points and not a whole lot of that distracting substance stuff it'll go far.

SamsoniteDelilah

02-11-09, 01:38 AM

My stance on all of this right now is that I believe that we should clean up our manufacturing processes, work toward cleaner energy sources and do whatever it takes to keep our environment as clean as possible (hey, we have to live in it) whether or not we're causing any trends in warming. I am right about there, myself. At a minimum, it's only good sense to curtail pollution and make the most sensible choices for the long term. This will require some education of the public. It will likely also require incentives, because new items are more costly to produce than established, widely used ones. Long term, big picture, should be the watchword. And research needs to continue and if there's any way to de-politicize/commercialize it, that should happen sooner than later. If we're really talking about the future of the planet, we can't have the facts held hostage by shorter term agendas.

Thanks for not lumping me Sammy :DNever. Unless you asked very nicely. :D

Golgot

02-11-09, 09:52 AM

Golgot, you have to have your doubts if you've applied any reason at all to your thoughts. If you're already sold on the idea that humans are the root cause then I would only say that you're jumping the gun and that reason hasn't caught up to you yet.

(For what it's worth, i wouldn't choose 'root cause' as a way of describing any anthropic effect ;))

I've been convinced by the concept that our emissions can be influential - and that this influence could provoke significant long-term effects (in terms of CO2's apparent 'longevity'), & potentially serious changes in a much shorter timescale (in terms of 'positive feedback' acceleration etc).

As for doubts, hesitancies & suspicions, I've got loads :). The tree-loss research I started this thread with, for example, provides a potential example of CC 'greenwash' - there's a 'bandwagon' feel to its readiness to ascribe the changes to drought/warming. (I can't be sure without having a look at the original publication - but who has time for that with every interesting or contentious claim? ;)). I don't doubt the breadth or impressiveness of their study's scope - but there's a shadow there as to whether they're using the zeitgeist to get their genuine findings heard.

I chose all of the articles I flagged up because they had elements that could be taken as supportive of 'either side' - just wanted to see the reaction really :)

I'm planning to follow this 'political consensus collapse' argument (http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/the-collapse-of-climate-policy-and-the-sustainability-of-climate-science-4939) as it evolves, because the question of how to react to the certainties & gaps in the science as it stands interest me. (I wouldn't normally take an evidence-lite piece like this seriously, but the blog itself is a refreshing 'brokerage house' between climate-alarmism & scientific-pragmatism that I think you might enjoy - altho it's unfortunately a lot more troll-ridden than it used to be. In the past its comments section was a more 'expert-only' affair, with loads of fact-heavy fencing going on that was fun to eavesdrop on :)).

So yeah, in short, there's plenty of points on which i'm withholding judgment - and generally i can see the force of the Adaptation camp's arguments, but still have a lot of time for the technical ingenuity of the Mitigation camp (if not always their pragmatic achievements - see the well-meaning flailings of Kyoto etc)

My stance on all of this right now is that I believe that we should clean up our manufacturing processes, work toward cleaner energy sources and do whatever it takes to keep our environment as clean as possible (hey, we have to live in it) whether or not we're causing any trends in warming.

I'm with you & Sammy there :) (With a slight caveat over the global dimming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming) issues surrounding aerosol pollution reduction ;))

I think some form of 'global' cap&trade and/or carbon tax may become inevitable if the science remains robust tho (currently i quite like the popularist-possibilities of the 'tax & dividend' (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026855.800-yes-you-can-change-the-climate-mr-obama.html) approach - but i doubt that'll ever see the light of day)

Tacitus

02-13-09, 05:54 AM

I'm nowhere near intelligent enough to contribute to this thread (and, if I'm totally honest, that sits rather easily with me) but something has happened over the last few days which has made me acutely embarrassed to come from where I do.

Our Environment Minister, Sammy Wilson, has decided to ban a collection of UK Government adverts exhorting us to cut down on our energy use. He has long held the belief that climate change is not caused by Man and has been less than coy about appearing on TV in the past blaming it on a 'hysterical pseudo-religion'.

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7878399.stm)

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7885744.stm)

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7599810.stm)

If I put my political beliefs to one side (and Wilson is from the other end of the spectrum to me) I still think the man is a publicity seeking clown, content to grandstand and play off a light-hearted (light-hearted for this little cesspit, anyway) image rather than engage in 'real' local politics.

Thoughts? :)

SamsoniteDelilah

02-13-09, 03:10 PM

Golgot

02-13-09, 03:46 PM

I'm nowhere near intelligent enough to contribute to this thread (and, if I'm totally honest, that sits rather easily with me)

I think bloodymindedness is the key requirement ;)

Thoughts? :)

The ad featured in the first link is a particuraly pointless one i reckon. (Have you ever met anyone that reduced their revs because of adverts like that? I don't really see that as a likely long-term behavioural change anyway. Most people are never going to be into driving their car like a porpoise (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026796.800-how-to-get-extreme-milage-from-ordinary-cars.html?full=true) to save fuel ;))

That said, i think the ads that popularise simple but effective 'win-win' acts like the renowned insulation approach are a very cost-effective governmental tactic. Even hard-line Adaptionists like yer man there should struggle to find objections to that. It's a straight-forward public information service.

If anything a lot of the ads we get seem to be designed to be not too alarming - almost reassuring (pretty colours, aspirational-yet-avuncular voice-overs on telly etc). Placating us with the idea that we're all acting collectively and counter-balancing growing emissions etc (which is pretty far from the truth, but kinda cute ;) They counter-act the more hysterical end of GW dialogue - which again, he should appreciate).

Is he on the 'right' of the chart when it comes to politics then? His objections do smack slightly of partisan grudges. Be interesting to see if the party force him to tow the official line. Strange choice of battleground too - does suggest a degree of local-politics grandstanding, as you suggest.

Tacitus

02-13-09, 08:37 PM

I'm thinking that guy has some ocean front property and is hoping for a longer tourist season. ;) Seriously, that's unfortunate. How much of Norn Iron's GNP is energy? I'm wondering if he's worried of a financial collapse if people cut back on energy usage. Failing that, I'd say he's in someone's hip pocket, because it's pretty clear something's up with the environment, and whether the fire is too big to contain or not, he's fiddling.

He's not denying climate change is happening, just that we are the main cause of it. ;)

Golg - I've seen a few of the ads (he's been able to ban them from terrestrial channels but not satellite/Freeview etc) and their main gist seems to be saving money by conserving electricity. The reduction of CO2 emissions is mentioned but in a lighthearted way - ie: the dad telling the kids to unplug the TV to save the environment although all he's really interested in is saving a few pence...

It's interesting that the DUP are distancing themselves from Wilson's remarks (he's usually tolerated as a smart operator, for them, in the chamber) and The Assembly's Environment committee (because we're a voluntary coalition, each department has a cross-party committee monitoring them to keep them in check) has tabled a vote of no confidence. They can't do much more than give him a slap on the wrist, however.

Expect Sammy to be quietly reshuffled in a few months time and faces saved all round.

Of course, Sammy also appears here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCNG5UeKMZw). Words fail me. :D

Golgot

04-24-09, 03:03 PM

Wow, pretty surprised (& happy) the Obama admin opted for a 'cap & refund' (http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/mar2009/db20090310_825431.htm) version of Cap & Trade (basically the 'cap & dividend' approach i mentioned earlier).

Hasn't there been a hue & cry about this being 'redistribution' State-side tho? (Which it pretty much is, but also seems like quite a promising way of stimulating spending etc - or at least preventing most downturn influences that might emerge from raised energy prices)

He might need to check his stats on the 'green job production' statement he made recently (the Spanish investment programme he cited has been predicted to lose 2.2 normal jobs per green job created (http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/the-spanish-green-jobs-study-5144#comments) if applied in the US). But CO2 emissions are still rising despite GDP drops (http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/serendipitous-emissions-elasticity-experiment-5075), which is rather perplexing, and suggests climate change worries are going to stay high on the agenda even during the recession.

Yoda

04-24-09, 03:15 PM

Yeah, the whole "green jobs" thing is kind of absurd on its face. If the market could bear these jobs, we wouldn't need government intervention in the first place. And if the market can't bear them out and some sort of incentive (or compulsion) is involved, then those jobs will probably only be around as long as the incentive or compulsion is in place. Those aren't salaries, they're subsidies.

One could theoretically make the case that this is part of a short-term sacrifice that will yield a boost in technological advancement which will benefit everyone long-term (yay!). This is possible, but I see no reason to believe that any given administration is better able to forecast which technologies will yield such a boost better than the far more efficient track record of private industry.

There's plenty of money to be made in cheap, clean energy, and even if there's a fair amount of corruption in the system, or concentration of power, none of it is any match for a truly great idea or technology. I simply don't see even the slightest reason to believe that a handful of politicians can determine which possible future energy source is the best and most viable, but that's literally what they're pretending they can do when they advance these kinds of policies.

Anyway, my mind's still reeling over the fact that carbon -- something that every man, woman, child and farm animal emits naturally -- has been declared a pollutant. I realize this is a matter of degree, but the whole thing feels a little on-its-head. Hell, the whole debate does.

Golgot

04-24-09, 03:29 PM

Yeah, the whole "green jobs" thing is kind of absurd on its face. If the market could bear these jobs, we wouldn't need government intervention in the first place. And if the market can't bear them out and some sort of incentive (or compulsion) is involved, then those jobs will probably only be around as long as the incentive or compulsion is in place. Those aren't salaries, they're subsidies.

I guess it can be seen as 'stimulus' in that many of so-called 'green jobs' are actually in manufacturing/labour etc (so it's comparable to a modern day New Deal). But agreed that governments aren't who should be guiding market innovation per se. There are perhaps some more obvious areas where prizes/R&D-aid make a certain sense - such as cleaning up & improving existing tech (coal & nuke - although both of these are contentious, within the CC sphere)

Anyway, my mind's still reeling over the fact that carbon -- something that every man, woman, child and farm animal emits naturally -- has been declared a pollutant. I realize this is a matter of degree, but the whole thing feels a little on-its-head. Hell, the whole debate does.

I hope that was a facetious argument young man. Nobody's banning breathing (or people, for that matter ;)) - nor talking about respiration as a source of anthro climate change. Taken on its own, that's no stronger than saying 'marijuana is only a natural herb' etc. We need to look at the context no? Factual cause & effect. Stuff like that :p

I'm taking it that you're opting for the 'this must be a natural cycle' line of thought on this then?

Yoda

04-24-09, 04:05 PM

I guess it can be seen as 'stimulus' in that many of so-called 'green jobs' are actually in manufacturing/labour etc (so it's comparable to a modern day New Deal). But agreed that governments aren't who should be guiding market innovation per se. There are perhaps some more obvious areas where prizes/R&D-aid make a certain sense - such as cleaning up & improving existing tech (coal & nuke - although both of these are contentious, within the CC sphere)
Yeah, crucial difference there, to be sure. And a lot of these prizes don't specify how certain tasks have to be done, which leaves the innovators free to innovate and all that. But it sounds like we agree on the main point. It all sounds very nice and everything, but the whole slew of policies is based around the assumption that we know what the energy sources of the future are, and that sheer political will is the only thing necessary to push us into the future. I think the whole concept is horribly misguided. As scary as it might be to simply pull back and get out of the way and see what the market bears, it's the clear choice.

But in climates like this, people find it difficult to trust to such nebulous, abstract plans, because they look too much like inaction, and politicians of every party always need to be in motion. So here we are.

Bleh, to say the least.

I hope that was a facetious argument young man. Nobody's banning breathing (or people, for that matter ;)) - nor talking about respiration as a source of anthro climate change. Taken on its own, that's no stronger than saying 'marijuana is only a natural herb' etc. We need to look at the context no? Factual cause & effect. Stuff like that :p
It's somewhat facetious. I'm certainly not suggesting that anyone wants to ban breath, but I am suggesting that declaring carbon as a pollutant feels a little...perverse. A little muddled and confused. That, if the debate has reached the point where this can happen, a lot of people involved have lost sight of things. I realize what I'm saying is extremely fuzzy, but I think there's something to it.

It's rather like the whole "paying farmers not to grow a certain crop" business. There are convoluted reasons that may sound semi-reasonable for doing such things from time to time (not that I agree), but at its core the idea is plainly ridiculous to even the least informed person. It's the kind of mistake that not thinking would never produce -- only someone who has thought a tremendous amount about the issue, and consequently lost perspective, could advocate such a thing.

Maybe this is of a similar vein (I'm guessing you feel otherwise), and maybe not, but it does have a tinge of the "is this what it's come to?" feel to it.

I'm taking it that you're opting for the 'this must be a natural cycle' line of thought on this then?
I'm not sure, but probably. The argument keeps mutating, and somehow humanity is always at fault: global cooling (I know you've downplayed this, but it had a significant popularity spike for a bit), overpopulation, global warming, and now climate change, for which both high and low temperatures can serve as evidence. And every time, the next few years are "crucial."

Technically speaking, changing the blame around every few years and big swaths of the environmental movement overstating the danger doesn't invalidate what might be some valid truths underneath...but there's certainly a Boy Who Cried Wolf aspect to this that is worth thinking about. When large groups of people are adamant about a problem, only to see it evolve, delayed, or mutated in some way, it naturally leads us to doubt the latest claim. It's not entirely fair to considerate souls like yourself, Gol, but I'm sure you realize you keep some very kooky company on this side of the issue. Whether or not their presence says something about the base idea, or is merely an unfortunate coincidence, I don't know.

Obviously larger philosophies trickle down and influence one's overall feeling about things, too. I tend to regard the Earth as durable, and humanity as having an inflated sense of importance about the problems of its present, whenever that may be, so I bring an inherent skepticism to anything which claims we're capable of basically destroying the ecosystem. Perhaps that colors my views a bit.

More than any specific skepticism, though, it's about burden of proof. Trillions of dollars hang in the balance. Jobs, lives, technological progression...they're all going to swing any which way depending on whether or not we willingly curb certain economic advancements and policies. Indirectly, it's even a matter of life and death. Things will be invented in the future that will save lives, and they can happen sooner or later, depending on the business climate. Sounds silly, but it's true, be it because of medication, more portable defibrillators, etc.

The burden of proof for such a shift should be outrageously high, in other words. Not just the burden of proof that such things are happening, but that we can fix them. AND, given that, that we know how to. Given all that, does anyone here really think we've genuinely met these burdens, given the mind-blowing costs?

Golgot

04-24-09, 05:26 PM

I'm certainly not suggesting that anyone wants to ban breath, but I am suggesting that declaring carbon as a pollutant feels a little...perverse. A little muddled and confused. That, if the debate has reached the point where this can happen, a lot of people involved have lost sight of things. I realize what I'm saying is extremely fuzzy, but I think there's something to it.

[EDIT - Ah, i see you're referring to the EPA decision to tag green house gases as pollutants. I think that's just a matter of political expediency - the EPA study was already well under way and provides an immediate platform for Federal action, if required etc]

Well to argue back on a similar 'gut call' level, it seems fuzzy and perverse to dismiss the correlations between the onset of carbon-powered industrialisation and the warming trend, for example ;)

But as you mention later, you have a predilection for seeing the earth as durable & humanity as liable to overstate their influence, whereas i'm from the worry-about-human-influences-on-ecosystems camp. Seeing as we both recognise our biases though, it make sense to leave gut-calls aside somewhat, and try and assess what the facts & arguments actually are.

I'm not sure, but probably. The argument keeps mutating, and somehow humanity is always at fault: global cooling (I know you've downplayed this, but it had a significant popularity spike for a bit), overpopulation, global warming, and now climate change, for which both high and low temperatures can serve as evidence. And every time, the next few years are "crucial."

I don't think the 'Global Warming' argument has mutated a huge amount - although public/media perceptions have certainly gone through shifts. The 'Global Cooling' 'period' is far from significant, for example. One group that investigated (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/03/the-global-cooling-mole/) its prevalence in the sci literature found this breakdown:

Between 1965 and 1979:

7 articles predicting cooling
44 predicting warming
20 that were neutral
[EDITED - You can see in the study that there's no spike in publication etc. The only 'spike' exists in the media (& selective present-day quoting by the likes of Senator Inhofe). Also, the 'cooling' science being undertaken was exploring strands that are still viable today (interglacial periods, volcanic & aerosol cooling effects, changes in orbital cycles etc), and these papers often go out of their way to say their modelling is stand-alone, and needs to be integrated with anthropic effects to make multi-discipline predictions etc etc]

Beyond that 'Global Warming' & 'Climate Change' are the same thing, just 'rebrandings' of the same underlying physics argument and ongoing attempts to understand its real-world applications. And low temperatures certainly don't count as 'evidence' for CC per se, they just don't discredit it, as many laymen seem to think [one of the reasons I feel, that the CC 'rebranding' took place]. The very problems of separating (long-term) weather variations from long-term climate trends is exactly why 'global warming' is assessed over long periods (http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/09/temperatures-plummeted-in-2008.php) :).

I think you're slightly conflating other 'green' issues here with CC. Certainly Malthusian population fears were averted by the 'green revolution' (which, in the absence of funding, is now stuttering again somewhat, and has come with some other downsides which need rectifying, such as energy/water requirements, nitrogen run off etc). I could conflate 'anthropic' green successes with CC, such as spotting the Ozone issue, or highlighting the clear impact of over-fishing, but again, feel this isn't necessarily helpful.

But I'm sure you realize you keep some very kooky company on this side of the issue. Whether or not their presence says something about the base idea, or is merely an unfortunate coincidence, I don't know.

Again, the same could be said about 'your side' ;). There's plenty of 'commie conspiracy' style commentary that abounds from the kookier end of the sceptic scale, for example.

More than any specific skepticism, though, it's about burden of proof. Trillions of dollars hang in the balance. Jobs, lives, technological progression...they're all going to swing any which way depending on whether or not we willingly curb certain economic advancements and policies.

I absolutely agree here. The burden of proof is massive, and the potential negative impact of acting and being and wrong is huge. The reason the ball is still rolling politically in favour of action though is because the burden of proof has partially been met. The physics of 'green house gas' effects is well understood and solid for the most part - the current examinations of how this plays out in the world points more towards exacerbating 'feedback effects' rather than limiting feedbacks. We're then in the slightly murkier territory of the 'physics-style' modelling, tallying past knowns with future possibilities, but again, the most robust models suggest changes that will impact negatively on economies & lives. It's understandable then that action is being considered, despite existing doubts in certain areas (modelling accuracies, continuing unknowns, whether it's better to 'adapt or mitigate' etc)

As long as the science continues to point towards significant economic & life impacts, & calls for swift action to prevent C02 output breaching certain concentrations, there is nearly as large a burden of proof on sceptics for justifying inaction. I recognise many aspects seem Cassandra-ish (the 'hurry hurry' side, and the doom & glooming, but to be fair to them, they have been saying it for several decades ;)). It seems to me though that the best form of scepticism is that which engages with the science, and therefore increases our understanding of best action :)

Indirectly, it's even a matter of life and death. Things will be invented in the future that will save lives, and they can happen sooner or later, depending on the business climate. Sounds silly, but it's true, be it because of medication, more portable defibrillators, etc.

Don't quite get this bit. Are you suggesting that money/R&D etc will get drawn off into areas which may turn out to be unnecessary, and hence detract from medical studies etc that could have benefited in the meantime?

Powdered Water

03-08-12, 09:19 PM

I think an interesting driver of some of the schisms is the eco-leftish 'appeal' of general CC summaries, and the concurrent backlash amongst more 'conservative' thinkers. (Certainly the implications for economy/growth limitation are anathema to the latter)

Add to that the propensity for scientists to be left-leaning athiests, and you've got a recipe for the science getting ignored and strawmen fights to ensue instead.

It is intriguing that no one's cropped up with a 'science-based' objection as yet tho. I know this is a movie forum (honest, i do ;)), & PW's 'what can/could we do anyway' rejoinder highlights the partially 'academic' nature of these discussions anyway - but still ;). There are lots of pertinent areas of debate that are still 'up in the air' (and ongoing 'down to earth' government decisions that will impact on us all) - so it's kind of intriguing that they aren't on the tip of people's tongues, in some ways.

Thought this was all very well said and I'd hazard that you won't be seeing any data anytime soon against this issue.

Been watching a lot of documentaries on various subjects and its interesting to see a lot of the things I've been thinking about get addressed somewhat in here and in other threads.

Still not sure what I can really do by myself to change the world. We are planning a garden this year and hope to build a chicken coop. Not sure I'll ever be able to afford an electric car... but maybe someday. I deep down just don't believe the world "wants" to change.

What's really interesting to me is how resistant America is to changes in general. Especially if it involves big business. Can you light your water on fire? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U01EK76Sy4A) Why do companies that are responsible for things like this always forced only through the courts to help people they've harmed?

A lot of other countries aren't like this, but it's always, always tooth and nail here.

Anyway, I'm rambling, but thought I'd revive the thread as it needs more input.

honeykid

03-09-12, 02:42 AM

I deep down just don't believe the world "wants" to change.
People don't like change. As for "the world" I think most of the world are screaming for change. Both their populations (well, those who are rich enough to think above their immediate needs anyway) and governments. The West and the other first world countries, however, are not. Those at the top are worried about those who are coming up and both are looking to exploit those who are greedy enough or can't afford to resist.

What's really interesting to me is how resistant America is to changes in general. Especially if it involves big business.
People, self interest and $$$$

Why do companies that are responsible for things like this always forced only through the courts to help people they've harmed?
$$$$

A lot of other countries aren't like this, but it's always, always tooth and nail here.

$$$$

Yoda

03-09-12, 09:44 AM

Money works as an explanation as to why a specific person or business doesn't want change. But it doesn't work as an explanation for an entire industry, because the same drive for money that compels people to fight changes exists on the other side of the issue.

There are billions upon billions to be made in "green" technologies, too. Our government keeps sinking money into solar and electric cars and other things, only to see company after company go belly-up. Solyndra was worthless. Nobody bought the Chevy Volt. It's been bad investment after bad investment, which is precisely what you should expect when investments are made for political reasons. Because if they were such great investments, government wouldn't need to make them for us.

So, it's reasonable to suggest that we have hyper-ambitious businesspeople who want more money at all costs. But you can't posit this cutthroat atmosphere and then restrict it to one side. If it's really as simple as using some existing technology, or just having the willpower to produce something different, then the same cutthroat attitude you're positing would have new investors descending on these situations with the same fervor. Since that's not happening, there must be other reasons.

Golgot

03-09-12, 10:31 AM

Still not sure what I can really do by myself to change the world. We are planning a garden this year and hope to build a chicken coop. Not sure I'll ever be able to afford an electric car... but maybe someday. I deep down just don't believe the world "wants" to change.

What's really interesting to me is how resistant America is to changes in general.

Cheers man :)

I read this quote (http://boingboing.net/2012/03/01/do-we-need-to-talk-about-clima.html) yesterday, which kinda touches on the idea of motivation, and what we can do individually etc....

“No matter how the conversation started, whether they believed in climate change or not, the discussion always, eventually, turned to energy solutions,” she told me. “And when it did, it turned out that this guy [who didn't believe in climate change] drove a hybrid car and had changed all his lightbulbs out to CFLs.”

It's interesting how there's a lot of crossover between 'believers & non' on energy policy. IE the desirability of renewables, the good sense of energy efficiency etc etc. (There's plenty of contentious issues too of course, like using coal resources if/when they become profitable etc, but at least there's some crossover in goals :))

If it's really as simple as using some existing technology, or just having the willpower to produce something different, then the same cutthroat attitude you're positing would have new investors descending on these situations with the same fervor. Since that's not happening, there must be other reasons.

I'm not sure it is that simple. The use of existing tech hasn't allowed us to 'stabilise' our CO2 output so far, so it seems reasonable to conclude that further R&D is required (& that's a riskier sector - large investments, long term repayments, high chance of failure etc. It's not just about 'willpower' ;))

What 'other reasons' do you see for their not being an investment fervour in renewables / efficiency-tech etc. (Altho I'm fairly sure billions are being plunged into these sectors by independent operators, which seems fairly feverish to me ;))

Yoda

03-09-12, 10:46 AM

It's interesting how there's a lot of crossover between 'believers & non' on energy policy. IE the desirability of renewables, the good sense of energy efficiency etc etc. (There's plenty of contentious issues too of course, like using coal resources if/when they become profitable etc, but at least there's some crossover in goals :))
Yeah, and I think a lot of people miss this stuff. There's really no human being who's against cleaner air or greater fuel efficiency. It's just a question of what's plausible, and what should be mandated by government decree. I think both sides sort of forget this sometimes.

I'm not sure it is that simple. The use of existing tech hasn't allowed us to 'stabilise' our CO2 output so far, so it seems reasonable to conclude that further R&D is required (& that's a riskier sector - large investments, long term repayments, high chance of failure etc. It's not just about 'willpower' ;))
Well, it seems to me that the "entrenched interests" line is the one that's too simple, because it posits a single reason based on a single human flaw. It's a pretty oft-used catch-all to explain why X thing hasn't happened.

I'm not sure the fact that we're talking about long-term investments changes much here. Private businesses don't shy away from such things in other areas (or even in this one, frankly). Look at XM radio; private investors banded together and launched a flippin' satellite for XM radio because they might, a decade later, turn a profit. Took them four years just to launch the business, and a lot longer to start building a subscriber base. There are all sorts of investors, not just guys clutching paper slips on stock exchange floors, living moment-to-moment. ;)

The only argument here, I think, is one that admits that these things make absolutely no business sense, but we need to do them anyway. I'm not sure I agree, but that would be the internally consistent position. But, of course, we almost never get that. Instead we get politicians and activists trying to make out that all the things government needs to fund or mandate are actually good for the businesses in the long-run, even though the businesses don't think so, and they generally have a much better sense of their own self-interest, for a gazillion reasons.

What 'other reasons' do you see for their not being an investment fervour in renewables / efficiency-tech etc. (Altho I'm fairly sure billions are being plunged into these sectors by independent operators, which seems fairly feverish to me).
Yeah, billions are being plunged into it privately, though I think a huge chunk of that is because they know these things will have government backing. The smart investors get in, get the government support, and then bail. The incentives are all out of whack. Though it's worth pointing out that, if this is happening, then the original idea--that these things don't happen because of the money involved--becomes moot.

There's also a crowding out effect. Let's say there's some ridiculous form of fusion in our future; it's not going to be able to attract the kind of R&D it needs to become viable if the government has simply declared that solar and wind are the future, and starts plunging both political pressure and raw cash into those alternatives. In this case, it's entirely possible that government energy funding and mandates are actually delaying the viability of alternative energy, rather than hastening it. That's the massive assumption underlying all of this: the idea that, even if the government is right about an energy issue, that it has the capability to identify (and support) the solution. It's a huge assumption resting on another assumption.

As for the possible other reasons, I think it's simply this: they come with limitations people don't like, and they still cost way too much. They are not economically viable. The sooner people admit this and the debate moves on, the better, I think.

Golgot

03-09-12, 11:19 AM

Well, it seems to me that the "entrenched interests" line is the one that's too simple, because it posits a single reason based on a single human flaw. It's a pretty oft-used catch-all to explain why X thing hasn't happened.

Yep I'd agree that's too simple, altho there are a couple of 'entrenched interests' that do tie in to the topic I'd say...

We are all in a 'carbon economy' - that's an entrenched reality, and of great economic interest to many big players. It's also what makes the alternative energy industries only minorly compelling to the political & investment worlds (IE they provide a degree of 'energy independence', & some alternate routes into a saturated market, but are still a huge R&D jump away from providing a genuine alternative).

In a 'business as usual' scenario we'd probably have some of this R&D & niche installation going on (minus that inspired by govn backing), but mainly with an eye to flowering once carbon options sink below competitive levels. I totally agree investors etc can think that long term.

The distinction here is that everyone struggles to factor in the substantial future cost associated with carbon. Will carbon-company shareholders be living near a flooded coastal plain? (Well, the company can't be sued for that). Will food prices rise in arid areas where they currently operate? (Well yeah, but they could switch their infrastructure from oil delivery to water by that stage). And on.

I've been facetious there, but even if the science could give us precise models of expected changes, which it currently struggles to, I think we'd still see plenty of short-term shareholder-pleasing in terms of sucking that last bit of profit out of these admittedly profit-riven carbon realms.

The only argument here, I think, is one that admits that these things make absolutely no business sense, but we need to do them anyway. I'm not sure I agree, but that would be the internally consistent position.

I'd disagree with the absolutely. They certainly have their supplementary roles even in the 'business as usual' scenario. But certainly we should admit that alt-energy sources mainly perform worse that carbon norms, with the key exception of 'likelihood to flood your grandchildren's living room' ;)

There's also a crowding out effect. Let's say there's some ridiculous form of fusion in our future; it's not going to be able to attract the kind of R&D it needs to become viable if the government has simply declared that solar and wind are the future, and starts plunging both political pressure and raw cash into those alternatives. In this case, it's entirely possible that government energy funding and mandates are actually delaying the viability of alternative energy, rather than hastening it.

Yep absolutely agree on this. (With the caveat that I think there has been a lot of government cash flung at the 'mini sun' fushion tech that's been in development for decades ;))

Yoda

03-09-12, 12:04 PM

Yep I'd agree that's too simple, altho there are a couple of 'entrenched interests' that do tie in to the topic I'd say...

We are all in a 'carbon economy' - that's an entrenched reality, and of great economic interest to many big players. It's also what makes the alternative energy industries only minorly compelling to the political & investment worlds (IE they provide a degree of 'energy independence', & some alternate routes into a saturated market, but are still a huge R&D jump away from providing a genuine alternative).
This is all true, but isn't being in a "carbon economy" just another way of saying we don't have a viable alternative yet? Meaning, there's no businessman who likes emitting carbon more than they like money. Nobody's sticking to fossil fuels for the sake of nostalgia, or just because they're used to it.

The distinction here is that everyone struggles to factor in the substantial future cost associated with carbon. Will carbon-company shareholders be living near a flooded coastal plain? (Well, the company can't be sued for that). Will food prices rise in arid areas where they currently operate? (Well yeah, but they could switch their infrastructure from oil delivery to water by that stage). And on.

I've been facetious there, but even if the science could give us precise models of expected changes, which it currently struggles to, I think we'd still see plenty of short-term shareholder-pleasing in terms of sucking that last bit of profit out of these admittedly profit-riven carbon realms.
I'd say that's possible, yeah. At least in the sense that such things theoretically be both detrimental and not something that incentives can properly motivate people to prevent. But that, I think, is precisely the problem: if there are few incentives, it's because there's a lot of uncertainty. And if there's a lot of uncertainty, it pretty majorly undermines the government proposing any one course of action. All the things that prevent business from "seeing" this problem in a risk/reward sense are the same things that prevent government from being any better at it. In other words, I think it's possible (perhaps even better) to make a climate change argument that totally believes in it, totally think it's a threat, and still totally regards the market as the most likely entity to respond and adjust promptly.

But anyway, clearly it's not good business now, with the information we have now, which brings me back to the admit-its-not-good-business-but-do-it-anyway thing. Which people have been loathe to do, because I think they suspect it isn't a winning position, right or wrong.

I'd disagree with the absolutely. They certainly have their supplementary roles even in the 'business as usual' scenario. But certainly we should admit that alt-energy sources mainly perform worse that carbon norms, with the key exception of 'likelihood to flood your grandchildren's living room' ;)
A fair reigning in; I probably overshot it with the "absolutely." I should say that they clearly make less business sense than the alternative at this point in time, which I suppose is different than "absolutely" in that the latter implies some kind of total difference, rather than just a fairly obvious one. There are lots of benefits to it.

I kind of liked the McCain tack, where he said the worst-case scenario of some such policy was that we leave our children a cleaner world. I think that argument can be used in service of a much larger intervention than makes sense (if any does), but I think for certain smaller measures it represents an interesting angle. Because, as I said before, we all want that, it's just a matter of whether or not we should be compelled, and whether or not that would be effective even if it's warranted.

Yep absolutely agree on this. (With the caveat that I think there has been a lot of government cash flung at the 'mini sun' fushion tech that's been in development for decades ;))
Yeah, fusion was just some random example. Take your pick on that front; it can be tricky to find an alternative energy source the government hasn't flung some money at at some point. Which is kind of horrifying because it means, if any of them end up being "the" alternative, we'll have definitely spent tons of money crowding out its growth by funding all the others. The whole process is pretty sloppy and more than a little frantic, and I think savvy businesses are taking advantage of it. Just look at ethanol for a textbook example of how screwed up government can make energy issues. It now seems beyond dispute that our policies there have caused people to literally starve in other countries, for what was essentially no benefit towards the stated goal. Not to mention the influence the policy gave Iowa over the Presidential races, which has surely skewed our politics further in ways we can't possibly detect.

I will say that I'm super skeptical of a few of the options--wind, in particular--ever being viable. The math involved in terms of square footage is absolutely obscene, for example. We're talking wind farms the size of a few states, or some other such insanity.

Biggest potential for common ground, I think: Nuclear. It'll require a big group effort to get over the deaths-in-chunks fear, which always scares people more than other industries where people die all the time, but steadily and not all at once, but if we can get over that I think it represents the most promising option, by far. It's the only solution that exists now that looks even remotely scalable.

Golgot

03-09-12, 01:30 PM

This is all true, but isn't being in a "carbon economy" just another way of saying we don't have a viable alternative yet? Meaning, there's no businessman who likes emitting carbon more than they like money. Nobody's sticking to fossil fuels for the sake of nostalgia, or just because they're used to it.

*EDIT* I'm not sure that just coz it's the norm we can assume it's the best option per se. (Altho I'd agree that alt-energies couldn't fulfil our current needs wholesale the way carbon sources etc can).

On financial viability the big question is how would the picture change if we were able to quantify the costs inherent in a carbon-altered future. If we could add those into present assessments all the non-carbon alternatives would most likely be the 'viable' ones - or a helluva lot more competitive anyway ;)

The problem is that such fine-grained predictions of cost etc are unlikely to emerge, and so we're left with the general prediction that accelerated climate change will promote 'near future' volatility, via broadly negative impacts on major coastal hubs & water conflicts in arid regions etc. Volatility is something most economic/political observers can agree on as 'bad' - but is it bad enough to make the carbon-industries & dependants eschew the profitable stability they currently enjoy? The current answer is no ;)

And the issue of 'vested interests' kinda remains as a strand too, because the carbon cash cow on which we all ride is difficult for politicians to beat with sticks (carbon tax etc), or to corral towards its own premature demise, given how influential it is. (And the cow has clearly decided that, as much as it's happy for its kids to be a gaggle of wind-powered wallabies & green-algal goats, it's not ready to retire just yet. Not while the grass is still so green ;))

/excessive mixed metaphors

All the things that prevent business from "seeing" this problem in a risk/reward sense are the same things that prevent government from being any better at it. In other words, I think it's possible (perhaps even better) to make a climate change argument that totally believes in it, totally think it's a threat, and still totally regards the market as the most likely entity to respond and adjust promptly.

I would say government should still have a role in pushing for action 'sooner rather than later' - but agree it would be preferable to do it via a 'prize' model or something similar, where the objective is agreed (create non-carbon correlates etc), but the method is left open to the market.

Another useful role for government could be for them to artificially quantify the future risk. Certainly many industries/companies have clubbed together to demand that level of clarity over future stances. (I don't think it's the idea or science of CC that many of them have a problem with per se, more the degrees of uncertainty, as you say).

The main impediment to that is it would require international cohesion (nigh impossible ;)). And we're back where we started, with everyone kinda looking after their own interests.

But anyway, clearly it's not good business now, with the information we have now, which brings me back to the admit-its-not-good-business-but-do-it-anyway thing. Which people have been loathe to do, because I think they suspect it isn't a winning position, right or wrong.

No one wants to say 'this will hurt the economy in the short term'. Because we all live in the short term. Bummer innit ;)

Just look at ethanol for a textbook example of how screwed up government can make energy issues. It now seems beyond dispute that our policies there have caused people to literally starve in other countries, for what was essentially no benefit towards the stated goal.

Absolutely agree that 'dual use' ethanol crops were an incredibly dumb idea from day one. (I can see why they might have been appealing to areas with massive corn production etc - double your market, squeeze up your prices etc). Definitely massively dumb. (Well, I suspect the government have been dumb & a bit greedy, and the grain guys have been flat out greedy. Always a pork barrel of fun when that happens ;))

Incidentally this predictive model (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/03/speculation-food-prices/) on food prices is now proving itself, and suggests that financial speculation is the biggest player in terms of riot-enducing food-price spikes etc. Ethanol is in their as the 2nd-runner (pushing up the price slowly over time).

I will say that I'm super skeptical of a few of the options--wind, in particular--ever being viable. The math involved in terms of square footage is absolutely obscene, for example. We're talking wind farms the size of a few states, or some other such insanity.

Ah but you're forgetting about innovation. What about 'plant stalk' wind farms (http://news.discovery.com/tech/wind-power-without-the-blades.html) that double as parks ;)

Biggest potential for common ground, I think: Nuclear. It'll require a big group effort to get over the deaths-in-chunks fear, which always scares people more than other industries where people die all the time, but steadily and not all at once, but if we can get over that I think it represents the most promising option, by far. It's the only solution that exists now that looks even remotely scalable.

Yep agreed it's a known (& still improving) tech that could help tide us over massively. I think we'll see extra expense in building them post-Fukuyama (with so many others revealed as a being a bit unprepared for 'extreme weather' etc). But yeah, nuke does make sense.

Powdered Water

03-13-12, 12:55 AM

Anyway. I thought this was a pretty interesting article. (http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/10/hothouse-earth/kunzig-text) I read it a work a month or two ago. I don't think I'm smart enough to say if carbon is really a pollutant or not but I don't think we can deny that its responsible for some pretty radical changes in this planet over the millenniums. And the signs as I've already mentioned are not good. The way we have abused this planet is forcing it to heal itself and if we don't stop, and soon. We may very well not survive the next big 'carbon event".

will.15

03-13-12, 02:14 AM

There is nothing to worry about because when the Rapture comes, what does it matter, as all good Christians go to Heaven and the rest of us suffer on a dying planet. God made this planet for Man to enjoy. To foolishly try to preserve it is against biblical teaching.

Nausicaä

03-13-12, 08:20 AM

56 million years ago a mysterious surge of carbon into the atmosphere sent global temperatures soaring. In a geologic eyeblink life was forever changed.^ I stopped reading that article at this paragraph at the top...

Powdered Water

03-13-12, 09:58 AM

Why?

bouncingbrick

03-14-12, 03:23 PM

First off, I apologize if this stuff has already been answered, but I haven't read this entire thread. Forgive me.

We know that weather is cyclical, but we've only been keeping accurate records for about 100-150 years. So how do we know how big an impact we are actually having on the environment versus how much is just something that was going to happen anyway?

Next point, even if we are wrecking the planet, people will not give up their cars and the oil companies will not give up until every drop of oil is mined from the Earth, so all of this is pretty much moot. The people don't run things, the companies do.

Also, this is probably one of the stupidest questions I've ever asked, but I don't know much about the topic other than it drives me nuts hearing about it (let's face it, both sides sound more like propaganda than actual information). Here goes nothing: How do we know that the greenhouse gasses aren't reflecting just as much solar radiation back into space as what it's trapping in? Does it reflect radiation the way the ozone layer does? If so, would the damage it's doing be negated by this? Again, that may be utterly ridiculous, but I really don't know much about this topic.

I don't know, I guess my biggest concern/problem with global warming is the fact that weather on the Earth is constantly changing so I can't imagine that we are doing that much more than what would normally be happening anyway...

Golgot

03-15-12, 09:53 AM

We know that weather is cyclical, but we've only been keeping accurate records for about 100-150 years. So how do we know how big an impact we are actually having on the environment versus how much is just something that was going to happen anyway?

Our records have been extended much further back thanks to the likes of ice & sediment core samples etc. This information gets layered in with archaeological info on animal & plant life, and we end up with reconstructions like the one mentioned in PW's article - in that case a period with a large carbon release event (in this case a natural one) followed by heating, leading to flooding, shrunken less-nutritious plants, dwarf mammals etc.

When climate scientists design models of how weather & climate interact they have to make sure they can explain both the past and the present. As I understand it all the strong models we have, that tally with data from the past, can only explain present global temperatures via human-released-C02. IE remove that C02 from the model and they predict the earth should be colder etc over the period of fine-grained data that we have for the most recent century etc.

Next point, even if we are wrecking the planet, people will not give up their cars and the oil companies will not give up until every drop of oil is mined from the Earth, so all of this is pretty much moot. The people don't run things, the companies do.

Companies aren't completely psychopathic. They want to be making a profit in the future too. And most outside the fossil-fuel industry seem to openly endorse the idea that climate change is a reality & needs to be tackled.

How do we know that the greenhouse gasses aren't reflecting just as much solar radiation back into space as what it's trapping in? Does it reflect radiation the way the ozone layer does? If so, would the damage it's doing be negated by this? Again, that may be utterly ridiculous, but I really don't know much about this topic.

I doubt any of us here are experts either ;). But I'm fairly certain they'll have looked into that ;)

(There are, unsurprisingly, thousands of complex events going on out there. You'd be amazed what the scis have looked into. Albedo effects of how even changing a crop type can change radiative heat from a plot of land and alter the rainfall above it. Peak solar radiation causing northern Europe to get colder [via 'gulf streams' etc getting tangled and drawing air down from the Arctic]. Particulate pollution ironically causing the type of 'global cooling' you're talking about, via stimulating certain types of cloud formation.)

And on and on. Climate science has been around so long now that these things aren't just studied in isolation either, but all examined in concert with other effects, trying to figure out how they interact, and potentially 'snowball', or counteract, broader changes etc.

I don't know, I guess my biggest concern/problem with global warming is the fact that weather on the Earth is constantly changing so I can't imagine that we are doing that much more than what would normally be happening anyway...

You say that, but you also mention the ozone layer. There's a large global phenomenon that we clearly were affecting. We managed to alter our behaviour and the really damaging changes were prevented (hence people in the southern hemisphere don't have to wear factor 200 sunblock, or, like, emigrate :|)

It's a far 'simpler' example, but one that surely shows we can affect the Earth on a significant scale. And that it's probably in our interests to keep an eye on that ;)

bouncingbrick

03-15-12, 01:04 PM

Our records have been extended much further back thanks to the likes of ice & sediment core samples etc. This information gets layered in with archaeological info on animal & plant life, and we end up with reconstructions like the one mentioned in PW's article - in that case a period with a large carbon release event (in this case a natural one) followed by heating, leading to flooding, shrunken less-nutritious plants, dwarf mammals etc.

When climate scientists design models of how weather & climate interact they have to make sure they can explain both the past and the present. As I understand it all the strong models we have, that tally with data from the past, can only explain present global temperatures via human-released-C02. IE remove that C02 from the model and they predict the earth should be colder etc over the period of fine-grained data that we have for the most recent century etc.

But how accurate is this? It's still just a theory, right? Is this the sort of info we should literally change our entire lives based upon?

Let me make one thing clear, I am all for less pollution in general. If it were up to me we'd come up with a replacement for fossil fuels immediately. But I have to ask these questions because they are important.

Companies aren't completely psychopathic. They want to be making a profit in the future too.

I honestly cannot put "LOL" big enough to contain the emotion I want to express at this. If you truly believe this, I may have to stop taking you seriously. Let me refresh your memory. A few years back it came out that tons of banks were giving home loans to people who shouldn't have them or giving loans for far more money than the people could afford and then some of them even changed the conditions of the loans so that the monthly payments increased. A rational thinking person can look at this and say "boy, that's really f***ing stupid". A rational person could say "Hey, this may have ramifications down the road for everyone!" And yet, this practice went on because the current bottom line was looking good. Until the entire global economy was hit! The entire world! And no one got in trouble for it. In fact, they still have variable interest rate loans, though I can't imagine anyone other than the stupidest of people signing for one of those.

So, go ahead and delude yourself into thinking that companies are smart and/or thinking about the future...;)

I doubt any of us here are experts either ;). But I'm fairly certain they'll have looked into that ;)

Have they? I don't know! That's why I brought it up! Where's the info on that?

You say that, but you also mention the ozone layer. There's a large global phenomenon that we clearly were affecting. We managed to alter our behaviour and the really damaging changes were prevented (hence people in the southern hemisphere don't have to wear factor 200 sunblock, or, like, emigrate :|)

I don't remember there being skepticism on the ozone layer. If climate change were cut and dry then we wouldn't even have this thread.

Again, I don't know either way. I'm not a scientist. All I know is there's people on either side and they are both as convincing as the other. I'd love to cut down on pollution, but I'd also like to have secure evidence before we change how we do business.

Yoda

03-15-12, 01:23 PM

Yeah, I think the skepticism primarily comes from the ridiculously high cost of being wrong. Depending on who you listen to, we're talking about possibly shifting trillions of dollars around. The burden of proof has to be similarly high, not just that it's happening, and not just that it will be very harmful, but that it's also preventable.

And, as someone mentioned earlier (Gol, I think), there's a big problem with developing countries. They contribute quite a bit to the problem, but I don't see how we can, in good conscience, try to stop them when if they're going through their own version of the industrial revolution and are simply trying to raise their standard of living to something roughly commensurate with our own.

I still have faith in human ingenuity, though, both in using what we have more efficiently and finding alternatives.

Also, the financial crisis doesn't contradict the idea that companies were forward looking. Even if it were at odds with the idea, it would not be the norm. But I am admittedly too busy today and too headache-y at the moment to argue the case. Maybe later.

Golgot

03-15-12, 05:38 PM

But how accurate is this? It's still just a theory, right? Is this the sort of info we should literally change our entire lives based upon?

Well, first off it's lots of theories really (modern climate science involves a synthesis of everything from the earth's rotational issues, to long term 'weather cycles' - like oceanic currents being in a heat storing or releasing state, the albedo effects of clouds etc - onto atmospheric gas influences [CO2 etc], solar effects, and on and on). All of these disciplines have experimental data to back them up, so they're more than 'just a theory' in each case. The main difficulty comes when trying to run experiments on how they synthesise together, as the scale of the subject is so large (frequently global), and the time frame over which the elements flux can run to decades etc. In some cases the only 'experiments' we have are all the examples of past climate changes (which are all unique, as befits the complex potential interactions that can set them off and sustain them. I believe one constant, in heating periods, is the presence of airborne carbon though ;)). These are however pretty damn cool 'experiments', and we have unearthed a lot of data about them.

Of course it's far more complicated still than I've conveyed there. Which does lead to your point about certainty. I absolutely agree that the claim that anthro-CO2 will fundamentally alter the world is massive, and needs a comparably immense level of proof. But I would say that there is a huge quantity of very convincing evidence out there, in terms of historical precedent, & a good 50 years plus of current investigation into how everything plays out in the real world. That's still a blink of an eye in terms of trying to understand it all, but we have made huge strides in understanding the past and present of climate alteration. And the precedents suggest we're going to hit C02 levels, amongst other global norms, which in the past correlate with massive warming.

The biggest question, for a 'believer' such as myself, is how strongly to act seeing as the science hasn't reached fine-grained predictive levels (despite it's strengthening hold over the past and the present). We can be pretty sure it's gonna get hot etc, and disruptively so, but it's difficult to know how exactly that will play out. Maybe we'll get on just fine with drought-hit plants & tiny horses ;).

My instinct is very similar to yours, that we should do what we can to replace fossil fuels. But I'd go further, and say we should take an economic hit (taxing carbon or whatever works best) if necessary, so long as some kind of 'levelled playing field' can be worked out between countries (which is highly unlikely to happen, but there y'go), and the result would be more time to generate alternative tech etc.

Let me make one thing clear, I am all for less pollution in general. If it were up to me we'd come up with a replacement for fossil fuels immediately. But I have to ask these questions because they are important.

Absolutely :)

I honestly cannot put "LOL" big enough to contain the emotion I want to express at this....

Hey I was putting the most positive spin possible on it ;). All I said was they want to make profit in the future. I didn't say they can't be incredibly short-sighted and venal and liable to act counter to their long-term interests in the meantime ;)

Have they? I don't know! That's why I brought it up! Where's the info on that?

I don't have the articles to hand, but I know that CO2's albedo/heating effect was debated for a long time in the late 1800s and early 1900s, and was initially thought to have a cooling effect, before them settling on the warming effect later, in terms of isolated physics modelling. So certainly it's been investigated for a long time, and continues to be so.

I don't remember there being skepticism on the ozone layer. If climate change were cut and dry then we wouldn't even have this thread.

Yes the climate change issue is a far more complex one, both in cause and effect. I brought up ozone because it's an example of humans impacting on a global feature, which is one area of global warming you had a problem with. (IE the idea of humans being able to have an impact on such large scale phenomena).

Anyways, just glad you're up for looking into it generally :)

bouncingbrick

03-15-12, 06:48 PM

My instinct is very similar to yours, that we should do what we can to replace fossil fuels. But I'd go further, and say we should take an economic hit (taxing carbon or whatever works best) if necessary, so long as some kind of 'levelled playing field' can be worked out between countries (which is highly unlikely to happen, but there y'go), and the result would be more time to generate alternative tech etc.

This is exactly why I am dubious of the whole subject! This is exactly what I don't want happening!

I already have to pay close to 4 dollars a gallon for gas and no matter who gets taxed for CO2 the cost will roll down to people like me. I can barely afford gas now and I know I couldn't if it went up even more because of pollution taxes.

There has to be a better solution.

Golgot

03-15-12, 07:58 PM

This is exactly why I am dubious of the whole subject! This is exactly what I don't want happening!

I already have to pay close to 4 dollars a gallon for gas and no matter who gets taxed for CO2 the cost will roll down to people like me. I can barely afford gas now and I know I couldn't if it went up even more because of pollution taxes.

There has to be a better solution.

Sure, no one wants that. (And as I suggested it's unlikely to happen, given the geopolitical cohesion that it would require - IE everyone disadvantaging themselves simultaneously etc. And that during a recession. No chance).

To be fair most Kyoto signatories have been operating under a minor version of that scenario at no great loss - but the initial 'tax' on industrial emissions has been low in most areas (except air flight I believe, based on its greater effect - depositing emissions at the most 'effective' heights etc). The 'carbon market' that trades off emissions quotas against 'counter-emission' actions like sequestering (planting trees ;)) & selling renewables (to coal-heavy developing countries in particular) has helped mitigate costs to the consumer, but has also proved nigh impossible to regulate. (Did the people really plant the trees etc - and will they still be there in 30yrs, mopping up the CO2 as required)

But I get it. I don't want higher energy prices either. If we could categorically say 'take the hit on your fuel bill, or your grand-daughter will have to ride a tiny horse and subsist on far less nutritious food than you enjoy', then it becomes a much easier choice. The fact that the science is close to saying something to that effect (with more caveats ;)), is what makes me more willing to countenance it than you are.

*EDIT* Altho I'd also love to see better solutions on the table. Or some of the promising new renewable tech really taking off. But I suspect both of those will remain wishful thinking for a while.

Powdered Water

03-15-12, 09:13 PM

What did you think of the article Golgot? Interesting eh? I get that we'll need a metric trillion tons of hard data to convince most people that we may need to change our ways and frankly, better change, if we want to survive for another few thousand years on this planet.

I have to balk a bit at what Chris mentioned though. And he said he thought maybe you mentioned it first, either way. Sure, burgeoning young countries do "contribute" to the problem. But let's face facts here and I can google as good as anyone. There is not a country on this planet that hasn't created and polluted this world more than the U.S. I am in no way going to try to persuade the nay-Sayers either. If you want to educate yourself and look into then by all means, go ahead. There is literally tons of data out there already and it is very easy to find.

But the fact is, the world is taking its lead from the U.S. and until we really step up and address this issue it will continue.

Golgot

03-15-12, 09:47 PM

What did you think of the article Golgot? Interesting eh?

Thought the article was dead interesting P. Historic climate change is always mad (and as the article says, normally leads to crazy new forms of evolution - once everything's been put through the wringer for a bit. From a distance it's almost refreshing to see creation come from destruction, as it were. Seen close up, it's probably less invigorating ;))

I have to balk a bit at what Chris mentioned though. And he said he thought maybe you mentioned it first, either way. Sure, burgeoning young countries do "contribute" to the problem. But let's face facts here and I can google as good as anyone. There is not a country on this planet that hasn't created and polluted this world more than the U.S.

True, but China in particular are catching up fast (and are set to overtake us all in a big way), and all developing countries have the moral argument that us lot razed our forests, fired up dirty industries & plumbed the easy-carbon options like coal with abandon to get where we are. So why shouldn't they?

We're all set up with pollution-reducing measures, R&D for new tech, geopolitical access to more efficient carbon fuels (oil & natural gas) - meaning we don't have to exploit the extensive coal seams we all still have. Etc etc. Which is why any deal on 'capping' emissions by country will never get off the ground holding all nations to the same standard (which is also why Kyoto has experimented with making selling renewable tech to developing countries 'worth more' in carbon market terms). And for all its flaws, Kyoto (and its later incarnations) have been the only real attempts made to come to terms with this issue.

Yoda

03-15-12, 09:48 PM

You're talking about something different than I am. You say the U.S. has polluted the most so far--that may very well be true. But we don't pollute the most now; China and India pollute more, and other developing nations contribute a great deal, so we're not really capable of fixing this problem on our own.

There are lots of ways in which the rest of the world takes its lead from the U.S., but less developed nations are not going to stop building factories because we tell them to, nor do I think we really have the right. They're trying to achieve a standard of living that most of us would consider very modest.

EDIT: some of this is a little redundant with Gol's post, but you get the idea.

Powdered Water

03-15-12, 11:07 PM

I guess you have a way of getting me to argue even if I don't want to. You're a good egg and I want to save you I guess.

You're talking about something different than I am. You say the U.S. has polluted the most so far--that may very well be true. But we don't pollute the most now; China and India pollute more, and other developing nations contribute a great deal, so we're not really capable of fixing this problem on our own.

China only pollutes a bit more and considering how many more (over a BILLION) people there is there I'd say they have a long way to go before they can cover the earth with as much pollution as the US already has. Seriously, its not even close. Now of course with well over a billion Chinese mostly burning Coal for power it won't take them long to not only "catch up" but far surpass us. So, I guess that's good, we won't be first anymore.

Please check out some of these numbers and facts. (http://pollutionarticles.blogspot.com/2010/12/which-country-is-worlds-biggest.html) That first blog post is just an article but do check out a bunch of the stuff on the sides, there's a lot of good stuff and that's just one little page on the intraweb.

And while I do agree that we're not capable of fixing this on our own it is true that the vast majority of the world is taking our lead and never before has so many countries had so much of our industry in their own environments. Again, you can look it up.

There are lots of ways in which the rest of the world takes its lead from the U.S., but less developed nations are not going to stop building factories because we tell them to, nor do I think we really have the right. They're trying to achieve a standard of living that most of us would consider very modest.

EDIT: some of this is a little redundant with Gol's post, but you get the idea.

We don't have to tell them to, we could just do it for them. Whether we do it by being a large part of their economy which is already the case in many countries or by force. Is that too strong? No. We use force for many things and will continue to. Why not use it to actually help the planet? You say we don't have the right. Do we have the right to go into a country and topple a government? And yet, we do those things in the name of freedom. Why wouldn't we also do things in the name of the planet?

Golgot

03-24-12, 01:00 PM

Here's a great look at the history of C02 climate science (http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm), starting way back in 1859.

A good if long read for those who are interested :)

Powdered Water

04-08-12, 11:27 PM

I wouldn't want to read that article G... Way to many factoids in there I'm sure. ;)

Anywho, just saw a few really good flicks that bookend each other nicely. The first is called An Inconvenient Truth which many have heard of and of course only a very few have actually seen or taken at all seriously. The second film which was really quite good is called The Age of Stupid, where a man who apparently has survived some sort of natural holocaust is living in a tower powered by some really cool looking windmills spends a good deal of his time looking at archival footage of happenings that are actually going on now but in his time happened about 50 years ago. And of course the big question he asks is: Why didn't we do anything to stop or at least try to slow down this crisis?

I guess I'm in danger of becoming an environmentalist if I don't stop watching and reading about these goings on in the world today. I gotta say though I still feel always out-numbered and always out-gunned. Fact is, 1% of the scientific community no longer believes in global warming but a startling 60% of the average population thinks its total crap. And as long as that number stays that way the big guns behind the pollution will continue to profit and life will continue to decline for every life system on this finite planet.

Yoda

04-09-12, 01:48 PM

I mentioned this before, but the idea that money is what's preventing this just doesn't wash. There's scads of money to be made in green energy, and we've already seen numerous examples of people taking as much advantage of that as they do with anything else. Possibly moreso, because of the political motives behind most of it. This is all true and demonstrable regardless of what you think of the underlying science.

As for that underlying science: I think people confuse the idea of warming with the debate about what ought to be done. They're nowhere near the same thing. Arguments that the earth is warming only target one group of people: those who think it isn't warming. And there are such people. And there are some who think it is, but don't think we're responsible. And there there are some who think we're only somewhat responsible. And then there are some who think we're mostly responsible, but that that doesn't mean we can reverse the effects. And then there are some who think we're mostly responsible, can reverse or mitigate the effects, but need to find a plausible way to do it that doesn't carelessly jostle trillions of dollars in a way that has shown itself, repeatedly, to be rife for opportunistic abuses based on political grandstanding.

What do claims that the earth is warming actually have to say to these other positions? Not much, that I can see. I get why this happens; the idea that the earth is warming is about a billion times easier to defend than the other gradations mentioned above. But it doesn't tell us how to respond to the fact, even though people seem to translate their conclusion about warming into all the other questions, even though it's only addressing a narrow part of the issue.

Yoda

04-09-12, 02:23 PM

Wow, I have no idea how I didn't see this post before. Sorry about that.

I guess you have a way of getting me to argue even if I don't want to. You're a good egg and I want to save you I guess.
Thanks...I think. ;) But part of you must want to, if you wade in, yeah? And a little argument among the mutually respectful never hurt anything. How else are we going to get at the truth? Certainly not by just exposing ourselves to the like-minded. Certainly not by only watching documentaries that display one side of the issue. Science exposes theory to experiment, and the legal system makes argument the determining factor in life and death.

Arguments get a bad rap, in other words. :) Generally because most people can't argue without being complete tools about it.

China only pollutes a bit more and considering how many more (over a BILLION) people there is there I'd say they have a long way to go before they can cover the earth with as much pollution as the US already has. Seriously, its not even close. Now of course with well over a billion Chinese mostly burning Coal for power it won't take them long to not only "catch up" but far surpass us. So, I guess that's good, we won't be first anymore.
Aye, that's the idea: this is a long-term problem, and long-term, China and India represent the biggest problem. That's the only point I was making. So, I pose the question again: should they stop? Should they stop their industrial and technological revolutions? Do we have the right to tell developing countries they can't improve their standard of living that way?

Please check out some of these numbers and facts. (http://pollutionarticles.blogspot.com/2010/12/which-country-is-worlds-biggest.html) That first blog post is just an article but do check out a bunch of the stuff on the sides, there's a lot of good stuff and that's just one little page on the intraweb.

And while I do agree that we're not capable of fixing this on our own it is true that the vast majority of the world is taking our lead and never before has so many countries had so much of our industry in their own environments. Again, you can look it up.
"Taking our lead"--what does that mean? Are you suggesting that, if we embrace renewable energy, less developed countries are actually going to stop using fossil fuels, just because we're doing it?

Even if we assume that's somehow plausible, what would our "lead" look like? Because renewable energy is not even close to being able to handle even a small fraction of our use. And I'm not talking about SUVs and other decadent luxuries. I'm talking about the basics. Most people who talk about renewable energy never concern themselves with this, but oil is many orders of magnitude more efficient than anything else. Our chief impediment to switching is not political will power or greedy oil-soaked CEOs, it's flippin' physics.

For anyone interested in the mathematics underpining this, please check out Robert Bryce's stuff. It cuts through a whole lot of the rhetoric about renewable energy.

We don't have to tell them to, we could just do it for them. Whether we do it by being a large part of their economy which is already the case in many countries or by force. Is that too strong? No. We use force for many things and will continue to. Why not use it to actually help the planet?
What do you mean "do it for them"?

You say we don't have the right. Do we have the right to go into a country and topple a government? And yet, we do those things in the name of freedom. Why wouldn't we also do things in the name of the planet?
And a whole lot of people were pretty furious about that, yeah? And what we did is actually way, way less intrusive than dictating how an entire foreign economy is going to work. That's actual, ongoing imperialism; it's not in the same stratosphere as nation-building, even if you find nation-building to be a rather foolish thing.

If it's too tiresome to go through each point or answer each question (believe me, I sympathize), I can boil them all down to one request: to describe, specifically, what we should do. Because I think "take the lead" sounds a lot better than "hope people follow our example, in direct contrast to their own interest," and "do it for them" sounds a lot better than "continually force multiple foreign nations to run their countries the way we think they ought to be run."

Golgot

04-09-12, 02:42 PM

I mentioned this before, but the idea that money is what's preventing this just doesn't wash. There's scads of money to be made in green energy, and we've already seen numerous examples of people taking as much advantage of that as they do with anything else. Possibly moreso, because of the political motives behind most of it. This is all true and demonstrable regardless of what you think of the underlying science.

*EDITED for brevity*

Fossil fuels are, in the main, more profitable than renewables. How is that profit margin not an issue when it comes to transfering to a renewable energy infrastructure?

(Granted it's not the only issue, but it's certainly an issue).

As for that underlying science: I think people confuse the idea of warming with the debate about what ought to be done....

Certainly it's not enough to just say 'the world is warming' and expect that to inform policy etc. But I'm not sure who's actually doing that. At a policy level.

Sure the public debate can get hung up on that. But the public debate is capable of getting hung up on all sorts of things. Like cats. And Al Gore's face. And vehement assertions that 'it's all down to the moon and I have the calculations to prove it'. The public debate can get a bit silly ;)

Powdered Water

04-12-12, 12:24 AM

Wow, I have no idea how I didn't see this post before. Sorry about that.

No problemo.

Thanks...I think. ;) But part of you must want to, if you wade in, yeah? And a little argument among the mutually respectful never hurt anything. How else are we going to get at the truth? Certainly not by just exposing ourselves to the like-minded. Certainly not by only watching documentaries that display one side of the issue. Science exposes theory to experiment, and the legal system makes argument the determining factor in life and death.

Arguments get a bad rap, in other words. :) Generally because most people can't argue without being complete tools about it.
I admit, sometimes I want to argue only because deep down I do understand that in today's society one must be good at arguing if only to get a few to listen to what I'm trying to say. For the most part I find it tedious and I rarely see anyone changing someone else's mind because of it. In our case, I doubt very much you or I will ever change each other's mind. While we agree on many things I think at our very cores we are based on an entirely different belief system. And as much as I'd love to believe that I only see one side of an issue... if that were really true then I doubt very much that I would even bother to argue at all.

Aye, that's the idea: this is a long-term problem, and long-term, China and India represent the biggest problem. That's the only point I was making. So, I pose the question again: should they stop? Should they stop their industrial and technological revolutions? Do we have the right to tell developing countries they can't improve their standard of living that way?
I suspect that you already know the answer to this or you wouldn't even ask. They can't stop, its the only thing they can do. The system of life on this planet can only be sustained in its current form by continuing down this terribly polluted path. I disagree with you however that they represent the "biggest problem". They are well ahead of us in many areas they are spending much, much more money going green than we are right now. (http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/06/green-china/mckibben-text) To try and get a handle on this problem that they are facing. The thing is though, they actually seem willing to do it while we continue to make excuses not to.

What is going to be really interesting is to see if they can really do it. They can make a huge difference and perhaps even change the world if what they are attempting to do works. And we'll get to see most of this in our lifetime, should be very interesting to see how they do. This is really interesting news from China's biggest city. (http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2011/09/26/26climatewire-built-in-a-dirty-boom-chinas-biggest-city-tr-68826.html?pagewanted=all)

"Taking our lead"--what does that mean? Are you suggesting that, if we embrace renewable energy, less developed countries are actually going to stop using fossil fuels, just because we're doing it?
That is exactly what I mean. Many, many countries worldwide aspire to be "just like America" and many of them would embrace any number of greener, healthier ways of living if we just led them.

Even if we assume that's somehow plausible, what would our "lead" look like? Because renewable energy is not even close to being able to handle even a small fraction of our use. And I'm not talking about SUVs and other decadent luxuries. I'm talking about the basics. Most people who talk about renewable energy never concern themselves with this, but oil is many orders of magnitude more efficient than anything else. Our chief impediment to switching is not political will power or greedy oil-soaked CEOs, it's flippin' physics.

For anyone interested in the mathematics underpining this, please check out Robert Bryce's stuff. It cuts through a whole lot of the rhetoric about renewable energy.
See, this is where we argue about who's facts are the "right" facts. Are you aware that Bryce works and gets funded primarily by Exxon? Plus; some of his claims are just flat not true. (http://mediamatters.org/research/201110070015) It seems your mind is already made up. You believe that Oil and only Oil is the answer and how can you be wrong? All the "facts" point to you being right. I feel for you Chris, you are being misled. I know you can't believe this, but its true. And something else that I imagine you may tee-hee about as I'm sure many others do is the fact that someday; we really are going to run of the stuff that runs the entire world. Probably a lot sooner than most of us care to believe we will too. But the vast majority of people continue on with their daily lives wishing gas was cheaper and just hoping that someday they'll find oil next door to them so that those pesky gas prices will finally go down "and this time they'll stay down by god!". No, it won't happen. In another few years we'll be paying $5.00 bucks a gallon and then $6.00. Why do you suppose that is? Is it because there's somebody out there driving up the price? Really?

And I see your Bryce and raise you a Shah. (http://www.cleantechblog.com/2010/04/robert-boyces-5-myths-show-ignorance.html)

I just wish I could've been smart enough to get an electric car back when they were cheap, oh wait, they've never been cheap and in fact, (I learned this from one of those docs you rarely watch) GM killed the electric car just a few short years ago. Why would they do that? A group of people took over a MILLION dollars down to the lot after the cars had been recalled and tried to buy the cars from them and were refused. Why? I thought auto makers wanted to make money, instead the cars were all taken and crushed. Ridiculous. There's not enough oil in an electric car is the problem.

What do you mean "do it for them"?
If we as a government can force or impose our will against another nation over oil or any other natural resource we want, we can easily do it for going greener. We simply play the same political hard ball that is played now and tell them the cost of doing business with the US means doing things a certain way.

And a whole lot of people were pretty furious about that, yeah? And what we did is actually way, way less intrusive than dictating how an entire foreign economy is going to work. That's actual, ongoing imperialism; it's not in the same stratosphere as nation-building, even if you find nation-building to be a rather foolish thing.
In what way are we not dictating how Iraq's economy is going to work in the future? How are we not re-building their entire infrastructure? How many companies from Iraq are doing real work, noticeable work there, besides Halliburton and all the many other American companies that are there?

If it's too tiresome to go through each point or answer each question (believe me, I sympathize), I can boil them all down to one request: to describe, specifically, what we should do. Because I think "take the lead" sounds a lot better than "hope people follow our example, in direct contrast to their own interest," and "do it for them" sounds a lot better than "continually force multiple foreign nations to run their countries the way we think they ought to be run."See, I agree with all of this... :) And it really isn't difficult to "lead the way". All we have to do is set out to get each and every person to a carbon emission of zero in ten to fifteen years. Once we do that we begin to embrace real change.

Yoda

04-18-12, 12:31 PM

*EDITED for brevity*
Thus imbuing your response with the soul of wit!

Fossil fuels are, in the main, more profitable than renewables. How is that profit margin not an issue when it comes to transfering to a renewable energy infrastructure?

(Granted it's not the only issue, but it's certainly an issue).
Well, the profit margins are always better on existing technologies, yet somehow, without anyone forcing them to do it, businesses manage to bring new ones to market all the time.

But they're definitely a factor; no argument there. My real issue is with the way it contradicts the sister arguments that are almost invariably made alongside it. Fossil fuels are more profitable because they're just a way better energy source, not because of a conspiracy. Unless, again, we're naming physics as a co-conspirator. I'd love to see that subpoena. Can I make some kind of pun here about the "gravity" of the situation?

I guess what I'm saying is, while I can disagree with both viewpoints (I'm clever like that), people are contradicting themselves if they want to say that both a) fossil fuels make more economic sense than renewable sources and b) oil companies secretly killed the electric car, are suppressing this or that, etc. They can't both be true. If a) is true, then there's no mystery or secret about the conspiracies in b) and the reasons for them are entirely unsexy.

Certainly it's not enough to just say 'the world is warming' and expect that to inform policy etc. But I'm not sure who's actually doing that. At a policy level.

Sure the public debate can get hung up on that. But the public debate is capable of getting hung up on all sorts of things. Like cats. And Al Gore's face. And vehement assertions that 'it's all down to the moon and I have the calculations to prove it'. The public debate can get a bit silly ;)
Aye, and that public debate is precisely what I'm referencing. The overwhelming majority of these arguments seem to be just about the warming, with the unstated implication that this debate is somehow also a proxy for whatever environmentalist policy may follow from it.

This is a little more serious than the mere fact that sometimes political debates turn on superficial things. This is an awful lot of people who feel very passionately about the issue, yet spend almost no time arguing the most meaningful point of contention. It strikes me as a pretty big blind spot in the discourse.

Yoda

04-18-12, 12:52 PM

I admit, sometimes I want to argue only because deep down I do understand that in today's society one must be good at arguing if only to get a few to listen to what I'm trying to say. For the most part I find it tedious and I rarely see anyone changing someone else's mind because of it. In our case, I doubt very much you or I will ever change each other's mind. While we agree on many things I think at our very cores we are based on an entirely different belief system. And as much as I'd love to believe that I only see one side of an issue... if that were really true then I doubt very much that I would even bother to argue at all.
Wanna hear a secret? :) I'm not trying to change your mind. I mean, if I do, woo-hoo, but that's not my goal. My goal in this discussion is to get you (and anyone reading) to stop positing conspiracies and start looking at the underlying physics and economics of energy. Because I know that, once that happens, it will be impossible not to recognize the real problems we're facing, which are primarily problems of technology.

Re: different belief systems. I wouldn't say "entirely." In fact, we share a pretty important belief in common: we both believe that people are broken. The difference is whether or not you take the next step after that, which is thinking they can still be salvaged. Though admittedly not by anything here on earth.

I suspect that you already know the answer to this or you wouldn't even ask. They can't stop, its the only thing they can do. The system of life on this planet can only be sustained in its current form by continuing down this terribly polluted path. I disagree with you however that they represent the "biggest problem". They are well ahead of us in many areas they are spending much, much more money going green than we are right now. (http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/06/green-china/mckibben-text) To try and get a handle on this problem that they are facing. The thing is though, they actually seem willing to do it while we continue to make excuses not to.

What is going to be really interesting is to see if they can really do it. They can make a huge difference and perhaps even change the world if what they are attempting to do works. And we'll get to see most of this in our lifetime, should be very interesting to see how they do. This is really interesting news from China's biggest city. (http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2011/09/26/26climatewire-built-in-a-dirty-boom-chinas-biggest-city-tr-68826.html?pagewanted=all)
Well, first off, I think the most interesting thing about China's investments in green energy is that they're doing all that, and they still pollute more. And as that article details, their emissions aren't likely to decline even two decades from now. Secondly, you seem to be making the assumption that investing in green energy guarantees results, but the whole argument here is that it doesn't. Sinking a billion dollars into a new energy is great...if it works out. If it doesn't, or if it produces only marginal results, then it's a waste. So saying they're "well ahead of us," when they're really just spending more, is kind of like saying the race is won by the guy exerting the most effort rather than the guy who's moving faster.

Thirdly, the fact that China's spending a ton on this doesn't mean we aren't spending quite a bit, too. You say we "make excuses not to" get a handle on things, but what's this based on? We spend billions on it. Almost a fifth of a trillion over the last few decades. And we do it despite getting steadily crappy results (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/before-solyndra-a-long-history-of-failed-government-energy-projects/2011/10/25/gIQA1xG0CN_story.html). Technically, you can argue that we need to do more, but I don't see how someone could possibly say that this is being ignored.

That is exactly what I mean. Many, many countries worldwide aspire to be "just like America" and many of them would embrace any number of greener, healthier ways of living if we just led them.
Well, we have a major difference of opinion here, then. Not only do I not think this would work, but I don't think it has even a small chance of working. Many countries aspire to be "just like America" in the sense that they want to be wealthy and free. Those are the ends to which we are emulated. If a given American policy does not serve those ends, it won't be emulated.

See, this is where we argue about who's facts are the "right" facts. Are you aware that Bryce works and gets funded primarily by Exxon?
Actually, he works for a think tank which gets some money from the fossil fuel industry. Specifically, his employer has gotten 2.5% of their funding from the fossil fuel industry (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/opinion/sunday/the-times-gives-them-space-but-who-pays-them.html?_r=3&ref=thepubliceditor) over the last decade. But somehow that's morphed into him working for Exxon, specifically, and being "primarily" funded by them?

That said, yes, I was aware of this, and I categorically reject the idea that we can play six-degrees-of-dinero with someone in order to earn the right to ignore the substance of their arguments. If we're going to start doing that, your first link has to go with it, because Media Matters is funded by all sorts of left-wing donors and has an admitted agenda. But of course, this doesn't mean they're wrong about him, does it? No, it doesn't. And it doesn't mean Bryce is wrong, either. Financial incentives are good for knowing when to scrutinize something more, or to know why someone may cling to a clearly incorrect idea. But they don't tell you more than that.

You say that "this is where we argue about who's facts are the 'right' facts." But shouldn't that be the entire argument? Why are we arguing motive instead?

It seems your mind is already made up. You believe that Oil and only Oil is the answer and how can you be wrong?
I don't think this at all, actually. I'm a big proponent of nuclear power, which is conspicuously left out of most of these discussions. It seems like a natural point of compromise, and I don't know why more environmentalists don't embrace it.

I think oil is the only answer now because that's the actual underlying physical reality: oil is insanely useful and potent and we currently have nothing comparable. But I can answer your rhetorical question all the same: I could be wrong if you could show me how it's economically feasible to dramatically shift to renewable energy sources.

All the "facts" point to you being right. I feel for you Chris, you are being misled. I know you can't believe this, but its true. And something else that I imagine you may tee-hee about as I'm sure many others do is the fact that someday; we really are going to run of the stuff that runs the entire world. Probably a lot sooner than most of us care to believe we will too. But the vast majority of people continue on with their daily lives wishing gas was cheaper and just hoping that someday they'll find oil next door to them so that those pesky gas prices will finally go down "and this time they'll stay down by god!". No, it won't happen. In another few years we'll be paying $5.00 bucks a gallon and then $6.00. Why do you suppose that is? Is it because there's somebody out there driving up the price? Really?
Okay, but...what's actually being argued in this paragraph? I see the claim that oil will run out at some point. Okay. I see that it will be a lot sooner than most of us care to believe. I don't think anyone knows that (people have been predicting Peak Oil for a very long time), but it's possible. And you say a lot of people will wish gas were cheaper. Yup, true. So what? What does any of this have to do with renewable energy?

I feel like a huge part of the debate about energy has really just become a litany or complaints about the oil industry. Or, even less productive, a list of complaints about the perceived mindset of other citizens. But the debate is what to do, right? So, if you say oil is bad, I say: it's not bad, but even assuming it is, what would be good? Environmentalists can reel off huge lists of things they hate without even thinking (and they often do; ba-dum-chink! ;)), but most don't seem to have really considered the viability of the alternatives.

And I see your Bryce and raise you a Shah. (http://www.cleantechblog.com/2010/04/robert-boyces-5-myths-show-ignorance.html)
I can gladly go through these point by point if you want, but it doesn't seem that any of them dispute the point I'm trying to make here. The first is the only one that tries, and it's way too vague to even try to contradict properly. That said, I notice off the top of my head that it's linking to a document by a firm that does renewable energy consulting, so if you're tossing out people with a financial stake in their arguments you'd probably start there. It also doesn't appear to mention the costs, which are usually massive on this scale. Also, buried in the document in question are some notes about assuming costs based on tax credits. And I hope it goes without saying that lots of things look suddenly affordable if someone else is picking up the tab.

I just wish I could've been smart enough to get an electric car back when they were cheap, oh wait, they've never been cheap and in fact, (I learned this from one of those docs you rarely watch) GM killed the electric car just a few short years ago. Why would they do that? A group of people took over a MILLION dollars down to the lot after the cars had been recalled and tried to buy the cars from them and were refused. Why? I thought auto makers wanted to make money, instead the cars were all taken and crushed. Ridiculous. There's not enough oil in an electric car is the problem.
I think this is where things go off the rails a bit, respectfully. The stunt at the dealership only shows us that large companies have protocol, and they don't generally sell you recalled products because they can't vouch for them and may have no system in place for maintenace or repairs. Which, by the way, is exactly what GM said in response to the film (http://www.altfuels.org/misc/onlygm.pdf). The guy on the lot wasn't the CEO, he just worked for a dealership, right? Wouldn't that make the offer equivalent to bribing him to violate the recall order? And the total doesn't change anything, because we're talking about a multi-billion-dollar company. Also, they weren't all destroyed; one was given to the Smithsonian. Which kind of puts the damper on the idea that they had to destroy it because it was secretly awesome.

Every major car manufacturer is making hybrids. Chevy makes an electric car called the Volt. It's selling terribly. Why? You seem to want to argue both that the car companies suppress these things, and that ordinary people won't sacrifice to make it happen. I don't see how those two ideas can co-exist. If the problem is that people won't buy them, then we don't need a conspiracy to tell us why car companies don't make many.

As for political documentaries; I watch ones I agree with even more rarely than the ones I don't. I think they are, in general, highly manipulative, and that people put way too much stock in them as an information source. They are every bit as capable of misleading or misinforming as the written word. Probably moreso, because they can create a complete emotional impression that writing can't, and watching them is an inherently more passive activity.

But, at this point, you've alluded to me not watching political documentaries, and you've said I'm being "misled." So I think you'll agree that turnabout is fairplay when I ask: do you watch documentaries that argue this issue from the other side? Had you seen GM's response? Had you read anything by Bryce? Don't worry, I'm not going to be That Guy. I'm not saying your opinion is invalid if the answer to these questions is "no." I'm asking to find out one simple thing: do you genuinely want to investigate the issue? If not, then I can't imagine how you could avoid being misled yourself, let alone to the point at which you'd feel comfortable telling others they're being misled.

If we as a government can force or impose our will against another nation over oil or any other natural resource we want, we can easily do it for going greener. We simply play the same political hard ball that is played now and tell them the cost of doing business with the US means doing things a certain way.
Meaning what? We won't trade with any nation above a certain level of emissions? We don't trade with all the largest manufacturers' in the world, and thus become a protectionist nation? If so, get ready for a real depression, because you ain't seen nothin' yet.

I'm not sure what political hard ball we can play, either, or what hard ball you think we're playing now. We trade with almost everyone now, and we're a lot better for it (and so are they). And playing "hard ball" only works if you have an alternative ready to go.

In what way are we not dictating how Iraq's economy is going to work in the future? How are we not re-building their entire infrastructure? How many companies from Iraq are doing real work, noticeable work there, besides Halliburton and all the many other American companies that are there?
I'm kind of confused by the question, really. Rebuilding infrastructure is nothing like dictating a country's policies to them. You seem to be just mashing the war and the rebuilding and energy policy into one big category called "doing stuff" and saying, if we can do some stuff, why not some other stuff? Well, because the other stuff is blatant imperialism, mainly.

And you hated the first stuff anyway, didn't you? So at best this would be an argument about why certain conservatives should be theoretically okay with the idea, not an actual reason that you would be personally satisfied by.

See, I agree with all of this... :) And it really isn't difficult to "lead the way". All we have to do is set out to get each and every person to a carbon emission of zero in ten to fifteen years. Once we do that we begin to embrace real change.
That's all? You're basically talking about reverting to an agrarian economy.

The problem here is that the rhetoric and the consequences are so, so far apart. The rhetoric makes it sound like we all just need to stop driving hummers, buy hybrids, slap a few solar panels on the roof and and be willing to pay a little more for our energy. The reality is absolutely nothing like that. The reality is that if we had to move off of fossil fuels as things are now, the grid wouldn't even function.

Yoda

04-18-12, 12:53 PM

By the by, I realize I'm a crazy person, so if that's too long, daunting, whatever, I have a standing offer to summarize or boil most of it down to a few short points or questions upon request. :) I really did work to shorten it, though, even though that probably looks like a huge lie.

Powdered Water

04-22-12, 11:42 PM

I hadn't realized that you'd gotten back to me Chris, I'll re-read some of this and get back in here later this week.

I will say this though and I know you kinda don't go for this idea, but all this stuff? It's all the same to me. If I go from one "issue" to another, you'll just have to bear with me. I try to stay on topic as much as I can but to me all of this stuff. This "green energy" this "war on terror" this "agrarian economy" are all a part of a much bigger thing. You think people are broken? I think civilization is broken. We have a major difference of opinion there. And its not easy for me to always stay on task when I tend to think that this whole debate is pointless to begin with. But I am trying.

Golgot

04-23-12, 08:04 AM

Thus imbuing your response with the soul of wit!

We all sup from the Shakespeare cup over here ;)

Well, the profit margins are always better on existing technologies, yet somehow, without anyone forcing them to do it, businesses manage to bring new ones to market all the time.

That's certainly true, but with energy tech you're looking at some pretty formidable investment to get the new tech up and running - especially in the areas where you're going toe to toe with some of the wealthiest industries around. The more 'niche' products like wind & solar, that can supplement rather than replace etc, have of course got off the ground more quickly.

But like you say, we both agree this profitability plays a role in maintaining a fossil fuel 'hegemoney' of sorts. (Altho we might use different terms perhaps ;))

My real issue is with the way it contradicts the sister arguments that are almost invariably made alongside it. Fossil fuels are more profitable because they're just a way better energy source, not because of a conspiracy. Unless, again, we're naming physics as a co-conspirator. I'd love to see that subpoena. Can I make some kind of pun here about the "gravity" of the situation?

No you can't :D. But in part, because it's not as clear cut as you think...

Bloomsberg's analysts (http://bnef.com/PressReleases/view/172) predict that wind power will hit the same MWh output efficiency as gas-powered stations by 2016, thanks to increasing economies of scale & refined tech. (And they claim if CO2 'costs' were factored in they're already there in terms of bang for your buck - altho they don't go into details on how that would be calculated). The point being that the 'niche' renewables are starting to become highly competitive with fossil fuels. And that seems like pretty good news all round :)

But if you wanna talk 'conspiracies', we could talk about fossil fuel subsidies apparently being 500% larger (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/datablog/2012/jan/18/fossil-fuel-subsidy) globally than those lavished on 'clean' tech. Or we could mull over the fossil fuel industries being able to outspend the 'clean' groups in terms of US lobbying (http://www.energyboom.com/policy/clean-energy-lobby-dwarfed-billion-dollar-fossil-fuel-expenditures-washington) approx 20-to-1 over the last 2 decades or so.

These are other advantages of entrenched industries. Having built themselves up on the efficiencies of their product/resources, they can dedicate their profit crop to offsetting the product's weaknesses (in fossil fuel cases I suspect this is the cost of extraction etc) & to influencing policy etc to maintain the status quo. These are 'entrenched money' aspects that are of importance too no?

Aye, and that public debate is precisely what I'm referencing. The overwhelming majority of these arguments seem to be just about the warming, with the unstated implication that this debate is somehow also a proxy for whatever environmentalist policy may follow from it.

This is a little more serious than the mere fact that sometimes political debates turn on superficial things. This is an awful lot of people who feel very passionately about the issue, yet spend almost no time arguing the most meaningful point of contention. It strikes me as a pretty big blind spot in the discourse.

I'm unclear as to what you think the 'most meaningful point of contention' is. Can you clarify plz? :)

Golgot

11-21-12, 09:14 PM

Wanna help address climate change? How about...

Improving climate models using your computer's spare capacity (http://climateprediction.net) :)

Climateprediction.net is a distributed computing project to produce predictions of the Earth's climate up to 2100 and to test the accuracy of climate models. To do this, we need people around the world to give us time on their computers - time when they have their computers switched on, but are not using them to their full capacity.

Loving the new version of BOINC. Lots of easy-access settings to tailor it to your computer. (You don't need a massively high end machine, and just 700mb of storage in theory. If you reckon your machine can handle it (http://climateprediction.net/board/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=2388) maybe give it a go :))

---

PS I'll keep tabs on this thread if anyone needs more help. Haven't really got the bandwidth for args as such, but might engage. Or might just paste this... ;)

http://i48.tinypic.com/2e55l4x.gif

Powdered Water

03-16-14, 07:07 PM

I just heard that in Paris, France there's a new law going into effect that has people only driving their cars every other day. What an amazing idea!

Can you imagine if America had the balls to do that? We could literally, change the entire world overnight in just a few years.

Powdered Water

03-16-14, 07:10 PM

If America, China and India all drove their cars every other day. The results would be instantaneous. I think.

Yoda

03-16-14, 07:10 PM

I'm sure you can change lots of things quickly if you're willing to throw individual liberty under the bus. The bus you're not allowed to drive. It'd change the world alright, but not for the better.

The Rodent

03-16-14, 07:13 PM

They tried a carpooling campaign in Britain a number of years back. Think it was back in the 90s when the melting ice-caps became the new paranoia amongst the media panic-mongers.

Nobody did it and it just faded away into obscurity.

Powdered Water

03-16-14, 07:15 PM

If I ever leave America, I'm going to France. I like the way those people think.

christine

03-16-14, 07:16 PM

PW they're only doing that in Paris for a few days cos they're suffering a bad case of smog due to a particular set of weather conditions. I don't think it's going to be an ongoing thing

Powdered Water

03-16-14, 07:17 PM

Oh yeah? Either way. Still a great idea.

The Rodent

03-16-14, 07:17 PM

France is great... when the Gov fails the people and does something stupid against the populous' wishes, everyone just goes on strike until the Government reverses what they did in the first place.

Gotta love the French for that.

Yoda

03-16-14, 07:19 PM

It's a terrible idea. Have you thought about the implications of this? Like at all?

Powdered Water

03-16-14, 07:21 PM

Nope.

The Rodent

03-16-14, 07:21 PM

I think the occasional drop in traffic is always a good idea.

I mean, when Iceland erupted and all air traffic was stopped, the general pollution levels across the entire globe dropped by something silly like 5%.

Quite amazing really.

Powdered Water

03-16-14, 07:22 PM

What's good for the planet is often not good for pocket books. But yeah, it could make a tremendous difference. Literally in a few months time.

Powdered Water

03-16-14, 07:26 PM

I'm sure you can change lots of things quickly if you're willing to throw individual liberty under the bus. The bus you're not allowed to drive. It'd change the world alright, but not for the better.

I really just want to lash out at you for this. Geez man. I'm talking about a great idea. You're giving me some textbook speech about liberty? I just don't get it. And this certainty that it won't make the world better. You just don't know that.

Cobpyth

03-16-14, 07:26 PM

Yeah, but I think Yoda means that the concept of a society based on blackmailing the government via strikes, doesn't really work. :p

The Rodent

03-16-14, 07:28 PM

It does work though.

The French Gov has done it several times, especially with fuel prices...

Those most effected by fuel prices rising simply got in their trucks and cars and jammed the roads around the country and refused to move.
A while later, fuel was dropped back to the original price.

Powdered Water

03-16-14, 07:29 PM

See, what I want from America is for us to do something like this willingly, because, you know, Ii would be the right thing to do. That's the America I thought I lived in. One that lead by example.

christine

03-16-14, 07:29 PM

France is a great country but it has horrendous bureaucracy. No wonder London is France's 6th biggest city by population

Yoda

03-16-14, 07:31 PM

Lash away, I'll lash right back. It's not a great idea, and that becomes obvious when you sit back for a second and think about the ramifications. And my objection is most definitely not just based on abstract notions of liberty (but those damn well matter, too).

The Rodent

03-16-14, 07:32 PM

France is a great country but it has horrendous bureaucracy. No wonder London is France's 6th biggest city by population

London is in France?

Powdered Water

03-16-14, 07:32 PM

you appear to be looking at this like the only way it will happen is if you're forced. It doesn't have to be that way.

Cobpyth

03-16-14, 07:33 PM

France is a great country but it has horrendous bureaucracy. No wonder London is France's 6th biggest city by population

London is in France?

She probably means that all the French are fleeing to London because of the absurd socialist climate in their own country.

The Rodent

03-16-14, 07:34 PM

Ah... clink, the penny has dropped :D

Sexy Celebrity

03-16-14, 07:34 PM

Lash away, I'll lash right back.

Except when it involves the lack of free will.

Powdered Water

03-16-14, 07:36 PM

Sexy's here. Everybody out of the pool!

The Sci-Fi Slob

03-16-14, 07:36 PM

London is in France?

Well, perhaps metaphysically. In the European Union, anything is possible - the regimented bastardisation of peoples for instance...

Ðèstîñy

03-16-14, 07:38 PM

Nobody did it and it just faded away into obscurity.

Actually, it froze it's ass off this past winter.

As I always say, it's not Global Warming, it's Global Confusion.

The Rodent

03-16-14, 07:41 PM

"Global Warming" has been going on for the past 100,000 years.

It's called "The Earth getting warmer since the peak of the last Ice Age".

The Rodent

03-16-14, 07:42 PM

Ice Ages have happened several times.

Ice Age... gets warmer... another Ice Age... gets warmer... and so on...

We're simply at the arse-end of the last Ice Age... eventually another Ice Age will happen again.

Powdered Water

03-16-14, 07:43 PM

That's one way of lookin at it. Might as well live it up, eh?

Yoda

03-16-14, 07:44 PM

you appear to be looking at this like the only way it will happen is if you're forced. It doesn't have to be that way.
I certainly prefer that terrible decisions be made by the people, rather than forced on them (though you'd have to force it on them to make it happen). But there are massive problems with the idea completely unrelated to that. Take your pick: logistical, economic (which does not mean it would just be expensive), cronyism. I honestly barely know where to begin.

The Sci-Fi Slob

03-16-14, 07:44 PM

The recent 'Global Warming' scare is based upon taxation scams and false information. The increase in global temperature was actually caused by a cycle of solar flares.

The Sci-Fi Slob

03-16-14, 07:47 PM

Every planet in the solar system has been affected. Whether or not their governments are putting up taxes, or giving them 7 different bins, is a different matter..

Powdered Water

03-16-14, 07:48 PM

This will always be a one sided conversation until something terrible enough happens that makes us all change something.

The Rodent

03-16-14, 07:51 PM

I mean, we aren't helping with all the stuff we pump into the atmosphere...

But if the Industrial Revolution had never happened and we were all still riding horses and living in wooden houses like we were back in the 1700s, the general atmosphere of the Earth wouldn't be much different than it is now.

The impact we've made on the Earth hasn't been anywhere near what the Government panic-mongers and Media panic-mongers would want us to believe.

They say the Earth is warming up because of us and solely because of us... which is rubbish.
It's precisely the opposite.

Yoda

03-16-14, 07:52 PM

It's really easy to prescribe sweeping solutions to the world's problems if you're willing to ignore all the pesky details.

Powdered Water

03-16-14, 07:52 PM

If you really believe that Rodent, then I hope you'll just try to keep an open mind.

The Sci-Fi Slob

03-16-14, 07:52 PM

I mean, we aren't helping with all the stuff we pump into the atmosphere...

Volcanoes, asteroid impacts, swamp gas....

Powdered Water

03-16-14, 07:54 PM

It's really easy to prescribe sweeping solutions to the world's problems if you're willing to ignore all the pesky details.

Mostly just thought it was a terrific idea. You don't. I got it. Wasn't trying to mandate something to you and remove your liberty. Truly, I wasn't

John McClane

03-16-14, 07:57 PM

Shots of whiskey for everyone!

The Rodent

03-16-14, 07:58 PM

Trust me... I've studied a lot of things and climate change is one of them.

Think I mentioned this a few weeks ago in here, Paleoclimatology, Climatology and Astrophysics... I also studied Geology and Geography.

It's down to patterns in the Earth's orbit, the way the air and water moves around the landmasses and oceans

... for instance the South Atlantic Drift and the North Pacific Current... and the Jet-Streams over the Atlantic and Pacific...

Moving Landmasses effect these air and water currents which affects the temperature across the globe... as does the position of the Earth's orbit in regard to how close it is to the Sun.

Etc etc etc.

Powdered Water

03-16-14, 07:59 PM

Besides, until Coal is no longer our main source of electricity on this planet it really doesn't matter.

The Sci-Fi Slob

03-16-14, 07:59 PM

David Mayer de Rothschild and Al Gore say global warming is real, so it must be.

John McClane

03-16-14, 08:01 PM

I'm just waiting for when we hit Andromeda.

Powdered Water

03-16-14, 08:01 PM

Trust me... I've studied a lot of things and climate change is one of them.

So carbon emissions and all the studies related to them is all false?

The Sci-Fi Slob

03-16-14, 08:02 PM

Besides, until Coal is no longer our main source of electricity on this planet it really doesn't matter.

Tesla invented clean renewable energy, but because there was no profit to be made, his research was sabotaged and destroyed.

Powdered Water

03-16-14, 08:03 PM

There's an awful lot of data out there to just kinda push to the side.

The Rodent

03-16-14, 08:05 PM

Trust me... I've studied a lot of things and climate change is one of them.

So carbon emissions and all the studies related to them is all false?

The details released by Governments and the Media is, yes.
Media especially.

These advisors never take into account the Earth's cycles in weather and orbit.

The thing with Earth's orbit was a theory of mine for a while... it was only just a few weeks ago that it was proven correct.

Yoda

03-16-14, 08:06 PM

And if I send you stuff about the problems with that data, will that get pushed to the side? Serious question.

I'd like to know how many people have actually looked at The Data. As opposed to, say, reading An Article that makes an oblique reference to it. Show of hands?

Powdered Water

03-16-14, 08:08 PM

Go ahead and send it then.

The Rodent

03-16-14, 08:09 PM

I said we would start getting warmer weather in the lead up to Summer.

This time last year and the year before, and the year before that, we had snow.

Through study of weather patterns from the past 100 years, I predicted last year that we would start getting warmer weather in March and April over the next 5 years rather than snow and floods...

... and this year, it's warmer.

Powdered Water

03-16-14, 08:09 PM

And I can't remember the last time I read a study put out by the media. The media doesn't do scientific studies.

The Rodent

03-16-14, 08:10 PM

And I can't remember the last time I read a study put out by the media. The media doesn't do scientific studies.

That's exactly my point.

It's panic mongering. Nothing more.

Powdered Water

03-16-14, 08:12 PM

Reading things isn't panic mongering. But I think I get what you mean about the media.

The Rodent

03-16-14, 08:14 PM

Yeah, reading them is fine.

It's what you're reading has been twisted by the person who wrote it.

They're panic mongers... and people blindly believe them... and accordingly start panicking for nothing.

"We're all going to die and the Earth will explode and it's all our fault" is pretty much what they write and people stupidly believe it.

The Sci-Fi Slob

03-16-14, 08:16 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFpzaQPKC54

Powdered Water

03-16-14, 08:16 PM

And you don't believe, what? Any of that? Everything's fine?

The Rodent

03-16-14, 08:16 PM

Good job we weren't around when the Dinosaurs were about.

The Media would be panic-mongering and making us believe it was our fault they went extinct.

Yoda

03-16-14, 08:17 PM

Go ahead and send it then.
I'm about to play some computer games with the wife, so I'll assemble a few things and send them over later, if that's cool, no pun intended. But for starters, I'd point to the widely acknowledged "hiatius" in warming (http://articles.latimes.com/2013/sep/22/science/la-sci-climate-change-uncertainty-20130923). And specifically to the fact that all these climate models missed so badly on it. One would hope this would engender a little humility in our ability to measure these things.

It's important to remember that "The Data" isn't a real thing. It's not a therometer that said one thing and now quite obviously says another. "The Data" is a series of elaborate climate models that tweak the raw numbers (including the historical temperatures) in all sorts of ways to try to adjust for the mind-boggling number of variables involved.

Powdered Water

03-16-14, 08:18 PM

It's simply brilliant whoever thought this up. No one can agree on anything anymore. You can't trust books. You can't trust TV. You sure as hell can't trust the media.

Hubba hubba hubba... who do you trust?

The Sci-Fi Slob

03-16-14, 08:18 PM

Good job we weren't around when the Dinosaurs were about.

The Media would be panic-mongering and making us believe it was our fault they went extinct. :rotfl:

The Rodent

03-16-14, 08:20 PM

And you don't believe, what? Any of that? Everything's fine?

I believe the Earth's cycles in orbit and in general weather patterns are 99% to blame for the fact we're getting warmer.

Yet the media and Government say it's 100% us and that the Earth doesn't have cycles.
It's all us.

All down to us.

Only us.

Us.

We're doing it.

Us.

100% our fault.

Utter crap. We aren't helping, no... but we aren't 100% to blame like the panic mongers want us to believe.

Yoda

03-16-14, 08:20 PM

Please don't fall into the trap of thinking we either need to swallow all of this or else posit a massive conspiracy. There are far less sinister explanations that have to do with nothing more than our inability to measure things as well as we think we can.

More later.

The Sci-Fi Slob

03-16-14, 08:23 PM

There are far less sinister explanations that have to do with nothing more than our inability to measure things as well as we think we can.

Exactly. Those dam carbon emissions are so hard to detect, yet so easy to tax....

The Rodent

03-16-14, 08:24 PM

That's an interesting read, Yoda...

John McClane

03-16-14, 08:43 PM

Ðèstîñy

03-16-14, 08:52 PM

I'm chuckling thinking about how Golgot will react if I move all of these into one of the old climate threads.

When I made my joke, I thought of Golgot. I always refused to get in a big debate, and said, "A Chatty Cathy I am not!" Forever ago, but I think I'm remembering that one accurately.

Powdered Water

03-16-14, 09:00 PM

Ðèstîñy

03-16-14, 09:18 PM

Good job we weren't around when the Dinosaurs were about.

The Media would be panic-mongering and making us believe it was our fault they went extinct.

If we were around then, the media would have been doing the same thing we were, sh!tting our pants, while trying to find a place to hide.

John McClane

03-16-14, 09:23 PM

What I would give to be stoned right now....

Powdered Water

03-16-14, 09:25 PM

Not for nuthin, but that article may just be yet another misleading bunch of BS. You say you look at both sides Chris? Check this out.

Global warming not slowing down, it's speeding up. (http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-not-slowing-its-speeding-up.html)

Hell, check the whole site out. These are just lowly scientists. I'm sure they are just making all this stuff up.

Austruck

03-16-14, 09:31 PM

Ðèstîñy

03-16-14, 09:39 PM

Nice reply Aus. Is it a guy thing?

See Golgot! This is why I don't do debates. People cannot give their opinions, or try to teach others their side without all that sarcasm . . . and when it's live and in person, the sarcasm gets way too loud. That, and everyone keeps interrupting each other. I don't know why anyone ever bothers. To me, it's because of these two things that I've just listed, as to why no one ever changes their mind on anything. Why would they? Who wants to believe anything a smart ass has to say.

Powdered Water

03-16-14, 09:41 PM

So the scientists of today are no smarter than the guys that thought the world was flat? I just don't know what to say to that. I guess I'll just stop. Sorry everyone.

Ðèstîñy

03-16-14, 09:43 PM

That wasn't her point at all.

The Sci-Fi Slob

03-16-14, 09:45 PM

So the scientists of today are no smarter than the guys that thought the world was flat? I just don't know what to say to that. I guess I'll just stop. Sorry everyone.

Of course, there was one scientist who's genius transcends generations, and an Englishman to boot!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dkuj_dQ_0lM

Austruck

03-16-14, 10:30 PM

That wasn't her point at all.
She's right. My point is that even today's brilliant scientists still don't know everything, do they? Have we attained the level of knowledge that can't be improved upon or added to? Probably not.

And so, there is still room for error. Even by large groups of people. Large groups of people have often been wrong about things -- not just science. Religion. Politics. You name it.

That's my point: Saying that a lot of people believe something doesn't prove anything necessarily. No matter how much they currently think they know.

The Rodent

03-16-14, 10:33 PM

That's an interesting read, Yoda...

That was interesting. I'm not sure if that's going to do anything more than just raise more questions. Which it apparently already has. Maybe you're right. Maybe there's no such thing as global warming. If that's true though, then a pretty large number of scientist are wrong and since a lot of them are no longer wasting time talking about whether or not global warming exists and have moved on to try and find solutions to it.They are all wasting a lot of time on something that seemingly doesn't exist.

What I'm saying is, is that the powers that be want to ram it down our throats that the Earth is warming up and it's 100% because of us.

It isn't because of us. We've had no industry for the past 150,000 years, and the Earth was heating up just fine back then.

We've only had real genuinely heavy industry for the past, what, 100-150 years or so.

We've only had the science to properly track the Earth heating up, for the past 30 years.

So these idiots have jumped on the idea that it's us that's making it happen.
They're not looking into the history of the Earth.
They're not studying Paleoclimatology, they're not giving genuine scientific data to the populous, they're just throwing out random theories on what's causing it.

Because these idiots can't see past the end of their noses, they're jumping on the assumption that the past 100 years of industry has warmed the planet.

I never said Global Warming didn't exist though.
It does exist.

The Earth is getting warmer and has been doing so for the past 100,000 years.

If Global Warming didn't exist, the entire Northern Hemisphere would still be covered with ice.

What I'm saying is, it does exist but we aren't the reason.
I will not believe the media who blames barely 100 years of industry for something that has been happening for 150,000 years.
It just doesn't make sense.

Like I said, it's about as feasible as blaming Humans for the extinction of the Dinosaurs simply because we genuinely have no idea, just a theory, about how their extinction actually happened.

John McClane

03-16-14, 11:26 PM

Ya'll all nuts!

Yoda

03-16-14, 11:27 PM

Hell, check the whole site out. These are just lowly scientists. I'm sure they are just making all this stuff up.
Yeesh, this is some pretty misplaced sarcasm, since I already said that the whole "we're doomed"/"they're making it up" dichotomy is a false one. And it seems to me you're basically hurling the same accusation at the other report, no? Are they making it up? Note that one is a blog, and the other is a newspaper story about a United Nations report. So if we're just appealing to authority, that's a no-brainer.

But yeah, absolutely, let's check the whole site out. Specifically, the part on that same page where they agree that surface warming has slowed; but merely argue that the causes are temporary. Because they use different models, naturally.

Powdered Water

03-17-14, 12:06 AM

That site really isn't a blog but I get your point. Anyway, I looked into that article and found this. (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v501/n7467/abs/nature12534.html) The reason I'm so dismissive of your article is simply because of the cited sources. The first one takes you to a site that you have to pay to read the supposed article and the second... well you can see for yourself that it says the planet seems to warming up just fine. Link. (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/)

Is there a bunch of the population that seriously doesn't believe that in 2010 we didn't have the Highest temps of all time since records have been kept?

How does that jibe with that article?

Powdered Water

03-17-14, 12:09 AM

And I'm sorry I argue like a d*****bag. It's my fault, I wasn't raised properly.

Powdered Water

03-17-14, 01:28 AM

Ha! I knew I'd find it. I can research the internet like nobodies business. This is supposed to be the article that is cited as the number 1 source that the planet is cooling in that so called article. If you read it, you can clearly see it not only says much to the opposite of that but in fact it implicitly states that:

However, even
considering these criticisms, it is clear that the models can and do produce sustained multi-year periods of coolingÂ embedded within the longer-term warming produced in the 21st
century simulations. Therefore, it is
reasonable to expect that the natural variability of the real climate system can and likely will produce multi-year periods of
sustained coolingÂ or at least periods with no real trend even in the presence of long-
term anthropogenic forced warming. Claims that global warming is not occurring that
are derived from a cooling observed over such short time periods ignore this natural
variability and are misleading.

Link to whole article. (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/csi/images/GRL2009_ClimateWarming.pdf)

John McClane

03-17-14, 02:42 AM

I'm with Powdered Water.

Sir Toose

03-17-14, 10:53 AM

I'm not at all certain about "anthropogenic forced warming" (and neither is anyone else), but lets say we abandon all doubt and call it true. Now what?

Yoda

03-17-14, 10:55 AM

Powdered Water

03-17-14, 02:44 PM

Of course, I'm sure Gols would love to have his climate change chatter thread revived.

I'm not at all certain about "anthropogenic forced warming" (and neither is anyone else), but lets say we abandon all doubt and call it true. Now what?

I disagree. There a many, many scientists that know exactly what anthropogenic forced warming is. But there is so much mis-information like that article that Chris posted. See, the article itself is somewhat true. which is why this is such a mystery to so many.

Honestly, I originally started down this path because I thought it was a terrific idea just to drive every other day.That could make a serious impact. It really could. I have no interest in taking away your civil liberties though. I just wanted to exchange some ideas. Instead I got met with people telling me that this problem still, really doesn't even exist. And there's nothing we can do about it. So I felt inclined to provide some of the science behind it. It's really pretty jarring stuff.

Hey, I used to believe that too until I started reading data on how much a difference lower co2 emissions can really mean for the planet and the truth that we as a people really could do it on our own.

Powdered Water

03-17-14, 02:47 PM

It doesn't say the opposite at all: the quote you posted completely acknowledges the gap in warming, it just makes excuses for it. "Okay, it's not warming now, but it still is long-term." The problem, of course, is that all the climate models that sent us into this tizzy completely failed to predict this--in fact, most predicted the opposite. So the question is pretty simple: if they failed so badly, why shouldn't we exhibit some serious skepticism about their ability to measure climate?

I think you're under the impression that this is an argument about whether warming is taking place at all. That's the only way I can explain why you're producing things like this as evidence.

Yeah, but Chris, the message in that entire article is clear. There may be a cooling trend from time to time but it is occurring during a long term upward temperature trend.And I know it makes excuses for it. That's my point completely. That was supposed to be the source that proved the planet is cooling. And yet it doesn't say that at all does it?

Yoda

03-17-14, 03:05 PM

Well, first off, you're gonna have to fill me in on whatever process you used to determine that this was "supposed to be the article" that everyone's talking about, because the title, author's name, and organization's name are nowhere to be found in the LA Times piece.

Second, the claim was not that the planet was cooling, but that there was a break in the warming, which as far as I can tell is not under dispute. So nothing has been refuted here; the only dispute is over what it means.

The important thing about the break is not that it necessarily signals an end to warming (it may not), but that it's at odds with what climate models were largely predicting. Naturally, this makes me doubt the models, which is why I asked you in the last shout why we should trust them. And your response just now was "but the models say we're still warming overall." Do you see why this is a problem? I'm questioning the models, and pointing to their failures, and you're just telling me what they say.

Powdered Water

03-17-14, 03:29 PM

So, you don't think that's the article in question? I googled the two folks who were working on part of the project. They giver their names at the very bottom of the article. Xie and Yu Kosaka. You tell me. Maybe I'm wrong.

I am not trying to convince about the models. I am looking at data. Temperatures taken and stuff like that. Over time. There's been quite a few people that have been studying this. I read and watch and listen and much like many others I am putting 2 and 2 together.

Yoda

03-17-14, 03:51 PM

The LA Times article references an IPCC report, but I'll admit I'm not sure. However, it's academic, because the report in question agrees that there's been a break in the warming. The fact is well established, this is just about how we interpret it.

I am not trying to convince about the models. I am looking at data. Temperatures taken and stuff like that. Over time.
This is exactly what I'm talking about: it's not just "temperatures taken." They don't use the raw numbers: they adjust the old ones downward (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/) based on all sorts of things. They try to adjust for volanic eruptions, movement in warming stations, and solar variations, to name a few.

It's not "it said 72 here in 1910 and now it says 78." It's "it says 77 and now it says 78 but we think this station was in a weird place and conditions were different so we're going to estimate that it was really 72 and OH MY GOD IT'S GONE FROM 72 TO 78!" This is what I mean when I make a distinction between "The Data" and statistical models.

Powdered Water

03-17-14, 04:01 PM

Ok, so, there's no issue? I mean, what are we talking about then? This is all made up?

Yoda

03-17-14, 04:06 PM

Please don't fall into the trap of thinking we either need to swallow all of this or else posit a massive conspiracy.
I already said that the whole "we're doomed"/"they're making it up" dichotomy is a false one.

John McClane

03-17-14, 04:07 PM

Ten to one odds we argue about this until we have no ice caps left and we are all left wearing arm floaties.

Yoda

03-17-14, 04:09 PM

John McClane

03-17-14, 04:24 PM

I dunno. I just have a problem with taking that stance. Seems rather carefree to me.

Yoda

03-17-14, 04:33 PM

I'm not sure why that would be a reason or agree or disagree with anything.

Powdered Water

03-17-14, 04:49 PM

Here's what we're talking about: can we accurately model the climate? So far, our predictions about it are terrible, and all the alarming trends are based on adjusting historical data in dozens of complicated ways.

So let's consider the possibility that measuring aggregate temperatures across an entire planet over an entire century is really flippin' hard, and maybe we're not able to do it right yet.

You're talking about that. I was talking about what a great idea it would be to drive every other day. You decided I was trying to take people's civil liberties away and we've been arguing ever since.

Powdered Water

03-17-14, 04:50 PM

*About the science of climate change.

Yoda

03-17-14, 04:59 PM

Nah, I don't think you're trying to take my rights away, and I think I said a couple of times that it wasn't my only objection. I just mentioned it first because it's the first thing that occurred to me. I dunno why you think that's what this is all about for me; I haven't even mentioned it since.

But since when was I the only one talking about the science of climate change? I'm pretty sure we've been talking about it together. And liking the idea of driving every other day is based on thinking this is a serious problem, yeah? So I'm explaining why I don't trust the models: because they have a lousy track record and aren't just comparing hard data. And I'm curious as to why, given this, you would find them trustworthy anyway.

Powdered Water

03-17-14, 05:10 PM

You know, this supposed cooling trend is based on a model too. Yeah? Why do you seem so ready to believe it?

Powdered Water

03-17-14, 05:14 PM

You like articles. What do you think of this one? (http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/09/global-warming-pause-ipcc)

Yoda

03-17-14, 05:30 PM

You know, this supposed cooling trend is based on a model too. Yeah? Why do you seem so ready to believe it?
I don't. It's only significant because it shows how fickle the models can be. It's not much of a defense to say "hey, you don't know their models are wrong...their models that say they're wrong could be wrong!" That's supposed to fill us with confidence?

I kinda feel like you're just throwing articles at me, but they don't really address what I'm asking. Nothing in that one has anything to do with the historical adjustments I mentioned, for example. I'd really like to know what you think about that, because it seems like a lot of people believe this based on the mistaken idea that these are straight historical comparisons.

Yoda

03-17-14, 05:32 PM

I mean, I'll Google Duel all day if you want. It takes forever and I think pepole just do it so they can go on believing what they want without having to really talk to anybody else. But I think it'd be better if we just asked and answered simple questions about where we put our trust, and why.

Yoda

03-17-14, 05:53 PM

Golgot's face when he sees this thread has instantly doubled in size:

http://media.giphy.com/media/3lToitWc6wgg/giphy.gif

The Sci-Fi Slob

03-17-14, 05:57 PM

http://youtu.be/llBcH6H820E

Powdered Water

03-17-14, 07:15 PM

Alex Jones? Really? OK. You win.

Sir Toose

03-17-14, 07:51 PM

The only little point I have to make is that even if man made climate change were proven true, there isn't anything close to a remedy on the horizon. One would think the focus in government would be finding a solution rather than arguing about abortion and gay marriage (not that those things are unimportant, but they aren't disastrous to the worldwide population).

Gas and oil is big money and politicians need big money. Dealing with it would upset the apple cart to epic proportions.

Those who we've empowered to fix things don't seem to have this very high on their priority list.

Powdered Water

03-18-14, 12:32 AM

I don't. It's only significant because it shows how fickle the models can be. It's not much of a defense to say "hey, you don't know their models are wrong...their models that say they're wrong could be wrong!" That's supposed to fill us with confidence?

I kinda feel like you're just throwing articles at me, but they don't really address what I'm asking. Nothing in that one has anything to do with the historical adjustments I mentioned, for example. I'd really like to know what you think about that, because it seems like a lot of people believe this based on the mistaken idea that these are straight historical comparisons.

I've been doing a ton of reading, so I'm not ignoring you. I'm just not sure what you mean by this? Historical adjustments? Like, people just changing things to whatever best suits their case? How would they get away with that? That just sounds like paranoia.

Now I can't speak for this IPCC. They do seem to have a few pretty questionable actions and maybe even some wrong conclusions. But the IPCC as near as I can tell takes the work of other scientists and can present it in just about any way they feel they want to. The don't do any scientific research there at all so maybe they are the reason why so many are so skeptical?

I don't know, but the more reading I do the more undeniable it is how much human beings have directly contributed to co2 emissions. Maybe it won't have any effect whatsoever. I hope so. Because I firmly believe we could do something about this. Right now. Its not like I'm talking about going back to the stone age. Oh, I don't l know, maybe drive a little less. Maybe stop burning so much damn coal. There is not a scientist on this planet that thinks burning coal is a great idea. Not one.

Golgot

03-18-14, 08:47 AM

Wow, interesting few days. Tesla conspiracies and everything :D

Think I'll just reply to people who've referenced specific sci or practical problems :)

---

But for starters, I'd point to the widely acknowledged "hiatius" in warming (http://articles.latimes.com/2013/sep/22/science/la-sci-climate-change-uncertainty-20130923). And specifically to the fact that all these climate models missed so badly on it. One would hope this would engender a little humility in our ability to measure these things.

Ahem, you should say 'slowdown in surface temperature warming' ;). As discussed above, the global heat 'budget' is on the up overall.

And on missing it, they didn't :). Take this decadal forecast from 2007 for example:
"...several groups are trying to model exactly what might happen over the next 10 years or so. Smith's team produced the first such forecast last year. It suggests that surface air temperatures will remain steady for the next six years or so as cooler sea surface temperatures keep the lower atmosphere cool despite ever higher greenhouse gas levels."

Taken from this great piece (http://www.science.org.au/nova/newscientist/016ns_009.htm) discussing why short-term forecasts are difficult, unreliable,and yet very desirable. It also covers some fun complexities of the ocean oscillations currently at play. Happy to discuss it further :) [EDIT - gah, article now down! Word doc minus the graphics here (auto-download) (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CEYQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in%2Ffiles%2FClimate%2520change.doc&ei=xVIoU-igNZGqhAfSjoDYDA&usg=AFQjCNGJ1aWclzL3Mpc8QQkLDdU9IZwDew&sig2=UeliaUdC9mqyLXm_rzMuiw&bvm=bv.62922401,d.ZG4) or original here (pay per view) (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926691.500-climate-change-the-next-ten-years.html)]

The point is that these complexities are known issues, and aren't challenges per se to long-term forecasts, as those models are focused on averaging natural variability to discern human impact etc. It's also worth noting that current trends are still well within IPCC predictions.

This is exactly what I'm talking about: it's not just "temperatures taken." They don't use the raw numbers: they adjust the old ones downward (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/) based on all sorts of things. They try to adjust for volanic eruptions, movement in warming stations, and solar variations, to name a few.

I agree with everything you've said elsewhere about the daunting nature of the data sets & variables involved, and the mammoth number-juggling this entails. I would be a little wary of Watts though. His fixation on urban heat has been tackled by peer review scientists on several (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/15/climate-sceptic-us-weather-data) occasions (http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2012/08/carbon-brief-interviews-richard-muller-transcript/). To his credit, he always comes back with well-defined objections, but for now my suspicion is that the next peer-review check will suggest he's still being 'alarmist' on this one. (I do see his determined forays on this subject as a legitimate 'check and balance' for what it's worth).

You've noticed though that when the scis adjust to compensate for doubt in any direction, it is normally downwards. Is that type of caution really a bad thing?

---

The only little point I have to make is that even if man made climate change were proven true, there isn't anything close to a remedy on the horizon. One would think the focus in government would be finding a solution rather than arguing about abortion and gay marriage (not that those things are unimportant, but they aren't disastrous to the worldwide population).

Gas and oil is big money and politicians need big money. Dealing with it would upset the apple cart to epic proportions.

Those who we've empowered to fix things don't seem to have this very high on their priority list.

Have faith Toosy, have faith ;) There's plenty (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8223528.stm) going on.

The Gunslinger45

03-18-14, 02:15 PM

Okay I am just going to leave this article here. Needless to say it is... odd. But funny!

Marijuana causes climate change (http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/03/marijuana-pot-weed-statistics-climate-change)

I blame the young people. LOL!

Yoda

03-19-14, 11:51 AM

I've been doing a ton of reading, so I'm not ignoring you. I'm just not sure what you mean by this? Historical adjustments? Like, people just changing things to whatever best suits their case? How would they get away with that? That just sounds like paranoia.
Not only is it not paranoia, it's not even under dispute, as far as I can tell. Reading around I even found climate change defenders talking about it; they just think it's justifiable, is all.

Obviously they don't just make it up--that's a straw man that makes the skepticism easier to dismiss. They "get away with it" because they ostensibly have reasons for each adjustment: solar variations, whether or not they think the existing pollution haze is blocking heat, volcanic eruptions, warming stations changing locations, whether or not they think they were in a good place to begin with, or even (apparently) by averaging out temperatures in general areas to account for significant variations.

Each of these, taken by themselves, sounds potentially reasonable. But the more you do this, the further from hard science you are. There are literally hundreds of thumbs on the scale. Maybe you believe they all net out to an accurate measurement, anyway, but it's a long ways from a straight comparison. But that's what people think it is. You're doing a ton of reading, as you say, so I have to ask: did anything you read mention this? Or did it all leave you with the impression that they were literally just comparing one temperature to another?

Now I can't speak for this IPCC. They do seem to have a few pretty questionable actions and maybe even some wrong conclusions. But the IPCC as near as I can tell takes the work of other scientists and can present it in just about any way they feel they want to. The don't do any scientific research there at all so maybe they are the reason why so many are so skeptical?
People were skeptical before, so there's more to it than that. But it certainly doesn't help--and it shouldn't. To be fair, it's always possible for a handful of mistakes to unfairly discredit an entire idea. But I don't think that's the case here.

My old man used to be an accountant. He'd go in and look at the books of a company and see if things added up; that kinda thing. But he looked at the process by which they kept them first. And he told me that if the process was broken, he didn't even have to look at the results. A broken process never produced consistently sound results. And with climate research, we see a process where people are hiding data, refusing to release algorithms, and covering up anything which looks bad. That's a broken process.

I don't know, but the more reading I do the more undeniable it is how much human beings have directly contributed to co2 emissions. Maybe it won't have any effect whatsoever. I hope so. Because I firmly believe we could do something about this. Right now. Its not like I'm talking about going back to the stone age. Oh, I don't l know, maybe drive a little less. Maybe stop burning so much damn coal. There is not a scientist on this planet that thinks burning coal is a great idea. Not one.
Compared to what? Because there's not a scientist on the planet who can tell you, with a straight face, that fossil fuels are not currently the only energy source (other than nuclear) capable of providing anything even close to what we need. And I say need, not want, because I think lots of people believe that switching to renewables is just a matter of driving a bit less and turning down our air conditions. The problem is far, far more difficult than that. Things like solar are not just a little more expensive, and they don't just require a moderate downtick in our consumption. They are literally inviable by several orders of magnitude.

Yoda

03-19-14, 01:04 PM

And on missing it, they didn't :). Take this decadal forecast from 2008 for example:
"...several groups are trying to model exactly what might happen over the next 10 years or so. Smith's team produced the first such forecast last year. It suggests that surface air temperatures will remain steady for the next six years or so as cooler sea surface temperatures keep the lower atmosphere cool despite ever higher greenhouse gas levels."

Taken from this great piece (http://www.science.org.au/nova/newscientist/016ns_009.htm) discussing why short-term forecasts are difficult, unreliable,and yet very desirable. It also covers some fun complexities of the ocean oscillations currently at play. Happy to discuss it further :)
2008 is pretty late to the party given that the two decades leading up to this was more or less filled with hysteria. And even that piece seems to miss the boat pretty badly on Atlantic hurricane activity, which wasn't even at average levels last year despite the fact that the AMO was basically positive the whole time (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Atlantic_Multidecadal_Oscillation.svg), which is the condition they set on predicting its increase.

I would like to discuss this further, though, yes, because there seems to be a big disconnect between the humility in some parts of this piece, and the confidence in their long-term projections. By their own admission, the reasons and ways in which ocean heat is dispersed is "poorly understood." But it also can significantly effect surface temperatures. Doesn't this make the claim unfalsifiable? If surface temperatures go up, global warming. If they don't, well, Pacific winds and ocean heat absorbtion masked them.

This looks a lot like statistical overfitting, where you get a seemingly perfect theory by simply pasting any exception you find into the model itself. And you know how you spot overfitted data models? By failed predictions.

The point is that these complexities are known issues, and aren't challenges per se to long-term forecasts, as those models are focused on averaging natural variability to discern human impact etc. It's also worth noting that current trends are still well within IPCC predictions.
You're going to have to elaborate on "well within IPCC predictions," because it's my understanding that they revised them downward (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/01/ipcc-silently-slashes-its-global-warming-predictions-in-the-ar5-final-draft/), and suggested that they'd be to the lower end of even those revisions, which could mean they end up being about a third of what they thought was possible before.

I would be a little wary of Watts though. His fixation on urban heat has been tackled by peer review scientists on several (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/15/climate-sceptic-us-weather-data) occasions (http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2012/08/carbon-brief-interviews-richard-muller-transcript/). To his credit, he always comes back with well-defined objections, but for now my suspicion is that the next peer-review check will suggest he's still being 'alarmist' on this one. (I do see his determined forays on this subject as a legitimate 'check and balance' for what it's worth).
That doesn't sound like peer review, exactly. For one, I see them saying it just seems "counterintuitive," which is kind of meaningless given that he's challenging their preconceptions. And as Watt points out, they surveyed less than half the stations. And of course, my absolute favorite response to his criticism of their methods: telling him that their other methods say the first methods are fine.

You've noticed though that when the scis adjust to compensate for doubt in any direction, it is normally downwards. Is that type of caution really a bad thing?
I have a lot to say to this, but first, I want to make sure I understand: are you talking about adjusting down historically, or in the present-day? Because they're basically opposites for determining trend.

Yoda

03-19-14, 01:18 PM

I'm putting this part in a separate post, because it's more big-picture stuff that has less to do with the specific science. Anyone not interested in the back-and-forth above may get more out of this. I have two thoughts: one about science, and one about human nature. Science first:

What makes science so incredibly effective is that it can be contradicted by reality. We form a hypothesis, test it, and it fails. And then it fails again. All scientific progress is based on failure. Reality provides a crucial mechanism of correction.

Where is that mechanism here? When we "adjust" historical temperatures there's no way for reality to tell us we got it wrong. And when we disregard short-term fluctuations by insisting long-term projections are still correct, there's no way for reailty to correct us there, either, until decades later. Climate change seems totally unfalsifiable in the short and medium-term.

On human nature:

I agree with everything you've said elsewhere about the daunting nature of the data sets & variables involved, and the mammoth number-juggling this entails.
Reminds me of a joke: you know how you can tell economists have a sense of humor? Because they include a decimal point in their forecasts.

Yeah, this quote, right here, is the core issue. We can throw other people's science around forever, but at a certain point we're both going to sit back and make sense of that flood of data based on what we think human nature is really like.

If you're a Hayekian, like me, you know that it's fundamental human nature for people to think they know more than they do, especially among people whose livelihood is contingent on selling their expertise. You know that there's an awful tendency among experts to assume our best guess is the same thing as a good guess. And you know that, the more judgment you apply to the data, the less rigorously scientific you're being. Even though lots of people react the opposite way, thinking the data is more robust the more you do things to it.

We're talking about attempts to measure an unthinkably large thing over an incredible period of time and applying all sorts of (inevitably) subjective judgments. You seem to understand and acknowledge this. So the natural follow-up question is: why do you have faith in it, given the lack of corrective mechanisms and the the staggering number of variables and amounts of judgment involved?

Powdered Water

03-19-14, 03:50 PM

Yoda

03-19-14, 04:39 PM

I'm just really confused. How would a scientist change a historical temperature that didn't exist in the first place? We haven't been keeping the temp for that long. So maybe you mean scientists are changing temps in their models? I really don't know what you mean. If a scientist changes something, don't they do that because they believe they've been proven wrong?
The temperatures do exist; we've been keeping them for a little over 150 years. They just don't use the recorded numbers: they adjust them based on the factors I mentioned (and many others). And those adjustments can't be proven wrong, which is one of the objections I listed in the post before this one. We can't go into the past, so if someone says "the recorded temperature is 75, but it should have been 72 because of solar variation," how would you contradict them?

I'll try to answer your last question as best I can and then I have to take a break from all this. Why do I have faith in it? I'm gonna ask you a serious question. Have you looked outside recently? Not just here. But in the world? Do I really have to convince you that something is happening on our planet? I'm not saying the sky is falling but clearly the weather patterns are changing on the Earth.
I don't know how anyone could expect looking outside or watching the news to give us a clear view of the weather patterns across the entire planet. And even if it could, how would that tell you how it compared to the earth across all the centuries before us? How would it give you even the faintest idea of that? To call this unscientific would be an understatement.

What's more, the research you're relying on specifically says that these changes may not even be evident at all for a decade or more, and that's to the people with the instruments. So there's no reason to expect this to be in any way obvious to a casual observer, even if we do have a real problem.

Golgot himself asked me way back in the birth of this thread as to why I don't believe more in human ingenuity and I've really come around to that side now. I have faith that we as humanity could do something about this. So, maybe I have more faith in my fellow man than most. I don't know, It feels that way though.
Isn't this a completely separate question? Whether or not we're warming (and if so, how much) has little to do with how well we can handle it.

I absolutely believe in our ability to solve these sorts of problems, because they involve the corrective mechanisms that drive experimentation and progress. It's our ability to normalize and model our way around insufficient data that I doubt.

People lump all this stuff together under "science," but that's a mistake, because they usually end up transferring the certainty of the hard sciences to all the rest. But there's a reason our skill with physical things consistently outpaces our political philosophy and social theories.

The Sci-Fi Slob

03-19-14, 04:42 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NzU8X_lBqA

Golgot

03-19-14, 07:26 PM

2008 is pretty late to the party given that the two decades leading up to this was more or less filled with hysteria.

Um, it was a decadal forecast. Kinda hard for it to come much earlier & still refer to current conditions.

And I'm not sure which 'hysteria' you're contrasting it with. If you mean 'alarming' predictions then it doesn't run counter to those. (IE the oceanic heat is still an issue, is liable to be released into the atmosphere again down the line, & can't escape into space when it's down there etc) .

Regardless, I mentioned it as a starter example of why your phrase "...the fact that all these climate models missed so badly on it. One would hope this would engender a little humility in our ability to measure these things." was wrong on multiple levels.

IE

(A) Specific short-term models did predict this behaviour.
(B) The type of models you seem to be talking about don't make forecasts for natural variation at the 'granular' decadal level etc.
(C) This type of behaviour is still within boundaries of long-term predications (more on this below).

[& (D), the reason for (C) is that scientist apply lots of humility re what they do & don't know when casting their eye over the long now. They're proper Rumsfeld about it ;)]

I'd happily concur with a more nuanced: 'Climate scientists have been taken aback by the extent of the atmospheric hiatus since the 1998 El Nino & are looking at the various causes, in terms of natural variation, climate sensitivity & model accuracy' :p

And even that piece seems to miss the boat pretty badly on Atlantic hurricane activity, which wasn't even at average levels last year despite the fact that the AMO was basically positive the whole time (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Atlantic_Multidecadal_Oscillation.svg), which is the condition they set on predicting its increase.

You seem to have missed the main thrust of the article. Decadal forecasts are not expected to be particularly reliable. In many ways they're a 'learn by failing' set of experiments to improve our knowledge of natural variability.

I would like to discuss this further, though, yes, because there seems to be a big disconnect between the humility in some parts of this piece, and the confidence in their long-term projections. By their own admission, the reasons and ways in which ocean heat is dispersed is "poorly understood." But it also can significantly effect surface temperatures. Doesn't this make the claim unfalsifiable? If surface temperatures go up, global warming. If they don't, well, Pacific winds and ocean heat absorbtion masked them.

They said one specific behaviour of the Pacific El Nino was poorly understood (although doubtless there are many more) - which isn't the same as saying ocean heat transfer is 'poorly understood' as a whole. And given that we've got an ever-increasing array of measurement techniques for atmospheric & oceanic heating (at various levels for each) I'd say it's pretty damn close to being falsifiable. Currently it seems the measurements concur broadly (http://www.skepticalscience.com/new-research-confirms-global-warming-has-accelerated.html) with the scenario posited in the article.

This looks a lot like statistical overfitting, where you get a seemingly perfect theory by simply pasting any exception you find into the model itself. And you know how you spot overfitted data models? By failed predictions.

Well, if they claimed that oceanic & atmospheric cooling also entailed long-term heating, or some other outrageous exception, I'd maybe see where you're coming from. As it is the theories seem eminently reasonable to this layman.

You're going to have to elaborate on "well within IPCC predictions," because it's my understanding that they revised them downward (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/01/ipcc-silently-slashes-its-global-warming-predictions-in-the-ar5-final-draft/), and suggested that they'd be to the lower end of even those revisions, which could mean they end up being about a third of what they thought was possible before.

Erm, Lord Monckton is colourful character, with a side-line in conspiracy theories, who has been reprimanded by scientists for misrepresenting their findings on numerous occasions (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/sep/21/climate-scientists-christopher-monckton). But I'll bite anyway...

IPCC forecasts are estimated over 30yr ranges minimum to exclude all the known natural variations etc. Ergo if it doesn't warm again over the next decade and a bit then this could all land outside their ranges, but currently is neither here nor there (beyond its own intrinsic interest).

From what I can understand he's conflated the IPCC's new (more precautionary) short-range forecast for 2016-2035 with the standard longer-range projections, and taken that precautionarieness to be a climbdown.

I can only offer this non-pro blog (http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/01/monckton-emits-silent-scream-and-gets.html) & its links as backup for this, as mainstream science has mainly given up rebutting Monckton. (I do notice that several of his oft-debunked tropes re Hansen kick the whole piece off.).

My understanding is that they have reduced the range of expected outcomes (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2013/oct/07/un-climate-change-panel-graphs-ipcc-report), due to reassements of climate sensitivity, but not to the order he's suggesting, nor to the extent that current changes knock everything out of whack.

That doesn't sound like peer review, exactly. For one, I see them saying it just seems "counterintuitive," which is kind of meaningless given that he's challenging their preconceptions. And as Watt points out, they surveyed less than half the stations. And of course, my absolute favorite response to his criticism of their methods: telling him that their other methods say the first methods are fine.

Both the NCDC (http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf) & BEST (http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/01/best-study-peer-reviewed-and-confirms-what-scientists-knew) studies were peer reviewed. As such I do defer to authority somewhat here, and suspect that they've got the edge on the retired weatherman (who runs a blog featuring people like Monckton ;))

I have a lot to say to this, but first, I want to make sure I understand: are you talking about adjusting down historically, or in the present-day? Because they're basically opposites for determining trend.

I wasn't actually sure about what you meant here - or at least I couldn't see anything like it referenced in the link. Could you highlight which bit you mean there.

I just took the opportunity to highlight the tendency of scis to incorporate 'known unknowns'. IE much of the twiddling with numbers you decry is normally of a precautionary 'downward' nature, it seems to me :)

Golgot

03-19-14, 07:27 PM

Haha, David Icke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Icke) now :D

The Sci-Fi Slob

03-19-14, 07:30 PM

Haha, David Icke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Icke) now :D

David Icke was right about the lizard people. I see them all around. :shifty:

Golgot

03-19-14, 07:41 PM

David Icke was right about the lizard people. I see them all around. :shifty:

:D

http://i57.tinypic.com/2nb8rio.jpg

Powdered Water

03-19-14, 07:47 PM

I'm becoming a very big fan of geothermal energy. Since the Earth is keeping more heat in, there's a huge surplus of geothermal energy out there just waiting for us to use it.

Golgot

03-19-14, 09:15 PM

I'm putting this part in a separate post, because it's more big-picture stuff that has less to do with the specific science

Science first:

What makes science so incredibly effective is that it can be contradicted by reality. We form a hypothesis, test it, and it fails. And then it fails again. All scientific progress is based on failure. Reality provides a crucial mechanism of correction.

Where is that mechanism here? When we "adjust" historical temperatures there's no way for reality to tell us we got it wrong. And when we disregard short-term fluctuations by insisting long-term projections are still correct, there's no way for reailty to correct us there, either, until decades later. Climate change seems totally unfalsifiable in the short and medium-term.

Be interested to mull the historical adjustments (but prob best in other posts).

On long-term projections being only falsifiable over the long term, that's just the nature of the beast. That is the science. You want them to admit this sh*t is complicated. This is part of them doing just that. Condemning that aspect of it as being unscientific comes across as nigh perverse.

There are plenty of aspects that apply to both the long & short terms predictions that are more swiftly falsifiable, and they are being tackled on a daily basis. Ice core observations of the historical record improved/falsified? Adjustments ripple out, models are changed etc (It's only really the IPCC summaries that come in static lumps). New satellites go online? Crosscheck them against existing measurements, if data was errant find out why. Etc etc. This sh*t is all ongoing.

On human nature:

...If you're a Hayekian, like me, you know that it's fundamental human nature for people to think they know more than they do, especially among people whose livelihood is contingent on selling their expertise. You know that there's an awful tendency among experts to assume our best guess is the same thing as a good guess. And you know that, the more judgment you apply to the data, the less rigorously scientific you're being. Even though lots of people react the opposite way, thinking the data is more robust the more you do things to it.

We're talking about attempts to measure an unthinkably large thing over an incredible period of time and applying all sorts of (inevitably) subjective judgments. You seem to understand and acknowledge this. So the natural follow-up question is: why do you have faith in it, given the lack of corrective mechanisms and the the staggering number of variables and amounts of judgment involved?

Partially it's because I do see lots of evidence of good science & corrective mechanisms. Partially it's because many of the objections I encounter have the 'human nature' dimension you're discussing, in the sense that they're ideological objections first & factual objections second (which is something I don't perceive as much when looking into the science). On the whole, despite hopefully applying a 'due process' of scepticism along the way, I just tend to side with the guys who delve into the fossilised glassy lightning of the past (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080224174739AAdRgxD)* and the like. I find them more convincing :)

* Apols for Yahoo Answers - best free link available for that article

Yoda

03-20-14, 12:26 PM

Um, it was a decadal forecast. Kinda hard for it to come much earlier & still refer to current conditions.
Who said it had to? To the contrary, it shouldn't, because the whole idea is that recognizing this error is a recent phenomenon. I can't imagine what's supposed to be addressed by producing a forecast an entire decade into the hiatus (or Have-Been-Taken-Aback Period, if you prefer) that recognizes it's happening.

And I'm not sure which 'hysteria' you're contrasting it with. If you mean 'alarming' predictions then it doesn't run counter to those. (IE the oceanic heat is still an issue, is liable to be released into the atmosphere again down the line, & can't escape into space when it's down there etc) .

Regardless, I mentioned it as a starter example of why your phrase "...the fact that all these climate models missed so badly on it. One would hope this would engender a little humility in our ability to measure these things." was wrong on multiple levels.
I want to draw special attention to your parenthetical statement. You say the recent data do not run counter to the "alarming" predictions made before, and you seem to suggest that you can make this statement based on ocean heat absorption. But that's a non-sequitur, because the alarming projections were about the manifestation of these temperatures on the surface.

This is most definitely not a suggestion that ocean temperatures do not matter. But you can't say an inaccurate prediction was actually right once you retroactively factor in the huge variable they failed to account for, because part of the argument is that huge variables are always unaccounted for. So what you're saying only works as a defense to the idea that some warming is happening--not the idea that we have a handle on how much or why and how it will manifest itself, which is the part that drives policy.

(A) Specific short-term models did predict this behaviour.
(B) The type of models you seem to be talking about don't make forecasts for natural variation at the 'granular' decadal level etc.
(C) This type of behaviour is still within boundaries of long-term predications (more on this below).

[& (D), the reason for (C) is that scientist apply lots of humility re what they do & don't know when casting their eye over the long now. They're proper Rumsfeld about it ;)]

I'd happily concur with a more nuanced: 'Climate scientists have been taken aback by the extent of the atmospheric hiatus since the 1998 El Nino & are looking at the various causes, in terms of natural variation, climate sensitivity & model accuracy' :p
Well, first off: the response to A is above, and B, C, and D are all pretty much the same thing.

More later on the general disavowing of short-term projections.

IPCC forecasts are estimated over 30yr ranges minimum to exclude all the known natural variations etc. Ergo if it doesn't warm again over the next decade and a bit then this could all land outside their ranges, but currently is neither here nor there (beyond its own intrinsic interest).
You seem to have missed the main thrust of the article. Decadal forecasts are not expected to be particularly reliable. In many ways they're a 'learn by failing' set of experiments to improve our knowledge of natural variability.
Putting these two quotes together, since I have the same response for both.

I got the thrust, but they chose to make predictions anyway and they don't appear to have been very good ones. And you may have noticed that the spurious connection between storms and climate change is tossed around a lot every time a disaster is in the news.

I'm not sure why saying "this isn't going to be a very good prediction" before making it should excuse it from critique. Especially given that we know politicians and activists seize on them. Frankly, if I'm feeling cynical, I'm inclined to say that's the idea: to have it both ways. "This is going to be a bad prediction" followed by a scary prediction which influences debate and policy, followed by the prediction being wrong, followed by "Well, we said it would be a bad prediction." It's a political shell game.

They said one specific behaviour of the Pacific El Nino was poorly understood (although doubtless there are many more) - which isn't the same as saying ocean heat transfer is 'poorly understood' as a whole. And given that we've got an ever-increasing array of measurement techniques for atmospheric & oceanic heating (at various levels for each) I'd say it's pretty damn close to being falsifiable. Currently it seems the measurements concur broadly (http://www.skepticalscience.com/new-research-confirms-global-warming-has-accelerated.html) with the scenario posited in the article.
Individually they're falsifiable, in a purely literal sense, but not in practice or as a whole. Because when one is falsified (or at least legitimately questioned, like the surface temperature adjustments), a new measurement is swapped in. This, too, resembles a shell game. Because now we wait for someone to apply a similar level of scrutiny to the deep sea measurements as Watts did to the surface temperatures. And we can probably assume the deep sea temperatures are a far less robust data set than the surface temperatures, having presumably not been measured as often or as long.

If we had this discussion in 1998 there's little doubt you'd be citing those short-term projections derived from what the latest measurement techniques were then, even though they'd end up being quite wide of the mark. And if Golgot Jr. and Gabriel William Bowyer have it in another 20, maybe they're talking about how solar variation swamped the ocean heating. The point being: the whole problem with complex models is that there's always a variable to blame or retreat to. Excuses will exist whether the model is sound or not. To point to the latest iteration of this neverending process as if it were a defense of the process is to literally refuse to address the critique.

Well, if they claimed that oceanic & atmospheric cooling also entailed long-term heating, or some other outrageous exception, I'd maybe see where you're coming from. As it is the theories seem eminently reasonable to this layman.
Statistical overfitting isn't about the exceptions being outrageous; it's about them being numerous, post-hoc, and occurring in scenarios where you have very large amounts of data, all of which describe this situation perfectly.

Both the NCDC (http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf) & BEST (http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/01/best-study-peer-reviewed-and-confirms-what-scientists-knew) studies were peer reviewed. As such I do defer to authority somewhat here, and suspect that they've got the edge on the retired weatherman (who runs a blog featuring people like Monckton ;))
Neither of those addresses the concerns, though. The first literally acknowledges Watts' complaints but simply says you have to adjust the temperatures for these factors "no matter how compelling the circumstantial evidence of bias may be." It seems to be making an argument completely orthogonal to Watts: they're acting as if he's offering up his research as an alternative to the models, but that in no way addresses his research as a critique of them. Which fits really snugly into the "confusing our best guess with a good guess" trap I mentioned.

And I'm not sure what you're producing the second in response to, but it also doesn't seem to address what I'm saying about modeling. It appears to just be describing it, in the "our model says your criticism about models is wrong" vein I keep talking about. It's kind of jarring how frequently defenders point to these sorts of narrow, circular justifications in response to the broader questions. I suppose when all you have is a model, every problem begins to resemble a backtest.

I wasn't actually sure about what you meant here - or at least I couldn't see anything like it referenced in the link. Could you highlight which bit you mean there.

I just took the opportunity to highlight the tendency of scis to incorporate 'known unknowns'. IE much of the twiddling with numbers you decry is normally of a precautionary 'downward' nature, it seems to me :)
I'm saying that "downward" can be more or less cautious depending on context. If you adjust current estimates downward, that points towards less of a problem. If you adjust historical temperatures downward (which we know they do), that points towards more of one, because it means the trendline is steeper. Which did you mean? Because my response to one of these is scathing and the other is mild, and I want to be fair. ;)

"Choose wisely."

http://www.flix66.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Indiana-Jones-4.jpg

Yoda

03-20-14, 12:39 PM

Be interested to mull the historical adjustments (but prob best in other posts).

On long-term projections being only falsifiable over the long term, that's just the nature of the beast. That is the science. You want them to admit this sh*t is complicated. This is part of them doing just that. Condemning that aspect of it as being unscientific comes across as nigh perverse.
Of course, I didn't use the word "unscientific," and for good reason: because that would imply that their actions were specifically at odds with the scientific method, rather than that they may simply be insufficient to yield a reliable conclusion. One reliable enough to upend huge sections of the world economy, for example.

You say that's "the nature of the beast," but that's just repeating my criticism back to me. Yes, that is the nature of the beast, and that's why it's generally a terrible idea to make decisions with far-reaching implications based on trying to project complex systems over large periods of time.

If that's the beast's nature, it sounds like a goose. Let's not chase it.

There are plenty of aspects that apply to both the long & short terms predictions that are more swiftly falsifiable, and they are being tackled on a daily basis. Ice core observations of the historical record improved/falsified? Adjustments ripple out, models are changed etc (It's only really the IPCC summaries that come in static lumps). New satellites go online? Crosscheck them against existing measurements, if data was errant find out why. Etc etc. This sh*t is all ongoing.
But again, this is just an echo of the criticism; specifically, the one where I point out that people paradoxically have more faith in datasets the more "stuff" is done to them.

As I mentioned in the previous post, I'm sure lots of highly granular details in these models are by themselves falsifiable, because in that context they can be isolated. But the interactivity of one factor with another is what climate models are really about, and what's really being questioned

Partially it's because I do see lots of evidence of good science & corrective mechanisms. Partially it's because many of the objections I encounter have the 'human nature' dimension you're discussing, in the sense that they're ideological objections first & factual objections second (which is something I don't perceive as much when looking into the science).
I think "philosophical objections" is a less connotation-laden descriptor. And I'd note there's only a distinction between philosophical and factual objections if they're not, ya' know, right. I think you're using "factual" as a synonym for "empirical" (and, I fear, maybe vice-versa).

And there's a subtle problem here that I didn't even spot at first: by essentially disavowing short-term forecasts and voicing a distaste for the more philosophical objections, you've created a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose situation. If the short-term forecasts don't really "count," and the long-term ones aren't falsifiable, then by definition you've made it impossible for someone to advance the kind of argument you generally prefer.

Golgot

03-20-14, 09:54 PM

Who said it had to? To the contrary, it shouldn't, because the whole idea is that recognizing this error is a recent phenomenon. I can't imagine what's supposed to be addressed by producing a forecast an entire decade into the hiatus (or Have-Been-Taken-Aback Period, if you prefer) that recognizes it's happening.

The error you describe has not occurred: Surface temperatures are within IPCC predictions (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/oct/01/ipcc-global-warming-projections-accurate).

(*EDIT* It's also worth noting that 1998 as the 'hiatus' start point is contested - see the 'cherry picking' section of the same link).

This is most definitely not a suggestion that ocean temperatures do not matter. But you can't say an inaccurate prediction was actually right once you retroactively factor in the huge variable they failed to account for, because part of the argument is that huge variables are always unaccounted for. So what you're saying only works as a defense to the idea that some warming is happening--not the idea that we have a handle on how much or why and how it will manifest itself, which is the part that drives policy.

It wasn't retroactively included. The role of the oceans have been recognised for decades. Read the introductions to Chapters 5 (http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_05.pdf) & 6 (pdf downloads) (http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_06.pdf) of the first IPPC report from 1990. Specific aspects of ocean behaviour (such as areas with high 'thermal inertia' like the North Atlantic) have been a major focus as they are the weakest links in the models, and hence these areas of uncertainty make up some of the biggest slack when it comes to long-term predictions. It not like they were suddenly jumped on to explain this scenario.

I want to draw special attention to your parenthetical statement. You say the recent data do not run counter to the "alarming" predictions made before, and you seem to suggest that you can make this statement based on ocean heat absorption. But that's a non-sequitur, because the alarming projections were about the manifestation of these temperatures on the surface.

Not really true. The alarming projections refer to global heating in all its forms. (You'll have heard alarming things said about fishing stocks being damaged due to heating & acidification etc for example, flooding due to heat expansion etc, and so on). The focus is often on atmospheric heating in terms of the obvious impact it would have, but all of the aspects have been on the table.

But kinda off topic anyway. The point is that much of the heat is expected to return to the atmosphere over time.

I got the thrust, but they chose to make predictions anyway and they don't appear to have been very good ones. And you may have noticed that the spurious connection between storms and climate change is tossed around a lot every time a disaster is in the news.

Aside from the ones that were right you mean? ;)

And yes I have noticed a huge amount of nonsense in the news. I don't really use it as a barometer for what's going on.

I'm not sure why saying "this isn't going to be a very good prediction" before making it should excuse it from critique. Especially given that we know politicians and activists seize on them. Frankly, if I'm feeling cynical, I'm inclined to say that's the idea: to have it both ways. "This is going to be a bad prediction" followed by a scary prediction which influences debate and policy, followed by the prediction being wrong, followed by "Well, we said it would be a bad prediction." It's a political shell game.

Only if you think that all these scientists want to do is scare people to line their pockets. (PS if so, what was motivating the guys looking at lightening marks from the past? Bit of an esoteric way to scare people isn't it? How about the guy who discerns ancient wind-directions from sand dunes held in place by plant life (registration) (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9635-dunes-hint-at-origins-of-ancient-american-drought.html#.Uyt6-oWF__w). He's a f*cking scary, bombastic, pea-hiding bastard isn't he. I hate that guy ;))

Individually they're falsifiable, in a purely literal sense, but not in practice or as a whole. Because when one is falsified (or at least legitimately questioned, like the surface temperature adjustments), a new measurement is swapped in. This, too, resembles a shell game. Because now we wait for someone to apply a similar level of scrutiny to the deep sea measurements as Watts did to the surface temperatures. And we can probably assume the deep sea temperatures are a far less robust data set than the surface temperatures, having presumably not been measured as often or as long.

You're seeing shell games because you want to see them. If you took the time to look you'd see all these peas having been on the table for a long time. At no point have they been covered by cups.

Deep sea temperatures, and modelling, are indeed some of the sketchiest. Funnily enough this is debated daily by involved scientists. I'm sure if a random blogger told you they'd got it wrong you'd believe them tho :p

If we had this discussion in 1998 there's little doubt you'd be citing those short-term projections derived from what the latest measurement techniques were then, even though they'd end up being quite wide of the mark. And if Golgot Jr. and Gabriel William Bowyer have it in another 20, maybe they're talking about how solar variation swamped the ocean heating. The point being: the whole problem with complex models is that there's always a variable to blame or retreat to. Excuses will exist whether the model is sound or not. To point to the latest iteration of this neverending process as if it were a defense of the process is to literally refuse to address the critique.

They weren't doing decadal forcasts back then. So nope. We might have been talking about the efforts underway to measure the oceans more effectively (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Ocean_Circulation_Experiment) though.

I hope in the future you won't still be refusing to believe science from the 90s actually existed :|

Statistical overfitting isn't about the exceptions being outrageous; it's about them being numerous, post-hoc, and occurring in scenarios where you have very large amounts of data, all of which describe this situation perfectly.

Well, in this case they were ad hoc. Happy now?

Neither of those addresses the concerns, though.

I only produced them to demonstrate they'd been peer-reviewed. It's not a gold standard by any means, but given how poor the fact-checking is on Watt's blog, and the fact that there are reasons to believe he's wrong (http://www.skepticalscience.com/watts_new_paper_critique.html), I'm gonna stick with the pros for now.

I'm saying that "downward" can be more or less cautious depending on context. If you adjust current estimates downward, that points towards less of a problem. If you adjust historical temperatures downward (which we know they do), that points towards more of one, because it means the trendline is steeper. Which did you mean? Because my response to one of these is scathing and the other is mild, and I want to be fair. ;)

I'm talking about the former. Can you provide an example of historical downgrading then?

Golgot

03-20-14, 10:22 PM

If that's the beast's nature, it sounds like a goose. Let's not chase it.

If we were really waiting for a golden egg alone, I'd understand. But we're not. Plenty of the core science is sitting there in the climate record. Have a gander at the goose tracks.

As I mentioned in the previous post, I'm sure lots of highly granular details in these models are by themselves falsifiable, because in that context they can be isolated. But the interactivity of one factor with another is what climate models are really about, and what's really being questioned

Indeed, that is the biggest challenge. While they're working kinda makes sense to listen to them though doesn't it :p

And there's a subtle problem here that I didn't even spot at first: by essentially disavowing short-term forecasts and voicing a distaste for the more philosophical objections, you've created a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose situation. If the short-term forecasts don't really "count," and the long-term ones aren't falsifiable, then by definition you've made it impossible for someone to advance the kind of argument you generally prefer.

The long term ones are falsifiable, the short term ones are falsifiable, and I haven't ruled out philosophical objection (I just find it objectionable when it seems to trump the facts rather than illuminate them).

So indeed, let's discuss your philosophy on this. What was Hayek's solution to over-selling and guestimation then?

The Rodent

03-20-14, 10:37 PM

This was from my own thread I started after I'd been studying astrophysics, astronomy and orbital mechanics.

It also lead me to study up about palaeoclimatology as well, which is why I've been harping on about Earth's Weather Cycles in regard to Ice Ages and heating spells too.

http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=32172&highlight=weather

Holy sh*t I've got it figured!!

Our strange weather and stuff... seasons being off etc. It's not the seasons or bullcrap "climate change" that make no snow fall in December and yet give snow in March and April...

... it's that our calendar is off sync in terms with the Earths' orbit.

Earth's orbit is Elliptical. When Earth is at the height of Perihelion, the furthest from the sun, it should be June 30th/July 1st on our calendars... also known as the height of Summer in the Northern Hemisphere.

Our calendars and times have always been out, which is why we have leap years to make up for the discrepancy.

I reckon the calculations done for leap years and stuff isn't perfect, meaning when Earth is at the height of Perihelion, our calendar is at end of July, not the beginning of July.

I've sat up all night to figure out our weird weather being out of sync... I think I've found the answer.
Our calendars are out of sync with Earth's orbit.

Currently watching a programme about Earth's Orbit.

New research has found that Earth's orbit changes ever so slightly and has 3 cycles of being closer or further away depending on the cycle the Earth's orbit is in.

Our strange weather over the past few years is down to the Earth's orbit changing.

I was right.

The Rodent

03-20-14, 10:47 PM

This is also interesting.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/earth/water_and_ice/ice_age

Ice Ages, like I found out through my own poking around, have been happening for millions of years. Big freeze, warms up, another big freeze, warms up again.
We're at the arse end of the last Ice Age and it'll keep getting warmer until we hit another Ice Age and the Earth is frozen over again.

Earth has been doing this quite well without us. You really think it's our fault the earth is currently getting warmer? I don't, the sporadic weather is down to our orbit's current cycle... the warming has been going on for the past 150,000 years.

Our understanding of how the Earth goes through these cycles of Ice Ages has only been studied since 1972. So our general understanding might be pretty good on average, but 40 years of half arsed Governments picking out what they want to hear, and panic mongering by the media, hasn't done anyone any good.

Put in the study rather than believing some bloke in a suit who works for an organisation that uses false information to get what they want out of The People

Golgot

03-20-14, 11:23 PM

Ice Ages, like I found out through my own poking around, have been happening for millions of years.

Can we get this carved into Mount Rushmore? Maybe as speech bubble coming out of Jefferson's mouth?

Yoda

03-21-14, 09:53 PM

The error you describe has not occurred: Surface temperatures are within IPCC predictions (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/oct/01/ipcc-global-warming-projections-accurate).

(It's also worth noting that the 'hiatus' didn't start in 1998 - see the 'cherry picking' section of the same link).
That's great, except for the fact that "prediction" is pluralized.

It's little defense of a prediction to say that in the multiple models and the averaging of them together, there is a range (the high end of which is significantly different from the low end in terms of how alarmed we should be) within which the observed temperatures fell. There are lots of statistical models that average our their simulations to smooth out outliers and produce better predictions, and make that average the primary prediction. But I've never heard of pointing to one of those aggregated simulations (as opposed to the average) as evidence of success. Identifying the specific simulation (or aggregation of simulations) beforehand is what makes it a prediction in the first place.

It wasn't retroactively included. The role of the oceans have been recognised for decades. Read the introductions to Chapters 5 (http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_05.pdf) & 6 (pdf downloads) (http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_06.pdf) of the first IPPC report from 1990. Specific aspects of ocean behaviour (such as areas with high 'thermal inertia' like the North Atlantic) have been a major focus as they are the weakest links in the models, and hence these areas of uncertainty make up some of the biggest slack when it comes to long-term predictions. It not like they were suddenly jumped on to explain this scenario.
Yeah, I'm not saying the idea that ocean heat matters is retroactive, I'm saying that you can't include a factor retroactively as a defense, to say that a seemingly inaccurate or imprecise prediction was actually right if you factor it in. Maybe this isn't what you were trying to do, but the parenthetical statement sure made it sound that way.

Only if you think that all these scientists want to do is scare people to line their pockets. (PS if so, what was motivating the guys looking at lightening marks from the past? Bit of an esoteric way to scare people isn't it? How about the guy who discerns ancient wind-directions from sand dunes held in place by plant life (registration) (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9635-dunes-hint-at-origins-of-ancient-american-drought.html#.Uyt6-oWF__w). He's a f*cking scary, bombastic, pea-hiding bastard isn't he. I hate that guy ;))
Yikes, this paragraph is straw man genocide.

Nothing in what I said necessitated any comically sinister, single-minded Decepticons posing as scientists. There are few situations where anyone is hired to study anything with a political impact where there isn't an implicit understanding in what outcome is expected, and this goes for all ideologies and positions. The cynical notion, however, is more about the way the data are used than the way it's produced.

And the notion that this idea (or even the rhetorical cartoon sketch of it above) is refuted by examples of scientists studying more esoteric things is a total non-sequitur. Even if I were suggesting that all scientists were mustache-twirlers, it still wouldn't follow that everything they say and do would reinforce this.

Deep sea temperatures, and modelling, are indeed some of the sketchiest.
Glad we agree. I look forward to them being more thoroughly analyzed. I suspect more surprises are in store, seeing as how there always have been.

Funnily enough this is debated daily by involved scientists. I'm sure if a random blogger told you they'd got it wrong you'd believe them tho :p
Well, seeing as how I doubt the efficacy already on principle, it wouldn't make a lot of sense not to, would it?

We can trade barbs of confirmation bias if you like; nobody's doing original research here. And if you read something by Watts I'm pretty sure you assume "the scientists" have a response even if you don't yet know what it is, yes? But I don't think that sort of thing gets us very far, especially when the difference in opinion is so broadly conceptual.

They weren't doing decadal forcasts back then. So nope. We might have been talking about the efforts underway to measure the oceans more effectively (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Ocean_Circulation_Experiment) though.
Yeah, the forecasts being decadal wasn't really the point, it was the fact that you'd probably have just been telling me about whatever the latest projections were, even though we have a much greater appreciation now for how volatile they can be.

In other words, it's not enough to just say "here's the latest research" as if it needs to be specifically refuted in order to be doubted. There will always be a "latest" measurement, and it will always stand temporarily unchallenged simply by virtue of being the latest. And this was true in the 90s, even though we now have a much greater appreciation for how these other factors can swamp the projections.

I hope in the future you won't still be refusing to believe science from the 90s actually existed :|
C'mon, this isn't you. I know it's easier to shunt every skeptic off into some far-flung extreme of the debate, but there's a perfectly clear distinction between "not science" and "not sufficient," which I even took the time to explain in my last post, just to be safe.

I'm sure it's always tempting to dismiss all climate skeptics as nutty conspiracy theorists who trust their own gut over the scientific process, but I believe very strongly in that process. Strongly enough not to affix the label to just anything with a lot of math in it.

Well, in this case they were ad hoc. Happy now?
Pretty sure it's all three. I would't dismiss this so blithely. Statistical overfitting is not a small problem; it's pretty much the problem when you've got a lot of data at your disposal. And you couldn't design a better situation to illustrate its pitfalls than the one we have with climate models.

I only produced them to demonstrate they'd been peer-reviewed.
With the ostensible goal of pushing back on his critique, yes? It didn't seem like a sidebar. So the fact the stations achieve the binary designation of "Has been peer reviewed in some form? Please check yes or no" isn't really relevant to the critique, especially when the first essentially acknowledges the bias, anyway, but merely isn't sold on an alternative.

I'm gonna stick with the pros for now.
I think, if we're being honest, this is pretty good summary of your entire position.

I'm talking about the former. Can you provide an example of historical downgrading then?
The surface temperature adjustments.

But regardless, you have chosen...wisely. ;) Glad I asked.

Yoda

03-21-14, 10:39 PM

If we were really waiting for a golden egg alone, I'd understand. But we're not. Plenty of the core science is sitting there in the climate record. Have a gander at the goose tracks.
Wordplay aside (not that I don't love it), we're at a pretty clear impasse if your response to my problems with the process are "that's just the nature of the beast." I accept that some fields of study are like this, but those aren't the fields of study I want to be guiding major policy decisions.

Speaking of which...

Indeed, that is the biggest challenge. While they're working kinda makes sense to listen to them though doesn't it :p
Define "listen." :p We should absolutely listen, but there's a world of difference between "hey, we think there's a long-term trend, and we really need to keep an eye on this" and "the fate of the planet is at stake and we need to potentially upend our way of life and if you think otherwise you're an anti-science troglodyte." My words, not theirs, but one can read between the lines. ;)

I've mentioned the influences on policy a few times, but you haven't said anything in response. But that influence is really the only reason this topic is contentious. And it ties directly into the more scientifically-focused discussions, because the burden of proof for merely claiming that we're warming is far lower than the burden of proof for any specific action that might be taken in response.

The long term ones are falsifiable, the short term ones are falsifiable, and I haven't ruled out philosophical objection (I just find it objectionable when it seems to trump the facts rather than illuminate them).
The long term ones are falsifiable eventually. The short term ones are subject to wild variations. So right or wrong, there's an uncomfortable gap between the time we're being asked to make decisions during, and the time at which reality gets to work its corrective magic in a really definitive way.

And I simply have to reject the distinction you're implying when you talk about philosophical objections "trumping facts." As I said before, nobody's doing original research, so most of your stance here is based on trust in the processes involved, just as mine is based on skepticism of those same processes.

I happen to think your trust is very often warranted, but it is not an alternative to ideology--it is an ideology. It carries all sorts of epistemological assumptions with it.

So indeed, let's discuss your philosophy on this. What was Hayek's solution to over-selling and guestimation then?
He was talking more about the market, though as is so often the case the general principles apply to all sorts of things. His solution for markets was to let prices coordinate the knowledge that's so widely spread throughout society, as opposed to relying on centralized solutions that can never hope to possess even a fraction of that information. Obviously, the physical sciences are somewhat different (and Hayek said as much), so there's not a direct analogue or anything.

There is, however, a great deal of relevance when we go beyond the scientific question to the political ones, as I discussed above. And in that context, the question itself--what his "solution" was--is really just an example of the mindset he was trying to challenge.

Golgot

03-23-14, 08:46 PM

That's great, except for the fact that "prediction" is pluralized.
It's little defense of a prediction to say that in the multiple models and the averaging of them together, there is a range (the high end of which is significantly different from the low end in terms of how alarmed we should be) within which the observed temperatures fell. There are lots of statistical models that average our their simulations to smooth out outliers and produce better predictions, and make that average the primary prediction. But I've never heard of pointing to one of those aggregated simulations (as opposed to the average) as evidence of success. Identifying the specific simulation (or aggregation of simulations) beforehand is what makes it a prediction in the first place.

So in essence you acknowledge that the IPCC projections are on track to date, but you think they've hedged their bets unfairly to achieve this?

I've had a stab at digging into why the projections are cast as a range. Unsurprisingly it's fiendishly involved. It seems that my supposition that it's down to accounting for 'known unknowns' seems to be a fair (if massively simplified) summary. IE you can lay out a mean of the models & temperature predictions, as in this chart of the 4 possible policy scenarios (RCPs) that they use:

http://i60.tinypic.com/1zx16oo.jpg
IPCC 5, Working Group 1, chapter 12, pages 8/9 (http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter12_FINAL.pdf)

But you've then cast off all the 'known unknowns' where models conflict
(potential Arctic amplification, North Atlantic warming) & where the timing of natural variability is unpredictable (volcanoes etc). So you can do it, but it means dumping useful data & making it more likely to be errant in the short term.

I'm not sure what you mean by the simulation not being identified in advance. The 'multi-modal' set of complementary but distinct models that they use seems to have been pretty settled for a while now.

(For what it's worth, I only look at the lowest end of the scale with these projections, as my cynicism about all the potential error bars & processes does still run deep, even if that doesn't come across often in these conversations. It probably won't assuage your suspicions to hear that even the lowest end of the scale, under a business-as-usual scenario, is still fairly alarming (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/interactive/2013/sep/27/climate-change-how-hot-lifetime-interactive), however.)

Yeah, I'm not saying the idea that ocean heat matters is retroactive, I'm saying that you can't include a factor retroactively as a defense, to say that a seemingly inaccurate or imprecise prediction was actually right if you factor it in. Maybe this isn't what you were trying to do, but the parenthetical statement sure made it sound that way.

I think we're on different pages here. It might be to do with more than the parenthesis. I think it's possibly this: I raised the ocean prediction as a supplementary example (admittedly before I'd expounded my full position) of the 'hiatus' being anticipated.

Around late 2007 when that prediction was made the 'hiatus' wasn't considered as such by scientists because the data wasn't in, so I doubt the scientists themselves were trying to retroactively explain anything away. (If you look at the shonky line I've drawn on this shonky wiki graph (http://i58.tinypic.com/dfvswh.png), you can see the temperature shifts were slowing but in a way which was pretty comparable to previous dips). From my perspective, coloured somewhat by the reading I was doing at the time, this seems like a pretty reasonable example of a core recent element of the 'hiatus' being predicted in advance.

Overall I'm not sure where I'm introducing retroactive defences.

Yikes, this paragraph is straw man genocide.

Nothing in what I said necessitated any comically sinister, single-minded Decepticons posing as scientists. There are few situations where anyone is hired to study anything with a political impact where there isn't an implicit understanding in what outcome is expected, and this goes for all ideologies and positions. The cynical notion, however, is more about the way the data are used than the way it's produced.

Hah, fair enough, that was sarcasm overload ;). And also perhaps a gasket blowing over the 'funding agenda' meme, purely because I've read so many examples of truly innovative science over the years in the climate sphere, which seem to embody a freethinking passion for the subject, that sometimes I just gotta let em out :D

I agree with you on the use of data needing utmost scrutiny and that groupthink is an ever-present problem. I'd only extend the above to say I've seen copious examples of climate scis tearing strips off each-other for inaccuracy & unfounded conclusions etc (something the public rarely sees, in part because of the fear of what the more rabid contrarians with do with it), and I just hope that it extends as far talking shops like the IPCC.

Yeah, the forecasts being decadal wasn't really the point, it was the fact that you'd probably have just been telling me about whatever the latest projections were, even though we have a much greater appreciation now for how volatile they can be.
In other words, it's not enough to just say "here's the latest research" as if it needs to be specifically refuted in order to be doubted. There will always be a "latest" measurement, and it will always stand temporarily unchallenged simply by virtue of being the latest. And this was true in the 90s, even though we now have a much greater appreciation for how these other factors can swamp the projections.

Arg, I've cited predictions from the 90s that still hold true, and that referenced those self-same volatilities that you're saying are new. And those are what I would have been citing for you at the time. Show me some IPCC-endorsed claims from the 90s that have fallen by the wayside.

I would't dismiss this so blithely. Statistical overfitting is not a small problem; it's pretty much the problem when you've got a lot of data at your disposal. And you couldn't design a better situation to illustrate its pitfalls than the one we have with climate models.

No I absolutely agree with the worry, I just don't see you providing any specific evidence for it having taken place in the examples cited to date.

With the ostensible goal of pushing back on his critique, yes? It didn't seem like a sidebar. So the fact the stations achieve the binary designation of "Has been peer reviewed in some form? Please check yes or no" isn't really relevant to the critique, especially when the first essentially acknowledges the bias, anyway, but merely isn't sold on an alternative.

To a degree yes because a decade or so of reading into climate sci has taken it's toll in how much of this type of back-and-forth I can delve into to any detailed level. Watts's blog has an 'axe to grind' vibe which is very consistent with previous contrarians who've claimed much but ultimately only produced hot air. Hence my hesitance to dive in.

In part it's question of synthesis. If Watts is right, then a whole raft of other climate science is wrong, not just the temperature measurements in the US. I'm pretty much using Occam's razor on this one I'm afraid.

I think, if we're being honest, this is pretty good summary of your entire position.

It's not far off, so long as I see the pros still tearing strips off each-other ;)

The surface temperature adjustments.

I still can't see historical downgrading mentioned anywhere in the link (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/), or after a very quick scan through the paper (http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/watts-et-al_2012_discussion_paper_webrelease.pdf). It just seems to be an extension of his claim that urban heat isn't fully accounted for. Unless you're saying it's deliberately not being accounted for I don't get how this equates to historical downgrading. You're gonna have to pull me out some quotes :)

Golgot

03-23-14, 09:36 PM

Wordplay aside (not that I don't love it), we're at a pretty clear impasse if your response to my problems with the process are "that's just the nature of the beast." I accept that some fields of study are like this, but those aren't the fields of study I want to be guiding major policy decisions.

I think it's a fair riposte to be honest. The reason for putting up with such a big galumphing goose of a process is that it's the best we've got, and the climate record suggests pretty emphatically that we need to do something. If you've got any suggestions for improving it jump in ;)

I've mentioned the influences on policy a few times, but you haven't said anything in response. But that influence is really the only reason this topic is contentious. And it ties directly into the more scientifically-focused discussions, because the burden of proof for merely claiming that we're warming is far lower than the burden of proof for any specific action that might be taken in response.

I'm not sure what I can add to the IPCC's projections for policy changes (the RCPs etc (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2013/oct/07/un-climate-change-panel-graphs-ipcc-report)). Other than to say you're right it's hugely difficult to gauge best action, and I'm fairly cynical about us finding a functional fix in the short term. (Pretty much holding out for some form of energy-lite carbon-stripping miracle cure to be honest).

The long term ones are falsifiable eventually. The short term ones are subject to wild variations. So right or wrong, there's an uncomfortable gap between the time we're being asked to make decisions during, and the time at which reality gets to work its corrective magic in a really definitive way.

There's lag certainly, which is part of the problem (in terms of C02's lengthy 'half life', as much as the rolling-falsifiability lag). But if you hold the science to be good enough, on the grounds that it has passed many falsifiability-tests to date, then there is still room for greenhouse gases emissions themselves to be used as the metric of success.

And I simply have to reject the distinction you're implying when you talk about philosophical objections "trumping facts." As I said before, nobody's doing original research, so most of your stance here is based on trust in the processes involved, just as mine is based on skepticism of those same processes.

I wasn't talking about your good self so much, (although I do think you fall into it at times), more about the broader debate :)

I decided a long time ago that I'd never understand the science at a meaningful level, but that I could read as many layers down as I was capable of comprehending, and read widely. And I've done that for a decade (focusing on the high end sci journalism, as much as that comes with confirmation-bias risks, paying for the good stuff whenever needed). I like to think my default position is not so much built on trust, but on a skepticism which hasn't found a smoking gun, but which has found lots of due diligence, and a mosaic of arguments which stand up on their own, and tend to complement each other in complex ways (or take each other down in flames when they don't ;)).

He was talking more about the market, though as is so often the case the general principles apply to all sorts of things. His solution for markets was to let prices coordinate the knowledge that's so widely spread throughout society, as opposed to relying on centralized solutions that can never hope to possess even a fraction of that information. Obviously, the physical sciences are somewhat different (and Hayek said as much), so there's not a direct analogue or anything.

Yeah that's what I was thinking. I agree with the principles, but I think they apply more strongly to a world where Goodhart's law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law) romps merrily. For all the human foibles involved, much of climate science can at least fall back on physics ;)

There is, however, a great deal of relevance when we go beyond the scientific question to the political ones, as I discussed above. And in that context, the question itself--what his "solution" was--is really just an example of the mindset he was trying to challenge.

I guess we just see it from different angles ultimately. Despite my utterly scant sci credentials (a smattering of social science, shhhh ;)), I now take the science to be strong enough to overcome the groupthink etc from the bottom up. Or hope it will. I think you might be taking the idea that Hayekian flaws have permeated a long way down as a one of your key starting points.

Powdered Water

03-29-14, 08:29 PM

I don't know how anyone could expect looking outside or watching the news to give us a clear view of the weather patterns across the entire planet. And even if it could, how would that tell you how it compared to the earth across all the centuries before us? How would it give you even the faintest idea of that? To call this unscientific would be an understatement.

What's more, the research you're relying on specifically says that these changes may not even be evident at all for a decade or more, and that's to the people with the instruments. So there's no reason to expect this to be in any way obvious to a casual observer, even if we do have a real problem.

This may be the last time I try this as I clearly can't force anyone to believe in anything. Here's some pretty amazing proof that the planet is not just warming, its going into overdrive, and it may already be too late. This isn't the research that you claim is faulty or based on bullsh*t models or whatever. This is simply documented visual proof of what I am talking about. And the dangers that we face.The movie that I'd love to get you to watch in total is called Chasing Ice. (http://www.chasingice.com/) I know you have a hard time with docs sometimes, but I assure you Chris, its well worth the 75 minutes it took me to watch.

But at the very least please watch this video taken just barely two years ago. And tell me what you think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC3VTgIPoGU

Yoda

03-30-14, 12:16 AM

I owe Gol a reply or two, though an impasse seems inevitable. But they're forthcoming anyway.

Since this reply is fresh and straightforward, though, I figure I'd just respond now:

This may be the last time I try this as I clearly can't force anyone to believe in anything. Here's some pretty amazing proof that the planet is not just warming, its going into overdrive, and it may already be too late. This isn't the research that you claim is faulty or based on bullsh*t models or whatever. This is simply documented visual proof of what I am talking about. And the dangers that we face.The movie that I'd love to get you to watch in total is called Chasing Ice. (http://www.chasingice.com/) I know you have a hard time with docs sometimes, but I assure you Chris, its well worth the 75 minutes it took me to watch.

But at the very least please watch this video taken just barely two years ago. And tell me what you think.
Be glad to. I think that it depicts some fairly amazing stuff, but that it simply isn't the proof you think it is.

There's a huge gap between the things people claim when they talk about climate change and the things they actually produce evidence for. For example, you're trying to convince me that we're warming and that the glacier in question is receding--but I already believe those things. That wasn't the claim. The claims were things like what you're saying now: "it's going into overdrive" and "it may already be too late," neither of which are evinced by what was posted. Not to mention the unstated implication that it's happening completely because of us.

This is why the debate is so muddled. It's not because a bunch of us luddites are stubbornly refusing to acknowledge hard scientific facts. It's because lots of pepole who think something's happening refusing to acknowledge any gradation in the claims. It all just gets sort of lumped together. So they say one thing which is highly speculative and not at all scientific--"we're doomed and it's all our fault"--and when that's called into question, they defend something completely different--"it's getting warmer and glaciers are receding." It's a bait-and-switch.

If you want to base this off of some kind of vibe that things are bad, which you can see just by looking outside, then that's a gut level reaction (and one you've said you've had since you were a kid, if memory serves). I can't much argue with gut reactions, except to point out that they're not scientific. And if we stay strictly scientific, it'll tell you we are warming, but it won't give you proof of some inevitable doomsday, either.

Powdered Water

03-30-14, 02:13 AM

But the planet is going into overdrive. The ice is receding at unprecedented levels. You can deny it all you want but its a fact. I merely wanted to show you that there is undeniable proof of that. Just imagine if a chunk of ice broke off big enough to raise the oceans by 3 or 4 feet instantly.You can take it and do with it what you will. The rest of the doc is really very good stuff. I hope you watch it sometime. And like they talk about in the doc, I still believe we can tip the scale back buy reducing co2 and the green house effect. Its actually a relatively easy thing for an entire civilization to accomplish if only we could get the rest of the world to just believe in the problem!

You know Chris, I really like you. But its pretty frustrating arguing with you about this. I honestly can't tell if you believe in most or any of this stuff, or none of it. We agree on little things here and there but I'm never quite sure where you stand. Do you think we human beings, are affecting the climate change or not? Can I just ask you that?

Yoda

03-30-14, 02:35 PM

But the planet is going into overdrive. The ice is receding at unprecedented levels. You can deny it all you want but its a fact.
Unprecedented on what timeline, though? The last century, right? How old do you believe the world is?

You know Chris, I really like you. But its pretty frustrating arguing with you about this. I honestly can't tell if you believe in most or any of this stuff, or none of it. We agree on little things here and there but I'm never quite sure where you stand.
I haven't been at all cagey about what I believe, though. So it's probably frustrating because of what I'm describing--buying into the false dichotomy of "we're doomed!" .vs. "absolute nothing is happening!" If you implicitly accept that framing of the issue, it's going to lead to situations like this, where I express skepticism at the conclusions and you try to convince me merely that anything is happening at all.

Do you think we human beings, are affecting the climate change or not? Can I just ask you that?
At all? Then yes, I do.

But that's obviously not what we're really talking about, because it's not a straight shot from "are we affecting the climate at all" to "the planet's in imminent danger and we need to do something right now." And the dozens of gradations between these two statements is what I'm talking about. It's not an inevitable march of logic from "something is happening" to all the other trappings of the climate debate. So that's my question for you: do you recognize this distinction?

Powdered Water

03-30-14, 04:31 PM

Of course I recognize the distinction. I can see we're at an impasse. We're going around in circles and I can see by the lack of other posters in this thread that just like in the real world, no one really believes this is happening. I hope the folks that believe that are right.

Yoda

04-04-14, 04:43 PM

Sorry this took awhile--been busy, and reading the last couple of replies make it seem like we're nearly at an impasse already, anyway. But you put thought into your replies, so they deserve no less. Onward:

So in essence you acknowledge that the IPCC projections are on track to date, but you think they've hedged their bets unfairly to achieve this?
With the big ol' caveat that both of us might be misunderstanding it a little, yes. It appears there are several projections, and an average, and that the response to people pointing out the inaccuracy of this average has been to point to some of its individual components.

It's not at all weird to average out different projections to account for outliers and produce better predictions. That's a very common way to account for uncertainty that you'll find in everything from sports simulations to political polling. But my understanding (which is not that of an expert, but also not nothing) is that isolating one simulation or one projection that makes up this average as an example of calling it correctly would be bizarre in any other area.

I've had a stab at digging into why the projections are cast as a range. Unsurprisingly it's fiendishly involved. It seems that my supposition that it's down to accounting for 'known unknowns' seems to be a fair (if massively simplified) summary. IE you can lay out a mean of the models & temperature predictions, as in this chart of the 4 possible policy scenarios (RCPs) that they use:

http://i60.tinypic.com/1zx16oo.jpg
IPCC 5, Working Group 1, chapter 12, pages 8/9 (http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter12_FINAL.pdf)

But you've then cast off all the 'known unknowns' where models conflict
(potential Arctic amplification, North Atlantic warming) & where the timing of natural variability is unpredictable (volcanoes etc). So you can do it, but it means dumping useful data & making it more likely to be errant in the short term.

I'm not sure what you mean by the simulation not being identified in advance. The 'multi-modal' set of complementary but distinct models that they use seems to have been pretty settled for a while now.

(For what it's worth, I only look at the lowest end of the scale with these projections, as my cynicism about all the potential error bars & processes does still run deep, even if that doesn't come across often in these conversations. It probably won't assuage your suspicions to hear that even the lowest end of the scale, under a business-as-usual scenario, is still fairly alarming (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/interactive/2013/sep/27/climate-change-how-hot-lifetime-interactive), however.)
I think you're right, about the wide (and multiple) ranges being an attempt to account for "known unknowns." Which means this goes right back to the "nature of the beast" thing. See below for more on that.

I think we're on different pages here. It might be to do with more than the parenthesis. I think it's possibly this: I raised the ocean prediction as a supplementary example (admittedly before I'd expounded my full position) of the 'hiatus' being anticipated.

Around late 2007 when that prediction was made the 'hiatus' wasn't considered as such by scientists because the data wasn't in, so I doubt the scientists themselves were trying to retroactively explain anything away. (If you look at the shonky line I've drawn on this shonky wiki graph (http://i58.tinypic.com/dfvswh.png), you can see the temperature shifts were slowing but in a way which was pretty comparable to previous dips). From my perspective, coloured somewhat by the reading I was doing at the time, this seems like a pretty reasonable example of a core recent element of the 'hiatus' being predicted in advance.

Overall I'm not sure where I'm introducing retroactive defences.
I'm referring to this (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1058758#post1058758):

"If you mean 'alarming' predictions then it doesn't run counter to those. (IE the oceanic heat is still an issue, is liable to be released into the atmosphere again down the line, & can't escape into space when it's down there etc) ."
It sounds here like you're saing the alarming predictions haven't been countered because the heat is just in the ocean instead. But when that isn't taken into account in those predictions, it isn't really a defense of them, since the gradual discovery of the things we're failing to account for is the whole point. Make sense, or are we talking at cross-purposes?

Hah, fair enough, that was sarcasm overload ;). And also perhaps a gasket blowing over the 'funding agenda' meme, purely because I've read so many examples of truly innovative science over the years in the climate sphere, which seem to embody a freethinking passion for the subject, that sometimes I just gotta let em out :D
I dig. And I don't doubt that passion in many cases--with the important caveat that there are venal, opportunistic people anywhere, and more than usual in a potential growth area. My cynicism has more to do with busted incentives and the misuse of the research--the latter of which is really, really clear when you examine the gulf between the actual science and the way it's employed for political or rhetorical ends. This is a debate where a lot of skeptics admittedly can be very blithe about the research, and where their opponents speak with a certainty and derision that just flat out doesn't jibe with how hard this is. The next time I hear someone other than you say "known unknowns" in this debate will be the first.

For example, I mentioned the spurious claims about storms and climate change before, and we're seeing it now with government commisions claiming that heatwaves are made worse by global warming (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-12/climate-commission-predicts-more-heatwaves-bushfires/4461960), which is completely at odds with the defenses about how climate is not weather and short-term predictions aren't really possible right now. There's a lot of browbeating of deniers for allegedly practicing in pseudoscience, but when I see how relatively unscathed this stuff is, it's hard not to conclude that faith in the scientific process, for many, extends only as far as is necessary to club someone with.

I agree with you on the use of data needing utmost scrutiny and that groupthink is an ever-present problem. I'd only extend the above to say I've seen copious examples of climate scis tearing strips off each-other for inaccuracy & unfounded conclusions etc (something the public rarely sees, in part because of the fear of what the more rabid contrarians with do with it), and I just hope that it extends as far talking shops like the IPCC.
Hmm, I'm not sure I follow that reasoning. For one thing, it seems like there'd be an inverse correlation between how falsifiable something is and how much "tearing up" people do of each other over it. You're way more likely to have a lot of fighting about subjective things than truly objective ones.

For another, groupthink happens when people implicitly accept a premise, so I don't see how questioning some resulting process would indicate that this is less likely to be happening. Idealogues argue just as fervently about the particulars of whatever they believe whether they've adequantely questioned their premises or not.

Arg, I've cited predictions from the 90s that still hold true, and that referenced those self-same volatilities that you're saying are new. And those are what I would have been citing for you at the time. Show me some IPCC-endorsed claims from the 90s that have fallen by the wayside.
The First Assessment Report, issued in 1990, predicted a 0.3C increase per decade. It's two and a half decades later, and the observed increase is, what, one-fifth of that? From what I can tell even under their alternate scenario, where significant steps are taken to reign in emissions, they would've doubled the observed increase.

Of course, the FAR had a margin of error (or "uncertainty range"), but that range was larger than the predicted increase itself! So it's kind of absurd to say the results are "within the projection" when a) you define "the projection" not as the actual prediction, but the entire range made possible by the margin of error, and b) the margin of error is so large that both a significant increase and a decrease could fit within it.

No I absolutely agree with the worry, I just don't see you providing any specific evidence for it having taken place in the examples cited to date.
Eh? By definition, you can't have "specific evidence" for overfitting: it's borne out by whether or not the allegedly overfit model works in the future. We just know the hallmarks: lots of data and post-hoc explanations, which describes this situation to a tee.

To a degree yes because a decade or so of reading into climate sci has taken it's toll in how much of this type of back-and-forth I can delve into to any detailed level. Watts's blog has an 'axe to grind' vibe which is very consistent with previous contrarians who've claimed much but ultimately only produced hot air. Hence my hesitance to dive in.

In part it's question of synthesis. If Watts is right, then a whole raft of other climate science is wrong, not just the temperature measurements in the US. I'm pretty much using Occam's razor on this one I'm afraid.
Leaving aside the numerous ways in which one can phrase things to make Occam's Razor cut whichever way (Which is simpler? That we can account for a thousand variables accurately over unobserved centuries, or that we can't?), Watts being "right" isn't binary. It's not as if every one of his doubts is correct, or else he can be safely dismissed. It looks like you concurred with my earlier statements about not falling into the false we're doomed/nothing's happening dichotomy, so we wouldn't want to fall into something similar here, where we either dismiss a "whole raft of climate science" or else assume Watts' critiques are wrong. Even the peer review you produced doesn't say that--it just seems at a loss for an alternative.

I still can't see historical downgrading mentioned anywhere in the link (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2), or after a very quick scan through the paper (http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/watts-et-al_2012_discussion_paper_webrelease.pdf). It just seems to be an extension of his claim that urban heat isn't fully accounted for. Unless you're saying it's deliberately not being accounted for I don't get how this equates to historical downgrading. You're gonna have to pull me out some quotes :)
I was thinking of the fact that the range in question goes back about 40 years, and of the fact that all the long-term historical comparisons are necessarily based on reconstructions (the TAR is, partially, I believe). And from what I can see most of the dismissals about the Medieval Warming Period are based on finding plausible explanations (solar flares, decreased volcanic activity) and deciding they're responsible, which is pretty much the same thing, too.

Yoda

04-04-14, 04:56 PM

I think it's a fair riposte to be honest. The reason for putting up with such a big galumphing goose of a process is that it's the best we've got, and the climate record suggests pretty emphatically that we need to do something. If you've got any suggestions for improving it jump in ;)
Ah, but of course, phrasing it that way is part of the disagreement: if you don't like our climate models, what's yours? If you don't like what we're doing, what should we do? Unstated assumption: SOMETHING MUST BE DONE. It's the same posture as the dismissal of Watts' critiques: dismissing skepticism through the demand of an alternative, even though they're separate questions.

I like Megan McCardle's summary of this logic, which persists across nearly all politcal debates: 1) Something must be done. 2) This is something. 3) This must be done. You've probably seen this employed in fields like healthcare, and it's a pretty great way to expand power or funding.

Anyway, if you acknowledge it's a fair concern, then that's the part where we probably have to shrug and wait a couple of decades to see what happens. Genuine philosophical impasses (as opposed to the "nobody's going to change their mind" type, which are different) are rare, but I think that's what this is. I acknowledge that significant things that require action may be happening even if we can't measure them, and you appear to acknowledge that acting in time means doing so before the threat (and/or the extent of its severity) is definitive.

I do want to point out, by the way, how closely this mirrors the discussions about preemptive war so many of us had just a decade ago, but with the roles reversed.

I'm not sure what I can add to the IPCC's projections for policy changes (the RCPs etc (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2013/oct/07/un-climate-change-panel-graphs-ipcc-report)). Other than to say you're right it's hugely difficult to gauge best action, and I'm fairly cynical about us finding a functional fix in the short term. (Pretty much holding out for some form of energy-lite carbon-stripping miracle cure to be honest).
Yeah, and this, by the way, is the more important point. I feel like a huge part of the climate change debate is really about using it as some kind of political or ideological litmus test, to portray people as backwards or unscientific or what have you. But that's all just posturing, because the serious question is what we do, and the burden of proof on actually taking a specific action is a lot higher than the burden of proof on acknowledging that we're warming, or maybe even warming fast enough that we should worry. And that's the part I'm really interested in.

We're in the same place on the "miracle cure," for what it's worth, except I don't think it takes a miracle. As PW suggested before, there's a lot of reason to have faith in our ability to solve these kinds of well-defined problems. If you forced me to predict the next 50 years of this debate, it's that it continues to warm slowly (often more slowly than projected, because of one external transcendent factor or another), and eventually we find technologically advanced ways to mitigate the effects.

I wasn't talking about your good self so much, (although I do think you fall into it at times), more about the broader debate :)

I decided a long time ago that I'd never understand the science at a meaningful level, but that I could read as many layers down as I was capable of comprehending, and read widely. And I've done that for a decade (focusing on the high end sci journalism, as much as that comes with confirmation-bias risks, paying for the good stuff whenever needed). I like to think my default position is not so much built on trust, but on a skepticism which hasn't found a smoking gun, but which has found lots of due diligence, and a mosaic of arguments which stand up on their own, and tend to complement each other in complex ways (or take each other down in flames when they don't ;)).
Oh, it didn't have to be about me. I'm just highlighting that the divide isn't ideology vs. science, but one ideology vs. another, since we both have to ultimately make abstract epistemological judgments about the limits of human knowledge and how to manage uncertainty. The ideology that puts a degree of faith in the scientific process makes plenty of sense to me, but I think it's important to recognize that this belief is not science itself.

I guess we just see it from different angles ultimately. Despite my utterly scant sci credentials (a smattering of social science, shhhh ;)), I now take the science to be strong enough to overcome the groupthink etc from the bottom up. Or hope it will. I think you might be taking the idea that Hayekian flaws have permeated a long way down as a one of your key starting points.
I think if you're equating the Hayekian flaws with mere groupthink, then I've done a poor job of conveying it. Groupthink is too simplistic an explanation. It's more about our general inability to know and control things. One hesitates to predict where some great thinker would have come down on a modern issue, but it seems safe to conclude that whatever Hayek thought of the scientific question, he would have been extremely skeptical of the idea that any problem should be met with a national, centralized solution--nevermind a global one.

And I'd say my main starting point is sort of a compliment to Goodhart's Law, which you mentioned: when a lot of money and power hinges on a scientific question, it struggles to remain scientific. That's why I keep coming back to the politically actionable part of this: because my first act in all this is to notice that someone wants to use the answer to this question to control something.