Uh oh another one jumps ship

[Far_X]

Funny thing is, most con jobs get found out pretty soon. I am willing to listen to anyone and to what they have to say. At the end of the day, it is predictive on both sides, no one knows for sure. Me, I am going with my gut instict, and that tells me mankind is wasteful of resources, polluting too much and needs to respect this planet a lot more.

 

[Skull]

Ok for the record ...nobody is arguing the earth isn't warming ...cause we ain't in an ice age right now!

 

[shakeybrainsurgeon]

Funny thing is, most con jobs get found out pretty soon. I am willing to listen to anyone and to what they have to say. At the end of the day, it is predictive on both sides, no one knows for sure. Me, I am going with my gut instict, and that tells me mankind is wasteful of resources, polluting too much and needs to respect this planet a lot more.

What species "respects" the environment? Do algae care that they converted the atmosphere from methane to oxygen, "wrecking" the environment of their era? Do shellfish care if they disturb the calcium flux of the oceans, or that the massive weight of their numbers sinking to the ocean floor may have actually cracked the planet into teutonic plates? Do beavers care if their dam shatters a local ecosystem? Do polar bears measure their impact on seal populations?

Or are we somehow uniquely charged with limiting ourselves for fear of "hurting" the planet? Stop the new Age tree-hugging platitudes. Like any species, we take from the earth what we want. We are entitled to survive and push the envelope of the environment. If we get greedy, we will go extinct. End of story. We are no better or worse than the earthworms who chew up the ground, or the locusts of consume vaste areas of foliage.

 

[Bryan]

What is happening here is assuming a positive hypothesis and using computer models to extrapolate from past data to future scenarios. This isn't a criticism, it's just this is an unconventional way to do science.

My college chemistry professor had us do a series of experiments measuring the conductivity of certain solutions at different concentrations and temperatures. We were told that we could make as many measurements as we wanted at as many different concentrations and temperatures as we wanted, until we were able to plot the data with reasonable accuracy. At one point, we were measuring characteristics of a buffered reaction that was repeatedly oscillating to and fro on it's way to equillibrium. (The details are somewhat lost to me these many years later.)

Before the lab assignment, we were all shown graphs of how similar experiments played out, and we were sent on our way.

The ohmmeter my lab partner and I were assigned had a bad terminal post that caused intermittent disconnects, so we had to take each of our measurements very carefully and repeatedly. We took many more measurements at many intermediate points to be sure our data was precise.

The rest of the class' equipment was working fine, so they just took enough measurements at expected places to produce the graph the professor showed us previously.

When we turned our graphed results in, since I thought our plot was misshapen, I turned it in with an apology. The professor raised his eyebrows and asked us how we did our measurements. After a pause, he said our graph more accurately depicted the characteristics of the substance we were working with than anyone else's experiments--which were almost mirror-copies of the professor's earlier example.

He said that there was a good lesson in this: in science, there is a tendancy to find exactly what you're looking for, even if it isn't really there.

 

[shakeybrainsurgeon]

Another example: there are a class of computer models known as neural networks. These models are "trained" on large sets of past data and can be used to predict future behavior. Basically, software "learning rules" are used to derive empirical relationships among many inter-related variables; neural networks "learn" the relative impact of different variables on the final outcome, as opposed to "top down" programming in which the programmer defines the relationships between variable and outcome manually.

For example, say you wanted to predict the future price of a stock based on a variety of variables, like P/E ratio, sales volume, federal interest rates, etc. You could do it by "top down" programming, that is, by theoretically creating rules linking each variable to the price based on the programmer's knowledge of financial markets (price goes up with P/E ratio, or wahtever). This requires considerable knowledge of finance by the programmer and, in the end, will reflect the programmers biases and personal acumen. You can call it a "computer model" but it is really a mechanical implementation of the programmer's opinions.

Or you could use a neural network (which are, by the way, commercially available). In this case, you simply gather reams of past data (input and output)... pick as many variables as you want: P/E ratio, day of the week, outside temperature, and enter them, along with the stock price that day, into some spreadsheet like Excel and then dump the whole thing into the network. Then pick what learning behavior you want (back propagation is most common), the level of certainty, and so on, and let the network run for a while. The beauty is this: the programmer doesn't have to know squat about stocks at all, and even if he or she does, that knowledge or bias never enters the computer model. For the technically minded, the computer does a series of parallel Fourier-type transforms to determine which variables or combination of variables impacts the price and which do not, based on past experience. It will dsicover on its own, for example, that the link of temperature to stock price is zero without having to be told that.

These models not only bypass the bias of the programmer, and obviate the need for any preconceived knowledge at all of the input/output relationship, they are also good at seeing which factors may be synergistic in affecting the outcome, something human programmers have difficulty seeing. The models are limited, however, by the availability and accuracy of past data. They need huge data sets to be accurate.

My point is this: neural network models have been derived which fit past data EXACTLY (that's what they are programmed to do) but still FAIL when used to predcit the future. Many such models have been set up for financial markets with limited success. I know, the stock market isn't the climate. However, the message here is that just because a model, any model, has been set up to fit past data and does so perfectly is NOT a guarantee that it will work in the future.

In mathematical terms, I can take any curve you throw at me to a point x, any continuous curve at all, a randomly generated curve, anything, and use Fourier analysis to give you a precise equation that will fit that curve to point x. It doesn't mean, however, that it will predict what happens AFTER point x.

This is what is being lost by everyone here. It doesn't matter how good the data is, or even how good the models are, or whether I or anyone else knows squat about climate. The flaw of reasoning here is a universal FLAW of using models retrofitted to past data to predict the future.

A neural network can find subtle relationships among input variables and output that even the most experienced and educated top down programmer can't find and they still fail, particularly if the system involved is CHAOTIC. And that is another point lost here: climate is a chaotic system which makes modeling future behavior even worse.

Notice how GW advoates scrupulously AVOID discussing the failure of hurricane models to predict storm seasons. In hurricane models, we have hard evidence that using atmospheric models to predict even short term, severe and regional behavior is fraught with uncertainty. Yet we are to believe that subtle, long term, global models are foolproof.

I still don't get it.

 

[Kim]

This is what is being lost by everyone here. It doesn't matter how good the data is, or even how good the models are, or whether I or anyone else knows squat about climate. The flaw of reasoning here is a universal FLAW of using models retrofitted to past data to predict the future.

Yeah well......if you can't see that pumping out crap is bad for us and that we should stop doing it then I suppose we might as well stop talking about it.

There's an old saying......"Don't crap on your own doorstep".

No amount of you telling me that it's actually OK if we do, and there'll be no consequences, is going to change my belief in that. I've seen it too many times.

 

[shakeybrainsurgeon]

What we are talking about here is carbon dioxide emissions, not "crap". People who doubt GW are not advocating dumping benzene in the water or coating playground equipment in lead paint. Are there concerns about the carcinogenic effects of hydrocarbon use, damage to ecosystems by drilling, etc? Sure, but these are not impending Biblical catastrophes that require global economic reform, but more insidious threats that need to be addressed (and, in wealthier nations, are). As I said earlier, nuclear would probably be better, and we should work harder on fusion.

What is at issue here is whether carbon dioxide, deposited at current levels by human hydrocarbon use, is a pollutant and, if so, is it even a significant hazard compared to carbon dioxide from natural sources? Remember that plants LIKE having a certain level of atmospheric CO2, just as you like a certain level of oxygen. Also remember that oxygen to many species, such as anerobic bacteria, is a POLLUTANT too (crap to them, so to speak), but you wouldn't be too happy if the plants of the world stopped dumping oxygen "crap" into the biosphere. Oxygen is a corrosive, explosive and, in high concentrations, toxic gas, but I like it.

Thus, if you like to muddy this thread with "so's your old man" posts, be my guest. But right now, I don't see how "crap" enters the debate.

 

[Warthaug]

But as good as we get is not necessarily good enough. Just today, the UN pressed for criminal penalties for GW violations. Do you want to go to jail for contradicting a computer model? The UN admitted that it was meeting resistance to draconian actions because of the pesky "uncertainties in the models" part of the IPCC report (the part I quoted extensively from above). See today's Drudge Report.

It's a matter of philosophy, I guess. In surgery, there are two types of surgeon;

1) if you don't know what to do, DO SOMETHING
2) if you don't know what to do, DO NOTHING

But there is a wold of difference between the potential outcomes of a surgeon waiting vs waiting for GW (and other environmental issues). Firstly is risk - surgery is a risk, so unless you're sure it is needed it is best to avoid it. Reducing CO2 is not a risk - all it does is bring us back towards "normal". Secondly is feedback. Us living organisms are very, very lucky to be nearly devoid of positive feedback systems, whereas the climate appears to have at least some positive feedbacks.

The assumptions of the pro-GW activists are myriad:
1) the data entered into the models are accurate

And all evidence suggests it is. The main features, those being temperature, humidity, albedo, solar output, and particulates are easily measured, and we have multi-decade records of those factors. Others are nothing more then long-held scientific principals and laws - thermodynamics, fluid flow, heat transfer, and blackbody radiation. The number of factors which are guesswork, or based on less-then-complete data sets are limited - and to take that into account most models will run a range of those values through their models, and report all of those findings.

2) the models are accurate

Which they appear to be. You've not provided one iota of evidence that they are wildly inaccurate.

3) the scenarios portrayed by the models are all bad for us

Well, the loss of major farming areas is a pretty big thing. As is the spread of many diseases. And the loss of major water sheads (a huge and growing issue in the SW USA, as well as in the area where I grew up). And those are effects being seen now, and have been convincingly attributed to warming.

4) we know the cure and it is possible

There isn't a single cure. The climate will change - that is inevitable, and it is too late now to stop it. But we can mitigate the damage (through reducing CO2) and adapt (via technology, and unfortunately migration).

5) we know the cost of the cure, and it is much less than the disease

We have a good idea of both costs. As I pointed out several times, the cost individually is non-existent. I have more $$$ now, then I did before I "went green". Likewise, several major companies (BP comes to mind) have reported achieving their Kyoto requirments at a net savings - largely via improving effeciency.

6) in fact, in all ways, the cure will be better than the disease

No one is making that claim. That acting will cost money, at some level, is a given. But had you read that EPA report I posted previously - the one dealing with the cost of rising sea level alone - you'd have seen that the cost of acting, and the benifits of acting, were far less then inaction.

7) there is no way we could make things worse (like bankrupting the western economies and plunging us into the cultural stone age)

Once again, the claim that acting will bankrupt us is an utter lie. Nothing more then a myth to scare you into inaction.

So far, we are still arguing about assumption 1, 2 and 3. In my line of work, a bad outcome is not carte blanche to do ANYTHING just to say we were proactive. But again, that's me. If you have no certainty of a bad outcome, no definite course of action, only educated guesswork, it is better to let nature take its course. the human body, like the earth, often takes care of things better than us. Not always of course, but sometimes doing nothing is the correct, proactive choice.

Coming from a doctor I find the above statement particularly odd. If the human body is so good, then why the need for vaccines? Drugs? Doctors? Surgeons?

And the environment - it sure handled CFC's really well. And smog, and acid rain, and mercury.

Oh wait, human action was needed to deal with all of those...


Bryan

 

[Randy43068]

Funny thing is, most con jobs get found out pretty soon. I am willing to listen to anyone and to what they have to say. At the end of the day, it is predictive on both sides, no one knows for sure. Me, I am going with my gut instict, and that tells me mankind is wasteful of resources, polluting too much and needs to respect this planet a lot more.

You're right.

To my mind there really is no debate that mankind has affected earths environment by short-circuiting the carbon cycle and other things.

A record of earths carbon is conveniently saved in the ice at the poles. An analysis of core samples reveals the dramatic increase of atmospheric carbon since the dawn of the industrial revolution. So it IS known how much mankind has changed the carbon cycle.

The big question, to which no model can accurately predict, nor answer, is what effect has this increase of carbon and other greenhouse gasses has on our weather patterns and to our environment.

Complex interdependent systems that regulate the environment of Earth have been changed but it's difficult to know to what degree and what affect those changes will have on the earth and her weather patterns.

It is known that changes of only a degree or two will have a dramatic affect on the earth.

 

[Randy43068]

Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and industrial chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) have all played a significant role in what is happening to our world. CO2 is not the only gas to be concerned with.


Doing nothing is not an option. Mankind has already done something to affect the earth so are you advocating we don't change a thing and continue to pollute the earth at the same rate? How does that make any sense??

What we are talking about here is carbon dioxide emissions, not "crap". People who doubt GW are not advocating dumping benzene in the water or coating playground equipment in lead paint. Are there concerns about the carcinogenic effects of hydrocarbon use, damage to ecosystems by drilling, etc? Sure, but these are not impending Biblical catastrophes that require global economic reform, but more insidious threats that need to be addressed (and, in wealthier nations, are). As I said earlier, nuclear would probably be better, and we should work harder on fusion.

What is at issue here is whether carbon dioxide, deposited at current levels by human hydrocarbon use, is a pollutant and, if so, is it even a significant hazard compared to carbon dioxide from natural sources? Remember that plants LIKE having a certain level of atmospheric CO2, just as you like a certain level of oxygen. Also remember that oxygen to many species, such as anerobic bacteria, is a POLLUTANT too (crap to them, so to speak), but you wouldn't be too happy if the plants of the world stopped dumping oxygen "crap" into the biosphere. Oxygen is a corrosive, explosive and, in high concentrations, toxic gas, but I like it.

Thus, if you like to muddy this thread with "so's your old man" posts, be my guest. But right now, I don't see how "crap" enters the debate.