> > > > Science in this instance is a lil bit less developed than you give
> > > > it credit for (probably somewhere between you and me). In this
> > > > instance, there are no controls in place, no replication capabilities,
> > > > no ability to vary 1 variable while holding others constant, no real
> > > Considering the impossibility of what you are demanding, you must
> therefore
> > > believe that no earth science can ever be well developed and advanced.
> You
> > > surely also reject cosmology and evolution and a host of other sciences
> > > where controled experiments are very limited or impossible.
> > Not so.
> > cosmology has the ability to test predictions, the CMB being a
> > case in point. also, there's a lot of sky, if you want to observe the
> > behavior of nebulae, there are millions of them available for
> > observation.
> Ok, so you are backing down from your objections to climate science, fine,
> but it shares the features you grant to cosmolgy. I submit that there are
> thousands of observations possible in the earths ocean/atmosphere that
> confirm or refine climate theories, I don't know if there a million visible
> nebulae, but surely a thousand would be ample material for study. Every
> field has its differing challenges, there is no fundamental principal of
> scientific investigation that rules out climate for proper study and
> understanding.
I am in fact standing by the claim that both are at best, sciences
in their infancy. There are simply too many vital factors that are
poorly understood, or not understood, not to mention a great deal of
factors that might turn out to be important that have never been
studied or observed because they have never presented themselves. Now,
you asked if I "rejected" cosmology. Insofar as I "reject" climate
science, yes, I reject cosmology, the claims of both shift too rapidly,
and both all too frequently are required to as a group say "oops", we
neglected X. However, there are aspects of both that have been
sufficiently proven to be incontrovertible, the big bang theory and AGW
to name two.
> > Climate science is going to be a bit. I'd feel better about the
> > models if they didn't have a predicted uncertainty greater than their
> > predicted change. I'd also feel better about them if they were able to
> > replicate the real world climate with any decent accuracy over any
> > given 150 year period of history.
> I find the performance of the models in hindcasting the last century
> convincing enough for policy decision for the next century. You seem to
> believe the basic conclusion of large and dangerous change. What more do
> you need as a non-climate scientist?
Need for what? To support switching the grid over to nuclear
power and developing plug-in-hybrids with all possible speed? Not a
damned thing, the costs are dwarfed by the risks, In my own life, I
drive a scooter 90% of my miles, and live in a small well-insulated
home. However, to produce the 75% reduction in emissions that is being
asked for, that's not enough, there are too many countries (the us
currently included) that will resist or oppose it that it will probably
produce at best, a 15% reduction over the next hundred years (when
including the developing and coal burning world in the equation). This
means that we need to look beyond the 2-5 degree temperature rise
that's predicted (albiet with a disturbing amount of uncertainty) to
what will happen after that and determine what can be done and what
should be done. Now, the scotese graph got shot down by a cogent
argument by robert rohde, so I am now forced to reevaluate my estimate
of the maximum damages resulting from inaction, however, my basic
feeling is that imposing the carbon restrictions necessary to produce a
75% reduction will be neither easy, nor bloodless. It will at a
minimum, involve imposing economic sanctions on countries which refuse
to go nuke (again, currently including the us) and that tends to lead
to war. I realize that I haven't mentioned that before, and that's
going to annoy you and make you again question my motives and debate
style, but it's been on my mind as one of the "costs" of the
changeover, and it's too important a factor to simply leave out.
> > > > understanding of the system as a whole, and no idea what feedback
> > > > mechanisms might come into play that are not observable at out current
> > > > temperature range, no testing on it's predictive abilities. There is
> > > > too much trust placed in incomplete "black box" models.
> > > There is certainly alot of truth in this, but it frankly speaks *far*
> more
> > > to the "alarmist" argument than it does for the "que sera sera" people.
> > > Uncertainty is not your friend if you advocate not doing anything about
> this problem.
> > Uncertainty is exactly neutral. except that it casts the
> > validity of the test into doubt.
> Uncertainty in risk management is not a source of reassurance when possible
> outcomes are severly bad. There is alot at stake (you seem to agree with
> this) so any claims of greater uncertainty in the degree of consequences are
> claims that the problem needs to be taken more seriously.
> Would you get on an airplane if the mechanic said, "you know, I just can't
> know for sure if this wing will fall off or not". Would you get on if he
> said "Don't worry, there's only a 5% chance it will crash"?
Isn't that exactly what we do every day? When you get in your car
in the morning, you are risking your life, if your kids are in the car,
you're risking theirs. there is a percentage probability that you will
be carried out of your car tomorrow morning rather than going to work.
in risk management, you weigh the costs of remediation against the
costs and probabilities of inaction and make a decision on that basis.
and uncertainty goes both ways. there's a probability that the results
will be significantly worse than the model results, yes, however
there's at least as good a probability that they will be less severe.
that's reassuring to a risk manager when the risk cannot be avoided.
> > One thing to be considered here is that the proposed cure and the
> > projected disease aren't that different in scope. if it were easy to
> > prevent, I and I am sure a vast majority of other people would be all
> > over it, but it isn't, it's tens of trillions of dollars, and a
> > complete reallignment of the world economy, that just isn't that
> > different from the projected consequences of doing nothing.
> IMO, this is the only interesting point you are making so far. But you have
> done vitually nothing to support it. How do you know that reconfiguring the
> global energy infrastructure will not generate as much positive economic
> actiity as it will consume? There are quite a few historical precedents
> that indicate such forced change actually results in net economic gains. I
> am thinking of leaded gasoline, CFC's, the 70's clean air act.
Unfortunately, answering this would be just another topic shift.
Perhaps to be saved for a later time.
> > For my money, that means do what you can to prevent it, and
> > simultaeneously do what you can to get ready for it, but don't either
> > sell all your worldly posessions and move to tibet to accomplish either
> > thing.
> Who here has disagreed with this?
Perhaps I am viewing the problem from a different direction than
you are, and therefore see a different face of it. I have a reasonable
idea of what would be involved in producing that 75% reduction,
globally, and it's a lot more than convincing soccer moms to drive
civics instead of escalades. A 75% reduction in the face of a steep
increase is HARD.
> > > > At best, the IPCC represents the sum
> > > > total of the current "science" of climatology. At worst, it
> represents
> > > > a picked political body with an axe to grind. Either way, I'll take a
> > > > 500 million year history over IPCC compilations of research papers any
> > > > day of the week and twice on Sundays.
> > > This is clearly ludicrous. You are here just to provoke it seems. Have
> you
> > > even read the methods section concerning that graph?
> > > http://www.scotese.com/climate1.htm
> > Have you read the critiques of the IPCC?
>
> You should have answered me first. The methods behind that reconstruction
> clearly show it is of zero value in understanding trends of less than a few
> million years. Holding this single hand-drawn graph above all the current
> science behind the IPCC assessment is ludicrous. If you can't admit that
> then you can not pretend to be interested in serious discussion!
Which I already did in answer to mr rohde's well stated case. No
amount of browbeating will ever get me off a position, 1 logically
presented case will do so immediately.
> But, to answer your question about IPCC critiques, I am familiar with a
> quite a few political attacks, a number of clearly garbled scientific
> attacks and a very few reasonable scientific criticism of different aspects
> of the TAR WGI IPCC report. I am also familiar with the widespread and
> nearly unanimous endorsement of its conclusions by national academies and
> relevant scientific institutions all over the globe. I don't think it is
> unreasonable to ask for extraordinary evidence to suport the extraordinary
> claim that they are all political hacks or dupes of Greenpeace or
> intellectual prostitutes looking for their next grant.
There are other ways of producing bad science. If W. were so
inclined, I am sure that he could put together a scientific panel of
similar scope to the IPCC made up entirely of dissenters. He could do
this without asking any of them to compromise or alter their publicly
stated positions. without asking any of them to intellectually
prostitute themselves or to become political hacks. It's rather
inherent in any developing field that there be enough dissent to taylor
the results to fit your desires. I do not reject the IPCC, I merely
distrust it, get used to that, I distrust everything that has political
implications, particularly when it comes from a political source.
> > Yes, I never said the
> > thing was gospel, nothing is in my book. In my book, very few things
> > are certain, 2+2=4, inertia, the standard model of quantum mechanics(as
> > far as it goes), classical relativity (as far as it goes), to be beyond
> > dispute, it must be tested, if you can't test it, never stop
> > questioning it, if you can test it, return to it every few years and
> > test it again.
> >
> > > > Even under the best cases of IPCC credibility, their conclusions
> > > > are based on models which ignore a very great deal of very important
> > > > climactic considerations. Among them, cloud feedbacks, surface level
> > > > albedo changes, spectrum responses, solar variations, long term cycles
> > > > of all stripes, plant species responses (some plant species grow FAR
> > > > better than the current mix under high co2 conditions, expect to see
> > > > those plants becoming more prevalent), methane release due to melting
> > > > permafrost, methane release to to species extinctions, and the
> > > > absolutely stupid ghg value that is used for long term methane (it has
> > > > an atmospheric half life of 1-2 years, after which it decomposes into
> > > > CO2 and water, the stupidity is that in most climate modeling, they
> > > > pretend that the water stays in the atmosphere, as though it were
> > > > separate water not subject to rain) and that's just the ones I, a
> > > > layman can think of offhand.
> > > There is a bit of difference form thinking of something offhand and
> > > determining it is true. You clearly prefer to just make this leap
> without a
> > > second thought, not very impressive...
> > Well, the fact that I could find citations for almost every one of
> > them in the TAR, seems to be anecdotal evidence that my offhand memory
> > is perhaps a little more reliable than you would like to admit.
> Citations need to support your point. You did not demonstrate that many
> things in your list are "ignored", much less all of them. Nor have you made
> any point as to how this should concern non-climate scientists. You need to
> pick a factor, provide evidence that it is not included, explain how you
> think this affects the model result and make a case for what policy
> implications this implies.
>
> For example: carbon cycle feedbacks are not included, we agree and you did
> show evidence to that effect. This will most likely increase GHG levels for
> any given scenario, potentially by a significant amount. This is supported
> by recent findings of siberian permafrost melting and findings of carbon
> release from warming soils. This implies that policy decisions should be
> even more ambituous in emmissions controls.
Except that in a broad sense, I accept the models. Just not in a
specific sense.
To be honest, I am a little off-center at the moment on account of
what should have been a pretty solid piece of evidence turning out to
have been built on sand. if (as seems to be the case) 22C is not a
stable climate regime independent of co2 concentration, then there's a
pretty strong probability that things are worse than I had given them
credit for, and a few wars might be worth the results.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
