Al Gore Rumbled

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
LotM, you're being an alarmist relying on hysteria rather than science to make your point.

How so?

[rah]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Do you consider it possible that the model is wrong the other way? That global warming will be far worse than the models indicate? What is your basis for expecting them to be wrong in one direction only?

Whats the expected value of where things end up?

Good point. My answer is I don't know. WHich is why I'm not willing to commit generations of resources to fix it yet.
I doubt anything we do short of eliminating 90% of the sources of pollution and about that many people is going to have any serious impact. The point of turning it around probably already past(as you seem to believe). We should continue to strive to make improvements but the cost must always be considered.

Hopefully with continued research and technological improvements we may have greater impact in the future.

But I am far from convinced that the planet is doomed.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by rah


Good point. My answer is I don't know. WHich is why I'm not willing to commit generations of resources to fix it yet.
I doubt anything we do short of eliminating 90% of the sources of pollution and about that many people is going to have any serious impact. The point of turning it around probably already past(as you seem to believe). We should continue to strive to make improvements but the cost must always be considered.

Hopefully with continued research and technological improvements we may have greater impact in the future.

But I am far from convinced that the planet is doomed.

I doubt the planet is doomed.

I doubt the entire biosphere is doomed.

I doubt the human species is doomed.

I doubt civilization is doomed.


I do however think that trillions of dollars of lost economic value, from disappearing islands, to lost coastal lands, to large scale disruptions to agriculture, not to mention non-economic losses in terms of lost species, etc, that could be avoided for an investment of lesser cost, is likely if we dont change course immediately.


If someone were proposing a carbon tax that would make energy 10x as costly as it is now, Id be as ardent as you in saying, whoah, wait a minute, lets be careful. But right now in the US we have NO carbon tax, no effective economic strategy for limiting emissions, just a few half backed research programs. Research is great, but we know enough about GW to know we need economic incentives to emit less GHG NOW. We can start small, and see what the economic impacts of them are, and how the sciece of GW develops. But for G-ds sake, lets get started already.

[padillah]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


You seem to think that whats going on is that the future temp is being predicted based on Time series extrapolations from the last 200 years. That is not whats going on. The last 200 years is simply being used to show what has happened already, and what the current trend is. (BTW, GDP has only been measured for 70 years, but the underlying economic activity has been going on for longer, so its NOT the entire data set) Modeling is based on the physics of the atmosphere, models of vegetation, models of ocean currents, solar energy reflection by ice, sea, and land, etc, etc. Thats why the models are so complex. Theres a lot more in them than temp data.

And we have estimated temp data from long before there were thermometers. That has confirmed a fair amount of the modeling, and refined it further.

It's still not real data. You can't use it to support other conclusions without acknowledging it's shortcommings. As those models continue to be proved out I'll grow to accept their conclusions. Until then I'm going to regand them as what they are: an estimate - a guess.

A hundred years ago, based on models, people theorised that the human body was not made to go faster than 30 MPH. Models proved it... but they were wrong.

Now, compared to today's models they were crap but it's still a model. The only real evidence we have is for the last 80 or so years (the 200 years was also for grace so you wouldn't get into a "when the thermometer was invented" debate). And the only global surface temp data we have is for the span since we've been able to put up satelites.

Admitting and understanding the origin of the "data" used to prove global warming is core to it's understanding and acceptance.

Tom P.

[rah]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I do however think that trillions of dollars of lost economic value, from disappearing islands, to lost coastal lands, to large scale disruptions to agriculture, not to mention non-economic losses in terms of lost species, etc, that could be avoided for an investment of lesser cost, is likely if we dont change course immediately.

The difference is I believe you've overestimated the damage and under estimated the cost to avoid it from happening. When you change both sides of the equation that much, it not the same slam dunk decision.

And if you feel that strongly, you must use the political system to change it. Campaign for a greenie. I know it sound simplistic and silly but until a majority of the people all start screaming the same way, nothing is going to be done.

Unfortunately for you there are quite a few people out there that don't agree with the analysis. Not all of them are ingorant hicks. I may not be the smartest man in the world (for proof see my KH ranking ) but I am far from uneducated. Your solutions will have to be reasonable to get the majority of people to agree. Reasonable may not be enough, so you must be ready to deal with the aftermath.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by padillah


It's still not real data. You can't use it to support other conclusions without acknowledging it's shortcommings. As those models continue to be proved out I'll grow to accept their conclusions. Until then I'm going to regand them as what they are: an estimate - a guess.

A hundred years ago, based on models, people theorised that the human body was not made to go faster than 30 MPH.

considering that in 1907 railroads routinely went faster than that, and that powered aircraft already existed, I must doubt you on this. Maybe you meant to say 150 years ago? Perhaps you attribute to climate scientists some of your own sloppiness?

BTW, an estimate is not a guess.

A guess is when my wife asks me what the temp outside is, and while inside, I say, I dunno, it was 60 degrees yesterday, I suppose its 60 today.

an estimate is when I go outside, without a thermometer, I notice that the snow is melting, but that I still feel chilly in a sweater, and deduce its warmer than 32F, less than 65F, then, to narrow it down, note that the snow is not melting quickly, check my comfort level, and say "its 40" I will likely be wrong - it could as easily be 42, or 45. But it not going to be 32, and its not going to be 80. I may or may not be biased in one direction or another (biased estimator problem) but if I have a set of days for which I DO have the thermometer temp, I can establish if my methodology IS biased, in which direction, and by how much.

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by padillah

But where did we get 1000's of years of data? The thermometer was at best invented by Galileio in the 1500's (mind you even that was a "thermoscope" not a true thermometer). The Fahrenheit scale wasn't invented until 1714... where are we getting these thousands of years of data? It's not from reality I can tell you that.

By this kind of argument, we don't know what the core of the Earth is made of because we didn't go pick up samples with spoons.
Similarly we don't know what the Sun is made off, we have no ideas how people lived in prehistoric time because instruments to record this didn't exist
etc...
I could go on for a very long time...

If you think that past temperature estimates are not reliable, which is possible, please make a valid point why.
The fact that thermometers didn't exist is irrelevant and makes you look like a fool.

Again, yes some data can be unreliable, but bringing in the thermometer in this conversation is idiotic.

[Asher]

Lul Thyme, we need you in the "Do you still want to smoke" thread: http://www.apolyton.net/forums/showt...0&pagenumber=2

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Asher
Lul Thyme, we need you in the "Do you still want to smoke" thread: http://www.apolyton.net/forums/showt...0&pagenumber=2

Reading it right now and not sure what it has anything to do with me?
Spec rambling like so often, and you baiting people with your usual stuff...

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by rah

The difference is I believe you've overestimated the damage and under estimated the cost to avoid it from happening. When you change both sides of the equation that much, it not the same slam dunk decision.

To estimate the impacts, ive begun to read what you seem to think is too heavy reading. If you are serious about learning about this, and not sticking your head in the sand, you will join me in that endeavour.

Here, for ex, is a discussion of ag impact. It is however a very complex issue.

"5.3.6.1. How Much Warming can Global Agriculture Absorb Before Prices Rise?
Is there an amount of climate change to which the global food production system can adapt with little harm but beyond which it is likely to impose serious hardship? An answer can be sketched only with very low confidence at this time because of the combination of uncertainties noted above. As noted in Section 5.3.2, prices are the best indicator of the balance between global food supply and demand. They determine the access of a majority of the world's population to an adequate diet. Two of three global studies reviewed here project that real agricultural output prices will decline with a mean global temperature increase of as much as 2.5ºC, especially if accompanied by modest increase in precipitation (Darwin et al., 1995; Adams et al., 1998). Another study (Parry et al., 1999) projects that output prices will rise with or without climate change, and even a global mean temperature increase of ~1ºC (projected by 2020) causes prices to rise relative to the case with no climate change. When studies from the SAR are included with these more recent ones, there is general agreement that a mean global temperature rise of more than 2.5ºC could increase prices (Reilly et al., 1996; Adams et al., 1998; Parry et al., 1999), with one exception (Darwin et al., 1995). Thus, with very low confidence, it is concluded from these studies that a global temperature rise of greater than 2.5º C is likely to exceed the capacity of the global food production system to adapt without price increases. However, results are too mixed to support a defensible conclusion regarding the vulnerability of the global balance of agricultural supply and demand to smaller amounts of warming than 2.5ºC."

And if you feel that strongly, you must use the political system to change it. Campaign for a greenie. I know it sound simplistic and silly but until a majority of the people all start screaming the same way, nothing is going to be done.

absolutely. My problem is that many of the folks who share my unwillingness to gamble about global warming, seem quite willing to gamble about things like Iranian nuclear bombs. However I will certainly take position on Global Warming into account in my political activity.

Unfortunately for you there are quite a few people out there that don't agree with the analysis. Not all of them are ingorant hicks. I may not be the smartest man in the world (for proof see my KH ranking ) but I am far from uneducated. Your solutions will have to be reasonable to get the majority of people to agree. Reasonable may not be enough, so you must be ready to deal with the aftermath.

I find you to be more reasonable than some of the participants on this thread, and i am trying to address some things to you. I certainly agree that we must address both prevention, and mitigation. However in the course of planning for mitigation, as we realize how costly it may be, that should lead us to realize that some preventive measures more extreme than we origianlly would have liked may truely be "reasonable".

[rah]

An answer can be sketched only with very low confidence at this time because of the combination of uncertainties noted above.

Yes this type of statement will go far in convincing me. But I must give kudos for honesty.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



And we have estimated temp data from long before there were thermometers. That has confirmed a fair amount of the modeling, and refined it further.

In actuality that is the entire rub. The historical data has such large confidence bands as to be misleading. Some of the proxy data supports a mideivel warming period (ice core analysis) whilst other proxies (typically Northern hemisphere tree ring info) does not.

The agreed to historical temperatures are all over the map depending on who you talk to.

The only agreement is during the instrumental period and it would appear even those are not a consistent data set.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by rah

Yes this type of statement will go far in convincing me. But I must give kudos for honesty.

try this

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/658.htm

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


In actuality that is the entire rub. The historical data has such large confidence bands as to be misleading. Some of the proxy data supports a mideivel warming period (ice core analysis) whilst other proxies (typically Northern hemisphere tree ring info) does not.

The agreed to historical temperatures are all over the map depending on who you talk to.

The only agreement is during the instrumental period and it would appear even those are not a consistent data set.

it does appear that the IPCC has been using the latest science on that, and that the info has gotten progressively better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MWP_and_LIA_in_IPCC_reports

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Well that would be the IPCC take. The whole thing went into overdrive with the MBH 98 report wherein the MWP was essentially eliminated according to MBH. I'm sure you've seen numerous references to climate audit. Check out their site. They have been the constant critics of MBH since fairly the inception. But in effect the whole MBH study was seriously set back with the Wegman critique regarding the use of statistics by MBH. Plenty of sniping that you need to get past on that site but some good info regardless especially re: MBH. Some of the other stuff is very conjectural.

One of the most telling was taking the normalizing routines used by MBH for the proxy data and applying a white noise (random) signal. VIOLA instant hockey stick showing that most recent data was artificially inflated in magnitude whilst historical data (MWP) was depressed.