Al Gore Rumbled

[rah]

I don't think there are many that would dissagree in general with you Arrian, even the die hards, but the amount of impact is highly debated. Of course, some people just like to argue, but I doubt anyone here would say we shouldn't be looking at alternate energy sources.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
That's the primary reason I remain skeptical about GW. 200 years of data (data we're reasonably sure of, as opposed to estimates) ain't much.

For what purpose? To test models of earths climate under all conditions? Of course thats why thousands of years of data are used.


Pad, if i understand him correctly, says you cant do analysis of the CURRENT TREND based on 200 years of data. Thats shear BS. We have less than 100 years of GDP data. Are we unable to tell from that whether GDP is rising or falling? Due to insufficient data points? You dont need 200 data points to do that kind of analysis. 10 data points, Id be nervous. 20 is pretty good. 30 is excellent.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by padillah
I have no problem with reducing pollution or changing from Oil to other resources.

What I object to is the out-of-hand acceptance that global warming is human-controlled and will wipe out the planet because of us.

Tom P.

First of all the assertion is not that its "human controlled" but that a substantial portion of it is due to human activity.

Second it wont wipe out the planet. The planet is made of nickel, iron, etc, and will still be here even if all life were to die. Which is terribly unlikely.

What IS quite possible is a change in average temperatures sufficient to introduce changes to weather and current patterns, sufficient to cause the impacts mentioned in the link i posted above.

[rah]

And Lotm. I really don't care HOW MUCH work has been put into those models. Effort is never a quarantee of quality. And more ellaborate usually means introducing an additional level of error. There still using assumptions that may not be 100% accurate. AGAIN, I'm not saying they're invalid, but they are not guarenteed proof. Especially when designed by people that have preconceived notions. It's so easy for a little bias to slip in. Again, personally I'm not totally convinced. And I've seen peer reviews overlook biases that are shared.

A model is just that, a model. We learn from them but accepting them as absolute truth is dangerous.

My mention about illinois testing stands by itself and was not offered as agreement to any other opinion stated.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by rah
I don't think there are many that would dissagree in general with you Arrian, even the die hards, but the amount of impact is highly debated. Of course, some people just like to argue, but I doubt anyone here would say we shouldn't be looking at alternate energy sources.

F**k it rah. We shouldnt be "looking at alt enery sources" The time to do that was in 1990. We need to actually begin to change our current patterns of GHG emission NOW, and do so fairly quickly. Either that, or start planning on moving the wheat belt to Northern Ontario, and planting sugarcane and in Northern Illinois.

[DinoDoc]

Scare mongering won't help your case, LotM.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by rah
And Lotm. I really don't care HOW MUCH work has been put into those models. Effort is never a quarantee of quality. And more ellaborate usually means introducing and additional level of error. There still using assumptions that may not be 100% accurate. AGAIN, I'm not saying they're invalid, but they are not guarenteed proof. Especially when designed by people that have preconceived notions. It's so easy for a little bias to slip in. Again, personally I'm not totally convinced. And I've seen peer reviews overlook biases that are shared.

A model is just that, a model. We learn from them but accepting them as absolute truth is dangerous.

Where did I say absolute truth. Effort is no guarantee of quality - but we're not talking effort by low quality scientists here. Model building isnt dumb luck - there are issues, and they can be addressed. AFAICT effort has been made to do so.

Is that a guarantee? No. Can you guarantee the stat work behind say, any drug safety study? behind the analysis of pollution impacts that says that all kinds of things ARE safe? Do you run from power lines cause you dont trust the modeling that says theyre ok?

Theres no absolute truth, but if you think its 85% likely the current climate models are right, wouldnt it make sense to act as if they were? Right now we're acting as if there was a 5% chance they were right (or even less) and I see basis for that.

[rah]

And the middle of the US used to be wild grasslands instead of the farm belt that it is today. So what. Man will continue to change the planet to suit his needs. If it changes some to the bad, we will adapt. The cost of changing course will always be debated and anything that requires too great a cost will usually be ignored until there is absolute proof (which doesn't exist here) or it's too late.

ANd I think you're way too optomistic assigning and 85% level of confidence to that modeling.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Scare mongering won't help your case, LotM.

Putting your head in the sand wont either.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by rah
And the middle of the US used to be wild grasslands instead of the farm belt that it is today. So what. Man will continue to change the planet to suit his needs. If it changes some to the bad, we will adapt. The cost of changing course will always be debated and anything that requires too great a cost will usually be ignored until there is absolute proof (which doesn't exist here) or it's too late.

Yup, we could certainly move the ag belts north. Im not saying we couldnt adapt. But Id like to see some real analysis of the cost of doing so. If we do that, we may well find that doing something to lessen global warming is CHEAPER than adapting. What I hear here is simple refusal to consider the possibility. Its just Models are imperfect>The Impacts might not be big>Lets not do anything that has a large cost

Which just doesnt follow, IMO.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by rah
And the middle of the US used to be wild grasslands instead of the farm belt that it is today. So what. Man will continue to change the planet to suit his needs.

Thats great. Im saying we shouldnt change the planet in ways that dont suit our needs.
.

[padillah]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Pad, if i understand him correctly, says you cant do analysis of the CURRENT TREND based on 200 years of data. Thats shear BS. We have less than 100 years of GDP data. Are we unable to tell from that whether GDP is rising or falling? Due to insufficient data points? You dont need 200 data points to do that kind of analysis. 10 data points, Id be nervous. 20 is pretty good. 30 is excellent.

Yes, we have less than 100 years of GDP data - covering a span of less than 100 years. It's not that hard to understand that you can determine an entire dataset from the entire dataset. Do you think you could determine the GDP for the same 100 years with only an hours data?

That's what I'm saying.

For what purpose? To test models of earths climate under all conditions? Of course thats why thousands of years of data are used.

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.

Also, assume we can identify a trend from, current data. What does that 200-year trend mean in respect to 65 million years of climate change? I'm asserting that you can't predict a 65 million year treand from 200 years worth of data. These guys are extrapolating data and then depending on it's veracity to support other data. Don't you see the inherent instability in this system?

It's like me guessing from this conversation that you are 70 years old and then blaming you for not remembering WWII. If the initial data is suspect how can you call the resolution concrete?

We don't have a large enough data set to establish a concrete global trend across time. I don't see how that escapes you. I am at a loss for more ways to describe this idea.

Tom P.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by rah

ANd I think you're way too optomistic assigning and 85% level of confidence to that modeling.

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?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by padillah


Yes, we have less than 100 Also, assume we can identify a trend from, current data. What does that 200-year trend mean in respect to 65 million years of climate change? I'm asserting that you can't predict a 65 million year treand from 200 years worth of data. These guys are extrapolating data and then depending on it's veracity to support other data. Don't you see the inherent instability in this system?

It's like me guessing from this conversation that you are 70 years old and then blaming you for not remembering WWII. If the initial data is suspect how can you call the resolution concrete?

We don't have a large enough data set to establish a concrete global trend across time. I don't see how that escapes you. I am at a loss for more ways to describe this idea.

Tom P.

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.

[DinoDoc]

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