Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Here comes the next ice age (Page 7)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   
Author Topic: Here comes the next ice age
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If the plan had been good, whatever that means, then they'd be left with nothing but having to fool people into thinking they had a reason.
Which is what they've worked actively to do regardless of the quality of the plan, In fact they've actively worked to spread the notion that any kind of plan, even simply investing in renewables on its own merits, is bad so must be opposed on ideological grounds.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
1. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. It "traps" infrared heat. This is easily demonstrated in the lab. (It was first discovered in the 1800s, IIRC, which shows you how simple it is. [Smile] )

I agree with this, and that it's easy to demonstrate in the lab. I don't agree that such a controlled test means that it will operate in the same manner on the climate as a whole. It may, or it may not. There are any number of factors that a laboratory test cannot account for, any number of which could confound the result.
quote:
3. Since CO2 is rising in our atmosphere, and it "traps" infrared radiation, then it is warming our planet.
I think you are including the disputed conclusion as something everyone agrees on. You have to assume that the planet is warming, and that because we understand in a laboratory setting that CO2 could cause such an effect it therefore is certain that is what is going on.
quote:
Climate deniers shouldn't be wasting their time debunking climate models and historical records. They should be putting money into climate models. Because they need to prove that rising CO2 levels isn't going to mess up our world.
I completely disagree with what you said here. I think that the over-reliance on and excessive belief in the reliability of climate modeling is part of the systemic bias in this area of research. Climate modeling is literally the layering of thousands of assumptions into a computer program and claiming a statistical significance on the backend that is unjustifiable.

Deniers can not use models to prove anything, but neither - really - can supporters. All models fundamentally operate on a garbage in, garbage out system. Not to say they are useless, they still represent our best guesses, but when you try to predict the climate with them you're really only a small step above a fortune teller.
quote:
Originally posted by Noblehunter:
You seem to be suggesting that CO2 levels were selected as an explanation without due caution. Given how widespread the consensus is, I'd say you need to do more to back up your assertions.

I'm not suggesting that CO2 was not selected with due caution, nor implying that anything I said was the cause in fact. I'm suggesting that we focus on things that we easily understand in complex systems or that we can easily measure, and we overemphasize correlations in our mental understanding of issues.

I'm not sure how beneficial arguing the science is going to be. I'm not a denier, I'm always willing to let the scientists do their jobs and propose things. I'm not however willing to allow them (or really anyone else) to overstate what their research actually shows, or can show. The clearest thing I can say on where I stand on the debate, is that mine is an argument of negation. There is no strong proof either way.

But there is a clear trend on the political side, that really has little to do with the actual science involved, or the actual reality of global warming - one way or the other.
quote:
originally posted by DonaldD:
Well, not all solutions being proposed are redistributive, but I do see this fear on the part of many. For instance, carbon pricing is not necessarily redistributive, nor are population controls or education (well, education maybe, but I don't think that's what you meant).

I'm not sure why you would characterize it as "fear." I'm not afraid of it, I'm flat out stating that most proposed solutions have little to no (or even negative) environmental benefits, and were designed to serve other - generally redistributionist - policies.

Carbon pricing is completely redistributive. It only works by reducing the total carbon involved. But when you have most of the world (ie the developing world) completely exempt from the caps it actually creates a direct environmental harm to cap the cleanest factories in the world, or even to increase they comparable costs. If you really cared about the environment, you'd subsidize cleaner first world industry and completely drive third world factories out of business.

Instead we have the equivalent of NIMBY environmental treaties where the clean coal plants in the US are being forced to close so environmentalists can pat themselves on the backs, while Beijing is coated by the worst smog in human history and China hasn't committed to even slowing their rate of increase in carbon production for at least 15 years.

Education may or may not help, it really depends on what's taught. Certainly, western environmentalists have not benefitted from their education in measuring the actual policy effects they seek.
quote:
quote:
There's plenty to indicate that humans are making changes, there's, however, very little that's convincing that says they are the only cause or even a primary cause (and to even get there you have to have accept the Earth is warmer than it should be).
This is a non sequitur. It is perfectly consistent to believe that you would like the Earth to be warmer, for there to be no permanent ice pack in the Arctic, and to also believe that human activity is leading us in that direction, and is even the primary cause of recent warming. This goes back to the homeostasis straw man.
I don't disagree with what you said. Not sure you understood me though. My dispute is with the quality of the evidence and therefore with the strength of the argument for costly change.

Like Fenring, I think a cleaner world is, in and of itself, a goal to pursue. I don't however think that incredibly costly measures for minimal gains are justified, and I am absolutely convinced that the vast majority of changes demanded are actually net harms when you consider the big picture. I don't get those who are passionate on this topic using a global problem to argue for a local "improvement" that makes the global problem worse.
quote:
Originally posted by Drake:
Certainly scientists are capable of manipulating their theories based on their biases.

I think you're understating this, it's not that they are capable of it, it's that it is unavoidable. I don't think you realize how much of generating a climate model is discretionary, how many factors to include, what factors to include, how to build the formulas for their interaction. The results of models look very precise, but it's a false precision. They are over-relied on in climate science specifically because there is no way to run actual experiments. But all they actually are, are opinion pieces writ large.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Carbon pricing and carbon caps are two completely different proposals.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I completely disagree with what you said here. I think that the over-reliance on and excessive belief in the reliability of climate modeling is part of the systemic bias in this area of research. Climate modeling is literally the layering of thousands of assumptions into a computer program and claiming a statistical significance on the backend that is unjustifiable.

Deniers can not use models to prove anything, but neither - really - can supporters. All models fundamentally operate on a garbage in, garbage out system. Not to say they are useless, they still represent our best guesses, but when you try to predict the climate with them you're really only a small step above a fortune teller.

you are confusing weather prediction and climate prediction. Long term _weather_ forecasts are as yet unreliability because of the complexity involved. Long term climate forecasts have a much lower overall complexity and have been exceptionally reliable and accurate, with refinements only serving to improve precision, not accuracy.

quote:

I'm not sure how beneficial arguing the science is going to be. I'm not a denier, I'm always willing to let the scientists do their jobs and propose things. I'm not however willing to allow them (or really anyone else) to overstate what their research actually shows, or can show. The clearest thing I can say on where I stand on the debate, is that mine is an argument of negation. There is no strong proof either way.

Denying the strong evidence that actually exists to make the false claim that there isn't strong proof is what puts you in the denier camp. Aside from self-interested claims by the fossil fuel industry all evidence supports the position that human sources warming is occurring.

And sure people attracted to climate science do so on the basis of interest in climatology and likely environmental concerns, but none of that suggests a misanthropic motive that would bias them to want to show that there's a problem that humans are causing, but rather toward doing their best to identify any real problems that exist and properly tracing their sources. They gain absolutely nothing from reinforcing a false hypothesis, because doing so does not serve the baseline motivation of environmental protection.

You have to beg the question and assume that human and environmental interests are in conflict to even begin to make that juxtaposition.

quote:
Carbon pricing is completely redistributive. It only works by reducing the total carbon involved. But when you have most of the world (ie the developing world) completely exempt from the caps it actually creates a direct environmental harm to cap the cleanest factories in the world, or even to increase they comparable costs.
Assigning a real price to activity is not redistributive. And it doesn't hurt the cleanest factories/power plants, only the ones that lag behing that standard to the dergree that they refuse to invest in improving themselves to the higher standard.

quote:
If you really cared about the environment, you'd subsidize cleaner first world industry and completely drive third world factories out of business.
So they can use even less efficient methods to support their population? Why would the answer not be to develop cheap clean technology and help start them off at a cleaner baseline standard? They're going to produce what they need by whatever means necessary anyway, so any solution that doesn't give them a clean and efficient way to do it is going to fail.

Population growth is what drives industrial growth in developing countries, not investments in efficiency and low impact processes in developed countries. RAther those investments help create technology and infrastructure models that can be exported to developing countries to help them get ahead of the curve instead of having to go the long way around as we did.

quote:
The results of models look very precise, but it's a false precision. They are over-relied on in climate science specifically because there is no way to run actual experiments. But all they actually are, are opinion pieces writ large.
Which is purely your opinion and based in speculation, not an actual understanding of the field and evidence in question.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
Carbon pricing and carbon caps are two completely different proposals.

I don't see them as that different, but if you look I did reference the consequences of increasing the costs as a nod to the difference with carbon pricing. It's exactly the same logic as to why its a bad idea, the costs will be added in countries with the most efficient factories and not in those with the least. We should be subsidizing first world industry, not adding additional costs that the third world factories that they will compete against and that will replace them will not bear.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
you are confusing weather prediction and climate prediction. Long term _weather_ forecasts are as yet unreliability because of the complexity involved. Long term climate forecasts have a much lower overall complexity and have been exceptionally reliable and accurate, with refinements only serving to improve precision, not accuracy.

I'm really not confusing them. You're overstating their accuracy (not to mention ignoring the time scale whereby the models have actually not been proven out as of yet). If you want to demonstrate the validity of a model it's going to take a heck of lot more than assertions, to unwind my own opinion based on past research.
quote:
Assigning a real price to activity is not redistributive. And it doesn't hurt the cleanest factories/power plants, only the ones that lag behing that standard to the dergree that they refuse to invest in improving themselves to the higher standard.
And you just made yourself exhibit A in the local versus global treatment of the problem. Assigning a "real price" to an activity that only applies in certain countries (which is all any of these agreements ever has or ever will get) is completely redistributive. It absolute hurts the cleanest plants, as generally even the most polluting western plants are better for the environment than the average third world plants.
quote:
quote:
If you really cared about the environment, you'd subsidize cleaner first world industry and completely drive third world factories out of business.
So they can use even less efficient methods to support their population?
So that the majority of good purchased in the first world were not supplied in a pollution inefficient manner. So that export goods to the third world were cheaper than locally produced pollution inefficient goods, absolutely.
quote:
Why would the answer not be to develop cheap clean technology and help start them off at a cleaner baseline standard?
Redistributionist policy. But yes it can be a part of the solution. Doesn't help though unless you get them on the pollution reduction requirements at the same time.
quote:
They're going to produce what they need by whatever means necessary anyway, so any solution that doesn't give them a clean and efficient way to do it is going to fail.
Any solution that doesn't require they clean up is going to fail.
quote:
quote:
The results of models look very precise, but it's a false precision. They are over-relied on in climate science specifically because there is no way to run actual experiments. But all they actually are, are opinion pieces writ large.
Which is purely your opinion and based in speculation, not an actual understanding of the field and evidence in question.
It is my opinion, but the rest of your statement is just nonsense.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I don't agree that such a controlled test means that it will operate in the same manner on the climate as a whole. It may, or it may not. There are any number of factors that a laboratory test cannot account for, any number of which could confound the result.
Can you provide some of these possible factors? Because, AFAIK, the heat-trapping properties of gases act independently of other gases or anything else. It is like gas pressure--each gas contributes its own gas pressure, and the pressure of a mixture of gases is the sum of the individual pressures. So it is with the heat trapping properties of gases. Each contributes its own, and nothing changes that.

Of course, other factors could change the overall temperature, such as cloud cover, which may be related to temperature. As I said, those other factors could mitigate the increased heat from increased CO2 levels.

But they won't affect the heat trapped by CO2. It has nothing to do with laboratory demonstrations.

quote:
I think you are including the disputed conclusion as something everyone agrees on. You have to assume that the planet is warming, and that because we understand in a laboratory setting that CO2 could cause such an effect it therefore is certain that is what is going on.
No, this is something I read that Lord Monckton, a famous AGW denier, said about a conference he attended. That all of the deniers in the conference agreed that CO2 was trapping heat, and that anyone saying they did not believe it was just trying to slander the denier movement. [Smile] I had a link to it on another thread, but I can't find my link right now (too many AGW links to choose from [Embarrassed] ).

quote:
Deniers can not use models to prove anything, but neither - really - can supporters. All models fundamentally operate on a garbage in, garbage out system. Not to say they are useless, they still represent our best guesses, but when you try to predict the climate with them you're really only a small step above a fortune teller.
Well, as I said before, the fact that the increased levels of CO2 are trapping more heat means that the climate models are not the basis of AGW. They are simply our best guess as to the effects of this increased heat, and whether it will increase the global temperatures.

So get it out of your head that because our models aren't perfectly reliable that AGW may not be happening. It's happening. The CO2 levels prove that. The models only give us the best clue--if only a fortune teller's clue--as to how this will affect our climate.

And deniers don't even have that. [Roll Eyes]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That was actually a pretty good response Wayward Son, not really used to that on climate change threads.
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
I don't agree that such a controlled test means that it will operate in the same manner on the climate as a whole. It may, or it may not. There are any number of factors that a laboratory test cannot account for, any number of which could confound the result.
Can you provide some of these possible factors?
I was being too imprecise. I agree with your response on this for the most part, and I was referring to factors that would cause the increase in energy trapped by the excess carbon to not result in a net increase in global temperature overall. Mitigation is the correct word. Though, it would also include natural processes that might become more efficient in-capturing excess carbon as well as those that might mitigate the heat increase directly.
quote:
But they won't affect the heat trapped by CO2. It has nothing to do with laboratory demonstrations.
But to me that point is moot if there are mechanisms that always (or even intermittently) act to cause temperature decreases that are also linked to increases in atmospheric carbon. It's the direction of net number that really matters, not which element is pushing a component.
quote:
No, this is something I read that Lord Monckton, a famous AGW denier, said about a conference he attended. That all of the deniers in the conference agreed that CO2 was trapping heat,
quote:
that the planet is warming
Those are not equivalent statements, that was kind of the point of what I was getting at. Deniers do not agree that the planet is warming, even if they do agree that the presence of increased atmospheric carbon has the component of effect of trapping extra energy.
quote:
...and that anyone saying they did not believe it was just trying to slander the denier movement. [Smile] I had a link to it on another thread, but I can't find my link right now (too many AGW links to choose from [Embarrassed] ).
Feel free to link it, I'd be happy to take a look.
quote:
Well, as I said before, the fact that the increased levels of CO2 are trapping more heat means that the climate models are not the basis of AGW.
That's sort of true. However, you're leaving out that the models are built to assume there is no corrective mechanism that correlates to increased carbon. Ergo, they can not do anything but predict an increase. Kind of the point, there is no experiment being run in modeling, there is just a logical statement that follows directly from the inputted premises.

They cannot generate anything else (unless they have a direct error built in).
quote:
They are simply our best guess as to the effects of this increased heat, and whether it will increase the global temperatures.
I agree, and I've never said otherwise. I just said I don't believe them to be a very good guess.
quote:
So get it out of your head that because our models aren't perfectly reliable that AGW may not be happening. It's happening. The CO2 levels prove that.
You've flipped a lot of cause and effect and incorporated in a lot of assumptions that aren't really warranted to make that conclusion. Again, like I said, we have a bias to emphasize factors that we easily understand, that doesn't mean that their net impact is what we think it is on a complex system.
quote:
And deniers don't even have that. [Roll Eyes]
Much like I don't respect the logic of atheism, I can't respect the logic of deniers, agnosticism, on the other hand is a perfectly logical philosophy.

But deniers being wrong (because they can't support their claims) is not the same as proponents being correct (because they can't actually support their claims either).

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Mitigation is the correct word. Though, it would also include natural processes that might become more efficient in-capturing excess carbon as well as those that might mitigate the heat increase directly.
I would love to know which processes you are thinking about. Clouds come to mind, but the jury is still very much out on those. (Last I heard, the reflection on top pretty much balanced out the reflection below. [Frown] )

quote:
quote:
No, this is something I read that Lord Monckton, a famous AGW denier, said about a conference he attended. That all of the deniers in the conference agreed that CO2 was trapping heat,

quote:
that the planet is warming
Those are not equivalent statements, that was kind of the point of what I was getting at. Deniers do not agree that the planet is warming, even if they do agree that the presence of increased atmospheric carbon has the component of effect of trapping extra energy.

Yes, they are not equivalent, and I recognize and acknowledge that.

But think about it for a minute. If there is a gas in our atmosphere that everyone agrees is trapping more heat, then either something has to absorb that heat and not let it out, or emit that heat from our atmosphere, or prevent heat from another source from entering our atmosphere. Otherwise, that heat from the gas will increase the temperature of our Earth.

So if deniers state that CO2 is trapping more heat but it is not increasing the temperature of the Earth, then they must have some idea which one or ones of those things is happening. And I want to know what it is and how it works, to know we don't have to worry about rising levels of CO2! They have to prove that is it not a problem.

Hence the need for supercomputer models. [Smile]

quote:
However, you're leaving out that the models are built to assume there is no corrective mechanism that correlates to increased carbon. Ergo, they can not do anything but predict an increase. Kind of the point, there is no experiment being run in modeling, there is just a logical statement that follows directly from the inputted premises.
Well, it's hard to build a model with the corrective mechanism when you don't know what it is. [Smile] In fact, it's hard to know if such a corrective mechanism actually exists.

And the thing is, every model I've heard of includes other factors that influence the amount of heat absorbed, like solar insolation, cloud cover, surface reflection, atmospheric absorption, surface absorption, radiation from the surface, latent heat of evaporation, IR emission from the surface, atmospheric particle reflection, and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, to name a few. Heck, I saw over a decade ago that scientists at NOAA were looking into the greenhouse effects of termites!

Of course, this doesn't take into account anything that might absorb the CO2 directly, such as the oceans and plants, but we really don't have to worry about that for this discussion, since it would only decrease the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and not mitigate its effects. Also, we know that those factors aren't working well enough, since the Keeling Curve keeps going up. [Frown]

So while models aren't build with any corrective mechanism for CO2 increases, you have to remember that there are no such corrective mechanisms that are known. Just about every known mechanism that affects climate is included in the models, and you can't include unknown ones.

And until you actually know about a corrective mechanism, you can't know that it exists.

Which is why deniers need a good model to show that what they say is true, and not just wishful thinking.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Okay, so to me, a good plan would require that energy at the completion of the plan would be available at fewer $/Watt than fossil fuels currently are. Elements that could accomplish this:

1. Remove subsidies that currently allow fossil fuels to be built at artificially reduced costs.

2. Remove caps on liability from failed drilling.

3. Launch a massive Manhattan Project style project to generate efficient fuel.

4. Remove blocks to deployment of hydro-electric, wind, and other energy producing technologies - especially those based on "aesthetic" concerns.

5. Firmly establish US hegemony of new energy, exports to pay for programs like #3.

If it is MORE $/Watt, by definition there's a sacrifice being made in terms of productivity, jobs, etc. It also doesn't require a grand international coalition with unenforceable protocols to be joined by China, the US, Russia, the EU, etc - because it will just start to make sense to use a cheaper technology.

If it involves using FEWER Watts, then again there is a sacrifice involved, either in the cost of more energy efficient light bulbs and other commodities, construction costs, etc.

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
I would love to know which processes you are thinking about. Clouds come to mind, but the jury is still very much out on those. (Last I heard, the reflection on top pretty much balanced out the reflection below. [Frown] )

I'd love to know all kinds of things, but I can't pass along concepts that haven't been discovered yet.
quote:
Yes, they are not equivalent, and I recognize and acknowledge that.

But think about it for a minute. If there is a gas in our atmosphere that everyone agrees is trapping more heat, then either something has to absorb that heat and not let it out, or emit that heat from our atmosphere, or prevent heat from another source from entering our atmosphere. Otherwise, that heat from the gas will increase the temperature of our Earth.

If the Earth was a completely closed system and there were no outlets or non-understood interactions, then yes. That's kind of the problem with the extrapolation of the experiment, it's conditions don't necessarily hold true against the reality.
quote:
So if deniers state that CO2 is trapping more heat but it is not increasing the temperature of the Earth, then they must have some idea which one or ones of those things is happening.
Why do you think that? Honestly, in what way does it follow in a scientific endeavor that a someone studying a result has to understand why the result occurs? That is exactly the point of what's going on here, the proponents of AGW believe they have demonstrated a result (increasing global temperature) and therefore are looking to explain why it's occurring. It's the result that prompts the search.

You do agree that if it were conclusively shown that warming was NOT occurring despite increased carbon then it would be evidence of such an effect, do you not? How about if it were conclusively shown (as it has been) that the expected increase based on the increased carbon levels has not been achieved in the global system?
quote:
And I want to know what it is and how it works, to know we don't have to worry about rising levels of CO2! They have to prove that is it not a problem.
You're not really correct on this. When we're talking about a policy direction, its not about disproving every possibility so much as it as about making a convincing argument for the most likely possibility, and that the harms are less than the gains. Unfortunately, the discussion on this issue fails because one side places an infinite harm number on the long term environmental change and the other places an infinite harm number on the short term suffering that the changes would cause. I really do believe if the science was convincing the issue would resolve, unfortunately, I think the over reliance on bad arguments from authority has corrupted the debate, which makes it even harder.
quote:
Hence the need for supercomputer models. [Smile]
sigh. They can't show you any new mechanisms, really they can't produce anything that wasn't a logical necessity of the data you put in.
quote:
Well, it's hard to build a model with the corrective mechanism when you don't know what it is. [Smile] In fact, it's hard to know if such a corrective mechanism actually exists.
Agreed, which is the failing of reliance on modeling.
quote:
And the thing is, every model I've heard of includes other factors that influence the amount of heat absorbed, like solar insolation, cloud cover, surface reflection, atmospheric absorption, surface absorption, radiation from the surface, latent heat of evaporation, IR emission from the surface, atmospheric particle reflection, and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, to name a few. Heck, I saw over a decade ago that scientists at NOAA were looking into the greenhouse effects of termites!
Exactly, the made the error of overcounting things they could measure and understand (like terminates). And every single thing included, or not, is a choice that introduces the potential for error (lets face its not just potential). And every weighting of each mitigator is a choice that introduces error. And every misunderstood interaction between factors is an element that is wrongly excluded or included.

When you are modeling the interactions of thousands of factors, as a proxy for a system with an unknowable number of factors (but that almost certainly doesn't match your assumptions), what you get is nothing more than a historical trend repeated back, with your own bias heavily influencing the end result.
quote:
Which is why deniers need a good model to show that what they say is true, and not just wishful thinking.
Actually they don't need a projection at all, all they need is a non-increasing trend line as a matter of history.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You do agree that if it were conclusively shown that warming was NOT occurring despite increased carbon then it would be evidence of such an effect, do you not? How about if it were conclusively shown (as it has been) that the expected increase based on the increased carbon levels has not been achieved in the global system?
The thing is looking back, there was an increase. If there isn't (I'm not sure it has been established) an ongoing increase we don't know why. I'm skeptical of claimed effects without an associated cause.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
The thing is looking back, there was an increase. If there isn't (I'm not sure it has been established) an ongoing increase we don't know why. I'm skeptical of claimed effects without an associated cause.

Agreed on the skepticism, but what I'm most troubled by is the where there is claimed certainty. Even today, we don't have a uniform or comprehensive system of land and water based temperature measurement. And for every ten years you go back in time the coverage map gets worse, the measurement technology gets worse and the consistency point to point gets worse. Go back even 50, 100 years and most of the data is indirectly measured (ie measured by observed effects not direct temperature). Go back any further and virtually none of it is directly measured or reliably measured.

It just baffles me that there is such reliance on data that is so obviously questionable and that has been adjusted on a discretionary basis (even presuming good faith). I'm not of the view that this is unknowable, just that it's highly questionable that we do in fact know it correctly at this time.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You're overstating their accuracy (not to mention ignoring the time scale whereby the models have actually not been proven out as of yet). If you want to demonstrate the validity of a model it's going to take a heck of lot more than assertions, to unwind my own opinion based on past research.
They have yet to be inaccurate, and have been independently confirmed through myriad approaches with sound methodology across a number of different disciplines.

quote:
Assigning a "real price" to an activity that only applies in certain countries (which is all any of these agreements ever has or ever will get) is completely redistributive. It absolute hurts the cleanest plants, as generally even the most polluting western plants are better for the environment than the average third world plants.
Price is a localized factor as well, and is simple to correct by adjusting the price of such goods if we import them to account for the real net cost if the country of origin is trying to shift the cost to us. What you seem to be saying here is that we should blindly allow cost shifting here because other people are allowing cost shifting in their own economies instead of working to make it cheaper to properly account for the costs up front everywhere than it is to shift them, then applying "redistribution" to that without any sense of meaning aside for "not what you want"

quote:
So that the majority of good purchased in the first world were not supplied in a pollution inefficient manner. So that export goods to the third world were cheaper than locally produced pollution inefficient goods, absolutely.
This makes no sense at all. DEveloped countries generally produce their goods efficiently , while the fundamental characteristic of developing countries is that they're establishing industry so as to be self-reliant and not dependent on imports for basic needs. They're going to do that no matter what, so we'd do better to sell them cheap, clean, efficient modern technology and expertise rather than forcing them to try to develop their own expertise by working slowly upwards through old, expensive, inefficient models to get there on their own.

Unless you're suggestion is effectively that we don't allow them to develop economically at all, and instead continue to generate money to send them as foreign aide so that they can be our perpetual consumer colonies?[/quote]

quote:
[quote]Why would the answer not be to develop cheap clean technology and help start them off at a cleaner baseline standard?
Redistributionist policy. But yes it can be a part of the solution. Doesn't help though unless you get them on the pollution reduction requirements at the same time.

Where is there redistribution here? You're really waving it around like a club with no sense of meaning. SElling them efficient technology that we've developed to the point that it's cheaper than inefficient technology is not redistribution, it's just trade. And There's no need to impose limits on them when the lower net cost of the cleaner technology would make it automatically preferable in the first place.

quote:
Any solution that doesn't require they clean up is going to fail.
Any solution that _requires_ they do anything they don't want to will fail. Only solutions that make it more desirable for them to clean up than not have a chance.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Go back even 50, 100 years and most of the data is indirectly measured (ie measured by observed effects not direct temperature). Go back any further and virtually none of it is directly measured or reliably measured.
That falsely suggests that indirect measurements are unreliable without presenting any evidence to black the claim. Indirect measurements are pretty solidly reliable, especially because they allow us to correlate data across an number of different sources and verify that just about every possible method of measurement gives similar results.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
quote:
Hence the need for supercomputer models.
sigh. They can't show you any new mechanisms, really they can't produce anything that wasn't a logical necessity of the data you put in.
If there's a mechanism, then the models need to account for it to match the data.

You've got this exactly backwards here. MEchanisms don't come from the data, mechanisms come from an understanding of the physical factors at play. WHen all known mechanisms are accounted for, they should be able to project the known data to within a reasonable margin of error.

So far all known mechanisms have successfully done that, while new mechanisms have simply refined the precision of hte results.

SO if there's a new, unaccounted for mechanism, then the people promoting it need to put forth what it is and factor it into the models to show that they both still are accurately able to match the known data but then produce a significantly different future result.

In order to debunk the human contribution portion of it, those models would also have to show that there's no significant difference in their model behavior by removing human input for the equation.

But if the claim is just "maybe something we don't know about ill happen" that's not a sound position. It's just begging for a deus ex machina to come in and make the problem go away.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To echo Pyr, our measurements of past temperature are reliable enough to sustain decades of investigation into why current temperatures seem higher. If there were systematic mis-interpretation causing the apparent warming you'd expect we'd have found it by now.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And, to be clear, the current models actively account for the fact that there may be unknown mechanisms and that we don't completely understand the effects of some mechanisms. That's why they produce an error margin for their results, covering the range from best case to worst case scenario.

(We've run into that directly by finding that the oceans are absorbing more carbon than expected. That's why we've found both that we're riding the lower end of the margin for temperature increases, but ocean acidification has been well outpacing expected results.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
They have yet to be inaccurate, and have been independently confirmed through myriad approaches with sound methodology across a number of different disciplines.

They have been completely inaccurate, but that doesn't mean I'm questioning the concept of the math they are based on. Their inaccuracy stems from flawed data inclusion and the elective elements, hence this particular critique is just garbage.
quote:
quote:
Assigning a "real price" to an activity that only applies in certain countries (which is all any of these agreements ever has or ever will get) is completely redistributive. It absolute hurts the cleanest plants, as generally even the most polluting western plants are better for the environment than the average third world plants.
Price is a localized factor as well, and is simple to correct by adjusting the price of such goods if we import them to account for the real net cost if the country of origin is trying to shift the cost to us. What you seem to be saying here is that we should blindly allow cost shifting here because other people are allowing cost shifting in their own economies instead of working to make it cheaper to properly account for the costs up front everywhere than it is to shift them, then applying "redistribution" to that without any sense of meaning aside for "not what you want"
Black is white, is black. What I said is that environmental policy is designed to reduce production in the most efficient and cleanest plants in favor of the worst polluting ones and to transfer wealth from the first world to the third. That's not what you are saying I "seem" to be saying.
quote:
quote:
So that the majority of good purchased in the first world were not supplied in a pollution inefficient manner. So that export goods to the third world were cheaper than locally produced pollution inefficient goods, absolutely.
This makes no sense at all. DEveloped countries generally produce their goods efficiently , while the fundamental characteristic of developing countries is that they're establishing industry so as to be self-reliant and not dependent on imports for basic needs. They're going to do that no matter what, so we'd do better to sell them cheap, clean, efficient modern technology and expertise rather than forcing them to try to develop their own expertise by working slowly upwards through old, expensive, inefficient models to get there on their own.
So not only should we send them our jobs, we give them the technology and subsidize them to out compete us as well? Lol. You are literally the poster boy for why environmental policy gets opposed irregardless of the science involved.
quote:
Unless you're suggestion is effectively that we don't allow them to develop economically at all, and instead continue to generate money to send them as foreign aide so that they can be our perpetual consumer colonies?
You could do it that way. Simpler to prohibit the distribution of goods produced in pollution inefficient plants. If you want meaningful pollution limits end the practice of buying products from countries that refuse to apply them. Subsidize pollution efficient plants so that they can compete on cost against the third world plants that gain their advantage by exploiting their workers and not controlling pollution.
quote:
Where is there redistribution here? You're really waving it around like a club with no sense of meaning. SElling them efficient technology that we've developed to the point that it's cheaper than inefficient technology is not redistribution, it's just trade. And There's no need to impose limits on them when the lower net cost of the cleaner technology would make it automatically preferable in the first place.
Selling? What nonsense is that? These treaties require the uncompensated transfer of technology, and often require that we pay them to actually implement it. If they were forced to pay the fair value they'd neither take nor implement the technology.
quote:
quote:
Any solution that doesn't require they clean up is going to fail.
Any solution that _requires_ they do anything they don't want to will fail. Only solutions that make it more desirable for them to clean up than not have a chance.
Funnily enough you are correct in your statement that solutions that require they do anything they don't want to do will fail, and that is exactly while the current climate treaties have led to increases in global pollution rather than reduction. Hey but the more the same is sure to generate a completely different result this time. /sarcasm.

Refuse a first world market for pollution generated goods, and you make it in their interest to move forward. Keep up giveaways with no compliance obligations and you'll be patting yourself on the back while the world burns.
quote:
That falsely suggests that indirect measurements are unreliable without presenting any evidence to black the claim.
I don't think you understand logic, there's nothing about that that "falsely suggests" anything. It is true I didn't put in proof.
quote:
Indirect measurements are pretty solidly reliable, especially because they allow us to correlate data across an number of different sources and verify that just about every possible method of measurement gives similar results
Lol. I get it, you not really built to understand shades of grey.
quote:
You've got this exactly backwards here. MEchanisms don't come from the data, mechanisms come from an understanding of the physical factors at play. WHen all known mechanisms are accounted for, they should be able to project the known data to within a reasonable margin of error.
I don't have anything backwards, you really have a reading comprehension problem. I have no disagreement that when all mechanisms are known and accounted for, it should be possible to create a reasonable projection. That's not the same thing as when "all known mechanisms are accounted for," as you suggest would be sufficient. In fact, what you state is pretty the fallacious belief that the current state of science is unimprovable, that there's nothing new to learn.
quote:
And, to be clear, the current models actively account for the fact that there may be unknown mechanisms and that we don't completely understand the effects of some mechanisms
Lol, I'm not if its scarier that you believe this is possible, or that if you actually believe this occurs you don't understand how it undermines the validity of the model.
quote:
Originally posted by Noblehunter:
To echo Pyr, our measurements of past temperature are reliable enough to sustain decades of investigation into why current temperatures seem higher. If there were systematic mis-interpretation causing the apparent warming you'd expect we'd have found it by now.

The problem with that Noblehunter is that the data requires adjustments to show statistical significance. It's not a clean record. So while I agree with many of the adjustments, and hence am not a denier, it's not the case that the trend is indisputable.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It requires adjustments, sure, but there's still a consensus about the what the adjustments should be. I haven't heard of any historical models showing the earth as significantly warmer than the standard models. Esepcially since much of the observed or inferred warming has taken place in the last century when our measurements are either accurate or the margin of error is easier to determine.

We can't know how hot the planet was anymore than we can know Napoleon actually existed. But the evidence at our disposal can give us a pretty good idea. It may be possible to dispute the accepted conclusion but I think it's telling that almost no-one is disputing them nor have they significantly changed since they were originally reached.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
quote:
Yes, they are not equivalent, and I recognize and acknowledge that.

But think about it for a minute. If there is a gas in our atmosphere that everyone agrees is trapping more heat, then either something has to absorb that heat and not let it out, or emit that heat from our atmosphere, or prevent heat from another source from entering our atmosphere. Otherwise, that heat from the gas will increase the temperature of our Earth.

If the Earth was a completely closed system and there were no outlets or non-understood interactions, then yes. That's kind of the problem with the extrapolation of the experiment, it's conditions don't necessarily hold true against the reality.
The Earth is not a closed system in a thermodynamics sense, but it can be considered "closed" in that we can make an imaginary sphere around it and consider what comes into the sphere and what goes out. It's really just energy-in, energy-out, and energy stored within. It is just that simple.

You seem to be hung up on "non-understood interactions," as if they surround us and are having major effects all the time. But even a non-understood interaction will fit into one of these categories.

quote:
That is exactly the point of what's going on here, the proponents of AGW believe they have demonstrated a result (increasing global temperature) and therefore are looking to explain why it's occurring. It's the result that prompts the search.
I think you have it backwards here. The rising amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is trapping heat--that is agreed upon by everyone. So we have to wonder where that heat is going. The most obvious solution is that it is being absorbed by the atmosphere (since that is what greenhouse gases do [Smile] ). So we look to see if temperatures are rising. And then we look to see what else might make the temperatures rise. Only after eliminating everything else we can think of was it announced that, yes, the theory is correct that CO2 is causing x amount of warming.

But it didn't start with noticing the Earth warming. That's been pretty minor, so far. What started it (AFAIK) was that we noticed that a greenhouse gas concentration was increasing, and we want to know as much as we can how much it is going to heat the Earth.

quote:
You do agree that if it were conclusively shown that warming was NOT occurring despite increased carbon then it would be evidence of such an effect, do you not?
Yes, if it was conclusively shown, then climatologists would be scrambling to figure out what is preventing it.

quote:
How about if it were conclusively shown (as it has been) that the expected increase based on the increased carbon levels has not been achieved in the global system?
Three problems with this statement. First is that climate is a chaotic system, so "expected" increases are in a range, with lots of slop to account for feedbacks and such. So "conclusively shown" is difficult to show, because AGW is something that takes decades to have the effect. (In fact, the CO2 in the atmosphere today has not yet had it's full effect. If we kept the CO2 concentrations precisely where they are today, it will take a decade or two before it stops warming the Earth.)

Second is that the models are still be perfected. So temperatures not fitting the models would first elicit a tweeking of the models, to see if they can be made better. If that doesn't work, then other factors will be looked for (assuming they don't pop up on their own).

The third is that I haven't heard that it's been "conclusively shown" that the models haven't accounted for the increased temperatures, and that they haven't shown that they are from increased CO2 levels. In fact, I have heard the opposite--that the models are fairly close to what actual temperatures are, but when CO2 levels are taken out, they show no warming and become very inaccurate.

Perhaps you can provide a link to where it is "conclusively shown" that the expected increase based on the increased carbon levels has not been achieved in the global system?

quote:
Exactly, the made the error of overcounting things they could measure and understand (like terminates). And every single thing included, or not, is a choice that introduces the potential for error (lets face its not just potential). And every weighting of each mitigator is a choice that introduces error. And every misunderstood interaction between factors is an element that is wrongly excluded or included.

When you are modeling the interactions of thousands of factors, as a proxy for a system with an unknowable number of factors (but that almost certainly doesn't match your assumptions), what you get is nothing more than a historical trend repeated back, with your own bias heavily influencing the end result.

It is not entirely just our own biases repeated back. The weighing have certain limits; you can't say that CO2 causes 100 times more IR reflection than what is shown in the lab. And all these factors do play a part in creating our climate, so you have to take them into account in any complete model.

But I think there is one concept that you are not taking into account. What if there is no mitigating factor? You keep acting as if there is some factor that we don't know about, and aren't taking into account, that is counteracting this greenhouse gas. What if there isn't? We haven't see such factors in the other planets we have modeled for their climate based on greenhouse gases. Why should our planet be that much different?

We know CO2 traps heat, we know CO2 levels are rising, and we know that overall temperatures are rising (and not just from temperature measurements). So if someone states that CO2 is not heating the Earth, then it must be because of a mitigating factor. And if they know it is true, then the must know what that factor is.

Because I don't know what that factor could be, and I suspect that they are just practicing wishful thinking.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
It requires adjustments, sure, but there's still a consensus about the what the adjustments should be.

Firstly, no there's not. Many of the adjustments are made by single teams and not freely shared and/or reviewed. There's no consensus on specific adjustments, just on the need for adjustment. Secondly, who cares if there is a consensus, that's not the same thing as a measured result, as proof or necessarily consistent with reality.
quote:
I haven't heard of any historical models showing the earth as significantly warmer than the standard models.
Not sure what you mean by this, what are the "historical models" and what are the "standard models"? Study of the Earth's history certain implies times where the global temperature has been significantly higher (and lower) than is currently the case. And unless new data is available since I last looked that there have been periods where atmospheric carbon was far higher than it is now and global temperatures lower.
quote:
Esepcially since much of the observed or inferred warming has taken place in the last century when our measurements are either accurate or the margin of error is easier to determine.
Agreed on the time period, but completely subject to the specific biases and problems I already stated, hence why its disputable.
quote:
We can't know how hot the planet was anymore than we can know Napoleon actually existed.
Honestly, I think that's a horrid analogy, there's zero chance we've accurately described how "hot" the planet is, and a pretty good chance we can get in the ballpark (but being able to tell it was in the ballpark is a far cry from knowing it was a ground out to third). It would take a fraud of almost unimaginable scale for Napoleon not to have existed.
quote:
But the evidence at our disposal can give us a pretty good idea. It may be possible to dispute the accepted conclusion but I think it's telling that almost no-one is disputing them nor have they significantly changed since they were originally reached.
What do you mean by significantly changed? The predictions and timelines bear no resemblance to the original predictions or time lines. The statistical significance changes immensely after the data is manipulated. And the trend to date changes immensely based on any number of measurement adjustments.

Seriously, I'm not at all sure what you think hasn't changed significantly?

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Secondly, who cares if there is a consensus, that's not the same thing as a measured result, as proof or necessarily consistent with reality.
Indeed. A consensus means that multiple independently measured results have arrived at the same conclusion. It's a much stronger position than a single result that may or may not have been in error. Consensus is essential to establishing fact, since it shows that the results are independently verifiable, regardless of the approach one takes.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
They have been completely inaccurate, but that doesn't mean I'm questioning the concept of the math they are based on. Their inaccuracy stems from flawed data inclusion and the elective elements, hence this particular critique is just garbage.

When? That have yet to be inaccurate.

Unless you mean that we haven't stuck to the worst case scenarios that the media hypes, which is a reflection on the media, not the science you're flat out wrong here. THe models have been accurate for decades- not precise, but very accurate. Temperature trends have stayed entirely within the margins of error on the predictions, even if they track the lower bounds.

More information has made the projections more precise, but at no point in the at least the past 20-30 years have they failed to be accurate.


Can you show any point here global temperatures were outside the predicted ranges in the past two decades to back that up?

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
With apologies, I reordered your post a bit. I do want to say, as I said before, I'm not sure that debating the science here is going to be profitable. None of you have convinced me that your grasp of how models work is better than my own, which leaves me and you frustrated with these arguments, and makes it unlikely for me to switch positions. But take heart, I fully expect that I will take a position at some point in the future, through no really action on any of your parts, when I'm convinced the data has produced a result that's more significant than my own objections justify. Now that said, I have a few specific issues on what you said:
quote:
But I think there is one concept that you are not taking into account. What if there is no mitigating factor? You keep acting as if there is some factor that we don't know about, and aren't taking into account, that is counteracting this greenhouse gas. What if there isn't?
Then the models will be closer to reality than they otherwise would be. I think the current trends demonstrate that there are in fact mitigating factors (hence repeated scrambling to improve the models, which have uniformly predicted faster growth than occurred).
quote:
We haven't see such factors in the other planets we have modeled for their climate based on greenhouse gases. Why should our planet be that much different?
I think of 3 unique factors for our planet, that don't apply to the other planets observed. Liquid water, life, and intelligent life. You already acknowledge the last has an impact hence the "A" in "AGW."

It's my understanding that a runaway greenhouse effect is completely dependent on the presence of large amounts of liquid water, which means its not an observable phenomenum on those other planets.

And life reacts to every step and piece of the AGW theory, increased carbon increases plant growth, increased heat increases growth of all life (on a net basis). It's entirely possible that we would wipe ourselves out yet generate a situation that is more friendly to life overall.
quote:
The Earth is not a closed system in a thermodynamics sense, but it can be considered "closed" in that we can make an imaginary sphere around it and consider what comes into the sphere and what goes out. It's really just energy-in, energy-out, and energy stored within. It is just that simple.
And our understanding of the in and out gets better all the time. So what's the impact of the Earth's core temperature on climate change? Is there or is their not one additional molecule of matter per cubic mile floating between the Earth and the sun than is the historical average? How much impact does one centimeter of continental drift have on the climate of the world? What's the impact that changing the color of the ocean's through the accumulation of floating sea garbage, or of solar radiance lost from reflecting off of artificial satellites?

No need to specifically rebut any of that, I doubt it's relevant too, but I have to think something like separating North and South America would have a dramatic impact, even if a slight decrease in the size of the Pacific ocean does not.
quote:
You seem to be hung up on "non-understood interactions," as if they surround us and are having major effects all the time. But even a non-understood interaction will fit into one of these categories.
I am more hung up on the arrogance of believing that we have correctly included the relevant factors and their weights. I point to the potential for non-understood interactions because it's easier to understand and because its nothing but theory people don't get into dogmatic arguments about data interpretation.
quote:
Second is that the models are still be perfected. So temperatures not fitting the models would first elicit a tweeking of the models, to see if they can be made better. If that doesn't work, then other factors will be looked for (assuming they don't pop up on their own).
Which by the way is another common area of criticism, the tuning of models. I wrote a long series of posts on one of these threads about how such adjustments may act to mask erroneous concepts in the model, that can cause extraordinary divergence under certain circumstances. Should show up if you search for kludge.
quote:
The third is that I haven't heard that it's been "conclusively shown" that the models haven't accounted for the increased temperatures, and that they haven't shown that they are from increased CO2 levels. In fact, I have heard the opposite--that the models are fairly close to what actual temperatures are, but when CO2 levels are taken out, they show no warming and become very inaccurate.
You're disputing that the models have consistently predicted a faster increase in global temperature than has been observed? Even if you accept the adjustments to the data, without which statistically significant heat increases can not be demonstrated, and assume that even with them they have been demonstrated, they still have uniformly been lower increases than have been predicted by the models overtime.
quote:
Perhaps you can provide a link to where it is "conclusively shown" that the expected increase based on the increased carbon levels has not been achieved in the global system?
Whose models do you want me to use?
quote:
It is not entirely just our own biases repeated back.
Of course it isn't. I'll even posit that the vast majority of inclusions represent the good faith opinion of educated scientists. It still doesn't change that the amount of discretion and judgment involved makes it impossible to view the end model as free from relevant bias.
quote:
The weighing have certain limits; you can't say that CO2 causes 100 times more IR reflection than what is shown in the lab. And all these factors do play a part in creating our climate, so you have to take them into account in any complete model.
But you have to set a value for the percentage impact of CO2 levels on the system as a whole. And you have to decide, what other gases to include and at what levels. And whether to include algae, or grass, or pavement and their impact levels. And whether to include solar radiance and gravitational impacts of the moon and their percentage of accounting for the result.

The truth is, most of these factors receive a zero or a near zero weight, and for most of them that is probably correct. But it only takes one or two that are 1% off, or not included in the thousands considered for the model, out of the infinite potential number that exist in reality to break the validity of the model. And that doesn't even consider what happens if there are grossly less relevant factors, what if there are only two factors that can generate a long term effect, and everything else is just short term variance?
quote:
So if someone states that CO2 is not heating the Earth, then it must be because of a mitigating factor. And if they know it is true, then the must know what that factor is.
If they know that its true, they are overstating their case. And it doesn't follow that they would understand the mitigation mechanism just because they observe it in operation.
quote:
Because I don't know what that factor could be, and I suspect that they are just practicing wishful thinking.
I don't think most people actually have a strong reasoned opinion on the science. I think they have a general leaning towards accepting it or not (with most leaning towards accepting it), but they have strong opinions about what solutions they find acceptable.

You see that all the time in how they approach solutions. There's been outright hostility to the idea of directly removing atmospheric carbon as a solution (rather than restricting its production and/or implementing redistribution).

[ December 03, 2015, 05:14 PM: Message edited by: Seriati ]

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Black is white, is black. What I said is that environmental policy is designed to reduce production in the most efficient and cleanest plants in favor of the worst polluting ones and to transfer wealth from the first world to the third. That's not what you are saying I "seem" to be saying.
Which is nonsense that has no basis in reality.

quote:
So not only should we send them our jobs, we give them the technology and subsidize them to out compete us as well? Lol. You are literally the poster boy for why environmental policy gets opposed irregardless of the science involved.
What jobs? Who said "give"? I said sell. They have to pay for development one way or another; if we provide a cheaper cleaner path, they'll take that instead of the more expensive dirty one.

I mean you can keep making stuff up, or you can actually address what I'm saying.

And that's not even getting into the absurd zero-sum argument that they're basing this on, unless you're referring to the not to distant point where the world is completely out-producing its needs and we "lose" jobs to leisure time because people everyone don't need to work as much. We're not in competition with them, we're looking to cooperate with them to develop them into good trading partners so that we both benefit.

quote:
These treaties require the uncompensated transfer of technology, and often require that we pay them to actually implement it.
Can you back that claim? I can see requirements to invest in them being reasonable, but investment comes with returns when they get off the ground and become viable trading partners as they find specializations that they can produce in excess of their need.

quote:
If they were forced to pay the fair value they'd neither take nor implement the technology.
The would if we were making the necessary investments in bringing the cost down to the point here it was the most reasonable option. As it stands, countries like China and South Africa are gaining the edge on us in developing hte technology to the point that they're likely to be global providers. Solar cells in particular come to mind here, but were lagging in other similar technology as well the longer we twiddle out thumbs instead of fully committing to being the leading source of research and production.

quote:
Funnily enough you are correct in your statement that solutions that require they do anything they don't want to do will fail, and that is exactly while the current climate treaties have led to increases in global pollution rather than reduction. Hey but the more the same is sure to generate a completely different result this time.
You're the one standing on the side of more of the same here- which is non participation and letting our chance to be the technological leader in the process sip away. I'm actively advocating that we stop trying to make it everyone else's problems and invest in creating the solutions here first.

quote:
Refuse a first world market for pollution generated goods, and you make it in their interest to move forward.
Those countries are their own primary markets. If we refuse to trade with them, they'' continue to do what they do anyway because they're working to provide for themselves without regard to us. Traded with them so that they can get cheap access to better technology than they can invent their way through on their own and they'll clean up more quickly and reach the point where we can mutually profit from trade in much less time.

quote:
quote:
That falsely suggests that indirect measurements are unreliable without presenting any evidence to black the claim.
I don't think you understand logic, there's nothing about that that "falsely suggests" anything. It is true I didn't put in proof.
Okay, so you didn't mean to claim that indirect measurements are unreliable? Because that false assertion seemed to be implied by your phrasing.

quote:
That's not the same thing as when "all known mechanisms are accounted for," as you suggest would be sufficient.
What huge gap are you suggesting exists in our understanding of chemistry and physics that would allow for us to currently not know about a possible significant mechanism?
I mean, you're making a huge claim here, that there's such a vast hole in our knowledge that, despite seeming to be extremely accurate something outside the bounds of our understanding of physics, geology and chemistry is occurring that will push us outside the current margins of error on the models that account for all the factors that we currently know about. At the same time, it has to be so subtle and only active under very limited circumstances that it doesn't throw off comparisons with prior data across hundreds, if not thousands of analyses from a wide range of disciplines.

This right here is what puts you into the denier camp. You posit the possibility of an unspecified magic mechanism that we don't know about, but put forth absolutely not proposal for where that lack of understanding lies. you're not raising a verifiable concern but just casting shade on the whole process without any evidence to support it. (While actively misrepresenting the current state of understanding at the same time purely to cast doubt on it, not because of any evidence of error)

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I think the current trends demonstrate that there are in fact mitigating factors (hence repeated scrambling to improve the models, which have uniformly predicted faster growth than occurred).
They have not. The worst case scenario that the media likes to report has certainly not been met, but the increases have consistently been within the margin of error on the models. The revisions have been for _precision_ of future forecasts; narrowing hte margin of error, not accuracy; whether or not the outcome falls within the margin of error.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It's my understanding that a runaway greenhouse effect is completely dependent on the presence of large amounts of liquid water, which means its not an observable phenomenum on those other planets.
That sounds completely wrong to me. From what I know, the classic example of a run-away greenhouse effect is Venus, which has absolutely no liquid water. (It's hard to have an ocean when lead melts on the surface. [Smile] ) I would double-check your source.

Reading over your last post, Seriati, I get the feeling that you doubt AGW because the models are not as accurate as you'd like. That, because the models are flawed, you question whether CO2 will actually raise the overall temperature of the Earth. Is that correct?

Let me try a different approach then.

If the Sun started emitting more light, and was increasing at a steady rate, would the Earth become hotter or stay the same?

If the Earth's orbit drifted away from the Sun, and continued to go further and further away, would the Earth become colder or stay the same?

Would you be concerned about the mitigating factors in those situations before you would become concerned about climate change? Would you question the accuracy of the models before you would acknowledge that we have a problem? Or would you wait until all factors were properly accounted for and understood before you would admit that we really should do something about it (assuming there was something we could do)?

This is how I see AGW. Greenhouse gases are one of the major factors in how much heat our planet has, along with the output of our Sun and the orbit of our planet. Increase those gases, the gases trap more heat, period. Just like more light means more energy hits the planet, which increases the heat on the planet. Or a further orbit means less light hits the planet, which means decreases the heat.

Admittedly, our planet has more interaction and "control" of the amounts of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, but that really doesn't matter for this discussion, because our planet is not controlling its greenhouse gases. CO2 keeps going up. It is continuing to increase, regardless of the plants and other systems on this planet. Look at the Keeling Curve.

So while the models may try to explain and predict what the warming of the planet will look like, they do not "prove" that the planet is warming from CO2. So any inadequacies in the models in no way disproves AGW.

AGW is happening because greenhouse gases concentrations, especially CO2, are rising in our atmosphere. As they continue to rise, they will trap more heat.

We observe warming on the planet through direct temperature measurements, indirect temperature measurements, and the changing climate in multiple areas around the globe, most dramatically at the poles.

We have something that we knows that warms the planet (like how much sunlight it receives) increasing. We see the planet is warming. Unless there is something that we know that is mitigating this process, then no one can state for certain that the planet will not become warmer. And those that state the AGW is not happening had better show exactly what it is that is mitigating the effects of CO2. Or they're just talking out of their, ahem, behinds. [Smile]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
It's my understanding that a runaway greenhouse effect is completely dependent on the presence of large amounts of liquid water, which means its not an observable phenomenum on those other planets.
That sounds completely wrong to me. From what I know, the classic example of a run-away greenhouse effect is Venus, which has absolutely no liquid water. (It's hard to have an ocean when lead melts on the surface. [Smile] ) I would double-check your source.
You missed my point, Venus is a model for a greenhouse effect. On Earth, the fear is a run-away greenhouse effect that causes a radical shift in the climate. Check your sources as well, because my understanding is that what makes it irreversible is that the excess carbon pushes over a tipping point where production of water vapor has increased to the point that the heating effect becomes self-replicating (at least until a new balance is reached). Cloud formation is directly related to this as a potential mitigator.
quote:
Reading over your last post, Seriati, I get the feeling that you doubt AGW because the models are not as accurate as you'd like. That, because the models are flawed, you question whether CO2 will actually raise the overall temperature of the Earth. Is that correct?
Doubt is a strong word. I said the proof isn't there, and that the models generate a false sense of statistical significance.
quote:
Let me try a different approach then.

If the Sun started emitting more light, and was increasing at a steady rate, would the Earth become hotter or stay the same?

Absent a mitigator, hotter.
quote:
If the Earth's orbit drifted away from the Sun, and continued to go further and further away, would the Earth become colder or stay the same?
Colder (can't imagine an effective mitigator for this).
quote:
Would you be concerned about the mitigating factors in those situations before you would become concerned about climate change?
Are you asking me if I think the impact of star that is responsible for the generation of virtually all heat and energy and life on a plant is in my view more significant than the impact of human beings? Not trying to be difficult with you here. If such solar events were occurring I'd be incredibly concerned, but also aware that there would be little to nothing we could do to correct the situation.
quote:
Would you question the accuracy of the models before you would acknowledge that we have a problem?
The models would be irrelevant, we'd have direct measurements in such a situation. Or are you trying to equate the simple model for increases and decreases in solar radiation to the model climate scientists are running? Do you understand the difference between calculating the odds in a game of craps versus playing the market?
quote:
Or would you wait until all factors were properly accounted for and understood before you would admit that we really should do something about it (assuming there was something we could do)?
Already answered. I think you should pick a better example though to get to a meaningful response.
quote:
This is how I see AGW.
It scares me that you think AGW is as clear as a significant change in solar radiance. It really does say to me that you don't understand it, apologies, I don't say that to be offensive.
quote:
Admittedly, our planet has more interaction and "control" of the amounts of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, but that really doesn't matter for this discussion, because our planet is not controlling its greenhouse gases. CO2 keeps going up. It is continuing to increase, regardless of the plants and other systems on this planet. Look at the Keeling Curve.
It really does matter, the interactions on a greenhouse gas increase are way more difficult to be certain of than a change in solar radiance.
quote:
We observe warming on the planet through direct temperature measurements, indirect temperature measurements, and the changing climate in multiple areas around the globe, most dramatically at the poles.
This is the only relevant information that you're adding, and like I said, overtime I expect it will become convincing. It's not there yet.
quote:
We have something that we knows that warms the planet (like how much sunlight it receives) increasing. We see the planet is warming. Unless there is something that we know that is mitigating this process, then no one can state for certain that the planet will not become warmer.
Your third statement is true, no one could be sure, it doesn't depend on your second statement as you imply. And you have overstated the second sentence (as of today, maybe not in the future).
quote:
And those that state the AGW is not happening had better show exactly what it is that is mitigating the effects of CO2. Or they're just talking out of their, ahem, behinds. [Smile]
Or they could show warming is not occurring, which requires that an unknown mitigator occurs. Or like the good little scientists some of us like to think we're being they could show something else with a better correlation to the temperature trends (not convincing yet, but solar variance is a strong possibility on that front).
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Or like the good little scientists some of us like to think we're being they could show something else with a better correlation to the temperature trends (not convincing yet, but solar variance is a strong possibility on that front).
Which is why temperatures continue to increase despite us being at the low end of solar output contribution to our overall temperature? Solar variance is already accounted for, and is not mitigating the current warming trend, despite being in hte best position that it can be to do so.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
they could show something else with a better correlation to the temperature trends (not convincing yet, but solar variance is a strong possibility on that front).
I know you think that you are being unbiased in your position, but how is it possible, if you have put any effort whatsoever into following the debate on climate change, for you not to know that solar irradiance has been dropping for the past 50+ years, exactly during the period while we have seen the greatest amount of warming?

Seriously, think about that.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1