48 replies to this topic

[OEXCHAOS]

I'm just curious to see how far off each others views we really are.

[grizzly]

I'm just curious to see how far off each others views we really are.

Hey OEXCHAOS, I would love to post charts and photos in my responses to some of these goofballs to make it clear that global warming is real, but I am an oldtimer (age 58) and not computer savvy, and simple copying and pasting from my computer (right click-left click) does not appear to work on this site. Can you let us computer dufus types know how to post charts and photos. I am a simple country boy from pre-computer days, (Bill Gates could be my son), but I would like to educate your readers (not sure why since they don't appear to understand science, but I should at least make a futile attempt). Thank you.

By the way I appreciate all your efforts to promote discussion and dialogue on all these issues.

[Rogerdodger]

Mark, looking at your possible answers, it dawned on me that some equate doing something about global warming to doing something to protect the environment. The two are different in my opinion. I consider protecting the environment a duty and obligation. I consider the "global warming" push to be a political movement with a variety of underlying ulterior motives.

[mss]

The two are different in my opinion.
I consider protecting the environment a duty and obligation.
I consider the "global warming" push to be a political movement with a variety of underlying ulterior motives.

I totally agree with these two statements. When it is realized that sunspots, ocean currents, and PARKING lots effect warming more than anything else, mans effect can be reduced. There is almost NOTHING we can do about the other two.
mss

[EntropyModel]

My position expressed in great detail on the board is not there either, and since I believe a large number of us who actually have a science training are of my view, I'll add it here:

What is your position on "Global Warming"?
It exists, the causes are unprovable(**see note) and neither side can or will prove it before the point
of 'no return' i.e. past the point of unknowable consequences if its man made, since the science is unprovable, no one can correctly anticipate the consequences ( logic dictates you would need provable science to accurately predict the consequences).

**Proof - there is infact no way to 'prove' the science of global warming in the way non-scientists want i.e. like gravity, the nature of the phenomena does not allow it, its a red herring, so there will always be disagreement, just like many scientifists question most theories. The only 'provable' theories are one's the allow for simplist reproducible experiments like gravity - impossible in this case, hence the entire debate about proof is a game - ergo, read my avatar.

What should we do about "Global Warming"? Perform the normal risk/cost calculation curve as we do for all forms of natural disaster threat in insurance industry. The difficult decision is then how much risk to take, just as with your own house insurance. You can pay more and cover more or less, its all about risk control when there are so many unknowns.

---------------------

So i'm more interested in who will decide how much risk(cost) to take. I gave a simpler example of this problem in another post, and not one person answered it, its diffcult. If a meteor was potentially going to hit us, but its 50/50 if it hits or misses ( unknown, just like mans influence on climate), how much do we potentially waste trying to avoid a hit that might not happen? who decides and how?

Our political system just isn't good with probabilistic events....we've only just reached a point in our 'intellectual evolution' that we care about the future, so this is really a big step forward society is having this debate at all, and there will be more to come - should we allow genetic engineering given the unknown results, nano tech etc etc... Out of friction like this comes progress....it will be a long road, but a better decision making structure for these events will emerge.....ok, I admit my 'theory' on progress assumes we don't destroy ourselves whilst figuring it out.


Mark.

Edited by entropy, 01 March 2008 - 02:39 PM.

[Rogerdodger]

What should we do about "Global Warming"? Perform the normal risk/cost calculation curve as we do for all forms of natural disaster threat in insurance industry. The difficult decision is then how much risk to take, just as with your own house insurance. You can pay more and cover more or less, its all about risk control when there are so many unknowns.

"So many unknows." Therein lies the problem.
There is disagreement as to whether there is currently warming or cooling, as these seem cyclical.
There is disagreement among those who believe in global warming as to whether it is human caused or natural.
There is disagreement as to what to do about it if it human caused.
There are unknown consequences to any human action to "reduce" greenhouse gasses etc.
There is even disagreement whether or not global warming might in fact be a positive since societies seem to prosper in warmer cycles and suffer in cooler cycles (think dark ages and plague).

Edited by Rogerdodger, 01 March 2008 - 06:26 PM.

[colion]

What should we do about "Global Warming"? Perform the normal risk/cost calculation curve as we do for all forms of natural disaster threat in insurance industry. The difficult decision is then how much risk to take, just as with your own house insurance. You can pay more and cover more or less, its all about risk control when there are so many unknowns.

"So many unknows." Therein lies the problem.
There is disagreement as to whether there is currently warming or cooling, as these seem cyclical.
There is disagreement among those who believe in global warming as to whether it is human caused or natural.
There is disagreement as to what to do about it if it human caused.
There are unknown consequences to any human action to "reduce" greenhouse gasses etc.
There is even disagreement whether or not global warming might in fact be a positive since societies seem to prosper in warmer cycles and suffer in cooler cycles (think dark ages and plague).

A couple of points.

Some say that the earth is warming, some say that temperatures have been flat at various times during the 20th century, including the past decade, and some say that cooling has already started. About the only thing that all agree on is that the earth has warmed from the low temperatures of the little ice age in the 1800s (yes when one leaves an ice age the temperature rises!).

Very few say that human activities and the infamous greenhouse effect do not produce warming. The question is how much. Those that rely on unverified models (e.g., all used by IPCC) which have known serious deficiencies say that it is a big factor. Those that concentrate on analyzing grubby temperature measurements say very little. The number that say human activity is a minor factor is growing. I saw an article the other day that discussed a survey of recently published papers and found that roughly half came down on the human activity side and the other on the natural camp. Of course, as I assume we all agree, consensus means nada in the scientific community or in the often quoted words of Reiter, Pasteur Institute, "consensus is the stuff of politics, not science."

In my view, the danger of turning the issue into a political football is that it results in actions that may or may not be consistent with the science which is not fully understood and to that extent would be quite detrimental (look at the effect of Kyoto and who has benefited - think about why Russia agreed to the agreement against the advise of its scientists). Taking a scientific issue and having politicians decide whether or not the earth has a "fever" is nonsensical. In a very real sense, the issue can be addressed politically in a rational way (which by definition is impossible in D.C.) by looking instead at the simple fact that fossil fuels are going to run out sooner or later, if one believes that the earth has a finite volume. A reasonable function for government in that situation is to provide the leadership (is that word in beltway dictionaries?) that results in legislation and regulations which move us (and the world) toward lower usage (e.g., increased efficiency of cars, etc. which the engineering societies advised Congress to do in the 1970s) and increased R&D for the big stuff like fusion. Hitting the panic button and jumping on uneconomical solutions (the direction D.C. is moving) is crazy and only slows down the day when we will have what we need for a long term energy supply. Of course, this smacks to much of being part of a national energy strategy which is not something that D.C. will ever consider until the first city goes cold and dark (again leadership is not the stuff of D.C. types).

In the meantime, I'm gonna move south away from the coast in order to stay away from the rising sea and creeping glaciers.

[OEXCHAOS]

You know, to nibble at mss's point. Our cities and suburbs have created HUGE thermal masses. I don't know the objective measurements, but here in my neck of the woods, I can observe the micro climate created by just parking lots. I'm not talking about a little bit, either. I'm talking about several degrees on a sunny spring day. Enough to allow gardens to the south east of larger lots to be planted much earlier and to allow wintering over of plants that shouldn't be able to make it through a winter in this latitude. Yet every day, they bulldoze hundreds of acres and then black top them. I have no idea why we don't have an urban/suburban policy of zoning for planting one deciduous tree for every 1/4 acre of parking surface. I mean, it's CHEAP and it has all manner of real, benefits for folks right now. It's pretty, it's cooling for the neighborhood in summer, and it makes your car bearable to get into in August. Plus, each tree is a carbon sink and exudes O2. The next step, is probably rooftop gardens, which will get more mileage as the re-urbanization of America picks up steam. BTW, this move is going to really cut down on fuel demand, too. Mark

[EntropyModel]

What should we do about "Global Warming"? Perform the normal risk/cost calculation curve as we do for all forms of natural disaster threat in insurance industry. The difficult decision is then how much risk to take, just as with your own house insurance. You can pay more and cover more or less, its all about risk control when there are so many unknowns.

"So many unknows." Therein lies the problem.
There is disagreement as to whether there is currently warming or cooling, as these seem cyclical.
There is disagreement among those who believe in global warming as to whether it is human caused or natural.
There is disagreement as to what to do about it if it human caused.
There are unknown consequences to any human action to "reduce" greenhouse gasses etc.
There is even disagreement whether or not global warming might in fact be a positive since societies seem to prosper in warmer cycles and suffer in cooler cycles (think dark ages and plague).

As i've pointed out in many posts, Unknowns are no excuse not to make decisions - its equally unknown whether lightning will strike your house, or a freak flood will occur, but you still buy insurance against it.
In the case of lightning odds are in the 1:100,000's+
- the odds of global warming being man made and negative are considerably less than 1:100,000 !

What is the one definite KNOWN is the earth and other planets have experienced 'runaway global warming', such as during the dinosaur era. So we DO KNOW what the potential maximum risk are don't we? and as much as I like hot climates, I find it hard to claim flooding 2/3rd of the earth as that did would be a 'positive'.

A sliding scale from minor to this maximum damage is 'the curve' of risk/cost I referred to, all that left is for 'us' to choose how much insurance premium we want to pay.

Mark

Edited by entropy, 02 March 2008 - 02:39 PM.

[OEXCHAOS]

Mark, I vote for immediately doing the FREE things and the nearly free things to generate a bit of insurance. Individuals need to be aware of their choices and their impact...and not just by folks with a less than genuine agenda. Mark