Re: Global Warming , leave it to the men

On Mar 17, 5:47 am, flipper <flip...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 16 Mar 2007 23:25:29 -0700, "RichL" <rpleav...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 17, 1:55 am, flipper <flip...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 16 Mar 2007 19:00:40 -0700, "RichL" <rpleav...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 16, 6:55 pm, flipper <flip...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 15 Mar 2007 09:50:25 -0700, "RichL" <rpleav...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 15, 10:59 am, "pete" <a.anit...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:> Are you
totally positive global warming is all caused by man?

No one is arguing ALL. The majority isn't even arguing MOST. The
real question is, does man cause enough to make a significant
difference in the long-term outcome for the planet. NOTE: because of
the delicate natural balance, it doesn't take much.

Not that you invented it but the "delicate balance" canard is a lovely
bit of nothing. "Delicate," compared to what? Egg shells? A black
hole?

And how much 'much' is 'not much'? Compared to what? If I fart does
the planet go careening off into deep space?

Btw, did you know they can't 'account' for the CO2? If you assume the
'man made' emitting estimates are 'accurate', and taking into account
all the known 'natural' emitters and sinks, it doesn't add up. I.E.
the observed concentration doesn't match the 'known' emissions and
sinks.

That "lovely bit of nothing" is an outcome of decades of study of the
dynamics of chaotic systems. Basically, it means that a small
perturbation on a dynamical system grows exponentially as the system
evolves in time. So, in other words, small input leads to large
output.

I know what chaotic systems are. The phrase "delicate balance" is
still a lovely pile of nothing because it says nothing, as I
illustrated.

If you fart, it won't ultimately result in the planet careening off
into deep space because the gravitational forces that hold the
planetary system in its present configuration are not chaotic.

Actually, they are.

Not in any practical sense. The time scale for the growth of
planetary instabilities is extremely long, and the probability of such
an event is infinitesimally small.

Hehe. Not in any 'practical' sense. So now you're arguing that 'some'
chaotic systems are 'predicable?

However, you're making my point that "compared to what?" and "how much
'much'" matters.

The
atmosphere is, however, in many respects.

The issue of 'compared to what" remains.

The example they love to give of 'chaotic systems' is a 'butterfly'
flapping it's wings setting off a chaotic event that alters the entire
planet.

Again, theoretically possible, but highly improbable. The subset of
"they" that I am familiar with, and the context in which the butterfly
example is presented is usually to show an extreme consequence of
chaos theory. It's unreasonable to believe this is likely to happen.

I tend to think it's unreasonable as well but you're simply telling me
which things you 'believe' are likely and which ones you don't.

OK, cute example. Lets go kill all the butterflies.

As far as the accounting for the CO2, it's basically a red herring in
the same sense as those who point to gaps in the evolutionary record
as "evidence" that evolution is bunk.

It is, in no way. even remotely comparable.

So what if we can't account for it precisely. What does that have to
do with the global warming discussion? It's basically thrown out
there as a distractor.

It isn't a 'dsitractor' it's core to everything else. If you can't get
things to add up you can't estimate the 'contribution' of anything.

Let's take a greatly simplified example. You have a large tank with
water running in and a drain with water running out. Now piss in the
tank and observe the water level is rising.

Is it due to you pissing in the tank? How much?

Now, you may think that was a 'really big piss' you did but without
knowing anything about the tank, faucet, and drain you're, well,
pissing in the wind trying to determine how much 'effect' you had on
anything.

It's infinitely more complicated with climate because the emitters and
sinks aren't 'constant' nor 'independent' like the faucet and drain in
the tank example. For example, indications are that as CO2 increase
some sinks get 'more active' so it isn't clear at all that increasing
CO2 emissions results in a commensurate atmospheric increase. And, in
fact, it doesn't. Or, at least, they can't get it to add up that way.

I'll give you another kicker, it isn't at all obvious that CO2 drives
temperature or if temperature drives CO2.

Just because we don't have ALL
the evidence that would fully support a given hypothesis doesn't mean
the hypothesis is wrong.

True, and I didn't say it was. But what it does mean is you for damn
sure don't know it's 'right' either.

Aside from that, I really would be
interested in reading more about this. Do you have any idea what the
magnitude of the discrepancy is? (i.e., 10% is unaccounted for?
50%?) Do you have a source/sources for this?

I don't have an 'online' one, off hand. But it's rather dramatic and a
perplexing puzzle for them.

The problem is, if you can't get the math to work you can't begin to
calculate what your 'effect' might be.

This really depends on how far off you think it is.

The problem is you don't know what it is you don't know so there's no
basis for "how far off you think it is."

Probably the most famous, and extreme, example of that is the late
late 19'th century lament of the scientific community that there was
simply nothing left to 'discover'. Oh, some 'engineering' stuff to do,
like bigger and better trains, but nothing really 'science', like
Newton discovering gravity and things like that.

Within 20 years you had relativity and quantum mechanics turn the
entire universe upside down on both the 'big' and 'small' ends.

You don't know what it is you don't know.

Untimately the argument as to what, if anything, to do about global
warming is political, not scientific.

In that case then forget it. I'm not going to 're-engineer' the planet
just for some pin head politician.

Political in the sense that, even if the science were complete, there
would still be differing views on what to do about it. I would guess
that if it were a clear-cut case, some would argue that the government
doesn't have the right to dictate solutions.

Cart before the horse.

There's plenty of evidence out
there, but it's not conclusive. Basically there are two hypotheses,
two sets of actions, and thus four outcomes:
(1) Man-caused global warming is negligible, we do nothing about it
---> We're OK in the end.

This option says nothing about 'ignoring' pollution, however. That's a
separate issue.

(2) Man-caused global warming is negligible, we act as if it's
serious ---> We waste a lot of money, but we're still OK

This one isn't so 'simple' as a "lot of money" is ambiguous. And
wasting "a lot of money" can include economic collapse, mass
starvation, disease, war, and a host of other problems because simply
'spending some bucks' isn't the totality of the 'proposed solutions'.
Again, pointing out the political aspect. Some proposed solutions are
extreme, I would agree.

(3) Man-caused global warming is significant and has disastrous
consequences, we act as if it's serious ---> We come out OK in the end
because we acted

That's a pleasant outcome. Unfortunately, the IPCC's own analysis says
their 'proposed solutions' will have a negligible effect.

(4) Man-caused global warming is significant and has disastrous
consequences, we do nothing about it ---> We (esp. our children and
grandchildren) are screwed.

This is, of course, the chicken little theory.

Did you consider this a "chicken little" theory when it was applied to
Iraq?

"This" wasn't "applied" to Iraq.

We're being a little selective about deciding to act or not
with incomplete evidence, aren't we?

No.

This 'Iraq' global warming thing must be hitting the propoganda sites.

A 5'th possibility is that man is significantly affecting global
warming and we live with the modest impact.
Yes, with the underlying assumption that the impact would be modest.
It may be, it may not be. It's a gamble, and if it fails it's
essentially equivalent to (4).

I would argue that we would be foolish to wait until we're sure about
the effects to do something.

Ok. What if the proposed solution is we kill you? And another billion
or so. That'll 'reduce emissions', all right.

In that case you might want a bit more 'confidence' in the prediction,
no?

It will take decades for all the
scientific work to be done that would establish it convincingly to the
vast majority, and it MAY be too late to act then.
Of course there are all sorts of shades of gray between these
options. It's rather oversimplified. But still, as a matter of
policy, it would be wiser for us not to ignore it.

Your logic is based on simply predicting something 'dire' enough and
people should then do what you want. Every conspiracist uses that same
theory. If you don't agree then 'horrible' things will happen, so you
'must' agree. It's the 'safe' thing to do.
It rises above the level of conspiracy theory when accumulating
evidence points increasingly in that direction.

It's fallacious.

A 'risk analysis' is only valid when one can properly quantify the
risk. Otherwise it's simply fear mongering.

Again, I would point to the Iraq example.

Silly, but go ahead.

It seems to be OK to you to
act without the evidence being conclusive in some circumstances, but
not others.

I didn't say the 'evidence' had to be 'absolute'. And I didn't use
your term 'conclusive' because one can come to a 'conclusion' with
incomplete evidence, with a corresponding decrease in the reliability
of the decision.

What I said was "properly quantify" the risk and part of that analysis
are the confidence factors of each 'element'.

Since you all seem dead set on this silly Iraq comparison, there was,
for example, 100% certainty that Saddam had used WMD in the past;
evidence being all the dead bodies under the whisping chemical fumes.
There was also 100% certainty he was a threat to his neighbors;
evidence being two wars and a million or so dead bodies from that. It
was also 100% certain he had declared being in possession of various
WMD materials but would not explain where they were, as he was
required to do in order to be in compliance with the terms of cease
fire and over a dozen mandatory UN resolutions that it is 100% certain
he never complied with for over 10 years. There's more but that's a
start.

Now, I figure the odds he had a burning bush moment on the road to
Damascus and forgot all about his life long pursuit of WMD, whether he
had one 'right now' being irrelevant because most people, in addition
to not being killed 'right now', don't want to be killed 'tomorrow'
either, and his dream of becoming the next Salladin conquering, at
least, the Middle East, but why stop there? is, oh, about .00000000001
out of a billion to the 12'th power.

On the other hand, the climatologists can't reliably tell me if it
will rain tomorrow and they've never, not once, 'predicted' a climate
change that was observed. Ask me to donate a buck and that's mild
enough that I likely don't care if the 'reliability is non existent.
But tell me I have to return to horses, outhouses, and wood burning
stoves and you better come up with more than 'chicken little' because
you've got the asteroid deflection fund and the space alien invasion
defense force to compete with.

And, frankly, of the three the asteroid deflector fund has the best
supporting evidence.

With respect to the CO2 not adding up, if you can't quantify it in any
way, how can you possibly claim it's true?

This 'Iraq' global warming thing must be hitting the propoganda sites.

The only time I visit the propaganda sites on either the right or the
left is when I want a good laugh. 99% of my information comes from
"mainstream" newspapers and public-interest TV programming, and I form
my own opinions on that basis. I just thought the Iraq analogy was
relevant in terms of being selective about having a conclusive
argument before acting.

Sure, there was plenty of evidence Saddam had used chemical weapons
over 10 years prior to 2003. And I agree he was a nasty ***,
that's not at issue. And why he didn't have them at the time of the
invasion, whether it was a "burning bush moment" or whatever, it was
clear in retrospect that he didn't. Possibly he ditched them in the
fear that if they were discovered he would be up ***'s creek. It
must have been a long time before 2003, because we didn't find a trace
of them (unless you believe the portable labs hoax). But in the lead-
up to the war, it started to become clearer that he didn't. (Do the
names Hans Blix and David Kay ring a bell? I don't think these two
guys had a particular axe to grind.)

Point being, in the weeks leading up to the war, more and more
evidence was being accumulated that contradicted the prevailing
wisdom. But the war drumbeats drowned it out, even coming from the
Washington Post, usually targeted by the right as a lefty paper, and
the majority of the Dems, as you have pointed out.

Another topic -- the climatologists ability to predict tomorrow's
weather. First off climatologists don't even try to do that,
meteorologists do. Furthermore, "tomorrow's weather" basically is the
result of local fluctuations in the climate and has little to do with
the average properties of the earth's weather over long time periods.
That's why those on both sides of the debate who use hurricane
frequencies to point to the validity of their arguments are full of
it. You'd have to count hurricanes for an awfully long time to get
anything statistically significant pertaining to global climate
changes one way or the other. Furthermore, from the viewpoint of
statistical mechanics, it's a lot easier to extract knowledge about
the average properties of a complex system than to calculate
properties of local and temporal fluctuations.

You said "one can come to a 'conclusion' with incomplete evidence,
with a corresponding decrease in the reliability of the decision."
Yes, you can, and you take a certain risk in doing so. If you do it,
I would argue that you have to look not only at the totality of the
evidence accumulated to date but also give extra weight to evidence
accumulated most recently, the idea being that as we keep attempting
to do something we get better at it. Viewed from that light, the
decision to go to Iraq was flawed in that it ignored the more recent
evidence. And in the argument concerning global warming, the more
recent evidence (see, e.g., "Second International Conference on Global
Warming and the Next Ice Age", Santa Fe, July 2006, http://aerosols.lanl.gov/conf2006/
) supports the "man-caused" hypothesis.

.

Loading