Rolled Out On: 12/31/2005 5:55 PM

Tsunamis are caused by earthquakes. One wonders how the temperature of the air affects what's happening 1000 feet underground...

Rolled Out On: 12/31/2005 9:10 PM

The fact that I didn't catch that makes me an idiot. But that's a point worth expanding on.

(And dammit T, where've you been?)

Rolled Out On: 1/1/2006 5:27 PM

What bugs me about this is not that I think that climate change does not exist - I believe it does. I have read the evidence, very compelling scientific evidence. It's not even the question of whether man has a hand in it. Again I think we do, I think a lot of the evidence is showing that we have contributed to the problem. One study in particular suggested that it is less our emissions than the timing of our increased emissions. Anyway, that isn't what bugged me. What bugged me was the linking of the hurricane and the tsunami to climate change. Ridiculous, cannot be supported at this time by any evidence, particularly the tsunami. It is things like this, linked by the stupid, which damage the argument of those of us who worry about climate change. They provide straw men which are easily dismissed and consequently weaken the real scientific case in the court of public opinion.

Rolled Out On: 1/1/2006 9:02 PM

Well Kav, yes climate change is provable. Man's involvement isn't as clear cut as you like to believe. There are solar issues to contend with, that pesky law of thermodynamics and the way the earth must radiate it's heat back into space, natural phenomenon such as volcanic activity, clouds, etc. There is absolutely NO scientific proof that pinpoints man's activity to anything more than localized changes, most of those due to the increase in concrete cities and their heat retention.

Globally, you can find numbers that even show a cooling trend. Heck, back in the 70's we were all told we were causing the next ice age. I also remember being told (and still being told) that we're wiping out the rain forests and that if we don't stop at the current rate, in X years there won't be any more. 20 years ago that was said, and there's still rainforests.

CO2 levels were 5 times what they are today back in the day of the dinosaurs, and the earth survived.

Look, even if the Earth does increase in temperature, won't evolution fix it? Won't plants and animals that can stand the heat get to stay in the kitchen? You and I are part of nature. So our activities are governed by natural processes. Even if we goof up, increase the temp by 200°K in 10 years, the surface you and I inhabit will die off and the sea will spit something back out again to take over.

What frosts my keister is that most of these 'scientific proofs' involve 200 variables that we have no clue on and simply saying 'if every one happens exactly as so - we're screwed' when we don't even understand how 199 of the variables work in the first place.

There are many issues I care about when it comes to the environment. Energy usage is definitely one of them. Pollution is another. But there's no chance those things will get the attention they deserve when unscientific, emotional bullshit is front page fodder for 'Global Warming' that tries to pin the blame on the wrong things, giving people the wrong impression that higher MPG cars are all that's needed to fix the problem.

Thank God both Clinton and Bush didn't buy into Kyoto.

Rolled Out On: 1/2/2006 12:45 PM

Don't forget. NASA's various missions to Mars have found evidence of global warming there as well.

I didn't know that Halliburtan had a Martian office.

Regards,
Dann

Rolled Out On: 1/2/2006 1:16 PM

I understand the power of the solar variables (well, for a given value of 'understand'), solar-terrestrial physics is what I do for a living. That is why I think man is having an influence. Lets clear up one thing, I don't think we are destroying the Earth. I don't think we are destroying the Earth as a habitat for life. What I think we are doing is changing the environment in such a way as we will damage the current eco-system and in particular in ways that could have devastating effects for large parts of the human population.

As I alluded to earlier, I think our problem is more of a matter of timing. At the moment we are in the process of an upswing in global average temperatures that correlates with increased solar activity (though of course correlation does not equal causation), the last large downswing was in the 1600s when the little Ice Age coincided with the Maunder minimum when few to no sunspots were observed. At this same time we are pumping the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Now if we had done that 400 years ago to the levels we are doing now there would probably have been no immediate effect. the problem arises since we are doing it now on an upswing. There is a chance that the added increase in warming caused by greenhouse gases is enough to upset the balance of the feedback systems that regulate the cooling of the Earth.


One thing I think we might agree on is the way the debate is framed. It really is too emotive an issue, but I don't blame the scientists for that (not all of them anyway), I blame the media representation of the science. There always seems to be a desire to play-up the dramatic angle in the hope that this will draw readership. And to our detriment we in the field have been drawn into playing this game by convincing ourselves that it is the only way to get attention.

I really do apologise if I come across as preachy and patronising, I don't intend to but this is a subject that gets my goat, especially when words like 'irrefutable proof' are thrown around. There is very little in the world of physics that I would suggest is irrefutable evidence for a given theory. Funnily enough I actually used to think that the solar effect could account for all the heating, but I have been convinced by the science that it cannot. Unless more convincing evidence appears to suggest otherwise, that is the tack I will stick with.

Rolled Out On: 1/2/2006 9:40 PM

Kav,

A couple modest points meant as polite rejoinders.

1) The fatalist/doomsday approach to presenting this issue is flawed. [a point you appear to appreciate] Such worst-case futures are outliers in every report I've ever read. (and that isn't all that many....so grain of salt time) The more likely mid-range estimates are not nearly as scary as the disaster scenarios.

2) It would be far easier to accept those dire predictions if the proposed solutions were indeed global in scale. Letting China, India, and other third world nations off the hook at a time when their development of production capacity is just beginning and when the first and second worlds are having trouble maintaining a job base for their citizens does nothing to enhance the credibility of those proposed solutions.

3) Perhaps the science would be easier to swallow if there were a greater focus on solutions that would not require such a significant change in our power usage. Either cleaner energy sources or steps to counter CO₂ emissions such as sequestration.

The focus to date has been to respond to atmospheric science with regulation when the solution really is more science [and engineering].

Regards,
Dann

Rolled Out On: 1/3/2006 9:17 AM

Kav,

Sorry if I appeared to be snippy myself, it wasn't meant that way. I just happen to agree with Dann - the doomsday scenario just isn't plausible in my book.

The reason why is similar to the outcry from the launch of the Cassini Hyugens probe. So many people cried that the plutonium reactor would kill the entire earth if it exploded and if the reactor crumbled into perfect dust and if it happened at an exact altitude and if the wind stayed perfect and carried the fine dust over the entire world and if it wasn't raining anywhere and if and if and if.

Too many variables (the worst case would have been the rocket popped and large chunks of Plutonium would have sunk to the bottom of the ocean).

Us wrecking the ecology of the earth simply contains too many ifs that have to be met exactly to make me believe we're really in a bad spot. I'm not saying that we should increase CO2 output. I'm not saying we shouldn't be aware of the land around us and protect what we can. I just don't believe we're going to wreck the lives of humans everywhere without draconian laws that no one is going to follow anyway.

Personally, I crave alternate energy sources. Mostly because I'm geeky, but I also would love to see something efficient that would also allow cleaner air and land. This is why I support nuke plants and am baffled that we're not building 100's of them each year to replace aging coal burners.

Sorry if I seem to take it the wrong way, and I truly appreciate your views and opinions. Thanks for the comments! (You too Dann)

Rolled Out On: 1/3/2006 10:09 AM

Dann,

1) agreed, though with the caveat that some serious effects are not outliers, though the outliers truly do represent catastrophic problems. It is often these that that the media latch onto why? Because the media are dumb and assume that average joe is too. They are wrong but there you go.

2) totally agreed, it really does have to be eneryone in it together. Though we make the problem worse if we refuse to do something because X isn't doing anything so why should we. That holds for everyone and is not meant as an attack on US policy.

3) we deviate a little here. I want new technologies that will help the situation but it is dangerous (I think) to assume that there will be a magic bullet. There might not be - I hope there is. I think some sacrificies need to be made and they can be done voluntarily without massive regulation, whether they will is another matter.


Robb, debate like this is good, remove the emotion and get down to brass tacks. I take your point about the variables, but your analogy is not quite right. There are more degrees of freedom in the climate prediction models but they do not have to line up one after another (if-and-if-and-if), some directly effect others and we can say with a certain amount of confidence what will happen to one variable if another changes. You are mistaken to suggest that we have to exactly hit certain outcomes. Of course that is what it comes down to - statistics. The models are not just one hit and leave - they are run many many times with small changes to examine the differences in the results, then we look to see the spread of results and sometimes the spread is quite tight. It allows us to make predictionsto a good confidence level. I say we but i must admit that I am not a modeller, I am an observationalist. And that is the other angle, these models are validated by the observations. they don't just predict what will happen they run the models from a time in the past to modern day and compare the results with now and each step in between. We ain't just pissing in the dark here :-)

If we want to do something about climate change do you know the first thing we should do? Stop the media reporting on it like they are doing, and reclaim the debate from the environmentalists and the cynical best-selling authors.