[Al_U_Card]

That might explain why the CO2 concentration trails the temperature rise......

[hotShot]

The blind discussing "sight" getting their information from some colorblind, shortsighted friends........
Oh Lord have mercy!

[Al_U_Card]

While being observed by the obnoxious?

(Contributing rather than criticizing is the best way to straighten things out, no?)

[Winstonm]

Han, I don't mean to pick on you but this:

Quote

DrTodd, do you get money (directly or indirectly) from the oil companies?

\

is an ad hominem attack no?


The question of global warming versus cooling seems less important to me than determination of either cause, how significant a threat, and whether or not anything can be done.

There were a lot of brilliant minds conjuring up the quant models that led to the U.S. housing collapse. I would hope that scientific models would be more accurate. The models will be data dependent - so guessword in/guesswork out.

[whereagles]

DrTodd13, on Feb 28 2008, 06:50 PM, said:

1. It is my understanding that the oceans are continually near saturation with CO2. If the oceans get warmer they can hold less CO2 and so there is a net outflow. If the oceans get cooler they absorb more CO2. So, I don't know how your author came to those conclusions but they are not what I have heard.

2. I love this selective quoting of the wikipedia page re that H20 is only 4x greater greenhouse effect than CO2. The page clearly states that this is only true if cloud cover remains constant and the page says this is an unrealistic assumption if what you are testing is a decrease in water vapor.

1. Your understanding of the matter is correct. More temp = more bubbling = more CO2 released. I'm also not totally sure what's going on, but presumably what this means is current temperature still isn't hot enough to reverse oceanic exchange into net outflow. Hence, the extra CO2 into the atmosphere must be of anthropogenic origin.

Actually the numbers on the book are a bit old. Maybe someone can try and find some revised version it.

2. Well, I dunno if the assumption totally invalidades conclusions or if it's a good 1st round approximation.

[han]

Winstonm, on Feb 28 2008, 08:27 PM, said:

Han, I don't mean to pick on you but this:

Quote

DrTodd, do you get money (directly or indirectly) from the oil companies?

\

is an ad hominem attack no?

Definitely an ad hominem attack, maybe also an interesting question. When somebody who claims to have had a higher education comes up with arguments as in the link presented in the initial post I get very suspicious.

I promised myself I would stop posting in this thread but I really dislike the rest of your post. Data means guesswork? Does that mean that basically all of physics is nothing more than guesswork? So many personal attacks come to mind, all appropriate and justified...

[DrTodd13]

If you're so damned sure that human-caused GW is true then what odds will you give me that 20 years from now that premise will still be accepted? Someone with your level of conviction I'd think would be willing to go at least 1000:1. Put your money where your mouth is.

[Winstonm]

Quote

I really dislike the rest of your post. Data means guesswork? Does that mean that basically all of physics is nothing more than guesswork? So many personal attacks come to mind, all appropriate and justified...

Chill, dude. I appreciate the way you responded. You are more than welcome as is anyone else to dislike what I or anyone else posts. That is as it should be.

However, I don't know where you got the idea that I suggested physics is mere guesswork - I believe what I said is that in models if guesswork goes in guesswork will come out. I brought up the point of the economic quantitative models used for housing - created by brilliant minds, PhDs in economics and mathematics - who looked at (X) number of years and concluded that home prices would continue to rise for the foreseeable future. Guess what? The data was right - what they measured showed home increases - but it wasn't enough data to see the big picture. The models proved to be wrong even with valid data going in.

Now here we are in a housing collapse and on the brink of recession. I'd prefer not to repeat that modeling error in global warming on a global scale with trillions and trillions of dollars of economic activity at stake.

All I'm saying is I'm unclear whether enough data is available to make an accurate assessment of the causes and cures of global warming. I know there has been global cooling before due to the ice age; I also know there has been global warming before because the ice age melted. What I don't know is whether or not what is occuring now is natural or manmade. I am not sure in my own mind that global ecosystems and other phenomenon are well enough understood not to have guesswork go into a model, whether a global warming model or global cooling model. And I'm certainly not convinced that the global warming is manmade and not the result of other causes.

That does not mean I wouldn't support better emissions controls - but it also means I am not ready to accept "the sky falling" without better input.

And even if the sky is falling - is there anything we can do about it?

You obviously have a lot of passion for your beliefs - keep in mind that others may not be as wise or intelligent or as knowledgeable on the subject as you and thus any personal attacks you make only belittle you - not your target.

That's my 2 cents - you can keep the change.

[helene_t]

I don't think anyone is denying that there is a lot of uncertainty at play here. Han said in his first post (edit it was not his first post) (referring to the possibility that the theory of manmade global warming would be disproved) that "weirder things have happened".

Still, "guesswork" may be an exaggeration. Does that term suggest a probability of 50%? 70%? 90%? 98%? (Of course it is too complex to be summarized in a single percentage but you get my point I suppose).

[Winstonm]

helene_t, on Feb 29 2008, 09:28 PM, said:

I don't think anyone is denying that there is a lot of uncertainty at play here. Han said in his first post (refering to the possibility that the theory of manmade global warming would be disproved) that "weirder things have happened".

Still, "guesswork" may be an exaggeration. Does that term suggest a probability of 50%? 70%? 90%? 98%? (Of course it is too complex to be summarized in a single percentage but you get my point I suppose).

That's a good point, Helene, and up for debate. I'm not sure if there is enough knowledge to even know if we can determine the proper percentage. Do we have millions of years of climate records, millions of years of sun activity records, millions of years of oceanic records - and even if we had all the necessary information, do we know enough to put all the pieces together in the correct sequence to determine cause and effect?

Maybe guesswork is a poor word choice - and I am not attempting to belittle the science or scientists involved - but I am wondering if the complexity of this occurence isn't more than any model can replicate - hence, my term of guesswork.

[helene_t]

What are you suggesting, Winston? Most (if not all) decisions, whether individual or collective, are made facing uncertainty. For example, developed countries spend something like 15% of GNP on health care, although "evidence-based medicine" is almost an oxymoron.

[Winstonm]

helene_t, on Feb 29 2008, 09:47 PM, said:

What are you suggesting, Winston? Most (if not all) decisions, whether individual or collective, are made facing uncertainty. For example, developed countries spend something like 15% of GNP on health care, although "evidence-based medicine" is almost an oxymoron.

It seems to me, Helene, that there are only four considerations that need to be addressed: 1) global warming is manmade or 2) global warming is a natural phenomenon (and man may be contributing somewhat) or 3) global warming is a natural phenomenon and man's impact is minimal, and 4) regardless of cause, what are the consequences going to be?

If #1 is the correct answer, then the repercussions are obviously global and may be horrendous therefore all available resources should be galvanized into action to stop the process - this sounds like a made-for-tv movie. So even if this is correct, I'd want an 80% chance of horrific repercussions before I would support so much disruption.

If #2 is correct, then a slower and more prudent approach to inhibit to a degree any manmade causes and continue climate change studies.

If #3 is correct then why all the bother other than to realign populations out of harm's way.

Note that for me, if answer #1 is a global calamity that must take priority over all other of man's economic and social activities - that is something more than voting for what a certain country wants for a government - so to galvanize a worldwide response should have an extremely low error factor - virtually none. (Note: this means virtually 100% proof of being manmade then with another 80% proof of catastrophic affects before I would support a global, all-out attempt to change the course.)

What appears to me to be happening to me is the likelihood of #2 being correct with a call for a #1 response. If so, a more gradual change is less disruptive to the world's economies and citizens.

[kenrexford]

Kind of an interestng debate to extrapolate out into other issues.

If we have a source of information, conclusions from which are perhaps tainted by ideology, we have a tough issue to resolve. We might simply decide to follow ideology or we might try to gather more facts. In the end, though, it does seem that a decision must be made, and time for reflection may be an asset we lack or that we may lack. Once we make that decision, we may later determine that this decision was questionable, or premature, although we may still not know. For, the mere act of responding to assumed problems changes the variables wildly. Our initial assumptions may have proven incomplete and/or in part inaccurate, but we deal with the existing, changing circumstances as we best know how. It may be that the course turned out to have benefits we did not expect and costs that we did not expect, but a course had to be chosen with the information we had at that point.

I wonder if there are any other issues of the day where this analysis might also apply...

[Winstonm]

Helene,

Somewhat off topic but somewhat on topic. For many who are not experts in a particular field of studies, trust becomes an important issue.

I am not a scientists and have no strong feelings either way about global warming; I've read somewhat but much of that information is contradictory. So if I needed to make a decision - if it were important - I'd ask someone who I trusted to be honest and non-biased about their response and knew what they were talking about.

I wouldn't ask for explanations or reasoning or arguments.

In truth, I'd probably ask you.

[helene_t]

Hi Winston, tx very much for your trust, unfortunately my understanding of this is limited to a few very rudimentary facts, in particular
- CO2 is a head trap so the first-order effect of CO2 emission is a hotter climate.

However, how strong the effect is I don't know, and what the final picture is when all feed-back effects are taken into account I don't know, nor do I know if a slightly hotter climate is necessarily bad, nor do I know what it would cost to stop the process and what is politically feasible.

So like you, I can only rely on people I know (personally or as public figures) who I judge to be knowledgeable and unbiased, but I'm afraid I can mention no such person. I don't know a single person personally who has done serious research on any of the related issues. What I find interesting is that Bjorn Lomborg (the "skeptical environmentalist") who is one of the few knowledgeable people with an obvious bias in the "other" direction does not deny manmade global warming, his point is just that the Kyoto protocol will cost a lot of money and do very little to slow down the process.

Lomborg might be right, Gore might be right, but since both have an obvious bias I suppose the truth is somewhere in between. I could easily be wrong, though.

My personal gut feelings (which are probably worth less than GBP 0.02) is that most of the scenaria for this century are not that scary, but that there might be a risk for an insane run-away effect in the more distant future. Now this becomes even more uncertain of course, but anyway I find it scary, although I am not that worried for what will happen in my own lifetime. As for the costs, I think oil is about to end and no matter what one thinks about this climate issue there are a lot of other good reasons for going nuclear, solar etc so we might as well aim at phasing out the use of fossil fuels over the next few decades.

[Gerben42]

Quote

My personal gut feelings (which are probably worth less than GBP 0.02)

That would be your regular 3 cents (4 if you are in the States).

I think that there is a partial man-made effect in addition to the "natural" global climate. I don't know how large it is. What I do know is that the human-made part is not going to shrink any time soon. We can talk all we like but the people won't vote for politicians who hurt their wallet due to tough climate-saving regulations (not the soft ones that some politicians are suggesting now). So there will be none. Also the large producers of the 21st century (USA & China) won't stop.

So my advice is: Take it as it comes. Be prepared.

[hrothgar]

DrTodd13, on Mar 1 2008, 04:08 AM, said:

If you're so damned sure that human-caused GW is true then what odds will you give me that 20 years from now that premise will still be accepted? Someone with your level of conviction I'd think would be willing to go at least 1000:1. Put your money where your mouth is.

Ah, once again the Biblical literalist dons the mantel of the professional skeptic...

I find your pretensions of skepticism out right offensive. You exhibit as much of an absolutist mentality as anyone on this forum. Even if we ignore your political discourse, quotes like the following are incredibly telling

Quote

Consciousness transfer to a human-like robotic body and brain may be down the road but in the interim, we will soon (soon being relative, 50 or 100 years...not necessarily too close) have the capability to produce nanobots that can go in and repair all damage due to time from the body. Lifespans of 1000s of years or indefinite may be possible. If such technology is indeed possible, I doubt God will allow humans to possess it. I can't constrain God but He did at one point reduce human lifespan to around 120 years for a reason and I don't see that reason as having changed.

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...ethuselah&st=15

The only time that I've seen you exhibit any skepticism is when you're attempting to undermine arguments that violate your own absolutist world view.

You happily regurgitate all sorts of ridiculous crap without anything remotely resembling research...

[kenberg]

Natural versus man made causes: I think there are few people and virtually no scientists who still believe that human activity is not a significant factor in global warming. Suppose for the moment, as very well may be true, that there are also significant natural forces at work here and suppose, as also may well be true, that there is nothing we can do to push back against these natural forces.

It does not at all follow that we should not address the man made factors. If natural events are going to cause us some trouble, addressing the man made component may be the difference between trouble and disaster.

Gerben is pessimistic about anyone being able to rouse anyone to do much of substance. I somewhat share this pessimism. Still, strong leaders can sometimes lead. I'm sure I'm not the only guy around who thinks that it is more important to tend to the welfare of the planet than it is to get a super sized tax refund. We cannot be the generation that trashes the planet. That's not what I want engraved on my tombstone.

[PassedOut]

kenberg, on Mar 1 2008, 09:56 AM, said:

I'm sure I'm not the only guy around who thinks that it is more important to tend to the welfare of the planet than it is to get a super sized tax refund. We cannot be the generation that trashes the planet. That's not what I want engraved on my tombstone.

Nor I.

It seems to me many deny man-made global heating because accepting the reality would demand action that might be uncomfortable.

[Al_U_Card]

Our choices to date have been:

healthy meal:unhealthy meal:poisonous meal:no meal

we have been hungry and will remain so.

Seems clear to me.