Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
TradIsGood
Chalkless climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 08:18pm PT
|
Will, thanks.
There was certainly a consensus on mechanics prior to 1903, in fact maybe even for a short time after.
Back to the original topic of hopelessness...
Do you think that the 50 year projections offered by GCC scientists are really just science? Do they bear any relationship to what will really transpire over 50 years?
How much non-science is modeled in? How much economics, politics, population projection, types of energy consumption, quantities of concrete production, etc., are in those models and what is their role in the "science"?
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 08:23pm PT
|
So only atmospheric scientists are credible in determining athropogenic climate change?
Quit being evasive, Will.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 08:37pm PT
|
Dr. F do you believe GCC is anthropogenic?
|
|
Will Hobbs
Trad climber
Santa Monica, CA
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 08:47pm PT
|
In reply to TradIsGood:
Good questions.
"Do you think that the 50 year projections offered by GCC scientists are really just science? Do they bear any relationship to what will really transpire over 50 years?"
Hell, I don't know, none of us do for sure. If you look at predictions from all the different models then they all show slightly different magnitudes of response. However, the general pattern that they show is pretty robust. They all show a global-mean warming; they all show big sea ice melt in the Arctic with consequent changes in ocean circulation; they all show a 'relatively' stable Antarctic for the next 30 years until the ozone hole repairs itself, and then rapid change. They all show significant sea level rise, and they all show significant environmental degradation in sub-Saharan Africa.
Some stuff, especially at a regional level, is still really uncertain. El Nino for example is a bitch to model, and its not made any easier by the fact the ocean's El Nino response to CO2 forcing is the opposite in effect to that of the atmosphere's, and we don't know which will 'win'. And a good water vapor parameterization is pretty much the 'holy grail' of modeling.
But this is a new science; we've only been doing this for about 40 years, and we're learning a phenomenal amount. The improvement between each major model's iteration (a new version comes out about every 3-5 years) is frankly incredible.
The thing is, if you talk to any decent scientist (not Fred Singer, not Jim Hansen, and certainly not Dr F) they'll be pretty honest about what we know and what we don't know. The big frustration is that the media only picks up the overblown views of a few fanatics on either side of the issue.
"How much non-science is modeled in? How much economics, politics, population projection, types of energy consumption, quantities of concrete production, etc., are in those models and what is their role in the "science"?"
The climate models are purely physical. However, they are run with different scenarios that account for human activity, e.g. no change in CO2, a doubling of CO2, reductions in CFC emission. If you do a google search for IPCC emission scenarios the standard 'prediction' scenarios.
It's also worth pointing out that long-term prediction is a relatively small part of how these models are used. Most of what we do is to experimentally force them in known and controlled ways to see how the climate responds to changes. Ideally we'd do this in a lab, but nobody has yet worked out a way of putting a planet-sized object in a lab with a time machine that lets 50 years seem like 5 minutes.
|
|
Will Hobbs
Trad climber
Santa Monica, CA
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 08:57pm PT
|
"So only atmospheric scientists are credible in determining athropogenic climate change?"
Yes.
Anyone can have an informed opinion of the scientific basis of climate change and its probable causes, but that informed opinion comes from reading scientific research. And that research comes from climate researchers. Not journalists, not geologists, not talking heads. Not even Werner ;-)
Would you like to discuss the science yet, or are you still interested in this puerile issue of whether scientists have more credibility than bluering's internet sources?
|
|
TradIsGood
Chalkless climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 09:03pm PT
|
Will, thanks.
Good answers...
Do you think it is right to be skeptical of a model, or models, that make a prediction of next year's Arctic Ice Melt, and really miss in a big way in just one year? There is one poster on here who makes a big deal of the size of the melt, notices that it is severely worse than predicted, and falls back on the "science" as evidence that we are in trouble.
To me, that is evidence of flaws in the model, so I do not use that model to draw conclusions or make predictions.
I look at it this way. The pro-GCC crowd falls back on science and consensus to bolster their opinions (and lack of knowledge of science) completely unaware that the modeling is only science, and completely unaware that the assumptions of CO2, CFC, etc. are just that - assumptions. Most of the anti-GCC crowd is likewise clueless about basic science and seek confirmation of their opinions wherever they may find them.
But you and I know that the assumptions are there. We may act on them or not in the short term. But we really can't predict when or how man's "carbon footprint" will change any more than we could have predicted the automobile and airplanes in the days of the horse, stagecoach and pony express.
Three years ago, almost nobody could have predicted the financial crisis. Nobody can predict next year's oil, coal or enriched uranium prices. Today, very few have a clue what happened in the financial markets despite a firestorm of reporting - ok, that perhaps is not fair, since few reporters have the least understanding either.
My problem with GCC science is not the research or science - it is the politization of the science by the UN and governments, and their use of it for purely political ends.
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 18, 2009 - 09:14pm PT
|
Well said Will.
I agree that the issue is so complex that we'll need many years
to come to reliable conclusions. The media could drive us into
worthless projects if we don't fight the scare stories with ridicule until we know more.
If we don't I can imagine everyone walking around with the 'mandatory' CO2 scrubber gas mask on.
filled with soda lime granules of course - basically Drain-O
The main components of soda lime are
* Calcium hydroxide, Ca(OH)2 (about 75%),
* Water, H2O (about 20%),
* Sodium hydroxide, NaOH (about 3%), and
* Potassium hydroxide, KOH (about 1%).
|
|
Will Hobbs
Trad climber
Santa Monica, CA
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 09:32pm PT
|
"Do you think it is right to be skeptical of a model, or models, that make a prediction of next year's Arctic Ice Melt, and really miss in a big way in just one year?"
Well, yes and no. (Ha, how's that for weaselly answer!). To me, it may indicate that there are deficiencies somewhere in the model; it might be the sea ice component, or it might be the modelled atmosphere/ocean that's driving it. So, I would want to get in there and find out where the deficiency is.
However, that doesn't necessarily mean that the model is completely useless, especially if in the long term it simulates sea ice very well most of the time, and this is just a weird year.
We CANNOT predict an individual weather event with absolutely certainty, even theoretically that's impossible for a chaotic system. Imagine we had a model that was large enough to calculate the state of each atmospheric atom in the world at each time step. The only way of getting that model to run with 100% accuracy would be to set it going with the exact observed state of every atom at the same time (which obviously we can never observe). Any chaotic system is very sensitive to small changes, that's what chaotic means. This is just a rather long-winded way of saying that we will never predict the weather with 100% accuracy ALL the time, and we will never predict every season's climate completely accurately 100% of the time. But with time and effort, we can get pretty damn close.
"My problem with GCC science is not the research or science - it is the politization of the science by the UN and governments, and their use of it for purely political ends."
I could not agree more. In Europe (I'm English BTW) the 'politicization' thing is less of a problem; there are skeptics and believers, but they don't fall across party lines as is the case here in the US. That's why I try and steer clear of activists, even if I broadly agree with them. Jim Hansen has, I think, given ammo to GCC deniers by making overblown and exaggerated claims about what we know, and has probably done more damage than Fred Singer. I see my role as a scientist simply to inform people, and if I voice an opinion to make it clear that is a viewpoint, not a scientific fact.
For the record, I believe that we are in a period of significant change, and the fossil record indicates that the speed of this change is unprecedented, at least in the Holocene. I believe that model simulations, whilst imperfect, robustly indicate that the only viable explanation for this change is anthropogenic forcing. I accept that some bright spark might come up with some new idea tomorrow that will completely change our view on this. However, the consequences that this does NOT happen are too serious to just 'hope for the best', as far as we can tell. In 10 years time we will know much, much more. But the worst case scenario is that in 10 years time it will be too late.
|
|
TradIsGood
Chalkless climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 10:10pm PT
|
Good stuff.
At least we are 90% sure! Better odds than winning the lottery.
Just out of curiosity, what is your take on the atmospheric scientists' take on the public write-ups? Is everyone of the attitude that we are sure enough that it is ok, because of the magnitude of the risks? Is funding at risk, if they voice public disagreement with the "consensus"?
Is the real problem so complex, that leaving it to atmospheric (ocean) physicists actually is a major mistake? Are the atmospheric scientists doing the physical equivalent of solving all of the zero friction, idealized case problems?
Certainly there is a feedback in the system. All of these publications are going to change the response - in fact, probably already have.
The last great master of all physics - Enrico Fermi - got a Nobel Prize in physics - for a discovery that was false, in fact, his error had been pointed out to him by a chemist, a woman.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 10:32pm PT
|
but that informed opinion comes from reading scientific research. And that research comes from climate researchers. Not journalists, not geologists, not talking heads.
So climate researchers studying the last 100 years of weather/climate can now make accurate predictions regarding 'Global' climate change?
Is the average mean temperature the only thing that determines anthropogenic CG, and if so, why?
|
|
tooth
Mountain climber
Guam
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 10:45pm PT
|
I'll tell you all when global warming happens! My house will be underwater here on this spit of an island and I have a doctorate, so I'm a specialist in the field! ha ha ha
In the past 8 months the av. temp of the water here has gone from 86 to 81 (in deg.F for you non-scientist Americans) I notice because I dive, and I want a wet suit now.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 10:48pm PT
|
keep me posted on the dive-computer readouts, tooth!
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 10:56pm PT
|
hey TiG, what is this about Fermi?
he was awarded the 1938 Physics Prize
"for his demonstrations of the existence of new radioactive elements produced by neutron irradiation, and for his related discovery of nuclear reactions brought about by slow neutrons"
which I believe is not false...
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 11:04pm PT
|
jpt: "Every week to 10 days, another coal-fired power plant opens somewhere in China that is big enough to serve all the households in Dallas or San Diego."
Woo hoo! Since everybody else is doing it, why shouldn't we?
cc: "Carbon Footprint reduction is hopeless"
Woo hoo! I'm buyin' a Hummer, then!
jpt & cc, denizens of the depths of personal responsibility...you guys should start a political party.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2009 - 12:09am PT
|
Apogee, I don't think everyone should own a Hummer, but I also belive people shouldn't be taxed for owning the 'wrong' cars like the enviro-wacko's suggest.
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 19, 2009 - 12:30am PT
|
The colossal vanity of primitive tribes thinking their
misbehavior's caused the hunt to fail, the stormy weather or floods, crop failures, sickness & deaths. Pretty silly huh?
But they were absolutely certain they'd brought disaster on themselves.
Their solutions were elaborate ceremonies and sacrifices to please the gods and when these did not work it meant the gods were still angry and needed more worship. More sacrifice!
That well meaning vanity is still a part of humanity and now takes the form of Carbon Footprint Reduction.
Silly rabbits. Tricks are for..
|
|
tooth
Mountain climber
Guam
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2009 - 12:50am PT
|
Oh please, ceremonies and rain dances. We are an enlightened society of scientists. The answer is paying money to government beaurocrats.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2009 - 01:12am PT
|
Tooth is on a roll.....must be the weather in Guam!
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2009 - 01:27am PT
|
"Apogee, I don't think everyone should own a Hummer, but I also belive people shouldn't be taxed for owning the 'wrong' cars like the enviro-wacko's suggest."
I dunno, Bluering, setting aside the whole carbon footprint issue, it conceptually seems quite reasonable to tax those who use more of our shared resources (i.e. petroleum) than others. And Hummers use more resources, no doubt about it. Maybe taxation isn't the best solution, but there ought to be some way to bring better balance to such extravagantly wasteful use of something we all need.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!