RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (5) < [1] 2 3 4 5 >   
  Topic: Difference between Global Warming Science, and global warming politics?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 16 2008,15:36   

It just randomly occurred to me that some people might conflate the two topics and potentially not really understand the difference at all.

Maybe some of you fine minds would like to have a crack at explaining Global Warming Science or perhaps pointing out why it can't be separated from politics, who knows. Go crazy.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 16 2008,15:38   

let's clarify on what exactly we mean by a 'fifference', shall we?

is this one of those poofter words that the brits use?

or is it the output of a comparison between don knotts and andy griffith?

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 16 2008,15:42   

That's two gay posts in a row for you, Rasser

Lou / Steve and or Wes can clean up the typo.


Derailing over!

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 16 2008,15:46   

I think politics has an agenda (vested parties etc) and so will try and influence research to support these ends. Then you have those jebus will come Christians who think its all prophesied to end anyway so why take care of it?

It all depends which side of "Research" you put "Findings"

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 16 2008,16:21   

Erasmus, have you read any of your books? In Praise of Folly particularly?

Anyway, Rich, I think I'm tracking here. Let's say, er, someone were to write:
Quote (skeptic @ April 14 2008,11:41)
Since I have a moment let's look at a few of the points you made and let others decide what is science and what is politics.

- in 10-20 years we will see the results but for some it will be too late

- wars need to be replaced by diplomacy concerning limited resources

- money spent in Iraq could end global poverty (My personal favorite)

- money spent in Iraq should be used to build nuclear power plants (funny, money has never been an issue there)

- finally, some of this is opinion but the rest is undeniable...huh?

So, again, what is the problem?  What is being denied and what needs to be addresses?

Is it CO2, ozone depletion, deforestation and extinction or poverty, war or nuclear power?

Seems like a political discussion to me and not one about the science of climate change.

George, I think the actual contribution of short term temperature change and long term climate effects is largely in dispute.  Just over the last two years we've seen multiple opinions as to what impact GW has had in hurricane formation.  Funny thing is those discussions came in the wake of Katrina which screams of opportunism and not science.


Would that demonstrate putting 'findings' on one particular side of 'research'?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 16 2008,16:26   

Yes. Yes it would.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 16 2008,17:01   

Then, supposing someone were to reply something like this:
Quote (Louis @ April 15 2008,03:09)
...

Which of those things you list are science and which are more geopolitics? Surely even one so dull as you can make that distinction.

Marx? Reading in your own prejudices again? As usual.

I'll clarify it for you further:

1) The post you whined about is not an exposition of purest science. As stated. It is a woolly response to woolly questions/issues.

2) There ARE scientific issues pertinent to the "climate change debate", as opposed to the politics of the "climate change debate", some of which you appear (although this is by no means clear, you never actually state a position just whine about other's positions) to deny (climate tipping points/the effects of atmospheric CO2 pp might be two of them). Clarify your position on the SCIENCE.

3) Pick some relevant scientific topic, for example the effects of atmospheric CO2 pp on climate if you deny its effects or some specific effect, and we'll discuss the relevant science. This requires you to clarify what YOU think about climate change. This is a very different thing from whining about what other people think.

4) As a seperate, but related issue, you owe me an apology for LYING about what I wrote and my position on climate change. Nowhere did I mention (or even insinuate) "end of life" etc or other such cataclysmic pronouncements. You deliberately distorted my comments based on your own prejudices. Justify this or retract it please.

Understand yet?

Louis


That would be an appropriate response?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 16 2008,19:22   

subtle, lol.

Here's my point, there's a complete difference between examining the mechanisms of climate change and trying to learn how they interact to produce the observed results and extrapolating a predetermined outcome and evaluating how that disproportionately affects the haves and the have nots.  One of those discussions is science and the other is politics, IMO.

Again, IMO, one of those discussions can be fruitful and advance the body of knowledge while the other only advances an agenda, whether right or wrong.  I think that is as concise a summary of my point as I can make.

  
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 16 2008,20:49   

Quote (skeptic @ April 16 2008,19:22)
Here's my point, there's a complete difference between examining the mechanisms of climate change and trying to learn how they interact to produce the observed results and extrapolating a predetermined outcome and evaluating how that disproportionately affects the haves and the have nots.  One of those discussions is science and the other is politics, IMO.

I disagree. I would argue that determining the effects of climate change falls under the remit of science. Where politics comes in is in deciding what to do about the effects and determining the relative importance to give to curbing the production of greenhouse gasses by wealthy people versus poor people, the balance between the costs and benefits of different options, the relative importance of wildlife and people in different areas, what to do about international migration resulting from climate change and so on.

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 16 2008,21:02   

I considered not fixing it.  I kinda liked "Fifference".

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2008,00:14   

yeah, Fifference, i was just trying to play Old 97.  on the rest of it i had no opinion, and who would ever want to admit that.  i plead the filth.  

changed my mind about no opinion.  Hey there Joe Schmoe, what is the material threshold where you, as an individual (and not as a republican or a minn-e-sooooo-tan or what have you), give a fuck, about something as abstract and non-referential to reality as 'global mean temperature'?

Aren't there a host of lower level phenomena that are much better proxies for things most people give a shit about?

if it got too warm for speckled trout, for instance, I would lead a march upon Richmond.  or Charlotte.  or Atlanta.  again.  or at least nashville.  or knoxville.  perhaps parrotsville.  but sommers by god.  

but global temperature?  nah.  too abstract.  pretty much a meaningless number.  most of us took stats you know.  -rolls eyes, tosses hair, throws up a little bit in mouth-

if we had a better currency of comparison than these big global numbers that i know for sure are to only be taken with a swig of ye olde charcoal flavored, as well as a grain of salt and a dose of salve.  you might convince more of the old guard, the hook and bullet crowd and the savvy agrobusiness types that surely can smell the change in the wind and start hyping losses due to 'climate change' and all of that litigious bullshit that makes scientist poo poo just a little bit down their britches leg.  but that is the kinda frame that makes this shit purty to look at.  No thanks for me.

wasn't there a recent nature or science paper about climate change and range shifts of about 40 species?  those are the sort of empirical data that are difficult to argue away as politics (skeptic.... nevermind).  And they refer to things that make sense to Everyman.  

If you grant an ontology to status quo, then it is hard to have an objective conversation about this issue.  black fist?

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
k.e..



Posts: 3746
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2008,01:48   

I was on a flight a few weeks back talking to a Marine Biologist who works on auditing toxic mine waste for the EU in 3rd world countries.

She claimed that a far bigger and more immediate problem that pales GW is here now.

A global food crisis.

Thailand one of the world's biggest rice exporters has already cut exports and many countries in SEA cannot find enough rice to feed the poorest people at a sustainable level.

hmmm...... I'm feeling peckish I'm going to eat something.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2008,03:51   

Three things:

1) BWE stop trying to poke the bear so obviously. You're rapidly ceasing to be funny.

2) Richard Simmons exposed Skeptic's misunderstanding already.

3) K.E. Speak to Norman Borlaug.

Done.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2008,05:06   

Even given that he is trying to poke large furry mammals, the question is pretty much a fair one.  

The issue of course comes down to who pays for what.  Some people don't think there will be any bad things happen from CO2.  Some people currently produce lots of CO2 as a by product of their industries, and don't want to pay for currently externalised costs.  Others are afraid of constraints upon the "free" (meaning currently biased in their favour) market.  
On the other side, we have a range of people, from emotionally extravagant people who looove all the animals, to people who see that global warming will impact most upon the poor, and are somewhat bothered by this, as well as those who see that it will have a number of negative effects, and believe that a free market, when given the correct signals, can help.  

I'm going to shamelessly steal a comment from Deltoid, by ecologist Jeff HArvey:
Quote
Tim Worstall,

Your comment that the economists are 'deeply divided' about the costs and benefits of 'adaptation' versus 'mitigation' is meaningless without more substance.

The economists that you talk about are also divided into two camps: the neoclassical economists (like Nordhaus) who think that humans are more-or-less exempt from the laws of nature, and downplay the effects of climate change because they argue that it will mostly affect 'unmanaged ecosystems', and the more ecologically minded economists like Dasgupta, Daly, Viedermann etc. The former group, of which the late Julian Simon was another, appear to believe that there are no constraints on material growth; once constraints are approached, then good old human ingenuity will step in and we will forever increase the planet's human carrying capacity.

This ignores the fact that the world's major and most productive ecosystems - coastal marine, freshwater and terrestrial - are all in terminal decline. Forget the impacts of the material economy in driving wetland loss and eutrophication, fraying food webs, the rapid depletion of soil quality, falling water tables, and mass extinction - many of the neoclassical economists believe that these things don't much matter anyway, because humans have evolved above and beyond any natural limitations. I recall Peter Huber, a conservative American economist, writing some years ago in his book, 'Hard Green: Saving the Environment from the Environmentalists' that 'Humanity can survive just fine in a planet covering crypt of concrete and computers'. What's alarming is that there are many people in positions of power who believe this nonsense.

The problem, as I see it as a population ecologist, is that the neoclassical economists are living in something of a fantasy land, where the effects of climate change (and other anthropogenic processes) on the functioning of our global ecological life support systems are excluded from their tidy little econometric models. This is because many of the neoclassical economists just don't seem to understand how important 'unmanaged' ecosystems are. So they perpetually push the 'adaptation' mantra, irrespective of the costs of human activities on natural systems and their potential longer term consequences for the material economy.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid....-837474

Part of the problem is simply that we cannot have hard in your face clear evidence that global warming will do lots of damage.  We have lots of projections, and expectations.  Quantifying the costs is very hard, and economists are not really up to the job, or rather, there are splits in the profession based upon what they actually value.  A large percentage of humanity only values themselves, and has difficulty seeing what else they need to survive.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2008,05:17   

Quote (guthrie @ April 17 2008,11:06)
[SNIP good stuff]

Part of the problem is simply that we cannot have hard in your face clear evidence that global warming will do lots of damage.

[SNIP]

If by this you mean we cannot know if climate change, or more specifically the anthropogenic elements of climate change, will do lots of damage based on the available science, then I disagree entirely.

We can make a variety of scientific predictions with a variety of degrees of certainty derived from available evidence. And we have a good track record of doing so. Better than that we have hard, in your face, clear evidence that certain anthropogenic aspects of climate change and ecological change ARE ALREADY doing lots of damage environmental, ecological, economic and political (in the sense that they provide yet further problems for extant governments to deal with).

If by this you mean that we cannot predict with similar degrees of certainty the economic and political ramifications of climate change, then I'd agree to a much larger extent. If only because we're dealing with very different types of data and very different types of predictions.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2008,06:30   

Well, possibly I was too nice.  There are plenty of people who won't change their behaviour even when it is known to be bad for you.  

"Smoking won't kill me!"

"Why can't I drive whilst holding and speaking on my mobile phone, I'm perfectly safe whilst doing so."

Its just that a lot of the general public, after years of bad science reporting, as well as poor exposure to science, tend to ignore everything the professionals say.
Fortunately, it seems some governments are listening, whether at the local level or not.  It seems that in the American west, after watching the changes in local climate which are linked into global warming, the state governments out there are taking things very sriously.  Whether they are taking it seriously in time is another matter.  Certainly in the UK our gvt is not taking it seriously at all, and as for Alex Salmonds grandstanding...

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2008,07:55   

Quote (Richard Simons @ April 16 2008,20:49)
Quote (skeptic @ April 16 2008,19:22)
Here's my point, there's a complete difference between examining the mechanisms of climate change and trying to learn how they interact to produce the observed results and extrapolating a predetermined outcome and evaluating how that disproportionately affects the haves and the have nots.  One of those discussions is science and the other is politics, IMO.

I disagree. I would argue that determining the effects of climate change falls under the remit of science. Where politics comes in is in deciding what to do about the effects and determining the relative importance to give to curbing the production of greenhouse gasses by wealthy people versus poor people, the balance between the costs and benefits of different options, the relative importance of wildlife and people in different areas, what to do about international migration resulting from climate change and so on.

I would counter that determining the effects socially, politically, culturally, economically, etc are matters for politicians, sociologists, economists, etc.  There is a big risk of bias if the scientists extracting core samples is also called on (or offers himself) to decry the effects of global warming on impoverished populations.

Isn't it odd that every single significant impact of GW is negative?  The changing climate is a neutral occurrence and yet we can only see the downside.  I believe this is a product of psychology and resistance or fear of change more than actual science.  If food supply is the number one challenge facing the species, which I happen to agree with, then how could a slightly warming environment have a net negative impact on that?  :D I'm sure you guys will go to town on that one.

  
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2008,08:07   

Quote (Louis @ April 17 2008,05:17)
Better than that we have hard, in your face, clear evidence that certain anthropogenic aspects of climate change and ecological change ARE ALREADY doing lots of damage environmental, ecological, economic and political (in the sense that they provide yet further problems for extant governments to deal with).

I wonder how much damage will need to be done before people in general start to react? I have taught adults in a community in which the heavy supplies are brought in during the winter along a 200+ km road made across swamps and lakes. In recent years there have been problems with the winters not being long and hard enough so they have had to use more, smaller trucks and also fly in some of the supplies. People are certainly aware of some of the consequences of global warming. Yet in the building where I was teaching I counted 7 broken windows (holes, not cracks). Almost everyone smoked so the door was left wide open to clear the fug and the heating was going full blast, this in February when a mild day is when the temperature climbs to -15C.

I suspect many people will not change much until real change is forced upon them, whether by law or by the cost of being extravagant.

P.S. Louis: Don't ever confuse me with that Simmons guy! I am not airy-fairy (at least, I don't think so) and I'm not into fitness exercises, but we do have similar fly-away hair :-)

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2008,08:15   

Quote (skeptic @ April 17 2008,08:55)
Isn't it odd that every single significant impact of GW is negative?  The changing climate is a neutral occurrence and yet we can only see the downside.  I believe this is a product of psychology and resistance or fear of change more than actual science.

Or perhaps some of us would just rather not be on the extinct side of "neutral".

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2008,09:01   

Quote (Richard Simons @ April 17 2008,14:07)
Quote (Louis @ April 17 2008,05:17)
Better than that we have hard, in your face, clear evidence that certain anthropogenic aspects of climate change and ecological change ARE ALREADY doing lots of damage environmental, ecological, economic and political (in the sense that they provide yet further problems for extant governments to deal with).

I wonder how much damage will need to be done before people in general start to react? I have taught adults in a community in which the heavy supplies are brought in during the winter along a 200+ km road made across swamps and lakes. In recent years there have been problems with the winters not being long and hard enough so they have had to use more, smaller trucks and also fly in some of the supplies. People are certainly aware of some of the consequences of global warming. Yet in the building where I was teaching I counted 7 broken windows (holes, not cracks). Almost everyone smoked so the door was left wide open to clear the fug and the heating was going full blast, this in February when a mild day is when the temperature climbs to -15C.

I suspect many people will not change much until real change is forced upon them, whether by law or by the cost of being extravagant.

P.S. Louis: Don't ever confuse me with that Simmons guy! I am not airy-fairy (at least, I don't think so) and I'm not into fitness exercises, but we do have similar fly-away hair :-)

My bad, my bad! You are NOT Richard Simmons!

I wonder the same thing by the way.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
George



Posts: 314
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2008,09:10   

Quote (skeptic @ April 17 2008,07:55)
...snip...
If food supply is the number one challenge facing the species, which I happen to agree with, then how could a slightly warming environment have a net negative impact on that?  :D I'm sure you guys will go to town on that one.

Go to town?  How about Dhaka?  Greater metropolitan population 12.5 million.  Elevation 4 m asl.

Two answer your question, I have five words:

rising sea levels

rice paddies.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2008,09:22   

Quote (skeptic @ April 17 2008,13:55)
[SNIP]

Isn't it odd that every single significant impact of GW is negative?  The changing climate is a neutral occurrence and yet we can only see the downside.  I believe this is a product of psychology and resistance or fear of change more than actual science.  If food supply is the number one challenge facing the species, which I happen to agree with, then how could a slightly warming environment have a net negative impact on that?  :D I'm sure you guys will go to town on that one.

Obliviot,

Go to town on what? The substance free aspects of your standard drivel? Easy. Go to town as if we were the representations of the strawmen in your head? Not going to happen. Your strawmen are not binding on anyone. It's rather ironic that with all your supercillious nonsense you have to lie about what people say to make your point. Have you thought about correcting your recent lies yet? You should.

The politics of which "problem" we deal with first (and food is a good one, see for example that book by Bjorn Lomburg I mentioned before and read the works of Norman Borlaug) are irrelevant to the science of what anthropogenic climate change/environmental damage, and indeed non-anthropogenic climate change/environmental damage can do to (to use your example) agriculture. Rapid desertification, conversion of thin soiled forests to short term farming land, increasingly severe weather rendering some areas more difficult to farm etc. There are myriad "negative" effects. Of course there are "positive" effects in some areas, no one denies this. Your obvious reliance on shallow media sources for your opinion forming data is clearly why you think all the changes caused by climate change are "negative". As if this is even the most important aspect of the issue!

Yet again you demonstrate your understanding/awareness of the issues is as shallow as a puddle of spit. Talk to UK wine producers about the "negative" aspects of climate change and they will laugh at you, for just one example. The point has already been made that (like many scientific issues) obtaining one's information about climate change from the mainstream media is a mistake. The alarmist nature of the reporting is a facet of marketing and obtaining viewing/reading figures not the science.

No one informed and honest about the science paints a uniformly "negative" picture nor does anyone with any sense pretend that the stupid alarmist stories in the media mean that all the cries of wolf are wolf free. Try to comprehend this basic fact.

Your comments about psychological fear of change are simply not even beginning to be true. Change is not, and never has been, the problem. Frankly your strawmen are pathetic. Change that makes a hard situation worse for millions of people is a problem, a problem searching for a solution. Describing that problem and trying to figure out solutions to it doesn't constitute hand wringing, alarmism, over egging the pudding, or political manipultion of science. Sticking your head in the sand and trying to claim that because some alarmist idiots make too much out of a soluble series of problems that the problems don't exist, is frankly, stupid.

Try again fucknuckle.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
George



Posts: 314
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2008,09:37   

Quote (skeptic @ April 17 2008,07:55)
Quote (Richard Simons @ April 16 2008,20:49)
 
Quote (skeptic @ April 16 2008,19:22)
Here's my point, there's a complete difference between examining the mechanisms of climate change and trying to learn how they interact to produce the observed results and extrapolating a predetermined outcome and evaluating how that disproportionately affects the haves and the have nots.  One of those discussions is science and the other is politics, IMO.

I disagree. I would argue that determining the effects of climate change falls under the remit of science. Where politics comes in is in deciding what to do about the effects and determining the relative importance to give to curbing the production of greenhouse gasses by wealthy people versus poor people, the balance between the costs and benefits of different options, the relative importance of wildlife and people in different areas, what to do about international migration resulting from climate change and so on.

I would counter that determining the effects socially, politically, culturally, economically, etc are matters for politicians, sociologists, economists, etc.  There is a big risk of bias if the scientists extracting core samples is also called on (or offers himself) to decry the effects of global warming on impoverished populations.

Isn't it odd that every single significant impact of GW is negative?  The changing climate is a neutral occurrence and yet we can only see the downside.  I believe this is a product of psychology and resistance or fear of change more than actual science.  If food supply is the number one challenge facing the species, which I happen to agree with, then how could a slightly warming environment have a net negative impact on that?  :D I'm sure you guys will go to town on that one.

A couple more things.  Richard and you are defining science and scientists in this context differently.  You're restricting yourself to climatologists.  But don't you think that climate change research that deals with impacts in detail includes scientists and other professionals from a broad range of disciplines?  Or are you against multidisciplinary collaboration?

Take a team of climatologists and agronomists that collaborate to come up with predictions of crop yields under climate change.  They point out that in the worst case scenario, they predict massive crop failures.  Is this conflating science with politics?  What if they explicitly state that there is the potential for large-scale famine?  Would that be conflating science with politics?

As for the neutrality of climate change, it would be so if we and the natural systems we depend on could react rapidly enough to climate change.  Unfortunately, we can't react fast enough to the predicted changes.  Human reactions would have to include moving large populations out of flooded or desertified areas.  Also developing better coastal defenses, flood prevention measures, water conservation and distribution systems, breed new crops, etc.

As for the speckled trout, they're just screwed.  Doubt they can evolve to survive in warmer, less oxygenated water in time.

  
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2008,10:50   

Quote (George @ April 17 2008,09:37)
Richard and you are defining science and scientists in this context differently.  You're restricting yourself to climatologists.

Just to be clear, I think a wide range of scientists has to be involved including biologists, agronomists and sociologists. Economists and experts in international law too will have useful input. All of these experts need to be able to express their opinions to the politicians who will, in the end, make the decisions. They might decide to ignore the opinions but at least they will know what they are.

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

  
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2008,11:20   

Quote (skeptic @ April 17 2008,07:55)
Isn't it odd that every single significant impact of GW is negative?  The changing climate is a neutral occurrence and yet we can only see the downside.  I believe this is a product of psychology and resistance or fear of change more than actual science.  If food supply is the number one challenge facing the species, which I happen to agree with, then how could a slightly warming environment have a net negative impact on that?

The problem is not necessarily that change is bad, it is that it is likely to happen relatively quickly. If the grain belt in North America moves north (as seems to be happening) then grain elevators and rail lines in the south will be abandoned well before they are due to be replaced. Others will need to be built in areas that are currently largely uninhabited (and have poor soil).

A relatively minor change in temperature can be devastating for crop yields. A couple of days of 35C at pollination can reduce rice yields by 30% or more and temperature at pollination is also critical for corn and wheat. There are also other effect, on disease, pests, weeds, rainfall, irrigation requirements and so on. However, one of the greatest problems is that we just don't know what will become a problem in the next decade or two, never mind what might concern over the longer term.

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2008,11:24   

Quote (Louis @ April 17 2008,03:51)
Three things:

1) BWE stop trying to poke the bear so obviously. You're rapidly ceasing to be funny.

2) Richard Simmons exposed Skeptic's misunderstanding already.

3) K.E. Speak to Norman Borlaug.

Done.

Louis

Well damn. First, I apologize for my failed attempt at humor. You win a few, you lose a few.

Second, I wanted to get involved in the discussion but in a separate thread, that's why I started it. Unfortunately I got called away on real work and then came home to a wife who wanted my attention. She made me an offer I couldn't refuse.

Third,

Global warming exposes a relatively difficult issue for humanity. Not that many people could die, although that is a bit of a problem, but that resource management is in uncharted waters. The world that adam smith described and that Tocqueville illustrated had unlimited resources. Add to that the total lack of any kind of modeling capacity for natural processes and you get 19th century economics and politics (which carried over into the 20th).

As the serious scientific revolution got underway, people began to assume that science would fix any problems that might appear. New sources of nitrogen fertilizer made people laugh at 'Malthusian Doomsayers' while utterly missing the point that his model is a simple projection of simple factors and still works fine. Just that we found a new source of food. The graph still accurately describes what it intends to describe.

I've heard people laugh at the Club of Rome's "Limits to Growth" as if it were wrong. But it isn't wrong. No one has ever demonstrated it to my knowledge anyway. Economists still view the world as Adam Smith did, unlimited, for the large part. That carries over into politics through the idea of liberty and equality when applied to the pursuit of property. If property is unlimited, then free societies can claim equality while promoting free enterprise. If resources (property) are limited, then that claim runs up against the claim that those in power will have the duty of deciding who has to die if supplies run too short.

So when Skeptic claims a separation of the science and politics but misses the line, and you point out the line, I want to add that a blurry part probably does exist. As soon as the models use a finite amount of data to run, they are making a political statement with rather large consequences. Once we see resources as both interconnected and finite, the world stops being the free world of John Locke and Adam Smith.

Political boundaries are not mapped by watersheds for example. But Erasmus' speckled trout do matter. Indicators to the health of an ecosystem matter a lot when there are no new ecosystems to exploit.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2008,12:14   

On the topic of Bjorn Lomborg, he accepts the IPCC statement of the science.  
(This of course puts him at odds with people like Lovelock, but hey, Lovelock loves nuclear so must be ok...)

Just in case it was not clear, Lomborgs Copehnagen Consensus is a complete red herring designed only to boost his ego.  

The biggest reason why, is this, taken from the methodology of the last Copenhagen consensus talking shop in 2004:

Quote
The expert panel will present a ranking of the opportunities, based on an assessment of the costs and benefits of the various opportunities.  This ranking and estimation will be marginal, in essence giving a prioritised answer to the question:  If the world would come together and be willing to spend, say, $50 billion over the next five years on improving the world, which projects would yield the greatest net benefits?


http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/Default.aspx?ID=276

Now, the first assumption is that benefits can be cost benefit analyses like economists do.
Secondly, why say, $50 billion?  Why not 400 billion?  Why pick an arbitrary number in the first place?  This artificially constrains the discussion.
Thirdly, it is only over 5 years!  Many of the things to be discussed are structural issues which require medium term, i.e. 5, 10, 15 year investment.  Such as education.  You can't just put a billion pounds into building schools, when you in fact need another hundred million every year for the next 20 years to keep them running.  
The given aim prioritises short term goals.  Now, this might sound controversial, but I am convinced that, whether he agrees or not, Lomborgs goal is to firstly gain kudos and work for himself, i.e. ego boosting.  Secondly, he wishes to demonte climate change to a small thing we can adapt to, and to this end has written 2 books which are well known for their Creationist like tactics and repudiation by scientists.  Thirdly, like many such number crunchers, he studiously ignores the real causes and effects of the current global system.  Yes, this is now a political statement.  But that is what politics is about- apportionment of material and cultural and even in some circumstances, spiritual goods.

And people like Lomborg do not add to the discussion, they take away from it.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2008,12:26   

Quote (BWE @ April 17 2008,17:24)
Quote (Louis @ April 17 2008,03:51)
Three things:

1) BWE stop trying to poke the bear so obviously. You're rapidly ceasing to be funny.

2) Richard Simmons exposed Skeptic's misunderstanding already.

3) K.E. Speak to Norman Borlaug.

Done.

Louis

Well damn. First, I apologize for my failed attempt at humor. You win a few, you lose a few.

Second, I wanted to get involved in the discussion but in a separate thread, that's why I started it. Unfortunately I got called away on real work and then came home to a wife who wanted my attention. She made me an offer I couldn't refuse.

Third,

Global warming exposes a relatively difficult issue for humanity. Not that many people could die, although that is a bit of a problem, but that resource management is in uncharted waters. The world that adam smith described and that Tocqueville illustrated had unlimited resources. Add to that the total lack of any kind of modeling capacity for natural processes and you get 19th century economics and politics (which carried over into the 20th).

As the serious scientific revolution got underway, people began to assume that science would fix any problems that might appear. New sources of nitrogen fertilizer made people laugh at 'Malthusian Doomsayers' while utterly missing the point that his model is a simple projection of simple factors and still works fine. Just that we found a new source of food. The graph still accurately describes what it intends to describe.

I've heard people laugh at the Club of Rome's "Limits to Growth" as if it were wrong. But it isn't wrong. No one has ever demonstrated it to my knowledge anyway. Economists still view the world as Adam Smith did, unlimited, for the large part. That carries over into politics through the idea of liberty and equality when applied to the pursuit of property. If property is unlimited, then free societies can claim equality while promoting free enterprise. If resources (property) are limited, then that claim runs up against the claim that those in power will have the duty of deciding who has to die if supplies run too short.

So when Skeptic claims a separation of the science and politics but misses the line, and you point out the line, I want to add that a blurry part probably does exist. As soon as the models use a finite amount of data to run, they are making a political statement with rather large consequences. Once we see resources as both interconnected and finite, the world stops being the free world of John Locke and Adam Smith.

Political boundaries are not mapped by watersheds for example. But Erasmus' speckled trout do matter. Indicators to the health of an ecosystem matter a lot when there are no new ecosystems to exploit.

Dearest BWE,

Some things:

1) Oh I see, you want a serious discussion of a serious topic? Then why involve anything from Skeptic? He's ill informed, unintelligent and dishonest and to be blunt until he shapes up I'm just going to be unremittingly nasty to him. I don't care that he disagrees with something I've said or not, I care that he's a know-nothing fucknuckle with the intellectual gifts of a walnut and as such contributes nothing positive to any discussion. A fact demontsrated so frequently I'm surprised he remains. Contribution = 0, trollish wankery = lots.

The "truth" does not necesarily lie midway between two "extremes".

2) Oh you're still funny, just obivous and funny as opposed to more subtle and more funny. ;-) Try not to take that too hard. I know you're the sensitive type. (LOL I kill me, HOMOS etc)

3) Where have I ever said anything about a line between science and politics being unblurry? Are you as guilty of misrepresentation as Skeptic? ONLY KIDDING!The less certain things become the less easy it is to act on them appropriately, blurry is inherent in the system! Of course there are going to be numerous instances of bad decisions based on sparse/poor data. 'Tis the way of the world. Better data helps us minimise those occurences...or at least it's ONE thing that helps us minimise those occurences.

4) From the little economics I know about (and that really isn't much, IANAE) I'd have to say I'd agree with your assessment of the legacy of certain economic giants. I could be wrong about the history of it all. What I'm certainly not wrong about is that we have finite resources (in some case finite but very large resources that we have no hope of using up, sunlight for example) and we as a species are having such an impact on those resources and the environment because of the use of those resources that we need to find new solutions to certain issues.

For example, we know that fossil fuels will not last indefinitely, we know that there is not an infinite amount of oil, coal and gas. At some point we as a species are probably going to have to find a new source of energy. That doesn't involve hand-wringing or alarmist drivel (a la paranoid delusions of Skeptic) it involves hard work and sometimes even harder choices. It's quite possible that ONE of the choices we have in front of us, perhaps even one of the best choices, will involve us in the first world consuming a lot less, those in the second and third worlds developing using different, less polluting/resource heavy technologies. But this is hardly news to anyone informed about anything. This is the very basic, waffly crap that anyone should be aware of. The fact that there still exists a large number of morons who deny the basic facts (not politics, facts) for political reasons is disturbing to say the least.

So at the end I'm unsure what you want to discuss, the line between the science (what is going on) and the politics (what if anything we should do about it) of climate change is pretty obvious to me. I could find you examples that blur that line, but like I said, in every case they will involve one of two things: denail of the data or lack of data. I'm certainly not qualified to pontificate on the profound details of the economics, it's simply not my field, or closely related enough that I know enough about it to be useful.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2008,12:38   

Quote (guthrie @ April 17 2008,18:14)
On the topic of Bjorn Lomborg, he accepts the IPCC statement of the science.  
(This of course puts him at odds with people like Lovelock, but hey, Lovelock loves nuclear so must be ok...)

Just in case it was not clear, Lomborgs Copehnagen Consensus is a complete red herring designed only to boost his ego.  

The biggest reason why, is this, taken from the methodology of the last Copenhagen consensus talking shop in 2004:

Quote
The expert panel will present a ranking of the opportunities, based on an assessment of the costs and benefits of the various opportunities.  This ranking and estimation will be marginal, in essence giving a prioritised answer to the question:  If the world would come together and be willing to spend, say, $50 billion over the next five years on improving the world, which projects would yield the greatest net benefits?


http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/Default.aspx?ID=276

Now, the first assumption is that benefits can be cost benefit analyses like economists do.
Secondly, why say, $50 billion?  Why not 400 billion?  Why pick an arbitrary number in the first place?  This artificially constrains the discussion.
Thirdly, it is only over 5 years!  Many of the things to be discussed are structural issues which require medium term, i.e. 5, 10, 15 year investment.  Such as education.  You can't just put a billion pounds into building schools, when you in fact need another hundred million every year for the next 20 years to keep them running.  
The given aim prioritises short term goals.  Now, this might sound controversial, but I am convinced that, whether he agrees or not, Lomborgs goal is to firstly gain kudos and work for himself, i.e. ego boosting.  Secondly, he wishes to demonte climate change to a small thing we can adapt to, and to this end has written 2 books which are well known for their Creationist like tactics and repudiation by scientists.  Thirdly, like many such number crunchers, he studiously ignores the real causes and effects of the current global system.  Yes, this is now a political statement.  But that is what politics is about- apportionment of material and cultural and even in some circumstances, spiritual goods.

And people like Lomborg do not add to the discussion, they take away from it.

I agree with you 99% about Lomborg. The 1% is that I think he has added the occasional nugget to the political discussion.

The reason I mention him is because from the climate change denialist perspective he is an easy starting point on the road to reality. If I started trying to get Skeptic to read George Monbiot it would be an epic fail. There's a chance the dishonest little muppet might read Lomborg.

You're right btw, he does accept the science in the IPCC report, and for the denialist community getting them to do the same thing is a big win. Which, like I said, is why I mention him.

Oh and the ego thing, I work with some people in a local sceptics society (not CC sceptics!) and we looked at getting Lomborg in for a talk, he wanted ~£10k IIRC. It's ego and cash for him.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2008,18:20   

Quote (Louis @ April 17 2008,12:26)
Quote (BWE @ April 17 2008,17:24)

Global warming exposes a relatively difficult issue for humanity. Not that many people could die, although that is a bit of a problem, but that resource management is in uncharted waters. The world that adam smith described and that Tocqueville illustrated had unlimited resources. Add to that the total lack of any kind of modeling capacity for natural processes and you get 19th century economics and politics (which carried over into the 20th).

As the serious scientific revolution got underway, people began to assume that science would fix any problems that might appear. New sources of nitrogen fertilizer made people laugh at 'Malthusian Doomsayers' while utterly missing the point that his model is a simple projection of simple factors and still works fine. Just that we found a new source of food. The graph still accurately describes what it intends to describe.

I've heard people laugh at the Club of Rome's "Limits to Growth" as if it were wrong. But it isn't wrong. No one has ever demonstrated it to my knowledge anyway. Economists still view the world as Adam Smith did, unlimited, for the large part. That carries over into politics through the idea of liberty and equality when applied to the pursuit of property. If property is unlimited, then free societies can claim equality while promoting free enterprise. If resources (property) are limited, then that claim runs up against the claim that those in power will have the duty of deciding who has to die if supplies run too short.

So when Skeptic claims a separation of the science and politics but misses the line, and you point out the line, I want to add that a blurry part probably does exist. As soon as the models use a finite amount of data to run, they are making a political statement with rather large consequences. Once we see resources as both interconnected and finite, the world stops being the free world of John Locke and Adam Smith.

Political boundaries are not mapped by watersheds for example. But Erasmus' speckled trout do matter. Indicators to the health of an ecosystem matter a lot when there are no new ecosystems to exploit.

Dearest BWE,

Some things:

1) Oh I see, you want a serious discussion of a serious topic? Then why involve anything from Skeptic? He's ill informed, unintelligent and dishonest and to be blunt until he shapes up I'm just going to be unremittingly nasty to him. I don't care that he disagrees with something I've said or not, I care that he's a know-nothing fucknuckle with the intellectual gifts of a walnut and as such contributes nothing positive to any discussion. A fact demontsrated so frequently I'm surprised he remains. Contribution = 0, trollish wankery = lots.

The "truth" does not necesarily lie midway between two "extremes".

2) Oh you're still funny, just obivous and funny as opposed to more subtle and more funny. ;-) Try not to take that too hard. I know you're the sensitive type. (LOL I kill me, HOMOS etc)

3) Where have I ever said anything about a line between science and politics being unblurry? Are you as guilty of misrepresentation as Skeptic? ONLY KIDDING!The less certain things become the less easy it is to act on them appropriately, blurry is inherent in the system! Of course there are going to be numerous instances of bad decisions based on sparse/poor data. 'Tis the way of the world. Better data helps us minimise those occurences...or at least it's ONE thing that helps us minimise those occurences.

4) From the little economics I know about (and that really isn't much, IANAE) I'd have to say I'd agree with your assessment of the legacy of certain economic giants. I could be wrong about the history of it all. What I'm certainly not wrong about is that we have finite resources (in some case finite but very large resources that we have no hope of using up, sunlight for example) and we as a species are having such an impact on those resources and the environment because of the use of those resources that we need to find new solutions to certain issues.

For example, we know that fossil fuels will not last indefinitely, we know that there is not an infinite amount of oil, coal and gas. At some point we as a species are probably going to have to find a new source of energy. That doesn't involve hand-wringing or alarmist drivel (a la paranoid delusions of Skeptic) it involves hard work and sometimes even harder choices. It's quite possible that ONE of the choices we have in front of us, perhaps even one of the best choices, will involve us in the first world consuming a lot less, those in the second and third worlds developing using different, less polluting/resource heavy technologies. But this is hardly news to anyone informed about anything. This is the very basic, waffly crap that anyone should be aware of. The fact that there still exists a large number of morons who deny the basic facts (not politics, facts) for political reasons is disturbing to say the least.

So at the end I'm unsure what you want to discuss, the line between the science (what is going on) and the politics (what if anything we should do about it) of climate change is pretty obvious to me. I could find you examples that blur that line, but like I said, in every case they will involve one of two things: denail of the data or lack of data. I'm certainly not qualified to pontificate on the profound details of the economics, it's simply not my field, or closely related enough that I know enough about it to be useful.

Louis

I involved skeptic's post because I thought it illustrated something.
Quote

- in 10-20 years we will see the results but for some it will be too late

- wars need to be replaced by diplomacy concerning limited resources

- money spent in Iraq could end global poverty (My personal favorite)

- money spent in Iraq should be used to build nuclear power plants (funny, money has never been an issue there)

- finally, some of this is opinion but the rest is undeniable...huh?

So, again, what is the problem?  What is being denied and what needs to be addresses?

Is it CO2, ozone depletion, deforestation and extinction or poverty, war or nuclear power?

Seems like a political discussion to me and not one about the science of climate change.


He conflates multiple issues that in fact do seem to run together. Science is political in the modern world. The Iraq statement is out of the blue to be sure but the idea that wars are not the same as they used to be and that co2 and deforestation relate to war in a new more dangerous way I think is pretty spot on. The problem is that while that isn't the science, that does flow from the science. This is a case where the science has direct political implications.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2008,20:16   

BWE: I agree with you about people's attitudes to Malthus and the Club of Rome. The concepts, that resources are not infinite, are still valid even if their numbers have turned out to be wrong. I wish all economists could be required to take an ecology course with a hefty dose of population dynamics.

In the distant past when I was a student at UCNW (Bangor) the professor, J.L. Harper (an ecologist) made a comment I've never forgotten. 'Agriculture is an experiment and we won't know if it has been successful until humanity reaches a steady state.'

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2008,20:46   

The Iraq statement is not out of the blue it's out of Louis's mouth.  Check the records.

And yes I will admit my bias, I'm using scientists to describe those doing primary research in the physical sciences.  Economists are not scientists as far as I'm concerned for this discussion, experts maybe but scientists no.

George, ever been to Vienna?

Louis...nevermind, I'm just not interested in wasting my time with you any longer.

Final point, or a reinforcement of the previous one, notice how many terribly negative impacts have been listed in the last ten or so posts even after the admission that GW can have positive effects too.  Hurrah for the wine makers.  How about the wheat farmers that want to change to rice farming?  How about giving a little more credence to the idea that little ol' humans can adapt to slowly changing climate?  And if they can't maybe they're getting what they deserve...

  
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2008,21:38   

Quote
skeptic

How about the wheat farmers that want to change to rice farming?

Rice needs at least twice as much water as wheat, say 1m or more during the growing season. There are not many places currently growing wheat that get this much rainfall. Paddy rice also needs to be grown on flat land that can be flooded without promptly draining away. Of course, there is upland rice but its yields are much lower.

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 18 2008,01:55   

Quote (skeptic @ April 18 2008,02:46)
The Iraq statement is not out of the blue it's out of Louis's mouth.  Check the records.

And yes I will admit my bias, I'm using scientists to describe those doing primary research in the physical sciences.  Economists are not scientists as far as I'm concerned for this discussion, experts maybe but scientists no.

George, ever been to Vienna?

Louis...nevermind, I'm just not interested in wasting my time with you any longer.

Final point, or a reinforcement of the previous one, notice how many terribly negative impacts have been listed in the last ten or so posts even after the admission that GW can have positive effects too.  Hurrah for the wine makers.  How about the wheat farmers that want to change to rice farming?  How about giving a little more credence to the idea that little ol' humans can adapt to slowly changing climate?  And if they can't maybe they're getting what they deserve...

Waste YOUR time? Sorry but when have I ever (for example) lied about what you write? Provide examples, liar.

[ASIDE: BWE, I did make some comment about the Iraq war that Skeptic has seized on. I remember reading somewhere about the similarly sized budgets for certain proposed humanitarian activities and the Iraq war. I'd have to go back and find out what the actual numbers were though. Anyway, the original comments were designed to be a throwaway point about "we have the resources and ability to do something big, what big thing we choose to do is perhaps at issue". It's no surprise that Skeptic missed the point.]

You're moving the goalposts like the dishonest shitbag you are Skeptic. You whine "Waaaaaaaaah everyone complains about the negative effects of climate change they never mention the positive so they're all afraid of change waaaaah!" and when people do mention that a) your caricature of their views is in error and b) that there are some "positive" effects of climate change you complain that we haven't mentioned enough.

Fuck off and buy a clue, there's a good moron.

Now have you got the balls to discuss the science and whilst your at it apologise for lying about my comments, or are you just going to act like the whiny, anti-intellectual oward we all know you are? Hmmm, I know which it will be, anyone wanna make a bet?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
George



Posts: 314
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 18 2008,19:37   

Quote (skeptic @ April 17 2008,20:46)
George, ever been to Vienna?

Yes.  Why?

And while we're discussing questions, care to address these?
Quote
don't you think that climate change research that deals with impacts in detail includes scientists and other professionals from a broad range of disciplines?  Or are you against multidisciplinary collaboration?

Take a team of climatologists and agronomists that collaborate to come up with predictions of crop yields under climate change.  They point out that in the worst case scenario, they predict massive crop failures.  Is this conflating science with politics?  What if they explicitly state that there is the potential for large-scale famine?  Would that be conflating science with politics?

Which was the original topic at hand, was it not?

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2008,14:23   

no George, I don't think that the scientists involved in the primary research of climate change should be a part do creating solutions in relation to predicted impacts.  The potential for bias is too great.  Consider if the drug companies also ran the FDA...lol, maybe that is actually the perfect example.  Anyway, that is just my opinion and I know its not always practical to achieve that level of abstraction.

And NO, Louis I will not apologize for anything as I have nothing to apologize for.  I remarked about your obvious political statements and then enumerated them.  It's not my fault that you're too stupid to understand what I was saying.  Nor do I have the time to reiterate them at your remedial level.  Do try to keep up, might I suggest a tutor.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2008,02:34   

Quote (skeptic @ April 20 2008,20:23)
no George, I don't think that the scientists involved in the primary research of climate change should be a part do creating solutions in relation to predicted impacts.  The potential for bias is too great.  Consider if the drug companies also ran the FDA...lol, maybe that is actually the perfect example.  Anyway, that is just my opinion and I know its not always practical to achieve that level of abstraction.

And NO, Louis I will not apologize for anything as I have nothing to apologize for.  I remarked about your obvious political statements and then enumerated them.  It's not my fault that you're too stupid to understand what I was saying.  Nor do I have the time to reiterate them at your remedial level.  Do try to keep up, might I suggest a tutor.

Nothing to apologise for? So you're a liar, a coward, and an arrogant fuckwit who can't see what's right in front of his face? Wow! Way to lower the lar Obliviot!

Try this for size:

Quote
Quote (Louis @ April 13 2008,03:39)

Quote (Assassinator @ April 12 2008,19:55)

The whole idea of "Stop Global Warming/Climate Change" is retarted already, not just stupid. Isn't it just arrogant to think we can or should stop those things?
By the way, since when does ginseng grow in the US ^^ But yea, you're right, problem is people don't care about what you like. They only care about the money they earn with it, the New World's new god.


It's bad to think we can or should try to stop climate change?

This from someone in Holland a country with significant areas currently under sea level? Hundreds of thousands/millions of people in poorer countries around the world will disagree with you on this quite strongly I think. I think something else must be going on with this conversation, you must be joking! What have I missed?

Climate change: it's happening, undeniably, and there is a significant (but not exclusive) anthropogenic element to it. The science on that is unambiguous. The effects of human activities on the ozone layer, or on the ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere or on deforestation or on extinction of species on an almost unprecedented scale or on a myriad of other environmental isses that lead to rapid change in global climate are based on very sound science.

That said, OF COURSE there's a huge crock of crap talked about the subject by a significant sector of the environmental lobby. The "ain't nature lovely" Bambi-ists are the least amongst them. Some have seized the rhetoric of the environmental movement for political use that it isn't suited for. The wantonly disproportionate and unequally applied tax burdens and the ever increasing authoritarian tricks of the UK government are good cases in point. Sadly, funding for the relevant technologies to solve a huge number of these problems is only now just kicking in in a big way. It's 10 to 20 years before we will even see the results and for some places and people that will be too late. Whether we've "gone over the global knife edge" or not, is perhaps open to more debate.

My personal opinion we need to find a lot of technical solutions NOW to some key problems. We need to take this threat to humans (because it IS to humans, life on earth will continue merrily sans H. sapiens) very seriously indeed. That means convenient wars to grasp the last barrells of a windling petrochemical resource costing billions should be replaced by diplomatic and technical effort (in a sensible way, not overnight!), to name one example. The only obvious counter point to that I can think of is if we are really in the shit a lot deeper than we realise and the chaps making war are doing so as a matter of survival (which would actually end up making my point for me). From the little I know, that's not the case, but I can see how it could be. I forget, just how many times could the money spent on the Iraq war (to name one example) have ended global poverty? Just how many scientists are screaming for grants? Just how many nuclear power stations could be built with that cash? I think we've got our priorities arse about face, but then that is merely my opinion. The rest is pretty undeniable. When disagreeing about what we should do when faced with a specific problem, denying the problem exists is a very bad idea.

Louis


If that's not the biggest load of "political" crap I've ever heard then I don't know what is.  There's one simple fact that is lost on almost everyone spewing this end-of-the-world rhetoric and is that sixty millions years ago the CO2 content of the atmosphere was 3 times what it is now and, surprisingly enough the world did not end.  Life was not exterminated and there was no "global warming tipping point."  The sooner we get past the finger-pointing and fear-mongering (oh yeah, I said it) then the sooner we can start applying real solutions to energy and environmental concerns jointly.


Just point out, for example, where I mentioned anything about "the extemination of life". Hint: I've bolded something you might want to read. So unless I have said that life on the planet was going to end because of CO2 pp in the atmosphere increasing, then you are misrepresenting my comments by creating one of your familiar strawmen. You need to apologise for misrepresenting someone else's views by lying about what they have said. Simple.

(Aside: Incidentally Obliviot, I know for a stand out fact you have no clue about any of my views on any subject. You've never read anything I've ever written. You've skimmed them, assumed that they fit your prejudices and reacted accordingly. I'm not the only one to notice this. Try being less of a fucktard and try doing the basics.)

In the posts subsequent to this I make it very clear that the post you quote did contain political points, certainly nothing I would deny. Nor am I stupid enough to miss your incredibly pointless point, as indeed I've demonstrated (this would involve you actually reading something for basic comprehension). What I would like is for you to stop arguing against some strawman of your own confection and deal with what people actually say.

A second thing I would like you to do is make some comment about what aspects of the scientific data regarding climate change you disagree with. Note well: I don't want you to pick out bits of my posts, I want you to state your own opinion on matters of climate change. "tipping points" is one area perhaps where you could do this. Try to realise this is a seperate isssue from a) anything I have said or b) your misrepresentation of it.

Understand now you pathetic fucking simpleton?

Louis

I did done and editerisation for quote tags

--------------
Bye.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2008,08:53   

quote "and for some people and places that will be too late"

nuf said.

I do have to admit that you did hit the nail on the head on one point, when it comes to your posts I skim them.  They are typically too long, redundant and filled with worthless drivel.  But you right about that point.  I would suggest that you start adding some substance.

Now about GW, if I read you right here you'd like to discuss climate change with me in the hopes of launching some other attack in a similiar redundant vein.  Well here's your opening...in my opinion, I have seen no evidence that tipping points exist so I'm less inclined to think we are at a point where somewhere in the next 10-20 years some event or series of events will occur putting human existence in jeopardy.  Go ahead, convince me.  I honestly have no dog in this fight except for a sincere aversion to the political manipulation of science to achieve an agenda (both ID and radical evolutionists fall under this same umbrella for me).  So if the world is actually under a state of uncontrolled warming and human existence is threatened then I'm all ears.  Unfortunately, all I ever hear is the politics and never convincing science.

There you go, a little project for your afternoon enjoyment.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2008,09:29   

Quote (skeptic @ April 21 2008,14:53)
quote "and for some people and places that will be too late"

nuf said.

I do have to admit that you did hit the nail on the head on one point, when it comes to your posts I skim them.  They are typically too long, redundant and filled with worthless drivel.  But you right about that point.  I would suggest that you start adding some substance.

Now about GW, if I read you right here you'd like to discuss climate change with me in the hopes of launching some other attack in a similiar redundant vein.  Well here's your opening...in my opinion, I have seen no evidence that tipping points exist so I'm less inclined to think we are at a point where somewhere in the next 10-20 years some event or series of events will occur putting human existence in jeopardy.  Go ahead, convince me.  I honestly have no dog in this fight except for a sincere aversion to the political manipulation of science to achieve an agenda (both ID and radical evolutionists fall under this same umbrella for me).  So if the world is actually under a state of uncontrolled warming and human existence is threatened then I'm all ears.  Unfortunately, all I ever hear is the politics and never convincing science.

There you go, a little project for your afternoon enjoyment.

Obliviot,

So my comment (which you have dishonestly snipped from context btw) that the results of technological research that will mitigate the "negative" effects of climate change will arrive too late for some people and places equates to "climate change will kill all life on earth". Wow! Way to struggle to fit the data to your prejudices!

Interesting. Try reading it in context next time, with basic reading for comprehension also. So no Obliviot, not 'nuff said.

I see you think it's MY fault that YOU are a subintellectual moron. Excellent. Bar lowered by you again Obliviot. Well done, you never fail to conform to type. Here we go, I'll answer this once and for all (again):

1) Too long? Frequently guilty as charged (a fact I have admitted many times). Guess what? I couldn't give a shit. I find umpteen poster's posting styles here annoying, jejune, pointless or a combination of all three and vastly more. Guess what again? I don't really care too much. Why? Because I care more about what they are saying than how they are saying it. Felicity of style is something we all need to improve. Some are better at it than others. Frankly, if dishonest, tiresome shitbags like you didn't make the process of communcating an idea nigh on impossible with your demonstrable ignorance and dishonesty, posts in general (mine included) would be a lot shorter.

Take the thread where you were asked to defend your claims (again you failed to even attempt this) as an example: if you'd bothered to read what people (not just me) wrote, the thread could have been a whole lot shorter. We didn't pass beyond the "Intro to Philosophy" A-level stage (that's high school Junior level to you Yanks). You couldn't even grasp the basic elements of context, let alone any subtle epistemological distinctions. Sorry the universe is slightly more complex than can be described in a soundbite for your miniscule attention span.

2) Redundant? How would you know? You never read them (I'd also dispute this utterly btw, I try not to repeat myself. I also try not to repeat myself). Repetition only occurs when some idiot fails to grasp some simple point and creates some prejudice derived strawman out of it. Hmm sounds familiar.

3) Full of drivel? Easy to say, yet hard to prove. Point me to one concrete refutation of my "drivel", Obliviot. Just one. You've certainly never actually done it. Even with that in hand, yet again I've conclusively demonstrated the drivel comes only from YOUR mind Obliviot. How? You don't know what I think (drivel or otherwise) because you don't read what I write (or anyone else writes for that matter). A fatc you yourself admit! You seem to know what someone has written without reading it! Well done, please apply for the $1million JREF prize! You are the epitome of clueless ignorance and severely sub-par intellectual competance.

As I've said before, you only argue with the voices in your head. You create a strawman to beat up (even that is done ineffectually) and then insist that your strawman is what someone is saying, even when they go to great pains to point out that it isn't.

Onto part 2:

Climate change tipping points: as usual you don't even know what my views on the subject are (and I've yet to state them) yet you attack what you THINK are my views without any basis for thinking this to be the case. I'm trying (and have been for a while) to get you to defend your own claims rather than pick spurious holes (usually very erroneously) in what you think are other people's claims. See the difference?

So why don't you think there are tipping points in the various systems under examination in climate science?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2008,11:07   

Quote (skeptic @ April 21 2008,09:53)
I do have to admit that you did hit the nail on the head on one point, when it comes to your posts I skim them.

This one statement explains pretty much everything you post here.

If you're not going to bother actually reading what someone wrote, then don't bother responding.

Flame war over.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2008,11:21   

From the political angle, the only technology that can substitute for fossil fuel in the next fifty years is nuclear, and the various energy transmission and storage technologies it enables. (Hydrogen, for example)

If anyone can run the numbers and demonstrate this to be wrong, I'd like to be proved wrong.

This is the politics of climate change. I can't foresee any likely scenario in which global demand for energy subsides.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2008,12:14   

Quote (midwifetoad @ April 21 2008,10:21)
I can't foresee any likely scenario in which global demand for energy subsides.

No non-disasterous ones, anyway

Henry

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2008,13:50   

point taken Lou, but I will point out that my skimming is learned behavior.  After two years of the same old thing I just ignore the redundancy.  I'll looking for some substance but he may have to bold it so I don't miss it within the typical tirade.

Now on to the topic at hand,

why Henry, is it assumed that any increase in energy demands must be disasterous?  Is it possible that mankind will develop alternate energy forms?  Or that continued us of current sources in new and clean ways leads to no disaster?  Or any number of possibilities that do not end the world as we know it?  What data leads to this conclusion?  I'd love to see it because all I hear is the popular narrative and that is an empty argument used to motivate an uninformed population, IMO.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2008,14:23   

skeptic,
midwifetoad referred to demand subsiding, not increasing.

Henry

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2008,14:45   

Quote (Henry J @ April 21 2008,15:23)
skeptic,
midwifetoad referred to demand subsiding, not increasing.

Henry

Yeah, whatever.  

Skimmed that, too, apparently.

Seriously skeptic.  If you're not going to bother to read comments for comprehension, and in their entirety, do not bother to respond to them.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2008,15:29   

Quote (skeptic @ April 21 2008,13:50)
point taken Lou, but I will point out that my skimming is learned behavior.  After two years of the same old thing I just ignore the redundancy.  I'll looking for some substance but he may have to bold it so I don't miss it within the typical tirade.

Now on to the topic at hand,

why Henry, is it assumed that any increase in energy demands must be disasterous?  Is it possible that mankind will develop alternate energy forms?  Or that continued us of current sources in new and clean ways leads to no disaster?  Or any number of possibilities that do not end the world as we know it?  What data leads to this conclusion?  I'd love to see it because all I hear is the popular narrative and that is an empty argument used to motivate an uninformed population, IMO.

1) Your skimming is a problem. You don't answer questions asked. You answer questions you made up.

2) Louis responses get long partly due to the way you post: I have yet to see you engage in a conversation here (in a honest way).

3) Fueling human energy demands by releasing carbon captured energy from millions of years ago is bound to be dissasterous to humans. To humans, not all life.

Yes the atmosphere 60 million years ago was different. Yes life existed then. Not many humans though.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2008,16:24   

yep, bad timing on misunderstanding Henry's implication.  So carbon demand will continue to increase baring the cataclysmic event...unless an alternate source is developed or discovered but I too agree that is not in the near future.

but I disagree Stephan, you premise implies that the outcomes are preordained and I don't believe the science supports that premise.  The popular narrative certainly does but I'm interested in seeing the science that paints that picture.

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2008,16:38   



Quote
untitled, by raysto


--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
George



Posts: 314
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2008,16:43   

Quote (me @ )
don't you think that climate change research that deals with impacts in detail includes scientists and other professionals from a broad range of disciplines?  Or are you against multidisciplinary collaboration?

Take a team of climatologists and agronomists that collaborate to come up with predictions of crop yields under climate change.  They point out that in the worst case scenario, they predict massive crop failures.  Is this conflating science with politics?  What if they explicitly state that there is the potential for large-scale famine?  Would that be conflating science with politics?


To which you replied:

 
Quote (skeptic @ April 20 2008,14:23)
no George, I don't think that the scientists involved in the primary research of climate change should be a part do creating solutions in relation to predicted impacts.  The potential for bias is too great.  Consider if the drug companies also ran the FDA...lol, maybe that is actually the perfect example.


So you agree that climatologists and agronomists, in my example, should not collaborate to try to predict changes in agricultural productivity under different climate change scenarios?  This is an example of "political manipulation of science to achieve an agenda"?  You're either completely mad or, more likely, failing basic reading comprehension again.

As for your drug company / FDA analogy, it's not very apt.  Drug companies would stand to make a huge profit.  How would climate change scientists, unless they were big shareholders in renewable energy or carbon trading companies?  Your analogy would better fit a hypothetical situation where politicians beholden to big oil changed the results of scientific reports.  Oh, wait, that really happened.

As for tipping points, how about my (really) hypothetical hurricane argument on the previous page?  I gave it to you as an example of a tipping point.  Please tell me how I'm wrong.

And you'll have plenty of time to read this properly as I'll be out in the field for the next few days.

  
George



Posts: 314
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2008,16:50   

Quote (midwifetoad @ April 21 2008,11:21)
From the political angle, the only technology that can substitute for fossil fuel in the next fifty years is nuclear, and the various energy transmission and storage technologies it enables. (Hydrogen, for example)

If anyone can run the numbers and demonstrate this to be wrong, I'd like to be proved wrong.

Not necessarily in all places.  Ireland for example has the potential to supply all its power needs with plenty left to export using currently available wind technology (and a hell of a lot of turbines).  I think it's to do with some crazy synergy between politicians and playwrights generating all the air.

On the global scale, I'd like to prove you wrong, but unfortunately I can't.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2008,17:03   

let me clarify George, the climatologists involved in the primary research should not, IMO, be involved in the planning and reactions to climate change.  Such an involvement presupposes an outcome that may not ultimately be born out by the data.  Data that they should objectively collect.  As far as corrupting forces, in this country grants, tenure and book deals are appropriate examples.  In South Korea, apparently, these forces are similar.  Another good example is a stem cell scientist also involved in application of potential stem cell technology as well as lobbying for public funding.  This is a real good example because in this case it may actually be very difficult to isolate these three roles due to the nature of the research and the environment that exists.  But I'm proposing an ideal to strive for in general.

As far as your hurricane analogy, I haven't see any data to support that.  Prior to Katrina, I believe the view was that hurricane cycles were periodic and part of a much more complex system that mere sea surface temps.  I'm not sure  anything has been added beyond the anecdotal.  I wouldn't mind seeing it if it has.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2008,17:19   

Quote (George @ April 21 2008,15:50)
Ireland for example has the potential to supply all its power needs with plenty left to export using currently available wind technology (and a hell of a lot of turbines).  I think it's to do with some crazy synergy between politicians and playwrights generating all the air.

Say, I wonder if somebody could invent something to capture the rising hot air over Washington, D.C. and use that to drive turbines or whatever? :p

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2008,17:46   

Quote (skeptic @ April 21 2008,18:03)
let me clarify George, the climatologists involved in the primary research should not, IMO, be involved in the planning and reactions to climate change.  Such an involvement presupposes an outcome that may not ultimately be born out by the data.  Data that they should objectively collect.  

{snip}



Quote
strange fellow, by allfr3d


(which I found searching for "bizarre")

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2008,18:01   

sorry, Lou, I'm not sure I'm understanding your reference...and yes I did read it...twice, lol.

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2008,18:08   

Then try this one, which seems to be your assessment of science:



Quote
Montage - mostly unlicked!, by garthimage


or perhaps something a little more direct:



Quote
Fresh squeezed Kool Aid?, by DetroitDerek


--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2008,19:25   

ahh, substance.  I love it.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2008,02:03   

Quote (skeptic @ April 22 2008,01:25)
ahh, substance.  I love it.

You want substance, provide it, answer the question I asked you at the end of the last post.

Or will you continue to find pathetic excuses to fail, yet again, to support any claim you make ever? That is a rhetorical question btw.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2008,02:20   

Quote
I'm not sure  anything has been added beyond the anecdotal.


ahh would that we could all be nominalists sucking at the teat of mummys ontology.  everything is different, it's all the same.  everything is all the same, it's all different.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2008,02:55   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ April 22 2008,08:20)
Quote
I'm not sure  anything has been added beyond the anecdotal.


ahh would that we could all be nominalists sucking at the teat of mummys ontology.  everything is different, it's all the same.  everything is all the same, it's all different.

But it might be different.

Or possibly the same.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2008,07:11   

tipping points are more in line with the medias narrative and the activist message then any real data.  Every ten years we hear there are only ten years left.  All the "science" are computer models using assumptions that fix the direction of the result.  I'm more inclined to trust the resilience of this massively complex system called Earth then to accept that we can dramatically alter it after about 200 years of industry.  Again, actual science rather than rhetoric is desired here.

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2008,07:16   

Quote (skeptic @ April 22 2008,08:11)
tipping points are more in line with the medias narrative and the activist message then any real data.  Every ten years we hear there are only ten years left.  All the "science" are computer models using assumptions that fix the direction of the result.  I'm more inclined to trust the resilience of this massively complex system called Earth then to accept that we can dramatically alter it after about 200 years of industry.  Again, actual science rather than rhetoric is desired here.

Then produce some evidence for your claim.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2008,08:33   

Quote (skeptic @ April 22 2008,13:11)
tipping points are more in line with the medias narrative and the activist message then any real data.  Every ten years we hear there are only ten years left.  All the "science" are computer models using assumptions that fix the direction of the result.  I'm more inclined to trust the resilience of this massively complex system called Earth then to accept that we can dramatically alter it after about 200 years of industry.  Again, actual science rather than rhetoric is desired here.

Great. Do you understand how what you've just said is a slightly longer restatment of your previous "I don't believe in tipping points" comments?

As someone who craves substance, or in your case claims to whilst mysteriously avoiding it at all costs, shouldn't you do as Lou suggests and back up this claim of your with some...well...substance. Perhaps some evidence would be nice.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2008,08:35   

nice, but my claim is my opinion based upon my experience and the data I haven't seen.  You want me to change my opinion then you need to convince me.  Otherwise you're asking me to believe on say so.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2008,08:39   

Quote (skeptic @ April 22 2008,14:35)
nice, but my claim is my opinion based upon my experience and the data I haven't seen.  You want me to change my opinion then you need to convince me.  Otherwise you're asking me to believe on say so.

Whaaaaaa? Data you haven't seen? Oh I'm not even going to touch that pile of happy illogical horseshit with a bargepole!

I'm not asking you to do anything other than support the claims you've made. As I've said several times, you have no idea what (if anything) I think about climate change and/or tipping points etc because I've said very little about what I think about it.

No one is trying to convince you of anything, all anyone is trying to do is get you to support your claims.

See the difference?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2008,11:56   

sorry, Louis, I hate to burst your bubble but this isn't about you.  I don't care what you think about climate change or tipping points and I'm not trying to convince you of anything.  I simply stated my opinion.  If you feel so inclined and are urged to change my opinion then you need to present some data.  If not then be content that I have my opinion for whatever it's worth.

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2008,14:14   

Quote
All the "science" are computer models using assumptions that fix the direction of the result.

Really? Perhaps you could identify these assumptions? Here are some links to information about climate modeling. Show me in these descriptions of the models where the assumptions are that invalidate the results in your view.
http://www.oar.noaa.gov/climate/t_modeling.html
http://www.climateprediction.net/science/model-intro.php
http://www.ipcc-data.org/ddc_climscen.html
Or are you just bloviating about matters completely beyond your understanding?
Quote
I'm more inclined to trust the resilience of this massively complex system called Earth then to accept that we can dramatically alter it after about 200 years of industry.

Got it. Bloviating.
Here's the deal, skip. "Massively complex systems" are dynamic. They depend highly sensitively on feedback loops. What may look like "resilience" on the timescales familiar to human experience is actually the result of fluctuations between attractors over geological timescales. However, the study of chaos theory and dynamic systems in general tells us that while the system may seem locked in to a basin of attraction, perturbation may cause a rapid shift to a new attractor or chaotic fluctuations. What we've done by pumping trillions of tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere is give this feedback dependant system just such a perturbation.
Finally, it's not the resilience of Earth that we're worried about. All can agree that the climate has been different in the past, and that it will be different in the future, all due to entirely natural fluctuations. However, in the short term, the resilience of human agro-economy is very much in doubt, what with our teeming billions of mouths to feed.

Quote
Again, actual science rather than rhetoric is desired here.

Agreed. Got any?

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2008,14:57   

no problem C.J., I'll compare your links to the 5 papers from Climate Dynamics that I'm currently reading and see where that leads.  I would point out though that your comments rest on two assumptions that may well be unfounded.  One, that we are at a point where a variation can cause a rapid shift, i.e. tipping point and, two, that the trillions of tons at this time point can have a significant enough impact upon the system to achieve this rapid shift.  For this scenario we have no direct observational evidence and must rely on models for the predictions.  Also, you're actually a multi-variable response including rainfall distributions, humidity changes, soil and mineral variations, sunlight to cloud ratios, and probably dozens more variables that may are may not be significantly tied to slight temperature increases over the next hundred years.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2008,15:29   

shorter skeptic

WERE YOU THERE????

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2008,15:30   

Quote (skeptic @ April 22 2008,11:56)
sorry, Louis, I hate to burst your bubble but this isn't about you.  I don't care what you think about climate change or tipping points and I'm not trying to convince you of anything.  I simply stated my opinion.  If you feel so inclined and are urged to change my opinion then you need to present some data.  If not then be content that I have my opinion for whatever it's worth.

Your opinion is worth nothing.  

Louis' opinions are worth quite a bit more.

I really have to wonder about people who are "skeptical" of science, when it is abundantly clear they haven't mastered the basics.

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2008,15:35   

Quote (Lou FCD @ April 22 2008,07:16)
Quote (skeptic @ April 22 2008,08:11)
tipping points are more in line with the medias narrative and the activist message then any real data.  Every ten years we hear there are only ten years left.  All the "science" are computer models using assumptions that fix the direction of the result.  I'm more inclined to trust the resilience of this massively complex system called Earth then to accept that we can dramatically alter it after about 200 years of industry.  Again, actual science rather than rhetoric is desired here.

Then produce some evidence for your claim.

ROTFL, Lou!

Scientific fact:  There is currently more energy absorbed by the earth than is emitted.  

Q: What does the first law of thermodynamics say will happen?

Let us see if skeptic can think at a high school level.

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2008,15:44   

Quote (skeptic @ April 22 2008,14:57)
no problem C.J., I'll compare your links to the 5 papers from Climate Dynamics that I'm currently reading and see where that leads.  I would point out though that your comments rest on two assumptions that may well be unfounded.  One, that we are at a point where a variation can cause a rapid shift, i.e. tipping point and, two, that the trillions of tons at this time point can have a significant enough impact upon the system to achieve this rapid shift.  For this scenario we have no direct observational evidence and must rely on models for the predictions.  Also, you're actually a multi-variable response including rainfall distributions, humidity changes, soil and mineral variations, sunlight to cloud ratios, and probably dozens more variables that may are may not be significantly tied to slight temperature increases over the next hundred years.

I am reminded of this classic bit from cinema:

Otto: Don't call me stupid.

 
                 
Wanda: Oh, right! To call you stupid
would be an insult to stupid people!

 
                 
I've known sheep that could outwit you.
I've worn dresses with higher IQs.

 
                 
But you think you're an intellectual,
don't you, ape?

 
                 
Otto:  Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes, they do, Otto.

 
                 
They just don't understand it.

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2008,15:50   

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ April 22 2008,16:35)
Quote (Lou FCD @ April 22 2008,07:16)

Then produce some evidence for your claim.

ROTFL, Lou!

Scientific fact:  There is currently more energy absorbed by the earth than is emitted.  

Q: What does the first law of thermodynamics say will happen?

Let us see if skeptic can think at a high school level.

Yes, well I'm not holding my breath.

I think

Quote
my claim is my opinion based upon my experience and the data I haven't seen.


about sums up all I need to know from here.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2008,16:43   

that's a very interesting statement regarding relative opinions, I'll have to keep that in mind.

Also, I'm not skeptical of science just it's interpretation and misuse.

just to entertain: what is the largest heat sink on the planet?

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2008,19:23   

Quote (skeptic @ April 22 2008,17:56)
sorry, Louis, I hate to burst your bubble but this isn't about you.  I don't care what you think about climate change or tipping points and I'm not trying to convince you of anything.  I simply stated my opinion.  If you feel so inclined and are urged to change my opinion then you need to present some data.  If not then be content that I have my opinion for whatever it's worth.

You've missed my point wildly as usual.

You are making a claim about "tipping points" etc being a load of old cobblers. We are aware that this is your opinion because you have stated it (more than once). What I and others are asking is the basis for this opinion. What evidence do you have that supports this opinion of yours. Do you understand that your opinion is not the, or even a, default position? Provide evidence to support your opinion.

Understand yet?

The point is to try to get you to support your claims to some degree, no matter how tiny. Simply restating your claims is not the same thing as supporting them. It seems like I've mentioned this before. It also seems like I'm not the only one.

So Obliviot, for the umpteenth time: what scientific evidence do you have that the "tipping points" proposed by climate scientists are false?

Try to support your claim with more than "I don't like the way they are used in the media" or some such irrelevance. I, and others, are asking about the SCIENCE behind your claim. Stop evading supporting your claims please.

No one cares about convincing anyone or any such red herring, that is yet another one of the "Obliviot Standard Playbook Moves For Avoiding Supporting His Claims". You have said X, we are asking on what basis you can claim X to be the case.

I'll try to use a hypothetical example you might understand. You claim to be a scientist, a chemist (my field) no less. (Needless to say I am massively sceptical of this claim but that's a side issue, we'll assume you are telling the truth for the sake of the example) Here goes: If Person A (let's call him Andy) were to come into the lab one morning and claim to have synthesised tetrodotoxin, from glucose, in seven steps, using non-toxic, cheap reagents and room temperature, economic reaction, naturally I'd hope you would be very sceptical of Andy's claim. How would you get Andy to support his claim that he had done this?

So now you have two questions to answer: 1) provide support for your claims re: tipping points. 2) provide a description of how you'd get Andy to support his claims re: tetrodotoxin synthesis. Try to actually do this, you might be amazed at the progress it generates.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2008,19:58   

The idea that science provides insufficient information to inform political action is ludicrous. That the information isn't perfect is immaterial. It is the best information available.

Specific evidence may have a higher or lower probability but intentional obfuscation such as has been employed by the Bush Administration at NASA and NOAA is equally important information to inform political action.

The probability based issues of GW definitely call for deliberate, reasoned action rather than willy-nilly regulation but the science does indeed present a political problem that requires political solutions.

I think we have entered a new age in human interactions where the attitude expressed so beautifully, if unintentionally, by skeptic are actually dangerous.

The science is struggling against an intentional attempt to cover it up rather than address it. This is unacceptable. The science itself is not political but it presents political challenges which require access to accurate figures and lots and lots of peer review.

Why would they fraudulently and criminally attempt to discredit the science? At that point society should be using that particular piece of information to inform its action. Then we can get back to trying to understand the science.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2008,04:14   

These weird hours are drastically effecting my post content and quality. Hmmm. I'm gonna need some drugs and maybe a prostitute or two I think.

Skeptic, have you ever learned how computer modeling works? I'm forgetting again what kind of science you learned about. Hell, I'm forgetting what kind of science I learned about. Sometimes though a couple of pages just copied and pasted right from the unabridged dictionary just about do the trick.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2008,07:07   

Quote (skeptic @ April 22 2008,11:56)
sorry, Louis, I hate to burst your bubble but this isn't about you.  I don't care what you think about climate change or tipping points and I'm not trying to convince you of anything.  I simply stated my opinion.  If you feel so inclined and are urged to change my opinion then you need to present some data.  If not then be content that I have my opinion for whatever it's worth.

Skeptic, this has nothing to do with opinions. We simply asked you to support your opinion, because we can't discuss without content. Apperantly, you don't understand what Louis sad, he sad he wanted (just like me) to see some foundation for your statements.
Really, how the héll can you base your opinion on data you haven't seen (does it even exist)?? I really don't understand how you do that.

  
Falk Macara



Posts: 11
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2008,09:05   

Quote (Assassinator @ April 23 2008,07:07)
. . . Really, how the hell can you base your opinion on data you haven't seen (does it even exist)?? I really don't understand how you do that.

It's easy.

Step one involves vast quantities of mind-altering substances.  

If step two involves the inside of an ambulance, you may have overdone it.

In certain circumstances, brain chemistry can be permanently altered; drop height experiments on infants figues prominently* as a mechanism.

Now, if the question was "how can you hold forth an opinion for the purpose of debate when you are unable to supply any foundation for this opinion which may support rational debate", you hope the other guy has imbibed vast quantities of mind-altering substances.  

Skeptic:  I'll start you off with a few options; feel free to make up a few of your own:
-> Eccentricity of the orbit of the Earth.
-> Solar Volatility.
-> Natural climate variation distorting stochastic predictions.
-> It's all a big commie-liberal-gay-jewish-athiest-Intelligentsia conspiracy to make it too hot to wear mind-ray deflectors#
-> ???

*:  To teach the controversy on the theory of gravity, I presume.
#: I'm amazed you needed to look at this footnote, actually.

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2008,13:18   

Quote (skeptic @ April 22 2008,16:43)
that's a very interesting statement regarding relative opinions, I'll have to keep that in mind.

Also, I'm not skeptical of science just it's interpretation and misuse.

just to entertain: what is the largest heat sink on the planet?

It doesn't matter!  

The problem is one of balance in radiative flux in and out at the surface (which coincidentally is where we live).

Air has a low heat capacity, so its temperature rises readily.  Once heated, transfer of heat from the air to the ocean is very inefficient.

A sophomore level explanation (note the lack of discussion of heat sinks) is at
http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/gh_kushnir.html

Yet again you show that your opinion of your own scientific knowledge is a sterling example of the Dunning-Krueger effect.  

Are you getting the message yet?  For your opinions to "count" you must actually know something relevant to the issue.  I can tell that Louis is a very good synthetic organic chemist, with some background in drug design, and has invested some effort into thinking about science, religion, philosophy in general.

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2008,17:05   

From the beginning...

I can say that I've haven't seen data to convince me after having read available data and remaining unconvinced.  By no means have I read everything but so far nothing is swaying my opinion.  This shouldn't be a difficult concept as it is used constantly here to justify no belief in God.

Secondly, I have two issues that affect my posts, time and effort.  Where appropriate I may feel the need to invest the time and effort on a topic.  In most cases, I just haven't seen the point.  I'm not here to change anyone's mind.  Just try to keep that in mind.

and finally, opinions are opinions and none "count" more than others.

  
Nerull



Posts: 317
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2008,18:55   

Quote (skeptic @ April 23 2008,18:05)
and finally, opinions are opinions and none "count" more than others.

Which is, of course, why when you need to fix your car, you hold the opinion of the local loony in the same regard as trained mechanics.

This possibly explains why it breaks every 5 minutes. But thats just an opinion.

--------------
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2008,19:03   

I don't care whether or not my opinion on anything "counts", although I'm flattered to think someone might occasionally find it so. Hey, we all love to be loved right? ;-)

Too far? LOL

What I *DO* care about are the support free, content free claims from Obliviot, and his insistance on battling the straw atheist/liberal/whatever he has conjured upin his head.

So please can we stay away from falling into the trap of Obliviot's Standard Playbook For Avoiding Supporting His Claims. A trap I fall into like the La Brea Tar Pit of Tard it is, nearly every chance I get.

Obliviot: Answer the two questionsI posed above. Stop evading the issue. McDonalds can do without you flipping burgers for five minutes as you compose your latest excuse for not supporting your claims.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2008,20:27   

Quote
I can tell that Louis is a very good synthetic organic chemist,


Louis is synthetic?

:p

Henry

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2008,21:12   

or try to comprehend this Louis, is there any true point to me answering any question you pose?

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2008,22:53   

Quote (Henry J @ April 23 2008,20:27)
Quote
I can tell that Louis is a very good synthetic organic chemist,


Louis is synthetic?

:p

Henry

Louis is organic? Jeeze, put me in pharmaceuticals for a few years and I don't know if you'd be able to say that about me.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2008,05:09   

Quote (skeptic @ April 24 2008,03:12)
or try to comprehend this Louis, is there any true point to me answering any question you pose?

Very much so, because (well apart from the question about hypothetical Andy's lab results) in this case it is basically the identical question that EVERYONE is asking you.

Try again. Stop avoiding supporting your claims.

Also has it ever occured to you that if you actually supported your claims when asked, these threads would be a lot shorter and less vitriolic. It's been pointed out to you time and again that the FACT of disagreement is never an issue, it's the MANNER in which you disagree: in your case that is assertion followed by repeated dishonest attempts avoiding supporting that assertion. Again I am FAR from the only person who has pointed this out to you.

This is as good a case as any: you say you doubt "tipping points" are part of the decent science of climate change and that basically they are a load of activist/political crap dreamt up for some obscure reason. You've made some hand waves regarding:

a) you've seen no evidence to counter this opinion,

b) that these things suspiciously fit to political agendas you disagree with,

c) because tenure/book deals etc can be corrupting (just like that South Korean stem cell chap) a scientist involved in the field directly related to the problem should stay away from any ideas about how to mitigate/solve the problem just in case he/she is corrupt(ed).

a) is an argument from ignorance. b) and c) are familiar enumerations of your tendancy to plumb for a conspiracy theory when you have no evidence. Not to mention the backhanded slander of hundred of thousands of honest, hard working scientists as being corrupt/potentially corrupt because they (gasP0 have found evidence and provide solutions to problems that conflicts with your preconceived political or religious biases. Such substance you provide!

You claim to crave substance yet when given umpteen opportunities to provide some/discuss some you run around flapping your hands and doing everything to avoid actually supporting your claims. This thread has been up for 8 or 9 days now lets be nice and conservatively call it a week. For that week I and others have repeatedly asked you to provide some support, scientific of course, for your claims. We've even said we'll ignore most of the claims
you've made in favour of you supporting JUST ONE of them.

Now just answer the question re: evidence supporting your decrial of "tipping points" and the hypothetical lab question I posed. Stop avoiding them.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2008,05:11   

Quote (BWE @ April 24 2008,04:53)
Quote (Henry J @ April 23 2008,20:27)
 
Quote
I can tell that Louis is a very good synthetic organic chemist,


Louis is synthetic?

:p

Henry

Louis is organic? Jeeze, put me in pharmaceuticals for a few years and I don't know if you'd be able to say that about me.

I contain carbon. I was made by my parents. Organic and synthetic all in one go.

Oh wait, was that not what you meant?

Louis

ETA: P.S. We don't actually have to put ourselves into pharmaceuticals, actual immersion is not required. However some of us do enjoy an occasional bath in the plant's reaction vessels. If you find a pube in your Lipitor tablet, just give me a call and I'm sure we can all come to some arrangement. {ahem}

--------------
Bye.

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2008,08:33   

Enough skeptic.

We are all now fully aware of your opinion and that you base your opinion on your opinion.  Stop derailing the threads with them.

If you'd like to continue, contribute.  If you have something of value to add, add it but support it.

Otherwise, save me the trouble of clicking the BW button.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2008,12:27   

Quote (skeptic @ April 21 2008,08:53)
quote "and for some people and places that will be too late"

nuf said.

I do have to admit that you did hit the nail on the head on one point, when it comes to your posts I skim them.  They are typically too long, redundant and filled with worthless drivel.  But you right about that point.  I would suggest that you start adding some substance.

Now about GW, if I read you right here you'd like to discuss climate change with me in the hopes of launching some other attack in a similiar redundant vein.  Well here's your opening...in my opinion, I have seen no evidence that tipping points exist so I'm less inclined to think we are at a point where somewhere in the next 10-20 years some event or series of events will occur putting human existence in jeopardy.  Go ahead, convince me.  I honestly have no dog in this fight except for a sincere aversion to the political manipulation of science to achieve an agenda (both ID and radical evolutionists fall under this same umbrella for me).  So if the world is actually under a state of uncontrolled warming and human existence is threatened then I'm all ears.  Unfortunately, all I ever hear is the politics and never convincing science.

There you go, a little project for your afternoon enjoyment.

OK, 2 things.

1) If the political aim of radical evolutionists is to... Wait a minute.

What is the political aim of radical evolutionists? Is it substantially different than one or more of the stated political aims of Thomas Jefferson?

2) Skeptic, tipping points define almost every system. Stasis in a system is the result of unchanging inputs over time.

When populations decline, they can reach a tipping point where the decline turns to a crash. Water sloshes merrily around at .5' c but at  0 suddenly undergoes a phase transition. Phase transitions have all kinds of chaotic properties but typically happen rather suddenly.

This is of course oversimplified but I am surprised you would say that there is no evidence for tipping points since you said you do some kind of science.  What kind of science is that again? I ask because tipping points are one of the most salient features of any system. Complex mechanical systems almost never, (I can't think of any examples at all right now, maybe later) change gradually in response to changing conditions.

I guess gradual should be defined in terms of climate as averaging climate in 500 year increments back over the last billion or so.
 You get stasis then abrupt jumps then stasis.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2008,13:19   

Touching on the effects of change in climate on human diversity, comes this story from CNN.

Quote
WASHINGTON (AP)  -- Human beings may have had a brush with extinction 70,000 years ago, an extensive genetic study suggests.

The human population at that time was reduced to small isolated groups in Africa, apparently because of drought, according to an analysis released Thursday.

The report notes that a separate study by researchers at Stanford University estimated the number of early humans may have shrunk as low as 2,000 before numbers began to expand again in the early Stone Age.


Quote
Eastern Africa experienced a series of severe droughts between 135,000 and 90,000 years ago, and researchers said this climatological shift may have contributed to the population changes, dividing into small, isolated groups that developed independently.

Paleontologist Meave Leakey, a Genographic adviser, said: "Who would have thought that as recently as 70,000 years ago, extremes of climate had reduced our population to such small numbers that we were on the very edge of extinction?"


.pdf of the paper is here, from the American Journal of Human Genetics.  (ETA: I think this paper goes with my next comment, but I'm not seeing where it connects to this comment yet...)

Scary.

Edited by Lou FCD on April 24 2008,14:47

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2008,13:34   

Same project, different finding, from the Beeb.

Quote

Humans almost became two species
By Paul Rincon
Science reporter, BBC News

Ancient humans started down the path of evolving into two separate species before merging back into a single population, a genetic study suggests.

The genetic split in Africa resulted in distinct populations that lived in isolation for as much as 100,000 years, the scientists say.

This could have been caused by arid conditions driving a wedge between humans in eastern and southern Africa.

Details have been published in the American Journal of Human Genetics.


--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2008,13:46   

Quote (BWE @ April 24 2008,18:27)
[SNIP]

1) If the political aim of radical evolutionists is to... Wait a minute.

What is the political aim of radical evolutionists? Is it substantially different than one or more of the stated political aims of Thomas Jefferson?

[SNIP]

I was wondering when someone would ask him that. Maybe we could bring up his "scepticism about the mechanisms of evolutionary change" as well. We're bound to get a wealth of content free assertions from that.

Anyway BWE, as we both know he'll just use this as another excuse to avoid providing any evidenciary justification for his claim that "climate tipping points = crapola".

Of course we all know climate tipping points = crapola" because they are incovenient for his political biases and thus, based on the projection and evasion we have all come to know and love from Obliviot, MUST by force of his OPINION*, be because of the horrible nefarious biases of those evil liberals/atheists/evolutionists/whatevers.

Louis

*which is just as good as anyone else's dontcherknow, intersting how anti-intellectual, know nothing religious right wing wankers seize on the relativist rhetoric of anti-intellectual pompous academic left wing wankers isn't it?

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2008,13:52   

Quote (Lou FCD @ April 24 2008,19:19)
Touching on the effects of change in climate on human diversity, comes this story from CNN.

 
Quote
WASHINGTON (AP)  -- Human beings may have had a brush with extinction 70,000 years ago, an extensive genetic study suggests.

The human population at that time was reduced to small isolated groups in Africa, apparently because of drought, according to an analysis released Thursday.

The report notes that a separate study by researchers at Stanford University estimated the number of early humans may have shrunk as low as 2,000 before numbers began to expand again in the early Stone Age.


 
Quote
Eastern Africa experienced a series of severe droughts between 135,000 and 90,000 years ago, and researchers said this climatological shift may have contributed to the population changes, dividing into small, isolated groups that developed independently.

Paleontologist Meave Leakey, a Genographic adviser, said: "Who would have thought that as recently as 70,000 years ago, extremes of climate had reduced our population to such small numbers that we were on the very edge of extinction?"


.pdf of the paper is here, from the American Journal of Human Genetics.  (ETA: I think this paper goes with my next comment, but I'm not seeing where it connects to this comment yet...)

Scary.

[Obliviot mode]

All lies. Evolutionist, liberal, green, beardy weirdy, conspiratorial, alarmist, finger pointing lies every word.

Why? Because i say so and my opinion is different and my opinion is equal to theirs despite the fact that my opinion is based on fuck all knowledge of the matters at hand and an enormous quantity of ignorant bias etcoodles of evidence which for some reason I cannot quite manage to provide right now or ever and so I will try very very hard to avoid doing this because I'm a troll.

[/Obliviot mode]

How did I do? Personally I reckon it's indistinguishable from the real thing.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2008,14:03   

Quote (Louis @ April 24 2008,13:46)
Quote (BWE @ April 24 2008,18:27)
[SNIP]

1) If the political aim of radical evolutionists is to... Wait a minute.

What is the political aim of radical evolutionists? Is it substantially different than one or more of the stated political aims of Thomas Jefferson?

[SNIP]

I was wondering when someone would ask him that. Maybe we could bring up his "scepticism about the mechanisms of evolutionary change" as well. We're bound to get a wealth of content free assertions from that.

Anyway BWE, as we both know he'll just use this as another excuse to avoid providing any evidenciary justification for his claim that "climate tipping points = crapola".

Of course we all know climate tipping points = crapola" because they are incovenient for his political biases and thus, based on the projection and evasion we have all come to know and love from Obliviot, MUST by force of his OPINION*, be because of the horrible nefarious biases of those evil liberals/atheists/evolutionists/whatevers.

Louis

*which is just as good as anyone else's dontcherknow, intersting how anti-intellectual, know nothing religious right wing wankers seize on the relativist rhetoric of anti-intellectual pompous academic left wing wankers isn't it?

Sounds a bit like a post-modern reading of Kuhn.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2008,14:07   

Quote (Louis @ April 24 2008,14:52)
How did I do? Personally I reckon it's indistinguishable from the real thing.

Louis

A fine imitation, but what do you think about the paper and how it relates to this thread?

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2008,18:16   

Proposed cure worse than disease

Quote
'Planetary sunshade' could strip ozone layer by 76%

   * 19:00 24 April 2008
   * NewScientist.com news service
   * Catherine Brahic

Planetary engineering projects to cool the planet could backfire quite spectacularly: a new model shows that a "sulphate sunshade" would punch huge holes through the ozone layer above the Arctic.

To make matters worse, it would also delay the full recovery of the Antarctic ozone hole by up to 70 years.

Pumping tiny sulphate particles into the atmosphere to create a sunshield that would keep the planet cool was first suggested as a solution to global warming by Edward Teller, a physicist was best known for his involvement in the development of the hydrogen bomb.

Simone Tilmes of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, US, used computer models to see how a sulphate sunshade would affect the ozone layer, which protects us from harmful UV rays. She says it could have "a drastic impact".


Hey, here's an idea...

How 'bout we quit dumping tons of shit into the atmosphere, instead?

Oh wait.  That might reduce profits down into the billions of dollars.  What the hell was I thinking?

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2008,18:33   

that's the problem Lou, you weren't thinking.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2008,18:37   

Quote (BWE @ April 24 2008,18:33)
that's the problem Lou, you weren't thinking.

No no no he díd think, and thát was the problem. Who needs thinking when you got the neo-cons ;)

  
Falk Macara



Posts: 11
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2008,21:29   

Quote (Lou FCD @ April 24 2008,18:16)
How 'bout we quit dumping tons of shit into the atmosphere, instead?

Oh wait.  That might reduce profits down into the billions of dollars.  What the hell was I thinking?

Before I start, I think the evidence for a significant anthropogenic factor in global climate change is overwhelming.  

But it isn't as simple as that.

The generation of massive financial profits at the expense of the environment, the very systems we require for our ongoing existance, is not driven by evil companes, evil CEO's or evil board members.  It's driven by the people who consume -- and demand to consume more of -- the output of these firms, and hang the costs of the externalities generated.

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2008,23:40   

Quote (Falk Macara @ April 24 2008,21:29)
Quote (Lou FCD @ April 24 2008,18:16)
How 'bout we quit dumping tons of shit into the atmosphere, instead?

Oh wait.  That might reduce profits down into the billions of dollars.  What the hell was I thinking?

Before I start, I think the evidence for a significant anthropogenic factor in global climate change is overwhelming.  

But it isn't as simple as that.

The generation of massive financial profits at the expense of the environment, the very systems we require for our ongoing existance, is not driven by evil companes, evil CEO's or evil board members.  It's driven by the people who consume -- and demand to consume more of -- the output of these firms, and hang the costs of the externalities generated.

That's a bit of a problem as you note. It's going to be tough trying to figure out how so supply our consumption habits for an extended period of time.

I guess we'll need politicians who have access to accurate science if we want to have a prayer at all eh?

:)

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2008,00:28   

Actually BWE we have to be prepared to feast upon our neighbor.




skeptic, this is why you are a fucking wanker.  your appeasement happy horseshit 'wait til the data are in' stupid juice is poison to that which real people hold sacred.  for the love of your gods man get a clue.

why in the hell would you doubt the existence of tipping points (or local non-equilibria).  You ever tried to grow ginseng in the desert, smart ass?

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Reed



Posts: 274
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2008,00:41   

Quote (Falk Macara @ April 24 2008,19:29)
The generation of massive financial profits at the expense of the environment, the very systems we require for our ongoing existance, is not driven by evil companes, evil CEO's or evil board members.  It's driven by the people who consume -- and demand to consume more of -- the output of these firms, and hang the costs of the externalities generated.

This is absolutely true. However it doesn't mean nothing can be done. We cannot escape some impact at this point, but we can potentially affect how severe it is.

People cried bloody murder about limiting CFCs (unsurprisingly, many of the same people now say it's to expensive to do anything about AGW) but we did, and we are almost certainly better off for it, despite the costs. The cost of having no ozone layer would ultimately have been much greater.

This brings me to my big beef with the "all regulation is bad, let the market handle it" crowd (which overlaps very strongly with GW denial and it's lesser forms of "oh it's too expensive to do anything" and "oh maybe GW is a good thing".) Markets are inherently short sighted in this kind of situation. If you can make a product for $1 by polluting a lot, or $2 without polluting much, someone is going to go for the $1 method. Even if others want to do it clean (and there's plenty of decent, honest people in industry) they will have trouble competing. Never mind that it will eventually cost society as a whole $3 per item to clean up the resulting mess.

  
Falk Macara



Posts: 11
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2008,01:00   

Quote (BWE @ April 24 2008,23:40)
That's a bit of a problem as you note. It's going to be tough trying to figure out how so supply our consumption habits for an extended period of time.


At out current rates of consumption (and at our current rates of growth in consumption!), I think "Impossible" about covers it#.

[quote=ibid]I guess we'll need politicians who have access to accurate science if we want to have a prayer at all eh?[/quote]

Trouble there is that politicians are public servants, and can be replaced if they make unpopular decisions.

As has been mentioned in the fisheries thread, people have a pretty short time horizon.  If it means less money in the pocket today, most people will demand of their politicians (using slightly different langauge) that they should be able to utterly destroy the feedstock for their industry.

The solution isn't found in giving politicans better access to the science*, but in simultaneously getting better science, and providing better access to that science to the public in an accessable format.  This will (hopefully) include some degree of scientific literacy in the broader public.

As a bonus, you'd knock antiscience on the head.

#: Unless one of those godless, decietful, conspiring, evil scientists should come up with something dreadfully clever.  While I'm certain such a solution will eventually crop up, I'm not so sure it'll do so in a meaningful timeframe.

*: They've (and we've) already effectively unlimited access; and a politician that does the right but unpopular thing is, invariably, replaced by a populist rube who Just Doesn't Care.[/quote]
Hoping this works...

  
Falk Macara



Posts: 11
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2008,01:08   

Quote (Reed @ April 25 2008,00:41)
People cried bloody murder about limiting CFCs (unsurprisingly, many of the same people now say it's to expensive to do anything about AGW) but we did, and we are almost certainly better off for it, despite the costs. The cost of having no ozone layer would ultimately have been much greater.

This brings me to my big beef with the "all regulation is bad, let the market handle it" crowd (which overlaps very strongly with GW denial and it's lesser forms of "oh it's too expensive to do anything" and "oh maybe GW is a good thing".) Markets are inherently short sighted in this kind of situation. If you can make a product for $1 by polluting a lot, or $2 without polluting much, someone is going to go for the $1 method. Even if others want to do it clean (and there's plenty of decent, honest people in industry) they will have trouble competing. Never mind that it will eventually cost society as a whole $3 per item to clean up the resulting mess.

That's game theory.

The underlying problem here is a tragedy of the commons -- a vast amount of the resouces used in industry aren't actually acquired through the market.

You can use the market -- through (for example) emissions taxes -- to correct this.  

As for the Laissez-faire mob, well, they can get stuffed.  Regulation can, and does, work to increase weath and profitability: consider the benefits in reduction of risk to the foundation of business entities arising from required audited reporting.

Sorry for the double post, but I've not yet got an 'edit' option.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2008,04:55   

Quote (Lou FCD @ April 24 2008,20:07)
Quote (Louis @ April 24 2008,14:52)
How did I do? Personally I reckon it's indistinguishable from the real thing.

Louis

A fine imitation, but what do you think about the paper and how it relates to this thread?

What do I think?

Hmmm, one of the tricky questions eh?! ;-)

First, the obivous caveat: It's not my field (obviously) so I do not have the perspective of the current state of the relevant literature needed to place it properly in context.

My initial impressions on reading it were that, although to my non-geneticist/anthropologist eyes it seemed well written and the evidence for their hypothesis was obviously obtained properly (from the little I know about sequencing/examining DNA etc), I (like the authors) would be cautious as advancing this as anything other than a starting point for a new hypothesis about the splits/dating of splits in early human populations. "More work needed", although that doesn't take away from how interesting this is at all.

For example the dates they obtained seem to me to come only from molecular clock data (someone please correct me if I missed something) which can be tricky, and need at least some calibration/correlation with other independant dating methods. Obviously that wasn't the point of this paper, but I thought I'd mention it as one of the first things I thought on reading it.

From the popular reading and brief forays into the primary lit I've done on the subject over the years I was already aware of the fact that there was a mtDNA demonstrated split in early H. sapiens. Although I wouldn't have remembered any dates for that split. This paper proposes that the split a lot earlier than previously thought. It also makes a good case for a more heterogenous migration of H. sapiens across Africa. However the authros are careful to point out that their data by no means proves their hypothesis, merely advance the possibility of a slightly different explanation to the one currently understood (i.e. more homogenous migration pattern, later split etc).

I would be really very careful about linking this paper to any "environmental" issues, especially modern ones. This paper is describing a genetic pattern within a modern population which might shed light on the past migrations of our early ancestors. If I were to call this a "speciation" (which it certainly is not, but bear with my layman's use of terms) then enviromental changes which seperate populations are part of the known mechanisms of "speciation". Environmental changes/conditions may well have been a causitive factor in the split shown in this paper, but I couldn't make that judgement based on this paper alone (and I haven't chased down the references it cites). I see you've also noted how it links with the news stories you mention.

LOL typical scientist, I ignored what you wrote and the news stories and went off and read the paper first! At this point in the post I went back to check what you and the news stories had written! My bad, my bad. Although I think what I've just said stands as a lay analysis of some aspects of the paper you link.

Having read the news stories I'd have to say that this is pretty typical media behaviour, exactly the kind I mentioned before. Some science somewhere mentions humans and environment and by the time it gets from the scientists who understand it to the news story it has passed through the eyes and brain of probably half a dozen people most of whom DON'T understand the science. Hence it is presented as a big deal/something it ain't. Incidentally this sort of thing is why I no longer read New Scientist, it's more media than science.

This paper certainly isn't newsworthy in the sense the media outlets quoted use it. Because it is slightly more technical than "Spot the Dog" the media wquote it as some revolutionary piece. As my PhD supervisor hammered into me: a proper persepctive on the literature is needed. We've known for many years that humans basically fall into two broad categories based on mtDNA studies (some Africans + everyone else). We've known for years that environmental changes are one of the causative mechanisms behind migrations and/or any resulting genetic divergence up to and including speciation. This paper refines some of our estimates, possibly even to the extent of placing the split in populations in a period of known environmental change, but it of itself is a step on the road, not the whole journey. I'd be a lot more cautious, mainly because I don't know enough about the field to make a proper judgement.

Fair?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2008,05:02   

Quote (Lou FCD @ April 25 2008,00:16)
Proposed cure worse than disease

Quote
'Planetary sunshade' could strip ozone layer by 76%

   * 19:00 24 April 2008
   * NewScientist.com news service
   * Catherine Brahic

Planetary engineering projects to cool the planet could backfire quite spectacularly: a new model shows that a "sulphate sunshade" would punch huge holes through the ozone layer above the Arctic.

To make matters worse, it would also delay the full recovery of the Antarctic ozone hole by up to 70 years.

Pumping tiny sulphate particles into the atmosphere to create a sunshield that would keep the planet cool was first suggested as a solution to global warming by Edward Teller, a physicist was best known for his involvement in the development of the hydrogen bomb.

Simone Tilmes of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, US, used computer models to see how a sulphate sunshade would affect the ozone layer, which protects us from harmful UV rays. She says it could have "a drastic impact".


Hey, here's an idea...

How 'bout we quit dumping tons of shit into the atmosphere, instead?

Oh wait.  That might reduce profits down into the billions of dollars.  What the hell was I thinking?

Ozone layer depletion? Easy! I can solve that for you in a few lines:

1) Too little stratospheric ozone partly due to anthropogenic pollutants.

2) Too much ground level ozone due partly to anthropogenis pollutants.

3) Some kind of big pipe from ground to stratosphere is needed.

Probelm solved, quod erat demonstratum, cogito ergo sum, alea jacta est, redde Caesari quae sunt Caesaris, Cornelia et Flavia sub arborum sunt, et cetera

Now can we get on with business?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2008,05:17   

Quote (Reed @ April 25 2008,06:41)
Quote (Falk Macara @ April 24 2008,19:29)
The generation of massive financial profits at the expense of the environment, the very systems we require for our ongoing existance, is not driven by evil companes, evil CEO's or evil board members.  It's driven by the people who consume -- and demand to consume more of -- the output of these firms, and hang the costs of the externalities generated.

This is absolutely true. However it doesn't mean nothing can be done. We cannot escape some impact at this point, but we can potentially affect how severe it is.

People cried bloody murder about limiting CFCs (unsurprisingly, many of the same people now say it's to expensive to do anything about AGW) but we did, and we are almost certainly better off for it, despite the costs. The cost of having no ozone layer would ultimately have been much greater.

This brings me to my big beef with the "all regulation is bad, let the market handle it" crowd (which overlaps very strongly with GW denial and it's lesser forms of "oh it's too expensive to do anything" and "oh maybe GW is a good thing".) Markets are inherently short sighted in this kind of situation. If you can make a product for $1 by polluting a lot, or $2 without polluting much, someone is going to go for the $1 method. Even if others want to do it clean (and there's plenty of decent, honest people in industry) they will have trouble competing. Never mind that it will eventually cost society as a whole $3 per item to clean up the resulting mess.

This makes several very good points, but the one I really want to highlight is a personal favourite of mine:

Not only do environmentally friendly business activities potentially SAVE money in the long term, they can be made to save money in the short term. They can even be used to (shock horror) MAKE money!

If we can gradually suspend our reliance on fossil fuels by making PART (because it will not be all AFAICT) of our energy sources sustainable (solar/wind etc) then we essentially get energy for "free" (yes, yes, manufacture, installation, start up etc). The point is, if our houses are built/equipped with energy producing devices (mini turbines/solar panels) etc we can generate a small portion (depending on location and prevalent weather conditions) of our energy requirements ourselves. That saves us money. Granted there are solutions that only save us money in the long run (the installment costs being very high) but as the technology improves, as these products become more commonplace, as standard market forces come to bear on these products etc this will get cheaper.

I've even seen "environmental houses" that generate enough of their own electricity to heat themselves during the winter months and privide power all year round.  Not bad! Ok, these things are ferociously expensive today, but one of the things we need to work on (and are) is making these technologies cheaper and more available.

So quite contrary to Obliviot's strawman about fearing change, I say we embrace the inevitable changes and that we provide technological solutions for them as best we can. Reducing our dependance on certain energy sources is a start, it's part of the whole picture. Nuclear energy (pref. fast breeder/next gen. breeder) is another part, geothermal is another (where available cheaply) etc etc etc. In fact, judging by the science I have read, we have no other option. Change is coming. The problem is how do we cope with that change and how do we prevent some of that change doing untold damage.

Just think (this is a bit utopian I realise) of the benefits of being relatively independant of fossil fuels as our primary source of energy. Think of the political isolation the Middle East will face, think of the long term cost of energy decreasing, think of the relatively consequence/pollution free use of energy. I say we diversify our energy sources, making as many of them sustainable as we can. This is actually something that will BENEFIT us all economically, from a pauper in a Chinese rice paddy to a corporate bigwig in London.

Yeah yeah, I'm an optimist, I know. My bad.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2008,07:20   

Quote (Louis @ April 25 2008,05:55)
Fair?


Quite.  Thank you.

 
Quote (Louis @ April 25 2008,05:55)

What do I think?

Hmmm, one of the tricky questions eh?! ;-)

First, the obivous caveat: It's not my field (obviously) so I do not have the perspective of the current state of the relevant literature needed to place it properly in context.

My initial impressions on reading it were that, although to my non-geneticist/anthropologist eyes it seemed well written and the evidence for their hypothesis was obviously obtained properly (from the little I know about sequencing/examining DNA etc), I (like the authors) would be cautious as advancing this as anything other than a starting point for a new hypothesis about the splits/dating of splits in early human populations. "More work needed", although that doesn't take away from how interesting this is at all.

For example the dates they obtained seem to me to come only from molecular clock data (someone please correct me if I missed something) which can be tricky, and need at least some calibration/correlation with other independant dating methods. Obviously that wasn't the point of this paper, but I thought I'd mention it as one of the first things I thought on reading it.

From the popular reading and brief forays into the primary lit I've done on the subject over the years I was already aware of the fact that there was a mtDNA demonstrated split in early H. sapiens. Although I wouldn't have remembered any dates for that split. This paper proposes that the split a lot earlier than previously thought. It also makes a good case for a more heterogenous migration of H. sapiens across Africa. However the authros are careful to point out that their data by no means proves their hypothesis, merely advance the possibility of a slightly different explanation to the one currently understood (i.e. more homogenous migration pattern, later split etc).

I would be really very careful about linking this paper to any "environmental" issues, especially modern ones. This paper is describing a genetic pattern within a modern population which might shed light on the past migrations of our early ancestors. If I were to call this a "speciation" (which it certainly is not, but bear with my layman's use of terms) then enviromental changes which seperate populations are part of the known mechanisms of "speciation". Environmental changes/conditions may well have been a causitive factor in the split shown in this paper, but I couldn't make that judgement based on this paper alone (and I haven't chased down the references it cites). I see you've also noted how it links with the news stories you mention.

LOL typical scientist, I ignored what you wrote and the news stories and went off and read the paper first! At this point in the post I went back to check what you and the news stories had written! My bad, my bad. Although I think what I've just said stands as a lay analysis of some aspects of the paper you link.

Having read the news stories I'd have to say that this is pretty typical media behaviour, exactly the kind I mentioned before. Some science somewhere mentions humans and environment and by the time it gets from the scientists who understand it to the news story it has passed through the eyes and brain of probably half a dozen people most of whom DON'T understand the science. Hence it is presented as a big deal/something it ain't. Incidentally this sort of thing is why I no longer read New Scientist, it's more media than science.

This paper certainly isn't newsworthy in the sense the media outlets quoted use it. Because it is slightly more technical than "Spot the Dog" the media wquote it as some revolutionary piece. As my PhD supervisor hammered into me: a proper persepctive on the literature is needed. We've known for many years that humans basically fall into two broad categories based on mtDNA studies (some Africans + everyone else). We've known for years that environmental changes are one of the causative mechanisms behind migrations and/or any resulting genetic divergence up to and including speciation. This paper refines some of our estimates, possibly even to the extent of placing the split in populations in a period of known environmental change, but it of itself is a step on the road, not the whole journey. I'd be a lot more cautious, mainly because I don't know enough about the field to make a proper judgement.

Fair?

Louis


That's what I was really asking.  I had posted the stories with the links to the papers.  Then I began to read the paper and saw little connection at all to the first story.  I even went back and searched again, thinking maybe there were two papers with the same author, and each story was about a different paper.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2008,09:43   

Quote (BWE @ April 24 2008,12:27)
Quote (skeptic @ April 21 2008,08:53)
quote "and for some people and places that will be too late"

nuf said.

I do have to admit that you did hit the nail on the head on one point, when it comes to your posts I skim them.  They are typically too long, redundant and filled with worthless drivel.  But you right about that point.  I would suggest that you start adding some substance.

Now about GW, if I read you right here you'd like to discuss climate change with me in the hopes of launching some other attack in a similiar redundant vein.  Well here's your opening...in my opinion, I have seen no evidence that tipping points exist so I'm less inclined to think we are at a point where somewhere in the next 10-20 years some event or series of events will occur putting human existence in jeopardy.  Go ahead, convince me.  I honestly have no dog in this fight except for a sincere aversion to the political manipulation of science to achieve an agenda (both ID and radical evolutionists fall under this same umbrella for me).  So if the world is actually under a state of uncontrolled warming and human existence is threatened then I'm all ears.  Unfortunately, all I ever hear is the politics and never convincing science.

There you go, a little project for your afternoon enjoyment.

OK, 2 things.

1) If the political aim of radical evolutionists is to... Wait a minute.

What is the political aim of radical evolutionists? Is it substantially different than one or more of the stated political aims of Thomas Jefferson?

2) Skeptic, tipping points define almost every system. Stasis in a system is the result of unchanging inputs over time.

When populations decline, they can reach a tipping point where the decline turns to a crash. Water sloshes merrily around at .5' c but at  0 suddenly undergoes a phase transition. Phase transitions have all kinds of chaotic properties but typically happen rather suddenly.

This is of course oversimplified but I am surprised you would say that there is no evidence for tipping points since you said you do some kind of science.  What kind of science is that again? I ask because tipping points are one of the most salient features of any system. Complex mechanical systems almost never, (I can't think of any examples at all right now, maybe later) change gradually in response to changing conditions.

I guess gradual should be defined in terms of climate as averaging climate in 500 year increments back over the last billion or so.
 You get stasis then abrupt jumps then stasis.

First I'd like to point the wonderfully defensed and referenced statements of the past page.  It's truly great to see properly supported arguments laid out free from opinion and bias.

BWE,
I think you're taking me somewhat out of context.  I'm referring to tipping points as identified in the GW argument and not the concept of a tipping point in general.  Here's some examples of some of the things that I'm talking about:

Hansen

Hansen again


Oceans

This is the background that I'm working from and the kind of language that I find difficult to defend.  For one the 450 ppm when we know that past CO2 concentrations have exceeded 2000 ppm.

Nature - CO2 levels

As referenced here, sea pH levels can vary and dramatic results for plankton populations have been proposed and well as coral bleaching and yet a recent article in Science discussed a study that actually shows increases in certain plankton populations based upon pH decreases.

This is just an example of what I read and used to formulate an opinion and it is by no means exhaustive because, as I've said before, I don't have (strike that) choose to invest the time.  For me this board is entertainment.  I occasionally see posts that prompt me to further research a topic and I am often presented with an idea that forces me to question what I may think or believe.  That is an intellectual exercise that I find enjoyable and it passes the time but I'm not here to defend my dissertation.  It would be nice if I force some to rethink a position or to further investigate a point but really that's not my goal.  I'm here for me and my benefit and I must apologize if that's too blunt or lacks a required level of altruism.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2008,11:06   

Quote (skeptic @ April 25 2008,15:43)
[SNIP]

This is just an example of what I read and used to formulate an opinion and it is by no means exhaustive because, as I've said before, I don't have (strike that) choose to invest the time.  For me this board is entertainment.  I occasionally see posts that prompt me to further research a topic and I am often presented with an idea that forces me to question what I may think or believe.  That is an intellectual exercise that I find enjoyable and it passes the time but I'm not here to defend my dissertation.  It would be nice if I force some to rethink a position or to further investigate a point but really that's not my goal.  I'm here for me and my benefit and I must apologize if that's too blunt or lacks a required level of altruism.

Obliviot,

Then you will continue to be mocked as the substance free kook and troll you clearly are. You basically just confessed as much. Considering your contributions to conversations are manifestly content free and contrarian, we can easily surmise the "entertainment" you derive from being here is annoying others with your vacuous crap. Practically the very definition of trolling.

Personally, I don't buy the "I can't be bothered" excuse from you. You can be bothered to post reems of content free drivel, yet one tiny little bit of evidenciary support for your claims is beyond you. Colour me suspicious. This latest excuse from you is yet another obvious dodge in a series of obvious dodges.

Has it ever occured to you Obliviot that YOU (yes YOU) can and should ask people to defend their claims just as they ask you to defend yours? I'm serious. Deadly serious.

The principle underlying this has been pointed out to you ooooohhhhhh about a billion times now. It's not about agreement, or disagreement, or who's team people are on, it's about the EVIDENCE. So, when you make big sounding claims (like for example being "sceptical about evolutionary mechanisms" or " climate tipping points = crapola" to name two recent ones) then people are going to ask you to back them up with a bit more than "it's my opinion so there" or whatever avoidance technique you've whined out this time.

Most people here can distinguish between opinion and fact Obliviot, you demonstrably cannot and will not. We're AWARE you (and others) have different opinions. We're AWARE that some of these others are perfectly rational intellgient human beings (even if you aren't) and what we want is to discuss the issues with them (and engage in occasional light banter). So when the opportunity for discussion presents itself we like to engage in it.

Take as a recent-ish example the conversation between Bill, BWE and myself about meditation. I learned a lot, and because of that conversation nipped off and read a few things. All perfectly amicable, all perfectly sane. Why? Because not once did Bill or BWE misrepresent what I was saying or vice versa, despite the fact that initially we were not clear about what each other was saying.

Again Obliviot, the FACT of disagreement is not an issue, the MANNER of disagreement is. The fact that you continually, without fail, refuse to support any claim you make here and continually find whiny little ways to avoid doing so (from presuppositionalism to relativism to persecution to beyond, as it suits you) is why, almost exclusively, you are viewed with contempt.

No one is complaining about opinions, yours, mine, anyone's, simply being stated. What people are trying very very hard to get you (and others) to do is SUPPORT those opinions to some degree. Try to understand that in a discussion where two people have differing opinions, it is the reference to the evidence that decides an issue. Try to understand that if you go anywhere in the world and present an opinion to someone that either differs from theirs or contradicts the available evidence then you are going to be asked to provide some form of support for your claim. This is not persecution or bias, especially in the latter case, it is the standard to and fro of debate and discussion.

If all you have to offer is injecting a dissenting opinion/counterfactual opinion (and it would seem you do) and then running away every time anyone tries to discuss it with you, please, and I mean this most sincerely, fuck off. For you are doing nothing more than trolling.

Louis

ETA: P.S. I actually think you're afraid. Any fool can google an article that sounds useful, hell even a total arse monkey like GoP could do that. What is far, far harder is to defend an idea demonstrating in the process you can understand it. By the way, this is something you have singularly failed to do. Epicly. And not just because at every given opportunity you run away.

--------------
Bye.

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2008,12:27   

Enough.  Knock it off.



Quote
The 'Facilities', Max Fish, Lower East Side, New York


--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2008,17:42   

@Louis:
Well...skeptic did point out what he exactly ment, and where he got it from. Isn't that like, more you could ever ask for? At least enough to like, react on his opinions, right?
Anyway,
Quote (Louis Posted on April 25 2008 @ 05:17)
<snip>

Indeed, can't say nothing more then I agree. The point I'm kinda worried about, is the affordability from goods like that, and if they don't come too late for those tens of millions of people who are fleeing already from the changing enviroment already. What can we do to prevent them from dying an mass? We're already on the good road, making sure are alright and prepared, but what about them?

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2008,17:56   

Are they really fleeing?  We have millions dying in Africa every year and I assume the same in SE Asia, although I don't know for sure.  At yet, I don't see any mass exodus underway?  Is that really true or did I misunderstand what you were saying?

  
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2008,18:27   

Hell yes they're fleeing, especially in Africa, people running from desertification and drought.
I'm not sure about SE Asia, but I can imagine it will happen or already is happening with increasing floods.
The really shitty side about those African people moving, is that they move to more fertile area's (ofcourse), but because they're with so many and just want to survive, they completly drain those area's as well and then the story starts over again. And o boy, the locals from those refugee area's don't like that. But what to do? It's like a spiral diving deeper and deeper.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2008,18:53   

Quote (Assassinator @ April 25 2008,23:42)
@Louis:
Well...skeptic did point out what he exactly ment, and where he got it from. Isn't that like, more you could ever ask for? At least enough to like, react on his opinions, right?
Anyway,
Quote (Louis Posted on April 25 2008 @ 05:17)
<snip>

Indeed, can't say nothing more then I agree. The point I'm kinda worried about, is the affordability from goods like that, and if they don't come too late for those tens of millions of people who are fleeing already from the changing enviroment already. What can we do to prevent them from dying an mass? We're already on the good road, making sure are alright and prepared, but what about them?

Read what he wrote, and those articles, again. These appear to be a) the sorts of things he is complaining about and/or b) the sort of sources he gets his "information" from (clearly excluding Nature, like I said, any fool can google an abstract). If you think he explained anything, as opposed to yet again evading any support/elaboration of his "tipping points = crapola" claim, then you are sorely mistaken.

Assassinator, to be blunt, I/we have experience of Obliviot, he lies and evades continually. You'll get used to it. I have zero intention of being nice until he fronts up like an adult when asked to support/elaborate on his claims. Asking him to support his claims is educational because he never can. It demonstrates how shallow and vacuous his claims are. More than that he even ADMITS he's not interested in researching topics merely in bloviating and proselytising. Sympathy for this I lack!

AllI want Obliviot todo is explain WHY tipping points in climate science are crapola, WHY in his opinion they are wrong. If he claims this is because of their distasteful (to him) political connotations then this is not a sufficient reason. In fact it's an irrelevance, a logical fallacy (The Is/Ought fallacy). He's trying to argue that because (for him) the consequences of X being true are unpleasant, then Xmust perforce be untrue.If he has some scientific reason for his claim then he is yet to show it.

Merely repeating the claim or giving further examples of what he doesn't like is NOT supporting that claim. Making rather obviously flawed elisions about prehistoric CO2 levels (for example) as part of some larger strawman he has erected in his own head is irrelevant and futile. The universe at the time of the big bang was a lot hotter than it was now, can we therefore survive at those temperatures? No of course not. The reductio ad absurdum is deliberate, no one denies CO2 levels in the past were higher, but that vast oversimplification misses a few key elements out of the current situation. Don't believe his hype.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2008,19:02   

Well ok I can agree on that, posting articles who just repeat your own p.o.v isn't an explanation in any way. And I as well still want an explanation from skeptic (yes skeptic, you indeed) on why it's indeed crap in his eyes (I'm not even condemning his views), and not just examples of more people who agree with him.
But I'm just pretty optimistic and saw sóme content, seeing at least a weeee small oppertunity for a reaction on his views ;-) Just my hopefull side I guess.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2008,19:55   

ok, a couple of quick points.  first, how are prehistoric CO2 levels irrelevant in this debate, if that is indeed what you are saying?  The idea that CO2 levels have changed dramatically throughout history reinforces the robust nature of climate to withstand variability. Please tell me what I'm missing here.

Also, to fully explore my lack of faith in possible climatic tipping points we'd have to go into the computer models and their inherent limitations, the current level of confidence in the climate system as a whole and here I'm mainly referring to the role of moisture and the degree to which we can infer where we are dynamically and historically in relation to a prospective tipping point.  Certainly there is probably more to do it any justice but just one of those three points would require a serious investment of time to be fair.  An investment that, IMO, would be wholly and utterly wasted on my part because Louis isn't really interested in those things.  He's just looking for a sound bite and a cheap shot and a opportunity to hit CTRL-V and repaste his favorite rant.  To be fair, if I was more involved or had some real interest I might still slog on in the face of the coming onslaught but for me GW is about as relevant in my daily life as who's going to win the Stanley Cup.  I have a favorite team but I never watch the games anymore and if they win I'll enjoy it for the length of time it takes me to read the article online.  I'm not saying that GW and the Stanley Cup are actually of the same importance just in my life.  I really only get worked up by the use of GW as a political tool to motivate or shame people into conforming to an agenda.  Maybe if I believed in the urgent threat as reported then I might feel differently, I dunno...I find malaria much more threatening than GW but that's just me.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2008,23:24   

The fact that some life forms thrived during periods of high CO2 (or other differences from now) doesn't mean there weren't several others that didn't manage to adapt when those conditions arose.

Henry

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2008,01:05   

But different life forms die all the time.  You don't often hear major extinction events linked to gradual climate changes.  Consider the end of the last Ice Age, how many species do we think we lost?  Honestly, that's not rhetorical, I'm curious.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2008,05:17   

Quote (skeptic @ April 26 2008,01:55)
ok, a couple of quick points.  first, how are prehistoric CO2 levels irrelevant in this debate, if that is indeed what you are saying?  The idea that CO2 levels have changed dramatically throughout history reinforces the robust nature of climate to withstand variability. Please tell me what I'm missing here.

Also, to fully explore my lack of faith in possible climatic tipping points we'd have to go into the computer models and their inherent limitations, the current level of confidence in the climate system as a whole and here I'm mainly referring to the role of moisture and the degree to which we can infer where we are dynamically and historically in relation to a prospective tipping point.  Certainly there is probably more to do it any justice but just one of those three points would require a serious investment of time to be fair.  An investment that, IMO, would be wholly and utterly wasted on my part because Louis isn't really interested in those things.  He's just looking for a sound bite and a cheap shot and a opportunity to hit CTRL-V and repaste his favorite rant.  To be fair, if I was more involved or had some real interest I might still slog on in the face of the coming onslaught but for me GW is about as relevant in my daily life as who's going to win the Stanley Cup.  I have a favorite team but I never watch the games anymore and if they win I'll enjoy it for the length of time it takes me to read the article online.  I'm not saying that GW and the Stanley Cup are actually of the same importance just in my life.  I really only get worked up by the use of GW as a political tool to motivate or shame people into conforming to an agenda.  Maybe if I believed in the urgent threat as reported then I might feel differently, I dunno...I find malaria much more threatening than GW but that's just me.

So close yet so far. You almost bothered to support your claim.

1) What are you missing? An ability to read for comprehension and think at a grade school level.

No I don't in anyway claim or think that prehistoric CO2 levels are irrelevant, read it again. The point I'm making very simply is that reducing the situation to a soundbite "CO2 was higher then, so it can't be dangerous now" misses the subtleties, misses the details. It misses the fact that CO2 concentrations alone are not the be all and end all, despite the drivel in the media. It is a false dichotomy. Ignoring the details is the error that the media/politicians/beardy weirdy greenie tree huggers/climate change denialists make. The devil is in the details.

This is why I repeatedly keep trying to get you to support your point. You'll find that the minute you examine the details you'll see it's more complex than you've been sold (by either "side"). Trust me, I get more annoyed by some tree hugging fucknuckle droning on than I do some corporate shill who denies everything. Why? Because the tree hugger SHOULD know better and is playing into the denialist's hands.

I've said this so often I'm almost amazed it hasn't sunk in. None of this is about "teams" or "sides" or what have you, it's about the evidence. People who misrepresent the evidence in order to maintain their biases annoy the fuck out of me, worse than that they actually do harm to any useful aspects of any cause they claim to support. It doesn't matter if I agree wth them or not. Try to understand this.

2) Yes discussing those topics involves a time investment. An investment I and others are not only demonstrably willing to make in general, but also HAVE made repeatedly (not on this topic per se, just in the past on a myriad of topics). It always comes back to this with you Obliviot, you always cry persecution and make your inadequacies someone else's fault. Why on earth you think such obvious evasions deserve even a modicum of respect is beyond me.

Claiming I'm not interested in those things is in error. Demonstrably so. However mean or unpleasant I am, I am the only person trying very very hard to get you to engage in intellectual activity beyond "I said so". Your evasions and bloviations fool no one, if your massively arrogant ego is too fragile to cope with that then stay the fuck out of any intellectual discussion. Whether you like it or not Obliviot, no discussion that you have entered into here has got off the ground floor. Why? Because when questioned on the support for your claims you run away and create these standard red herrings of yours. It is not only transparent why you do it, it is utterly predictable.

Oh and I don't cut and paste my rants, they are hand tooled rants, individually tailored by master rant craftsmen with decades of rant experience and training. The similarities arise from the fact that the things I'm ranting about are pratcically identical. In your case that would be your lack of intellectual rigour, honesty or effort. You're big on claims but tiny when it comes to supporting them. Change the behaviour and the rants will change, or more likely disappear.

I've done this before and I'll do it again: I am more than happy to cease berating your for your shennanigans and being abusive towards you for you asinine behaviour but such loveliness comes at a price. That price is that you make no more strawmen, make no more evasions, deal with the evidence, and make an intellectual effort to at least follow an argument. This involves work on your part. Work that I and basically everyone else here is already putting it to varying degrees as the situation demands it.

3) First famine now malaria? Anything is more important than climate change, I wonder why! Forgive the sarcasm. Of course malaria and famine are very important so are a myriad of other issues. Your lack of understanding of this topic, brought on no doubt by your self confessed lack of interest, skews your perception of the urgency of it. Presenting these things as monolithic soundbites "climate change" "malaria" "famine" etc is falling into the anti-intellectual media trap. These are complex (often linked) issues that REQUIRE effort to understand. If you aren't interested or aren't persuaded that you should be interested then why post on the topic? Why inject your self admittedly ignorant opinion into a discussion at all? Especially if, when asked to elaborate on or explain that position you evade doing so in a series of manoeuvers that would make a tapeworm proud of their spineless sliminess.

As always Obliviot, the choice is yours. You can continue to evade, bloviate and obfuscate, and I will continue to call you on it in a variety of unpleasant ways. Or you can engage in those topics about which you choose to post in a more rigourous manner. If you can't be bothered to do the work necessary to support your claim, then say so.  I and others will never complain about the answer "I don't know" or "I can't be bothered", the problem for you is that either of those answers immediately removes your right to comment in a useful manner on those topics. So stop! If you want to comment on a topic and discuss the issues around a topic the price of admission is that you must support, or be able to support, your claims and opinions regarding that topic.

4) You'd be wasting your time by presenting evidence eh? Bullshit. I'm banging on because you DON'T present evidence. You presenting evidence is what I want. Projecting your tendancy for obfuscation and uninformed bloviation onto others is pathetic, dishonest and yet another transparent evasion on your part. Not only do we have a long record of my honest and effort laden engagement in a myriad of topics on this board, but we also have a similarly long record of your lack of honest and effort laden participation on any topic on this board. The evidence, as usual, demonstrates the falsity of your claim. ETA: Cheap shots? Never! They are always expensive. You'll find out how little I care about what you call "cheap shots" the minute you support your claims. Soundbites? LOL I'm too long, too short, too wordy, too glib. Make your mind up! Just goes to show what a red herring this is from you. Whatever suits your purpose is right eh Obliviot? I suggest you stop projecting your own issues onto others and start making the effort to support your claims.

5) Aside to All: Incidentally, for anyone that thinks any of this is irrelevant to the topic of this post, it isn't.

Relying on media sources for information about complex scientific topics is an error. As I've mentioned. Refusal to take a topic seriously enough to do the basic investigation (and there is no shame in this btw, there are myriad topics about which I am similarly uninformed and uninterested), removes your ability to make informed contributions to any discussion of that topic. Full stop.

That doesn't mean "shut up you have no right to speak" that means "your self confessed ignorance about a topic precludes you from making useful contributions to it". Add to that the fact that no one, informed or otherwise has a right to their claims being unquestioned. Level playing field, everyone is open to the exact same scrutiny. The difference between the informed and the uninformed is that the former has a basis for their claim that the latter does not.

The political and sociological kerfuffle we see in all public debates, not just the one over climate change, is largely due to the comparative lack of informed people discussing the topic in the public domain. Why do creationist canards persist? It certainly isn't because those people informed about evolutionary biology credit them with any intellectual worth, evidence based, logic base or otherwise. It's in part because they are the meat and drink of people hugely uninformed about evolutionary biology. Obviously it's more complex than this, but that this the part relevant to this discussion about the CC politics/CC science divide.

Obliviot's behaviour is the demonstrable problem with the public debate. It's the issue in a microcosm. Ignorant, proud of it, and evasive and dishonest when asked to correct that ignorance. It's frankly pathetic. It's inexcusable from a self-confessedly clueless and ignorant denialist like Oblviiot, it's fucking criminal from anyone who should know better. If Obliviot thinks I'm hard on him, wait until you see me take on someone on my own "side" (for want of a better term).

The real problem we face is not climate change or malaria or war or famine or comets from the Oort cloud wiping us from the face of the earth, the real problem is more selfish, more immediate. The real problem is our own stupidity and primate nature. If we as a group can overcome that to any extent the other problems immediately become a lot more soluble because we can deal with them in an intelligent and rational evidence based manner. Climate change, war, famine, and perhaps even the comet (although that's debatable!) are not problems for "earth" or "nature" or "life" they are problems for humans and especially modern human societies. To the "earth" or "nature" or "life" these are incidentals, nasty but not fatal.

Louis

ETA: I done did and editorialisation. I still probably missed lots of stuff. Oh well.

--------------
Bye.

  
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2008,05:18   

Quote (skeptic @ April 25 2008,23:24)
ok, a couple of quick points.  first, how are prehistoric CO2 levels irrelevant in this debate, if that is indeed what you are saying?  The idea that CO2 levels have changed dramatically throughout history reinforces the robust nature of climate to withstand variability. Please tell me what I'm missing here.

It's not about the earth or nature here, climate change IS a part of nature. This problem is purely about us humans: how do wé as a species manage with the changing enviroment. The answer is, a large part of our species manages véry shitty with the changing envoriment and is likely to be in a world of hurt.
   
Quote
An investment that, IMO, would be wholly and utterly wasted on my part because Louis isn't really interested in those things.

And thát kind of attitude grinds discussions to a halt, or even preventing them to take off in the first place. Just try, show it to us, and wait for a reaction. The only thing we ask for is to explain why climate tipping points are bogus in your eyes. Just dive a little bit in the deep, show us what you got, and we can have a discussion about the content. That would be a nice change, wouldn't it?
EDIT: It seems Louis posted a split second before me (my my you're up early), and as you can see he talks about the content. Now please, be a sport, and help this make a constructive discussion, ok? ;-)
   
Quote
for me GW is about as relevant in my daily life as who's going to win the Stanley Cup.

And that short-sightness is 1 of the main problems we're facing. It's not neceseraly about you, it's about our children and grand-children. It's not even about us Westren folks, we'll manage in the end, it's about those millions of near-dead people in developing country's who have no way to go.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2008,05:37   

Quote (Assassinator @ April 26 2008,11:18)
[SNIP]

       
Quote
An investment that, IMO, would be wholly and utterly wasted on my part because Louis isn't really interested in those things.

And thát kind of attitude grinds discussions to a halt, or even preventing them to take off in the first place. Just try, show it to us, and wait for a reaction. The only thing we ask for is to explain why climate tipping points are bogus in your eyes. Just dive a little bit in the deep, show us what you got, and we can have a discussion about the content. That would be a nice change, wouldn't it?
EDIT: It seems Louis posted a split second before me (my my you're up early), and as you can see he talks about the content. Now please, be a sport, and help this make a constructive discussion, ok? ;-)

[SNIP]

Here fucking here!

Look I can, justifiably, be told off for being too nasty. Mea culpa, I accept the opprobium wilingly.

BUT:

What I will never accept is content free bloviation being treated as if it were fact. I want to know about Obvliviot's opinions, I genuinely do, I want even more to know what the basis for them is, the evidence and logic behind them is, I want to know from whence they spring. Thus far, based on N months/years of encountering Obliviot the answers to the questions posed by that statement are: Opinion: vapid, Basis: prejudice, Evidence: nil, Logic: fallacious, Source: his arse. I want that to change, but *I* cannot change it, only *he* can.

In all things, as usual, Obliviot has the situation backwards. He would contend that his opinions butter no parsnips with me because I dislike them and thus I declare them to be without support. The situation is entirely the opposite: his opinions are without support, thus I declare that I dislike them. Ok so not dislike, more accurately "find unworthy of intellectual attention until evidence is forthcoming". He's entitled to his opinions, no matter how ignorant, he is not entitled to his opinions being unscrutinised, no one is. His behaviour is derived from his fear that upon scrutiny his opinions will be shown to be even more vacuous than they already have been. His fear in this matter is well founded.

Like I said in the previous post, this is PRECISELY the large problem we have writ small. If people are unwilling to make the intellectual effort required to discuss a topic then why should people who HAVE made that effort and are willing in general to make it, treat their uninformed opinion as anything else? That is so relevant to any discussion of the politics and science of climate change it hurts!

Louis

ETA: P.S. Up early? It's 11:34 am here. As it seems to be of interest: I've been up since 6:30am as is my habit at weekends (I don't sleep a lot, 5 or 6 hours is more than enough, 4 is more usual), I've read this week's Nature*, Science, Angewante Chemie, CE and N, Chemistry World, (I skimmed the latter two for anything interesting, I'll read them later fully) and I'm working on reading Organic and Biomolecular Chemistry, Organic Letters and  a couple of back issues of The Skeptic before 4pm. Then it's off for a nice long walk around some segment of the Chilterns, a pub supper, and a terrifying visit to the In-Laws (How To Ruin A Perfectly Good Day Part 1). All in all, apart from the in-laws a standard Saturday! Admittedly coming online usually puts a spanner in the day's working plan, but meh, it's my weekend, I can fuck it up if I want to! ;-)

ETA *There's a n interesting piece on Greenland and tipping points......oops have I said too much? ;-)

--------------
Bye.

  
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2008,05:46   

The "please be a sport, and help this make a constuctive discussion" was ment against skeptic, not you Louis ;) I don't really think you're too harsh, I amaze myself why I keep so calm sometimes.

But ofcourse, can't agree more, there can't be a fruitfull discussion without support for any claim. Now let's wait what he comes up with (I keep hoping, but that's just me).

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2008,09:35   

Assassinator,
if indeed we are facing the greatest threat humanity has ever known then my attitude is short-sighted.  I'll take that.  But you do touch on a good point, in reality, developed nations are going to plod right along and the third world is going to suffer.  Unfortunately, this sounds conveniently like an agenda.  Only in this case, not only will the third world suffer disproportionantly, but we are the primary cause according to scientific fact.  Almost like a case of white guilt on the global level.  Again, while this may in fact be the case, the similarity to the existing agenda causes immediate skepticism and rejection.

quick point before I move on, Louis I read the first two lines of your long post and skipped the rest entirely.  If you said anything novel you might want to post that separately.

Computer models - my experience does not reach the level of the massive super computers currently used but some of the basic principles are the same.  I develop predictive toxicity models for small molecules and the biggest trick in developing a relevant model is picking contributing variables.  If we relate this to climate, we want to make sure we pick variables that are actually involved in the climate in a causative manner and not just a correlative one.  This relies heavily on our understanding of the science of climate to quantify it as accurately as possible but unlike my field we don't have a test system with which to refine and strengthen this model.  This doesn't mean it's hopeless it just limits our level of confidence.

What we have is history and historical data points and current data points.  So ignoring a question of the quality of the data at this point we're going to build a model based upon past climate and past data and bring that forward in an attempt to model current climate.  When I produce a model using a data set I can get fairly accurate with an interpolative model but the true test comes when I try to extrapolate.  Say for a climate model we look at CO2 and temperature change (this is obviously simplistic but just as an example) over a period of time.  Over our data set both temp and CO2 increase and we end up with a model in which we can predict the temperature increase as a function of increasing CO2 conc.  Good so far right.  Now we run this model forward with our best estimates of CO2 increases and we have an idea of the temperature increases.  This is the extrapolation step and here's where the problem comes in.

Automatically we've introduced bias into the model because we've correlated CO2, accurately or not, with temperature increase.  In this simplistic model we've also completely weighted CO2.  We could be looking at two completely unrelated independent variables but the model we built looks good and conforms to past data.  We have a good mechanistic basis for using CO2 conc. but we have to add   in other factors to account for the complexity of climate.  This becomes a test of what we actually know about climate as opposed to what we think we know.  Our model is going to be force fit to the past data no matter which variables we choose and the true power will be revealed as we go down the road and deal with the predictions as they become current data points.  Again we're hampered by the lack of a test system.  But that's the limitation we have to deal with.

As an example I can produce CCs in the 70-80% range when interpolating data and when I move outside that set to the data set I can watch those CCs drop to 50-60%.  Don't get me wrong, computer models are a powerful tool but there are limitations and those should always be kept in mind when proclaiming their results.  The pharma industry is a real good example.  As a real of thumb, at each stage of development only 10% of your molecules are going to advance to the next stage.  Starting with the models predicting activity and toxicity you'd think that of the thousands of molecules screened you could do better than 10% but you can't and sometimes 10% is a dream.  I would propose the same for climate modeling, a good tool but to be taken with a grain of salt or at least a moderate dose of skepticism when looking at the predictive power.

Gotta go for now but that's really just the tip of the iceberg  and that's just one topic, phew!

  
k.e..



Posts: 3746
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2008,10:02   

Quote (skeptic @ April 26 2008,17:35)
Assassinator,
if indeed we are facing the greatest threat humanity has ever known then my attitude is short-sighted.....

 ...blardy blah. I cynically agree but only just
 

.....Almost like a case of white guilt on the global level.  Again, while this may in fact be the case, the similarity to the existing agenda causes immediate skepticism and rejection.


quick point before I move on, Louis.... fuck off and write shorter I't will give you more time to chase pussy

Computer models - my experience does not reach the level of the massive super computers currently used but some of the basic principles are the same.....

I think I know everything .....but whateva....

 I develop predictive toxicity models for small molecules and the biggest trick in developing a relevant model is picking contributing variables.  If we relate this to climate, we want to make sure we pick variables that are actually involved in the climate in a causative manner and not just a correlative one......

  So you will have to prize my carbon footprint out of my cold dead hands ....

....This doesn't mean it's hopeless it just limits our level of confidence.....

Got that fuckers?


What we have is....

blah blah x 10^^52
.....
 but to be taken with a grain of salt or at least a moderate dose of skepticism when looking at the predictive power.

Gotta go for now but that's really just the tip of the iceberg  and that's just one topic, phew!

My brain is hurting


Oh yes please rush back and tell us teh glaciers are not melting but YOU are white so you don't have to give a fuck...again.

I can't wait.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2008,10:14   

lol, not sure I mentioned that but the glaciers melt every year.  Otherwise thanks for your support.

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2008,10:35   

Moved discussion of posting styles to the BW.



Quote
Caca?, by ch1mp


--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
k.e..



Posts: 3746
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2008,10:42   

Quote (skeptic @ April 26 2008,18:14)
lol, not sure I mentioned that but the glaciers melt every year.  Otherwise thanks for your support.

Yes of course..... what's left of them do.... for now.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2008,10:47   

Quote (k.e.. @ April 26 2008,11:42)
Quote (skeptic @ April 26 2008,18:14)
lol, not sure I mentioned that but the glaciers melt every year.  Otherwise thanks for your support.

Yes of course..... what's left of them do.... for now.

My Pop was stationed at Fort Greely, Alaska back in the late fifties, and he loved it there.  He always keeps an eye out for news about the area, so he caught something on TV a few days ago about it, and they had a lot of footage of places he'd been and whatnot.

He was shocked at how much change in the ice (and snow, presumably) there'd been since he was there.  He said he was looking at ground (tundra?) in places where he'd trained on skis in the summer.

Anecdotal, but it really upset him.

Edited for a bit of clarity.

Edited by Lou FCD on April 26 2008,11:48

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2008,11:02   

Quote (skeptic @ April 25 2008,19:55)
The idea that CO2 levels have changed dramatically throughout history reinforces the robust nature of climate to withstand variability.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
Quote (skeptic @ April 22 2008,07:11)
I'm more inclined to trust the resilience of this massively complex system called Earth then to accept that we can dramatically alter it after about 200 years of industry.

Do you have any other explanation for this graph?


 
Quote (skeptic @ April 26 2008,09:35)
What we have is history and historical data points and current data points.  So ignoring a question of the quality of the data at this point we're going to build a model based upon past climate and past data and bring that forward in an attempt to model current climate.  When I produce a model using a data set I can get fairly accurate with an interpolative model but the true test comes when I try to extrapolate.  Say for a climate model we look at CO2 and temperature change (this is obviously simplistic but just as an example) over a period of time.  Over our data set both temp and CO2 increase and we end up with a model in which we can predict the temperature increase as a function of increasing CO2 conc.  Good so far right.

No. My understanding, admittedly not profound, is that this is not how the climate is modelled. The models are built from basic physical principles and the past and current climate is used purely as validation for the models.

I agree with people about media reports being too simplistic. About a year ago there was a flurry of support here in Canada for developing biofuels that completely ignored the energetic costs of producing the fuel. For many years I have been struck by the demand for everything possible to be biodegradable, yet if we are serious about reducing atmospheric CO2 this is the last thing we need. Far better to leave the carbon locked up in plastics than to release it as CO2. I know, we also don't want escaped fishing nets to be catching and killing fish for the next 1000 years but my point is that there are few simple answers.

I'm sorry about the scrappy (as in 'wandering minstrel', not fox terrier-like) post.

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2008,11:44   

Quote (skeptic @ April 26 2008,15:35)
Assassinator,
if indeed we are facing the greatest threat humanity has ever known then my attitude is short-sighted.  I'll take that.  But you do touch on a good point, in reality, developed nations are going to plod right along and the third world is going to suffer.  Unfortunately, this sounds conveniently like an agenda.  Only in this case, not only will the third world suffer disproportionantly, but we are the primary cause according to scientific fact.  Almost like a case of white guilt on the global level.  Again, while this may in fact be the case, the similarity to the existing agenda causes immediate skepticism and rejection.

quick point before I move on, Louis I read the first two lines of your long post and skipped the rest entirely.  If you said anything novel you might want to post that separately.

Computer models - my experience does not reach the level of the massive super computers currently used but some of the basic principles are the same.  I develop predictive toxicity models for small molecules and the biggest trick in developing a relevant model is picking contributing variables.  If we relate this to climate, we want to make sure we pick variables that are actually involved in the climate in a causative manner and not just a correlative one.  This relies heavily on our understanding of the science of climate to quantify it as accurately as possible but unlike my field we don't have a test system with which to refine and strengthen this model.  This doesn't mean it's hopeless it just limits our level of confidence.

What we have is history and historical data points and current data points.  So ignoring a question of the quality of the data at this point we're going to build a model based upon past climate and past data and bring that forward in an attempt to model current climate.  When I produce a model using a data set I can get fairly accurate with an interpolative model but the true test comes when I try to extrapolate.  Say for a climate model we look at CO2 and temperature change (this is obviously simplistic but just as an example) over a period of time.  Over our data set both temp and CO2 increase and we end up with a model in which we can predict the temperature increase as a function of increasing CO2 conc.  Good so far right.  Now we run this model forward with our best estimates of CO2 increases and we have an idea of the temperature increases.  This is the extrapolation step and here's where the problem comes in.

Automatically we've introduced bias into the model because we've correlated CO2, accurately or not, with temperature increase.  In this simplistic model we've also completely weighted CO2.  We could be looking at two completely unrelated independent variables but the model we built looks good and conforms to past data.  We have a good mechanistic basis for using CO2 conc. but we have to add   in other factors to account for the complexity of climate.  This becomes a test of what we actually know about climate as opposed to what we think we know.  Our model is going to be force fit to the past data no matter which variables we choose and the true power will be revealed as we go down the road and deal with the predictions as they become current data points.  Again we're hampered by the lack of a test system.  But that's the limitation we have to deal with.

As an example I can produce CCs in the 70-80% range when interpolating data and when I move outside that set to the data set I can watch those CCs drop to 50-60%.  Don't get me wrong, computer models are a powerful tool but there are limitations and those should always be kept in mind when proclaiming their results.  The pharma industry is a real good example.  As a real of thumb, at each stage of development only 10% of your molecules are going to advance to the next stage.  Starting with the models predicting activity and toxicity you'd think that of the thousands of molecules screened you could do better than 10% but you can't and sometimes 10% is a dream.  I would propose the same for climate modeling, a good tool but to be taken with a grain of salt or at least a moderate dose of skepticism when looking at the predictive power.

Gotta go for now but that's really just the tip of the iceberg  and that's just one topic, phew!

Well I'll be jiggered! This almost constitutes a coherent argument. Colour me surprised.

I'll get back to you tomorrow on this. Thanks.

Louis

P.S. If you read and acted on what you refer to as my repetious, redundant rants the first time you'd have never heard them again. Think on that.

--------------
Bye.

  
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2008,11:46   

Quote (skeptic @ Posted on April 26 2008,09:35)
Assassinator,
if indeed we are facing the greatest threat humanity has ever known then my attitude is short-sighted.  I'll take that.  But you do touch on a good point, in reality, developed nations are going to plod right along and the third world is going to suffer.  Unfortunately, this sounds conveniently like an agenda.  Only in this case, not only will the third world suffer disproportionantly, but we are the primary cause according to scientific fact.  Almost like a case of white guilt on the global level.  Again, while this may in fact be the case, the similarity to the existing agenda causes immediate skepticism and rejection.

An agenda to whipe out the poor country's?? Before this goes on the conspiracy-express, care to explain? Ofcourse more things are at work, things aren't as simple as we portrait it.
But yea, we're to blaim with our huge amount of overconsumption, what's so wierd about that?

Quote
quick point before I move on, Louis I read the first two lines of your long post and skipped the rest entirely.  If you said anything novel you might want to post that separately.

You do know that skipping posts doesn't give you any real credibility? Really, how can we ever discuss with you like that? You may skipped it, but unfortunatly he has some valid points there if you like it or not. Ignoring only makes it worse.
Quote
Computer models - my experience does not reach the level of the massive super computers currently used but some of the basic principles are the same.  I develop predictive toxicity models for small molecules and the biggest trick in developing a relevant model is picking contributing variables.  If we relate this to climate, we want to make sure we pick variables that are actually involved in the climate in a causative manner and not just a correlative one.  This relies heavily on our understanding of the science of climate to quantify it as accurately as possible but unlike my field we don't have a test system with which to refine and strengthen this model.  This doesn't mean it's hopeless it just limits our level of confidence.

Science is never sure, ofcourse, but are you saying we're not picking the correct variabeles? Care to explain more about that piece of text?
Quote
What we have is history and historical data points and current data points.  So ignoring a question of the quality of the data at this point we're going to build a model based upon past climate and past data and bring that forward in an attempt to model current climate.  When I produce a model using a data set I can get fairly accurate with an interpolative model but the true test comes when I try to extrapolate.  Say for a climate model we look at CO2 and temperature change (this is obviously simplistic but just as an example) over a period of time.  Over our data set both temp and CO2 increase and we end up with a model in which we can predict the temperature increase as a function of increasing CO2 conc.  Good so far right.  Now we run this model forward with our best estimates of CO2 increases and we have an idea of the temperature increases.  This is the extrapolation step and here's where the problem comes in.

Automatically we've introduced bias into the model because we've correlated CO2, accurately or not, with temperature increase.  In this simplistic model we've also completely weighted CO2.  We could be looking at two completely unrelated independent variables but the model we built looks good and conforms to past data.  We have a good mechanistic basis for using CO2 conc. but we have to add   in other factors to account for the complexity of climate.  This becomes a test of what we actually know about climate as opposed to what we think we know.  Our model is going to be force fit to the past data no matter which variables we choose and the true power will be revealed as we go down the road and deal with the predictions as they become current data points.  Again we're hampered by the lack of a test system.  But that's the limitation we have to deal with.

First of all, isn't the whole ideá of a model like that to try to find a connection between temperature and CO2? If the variables are completly unlinked, we don't expect to see a relation between the 2. But like you say, it's an oversimplification, so do you have a more realistic example then?

Quote
As an example I can produce CCs in the 70-80% range when interpolating data and when I move outside that set to the data set I can watch those CCs drop to 50-60%.  Don't get me wrong, computer models are a powerful tool but there are limitations and those should always be kept in mind when proclaiming their results.  The pharma industry is a real good example.  As a real of thumb, at each stage of development only 10% of your molecules are going to advance to the next stage.  Starting with the models predicting activity and toxicity you'd think that of the thousands of molecules screened you could do better than 10% but you can't and sometimes 10% is a dream.  I would propose the same for climate modeling, a good tool but to be taken with a grain of salt or at least a moderate dose of skepticism when looking at the predictive power.

This goes a little bit above my head, it's more something for Louis (at least he's more at home in the pharma industry).

Gotta go for now but that's really just the tip of the iceberg  and that's just one topic, phew!

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2008,12:25   

Ok, for Assassinator and Richard both, or at least it's the same theme, we can look at to variables that may increase independently but have no correlation between them.  It is possible that CO2 and temp can increase and have no connection.  The model will reflect the variables we use and we have to hope that the variables that we selected are the correct ones.  This will not show up while building the models because you're forcing the data through the selected variables.  It does show up when analyzing a data set or in this case making the predictions but there's no way we can test this beforehand with the climate.  We just have to sit and wait to see how accurate the models are and further refine them.  Also, the historical record is used both in the test set and the validation which is not ideal but in this case we have no alternative.

No, sorry if I wasn't clear, the agenda is not to wipe out poor countries but I should have said "this sounds conveniently like the narrative."  Rich countries bad, poor countries are poor because of bad rich countries...you know that one.  Sorry I can see how that was confusing the way I wrote it.

Oh and Rich, I'm not sure about other explanations for that graph.  I could speculate or make up something like there is a third variable not shown and CO2 and temp are both a function of it.  But that's just fantasy and I would propose that we continue to study it and further refine the models.  If I remember right the predicted increase in the eighties was 2-5C over the next 50 to 100 years and we've actually seen a .4-.6C increase over the last 25.  That would indicate a significant deviation but that's not firm I'm gonna go back and look that up to make sure I've got that right.

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2008,13:41   

Corals, carbonate and temperature, see this post:
http://simondonner.blogspot.com/2008....ew.html

Now, we have already pushed the carbonate ion concentration towards the point at which coral species will not dominate.
What this means is that loss of coraline species dominance = loss of coral reefs= loss of hundreds of millions of dollars of resources, in fact ecosystem services of coral reefs are estimated at somewhere over 40 billion a year.

Corals would not cease to exist, but would be badly damaged.  Think of it this way.  You have a local woodland which is dominated by a specific tree species, whcih produces nice fruit.  Over a few decades it gets warmer, and the trees stop fruiting so much, and start dying out.  A small population survives because they are further up the hill on the north side where it is cooler.  300 years later things cool down, and the trees spread back down where they used to grow.

In the meantime, you lose the ability to harvest and eat this fruit.

The dangerous thing Skeptic is doing with regards to coral reefs, CO2 levels etc, is taking multi megayear studies, which do not necessarily have yearly or even century size discrimination, and have not been summarised in a way which is relevant to today.  This is a very common thing for someone who doesn't know the science, and can be seen in the evolution debate, as well as a whole bunch of other areas.

  
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2008,14:12   

Quote (skeptic @ April 26 2008,12:25)
Ok, for Assassinator and Richard both, or at least it's the same theme, we can look at to variables that may increase independently but have no correlation between them.  It is possible that CO2 and temp can increase and have no connection.  The model will reflect the variables we use and we have to hope that the variables that we selected are the correct ones.

The way you phrase this implies that climatologists knowingly leave out factors that may affect climate when in fact they try to include everything that they can model. What do you suggest is being omitted?
 
Quote
I could speculate or make up something like there is a third variable not shown and CO2 and temp are both a function of it.  But that's just fantasy . . .

It may be fantasy but isn't it what you are relying on to justify not paying much attention to the subject? Do you have any suggestions as to what might be a third, more basic, variable or are you just engaging in wishful thinking? Your argument is akin to saying that we don't know that birds flapping their wings results in them flying, it may be that there is a third variable that causes both the flapping of wings and the birds flying.
 
Quote

If I remember right the predicted increase in the eighties was 2-5C over the next 50 to 100 years and we've actually seen a .4-.6C increase over the last 25.  That would indicate a significant deviation but that's not firm I'm gonna go back and look that up to make sure I've got that right

You may be thinking of this
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/103/39/14288/F2
The upper line, the one that comes closest to your predicted increase, was Hansen's extreme scenario. His most plausible scenario (B) is much closer to what has actually been observed.

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2008,16:58   

Quote (skeptic @ April 26 2008,12:25)
Ok, for Assassinator and Richard both, or at least it's the same theme, we can look at to variables that may increase independently but have no correlation between them.  It is possible that CO2 and temp can increase and have no connection.  The model will reflect the variables we use and we have to hope that the variables that we selected are the correct ones.  This will not show up while building the models because you're forcing the data through the selected variables.  It does show up when analyzing a data set or in this case making the predictions but there's no way we can test this beforehand with the climate.  We just have to sit and wait to see how accurate the models are and further refine them.  Also, the historical record is used both in the test set and the validation which is not ideal but in this case we have no alternative.

No, sorry if I wasn't clear, the agenda is not to wipe out poor countries but I should have said "this sounds conveniently like the narrative."  Rich countries bad, poor countries are poor because of bad rich countries...you know that one.  Sorry I can see how that was confusing the way I wrote it.

Oh and Rich, I'm not sure about other explanations for that graph.  I could speculate or make up something like there is a third variable not shown and CO2 and temp are both a function of it.  But that's just fantasy and I would propose that we continue to study it and further refine the models.  If I remember right the predicted increase in the eighties was 2-5C over the next 50 to 100 years and we've actually seen a .4-.6C increase over the last 25.  That would indicate a significant deviation but that's not firm I'm gonna go back and look that up to make sure I've got that right.

Skeptic,

Your understanding of this kind of modeling is so wrong as to make me suspect that you use some totally different thing, perhaps a captain marvel decoder ring, and equate it to systems modeling. You don't have correlation/causation issues in climate modeling the way you use the terms because the models tune. i.e. when the individual differentials go up and down, you look what it does to the system. If you can tune multiple variables to achieve different combinations that match the historical data points you probably don't have a very complex system model. If climatologists had that problem, they would attach 0 confidence to their models.

I don't even know where to begin with your idea other than to say that you are so grossly misunderstanding modeling of complex systems that I suspect you simply get your information from the boxes you ordered your decoder ring from.

The white thing, you are the one deriving value from it. What if I said, fuck the 3rd word, lets just try not to exterminate humanity?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2008,18:23   

Quote
For many years I have been struck by the demand for everything possible to be biodegradable, yet if we are serious about reducing atmospheric CO2 this is the last thing we need. Far better to leave the carbon locked up in plastics than to release it as CO2.


Now that's an interesting twist on what I've heard/read about recycling and using recyclable stuff. Huh.

Henry

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2008,19:34   

Quote (skeptic @ April 26 2008,12:25)
Ok, for Assassinator and Richard both, or at least it's the same theme, we can look at to variables that may increase independently but have no correlation between them.  It is possible that CO2 and temp can increase and have no connection.  The model will reflect the variables we use and we have to hope that the variables that we selected are the correct ones.  This will not show up while building the models because you're forcing the data through the selected variables.  It does show up when analyzing a data set or in this case making the predictions but there's no way we can test this beforehand with the climate.  We just have to sit and wait to see how accurate the models are and further refine them.  Also, the historical record is used both in the test set and the validation which is not ideal but in this case we have no alternative.

No, sorry if I wasn't clear, the agenda is not to wipe out poor countries but I should have said "this sounds conveniently like the narrative."  Rich countries bad, poor countries are poor because of bad rich countries...you know that one.  Sorry I can see how that was confusing the way I wrote it.

Oh and Rich, I'm not sure about other explanations for that graph.  I could speculate or make up something like there is a third variable not shown and CO2 and temp are both a function of it.  But that's just fantasy and I would propose that we continue to study it and further refine the models.  If I remember right the predicted increase in the eighties was 2-5C over the next 50 to 100 years and we've actually seen a .4-.6C increase over the last 25.  That would indicate a significant deviation but that's not firm I'm gonna go back and look that up to make sure I've got that right.


Here is the graph of actual temperatures vs Hansen's 1988 paper (projections started in 1984).  The only significant difference is that Hansen included a large volcanic eruption in 1995, and one actually happened in 1991 instead.


--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2008,19:37   

Quote (Richard Simons @ April 26 2008,11:02)
 
Quote (skeptic @ April 25 2008,19:55)
The idea that CO2 levels have changed dramatically throughout history reinforces the robust nature of climate to withstand variability.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

I wouldn't be surprised if skeptic has tipping point and runaway greenhouse effect confused.

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2008,12:55   

Quote
I find malaria much more threatening than GW but that's just me.

The irony is palpable.

What you're missing is the inter-connectedness of things when you're dealing with a dynamic feedback system on a global scale.

From The NRDC website's page on GW:

       
Quote
Consequences of Global Warming
Global warming is expected to increase the potential geographic range and virulence of tropical diseases as well.

Disease-carrying mosquitoes are spreading as climate shifts allow them to survive in formerly inhospitable areas. Mosquitoes that can carry dengue fever viruses were previously limited to elevations of 3,300 feet but recently appeared at 7,200 feet in the Andes Mountains of Colombia. Malaria has been detected in new higher-elevation areas in Indonesia.


--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
  139 replies since April 16 2008,15:36 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (5) < [1] 2 3 4 5 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]